Guevarista wrote:
It took us around a month to select new forum 'staff', we still don't have a clear process in place for choosing mods though! It could be discussed, without pressure, at length until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. And some people have expressed that such talk about organisational and policy matters can be a bit of a forum 'turn off' and they just want to read/post like a 'regular' forum.

Why?

Look through the threads and name one where a decision was actually made in a timely manner (a week or less). If you can name one that did not get sidetracked and a decision was actually made in a good time span, I'll retract my opinion of "as a community it seems we can't agree on anything other than to disagree".

oioioi wrote: That's fine, how did the forum function without forum "staff" in that period, and we have them now so where is the problem?
What do Mod's actually do, what is the job description for a mod, i didn't really think there was a need for talk about organisational or policy matters as such so can see why some aren't interested?
stars:Are there any threads where a decision wasn't made?
Some people can't be at the computer all the time, I've gone fortnights as a member without logging on, these things take time what's the big rush what's so important?

Guevarista wrote:
Have you been here for the last three weeks?

Guevarista wrote:
No rush, that's kinda the point. Non-pressing matters, such as mod selection process, can be discussed and eventually concluded as and when it occurs naturally, not due to it being a pressing matter.

I seem to recall a thread around here somewhere on "how best to make decisions - majority vs consensus" and I do believe it remains undecided... if we go with consensus, we gotta find a way to agree with the members that are available at a specific time frame (a week, 2 weeks, etc...). If we go with voting, we gotta decide what a majority rule is and the time frame for that too. There have been no actual decisions made... the forum staff was most likely a freaking stalemate and whoever had the powers to do so decided to just make the decision.

intermittently, basically my approach if I was in charge would be a complete "tabula rasa" with the absolute minimum of moderation or administrative input, if and when the community was confronted with a choice or a decision that process would happen organically and democratically via forum participation, I really don't think there is any need for a moderator to do anything really, if the posters decide something needs to be done they call a vote and we decide democratically and form splinter forums when we disagree.

Guevarista wrote:
Even with a democratic approach, there would have to be a time limit, no open ended, and no moaning and whining because someone didn't get their say because they didn't sign in and see the post. And a decision on how many votes would be a majority rule, and if under the minimum does it go to default to staff decision.

At the bolded bit... excuse my language, but what the fuck? I'm sorry, I may have taking it the wrong way (correct me if I did), but that was fucking low.

Guevarista wrote:
I think that's what folks are trying to iron out, Gue. It hasn't happened every time here organically, unfortunately, hence the reason for this discussion.

As you can see for yourself also, moderation is always kept at a minimum here because to a large extent, we moderate ourselves. In my experience, it has only ever been an issue when one or more members see someone as breaching our t&cs and even then, rarely is action taken without group consultation.

It would be useful for all concerned if this process could be better defined, just so we all know where we stand really.

As for groups splintering...

lol "low" what do you mean?

Why does any vote have to have a time limit?

That's weird, what if maybe the case has to be put forward for a vote and points argued, improved upon, so a decision could be amended before it was enacted, what is thE RUSH!"!!!111>????

Low as in accusations, disagreement = run off and cry about it by making another place... I don't think anyone here did that.

Rush? No rush...but can you imagine a world being run like that? Stalemate for all of fucking eternity because no one is willing to make decisions? Yes, this is just some internet forum where people gather outside of real life...but it is a world in itself...its a community of like minded people who deserve better than to sit around with their thumb up their ass for all of time because no one wants to make decisions in a timely matter.

Edit: And TBH I much rather prefer this place to real life...stupidity does not run wild on here. I'd love to, someday, form an actual community with the other members here, and in that instance, a way, already set up, to make decisions that effect the ENTIRE community would be good to have in place so we don't stand around for months on end trying to decide how to make decisions.

Guevarista wrote:
That's pretty much the proposal on the table atm

sounds like heaven tbh, especially if we had a clean slate, you could say Stalemate, or you could say observation and experimentation for eternity, no fixed human system, instead a constantly evolving and developing humanity.

There possibly is a happy medium between never doing anything and rushing everything and never doing it right the first time.
Politically, in the real world the rush to institute rules on people has led to the situation whereby now we are developing and growing beyond those past boundaries we are constantly amending the rules to include blacks, jews, women, gypsys etc, that's reformism, the ruling classes making concessions, that's why I'm a Marxist I say we revolutionise the entire system.

I'm not arguing the point with you Gue... obviously you and I have two very different ideas of heaven.
Without order, there is chaos... that doesn't mean every fragment of your life gets planned out and laws set on, it just means there is order there because of a basic guideline, and there are those there charged with enforcing it.

When you speak of rules Guevarista, that makes it sound like a bad thing because I expect most here are rebellious by nature.

It's a nuance, but it's not really rules we're wanting to define, so much as agreed procedures to help things run smoothly, which should hopefully benefit everyone.

And it's OK saying there's no rush - technically, there isn't on most things - but there have been quite a few votes going on in the last few weeks that were a waste of time, purely because no prior agreement had been reached as to those processes. That's what we hope to address.