the work of a conciliator.
In the sticky that I was advised to read, it is stated:
Quote:
Threads should be for the intent of specific questions related to CF. Questions should not be questions aimed at the general populace seeking opinions on how the site is run--or should be run, but rather questions dealing with the day to day operation of CF.
Here is why I pose this question. Yes, a poll can be used primarily for gathering general opinion. Yes, a poll and the discussion around it might form opinions about what they believe are "best practices" for running the site. However a poll can also be used to help better define the questions and concerns dealing with the day to day operation of CF. It could aid mods and admin in understanding the general populace with regards to understanding why they ask the questions they do regarding the day to day operations of CF. Further, it is in the best interests of the mods and admin to find out what the general populace think of them, and learn about what the membership thinks are ways that could help improve mod-membership relations. Is this not what is at the heart and most basic intention for having this forum to begin with?
As a consiliator, this also speaks to the most basic aspect of my role. Since I was questioned about what I think this role means, it seems appropriate that I define it here. And so here it goes:
With regards to the dictionary meaning, there are three basic definitions:
conciliate
So, let's go through the first:
1.) To overcome the distrust or animosity of; appease.
Let's start off here by considering what "appease" means. Appeasement, in recent US politics, has taken the form of a "bad" word in certain political circles. But, to the specifics of the role of conciliator, the following is defined:
"To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."
appease. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 29, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ppease&x=0&y=0
So what does this mean in more layman's terms. Well, in short, it means that a person taking the role of conciliator listens to what other people have to say, no matter how ridiculous their appeals may sound to a certain other group of people - such as the majority party, or - with regards to my domain - the mods and administration of CF. In our effort to help out these "challenging" individuals, we conciliators are set up to be the ones to try to reason with them and help them reconcile their differences with certain aspects of CF that they find disagreeable.
...sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
"What does this mean?" you might ask. Does it mean that we conciliators just throw away the great ideals of justice and principalities? In the words of St. Paul, "Certainly not!" (Romans 7: 7c). So what then is the meaning of considering making a reconciliation "at the expense of justice or principles"? This goes Back to Romans 7 itself and the basic context of struggling with sin. Who among us can say they are without sin and able to cast the first stone? Is justice merely "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth"? What principles are worth defending if they are not tempered by mercy? In short, what is the "true" justice that we are taught in what St. James calls the "Law of Liberty"?
So no, the conciliator role is not without understanding of justice and principles. The conciliator role is there to make sure there is justice and equality in the principles, so that no one may go without a fair trial and be without a mediator between them and the mods and administration. At least, this is the ideal.
2.) To regain or try to regain (friendship or goodwill)
In other words, in the conciliator role, one tries to somehow try to reconcile the differences between the mods & admin and the membership. How do we go about doing that? Well, one way is by concensus. That is, to either poll or interview the membership to find out what is percieved to be the relationship the membership have with the mods & admin. Does that mean that a conciliator has to be a public relations lacky who sucks up to the mods and admin? If one wants to be a good conciliator, I would hope not. For it would do an injustice for both the membership and the mods & admin if we did so. The communication barrier would remain, and no form of reconciliation would be sufficiantly possible. The mods & admin would just remain in their world, thinking everything is fine; and the membership would be in their world thinking a range of things from "CF seems ok" to "CF is way too controlling, I want to leave before they make me!" and everywhere in between. When considering that the first definition puts the conciliator in contact woth the range of membership that thinks CF is controlling, and are the ones we are trying to appease, so that they stay and are reconciled with CF, it should be obvious why conciliators can get an image of CF that isn't all rosey and nice. For we do see where mods are overbearing, and, by reason of our role, sometimes wind up in the middle of such things - and thus sharing in the frustrations of the people we are trying to conciliate.
In short conciliators get the brunt of the mod abuses because, by reason of the role's description, conciliators find themselves at the forefront, and caught in the middle of it. A conciliator basically tries to somehow convince mods that a particular member is not that big of a jerk, while also convincing the member that the mods are not all jerks either. And somehow, despite all the bad feelings and bruised egos, conciliators have to convince these individuals that there is some bond and good communication that can be had between each other, and smile while we do it - no matter how much it might make us want to cry, shout out in fury, or anything other and opposite than some simple pleasantry, being that we know the reality is that not all does end well, and some people leave and will never come back because of abusive mod actions or other reasons that they feel keeps them from being a part of the comunity here.
3.) To make or attempt to make compatible; reconcile.
This is probably the most difficult and most unlikely of things a conciliator might actually be able to do on CF. Don't get me wrong, we do try. But there's very little we can do when one side shuts down and argues the mantra of "rules are rules" and seems to not want to back down when rigid expectations of the membership are not met. On the other hand, is the membership that gets shut down and no longer believes there is a way to reason with mods & admin over even the slightest rule violation or deletion of a thread and/or post.
Tell me, O mods, what is a simple conciliator to do when an individual of the membership says "I've had it! These mods are breathing threats down my throat daily and giving me no leeway to communicate in the forums! I want to appeal this, but they keep shutting me down, saying there is nothing they can do because it's not an infraction, but yet they say I'm close to being banned for being disruptive. I don't know what I'm doing, and all the mods say is to 'tone it down.' What's that supposed to mean?" Put yourself in the shoes of a conciliator, who is not really a part of the staff, but the (not hired) help, who you ask to help people having problems with the system overcome them. How would you, not acting in the role of a mod, but a conciliator handle these things and reconcile such things with the system in place? Just think on that for a moment and tell me what you'd do in said situation. You put us there to help, but leave us with little resources to do so. Why? We'd like to help reconcile things, but mediation goes two ways. Help us to connect that two-way communication, and we'll do what we can to convince the membership that you are not as bad as many think you are. So what do you say?
In the sticky that I was advised to read, it is stated:
Quote:
Threads should be for the intent of specific questions related to CF. Questions should not be questions aimed at the general populace seeking opinions on how the site is run--or should be run, but rather questions dealing with the day to day operation of CF.
Here is why I pose this question. Yes, a poll can be used primarily for gathering general opinion. Yes, a poll and the discussion around it might form opinions about what they believe are "best practices" for running the site. However a poll can also be used to help better define the questions and concerns dealing with the day to day operation of CF. It could aid mods and admin in understanding the general populace with regards to understanding why they ask the questions they do regarding the day to day operations of CF. Further, it is in the best interests of the mods and admin to find out what the general populace think of them, and learn about what the membership thinks are ways that could help improve mod-membership relations. Is this not what is at the heart and most basic intention for having this forum to begin with?
As a consiliator, this also speaks to the most basic aspect of my role. Since I was questioned about what I think this role means, it seems appropriate that I define it here. And so here it goes:
With regards to the dictionary meaning, there are three basic definitions:
conciliate
- To overcome the distrust or animosity of; appease.
- To regain or try to regain (friendship or goodwill) by pleasant behavior.
- To make or attempt to make compatible; reconcile.
So, let's go through the first:
1.) To overcome the distrust or animosity of; appease.
Let's start off here by considering what "appease" means. Appeasement, in recent US politics, has taken the form of a "bad" word in certain political circles. But, to the specifics of the role of conciliator, the following is defined:
"To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."
appease. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 29, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...ppease&x=0&y=0
So what does this mean in more layman's terms. Well, in short, it means that a person taking the role of conciliator listens to what other people have to say, no matter how ridiculous their appeals may sound to a certain other group of people - such as the majority party, or - with regards to my domain - the mods and administration of CF. In our effort to help out these "challenging" individuals, we conciliators are set up to be the ones to try to reason with them and help them reconcile their differences with certain aspects of CF that they find disagreeable.
...sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
"What does this mean?" you might ask. Does it mean that we conciliators just throw away the great ideals of justice and principalities? In the words of St. Paul, "Certainly not!" (Romans 7: 7c). So what then is the meaning of considering making a reconciliation "at the expense of justice or principles"? This goes Back to Romans 7 itself and the basic context of struggling with sin. Who among us can say they are without sin and able to cast the first stone? Is justice merely "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth"? What principles are worth defending if they are not tempered by mercy? In short, what is the "true" justice that we are taught in what St. James calls the "Law of Liberty"?
So no, the conciliator role is not without understanding of justice and principles. The conciliator role is there to make sure there is justice and equality in the principles, so that no one may go without a fair trial and be without a mediator between them and the mods and administration. At least, this is the ideal.
2.) To regain or try to regain (friendship or goodwill)
In other words, in the conciliator role, one tries to somehow try to reconcile the differences between the mods & admin and the membership. How do we go about doing that? Well, one way is by concensus. That is, to either poll or interview the membership to find out what is percieved to be the relationship the membership have with the mods & admin. Does that mean that a conciliator has to be a public relations lacky who sucks up to the mods and admin? If one wants to be a good conciliator, I would hope not. For it would do an injustice for both the membership and the mods & admin if we did so. The communication barrier would remain, and no form of reconciliation would be sufficiantly possible. The mods & admin would just remain in their world, thinking everything is fine; and the membership would be in their world thinking a range of things from "CF seems ok" to "CF is way too controlling, I want to leave before they make me!" and everywhere in between. When considering that the first definition puts the conciliator in contact woth the range of membership that thinks CF is controlling, and are the ones we are trying to appease, so that they stay and are reconciled with CF, it should be obvious why conciliators can get an image of CF that isn't all rosey and nice. For we do see where mods are overbearing, and, by reason of our role, sometimes wind up in the middle of such things - and thus sharing in the frustrations of the people we are trying to conciliate.
In short conciliators get the brunt of the mod abuses because, by reason of the role's description, conciliators find themselves at the forefront, and caught in the middle of it. A conciliator basically tries to somehow convince mods that a particular member is not that big of a jerk, while also convincing the member that the mods are not all jerks either. And somehow, despite all the bad feelings and bruised egos, conciliators have to convince these individuals that there is some bond and good communication that can be had between each other, and smile while we do it - no matter how much it might make us want to cry, shout out in fury, or anything other and opposite than some simple pleasantry, being that we know the reality is that not all does end well, and some people leave and will never come back because of abusive mod actions or other reasons that they feel keeps them from being a part of the comunity here.
3.) To make or attempt to make compatible; reconcile.
This is probably the most difficult and most unlikely of things a conciliator might actually be able to do on CF. Don't get me wrong, we do try. But there's very little we can do when one side shuts down and argues the mantra of "rules are rules" and seems to not want to back down when rigid expectations of the membership are not met. On the other hand, is the membership that gets shut down and no longer believes there is a way to reason with mods & admin over even the slightest rule violation or deletion of a thread and/or post.
Tell me, O mods, what is a simple conciliator to do when an individual of the membership says "I've had it! These mods are breathing threats down my throat daily and giving me no leeway to communicate in the forums! I want to appeal this, but they keep shutting me down, saying there is nothing they can do because it's not an infraction, but yet they say I'm close to being banned for being disruptive. I don't know what I'm doing, and all the mods say is to 'tone it down.' What's that supposed to mean?" Put yourself in the shoes of a conciliator, who is not really a part of the staff, but the (not hired) help, who you ask to help people having problems with the system overcome them. How would you, not acting in the role of a mod, but a conciliator handle these things and reconcile such things with the system in place? Just think on that for a moment and tell me what you'd do in said situation. You put us there to help, but leave us with little resources to do so. Why? We'd like to help reconcile things, but mediation goes two ways. Help us to connect that two-way communication, and we'll do what we can to convince the membership that you are not as bad as many think you are. So what do you say?
