[Gpca-votes] Reminder: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum

[Nicole Castor]

What's really sad is when individuals take things that are issues and try
to spin them around into "personality-based" discussions, effectively
silencing individuals' concerns.

People are entitled to discourse even when it does not align with the
majority's view or agenda. Isn't this the point of Green Party??

I had raised an issue regarding issues which came up over the last SGA
voting period. These issues directly deal w/ our pillar of Democracy and
our Key Value of Decentralization. Our internal elections should not
exclude individuals outside the centralized majority of the GPCA; the
processes should have democratic integrity.

"Good faith disagreement over issues and ideas should be honored as an
expected part this process, and not considered a disruption or impediment."

http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum

-N
On Jan 31, 2018 4:09 AM, "J HALL" <shallow60 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Good to know. This entire conversation is sad and embarrassing for a new
> member. It feels like trolls are trying to destroy the party.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Eric Brooks
> <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since we have recently been getting into an email conversation with some
> disagreement between commenters, I want to take a moment to remind all of
> the members of the GPCA-Votes list of the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum,
> which can be found at the following link:
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum
>
> **Specifically, please take note of the following clauses and please all
> follow them, so that we can have a respectful dialog.**
>
> 3. No "personality-based" discussion. Speculation or accusations about
> another's motives, thought processes, or beliefs is off-charter. A focus on
> 'issues rather than personalities' should be the participants' guiding
> light.  Personal attacks, verbal threats and/or harassment can be grounds
> for loss of subscription.
>
> 4. No misrepresentation of another's work.  Participants shall not
> misrepresent the work of others and shall make a good faith effort to be
> factually correct.
>
> 6. No insulting, disparaging, degrading, or demeaning language or any
> other ad hominem attacks. It's never necessary to label others in order to
> discuss their ideas and activities. Chronic, hurtful sarcasm, or giving
> people vengeful nicknames, or any other disrespectful treatment of fellow
> activists, is grounds for loss of subscription…
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Eric Brooks
> SGA Vote Administrator
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180131/d09847e9/attachment.html>