board77

And apparently it throws fecal matter on the walls and has a vinyard.





Sorry I had to put that in there. I'll let the dead dog lie.

Voronwe wrote:

While I am certainly flattered that people feel that I command respect, it makes me extremely sad and uncomfortable to know that people feel discouraged from expressing their views simply by virtue of the fact that I disagree with them. One of our guiding principles is that of free expression. It seems that I interfere with that guiding principle simply by my presence here.

I've disagreed with you before.

I know the only reason that made me hesitate a bit is because I know my disagreement could affect you personally. Sometimes you take personal offense at a disagreement. The fact that many of us do like and respect you means we don't want to hurt you, even unintentionally.

Honestly, I think you give yourself too much credit. You're not that scary V.

As for the whole democracy thing, yes it's a pain, and no it's not very fun, but so far, I think we're better off. I think us working together to find a common goal has brought us so much closer together. Benevolent dictatorship is the easy way out. Democracy is harder, but better I think. We're still a fairly new board though. It's barely been a year. The charter hasn't been in place for that long. Things are still being hammered out. Let's not give up yet.

Voronwë, part of free expression is that you have to let people be honest about their motivations. And not let what they say control what you do. We will all find a way to rub along together.

I also think things will settle down. They already seemed to be. I know I have been spending much, much more time posting just for pleasure than I did during the charter process. I don't think we're doomed to be bogged in procedure, not at all.

What I would suggest, if I could, is that once this vote is over, we try just letting the system tick along undisturbed for a while. See how unsupportable the perceived problems turn out to be in practice. I think a lot of us will be surprised.

Certainly the Ranger system, for an example, is working beautifully. There are some rules to make it work fairly, but those are not in anyone's face. We have had wonderful competent service from Rangers who have come and gone according to plan, with nobody picking them and no chance for power-monkeying on their part—because they are good people, but those same looong but essentially invisible rules keep it that way.

Can't we give it a chance? And Jewel, try back here again in a few weeks?

Just a quick post to say that I support completely tp's right to hold a differing view about messageboards.

I guess the most troubling thing about all of this for me is that it has deprived me of momentum that might otherwise be spent on posts in the Hall of Fire or the Symposium. But that momentum is coming back, and I think this board has at least as good a chance at survival as an autocratic board might have.

tp, you said one thing that interested me a lot, which was the fact that sacrifices made for the sake of democracy are justified in real life.

One of the main reasons I have found myself so vested in messageboard democracy is because I think that our real life democratic structures have failed us and I fear that this loss is irreversible. I attribute this loss to the privatization of our democratic spaces - that is, our spaces in which community discussion once took place. Real life democracy requires ... geography, for want of a better word ... it requires territory, a place where the physical body can stand and have the public conversation. In our society, which has less leisure than nearly every society in history before it, the public space has to be more accessible not less accessible, it has to be a place where you are going anyway - the shopping mall, the supermarket, the workplace - but all those places have been privatized and assembly within them is now forbidden ... and everywhere else we are imprisoned in our automobiles.

The internet seems to me a little miraculous open space, a public space that emerged out of the vapors where community building can be relearned. Thus the practice of democracy feels particularly appropriate to me in this venue. I take very seriously IdylleSeethes observation, made some weeks ago, that within five years the public spaces of the internet will also be gone.

In the larger scheme of things, absence of territory is what makes terrorism such a successful strategy; and I consider, late at night, over my cup of cocoa, whether there is a lesson to be learned in that. Occupying territory cannot win wars in which the enemy has no territory, but here we have access to this other realm where territory also does not matter, where disembodied communication is 'the force', and I think about the potential for defeating the disinformation that allows terrorism to emerge and fester. The implications of that, for our own institutions as well as those of the enemy, and for the distribution of access to power and information ... the implications are far-reaching. If we are going to explore this avenue, though, I think we have to do it before every space on the internet becomes private property and, by extension, a dictatorship of the property owner.

We've produced a number of communications systems in the last fifty years that had great potential for shaping society - television, for example - but which have been reduced to entertainment vehicles. I do not view this as a positive development. That is not to say there should be no entertainment on television, but that there should be other things as well. Extreme privatization is responsible for that loss, too, in my opinion. So, anyway ... I think a place like this fulfills a certain role. It is a sort of prototype ... whether anyone will want to replicate it remains to be seen.

But meanwhile I agree that if we focus all our energy on business stuff, we will have sacrificed the primary reason for our existence.

Jn

ETA: It was the ease with which one could disagree with Voronwe and not have to worry about a flaming that kept me coming back to TORC in the early months of my joining!

OK, last post for the night - I've been here way too much today! Voronwe, I might email you as well tomorrow if I have the chance. (ETA Jn, acknowledging your post, but I have to get offline now and do work. Will respond later!)

First, briefly on benevolent dictators and messageboards - I think that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a lot less of a threat when we are not talking about much real power. Currently, I am only responsible for moderating one community of slightly more than 400 people. Because of the nature of the community (safe-space), it is HARD work. I am co-moderating only because the creator/moderator asked me, and I would as soon be a member with no "power". Various people have different definitions of what a "safe space" means, and we often get emails from people who feel that another member's post is violating the safe space for them. This requires an executive decision on which member is correct about the safe space that we are trying to create. There are other times when, because the other moderator is the one who established the rules for the community, I have to warn or ban members whom I actually agree with, because their actions are out of keeping with the spirit of the previously-established law. I feel kind of like a judge who has to sentence a defendant she sympathizes with. And there are other times when I make rules that I think are in the best interest of the community, even though they diverge from my personal opinions. It's simply not fun. Honestly, a benevolent dictatorship is a lot easier/more fun when you're not the dictator. I don't enjoy it. I do it because I care about that community, and I want it to last.

I do sincerely believe, however, that when you have someone who genuinely seeks to act in the community's best interest, it is a viable and desirable model. The moderator(s) will always make decisions with which some will disagree - indeed, as I've said, as a layperson/member, I disagree with some of the actions I've recently taken as a moderator myself! Still, it's the Internet, and we're big grown adults...or young adults masquerading as adults...or whatever. We can suck it up and deal when someone makes an administrative decision we don't like. And the fact that someone else is handling all the rule-making and administrative decisionmaking leaves the fortunate non-dictators the luxury of discussing what they are there to discuss at leisure.

(As you can tell, I'm just not a very good power-hungry dictator. )

JS, I'm glad that you could relate to what I was saying - and I guess this would be a good time to apologize for jumping on you about the ToE threads, huh? Actually, a day or so later when I withdrew from the ToE discussions for a time, it was largely for the same reasons that you stated.

Now, I want to address what Voronwe said in brief here.

Voronwe, first, you should see that I have no actual problem with disagreeing with you. My post earlier tonight was my third in this thread alone disagreeing with you, and there have been many others. In fact, I have never refrained from disagreeing with anyone simply because it made me uncomfortable to do so, without more. I was just at the gym, and I gave it some thought during cardio. I came up with four reasons for why there might be hesitation on my part, here:

(1) I've met you in person. I'm not sure whether I'm alone in this, but when I meet someone who was previously just a screenname, my connection/relationship to them immediately changes in my mind. All of a sudden, they have become real to me in a way that they were not before. Part of what that entails is that when I have an online exchange with such a person, I envision us face-to-face having that conversation. Of course, it is less pleasant disagreeing face-to-face than disagreeing anonymously through a messageboard.
(2) This is especially true for people with whom I've had longer, more meaningful conversational exchanges. The following people leap immediately to mind (although there are certainly others): you, Frelga, Lidless, Estel, Ax, hal, Jn. Now, I don't refrain from disagreeing with any of these people, e.g. I've disagreed with Ax several times in different threads today alone, and hal and I are virtually guaranteed to disagree in the Symposium. However, I even more strongly envision having the exchange face-to-face with this group of individuals, and it thus becomes slightly harder.
(3) I think that Eru is right. I might have a slight, mostly unconscious concern that my disagreement will affect you personally. I tend to assume that if someone is on an Internet messageboard, which in my experience is never a friendly venue (unless explicitly defined as safe space, and even then debatable), they should have a thick skin and be able to take strongly-expressed disagreement. So, I do not think this plays in too much for me, but it might have some effect.
(4) You are an experienced professional in the same line of work as I'm entering, and you are doing what I wish I had the guts to do, namely working in an area of that field in which you strongly believe. I don't want to go into detail about my own career choices here, but I have highly mixed feelings about what I'm choosing to do instead, as our last in-person conversation might have revealed. So, I think that in some sense, I look up to you for that. And that is probably another thing that plays into my hesitance to disagree with you.

So you see, most of these things are personal to me. They are not anything that you are doing, except perhaps #3, and you will have to ask others for their opinions on that, because #1, 2, and 4 are more relevant to why I said what I did. I think that my reasons have very little to do with whatever Farawen's might have been, and I don't think you should feel that there is any sort of pattern, at least not because of me. I do not know who else has told this to you privately, or what the context was.

Also, as you see, I am more than willing to disagree with you despite my hesitance. The same is true for any of the other people who I listed in #2, or for anyone else on this messageboard. It's just slightly more complicated for me now that I have met right under thirty of you.

Eru, Prim and Jn.

TP wrote:

I tend to assume that if someone is on an Internet messageboard, which in my experience is never a friendly venue (unless explicitly defined as safe space, and even then debatable), they should have a thick skin and be able to take strongly-expressed disagreement. So, I do not think this plays in too much for me, but it might have some effect.

I have had very little internet experience - over the last 3 years I have been involved in only 5 MBs including this one and TORC and the others are all tiny off-shoots of the first two and filled with familiar names.

I was struck, therefore, by your very specific use of the term 'safe space' because in my naive understanding, both B77 and torc and those other MBs are safe spaces by default. You seem to use the term with some other and specific meaning, however, and I am curious to know what it is.

It is because I believe B77 is a safe space that the bike racks can work so well - as they have in a recent thread and yet fail so miserably in others when we fail to define the precise nature of the disagreement.

For example, sometimes dislike (a thoroughly illogical but perfectly legitimate personal response) can be dressed up as something more logical or more palatable, as a disagreement based on misunderstanding perhaps. Taking that to the bike racks will not solve the problem as the covert issue is not one that can be addressed so easily.

I have read the arguments about using a public arena to solve one on one disagreements, and also the arguments against it and what it comes down to for me is - I'm just not comfortable with having a personal discussion in public. I've tried it, and I don't like it, and it won't work for me. It feels like a goldfish bowl. And there are some things I would never say in public - I would never make a personal accusation about someone in public because it would be such a humiliating thing for the other person to see. I would I would guess I am not the only one who feels that way because I doubt that I am unique.

I think we have to deal with the fact that some one on one disagreements will not be resolved in the bike racks, not because the problem is too large, or the individuals too recalcitrant, but because one or other of the parties will recoil from revealing their problem in a gold fish bowl.

It is unfair, IMO, to publicly state that we frown upon attempts to solve such a dispute privately, by email or PM, by making statements that underhand tactics, harrassment, threats, personal attacks etc may (and by implication, will) be used in such communications. This is quite demoralising to a person who prefers to avoid public performance but feels that attempts to solve an issue privately could be misconstrued as being malign.

I know no one has overtly said this, but there is a subtle theme running through this thread that can easily be read that way. Besides, the Charter allows for private solutions off-board (something which has not been highlighted here).

I think I understand Hal's position a little (or partly). If the disagreement is to aired publicly, in a goldfish bowl, those watching feel a greater stake in it and want to participate. It becomes a bit of a performance piece and unless the rules are clear "don't butt in" then there is no doubt a temptation to become involved in that performance.

I remain unclear about the usefulness of the bike racks as a global tool. I feel we must avoid thinking that the bike racks is a panacea; it is not. For some people it is not an option.

Vinnie, just thought I'd tell you I have no fear of expressing disagreement with you. I'd do it in a twitch if I could ever find an issue we disagree on.

Though, I have to admit that generally I don't like to disagree with people I like/respect/admire and that is because I want them to also like/respect/admire me in return. It takes a bit of courage to risk overturning that cart and I suspect most of us harbour a teeny tiny anxiety that disagreement could do that. Not all of us; but maybe those of us who don't have a robust self-esteem. That is particularly so in this medium, in which the ties that bind are gossamer thin.

Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:

Quote:

Back to Voronwe in particular: I don't know if you realize how hard it is to disagree with you on anything, not because of anything you've done, but because you are just someone who commands respect.

TP, you are not the first person to say this to me, though I think you are the first one to say so publicly (other then Farawen, who did not quite put it exactly like this, but who I believe meant something similar to this).

No, she didn't mean anything similar to this at all. Absolutely not.

I realize that with my being pretty much gone from here assumptions and speculations as to what I meant by things I said on here in the past may arise, and I realize that that's just the way things are. Really felt I needed to speak up to this particular assumption, is all. I don't have a problem at all with people with "massive egos". Probably because my ego ain't all that small either.

Thanks for clarifying that, Farawen. I'm glad to know that you are at least out there checking in occassionally.

One point I've got to make about this boards system that I like is that, if I feel really really strongly about something and want a change, I can initiate a process that may change it. I can do that. I don't have to uselessly PM an admin or mod over and over until they either ban me or try to do what I want. I am not merely a member. Yes, it may be a hassle sometimes, and it may be annoying sometimes. The fact is, I can make a difference here, and no one has the right to tell me "You don't have the authority to say/do that."

As long as I don't deliberately hurt anyone, my fate on this messageboard is determined by me, and I find that very comforting.


And Fara - it's good to see you

Quote:

I do sincerely believe, however, that when you have someone who genuinely seeks to act in the community's best interest, it is a viable and desirable model.

The most dangerous dictators are those who believe they are doing good.

I wouldn't call it "checking in". I'd call it "being drawn to the swimming pool by familiar voices and finding the water too cold while dangling my feet in it".


Teh Edit because I'm slow and to add *hugses* to Estel.

Try the hot tub It's over in Turf


*wishes she could keep the Fara*

Quote:

I'd call it "being drawn to the swimming pool by familiar voices and finding the water too cold while dangling my feet in it".

That's a great image.

Fara, whatever it is, its good to see you.

<goes on missing Farawen>

Watch out that fisssh doesn't nibble your toes.

Well I did skip breakfast ...

Impenitent wrote:

It is unfair, IMO, to publicly state that we frown upon attempts to solve such a dispute privately, by email or PM, by making statements that underhand tactics, harrassment, threats, personal attacks etc may (and by implication, will) be used in such communications. This is quite demoralising to a person who prefers to avoid public performance but feels that attempts to solve an issue privately could be misconstrued as being malign.

Have we said that we frown on attempts to solve disputes privately? I don't think so. I think what people have done is try to explain why they would be reluctant to do so, or what they see as the advantage in a public attempt (which is the source, then, of enthusiastically supporting those who try). For my part, I see the role of witnesses as invaluable. That way participants will know there is a record of what they've said, so that if sometime in the future a statement is made about that exchange that they know isn't true (due to imperfect recollection or honest misunderstanding), they will be able to point to the conversation and say, 'No, this is what was actually said.'

So I'd like to go on record as saying that I think there is nothing wrong with trying to solve a dispute privately, if both parties are comfortable doing it that way.

Quote:

It becomes a bit of a performance piece and unless the rules are clear "don't butt in" then there is no doubt a temptation to become involved in that performance.

I think this thread has helped clarify that the rules are a clear 'don't butt in', and if you feel you really have something positive to contribute, exercise the courtesy of PMing the participants first to make sure it is ok with them.


Voronwe, I also wanted to say that though my respect for you knows no bounds, I have no hesitation in disagreeing with you (which we seem to do quite alot).

In fact, it only increases my respect for you each time it becomes clear that your respect for me is not dependent on me sharing your particular viewpoint about something.

Thanks Cerin.

And I just saw TP's last post for the same time. Thanks for further clarifying.