 |
Authority and Representation of ASH FAQs and Websites
There is some confusion about the meaning of ash FAQs and websites. There are two main problems: representation and authority.
Representation
Does the FAQ or website represent ashers? It depends on how you define the word "represent". What can be said with certainty, is that they are addressed to ashers ( and to some degree, to curious non ashers who visit the group ).
A "representative" document is desirable, and it is possible to take steps to achieve this, however, increased representation has a price.
Unanimous agreement, where all people agree with the content of a document, is the best with regards to representation. However, it gives veto power to anyone who happens to enter the group. Even if we exclude trolls from participating, such consensus is difficult and takes much time.
A more relaxed approach to consensus requires, instead of all people agreeing to the document, merely that a majority is willing to go along with it. Using a process, such as democratically electing a group of writers to write the document, or voting on the document after it is written, can help achieve such consensus. However, such processes are still difficult to implement and are likely to considerably delay writing.
Anyway, the current FAQ and websites were not constructed in such a manner, so it is difficult to claim that they represent ash. It is hoped that many ashers feel the FAQs do represent them, as far as content is concerned, however, for those who do not feel this way, we have no simple solution.
Authority
The question of representation is about whether a document can represent the opinions of ashers. A second issue is that of authority. Do the FAQ/websites have authority, and if so, where does it come from?
Authority, in contrast to representation, is concerned only with parts of a document: those which contain various guidelines, such as the posting guidelines of a FAQ. The question then is why should ashers or outsiders follow such guidelines.
Authority and Power
Starting with some definitions:
Power is the degree to which a person or group of people can transform their intentions into reality.
A person, or group of people is said to have authority if they have power to enforce a set of rules.
A document is said to have authority if there is a person or group of people with authority ( as defined above ) that use the document for the set of rules.
Moderators of moderated forums have formal authority, meaning that they have special powers to carry out their guidelines: like banning. In moderated forums the authority of a forum-FAQ comes from the fact that the moderator may exercise his formal authority when the FAQ guidelines are breached.
Unmoderated forums still have informal authority in the form of peer-pressure: explanations, persuasion, insults, rejection, etc. It is not as powerful as formal authority but is still sufficient in many cases. In unmoderated forums the authority of a FAQ comes from the fact that members may exercise their informal authority when FAQ guidelines are breached.
A similar distinction between formal and informal social control appears in [1].
Note that Usenet technocrats may object to the possibility of authority in unmoderated newsgroups, but their perspective is a limited one, comparing the technical aspects of moderated and unmoderated forums. In contrast, this article applies a broader sociological view.
The Effectiveness of Informal Authority
It may seem that informal authority is useless since trolls abound, however, most people want to conform. The problem is that any success of informal authority in getting such non-ashers out of the group is left unnoticed, whereas the failure of removing the trolls is painfully visible. Actually, informal authority is more powerful then one might think. There are no laws against picking one's nose. The reason why people learn to avoid doing that is informal authority.
Of course, moderators have more power than the group of members of an unmoderated forum. Moderators have absolute power, but this is rare in reality. Even our law enforcement agencies have limited power to enforce the law books. Crimes are still committed and many crimes are left unpunished. The law enforcement agencies do not have absolute power, i.e., their intentions to stop/convict all violations does not succeed all the time. However, it is still acknowledged that the law books have authority.
Trolls and do-gooders may wish to destroy the nature of ash and replace it with one that suits them better. Informal authority cannot stop them posting, however, it does manage to preserve the integrity ash.
In fact, sane do-gooders, although damaging in other respects, would try to redirect people to more conventional forums, thus keeping ash from turning into a normal suicide support group. Indeed, a depressed person, seeking for a reason to live, may find other forums more useful.
Outsiders might claim that since ash is a public forum, they can post if they want to. Technically, this is true, but has little impact on the culture of ash. Participation in forums is an interaction, not a monologue. The nature of this interaction cannot be determined by any one individual or subgroup, but by all participants. The nature of an unmoderated forum is not determined by what can be posted, but by the culture which guides the way participants interact, react to, or even ignore any given post.
The Source of Authority
The authority of an ash FAQ on the group comes from ashers. It is expressed whenever an asher refers to a FAQ. Whatever authority that FAQ has, it does not come from the writers of the FAQ, but from ashers who refer to it, and act according to it.
There is an issue of how a single writer, or a small group of writers can write an authoritative FAQ for an unmoderated group. The key here is that the FAQ should attempt to describe how the group functions, rather than dictate new rules. According to this view, a FAQ is a profile, or biography of a newsgroup. A good FAQ for an unmoderated group would be a succinct and clear (yet necessarily approximate) articulation of what already is going on in the group.
This is a little like the pitiful king in Antoine de Saint-Exupery's, "The Little Prince":
"It is contrary to etiquette to yawn in the presence of
a king," the monarch said to him. "I forbid you to do
so."
"I can't help it. I can't stop myself," replied the
little prince, thoroughly embarrassed. "I have come on
a long journey, and I have had no sleep..."
"Ah, then," the king said. "I order you to yawn. It is
years since I have seen anyone yawning. Yawns, to me,
are objects of curiosity. Come, now! Yawn again! It is
an order."
"That frightens me... I cannot, any more..." murmured
the little prince, now completely abashed.
"Hum! Hum!" replied the king. "Then I-- I order you
sometimes to yawn and sometimes to--"
He sputtered a little, and seemed vexed.
The king actually does try to dictate by giving commands, but ends up describing what is about to occur anyway, since he has no power. Similarly, a FAQ is inert, has no intentions, and thus has no inherent power. The power of a FAQ author in an unmoderated forum is not greater than any other forum participant. Therefore such FAQs tend to describe rather than dictate.
A FAQ which describes guidelines simply helps new people participate in the group, and saves time for regulars by allowing them to refer people to the FAQ instead of providing a long explanation.
The Degree of Authority
Since the situation in an unmoderated newsgroup is inherently fuzzy, it is not possible to say either that the FAQ is supported by either all or none of the members. The degree to which a FAQ has authority depends on the current composition of group participants. In this sense, authority is not a yes or no value, rather, it is a continuum.
In practice, authority of a document can be assessed by recalling times where it was referred to, and times where it was significantly contested. In addition, to some degree, silence implies consent. If a person is participating in a forum in which people are repeatedly referred to a FAQ or web site, for an understanding of the forum, and that person does not object, it is reasonable to believe the person accepts the assertion that it is accurate.
As an example, consider the Charter of ash. Although it is hardly contested, it is also seldom referred to as a reference. Since there is no authority which enforces the ash charter it has no authority. Charters in other unmoderated groups may have authority, but that is only because the members view the charter as authoritative.
Conclusion
The mis-attribution of representation and authority to ash FAQs and websites has several damaging effects.
One problem is that assuming FAQs have too much power can lead to futile arguments with trolls. Conserve your energy. Don't feed the trolls.
A more significant problem is that documents and their authors are attacked for something they are not attempting to do. As a result, some people have expressed reluctance to participate in writing for the web site or the FAQ, since they felt they do not have a mandate to do so. However, since such documents cannot be representative, there is no need for such concerns.
Some people have gone to the length of publicly refusing to comment on a FAQ, just because doing so will give it more authority. In my opinion, this response is based on the view of the FAQ as dictating rather than describing. Requesting ashers to comment on a FAQ is just a means of obtaining a better description.
There have also been complaints as to what happens to comments about the FAQ. A good FAQ maintainer would try to include contributions from the group. However, the maintainer must exercise judgment, and thus some contributions are not going to be included. The more the FAQ maintainer is lazy and unresponsive, the more likely somebody else will start another FAQ, addressing the deficiencies of the first one.
Writing FAQs or maintaining web sites addressed to ashers is intended as a service for ashers. People volunteer time and effort for such activities. If you have written something of value, consider submitting it to one of the ash websites.
EverDawn
Acknowledgment: Thanks to Hermotimus Boukephalos for commenting on an early draft of this article.
[1] Rodney D. Elliott and Don H. Shamblin, "Society in Transition: A Humanistic Introduction to Sociology", 1992, p 119.
