The Responsibility Machine

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I’ve been preaching the virtues of the book The Unaccountability Machine to the point I bought copies to give people for Christmas. You, my regular readers, shall be spared anything but a reminder – it’s about how organizations go insane following simplistic ideas and shield leadership from accountability. I mean I’m still going to talk about it, but I’ll be taking a new tact and pushing it less.

The thing is someone has to take responsibility in governments, companies, etc.. If everyone goes hands off, everyone dodges responsibility, the organization will continue to fall into insanity. Backside-covering does a lot to keep an organization going, but the insanity will predominate. The organization might fall apart, get bought out, get sold, become completely financialized, etc.

I’d wager we’re going to see a lot of that in the next decade or two. We’ve already seen it from the Tories in the UK to Sears.

But anyway someone has to take responsibility. That means, ironically, the more Unaccountability in a system, the more there has to be some responsibility. The Unaccountability Machine is also a Responsibility Machine. People need to step in to do the right thing, even as others don’t.

You’ve probably been there. You might be the person who is the Responsible one – come to think of it, if you’re one of my subscribers, you probably are.

This Taking of Responsibility can happen for a number of reasons. Some people just can’t stand to see things done wrong. Others like a challenge. Others really care about the system. People have a certain responsible streak in them, if only out of sheer irritation of seeing something done wrong.

This urge to take Responsibility isn’t necessarily benevolent either. A chance to take Responsibility can be a chance to advance in one’s career – to where one can finally enjoy the benefits of Unaccountability. Responsibility can be a way to angle for a raise or bonuses. It can be a way to show off or put someone in their place. Don’t assume everyone rushing to prop up the various bad decisions in an organization is motivated by principle.

But the key thing is there’s only so many heroes and opportunists at any organization. It also means that unless the payoff they want – from seeing something work to a fat raise – needs to be coming. If it doesn’t come, there’s going to be less and less people taking Responsibility and more giving up or even seeking areas of Unaccountability

And no one can cause more damage or grift the system better than someone that actually knows how stuff works – and gave up. They’re also the ones that warn others to not fall into the Responsibility trap or to not even get hired or join up. Even the more evil of the once-Responsible types don’t want any competition.

However the people enjoying Unaccountability can coast on those taking Responsibility long enough to get a payout and leave.

So if we wonder how organizations persist when they’ve gone insane with Unaccountability (beyond money and influence), look for the people who are being Responsible. If you can’t find any then you may want to stop looking and get away.

Take a look at the world now and think that over.

Steven Savage

Think of the Warehouses

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

In one of those online discussions I wish I kept a link to, someone posed a comment along the lines of “Imagine how many warehouses we’d need to store the data we have if we didn’t have computers?” For a moment I thought that “yes, that’d take a lot of space” followed by me getting a lot more thoughtful.

I love a good exercise of “what if we didn’t have X/did X” even if it means contemplating the horror of a world without video games. So let’s imagine all the data we collect by computer today and if we had to store it and move it physically – with the occasional phone call to get someone to dig around in a box.

Think about all the data you have to fill out on the job and in your life, all the forms and orders and everything else. Imagine it if you had to do it on paper, file it store it, mail it. Quite a lot isn’t it? Imagine the nonexistent warehouses your employer and government would need.

Now, ask yourself why we collect all of that data, because you know what, I bet we don’t need it.

How many fields and forms do you fill out because the software is collecting data based on some default setting? Pay a bunch of money to a SaaS vendor, flip on all the settings, and go. There has to be a reason for all those fields, right? Why assume that? We’ve made it easy to collect data for no good reason or by accident.

Now imagine if all that unneeded data needed warehouses

In fact, on that subject, how much software and setup collects data “just in case” or “because someone asked?” Someone in a department that’s part of another department figured they might need the data. Someone else figured you add that extra field so they don’t get in trouble. Software gives us an amazing ability to create more work for ourselves fast.

More data. The imaginary warehouses get larger.

Then with all of this data we’re collecting that we don’t need and don’t want (and probably get wrong) there are going to be horrible errors. We’re going to have to hunt for information we forgot we didn’t need anyway. We’re going to loose data because we filled out that other form we didn’t need. That just generates more data to track down the errors in our data.

We’d need warehouses to store data about errors in our warehouses.

All of those above complaints/rants/notes also make it much harder to collect and store the actual data we need. We can’t even use the warehouses we have and they’re imaginary.

The purpose of this extended, self-indulgent metaphorical walk is to illustrate painfully a truth we’re all low-key aware of. We collect too much damn data we don’t need and it makes things worse. It’s so easy to get information, put in a web field, or scan a document that we rarely stop to ask if we need any of it or if it does any good.

Thinking about computing systems and asking “what if we had to store this physically” is a great way to find out how much we care.

I honestly wished such a metaphorical exercise wasn’t so useful – this is me, I like technology. We should be asking if we need data, if it’s hard to collect it, how much risks we’re creating by collecting all of this.

But if a physical example is needed, as I think it is these days, so be it.

Steven Savage

Dungeons, Dragons, The Internet, Simplicity

by

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

I’d like to discuss Dungeons and Dragons and the internet, and not just in the many incredibly nerdy ways I could. Dungeons and Dragons gives us an idea of the mechanics that could help make the internet useful again, as opposed to a bastion of advertising and bad comments.

Trust me on this.

So let’s talk Dungeons and Dragons, that game that pretty much launched Role-Playing Games as A Big Thing. It’s popular,and let us be honest, it’s terribly overcomplicated as befits something that originated in war games. I was there playing it in the 80s, and the critique has always been accurate.

Also I remember when a Paladin could roll a horse that was smarter than them.

A funny thing is Dungeons and Dragons and what it inspired also inspired wonderfully streamlined game systems. My favorite are the open-sourced Forged In The Dark system. The foundation Blades In the Dark showcases a streamlined system for a dark steampunk fantasy. The space adventure game Scum and Villainy combined various tropes, and made the inevitable starship a character. The game Wicked Ones inverted generic fantasy so people play monsters, and did everything from making a simple magic system to envisioning the messy idea of “followers” as “secondary characters.”

Forged In The Dark and it’s children got to the basics of what an RPG was, what people wanted, and made straightforward, playable games. If you haven’t checked out the system, do!

The thing is these streamlined, effective, precise games probably wouldn’t have existed without Dungeons and Dragons and its spinoffs. You needed complicated spell systems to realize “maybe this could be easier.” Complicated piles of various dice seem fun, but also lead one to wondering “could it just be six-sided dice?” Maybe you need levels, skills, saving throws, and so on to get the Forged In The Dark concept where characters are defined by “Actions” – general abilities like “Finesse” or “Science.”

Now the internet itself is terribly over complicated – and deliberately so to extract more income for various companies. It’s a simple thing that evolved to have layer and layer and layer on it, leaving us now in a world that’s called “Web 3.0.” But out of this overdone world maybe there’s a clue to what we actually want – we can learn from the pile of what we don’t want.

Mastodon is nice, and I am all for federation, but maybe Twitter was needed to give us ideas of what to do – and not do.. There’s a lovely Fediverse book review sharing program and video sharing, and so on. People are rediscovering RSS and even think of new ways to use it as the web drowns in crap. The excess gives us ideas, sometimes the idea is “maybe we shouldn’t have done that” – I mean there’s a reason I still send out a cut-and-paste-addresses email newsletter.

So for all the horrible stuff we’re dealing with, we can also ask what worked and what we wanted – and what we didn’t. We probably needed to ask that about ten years ago as a society, but at least we can do what we can now. We ask what we want, how to get it simply, and how to make it work for everyone.

It’s a bigger game to play, but we can find the best rules – and we can drop what we don’t need.

Steven Savage