CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

First of all, while I will be mentioning Machiavelli, general political offices, and message board moderators and the like, I do NOT want this thread to degenerate into politics, nor do I necessarily want general mod worshipping/bashing in this thread. With that said, please read on. ^^

This has been something that I suppose has arisen in my mind after 2 recent experiences: 1) 2 hours today spent reading through Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince 2) the behavior of some moderators and members at another message board I frequent.

For example, on the message board I previously mentioned, it struck me that suggestions about improving the board and/or disagreeing with the moderators seems to be a big "no no". People who do so seem to be quickly shot down, and are sometimes treated somewhat rudely. Why does this seem to happen when, at the same time, those same people so flippantly mock people in a position of greater power than a message board moderator - for example, Presidents, politicians, or even teachers?

What makes us so heavily fear/revere certain figures of power, and at the same time mock or criticise others? What is it about these two different groups of people (in my example, board moderators and politicians) that make them so different in people's minds? Both obviously posess a degree of power, yet they are treated very differently. Is it because we feel that people like board moderators have more pertinence over what we do in our daily lives? Is it because we don't interact with our representatives in the government as openly as we interact with other figures of power, and thus feel less of a need to respect them?

I'm curious to hear what people think. ^_^

EDIT: Again, I don't want this to degenerate into a source of bickering, so I think it may be a good idea to not explicitly mention any particular groups or individuals. ^^;;;;

People won't submit to someone who can't put them in order. Western societies, especially the U.S., have been built on a spirit of rebellion against all authority - including legitimate authority. People assume that the masses should be in charge. This is wrong, but people believe it.

In an actively moderated message board, people who can't submit enough to follow the rules, or who do nothing but rail against the administration, can find themselves RO'd, banned, given demeaning and unchangeable user titles - basically, the administration can put them forcibly into a position of order - or throw them out. Political figures cannot do this, so people feel free to indulge their rebellion without personal consequence.

As for the general hostility of the people toward change, that's easily explained by the same dynamic - one of the reasons that people trust rules is that they have such difficulty trusting rulers. Relying on the rules and procedures makes things safe and predictable, and it means that you don't have to trust an authority to make the right decision. (that's also part of the reason that a lot of churches preach law instead of grace - it's easier to do when you don't really trust God.)

Also, "defending" the administration is commonly used as an excuse to attack anyone who doesn't seem "patriotic enough" - witness the anti-communist hysteria during the cold war. "Defending" the country was used as a means of acquiring power - the same thing happens in message boards, as vocal "defenders" of the administration gain "authority by association". It's not usually conscious, but those are a couple of big motivators behind that behaviour.

I think Kaligraphic has a very good post right there. I'd invite the reader to go back and read it again. There's a LOT of truth in that which you probably missed the first time you read it.

this last summer i was a boy scout, scout master well one of them. It was hard to get the kids ot listen or obey me because i could not physically punish them, well why are they going to listen to me if all i can do is talk to them...i could try to place them in a corner or soemthing, but once again they would run from it, or not stay ect. it took me a long while to astablish my athority over them. and still they would question me, and disobey me.

i think, which this does go along with kal, is that unless the athority has a means by which we respect them or fear them, we will not take them seriously. it is not till we chose or are foced to obey them that we do.

I've found the best way to establish your authority is to be humble. "Humble" doesn't mean whimpy, but it means before ordering others around and kicking back to enjoy free time, you do your own work. Usually "your own" means more than anyone else's share, but that's because you're the one in charge. And often, having a polite, diplomatic attitude while displaying as much of Christ's love as possible will make dealing with most people a lot easier. Be firm when need be, but be gracious as much as possible.

For me personally, and I'd say for all other forums and such, being in charge means staying informed, staying active, making time every day to keep up with CAA, answering PMs sincerely and not in a rushed, insincere way, etc. etc.

true, to quote my uncle, "Leadership means to lead" if you are disrespectful to your followers, and they are dispectful themselfs, they are doing what a follower is suposed to do follow thier leader. You want them to respect you, respect them. doesn't mean let them get away with things, but listen to them, hear them acnowlege them ect. Never ask something of your followers that you yourself hasn't done, or would be willing to do.

The first thought that popped into my head was this:

Power is respected, but only to its face.

The moderators of the board are respected by posters because failure to do so will bring repercussions that the members do not want to deal with - such as banination. While the other leaders mentioned have no power in that medium - and will likely never even see the disrespectful comments. It's much easier to be disrespectful when there is no fear of reprisal.

It is a cowardly way to behave devoid of any integrity.