User talk:OneKarma

From wiki.occupyboston.org
Revision as of 14:57, 16 November 2011 by OneKarma (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
issue of multi-media and variety of outlets
there should be only one 'official' place for discussion. Everyone is of course encouraged to use every possible outlet, but there should be a commitment to a primary outlet so that conversation can become centralized and that people can follow the topics they find important.
all or nothing
if the occupation is to host any discussion online, it should be centralized and manageable. if the occupation does not wish to create a central forum online to aid non-'residents', it should make clear that intention so that online contributors may know that their time is being wasted. the occupation should not proclaim to be the 99% if it does not intend to invite those voices.
collaboration blocks
i feel that my attempts at collaboration are being blocked. when it was suggested that i join those mailing lists where discussion was paramount, i could not find the appropriate mailing lists, or when they could be found, i could not find an archive of older messages so i could not fully update myself. additionally, no one has answered my request to help locate such an archive.
the 'groups.occupyboston.org' pages appear to either lack frequent moderation (of which is required by the structure of the site) so that my requests to 'join' the working groups have been either unanswered or ignored. this prevents me from reading all 'non-public' posts, as well as from posting to those groups.
the wiki has neither of the above issues - its structure absolutely prevents such blocks.
personal grudges
i believe that a number of members of the occupation are holding personal grudges against those who do not communicate on their terms. i have noted an authoritative habit within both Facilitation and Tech (OBIT) that has withheld me from being able to discuss ideas. these groups appear to prefer to focus on a morality that they seem unable to dictate, and this focus prevents them from considering a broader spectrum of ideas. i am working under the pressure of grudges held against me for two reasons: 1. i use a strong tone that is sometimes misunderstood as disrespect, and 2. i had 'moved' a great number of wiki pages without the consent of others. i argue that the reactions to these actions have been much more detrimental than the actions themselves.
tone should never prevent discussion from unfolding. the occupation is fueled by adults, and adults should be able to recognize ideas whether or not the words around them are particularly emotional. from the facilitation group, i learned that there is a push for dramatically civil appearances, but not for actual civility. the facilitators, though unable to move beyond emotional drives themselves, are asking others to keep their emotion away from their conversation. an intelligent person should be able to pick out the intention of an argument, and one should not focus on the aspects which do not aid that intention unless they create disparity in the argument, in which case there should be a request for clarification.
the issue of moved pages on the wiki should not be an issue at all, because everyone is capable of making the very same kinds of changes i have made. it takes only a very little amount of exploring to figure these functions out. also, if my notes had not been deleted by Mcktimo, users would have been directed to contact me with their issues, at which point i can facilitate a solution. i have already done so a number of times (both in and out of regard to the particular 'moving' issue), and i have not become aware of any issues that are not easily resolved.