It seems to me to be fundamentally unfair that voluntary front pagers can't have as much fun as anyone else here and be frivolous as the humour takes them. (Otherwise we might start have real difficulties persuading people to take on the onerous task in the first place).
However there does appear to be a view within the community that some front pagers occasionally let the side down, are quicker to to post negative or pejorative comments than many ordinary members, and that when editors do this, it reflects badly on the community as a whole. Whether it is valid to expect a higher standard of behaviour from frontpagers depends on how ET decides to define the role as a whole. It does seem to me, however, that at least some members expect a higher (or at least an equivalent) standard of behaviour from front pagers and feel they aren't always getting it.
However it seems to me that front pagers are quite a varied bunch, with many disparate talents, and that just because one is a brilliant intellectual doesn't automatically mean that they are particularly skilled at emotional empathy or encouraging someone with lesser linguistic skills. I'm not sure why Sven posted his diary, but perhaps he was intimating that social intercourse here (and much more so elsewhere) can sometimes take the form of an egotistical bear fight where the purpose is to destroy the weaker opponents arguments and that even Grizzlies have evolved mechanisms for mitigating the harm such fights/arguments can create.
Certainly I am aware of instances where members felt intimated when a number of perceived heavyweights started to take their perhaps tentative arguments apart and felt they had no alternatives other than fight or flight - put up some kind of argument, or admit humiliating defeat. It seems to me most damaging disputes occur when one party feels humiliated in some way. Perhaps they were objectively wrong in some sense, but to admit that publicly would be to risk humiliating scorn or sarcasm. Perhaps those fears were ill-founded. I have certainly sometimes made hasty or ill-considered comments and found myself having to row back when called on them. If your ego is tied in with your intellect, this can be a difficult process!
So to answer your question, a [This is not an editorial comment] tag might be useful if cumbersome. The question of whether front pagers should be held to some (difficult to define) higher standard is perhaps one that front pagers themselves might like to discuss if they haven't already done so. My suspicion is that it would be impossible to define such a standard clearly. Perhaps just a sense that a degree of prominence on the site also means that other members are more likely to feel intimidated and that understatement and emotional empathy might be useful tools at times.
Often front pagers have gotten into trouble when they were just trying to help some other member under pressure - and ended up in the firing line themselves. Sometimes you just can't win, at other times you may feel, on subsequent cool review, that your intervention might have been more skilful. Nearly always you get into trouble if you impute motives or make personalised observations to which someone takes offence. There is sometimes almost no rowing back from this. You may feel that some people are only waiting to be insulted so they can vent their righteous spleen.
That is why third party conflict resolution processes which depersonalise the process can be so valuable. However I have never seen them attempted over the internet, so I just don't know what the success rate would be. A lot depends on whether people actually want to resolve the problem. Without that basic goodwill, no process can succeed. But it seems to me that goodwill is one quality that is not lacking on ET. notes from no w here
There is precious little of that these days. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
If only FPers do moderation actively when a conflict happens, isn't it inevitable that they will be seen as a party to the conflict, and accused of bias?
Echoes one of the main argument against humanitarian intervention: it cannot be helped that the intervener takes a side, contrary to the principle of state sovereignty and the equality of state sovereignty which is a fundamental tenet of the international system.
So I suppose, it takes a skilled diplomat to moderate well, and that one of the goals of the diplomatic community is to maintain the health and diversity of the system.
Interesting parallel, I just thought I'd share it. "It Can't Be Just About Us"--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
perhaps one way forward would be if one's a front pager and moving into a moderator mode, that other FPers don't cluster and intercede (negatively) in concert. it's not perfect, because it imposes more self-restraint on FPers than the rest of us, but it would be more conducive ot egalitarianism i think.
if the cluster is positive, it has extra clout from being liked by FPers, so the opposite is also true.
one FPer in disagreement can never be perceived as bullying or groupthink, whereas when the cluster happens, it rapidly seems like overkill.
after all, if the post being reacted to really is drifting way out of line, and a FPer is as sure of his/her ground as befits the role, it shouldn't take more than one. two should be the equivalent of the guys in white coats 'coming to take me away', three should be banning level.
that way it's sparing, but truly effective, and would sidestep any risk of seeming like elite pressure, aka scrambling lieutenants.
it also seems counterproductive to keep linking to threads that are symbolic of supposed tragic import. if they really are that traumatic, let's learn from them and move on, rather than inviting folks to revisit them and reopen old wounds. why should new readers be led by the hand to the skeletons in the closet, if indeed they are? there's something a bit contradictory there perhaps?
i actually don't see it as a problem, because ET will always be a microcosm of the rest of reality, and we don't have perfect eternal harmony there, so why expect it here? whereas what harmony we create here can be also exported into meatworld...
what's wonderful is the high signal to noise ratio, and i hated slipping into becoming the latter.
so sorry folks...
still it's a very small storm in a huge teacup of ever-renewing, delicious brew, and making such a fuss about it seems a tad overdone. yes words can hurt, and some are hastier than others to let fly. mea culpa.
ET is great because of its variety, and even more for its balance, between heart attack permanent serious and goofy transitory pleasure.
perhaps some feel ET would be a more effective political tool if it were pruned back of its playful, personal side, and just focussed on entirely serious subjects, and perhaps they're right, and my intuition that the opposite is true, (ie that variety and unpredictability attract more readers/members, which will /could morph into something that achieved serious ends, by many means, some of which may appear lightweight and with less obvious socially transformative heft)....is Wrong.
in which case, i'd happily accept that as an invitation to move on, an 'uninvite', if that would help you get closer to the real agenda here, to positively change european society, and you think that disagreements that become flamewars distract and sap that. i'd understand and might do the same in your shoes. streamline da buggah! go furrrrther!
i don't like polemic, but i've been here since the beginning and i'm very fond of the place. going to british 'public' school in england has left me doubtless hypersensitive to bullying, and if i'm going to come hang out and learn and play here, then to remain silent when i see it (or think i see it) makes me feel complicit. it has after all been the worst thing about being european these last 100 years, feeling that evil of horrific proportions has dwelled here slyly, unconsciously woven into the camouflage of banal. still hypersensitivity to anything is unproductive...
sven doesn't need help defending himself, in retrospective, i should have kept my mouth shut, it was pretty minor, what tweaked me, and my spontaneous interjection just made things worse. duh...
but so many others have emailed me or told me in person over the years that they too felt the things i called out, it probably helped push my buttons to become spokesperson for them too, who'd given up and left, or had planed down their contributions to a minimum to avoid feeling trammeled and diminished by certain folks here.
stupid, i should let them be to fight for their own right not to allow others to do that, it's not my job to change ET, or even to criticise it. it certainly seems petty do do so, when it has been such a wonderful fountain of wisdom, fun and good energy for me these last years.
as all of you know whom i've 4'd to death!
thanks again, J, for birthing this multicoloured beast, and having the courage to keep reaching for goals for us that are always inspiring and relevant. thanks to all for the brilliant effort building this body of information and ongoing experiment in real-time communication. it has the vitality and potential for a wonderful future.
email me and i'll self ban, if i'm too incorrigibly counter-revolutionary. nary a bubble where he sank...
back to the sulphurous mud whence he emerged...
:)
~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
</drunken Colman>
Even in crack mode.
(There is a radical difference between mediation and arbitration. A mediator just explores areas of difference and common ground and tries to guide the disputants to a common position - but ultimate has no say in how the process unwinds - that is up to the disputants. The mediator doesn't "own" the dispute and can ultimately do no more than make suggestions. An arbitrator (by prior agreement) hears both sides, and then issues an authoritative ruling - which is then not subject to further negotiation. I am not suggesting arbitration is appropriate here - and a mediator shouldn't become a "player" in the dispute in question and should keep their personal views on the matter to themselves.) notes from no w here
(I am familiar with the difference between mediators and arbitrators - I'm a half-trained mediator and Sam is a fully trained one. Note to self: finish course at some stage this year!)
