IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL

new

« Prev
1
Next »

admin
Administrators

Posts: 186

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 8, 2013 8:13:02 GMT 2

Quote

Post by admin on Jan 8, 2013 8:13:02 GMT 2

The Online Orthodox Christian Assembly
The Constitution

Adopted by the OOCA following the referendum that ended on --- ---, ----, at --:-- EEST.

TITLE ONE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1. Definition
(1) The Online Orthodox Christian Assembly (OOCA) is an internet forum created by Orthodox faithful, for Orthodox faithful or enthusiasts worldwide, aimed at forming, informing, socialising and spreading the Orthodox Christian faith.
(2) The administrative form of the OOCA is the synodality.
(3) In the OOCA, the Christian Orthodox faith, responsibility, seriousness, freedom of expression, common sense and respect are supreme values, in the spirit of Orthodoxy, and they are guaranteed.
(4) In the OOCA, obeying the present Constitution and the authority of the synodal instances is mandatory by each member.
(5) The OOCA is public for all to see (with the exception of the PCA and the Council, viewable only by Administrators and Councillors, respectively). Only registered members can post; only Staff Members can modify posts, threads or boards, according to their level of authority.

Article 2. Authority
(1) In the OOCA, the authority is jointly exercised by the Permanent Council of Administrators (PCA) and the regular members, through the elected Council, in the fear and love of God and His commandments, according to the present Constitution.
(2) No other instance can exercise authority whatsoever.

Article 3. Administrative structure
The administrative structure of the OOCA is as follows:
(1) Permanent Council of Administrators (PCA)
(2) The Council
(3) Regular members.

Article 4. Structure of the forum
The OOCA has the following structure:
(1) The Assembly
(a) The Permanent Council of Administrators - the highest ruling instance of the forum
(b) The Council - the elected ruling instance of the forum
(c) The Agora - the place for administrative issues
(d) The Synod - the place for theological discussions
(2) The School - the place for studying the Orthodox Christian faith
(a) Orthodoxy classroom
(b) Orthodox - Heterodox relations classroom
(3) The Foyer - the place for off-topic discussions
(a) Varia
(4) The Constitution
(a) The Constitution
(b) Past Rules and Regulations
(c) Council Elections History

Article 5. The unity of the members and their equality
(1) The OOCA is founded on the unifying Orthodox Christian faith and the solidarity (fellowship) of its members.
(2) All the OOCA members are equal, regardless of their physical location, jurisdiction, age, sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, language, opinion, political views, wealth, social povenance.
(3) As an Orthodox community with members of both Eastern and Oriental communions, the members of the OOCA are to show respect to those of Orthodox orthodox communities in the spirit of unity and our shared Orthodox faith.

Article 6. OOCA symbols
(1) The logo of the OOCA has two parts, vertically arranged:
(a) In the left: the Byzantine icon of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the dignity of Great Archbishop, with a miter on His Honoured Head; a halo with a cross, and, on the arms of the cross, the letters o On (o-micron, capital o-mega and ni), meaning "the Being, the Existence"; in the upper corners, the identification of our Lord as IIS HS - Jesus Christ. In the lower corners, the identification of the Saviour as Great Archbishop (o Megas Arhierefs).
(b) In the right: the title of the forum, in Adobe Garamond Pro typeface: "The Online Orthodox Christian Assembly".
(2) The motto of the OOCA is "That they all may be one" (John 17, 21).

Article 7. Official language
(1) The official language of the OOCA is the English language, in its international form.
(2) Other languages may be employed, but only in certain areas of the forum, designated as such, and only with the accept of the PCA, the Council and the members (C1 issue).

TITLE TWO
AUTHORITY

Article 8. General principles
(1) In the OOCA, the authority is jointly exercised by the Permanent Council of Administrators (PCA) and the regular members, through the elected Council, in the fear and love of God and His commandments, according to the present Constitution.
(2) No other instance can exercise authority whatsoever.

Article 9. The Permanent Council of Administrators
(1) The Permanent Council of Administrators (PCA) is the main authority in the OOCA.
(2) It is formed by 5 (five) permanent members: the creator of the OOCA and four of the members of the first two Councils.
(a) the creator of the OOCA: Andrei-Liviu Sârb (TheologiaViva)
(b) four of the members of the first two Councils: OrthodoxBrit, simplyorthodox, Vlad and JamesfromTA.
(3) All the Administrators (members of the PCA) are equal in rights between them.
(4) The Administrators have full power over the forum, as given to them by the forum host (ProBoards).
(5) In the PCA, there are three levels of issue importance:
(a) Level 3 (abbr. A3): one Administrator may decide in an issue, after consulting the fellow Administrators
(b) Level 2 (A2): all the Administrators must decide in the respective matter, by means of polls (a majority of 4 out of 5 is needed) or consensus
(c) Level 1 (A1): the creator of the forum, after consulting with all the Administrators, must decide in the respective issue. This is the highest level of issue importance.
(6) The penalty procedure for the Administrators is as follows:
(a) for a simple contravention: the Administrator is suspended from his duties for 3 (three) days
(b) for a medium contravention: the Administrator is suspended from his duties for 7 (seven) days
(c) for an important contravention: the Administrator is suspended from his duties for a full month (28, 30 or 31 days).
(d) for an outstanding contravention: the Administrator is declared, by all the other Administrators, persona non grata, for a maximum period of a month, in which he is suspended from activity. If the respective Administrator presents signs of atonement, then the penalty can be reduced and even lifted, after the consultations of the PCA (A2 - A1 issue).
(7) The rest of the PCA members decide whether the contravention is simple, medium, important or outstanding, as well as the penalty to be applied to their colleague Administrator.
(8) The Administrators cannot run for Council elections, as this is an authority conflict.
(9) In case of a leave of absence, Administrators are to inform the other Administrators to allow time for any duties and responsibilities in the forum to be addressed.

Article 10. The Council
(1) The Council is the elected ruling instance of the OOCA; it thus (re)presents the interests of the regular members to the PCA and the decisions of the PCA to the regular members.
(2) It is formed by 7 (seven) members.
(3) The Councillors (the members of the Council) are elected every month, by means of a poll which starts on the day of 15th, and which lasts for 72 hours (3 days), until the day of 17th (inclusively).
(a) After the election time ends, Councillors become the candidates which came in the first 7 places, according to the voting percentage.
(b) If a candidate on the last place for entering the Council has the same voting percentage as the following candidate, another round of elections takes place, with only these two candidates. This second round lasts for 72 hours (3 days), from 18th to 20th day of the month. This procedure can be repeated only once; the final term for establishing the members of the following Council is the 25th of the month. If the second round is inconclusive, then the PCA must choose a Councillor from the two candidates, as quickly as possible (A2 issue).
(c) On the 25th day, one of the Administrators publishes the elections' results and names the future Councillors. If any of the winning Councillors wishes to reject his term/office, he is free to do so until the beginning of the month. In this case, the PCA must choose another Councillor, as quickly as possible (A2 issue).
(d) The Council elections are organised by one of the Administrators (A3 issue).
(e) There are no limits regarding the number of terms or the number of consecutive terms a Councillor can serve.
(4) The term of the Councillors starts on the 1st of every month and ends on the last day of the month (either 28th, 30th or 31st).
(5) All the Councillors are equal in rights between them.
(6) The Councillors have the amount of power given to them by the PCA.
(7) Inside the Council, there are four levels of issue importance:
(a) Level 4 (abbr. C4): one Councillor may decide in an issue, after consulting the fellow Councillors
(a) Level 3 (C3): all the Councillors must decide in the respective matter, by means of polls (a majority of 5 out of 7 is needed) or consensus
(b) Level 2 (C2): all the Councillors must decide in the respective matter, by means of polls (a majority of 5 out of 7 is needed) or consensus; after that, their decision must be put to general vote in the Agora
(c) Level 1 (C1): all the Councillors must decide in the respective matter, by means of polls (a majority of 5 out of 7 is needed) or consensus; after that, their decision must be accepted by at least one Administrator (after consulting with the fellow Administrators), and, afterwards, it must be put to general vote in the Agora. This is the highest level of issue importance in the Council.
(6) The penalty procedure for the Councillors is as follows:
(a) for a simple contravention: the Councillor is suspended from his duties for 1 (one) day
(b) for a medium contravention: the Councillor is suspended from his duties for 2 (two) days
(c) for an important contravention: the Councillor is suspended from his duties for 3 (three) days.
(d) for an outstanding contravention: the Councillor is freed from his term (dismissed), and replaced by the PCA (level A2 issue). The new Councillor's term ends at the end of the month.
(7) The Administrators decide whether the contravention is simple, medium, important or outstanding, as well as the penalty to be applied to the Councillor.
(8) In case of a leave of absence Councillors are to inform the other council members and administrators so to prevent any confusion and avoid actions leading to undue Suspension for contravention of article 12-E

Article 11. The regular members
(1) Any OOCA member is eligible for the Council. Any OOCA member has the right to vote.
(2) Anybody can be a member of the OOCA, after a Councillor's approval (C4 issue).
(3) All the regular members are equal in rights between them.
(4) The regular members with low or no activity can be subject to activity checks by one or more Administrators.
(a) If a case of low to no activity is found, one or more Administrators can ban or delete the respective member from the OOCA (A3 issue).
(b) The above rule is applicable only if the respective member registered three months or more ago.
(6) The penalty procedure for members is as follows:
(a) for a simple contravention: the member is warned for 1 (one) day
(b) for a medium contravention: the member is warned for 2 (two) days
(c) for an important contravention: the member is warned for 3 (three) days.
(d) for an outstanding contravention: the member is banned (blocked) from the OOCA for 7 (seven) days.
(7) The Council decide whether the contravention is simple, medium, important or outstanding, as well as the penalty to be applied to the member (C3). Their decision must be endorsed by an Administrator, after consulting with the fellow Administrators (A3).

Article 12. Guidelines for contraventions
Contraventions, issue level and penalties (all are guidelines):
(1) spamming of any kind / C4 / important contravention
b. insults of any kind / C4 / important contravention
c. hostile behaviour / C4 / outstanding countravention
d. continued inappropriate posting / A2 / outstanding countravention
e. not participating, as a Councillor, in the Council's discussions and debates, and failing to vote in polls / A2 / outstanding countravention
f. a Councillor being found guilty, following the complaint made by any member of the forum / A3 / important to outstanding countravention
g. not fighting spamming, insults or hostile behaviour / A3 / important countravention
j. any other fact established to be a contravention, by the PCA.

Article 13. Penalty procedure
The penalty procedure is described for every member category. However, it can be overridden (A2 - A1 issue).

TITLE THREE
FORUM SECTIONS

Article 14. General view
The OOCA has the following structure:
(1) The Assembly
(a) The Permanent Council of Administrators - the highest ruling instance of the forum
(b) The Council - the elected ruling instance of the forum
(c) The Agora - the place for administrative issues
(d) The Synod - the place for theological discussions
(2) The School - the place for studying the Orthodox Christian faith
(a) Orthodoxy classroom
(b) Orthodox - Heterodox relations classroom
(3) The Foyer - the place for off-topic discussions
(a) Varia
(4) The Constitution
(a) The Constitution
(b) Past Rules and Regulations
(c) Council Elections History

Article 15. The Agora
(1) The Agora is the part of the Assembly where issues related to the forum are discussed and voted (administrative issues), and where suggestions related to the forum are made.
(2) Any forum member can post and vote in the Agora.

Article 16. The Synod
(1) The Synod is the part of the Assembly where Theological issues are discussed.
(2) Any member of the forum can post in the Synod.

Article 17. The School
(1) The School is the part of the forum where any kind of catechumenal discussions are held; the place where catechumens and inquirers ask questions and the Orthodox respond and explain.
(2) Any forum member can post in the School.
(3) The structure of the School is:
(a) Orthodoxy classroom - the place where questions and problems related to Orthodoxy are asked and answered;
(b) Orthodox - Heterodox relations classroom - the place where questions and problems related to the relations between Orthodoxy and other cults, religions and confessions are asked and answered.

Article 18. The Foyer
(1) The Foyer is the part of the forum where off-topic conversations take place.
(2) Any forum member can post in the Foyer.

Article 19. The Constitution
(1) The Constitution is the part of the forum where:
(a) the present Constitution is hosted
(b) the past Rules and Regulations are kept
(c) the history of Council elections is kept.
(2) Modifying the structure or content of the Constitution is an A2 issue.
(3) Modifying the structure or content of the past Rules and Regulations is an A3 issue.
(4) Any Administrator can modify the history of Council elections, as events unfold, and only bona fide. In no circumstance, past events recorded in this area can be modified (important to outstanding issue).

Article 20. Modifying the structure of the OOCA
The matter of modifying the structure of the OOCA is an A2 - A1 issue.

TITLE FOUR
RANKINGS AND FINAL REGULATIONS

Article 21. Ranking system
The following ranking system is in place (rank name / posts / crosses):
(1) Novice / 0 / 0
(2) Monastic / 10 / 1
(3) Hermit / 50 / 1
(4) Igoumenos / 100 / 2
(5) Elder / 150 / 2
(6) Bishop / 200 / 3
(7) Honorary Archbishop / 250 / 3
(8) Archbishop / 300 / 4
(9) Honorary Metropolitan / 450 / 4
(10) Metropolitan / 500 / 5
(11) Patriarch / 600 / 5
(12) Pope and Patriarch / 750 / 6
(13) Katholikos / 1000 / 7

Article 22. Final regulations
(1) After this Constitution enters in effect, all other Rules and Regulations of the OOCA are repealed and archived.
(2) The procedure of changing this Constitution is an A2 - A1 issue.
(3) Creating and applying other rules, according to this Constitution, is an A2 issue.
(4) The main instance charged with carrying out the present Constitution is the PCA, aided by the Council.

athanasios
Monastic

Posts: 10

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 10, 2013 9:18:18 GMT 2

Quote

Post by athanasios on Jan 10, 2013 9:18:18 GMT 2

Why should I vote "no"?

Because:

The constitution is long and wordy to the point of discouraging people from reading it, thus undermining the the very order it seeks to promote.
The description of the ranking system mentions "crosses" but does not specify their significance or how they are obtained.
The levels of importance of issues (A1-A3 and C1-C4) are denoted, but I have to look through too much text to sort issues into level of importance.
There are sure a lot of positions of authority considering the small number of members. The positions seem to be created for the sake existing and not due to necessity.
The constitution needs a listing of the sections, at the beginning of the text, to provide an outline of the text and a guide that is useful if I am trying to find information on a specific topic.
I am in a contrarian mood at the moment, and therefore declare myself perpetual leader of the opposition.

admin
Administrators

Posts: 186

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 10, 2013 22:42:29 GMT 2

Quote

Post by admin on Jan 10, 2013 22:42:29 GMT 2

As the founder of this forum, and as a representative of the Administrators, I consider that your view is useful, and helps us to discover the places where we fall short.

However, the following ideas, at bullets no.:
1, 3, 4 and 6,
denote a great amount of superficiality, shallowness.

Answer to 1: there is no such thing as a long and wordy text, as long as it is useful. 5 Administrators, which include an ordained man, a theologian, a girl from Greece, a recent convert from UK and a Canadian, had no issue in reading and commenting the future Constitution. Objection overruled.
3: The same as above.
4: How many positions of authority are there? 3. 5 Administrators (permanent), 7 Councillors (non-permanent) and all members (general). Is 3 a great number? Is 12 a great number for staff members? Did Jesus have too many Apostles? Is the 12 / 42 ratio too much? I don't think so, and neither do the Admins.
6. The argument of "contrarian mood" is, without any doubt, shallow and superficial. More than that, in the OOCA there is no opposition, as this is not a game, this is serious stuff. Even more, there aren't leaders in the OOCA, as the OOCA is based on synodality - Administrators, Councillors, members. There is no monarch (monos - single; archos - leader). No leader and no opposition, as we are all one, in Jesus Christ, our Lord. (John 17, 21).

The ideas at 2 denote a clear lack of documentation and understanding. It clearly says that, if you activate a number of posts, then you get the rank and number of crosses deserved. For instance, member adammichael has 6 posts, and he is a Novice, while member Justina has 25 posts, and she is a Monastic. Do your homework before addressing these issues.

As for ideas at 5, we agree with the proposal, but, as Pilate, we also say: "What we wrote, we wrote". 7 votes for, one against. Seems fine to me.

One advice: if you are here just for fun and for role playing, you're in the wrong place. This is not a game, this is deadly serious. If you want to have fun, an Orthodox forum is not the place.

Thank you for your insight and ideas. They have been constructive.

Last Edit: Jan 10, 2013 22:47:38 GMT 2 by admin

OrthodoxBrit
Administrators

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Kyrie Eleison, Lord Bless Us, Amen.

Posts: 234

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 11, 2013 9:31:52 GMT 2

Quote

Post by OrthodoxBrit on Jan 11, 2013 9:31:52 GMT 2

Hi Athanasios.

Just a quick point about your first objection.
Every forum has a long set of regulations and constitution. Most are in the admin section by the point we join though and mentioned in segments when the regulations are contravened. In this you are seeing the first stages of a project, so of course you will see the full thing here. We are simply asking if you agree with the points raised, not on the length of the piece since it is expe ted to be long in order to preserve the order of the forum, as with any.

As for the second, it is covered on article 21. In hope this clears up that objection.

Third and fifth are Interesting points, though 10 other users see them as fine as they are, so naturally they should be upheld as they are.

As for point 4. The admin positions were created due to the lack of activity amongst the elected council during the last month. As we value the process of council election and participation of members in the running of the forum we felt that we wanted to keep this. We did not create anything extra for the fun of it, simply out of necessity.

Lastly on number 6. I am not sure why you wrote this, Opposing something because you are in the mood to makes no sense to me. I pray that the comment was simply a joke though.

Last Edit: Jan 11, 2013 9:33:32 GMT 2 by OrthodoxBrit

athanasios
Monastic

Posts: 10

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 11, 2013 23:49:29 GMT 2

Quote

Post by athanasios on Jan 11, 2013 23:49:29 GMT 2

Okay, guys...

Number six was a joke. I clearly did not vote "no" just because I felt like it. I thought that was obvious from the context of the statement, considering the fact that I actually listed objections. I clearly took the time to read the constitution then type out my criticism. I wouldn't have done that if I didn't care and wanted to vote "no" for the sake of voting "no".

However, I will try to refrain from humour after today, or just try to post as little as possible .

athanasios
Monastic

Posts: 10

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 11, 2013 23:50:30 GMT 2

Quote

Post by athanasios on Jan 11, 2013 23:50:30 GMT 2

To OrthodoxBrit,

Number 1:

I am aware that every forum has a long set of regulations and a constitution. My concern was with wordiness. There are long texts that flow well. There are also long texts that are clunky and verbose. If possible, it would have been nice to see if the constitution can be expressed in a more user-friendly way that still expresses the same information, but in a more digestible form.

Number 2:

Article 21 mentions "crosses" but it implies that they have no meaningful significance. Ranks are clearly determined by the number of posts. As one posts more, ones rank increases when a post threshold is reached. The "crosses" increase at thresholds more distantly spread apart, but convey no new information. The "cross" system is just a parallel ranking system, that is less detailed than the first ranking system. As such, it is superfluous. The "crosses" give us no new information, and therefore lack any real significance.

The only reason we should have "crosses" is if they give us new information. Does the quantity of crosses correspond with certain levels of privileges or rights? If so, there needs to be an explanation. For example, "certain rights and privileges are awarded in stages as a user achieves specified ranks. The possession of these rights and privileges are denoted by the number of crosses a user has."

In the end, I maintain that currently either (1) the "crosses" lack any meaningful significance and are superfluous, or (2) if they have a meaningful significance, the constitution does not explain that significance.

As for my comment about "how they are obtained," I don't know why I wrote that. I was tired at the time; I probably typed that part without thinking it through. (I do that sometimes when I am tired.) I apologise for that!

Number 3 & 5:

These bullet were just concerns about how easy it is to find information in the constitution if someone is looking for specific information. Naturally, the vote of the majority is what matter most right now. That is how voting works; I am aware of that. I just wanted to throw out the suggestion!

Number 4:

I must disagree.

As you state, the Administrators were created because the Council was not effective in leading due to a lack of activity. The creation of the Administrators was therefore necessary. However, the continued existence of the Council is not. I understand that you value the democratic process, but democracy is only effective if there exists sufficient enthusiasm and support for the system, as well as a willingness and ability of elected officials to devote adequate time to leading. The fact that Administrators had to be created demonstrates that we lack at least some of the required elements for sustaining an effective democratic element within the forum leadership.

The impression that I get is that the Council currently exists simply because the forum members like democracy, rather than because it represents the best interests of the forum. The Council should have been suppressed, and we should have devoted our efforts into spreading awareness of OOCA, increasing enthusiasm, and creating benefits unique to OOCA that can incentivise members to stay and be active. The Administrators could have kept members involved in these activities through the delegation of responsibilities for specific tasks/projects. Through delegation, non-Administrators would (1) still be able to have a role in running the forum, and (2) be able to be held responsible for more specific duties, thus fostering a more concrete sense of obligation. As the conditions of the forum became more favourable to sustaining an effective democratic system, the Council could have been reintroduced.

athanasios
Monastic

Posts: 10

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 11, 2013 23:51:22 GMT 2

Quote

Post by athanasios on Jan 11, 2013 23:51:22 GMT 2

To Andrei-Liviu Sârb,

Note 1:

Thank you for informing me that a useful text cannot be wordy. These examples illustrate you point well.

Ex. 1: "Press the red button on the remote control to turn the TV on."
Ex. 2: "If one wishes to transmit a signal that will, upon being sensed by a sensor on the television set, initiate a series of events that culminate in the switching on of your television set, then one must apply pressure to the red rubber button at the top-right-hand corner of the remote control while the transmitter at the top of the remote control is pointed in the general direction of the sensor on the television set."

Now, I would have previously thought that Example 2 is wordy, despite being just as useful as Example 1. (It tells us how to do the same thing, but in more words.) Luckily, you have informed me that a useful text cannot be wordy, and therefore Example 2 is not any more wordy than Example 1!

Note 2:

Thank you for informing me that you can overrule objections. I mistakenly thought that we were having a vote, and so were allowed to freely voice opinions because we are all on even footing. I didn't know you had the personal authority to overrule my opinions.

Note 3:

Thank you for informing me that my opinion is invalid simply because the administrators have no issue with the text. I had assumed that the intended audience of the constitution was all members, rather than just the administrators. Maybe the vote should have been limited to administrators.

Note 4:

Thank you for informing me that the fact that five administrators can read the text proves that it is not wordy. I didn't realise that "wordy" meant "unreadable". English-language dictionaries and scholars have been claiming that it means "verbose". I should have consulted you before trusting them though, since you have such superior knowledge of the English language.

Note 5:

Thank you for informing me that Christ appointing twelve Apostles to be in charge of spreading the Gospel to the entire world is comparable to twelve people being charged to lead this forum. A 12-to-millions ratio is perfectly comparable to a 12-to-42 ratio. Clearly, I am not as rational as you.

Note 6:

Thank you for showing me that my disagreement with your position justifies you speaking to me in a demeaning manner. I didn't know that I was your inferior. I will behave accordingly in the future.

Note 7:

Thank you for beginning and ending your post with a false claim that you find my views helpful and constructive. Those statements make me happy and distract me from the fact that the rest of the post is basically composed of you calling these same views superficial and shallow. (You even threw in suggestions that I am juvenile and didn't even read the text.) Starting and ending a post in a respectful manner is the best way to write a disrespectful post. It adds a needed level of insincerity that places your derision on higher moral footing.

Note 8:

Thank you for not being like OrthodoxBrit. His response was critical of mine in a respectful way. You have, however, displayed the superiority of not having manners. I agree; civility is overrated. Maybe if the rest of us discarded our civility too, then we'd attract more members.

Last Edit: Jan 12, 2013 3:48:27 GMT 2 by athanasios

OrthodoxBrit
Administrators

Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria

Kyrie Eleison, Lord Bless Us, Amen.

Posts: 234

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 12, 2013 1:43:57 GMT 2

Quote

Post by OrthodoxBrit on Jan 12, 2013 1:43:57 GMT 2

Jan 11, 2013 23:50:30 GMT 2 athanasios said:

This is a fair point and I am sure that as the Forum develops we will adapt the constitution accordingly. This current one has been supported by the majority of users who chose to vote though. If you have any suggestions, I am sure that everyone would be willing to hear them.

Jan 11, 2013 23:50:30 GMT 2 athanasios said:

Number 2:

Article 21 mentions "crosses" but it implies that they have no meaningful significance. Ranks are clearly determined by the number of posts. As one posts more, ones rank increases when a post threshold is reached. The "crosses" increase at thresholds more distantly spread apart, but convey no new information. The "cross" system is just a parallel ranking system, that is less detailed than the first ranking system. As such, it is superfluous. The "crosses" give us no new information, and therefore lack any real significance.

The only reason we should have "crosses" is if they give us new information. Does the quantity of crosses correspond with certain levels of privileges or rights? If so, there needs to be an explanation. For example, "certain rights and privileges are awarded in stages as a user achieves specified ranks. The possession of these rights and privileges are denoted by the number of crosses a user has."

In the end, I maintain that currently either (1) the "crosses" lack any meaningful significance and are superfluous, or (2) if they have a meaningful significance, the constitution does not explain that significance.

As for my comment about "how they are obtained," I don't know why I wrote that. I was tired at the time; I probably typed that part without thinking it through. (I do that sometimes when I am tired.) I apologise for that!

As far as I know they are simply there to replace the old default star system . I think that some members back in the start of the forum asked about having crosses instead, and so Vlad changed them.

As for the explanation being in the constitution, I suppose (in my view) it is just a trivial thing, like having to explain why the post count goes up each time you post. Again, if we come to jig the constitution around we will take that explanation into account.

Jan 11, 2013 23:50:30 GMT 2 athanasios said:

Number 4:

I must disagree.

As you state, the Administrators were created because the Council was not effective in leading due to a lack of activity. The creation of the Administrators was therefore necessary. However, the continued existence of the Council is not. I understand that you value the democratic process, but democracy is only effective if there exists sufficient enthusiasm and support for the system, as well as a willingness and ability of elected officials to devote adequate time to leading. The fact that Administrators had to be created demonstrates that we lack at least some of the required elements for sustaining an effective democratic element within the forum leadership.

The impression that I get is that the Council currently exists simply because the forum members like democracy, rather than because it represents the best interests of the forum. The Council should have been suppressed, and we should have devoted our efforts into spreading awareness of OOCA, increasing enthusiasm, and creating benefits unique to OOCA that can incentivise members to stay and be active. The Administrators could have kept members involved in these activities through the delegation of responsibilities for specific tasks/projects. Through delegation, non-Administrators would (1) still be able to have a role in running the forum, and (2) be able to be held responsible for more specific duties, thus fostering a more concrete sense of obligation. As the conditions of the forum became more favourable to sustaining an effective democratic system, the Council could have been reintroduced.

This one is interesting for me as I was highly enthusiastic about keeping the Council when we first set up the admin board, as I feel it brought about a sense of responsibility to the forum. I think that the existence of this council is important in promoting activity since active members are traditionally more likely to be voted for (I say traditionally since this didn't work out that way in November.) I also feel that if this opportunity to play a part in the running of the forum exists it will promote positive activity.

Your point on valuing democracy also comes into this. I think that we would both agree that if someone feels that their role is valued or that they can help run a board in some way they will be more active. With that in mind, I again felt that the council is important.

On your suggestion if dedicated roles, I think this works but is something which the council can organise when they are voted in. The council have mobility in what they do during their month in the chair and are more that welcome to take up designated roles if they wish. Telling each council member what their role is should be the role of the council since the admin role is more about the general running of the forum and not the running of the council, otherwise we are undermining the very nature of this process.

admin
Administrators

Posts: 186

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 12, 2013 8:01:17 GMT 2

Quote

Post by admin on Jan 12, 2013 8:01:17 GMT 2

To Athanasios (OrthoPraxis):

Notes 1 - 8:
I'm not in the OOCA to fight or contradict. This is why, after I post this, this debate is over. And I don't care who "wins".

Note 1:
You're welcome.

As I stated before, I don't care if a text is wordy or not, as it is useful.
I'm used to read texts 400 pages long, even if the whole idea can be shortened to 2 pages (a thing I can do - shorten -, in Romanian). The Constitution is "wordy" because I wanted it to be clear. If I describe procedures in every detail, there is little room for interpretation. And as long as the Constitution conveys the message I wanted to put in it, no matter how many words I used, then my goal is achieved. Maybe I'm not proficient in English, as English is not my mother tongue. But I try to convey the exact idea I thought at. And I don't apply austerity measures to number of words, in order to express that. Luckily, we're not on Twitter here.

So I'm guessing this is a personal characteristic, just like the writing style.

Note 2:
You're welcome.

The vote is clearly expressed in two ways: YES or NO. No other opinions were asked, or even necessary. We are equal in a vote, as long as we all answer in the same way. As no other member who voted stated anything else below the actual poll, your opinion was unnecessary at the time. And yes, I have the personal authority, inside the OOCA, to overrule everybody's opinions, as I am the creator of the forum. With a click of a button, I can delete the forum at once. I created it, I want to ask everybody else's opinion, when I want to. If I hadn't wanted, I wouldn't have. I created the forum, I can delete it anytime. Remember that.

Note 3:
You're welcome.

Your opinion was asked, and had to be expressed in a simple form: YES or NO. You expressed it. The Administrators are the creators of the Constitution. And yes, the vote was limited, initially, to the Administrators. You sanction, you ratify the Constitution as a whole, as it is. YES or NO. Not "NO, because...". YES or NO. Nothing more - at that time. I would have asked your opinion, IF I needed it. But I didn't.

Note 4:
You're welcome.

I am not a native English speaker. Therefore I don't get every word's meaning and "shade", idea, tint, call it as you wish. However, there are native English speakers among the Administrators and among members, and I trust them. We even have two academics here (OrthodoxBrit and James), maybe three. No one said this thing before. You're the only one. You're, therefore, alone. You're a minority. Your opinion is welcome, but it doesn't interest much, it isn't a strong opinion. This is the reality. 10 against one. What to do?... If 10 people tell you to go to bed, because you're drunk, then you go to bed, because you're drunk.

Note 5:
You're welcome.

Clearly, you aren't. If 12 people sufficed for millions, then they also suffice to 42, or even more, as new members register. But, with your skill in scholar dialectics, I see that not even 10 shall suffice. The opinions of a single man are equal with the opinions of other 10. 1 = 10? You tell me.

Note 6:
You're welcome.

I have the higher ground here, as the creator of the forum. One click, and the lights are all out. Control. The world is full of it.

Note 7:
In this one, you're not welcome.

If between us there are two or more computers, linked between them by the internet, and we have no direct contact, not with my physical appearance, and not with my rational mind, how can you tell me that my claims are false? How can you know what I'm thinking? Maybe they aren't false. Have you considered that? Maybe I'm trying to soften you - which, due to your stiffness, seems that it isn't working. Like I said, your views are constructive, and help us see where we fall short. Even the devil's bad deeds are constructive, if you know how to interpret them, how to orient yourself relative to them, how to answer them. Your views are superficial and shallow, indeed. But the ideas they come from and the ideas they target aren't shallow. No man's ideas are shallow. It's what the man chooses to do with them. And for this forum, they were shallow; I don't know in other aspects of your life. If you said that the text is wordy, it is a fair assumption to say that you didn't read the text - you don't want to read what you don't like. It would be against you as a person, as a whole. What is disrespectful in what I wrote you? Have I used F-words, and S-words? Have I said something about you or your family? No, I haven't. I had the most respect possible for you, but not for your message. To me, every person comes first, but his/her ideas which must be analysed. Again, I wasn't insincere, but 100% sincere. I hate lying. I'm straightforward. If it's derision we're talking about, why are you still here? The internet is wide and large. Why here?...

Note 8:
You're welcome.

Every person is different, not only by birth (bodily), but also by way of thought, education, environment entourage etc. Of course I'm different! I'm not British, what manners do you expect?!... Daniel is British (English)! I'm East-European! In what ways, haven't I shown respect and manners? Again: Have I used F-words, and S-words? Have I said something about you or your family? No, I haven't. I had the most politeness I could have, as a being.

Note 9 (mine):
When I wrote that "you're welcome", it was sincere. I don't lie often.

Maybe you didn't notice the inexistence, on this forum, of a board called "Scholar dialectics". It's because this is not our goal. It's not the victory of arguments which we value here, but the victory of Orthodoxy. No matter how injust that might sound. And your attitude doesn't reflect the idea of your Tumblr ID: the right deeds, acts (OrthoPraxis), but, rather the right ideas, reason (OrthoTheory).
Do all a favour: practice Orthodoxy. There are tons of people who theorized it. But it is better for all of us to practice it. You can't practice Orthodoxy without humbleness (with yourself) and obedience (to the authorities).
If you can't be humble and obedient, I have two options for you: either leave the OOCA, or switch places with me: you - Administrator, me - simple member. How's that?

What do you say, Athanasios, the immortal one? Would you like to OrthoPraxeis?
(What? I'm now being ironic, or is this true respect?... I don't know).

My offer stands:
Either you become Administrator and have it your way, and I become a simple member or even leave the OOCA,
or I stay as an Administrator, and your views are respected, but you can keep them for yourself, and do whatever you wish: stay in the OOCA, or leave.

I'm open.

athanasios
Monastic

Posts: 10

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 13, 2013 3:10:02 GMT 2

Quote

Post by athanasios on Jan 13, 2013 3:10:02 GMT 2

My friend,

Nowhere on this page did it say that we were allowed to vote, but not to discuss. Had there been any indication that I am not allowed to discuss, then I would have not made my initial comments.

I maintain that your response to me was offensive, and so my last post was justified. You cannot offend someone and then expect them not to respond. I say "justified" and not "perfect", because I have no doubt that any of the beloved saints would find fault in my response. I never claimed to be a saint. Imperfections riddle me, and I am well aware of that.

Originally, I had no intention of joining OOCA as I shall not have much available time in the coming months. Nonetheless, as so many wonderful people on Tumblr have deemed it important to prop up OOCA, I decided to look into it. It is, at the current time, nothing remarkable, yet you seem to have a great optimism concerning it. You portray OOCA as a place where Orthodox Christians can come together to have fellowship and spread awareness of Orthodoxy. I found that admirable, and thought to myself, "Perhaps OOCA is insignificant now, but if Andrei and the others put in enough work to match his enthusiasm, then OOCA may blossom into something beautiful." With that in mind, I decided to join and participate to the extent possible, in support of the vision I have seen expressed by you.

I have now come to see that I may have misjudged. Fellowship implies a level of respect. Yet, you respect me so little that you cannot even tolerate me expressing my opinion. To try to sugarcoat your lack of respect, you try to portray me as somehow being disobedient by violating some rule. My friend, as I said, there was no stated rule on the thread instructing us that commenting was not allowed. Therefore, what rule did I break? How was I disobedient? Neither did I go around encouraging members to violate the constitution. As it passed the vote, I will gladly follow its rules, and I never gave any indication otherwise. How then was I disobedient?

As for humility, I never claimed to be the humblest of persons. Indeed, I act with pride all the time. I do not deny that. However, I do not find my initial post particularly haughty. I admit that I was unnecessarily blunt, and perhaps used indiscretion in including humour. I made the poor choice of posting to the thread late at night. I should not make posts when I am tired. They tend to come across too forcefully. I should have taken that into consideration, and delayed my post till the morning, so that I could edit/revise it properly. In this regard, I am certainly guilty of irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility is not the same as haughtiness however. Perhaps my last message, in which I used sarcasm to rebuke you for you arrogance and offensiveness, is what you find haughty? I hope not. Considering the type of post that I was responding to, I feel my response was warranted. Nonetheless, if you find it haughty I will apologise for the tone. Forgive me.

That said, I find it odd that you find me so haughty, considering the way you have acted. Do you find your behaviour to be humble? When the thought that someone disagreeing with you enrages you, is that humble? You seem to think that it is proper for someone in authority to attack anyone that disagrees with them. You boast that you created the forum, and that you can destroy it at anytime. You "have the higher ground here...One click, and the lights are all out. Control." Is such a glorification and obsession with power humble?

You boast that our opinions are only relevant if you request them. Then you boast that, once we have expressed our opinions, "we are equal in a vote, as long as we all answer in the same way." My friend, if a voting system is designed so that only one choice is valid, and holding differing opinions makes a person somehow inferior, then that voting system is a sham. It is clear that, on this forum, decisions are made prior to voting. The voting is simply a rouse designed to create an illusion that you are humble enough to care what we think.

If you wish to exercise a dictatorial (or oligarchic) level of control over the forum, just say so. I would have no objection. (Indeed, I even suggested that the democratic element of the forum is not needed at this time. Clearly, I don't care about having any power.) However, pretending that you value our input in one moment, then attacking us for not agreeing with you in the next, so that you can create some façade of a democratic process, is hypocritical and deceptive. Of course I will react negatively to such behaviour!

I could certainly say more, but I am tired of speaking with you. I hope you have a blessed Lord's Day. Next time we speak, it is my wish that it is on more congenial terms for both of us.

Last Edit: Jan 13, 2013 3:16:37 GMT 2 by athanasios

Vlad
Administrators

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Posts: 89

IMPORTANT TO ALL MEMBERS: OOCA CONSTITUTION POLL Jan 13, 2013 3:58:13 GMT 2

Quote

Post by Vlad on Jan 13, 2013 3:58:13 GMT 2

I'm not going to take a side in this, but I will strongly insist that you both end this quarrel. No one is right, no one is wrong. There is an issue of misunderstanding and miscommunication here and that is all. You both have valid points and valid reasoning, but the issue here seems to be delivery.

By Christ, this isn't what the forum needs at the moment. You are both brothers in Christ.