board77

Farawen--

You (and you are not alone) are under the mistaken apprehension that this board is all about acheiving a desired effect. It isn't. It's about establishing processes, and democratic means of creating and changing them, and NOT imposing a desired effect from on high. The flip side of that is that sometimes it turns out that people don't want what you want. But it is still infinitely preferable to being told what you want.

It would be nice if everyone here were always nice and respectful to each other...but it is not essential to the board's survival. What is essential is accepting that one doesn't always get one's way and learning to live with it.

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

Oh, I'm not forcing Farawen to call herself a B77ers.

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone was trying to force anyone else to do something. I'm just saying, other people will probably continue to think of Farawen as a b77er, even if you can't convince her that she is and
even if she doesn't think of herself that way.

Farawen wrote:

Remember how we used to say that everybody should be able to have their say on here? That no voice should ever be silenced? I think we forgot one vital part when we came up with that plan - the protection of minorities; of dissenting opinions.

Are you saying that not everybody is able to have their say on b77? That some voices -- minority opinion voices -- are silenced? Do you mean that minority voices are silenced by a greater number of people advocating a different position, which then drowns out or intimidates the person voicing a minority opinion?

Quote:

"Respect" works only as long as there are respectful people on both sides. And the Bikeracks may be a nifty thing, but it is my honest opinion that they don't solve everything. That's also the reason I won't participate in "my" thread in the Bikeracks.

So are you saying that there are some people here not being respectful, and that you object to our not having a Charter provision that forces people to be respectful, and to solve every personal conflict that arises? If that is what you mean, what sort of provision, practically speaking, do you envision that would provide for that kind of assurance?

Quote:

Ethel's board was slandered on this board, publicly, repeatedly, and while many of you stood up and defended her there was, and still is, no policy in place on here that may have prevented that, or provided retributions. The person that slandered the loudest is an admin on here now.

You seemed to say above that it is important for all voices to be heard. Do you mean that someone shouldn't have been allowed to comment negatively about Ethel's board? That there should be a by-law that allows for a hearing when someone makes comments that other posters find objectionable? That if Ethel has a problem with what some person said, the Bike Racks aren't an adequate way to address that?

Quote:

"We aspire to maintain a culture of respect, equality and openness." Well, we've obviously failed if someone like Ethel leaves this community.

My understanding is that Ethel found the apparent wilko thread outcome unacceptable (putting rules above people's feelings is how I understood it), and that is why she said she can't be part of this board. Are you implying that her leaving has something to do with the comments made after she started her own messageboard (I am not familiar with the specifics of that)? I just think it would be helpful not to give a wrong impression about why Ethel doesn't want to be here.

I don't think it's correct to say that if someone like Ethel leaves the community, we've 'failed'. Not every good and fine person is necessarily going to like it here, even if we 'succeed'. There may be some democratically-arrived-at decisions that they just can't accept, or they may just not like the atmosphere or lack of authority here.

Axordil wrote:

It's about establishing processes, and democratic means of creating and changing them, and NOT imposing a desired effect from on high.

Exactly. It seems, Farawen, that you aren't happy about some of the decisions that have been made democratically, and so b77 isn't a place you could be proud of belonging to. This is exactly what happened to me with respect to TORC. Once I realized the sorts of attitudes that prevailed on high, TORC was no longer a place I could be proud of belonging to.

I am an American. By birth, and also by choice, as I would not make the choice to leave this place.

I am deeply ashamed of much of what America has done over the course of its existence. I am ashamed of some of its current actions.

I call myself an American for two reasons:

(1) Because I choose to be here. Every day that I voluntarily continue to live, study, and work in America, I make the choice to remain an American. (Note: I say this because I believe that I could fight for and get citizenship elsewhere if I so desired. Everyone's situation is different, and I'm not suggesting that everyone born in America has "chosen" to be here in exactly the same sense.)

(2) The American system does not guarantee us that America will be exactly as we desire. I am sure that each American can point to things that they hate about this country. But, America allows us the freedom to work to make our vision of America a reality. We might prevail and we might not. There are no guarantees. That's because we Americans each want different things out of our nation, and not everyone's wishes can be in the majority. But the minority can do its damndest to fight back. And people who don't care? They don't have to care. They can be disinterested, uninvolved, and accept the country which others are creating. It's not perfect, but it does pretty damn well for an imperfect system. I'm proud of that.

tp--
Why do I hear "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" being hummed in the background? But good analogy...on several levels.

Getting your point, TP. After all, America is not the only country with free speech, and majorities and minorities.

Being the German that I am, I'm kinda trying to avoid the national states analogy at all costs - bringing up our country as an example is not something we readily do, internationally. History and all that. But what the hell. I've never really done this before, so here goes. I hear we make pretty good beer. I couldn't really tell because I don't drink alcohol. Our cars aren't that bad either. I think we suck at soccer, but that's not just me. Still, we're a little preoccupied with the game; German national elections are lost and won over the national team's performance.

I'm glad that the laws of the country I live in mandate that those publically showing Nazi insignia are to serve a prison sentence. That Hitler's Mein Kampf isn't sold in bookstores, or available at libraries. That parties voted into the Bundestag receive government funding so that they can carry out their democratic functions without having to rely on economy sponsorship. I like that German companies have to operate environmentally friendly or else they pay extra taxes. I'm proud of the sums we spend for foreign aid.

And I would never compare my country to an internet messageboard.

But you're right - I should just have stayed away and not said anything. Apologies to everyone for all the fuss over this thread.

Off to find my travel agent.

Hi Farawen,

I was not attempting to suggest that America was the only nation of its sort. It is merely the only one in which I have ever lived, and thus, the only one which I could speak about.

Although, if I may say so - certain European nations do have more circumscribed freedom of speech than America, in part because of the Nazi regime. (You actually make this point yourself.) I strongly disagree with France and Germany on this point. I guess that the beauty of things is - there is America for people who feel as I do, and there are France and Germany for people who feel as you do; the world is big enough for both types.

Analogy is a useful tool to discover a commonality between two otherwise dissimilar things. To quote Merriam-Webster, analogy is "resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike". So I have no issue with using a United States analogy to discuss an Internet messageboard. It does not suggest that the two are comparable things; of course they are not. They are about as similar to each other as a messageboard is to a vineyard.

Moving on to the main point of your post - essentially, you are suggesting that you want a truly "moderated" community where certain views are not tolerated - are, if you will pardon the word, censored. That is fine. I understand why you feel that way. That is not where b77's at right now, as I understand it. You say that you do not want to expend the time to change it. No problem. I guess that leaves you the choice of staying within the current system and expressing your disagreement with it, as you are doing now, or parting ways. I sincerely hope you choose the former, but respect whatever you need to do. I did not mean to imply or suggest that you should have stayed away or not said anything. Indeed, if you have not gathered by this point - to me, free speech is a near-absolute value, and additionally, I believe that much good has come out of this thread you have started.

- TP

I don't understand why Farawen has to consider herself a B77er or why anyone else thinks she should. I enjoy reading her contributions and the more she posts the better but I don't see why it should be a requirement for her to identify with the board. Sure, several of us do but beyond the technical bit of registering I don't see any loyalty oaths or initiation ceremonies. Are we expecting this attitude from our new posters? I would hate to feel that Farawen was driven away by this pressure. I am happy to read her contributions under whatever conditions she chooses.

Just to clarify, Tosh - I don't care whether Farawen (or anyone else) wants to identify as a b77er or not. People can identify as Americans, Germans, Martians, vineyard keepers, chocoholics, geeks, revisionists, or Communists - I honestly couldn't care less. My post was responding to:

Farawen wrote:

Although it probably was once, for a fleetingly short moment in time, back in the olden days. The thing that most got to me though and that made me start this thread was how far it has gotten now from being perfect.

Remember how we used to say that everybody should be able to have their say on here? That no voice should ever be silenced? I think we forgot one vital part when we came up with that plan - the protection of minorities; of dissenting opinions.
...
Ethel's board was slandered on this board, publicly, repeatedly, and while many of you stood up and defended her there was, and still is, no policy in place on here that may have prevented that, or provided retributions.

I actually thought that the argument over whether Farawen "is" a b77er or "should consider" herself one was rather stupid. Whatever she wants to call herself is fine.

I agree completely, Tosh.

It is frustrating, though, to try to have a useful dialogue with someone who is in a frame of mind to see disagreement as an attempt to silence her or drive her away, instead of, like, "Let's discuss this."

Farawen, there really are discussions here where people really do change their minds. I've changed my mind on issues that were extremely important to me, because of discussions here. "Let's discuss this" really doesn't mean "Let me change your mind"; it means "Let's discuss this." Nobody's mind has to change. But I know I would learn something from anything you wanted to talk about.

Farawen, now I understand what you mean...it's a hard nut to crack. I'm comfortable with the setup here though, because think that we can't have rules for everything. Some things just can't be regulated. As always, people are the problem- we do a lot of stupid things, hurtful things, wrong things. It's impossible to have a rule for all of them.

But I don't think we're all that vulnerable to degeneration, even if we have free speech. Take that example of Nazi insignia, I think that if someone showed up here and tried to proclaim racist views, or had a swastika in his signature, then although there is no clear rule about it, people wouldn't let it slide. Such a person wouldn't find support and would probably be confronted by the members. (although I think my example is void because the rules we have probably mention encouraging racism and violence as forbidden).

What I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to take a group and impose a standard of behaviour on them. So far the b77 community has shown a lot of class. That's not because there is a rule that says they must show class- but just because there are a lot of classy people gathered.

Even when there is something nasty happening, I don't think the best reaction is to make a rule. That would put us back to TORC and trusting someone higher with judgement better than we trust ourselves. We wanted this to be a member-moderated board and it is- as long as we always speak up and say what we think. Like you're doing.

One thing I have to POKE you for is this...you got this disillusioned attitude right now, like you're sure no one will listen to you even if you post. Relax. People are listening- maybe they don't understand but they're doing their best. You see a problem here and maybe you can suggest a solution or an improvement.

This board is what we make it. Not someone up there- us. The posters. Which also means you. The admin are there temporarily you know.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Farawen, there really are discussions here where people really do change their minds.

As I can attest--it happened to me because of this very thread.

Farawen--

First off: Because I have missed you. You are among friends.

Secondly: Ro really just nailed it for me. I have been confused as to what you are seeing here that you are uncomfortable with, although I know whatever you are seeing is something I want to understand, because I respect your opinions so much.

I just hesitated to ask you questions, because I didn't want you to think I was challenging your opinion. Certainly not... I just want to understand it.

I may not ultimately agree with you, of course. It happens. It also might happen that you open my eyes to something I've never quite noticed before. I definitely have learned things from you before.

I want to grasp what it is that you see as the problem, and I really am getting closer. Whenever I see you come back and give it another shot, I am grateful. I know I can be a bit on the slow-on-the-uptake side... sorry, bud, but I'm not making any more brain cells at this stage of the game.

I am, however, very interested in what you have to say-- and I appreciate your continued efforts to explain your thoughts!


Edit: Oh, and grumpydwarfmom: I was out of town for a while and just caught up on this thread, so I wasn't able to say hi earlier... I just wanted you to know that I was extremely impressed with how you hung in there and kept at it yourself, even when sparks were flyin' all over the place. You had to kind of feel like a fish swimming upstream, but you really stuck to it and ultimately impressed the hell out of me. I haven't met you before this, and I kinda wish I had... you seem very much worth knowin'.

Well thanks, Anthriel!

You should likewise be impressed, as I am, with the quality of posters that contribute here.

Nice to meet you.

I absolutely am. Every flippin' day.



Nice to meet you, too!

I think that what Farawen is saying may not necessarily lead to any changes that would be visible immediately, like new rules, but it certainly got us thinking about things that we didn't notice before. And even if I think groupthink doesn't exist here right now I will know it is something to watch out for. Even if the problems Farawen sees can't be fixed simply, because they didn't happen in an instant, they can be smoothed out now that we're aware they exist. It's enough to know someone else is feeling uncomfortable to know we must do our best to listen. If everyone was always happy, we'd forget how to listen.

So,Fara, I think this isn't all blowing away with the wind.

I'll tell you one of the things that's right about B77.

Not only is it it's own community, but in effect part of it is the first widely-read independent newspaper of TORC, as opposed to TORC's State-owned messageboard, where the excesses of TPTB can be examined and talked about freely, as opposed to being clamped down, deleted, modded etc.

If anything, it will raise their game because it can't be hidden anymore.

One hopes it will allow people to post on TORC with more confidence.

Just sayin'.

Farawen, I'm still keeping up with this thread, and pondering the many voices. Like other lurkers, I do not have anything in particular that I want to contribute. I just wanted to let you know you are not alone. I know it can be tough to keep up a long thread like this - sort of like trying to "manage" a 20 foot python. It is a worthwhile thread.

What can we do to avoid squelching the minority voice?

Unfortunately, I still don't understand what you mean, Farawen, about voices being silenced. I know you can't mean that you think people shouldn't disagree about things, which is all I've seen happening in this thread (disagreement, discussion), so I'm at a loss as to what you see as the problem.

The people who volunteered to draw up the charter were extremely aware of the possibility that we would not always have THIS exemplary a group of posters, because of the law of averages if nothing else. Thus the clauses in the charter that make it possible to complain about speech that is threatening, racist, et al.

On the other hand there is no restriction on speech that merely disagrees. Even strongly. The strength of this board is due in large part to our capacity to discuss, argue, debate, whatever, anything that needs to be determined to keep the board running smoothly; the other key component is a membership willing and able to do so.

This is going to lead to people cracking heads once in a while. So be it. Democracy is lively or it is dead--real groupthink comes not when a majority comes to a consensus but when the consensus is predetermined, and that simply is not the case here.

It isn't going to be for everyone, and anyone who hasn't figured that out yet: here's my official announcement: IT ISN'T GOING TO BE TO EVERYONE'S LIKING. And that's OK. A board where everyone was happy is not going to be to everyone's liking either. Because they don't exist.

I'm a little confused, too. Farawen and Laureanna, I hear what you're saying and I think I understand what you mean. But I'm not really convinced that it really is happening.

The way I see it a minority voice is naturally less loud than a majority voice. When we were still in the horrid invites stage, there was a similar discussion, remember. People were worried that if the final decision is the majority's, the minority will be silenced.

But I never understood this. I understand the wish to be heard and for my voice to prevail. I don't understand what is wrong with majority being louder. It's louder by definition. No one can change that. The majority will always be the majority, and if the minority is supposed to be given special favours on account of being the minority, then I don't get it. It's artificial and not representative of what the board community wants.

We can all, and probably should, privately, school ourselves to listen to all sides first and take care not to intimidate those with minority viewpoints. But that is all that we can (and probably should) do. I don't think the minority, whatever it be during the discussion, is being silenced at all here on b77. It just has less support, and that is the natural way of things.