Poll: Transparency and Accountability

[Metailurus]

Think about all the things you do in life that are subject to some sort of hierarchy, where other people have decision making powers to impact whatever you do, be it work or leisure.

Simple question for everyone.

Do you expect people who are able to pass the laws that you live under, the managers who you report to in the workplace, the various people who moderate the content that gets presented to you via various media, or even the education systems for those of you still in education, be expected to display transparency and / be held accountable for their actions, given that whatever decision they make impacts other people's ability to get on in that environment.

Accountability of course refers to the being held responsible for their decisions, and having to justify their actions.

Transparency refers to the person making a decision being visible, the decision making process visible where such a process is collective.

Let me know what you think

 

[Silvanus]

It's a question of degrees rather than binaries. To say I either want transparency or I don't would be too reductionist for me to be able to honestly answer.

I want a high degree of both, of course. I imagine almost everybody does.

 

[Twintix]

OK, so I guess I shouldn't really say anything, but I am really growing tired of these passive-aggressive threads being created nowadays.

Look, if you have a problem with the Moderators, just PM [user]ffronw[/user] about what you're dissatisfied with.

 

[Metailurus]

OK, so I guess I shouldn't really say anything, but I am really growing tired of these passive-aggressive threads being created nowadays.

Look, if you have a problem with the Moderators, just PM [user]ffronw[/user] about what you're dissatisfied with.

I would prefer if people discuss the topic in the context it has been presented rather than making things up to start a fight. If you don't want to talk about whether or not transparency and accountability are good things (or not) in life in general, please at least refrain from attempting to derail my thread.

 

[Metailurus]

It's a question of degrees rather than binaries. To say I either want transparency or I don't would be too reductionist for me to be able to honestly answer.

I want a high degree of both, of course. I imagine almost everybody does.

I suppose this is the thing for me really, and why I am posing the question (stuck it in OT as there isn't really a good alternative place to put it).

I think a lot of people strongly want these things when lack thereof affects them directly, which is why we know which bills politicians support etc (in most countries) due to long term political reform that has led us there. But when something impacts others, transparency and accountability are often the first 2 items to be discounted (businesses do this when they downsize, the last people to know are often the ones heading out the door).

 

[tippy2k2]

Sure...we'll all just pretend like we don't know what you're referring to. Wouldn't want to derail the thread >.>

It all depends. I always think there needs to be accountability (though what exactly that means for a specific situation no one know about is up to debate; for example, maybe your favorite website's modding policy...as a random example and totally NOT what someone may or may not be complaining about).

Transparency would be a nice bonus but as long as the accountability is there, transparency doesn't have to be there.

 

[Metailurus]

Sure...we'll all just pretend like we don't know what you're referring to. Wouldn't want to derail the thread >.>

It all depends. I always think there needs to be accountability (though what exactly that means for a specific situation no one know about is up to debate; for example, maybe your favorite website's modding policy...as a random example and totally NOT what someone may or may not be complaining about).

Transparency would be a nice bonus but as long as the accountability is there, transparency doesn't have to be there.

Do they not go hand in hand to some degree though? How can someone be held accountable for their actions without transparency? You are deferring evaluation and judgement on something that impacts you to some higher authority to keep tabs on all of the decision makers who report into them and often have a vested interest in their success. I'm surprised that anyone could be comfortable with that.

Ergo, does not a lack of transparency shield someone from being held accountable? Reference: All the faceless bankers who got the world into massive debt and are still in their jobs today.

 

[vallorn]

Transparency usually creates accountability by dint of how people, when they see an injustice, demand the ability to do something about it.

This forces authorities to be accountable as, otherwise, the people who support them would desert them over time.

 

[Silvanus]

Transparency would be a nice bonus but as long as the accountability is there, transparency doesn't have to be there.

Accountability is a great deal more likely in most institutions if there's a fairly high level of transparency, though. If the public aren't aware of wrongdoing, an institution can protect its reputation by making sure people don't find out about said wrongdoing rather than addressing it.

 

[runic knight]

My personal opinion is that the rules should apply and be enforced far more heavily on those who have the power to create or enforce them then on anyone else. Because of the nature of rules as something impacting communities, it can be argued that not just malicious intent with regards to rules but even neglect or pettiness is exponentially more immoral then such intent with regards to individuals. Those that abuse their authority, even such simple things as playing favorites or being overly harsh to only one group, cause harm to all parties impacted by those rules. Those that benefit today may fall prey to the whims tomorrow, and those who are punished overly harshly grow to resent the rules and those who enforce them, cause disturbances, and even openly revolt. It breed discontent, conflict and possibly far worse. One need look no further then recent headlines stateside to see the harm such selective application of the rules can cause.

With regard to accountability and transparency, you can't have the former without the latter. In order to hold people accountable, one must be able to know what they do in order to see what actions they have taken that might demand explanation. There is a reason tyrants avoid transparency after all. Any sort of secretive accountability will instantly be doubted, often on principle because of the amount of people who abused such policies in the past. What is worse is because it requires trust in the people holding them accountable, the entire system crumbles when suspected corruption or even just favoritism within the ranks grows. Why would you trust someone you think is playing fast and loose with the rules for personal purpose when the only accountability they have is to someone else you have doubts on, or just feel can not give the topic enough time to actually sort out. Trying back to the topical point, a prime example of this is the police force and individual officers. The fact is the police force superiors who are the ones who hold officers accountable on behalf of the public has done nothing to dismiss concerns of cronyism within the force, and in some cases increased the size of suspected conspiracy as continued lenience and lip service while still withholding information, commenting questionable actions and showing open contempt for those calling for investigation only feeds the anger and resentment of the public to the people who are not actually accountable to them, despite representing the enforcement of the laws that apply to all.

In a better world, people with positions of authority over others would have their actions transparent to those they rein over and would be accountable for their actions and behaviors. While this certainly is not the case in much of the world, I don't think the idea should be abandoned.

 

[tippy2k2]

Transparency would be a nice bonus but as long as the accountability is there, transparency doesn't have to be there.

Do they not go hand in hand to some degree though? How can someone be held accountable for their actions without transparency? You are deferring evaluation and judgement on something that impacts you to some higher authority to keep tabs on all of the decision makers who report into them and often have a vested interest in their success. I'm surprised that anyone could be comfortable with that.

Ergo, does not a lack of transparency shield someone from being held accountable? Reference: All the faceless bankers who got the world into massive debt and are still in their jobs today.

They CAN go hand in hand but they don't have to. If Person A gets punished for doing something wrong and Person B never sees the what and the why, Person A was still held accountable without transparency.

Basically, without transparency, you are trusting that the place in question is keeping people accountable. If you trust the institution to keep people accountable, you don't need the transparency for you are believing in good faith that it's all on the up and up. If you don't trust the institution in question, then accountability AND transparency are going to be equally important.

Accountability is a great deal more likely in most institutions if there's a fairly high level of transparency, though. If the public aren't aware of wrongdoing, an institution can protect its reputation by making sure people don't find out about said wrongdoing rather than addressing it.

To build upon my first point there, this is correct; it is much easier for a company to cheat if people don't see it. That's why I said it would be nice to have transparency but it is not 100%, absolutely positively necessary for transparency to exist in order for accountability. It is much more likely that there will be accountability if there is also transparency but accountability can exist without transparency.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Well since people already addressed the potential dishonesty of the OP for starting this thread in the first place, I think nothing more needs to be said on that matter.

Back onto the topic as presented. Both I like to see what leaders and management are doing, so transparency is a must, accountability is important, but more so if who ever is in the position of power holds them selves accountable, rather than being enforced by an outside force.

 

[Metailurus]

Arguing that transparency is required for somebody to behave as they're supposed to is like the "if there is no God than I can do whatever bad things I want to" argument. In the latter, it assumes that the consequences imposed upon a person in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps somebody from misbehaving.

That's like saying "you don't need laws against theft, because no one will steal regardless of whether there are laws or not".

Honestly its scary whenever somebody brings that up because it just makes it seem like they themselves are a sociopath and that they also assume everybody else to be one as well, but thats off topic so thats why I'm leaving it in a footnote.

passive-aggressive about it. Call a spade a spade.

What was it you said elsewhere in this post? Don't be passive aggressive, and "call a spade a spade". Here you are conducting some name calling of your own in a passive aggressive way (because doing so outright is against the rules). Is it simply that the forum rules that are explicitly preventing you from chucking around some direct name calling outright? Seems so to me.

Its essentially the same argument with the transparency of exercising authority. First, the person in authority must be willing to do wrong.

You derailed the thread in your own OP given the context in which the question is being asked. It was made in bad faith.

I'm here to talk about Transparency and Accountability, as per the topic. Your reply appears to be in bad faith. It's interesting that, unless I am misreading, you basically seem to advocate giving people in "authority" the benefit of the doubt, but refuse to hold those same standards when it comes to anyone else.

 

[Cryselle]

I believe in a high degree of accountability.

Transparency? That varies. There are good reasons for some things to not be transparent, and transparency does NOT automatically lead to an increase in accountability. (Look at the US Congress. Everyone can see what is going on, but still is dysfunctional as can be.) There are a number of negatives to just unleashing mob justice on everything. That being said, I do think that if something can be transparent, it's usually better as such.

 

[Twintix]

OK, so I guess I shouldn't really say anything, but I am really growing tired of these passive-aggressive threads being created nowadays.

Look, if you have a problem with the Moderators, just PM [user]ffronw[/user] about what you're dissatisfied with.

I would prefer if people discuss the topic in the context it has been presented rather than making things up to start a fight. If you don't want to talk about whether or not transparency and accountability are good things (or not) in life in general, please at least refrain from attempting to derail my thread.

Please don't assume that I'm an idiot, sir, and don't accuse me of wanting to start a fight with you. It's not my intention. But I saw your posts in the other thread, and then this thread was created. Talking about transparent authorities? I simply don't believe it to be a coincidence.

I'm sorry, but passive-aggressiveness seems to be all the rage around here these days, and I'm growing really sick of it.

 

[runic knight]

OK, so I guess I shouldn't really say anything, but I am really growing tired of these passive-aggressive threads being created nowadays.

Look, if you have a problem with the Moderators, just PM [user]ffronw[/user] about what you're dissatisfied with.

I would prefer if people discuss the topic in the context it has been presented rather than making things up to start a fight. If you don't want to talk about whether or not transparency and accountability are good things (or not) in life in general, please at least refrain from attempting to derail my thread.

Please don't assume that I'm an idiot, sir, and don't accuse me of wanting to start a fight with you. It's not my intention. But I saw your posts in the other thread, and then this thread was created. Talking about transparent authorities? I simply don't believe it to be a coincidence.

I'm sorry, but passive-aggressiveness seems to be all the rage around here these days, and I'm growing really sick of it.

So what?

Not to be rude to you or blame you specifically but this point is one pushed by a lot of people who replied. What does it matter the origins of the topic if the topic itself has enough meat on its bones to make a good discussion? Transparency and accountability in authority is a relevant discussion to be had as a fundamental argument within societies themselves. Beyond that, it is also topical in the current political spectrum as transparency and accountability has been big headlines with events like the recent riots and the growing distrust in the police in america. On the more "local" level there is also the mod issues. So on multiple levels there is inspiration and value to be had discussing the idea, regardless if it was fueled by the local issue. Hell, sometimes topics like this that arise out of such smaller issues can actually get to the heart of the matter by revealing foundational disagreements that explain why.

But the fact that the discussion topic was spurred by any event shouldn't matter if the person makingit holds the discussion to the topic they created to discuss. It is disingenuous to reply solely for the purpose of decrying them for talking about the root issue of a conflict at a more fundamental level.

In doing so, in not giving a topic that has depth and merit to it even the barest benefit of the doubt before rushing to publicly call it out and dismiss it, you demonstrate that yes, you are coming in here looking not for discussion, but for a fight. You are calling out an individual and ignoring the overall topic in order to do so. It is intentionally derailing and killing the conversation because you disagree with an incident the author found important. In that, it is being passive-aggressive and you should have just not posted at all if you had nothing of value to add.

 

[Strazdas]

Personally i am for high (much higher than it is right now) transparency in all venues of life. Once that is achieved i believe accountability becomes a much easier goal. after all, you cant hold someone accountable if you dont even know he has done something wrong. This is why ive been campaigning for transparency where appropriate. I voted for both, because i believe accountability increases with transparency.

Arguing that transparency is required for somebody to behave as they're supposed to is like the "if there is no God than I can do whatever bad things I want to" argument. In the latter, it assumes that the consequences imposed upon a person in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps somebody from misbehaving[footnote]Honestly its scary whenever somebody brings that up because it just makes it seem like they themselves are a sociopath and that they also assume everybody else to be one as well, but thats off topic so thats why I'm leaving it in a footnote.[/footnote]. Its essentially the same argument with the transparency of forum moderation exercising authority. First, the person in authority must be willing to do wrong. If they make mistakes, it will have been a mistake and they'll hold themselves accountable. Now if there were staff members internal affairs to investigate any potential misuse of power then they could be held accountable, unless of course you believe these staff members internal affairs investigators to also be in on the misuse of power. Is what prompted you to make this thread your concern that staff members internal investigators of The Escapist an unspecified structure are also in on this misuse of authority?

Not necessarely so. Lack of transparency allows people who are willing to do bad things to begin with hide the fact that they done those things and thus not be accountable for them. It does not turn good people into bad people, it allows bad people prosper, often at an expense of good people.

 

[LetalisK]

Arguing that transparency is required for somebody to behave as they're supposed to is like the "if there is no God than I can do whatever bad things I want to" argument. In the latter, it assumes that the consequences imposed upon a person in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps somebody from misbehaving.

You don't think there are some people who act completely differently, in fact as a better person, when they know they are being watched? Isn't that part of the justification behind putting body cams on cops? I wouldn't be surprised if some cops and people still did bad things, but I would also expect some would change their behavior accordingly. In fact, I believe that's pretty much what San Diego PD found out through their experiment with body cams, though I speculate that the change of behavior was for both the officers and the people the officers are interacting with.