How should we do the Group/s in SL?

A number of people keep bring up the concern that unscrupulous people are joing our group.
Some officers open up the enrollment then others close it and boot people out.
In my opinion it is unavoidable that we will be spied upon. Lets not be deluded into thinking we wont be. Having atleast one group open reminds us that we aren't safe and that we aren't a secret society.

However lets discuss it and then have a vote.

One group open?
One group closed?
Two Groups: one open one closed?
More groups?

Are we wanting to keep secrets from the "enemy"?
Or are we being a completely open and transparent organisation?

My opinion is 2 groups Officers closed and General membership open.

Officers should be elected IMO as I posted here...
/321/24/124700/1.html#post1180454/321/24/124700/1.html#post1180454

However if the Officers find it necessary to remove members it should be done with full disclosure of the reason(s) maybe a post of each officers opinion in a "Rescind member" thread and then an anonymous vote of the member body.

This should only be done with hard evidence and a last resort. Not hearsay.

We need to keep our attentions on our primary purpose and not be too concerned with spies/alts/thieves in the ranks. We could easily envoke dissention.

I think that could work?

I feel we should keep membership open.

Anything done behind closed doors can never attain grass roots support.

Difficult one. Easy to see both sides of this.

I think the group would have more credibility if it were restricted to established retailers. Allowing anyone, including people who are practicing the very issues we want to irradicate, well, that does dilute the potential a bit.

However, secrecy is often misconstrued as deviousness. Plus there are no doubt many consumers (as opposed to retailers) who have a vested interest in this matter too, of course, and may wish to join to help, support, and generally see what is going on.

With any closed group you're faced with questions about how the inner circle is selected. I'm not suggesting it be a 100% total democracy, but the concerns need to be anticipated.

I think we need to keep it as simple as possible.

One Group (Open) - 5 Officers (Elected – One Chairperson)

Forum Moderators – 4-5 (One Chair)

Sub-committees to address various aspects of our mission.
Sub-committee chairpersons

Governing Board:
Officers
Sub-committee Chairpersons
Forum Moderator Chairperson

I really don't think the group should be closed at all. This isn't some kind of secret society. The purpose is to spread information, not hoarde it. If some scammer knows we are on to them, so what? Maybe they will stop even sooner than before. If someone causes a problem, then they get kicked. Otherwise, everything should be open.

Seconded

Why have the group at all if you are leaving it as an open forum. Anyone (including those that we are trying to weed out) would be able to join it. IMO you would be making the goup really kinda useless then, because anyone (including those we are trying to weed out) would have access to the information that we are sharing in the group, therefore making it easier for THEM to know what/when we are implementing something to Weed them out. Like I said though, it is just My Opinion. *hugs*

the only issue with open enrollement is....what stops the thieves from joining?

I'll second Mash's recommendation....i mean being that he's me and i'm him. HAHA


Seriously that is a stupendous suggestion.

If it's closed, the ones we are aware of, would just make an alt and and ask to join as a supporter anyway. Of course, there needs to be a policy or rules in place for removing ANY member or officer.

Tough call.....any closed group worries me because then by what criteria will a person be allowed in? Supporter?...designer?...uber designer...? Does it depend on their track record in the forums. It gets sticky then.

An open group may possibly attract the wrong folks, but odds are being in the group won't really help them a great deal anyway....won't uncover any secret info, and may, as someone said, deter them.

I had my less than 1 month old alt join the group because I have decided to get serious about designing and building and want to use that persona to create and design in peace and quiet, but I'm sure SHE won't be invited into the inner circle of any group because she is unknown, has nothing out yet and is a noob

I like Mash's suggestions. With that sort of organization, we don't have one person having too much work or responsibilities. I also agree with keeping it open, as Mash says, anyone can make another alt and rejoin as a supporter, so we might as well keep it open. Doing things behind closed doors can only create problems and rumors/gossip, imho. I also agree with rules on kicking people out. With organization and some level of structure, I believe this group can be very productive.

Onside the what Mash is suggesting. You need to have some sort of small executive function to vet proposals and move things to action, and they do need to be given the ability to move in camera when issues arise that warrant it.

The idea of forum moderators is wise. It will keep things on topic and trolls at bay.

I also agree with the committee approach, allowing people to choose areas of specialty, researching issues and cultivating solutions to bring back to the membership at large for voting on.

The one snag that comes to mind is the possibility of a vote being gamed if LL opens the system to limitless accounts for each person. There won't be any integrity in the voting process at that point.

The only issue with closed enrollment is it becomes a "who knows who" clique and wont have any grass roots support.

As much as I hate to say it. The group should remain open. I'm sure we all would love to have a closed group but it just wouldn’t work in the long run for our needs. Especially when tackling the sort of issues we all hope to have on our agenda. A closed group would simply create too much secrecy yielding an overall bad reputation for the group. You know the old saying "what goes on behind closed doors...” I'm afraid the same thing would happen here...especially from the LL viewpoint.

Additionally, those who are NOT on board with us yet would have further reason not to support this group in the future. Even if only by their own imagination - simply because they don't know what's going on. Anything they do know would be hearsay or rumors...and probably bad ones at that. We all know that negative comments travel much faster and a have a bigger impact than anything positive - it’s human nature

There are certain needs for closed groups but I really do not think this is one of them. On the other hand, if we're planning on hacking the LL db and taking care of the perpetrators ourselves....now we're talking...lol OK - I’m just kidding about that last comment so no one try to take something serious out of it. I can hear the rumors starting already....*sighs*

I think the group must be open. We don't want to end up seeming a clique to new designers coming along. Voting officers is the best route and some clear group policies would also be nice like the open memebership, so everyone is on the same page.

Open.

We already now see a diff between people that have been long in SL (most officers) and new ones.. (members)..

BUT as usual we (AL) must start from somewhere and thats done now.. next are to discuss how we shall get under the skins of LL) and get a communication with them.. and they feel we are strong/serious/helpfull and listen to us.. and together CHANGE things..

/Tina

You said it... I agree
Speaking just for myself, I avoid situations like this like the plague

As far as groups, it can get a little complicated since the fact that we're actually dealing with theft on two fronts, in SL and within RL issues (hence texture theft), amongst other things. Those of us who've been around awhile have a great benefit to the group but, I think it should be kept open and simple. A closed group doesn't do to well with public relations as some have found. The best way to do this, is know the people. The ones who are elected.

We can't deal with this issues with whom people's have only been here maybe a couple weeks who think they know what they're talking about... granted all issues should be dealt with but, the elder should take care of the group as a whole.

I agree , I actually think people should be APPROVED before being able to be in the group, it should be an honor, a symbol of credibility for ones business

This sword swings both ways. It can be an honour and it can be elitism. What happens of the group decides not to approve you?

I am beginning to think tho that a 2 tier process is needed. Something that is completely impartial. Perhaps 6 months of being in the Guild and having no PROVEN claims against you. This removes emotions and elitism. Justice and judgements should be blind to personalities.

Lady Justice

Alternatively we could have a black list of names of people we have PROVEN to ourselves as being thiefs and make that available. However this violates TOS and CS and they most likely will close their account and start up a new free one.

Bravo, Tina - you raise an excellent point. The real impact of this guild will be in how much we can impact LL's policies and enforcement. Not on how many people we can blackball.