idnib Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Perhaps I lack imagination, but I cannot think of any obvious moderation strategies other than those already outlined in this thread. I think we've outlined things that could really help 90% of the problems, so a 90/10 rule. Perhaps we should wait for some of them to be implemented before we spend 90% of the time trying to address 10% of the problems. Any other concrete, actionable ideas that SWB could use? Any more low-hanging fruit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Cat, I think you misunderstand me. If you want, I can address your questions via PM. Let's let not burden this thread with the whys and wherefores any more, but leave it open for practical, proactive ideas. I had to re-read your post a couple of times because at first it sounded to me as well as if you were saying religious views shouldn't be allowed on the main board. I think you just meant there should not be a bias in moderation as you currently perceive it. (I do hope however that you don't mean calling religious views delusional should be acceptable on the public boards? Coming back to the whole "try to post in less offensive ways" idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I don't think there's a religious bias to the moderation but I don't think it's consistent or even-handed. I do think there is bias to certain posters or certain points of view based on what I've personally seen with my own posts. There have been offensive statements made about my religion and my response of "that's offensive" has been deleted with a "don't be offended" comment by a moderator. I'm using the quotes to sum-up the idea, not quote word-for-word. Similar comments about other religions have been deleted themselves so I remain quite confused as to what the guidelines actually are. Its actually pretty frustrating. Like. Clear guidelines, with reminders when things start to get out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatherwith4 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I would really appreciate clear guidelines re: when to use the report feature. I know we report for spam. I know we do NOT report fears that the Duggars will be offended by a thread. :lol: Do we report political content, since that is against board rules? Do we report personal attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I would really appreciate clear guidelines re: when to use the report feature. I know we report for spam. I know we do NOT report fears that the Duggars will be offended by a thread. :lol: Do we report political content, since that is against board rules? Do we report personal attacks? I imaging reporting for rudeness to the Duggars fell under "personal attacks" in the minds of some of those who reported. That, I think, is the challenge with having open-ended rules like that. People's ideas of what is a personal attack, or what is rude, or what is offensive, or what is political, are all subjective. Therein lies the challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I imaging reporting for rudeness to the Duggars fell under "personal attacks" in the minds of some of those who reported. That, I think, is the challenge with having open-ended rules like that. People's ideas of what is a personal attack, or what is rude, or what is offensive, or what is political, are all subjective. Therein lies the challenge. It is a real challenge. I would hate to see controversial topics in general forbidden as political topics now are. I sincerely believe a board made up of people devoted to education should be able to differentiate between politely disagreeing and sharing different points of view, and doing so in an inflammatory and provocative or disrespectful manner. And really, most of the time we make it work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyroo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Any other concrete, actionable ideas that SWB could use? Any more low-hanging fruit? On the first page of this thread, Susan mentioned that the board is too big for the moderators to systematically patrol, and therefore they only saw threads after they were reported. Well, the board is big, but the Chat board is smaller, and the really contentious (read long) threads are pretty easy to pick out. If the technology allows it, perhaps a "report" should be automatically generated whenever a thread in the chat board hits 200 posts (or whatever number seems appropriate) so that a moderator can just pop in to gauge the tone of the conversation and decide if it warrants keeping an eye on. This would also address issues like when there were multiple threads lamenting the "likes" disappearing, but no one PMed the moderators. Also, as a thread starts to get heated, it might make sense for the moderator to post the exact rules they expect people to follow. Often, when the moderators are posting in a heated thread, they seems to be saying things like "Behave", "Knock it off", "Move along", "Let it go", which I don't think is particularly helpful, and could be seen as a bit condescending. Wendy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Another wonderful feature of this board is the ignore feature. You may ignore any poster you wish and, in a effort to self-moderate, I suggest it for people who might irritate you on a regular basis. This is a large board with various beliefs and personalities, it's only natural that one or two people make just always word things to irritate you. It may be the way they are, they may be blunt and you're not, they may be not be used to debate and you are. Whatever reason, you the ignore feature if you find yourself wanting to report someone over and over. It's okay, I'd love it if we all got along famously, the reality is you're not going to agree with everyone, even if they're not breaking board rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Another wonderful feature of this board is the ignore feature. You may ignore any poster you wish and, in a effort to self-moderate, I suggest it for people who might irritate you on a regular basis. This is a large board with various beliefs and personalities, it's only natural that one or two people make just always word things to irritate you. It may be the way they are, they may be blunt and you're not, they may be not be used to debate and you are. Whatever reason, you the ignore feature if you find yourself wanting to report someone over and over. It's okay, I'd love it if we all got along famously, the reality is you're not going to agree with everyone, even if they're not breaking board rules. It would be interesting if when the report button is clicked, the reporter is asked if they would like to ignore this user in the future. That might increase use of the "ignore" feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatherwith4 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I imaging reporting for rudeness to the Duggars fell under "personal attacks" in the minds of some of those who reported. That, I think, is the challenge with having open-ended rules like that. People's ideas of what is a personal attack, or what is rude, or what is offensive, or what is political, are all subjective. Therein lies the challenge. Ahh, that's a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Any other concrete, actionable ideas that SWB could use? Any more low-hanging fruit? Low hanging giant fruit... Others have already said this, but since this board is predominantly for homeschoolers and because most of the kerfuffles happen on the board least relevant to homeschooling, perhaps eliminating the chat board is the best way to deal with the headache of moderating. Cuts down on the size of the board (and therefore the expense) and reduces the workload for moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Low hanging giant fruit... Others have already said this, but since this board is predominantly for homeschoolers and because most of the kerfuffles happen on the board least relevant to homeschooling, perhaps eliminating the chat board is the best way to deal with the headache of moderating. Cuts down on the size of the board (and therefore the expense) and reduces the workload for moderators. And yet the chat board also contributes significantly to the sense of community and provides a venue not only for learning about the experiences and viewpoints of others (I think many of us find the "Ask a ..." threads both interesting and enlightening) but also for asking Dr. Hive questions, seeking and finding support in difficult situations, and generally just shooting the breeze. Maybe there could be some junior-moderators of sorts voted on by the community, people known to be level-headed, who while maybe not given actual moderator powers to lock threads etc. could be accepted as community moderators who could step in when a thread gets heated and remind everyone from a position of authority to follow the guidelines. I bet that would take care of a lot of issues. People would know who they are and could alert them via PM of developing situations, and the "real" moderators would not need to be brought in unless people refuse to settle down when instructed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 AM, I think what people are objecting to is not that moderators delete posts and lock/delete threads; but that they do so seemingly randomly and without any rhyme or reason the posters can understand. What is acceptable one day will get one banned the next. It's not a matter of only one side being annoyed. I think everyone wants a clear understanding of what is acceptable v. unacceptable and assurance that what is moderated is done so equitably. To the bolded - exactly. I see two converging issues, which, if addressed, could at least take away a lot of the mystery of the moderation. First, the transparency of moderating guidelines is lacking. I think that this needs to be addressed behind the scenes -- instituting a protocol for the moderators. Then, that needs to be made public, so that everyone understands what goes and what doesn't. Second, further upthread, SWB (and mods in other threads) have suggested that moderation happens at the prompt of a reported post. This will naturally skew the moderation to the agenda of whomever is the most trigger happy. Suggestions have been made to institute reporting guidelines or perhaps punitive measures for those abusing the report button. I also suggest that moderation not rely entirely on post reporting. These two things combined would satisfy most people's concerns, I believe. As to the privacy issue in the social group -- trust broken is trust lost in my book, whether caused by an individual's act or by a technical glitch. I don't feel there is any need to discuss that anymore. The damage is done and cannot be undone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Well, AVA, that's certainly one way to go. I hope, however, that Susan opts not to do that. The general board was initially set up for general questions on homeschooling. Over time it morphed into a true general (i.e., multi-topic, not limited to homeschooling) board and finally the Chat board came into existence. You can see that evolution when someone brings up an old thread from 2008 or so on the General Ed board. I don't think restricting a huge board like this to only homeschooling issues would be workable, frankly, and would be an even bigger headache for the moderators. Think how many topics relate tangentially to homeschooling and yet provide people with great information. As has been reiterated several times clear guidelines consistently applied would eliminate much of the heartburn here, I believe. Susan, I heard loud and clear the frustration in your last post. I'm really not sure what would help dispel these types of thoughts as they've been around for quite a while. (I remember a certain elementary history thread that, shall we say, went awry. :boxing_smiley: :rofl: ) Maybe by keeping the conversation going more people will understand how important it is to read what is written without running it (too much) through their individual filters. I think this applies in many different areas. I don't know. Anyway, I appreciate your tolerance in this thread as I think this conversation is very important. The boards are, I believe, undergoing a growth and evolution that can be discomfiting for people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshirtyogapantmama Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Please don't over moderate the Chat Board. I know some moderation is needed for any community and obviously posters and comments need to be civil. The chat board to me is all about posting threads that don't really go anywhere else, it's also a place that isn't just about homeschooling and parenting, it can be for everything else...a place to ask questions, get different opinions, and even vent which is what I LOVE about it. As others have already said, I love the forum, it's my go to place when I have a few minutes to myself. It's my first place for reviews and parenting tips. It's grown and I've grown with it and I hope it will be around forever. I even like the ads. They help remind me to check out all the different SWB sites and keep up with new products, articles, and ventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Academy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 No I didn't say that. I said that she got the tread derailed by not listening. The responses to her from BOTH sides were polite versions of "knock it off". Here you go http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/523429-curious-why-you-turned-away-from-christianity/?hl=why%20did%20you%20leave When I read the linked thread, this leads me to a very specific suggestion re: Moderation: When a Moderator responds to a post by deleting a thread and telling the poster that their behavior is unacceptable, and they repeat that same behavior on the same thread, maybe the Moderator should ban them then and there - kind of a two-strikes-you're-out thing. That way, one poster wouldn't have the power to derail a thread. Perhaps this poster was banned or had some other sanction, but they did manage to shut down the thread, so score one for them (in their mind, perhaps). How is ok for someone to essentially blow off the moderators and continue the negative behavior? And it's not fair for the entire group to be punished for one person making this choice. It just seems that for moderation to be effective, the consequences for infractions need to be clear, consistent, related to the offense, and not give the power to the offender. Kind of like parenting, no? I don't spend much time on the Chat Board, so I offer this suggestion tentatively, but having a consequence with teeth that only bit the offender (as much as possible) seems like low-hanging fruit to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 A couple of us owner/moderators have finally figured out how to make ourselves completely invisible again. You can PM me for directions. (This is only for those with actual access to moderator control panels - otherwise our directions will be useless to you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 And yet the chat board also contributes significantly to the sense of community and provides a venue not only for learning about the experiences and viewpoints of others (I think many of us find the "Ask a ..." threads both interesting and enlightening) but also for asking Dr. Hive questions, seeking and finding support in difficult situations, and generally just shooting the breeze. Maybe there could be some junior-moderators of sorts voted on by the community, people known to be level-headed, who while maybe not given actual moderator powers to lock threads etc. could be accepted as community moderators who could step in when a thread gets heated and remind everyone from a position of authority to follow the guidelines. I bet that would take care of a lot of issues. People would know who they are and could alert them via PM of developing situations, and the "real" moderators would not need to be brought in unless people refuse to settle down when instructed. I have very mixed feelings about that. In some ways, yes, the chat board contributes to a sense of community. In other ways, it is an unnecessary distraction (that can't just be me, LOL). But without a doubt it is where most conflict comes from on these boards. I think the idea of voting on non-anonymous moderators is one that sounds good in theory but will almost certainly backfire. How would it even work? Will nominations be taken? And will the nominees be willing? I mean, LOL, people who have stayed out of the fray probably want to stay out of the fray, you know? They've been carefully wording posts for years so as not to offend. :lol: Even if you could find some who were willing, I would bet that people have huge differences of opinion about who is and is not level-headed enough to make the cut. So majority might rule, but then there would be cries of foul from those who didn't vote for that mod? Sticky, sticky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Please don't over moderated the Chat Board. I know some moderation is needed for any community and obviously posters and comments need to be civil. The chat board to me is all about posting threads that don't really go anywhere, it's also a place that isn't just about homeschooling and parenting, its can be for everything else...a place to ask questions, get different opinions, and even vent which is what I LOVE about it. As others have already said, I love the forum, it's my go to place when I have a few minutes to myself. It's my first place for reviews and parenting tips. It's grown and I've grown with it and I hope it will be around forever. <snip> I agree with this. I don't believe stricter rules are needed; I believe stricter enforcement of clearly stated/written guide lines is what is needed. I think the posting rules are generally fine as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellread Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 These are my thoughts on moderating: I appreciate the WTM boards. I read the education section and the classifieds. If I were running this board, I'd be tempted to remove private groups and The Lounge (chat). As a user, it is fine with me if they exist, but I consider them secondary to the "education" discussions, and if they threaten the existence of the education sections, maybe they should go. On the other hand, that might be over-reacting to a one time problem. Technical problems happen. If I were a moderator, I could imagine deleting a bunch of stuff to keep it private if technical issues accidentally made private posts public. I have no idea what actually happened. Also, technical problems can cause things to disappear/get deleted without any intentional deleting by a human. Maybe nothing got deleted. I don't know. Providing "private" groups might not be a good idea as true privacy is very difficult on the internet. It seems to me that some folks are unaware of how inflammatory or rude their comments are, and they might often be upset if their comments are deleted, etc. Someone whose posts are deleted a lot might be the target of someone (the community, an individual poster, a moderator), or they might just be inflammatory/rude a lot (and either not know or not care). Some people I love are socially inept, so this is not necessarily a criticism. However if my loved ones had posts that had to be removed, then the posts should be removed. I personally am uncomfortable with folks trashing anybody, even public figures. Why should a homeschooling board have discussions like that? As far as I can recall, I may have used report once or never in three years. But I think the feature is a good one. I don't like it when an honest post/discussion turns negative. Or if someone takes a post/discussion and intentionally or accidentally turns it into a chance to start fights or debates. I'm glad the board is moderated. If anything goes, pretty soon everyone goes (away). If I had a post removed, I'd probably be embarrassed and want to know why. On the other hand, if I were a moderator, I'd be concerned that some folks would turn comments from a moderator into further fuel to start more fires/fights. And trolling is a reality of the internet-- some folks just like to stir stuff up. It wouldn't surprise me if people opposed to homeschooling were on this board masquerading as homeschoolers and stirring things up to provide opportunities for some homeschoolers or some folks pretending to be homeschoolers to look foolish. ("On the internet no one knows you're a dog.") But it also wouldn't surprise me if no such thing were happening either. I don't mind if moderators delete stuff or lock it. I remember one post that started as a discussion of a curriculum (not PeaceHill) that wound up becoming attacks and name calling (though as I recall, the name callers probably thought they were just reporting facts). I'm glad it was locked--I don't use that curriculum or know that person, but again, what is the point? I would have been happy if the offending posts at the end were deleted, but the original discussion (which was not flattering, but not personal) were left in place. BTW, I have no idea if that thread still exists or not. On the other hand, who has time to moderate and carefully read all this stuff? I know I don't. Especially if it were an unpaid position. I don't mind if moderators are anonymous. What is the point of identifying moderators-- so they can be the targets for likes/dislikes? So they can be the catalysts for disagreement? I know some people like vigorous arguments, or bashing, or personal attacks-- but others don't. My experience is that this community seems to have run rather well, and I hate the idea that some folks felt they had to leave. None of this is intended as a personal attack on anyone and if it seems that way, I probably miswrote it. I am aiming this comment in response to the original poster. I probably am wrong in some of my opinions (that's the thing about being human and imperfect). I almost didn't write or send this post, but I thought the Original Poster might like to hear from someone who lurks and posts rarely. I usually don't even bother to log in when I read the board. It is more important to me to have a calm place to discuss homeschooling/education related topics than to have a place where everyone can talk about everything in whatever way they want. The loudest voices do not necessarily speak for everyone and silence does not mean agreement. (I have no particular loud voices in mind when I make this comment.) On the other hand, some loud or frequent posters may post because they have received a lot of positive feedback from folks who like to hear/read them. And last, I really appreciate the energy and love of some of the posters (even the ones I disagree with), and the existence of this board. I have found it very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I also suggest that moderation not rely entirely on post reporting. So should mods read through all the threads? If so, paid mods or volunteer mods? If not, how else would moderating work if not solely on post reporting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I have very mixed feelings about that. In some ways, yes, the chat board contributes to a sense of community. In other ways, it is an unnecessary distraction (that can't just be me, LOL). But without a doubt it is where most conflict comes from on these boards. I think the idea of voting on non-anonymous moderators is one that sounds good in theory but will almost certainly backfire. How would it even work? Will nominations be taken? And will the nominees be willing? I mean, LOL, people who have stayed out of the fray probably want to stay out of the fray, you know? They've been carefully wording posts for years so as not to offend. :lol: Even if you could find some who were willing, I would bet that people have huge differences of opinion about who is and is not level-headed enough to make the cut. So majority might rule, but then there would be cries of foul from those who didn't vote for that mod? Sticky, sticky. I think people would have to volunteer, or if nominated must at least have a choice whether or not to accept the nomination. I don't know the best way to hold a vote for assistant moderators though, I would not like it to be a popularity contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 IMO, the problem with hard and fast moderating guidelines is that generally, people don't see the content of posts the same way. Someone can report a post for religion-bashing, and other people can say that the post wasn't religion-bashing, it was just asking some hard questions of another poster. I've seen threads where people warn a poster for DH-bashing, and the OP and others will say the OP wasn't bashing, but was looking for some concrete advice for helping to change a behavior, and some frustration is coming through. This sort of subjectivity has to make the mods' job nearly impossible to do and keep people satisfied. I recall the incident someone mentioned above--I replied to the rude poster. IMO, her posts were rude and silly but not delete- or ban-worthy. The poster was just being, as Rosie would say, a primo stickybeak, but I thought she was entitled to her opinion, unwanted as it was. On the other hand, I've seen some posters, claiming to want a dialogue, go after another poster over and over and over, to where I've put the person on ignore for awhile myself. I don't have an answer. I don't want the chat board gone (where else I would get three pages of discussion on skull apparel and reheating dinner for my husband?!), but I can't see forcing PHP to pay more for more mods because we can't just roll our eyes and move on with our days. Honestly, I would love to see what would happen if we just went unmoderated (but no political discussion :lol:) for awhile. It might be anarchy, or self-rule might be just what we need! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 As for the chat board being a distraction, I know there are many posters who simply choose to ignore it. ETA the tip upthread about how to remove a board from the new content feed is very useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I agree with this. I don't believe stricter rules are needed; I believe stricter enforcement of clearly stated/written guide lines is what is needed. I think the posting rules are generally fine as is. I'm not picking on you, just using your post as a starting point. What guidelines would you suggest? How would you (the collective you)write the guidelines so there can be no subjective interpretation? Some are obvious: no politics. What else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alte Veste Academy Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 As for the chat board being a distraction, I know there are many posters who simply choose to ignore it. ETA the tip upthread about how to remove a board from the new content feed is very useful! Yeah, I ignore it most of the time. I meant it in kind of a philosophical way too though, not just practical. As in what was the original vision for these forums and has that vision been maintained or has it grown in unexpected, unrelated ways and gotten out of hand? Is it time for a trim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocelotmom Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 ARGGH. OK, people, I'm really trying here, but this is not helping. Apologies. I was probably writing my post while you were posting yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Yeah, I ignore it most of the time. I meant it in kind of a philosophical way too though, not just practical. As in what was the original vision for these forums and has that vision been maintained or has it grown in unexpected, unrelated ways and gotten out of hand? Is it time for a trim? I, personally, would say that the chat board is an integral part of this large homeschooling forum, because so many of the issues we discuss have a slant that's unique to homeschoolers. For example, my thread about how to make heating up dinner for my DH, who comes home late. I can't have that same discussion on another parenting forum, because not too many other families are going to have the same schedule-related issues that we have as HSers. Sure, some will, but probably not enough to really get a good bank of advice. Same thing with my skull clothing thread--some of my concerns were unique to the fact that my DD will be taking that backpack to homeschooling events. I feel like the discussion in that forum is invaluable because so many of our experiences as homeschoolers are (mostly) unique to homeschoolers. I would hate to lose it, and I would hate for new and future homeschoolers to lose the collective experience and support that it provides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I was extremely grateful for the chat board last week when I asked for help with my dd who is struggling with anxiety and depression. That wasn't a question I felt comfortable asking anywhere else and I received some good information from many wonderful people. I would be sad to see it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocelotmom Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I, personally, would say that the chat board is an integral part of this large homeschooling forum, because so many of the issues we discuss have a slant that's unique to homeschoolers. For example, my thread about how to make heating up dinner for my DH, who comes home late. I can't have that same discussion on another parenting forum, because not too many other families are going to have the same schedule-related issues that we have as HSers. Sure, some will, but probably not enough to really get a good bank of advice. Same thing with my skull clothing thread--some of my concerns were unique to the fact that my DD will be taking that backpack to homeschooling events. I feel like the discussion in that forum is invaluable because so many of our experiences as homeschoolers are (mostly) unique to homeschoolers. I would hate to lose it, and I would hate for new and future homeschoolers to lose the collective experience and support that it provides. Even beyond the stuff specific to homeschoolers, the chat forum (and probably social groups) seem to me to be the glue of the forum. I don't know about anyone else, but if the forum were strictly homeschooling, I'd come here only when I had a specific purpose - a problem, needing a different curriculum, or something. But the chat forum has something new and interesting constantly (with the controversial posts often being among the most compelling), keeps me here way more than I probably should be, and is my go-to resource for many subjects, not just homeschooling. And, as a side-effect, it increases my participation in the homeschooling portions of the forum. I suspect this is the same for others, and the forum would be much less rich and useful if the chat forum weren't quite so interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 One "forum rule" suggestion I have may or may not be workable, but here it is anyway... If a person starts a thread and labels it cc, perhaps people should not be permitted to go into that thread and tell them God doesn't exist and use the thread to start a big argument over religion. It's not nice and many cc threads end up going off the rails due to those types of comments. Likewise, if a thread was labeled as "atheist content," maybe no one should be allowed to pop in to say that the reason they are having problems is because they aren't asking Jesus for help, and oh by the way, atheists are immoral. Again, not helpful, and incredibly insulting as well. What poster wouldn't respond negatively and fight back when told she was immoral or not a good person? I think we could avoid a healthy percentage of the trainwreck threads with some common courtesy, but since that often doesn't seem to be working, maybe we need a rule. If there are certain designations in thread titles, only the targeted audience should reply. If the OP of a thread welcomes comments from everyone, they wouldn't add the little disclaimer thingie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 ETA the tip upthread about how to remove a board from the new content feed is very useful! I'm dying to know how to customize the new content feed, but I'm a little afraid of what might happen if I find out. The last thing I need right now is to get hooked on these forums again, just as school and our crazy schedule are starting up again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I'm not sure that anyone objects to SWB visiting wherever she'd like to. The discussion has moved away from the lack of transparency and the manner that group was moderated to a false assumption, that members of that group expect zero moderation. The earlier (very heated) posts about the issue seemed to strongly indicate that the social group members were quite livid that a moderator entered their group. They didn't seem to feel that the moderator had any right to interfere in the group, nor to delete any posts or make any commentary. I absolutely got the impression that they expected zero moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyroo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 One "forum rule" suggestion I have may or may not be workable, but here it is anyway... If a person starts a thread and labels it cc, perhaps people should not be permitted to go into that thread and tell them God doesn't exist and use the thread to start a big argument over religion. It's not nice and many cc threads end up going off the rails due to those types of comments. Likewise, if a thread was labeled as "atheist content," maybe no one should be allowed to pop in to say that the reason they are having problems is because they aren't asking Jesus for help, and oh by the way, atheists are immoral. Again, not helpful, and incredibly insulting as well. What poster wouldn't respond negatively and fight back when told she was immoral or not a good person? I think we could avoid a healthy percentage of the trainwreck threads with some common courtesy, but since that often doesn't seem to be working, maybe we need a rule. If there are certain designations in thread titles, only the targeted audience should reply. If the OP of a thread welcomes comments from everyone, they wouldn't add the little disclaimer thingie. Isn't that what social groups are supposed to be for? If you want to talk about atheism and don't want to listen to dissenting opinions then you make an atheism social group and post your questions there. Obviously, it is an inconvenience to have to set up a social group and try to attract members, and no, you probably won't get as many replies as you would on the chat board, but I always thought that was the price you paid to eliminate the naysayers. I'm not sure it is workable to rely on special acronym codes in post titles to convey to people what kind of responses the original poster is looking for. If one person doesn't notice the cc or know what it signifies, then they write something "inflammatory" and then five people jump on them for not doing what the OP asked, and then five more people shoot back that it is not against the rule to tell the truth and the whole thing spirals out of control. Plus, any system that is put in place needs to be pretty self-explanatory, because I don't think a lot of people read the Community Guidelines or Acronym lists (is there one? I would assume so somewhere). Almost every thread I read with JAWM in the title has at least one responder who has to ask what that means. Wendy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Isn't that what social groups are supposed to be for? If you want to talk about atheism and don't want to listen to dissenting opinions then you make an atheism social group and post your questions there. Obviously, it is an inconvenience to have to set up a social group and try to attract members, and no, you probably won't get as many replies as you would on the chat board, but I always thought that was the price you paid to eliminate the naysayers. I'm not sure it is workable to rely on special acronym codes in post titles to convey to people what kind of responses the original poster is looking for. If one person doesn't notice the cc or know what it signifies, then they write something "inflammatory" and then five people jump on them for not doing what the OP asked, and then five more people shoot back that it is not against the rule to tell the truth and the whole thing spirals out of control. Plus, any system that is put in place needs to be pretty self-explanatory, because I don't think a lot of people read the Community Guidelines or Acronym lists (is there one? I would assume so somewhere). Almost every thread I read with JAWM in the title has at least one responder who has to ask what that means. Wendy Many people, myself included, don't belong to social groups. I don't think anyone should have to relegate their posts to a separate group whenever they want to ask a question. Besides, if I put "secular content" on a new thread, it's pretty easy to see that I'm not looking for religious responses. I might want ideas from a wide variety of people, but if one of your ideas involves religion, you should know not to post that one, but that your secularly-based ideas are welcome. I do think there are people from both sides of the religion issue who intentionally enter threads where they know their posts won't be welcomed, just to rile things up, and it would be nice if that was strongly discouraged by either the forum rules or the moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I'm dying to know how to customize the new content feed, but I'm a little afraid of what might happen if I find out. The last thing I need right now is to get hooked on these forums again, just as school and our crazy schedule are starting up again! Did you find the post? I just learned about this on here: when you click on "view new content" and your new content list comes up, there is an options bar on the left side of the page. On the very bottom is a button that says "filter by forum"; if you click on it, you get a pop-up that lets you select which forums you want ("Configure forum filters for new content"). All you have to do is check mark the forums/social groups you want to be included in your new content, hit save, and voila--personalized new content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The earlier (very heated) posts about the issue seemed to strongly indicate that the social group members were quite livid that a moderator entered their group. They didn't seem to feel that the moderator had any right to interfere in the group, nor to delete any posts or make any commentary. I absolutely got the impression that they expected zero moderation. Do they need zero moderation or do they need the moderators to understand code switching a little better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 Despite my earlier requests, the thread seems to have devolved into a debate about social groups. So fair warning: closing coming soon. Thanks. SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Do they need zero moderation or do they need the moderators to understand code switching a little better? As far as I can tell there hasn't really been much moderation within social groups, a problem arose when a glitch caused a private group to go public and moderators responded to posts as public posts. I don't see a need for significant moderation in social groups, I think it's fine for like-minded people to discuss things in private. I do think if there are really groups on this board that engage in targeted snark at the expense of non-group members that should not be permitted. Negative gossip, no matter how private, is poisonous to a community. I haven't personally seen anyone engage in such discussions however. ETA sorry SWB we cross-posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyroo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Besides, if I put "secular content" on a new thread, it's pretty easy to see that I'm not looking for religious responses. See, I don't know. When I was first posting here and saw someone label something as CC, first I had to puzzle out what it meant, but when I found out it meant Christian Content, at first I read it as a warning: This post contains Christian Content, so stay away if that will offend you. But it really means: I only want Christian Content, so stay away if you are going to offend me. Pretty different. Wendy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Are you talking about closing the thread, or closing the social groups? The latter would be very sad, I think. She's already stated she's not inclined to close the groups, so I would assume just this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 Just the thread. Social groups may need some adjusting in terms of expectations, but I wouldn't just shut them down. And I'd give you plenty of warning first. So, just the thread. SWB (see how I got the B in there? I was posting too fast before.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Are you talking about closing the thread, or closing the social groups? The latter would be very sad, I think. Mindreader here. She is speaking of this thread. ETA: Now I look silly...I was typing as she was clarifying. And it was such a good mindread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 There have been load of great suggestions in this thread, and I appreciate SWB taking the time to ask for and listen to feedback. Just sneaking that in before it closes :) Hear Hear! (and I'm out of likes :( ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Bunny Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Hear Hear! (and I'm out of likes :( ) I liked that - just cause I could ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 Mindreader here. She is speaking of this thread. ETA: Now I look silly...I was typing as she was clarifying. And it was such a good mindread... Not silly. PRESCIENT. See, it's all about the WORD you use. :drool: SWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Not silly. PRESCIENT. See, it's all about the WORD you use. :drool: SWB Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Did you find the post? I just learned about this on here: when you click on "view new content" and your new content list comes up, there is an options bar on the left side of the page. On the very bottom is a button that says "filter by forum"; if you click on it, you get a pop-up that lets you select which forums you want ("Configure forum filters for new content"). All you have to do is check mark the forums/social groups you want to be included in your new content, hit save, and voila--personalized new content. You're not helping!!! I'm going to go play with it now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 You're not helping!!! I'm going to go play with it now... It will transform you WTM board experience :D :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 It will transform you WTM board experience :D :p This is what I am afraid of *sigh* So far, I like it. I'm still tweaking. Thanks! (I think.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts