Thursday, September 28, 2006
Online stupidity
First, some news: Earlier this year, I posted that a mysterious new service that was promising to be a revolutionary way to get more hits to your blog was accepting pre-launch registrations; the service was BlogMad, and they DID turn out to be pretty cool... if you want to give it a shot, click the banner in my sidebar with the goofy eyes. Now, the folks that brought us BlogMad are gearing up to launch a new service, "eXlinks," about which they say "Some people are after traffic, some want readers and others are chasing backlinks to boost their rankings on search engines. No matter what your need or want is, eXlinks is going to sort that out for you." They aren't telling us any more than that yet, but if you want to invest 5 seconds to sign up (all they want now is your email addy) and see if it gets you on the ground floor of something good:
Click here to register for the top-secret new blog service!!
With dazzling timing (see my previous post), I've experienced a classic example of a problem with people in authority; this one wasn't related to the concept of keeping order and kicking the right butts, but instead reflected another familiar issue... that those with authority can rarely resist the temptation to misuse it. I found what appeared to be a bug on a site I visit regularly, and followed their procedure to report it, which meant posting about it on their forum; needless to say, the proper response from whichever admin replied to my report would have been either "this is a known issue, and we're working on it" or "we'll check it out and then fix it"... and it's probably also needless to say that what I GOT bore no resemblance to that. Instead, I got a series of brainless posts from an admin who was persistently unable to understand the problem, and who alternated between coming up with reasons for what I'd seen that had no connection to the facts and demanding to know what my ulterior motive was for making the report... I wish I was joking. When she inevitably got personal with me due to my refusal to accept her answers and drop it, I gritted my teeth and with elaborate politeness told her that we needed to cease our discussion, after which I asked again for someone to figure out what was going on. A non-admin jumped in and said that what I'd seen was normal, but so rare that I'd probably never see it again, and then a high-level admin posted, in total contrast, that what I'd seen was the way it ALWAYS was, that he had no explanation for why my own account had always been different, didn't care, the discussion was over and the thread was locked... after which the other admin used her admin powers to add not one but TWO further snippy posts aimed at me that I of course can't reply to, and that the higher-level admin didn't feel it necessary to delete.
Most of the posts I make on that forum lead to someone asking why I don't PAY to get a higher level of functionality on that site; aside from my having no interest in being more involved there, how STUPID would I have to be to PAY these idiots as a reward for their cluelessness and belligerence? I've seen lots of other posts there complaining about various sorts of admin malfeasance, but that isn't preventing plenty of folks from paying... which demonstrates yet another reason that people get away with misconduct-too many of us don't see improper behavior as a reason to reject the misbehavers.
If you're exceptionally observant, you might have noticed that my text is no longer being pushed over by my Webring banner, because the latter is back down at the bottom of the page; I was FINALLY able to put it there because Webring FINALLY closed the frigging tables generated by their code that were pushing my sidebar down. It was pretty stupid of them to have left those tables open, but that's not my complaint; there's none among us who haven't made similar mistakes when working on code, so I've got a little empathy for it. The REAL stupidity, and worse, STUBBORN stupidity, came when I reported the issue and their response was that it must be being caused by the banner of one of the webrings I'm in, even though those banners don't appear on my site and thus would require MAGIC to be affecting my sidebar... and I mean I got SEVERAL emails from tech support going on and on about how it's MY fault for having so many rings, that the # of rings somehow allowed their banners to violate the laws of html and affect a site they weren't even ON, and that they refused to check their code because I had too many rings (HUH?!!), and no one else had reported the issue.
Luckily, other people DID start reporting the issue, on their forum; when I triumphantly wrote to point out that they had no further justification for not fixing their code, their response was that they NEVER checked the forum (which had allegedly been set up to allow members to report problems, how bad does THAT suck?), and that somehow meant that I was still the only person reporting the issue. I asked them to make an exception to their "rule" and read the forum posts about the problem; they REFUSED. I copied and emailed them the posts; they claimed that because it was just forum posts it didn't count as anyone else reporting the issue. I contacted every person who had posted about the problem on the forum and asked them to submit official reports to tech support; I wrote the latter AGAIN, telling them that I knew they'd had other official reports on the issue, and that they were out of excuses to not spend 30 seconds checking for which tables weren't closed in their code... and I never heard from them again, surprise surprise. I wasn't about to give up, but shortly after my final email to them they rolled out a bunch of site changes, and I knew they'd be focusing on that for a while, making it useless to push any other topic, so I resigned myself to waiting a couple of weeks; it did occur to me to try moving their code and see if they'd fixed it in response to the multiple reports, but every time I thought about it it was always during peak traffic hours, and I didn't want a bunch of people seeing my blog looking like a disaster area if the code was still messed up.
Then, suddenly all my webrings were being displayed (apologies to those on dialup who had to wait forever for my page to load during that time), so I knew they were messing with their system; I moved the Webring code back to its original place in the template, "verified" that having all the rings actually ON my site in that spot didn't mess it up, and wrote to tell them that I'd PROVEN that there was nothing in the codes of the rings that caused a sidebar drop, and thus that it HAD to be THEIR code that was at fault... and got a form letter back. Once all the banners stopped being generated on my blog, I took a chance and moved the code back again... and it worked perfectly, which means they fixed it. Had they done so some time ago, and just didn't have the courtesy, or the courage, to TELL me after their previous insistence that it was MY fault, or did it get fixed as part of their days-long efforts to correct whatever had gone amiss and caused all the rings to display? I'm sure I'll never know.
But wait, there's MORE: They DID send me an email... one that, under the faux excited tone and the spin that something GOOD was about to happen, informed me that they're going to stop being a free service for everyone except those few that are only in a handful of rings. This demonstrates the ultimate in online stupidity; their belief that, although there are plenty of webring providers that are still free, people are going to pay for THEIR far-from-perfect service rather than deleting enough webrings and memberships therein to avoid paying, or just moving to another provider, either of which would GUT the service and kill all but the biggest rings. Even those people who'd be willing to pay will hesitate to do so after the mass deletions; I cringe to contemplate what'll be left of the rings I'M in once the dust clears, since most of them are "unknown-related" and therefore on the small side.
It's not that hard to make $ from a previously-free site, or even to GRADUALLY change things from totally-free to mostly-paid; it's been done, and they didn't need to do anything fancy to accomplish it, just show some common sense... so why do the owners of so many online services lose their MINDS when the time comes to start earning some $?
And why is it that the sites that intend to switch to paid always preface it with the WORST technical performance and customer service imaginable? They all use the same manual for how to NOT provide proper service, too: First, they send an elaborate form email with a bunch of info (or links thereto) that's unrelated to your issue but that they claim will probably fix it; at the bottom, it'll say that they won't respond unless you write AGAIN, which means you have to re-describe your dilemma and often, at their insistence, track down a bunch of irrelevant information about your account and computer, which sets you up for their next ploy... blaming your computer, operating system, browser, account or you personally for the problem-ANYTHING but admitting that their system is at fault, even though IT ALWAYS IS. Back in the days when I was heavily involved with clubs/groups, I learned the hard way to say in every bug report that I'd restarted my browser, restarted my computer, emptied my cache and deleted all my cookies but was still having the same trouble; this would save me any # of emails, and hours, or even DAYS, of delay... and also resulted in many tech support replies that were an amusing mixture of flustered and cranky from reps that didn't quite know how to handle not being able to play their usual games before having to do their JOB and figure out what was messed up with their server. I dislike having to be dishonest (it'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll delete all my cookies and have to re-login to, request account info from, or re-register on a thousand different sites), but these folks can be told that half a dozen computers are having the exact same problem with their site, and ONLY their site, and will STILL claim that it's your computers that are at fault, not theirs, so what choice is there?
Is there a certain unpleasant kind of person that's drawn to forum administration and tech support, or does doing those jobs exert a corrosive effect on the brain?
Click here to register for the top-secret new blog service!!
With dazzling timing (see my previous post), I've experienced a classic example of a problem with people in authority; this one wasn't related to the concept of keeping order and kicking the right butts, but instead reflected another familiar issue... that those with authority can rarely resist the temptation to misuse it. I found what appeared to be a bug on a site I visit regularly, and followed their procedure to report it, which meant posting about it on their forum; needless to say, the proper response from whichever admin replied to my report would have been either "this is a known issue, and we're working on it" or "we'll check it out and then fix it"... and it's probably also needless to say that what I GOT bore no resemblance to that. Instead, I got a series of brainless posts from an admin who was persistently unable to understand the problem, and who alternated between coming up with reasons for what I'd seen that had no connection to the facts and demanding to know what my ulterior motive was for making the report... I wish I was joking. When she inevitably got personal with me due to my refusal to accept her answers and drop it, I gritted my teeth and with elaborate politeness told her that we needed to cease our discussion, after which I asked again for someone to figure out what was going on. A non-admin jumped in and said that what I'd seen was normal, but so rare that I'd probably never see it again, and then a high-level admin posted, in total contrast, that what I'd seen was the way it ALWAYS was, that he had no explanation for why my own account had always been different, didn't care, the discussion was over and the thread was locked... after which the other admin used her admin powers to add not one but TWO further snippy posts aimed at me that I of course can't reply to, and that the higher-level admin didn't feel it necessary to delete.
Most of the posts I make on that forum lead to someone asking why I don't PAY to get a higher level of functionality on that site; aside from my having no interest in being more involved there, how STUPID would I have to be to PAY these idiots as a reward for their cluelessness and belligerence? I've seen lots of other posts there complaining about various sorts of admin malfeasance, but that isn't preventing plenty of folks from paying... which demonstrates yet another reason that people get away with misconduct-too many of us don't see improper behavior as a reason to reject the misbehavers.
If you're exceptionally observant, you might have noticed that my text is no longer being pushed over by my Webring banner, because the latter is back down at the bottom of the page; I was FINALLY able to put it there because Webring FINALLY closed the frigging tables generated by their code that were pushing my sidebar down. It was pretty stupid of them to have left those tables open, but that's not my complaint; there's none among us who haven't made similar mistakes when working on code, so I've got a little empathy for it. The REAL stupidity, and worse, STUBBORN stupidity, came when I reported the issue and their response was that it must be being caused by the banner of one of the webrings I'm in, even though those banners don't appear on my site and thus would require MAGIC to be affecting my sidebar... and I mean I got SEVERAL emails from tech support going on and on about how it's MY fault for having so many rings, that the # of rings somehow allowed their banners to violate the laws of html and affect a site they weren't even ON, and that they refused to check their code because I had too many rings (HUH?!!), and no one else had reported the issue.
Luckily, other people DID start reporting the issue, on their forum; when I triumphantly wrote to point out that they had no further justification for not fixing their code, their response was that they NEVER checked the forum (which had allegedly been set up to allow members to report problems, how bad does THAT suck?), and that somehow meant that I was still the only person reporting the issue. I asked them to make an exception to their "rule" and read the forum posts about the problem; they REFUSED. I copied and emailed them the posts; they claimed that because it was just forum posts it didn't count as anyone else reporting the issue. I contacted every person who had posted about the problem on the forum and asked them to submit official reports to tech support; I wrote the latter AGAIN, telling them that I knew they'd had other official reports on the issue, and that they were out of excuses to not spend 30 seconds checking for which tables weren't closed in their code... and I never heard from them again, surprise surprise. I wasn't about to give up, but shortly after my final email to them they rolled out a bunch of site changes, and I knew they'd be focusing on that for a while, making it useless to push any other topic, so I resigned myself to waiting a couple of weeks; it did occur to me to try moving their code and see if they'd fixed it in response to the multiple reports, but every time I thought about it it was always during peak traffic hours, and I didn't want a bunch of people seeing my blog looking like a disaster area if the code was still messed up.
Then, suddenly all my webrings were being displayed (apologies to those on dialup who had to wait forever for my page to load during that time), so I knew they were messing with their system; I moved the Webring code back to its original place in the template, "verified" that having all the rings actually ON my site in that spot didn't mess it up, and wrote to tell them that I'd PROVEN that there was nothing in the codes of the rings that caused a sidebar drop, and thus that it HAD to be THEIR code that was at fault... and got a form letter back. Once all the banners stopped being generated on my blog, I took a chance and moved the code back again... and it worked perfectly, which means they fixed it. Had they done so some time ago, and just didn't have the courtesy, or the courage, to TELL me after their previous insistence that it was MY fault, or did it get fixed as part of their days-long efforts to correct whatever had gone amiss and caused all the rings to display? I'm sure I'll never know.
But wait, there's MORE: They DID send me an email... one that, under the faux excited tone and the spin that something GOOD was about to happen, informed me that they're going to stop being a free service for everyone except those few that are only in a handful of rings. This demonstrates the ultimate in online stupidity; their belief that, although there are plenty of webring providers that are still free, people are going to pay for THEIR far-from-perfect service rather than deleting enough webrings and memberships therein to avoid paying, or just moving to another provider, either of which would GUT the service and kill all but the biggest rings. Even those people who'd be willing to pay will hesitate to do so after the mass deletions; I cringe to contemplate what'll be left of the rings I'M in once the dust clears, since most of them are "unknown-related" and therefore on the small side.
It's not that hard to make $ from a previously-free site, or even to GRADUALLY change things from totally-free to mostly-paid; it's been done, and they didn't need to do anything fancy to accomplish it, just show some common sense... so why do the owners of so many online services lose their MINDS when the time comes to start earning some $?
And why is it that the sites that intend to switch to paid always preface it with the WORST technical performance and customer service imaginable? They all use the same manual for how to NOT provide proper service, too: First, they send an elaborate form email with a bunch of info (or links thereto) that's unrelated to your issue but that they claim will probably fix it; at the bottom, it'll say that they won't respond unless you write AGAIN, which means you have to re-describe your dilemma and often, at their insistence, track down a bunch of irrelevant information about your account and computer, which sets you up for their next ploy... blaming your computer, operating system, browser, account or you personally for the problem-ANYTHING but admitting that their system is at fault, even though IT ALWAYS IS. Back in the days when I was heavily involved with clubs/groups, I learned the hard way to say in every bug report that I'd restarted my browser, restarted my computer, emptied my cache and deleted all my cookies but was still having the same trouble; this would save me any # of emails, and hours, or even DAYS, of delay... and also resulted in many tech support replies that were an amusing mixture of flustered and cranky from reps that didn't quite know how to handle not being able to play their usual games before having to do their JOB and figure out what was messed up with their server. I dislike having to be dishonest (it'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll delete all my cookies and have to re-login to, request account info from, or re-register on a thousand different sites), but these folks can be told that half a dozen computers are having the exact same problem with their site, and ONLY their site, and will STILL claim that it's your computers that are at fault, not theirs, so what choice is there?
Is there a certain unpleasant kind of person that's drawn to forum administration and tech support, or does doing those jobs exert a corrosive effect on the brain?
Sunday, September 24, 2006
The problem with authorities
In my post of 9-16-06, I discussed how people in authority are assumed to be trying to make their charges play nice but in fact usually aren't; this might have made you wonder what's WRONG with them that they're unwilling or unable to perform the simple task of maintaining order such that innocents are protected and wrongdoers are penalized. Here's the answer in a nutshell:
Managing people correctly requires enforcing behavioral standards on everyone all the time; it's rare for anyone to have to prove that they can do that before being allowed to HAVE authority, so naturally most of them CAN'T (or won't) do it.
Think about it: Authority at work is usually in the hands of the owner, relatives and friends who work for them, those who kiss butt, those with seniority, those who've excelled at something unrelated to managing, such as sales, or, conversely, those who are totally incompetent but for various reasons aren't being fired, and those who are non-threatening to the next-higher level of management. Authority at school is given to teachers, who just have to be able to get a certificate to get the job, and the principal, who usually gets that position by a combination of seniority and butt-kissing of the school board. Authority in the family is based on age. Authority in social clubs and committees is based on who started them or who got voted in, aka popularity. Authority in online gathering places is based on who's paying the bills, who the payers like enough to give admin/mod powers to, or who clicked the "create a group/forum/blog" link on the sites that offer those things for free. NONE of these avenues to authority takes managerial ability into account in any way, so it shouldn't surprise us that the beneficiaries of these avenues often can't manage their way out of wet paper bags.
But, there's nothing difficult or tricky about making sure that everyone's following the rules of polite society, so can't any random person who's given the mantle of management do what's necessary? Sure, most people can; the problem is that they generally DON'T, because:
1) They're stupid: Parents and other adult family members who hold authority over innocent children represent the full spectrum of human intellect, which means that a sizable chunk of them will be of below average intelligence. And have you read the reports on how many American teachers aren't even literate? How bright is your boss compared to the average person in your office? How many forum/group/chatroom admins have you seen with 3rd-grade spelling levels? Have you noticed that a person's popularity (and thus their likelihood of being chosen for or voted into a leadership position) tends to be inversely proportionate to their intelligence? To be an effective leader, a person needs to be a little bit smarter than the ones they're leading (to avoid being tricked by the wrongdoers amongst them), so being LESS intelligent is a definite handicap... and, more to the point, can lead to them not even TRYING to show leadership so that they don't look like an idiot.
2) They're lazy: Monitoring everything that goes on takes a great deal of time and effort; taking action (when there's a problem that they can't ignore) does too, and taking the CORRECT action unfortunately tends to take more than INcorrect ones do... and, since things run pretty smoothly most of the time withOUT the effort being made, authorities become convinced that it's ok to let everyone fend for themselves, even under circumstances where an explicit part of their duty is to monitor and protect, such as at school.
3) They're cowardly: An authority holds all the cards, and so should approach wrongdoers with confidence, but many authorities feel FEAR instead; they're afraid that they won't be able to say the right thing in the properly authoritative way, or that their audience will respond with laughter, arguments or refusal to comply rather than with intimidation and repentance, or that if their having made an issue of misbehavior doesn't change anything they'll lose everyone's respect. As a result, they bend over backwards to avoid confronting, much less punishing, anyone, so that their authority is never questioned, and their illusion of control never shattered.
4) They have no common sense: Some folks spurn the correct way to handle wrongdoing (which is to kick the butt of the wrongdoer(s) and ONLY the wrongdoer(s)), and choose instead to make announcements, hold meetings, create new rules to which no penalties are attached, and similar nonsense that they somehow expect to make the wrongdoer(s) alter their behavior... despite NEVER having seen such strategies actually work. They totally fail to grasp that people do evil because they ENJOY it, and the only way to stop them is to make the consequences for such behavior too UNenjoyable for them to continue.
5) They base their judgment on who they like rather than who's in the right: It's human nature to shade one's judgment in favor of those we know and like best, but it's foolish in general (people do NOT become saintlier the closer they are to YOU), and dead wrong when you're responsible for the welfare of others. Anyone who's incapable of objective judgment and fair disciplining doesn't qualify to be in authority... but it doesn't stop them from HAVING authority, sadly.
6) They want to be popular rather than to govern properly: People whine about rules being imposed or freedom of action being curtailed, no matter how reasonable or necessary it is, and resent anyone with power over them if that power is ever used; while realistically anyone in authority should resign themselves to learning firsthand what the phrase "it's lonely at the top" means, and to mistrusting anyone who tries to be too chummy as a probable brown-noser, they all too often want everyone to like them, which means that they have to be as UNauthoritative as possible.
7) They're amateurs: I mean that in 2 senses: First, that, although managing well takes knowledge, skill and experience, most authorities have received no training to give them these things. Second, that wrongdoers have spent WAY more time doing wrong, planning it, reviewing past episodes, and learning about the wrongdoings of others than any authority outside of the criminal justice system has spent DEALING with wrongdoing; this makes wrongdoers, even fairly young kids, pros, and the authorities amateurs who can easily be out-maneuvered.
8) They're weak-minded: They shouldn't be influenced by brown-nosing, or by people saying "Don't penalize John, we like him," or, worse, "Don't stick up for John, we DON'T like him"... but they ARE.
9) They're evil: Evil people seek out authority, and are unusually skillful at getting it... and needless to say, nothing is further from their thoughts than governing properly.
10) Did I mention that they're STUPID? They see a known wrongdoer attacking a model citizen, a group attacking one person, a big kid pounding a little kid, or any other situation where it's wildly obvious who's in the wrong and who's the victim, and claim that they can't TELL who started it... or, worse, that it doesn't MATTER, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... and end up punishing no one, everyone, or just the VICTIM far more often than reserving the butt-kicking for the wrongdoer(s).
The amazing part isn't all the ways that authorities fail to fulfill their responsibilities, it's that, given all the wrongheadedness that gets in the way, anyone ever overcomes it and does the job RIGHT; looking back over my entire life, I find that I can count the # of authorities I've encountered, online as well as off, that were able to consistently enforce proper behavior among their charges on the fingers of one hand. I'm not talking about forging the group into a smoothly operating machine all the parts of which get along, which takes a deep understanding of human nature and b@lls/ovaries of steel, but just keeping an eye on things, stopping bad behavior as soon as it starts, and applying discipline to those responsible that's sufficient to discourage them from ever doing it again; how pitiful is it that hardly anyone can manage to do these few simple things?
All I can figure is that there must have been some sort of survival benefit in our tribal days to not making any real effort to deter evil behavior that caused us to be biologically programmed to act that way; I can't see what that benefit could have been, but I'll keep working on it...
Managing people correctly requires enforcing behavioral standards on everyone all the time; it's rare for anyone to have to prove that they can do that before being allowed to HAVE authority, so naturally most of them CAN'T (or won't) do it.
Think about it: Authority at work is usually in the hands of the owner, relatives and friends who work for them, those who kiss butt, those with seniority, those who've excelled at something unrelated to managing, such as sales, or, conversely, those who are totally incompetent but for various reasons aren't being fired, and those who are non-threatening to the next-higher level of management. Authority at school is given to teachers, who just have to be able to get a certificate to get the job, and the principal, who usually gets that position by a combination of seniority and butt-kissing of the school board. Authority in the family is based on age. Authority in social clubs and committees is based on who started them or who got voted in, aka popularity. Authority in online gathering places is based on who's paying the bills, who the payers like enough to give admin/mod powers to, or who clicked the "create a group/forum/blog" link on the sites that offer those things for free. NONE of these avenues to authority takes managerial ability into account in any way, so it shouldn't surprise us that the beneficiaries of these avenues often can't manage their way out of wet paper bags.
But, there's nothing difficult or tricky about making sure that everyone's following the rules of polite society, so can't any random person who's given the mantle of management do what's necessary? Sure, most people can; the problem is that they generally DON'T, because:
1) They're stupid: Parents and other adult family members who hold authority over innocent children represent the full spectrum of human intellect, which means that a sizable chunk of them will be of below average intelligence. And have you read the reports on how many American teachers aren't even literate? How bright is your boss compared to the average person in your office? How many forum/group/chatroom admins have you seen with 3rd-grade spelling levels? Have you noticed that a person's popularity (and thus their likelihood of being chosen for or voted into a leadership position) tends to be inversely proportionate to their intelligence? To be an effective leader, a person needs to be a little bit smarter than the ones they're leading (to avoid being tricked by the wrongdoers amongst them), so being LESS intelligent is a definite handicap... and, more to the point, can lead to them not even TRYING to show leadership so that they don't look like an idiot.
2) They're lazy: Monitoring everything that goes on takes a great deal of time and effort; taking action (when there's a problem that they can't ignore) does too, and taking the CORRECT action unfortunately tends to take more than INcorrect ones do... and, since things run pretty smoothly most of the time withOUT the effort being made, authorities become convinced that it's ok to let everyone fend for themselves, even under circumstances where an explicit part of their duty is to monitor and protect, such as at school.
3) They're cowardly: An authority holds all the cards, and so should approach wrongdoers with confidence, but many authorities feel FEAR instead; they're afraid that they won't be able to say the right thing in the properly authoritative way, or that their audience will respond with laughter, arguments or refusal to comply rather than with intimidation and repentance, or that if their having made an issue of misbehavior doesn't change anything they'll lose everyone's respect. As a result, they bend over backwards to avoid confronting, much less punishing, anyone, so that their authority is never questioned, and their illusion of control never shattered.
4) They have no common sense: Some folks spurn the correct way to handle wrongdoing (which is to kick the butt of the wrongdoer(s) and ONLY the wrongdoer(s)), and choose instead to make announcements, hold meetings, create new rules to which no penalties are attached, and similar nonsense that they somehow expect to make the wrongdoer(s) alter their behavior... despite NEVER having seen such strategies actually work. They totally fail to grasp that people do evil because they ENJOY it, and the only way to stop them is to make the consequences for such behavior too UNenjoyable for them to continue.
5) They base their judgment on who they like rather than who's in the right: It's human nature to shade one's judgment in favor of those we know and like best, but it's foolish in general (people do NOT become saintlier the closer they are to YOU), and dead wrong when you're responsible for the welfare of others. Anyone who's incapable of objective judgment and fair disciplining doesn't qualify to be in authority... but it doesn't stop them from HAVING authority, sadly.
6) They want to be popular rather than to govern properly: People whine about rules being imposed or freedom of action being curtailed, no matter how reasonable or necessary it is, and resent anyone with power over them if that power is ever used; while realistically anyone in authority should resign themselves to learning firsthand what the phrase "it's lonely at the top" means, and to mistrusting anyone who tries to be too chummy as a probable brown-noser, they all too often want everyone to like them, which means that they have to be as UNauthoritative as possible.
7) They're amateurs: I mean that in 2 senses: First, that, although managing well takes knowledge, skill and experience, most authorities have received no training to give them these things. Second, that wrongdoers have spent WAY more time doing wrong, planning it, reviewing past episodes, and learning about the wrongdoings of others than any authority outside of the criminal justice system has spent DEALING with wrongdoing; this makes wrongdoers, even fairly young kids, pros, and the authorities amateurs who can easily be out-maneuvered.
8) They're weak-minded: They shouldn't be influenced by brown-nosing, or by people saying "Don't penalize John, we like him," or, worse, "Don't stick up for John, we DON'T like him"... but they ARE.
9) They're evil: Evil people seek out authority, and are unusually skillful at getting it... and needless to say, nothing is further from their thoughts than governing properly.
10) Did I mention that they're STUPID? They see a known wrongdoer attacking a model citizen, a group attacking one person, a big kid pounding a little kid, or any other situation where it's wildly obvious who's in the wrong and who's the victim, and claim that they can't TELL who started it... or, worse, that it doesn't MATTER, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... and end up punishing no one, everyone, or just the VICTIM far more often than reserving the butt-kicking for the wrongdoer(s).
The amazing part isn't all the ways that authorities fail to fulfill their responsibilities, it's that, given all the wrongheadedness that gets in the way, anyone ever overcomes it and does the job RIGHT; looking back over my entire life, I find that I can count the # of authorities I've encountered, online as well as off, that were able to consistently enforce proper behavior among their charges on the fingers of one hand. I'm not talking about forging the group into a smoothly operating machine all the parts of which get along, which takes a deep understanding of human nature and b@lls/ovaries of steel, but just keeping an eye on things, stopping bad behavior as soon as it starts, and applying discipline to those responsible that's sufficient to discourage them from ever doing it again; how pitiful is it that hardly anyone can manage to do these few simple things?
All I can figure is that there must have been some sort of survival benefit in our tribal days to not making any real effort to deter evil behavior that caused us to be biologically programmed to act that way; I can't see what that benefit could have been, but I'll keep working on it...
