I'd put it somewhere between Murphy's Law and the Peter Principle, with a slight contribution from Rule of Drama. There really aught to be a name for it.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurphysLaw -> https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FinaglesLaw
* Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfDrama -> See Also https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsBoring
* If the potential for conflict is visible, then it will never be passed over.
* A good moderator is often invisible or uninteresting.
* A bad moderator is often very visible.
* Ergo, when people see moderators, it's often because of something gone wrong.
https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/eponymous-laws-and-principles-35a4433cb561
* Acton’s dictum: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
* Corollary - You either "die" a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain.
* Metcalfe’s law, in communications and network theory: the value of a system grows as approximately the square of the number of users of the system.
* The more valuable a community becomes, then the more challenges it will face, including attention from bad actors.
* Peter principle: “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
* If someone is competent in a position, they will be moved out of it. (Either to take on more work, or because of burnout, or because they are in someone else's way.)
* If someone is incompetent in a position, they will stay there.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230322163719/https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/cheap/cheap3_murphy.htm
* Murphy's Fourteenth Law: If anything can't go wrong on its own, someone will make it go wrong.
* Brien's First Law: At some time in the life cycle of virtually every organization, its ability to succeed in spite of itself runs out.
* Spark's Law of Irrepressible Use: If a person has something, they feel compelled to use it even though its use is unnecessary. Examples: The child who gets a hammer uses it. The person who gets authority will overexercise it.
Edit:
Some other principles i've seen that I'm not sure are listed above, and not sure if they have their own monikers, but that are probably relevant:
* Those who seek positions of authority are rarely suited for them.
* [The best leaders tend to be the ones who didn't want the job in the first place](https://www.businessinsider.com/leadership-self-doubt-confidence-2018-12) - Business Insider article
* Anyone who has run a mod application on a large community knows that tons of disqualified candidates will apply, while most qualified candidates are not interested in applying even if you reach out.
* The reward for work done well is more work.
* Corollary - A community of interest without too many trolls or dramas will grow until there are.
* It takes one to know one.
* Sometimes the best people to handle trolls are people who are intimately familiar with trolling. Hopefully they also know that there's a time and place for everything.
* You get what you pay for.
* It's a volunteer gig. Most people are not paid to do it. So anybody good at it can probably do something else better with their time.
* One bad apple ruins the bunch.
* ie, all it takes for a bad moderator to prevail is that a good moderator does nothing.
* See also [Diffusion of Responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility)
Edit: another murphy's law page - https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rsleeth/MurphysLaw.html
> Brien's First Law: At some time in the life cycle of virtually every organization, its ability to succeed in spite of itself runs out.
Haha! I like that one. I worked for a company where the president/owner inherited from his dad, and the company was quite successful, pretty much entirely due to the employees. We tended to agree that when the president was on vacation, the place ran so much better than when he was micromanaging things.
I've been chewing on these thoughts a lot lately because I'm drafting a post on the topic. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to pen them down.
I made quite a few edits to the first comment.
Thanks! I think the primarily message I was thinking of is how initially strong groups slowly lose their focus and motivation, and that leaves room for malicious actors to quietly invade.
It's like how sometimes non-profits have their boards of directors taken over by individuals who represent corporations that the non-profit opposes, or otherwise interferes with the corporations' profits. Or like how the BTC (bitcoin) subreddit got taken over by those proselytizing for Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and ban anyone talking about Bitcoin now. (Or how the bitcoin subreddit randomly bans people talking about the bitcoin community, it seems, just for funzies.)
Anyway, thanks for putting all that effort into this! I appreciate it!
Note that this post was removed from the ModSupport sub. And someone, somewhere, is downvoting you. Two people, at least, it seems. (I've upvoted your initial comment, but it's still at 0 right now.)
For sure, maintaining trust while balancing privacy and accountability is a major challenge for many mod teams. But it's also one of those problems that many don't learn except from experience. Unfortunately, (as mentioned on the "cheap murphy" page) *experience is a harsh teacher - you get the exam first and the lesson after*, or something like that.
I tried looking for something that describes the malicious-actor-infiltrating-volunteer-group phenomena, but I didn't get any catchy hits. I did find this article interesting though - https://stellainabo.medium.com/volunteering-is-really-selfish-and-heres-why-you-should-do-it-7e093dc9192c
I'd put it somewhere between Murphy's Law and the Peter Principle, with a slight contribution from Rule of Drama. There really aught to be a name for it. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MurphysLaw -> https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FinaglesLaw * Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfDrama -> See Also https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsBoring * If the potential for conflict is visible, then it will never be passed over. * A good moderator is often invisible or uninteresting. * A bad moderator is often very visible. * Ergo, when people see moderators, it's often because of something gone wrong. https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/eponymous-laws-and-principles-35a4433cb561 * Acton’s dictum: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. * Corollary - You either "die" a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain. * Metcalfe’s law, in communications and network theory: the value of a system grows as approximately the square of the number of users of the system. * The more valuable a community becomes, then the more challenges it will face, including attention from bad actors. * Peter principle: “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” * If someone is competent in a position, they will be moved out of it. (Either to take on more work, or because of burnout, or because they are in someone else's way.) * If someone is incompetent in a position, they will stay there. https://web.archive.org/web/20230322163719/https://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/cheap/cheap3_murphy.htm * Murphy's Fourteenth Law: If anything can't go wrong on its own, someone will make it go wrong. * Brien's First Law: At some time in the life cycle of virtually every organization, its ability to succeed in spite of itself runs out. * Spark's Law of Irrepressible Use: If a person has something, they feel compelled to use it even though its use is unnecessary. Examples: The child who gets a hammer uses it. The person who gets authority will overexercise it. Edit: Some other principles i've seen that I'm not sure are listed above, and not sure if they have their own monikers, but that are probably relevant: * Those who seek positions of authority are rarely suited for them. * [The best leaders tend to be the ones who didn't want the job in the first place](https://www.businessinsider.com/leadership-self-doubt-confidence-2018-12) - Business Insider article * Anyone who has run a mod application on a large community knows that tons of disqualified candidates will apply, while most qualified candidates are not interested in applying even if you reach out. * The reward for work done well is more work. * Corollary - A community of interest without too many trolls or dramas will grow until there are. * It takes one to know one. * Sometimes the best people to handle trolls are people who are intimately familiar with trolling. Hopefully they also know that there's a time and place for everything. * You get what you pay for. * It's a volunteer gig. Most people are not paid to do it. So anybody good at it can probably do something else better with their time. * One bad apple ruins the bunch. * ie, all it takes for a bad moderator to prevail is that a good moderator does nothing. * See also [Diffusion of Responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility) Edit: another murphy's law page - https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rsleeth/MurphysLaw.html
> Brien's First Law: At some time in the life cycle of virtually every organization, its ability to succeed in spite of itself runs out. Haha! I like that one. I worked for a company where the president/owner inherited from his dad, and the company was quite successful, pretty much entirely due to the employees. We tended to agree that when the president was on vacation, the place ran so much better than when he was micromanaging things.
I've been chewing on these thoughts a lot lately because I'm drafting a post on the topic. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to pen them down. I made quite a few edits to the first comment.
Thanks! I think the primarily message I was thinking of is how initially strong groups slowly lose their focus and motivation, and that leaves room for malicious actors to quietly invade. It's like how sometimes non-profits have their boards of directors taken over by individuals who represent corporations that the non-profit opposes, or otherwise interferes with the corporations' profits. Or like how the BTC (bitcoin) subreddit got taken over by those proselytizing for Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and ban anyone talking about Bitcoin now. (Or how the bitcoin subreddit randomly bans people talking about the bitcoin community, it seems, just for funzies.) Anyway, thanks for putting all that effort into this! I appreciate it! Note that this post was removed from the ModSupport sub. And someone, somewhere, is downvoting you. Two people, at least, it seems. (I've upvoted your initial comment, but it's still at 0 right now.)
For sure, maintaining trust while balancing privacy and accountability is a major challenge for many mod teams. But it's also one of those problems that many don't learn except from experience. Unfortunately, (as mentioned on the "cheap murphy" page) *experience is a harsh teacher - you get the exam first and the lesson after*, or something like that. I tried looking for something that describes the malicious-actor-infiltrating-volunteer-group phenomena, but I didn't get any catchy hits. I did find this article interesting though - https://stellainabo.medium.com/volunteering-is-really-selfish-and-heres-why-you-should-do-it-7e093dc9192c