![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trust - well do ya?
Sep. 18th, 2004 10:58 amFill this out now. Then read the post. Then fill out the one at the bottom.
[Poll #351987]
Brad - omnipotent owner of LJ - recently posted here saying that he didn't trust the LJ_Abuse team. He then went on to clarify that he respected them greatly, but that he constantly heard complaints about them making the wrong decisions and despite the fact that those decisions might be correct he had to place some kind of oversight over them and introduce some transparency in order to bring back trust in their workings.
This caused some of the abuse team to get awfully upset - because if Brad didn't trust them, how on earth could they do their job? They were slogging out their guts for LJ and they weren't even trusted?
What's interesting to me is that the abuse team members have two ways of reading the statement and some of them seem to be choosing the nastiest one possible.
They felt Brad had just said "I don't trust you at all and so want to watch your every move." - in which case, yes, there's no social contract remaining - time to pick up your toys and go home.
But the way I think Brad meant it was "I don't trust you 100% and so in order to deal with the occasional glitch or untrustworthy person/incident I need to be able to check up on you." Which seems self-evident to me - no person is 100% trustworthy and certainly no police system is 100% trustworthy. You need transparency and oversight or it all falls apart.
The problem being that Brad isn't even slightly a diplomat. And stated it in true Geek fashion - bluntly and using the actual meaning of the word, rather than thinking about what any non-geek would read into it. But from his point of view, how could he mean "I don't trust you at all."? If that was the case, he'd have sacked them all long ago!
So, having read my reasoning through it all -
[Poll #351988]
[Poll #351987]
Brad - omnipotent owner of LJ - recently posted here saying that he didn't trust the LJ_Abuse team. He then went on to clarify that he respected them greatly, but that he constantly heard complaints about them making the wrong decisions and despite the fact that those decisions might be correct he had to place some kind of oversight over them and introduce some transparency in order to bring back trust in their workings.
This caused some of the abuse team to get awfully upset - because if Brad didn't trust them, how on earth could they do their job? They were slogging out their guts for LJ and they weren't even trusted?
What's interesting to me is that the abuse team members have two ways of reading the statement and some of them seem to be choosing the nastiest one possible.
They felt Brad had just said "I don't trust you at all and so want to watch your every move." - in which case, yes, there's no social contract remaining - time to pick up your toys and go home.
But the way I think Brad meant it was "I don't trust you 100% and so in order to deal with the occasional glitch or untrustworthy person/incident I need to be able to check up on you." Which seems self-evident to me - no person is 100% trustworthy and certainly no police system is 100% trustworthy. You need transparency and oversight or it all falls apart.
The problem being that Brad isn't even slightly a diplomat. And stated it in true Geek fashion - bluntly and using the actual meaning of the word, rather than thinking about what any non-geek would read into it. But from his point of view, how could he mean "I don't trust you at all."? If that was the case, he'd have sacked them all long ago!
So, having read my reasoning through it all -
[Poll #351988]
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}