[pp.int.general] Communication Plan

Fri Aug 19 14:40:52 CEST 2016

Hi,

Just a few comments.

1) You can't know whether you reached consensus among the members of a
mailing list just by looking at what is being said in the mailing list.
That would be assuming that everyone in it is saying what they think all
the time, and that is not so, most of the time people that read the
discussion prefer to keep their opinion for themselves. You need another
tool for that.

You also need a bunch of (boring) clear criteria to determine when a
decision has been reached (a timely announcement that something is going to
be decided, the different options, when is the deadline to state your
opinion, through which medium, etc).

I've seen people make this mistake (assuming that no discussion means
consensus) many many times: heated discussion finally dies out because the
loudest people come to an agreement or get tired of discussing, but when a
vote is opened up thinking that now everyone agrees, most often than not,
that is not the case and there are surprises with the results.

2) >> Science has no place in politics. <<

Well, I think that's certainly not the point of view of most European
Pirate Parties. I've seen consistently included in most of their programmes
statements claiming that policies should be evidence-driven, i.e, based on
scientific arguments.

3) You don't have to moderate all messages beforehand in order to have an
effectively moderated list. You just need a set of clear rules and a
moderator that reminds those who are not following them that they should,
and that when someone doesn't give a shit and keeps on, that he or she puts
only that member under moderation for a preestablished amount of time
(which for example could be one week or one month, depending on whether
it's the first time or not).

That's much less work than moderating all messages right from the start and
forever, and yields a more fluid communication for all. I've found that the
simple fact of having a moderated list makes people take much more care of
how they say things, so that in the end it rarely has to be moderated.

Greetings,

           Muriel

2016-08-19 13:21 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com>:

> What I would like to avoid is exactly this kind of back and forth
> exchange like we have now here between Ray and Carlo. After their
> first emails I have all I need to understand their position - the
> subsequent exchange does not bring much new information.
>
> I don't agree with Ray and I support Carlo - but in this exchange they
> both post too much and too nitpicking.
>
> Cheers,
> Zbigniew
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Jay Emerson <jemers2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The mental circlejerk here is in preparation for them to change the rules
> > suddenly  and declare it ookie cookie.  I, for one, will not be the last
> to
> > shoot my load and be forced to eat it.
> >
> > Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2016 6:41 PM, "Ray Jenson" <ray.jenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM, carlo von lynX
> >> <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:13:17PM -0600, Ray Jenson wrote:
> >>> > You claim to have secured my failure, yet you do nothing to propose a
> >>> > good
> >>> > solution.
> >>>
> >>> I just realized I already mentioned several years of research
> >>> in a post two weeks ago. Sheds a light on how intensely people
> >>> read the mails of a thread they are responding to.
> >>
> >>
> >> And....?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > > > close, discussion might clear it up or it might not, but in any
> >>> > > > case,
> >>> > > > tabling something that might be useful in the future is harmful.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "tabling"? What is tabling and what does it take to happen?
> >>> >
> >>> > Google is your friend. You might try looking up the term "consensus
> >>> > process".
> >>>
> >>> Consensus fails if any individual has an interest in making it fail.
> >>> We tried it several times, even with advanced tools such as VgtA,
> >>> but we always had to go back to liquid feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tools are only tools. Consensus fails if people are disinterested in
> >> listening to a group.
> >>
> >> Advanced tools? Try talking. Try actually getting to know your fellow
> >> pirates. Try actually having a consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > People do. The term "grammar nazi" is common.
> >>>
> >>> That is not something a moderator would do. It is a behaviour
> >>> that the moderator would moderate.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nice twist of the intent, there.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > I find the whole line of reasoning to be off-topic, truly.
> >>>
> >>> Probably since you've not read the thread.
> >>
> >>
> >> I only respond to what I have read.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > Decency has nothing to do with it. I've had people openly attacking
> me
> >>> > give
> >>> > me a solution to something else entirely without meaning to.
> >>>
> >>> This implies other fallacies that are described in convivenza
> >>> and other documents. Anyway, the assembly decision was taken
> >>> and your feedback was heard.
> >>
> >>
> >> So there is consensus after all? Or is it steering? Or is it simply lip
> >> service? I can't tell.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > > Yeah, nettime-l is super vulnerable.
> >>> >
> >>> > More like a social weakness, rather than a technical one.
> >>>
> >>> Empirical data?
> >>
> >>
> >> Give me empirical data that you are conscious. Observation is the
> reality
> >> in politics. Perception is. Influence is. Look at the Trump/Clinton
> mess.
> >> Neither of those two really use empirical data. And people still
> listen. Why
> >> do you think that is?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > The computer merely conveys it. The problem isn't with the computer,
> or
> >>> > the
> >>> > software. The problem is in how we, as human beings, handles it.
> >>>
> >>> That is another popular mistake. Sociology has proven that the
> >>> medium is an important factor. Sources are listed in convivenza.
> >>
> >>
> >> Medium is only a conveyance. Minds are still what need to work.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You assert things as facts which are scientifically wrong.
> >>> How does it make you feel?
> >>
> >>
> >> Science has no place in politics. Just ask any voter, especially those
> who
> >> support either Clinton or Trump. If you want science, look into the
> >> Scientific Method sometime, and tell me where observation fits. If it's
> an
> >> observation, does that guarantee scientific assertion? Of course not. So
> >> what you say is sociologically inept and socially wrong.
> >>
> >> How does that make YOU feel?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > > > The only solution is to grow thicker skin.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > That is an ideological statement which has been proven wrong over
> and
> >>> > > over.
> >>> >
> >>> > Yet you don't propose a superior one.
> >>>
> >>> I did. You didn't bother to read.
> >>
> >>
> >> I read. There was no superior proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > > This is a false application of the notion of free speech.
> >>> > > It's poisonous false interpretation has caused the crisis of the
> >>> > > pirate movement.
> >>> >
> >>> > Indecency is not protected by free speech. Trolling, however, often
> is.
> >>> > This is a matter of law.
> >>>
> >>> Freedom of speech is your right to make your website and proclaim
> >>> what you think within certain civil boundaries, but it doesn't mean
> >>> that we have to give you a forum. Further elaboration in the usual
> >>> document and its references.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, your true colors are revealed, and you and everyone else are
> diverting
> >> from the pirate ideology. That makes my decisions in the future quite a
> bit
> >> simpler.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > "Thicker skin" works just fine. Look at the two main US Presidential
> >>> > candidates as a prime example. And look at any Presidential race
> since
> >>> > the
> >>> > 1780s.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I see how bad US democracy has become. We don't want to be
> >>> like them, because then we don't need to make our own political
> >>> party. We can just join them.
> >>
> >>
> >> We agree on that, at least. But there are certain limitations we still
> >> have to observe, because society behaves in a very predictably
> irrational
> >> way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > The crisis is because we're assholes to each other, not because the
> >>> > trolls
> >>> > are doing anything in particular.
> >>>
> >>> Then please research in the list of references I suggested
> >>> why we are assholes to each other.
> >>
> >>
> >> Suggestion: Stop being an asshole to me.
> >>
> >> Response: Let me explain why we're all being assholes...
> >>
> >> Sorry, that doesn't work, from a viewpoint of reason, which is the
> >> viewpoint I'm assuming here. But then, reason doesn't really work very
> well
> >> for most people, I've found. You have to comprehend critical thinking
> and
> >> why certain things are convincing, even when they're wrong.
> >>
> >> See the subjective in what you're telling me?
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > > First they let you speak freely, then they moderate you, then you
> >>> > > fail to contribute anything useful while the others get work done.
> >>> > > You try to get angry at everyone, but since noone hears your anger
> >>> > > you only have a choice of acting civil or be gone.
> >>> >
> >>> > Yes, that's exactly what a Pirate stands for... not. You're being a
> >>> > hypocrite, here.
> >>>
> >>> You're being ideological. I am proposing something that works.
> >>
> >>
> >> I sincerely hope so. Politics is all about ideology. It's about human
> >> influence, and minds, and how all of that fits together. It's about
> >> management of resources.
> >>
> >> I fail to see how any of that is actually working. In fact, I can point
> >> out well over 1000 ways that it's not. I won't, not even if you ask,
> because
> >> it's a moot point. It's obvious that something is failing.
> >>
> >> So do continue doing what is ineffective with the population entrenched
> in
> >> its unreason. You're killing the ideology. That's the main thing that
> >> brought people to the PP to begin with: the idea that media should be
> free
> >> from the clutches of evil, unfeeling corporations and corporate types.
> >> Ideology, like why we consider that necessarily evil.
> >>
> >> Reason had little to do with it.
> >>
> >> We need reason, for certain. But we also need to be able to forward the
> >> human factors.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If a Pirate stands for social forms that science has proven as
> >>> being dysfunctional, than the Pirate movement is dying.
> >>
> >>
> >> The pirate movement is dying. But science isn't its savior.
> >>
> >> Reason might be, if we accept that within reason, people are inherently
> >> unreasonable.
> >>
> >> But science itself bows to politics, much to my chagrin. There is much
> >> that would benefit if the two parted ways, or if at least political
> types
> >> were to take a critical thinking class. Even so, our politicians in
> Europe
> >> were largely effective considering the little amounts of influence they
> had.
> >> That the system is corrupt is a moot point--that's the ideology of
> being a
> >> pirate: fight the corruption. It's an impossible task unless we have
> minds.
> >>
> >> Minds and thoughts and beliefs are all the realm of ideology, even in
> >> science. What brings people isn't reason. If you're too reasonable,
> people
> >> will wonder what you're hiding.
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Zbigniew Lukasiak
> http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
> http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20160819/622c8d89/attachment-0001.html>