Quibbling, jerkdom and abuse of power

13»

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    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.

    It seems I'm the only one who wants something here.

    It seems to me that the hosts/admins want to keep you on the ship and are bending over backwards to get you to modify your behaviour so that you can remain. What do you want?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    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.

    It seems I'm the only one who wants something here.

    It seems to me that the hosts/admins want to keep you on the ship and are bending over backwards to get you to modify your behaviour so that you can remain. What do you want?

    He won’t be happy until he has his own Ship.

    And there’s a precedent.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    What do you want?
    I thought I'd set that out at the bottom of the OP.
    #1 an apology
    #2 to reach an agreement as to how I should modify my style so as to comply with Commandment 1
    #3 a more general discussion of the use and potential abuse of the powers of the Admins in the light of the above.
    if future posts don't look similar to sealioning then you won't get accused of posting in a style similar to sealioning.

    The difficulty I have is that "similar to sealioning" isn't well-defined enough for me to perceive a line I shouldn't cross. It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Others have speculated as to why...

    It occurred to me to ask whether "bogging down" is the underlying issue. I can see how you might perceive the post in question as doing that. And agree that doing that too often might reasonably be discouraged in the interest of constructive discussion.

    (Whilst at the same time believing that sometimes getting at the truth requires going into detail. Which those uninterested in that particular aspect of the topic might perceive as bogging down the discussion.)

    If you think that sealioning and bogging down are synonymous, that explains your actions.
    mousethief wrote: »
    There's no reason to stay in a place run by bullies.
    That thought had occurred to me...

    But my argument was not that any member of the Crew is more of a bully than anyone else is. They're not. In some cases, quite the reverse.

    My argument (on the general issue) is that because power corrupts, the use of power should be constrained by rules.

    That someone who starts out full of good intentions will, if given too much discretion in their use of power, end up using it in a bullying manner.

    For example, threatening someone with the ultimate sanction because you don't appreciate their sense of humour...

    A process that requires consensus helps to guard against individual abuse of power. But substitutes the collective equivalent. Which involves the social norms of the in-group.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    I don’t understand, what you don’t understand.

    What are you finding ambiguous about this. ?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    There's no reason to stay in a place run by bullies.

    Exactly.

    This place is not run by bullies - just the opposite. It is run by compassionate, thoughtful and patient Admins and hosts.

    It’s an edgy place - see the discussion on the death pool. But edgy does not mean unkind.

    But if Russ thinks it is then he doesn’t need to stay.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    I thought I'd set that out at the bottom of the OP.
    #1 an apology
    #2 to reach an agreement as to how I should modify my style so as to comply with Commandment 1
    #3 a more general discussion of the use and potential abuse of the powers of the Admins in the light of the above.

    It has been pointed out to you that these matters are not the subject of the sort of agreement you contemplate, and it must be pretty clear by now that you're not going to get the sort of apology you want. Would you settle for the third?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    I thought I'd set that out at the bottom of the OP.
    #1 an apology
    #2 to reach an agreement as to how I should modify my style so as to comply with Commandment 1
    #3 a more general discussion of the use and potential abuse of the powers of the Admins in the light of the above.

    It has been pointed out to you that these matters are not the subject of the sort of agreement you contemplate, and it must be pretty clear by now that you're not going to get the sort of apology you want. Would you settle for the third?

    On #1 I've not said what sort of apology I want.

    Alan has apologised that a two-week ban became three, and explained that this was only because he was busy with real life. I've accepted that, & consider that element of the original complaint to be resolved.

    For the rest, at this stage, I'd settle for the sort of conditional management-speak apology where Alan says something along the lines of
    "All the Crew work together to run the Ship to high standards of impartiality and transparency. If we have fallen below those standards in addressing this issue then I apologise".

    On #3, if we get as far as any of the Crew giving serious consideration to the possibility of doing things differently, then that request - and it is no more than that - will have been granted.

    #2 seems to be the sticking point. I'm not understanding why Alan cannot explain what he means by "similar to sealioning" in a way that sets out what innocence of such similarity looks like. So that I can take that away and try to stick to it.

    I don't want to be having this same conversation in 3 months time and I don't think the Crew do either.

  • I don’t think they have fallen below those standards in this case.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    I don't want to be having this same conversation in 3 months time and I don't think the Crew do either.

    Something we can all agree on.

    I came back to this thread because I'd been mentioned by name. This was because a previous post of mine was quoted with general approval.

    That post was addressed to you, Russ. You don't show much sign of having actually read it.

  • The problem, Russ, is that you are not the only, or even chief, concern of the hosts and admin.

    We need to consider the very many shipmates whose enjoyment of threads on which you post has been severely impacted by your previously and repeatedly explained behaviour.

    In our striving to satisfy you, we risk losing the trust of everyone else. This is not to say that we're going to throw you (or anyone else) under the bus to placate the mob or our own vindictiveness. But your postings have disrupted the Ship, and we are charged with protecting it.

    And that is what we will do.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    For the rest, at this stage, I'd settle for the sort of conditional management-speak apology
    How can you simultaneously demand transparency of the Crew and claim you'd settle for management-speak on their part?

    For somebody who claims to be so pernickety and precise, your disingenuousness is nauseating.

    One of the things the Crew aim for is sincerity. Whatever kind of apology you think you're owed, you're certainly not going to get one that allows you to complain about our insincerity later.

    Don't expect any more interactions from me here.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    edited March 2020

    Seems clear enough. Parsing it literally, in order to be sealioning, a person has to be
    A) demanding evidence or repeating questions
    And
    B ) pretending to be civil
    And
    C) pretending to be sincere.

    So a person is innocent of sealioning if any of the three points does not apply.

    Could we perhaps agree that doing any of those three things could be considered as behaviour similar to sealioning, and that a post that does none of the three cannot ?

    I may have been guilty of repeating a question if it wasn't answered to my satisfaction the first time. If that's the issue, I'll work on it.

    Mostly I try to always be polite, even in Hell. (I've let that politeness slip for the sake of emphasis a couple of times on this thread.) I don't quite understand how one can pretend to be polite.

    I am sincere. The post I was banned for was to you, @Doublethink. My sincere belief at that time was that you have no consistent notion of what a gender identity is - whether it is a feeling or a perception of a reality - and were posting from an emotional sympathy for trans people rather than from any well-thought-out concept.

    I am very aware that I may be wrong in that belief. My question to you was intended to find out, because I sincerely want to either understand your concept or to be confirmed in my suspicion that you don't have one.

    The post may have been badly worded. It may break some other rule, in which case tell me what that rule is and I'll work on it.

    But Alan's justification for banning me was that the post demonstrated that I was sealioning after having been warned for precisely that.

    And consideration of the definition shows that justification to be false.

    What I don't understand is what people mean by sealioning if they don't mean what it says in this definition. As they evidently don't...

    [To others - I'm engaging with Doublethink's question in this post. Please don't be offended if I'm not immediately engaging with yours.]




  • @Russ People are using deductive reasoning, based on your posting pattern, to reach the conclusion you are not sincere.

    But in addition, your posting pattern has just been so disruptive to the threads in question that whether you are sincere or not has become less important than the impact on the threads.

    Perhaps it would help if you thought of sealioning as a special case of pedantry.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Russ said -
    Mostly I try to always be polite, even in Hell. (I've let that politeness slip for the sake of emphasis a couple of times on this thread.) I don't quite understand how one can pretend to be polite.

    Polite doesn’t always help.

    Polite can avoid saying what you actually think.

    Polite can be passive aggressive.

    True politeness is about being helpful. And to be really helpful here I think you would stop asking questions and start engaging with the people you are speaking to. The Admins have described in endless detail what they would like you to change.

    I suggest you give it a go. Write a post which disagrees with someone, without throwing questions at them or prevaricating.
  • Russ wrote: »
    ...
    That someone who starts out full of good intentions will, if given too much discretion in their use of power, end up using it in a bullying manner.
    ....
    But if their intentions are still good, then they are innocent of bullying. They just appear to be engaging in bullying, and sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between the sincere use of power with good intentions and bullying, right, Russ? I guess we need a better definition of bullying ....

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    [ HOSTING ]
    Russ wrote: »
    My sincere belief at that time was that you have no consistent notion of what a gender identity is - whether it is a feeling or a perception of a reality - and were posting from an emotional sympathy for trans people rather than from any well-thought-out concept.

    Russ, we are absolutely not going to tolerate you blending in trolling along with your sealioning in The Styx.

    Desist.

    [ /HOSTING ]
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    I am sincere.
    I think the point a lot of people are making to you on this thread is that you ask questions, and then you ask the same or similar questions again without taking the replies on board.

  • Russ wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    I thought I'd set that out at the bottom of the OP.
    #1 an apology
    #2 to reach an agreement as to how I should modify my style so as to comply with Commandment 1
    #3 a more general discussion of the use and potential abuse of the powers of the Admins in the light of the above.

    It has been pointed out to you that these matters are not the subject of the sort of agreement you contemplate, and it must be pretty clear by now that you're not going to get the sort of apology you want. Would you settle for the third?

    On #1 I've not said what sort of apology I want.

    That could make it hard to get it.
  • @Russ, I'm not involved in this in any way, but you've chosen to have a public discussion about your issues with the Admins. However, when you said:

    "Seems clear enough. Parsing it literally, in order to be sealioning, a person has to be
    A) demanding evidence or repeating questions
    And
    B ) pretending to be civil
    And
    C) pretending to be sincere.

    So a person is innocent of sealioning if any of the three points does not apply.

    Could we perhaps agree that doing any of those three things could be considered as behaviour similar to sealioning, and that a post that does none of the three cannot ?"

    my jaw dropped. Personally I'd call that aggressive pedantry; whatever label is used, it seems to run counter to all the helpful advice you've been given.
  • Suicide by mod, we used to call this, when I was a boy afore the mast.
  • @Russ, I'm not involved in this in any way, but you've chosen to have a public discussion about your issues with the Admins. However, when you said:

    "Seems clear enough. Parsing it literally, in order to be sealioning, a person has to be
    A) demanding evidence or repeating questions
    And
    B ) pretending to be civil
    And
    C) pretending to be sincere.

    So a person is innocent of sealioning if any of the three points does not apply.

    Could we perhaps agree that doing any of those three things could be considered as behaviour similar to sealioning, and that a post that does none of the three cannot ?"

    my jaw dropped. Personally I'd call that aggressive pedantry; whatever label is used, it seems to run counter to all the helpful advice you've been given.

    Yeah if that were part of a pattern of similar posts, you couldn't call it anything but sealioning.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    "Aggressive pedantry" is a great phrase, @Robert Armin, and IMO quite apt.
  • I don't get out much, and I've only heard of "sealioning" here. But there are patterns of behaviour I recognise, even if I'm not young and trendy enough to have the right jargon.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    I thought I'd set that out at the bottom of the OP.
    #1 an apology
    #2 to reach an agreement as to how I should modify my style so as to comply with Commandment 1
    #3 a more general discussion of the use and potential abuse of the powers of the Admins in the light of the above.

    It has been pointed out to you that these matters are not the subject of the sort of agreement you contemplate, and it must be pretty clear by now that you're not going to get the sort of apology you want. Would you settle for the third?

    On #1 I've not said what sort of apology I want.

    Alan has apologised that a two-week ban became three, and explained that this was only because he was busy with real life. I've accepted that, & consider that element of the original complaint to be resolved.

    For the rest, at this stage, I'd settle for the sort of conditional management-speak apology where Alan says something along the lines of
    "All the Crew work together to run the Ship to high standards of impartiality and transparency. If we have fallen below those standards in addressing this issue then I apologise".

    On #3, if we get as far as any of the Crew giving serious consideration to the possibility of doing things differently, then that request - and it is no more than that - will have been granted.

    #2 seems to be the sticking point. I'm not understanding why Alan cannot explain what he means by "similar to sealioning" in a way that sets out what innocence of such similarity looks like. So that I can take that away and try to stick to it.

    I don't want to be having this same conversation in 3 months time and I don't think the Crew do either.

    I can only repeat that you're not going to get the sort of apology that will satisfy you - nor do you deserve it. And I'll repeat that you're not going to get the sort of negotiation that will ever satisfy you.
  • If sealioning isn’t working, then other terms are available. 'Hair-splitting'. ‘Nit-picking’. ‘Overly fixated on unimportant details’. ‘Aggressive pedantry’.

    For example:

    Poster A: Starts thread on everyday experiences of racism within the black community to share stories and strategies for dealing with it. Other posters chip in.

    Russ: But how are you defining black ….?

    Poster A: That’s not really relevant to the lived experiences of members of those communities.

    Russ: But you can’t talk about those lived experiences until the word black has been defined to my satisfaction …

    Poster A: Black community is a fairly commonly understood term …

    Russ: Ah yes, but does it include …. And so on until …

    Poster A: I give up … Discussion ends.


    As for the other points you’ve raised:
    • You are not going to get an apology from the Crew over and above the one you’ve already got. We don’t do management wank. We particularly don’t do management wank when it involves admitting to things we haven’t done.
    • You’ve had numerous definitions / examples of the kind of posting that’s causing problems and suggestions on how to avoid it. We’re done talking about this now.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I feel the phrase "aggressive pedantry" is unfair to pedants. Pedants are usually correct if trivial.
  • All the alternative terms are unfair to people who exhibit them in good faith.
    Sealioning is appropriate because it doesn't have a good faith context.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I feel the phrase "aggressive pedantry" is unfair to pedants. Pedants are usually correct if trivial.

    It remains descriptive; to deploy pedantry in a disruptive way is, by definition, disruptive.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    All the alternative terms are unfair to people who exhibit them in good faith.
    Sealioning is appropriate because it doesn't have a good faith context.

    The alternative terms express small, unpleasant elements. Sealioning is a systematic phalanx including those elements.

    To point out, in a Hostly way: Tubbs has indicated that this discussion is seen as having drastically diminishing value. Let's be mindful of that.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Personally I'd call that aggressive pedantry; whatever label is used, it seems to run counter to all the helpful advice you've been given.

    Pedantry, yes. I'm that way inclined.

    Extreme pedantry, possibly.
    To make a point. That understanding the definition and understanding what Alan and others are meaning by the term are two different things.

    Aggressive, I hope not. But frustrated, yes. Which might come across as the same thing.

    I don't believe that Hosts and Admins who talk to me about sealioning have really grasped the extent to which they might as well be typing "blah blah blah" for all it means to me.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    All the alternative terms are unfair to people who exhibit them in good faith.
    Sealioning is appropriate because it doesn't have a good faith context.

    Brilliant, lilbuddha. That makes a huge amount of sense.

    How would you stop sealioning ? You couldn't. Because you'd always see the good-faith explanation for why you posted as you did.

    You're suggesting that bad faith is the essence of sealioning.

    And as a literal-minded person I struggle with how to respond to an injunction to stop beating my wife when I never have...
  • Russ wrote: »
    Personally I'd call that aggressive pedantry; whatever label is used, it seems to run counter to all the helpful advice you've been given.

    Pedantry, yes. I'm that way inclined.

    Extreme pedantry, possibly.
    To make a point. That understanding the definition and understanding what Alan and others are meaning by the term are two different things.

    Aggressive, I hope not. But frustrated, yes. Which might come across as the same thing.

    I don't believe that Hosts and Admins who talk to me about sealioning have really grasped the extent to which they might as well be typing "blah blah blah" for all it means to me.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    All the alternative terms are unfair to people who exhibit them in good faith.
    Sealioning is appropriate because it doesn't have a good faith context.

    Brilliant, lilbuddha. That makes a huge amount of sense.

    How would you stop sealioning ? You couldn't. Because you'd always see the good-faith explanation for why you posted as you did.

    You're suggesting that bad faith is the essence of sealioning.

    And as a literal-minded person I struggle with how to respond to an injunction to stop beating my wife when I never have...
    ignore switch off/
    For the Hell of it, just for the mo, I'll assume you are being honest and earnest.
    You've been told, many times, that the way you question is offensive. Instead of trying to process this, you continue. At that point it is irrelevant whether you are honest and earnest or just a troll, you are effectively a troll regardless. /ignore switch engaged
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Tubbs wrote: »
    If sealioning isn’t working, then other terms are available. 'Hair-splitting'. ‘Nit-picking’. ‘Overly fixated on unimportant details’. ‘Aggressive pedantry’.

    If the consensus of the meeting is that any of those (or all of them together) is a problem then clearly that's what I have to work on.

    But I don't want to take just your word for it and then find 3 months down the line that I've been banned by Alan because he interprets it differently. Once bitten...

    If I step out of line in any other way you will of course bring it to my attention in the usual "graded response" way. I'm not asking for a free pass on anything.

    I am asking for reassurance from the Crew that if I do step out of line in any other way that it will not be treated as a repeat offence by twisting the meaning of "sealioning" to include whatever it is. Once bitten...
    For example:

    Poster A: Starts thread on everyday experiences of racism within the black community to share stories and strategies for dealing with it. Other posters chip in.

    Russ: But how are you defining black ….

    As you've written it, I agree that's a pointless quibble.

    And if someone wants to start a "tea & sympathy" thread or a "share experiences of..." thread and makes that clear in the OP then I respect that. They're not looking for rigorous analysis and that's fine.

    If you want to put the whole of the Epiphanies board in that category and make it clear upfront, that's fine - I'll go swap pedantry with Dafyd somewhere else.

    But if someone starts a thread that is ostensibly about understanding a serious issue, then such understanding may involve making fine distinctions or tackling ambiguities in the use of language.

    How does it go ? "All views are welcome as long as you're prepared to be challenged ? "

    That's a noble aim, and you fall short if you give any point of view exemption from such challenge.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    If sealioning isn’t working, then other terms are available. 'Hair-splitting'. ‘Nit-picking’. ‘Overly fixated on unimportant details’. ‘Aggressive pedantry’.

    If the consensus of the meeting is that any of those (or all of them together) is a problem then clearly that's what I have to work on.

    But I don't want to take just your word for it and then find 3 months down the line that I've been banned by Alan because he interprets it differently. Once bitten...

    If I step out of line in any other way you will of course bring it to my attention in the usual "graded response" way. I'm not asking for a free pass on anything.

    I am asking for reassurance from the Crew that if I do step out of line in any other way that it will not be treated as a repeat offence by twisting the meaning of "sealioning" to include whatever it is. Once bitten...

    The tl;dr version: I demand the right to nitpick and hair-split the definition of "sealioning" in a transparent bid for a free pass to nitpick and hair-split on every other subject.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    They're not looking for rigorous analysis and that's fine.

    You flatter yourself if you think what you're doing is rigorous analysis.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    ISTM that a real-life analogue with sealioning is a person declared to be a "vexatious litigant." That person keeps clogging up the court system with their various 'repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted' nitpicking lawsuits or motions, none of which appears to have any merit, pursuing such cases widely and variously and ad nauseum.

    Such a person may honestly believe that they are pursuing nothing more than justice for themselves. They may or may not have insight into their behaviour. But the presence or absence of such personal insight does not preclude action being taken against them. Even if they truly believe that they are doing nothing more than exercising their rights, the sheer volume of malicious nitpicking nonsense can weary even the legal authorities.

    The discussion version of this is sealioning.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I've gone over this thread and all I see is that Russ has gotten another magnificent opportunity to practice his sealion-like skills with all eyes on him. A thread "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
  • Someone pull the plug.
  • Russ wrote: »
    And if someone wants to start a "tea & sympathy" thread or a "share experiences of..." thread and makes that clear in the OP then I respect that. They're not looking for rigorous analysis and that's fine.

    If you want to put the whole of the Epiphanies board in that category and make it clear upfront, that's fine
    As I said a while back, we've defined the nature of Epiphanies, if you want more clarity then:
    read the thread in the Styx where we announced the new [Epiphanies] forum, and take any discussion of the general nature of the forum to that thread.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    All Saints is for support and to share experiences. Epiphanies is a discussion board “where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap. Special Guidelines apply.”

    I also object to your use of quotation marks for ‘tea and sympathy’ - there is nothing wrong with sharing experiences and concerns and sympathising with others.

    I also note that you haven’t responded to any of my points on this thread.

    For example, my latest post about politeness. I think it’s important to know that being polite and causing damage can be just as damaging as being aggressive. In fact, it can be worse as it’s harder to spot and deal with.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited March 2020
    mousethief wrote: »
    Someone pull the plug.

    Amen to that.

    Admin Tiara On

    @russ The Crew and various Shipmates have gone above and beyond in trying to explain the issues with your posting style and suggesting ways you can modify it. How you respond to those suggestions is entirely up to you, but if you want to remain here, then I strongly recommend you do so in a constructive way.

    Admin Tiara Off
This discussion has been closed.