Tuesday, November 26, 2024
5128: About the Use of Time Outs and the Value of Our Differences from Lincoln County Watch
By Anna Von Reitz
Here I am explaining --again--- the process of how time-outs are to be used and NOT used:
Marshals
at Arms are required to speak to each individual and explain precisely
what they are doing that is disruptive, and then place them on an
appropriate first-time-offender time out, of perhaps a week. If the
same person continues the same behavior, the Marshals at Arms may have
to address them again, explain (again) what they are doing and why that
is disruptive, and give them a second, longer time out to think about it
and change their behavior. A second time out might be for a two week
or one month period, and so on. Each time the individual repeats their
bad behavior, the time outs get longer.
Time
outs are most typically applied for "brawling" and "drunk and
disorderly" behaviors --- people who can't refrain from coming to our
meetings and taking them over with their complaints and anger over their
personal issues --- usually while under the influence, but not always.
Refusal
to use the agenda process and follow the agenda, chronic refusal to
limit one's comments to the allotted time each speaker has, swearing and
name-calling in public, malicious physical behaviors at public meetings
(slapping, ear-boxing, etc.), refusal to take issues to the appropriate
committee once advised to do so, and similar things that detract from
the ability of the group as a whole to maintain a positive focus and
conduct business in an orderly way can all be grounds for a time out.
What
time outs can't be used for --- includes political differences,
differences of opinion, censorship, bringing up unpopular issues,
"strong statements" which are not to the level of mud-slinging and
name-calling in public, and where the agenda allows for it, public
debate. Americans are free to disagree and our Assemblies are free to
be forums for dissenting ideas, because at the end of the day, the group
as a whole is seeking consensus and a well-rounded view of the topics
under discussion.
We
don't WANT to quell opposing opinions, because we want to consider all
possibilities before making important decisions as a group. Even if
what someone brings forward is illogical or wrong-headed in the logical
sense, or even immoral --- have the courage to face ideas contrary to
your own, and consider them for what they are--- someone else's opinion,
to which they have a right, no matter how much you may disagree.
Individual
opinions are not sacrosanct and don't reflect on the group and the
expression of contrary opinions is not a "danger" to anyone nor is it
grounds for a time out.
The
past five years have shown that in addition to leaving us woefully
ignorant, our Public Fool System has left us without basic social and
communication skills that used to be commonplace.
People
routinely "take things personally" when they shouldn't, they routinely
feel constrained and suppressed and don't express themselves fully or
coherently because they are afraid and unaccustomed to doing so, and
people no longer appear to know the difference between public and
private forums, so they say and do things that are inappropriate in a
group setting.
Helping
our members grow and better understand the impersonal nature of debate,
improving their communication skills and ability to communicate, and
developing a sense of how people conduct themselves "in public" is all
part of what should be a gentle and encouraging guidance from the
Assembly as a whole.
Always
remember that we want and need to hear opposing ideas in order to know
that we are making the right choices. Just as a penniless beggar offers
us the chance to be charitable, opposing ideas offer us the chance to
review our own logic and see things from a different point of view.
We
may or may not change our minds, but we will have gone through the
process of reviewing data and perception --- and that is what leads to
integrity. When people consider all the possible angles and come to a
consensual decision, they know where they stand on an issue and they
know why. This gives their whole decision-making process integrity.
When
you are operating as the Government of an entire State of the Union,
you want that kind of integrity to go into every decision-making process
and result.
You
want the whole process of discussion to flow forward in an even-handed
and reasonably impersonal way, so that the facts and the pros and cons
can be considered without a lot of emotion clouding our view.
Total
consensus on every issue isn't possible, so we all have to learn to
"agree to disagree" and at a certain point, realize that the group has
considered our opinion and made other decisions. That's okay. That's
the way it is, and the way it has always been. We have all had the
experience of "I told you so" ---and we just have to accept that there
is a certain amount of that no matter what we do.
Sometimes
you're the bug, and sometimes you are the windshield in public
discussion forums. Sometimes people hear and respond to your urgent
concerns and sometimes they don't hear you and it works out to
everyone's detriment. As groups and as individuals we all make mistakes
and we all pay dearly when we do. Our best insurance against making
mistakes is hearing everyone and really listening to pick out the merit
in what they say.
From
the standpoint of the speaker, the trick is to learn how (and having
the courage) to present your ideas to the group in an open,
easy-to-understand way that isn't confrontational.
That
way, the group gains the benefit of hearing a different view, whether
they ultimately agree or not, and you have brought forward your insight
and put it on the table. Realize that in the rough and tumble of public
debate, leaders often rise to prominence --- not because their ideas
were popular, but because they were later proven right.
Our
goal as Assemblies is to provide a safe, open, and fair-handed forum
where issues can be passionately but peacefully debated, where group
consensus can be sought and hopefully realized, and where the integrity
of the decision-making process is upheld.
----------------------------
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
How do we use your donations? Find out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment