Quibbling, jerkdom and abuse of power

2

Comments

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    You seem to be describing a difficulty in discerning social norms unless they are explicitly stated, but usually social norms are more like an a set of overlapping Venn diagrams rather than a rigid framework.
    I don't see it as an Admin's job to enforce social norms. The job should be about setting rules that will promote worthwhile discussion on these boards, and applying those rules with as light a touch as possible to maintain a friendly and welcoming culture.

    Maybe you should consider what the Admins see their job as, instead of writing your own job description for them?

    In all seriousness and with all possible respect: why should anyone care what YOU see the job as if that differs from what they themselves see the job as?

  • It's already been explained that there can't possibly be enough rules to cover everything that could possibly go wrong, so they pared back the rules to 10 and apply them in social-norm-like ways. That isn't going to change. One can either live with it, or live without it.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    You seem to be describing a difficulty in discerning social norms unless they are explicitly stated, but usually social norms are more like an a set of overlapping Venn diagrams rather than a rigid framework.
    I don't see it as an Admin's job to enforce social norms. The job should be about setting rules that will promote worthwhile discussion on these boards, and applying those rules with as light a touch as possible to maintain a friendly and welcoming culture.

    Maybe you should consider what the Admins see their job as, instead of writing your own job description for them?

    In all seriousness and with all possible respect: why should anyone care what YOU see the job as if that differs from what they themselves see the job as?

    This.

    There is a clear disconnect between a) what Russ thinks The Ship should be and b) what The Ship is. Regrettably (or perhaps not) The Ship of Fools is singular, so everyone has to tolerate the same playing field, the same ball and the same officials enforcing and interpreting the same rules.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Persisting here is not helping you.
    I'm sorry if you're finding this tedious. To some extent I am too - I'd rather be engaging with content on other threads.
    I have a valid reason for persisting, which was to avoid the scenario set out by orfeo:
    orfeo wrote: »
    You'll behave in strict compliance with the black-letter law that you've extracted from this conversation, and eventually there'll be a situation where a moderator or admin feels that the outcome of the behaviour is not good in context, and you'll feel aggrieved and come to Styx to complain about this and the whole cycle will begin again.
    It seems to me the right thing is to sort this out here and now to avoid future problems.
    The page in question is explicit:
    Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable.
    You thus had a full definition...
    If I try to understand that at a level that works as a definition of what posts are innocent of sealioning, a first attempt would be:

    A post is NOT an instance of sealioning if it:
    - doesn't include multiple questions or repeat the same question from previus posts (persistent questioning)
    OR
    - questions only points that are on-topic (not unrelated or tangential) AND relate to the thinking of the person being questioned (not basic information easily found elsewhere)
    OR
    - is sincere.

    If you're willing to agree something along these lines that I can take away as a clear guideline, then the forward-looking part of the agenda - heading off future friction - is done. I'll try to amend my style to address all three aspects.

    But I do have a commitment to reasonable debate, and don't see anything wrong with expressing this occasionally. And various positions that I don't agree with are unreasonable, and there's nowt wrong with attempting to portray them as such. So some level of resemblance to sealioning is both inevitable and innocent of wrongdoing.

    The other part is backward-looking.

    Under that definition, quibbling (= arguing trivial points) is not sealioning. Risking getting the discussion bogged down in difficult-but-on-topic issues is not sealioning.

    The post that Alan seems to have objected to - quoted in the OP of this thread - is NOT an instance of sealioning under your definition.

    We can finish this discussion with one post from Alan that says something along the lines of:
    "you're right Russ - whatever else was annoying about that post, it wasn't strictly speaking the same issue that you were warned for and therefore was not cause for suspension. I apologise.
    I am content that if you make the changes to your posting style that you have agreed to then the issue of sealioning is closed. Of course, this doesn't let you off complying with all the other rules of the Ship..."


    If we're not yet at the point where he feels able to say that then maybe it's not me who is prolonging this...
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    That sounds like you are asking to be banned?
    - is sincere

    It’s possible to be very sincere and at the same time bigoted, racist, homophobic - you name it. Sincerity is no defence for any awful behaviour.

    (I’m not accusing you, I haven’t kept up with your discussions. I’m just making the point that ”but I was sincere” is no excuse whatever for spouting homophobic views or sealioning while doing so).
  • I'm just going to repost something I said on the 9th February
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @Russ the definition of Sealioning referred to above (its words, not mine) includes reference to "repeated questions".
    I'd echo everything @Eutychus has said, especially in the last couple of posts.

    I would, however, add that you shouldn't get too hung up on whether your behaviour exactly matches one particular definition of 'sealioning'. Use that as a guide to reflect on your posting style, but also remember we're talking about a posting style that can be described as "a variation on sealioning" or "including some aspects of sealioning".
    I know you read it, because you responded
    Russ wrote: »
    I would, however, add that you shouldn't get too hung up on whether your behaviour exactly matches one particular definition of 'sealioning'. Use that as a guide to reflect on your posting style, but also remember we're talking about a posting style that can be described as "a variation on sealioning" or "including some aspects of sealioning".

    Thank you Alan. I feel that with these words you're stepping outside your Admin role to offer this advice in a genuine spirit of helpfulness.
    And, add that trying to be helpful is something I see as part of my role as an Admin here.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    @Russ, this isn't a negotiation.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    And I'm just going to repost part of my response to your OP, @Russ, on February 2:
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    How do we resolve this and move forward constructively ?

    First, I'm owed an apology and then we wipe the slate clean.
    Here's a clue: "we" don't resolve this by you dictating your terms.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited February 2020
    Just to jump on the pile to emphasize some points:
    Russ wrote: »
    The post that Alan seems to have objected to
    ...
    If we're not yet at the point where he feels able to say that then maybe it's not me who is prolonging this...
    1. It's not just Alan objecting to your posting style. We just nominated him because he swears the least.
       
    2. It 100% you who is prolonging this.
      By a textbook example of sealioning.
      It would be hilarious, except the reasonable explanations are either that you are incapable of comprehending it or your are trying to be provocative, which are both sad.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    [
    Some norms are solely norms, some norms are also rules, some rules are also laws. However, some laws are not social norms, some rules are solely rules without becoming either social norms or laws.

    Thank you, @Doublethink, for taking the time to explain what you meant. I agree that a social norm may differ from the law (speed limits was the example that came to mind).

    I'd have said that laws are just rules in the context of the State. (Or rugby).
    And that rules are formalised norms (or conversely that social norms are the informal rules of social interaction).

    And that we all value the rule of law - the notion that power unconstrained by rules is oppressive.
    mousethief wrote: »
    It's already been explained that there can't possibly be enough rules to cover everything that could possibly go wrong...

    That something has been tried and didn't work is always a good argument.

    So I'd accept that a complete set of written rules available to everybody is an ideal that in the case of the Ship is just not practical. So inevitably the rules are in the heads of the Crew, and evolve over time ( ?like case law ?)

    There's still scope for the Crew to operate as if to a set of unwritten rules that are individually well-enough defined. Rather than act as if they can do anything they like because they're above any rules.

    Not saying that anyone's going quite that far. Yet. I've asked what prevents that, what standards are considered to apply.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    I've asked what prevents that, what standards are considered to apply.

    Backstage, we hold each other mutually accountable for our understanding and application of the Ten Commandments, Guidelines, and FAQs, reach a consensus before any action such as a suspension or banning, and take this process very seriously.

    The Styx is also here to allow us to be called to account for our actions by Shipmates, and it's important to us that it exists to provide some measure of checks and balances (you'll note that you've been allowed to voice your complaint here at - considerable - length).

    None of this actually stops us, in your terms, "doing anything we like because we're above any rules", but right now, on this specific issue, you appear to be in a minority of one, and from my perspective at least just about every post you make on this thread is further evidence that your suspension was fully justified.
  • "Don't be a jerk" isn't an unwritten rule. It's written.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I know you read it, because you responded
    Russ wrote: »
    I would, however, add that you shouldn't get too hung up on whether your behaviour exactly matches one particular definition of 'sealioning'. Use that as a guide to reflect on your posting style, but also remember we're talking about a posting style that can be described as "a variation on sealioning" or "including some aspects of sealioning".

    Thank you Alan. I feel that with these words you're stepping outside your Admin role to offer this advice in a genuine spirit of helpfulness.
    And, add that trying to be helpful is something I see as part of my role as an Admin here.

    I was trying to take that comment in the spirit in which I think you offered it. (Taken the other way, within the legal paradigm, for a judge to say "never mind about whether he's technically guilty of the charge, if I see any remote resemblance to a crime then I'll punish him" would be outrageously high-handed and autocratic).

    I'm struggling to do as you suggest, for several reasons.

    One is that the word or concept of sealioning is not in common use in the part of rural Ireland where I live. It's no more than a definition to me. If your circle of contacts use it more loosely or generally and that's what you mean then I don't know what you mean because I'm not familiar with that usage.

    Two is that the sealion is not all bad. As long as I'm polite and treating the topic seriously and wanting reasonable debate then I will resemble a sealion in some ways. But none of those things should be against the rules here.

    Three is that when I consider what the posts being objected to have in common, what comes to my mind is that they are challenging a view of the world with which some of the Crew agree. But if that's the real underlying issue then you're both failing to display proper impartiality and being pretty fecking dishonest about it. I hope it isn't. I want to believe Eutychus when he assures me it's not about content.

    So no, leaving it to me to join the dots is not going to lead me to whatever conclusion you would have me draw.

    I'm very willing to co-operate. I want to set things right between us. But you have to spell it out for me because I'm coming from a different planet (or have a blind spot, or however you want to put it) and do not see things as you do. So dropping hints to me is unlikely to work.

    And yes, Ruth, if we step away from the formality of legalism then it's about mending a relationship. Which is a matter of negotiation.

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    No, this is not a negotiation. This is all on you. The admins have already explained what sealioning is. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.
  • Russ wrote: »
    One is that the word or concept of sealioning is not in common use in the part of rural Ireland where I live. It's no more than a definition to me. If your circle of contacts use it more loosely or generally and that's what you mean then I don't know what you mean because I'm not familiar with that usage.
    I would have thought that you of all people would understand the expression "ignorance of the law is no defence". Not only that, the concept has been spelled out to you several times on this thread, from the first answer to the OP to, most recently, this post.
    I want to believe Eutychus when he assures me it's not about content.
    Then do so. It's not. Ensuring people are not sanctioned merely for expressing views contrary to ones that often prevail here is a large part of the mutual accountablility backstage you asked about (before choosing to ignore my answer).

    You were sanctioned because you persistently ignored a series of host and admin warnings to an extent that, in the collective judgement of the Crew and after discussion, could not be excused by any good-faith misunderstanding on your part, regardless of the substantive content.

    Again, to my mind, the accuracy of this judgement is bolstered by just about every one of your posts here: the content is entirely different to that on the thread on which you were sanctioned, but your posting style remains obdurately unchanged: for instance, this is at least the third time - on this thread - that you've complained no proper definition of sealioning has been put forward, and at least the third time you've been pointed to one.

    In fact this is probably as good a time as any to note that at some point, the admins' patience with you may run out.
  • i had never heard of sealioning prior to this thread.
  • I had heard of it, but never seen it exemplified so floridly. Most gratifying.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    i had never heard of sealioning prior to this thread.
    To be fair, at least some of the Crew hadn't prior to the White Supremacy thread. The behaviour it describes precedes the term, both in the world at large and on this site.
  • I've only heard the term on the Ship (I don't get out much). The behaviour however is very familiar.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I've only heard the term on the Ship (I don't get out much). The behaviour however is very familiar.

    Same here. Maybe we don't live in the most up-to-date circles.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Indeed. What we are now more-specifically identifying as "sealioning" merely describes a well-known mode we have always regarded as being fodder for Commandment 1.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you. Now I understand.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    i had never heard of sealioning prior to this thread.

    Oh, it's been around.
    RooK wrote: »
    Indeed. What we are now more-specifically identifying as "sealioning" merely describes a well-known mode we have always regarded as being fodder for Commandment 1.

    If on reflection one thinks "This is gonna annoy the heck out of RooK (or the memory of the Blessed Erin)" you can be sure that the thin ice around Commandment 1 is being skated upon.

    If you can't think reflectively, life here can be cruel.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    No, this is not a negotiation. This is all on you. The admins have already explained what sealioning is. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

    I had never heard the term, but followed the hosts explanations and links and got the picture by the end of Page One.

    Why is this still even a question? Why must the Hosts jump through hoops?

    Why does this pushback persist and why is it tolerated?

    AFF

  • We tolerate it because this is Styx hopefully performing its function of Shipmates questioning the Crew and holding them to account for their decisions.

    It may also serve the purpose of being a terrible warning to others, but that's secondary...

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Why is this still even a question? Why must the Hosts jump through hoops?

    Why does this pushback persist ... ?

    Because this is what sealions do!
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Why is this still even a question? Why must the Hosts jump through hoops?

    Why does this pushback persist ... ?

    Because this is what sealions do!

    Don't the Inuit go after sealions with clubs and stuff? Or am I thinking of some other aquatic mammal?
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Seals, I think. Sealions you use a clue bat, though not necessarily to any effect.
  • Wikipaedia discusses the clubbing debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting
  • Seals <> sea lions. Quite different critters.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    ...and a walrus is something else again.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    I've asked what prevents that, what standards are considered to apply.

    Backstage, we hold each other mutually accountable for our understanding and application of the Ten Commandments, Guidelines, and FAQs, reach a consensus before any action such as a suspension or banning, and take this process very seriously.

    The Styx is also here to allow us to be called to account for our actions by Shipmates, and it's important to us that it exists to provide some measure of checks and balances (you'll note that you've been allowed to voice your complaint here at - considerable - length).

    None of this actually stops us, in your terms, "doing anything we like because we're above any rules", but right now, on this specific issue, you appear to be in a minority of one, and from my perspective at least just about every post you make on this thread is further evidence that your suspension was fully justified.

    Thank you for engaging with the question. That Admins seek consensus before acting, and allow actions to be challenged in Styx, is a good thing.

    My question was more about whether there are any written standards by which you judge whether such a complaint is justified. For example that says that you make great effort to avoid bias (between left and right, between believer and unbeliever, etc). Given that you seem to think that standards of justice derived from the legal system are inapplicable.

    You've given me a definition of sealioning. My frustration here is that:
    - the post Alan objected to is not sealioning under that definition. It does not seek to overwhelm Doublethink with questions. It does not demand evidence. It was a genuine attempt to clarify Doublethink's idea of what a gender identity is and in what sense it is objectively real.
    - Alan is refusing to accept that ensuring that my future posts do not meet that definition is sufficient to avoid future accusations of the same offence.

    In other words you've referred me to a rule that you're not playing by in judging either past or future actions.

    What use is that ?

  • If you would stop nitpicking about definitions and think about your general posting style then you’d get somewhere, I think.

    The Admins could not have been clearer.

    Just say what you think, stop asking pointless questions - engage and discuss with actual people instead of trying to justify yourself and your ideas.

    It’s not rocket surgery.

    (:rolleyes: emoji redacted)
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    you've referred me to a rule that you're not playing by in judging either past or future actions.

    What use is that ?
    You weren't referred to a rule, you were referred to a ruling on the basis of multiple host and admin warnings, as explained here.

    In response to your original request for clarification, you were given very specific guidelines to help you adjust your posting style, which you proceeded to treat selectively and/or ignore.

    You then presented yourself as a victim, alleging that it was now "open season on Russ": as shown here, this was not borne out by the evidence and still isn't: you're perfectly capable of posting in a more acceptable way, with no resulting Crew intervention.

    You weren't sanctioned because of your post to @Doublethink. You were sanctioned because that post came at the end of a whole history of sealioning without any indication that you had got the point, or any contrition for your past behaviour. You were given shore leave to reflect on all that, and instead of doing so, seem to have spent that time grumbling about how unfairly treated you were.

    @Alan Cresswell has already said, and repeated, that trying to extract a precise definition of what is not going to get you into trouble is futile.

    Were you the kind of person who, if obliged to wear school uniform, tried to see what you could get away with in terms of slovenly dress while complying with the letter of the dress code? What we are emphatically not going to do is define strict rules for you whereby you can comply with the letter and not the spirit and then cry foul if you are called on that.

    @orfeo was almost right when he said
    I'd really encourage you to pay attention to what's being said about those principles and not to try to turn this into specific rules in terms of "if I behave in exactly this rigidly defined way I won't get in trouble".

    Because the result will almost inevitably be disappointment. You'll behave in strict compliance with the black-letter law that you've extracted from this conversation, and eventually there'll be a situation where a moderator or admin feels that the outcome of the behaviour is not good in context, and you'll feel aggrieved and come to Styx to complain about this and the whole cycle will begin again.

    Almost, because if that were to happen again (it's pretty much what happened for your suspension), I suspect the combined view of the admins this time round would be that you didn't deserve to have another chance to complain. We're getting really tired of you ignoring what's been posted here, not letting it drop, and coming back with more of the same. For the second time: there are limits to our patience.
    Russ wrote: »
    ...and a walrus is something else again.
    That is exactly the kind of quip which, coming from you in this context, is in danger of giving you an insta-ban.


  • Russ wrote: »
    You've given me a definition of sealioning. My frustration here is that:
    - the post Alan objected to is not sealioning under that definition. It does not seek to overwhelm Doublethink with questions. It does not demand evidence. It was a genuine attempt to clarify Doublethink's idea of what a gender identity is and in what sense it is objectively real.
    - Alan is refusing to accept that ensuring that my future posts do not meet that definition is sufficient to avoid future accusations of the same offence.
    It's already been explained that you have a record of posting style that has similarities to sealioning, with detailed explanations of what the problems with that style are. The particular series of posts which lead to your suspension wasn't the most disruptive of the examples we could produce, it happened to be the example that followed prior warnings on the same thread and therefore warranted more than yet another warning.

    It should be obvious that if you return to that style of posting there's a limit to the amount of disruption to discussions here that we will tolerate before taking further action. If your posting style changes such that you don't disrupt discussion in the same way then you won't get warnings from Hosts about that. I didn't realise it was necessary to spell that out, but just to be clear: if future posts don't look similar to sealioning then you won't get accused of posting in a style similar to sealioning.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Russ, you must have noticed by this time that you have not convinced the admins that you are right. There is no reason why this situation should change.

    It seems to me you have two choices. You can either drop the argument or leave. Your present course of action is nonproductive.
  • I have a friend who is on the spectrum who needs rigidly defined codes because he has great difficulty discerning the social and emotional nuances of personal interactions. He says exactly whats on his mind and has no filter, but tries very hard to follow the codes.

    He also finds it exceedingly frustrating and unjust when he is following the code but gets it wrong because even though there’s a rule, social situations are fluid and dynamic and there’s always the case where its better to bend or break the rule than to follow the letter.

    This conversation reminds me of many of my and his own family’s interactions with him.

    AFF
  • Russ wrote: »
    You've given me a definition of sealioning. My frustration here is that:
    - the post Alan objected to is not sealioning under that definition. It does not seek to overwhelm Doublethink with questions. It does not demand evidence. It was a genuine attempt to clarify Doublethink's idea of what a gender identity is and in what sense it is objectively real.
    Russ, sealioning generally doesn’t happen in a single post. It happens in a posting pattern, repeated in multiple posts.

    AFF, I’ve had the same thought.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Russ, sealioning generally doesn’t happen in a single post.
    I can't understand how someone could sealion in a single post. The whole problem is that the sealion clogs up the discussion by getting the other participants to rehash the same points over and over again.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Russ, sealioning generally doesn’t happen in a single post.
    I can't understand how someone could sealion in a single post.
    I can’t really either, but I didn’t want to foreclose the possibility that someone much more creative than I might be able to pull it off.

  • I have a friend who is on the spectrum who needs rigidly defined codes because he has great difficulty discerning the social and emotional nuances of personal interactions.

    The problem in the present case is that, as has been pointed out, when codes have been explicitly set out, they've been deliberately elided and/or ignored. Not only that, the evidence is that @Russ is also perfectly capable of not posting disruptively.
  • I think one needs to keep AFF's post above in mind. Expecting individuals to understand the subtleties of social conventions is in need neuronormative.
  • Ignoring detailed guidelines that have been set out in response to a request for clarification is not so easily explained.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ignoring detailed guidelines that have been set out in response to a request for clarification is not so easily explained.

    And that's the difficulty. On the one hand a keen intelligence is displayed in breaking down arguments and putting forward a case while on the other a difficulty in applying (or even comprehending) points made by others is shown. The Admins and Hosts are in an unenviable position of deciding (from the outside) whether Russ can't follow advice and instruction or won't do so.
  • We know of quite a few people who regularly contribute to discussions here who are on the spectrum. They manage to navigate the waters without regularly causing a disturbance that attracts the attention of the Crew (some have attracted our attention for other reasons, including some who have been invited to become Hosts). If someone is struggling to understand how things work here, we will do our best to help them contribute to discussions here. But, there may come a point when our best isn't enough.
  • ... And this is true also. Which leads me to wonder if there is anything gained by speculating on medical issues. Particularly in the absence of a claim by the person considered to having such issues. I rather think not.
  • Russ' transgressions are not about social niceties. His questions have been inconsistent with each other, as Crœsos has pointed out several times, and he has blown his own cover in Hell on the old Ship.
    If he is not a duck, he is the most duck-shaped, waddling, quack-sounding, non-duck being I have ever encountered
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Surely this says it all, with a heavy emphasis on #1. Russ has a real knack for wasting time, patience, and pixels.

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    No, this is not a negotiation.

    You're right, Ruth.

    Negotiation is when two people both want something from the other.

    It seems I'm the only one who wants something here.
    Russ wrote: »
    If there's a difference between rules and social norms, then the commandments are rules.

    If.

    Maybe the difference is that the use of power to enforce rules is necessary in order for the rules to command the respect of others. Whereas the use of power to enforce social norms amounts to bullying.
  • There's no reason to stay in a place run by bullies.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    No, this is not a negotiation.

    You're right, Ruth.

    Negotiation is when two people both want something from the other.
    They want you to play nice. You want a strict definition, apparently so you can skirt the edges.
    Russ wrote: »
    Maybe the difference is that the use of power to enforce rules is necessary in order for the rules to command the respect of others. Whereas the use of power to enforce social norms amounts to bullying.
    Seriously, WTF? Your "logic" doesn't work. I'm not going to pretend that I think the Crew get it right all the time, but there is nothing to indicate that they insincere in their goals or that they bully.
    In fact, with you they have been remarkably lenient.

This discussion has been closed.