Voting to ban members

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

steamboat28 wrote: What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

When I ran places, I had a council. They decided everything by vote. The members had no say, other than the one making the appeal.

We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Sounds like typical politics to me.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Can u - and feel free to use ME for that purpose any time. I am almost 100 percent avalible anytime.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

There is an entire forum, a council secretary, other councillors to whom members can make requests. I don't receive many, and neither did the previous secretary.

And all three of you have amazingly missed the point. With at least two of you, it's habitual. Might want to gander at that.

Well - at any time - if anyone feels they need an advocate or a shoulder or some one to listen - by all means feel free to contact me ANYTIME for any reason. It is my joy and duty to serve the Temple. If you feel you need some on on your side or you need to voice a concern - or even you have suggestions - I - myself - am a click away. Offer stands from now until I log off for the last time. ( which will probably be for a long while- hopefully)

If ya need me I’m here. If ya don’t - well - I’m still here.
The truth no one says is this -
Banning sucks. Flat out. It hurts every one. There’s no ... easy way or magic words or even promise we -or I -or even any one can make to ease that fact. It should be a last result and after years and years (12) we still hurt after a banning or a threat of it. If there’s a better way - come out with it. I don’t use the word often but I HATE when people get banned. It shouldn’t be. We as humans should be aware and available mentally enough to know our limits and those around us.
Jedi teaching 3
Jedi are aware of the future impacts of action and inaction and of the influence of the past, but live in and focus on the Now. We let ourselves flow like water through the events around us. We embrace the ever changing and fluid world, adapting and changing as it does.
Jedi teaching 7.
Jedi understand their limitations. We recognise, and take responsibility, for our failures and develop a level of modesty about them. We respect the right for others to disagree and understand that they themselves are not perfect.


... and neither are we.

Tempest Nox wrote:

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

Can you point me to a successful government system that is not based off popular vote?

Tellahane wrote:

Tempest Nox wrote:

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

Can you point me to a successful government system that is not based off popular vote?

The popular vote is what makes them successful. The Nazis loved a good referendum.

So... this is what we talk about now hu? Interesting ...

It actually is. Would you care to join us, or just continue to judge?

Not judging at all just ... noticing

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Not judging at all just ... noticing

I obviously had some issues with this thread, as you can see above. However, I fail to see a problem with the current discourse. It's a debate about politics and morality. How is that different from many of the conversations going on in other areas of the forum?

lightscribe wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Not judging at all just ... noticing

I obviously had some issues with this thread, as you can see above. However, I fail to see a problem with the current discourse. It's a debate about politics and morality. How is that different from many of the conversations going on in other areas of the forum?

Let’s look at banning like a jail sentence and permanent banning as the death penalty. Neither should be decided by “the people” as a whole but instead by a neutral body such as a jury, and carried out by those given authority in this area of the forum.

Tempest Nox wrote:

lightscribe wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Not judging at all just ... noticing

I obviously had some issues with this thread, as you can see above. However, I fail to see a problem with the current discourse. It's a debate about politics and morality. How is that different from many of the conversations going on in other areas of the forum?

Let’s look at banning like a jail sentence and permanent banning as the death penalty. Neither should be decided by “the people” as a whole but instead by a neutral body such as a jury, and carried out by those given authority in this area of the forum.

That’s what the councils for lol
This ban had the council asking for the Knights advice.

Every ban we get a slew of a few of the same - we don’t like it - it’s not right - why didn’t you tell me - it’s not fair - justice !!! You know , people stuff. We are not about removing any one against anything. Not what we do here. It happens. As many of us know. Ya Kinna hope over time we get better.
After years we let go of offenses ... u know - forgiveness and compassion and such. Who knows ... I’ve felt more comfortable at a “enemy’s” table eating lunch than next to some folk who claim to be this label or that. Truth be told. Any how - no need in beating this dead horse for me.
Not every vote to ban will be given to the knights or the collective to advise.

Any how ... back to our regular scheduled program



Game on! Just a little smile ! No harm intended - promise

Having been banned from plenty of places, often more than once, I speak from experience. It’s rarely just. I’ve been banned, simply for stating an unpopular opinion. I’ve been banned for things, blown out of proportion. I’ve also been banned for fair reasons. Here? Definitely a fair reason. Elsewhere? Not generally.

The thing is, people change. I tend to be against lifetime bans for this reason, though I understand the need to protect a community.

I generally view this as a perpetual conversation. This type of conversation allows us to gauge, view, and course correct as time goes on. What was acceptable 10 years ago may not be the same today as we grow and improve. The more conversations we have, the easier it is to come to conclusions that better represent the community and not a vocal few. The vocal few come out -when- the ban happens as opposed to during these types of chats.

The organization needs to have these kinds of conversations to keep on course and continue to do information sampling like this. When the time comes for a ban, there will always be people unhappy, but at the same time the very nature of a ban is negative. No one likes it, everyone has an opinion, and everyone is a lawyer or knows one.

I'd rather people's opinions be known than to discourage this kind of conversation, this is an excellent venue for leadership and communication both up and down the chain so everyone knows where people are. Better to know now than wonder why people are upset when it comes to pass.

As far as I am concerned, the use of a ban or suspension is administrative in function and not a gauge of someone's person. A suspension to allow for time to think about corrective measures or an enforced time out, a ban for a removal from the group. Both should allow for appeals, but there should be good reasons behind each. What I mean by administrative in function is that the organization is manipulating the group's population to prevent the group from being harmed as opposed to saying Bobby is a butthead. To spin it another way: It's less "Your views suck, go away" and more "The way you present your views is designed to needlessly antagonize others, please stop." One is a personal opinion, one is an administrative function designed to protect the group. So long as the focus remains on someone's impact on the group and how they operate within the organization, I believe we can usually be above petty revenge.

Tempest Nox wrote:

lightscribe wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Not judging at all just ... noticing

I obviously had some issues with this thread, as you can see above. However, I fail to see a problem with the current discourse. It's a debate about politics and morality. How is that different from many of the conversations going on in other areas of the forum?

Let’s look at banning like a jail sentence and permanent banning as the death penalty. Neither should be decided by “the people” as a whole but instead by a neutral body such as a jury, and carried out by those given authority in this area of the forum.

I challenge you to tell an inmate on death row that their sentence is like getting banned from Totjo.

A ban is permanent until the council overrules it.