How to get more volunteers on night shifts

Community definitely wants Rangers. If no-one from the community wants to be a Ranger, you don't get Rangers. Forcing someone to be a Ranger is horrible, as then you get humans who treat Rangering as job, or as being an enforcer, instead of being what a Ranger is.

Danger is not on Rangers to stop. That is not a Ranger's responsibility, that is on the Site Leads, not Rangers.

A Ranger will explain to you, "That looks damn dangerous, you are probably going to hurt yourself. Are you sure you want to do it? Sure? Sweet, do it and I'll call the medics when you break your arm". A Ranger is not there to stop you having the burn you want to have.

Adrian. I don’t get your perspective at all. It can be applied in any scenario where a number of people recognise a problem within an organisation... “Don’t stir the pot, the founders want it this way”. If your view is in play, that the core Nest team intend to run it as an autocracy, and wilfully disregard issues raised, then I’d like them all to come out here and state that, together. So that I can avoid wasting my time trying to make it a better place for all. If they don’t do that, then I’ll just assume it’s your lone (rather odd) opinion and get on with ignoring it and trying to improve Nest. I presume you’re a mate of some of the core team. So you can please highlight this question to them, and encourage them to back your opinion openly? Thank you

But the founders have openly said they do not want it that way. They directly, publicly stated that they want the Directors to be more accountable to the community, and are all for democratic options. As for Toms being a rare opinion, maybe, but then I'm the second person to come forward and say I feel that way too. Look at the thread JJ set up on Facebook suggesting people vote. I was utterly dog piled for the use of wrong speak and wrong think. I used the word retarded as a pejorative to insult potential new UK legal legislation. I specifically called it "retarded nonsense", which I stand by, the Digital Economy Bill is utterly retarded nonsense. Among other things lots of people called me a bigot, I also got "horrible bigot" and "small pricked bigoted idiot". It doesn't seem like these people wanted to change my mind on value of free speech vs being able to ban words. They wanted to virtue signal to other authoritarians that they were on the same team, against me. I've been in some serious flame wars in my time, and I really could not care any less about the insults, I care that so much of the community came together to try and exclude me and make me feel bad. The insults to support ratio was an embarrassment to Nest in my opinion. However, with hindsight, the support was there, it just wasn't online at the time. Be the change you want to see in the world.

I barely know them, to be honest. I went to the community meeting and asked them to identify themselves because I had no clue who was who.

My position is more generic and philosophicial : how can it be that a person would want to change something that attracted them. All too often, they pick on something and 'fix' it without realising what they're breaking.

My support for core members is based on the idea that whether they're doing something 'wrong' or not, the result of their doing that has made something attractive that I (and, presumably, the revisionist) liked. So I change it at my peril.

But I already said that.

To be fair, I may have misread Tom (and I think a recent post tries to see that). His postings come over (probably unintentionally) as being ready to tear the core team apart in the name of transparency and 'democracy'. If the core team wants that, it's hardly revolutionary, is it ?

Tom: if people are choosing not to sign up for shifts at welfare, gate, rangers, etc. because they don’t like how a totally separate area of organisation at Nest has been done recently, that seems pretty strange to me. I mean, if you like and value rangering, for example, and are going to Nest, and are willing to volunteer generally, why wouldn’t you do it? Because someone posted something unrelated that you disagree with on Facebook? None of the above shifts are organised by the core team, and all of them serve the people at the event in general. It seems like trying to punish specific people you don’t like by hurting the community/event itself - why would you want to do that?

@amandasm i think you are missing the point that a number of people who attend Nest care a lot about organisational stuff and if they see types of org stuff they don't like in any nest space repeatedly, they will just avoid the whole thing, but still attend and party and ignore every call for volunteers. The thing is if just one bad actor is seen to be retaining a powerful position unchallenged it puts people off in general, partly because they fear that person could be on a site lead shift or something and mistreat them, or just because they don't want to 'work' for people who do things they see as against the principles, good manors or ethics. This problem only gets to this level if there is not effective conflict resolution for org issues, and no accountability for people in powerful roles. I hope to address both of those issues if i am welcomes to the community liaison team. there are also deeper structural issues which put people off too, a lot of people expect burns to be more communal and less top down than nest appears to be to many of them. i agree with you that doing so intentionally to punish people you don't like is illogical, but thats not what i'm talking about. it's more subtle, they just get turned off interacting with the org as a whole, with no spite or intent, only people like myself walk towards the fire and try and put it out, most people just avoid it.

Turned off from interacting with the org as a whole but happy to enjoy the hard labour of the org and party with them? Sound pretty hypocritical to me.

Tom I've read your comments here and on facebook and it honestly comes off that you have some kind of personal vendetta. Just because Nest/the-org isn't where we want it to be (when we agree on whatever that is) doesn't mean we need to rage against where it currently is.

@danielhurley1 Why accuse Tom of sounding like he has a vendetta if you don’t know what he’s thinking of? Why not just ask him what he’s talking about? The fact you don’t enquire makes it sound like you know, and have already taken sides and are trying to discredit him

What sides? Not everything is part of a dark plot.

That’s the vibe I got. That’s all.

@danielhurley1 Exactly what I was saying!?... It was you that accused him of some dark underlying motive! My point stands. I don’t think accusing him of a vendetta is a good way of querying his cause. Just ask!