…

The Gathering on August 21st was aware a name for the “room” had to be chosen. That was not done.

The TOSC and other site polls were an attempt to satisfy the requirement since there are no scheduled Gatherings the rest of the year.


Yesterday signage was put up at the new room to satisfy fire requirements.

It says: Community Room.


Thanks to each of you who submitted suggestions for the community social area at the Fairway Center.

This is a great first step in the Gathering group’s efforts to revive Sun City’s sense of community. While many have expressed disappointment, did anyone expect a full blown community center to be granted?

Consider the Fairway room a proving ground, test run to gauge the need and usage to justify a potential community epicenter.

At the last Gathering, no future Gathering dates were announced. Participants were encouraged to attend all the upcoming RCSC meetings: board, exchange, special sessions, candidate forums, and town halls.

In the meantime, the soon to be named community social area is open to all members… come hangout, bring a favorite game to play, watch a favorite tv show while you knit or crochet, ask a friend to meet you there…surprise them with a homemade treat…help start a lending library.

So many possibilities TO BE!

Thanks for your participation

P.S. When you vote (your name will not post)… you WILL see the current totals!!

 

Zen Den

 

I have a question regarding the choices of names on the poll.
One of the choices to choose from is Zen Room. The offered name from a prior comment was Zen Den. I don’t see that as an option. Were there significant amounts of other people offering up the name Zen Room? I never saw that as an offered title on TOSC.
Just asking for clarification on the poll names offered.

 

When I was a college student back in the late 1960s the counter-culture folks took to using one space in the Students' Union and labeled in "The People's Lounge." The U administration responded by removing all the furniture from the room. Needless to say having to sit on the floor probably doubled the number of folks hanging out there. But I see "Peoples' Lounge" is not a choice so I picked one on the list.

 

That one took.

 

POLL CLOSED

The Gathering on August 21st was aware a name for the “room” had to be chosen. That was not done.

The TOSC and other site polls were an attempt to satisfy the requirement since there are no scheduled Gatherings the rest of the year.

Yesterday signage was put up at the new room to ❗️satisfy fire requirements. ❗️

➡️ It says: Community Room.

 

I see the post made by ct was not asked to be removed, yet it is a discussion,


Conversatio

1. No discussion on the poll.
   However as a courtesy to you, executive decision to avoid any associated drug use, den was changed to room. It was either do that or drop it from the suggested choices.
   Please remove your reply from the poll topic and vote your preference

I don’t know who the executive was that made the decision that the word “den” has a connotation to drugs, is in error. When researching the term “zen den” schools are adding these spaces for students to have a place for quiet time. There are other references to having a place for meditation and desired solitude. A “zen den” is a place where people can go and enjoy the moment in a peaceful place. To insinuate anything else is ludicrous.

When people have something to say or add to the discussion, they should not be shut down. Demanding removal of a post is not acceptable behavior in my opinion.
This is a chat board. People are allowed to speak and share information.

I will not remove my discussion items. Polls usually generate discussion, not attempt to thwart it. If it is asked for naming suggestions and they are offered, post as offered or don’t ask for input or suggestions. Maintaining the integrity of a poll is usually a paramount issue.

 

The Zen Den
The Chatterbox

Josie P, Monday at 7:46 PM

From the post unfinished details.

So a den is now associated with drugs??? LOL! A den in a home is a place to sip brandy and read a book. What about Den Mothers? Big drug users! Hmmmm, wonder if bears smoke pot before their hibernation in the den for the winter. Makes me wonder what these "leaders" think and do!

 

I'm glad there is a space, and I'm not trying to be a negative nellie but I'm not sure it's a good test case because it won't accurately reflect what a bigger, more centralized location will do. A good community space is centralized and open - Fairway is off-center, the room is not visible to a passer-by, and is a long walk from the entrance. So while, if it succeeds, then yes it is a great argument for a bigger better space. I'm just cautioning against saying it's a test case, because if it fails people will use that to say a bigger, better space won't work. I hope I'm making sense...
Overall, a positive step!

 

The same concerns i had, only mine go far beyond whether it fails or succeeds. I would also argue; what's in a name?

My point/concerns have never varied. Our community, for far too many years, has functioned in the vacuum of too few participants. As we pushed people away, power and control was centered in the hands of a few. For years, the GM decided what we needed, and as she was heading off into the sunset, the board found their footings and decided they knew best.

Plodding forward, we are slowing digging our way out of the abyss. I purposely didn't ask the group at the last "Gathering" for a name. Why? Because the idea that 12 or 13 of us should have naming rights seemed shortsighted. Much like the decision to give us a room because a handful of us whined, it just felt out of place.

The entirely of my 22 year long running debate has been as "owners" we need more of a voice. I've always longed for the RCSC to grow the circle. I know it's challenging; with 32,000 or 33,000 members, who decides? The board ultimately has to make the final decisions, but it should only come after the heavy lifting where members voices are heard.

It's why i have been a proponent of the tri-Arc Mountain View efforts. Sort it all out, listen to the stakeholders and then just get it done. We were there following the SAC exercise and then a few decided they knew better. It's the problem with asking members what they think and want, and then ignoring them. It drives members away.

Through it all, we have heard the mantra; data matters. Often times that was just cover for the board doing what they wanted.

Mountain View will be interesting. No matter what is decided, there will be unhappy members. It is simply not possible to please everyone.

Grow the damned circle, listen and then act.

It's really not all that hard.

 

DO NOT REMOVE THIS POST AS NOT BEING ON TOPIC!

My last post was removed because it was labeled as not being on topic. It was a response to Bill’s remarks about growing the circle of the community, and even stated as such. Why didn’t she go for Bill Pearson’s post about Mountainview and grow the circle? Why not go after other posters who posted on the thread with various comments?
When trying to control and manipulate the content, you are removing the voices of others with valuable information and knowledge that may be useful to the conversation. This post is relevant to the topic as it relates to prior posts on the thread, how much additional content was written, and one person’s desire to manipulate the conversation.
Started with the poll, and not allowing me to post my comments, but commending others for their comments. Then the removal of a title of the thread in the attempt to prevent others from commenting. Then I write a reply about growing the circle, which follows the discussion from Bill’s post, and you have it removed as not on topic. You cannot control the conversation and try to manipulate the outcomes without expecting repercussions. You are trying to create a narrative that I am unwell. I am fine. I am not trying to control and manipulate others by having their opinions and information removed. Rather I have a strong desire to express myself and post as I please without someone else acting as the judge and jury on what is written. Someone who feels they, alone, get to make executive “ decisions on content.
You may disagree with what I say, but you have no right to decide if it’s what you want to hear and delineate what others think and have written. No name calling here, just letting someone know that they have no right to control and direct the outcome. They are not entitled to direct the work of others, and when those being manipulated push back, retaliate by removing their voice.
You chose not to restore a name for this thread, just more manipulation of the narrative. This post is most relevant to this thread, one only needs to read the content and comments and see how it all relates. It’s very much on topic.

 

It seems to me that since the poll has been closed it should not matter who posts what, but I wonder, if the administrator of a site is or is acting for the folks who own the site then they get to do whatever they want. I do not know who owns this site or who the admins are but we are here by their mercy. Or something.

 

The owners of the site prefer to keep their distance from the day to day activities and rely on the users to kind of self monitor what is posted.
So, when a particular user decides they don’t like what you post and use the admin to remove the post, even with relevant content to the thread, it is not acceptable behavior, in my opinion.
I agree, there are times when a post needs to be removed due to the nature of the comment or content. I support this type of action. The regular content of the posts, when not inflammatory or name calling, should be allowed to stand.

 

Well I tend to agree that "it is not acceptable behavior" but that does not change the reality that "they" do have the right to remove whatever "they" do not like. I know that I am being word fussy but I got to thinking (between say 3 a.m. & 5 a.m.) about two car window stickers that I saw yesterday and they brought out the worst in my pickyness. perhaps I will post them and see what other folks think of them. It's not really a Sun City issue, but the car was in Sun City, so . . . . . . . ............

 

It doesn't work that way.

Content removal on public forums depends on whether the forum is operated by a government entity or a private company. Government-operated forums, including social media accounts, are subject to First Amendment protections, which generally prohibit deleting comments or blocking users based on their viewpoint. However, private platforms have their own terms of service that allow them to remove content like hate speech or misinformation, regardless of First Amendment protections.
On Government-Operated Forums

• Limited Public Forums:
  .
  When a government agency opens its social media page to public comments, it creates a "limited public forum".
• Viewpoint-Based Censorship is Unlawful:
  .
  Government officials cannot delete or block comments simply because they disagree with the user's opinion, even if the content is unpopular or critical of the government.
• Neutral Policies:
  .
  Government officials can remove comments but only under a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral policy. For example, they might prohibit hate speech, inciting violence, or repeated spam, as long as the policy is applied fairly to all users.

On Private Forums (e.g., Social Media Platforms)

• Terms of Service:
  Private companies that own social media platforms can set their own rules and enforce them, which may include content removal.
• Content Removal Policies:
  These platforms often remove content that violates their terms of service, such as hate speech, misinformation, pornography, or threats of violence.
• Platform Rules vs. First Amendment:
  These platform-specific rules can restrict speech that might otherwise be protected under the First Amendment.

What to do if your content is removed

• Identify the Forum Operator:
  Determine if the forum is run by a government agency or a private company.
• Review Terms of Service:
  If it's a private forum, check the platform's terms of service to see if your content violated their policies.
• Contact the Administrator:
  For government forums, contact the agency to understand their content moderation policy.
• Seek Legal Counsel:
  If you believe your content was wrongfully removed from a government forum based on your viewpoint, you may want to consult a legal professional or an organization like the ACLU.

 

Did they tell you this?

 

I can't help wondering what bill are being paid by the above posting? It's a fine to-the-point posting but . . . .. "pay the bills?"

 

1. You have reported plenty of my posts and they were removed.
2. I have a copy of what you posted and was removed if you want it.
3. What the hell is up with the ... as a title? Childish game?

 

With a little help from my friends, perhaps we can get this thread back on task. I found the title being removed odd. Once i got past that, i accepted the reality of what happened and where we are:

We now have a room where small groups can gather. We don't need to reserve it, the RCSC spent little to nothing to put it in play and they are actively promoting it. Those are all good things. I'm also fine with the name: Community Room.

See how easy this is.

 

Thank you Bil. There’s now a community space and it was given a name. Hallelujah! It all came together with the help of the RCSC based upon comments made by several members. They are listening.

Thank you Josie, I would like a copy of the removed post if possible. If not available, I understand.
Carole M