From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 12:51:04 MDT
[Jonathan Davis 1] Given the purpose of Disciplinary actions is "to maintain public credibility of the Church of Virus. Disciplinary actions' primary purpose is to protect the Church of Virus from disrepute", can it be made clear what constitutes "public credibility" and "disrepute"?
[Hermit 2] This is deliberately left up to the Congregation itself, in that they assign a reputation to members which results in those considered "reputable" by Meridion exercising their judgement as to what these terms mean. Essentially this is to guide council members and reconciliation committees as to the intent that they should be applying when acting. In other words, limiting the ambit in which they make judgements.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I notice the preamble seeks to exclude "people who are at open variance with the Body, either in principle or practice" because their presence "makes it difficult or impossible to maintain order and civility in our deliberations." Can this line of reasoning be please be supported?
[Hermit 2] We are a voluntary association of the willing, and welcome those who share our interests and goals and proclaim themselves Virians by attempting to adhere to our "Virian Virtues" and avoid our "Senseless Sins". Those who do not are still able to participate if they behave appropriately, but we are not obligated to provide them a platform or allow them to cause chaos on our facilities.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who will be judging what the Body "is" so that we may determine those who are "at variance"?
[Hermit 2] The CoV has formalised this. See http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/VirianTitles
[Jonathan Davis 1] What about existing members who vary from the Body in "principle and practice"? Will it be a case that even if they are accepted within the "community of the willing" they will be automatically excluded because of arbitrarily defines transgressions?
[Hermit 2] The process deliberately does not define any "transgressions", so they cannot be arbitrary. It is left to the judgement of those entrusted with supervising the process.
[Hermit 2] Meridion defines the "community of the willing" for the Congregation, and those not in the Congregation have chosen not to join with the body. Any action in terms of the Disciplinary Process is intended primarily to reconcile those at variance with the community or vice versa with one another. Given this, and the fact that "disownment" is a last resort, it is highly unlikely that any person accepted by the community (as reflected by Meridion) would ever be "excluded" unless they chose to be.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Does this not perhaps risk persecution of minority dissenters and *alleged* apostates?
[Hermit 2] Not unless you imagine that the most reputable in this community are lilely to do so. And that the balance of the Congregation would not respond.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Does the Body represent dogma or fixed attitudes, principles, beliefs or political affiliations?
[Hermit 2] There is no dogma in the CoV. As to the rest, you would need to ask our members or look through our various documents to determine for yourself what opinions are and are not held by our membership.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who are the "we" as in "we emphasise that disciplinary actions are only undertaken by the community"?
[Hermit 2] We are the collective opinion of the Congregation of the CoV as established through Meridion.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who sets out who will be "acting for the community"
[Hermit 2] The VirianTitles link above, and those pages linked to it, sets out the emergent system.
[Jonathan Davis 1] and where can we I find clear descriptions of what "protect[ing] the community, its name, its reputation, its goals, its members and our principles" involves?
[Hermit 2] You would need to ask those on one of the reconciliation committees to make a determination on an actual case. I cannot project their minds or respond to hypothetical situations, and don't recommend that others do either.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Are there definitions of what constitutes violating the community's good name? Who decides if our goals or principles have been injured?
[Hermit 2] That would be up to the council and the reconciliation committees to determine on a case-by-case basis.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What does "manifesting disunity with the Church of Virus" mean?
[Hermit 2] Like "pornography" it is a term relatively difficult to define and easy to tell when you see it. Fortunately, we don't need to develop a legal system and code. We can rely on the judgement of those whom we deem "reputable" to make this determination.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who judges this?
[Hermit 2] It would be established on a case-by-case basis, in the first place, the reconciliation committees, in the second the Virian Council.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who decides what constitutes "inconsistent or disorderly conduct"?
[Hermit 2] As above.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Why is "creation of dissension in the community" a problem where free thinking and free speaking are implied virtues as rationalists?
[Hermit 2] Because dissension occurs between people, not between ideas.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Do we have clear definitions or at least examples of "principles and practices contrary to the "Virian Virtues" and "Senseless Sins""? Can these be objectively tested?
[Hermit 2] No and no. I'm sure you could think up some if you tried.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What are "the necessary rules of our community"?
[Hermit 2] The minimum nuber of rules required to maximise the pleasure and usefulness of our structures for the Congregation.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Is this whole thing based on the Mormon principle of disfellowship and is it worthwhile discussing the problems encountered with their similar system?
[Hermit 2] I didn't examine any Mormon systems when developing this structure. I can't speak for the others who were involved. As I don't know their systems, or the problems they have encountered, I am not sure how useful such a discussion would be.
[Jonathan Davis 1] What is a "wrong action"?
[Hermit 2] An action which causes harm.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Who are the "Virian Council"?
[Hermit 2] They are the PrimeVector and six ArchVectors selected by the Prime Vector from amongst the Luminaries. Refer to VirianCouncil and VirianTitles on the Wiki.
[Jonathan Davis 1] Will all votes and minutes be made public in the case of a disownment?
[Hermit 2] No part of the disciplinary process will be public. It is no business of anyone except those directly involved.
[Jonathan Davis 1] How will the Arch Vector be appointed?
[Hermit 2] By the PrimeVector.
[Jonathan Davis 1] P.S Regarding Elvensage's claims, I also think there is a general sense of unease about these proposals.
[Hermit 2] I have noticed five people raise queries and 3 making objections. Given 50+ members of the Congregation and 1600+ members of the CoV, I don't think that you are correct.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I also think that there is confusion over what is "in" and what is "out" in terms of specific acceptable behaviours.
[Hermit 2] So far, we know that bombarding us with c&p articles, christian apologetics, continuous assertions of bigoted statements about other groups and disparagement of others is not welcome to the community. I'm sure it will determine (through discussion, voting, reputing and complaining) identify any others that are not welcome.
[Jonathan Davis 1] I think the document is too vague and I agree that as these procedures proposes censure, which is a tool of manipulation and control, they may be (ab)used to silence dissent, minority opinions or perceived heresies (regardless of rational merit) that are bannered under arbitrarily defined labels such as "disorderly conduct", "creation of dissention", "wrong actions" or "bringing the CoV into disrepute".
[Hermit 2] I notice that the US code takes up approximately 7 linear feet on my bookcase and is updated regularly. They attempt to define "crimes" with precision. Yet, even so, many court cases are largely about defining what is and is not permitted or forbidden by that code. As I don't wish to attempt to rival their output, and haven't seen any volunteers who do; very much doubt that if such a document were written that it would ever be read; suspect that if such a document were written it could be weaselled around anyway; and as I don't think we want or need to establish a court system, we have taken the approach of relying on "reputable" members of the congregation, with the interests of the CoV and membership at heart, to interpret these things for us, guided by process which authorises them to do this on our behalf. If you want to change this, I suggest you start writing.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29437> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 12:51:22 MDT