Moderation Suggestions?

[SKL]

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.

 

If that is the person I think you are talking about, the problem may be that s/he very politely always comes around to the kind question [paraphrased for how it reads]: "So you are saying that ignorance is your preferred state of mind?  Just want to make sure I am understanding you.  If not, please feel free to continue this exasperating conversation so I can go on politely insulting you."

 

I have never reported that person, but I do use the "ignore" feature - mainly to remind me that it is futile to engage that person at all.

 

The problem it causes for the board?  People try to respond and it gets more and more obnoxious until the other side loses it.

 

Not that I expect that to ever change.  However, I'm glad someone else brought it up because I wanted to note that this has nothing to do with "unpopular beliefs" and everything to do with mutual respect.

[mommymilkies]

Perhaps this is NOT the place to go pointing fingers at particular members and alluding to personal details about them.  

[Callie]

Perhaps this is NOT the place to go pointing fingers at particular members and alluding to personal details about them.  

Wasn't trying to point fingers. Just saying I bet this person is reported all the time and that makes people see a bias against Atheist.  BTW I am not a Christian just to be clear.

 

I also wonder if those who have had negative interactions w/ her at other places make a special point to report her posts here.

[Scarlett]

Wasn't trying to point fingers. Just saying I bet this person is reported all the time and that makes people see a bias against Christians. Atheists (per Callie's edit above. )  BTW I am not a Christian just to be clear.

 

I also wonder if those who have had negative interactions w/ her at other places make a special point to report her posts here.

 

 

I am terrible at figuring out who people are talking about in these kinds of conversations....I thought for sure I KNEW and then you mention if that person is reported a lot it would make people think there is a bias against Christians. The one I had in mind is very much an atheist.

 

Then that made me LOL...because apparently there are two posters with opposing views and the exact kind of posting style.  Interesting isn't it?

[maize]

Perhaps this is NOT the place to go pointing fingers at particular members and alluding to personal details about them.  

 

The topic was brought up as an illustration of bias against certain groups or individuals. I personally am not sure who people are talking about, but  in the context I think it is worth pointing out that a person can be rude and disrespectful while using a perfectly reasonable sounding tone. And a person who persists in such behavior most definitely does not contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. 

 

I know people of a variety of religious and philosophical persuasions--some on this board--who rather consistently give off a "I am just so much smarter than you I am going to keep talking until I talk you into a corner and demonstrate your mental inferiority (or until I just wear you down and you get tired of arguing)" vibe. Their behavior is not "perfectly polite" though they may be good at framing it that way.

 

Again, I am NOT pointing to one particular person here. I do think such behavior deserves moderation, preferably self-moderation but if people can't manage that then community moderation. I'm not sure however what the best way to word a relevant guideline would be. Be polite and kind in expressing your opinions should cover it in my mind but I'm not sure that works for everyone.

[Callie]

I am terrible at figuring out who people are talking about in these kinds of conversations....I thought for sure I KNEW and then you mention if that person is reported a lot it would make people think there is a bias against Christians. The one I had in mind is very much an atheist.

 

Then that made me LOL...because apparently there are two posters with opposing views and the exact kind of posting style.  Interesting isn't it?

Oops bias against Atheist.  I'll go correct.

[mommymilkies]

The topic was brought up as an illustration of bias against certain groups or individuals. I personally am not sure who people are talking about, but  in the context I think it is worth pointing out that a person can be rude and disrespectful while using a perfectly reasonable sounding tone. And a person who persists in such behavior most definitely does not contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. 

 

I know people of a variety of religious and philosophical persuasions--some on this board--who rather consistently give off a "I am just so much smarter than you I am going to keep talking until I talk you into a corner and demonstrate your mental inferiority (or until I just wear you down and you get tired of arguing)" vibe. Their behavior is not "perfectly polite" though they may be good at framing it that way.

 

Again, I am NOT pointing to one particular person here. I do think such behavior deserves moderation, preferably self-moderation but if people can't manage that then community moderation. I'm not sure however what the best way to word a relevant guideline would be. Be polite and kind in expressing your opinions should cover it in my mind but I'm not sure that works for everyone.

Yes, but people are now posting about other boards this suspected person has been on.  That's kind of...stalkerish? I have no idea who is being talked about, but it feels kind of like gossip to point out one particular person and name other boards they've been on. As for being perfectly polite, again I have no idea who is being talked about (and I'll admit I'm dying of curiosity) but some people do consider being blunt as being polite because they are not lying and just putting the truth out there without dressing it up.  I'm not saying brutal honesty is always the route to take, but what is impolite to one person is not necessarily impolite to another. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The topic was brought up as an illustration of bias against certain groups or individuals. I personally am not sure who people are talking about, but  in the context I think it is worth pointing out that a person can be rude and disrespectful while using a perfectly reasonable sounding tone. And a person who persists in such behavior most definitely does not contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. 

 

I know people of a variety of religious and philosophical persuasions--some on this board--who rather consistently give off a "I am just so much smarter than you I am going to keep talking until I talk you into a corner and demonstrate your mental inferiority (or until I just wear you down and you get tired of arguing)" vibe. Their behavior is not "perfectly polite" though they may be good at framing it that way.

 

Again, I am NOT pointing to one particular person here. I do think such behavior deserves moderation, preferably self-moderation but if people can't manage that then community moderation. I'm not sure however what the best way to word a relevant guideline would be. Be polite and kind in expressing your opinions should cover it in my mind but I'm not sure that works for everyone.

 

Yes.

[jeninok]

Since one can not control the actions of others, it is generally best just not engage with people that simply drive you crazy.

 

ETA: I feel like you have given personal history and identifiers while speaking of a particular poster. Frankly this seems to be on the verge of a coyingly thinly veiled personal attack. People reporting for civil disagreements by people they simply dislike is part of the problem here.

[Callie]

Yes, but people are now posting about other boards this suspected person has been on.  That's kind of...stalkerish? I have no idea who is being talked about, but it feels kind of like gossip to point out one particular person and name other boards they've been on. As for being perfectly polite, again I have no idea who is being talked about (and I'll admit I'm dying of curiosity) but some people do consider being blunt as being polite because they are not lying and just putting the truth out there without dressing it up.  I'm not saying brutal honesty is always the route to take, but what is impolite to one person is not necessarily impolite to another. 

Not stalkerish at all.  I have been on boards w/ her for many many years.  She has used the same name.  And to be honest she has been argued with here with some of the same posters who argue with her else where. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Yes, but people are now posting about other boards this suspected person has been on.  That's kind of...stalkerish? I have no idea who is being talked about, but it feels kind of like gossip to point out one particular person and name other boards they've been on. As for being perfectly polite, again I have no idea who is being talked about (and I'll admit I'm dying of curiosity) but some people do consider being blunt as being polite because they are not lying and just putting the truth out there without dressing it up.  I'm not saying brutal honesty is always the route to take, but what is impolite to one person is not necessarily impolite to another. 

 

And I think this is what makes the mods' job so difficult. There are going to be people who see someone's posting style as offensive and rude, no matter how polite their words are, and they're going to report report report. But there are going to be other people who simply see that person as being blunt and "enjoying the dialogue." How can the mods sort that out? Their only option is to remove posts by that person because they're being reported repeatedly.

 

I can think of a couple of people like this, on both sides of the political/religious fence. 

[Scarlett]

Oops bias against Atheist.  I'll go correct.

 

 

Darn there goes my theory.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Since one can not control the actions of others, it is generally best just not engage with people that simply drive you crazy.

 

If people could do that, we wouldn't need mods! I wish more posters could take that tack, but it seems to not be realistic--on any message board I've ever been on. 

[mommymilkies]

Not stalkerish at all.  I have been on boards w/ her for many many years.  She has used the same name.  And to be honest she has been argued with here with some of the same posters who argue with her else where. 

For the sake of not hurting a board member's feelings in being not so secretly calling them out, can we drop it?  I'm just going to assume it's not me since I am not on the SL boards, but it would hurt my feelings if it were.  It's turned a constructive thread into gossiping. You presumed a lot on Sadie's words that that's who she was talking about.  There's a big difference between examples that show where improvement can be made by moderators and pointing fingers. 

[jeninok]

Hopefully some sort of warning will come about for those who constantly report things they just don't like, rather than actual rule violations.

[Callie]

And I think this is what makes the mods' job so difficult. There are going to be people who see someone's posting style as offensive and rude, no matter how polite their words are, and they're going to report report report. But there are going to be other people who simply see that person as being blunt and "enjoying the dialogue." How can the mods sort that out? Their only option is to remove posts by that person because they're being reported repeatedly.

 

I can think of a couple of people like this, on both sides of the political/religious fence. 

This is what I was getting at, but didn't do a very good job of it.  I was just making the point that I do believe some posters are reported more and it begins to look like there is a bias with moderators.  Especially if you are the one being reported.

 

I also think that in some cases there is a history and that makes some trigger happy with the report button.

[Callie]

For the sake of not hurting a board member's feelings in being not so secretly calling them out, can we drop it?  I'm just going to assume it's not me since I am not on the SL boards, but it would hurt my feelings if it were.  It's turned a constructive thread into gossiping. You presumed a lot on Sadie's words that that's who she was talking about.  There's a big difference between examples that show where improvement can be made by moderators and pointing fingers. 

Dropping it, but just to be clear I like the poster and was NOT calling her out.  

[mommymilkies]

Dropping it, but just to be clear I like the poster and was NOT calling her out.  

Gotcha.  I just think she should be here when she's being talked about.  Feels awkward to me.

[SKL]

For the sake of not hurting a board member's feelings in being not so secretly calling them out, can we drop it?  I'm just going to assume it's not me since I am not on the SL boards, but it would hurt my feelings if it were.  It's turned a constructive thread into gossiping. You presumed a lot on Sadie's words that that's who she was talking about.  There's a big difference between examples that show where improvement can be made by moderators and pointing fingers. 

 

I agree with not hurting another boardie's feelings, but the other part of me would love it if the person (as well as some others) did some self-examination beyond "they hate me because I believe ___."  FTR I believe s/he wants to contribute positively to the community.  There might be a better way to do so.

 

What this has to do with moderation?  In a one-off situation, perhaps the mods could give people suggestions for better self-moderation.  But I think when there is a clear pattern of instigation, even in a polite voice, some accountability is appropriate.

[SKL]

Gotcha.  I just think she should be here when she's being talked about.  Feels awkward to me.

 

This is why some folks (not me) feel the existence of private social groups is awkward.  Perhaps there should be a rule against talking about non-SG-members on private social groups?

 

In the present case, someone could always PM the person and inform that s/he is being discussed.

[mommymilkies]

I agree with not hurting another boardie's feelings, but the other part of me would love it if the person (as well as some others) did some self-examination beyond "they hate me because I believe ___."  FTR I believe s/he wants to contribute positively to the community.  There might be a better way to do so.

 

What this has to do with moderation?  In a one-off situation, perhaps the mods could give people suggestions for better self-moderation.  But I think when there is a clear pattern of instigation, even in a polite voice, some accountability is appropriate.

Perhaps instead of pointing to one person, we can all recognize that this is not exclusive to one member. 

[SKL]

Perhaps instead of pointing to one person, we can all recognize that this is not exclusive to one member. 

 

Right.  I didn't provide any identifying info.  Probably nobody knows who I am talking about since this is not an exclusive problem.

 

[mommymilkies]

This is why some folks (not me) feel the existence of private social groups is awkward.  Perhaps there should be a rule against talking about non-SG-members on private social groups?

 

In the present case, someone could always PM the person and inform that s/he is being discussed.

But what about people IRL or elsewhere?  What if we need to talk about our mothers (Narcissistic Parents survivor SG)?  Is it just about board members? Calling out people publicly is a bit more embarrassing and hurtful than private thoughts. I'm sure everyone has not so kindly thoughts about someone sometime.  

[maize]

Sigh. How about a rule that says "Thou shalt not post in an arrogant tone that persistently stresses how very Right and Reasonable are your viewpoints and correspondingly how very Wrong and Invalid are the viewpoints of anyone who disagrees."

 

We have so many great discussions with such a wide variety of thoughts and opinions and viewpoints.  Maybe some people learned debating tactics in a competition team or a courtroom where maintaining a friendly atmosphere isn't a priority. I don't know. Maybe they just need some pointers--you know, start your statements with something like "from my perspective..." or "my belief is..." rather than "x is the correct and logical interpretation/point of view".
 

[maize]

Or just follow Covey's recommendation: seek to understand, then to be understood. (and being understood doesn't mean beating your point into someone with repeated strikes from a sledgehammer :p  )

[SKL]

But what about people IRL or elsewhere?  What if we need to talk about our mothers (Narcissistic Parents survivor SG)?  Is it just about board members? Calling out people publicly is a bit more embarrassing and hurtful than private thoughts. I'm sure everyone has not so kindly thoughts about someone sometime.  

 

I agree with you, I think we all need to vent, but that also means that sometimes it's going to be someone you like on the receiving end.  At least if the mods are able to read and moderate, it is less likely to get out of hand.

[unfrumpable.]

And I think this is what makes the mods' job so difficult. There are going to be people who see someone's posting style as offensive and rude, no matter how polite their words are, and they're going to report report report. But there are going to be other people who simply see that person as being blunt and "enjoying the dialogue." How can the mods sort that out? Their only option is to remove posts by that person because they're being reported repeatedly.

 

I can think of a couple of people like this, on both sides of the political/religious fence. 

 

Why should mods have to sort that out? Not to you specifically, but does no one here ever deal with people they don't care for face-to-face? Why shouldn't a person handle online interactions the same way? Walk away, be civil, ignore the person, engage, etc. If someone chooses to engage face-to-face as well as online, they need to be prepared to have their feelings hurt. It happens and I think most of the time it is unintentional. If someone chooses to engage and gets hurt because there are those who don't agree with them, well, I don't think they need a mod to come around and wipe their tears and hand slap the other person.

 

I am pretty blunt, honest, and not very tactful face-to-face as well as online. I have had people in face-to-face interactions who have approached me at a later time and said they were hurt by the way I phrased things. I usually apologize, as it is not my intent. I just don't see being honest and straightforward as being rude. I know I certainly prefer people to be honest and straightforward with me.

 

If things degenerate into flat out name calling, then yes, someone should step in. I assume in face-to-face settings that someone would step in as well to try to get things calmed down and those engaged should take a break to calm down as well. Not nice things do get said in the heat of the moment. It is my opinion that just as one's spoken word cannot be erased, the offending posts should not be deleted. It is also my experience that after calming down many people will come back, apologize for their heated words, and be able to continue the discussion in a somewhat civil manner or at least move on and not bring that topic up again for a while.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Perhaps instead of pointing to one person, we can all recognize that this is not exclusive to one member.

Sure. This is where the inability to self moderate collides with a lack of self awareness. And we all suffer from this from time to time, I'm sure. If a poster cries foul, repeatedly, and believes herself to always be the slighted one, but in reality simply lacks awareness of how she is coming across, the way to mend that is with moderation that specifically outlines, according to clearly expressed board rules, what is inappropriate about the post(s). Generally speaking, I notice persistence being a problem that could be solved easily by adhering to the rule of not insisting on the last word. But, again, that takes control on one person's part in a two sided spat.

[Jane in NC]

I am now going to out myself as one who has reported posts.  Spam mostly, but I have reported posts that I feared the poster might regret. These posts are usually in violation of the "no spouse bashing" rule and could be something that affects legal outcomes. 

 

While I believe in self moderation, some people in anger or hurt post things which should not be aired in public.  I do see the need for the "report" function because the Internet is not the anonymous world that some think it is.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Sigh. How about a rule that says "Thou shalt not post in an arrogant tone that persistently stresses how very Right and Reasonable are your viewpoints and correspondingly how very Wrong and Invalid are the viewpoints of anyone who disagrees."

 

We have so many great discussions with such a wide variety of thoughts and opinions and viewpoints.  Maybe some people learned debating tactics in a competition team or a courtroom where maintaining a friendly atmosphere isn't a priority. I don't know. Maybe they just need some pointers--you know, start your statements with something like "from my perspective..." or "my belief is..." rather than "x is the correct and logical interpretation/point of view".

 

We already have rules that cover that:  (cut and pasted from the community guidelines)

 

Be humble 

Post your opinions and your experiences, but remember that other families may have different experiences than yours and may reason their way with impeccable logic to different conclusions. Posts which "lay down the law" may be deleted.

 

Be civil 

Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style. Above all, resist the one-liner subject-header put-down. Nasty cracks will be deleted.

 

Think Before You Post 

The posts on this forum are available for all the world to see. If you don't want all the world to see what you have to say, don't post it. We are not likely to remove a thread/post because you later regret writing it. If you are all fired up about something, take a walk or have a cup of tea before posting something you will regret.

 

Don't insist on the last word 

Some disagreements will result in a draw. Be willing to let a thread end on someone ELSE'S opinion. "Last words" which have no purpose other than to assert that, after all, you're REALLY right, will be deleted.

[AMJ]

:iagree:

 

(Can you tell I'm out of likes again? :))

 

This does remind me of something I've been wondering about:  What kind of strain do the likes put on the overall system?  Would our hosts feel it helpful to include in the community guidelines some basic information on how and when to like?  I have not yet hit my limit on likes in any day (as far as I recall), but that's probably because I usually can't resist responding even more to the conversation in a more wordy format.  :sheepish grin:

[SKL]

Well, I think it is an interesting question:  is *instigating* something that should be moderated?

Keeping in mind that we do not know whether or to what extent that behavior has actually been moderated.

 

I would love it if we as adults were able to walk away / ignore rather than respond to an instigator to the point that the conversation goes to the dogs.  I do try.  I'm sure most of us do.  Yet things do get pretty ugly at times.  And this tends to be a two-way street.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Or just follow Covey's recommendation: seek to understand, then to be understood. (and being understood doesn't mean beating your point into someone with repeated strikes from a sledgehammer :p )

LOL, yes! Sometimes I just think... You can't possibly think you are going to sway this person. People hear your point. They understand it. They just do not agree. You can not make someone agree with you through repetition!

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Sigh. How about a rule that says "Thou shalt not post in an arrogant tone that persistently stresses how very Right and Reasonable are your viewpoints and correspondingly how very Wrong and Invalid are the viewpoints of anyone who disagrees."

 

I'm going to make this my signature. 

[Callie]

Why should mods have to sort that out? Not to you specifically, but does no one here ever deal with people they don't care for face-to-face? Why shouldn't a person handle online interactions the same way? Walk away, be civil, ignore the person, engage, etc. If someone chooses to engage face-to-face as well as online, they need to be prepared to have their feelings hurt. It happens and I think most of the time it is unintentional. If someone chooses to engage and gets hurt because there are those who don't agree with them, well, I don't think they need a mod to come around and wipe their tears and hand slap the other person.

 

I am pretty blunt, honest, and not very tactful face-to-face as well as online. I have had people in face-to-face interactions who have approached me at a later time and said they were hurt by the way I phrased things. I usually apologize, as it is not my intent. I just don't see being honest and straightforward as being rude. I know I certainly prefer people to be honest and straightforward with me.

 

If things degenerate into flat out name calling, then yes, someone should step in. I assume in face-to-face settings that someone would step in as well to try to get things calmed down and those engaged should take a break to calm down as well. Not nice things do get said in the heat of the moment. It is my opinion that just as one's spoken word cannot be erased, the offending posts should not be deleted. It is also my experience that after calming down many people will come back, apologize for their heated words, and be able to continue the discussion in a somewhat civil manner or at least move on and not bring that topic up again for a while.

I agree.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Why should mods have to sort that out? Not to you specifically, but does no one here ever deal with people they don't care for face-to-face? Why shouldn't a person handle online interactions the same way? Walk away, be civil, ignore the person, engage, etc.

 

The mods have to sort it out because it seems that some people simply CANNOT do exactly what you're saying. Personally? I can and do. I've never reported a post that wasn't spam in my life. But clearly there are other people who are reporting posts, and the mods are the ones who have to make the decisions about those reports. We're talking a lot here about what posters should and shouldn't do, but the bottom line is that people are still going to take offense when there's none intended and run and complain to "mom" about it. 

[justasque]

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.

 

I think this is an excellent, important suggestion.  I do this when I moderate a group I own, and I think it helps cut down on "the mods just hate people who think like me" concerns, especially if the examples are carefully crafted to include both points of view, as they were in goldberry's post.  I also try to point out when I'm making a judgment call that it is such, but I kind of show where the messy line is, if that makes sense.  So I'll say something like "Attendance at political rallies can be very educational, especially for teens.  However, because our group is so diverse, posting information about upcoming rallies can be seen as promoting a particular candidate, which we do not allow here.  This group has members from all across the political spectrum.  We are all homeschooling families in <our area> and this group works best when we focus on the things we have in common.  Generally speaking, please don't post info about political rallies.  I will make an exception for appearances by the President or presidential candidates, but only if the posts are carefully written specifically for this group, with the diverse audience in mind, and focus on the facts about attending the event, rather than forwards of pro-candidate emails."  In this example, I've explained that the line is fuzzy (we talk about education but this crosses the line), reminded them about the group's diversity, reminded them about what we have in common, restated the rule, and given examples about what is ok and what is not.  It somewhat takes the focus away from the original offending post, and gives guidance for moving forward.  I usually add a blurb that if people have questions they can contact me privately.  It works well, and the group as a whole has gotten better over the years at avoiding problematic posts, in part I think because of restating the rules and giving examples.

 

 

[Critterfixer]

Yet another good reason for the mods to insert the rule broken right into the post that they have to delete. I would very much like to see that a post has been removed not for snarky tone, but for violating rule so-an-so, which would then give the rest of us an alert as the the proper manner in discussion.

I try--and as a rule I don't think I get too emotional that often, but I would be grateful for the reminder now and then.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here's the moderator's problem, I think.  Technically, a moderator could use those community guidelines and shut down every single post that belabors a point.  But, as you know, people are constantly posting on this board and points get belabored all the time (see any of the threads about shopping carts, crockpots etc?!).  So does the moderator allow each person to post their view one time and one time only?  How do they find the time to count to see if someone is belaboring something?  Sometimes it is painfully obvious when there is a back and forth between two people and that is usually when someone reports it and then it is moderated because usually that back and forth degenerates into name calling as well as belaboring.  At that point I think that the moderator to be fair should delete both people's posts except for their original point.  But then that would be extremely time consuming.  (Which it probably is already.)

[justasque]

We already have rules that cover that:  (cut and pasted from the community guidelines)

 

Be humble 

Post your opinions and your experiences, but remember that other families may have different experiences than yours and may reason their way with impeccable logic to different conclusions. Posts which "lay down the law" may be deleted.

 

Be civil 

Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style. Above all, resist the one-liner subject-header put-down. Nasty cracks will be deleted.

 

Think Before You Post 

The posts on this forum are available for all the world to see. If you don't want all the world to see what you have to say, don't post it. We are not likely to remove a thread/post because you later regret writing it. If you are all fired up about something, take a walk or have a cup of tea before posting something you will regret.

 

Don't insist on the last word 

Some disagreements will result in a draw. Be willing to let a thread end on someone ELSE'S opinion. "Last words" which have no purpose other than to assert that, after all, you're REALLY right, will be deleted.

These are the kind of well-written reminders that the moderators can/should cut-and-paste into their moderation.  We already have them, but they need to be repeated in the threads where the issue they address is becoming a problem.

[Alte Veste Academy]

These are the kind of well-written reminders that the moderators can/should cut-and-paste into their moderation. We already have them, but they need to be repeated in the threads where the issue they address is becoming a problem.

Yes, and hopefully this done consistently would lessen report-level occurrences, because people will learn that the rule will be enforced and because knowing that everyone is familiar with the rule allows someone embroiled in a conflict to walk away by bending to the rule rather than to the other poster. Maybe posters could walk away by citing the rule themselves!

[goldberry]

We already have rules that cover that:  (cut and pasted from the community guidelines)

 

Be humble 

Post your opinions and your experiences, but remember that other families may have different experiences than yours and may reason their way with impeccable logic to different conclusions. Posts which "lay down the law" may be deleted.

 

Be civil 

Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style. Above all, resist the one-liner subject-header put-down. Nasty cracks will be deleted.

 

Think Before You Post 

The posts on this forum are available for all the world to see. If you don't want all the world to see what you have to say, don't post it. We are not likely to remove a thread/post because you later regret writing it. If you are all fired up about something, take a walk or have a cup of tea before posting something you will regret.

 

Don't insist on the last word 

Some disagreements will result in a draw. Be willing to let a thread end on someone ELSE'S opinion. "Last words" which have no purpose other than to assert that, after all, you're REALLY right, will be deleted.

 

Those are great "how to participate with civility in a discussion board" guidelines.  But to me, those aren't really clear "Rules" as far as what will be tolerated and what will not be tolerated. I need to go read more...

 

To me rules would be:  No purposely inflammatory language, no namecalling (which would include blanket namecalling to entire groups of people), no personal attacks on posters (to weed out the Duggars being attacked situations) etc.

[albeto.]

We already have rules that cover that:  (cut and pasted from the community guidelines)

 

Be humble 

Post your opinions and your experiences, but remember that other families may have different experiences than yours and may reason their way with impeccable logic to different conclusions. Posts which "lay down the law" may be deleted.

 

Be civil 

Don't attack another poster's background, religious convictions, experience, or parenting style. Above all, resist the one-liner subject-header put-down. Nasty cracks will be deleted.

 

Think Before You Post 

The posts on this forum are available for all the world to see. If you don't want all the world to see what you have to say, don't post it. We are not likely to remove a thread/post because you later regret writing it. If you are all fired up about something, take a walk or have a cup of tea before posting something you will regret.

 

Don't insist on the last word 

Some disagreements will result in a draw. Be willing to let a thread end on someone ELSE'S opinion. "Last words" which have no purpose other than to assert that, after all, you're REALLY right, will be deleted.

 

The problem with these guidelines, in my opinion, is that they are highly subjective and impossible to define and regulate. 

 

Be humble. How does one identify "humbleness?" Who should be the judge of this humbleness? It appears that as it stands now, the most sensitive posters, the ones who report, are the ones who make this judgement call. Posting to appease to the most sensitive posters on board is a difficult, if not impossible goal to maintain, much less enforce. If someone finds a post lacking in humbleness, why not ignore it? 

 

Be civil. Apparently, civil tones aren't enough if part of the problem is proposing ideas that make others uncomfortable when presented in a civil way. How is civility to be defined, anyway? What qualities fall outside the parameters of civil? Again, the most sensitive posters, the ones doing the reporting, are the judges of this. 

 

Think Before You Post. This is a thought crime at best. How can a moderator know if a poster thought out a point long and hard before posting it, of if it was an impulsive thought? That's an awkward rule that really cannot be defined or implemented. I can't tell you how many times people assume to know my thoughts when interpreting my comments. I can't tell you how wrong they can be. 

 

Don't insist on the last word. This gets tricky too when people respond and new details are brought up. Is that having the last word, or is that addressing someone's comment? If the devil is in the details, should those details be ignored? Why aren't those new details considered breaking the rule? Who's word should be considered the legitimate last one?

 

These all appear to me to be code words for Don't Annoy Too Many People, or Don't Irritate The Moderator. The logic behind these rule is inherently flawed. Not only are these things completely and utterly subjective, but they target the Most Irritating Poster. The problem is, there will always be a The Most Irritating Poster to each person, including each moderator. As awkward and weird as I found the recent cloak and dagger style commentary about "some poster," it really seems to me to boil down to asking the moderating team to keep the board free from being a place that supports unpleasant ideas. Eliana spoke about the value of providing an environment in which thoughts, ideas, and comments are free to be exchanged, so I won't belabor the point. But I will let this serve as a shout-out to her post, in addition to my "like." 

[unfrumpable.]

The mods have to sort it out because it seems that some people simply CANNOT do exactly what you're saying. Personally? I can and do. I've never reported a post that wasn't spam in my life. But clearly there are other people who are reporting posts, and the mods are the ones who have to make the decisions about those reports. We're talking a lot here about what posters should and shouldn't do, but the bottom line is that people are still going to take offense when there's none intended and run and complain to "mom" about it. 

 

Hmm... that makes sense. So, perhaps the issue isn't necessarily with how the moderation is done, but with those who "tattle" too much?

 

Though I do agree with many of the suggestions in this thread.

 

I don't really post much on the main chat board. I like to go there if I have a question that I want a lot of different opinions on. Or, like I said, I may step into a controversial topic and add a snarky comment or two which definitely does not lend itself to being constructive and is mostly done for my own amusement.

 

I'm still thinking and processing everything that has happened within the past week.

[Alte Veste Academy]

The problem with these guidelines, in my opinion, is that they are highly subjective and impossible to define and regulate.

 

Be humble. How does one identify "humbleness?" Who should be the judge of this humbleness? It appears that as it stands now, the most sensitive posters, the ones who report, are the ones who make this judgement call. Posting to appease to the most sensitive posters on board is a difficult, if not impossible goal to maintain, much less enforce. If someone finds a post lacking in humbleness, why not ignore it?

 

Be civil. Apparently, civil tones aren't enough if part of the problem is proposing ideas that make others uncomfortable when presented in a civil way. How is civility to be defined, anyway? What qualities fall outside the parameters of civil? Again, the most sensitive posters, the ones doing the reporting, are the judges of this.

 

Think Before You Post. This is a thought crime at best. How can a moderator know if a poster thought out a point long and hard before posting it, of if it was an impulsive thought? That's an awkward rule that really cannot be defined or implemented. I can't tell you how many times people assume to know my thoughts when interpreting my comments. I can't tell you how wrong they can be.

 

Don't insist on the last word. This gets tricky too when people respond and new details are brought up. Is that having the last word, or is that addressing someone's comment? If the devil is in the details, should those details be ignored? Why aren't those new details considered breaking the rule? Who's word should be considered the legitimate last one?

 

These all appear to me to be code words for Don't Annoy Too Many People, or Don't Irritate The Moderator. I will admit I have the impression of the moderating team getting rid of posts for the purpose of stopping the "nagging," but I'd be happy to know if I'm wrong. Anyway, the logic behind these rule is inherently flawed. Not only are these things completely and utterly subjective, but they target the Most Irritating Poster. The problem is, there will always be a The Most Irritating Poster to each person, including each moderator. As awkward and rude as I found the recent cloak and dagger style commentary about "some poster," it really seems to me to boil down to asking the moderating team to keep the board free from being a place that supports unpleasant ideas. Eliana spoke about the value of providing an environment in which thoughts, ideas, and comments are free to be exchanged, even when some find them unpleasant. I think her point was well made, and I think these moderation rules illustrate how hard it is to provide an environment for the purpose of enriching home educators when so many of these frustrations are simply subjective in nature.

As to the bolded, it is hard to ignore when the posts keep coming, with more and more hubris added each time.

 

Before I share the following, I would like to say that, to my recollection, I have reported one post in all my years here (on and off since 2008), and that was a curriculum/service provider hawking wares and tearing down competitors. But no, it is not only the most sensitive people here doing the judging. The reporting? Probably. Or maybe not simply the sensitive but also those with a strong affinity for rules and fairness. But everyone here sees and judges, in their own way. Many of us sit idly on our hands while watching forum rules broken, myself included. Doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we are not sick to death of it.

 

I like these boards. They are generally a very pleasant place, and I do think moderation helps keep it that way. I completely disagree that the rules seem to want to shut down unpleasant ideas.

[TeacherZee]

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 should have been clearer. What I mean is that a poster who misuses the reporting feature should be warned and then banned if they persist. Of course for this to work we need clear guidelines of when to report.

[wendyroo]

As to the bolded, it is hard to ignore when the posts keep coming, with more and more hubris added each time.

 

It might be hard to ignore, but as you earlier pointed out...

 

And no one can derail a thread alone. It takes someone on the other side engaging, repeatedly. It takes two to tango.

 

[maize]

Those are great "how to participate with civility in a discussion board" guidelines. But to me, those aren't really clear "Rules" as far as what will be tolerated and what will not be tolerated. I need to go read more...

 

To me rules would be: No purposely inflammatory language, no namecalling (which would include blanket namecalling to entire groups of people), no personal attacks on posters (to weed out the Duggars being attacked situations) etc.

I tend to agree that somewhat specific rules with examples may be needed.

[Alte Veste Academy]

It might be hard to ignore, but as you earlier pointed out...

Exactly, and as I said in the above post, I do tend to ignore. Should people walk away if someone is persistently getting on their last nerve? Sure. But she asked generally why people don't and that is why. There are those who tango and get the thread shut down. And there are those who report and maybe get posts deleted, maybe get threads shut down, but maybe they avoided the tango. LOL And then there are the posters who will never be the one to drop it and walk away.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Sigh. How about a rule that says "Thou shalt not post in an arrogant tone that persistently stresses how very Right and Reasonable are your viewpoints and correspondingly how very Wrong and Invalid are the viewpoints of anyone who disagrees."

 

We have so many great discussions with such a wide variety of thoughts and opinions and viewpoints.  Maybe some people learned debating tactics in a competition team or a courtroom where maintaining a friendly atmosphere isn't a priority. I don't know. Maybe they just need some pointers--you know, start your statements with something like "from my perspective..." or "my belief is..." rather than "x is the correct and logical interpretation/point of view".

 

 

I was once part of a group training for overseas living.  The instructors had a mantra that each story offered in the class represented "one person's experience in one country at one point in time." 

 

I think that there is a similar attitude to bring to homeschooling discussions (not to mention the chat threads about extended family, work, church or neighborhoods).  There are discussions where absolutes can be discussed (such as the legal requirements for homeschooling in a particular state), and a lot more where "it depends" has to reign (like the relative merits of math and reading programs, the benefits of Advanced Placement or dual enrollment classes, and all kids of curriculum recommendations.  Signature lines can help (sometimes).  But there are so many discussions that start with a question or problem, then object to responses because they don't take into account the special situation that wasn't presented in the original post.

 

No one has time to monitor all of the posts across all of the forum.  We all have different experiences on the boards.  The post that has me fretting for hours may well go completely unnoticed by the bulk of the board.  I frequently see posters with post counts in the thousands that I don't remember encountering before.  That isn't to disparage them, but simply to say that the board is a big place and our paths hadn't crossed (at least that I'd noticed).