|
|
Post by Ken (INTJ) on Aug 26, 2018 16:17:13 GMT
Now that all posts have been submitted, voting begins today. You have until this Friday to vote. Over the weekend the winner will become director. That director will issue a new challenge and we will assemble a new production team for the following cycle. While that cycle is happening, we will continue to work on the problem of organization separately.
Vote for other people hierarchically: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, for each of the submissions. Do not vote for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken (INTJ) on Aug 29, 2018 22:45:47 GMT
My votes:
1st: Borges (Friday) ["science without a science czar"]. Well structured language, decisive thinking.
2nd: Aarvoll (Wednesday) ["bar-belling"] Anti-fragility, praxis, incentive structures, a "winners blog."
3rd: Flimp (Tuesday) ["function, location, authority"] Focused on sticking to essentials of meta-analysis without getting distracted.
4th: Napoleoff (Sunday) ["International Baccalaureate"]. Breadth and depth of knowledge incorporated, but "having not given the subject of organizational structure any thought before this week."
5th: Westernman (Saturday) ["Skelling Michael"] Good historical context, however "has not endeavoured to research organisational structures in depth in the past."
|
|
|
|
Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Aug 30, 2018 15:13:12 GMT
I could use some clarity here. I thought I saw in one of the posts whether or not only contributors that were assigned a day were eligible to vote or if it was all members. Since six days were assigned, would a non-contributing member (if they can vote) select six?
|
|
|
|
Post by borges on Aug 30, 2018 16:18:43 GMT
1st: Aarvoll
2nd: Admin/Ken
3rd: Flimp
4th: Westernman
5th: Napoleoff
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Aug 30, 2018 23:55:04 GMT
1st: Aarvoll (Wednesday) - The most well-integrated set of ideas: de-emphasis on fragile theory in favor of anti-fragile praxis and expansion using bar-belling, always-timely suggestions for maintaining interest and sociality, somewhat abstruse prose in places but coherent and actually means something once you get into it unlike Erich Fromm who was a very special white person: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm2nd: Admin/Ken (Monday) - Well presented, profound articulation of far-off telos of creating a new religious metaphysical structure to correct (reverse) demographic trends, idea of Svalbard readiness, direction production evaluation selection and speciation good strategy for quality control and expansion, precisely articulated very good and simple voting and ranking system concept which demands upkeep of production to retain ranking. 3rd: Flimp (Tuesday) - Good proposal to create meta-analytical understanding which could potentially result in a very flexible and adjustable organizational structure, good proposal for the next round vote system and the next project (namely for us to do case studies to find similarities between organizational structures), could bring us one step closer to a potential unified theory of organization as speculated by aarvoll. 4th: Borges (Friday) - Well-presented idea for practical problem-solving structure based on very flexible ad-hoc expertise-and-reputation-based post-bureaucratic structure. Good suggested resolutions namely: 1: adopt Ken's voting model and 2: Accept the goal of this organization as creating a functioning online academy and other attendant aspects of community. 5th: Westernman (Saturday) - Good proposal to find a way to increase members' identification with the organization, good Spengler-post reminding us that we are in an epoch of rationalism skepticism liberalism nihilism and apathy but like all epochs it will pass so we should not be deterred by the pervasive awfulness of our own age but should stay our course in the faith that it will pass and that there is a new religious dawn coming eventually and we have the unique opportunity to shape it for the better. Monastic arks and culture dishes and the amazing things that can be achieved by small groups of dedicated patient men who don't lose perspective on their own situation and times e.g. Skellig Michael and Iona. |
|
|
|
Post by flimp (INTJ) on Aug 31, 2018 2:52:10 GMT
1) Aarvoll
2) Ken
3) borges
4) napoleoff
5) westernman
|
|
|
|
Post by Westernman (INTP) on Aug 31, 2018 10:11:46 GMT
1) Ken
2) Aarvoll
3) Napoleoff
4) Borges
5) Flimp
|
|
|
|
Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Aug 31, 2018 17:09:18 GMT
1) Admin- His voting system is universally considered to be an improvement and it can be implemented without issue.
2) Flimp- A good start toward a general theory of organization, despite having little time for preparation Flimp sought out a quality source and extracted a high level principle that we can easily apply to our project.
3) Borges- This was the best formatted post imo and had several good ideas, though I couldn’t easily envisage the exact details of implementation. I’m interested in the post-bureaucratic system and the resolution system, and think this post would have been my #1 if the specifics of implementation had been made clear to me.
4) Napoleoff- Excellent notes on goals and setting priorities in light of those goals.
5) Westernman- Several interesting points, and a nice overview of where the dissident right has come. Enjoyable reading, though the discursive flow left me considering broad questions without narrowing down into application.
I evaluated the posts based on how easily they could be converted into next steps, Ken’s voting system is a no brainer and even one solid suggestion like that per cycle will quickly result in a productive dialectic. Flimp’s principles were high level, but transparent enough that they can easily effect decision making. Borges’ post was very concrete, but I couldn’t see exactly how we apply his points this coming round. Napoleoff’s high level goal oriented thinking was narrow enough in scope that it can easily be called to mind as an overarching purpose. Westernman’s writing was dense with good ideas and interesting commentary but meandered enough that I would have a hard time extracting the gist of it. As a side note, my own post had a similar flaw to Westernman’s so I will bear that in mind going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken (INTJ) on Sept 18, 2018 2:17:15 GMT
Quick calculations:
Aarvoll: 4 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 4 = 23/25
Ken: 4 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 5 = 22/25
Borges: 5 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 = 15/25
Flimp: 3 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 4 = 14/25
Napoleonoff: 2 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 10/25
Westernman: 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6/25
|
|
