board77

Thanks, Hobby.

Turning back to the original topic ( ), this discussion really mirrors the discussion that we had in the convention about Members Rights and Responsibilities. I think it would be helpful to quote what I said in beginning that discussion:

I wrote:

We come to it at last. The great discussion of our board. I firmly believe that this discussion will form the basis for what board77 becomes. Our Mission Statement, Purpose and Goals will reflect, to a great degree, the rights and responsibilities of our members.

As I see it there are, broadly speaking, two competing interests that need to be balanced in order for us to succeed in creating the kind of community that I think most of us want to have. The first, which I believe many feel is paramount, is the freedom to be ourselves, without fear of censorship or censure. I completely support the value of that interest. But balanced against that value must be a willingness to be sensitive to the views and sensibilities of others. I know for a fact that there are some very worthy people who have stayed away from board77 precisely because of the lack of the "self-censorship that is so essential for any civilized body" as one good friend of mine who no longer posts here so aptly put it.

I would like to see there be some kind of statement in the article on Member's Rights and Responsibilities that encourages members to consider how other people will react to the things that they post. Not to compromise our values or our selves, not to fail to be ourselves, but just to think first about how the other person(s) will react. SO MANY of the disputes and hard feelings that arise can be avoided by this simple action.

Now, in looking at the Members Rights and Responsibilities that we ended up with with the benefit of some hindsight, I have to say that I believe that we succeeded in balancing these two interests extremely well.

Freedom of expression continues to be of paramount importance, as it should in a community who's sole purpose is for people to exchange ideas. However, that freedom of expression is clearly limited in cases where a member threatens to disrupt the community. These limitations are enforceable by the Rangers in order to ensure the the stability of the community is not threatened.

But equally important, to my mind, are the unenforceable rights and responsibilities. There are some values that IMHO simply can not be legislated, but or no less important for that. Courtesy and respect come about because people want to be courteous and respectful, and want others to be as well, not because people are forced to be courteous and respectful. And on the whole, I find that the members of board77 do want to be courteous and respectful, even when they disagree with each other.

And that is an encouraging thought.

I do not believe it is possible to legislate respect. It means different things to different people. It is one of those 'grey areas' that can only identified by crossing its boundaries into the disrespectful category and having your attention drawn to that fact. It then becomes the responsibility of the individual to return to the grey area or be ostracized.

Politeness is social lubrication. Without it, unnecessary friction causes damaging heated emotions.

I don't want to even THINK about legislating interpersonal lubrication!

Fixer wrote:

I do not believe it is possible to legislate respect. It means different things to different people. It is one of those 'grey areas' that can only identified by crossing its boundaries into the disrespectful category and having your attention drawn to that fact. It then becomes the responsibility of the individual to return to the grey area or be ostracized.

That's why the charter committee didn't really try to legislate respect. The rules here are results-based—you won't get a hearing for being rude, but you'll get a hearing if and when your repeated rudeness disrupts the board, in the judgment of at least one other member and two Rangers.

Quote:

What kind of impression does it give b77 newbies if people are going on and on about stuff that happened on another board ruddy months ago?

Hi, Di.

In all fairness, I just wanted to point out that it was the opening of the board that brought these issues back to the surface. It isn't as if we've been going on about them the entire time. So we aren't quite as barmy as your words might suggest.

Almost, but not quite.

Voronwe wrote:

And on the whole, I find that the members of board77 do want to be courteous and respectful, even when they disagree with each other.

Exactly!
I think it's human that one forgets about courtesy and respect occasionally, when one feels attacked or hurt.
But in my experience here, it usually happens that when someone freaks out, someone else will say "what's your problem? - Get off it!" or so - and the person will calm down and state their problem more quietly.

That doesn't mean that the group forces them to change their mind - it's up to each individual how soon they change their mind - but the process by which tempers are cooled usually works, I think.
It works because the way the board is set up makes people behave in a responsible manner, not always, but, usually, eventually.

Of course, tempers also rise - a lot!
When I wrote to people telling them of this board, I always put in a caveat saying, this is a place where tempers rise easily and discussion gets intense (maybe that's the reason why only one person I notified actually signed up ) - but I think that's human, and nothing we want to prevent.

I don't think it's the aim of this board to be continually pleasant, continually smiling - what I like here is just the vibrancy that permeates everything. I don't want it to be sedated into no one saying anything someone else might not want to hear!

So, I don't think respect for people's dignity is the same as being always pleasant and smiling.
I think respect for other people's dignity is to let them have their say and to forgive and forget when someone freaks out and later cools down.
It implies a lot of freedom of speech, I think.

However, freedom of speech does not include making repeated personal attacks (ie such as not made in a moment of anger), or trying to discredit someone with other members or things like this.

But we don't want to "punish" anyone even in such a case - we ask them to stop or to explain themselves.
So, there's some more good combination of freedom of speech and protection of dignity, too, I think.

As I said in a previous post, I don't think there is a categorical answer, with proof from philosophical absolutes for one choice or the other.
Freedom of Speech vs Human Dignity is something each of us decides for themselves in each of their posts, and I think we should have some trust that most people make the right decision most of the time.


(Not sure whether that contributes anything helpful, but if felt good up on the soapbox! )

I heard on the radio today a wonderful quote---something like "forgiveness really happens when you let go of the pasts that might have been and reconcile yourself to the past you have."

I agree with others that politeness cannot be required or forced on someone. I can't be accountable for something that let's say, Axordil said. Seems some people want this though. That's just not the way the world works. I can tell him when I think he's stepped over the line and that's about it, unless he breaks the rules.

I don't think we could even come up with a b77 definition of human dignity. It would be akin to what we went through trying to hammer down a mission statement...or even worse. Even if we did come up with that definition, it would be unenforceable.

All in all, I think most people here are polite and respectful and I've never understood where the complaint of hypocrisy comes from....well I do. By telling someone you disagree with them it's taken as "OMG! You're trying to quash the minority opinion! You don't respect me! OMG!!!11". How to stop this, I don't know.

truehobbit wrote:

it's up to each individual how soon they change their mind -

Or if they change it at all.

Ax, wonderful quote. That pertains to me so much right now as I'm struggling with anger/forgiveness IRL. Thanks for sharing it.

Cerin wrote:

In all fairness, I just wanted to point out that it was the opening of the board that brought these issues back to the surface. It isn't as if we've been going on about them the entire time. So we aren't quite as barmy as your words might suggest.

Almost, but not quite.

That's a fair enough point, Cerin and you're quite right.

I hope people don't think that I think all b77ers go on about it all the time either.

Eruname--

Actually, I firmly believe our system protects minority opinions, and I think it should. One of the things I'm trying to do in the current committee, as you probably have noticed, is to make sure not only that people vote, but that opinions that do not become the rule are preserved nonetheless, in case people change their mind down the line, or want to figure out what we were actually discussing, or whatever.

However, there are times when a majority opinion has to be the rule, without exception. It's like that in RL too. You can't have a stop sign that applies only to those willing to stop.

Axordil wrote:

Actually, I firmly believe our system protects minority opinions, and I think it should.

I believe that too, but there are people who seem to believe otherwise. I honestly think that some people take a person (or many people) saying "I think you are wrong/incorrect/mistaken" as an attempt to silence the minority. I don't though. I think that those people are also just expressing their opinion which they also have a right to do.

Quote:

One of the things I'm trying to do in the current committee, as you probably have noticed, is to make sure not only that people vote, but that opinions that do not become the rule are preserved nonetheless, in case people change their mind down the line, or want to figure out what we were actually discussing, or whatever.

Excellent idea.

Quote:

However, there are times when a majority opinion has to be the rule, without exception.

This is probably where the mistaken perception that there is a board attitude comes from. It's a shame that the people who don't hold with the majority get lumped into it...especially in those close votes. It's a lot like here in America. Bush has been elected by a majority, but it would be very unfair to say that those millions who did not vote for him must have the same attitude as him just because they are Americans. Each and every person has their own set of beliefs....same for this board.

I don't want to even THINK about legislating interpersonal lubrication!

But I bet Ang has an emoticon for this, Maria.

In my earlier post that got eaten by the aether, I was going to say that 'dignity' is not only a bit different for each person, it's also different for an individual at different points in their life.

For most of our childhood, right through teenagerhood, I think that our notion of dignity is dominated by avoidance of humiliation. (One of the reasons I oppose corporeal punishment except in very rare cases, btw, because of the humiliation factor.) Certainly for teenagers this is paramount.

When we get older I think our notion of dignity becomes more complex and contains more elements of free expression. We want not only to passively avoid humiliation but also to actively receive acknowledgment of our contribution to the relationships we are in. We want to be heard. And because everyone wants that, the notion of dignity is very much bound up with the virtue of listening. And with the skill of speaking in such a way that our speech invites others to respond.

Responsiveness, response-ability, is where these two values meet, I think - the right of each person to express themselves and the right of each person to preserve their dignity.

If anothef person enters into a dialogue with us (generic us) solely for the purpose of inciting conflict, all we can do, I think, is get really good at recognizing that, and then get really good at refusing to respond in the anticipated way, by giving in to anger, by going over the top, etc.

But finding the right "response" ... as opposed to the right answer ... this really takes a lot of experience. It's something that we continue learning throughout our lives because there are just so many different kinds of people in the world.

Jn

I know it's tempting for some to try it, but I think it's a mistake to believe true human dignity can be enforced by rules or laws.

We have build a culture of respect and dignity honestly through our own free actions. And people need to resolve their disputes on their own, without appealing to board rules or getting third parties involved so much.

Quote:

I know it's tempting for some to try it, but I think it's a mistake to believe true human dignity can be enforced by rules or laws.

Wow. You just said a mouthful there. Very true, and I'd go farther to say that those who want to view their dignity as insulted will always find a way to do so. Likewise, those who are actually disrespectful will always find a way to get that through as well.

Very well said, 10Ft.

Good points 10FT. Especially this part as I think this has been happening in more than a few situations:

Quote:

those who want to view their dignity as insulted will always find a way to do so.

On the other hand, I think people must not claim "freedom of expression" as an excuse to harm other people's dignity and then just say "oh you are just complaining about your dignity because you can't abide contradiction"!

It's a fine line we tread here all the time we post.

I haven't read this whole thread, so forgive me if I either a) repeat what has been said or b) further beat a dead horse.

I really don't think you can ask the question stated in the poll, which is why I haven't answered it. You can't have free expression without dignity, and you can't have dignity without free expression. There's responsibility that comes with both - you can say or do what you want, but you'd better be damn well prepared to accept the consequences. Trample on another person's dignity, and people will get offended and even call you out on it That is their right. One of the beautiful things about B77, and my hat is off to whoever came up with the Bike Racks, is we have a place to send the major drama. Too many places on the net either try to hush it all up or leave it in the open, where people who don't want to get involved have to wade through the disaster.


I guess what I'm getting at is this. We're debating protecting dignity or protecting free speech, but without one you can't have the other. I guess I'm on the side of protecting speech, but holding people accountable for that speech. B77 already does that though.