Moderation Suggestions?

[texasmama]

Ha! Now why can't we "like" SWB's posts? Cuz I'd have liked that one... and I don't openly disperse my likes... (lol)

I agree.  Very disconcerting! 

[maize]

Ha! Now why can't we "like" SWB's posts? Cuz I'd have liked that one... and I don't openly disperse my likes... (lol)

 

I think likes on her posts are disabled because everyone on the forum would like them, thus using up the collective "like" quota for an entire week and leaving us all likeless and depressed.   :sad: 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Weirdly, I can't like any of your posts either.

 

Hmmm.....

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Weirdly, I can't like any of your posts either.

 

Hmmm.....

 

Maybe it's an admin thing, so you can't appear to be playing favorites. (Because of course everyone knows that I'm your favorite. But I won't spread it around.)

[Desert Strawberry]

Weirdly, I can't like any of your posts either.

 

Hmmm.....

That would be favoritism. I would be heartbroken if you didn't like my posts :'(

[goldberry]

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 :)

 

She is very much honoring us by asking for suggestions rather than just making a decision and going with it.

Thank you!

[ocelotmom]

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.

 

The threads where a specific viewpoint is requested aren't the threads I normally see turning into trainwrecks. It's stuff like cupcakes and crock pots.

 

But what are the snark groups ? I've been part of 5 social groups, two of which are private, and none have had a sole purpose of taking posts and posters and brutally ripping them apart ?

 

All 5 have had sole purposes of allowing groups of people who share something in common - love of Doctor Who, cooking, being a freethinker, interested in global education or chronic illness - and allowing those people to talk together on all kinds of topics, including education ( well, OK, not so much in the Doctor Who group.)

 

If there is a group whose sole purpose is to destroy other posters, and you know about it, I hope you HAVE reported it.

 

 

Not here! I have no clue if there are such groups here. I've never heard of any, but I'm totally out of the loop. If there are any, I'd kind of expect them to be hosted off-site somewhere and not as a social group here.

 

But it's not uncommon on the internet as a whole, and I'm sure there are people here who have had negative experiences with them. It sounded to me like Scarlett probably did.

[Pawz4me]

Seeing as the thread still isn't closed, can I say the reason SWB is a good moderator is that she leavens her authority with humour ?

 

Humour and good will go a long, long way to helping people accept and appreciate moderation.

 

I "liked" it, but that's not enough.  IMO in two sentences you've summed up the major problem with moderation on this board --  the general lack of humour and any feeling of good will.

 

(Note that I liked your post so much I even spelled humour "wrong."  Just for you ;))

[Scarlett]

I have a little bit of a unique perspective on this........I am religious but not like anyone else much. I am annoyed by posts from people on both sides of that discussion.

 

When I first read WTM I was astounded by the reasonableness of SWB. I could 'feel' that she is religious but her book WTM was focused on education. For someone like me it was a real jewel of a find.

 

Same with these boards.....sure anyone with a Google (;)) can discover that SWB is religious...a Christian....but the boards are for EDUCATION. What is so complicated about that?

 

She asks that we are polite and courteous. Really it isn't that difficult.

[OneStepAtATime]

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.)

Thanks!  And you did great sliding the B in this time... :)

 

Not silly.

 

PRESCIENT. See, it's all about the WORD you use.   :drool:

 

SWB

texasmama is definitely prescient.  Love that word! 

 

Weirdly, I can't like any of your posts either.

 

Hmmm.....

While you are pondering likes, might you consider upping the allowed "likes"?  Just a bit?  Pretty please?  

 

And thank you so very, very much for allowing feedback and discussion regarding this topic and for even putting up with maintaining this Forum in the first place.  Truly, thank you.

[melmichigan]

I think it would be helpful for the Community Guidelines to be more prominent, maybe the top of the page.  I rarely page all the way down the screen and wonder if that's the case for others as well.  Do they come up in some way to notify new members of their existence?  

 

I think some transparency in moderation would be welcome.

 

I like Cat's suggestion regarding thread titles.  If someone wants to debate a topic start a s/o thread, but don't derail a perfectly good conversation, it gets old on all sides.

 

 

[Scarlett]

The threads where a specific viewpoint is requested aren't the threads I normally see turning into trainwrecks. It's stuff like cupcakes and crock pots.

 

 

Not here! I have no clue if there are such groups here. I've never heard of any, but I'm totally out of the loop. If there are any, I'd kind of expect them to be hosted off-site somewhere and not as a social group here.

 

But it's not uncommon on the internet as a whole, and I'm sure there are people here who have had negative experiences with them. It sounded to me like Scarlett probably did.

Yes Scarlett did. :)

 

I remember one time I posted a thread about my friend (a Christian) who was being tormented by her husband who had abandoned his faith and become atheist....he was consumed with FORCING his wife to renounce her faith and stop believing in God. He told her if she didn't agree to it he would divorce her and take their children away. To me that situation had very little to do with religion and very much to do with abusive tactics. Unbelievably people on this board began grilling me, defending him, attacking my religion...it was nuts! The thread was DELETED! Why? I don't know. I was never told. I just felt like the mods didn't want to deal with it. And who could blame them!

 

The real question is why did it have to derail to that point. I was just posting about a very stressful situation with my good friend. I was grilled about how did I KNOW what friend was telling me was true? If you are anti religious to the point that you saw that situation as my friend in the wrong....then maybe just stay away from that thread. Don't use it as an opportunity to discuss why Christians are idiots in your opinion.

[Catwoman]

Yes Scarlett did. :)

 

I remember one time I posted a thread about my friend (a Christian) who was being tormented by her husband who had abandoned his faith and become atheist....he was consumed with FORCING his wife to renounce her faith and stop believing in God. He told her if she didn't agree to it he would divorce her and take their children away. To me that situation had very little to do with religion and very much to do with abusive tactics. Unbelievably people on this board began grilling me, defending him, attacking my religion...it was nuts! The thread was DELETED! Why? I don't know. I was never told. I just felt like the mods didn't want to deal with it. And who could blame them!

 

The real question is why did it have to derail to that point. I was just posting about a very stressful situation with my good friend. I was grilled about how did I KNOW what friend was telling me was true? If you are anti religious to the point that you saw that situation as my friend in the wrong....then maybe just stay away from that thread. Don't use it as an opportunity to discuss why Christians are idiots in your opinion.

I'm pretty sure I remember that thread, and it was amazing how quickly it went from a friendly discussion to religion-bashing, and for no good reason at all.

 

That is the kind of thread I was thinking of when I posted my suggestion above.

[Catwoman]

I think it would be helpful for the Community Guidelines to be more prominent, maybe the top of the page. I rarely page all the way down the screen and wonder if that's the case for others as well. Do they come up in some way to notify new members of their existence?

 

I think some transparency in moderation would be welcome.

 

I like Cat's suggestion regarding thread titles. If someone wants to debate a topic start a s/o thread, but don't derail a perfectly good conversation, it gets old on all sides.

I have to admit that I have been here for years and I had to ask where the rules were posted. :blush:

[unfrumpable.]

I agree with Sadie. I don't get into debates much these days because I've BTDT so much over the years that I'm all online debated out for the most part. So, I usually stick with occasional snarky comments. I admit I've posted some comments just to see if I would get any warning points and I never have. I have had a couple of posts deleted, but that's about it.

 

So I figure certain posters must set off triggers for other posters. I know there are some that post here that make me want to bang my head on the wall, but I usually just move on and I don't report them just because they annoy me.

 

I have to be honest, I don't think I've ever been on a board where there has been a report button. And I've been perusing message boards since around 1994. Back in the BBS days you were on your own with what you chose to say and to deal with how others responded to it. ;)

 

I definitely think moderators should not be anonymous. They should be regular, participating members of the community.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that one of the best discussions I ever had on this board was with Aibeto on Christianity.  Neither of us had any illusions of trying to convert the other to our way of thinking.  We were simply trying to understand each other's point of view.  (Obviously others were in the thread but the two of us did a lot of talking to each other in it).  She was courteous and clear and was not snarky at all to me.  I appreciated her tone.  There are others who for some reason cannot type their belief that the sky is blue without having a snarky tone and using loaded vocabulary.  (Even if I know, being from the PNW, that the sky is most definitely gray!)  I appreciated Peekaboo introducing us to the term "rhino skin" and someone else introducing us to the concept of "being the duck" (ie. letting it roll right off of you).  I think that if people are going to be in discussions that are deeper than what they are going to tackle for the day, that they need to understand how to discuss something without thinking that they need to bring everyone over to their side.  And that you can listen to what the other side believes and learn to understand it without needing to give a summary commentary of what you think of it and why because 90% of the time that is where people take offense.  Save your commentaries for blog posts.  

 

As far as specific moderation suggestions?  I like the ones about having posted moderation guidelines.  Ad hominem attacks are already against the board rules, I believe.   What is tougher is sarcasm that implies an ad hominem attack without directly coming out with it.  

[AurieD]

I'm just a lurker here, but I have done a lot of lurking so I'm going to offer my opinion on the moderation :)

 

From my perspective there is definitely a Christian bias on this board and in its moderation. I don't think this is intentional, it is just a result of it being a mostly USA homeschooling board.

 

Honestly, I think those that can't see it may be just too enmeshed in the culture, they are used to Christian privilege. This is not meant to be insulting, I'm sure there are many aspects of my own culture that I fail to see because I am too much a part of it.

 

There are also a lot more Christians here than any other group. So if a post is deemed to be insulting to Christians in general it may get reported 10 times and looked at, but when a post is insulting to atheists, or to a minority religion, it may be just as bad but only get 1 report so not be deemed to be worth looking at by the moderators. The Christians don't necessarily have twitchy fingers, they just have a lot higher representation.

 

I agree with many of the suggestions that have already been made:

 

Acknowledging this bias and actively working to avoid it when moderating.

Having clear and transparent moderation guidelines.

Having clear and transparent consequences that are consistently applied for rule breaking.

The moderators should have more accountability through individual moderation accounts (not being just one of the faceless).

Penalties for misuse of the 'report' function.

[Catwoman]

It isn't as simple as that. A poster here is continually reported, given warning points and banned and her posts are definitely polite and courteous. She isn't like me, having big emotional reactions to things. She is clear and composed in her posts, although tenacious is definitely another attribute that describes her.

 

Her posts are reported almost entirely because people take exception to her calm but persistent pov.

 

So it is entirely possible to be engaging in the above manner and still get into repeated strife with mods.

 

I am much less polite and courteous than the poster I mention above, because I don't always keep my cool, and I have never been given warning points or banned. Or even had my posts edited/deleted more than once.

Respectfully, if a poster is continually reported, given warning points, and banned, she must be doing something wrong and/or offensive, or these things wouldn't keep happening to her. It is very possible to act polite, yet still be incredibly insulting and obnoxious. (I'm not sure who you're talking about, so obviously I can't say for sure whether or not that's the case.)

 

Additionally, if I felt I was being unjustly targeted by the moderators and I kept getting warnings and being banned, I would leave and go to a different forum. The only reason I would stay is if I was intentionally posting things that I knew were going to cause a problem with the moderators. If the person of whom you speak is truly not often looking for trouble yet still keeps getting banned, maybe she should take a closer look at what she is actually posting.

 

Again, I'm not sure who you mean, and I don't even want to know because it's none of my business who has been banned or warned, but while I think occasional issues with the moderators might legitimately occur, I'm not so sure about "continual" problems.

[8circles]

I already said I didn't think there was a religious bias & I wanted to clarify, because I've been thinking about this more... I think are some issues that look like religious bias but it's part of a bigger moderation problem & I suspect it's more of a popularity contest or who's friends with whom.  

[Alte Veste Academy]

From my perspective there is definitely a Christian bias on this board and in its moderation.

 

Honestly, I think those that can't see it may be just too enmeshed in the culture, they are used to Christian privilege.

I don't see it and I'm agnostic, so no Christian privilege for me. LOL

 

There are also a lot more Christians here than any other group. So if a post is deemed to be insulting to Christians in general it may get reported 10 times and looked at, but when a post is insulting to atheists, or to a minority religion, it may be just as bad but only get 1 report so not be deemed to be worth looking at by the moderators. The Christians don't necessarily have twitchy fingers, they just have a lot higher representation.

And yet...

 

We have relied on member consensus to edit/not edit threads. One report? No moderation. Multiple reports? A moderator goes to see and makes a decision.

For the record, complaints from "The moderators are biased towards Christians!" and "The moderators are biased against Christians" are almost exactly equal. And have ben since the board began.

So if this board is predominantly Christian and what you say is even partly true, it looks like the Christians here show quite a bit of restraint if they are reporting in equal numbers. Or the non-Christians are the ones with twitchy fingers, speaking in ratios. LOL

 

I do not see a religious bias here at all. I do see a manners and civility bias.

[8circles]

Respectfully, if a poster is continually reported, given warning points, and banned, she must be doing something wrong and/or offensive, or these things wouldn't keep happening to her. It is very possible to act polite, yet still be incredibly insulting and obnoxious. (I'm not sure who you're talking about, so obviously I can't say for sure whether or not that's the case.)

 

Additionally, if I felt I was being unjustly targeted by the moderators and I kept getting warnings and being banned, I would leave and go to a different forum. The only reason I would stay is if I was intentionally posting things that I knew were going to cause a problem with the moderators. If the person of whom you speak is truly not often looking for trouble yet still keeps getting banned, maybe she should take a closer look at what she is actually posting.

 

Again, I'm not sure who you mean, and I don't even want to know because it's none of my business who has been banned or warned, but while I think occasional issues with the moderators might legitimately occur, I'm not so sure about "continual" problems.

 

Normally I'd agree with you but I don't think that's the case here.  There are several posters who fit your description of being polite but still insulting & obnoxious yet they aren't all moderated the same.

[mommymilkies]

I don't see it and I'm agnostic, so no Christian privilege for me. LOL

 

 

And yet...

 

  

So if this board is predominantly Christian and what you say is even partly true, it looks like the Christians here show even more restraint than the atheists if they are reporting in equal numbers. LOL

 

I do not see a religious bias here at all. I do see a manners and civility bias.

I believe she was talking about open complaints on the subject, not reporting posts, but maybe SWB can clarify that?

 

ETA:  One doesn't need to be Atheist to see a bias towards Christians.  We have many agnostic, UU, Muslim, Jewish, and members who are various flavors of other religions. 

[Catwoman]

Normally I'd agree with you but I don't think that's the case here. There are several posters who fit your description of being polite but still insulting & obnoxious yet they aren't all moderated the same.

You could very well be right. I have to admit that I don't really keep track of these things, so I can't comment on whether or not posters are equally moderated. I also never realized that being banned was any kind of common occurrence. I assumed it was a rarity.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I believe she was talking about open complaints on the subject, not reporting posts, but maybe SWB can clarify that?

 

ETA: One doesn't need to be Atheist to see a bias towards Christians. We have many agnostic, UU, Muslim, Jewish, and members who are various flavors of other religions.

Maybe. But I think it works out the same from my POV. And, yes, I know we have people from many belief systems, all capable of seeing bias from many different perspectives. I think it is easiest to see bias when you are removed from either side, actually.

[texasmama]

Everyone's biases interfere with his/her ability to "correctly" identify the biases. It is inherently subjective. I don't even think a reliable research study could be designed for this one. It shall remain forever a mystery.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Everyone's biases interfere with his/her ability to "correctly" identify the biases. It is inherently subjective. I don't even think a reliable research study could be designed for this one. It shall remain forever a mystery.

True. I find myself biased toward manners and humility, whichever side they are on in a fight. Most of the time here in heated threads, I find myself on the side of the posters who keep calm. The Force is strong with them!

[Catwoman]

I believe she was talking about open complaints on the subject, not reporting posts, but maybe SWB can clarify that?

 

ETA: One doesn't need to be Atheist to see a bias towards Christians. We have many agnostic, UU, Muslim, Jewish, and members who are various flavors of other religions.

 

But is it truly a Christian bias? Or is it simply that Christians may be represented here in higher numbers? I honestly don't know.

 

Additionally, if you're talking about a bias from other forum members, I would think the problem would be with a select few extremists, rather than the general population. We have all seen the obnoxious and judgmental threads where people have been told they're "not Christian enough" or "not a real Christian" or "not a real Catholic," and those comments are directed by self-professed Christians toward others who consider themselves to be Christian. Some people just like to be mean.

 

I think the vast majority of the members here are tolerant and peace-loving, and they don't care what anyone else believes as long as no one tries to convert them or tell them they are idiots for believing whatever it is that they believe. I do feel that there are is also a small minority of intentional troublemakers -- both religious and atheist -- who succeed in upsetting a lot of people, whether it is by persecuting and ridiculing others or crying that they are victims of persecution from other members. Those relatively few people can create a lot of tension and ill-will.

[SKL]

I like the idea of suspending someones reporting privileges if they over use the feature.

 

Although reporting is something I almost never do, I have been told by the moderators that they would rather I do that than respond in chat to obnoxious posts.  So I don't think it would be very nice for me (or others) to be banned for doing what has been recommended.

 

An earlier post said that if only one person reports, they don't even look at it; it's only those posts that get reported multiple times that get posters in trouble.  So people who report for trivial reasons don't really matter.  Unless, of course, the same person is reporting volumes of posts every day.

[texasmama]

True. I find myself biased toward manners and humility, whichever side they are on in a fight. Most of the time here in heated threads, I find myself on the side of the posters who keep calm. The Force is strong with them!

Well hello, kindred spirit. :)

[Catwoman]

Everyone's biases interfere with his/her ability to "correctly" identify the biases. It is inherently subjective. I don't even think a reliable research study could be designed for this one. It shall remain forever a mystery.

:iagree:

 

Let's face it, we all get annoyed when "our side" of a heated discussion is called out by the moderators, but do we really pay much attention when it's "the other side" that gets into trouble? Is anyone really keeping score of exactly which forum members are being banned or getting warning points? How would any of us even know about things like bannings and warnings?

 

I think it's impossible for any of us to be completely objective about this.

[mommymilkies]

But is it truly a Christian bias? Or is it simply that Christians may be represented here in higher numbers? I honestly don't know.

 

Additionally, if you're talking about a bias from other forum members, I would think the problem would be with a select few extremists, rather than the general population. We have all seen the obnoxious and judgmental threads where people have been told they're "not Christian enough" or "not a real Christian" or "not a real Catholic," and those comments are directed by self-professed Christians toward others who consider themselves to be Christian. Some people just like to be mean.

 

I think the vast majority of the members here are tolerant and peace-loving, and they don't care what anyone else believes as long as no one tries to convert them or tell them they are idiots for believing whatever it is that they believe. I do feel that there are is also a small minority of intentional troublemakers -- both religious and atheist -- who succeed in upsetting a lot of people, whether it is by persecuting and ridiculing others or crying that they are victims of persecution from other members. Those relatively few people can create a lot of tension and ill-will.

I never said it was anyone, just clarifying what I read into SWB's words about the complaints about bias since the forum has been around.  This was the same post, I believe, where she tried to clarify about PHP being secular.  So I did not take it as being about post reporting.  In the social group that was moderated, we had Christian members-it was more than just an "atheist" group.  Some people do just like to be mean.  I don't think the moderators have a Christian bias, but it does seem clear that reporting seems to be 1. overused and 2. biased.  I think the cries of persecution (or whatever word you want to use there) are valid when there are comments on the board like "Catholics aren't Christian!", "Pro-choice people are baby murderers!", etc.  One doesn't need to look far to see these comments in threads.  It's not like every atheist on this board started a thread about how woefully persecuted they are. 

[Catwoman]

Although reporting is something I almost never do, I have been told by the moderators that they would rather I do that than respond in chat to obnoxious posts. So I don't think it would be very nice for me (or others) to be banned for doing what has been recommended.

 

An earlier post said that if only one person reports, they don't even look at it; it's only those posts that get reported multiple times that get posters in trouble. So people who report for trivial reasons don't really matter. Unless, of course, the same person is reporting volumes of posts every day.

I agree with this. It does appear that the moderators encourage people to report rather than engage when things start turning ugly.

 

And really, we're all adults here and if there were specific guidelines about "reportable offenses," maybe more people would both think before they report -- but more importantly, they might also think before they post something they know will violate the guidelines so they don't get reported.

 

I mean, I'm agreeing with SKL here. :eek: We have had some pretty heated discussions in the past and I'm sure we will have more in the future, but we get over it and next thing you know, we're joking around in another thread. We don't go around reporting each other even when we say things we probably shouldn't. I respect her even when I don't agree with her, and I feel that way about several other people whose views are very different from mine, as well.

 

OTOH, I do understand why some people might frequently report posts, particularly if they feel they are consistently being unfairly targeted by other members over the course of several threads.

 

I don't envy the moderators their job, that's for sure.

[Catwoman]

I never said it was anyone, just clarifying what I read into SWB's words about the complaints about bias since the forum has been around. This was the same post, I believe, where she tried to clarify about PHP being secular. So I did not take it as being about post reporting. In the social group that was moderated, we had Christian members-it was more than just an "atheist" group. Some people do just like to be mean. I don't think the moderators have a Christian bias, but it does seem clear that reporting seems to be 1. overused and 2. biased. I think the cries of persecution (or whatever word you want to use there) are valid when there are comments on the board like "Catholics aren't Christian!", "Pro-choice people are baby murderers!", etc. One doesn't need to look far to see these comments in threads. It's not like every atheist on this board started a thread about how woefully persecuted they are.

:iagree:

 

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you.

[swimmermom3]

I want to write about why anonymous moderating makes me uncomfortable.

 

As much time and energy as I have invested in this community, I feel patronized that I don't know who the moderators are, how they get chosen, what "training" they have. I have been here 14ish years. I would prefer to know if my moderators are also community members. If they are community members, which ones? If not, now are moderators chosen and how is the history and culture of this board communicated to them. To be frank, I feel like there is a lurking distant adult relative and I am a young teen. I feel like that lurking adult is moody, unpredictable, and above the rules they claim to enforce.

 

Lately, I've noticed moderator tolerance for discord is low. I personally have a high tolerance for forum discord, but even with that in mind, I feel like threads and posts have been moderated with a heavy hand.

 

This.  For the last year or so, the tone of the many of the moderator notes is as snotty, if not more so, than the offending posts. This is puzzling because the posters were not addressing the moderator in the first place.

 

It's not just that the moderator tolerance for discord appears to be low, but that many long time posters are now warning members off of controversial threads, and as elegantlion so eloquently posted upstream, those are some of the most insightful and thought-provoking threads.  For example, I know I was grateful when we managed to not get the gun thread shut down. I learned a lot and went off with some new points to consider.

 

[Joanne]

Reposting here what I posted in the Sparkly thread on the Chat board:

 

This forum has seen me through 2 marriages, into adulthood for 1 kid and nearing it for 2 others. This board has seen me through the end of homeschooling, a Masters degree, and the start of a new career. This board has seen my trainwreck of a middle life, and seen me at a near-end of a life. A board member literally stood in my hospital room, like an Angel with her kids.

 

I was here *before* the Veg Source meltdown - when people flocked here and said "steak" because they could.

 

While my story is dramatic, my lived experience played out here is not unique; many of use have had the WTM integrated into our lives over more than a decade and a half.

 

To have unknown moderators, unknown training, undisclosed participation in this community is an insult to those of us who have along the way built relationships and community here. Life, death, conception, babies, marriages, grandbabies, and education have happened in the tapestry of our posting about kilts, current events, low carb, and curricula.

 

I think the reality of TWTM board should garner more transparency, assumed maturity, and respect about how we, as posters, are 'managed."

[swellmomma]

Well we can disagree on this. I don't see why the secrecy. If it is that secret and private take it to pms or a board fully dedicated to such privacy.

 

And I was more than curious when when of my quotes was taken and used on a secret board. Unsettled. I began feeling uneasy about the person who quoted me ....I just don't think it is a good atmosphere.

 

 

Social groups should be open to reading to anyone....if you want to post you have to join. And if you want to report you have to join.

I think of a group for example that I am in that is secret.  I can tell you right now it would not exist if it wasn't secret.  It does not breed disharmony, it provides a safe place for those of us dealing with a difficult situation day in and day out to vent, and cry, and celebrate and support each other through that shared experience.  And there are parts off that experience that do not need to be out on public forum for all to read, even if they could not respond to it.  Nor is it conducive to maintain multiple pms on the same topic with multiple people rather than just having threads for the members of the group to post on.  Not everything needs to be read by everyone else because not everything is everyone else's damned business.  Those more private details are shared with those also in the trenches of the same experience because they can relate and understand and support without judgement, something that we face enough everyday on the forum at large and irl for this experience.

 

 

SWB: don't lock it because I still posted on the social groups aspect.  I posted this before getting to your post about it. 

[melmichigan]

nm

[AurieD]

I don't see it and I'm agnostic, so no Christian privilege for me. LOL

 

 

And yet...

 

 

So if this board is predominantly Christian and what you say is even partly true, it looks like the Christians here show quite a bit of restraint if they are reporting in equal numbers. Or the non-Christians are the ones with twitchy fingers, speaking in ratios. LOL

 

I do not see a religious bias here at all. I do see a manners and civility bias.

 

Of course there will be some non-Christians who don't see it, just like there are some women who don't see male privilege. Doesn't mean it doesn't exists :)

 

Reporting and claiming of bias are two separate issues.

 

If there are a lot more Christians present but the complaints of bias are equal, then either non-Christians are more apt to complain or there really is a bias as you'd expect the complaints to be in line with population totals if there was no actual bias (this is a bit of a false dichotomy , there other options but I don't have all day).

 

But if the reports are not equal because of numbers it actually creates a bias, 1 vote degenerating Christianity gets 10 reports and is moderated. 1 vote degenerating atheism gets 1 report and is not moderated. It is not an intentional favoritism by the moderators, but the very makeup of the forum and the rules of moderation (they look at a post when it has multiple reports) creates a bias against minorities.

 

That's not to say there are not also personal biases that the moderators have, that may very well come into play as well. But since all the moderators use one account it is very hard to tell.

 

Also, your post implies they I attributed more reporting by Christians as twitchy fingers, I thought I did the opposite and attributed it to more numbers.

[lewelma]

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 basically moderated an Evolution thread and with good effect.  I believe it is one of the only Evolution threads that has remained civil and not been closed down, at least that is what I have been told.  It actually did not take that many posts on my part -- a few reminders to remain civil and a few 'please start a new thread' requests, and that was it.  Now, I did keep it narrowly focused from early on so deep discussion from opposing sides never happened, but the OPer did not actually want argument from YEC.  I'll link to it here so SWB can perhaps get a feel for how 'junior moderators' might function.

 

The unscientific American watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins.

 

Just to speed the look over, my moderating comments were in posts 89, 114, 117, 133, and 136.

 

 

Ruth in NZ

[justasque]

A couple of thoughts - 
I have a bit of moderating experience in a diverse homeschooling setting (not here obviously).  I always try to use my moderating as a way to not only stop a thread that could end up harming the group, but also in a way that strengthens, educates, and redirects the group.  I try to

1) Remember that not everyone in the group has been there forever; sometimes chaos is caused by newbies who aren't used to or aware of group culture.  

2) Remember that many homeschoolers aren't used to being in such a diverse group.  Those who spend a lot of time in support groups which have a Statement of Faith, or which are otherwise not inclusive, may be utterly unaware that their local larger homeschooling community includes such a diverse spectrum of people community of homeschoolers, and thus may not realize that they should speak with that in mind. Ditto for those on the other side of the spectrum, who may have been previously unaware of families who don't believe in evolution, for example.  These folks need to be educated as to how to behave in mixed groups.  Once educated, they can become valuable members of the community.

3) Remember that moderation is an opportunity to educate people as to the appropriate way to behave in the forum.  So, for example, I often mention that before someone posts, they should remember that we have a diverse group, and they should word their post accordingly (rather than, for example, assuming everyone shares their views on a particular issue, thus they should mention if a field trip or class they are arranging has a particular religious component, etc.) 

4) Remember that our red state/blue state oriented media can give people a stereotypical viewpoint of people on the other side of the aisle, and that they can gain a lot of wisdom if they get to know real people on the "other side", and gain a more nuanced understanding of why people hold what seem to be utterly "wrong" opinions and viewpoints.  We have a lot to learn from each other.  

5) Remind people of what we have in common that brings us to the forum, and how the forum benefits us, and that if we splintered into "us and them", we would not have the power and knowledge that working together on the things we have in common brings us.

6) Remind people to be sensitive.  For example, when abortion comes up, I remind forum members that there are very likely women reading their posts who have personal experience with abortion (either themselves or through close friends or family members) - this helps to stop some of the more judgmental language.  Ditto for issues around homosexuality.  

7) Restate the rule that is being broken.  It helps to make it clear what triggered me to step in, and ensures that going forward, at least for a time, people know what the standard is for their behavior.

8) Remember that by writing publicly, I am writing not only to the offender(s), and the reporter(s), but to the lurkers & seldom-post-ers who massively outnumber both.  It is in some ways these folks who are the "moderate middle" of the group, and if they leave, the group will likely implode.

So to apply those thoughts here, I'd like to see the following:

1) Moderators should reiterate the rule that is being broken.  Rather than saying "Be good", say "Please avoid personal attacks", or "Please remember that we do not allow husband-bashing on the boards", or "Please be careful about posting personal information here as it can be searchable, in some cases even after it has been deleted", or  "Please remember that those on the opposite side of this issue are your fellow homeschoolers.  Focus on debating the facts rather than tearing down each other" or something like that.  Granted, this can take some time.  But it wouldn't take long to build up a "cut and paste" database from which moderators could copy standard items.  For example, every abortion thread should include a gentle reminder to be sensitive to those on the board who have had personal experience thereof.

 

2) Ideally, threads should be locked rather than taken down, even if a few posts have to be deleted.  I enjoy the "debate" threads, and spend quite a bit of time researching and crafting a post before posting it, as do many others.  It is frustrating to have carefully crafted things torn down because of harsh or inappropriate posts from others.  

3) If there are a lot of "Duggar-bashing" reports, post a note to the thread clarifying what is ok and what is not ok, to both keep it on track but also educate the reporters as to what to report and what not to.

I know that moderating is a huge job, and writing a carefully-crafted post simply isn't possible every time moderation is needed.  But I think some cut-and-paste blurbs, and an effort to educate the community as to the rules within the moderation posts, as well as preserving as much as possible of threads that go awry, would go a long way.  

Thanks SWB!!!

[Free]

I remember sometime back there was a Hobby Lobby thread in which an entire page of very innocuous, informative posts which discussed Hobby Lobby's investment decisions were removed by the moderators. And then the thread was closed leaving no room for further discussion. It was one of the most baffling moderator decisions ever which to me at least indicated a very obvious bias.

 

I can understand the difficulty in actively moderating a large board and this would probably entail having to increase the number of moderators especially for the chat board and even recruiting volunteer moderators from the community.

 

I would also like to see bannings announced in a pinned thread - who, for how long and for what offence.

 

[swimmermom3]

My perception of moderation patterns is very similar to Albeto's. 

 

I am not an atheist & have never had a post of mine edited or deleted (by anyone other than myself :001_smile: ), so I am reasonably free of personal involvement.

 

I think your suggestions about probable causes sounds very reasonable - far more people are likely to be offended by Albeto freely sharing her own beliefs than would even be distressed by an equally free expression by a religious person.  ...and I can, almost, understand how that could influence moderation patterns.

 

...but it bothers me deeply.  I feel it is fundamentally wrong that I can freely express my beliefs - including, some rather volatile ones - but Albeto cannot share her own thoughts and beliefs even half as freely.

 

It bothers me that there are folks here who self-censor because they feel their beliefs are less equal here... and it bothers me even more that they are right.

 

...and I think it goes against the core values of this community - Susan's values and our collective sense as a community.

 

...and it is a loss for all of us when voices are silenced. 

 

I am strongly in favor of moderation, and I do not want hatefulness or cruelty to be allowed to stand, but I am passionately opposed to censoring ideas.

 

:grouphug: Eliana, it is sooo good to "see" you here. Thank you for writing this.  Yes! to all of it.

 

 

[justasque]

I remember sometime back there was a Hobby Lobby thread in which an entire page of very innocuous, informative posts which discussed Hobby Lobby's investment decisions were removed by the moderators. And then the thread was closed leaving no room for further discussion. It was one of the most baffling moderator decisions ever which to me at least indicated a very obvious bias.

 

I was puzzled about that one too.   As I remember it, people were polite, and engaged in pretty decent discussion of the issues involved, with creative analogies and good references.  I think we all came out of it much more informed, with a much more complex and nuanced view of the overall issues involved.  I didn't understand what anyone had done to get it taken down.

 

I realize a pulled thread can't be replaced with an explanation, etc.  But I wonder if there could be a "Pulled Thread" thread, perhaps not directly on the Chat board but in the Site News board, where mods posted briefly about what was pulled and why.  Just a two sentence thing - "The Boy Scouts - Evil or Saintly?" was pulled because of too many people offering to sell Girl Scout cookies.  Cookies can only be offered for sale on the "For Sale" board.  At least that way there would be some transparency.  Obviously no need to do this for spam threads, or those pulled because the info is too deeply personal to be shared publicly.

[swimmermom3]

Susan,

 

I did want to tell you "thank you" for taking the time and effort to hear us out and for involving us in the process of improving the board's moderation. I recognize that you don't have to do any of this, but I am so grateful that you do.

 

Obviously, many of us are a bit passionate about what happens on this board - for good reason.  Homeschooling has grown exponentially from the time our family started down that road eight years ago, but it is still far from mainstream.  At times, that road can be a lonely one, even more so in the high school years. Some board members are fortunate enough to have significant real world homeschooling support, but for many, myself included, this is the go-to resource, the life-line, if you will. This is the single most valuable tool I have at my disposal academically, socially, and sometimes, emotionally. Should I place that much value in a virtual community?  Probably not, but it is what it is. 

 

Perhaps I am naive, but I place a certain level of faith and trust in this community. I have had the good fortune to meet a handful of "boardies" IRL and they certainly don't disappoint. There are several more that I hope to meet even as we wind down this wild trip. The friendships and advice offered here have made our educational experience richer and more enjoyable. It's hard for me to fathom eliminating social groups and the chat board (sticking strictly to academic topics) just to eliminate moderating headaches. There have been many good suggestions for improving the moderating process and I look forward to seeing how this next stage evolves.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

 

Perhaps I am naive, but I place a certain level of faith and trust in this community. I have had the good fortune to meet a handful of "boardies" IRL and they certainly don't disappoint. There are several more that I hope to meet even as we wind down this wild trip. The friendships and advice offered here have made our educational experience richer and more enjoyable. It's hard for me to fathom eliminating social groups and the chat board (sticking strictly to academic topics) just to eliminate moderating headaches. There have been many good suggestions for improving the moderating process and I look forward to seeing how this next stage evolves.

Lisa, I've had exactly the same experience and feel as you do about the boardies as a group. And I don't think shutting down either the social groups or the chat board is the answer, so no worries there.  I'm finding this thread for the most part extremely helpful. Steps will be taken...I would just appeal to boardies to give us the time to get a plan properly formulated and put into place.

 

SWB

[Callie]

It isn't as simple as that. A poster here is continually reported, given warning points and banned and her posts are definitely polite and courteous. She isn't like me, having big emotional reactions to things. She is clear and composed in her posts, although tenacious is definitely another attribute that describes her.

 

Her posts are reported almost entirely because people take exception to her calm but persistent pov.

 

So it is entirely possible to be engaging in the above manner and still get into repeated strife with mods.

 

I am much less polite and courteous than the poster I mention above, because I don't always keep my cool, and I have never been given warning points or banned. Or even had my posts edited/deleted more than once.

Yes and that poster has had trouble in the past at at least two other boards (SL & FCT).  She is never rude, but persistent and it seems to enrage others.

[goldberry]

One more tangible suggestion....When defining the reportable offenses, perhaps show a few examples to help people really get the picture.  Also include a section on what are NOT reportable offenses, also with some examples.

 

Example:  Namecalling

Anyone who believes in religion is just stupid.

People are only atheists because they would rather live immoral lives.

People who support abortion support killing babies.

 

Acceptable:  Some religious people just want to ignore science altogether.

Some atheists think they can do whatever they want because there is no one to answer to.

I believe life begins at conception, so therefore I can't support abortion.

 

 

ETA, again, personally I just ignore or leave a thread under those conditions.  But for those who feel it necessary to report, I think examples are helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

[AMJ]

I will agree that this board seems better cultivated than many other places.  There is a space for a lot of dissenting opinions and discussion, but I've seen little profanity and far less name calling than in other places.  I also appreciate that there isn't wholesale deletion of opinions that aren't party line (whatever that party line might be).

 

I have also had to learn to have some tough skin and decide that there are discussions I just won't partake in. 

 

It would be helpful to have a way to comment on members I put on ignore.  It would be nice to be able to see why I put them on ignore.  Was it too many comments around an election cycle or current events issue, general unreliability, trollish behavior or patty meanness?  Because a couple of times, I've cooled down and reconsidered ignoring someone.

 

Please try to bring back the ability for commenters to tag threads.  It seems that only the original poster has the ability and they often don't know the common tags that were used for previous discussion of that topic.  Tagging was a really useful tool on the high school board, where things like "service academy", "NCAA", "high school biology" or "AP Literature" were used to link new questions with valuable older discussions.

 

It would be helpful to have a clear button to report technical issues, such as when a pinned High School Biology thread got linked up to a closed social group.

 

I also appreciate it when threads are locked, but remain (mostly intact) on the board.  If nothing else, it gives a chance to see where discussions veered astray.

 

Could the administrators also please put out instructions on how tagging works, for newbies and those not-so-newbies of us who lived for decades without ever using such a thing?  If you already have such a thing is it pinned somewhere, perhaps where I overlooked it?

 

Thanks!

 

[Callie]

If people would simply self moderate and move along there would be no need for moderators.  I'd prefer no moderation myself.

[texasmama]

If people would simply self moderate and move along there would be no need for moderators.  I'd prefer no moderation myself.

Most people do.  Some people don't, for a variety of reasons.  Therefore, moderators are needed.

 

I worked at an office in which the microwave was always filthy inside.  We took turns cleaning it.  Yuck.  People remarked that if only others would cover their food before nuking it....But some people don't and never will.  Microwave accidents still happen even with covers.  People forget.  Thus the need for microwave cleaning schedules.