Democracy Now On OzChess

[Firegoat7]

DEMOCRACY ON OZCHESS

In society there is separation between political power and economic power. People elect government representatives. Representatives manage government for the people. The State assumes all political responsibility for regulation through democratic elections. People enact their democratic right through voting for government.

Ozchess, on the other hand, does not generate economic power. It therefore does not need to resolve any conflict between the state (itself) and conflicting economic forces. Hence it does not need moderators to regulate a financial policy of the board. Essentially its owners are benign dictators who value the democratic process as a guiding principle.

Which brings me to my point. How should posters and moderators promote democracy on Ozchess? Well, its an interesting question and one that is worth pondering on an individual level. Why is it important to fight for democracy on Ozchess? And why do the owners want democracy to flourish on Ozchess?

Well, basically all answers to the questions above boil down to one simple truth. Ozchess wants its posters to be responsible for their own place. So to promote this idea it seeks to embrace democracy as inclusive, participatory, tolerance of difference in a self reflexive environment. Inclusive in that we don't seek to actively discourage others from posting on the site. Participatory, in that people bring something of themselves towards the site and actively get involved in creating its culture. Tolerant, in that posters are aware that conflict is inevitable, but not necessarily negative. And self reflective, in that, we ought to be aware that context and considerations should always be considered on a site that aims to cater for different age groups, cultural backgrounds, and geographical/political boundaries.

Inevitably there will be conflict between posters on this site. I believe we ought to embrace a democratic approach towards moderating such conflict. An approach that frees moderators from the role of judgmental policeman and moves them into a role of functional relationship builders. How, can this be achieved? Embrace democracy from the grassroots. A grassroots movement that recognises that NOW is more important then imagined futures or remembered histories.

Democracy NOW has guiding principles. 5 people for a quorum. One moderator must be present. A motion is proposed, a seconder is required. A vote takes place and an outcome is decided based on majority rule. Once accepted motions ought to be enacted upon immediately by moderators, so long as they represent the will of the people NOW. The emphasis is on doing!


As a simple precaution, both moderator and admin positions should be exempt from immediate democratic NOW action until the site matures. Moderators positions because they are elected every 6 months. Admin positions because they are the benign economic powers behind the Ozchess project.

It is my belief that implementing the Democratic NOW process will allow our site to move forward at a faster pace then our archaic competition. We ought to embrace the virtual revolution that is our lived experience.

Please ponder this experience......

[antichrist]

Now come on Ax, it is too late at night for such heavy stuff, not even in morning I will be surfing early.

[MOZ]

Re the first post...does anyone feel intimidated to have the option to vote as per <Democracy NOW has guiding principles. 5 people for a quorum. One moderator must be present. A motion is proposed, a seconder is required. A vote takes place and an outcome is decided based on majority rule. Once accepted motions ought to be enacted upon immediately by moderators, so long as they represent the will of the people NOW. The emphasis is on doing!>

[Axiom]

Originally Posted by antichrist

Now come on Ax, it is too late at night for such heavy stuff, not even in morning I will be surfing early.

Remember this ac " You can ignore reality , but reality won't ignore you " Ax.

[antichrist]

you fell for it , it wasn't your post but FG's who has put you out of business. No one picked up my deliberate mistake

[Axiom]

Originally Posted by antichrist

you fell for it , it wasn't your post but FG's who has put you out of business. No one picked up my deliberate mistake

Ah i see , it is NOW you want us to assume your cogency !

[Just2Good]

Nice post Firegoat7!

The problem is that almost everyone is so well behaved and civil on OzChess, the moderators really don't have much work to do. Like a policeman in Leave it to Beaver. But at least they're elected, so in the few instances where they do need to use their authority, they are somewhat accountable for it every six (6) months.

[MOZ]

Originally Posted by Just2Good

Nice post Firegoat7!

The problem is that almost everyone is so well behaved and civil on OzChess, the moderators really don't have much work to do. Like a policeman in Leave it to Beaver. But at least they're elected, so in the few instances where they do need to use their authority, they are somewhat accountable for it every six (6) months.

Not so sure that I agree that there is not much to do for the moderators J2G.
There is a poster who harms the Ozchess brand off-site with the slur "rabid unchained mutts". That poster should be required to name names, produce evidence, and defend his position in a thread here.
Second, there is a poster here who steadfastly makes it difficult for all to follow his arguments by his unwillingness to post in threads. For such anti-social behaviour we all have reduced efficiency of navigation in responding.
The moderators attention could be directed to this sub-standard behaviour.

[Just2Good]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Not so sure that I agree that there is not much to do for the moderators J2G.
There is a poster who harms the Ozchess brand off-site with the slur "rabid unchained mutts". That poster should be required to name names, produce evidence, and defend his position in a thread here.
Second, there is a poster here who steadfastly makes it difficult for all to follow his arguments by his unwillingness to post in threads. For such anti-social behaviour we all have reduced efficiency of navigation in responding.
The moderators attention could be directed to this sub-standard behaviour.

Yes, but isn't this akin to letting the dog(s) out?

[Firegoat7]

Originally Posted by MOZ

Not so sure that I agree that there is not much to do for the moderators J2G.
There is a poster who harms the Ozchess brand off-site with the slur "rabid unchained mutts". That poster should be required to name names, produce evidence, and defend his position in a thread here.

I agree completely with Moz's observation.
We call this the Minority attack, whether its pushed here or on Chesschat.

Obviously, when the post is on Chesschat it is normally perpetuating injustice because the victim is often unable to respond to any claim on Chesschat because they are often banned. For example recently we have seen Bonham launch into a 26 point tirade against J2G, mainly about Ozchess, knowing full well that J2G cannot respond on Chesschat. The argument that they should defend their position here has merit because they are attacking posters on Ozchess.

Originally Posted by MOZ

Second, there is a poster here who steadfastly makes it difficult for all to follow his arguments by his unwillingness to post in threads. For such anti-social behaviour we all have reduced efficiency of navigation in responding.

In this particular example, the poster attempts to use the shoutbox on Ozchess to hypocritically maintain a veneer of civility with the very posters that Chesschat bans. All his proactive whinging in the Ozchess shoutbox places unnecessary pressure on the young Ozchess moderators who may not be completely aware of the historical context of much of his pontification. Democracy NOW aims to reduce this pressure on moderators, primarily in the shoutbox, by allowing posters to nominate democratic motions which are only enacted upon majority rule.

In other words, posters get to say, we are sick of X's behavior and moderators automatically get absolved from shouldering the burden of the blame for muzzling the offender. Hopefully, upon a short reflection, the offending poster can then change their behavior to one that is proactive for Ozchess.

Originally Posted by MOZ

The moderators attention could be directed to this sub-standard behaviour.

Yes, and they should be guided into making easy decisions where the repercussions are not placed solely on their shoulders.

cheers,

[antichrist]

I dont like to think that I am at centre of attention so I am assuming that SB delinquent driver is Bill? I am a good boy - I never get barred from anywhere.

Second thoughts it could be AX

[Axiom]

Originally Posted by antichrist

I dont like to think that I am at centre of attention so I am assuming that SB delinquent driver is Bill? I am a good boy - I never get barred from anywhere.

Second thoughts it could be AX

Look, to be perfectly frank , i wouldn't go around attempting second thoughts , until you have sufficiently mastered your first ones .

[Just2Good]

Originally Posted by Axiom

Look, to be perfectly frank , i wouldn't go around attempting second thoughts , until you have sufficiently mastered your first ones .