|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 12:14:35 GMT -5
@apokalypse1991june 26, 2012 5:06 PM
GA has stalled on nearly everything worth taking action on. Although there is a lot of procedure, intended to bring about consensus building; essentially random people do not have the common vocabulary or conceptualizations to make effective teams. Part of the work would seem (as hinted above)to include developing a base of understanding, common language and reference points so that more precise and active teams can be formed from a larger mass of people. Part of the work has to be educating the citizens that will participate in the democratic process. We can't count on the educational system developed to serve the institutions of state to suit our purposes, and so we would have to take that matter into our own hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 12:14:51 GMT -5
KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 5:13 PM
There is a basic lexicon that is lacking. By supplying that lexicon to as many people as possible, it raises the general level of awareness for the entire group. They know what they are listening for. This will be a long process, I think supporting and including the Free School model is essential in this particular "battle"
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 12:15:10 GMT -5
KaymeeJune 26, 2012 5:22 PM
Agree but this slows effectiveness of GA. Need people to take responsibility if they want to contribute. Go to school, learn the lingo & process, then stick to it or sit down.
Another point-limit time in stack for each person. Definite rule I favor is nobody repeats ideas, problems, whatever. If the collective has already spoken your thought, keep it to yourself. Saves time, hypnosis by repeat, and avoids grandstanding.
Consequences need to be defined, as well as enforcement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 12:15:24 GMT -5
KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 5:26 PM
agreed, the stack process needs to be moderated. If someone wants to get on stack they should make it so stack sets up 30 - 45 min prior to GA, so folks with an affinity can select a spokes person for that idea. This reduces the stack line and the first 30-45 minutes is a loose exchange of ideas/ set up. GA can kick off with a tight stack then move into proposal processing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 28, 2012 12:35:28 GMT -5
Consequences need to be defined, as well as enforcement. I've been working with some folks here in NYC on how to address this without creating hierarchies and getting intense pushback because anyone who actually tries to enforce consequences for violating community guidelines and agreements is seen as the "dictator" or "cop". Haven't really got anywhere with it yet. There's broad agreement on the need for guidelines and incentive to actually follow them, but few people (and even fewer that are qualified IMHO) actual want to be the one to say "nope, sorry, you blew it and have to sit out the rest of this discussion" or whatever the penalty might be. On the flip side of that, we again run into the issue of power corrupting.... |
|
|
|
Post by kaymee on Jun 28, 2012 13:04:22 GMT -5
Hey Cy. Perhaps it's time to just be a grown-up about this, and stop expecting an ideology to function in the real world without boundaries and a framework to hang it on. Because that's what this is about - boundaries. I don't recall a statement anywhere that says being open to all viewpoints means we allow ourselves to be abused. Also don't recall it meaning there are no parameters, guidelines or consequences. If people want to act like 3 yr olds or sabotage the process by not following the guidelines they agree to with their attendance, they can accept the consequences. That's not punishment - it is integrity. When you agree to a contract, and agree to a specific consequence for breaking that contract, you agree to accept the consequence. Discipline is teaching with love. I don't mind the thought of administering the consequence in a loving manner...until that fails and it hurts the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 13:23:34 GMT -5
Consequences need to be defined, as well as enforcement. I've been working with some folks here in NYC on how to address this without creating hierarchies and getting intense pushback because anyone who actually tries to enforce consequences for violating community guidelines and agreements is seen as the "dictator" or "cop". Haven't really got anywhere with it yet. There's broad agreement on the need for guidelines and incentive to actually follow them, but few people (and even fewer that are qualified IMHO) actual want to be the one to say "nope, sorry, you blew it and have to sit out the rest of this discussion" or whatever the penalty might be. On the flip side of that, we again run into the issue of power corrupting.... I think a large part of this is people taking responsibility for setting boundaries and enforcing them as a group. In my experience, folks are letting themselves be abused (myself included in some cases), I know this is not the case all the time. As a whole the Occupation in question needs to set those boundaries and enforce them. In this discussion we can't do anything but share ideas and hope. Everyone that's involved in Occupy has to take a hard look at what they can feasibly bring to the table as well as live a fulfilling life. |
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 28, 2012 14:49:06 GMT -5
Hey Cy. Perhaps it's time to just be a grown-up about this, and stop expecting an ideology to function in the real world without boundaries and a framework to hang it on. Because that's what this is about - boundaries. I don't recall a statement anywhere that says being open to all viewpoints means we allow ourselves to be abused. Also don't recall it meaning there are no parameters, guidelines or consequences. If people want to act like 3 yr olds or sabotage the process by not following the guidelines they agree to with their attendance, they can accept the consequences. That's not punishment - it is integrity. When you agree to a contract, and agree to a specific consequence for breaking that contract, you agree to accept the consequence. Discipline is teaching with love. I don't mind the thought of administering the consequence in a loving manner...until that fails and it hurts the rest of us. 100% down with that... that's why I agreed to be a mod on nycga.net. Unfortunately we didn't get around to really wielding the banhammer there until the trolls, mentally ill (IMHO) and abusive personalities had run most of the people saying productive things off the forums. Similar events & timeline with IRL NYCGA meetings. Too bad... we probably should have been having this discussion there and 7+ months ago. but it took far too many of us this long to come to terms with the reality that "Another World Is Possible" != "A World With Absolutely No Limits On Freedom Is Possible Right Now". |
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 15:11:19 GMT -5
Consequences need to be defined, as well as enforcement. I've been working with some folks here in NYC on how to address this without creating hierarchies and getting intense pushback because anyone who actually tries to enforce consequences for violating community guidelines and agreements is seen as the "dictator" or "cop". This is a really problematic issue, in many ways we have to recognize that as a mass this is probably not something that can be really accomplished, I'm immediately reminded of an instance of where a guy in the park was drinking a beer and all that anyone could say to him was 'but we have reached consensus! consensus!!1" and he threw his empty beer can at them or similar. There's really no way to formalize what I'm about to say without inheriting all of the evils that come with it, but I can tell you what *I* did. 0. The butt-sniffer guy who showed up with signs about wanting to smell womens underwear; I later learned he was legitimately just a weirdo and wasn't trying to make us look like asses. But what I did was stuck on him like glue with a counter-protest, talking to everyone he talked to explaining he wasn't with us and was "just some freak", utilizing words that I knew got under his skin and I refused to leave his side until he was inspired to leave. 1. Joe's; it's a little shop down the street from the park that was *awesome* to the protesters, they let people use the toilet without buying anything, they have a buffet that at night they would give food to anyone there instead of throwing it away, let us sit in there and charge our phones, et cetera. Their ONLY rule was that we give priority to paying customers and generally don't be dicks. I managed to work up some rapport with the owners and it got to a point where they would tell me if someone needed to leave and I made it happen. Most of the time it turned out like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ECKzwH1Gc although in one instance I had to drag a guy off camera and smack him up a bit until he decided it was a good idea to leave. 2. The stolen shoes incident. There was a night, actually I think it was literally hours before the raid, but this guy stole *one* shoe from someone and got caught, the owner went to the police and caught all sorts of crap from people for bringing the police in, because they're the enemy blablabla and we can take care of ourselves. Once I identified the guy who took the shoe and he got down with the police, I went and had a talk with him, he freaked out and grabbed the police and I had to talk to them for a few minutes while he disappeared into the crowd and I spent several hours looking for him, but never managed to find him, so nothing really happened. I guess at the biggest point what I'm saying is, what were we to do? We have no authority to throw people out, it's not like we could go to the police and tell them to throw people out of *our* park, and I don't want to encourage violence even though sometimes its exactly what a person needs to disabuse them. Of all of the methods I tried, what I would say worked best with the least push back was inspiring people to leave, in the instance of the park what I would say is that if someone broke the rules, then security should follow them around and essentially harass them by undermining everything they try to do until they get sick of it and leave, but again, I have no idea of how to formalize it, because well, they're protesters, you won't ever get a large group of them to agree on anything specific. |
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 15:12:42 GMT -5
Hey Cy. Perhaps it's time to just be a grown-up about this, and stop expecting an ideology to function in the real world without boundaries and a framework to hang it on. Because that's what this is about - boundaries. I don't recall a statement anywhere that says being open to all viewpoints means we allow ourselves to be abused. Also don't recall it meaning there are no parameters, guidelines or consequences. If people want to act like 3 yr olds or sabotage the process by not following the guidelines they agree to with their attendance, they can accept the consequences. That's not punishment - it is integrity. When you agree to a contract, and agree to a specific consequence for breaking that contract, you agree to accept the consequence. Discipline is teaching with love. I don't mind the thought of administering the consequence in a loving manner...until that fails and it hurts the rest of us. Generally agreed, but I think the problem is more 'what exactly are the consequences? and how to administer them? etc' |
|
|
|
Post by cymadd0x on Jun 28, 2012 15:30:40 GMT -5
I've been working with some folks here in NYC on how to address this without creating hierarchies and getting intense pushback because anyone who actually tries to enforce consequences for violating community guidelines and agreements is seen as the "dictator" or "cop". This is a really problematic issue, in many ways we have to recognize that as a mass this is probably not something that can be really accomplished, I'm immediately reminded of an instance of where a guy in the park was drinking a beer and all that anyone could say to him was 'but we have reached consensus! consensus!!1" and he threw his empty beer can at them or similar. Considered doing this myself a few times, but them remembered that I could just go drink at South Cove in Battery Park City at night.  If you suggest ways that people can do what they want to do WITHOUT becoming an annoyance or worse to everyone else, they will often take the alternative. Of course, some people are just trolls and become persistent the more you react to them. The trick is learning to tell the difference. This is key to running any meeting or large organization in a smooth manner. Maybe some basic training in reading people's body language etc. should be part of this education we've been discussing? Yeah, my approach has been to just take pics of him until he starts getting creeped out by ME. It works.  At the first GA after the raid, some kid tried to steal my phone when I was nice and let him make a call. Kid was a foot shorter than me and 18-19 years old. A friend and I grabbed him by his arms and handed him to the cops. Probably better than what my first impulse was when I saw him trying to jet out of the park with my Blackberry. That last part is what I think people who don't believe in any kind of structured guidelines/consequences for violation forget.... if you don't have rules and enforcement, what often ends up happening is a totally uncontrolled, unregulated asswhipping. Nobody really wants that, do they? And that last part is essentially why we're having this discussion right? Optimizing effectiveness of Occupy as a movement requires strategy, and effective strategy seems like it may require groups/cells small enough to actually agree on specifics to work within an actual codified (even if self-modifying) framework. |
|
|
|
Post by kaymee on Jun 28, 2012 19:18:52 GMT -5
"Of all of the methods I tried, what I would say worked best with the least push back was inspiring people to leave, in the instance of the park what I would say is that if someone broke the rules, then security should follow them around and essentially harass them by undermining everything they try to do until they get sick of it and leave, but again, I have no idea of how to formalize it, because well, they're protesters, you won't ever get a large group of them to agree on anything specific." GA does not make decisions about process. Strategy & Tactical do. Problem solved. We offer solutions for security and safety of those attending the GA, as well as those attending Strategy & Tactical, as part of the model. So we need a tactical group to handle security at the GA, and a couple of volunteers (?) to do so at S & T meetings. And, btw, the cops are not the enemy and neither are "rules". Am not a fan of allowing abuse, or any other behavior that threatens the group assembled, because we don't like cops. I don't like cops either, but use them if I need to. Think we should have stages of escalated response: 1. Warning & iteration of rule. 2. Ask to leave if disrupting assembly. Harass with camera and comments if disrupting individuals. 3. If breaking the law, call the cops. If not, remove them bodily (wherever possible). If can't remove them bodily or call the cops, then I don't have any idea how to handle that. Someone with a background in private security might, so that's something we might want to canvass for. I won't bother suggesting that the assembled group stand up and shame or boo them into leaving |
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 19:30:47 GMT -5
I'll put up the second teir boards starting with strategy and tactical. Will link to here. I think that we can put stack under "logistics" of GA and shelve it until we finalize *what* it is GA is supposed to be doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walkabout on Jun 28, 2012 19:37:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by notme on Jun 28, 2012 20:49:01 GMT -5
Considered doing this myself a few times, but them remembered that I could just go drink at South Cove in Battery Park City at night. Same, but I went to Joe's for a number of reasons, I could get drunk but keep an eye on people and pretend I was being productive ) I think it's less learning to tell the difference and more what to do once its realized? I generally have a point and am not a troll despite the oft-given classification, but I sorta underscore the "but I wont go away either" problem. I'm gonna post in the op education thread in a moment, but more or less I agree. The following him around and counter-protesting him worked wonders, it was a few of us and we got to accomplish what I wanted-- this guy isnt with us, and through my wording I got to frustrate the hell out of him until he decided there was easier pickings else-where, but yeah, generally the same thread of thought. Agreed, and had there been police to hand him over to, I doubt the store keeper would've even come to me. The biggest problem with Joe's was that generally people were drunk, and out of all the people I had to throw out, only one refused to leave when asked, pleaded with, etc. So, by far, they're the few. Indeed, at the time I decided something had to be done because everywhere i went the local shops were getting pissed off at the protesters and I decided that handling things myself were probably the lesser of two evils. That all said, I fully recognize the problems with trying to deal with things in this manner; ftr though, it was basically myself and 1-2 others that kept the shop open to the masses of protesters and its because we delivered real solutions when they were needed. totally agreed. |
|
