Managing our facebook presence: Group Names, Code of Conduct, and Guidelines

that's how Markdown works, it interprets that format as an ordered list, and the HTML just uses <li> for "list item" and doesn't specify numbers at all. I think backslash before the numbers will override that. You can edit your post.

Winning debates isn't really a successful model. I would love to see us learn how to use dialogue and other tools that build trust and rapport.

When two Greens are debating and they reach different conclusions. It's usually because their internal thought processes are hidden and the two parties are assigning different weights to different items, have slightly different values and beliefs, different understanding of how the systems work and various feedback loops, etc. No one actually wins a debate.

Our movement would improve if we learned some of the tools and practices of THINKING and LEARNING together. Dialogue, Sharing mental models, systems modeling for understanding, etc.

My 2 cents

Brian

@fillardspringrhyne Thanks for the detailed feedback! That's what we need to come up with something we can agree on!

RE: Procedural questions.
1. No, proposals passed on Loomio are not binding but are a VERY useful tool for committees and the whole group to take into consideration when we do make decisions that are binding. Even binding decisions could be changed or amended as needed . There is no group or platform that includes us all so this is a tool for allowing people to work towards consensus or agreement. As I understand it binding decisions on most issues can be made by the new leadership committee but important key issues should be passed in both a subcommittee and a general meeting where it's announced in advance that said decision will be voted on. I don't think this is on THAT level, but feedback, outreach and inclusion before decision making are a big priority for me and us (see Aaron's proposal that got consensus)! I would personally say that any decision that passes a committee but then fails a Loomio proposal is non-binding/temporary and needs review. Since Loomio is non-binding there is no standard currently for what constitutes a proposal pass or fail besides consensus or consensus/abstain.

2. Procedure for posting a proposal as I understand it: that 2 people seconded the proposal idea before it's posted. This seconding means that the idea to propose is seconded and is not the same as actually voting yes. The idea is to allow feedback before the proposal is posted so it can be edited and hopefully go up in a good form that has a shot of passing. This proposal got at least this level of support from Mark and Aaron as well as a like from Emily before I posted it here. I also had gotten some feedback from Adam and Madeline and others on the general topic via, fb and messages. I wish that had all happened in this thread but sometimes you gotta go to the people.

3. Time-span of proposal: I like longer proposals too and shorter times mean that the proposal is less representative but since this is on the Structure Committee agenda I thought it would be key for people to know they should respond before that. (Tonight at 6:30 at Ringlers) This proposal ends roughly when the meeting starts. In my mind if this had a consensus we should pass something at the meeting. Since it's currently split we should maybe pass something that is limited to the points of agreement for now and then work on it more here on Loomio for fine tuning. I wish people were more responsive on Loomio, at least to proposals. Feedback from the group at large is key!

4. RE your concern about truth policing: I tried to be clear that this was not the intention or plan with my wording "Most ideas are debatable and differences of opinion are expected and encouraged but intentionally repeating false or misleading statements is a destructive tactic to undermine our movements and has no place here." But I see that for you, Adam, Madeline and George this is the big fear. I'm happy to delete the word misleading (too subjective) and also add maybe wording like "obviously false" to reinforce that this isn't for debatable points. 99.9% of us agree on what is true and false and we have basically all been willing to edit and clarify when called out or reminded to reign in grandiose statements. Just because I or an admin personally think a point is false isn't enough. I'm not an admin but an ability to act and look at things objectively is a qualification for the job!

EXAMPLES: If I were to say, "SRV can never have a spoiled election or non-representative outcome" that would be undeniably FALSE. Admin would write me and I would edit it to be true (or at least debatable.) An example correction would be "SRV is the least likely voting system to have spoiled or unrepresentative outcomes. (According to VSE modeling)" I could also add in qualifiers like: I believe, I think, in my opinion... Nobody here wants truth policing or Putin style censorship of ideas! Big conclusions are more debatable in general but statements like "there is no data for Burlington" are obviously and demonstrably false and easy to prove and correct. That statement could be fixed by editing to "I don't believe the data proves that Burlington was a spoiler." everyone is entitled to an opinion.

With Admin focused on edits rather than deleting or blocking we can encourage and train people to self-moderate without limiting voices in this important debate. Without bothering admin any person could respond and ask for an edit or suggest a rewording if it comes up. Since we all would know that this is a universal rule we could all take it less personally.

So far we've at least all agreed on rule 1: "Respect: No personal insults, name calling or slander."

@mniles Thanks! Can you vote on this then? Do you have any edits you'd like to suggest? I'm planning on taking out the word misleading for sure.

@aquabluelounge You voted Block but said that you are Neutral. I think an abstain vote with clarifying comments is what you meant to do here in that case? Remember that these proposals are non binding tools so your comments and concerns can still be taken into account on the final draft and implementation if you did vote agree or neutral and this proposal had a majority.

I voted block? I don't think I have ever voted for a block on anything. I believe I voted disagree. I sorta still feel that way as I have stated in person that I really don't like a lot of rules and censoring of ideas and dictating how conduct should be applied. I see the arguments for the need for something like this in the future but it really isn't needed right now.

I was really clear on our face to face talk at Ringlers about this. Weren't we all clear?

You were very clear in person. Thanks.

UPDATED PROPOSAL TEXT FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING:
I propose that our RCV OR fb groups needs to post some rules at the top that admin can use to help moderate and keep things focused and positive. Below is a welcome mat of sorts for the main page, the descussion group could have just rule 1 and 2:

Welcome to this RCV Oregon Facebook Group! Please read our Code of Conduct and Guidelines and get involved. We would love to have your participation!

1. Respect: No personal insults, name calling or slander.
2. Honesty: Most ideas are debatable and differences of opinion are expected and encouraged. Intentionally repeating demonstrably false statements is a destructive tactic to undermine our movement and has no place here. Most false statements can be easily fixed by a simple qualifier like "In my opinion.." Always and Never should be used with caution.
3. Goals: Agree to help keep us organized and focused. This main page is for welcoming new people to the movement, letting people know about meetings, action alerts, current events and education. Communication, sharing ideas, and asking or answering general questions here is great. Please stay on topic and start new threads for tangents so as to keep existing threads focused. Extensive technical debates and discussions should move to the platforms designated for that: * the RCV discussion group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/rcvoregon/?ref=bookmarks * To participate in focused discussion and planning please use the Loomio group: https://www.loomio.org/g/mlgtGHuy/rcv-oregon

If these rules are broken members or Admin will ask for edits where needed. Diverse opinions and points of view are welcome here. If your post or comment is in the wrong group, Admin or members will explain where it would be welcomed. Deleting comments or blocking people will be avoided when at all possible! Welcoming participation and involvement is our top priority!

\ If people don't follow these rules an admin messages them: "These are the terms we use to remove posts, can you please edit your comment/post or move it to the appropriate forum. We value your participation!"
If a post isn't edited/moved and admin deletes it they would message them: "Your post was deleted. These are the terms we use to remove posts. PLEASE post again following our guidelines! We value your participation!"
Blocking people would be an absolute LAST resort only!

I'm fully on board with rule #1 and I think this is sufficient without needing to have rules #2 or 3.

I think rules 2 and 3 are problematic. What exactly is the value of having an admin or moderator inform someone that something they said might be obviously not true. If something is obviously not true, why would they be saying it in the first place? But what is there to be gained by having an authority figure in the form of an admin or moderator point this out rather than other members of the group? Do you think or assume that someone who has the title of Admin or Moderator will automatically carry more authority for the offending person, and so then that person will be more likely to comply with the request than other members of the group who ask or point out the same thing? I am skeptical.

Also, do admins or moderators really want to have to read every post and comment in every thread to make sure they are compliant with the guidelines? Or are we going to assume that some group member will have to flag or report an offending comment before an admin or mod takes action against the poster? I would assume the latter.