ZS Directive 1: Civil and Respectful Co-Existence

As explained on the “Fractal Law” ZS webpage (http://fractal-law.zerostate.net), at “Level 1” – i.e. the Zero State as a whole – decisions can be made in two ways, briefly outlined below. Decisions are only made at that level when necessary to keep the peace and move ZS closer to achieving its goals. Where possible, decision-making is decentralized across the twelve Houses and the networks associated with them.

The two L1 decision modes are known as Resolution and Directive. Resolution is a committee decision made by irregular gatherings of the twelve House Leaders, which can be requested by the Houses and significant organizations within them at any time. Directive is a quicker judgement from the Teacher (House Sem-Bhu Leader), intended as a last resort to break ties and settle acrimony. All Directives and Resolutions must be congruent with the Principles of Social Futurism and ZS Constitution.


Key issues I have been made aware of are listed below, with a concise statement on each. This matter will only be reopened if further issues or complications arise (such as non-compliance with, or unforseen consequences of the directive), not because of simple differences of opinion.

Directives and resolutions are final where there has been no significant change in circumstances. All directives are intended not only as a single decision, but as a statement of precedent. In future, any request for a directive which includes points with precedent already established will simply link to earlier directives on those points.

A full list of (ZS) Social Futurist Resolutions and Directives can be found at the bottom of this page.


ZS DIRECTIVE 1: Civil and Respectful Co-Existence

Navigator Prime, Leader of House Arrakis, has requested a directive on a dispute in ZS forums over recent days, primarily between himself and the Compass, Object (deputy leader) of The Foundation (House Adhar).

Personality clash between Navigator Prime and the Compass.

Personality clashes will be inevitable as ZS develops. Although we will not encourage them, it is futile to try making people like each other or their approaches to various issues. What we can and must insist on, however, is civil cooperation and adherence to the rules of one’s House and the Principles above them. In the first instance, the people involved in such disputes need to be civil and give each other space, rather than deliberately inflaming disagreements.

Decoherence of online conversations caused by Facebook blocking.

It is a problematic consequence of social media blocking that it can make third-party conversations very hard to follow. That is an issue within ZS, where such conversations are a tool in our toolkit.

That said, we cannot compel unblocking without exceptionally good reason, particularly between members of different Houses (which are actively encouraged to develop divergent cultures). Within Houses (i.e. between members of the same House) unblocking may be compelled (upon pain of forfeiture of House membership), as long as such judgment is congruent with the House rules, particularly those stated in its Constitution.

Decoherence of conversations between Houses can be compensated for by asking third parties to update those who have been blocked.

Possible violation of the Principle of Voluntarism and Free Exit (2.1).

In what was clearly intended to be a bridge-building gesture, Navigator Prime suggested that he might allocate one of House Arrakis’ founder-member roles to a person who has recently left ZS. As an aside, that person currently has their own founding position in another House being held open indefinitely, in case they choose to return later.

The important difference between these two positions is that the person in question voluntarily adopted one role and it is merely being held in reserve for them as an option, whereas they were never in House Arrakis and this gesture came after their statement of intention to leave.

It should be noted that this is indeed a clear violation of one of our most important Principles (that all must be free to exit ZS without interference), albeit a minor infraction and one immediately withdrawn by the Navigator upon realising the implications of the gesture.

No further action is required on this issue, but it is important that we note it as a statement of precedent for ZS as a whole.

Need for comment on non-members of a House judging that House’s policies.

As ZS begins to develop, it is necessary and appropriate to discuss how the various Houses and their associated projects will proceed. Such conversations can naturally be frustrating, as we get used to the idea of simultaneous unity and diversity (of values, goals, and opinions) across ZS. As with cases of personality clash and other minor acrimony, we should not attempt to stifle constructive conversation or compel individuals without exceptional reason, in accord with our Principles.

It should be stressed, however, that as long as a House is in accord with the Principles of Social Futurism, the ZS Constitution and their own House Constitution, then no person outside the House has any formal recourse in telling it what it can or cannot do. The House is not obliged to give outsiders any kind of hearing (or indeed response) as long as Principles and rules are observed.

List of all ZS Social Futurist Resolutions & Directives:

Directives

001. Civil and Respectful Co-Existence [SEE ABOVE]
002. Individualism versus Communitarianism
003. Unity & Diversity in Communication

Resolutions

There have not yet been any Resolutions in accord with Fractal Law.

About Ámon Ásentir

Page with Comments

  1. Foundation policy statement – Regarding Directive 1 recently posted
    It is the Architect and The Foundations opinion that the issue referred to by Directive 1 starting at bullet 3 – Namely Decoherence of online conversations caused by Facebook blocking is not a relevant problem. The blocking has been helpful by lowering the conflict probability and helping people discuss each other w/o brining in that party and thus creating conflict. The Foundation actively supports the free choice to block and in this particular case encourages it and will not allow individual Foundation members to have their rights violated by being forced to unblock someone.
    On the same Directive 1 starting at bullet 12 in particular 14, as it regards the Foundation, no one outside of the Foundation will be given any voice in internal Foundation rules and policies which may or may not be in accord with Social Futurism. Further the only relevant documentation as to the constitution or founding documents of policy regarding interaction with ZS and the Array is the statement made previously on this forum (FB). No external to the Foundation document or rule is applicable to the Foundations internal or public policies or rules and will not recognize that as a parameter for Foundation rules or policies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *