Book:A Contribution to the Critique of Althistorian Society
Introduction
We are everyday confronted with the necessity of growing the wiki, and ensuring at the very least that the current wiki prospers, both by keeping its contents and users safe, and ensuring interpersonal conflict is kept to a minimum. We are presented with the reality that inevitably interpersonal conflict develops regardless, and as there is unequal means on the wiki there is unequal retaliation. The wiki is daily joined by new users, many of which immature, but otherwise with good intentions. Rather than nurturing their development such that the maximum number of immature users transitions into mature users, we have let petty grievances generated by their immaturity create ever more interpersonal conflicts.
The admin seeks the conflict surrounding those users that they have a personal bias against as more than personal conflict, which would imply some level of mutual responsibility, but rather as a result of those users’ inherent nature as trolls. The admin cedes all sense of responsibility or civility, by justifying the troll as being deserving of any and all repercussions that follow from their presence of the wiki, such that their mere presence becomes an attention-getting provocation. The admin stokes a perpetual cycle, whereby the user invites conflict which the admin happily provides, creating more invitations. In addition to the immature user suffering some abuses, as do others potentially, the ultimate victim is that of the wiki, which loses its sense of harmony.
I. On the Nature of a Harmonious Wiki
Mode of Perpetuation
It is presupposed that a central goal of the wiki is its harmony, generally meaning that the wiki must ensure its own survival by means of promoting the common ability for it to be made useful, for its users to be ensured in their ability to retain userships, and to promote a community that which invites new contribution for means of perpetuating its existence. The overall aim therefore of the adminship is to oversee that the wiki remains in harmony for both the perpetuation of the wiki and for the perpetuation of their own power. We assume that each admin is a rational actor interested in performing tasks which ensure the wiki survives.
As a central mode of the wiki’s perpetuation, the enticing of more users to the wiki is its reproduction. Without users the wiki ceases to exist as a functional entity, except as an archival database, and without a continual enticement of users it ceases to expand. Without the expansion of the wiki we ensure that we become closer to the above state of dysfunction or nonexistence, or that the community that which the wiki serves becomes less diverse, which impedes on the ability of the wiki to perform its goals of enriching the alternate history genre or its patrons. We must therefore conclude that it is of the utmost importance that the wiki be able to attract new users, and that the adminship performs the roles that make the wiki attractive. It must be ensured that the wiki protect the rights of its users such that a potential user look upon it and be reassured that it is safe to involve themselves and their work, lest they determine their potential work to not be secured or safe from deletion, plagiarism, or other loss of intellectual property, and they seek out a different wiki on the market that better ensures their work’s survival.
Social Relations
Naturally, that which threatens the harmony of the wiki, whether that be a user or other disruption, is persecuted by the force entrusted in the adminship; by infringing upon the rights of a transgressor it is ensured the community as a whole is not infringed upon. We have established a social contract, known as the rules of the wiki, whereby anyone acting within the bounds of the rules is welcome, whereas those who transgress against their peers or the wiki in opposition to the rules are prevented from doing so by the adminship. This necessarily creates a class that is vested with the power to enforce these rules, and those who are subject to the enforcement of the rules.
II. Theory of Juvenility
Attraction of Youth
It is a known fact that the wiki reproduces by way of people entering its community, attracting those broadly interested in alternate history, and potentially some not. Given the nature of the wiki as a part of FANDOM, a youth-oriented site, the internet as a largely youth-dominated institution, and the genre being a largely young man’s game in recent years, it is understood that a large portion of those who join the wiki will be quite young. Of those young users, here defined as teenagers, a vast majority will act with teenage-like characteristics of juvenility and inexperience. To not welcome teenagers, or even to not welcome the immature ones, cuts off the vast majority of the stream of new users, leaving behind very few new additions, much less if counting the active participants not just in the wiki nominally but in the community too. If the young users were not welcome from joining the wiki, the rate at which the wiki attracts new users would be significantly blunted if not destroyed.
Therefore, it is accepted that a large portion of new users to the wiki will be immature teenagers, creating an overall character that is potentially juvenile, which must be accepted should the wiki be effective. But by no means does that make it such that the wiki cannot police itself, or seek to refine immaturity into that of experience, especially by the good example of others. Therefore, immaturity occurs on the wiki up to the point of harm, where the immaturity threatens the wiki or the experience of its users, as defined by the rules.
The Juvenility Contradiction
However, it is also the case that immaturity exposes the contradiction inherent to the wiki, which is the disparity between the seriousness of the institution and the juvenility of the genre; the immature serves as a reflection to the admin and says, “this is what you are for.” This creates a conflict within the hierarchy, in which the admin loathes the immature, but relies on it for his perpetuation as a dominant class. The dominant class further justifies its perpetuation as overlord by means of establishing a superstructure, consisting of certain manufactured facts. The adminship contends, if a user is immature they threaten the fabric of the serious wiki, and they do not constitute a reliable peer for collaboration, and that this arrangement is fair and natural owing to the deplorability of the general population. For the user, this means they will become further alienated from the sense of community that defines the wiki. An avenue for antagonism is this nature of the immature user being perceived as vexatious, not in a legal sense, but in an interpersonal one, for which the admin, without the means to take action legally, reasserts their dominance through extralegal means.
Maturation
Despite this, the nature of users is in fact constantly in motion, affected by their ability to perform work, materially change the environment of the wiki, and thereby construct ideas demonstrating their evolving maturity. For the immature, should he materially improve his standing among the wiki he must necessarily become or be perceived as less immature, or through his labor gradually prove that the label of immaturity was misguided. However, should the dominant class be presented with this transformation, they would be confronted with the reality that their natural facts were proven false demonstrably, in which case they would have to rightly, but difficultly, admit error and give credit where it was due. Rather, it is far easier to not accept being presented with that fact and to deny it. Worse, it is in their class interest to not do so, lest they cede their right to push for the elimination of users they interpersonally oppose, in the process of ceding their intellectual infallibility. Regardless of how an antagonism is formed, it is in the dominant class’s interest to perpetuate antagonism. The denial of the fluidity of users is a rejection of the nature of althistory itself, by presenting things as not subject to change.
III. The Law of Reply
Manner of Provocation
The tool at the disposal of the user is that of the right to be left alone, implicit to the wiki’s rules. He ensures that he will not be transgressed upon if he does not transgress upon another, and if he wishes he might be able to write without interaction with another. That is to say, it is expected that if one does not initiate joinder with any peer, there is no reason for the adminship to intervene as an admin and directly confront the would-be initiator. This is distinct from the other principle of interpersonal association, that of the right of another to converse or reply to those who have initiated conversation with him first. This is to say, the user may request to not be provoked, which is different from the expectation of a reply after provocation. The universal expectation is that a provocateur could be asked by a user to “not speak to me unless spoken to”.
However, the modern adminship views these two as one in the same, seeing it irreconcilable that a user would not want to be transgressed against but also expect feedback in a conversation. Evidently, the admin views the user who decries being transgressed against as necessarily asking for it, as otherwise they would not have decried. Put another way, “if you wanted to be left alone, you wouldn’t have messaged me”. If we accept as an assumption that anyone has the right to reply to that which has provoked them, a Law of Reply, the position of the adminship becomes logically sound by a handful of solutions. One view is that the offending user’s presence, which is not necessarily verbal, but is definitely not intentionally confrontational, still nonetheless acts as an implicit provocation to the admin. As we’ve established, if a user is looked on with contempt by the other party already, their mere presence may produce an affront worthy of a rebuttal.
Attention-seeking Economy
It should also be mentioned the supposed attention-seeking economy, which is to say, the assumption that the immature user necessarily seeks attention as an operating motive. Whether this is the case or not, especially in a manner supererogatory to that which any user seeks recognition and support from the community, the nature of the immature user is by definition immaturity in the eyes of the established user, and thereby must receive attention to validate his subjective state. That is to say, the immature user is only “immature” in the eye of a certain beholder expressing frustration toward them. Two users who are of an equal maturity level are not immature compared to each other. Thus their normal behavior becomes attention-seeking behavior when in the presence of a vastly more mature user and the behavior ceases to be “normal”. This is most evidenced by viewing the contents of the less moderated satellite servers off Althistory’s, such as the Differently server. Let’s assume the user does seek attention, is that necessarily harmful to the wiki in so far as the attention does not constitute a breakage of the rules? It might be helpful to think of the many users who post in General Chat declarations about their timelines to seek the attention of others, e,g, Kaori.
The Ignoration Principle
Still, if this is a provocation, we’ve already established it is within the admin’s right to respond to the provocation, the attention-seeking comment, with at least one reply in a morally neutral act. But would it not be supererogatory therefore to have the right of reply and refuse to exercise it? If one’s intention was that of harmony, they effectively neutralize the conflict or potential for conflict by not responding, i.e. not paying them attention. This is the well known law of “just ignore it”.
IV. The Admin-User Cycle
Trollmongering
We enter a certain pattern, whereby it is justified that should an immature user act, he may be responded to accordingly, and that if he complains about being responded to, he may not act. Let us recall the Dmitrist cycle of 1. Obnoxious, attention-getting behavior begetting 2. People responding accordingly, begetting 3. Complaining about the response, the 4. Mustering of allies, and 5. “Basking in the light of the resulting dumpster fire”.
There are several problems with this assumption. Firstly, we have diluted the meaning of what it means to “act”, such that an immature user by nature of their immaturity is inherently treated as a burden upon the wiki by their act of existing. We have diluted the belief that a user is not transgressing against the wiki simply for their nature, unless they explicitly break the rules, by arguing that their instinct nature breaks the rules. This is the political expediency of trollmongering. We have labeled every immature user, or that which we do not like or understand, as not just a user but a troll.
We do this precisely because a troll is not a human. Thus we effectively dehumanize the user such that any and all provocation is justified against them. Whereas it is a universal truth that all users are deserving of respect and deserve equal rights before the rules and by their peers, we have created an otherization category whereby one user becomes not a user, but a troll, and thus the rules do not apply when used against him, only existing for policing him. We have dehumanized so far that the admins do not even recognize anymore that calling someone a troll is name calling. To call someone by that name is not calling them a name. Rather, it is “stating a fact” about their nature. But “troll” not being name-calling is obviously false, or at best a semantic debate, when we consider the empirical truth that being called a troll harms the dignity of he who is called it, potentially hurts their feelings as well, and is otherwise all around unappreciated. Thus it is plainly in the spirit of name calling.
On "Responding Accordingly"
Furthermore, we remove any and all blame from the mechanisms that produce “attention-getting behavior”. We have seen that on the one hand every user’s ideas are the product of their relationship to the interpersonal forces of the wiki and the users’ means of production. On the other hand, we have conveniently removed any trace of provocation being responsible for generating attention-getting behavior. That is to say, if a mature user happens to be obnoxious relative to the immature user, or even deliberately acts in such a way to provoke them, that behavior is excused as not attention-getting.
We see that the response to the immature user’s action is also diluted, such that you may justify actions that break the very rules themselves, up to and including the perceived amount the “troll” breaks them through their presence, and not be morally in the wrong. We have justified it as but “responding accordingly” to fling vile denouncements and provocations to that which only mildly inconveniences us as “obnoxious”. We have essentially legalized bullying, by and for the dominant class, against any and all who are not perceived as real or deserving of legal protection! The non-hypocrite might observe that the person “trolling the troll” is in fact a troll themselves, and that at best both are guilty of an infraction, but this would contradict the principle of being allowed to transgress against a provocateur established earlier in the mind of the admin.
On the Right to Complain
Then as we’ve established, the right of the immature user to reply themselves, or even voice the minorest frustration at the state of their treatment, has been completely trampled as but a “complain about the response” to otherwise perfectly reasonable social bullying. We are implying that the immature user effectively forfeits their ability to petition the law for fair treatment, cedes the right to complain, should they commit the crime of being “obnoxious”, which as we’ve seen can be as dilute as merely existing.
The most pernicious act of the Dmitrist cycle is to confirm the “troll” as perpetually a troll by their nature, because they never were or intended to be a real person, and we must maintain this belief, as otherwise it would become readily apparent that we have acted inappropriately toward them. The established user may act punitively against them, because it has already been mentally justified that they are allowed to be transgressive, because of the nature of the troll’s presence being a provocation. Any and all statements by the troll, whether innocent or not, are automatically identified as a trolling attempt.
The Disincentivization of Maturation
This creates a precarious situation, where we have disincentivized the removal of trolling, or the ability of a troll, real or otherwise, to reform into not being a troll. If a troll is perpetually born under trolling, they may not be allowed to transition from that of a troll to a regular user. To become a regular user is equal parts based on the responsibility of the user and on the subjective perception of the dominant class toward them. The dominant class has monopolized the right to bestow knighthoods and does not yield to empirical evidence that disproves the user is a troll. That is to say, it becomes irrelevant if a troll does not troll, if the dominant class is not reformed to believe not trolling is possible. Thus the adminship may condemn the behavior of any adversary with moral impunity, despite committing the same acts potentially themselves, and never recognizing or incentivizing any creation of good users, in the perpetuation of their cycle.
To break this cycle necessitates a different universal law: He who wishes to become a regular user and not a troll, assuming they were one to begin with, must also be treated with a level of respect and toleration as a user, such that punitive aggression toward them that prevents a transition to regular usership is not tolerable. If we do not obey this law we are trapped in a cycle, whereby the troll cannot be a regular user because otherwise their behavior wouldn’t be abhorrent, and their behavior must be abhorrent or otherwise they would be a regular user. This is the foundation of the Theory of Admin-User Conflict, whereby the admin deny’s the user’s usership to continually justify acts toward the user, until it reaches a climax. The goal of the user is to become a regular user, the goal of the admin is to be vindicated when the user has catalyzed their own banning. The Admin-User Cycle thus produces from it unproductivity and discord, the opposite of the harmony that is the goal of the wiki.
Bystander Class Extraction
To the admin, the next reasonable step is that the immature user must “muster allies” in the wake of their apparent unreasonable complaints being unanswered. This presupposes intentionality in the “mustering”, that they cannot reasonably have people who agree with them or see any error on the part of the admin, but rather that the immature user (despite their immaturity!) has the charismatic authority to wield an army for the purpose of further disruption. Should we assume there simply exists an army in the waiting of people fed up with the rule of the current admins just itching to rebel? (That is hardly a welcoming thought) Or is the immature user just that opportune for some other force to use as a nefarious means.
Rather, let us consider that in any interact between the dominant and dominated usership, anyone who is neither is necessarily a third party defined by a lack of interest in the outcome of the interaction. The observation of the interaction creates a bystander class, which is that which does not possess a bias against the troll and does not possess a consciousness regarding his behavior. From his perspective, it would appear unfair that the admin, in “responding accordingly”, is now trolling the immature user, and might be compelled to support the “complaint” that the trolling should cease. To the admin, the bystander is the immature user’s ally, mustered for acts of war by the troll for further battle, or is collateral damage in their ongoing conflict. As we have seen the generation of discord from the admin-user cycle, let us consider the extraction of discord from the bystander class as the ultimate stage of the admin-user conflict.
Intensification
We are then left with the “conclusion” to the admin, that the immature user is now “basking in the light” as if to imply they enjoy being ridiculed and harassed. Let’s assume for a moment the admin’s argument is accurate, which amounts to little more than “he was asking for it”. By his obnoxious behavior he was asking for it, and the admins gave it to him. By the response of the admins they have necessarily created a “dumpster fire”, but the impetus of the destruction is not on the lighter of the fire but on the flammable material. Regardless, given the immature user's apparent satisfaction in the wake of destruction, the only appropriate response to such smugness is to but detest the immature user further for getting away with such "harm", such that the cycle continues but more intensified.
See also
- Book:On Deletion – a similar essay by Robballgamer2009
- Conworlds:Robballism
| Attribution notices | ||
|---|---|---|
|