Posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2010, at 23:55:30
In reply to Re: some kind of Elders Council, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 2010, at 23:51:46
> As already suggested, the Elder's Council could serve to work with Dr. Bob on determining whether a member really has been incivil, developing a more consistent and predictable application of blocks for those who opt out of the CB route, and fill in for Bob when he is absent or unavailable.
>
> Solstice> You're serious, Bob? I do see your openness and I appreciate it, but...
>
> This is all very complicated, and it could get as bad or worse as it was when there were more people monitoring. This site was littered with PBCs and Blocks. The constant out of context mincing and parsing of words under the microscope on many of the boards are what's brought babble to its current place of reduced postage. Many of the people who received long blocks were wonderful "civil" people(some were even die-hard Bob/Babble supporters), but they got caught up in a maddening cycle of getting pbc'd/blocked for some unfair interpretations. Mistakes are bound to happen, but it happened enough to not feel safe anymore.
>
> Yeah, it's not easy.
>
> Honestly, a lot of people getting in the mix with a lot of power to say what's civil and not civil, and to block and unblock, with different interpretations. To dictate which threads/topics are/aren't troublesome to post on, could get way more confusing, crazy-making, etc.
>
> Free> They would cover for Bob when he gone.
> And ultimately then maybe this site would become more 'ours', and not so much just 'His'.
>
> muffled> Deputies covered for Bob when he was gone, and consulted among themselves for a consensus.
>
> I don't recall posters feeling any better about actions.
>
> I may be cynical, but I can't see people welcoming pbc's or blocks from anyone. Conversely I can't see all posters welcoming a lack of pbc's or blocks either. People tend to feel differently when they feel attacked.
>
> But I don't believe the site would be better served by Dr. Bob giving over his power to a group. There would just be different problems.
>
> I am members of sites that are entirely group led. There are still splinter factions, huge blowouts and dissolvings of the group.
>
> This isn't utopia.
>
> Dinah> I think that his ownership of the site is something that we all have to figure out a way to be okay with. In many ways, it is "our" site because without us, it would not exist. But when it comes to final decisions, those things will always belong to Bob. Just as surely as he created the site, he alone has the power to dismantle it.
>
> SolsticeThe way I'm thinking of this, the primary task of the council would be to decide whether and when to lift blocks. I'd still determine whether posters were civil, and deputies would still fill in for me when I'm unavailable.
--
> A council member should possess objectivity and humility, without any vested interests in the outcome of a given conflict.
>
> Free> If this is implemented, I think it would be important to have some criteria for parole. Leaving it entirely to the choice of the parole board, so to speak, might lead to conscious or unconscious favoring of the popular, or confusion and distrust by posters.
>
> The criteria could be developed by you, or by the council, or through discussion and at least partial consensus on the administration board.
>
> But transparency has always been a value on Babble, and I think it's a value that should continue in any implementation of parole. People should be able to understand if they might meet criteria before they apply, and why they were rejected if they were rejected. People should be able to understand the process, and the likely result, IMO.
>
> Otherwise it would lead to more confusion and anger than exist with civility guidelines. And the council might be faced with even more anger than in my opinion is already unfortunately likely.
>
> As I stated before, I'd suggest linking parole to a willingness to abide by site guidelines upon return. The first time could be based entirely on the word of the person asking for it. The next time and subsequent times could ask for more assurances than that, if the word has proven to be insufficient. There could be a fair amount of judgment on the parole board's part on what that might be. But I think the basic framework should be easily understandable by all.
>
> That's just my suggestion. I'm sure others would have other suggestions.
>
> DinahMy inclination is to leave the criteria to the council. That empowers them more and makes them less likely to be seen as my minions.
It would be up to posters to elect (and re-elect) those they trusted.
> I see it as more likely that the council would either have to allow everything to retain the good feelings of the more outspoken posters, or would grow to receive the same feelings Bob receives. In my experience, posters are less able to tolerate rage than Dr. Bob is. I think part of the secret of Babble's longevity is Bob's ability to be a container for rage.
>
> DinahLike deputies, council members should probably also be able to stay cool -- and to take some heat. They may not feel it's necessary to retain the good feelings of all posters. If they're elected and not seen as my minions, they may not receive as much rage.
> to those who post here, it is 'home', and that is a HUGE thing. People should have some degree of safety and autonomy in their own 'home'. Then they can feel more able to more fully share etc.
>
> A council could override Bob(an effective council would).
> The balance of power would shift.
> I would have more trust(over time anyways) that a broader group of people might better have the interests of the 'present' community at heart.
> I think it might be a challenge for the elders council at times....but it could possibly work.
> The ONLY way I would be interested in being a part of all this would be if Bob was willing to relinquish some of his control.
>
> muffled> > What if the council had the power to lift blocks?
>
> Now this I like.
> Anyhow, this sounds more like Bob would be willing to let go some?????
> Is this what you mean Bob? that you would be willing to let go some? Or would you still barge in higglety pigglety(or willy nilly...;-/ ) and start throwing your weight around?
> Or would you be willing to work THRU the board?????
>
> muffledI'd see it as letting go some. But not as working through the council. The deputies and me would still determine whether posters were civil.
> If Bob is really serious about setting up a Council of Wise Elders or a Parole Board or whatever -
>
> My final vote would be for...
>
> Free--
Thanks, everyone, for your input. Here's a proposal:
Candidates need to have been registered for 1 year and to have posted 300 times to be eligible. They need to get 5 "signatures" to be nominated. Posters can sign more than 1 "nomination petition". Candidates can sign their own petitions. Candidates nominated by others can decline to "run".
There's 1 month to nominate candidates, then 1 month to vote. Each poster gets 1 vote. The 5 candidates with the most votes are elected. Their term is 1 year.
The council gets a mailing list to communicate with each other off-board.
The council chooses one of themselves to interface with me.
The primary task of the council is to decide whether and when to lift blocks. There's a minimum period during which blocks can't be lifted. Blocks can be lifted unconditionally or with conditions like a voluntary civility buddy, a mandatory civility buddy, or delayed posting.
It's up to blocked posters to involve the council or not. They can communicate with the council off-board if they want.
The council decides by voting. The quorum is 3 members voting or abstaining. A majority (of those voting) determines the decision.
For the sake of transparency, the council posts its decisions and how each member votes.
A secondary task of the council is to serve as a resource for me.
How does that sound?
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:964630
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971688.html