If GS had a Member's union, who would be the president

[CoughCough]

@redvelvet:9936384

^TLK did the screening of this hypothetical picture take place in Lala Land? Yeah right …what is the likelihood that Member A is going to agree to back down and behave? And what if member A is a moderator? Hmm? Regular members ki tarha…mods don’t always behave either. Should behavior management be taken care of first before attempting more bolder revolutions like having a union presi? Maybe the former won’t necessitate the latter.

Also, does the case to ban a member have to be brought up by the admin members (mods, director, pres) first…or can the union president bring up the case first? Again, what if the offender is a moderator? Maybe mod says something rude…or maybe a mod in the attempt to earn "“da kewlness/funny points” instigates a joke about a member that sends a thread derailing…and the admins either have not noticed this or choose to turn a blind eye to it…can Union President report the case and be involved in the mediating/disciplining?

Agree. Prevention is better than a cure.

[redvelvet]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

Cc, “anger” was not the best word to use. What I mean is defense. It’s easy for one to feel very passionate in their defense of someone. So, reasonable/fair in defense …and overall assessment of the conflict.

[CoughCough]

@redvelvet:9936408

Cc, “anger” was not the best word to use. What I mean is defense. It’s easy for one to feel very passionate in their defense of someone. So, reasonable/fair in defense …and overall assessment of the conflict.

Ahhhhh.
Yes I completely agree. They must be impartial regardless of how they personally feel about the matter at hand.

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@TLK

There you go. So pcg is basically out?

This post duly noted by Le RV as an actionable item.

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@CoughCough

Isnt the point of a pres so that it doesnt come to exchanging blows?

Id imagine it to be more about diplomatic negotiations and making sure that the common member has someone to help them defend themself against an unjust ban.

Here is a serious candidate without anger management issues. Too many choices.

Can we have a campaign season. With each candidate getting to state why they should (or should not) get elected?

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

.

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

Other than above there are some fine candidates

Chacha Ghalib, Med911, Saeed in Houston, Ghost, Scherbatsky, Philo, Buttsb, Stormraiser, Kakaballi, Phoenix desi

[TLK]

@Southie:9936476

@""TLK""

There you go. So pcg is basically out?

This post duly noted by Le RV as an actionable item.

Not unless they don’t know the companionship of pcg and me. Not many people on GS are allowed to pull her leg. She knows me enough to let me

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

I kid, Director saab. PCG is cool.

[madz124]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@Southie

Other than above there are some fine candidates

Chacha Ghalib, Med911, Saeed in Houston, Ghost, Scherbatsky, Philo, Buttsb, Stormraiser, Kakaballi, Phoenix desi

Saeed in Houston new ID, brand new saeed :k:

[madz124]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@Southie

Can we have a campaign season. With each candidate getting to state why they should (or should not) get elected?

Campaign…yes. I like this idea

[psyah]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

The purpose of a union is not that …

It is designed to channel dissent - it is a form of crowd control … There is not enough of a crowd nor enough of a threat for a union to be created …

Let’s not get it wrong here … Unions are in place to protect the organisations - by creating an adequate buffer between the management and the workforce … by making the workforce believe their voice is louder through a union. Reality is that unions will curb the individual voices only allow a unanimous voice to surface and that one will be a dampened and subdued version of the various individuals.

And the biggest threat a union can muster is a “strike” - just imagine that … If you don’t unban “so-and-so” we will strike. Then union members will decide whether they like the person enough to strike. But union membership requires they do as they say … so an internal conflict will take place to say “I believe he should have been banned” another saying “no, he should not have been banned” and one saying “we should strike” another saying “not enough of us are agreed” and then another saying “ok … how about we reduce the penalty to a 1 month ban” and so on - effectively letting mods get away without the hastle of the “kitch kitch” …

For a forum like GS - I think it is better rather than have a straight ban … we should have a GS tribunal section …

where witnesses can be bought up, a person requested to be their attorneys/barristers vs a standard MODS prosecution panel. The accused can only access the tribunal forum … until they are sentenced … If they do not turn up to a tribunal they get automatically penalised - hadd punishment for the accusation.

Open to senior members only who can view the court case …

Evidence can be picked up from the archives - and/or from the section that keeps posts in the moderation section. Defence Attorneys are given privileged access to the removed posts for moderation for the duration of the court case.

I’m not sure this can work … but it would be a lot of fun.

Then a judge sentences the accused with an appropriate penalty.

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

Quite simple solution actually. Inanither thread, I had stated tongue in cheek to withdraw retroactively request for transparency. To avoid risking being a MEME victim.

Quite frankly, there is no substitute for transparency. The best form of transparency is to give the banned person the option to choose if he would like the offending post to be displayed. If he opts for it, the offending post gets displayed. Without commentary from the person who banned him. And without protest from the banned person - if or when he returns. The person responsible for banning and those who approved the ban would be listed. Members get to see the process in action.

Try this on a trial basis. What do you haveto lose?

Right now, the Mods, all nice folks I am sure, just fall in line. On paper it sounds great that there are checks and balances in place. And that no ( or very little) abuses of power occurs. Fine. Let us see the process in action. Give the banned person a choice. He can exercise his right to choose if his offending list is made public. Or not.

The premise that no abuse of power takes place can be put to the test.

[Eastern_Dresses]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@TLK

Lets say if we had a Member’s union, to protect the rights of members, to demand the reversal of bans, to challenge the polices and have GS amend them, and all that kind of good stuff. Lets say that it was an election based platform, who would you pick as a president?

PS: Your pick can only be from general membership. No mods, admins or their multis are qualified.

Philosophy

[Obama]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@TLK

Lets say if we had a Member’s union, to protect the rights of members, to demand the reversal of bans, to challenge the polices and have GS amend them, and all that kind of good stuff. Lets say that it was an election based platform, who would you pick as a president?

PS: Your pick can only be from general membership. No mods, admins or their multis are qualified.

Milli huwee cheeze kion mangtay Ji Aap?

[chacha_Ghalib]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

@psyah

The purpose of a union is not that …

It is designed to channel dissent - it is a form of crowd control … There is not enough of a crowd nor enough of a threat for a union to be created …

Let’s not get it wrong here … Unions are in place to protect the organisations - by creating an adequate buffer between the management and the workforce … by making the workforce believe their voice is louder through a union. Reality is that unions will curb the individual voices only allow a unanimous voice to surface and that one will be a dampened and subdued version of the various individuals.

Yeah, that’s why companies fight tooth and nail to prevent unions from forming. Wal-Mart has been fighting for years to keep their stores and supply chain union free. In fact, they closed down an operational store here when the employees won the right to form a union. If the purpose of the unions was to control crowds, they should be happy to let them form. The real purpose of the union is to provide leverage that an individual employee lacks to secure rights/better working conditions. I do agree with you that on a forum it would not work very well.

As for nominations, take your pick from RV, Le Pak and queer.

[redvelvet]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

Xtron said it earlier that it doesn’t appear as though I’d want this position. He’s right. I don’t see myself as a good fit for it and I don’t wanna deal with that kind of drama.

Let the position go to more suitable people and even those who are truly interested in it.

[Southie]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

RV for President.

Signed, sealed and delivered.

[redvelvet]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

^Seriously, no. I’ve declined mod offers for the same reason as above…president door ki baat hai. I am content with being a reg member.

[Chicken_Biryani]

Re: If GS had a Member’s union, who would be the president

All my votes for Queer :is::is: