Posted by Solstice on December 3, 2010, at 14:27:16
In reply to Re: A solution in search of a problem » jane d, posted by Willful on December 3, 2010, at 13:48:07
Hi Willful..
Your descriptions of the concepts involved are wonderfully easy to read.
> I had thought the transition from civility buddies to a counsel of Elders was made pretty explicitly in the suggestion of the need for a larger voice for posters in the blocks-- which therefore would be more acceptable, and perhaps more consistently applied (because the elders would be here more consistently) and also shorter. The civility buddy idea contemplated the same rules and general methods for imposing blocks, which would be Bob and Bob's formula, both of which have been claimed to be the source of conflict and people's leaving. The counsel of Elders was a completely different take on how to handle blocks.I think Elders' Council and Civility Buddies are two separate tools that would genuinely address the issues that have created so much stress here. It would limit block lengths when they *should* be limited (Council), and the Civility Buddy aspect would be a resource for those who want to avoid posting things that would be uncivil in the first place. I think Bob did want to separate the threads, though. But I think both of these mechanisms would work hand-in-hand to reduce the energy devoted to complaints about the current system.
> I may have gotten the wrong idea, but initially, and for quite a while, there was general acceptance -- or at least not overt disagreement--- about the value of the Elders idea. Then, as Bob seemed surprisingly agreeable, after all this energy had been expended on convincing him, etc-- a sudden voicing of all these doubts, disagreements and poking holes in the premises of the idea itself.Fascinating observation. You're right. That's exactly what hbappened. I can't help but wonder if my enthusiasm about it has been part of the problem? Maybe an active 'new kid on the block' (I'm not new to the site, but I am new to the active community).. but maybe my sudden and frequent appearance and input on the subject is off-putting? I also don't have any kind of a vested interest in it.. so I'd be happy to back away from it and remain silent on the issue if that would help others less suspicious of Bob's Elder's Council proposal.
> I found myself somehow disappointed that we put all this possibly unnecessary energy and emotion into this idea-- which, by the way, I have no particular stake in-- only, when it became a real possibility, to pull the rug out from under it. I may have misread the overall response. But this was my impression.Mine as well. I was feeling kinda alone on that :-) Now I don't.
> So I was questioning why this sudden backing away-- from something that would of course be a major change and might not work out--but which seemed quite a creative and interesting idea? After all, it has been my observation that there is a ~lot~ of unhappiness with the blocking system and experience here. And I would love to see it addressed and to see people less focussed on injustice and hurtfulness of babble and getting more a sense of support and connection here.
Yeah... my thinking as well.
> Whether there are, in fact, too many or inconsistent blocks, I can't say for a fact. It isa fact that at times I've walked on eggshells when posting here-- and it's also my impression that PBCs and blocks are inconsistently and not quickly enough applied. But whether these issues need to be addressed is of course another thing.
>
> But I am agnostic about the Counsel of Elders idea, for many reasons. I didn't contribute to the development of the idea because I wouldn't want to be on the counsel and I wasn't sure it would work. But I don't want to see it sabotaged at this point-- or made to seem as the subject line say, a solution in search of a problem. Clearly there was a problem. I just don't think there is any question about that.. I would be interested in whether a counsel improved things.And we'll never know if it never gets off the ground, and if trusted members of the community aren't willing to serve. I can understand the negative (and in my view legitimate) reaction to being elected vs. appointed. I think there's a way to satisfy Bob's desire that the Elder's Council arise out of the Community's collective opinion about who should serve.. but also keep it from being a popularity contest where preferences are shown for some of the nominees over others. I also understand the legitimate concerns about backlash from people complaining about Council decisions.. which is why I think it's more important to limit that potential (especially because of the vast experience of deputies of how bad the backlash can be). But by not posting individual votes, individual Council members could 'vote' with their conscience (as they should) without risking backlash for it, because since they are part of a group of people, no one would know who to get angry with. They could get angry about the decision, but not directly at a particular Council member.
> I do think blocks need to be shorter.That's the biggest problem... and Bob has offered to turn over authority for adjusting block length to a Council who determine it by majority vote. The Community will never know what it will be like to have shorter blocks until they throw their support behind a Council of community members that they have nominated to serve in those roles, and then continue to support them as an entity.
> I don't remember anyone leaving because Bob wasn't strict enough-- but I also am not convinced that the blocks explain why this place is (or may be) moribund.Good point. Blocks may only be part of it.. but they do seem to be a significant part. My gut tells me that addressing block length problem will, over the long term, eventually lead to less contribution of any of the other things that may contribute to "moribund." :-)
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/972332.html