Nepotism versus restricted concepts

ThatGuyThere · Dec 10, 2015, 9:48 PM

@Ganymede said:

Sometimes, the best staffers get a hold of spheres full of toxic people, get overwhelmed, and cannot get the situation unwound.

My experience is this is the product of higher-up staff handling the responsibility of running a sphere to someone but not the authority to sphere make changes there.

Anyone who takes a job, even a volunteer one like staffing where they are given responsibilities and not commensurate authority to accomplish the handling of those responsibilities is a fool.

Misadventure · Dec 10, 2015, 10:39 PM

What?
Authority + Resources + Responsibility =- Results?

surreality · Dec 11, 2015, 2:38 AM

I read it more as "If you know you won't have the tools available to accomplish what your responsibilities entail, don't take that job."

ThatGuyThere · Dec 11, 2015, 3:48 AM

Sureality summed up my thoughts better then I did. Yes if someone offers you a job but not the authority to do said job you should never take it.

Thenomain · Dec 11, 2015, 6:13 PM

Likewise, if someone wants to take a job but does not want to take the responsibilities that come with the authority, you should not offer it to them.

Misadventure · Dec 11, 2015, 7:54 PM

Authority + Resources + Responsibility = Results is a formula I was handed on what is necessary for effective leadership/ownership of a task.

Without Authority, you can't make it happen.

Without Resources, you have to means to act.

Without Responsibility, you have no accountability, and you will go off the tracks eventually, if not immediately.

Thenomain · Dec 11, 2015, 7:54 PM

@Misadventure said:

Authority + Resources + Responsibility =- Results

In computer terms, you're saying that you're setting the sum of Authority, Resources, and Responsibility to Results, then decreasing Results by one.

What do you mean by '=-'?

Misadventure · Dec 11, 2015, 7:54 PM

It's a robot trap, of course. I will edit.

Ganymede · Dec 11, 2015, 8:35 PM

@ThatGuyThere said:

... if someone offers you a job but not the authority to do said job you should never take it.

On more than one occasion, I was told that I had the authority and autonomy, which turned out to be false. It would only have been foolish had I remained, which I did not.

ThatGuyThere · Dec 11, 2015, 9:36 PM

@Ganymede
Then you were definitely not a fool. You were deceived, and when you found out the truth you left. Likely the wisest course of action to take at that time.

Thenomain · Dec 11, 2015, 9:55 PM

@Ganymede said:

@ThatGuyThere said:

... if someone offers you a job but not the authority to do said job you should never take it.

On more than one occasion, I was told that I had the authority and autonomy, which turned out to be false. It would only have been foolish had I remained, which I did not.

Sometimes "authority" means something to one person and a different to another. The staff above you should have worked out with you what the expectations were, if they didn't. Like you say, honesty and openness is best. Like I say, this doesn't guarantee there won't be a lapse in communications.

It's dangerous as hell to promise autonomy. There will be a time where people with higher authority and responsibility will need to tell you "no". Cutting themselves out of this possibility is not something anyone should do.

Speaking of the quoted quote:

... if someone offers you a job but not the authority to do said job you should never take it.

Please keep in mind this rule only goes for hobbies. In the world of getting paid to support yourself and your family, this rule only applies if you have the ability to turn down a job or risk being let go. This is an extreme aside, but I don't want our younger readers to be misled by thinking this is a truism. It's a truism in context of Mushing.

AmishRakeFight · Dec 11, 2015, 11:10 PM

I don't think its nepotistic to allow a player to play a role, if they have a proven track record of having a solid grip on the rules, know how to think critically about those rules apply to the concept, handles conflicts well (because most of the time this allowed role comes with a dump truck full of conflict), and isn't a gibbering loon with a grip on reality and reason.

For example, if you need someone to play a Vampire Elder who operates the way an Elder should when it comes to Camarilla hooha, you want a player who can come correct in that role. If you know someone who can handle this job, then you'd offer it to them. You wouldn't, in reverse, hand it over to the unknown quantity unless you really didn't care how that ended up.

But lets say you end up going with person you don't know: you'd probably end up having to clean up a huge mess and unruffle a lot of feathers and unbend bent feelings after things exploded because the potential for WrongFun with these things, is always pretty high.

And generally never worth the clean up.

If you are exclusively only hand picking the same people for these kinds of tasks to the exclusion of other players who've proven an ability to do it well and handle it, then yeah, now you're getting into nepotistic waters.

Derp · Dec 11, 2015, 11:33 PM

@Misadventure said:

Authority + Resources + Responsibility = Results is a formula I was handed on what is necessary for effective leadership/ownership of a task.

Without Authority, you can't make it happen.

Without Resources, you have to means to act.

Without Responsibility, you have no accountability, and you will go off the tracks eventually, if not immediately.

This is not an absolute. There is a lot of gray area in between, both in the MU world and meatworld. There has been quite a lot of talk about noble ideals in this thread, but ultimately, they're still just ideals, and compromises have to be reached.

In my current position, I have quite a bit of autonomy, because I'm trusted to make calls, but I also know that it's someone else's vision and I'm eventually going to have to clear something with them even if just to keep them in the loop about what's going on, or be given feedback about what they would like to see. I have the authority to enact certain things, but not others, and even some things I do have the authority to act on I don't out of respect for the gamerunner. And while ideally there are infinite resources with which to work, there are certain things I would like to have that I don't have, mostly because those things represent logistic or security issues. Does it annoy me? Sure. Do I understand their position? Completely.

These things are only completely true for those at the top of the food chain. The lower down in the food chain you are, the less of these things you will have. Making it seem like that's problematic just smacks of entitlement and bullheadedness, neither of which are conducive to the health of the hobby. They are not absolutes, they are ideals. Compromises still have to be come to, just like in the real world.

Ganymede · Dec 13, 2015, 1:20 AM

@Thenomain said:

It's dangerous as hell to promise autonomy. There will be a time where people with higher authority and responsibility will need to tell you "no". Cutting themselves out of this possibility is not something anyone should do.

Maybe I was not clear: I was not given the authority or autonomy to do what needed to be done, as I had expected and was told.

I don't need someone staring over my shoulder and directing me when I put together a sphere. That's the autonomy I require. It goes hand-in-hand with my decisions to remove players' PCs from certain positions, if I do not feel they are the right fit. And so on, and so on.

Autonomy is not complete autonomy. I wasn't suggesting a carte blanche; only the freedom to do what I believe needs to be done.

surreality · Dec 12, 2015, 1:23 AM

It's also worth noting -- this is just going back a bit in the conversation -- that autonomy is just one tool in the required toolbox.

There are others that, without them pre-existing, make a job impossible.

Sometimes, especially in this medium, part of the job is to create the tools to accomplish it well at the same time. It's something that, while we tend to grouse about it while we're doing it since it can be a real pain in the ass sometimes•, is a less visible process. (Basically, we're used to it.)

Problem-solving around missing tools is something we do a lot of, broadly speaking.

Autonomy is one of the ones that doesn't have a workaround like this, which is partly why it's essential to have clear boundaries and limits about it.

A lot of us like to take a no-nonsense, common sense approach in talks like this -- I mean I know I prefer it -- but a lot of us have different ideas about what, exactly, constitutes common sense on this front. It might be worth having a community discussion about what various people think this entails at some point, since I suspect it would be fairly illuminating. (Shouldn't happen in this thread, though a thread splinter off a thread splinter is amusing in principle.)

•It also can be awesome brainstorming sessions that are fun, but those are often more rare than the other end of the spectrum is, alas.

ThatGuyThere · Dec 12, 2015, 1:34 AM

What I mean by authority in this instance if I was chosen to be a sphere wizard I would require the authority to decide who was in the sphere and freedom to run it how I saw fit.

Derp · Dec 12, 2015, 2:03 AM

Created a new thread per @surreality's suggestion, so going to reply to some of this over there.

Thenomain · Dec 12, 2015, 6:26 AM

@Ganymede said:

Autonomy is not complete autonomy. I wasn't suggesting a carte blanche; only the freedom to do what I believe needs to be done.

I understood this point. My point was: What if you believe something needs to be done and your superiors disagree? Either you are foolish for expecting never to be questioned, or they are foolish for telling you that they won't ever get in your way.

Not all managing is micro-managing.

Misadventure · Dec 12, 2015, 10:22 PM

@Derp Eh, sounds like defining what your task is would clear things up. You can look at that same approach and say "what I can actually accomplish is the task I have been set." That's mostly semantics though, perhaps with some perspective change tossed in.

I have been in the position of having to say I don't have what I need to do what I was asked to do, so I am going to drop the position.

Warma Sheen · Dec 13, 2015, 1:20 AM

@Ganymede said:

Autonomy is not complete autonomy. I wasn't suggesting a carte blanche; only the freedom to do what I believe needs to be done.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

You don't want the power to do anything, you only want the power to do what you need to do? If so, who determines if it is something you need to do rather than something you just want to do? If you, then you can just give yourself the power to do what you want to do by just saying it needs to be done. In essence, giving yourself carte blanche complete autonomy.

"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

It seems like a lazy admin indeed who allows this kind of staffing to occur on a game. You might also hear one of these quotes from such a Head Wiz:
"Sure, just go do whatevs on my game."
"If I disagree or don't like it... well that will suck for me."
"No, I don't want or need input into my game."
"Yes, you can have autonomy. The rest of the game doesn't really need to fit in with your part."
"Yes, you can have autonomy. And my position as Head Wiz."
"No, I don't worry about what you will do. One person on staff could never really affect the enjoyment or reputation of the rest of the game..."

On a serious note, choosing to staff is a tough responsibility and that's definitely a decision everyone has to make for themselves. The difference between what one 'needs' to fulfill a responsibility and what one 'wants' to fulfill a responsibility is a subtle but important distinction. Its one of the reasons that there is so much staff turnover and voluminous complaints of bad and/or corrupt staffing.

Turning down a position you can't or don't want to do is the best thing you can do for yourself and the game. It is far better than making concessions that will ultimately lead you to being stressed out. It is also far better than demanding concessions you shouldn't have because otherwise you will be easily stressed out.

Staffing shouldn't be a power position. Staffing should be a service position. We all know staffers who embody the former. We all know staffers who embody the latter. Unfortunately, I think we know more of the former than the latter and that's a big reason we see a lack of quality games to choose from.