Re the model for a doable anarch: let's alpha test it

[dawei]

No committees.  One rule and the rule of one. 

 

THAT kind of an idea. 

 

Ok... so I am back to understanding it again... it is really forum area open to all but runs like a PPD. If someone starts a thread, they have sovereign rule over the thread.

 

As far as I know, the software does not allow that and probably why PPDs came about too; to give someone control over their own content in their own way.   I look a little more at the system controls as I'm curious but not hopeful.

 

The only way I can come up with to get as close as possible to that would be a forum area where EVERYONE is assigned as a mod... with the expressed intent that you are only allowed to use your sovereign powers when you start a post.  Your not allowed (ie; trust system) to use powers in a thread you did not start.   Someone can report the occurrence and if staff confirms it, that person can have action which includes warnings, expulsion from that area or even being banned for good.

 

There is something interesting in this approach... can people trust themselves to correctly use their power...

 

 

Someone here had a quote in their footer, people will forget what you said, but won't forget how you made them feel.

 

I still see this as a problem... but it is not going to go away... and I only worry if it causes it to become worse.  What if someone is hurt by being kicked out of a thread... they may simply retaliate by kicking the other person out...  Is that valid, regardless of their motive?  As king of a thread, can you kick someone out because you simply don't want them to post?

 

I was somewhat shocked to find that the 'rating system' (scale was 1-5; bad to good), had the most "1" issued... People rating other people lowest.  The next most used one was "5"... People rating folks highest.  Very, very, very few 2,3,4.

 

I am not sure if that was suggesting folks don't really view others in gradient beyond black and white.... or given a rating system, they are going to rate rather black and white.   

[Taomeow]

Yes, everyone given mod capabilities in The Garden Of Sovereign Blossoms section and disallowing to use them in others' threads seems doable enough! 

 

Preface it with "You can't moderate other people's threads here" -- and I think most won't most of the time -- and if someone does, it would be just one more transgression, out of any number of possible ones, under regular mod scrutiny.  If the rule is, e.g., "don't moderate other people's posts or you lose your access to this section," I think there's a close to 100% chance that people will refrain from doing this. 

 

Of course there's ways to abuse any setting, established anywhere for any purpose, if a malignant mind is bent on abusing power.  Some minds are like that, but to take the power away from everybody at all times for all purposes in order to try to stop them actually translates into giving them more power than they deserve IMO -- not just for the purposes of the subject under discussion, incidentally.  I always feel bad about "everybody" losing certain freedoms "for safety" -- it only makes those who would use these freedoms and now can't a bit weaker, and eventually a lot weaker, and by the same token, automatically strengthens any and all malignant adversaries they are supposedly being protected from.  If everybody is weak, powerless, and stripped of a maximal amount of freedom, anything that puts its mind to it can overcome such a meek and weak target.  Matter of fact, it worries me in the larger world a lot more than on the forum, but there's little that can be done by members of this forum in the larger world.  Here, we could try, see if we can handle responsibility -- or discover (again) that we pretty much forgot how, because there's always someone else telling us do this, don't do that...   

[liminal_luke]

What´s interesting to me is how much resistance this idea stirs up.  If someone wants to start a thread limited to people of more or less like minds, is that really such a big deal?  Especially since most of TDB, and viritually everywhere else, would remain open for dissension, bickering, and all manner of verbal squabbling.  I think a lot of people, myself included, are very enamored with their own point of view, and never more than when it conflicts with somebody else´s (clearly) less educated opinion. Sometimes I have something to say, something I´m very convinced of the rightness of...and yet saying it would only foster divisiveness rather than harmony or any other real good.  It can be very hard to hold back.

 

Liminal 

Edited March 15, 2015 by liminal_luke

[Taomeow]

What´s interesting to me is how much resistance this idea stirs up.  If someone wants to start a thread limited to people of more or less like minds, is that really such a big deal?  Especially since most of TDB, and viritually everywhere else, would remain open for dissension, bickering, and all manner of verbal squabbling.  I think a lot of people, myself included, are very enamored with their own point of view, and never more than when it conflicts with somebody else´s (clearly) less educated opinion. Sometimes I have something to say, something I´m very convinced of the rightness of...and yet saying it would only foster divisiveness rather than harmony or any other real good.  It can be very hard to hold back.

 

Liminal 

 

Yes, exactly!  It's as though being restricted in one's responses to either benevolence or silence in just one place on the face of the earth is still too...  I dunno...  too what?.. 

 

???...

 

...too much self-control to ask for?  more than some people can bear?..  the same people who gladly bear being controlled by anyone and anything as long as it's not themselves?..

 

...or...

 

...too much surrender of control to ask for?  How come someone I disagree with will be freed from the cognizance of my disagreement, how come my sacred right to set him or her straight will be denied?  And I won't be able to apply my plumb line to his or her path?..  In this one place?..  Intolerable!..  

 

A test is a test, a result is a result.  Research is better than religion.  Moses would be screwed if the burning bush which god chose to manifest himself through refused to burn, talk, or otherwise behave unconventionally.  A researcher of the nature of god, however, would just make a note in her journal: "no god in this bush."  

[Daeluin]

No different than cultivation of self. Energy gets blocked where there are attachments. I hear that in push hands one needs to be able to channel the other's energy to the ground without obstruction. If it encounters obstruction that is leverage against you.

 

In open discussions (discussions that are not invite only), the same principle applies, and one's ability to guide a topic hinges on their words not triggering reactions in others that cause an unintended splitting of energy. If anyone is invited, the course will flow as clearly as all participants allow it to.

 

If just one channel or participant triggers a blockage, the energy will become turbulent in this area and until addressed and dissolved this blockage will influence the environment. In the body there is no banning.... that would be like cutting out an organ or something; ultimately serving a counter purpose.

 

Given the nature of modern human blockages, why ever would we openly invite all to participate in what very few have the capacity for, without providing means for guidance?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

That's different.  Actually, it cycles around to point Two:  Do what you can do.  (Willing participants.)

 

 

Battles are done only at-will.

doing battle with non-participants who have not previously granted their explicite consent will result in confinement for the remainder of said battle.

 

ALSO, battles for political purposes should be done in video games. 

 

 

 

But that doesnt mean we cant hold contests of strength, endurance, speed, and skill... n_n

[dawei]

Yes, everyone given mod capabilities in The Garden Of Sovereign Blossoms section and disallowing to use them in others' threads seems doable enough! 

 

The problem now seems to be the limit on the number of moderators.   So one open forum with everyone having mod power won't work.    

 

It would have to be something like a forum with say 10 subforums... a member could moderate a post in only one of the 10 areas (call it 'home' for that member).  They could post in any of the ten as they wanted but could not use their mod power.

 

It only seems to get more messy from a forum structure point of view to do something which ought to be a forum level control.  THis software seems to want assignment of 'mods' to create the level of control we're talking about.

[Marblehead]

YES!, YEs!, Yes!!!

 

Make everyone a moderator.  That would be true anarchy.

 

(But I would be willing to lay money that anything ever posted would be deleted by at least one moderator.)

[Marblehead]

Belly laughs!!!  You said that so much better than I ever could have.

[Taomeow]

The problem now seems to be the limit on the number of moderators.   So one open forum with everyone having mod power won't work.    

 

It would have to be something like a forum with say 10 subforums... a member could moderate a post in only one of the 10 areas (call it 'home' for that member).  They could post in any of the ten as they wanted but could not use their mod power.

 

It only seems to get more messy from a forum structure point of view to do something which ought to be a forum level control.  THis software seems to want assignment of 'mods' to create the level of control we're talking about.

 

I see.  Thanks for looking into the possible/impossible logistics.

 

I'm right-hand-dominant so I don't know if it's true first hand (pun accidental), but I've heard left-hand-dominant people complain that all the tools we think of as unbiased are actually designed for the right-handed, and some, explicitly so -- like fabric scissors, wrenches, or computer mouses (mice?..) -- I've heard some lefties assert many everyday consumer designs imply they don't exist, or don't matter.  I thought about it when I realized that what you're saying is that our forum software (not "our" in the sense TDB, in the sense "all of it?") is designed just so that it can only be used hierarchically.  It demands vertical control and disallows horizontal. 

 

So, it is designed to the precepts of Indo-European religions and patriarchal pyramid subordination schemes.  And here I am with my taoist idea of a horizontal, non-hierarchical structure of control.  Duh...  figures...

Edited March 16, 2015 by Taomeow

[Daeluin]

I'm a lefty, but more ambi in that I don't mind training myself to do things with the other hand if there's incentive, like using my mouse right-handed... scissors I'll use both, but often need to switch to right if the material-resistance-to-sharpness ratio requires the precise leverage built for right handed mechanics.

 

I think this follows on our discussion of mastery - gotta truly master both sides for it to be mastery. Qiao vessels seem related to this. I remain intent on some day learning to do my taiji etc forms both sides equally well. It is amazing to me how different the same movements can be when made on left and right sides. I find the differences help to inform the other side as well.

 

With programming, I think that often a particular path is chosen, and then it gets somewhat fixed in place as the functionality locks certain things in place that can't be changed without breaking everything. Often as the program matures and the desired needs become more clear, the whole thing needs to be re-written from the ground up to allow the most efficient trajectory... but even then it won't allow things outside of that trajectory. This is why people try to design around modularity, to allow flexibility in unanticipated directions, but how well this works still depends on what that direction needs to be.

 

In terms of simply allowing a larger number of moderators per forum, I wonder what the snag actually is... seems like it could just be a hard-coded setting somewhere, but is likely something deeper. Unfortunately it can be hard to know the full effect hacking even something simple like this might have on the entire software. Maybe when more people reach true mastery our software will be less buggy.

[Marblehead]

I'm right-hand-dominant so I don't know if it's true first hand (pun accidental),

Ever try to buy a left-handed screwdriver?

[Taomeow]

My point exactly. 

[soaring crane]

However, practice makes perfect.  A thread where you either come at the default setting on "I love you" and "I wish you happiness" toward the OP or else don't go there at all could be a start?  What do you reckon?   

 

Just saw this now. I confess to being less than receptive to the whole premise, but I like that idea a lot :-)

 

One of my reservations with the concept is that it could be a forum for spammers. It would, in fact, be profoundly ironic if it were to come to be after Decbelle's ban. It's precisely what he was yearning for all the time: A soapbox (and one that can be linked to, allowing a larger audience than a personal blog can attract).

 

Btw, I've been practicising the "yes" technique for a little while now. I learned it long ago under completely different conditions but came across again it in a new book I'm reading. In meditation, when a thought arises, just think the word "yex".

 

 

 

edit: oops! That was supposed to be written with an "s". And it seems a pretty Freudian typo, lol.

[Taomeow]

"yex" is very freudian indeed.    Although in the best case scenario it means "yes to sex," you may also want to consider the ancient meaning of the X symbol -- "metal piercing earth," the black-magical method used for "to kill what it is applied to." ( I have always had trouble with Rx, Exxon, Celebrex and the rest of it because of that.  These guys know their black magic well.)

 

Decisively object to this being compared to Deci's stance.  Deci wanted this for himself only and exclusively, as the privilege of the chosen one, or should I say the self-chosen one.  I want it for everybody.  Big difference.  

 

I honestly think people would mostly be decent given an opportunity to use this.  Maybe I'm overly optimistic.  But look at the Haiku thread someone (sorry, don't remember who) cited as an example of a thread where no one attacks anyone.  Apt example.  There's only ONE rule in this thread, but a rule inviolable: the format.  Use the last line of the previous entry, and follow the 5-7-5 haiku format.  Nothing else!  And over four hundred pages later, it is still alive and going strong.  And of course from time to time someone deviates -- fails to pay attention to the One Rule of the thread and does not link the chain, or does not count the syllables.  He or she is promptly corrected, the chain is repaired by someone, and the corrected party holds no grudges.  So it is possible after all to follow ONE ironclad rule.  It provides structure.  Native Americans referred to all structured entities as "walking-in-skins," be it a tree, a human, a river, or a tribe with its rules.  One rule is enough to provide the "skin" to walk in.  The river only needs its banks to be the river.  But it does need its banks to be the river.

 

If the banks were, "no contention, only support in this section -- and if you don't support what's being offered, go elsewhere,"  I do believe many -- most -- would refrain from demolishing these banks.  People instinctively crave a sensible structure to their endeavors -- that's what senseless control-freakish ones capitalize on and co-opt so easily.   A sensible one is actually what grants and expands freedom without abusing it, instead of taking it away to prevent its abuse.  Anyone who knows taiji knows that...  

[soaring crane]

I honestly think people would mostly be decent given an opportunity to use this.  Maybe I'm overly optimistic.  But look at the Haiku thread someone (sorry, don't remember who) cited as an example of a thread where no one attacks anyone. 

 

ahem ;-)

 

I hope you didn't get the impression that I was comparing you with DB (I'm sure you know me beter than that!). But the format is very similar to the powers he unilaterally declared for himself (I doubt he would have protested at other people sharing the same privelege) and would attract precisely that kind of person. In an anarchy, someone has to enforce that one rule, and it's no difficult task to identify the personality type that the position would attract.

 

It would also attract the kind decent, cooperative and open-minded people you describe, of course. So, I'm not "against" it at all, but I have my misgivings about it, as I said, and I think ultimately, it would have to be policed by staff same as any other forum/thread.

[Daeluin]

In an anarchy, someone has to enforce that one rule...

 

"Anarchy refers to a society, entity, group of persons or single person without recognition of authority."

 

When I've participated in meetings that follow the principles of anarchy, there will certainly be different roles taken based on people's motives. But these motives are subordinant to the one-ness of the collective. If some motive reaches a point where it needs to employ obvious forcefulness in order to be expressed, then it begins to threaten the unity of the collective, and the collective will often simply listen and accept that expression for what it is, and move on without feeding it. Pretty much like we do already.

 

So I suppose I'm a little confused, as to how what is being suggested is a form of anarchy... but I suppose there are many perspectives on what anarchy means in application.

 

Taomeow, I'm curious what the changes suggest to you related to the structure you propose. Anything that might help it overcome the challenges?

[Daeluin]

OK, so I can see that the role of the mods is to guard unity... as best as possible, in any case. Naturally there are different levels of guarding unity. So while what is proposed here fragments unity, it allows those fragments the responsibility upholding their own interpretation of unity.

 

This may indeed be necessary to nurture the specific environments required for certain concepts to grow to maturity.

 

But where is a line drawn as to what concepts we allow to grow to maturity? Back to forum rules?

[Taomeow]

Daeliun,

 

thinking in abstract categories is not my strong suit.  I am a pragmatist.  I'm not a techno savvy pragmatist at that -- I can't invent a software wheel, I can only ask if the already invented wheel can be applied to the already invented suitcase so as to come up with a suitcase on wheels. 

 

I'm looking to apply the already existing format to an area where it hasn't been applied yet.  To wit, the format of a blog to one section of a forum.  

 

A blog is created by an "anarch" who is the sole ruler of his or her blog (within the structure of whatever general restrictions are pre-imposed by whatever entity makes the very existence of blogs in his/her/its domain possible).  I envision a section of the forum where every thread started by anyone would be ruled like a blog.  The anarch of a blog does not ask any authority's permission to "approve" or "disapprove" any and all contributions made by those who did NOT create this blog.  He or she rules it as he or she pleases.  That's the technical structure which I'm hoping is possible but don't know if it is, not my area of competence.  The ethical structure, which I do feel competent enough to tackle, would be "pre-installed" as "no contention, come with acceptance, support, benevolence, empathy -- the prerequisites for participation -- or else don't use this section."  That's all, folks.   

 

"Anarchy" the dictionary definition does not matter.  I could use "monarchy."  Or "meritocracy."  Or "horizontal management," or "sovereign contributions," or anything else.  A suitcase on wheels may bear a label -- "Samsung" or "American Tourister" or "Anarchy."  But it's not the label that lets it roll.  I was looking for what can make it roll -- what you might call it is unimportant.   Obviously the word "anarch" was used metaphorically, I'm not writing a dissertation on anarchy, I'm proposing an alpha test of a blog format for a forum section.  The idea was born of a measure of frustration with the overall current vector of forum interactions and a desire for a better one, as a test of theoretical and empirical feasibility of this "better."  That kind of a deal. 

[Daeluin]

Thanks for the elaboration of intent! To be clear I wasn't trying to take any particular stance, just exploring what comes to mind. My question to you was more along the lines of what the I Ching might've suggested...

 

All in all I support this idea, am curious what will come of it, and I love the name. Aside from the emotional turbulence I mentioned earlier, I see trivial obstacles related to what can be blogged about... I imagine forum rules will still apply to discussions advocating topics that might put the forum as a whole at risk.

 

Yet at the same time, the design of this concept will enable the discussion of things that would otherwise draw contention. What if some people wish to explore their personal experiences navigating various traumas? Certainly this blogging concept would engender the protection necessary for such a sensitive sharing, even as it might descend into layers of shadow interaction that might cause a lot of political pressures from those unable to really understand.

 

I think this is a very noble concept, and could become a very powerful evolution of open communication, should it survive. So I look forward and see the obstacles that might quickly put pressure on the forum ministers, and I wonder how we might deal with things like this in order to protect and preserve the potential this concept holds.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

One iron clad rule: Mutual respect of the consenting free will of others (even if they mutually consent to violence).

[Daeluin]

What if the OP simply had to approve posts?

[sasblamthanb]

barely on topic...

 

statists at work...

 

http://disinfo.com/2015/03/roerich-and-tibet-the-road-to-shambhala-can-take-some-very-surprising-turns/

 

 

It is also interesting that no one has mentioned Larken Rose in this or the other 'doable' thread...

[dawei]

No committees.  One rule and the rule of one. 

 

In a fractal fashion I want to see if this model can be extended to a small subsection which would consist of any number of fiefdoms, with one overlord over one thread in each.  The thread he or she creates.  

 

One king, one queen, one tyrant, one totalitarian dictator.  Not a pack, not a gang, not a stampede.  One owner, one thread to own.  Not all that horrible if you think about it?  And bam you're banned would apply to one topic only.  How horrible can it be?  You are banned from Birds And Bees Thread, but this does not mean you are banned from the Mice And Men thread by the same OP in the same section -- and most certainly not from anywhere else on TDB.  

 

THAT kind of an idea. 

 

Coming back to a few comments above... as we've had a break-through in figuring out how to set it up.

 

Not sure we can do some of the below, but just asking as the thread continues to comment on ideas.

 

There can only be one Highlander [Original Poster] who starts a thread:

1. Should the OP approve every post before it is shown?   Otherwise it stays hidden. 

2. Should the OP hide posts at will?

3. Should the OP delete posts at will?

4. Should the OP move posts at will?

 

The issue which arises with 'hiding' is that anyone with the same Highlander permissions could really see the hidden thread anyways... not sure if they could actually approve it.

 

Another problem with hiding is that it is not uncommon for someone else with the power to 'see' what is hidden to mistakenly 'unhide' it !

 

To give 'delete' permissions means any Highlander technically has it... and it is easy to mis-use.  And Staff has a harder time to see what was the post removed content (poof... gone).

 

Any further thoughts are welcomed. 

[thelerner]

Sure we're not over philosophizing this?  As long as people know the ground rules before they post, ie there post can be deleted or hidden at the whim of the Author, is it problem?  That's what is going on now in PPD's.   People would be free to start up a 'freer' post of there own in the general area.

 

Thats how it 'should' work.  Crazies (including myself at times) always complicate things.  ie times when people decide they're enemies and put up dueling similar threads answering each other tit for tat rudely while not letting the others views on there thread.  In those cases, highly possible but hopefully rare, mods can send one or both to The Pit. 

 

Course its always hard to predict how any new type of rule/authoring will go.  Still some experiments might be worth it.  We're weighing the hassle of controlling a dueling thread flame wars versus the benefit of highly interested people hosting threads that are kept tight and inline with the originator's intent.   

 

Or people can just do the linky thing I did from General Topic into PPD topic.