[Imc-communication] (no subject)
drdartist at riseup.net
Tue Jun 28 10:55:13 PDT 2005
I would say it is an understood and accepted facet of consensus
decision making that the accused party cannot block.
For example, if you have a troublemaker in your collective, you could
never get rid of that person because they would always block every
proposal to ban them. This is so self evident and obvious, that it
needs no proposal to 'officially' establish.
portland imc contributor
On Jun 25, 2005, at 9:28 PM, andypie wrote:
> Statement by Cleveland.Indymedia Collective on the Belgium Situation
> adopted at a meeting June 25 2005
> 1). The Germany Indymedia proposal with a deadline of June 7, 2005 did
> not pass because it was validly blocked by Belgium Indymedia. The
> declaration that it passed because the block was not valid is a
> 2). The "rule" that a collective is not allowed to block decisions
> regarding its own URL is an ex post facto rule and is not valid for
> that reason.
> Ex post facto rules and laws have a scurvy history of use by
> oppressors and overlords of the feudal and bourgeois classes against
> which revolutionaries and the masses have always struggled. Do you
> want to be found in this loathesome company?
> If IMCistas wanted to establish such a rule they should have made it
> as a PROPOSAL and it should have been passed by Process BEFORE being
> applied, and then only to proposals originating after its passage.
> If facilitators intended to apply such a "rule' they should have
> announced it well before the deadline of the Germany proposal. The
> way it was used was a surprise attack - an ambush.
> The Network deserves better than this.
> It doesn't make sense that an affected party cannot block - that is
> what a block is FOR.
> 3). The Process list facilitators took themselves from being LIST
> facilitators to being PROCESS facilitators to being PROCESS
> DECISION-MAKERS. That's a long way from making discussions on a list
> go more smoothly. They have constituted themselves as being an
> Indymedia Supreme Court.
> They will not allow any appeals from their decision, going so far as
> to close the Process List to such appeals.
> All these changes by the three unelected European facilitators,
> accomplished in one stroke, were never authorized by the Network.
> Do you really want to have a self-appointed Indymedia Supreme Court ?
> Its going to come back to haunt you.
> 4). There was no reason for any IMC to block the Germany proposal
> BEFORE Belgium Indymedia acted on it, as would have been crazy for
> another IMC to block the proposal if Belgium Indymedia had ended up
> accepting it. It would not be necessary for another IMC to block
> AFTER Belgium IMC blocked because the proposal had already been
> 5). There was not enough time accompanying the Germany proposal for
> the many IMC's which meet once a month to give it due consideration.
> And there was no communication to IMCs which might not be active on
> Process so they could have a chance to represent their interests in
> such a vital matter.
> 6). The perception that Belgium.Indymedia is now complying with the
> proposal has no bearing on the matter because such compliance, IF it
> exists, is clearly under duress.
> 7). The underlying accusation of "Stalinism" is totally fetishized.
> Give us a break. The guy has been dead for 50 years.
> If some of the Belgium.Indymedia collective members are close to the
> Workers Party of Belgium, which no one has a right to ask, Stalin
> does not seem to show up on Belgium Indymedia, he is a fetish kept to
> the PTB website. The counter-fetish, "Anti-Stalinism", on the other
> hand, is being brought up constantly on the listservs and on some
> Indymedia Web Sites.
> The reason we are referring to Stalinism and Anti-Stalinism as
> fetishes is because you can't actually DO anything with them. You
> can't reach out to the masses of people and say: "Its urgent in
> today's world that you become a Stalinist/Anti-Stalinist." They're
> 8). Cleveland.Indymedia and every IMC has an interest in the outcome
> of this matter whether Belgium Indymedia complies or not because of
> the precedent being set. We also have an interest in stopping the use
> of "precedent" as establishing the principles of the network - another
> manifestation of a bourgeois court system.
> (end statement)
> IMC-communication mailing list
> IMC-communication at lists.indymedia.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 4553 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-communication/attachments/20050628/40e1c44d/attachment.bin
More information about the IMC-communication