RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC
10-16-2014, 05:47 AM
'not wanting to be at odds with other people' is different from 'being able to calmly discuss an emotional topic with someone who's made them very uncomfortable'
I don't think you're really getting what I mean? making the policy 'you should have a discussion instead of bringing in a mod, if you want serious action you have to convince other people' means that people who aren't good at discussing or convincing other people will be shut out of the process of having their problems with other users addressed.
it's not an issue of whether or not they're 'willing to try.' some people don't have the same capabilities as others. making discussion/convincing others the way conflicts are addressed is like telling a monkey and a rabbit that climbing a tree is the way conflicts are addressed.
this may sound far-fetched, but I haven't seen any proposals for future revisions other than "if there are problems we will discuss it and put it to a vote." your point about authority figures gives me another idea: 'authority' doesn't just disappear because an official authority figure is gone. if the management system for this subforum involves "who can convince people the best," the 'authority figures' will become the people who can convince people the best. as jac puts it, it will probably be the people with the loudest voices, the people most willing to voice their opinions. this is kind of not a good thing!
the thing about having a dedicated authority figure is that it provides (as Schazer well knows :( ) accountability. if you feel a mod made a wrong call it's easier to talk to them about it. with mods, you know where you stand. if you trust the mod, you know that authority is someone you trust. if it's 3 people all arguing roughly the same point with one person leading them and then ten or so people agreeing, it's a hell of a lot less easier to feel safe. you feel less certain you'll be treated fairly, you feel less certain your voice will be listened to. to a mod, you're a direct pm. to a mob, you're one person trying to be heard amongst other, possibly louder people. I'm biased, because I like Schazer a lot. responsibility is a hell ride, but there needs to be a sense of it if people are influencing the outcome of conflicts. and if someone's position is essentially "I talked and other people Just Happened to listen," I can't imagine they'll feel a lot of responsibility at all.
they might just chalk it up to the will of the people. even if the person was so much less skilled than them at talking that whether they were right or not never really counted. but it's not their fault for streaming words at the person without thinking about their position of power, because in the end it's not them that cast the deciding votes. maybe I'm just pessimistic, but that's how I see it. I don't want people to use a system that privileges "people who can explain well and sound convincing" without acknowledging where that system places them over others.
if someone wants to go "no, that's not the system we'll be using at all, we're doing something completely different," then go ahead
@SeaWyrm
I don't think you're really getting what I mean? making the policy 'you should have a discussion instead of bringing in a mod, if you want serious action you have to convince other people' means that people who aren't good at discussing or convincing other people will be shut out of the process of having their problems with other users addressed.
it's not an issue of whether or not they're 'willing to try.' some people don't have the same capabilities as others. making discussion/convincing others the way conflicts are addressed is like telling a monkey and a rabbit that climbing a tree is the way conflicts are addressed.
this may sound far-fetched, but I haven't seen any proposals for future revisions other than "if there are problems we will discuss it and put it to a vote." your point about authority figures gives me another idea: 'authority' doesn't just disappear because an official authority figure is gone. if the management system for this subforum involves "who can convince people the best," the 'authority figures' will become the people who can convince people the best. as jac puts it, it will probably be the people with the loudest voices, the people most willing to voice their opinions. this is kind of not a good thing!
the thing about having a dedicated authority figure is that it provides (as Schazer well knows :( ) accountability. if you feel a mod made a wrong call it's easier to talk to them about it. with mods, you know where you stand. if you trust the mod, you know that authority is someone you trust. if it's 3 people all arguing roughly the same point with one person leading them and then ten or so people agreeing, it's a hell of a lot less easier to feel safe. you feel less certain you'll be treated fairly, you feel less certain your voice will be listened to. to a mod, you're a direct pm. to a mob, you're one person trying to be heard amongst other, possibly louder people. I'm biased, because I like Schazer a lot. responsibility is a hell ride, but there needs to be a sense of it if people are influencing the outcome of conflicts. and if someone's position is essentially "I talked and other people Just Happened to listen," I can't imagine they'll feel a lot of responsibility at all.
they might just chalk it up to the will of the people. even if the person was so much less skilled than them at talking that whether they were right or not never really counted. but it's not their fault for streaming words at the person without thinking about their position of power, because in the end it's not them that cast the deciding votes. maybe I'm just pessimistic, but that's how I see it. I don't want people to use a system that privileges "people who can explain well and sound convincing" without acknowledging where that system places them over others.
if someone wants to go "no, that's not the system we'll be using at all, we're doing something completely different," then go ahead
@SeaWyrm
Spoiler