chair jockey

"threats of resignation"

Recommended Posts

Puck   
Puck
2 hours ago, float on said:

LMAO what?

 

relationship: the way in which two or more people or organizations regard and behave toward each other.

 

there are a lot of relationships to navigate on aven. mod to mod, mod to admin, mod to project team member, mod to admods as a whole, mod to member, friend to friend, peer to peer, member to member (as a mod), mod to ToS, mod to self, mod to AVEN as a whole, mod to the board, mod to internet, mod to their family as it impacts their use of internet. mod to their work and other obligations.

 

etc.

I don't envy the mods and there's a reason I've never bothered to think about modding. it's a lot of extra interpersonal demand.

 

Yeah, there are relationships within the organization, but it's an organization first and those interstaff relationships come second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on
47 minutes ago, Puck said:

Yeah, there are relationships within the organization, but it's an organization first and those interstaff relationships come second.

an organization is a relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puck   
Puck
10 minutes ago, float on said:

an organization is a relationship.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, you can note that the word relationship is not used.

 

Quote

 

1a :the act or process of organizingor of being organized 
  • the organization of his material into a speech
b :the condition or manner of being organized  
  • a group with a high degree of organization
2a :associationsociety 
  • charitable organizations
b :an administrative and functional structure (such as a business or a political party)  
  • The new president plans to make changes to the company's organization.
;  also  :the personnel of such a structure  
  • The organization will vote on the proposed changes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on

structure = relationship.

 

all the examples describe dynamic relationships.

 

a job is a relationship.

 

go on and treat your boss like a machine that has no thoughts or feelings if you want. but they are not that - they are a human. and when two humans relate to each other  in any manner, whether it is over a beer or over a desk, it's an interpersonal relationship. treat your boss with respect and trust instead, and suddenly you connect to them. especially if they're wise enough to return that respect and trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on

you might benefit from applying - is it graph theory? to this instead of the standard english dictionary. the standard english dictionary does not cover the full grounds of all english language. it couldn't. language is not as literal as a silly lil dictionary. if it were, poems and songs would literally be nonesense half the time. jokes would not be very funny but instead rather drab, or nonesense again. sarcasm would never exist. metaphor and simile would have no meaning either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Çoñé   
Snao Çoñé

Is there an on-topic point to arguing over one word this much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on

oh, also game theory. that can help to understand why an organization is necessarily a number of formal and informal relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on
Just now, Snao Çoñé said:

Is there an on-topic point to arguing over one word this much?

"threats of resignation" happen when there is a lack of trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daveb   
daveb
Just now, Snao Çoñé said:

Is there an on-topic point to arguing over one word this much?

Is there an on-topic point to this whole thread? :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Çoñé   
Snao Çoñé
1 minute ago, float on said:

"threats of resignation" happen when there is a lack of trust.

I have no idea what you're getting at here and what it has to do with whether interpersonal relationships are exactly the same as organizational design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally   
Sally
16 minutes ago, float on said:

"threats of resignation" happen when there is a lack of trust.

"threats of resignation" happen when someone wants their own way and makes the mistake of  thinking that their presence in an organization is more valuable than it really is.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
20 minutes ago, float on said:

"threats of resignation" happen when there is a lack of trust.

"Threats of resignation" happen from anywhere from immaturity, jadedness, to stubbornness. Which is why it is against the Admod Code of Conduct. You are expected to be mature, flexible, and act like an adult. Not threaten to set the house on fire, when mother tells you that you cannot do something.

 

Which is why I would question the maturity of people, when they run for Admod above all else. Actual modding, is very easy. Following the rules is also easy. Anyone can learn the controls, but how you react to the environment you are put in speaks volumes on your maturity, and ability to handle stressful situations. You have to be okay with being seen as the bad guy. You have to be okay with criticism. You have to be OK with constant threads about you doing a shitty job, when you are doing your best. Admods are not really allowed to fight back, and we have to take every punch you throw at us. While we may bleed, and try to amend the situation. We will take every blow, because that is what we do as a team. We got no one else to rely on, but other admods to help us through the day when it comes to this suffering. So we trust each other, and rely on each other. Though we may become too familiar, and develop opinions on consistent problems that torment us often. We have plenty of people to remind us when we are being biased, and work to change the minds of the majority. 

 

So for the last time, cut us some slack. Respect what we can do, often. Not what we can't do, rarely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
float on   
float on
16 minutes ago, Yato said:

cut us some slack

YES! this is what I fucking want to happen.

 

everything in the posts mods put in these threads reveals how much stress they're under. I worry for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
2 minutes ago, float on said:

YES! this is what I fucking want to happen.

 

everything in the posts mods put in these threads reveals how much stress they're under. I worry for them.

If you worry for them, then help with mediation, and not arguing definitions and putting people into a spotlight. Technicalities do nothing but annoy people. I believe you are a very intelligent individual, you just have your focus in the wrong place. You have to admit, you can't know everything that happens behind the scenes. You can have your opinions, and draw conclusions. But there is no definitive answer. It isn't just you either.

 

Sometimes you cannot know, unless you have been there. Knowing is half the battle. When people make these kinds of threads, admods takes it seriously and falls into a deep state of self reflection. Many policies come of these as well. Things just take time to change, and people need to be more patient. But at the same time, there are fundamentals that do not change, and will not change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
♣Ryan♣   
♣Ryan♣

I remember when there was no rule about threatening to resign as an admod and it became a real issue. This is a rule that is there for a reason and I think it is best just left at that, the Admod team works much better with the lack of these threats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polygon   
Polygon

I never would have imagined in my wildest dreams that graph theory and game theory would be mentioned in the context of AVEN's social structure. 

 

(Let's just make a weighted graph of admod-number vertices where each weight represents the amount of fucks that each endpoint would give if one of the endpoints threatened to quit...put all the pressure on the lowest weighted edges so their resignation wouldn't cause as much fuss?)

 

Let's just keep throwing mud at each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68   
Telecaster68
5 hours ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

I remember when there was no rule about threatening to resign as an admod and it became a real issue. This is a rule that is there for a reason and I think it is best just left at that, the Admod team works much better with the lack of these threats. 

Surely if there are people who routinely use threatening to resign to get their own way, they're going to be too childish and petulant to be of much help to anyone.

 

Let them resign. Screw 'em.

 

Admods aren't parents. These people are (nominally) adults. Let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain   
Skycaptain

It's not a case of "no you can't resign", it's "you can't use threatening to resign as a weapon". 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68   
Telecaster68

How bad was it actually? I mean, how often did the footstamping occur? Was it just a couple of people? Did they say it once and then shut up, or was it the basis for an ongoing strop that disrupted people getting on with their jobs?

 

I just can't believe how childish some posters can apparently get, and how willing the admods are to be their parents, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain   
Skycaptain

I can't answer that. The rule was created before I became an admod. 

The main point is that because the rule is there, staff members can't behave in such a fashion then say that they've done nothing wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68   
Telecaster68
Quote

staff members can't behave in such a fashion then say that they've done nothing wrong

How does that affect anything? If it stops them doing it - ie if they did it once, then got warned, then if they did it again, were removed as an admod, I can see the point to an extent because it's a deterrent, but it's not at all clear that's what's happening. And say they did it once, learned their lesson, and didn't do it again - until there's a proper resigning issue. Then they'll make their position clear, and get removed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather   
Tarfeather
19 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

There is a thing called collective responsibility. Google it. It's how grown-up organisations work, because the alternative is that every last argument just goes on and on in public, and it paralyses an organisation.

 

That's one of the symptoms of the deep sickness of our culture. We conflate the willingness to compromise on core ethical values with maturity, while those who absolutely refuse to partake in what they perceive as evil are said to be childish.

 

Examples of your so called "grown-up organisations" include, but are not limited to: Nazi Germany, ye olde US where slavery was still legal, the Israeli government with their open support of illegal settlements, as well as occupation and blockade of a mostly defenseless civilian population, your slightly less old US while engaged in an offensive, unprovoked, illegal war, the NSA, pretty much any western country that sells weapons to Saudi Arabia..

 

Would it not be desirable that such organizations / governments be paralyzed by people within standing up and fighting against the wrongs that the group they're part of are commiting? Is that not, in fact, one of the most important mechanisms of democratic control, that the people involved in any organization have the ability to make moral judgements of their own, and disrupt these organizations if they are engaged in morally unjustified policies?

 

And please stop with the "that only counts for government organization, it's entirely okay when private organizations do it" bullshit. For example, Google and Facebook are large and influential enough that if they engage in censorship, they can have the same devastating effects (worse, in fact, thanks to technology) than if a government did this.

 

Yeah, all this stuff might seem like it doesn't apply to AVEN, because AVEN is so small and not really consequential in the grand scheme of things. However, I believe a societal transformation where we do things differently, doing away with unjustified hierarchies and giving every individual both power and the responsibility to use that power morally, must happen at the small level as well as the large.

 

We can't very well teach people to be skeptical, to actively take part in shaping the world, to take responsibility for the things that happen around them, and at the same time tell them "Don't question how we do things around here, that's decided top down, and if you are adamant about having things your way that makes you immature". Even if it's inconsequential for AVEN, instilling that kind of attitude anywhere, will ultimately help sustain the larger injust societal structures, by teaching people to be obedient and not to engage in the kind of activism that could bring down these structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer   
Homer

If, say, a new rule is proposed; a rule that [staff member 1] absolutely can't agree on as it goes against their core beliefs - what's wrong about saying so? What's wrong about "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore"? That's not a threat, it's just a statement. If someone wants to resign over such a thing, they should - and it's only fair to tell the rest of the staff exactly that in advance. You gotta do what you gotta do.

 

Note: I'm not saying that "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore" is the only thing [staff member 1] should say. I assume that changes to the rules etc. are discussed thoroughly before being decided on, with everyone involved getting the chance to voice their opinion and to stand their ground. Now if [staff member 1]'s position does not find a majority and it looks like the opposite is being done - something that goes against the core beliefs of [staff member 1] - why should it be wrong for that staff member to announce their decision in advance? They either draw the consequences and follow through with it or they stay on and make a total dork of themselves, cornerig themselves in the long run anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chair jockey   
chair jockey
16 minutes ago, Homer said:

If, say, a new rule is proposed; a rule that [staff member 1] absolutely can't agree on as it goes against their core beliefs - what's wrong about saying so? What's wrong about "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore"? That's not a threat, it's just a statement. If someone wants to resign over such a thing, they should - and it's only fair to tell the rest of the staff exactly that in advance. You gotta do what you gotta do.

 

Note: I'm not saying that "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore" is the only thing [staff member 1] should say. I assume that changes to the rules etc. are discussed thoroughly before being decided on, with everyone involved getting the chance to voice their opinion and to stand their ground. Now if [staff member 1]'s position does not find a majority and it looks like the opposite is being done - something that goes against the core beliefs of [staff member 1] - why should it be wrong for that staff member to announce their decision in advance? They either draw the consequences and follow through with it or they stay on and make a total dork of themselves, cornerig themselves in the long run anyway.

You're wasting your breath, homer. According to the prevailing wisdom, standing up for your beliefs is just childish, and expressing them only makes you a crybaby. You're allowed to have beliefs for the purpose of making a false show of "diversity" but not if they actually mean anything by affecting what you actually do and put up with.

 

I bitterly regret having started this thread, as it has turned into a platform for the promotion of amoral ruthlessness. But now the accursed thing will not die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68   
Telecaster68
49 minutes ago, Tarfeather said:

 

That's one of the symptoms of the deep sickness of our culture. We conflate the willingness to compromise on core ethical values with maturity, while those who absolutely refuse to partake in what they perceive as evil are said to be childish.

 

Examples of your so called "grown-up organisations" include, but are not limited to: Nazi Germany, ye olde US where slavery was still legal, the Israeli government with their open support of illegal settlements, as well as occupation and blockade of a mostly defenseless civilian population, your slightly less old US while engaged in an offensive, unprovoked, illegal war, the NSA, pretty much any western country that sells weapons to Saudi Arabia..

 

Would it not be desirable that such organizations / governments be paralyzed by people within standing up and fighting against the wrongs that the group they're part of are commiting? Is that not, in fact, one of the most important mechanisms of democratic control, that the people involved in any organization have the ability to make moral judgements of their own, and disrupt these organizations if they are engaged in morally unjustified policies?

 

And please stop with the "that only counts for government organization, it's entirely okay when private organizations do it" bullshit. For example, Google and Facebook are large and influential enough that if they engage in censorship, they can have the same devastating effects (worse, in fact, thanks to technology) than if a government did this.

 

Yeah, all this stuff might seem like it doesn't apply to AVEN, because AVEN is so small and not really consequential in the grand scheme of things. However, I believe a societal transformation where we do things differently, doing away with unjustified hierarchies and giving every individual both power and the responsibility to use that power morally, must happen at the small level as well as the large.

 

We can't very well teach people to be skeptical, to actively take part in shaping the world, to take responsibility for the things that happen around them, and at the same time tell them "Don't question how we do things around here, that's decided top down, and if you are adamant about having things your way that makes you immature". Even if it's inconsequential for AVEN, instilling that kind of attitude anywhere, will ultimately help sustain the larger injust societal structures, by teaching people to be obedient and not to engage in the kind of activism that could bring down these structures.

I mostly agree with you, where there are strong principled objections. It's absolutely how society and organisations with any aim of being democratic should work.

 

But we're not, apparently talking about strong principled objections. We're talking about repeated threats to resign whenever the Admods seem to be moving towards a collective view someone didn't like, and since they were repeated, obviously that person didn't follow through with their threats, but just used it as a way to keep debates and/or drama going. There's a time for airing views and arguments, and in any organisation, there's a time for making decisions and acting. AVEN is already terrible at making decisions and acting, let's not make it worse by giving people endless opportunities to grind axes.

 

We've both see the kind of things that happen and I won't name names, but there are some people who argue the toss on the boards endlessly when things don't go the way they want, The Admods don't exist to chew the cud forever, they exist to make the forum run for everyone's benefit, and getting diverted from a substantive debate into  whether someone should resign, then whether they should be disciplined for even talking about resigning, paralyses anyone from getting anything done. It's not unique to AVEN, I've seen the same refusal to accept you've lost the argument in many voluntary organisations, and it makes the intended functioning extremely slow, difficult and stressy. It stops AVEN doing its job and It's antidemocratic.

 

At the same time, people should of course be allowed to have their say. So let them. If their argument wins the day, fine. If it doesn't, move on. Refusing to move on (by either resigning or staying on to work constructively for what you want) is what's childish. There's no need to stop people even saying 'I can't get behind that, so I'll have to leave' in the first place though. Just acknowledge their view, keep talking about the substantive issue rather than the resignation threat, and come to a decision. Then they can resign or not; if they don't, they won't be taken seriously next time, and eventually they'll stop.

 

And there is a difference between AVEN and a state. AVEN has no coercive powers beyond removing posts and banning posters. Posters can (and have) set up alternate platforms and there's nothing AVEN can do about it. Nobody's human rights are being over-ridden on AVEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer   
Homer
4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But we're not, apparently talking about strong principled objections. We're talking about repeated threats to resign whenever the Admods seem to be moving towards a collective view someone didn't like, and since they were repeated, obviously that person didn't follow through with their threats, but just used it as a way to keep debates and/or drama going.

This is where they should be removed from their position anyway. This is where you have plain evidence that they're unfit to fill a position. Being part of staff that runs a site involves debates and debates involve being "defeated" every now and then. If you can't take it, such a spot isn't for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yato   
Yato
1 hour ago, Homer said:

If, say, a new rule is proposed; a rule that [staff member 1] absolutely can't agree on as it goes against their core beliefs - what's wrong about saying so? What's wrong about "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore"? That's not a threat, it's just a statement. If someone wants to resign over such a thing, they should - and it's only fair to tell the rest of the staff exactly that in advance. You gotta do what you gotta do.

 

Note: I'm not saying that "If this is where we're going, this is not the right place for me anymore" is the only thing [staff member 1] should say. I assume that changes to the rules etc. are discussed thoroughly before being decided on, with everyone involved getting the chance to voice their opinion and to stand their ground. Now if [staff member 1]'s position does not find a majority and it looks like the opposite is being done - something that goes against the core beliefs of [staff member 1] - why should it be wrong for that staff member to announce their decision in advance? They either draw the consequences and follow through with it or they stay on and make a total dork of themselves, cornerig themselves in the long run anyway.

It's never about compromising on people's core beliefs. We have rules, and enforce them. It was never anything else.

 

We cannot allow mods to throw a tantrum when one of their friends dig their own grave and break rules. As admods, we have to punish the rule breakers and not overlook it because we like the admod. Its not easy either.

 

Imagine if a mod could get away with favoring individual members so they never got in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
♣Ryan♣   
♣Ryan♣
  1. The rule was created to stop people from threatening to step down, repeatedly and not this was leading to issues. It got so bad that I remember mods taking over forums just to be told later that that person was staying.
  2. This rule doesn't stop anyone from resigning.
  3. AVEN has never had any policies like using slave labour or making a subforum for neo-nazis, I don't know why someone would equate running a forum to these but that is nonsense There is only one thing I would have resigned from out of moral objections and that would be reading member's private messages without it being reported.If this became acceptable I wouldn't have stayed. There is a way for admins to do this but not without other admins knowing. This even was never an issue,
  4. Admods can still object to policies or warning a member, this just stops them from saying "If you don't do what I want on this decision then I will step down", An admod can still say "I have moral objections to this new policy and I believe it is wrong". It is just to stop this one way of strong arming votes as well as making more work for Admins, because the admins have to fill these positions and do another elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer   
Homer

@Yato...and your point is?

 

Yes, modding (or filling any staff position) is about watching and enforcing the rules more than anything else. I don't think this discussion is about letting people get away with breaking rules. It's about "threats of resignation". Which is a pretty dumb tactic anyway (as I tried to explain in my previous post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68   
Telecaster68

Isn't the problem more that they're being allowed to rescind their resignations.

 

Don't accept their un-resignation. If they want to stand in the ensuing election, that's fine. But they chose to leave their post, and them's the consquences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now