::For full enjoyment of this rant you may want to visualize me, jumping around, making grand gestures, swinging a rubber chicken, and raising my voice. I originally posted this over at my LJ, so appologies if your reading it twice::
YOU CAN NOT ENFORCE UNWRITTEN RULES! You can't! If it's unwritten, it isn't even a bloody RULE, it's a custom, a social mores, an ethical acceptance, and even possibly a tradition. BUT IT'S NOT A FUCKING RULE!
If you are in an organization that frowns upon people in relationships both being on the board of directors, but doesn’t have anything in the by-laws or guidelines written prohibiting such behavior, TOUGH TITTY! A fucking Mormon and all his wives could run for your board and there ain't jack schitte you can do about it, you know why?
Because it's not a RULE that's why! Of course, if you have rules against Mormons being a member, that's a whole other story... But that's not the point!
Moses though the Ten Commandments MIGHT be important enough to scribble down on some stone tablets. You know why? Because inevitably Schlomo of the Levi tribe was going to get all uppity with him and say, "Oh yea, Moshe? Where is that thou shall not crap written? Like the Almighty would trust YOU after that whole rock hitting thing!*" And that's when Moses would be like, "Aha! They are written right HERE, in stone." And then he would proceed to beat the fuck out of Schlomo with the Ten Commandments, "FEEL GODS WRATH, SCHLOMO FUCK! HAHAHA!"
*ehem*
Anyway, point being, if one of these magical mores from the mystical land of Unwritten is important enough to the survival of your organization, then you have to either trust that everyone else in the organization AGREES with you and will vote it into your by-laws (assuming it doesn't contradict law or existing bylaws). OR that the rest of the organization is wise enough to realize when a relationship MIGHT be a problem, and when it will not and vote accordingly.
Personally, I think (as if you care) that the latter is considerably more preferable to the former. Once you start regulating, you know IN WRITTING, who can serve in leadership positions based on relationships, you start down a very slippery slope. Does this mean no collared submissives can serve just in case their master is the schmuck that didn't get elected last year because of his violent temper? Does this mean someone might have to resign if two board members find, in the closeness of working together, that they are in love and want to date? Oh, and what about Ex's?!?! We know THEY are like nitro and glycerin together, so we must be sure to make a rule that ex's can't serve on the board together for the good of harmony in the organization, RIGHT?
If you can't trust the membership to vote for the best person possible, in spite of or maybe even because of their associations with others, then why even bother having open elections? Let the board appoint people to open positions and only get membership involved in a tie breaker, because after all, only the board and those closest to them know what's REALLY best for the vast membership at large. Oh, I know why organizations don't do that - because it's against the WRITTEN rules of procedure. Silly me.
Now of course, I'm not even getting into the irresponsible choices people make by putting their hats into the ring in the first place. There's no RULE about having too much on your plate and just adding another helping of torment on top of it. There's no RULE against that type of schedule overloading masochism. There's just the ETHICS of an individual running to be self aware enough to know their own strengths, limits, and hot-buttons. And there is the ETHICS of the voter to find out all they can about a candidate so they KNOW if that candidate has that level of self awareness and can cast their vote as an informed, valuable member at large. It's the Ethics of the voter to be able to put friendships aside and look at competency and ability.
If these ethics matters were 'UNWRITTEN RULES,' all the dunderheads who get their cocks in knots and clits in a wad over that "unwritten" nonsense not being followed would be the first people to jump up and shout, "Oh yeah? Show me where it's written?!?"
And then I would have to beat the shit out of them with a rubber chicken, because I'm aaaall out of Ten Commandments.
*ok, so it's been a while since Hebrew school and so the order of things might be mixed up, but you get my point anyway.
No actual rubber chickens were harmed in the writing of this rant.
YOU CAN NOT ENFORCE UNWRITTEN RULES! You can't! If it's unwritten, it isn't even a bloody RULE, it's a custom, a social mores, an ethical acceptance, and even possibly a tradition. BUT IT'S NOT A FUCKING RULE!
If you are in an organization that frowns upon people in relationships both being on the board of directors, but doesn’t have anything in the by-laws or guidelines written prohibiting such behavior, TOUGH TITTY! A fucking Mormon and all his wives could run for your board and there ain't jack schitte you can do about it, you know why?
Because it's not a RULE that's why! Of course, if you have rules against Mormons being a member, that's a whole other story... But that's not the point!
Moses though the Ten Commandments MIGHT be important enough to scribble down on some stone tablets. You know why? Because inevitably Schlomo of the Levi tribe was going to get all uppity with him and say, "Oh yea, Moshe? Where is that thou shall not crap written? Like the Almighty would trust YOU after that whole rock hitting thing!*" And that's when Moses would be like, "Aha! They are written right HERE, in stone." And then he would proceed to beat the fuck out of Schlomo with the Ten Commandments, "FEEL GODS WRATH, SCHLOMO FUCK! HAHAHA!"
*ehem*
Anyway, point being, if one of these magical mores from the mystical land of Unwritten is important enough to the survival of your organization, then you have to either trust that everyone else in the organization AGREES with you and will vote it into your by-laws (assuming it doesn't contradict law or existing bylaws). OR that the rest of the organization is wise enough to realize when a relationship MIGHT be a problem, and when it will not and vote accordingly.
Personally, I think (as if you care) that the latter is considerably more preferable to the former. Once you start regulating, you know IN WRITTING, who can serve in leadership positions based on relationships, you start down a very slippery slope. Does this mean no collared submissives can serve just in case their master is the schmuck that didn't get elected last year because of his violent temper? Does this mean someone might have to resign if two board members find, in the closeness of working together, that they are in love and want to date? Oh, and what about Ex's?!?! We know THEY are like nitro and glycerin together, so we must be sure to make a rule that ex's can't serve on the board together for the good of harmony in the organization, RIGHT?
If you can't trust the membership to vote for the best person possible, in spite of or maybe even because of their associations with others, then why even bother having open elections? Let the board appoint people to open positions and only get membership involved in a tie breaker, because after all, only the board and those closest to them know what's REALLY best for the vast membership at large. Oh, I know why organizations don't do that - because it's against the WRITTEN rules of procedure. Silly me.
Now of course, I'm not even getting into the irresponsible choices people make by putting their hats into the ring in the first place. There's no RULE about having too much on your plate and just adding another helping of torment on top of it. There's no RULE against that type of schedule overloading masochism. There's just the ETHICS of an individual running to be self aware enough to know their own strengths, limits, and hot-buttons. And there is the ETHICS of the voter to find out all they can about a candidate so they KNOW if that candidate has that level of self awareness and can cast their vote as an informed, valuable member at large. It's the Ethics of the voter to be able to put friendships aside and look at competency and ability.
If these ethics matters were 'UNWRITTEN RULES,' all the dunderheads who get their cocks in knots and clits in a wad over that "unwritten" nonsense not being followed would be the first people to jump up and shout, "Oh yeah? Show me where it's written?!?"
And then I would have to beat the shit out of them with a rubber chicken, because I'm aaaall out of Ten Commandments.
*ok, so it's been a while since Hebrew school and so the order of things might be mixed up, but you get my point anyway.
No actual rubber chickens were harmed in the writing of this rant.
posted by:
|
-
Re: Unwritten Rules
Thu, August 26, 2004 - 6:35 PMI'm having trouble locating where I saw the article, but I believe the Gilmore vs. Ashcroft "freedom to travel" case initial ruling was "it can't be unconstitutional, because it's not written down anywhere for analysis." Easily the most asinine ruling about law I've ever heard, unless it was a cop-out to send it to a higher court.
