Namsokiek, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. It was insightful, and I appreciated the thought you put into it. They say that confession is good for your soul, and I believe there is merit in that statement. If so I hope that clearing your soul of the burden of where you learned poor leadership qualities will be beneficial to you personally, and with your leadership team. Since you expressed your shortcomings so eloquently, I thought I would offer some solutions for you and your team to consider. These are given with love, and the hope that you can find a solution to your leadership shortfalls.
I started with government styles. Since the majority of the administration team shares a military background I thought a public sector overview might be best.
A
government is the system by which a
state or community is controlled.
[SUP][1][/SUP] In the
Commonwealth of Nations, the word
government is also used more narrowly to refer to the
collective group of people that exercises
executive authority in a state.
[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] This usage is analogous to what is called an "
administration" in
American English. Furthermore, especially in American English, the concepts of
the state and
the government may be used
synonymously to refer to the person or group of people exercising authority over a politically organized territory.
[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Finally,
government is also sometimes used in English as a
synonym for
governance.
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of
legislators,
administrators, and
arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the
policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.
Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason,
political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with
anthropology,
economics,
environmentalism,
history,
philosophy,
science, and
sociology.
Identifying a form of government is also difficult because a large number of
political systems originate as
socio-economic movements and are then carried into governments by specific
parties naming themselves after those movements; all with competing political-ideologies. Experience with those movements in power, and the strong ties they may have to particular forms of government, can cause them to be considered as forms of government in themselves.
Forms of government by associated attributes[
edit]
Descriptions of governments can be based on the following attributes:
By elements of where decision-making power is held[
edit]
Aristarchic attributes[
edit]
Governments with
aristarchy attributes are traditionally controlled and organised by a small group of the most-qualified people, with no intervention from the most part of society; this small group usually shares some common trait. The opposite of an aristarchic government is
kakistocracy.
Term
| Definition
|
Aristocracy
| Rule by elite citizens. It has come to mean rule by "the aristocracy" who are people of noble birth. An aristocracy is a government by the "best" people. A person who rules in an aristocracy is an aristocrat. Aristocracy is different from nobility, in that nobility means that one bloodline would rule; an aristocracy would mean that a few or many bloodlines would rule, or that rulers be chosen in a different manner.
|
Geniocracy
| Rule by the intelligent; a system of governance where creativity, innovation, intelligence and wisdom are required for those who wish to govern. SeeAristocracy of the wise.
|
Kratocracy
| Rule by the strong; a system of governance where those who are strong enough seize power through physical force, social maneuvering or political cunning. The process can mimic Darwinian selection.
|
Meritocracy
| Rule by the meritorious; a system of governance where groups are selected on the basis of people's ability, knowledge in a given area, and contributions to society.
|
Timocracy
| Rule by honour; a system of governance ruled by honorable citizens and property owners. Socrates defines a timocracy as a government ruled by people who love honour and are selected according to the degree of honour they hold in society. This form of timocracy is very similar tomeritocracy, in the sense that individuals of outstanding character or faculty are placed in the seat of power. European feudalism and post-Revolutionary America are historical examples of this type; the city-state of Sparta provided another real-world model for this form of government.
|
Technocracy
| Rule by the educated or technical experts; a system of governance where people who are skilled or proficient govern in their respective areas of expertise in technology would be in control of all decision making. Doctors, engineers, scientists, professionals and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen, and economists.[SUP][14][/SUP] In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skillful they are in their field.
|
Autocratic attributes[
edit]
Governments with
autocratic attributes are dominated by one person who has all the power over the people in a country. The
Roman Republic made
dictators to lead during times of war; the Roman dictators only held power for a small time. In modern times, an autocrat's rule is not stopped by any rules of law,
constitutions, or other social and political institutions. After World War II, many governments in Latin America, Asia, and Africa were ruled by autocratic governments. Examples of autocrats include
Idi Amin,
Muammar Gaddafi,
Adolf Hitler and
Gamal Abdul Nasser.
Term
| Definition
|
Autocracy
| Rule by one individual, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regular mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for implicit threat). An autocrat needs servants while a despot needs slaves.
|
Despotism
| Rule by a single entity with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a single, or individual, "despot". A despot needs slaves while an autocrat needs servants.
|
Dictatorship
| Rule by an individual who has full power over the country. The term may refer to a system where the dictator came to power, and holds it, purely by force; but it also includes systems where the dictator first came to power legitimately but then was able to amend the constitution so as to, in effect, gather all power for themselves.[SUP][15][/SUP] In a military dictatorship, the army is in control. Usually, there is little or no attention to public opinion or individual rights. See also Autocracy and Stratocracy.
|
Fascism
| Rule by leader base only. Focuses heavily on patriotism and national identity. The leader(s) has the power to make things illegal that do not relate to nationalism, or increase belief in national pride. They believe their nation is based on commitment to an organic national community where its citizens are united together as one people through a national identity. It exalts nation and race above the individual and stands for severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
|
Monarchic attributes[
edit]
Governments with
monarchic attributes are ruled by a king/emperor or a queen/empress who usually holds their position for life. There are two types of monarchies: absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler has no limits on their wishes or powers. In a constitutional monarchy a ruler's powers are limited by a document called a constitution. The constitution was put in place to put a check to these powers.
Pejorative attributes[
edit]
Regardless of the form of government, the actual governance may be influenced by sectors with
political power which are not part of the formal government. Certain actions of the governors, such as
corruption,
demagoguery, or
fear mongering, may disrupt the intended way of working of the government if they are widespread enough.
Term
| Definition
|
Bankocracy
| Rule by banks;[SUP][20][/SUP] a system of governance with excessive power or influence of banks and other financial authorities on public policy-making. It can also refer to a form of government where financial institutions rule society.
|
Corporatocracy
| Rule by corporations; a system of governance where an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[SUP][21][/SUP] Its use is generally pejorative. Examples include company rule in India and business voters for the City of London Corporation.
|
Nepotocracy
| Rule by nephews; favouritism granted to relatives regardless of merit; a system of governance in which importance is given to the relatives of those already in power, like a nephew (where the word comes from). In such governments even if the relatives aren't qualified they are given positions of authority just because they know someone who already has authority. Pope Alexander VI (Borgia) was accused of this.
|
Kakistocracy
| Rule by the stupid; a system of governance where the worst or least-qualified citizens govern or dictate policies. Due to human nature being inherently flawed, it has been suggested that every government which has ever existed has been a prime example of kakistocracy. See Idiocracy.
|
Kleptocracy(Mafia state)
| Rule by thieves; a system of governance where its officials and the ruling class in general pursue personal wealth and political power at the expense of the wider population. In strict terms kleptocracy is not a form of government but a characteristic of a government engaged in such behavior. Examples include Mexico as being considered a narcokleptocracy, since its democratic government is perceived to be corrupted by those who profit from trade in illegal drugs smuggled into the United States.
|
Ochlocracy
| Rule by the general populace; a system of governance where mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocratic governments are often a democracy spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason; such governments can be as oppressive as autocratic tyrants. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy."
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
So in answering your leadership post Namsokiek I obviously started with types of governments. Attempting to define what form of government you and your team seem to be employing in your efforts to administer this forum. None really meet the conditions of what is happening in our forum. Oligarchy seems pretty close, and despotism is definitely displayed. I included many forms so you and your team could reflect upon this question, and decide if your methods are best serving you and this forum. Part of good leadership requires judgment of methods, and outcomes. I submit that the number of questions as to the liveliness of the forum, and the loneliness of the forum would demonstrate that in fact methods being utilized are not meeting those objectives of proper leadership.
Then I chose to look into the definition of your teams self proclaimed desire. Your team has defined the forum as that of a family, with the moderators being children. Which, really begs the question of what you are defining the members as. I will leave that to you to discus amongst yourselves also. So the definition of family.
[h=2]Definition of Family[/h]
The dictionary
defines family in several ways. One definition is "a fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children." While this definition is a good starting point, there are several modern family structures that are excluded by this definition, such as childless couples or other variations on the family unit. Another definition is "Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another and reside usually in the same dwelling." This definition encompasses the vast majority of modern family units; for the purposes of this article, the second definition will be used.
Meaning of Family
I am not really sure how to respond to this in context to throwing two members of the family out. One a child of the defined family, and his spouse, especially as the action was precipitated by a member of the parental unit. Then even though the parental unit recanted the precipitating statement the rest of the parental team thought it best to continue with the incorrect action. Then the other defined children of the defined family fought that inappropriate action vociferously, aggressively, and even to the point of giving up being part of the defined family in protest.
The defined parental units of the defined family should be extremely thankful for the actions of the defined children. This rebellion exposed an extreme lack of character, and moral fiber in the defined parental unit. This exposure gives the defined parental team the opportunity, and in my mind the absolute obligation to reassess the modalities of leadership which they are using. Unfortunately the defined parental team has instead placed the BLAME firmly on the victims, and the team that moderated the defined parental teams mistake. Simply you and your team are backwards in your response. Reparations would be simple, but not until you admit fault, and engage your personal honor.
In an effort to still appeal to the parental team military background here is a parable involving Sun Tzu. Likely not written by Sun Tzu it is still effective in making what I think was the same point you tried to illustrate for me.
[h=4]Sun Wu and his Book[/h]Ssu-ma Ch‘ien gives the following biography of Sun Tzu:
[SUP]1[/SUP]
Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Ch‘i State. His ART OF WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu,
[SUP]2[/SUP] King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: “I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?”
Sun Tzu replied: “You may.”
Ho Lu asked: “May the test be applied to women?”
The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King’s favorite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: “I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?”
The girls replied: Yes.
Sun Tzu went on: “When I say “Eyes front,” you must look straight ahead. When I say “Left turn,” you must face towards your left hand. When I say “Right turn,” you must face towards your right hand. When I say “About turn,” you must face right round towards your back.”
Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order “Right turn.” But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.”
So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order “Left turn,” whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.”
So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: “We are now quite satisfied as to our general’s ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded.”
Sun Tzu replied: “Having once received His Majesty’s commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept.”
Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound. Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: “Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty’s inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey.”
But the King replied: “Let our general cease drilling and return to camp. As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the troops.”
Thereupon Sun Tzu said: “The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds.”
After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle an army, and finally appointed him general. In the west, he defeated the Ch‘u State and forced his way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into the States of Ch‘i and Chin, and spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/suntzu/art-of-war/introduction.html
As a brief member of the defined childrens group, and having been tasked with enforcing the rules of the forum I can tell you that the defined parental group of our forum would be akin to the defined role in this parable of the king. Once given the charge of moderating this forum, I and MrB8, Popol, Kickinthemebs, Burtybassett, nor any other moderator of honor could stand by and allow your team to continue on your path. I can also tell you that members of your team at least temporarily felt the same.
I applaud the partial fix, however I tell you sincerely a partial fix will never repair the damage that your mistake has caused. Only a complete reversal of your actions, and leadership techniques can ever accomplish that. As Sun Tzu indicates it starts at the top. There have been other similar problems on this forum. Especially between administrators, and moderators. Your team has attempted to solve this in different ways, but the issues persist. There is one common denominator… The administration team.
As stated by you, As someone who has been lead by a leader fearful of these confrontations and a different leader, who did not suffer from this weakness, I can tell you that knowing your shortcomings and being reminded of them until you have overcome them is infinitely preferable to the alternative; stagnation as a result of ihttps://www.pegym.com/forums/gym/31323-place-rant-214.html#post1116533gnorance and ineptitude.
I hope that you and your team will no longer need these reminders of your ineptitude and weaknesses. I hope that you will finally address these shortcomings, and this forum can heal. According to the history that I have been witness to since 2012, I don’t feel a great deal of hope for that. I am a very loving and caring person, and believe strongly that despotism needs to be confronted and stopped. Baiting, bullying, ganging up on people are all signs of despotism. I confront my weaknesses and ineptitudes and I challenge you and your team to do the same.
