Donald,
Definitely noted sir. :)
I can understand the frustration at times when the "unwritten rules" come to be used against someone.
> I might not be the best person to talk about this,
> but here goes. As
> far as I know, Henry has tried very hard to find
> every documented rule
> he can and to follow those rules. A large portion
> of our issues come
> from these "unwritten rules." Hopefully, this
> ordeal will encourage
> one of two things: those rules no longer being
> enforced OR those rules
> actually being written down and widely distributed.
> (After passing
> all necessary processes to be recognized as official
> rules.) Either
> one would lead to stabler situations in the future.
> This has long
> been an issue in the Cam and saying "well, this is
> how it's been done
> and that's a fact" solves very little and, in some
> ways, adds fuel to
> the fire.
I can see your point. But at what point does writing
rules down stop and human judgment begin? To try to
write down every single rule... every single action
would go far beyond the limitations of any one person.
For example, the Internal Revenue Code. If you are an
accountant, you know how hard this code can be when
you add in the regulations that are mixed in. Then
after that, you have to add in court cases that set
precedent to go against the Treasury Regulations. As
you may also know, that same code has a number of
loopholes if you know how to use them. Not to mention,
a recent law signed by the president has added even
more complexity to the rules. Now, why did I bring
this up? Simple... to try to show a point about how
too many written rules can be deterimental. The
Internal Revenue Code (IRC Code) is about 2 books in
length and the Regulations are another 4 books in
length. And even then... not all the rules are
covered... and have had rulings made by letter rulings
from the IRS. The letter rulings are the "unwritten
rules" for the IRS to the taxpayer. I know it seems
like an odd comparison but it is the easiest one for
me to explain. The Camarilla has a much smaller list
of rules than say the IRS. But, if we were to put in
writing, every single rule, and allow for every single
circumstance, our rules would be as long as, if not
longer than, the internal revenue code, the treasury
regulations, and the IRS letter rulings combined...
leaving no room for judgment by people. Unwritten
rules are confusing... I agree... but not everything
can be made into a written rule... simply because then
you have to write into that rule extenuating
circumstances, and then you have to define what those
terms mean. At that point, it makes the rules
unworkable.
> Against appearances, Henry is actually relatively
> new to the club.
> How can you fault someone who tries so hard to
> understand "the rules"
> for being less than pleased when those rules are
> incomplete and the
> ones that he doesn't know, and can't know because
> they aren't
> recorded, are used to his significant disadvantage?
> Heck, I've been
> here almost eight years and I can't keep up with all
> these guidelines
> and psuedo-rules. I'm not trying to prove that
> we're right, I'm just
> trying to get you to understand where we're coming
> from. I wasn't at
> the instant-meeting-just-add-water, so maybe you
> already know all
> this. Maybe you don't. Maybe you need to hear it
> again. *shrug*
I'm definitely not faulting Henry at all for his
statements here... in no way. :)
I am merely telling him what I know from my experiences as an ANC as well as from the things that I know.
I am also aware you were not at the meeting.
I think I have a pretty fair idea where you are coming from... note I think. :)
> > > 2) The Domain is about to enter Black status
> >
> > While you may have time. I would not suggest
> trying to utilize it in that
> > fashion. As I pointed out to people on Saturday
> and vice versa, the
> > *perception* of that action would appear as if the
> domain were trying to
> > work against the rules and their spirit. This also
> has the appearance that
> > the domain is trying to work against regional.
> Now, while that might not be
> > the case. the appearance would be there. In many
> cases, perception becomes
> > reality. I do my very best to keep perception from
> becoming my reality. I
> > would hope though, that you, as a domain would not
> do something that others
> > would perceive as what I said a sentence ago.
>
> I don't think I understand what you're getting at.
> Many, or maybe
> just some especially loud, members of the Domain
> have voted None of
> the Above as a protest. We're following the rules,
> as far as we know
> them, to the letter. Yes, the spirit is being
> denied but that's
> because we feel wronged. Actually... wait, no, the
> spirit is to have
> the DST we want, and that's precisely what we're
> trying to do. I'll
> give you that we're not playing nice, but we're
> legally allowed to do
> this and, from our perspective, we are /defending/
> the spirit of the
> rules. We maintain that the spirit of the rules,
> general propriety,
> and a vague sense of democratic determinism mandate
> our actions. Not
> that I speak for the Domain at large, but I do speak
> for at least
> myself and since this opinion is completely opposite
> the one you have
> presented I felt you should be made aware of it.
*nods* I can see your point there Don. :)
I know that at the meeting, we discussed the semantics of the rules and only vaguely touched on the spirit. I do recall a statement being made that the spirit of the rules was not enforcable... but that was in reference to in court. This is something that I notice that does bother me a bit... and please do not see this as me trying to be mean here but I would ask you to look at it this way... in one case a member will argue for the spirit of the rules (such as to have Jason put back into position)... but then another member will say that the spirit is irrelevant. My problem with this is that it seems like at one moment, the spirit is used to get what one wants... but the moment it doesn't, the spirit must be discarded. It seems like a double-standard. Now I am not saying that you said anything like this Don... but it is something that was brought up in the meeting. My point here is... either the spirit of the rules is taken into account or it isn't. It shouldn't be applied only when it benefits and then discarded when it doesn't. Again... this is not me being mean or anything... merely pointing out an observation of something that was brought up at the meeting.
As for the rest of this paragraph... I can see your points Don... and they do make sense. I would ask though that you take a step back for a second and see it from this light. You may not agree but I will merely ask that you consider this...
Let's say a primary coordinator is removed from power and no one is put into their place immediately. Do you realize that technically, that unit could be closed? The primary coordinator position is a required position of any organization unit in the camarilla. For example, a chapter loses it's coordinator. Under technicalics, that chapter could be closed for not having a CC simply because it is a required position of the unit. Now, does that happen? In the 4 1/2 years I have been around, no unit has been closed *immediately* after a coordinator has been removed. An interim either is placed in or it is given time. Units have been closed for prolonged time without a coordinator... but usually not immediately. To abide by the physical rules would say to close the unit immediately... but the spirit of the rules says to keep the unit open. Now let's apply this to the domain here. The DST, while not written saying it is required, is implied by multiple sections of the MH. There has been no DST for a couple months now. Technically, if the rules were being followed as written, a required position being vacant could result in the immediate closure of the domain. Is that being done? No. The spirit of the rules is being used to keep the domain open. Now if an extended period of time elapses, then it has to be considered because even the spirit of the rules can only be defended so far. I'm not trying to use this as some sort of scare tactic... so please do not interpret what I am saying as such. I am trying to show that we are working with our interpretation of the spirit of the rules.
> > I hope this clarifies things a bit.
>
> It does give us a better perspective on what
> "everyone else" is
> thinking. However, it also reinforces an on-going
> complaint we have
> about unwritten rules. I hope this comes out as
> diplomatic as I
> intended it (a quick re-read tells me that it
> didn't, but I can't
> think of a better way to come at it) because I, at
> least, want to see
> this all calm and polite, but I want to be sure that
> you (Jed)
> understand our (or at least my) perspective and
> since I couldn't make
> the meeting this is the best medium left to me.
I did see this as calm and diplomatic. Keep in mind
that I do my absolute best to avoid a "perceived tone"
in email. I do understand your perspective here Don
and I truly appreciate you being willing to let me
know your thoughts. :)
Unwritten rules do make things harder... but like I said... to try to put every single rule into writing would be not only a monumental task... but also next to completely unenforcable because there would be next to no one who would be able to have a truly firm grasp of all of the rules. This is what brings me back to at what point do the written rules stop and rulings on the spirit of the rules begin? :)
I hope I am not coming off as argumentative... I'm not trying to. Just remember everybody, please do not take a perceived tone from my emails... understand I write each one calmly and peacefully. :)
Sincerely,
Jed Stancato
US2002021727
East Central Regional Coordinator
"If I could reach up & hold a star for everytime you've made me smile, the entire evening sky would be in the palm of my hand." - Misty Bownds