Well the Elephant got bogged down in committee. Although officially the vote on CommComm was 4 to 3 in favor of it, I decided that with such support, it probably couldn't go to the AMC. The "no" votes were based on criticism of a section implying that the CO could overturn an RVC's moderation decision or based on a vague "it's not ready yet." Despite my repeated requests, there were no concrete wording suggestions offered.
After talking to some AMC ExComm members, I went ahead and presented it to the AMC as a whole as a potential motion to gauge support and get input. After some discussion, I presented an amended section covering rescission of administrator decisions.
I do not like my amended section, but better to compromise on this point in order to get the overall policy update through. I still think it's going to bite the AMC in the ass at some point.
Here are some illustrative scenarios (note- Ralph and Dave are based on actual former RVCs I’ve served with):
Scenario 1
Gilda is a cantankerous member of Region 11, and has a history of being a bit of a troll online, though usually clever enough to stay one millimeter back from crossing the line. Ralph is the RVC for Region 11. He was elected on a platform of “All AMC members are power-hungry idiots who want to squash free speech.” Ralph is close friends with Gilda.
In the Region 11 community, Gilda gets into a conflict with Rosa. At one point, Gilda posts “Oh come on, @Rosa, everyone should know the REAL reason you are such a fan of tacos at events. You’d better lick those juices carefully--one of these times, you may find yourself choking on a razor blade.”
Other members complain to Ralph that Gilda’s post was outing Rosa as a lesbian and making a veiled threat. Ralph decides to let it stay, either because he’s oblivious, because he’s buddies with Gilda, because of that awkward result when he tried to “flirt” with Rosa back in an Asilomar hot tub, or because of his strong belief in being completely hands-off as an administrator.
In this instance, when members shift the complaints upwards to the Comm Officer, it is entirely possible that the CO, after talking to plenty of people, will determine that the Minimum Standards were violated (Gilda revealed confidential personal information about Rosa’s sexual orientation and made an implied threat of violence). The CO goes back to Ralph, who refuses to take the post down or sanction Gilda in any way.
In this scenario, the CO should rescind Ralph’s decision to let Gilda’s taunt to Rosa stand and take action—Gilda’s actions were against the governing documents of AML.
Scenario 2
Gilda and Rosa get into an online tussle. Rosa posts something about Gilda being a member of MidState Mensa, which is widely known as a hotbed of anti-microchip fanatics. Gilda complains that Rosa violated the Minimum Standards by outing her as a member of that particular Local Group. Ralph takes the post down and suspends Rosa from posting for a month because she posted confidential information.
Rosa complains to the CO, who looks into it and determines that which LG a member belongs to is NOT confidential information and Ralph’s decision, based on Rosa violating the Minimum Standards, was incorrect. The CO contacts Ralph, who simply responds with “butt out.” In this scenario, depending on many factors, the CO should consider rescinding Ralph’s decision and reinstate Rosa.
Scenario 3
Region 12’s RVC, Dave, is a nice guy but very quiet. So quiet, in fact, that he doesn’t participate in AMC discussions, has excuses for not attending AMC meetings, never visits his Groups, and hasn’t sent his editors an RVC column all year. Basically, he’s gone AWOL. He never appointed an assistant or moderators for his Mensa Connect community. The whole situation is weird and the AMC has started to look into maybe replacing him, but that process is long and arduous.
In the Region 12 Mensa Connect community, a couple members dust it up pretty obnoxiously. Members complain, but the RVC doesn’t answer, so the concerns get kicked up to the CO. In this scenario, the CO should probably rescind Dave’s “decision” to ignore his responsibility to tend to his community.
No comments:
Post a Comment