Mod process violation.

[Billy]

     I am unaware of an process in place for anyone in the GA to question the mod if they feel he/she is violating the process or abusing the process and violating it's intent.

 

     I can't think of any clear cases of this to give an example but without a means of anyone present to question the moderator then the moderator becomes a sort of tyrant because he/she could violate the process and no one could do anything about it.

[cyberconnect]

The only situation I could bring as an example, would be with the 'outspoken' man from tonight's GA. As much of a disruption as he was, the fact that he brought nearly nothing relevant to the table through his comments, and aggravated a lot of people... it bothered me a lot when the Mega Phone was taken from him. He still had time left to talk, an amount of time that ANYONE can use. Granted, it was all irrelevant, however I heard no rule which allowed the moderator/a small group, to force him out of the spot light. Several minutes later, the same group that just shut this man up, talks how they will never censure anyone. I am sorry, but that is just what they did to him, no matter how crazy he may have appeared.

[Billy]

I agree that I don't like the concept of censoring people but I also think we have agreed to a process and everyone can talk on any topic and bring up any topic they wish. What should we do if people regularly derail the process?

 

     One thing I can say I did not like was when we voted to cut off stack on that one proposal and then proceeded to vote. I don't think that we should ever vote on any proposal as long as people still feel the need to talk on the subject. If we don't have time to discuss it then we should not vote on it. Either we take the time at the next GA or the submitter of the proposal rework it into something less controversial. In my opinion proposals with long stack lines should probably be sent back to committee and everyone invited to join especially those in line for stack.

[cyberconnect]

Exactly, it simply exploits a logical flaw in the current system. While it is a nice, hopeful, idea that everyone should play nice with each other, last night is a key example of how that system can be exploited, as well as a great example of the sticky situation it brings up. We state that we do not censor, but we have a man standing here, completely off topic, ranting and venting about things completely in left field. It becomes a values vs. efficiency issue. It is issues such as these, that seem to require a rule in place. A rule which defines a set of guidelines we all agree upon, when the unexpected, unknown, and contradictions such as these occur. Basically... what to do when people attempt to derail, exploit, or hijack the system.

 

The stack situation is another one along these same lines. We state that everyone can speak, on any subject, but just as it was brought up before... what do we do when our numbers grow? Instead of 5 people wishing to talk, we have 50 people.

 

And thus the key flaw in the democratic system is shown: time.

 

With 300 people, and ~5 people speaking on each topic, this is not an issue. But just image if our numbers doubled. 600 people and 10 people speaking. Tripled, 900 and 15. Etc.

I do have an idea of a possible solution to this issue... however it is going to take some time to really work out, write down, and find any issues with it.

[Billy]

     I think we are bringing together too many issues here and should go through and separate them into small ones. Along those lines one thing I think we need to work on from a functional stand point is a way for people to get involved at a committee level that are not on the committee. For example if someone wants to get involved and work on a specific topic with it's committee but does not want to join the committee and be involved in all other aspects we should come up with a way to do that.

 

     As far as what to do when things get bigger I see no issue with that in the foreseeable future. My understanding is that things are supposed to go through committee before being presented to the GA. That in many cases is not being done. In some cases it is being done but not well enough. I've made a few proposals to help on this that I've witnessed in action in NYCGA over livestream.

 

     If a lot of people want to speak on a topic I think that topic should be immediately taken out of the GA and sent back to committee for further work. Any one wishing to speak at that point can do so in committee. The proposal can later be re-submitted in it's refined form.

 

     I've also proposed the use of temperature checks which can be used in a variety of ways to see if something is ready for the GA or not even before official proposal.

 

     However all this stuff is really off this topic which is strictly about developing a means for individuals to voice a when they feel the moderator has violated process. With 7 proposals in the same category I am thinking I should probably get involved in the secretariat committee as none of these are ready for proposal and all need to be discussed.

 

     I would also like to state that just because something seems difficult doesn't mean we should not do it. New York has succeeded in this same process with a lot more people than us gotten a lot of really cool stuff done and a tougher voting structure.

 

     With committees and sub-committees I can see this thing growing significantly larger under the proposed basic structure with out any major modifications.