More questions for MEG

[Tom Wall]

Amanda wrote:
I wouldn't think any "weighting" or other measures are necessary,
personally.

Tom:
Naturally you "personally" wouldn't. 

For precisely the same reasons that Autonomy "personally" baffles 
you. 

Because you are *in* the majority, Amanda. For such a smart lady, 
I'm amazed that you can overlook the obvious discrepancy between the 
high-minded "fairness" that MEG believes it exhibits, and the 
subsequent – and obviously completely contradictory - maneuvers that 
have been made earlier this year, and again recently in MEG's 
successful seizing of authority on FAQ.

However, I think that someday, when you are *not* in the majority, 
then I'd be more inclined to accept your perspective on this matter 
as possibly objective. As it stands now, you just proved my point in 
your attempt to stifle the very *discussion* as to whether or not we 
could expect the overlap members to be fair. 

You challenged the very *validity* of the question. Is any more 
proof needed?
 
The people who seized power in April – the very same people who have 
power now – are *hardly* in a position to express anything 
like "fairness" to those of us who have no leg to stand on when it 
comes to decision making. And they're hardly in a position to expect 
the non-MEG members to believe that fairness is MEG's goal, when 
since earlier this year, MEG has acted only for its own benefit. In 
fact, a quite compelling case could be – and is being – written to 
explain precisely how MEG's selfish-motivations for self-government 
were the direct cause of the sloppy handling of OoP.

In short, MEG's selfish motivations for self-government were acted 
upon at the *direct* expense of the greater HPfGU community. 

Who benefited from your rebellion earlier this year? *You* did. Not 
HPfGU. In fact, there are zero indications to suggest that the 
present regime is any better than the previous one, and several 
indications to suggest that things are quite a bit worse.
 
So, since for the time-being over half of the members of FAQ are 
currently the very same ones attempting to answer the questions that 
Cindy and I have posed – except they're doing it on a separate list, 
a list on which the rest of us are not welcome - and since for the 
time being the rest of the members of FAQ are completely in the dark 
regarding the majority's decision-making process, you'll have to 
afford me the merest shred of slack when I display a perfectly 
acceptable – and even healthy, given MEG's recent consolidation of 
authority on FAQ to *only* MEG members (and Heidi) - skepticism 
regarding the *assumed* equity that MEG members quite likely do 
perceive in this policy making process.

Because quite normally people who are motivated by power – even 
those who are blatantly so - don't see themselves as such.

For instance, Professor Umbridge doesn't *see* herself as a power-
monger. She thinks – in fact, quite ardently asserts - that what 
she's doing is best for both Hogwarts and the Ministry. I have no 
doubt in my mind that she's very serious. In fact, she seems to 
quite emphatically believe that what she's doing is the *right* - 
indeed, the *rightest* - thing to do.

Yet obviously, what she's doing is wrong, and the delicious and 
complicated irony is that neither she, nor Fudge, can see that what 
they're doing is hurting everyone. They can't see it because they're 
the ones making the decisions, and they believe that they're 
properly motivated.

I thought you would've figured that out by now.


Amanda:
This political MEG/nonMEG distinction that you are considering a
foregone conclusion, is not something that I, at least, had ever
perceived as existing here, prior to all this governance stuff.

Tom:
Well, perhaps that's because until now, no overlap FAQ/MEG members 
had ever so blatantly instituted a clampdown on the non-MEG members 
on FAQ.

And given the clampdown that *you* "personally" instituted via 
your `executive decision' (the definition of which is still being 
figured out by over half of our membership on a separate list to 
which we're not invited, in a conversation which we're not allowed 
to participate in until *after* the majority has made up its mind), 
you'll have to forgive my questioning of the overlap members' 
motivations.

Again, given that you've been around here for so much longer than I 
have – and that you're also older than me and might be counted upon 
to demonstrate a greater understanding of human corruption and its 
varying attendant complexities - I figured you would have picked up 
on this a lot sooner.


Amanda:
The assumption that this list had, has, or will have some sort
of "party system" happening, that there are "voting blocks" along
MEG/nonMEG lines, is not one that I personally consider valid. I
didn't hand over my identity or ability to think for myself when I
became a MEG.

Tom:
So, let's stop for a moment.

What you're basically expecting me – and the other non-MEG members - 
to accept here is that after the majority of FAQ members make their 
policy decisions over on MEG, and then report back to FAQ to Let Us 
Know How It's Going To Be, that these *very* same people will then 
be able to look at their decisions with a degree of objectivity. 

You're expecting us non-MEG members to believe that you'll make 
decisions over on MEG, and then come back to FAQ and "fairly" 
discuss - and even be willing to overturn – your own decisions.

Forgive me if I exhibit disbelief.

This assertion is not historically supported by the veteran members 
of MEG's – I am discounting the latest round of additions, because 
IMHO they are not yet corrupted by the events that occurred earlier 
in 2003 - past or present actions. 

And therefore, I find it incredibly unlikely that an ability to 
objectively review their own actions will suddenly emerge in MEG's 
future perspective.


Amanda:
There are clearly some things that need to be worked out between the
two groups, but this political-party, majority/minority, subgroup
identity approach is not something I had ever perceived, nor do I
believe fostering it helps anything.

Tom:
You quite clearly don't perceive it as a problem because you're *in* 
the majority.

And you likely don't think that fostering it is a good idea because 
it will mean that the majority's actions can be called into question 
by non-majority members.

Amanda, don't you see that the mere fact that you're objecting to 
the distinction I have drawn is enough to make my point obvious to 
anyone who is not currently in the majority group? 

It amazes me that you can't see that your objections to the Very 
Question Itself constitute – in effect – the best smoking gun that 
could exist. They are more effective for proving my point than 
anything I could construe argumentatively.

Thanks for weighing in,
Tom