(09-29-2020, 05:28 AM)Gardarik Wrote: The book can be interpreted in different ways, different topics being the primary ones for different readers. Besides, discipline and ways of treating circlejerks have nothing in common. Circlejerks can be treated as a naturally formed institution with its own rules and regulations and it is natural that an institution, say a university or closer to disco reality - a faction, decide whom to admit and whom not to. Because RP is quite vague and difficult to evaluate objectively, I see no issue with the circle deciding by vote whether they want a new member or not following a discussion.
"The Hunters" in Lord of the Flies are a typical circlejerk. It doesn't really become a problem until the point when the circlejerk takes power from the "democratically" elected leader. The typical circlejerk features they have: internal criteria for "ranks" based on their own rather outside values (the choir guy who can sing the highest becomes leader), excluding and ostrasizing people that deemed "unworthy" (piggy, simon, the smaller children), basing the course of action on who wants it rather than rationally setting priorities, appealiing to internal rituals and feeling of togtherness rather than reason. All of that can be found in disco circlejerks too, and its not a coincidence.
(09-28-2020, 05:50 AM)Gardarik Wrote: However, the issue of not letting LIA in Libgov is not about the "pixel power for the sake of pixel power" but about an institution having the rights to decide upon its membership. They are not imposing some "truth" as it was in "1984". I do not see the abuse of pixel power if they decide following a vote that a new member will not contribute to their activity in a positive way.
I'm not talking about LIA specifically, but about disco's failure to create procedures for OFs and governments that actually work without circlejerks dominating them, thereby inevitably becoming ripe with personal biases, hypocrisy, cliquelancing, and double standards. Ciricluejerks exert the power as a means to keep power, keep it away from their adversaries, instead of using the power to create mutually beneficial solutions together with their "adversaries". One way they do that is to dominate the narative (shaping "the truth") with appeals to authority ("we are leader materials and those who dont agree with us are not"), destroying potential rival groups (pick one of the multiple intances of bashing of player groups here), removing opposing voices (banning and censoring on forum or discord), repeating their narrative over and over coming from multiple members of hte circlejerk (spamming discussions with memes), and then using appeals non existant majority ("98% of people here hate you" when its actually just the ciriclejerk concensus that someone must be hated).
(09-29-2020, 12:38 AM)Karlotta Wrote: While criteria for a faction to be included on "the gov" can be beneficial, it will just impose more burden on the OF who certainly are now not worth being OF. There are no substantial benefits or perks being OF while more and more constrains and burdens are suggested to be imposed on them.
Increasing the burden of and decreasing the personal gain from officialdom will keep the wrong kind of people out and get the people who arent in it for personal gain in. If a faction doesnt want to take greater responsiblity for people outside their fact, the have no reason to be official anyway.
(09-29-2020, 12:38 AM)Karlotta Wrote: As for the rules for inclusion on the Gov, I suppose it would be beneficial if the existing govs themselves RPed the requirements to be put on the gov. It will reflect the differences between the Houses and other factions with the govs (obviously, criteria for Maltese gov are different from criteria for LibGov). Besides, "too many cooks spoil the broth", so the number of people and/or factions on the gov is also something better to be limited lest we want to have the situation like with the devs who have some sort of chaos because of too many people involved.
RPing inclusion rules is pointless because house governments are oorp at the core and only irp on the surface.Same as for player factions.
Not every cook needs to be as active as the others, some will only vote and form a line of defense against excesses from gorups and individuals.
Disco inability to organize their "departments" has more to do with their inability to define rules and boundaries and stick to them, and less to do with the number of people in them. The most important rule and boundary that would help is "dont be a circlejerk that does what it wants and doesnt listen to outsiders".
