The Evolved Amphibian
- Aug 27, 2010
- Civil Eng.
We as in err body? That seems less like a Council and more like another discussion. But that's your image. Does everyone agree that everyone should be on the Council?
This point was unclear to me also, until brutha Clyde explained it to me. I'm still somewhat unclear, we just have to talk more. I see you share many of my concerns, you should think about being on it. I think you would do well.
How are things ironed out? Written out? What if, say, five new people come in, make an agreement to disrupt the peacemaking, how are they less legitimate if the Council is open membership? Are there deadlines with resolution? This is partly why I asked that we use Ms-Interpret's incident as a case study. I don't think anyone could have responded so quickly. James wrote a thread, and a day after Ms-Interpret was banned; The-God hadn't typed but one thing in the interim!
Good point, and good question. The members on this board has to be of an higher standard, which is why I'm working to change some of my behavior that may seen unworthy to be on the board. I can't chide a member for name calling (I don't do that anyway) if I do it myself. So these people I see their existence being short lived. Disruptions of this type can do a lot of damage when it comes to membership growth, sustainability, and cohesion, and should not be allowed to run willy nilly.
So an open room on conflict resolution? I like the idea. But if everyone has an equal voice, then what? I can suggest, for instance, that one side makes an appeal and another side makes an appeal, then a conversation from other parties ensues and makes a decision. That seems good. But what do others think? Also my problem with this idea is The-God was unresponsive this whole time (far as I saw.)
Something like this I can see working also. I also agree that he was unresponsive, but if a body like the council was instituted and acted, he would have know that there was going to be consequences if he continues. sista Destee has a point, she has to oversee other things. People like him exploit situations like this.
We can apply a deadline. Though as said above, it was only a day until Mis-Interpret was banned.
Yes, but he started stepping over the line a few days ago, more than enough time to let MI know that it was being dealt with, And what was the consequences. Problems come about when people think, or feel no one is paying attention to them. That is when they act, I have done that many times myself. So I can't judge her. But I have to go back to that member that was ran off by MI after she asked her readily to leave her alone. I'm the kind of person...and all should know. If you can't take it....don't give it.
Still, I like the idea (though other input is necessary) of a thread where, like a courtroom, both sides make opening statements, lol, nominate their witnesses, witnesses look at evidence, maybe cross-examined by selected "Lawyers" and closing statements are sent to Destee if the Lawyers (who are not the disputers) agree?
I'm still trying to envision this myself, like I stated, we need the input of the other members.
Lol . . . I got carried away with my imagination.
No problem bruh... it was a good, and justified question.
From the particular case study--that is if people actually want to use Ms-Interpret's case as a case study--I saw The-God flirting with Ms-Interpret and her rejecting it. I never saw a thread he wrote in since I returned. But she says he types in her threads and disputes what she writes. She then curses him on the shoutbox. I didn't see anything he wrote besides an occasional request for her email. He never wrote on the harassment . . ..
This comment highlights one of the things that would have to happen. She would have to show proof that what she says is true, and he would have to do the same. If she says this is what he is doing, show the threads and explain why she feels that way. This will not be a case of the first one that cries is the winner. Remember...Fair, firm, and consistent.