Oh, I'm not forcing Farawen to call herself a B77ers.
I didn't mean to suggest that anyone was trying to force anyone else to do something. I'm just saying, other people will probably continue to think of Farawen as a b77er, even if you can't convince her that she is and
even if she doesn't think of herself that way.
Remember how we used to say that everybody should be able to have their say on here? That no voice should ever be silenced? I think we forgot one vital part when we came up with that plan - the protection of minorities; of dissenting opinions.
Are you saying that not everybody is able to have their say on b77? That some voices -- minority opinion voices -- are silenced? Do you mean that minority voices are silenced by a greater number of people advocating a different position, which then drowns out or intimidates the person voicing a minority opinion?
"Respect" works only as long as there are respectful people on both sides. And the Bikeracks may be a nifty thing, but it is my honest opinion that they don't solve everything. That's also the reason I won't participate in "my" thread in the Bikeracks.
So are you saying that there are some people here not being respectful, and that you object to our not having a Charter provision that forces people to be respectful, and to solve every personal conflict that arises? If that is what you mean, what sort of provision, practically speaking, do you envision that would provide for that kind of assurance?
Ethel's board was slandered on this board, publicly, repeatedly, and while many of you stood up and defended her there was, and still is, no policy in place on here that may have prevented that, or provided retributions. The person that slandered the loudest is an admin on here now.
You seemed to say above that it is important for all voices to be heard. Do you mean that someone shouldn't have been allowed to comment negatively about Ethel's board? That there should be a by-law that allows for a hearing when someone makes comments that other posters find objectionable? That if Ethel has a problem with what some person said, the Bike Racks aren't an adequate way to address that?
"We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness." Well, we've obviously failed if someone like Ethel leaves this community.
My understanding is that Ethel found the apparent wilko thread outcome unacceptable (putting rules above people's feelings is how I understood it), and that is why she said she can't be part of this board. Are you implying that her leaving has something to do with the comments made after she started her own messageboard (I am not familiar with the specifics of that)? I just think it would be helpful not to give a wrong impression about why Ethel doesn't want to be here.
I don't think it's correct to say that if someone like Ethel leaves the community, we've 'failed'. Not every good and fine person is necessarily going to like it here, even if we 'succeed'. There may be some democratically-arrived-at decisions that they just can't accept, or they may just not like the atmosphere or lack of authority here.
It's about establishing processes, and democratic means of creating and changing them, and NOT imposing a desired effect from on high.
Exactly. It seems, Farawen, that you aren't happy about some of the decisions that have been made democratically, and so b77 isn't a place you could be proud of belonging to. This is exactly what happened to me with respect to TORC. Once I realized the sorts of attitudes that prevailed on high, TORC was no longer a place I could be proud of belonging to.