| |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> writes:
> > I fully expect that there will need to be -some- sort of judicial system
> > here someday for reviewing "out of line" behavior/etc. (something probably
> > very similar to the concept of a "trial by a jury of your peers") in order
> > that a group of people can unite to ostracise or exile someone who doesn't
> > belong (i.e., doesn't share a group's tenets or is actively disrespectful
> > of them).
>
> What? Why? I like the tribal cheiftan judicial system we have now. Are you
> saying you don't want the job? That you would abandon your tribe?
I'm saying that someday it won't be possible for a single person to handle
all the mind-bandwidth necessary to keeping random riff-raff under control.
Even if it were possible, it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing for the
community, because when things are going well, people tend to assume that a
chief knows everything that's going on, always knows what's best for the
tribe, and always knows exactly the best way to handle every situation.
That might be the case in small to medium-sized communities, but after a
certain point it's just no longer humanly possible. You need layers, at the
very least, to summarize information and problems or to delegate decisions
and so forth.
One of the biggest dangers of a tribal chieftan judicial system in a large
community is when the chief makes an obviously wrong or unpopular decision
against someone, yet no one speaks up against the chief if they disagree.
IMHO, that kind of silence (fear of the chief or fear of going against the
grain) can be hurtful to a community.... I don't know if it's ever happened
yet here, but we're still a very small community (only a few thousand --
with almost everyone acting mature all of the time, which makes it much
easier).
> All kidding aside, The system we have now seems to work fine. You've
> always shown yourself to be even-handed and fair (note that does *not*
> mean I always agree with your decisions, only that you seem even-handed
> and fair, and to have a reason for the decisions you make).
I'm not sure if you're talking about technical decisions or people-oriented
decisions...? Technical decisions are one thing -- those are relatively
easy once enough data is known, but the most challenging part is sometimes
explaining the rationale behind a technical decision. If someone disagrees
with a technical decision, I want to know what parts they disagree with in
case I missed something. But people-oriented decisions are much more
delicate, because while I can fully understand the insides and outsides of
nearly any technical decision here, I could never fully understand the
insides and outsides of any personal or interpersonal or complex
sociological issue. I don't think it's entirely possible to be even-handed
and fair with people issues unless everyone feels free to speak their true
mind about an issue.
> And even
> better, it's backed up by the absolute of the fact that LUGNET is "yours".
> I know you would say that it's a community, and it belongs to all users,
> etc, but you set it up and you pay the bills (as far as anyone knows, at
> least) and you could do whatever you wanted with it.
Yes, legally and technically on paper, it's a private thing that's owned,
but that doesn't mean it can't still feel like a community where everyone
understands that their opinion is worth stating.
> Install a group of people to make such decisions, and immediately you have
> dissenting opinions, and the bogging down of bureaucracy.
Conflict (i.e., dissenting opinions) can be a good thing, IMHO.
Where there is conflict there is involvement, and involvement leads to
solutions. The right level of involvement plus the right level of conflict
leads to great solutions.
Of course, too much involvement and too much conflict leads to more problems
and bad solutions, but I believe it could be kept in check.
> You have people
> complain that the arbitrarily chosen Judges aren't fair. Have them voted
> on, and you suddenly have LUGNET Politicians (shudder).
I shudder at the thought of "politicians" too, but it's certain to be that
as things grow, various responsibilities will be delegatable -- such as
organizing resources in particular areas (say, an intro page to the Trains
area, or a set of links to fan pages about Castle stuff, or various layers
of the FAQ, or a librarian for reviews or model collections, etc.). The
methods through which people may volunteer for these responsibilities, and
the methods through which people are selected, is fully open to discusssion.
One thing's for sure though -- just volunteering for something doesn't mean
a guaranteed spot -- it shouldn't; someone should have to demonstrate
(somehow) that they're willing and able to take on the responsibility.
In any case, it means some manner of competition, and although there
probably wouldn't anything resembling elections or public posturing, there
would need to be some way for people to register enthusiasm or raise
concerns.
> A monarchy might be a terrible thing when you have a poor king, but it's
> probably the most efficient system when you have a king capable of handling
> the power he weilds (and the ultimate tools that the administrator of a
> server can use to make his word actual, real-life Law).
I'm thinkin' long-term here on this... Not something necessarily to set up
within the next 3-6 months -- but more of something to figure out on the
back burner over the next 6-24 months, depending on the growth curve.
Again, I think some sort of community judicial system (and whatever that
means is *wide* open to discussion) will go a long way toward helping this
community stay strong and survive the coming growth curve of the next five
years.
Perhaps all that might be needed is some sort of .town-square or .town-
meeting group, who knows. Or perhaps something more formal. We'll just
have to see. All I know for sure is that there -has- to be some place where
someone who stands accused of something can defend themselves (and be
defended by others, if others feel similarly).
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.admin.general]
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Please help keep LUGNET clean
|
| (...) As I said in person... find some thing that would be relatively easy to let a committee decide (NOT The ID number thing, boy what a can of worms that was) and start it... it doesn't have to be an important thing. But doing it relatively soon, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Please help keep LUGNET clean
|
| (...) lugnet.charges lugnet.arraignment lugnet.judgejudy j/k (...) Benevolent dictator, eh? :-) (...) And what is the growth curve? You got a graph or something? (Wouldn't surprise me if you did ;-) (...) Lugnet.admin.city-council for planning (...) (25 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Please help keep LUGNET clean
|
| (...) Well, you're right, of course. I was mostly kidding with the tribal cheiftan bit, obviously, but IMHO it's worked so far. Of course, as someone noted elsewhere, the maturity level around here is pretty high, so it hasn't been a huge job from (...) (25 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
