Welcome to Gaia! ::

Alright people I'm going to post something that I have been thinking about for awhile then every can jump all over it. First though I'd just like to make it clear that the actions of our friend(I'll keep his name anonymous since it really doesn't matter) have nothing to do with what I'm going to talk about here. This is something I have been thinking about for a while.
1. While the internet is a fantastic medium for communication, and sharing of ideas. In many cases it is not often the best one for a completly egalitarian system. Because of a couple reasons
a. it is hard to retaliate against anonymous attackers over the internet. For example in the case of what happened earlier today, I knew the individual was on, and was abusing the mod powers that had been given to everyone. Now I could clean up his mess, and de mod the anarchomod so as to neutralize him from doing anything further should he so choose to do so but that is about it. I have no way of containing and confronting him. This severly hampers how someone can act in this situation, and while we might wish for this guild to be run as close as possible to how we would like to see the world work, in some situations the way the internet is can keep us from responding in the manner that we would prefer to use.
b. Because we are all in different time zones, it can be hard to work as a community to solve problems in a timely manner.



2.Because of this, I've been thinking about the viability of various structures that could be used in this guild. How I've seen other messageboards structured, and the ways proposed for the structuring of this guild. The two manners I've seen radical left messageboards structured are:
a. One mod(or a group of chosen mods) who basically just doesn't use their powers unless the other members of the board request it
b. A Council is chosen who are given these powers and they are then empowered to do as they think would be the smartest.

Two points on this, Most often Anarchist boards use model a, whereas communist ones use model b. However, somewhere in the middle is what was seen in the collectives in Spain during the Spanish civil war, where certain respected individuals in the community were empowered to help allow things to flow smoother, however these individuals where directly acccountable to the people, and could be changed the second they did something which the community felt was inappropriate.


So what exactly am i trying to say? What I'm trying to say is that while obviously the ideal, the model which we currently use may not be the one best suited for use over the internet. As much as I hate to say it a council model may be the better choice, if we do this I would request a few things.

1. Powers would be given directly to the chosen council members, because they would not be working anonymously it would be easier to keep them accountable for their actions
2. to continue with this, If a council is chosen a way to keep track of their actions should probably be kept something like a mod log, where they could put if they accepted people, editted a post, locked or deleted a thread etc. This way if something caused conflict we could quickly check to see who did it.

alright people, discuss away.

Well, as a Syndicalist, having a council doesn't run contrary to my beliefs. Also, I think that the outlines that you've set up (with the mod log thread, in particular [which could be kept locked, and only unlocked to post in]) are both completely realistic and ideal.

It's come to light now that Ben, Beckie, and I all have access to the AnarchoAdmin account. It does sort of create a hierarchy, but I gave them access because they're the most active members. So I'll suggest this much:

-----
Erik's Proposition
1. The council should be a number approximately 5% of the total guild members, rounding down.
2. There should always be at least three council members.
3. The council members will be elected on a consensus model.
4. In addition to having moderator status, all of the council members will have access to the AnarchoAdmin.
5. If a majority of guild members have an issue with a particular council member, their modship will be revoked and a new person will be instituted in their place.
6. Upon revoking a particular character's modship, the remainder of the council will change the password to the AnarchoAdmin.
7. Utilizing any moderation function will be explicitly logged in a stickied, locked topic.
-----

Will anyone second this proposition? After it's been seconded, we'll pry it apart and tailor it to fit our exact needs. Feel free to put up a proposition of your own, as well.

Alright, I'm willing to throw out the first part of my proposition. I guess we could simply start with three members, and then add more on an as needed basis.

Well, why don't we do a sound off every month or so, see how many people are actually checking the guilds?

There was also an idea put up when the guild first opened that after you posted so many times and proven you were gonna stick around then you could be put on a council. why don't we just modify that and say that you can be up for councilship?

Also, I'm not sure if I read it right, but if your saying that the council would only be used when something was needed to be done, I think that's a great idea.

I don't think the idea of a coucil goes that much against the ideals of anarchy. Even in anarchy there would have to be (well, depending on the form) a group of people that were directly responsible to the people to get things done. If there's too many people, nothing will happen...

Does that make sense?

I would not say that it inherently leads to elitism, however I definitely see that possibility and it is one I woul like to avoid.

I think we're just gonna have to make a regular thread about it, with a poll later. I don't think people generally read the stickies.

I agree with the idea of having a council apointed by general concensus.
I also think that looking through a persons posts is a necisary part of deciding if they'r responcible but i dont think there should be a set amount of posts or time i think that it should be judged on content as much as time, obviously one good post isnt enough but seting a period of time or a nomber of posts might promote somthing close to spamming.

who's we
im not sure i realy understand this can u explain.