Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Apr 2005 07:47:20 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2808 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> What exactly is heavy handed?
I'm sure there are many ways to define this, but what I mean is being so
strict about following the minutiae of rules and regulations that enforcement
becomes/is perceived as becoming overbearing, personal rather than professional,
punitive, and/or unjust. Punishing a member for offsite remarks (1) is seen by
many as having been heavy handed; so is punishing someone for remarks made in
the heat of the moment but adding nothing new to the forum.
Being heavy handed is putting the rules first over the real pursuit (the
business of selling fast food or the pleasure of playing with plastic
construction toys) and then continuing to allow "adherence to rules" rather the
the real pursuit to remain the focus.
> (personally I hate the cancel
> request as a way to adhere to the no censorship model but am not ready to give
> up on no censorship as an ideal
Dissent exists. In a community without censorship, it will be
communicated. In a community in which any kind of censorship exists (including
perceived but not actual censorship), some dissent will be taken to another
forum.
But punishment for dissent voiced in someone else's
home/business/country/internet site where the rules allow for this dissent,
while possibly legal, is seen as heavy handed.
I seem to be leaning toward **perception** of heavy-handedness as that
which is to be minimized, though both perceived and actual heavy-handedness have
the same effect of bringing about mistrust, dissent, and rebellion.
> Given the toolset we have now, what other approaches could be used?
Don't take everything so seriously - people are rough around the edges and
imperfect. Let it roll off, let tempers cool, and discuss. Don't always be
right, and don't point out each wrong. Resist the urge to make replies
personal, even on a deeper, hidden level. Admit mistakes. And move on. (2)
> Isn't it true that other places are actually much MORE
> heavy handed but don't have that perception, because reviewing actions and
> administrative actions all happen behind the scenes?
And possibly this is one key to a stronger community here. But this comes
in other places with clear expectations about what is and is not appropriate
behavior; LUGNET's stated expectations are not only not clear, they're also not
always easy to locate and to learn.
> What are the desired rules for LUGNET?
I can't claim to know for everyone, but I'd say it's a safe bet that an
inclusive community is a large part of that - one where member input is
considered, though not necessarily the final word. I'd also say clear
expectations would be important; people don't care for the perception that
members are punished for something that **may or may not be** "wrong" according
to website guidelines.
And the rules shouldn't supercede the community; rules are important, but I
doubt many people feel they're more important than getting together to play with
each other. Can you think of any examples where "bending the rules" in
forgiveness ultimately teaches a greater good and brings people together?
> Should it be all things to all people?
> We've believed not.
And I agree - one can't make everybody happy. But one sure can easily tick
a bunch of them off. Managing with a light touch eliminates some of this
negativity for the greater good of the community.
> If LUGNET should have rules and
> they should be family friendly ones, there needs to be SOME enforcement
> mechanism, doesn't there?
Yes, but it doesn't need to be the overriding factor of life in our
community. Enforcement used sparingly helps (in my management experience)
remind people that there are expectations. Enforcement used too regularly, or
with just a perception of the personal rather than the professional, or when
expectations aren't clear from the beginning, causes discouragement and distrust
- and the community begins to break down. Admittedly, finding that middle line
where people are reminded without going too far isn't easy, but I believe this
to be an essential skill for a community to remain healthy.
> Others in various threads have said that increased enforcement is required
> because of growth, and then have been rebutted by statistics that show that
> growth isn't actually there. I would ask, can that argument be turned on its
> head?
My last remark addresses this. An increase in the **number** of
enforcement actions may naturally occur in a growing population, but I believe
that the **proportion** of enforcement actions should be carefully monitored,
because "too much" happens very quickly. Where there is no evidence of growth,
there is no basis for increased enforcement, and increasing it may cause more
harm than good for the community overall.
> Is it possible that the anarchy period and the resistance to reviewing,
> and the amount of discussion about specific actions, are poisoning the
> atmosphere and driving people away, and causing shrinkage?
Yes, but I would also suggest that it's possible that heavy-handedness has
occurred on LUGNET recently in unjust punishment, in personal rather than
professional points being made, and in overbearing persistance in pointing out
the rules rather than growing the community.
> I don't know the answers...
It's good to hear that...LUGNET admins have a difficult job ahead in making
this transition, and mistakes will be made. I believe all of you (admins) are
working toward a more stable and living community. I also believe you should
all take it back a notch, relax a little more, roll with a few punches, and
don't forget that this is about fun for all of us. I wish you all well.
Peace and Long Life,
Tony Alexander
(1) I didn't agree with the offsite remarks - they were pretty low. But this
could have been handled better by LUGNET folks, also.
(2) No one admin is being used as an example here. These are just some things
I've learned from managing people in real life that have helped to build
stronger communities.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) I'm not going to reply in detail (although there is stuff I agree with and stuff I disagree with...) Instead, I'm going to ask you how *you* would handle a particular post, as an exercise. (URL) a post that flogs. There is nothing in that post (...) (19 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) Different than an online community, I'm sure you would agree, but clearly a source of a lot of useful insight, thanks for sharing it. (...) And elsewhere, that's been my management experience (in real life) as well. (snipped the rest, all (...) (19 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
