Hey hey, I ain't perfect either.

The system proposed sounds great, this imperfect communicator agrees.

I don’t really like the idea of excluding or censoring people. On the one hand, I understand that some sorts of comments just aren’t appropriate and that (as much as I’d like to see voluntary civility) as long as civility is voluntary some people just won’t do it.

There’s a part of me that likes the idea of being a community where people are expected to be civil. And there’s a part of me that really, really doesn’t like being told what I can or can’t say.

Expectations are not the same as rules. I’d like to see a community where we all tried to be ethical, respectful, and rational in our blogging. A community where people expect such conduct from each other and are willing to correct their ways when someone calls them on an inappropriate comment. And where there aren’t a bunch of rules and bureaucracy.

I’m honestly not thrilled with the development of rules and penalties and contracts.

As far as the specific methodology . . . I have a few thoughts/concerns.

1. Who determines whether a given voter is a “party” to the complaint? If a comment is made about a specific individual, it may seem pretty straight forward. What if the comment is offensive to a whole class of people? Would any member of that class be excluded from voting? (For example, use of derogatory sexist language or a racial epithet that may or may not even be directly aimed at a specific blogger – but could certainly offend a number of fellow-bloggers.)

2. What protection is there against tyranny of the majority or even the minority? Considering how relatively easy it is to join Olyblog and the mix of people we have now (and the degree of controversy we have over what is acceptable), I think it would be distinctly possible for three people to “gang up” on someone they disagree with but who may not have said anything really worthy of silencing. Just because they aren’t a “party” doesn’t mean they are unbiased. Three to nine people could do a lot of silencing under these rules.

3. This system leaves us with no uniform, predictable standard of what is acceptable. If three people find it unacceptable, then (according to this system) it would be unacceptable.

4. Could the same three people vote against a user on more than one occasion or would nine unique voters be necessary to affect a suspension?

5. Given that none of us are perfect, would this be three strikes within a given amount of time? Or was that the function of the Blogger Jubilee? It would certainly seem harsh to exclude someone who got one strike every other year for six years . . . by then maybe this whole thing will be re-structured again anyway.

6. Would there be a sentence of a certain number of weeks, or would exclusion always be till the next New Year? (If someone offended in January, would they be out for 11 months?)

6. I know when WallyCuddeford posted some comments about another Olyblogger on his blog we got into a big discussion about what was appropriate and one of the points that was made was that the comments were posted on his own blog. Will there be a different standard for blog entries than for comments or will the rules be the same?

...but then again, I've got a bias. :)

I think you've got a good plan, Rick.  I'm not entirely sure it will be necessary if action is taken regarding the current atmosphere, though the issue may come up again.

The Canaanite's Call

I’m honestly not sure this is where we want to go, but I’ll share it . . . I heard somewhere that there aren’t any bad ideas when brainstorming.

First, if we’re going to be enforcing a code, I think it should be pretty concrete. In terms of what we want to see and encourage each-other towards, I think “be respectful” is good. But that’s open to a lot of interpretation and I guess my leaning toward as little regulation as possible makes me want to limit penalties – if there must be any - to the more obvious sorts of disrespect. So far example, if we say “No racist slurs” and someone is accused of breaking that rule, the accuser should be able to cite the exact language used and identify it as a racist slur.

So here’s an outline of what a jury system might look like.

Step One: Olyblog user (AKA offender) posts comment which may violate Olyblog laws.

Step Two: Another Olyblog user accuses the offender of violating Olyblog laws; must cite what rule has been broken and how.

Step Three: A different Olyblog user seconds the accusation, indicated that they believe Olyblog laws have been violated and that judicial action is merited.

Step Four: Jury is selected. Docents would be excluded from the Jury Pool because of their role in policing Olyblog, the amount of time they already put into Olyblog, and an interest in de-centralizing the power structure. New members would also be excluded. (This would – at least - mean members not yet given blogging ability. We could set a certain number of weeks someone has to have used Olyblog before being added to the Jury Pool. Jury members should be familiar with Olyblog expectations and full members of the Olyblog community.)  Members who haven’t posted for awhile – we’d have to determine what length of time – would also be excluded. Of course, any member currently suspended would also be excluded. The remaining members would constitute the Jury Pool. When an issue comes up, members would be randomly selected to serve as a “Jury” to determine whether Olyblog rules were violated. Since the Jury was picked randomly and virtually all active members are included, there would be no stacking the decks with specific members. Of course, if Olyblog as a whole has a bias, that bias would be likely to still create an issue. Perhaps some sort of semi-rotational system could be developed to ensure that Jury responsibility is shared equally. Those who have most recently served on a case should be excused from serving on the next case that comes up. In any given case, of course, the accuser,  the person who seconded the accusation, and the offender (accused) would be excluded from serving on the Jury.

Step Five: The offender (accused) would have the opportunity to submit a statement defending their comment. The accuser would also have the opportunity to submit an explanation of why they consider the comment offensive. The content of the blog in question would also be submitted (including the offending comment and – for the purposes of establishing context – all proceeding comments). The initial accusation including a statement of what rule was supposedly violated would also be included. The Jury members could review this evidence online on the Olyblog website. It would not be necessary for the Jury members to meet in person. They could confer by private message as necessary.  Perhaps the Jury could consist of 3 members and a conviction could require a majority vote.

I would lean toward a moderator committee.  I would not trust the three blogger model for assigning strikes. 

In my opinion, unless we convert to a consensus process of some kind, someone is going to get the messy end of the stick, or at least feel like the are, which is the same thing to them.

... and would like to stir the conversation into a different direction instead:

IF! we see Olyblog not as a community in itself but an extention of the greater community, that is Olympia, we will have less problems with talking and arguing about no-topics and rather create content that's creative, beautiful and enriching, which in a real world should take care of the garbarge by overshadowing it.

Let's not waste our time and bandwidth on, to real Olympians, irrelevant topicsbut focus on the real issues and beauty of this city.

I favor a redesign of the website to "announce" the change, rather than a refining of some laws.

mathias eichler

einmaleins 

We're working within some constraints here that I'll try to describe:

• In my experience with OlyBlog, it is unrealistic to expect that people will be willing to do the organization required by the other proposals. We need something than can happen without much time investment.
• Because docents are not always on the blog, we need a system that doesn't require supervision. It would be best if we can just go back over the thread and see what the outcome was.
• I think that three independent bloggers on three separate events is enough safeguard to prevent abuse. In addition I think that docents should be able to invalidate votes if they appear motivated by spite or political bias.

I think we should give this proposal a try and see what happens. I'm sure we'll learn more as we go along. The other proposals are unworkable in my opinion. As is doing nothing.

"playing the victim" is just one tactic in the deflection toolbox and perhaps if someone doesn't like the way enpen phrased that, they could mention it and they could work it out. Firing back with accusations of this or that doesn't get us anywhere.

A courtesy that should have been extended before my blog was shut down.

My initial response is that if anyone should have been offended by Tschida's delivery in my blog, it should have been me.  Interestingly enough, I was about to contact a docent and consider closing it because I felt the argument was going nowhere.  Again, I believe that was my privilege for my reasons, considering that the statement is "start a blog of your own" unless that strictly means "leave Olyblog", which I'm trying hard to interpret differently.

So, back to the individual at hand.  It seems that, just prior to my arrival, "Independent Voter" was removed from Olyblog.  Thus, I'd guess that there is a process.  I'm just not sure that it has to include others.  I'm not into public hangings. 

Being one that has been "warned" in the past, I know that sometimes it has nothing to do with "playing the macho game".  Sometimes it has to do with voicing an opinion that goes against the grain of a handful of people or defending oneself from a false claim.  In my personal case, it once had to do with just the point that I said I was banned from The Olympian. 

I've been accused of all sorts of motives in posts that I've made, none of which were accurate, but it seems that mindreading is a sport, of late.

Lastly, Olyblog will do as Olyblog wishes, regardless of Larry's input.  I've said my piece and now will move on.  No sense in ruffling feathers.

I've had a couple of Fran's chocolates and my grandson has been busy making me laugh.

I realize my viewpoints, political or not, don't always coincide with others around here.  I think more than anything, I just really miss the old you... 

I am a wobbly at heart. Always have been. Think I always will be. - Olyblogger "Mike"

one person's salt is another's sugar.

Gug picked up "Broho" from my earlier post and that became the operative word, when, in reality, it was nothing more or less than an illustration.  Had I used the term "Burger King" I doubt that anyone would jump to the defense.

He then used the phrase "liberal overlords", which provided me a chuckle.

I find some posts annoying and some posts intended to be annoying I find funny.

Although bald, I'm the Pesci, you're the Liota

The approach that I want to suggest may take a little brain stretching to understand, for two reasons.  The first is that we anarchists usually LOVE process... in fact we seem to delight more in boring each other to tears in tedious consensus meetings than we delight in protesting "The Man".  Secondly, most people think anarchists are anti-authoritarian in rather absolute terms.

I'm going to suggest an approach that will bend your notions of anarchy.

Anarchism is fundamentally rooted in community.  Community is fundamentally rooted in trust, without which community does not function.  Trust allows for either a swift consensus decision or a deferral of decision making power to an individual.

I trust Rob.  I trust Rick.  I trust Enpen.  I trust Rob W, and Emmett.  And I trust that when they take action (whether it is after all this tedious process, or simply an on the spot decision), nearly everyone on this blog is going to sigh an ENOURMOUS sigh of relief, and many thanks will be given to our outstanding docents, and then we can all get back to our usual business of creating content.

As an anarchist, I'm all in favor of the all-powerful oligarchy of docents here at Olyblog.  Because I trust them.

The Canaanite's Call