Posted by Dr. Bob on March 19, 2005, at 17:02:39
In reply to Re: some thoughts, posted by Toph on March 18, 2005, at 10:22:55
> As I see it, part of the problem with a democatization of a support group is ... that with members gaining authority comes responsibility. We now individually choose to object to an unsupportive poster. As a member with authority we would have a duty to object.
I agree, that's a potential problem. But all of the deputies wouldn't need to object, just one. They *as a subgroup* would have a duty. There would be responsibility, but it would be diffused among them.
> Likewise, we choose to support a harmed or stuggling member under the current format (and we do it well IMO), but a democratic structure would rely on representatives to care for all members
You do it well IMO, too. :-) That's a "responsibility" that's already diffused, among all posters.
And it doesn't extend to me, so I wouldn't see it as extending to deputies in their deputy roles, either. It would still be up to them in their poster roles whether or not they supported particular members.
> But with responsibility doesn't one develop a greater investment in the welfare of the community?
I agree, and that's a potential benefit.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:458927
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/472904.html