I linked this article in the EA Discord that I moderate, and made the following comments:
Posting this in #server-meta because it helps clarify a lot of what I, at least, have struggled to express about how I see this server as being supposed to work.
Specifically, I feel pretty strongly that it should be run on civic/public norms. This is a contrast to a lot of other rationalsphere Discords, which I think often at least claim to be running on guest norms, though I don’t have a super-solid understanding of the social dynamics involved.
The standard failure mode of civic/public norms is that the people in charge, in the interest of not having a too-high standard of membership (as this set of norms requires), are overly tolerant of behaviors with negative externalities.
The problem with this is not simply that negative externalities are bad, it’s that if you have too many of them it ceases to be worth good actors’ while to participate, at which point they leave because the whole thing is voluntary. Whatever the goals of the space are, you probably can’t achieve them if there’s nobody left but trolls.
Thus it is occasionally argued that civic/public norms are self-defeating. In particular, in the rationalsphere something like this has become accepted wisdom (“well-kept gardens die by pacifism”), and attempts to make spaces more civic/public are by default met with suspicion.
(Of course, it can also hard to tell a principled attempt at civic/public norms apart from a simple bias towards inaction on the part of the people in charge. Such a bias can stem from aversion to social conflict. Certainly, I myself am so averse.)
The way we deal with this on this server, I think, is to identify patterns that if left unchecked would cause productive people to leave (not specific productive people, but rather in the abstract), and then as principledly as possible tweak the rules to officially discourage and/or prohibit those behaviors.
It’s a fine line to walk, but I don’t think it’s impossible to do well. And there are advantages; I suspect that insecure and/or conflict-averse people may have an easier time in this kind of space, especially if they don’t have a guest or coalitional space that happens to favor them and so makes them feel safe. (Something something typical mind fallacy.)
Also, civic/public norms are the best at preventing forks and schisms. Guest norms are the worst at this. One can of course argue about whether it’s worth it, but these do very much have costs.
The other thing I found especially interesting was this quote: “Asking for “inclusiveness” is usually a bid to make the group more Civic or Coalitional.”
I found this interesting because recently I made an ex cathedra statement that almost used the word “inclusive” in reference to what this server strives to be. By this I meant civic/public. I took it out because the risk of misinterpretation seemed high, because in the corners of the internet that many of us frequent, “inclusive” more often means coalitional.
One subtly important aspect of Civic/Public norms is that they may only be "open" inside the context of a larger group. For instance, a public library in a US city is only accessible by people who can get to it, which outsources some access filtering to the US Government, and borrowing privileges may only be open to people who can afford a permanent address nearby. There are often less legible class filters going on too, e.g. a coffee shop might kick out someone who looks like they're in the underclass.
This is a good point. I was wondering why civic/public is much more functional in meatspace than cyber, whereas a lot of internet communities that seem good are more gated—and I think this is due to the civic/public being sort of superficial, because the actual gatekeepers are in all sorts of transaction costs and social barriers one doesn't normally notice (or are deliberately obscured).
the other thing to consider is that the internet offers the possibility of less acountability
when meeting in person it is harder to disguise yourself as someone else
also, since there is a big transport cost of frequenting a different place (a different library, coffee shop, etc), causing people not to like you means you are increasing your chances of conflict every future time you will frequent that place
online if you cause someone not to like you in an online space, you can more easily find or create another similar online space where that person is not there, or create a new account and join the same space, or ignore/block them even if they seek conflict, their impact on you might be less: you can't really physically hurt someone online and disrupting their actions/discussions can be more difficult
Elinor Ostrom has written several books that would be informative. Much of her work is from the point of view of the incentives that produced particular patterns of cooperation and keep it going over long periods of time. You'll have to do your own thinking about how to move a particular organization toward a stable norm. Robert Ellicskson's "Order without Law" is more about dispute settlement among neighbors and enforcing different sets of norms than about organizing groups, but there are interesting examples there, too.
James C. Scott's "Thinking like a State" talks more about pathological cases from a self-government viewpoint, and doesn't have much to say about healthy groups.
I would want to expand the taxonomy to include sports leagues for children (children and their parents cycle through on an annual basis, while some core maintains the form of the organization) and HOAs, which are attached to property and have different standard pathologies, since membership is incidental to another goal, but members can impose substantial penalties and incentives on each other,
I like this collection of paradigms as a resource, thanks.
I didn't know what Kaizen meant, and think it'd be handy to either give it a more commonplace name, or briefly explain the name choice.
I think an important point with this system (and RE: "Not a Taxonomy") is that it's possible to mix and match norms.
For example, in a recreational sports team you see inclusion and membership having Civic norms (sometimes moving slightly toward Guest norms for something like pickup games) but praise and feedback being closer to Kaizen norms.
I bring up this specific example because I think it's the default assumption I made about the sort of space LessWrong was when I discovered it. In particular because the cost of admitting additional members is very low, I expect the minimum standards for expertise in the community to be very low, but the expectations around feedback and discussion to be goal-driven. This contrasts with something like a sports team or a workplace, where there is often a limit on the number of people who can join a community or a high cost to adding more members, and each member relies directly on the work of others.
Promoted to curated: This post has been quite useful to me in thinking about various group dynamics, and I know of others who experienced the same. I also found the structure quite well-organized, and found the categorization to be helpful in almost any type of group that I thought about, which seems like a good sign.
I think I am generally hesitant to promote posts that primary deal with categorization, since I think it's often hard to evaluate whether a categorization is useful before you have used it for quite a while, which is why I wanted to wait at least one or two weeks before curating this, but it seems to have held up and I am happy to curate it now.
My biggest criticism is I think with some of the naming. I didn't know what "Kaizen" meant, which after looking it up does seem fitting, but explaining it in the post would have been valuable.
Did you have a collection of sources?
Have you looked at for example toastmasters, existing intentional community groups, political parties, masonic, sport, Mensa and more groups for their norms?
I thought this provided a lot of clarity about membership norms! I definitely have had the experience of arguing with people based on different understandings of which norms the server/group operated under.
To me, the textbook example of something that runs under Coalition Norms is a for-profit business. Does this not fit in that category cleanly, an oversight, or just omitted to keep the list of examples minimalistic?
Epistemic Status: Idea Generation
One feature of the internet that we haven’t fully adapted to yet is that it’s trivial to create voluntary groups for discussion. It’s as easy as making a mailing list, group chat, Facebook group, Discord server, Slack channel, etc.
What we don’t seem to have is a good practical language for talking about norms on these mini-groups — what kind of moderation do we use, how do we admit and expel members, what kinds of governance structures do we create.
Maybe this is a minor thing to talk about, but I suspect it has broader impact. In past decades voluntary membership in organizations has declined in the US — we’re less likely to be members of the Elks or of churches or bowling leagues — so lots of people who don’t have any experience in founding or participating in traditional types of voluntary organizations are now finding themselves engaged in governance without even knowing that’s what they’re doing.
When we do this badly, we get “internet drama.” When we do it really badly, we get harassment campaigns and calls for regulation/moderation at the corporate or even governmental level. And that makes the news. It’s not inconceivable that Twitter moderation norms affect international relations, for instance.
It’s a traditional observation about 19th century America that Americans were eager joiners of voluntary groups, and that these groups were practice for democratic participation. Political wonks today lament the lack of civic participation and loss of trust in our national and democratic institutions. Now, maybe you’ve moved on; maybe you’re a creature of the 21st century and you’re not hoping to restore trust in the institutions of the 20th. But what will be the institutions of the future? That may well be affected by what formats and frames for group membership people are used to at the small scale.
It’s also relevant for the future of freedom. It’s starting to be a common claim that “give people absolute ‘free speech’ and the results are awful; therefore we need regulation/governance at the corporate or national level.” If you’re not satisfied with that solution (as I’m not), you have work to do — there are a lot of questions to unpack like “what kind of ‘freedom’, with what implementational details, is the valuable kind?”, “if small-scale voluntary organizations can handle some of the functions of the state, how exactly will they work?”, “how does one prevent the outcomes that people consider so awful that they want large institutions to step in to govern smaller groups?”
Thinking about, and working on, governance for voluntary organizations (and micro-organizations like online discussion groups) is a laboratory for figuring this stuff out in real time, with fairly low resource investment and risk. That’s why I find this stuff fascinating and wish more people did.
The other place to start, of course, is history, which I’m not very knowledgeable about, but intend to learn a bit. David Friedman is the historian I’m familiar with who’s studied historical governance and legal systems with an eye to potential applicability to building voluntary governance systems today; I’m interested in hearing about others. (Commenters?)
In the meantime, I want to start generating a (non-exhaustive list) of types of norms for group membership, to illustrate the diversity of how groups work and what forms “expectations for members” can take.
We found organizations based on formats and norms that we’ve seen before. It’s useful to have an idea of the range of formats that we might encounter, so we don’t get anchored on the first format that comes to mind. It’s also good to have a vocabulary so we can have higher-quality disagreements about the purpose & nature of the groups we belong to; often disagreements seem to be about policy details but are really about the overall type of what we want the group to be.
Civic/Public Norms
Guest Norms
Kaizen Norms
Coalition Norms
Tribal Norms
Some comparisons-and-contrasts:
Honor and Shame
Kaizen and Guest group norms say that being a member of the group is an honor and comes with high expectations, but that not being a member is normal and not especially shameful.
Civic norms say that being a member of the group is normal and easy to attain, but not being a member is shameful, because it indicates egregiously bad behavior.
Coalition norms say that being a member is an honor and comes with high expectations and that not being a member is shameful. This means that most people will have something to be ashamed of.
Tribal norms say that being a member is not an honor (though it may be a privilege), and that not being a member is no shame.
Protest
Civic and Kaizen norms say that it’s okay to protest “unfair” treatment by the governing body. In a Civic context, “fair” means “it’s possible for everyone to stay out of trouble by following the rules” — it’s okay for rules to be arbitrary, but they should be clear and consistent and not so onerous that most people can’t follow them. In a Kaizen context, “fair” means “corresponding to the ideal” — it’s okay to “not do things by the book” if that gets you better performance, but it’s not okay if you’re rewarding bad performance and punishing good.
Guest and Coalition norms say that it’s not okay to protest “unfair” treatment; if you get kicked out, arguing can’t help you get back in. Offering the decisionmakers something they value might work, though.
In Tribal norms, protest and argument can be either licit or taboo; it depends on the specific tribe and its norms.
Examples of debates that are about what type of group you want to be in:
Asking for “inclusiveness” is usually a bid to make the group more Civic or Coalitional.
Making accusations of “favoritism” is usually a bid to make the group more Civic or Kaizen.
Complaining about “problem members” is usually a bid to make the group more Coalitional, Guest, or Kaizen.
Not A Taxonomy
I don’t think these are the definitive types of groups. The idea is to illustrate how you can have different starting assumptions about what kind of thing the group is for. (Is it for achieving a noble goal? For providing a public forum or service open to all? For meeting the needs of its members?)
I suspect these kinds of aims are prior to mechanisms (things like “what is a bannable offense” or “what incentive systems do we set up”?) Before diving into the technical stuff about the rules of the game, you want to ask what kinds of outcomes or group dynamics you want the “game structure” to achieve.