dubmeup wrote:
Sorry, but pointing out the obvious unlikelihood of achieving consensus is not blocking a debate about whether 100% consensus or majority vote is the way forward. It's debating the relevant topic.
dubmeup wrote:
Yes, and iirc, that was myself, and clearly speaking tongue in cheek for humorous effect! (I do remember there being some humour allowed in that thread).
dubmeup wrote:
I don't think that's in doubt, but similarly, others who don't agree with sticking to 100% consensus are equally keen to see us discuss things like adults and work together. To imply otherwise would be plain wrong.
dubmeup wrote:
Some already have, but this 'inner sanctum' or whatever, would presumably be approaching things with some flexibility, and continuing to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Apart from, presumably, those who, "Won't be justifying their view any more".

Your suggestion then that voicing disagreement to 100% consensus in a debate by the 'IS' should be moderated out actually makes a complete mockery of any such debate, and any claim to wanting actual genuine consensus imo.

I'm sorry if you see that observation as some kind of attack - it's not meant to be anything like that, but to my mind, it needs saying.

Or should we turn the tables and say that anyone derailing the debate by poo-pooing majority rule should be moderated?

If we want to make progress, surely the only way is by discussion to evaluate the strengths & weaknesses of the options without anyone's views being stifled.

This is where I 'd love to see everybody stating their views, but I can well understand and empathise with anybody who would find it to be a pain in the neck.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

thoreau wrote:
It would be open to anyone to join. The idea of having to opt in is so people can't just jump in threads where discussion has been ongoing, throw in their 2 pence then vanish from the thread without any interest in the consequence of the thread.

Discussing opposition to 100% agreement to consensus would be fine in a thread about consensus, I think/hope is dubs point Gilly.

pheony wrote:
Who is/would be "more equal" than who?

Like I said previously the idea just doesnt sit right with me - it feels a little too like we are moving towards having a 'monarch' 'police' and now a 'house of lords' - sorry to use those as analogies as I know peoples hearts are in the right places. I guess I don't see what difference a group of people as part of an 'inner sanctum' will make - as presumably as it stands it will consist of the same members who do get involved in community issues and vote already - which makes having a specific group kind of a moot point.

My understanding of the issues that we have with actually implementing anything is that we do vote we do discuss but no one is stepping up to end the voting process and declare the outcome until recently when stars stepped up and galvanised us all and then didnt let it drop till the solution was declared.

Maybe I am seeing stuff completely differently to others - as always it is just my pov and as ever will go with the community.

gilly considering the names you threw at me of late yes i could be forgiven for thinking you are "attacking". but i dont, i get your pov. you dont think trying to talk things through to a stage where everyone backs a course of action is a good idea.
you'd like to have a voting system with set procedures as i understand it.
i have justified concern about majority rule as do you about consensus. as yet neither has proved effective. my only concern is that the community needs to get stuff like this sorted. one way, tother, a combination or summat totally different. whatever. just as long as we get on with it.

I still say a Thunderdome type scenario would be the best resolution. I can't fettle images like Feather, but sketti could don something like this...and she'd fecking love it:



I believe she already wears something quite similar for housework anyway.

I realise that I've really added nothing of any use to the discussion, but the imagery alone should be quite inspiring, I feel.

That is all.

... you know me so well

dubmeup wrote:
Erm, name, singular, I believe you mean - i.e. pompous git - not in relation to this issue, and a pretty feeble comment, given your previously having called me a cunt.
dubmeup wrote:
No, I do think talking things through is the right thing to do, as I've said more than once previously. If consensus hasn't been reached within a sensible length of time though, I don't see why lack of consensus should prevent anything getting resolved.

I agree with your other comments here, which seem a bit more open to give & take than your previous ones.

What I'm basically saying is that we should come up with a blueprint of how to deal with stuff, so that's it's all clear for everyone.

Like I said before - even the recent mod voting thread caused confusion, because we all failed to pre-determine the guidelines thoroughly. So we'd some people going off the nett votes (Yes's minus No's), some thinking that any no's should pretty much disqualify people, and some thinking it was just total 'yes's' that mattered.

There was no problem caused, because all the candidates were cool, but it'd just make life easier, and mean nobody has to jump in to round people up in the end, if we sort it in advance.

glossing over the name calling, which we both know is a tad more involved than you say, i dont actually think our views are as far apart as we may think gilly. i saw the same little issues with the votes. its something that needs clarity.
i've said before that being prepared for compromise is something i am and that i hope others are too. thats not to suggest going against ones core principles but to give a little here and there to help the whole. hopefully this will be the time we actually get an agreed idea on procedures

dubmeup wrote:
I'm not glossing over anything - don't play the innocent! But since it was a personal disagreement via PM, I feel it's appropriate to continue that conversation via PM, should you have any further remarks you wish to make on that score.

That aside though, I'm delighted by the rest of your response, which while directly contradicting what you said earlier in this thread, proves anyway that there's a strong chance of getting along & pulling together. That's very cool.

i aint playing innocent. i know i jokingly called you and irre a pair of cunts. guilty.
there's no contradiction in what i am saying. if people agree that a majority vote is the way decisions are made, that is the view of the community and i'll be going with it. being pro consensus neccesarily involves such compromise on occasion

guys, your consensus game is fine and everything, as long as you agree with sketti.

Who says we wouldn't agree with Sketti?
Although I am sure some would just disagree to see what would happen.

StarsChildren wrote:
They'd then be asked for their reasoning, then their reasons, if reasoned, would be addressed.

and then they may ignore everything and keep their heels dug in the mud. egos are a strange old thing.

dubmeup wrote:
I can't imagine anyone, if presented with sound reason (and not being subjected to oppressive, sniping remarks aimed at belittling / brow-beating) disagreeing just purely for the hell of it, myself.

I wonder if it's maybe the prospect of having suggestions like the one quoted aimed at them, that discourage a lot of people from wanting to take part in these debates at all?

In fact, thinking about it, I'm not entirely confident that everyone can manage to argue their corner without resorting to those tactics when disagreements occur, so for that reason, I'll withdraw my own interest in partaking of the decision making process.

This thread is giving me a headache

Jane