On governance
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2011, 03:56 PM
 
RE: On governance
Against my better judgment – one last comment.

When I left Hungary, I escaped from one dictatorship.

I do not wish to be part of another.

The OP spelled out the options for governance. Stark admitted it is a one-person Autocracy. Buddy told me to stop complaining and Lilith told me to stop whining.

I believe the Forum needs a FUNDAMENTAL change in its decision-making practices, where members can provide meaningful input and not depend on the Emperor’s good will.

This is not a slight at Stark, he has done an admirable job so far but now the job grew over his head. I respect his decision to step down.

You need someone who can organize things in a clear, functional and flexible way, where the rules are well understood by everyone and being INCONSIDERATE of others is not tolerated.

I have not made my recommendation yet, but now I suggest the following:

You guys should democratically elect a group of people who will run the Forum in full consultation with each other and, if necessary, in very important decisions, holding referendums with the entire Forum population. Their term should be subject to renewal on a yearly basis and, in extreme cases, by recall if necessary.

The rules of participation should be clearly defined, at least in principle, and violators should be subject to consequences spelled out in the ‘constitution' (for lack of better words). The 'Warning Level" feature of the software could be used for this.

The decision to ban someone should be made by unanimous vote of the governing board, after very careful consideration.

I suggest you keep the freedom of speech: offending someone by language or innuendo, should not be considered a ‘crime’. If someone does not have a thick enough skin, (s)he should not be in Forums.

However, disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated.

I guess that’s it in a nutshell, I am sure you will think about it and make the decisions that you can live with.

Good luck to you all. Smile

Over and out.
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 04:02 PM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2011 04:26 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: On governance
Defacto, The apparent 'caste' you are refering to couldn't contain a more diverse set of people. Stark Raving, Ashley Hunt, BnW, Buddy Christ, Lillith Pride, Zatamon, and I probably cover every spectrum of different you can imagine...

We still get allong just fine. WTF was all that up there? Huh
(07-12-2011 03:56 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  I have not made my recommendation yet, but now I suggest the following:

You guys should democratically elect a group of people who will run the Forum in full consultation with each other and, if necessary, in very important decisions, holding referendums with the entire Forum population. Their term should be subject to renewal on a yearly basis and, in extreme cases, by recall if necessary.

The rules of participation should be clearly defined, at least in principle, and violators should be subject to consequences spelled out in the ‘constitution' (for lack of better words). The 'Warning Level" feature of the software could be used for this.

The decision to ban someone should be made by unanimous vote of the governing board, after very careful consideration.

I suggest you keep the freedom of speech: offending someone by language or innuendo, should not be considered a ‘crime’. If someone does not have a thick enough skin, (s)he should not be in Forums.

However, disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated.

I guess that’s it in a nutshell, I am sure you will think about it and make the decisions that you can live with.

Good luck to you all. Smile

Over and out.

Well, sounds good in theory... Does anyone know how much work this is in practice? So we really want to get bogged down with voting on each decision to kick a user or other petty changes?

It's fine with me as long as I don't have to do the work managing it all.
Dictatorships work fine if it's the right kind of person. Stark hardly ever used his power and certainly never abused it.

I'd like to see 1 person step up who would actually implement a system like this that works. How many people actually vote on things? are they consistent. Should decisiont be left to stew for a couple days/weeks to make sure all the votes are in?

Has anyone really though this through?

Even if I implemented some script to make user kicking decisions democratic - go to a page and vote yes/no next to each user up for dicussion. It still has the potential to be easily corrupted just like an evil dictator.

We aren't running a country here ffs... No one here dies or starves at the hands of the admin staff.

Unless I say so... Angel

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
07-12-2011, 04:31 PM
RE: On governance
That's the problem DeepThought, no-one has properly thought this through, I can't even take all this seriously. It's a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to one minor problem and it's totally ridiculous, notice how certain people are banging on about 'democracy' and 'listening to everyone' even though the majority of the forum don't want change. The entire concept of bringing in a democracy that the majority don't want is laughable.

And defacto is just having a bitch fit and throwing his toys about because he's not getting his own way. He's in a tiny minority yet still expects everyone to do things his way whilst calling for democracy. Says everything about him in my eyes.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
07-12-2011, 05:46 PM
RE: On governance
Yep I agree with hughsie. Shit wasn't broke until someone said it was. Now everything is all fucked up.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: On governance
sorry that I upset you Zatamon but i was reacting. I'm trying to actually fix everything and I can't do it without getting the information. Very few people actually want things banned. I agreed with bearded dude at the beginning and the reason I singled out buddy's comment is that it's a different system.

In most forums it is possible to make separate forums so that the new threads don't have to include everything. If the excess nonsensical talk posts can go into a quarantined area that's a bit different than a filter system where each user picks the sections they like. Most of what I'm tired of is that there were 4 different threads on the rating system as if it needed to be complained about in 4 separate topics. I'm just seeing a bit much. I'm not trying to belittle people especially you Zatamon. I've been right here listening and attempting to come up with answers. And then asking for what else is a problem when it's not enough.

I'm not here to cater to a clique I'm here to cater to everyone, and everyone does happen to mean the people who aren't bothered along with the ones who are. If we make huge changes it's not fun for those who like things the way they are so I'm just trying to keep it simple. Sorry if my language is offensive, but my life right now is pretty hectic. I've ran student groups, chaired activist groups and ran forums. When changes are asked for they usually throw everything out of order. You have to contain the changes needed or no one will be happy. If we take too big a step it's possible things just spiral further so I'm looking for a nice simple response. Sorry to offend you, I've just had too many schism issues with groups.

and for the record I've been in many chair positions. what tends to happen is a few people want something done and they do it. The democratic system is an autocracy with a fail-safe system. Generally no one cares to vote about anything unless they are upset. And stark has never failed to ask others opinions about issues.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 07:04 PM
 
RE: On governance
Lilith, I am not upset. Not any more. When I accepted to be a mod, I assumed I would have a voice. I tried to use it. Nobody was listening. So what's the point?

I chuckled at lucradis's comment that it wasn't broken until somebody said it was. If that was all it took to break it -- then it was broken.

I was also amused by Hughsie finding the idea of democracy ridiculous. Where does he live?

And DeepThought wanting to have a smoothly working system without some people actually doing the work it requires -- I wish him luck!

I really meant when I said I wish you guys luck and hope that you can sort out your problems. Because problems you do have now.

No hard feelings!
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 07:07 PM
RE: On governance
(07-12-2011 07:04 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  I was also amused by Hughsie finding the idea of democracy ridiculous. Where does he live?

I didn't say democracy was ridiculous. I said that to make this forum democratic would mean going against the wishes of the majority. That would seem to defeat the whole object to me.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 07:17 PM
 
RE: On governance
Hughsie, if the majority does not want democracy, then I do not want the majority!

So it seems to be a win-win situation! Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 07:34 PM
RE: On governance
This is all very disturbing and sad. I don't really know what to say tbh. I think there are problems and they require action but not really sure how.... Before I have any opinion I would like to hear more from Stark on how the moderating is affecting him ie: has this site grown so large it requires a committee? etc
If I can help in any way please ask as I can and will make time if necessary.
People please chill and love each other Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2011, 07:53 PM
RE: On governance
What we have now is a pseudo democracy, the forum is consulted about issues and the forum staff attempt to implement what most people want. What are we doing here? Zatamon complains that he doesn't have a voice and here he is voicing his opinion. The irony...

Zatamon, It's all well and good if you want a forum to be run a certain way but I don't see you stepping up to make a system like what you propose work.
It certainly takes more than 1 person to make that work. Coming up with ideas is easy.

(07-12-2011 07:04 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  DeepThought wanting to have a smoothly working system without some people actually doing the work it requires -- I wish him luck!
Do you want to pay someone to manage this forum full time?

You said it yourself, democracy creates bureaucratic burden where it isn't required. I see it as unworkable unless you have a better idea?

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: