New Zindra Blog Post

You twist and turn things in a disgraceful manner, you should be ashamed of your actions but you appear to have no shame. You've done this more than once and you continue to do it, that you've found a group who tell you eff off with your own actions should be a wake up call, instead you continue to try and play the innocent party when you're the wicked witch of the west.

Perhaps you have a different definition of 'shady' than mine. To me, 'shady' implies an ulterior motive. Accidental implies no motive. Hence it's not possible for something accidental to be shady.

Maybe I missed it earlier, but do any of the people involved stand to benefit personally from the decision? Or have close friends or associates who would benefit personally?

Community groups should do what they do in a community-minded manner. I do not mind when people like you decide to inject themselves in to launch a personal attack. Right is right - even if the person pointing that out to you is someone you do not like.

Your right. We have different definitions of that.
It was indicative of a lack of community process by this group that claims to be a community-based Alliance of landowners in Zindra. I agree they are not the only community voice in Zindra - but they are one. And that one should have a process that is inclusive at all times.

Community groups don't need people who will stage false positions to try and prove a point, they don't need people who will fake scenarios. You're quite happy to lie, that's not community spirit and never will be.

The chatlog shows the facts Ciaran. I merely commented on it and called for a change of course. And got it. And that is all that matters at this point. Because of me posting about that situation the Zindra Alliance has evolved and is now having community meetings to work with the community to develop an agenda more than 6 can agree with. This is a good thing.

I stated my position on page 158 in this thread. Almost twenty pages ago. Some agreed. Some did not. Going on and on telling me I was wrong is a waste of keystrokes. And a double standard.

It was OK that only 6 chose to change the name of an island in Zindra because the outcome was positive. Then it is OK that I called ZA out for that action because the outcome was positive. We have the beginnings of a process now that is inclusive of everyone.

Sorry that is unnecessary, it seems to me that the ZA has no right to represent anyone but themselves it seems to have to many vindictive people running it, you are not an inclusive group if you exclude anyone whatever there possible shortcomings, we are a community made up of very different people, and that has to be accepted.
The disgrace is with you

Then we as a community do not need ZA as a group that attains to represent us and I for one will now contact Blondin

I think the filter takes some time to find the content. Like when you change your profile picture the new picture does not show up on those profile boards for a few hours.

I disagree, there's no law anywhere that says something has to be included no matter. To assume a group that has taken on voluntary work has to cater for highly and well known disruptive influences merely for the sake of being tolerant isn't fair either.

There is a difference between excluding people, say, on skin colour or sexual preference to excluding disruptive people.

Others can start groups and if they want no limits, that's not a problem at all, but some groups will want limits on disturbance. Ones that dedicate time and maybe money to working for others may simply not have the time or energy to deal with this kind of anything goes stuff.

The ironic thing is, Lias herself has tried to exclude child avatars from their paid for right to Zindra...

I am not sure that the Zindra Alliance will be embracing the child avatar cause - but give it a shot.

Cieran,

This is unwarranted. Whilst I have no wish to take sides in this argument, but my OWN dealings with an individual "officer" of the ZA following (IMHO) a wholy resonable post about how the group should move forward (above), was responded to in a very agressive manner by him.

there are two sides to every story, but from my experience, I would assume that the one officer that responded to me would have no issue with telling any member that dare question him to "eff off". Someone that "trigger happy" should not have a role in a community group.

Gomez

You misunderstand, I am saying that ZA has put itself forward as the group that represents Zindra and it talks of votes and open discussion, yet it is excluding someone for voicing a view point it does not like, yet its own offier are going around shouting shut up, that sounds very wrong to me. What your saying is that it is a group that wants to be heard and agreed with, no open discussions. Well that s fine, and go a head and eject people then but dont say you represent Zindra
you represent yourself. I have no issue with that

I would like to know more about this agenda business, assuming the idea is that there is to be an agenda for the meetings with Blondin on Mondays.

Specifically, I would to know who is to chair the meetings. Part of the role of the chair is, of course, to ensure that the discussion stays on topic, that different views get an adequate airing, and that the meeting manages to get through the agenda in the allotted time, while still leaving time for Any Other Business.

Who is going to perform this important role?

And what is she or he going to say when some non-member of the Zindra Alliance turns up on a Monday meeting and says, "this agenda is all very well, but it's nothing to do with me and there's a matter of pressing concern -- at least to me -- I want to raise". Are they to be told their comments are out of order and the point must wait until Any Other Business, assuming there's time in Blondin's busy schedule. What happens if some members of Gomez' newly-formed Zindra Landowners Alliance turn up with an agenda they've prepared? Whose do we follow?

Or is the idea that this agenda is, effectively, an hymn sheet to which members of the Zindra Alliance are expected to sing at Blondin's meetings? If a meeting of the Zindra Alliance reaches some conclusion with which individual members do not agree -- which will doubtless happen sooner or later -- are the dissidents supposed to keep quiet or resign their membership if they wish at a meeting with Blondin to express their disagreement, or what?

I so agree with that Gomez

It seems to me that ZA see their role as being the chair and the speaker and the decision maker at the moment, what worries me the most is Blondin thinks they have the backing of us all, that is a major concern

What, you mean by saying repeatedly "we don't represent Zindra"? Bloody amazing.

I believe it should be a round-table meeting - no appointed King or Queen. Each week choose a new person to steer the meeting and keep it on course.

This is how we developed policy in Connecticut when we were developing sweeping policy. It was long and arduous work. And in the end even opposing fronts shook hands because we all were represented in the final document.
This is not a way to control everyone. Blondin will run his meeting as he sees fit. He always seems to take our agenda items to the Powers-that-be. And I assume that will continue.
I believe these groups should share agendas prior to the Blondin meeting and merge their concerns as best they can. The two groups differ only in the way they function internally.
As a mature adult - you have to know your not always going to get everything you want. If you cannot make concessions and cooperatively 'meet in the middle' of a issue - then you may get quite frustrated with any inclusive process.

Yeh, I get what your saying.

I think ZA people have come in to this string recently and said that ZA isn't the official group that reps everyone and never has been.

I'm just saying it's also fair to not have to put up with the intolerable. Some kicks are malicious prejudice for sure, but some are necessary too. Tolerance for sake of merely being tolerant is pretty futile and just drains people.

Somethings either will cause groups to split or kick, be they ideas on direction or as in this case, accusations and trouble, and groups need that right too... everyone does.

There's a good side to it, it means more specific groups will form.

If it wasn't premeditated, it wasn't "shady" in any possibly sensible definition of "shady." It was how things could ever happen at Blondin's meeting, and it's how it happened, and it's a good thing that it did. Yeah, we could have dilly-dallied around and waited for all of Zindra to voice an opinion, and nothing would ever get done.

You defamed good people doing good work. That's wrong, and you know it.
Honest to god, Lias, it's amazing your very alts don't flee for their sanity.

Qie, that is your opinion and your welcome to it. I see it differently.
No I did not. I spoke on the lack of inclusive process this group seemed to have adopted (Innula pointed out that this has been going on since July)
Qie, I really respect you and I do not expect you to throw out personal attacks in a public forum.

What needs to be clarified is - Is the monday meeting a:

1) Resident meeting with Blondin

or

2) A Zindra Alliance Meeting with Blondin

I get mixed messages - in the ZA Group - they are advitised as "Zindra Alliance Meetings", but when the wheels start to fall off they are called "Zindra Landowners meetings" (and who decided to call them that? )

Who is the "we"? The ZA, Residents in general? it's all so confused...

Gomez

You're the only one allowed to do that?

If that's the case, then perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to have avoided any sort of judgmental statement about what happened. Instead: "Look, six people commented on this without consulting the rest of the group, in a way that might have been interpreted as speaking for the entire group. It doesn't really matter whether I agree or disagree with their opinion on this point, and I'm not saying they did anything bad, but in the future, I would like the process to be ...."

No personal judgments, no insinuations, nothing that could be misconstrued as an aspersion. Wouldn't that have been more effective?

Yes, exactly. This has been my point from the start.