Voting to ban members

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.

ren wrote:

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.

Now when you say overrule, what process takes place for that to happen? An official vote?

Yes. The council can do or undo anything.

ren wrote: Yes. The council can do or undo anything.

but a vote is always required yes?

The council only acts through a majority decision by councillors.

ren wrote: The council only acts through a majority decision by councillors.

So was there a majority vote to unban someone recently or when they just appeared out of nowhere you just left it as was instead of enforcing the previous vote?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Knights-forum/122594-mortose?start=0#339366


“Replied by Br. John on topic Mortose
I don't know who removed the ban. Only three could do that. It's possible that the ban expired. If the account was banned with a time entered, at the end of that time it unbans without anyone doing anything. I don't remember who entered the ban or if there was a time set.”

IP - Jedi Essay 9: Letting Go of the Past

We teach that it is important for a Jedi to let go of the past and to not dwell on it. We need to remember that things gone by can no longer be changed.

What do you think this means?

How and where does this teaching tie into acceptance, acknowledgement and forgiveness?

Why do you think this might be important for a Jedi?

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/initiateprogramme/1883-im-finished

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: The council only acts through a majority decision by councillors.

So was there a majority vote to unban someone recently or when they just appeared out of nowhere you just left it as was instead of enforcing the previous vote?

Now that I’m aware of who this regards, I find myself disturbed. I assumed this was about general ban policy.

I now confront you. It’s been over 22 months. Care to let it go?

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 don't we can make that metaphor and be (doctrine) against the death penalty. Food for thought.

Tellahane wrote:

ren wrote: The council only acts through a majority decision by councillors.

So was there a majority vote to unban someone recently or when they just appeared out of nowhere you just left it as was instead of enforcing the previous vote?

There was no council vote to ban mortose the last time, or at least no record of it. We (the council) have shown forgiveness to other members, and I do not understand why the (some) knights cannot show it to her.