Blocks being abused

[benbrucato]

Blocks are being abused. At least one person has thrown up blocks multiple times over small issue. At this point, they need to stand aside or follow the meaning of the block (leave the movement). Facilitators need to call people out on abusing blocks.

Being afraid of multiple organizations asking us to voice solidarity if we offer it to one now IS NOT A PROFOUND MORAL OBJECTION!

Also, if you put up a block and leave before the issue is voted on and we reach consensus after you leave, YOU CANNOT COME BACK THE NEXT NIGHT AND SAY YOU BLOCKED THE PROPOSAL.

Please, facilitators, this stuff is getting serious. I'm not going to keep investing my time in this if this keeps up.

[joshred]

I was thinking something along these lines at the discussion of the press release. If people continue to abuse blocks without facilitator intervention I'll throw up a block against addressing blocks. If how handling blocks can't be resolved at the GA, then it get's sent back to facilitation and the GA closes.

I think that would stay within the process. No?

[benbrucato]

That gives too much power to the facilitators.

Throw up a point of process so the blocker is asked "Will you leave or are you willing to stand aside?" The facilitators can ask the crowd if anyone else shares the concern to the level that they would block the concern. If there are others, it should be discussed. If not, then move to a vote.

The block gets abusive when someone who is known to commit a lot of energy to a much needed function is given more concern than another person. This is how authority and hierarchy creeps into the movement. That person can throw up blocks on minor issues like this, and exerts too much authority over the entire movement.

Forget the personalities, stick to the process.

[benbrucato]

I should make this clear, additionally:

Between this, the way the "nonviolent movement" proposal was handled, and my letter that Dan posted last night, I am strongly considering leaving the movement. So consider this my block.

[Dan L]

I think that we've tried a little too hard to avoid the override vote because we're afraid of alienating the person blocking. I think we're also afraid to alienate an imaged potential occupier who would actually leave the occupation over an issue.

This is why we have the 95% modified consensus (which I think should be 90%, but that's not what was decided) and this is why we have to show people that this is a serious tool. If we frame it as being serious and then go out of the way to avoid taking it to modified consensus because it might make some people unhappy, we've basically handed power of veto over to anyone who has a dogmatic objection to the process.

Additionally, and not to sound exclusionary, I don't know if the movement is best served by taking people who are prepared to block over the wording of a phrase they don't like as seriously as the sort of moral, ethical concerns that come from people concerned with the broader mission of this group. Yes. We have principles. Yes. We have values. But we are not here to merely represent ourselves, but to represent the whole of a community that is fundamentally about getting our voices heard, not about always getting our (individual) way.

[joshred]

I didn't mean it in terms of giving power to facilitators, so much as giving the entire room a swift kick in the ass. If a block is thrown up as a point of process it would effectively stops everything until the process is remedied.

This would result in one of three things:

1.) The block would be overridden with a 95% majority,

2.) All blocks would be dropped in order to convince the point-of-process-blocker to remove the block.

3.) Conversation would stop and rules governing the General Assembly blocks would be sent back to the facilitation working group.

Or, the result I think would be most probable and positive:

4.) A long discussion of what constitutes a blocking concern would take place among the entire GA.

[dylan]

I think this is a bit of a more complicated issue than is being made out here. First I should state that I don't think it is the role of the Direct Action group to bring requests for endorsements or statements of solidarity to the GAs as these are not Direct Actions. Endorsements and statements of solidarity are words - they belong with coalition building or PR.

In my opinion Occupy Albany and the Direct Action WG in particular should be focusing on working with outreach to get people to go to actions and show solidarity with our feet.

I bring this up in this thread because though I wouldn't block an endorsement or statement of solidarity by itself, if we had a consistent theme of emphasizing them over getting people to these events I would feel what we're doing was ineffectual and would leave the group. I do feel resolutions can be important but they are more appropriate in the Albany Common Council than in Occupy Albany.

I feel an additional bonus to keeping statements and endorsements off the table is that when we phrase them as announcements of things for us to attend or when an actual action is proposed they move very quickly through consensus and get broad support. This suggests to me that the general will of the group is that action(s) are favored over statements and we need to listen to that. I'd like to suggest we stick to endorsing and showing solidarity with our feet and focus on getting large numbers to these events instead of spending all our energy getting every last person to consent on statements.

[benbrucato]

I can see your point on these issues. I did not listen to the entire stream tonight, and was not there. When we proposed on Saturday the events to participate in, they were to get the consent of the GA to sign onto the events and participate in them as OA. There were no statements attached to them (except the Robin Hood Tax). If there was a different proposal for a statement made tonight made by the DA WG, I'm not aware of the WG initiating it.

I do agree that the focus should be to get there, and to mobilize people. Part of doing that is getting the GA to consense on the action being part of OA and not just a separate autonomous action, so that PR can publicize it and get OA people on board. (As opposed to making statements. If you'll see my post on the General Board, I think the wording makes it very clear, but correct me if it's not.)

However, any WG or any individual person at OA can and should bring up any proposal they feel is appropriate. A proposal lacking a working group, might get picked up by a working group if that would be amenable to them. If it needs more work than a proposer can commit to, that should be addressed as an issue during discussion. I just want to clarify that there's nothing about the process that means that DA can do "this" but not "that."

[Emma]

Dylan - thank you for that. I was thinking things along those lines but you articulated it much better.

More generally:
I don't just think that people are abusing the block - I also think that people are abusing proposals.

DanL's post suggesting guidelines about how to bring proposals might well help address that.

I also think that more frequent and varied Speak Outs would help, as would more effective publicity/communication about issue-specific working groups or break-out sessions.

[joshred]

The conversation has taken a slight detour. Although it's legitimate to say that the GA wants to take action rather than make statements, I think it avoids the issue of blocks being abused.

Ben expressed a willingness to leave the movement if blocks are continuously abused. I think there are GA participants who are similarly frustrated but less vocal. If people become too frustrated they move on without saying anything and we lose momentum. There needs to be more discussion on the issue of abusive blocks. If it becomes apparent that people are abusing blocks at the GA, I think it could actually be healthy for someone to throw a block against addressing the block stack. It would force everyone in the GA to reexamine what constitutes a legitimate blocking concern. And, if people are becoming frustrated enough with blocks to consider leaving the movement it would be a justifiable block.

Just my 2¢.

[hz]

Ben,

It sounds like you are taking issue with me personally. I know this may be a wider concern that should be addressed, but talking to me directly may help clear the situation. I think you are misunderstanding my fundamental MORAL OBJECTION.

It is not a semantic issue. Nor is it about any specific political issue.

It is that if we are asked to formally vote, as a body, on certain issues, --we will eventually be torn apart on these issues---. It is fundamentally important that we remain united not divided. I am most concerned with the longevity and viability of the movement as a whole. What happens when a pro-lifer and an anti-abortionist or a NRA member and a vegan both want to offer their causes up for consensus? I know, for a fact, that there are OA members who strongly represent each of these competing ideas. These 'proposals' should not be -proposals- THEY SHOULD BE ANNOUNCEMENTS. A proposal is when you are ready to have a statement of such weight that it defines every single person in the movement. I am very concerned that we are being asked to do this on so many complex issues. I am concerned that these proposals are being brought down on us from the outside, top down, instead of coming from within. I am concerned that a vote is being rushed by the proposer when the GA clearly does not have enough information to make an informed decision. This is an extremely worrisome state of affairs. This, to me, feels like someone else imposing their agenda on me.

I am also very concerned that this sets a precedent that will inevitably be exclusionary. It is a point that I am willing to leave the movement for, because I think it will tear apart the movement. I have seen it happen in many consensus groups that I have been involved in. It is a concern of many of the Occupy movements across the US. OWS has repeatedly turned down such statements.

I think that people need to understand the difference between an announcement and a proposal.

And we need to understand it -now- not later when trickier statements get proposed.

And for the record I have attended the last four GAs start to finish without leaving, and It is my understanding that I did not lift my block on these statements of -endorsement or official support-. Telling me I did, seems extremely dominating. Telling me my issue is not a moral concern, instead of trying to work it out with me, is also extremely dominating. You have made no effort to talk to me directly and attempt to work out the concern. For blocks I have received on my proposals, I have often spoken to the person(s) afterward to properly understand and address their concern.

I am pretty sure that we can come together on this issue. I am pretty sure that you and I are both working for the same team. I think if we simply stop bringing these issues up as proposals for endorsement, it will solve mine, and others, profound moral objections.

In Solidarity,

Hezzie

[Emma]

Hezzie - I'll let Ben speak for himself as to whether he was thinking of you specifically.
Personally, I was not thinking of your block when this topic came up. There have unfortunately been many casual & spurious "blocks" thrown as a way of getting ones point heard or getting the floor to speak, often by the same people who have already spoken a bazillion times. As the facilitator who happened to be the one to question you on your block, I take responsibility for, and stand by, my judgement at the time that it was a true and valid use of the block. You helped clarify that by saying "yes, I would be prepared to leave over this."

Just to address that particular piece.

Mikerancourt (I think that's the username) made a point in another thread on this that's ongoing simultaneously about process vs product that very much dovetails with Hezzie's point here about pushing things through the GA rather than letting them arise from within the GA. This is very important, and something that we need to be discussing as a facilitation team.

I will also say that trust in the facilitation team is important. No, we are not perfect, but we are quite open to feedback and we are doing our best and if attempts are made to override or discredit facilitators *during a GA* (by a proposal-maker or by others), especially if that person has not yet brought those concerns in person to an F&L wg meeting, that is imo counter-productive. Nothing in this movement so far has been such an emergency that "product" needs to take precedence over "process" in that way.

[mikerancourt]

When I talk about a block I always say that it's designed to address a proposal that is fundamentally opposed to the goals and mission of the group. I think that makes the GA very painful because this group doesn't have any set goals or mission. However, what emerges in our discussions is an unwritten constitution (as in a description of the values that unite us). What constitutes us as a collective must be vague and broad. That's why we have such trouble with specifics in the GA. At the facilitator trainings, I've told people that I'm vegan and really, really believe in animal rights and compassion toward all living beings, but I will not make a proposal that FNB only share vegan food (I've only been involved in all vegan FNBs in the past). That's who I am. It's not who OA is. If I did that, I would be raising a profound moral and ethical issue, but only one that applies to my personal opinion not to the goals of the group. I believe it is a terrible mistake, especially with a group so diverse of opinion, to fail to direct attention to the goals of the group when defining a blocking concern. In fact, I think that is the single most important defining aspect of consensus-based decision making. That's what sets this apart from other forms of direct democracy in which collections of opinion are weighed against each other. Here, we're not making decisions based on our individual selves, as isolated entities trained by the ideology of capitalism to think of ourselves (and not for ourselves). Here, we think of the collective and of ourselves as members of the collective. Without that perspective, we are a mass of bickering egos who came here because we thought it was our chance to finally get our way. It's not. It's a chance to finally be a part of something, really a part of it, that matters.
To block based on individual preference without placing that in the perspective of the collective is an abuse of blocking, and it happens all the time because whoever started defining blocking for the occupation GA's got it wrong. We're sending barely trained facilitators to the front of a mob to attempt to bring them together as a collective. They're bound to fail because we don't get it yet.

[benbrucato]

Thanks for the feedback, Hezzie. This is turning into an online "debate" and is bound to sound cold, but hopefully not harsh. I have attempted to properly defend some ideas, and to argue against others, sometimes with some degree of force. This is not a personal attack on you. But there are some ideas you expressed that I have a very big concern about. I apologize in advance if anything comes across as aggressive.

Oct 24, 2011 9:02:11 GMT -5 hz said:

It is that if we are asked to formally vote, as a body, on certain issues, --we will eventually be torn apart on these issues---. It is fundamentally important that we remain united not divided. I am most concerned with the longevity and viability of the movement as a whole.

Let me see if I understand you correctly:

You have a profound moral objection because something we reached consensus on at one time will eventually tear us apart.

That seems to me to mean that you're blocking on a hypothetical concern over precedent, and not about the proposal at hand.

I think that's reaching. Considerably so. This is an abstract concern. I don't think this qualifies as a strong moral objection. I don't agree at all that this is an issue we are certain or even likely to face by supporting specific actions. We have no reason to believe this concern is based on anything but supposition.

We have reasons not to suppose this. Various Occupy groups have supported all sorts of different actions.

If it leads to an overwhelming list of requests for support, is that inherently bad? I'd need to hear a case made for that. That sounds like a good thing, not a bad one. If it turns out to be a problem, why not cross the bridge when and if we get there?

In the case of these actions, there was consensus. The only one breaking it was you. And now what I'm understanding from you, you've identifying the completely abstract, hypothetical nature of the block. This seems to me to be an abuse of the block. If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.

What do others think?

This below is another way the block is abused - it imposes one person's view of how things should be on the rest of the group:

Oct 24, 2011 9:02:11 GMT -5 hz said:

These 'proposals' should not be -proposals- THEY SHOULD BE ANNOUNCEMENTS. A proposal is when you are ready to have a statement of such weight that it defines every single person in the movement.

Could you please clarify if you think this standard held by the group? I don't share it. I would suspect I'm not the only one.

This shows how a block was used to enforce a very abstract principle without substantiating it or getting discussion from the group. If this is a position held by many, it sounds like we need to have some broader discussion of what a proposal is, and when to use it.

I think this position is dangerous, and will keep us from doing any of the smaller things that the GA should be informed about and given an opportunity to discuss and reach consensus on. These small things may not seem small to everyone. I actually think that is far more likely to be divisive than a proposal we reach consensus on today.

There will be constant proposals, and I think that there should be. Some will be big, some will be small.

With regard to actions: The way I've been informed that OWS handles actions is they are first brought to the GA to see if they will sign on to it to give the action legitimacy, and to give everyone the chance to participate in finalizing the terms of the action. If it does not get consensus, it becomes a voluntary action. I think this is a good process to use. Perhaps this needs to be brought to the GA to affirm or close off this process of reviewing actions.

Your stipulations for the criteria of a proposal would lock out this process. I don't think that this is a good direction to head in.

Finally, can any of the facilitators please clear up this issue over the consensus reached on Saturday? We voted on 4 events reaching consensus and tabled the UAlbany oil exec action, did we not? I remember Hezzie's block, but I also remember we voted on the action along with the others, and reached consensus on all of them. The only stipulation on the CWA action was to include a statement that we do not support the roasting of "real" pigs. The stipulation on all the actions was to use the language that we "support participation in the actions" not "endorse the message of the actions."

Respectfully,

Ben

[anonanon]

As I understand it, the original proposal on Saturday was, as Ben Said, to 'sign on' to the event officially as OA and send out a press release or statement of support saying we would be there. The legitimate block on Saturday was that it was a pig roast and the statement as framed would be advertising a pig roast, while not all in OA condone eating animals. This is why DA definitely stepped out of its purview in attempting to create an amended proposal where we would not sign on to the specific event but give a statement of support of the workers themselves, and we would just get people who did not have an ethical concern about the pig there on the day of. This led to the new block around the use of word 'solidarity' and concern we could alienate the business community (small business owners in particular) by taking the side of workers or endorsing a specific group.

Whether this 2nd block was a deep moral or ethical concern, or whether the GA was about to do something that put people in danger and was 'very serious', I defer to the person who made the block.

[hz]

It will be much easier to clear this up offline and in person.

My concise answer is that I did not block because I feel it was an 'announcement.' I blocked because I had a moral or ethical concern. I just wanted to let you know (in my post) that -if- it was presented as an announcement it wouldn't have activated my concern about

1.) rushed top down decisions
and how that directly ties into
2.) future divisiveness and current endorsements/taking sides in a movement that is meant to be as inclusive as possible (except of course barring the 1%) This has massive PR and longevity repercussions that the GA should at least be made aware of.

I think the beauty of this movement is we can all act as individuals.
I think the beauty is that there are so many issues that we can get out there and support. Forcing pronouncements, at this time is a difficult pill for me to swallow.

As PR, I am happy to -announce- any action that is potentially media worthy.

If that is all you are asking for. I have already offered it to your group a few times.

[joshred]

I don't think it's unreasonable to block because of hypotheticals or philosophical opposition provided that you feel strongly enough about it that you'd leave the movement if it were overridden.

To clarify my point, I wouldn't criticize a block made for religious reasons.

[mikerancourt]

I think the important work happening here is that Hezzie and Ben are narrowing the issue down.
I hope this contribution doesn't distract from that too much:

Oct 24, 2011 12:55:20 GMT -5 joshred said:

I don't think it's unreasonable to block because of hypotheticals or philosophical opposition provided that you feel strongly enough about it that you'd leave the movement if it were overridden.

I don't think it matters how strongly you feel about a issue. I had to face this in the pig roast issue, being a vegan. I feel very strongly about killing animals and doing so for political rhetoric is appalling to me. I did not block because I don't think the thing I feel strongly about is relevant to the goals of the group.
This business about one of the criteria of blocking concerning whether or not you'd have to leave the group is not standard in consensus process. I think it is terrible because people seem to think it means they should leave the group if the group doesn't stand for all the things they do (think of people blocking the PR proposal at the first encampment GA over not including individual issues in what was proposed as a general statement of unity). I can only explain the "leave the group" justification in terms of group goals by saying you might have to leave because that's the moment when you discover the group isn't what you thought it was. For example, if the GA is faced with a proposal to endorse Obama in 2012, I might block it because I don't think the point of the group is to pick one side of the massively electoral machine. If it turns out everyone else in the GA thinks that's what the occupy movement is all about, I just might decide it's not the movement for me. Another example is that if we decided to switch to a majority rule direct democracy, I'd leave - not in anger - because I am only interested in the process here.

[reubenshojin]

I'd like to kite an idea, because it was given to me as feedback on Saturday's GA. The feeling of some members of that GA is that dissent that is not a block does not see direct discussion as part of the workflow, when there is a check for consensus. This leads to a situation, perhaps like what happened with the Peace Facilitation WGs proposal regarding the word "healing", where there is valid dissent, but where that dissent does not necessarily fit cleanly into the definition as presented of a block. I think we might need to look into improving facilitation skills regarding the tools available to continue discussion, and techniques for encouraging extension of the process.

Unfortunately, my work schedule means during weekdays my availability for the start of the GA, let alone meetings before the GA, is non-existent.

[Emma]

Reuben - This is a major concern of mine as well, and I'm hoping that we'll have a facilitation meeting soon where we can discuss this kind of in-depth issue. If you have ideas about meeting structure changes that could encorporate non-blocking dissent or need for discussion *without* engendering mass "let's discuss everything under the sun/aka my pet issue and mine and mine and mine" kind of field day, I would dearly love to hear about it. I'd encourage you to post a new thread in this forum to flesh this out with others, so we have something to go on as we try to figure out as a team how to work it in. It is definitely an issue.