Don't all of these threads show why a commune wouldn't work?

jhado wrote:
No, only what is required for them to work.
dubmeup wrote:
How's that beeing working out?

What I have seen is secretiveness, grudges, half-truths and scapegoats.

dubmeup wrote:
Thats good, I'm with you on that.

mikey mikey wrote:
This is place is more than that!

psketti wrote:
I never said it wasn't. In fact I have been repeatedly trying to remind people why this place is worth saving.

What I meant was that relying on the "common sense" when the SHTF is shutting the door of the horse is bolted.

It is much easier for us to collectively agree on boundaries, when we are calm instead of hurt and angry and above all, when it isn't personal.

mikey mikey wrote:
Well at the moment, I'm hurt and angry and by fuck it couldn't get any more personal!

mikey i have to say that today you seem to be slightly off form.

you're taking a few air shots

dubmeup wrote:
Maybe I'm not "in the loop"

im not aware of a loop. i just mean that it seems your ire has been raised and your rather posting from that place. i understand why your ire has been raised, just pointing out that your not alone in wanting to get the sz back on course and that we all have valid ideas to chip in really, all friendly like

at the moment, like i said, you've taken a few air shots, here have one of my patented chill pills....

Thanks dub.

*sigh* *unwind* *deep breath*

I'd prefer it if those decisions which can't be made by consensus were made according to an agreed percentage of votes rather than a fixed number of votes. If a set time elapses and not enough people voted we could be sat around still making no progress on matters for days/weeks, if this is to be the case we could use those days/weeks trying to reach consensus.

oioioi wrote:
Is it possible to know in advance which decisions cannot be made by consensus?

andyh wrote:
If, for example, we decide on placing members on suspension pending community intervention it would be unfair on the suspended poster to have to wait for us to reach consensus instead of expecting a community decision within a given time frame. Even this, in time, could be consensus based as we'll become clearer on our direction the longer we're on the journey.

Oi, I think in the time frame and minimum votes not being reached, it could default to mods decision. Always up for being brought up in discussion afterword, but if a consensus is not reached in a set amount of days, and minimum votes not reached in set amount of days, defaulting back on mod decision would be the fallback... what do you think?

And if you have an idea, besides the member suspension, which other things you would like to see consensus on, it would be nice to know a head of time. Quick action decisions, and ones open for discussion that don't require a swift decision to be made.

On the member suspension pending community intervention, the member could have a weeks default suspension and then be allowed back, or a month default suspension and then be allowed back... in that time frame we can try to reach consensus on whether it is permanent or temporary if they do it again after they get off suspension.

StarsChildren wrote:
Strongly disagree with this! The mods should not be mods, they should be facilitators. I do think, just having the word 'moderator' under your name lends you to more scrutiny than other posters and is part of what leads to it becoming a poisoned chalice. The less responsibility/power the 'mods' have the better for them and us! I think having a 'mod' mindset (ie. us & them) is what has upset me most about this weekends events. Partly because I didn't see it coming and have to shoulder my part of the blame in creating an environment in which the 3 guys felt they had to discuss things 'behind closed doors' thereby confirming my fears about having 'mods'

Hope that makes sense.

oioioi wrote:
That makes sense
And the whole "them and us" thing is just a mindframe...the way you're thinking about it, you have to change that outlook to change the outcome. So instead of thinking of mods as "them", think of the mod team (we can call them something else by all means lol), think of them as those WE choose to place in a position to ensure the continuation of the forum and since WE put them there, it means we gave them some okay to handle situations that we are unable to agree on. There is not going to be 100% consensus on everything, and if we're unable to even vote in time, they have the responsibility to make the best decision they see fit for ALL of us. That doesn't mean their decision can't be questioned or changed, but some matters cannot be left for weeks on end while we try to come to an agreement, that just is not going to work and wouldn't be fair in some cases because it will eventually involve someone in trouble and, as you stated, it would not be fair to make them sit and wait while we went blubbering on about it.

Another words, they are US, and WE did put them there because we trust them... there is no difference between them and us, they feel, the think, they feel the weight of having to make the best decision possible for everyone.

oioioi wrote:
Well I already suggested that itd be say 4 days max time for a vote on such an issue.
With 15 or more votes trumping the 4 day wait if they arrive before the 4 days are up.

If 15 votes are not reached within 4 days then the mods earlier decision applies and they're banned.

Simples yep?

Question is really can we identify what issues CAN be arrived at by consensus in advance rather than what cannot be I suppose yep?

StarsChildren wrote:
I don't disagree with what you say about it being a mindset problem, in fact that was my point, it creates a mindset on both sides, even the 'banter' myself and dubs aim at them is still based on a strong generalised dislike of the concept. And tbf, and this is not a dragging up the past post but we didn't put the originals ones there, some were there by default and nobody opposed that strongly so it remained so.

I'd be willing to click buttons on behalf of the community, I wouldn't be willing to be making judgements on it's behalf

andyh wrote:
Anything that isn't time sensitive/pressing if there is the will.

oioioi wrote:
I understand what you are saying. And there had to be people there to begin with, to get it going at all, so we can't really hold that against anyone

However, we are putting people there now. And with any luck, its people that we can all trust to a point... some things are going to require oversight and someone willing to make a decision that effects everyone, and they will have to do what they see as right for everyone. Like Andy taking over the financial side to keep the SZ running, he made a decision that he felt was in the best interest of the entire community, we didn't vote him into doing that, he did that on his own... and if people make decisions like that, in the best interest of everyone involved, they should not be scorned for it. DG, (Frog, Novum I assume were involved in it too) all made a decision when they opened the SZ up to begin with, and that was in the best interest of anyone who may be involved and needed a place to go. Whoever we put there we are gonna have to trust to make decisions like that IF needed, not all the time, but when occasion calls for it.

Which comes back to Andy's post... what decisions can we foresee as one that could achieve a consensus in a timely fashion.
Also, what decisions are we going to put to a vote, because of a time frame, and we're gonna agree beforehand on just what is the minimum for that vote, and if it must go to a default decision because of lack of participation by members, are we going to accept decisions made by those we put in positions to do what they see fit for the benefit of everyone.

I feel like I am repeating myself here, and I don't mean to... its been a long couple of days and even longer nights, so if I am repeating myself overlook it and ignore my banter.