@Ruth has told me off before when I've stepped in to take her side on generalisations about 'Pond Differences' so I'll tread carefully.
In this instance I agree with her. I think you have overstated your case @fineline and generalisations about different approaches to punctuation and linguistics don't really shed much light on this issue.
I'd also add that I've certainly been guilty of making the kind of generalisations about Americans that @Ruth rightly complains about.
How far do we take this? That Americans are naturally rebellious and rail against authority and regulations because their ancestors rebelled against George III?
That British people are more compliant because we live in a monarchy?
I mean, c'mon. Both assertions would be ridiculous.
Every single time there was a hosting intervention - or so it felt - there would be a Styx thread demanding we dot every i and cross every t as to exactly what line this particular ambiguous insult or 17th thread on the same topic had crossed.
I think this happens at least in part because the community is not very big anymore -- with fewer people and fewer posts, it's extremely noticeable when a prominent poster is repeatedly cautioned and suspended. When this was a much larger group, things like this got swallowed up in the general hubbub. I don't remember a bunch of people crowding the Styx with protestations that merseymike should have been given more chances when he was tossed overboard for crusading. But that was a very long time ago.
@Nick Tamen - yes, I was saying I don't understand why you see the existence of a host manual is a reason for distrusting the team. And I explained why, and you didn't acknowledge or seem to understand/relate to anything I said, but just repeated what you'd said before. I still don't know what sort of thing you think is being hidden from you. I just know ('understand' to be a fact) that you see the existence of a host manual as reason to distrust hosts.
And so I realised, when you were just repeating yourself, rather than giving any underlying reasons, that there must be a fundamental underlying difference in values/expectations assumed, and it felt that needed to be explored.
I'm sure you don't intend this, but it kind of feels like you are picking apart details of my wording rather than actively trying to understand the overall content and spirit of what I am saying, and find points of agreement to work from for the good of the community. You are also taking my words out of context. The full quote of the third one you quoted is in fact:
I understand that you see this differently from me - maybe a cultural thing, I don't know - but of all the reasons a community can distrust the host and admin team, the existence of a training manual seems to me an odd one.
You must have seen that when you quoted one part of it, and seen that I was saying there that I understood that you see it differently, and that maybe a cultural difference was going on. That was the previous post I had written, and there were no questions in it. I was exploring other reasons a community might distrust hosts, but you didn't acknowledge or engage with that. I had previously been asking you questions to allow you to explain more, so that I could understand the underlying issues, but you were not asking me questions or engaging positively with anything I said. You were simply disagreeing with me, repeatedly, and it felt like you were really focused on the Host manual, rather than exploring other possible reasons to distrust a host team or positive solutions for the distrust you perceive to exist, so it felt pointless to continue.
Honestly, Nick, it feels quite battering and exhausting from my perspective, when I am trying to engage with you in good faith, and it feels like you are just finding reasons to repeatedly shoot down what I say, and you hyperfocus on the host manual. It feels like you got stuck in argument mode rather than engage with a human being mode. And I'm not even a hosting host. I can see how hosts might find this exhausting and non-constructive, regardless of whether they take it personally.
Anyway, I believe you are the only one who has expressed that the Host manual is an issue, so it's clearly an issue for you, but unless others say it's an issue for them, neither of us can assume it is or isn't. From my perspective, from the reasons I gave, I suspect it's very unlikely, but if other people start saying they find it hard to trust the hosts and admin because they haven't seen the host manual, then I would realise I was wrong. And equally maybe you would rethink if people were saying it wasn't an issue for them. But in the meantime, what about suggesting some ways to make Styx interaction more constructive?
As I understand, Nick, he has said some members might find the existence of a host manual, only seen by hosts, to be a reason why they might mistrust the powers that be. Unless, I missed it, I have not seen him say the existence of a host manual unseen by Shipmates causes him to mistrust the powers that be. I stand to be corrected, if I am wrong.
@Nick Tamen I think I do understand the point you are making: issues in Styx have at times been caused by some shipmates distrust of the crew > transparency increases trust > sharing the manual would demonstrate transparency > therefore increase trust > therefore causing a decrease in Styx issues ?
Yes, more or less, though with the counter-scenario as well: Responses like “Why would you want to see the manual? It’s just for the crew, you’d find it boring.” can lead to a perception that something is being hidden and that there is a lack of transparency > further distrust > causing an increase in Styx issues.
Practically: firstly the manual would need to be updated again - some statements about admin functions and other things are out of date. Secondly, the scenario outlined in this post is a concern.
Specifically, what I would term brinksmanship - where a shipmate wants a specific policy or decision to be different, but rather than make a persuasive case in Styx they try to push the boundary repeatedly whilst trying to stay just to one side of the line that might trigger a host intervention. That may sound distrustful of shipmates on the part of the crew, I would say most people don’t do this - but every so often folk do and it is very time consuming and potentially stressful to deal with.
Those are valid points. And I can imagine how time consuming and stressful that can be.
But the issue I’m trying to raise isn’t really about the manual per se, and whether it’s shared or not. The conversation I wanted to encourage was about transparency and mutual trust and whether any of the accepted (and perhaps unquestioned) ways of doing things might have the potential to inadvertently undermine trust and transparency. The manual is just the thing that arose in the course of this thread that led to opening that conversation.
It may be that at the end of that conversation we find some third way solution that balances concerns from both sides. And it might be that at the end of that conversation nothing changes. But even if nothing changes, I would say we’d be in a different and better place because we’d be doing the manual or whatever the thing is in the way we are not because “that’s just how we’ve done it” but because after consideration of pros and cons, we concluded it was the best way to do it.
@Nick Tamen - yes, I was saying I don't understand why you see the existence of a host manual is a reason for distrusting the team. And I explained why, and you didn't acknowledge or seem to understand/relate to anything I said, but just repeated what you'd said before.. I just know ('understand' to be a fact) that you see the existence of a host manual as reason to distrust hosts.
Would you please point out to me where I’ve said the bolded? You may think you know that is how I see it, but the fact is that I do not in any way think the existence of a host manual is a problem of any sort. I think it’s a good idea.
You say “I still don't know what sort of thing you think is being hidden from you.” You asked me that question earlier, and I answered you:
@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. . . .
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.
I am not trying to shoot down everything you say, @fineline. Not at all. But for my part, I’m finding it frustrating that you seem to continue to challenge me on things I haven’t said, and that I have tried repeatedly to make clear that I haven’t said.
@Caissa, no correction needed. You have read me correctly.
When I said 'from both sides', I didn't say 'here.' I was talking about the internet in general.
And yes, you are right that 'here' is different from the norm, and the usual pattern is reversed, because Brits are the majority. This is the point I'm making.
I'm not going to argue linguistics with you, because my point wasn't to argue but to suggest (and yes, I'm aware my thought process might seem odd to some) that perhaps there is a cultural issue (based partly on Nick's reasoning about the manual, and from my experience of American-run and British-run online groups in general) where Americans are the minority and do have quite different expectations about the structure, and that it might be helpful to unpick this a little.
You are free to disagree. If you want to shut down all discussion about pond differences, so be it, but I mentioned it because in my experience, such discussions can help with mutual understanding and respect and moving forward, if both sides are open to each other, and there is an acceptance that generalisations will occur, and one can acknowledge them as generalisations and still move forward and look for solutions together. Perhaps this is not possible or constructive here.
I actually can't tell from your language, Ruth, what you are wanting from these threads, but I hope you can communicate it to the people you want to communicate it to.
@Nick Tamen Yes, I know you are not trying to. That's why I said 'I'm sure this is not your intention'. I was trying to help you see how it feels from the receiving end (with the added intention of showing a possible reason such a pattern in Styx can be exhausting to hosts, as that was the topic). You can try to understand, to see these patterns, or you can immediately turn it around and tell me you're finding me frustrating, which I'm sure you are, but that would be a separate conversation, would it not?
@fineline, I don't agree that the various differences in expectations about what should take place in the Styx break down into just two groups, so I really don't agree that cultural differences between American and British shipmates at all explain what's going on here.
If for some reason I had to break shipmates into two groups, I'd say the split is between people who are comfortable with an more adversarial style and those who aren't. But even those of us who fall into the first group can find it wearing at times, and many of those who fall into the second are willing to wade in when it's important to them. And there are going to be topics that lend themselves to conflict for some people and not others, so there's one of many things that mean people won't neatly fall into two groups along these lines.
@Nick Tamen Yes, I know you are not trying to. That's why I said 'I'm sure this is not your intention'. I was trying to help you see how it feels from the receiving end (with the added intention of showing a possible reason such a pattern in Styx can be exhausting to hosts, as that was the topic). You can try to understand, to see these patterns, or you can immediately turn it around and tell me you're finding me frustrating, which I'm sure you are, but that would be a separate conversation, would it not?
Honestly, no, I don’t think it’s a different conversation. I think it’s part of the same conversation. I do understand that you find it exhausting, that you think I’m being repetitive, and that it feels to you like I’m looking for reasons to shoot you down. And I’m sorry that’s happening.
But from my perspective, the reason I’m having to repeat myself is because you continue to tell me I’m saying things that I’ve done my best to make clear I’m not saying. The things you’ve said that I’ve challenged are those things that misrepresented or misconstrued what I’ve said.
Under the circumstances, perhaps it’s best if we just move on.
To the issue of a manual. The first time I became aware of it was when I had posted a question in Kerygma asking about how people felt about a certain passage. I mentioned I was asking the question as a way of prepping for a sermon. I forget who was hosting Kerygmania at the time, but she immediately closed the thread, saying doing homework on the boards was against the rules. I could find no such rule in the intro to Kerygma or the commandments or other forms of guidelines that were out there at the time, so I challenged the reason why it was closed. The host said it was against the rule, but I could not find the rule. I am sure Doublethink remembers the situation. In the end, through a lot of conversation on the Styx and among the crew, though, that previously undisclosed rule is now, more or less, in the open.
I know how to drive a car. I am familiar with the codes related to driving a car. In the past, I could also figure out how to do some basic mechanical work on my car. The manuals back then were rather simple. The owner's manuals had a lot of the information in it. But as cars have gotten more complex, the mechanical manuals are much more complicated too. I could dole out a lot of money for such manuals, but I would not be able to really be able to apply them. I do not have the tools, the time, or the knowledge to apply them anymore. I will rely on others to keep my car going.
I have no problem with a host or administration manual out there. I see the function of Styx as a way to ask why a certain action was taken, to challenge the action, and to call for a better or more consistent way to handle the situation again, should it ever come up. It is not a means to dogpile on anyone. I am pleased there is such a relief valve in Styx to be able to address problems as they come up.
For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to agree with @Heavenlyannie and others about the hosting manual - I suspect the rules-lawyering risks significantly outweigh the transparency benefits.
I’m on the board of a volunteer organization which (like the Ship) has the potential to be fractious and also (like the Ship and virtually any other organization) has important discussions among its leadership that are necessarily confidential. The transparency issues this creates is making sure on the one hand that we are getting the feedback we need from people who aren’t in the room and on the other hand that our public communications are consistent with with our private communications and our actions. I’m not suggesting any particular application to the Ship here and now but at a high level I think this is the transparency issue that matters most in terms of retaining the confidence of the organization as a whole.
I am worried that we may be getting too focused on process for process sake. Ultimately process is in the service of making things work and personally I’m willing to tolerate a bit of untidiness about process on the Ship if people are actually engaging on the main boards and the boards are actually working. I admit the picture from my Canadian corner of the world is worrying - our Purg politics and All Saints threads have declined precipitously in the last few years to the point where both are barely alive.
No host has ever closed one of the few threads which I've started. They die by themselves, wither on the vine as no-one engages. I longed for a host to close one, Luxury, as Monty Python would have put it.
... our Purg politics and All Saints threads have declined precipitously in the last few years to the point where both are barely alive.
Well the Ship has become a bit of an echo chamber, so far as concerns politics. Perhaps it always was, the odd Gordon Cheng of unblessèd memory excepted. Many replies on political threads in Purg demonstrate a superficial at best understanding of the OP topic, heck, some thread starters ditto, so a lot of Shipmates shrug their shoulders and say to themselves, I'll leave it to the incognoscenti.
For myself, I welcome the more tolerant and respectful to Shipmates tone which today's crew display. Especially if I've swigged a bit too much red before I breach the Do Not Pist While Post Rule. But today's Ship, crew and hands alike, are paying the price of heavy-handedness, rudeness, (observe the Oxford comma) and sheer ignorance on the part of some hosts and admins in years past. The very existence and persistence of this thread show that things have changed.
@Gramps49 after that discussion the no homework rule was added to the policy update thread, in addition the Kerygmania guidelines were altered specifically to permit the discussion preaching texts as can be seen in section 9 here.
It does pertain to a more general issue. The 10 commandments are intended to be general principles from which the hosts work. But increasingly shipmates request detailed rules, one adaptation to that is the rolling policy update thread. However, that is somewhat of a contradiction of the idea behind the 10 commandments. As I understand it - I wasn’t around when they were written - the idea was that the situations we moderate are too varied and context specific to develop an exhaustive rule set and so hosting from a set of principles was likely to work more effectively. To some extent we seem to be drifting away from that.
Secondly, the scenario outlined in this post is a concern.
Specifically, what I would term brinksmanship - where a shipmate wants a specific policy or decision to be different, but rather than make a persuasive case in Styx they try to push the boundary repeatedly whilst trying to stay just to one side of the line that might trigger a host intervention. That may sound distrustful of shipmates on the part of the crew, I would say most people don’t do this - but every so often folk do and it is very time consuming and potentially stressful to deal with.
The most extreme long term example of that we’ve had, might be Martin54’s Schroedinger’s crusading. Every single time there was a hosting intervention - or so it felt - there would be a Styx thread demanding we dot every i and cross every t as to exactly what line this particular ambiguous insult or 17th thread on the same topic had crossed. It becomes exhausting. I regret the need to use a named example, but it is extremely difficult to discuss this wholely in the abstract.
From where I was standing, it looked like Martin54 eventually paid the price for being too difficult / too exhausting to host, as well as the exhausting nature of the consequent Styx threads.
I don't think it's unjustifiable for the hosting Crew to take action on this basis - this is one of the issues where being volunteers seems relevant. And one of the things that made the Styx threads difficult to negotiate was trying to explain and justify these hosting decisions in entirely rules-based terms.
Trying to reduce all the nuances of social interactions and social norms into a rule set also sounds quite exhausting.
I was aware of the ‘no homework’ rule before I ever became a host. It came as something of a surprise, with the instance that Gramps49 has mentioned, to discover that it wasn’t written down anywhere.
The 10 commandments are intended to be general principles from which the hosts work. But increasingly shipmates request detailed rules, one adaptation to that is the rolling policy update thread. However, that is somewhat of a contradiction of the idea behind the 10 commandments. As I understand it - I wasn’t around when they were written - the idea was that the situations we moderate are too varied and context specific to develop an exhaustive rule set and so hosting from a set of principles was likely to work more effectively. To some extent we seem to be drifting away from that.
I wasn't here when the first set of 10Cs was produced (the history I received was that following the first hurricane a small set of people committed to the Ship sat down and wrote them to provide a framework to try to prevent another hurricane - along with measures such as registered users, and hence the ability to remove registration). But, during my first few years on the Ship and into the period where I was a host, the 10Cs were regularly revised - usually by adding additional examples of jerkish behaviour that wasn't allowed. I can't remember exactly when the burden of trying to establish an exhaustive rule set, which was coupled with some Shipmates posting outrageous stuff that got people angry saying "but it's not forbidden in the 10Cs", became too much and we stripped the 10Cs back to a few general principles. But, that decision has certainly worked well for us, even if at times we find ourselves defending decisions made by application of general principles challenged because they aren't written down.
Comments
In this instance I agree with her. I think you have overstated your case @fineline and generalisations about different approaches to punctuation and linguistics don't really shed much light on this issue.
I'd also add that I've certainly been guilty of making the kind of generalisations about Americans that @Ruth rightly complains about.
How far do we take this? That Americans are naturally rebellious and rail against authority and regulations because their ancestors rebelled against George III?
That British people are more compliant because we live in a monarchy?
I mean, c'mon. Both assertions would be ridiculous.
I think this happens at least in part because the community is not very big anymore -- with fewer people and fewer posts, it's extremely noticeable when a prominent poster is repeatedly cautioned and suspended. When this was a much larger group, things like this got swallowed up in the general hubbub. I don't remember a bunch of people crowding the Styx with protestations that merseymike should have been given more chances when he was tossed overboard for crusading. But that was a very long time ago.
And so I realised, when you were just repeating yourself, rather than giving any underlying reasons, that there must be a fundamental underlying difference in values/expectations assumed, and it felt that needed to be explored.
I'm sure you don't intend this, but it kind of feels like you are picking apart details of my wording rather than actively trying to understand the overall content and spirit of what I am saying, and find points of agreement to work from for the good of the community. You are also taking my words out of context. The full quote of the third one you quoted is in fact:
You must have seen that when you quoted one part of it, and seen that I was saying there that I understood that you see it differently, and that maybe a cultural difference was going on. That was the previous post I had written, and there were no questions in it. I was exploring other reasons a community might distrust hosts, but you didn't acknowledge or engage with that. I had previously been asking you questions to allow you to explain more, so that I could understand the underlying issues, but you were not asking me questions or engaging positively with anything I said. You were simply disagreeing with me, repeatedly, and it felt like you were really focused on the Host manual, rather than exploring other possible reasons to distrust a host team or positive solutions for the distrust you perceive to exist, so it felt pointless to continue.
Honestly, Nick, it feels quite battering and exhausting from my perspective, when I am trying to engage with you in good faith, and it feels like you are just finding reasons to repeatedly shoot down what I say, and you hyperfocus on the host manual. It feels like you got stuck in argument mode rather than engage with a human being mode. And I'm not even a hosting host. I can see how hosts might find this exhausting and non-constructive, regardless of whether they take it personally.
Anyway, I believe you are the only one who has expressed that the Host manual is an issue, so it's clearly an issue for you, but unless others say it's an issue for them, neither of us can assume it is or isn't. From my perspective, from the reasons I gave, I suspect it's very unlikely, but if other people start saying they find it hard to trust the hosts and admin because they haven't seen the host manual, then I would realise I was wrong. And equally maybe you would rethink if people were saying it wasn't an issue for them. But in the meantime, what about suggesting some ways to make Styx interaction more constructive?
Those are valid points. And I can imagine how time consuming and stressful that can be.
But the issue I’m trying to raise isn’t really about the manual per se, and whether it’s shared or not. The conversation I wanted to encourage was about transparency and mutual trust and whether any of the accepted (and perhaps unquestioned) ways of doing things might have the potential to inadvertently undermine trust and transparency. The manual is just the thing that arose in the course of this thread that led to opening that conversation.
It may be that at the end of that conversation we find some third way solution that balances concerns from both sides. And it might be that at the end of that conversation nothing changes. But even if nothing changes, I would say we’d be in a different and better place because we’d be doing the manual or whatever the thing is in the way we are not because “that’s just how we’ve done it” but because after consideration of pros and cons, we concluded it was the best way to do it.
Would you please point out to me where I’ve said the bolded? You may think you know that is how I see it, but the fact is that I do not in any way think the existence of a host manual is a problem of any sort. I think it’s a good idea.
You say “I still don't know what sort of thing you think is being hidden from you.” You asked me that question earlier, and I answered you:
I am not trying to shoot down everything you say, @fineline. Not at all. But for my part, I’m finding it frustrating that you seem to continue to challenge me on things I haven’t said, and that I have tried repeatedly to make clear that I haven’t said.
@Caissa, no correction needed. You have read me correctly.
When I said 'from both sides', I didn't say 'here.' I was talking about the internet in general.
And yes, you are right that 'here' is different from the norm, and the usual pattern is reversed, because Brits are the majority. This is the point I'm making.
I'm not going to argue linguistics with you, because my point wasn't to argue but to suggest (and yes, I'm aware my thought process might seem odd to some) that perhaps there is a cultural issue (based partly on Nick's reasoning about the manual, and from my experience of American-run and British-run online groups in general) where Americans are the minority and do have quite different expectations about the structure, and that it might be helpful to unpick this a little.
You are free to disagree. If you want to shut down all discussion about pond differences, so be it, but I mentioned it because in my experience, such discussions can help with mutual understanding and respect and moving forward, if both sides are open to each other, and there is an acceptance that generalisations will occur, and one can acknowledge them as generalisations and still move forward and look for solutions together. Perhaps this is not possible or constructive here.
I actually can't tell from your language, Ruth, what you are wanting from these threads, but I hope you can communicate it to the people you want to communicate it to.
If for some reason I had to break shipmates into two groups, I'd say the split is between people who are comfortable with an more adversarial style and those who aren't. But even those of us who fall into the first group can find it wearing at times, and many of those who fall into the second are willing to wade in when it's important to them. And there are going to be topics that lend themselves to conflict for some people and not others, so there's one of many things that mean people won't neatly fall into two groups along these lines.
But from my perspective, the reason I’m having to repeat myself is because you continue to tell me I’m saying things that I’ve done my best to make clear I’m not saying. The things you’ve said that I’ve challenged are those things that misrepresented or misconstrued what I’ve said.
Under the circumstances, perhaps it’s best if we just move on.
Caissa responds: I tend to use it when an ambiguous "and" exists.
I know how to drive a car. I am familiar with the codes related to driving a car. In the past, I could also figure out how to do some basic mechanical work on my car. The manuals back then were rather simple. The owner's manuals had a lot of the information in it. But as cars have gotten more complex, the mechanical manuals are much more complicated too. I could dole out a lot of money for such manuals, but I would not be able to really be able to apply them. I do not have the tools, the time, or the knowledge to apply them anymore. I will rely on others to keep my car going.
I have no problem with a host or administration manual out there. I see the function of Styx as a way to ask why a certain action was taken, to challenge the action, and to call for a better or more consistent way to handle the situation again, should it ever come up. It is not a means to dogpile on anyone. I am pleased there is such a relief valve in Styx to be able to address problems as they come up.
I’m on the board of a volunteer organization which (like the Ship) has the potential to be fractious and also (like the Ship and virtually any other organization) has important discussions among its leadership that are necessarily confidential. The transparency issues this creates is making sure on the one hand that we are getting the feedback we need from people who aren’t in the room and on the other hand that our public communications are consistent with with our private communications and our actions. I’m not suggesting any particular application to the Ship here and now but at a high level I think this is the transparency issue that matters most in terms of retaining the confidence of the organization as a whole.
I am worried that we may be getting too focused on process for process sake. Ultimately process is in the service of making things work and personally I’m willing to tolerate a bit of untidiness about process on the Ship if people are actually engaging on the main boards and the boards are actually working. I admit the picture from my Canadian corner of the world is worrying - our Purg politics and All Saints threads have declined precipitously in the last few years to the point where both are barely alive.
Well the Ship has become a bit of an echo chamber, so far as concerns politics. Perhaps it always was, the odd Gordon Cheng of unblessèd memory excepted. Many replies on political threads in Purg demonstrate a superficial at best understanding of the OP topic, heck, some thread starters ditto, so a lot of Shipmates shrug their shoulders and say to themselves, I'll leave it to the incognoscenti.
For myself, I welcome the more tolerant and respectful to Shipmates tone which today's crew display. Especially if I've swigged a bit too much red before I breach the Do Not Pist While Post Rule. But today's Ship, crew and hands alike, are paying the price of heavy-handedness, rudeness, (observe the Oxford comma) and sheer ignorance on the part of some hosts and admins in years past. The very existence and persistence of this thread show that things have changed.
It does pertain to a more general issue. The 10 commandments are intended to be general principles from which the hosts work. But increasingly shipmates request detailed rules, one adaptation to that is the rolling policy update thread. However, that is somewhat of a contradiction of the idea behind the 10 commandments. As I understand it - I wasn’t around when they were written - the idea was that the situations we moderate are too varied and context specific to develop an exhaustive rule set and so hosting from a set of principles was likely to work more effectively. To some extent we seem to be drifting away from that.
I don't think it's unjustifiable for the hosting Crew to take action on this basis - this is one of the issues where being volunteers seems relevant. And one of the things that made the Styx threads difficult to negotiate was trying to explain and justify these hosting decisions in entirely rules-based terms.
Trying to reduce all the nuances of social interactions and social norms into a rule set also sounds quite exhausting.