Posted by alexandra_k on October 15, 2005, at 21:39:51
In reply to Re: My Mini Novel » alexandra_k, posted by thuso on October 15, 2005, at 19:40:27
> I never said calling him a "tyrant" was a bad thing. ;-)
Ah. I don't really know anything about this so I'm trying to stick to the terminology from the link. I think the notion was that a 'tyrant' is someone who does not act in the interests of the group. So... A bad leader by definition. And I do think... That some people do view him in that way. Typically... people who don't last long here.
> There have actually been people in history who have acted as tyrants and done a lot of good for humanity and future generations
Okay. Maybe we mean something different by 'tyrant'.
> What else would you call him? He wasn’t elected leader. He wasn’t born in the position. He created the community and rules it with an iron fist
I figured... That it might be historical in the sense that he created the boards and thus did seem to have a historical claim with respect to getting to be leader.
I also think there is a distinction between whether he is in fact a tyrant (according to the above definition) or whether some other people perceive him to be a tyrant. Because peoples perceptions... Can be false. And facts of the matter can be hard too... Some decisions are better and others are worse and thus I suppose someone would only be more or less a tyrant from the point of view of... the posters i suppsoe.
>I guess the problem is that we keep using political leadership terms (i.e. monarch or tyrant). I think we would be better off describing his managerial leadership style rather than compare him to a political leadership style. I think that would fit much better.
LOL! Thats because you are a manager.
I'm happier with Plato personally :-)
> Definitely! But what I was saying is that I wouldn’t be surprised if some rules were changed or relaxed once he left.Yeah. Though... We don't have to wait for him to leave first. Not if he has decided it is in the best interests of the boards to take what people say a bit more seriously...
I see now about it being a slow process...
> The way I see it is that he’s trying to figure out how the boards can continue without him completely.
Well. Ultimately, I suppose.
But that doesn't mean he wants to leave volountarily (though I guess he would if he thought it would be in the best interests of the boards).
Even if it was self-regulating...
He might still stick around to post stuff like this: to comment on / getting us thinking about stuff that goes on...
Kind of like a consultant :-)> once a big problem shows up I don’t think it would be good for the community to see the leadership arguing.
they could argue via babblemail...
> ...it would undermine their authority and I would easily be able to figure out a way to take advantage of it (not that I would!).
but the idea... might be that it might be best to not have 'authority figures' on the boards. and with respect to 'taking advantage' then i suppose you have to think that waht they are trying to do is to figure out what is best for the boards. 'taking advantage' would be what? managing to do something to the detriment?
i think... this could work.
but i guess i'm fairly idealistic.>As soon as their authority is gone in people’s eyes, the community will fall apart.
not if we accept a little responsibility ourselves
(i guess learning how to do that is going to take time)
> One phrase for you to think about..."Too many cooks in the kitchen!" A big group of leaders is a very bad idea...especially when there is no hierarchical structure.or at least... not in management!!!!!
>And with such a diverse group of people on the board, I can almost guarantee you that self-regulating behavior will not happen without defined leadership roles and authority.
well... i guess thats the idealised end point. a true democracy where the citizens are informed enough, have their hearts in the right place enough so that... each member self-regulates their own behaviour and conflict doesn't arise.
but... in practice i suppose it is fairly unlikely. or maybe... it happens for a time but is unstable and there may be a little trouble unless a charasmatic leader emerges, or they nominate a leader, or a small group takes leadership or whatever
(though i think it said plato thought tyranny was inevitable at that point)
> we are humans and it is not in our nature to self regulate. How many cultures do you know that are successful at self-regulating? Not too many.
aren't you even just a little tiny bit idealistic?
maybe... we just haven't figured out how to realise it yet.
i don't think we shouldn't work for it simply because nobody else has managed to do it.
if we had that attitude we wouldnt' have progressed very far at all...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:564410
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051013/msgs/567393.html