The Defenestration Chamber

Here it is, a big, wide open window. On a great height. I propose that if and when we are assaulted by marauding bands or individual trolls that we summarily eject them from the hallowed halls of the Machine Nation from this point.

Looks like you are in trouble with the Gutenberg crowd AT..

Anyway, What the feck is defenestration ? Is it removing all the windows from a house ?

Quote :

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
defenestration
1620, "the action of throwing out of a window," from L. fenestra "window." A word invented for one incident: the "Defenestration of Prague," May 21, 1618, when two Catholic deputies to the Bohemian national assembly and a secretary were tossed out the window (into a moat) of the castle of Hradshin by Protestant radicals. It marked the start of the Thirty Years War. Some linguists link fenestra with Gk. verb phainein "to show;" others see in it an Etruscan borrowing, based on the suffix -(s)tra, as in L. loan-words aplustre "the carved stern of a ship with its ornaments," genista "the plant broom," lanista "trainer of gladiators."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

OK. So why on earth do we have a 'throwing out a window' chamber ?

Hardly good for the community spirit. What was AT thinking.

tut tut.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Looks like you are in trouble with the Gutenberg crowd AT..

The Gutenberg crowd? Eah? Is this a new political bloc in the Machine Nation?

Quote :

OK. So why on earth do we have a 'throwing out a window' chamber ?

Hardly good for the community spirit. What was AT thinking.

tut tut.

We have it in the case of an invasion by a pernicious, perfidious trolls, we have a facility to deal with that threat. Our community spirit is defended by strong anti-troll policies. My only concern is the wealth and health of the Machine Nation. We must protect it.

And what controls do we have in place to prevent abuse of these defenestration mechanisms? It seems objectionable to me that an unelected elite should have a monopoly on windows.

"When windows are outlawed, only outlaws will have windows"

evercloserunion wrote:

And what controls do we have in place to prevent abuse of these defenestration mechanisms? It seems objectionable to me that an unelected elite should have a monopoly on windows.

"When windows are outlawed, only outlaws will have windows"

There is a Charter above. People thrown out the opened (we like to be fair) window may look in the door and appeal their case. Have you read the Charter ? Issuing legal threats against other members, for example, is a banning offence. Revealing the identity of any member who would prefer to have their indentity kept private is a banning offence.

I think the Charter is too liberal myself but it's open for argument.

And there I was thinking this is going to be a thread about heat loss and the need to reduce window sizes and reintroduce taxation on glass.

Auditor #9 wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

And what controls do we have in place to prevent abuse of these defenestration mechanisms? It seems objectionable to me that an unelected elite should have a monopoly on windows.

"When windows are outlawed, only outlaws will have windows"

There is a Charter above. People thrown out the opened (we like to be fair) window may look in the door and appeal their case. Have you read the Charter ? Issuing legal threats against other members, for example, is a banning offence. Revealing the identity of any member who would prefer to have their indentity kept private is a banning offence.

I think the Charter is too liberal myself but it's open for argument.

I very much like the rule against threatening legal action. I think that's happened on P.ie a few times, it's very bad form and really damages the atmosphere of the board. All in all, a good Charter. But I think the best thing about the board right now is that we don't have to refer to it too often and I think that when a strict enforceable body of rules is the only thing holding a site together as opposed to general decency and civility, the problem may already have gone too far. Try as they might, rules cannot themselves establish a favourable atmosphere on a forum.

evercloserunion wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

And what controls do we have in place to prevent abuse of these defenestration mechanisms? It seems objectionable to me that an unelected elite should have a monopoly on windows.

"When windows are outlawed, only outlaws will have windows"

There is a Charter above. People thrown out the opened (we like to be fair) window may look in the door and appeal their case. Have you read the Charter ? Issuing legal threats against other members, for example, is a banning offence. Revealing the identity of any member who would prefer to have their indentity kept private is a banning offence.

I think the Charter is too liberal myself but it's open for argument.

I very much like the rule against threatening legal action. I think that's happened on P.ie a few times, it's very bad form and really damages the atmosphere of the board. All in all, a good Charter. But I think the best thing about the board right now is that we don't have to refer to it too often and I think that when a strict enforceable body of rules is the only thing holding a site together as opposed to general decency and civility, the problem may already have gone too far. Try as they might, rules cannot themselves establish a favourable atmosphere on a forum.

An excellent paragraph by you - itself could perhaps have been part of the Charter or such pieces collected into the briefest summary of the Charter - i.e. a two paragraph summary.

Somehow I think the Charter was more of an enjoyable exercise in creation than it was a necessary exercise in precaution.