board77

Lets strip the chater as we intended and then propose **radical methods of governing the board. One thing at a time.

**I'm not using radical to be insulting

TheMary wrote:

Wait Iavas it sounds like you want to work around those without the ability to control themselves. Which seems ass backwards to me. Expecting people to be respectful isn't asking too much.

Yeah but when they aren't what are we going to do? Keep erupting? When someone does something you don't like, do you HAVE to call them out on it or can you just ignore/duck around the issue? Is it so hard to ask for people to pick their battles?

I'm using "you" in the most general sense. This is a problem we face IRL, not just on the boards. If my youngest sister is capable of self-control, tolerance, and respect she's got one helluva way of showing it. My family has to pick battles with her. More often that not we just let her behavior slide. She's 19. We've ben trying to teach her manners since day one. The lesson has not taken. I have a co-worker who likes to goad people into insanity, especially if they've shown even a smidge of pride in what they've done. SHe's a bit competitive. I got a result recently that's going to be a major paper. Right now I'm doing experiments that require a set-up that, while it's not elaborate, is a bit different from what we're all used to seeing in the lab, so for some reason this makes me a target (probably because the boss is so excited about the data). I'd call her on it but it's not worth the peace in the lab. I'd spend more time hiding in the cold room but it's too damn cold. So I'm just doing my experiments and hoping that in a week or so I'll have enough data to stop and go back to something that everyone agrees is normal.

I'm sure most of us have encountered similar shit. So why not take the lessons learned IRL and bring them here?

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me River because I agree with what you are saying and that's what I was getting at with my post (well I was trying anyway ).

Quote:

Lets strip the chater as we intended and then propose **radical methods of governing the board. One thing at a time.

Well I'm proposing that stripping the charter might turn out to be a waste of time and effort, when going back to how we were could yield better results with a fraction of the effort.

I personally think way too much time has been spent on it already. Who wants to come online for several weeks in order to discuss fine-tuning governance procedures? Is all that input going to significantly change anything? I don't think so. Spare yourselves the headache..

It might be a waste of time but it might not be. That's the chance I'm willing to take. If we work with what we have it'll at least leave us with a cushion if other methods don't work.

What's so wrong with taking things one step at a time?

TheMary wrote:

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me River because I agree with what you are saying and that's what I was getting at with my post (well I was trying anyway ).

Sorry. I guess I misunderstood. Happens to me a lot. :/

I for one see nothing wrong with taking things one at a time. That's really the only way to see results without getting confounded by other variables.

Of course, anytime you're dealing with groups of people, everything is confounded from the get-go. But maybe the small fix is all we need. We just have to wait and see.

Iavas, I proposed scrapping the charter in another thread. It went over like a lead balloon. Maybe the board isn't ready for that step yet.

I for one haven't noticed much differenc ebetween pre- and post-Charter, but maybe I joined too late to notice.

Yay! Jnyusa's back!

*huggles the Jnyusa*

Are y'all still arguing in here? Sheesh. You folks obviously have WAY too much spare time. Can I have some?

We aren't arguing Fixer, this is called discussion.

Who was I talking to about the differences I see between arguments and discussions? Bah, doesn't matter.

To me, an argument is when people do more talking and less listening. They defend their ideas and ask questions only to deflect unwanted comments. They often make directly personal remarks.

To me, a discussion is when people do more listening and less talking. They ask questions to truly understand each other instead of trying to protect their position. Directed personal remarks are rare and generally limited to things like, "That is a good idea, XXX," or, "Perhaps we should discuss that later, XXX."

Perhaps you can see why I defined this thread as I did.

*checks in again tomorrow, same Bat time, same Bat channel....*

Perhaps the first few pages were arguing but the last couple haven't been. I forgot about the first pages full of snippy behavior. My bad

Quote:

It might be a waste of time but it might not be. That's the chance I'm willing to take. If we work with what we have it'll at least leave us with a cushion if other methods don't work.

By my proposal we would still have it as a cushion to fall back on if things didn't work out.


Anthy, I'm sorry I forgot to answer you until now:

Quote:

Iavas, I understand your points, and I believe they have much validity. But I cannot understand, as hard as I have tried to, how the charter even existing is a problem. It's not that I want to smash down your argument, Iavas.... I just don't understand that point, which I believe is key to your argument.

It's not so much that the charter even existing is a problem, it's that I can't see any reason for it to exist any longer, now that we know it's ourselves we have to worry about, not outsiders.

I apologize, but I have to disagree. I can see plenty of reasons for the charter existing and I have listed them numerous times.

Okay.. but how is the board better off overall because of it?

Whatever minor benefits it's made, we got on better as a community without it, partly for the reasons I listed earlier.

Put it this way, a dispute is more likely to be destructive when someone is being accused of violating the charter, instead of two people simply being unhappy with each other. We saw it numerous times on the closed board, where an arguement would flare up, nasty comments would be made, but after just a day or two they would realise it wasn't worth it. Now, instead of a few days, disputes last weeks.

There may be some reasons for the charter to exist. But IMO there are more important reasons for it not to exist.

Iavas, those of you who just posted here and didn't involve yourself in trying to keep the place running smoothly would not see a reason for the Charter to exist. I'm not surprised that Eru disagrees with you because she was involved then and is involved now, and she knows how impossible things were then to get anything done. I think her opinion on this subject is more worthy of consideration then yours, because of the experience that she has had, and the dedication that she has shown. No offense intended to you.

Nor do I believe that the problems that occurred here had anything to do with the Charter. Rather, they had to do with people forgetting some of the values that the Charter attempted to protect - those of respect and civility. It was the seeming abandonment of those values that made me conclude that this was not a community that I wanted to continue to be a part of. That would have been the case with or without the Charter.

I am most encouraged by some of the things that TM has written in the past few pages. If those values again become part of the governing atmosphere at board77 I will consider coming back as regular poster here. If not, I won't. In my opinion, it is more likely that will be possible with a Charter that attempts to balance the basic ideal of free expression with those of courtesy and respect then without such a Charter.

And that having been said, I have to add that I think my opinion is less worthy of consideration in this matter then either yours or Eru's, since I am not currently a regularly contributing member, and don't expect to be any time in the near future.

Quote:

Iavas, those of you who just posted here and didn't involve yourself in trying to keep the place running smoothly would not see a reason for the Charter to exist. I'm not surprised that Eru disagrees with you because she was involved then and is involved now, and knows how impossible things were then get anything done.

But aside from making some admin-y type stuff (which is what I've seen Eru remark on) that doesn't impact the vast majority of users, how has the charter done anything but give us extra stuff to argue about?

Sorry to go back a couple of pages here, but I've been at school.

Quote:

The suggestion that you are too concerned with details at the expense of the board's harmony might have been made. I can't say for sure. Only Elfshadow can.

It was meant as more of an observation rather than an accusation, and was not directed at Jny specifically, but yes, that's pretty much the gist of what I was saying. I understand that there is a need for some concrete rules for administrative purposes, but there is a fine line between order and guidelines, and a Charter that's just too complex and convoluted to be of any use. I voted "no" on the poll because the Charter really does need to be simplified. It shouldn't be thrown out of the window, because we need a document that sets up the board's foundation and basic rules. It seems to me that the the more details the Charter has, the easier it is for people to argue about it. There is no perfect form of government IRL or otherwise, and it's nearly impossible to find that balance point where the Charter is functional and workable, not too broad and not too specific. I think that the committee should continue to try to simplify the Charter to the best of their abilities...and it's up to the people of the board to work with the product.

Thanks for the comments V, and no offense taken.

I will basically say the same as yov, the charter hasn't benefited the majority. It has affected everyone here, either directly or indirectly. I can only express how the charter has affected me, and my opinion of how it's affected the community as a whole. I think an outside view on how it's affected the community is as important as an inside view - infact, I think an outside view (meaning those not involved in admin etc) of the community is likely to be more objective.

Also, I will continue to say that the charter itself shares some of the responsibility for the problems we've encountered recently, and I'll repeat the reasons:

Iavas wrote:

The charter makes conflicts worse because a) the meaning of the charter is just another thing to disagree about, b) the charter can come across as more important to some people than the community, and c) something like a jury hearing just drags the process out so it can't be resolved quickly. The bad feelings will persist as long as the "system" is still dealing with the conflict.

I just wanted to drop by and give big hugs to all the people in here, who are working hard on communicating without going insane and starting Board War Three.



It's not easy, so you guys really deserve big cheers.

Elfshadow wrote:

It seems to me that the the more details the Charter has, the easier it is for people to argue about it.

The opposite could quite easily be argued as open-ended and vague statements can have numerous interpretations.

Iavas wrote:

It has affected everyone here, either directly or indirectly.

The charter hasn't done anything. The problem is not the charter. The problem is the way people have acted. Getting rid of the charter will not solve anything. Those determined to bicker, complain, and attack will always find a way to do so.

Quote:

The charter hasn't done anything. The problem is not the charter. The problem is the way people have acted. Getting rid of the charter will not solve anything. Those determined to bicker, complain, and attack will always find a way to do so.

The problem is BOTH.

The bickering has been here from the early days. But before the charter came along, it was usually sorted out pretty quickly. The charter has worsened the effects of the bickering, making it escalate far more than it would have done previously.

Getting rid of the charter won't eliminate conflicts, but it should lessen them.