TZMUK (FB Group) Banning procedure
Craig Arroyo
Public
Seen by 23
Who should have opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding removal of posts/members in the group : https://www.facebook.com/groups/TZMUnkitedKingdom/771705269529016/?notif_t=group_comment_reply
Currently these decisions are made by group admins, who are both unelected and have not demonstrated either qualification or merit.
It is admitted that current admin criteria is that admins are "off line friends".
Poll Created Fri 13 Jun 2014 3:31PM
Loomio Consensus Alternative Closed Thu 26 Jun 2014 9:09PM
If there are proposals to ban individual members from the TZMUK Facebook group, the decision should be put to the community and not left to admins.
This proposal aims to utilize Loomio as a tool for deliberation in such instances, giving both member and opposition an opportunity to state position thoroughly and provide the community with evidence as needed (creating a Loomio "discussion").
Once both member and opponent have stated cases to the community via Loomio, a proposal to ban the member should be created (creating a proposal on Loomio discussion thread).
The Loomio thread should then be posted on the TZMUK Group page so that all community members have the opportunity to come to Loomio, read deliberation, add further comment and vote on the banning proposal.
Finer details such as duration of time before vote closes, percentage needed to carry decision or voting rights of both member and opponent (opponent being the individual who seeks to ban another member in this instance), will be discussed in other Loomio threads.
The purpose of this proposal is only to offer preference between (a) dependence on group admins to carry out banning of members, or (b) use of Loomio to allow general community participation in the decision making process.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 66.7% | 4 |
|
| Abstain | 16.7% | 1 |
|
|
| Disagree | 16.7% | 1 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 6 |
|
6 of 12 people have participated (50%)
Melarish Ish
Fri 13 Jun 2014 4:15PM
I can't say yes or no before knowing how long it would take. The idea of the current system is that admins can act swiftly if it is clear that someone is causing damage. If we had to wait for a week for a poll to close, more damage would be caused.
Grant Williams
Fri 13 Jun 2014 4:20PM
I agree wholeheartedly that Loomio should be used.
I would go even further and say not only for these matters but to settle other major disputes as well
Using this tool gives us good practice and experience in arriving at Group Decisions.
steve duffield
Fri 13 Jun 2014 11:22PM
it's an unnecessary and laborious way to fix something that is not broken.
Craig Arroyo
Sat 14 Jun 2014 10:47AM
I have massive confidence in intelligent community members to participating in the decision making process.
Grant Williams Fri 13 Jun 2014 4:24PM
Is their an option to suspend the member for a week pending decision.
Melarish Ish Fri 13 Jun 2014 4:51PM
Not really. The only option would be to temporarily kick them and add them back if people vote to not ban.
steve duffield Fri 13 Jun 2014 11:26PM
I’ve gotta say no.
To me this seems a laborious way to fix something that isn't broken. The ban-hammer has been wielded so lightly I cannot remember anyone who has been banned who I feel was not given a huge amount of opportunity to enter constructive dialogue - both with the group and the admins (who are after all just contributors like the rest of us). I remember when all the admins resigned over being called out for attempting to control the discourse (good - I was pleased with this outcome), and the group did struggle to find anybody who was willing and able to stand up. When Scott, Cliff and Julia etc. took up the positions there was a new ‘hands off’ approach which has been pursued by the the new group. The consensus I saw/see emerging is really the admins responding to the positivity and negativity certain posts and members generate over a period of time - for me, this has been welcome - this is a reflection of true consensus (rather than majority voting)
We have to remember this is a TZM Facebook group - not TZM - although my response is usually the same, encourage, discuss, confront or ignore.
For me this (the proposal) is not how these things should be dealt with /unless/ there is general feeling that the admin role has been negative (if there is any I suppose we’ll see a tiny snapshot here via this procedure), …but at this point I would say quite the opposite!
In all honesty I admit I don’t really know what has been removed and who has been banned - but Im pretty confident it won’t be much more than I’m aware of.
“Currently these decisions are made by group admins, who are both unelected and have not demonstrated either qualification or merit.” ..this is what the position actually was with the original admins - who were confronted, proven ‘wronguns’ via public and alignment (FB is pretty good at this imho) - they resigned (no banning or authoritarian removal necessary) and went on to pursue they’re nationalist agenda elsewhere (which is also being confronted - good). All this happened in the open, transparently and with no elections or subjective ‘testing’. I have every confidence the current admins would indeed step down if they thought they were not wanted in this role …I’m sure it would be obvious by now if they were disliked or untrusted yet this is the only objection I’ve seen to them, and it’s seems pretty weak objection too
.
I never knew any of the admins before joining this FB groups - and we do not agree on lots of things - yet i still trust their ability to be impartial and tolerant - I have seen no evidence to the contrary.
Grant Williams Sat 14 Jun 2014 9:38AM
I have not been active in TZM for a while so don't know a lot of the history as I've been quite busy offline "........pursuing nationalist agenda's " as some may see it.
Whilst I absolutely agree that TZM FB Pages should not be used to try and get Votes for either side there is quite naturally a LOT of bias and projection in this area.
Activity around the 2015 Elections will be worse than the Euros and I am not confident that Admins will be neutral.
Failing to remain aggressively neutral will be a big mistake IMHO and is against TZM ethos.
Will Admins be aggressively Neutral and who would monitor this.
Nanos · Fri 13 Jun 2014 3:50PM
One of the problems of banning based on a majority vote is when the majority of people who can vote, have a certain view of things, because everyone else who previously disagreed with with admins was removed, leaving you with a mostly biased group..
Once you reach that state, its rather difficult to change it I reckon.
I think for it to work better, it would have to implemented at the beginning of a group being created.
Even then, this might not be ideal, eg. if the very people you want in the group, cannot join it because of say, they don't have the resources to do so, they are automatically being discriminated against..
It would be like if you created a group for homeless people, but few homeless people actually joined and the voting always went the way of the non-homeless..