Speaking as a big Dungeons and Dragons geek, there's a reason "Rules Lawyer" is a pejorative in our circles.
While I understand the value of transparency, seeing what "rules lawyering" can do in a consensual table of five or six adults playing a fantasy game involving dragons, I can completely understand why the hosts and admins would want to keep some of the deeper guidelines hidden to discourage that kind of ugly intellectual jujitsu.
And hopefully folks understand that "rules lawyer" in roleplaying game circles is not meant to be an insult to actual lawyers. The behavior it describes is amateurish and pharisaic in the extreme. It's what happens when an amateur, grasping at power, finds a single phrase or proof text to leverage their position and just keeps bleating it until they get what they want because the principle suits them. It has been the death of many beautiful systems.
Let's not encourage that. Sometimes it's good to grant the authorities a little dignity and respect.
Speaking as a big Dungeons and Dragons geek, there's a reason "Rules Lawyer" is a pejorative in our circles.
While I understand the value of transparency, seeing what "rules lawyering" can do in a consensual table of five or six adults playing a fantasy game involving dragons, I can completely understand why the hosts and admins would want to keep some of the deeper guidelines hidden to discourage that kind of ugly intellectual jujitsu.
I can understand that. But I think there’s a spectrum here. At one end is the rules being there for all to see and pick apart. At the other end is the rules, and perhaps even the existence of any rules, being kept, to use your word, “hidden.”
But there are other possibilities between those two extremes. To again use the issue that gave rise to this thread, concern about whether there is inconsistency in why and when threads are closed or moved, a response could be “well, we do have guidelines, and those guidelines say ____.” Or it could be “that’s actually not addressed in our guidelines.” But if people are going to trust the process, keeping the process “hidden” isn’t likely to help.
I’m guessing that for D&D a set of rules that everyone knows and another set of guidelines on how to interpret and enforce those rules that only the dungeon master knows would lead to a different kind of conflict from the conflict engendered by Rules Lawyers. Unless figuring out the rules is the actual point of the game, as in Mao, I don’t see how the pros of some rules/guidelines being kept hidden outweighs the potential cons.
And hopefully folks understand that "rules lawyer" in roleplaying game circles is not meant to be an insult to actual lawyers. The behavior it describes is amateurish and pharisaic in the extreme.
Certainly no offense taken on the part of this retired lawyer.
Sometimes it's good to grant the authorities a little dignity and respect.
I completely agree. But I also think there are ways to balance that with sufficient transparency that can encourage trust in and respect for the crew. And I think keeping things “hidden” can undercut the desire to grant authorities dignity and respect.
@pease - yes, as a former/emeritus Host, there are informal and formal ways of hosting people, and we often talked about this in the Host forum. I was a host who asked lots of questions to understand more fully. I'm sure it was in the Host manual, though maybe it's different in the new one?
From what I remember, the informal is a general, often lighthearted nudge that things are going in an unhelpful direction - a reminder to stay on track, not use personal insults, etc. And formal is when you 'put your hostly hat on,' and you make clear it is a hostly post, and you put your name and role at the bottom of the post. And you say very clearly that this behaviour needs to stop. That is what I remember, at least. And it wasn't a distinction used for closing threads, but for dealing with behaviour.
Speaking as a big Dungeons and Dragons geek, there's a reason "Rules Lawyer" is a pejorative in our circles.
I presume that "Rules Lawyer" primarily applies to playing D&D itself, rather than running an online community of people who happen to be D&D gamers.
It's a pattern of behavior that exists across many human circles. And in fact, the analogy works very well because both online communities and D&D games involve an authority guiding a group of consensual community members through an experience. The host is generally expected to follow certain rules that keep everyone on the same page. But, push to shove, the GM or host does have the authority to exercise fiat if they wish, and this fact deeply bothers some people, but it's generally acceptable because - like online communities - D&D games are a voluntary constructions and nobody's literal life is on the line.
I remember what Erin was like, back in the day, and I think it was important that the community kept folks like her around.
@pease - yes, as a former/emeritus Host, there are informal and formal ways of hosting people, and we often talked about this in the Host forum. I was a host who asked lots of questions to understand more fully. I'm sure it was in the Host manual, though maybe it's different in the new one?
From what I remember, the informal is a general, often lighthearted nudge that things are going in an unhelpful direction - a reminder to stay on track, not use personal insults, etc. And formal is when you 'put your hostly hat on,' and you make clear it is a hostly post, and you put your name and role at the bottom of the post. And you say very clearly that this behaviour needs to stop. That is what I remember, at least. And it wasn't a distinction used for closing threads, but for dealing with behaviour.
There's an even more informal mode of hostly action - simply to keep on posting good stuff on the forums, and maybe if a thread looks in danger of going off the rails too much contribute something that's on topic to try and influence the direction away from potential trouble. When looking for a new host we look for people who are already doing that anyway, because it is something anyone can do.
Speaking as a big Dungeons and Dragons geek, there's a reason "Rules Lawyer" is a pejorative in our circles.
While I understand the value of transparency, seeing what "rules lawyering" can do in a consensual table of five or six adults playing a fantasy game involving dragons, I can completely understand why the hosts and admins would want to keep some of the deeper guidelines hidden to discourage that kind of ugly intellectual jujitsu.
[...]
I’m guessing that for D&D a set of rules that everyone knows and another set of guidelines on how to interpret and enforce those rules that only the dungeon master knows would lead to a different kind of conflict from the conflict engendered by Rules Lawyers. Unless figuring out the rules is the actual point of the game, as in Mao, I don’t see how the pros of some rules/guidelines being kept hidden outweighs the potential cons.
Sometimes it's good to grant the authorities a little dignity and respect.
I completely agree. But I also think there are ways to balance that with sufficient transparency that can encourage trust in and respect for the crew. And I think keeping things “hidden” can undercut the desire to grant authorities dignity and respect.
Good point, and I think we are in a middle situation here. I've been on the ship for a long time (as have you) and I just haven't seen a lot of evidence of deep, Machiavellian chicanery on the part of the hosts and admins. Granted, one of them is my spouse, but...it just doesn't look like Mao from here. And it doesn't look that different than the ship looked back before @Gwai was a host. It's just evolving.
I understand the concern about transparency and administrative whimsy, but it's counter-weighted with a concern about anti-authoritarian whimsy. People trying to undermine authority can be just as capricious and Machiavellian as people in positions of authority. In the end, I think, in online communities and in Dungeons and Dragons, it really comes down to a certain measure of personal trust and willingness to get along, not unlike Christian faith (πίστις.)
I think the situation with Dungeons and Dragons is that, ultimately, it's written into the game that the GM (dungeon master, game master, etc.) has the power of fiat. And that's somewhat baked into the rules. And if you're playing, you do have to trust that you can work with the human you're working with and the human community you're working with, consensually.
In that vein, rules lawyering by a player is undermining the consensus that makes the game work. At some point, if someone is so militantly offended by the rulings of the GM, then they should go start a new table.* And as detailed as the byzantine rules of D&D can get, there's a lot of room for arguing if people are truly hell bent on getting their way, which is why the authority of the GM must rest on fiat, not on interpretative logic.
That in itself doesn't bother me, since this is an online community and not a nation state. Nobody is going to arrest me.
*This has me thinking that Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally Anabaptist.
But I think there’s a spectrum here. At one end is the rules being there for all to see and pick apart. At the other end is the rules, and perhaps even the existence of any rules, being kept, to use your word, “hidden.”
But there are other possibilities between those two extremes. To again use the issue that gave rise to this thread, concern about whether there is inconsistency in why and when threads are closed or moved, a response could be “well, we do have guidelines, and those guidelines say ____.” Or it could be “that’s actually not addressed in our guidelines.” But if people are going to trust the process, keeping the process “hidden” isn’t likely to help.
The rules we have here aren't hidden - the 10Cs and forum guidelines are all accessible to everyone, and no host or admin is going to call someone for deviating from those without being explicit which of the (public) guidelines are being referenced.
The hosts manual doesn't introduce anything new; there's some historical background about why we do some of the things we do the way that we do them, there's a big chunk of technical stuff about the software ("what buttons do I press to move a thread" type of thing), and some advice on how to phrase host posts (eg: when there's an issue reference the specific guideline/commandment that's in play). I'll probably have to read it again to see if there is anything more in there than that (who actually reads instruction manuals anyway?)
There's an even more informal mode of hostly action - simply to keep on posting good stuff on the forums, and maybe if a thread looks in danger of going off the rails too much contribute something that's on topic to try and influence the direction away from potential trouble. When looking for a new host we look for people who are already doing that anyway, because it is something anyone can do.
Ah, no one ever told me that this was considered informal hosting. I have always done this, I think - not to host, but because I want the threads to be interesting and constructive, and I also want things to be clear and for people not to feel bullied. I prefer doing that to the official host posts, and I think I find it easier to do when I'm not an active host. I found myself more self-conscious when I had an active role hosting people, because even when you're not posting as a host, it feels like what you say might be taken with more weight, as an authority thing, and I never meant it that way.
@Nick Tamen I don’t think the existence of the hosting manual has ever been a secret - it has certainly been mentioned publically before - here, for example.
The point of the manual is to try to support fair and consistent decision making, as well as give the crew technical guidance on how to fix broken code etc and, as @Alan Cresswell said it also contains summaries of the history of the ship. To contain all that, it is currently 26 pages long. We also have to give advice on particular issues such as what to do if someone posts suicidal ideation - which may not happen often but may be difficult and stressful to deal with when it does happen. There are also various legal issues to cover.
To turn to a different point : informal hosting as described in posts earlier on the thread is intended to be more welcoming and less confrontational - not singling people out etc. However, it is also clear from this thread and others - that some people experience this as ambiguous and confusing. Yet, other people experience hosts being explicit and clear about - will you please not do x - as really aversive and hostile / controlling. These differences may be down to personal preference and histories, cultural differences - especially around low/high context communication, or neurodiversity of various kinds.
We can’t be both direct and indirect simultaneously, so hosts will tend to make indirect interventions first and more direct ones later - because it’s kind of impossible to do it the other way round.
The sort of distributed model @pease is discussing here, I find hard to envision. My experience as an admin, is even those already hosting don’t have the time and spoons to get involved with all policy decisions. Hell was effectively created as a community space for “peer-enforced social norms” but runs into significant issues. Some posters avoid using it because they disapprove - but then we end up with inappropriate posting outside Hell. Some people engage with Hell but struggle to cope. Previously ship implementation has avoided like, dislike and report buttons on posts because it was felt these would stifle discussion - though again this would be one option for peer moderation. It all feels clunky and imperfect; and I am not sure there are currently obviously better systems, as opposed to simply different systems.
But I think there’s a spectrum here. At one end is the rules being there for all to see and pick apart. At the other end is the rules, and perhaps even the existence of any rules, being kept, to use your word, “hidden.”
But there are other possibilities between those two extremes. To again use the issue that gave rise to this thread, concern about whether there is inconsistency in why and when threads are closed or moved, a response could be “well, we do have guidelines, and those guidelines say ____.” Or it could be “that’s actually not addressed in our guidelines.” But if people are going to trust the process, keeping the process “hidden” isn’t likely to help.
The hosts manual doesn't introduce anything new; there's some historical background about why we do some of the things we do the way that we do them, there's a big chunk of technical stuff about the software ("what buttons do I press to move a thread" type of thing), and some advice on how to phrase host posts (eg: when there's an issue reference the specific guideline/commandment that's in play). I'll probably have to read it again to see if there is anything more in there than that (who actually reads instruction manuals anyway?)
Thanks, @Alan Cresswell and @Doublethink. I appreciate the additional information. That’s all pretty much what I would have expected.
But I don’t know that it changes my concern exactly. If a stated goal is to reduce the number of vexatious litigants and create a safe space for the crew, then it seems to me that at least part of the solution is to avoid, to the degree possible, unwanted perceptions. The existence of the manual may not be secret as such, but despite past mentions, its mention in this thread came as something of a surprise to me. Even if it has been mentioned in passing, I have to wonder if it has been talked about in such as way that most shipmates actually have knowledge of it.
I wonder, for example, if it would make a difference if the answer to the question I quoted above—“Is there a set of rules for the forums?”—or the follow-up question about the crew specifically said something about the manual created to provide some consistency in interpreting and enforcing the commandments as well as to provide the crew with important historical, technical and other information.
And as I stated above, I wonder what effect it might have had on the specific Styx inquiry that gave rise to this thread if right off the bat there had been a response from the crew that said either “here’s what the crew’s manual says about this situation” or “the crew’s manual doesn’t specifically address this situation.”
Speaking as a big Dungeons and Dragons geek, there's a reason "Rules Lawyer" is a pejorative in our circles.
While I understand the value of transparency, seeing what "rules lawyering" can do in a consensual table of five or six adults playing a fantasy game involving dragons, I can completely understand why the hosts and admins would want to keep some of the deeper guidelines hidden to discourage that kind of ugly intellectual jujitsu.
[...]
I’m guessing that for D&D a set of rules that everyone knows and another set of guidelines on how to interpret and enforce those rules that only the dungeon master knows would lead to a different kind of conflict from the conflict engendered by Rules Lawyers. Unless figuring out the rules is the actual point of the game, as in Mao, I don’t see how the pros of some rules/guidelines being kept hidden outweighs the potential cons.
Sometimes it's good to grant the authorities a little dignity and respect.
I completely agree. But I also think there are ways to balance that with sufficient transparency that can encourage trust in and respect for the crew. And I think keeping things “hidden” can undercut the desire to grant authorities dignity and respect.
I've been on the ship for a long time (as have you) and I just haven't seen a lot of evidence of deep, Machiavellian chicanery on the part of the hosts and admins.
I’ll take it a step further and I say I can’t recall ever seeing evidence of deep, Machiavellian chicanery on the part of the crew. Such a thing would genuinely shock me.
But we’ve been told by the crew that some shipmates do seem to suspect such chicanery, and that that makes life more difficult for the crew, What I’m trying to explore is whether there are steps that could be taken to reduce the risk of that. I’m not trying to demand that we all see the manual. I’m trying to raise the question that I think in a general sense is always worth raising on a regular basis in any group: Is the way we’re currently doing x (or have always done x) still serving us well, or is there a better way we could do x? Thinking through the question is at least as important as the answer ultimately arrived at.
At the risk of lawyering, in my time I advised a lot of clients, particularly those in positions of public trust, about the need to not only avoid impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. What I think we may be talking about here is appearance, and about minimizing the risk of any appearance. I think the question is at least worth exploring.
The rules we have here aren't hidden - the 10Cs and forum guidelines are all accessible to everyone, and no host or admin is going to call someone for deviating from those without being explicit which of the (public) guidelines are being referenced.
The hosts manual doesn't introduce anything new
The concern I’m trying to express is that, while I fully trust what Alan said, taking this kind of approach can give rise a perception that undercuts trust and that can feed vexatious litigation rather than calm it.
I think I’ve said all I can on this, and I really don’t mean to be beating a drum, so I’ll try to say no more.
*This has me thinking that Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally Anabaptist.
If a stated goal is to reduce the number of vexatious litigants and create a safe space for the crew,
Just to clarify, a space that works for crew *and* shipmates.
Anytime I have to host in Styx to tell a shipmate to take something to Hell, then the space in Styx hasn’t really worked for the shipmate who was targeted by the post I’ve hosted either.
It’s extremely rare for All Saints hosts to have to tell folk to take disputes to Hell - because the community norms around All Saints posting are quite strong. And it has never happened on a prayer thread as far as I know. But we have really struggled to shift the Styx culture such that Hellish posts would be as unlikely here as they are on the prayer thread.
TBH I can't remember the last time I looked at the hosting manual. I did read it back when I was first a host, and as @Alan Cresswell says, it continues helpful advice on fixing code, which hosting tags to use and such, but day to day it isn't nearly so useful as consulting my fellow hosts. For example, I know perfectly what the rule is regarding personal attacks outside of hell, but the manual won't necessarily be of much use for deciding whether a particular post constitutes one or not. For that, the easiest thing is to go backstage and ask "do you agree that this is a personal attack?"
But we have really struggled to shift the Styx culture such that Hellish posts would be as unlikely here as they are on the prayer thread.
Styx posts are mostly about disputes of host rulings. It probably shouldn't be surprising that a post that is about "I think you've done me wrong" or "I don't think there is fair and equal treatment in this case" is more likely to get heated than a prayer request thread.
The more personal an injustice feels, the more people are likely to get heated about it. It's one thing to have an abstract discussion about how Styx could work; it's quite another to be the person who has just been told that your behavior is unacceptable, and thinks they've been treated unfairly.
@Nick Tamen - what sort of thing do you think is being hidden from you?
I don’t think anything in particular is being hidden from me, at least not as such. And I tried to be clear the first time I used the word “hidden” that I was simply using the word @Bullfrog, to whom I was responding, had used:
I think there’s a spectrum here. At one end is the rules being there for all to see and pick apart. At the other end is the rules, and perhaps even the existence of any rules, being kept, to use your word, “hidden.”
The point I’m trying to make is that anytime there are rules, guidelines, instructions, manuals, whatever that are available to and used by those enforcing the rules of a community but that are not available to the community at large, there is a risk of a perception by at least some in the community that something is being hidden. When members of the crew say that there aren’t any additional “rules” contained in the crew’s manual, I completely trust that. But I can also see how shipmates whose trust, rightly or wrongly, is already eroded might want to see the manual for themselves before trusting that aren’t any additional “rules” in it.
It may be that, after consideration, any level of risk is deemed to be acceptable. But since it has been noted that a small group of vexatious litigators have had an effect on the crew and on the Styx, it seems reasonable to me to at least ask the question of whether having a manual for the crew that isn’t available to anyone outside the crew might contribute to a perception that can erode trust and feed vexatious litigation.
I’m not suggesting what the answer should be. I’m simply saying that in a discussion on the functionality of Styx, it’s reasonable to examine a variety of aspects of Ship culture to see if doing something differently might improve how Styx functions.
But we have really struggled to shift the Styx culture such that Hellish posts would be as unlikely here as they are on the prayer thread.
Styx posts are mostly about disputes of host rulings. It probably shouldn't be surprising that a post that is about "I think you've done me wrong" or "I don't think there is fair and equal treatment in this case" is more likely to get heated than a prayer request thread.
The more personal an injustice feels, the more people are likely to get heated about it. It's one thing to have an abstract discussion about how Styx could work; it's quite another to be the person who has just been told that your behavior is unacceptable, and thinks they've been treated unfairly.
That doesn’t explain other shipmates involved in the thread, behaving hellishly to the shipmate op or other shipmates on the thread.
@Nick Tamen - I guess I don't understand why people would think there were extra rules in a host manual. When you start a job, in, say, a shop, or a college, or a hospital, there is a handbook to read. It's not shown to all the customers/students/patients, because it's about how to do your job, and a lot is irrelevant to them. But it's not hiding anything either, because the stuff relevant to them is written elsewhere. It's also pretty boring. I remember the host manual being pretty boring. It certainly didn't reveal anything new about the rules or make me feel I'd been kept in the dark as a shipmate.
But you do get more of a sense of how the Ship is run when you are a host, because you are part of the backstage conversations in the host forum. Which is especially useful if you are someone who doesn't easily pick up the vibe, as it were, of a community. Not that you are learning any extra rules (I'm really not understanding why anyone would think there were extra rules hidden away - how would that even benefit hosts and admin, when they are wanting things to be clear so everything runs smoothly?), but you are seeing the thought processes behind decisions. Because of course with any set of rules, there is a human component, it's not always black and white.
There are also certain assumptions, as in any community, any workplace, that people understand what is seen as basic courtesy, and can adapt to context - those 'unwritten rules' that can be so tricky for some neurodivergent people, and can make us feel that society is hiding things from us, and then expecting us to know them. Do you think perhaps some people are seeing things in those terms - that they are perceiving hosts and admin adapting to context (such as adapting hosting to what is known about a shipmate - maybe more literal language with autistic shipmates, or more gentleness with shipmates they know to be going through a rough time) and thinking they are referring to an extra rule book that says to do this? Unwritten rules exist everywhere, and they are not written down, I think partly because they can't be, because they are largely about adapting to context and not being rigid.
But we have really struggled to shift the Styx culture such that Hellish posts would be as unlikely here as they are on the prayer thread.
Styx posts are mostly about disputes of host rulings. It probably shouldn't be surprising that a post that is about "I think you've done me wrong" or "I don't think there is fair and equal treatment in this case" is more likely to get heated than a prayer request thread.
The more personal an injustice feels, the more people are likely to get heated about it. It's one thing to have an abstract discussion about how Styx could work; it's quite another to be the person who has just been told that your behavior is unacceptable, and thinks they've been treated unfairly.
That doesn’t explain other shipmates involved in the thread, behaving hellishly to the shipmate op or other shipmates on the thread.
But surely LC is right that some boards have a much higher inherent risk of hellishness than others. Disagreement and potential for conflict has always been part of the package that is the Ship. I’m not endorsing the increasing merger of Hell and the Styx that we seem to be seeing these days - nor the tendency among a few Shipmates to complain about virtually everything in the Styx - but it seems to me that some level of disagreement and pushback in the Styx is a healthy sign of Shipmate engagement and a necessary reality check for the powers that be.
I was going to post to make that point but also to say I suspect our increasing tendency to merge Hell and the Styx may be a consequence of our reduced numbers over the years - with the result that increasingly particular Shipmates are taking on an outsized role on certain boards and in certain discussions. With the result that Styx threads increasingly become focused around particular Shipmates where minor irritants threaten to become major irritants. I’m sure I’ve said before that I think the Ship would be a healthier place if we could attract more people to post here regularly though obviously that task is much more easily proposed than accomplished.
I do remember at least on the old Ship it was pretty much standard practice for a Host to recuse themselves from Hosting a thread where they have been participating regularly as an ordinary Shipmate. I think that’s good practice for any board with an inherent risk of disagreement and conflict (particularly Purg) and I’m not sure blurring the distinction between host and participant in such contexts is a good idea.
But you do get more of a sense of how the Ship is run when you are a host, because you are part of the backstage conversations in the host forum. Which is especially useful if you are someone who doesn't easily pick up the vibe, as it were, of a community. Not that you are learning any extra rules (I'm really not understanding why anyone would think there were extra rules hidden away - how would that even benefit hosts and admin, when they are wanting things to be clear so everything runs smoothly?), but you are seeing the thought processes behind decisions. Because of course with any set of rules, there is a human component, it's not always black and white
To me this is an excellent argument for hosts to have finite terms of service and then be replaced with others - it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea and not everyone has the time, but the experience of hosting could be a lot more spread out.
@Nick Tamen - I guess I don't understand why people would think there were extra rules in a host manual. When you start a job, in, say, a shop, or a college, or a hospital, there is a handbook to read. It's not shown to all the customers/students/patients, because it's about how to do your job, and a lot is irrelevant to them.
To be honest, I don’t see those as particularly apt comparisons. (And where I went to college, everyone got the handbook. Ditto employee handbooks with employers.) Shipmates are not customers or patients, and crew members are not employees serving customers or patients. The analogy we seem to gravitate to here is that the Ship is a community, and if that’s the case, all people aboard—shipmates and crew—are members of that community. Some may have different roles, but it’s one community.
But it's not hiding anything either, because the stuff relevant to them is written elsewhere. It's also pretty boring. I remember the host manual being pretty boring. It certainly didn't reveal anything new about the rules or make me feel I'd been kept in the dark as a shipmate.
You know that to be the case because you’ve actually seen the manual. I can’t actually say I know it to be the case because I haven’t actually seen the manual, but I believe it to be the case because I’m very confident that I can trust the crew.
At least part of what has come up as a concern in this thread is the problem created when shipmates do not have trust or confidence in the crew. @la vie en rouge said this upthread:
As a host, I wouldn’t describe what happens in the Styx as dogpiling exactly. However, we do have a small number of participants who can be pretty much guaranteed to turn up on any and every Styx call to criticise the crew. This is the elephant in the room.
Personally I have a pretty thick skin for this sort of thing and it doesn't bother me excessively. But other hosts find it more upsetting than I do, and the prospect of having the boot put into us again is the reason hosts don't feel more confident about doing our job.
It seems to me that the criticism of the crew that la vie en rouge is talking about evidences a lack of trust in the crew and its decisions and processes. I suspect most of us can remember fairly recent occasions when this “vexatious litigation” was a particular problem—when attempts to deal with repeated and long-standing problems created by one shipmate led to multiple Styx threads and recurring claims from that small group of shipmates that the one shipmate was being singled out and treated unfairly, that different rules were being applied to him, etc.
Now, imagine that shipmates from that small group learn there’s a crew manual that’s rarely talked about and that only the crew sees. Given the lack of trust that small group already has in the crew, is it really that hard to imagine a reaction along the lines of “We knew there was more going on than just the 10 Commandments. The crew just doesn’t want us to see it.”?
I would say, of course, that reactions like that would be totally unfounded. But as they say, perception is reality, and as evidenced by comments like la vie en rouge’s, the mistaken perceptions and resulting reactions of a small group have done some significant damage. All too often, I’ve seen leadership of organizations and entities inflict self-harm not because they’re doing anything wrong, but because they respond to questions with answers and actions that can give the perception of hiding something.
My experience tells me that one way to try to counteract that kind of mistaken perception is to avoid, if possible, doing things that might inadvertently feed the mistaken perception. My experience tells me that the questions to ask here are questions like:
What value is there in sharing the crew’s manual only among the crew? Are we doing it just because it’s how we’ve always done it?
What might be the harms or downsides of sharing the crew’s manual only among the crew?
Would there be any value in making the manual available to any or all shipmates, either by linking to it somewhere that any registered shipmate could see it, or by providing a copy to any shipmate who requests it?
What might be the harms or downsides in making the manual available to any or all shipmates, either by linking to it somewhere that any registered shipmate could see it, or by providing a copy to any shipmate who requests it?
Does either course of action have the potential to enhance or erode trust?
Does either course of action have the potential to enhance or diminish creation of an environment that is safe and works for both crew and shipmates?
As I said earlier, I’m not suggesting what the answer should ultimately be, except I will say this: My experience is that avoiding the questions at all is rarely the best answer.
I really am sorry. I said I’d try to stop beating this drum and instead I’ve written an even longer post.
Comments
While I understand the value of transparency, seeing what "rules lawyering" can do in a consensual table of five or six adults playing a fantasy game involving dragons, I can completely understand why the hosts and admins would want to keep some of the deeper guidelines hidden to discourage that kind of ugly intellectual jujitsu.
And hopefully folks understand that "rules lawyer" in roleplaying game circles is not meant to be an insult to actual lawyers. The behavior it describes is amateurish and pharisaic in the extreme. It's what happens when an amateur, grasping at power, finds a single phrase or proof text to leverage their position and just keeps bleating it until they get what they want because the principle suits them. It has been the death of many beautiful systems.
Let's not encourage that. Sometimes it's good to grant the authorities a little dignity and respect.
But there are other possibilities between those two extremes. To again use the issue that gave rise to this thread, concern about whether there is inconsistency in why and when threads are closed or moved, a response could be “well, we do have guidelines, and those guidelines say ____.” Or it could be “that’s actually not addressed in our guidelines.” But if people are going to trust the process, keeping the process “hidden” isn’t likely to help.
I’m guessing that for D&D a set of rules that everyone knows and another set of guidelines on how to interpret and enforce those rules that only the dungeon master knows would lead to a different kind of conflict from the conflict engendered by Rules Lawyers. Unless figuring out the rules is the actual point of the game, as in Mao, I don’t see how the pros of some rules/guidelines being kept hidden outweighs the potential cons.
Certainly no offense taken on the part of this retired lawyer.
I completely agree. But I also think there are ways to balance that with sufficient transparency that can encourage trust in and respect for the crew. And I think keeping things “hidden” can undercut the desire to grant authorities dignity and respect.
From what I remember, the informal is a general, often lighthearted nudge that things are going in an unhelpful direction - a reminder to stay on track, not use personal insults, etc. And formal is when you 'put your hostly hat on,' and you make clear it is a hostly post, and you put your name and role at the bottom of the post. And you say very clearly that this behaviour needs to stop. That is what I remember, at least. And it wasn't a distinction used for closing threads, but for dealing with behaviour.
It's a pattern of behavior that exists across many human circles. And in fact, the analogy works very well because both online communities and D&D games involve an authority guiding a group of consensual community members through an experience. The host is generally expected to follow certain rules that keep everyone on the same page. But, push to shove, the GM or host does have the authority to exercise fiat if they wish, and this fact deeply bothers some people, but it's generally acceptable because - like online communities - D&D games are a voluntary constructions and nobody's literal life is on the line.
I remember what Erin was like, back in the day, and I think it was important that the community kept folks like her around.
Good point, and I think we are in a middle situation here. I've been on the ship for a long time (as have you) and I just haven't seen a lot of evidence of deep, Machiavellian chicanery on the part of the hosts and admins. Granted, one of them is my spouse, but...it just doesn't look like Mao from here. And it doesn't look that different than the ship looked back before @Gwai was a host. It's just evolving.
I understand the concern about transparency and administrative whimsy, but it's counter-weighted with a concern about anti-authoritarian whimsy. People trying to undermine authority can be just as capricious and Machiavellian as people in positions of authority. In the end, I think, in online communities and in Dungeons and Dragons, it really comes down to a certain measure of personal trust and willingness to get along, not unlike Christian faith (πίστις.)
I think the situation with Dungeons and Dragons is that, ultimately, it's written into the game that the GM (dungeon master, game master, etc.) has the power of fiat. And that's somewhat baked into the rules. And if you're playing, you do have to trust that you can work with the human you're working with and the human community you're working with, consensually.
In that vein, rules lawyering by a player is undermining the consensus that makes the game work. At some point, if someone is so militantly offended by the rulings of the GM, then they should go start a new table.* And as detailed as the byzantine rules of D&D can get, there's a lot of room for arguing if people are truly hell bent on getting their way, which is why the authority of the GM must rest on fiat, not on interpretative logic.
That in itself doesn't bother me, since this is an online community and not a nation state. Nobody is going to arrest me.
*This has me thinking that Dungeons and Dragons is fundamentally Anabaptist.
The hosts manual doesn't introduce anything new; there's some historical background about why we do some of the things we do the way that we do them, there's a big chunk of technical stuff about the software ("what buttons do I press to move a thread" type of thing), and some advice on how to phrase host posts (eg: when there's an issue reference the specific guideline/commandment that's in play). I'll probably have to read it again to see if there is anything more in there than that (who actually reads instruction manuals anyway?)
Ah, no one ever told me that this was considered informal hosting. I have always done this, I think - not to host, but because I want the threads to be interesting and constructive, and I also want things to be clear and for people not to feel bullied. I prefer doing that to the official host posts, and I think I find it easier to do when I'm not an active host. I found myself more self-conscious when I had an active role hosting people, because even when you're not posting as a host, it feels like what you say might be taken with more weight, as an authority thing, and I never meant it that way.
The point of the manual is to try to support fair and consistent decision making, as well as give the crew technical guidance on how to fix broken code etc and, as @Alan Cresswell said it also contains summaries of the history of the ship. To contain all that, it is currently 26 pages long. We also have to give advice on particular issues such as what to do if someone posts suicidal ideation - which may not happen often but may be difficult and stressful to deal with when it does happen. There are also various legal issues to cover.
To turn to a different point : informal hosting as described in posts earlier on the thread is intended to be more welcoming and less confrontational - not singling people out etc. However, it is also clear from this thread and others - that some people experience this as ambiguous and confusing. Yet, other people experience hosts being explicit and clear about - will you please not do x - as really aversive and hostile / controlling. These differences may be down to personal preference and histories, cultural differences - especially around low/high context communication, or neurodiversity of various kinds.
We can’t be both direct and indirect simultaneously, so hosts will tend to make indirect interventions first and more direct ones later - because it’s kind of impossible to do it the other way round.
The sort of distributed model @pease is discussing here, I find hard to envision. My experience as an admin, is even those already hosting don’t have the time and spoons to get involved with all policy decisions. Hell was effectively created as a community space for “peer-enforced social norms” but runs into significant issues. Some posters avoid using it because they disapprove - but then we end up with inappropriate posting outside Hell. Some people engage with Hell but struggle to cope. Previously ship implementation has avoided like, dislike and report buttons on posts because it was felt these would stifle discussion - though again this would be one option for peer moderation. It all feels clunky and imperfect; and I am not sure there are currently obviously better systems, as opposed to simply different systems.
But I don’t know that it changes my concern exactly. If a stated goal is to reduce the number of vexatious litigants and create a safe space for the crew, then it seems to me that at least part of the solution is to avoid, to the degree possible, unwanted perceptions. The existence of the manual may not be secret as such, but despite past mentions, its mention in this thread came as something of a surprise to me. Even if it has been mentioned in passing, I have to wonder if it has been talked about in such as way that most shipmates actually have knowledge of it.
I wonder, for example, if it would make a difference if the answer to the question I quoted above—“Is there a set of rules for the forums?”—or the follow-up question about the crew specifically said something about the manual created to provide some consistency in interpreting and enforcing the commandments as well as to provide the crew with important historical, technical and other information.
And as I stated above, I wonder what effect it might have had on the specific Styx inquiry that gave rise to this thread if right off the bat there had been a response from the crew that said either “here’s what the crew’s manual says about this situation” or “the crew’s manual doesn’t specifically address this situation.”
I’ll take it a step further and I say I can’t recall ever seeing evidence of deep, Machiavellian chicanery on the part of the crew. Such a thing would genuinely shock me.
But we’ve been told by the crew that some shipmates do seem to suspect such chicanery, and that that makes life more difficult for the crew, What I’m trying to explore is whether there are steps that could be taken to reduce the risk of that. I’m not trying to demand that we all see the manual. I’m trying to raise the question that I think in a general sense is always worth raising on a regular basis in any group: Is the way we’re currently doing x (or have always done x) still serving us well, or is there a better way we could do x? Thinking through the question is at least as important as the answer ultimately arrived at.
At the risk of lawyering, in my time I advised a lot of clients, particularly those in positions of public trust, about the need to not only avoid impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. What I think we may be talking about here is appearance, and about minimizing the risk of any appearance. I think the question is at least worth exploring.
@Alan Cresswell said above:
The concern I’m trying to express is that, while I fully trust what Alan said, taking this kind of approach can give rise a perception that undercuts trust and that can feed vexatious litigation rather than calm it.
I think I’ve said all I can on this, and I really don’t mean to be beating a drum, so I’ll try to say no more.
Just to clarify, a space that works for crew *and* shipmates.
Anytime I have to host in Styx to tell a shipmate to take something to Hell, then the space in Styx hasn’t really worked for the shipmate who was targeted by the post I’ve hosted either.
It’s extremely rare for All Saints hosts to have to tell folk to take disputes to Hell - because the community norms around All Saints posting are quite strong. And it has never happened on a prayer thread as far as I know. But we have really struggled to shift the Styx culture such that Hellish posts would be as unlikely here as they are on the prayer thread.
Styx posts are mostly about disputes of host rulings. It probably shouldn't be surprising that a post that is about "I think you've done me wrong" or "I don't think there is fair and equal treatment in this case" is more likely to get heated than a prayer request thread.
The more personal an injustice feels, the more people are likely to get heated about it. It's one thing to have an abstract discussion about how Styx could work; it's quite another to be the person who has just been told that your behavior is unacceptable, and thinks they've been treated unfairly.
The point I’m trying to make is that anytime there are rules, guidelines, instructions, manuals, whatever that are available to and used by those enforcing the rules of a community but that are not available to the community at large, there is a risk of a perception by at least some in the community that something is being hidden. When members of the crew say that there aren’t any additional “rules” contained in the crew’s manual, I completely trust that. But I can also see how shipmates whose trust, rightly or wrongly, is already eroded might want to see the manual for themselves before trusting that aren’t any additional “rules” in it.
It may be that, after consideration, any level of risk is deemed to be acceptable. But since it has been noted that a small group of vexatious litigators have had an effect on the crew and on the Styx, it seems reasonable to me to at least ask the question of whether having a manual for the crew that isn’t available to anyone outside the crew might contribute to a perception that can erode trust and feed vexatious litigation.
I’m not suggesting what the answer should be. I’m simply saying that in a discussion on the functionality of Styx, it’s reasonable to examine a variety of aspects of Ship culture to see if doing something differently might improve how Styx functions.
That doesn’t explain other shipmates involved in the thread, behaving hellishly to the shipmate op or other shipmates on the thread.
But you do get more of a sense of how the Ship is run when you are a host, because you are part of the backstage conversations in the host forum. Which is especially useful if you are someone who doesn't easily pick up the vibe, as it were, of a community. Not that you are learning any extra rules (I'm really not understanding why anyone would think there were extra rules hidden away - how would that even benefit hosts and admin, when they are wanting things to be clear so everything runs smoothly?), but you are seeing the thought processes behind decisions. Because of course with any set of rules, there is a human component, it's not always black and white.
There are also certain assumptions, as in any community, any workplace, that people understand what is seen as basic courtesy, and can adapt to context - those 'unwritten rules' that can be so tricky for some neurodivergent people, and can make us feel that society is hiding things from us, and then expecting us to know them. Do you think perhaps some people are seeing things in those terms - that they are perceiving hosts and admin adapting to context (such as adapting hosting to what is known about a shipmate - maybe more literal language with autistic shipmates, or more gentleness with shipmates they know to be going through a rough time) and thinking they are referring to an extra rule book that says to do this? Unwritten rules exist everywhere, and they are not written down, I think partly because they can't be, because they are largely about adapting to context and not being rigid.
But surely LC is right that some boards have a much higher inherent risk of hellishness than others. Disagreement and potential for conflict has always been part of the package that is the Ship. I’m not endorsing the increasing merger of Hell and the Styx that we seem to be seeing these days - nor the tendency among a few Shipmates to complain about virtually everything in the Styx - but it seems to me that some level of disagreement and pushback in the Styx is a healthy sign of Shipmate engagement and a necessary reality check for the powers that be.
I was going to post to make that point but also to say I suspect our increasing tendency to merge Hell and the Styx may be a consequence of our reduced numbers over the years - with the result that increasingly particular Shipmates are taking on an outsized role on certain boards and in certain discussions. With the result that Styx threads increasingly become focused around particular Shipmates where minor irritants threaten to become major irritants. I’m sure I’ve said before that I think the Ship would be a healthier place if we could attract more people to post here regularly though obviously that task is much more easily proposed than accomplished.
I do remember at least on the old Ship it was pretty much standard practice for a Host to recuse themselves from Hosting a thread where they have been participating regularly as an ordinary Shipmate. I think that’s good practice for any board with an inherent risk of disagreement and conflict (particularly Purg) and I’m not sure blurring the distinction between host and participant in such contexts is a good idea.
To me this is an excellent argument for hosts to have finite terms of service and then be replaced with others - it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea and not everyone has the time, but the experience of hosting could be a lot more spread out.
You know that to be the case because you’ve actually seen the manual. I can’t actually say I know it to be the case because I haven’t actually seen the manual, but I believe it to be the case because I’m very confident that I can trust the crew.
At least part of what has come up as a concern in this thread is the problem created when shipmates do not have trust or confidence in the crew. @la vie en rouge said this upthread:
It seems to me that the criticism of the crew that la vie en rouge is talking about evidences a lack of trust in the crew and its decisions and processes. I suspect most of us can remember fairly recent occasions when this “vexatious litigation” was a particular problem—when attempts to deal with repeated and long-standing problems created by one shipmate led to multiple Styx threads and recurring claims from that small group of shipmates that the one shipmate was being singled out and treated unfairly, that different rules were being applied to him, etc.
Now, imagine that shipmates from that small group learn there’s a crew manual that’s rarely talked about and that only the crew sees. Given the lack of trust that small group already has in the crew, is it really that hard to imagine a reaction along the lines of “We knew there was more going on than just the 10 Commandments. The crew just doesn’t want us to see it.”?
I would say, of course, that reactions like that would be totally unfounded. But as they say, perception is reality, and as evidenced by comments like la vie en rouge’s, the mistaken perceptions and resulting reactions of a small group have done some significant damage. All too often, I’ve seen leadership of organizations and entities inflict self-harm not because they’re doing anything wrong, but because they respond to questions with answers and actions that can give the perception of hiding something.
My experience tells me that one way to try to counteract that kind of mistaken perception is to avoid, if possible, doing things that might inadvertently feed the mistaken perception. My experience tells me that the questions to ask here are questions like:
- What value is there in sharing the crew’s manual only among the crew? Are we doing it just because it’s how we’ve always done it?
- What might be the harms or downsides of sharing the crew’s manual only among the crew?
- Would there be any value in making the manual available to any or all shipmates, either by linking to it somewhere that any registered shipmate could see it, or by providing a copy to any shipmate who requests it?
- What might be the harms or downsides in making the manual available to any or all shipmates, either by linking to it somewhere that any registered shipmate could see it, or by providing a copy to any shipmate who requests it?
- Does either course of action have the potential to enhance or erode trust?
- Does either course of action have the potential to enhance or diminish creation of an environment that is safe and works for both crew and shipmates?
As I said earlier, I’m not suggesting what the answer should ultimately be, except I will say this: My experience is that avoiding the questions at all is rarely the best answer.I really am sorry. I said I’d try to stop beating this drum and instead I’ve written an even longer post.