Message 1 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 00:26:48 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *chatter (#16543), *Petition:54055 (#54055), and *social-issues (#7233) Subject: Proposal for election of ARB members Everyone please read petition #54055 and sign it. Even if you don't think it is a good idea, sign it; if it is defeated as a ballot, I will take it to be the will of the people. However, I think it's a very good proposal, although perhaps I'm biased. :) -Xiombarg -------------------------- Message 2 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 08:01:19 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: [Miles (#50636): petition #54055] Date: Mon May 3 06:29:07 1993 PDT From: Miles (#50636) To: Xiombarg (#37636) Subject: petition #54055 hi Xiombarg i was wondering why the 1-year prerequisite for ARB members? humm... and why keep the current members without electing them? ------------- Miles -------------------------- Message 3 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 08:04:54 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: Miles (#50636) and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Re: petition #54055 > hi Xiombarg > > i was wondering why the 1-year prerequisite for ARB members? > humm... and why keep the current members without electing them? > > ------------- > Miles I feel one has to be here for a _long_ time to have a good feel for what is and isn't good programming. It's just like the "age" requirement for petitions and ballots. I'm proposing keeping the current members in place because a) I trust them and b) the transition would be alot less traumatic this way. -Xiombarg Follow-ups to *petition:5 -------------------------- Message 4 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 16:56:14 1993 PDT From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: ARB Election Process I'd like to offer another suggestion, this one assuming that the Architecture Review Board remains intact: I would be perfectly willing to devise a voting mechanism for ARB membership and publicize it and make it public and readable and equitable and everything. (It would require wizdust -only- for the actual addition to #1000.members.) This could eliminate the need for the messy bureaucratic process while still including the voting, and it'd be easier (IMHO) to implement. Just trying to help, Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 5 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 17:03:14 1993 PDT From: Lambda (#50) To: Blackbriar (#30119) and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Re: ARB Election Process Just to clear the air, here, I don't think Xiombarg's proposal, exactly as written, is all that much work to implement, given the amount of code-sharing possible with the current petition system. This, of course, may well constitute volunteering to do that work... :-) -------------------------- Message 6 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 3 21:09:27 1993 PDT From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Reservations I have many reservations about signing this petition, for the reasons I will outline here. However, I would first like to say that I agree with the bulk of this petition. Fifteen is probably a good number for the ARB, at least whatever number decided on should be odd. I also agree that the quota mechanisms as they are should remain in place. Also, requiring that members, and potential members, be at least a year old, and not have a second characer already on the ARB. Now, I don't agree with the proviso that all the current members remain on the board. This is not a flame to those members; I don't mean to attack anyone personally with this post. However, I think there should be a mass vote by the populous if this process gets implemented. All the current members would be considered eligible, and up for vote (If they still want to be on the ARB, that is). This way, we could have the opportunity to have fresh blood, or not depending on how the voting goes, at the outset. I think this is a better idea, also considering this fact: saying that one is a member until they 'retire or get recycled' is pretty much saying for life. I think that the chance of someone retiring is very low. Voting will not happen that much. I also would like to add some more of my reservations/suggestions. A good amount of the current members have turned their main focus away from Lambda to other MOOs. I think this is not good in terms of their membership on the ARB. Some have even expressed bad opinions about Lambda in public forums. Should they really be in a position of power here if they hold such opinions? Also, since they don't focus on Lambda exclusively (not to mention RL distractions too) how can we expect them to do a good job when considering requests? Lastly, a few members haven't connected in a long time, or for that matter, connect for very long. There should be some provision in the ARB system for, say, a certain percentage of time that must be spent on the MOO. That's iffy, I think, considering RL concerns. But might be worth some thought. I know this post has gotten long, but I wanted to voice this. I thought about writing another petition, but the bulk of it would be the same as this one. Perhaps my concerns will be considered, and perhaps the text of this petition could be modifed if many agree before it goes too far where a change would be a big setback. Dred (On the Eleventh Edge) -------------------------- Message 7 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 00:54:42 1993 PDT From: 54055 (#54055) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Xiombarg (#37636), and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Xiombarg (#37636), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Xiombarg, the author of Petition:54055 (#54055): `A New Structure For The ARB', has acquired 35 signatures on her petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #54055' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) reply to this message explaining your reasons for refusing to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 8 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 01:00:21 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: current ARB If you really feel like that, Dred, I suggest you sign my petiton anyway and vote for it when it comes up as a ballot. You can then create a petition that all current ARB members resign and under my system, a mass election would be held if your petition passed. I, however, trust the current ARB and think a certain "conservative" element is a good balance to "pro-change" forces on the MOO. -Xiombarg -------------------------- Message 9 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 01:02:49 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: Blackbriar (#30119) and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: voting system In response to BlackBriar's post, he should feel free to create his voting code. I or he could then create a petition that it become the standard. Having both systems up on a ballot would be a better indication of "the will of the people". -Xiombarg -------------------------- Message 10 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 03:04:08 1993 PDT From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Regarding ARB resignations. I'd note that within the past two months, there have been about three or four resignations from the ARB that I can think of offhand. It's not all -that- infrequent. Something else to take into consideration is that ARB members should be trustable players as well, for they have access to various statistics and information about players that most don't (second characters, for example; not site or registration info). Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 11 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 06:33:51 1993 PDT From: JoeFeedback (#2612) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Re: Reservations Can someone give this mailing list a better name, please? > > Fifteen is probably a good number for the ARB, at least whatever > number decided on should be odd. I also agree that the quota > mechanisms as they are should remain in place. Also, requiring The usual reason for this kind of provision is that an odd number of members will prevent deadlock. However, you should be aware that it often takes a significant amount of work just to get three votes on a quota request. I don't think whether the total number of members is even or odd will be significant unless the ARB's internal rules are changed. > > A good amount of the current members have turned their main focus > away from Lambda to other MOOs. I think this is not good in terms > of their membership on the ARB. Some have even expressed bad Actually, I don't think this is a big problem. Zippy and Jonny have turned their efforts away from LambdaMOO, yeah--but they resigned voluntarily. There may be a couple of others who've been concentrating more on other MOOs--Blackbriar, for example. But Blackbriar's still been putting a lot of effort into LambdaMOO. I think a more serious problem (which you mention later) is that some members have pretty much stopped spending time on MOO at all. These seem not very useful--as opposed to, e.g., Kilik, Morpheus, Blackbriar, and Xythian, all of whom have other MOO projects but still put significant effort into their duties as ARB members. Note that I'm not stating an opinion on whether the current board should be forced to resign--just pointing out some perceived flaws in your argument. Personally, I'm not really excited at the prospect of making the ARB even more complicated and bureaucratic than it already is. I'd like to see an elimination of centralized control over quota--in the same way that the petition system is a first cut at eliminating centralized control over social decisions in general. On the other hand, I don't want to have to get 150 signatures to get a quota increase. -------------------------- Message 12 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 4 09:53:24 1993 PDT From: 54055 (#54055) To: Xiombarg (#37636), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: Petition approved Reply-to: *Petition:54055 (#54055) The wizard Haakon has granted his mark of approval to Petition:54055 (#54055): `A New Structure For The ARB'. -------------------------- Message 13 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Wed May 5 18:32:46 1993 PDT From: XiomBRAG (#37636) To: *Petition:54055 (#54055) Subject: the name of this lit If somewiz wants to fiddle with the name of this list, they should feel free, as long as I don't have to clear it... -Xi -------------------------- Message 14 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 7 02:44:20 1993 PDT From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *social-issues (#7233), *chatter (#16543), and *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: correction Sorry, the name is now *petition:new-arb; it seems I can't get rid of that "petition" bit... *petition:5 has remained an alias. -Xi -------------------------- Message 15 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 7 08:54:36 1993 PDT From: yduJ (#68) To: Xiombarg (#37636), *social-issues (#7233), *chatter (#16543), and *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: correction Actually you can say *p:new-arb if you don't want to type out all of "petition". --yduJ -------------------------- Message 16 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 14:17:04 1993 PDT From: Nanya (#55170) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Requirements for Arbitrator... I think a year is too long... Try four months like what was suggested by Grump... -------------------------- Message 17 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 14:38:20 1993 PDT From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: What do we pay these people for? I think one of the questions that the MOO population has about the ARB is, what are its members like when they debate an issue? We know what the ARB does in general, but unlike the folks in Washington, we can't check up on the ARB members to see how they are doing, or what. How reasonable are their arguments and methods? Are dartboards utilized? Shouting matches? Do they gang up on one another? Or is brotherly love and instant understanding simply exuding from object #1000? We just can't tell. For starters, perhaps the ARB could make the transcript of one of its heated debates available for the concerned MOO citizen. It might help. ;) -------------------------- Message 18 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 15:05:05 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Pay? The arb debates issues with complete decorum and adherence to Robert's Rules of order. A complete transcript is kept which at all times is available for review. NOT! Actually the process is usually like this: A request is brought to the board, and is posted on our special voting gizmo. Usually there is a letter from a sponsor included, and always there is a tally summary of owned objects and verbs. Often the applicant sends a letter to *arb describing their existing stuff and how it is themely, useful and fun. Then arb members vote on the request after actually exploring the applicants creations. Each vote is recorded on the board and almost always there is a comment, sometimes running several paragraphs, explaining the vote. The explanations are often quite influential, affecting the further course of votes. There is often off-line (ie outside the arb board object) discussion, usually via interplayer moomail, pages and conversations. My guess is that the bulk of the real discussion occurs that way. There are nascent 'factions' on the board, some members are stickier than others on issues of theme, bloat and procedure, but the differences are mostly minot. Most votes are very lopsided, and most requests are successful. Players should buttonhole an ARB member before making a request to get advice - we don't like to turn players down because their application is premature or inadequate. The most recent big fight on the board actually involved the request of an ARB member for more quota. The request was voted down in fact, so the arb is far from a mutual affection club full of brotherly love and instant understanding. -------------------------- Message 19 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 16:40:40 1993 PDT From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: I didn't explain myself well enough. First of all, you forgot to w00f. Secondly, we are already familiar with the process. What I meant to say was, we don't know how well the particular ARB members are at their job. We can only assume that they are. Perhaps there's an ARB member who isn't. We know what Jesse Helms and Bob Dole stand for, they make their positions known. What sort of things do the ARB members want? I think if it came to a full-ARB election, there might be difficulty for the former ARB members because no one really knows anything about their political lives. Actually, I think that you did sort of get my meaning, Kilik, but for the on-lookers I must clarify, since most of your message was not about what I thought I was saying. Just looking out for the political futures of the power elite! ;) -------------------------- Message 20 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 18:14:50 1993 PDT From: A_Smile (#46432) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: inactivity of an ARB member It seems evident to me that there will exist a big problem if certain restrictions are not implimented to watch for ARB members who seldom participate in ARB decision/discussions. I'm hesitant to propose how exactly this should be done, but it can be as easy as just checking periodically if certain members have not logged on for a while and if so, take action to open the position to other players. Due to the fact that players who have interest in becoming a member of the ARB will be waiting (sometimes impatiently) for an opening, rules should be implemented so that they will have a more frequent chance if being elected. If these players have to wait while some ARB members are not doing anything productive, there may be a conflict between the ARB and the many players waiting. In previous messages, both JoeFeedBack and Dred have made some comments pointing out a problem with inactive ARB members. I believe watching for members who have not logged on for a while, followed by a vote within the ARB should be enough to remove a member from the ARB. This will allow someone who is a member say to the other ARB members: 'Hey, I won't have access to LambdaMOO for a month but I'd like to remain a participant of the ARB for when I come back.' Then once he's been out for whatever amount of time is agreed upon, the ARB votes if he should be kept or removed. This is just my personal opinion, of course. I think this will be a solution for those who don't like the inactivity of a couple of the present ARB members. They can remain part of the ARB, as long as they remain active. Sounds fair to me. A_Smile P.S. I also think the 1 year pre-requisite is too long, but just 4 months is too little, lets try something like 9 months. Or even better, if in 4 months the person has created a few awesome things and written tons of code, they should be just as eligible as those who have been here for years and haven't coded much. -------------------------- Message 21 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 18:38:50 1993 PDT From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Inactivity Unfortunately, A_Smile, the test of 'not logging in' is often not good enough. Take a look at the following list, which shows when the ARB members have each been here last: Player name Connected Idle time Location ----------- --------- --------- -------- APHiD (#33119) 37 minutes 0 seconds APHiD's Office Dred (#49925) an hour 23 seconds Club Dred (Men's Room) Morpheus (#2957) an hour a minute Morpheus' Study ---------------------------- Keelah (#30246) Tue May 25 18:01:25 1993 PDT Private Office Chaos (#6853) Tue May 25 17:33:39 1993 PDT Chaos' Flat Puff (#1449) Tue May 25 17:28:48 1993 PDT Mirror Behind The Bar Kilik (#2819) Tue May 25 16:51:00 1993 PDT Kilik's Dog House Booga (#634) Tue May 25 14:47:21 1993 PDT Cheers carRoT (#47498) Tue May 25 14:21:49 1993 PDT Gazebo Khalarghast (#5156) Tue May 25 13:23:11 1993 PDT Hackers' Hell Xythian (#24436) Tue May 25 13:12:29 1993 PDT Xythian's Room Zachary (#4670) Tue May 25 04:27:35 1993 PDT Zachary's Hangout Karl (#49702) Mon May 24 23:22:19 1993 PDT North Wing Hostel Phantom (#12538) Sun May 23 21:12:19 1993 PDT HEAVENLY ABODE AEnigma (#21135) Sat May 22 20:43:44 1993 PDT AEnigma's Paradox waffle (#9082) Fri May 21 09:44:14 1993 PDT Foyer (Blackbriar's) Satan (#540) Tue May 18 16:06:40 1993 PDT The Coat Closet Blackbriar (#30119) Fri May 14 13:42:31 1993 PDT Blackbriar's Patch Dren (#13033) Fri Mar 26 21:11:27 1993 PST The Casting Couch I would wager that not all those folks are active, even though most have logged in within the last week. So what's to be our measure? Perhaps the ARB members will admit who isn't contributing. :) -------------------------- Message 22 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 19:11:56 1993 PDT From: yduJ (#68) To: Greene (#49795) and *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Inactivity Looking at Greene's list of ARB members and login times, I recall that *most* of them have been contributing quite recently! This past fight that Kilik alluded to caused most people to want their two cents in. Why, we had nine voters on that alone (it takes three unopposed to get a quota increase---and most pass with 3 for, zero against---so indeed most of the time you *don't* get the full board participating). Some of the members stuck their noses in on the mailing list without voting as well. Perhaps some codification of membership expiration is required, but I would not call it a current pressing problem. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 23 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue May 25 19:15:46 1993 PDT From: Morpheus (#2957) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Inactivity > I would wager that not all those folks are active, even though > most have logged in within the last week. > So what's to be our measure? Perhaps the ARB members will admit > who isn't contributing. :) No, not everyone votes on every request. But nearly everyone votes on some requests. Very few, if any, have no activity within the ARB at all. The point here is most of us aren't going to drop what we're doing the instant a quota request comes through. We all moo for reasons other than our ARB membership, and I don't feel that the ARB should become our central purpose for being on Lambda. Mostly we vote when we have the time to look at the request in as objective a light as possible. Now, if we could all spend 24 hours a day here, maybe we'd all vote more often... We don't take our responsibility lightly. We're not operating to our own hidden agenda. We're not some goddamn Masonic lodge for crying out loud (you'd think it by reading some of these posts). We're just trying to help out, which was the reason for the Board's creation. Morpheus -------------------------- Message 24 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 08:11:15 1993 PDT From: Mazer (#12856) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Requirements for membership/ Term of office I think that 1 year's MOO is a sensible requirement for ARB membership. There has to be a reasonable commitment by the member to the MOO, and 4 months is simply not enough time to absorb what the MOO is like. If a candidate is found worthy before 1 year's MOOing, he could be put up for election through making a 'true' petition. I wouldn't like to see 'life membership' conferred on anyone, and being active shouldn't preclude having to stand for re-election. The period of office would have to be long, otherwise we'd be snowed under by elections (i.e 15 every time period between re-election of each candidate.) Perhaps 2 years? And ARB members could give a 'vote of no confidence' in another member if he had to be removed before that time expired? Mazer -------------------------- Message 25 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 12:41:03 1993 PDT From: Wholeflaffer (#49822) To: *Petition:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Inactivity If all the ARB members do not vote on every request and you don't need a quorum except for 3 for or 3 against (if I got that right), why the 15 members? Seem like overkill to me! Wholeflaffer -------------------------- Message 26 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 14:19:08 1993 PDT From: New-Arb (#54055) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Open Ballot Ready for Voting Petition #54055 has received enough signatures to transform it into open Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): `A New Structure For The ARB', which is now available for voting. Type `read #54055' to see the text of the proposal and then `vote yes on #54055' to cast your vote in favor of it, `vote no on #54055' to cast your vote against it, or `abstain on #54055' to stop hearing about it. Voting on this ballot will close on Thursday, June 10, at 2:19 pm, LambdaMOO Standard Time; until then, you can change your vote as often as you wish. You can read (and contribute to) commentary on this proposal on the mailing list named *Ballot:New-Arb or *Ballot:5; type `help mail' for details. -------------------------- Message 27 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 15:39:49 1993 PDT From: Kilik (#2819) To: Wholeflaffer (#49822) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: overkill Because this spreads the work around to just about the right level. Members are not compelled to vote on every request, just one in three or so. Doing a good job reviewing an application takes a bit o' work so its nice not to have to do them all. Right now the ARB doesn't get backlogged from overwork and the number of players on it is enough for some diversity. Should the number be smaller? Dunno. What number would you pick? -------------------------- Message 28 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 15:55:14 1993 PDT From: Wholeflaffer (#49822) To: Kilik (#2819) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: overkill Kilik says: > > Because this spreads the work around to just about the right > level. Members are not compelled to vote on every request, just > one in three or so. Doing a good job reviewing an application > takes a bit o' work so its nice not to have to do them all. Right > now the ARB doesn't get backlogged from overwork and the number of > players on it is enough for some diversity. Should the number be > smaller? Dunno. What number would you pick? My question was not confrontational, just a curiosity. It would seem obvious that there would be a reason fro the number and the reason seems reasonable to me. It was mainly curiosity. The question popped into my head and I thought I'd ask it. I think the reason you gave, coupled with the need for an odd number, seems to me to be good enough. Overkill is now the wrong word. I'm satisfied with your answer! On another note, I agree with another poster that maybe we should have elections for all the seats...kinda start over, in a sense. I think the old members should not have to be nominated again, but nominations for others should be done. I agree with Xythian, in a way, that I have no quarrel with anyone on the board at this moment, but I can see no reason why we shouldn't at least make the board open to all comers who would like to try to make it to the board now instead of waiting for someone to resign. If the purpose of this petitiona nad ballot is to open up the ARB to the Moo populace, then a general re-election (or election, as the case may be) seems a natural. This is how I view the purpose of the ballot and I believe others do also. Btw, I have voted in favor of the ballot and I think in either form, there are no problem in them. Wholeflaffer -------------------------- Message 29 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 16:06:49 1993 PDT From: Bloaf (#15550) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: overkill I'd have to agree with Wholeflaffer on this; if the ARB is going to be restructured in any way, there should be a general election for the 15 seats (or however many it ends up with), and the current members should have to run against other potential members. Just because someone was appointed as a member in the past doesn't mean the general MOO-populace wants them there. Some of the members of the ARB currently aren't very active participants in the MOO. I'm not saying they haven't contributed a lot in the past, but if the ARB is going to be limited to 15 members, then it should be 15 people who really want to be on the ARB and are willing to devote time. -------------------------- Message 30 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu May 27 21:28:50 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: The ARB I think the ARB, as it stands, is fine. I agree, in almost all respects, with the manner in which things are currently run in the ARB, and as most of you know, I took this stand before I was elected to the ARB, so I don't think me being a member has anything to do with my position. I have always felt that the only thing that seperates LambdaMOO from _total_ chaos was its adherence to a "world view" -- that world view being that of a house, with beings occupying that house. I perceive this as a "creative direction." With this in mind, let's envision what happens when the ARB becomes an elected body (I will not say _democratic_ body, for I don't perceive the procedure of tallying votes democratic.) By becoming elected, the ARB would lose it's "creative direction" by being basically in control of a "general concensus" given to us by the mathematics of tallying yes/no votes. Rather than being a truly democratic institution, it would become a victim of the same void political meaningless that pervades our Real Life elected bodies. By voting represenatives to the Architectural-Review-Board we are saying, in effect, two things: a) We're unable to handle theme decisions ourselves, so we're appointing a body to do it for us. Instead of controlling our objects and building them within this creative direction, we're appointing someone to that controlling for us. This is an act of self anihiliation, in that we also believe... b) We're able to make sane decisions about theme as a democratic body. We believe the control of theme and building should ultimately fall in our hands at some point. As you can see there is a huge contradiction between these two points. On one hand we give up our own democratic rights, and on the other hand we believe we should have those democratic rights. On one hand we're declaring our right to appoint people to the architectural review board, claiming ourselves equal citizens, and on the other hand we're saying, "oh please, we're unable to do it ourselves, so we'll just let you do it for us" -- guess what. that's not democracy. It's moral hypocrisy. If you trust the LambdaMOO general populace to make good decisions for members of the ARB, then you ought to also trust the individuals of that population to make proper theme decisions (hence abolishing the need for the ARB) You have to make a decision between: a) letting the ARB continue as an organ which votes its OWN members in. b) make theme handling completely democratic: that is, abolish theme. Besides, I see nothing morally wrong with the ARB deciding for itself which members to let into its fold. The ARB members, if they are truly "theme competent" are the best judges of who has an understanding of theme and building restrictions. -------------------------- Message 31 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 00:05:43 1993 PDT From: Puff (#1449) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: the new-arb role The primary concern I have about opening the ARB to public membership is the potential for a shift in the role the ARB plays. I like the current role; it does the job without really stepping on peoples' toes (if you think your toes have been stepped on, trust me, we didn't even wear our combat boots). What concerns me is that if we start electing people to the ARB based on popularity, the new members might decide to change the role of the ARB. I have no problems with electing people to carry out the role of the ARB, but there are no real limitations to prevent them from changing that role, except the existing ARB members, who currently exercise good judgement and perhaps act as a brake on new members. I think that, before a new system for managing the ARB is ratified, a new system for deciding more fundamental issues (why do we give out quota? what are the qualifications? who decides what theme is, and what is it?) should be in place. Puff -------------------------- Message 32 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 00:46:10 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Voice in the ARB I would much rather see a single "seat" on the ARB with veto power voted in by the community at large. send shit -------------------------- Message 33 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 09:46:28 1993 PDT From: Miles (#50636) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: The ARB Re: 30 on this mail list. > With this in mind, let's envision what happens when the ARB becomes an elected body (I will not say _democratic_ body, for I don't perceive the procedure of tallying votes democratic.) - Karl I suggest that this is a minority view - most people would consider the procudure of tallying votes democratic, unless of course the vote is rigged somehow or potential voters improperly excluded. > You have to make a decision between: a) letting the ARB continue as an organ which votes its OWN members in. b) make theme handling completely democratic: that is, abolish theme. - Karl This is a common propoganda technique - listing less than the full range of choices and yet chaiming or implying that there are no others. How about c) electing members of the ARB (and yes, that means tallying votes). ----------- Miles -------------------------- Message 34 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 10:24:47 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Miles, who completely avoids reading my post. | I suggest that this is a minority view - most people would consider the procudure of tallying votes democratic, unless of course the vote is rigged somehow or potential voters improperly excluded. I don't _care_ if it's a "minority view" -- it's correct. Adding numbers together does not give people on the MOO any more voice or input into decision making. In fact, it it reduces it. (Try breaking down the etymology of "Democracy" some time.) | This is a common propoganda technique - listing less than the full range of choices and yet chaiming or implying that there are no others. How about c) electing members of the ARB (and yes, that means tallying votes). Oh, yes, it's George Orwell II, and I'm Big Brother! Get real. What I was doing had nothing to do with "propaganda" or "listing less than the full range of choices" -- grow up. What I did was attempt to clear up a contradiction in the idea of electing members of the ARB, which you apparently, in your total ignorance, did not bother to read (since you have not even attempted to argue against it.) Let me repeat: It is a contradiction to on one hand request that the ARB be under democratic control, and then on the other hand give up those democratic rights by electing people to enforce theme for you. If you REALLY think the body of MOO players knows what it's doing and has the right to control its own theme, you'd abolish the ARB entirely. So basically what I was saying is: make up your mind between the only non contradictory choices. Abolish enforced theme, or continue with the ARB as a self-electing body. -------------------------- Message 35 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 11:54:30 1993 PDT From: Miles (#50636) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: :Re: Miles, who completely avoids reading my post. Re: 34 on this mail list. > Adding numbers together does not give people on the MOO any more voice or input into decision making. In fact, it reduces it. (Try breaking down the etymology of "Democracy" sometime.) - Karl According to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary: "democrary": derived from Greek "demokratia": "demos" + "kratia" The first two definitions listed are: a) government by the people; esp : rule of the majority b) a government in which the the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. involving periodically held free elections I suggest that Karl's strongly-held opinion of what constitutes democracy is not only a minority view, but is also in direct conflict with the dictionary definition of the term. I would argue more against the logic of Karl's position - that well, somehow if people are able to vote, they have a reduced input into decision making - but unfortunately, I'm not able to detect any logic to his position. ------------ Miles -------------------------- Message 36 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 12:20:51 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Supreme Power invested in the people I'm all for investing power in the people. So let's do that. But you can't give power to people by giving them numbers. You give people democratic power by giving them voice and input into the system, and there are better ways of doing that than picking represenatives. "To change the master is not to be free." -------------------------- Message 37 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 12:55:11 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: foaming >What I was doing had nothing to do with "propaganda" or "listing less than > the full range of choices" -- grow up. What I did was attempt to clear up > a contradiction in the idea of electing members of the ARB, which you > apparently, in your total ignorance, did not bother to read Grow up? I don't see where Miles showed any immaturity. I also don't see where he showed `total ignorance'. It's clear to see why you don't want voting. You don't think anyone but yourself is capableof making an intelligent decision. How the fuck did Karl get on the ARB anyway? What the Hell has he done for the MOO, except saving DB space now and then by recycling himself. -------------------------- Message 38 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 15:22:34 1993 PDT From: Wholeflaffer (#49822) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Karl's ideas, and mine, on the ARB Karl, I think you were unfair to Miles with your critique of his ideas. I believe you are making the issue too black-and-white. It's not that we will get one or the other. If we want a democratically elected ARB, it does not mean we are hypocrites! It means that we want to know who is on the ARB and why. You then say that if we want a concensus on the issues of the then we should vote directly on the ARB. This is absurd! Not only is it impossible to have a direct democracy control over the everyday issues of the ARB, it is also not what I want. I think the MOO would be better off if everyone who wanted to could have a voice in ALL aspects of the MOO, this includes the ARB. Wholeflaffer -------------------------- Message 39 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 22:29:17 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Okay, question #2 If all you're interested in is finding out how and why and what is going on in the ARB, and who is on it, why don't you simply request to have *ARB readable by the general public? And if you're interested in giving voice, why not make it writable to the general public? _That_ I have no problem with. But the moment you make theme enforcement a matter of tallying numbers for represenatives, theme will become unenforcable and useless. -------------------------- Message 40 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri May 28 23:20:24 1993 PDT From: Dred (#49925) To: Karl (#49702) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Okay, question #2 I have to disagree with the proposal that *ARB be made publicly readable and writable. Personally, it would affect anything I post. If I knew that anything I wrote to the mail-list has the possibility of coming under public scrutiny, I would be unable to be frank and honest. I believe that this notion has been proposed before, with similar sentiments set forward by the members of the ARB. I feel that a closed forum is conducive to honest opinion and objectivity, whereas in a public forum, you tend to worry about satisfying the masses. -------------------------- Message 41 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 13:24:47 1993 PDT From: Jean-Luc (#56296) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Another Point of View Whoa, Karl, and everybody. Let's all take a deep breath, drink a nice cold beverage, put our feet up, and relax. Ugly insults are easy to send and very hard to take back. I doubt that any of them are ever _really_ meant to be imortalized on a mail list. I am personally _very_ fond of our American version of a democratic republic and would chafe under another form of government. But real life is significantly different from LambdaMOO. Long ago in real life, nearly all governments were monarchies. The argument was that the rulers were the chosen ones of God and were thus entitled to rule. Fortunately, the people began to rethink their own value in the eyes of God. They began to realize that the kings and queens were no better and no more entitled to rule than they were. This led to the notion of gov't which governs with the consent of the governed. I like it. Problem is, LambdaMOO ain't quite like real life. If you buy the RL idea of private property (one of the cornerstones of democracy, by the way) then you ought to realize that LambdaMOO is a database and a computer which are the private property of someone. ALL the rest of us are guests. The owners of the computer and the DB have allowed some individuals to be 'wizards', i.e. to have decision- making power over how the DB and the computer are used. As I understand the history of the MOO, the wizards made all the decisions about the acceptability of new building projects until it just got too big for them and they found more intellectually challenging pursuits to occupy their time. The wizards then chose a group of players they trusted and gave those people the power to make the architectural decisions, AND to choose their own members and successors. Imagine that you own a really nice swimming pool in your back yard. And you let almost anyone come over and use the pool without asking for your express permission each time. Imagine that pretty soon there were little squabbles over whether to swim laps or play water polo or whatever. And imagine that YOU didn't really want to be bothered with settling these little arguments, so you appointed several of your pool-loving friends to act in your place as the arbiters of the pool. Now imagine that a group of people start complaining and passing around petitions and demanding that they be given a voice in the use of the pool. Doesn't that seem just a wee bit presumptuous to YOU? I mean it's YOUR pool! It ain't no democracy; your neighbors shouldn't be able to steal your property just because they outnumber you. I'm quite content to let the present ARB continue as is. Mainly because I know that if it becomes absolutely intolerable, I am totally free to ftp the LambdaCore to my own computer or one I can gain access to, and then I can be the wizard and the ARB and run the whole show! Let's all lighten up a bit with the flag-waving and the etymologies and just figure out how we can get along on this MOO (which belongs to someone else, not us). This is a smile --> :) --Jean-Luc -------------------------- Message 42 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 13:52:56 1993 PDT From: Haakon (#2) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Another Point of View Sorry, Jean-Luc, but you've missed the boat. The facts that (a) the Xerox Corporation owns the computer on which LambdaMOO runs and (b) Pavel Curtis has his finger on the power switch, figuratively speaking, do not together imply that either of those parties `owns' LambdaMOO society. I've gone to a great deal of trouble to try to make it clear that the structure of LambdaMOO society is owned entirely by that society. It's not at all `presumptuous' for people to demand a voice or to propose major or minor changes in the institutions of LambdaMOO society and government. In fact, I think it would be `presumptuous' for anyone *else* to do so. LambdaMOO ain't MY pool, it's all of yours; do with it what you all will... -------------------------- Message 43 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 14:02:56 1993 PDT From: Jean-Luc (#56296) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: The Last Word on My Stupid Point of View Whew! Well, I stand corrected! Please ignore my previous post. I guess I own a piece of the pool, eh? I'll have to rethink my position on the ARB thing then. Thanks for the input, Haakon! :) -------------------------- Message 44 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 14:35:31 1993 PDT From: Jean-Luc (#56296) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: My Epiphany (like who cares?) After a recent exchange with Object Number #2, (see mail on *Ballot:Arbitration), I've developed a whole new outlook on the MOO and our places in it. #2 assured me that the MOO really is for all of us. I got the impression that #2 really does want us to govern ourselves as much as possible. Great! Why should we have ANY group approving building projects and doling out quota, then? Why not have a mechanical, automatic way of 'earning' quota, e.g. designing verbs or FO's that are used by a certain number of players, or tallying the number of player-hours that are built up in a player's rooms, or tallying the number of real-time hours a player spends on the MOO. Upon reaching certain plateaus a player would automatically be given another quota point. Since quota would be the equivalent of RL money, we might have a way of allowing players to 'loan' quota to the more prolific designers while retaining some ability to reclaim their quota in the future. I guess what I'm driving at is that we might strive for the mechanical tools that would allow us to govern ourselves freely instead of trying to refine the process by which we select others to govern us. Nuts? Stupid? Oh well, I know I don't know much, so I'm ready and willing to have you regular list readers tell me what's wrong with this idea. Anyway, I'm still smiling. I LOVE it here at Lambda! :) -- Jean-Luc -------------------------- Message 45 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 15:18:16 1993 PDT From: Quo_Vadis (#53118) To: Miles (#50636), *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055), Jean-Luc (#56296), and *social-issues (#7233) Subject: Re: :Re: Miles, who completely avoids reading my post. > From: Miles (#50636) > Re: 34 on this mail list. Yes this is an old debate, and it has no direct relevance to the New-ARB ballot. But I have seen in the past week a few people expressing opinions that make me somewhat uneasy. > > Adding numbers together does not give people on the MOO any more > voice or input into decision making. In fact, it reduces it. (Try > breaking down the etymology of "Democracy" sometime.) - Karl This indeed is true... Take for example thr Russians who where regularly asked to vote to select government officials (yes a lot of them were elected). Despite the fact that the vote followed all `normal' democratic rules, noone even claimed that the Russian Republic was in fact democratic; there was one party, one permitted school of thought, and no public input in government policies. > According to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary: I like better the Webter's New Encyclopedic Dictionary's definition: democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them or their elected agents; a state having such a form of government; in a restricted sense, a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them rather than by their elected representatives; a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges; [other definitions deleted for lack of relevance to forms of government] [all typos mine] Note particularly the 2nd and 4th definitions; they directly support Karl's position. My main gripe about Miles' restricted reading of these definitions, is that while it is very representative of goverments we call democratic today, retricting the definition in such a manner leaves us with no word to talk about Karl's conception of democracy. To Jean-Luc's view that private ownership is central to the concept of democracy, I'd like to oppose my own view: it's the concept of public ownership that is central to democracy, since otherwise there would be nothing for the people for decide on. Private ownership is central to capitalism, but democracy and capitalism are at least independant if not in opposition. > I would argue more against the logic of Karl's position - that > well, somehow if people are able to vote, they have a reduced > input into decision making - but unfortunately, I'm not able to > detect any logic to his position. Karl's position is simple: if there is a vote, one can pretend that everything is fine and democratic and use that to justify policies that are contrary to the majority's position, just like in Russia where elections were held to justify a governement that oppressed the population. Adding up numbers does not imply democracy. QV, sorry for the length of his post... -------------------------- Message 46 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 16:12:12 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Democracy and the ARB Thank you, Quo_Vadis, for that piece of text which cleared up what I had to say quite a bit. What I would like to get at here, and hopefully affect how people vote, is the potential results, and the intended goal of this bill. First, what is the _intended_ goal? Is it to increase the effectivity of the ARB? To make it do a better job of what it is doing? Is it to stimulate the "masses" into greater interest and adherence to theme? Or is it simply the result of a general resentment or jealousy of those in the ARB who are considered experts on making sure theme is practiced correctly? I really don't know, but I really think this bill has more to do with resentment and popular hysteria than it has to do with any sort of anti-hierarchical/democratic feeling among its supporters. I believe in a future (talking real life now) where units and organizations such as factories, post offices, fast food restaurants, and planning boards are run on democratic and non-hierarchical principles. In this world that I imagine, however, each organization must remain relatively independent of the other in certain things -- it would not do to have members of the community in general telling the air traffic contoller's union, via direct or represenative democracy, how to schedule and where to put the planes. It would not be a good a thing to have the citizens of the City of Edmonton making a decision on who to put on the Occupational Health and Safety Standards board ... why? Do I say this because I "don't trust the masses" as Quinn says (this coming from Quinn who hates group work, posts messages asking for a MOO "all to himself", refuses to cooperate with theme, general social standards, or any sort of self-regulation whatsoever) No, it probably has more to do with the fact that I have seen what goes on in the ARB, and I don't think elected represenatives (leaving aside the issue of the utter STUPIDITY of represenative democracy ) or direct vote on issues, is up to the people to control. If you REALLY believe people should control building standards, then, let me ask this again, why don't you rid us of theme altogether, and give everyone unlimited quota? That's the result of "liberty for all" in the sphere of building construction. Jean-Luc, who expresses admiration for a republican system which has brought the world Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Vietnam war, invasion of Panama, Nicaragua, and intervention in favor of genocide in El Salvador, East Timor, Iraq, and dozens of other places, advocates providing tools for better quota handling to the people instead of organizations or regulations. While I totally agree with this principle in regards to issues _where_it_applies_.. I simply cannot imagine, nor can Jean-Luc based on the vagueness of his post, any proper way of self management of quota that doesn't involve abolition of theme and building standards altogether. The ARB serves the purpose of having experienced builders and experts on the issue of theme gather in one group, elect other experts on theme and building to enhance its own abilities, and act upon those issues. The purpose of the ARB has never been, and never will be, to guarantee that the public's wishes be brought about. The ARB doesn't serve as a planning commission. It serves as a REVIEW BOARD -- an organization which decides whether or not to give someone more quota based on their building. It serves the purpose of preventing abuse of resources (in my opinion this is not enough, and the default quota should be lowered to reflect the huge expansion of our database.) which we all use. Our database is currently at about 70 megs (that's last I heard) -- it is continually growing as new users make shit like blasters, "lazers", and empty, boring, and eyesorish rooms floating in limbo without even knowing about @recycle, or even @move (yes, I talked to a guy the other day who had used up all his quota without even knowing how to move his own objects around) -- if the ARB becomes elected, or is abolished, what do we do with this mess? Do we let the MOO grow even faster? at the expense of memory, disk storage, and, eventually, our future? The ARB elects its own members -- that is the only kind of democracy that betters the MOO without destroying the public good. -------------------------- Message 47 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 18:27:57 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: qv&karl >This indeed is true... Take for example thr Russians who where regularly > asked to vote to select government officials (yes a lot of them were > elected). Despite the fact that the vote followed all `normal' democratic > rules, noone even claimed that the Russian Republic was in fact democratic; > there was one party, one permitted school of thought, and no public input > in government policies. This is an insane comparison. No-one here is being threatened into voting a certain way. We have a vast array of choices, and opinions can be openly (if not intelligently) discussed in any number of public forums. >Karl's position is simple: if there is a vote, one can pretend that > everything is fine and democratic and use that to justify policies that > are contrary to the majority's position, just like in Russia where > elections were held to justify a governement that oppressed the population. >Adding up numbers does not imply democracy. So we should toss aside voting and democracy just because totalitarians fancy it as a Happy Mask? Adding up numbers certainly does NOT imply democracy, but democracy is NOT adding up numbers. It should be vigorous discussion followed by an intelligent, informed vote. If you don't like the yes/no choice you've been given, you can abstain or oppose and draw up your own system. Work to form a better offering to the public vote. If you don't like the candidates, push another or run yourself. We're not forcing ANYONE to become another number in the tally. Karl, who apparently DOES have faith in the people, is being hypocritical in his complete enmity for popular opinion. -------------------------- Message 48 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 18:49:17 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: morekarl > adherence to theme? Or is it simply the result of a general resentment or > jealousy of those in the ARB who are considered experts on making sure theme > is practiced correctly? Considered experts by WHO? I'll tell you why we're pissed. It ain't because of jealousy. It's BEWILDERMENT at why people like YOU, whose objects are used by maybe a handful of people, whose rooms are traversed by even less, are on the ARB! You're an expert for the same reason critics are critics. Because they can't do what the people they criticise do well. You can't build, or program, so you try and prevent others from doing the same. Why don't we use BB's list of prolific programmers/builders to choose ARB members? These are the people with the most owners of children of objects, feature-users, members of player-classes. THEY are the one who've been granted quota and who are respected by the community and wizards alike. >No, it probably has more to do with the fact that I have seen what goes on in > the ARB, and I don't think elected represenatives (leaving aside the issue Well none of us have seen what happens in the ARB's Masonic Temple, so we can't comment. >The ARB serves the purpose of having experienced builders and experts on the > issue of theme gather in one group, elect other experts on theme and You ain't an experienced builder, and a rat's ass can be an expert on theme. >Our database is currently at about 70 megs (that's last I heard) Why don't you let Haakon worry about that? I haven't seen complain one about the size of this db. And it's been running without much lag at all lately, I might add. >The ARB elects its own members -- that is the only kind of democracy that > betters the MOO without destroying the public good. So we shouldn't have had an election here in the US last year? We shoulda let Bush choose our new leaders? Or how about you Canadians? Maybe you shoulda let the Queen choose your representatives. -------------------------- Message 49 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 22:16:32 1993 PDT From: Quo_Vadis (#53118) To: Quinn (#19845) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: qv&karl Quinn, reread my post. All I said is that Karl's definition of democracy is valid. Actually, I said also, one the very first line, that I didn't have anything specific to say about this ballot. > This is an insane comparison. No-one here is being threatened I made no comparison. I am only showing an example where a vote is held, and no democracy is acheived. > So we should toss aside voting and democracy just because > totalitarians fancy it as a Happy Mask? That is plainly putting words in my mouth and I resent it. > Adding up numbers certainly does NOT imply democracy, but > democracy is NOT adding up numbers. It should be vigorous > discussion followed by an intelligent, informed vote. Then you agree with the bulk of what I've said. > Karl, who apparently DOES have faith in the people, is being > hypocritical in his complete enmity for popular opinion. I believe that not only you didn't understand what I was saying, but you didn't understand Karl's point either! But I'll let him defend himself. Now however, I'd like to make a point on the specific issue of this ballot. This ballot is NOT about making the grating of quota democratic. Since the wizard imposed quota and theme policies will still be in place, this proposal does not give any now powers to the members of the community. It does however seek to reaffirm the legitimacy of the ARB body. If you want democracy, it is the issue of who controls the contents of the quota and theme policies we should be voting. This however won't solve the issue of the legitimacy of the body that enforces these policies. This proposal doesn't address the first issue, but the second. I think that Karl's position is that we should be debating the first issue too. He seems afraid that people will confuse the two issues and feel they have some power because the ARB is elected. I tend to agree with Karl on this point. But unlike Karl, I'm not so afraid the first issue won't be dealt with. Therefore I will support this ballot. QV. -------------------------- Message 50 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon May 31 22:29:42 1993 PDT From: Jean-Luc (#56296) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: What -- Is He Back? I should have learned my lesson. I should keep my mouth shut. But here I am one more time stepping gingerly into the searing Flames of Karldom to express my puny opinion. Yes, Karl, for some reason I am proud of the American system of democratic republicanism. And I think you know better than to believe that that means I enjoyed Hiroshima or Nagasaki or the other tragedies of our history. But in the balance, I still think our way comes out on top. But enough of my amateur poli sci garbage; back to the New-Arb debate. Karl said it seemed like I was advocating the abandoning of theme and building restrictions. Yes, perhaps I am. After my first posting here, Haakon sent me a few pages and I got the distinct impression that he really does want us to make this thing work ourselves -- from the bottom up instead of top-down. So maybe we _can_ do it. If quota is earned and is exchangeable, perhaps we might just see how the scarcity factor enforces its own limits on building and themeliness. The theme of a big house (etc.) was the originators idea, but they seem to be giving the whole thing to the players. So maybe the theme should only survive if it's what the players want. If new rooms go into new directions of theme and turn out to be popular with the players, why shouldn't they be allowed to succeed despite theme violation? If quota is earned by creating objects that others use, won't this work to weed out the ones who make useless trash? They won't be able to earn much more quota, will they? But look, Karl, and everybody else. I'm honestly not trying to persuade anyone to adopt my pathetic viewpoint. I'm just thinking out loud, warts and all. I know there are flaws in my thinking. If I wait until I achieve perfection before I speak, I may as well go find a cave and crawl in. Are you folks really angry at each other, or does it just read that way? :) -- Jean-Luc -------------------------- Message 51 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 1 09:57:27 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Referendum on Theme? I would like to see a referendum (or at least a petition of some sort) with the question: "Should we keep the theme, as outline in help theme, and placed in practice throughout the LambdaHouse, or abolish the theme of LambdaMOO altogether?" This ballot would have to differ from existing petitions in that it would have to allow people to add new options to the ballot in order to represent different views on what should happen to theme. For example, one person might want to add an option to create even stricter theme controls than the ARB, etc. I think this is sorely needed, as I think a lot of the attack on the ARB stems out of people not really wanting a theme at all :-( . -------------------------- Message 52 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 1 13:49:24 1993 PDT From: Miles (#50636) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: voting yes Some months ago, back when wizards were in charge of social discipline, there was a post to *soc from Ford over the issue of sexual harassment. He was faced with what to do about a player who admitted to harassing several female players and who also said to go ahead and @toad him, because he didn't think he would be able to stop. (I hope I'm remembering the details of this correctly). Ford's reaction was to explain to him how @gag worked and to let him go. I have to really admire someone who can show that kind of restraint. In the past, in order to get @toaded for being annoying, you had to work hard at it; it was only a few rare individuals who had the kind of persistance needed to succeed in making a wizard lose patience. Wizards don't even reply to flames on mail-lists; you have to say something constructive in order to get their attention. In general, Lambda and the wizards write efficient code, fix things that are broken, and work hard at trying to make LambdaMOO a fun place to visit. They give other players as much freedom as possible without the system crashing. To get a programmer bit, you need only ask; I've never even heard of anyone losing one, for any reason. You are free to build a work of art, but you are also free to fail miserably and build junk with nothing but traceback errors. I suspect that their philosophy is that when it comes to creative freedom, you can't have one without risking the other. There is a limit to what any one player can build without having to get approval for a quota increase from the ARB. I agree with those who say that the ARB, although perhaps not faultless (what is?), has on the whole shown good judgement when making recommendations on quota requests. However, as with Lamdba and the wizards, the polital structure is not now and never has been one of democracy. If everything works so well, why change anything? I believe Lambda is looking to the future; I think he wants us to build something of lasting value, a social structure that does not depend on the judgement of a few trusted individuals who have gotten us off to a good start. Regarding the ARB, one possibility is for the community at large to elect new members to it and that is what Xiombarg's petition is about. It is a small, careful step. I believe that the average player will make an informed decision and that the introduction of democracy will not make LambdaMOO self-destruct. We can build adequate safeguards to insure that the elections are not rigged or potential voters unfairly excluded. It would not be, as Karl claims, less democratic that way, because as yet - we don't have democracy. I think it's worth trying though. ------------ Miles -------------------------- Message 53 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 1 13:52:13 1993 PDT From: Caernarvon (#48412) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: What kind of democracy? I think some of the problem here is that no one has directly mentioned the fact that there are several kinds of democracy. Karl has referred to the fact that the object of this ballot is the conversion of the ARB to a form of representative democracy. The ballot system itself, however, which was established as the last act of the previous government of the MOO (which was an oligarchy), is a form of direct democracy, of a sort which hasn't appeared in RL since ancient Greece, except for the "town meeting" form of government still used in some areas of New England. So in all the argument over "democracy in the MOO", don't forget that the Petition/Ballot system and this particular ballot on the ARB actually mix two very different forms of government. Is this safe and sane? Should the MOO be a direct democracy or a representative democracy? It's probably still small enough to permit direct democracy if that's thought to be a good idea. Does the population at large want to turn over theme enforcement and quota determination to a representative body? It's as well to be clear about what's being voted on, here. My personal opinion, as I think about it, is that this welter of petitions and ballots represents severe over-government of a society which would be much better off using social structures and peer pressure. It's like trying to run a household using Robert's Rules. If this keeps up I'm afraid LambdaMOO will become a fascinating failure. -- Caernarvon -------------------------- Message 54 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 1 19:44:51 1993 PDT From: Tarod (#48579) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: morekarl > So we shouldn't have had an election here in the US last year? We > shoulda let Bush choose our new leaders? Or how about you > Canadians? Maybe you shoulda let the Queen choose your > representatives. As a point of fact: Canada doesn't have a monarchy, it has a parlimentary system. The previous prime minister wasn't a queen (not that I can recall -wink-) and comparing George Bush to a Queen seems rather odd, then again I don't read gossip magasines. 8+) Tarod -------------------------- Message 55 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 1 20:09:31 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:remove-theme (#57184) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: notheme Simply because I want to shake up the ARB does not mean I want to abolish theme. I support a theme of plausible connectivity. Bb mentioned several fantastically believable nexus. Mooriah's bookstore and the caverns beneath the house provide a virtually inexhaustable link to weird worlds. Just two of many opportunities for those who find the theme restrictive. The ARB should work with people who've created interesting areas, to help them fit their piece into the LambdaMOO jigsaw community, instead of building off in $nothing. One of the most thrilling aspects of a virtual reality is discovery. Nobody except the dull and unimaginative want you to build bathrooms and closets. Build something incredible, but make it fit. Help players connect their work to LambdaHouse, so that we'll keep stumbling down dark hallways into something wonderful. --Quinn (dousing flames to appeal to a wider audience) -------------------------- Message 56 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Wed Jun 2 10:49:07 1993 PDT From: Dagard (#49807) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: re: Term of office Forgive me if this has been hashed over before, but try to understand, I just started reading this list and have NO desire to read through 55 messages.... How do we know who's been on for a year? I mean, there's nothing like a first_connect_time to judge it by. Object numbers are only somewhat accurate, but not totally. Ideas? Dag -------------------------- Message 57 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Wed Jun 2 14:10:37 1993 PDT From: Rog (#4292) To: Dagard (#49807) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: re: Term of office We've got *Player-Creation-Log. -------------------------- Message 58 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 09:26:07 1993 PDT From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Missing the Mark Although I'd love to see the ARB get a great face-lift.. I cannot support this petition as is. I do not feel it addresses some of the major problems -I- feel need to be addressed. First, I do not like life terms; but, I especially do not like it when there is NO provision for recalling a member when needed. When to recall? Well, this should be addressed also. These are people who have accepted a responsibility and should be required to adhere to a code of ethics. Let's face it, this IS a sort of public trust for this community. In short, I at least want a right of recall and terms for recall written into the petition. Secondly, The only qualification listed for members (or to be nominated) is having a years residency. This is rediculous! I agree to the residency requirement, but what else?! I do not want some non-programmer or programming peon judging my work! There should be programming skill, creating skill, and theme-related requirements attached to being eligable! After all, If you have not actually DONE the building how can you justify judging others that do?! (Though some try everyday.. i'm well aware!). Thirdly, It does not address the issue of (touched on above) member ethics. In the 8 months i've been here, I've seen members violate their own rules by which they judge us, over and over; members not being able to program; and now, blatently expressing contempt for LambdaMOO and ARB policies. There have even been members that ignore proper courtesy with the server and spam it in an attempt to 'cheat' for stats. I am sorry, but I don't like these practices. I know people make mistakes but we should draw the line somewhere! I suggest a code of ethics be included. If a member violates these ethics (warnings should be decided too) they should be ousted, or at least a ballot for recall should be instituted. I know this is a voluntary position, but a public trust is a public trust. No one is begging a member to serve, most members beg for the appointment. Therefore, asking for proper behavior and examples should not be a problem here. Sorry for the length of the post.I just had a lot to say. Moriah -------------------------- Message 59 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 09:53:14 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Moriah If you think people are "Begging to be members" then you should probably talk to all the ARB members who have found it too much work and too much of a stress to continue on with their responsibility. You ought to talk to those who are "expected" to make contributions and rooms and etc just because they're members of the ARB (one Guest actually went out and said this to the face of KEelah -- that he was "expected" to work here and he/she could complain all he/she wanted because that was Keelah's "job" And again, I have a hard time with this tendency to say that the ARB should be at the mercy of the community or vice versa. The way I see it, the ARB does not run the community, nor does it attempt to -- it simply regulates the transfer of quota I HATE represenative "Democracy" -- if it's democracy you want, then sure, let's do it and write up a ballot, people, but don't think you're going to be going anywhere except backwards by electing people to do your dirty work for you. -------------------------- Message 60 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 10:27:45 1993 PDT From: JoeFeedback (#2612) To: Moriah (#50459) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Missing the Mark > Secondly, The only qualification listed for members (or to be > nominated) is having a years residency. This is rediculous! I > agree to the residency requirement, but what else?! I do not want > some non-programmer or programming peon judging my work! There > should be programming skill, creating skill, and theme-related > requirements attached to being eligable! After all, If you have > not actually DONE the building how can you justify judging others > that do?! (Though some try everyday.. i'm well aware!). Did you have some algorithm in mind for quantifying programming skill, creating skill, and allegiance to theme? (explanation of why this is important deleted to save space) The ballot proposes a system of election. You're proposing that some characteristics that I think humans are best equipped to judge--that is, characteristics that will presumably be discussed as part of a player's candidacy--be moved into the elegibility section of the process. I don't think that's necessary. -------------------------- Message 61 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 10:40:04 1993 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: JoeFeedback (#2612), Moriah (#50459), and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Missing the Mark I concur with JoeFeedback's claim that issues of character and judgment will come out in the election. I think that the only criteria which should be applied as a pre-screening to the election should be those that are objectively measurable by a program. If there is a program that can measure programming skill, creating skill or theme, I hope its author is not wasting the knowledge of how to write it just on the MOO--there are millions of RL dollars to be made. --M -------------------------- Message 62 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 18:00:20 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: karlagain >If you think people are "Begging to be members" then you should probably > talk to all the ARB members who have found it too much work and too much > of a stress to continue on with their responsibility. You ought to talk > to those who are "expected" to make contributions and rooms and etc just > because they're members of the ARB (one oH christ Karl why don't you hop back on the cabbage cart and roll back home? Are you saying that because some ARB members complain about their job, nobody else wants to be on the ARB? > Guest actually went out and said this to the face of KEelah -- that he was > "expected" to work here and he/she could complain all he/she wanted because > that was Keelah's "job" We aren't saying they must continue to create manithings for the public good. We're saying that they should have concrete qualifications for becoming a member in the first place. Some, like yourself, do not. >And again, I have a hard time with this tendency to say that the ARB should > be at the mercy of the community or vice versa. The way I see it, the ARB > does not run the community, nor does it attempt to -- it simply regulates > the transfer of quota yeaH and the warlords don't control the flow of resources into Somalia. Here, quota IS the community. The ARB controls all forms of lasting creative expression. >I HATE represenative "Democracy" -- if it's democracy you want, then > sure, let's do it and write up a ballot, people, but don't think you're > going to be going anywhere except backwards by electing people to do > your dirty work for you. So we let OTHERS elect people to do our dirty work? Or have them chosen via duck-duck-goose with wizard-ARB cronies? --Quinn (thinking quoting text is bad as crossposting) -------------------------- Message 63 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 21:35:20 1993 PDT From: Tarod (#48579) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re> Karl Again Please take the arguing to mail please, you guys are no longer discussing the ballot. Thanks. Tarod -------------------------- Message 64 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 3 21:46:38 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Re-read the messages, Tarod. Caustic as some of them are, they DO concern this ballot, and the selection and justifiction of ARB members. -------------------------- Message 65 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri Jun 4 10:48:28 1993 PDT From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Missing the Mark but Hitting the Thumb To JFB: Did i have some algorithm? Hmm, what does the ARB currently use? I thought, having been awarded quota in the past was a prerequisite, though i could be mistaken. I don't know. What i do know is that i am NOT willing to support a petition whose only requirement for this position is a residency requirement. IRL, lots of elected positions have VERY high skill standards for candidacy. Judges, being an example! Experience, skill and knowledge are basics, not bonusus! But, I am flexible. How about a petition that includes these qualifications for nomination, and requires justification of the nomination to be made part of the nominee's ballot. For example: If i wanted to nominate JoeBlow on the nomination ballot, I would have to state my reasons for believing JoeBlow met the qualifications. I would give his length of residency, cite examples of his work, skill and generally justify his nomination, as well as deciding whether the nominee met the qualification standards set forth by the petition. This way, his skill and experience would be displayed before the public and the public could make a more informed decision. In short, I still believe that skill qualifications for nomination to this postion should be listed within any petition to change the ARB, and be much more stringent than just a years residency. To Mickey: I am not sure which point you are taking issue with. You mention 'character and judgement'. This leads me to believe you are taking issue with the inclusion of a Code of Ethics in a petition to alter the ARB. This would apply only to existing members. However, justification of a candidates ability to uphold these standards would probably be a good thing to include in the nomination ballot. That would INDEED be a value judgment when applying it to an individual, however a Code of Ethics could (and should) be included in any petition to alter the ARB. If, Mickey, you are referring to item 2 on my list as was JFB, then i think you missed my point. What I am referring to are SKILLS not character traits. Skills that should be specified as requirements for ARB membership and thus, nomination. Without these, I'm afraid that these elections would fall to the level of a mere popularity contest, or, heaven forbid, a contest of who can make the most campaign primises of liberal quota policies! None of us want that. We SHOULD set standards for those positions of leadership here. To Karl: Yes, every member and nominee I have talked to 'asked' to be a member or considered for the position. Currently, I know of several players who have asked to be considered for the position. If it is too much of a burden, then perhaps the overworked member should step aside. As for your example of a Guest's comment, please remember that I was there when Keelah recounted it. We all got a good chuckle and a few good puns in about it. Lets not over-dramatize the humorous, albeit misguided remarks of one guest. I too do not believe that the ARB should be at the 'MERCY' of the public. But, I DO believe that they should be RESPONSIBLE to it. One way is to set up guidlines of what the public expects from them, BEFORE they accept the nomination for the position. And, if you HATE representative democracy, then please.. DO NOT remain my representative, for that is what you are as a member of the ARB. I do not believe in change, just for changes sake. If we are going to change the ARB, then lets correct some of the bugs we know about before opening a whole nother can 'o worms! There should be a right of RECALL written into the petition, SKILL requirements for members (thus their nominees) and a CODE OF ETHICS included that lays a basic framework of what we, the community, expect from the ARB membership. -------------------------- Message 66 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri Jun 4 11:13:19 1993 PDT From: yduJ (#68) To: Moriah (#50459) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Missing the Mark but Hitting the Thumb What are the requirements for U.S. President? Natural born citizen, and 35 years old, right? (Hm, on the other hand seeing what idiots we can get perhaps this is not a good example.) --yduJ -------------------------- Message 67 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri Jun 4 19:47:07 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Tarod If you have noticed I have not been discussing with Quinn at all, just letting him make an asshole out of himself on a public list. No reason to take it to mail, because I won't/haven't responded to his bile, anyways. -------------------------- Message 68 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri Jun 4 20:02:29 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Bland Points Here are some questions and comments in reply to your posts, Karl. They have been doused of flames and I would like you to respond. 1) Just because some ARB members complain about their job does not mean no-one wants to be an ARB member. If you don't want your seat, I'll take it. 2) ARB members, just as GMs, don't have any obligation to the public. They should be in their positions because they WANT to help the MOO-populus. They aren't required to keep up a quota of public objects, but they SHOULD have done so to be considered for the position in the first place. 3) The ARB controls allocation of objects. Objects are what make up this reality. They are lasting creative works. Putting aside mailing lists, our own description, and transient talk, our quota is the -only- lasting way to express ourselves. 4) I would rather elect the `dirty workers' of the ARB myself than allow them to choose amongst themselves. -Quinn -------------------------- Message 69 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Fri Jun 4 20:23:18 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Presto-chango Okay, I'm going to look really bad, hypocritical, etc. but I propose abolishment of the ARB (But not the ARB tools) -- #9899 and the *ARB list should be open to the general public (i.e. whoever is interested in these things) to vote directly democratically on theme allocation. I would suggest modifications to the ARB quota board to make it easier to handle larger numbers of voters. I am still voting no on this ballot because I find represenative "democracy" repugnant and support a directly democratic system whereby anybody can vote on anybody else. I support: abolishment of "ARB membership", opening up of the *ARB mailing list (perhaps with a new name) to the general public, and allowing any and all citizens of lambdamoo to vote on quota requests. Along with this I propose (and hope the two to go together) a stronger and more definitive "help theme" I would like to work together with others to write this up in petition form. -------------------------- Message 70 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Mon Jun 7 21:36:48 1993 PDT From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: Karl (#49702) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Presto-chango Karl: > I propose abolishment of the ARB (But not the ARB tools) -- #9899 > and the *ARB list should be open to the general public (i.e. > whoever is interested in these things) to vote directly > democratically on theme allocation. > > I would suggest modifications to the ARB quota board to make it > easier to handle larger numbers of voters. My personal opinion, as an ARB member, is this: The *ARB mailing list should NOT be made readable as it presently stands. This is because, in PAST, discussions have taken place in which the confidentiality of the ARB was assumed; I do not feel that that confidentiality should be violated at this time. However, this is NOT the same as saying that *ARB couldn't be made readable from this point on. My thoughts on this in a minute. Should everyone vote, democratically, on quota increases? The ARB members have various tools at their disposal for reviewing an application: statistics, for example, can give information which the general MOO populace can't see. If a registered second character requests a quota increase, the ARB members are aware of it. What criteria would the general public use? I don't think that quota increases should be public information; I believe that a player should be able to choose whether to make eir quota applications public, but that this public-ness should not be imposed. I'm rambling. Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 71 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Tue Jun 8 11:35:55 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Blackbriar Like I said: I believe this information and tools should be available to the general public in case of a quota request. An example would be: Karl wants 50 new Quota to build a massive dungeon underneath his room. He creates a request, and it goes up on the new (recreated) *ARB list and also on the #9899. Now that he is up for quota request any member of LambdaMOO can examine his tally board stats, since by requesting quota from the MOO populace at large he is, in essence, saying "take a look at my objects and judge them" After a majority vote of 3/4s has been held for two days (or whatever) the quota request is passed. At this point all of Karl's tally board information is made private again. -------------------------- Message 72 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Wed Jun 9 00:45:08 1993 PDT From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: Karl (#49702) and *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Re: Blackbriar Hm. I don't have any real objection to the proposal as spelled out by Karl; I can do the coding fairly quickly, but I won't unless the populace says to do it. Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 73 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Wed Jun 9 11:52:02 1993 PDT From: Karl (#49702) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: #35920 Please check out #35920 -- Democratic Architectural Review System -------------------------- Message 74 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 10 07:55:18 1993 PDT From: Wilson (#50431) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: My one complaint. I have read the proposal, and in it's current form, I am voting no. I consider myself well experienced with MOO's, yet I have only been on LambdaMOO for ~9 months. That is a long time in MOOdom. I would be one of those people who spend his time on the ARB, but I couldn't under the stated restriction of one year. Until this bill is revised, my vote will remain no. -------------------------- Message 75 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 10 08:55:54 1993 PDT From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Wilson Considering you've done zero programming and an additional zero themely objects, I wouldn't worry too much about that 9-month limit. It'll be at least 3 months until enough people resign to get the ARB under 15, and it'll probably take you at least that long to do something of merit. -------------------------- Message 76 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 10 09:22:15 1993 PDT From: Archer (#52775) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: Possible Modifying Petition? I was thinking that perhaps the size of the ARB should be proportional to the number of players. This way, it could grow as more players are added. I'm wondering how much support there is for this view. Any comments? -------------------------- Message 77 from *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): Date: Thu Jun 10 14:19:09 1993 PDT From: New-Arb (#54055) To: *Ballot:New-Arb (#54055) Subject: End of Balloting: Final Results The voting period for Ballot:New-Arb (#54055): `A New Structure For The ARB' has ended. The final vote count is as follows: In favor: 188 Against: 71 Abstaining: 176 The proposal has passed and will be implemented by the wizards as soon as possible. --------------------------