How to Handle Projekt PR issues - Forums & In World

Personally I feel like this has to be a decision you make on your own. I stated in a thread on the General forum that I did not feel it would be right to censore our group members. So to me, if you want to do this, great! But we should not be *making* you do it. That is my opinion.



I already have information about the project in my signature line. And I am happy to help with promotion in other aspects. In the long run, this will be the RA's job I know. So perhaps others who are interested in serving in that branch could already be showing their stuff by helping in this aspect?



This is the tougher decision. Exactly how to handle these false claims. What I personally have been doing is just counterpointing where I am able. I'm not so sure I want to get into filing libel suits, but I do think that there should be some mark or "punishment to fit the crime" type action placed on citizens who seek to spread falsehoods about the project. I'm not so comfortable with someone getting disgruntled, running to the masses instead of to us, spouting all kinds of misinformation, then perhaps changing their mind and we just welcome them back with open arms.

While a part of me wants to say we have to allow it for the sake of free speech, I do think people should be held accountable for their actions. In otherwords, give them a reason to think twice about blatenly misrepresenting the group to the public.

I honestly believe we have a few members of the project who really have not taken the time to read all that has come before them. Some are jumping to conclusions that simply do not exist. And I must admit it has made me angry in many cases, and does not help me hold respect for these people in other cases.

That is my peace for now. I'll let others chime in.

And here is good reason why I think Talen and I feel the way we do:

I guess Social Democratic is a code word for Totalitarianism
/120/7f/28717/1.html#post288623

People are going to find enough to bitch about us without us specifically giving them reasons to. Right or wrong, deleting posts on forums is a touchy subject for many. The very people that would bitch that you deleted their attacking posts in our group forums, would throw a stink in the regular forums if someone attacked them. Many people have blinders on when it comes to this project. They are the ones that I feel are not worth our time, but that we should recognize will be out there.

I do have to say I was wrong in one respect. This is our group and many of these threads are about policy and how we are arriving at government...no outsider has a right to post to those discussions unless they join the group. They can't argue policy we are making because it doesn't effect them. As for making general posts and asking questions they should be able to post...but never to any thread where we are making, deciding, arguing policy.

Sometimes it's hard to see whats necessary when your thinking two steps ahead of the next conspiracy thread. First and foremost the project is important....wheras people should be able to see whats going on and make posts asking questions and such they should never be able to dictate project goals or needs unless they are a member...

I'm sorry Ulrika I just wasn't looking at it from the right perspective

Which brings me back to a question I have raised before, but still hasn't been answered one way or another.

Is the Neaultenburg group open to all who want to join, or not?

Not that he would, but if Korg wanted to bring his opinions to the city and participate, would he be welcome?

A difficult question, I'm sure, but its one you'd better be prepared to answer and justify one way or another.

- Ace

I say it should be allowed, unless it is known that the person is simply there to create havoc and dischord (You know, summoning cthulhu, etc)

You're a member ain'tcha?

I do not see why our internal discussions and negociations should be on display to the general public. I volenteered to contribute to a project, not appear in a cheap cable reality show.

In my view a lot of these problems would go away if we were using a private bulletin board.

What value is being added to the project by allowing these posts to be read by everyone? At best time and resources are wasted answering the same questions over and over again. At worst, a single error in judgement, grammar or vocabulary leaves the project open to whatever left or right wing conspirouy theories are the curernt flavour of the month.

I do not post often in any of the forums as I have no interest in getting into a slanging match with the variety of predators that patrol every bulletin board. Its possible that other project members would contribute more in a private forum.

I propose that we move internal project discusions to a closed forum. I'd like to discuss this at the meeting on Saturday.

Personally I don't see what the problem is with the project having its own private forum.

Any project which involves a large number of organisational issues will benefit from having a place where these can be freely discussed. As Cris has pointed out there is another organisation which has its own private forum, which is used for the day-to-day issues and, sometimes, personal issues, which don't really belong in the public arena.

The only thing I do object to is having a public arena, and then censoring what appears there. But it seems that the project has now taken a step back from that extreme position, which can only be a good thing.

It's clear that there have been two very clear lessons learned in the course of founding this project. 1. If you are going to have a democracy, then make it democratic! (I'm not sure this one has been learned yet) 2. The first thing to think about, when the purpose of your group is controversial, is public relations, and how you are going to present yourselves to the wider community.

I hope that not too many further lessons have to be learned the hard way.

Yes the group is open to all...and I especially would love to see Korg join.

As for the forum I think its best being open for all to see...we will make mistakes and I'm sure these won't be the last...it's a learning experience.

I just checked, and the group is still not set to "Open enrollment". This means that anyone who wants to join still has to be invited by an officer (Ulrika or Kendra), which leaves the perception that there exists a litmus test.

I would suggest that this be changed. Its easily done by Ulrika or Kendra on the "Invite" tab of the Group window by simply checking the appropriate box.

- Ace

I don't agree. Anyone interested only needs to IM an officer . Checking the appropriate box could mean 4000 people join only to grief. I think they should show they are at least interested enough to ask for an invite. I do think that perhaps we should all be officers though. reason one being it would give detractors more than just 2 targets and they couldn't keep harping on Ulrika and Kendra alone. Also we would all then be able to accept new members.

Until we move out of the provisional stage of the projekt --I see no reason to change this.

Making all members into officers would be counter-productive, and making only some members officers would be a disaster.

Of course not!!!

I didn't mean to imply that everyone should be officers. Making everyone an Officer would be a recipe for disaster, since anyone could come in and sell the land.

But "Open Enrollment" would allow anyone to join the Neualtenburg project with a click of a button on the Group page. As it stands now, if someone wants to join the group, they have to get an explicit invite from either yourself or Ulrika.

- Ace

Perhaps... But requiring an explicit invite does give the impression that there is some litmus test for joining.

- Ace

I think that would be the way to go --once we are out of the provisional stage.
We'll have to weather the storm of perception until that time.

I agree with Talen above on why we should *not* have open enrollment right now (open in the sense that anyone can push a button). I personally don't think we ever should. However it would be nice if we had at least one more officer to handle invites (especially since Ulrika may not be around as much for a few weeks and we may have an influx of members after the meetings on Saturday).

My feeling would be to have as an officer each of the leaders of the current provisional government. It helps tie the 3 branches together while we are in this phase. I don't think this should be the case after the government steps out of the provisional phase. Mainly because not knowing who could be the leader of those branches, I'm wary to put that responsibility into too many changing hands.

Any thoughts on how to handle invites after the government goes "live"?

I wanted to clarify some of the wording I used in the post above. I received a private PM from someone who stated they PMed me so as not to "embarass" me in public with regards to some of the wording I used above. First I would like to say that I don't think pointing out something that you are not clear about what I have said would embarass me. I know that I do not say things that I am embarassed to back up or clarify. So please feel free to address me publicly.

This person felt that when I made reference to a "mark", that it was "extremely reminiscent of the stars used by the Nazis to mark individuals." (they went on to explain this to me - though I new from that one sentence what they were refering too). They were "surprised" that I could not "see the connection" and felt that me saying it on a public forum did not make it any "less detestable".

This PM really upset me. For me to be even remotely compared to Nazis is laughable at best, and grossly wrong at least. Never in my entire life has someone even come close to comparing me to a Nazi, and I will stand by my belief that this person took what I said *WAY* out of context.

To clarify, what I meant by mark in this case is more like "mark on their record". Meaning, like 3 strikes your out sort of thing. I feel to look at the word "mark" alone is to take it out of the context of the entire paragraph. However I did want to clarify just in case anyone else misunderstood what I was trying to say. If anyone feels I need to further clarify, please let me know!

Pendari,

I expect everybody, apart from the person who IMd you, knew exactly what you meant in that posting.

I am not for putting a bunch of limits on citizenship but I will say that there should be some kind of requirements. Practically every civilized nation and perhaps uncivilized ones too… hehe… require something to qualify for citizenship.

Here is my suggestion:
1. Anyone can become a non-voting citizen but that there be a cooling off period where they can explore the opportunities for them to become a part of the city. I would not make that TOO long, maybe 1 month which comparing online time to RL time is probably kind of like a year in RL.

2. After the month has passed the person will come before a citizenship board consisting of 3 people. At this hearing they will describe the last months experience, why they want to become citizens and what their roll in the city will be. They will need 2 current citizens to vouch for their legitimate desire to become a citizen and for their actively taking part in the city over the last month.

3. They will agree to abide by all of the laws and the constitution and to submit to any disciplinary action that may occur due to their behavior.

4. After approval from this board their status will change to full citizenship with voting rights.

This satisfies that all are welcome to take part in the city and become citizens with a minimal amount of work and time for them to qualify. It also will help weed out those who are not really interested in being a part of the city because they will most likely not bother going trough with the farce of participating for a whole month and becoming a part of what is going on.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth.

Billy, could you repost that in our "Proposal for Citizenship" thread? It is way down in the group forum so I'm sure you could have missed it. That should really be where we hash out the "Citizenship" issue (in my opinion). I just don't want your ideas to get lost during the discussions in this thread.

Here is the link so you can find it easily:
/103/75/28129/1.html

Thanks Selador...

I know I can be confusing sometimes, so like I said, I don't mind clarifying myself.

Sure Pen, anything for you. I know it was off topic here but I was responding to where the discussion had gone.

I know Billy, and no worries at all! Like I stated, I just wanted to make sure your ideas did not get lost.