board77

It's a fair point Iavas, but I wonder if its a little late for that. Many of the stabilising influences are now gone. I hope nobody is offended by that characterisation.

Hello Jnyusa, have your questions been answered? Do you have a better understanding of what we are doing here?


This next part isn't related to the above part of my post it's just a general rambling. It's hard to read emotion online and with the past events it's hard not to take stuff personally *guilty of this sometimes*. Lets all take what is written at face value and ask for clairty if we feel there was a certain tone presented. I know TED has already done this

I asked for this poll because it seemed there are a bunch of people that think doing anything with the charter is pointless so instead of wasting the committee's time I thought having a poll would give us insight into what the board wants.

I'm pretty sure that if the majority of people vote to leave the charter alone, I'm gonna leave the committee.

Can I say that though I voted no, and though I still would like the committee to continue if they feel up to it because I think the Charter would benefit from some streamlining, if in the end the simplification process is dropped or postponed then no great harm is done. We can and have worked quite well with what we currently have.
We can work on the principle of patch it when we come to it. Much as we attempted with ToE and the Bike Racks. Or we can bite small chunks off at a time It isn't the business of changing or using what we have, it is the anger that some people express about things or the unpleasant way they conduct themselves.

I voted "No".

And I must admit, Iavas' vision of an "equal rights anarchy" has the sweet smell of lost Valinor around it. Because, as anyone may admit, a functional anarchy demands much of its citizens; much more self-discipline, respect, and care.
I want the charter simplified and - in some places - rewritten because its numerous paragraphs and ramifications make it difficult to work with. That's all. I still admire the creators of the charter for what they've done. But it must be made simpler.

I agree with Tosh's post above. I voted "no" after much thought and after reading the pro's and con's here. And, like Tosh said, while I would like to see the committee's work continue, if it doesn't go forward right now it's not a huge deal. I think the Charter needs some tweaking, especially as we've actually had to implement parts of it recently. It's good that it can be revisited and revised, as needed. But, if the wounds are still too fresh, then that work can be put off for a while. Or it can be broken down into smaller chunks. Eru has expressed several times now that she would really like to see the Mayor stuff revised. Perhaps the committee could focus their attentions there first.

I do support the committee and the work they are trying to do. Toward that end, if there's anything they need me to do administratively to help their progress, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll just keep from here.


Lali

Quote:

And I must admit, Iavas' vision of an "equal rights anarchy" has the sweet smell of lost Valinor around it. Because, as anyone may admit, a functional anarchy demands much of its citizens; much more self-discipline, respect, and care.

But it seems the charter has been too demanding of its citizens too. I'm not saying that having no charter would be trouble-free, only that the troubles might be less damaging than they are now.

When a conflict arose before the charter, I always got the sense that a feeling of "Hey guys, remember we're a fellowship here, lets get past this" sorted things out more quickly than having strict procedures to follow.

People's beahvior is to blame for the conflict. Not the charter. Yes the charter started disucssion that escalated into insults and rudeness, but ultamately individuals behavior was to blame. Changing the charter will not modify people's bahvior only the individual can do that.

I voted no. That's because I feel the charter could do with simplification. However I will fight tooth and nail against anyone who simply tries to throw it all out and work of a set of vague guidelines.

Quote:

People's beahvior is to blame for the conflict. Not the charter. Yes the charter started disucssion that escalated into insults and rudeness, but ultamately individuals behavior was to blame. Changing the charter will not modify people's bahvior only the individual can do that.

Again, I'm not saying there would be no problems without a charter, or that the charter is the root cause of problems, only that it seems to compound existing problems. As you say, getting rid of it wouldn't stop the unhelpful behaviour, but it might atleast make that behaviour less damaging to the community.

The best we can hope for is a community with the least flaws, not one with no flaws.

Alatar - I'm seriously considering asking if there's any support for throwing it out completely - or atleast suspending it for a time, because I really find it hard to see what decent improvements it has ever made to the community.

Good God, Mummpy, MUST I sw00n for you again?




VERY well said.

Tosh: You are so wise!

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.

I really think that the TIMING of this simplification idea is somewhat unfortunate. That because the idea of tweaking the Charter came right at the height of the past ugliness (... I haven't thought of a catchy phrase like "TORCquake" for this one... "B77rricane" isn't quite zippy enough...) there is some implication that we are trying to prevent another such occurrence by "fixing" the Charter.

So MANY people have come in to say that we cannot "fix" our problems here by "fixing" the Charter. That idea, implied, at least, in the timing of this project, is like... I dunno.... everyone clammering to change the tire on the cab when the cabbie overcharges you. Sure, the tire probably was a bit low on pressure, but you're still out 10 bucks. You know what I mean?

So let's focus on that tire... I think it could use a little air puffed into it. I'm voting "no" in this poll.

But I, and many others, are still out 10 bucks. And I miss it.

For what it is worth (please don't yell at me!) I did understand that Jny was being completely serious in her questions here, (don't yell!) and I actually had to ask a trusted friend what people were talking about with the reactions they posted here.

Please don't yell! I'm just trying to be honest here! I'm still hurting from yesterday....

Maybe it's because I am a "J", too? I think better where there is order, and goals? It's not that I am judging people for NOT doing these things, just... I can't get a handle on stuff if it's not fairly well defined. I was totally fine with the informality of the poll, btw... I did see it mentioned in the JR, and I think that helped.

But I understand why Jn... who may be more organized than even I am ... would want some parameters defined. She did ask a bit bluntly, I suppose.

Perhaps we can all try to just put EXTRA kindness padding in our words, for now?


Anyway,


Edit: JEEZ you guys are posting speed fiends! Mary said exactly what I was thinking...

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.

Not I'm not being hypocritical I'm trying to see the error of my ways and fix that because I know I have this problem.

Despite a few proposals to that effect I don't think for a moment that the current committee has any intention at all of dumping the Charter. I think the problem they have is that the work is difficult and time consuming. Keep the good ideas coming but I expect they would also appreciate a little patience too.

I'm with Iavas on this one -- interpersonal differences will exist in any context -- the problem I've been seeing is that the interpersonal differences have occurred/are occurring in a substrate that is very furtile ground for magnifying rather than diminishing conflict. Rules set in motion dynamics that of necessity take away some controls from those who become subjected to them. They create imperatives that require people to operate within certain constraints. Many people resist constraints, some because the constraints actually impact that person in a way that he or she views as negatively, others simply because the thought of constraints is offensive. People have very in-grained foundational views regarding issues of authority and conformity with culture and society. All this underlying "muck" gets stirred up when a simple interpersonal dispute gets cast into a "political" system. Further, the finite number of "slings and arrows" that are involved in the dispute then get greatly magnified when the rules call for procedures -- engineered to ensure due process and protection of stated rights -- that effectively require that those "slings and arrows" get stated and restated and restated again, then get probed with a fine toothcomb and discussed and picked apart, which then raises further issues of intent and meaning -- processes that, I think, pretty much invariably greatly increase the pain caused by the original offense. There are contexts in which this type of process is worth it. I haven't seen the slightest iota of evidence that this is such a context.

As for practical issues, I don't see any evidence that the "opened" nature of this board makes the rule-less nature of the previously "closed" board fundamentally different. I haven't seen any fundamental problems caused by the new crowd as compared to the old crowd. We are not awash in hordes of new people that need to be properly processed and aculturated to this society. Admittedly, a completely rule-less board does leave some threats alive and kicking as it effectively creates a dictatorship -- hopefully a benevolent dictatorship -- by the person who controls the mechanisms of the board (of course, I think in the end this threat still exists in a somewhat ameliorated and dissipated form as the board stands right now under the current charter). I don't oppose -- I never opposed -- a very simple set of mechanical rules that would deal with rangering/modding, particularly as it would apply to trolling (non-TORNic trolling, of course), illegality, etc., as well as a very simple set of voting procedures. But if the choice is simply between the current structure and absolutely no structure, I would vote for absolutely no structure (from which, hopefully, the board then would begin to build customs and perhaps some baseline procedures for dealing with what really matters).

TORN

ps -- BTW, my absence from here did not result from "the troubles" (rather, some person redirectioning) but certainly has been extended by them, as any time I've gotten an inkling to post I would read what's going on and just move on instead.

It's always exciting to see a familiar name appear again after a gap. Welcome back TORN.
Your analysis of the dynamics which Iavas, yov and hal have all raised too in their own ways may be right but by now there is too much emotional connection to our structure to abandon it entirely. A bit like Macbeth midway. The route we are attempting so far is simplifying so that we can take a clearer view of everything. I think it will be a hard task.

TORN, excellent post! And welcome back, it was a pleasant surprise to see your name as the last to post.

Quote:

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.

No one here has no ability to control themselves. Everyone here is capable of checking themself at some level. And if someone joined in the future who couldn't do that, we would have a simple process to deal with it.

Expecting people to be respectful isn't asking too much, but expecting it from every single person 100% of the time is never going to be a reality. It's about accepting that it will happen and using a system that best limits the damage, which isn't the same as working around particular people.

Quote:

BTW, my absence from here did not result from "the troubles"

I'm glad to hear that and I'm glad to see you back (hopefully a bit more permanently).

Beyond some basic Ranger-y type functions that (iirc) Eru has said were very helpful as a Ranger, I see little purpose or value to rigid formal structures in what is nothing but a casual discussion group. I always get the impression that those who say "But we need structure!" or "But anarchy will ensue!" see this place as something besides a casual discussion group. I can't really fathom what that something might be.

Iavas wrote:

No one here has no ability to control themselves. Everyone is capable of checking themself at some level. And if someone joined in the future who couldn't do that, we would have a simple process to deal with that.

Expecting people to be respectful isn't asking too much, but expecting it from every single person 100% of the time is never going to be a reality.

We are capable of checking ourselves but as humans we make mistakes sometimes repeatedly. But I don't think the board should be held to a lower standard to accomodate those who repeatedly can't control their outbursts. But like you said there would be steps taken to remedy that.

I think the first thing everyone needs to do is take a step back and ask "What have I done?" instead of pointing at what "they've" done.

As far as controlling crazy outbursts or whatever, we showed no evidence of being able to control it better post-Charter then pre-Charter. I've heard it said that Ranger-ing was easier which is nice, but as far as damage to the board, the Charter didn't seem to accomplish anything of much greater value than our "anarchy" days.

Quote:

Your analysis of the dynamics which Iavas, yov and hal have all raised too in their own ways may be right but by now there is too much emotional connection to our structure to abandon it entirely.

Who exactly has an emotional connection to it? Not me.. I have an emotional disconnection to it, and would see it gone in a heartbeat.

I say lets see if the success we had as a closed, charter-less board can be repeated with the current open board, then have a vote after a certain amount of time to see if the community would like it to stay that way, or would prefer to bring back the charter.

ps. agreed with yov.