Posted by Solstice on December 12, 2010, at 13:06:48
In reply to Re: some kind of Community Council, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2010, at 11:41:18
Fascinating post, Bob..
> My sense is that:
>
> I'm stuck on council members representing the community.I'm glad you're stuck on that. It tells me that you really do want to transfer some meaningful power to the community.
> Anger at council members shouldn't build up like anger at deputies because the community could un-elect council members, but can't un-elect deputies.I agree.. but I think the deputy issue has been such a huge deal, that it is hard for some to genuinely see the marked differences between them.. or maybe to believe that the differences would make a difference. A difference to me that's even bigger than the ability to un-elect Council, is that Council will not be involved in issuing blocks.
There is a predictable concern by some that anger would be directed at Council if they vote to *Not* shorten a block. I understand the anticipatory fear there - because the deputies were exposed to an awful lot of anger. However, I think I genuinely understand this place better than folks here may realize, and I do not believe that Council members would find themselves in a glass house with rocks being thrown at them. For a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is because they will not be issuing blocks. I also think that the only blocks unlikely to be shortened would be blocks that are already very short. The exceedingly long blocks are the ones most likely to be shortened. I think the only type of poster who they might refuse to shorten the blocks for would be the poster who is abusive and threatening - rather than apologetic. So while I understand the anticipatory fear of lash-back from posters (or their friends) who Council does not vote to shorten their blocks - I think the risk of that is so minute, that the risk of not having a Council at all is the bigger thing they should fear.
> Still, being "durable" enough to tolerate some rejection would be advisable. And IMO they could represent the rejection-sensitive portion of the community even if they themselves could tolerate some rejection.hmm... in an ideal world, sure - anyone in a Council type position would be durable and rejection would slide off of them like eggs on teflon. But - I don't think the value of 'durability' is essential enough to merit insisting on it in this particular community - where an election process could be very disruptive and the most qualified candidates would recuse themselves from an election process based on very understandable awareness of self reasons. Percentage-wise, I think this particular community will likely have a very high percentage of people who will not be interested in elections - for the same reason that the proposal for rating posts or posters was so handily rejected.
I think it's important for you, Bob, to take a closer look at whether it really is necessary to have Council members put in place by election.
> If there were 5 candidates, none would be rejected. The vote totals wouldn't be posted, just who was and wasn't elected.I really don't understand this reasoning. If five people stand up and say "hey! Elect me and I'll be a Council Member!" - - and no one else stands up to compete - then are the five who are 'elected' by default really elected? Do they represent the community? Or.. are they representing that there are five people here who were willing to go through an election process. If there are only five who volunteer for the 'race' - and they by default are put in place - then it is my opinion that they in no way are representative of the desires of the community. Now THOSE people might be more at risk for lash-back, because they are only there because they are thick-skinned, not necessarily because the community wants them there.
However - my proposal that the community privately send you their nominations - and then you see which five gets the most nominations, and then you approach those folks and ask if they are willing to serve... and then you go down the list of those with the most nominations until you get five willing to serve.. now THAT is a way to have a group of five who represent the wishes of the community. Those folks would genuinely be the ones who represent the majority of the people who responded to the request for nominations. Community members who don't participate in that process are electing to have others 'elect' on their behalf.
> Civility rules would remain in place during elections. I'd consider negative campaigning to be uncivil.I don't know why campaigning at all is even necessary.. or wise.
> > he's willing to transfer power to the group - but only on his own terms
>
> The terms have to be acceptable to me, yes. And the group has to be acceptable to the community.I think the only way you're going to get a group (Council) acceptable to the community, is to listen and respond to the community's majority voice that opposes the kind of election process you are proposing. I don't think your proposal will even get you what YOU want, much less what the community wants. I think you need to be willing to open your mind to an alternative method of putting a Council in place.
> > Janed asked an equally provacative question: Why not just ask the community to vote on whether to have an election?
>
> I've asked, and so far, anyway, the community seems to be voting to keep me king.No. The community asking you to consider something different than an election campaign for filling Council seats does not equal voting to keep you King. The community is asking you to listen to their heartbeat - and you have been unwilling to do that. Same thing happend with facebook/twitter... which I think I remember you wish had been done differently.
> > He says he wants elections because he wants Council members to be chosen from the community... as if elections are the *only* way to make that happen.
>
> Not *from* the community, *by* the community.ok.. I used the wrong 'word' - but my meaning was the same. I think you know that. I don't understand your refusal to give genuine consideration of the alternate method I have proposed. You will NOT get council members elected by the community through a campaign - especially if only five are willing to 'campaign.' The only way you're going to get a Council elected by the community is to do it in a way that eliminates 'campaigning' and public popularity voting. (which, btw, you cannot avoid by just not posting votes. When you post who 'won' - everyone knows who 'lost'.)
> > if he insists on elections - then the very people the community would want on Counci might be the ones that would not run - so they Won't be getting who they want.
>
> You can't always get what you want, a philosopher once said.That doesn't even make sense to me. My statement is clear and specific. Your response is non-responsive. You don't seem at all willing to consider the legitimacy of my suggestion that it be done by private nomination. I would respectfully request that you respond specifically to the points I make about that, and tell us what your legitimate objections are and the reasoning behind them.
> > I asked (but didn't get a response) if he might be resisting an alternative as a way to stay King.
>
> My response was that unwillingness to run might be a way to keep me king.And your unwillingness to hear what the community says about the issue of campaigning and elections is a way to keep yourself king. The community wants relief from unreasonably long blocks. The community seems to want to have a Council. A lot of hurt people have come back to see if it really is possible for you to transfer some power to the community. There are people who have said they would be willing to serve on a Council. I don't think you can honestly believe that the majority of this community wants you to, as King, keep issuing unreasonably long blocks. The community's unwillingness to campaign is not a statement about your kinginess. That's like comparing apples and planet Pluto.
> If we're all being inflexible, then we're at an impasse.Is my suggestion of an alternative way to put council in place that really does serve your purposes of having council members be chosen by the community better than your own way of doing it - is that 'inflexible'? If not - then the impasse is more a result of your inflexibility - not imflexibility on the community's part.
> IMO that's OK,Of course it's okay with you. You are King.
> For example, another thought I have is that since anger is a concern, maybe it would make sense to consider incivility toward council members more severe, like incivility toward deputies.I agree. I don't think anyone serving on Council should be required to bear harm. Perhaps anyone who is incivil toward Council Members as a result of performance of their duties would have an automatic unreasonably long Bob-block. :-)
> Regarding how to put a council in place:
>
> > > Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
>
> BobHaving a Council does not equate to a democracy. You'll still be King... you'd just be allowing the community to release blocked posters from their stocks before the sentence is due to end. A democracy would mean that your position would be subject to having to campaign and be elected. So let's not confuse the issues by mixing fruit with the solar system.
Solstice
poster:Solstice
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101201/msgs/973287.html