NASA and institutionalised risk

[Luis Garcia]

Why are so many of the admins and mods here ex-IIDB stalwarts?

[ravenscape]

Because a bunch of us got together after a blow up at Heathen Hub and planned this place. And that bunch engaged in some judicious headhunting.

At this point, I think we should commence discussing how future staff members will be nominated and chosen. We want it to be in the spirit of a republic, where member input is part of the process.

[Luis Garcia]

So, staff at forum A work together, place blows up. Staff move to forum B, place blows up. Staff get together and decide that they should run a forum, and set up forum C?

And no one is worried?



ETA this is not a personal attack on anyone. Check the thread title.

[ravenscape]

I think it's a valid concern, and it's the reason why we want members to have a means to initiate a recall vote on staff members if needed. It's also the reason why we want the selection of future staff members to have member input.

Also, not all TR staff were also staff at HH or at IIDB. However, most of us did get a good gander at specifically what went wrong in the governance of both sites. We can't guarantee that we won't find a new and innovative way to screw up, but we're trying very hard to make it impossible to screw up in the manners we witnessed elsewhere.

[Luis Garcia]

the reason why we want members to have a means to initiate a recall vote on staff members if needed.

But this is rather my point. It's not a question of whether any individual staff is adequate at their job, but a question of the mix of, and of the institutionalisation of, the group.

[ravenscape]

What do you suggest?

[Luis Garcia]

Would it be fair to say that people were approached on the basis of previous agreements, shared experience and shared values?

[ravenscape]

Shared experience and respect, I'd say. Values maybe to some extent, though I don't think we're working off identical values. No previous agreements.

[Jet Black]

the reason why we want members to have a means to initiate a recall vote on staff members if needed.

But this is rather my point. It's not a question of whether any individual staff is adequate at their job, but a question of the mix of, and of the institutionalisation of, the group.


The biggest problem at IIDB was that we had to enforce something that we often didn't want to, and we were unable to enact any change because that had to go via the BoD, and they had their own ideas about what IIDB should be, even though most of them don't post in it. The only way to do things there was principally through underhand methods... like letting people break overly anal rules in E/C. Here we can change what we want and we are.

You mention institutionalization, but it's worth pointing out that much of the problem at IIDB was system failure and within that, flawed power distribution. Things we are intentionally trying to avoid. There are inevitably going to be problems... the biggest I can see so far is posters' history with one another, but I don't think the things that caused the blowup at IIDB are even possible here.

[Luis Garcia]

What do you suggest?

How about limited terms of office?

[ravenscape]

That's an interesting idea, and it does fit in with the republic motif.

Are you thinking of a set number of months or years after which the staff member no longer is elegible to serve? A fixed term after which the staff member must "run for office" again? Something else?

Do you think the forum would be likely to have a fairly steady supply of people willing to learn the technical ropes, make the time commitment, etc.?

[RBH]

That's an interesting idea, and it does fit in with the republic motif.

Are you thinking of a set number of months or years after which the staff member no longer is elegible to serve? A fixed term after which the staff member must "run for office" again? Something else?

Do you think the forum would be likely to have a fairly steady supply of people willing to learn the technical ropes, make the time commitment, etc.?A potential problem with term limits is that it throws away institutional memory. It also eats people. There are relatively few suitable volunteers for staff jobs, even knowing one can resign at will. ("Suitable" means people with the requisite temperament, demonstrated judgment, commitment to the goals of the board, and willingness to put in the time and effort required.) In the salad days of IIDB, before the BoD's oppression became apparent, there weren't enough volunteers and we had to actively recruit people for moderating. Many -- the majority of those approached -- turned it down.

While Luis is correct in observing that many of us have worked on board staff together elsewhere, it is largely on account of what we learned elsewhere that we agreed to work on staff here -- in order to help TR avoid the systemic mistakes made there. We think TR is a noteworthy enterprise and worth the (occasional) aggravation of being volunteer staff.

[mac_philo]

The best way to do it would be neither making someone totally ineligible, nor simply forcing them to run for office again. I think the former goes overboard, whereas the latter doesn't go far enough, as it is just a confidence/no confidence vote.

Maybe there should be a term limit and then a set period during which your account must be demoted to "mere user" status, with no authority over policy and no access to the private forums. This will mitigate against the culture of privacy and confidentiality, of a ruling clique, and the inculcation of an "us" and "them" mindset between members and staff. There should just be a "we", with some persons temporarily serving as staff.

This could prevent a culture from developing where the staff deigns to ask the community for input---the community and staff should be the same thing. It would help resolve both the institutional risk and the noxious culture that easily results from people getting a little too comfortable in their staff positions.

Perhaps after 18 months of duty you automatically have to take a 6 months hiatus, then you can run for office again. These are just preliminary figures.

Now, pretty much the whole staff showed up here at the same time in a mass migration. To ward off any worries about losing too many people with technical competence we can come up with some system to arbitrarily stagger the initial periods for current staff, so not all the admins and mods rotate out at the same time.

[Luis Garcia]

That's an interesting idea, and it does fit in with the republic motif.

Are you thinking of a set number of months or years after which the staff member no longer is elegible to serve? A fixed term after which the staff member must "run for office" again? Something else?

Do you think the forum would be likely to have a fairly steady supply of people willing to learn the technical ropes, make the time commitment, etc.?

I'm thinking more that someone could only be on staff at any level for at most 18 months out of 24, or something. Forcing everyone to be one of us ordinaries for six months every so often could stop a build up of "us vs them".

I may be mistaken but I think it was umop who said on RnR that it was only once he stepped down as IIDB admin and lost access to the MCR and ACR and couldn't see the behind the scenes stuff that he started appreciating what the "us vs them" complaints were about.

That would also stop worries about losing experience or failing to replace, because once the six months is up they could come back, or it would allow chance for some new blood.

[Luis Garcia]

exactly what I said.
...

[RBH]

I may be mistaken but I think it was umop who said on RnR that it was only once he stepped down as IIDB admin and lost access to the MCR and ACR and couldn't see the behind the scenes stuff that he started appreciating what the "us vs them" complaints were about.That was Jet Black, and he's correct. That's a disadvantage of long-serving staff.

[Jobar]

Term limits... maybe. Or maybe there should be a system where recalling a particular admin would require a smaller and smaller percentage of forum regulars as time went on. IOW, for the first year, it would take a vote of 50% of regulars to bring about removal from office. For the second year, 40%; for the third, 30%; and if it gets to the point where only ten percent could bring about a recall, well, obviously the official in question is doing a good job!

Luis, as an II regular who wasn't a part of the staff in the past three years, IMO the blowup that happened there wasn't the fault of any of the people here. It was a systemic screwup, and the people who are most responsible for it are still at II. Basically, those people tried to run a board of free thinkers in an autocratic way, and most of us wouldn't stand for it.

(I wonder if some political science major could write a doctoral thesis on the similarities between the power structures of virtual organizations like this board, and RL ones, like national governments, corporations, etc.? )

[David B]

If there were time limits, it would have, I think, to be instituted on some sort of rolling system, where some people in office at or near start up (the whole thing is less than a month old) would have to serve longer than others.

Else, the whole admin and mod core would be leaving within a month of each other.

Not good for continuity of vision or practise!

My view, though, is that we see how it goes, and, if it ain't found to be broke, it don't need fixing.

There will be turnover in the normal course of events.

People will have greater real life commitments, and bow out, and others take their place.

If we continue to grow, even though there are more chiefs per indian than ideal now, at some point recruitment will be necessary.

David B

[Luis Garcia]

In light of the epic PD thread, I thought I'd bump this.

The IIDB blow up was sparked by stoppers ban, and became terminal because of the reaction of ToM and the BoD, but the fuel was already there. Seeing as it took so long for so many to realise it wasn't about Stopper, how many have considered what the fuel was?

My version of this proposal is that one third of mods and admins step down for a six month staggered period each 18 months. They have no access to any of the private fora or mod capabilities for that six months. My idea is that the staff in question would simply be reappointed after 6 months unless there is a no confidence vote or they wish to stand down permanently.

The idea is simply that it will remind staff periodically of what it's like watching decisions made with incomplete information, and it will undermine any staff vs users barriers.

Some points; There are plenty of mods and admins here, so I'm pretty sure the place would still function.

This is not a punishment thing, so rejecting it on the basis that "there are already means to recall a mod" is missing the point. Further, any member of staff who feels it is a punishment thing should ask if the fact that they see the removal of mod rights and "demotion" to prole as a punishment makes them suitable.

It is interesting, to me, that the responses to the idea that I've seen have been "Good idea" from non-staff and "not necessary" from staff.

[Wordy]

Luis, I don't always agree with you but I think you take up something important here. But RBH has good argue ment too.

("Suitable" means people with the requisite temperament, demonstrated judgment, commitment to the goals of the board, and willingness to put in the time and effort required.)

we have too few of them to chose among so from a practical perspective we could go from ashes into wild fire destroying the board. A new TOM could easily take over if one need to resign a needed person just because her or his time has gone out formally.

What I agree with is that to be Mod and Admin is not as easy as the regulars among them seems to think. They only see it from their own perspective. They feel ok with what they do.

Some of us not inside of it all are not so sure. But it is a hard job.

I've spent 6 hours yesterday and 4 hours today and I am exhausted already and I am not even a Mod. Just to follow two threads with PD in is too much.
I fail to catch up the pace is too fast. We worn out the Mods.

[Luis Garcia]

But it is a hard job.


I don't doubt it. So a holiday and a chance to enjoy the forum as a regular member now and again should be welcomed, don't you think?

[DMB]

I think it's a great idea Luis. Give everyone a break when they are in danger of getting stale. And let them see things from the other side of the fence. I also think that since there wouldn't be a limit on the number of terms served, we would not be in too much danger of losing valuable staff knowledge and talent. I actually think it might encourage more people to be ready to serve, if they knew it would be for a limited term.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I also agree with Luis, but I am hesitant to say it, because the reaction of some poster is to automatically disagree with whatever I say.

[Wordy]

Haha, I agree with you PD, surprise.

[DMB]

I also agree with Luis, but I am hesitant to say it, because the reaction of some poster is to automatically disagree with whatever I say.

Shhh! Your paranoia is showing!

[mac_philo]

This is a terrific idea and is absolutely simple to structure such that there will always be a sufficient number of very experienced staff on duty.

What better structural solution to IIDB's staff/member schisms than to guarantee that we all spend time as mere members?

IIDB had more than one serious problem. The recall measure resolves only the dictator problem, and this would help solve the structural problems between the staff and community.

None of this has anything to do with the quality of particular staff. The issue is structural, not personal.

[Garnet]

I like rotating staff a helluva lot better than term limits. That way we won't lose experienced staff permanently. Just for a hiatus. I think it would be good to for staff to regain perspective.

[Alethias]

What about Term Limits for admins only? Admins selected from the Mod Ranks. After something like 1 or 2 years as an admin, the expiring admin steps down as an admin and is not eligible for any staff position for at least 6 months. At that point they become eligible to be a mod. Mods would need to be on staff for at least six months before being eligible to be admins.

This would put a years separation between potential admin terms. It would institutionalize rotation at the top level of leadership, while keeping experienced people in moderator positions that aren't necessarily hungry for power. This would also require infusion of new blood into the team of Mods, since they'd be losing mods to the admin group.

We'd also need to set it up so that admin changeovers are staggered so we don't lose a lot of experience all at once. I don't think we want a forced turnover of all admins 2 years from now. What about phasing in the change 18 months from now, with a changeover of 1 admin per month, until all potential term limits are dealt with?

I kinda like the idea of term limits, but don't want it to be implemented in such a way that is destructive to TR.

[Luis Garcia]

What about Term Limits for admins only?

Why?

A concrete example of why I think it should be mods too;

When iidebacle first kicked off, a huge wave of initial complaints were about threads being split, locked and hidden without anyone telling the membership what was going on.

We mostly assumed all the mods knew what was happening but it was all sooper secrit treehouse stuff. It was only after a couple of days that word came out that no one knew what was going on.

We assumed that because we were just so used to things being treehoused. We'd spent however long steeped in a culture where that was routine. But from the mods POV, all the treehouse stuff is boring and routine, so we ought to have realised they didn't know either.

So if they get a holiday every so often, they'll get reminded of how things look from outside. Think of it as a holiday, rather than a demotion or anything punitive or anything else. (Again, "enforced loss of mod abilities = demotion" is still the same ii culture people are soaked in)

The rest of your post (of admins going back through being a mod again) I think is a very good idea, and for exactly the same logic as I'm using about {mods and admins} vs members. I'd definitely go for that.

[Jet Black]

interesting idea. Forced not-being-a-mod/admin every now and again. We'd need the numbers to cope.

[Wordy]

I support that both Mods and Admin need free time now and then. They could still be welcome back when they see things from our point of view. From outside the inevitable inside culture that is most likely second nature to most humans.

I acted like that for the better part of my adult life as a young male. Being male I thought women not as good as we on things logical. I was wrong. It is an individual thing and not male vs female.

I still have the not political correct view that woman are a bit better in general to feel empathy and to show it but such is very individual too. some men are very good at it and some women completely failing to feel anything re others.

But statistically they are trained to care about others.

But basically me is an pessimist. The IIDB experience seems to not have had the great impact some of us hope it would. Maybe being mod and admin change brain patterns?

Athlets get muscles? Could doing modding kind of change the brain in a long lasting way?

[Luis Garcia]

So, forgive me for not knowing, but is there a mechanism for getting this idea accepted as an official proposal? Or do we just have to hope some passing mod likes it as much as the rest of us who have posted?

[Octavia]

Will a passing admin do? :p

I like the idea - and there are times when I could certainly use a break. Of course I can't implement it all on my lonesome, but I certainly think it's something we should be discussing. Luis, it might take a few days before we can focus properly on this (we're a bit busy at present, with several hundred other inter-related problems!). Are you prepared to wait? I give you my word that I won't let it slip through the cracks...

[Luis Garcia]

Are you prepared to wait? I give you my word that I won't let it slip through the cracks...

Now that I have this, and now that you and Jet Black, at least, seem to be getting the point, sure, I'll be as patient as you like. There's no rush.

Thanks Octavia, much appreciated.

[Octavia]

It's purely selfish. If this passes, I plan to do a runner about exam time. :D

;)

[Quizalufagus]

I like this idea. It's good for staff to occasionally remember that they're regular members, too.

[RBH]

I like this idea. It's good for staff to occasionally remember that they're regular members, too.It's also useful to remember that many of us are registered on other boards where we are (gasp!) mere users. TR is not the only game in town.

[Pavlov's Dog]

interesting idea. Forced not-being-a-mod/admin every now and again. We'd need the numbers to cope.

I think you guys got the numbers.

[Quizalufagus]

It's also useful to remember that many of us are registered on other boards where we are (gasp!) mere users. TR is not the only game in town.

Surely not. There's something to be said about seeing the way staff decisions one has personally helped to make play out from the other side, though.

[RBH]

It's also useful to remember that many of us are registered on other boards where we are (gasp!) mere users. TR is not the only game in town.Surely not. There's something to be said about seeing the way staff decisions one has personally helped to make play out from the other side, though.Oh, I don't doubt that. But it is worth remembering that we are staff members only here, not all over the web.

[Arctish]

I support that both Mods and Admin need free time now and then. They could still be welcome back when they see things from our point of view. From outside the inevitable inside culture that is most likely second nature to most humans.

I acted like that for the better part of my adult life as a young male. Being male I thought women not as good as we on things logical. I was wrong. It is an individual thing and not male vs female.

I still have the not political correct view that woman are a bit better in general to feel empathy and to show it but such is very individual too. some men are very good at it and some women completely failing to feel anything re others.

But statistically they are trained to care about others.

But basically me is an pessimist. The IIDB experience seems to not have had the great impact some of us hope it would. Maybe being mod and admin change brain patterns?

Athlets get muscles? Could doing modding kind of change the brain in a long lasting way?

I don't think it changes the brain so much as it changes the way people read and respond in forums. Casually looking over a few threads or focusing on an interesting discussion is a different experience from reading every post in every thread and keeping watch for storms brewing.

As disappointing as the IIDB meltdown was for me personally, I nevertheless felt happily footloose and fancy free once I resigned as a mod. No more obligations, no more drama, just a stroll through RnR or HH or RP whenever I felt like it. Some days I didn't even log onto my computer at all. Ah, bliss! :)

I have no problem with rotating mods in and out to encourage fresh perspectives in the Staff forum, avoid the development of an us-vs.-them mentality, and to decrease the staff burnout rate. As long as we have adequate coverage and not too many rookies at any one time the planned rotation of staff would probably strengthen the community we are trying to build.

[Octavia]

I don't think it changes the brain so much as it changes the way people read and respond in forums. Casually looking over a few threads or focusing on an interesting discussion is a different experience from reading every post in every thread and keeping watch for storms brewing.

As disappointing as the IIDB meltdown was for me personally, I nevertheless felt happily footloose and fancy free once I resigned as a mod. No more obligations, no more drama, just a stroll through RnR or HH or RP whenever I felt like it. Some days I didn't even log onto my computer at all. Ah, bliss! :)

I have no problem with rotating mods in and out to encourage fresh perspectives in the Staff forum, avoid the development of an us-vs.-them mentality, and to decrease the staff burnout rate. As long as we have adequate coverage and not too many rookies at any one time the planned rotation of staff would probably strengthen the community we are trying to build.

Quoted for truth!

I turned 'em down twice here before buckling and coming on as yet another admin. I've no problem with mandatory or voluntary breaks from reponsibility. In fact, they'd be welcome.

I generally (outside the netdrama, which I loathe with the white hot hate of a thousand suns) enjoy doing the basic "text monkey" stuff (mac_philo has a great term for it) which keeps the forum going. It's rewarding to know that you're helping to build something for others to enjoy. And teamwork is just plain fun, when you're with a group that shares your goals. But I have to be honest... sometimes it can get a bit much. Too many complaints to answer, too many hours stuck at the computer instead of outside in the sunshine (such sunshine as Dunedin has, anyway). And that can make mods grumpy. It does foster the "us versus them" I think, although it's not the staff versus the posters, but the staff versus the perceived problem posters that is the "us versus them" that gets entrenched.

Having breaks would allow time to unwind, and connect with the forum again on a different level and with a new perspective. To come back with a renewed level of enthusiasm for the work.

[Febble]

I also agree with Luis, but I am hesitant to say it, because the reaction of some poster is to automatically disagree with whatever I say.

I agree with you PD.

[Jet Black]

I also agree with Luis, but I am hesitant to say it, because the reaction of some poster is to automatically disagree with whatever I say.

I agree with you PD.

http://xenafan.com/movies/ghostbusters/crossed.jpg

[RexT]

I'm certainly for voluntary rotation, not so sure about forced rotation. What if I've been working pretty hard, paying my dues, dealing with problems and so on, and it gets to a point where things begin to smooth out and I'm finally enjoying my position and feeling good about things, only to be told, "time to step down buddy"? I wouldn't want to step down but I wouldn't have any choice. That could cause some resentment.

Your point about seeing things from the other side assumes we haven't. Speaking for myself, I've always only seen things from the regular members side, so I know pretty much everything about that perspective, which is why I personally want to create something here that won't become oppressive to regular members.

As someone above said, we are just a month old at this point. And someone else mentioned (Octavia, I think) that we have a few hundred other pressing problems. Try to keep in mind that TR is still just an idea at this point, which is just barely beginning to form. We haven't put together all the nuts and bolts and add to this difficulty, we don't really have a set of blueprints to go by. Just some painful past experiences we're working to avoid repeating.

We need time Luis. But if I have any ability to help here, it is my personal intentions to build a forum that can hear suggestions like yours and act on them if they are rational ideas. Your idea seems rational to me, but the timing is not so good. Let us finish building TR and getting it on its feet, and if you or someone is still interested in this or any other rational idea, I hope you will present it and I hope TR will listen.

[Oolon Colluphid]

So, staff at forum A work together, place blows up. Staff move to forum B, place blows up. Staff get together and decide that they should run a forum, and set up forum C?

And no one is worried?
Those places blew up because of circumstances beyond these people's control, as you should well know. Hence a place where those people have control, precisely to avoid such things in future. They know what the other places' flaws were, and we are trying to make sure those flaws at least are avoided.

Other flaws may show up. Probably will. Maybe there is no perfect way to run a board. Best we can do is use past experience to inform the future. And who better to do that than those most closely involved but powerless, and so most badly burned by the explosions? The Admins here want to avoid these problems as much if not more than anyone else.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I also agree with Luis, but I am hesitant to say it, because the reaction of some poster is to automatically disagree with whatever I say.

I agree with you PD.
Me too.

The only thing I'd worry about with the 18 month / 6 month idea is the lengths of time (I know they were just ballparks but still). People come and go on boards. Just because some of us have hung around for so long doesn't mean everyone does. A couple of names from the past, now long absent, spring to mind: Doubting Didymus and Pantera.

In light of my own experience of how fast one gets to see the 'us' side of 'them and us' once not on staff, I'd say just a few weeks is all the holiday staff need. Maybe more regularly, and perhaps with automatic reappointment unless there's strong objection.

Perhaps 5 months on, 1 month off. A shorter, sharper rolling programme may be easier to handle too, perhaps not requiring a much bigger pool of 'talent' than we've already got -- it'd be almost as if the person were just off on real holiday for a while.

[RexT]

Seriously, who takes one month vacations? I want that job. : )

[Wordy]

What Oolon suggested? If we have enough people to fill in the month those active now. Sadly me is not good at doing mod so I will say no if asked to volunteer. :)

I'm too alien too. I would maybe act even more disruptively than PD do now cause I hate all the splitting off and moving around and locking threads and Calm down, chill off, Cool it, dial back suggestions from mods.

It is another thing if somebody like the OP says. Hey folks could we get back to my OP tpic, this is too much derail for me to feel ok. And do we really need to tel leach others how stupid the other is? Let's talk about the issue now and not what we think of the others active in the thread.

Such is better than an Admin jumping in telling unspecified persons to cool down.

What if all involved felt very cool and relaxed? If they really need to interfere at all they have to address exactly whom said what where and what could be said instead that is proper.

Like "Wordy, could you be less wordy. Too much to read. Write short like me do here. Ok! " :)

[Oolon Colluphid]

What Oolon suggested? If we have enough people to fill in the month those active now. Sadly me is not good at doing mod so I will say no if asked to volunteer. :)

I'm too alien too. I would maybe act even more disruptively than PD do now cause I hate all the splitting off and moving around and locking threads and Calm down, chill off, Cool it, dial back suggestions from mods.

It is another thing if somebody like the OP says. Hey folks could we get back to my OP tpic, this is too much derail for me to feel ok. And do we really need to tel leach others how stupid the other is? Let's talk about the issue now and not what we think of the others active in the thread.

Such is better than an Admin jumping in telling unspecified persons to cool down.

What if all involved felt very cool and relaxed? If they really need to interfere at all they have to address exactly whom said what where and what could be said instead that is proper.

Like "Wordy, could you be less wordy. Too much to read. Write short like me do here. Ok! " :)
tl;dr

[Luis Garcia]

Those places blew up because of circumstances beyond these people's control, as you should well know.


Sparks and fuel.

ToM sparked it all off, but the fuel was there already.

Oolon, step back for a moment, and read this thread, the cronyism thread, and the comments on this idea in PDs epic thread. Pay particular attention to who said what.

The comments from ordinary members have all been "good idea".

The comments from staff have been first "the problem was ToM not us" then "but we already have a recall procedure for bad mods" then finally "ok it's not a bad idea but we would be left short of experienced staff".

Now tell me there's no groupthink among staff here.

Now read Wordys comments about mod action in threads.

Mods stepping with a badly timed, official "Let's dial it back folks" post is not exactly polite.

"But it's the way we've always done it".

Yes, and it's annoying, and it's the kind of thing that makes people more likely to spark off when there's a problem with the board, a la ToM.

If staff spent a decent amount of time as a regular member, away from the groupthink and participating in the forums, they'd get that.

This isn't a high-fallutin' influential scientific mecca, it's a community discussion board.

If, at the London meet up, I'd kept popping my face into a conversation you were having with Febble and telling you to "dial it back", then shoving you into a corner to finish your conversation away from people who might be offended by it just to maintain the decorum of the pub, you'd have lamped me.

If the intention is just to create a new IIDB, exactly the same except without the BoD, the fuel will start building up again. Fine, ToM won't add the spark, but something will.

The Admins here want to avoid these problems as much if not more than anyone else.

Excellent. Then they should listen to what the members saw as problems as well as what the staff saw.

Otherwise, you'll end up with a board perfectly designed for the staff.

Not the community.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Those places blew up because of circumstances beyond these people's control, as you should well know.


Sparks and fuel.

ToM sparked it all off, but the fuel was there already.
If you say so. Not from where I was sitting at the time. I was minding my own business in E/C.

Oolon, step back for a moment, and read this thread, the cronyism thread, and the comments on this idea in PDs epic thread. Pay particular attention to who said what.

The comments from ordinary members have all been "good idea".

The comments from staff have been first "the problem was ToM not us"
But that is true. Whose idea was civility rules and all that editing bollocks? Jet Black was an Admin remember, as high up the foodchain as mere mortals could go. And we two pretty much ignored the edicts from on high in order to make E/C what it was. It was the BoD who gradually screwed things tighter and tighter, and we went along, sort of, not realising where it might lead. Ya reckon we can't learn from that?
then "but we already have a recall procedure for bad mods" then finally "ok it's not a bad idea but we would be left short of experienced staff".

Now tell me there's no groupthink among staff here.
I've not spotted any. But then, perhaps IngSoc has gotten into me too.
Now read Wordys comments about mod action in threads.
Yup. He'd prefer less intrusion. Well, RnR is just down the hall. No intrusion there at all. The trick is for it not to be too intrusive -- it has to intrude to some extent if we don't want RnR style anarchy.
Mods stepping with a badly timed, official "Let's dial it back folks" post is not exactly polite.
FWIW, I winced too.
"But it's the way we've always done it".
Done which?
Yes, and it's annoying, and it's the kind of thing that makes people more likely to spark off when there's a problem with the board, a la ToM.
Probably. Plenty of people did seem to use it as a reason to vent about a range of only vaguely related issues.
If staff spent a decent amount of time as a regular member, away from the groupthink and participating in the forums, they'd get that.
From everything i've heard, that is precisely the intent. Hell's shit, why am I wasting valuable community-building time in here? Off to E&O for me!
This isn't a high-fallutin' influential scientific mecca, it's a community discussion board.
If that's not a non sequitur, I'm unclear what it is supposed to be following.
If, at the London meet up, I'd kept popping my face into a conversation you were having with Febble and telling you to "dial it back", then shoving you into a corner to finish your conversation away from people who might be offended by it just to maintain the decorum of the pub, you'd have lamped me.
If, in E&O, you find me modding in such an ill-conceived manner, you are welcome to lamp me.
If the intention is just to create a new IIDB, exactly the same except without the BoD, the fuel will start building up again. Fine, ToM won't add the spark, but something will.
That is not the intention. As far as I know, the intention is to take some of the good ideas in IIDB and in RnR. I have to wonder, if there was, as you imply, no good in IIDB at all, why you hung around there.
The Admins here want to avoid these problems as much if not more than anyone else.

Excellent. Then they should listen to what the members saw as problems as well as what the staff saw.
Who's not?
Otherwise, you'll end up with a board perfectly designed for the staff.

Not the community.
That's an interesting point, though maybe not in the way you intended. Because, boards evolve. To start with -- weeks and weeks ago! -- the staff were the community. Now, there's a load more people, so the community has changed. It will change again too if, with luck, TR continues to grow. Consider: suppose we go with every last idea the current community comes up with. In a year or two, might it no longer represent what the community wants too?

Just a thought. If you've got any ideas how to cope with that, let's hear them.

[Jet Black]

ToM sparked it all off, but the fuel was there already.


Just to make sure the analogies are clear, what was the fuel?

[Luis Garcia]

Just to make sure the analogies are clear, what was the fuel?

Different things for different people. Which is not a useful answer, I know, but the point is it's mainly the staff at II that only saw the problem as being ToM.

So if you want to avoid the other problems II had, you all need to let go of this idea that ToM was the only problem, and an identikit board-just-without-a-Board will be dandy.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Erm Luis, I think I ought to refer you to JB's Admin resignation announcement (http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.php/Resignation_and_Self-Ban_Announcements#Jet_Black.27s_Administrator_and_ E.2FC_Moderator_Resignation).

[Luis Garcia]

If you say so. Not from where I was sitting at the time. I was minding my own business in E/C.


And yet


Probably. Plenty of people did seem to use it as a reason to vent about a range of only vaguely related issues.






I have to wonder, if there was, as you imply, no good in IIDB at all, why you hung around there.


1. I never said there was no good at iidb at all. If I thought that, I wouldn't be here trying to help you get a more workable version going.

2. I didn't hang around there. I'd be amazed if any member of staff here can remember a single post of mine there outside the UK meetup thread, and my postcount here is already approaching my entire postcount there.

(Will reply to your other points later.)

[Dreadnought]

1. I never said there was no good at iidb at all. If I thought that, I wouldn't be here trying to help you get a more workable version going.

2. I didn't hang around there. I'd be amazed if any member of staff here can remember a single post of mine there outside the UK meetup thread, and my postcount here is already approaching my entire postcount there.

(Will reply to your other points later.)You didn't hang around there (IIDB).... yet here you are lecturing everybody what went wrong and how it really was at IIDB.

[Luis Garcia]

Erm Luis, I think I ought to refer you to JB's Admin resignation announcement (http://www.rantsnraves.org/wiki/index.php/Resignation_and_Self-Ban_Announcements#Jet_Black.27s_Administrator_and_ E.2FC_Moderator_Resignation).

Yep, Jet Black is closest to "getting it", I agree. That's why once I could see he was getting it, and Octavia wouldn't let this specific idea drop through the cracks, I said I was content to be patient.

According to his resignation post, though, even he thinks "The failings I feel are structural - the link between the II BoD and IIDB is insufficient and inadequate to deal with community and the pull and push of change", which is fine, but that wasn't the only structural problem.

[Wordy]

Otherwise, you'll end up with a board perfectly designed for the staff.

To them that would be paradise or heaven. :)

To each their own. No I don't support the anarchy at RnR and I don't support the too tight moderation at IIDB either and I know how hard it is to find a balance that suites everybody.

We have to at least to try out different levels of clamp down on what is disruptive and not.

Oolon I agree that we want constructive suggestions but who decide on what is constructive. So subjective from each perspective. I at times find PD's suggestions constructive but the style very disruptive.

So a constructive suggestion would be to agree upon totally ignoring his style and to only comment on the constructive suggestions regardless on his insults that comes with it. See him as an exception that the rules of civility don't apply in that thread but does in other threads. That would be much more constructive from my naive perspective.

To see things from others perspective is often even if not always constructive.
Says Wordy who most of the time only see his own perspective.

One thing I personally find extremely disruptive is when the topic the OP suggested get totally overruled by two participants who instead reiterate a debate they had three years ago and do that one parallel to the topic and they comment no others than themselves fighting a duel to death for thousands of post and formally they are at least somewhat on topic from the mods point of view but it disrupt the normal flow in the thread.

[Luis Garcia]

You didn't hang around there (IIDB).... yet here you are lecturing everybody what went wrong and how it really was at IIDB.

Am I lecturing? Not in my opinion. Would you care to clarify?

Am I responding to the request for ideas about how to better run this place, and as a consequence trying to explain why I didn't hang around much at II? That's what I'm trying to do.

If you only want II fanboys to give their opinions on these things, fine, I'll shut up.

[Wordy]

Could one problem be how we interpret what a community is? We all have very different ideas about that?

[Luis Garcia]

Yup. He'd prefer less intrusion. Well, RnR is just down the hall. No intrusion there at all.


You know, this is starting to make me uncomfortable. Pendaric, try reading your post aloud, and listen carefully to its tone: what do you hear? I hear just the faintest whisper of "like it or lump it" arrogance, and it carries unhappy echoes of another place.



The trick is for it not to be too intrusive -- it has to intrude to some extent if we don't want RnR style anarchy.

Really, really not sure you're getting my point.

Let me try one more time.

The available options are not limited to;

1. RnR style anarchy.

2. Rudely intruding in a thread and non-specifically telling people to "dial it back" a la II.



Fine. You don't want option 1. I get that. But why did Ravenscape* take option 2?


*Nothing personal, Ravenscape, just a handy example.

Even you have said..


FWIW, I winced too.


Good.

You've all been trained to mod in a certain way, and to see the board in a certain way, by II. Ravenscape no doubt modded that way because that's the way one mods. Because that's the way we do it.

But why?

Because that's the way we've always done it.



If, in E&O, you find me modding in such an ill-conceived manner, you are welcome to lamp me.

Noted :D

[Wordy]

Luis Garcia, what you write here above is right on seen from my perspective.

The more I read you the more I feel for giving you positive rep if we had such.
Keep it coming.

What you quoted from Per Ahlberg is so good. Thanks Per. Really hope Pendaric are able to take that to heart. Positive rep to you.

If we continue like this then TR will become a home to feel at home in. :)

[Dreadnought]

You didn't hang around there (IIDB).... yet here you are lecturing everybody what went wrong and how it really was at IIDB.

Am I lecturing? Not in my opinion. Would you care to clarify?

Am I responding to the request for ideas about how to better run this place, and as a consequence trying to explain why I didn't hang around much at II? That's what I'm trying to do.

If you only want II fanboys to give their opinions on these things, fine, I'll shut up.As if you'd even know what an iidb fanboy would look like. When you base your analysis of the situation here on iidb and it then transpires that you really have no clue about what went on there it makes me question your judgement, motives and your whole analysis. You did a lot more than just come forward with ideas.

That you finish off with sulkingly putting an opinion I've never expressed in my mouth, the alternative to which is you taking your great ideas and going home might have been cute had it come from a child.

[Per Ahlberg]

Hej Wordy,

Tack så mycket!

(We do have a rep button now: just click the icon of the scales (våg) at the bottom left corner of the post.)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just to note:You've all been trained to mod in a certain way, and to see the board in a certain way, by II.
I don't think I've been trained at all. Perhaps that's why I'm such a misfit, making other people (glances sideways at JB) wince so often meself. I go with what seems acceptable within the board in question. I edited at IIDB, except when my better judgement forbade it. I gardened at RnR, till even that was mocked and attacked. Here, I am, for once, going to do entirely what seems fucking right, until they catch me at it (same as everywhere, really, but don't let on ;)).

And that's why I have so much confidence in these boards. Because it seems the rest of the staff, to the first approximation, do too.

[Wordy]

You didn't hang around there (IIDB).... yet here you are lecturing everybody what went wrong and how it really was at IIDB.

Am I lecturing? Not in my opinion. Would you care to clarify?

Am I responding to the request for ideas about how to better run this place, and as a consequence trying to explain why I didn't hang around much at II? That's what I'm trying to do.

If you only want II fanboys to give their opinions on these things, fine, I'll shut up.As if you'd even know what an iidb fanboy would look like. When you base your analysis of the situation here on iidb and it then transpires that you really have no clue about what went on there it makes me question your judgement, motives and your whole analysis. You did a lot more than just come forward with ideas.

That you finish off with sulkingly putting an opinion I've never expressed in my mouth, the alternative to which is you taking your great ideas and going home might have been cute had it come from a child.

I'm happy me is no Moderator. I don't approve of how you treat Luis Garcia here in the quote above.

Was those words really needed. Could you not have given that criticism in a more friendly manner?


Could I have a comment from some of the Mods please. Is the above supported behavior?

Tack till Per. Thanks to Per.

[Wordy]

Oolon maybe you and some others are unique? I don't know you enough. But among all of us who was active in IIDB and the October reactions to what went on you stood out as different than many of the others as I remember. So that could be true, maybe you are not "trained".

I would be very surprised if I didn't use very similar ways to describe how I saw the behavior among Mods when it hit us who protested. I guess me still are able to log in there and look up all my posts and search for trained. I could have used a synonym to trained. I have a strong gut feeling that I did mention it between October to December?

and when I came as new to TR just a few days ago I saw similar "trained" reactions too.
Not from you but from others.

In a positive way you are uniquely you. :)

[Jet Black]

According to his resignation post, though, even he thinks "The failings I feel are structural - the link between the II BoD and IIDB is insufficient and inadequate to deal with community and the pull and push of change", which is fine, but that wasn't the only structural problem.

Sure, but that was the structural problem that stopped us from dealing with all the issues around the community and so in my opinion the worst of the bunch.

[Luis Garcia]

Sure, but that was the structural problem that stopped us from dealing with all the issues around the community and so in my opinion the worst of the bunch.

*Raises eyebrow*

So, ToM was the killer problem, but not the only problem?

[ravenscape]

Am I lecturing? Not in my opinion. Would you care to clarify?

Am I responding to the request for ideas about how to better run this place, and as a consequence trying to explain why I didn't hang around much at II? That's what I'm trying to do.

If you only want II fanboys to give their opinions on these things, fine, I'll shut up.As if you'd even know what an iidb fanboy would look like. When you base your analysis of the situation here on iidb and it then transpires that you really have no clue about what went on there it makes me question your judgement, motives and your whole analysis. You did a lot more than just come forward with ideas.

That you finish off with sulkingly putting an opinion I've never expressed in my mouth, the alternative to which is you taking your great ideas and going home might have been cute had it come from a child.

I'm happy me is no Moderator. I don't approve of how you treat Luis Garcia here in the quote above.

Was those words really needed. Could you not have given that criticism in a more friendly manner?


Could I have a comment from some of the Mods please. Is the above supported behavior?

Tack till Per. Thanks to Per.

Maybe you could comment, Wordy. I think you've gotten upset with me a few times when moderating comments like this one or worse. What would you like to see happen when you feel that someone's criticism is not friendly?

[Febble]

The available options are not limited to;

1. RnR style anarchy.

2. Rudely intruding in a thread and non-specifically telling people to "dial it back" a la II.


Not quite sure what is wrong with 2. It's what I tend to do in E&O, and on the whole it seems to work quite well, although perhaps some E&O denizens might like to comment.

That, and a bit of weeding and repotting, and occasionally chucking prunings on the bonfire.

[Octavia]

Sure, but that was the structural problem that stopped us from dealing with all the issues around the community and so in my opinion the worst of the bunch.

*Raises eyebrow*

So, ToM was the killer problem, but not the only problem?

Certainly not the only problem. I don't think there was anyone on staff at IIDB who was perfectly happy with the way things were all the time - just as no-one will be here - for the simple reason that in a community, you're not always going to get your own way.

I know that (to me at least) an equally big problem as accountability and access to the BoD at IIDB was the disruption caused by trolls - poeple we didn't get rid of until they'd stepped foul of so many far too strict/narrow rules. That left posters and staff hugely frustrated - posters because these people continued to pour their shit all over the forum without getting booted, and staff because they didn't like it any more than the other posters - but they also had to deal with the fall-out: innumerable complaints and PMs saying "Why haven't you got rid of X yet? Don't you know s/he's just here to troll?"

That's a problem that's coming up here as well, but it's for another thread, so I really shouldn't be going on about it here. I just wanted to make it plain that there was more than one problem, as you said...

[Wordy]

Raven, I could be very wrong. Maybe I stay away from being a Mod cause my body sense I woudl be terrible bad at it. I have a fast trigger and very bad temper at that.

What about how I did it here in the tread in the quote of me you made.
I don't approve of how you (Dreadnought) treat Luis Garcia here in the quote above.

Was those words really needed. Could you not have given that criticism in a more friendly manner?

Was my style towards him so bad that you let it speak on it's own term. You could have told me if you accepted it or deplored it or had view on how to refine it?

I tried to show by my own example there

[DMB]

Re trolls: one of the things I found most frustrating at IIDB was when they decided that you could no longer publically accuse someone of trolling, and that was quite a few years back. I remember being reprimanded or edited for posting "DNFTT".

Now IMO it might be acceptable somewhere like IIDB to stop people from posting something like "Why don't you fuck off and stick your microcephalic head up your scabby, pox-ridden arse, you trollish cunt!", but if someone is clearly trolling, I don't see that it is all that offensive to call them on it directly, instead of being circumlocutory.

[Wordy]

I agree but I would prefer one do it like this.

To me what you did looks like trollish behavior in this thread. Are you aware that it might come through that way to some of us. I don't claim you to be a Troll but your behavior indicate you could be.

To claim they are a Troll would put me into giving evidence they are. If I say it appears to me then I refer to my interpretation, something that goes on within me and not me telling them what goes on within them. To say they are a Troll is to makes claims about their inner states. We have no way of knowing such. Do we?

[DMB]

Do you really object to "DNFTT", wordy?

[slumtrimpet]

Back to the idea originally floated in this thread; rotating staff.
One benefit to this idea that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that, because presumably it would require a slightly larger pool of members willing to participate as staff, the general membership would also get a better feeling for what it means to be staff.
Speaking for myself, I've never held a staff position on any board and really have no idea what it involves. Rotating staff positions might help the general membership towards being more appreciative of staff too, as well as staff being more sympathetic towards general membership.
(not, by any means, saying there's a problem with either one at this point in time!!)

[Christina]

I think that's something we can handle to once we've had time to get our procedures in place and the newer mods get up to speed and are more comfortable. Almost every nonprofit that I've worked in or with insists that employees that work directly with clients take a vacation every year to avoid burnout and I think that's a good idea for us also.

The community forums are pretty easy to mod and it doesn't require any specialized knowledge, but it will be a bit tougher in the science, Evo and Philosophy forums where mods can really screw up if the don't grasp the subject matter enough to have a feel for the conversation. It's not impossible, though.

[Pendaric]

In principle I'm in favour of enforced staff rotation, for all the reasons that people have floated above.

I'd want to have a look at detailed proposals and give some more thought on the practical logistical implications, but I would like to see something along the basic lines put in place eventually.

However, as has been said, we have a lot going on at the moment and for at least the first 6 months I wouldn't want any enforced staff absences.

There will be some natural attrition and replacement of staff anyway as time goes on.

[Wordy]

I think that's something we can handle to once we've had time to get our procedures in place and the newer mods get up to speed and are more comfortable. Almost every nonprofit that I've worked in or with insists that employees that work directly with clients take a vacation every year to avoid burnout and I think that's a good idea for us also.

The community forums are pretty easy to mod and it doesn't require any specialized knowledge, but it will be a bit tougher in the science, Evo and Philosophy forums where mods can really screw up if the don't grasp the subject matter enough to have a feel for the conversation. It's not impossible, though.


I support what Christina take up here. Quality could be very vital in Evo threads so we need many who knows much about the tricks the ID people use against us. They have huge resources and payed staff to do such job.

[ravenscape]

Raven, I could be very wrong. Maybe I stay away from being a Mod cause my body sense I woudl be terrible bad at it. I have a fast trigger and very bad temper at that.

What about how I did it here in the tread in the quote of me you made.
I don't approve of how you (Dreadnought) treat Luis Garcia here in the quote above.

Was those words really needed. Could you not have given that criticism in a more friendly manner?

Was my style towards him so bad that you let it speak on it's own term. You could have told me if you accepted it or deplored it or had view on how to refine it?

I tried to show by my own example there

I think you made a good example, Wordy. Thank you.

[Luis Garcia]

Shameless bump as this is the most appropriate place to say this.

I know I've gone quiet, but I realised I was starting to be annoying to some, so I've stepped back a bit. Still lurking though. Just wanted to say thanks to all, but especially Octavia, JB and Dean for running with the idea.

Definitely a healthy sign that ideas from the constituents get taken seriously. Good work, guys.

[Jet Black]

thanks for the feedback, it's good to get non-staff opinions and ideas on this.

[Octavia]

You weren't being annoying. It was a good idea!