Posted by Solstice on December 2, 2010, at 9:14:11
In reply to A solution in search of a problem » Solstice, posted by jane d on December 1, 2010, at 14:37:42
> > .... To begin with, blocks are not as frequent as it sometimes feels.
>
> I'm glad to see you acknowlege that at last. So why is this Council important again?? Perhaps because there are people here who are distressed by thge current system? Including many (think Scott) who are suprememly Civil and don't find themselves ever in trouble, but are bothered by the stifling effect of the current system? And.. I'm not sure what I could have said that provoked your first sentence there. Statements (like mine, which you posted above) taken out of context can be a problem.
> >Also, the Council members are more emotionally protected because they are part of a group. That protection is the reason I am not in favor of Council having to post individual votes. An unpardoned poster will never know who did, or didn't vote for their reprieve. Perhaps for accountability's sake Bob should be aware of who votes for what, but I think posting that data for everyone would undermine the insulation Council members will need to feel better about serving.
>
>
> Protected from accountability for their decisions? In my own experience anonymous groups do things that the individuals in them would never think of doing.Jane. We aren't talking about a Council with universal powers that could lead to what you seem to fear. Bob's proposed Council has a single power - to lift blocks before they're up according to Bob's formula. What do they need to be accountable for? They don't make rules others have to follow (like Congress), they don't have any fiduciary responsibilities where they are collecting and spending others' money (like taxes), and they are not enforcing the law (like the Executive branch on every level of government). That's where you need accountability. All this Council is doing is voting whether a blocked poster's incivility merits the length of block Bob issued. Is that something you are afraid of?
> In another post you referred to this as a dictatorship by Bob. Aren't you just proposing substituting another group of dictators?Taking a statement out of context does create problems. But the answer is No. Bob's proposed Council (which I support) will not become a substitution for Bob (who would remain the only one with the power to block posters). Dictatorship is an autocracy run amok. It has negsative conotations. Bob's proposed Council is by definition Not a dictatorship. A dictatorship is a single person (not a group) that is in power. As I have said - probably in the same post from which you took this other thing out of context - a group with power is more of an oligarchy. In the United States, the Executive branch of government is comparable to an Autocracy (which has the potential to turn into a dictatorship without our system of checks and balances). The Judiciary Branch is considered comparable to an oligarchy (if the Judiciary Branch were the only ruling power). It is not possible for a Council to be a dictatorship.
> An even less accountable group if you have your way about secrecy (which I'll note is also currently only your proposal - not Bob's).Have my way about secrecy? Wow. Less accountable? I think you wholly misunderstand Bob's proposal, as well as the reasons for my opposition to disclosure of individual Council members' votes on releasing blocks. Council would not be making rules, or issuing discipline of any kind. What do they need to be accountable for? Whether an individual member voted for or against a blocked poster being released from their block? Secrecy? That makes it sound like the community would be at risk of Council getting away with being exploitive and harmful. Bob's proposed Council would not have any kind of power that would give them the ability to be exploitive or harmful. Think of our court system.. and juries. The only time members of a jury are asked to disclose their vote is in death penalty cases in which case it is unanimous anyway. In Civil suit juries or criminal juries that don't get unanimous votes, no juror is required to disclose their individual vote. Ever. Is there anything about that particular voting secrecy that harms our society? What about our country's elections? NO one has to disclose who they voted for. Being able to vote secretly is a protected right in this country. This protected 'secrecy' is a huge deal, and if you read the news during local or national elections, you'll see someone who is in trouble for attempting to violate the protection of voting 'secrecy.' The reason it's protected by law is to prevent others (i.e. 'special interests') from putting pressure on individual voters to vote a particular way. And for the same reason, I don't think disclosure of individual votes should be required with Council.
Why would you be afraid of Council members not disclosing their individual votes on whether to release a particular poster from their block? What problem would disclosure of individual votes eliminate? Do you see the problems disclosure could create?
> I notice you failed to address the question of the victims of blocked posters. Do you really believe that there are none?Perhaps you failed to read all of my posts?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972062.html
> > Babble has been kicking and screaming for self-governance for Ever.
>
> Has it really? SOME members here have certainly.Yes, self-governance has been a long-term and frequent theme. Many who dont get blocked prefer self-governance.
> Others have sometimes thought it would be better under THEIR governance (I admit to being fond of that idea myself but I haven't found many takers for appointing ME dictator. Go figure.) Seen in that light Bob might be a fairly good compromise.
I think your statement here may arise from confusion about the difference between a dictator (single as in individual person who is ruler), and oligarchy (a group of people, typically of some kind of trusted stature (i.e. by education, experience, nobility, or because they are landowners, etc.). Additionally, you seem to misunderstand Bobs proposal. He is not proposing that Council replace him. His proposal for a Council actually takes a single, very significant power away from him and grants it to a group of members nominated by the community whereby Bobs blocks have the potential to be shortened by Council, at their discretion by majority vote. Not all blocked posters should have overturned or shortened blocks. But many whose blocks are warranted, deserve (for various reasons involving repair) to have their blocks shortened. If you arent someone who gets blocked, the existence of a Council wont affect you in any way, unless one of your friends gets blocked and you are hoping to see them again sooner than Bobs block provides.
> I actually have a fair amount of sympathy for the idea of self governance. But there are sites already doing just that and I suspect that most people who find that critically important have already sought them out. People who remain at this site have already voted in a way.Not necessarily. Remaining may mean that there is more benefit to being here than they feel harmed by what they may wish would change. Remaining can also mean that they have people here that they care about, and they want to see a unique and exceptional community that is a safe place for those with mental health issues improve. By staying, they may be able to make it better.
> > And if people here start throwing fire at the Council members who have made the sacrifice to lead and serve, then this Community deserves to be treated like a bunch of little children, including uncivil posters being blocked for however long and using whatever formula is satisfactory to Bob.
>
>
> Wow! That's an interesting paragraph if you try substituting "Bob" for "Council members". So dissenters are little children? Or only future dissenters?You seem to have misunderstood. My comment was not only taken out of context, but also distorted to mean things that are not even implied. I was Not referring to dissenters in general. I was referring Only to those who complain loudly about not liking Bob-rule and all the power he alone has, but who refuse to participate in giving an alternative a fair chance. Do you see the difference? To use an extreme comparison that I hope is not excerpted and put in another post out of context.. perhaps think about a prisoner who feels hes treated like a child because he has to eat gruel every day and has no say-so in what kind of food he eats. He complains loudly about being treated like a child... he wants more food choices. Administration responds by agreeing to provide space and tools/seeds for a prison garden. If that prisoner then refuses to participate in planting, watering and harvesting the produce, wouldnt he deserve to continue being fed gruel and feeling treated like a child?
> Jane
> who is still confused about why we need an incredibly elaborate process set up for a minor problemSolstice.. who is confused about the anger directed at her because she supports a proposal Bob made to address a matter that has been a Huge problem at Babble, eating up enormous amounts of energy and space.
poster:Solstice
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972165.html