Loomio
Sat 11 Mar 2017 2:46AM

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

SW Sara Wolf Public Seen by 366

Our current facebook image is a mess! Most of us found our way to this movement and were able to get plugged in from the fb page and it remains an important part of or public outreach. How can we keep it productive and positive? Let's put our best face forward!

Group Names
A big obstacle is that we have a LOT of forums! It's hard to keep up and be present when needed and it's hard to find or post key info, action alerts or events without them getting lost in the fray. Some name changes have happened without discussion which may further confuse matters. (Original group names are approximations.)
1. Our "Ranked Choice Voting - Portland" page was recently changed to Election Reform-PDX (inaccurate since our focus is so far specifically voting system reform)
2. Our "RCV-OR" page was changed to Ranked Choice Voting Discussion Group
3. Loomio and our website are still Ranked Choice Voting Oregon, RCV-OR or a version thereof.
4. We also have some other fb pages for subgroups and committees that are redundant with Loomio subgroups.
Please comment below with thoughts and suggestions on our group name and fb groups names.

Group Consolidation
Maybe we only need one fb main page and then Loomio for discussion? Do we really need a FB discussion group? Do we need individual fb groups for each location, such as PDX etc. or should that kind of think be included in the Oregon group, at least for now? Do we want to limit discussion and debate on our main fb page and encourage it elsewhere? Many people have expressed that they are stressed, fed up, or ready to leave due to overwhelming facebooking. Loomio was proposed to solve this and passed a general meeting vote with a consensus (pretty sure :) )

Aggressive Fb Posting
Lately our facebook groups have been inundated with postings and debates that hinge on inflammatory slander and insults or on blatantly false information. While some productive conversation has followed, I fear that this is not only exhausting to respond to and a lot of work to damage control, but also a huge turn off for prospective people interested in checking us out or getting involved! In one case in particular I know this is the intention as they openly stated (off fb) that they are out to undermine us and our work. I'm personally not comfortable letting lies and attacks stand unanswered but also feel that this not a good use of our key people's time. For this reason I've drafted a Code of Conduct:

>Code Of Conduct and Guidelines
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:

>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! (or something to this effect!)
1. Respect: No personal insults, name calling or slander.
2. Honesty: 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.
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 and current events. Some communication here is fine but extensive debate and discussion should move on to:
- 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 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!

SW

Poll Created Sat 11 Mar 2017 3:00AM

Code Of Conduct and Guidelines Closed Tue 14 Mar 2017 1:00AM

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. Wording can be fine tuned if needed. Below is a welcome mat of sorts for the main page:

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! (or something to this effect!)
1. Respect: No personal insults, name calling or slander.
2. Honesty: 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.
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 and current events. Some communication here is fine but extensive debate and discussion should move on to:
- 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 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!

This proposal is on the agenda for the structure committee meeting this Monday.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 50.0% 3 AW MF SW
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 50.0% 3 AZ GHO FS
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 34 PF CL ED MJF NH DH MN BS DJ KE SM JZ CS GW NT JO BH MH ES BA

6 of 40 people have voted (15%)

SW

Sara Wolf
Agree
Sat 11 Mar 2017 3:13AM

Guidelines help moderators be effective, fair and impartial and allow people to self-moderate. Keeping our main page clear of discord will help prevent stress and help build our coalition, while still giving people a voice in more productive forums!

AW

Aaron Wolf
Agree
Sat 11 Mar 2017 4:08AM

As long as every effort is made to encourage participation… codes-of-conduct actually help because they signal to people that they can participate and not get personally attacked etc.

AZ

Adam Zielinski
Abstain
Sun 12 Mar 2017 3:27PM

I'm not against having a code of conduct for our Facebook groups, but I don't agree 100% with the language posted in this proposal. For starters, I don't agree that the Oregon wide group is more for discussion than the Portland group.

AZ

Adam Zielinski
Disagree
Sun 12 Mar 2017 3:28PM

I'm not against having a code of conduct for our Facebook groups, but I don't agree 100% with the language posted in this proposal. For starters, I don't agree that the Oregon wide group is more for discussion than the Portland group.

GHO

George Hayduke Oliver
Disagree
Mon 13 Mar 2017 2:20AM

I am not cool with tone policing and restricting free expression. I am cool with having guidelines and empowering an Admin but do we really need a principal's office for discipline now? I am neutral.

FS

Fillard Spring-Rhyne
Disagree
Mon 13 Mar 2017 8:12AM

See my comment in the discussion section associated with this proposal.

GHO

George Hayduke Oliver Sat 11 Mar 2017 3:12AM

I agree that social media face is a mess. Considering the circumstances and situation it is understandable. It sounds to me that we don't need a discuss group and need more of a page format where Admin post and greet new page likes.

When we take the freedom or liberty to be candid than we will see people disengage. I like Loomio but FB is used for various reasons and increases interaction with interested parties.

AW

Aaron Wolf Sat 11 Mar 2017 4:09AM

For consideration, here's the Code of Conduct written for another organization I'm involved with: https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/community/conduct

SW

Sara Wolf Sat 11 Mar 2017 8:41PM

From Aaron, who asked me to repost this here because he is short on time.

"Moderation is not about censorship, it's about productive communication. The point is that fundamentally, if you don't moderate, you let trolls or just persistent people dominate everything and others have to either self-moderate or reply or constantly post about needing to change things. It's a HELP to the very people who are trying to discuss things to have moderators who help everyone keep discussion to appropriate places."

"Good moderation can mean helping people reach a truce. Instead of me unilaterally deleting all my posts or refusing to respond (because it's excessive or inappropriate) but leaving the other person to have the last word, the moderator can delete everyone's stuff and tell them to take it to the appropriate subgroup etc. so it helps the group and doesn't hurt the participants or give any person more say than another."

SW

Sara Wolf Sun 12 Mar 2017 1:19AM

@aquabluelounge "When we take the freedom or liberty to be candid then we will see people disengage."

Are you concerned about asking posters to locate debates in specific forums? I don't see that as limiting freedom or liberty, just organizing it. The fact that we can't yell in the library isn't limiting to free speech, it's a rule that prevents disruptive behavior, (whether intentional or unintended,) while helping the whole accomplish what they are there for. For example, the library provides meeting rooms for those that wish to talk so that others can find what they are looking for or study.

Or are you concerned that not allowing some posters to engage in slander, insults or lies is censorship? I think that the rules above are very clear that where it's ambiguous that admin would step back or would give the poster a chance to edit or clarify their statement themselves so it meets the rules. If you have specific edits to the guidelines above please elaborate.

I feel extremely uncomfortable engaging on a page that allows personal insults, name calling or blatant lies to go unchecked. These tactics can be extremely hurtful and off putting, extremely divisive, and will hurt all sides of the election reform movement.

I also feel really uncomfortable letting new or less outspoken users get railroaded or steamrolled when they do ask a question and participate. For example today a user who doesn't speak up much online asked for clarification on a video's message. The thread was immediately overrun with tangents, straw-man arguments, and debate that had nothing to do with the posters question or the video's content. The user checked back a couple hours later and posted "I'm probably too busy over the next 5 days to pay much attention." clearly overwhelmed and off put. I've heard over a half dozen people say they want or plan to leave for this reason alone.

If we had a guideline focused on keeping conversation on topic admin could have contacted the responded and asked them to please keep on topic with the original poster and invite them to start a new thread for their other ideas. Admin could also redirect to an existing thread on the topic if it was on Loomio.

AZ

Alan Zundel Sun 12 Mar 2017 2:39AM

In general I agree. What I was involved in putting up were the FB Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon page and Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon Discussion group. The difference is that the page only takes posts from the admin, I believe, while the group members can post but are moderated by the admins. The former has not had much activity compared to the latter. The problems cropped up in the Election Reform PDX group, which should have a code of conduct and should enforce it. But someone else is admin for that group.

As to names, I have been using RCV Oregon/Ranked Choice Voting Oregon/Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon for over a year, but am considering changing them depending on how my views of SRV finally settle. How different sites affiliate and what names they use will probably be affected by that as well.

SW

Sara Wolf Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:31AM

Thanks, would you like to vote on the proposal then?

AZ

Alan Zundel Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:53PM

It wasn't clear to me what page "This main page is for welcoming new people" referred to. I would agree if I was sure what I was agreeing to!

AZ

Adam Zielinski Sun 12 Mar 2017 3:58PM

I think this whole topic is an over reaction to one person and basically aimed at trying to discipline one person. Not a single person has unsubscribed from the Portland discussion group. A few new people have joined.

That being said I'm not opposed to a code of conduct for groups. Facebook already has its own code of conduct rules. Certainly if you violate those that would be bad. There shouldn't be any name calling, bullying, harrsssment, etc.

We can suggest people move detailed discussions here to Loomio but you can't make them sign up and do it.

I don't think we should have group moderators that actively try to manage or facilitate or organize all discussions. This would be a full time job and totally unnecessary. Admins or moderators should not try to referee what is true and what is not.

It is important to keep our terminology correct and not mix and match terms confusingly.

A Facebook "page" is for one way communication from the page owner to all those who like the page. Pages are not for discussion. They are good for public announcements and for attracting the public to the cause / organization.

A Facebook "group" is by definition a discussion group. There are no groups that are not for discussions. Discussion groups are not meant to be the front door of an organization to attract new members or for posting announcements, etc. They are meant for discussions and debates. Pages are meant to be the front doors.

There are open groups and closed groups. Open group discussions are visible to the public. Closed group discussions are not and are only visible to members. The group itself and members are visible but the discussions are not. There are also Secret groups. These groups are not visible to the public at all. You have to be invited to them to even find or know about them.

Perhaps our Facebook groups should be switched to closed groups so discussion is not visible to the public.

If we disband one or the other Facebook group we will lose people. They don't have the same or 100% overlapping membership. I'm not sure everyone statewide wants to be on a Facebook group discussion about Portland. Nevertheless I could see the benefit of merging both discussion groups into one.

I think we should disband the Facebook steering committee group and use the group on Loomio instead.

AZ

Alan Zundel Sun 12 Mar 2017 4:56PM

Adam makes some good points in disagreement. Maybe let things ride and see if they settle down over time.

MN

Michael Niles Sun 12 Mar 2017 10:26PM

I agree that we should have a strict implementation of a code of conduct, similar to some of reddit's more serious communities such as /r/science or /r/askhistorians. I believe it's important to keep discussion on topic, and tangents to continue in Loomio or a new post on FB. I also believe we should be strict in enforcing respectful language. I believe personal infighting should have no place here. If a party really wants to be disrespectful towards eachother there are plenty of other options where they can choose to continue that.

I do however think we need to be careful and not be ambiguous about what is frowned upon.

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 4:20AM

@adamzielinski

RE " I'm not sure everyone statewide wants to be on a Facebook group discussion about Portland."

Hi Adam, This is a misunderstanding of what I proposed. The mismatched and changed names for the groups as they stand and that whole bit are confusing things. I plan to make the group names a following proposal if we get some good ideas and opinions. The above proposal would be for the main fb page, not the discussion group. A discussion group would have those words in the name and would not be location specific. The guidelines for a discussion group would be 1 and 2 but for 3 I'd have something about starting new threads on new topics and keeping on topic in others' threads or something, but that could be for a later discussion.

To clarify: I'm suggesting we have one discussion group for Oregon for people that want to debate and dig in to the finer details and then one front doorstep group that is more outreach based and likely the one that new members would join/find first. This is the page that I would invite people to who might want to donate/learn/volunteer. We would share information on it and it would be focused on education and outreach with all the associated conversations. (Super technical details and debate are confusing and derailing for people new to the issues, especially if they're not on topic and people cant sort through what's relevant or not so this would be redirected to a page with those that want to engage in that). These groups could be called RCV Oregon and RCV Oregon Discussion Group. If we change the name of the organization they would both reflect that.

Also, you keep describing what the fb groups are. That is sorta missing my point too, I think. I'm suggesting how I think they should be and how I think the most people would be the most comfortable engaging. Ideal group satisfaction efficiency so to speak! I know you are seeing that people haven't left the group but engagement seems way down to me. Of those that are still engaging stress levels are really high. We need our people! Lets not waste their energy and invite burnout. I've feel pretty burnt out, fed up, and like quitting from all this stress and that is not something I want! Especially since I'm actually enjoying the work and the people in our group are all awesome. As we progress there will be some people who just want to derail us and I want to have some systems in place so that they are invited to participate, but in ways that aren't destructive.

@aquabluelounge Nobody want's admin to play tone police! Come on! How would you suggest editing guidelines?

FS

Fillard Spring-Rhyne Mon 13 Mar 2017 8:11AM

I have a number of concerns. Some are specific to the content of this proposal; some are procedural or even just about our Loomio proposals in general.

(I should start by saying that I’m not clear on whether anyone considers the Loomio proposals that have passed to be binding. They’re not decisions of the general assembly or of any committee.)

  1. About a month ago, a Loomio proposal passed that before a Loomio proposal is created, there must be at least three people who agree with it. I suggest that anyone creating a Loomio proposal demonstrate this support up front by giving the names of the two other people. This also creates a weak audit capability -- a person alleged to be a second might for example say, “Well yeah I told them I thought it was a good idea, but I didn’t agree to this particular proposal.”

They might even say, “Well yeah I agree with this exact proposal 100%, it’s vital and stupendous, but this wasn’t a good time for it so no I didn’t second it.”

  1. It’s my experience that telling people “Do X to mean Y” causes problems, and it’s best to stick with doing X to mean X and Y to mean Y. So for example if Facebook has a Like button and Loomio has Agree/Abstain/Disagree/Block buttons, let’s please use those features in the customary manner and not pile on extra meanings.

I bring this up now because a couple of days ago Sara posted a version of this code of conduct proposal to https://www.facebook.com/groups/RankedChoicePDX/ that included a note at the end (behind a “See More” link), “please like to second this proposal.” Two people did in fact Like the proposal and I wonder whether Sara took that as equivalent to seconding the (slightly different) version that she proposed here on Loomio. Of course it’s entirely possible that Mark and Emily wouldn’t mind in the slightest, and it’s also entirely possible that Sara carefully checked with her seconds to make sure they agreed with and, yes, seconded her proposal exactly as worded. My point here is just to ask that we not say “like to second” or like-to-anything-else.

There’s no reason why seconding a proposal should be easier or less thoughtful than saying, “I second this proposal.” If anything the hurdle might be too small. If I may use myself as an example here, there are other things in my life that I could be attending to right now -- maters both important and urgent -- but instead I'm writing up an explanation for my vote on this proposal. No one is forcing me to write this, but I care how the vote comes out and want to state my position/suggestions.

  1. How long do you all think a given proposal should be open for voting? I personally would suggest at least a week.

If there’s an emergency, and the emergency requires quickly creating or amending a policy, I suggest giving the change a clear expiration date. Maybe one month?? And then do the real policy change on a somewhat slower track.

  1. While I agree that honesty and accuracy are important, it’s very common for people to disagree (strongly) about what is true and what isn’t. We’ve seen quite a bit of that in our group and will probably see quite a bit more. Allowing an admin to delete posts they consider false (let alone posts they consider misleading!!!) seems likely to cause serious problems. So I oppose that part of the proposal.

By the way Sara I really like that your proposal spells out a progressive approach to enforcing the code of conduct. Start with informing the person who’s violated the code and give them a chance to correct it themselves. That’s a great approach.

  1. Speaking of disagreements about was is true, remember that our group has a fair number of disagreements on terminology, apparently including the word “censorship”. My own opinion is that any time an admin deletes someone’s post (or asks them to change it themselves) for reasons related to content, that qualifies as censorship. So under that definition, yes this proposal does call for censorship. (Whether that’s a bad thing is a whole nother question.)

  2. How are admins appointed? Facebook groups can have both admins and moderators; are we talking about admins per se?

Sara, I appreciate that you see a problem and are trying to solve it. I’m not sure what to suggest as an alternative to your proposal. (Though if your proposal is enacted, I definitely suggest giving it a one-month expiration date as described in #3, above.)

One thing I’ve been thinking about is having more unstructured time to discuss RCV -- agendaless in-person meetings, as it were. I really don’t know whether that makes sense but I imagine the time spent would be worth it relative to all this typing online. People need to talk with each other.

FS

Fillard Spring-Rhyne Mon 13 Mar 2017 8:13AM

Loomio changed my numbering, it was supposed to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

AW

Aaron Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 5:26PM

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.

BS

Brian Setzler Mon 13 Mar 2017 7:13PM

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

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 9:32PM

@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.

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 9:39PM

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

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 9:42PM

@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.

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 9:56PM

@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.

GHO

George Hayduke Oliver Sun 19 Mar 2017 2:55AM

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?

SW

Sara Wolf Sun 19 Mar 2017 3:02AM

You were very clear in person. Thanks.

SW

Sara Wolf Mon 13 Mar 2017 10:17PM

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!

AZ

Adam Zielinski Tue 14 Mar 2017 12:47AM

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.

BS

Brian Setzler Tue 14 Mar 2017 1:16AM

I didn't vote, but would have voted it down because of the over reliance on voting.

One thing I've learned / observed in my 25 years of activism, is that voting on anything controversial at all almost always produces 60/40 to 50/50 splits. Getting to 75/25 is nearly impossible.

I had to chuckle at these results (50/50).

I do not know Aaron, Mark, Sara, or Adam outside of this forum. I haven't seen Fillard in 10 years. I talk to George perhaps 4x/year on the phone and we are pretty connected on FB. It is my assumption that Aaron, Mark, and Sara know each other outside FB and all voted the same way. Just an observation and nothing intended by it.

3 to 3 is completely meaningless.

Would we have had better results, in less time, with better but in, had we worked this through some kind of consensus process? (And I don't believe Loomio or any other kind of online process lends will actually support consensus.).

Are you familiar with the Four-Fold Way? Among many native cultures the following four principles are used as a guideline for leading
a life of quality and integrity. These principles form the core of deep engagement. http://www.mettainstitute.org/ProgramResources/MCS-2012/Four-FoldWayArticle.pdf

Best,

Brian

SW

Sara Wolf Tue 14 Mar 2017 11:41PM

@briansetzler Just to clarify. I didn't know anyone in this group when I came to my first meeting a couple months ago. I got to know Aaron and Mark through Loomio discussions about the ins and outs of SRV (which I hadn't heard of before at the time) and I know everyone else in this thread or others only if they've come out to a meeting or two. There's no inside club here! :) Just people trying to be engaged and get things accomplished and problems solved.

I do make a point of reaching out to everyone and getting to know people that are engaged or seem like they would like to be! I think that every decision we make will be that much stronger if extra effort is made for inclusion and outreach.

BS

Brian Setzler Wed 15 Mar 2017 12:48AM

I wasn't accusing any of you of anything. Though I assumed you and Aaron were married. Is it just a coincidence that you share the same last name?

Brian

AW

Aaron Wolf Wed 15 Mar 2017 2:57AM

Oh sheesh! I'm embarrassed that it never even occurred to me that people would think that… I've just been laughing about how I met this person with the same name as my sister and didn't even consider the idea that people would think we were related. I recall Sara saying her legal name is actually spelled differently… anyway, yeah, we just met at the January meeting and have only ever been in the same place together on that occasion and the recent meeting.

SW

Sara Wolf Wed 15 Mar 2017 1:34AM

Just a coincidence.

SW

Sara Wolf Wed 15 Mar 2017 5:30AM

It's also just a coincidence that me and Aaron both type so much and usually agree!

AW

Aaron Wolf Wed 15 Mar 2017 5:20PM

Typing a lot, being intellectually curious, opinionated… could be Jewish cultural heritage… that we largely agree on things in this case is a weird quirk though that goes against that…

SW

Sara Wolf Wed 15 Mar 2017 7:01PM

I blame guitars.

MF

Mark Frohnmayer Wed 15 Mar 2017 7:37PM

Ah Shazbot. Time for a jam-sesh.

SW

Sara Wolf Sat 25 Mar 2017 7:57AM

Hi guys, so there is still some confusion and stress cropping up around the fb pages, how to moderate, and what guidelines we want. The last proposal didn't get consensus but it sounds like there is still interest and need. So far each page has it's own version with a pinned post to loomio at least for most of them by now.

Here is the new pinned post our new Ranked Choice Voting Oregon group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1821618454770952/

Welcome to RCV Oregon! We are a group of people actively working on bringing a new voting system to Oregon! Statewide and also locally. If you'd like to get involved please join here to stay up to date, come out to our monthly general meetings and maybe even join a subcommittee, volunteer or donate!

If you would like to participate in group decision making, planning and consensus building we have a great Loomio group:
https://www.loomio.org/g/mlgtGHuy/rcv-oregon

We also have the Ranked Choice Voting for Oregon main page for getting connected and staying up to date: Please like this page!
https://www.facebook.com/rcvoregon/

And of course there is the RCV OR Discussion Group for exploring the issues in depth.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rcvoregon/

By participating you agree to our rules and guidelines which can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/1821618454770952/Rules%20and%20Guildlines/1825048974427900/