|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 1:13:14 GMT
I think Johnny Truant makes a good point when he talks about us having trouble getting anywhere when we don't really know where we are going. We talk about making decisions that are dependent on what kind of place we want to build here. While the governing committee continues to do its thing I thought I would take a shot at a first draft of a mission statement for Unstuck Politics. My goal is to start the actual conversation about this instead of it getting talked about in various threads. Mission Statement Unstuck Politics: A place to discuss the topics of the day with your friends of tomorrow. This encapsulates the idea that we want a place to hang out with our friends with the idea that we want to grow.Vision Statement We will build a community of people who want to spend their time together sharing their experiences and points of view. A community of people more interested in helping people up than dragging people down. A community where authority and responsibility are shared by all who want them. This reinforces that we will be accepting of new people and ideas. It indicates that we will be nice to each other and leaves open the idea of hosting more media types in the future. Last but not least, it captures that we want to be community owned and operated.In the comments let us know what you think of the directionality of the statements; are these capturing what you want this place to be. If they aren't let us know what you think the right direction is. If you think something is missing let us know what it is, if you feel word-smithy take a shot at adding it but the ideas are as important as the verbiage. If you think it is shit that's fine too, let us know what you think these statements should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Louis Cyphre on May 17, 2019 1:23:24 GMT
This is rather vague.
Edit: To be more clear, I think the statements should be more like the blue text. If you need the same amount of sentences to explain what you just wrote then the original text should be rewritten.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 1:31:29 GMT
It's supposed to be. Vague enough to hang our first set of rules point us in the right direction for questions about how we do things. |
|
|
|
Post by jmakin on May 17, 2019 2:41:39 GMT
"Just because the world is going crazy, doesn't mean you have to" is the tagline I came up with when very high and I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by smrk3 on May 17, 2019 5:09:58 GMT
I'm just a semi-reg from the old community so I defer to the people who are most invested right now doing all of the work. I would want to see it mentioned that we encourage quality, medium content posting (note, not necessarily the same thing as cascades of text). I would also raise the issue of whether the mission and vision are somewhat misleading, given that right now this is a center, center-left community, most certainly interested in dragging down people who practice reactionary politics, and that this is a feature not a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 17, 2019 6:24:50 GMT
I like how kerowo worded it. I totally see myself behind that.
|
|
|
|
Post by whosnext on May 17, 2019 6:40:09 GMT
Thanks kerowo for getting the ball rolling here.
I hope that I'll have more to say later after more contemplation, but my initial top-of-mind thinking is that the Mission/Vision statement could say/imply something about the following (in no particular order):
- Past relationship with 2p2
- Community-owned/community-governed
- Political leaning (progressive, liberal, etc.)
- US centric
- Non-profit/cooperative
- Encouraging of new members
- Encouraging of new members of various political viewpoints
- Political content focus but also lots of other non-political content
- News/opinion discussion/dissemination
- Hope to eventually have podcasts, articles, advocacy pieces on a wide variety of topics
- Explain "Unstuck Politics" name
- Value of constructive discussions
- Members commit to posting in good faith and respecting others' viewpoints.
I don't know how to put this, but I think the Mission/Vision Statement should make clear (or at least strongly hint at) our willingness (or unwillingness) to accept members of all political stripes. Or maybe that's not the right way to put it or think about it. It should be fairly clear, one way or the other, if people who hold views like Juan, Bundy, Inso, Toothsayer, et al., are welcome here or not. I guess I am hoping (if this is the mood of the community) that if we are invaded by 50 deplorables in six months, that the Mission/Vision statement can provide guidance as to how they can be "handled".
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 17, 2019 6:59:02 GMT
Thanks kerowo for getting the ball rolling here. I hope that I'll have more to say later after more contemplation, but my initial top-of-mind thinking is that the Mission/Vision statement could say/imply something about the following (in no particular order): - Past relationship with 2p2 - Community-owned/community-governed - Political leaning (progressive, liberal, etc.)- US centric- Non-profit/cooperative - Encouraging of new members - Encouraging of new members of various political viewpoints - Political content focus but also lots of other non-political content - News/opinion discussion/dissemination - Hope to eventually have podcasts, articles, advocacy pieces on a wide variety of topics - Explain "Unstuck Politics" name - Value of constructive discussions - Members commit to posting in good faith and respecting others' viewpoints. I don't know how to put this, but I think the Mission/Vision Statement should make clear (or at least strongly hint at) our willingness (or unwillingness) to accept members of all political stripes. Or maybe that's not the right way to put it or think about it. It should be fairly clear, one way or the other, if people who hold views like Juan, Bundy, Inso, Toothsayer, et al., are welcome here or not. I guess I am hoping (if this is the mood of the community) that if we are invaded by 50 deplorables in six months, that the Mission/Vision statement can provide guidance as to how they can be "handled". Bolded excludes me already  . I am in Europe and against filtering people by the label of their political leaning.
Generally I think that how to handle all that points from the philosophy is covered by kerowos wording. I like in his wording exactly that there is not a word in the direction "We are all for left and all Trump supporters go fk yourself". What he wrote is very inclusive and something that can be really a common ground. I can find myself in it. Where for example Zak's suggestion in another thread is for my taste too much politics focused.
It gives also a guidance on how to handle 50 Trump supporters: If they start to be disruptive, to put people down, then they should be removed. If they remain kinda normal then they are welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by geewhysee on May 17, 2019 12:54:23 GMT
Ultimately I just want a place where my hilarious and scorching takes will be appreciated by smart people.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 13:17:00 GMT
Thanks kerowo for getting the ball rolling here. I hope that I'll have more to say later after more contemplation, but my initial top-of-mind thinking is that the Mission/Vision statement could say/imply something about the following (in no particular order): - Past relationship with 2p2 - Community-owned/community-governed - Political leaning (progressive, liberal, etc.) - US centric - Non-profit/cooperative - Encouraging of new members - Encouraging of new members of various political viewpoints - Political content focus but also lots of other non-political content - News/opinion discussion/dissemination - Hope to eventually have podcasts, articles, advocacy pieces on a wide variety of topics - Explain "Unstuck Politics" name - Value of constructive discussions - Members commit to posting in good faith and respecting others' viewpoints. I don't know how to put this, but I think the Mission/Vision Statement should make clear (or at least strongly hint at) our willingness (or unwillingness) to accept members of all political stripes. Or maybe that's not the right way to put it or think about it. It should be fairly clear, one way or the other, if people who hold views like Juan, Bundy, Inso, Toothsayer, et al., are welcome here or not. I guess I am hoping (if this is the mood of the community) that if we are invaded by 50 deplorables in six months, that the Mission/Vision statement can provide guidance as to how they can be "handled". Thanks for the feedback! I don't think we need to mention 22, the "how do we treat 22" thread implied we aren't interested in being associated with them at all. Adding a mention of it to the founding statements of the board seems a bit like having you're exes brought up in your best man toast. The community-owned/operated is in the vision statement. We could certainly make the mission statement more political. I don't know about spelling out what kind of leanings we have, I don't know if it hurts us or helps us in the long run, I can see it both ways. US Centric doesn't need to be said and is more exclusionary than I think we want this to be. Encouraging of new people felt like it was there in my head, it could certainly be made more specific. Encouraging different political views seems to be the opposite of stating what the board's politics are. Political content focus but also lots of other non-political content - I was hoping "topics of the day" covered that. News/opinion discussion/dissemination - Here too, "topics of the day" Hope to eventually have podcasts, articles, advocacy pieces on a wide variety of topics - We could definitely call this out, although I like to think "helping people up" would cover it Explain "Unstuck Politics" name - Not the job of the mission/vision statement, this I would imagine, would be covered in a site introduction page along with our history perhaps. Value of constructive discussions - "...who want to spend their time together sharing...", do you want to spend time on destructive discussions? Members commit to posting in good faith and respecting others' viewpoints. - Again, are those the kind of people you want to spend time with? |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 17, 2019 14:14:23 GMT
As previously noted, I have a problem with authority and I'd strike that and just leave responsibility. I might suggest that people are encouraged to take responsibility, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 14:16:53 GMT
As previously noted, I have a problem with authority and I'd strike that and just leave responsibility. I might suggest that people are encouraged to take responsibility, but whatever. Without authority there is no responsibility. You can't be responsible for something you have no authority over or how would you affect change? |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 17, 2019 14:31:01 GMT
As previously noted, I have a problem with authority and I'd strike that and just leave responsibility. I might suggest that people are encouraged to take responsibility, but whatever. Without authority there is no responsibility. You can't be responsible for something you have no authority over or how would you affect change? I feel like I've had some influence here without any authority. Sometimes you just do stuff (anyone who starts a thread affects change), and sometimes you just ask people to do stuff and they do it if they think it's a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 17, 2019 14:38:52 GMT
It's kinda semantics if you say everyone is invited to take authority. If authority is there for anyone who takes the initiative, for everyone who takes the initiative and they distribute it and either share in some or exercise theirs in some small area, that's not really what people think of as authority. Everyone has some authority even if power is totally flat here like I'm authorized to see my PMs and you aren't and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 15:02:16 GMT
I'm saying that the community IS the authority. Anything that is done on the site is authorized by the community. You saying just doing stuff at some point is accepted by or authorized by the community. Instead of an Admin saying you can do something, we have the community saying you can do something. Instead of an Admin being the ultimate arbitrator of what you've done the community will be that arbitrator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Louis Cyphre on May 17, 2019 16:44:00 GMT
Bolded excludes me already . I am in Europe and against filtering people by the label of their political leaning. Generally I think that how to handle all that points from the philosophy is covered by kerowos wording. I like in his wording exactly that there is not a word in the direction "We are all for left and all Trump supporters go fk yourself". What he wrote is very inclusive and something that can be really a common ground. I can find myself in it. Where for example Zak's suggestion in another thread is for my taste too much politics focused.
It gives also a guidance on how to handle 50 Trump supporters: If they start to be disruptive, to put people down, then they should be removed. If they remain kinda normal then they are welcome.
I agree on both points. Neither a political leaning nor US-centrism should be in the mission statement. It certainly is something that we can put somewhere but it shouldn't be a goal in itself. Let's make it clear that while most posters (as of right now) lean progressive/liberal/Democrat and discuss mainly US politics the site is welcoming to everyone and all political topics (that do not violate site wide rules) are fair game. |
|
Strontium Dog
Full Member
Waking 'n' Baking @ WFMU.org
Posts: 205
|
Post by Strontium Dog on May 17, 2019 17:00:05 GMT
Inform - Engage - Kick back*
* in both senses of the words. |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 17, 2019 17:01:31 GMT
US-centric should not be in the Mission Statement imo. I think we'd be fine just saying we don't tolerate discrimination or hate based on race, religion, country of origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability or something along those lines. Oh yeah, for us olds, we should add age.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 17:11:41 GMT
US-centric should not be in the Mission Statement imo. I think we'd be fine just saying we don't tolerate discrimination or hate based on race, religion, country of origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability or something along those lines. Oh yeah, for us olds, we should add age. Don’t confuse these statements with the rules of the forum. These are to basically stick a flag in the sand and say “this is who we are and what we’re about.” It should inform how we go about it but it doesn’t need to spell it out. |
|
|
|
Post by microbet on May 17, 2019 17:20:59 GMT
US-centric should not be in the Mission Statement imo. I think we'd be fine just saying we don't tolerate discrimination or hate based on race, religion, country of origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability or something along those lines. Oh yeah, for us olds, we should add age. Don’t confuse these statements with the rules of the forum. These are to basically stick a flag in the sand and say “this is who we are and what we’re about.” It should inform how we go about it but it doesn’t need to spell it out. Well, I'm ok with the community having a political orientation or not. Like, I'd probably vote for an option that is more general and about tolerance or something, but wouldn't block things just because they were more specific. |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 17, 2019 17:42:29 GMT
Without authority there is no responsibility. You can't be responsible for something you have no authority over or how would you affect change? I feel like I've had some influence here without any authority. Sometimes you just do stuff (anyone who starts a thread affects change), and sometimes you just ask people to do stuff and they do it if they think it's a good idea. Neeeee, micro. You definitely have some authority = the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something.
I think that the trick with it is, that the moment you (or someone who wants) starts to carry voluntarily some responsibility he kinda gets some authority.
|
|
|
|
Post by SensiblePerson on May 17, 2019 18:02:05 GMT
Thanks kerowo for starting this thread, and to those who have participated so far. I have a few process suggestions: Take a step back from writing actual statements and see if we can come to agreement about “what we are.” It's easy to get bogged down in wordsmithing when there isn't basic agreement about what the statement is trying to say. Let's get as many people as possible to give their thoughts and we can combine, harmonize, refine, and polish at a later stage. An example of what I mean from zikzak: Based on discussion when all this first got going, it seemed to me like we are, in order: 1. The politics forum that used to exist on 2+2 2. Some of the off-topic content and community that also used to exist on 2+2 3. A place that actively seeks to grow the userbase for #1 4. A support framework/network for additional user generated content related to #1 5. Possibly a future source of funding to be donated or spent on as yet undefined causes 6. Pipe dreams of personal income for a few imo, what we should be doing right now is supporting #1 and #3, and maintaining a very welcoming environment for #2. The other stuff can come later, if it comes at all. Does it really need to be more complicated than that? Treat this as a working document for us to use internally to make decisions and move toward goals, and save wordsmithing of external facing statements for later. Can we create something that will help us work out our immediate questions, like modding and governance, so we can be in a stable place to collaboratively work toward a larger vision?
Consider phased plan. Maybe solidify a core that can stand alone (like a politics forum), in a way that allows for additions and growth later (like articles, podcasts, etc.). Is there a "minimum viable product" that can survive as a base to build on?
I hope this is in some way helpful. I have more I can say but I really should be working--I'll check back later.
|
|
|
|
Post by whosnext on May 17, 2019 19:42:29 GMT
Yes, my bulleted list above was something akin to a laundry list of items written on a flip chart during a brainstorming session. We need to hash out who we are and who we want to be and that list could be helpful in that endeavor. I was not intending to reply specifically to kerowo's initial post in the thread since I think we have to do a minimum amount of "hashing" before we start crafting a mission statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 17, 2019 20:08:13 GMT
I think : "A place to discuss the topic of the day with your friends of tomorrow" is a very good answer to "what are we?".
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 17, 2019 21:06:40 GMT
Thanks kerowo for starting this thread, and to those who have participated so far. I have a few process suggestions: Take a step back from writing actual statements and see if we can come to agreement about “what we are.” It's easy to get bogged down in wordsmithing when there isn't basic agreement about what the statement is trying to say. Let's get as many people as possible to give their thoughts and we can combine, harmonize, refine, and polish at a later stage. An example of what I mean from zikzak: Based on discussion when all this first got going, it seemed to me like we are, in order: 1. The politics forum that used to exist on 2+2 2. Some of the off-topic content and community that also used to exist on 2+2 3. A place that actively seeks to grow the userbase for #1 4. A support framework/network for additional user generated content related to #1 5. Possibly a future source of funding to be donated or spent on as yet undefined causes 6. Pipe dreams of personal income for a few imo, what we should be doing right now is supporting #1 and #3, and maintaining a very welcoming environment for #2. The other stuff can come later, if it comes at all. Does it really need to be more complicated than that? Treat this as a working document for us to use internally to make decisions and move toward goals, and save wordsmithing of external facing statements for later. Can we create something that will help us work out our immediate questions, like modding and governance, so we can be in a stable place to collaboratively work toward a larger vision?
Consider phased plan. Maybe solidify a core that can stand alone (like a politics forum), in a way that allows for additions and growth later (like articles, podcasts, etc.). Is there a "minimum viable product" that can survive as a base to build on?
I hope this is in some way helpful. I have more I can say but I really should be working--I'll check back later.
Yes, my bulleted list above was something akin to a laundry list of items written on a flip chart during a brainstorming session. We need to hash out who we are and who we want to be and that list could be helpful in that endeavor. I was not intending to reply specifically to kerowo's initial post in the thread since I think we have to do a minimum amount of "hashing" before we start crafting a mission statement. The reason I started the thread with an example is to give us something to talk about. We are drowning in hypotheticals. There are too many meta-conversations going on. If you want to see something added to this add it! Put your own take down in pixels so others can see it! If you don't want to do that much give us your opinion on what should be added! If you can't do that then vote for what you believe in when the options come up for a vote. If you can't do that either then enjoy the conversation! I have no interest in stopping the community from forming a committee to discuss the type of committee that should be responsible for determining how we go about determining what kind of place we want this to be. I'm just more interested in doing the work than talking about talking about doing the work. If in the fullness of time one of the governance committees wants to use the work that will have been done in this thread that's great. If they toss it out because it wasn't done under the auspices of the committee then that's good to know too. |
|
|
|
Post by jbro on May 17, 2019 21:14:19 GMT
Ultimately I just want a place where my hilarious and scorching takes will be appreciated It's possible... Oh boy, you're fucked now. |
|
. 
