Safety Team

Sure, I'm up for stepping into that role as needed. Likely someone would have to "come get me", as I may not be following an particular conversation. But to me, this is more difficult to do online, especially when we have no agreements about how we participate or be with each other. (In the other groups or communities I'm in where we're doing online communication, once an interaction goes awry enough, it's time to take it onto a phone call.)

I think there should be at least 3 people., Cal, someone else who monitors the boards closely and someone who knows Occupy process well. Having two others to consult with to keep the Safety Team from getting caught in the Vortex. A conference call or Google hangout might be the good first steps and maybe all that's needed

Do we need a separate "Security and Legal Team"? Or should the Safety Team include that. Our legal needs haven't been vetted by the GA. Instead, the GA makes decisions and then various lawyers have done things that tend to help us. However if we planned our legallity with a lawyer who would act according to our decisions, I think we would gain a lot of strength that we have lacked so far in Sacramento.

Sally G asked if we knew a lawyer that would work for us? Well, apparently we obviously don't. I think we are moving into new areas of law that current bar association accrediting procedures can't encompass. There will be legal confrontations which, without a lawyer at hand, will be decided by other means.

Tricia, what you do mean by "getting caught in the Vortex"?

I guess by " getting caught in the vortex" I mean getting burnt out or caught up in drama

I appreciate the idea of having a team, and I often enjoy co-facilitating with someone who complements what I bring. (Lisa Fithian and I teamed up very well at the first NatGat in Philly when we needed to deal with an erupting situation. Also, almost all our Oakland GAs were co-facilitated.)
That said, I'm a professionally trained facilitator, trainer, and workshop conductor - been doing these for about a dozen years, and I have a large set of things in my "bag". I've had to facilitate in some very challenging situations. (I prefer taking on the tough ones. Others can take on things that are easier to facilitate smoothly.) I almost never get flustered (and if I am, I say I am), and I don't get caught up in drama (don't have a lot of interest or time for it). I've even successfully facilitated processes where I was the target! As a Jungian, I sense a lot more (in people and in groups) than most facilitators.
I've also coached and trained many facilitators,. (I'm thinking about holding a facilitation training for InterOcc calls, like the ones we have on Wednesdays. It's one thing to train someone on the Maestro technology and protocols, quite another to be able to facilitate a group and the individuals in the group.)

Cal. I think there will be conflict between those thinking that if we're "safe" then further "clowning" should be allowed, and those thinking that certain enforceable protocols need to be in place. It is an issue in Sacramento. Will you facilitate that?

Whatever is needed, I'll help with.
Are you talking about during the gathering? (I ask because it was clarified that we're talking about online interactions here, not when we're all physically together.)
Also, if you would define "clowning" a bit, that would be helpful.

FYI, I'm not big on laws, protocols, enforcement, etc. To me, these often just create more pushback, disturbance, unrest, flaming, etc. I much prefer principles, agreements and guidelines. It's much easier to get people to respond when you let them know they aren't in alignment with a principle, or aren't keeping one of the agreements, or operating outside the guidelines.
It makes all the difference if you can be clear about exactly how they are doing that.)
As an example, telling someone that they are eing "disruptive" may make sense to everyone but the person who is being told that. The person may genuinely be trying to be helpful, but doesn't know how to interact well with others or with groups, so telling them their attempt to help is disruptive usually leads to anger and deflection of the feedback. Giving them clear feedback about what exactly they do/did or say/said that was disruptive is much better that just saying "you're being disruptive", because when it comes down to it, that's an interpretation that's yours/ours, not what they actually did. (People who are under the influence of a mind- or mood-altering substance, are mentally unbalanced, or aren't lucid need to be interacted with differently -- and may be outside of my abilities -- but I'm talking about people whose mind is basically intact, and just don't appear to be playing well with others.)
If it turns out to be useful, I have also absorbed some processes that are effective when people are physically violent -- one of the techniques can bring someone to relative calm in less than 5 minutes (used in men's work when someone is doing personal growth work suddenly get triggered into anger/rage. (The first time I saw it done a decade ago, the man shifted in 30 seconds!)

I'm interested in that 30 second recovery. I've heard of a way to cure schizophrenia in 2 days. Merely by hugging the person for 48 hours.

As we move closer to the weekend, then, maybe people would self identify themselves if they think that they want facilitation of certain conflicts which constantly occur with Occupy. By looking now, we could also identify the people-ideas-principles-protocols that are involved in the conflict.

I've just identified myself as wanting facilitation about the constant conflicts that happen in a GA.