I just posted some of my favorite photos of Olympia from the past year. Here are a few samples. Enjoy!

If OlyBlog is a horrible, censoring, fascist, toxic enclave of arrogant whining hippies - why are you here?

Why would anyone choose to spend time flogging away at others? If the docents here are so wretched why on earth would you stick around?

Or is it that OlyBlog isn't all those supposedly negative things and the docents here aren't wretched and that you actually get your kicks fussing and fuming at us? Is it fun to make us jump? Does crying "censorship" make your day?

Hey, ask me some time why I'm not a docent here anymore.

And don't tell me that Rick is this or that because at this point it doesn't help the conversation at all. Eventually that is only a tactic of diversion. Reminds me of children who when called on their behavior say "But Sally did it first!". I don't care. One issue at a time. And besides, if Rick or Rob or I or whoever here is so awful, why the f*ck do you stick around?

The web is wide and wonderous. You could set up your own blog, personal or community. You don't have to be here.

If you want to play in this playground it really isn't that difficult to figure out how this playground works. One clue - if you are told to stop hitting someone, you stop hitting them. Even if you think that your action does not fit the definition of hitting. Even if you can point to other folks supposedly doing the same thing.

I'm well aware here that my words might be twisted all around. But I can't help but try.

For those of you who haven't been around long enough to see OlyBlog growing in fits and starts, it has been an uneven developmental curve. Many of the adjustments and innovations have been born of necessity, i.e., after long periods of not doing it right.

I think we're all more or less of the opinion now that none of us are perfect communicators (except Sarah, of course), and that there has to be some mechanism for checking the way people relate to each other. I've given some thought to the idea that we institute a cooling off period to folks who are having a hard time relating in a civil fashion. Here's what I got:

I suggest that we use a three-strikes system. But, in order to get a strike against you, at least three bloggers have to explicitly vote for it. Thus, for someone to be 86'd, there would have to be at least nine total votes on three separate occasions.

Let's take today's "exchange" between Tschida and Rob as an example. I suggested that Tschida needed a time out. Rob Richards, Rob Whitlock and Guglielmo agreed. Rob W.'s vote would not count, because he was a party to the conflict. However, there were three other bloggers who voted for time out, so that would have counted as a strike. Three such occurrences and Tschida would be placed "on extended leave." I suggest that we give amnesty at the beginning of every year (Jan. 1 -- a sort of bloggers Jubilee). We can have a special page where we keep track of the score.

This seems to me like a system that is fair and robust. It is fair because it gives individuals lots of feed back about their behavior before any consequences. It is robust because it depends on the participation of a number of different bloggers. I hope this will answer the concerns of those who think that docents are just waiting to boot all the people who disagree with their views.

Additions, adjustments, amendments?

Rich Nafziger, local blogger, is resigning from the city council (so says that smarty pants over at 5/17). In addition to being the fighting moderate chair of the Olympia School Board, Rich has also held several positions in the state leg.

His most recent one is a conflict of interest with his elected one. Money over service this time fellows.

He hasn't blogged about his decisision to quit the board, but we can read his greatest hits.

From immediatly after the election last year, What's Next for the Olympia School Board? (who knew it was him quiting?):

Jeff Nejedly and Lucy Gentry Meltzer were recruited and supported by school board members Russ Lehman and Bob Shirley. They argued that the board and the district were mediocre and needed a radical overhaul to get the job done.

Populist appeals only work when voters are unhappy, and it pretty clear that their campaigns failed largely because most parents and community members are pretty happy with their schools. (See my previous blog, Make the Best Better)

 And, my personal favorite, Burning Down the House (our house is burning down):

Almost every week this is the "What's on the city council's plate this week" review. I don't cover everything, so if you want the full rundown, read the packet and agenda yourself.

I remember shopping at the downtown Safeway when I was a little kid. Not my favorite place to go. Ralphs up the hill had the maple bars and the Bayview had ice cream, but apparently, the downtown Safeway had cheaper produce.

Now, it sounds pretty likely that the old Safeway will the site of the new city hall. Staff are suggesting to council to reject the old port location a few blocks north and select the Safeway site, which the city purchased in December.

From the Staff report:

Seriously this is getting out of hand. We have people getting upset over silly things, we have other people flexing their muscle and using language that is full of ultimatum. Before this gets to a point of being beyond repair I think that everyone needs to leave Olyblog alone for the weekend and breathe.

I'm heading down to the broho tonight, after I grab a coffee, please feel free to join me down there. I'm going to try my best to not speak of the blog, or even think of it, until Monday evening.

Fellow Olybloggers, what say you?

Here is the private message I got from Rob Richards earlier today:

Mike, I understand your passion, it is admirable and well aimed, but you have to cool it out. Seriously, you and Tschida are each about one mean spirited post away from receiving a suspension from OlyBlog. I'm fed up with the toxic atmosphere here. Please help by not adding to it. Rob

I might feel differently about this message if Rob did not contribute to the toxic atmosphere himself at times.  

I would be interested in others' views on this.

If that is really how you feel then I don't think OlyBlog is the place for you. We are trying to build a community that is centered on respect and is sensitive to the fact that what one person finds offensive is personal and unique to them. If Gug is offended by titles like wingnut, and vocalizes that, the proper response is to stop using it and to not make fun of him for it.
Rob Richards

I didn't want to hijack, none of us do.

Now, somebody doesn't like the terms "wingnut" and "moonbat" so we're asked not to use them. I'm cool with that. In fact I'm all for not using any derisive name. That goes for saying things like "typical Greener - typical Republican" too.

However this request for respect has been going beyond the topic of name-calling. If a person likes guns they're automatically "disrespecting" those who don't like them. A person talking about meat or leather is automatically "disrespecting" someone sensitive to Animal Rights.

I'm not trying to say that someone has no right to be vegan or anti-gun, not at all. But does their right to their opinion trump everyone elses?

I know of at least one Recovering Alcoholic who hasn't felt disrespected by all the Broho talk.