|
|
Post by Official Occupy Tulsa on Dec 22, 2011 0:05:02 GMT -6
Sandra and others are now in a facilitation and mediation workgroup to address these issues. We can look forward to what they come up with. Anyone can be a part of that process. Just get in touch with Sandra.
This issue will no longer carry Dan's or Stephanie's name on it as per tonight's GA, but discussions in the facilitation and mediation workgroup will involve how to deal with issues involving those who have committed infractions such as Dan's and Stephanie's. It is no longer a matter that will take up the GA's time in general until an official proposal is drafted and presented to the GA in clear language.
--C. J. Williams
|
|
|
|
Post by barndog on Dec 22, 2011 1:59:33 GMT -6
I like the direction things are going! Stay strong!!
|
|
mike
Full Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by mike on Dec 22, 2011 13:46:56 GMT -6
Perhaps, it is a matter of trust in a relationship and an assumed contract of honesty between people. Trust is basically an emotion, and like all emotions, is not black-and-white, but a spectrum or range of degrees. And as rational or "scientific" we may want to be, human decisions are more based upon emotion than mere logic.
Although I have posited trust as a spectrum, there are at least a few fence posts that might help establish demarks between degrees. In the one extreme, one might experience with another, “You are lying to me and, what’s more, you know you are lying to me.” More towards the middle, it would be, “I don’t think you are lying to me with malice aforethought; I just don’t think you know what you are doing (or saying). You’re just incompetent.” Then, at the other extreme, one might say, “I don’t think you are intentionally lying, or incompetent, I simply to understand you and I do not trust what I do not understand.”
Now, to paraphrase Will Rogers, I never met a man I mistrusted. And like what Will was really saying, its not that I don’t trust some people, I generally assume at first that they are honest and allow them to “earn” my mistrust through their words and deeds. And so it was for me with Daniel … Stephanie is a different matter as I was never convinced I was dealing with an entirely rational person amenable to the “rules of engagement” required of persuasive conversation.
At first, I tried to understand Daniel’s management style, for lack of better words. As time progressed, and given his seeming inexperience in exercising leadership, I thought him merely incompetent. But towards the end, I very reluctantly began to speculate his motives were far more dark than I cared to consider. In short, it was a relief to me that he nailed his own coffin, in my relationship with him as far as I was concerned, by leaving. His immediately subsequent words and actions only served to comfort my sense of release from a bad social contract.
I am aware this thread is about process and procedures, and I have not offered any specific remedies to you. But I would like you to consider that, although we all make mistakes (as most assuredly I and others in the GA did with Daniel and Stephanie), the essence of wisdom is to have the humility to learn from them. I have seen no humility in Daniel, either before or after his self-administered decree of divorce, and so cannot accept he has learned anything at all. (Stephanie, in my opinion, does not have the faculties to learn and lives in her own world.) But whatever remedies are devised by the competent Workgroup(s), I would hope that they recognize that, yes we all are prone to error, but forgiveness does not mean forgetting and that without atonement for breaking the sinew of trust between people there cannot be condonation.
With this missive, I will say no more on this matter. A new Workgroup(s) has taken up the task to hopefully employ our new found wisdom to deal with future transgressors of our communal trust. For all our sake, I pray they do well.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by fireangel on Dec 28, 2011 19:53:01 GMT -6
It seems like the only thing left to really "work out" here is how to let the general public know that the original Occupy Tulsa is still standing strong, still holding GAs and that Danphanie's (thank you for that, Doug) latest "work" is a rogue thing, no longer associated with the Occupy Tulsa group. I think the idea for some Occupiers to make the media rounds and get the record set straight is a good one. Otherwise, I think we just need to keep things moving, get the website up and running (that will help a lot because it will give the general population somewhere to see what's going on other than the confusing multiple FB pages), and get some "real work" out there that the public can see... the work we do will be advertisement enough, if we do it right and show some real effectiveness. People want to see Occupy DO something more than just protest and make a ruckus. So... let's do something!  On that note, I am so, so heartened by all the awesome workgroups that are springing up and by all the new-found focus in this group since "the split." This is a rebirth that needed to happen. We just need to keep watering and feeding this thing... it'll grow. And nothing will be able to hold us back. |
|
|
|
Post by rionwolf on Dec 29, 2011 3:07:09 GMT -6
So I sit here and listen to you people talk about treating someone with respect and as a part of GA/ who willfully and outright stole from and disrespected Occupy Tulsa and even took your banner/ after all the work we put into getting over 10000 likes on the facebook page!!!! And the thought that I was tipsy and gave some homeless blankets had you up in arms where I wasn't treated respectfully and wasn't permitted to have a voice at the GA's for a while! I think a lot of you have your priorities confused!
I personally think that people unless they harm others should be welcome at the GA's and Have a voice, Disavow people as someone who represents the group and take away authorities yes/ but never should people get banned unless they do harm to others! and I do think Theft from the group is harm!
It makes me wonder why I went to jail night after night to make a stand/ oh yeah I know I did it for the homeless in Tulsa/ definitely not for this other song and dance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Official Occupy Tulsa on Dec 29, 2011 4:25:25 GMT -6
The persons that this issue is about are the ones that were up in arms against you, Rion, and their tactics were such that they strong-armed others into following them in their judgments and made it difficult for people to dissent. They are no longer active in the GA, having disavowed the GA.
Rion, I understand your concerns, but you need to leave it in the past. Because at this point, it's not helping your case to attack the GA whom you are trying to convince to let you continue to help out. The GA is made of reasonable people, if you let them be reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by rionwolf on Dec 30, 2011 3:46:13 GMT -6
I will help Occupy regardless! and even when people were slandering my good name and trying to ban me I was still helping behind the scenes. It just hurts/ a person demands I apologize for my prerogative being swilly one night and not hurting anyone! So maybe that's what I would like a formal apology from the GA for allowing themselves to be controlled at my expense and pain! Its not a demand of course but it would be fitting!
|
|
