Who does TWC belong to?

[Professor420]

Assume, for a moment, that TWC pays for itself. Any additional financial burden is shared by a group of willing citizens. The legal entity of TWC belongs to a single person, and he acts as steward/caretaker, but for all means and purposes, the site is owned by a number of shareholders.

Who does TWC belong to?

Should the administrators still have hegemony over all members? Should there be a form of administrative oversight? Would it be feasible to give all citizens a say in government? Should we let all citizens decide what is best for them and who should represent their best interest?

Assume, for a couple minutes, my above scenario is reality. Assume, for a second, you cannot fall back on the non-secular arguments of a divine entity ultimately deciding our fates (that we used consistently when ON was around and now with our new owner).

What would be standing in our way to achieve something unprecedented? What would differentiate our community from a form where democracy has already taken hold? What more barriers would need to be knocked down until we could achieve a true liberal democracy?

[imb39]

Technically me, as of about 24 hours ago. I mean the site not anything else, of course.

[Nihil]

What exactly is it that you aren't free enough to do, Prof? The current regime promises to be a pretty relaxed one, in my expectations.

Which reminds me, will there be a new ToS, now that our sinister overlords have been exiled? I'm not saying it's necessary, just wondering whether there will be any change of philosophy in that area.

[Perikles]

Which reminds me, will there be a new ToS, now that our sinister overlords have been exiled? I'm not saying it's necessary, just wondering whether there will be any change of philosophy in that area.

For the moment only the referals to ON are going to be changed in the ToS. However I would think we are open to suggestions.

[the Black Prince]

you said it yourself. the legal entity belongs to a single person. that person owns TWC

for there to be shareholders, they must own a stake in TWC, not by virtue of contribution, but by virtue of having paid for a share in it.

[imb39]

What exactly is it that you aren't free enough to do, Prof? The current regime promises to be a pretty relaxed one, in my expectations.

Which reminds me, will there be a new ToS, now that our sinister overlords have been exiled? I'm not saying it's necessary, just wondering whether there will be any change of philosophy in that area.

Ogre has given the ToS to use as we see fit. Of course this does mean it is open to be modified.

[Spartan]

For the record TWC was freely transfered to ON on the condition that it be allowed to operate autonomously and in trade for full integration into the ON network (using ads and having the ON store section -etc...) that ON would compensate the community by hosting files and supporting the community via contests and give aways with some of the profits. To the best of my knowledge this agreement was not fulfilled in good faith for whatever reasons.

Additionally I ended up (voluntarily) hosting and therefore paying the costs for many projects over the past couple years quietly while ON was making money on the ads in the forums and giving nothing back to the community. Hence my longtime negative view towards ON.

So in my opinion to have sold it at all was bogus and to have done so for more then the domain cost was just plain wrong. However that is water under the bridge now.

Anyway, I wish IMB39 all the best and will do within reason what I can to support him and his team in their efforts to keep this dynamic community alive and prosperous.

[Professor420]

Let me ask this also, is there a difference in the questions (in your opinion, of course), who owns TWC, and to whom does TWC belong to? Do they each mean the same thing or are they different?

[Fabolous]

Let me ask this also, is there a difference in the questions (in your opinion, of course), who owns TWC, and to whom does TWC belong to? Do they each mean the same thing or are they different?

I believe they are different. Imb owns TWC, but TWC belongs to the community.

[Halie Satanus]

I'd say their the same thing Imb hasn't expressed a wish to be treated any different since the take over, in fact he seems more than happy to hand as much of the running of the site over to the community as he can.

It doesn't matter who 'owns' TWC, It's not something you can hold in your hand or tear up, it's a community, a living thing, as fragile as a snowflake and as solid as concrete.

HAHAHA....What a load of flannel.

Ian is still Ian, a member of the community just the same as he was before the takeover, I don't think he grew horns or acquired wings since, So why the question??.

[imb39]

Let me ask this also, is there a difference in the questions (in your opinion, of course), who owns TWC, and to whom does TWC belong to? Do they each mean the same thing or are they different?

I think I know where this is heading, but the answers immediately above state the situation quite well.

[Professor420]

I think I know where this is heading, but the answers immediately above state the situation quite well.

Actually, I was looking for answers more from the Citizens in this thread... I'd like as many more as they are willing to give.

I know your feelings on this issue, and that of the rest of Hex... anyway, you have many other questions to answer elsewhere.

[imb39]

I shall await the responses with interest.

[Kscott]

It belongs to the great eternal.

[Tom Paine]

The community belongs to the whole community (and no, the whole community is not badged...); the site, and all that goes with it, to Ian. Simple, no?

[scottishranger]

What exactly is it that you aren't free enough to do, Prof? The current regime promises to be a pretty relaxed one, in my expectations.

Which reminds me, will there be a new ToS, now that our sinister overlords have been exiled? I'm not saying it's necessary, just wondering whether there will be any change of philosophy in that area.

I rewritten the TOS to changing the ON references to IMB39 and TWCenter. There are still possible changes being made though.

[Garbarsardar]

All your base is belong to us.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Assume, for a moment, that TWC pays for itself. Any additional financial burden is shared by a group of willing citizens. The legal entity of TWC belongs to a single person, and he acts as steward/caretaker, but for all means and purposes, the site is owned by a number of shareholders.

Who does TWC belong to?

Should the administrators still have hegemony over all members? Should there be a form of administrative oversight? Would it be feasible to give all citizens a say in government? Should we let all citizens decide what is best for them and who should represent their best interest?

Assume, for a couple minutes, my above scenario is reality. Assume, for a second, you cannot fall back on the non-secular arguments of a divine entity ultimately deciding our fates (that we used consistently when ON was around and now with our new owner).

What would be standing in our way to achieve something unprecedented? What would differentiate our community from a form where democracy has already taken hold? What more barriers would need to be knocked down until we could achieve a true liberal democracy?

How Che Guevaresque,

I spent 3 years living in 4 blocks from El Che's home in Cordoba, Argentina, and it was a large stately home... none of these humble origins so often portrayed... in fact his family owned 8 houses just in the province of Cordoba... no wonder his frustrations of guilt let him to kill people.

Anyways if we assume the above is a deviation (we dont have to)

The reality is that communes dont work... we tried the communal approach and it has always resulted in power grabbing.... instead of looking for revolution go work the soil my friend, I will be there right besides you.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

ok, serious question deserves a serious answer.....

At a simple level imb owns all the infrastructure and the URL, however, as was shown in January, this is fairly meaningless unless the community that is TWC is happy with what the owner does. The community can always vote with its feet.

At a more complex level......

There needs to be a group of people (in our case Hex) that are responsible for the running of the site. While they should always be aware of what the community wants, part of their role is giving the community what is good for it and saving the community from excesses, at least on the technological and moderating front. I like to equate them with the Police and, as such, feel they shouldn't have to worry about direct community influence (eg. elections).

The interesting side of hex though is both how do they decide what is good for the community and how (or how far) should they be accountable to the community. Traditionaly at TWC this was done by them coming from the community and therefore understanding it, and having an owner as oversight if that check failed. As we saw though, if the owner loses interest the 'police' can do what they want, and at that stage lots of unsavoury things happen ranging from people using the community to get ahead (ie. playing to the community for their own ends) to the community being blamed for all the wrongs.

So, yes, I think we will always have a need for a Hex and also need to leave Hex to get on with it without interferance.

Then comes the question of oversight, how do you provide oversight on a group of people that hold all the guns (or in Hex's case, all the admin rights). Again as we have just seen Hex can do what it likes and (short of leaving) there isn't anything the community can do. Another equally important risk is that those doing Hex roles get so hacked off with heavy handed oversight that they resign and nobody is willing to do the job.

So somehow we have to find a way in which oversight can take place without Hex feeling it is being put upon or threatened. Thats why I like the idea of having elected members of a hex-like body who sit in on all the discussions and also provide a non-staff view of the world.

Anyway, apologies if this is obvious or rambling........

[Oldgamer]

TWC belongs to Ian. The community "belongs" (note the quotation marks) to as many people who wish to participate, but the medium for the community belongs to Ian. I sincerely don't believe that Ian will turn into some sort of odious monster.

However, he could become a monster, if he wants to. Ian owns the site.

No one else will "take over" TWC. The site belongs to Ian, and I'm quite happy with his ownership of the site and his actions, so far. If this ever changes, I will not try to take over the site. I can't. I will just leave.

Imb39 will give us as much say in the operation of this site as he can, and no more. He owns the site, and has to look out for his investment.

By the way, click on the ads. Let's bring some in some income for our friend!