You may have noticed it’s often myself or Alan who respond in Styx. This is essentially because hosts often feel dogpiled when they respond in Styx - likewise I think hosts are consulting more often about hosting calls for the same reason.
We have actively been trying to make Styx less Hellish for some time - for both hosts and shipmates. We still do not as a seem to have managed to reach a point of balance. We want shipmates to be able raise concerns and be listened to (in terms of us actually listening and people feeling that we are listening). Perfect performance, as either poster or host, is of course humanly impossible. So for that to work, it needs to be a space in which people can acknowledge mistakes.
I think what we are trying to get to, is for Styx to be a place where there is psychological safety to the extent that is possible in a large multi-cultural public group - in respect of shipmates raising concerns and hosts responding to them.
Unfortunately, if you read this thread from the beginning, it is a fairly good example of how we are not achieving this for either shipmates or hosts.
If anyone has any ***constructive*** suggestions for how we could achieve this I would be interested to hear them.
(ETA for clarity post thread split, Doublethink Styx Hosting)
As the wikipedia article says, "psychological safety is a group-level phenomenon", and most of the article is couched in terms of this group being a team. I struggle to see how this applies to the dynamics of the forums in which a team, which I most naturally read as being the Crew, monitors and moderates the actions of another group, being the Shipmates.
I find it hard to see how the principles could apply to all the members of the forums together as a single group. In relation to this:
According to Rogers, psychological safety is associated with three processes:
accepting the individual as of unconditional worth;
providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent; and
understanding empathically.
I don't think it would be possible for point 2 to apply, given that the Crew are evaluating every post that is made on the forums by the Shipmates.
(But I can see how a reciprocal evaluation is made by the Shipmates of every host post that is made by the Crew on threads, and all the posts made by the Crew in Styx.)
The system of government in this community is oligarchy. This is not a democracy. Shipmates do not participate in their evaluation - it is outside, beyond or external to them. Their role is subservient (compliant and obedient to authority).
The Royal College of Nursing describes psychological safety like this:
Psychological safety is when you feel able to:
express your ideas and concerns openly
ask questions
recognise your mistakes
challenge others, including authority figures, without fear of negative consequences.
I suggest that "trying to make Styx less Hellish" will not, in itself, lead to a significant increase in psychological safety for all members of the community.
The system of government in this community is oligarchy. This is not a democracy. Shipmates do not participate in their evaluation - it is outside, beyond or external to them. Their role is subservient (compliant and obedient to authority).
Well, I do not think that is in any way a constructive attitude with which to approach hosting responsibilities.
The system of government in this community is oligarchy. This is not a democracy. Shipmates do not participate in their evaluation - it is outside, beyond or external to them. Their role is subservient (compliant and obedient to authority).
The Royal College of Nursing describes psychological safety like this:
Psychological safety is when you feel able to:
express your ideas and concerns openly
ask questions
recognise your mistakes
challenge others, including authority figures, without fear of negative consequences.
I suggest that "trying to make Styx less Hellish" will not, in itself, lead to a significant increase in psychological safety for all members of the community.
Where this is used in healthcare, it does not preclude the fact the organisations continue to grievance, capability and disciplinary policies and professional standards that must be met - together with hierarchically organised operational line management. There is effectively an unarticulated social context that goes along with the idea of using the concept.
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to use it as a shorthand for what I mean.
I will try and re-articulate that more effectively in a separate post - and perhaps split the discussion off into a new thread.
The system of government in this community is oligarchy. This is not a democracy. Shipmates do not participate in their evaluation - it is outside, beyond or external to them. Their role is subservient (compliant and obedient to authority).
Well, I do not think that is in any way a constructive attitude with which to approach hosting responsibilities.
Oligarchy - rule by the few - comes in various forms, including kritarchy, meritocracy, technocracy, theocracy and timocracy. The point is that this, like many online communities, is not a democracy, and any consideration of the interactions between different classes of members needs to take this into account.
Furthermore, I think the RCN description of psychological safety illustrates that the question of authority is rather pertinent, however uncomfortable it might be to contemplate.
...
I suggest that "trying to make Styx less Hellish" will not, in itself, lead to a significant increase in psychological safety for all members of the community.
Where this is used in healthcare, it does not preclude the fact the organisations continue to grievance, capability and disciplinary policies and professional standards that must be met - together with hierarchically organised operational line management. There is effectively an unarticulated social context that goes along with the idea of using the concept.
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to use it as a shorthand for what I mean.
I will try and re-articulate that more effectively in a separate post - and perhaps split the discussion off into a new thread.
The system of government in this community is oligarchy. This is not a democracy. Shipmates do not participate in their evaluation - it is outside, beyond or external to them. Their role is subservient (compliant and obedient to authority).
Well, I do not think that is in any way a constructive attitude with which to approach hosting responsibilities.
Oligarchy - rule by the few - comes in various forms, including kritarchy, meritocracy, technocracy, theocracy and timocracy. The point is that this, like many online communities, is not a democracy, and any consideration of the interactions between different classes of members needs to take this into account.
It seems to me even more important to take into account the the Ship is a purely voluntary association, which people can join or leave as they wish. I’m not sure that attempting to impose political forms of government on that kind of voluntary group is really apt.
You'll have more psychological safety in the Styx if and when there's ever more of it on the boards. If the crew wants to be safe, the Ship as a whole has to be safe. Shipmates are thrown off balance, made to feel less safe, by inconsistency, incompleteness, and a lack of specificity in hosting posts. The crew can say over and over again that hosting posts aren't punitive, but that doesn't make it true. That's frequently how people experience them.
So, concretely: First, give complete and specific information in hosting posts. We're here because the thread closure in question was inconsistent with usual practice, only finding out on this thread that there were other factors in the closure than the hosting post indicated. If a thread appears about to go off the rails and you're trying to head that off, be specific about the post(s) that are prompting hostly throat-clearing. Second, give complete information in response to Styx inquiries. It can be like pulling teeth to find out what's going on. Someone asks a question here, a terse reply is given, and then it takes multiple more posts going back and forth, sometimes over several days, to tease out everything that went into the hosting action. Save everyone the aggravation and explain everything up front.
Also, I think you need to reframe your responses to criticisms and complaints in the Styx. First, stop using the word "dogpiling," because it's almost never what's actually happening in the Styx. People don't take part in these discussions to bully hosts, and saying people are dogpiling indicates you think people's Styx posts are thoughtless and you're not taking them seriously. It is in fact useful information when multiple shipmates feel strongly enough about something to participate in a Styx thread to say they agree with another shipmate or to tag on something related to the initial inquiry or complaint. Don't take it personally, because it's not meant personally -- it's not aimed at you as an individual, it's aimed at something you did in your official capacity. Accept that you may have to give more than one explanation and field follow-up questions, because there may be shipmates who don't follow the initial explanation or who think of an angle the crew hadn't considered.
If the crew were to reframe their responses to criticisms and complaints in the Styx, you'd have a lot more grounds for bringing shipmates around to the idea that hosting posts aren't punitive. But the crew brings a very guarded and defensive posture to the Styx, as if everything here were an attack, so there's no reason why shipmates shouldn't see hosting actions as punitive or attacks.
We have actively been trying to make Styx less Hellish for some time - for both hosts and shipmates.
How? What I see is that threads here are hastily closed and oblivionated, which to me says "shut up and go away" -- not at all less Hellish.
As other have implied, I would view "less Hellishness in the Styx" as a resultant measure rather than a means to the overall goal.
However, my guess is that thorough Hostly consistency is a unicorn state involving perfectly aligned Crew and Shipmates. On one hand, it's a lot to expect volunteers to embody a consistent mindset as they interpret the vicissitudes of thread postings. Simultaneously, it feels insane to suggest than any singly consistent methodology would be acceptable by all the internet randos who post here.
I look forward to what @Alan Cresswell and @Doublethink clarify as their envisioned modality for increased psychological safety - because it sounds like the best kind of direction. Possibly involving transparency and humility, but also asking for patience and forgiveness for disagreements. Maybe.
Oh look - something shiny to be mean to. [wanders off]
I wasn't part of those discussions that Gramps initiated that got closed down. I can see how Gramps' posts may have been problematic, but I can also see why it wasn't clear to Gramps why they were closed. To me, the 'This is interesting.' post by Gramps read as gossip - a sort of 'look, this person has been elected and look at their background - what does this tell you!' It felt vague and I wasn't sure if Gramps wanted people to gossip and speculate with him, or if he had an actual discussion question. Gamma asked him directly if he meant certain things, and Gramps didn't reply, and Spike closed the thread because it had nothing to do with liturgy.
Now normally if something is posted in the wrong place, hosts move it to the appropriate board. If hosts felt it didn't fit any board, then saying this directly would have been helpful, because as it is, Gramps simply posted again in a different board. But given that the purpose of Gramps' post was unclear, maybe asking him first to clarify what he wants to discuss would be even more helpful, because if there was an actual discussion he wanted to have, he would then have the opportunity to put it into clearer language. It wasn't really an announcement as such, because it was worded in a way to suggest that Gramps was seeing corrupt connections, and wanted to draw people's attention to his speculations (though without stating them directly). And a hosting could have pointed this out.
So thinking about how Styx could be a safer place, what if hosts have a system of questioning the purpose of a thread before closing it? I think this has been done in the past with vague posts - asking if there is a particular question the person is asking or an issue they want to discuss. With the understanding that if it's unclear, or if it doesn't seem constructive, it will be shut down. And then some discussion will have been had, so it won't be out of the blue.
In the past, hosts were blunter in their hosting, even rude, sometimes in a way that people found humorous, but it depended on the person being hosted, so of course it became problematic. It seems now that hosts may have gone to an opposite extreme of saying very little, which can be problematic in a different way. The blunter way gave the reasons more openly. Is there not some middle way, which isn't rude, but gives clear reasons? These reasons have now been given in the 'I wonder' Styx thread - clearly it wasn't just about Gramps posting on the wrong board or about no posts in 24 hours. If those reasons had been given in the thread itself, would that not reduce Styx stress?
But also, perhaps, as a community, we could develop, somehow, an overall understanding that humans are inconsistent, that everyone has double standards, that nothing is ever fully fair, and that people are quicker to see other people's inconsistencies than their own, quick to see the speck in their brother's eye but not the log in their own. I think it's important for people to be able to question, but it's more constructive to ask questions in good faith, and for them to be received and answered in good faith. Recognising the humans behind the posts. And maybe a guideline for people to think, when they start a post, about what their purpose is in posting, and how to make this clear.
"corrupt connections"? There are similarities between the two men. I did raise the possibility of how this might foster greater church unity. There is actually more to Yehiel Curry's election that I would have liked to point out--like him being the presiding bishop of the whitest denomination in the United States.
But this thread is not about me; rather, it is an attempt to explain some of the dynamics that goes on in the Bridge. I will leave it at that.
I know it's not about you, Gramps, but I was using your threads as an example, as those were what led to this discussion. They are an example of threads where the poster's purpose isn't clear to everyone, so hosts could ask for clarification before deciding to shut them down, which would make things clearer for both hosts and shipmates.
I'm not overly concerned what we call this forum's system of governance, but I do think that its nature is a significant factor in the issues that have been identified.
The governance of online communities has been studied for at least as long as the Ship of Fools forums have been going. As illustrated by the following extract, the governance of online communities is influenced by factors which aren't often taken into consideration by the people operating them: (From a paper on PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities.)
The software behind online community platforms encodes a governance model that represents a strikingly narrow set of governance possibilities focused on moderators and administrators. When online communities desire other forms of government, such as ones that take many members’ opinions into account or that distribute power in non-trivial ways, communities must resort to laborious manual effort.
…
Decisions around the governance of online communities, such as who can join, what content is allowed, and the consequences for breaking rules, have great importance. Today, this governance is predominantly expressed as a model consisting of roles and permissions, where groups such as administrators and moderators have broad privileges over regular users. This roles-and-permissions model has its roots in the UNIX file permissions model developed nearly fifty years ago, and it is a model now enshrined within the software of almost all major community platforms.
But governance via roles and permissions describes only a narrow set of governance possibilities. This approach also encodes certain values, making it easier to implement governance that is top-down, autocratic, and punitive. There are many cases where an online community may prefer or be better served by a different style of governance. …
Unfortunately, the software underlying most community platforms cannot support these alternative forms of government. … Given the difficulty involved, it is no surprise that most online communities use their platform’s default permissions model, even when it may not be a good fit. Without the flexibility to articulate new governance models, communities have few options when contending with problems common to moderated communities, ranging from moderator burnout, to being overwhelmed by newcomers, to surviving a legitimacy crisis.
What drives a genuine sense of community in online spaces? This study examines the role of governance, autonomy, and control in fostering a sense of community online. Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community, even after controlling for active, frequent community engagement. In contrast, merely enforcing rules through formal control mechanisms does not significantly enhance community strength. Inclusive governance also helps mitigate challenges posed by larger community sizes, supporting a strong sense of community at scale. However, the interaction between participatory governance and social control reveals a complex tension, where high member involvement may dilute the positive effects of peer-enforced norms. These insights underscore the necessity of a balanced, configurational governance approach, integrating both participatory processes and social control to bolster community cohesion. This study offers a more nuanced understanding of how online governance shapes community belonging and provides practical guidelines for designing more inclusive and cohesive digital spaces.
I've reread your post a number of times @pease and I know nothing about software or how it affects the governance of online communities. Are you saying that the software dicates the governance? If so, it seems to me that the function of Styx is (however imperfectly) to counteract that, by being the place to question or offer ideas.
Also, I'm finding it difficult to understand what this sentence actually means:
Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community, even after controlling for active, frequent community engagement.
and hope you can throw some light on it for me, please - particularly the phrase "even after controlling"?
I think Nenya, since he seems to be quoting an abstract of an article, the author(s), in their study, were "controlling for active, frequent community engagement".
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.
I've reread your post a number of times @pease and I know nothing about software or how it affects the governance of online communities. Are you saying that the software dictates the governance? If so, it seems to me that the function of Styx is (however imperfectly) to counteract that, by being the place to question or offer ideas.
What they're saying is that the software used in many online communities "encodes certain values, making it easier to implement governance that is top-down, autocratic, and punitive." Which makes sense to me. (This is an example of the way in which technology embeds/embodies values, often to the unequitable detriment of users.)
The software doesn't entirely dictate the form of governance, but it does lead it in a certain direction unless the operators take active steps to counter it. I think you're right in that the Styx *could* provide a mechanism to partially counteract it, but for this to work, it would require good-quality engagement between hosts and shipmates in relation to hosting decisions. To my mind, this is addressing the symptoms more than the causes.
Also, I'm finding it difficult to understand what this sentence actually means:
Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community, even after controlling for active, frequent community engagement.
and hope you can throw some light on it for me, please - particularly the phrase "even after controlling"?
"Controlling for a variable means accounting for its effects in a study to isolate the relationship between the main variables of interest. This helps to reduce bias and improve the accuracy of the results by ensuring that the controlled variable does not confound the findings."
In this sense, the variables of interest are participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms, and the controlled variable is active, frequent community engagement. There are apparently ways to measure these things although, as the study says elsewhere, "online communities can be 'slippery to define and tricky to measure'". Who'd have guessed?
Elsewhere, the authors explain what they're doing:
This study addresses these gaps by examining three key governance mechanisms: participatory governance, formal control, and social control within online communities. It explores how these institutional features relate to SoVC [sense of virtual community], using a representative sample of US Internet users who identify as members of online communities. Employing a measurement tool validated in both online and offline contexts across cultures, this study bridges the gap between the sense of community and online governance literature, to demonstrate that active involvement in community governance is important for fostering a sense of community online.
@la vie en rouge -- I never regarded the frequent flyers in the Styx as much more than an annoyance. If they really are a problem, they should be dealt with separately. Have a private discussion with each of them on their own to talk about what's going on. It's not fair to everyone else to let the crew's feelings about what @Doublethink has called "vexatious litigants" color how you deal with everything that comes up in the Styx.
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.
To me, this looks like a symptom.
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.
The crew can say over and over again that hosting posts aren't punitive, but that doesn't make it true. That's frequently how people experience them.
...
Don't take it personally, because it's not meant personally -- it's not aimed at you as an individual, it's aimed at something you did in your official capacity.
Just picking up on these posts, because they illustrate the way in which the Styx highlights the distinction between crew and shipmates, and that one group is exercising authority over the other.
And also because not taking stuff personally doesn't work. In communities, people very evidently take stuff personally. I'm not sure what a community in which people didn't take stuff personally would look like.
And thanks for the suggestions, which got me thinking about good-quality engagement.
I was just browsing the new books in our campus library and came across and checked out, Should You Believe Wikipaedia: Online Communities and the Construction of Knowledge by Amy S. Bruckman. The first chapter is titled Are Online "Communities" really Communities. The last two chapters are How do People Express Identity Online, and Why, and What is Bad Online Behavior and What Can We Do About It?
Here is a mini-review, by a self-proclaimed bookworm https://jasoncarloscox.com/reading/should-you-believe-wikipedia/
And also because not taking stuff personally doesn't work. In communities, people very evidently take stuff personally. I'm not sure what a community in which people didn't take stuff personally would look like.
Working at a church for a couple of decades, I regularly fielded complaints from the same few members again and again and again. Some of them I saw every week, and others called me. I didn't take it personally because some of them were just cranks, and when they weren't just cranks, I didn't have a problem separating their complaint about something I did as a representative of the institution from myself as a person. The best adjusted ministers I worked for didn't take complaints personally either - in congregational government there's no reason to because important policies are group decisions.
Not everyone is you, though, Ruth, and not everyone will fit with your understanding of a well-adjusted person. In my experience, some of the best leaders/facilitators are sensitive, and I find people who are open about their sensitivities, and look for ways to work with them in a way that works for both sides, are able to work far more effectively than those who suppress their sensitivities or use them to manipulate.
The Styx exists to keep the Crew honest and accountable to Shipmates. Hosts exists to help the Crew sense check decisions. The majority of times it works as well as anything can that involves imperfect people - Crew and Shipmates - doing their best.
I'm not sure that psychological safety is quite the right term, but I don't know of a better one so we'll stick with that.
Shipmates have the right to ask questions and seek clarification about Hosting decisions in the Styx. Having the ability to ask questions and seek clarification isn't the same as having the right to get the answer you want or like. It isn't the same as being able to bad mouth the Crew or appear on most Styx threads with montious regularly to tell them they're doing a shite job either. (Commandments 6. Respect the Ship’s crew; 5. Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended and 3. Attack the issue, not the person). Hosts are volunteers and, however much or little time we spend, that’s still time we’re giving up to serve here.
Until the very small group of "vexatious litigants" calm down, it is going to impact the experience the majority of Shipmates have in the Styx because it is affecting the way some Hosts feel about dealing with Styx calls. It may also discourage some Shipmates from using the Styx for its intended purpose. Everyone loses.
I never regarded the frequent flyers in the Styx as much more than an annoyance. If they really are a problem, they should be dealt with separately. Have a private discussion with each of them on their own to talk about what's going on. It's not fair to everyone else to let the crew's feelings about what @Doublethink has called "vexatious litigants" color how you deal with everything that comes up in the Styx.
Just because you had a very thick skin doesn't mean that everyone else does. You're right, it's not fair. But it's a two way street. The expectation that Crew members should just suck it up whatever is being dished out is not reasonable. As my late mother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Until the very small group of "vexatious litigants" calm down, it is going to impact the experience the majority of Shipmates have in the Styx because it is affecting the way some Hosts feel about dealing with Styx calls. It may also discourage some Shipmates from using the Styx for its intended purpose. Everyone loses.
And I suspect it might also deter some shipmates from agreeing to be hosts. I can imagine thinking “why would I willingly subject myself to that?”
Thank you for your thoughts, @Tubbs, and other hosts, former hosts and admins, too. I appreciate reading your perspectives.
Until the very small group of "vexatious litigants" calm down, it is going to impact the experience the majority of Shipmates have in the Styx because it is affecting the way some Hosts feel about dealing with Styx calls. It may also discourage some Shipmates from using the Styx for its intended purpose. Everyone loses.
And I suspect it might also deter some shipmates from agreeing to be hosts. I can imagine thinking “why would I willingly subject myself to that?”
Thank you for your thoughts, @Tubbs, and other hosts, former hosts and admins, too. I appreciate reading your perspectives.
@Nick Tamen Thank you for pointing that out. It only occurred to me later that it would put potential Crew members off as well.
And also because not taking stuff personally doesn't work. In communities, people very evidently take stuff personally. I'm not sure what a community in which people didn't take stuff personally would look like.
Working at a church for a couple of decades, I regularly fielded complaints from the same few members again and again and again. Some of them I saw every week, and others called me. I didn't take it personally because some of them were just cranks, and when they weren't just cranks, I didn't have a problem separating their complaint about something I did as a representative of the institution from myself as a person. The best adjusted ministers I worked for didn't take complaints personally either - in congregational government there's no reason to because important policies are group decisions.
The ministers I know in a personal capacity often take complaints personally. In their working capacity, they develop the habit of bottling up their reactions. The better-adjusted ones also develop the habit of getting it out of their system at a later date.
Regarding people in communities taking stuff personally, I was taking this:
The crew can say over and over again that hosting posts aren't punitive, but that doesn't make it true. That's frequently how people experience them.
to indicate that people here do take these things personally.
Does it make a difference whether or not the people concerned - ie the people taking things personally - are in a position of authority? That the exercising of authority creates an asymmetric relationship in which there are different expectations of those in authority, and those under authority?
Meanwhile, if we had a system of fully participatory community governance here, what issues relating to governance would you want to see being addressed by the decision-making process? [That's a question for anyone.]
Does it make a difference whether or not the people concerned - ie the people taking things personally - are in a position of authority? That the exercising of authority creates an asymmetric relationship in which there are different expectations of those in authority, and those under authority?
IMO, yes. Hosts aren't acting personally when they host; they are exercising authority, representing the institution. They aren't acting in their personal, individual capacities, speaking only for themselves when they host. They are enforcing policies developed by the crew that shipmates have agreed to abide by. They have the backing of the rest of the hosts and of the admins, who can and do limit or cut off posting ability when deemed necessary.
When a shipmate gets hosted, it is aimed at that individual in their personal capacity, and they have nothing backing them here but the reputation they've built through posting.
What would "a system of fully participatory community governance" look like?
Good question. For the purposes of the exercise, one in which all members get a say in all stages of the decision-making process. (I could probably come up with a tentative example, if it helps.)
What would "a system of fully participatory community governance" look like?
Good question. For the purposes of the exercise, one in which all members get a say in all stages of the decision-making process. (I could probably come up with a tentative example, if it helps.)
All stages? That sounds like a system in which it would take forever for decisions to get made.
Sometimes taking a while to get to a decision is okay, as when the question is about something like “should we give this a try?” But in cases such as dealing with violation of the Commandments, such as Hellish behavior outside He’ll, it sounds like a recipe for bigger problems.
What would "a system of fully participatory community governance" look like?
Good question. For the purposes of the exercise, one in which all members get a say in all stages of the decision-making process. (I could probably come up with a tentative example, if it helps.)
Do we not have that on the Ship? Questions and ideas are invited in Styx and it's my perception that any big proposed changes are discussed here first.
And as Nick says, involving all members in all stages sounds as though it could be very longwinded.
Having been a Host I can say it takes not just time but a degree of stability and equilibrium, a measure of self-confidence and resilience. All of which are vulnerable, to time, circumstances, criticism. I couldn't do it now, the shadows are too long, I wouldn't have the patience.
Does it make a difference whether or not the people concerned - ie the people taking things personally - are in a position of authority? That the exercising of authority creates an asymmetric relationship in which there are different expectations of those in authority, and those under authority?
IMO, yes. Hosts aren't acting personally when they host; they are exercising authority, representing the institution. They aren't acting in their personal, individual capacities, speaking only for themselves when they host. They are enforcing policies developed by the crew that shipmates have agreed to abide by.
A couple of points from this.
First, the two sections I've emphasised reads very much like you're viewing the role of host as one of policing - enforcing policy from a position of authority. That has never been anywhere near the top of the list of roles in the host job description, which has always been likened more to the host of a party who welcomes people, circulates making sure everyone is happy, contributing to the discussions in the room, clearing up after a drink gets spilled etc. Indeed, it's why we have "hosts" rather than "moderators", because we've always aimed at that softer approach. If there is a policing role here it's one that's carried by the admins, as we're the people who can take on the role of bouncer and remove people from the room if they cause too much disruption, and even then (as any good cop or bouncer would do) the first step would be to de-escalate the situation and resolve problems rather than dash in with all the force we have available.
Second, the "policies" we have here aren't something developed by the Crew alone, these have been developed in consultation with the whole body of Shipmates. Our 10Cs haven't been revised for many years, and were established before the vast majority of Shipmates first clambered aboard the Ship, but they evolved over time with changes discussed in the Styx. I'd accept that in the majority of cases (including the first version of the 10Cs, although my memory of the description of the early days on the Ship just before I came aboard suggests that at that point the number of Shipmates was small enough that the distinction between "Shipmate" and "Crew" was not as prominent as it has become, with the possible exception of Simon and Steve as founders of the Ship, and the initial 10Cs drafted by a subset of Shipmates who were able to get together to contribute to establish mechanisms to deal with disruption following the first hurricane) these were drafted by Crew and then refined by wider discussion - or rejected after the wider body of Shipmates found them unacceptable. The Crew don't sit around in the officers mess thinking up new rules just for the fun of it, we react to problems as they arise and consider possible solutions, and if there is a possible solution we can see then raise things in the Styx to get more feedback - because something we propose that the majority don't accept isn't going to solve the problem and/or will create far more problems.
Does it make a difference whether or not the people concerned - ie the people taking things personally - are in a position of authority? That the exercising of authority creates an asymmetric relationship in which there are different expectations of those in authority, and those under authority?
IMO, yes. Hosts aren't acting personally when they host; they are exercising authority, representing the institution. They aren't acting in their personal, individual capacities, speaking only for themselves when they host. They are enforcing policies developed by the crew that shipmates have agreed to abide by. They have the backing of the rest of the hosts and of the admins, who can and do limit or cut off posting ability when deemed necessary.
When a shipmate gets hosted, it is aimed at that individual in their personal capacity, and they have nothing backing them here but the reputation they've built through posting.
Thanks Ruth - that's helpful.
I think this illustrates the effect of asymmetric power relations on a community, and also the context in which the resulting tensions come to the surface. In communities with formal control mechanisms, this would be experienced in relation to the subsection of a community who are tasked with enforcing policies - which is another way of saying that those whose job it is to police a community get the most criticism.
Thus, here on the Ship, the questioning of hosting decisions in Styx bears most of the brunt of exposing the effect of the power asymmetry on those concerned, both Hosts and Shipmates.
What would "a system of fully participatory community governance" look like?
Good question. For the purposes of the exercise, one in which all members get a say in all stages of the decision-making process. (I could probably come up with a tentative example, if it helps.)
In response to Nick Tamen, Nenya and Firenze:
In the context of community governance, decision-making is about policy, what the rules are and how they should be enforced, the protocol for raising an issue on Styx, and so on. It doesn't refer to specific hosting decisions about individual posts or Shipmates.
That said, participatory governance does tend to take longer. The upside is that it tends to promote community cohesion. Or as the study I quoted above says:
Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community, even after controlling for active, frequent community engagement. In contrast, merely enforcing rules through formal control mechanisms does not significantly enhance community strength.
Do we not have that on the Ship? Questions and ideas are invited in Styx and it's my perception that any big proposed changes are discussed here first.
In relation to governance, what we have at the moment is admin-initiated consultation. And while consultation can play a role in participatory governance, there's a limit to what it can achieve by itself. Given that, and as an example, one small step towards more participatory governance would be for all members to be able initiate a consultation (say, if a certain number petitioned for it).
Having been a Host I can say it takes not just time but a degree of stability and equilibrium, a measure of self-confidence and resilience. All of which are vulnerable, to time, circumstances, criticism. I couldn't do it now, the shadows are too long, I wouldn't have the patience.
Thinking about the forums' direction of travel over the past few years, I'm starting to wonder if the current hosting model is still the most appropriate for our changing circumstances.
What would "a system of fully participatory community governance" look like?
Good question. For the purposes of the exercise, one in which all members get a say in all stages of the decision-making process. (I could probably come up with a tentative example, if it helps.)
Do we not have that on the Ship? Questions and ideas are invited in Styx and it's my perception that any big proposed changes are discussed here first.
And as Nick says, involving all members in all stages sounds as though it could be very longwinded.
Congregational government works for deciding on a course of action. With the usual caveats about the meeting being well run and plenty of clarity about the pros and cons of whatever decision is made. (And, even then, there will be unhappiness and things said). The Ship use it to decide about new boards – Hello Circus! – or tweaks to the commandments etc.
Congregations don’t use congregational government for dealing with behaviours. They delegate to the Minister and a small team of leaders who operate within an agreed framework. Constitution, law of the land etc. Or, in the Ship’s case, Crew applying the 10 Commandments and FAQs.
For the majority of Shipmates they respond to a Host call like this:
Two, possibly three times over the years I have been stood up by a host for stepping out of line over something. My immediate reaction was to blast back with "You didn't read my post, did you?" or something like that. A little reflection each time suggested that if I let it go we would all soon be distracted by more important things and move on, and not end up like Abdul Abulbul Amir*. I'm here to enjoy the Ship and the shipmates, and perhaps learn a thing or two along the way.
Sometimes clarify is needed about the rationale behind the call and there’s a discussion in the Styx. Which can lead to a resolution and, sometimes, an acknowledgement that the original Hosting call was incorrect.
Then, for a small minority a Host call is a big deal and a source of shame / embarrassment. Which is harder to deal with because how others feel isn’t within the Crew’s control.
Neither of those two groups are likely to feel a stronger sense of community and engagement if how to deal with their rule breach is discussed at length by which ever Shipmates feel like pitching in.
Then there’s the Brothers and Sisters of Perpetual Indignation. This small, but vocal group, view every action by the Crew as having has some secret, malign purpose. They make the same points repeatedly – which get answered by @Alan Cresswell and @Doublethink with more politeness than I ever managed as an Admin – but they don’t like the answers.
No model of hosting – however vigorous the academic study or well-planned the scenario – is going to work for them and fix their problem(s) with the Ship. They are determined to be dissatisfied. So let them. https://www.wondermind.com/article/let-them-theory/
This is a very interesting discussion. Last night, I started reading the Bruckman book I referenced above. On page 25, she references a book by Amy Jo Kim called Community Building on the Web (2000). She discusses how members can be supported at various stages, "welcome your visitors, instruct your novices, reward your regulars, empower your leaders, and honour your elders"' Bruckman postulates an online group works well if it has a good mix of all five categories.
Sometimes it becomes obvious a shipmate has serious challenges in their life, maybe from what they post incidentally on a thread - or when they ask for prayers etc. Sometimes by a sudden change in their posting patterns.
It is probably not appropriate or helpful for a host to say - I can see that your cat just died, your sister was just diagnosed with cancer and you have Covid so when I see you push boundaries I might cut you some slack provided it doesn’t happen every five minutes.
But in fact hosting is inevitably affected by our (limited) knowledge of shipmates circumstances.
But we would also be reluctant to post in Styx - shipmate x is having a shit time at the moment so we are trying to be tolerant that they are more ratty than usual. We also probably hope that members of the community have noticed the same thing - however, hosts may well read a wider range of threads and see these patterns whereas normally a shipmate will, presumably, only follow the threads they are interested in and not notice. (The most extreme example I’ve seen of a shipmate’s lack of awareness of another shipmate’s circumstances, was someone trying to argue with another member of the community in Hell - whom we had been informed had died some days before.)
This can affect the consistency of hosting.
Likewise, if a shipmate writes a duff op once and it has to be moved and/or interacted with the poster to fix it fair enough, nobody’s perfect. If it happens repeatedly, the willingness of the hosts to go through an extended process to fix it each and every time - is likely to decline. The exact point at which you would call such a posting pattern a C2 breach is a difficult judgement call.
Sometimes these processes are conscious, sometimes they are not, sometimes they become obvious to us only with the benefit of hindsight.
In relation to governance, what we have at the moment is admin-initiated consultation. And while consultation can play a role in participatory governance, there's a limit to what it can achieve by itself. Given that, and as an example, one small step towards more participatory governance would be for all members to be able initiate a consultation (say, if a certain number petitioned for it).
If you are referring to the current thread - shipmates can already open threads on ship policy in Styx, and I think have always been able to. The really formal consultations - e.g. about the ships change of ownership - have never been done by shipmates. However, it would be relatively easy to make that available - we would have to agree what counted as quorum and then it could probably run under an adaption of 8th Day rules.
@Alan Cresswell, I find it amusing that you write as if I hadn't been on the Ship's crew for a couple of decades. One of the first things I experienced after resigning was astonishment at how different it looks from the outside. Several years later, that feeling hasn't changed.
First, the two sections I've emphasised reads very much like you're viewing the role of host as one of policing - enforcing policy from a position of authority. That has never been anywhere near the top of the list of roles in the host job description, which has always been likened more to the host of a party who welcomes people, circulates making sure everyone is happy, contributing to the discussions in the room, clearing up after a drink gets spilled etc.
Unless they've served as hosts, shipmates never see the host job description. I'm well aware of the list of roles in the host manual, but what's described there is not how it seems or feels to me from where I sit now. Hosts are in fact sometimes careful not to contribute to discussions on threads where they anticipate having to make formal hosting posts. You can call them hosts, but they look more like the people on airport tarmacs waving semaphore flags and at times like street traffic cops.
Second, the "policies" we have here aren't something developed by the Crew alone, these have been developed in consultation with the whole body of Shipmates. ... The Crew don't sit around in the officers mess thinking up new rules just for the fun of it, we react to problems as they arise and consider possible solutions, and if there is a possible solution we can see then raise things in the Styx to get more feedback - because something we propose that the majority don't accept isn't going to solve the problem and/or will create far more problems.
The current crew does far more consultation than was the case in the past, but over the years most of the policies were developed by the crew and then announced in the Styx. Typically policy changes did come in response to things happening on the boards, but we didn't solicit ideas from shipmates at large when difficulties arose, and we didn't poll shipmates for their opinions about new policies before implementing them.
Unless they've served as hosts, shipmates never see the host job description. I'm well aware of the list of roles in the host manual, . . . .
There’s an actual manual with actual job descriptions? And, I assume, with other guidelines? I just assumed references to “job descriptions” were somewhat facetious, like references to the officers’ mess or the Gin.
Unless they've served as hosts, shipmates never see the host job description. I'm well aware of the list of roles in the host manual, . . . .
There’s an actual manual with actual job descriptions? And, I assume, with other guidelines? I just assumed references to “job descriptions” were somewhat facetious, like references to the officers’ mess or the Gin.
There's an actual manual. I helped write it. I have an old version from 2002 on my computer. The original document was studded with quotes from then hosts, and the whole bit about hosts being like hosts at a drinks party comes from a quote by @Hookers_Trick. It was originally an illustration of how he saw hosting, not a directive or prescription.
The GIN, sadly, is not real. The capitalization of GIN also comes from Hookers_Trick, if memory serves.
The description of the role of Hosts given in the FAQs emphasises the contribution to discussion on their forum (or playing the games etc depending on the nature of the forum), and the keeping things tidy. Admittedly it doesn't include the drinks party illustration, but the intent is to describe hosts as helpful guides to good practice rather than as bouncers or cops enforcing rules. This is our public facing "job description", a bit like a short advert describing the job whereas the hosts manual is what those interested in applying might get (though, the analogy isn't perfect as we don't recruit hosts that way).
The FAQs also spells out that the grog is virtual, not real.
...
First, the two sections I've emphasised reads very much like you're viewing the role of host as one of policing - enforcing policy from a position of authority. That has never been anywhere near the top of the list of roles in the host job description, which has always been likened more to the host of a party who welcomes people, circulates making sure everyone is happy, contributing to the discussions in the room, clearing up after a drink gets spilled etc. Indeed, it's why we have "hosts" rather than "moderators", because we've always aimed at that softer approach.
If that's the case (and also your post of a few minutes ago), why do Hosts use hosting tags and make formal hosting posts? Why do they issue reprimands? Why are they careful not to contribute to discussions on threads where they anticipate having to make formal hosting posts?
It seems that despite changes that have been gradually adopted over the years, the underlying Hosting metaphor (or paradigm) is still rather closer to one initially conceived to address historic disruption, as suggested by
and the initial 10Cs drafted by a subset of Shipmates who were able to get together to contribute to establish mechanisms to deal with disruption following the first hurricane
Congregations don’t use congregational government for dealing with behaviours. They delegate to the Minister and a small team of leaders who operate within an agreed framework. Constitution, law of the land etc. Or, in the Ship’s case, Crew applying the 10 Commandments and FAQs.
(Abstract)
Findings show that participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms are crucial for creating a strong sense of community … In contrast, merely enforcing rules through formal control mechanisms does not significantly enhance community strength.
...
(Literature Review: Online governance, autonomy, and control)
Formal control refers to explicit rules, policies, and guidelines enforced by individuals with authority, while informal control involves unwritten norms and peer influence that govern behaviors horizontally
...
(Discussion)
Notably, social control emerged as the most robust predictor of SoVC [sense of virtual community], underscoring the critical role of peer-enforced behavioral standards in fostering community unity.
...
Another interesting insight was that formal control mechanisms did not have any influence on SoVC, even when members participated in establishing the rules themselves, indicating that mere rule enforcement may not automatically translate into a stronger sense of community.
It strikes me that formal control and informal (or social) control form two distinct aspects of the role that Hosts take on, here on the forums (or even two distinct roles that hosts are expected to undertake). I don't know whether Hosts or former Hosts here would say this bears any resemblance to their experiences.
Unless they've served as hosts, shipmates never see the host job description. I'm well aware of the list of roles in the host manual, . . . .
There’s an actual manual with actual job descriptions? And, I assume, with other guidelines? I just assumed references to “job descriptions” were somewhat facetious, like references to the officers’ mess or the Gin.
There's an actual manual. I helped write it. I have an old version from 2002 on my computer. The original document was studded with quotes from then hosts, and the whole bit about hosts being like hosts at a drinks party comes from a quote by @Hookers_Trick. It was originally an illustration of how he saw hosting, not a directive or prescription.
The GIN, sadly, is not real. The capitalization of GIN also comes from Hookers_Trick, if memory serves.
This is our public facing "job description", a bit like a short advert describing the job whereas the hosts manual is what those interested in applying might get (though, the analogy isn't perfect as we don't recruit hosts that way).
Why are the actual job descriptions and other contents of the manual not public facing? The FAQs include this:
Is there a set of rules for the forums?
Yes… our house rules are called the 10 commandments.
The FAQs also note that the hosts all “know the ropes,” which to my mind, at least, suggests they are operating from general knowledge and experience of how the Ship functions and how the 10 Commandments have been implemented and enforced. I do not get the impression of any additional guidelines or manuals.
I want to be clear: I do not for a second think there’s anything nefarious going on. But what gave rise to this thread to start with was a concern about a specific hosting decision and seeming inconsistency about when threads should closed and when they should be moved to another forum. We get way down in the thread before a former host mentions the existence of a manual for hosts and admins. Does it say anything relevant to the concern that gave rise to this thread? Most of us have no way of knowing.
Another issue that has been highlighted in this thread is the “small group of vexatious litigants.’” Lack of transparency makes for a good breeding ground for vexatious litigants, as it undermines trust.
Again, I do trust the hosts and admins to be doing the best they can and to be operating with good intent and good will. But I can see how, if someone is already inclined to distrust, not having access to the rules or guidelines the hosts and admins are playing by further erodes trust.
Comments
We have actively been trying to make Styx less Hellish for some time - for both hosts and shipmates. We still do not as a seem to have managed to reach a point of balance. We want shipmates to be able raise concerns and be listened to (in terms of us actually listening and people feeling that we are listening). Perfect performance, as either poster or host, is of course humanly impossible. So for that to work, it needs to be a space in which people can acknowledge mistakes.
I think what we are trying to get to, is for Styx to be a place where there is psychological safety to the extent that is possible in a large multi-cultural public group - in respect of shipmates raising concerns and hosts responding to them.
Unfortunately, if you read this thread from the beginning, it is a fairly good example of how we are not achieving this for either shipmates or hosts.
If anyone has any ***constructive*** suggestions for how we could achieve this I would be interested to hear them.
(ETA for clarity post thread split, Doublethink Styx Hosting)
I find it hard to see how the principles could apply to all the members of the forums together as a single group. In relation to this: I don't think it would be possible for point 2 to apply, given that the Crew are evaluating every post that is made on the forums by the Shipmates.
(But I can see how a reciprocal evaluation is made by the Shipmates of every host post that is made by the Crew on threads, and all the posts made by the Crew in Styx.)
The Royal College of Nursing describes psychological safety like this: I suggest that "trying to make Styx less Hellish" will not, in itself, lead to a significant increase in psychological safety for all members of the community.
Where this is used in healthcare, it does not preclude the fact the organisations continue to grievance, capability and disciplinary policies and professional standards that must be met - together with hierarchically organised operational line management. There is effectively an unarticulated social context that goes along with the idea of using the concept.
Perhaps it was a mistake for me to use it as a shorthand for what I mean.
I will try and re-articulate that more effectively in a separate post - and perhaps split the discussion off into a new thread.
Furthermore, I think the RCN description of psychological safety illustrates that the question of authority is rather pertinent, however uncomfortable it might be to contemplate.
OK - thanks.
You'll have more psychological safety in the Styx if and when there's ever more of it on the boards. If the crew wants to be safe, the Ship as a whole has to be safe. Shipmates are thrown off balance, made to feel less safe, by inconsistency, incompleteness, and a lack of specificity in hosting posts. The crew can say over and over again that hosting posts aren't punitive, but that doesn't make it true. That's frequently how people experience them.
So, concretely: First, give complete and specific information in hosting posts. We're here because the thread closure in question was inconsistent with usual practice, only finding out on this thread that there were other factors in the closure than the hosting post indicated. If a thread appears about to go off the rails and you're trying to head that off, be specific about the post(s) that are prompting hostly throat-clearing. Second, give complete information in response to Styx inquiries. It can be like pulling teeth to find out what's going on. Someone asks a question here, a terse reply is given, and then it takes multiple more posts going back and forth, sometimes over several days, to tease out everything that went into the hosting action. Save everyone the aggravation and explain everything up front.
Also, I think you need to reframe your responses to criticisms and complaints in the Styx. First, stop using the word "dogpiling," because it's almost never what's actually happening in the Styx. People don't take part in these discussions to bully hosts, and saying people are dogpiling indicates you think people's Styx posts are thoughtless and you're not taking them seriously. It is in fact useful information when multiple shipmates feel strongly enough about something to participate in a Styx thread to say they agree with another shipmate or to tag on something related to the initial inquiry or complaint. Don't take it personally, because it's not meant personally -- it's not aimed at you as an individual, it's aimed at something you did in your official capacity. Accept that you may have to give more than one explanation and field follow-up questions, because there may be shipmates who don't follow the initial explanation or who think of an angle the crew hadn't considered.
If the crew were to reframe their responses to criticisms and complaints in the Styx, you'd have a lot more grounds for bringing shipmates around to the idea that hosting posts aren't punitive. But the crew brings a very guarded and defensive posture to the Styx, as if everything here were an attack, so there's no reason why shipmates shouldn't see hosting actions as punitive or attacks.
How? What I see is that threads here are hastily closed and oblivionated, which to me says "shut up and go away" -- not at all less Hellish.
However, my guess is that thorough Hostly consistency is a unicorn state involving perfectly aligned Crew and Shipmates. On one hand, it's a lot to expect volunteers to embody a consistent mindset as they interpret the vicissitudes of thread postings. Simultaneously, it feels insane to suggest than any singly consistent methodology would be acceptable by all the internet randos who post here.
I look forward to what @Alan Cresswell and @Doublethink clarify as their envisioned modality for increased psychological safety - because it sounds like the best kind of direction. Possibly involving transparency and humility, but also asking for patience and forgiveness for disagreements. Maybe.
Oh look - something shiny to be mean to. [wanders off]
Now normally if something is posted in the wrong place, hosts move it to the appropriate board. If hosts felt it didn't fit any board, then saying this directly would have been helpful, because as it is, Gramps simply posted again in a different board. But given that the purpose of Gramps' post was unclear, maybe asking him first to clarify what he wants to discuss would be even more helpful, because if there was an actual discussion he wanted to have, he would then have the opportunity to put it into clearer language. It wasn't really an announcement as such, because it was worded in a way to suggest that Gramps was seeing corrupt connections, and wanted to draw people's attention to his speculations (though without stating them directly). And a hosting could have pointed this out.
So thinking about how Styx could be a safer place, what if hosts have a system of questioning the purpose of a thread before closing it? I think this has been done in the past with vague posts - asking if there is a particular question the person is asking or an issue they want to discuss. With the understanding that if it's unclear, or if it doesn't seem constructive, it will be shut down. And then some discussion will have been had, so it won't be out of the blue.
In the past, hosts were blunter in their hosting, even rude, sometimes in a way that people found humorous, but it depended on the person being hosted, so of course it became problematic. It seems now that hosts may have gone to an opposite extreme of saying very little, which can be problematic in a different way. The blunter way gave the reasons more openly. Is there not some middle way, which isn't rude, but gives clear reasons? These reasons have now been given in the 'I wonder' Styx thread - clearly it wasn't just about Gramps posting on the wrong board or about no posts in 24 hours. If those reasons had been given in the thread itself, would that not reduce Styx stress?
But also, perhaps, as a community, we could develop, somehow, an overall understanding that humans are inconsistent, that everyone has double standards, that nothing is ever fully fair, and that people are quicker to see other people's inconsistencies than their own, quick to see the speck in their brother's eye but not the log in their own. I think it's important for people to be able to question, but it's more constructive to ask questions in good faith, and for them to be received and answered in good faith. Recognising the humans behind the posts. And maybe a guideline for people to think, when they start a post, about what their purpose is in posting, and how to make this clear.
But this thread is not about me; rather, it is an attempt to explain some of the dynamics that goes on in the Bridge. I will leave it at that.
The governance of online communities has been studied for at least as long as the Ship of Fools forums have been going. As illustrated by the following extract, the governance of online communities is influenced by factors which aren't often taken into consideration by the people operating them: (From a paper on PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities.)
Other studies address the (unarticulated) social context that Doublethink identified earlier. For example, Governance dynamics in online communities: Autonomy, control, and sense of virtual community:
Also, I'm finding it difficult to understand what this sentence actually means:
and hope you can throw some light on it for me, please - particularly the phrase "even after controlling"?
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.
The software doesn't entirely dictate the form of governance, but it does lead it in a certain direction unless the operators take active steps to counter it. I think you're right in that the Styx *could* provide a mechanism to partially counteract it, but for this to work, it would require good-quality engagement between hosts and shipmates in relation to hosting decisions. To my mind, this is addressing the symptoms more than the causes.
"Controlling for a variable means accounting for its effects in a study to isolate the relationship between the main variables of interest. This helps to reduce bias and improve the accuracy of the results by ensuring that the controlled variable does not confound the findings."
In this sense, the variables of interest are participatory governance and peer-enforced social norms, and the controlled variable is active, frequent community engagement. There are apparently ways to measure these things although, as the study says elsewhere, "online communities can be 'slippery to define and tricky to measure'". Who'd have guessed?
Elsewhere, the authors explain what they're doing:
For the purpose of juxtaposition. Just picking up on these posts, because they illustrate the way in which the Styx highlights the distinction between crew and shipmates, and that one group is exercising authority over the other.
And also because not taking stuff personally doesn't work. In communities, people very evidently take stuff personally. I'm not sure what a community in which people didn't take stuff personally would look like.
And thanks for the suggestions, which got me thinking about good-quality engagement.
Here is a mini-review, by a self-proclaimed bookworm https://jasoncarloscox.com/reading/should-you-believe-wikipedia/
Working at a church for a couple of decades, I regularly fielded complaints from the same few members again and again and again. Some of them I saw every week, and others called me. I didn't take it personally because some of them were just cranks, and when they weren't just cranks, I didn't have a problem separating their complaint about something I did as a representative of the institution from myself as a person. The best adjusted ministers I worked for didn't take complaints personally either - in congregational government there's no reason to because important policies are group decisions.
I'm not sure that psychological safety is quite the right term, but I don't know of a better one so we'll stick with that.
Shipmates have the right to ask questions and seek clarification about Hosting decisions in the Styx. Having the ability to ask questions and seek clarification isn't the same as having the right to get the answer you want or like. It isn't the same as being able to bad mouth the Crew or appear on most Styx threads with montious regularly to tell them they're doing a shite job either. (Commandments 6. Respect the Ship’s crew; 5. Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended and 3. Attack the issue, not the person). Hosts are volunteers and, however much or little time we spend, that’s still time we’re giving up to serve here.
Until the very small group of "vexatious litigants" calm down, it is going to impact the experience the majority of Shipmates have in the Styx because it is affecting the way some Hosts feel about dealing with Styx calls. It may also discourage some Shipmates from using the Styx for its intended purpose. Everyone loses.
@Ruth
Just because you had a very thick skin doesn't mean that everyone else does. You're right, it's not fair. But it's a two way street. The expectation that Crew members should just suck it up whatever is being dished out is not reasonable. As my late mother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".
Thank you for your thoughts, @Tubbs, and other hosts, former hosts and admins, too. I appreciate reading your perspectives.
@Nick Tamen Thank you for pointing that out. It only occurred to me later that it would put potential Crew members off as well.
Regarding people in communities taking stuff personally, I was taking this: to indicate that people here do take these things personally.
Does it make a difference whether or not the people concerned - ie the people taking things personally - are in a position of authority? That the exercising of authority creates an asymmetric relationship in which there are different expectations of those in authority, and those under authority?
Meanwhile, if we had a system of fully participatory community governance here, what issues relating to governance would you want to see being addressed by the decision-making process? [That's a question for anyone.]
When a shipmate gets hosted, it is aimed at that individual in their personal capacity, and they have nothing backing them here but the reputation they've built through posting.
Sometimes taking a while to get to a decision is okay, as when the question is about something like “should we give this a try?” But in cases such as dealing with violation of the Commandments, such as Hellish behavior outside He’ll, it sounds like a recipe for bigger problems.
And as Nick says, involving all members in all stages sounds as though it could be very longwinded.
Having been a Host I can say it takes not just time but a degree of stability and equilibrium, a measure of self-confidence and resilience. All of which are vulnerable, to time, circumstances, criticism. I couldn't do it now, the shadows are too long, I wouldn't have the patience.
First, the two sections I've emphasised reads very much like you're viewing the role of host as one of policing - enforcing policy from a position of authority. That has never been anywhere near the top of the list of roles in the host job description, which has always been likened more to the host of a party who welcomes people, circulates making sure everyone is happy, contributing to the discussions in the room, clearing up after a drink gets spilled etc. Indeed, it's why we have "hosts" rather than "moderators", because we've always aimed at that softer approach. If there is a policing role here it's one that's carried by the admins, as we're the people who can take on the role of bouncer and remove people from the room if they cause too much disruption, and even then (as any good cop or bouncer would do) the first step would be to de-escalate the situation and resolve problems rather than dash in with all the force we have available.
Second, the "policies" we have here aren't something developed by the Crew alone, these have been developed in consultation with the whole body of Shipmates. Our 10Cs haven't been revised for many years, and were established before the vast majority of Shipmates first clambered aboard the Ship, but they evolved over time with changes discussed in the Styx. I'd accept that in the majority of cases (including the first version of the 10Cs, although my memory of the description of the early days on the Ship just before I came aboard suggests that at that point the number of Shipmates was small enough that the distinction between "Shipmate" and "Crew" was not as prominent as it has become, with the possible exception of Simon and Steve as founders of the Ship, and the initial 10Cs drafted by a subset of Shipmates who were able to get together to contribute to establish mechanisms to deal with disruption following the first hurricane) these were drafted by Crew and then refined by wider discussion - or rejected after the wider body of Shipmates found them unacceptable. The Crew don't sit around in the officers mess thinking up new rules just for the fun of it, we react to problems as they arise and consider possible solutions, and if there is a possible solution we can see then raise things in the Styx to get more feedback - because something we propose that the majority don't accept isn't going to solve the problem and/or will create far more problems.
I think this illustrates the effect of asymmetric power relations on a community, and also the context in which the resulting tensions come to the surface. In communities with formal control mechanisms, this would be experienced in relation to the subsection of a community who are tasked with enforcing policies - which is another way of saying that those whose job it is to police a community get the most criticism.
Thus, here on the Ship, the questioning of hosting decisions in Styx bears most of the brunt of exposing the effect of the power asymmetry on those concerned, both Hosts and Shipmates.
In the context of community governance, decision-making is about policy, what the rules are and how they should be enforced, the protocol for raising an issue on Styx, and so on. It doesn't refer to specific hosting decisions about individual posts or Shipmates.
That said, participatory governance does tend to take longer. The upside is that it tends to promote community cohesion. Or as the study I quoted above says: In relation to governance, what we have at the moment is admin-initiated consultation. And while consultation can play a role in participatory governance, there's a limit to what it can achieve by itself. Given that, and as an example, one small step towards more participatory governance would be for all members to be able initiate a consultation (say, if a certain number petitioned for it).
Thinking about the forums' direction of travel over the past few years, I'm starting to wonder if the current hosting model is still the most appropriate for our changing circumstances.
Congregational government works for deciding on a course of action. With the usual caveats about the meeting being well run and plenty of clarity about the pros and cons of whatever decision is made. (And, even then, there will be unhappiness and things said). The Ship use it to decide about new boards – Hello Circus! – or tweaks to the commandments etc.
Congregations don’t use congregational government for dealing with behaviours. They delegate to the Minister and a small team of leaders who operate within an agreed framework. Constitution, law of the land etc. Or, in the Ship’s case, Crew applying the 10 Commandments and FAQs.
For the majority of Shipmates they respond to a Host call like this:
Sometimes clarify is needed about the rationale behind the call and there’s a discussion in the Styx. Which can lead to a resolution and, sometimes, an acknowledgement that the original Hosting call was incorrect.
Then, for a small minority a Host call is a big deal and a source of shame / embarrassment. Which is harder to deal with because how others feel isn’t within the Crew’s control.
Neither of those two groups are likely to feel a stronger sense of community and engagement if how to deal with their rule breach is discussed at length by which ever Shipmates feel like pitching in.
Then there’s the Brothers and Sisters of Perpetual Indignation. This small, but vocal group, view every action by the Crew as having has some secret, malign purpose. They make the same points repeatedly – which get answered by @Alan Cresswell and @Doublethink with more politeness than I ever managed as an Admin – but they don’t like the answers.
No model of hosting – however vigorous the academic study or well-planned the scenario – is going to work for them and fix their problem(s) with the Ship. They are determined to be dissatisfied. So let them. https://www.wondermind.com/article/let-them-theory/
It is probably not appropriate or helpful for a host to say - I can see that your cat just died, your sister was just diagnosed with cancer and you have Covid so when I see you push boundaries I might cut you some slack provided it doesn’t happen every five minutes.
But in fact hosting is inevitably affected by our (limited) knowledge of shipmates circumstances.
But we would also be reluctant to post in Styx - shipmate x is having a shit time at the moment so we are trying to be tolerant that they are more ratty than usual. We also probably hope that members of the community have noticed the same thing - however, hosts may well read a wider range of threads and see these patterns whereas normally a shipmate will, presumably, only follow the threads they are interested in and not notice. (The most extreme example I’ve seen of a shipmate’s lack of awareness of another shipmate’s circumstances, was someone trying to argue with another member of the community in Hell - whom we had been informed had died some days before.)
This can affect the consistency of hosting.
Likewise, if a shipmate writes a duff op once and it has to be moved and/or interacted with the poster to fix it fair enough, nobody’s perfect. If it happens repeatedly, the willingness of the hosts to go through an extended process to fix it each and every time - is likely to decline. The exact point at which you would call such a posting pattern a C2 breach is a difficult judgement call.
Sometimes these processes are conscious, sometimes they are not, sometimes they become obvious to us only with the benefit of hindsight.
If you are referring to the current thread - shipmates can already open threads on ship policy in Styx, and I think have always been able to. The really formal consultations - e.g. about the ships change of ownership - have never been done by shipmates. However, it would be relatively easy to make that available - we would have to agree what counted as quorum and then it could probably run under an adaption of 8th Day rules.
Unless they've served as hosts, shipmates never see the host job description. I'm well aware of the list of roles in the host manual, but what's described there is not how it seems or feels to me from where I sit now. Hosts are in fact sometimes careful not to contribute to discussions on threads where they anticipate having to make formal hosting posts. You can call them hosts, but they look more like the people on airport tarmacs waving semaphore flags and at times like street traffic cops.
The current crew does far more consultation than was the case in the past, but over the years most of the policies were developed by the crew and then announced in the Styx. Typically policy changes did come in response to things happening on the boards, but we didn't solicit ideas from shipmates at large when difficulties arose, and we didn't poll shipmates for their opinions about new policies before implementing them.
The GIN, sadly, is not real. The capitalization of GIN also comes from Hookers_Trick, if memory serves.
The FAQs also spells out that the grog is virtual, not real.
It seems that despite changes that have been gradually adopted over the years, the underlying Hosting metaphor (or paradigm) is still rather closer to one initially conceived to address historic disruption, as suggested by and
It strikes me that formal control and informal (or social) control form two distinct aspects of the role that Hosts take on, here on the forums (or even two distinct roles that hosts are expected to undertake). I don't know whether Hosts or former Hosts here would say this bears any resemblance to their experiences.
Why are the actual job descriptions and other contents of the manual not public facing? The FAQs include this:
The FAQs also note that the hosts all “know the ropes,” which to my mind, at least, suggests they are operating from general knowledge and experience of how the Ship functions and how the 10 Commandments have been implemented and enforced. I do not get the impression of any additional guidelines or manuals.
I want to be clear: I do not for a second think there’s anything nefarious going on. But what gave rise to this thread to start with was a concern about a specific hosting decision and seeming inconsistency about when threads should closed and when they should be moved to another forum. We get way down in the thread before a former host mentions the existence of a manual for hosts and admins. Does it say anything relevant to the concern that gave rise to this thread? Most of us have no way of knowing.
Another issue that has been highlighted in this thread is the “small group of vexatious litigants.’” Lack of transparency makes for a good breeding ground for vexatious litigants, as it undermines trust.
Again, I do trust the hosts and admins to be doing the best they can and to be operating with good intent and good will. But I can see how, if someone is already inclined to distrust, not having access to the rules or guidelines the hosts and admins are playing by further erodes trust.