First of all, Mostess, i have not been rejected from any web communities. I outright reject these communities because of the system that the participants insist is the only way. They have implied that since one way works No Other Way Will Work.Mostess wrote:When narbotic, the guy who started SongFight!, stopped updating regularly, folks on the dumbrella boards grumbled about starting a parallel fight. Spud just went ahead and did it: he called it MeanWhile! He did it probably because he's a good webmaster and has some skills and time and resources. And he loves SongFight! And why the heck not? But it wasn't his idea. The idea was raised, seconded, and applauded on the discussion boards. Some people participated in MeanWhile!, some people didn't. To my knowledge, no one complained.Oust The Mods wrote:So that that more new members can come in and continuously change roles.
With each new election of mods and administrators new programs can be introduced.
And the site can be transferred from one generation of participants to the next.
If the site depends upon JB and Spud, what will you do when they are gone?
After a few MeanWhile! fights, and more stagnation at the original site, someone asked narbotic if he'd mind if MeanWhile! was renamed SongFight! and he obviously assented. Spud and JB took care to preserve the look and feel of the original site and to mention narbotic on the front page. Someone registered songfight.org and songfight.net. No one complained about that. That was what, four years ago? The original URL (songfight.com) is gone. Presumably, narbotic has moved on to other things. As have many frequent and infrequent Fighters.
If (heaven forbid) something happened to both current moderators and no one had any access to the moderation tools or passwords or code or whatnot, I'm sure something equally organic and participant-driven would happen. It already kind of is happening: there are all sorts of sidefights and variations on the SongFight! model, some of which get prominant mention on the front page of SongFight! There has been plenty of growth and change in the SongFight! community since I started submitting in 2002, and most of it started as individual or small-group projects that met with a large enough approval by the general community that they became standard practice. See the Sidefights forum for a list of examples. This because we are all adults and are perfectly happy to take responsibility for our ideas and the ideas of others that we really like.
I'd be curious to see your draft proposal for a SongFight! constitution. I'm assuming you're writing one. Or at least have thought about it. I'd like to hear your nominations for next moderator. What is a moderator's term duration? Term limits? How are voters registered? How are elections monitored for fairness? What limitations of moderator power would you propose? Should moderators be prevented from banning IP addresses? Should participants who exhibit bad faith face any sort of punishment? Can you name a single existing democratic institution in which all citizens are allowed to vote no matter what they do or how they behave? In which no one can be turned away from full and anonymous participation?
Your call for more democracy is intriguing, though I suspect it's just a politically happy face for the bitterness you feel for being rejected from the community. But if you actually are willing to be a good faith participant and make some concrete proposals for growth and change, they will probably be adopted to the extent that a) the people who visit here want to try them and b) you're willing to put some work into the process of realizing your ideas.
I object.
As far as my proposal. I have thought about the situation and unfortunately there are no simple answers. This is an entirely new form of communicating and therefore of building communities.
First of all I propose that this thread be moved out of Monkey Biz and placed in a more noble position as befits the topic.
This is not nor has it ever been some kind of joke.
You brought up the democratic principle of Limited Terms: This is another way of saying "Let's take turns". I can agree to this as one of the fundemental principles that can be adhered to.
Other democratic principles are:
One Person=One Vote What is a person? An account? A bunch of accounts? An IP? a bunch of Ip's? therefore, What is a vote? this is a problem. Is there a solution? I think so. But not a simple one that will be in line withy traditional democratic principles. Probably would need to comprimise there.
Some democratic principles may be applied in the traditional sense. But some may need adjutments due to the non-traditional nature of the problem.
Secret Ballot May need adjustment on this point.
Regulated Elections The current administrator could not be able to block or count votes.
Freedom of Speech So that many varied opinions can be presented for consideration.
Note: Democracy is not like Survivor. It does not seek to exclude people. But to include people.
Quorum According to Roberts Rules of Order the community cannot conduct business without it's members present. A quorum is the minimum number required. This has to be decided and written into our democratic form.
This is a rough outline of the problems.
I feel that this topic is urgent because of the obvious pitfalls if communities continue to fall into a Lords-Serfs system.
Which is where we are at presently.
Communities ought to be self-sufficient, self-sustaining and self-perpetuating.
