Posted by Adam W. in Questions for the Candidates - Jerome and James
These are questions for Jerome and James based on their recent headquarters post, which I am including excerpts from.

1) EGO legislation being amended to permit membership of only to those members between the ranks of Captain and Commodore who have a minimum year in command of a ship and three years of club membership, with selection voting remaining with Flag & Fleet Captains. Further, give EGO some latitude to serve as sort of a final mediator; with a less narrowed scope to allow them to assist as necessary with concerns such as bullying & gaslighting within the club.

Why not higher the ranks? What benefit is there of being promoted past Commodore if the only change is that it takes away what you can be involved in? And why drop down the requirement to the Captain level?

Because the people with the most hands on time with membership are, currently, the Captains of the club. They are the ones they feel comfortable bringing concerns and issues to… not the Admiralty. No person in any group wants to bring issues to the highest reaches of the community, especially the President, due to fear that their concerns will go unheard or disregarded. I quit trying to address most things to the higher ups years ago because I grew tired of feeling like my concerns fell on deaf ears. That is my personal opinion from my own interactions. I’m not saying this to sling mud, but simply to express my personal feelings on a general topic. If required, I have around two dozen different email exchanges cataloged of various interactions over the years that made me feel this way.

I assume you think gaslighting is a problem in STF since you want it addressed. Can you explain what you mean by that and how you’ve seen that?

According to Psychology Today, Gaslighting can appear in any of 11 ways: (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-
signs-gaslighting )

I have bore witness to or heard of all but one of these during my time in the club. The lack of concern from leadership at the times they occurred nearly drove me away. Being told to my face that “in their opinion” it “wasn’t an issue” nearly drove me away. I hung in there because I have always tried to be one of those that listened. Because when the system fails a member, someone needs to be there to pick them up, dust them off, and ensure them that leaving only passes the burden to the next person and they lose a generally great community that loves them and needs their light to shine. I’m sick of this and that is way I made this a platform item.

Just because a President or another senior member (or junior member for that matter) doesn’t do something to warrant a EGO statement, action, or removal under the current system doesn’t mean it’s not wrong and shouldn’t be addressed. I have found through my research no less than 30 scholarly articles and papers published by researchers from around the world on the dangers of gaslighting in organizations and gaslighting in online communities.

As an example, please review the opening words to Dr. Kate Abramson opened her 2014 Philosophical Perspectives journal “Turning Up The Lights On Gaslighting” ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phpe.12046 )

Let’s say a ship member believes they are being bullied by their CO and this complaint goes all the way up. At what point does EGO get involved and how do you think that would work? I’d like to understand why you think this is better than the President making the final call. Also I’m wondering how the Inclusion and Diversity Board ties into dealing with bullying, since that’s a second additional group beyond who currently deals with bullying that you are suggesting.

Why do I think it’s better than the President making the final call? Simple… the Executive is one person who can be just as easily manipulated as a single member. If the President disregards an issue of a distressing nature to the member, EGO when then review the issue independently BEFORE talking with the Executive to aid in an unbiased investigation of the matter.

I see the Board, modeled loosely on the policies of the US Department of Homeland Security’s own Coast Guard Auxiliary, where I served as the State Diversity & Inclusion Officer for Oklahoma for half a decade before moving to a role on the National Staff, as primarily a policy and advisement body that aids in developing ways for the EGO to address issues under their area of responsibility.

4) Promotions above Commander shall be made taking into consideration Club Tenure, Performance of OOC duties, Recommendation of fellow club leadership, and Time in Grade. We feel establishing a Promotions Task Force to develop these guidelines will make promotions even more meaningful and obtainment of new pips even more special. This we hope will provide incentive for members to engage more in the STF community as a whole.

What do you find inadequate about the current guidelines for promoting?

Inconsistency. Many times, members are promoted thanks to having time to hangout in chat/Discord and not on the body of their work. I don’t think the current guidelines are the least bit effective and leave gaping holes for personal bias. A formal system should be in place to ensure members are properly recognized for their contributions to the community as a whole.

7) Creation of a formal Inclusion & Diversity Plan for the club that includes guidelines for;
- Establishment of a Board to mange the Inclusion & Diversity efforts of the club that serve on a voluntary basis separate from the Executive
- Handling complaints of bullying, sexual & general harassment, unconscious bias, and other similar issues.
- Sets guidelines for an annual census of the club membership
- Increasing awareness, building community, and fostering collaboration within the membership

Why do you feel this would be better than those currently handling complaints? How large would this board be? Would they handle all complaints that fall under these categories that originated as incidents in the Discord server?

Because they don’t always work. The board would be what is called ad-hoc. A group of 4-7 volunteers that want to be involved with helping make the community a better place for all. As stated above, the plan is for this group to be a policy body to aid the EGO in handling said issues. If, after implementation, it is found that there are too many complaints coming from the community for EGO to handle… it will both open our eyes to bigger community problems and result in the reevaluation of the board’s role in the club.

What is the purpose of the census you are suggesting?

An anonymous annual census covering diversity and inclusion issues. Giving leadership a heads up to problems behind the scenes each year.

8) Finally, a firm commitment from our ticket that our administration will serve with the fervent belief that all of our members have an expectation of privacy in issues raised with the Executive or Executive team. While our role as leaders is to, at times, facilitate discussion between members that may be at odds… we stand committed to never divulge private conversations without first discussing and receiving permission from all parties involved, and then only as necessary to assist in creating and fostering productive dialogue.

Let’s say you’ve banned someone who then appeals to EGO. EGO requests to see the interaction you had that led to the banning. Do you ask the banned person for permission? If yes, what do you do when they say no?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Adam W.

A ban is a reviewable action and as such, EGO can request needed communications without the need to seek permission from both parties. This commitment is primarily based around being supportive of the community and facilitating dialog.

Thanks,
Jerome