Note: The Hexbear People's Committee is an RPG/LARP and has no bearing on anything outside of being a "Model UN" style simulation of a political party.
Voting on HPC Resolution 001-1 isn't closed yet, but it looks like it will pass, so in the interest of "getting this show on the road" I'm going to open discussion on the initial topics from the "schedule" section of that resolution. If there is a last second wave of "Don't Pass" votes, this will all be deleted and the revolutionary cause will be dead.
It passed yay!
I think it's best to focus on roles over the resolution process, but the two are intertwined so there is discussion to be had on both. Hopefully we can get these section drafted into a Resolution as soon as tomorrow to be put for a vote.
A side-topic is to nominate names for the Party that we should start considering.
Subscriptions
@LiberalSocialist , @Grimble , @FuckItNewName , @ssjmarx , @jabrd , @raven , @WIIHAPPYFEW , @knifestealingcrow , @moondog , @Coolkidbozzy , @solaranus , @Morbid
I've taken the liberty of adding some people from the previous threads who seemed interested in participating,
please reply to this comment orDM me in order to subscribe/unsubscribe to future threads as desired.If there is a last second wave of “Don’t Pass” votes, this will all be deleted and the revolutionary cause will be dead.
Not at all, Comrade. That would simply mean the reactionary causes have infiltrated our ranks and we must purge the “No” voters and/or take the movement underground while we build up proper support.
The good news is that reactionary causes have failed to derail us, and Committee Resolution 001-1 has passed, so we officially exist as a committee now.
I'll say that as a leader I would likely get purged for for not doing enough to effectively resist counter-revolution. I think we are fortunate enough to exist in an overall sympathetic political environment so it will hopefully never come to that, but it's something that the rest of the Committee should keep in mind going forward.
Name Discussion
Let's contain discussion about the Party name to replies under this comment.
First off, what's our adjective? Hexbearian? Hexbearite? Hexbearic? We'd probably have a good jumping off point for names from there.
People's Posting Bureau
replied to the wrong comment. motion still stands
My opinion is that we hold on to this one until we are able to create some sort of propaganda department lol
I'm not opposed to diverging from the "Hexbear" terminology altogether, but it obviously makes sense to stick with it and go with "Hexbear People's Party" or something as well.
A question I asked myself when naming the Committee: "People's" or "Peoples'"
People’s is grammatically correct but Ngl your comment gave me low key anxiety and I had to double check lol
I think technically they're both grammatically correct, but the implication is different for each one. People's probably makes the most sense though
Some thoughts on roles:
Roles
- I think that any Hexbear.net account is allowed to vote on a resolution.
- I think that there should be a minimal amount of roles, since there's a good chance it ends up being like 5 of us messing around, but if people get interested over time and we have a bunch of participants to organize, we can add roles as needed.
- Not sure if there should be a "member" role which would allow a person to not just vote, but to propose a resolution. It's definitely an open question of "who is able to draft and propose Party resolutions?". Maybe there could be a dual "Resolution" and "Referendum" process where a Referendum is more direct?
- I'm 50/50 on whether there should be a "Party Chair", it probably doesn't make sense for our needs since the position would surely be pretty weak anyway. We could do something ceremonial so that there's something to fight about ig, might make it interesting.
- A "Secretary" position should be established and eventually filled by someone interested in documenting the game using git or a wiki or something, but I don't think there would be a need for the position to be filled at the earliest stages.
Process
- I'm a fan of STAR voting when applicable https://www.starvoting.org/
- Leadership/titled positions can be revoked by a vote of no confidence. Not sure if it should be simple majority or what.
- Members (if such a thing exists) can be purged by a 60-40 vote?(70-30??)
I think that any Hexbear.net account is allowed to vote on a resolution.
Of course, but there should be an added exception - if we suspect infiltration by non-Hexbear actors, there should be a process for identifying and eliminating these people. Maybe that can be properly worded later, with just a sentence noting the possibility for now.
Such as the possibility of the creation in the future of an Electoral Police, made itself of volunteers, of course, so as to prevent the creation of a potential subversive/oppressive authority.
Point 2 is taken.
It’s definitely an open question of “who is able to draft and propose Party resolutions?”.
I DISAGREE.
Anyone should be able to propose resolutions! The more power directly to the people, the better. Our task should be to come up with a proper procedure to streamline this process. Maybe there can be a Committee where people first propose potential resolutions. The Proposition Committee members collect and analyse the potential propositions and combine/merge them as is needed, maybe in a process that involves the original drafters.
whether there should be a “Party Chair”
Of course, the Party Chair is as important a position as the General Secretary of Hexbear and the Chief of the Army of Admins and Mods. The Party Chair should be someone appointed by them in addition to being approved by Party members/ Hexbear citizens.
This leads me to an additional point - currently the People’s Committee has few members, which isn’t the biggest issue. But upon the creation of the Hexbear People’s Party, the vanguard of Hexbear, I believe every Hexbear citizen should be automatically made a Party member.
A “Secretary” position should be established
A People’s Committee Secretary tasked with collecting and recording all Committee resolutions etc. would be a great idea.
STAR voting
Maybe there can be a Committee discussion on the merits of different voting systems.
No Confidence vote for leadership positions sounds good.
I read your post, and I would be interested to see how you would envision a set of roles and positions. Comrade @Grimble and I seem to agree that we should keep the set of titles pretty slim to start out with, but we could provision them early on and leave them unfilled until a certain point in the future. I do think that for our purposes simpler is going to be better. I think we want to keep Party business accessible to our comrades who want to drop in and participate in the occasional discussion, and too much bureaucracy and process could stifle that.
I believe every Hexbear citizen should be automatically made a Party member.
This seems broad, and I think we would need to define that more in depth. Is everyone with a Hexbear account granted citizenship AND membership status? Is it only true initially, or are future accounts granted citizenship and membership as well? Who will manage membership records and how?
i have my own thoughts on some of these, but I think that the logistics are what can really kill us.
I think that the logistics are what can really kill us.
Same here, comrade. The main reason this party is exciting to me is it feels like a chance to work through that in as many scenarios as possible. At the end of the day, in the real world, we do whatever works and it all comes back to which of our weaknesses the feds and other unfriendly parties decide to exploit.
We communists are often constantly on edge while working together, because history has made us hyper-aware that anything from an unnecessary meeting to an off-color comment can spiral into chaos, even violence, if exploited. But I'm confident that if everyone makes constant efforts to keep a clear head and resolve internal issues peacefully, the threat posed by fed/police infiltration is significantly dulled. Our real project ends with millions acting collectively, but it always starts within, through self-discipline and cooperation.
Another guideline to follow is always prioritizing meetings, referendums, or other group activities by importance to a movement's goals. We can make a point to save the least consequential decisions for last. That way instigators (lumping feds and difficult party members together here) struggle more to talk us into wasting time. I keep thinking back to that 1940s OSS manual for sabotaging this type of organization (if anyone knows + has it consider dropping a link!), and how many of the tactics listed are just ways to deliberately exaggerate or prey on the genuinely useful urge to carefully consider and fine-tune our actions.
That perspective has made me more confident about dealing with bullshit - COINTELPRO isn't some paradox or unsolvable riddle, it's just a fucking scam run by absurdly powerful scam artists. They can be caught off guard and outsmarted just like the poor bastards in those Scam Caller EXPOSED videos posted everywhere, just with more care and precision. The entire trick, played over and over, is just exploiting the flaws we are MOST AFRAID TO ACKNOWLEDGE, and the LEAST FLEXIBLE TO CHANGE. THAT is whats been tearing us apart this whole time. I'm far from the first to realize this, but I hope someone can learn something from hearing it stated. So in order to bypass that, we must be able to address ANYTHING calmly, carefully, and rationally. If the reader of this remembers one thing, make sure its that.
I definitely understand your mindset as we work through this, Comrade @Grimble, party infiltration and wrecking were things that Comrade @LiberalSocialist discussed in both of your most recent replies. From my perspective, I think it's worth taking a step back and examining the conditions under which the Party will exist:
In contrast to many of the movements of the past which might inspire us, our small online territory is nearly unanimously neutral or friendly to our cause. The Hexbearians (??) are relatively content to be under the leadership of the "benevolent council" (aka "admins"), and it seems to be working out so far. It is key to acknowledge that the rulers of our environment are not in opposition to our Party as they are in so many other places (whether historically, current, online or offline). How fortunate this is for us! I can only imagine that security forces of the BC (mods) would clear out explicit expressions of reactionary sentiment during a Party vote or discussion for us, would they not?
My inspiration for leading the effort to create this party is not that there are reactionary elements on Hexbear that must be defeated (certainly "quelled" to the extent that they may exist, but it's already a nominally communist website/territory). I think that it's time to give ourselves a voice! Let's experiment with the democratic process to bring our humble territory of Hexbear.net to something more than a simple shitposting corner of the internet!
That is a brilliant observation, comrade. I agree wholeheartedly. Let us let the Benevolent Council and their security enforcers deal with reactionary forces for the time being, while we gather allies and resources.
For roles and positions I think it makes sense to add them as necessary rather than creating a bunch that remain unfilled OR a few people having multiple positions. The first is bad for morale, the latter is authoritarian.
For the Hexbear v Party member:
IMO, the less division between the People and the Party the better. The way I envision it, we could make every citizen (represented by an Account) a member provided they meet certain criteria - the account is a week old, is not a throwaway, and the person isn’t a wrecker (which, I admit, is hard to judge). That way, all members (and essentially all true citizens) would have voting rights and be able to draft propositions.
For identifying Wreckers I’d suggested an “Electoral Police” whose mandate can include going through the (public) messages of accounts that have been brought up as “sus” to determine if we need to take away membership (before submitting the account to the Army of Admins and Mods to be dealt with in a proper manner).
For everyone else - A Proposition/Draft Committee can handle the task of hearing various proposals and combining/merging them as is needed to prepare them for a proper vote before all members of the Party.
For roles and positions I think it makes sense to add them as necessary
I think this is a core point that the three of us involved in the discussion (so far, others please contribute) agree on. Everything else you said is relevant, but could be postponed for future discussions or resolutions. I think that we need to figure out what is absolutely necessary (perhaps even "no positions, only process") to get this started. If we can get something minimal bootstrapped, participation in the Party will likely increase. Maybe we should orient more toward process, and the roles (if any) will reveal themselves in that discussion.
I guess I have three questions for you, Comrade @Grimble , and any other participants in committee discussions (as a reminder, anyone with an account is welcome to participate) :
- What should the process be for drafting a referendum? (open to discussing terms besides "referendum" too)
- What should be the process for voting on a referendum that has been drafted?
- Are there any leadership roles that are absolutely necessary to the process?
I am thinking that as long as the process allows for editing the process, everything will be ok once we get going. Both you and Comrade @Grimble appear to have understandable concerns about protecting the integrity of the process, which I will discuss in a reply below.
One thing I want to focus on is additional participation. I think the initial two posts (the idea and the first proposal) got higher participation is that they were in the biggest comm - r/chapotraphouse. But this thread was in c/ttrpg, which is basically dead. Literally all the comments are just us three, except for some people who wanted "in" on the discussions so they said "me too" to subscribing.
So, by continuing the discussions in this thread, no new people were exposed to this idea, nor were the people who showed interest updated whenever we responded to each other.
One idea I have is to make new posts in c/ttrpg periodically, tagging everyone who's shown interest. Maybe it can summarize the discussion so far and encourage people to comment.
Absolutely agree, I originated this concept myself, but I don't want to put it on rails toward anything in particular, so I wanted to see how this initial discussion thread would evolve. My feeling is that some people are less interested in these initial stages and we'll pick up some momentum once we incorporate the "Party", and start telling our story.
Part of this is a balance between spamming the site with our own niche activity (which will tick off the BC), and posting to generate activity. Hopefully the three of us can draft a Resolution that people can discuss. Easier for people to dogpile a draft Resolution that may have issues than it is to create one, which should generate some participation. I've been tied up with some offline stuff this week, but I may have time tonight or tomorrow morning to write something up that we can put to a vote, if reading this wants to do the same based on the comments in this discussion post, they're more than welcome (post it in this thread so we can review it before putting it to a vote).
Maybe we should orient more toward process, and the roles (if any) will reveal themselves in that discussion.
I agree with this.
What should the process be for drafting a referendum? (open to discussing terms besides “referendum” too)
Do you mean strictly "referendum" here, as is understood to be "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision."
Any person who wishes to put up a proposition/rule etc. for a referendum by the general Hexbear populace can appear before the Committee (via a post) and say "I wish to have a referendum on x topic." Then, we help them draft the proper question/proposal etc. and put it up to a vote (via a post).
What should be the process for voting on a referendum that has been drafted?
I'd suggest a post, much like the original resolution .
Are there any leadership roles that are absolutely necessary to the process?
Probably not, at this stage. As long as you, the Chairman, and the rest of the Committee members can help properly format the proposal, then that's all that's needed at this stage.
Do you mean strictly “referendum” here, as is understood to be “a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.”
Sorry I crossed "Resolution" (which would be through internal party process) vs "Referendum" (like you said, an electorate driven process). I think there's a place for both processes to exist in parallel.
Like with many topics, we can start with a "Resolution" process, and later pass a Resolution that establishes a "Referendum" process.
for a referendum by the general Hexbear populace can appear before the Committee (via a post)
The Committee will dissolve once the Party is incorporated, its only purpose is to create the Party. I am thinking that for a "Referendum" there is a petitioning process (a draft of the Referendum must get "x" upvotes to be put to a vote, but what is x?).
I'm in agreement with your last two responses. I do want to distinguish between "Chair of the Committee" (me) and "Chair of the Party" (voted on later, may be me, but I'd love to see it be someone else). I was leaning toward the role of the Chair to primarily be formatting Resolutions/Proposals and putting them up for a vote based on the decided process. The Chair has no veto power and is duty-bound to follow the democratic process, but then you get into the technical details about how to hold a vote of no-confidence outside of their purview. Maybe that's taking it a layer too deep.
I think that any Hexbear.net account is allowed to vote on a resolution.
Absolutely agree. It could even be encouraged in a relatively non-annoying way. Or we could just blast it in everyone's faces :back-to-me-shining: :vuvuzela:
I think that there should be a minimal amount of roles, since there’s a good chance it ends up being like 5 of us messing around, but if people get interested over time and we have a bunch of participants to organize, we can add roles as needed.
Definitely, this is important and imo often overlooked. Everyone has a limit to how much information they can process, which is why so many organizing efforts get bogged down with policy. I think any opportunity should be taken to streamline the role system, i.e. merging small/redundant positions, exchanging roles with more willing/capable comrades, etc.
Not sure if there should be a “member” role which would allow a person to not just vote, but to propose a resolution. It’s definitely an open question of “who is able to draft and propose Party resolutions?”. Maybe there could be a dual “Resolution” and “Referendum” process where a Referendum is more direct?
Interesting idea. I def agree that there could be different types of voting for different circumstances, but that questions still open for now
I’m 50/50 on whether there should be a “Party Chair”, it probably doesn’t make sense for our needs since the position would surely be pretty weak anyway. We could do something ceremonial so that there’s something to fight about ig, might make it interesting.
Tbh thats worth considering. I'm thinking like a position of general oversight, acting mostly as a supervisor who takes note of certain things and/or makes sure everything's in order?
A “Secretary” position should be established and eventually filled by someone interested in documenting the game using git or a wiki or something, but I don’t think there would be a need for the position to be filled at the earliest stages.
Absolutely. I've been pretty vocal about us analyzing how this RP plays out for genuine, shareable organizing insights. At the very least, some data which could be posted somewhere for other leftists to interpret.
I’m a fan of STAR voting when applicable
Seems interesting. I'll have to read more on that soon.
Leadership/titled positions can be revoked by a vote of no confidence. Not sure if it should be simple majority or what.
TBH I wanna say that any position the majority votes to be revoked should definitely be revoked without question. So I second that idea.
Members (if such a thing exists) can be purged by a 60-40 vote?(70-30??)
Would probably apply the same logic to this, although it might be best to wait until "members" are defined fully to elaborate.
I've come up with a draft resolution, here is the way I see things:
I think that it would be ideal for the Committee to detail structure and processes and bylaws as closely as possible in advance, but I think it's going to be easier and more effective to keep it incredibly slim and build things out once the Party is incorporated. Let's throw down a basic Resolution process so that we can get some people having fun with it. Those of us who want to get in on dialing in the process can do so, and anyone who wants to debate a resolution pledging allegiance to Putin out of pure contrarianism can do that at the same time without waiting for us to figure it all out beforehand.
So, Resolutions are the foundation of the party and will represent the voice of all Party members. The primary goal of the resolution process is to represent the voice of the membership as closely as possible. They are intended to be powerful enough to rewrite the resolution process itself in the future, as the Party matures to suit its electorate. We can add other democratic mechanisms as we desire (or less democratic, if we decide to do so democratically).
We can have a Chair position. Their purpose is to properly format and post resolutions, and document the outcomes of the votes. That's it unless the Party passes resolutions expanding their powers or creating new positions. We should use STAR voting unless somebody is strongly against doing that.
The term of the Chair can be extended by up to one month by a "Vote of Confidence" resolution passed within 5 days of their term expiring. A "Vote of No Confidence" Resolution will trigger the immediate termination of the sitting Chair, and a new election will take place. A Vote of No Confidence must name an interim Chair whose sole responsibility is to facilitate a free and fair election of the replacement.
Resolutions must be drafted in the Party's "General Discussion" thread in c/ttrpg. A drafted resolution that receives more than 5 Party Members who reply to the with the phrase !#Pass in them must be put to a vote by the Chair. The Chair will post the resolution as a thread in c/ttrpg, and make a root voting comment, followed by three subcomments: "Pass", "Don't Pass", and "Abstain". The subcomment that gets the most votes determines the outcome.
@Grimble @LiberalSocialist please see my draft below and the parent comment for context (not sure if I could ping you with an edit). Others welcome to give feedback, as always.
Party Chair
- The Party chair is primarily responsible for facilitating votes on resolutions, and documenting the outcomes of votes.
Selecting the Chair
- An election nomination and discussion thread will be posted in c/ttrpg.
- Any Party member may nominate themselves, or another Party member in a root comment in that thread.
- The top two nominees, plus anyone who received more than 10 upvotes on their nomination will take part in the election.
- The election facilitator will be the sitting chair. If the position is vacant, the nominees must decide on a facilitator with a majority vote.
- The election facilitator will conduct a STAR election of all nominees.
Chair rules
- The incoming chair must declare their term, the maximum of which is 90 days.
- The incoming chair must always be a Party member. If membership status is revoked, so is their position as chair.
- The chair's term can be extended by up to one month by a "Vote of Confidence" resolution.
- The chair's term can be terminated immediately by a "Vote of No Confidence" resolution. A Vote of No Confidence must name an interim Chair/election facilitator.
Chair responsibilities
- The chair must facilitate the Resolution process as described in this document below.
- The chair must facilitate elections and transitions of power as stated in the "Selecting the Chair" section above.
- The chair must document the outcome of resolution votes. This can be done in any manner on c/ttrpg.
Party Resolutions
Thread definitions
- Resolutions are drafted and nominated in party discussion thread posted to c/ttrpg by the chair.
- If a party discussion thread is over three weeks old, or has over 1000 comments, the chair must post a new one.
- Resolutions can also be drafted and nominated in draft resolution threads that are less than three weeks old. The chair may choose to post a draft resolution thread for better organization of discussion, but it is not required.
- Only Party members can draft resolutions.
- A draft resolution must be put to a vote if nominated by at least 5 Party members.
- A reply to a draft resolution containing the phrase !#Pass is considered a nomination.
Resolution votes
- A voting thread for a resolution will be posted by the chair to c/ttrpg.
- The chair will post a "voting" root comment in the thread with three subcomments: "Pass", "Don't Pass", and "Abstain".
- The subcomment that receives the most votes determines the outcome.
ToDos
The committee still has to figure out these things, but I don't want to get bogged down in them quite yet:
- Code of Conduct (can just rely on the site CoC for the most part)
- Resolution format
This is very well thought out, comrade. It is clear to anyone that you have put in a lot of thought into this and the rest of of the Committee thanks you for it.
