Post by stevedtrm on Apr 5, 2016 17:50:07 GMT
impasse seperation requirements
Lets imagine we have 4 groups
group A who think its critical we remove anticorbyn elected officials now
group B who think its preferable we remove anticorbyn elected officials
group C who think its preferable we ignore the effect of elected anti cobyn officials and work on general election mobilisation
group D who think its critical we ignore the effect of elected anti corbyn officials and work on general election mobilisation now
These four groups are mostly incompatible with each other. They should discuss seperately as their plans are necessarily different. Its pretty obvious that this is the case for A and D, but B and C have some room to accomodate each other.
B and C are the special case. Ultimately, before they act, members of B and C must individally say "i am going to work on REACO" or "i am going to work on GEM" before they act, but until they do, theyre undecided and still in discussion with each other. Therefore group A , group D and groups B and C should be seperated into 3 different discussions. Groups B and C are essentially in a different single group, and that group is "we should discuss which tactic is correct now"
This is what i refer to as the "impasse seperation requirements"
That those with incompatible views of what or how to act next must be seperated.
Admins will consider, rule on, and generate an appeals process for forum seperations on request.
Steven.
Lets imagine we have 4 groups
group A who think its critical we remove anticorbyn elected officials now
group B who think its preferable we remove anticorbyn elected officials
group C who think its preferable we ignore the effect of elected anti cobyn officials and work on general election mobilisation
group D who think its critical we ignore the effect of elected anti corbyn officials and work on general election mobilisation now
These four groups are mostly incompatible with each other. They should discuss seperately as their plans are necessarily different. Its pretty obvious that this is the case for A and D, but B and C have some room to accomodate each other.
B and C are the special case. Ultimately, before they act, members of B and C must individally say "i am going to work on REACO" or "i am going to work on GEM" before they act, but until they do, theyre undecided and still in discussion with each other. Therefore group A , group D and groups B and C should be seperated into 3 different discussions. Groups B and C are essentially in a different single group, and that group is "we should discuss which tactic is correct now"
This is what i refer to as the "impasse seperation requirements"
That those with incompatible views of what or how to act next must be seperated.
Admins will consider, rule on, and generate an appeals process for forum seperations on request.
Steven.