I've been quietly following this saga. Gerry wrote on the fieldherpers.com post to feel free to forward the information he posted wherever it was appropriate, so here are his two posts:
-------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Gerry Binczik on February 20, 2003 at 16:46:23:
In Reply to: has anyone noticed... posted by rtdunham on February 18, 2003 at 23:36:17:
Terry, you said that the question for users should be whether management's regulations interfere with the message boards' primary function, i.e. herp-related discussion. I submit that there is a LOT more to the current situation than that, or at least I think there should be for all people of good will.
Here's one extreme example from relatively recent U.S. history to illustrate my point: Not all that long ago here in the south people were required to sit in a particular section of the bus they were riding based on the color of their skin. Mind you, the buses operated just fine in that fashion insofar as everyone aboard got where they intended to go - these services were indeed fulfilling their primary function for all concerned. Should people of those days not have been upset about the policy of segregation, then? If they felt they were justifiably upset about it despite the fact that others thought that it was no big deal (maybe even that it was for the best), was it nonetheless wrong for them to boycott the buses when their more peaceful attempts to resolve the situation failed?
No, I'm not saying that kingsnake.com has been engaging in racist practices. But in my eyes and in those of many others, kingsnake.com HAS been subjecting the website’s users to egregiously unfair treatment, we take this unfairness quite seriously whether or not we've personally felt the brunt of it, and worst of all kingsnake.com shows no sign they will take the necessary steps to correct the situation despite our repeated entreaties. If the situation cannot be resolved satisfactorily, and at this point quickly, I think a boycott is a reasonable response by people who see the situation as I do, and although I won't organize an official one in deference to personal friends who are kingsnake.com advertisers, I will most certainly observe one privately. My conscience simply will not allow me to act otherwise.
That satisfactory resolution does not and cannot revolve solely around current policy, either. Suppose that when desegregation finally arrived, the bus companies said something like “Ok, people can now sit wherever they wish while riding the bus. But before this new policy went into effect, we banned those who protested our past policy too vigorously or in some other manner that we didn’t like, and the only way they might be allowed to ride in the future is if they privately appeal their individual cases to us (the same people previously behind that past policy).” Again, I’m not suggesting there was any race or other class distinction behind kingsnake.com’s unfair treatment of website users, but only using this (now hypothetical) example in order to point out that current policy – even if it’s beautifully crafted and assiduously adhered to – cannot adequately resolve a situation if it carries with it the baggage of a problematic past.
I understand that you don’t see the situation as I and many others do, and though I honestly don't understand how that could be the case, I can nonetheless readily accept it. (Perhaps your opposing viewpoint stems from a mistaken impression that this debate is about whether kingsnake.com should have rules? It’s most definitely not, or at least not for the great majority of us. Rather it’s about the fairness of those rules and their application.) People have their own views of right and wrong, and of how much wrong should be tolerated before conscience requires them to act to stop it. That's no less true today than it was in the days of racial segregation, and is more of that undeniable human nature I’ve mentioned a few times by now.
But while it’s utterly reasonable for you to express your opposing viewpoint and argue that you think we are wrong in ours, I recommend that you be careful not to go overboard and trivialize or otherwise dismiss our viewpoint, nor attempt to dissuade us from acting as our consciences dictates. Frankly I thought your playground metaphor was more than a little off base (pardon the pun) given the current situation, though I know you meant no offense by it.
Respectfully (I know YOU know that, but others here might not),
Gerry
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Gerry Binczik on February 20, 2003 at 16:57:04:
>> Well if it really is a community then we the users should have input into how it is managed. Past technical alterations, this currently does not seem to be occuring.
> Input in the sense of feedback that is sincerely listened to... you have that...
I believe this is known as "empowerment". It's what a public relations department is called upon to do when an organization's power structure wishes to ramrod through unpopular changes or to smooth over difficult situations when they arise for whatever reason between different hierarchical levels (e.g. between a business and its customers, or between a company's administration and its workforce). Besides creating things such as "comment cards/hotlines", "feedback forums", etc. (which not only serve to give those low in the hierarchy the impression that they can communicate with those higher up, but also to sequester their complaints/protests), smooth, relentless people are put on the frontline of the situation to say positive-sounding but noncommittal things such as:
"I'm listening to you."
"Thank you so much for your input!
"
"I'll be sure to pass your concern along."
The problem is, the word "empowerment" as used here is really quite a misnomer. Whereas it means "endowing with influence", public relations use it instead to mean "GIVING THE SEMBLANCE of endowing with influence". (I actually dated a professional in public relations back when, and have also unfortunately had ample personal opportunity to witness how they work without the behind-the-scenes glimpse she was able to provide me.) True, some few of the best organizations actually attempt to incorporate feedback from low in the hierarchy, but far and away most do not, and in any event that is NOT the goal of public relations; their goal is simply to make those low in the hierarchy happy (or at least, happier than they otherwise would have been).
How can one tell whether one is dealing with a genuinely responsive organization? It's actually fairly easy, if one carefully watches the interface between the hierarchical levels. Here are some of the signs that tip me off:
- The responsive organization will emphasize that they are not only listening to but also seriously considering requests. For example, when presented with fervent requests for something that the organization's power structure might not particularly want for whatever reason, and especially when the same request comes from numerous people, the responsive organization might express reservations (and even stipulate specific conditions) but will reply with "how can we do that?" rather than flatly declaring "we aren't going to do that."
- The responsive organization will view the fact that different people want different things as a challenge requiring a compromise solution, not use it as an excuse for not heeding people's requests. Other organizations are full of excuses (the above being only one of the most popular) for inaction on their part to remedy difficult situations.
- The responsive organization will endeavor to talk straight rather than to repeatedly act as if they don't understand various questions or requests (which can discourage those asking simply by wearing them out).
- The responsive organization will own up to their part in creating problems that have arisen.
- The responsive organization will not lie. Far less responsive organizations try not to lie, either (not out of any fundamental belief in honesty, but because lies can be found out and damage the illusion they're attempting to create), but will do so when they think such will best serve their purpose.
- The responsive organization will not continue to hide those high in the power structure when it becomes clear that their chosen spokespeople (i.e. public relations) aren't acting in a truly responsive manner.
So, which type of organization is kingsnake.com? I'm still waiting to see - though not for much longer - but thus far it seems unresponsive in the extreme. I suggest that everyone take a good hard look for themselves, and let their consciences guide their actions thereafter.
Gerry
[email protected]
Kingsnake.com