Loomio

How We Use Loomio (Meta-discussion/ mediation/ moderation space)

DS Danyl Strype Public Seen by 217

This is a space for sharing our learning about what works for us on Loomio, and what seem to bog us down, or disengage activists (ie active members). Rather than get into meta-discussion on other threads - talking about the discussion rather than the topic - those meta-discussions can take place here.

Things like pointing out fallacies, or raising concerns about unfriendly or disrespectful argumentation, can all be talked through here. Nicely :-)

DS

Danyl Strype Tue 9 Jun 2015 10:11AM

Loomio is our most important membership engagement tool. If we go ahead with the suggestion, floated with some Board members in Te Whanganui-a-Tara, to dissolve the Board (http://bit.ly/1FGpmoU), this Loomio group will by the primary decision-making platform for the Pirates as an organisation.

To encourage full participation, especially by new members, we must hold participants here to the highest standards of respectful and constructive behaviour. We need a group moderation protocol where people misbehaving can be a) warned, b) suspended from Loomio for a fixed period, c) banned from Loomio until a mediation process is resolved.

AR

Andrew Reitemeyer Tue 9 Jun 2015 7:54PM

A mediation process should end with a final appeal to the vote of the full membership.

HM

Hubat McJuhes Fri 12 Jun 2015 11:34AM

@andrewreitemeyer I would think that ideally a mediation process would end with the conflicting parties resolving their conflict in an accepted manner without the need to have the whole party involved.

This is particularly desirable because often those conflicts involve violation of personality rights. Hence a 'discrete' resolution in an agreed consensus of the primary stakeholders helps reducing the harm done.

A mediation is successful when the offending party acknowledges the harm done and and agrees into abstaining from such behaviour in the future. An apology may be helpful for the healing process also.

Only if the mediation happens to be unsuccessful and a disciplinary measurement must be applied, a party wide attention to the matter must be sought for.

DS

Danyl Strype Tue 16 Jun 2015 4:59AM

The comments made by @andrewmcpherson on the 1080 discussion are extremely concerning.
* He made 3 comments restating the same points. We used to call that "flooding the channel" and it is the text equivalent of lecturing at length in a face-to-face meeting
* He made ad hominem attacks on the entire membership of another small party (Ban1080) and an MP from another party (Richard Prosser of NZ First)
* He suggests that we adopt policy in favour of whatever a particular MP opposes
* He suggests that we allow the corporate media and the Police to do our thinking for us, ie accepting that anti-1080 activists are "deluded fanatics" and "petty terrorists", which would also mean accepting that drug users/ dealers and copyright violators are bad people, and that laws criminalizing them are justified.

I honestly can't see how we can make any progress in formulating policy or building political alliances if we allow members to engage in such behaviour in public-facing party channels. If this was a one-off incident it would be bad enough. However, in light of similar behaviour in the discussion of fluoridation in the Health discussion, I think Andrew McP's use of our Loomio group needs to be suspended (or at least his ability to comment in the Policy Group) until he is ready to withdraw and apologise for abusing of our Loomio group as a platform for personal attacks.

DU

Andrew McPherson Tue 16 Jun 2015 7:40AM

I apologise for being the voice of reason and rationality in this groupthink experiment.

HM

Hubat McJuhes Tue 16 Jun 2015 8:04AM

I wholeheartedly agree with @strypey

Posting here is not comparable to some spontaneous, jovial and volatile comments in the pub.

Quite the contrary: interested people receive an e-mail for every comment made. The phone might fire a notification. People are interrupted in whatever they do in that point in time. They stop what they are doing to recognise the new input. In that situation it is sound and fair to expect that the reason for the interruption is worth the effort. If this expectation gets frustrated too many times, people will not follow the channel anymore. We are loosing active members, that is. This has happened to us many times - in the last few years as well as just very recently.

This platform is to be seen as the equivalent to a conference. Everyone is happily invited to speak up - but it can be expected that you make your input a contribution that can be easily digested and helps propel the issue at hand.

DU

Andrew McPherson Wed 17 Jun 2015 4:42AM

My source is a senior member of the counter-terrorism unit, who I have known well for over 30 years, so I am not making an ad hominem claim about the Ban1080 party members who are actively under surveillance for domestic terrorist activities.
If you would like to meet with a member of the counter terrorist unit to discuss why the Ban1080 party members have been threatening to poison baby powder formula, then by all means seek the truth for yourself rather than promote a biased opinion on a matter you are merely trying to politicise in your favour.

I respect people, not ideas. The idea that innocent babies have to be threatened with poison to make a political point about pest control is terrorism, no question about that can be had by a reasonable and rational person.

But if you are merely seeking political capital from wilful ignorance of a fact simply because the fact has been reported to the police counter terrorism unit, then your rebellion from authority is misguided and simply not supported by reality.

I apologise if I have been abrasive in previous discussion on this matter. I do not wish to compromise my source, while they protect their work status from being discovered by family members who would likely have another heart attack if they found out.

I suggest that as a minimum, we should avoid alliances with extremists such as the Ban1080 party, and the immigrant bashers of New Zealand First.
However this is a democratic party, so I will respect your right to choose whether or not to associate with petty domestic terrorists and even moronic xenophobic personality cult nationalists.

HM

Hubat McJuhes Wed 17 Jun 2015 10:08AM

@andrewmcpherson please remove your post from this thread as this thread has nothing to do with 1080.
We have a current thread about 1080 and I guess you actually wanted to have posted there. You may want to consider that - but frankly your post will be completely off-topic there as well as everyone else is talking about aerial drops of high quantities of 1080 on large areas of our nature. None of your comments refer to that issue in any way. If you are serious about wanting to discuss domestic terrorism, then please start a new discussion about that issue.

DS

Poll Created Thu 18 Jun 2015 5:35AM

Remove comments by Andrew McPherson containing personal attacks from public discussions Closed Sun 21 Jun 2015 5:07AM

Outcome
by Danyl Strype Wed 26 Apr 2017 12:02PM

No consensus on this particular proposal, but subsequent comments show we have consensus on establishing a Code of Conduct, which if followed, would make a future proposal of this nature unnecessary.

I propose that any in comments in public discussions on our Loomio group which contain personal attacks, including those recently made by Andrew McPherson, be removed from those threads, to prevent the NZ Pirate Party being brought into ill repute by having such comments associated with the party.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 16.7% 1 HM
Abstain 33.3% 2 DS AR
Disagree 33.3% 2 DU PC
Block 16.7% 1 BV
Undecided 0% 21 J AJ TF KT TJ DP CM M PA AB M B DU P JP CM MJS FS DU MD

6 of 27 people have participated (22%)

DS

Danyl Strype
Abstain
Thu 18 Jun 2015 5:36AM

Since some of Andrew McP's personal attacks were aimed at me, I have a conflict of interest, and will abstain on this decision.

Load More