Subject:
|
Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:31:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2839 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tony Alexander wrote:
> 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.
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.
http://news.lugnet.com/market/auction/?n=10625
Here's a post that flogs. There is nothing in that post about creations, just a
link to an auction. The author tries to justify it by citing someone else's post
(which also was a link to an auction, and which got a warning, which wasn't
received well at all), sort of a "He did it so I can too".
If you read the ToU, you can tell that Todd felt very very strongly about
"auction spam", that posts that are purely flogging of an auction in a non
market (and non local) group are not a good thing at all. I'd argue that this
particular post is a pretty clear cut violation of the ToU as written, wouldn't
you agree? (see discussion group point 11)
Would you do nothing? Would you warn offline? Would you warn online? would you
give a timeout? If so, what would you say (or not say, if your answer is do
nothing) and why?
I'll tell you what the admins did (and why I think they did what they did),
after you answer. I think this will be a great exercise, because I agree with
most of what you say, I just want to see how you'd apply it, and here's an
example where there's little ambiguity about wiether the post is outside the
scope of what the LUGNET Owners wanted to have posted and where.
My contention is that it is easy to say (heck, I've said it) use a light touch,
but hard to apply.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) Yes Larry it is EASY! I KNOW what ~I~ would do. walk away! ignore it. IF this is what you did, then good for you. if not...... (shrug) more of the same-ol' same-ol' i guess. The ToU and its enfocement should be more about the "spirit" then the (...) (19 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) The question was not directed at me, but I can give *my* perception of the situation. "No-one bothered to comment in public on the offense" This means that other people, reading just the groups, not having insight into private e-mails, other (...) (19 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| Quick note: I'm at work on lunch break, and can't give this the thought I want to word it as well as it should be... (...) Nobody's perfect, and everybody makes mistakes. I'm not sure if it constitues a TOU violation, as I'm not as well-versed in (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) (it's possible other circumstances might alter this slightly, like if it's been excessively long between offenses-- like-- years, or if the user consciously defies being told otherwise): 1) First time offender A) Someone (officially or not) (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I resign from the LPRV committee
|
| (...) 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
