Working in the factory and as a faction admin, I've often had the chance to realize that 'should' is a chronically overused word. Most of that didn't become clear to me for a while. So be more wise than I have been: here's the issue with 'should.'
It's very easy for a faction leader or a factory judge to say that things should be a certain way. But their sense of the way things should be is a composite of more than just the posted rules. It can include their sense of canon (which varies person to person and doesn't often involve research), their sense of the board's balance of power, their sense of being challenged, their sense of the balance and potential future problems of the proposal/material/submission, and whether they've thoroughly read the proposal/material/submission in question. So when a faction admin or a factory judge says 'should,' we're often talking about a composite of criteria with greater or lesser validity, all packaged as an ex cathedra judgment. Decisions get made according to one person's sense of the Way Things Should Be.
This also applies to 'needs to', 'has to', and 'must,' in case that wasn't blindingly clear.
In the worst-case scenario (and this has happened before, often when I was factory admin or a faction owner), that sense of the Way Things Should Be imposes unnecessary restrictions. Here's one example, and I've got a million: until fairly recently, the Mandalorian faction banned canon crushgaunts for anyone below a certain IC Mandalorian rank. You can sort of see the thought processes that went into that decision, but the end result was ridiculous. Every good rule's written in blood, but a lot of bad ones are too. What makes that example worse was that, for months, nobody knew where the thing was posted or if it was posted at all; it was passed along word of mouth. And different people enforced that 'rule' in different ways and with varying levels of consistency.
The board's too big now to support that kind of decision-making.
Here's another example. Once upon a time, a member and a factory judge got into a spat because the judge absolutely insisted that a template field had to be rendered as a bulleted list rather than a written list.
FRUITS: This submission uses apples, oranges, kiwis, and lemons, as well as various kinds of exotic citrus.
Versus:
FRUITS:
I can't help but compare this kind of decision-making to my religious experiences. In my faith, there's a small subset of people who will look at you weird if you take sacrament/communion with your left hand -- even if you're left-handed or have a bandage on your right. They've invented requirements and symbolic meaning. They've literally invented doctrine after the fact, just based on their own sense of the Way Things Should Be -- and then they've taught it as doctrine.
Here's another example: a major faction with a large and competent faction admin team whose faction owner insisted on having the final say on anything and everything, no matter how insignificant. Predictably, this resulted in frustrated faction admins and an aggravated, overworked, overstressed faction owner. But this faction owner absolutely believed that everything should go through him/her, and because that was the Way Things Should Be, a lot of unnecessary nonsense happened. You don't want to do invasion negotiations with an overstressed micromanager, for one thing.
I generally don't believe in presenting a problem without at least trying to find a solution, so here's some things that may help.
Ask yourself questions. Maybe not these exact questions, but ask yourself why you're making decisions in a certain way. Interrogate your own processes and biases. Consider citing sources and using quotes more often, and question the temptation to fill in the gaps with private interpretations.
When rules are in your power, consider reducing them. A faction I know recently cut half its rules and saw a resulting surge in goodwill and interest. The process left me wondering why that particular faction had rules at all; most never affected the members, except at inconvenient and unexpected moments.
Rules have their place. Most of our board rules were written in blood and updated along the way, and they're a good comprehensive ruleset. But always remember that Tef trimmed a LOT to get them that way. Consider doing the same to your management style.
If you'll forgive a moment's irony...you really should.
It's very easy for a faction leader or a factory judge to say that things should be a certain way. But their sense of the way things should be is a composite of more than just the posted rules. It can include their sense of canon (which varies person to person and doesn't often involve research), their sense of the board's balance of power, their sense of being challenged, their sense of the balance and potential future problems of the proposal/material/submission, and whether they've thoroughly read the proposal/material/submission in question. So when a faction admin or a factory judge says 'should,' we're often talking about a composite of criteria with greater or lesser validity, all packaged as an ex cathedra judgment. Decisions get made according to one person's sense of the Way Things Should Be.
This also applies to 'needs to', 'has to', and 'must,' in case that wasn't blindingly clear.
In the worst-case scenario (and this has happened before, often when I was factory admin or a faction owner), that sense of the Way Things Should Be imposes unnecessary restrictions. Here's one example, and I've got a million: until fairly recently, the Mandalorian faction banned canon crushgaunts for anyone below a certain IC Mandalorian rank. You can sort of see the thought processes that went into that decision, but the end result was ridiculous. Every good rule's written in blood, but a lot of bad ones are too. What makes that example worse was that, for months, nobody knew where the thing was posted or if it was posted at all; it was passed along word of mouth. And different people enforced that 'rule' in different ways and with varying levels of consistency.
The board's too big now to support that kind of decision-making.
Here's another example. Once upon a time, a member and a factory judge got into a spat because the judge absolutely insisted that a template field had to be rendered as a bulleted list rather than a written list.
FRUITS: This submission uses apples, oranges, kiwis, and lemons, as well as various kinds of exotic citrus.
Versus:
FRUITS:
- Apples
- Oranges
- Kiwis
- Lemons
- Various kinds of exotic citrus
I can't help but compare this kind of decision-making to my religious experiences. In my faith, there's a small subset of people who will look at you weird if you take sacrament/communion with your left hand -- even if you're left-handed or have a bandage on your right. They've invented requirements and symbolic meaning. They've literally invented doctrine after the fact, just based on their own sense of the Way Things Should Be -- and then they've taught it as doctrine.
Here's another example: a major faction with a large and competent faction admin team whose faction owner insisted on having the final say on anything and everything, no matter how insignificant. Predictably, this resulted in frustrated faction admins and an aggravated, overworked, overstressed faction owner. But this faction owner absolutely believed that everything should go through him/her, and because that was the Way Things Should Be, a lot of unnecessary nonsense happened. You don't want to do invasion negotiations with an overstressed micromanager, for one thing.
I generally don't believe in presenting a problem without at least trying to find a solution, so here's some things that may help.
- What is your role? Are you there to be a gatekeeper, or are you there to be a facilitator?
- How much does the point matter?
- Are there better ways to approach the situation?
- Will digging in your heels over an insignificant point accomplish anything?
- Have you faced a similar decision but made a different call in the past -- and are there differences between how you treat your friends and how you treat others?
- Do you have leeway, or are you hiding behind an unnecessarily strict or lax interpretation of what's posted?
- Can you justify your decision with in-context quotes, or are you inventing standards because today you feel that's the Way It Should Be?
- Am I Wheaton's Law compliant, not just in manners but in the points where I choose to dig in my heels?
- Am I right? Does it matter?
- Am I wrong?
Ask yourself questions. Maybe not these exact questions, but ask yourself why you're making decisions in a certain way. Interrogate your own processes and biases. Consider citing sources and using quotes more often, and question the temptation to fill in the gaps with private interpretations.
When rules are in your power, consider reducing them. A faction I know recently cut half its rules and saw a resulting surge in goodwill and interest. The process left me wondering why that particular faction had rules at all; most never affected the members, except at inconvenient and unexpected moments.
Rules have their place. Most of our board rules were written in blood and updated along the way, and they're a good comprehensive ruleset. But always remember that Tef trimmed a LOT to get them that way. Consider doing the same to your management style.
If you'll forgive a moment's irony...you really should.
