Tuesday, September 1, 2009

NCI's policy on volunteer and staff group associations

NCI's current standing policy. Not in my own words:


It has been decided that NCI will continue its tradition of being inclusive and of dealing with individuals on a case-by-case basis. NCI is not the SL police department, nor do we have authority over the internet or real life. We have authority only on our land.

Membership in NCI's "official" ranks will be handled in the same way that we handle everything in what we do: case by case. Person by person. Groups are comprised of individuals. We will not carry a prejudice toward groups as a whole, we will deal person by person. This is how we help: person by person. One at a time evaluating their needs, and acting accordingly. This is how we hire: Person by person. One at a time, evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, character and behaviour. This is the way of NCI.

NCI hires from *within* the ranks. That means that you have to have been helping freely for some time before you are ever invited to become a helper by someone who has long experience in dealing with newbies and the many character types that come though our very public space. We watch, observe, listen, and learn. We assess their temperament, skills, communication style and overall attitudes and behaviour. If an individual is proposed as a potential helper by a current Land Officer, we consult, deliberate then finally make a decision en group.

One cannot apply to NCI for a position; people are invited, based on long experience and first hand observation of the individual. People who grief, simply don't make it to the ranks. Griefing is counter to NCI culture. An individual who has been observed, recorded or strongly evidenced to be a griefer will simply not be invited, regardless of what group zie may or may not belong to. This has the added advantage of weeding out bad apples regardless of the group they belong to.

It's long been NCI's policy and culture to deal with the individual, rather than by group. It's my understanding that the policy was stated as if an individual belong to a known griefer group they may not simultaneously occupy an official position at NCI. You may play and hang out with us, but not be a helper, LO or BoD. They either leave NCI or the other group. Some felt that was in conflict with dealing with people one by one, case by case, as well as being a less effective strategy for keeping our lands peaceful and our membership secure. Some of our officers/helpers/regulars also associate with some Woodbury members. This brought it from a theoretical issue, to a practical one.



Dale Innis said...

Gets a little non-parsing toward the end there :) but yay for dealing with people as people, not as groups.

Dale Innis said...

(oh wait, I get it. :) These are some excerpts from the answers in the document that you linked to. Makes (even) more sense nao.)

Imnotgoing Sideways said...

Yeah... It was my vain attempt at a summary without actually editing the text... The post behind the link is the best source for information. (^_^)

Boneless and Skinless said...

hi immy
this is good news
about parsing, just have the pronouns agree rather than switching from YOU to THEY

YOU may play and hang out with us, but not be a helper, LO or BoD. THEY

but more importantly, this seems like a return to reason. is carl coming back?

Imnotgoing Sideways said...

I think Carl had intended to retire from NCI for quite a while. I don't have personal confirmation of this, but, he's been wanting to free himself from the responsibility of managing the group. Same as Tateru, who has announced her retirement as such. (^_^)

So, returning? At the moment, I think no. (>_<)

quiteoh said...

Any inconsistency in the expression of these policies are mine. I admit that I moved as quickly as I could so that we could help clarify NCI's current status. When I have the time, I'll go over it for grammatical consistency.

As for Carl, he's left the NCI groups, and if he has any intention of returning, he is probably the only one who can answer that question authoritatively.