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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
+1
KevinM said:I love the basement idea. I've seen that used successfully on other forums but never gave a second thought as to its purpose. That's a good thing. It's unobtrusive and opt-in.
-
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on
-
I loves me some Dug and Gabe and always agree with them, except when I don't, which is rarely.
Yeah, Michael A and I look a lot alike, I can see the confusion.
I wonder why anyone takes this godforsaken forum even the least bit seriously. I'm finishing a beer before a bike ride and had a minute to kill and this reminded me of how ridiculous the whole thing is. Cheers!
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
I like the basement idea as well.
I am also a proponent of the lightest of moderation. Once you start regulating content and how it is presented, you have stepped out onto the slippery slope. These things tend to work themselves out.
The size of the membership on a forum like this is one measure of success, but certainly not the only, or even the best. Meeting, knowing or having had face-to-face contact with the people you're interacting with online goes a long way to providing context for the views you're reading. That was a lot easier when the membership was 1000 or so. Some of the people who are the subject of the most complaints by other chainlink members are people I know and have met. We've done rides or volunteered together. We've interacted socially. I like them. That offline contact informs my online perceptions of them.
The chainlink is different things to different people. I tune in for bike content. I tend to tune out political, theological, sociological or scattological content. I wish there was more bike content lately, but I recognize that the Chainlink is a big tent, and I find it relatively easy to ignore the content which does not interest me.
Leah started this website for a very narrow purpose-she wanted to meet other people who liked to ride bikes. From my standpoint, the chainlink has been a very valuable resource for exactly that purpose. I too have met lots of other people who like to ride bikes. And I ride bikes with them.
Leah also seemed to have a philosophy about membership which roughly equated to: being a member of this community is/was a privilege not a right. When someone got out of line (as defined by an arbitrary, capricious and nebulous standard), they were promptly and unceremoniously LAUNCHED! No vote. No hand wringing. Just. Gone. Not even a grease spot where they used to be. I'd like to see a little more of that as well.
-
-
VERY well said!!!
Kevin C said:I like the basement idea as well.
I am also a proponent of the lightest of moderation. Once you start regulating content and how it is presented, you have stepped out onto the slippery slope. These things tend to work themselves out.
The size of the membership on a forum like this is one measure of success, but certainly not the only, or even the best. Meeting, knowing or having had face-to-face contact with the people you're interacting with online goes a long way to providing context for the views you're reading. That was a lot easier when the membership was 1000 or so. Some of the people who are the subject of the most complaints by other chainlink members are people I know and have met. We've done rides or volunteered together. We've interacted socially. I like them. That offline contact informs my online perceptions of them.
The chainlink is different things to different people. I tune in for bike content. I tend to tune out political, theological, sociological or scattological content. I wish there was more bike content lately, but I recognize that the Chainlink is a big tent, and I find it relatively easy to ignore the content which does not interest me.
Leah started this website for a very narrow purpose-she wanted to meet other people who liked to ride bikes. From my standpoint, the chainlink has been a very valuable resource for exactly that purpose. I too have met lots of other people who like to ride bikes. And I ride bikes with them.
Leah also seemed to have a philosophy about membership which roughly equated to: being a member of this community is/was a privilege not a right. When someone got out of line (as defined by an arbitrary, capricious and nebulous standard), they were promptly and unceremoniously LAUNCHED! No vote. No hand wringing. Just. Gone. Not even a grease spot where they used to be. I'd like to see a little more of that as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Tominator on
-
I think I need a link to the crapshows. I just haven't seen it. Maybe I'm not paying attention?
Link?
-
Permalink Reply by David Barish on
-
Sure, you could spend your weekend riding or perhaps reading some literature. That being said, I know a lot of literate folks who like to watch shows about housewives of whatever burg. We all have our guilty pleasures. For your reading pleasure...http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/think-of-this-as-a-missed-...
going on for about 10 pages or so starting at page 100
http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/chainlink-s-bullies-trolls...
most of the thread
Tominator said:I think I need a link to the crapshows. I just haven't seen it. Maybe I'm not paying attention?
Link?
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on
-
I am pretty much a technology idiot, but I think that what you are suggesting is what we already have. If you are not logged into the Chainlink web site, you can see the forums but cannot post in them. Once you are logged in, you can post. Of course it is entirely likely that I am not understanding you, in which case, NEVER MIND!
h' 1.0 said:I hate to suggest technical solutions without a better idea of whether the capacity is there to implement them.... but I've seen this work in other forums as well. An "open" forum that is viewable without login, and closed forums that are login only that can serve as virtual rubber rooms. Very easy to implement in Phorum. I have no personal experience with PhPbb or others. It's going to depend greatly on what the planned message board software for Chainlink 2.0 may be.
-
Permalink Reply by globalguy on
-
With all do respect, it's not a question of capacity, technological or otherwise. Trolls are everywhere, as pointed out in a Salon article a couple of days ago. And the article discusses a wide range of possible solutions. What's missing here is the will to choose and stick with a solution. It's not like this issue just suddenly darkened our little utopian doorstep. This has been coming up with nearly the same group of "usual suspects" since before Leah created her alternative to the Critical Mass discussion forum ...
h' 1.0 said:I hate to suggest technical solutions without a better idea of whether the capacity is there to implement them....
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Diamond on
-
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.
-
-
Funny, I just don't read those threads so they don't bother me. Thanks for the link.
I generally prefer unmoderated forums. We're all adults. I don't have email notification on, which helps.
But I would rather allow people to say whatever they want, even if perhaps offensive, than be subjected to the edits, tastes and whims of another person. Now, if they cross the line into hate speech, bullying, racist, sexist, or other behavior outside the bounds of common decency and you want to permanently remove them, by all means.
“Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”
― John Milton, Areopagiticahttp://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68028-let-her-and-falsehood-grapple...
I feel silly now having just read Lee's statement above. But I do agree with what you said and you said it well. Not as pithy as John Milton but you said it just as well.
-
-
Lee, thank you for your deft touch. I think restraint is a good policy. A little dirt will fly but as cyclists we ought to be used to that. I think this thread has exceeded my expectations in the wake of this week's communication. Divergent thoughts have been expressed. Some more strongly stated than others but with very little resort to personal attacks and a strong desire to make the forum a better place...even if there is some disagreement over what that might look like. That being said I read a growing consensus for continued restraint and not for increased moderation.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
