MIC CHECK #2: Current draft of proposed text for companion DU3 group

[Leopolds Ghost]

SOP: A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a broad-based community where persons from DU past and present can check in. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.



How to Proceed?

----

I am willing to post a Help/Meta forum request if and when there is a general consensus.


Italics above merely show recent changes in the last several edits on the original thread.

----

I'll post the most recent draft of the forum rules in a separate reply to this post,

Since the substantial consensus of the straw poll in the main thread -- was to proceed with a simple SOP that Occu-DU2 has already consented on and bring it to Help/Meta, with the rules implied to be in late draft stage to be finalized.

Also, if I'm one of / the starting host, then I'll abstain from further edits.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Group Standards and Procedure (most recent draft)

Note that Occupy is not a partisan movement, but DU is a partisan blog. Therefore this group is, necessarily, a forum for Occupy supporters who happen to be contributing members of the DU community and does not seek to co-opt the label, speak for any Occupy or for all Occupiers, or take the place of physical Occupy efforts. It is not meant to forestall but to encourage discussion on other DU forums by providing a place for inter-forum links among other things, bringing people together on a common issue, and public information that might get lost in the shuffle.

Occupy ALL Streets. Occupy ALL Seats. Occupy ALL Forums.

1. All members will treat other members in a manner consistent with the DU Community Standards and Terms of Service. No member shall disclose personal messages without authorization. No member may engage in personal attacks or harassing behavior. Discuss the post and not the poster.

2. Up to 4 co-hosts, or a set number specified by the group, may be appointed by the lead host, in accordance with an ongoing consensus of group participants as to the identity, number and duties of such hosts, which consensus shall be recognized by the lead host in a fair manner only in response to a thread dedicated to the subject in which a decision is reached by users to make an ongoing determination of hosting issues, such thread to remain open for at least 72 hours and provide an additional 72 hours to come to a decision, the results of which shall be recognized by the lead host and acted upon per the wishes of the group.

3. In accordance with the general practice of Occupy, the method of decision-making used by group participants shall be a Wikipedia-style consensus, allowing for the use of straw polls if and as needed, to be recognized accordingly by the OP or by any host who is not the OP, thereby closing out the decision-making portion of the thread. A determination of consensus may be reconsidered by two (2) other hosts, thereby leaving the discussion open.

4. Whether host(s) should close out consensus instead of the person calling for a debate on any given subject will be determined if thread participants (by acclamation) or a hosts (in-thread) or the OP themselves deem it to be an issue wherein a person other than the OP ought close out discussion. If it is a matter that hosts must decide themselves (especially in the case of conduct-related issues) shall be determined in like fashion. Any and all host decisions shall be transparent to other users. Decisions made by the group are decisions wherein a host may be asked to "determine" consensus of the group by closing out the "decision" portion of a thread. Hosts initiating or participating in the discussion may refrain from acting as the person in charge of determining consensus, if they feel it is appropriate.

5. As is typical in both Occupy and online forums such as Wikipedia, consensus may be discussion-based and the person closing out discussion may give weight to well crafted arguments presented by actual Occupy supporters, irrespective of imagined or perceived activist credentials in locking threads.

6. Topics for discussion may be considered on or off-topic by acclamation, assuming that the poster in question is producing content that is deemed valuable by fellow supporters of Occupy. If a host believes a thread to be off-topic they may lock that thread, but they shall not lock any thread that they have participated in, beyond posting an explanatory locking comment. Hosts shall fairly consider appeals, and submit any appeal to other hosts for an open vote on the lock, with all host votes being equal.

7. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored, followed by an open vote on the block by hosts, with all votes being equal. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked by the lead host. Members may appeal their block to the any host and receive a second vote on the block if any host makes such a request. No double jeopardy.

8. The lead host shall nominate no more than 4 co-hosts, and shall stand for election every 6 months, to be announced 1 week beforehand, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. The lead host shall operate the voting in a free and fair manner. All co-hosts must be similarly approved, but with a shortened announcement period of 24 hours, followed by either a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election.

9. The lead host shall serve at the pleasure of the group and shall stand for election every 6 months, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or by election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. Co-hosts, if and as needed, shall serve at the pleasure of the group membership in similar fashion, provided they may be jointly subject to review and re-appointment in similar fashion at reasonable intervals as determined by the group as a whole. Any host may be subject to an open recall election at the petition of 10 members previously voting in a host election.

10. During the election period members may freely debate the merits of candidates and the purpose of the group. No DU member shall be compelled to give a reason for objection or for casting a vote. Any debate must be consistent with the DU policies on conduct. No DU member shall be denied the right to participate in a consensus or vote. Objections may be interpreted as request for further discussion. Consensus will not include blocking motions by individuals, unless the person(s) calling for discussion allow for it. These standards and procedures may be amended only by a supermajority of respondents who are group members at the petition of 5 members previously voting in a host election.

----

Most recent edits italicized

[ellisonz]

2. Looks good to me...

...I might simplify the SOP edit just a bit so it doesn't get turned into a debate about DU2 which many people seem to have negative feelings about at DU3. Simplicity is beauty.

SOP: A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a broad-based collaborative community. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

I think to an extent the community in itself will fulfill the purpose you desire in your edit. I think that reflects the will of Mic-Check #1 that it be a "simple description" - I would also raise the number required to edit the by-laws up to 10 in bullet 10 so that it doesn't become an incessant battle.

I hope this is a document that meets the concerns of all who have voice their opinion. It has been my pleasure to work on this project. Let's get it proposed. I think the first attempt made to add the Buddhism and Asian Groups almost broke the DU. So the sooner we get the ball rolling on getting it created by elad that sooner we can get back to the regularly scheduled programming. I think the fastest we can expect this maybe to be done is within a week. :-(

In other news, Occupy Honolulu was de-encamped today under a new law targeting the belongings of the homeless: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/Occupy_Honolulu_protesters_remove_their_tents.html - My sister had been involved in the legal questions facing the group.

I think it's going to be important to not engage any disruptive members in the Meta thread. Once it's up I'll PM as many occupy friendly posters as possible to get as many signing as fast as possible. Leopolds_Ghost you care to do the honors after this is debated for say maybe another 24 hours or so?

Aloha to all! :thumbsup:

[Leopolds Ghost]

4. Yes, however keep in mind someone has executed a serious objection (poll #9) on Mic Check #1.

If we move forward on this I'm happy to submit the request on Help/Meta.

If the person(s) voting #9 wish to comment on their concern (which would be a lead-up to a block if we are accepting blocks), I hope they do so here -- since that thread is very long and the current draft here is immediately accessible for all to see.

If it is Ohio Joe, that's especially true, because he appears to be upset with you about the wording of a sentence in the SOP

(not being a DU3 expert, I don't really understand the dispute),

And I posted this separate MIC CHECK thread as a call for comment on the SOP as it is currently drafted,

So it's really meant as a chance to address issues of that sort before we bite the bullet.

If the person(s) who voted #9 don't care to comment on their concern -- well, I realize folks are not required to explain their objection but I don't think we can accept it as an anonymous block.

The text of #9 reads "Request that my concerns be addressed before any action is taken."

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. I.e. if no one cares to discuss their objection here (or further on that thread) then I'm happy

To move forward and post on Help/Meta later today.

I have no preference one way or another on the safe haven issue but Ohio Joe made it clear that safe havens on DU3 do not tolerate dissent.

And he originally agreed with me on my suggested compromise, which I thought was included in the last sentence of the current SOP (see OP).

If it is someone else (not Ohio Joe's already stated objection) that's doubly true since we need to know what the objection is.

[ellisonz]

7. I posted before that vote was cast.

Let's say 24 hours for further discussion? So 4 PM PST on Saturday?

I thought the revised (#4) SOP proposal above addressed Ohio Joe's concern. What do you think of my simplification to your OP? I think a reference to "past members" is likely to be very controversial and is likely to irk the admin, who we do need to make such a group. .

I think perhaps we're not talking about the same thing when we say dissent. I mean to protect the free exchange of ideas, not to allow anti-Occupy Wall Street trolling. The proposed by-laws certainly provide for a mechanism to put a stop to that and I think the jury system will generally support the group. I have some faith in the juries to get it right about 75% of the time.

Sound good?

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. 24 more hours to resolve the block sounds fine. Who enforces SoP? Jury or Hosts i.e. mods?

Re: KoKo's concern. I think we can put it vague enough that it sends an appropriate signal without specifying that we're also trying to serve as a welcoming drop-in center for folks who are Occupying DU2, or folks who drifted away because they felt DU3 was insufficiently pro-Occupy. I agree that it'd be inappropriate to come out and say it like that, although I'm sure nopony except for persons on the center-right objects to the sentiment behind it.

(which is why it'd irk the Admins because they wouldn't want to favor one group over another. Although the main reason is personal and that's like most mods and especially most web designers, their attitude to anyone who leaves and says "you'll have to do something if you want me to like the new site" is "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Understandable if you spent your whole life designing something and it's your baby...)

[ellisonz]

10. The group at large via "acclamation," the hosts or the OP may request a lock.

Hosts may hold a transparent vote on a "block" presumably in a separate thread like a panel of judges. It's a decentralized power structure as much as possible given the powers of the host position that exist. There's no way to turn of the jury system so that will come into play too. If you have a post hidden you get bounced from that thread and blocked from creating a thread for one hour.

I think that it is a gathering point is implicit by the very nature of such a group. I commit to posting here until the lights go out. I think rounding up some of the troops can be done both here and elsewhere through promotion of the group. Better not to irk the admins.

3. In accordance with the general practice of Occupy, the method of decision-making used by group participants shall be a Wikipedia-style consensus, allowing for the use of straw polls if and as needed, to be recognized accordingly by the OP or by any host who is not the OP, thereby closing out the decision-making portion of the thread. A determination of consensus may be reconsidered by two (2) other hosts, thereby leaving the discussion open.

4. Whether host(s) should close out consensus instead of the person calling for a debate on any given subject will be determined if thread participants (by acclamation) or a hosts (in-thread) or the OP themselves deem it to be an issue wherein a person other than the OP ought close out discussion. If it is a matter that hosts must decide themselves (especially in the case of conduct-related issues) shall be determined in like fashion. Any and all host decisions shall be transparent to other users. Decisions made by the group are decisions wherein a host may be asked to "determine" consensus of the group by closing out the "decision" portion of a thread. Hosts initiating or participating in the discussion may refrain from acting as the person in charge of determining consensus, if they feel it is appropriate.

5. As is typical in both Occupy and online forums such as Wikipedia, consensus may be discussion-based and the person closing out discussion may give weight to well crafted arguments presented by actual Occupy supporters, irrespective of imagined or perceived activist credentials in locking threads.

6. Topics for discussion may be considered on or off-topic by acclamation, assuming that the poster in question is producing content that is deemed valuable by fellow supporters of Occupy. If a host believes a thread to be off-topic they may lock that thread, but they shall not lock any thread that they have participated in, beyond posting an explanatory locking comment. Hosts shall fairly consider appeals, and submit any appeal to other hosts for an open vote on the lock, with all host votes being equal.

7. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored, followed by an open vote on the block by hosts, with all votes being equal. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked by the lead host. Members may appeal their block to the any host and receive a second vote on the block if any host makes such a request. No double jeopardy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Ellisonz, I agree, but I'm confused what you mean by block

There seem to be three types of "block" and we'll need to make sure the language is clear in the procedures section (after the group is formed, assuming that is the consensus here) which is which:

* Blocking a user from posting in the group, which only hosts can do and should hopefully be rarely needed

* A "blocking" motion to prevent the group from going forward because of a strong objection by one or more individuals (which the procedures suggest we will not be using without the consent of the person posting a proposal). The way it's written we will be using Wiki-style consensus (wisely for an internet forum, I think) in which the strongest objection is a "pseudo-block" requesting no closure of discussion essentially equivalent to a Senate hold. So that is basically what the vote for #9 in the previous thread is. But if folks aren't required to explain their objection I am wondering if people could use that as an anonymous block in straw polls.

* "Locking" a thread to close out debate in an "arbitrated" (wikipedia) consensus, which can be done by whoever is asked to close out consensus -- such as the OP or a host. Wikipedia only does this halfway (by posting a sticky up top saying "this discussion has been resolved") so I'm not sure it's necessary to actually have a host lock the thread in order to establish consensus as it might add unnecessary drama, but that's something that can be resolved in practice, not on paper. After all, the general reason consensus works at all is because somepony can say "the consensus appears to be..." and if no one is willing to argue the point (except to say they're not interested, i.e. stand-aside) then there's consensus. But like I said, only reason not to do this might be confusion with the above two terms.

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Of course, if it's an issue the hosts are "voting" on such as whether to block a user

Then nobody will care if the hosts lock their own thread. I assume other (unaffected parties) are allowed to participate in such discussions (if it's a host-only vote?) Dunno the answer. This is hypothetical though, the "Guidelines" are not set in stone until after the group is formed. The main issue in this thread is whether to go ahead and commit to the SoP since the Help/Meta request thread will count as a request to start a group using the SoP that "we" (the 10 or more people from Occupy DU) came up with.

Hopefully people will agree that the "blocking vote" which was posted in the previous thread is only relevant if there is follow-up (since we don't know what the poster's concerns are). Obviously I think a majority of people are just like "go for it", I just don't want people to feel like we ignored consensus or somehow did this on DU2 to avoid debate, especially if they supported the effort... I'm actually glad DU2 initiated this, because folks were able to have such a civil debate that got lots of views from anyone who cared to comment.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. To clarify, my above two posts are off-topic :-)

The topic of this post is really the Statement of Purpose, which there seems to be consensus over except for Ohio Joe and the one person who blocked. We're not required to commit to the "hosting rules" mentioned in the above sub-thread until if and when a group is formed, then the people who join will be able to comment on them.

Also, I'm WAY overposting :evilfrown:

[ellisonz]

15. Oh I meant "ban"...

Group hosts in DU3 have the power to ban users from their group - you just get a message saying so and so has been blocked without indicating which host banned. "Block" is the DU3 a nice way of saying banned. Any host can reverse he ban however. This goes to show the importance of having a limited number of hosts to make managing the whole shebang simpler. I apologize for the confusion.

Also, we should call it being "voted off the island." It's a jungle over there :rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. KoKo, is this OK with you? see the part ellison snipped

...I might simplify the SOP edit just a bit so it doesn't get turned into a debate about DU2 which many people seem to have negative feelings about at DU3. Simplicity is beauty.

A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a broad-based community where persons from DU past and present can check in. and form a broad-based collaborative community. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

(The last bit is supposed to address the issue Zorra and Ohio Joe brought up about ensuring it is a safe haven.)

Re -- KoKo's concern --

i.e. how much to emphasize our outreach to persons on DU2, or persons who have drifted away.

While I myself would be inclined to allude to it in the manner ellison felt was too specific, simply so that folks do not post stuff on Occupy DU3 attacking DU2 as a joke, or as bitter-enders,

(dissing folks here, since DU2 put in the work to create the forum)

It coould be dealt with if:

* most of that stuff is done by de facto communication between DU2 (so long as it exists) and the DU3 group;

* the actual hosts include representatives of "Occupy DU2"

As the person posting the Help/Meta request, I'd be one...

[NYC_SKP]

11. I generally agree with this, including striking references to DU2, and...

I'd be happy to be a representative of DU2, or one of them, among the hosts, if others approve.

:hi:

[KoKo]

16. Agree with striking references to DU2 or others who have gone elsewhere.

It would just invite off topic discussion over there on DU-3.

Assume that those of us who don't want to post over there, can still post articles about OWS over here? Or, would that be seen as a conflict? I'm a pro-occupy so anything I post here would be pro and I tend to read articles from other sites but there might be some overlap that something I found would have already been posted in DU-3 and I might not know about it. Would that be considered a violation if there is some posting here that doesn't co-ordinate with what is being posted about OWS in DU3?

I think you all should go ahead and try to get the group going with what you have so far, unless there is other comment here today that would delay you. If you get the group, you will probably have to make changes as you go along, anyway, so carving rules in stone at this point is probably too ambitious.


Would be good to have NY_SKP as DU-2 Rep.

Good luck with it! :hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Thanks KoKo. I haven't started the thread yet for one simple reason. Occupy DC got shut down today.

I will start it in the morning. I will probably miss the shutdown of Freedom Plaza (the first "occupy" in the nation, although it got started out as a generic left wing peace vigil) tomorrow... but there's no way my presence there would help, except to give me heartburn, so I will do this because It is positive.

Willing to serve as lead host and appoint NYC SKP and others as requested.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. I like what I see.

:thumbsup:

[Raine]

8. Looks good to me

THANKS for all your work on this. :thumbsup:

[ellisonz]

17. That's 24 more hours.

I say go for it...who would like to do the honors? Leopolds Ghost or maybe NYC_SKP? :shrug:

:woohoo:

[KoKo]

18. ellisonz , I am thinking you want to be a Group Host in that Forum?

Correct? You do have other Hosting Activities on DU-3. Do you think that maybe it's Too Much if you are one of the Group Hosts?

On Edit: Wouldn't that add to your burdens and be very Time Consuming ...considering the Forum will go out and "at first" attract many who will not be happy with it's existence there on DU-3?

[ellisonz]

20. Nope.

I already have too much on my plate. For the record: I petitioned to reform a GDP like group and so I'm a host there. I'm also a host in the Meta forum. I'm the lead group host for Democracy for America and my state group Hawaii. I'm a co-host in American History, World History, Buddhism and Democrats. I like the new significance groups are getting at DU. My sole interest here is in seeing a place for all my pro-Occupy DU friends to have a place to congregate and get away from the DU nastiness. I also would like to see a less top-down approach to group management in general at DU3. I think a group such as this is a great leap away from that model. I like to be a facilitator. I love DU because I get a diverse set of opinions.

I'm a Dean and Obama supporter but I loathe the idea that anyone should be denied the right to freely speak their mind so far as the admins will allow. I've grown tired of the bullying behavior and the general idea that some seem to have that they can "win" DU for their particular faction. I've got enough respect for DU to know that isn't the goal and shouldn't be the goal. For this I've been made a pariah by the Obama crowd. I also have some real criticisms of the current administration on several issues that are important to me: the environment, gun control, education reform and more. I think he's ran to the middle instead of standing firm on the left flank and that disappoints me intensely. That's why I've been trying to revive the DFA group. I've come across at least half a dozen posters still rocking the Dean avatar. I'm for people-power; it's the only way.

In this process, I've simply sought to put the knowledge I've acquired about how the new system works to good use in creating a home for Occupy Wall Street. As a Deaniac especially, I understand how important an online presence can be to a movement and how it can be sustained over a long period of time. Leopolds Ghost would be my choice for a group host, but I wouldn't accept a position as a host even if offered.

Join me in undermining the system!

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Thanks so much ellisonz. Sorry I'm late on doing this, photos will explain

I'd be happy to serve as lead host and appoint hosts per the wishes of the group, hopefully including DU2 reps (such as our own NYC_SKP).

The TENT OF DREAMS is being taken to the Smithsonian, along with the Anonymous mask that they put on General MacPherson.

No joke, apparently

Song sung in front of White House tonight. (One block from the Occupy that was shut down)

Obama, I dunno how you can sleep at night.
We're going to make it just a little bit harder
So that you can start to make things right.

[KoKo]

19. I hope if you all get that "Group" going that there will be good representation from DU-2

and that there will be Hosts who don't have more than one other presence on DU-3 as Host in another Forum.

I'd like to see that Forum have more "outsiders" than "insiders," to get itself going to do the SOP and take care of the details and food fights that will come down the road.

:shrug: Just saying...

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Agreed n/t

[NYC_SKP]

24. If selected as a host, I would defer to others without resistance.

I'm not an insider, but I'm probably regarded by many as a "cheerleader", but I'd give up a spot as host if it makes the group more successful.

I'm a critic of the entire system and know, like most OWS supporters here, that the real evil is deeply rooted in both parties and in our very economic system, and ordinary means of effecting change are no longer adequate.

That said, I still vote for Democrats and support Obama.

But I think, really, that there will have to be some form of revolution (hopefully a peaceful one).

~ o c c u p y ~