|
FirmhandKY -> On "Moderation" in all things ... (2/3/2008 11:03:18 AM)
|
Ok, some of this crap has been rolling around in my head for years ...
I have been on the CollarMe forums for a long time. I haven't always been as active as now, and have had periods of time when I was very active.
I've also been on other forums, and think I have a pretty high level of experience with them. I've even run my own forums. So I like to think I have a fair understanding of what it takes to provide some level of oversight, guidance and control of a bunch of often unruly, sometimes brilliant, and always opinionated posters.
I have to say that I think Mod XI (whether she is a he, or whether s/he is a regular poster otherwise) does an outstanding job of maintaining a high level of professionalism on these forums.
Is she perfect? Do I always agree with her judgment calls? Is she biased to one political agenda or another? Does she have her likes and dislikes when it comes to certain posters and their behavior?
Damn right. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Because, although I may disagree occasionally, although she may from time to time act with greater haste than I might like, she has shown me that she cares, and is human, and works seemingly tireless in a thankless job that would wear out the patience of Job. And I'm glad she's willing to take up that burden, and is able to execute it to the degree she does.
She's is human, therefore she has biases and her own unique point of view, but she's not an automaton.
She also operates under a system that many posters fail to understand, or that they can express it words but do not seem to grasp in their operational activity in this medium. In other words, they understand intellectually, but not emotionally.
Some important aspects are:
1. "Free speech" does not exist on these forums. Never did. Never will.
I think a lot of people do ... kinda ... understand this, after it is explained to them the difference between the US's constitutional right to free speech only applies to government entities attempts' to control speech, but even so, the cultural beliefs on the issue often leads us all astray as to what this means on a day to day basis, and leads some of us to feelings of anger and self-righteousness when we are personally confronted with such "control" issues.
2. The TOS - Terms of Service - do not (and can not) cover ever type of behavior that will draw the negative attention of a moderator.
A second piece of cultural baggage that often confuses people is a sense of legalism. Especially Americans are use to being able to refer to a written rule or law, expecting to see every condition and situation governed by a clear prescription for action, and ... importantly ... being able to argue "injustice" if they believe for some reason that such a rule is morally incorrect.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
There are laws that govern this site. And CM's moderators first loyalty and responsibility is to ensure that their site does not violate those laws, so that the sites very existence is not threatened. And since the interpretation of those laws changes from time to time, as people in the justice and political system changes, as court cases are pressed and decided, as new laws are purposed and passed, they have a vested interest in erring on the side of safety first, above all other considerations - in order to survive.
The Terms of Service are often times vague and open to interpretation because the laws are often times vague and open to interpretation. The CM owners (and therefore moderators) actions may sometimes seem capricious and mercurial, because the legal and political waters they must navigate are often capricious and mercurial.
This leads to the next point:
3. Moderators can take whatever actions they wish in order to maintain what they deem as acceptable behavior on the forums (as long as the owners allow them).
Simply put, this means that there does not have to be a violation of the TOS in order for a moderator to take action. They do indeed have another responsibility: to encourage interaction and client use of the system in order to improve their site - be it for commercial reasons or for purely personal agenda's of the owners. (After survival, success is a goal, however the owners and moderators wish to define it.)
The fact that the mods and owners make an attempt to put their "rules" and methods of judging posters' actions - such as the recent "no intentional and malicious thread hijacking" admin post is only an indication of their desire to follow the cultural rules mentioned above, and to give fair warning when new and obviously dangerous form of behavior starts to rear it's head.
It's a courtesy, nothing more.
Now to some specific issues that I've seen or heard over the years.
First, as most regulars know, I tend to be on the "conservative" side of most political and social issues. Or, at least, that is how I am perceived.
One of the complaints I've occasionally heard is that Mod XI seems to favor the "other side" of the issues, and therefore seems to be more actively engaged in muzzling and warning posters on "my" side.
*shrugs*
For a long time, I held my conclusion about the validity of this belief in abeyance.
I understand that any one poster has only a limited level of experience, and that a poster is not privy to all the interactions that the moderators sees, due to:
1. the private nature of "warning" emails,
2. moderation of posters who then choose not to continue posting once they have been officially censured,
3. the removal of posts and threads by the moderators which caused moderation,
4. the overwhelming number of threads and posts a moderator must review, and
5. a lack of knowledge of whether or not a moderator had received a complaint by other posters.
I will say that for a long time it appeared as if a "conservative" poster did receive more than their fair share of attention, although the reason was just a guess. My tentative conclusion was that it was likely due to an unconscious bias on the moderators part, but I was more than willing to concede that it could also be due to an active "complaint" process on the more "leftist" side of ideological divide, or even a false appreciation of the situation based on my personal political and ideological beliefs (My own biases, in other words).
Regardless, any bias was not total, as there was enough times that I saw "the other side" take hits, even if I thought the balance was uneven.
But in the last few weeks, I'm much more convinced that - even if there was an unconscious bias before - close attention is being paid to all posters, regardless of political or ideological positions.
Mod XI - for whatever reason - has been particularly active in the moderation and warning department over the last several weeks. I've even been on the receiving end of the process, and was in moderation (after three personal warnings in the same thread, I'll admit). But interestingly enough, just about every single "problem poster" - as I had defined them in my own mind - had also been moderated, or simply stopped posting or stop posting the "garbage" that had seemed to constantly dribble from their fingers. Why? Dunno. But the results speak for themselves.
I'm willing to believe that whatever factors may have lead some to the conclusion that a political bias was operational on the part of Mod XI are incorrect. And that the political discussions are much more civil and entertaining as a consequence.
Chalk up a win for Mod XI. She has my support.
A second issue that often rears it's head is that of "cliques". The term that sticks in my mind, and that I find hilariously appropriate as an example that was coined by kittinsol as the "Bigmouth Submissive Collective".
Social cliques are part of human nature. Being part of a clique is really neither good nor bad. The term "clique" generally has a negative connotation, used by someone who isn't part of the social group, and is unlikely to become part of it, but the bottom line is that it is a group of people who find comfort and validation in associating.
There are core members of such groups, and there are people who come and go, and there are people who are mistakenly believed to be part of such a group when they are not, and finally, there are people who do not believe themselves to be a member, yet are perceived as such by others.
When such a social group reinforces what the owners and mods seek for CM forums, or at least are neutral to the goals of the forum, then there is really no reason to take any action.
But occasionally, such cliques end up adopting an anti-social or even pathological attitudes which are destructive, and/or are counter to the perceived goals of the owners of CM.
What to do?
The problem is that not every post, or every person who posts in support of such a group intends to be destructive - they are just "joining in the fun" for the moment. Members of the group validate and reinforce each other, making it more difficult for them to realize that their actions may be seen by others as less than appropriate or destructive.
There are no courts here. There are no boards of inquiry, or police investigators. But order must be maintained, and warnings and moderation are the only options. See items 1 through 3 in the first part of this novel.
If you are caught up in that, then my advice is to backup, cool down, and remember ... fair or not, you have been close enough to the events to be tagged, and you can either live with it, take extra effort that you earn your reputation back ... or you can just leave.
Third (and final!) issue:
Words hurt. Not invested emotionally? Bullshit. Absolute and total Bullshit.
I've seen the sentiment (or something close to it) of "Words are just words, I'll say whatever I want, if you feel hurt, it's just your problem." so many times (and even used it occasionally myself) that I almost laugh every time I see them.
Words always have an emotional impact. The question is really whether they were meant to hurt or not.
And that's the hard nut to crack sometimes.
We can't always take responsibility for how others will react or feel about our words. We generally assume some level of maturity, and ability to withstand a normal range of emotional states.
But words can be bullets, fired in anger into the heart and soul of someone we are speaking to.
Fired in anger, fired in an attempt to drive someone into an emotional frenzy and to cause them pain is rarely going to meet with the approval of the owners and moderators here, nor should they.
Do you speak with the same emotional and destructive words of anger or sarcasm or belittlement to a child, a mentally handicapped person as you would with a co-worker or another member of your social group, when you are upset? Doubtful. If you do, then you have a problem.
Does almost every post you submit contain dismissal, hateful sarcasm and belittlement?
Then you have a problem.
Context and personality is important ... but again ... there are no courts, no boards of inquiry and no investigative resources beyond an overworked and harassed moderator or two.
As adults, it's expected and understood that occasionally, even the most careful and principled poster may temporarily "step over the line" - even if we don't always know where Mod XI will place that line. But when we do, a "gentle" warning is what we receive.
Arguing about it won't get you anywhere. See items 1 through 3 in the first part of my novel.
Damn. More to say, but I'm late in going somewhere. What all this comes down to is an appeal to those who complain and find fault in the methods used by those charged with moderating this forum. Quit your bitching; Mod XI is doing a fine job.
You can wait for the book. It'll be out on Amazon in a couple of years.
Firm
|
|
|
|
