So do we even have any form of moderation here?

So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.

 

What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere.  Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.

 

Why?  Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that?  Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?

 

Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?

 

Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?



So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like?  Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…

Views: 9114

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 29, 2014 at 10:25am

Thank you, Lee.   We appreciate what you and Julie do as moderators.

Sometimes a little nudge in the right direction is all the offending person needs. Sometimes that comes from us, and sometimes (hopefully) from a moderator when it's really needed. I try to offer some of those nudges when I feel that I can effectively address that person/issue. There are other folks (including Dave Barish) who do the same.

This recent blow-up did go on a bit too long for many of us.  I appreciate it when you or Julie is able to to help calm down these situations without having to banish the offender.  In the vast majority of situations, the collective nudge seems to be an effective and appropriate solution.

Permalink Reply by Alex Z on August 29, 2014 at 11:25am

Well said. :)

David Barish said:

A little dirt will fly but as cyclists we ought to be used to that.

Permalink Reply by Bob on August 29, 2014 at 11:39am

I can't respect a moderator that doesn't shave his legs! just my opinion,,,oh wait,,,don't throw me out Lee!!!!! I didn't mean it,,,i was just funning'!

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 29, 2014 at 11:45am

Thank you Lee.

For everything.  

Permalink Reply by Lee Diamond on August 29, 2014 at 11:52am

No razor would have my legs Bob.



Bob said:

I can't respect a moderator that doesn't shave his legs! just my opinion,,,oh wait,,,don't throw me out Lee!!!!! I didn't mean it,,,i was just funning'!

Permalink Reply by Michael A on August 29, 2014 at 2:03pm

and the large paycheck



Nikul Shah said:

Ok, I understand that this is a difficult and thankless job. And I generally agree with your guiding principles. In the interest of transparency, can you please explain why one individual from the other day was blocked/banned, but not others who seem to deserve a similar fate? I guess I have to include myself in the list of those who should have been banished since allegations have been made against me too. So please explain to us why only one offender out of a handful of offenders were punished?

Lee Diamond said:

To answer your question, we do.

I am one of the moderators.  The other one is Julie.  There have been others...dozens of others over the years.  Some have been vigilant.  Some have gone several miles past vigilant.  Some have stricken comments, yanked members, closed threads and otherwise moderated their way right out of moderating.  I am on the other end of the spectrum.  I find that I spend most of my time on the issue of moderating arguing for non-intervention.  When there is intervention, it is typically of the dump the person variety. 

Here's the thing.

It is easy to say that there should be more moderation, or better moderation, or that certain language or topics or discussions have crossed the line, but in the end, this is just a place.  The conversations that are had at this place are not condoned or endorsed by the Chainlink simply because we don't intervene.  Does Facebook moderate your conversations?  Does AT&T listen in on your calls and tell you how to talk or what you can and can't say?  If you go to a bar or a restaurant or a mall to have a conversation, are there security guards escorting you out when you use a certain word, express a particular opinion or say something that even the owner of the mall, restaurant or bar objects to?  In some cases the answer is yes, and those businesses can choose to run themselves that way.  For the most part, the answer is that the place itself is just where that stuff happens.  It has no ownership of the conversations held within its walls, be they physical or digital. Like a bar, we'll toss a patron when they get too rowdy.  Like a bar, many of the patrons will feel we should have done that long ago, or shouldn't have done it at all, or should have let that person stay and tossed someone else instead.  Such is life.  And internet life too.

Is there a specific reason that the Chainlink should take stances on things you are bothered by and can't ignore on your own? What is the line?  When is it too much? When YOU are personally bothered?

The OP, Doug advocates for moderation and that this latest example went on for too long but I've had dozens of conversations with Julie where Doug WAS the topic of conversation.  Where it was Doug that I was being asked to jettison.  I have had that conversation with Julie and other past mods about any number of the most frequent contributors to the Chainlink.  The loudest voices yield the most complaints. 

There is no feature in Ning that lets you ignore people.  You can't un-friend someone like you do in Facebook and not be subject to their treaties and tastes.  You can't un-follow people, etc.  Instead, you are in a place where they are as well.  You can ignore them.  You can argue with them.  You can agree with them.  You can get fed-up and leave.  There is a lot of freedom here. 

Are there rules?  Yes.  Do they get routinely enforced?  Yes and no. 

If you look at society at large, there are many rules, namely laws.  If there is a crackdown on laws that already exist to the point where every instance of them being broken is enforced, there is usually quick backlash.  Cries of NANNYSTATE! and obtrusive government and so forth.  Think red-light cameras.  Think speed traps.  Think cross-walk stings. 

This is the same thing.  We have a set of rules and it would be wonderful if people would follow them, but all the time, people don't.  Our first rule is be polite.  Think of how many interventions there would be if we tried to step in sometime someone was not polite?  Our second rule is don't use obscenities.  If we followed that rule all the time and to the letter, this post would be deleted right after we read the first sentence of the post.

There are times when it becomes egregious and we need to step in.  In those instances, we will typically try to calm things down through postings, private messages, conversations when possible.  When that doesn't do the trick, we generally jettison the debris.  Many feel that we should jettison everyone involved.  Were we to do that, so many of the people that are the most frequent users, contributors and members here at the Chainlink would already be gone.  In general, the solution is usually to oust the party that can't be reasoned with, refuses to play nice, and generally wants to burn it all down.

When there is a blow-up like this recent one, a forum topic will get hundreds of contributors, thousands of page views and the forum resonates with the buzz.  So much bad stuff...so much controversy, and yet people can't get enough of it when it happens.  By contrast, we can have days, even weeks at a time where everyone is following the rules, and forums could stay on the landing page for a week or longer without any new contributions.  Which is better? 

We don't seek to generate controversy and we don't want to cull the herd because someone is offended by the presence of another member.  We've taken a light approach before, we use a light touch now too, and if I am still moderator after today, I will probably continue to advocate for that style of moderation. 

But at least I have all of the glory, fame and fortune that comes with the job.

Permalink Reply by Lee Diamond on August 29, 2014 at 2:50pm

Personally, I have no interest in punishment. Banning someone isn't to punish them it is to get rid of them.  If someone has made it clear that they are intent on destroying post after post, they've got to go.  One person with two user IDs fit that definition in this instance. 

In the past, the community was smaller, the action was swifter and I had some spring in my step too.  These days, you have to poke me with my cane, and after I am done grumbling about being bothered, I will sit down and read the offending post(s) from beginning to end.  Julie and I will talk.  We will agree and disagree on things.  This is her site so while she entrusts me to help her, it is her website, and she has the most vested in it.  If action is taken, it is because we agree it is warranted, and we try to do what is needed and move on. 

The postmortem I leave to others. Then, as Michael A said, I sit back and collect my fat check.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on August 29, 2014 at 3:27pm

I think what I am trying to ask here more than anything is why do we bother having rules if they are either not enforced or not evenly enforced?

Permalink Reply by globalguy on August 29, 2014 at 3:49pm

Well said (again) and much more brief than the "answer" which is basically "oh yes, we do moderate because I say we do ..." 

notoriousDUG said:

I think what I am trying to ask here more than anything is why do we bother having rules if they are either not enforced or not evenly enforced?

Permalink Reply by The Korn on August 29, 2014 at 4:38pm

Successful moderation of a healthy forum oftentimes involves not sticking hard and fast to rule X or rule Y.  Think of all the "no tolerance" garbage you see in schools, most of the time it's just administrators blindly applying rules that others have put down, when it's clear that if they used a modicum of common sense they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Moderation is much the same way.  More to the point, everyone has their good and their bad days.  In my experience, unless someone is a total knob usually it's far more effective to speak to them via private message and hopefully shed some light on why what they're doing isn't acceptable.  I find the results are much better if the offender can save face and clean up their own mess, whether that means deleting their own posts, editing their own posts, or simply posting a "hey, I screwed up, sorry" type message.

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

notoriousDUG said:

I think what I am trying to ask here more than anything is why do we bother having rules if they are either not enforced or not evenly enforced?

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on August 30, 2014 at 4:25am

You can see and read the forums even "unlogged" you can't see the groups or post anything, obviously.

 

Maybe start a group for people who want to flame, complain or otherwise vent? Keeps it off the front page and everybody knows the reason for the group.

Permalink Reply by Lee Diamond on August 30, 2014 at 4:28am

It is like asking why we have laws or why software companies make you agree to terms of service or why anywhere, at any time, a rule, regulation or law is enforced when so often it is not?

There is a limited amount of time, bandwidth and patience for dealing with forum behavior.  Acting in any way causes swift and certain backlash from one corner or another.  If and when someone proves themselves to be an insurmountable problem, we are always well within our rights to make them gone.  We COULD act more often, and it would certainly lead to more backlash, regardless of what and when we decide to act. 

In general, as I have said before, I would normally advocate for allowing a conversation to happen as it does within the walls of the Chainlink.  You have been the beneficiary of this policy and attitude on multiple occasions and yet you are asking why we don't moderate better.  It is quite a funny proposition as I find myself making the argument to you that I often make for you.

The line is arbitrary.  My position on where we draw the line tends towards more lenience, more freedom of expression, more community and organic response, less medium response.  It is not my website so it is a collaborative process to reach conclusions about what we do.  If someone interprets that as the Chainlink favoring one person over another, that is their right to do. 



notoriousDUG said:

I think what I am trying to ask here more than anything is why do we bother having rules if they are either not enforced or not evenly enforced?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service