Mainly thinking what could go wrong with what John says just before Jill says “Exactly!”. Attribution who prevents the action is unclear and it could be the speaker-to-be selfcensoring or a moderator intervening.
Nobody intervenes in this case, The speaker is allowed to say it makes her uncomfortable, and is allowed to leave if the conversation is too intense for her. If she won’t allow the conversation to go on repeatedly , then Jill may have to a conversation like this one.
If she thinks many people are uncomfortable but not speaking up, there’s a bunch of things she can do next.
I had trouble reading this as it felt like there were a lot of presumptions in conflict.
If you let people bring random norms in the quality of the discussion will be random. In selecting some norms to be non-random the site must somehow encourage certain norms and suppress incompatible ones. If people were “smart” they could know the norms beforehand and then all speech would be flawless from a norm standpoint. But the interesting case is when someone in the discussion fails to effectively employ a norm. After the norm discussion speech should be norm compliant and I think change from non-compliant to compliant means supressing the “offending” parts. If no supression happens the harmful elements are left alive to do their damage.
Thus if a norm-officer is talking to you there is some goal how your speech is supposed to change. It’s good goal to try get to this goal by selling why the norm is a good idea. However I think the norm will be or should be enforced even if such “selling” fails. At the very least the moderator needs to make a call whether the conversation is sufficient remedy for the detected danger or whether the issue should be escalated to less discussive “actual action” levels. If the discussion concluded “I will raise veganism just as often as I have previously” escalation would be the conclusion (or some kind of weird thing were the defiance tries to upset the whole norm structure with the defiant party banking on that the wider community will overrule the moderators effected principles).
Compliant people wil lnot constatnlyu trigger the norm-violations but that places a limit on effectively expressible stances and I think the effective communicaiton what does and does not cause schism falls outside of that and the closest thing you get is a kind of plausible stereotype needs. At worst talking about what does and does not cause a schism causes a schism which would trigger supression of schism analysis. Thus what a schism is is largely depend on the inertia of how it was understood when schism supression is implemented and is less responsive to peoples actual needs. My thoughts might be too muddy about it but it might culminate to a point where there is a “it is a norm violation to have those private values or declare them as targets that the system should care about even in slight degree”.
I don’t know the following model it is too shaky a model but I am banking on the norm of describing how you think rather than what is convincing. Have starting situations
*1: 1000 flies, 1 human
A:1000 humans ,1 fly
and a later distribution of
2:5000 flies, 100 000 humans
B: 5000 humans and 100 000 flies.
Assume there is a brown substance that is olfactorily attrractive to flies and repulsive for humans. a situation that goes from 1 to 2 is likely to be substance decorated as all humans that joined must be “fly needs compatible” or atleast find the whole deal of the community participation to be worth it overall. However if there is no such inertia then a situation that goes from A to B means the substance decoration will be introduced (and would be conductive to cause the abandon rate of the humans to skyrocket). The scheme of making the minority to conform relieves value tension but makes the overall values of the organizaiton to drift. What started as a human organization but drifted to a fly organization might no longer be human-aligned. For entities that try to survive this might not matter that much. But for things that are tools if it starts to do another task that can plausibly be counted as a malfunction (althoguth if my hammers randomly morphed into saws I might still find saws not to be useless but if I made a highly spesific tool and it morphed into a generic one I would probably be pretty upset).
I guess there aer two distinct points. If you allow changes based on how your organization serves the general lifes of it’s participants this will drift the communitys purpose away from being highly specialised in one task. And that majorities can’t be relied onto keep the macro aligment stable, it’s not that we are trading microaligment for better macroaligment but that there is a real chance that macroaligment will also be compromised (or I am missing the fence that keeps mission critical aligment operating on different rules than irrelevant aligment)
After the norm discussion speech should be norm compliant and I think change from non-compliant to compliant means supressing the “offending” parts. If no supression happens the harmful elements are left alive to do their damage.
Yes I think this is true and thought it was obvious. Just like any other community or organization, people who aren’t following the norms repeatedly should be kicked out.
But the important part that seperates good organizations from bad is the procedures to teach and find consensus on norms.
I guess there aer two distinct points. If you allow changes based on how your organization serves the general lifes of it’s participants this will drift the communitys purpose away from being highly specialised in one task.
One of the central underlying points here is that if you ignore the participants lives or make them taboo, they’ll make everything about that ANYWAY, while pretending to be about the norms of the organization. See moral mazes, see corporate america.
In a private organization, the solution to that is to point out every time it happens, go meta, and create norms that consistently call people out on their private shit getting in the way of the community/organization, while supporting them in in working through that private shit.
In a more public space like described here, you haven’t done the vetting to make that model work, so you simply have to acknowledge that it exists, but not let people put those needs above other people’s needs, or the values of the organization.
So in the general itervention ought to happen.But I still find it contradctory that “nobody intervenes” in this case. I think the intervention needs to happen in some form or its a case of passive “let the problem fester” type of situation. It is expressed in passive voice when actual situations happen when particular humans do stuff. I think in my mind there are two models with different primary moving actors which it is not clear which one is to be followed or if either is implied by the principle.
When a lot of responcibility is placed on the speaker to moderate themselfs those decisons are less accessible to the public discussion. There is a conflict. One one hand you need to express what your needs are so that others know to balance their needs against yours. But on the other hand if you appear as “needy” you will be percieved as a problem element. If people statistically signicifantly can’t say what their needs are the Maturity principle becomes relativily empty as the needs of others are not known. It’s a relevant case where the “needs of the many people in the community” are known to be inaccurate or outright fictious (and to get to there there would need to be intervening stages where they are suspected to be so etc).With fixed goals everybody will try to disguise their objective as the accepted objective but with flexible objectives there is a new kind of strife about whos private objectives are among the flex goals. And the tension between people whos objectives are just-in and just-out can get pretty intense.
Mainly thinking what could go wrong with what John says just before Jill says “Exactly!”. Attribution who prevents the action is unclear and it could be the speaker-to-be selfcensoring or a moderator intervening.
Nobody intervenes in this case, The speaker is allowed to say it makes her uncomfortable, and is allowed to leave if the conversation is too intense for her. If she won’t allow the conversation to go on repeatedly , then Jill may have to a conversation like this one.
If she thinks many people are uncomfortable but not speaking up, there’s a bunch of things she can do next.
I had trouble reading this as it felt like there were a lot of presumptions in conflict.
If you let people bring random norms in the quality of the discussion will be random. In selecting some norms to be non-random the site must somehow encourage certain norms and suppress incompatible ones. If people were “smart” they could know the norms beforehand and then all speech would be flawless from a norm standpoint. But the interesting case is when someone in the discussion fails to effectively employ a norm. After the norm discussion speech should be norm compliant and I think change from non-compliant to compliant means supressing the “offending” parts. If no supression happens the harmful elements are left alive to do their damage.
Thus if a norm-officer is talking to you there is some goal how your speech is supposed to change. It’s good goal to try get to this goal by selling why the norm is a good idea. However I think the norm will be or should be enforced even if such “selling” fails. At the very least the moderator needs to make a call whether the conversation is sufficient remedy for the detected danger or whether the issue should be escalated to less discussive “actual action” levels. If the discussion concluded “I will raise veganism just as often as I have previously” escalation would be the conclusion (or some kind of weird thing were the defiance tries to upset the whole norm structure with the defiant party banking on that the wider community will overrule the moderators effected principles).
Compliant people wil lnot constatnlyu trigger the norm-violations but that places a limit on effectively expressible stances and I think the effective communicaiton what does and does not cause schism falls outside of that and the closest thing you get is a kind of plausible stereotype needs. At worst talking about what does and does not cause a schism causes a schism which would trigger supression of schism analysis. Thus what a schism is is largely depend on the inertia of how it was understood when schism supression is implemented and is less responsive to peoples actual needs. My thoughts might be too muddy about it but it might culminate to a point where there is a “it is a norm violation to have those private values or declare them as targets that the system should care about even in slight degree”.
I don’t know the following model it is too shaky a model but I am banking on the norm of describing how you think rather than what is convincing. Have starting situations
*1: 1000 flies, 1 human
A:1000 humans ,1 fly
and a later distribution of
2:5000 flies, 100 000 humans
B: 5000 humans and 100 000 flies.
Assume there is a brown substance that is olfactorily attrractive to flies and repulsive for humans. a situation that goes from 1 to 2 is likely to be substance decorated as all humans that joined must be “fly needs compatible” or atleast find the whole deal of the community participation to be worth it overall. However if there is no such inertia then a situation that goes from A to B means the substance decoration will be introduced (and would be conductive to cause the abandon rate of the humans to skyrocket). The scheme of making the minority to conform relieves value tension but makes the overall values of the organizaiton to drift. What started as a human organization but drifted to a fly organization might no longer be human-aligned. For entities that try to survive this might not matter that much. But for things that are tools if it starts to do another task that can plausibly be counted as a malfunction (althoguth if my hammers randomly morphed into saws I might still find saws not to be useless but if I made a highly spesific tool and it morphed into a generic one I would probably be pretty upset).
I guess there aer two distinct points. If you allow changes based on how your organization serves the general lifes of it’s participants this will drift the communitys purpose away from being highly specialised in one task. And that majorities can’t be relied onto keep the macro aligment stable, it’s not that we are trading microaligment for better macroaligment but that there is a real chance that macroaligment will also be compromised (or I am missing the fence that keeps mission critical aligment operating on different rules than irrelevant aligment)
Yes I think this is true and thought it was obvious. Just like any other community or organization, people who aren’t following the norms repeatedly should be kicked out.
But the important part that seperates good organizations from bad is the procedures to teach and find consensus on norms.
One of the central underlying points here is that if you ignore the participants lives or make them taboo, they’ll make everything about that ANYWAY, while pretending to be about the norms of the organization. See moral mazes, see corporate america.
In a private organization, the solution to that is to point out every time it happens, go meta, and create norms that consistently call people out on their private shit getting in the way of the community/organization, while supporting them in in working through that private shit.
In a more public space like described here, you haven’t done the vetting to make that model work, so you simply have to acknowledge that it exists, but not let people put those needs above other people’s needs, or the values of the organization.
So in the general itervention ought to happen.But I still find it contradctory that “nobody intervenes” in this case. I think the intervention needs to happen in some form or its a case of passive “let the problem fester” type of situation. It is expressed in passive voice when actual situations happen when particular humans do stuff. I think in my mind there are two models with different primary moving actors which it is not clear which one is to be followed or if either is implied by the principle.
When a lot of responcibility is placed on the speaker to moderate themselfs those decisons are less accessible to the public discussion. There is a conflict. One one hand you need to express what your needs are so that others know to balance their needs against yours. But on the other hand if you appear as “needy” you will be percieved as a problem element. If people statistically signicifantly can’t say what their needs are the Maturity principle becomes relativily empty as the needs of others are not known. It’s a relevant case where the “needs of the many people in the community” are known to be inaccurate or outright fictious (and to get to there there would need to be intervening stages where they are suspected to be so etc).With fixed goals everybody will try to disguise their objective as the accepted objective but with flexible objectives there is a new kind of strife about whos private objectives are among the flex goals. And the tension between people whos objectives are just-in and just-out can get pretty intense.