I logged off around 5pm yesterday, and did not have a chance to come back on until now. So, I'm just now seeing this thread. I have numerous comments and reactions, but I'll only address one of them -- the issue of leadership in Smogon.
It's very hard to be a leader in this community, and this thread is a great example of that. People that post in these threads, particularly the people that post in vehement near-insulting opposition to leadership decisions, need to realize that arguments like this take a toll on the leaders. I'm not saying we need to coddle our leaders and make sure they feel special all the time and never oppose them or voice disagreement. Good leaders are quite used to disagreement, and they can handle arguments and criticism -- but there is a cost. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Everyone that contributes to this community is doing so on a volunteer basis. Smogon is not a corporation that has a "Customer Service" department, where people are paid to hear all the shit and accept feedback and deal with all the criticism and controversy that erupts from what they do. Smogon members contribute because they want to, and usually do so under the assumption that their contribution will be met with acceptance and appreciation.
People don't write a new set or reword an analysis because they think everyone will hate it. When the author puts the finishing touches on it and hits the Post button, they always think people are going to love it. And they are probably crushed at even the merest criticism and proposed changes. Sure we can tell people to thicken their skin, or "learn to accept criticism" -- but people will only go so far with that. If a contributor's contributions are continually met with criticism or outright disdain, they will simply stop contributing. And, if the contribution is truly bad all the time, then it is probably for the best that they stop contributing.
But in some cases, the criticism is localized to a vocal minority, when in fact the majority actually likes the contribution, but sees no reason to comment. People tend to act on their negative reactions more than their positive reactions. Put another way -- most people will bitch about every thing they don't like, but will rarely express thanks or gratitude for things they do like. This creates a very odd dynamic for a community like Smogon, where all contributions are voluntary. We have a system where most expressed feedback is negative. That discourages contributions, and tends to wear down contributors.
The only way to counteract that is to have a specialized community function for positively rewarding contributions. We have that at Smogon in the form of the badging system, and promotion to leadership positions. If you contribute a lot, you get badges and staff privileges. It's not the best form of "compensation", but it's all we have. We combine that with the fact that the work itself is its own reward, to a certain extent. When your analysis appears on site, or your program is used by the community -- presumably that is somewhat satisfying to the contributor that made it happen. So, if you combine satisfaction with badges/leadership, you have a "compensation structure" for encouraging contributors.
But what do we do when the contribution is "leadership"? In particular, what do we do to encourage "senior leadership"?
When you get close to the "top of the food chain" here at Smogon, it's almost impossible to reward further contribution. I can't give Philip another badge or another promotion that gives him much measurable reward over what he already has. He's got damn near every badge in the book, and he's got almost every staff privilege that really matters. So what is his reward for contributing further leadership? Not much. In fact, the paradox of volunteer leadership, is that the higher you get, the more important your decisions become and the bigger the audience for your decisions. And because of what I mentioned earlier about people's tendency to bitch rather than praise -- as you increase leadership, you pretty much just increase the amount of bitching and criticism that you receive. So, at the top of the scale of leadership, you get lots of complaints and problems, and few rewards. Sounds like a great job, right?
This thread has a lot of harsh criticism for Philip, even in the face of him pleading with the community to understand that he is really trying his best to make the contribution we asked from him -- which is leadership. Don't get me wrong, we don't need to cheer Philip for everything he does, even when we disagree with him. And there have been several people that have complimented Philip in this thread, not only for his actual decision, but for the act of giving leadership to the process.
But, for those giving unabashed criticism, I hope you realize that your comments are having an impact, and not necessarily a productive impact. You may think you are posting random-complaint-post-number-238465 and it's not a big deal. But for the leader being criticized, it is yet another demotivating factor that makes the leader less inclined to step up to the plate later and do the job of providing real leadership in the future. I'm not saying Philip is going to quit because he is butthurt over all the criticism in this thread. And even if he did, someone else will probably be willing to pick up the torch and be next in line to take abuse. But, I think people should be more cognizant of the toll these threads take on the leaders of the community.
We are chewing people up, and spitting them out. Some people are saying that leadership decisions are making people leave the community. I actually see it the other way around. The community reaction to real leadership is making leaders leave the community. And what we are left with is a void of leadership, and an excess of whiners, complainers, and people whose main contribution is little more than criticism. For anyone in this thread who thinks criticism is a valuable and necessary part of the creative process, and you have deluded yourself into believing that you are making Smogon better by bitching at leaders all the time -- you aren't. You are just piling more negative reinforcement into a system already biased against leadership; leadership which is essential to actually getting things done.
People need to figure out ways to give feedback that does not make the person in charge want to vacate the position. Yeah, you can tell people to "man up" all you want. But threads like this exact a pound of flesh from people like Philip, and I hate that this is normal operating procedure here at Smogon. Policy Review is supposedly comprised of people that have a higher standard for discourse and discussion. I don't think it is unreasonable at all that I ask posters here to figure out a way to argue a position, while still acknowledging the positive contribution our leaders are trying to make.