Date sent: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:09:50 -0400 From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re: virus: Virian council and process Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
>
>
> Eric Boyd wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sodom: thanks for starting the thread... I was just about to do it
> > myself.
> >
> > Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org> writes:
> > <<
> > As do I . As self-replicating structures go, a form of distinct
> > hierarchy is an absolute must. What else does the lowly initiate have
> > to strive for, if not a velvet seat within the majestic Inner Circle?
> > >>
> >
> > That would be cool alright -- especially the velvet seats! I was
> > thinking a "round table" type of thing might be good -- especially one
> > with no fixed size, so that whenever another becomes worthy (and how
> > do we judge that? and who is we?) the table expands and we create
> > another chair.
> >
> > The only real question is whether such "status" carries any power, in
> > terms of how the church is run and how it evolves. Wade says "Such a
> > non-egalitarian heirarchy will cause me to flee." But I suspect that
> > if it's only the *illusion* of non-egalitarian-ness, he wouldn't
> > object. We can probably get all of the memetic benefits without
> > actually giving the inner circle any real power. If we can appeal to
> > humankind's need for heirarchy without actually having one... that is
> > the best of both worlds.
> >
> > Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com> writes:
> > <<
> > I think the idea of a Virian council should be seriously thought out
> > for many reasons.
> >
> > 1> Hierarchical structure will help accomplish some of the tasks that,
> > with organization and specific responsibility, the CoV could
> > accomplish
> > >>
> >
> > Yes -- we need this.
> >
> > <<
> > 3> This group can help to eliminate problem makers
> > >>
> >
> > Yikes! Better start running now Wade...
> >
> > Do you seriously think we need to do this?
>
> Actually, this is more about the battle that ensued between Brett and
> everyone. I certainly don't want to silence ANYONE, but also I think flame
> wars are not really in anyone's interest. BUT - I would rather have the
> wars then censor anyone. Or, we could all wear arm bands and chant
> slogans. (that part is a joke btw)
>
>
> >
> >
> > <<
> >
> > 5> Vote on Saints and other issues
> > >>
> >
> > Do you think it's wise to restrict voting to an 'inner circle'?
>
> No, only if convenient - as we meant for the saint issue.
>
> >
> >
> > <<
> > 6> Provide a "role model" position for newness, or those that are slow
> > to grasp some of the basic issues
> > >>
> >
> > We already do this (I hope).
> >
> > <<
> > So then, we need to decide on the amount of people, how they are
> > elected, term length, etc...
> > >>
> >
> > Even worse than that is deciding who gets to be in the inner circle...
> > I have my own opinions, of course, but they aren't likely to be the
> > same as other's opinions, and I certainly don't want to exclude
> > potentially valuable people because of some simple minded rule like
> > "must have spent min. one year on the list" or "must be liked by
> > majority of council members" or whatever 'process' we come up with.
> >
> > In short, we need a dynamic system... something that can evolve with
> > us, and the church. But how does one create such a system?
> >
> > I was thinking that perhaps the best rule for who is in the inner
> > circle is "only those who feel they belong there". Are you worthy?
> > Am I?
> >
> > And a meta-question related to that -- since such subjective feelings
> > are probably based deeply in human nature (and our hierarchical
> > tendencies... which we inhereted from the apes), there is probably a
> > limit on the number of people who would 'feel worthy' at any time,
> > i.e. once five or ten or however many people the psychological limit
> > is was reached, no further chairs would be created -- instead people
> > would enter into a pecking-order for the chairs already present.
> >
> > We don't want that... but how do you avoid it?
> >
> > (here I'm thinking specifically of those conferences where born
> > leaders all get together... and rather than the chaos one would
> > expect, 90% of them lose their dominance and submit to the new pecking
> > order... a new heirarchy is formed. If I'm right about Virus and it's
> > individual advancement goals, we will face the same type of thing
> > eventually... which is lousy for those individuals who are otherwise
> > on the top but have to take low positions in Virus because of the
> > presence of so many others... how does one create a truly egalitarian
> > organization?)
> >
> > ERiC
>
> These problems are definitely real - I agree it is not an easy thing to
> do. What we are really talking about is participation I think.If we are
> going to "vote" on things, then suppose we have a group like the Snow
> Leopard collective, with users registrting individualy, a group could skew
> the vote a particular way. What we need is an "outer circle" in which
> everyone who has been here for a little while can watch the newcomers and
> decide weather they have some major issue that would exclude them. Maybe
> exclusion is better than inclusion as a system - and all the oldsters will
> not have to deal with the issue.
>
One way we could accomplish this is to have a constitution which
does not allow basic memetic/virian principles to be abridged by
means of e-stuffing ballot boxes - much the same way that the US
Constitution/Bill of Rights is supposed to (and to a good deal does)
protect the fundamental civil rights of minorities from majority
tyranny. Of course, first we have to establish what these principles
are, but the FAQ is a good lode to mine as a start.
>
> Bill Roh
>
>