Moderation Suggestions?

[AMJ]

I understand.  I hope I didn't offend you.  I just felt that I needed to indicate I personally have found even the religious threads and current event threads to sometimes be really helpful.  Best wishes.

 

Respectfully to all, I agree with the above regarding Chat Board contents.  I have found helpful and enlightening content in the most unexpected threads in the Chat board.  It also serves as a reality check on life in general and a community where I know I can find someone with whom I can raise a question or seek another perspective.  Where I live there is precious little opportunity for such discussions.  The Chat board, in short, helps me feel still connected, and gives me examples of showing the kids that not everyone thinks the same way or believes the same thing.

 

It is in the very nature of what the Chat Board has grown to be that we find many of the issues being discussed here.  And I'm not saying they don't occur in other forums at WTM -- I don't know one way or the other what the case might be -- but they are quite noticeable in the Chat Board precisely because of what the Chat Board is.  (That somehow didn't come out sounding right, but I hope you can tell what I mean?)

 

For issues of thread length and the problems it might cause:  Would it be helpful to have a maximum number of posts for a thread?  This might serve to curb the purely fun-and-game threads' lengths without taking away the playground we so enjoy and apparently need.  Where to set the cap would be an important consideration, as we wouldn't want to cripple a worthwhile discussion by setting too short of a limit.  Perhaps something like 300 posts per thread? 

 

For post and thread deletions -- yes, it is very confusing as to why things might be deleted, and asking us to not ask why only adds to the confusion.  The vast majority of us (IMO) would like to know if we have somehow broken the rules or stepped over the line, so it would be helpful to post something when a thread is locked or PM someone whose post was deleted.  Many of us are sporadic visitors to the WTM forums, checking in when life allows, so warnings or anything else that might have time limits might not be as effective as expected.

 

I guess I'd like to add my vote for:

• a bit more communication as to why actions were taken (when they are taken) by the moderators
• some knowledge of how many moderators there are, what all they have to cover, whether they get paid or recompensed, how they are chosen -- I'd like to better understand their lot
• a user's guide to the forums -- a consolidated place, easy to find, for acronym lists, the community guidelines, basic info on site structure and governance (what is a forum, what is a group, when to contact moderators and how/the role of a moderator, when to contact the administrators and how/the role of an administrator), how we can support the forums -- anything a new user might need to know when starting or users in general might need to refer back to from time to time
• a "pat of the back" button on the button bar so we can anonymously send an indicator of our appreciation to those who make the WTM forums possible -- anonymously so there is no hint of trying to curry favor or receiving it.  Rather similar to ringing a bell at Arby's to tell the crew they did a good job, because we'd like to do just that -- indicate our appreciation from time to time -- with no strings attached in any direction.

 

I'll see if I have more (of worth) to contribute after I eat.  My thoughts and words are scattering.

 

Good thread!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

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.

 

And I have occasionally reported posts that were degenerating into name calling or repetitive last word type retorts.  I don't mean threads where people are being mean to the Duggars. 

 

I also have to keep in mind the XKCD cartoon about someone on the internet being wrong.  It's not my responsibility to clear up every error displayed in every thread.  And on those days I do long for an ignore thread setting. 

[AMJ]

Interesting! I only follow the Education boards, yet the other threads still show up in New Content...

 

I've noticed some inconsistent behavior in the New Content listings, myself, and I don't know if it's user error or a problem. 

 

SWB, sorry to derail slightly, but should an issue such as this be reported through the Contact Us button, or posted in a new thread in Site News & Discussions?

[justasque]

I do think it also helps, when posting to a controversial thread, to remember that you are not only talking to (and sometimes trying to persuade) the people who are posting in the thread, but you are also talking to the lurkers, who far, far outnumber the posters, and who are often more likely to consider your perspective.  Posting with lurkers in mind helps you to avoid knee-jerk reactions, to build your argument carefully, and to avoid insisting on getting the last word in.  

[swimmermom3]

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:

 

I am not sure I see how "likes" would be problematic. It's an easy way of agreeing with a poster or acknowledging a well-written comment. Why take up band-with or whatever rewriting someone's post so you can show support?  You like something or you don't. What guidelines do you feel are needed?  Sometimes a poster will write about a difficult subject and board members will "like" the post. Usually someone will say that it's not that they like what bad thing happened to the OP, but that they are showing their support for their tough time.

 

Now the thread and personal profile star rating systems get abused all of the time. I am not sure many of us would miss them, only the trolls.

 

ETA:  That came out way more harsh than I intended it to.  What I mean is that my only experience of "likes" is fun and appreciative. Is there a nefarious way to use "likes"?

 

[Jane in NC]

Frankly I think that the community guidelines are pretty clear.  It seems to me that some posters enjoy pushing buttons and stretching the boundaries.  Will those people continue to see themselves exempt from more specific guidelines? 

 

One of the issues that I see is that an instigator may not be penalized for her posts but the person who reacts (over-reacts?) is. 

 

And here is another issue:  are some purposefully instigating or are they naive in assuming that the community is like-minded?  It is hard for me to assume the best of intentions for posters who return to controversial subjects repeatedly--but not for open minded discussion.

[Harriet Vane]

I think the moderators are doing fine.

 

I appreciate the freedom this board offers. I don't think that further controls are necessary or beneficial.

 

I also think it's fine to have private sub-groups.

 

Just my two cents.

[AMJ]

I am not sure I see how "likes" would be problematic. It's an easy way of agreeing with a poster or acknowledging a well-written comment. Why take up band-with or whatever rewriting someone's post so you can show support?  You like something or you don't. What guidelines do you feel are needed.  Sometimes a poster will write about a difficult subject and board members will "like" the post. Usually someone will say that it's not that they like what bad thing happened to the OP, but that they are showing their support for their tough time.

 

Now the thread and personal profile star rating systems get abused all of the time. I am not sure many of us would miss them, only the trolls.

 

 

I think we might be misunderstanding one another somewhere.  I don't think we need guidelines developed for using Likes, I just think that perhaps it might be helpful to include in a document that already exists (community guidelines) some basic info on what they are for and how they affect the system.  I assume they affect the system somehow, since there is a cap on them....

 

As for stars -- I haven't got a clue how those are to be used, either, much less how and where to use them.  I think I really could benefit from a general Dummies guide to the WTM forums.  Most of what I do I picked up by just reading posts and responding.  I realize there are functionalities to these forums of which I know little or nothing.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

And here is another issue:  are some purposefully instigating or are they naive in assuming that the community is like-minded?  It is hard for me to assume the best of intentions for posters who return to controversial subjects repeatedly--but not for open minded discussion.

I have seen this as a problem with some new posters who don't realize our group is so diverse.  A gentle reminder to them can probably go far. 

[Critterfixer]

I don't see that the rules need to be more specific. 

If I've violated the bounds of common sense and societal conventions, all I need to know is that I've done it. The responsibility is then up to me to improve my rhetoric, to consider the opinions of others and probably to be less emotionally attached to the topic. I don't need to be called out other than very generally, like the whistle of a lifeguard at a pool. 

If the guideline is posted, that would be like the same lifeguard gently reminding me of what I actually did to get called out. It would be up to me to figure out how I might do things differently.

[texasmama]

Frankly I think that the community guidelines are pretty clear.  It seems to me that some posters enjoy pushing buttons and stretching the boundaries.  Will those people continue to see themselves exempt from more specific guidelines? 

 

One of the issues that I see is that an instigator may not be penalized her for her posts but the person who reacts (over-reacts?) is. 

 

And here is another issue:  are some purposefully instigating or are they naive in assuming that the community is like-minded?  It is hard for me to assume the best of intentions for posters who return to controversial subjects repeatedly--but not for open minded discussion.

Like times 1,000.000.

 

For the record, I have only ever reported blatant spam.  Nothing else.  I do not personally engage with people whom I have placed in the category described above. 

[Matryoshka]

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

 

But I thought that's exactly what the "Ignore" feature was for? 

[AMJ]

It will take me some reflection time to see how to begin to act on the information in this thread, but can I just remark that I'm really touched by how invested many of you are in the boards?

 

Thanks.

 

SWB

 

You started something big, a community, and we love you for it.

[Azalea]

 

And here is another issue:  are some purposefully instigating or are they naive in assuming that the community is like-minded?  It is hard for me to assume the best of intentions for posters who return to controversial subjects repeatedly--but not for open minded discussion.

 

I believe that posters are sincerely trying to persuade the community to consider the facts they are presenting.

 

Take for example vaccination. The anti-vaccine posters will present their experiences, opinions and facts. The pro-vaccine posters will present their experiences, opinions and facts.

 

The community is left to decide which side has made the more valid points. If this kind of discussion is removed from a classical education board that would be a real loss. These are the great debates, this is how we join the great conversation. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think that perhaps one problem is what we perceive as the purpose of this board and threads - even the ones on religion etc.  I view the purpose of the board as being primarily informative and then after that, supportive (as in support group).  So when it comes to controversial threads, I don't see the point in trying to have the last word.  I also don't see the point in actually arguing - even about crockpots.  If someone asks clarifying questions then I think it's fine.  if someone is trying to play "gotcha" then I don't see the point.  I think the community guidelines are absolutely clear.  

[8circles]

Can't quote on my phone but this

"One of the issues that I see is that an instigator may not be penalized her for her posts but the person who reacts (over-reacts?) is. "

 

YES times 1000. If the original offensive statement is OK because it was said politely (which I think is OK) then the equally polite calling-out of the offense should also be OK.

[maize]

I think that perhaps one problem is what we perceive as the purpose of this board and threads - even the ones on religion etc. I view the purpose of the board as being primarily informative and then after that, supportive (as in support group). So when it comes to controversial threads, I don't see the point in trying to have the last word. I also don't see the point in actually arguing - even about crockpots. If someone asks clarifying questions then I think it's fine. if someone is trying to play "gotcha" then I don't see the point. I think the community guidelines are absolutely clear.

I agree. Occasionally I get the impression that some people are just itching to practice their debate skills or something, they will come into a thread that is moving along swimmingly and turn it in a controversial direction.

[MomatHWTK]

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

So, what you are saying is that talking about someone negatively in a thread in which they are not a participant or may not be aware is creating disharmony and should stop?

 

 

IMO, what is happening on this thread is a mirror of the overhanging problem.  Someone opened the door to discussion by selecting and sharing limited facts designed to support a specific premise.  When those facts were then rebutted with additional information, a cry of foul went up.  Thus an attempt was made to maintain the original claim of persecution by shutting down any further sharing of facts by claiming those adding further information are guilty of wrongdoing and should stop.  The fact that moderators on multiple boards have all had trouble with a poster is very relevant to a claim of moderator bias on a single board.  Any attempt to hide that fact is disingenuous at best and points to an attempt at spin in the initial statement of fact.   If someone had not initially chosen to introduced the poster into their victimology narrative, it would never have been necessary for them to be discussed at all.   

 

And therein lies the second problem, having declared the opposition to be "delusional", "ignorant," "crazy" or whatever the catchphrase of the week is, I think it is just very frustrating for some folks to find out that they will be countered when they attempt to bypass fact to maintain their own narrative. 

 

The fact is, some folks debate dirty.  They know how, it may even come instinctually, and they are probably used to winning a lot out in the real world because it is a select skill (most often seen in politics).  Some folks don't want standard socially civil rules to apply because they don't want to be constrained by those rules. 

 

And here is the actual contributory portion of this post:  The WTM board owners will have to decide whether they want to permit full down and dirty debate style discourse on the boards or apply more limiting rules that permit some debate but ask members to observe current social standards of civility.  It is not that one is good and the other bad, but they are very different sets of standards.  And, as a PP mentioned, there are those who chafe at the idea of having to self-censor in order to maintain these civility standards.   Those individuals may very well rail against censorship or a restriction of their freedoms, but the reality is individually owned and maintained boards aren't democracies.  There is no over arching freedom of speech rule that applies to the situation and the choice is accept the rules set by the community owners or not. 

[justasque]

I believe that posters are sincerely trying to persuade the community to consider the facts they are presenting.

 

Take for example vaccination. The anti-vaccine posters will present their experiences, opinions and facts. The pro-vaccine posters will present their experiences, opinions and facts.

 

The community is left to decide which side has made the more valid points. If this kind of discussion is removed from a classical education board that would be a real loss. These are the great debates, this is how we join the great conversation. 

More than that - we are teachers, and these skills are part of OUR education.  The kinds of scientific skills/knowledge shared in vaccine and evolution threads, the kinds of social studies awareness shared in Hobby Lobby and other SCOTUS threads, the kinds of "how to tell if a source is reliable" or "how to analyze an argument to see if it holds up" or "when to be skeptical of statistics" skills - these are critical for teachers to have.  Our children - our students - are better off with a teacher who has this exposure to a group of people who are, collectively, pretty savvy in this stuff, and who can exercise emerging skills, ask questions, and challenge their existing assumptions/knowledge/skills through their participation in the forum.  This is particularly true for Chat Board threads, where the "party line" an individual may be getting from the echo chamber of their like-minded community/media (whether red or blue) can be challenged, sometimes radically so.  

[TeacherZee]

More than that - we are teachers, and these skills are part of OUR education.  The kinds of scientific skills/knowledge shared in vaccine and evolution threads, the kinds of social studies awareness shared in Hobby Lobby and other SCOTUS threads, the kinds of "how to tell if a source is reliable" or "how to analyze an argument to see if it holds up" or "when to be skeptical of statistics" skills - these are critical for teachers to have.  Our children - our students - are better off with a teacher who has this exposure to a group of people who are, collectively, pretty savvy in this stuff, and who can exercise emerging skills, ask questions, and challenge their existing assumptions/knowledge/skills through their participation in the forum.  This is particularly true for Chat Board threads, where the "party line" an individual may be getting from the echo chamber of their like-minded community/media (whether red or blue) can be challenged, sometimes radically so.

 

This. I learn so much from threads where people disagree I think it would be a shame to lose them.

[Alte Veste Academy]

But I thought that's exactly what the "Ignore" feature was for?

I think the ignore feature is great for avoiding posters who routinely raise your blood pressure. (I have never used it, but then generally I don't engage. I've gotten worked up a few times, but I don't think I am a habitual brawler. :tongue_smilie: ) I think it can be an impediment to following a thread though, because when a poster is generally interested in the discussion at hand, it is helpful to read all of the points, if only because part of the discussion doesn't make sense otherwise. And then after a while, wouldn't you be confused about why everyone was getting all worked up? Oh, no...wait...you would know why. LOL I always want to hear both sides of an argument. I just want them expressed with as little condescension, disdain, sarcasm, etc. as possible.

 

Again, I'm not a reporter, and I do ignore, and I think more threads would stay civil if people did ignore the rude, especially the serially rude. But I do think everyone should be held to the same standard.

[Jean in Newcastle]

More than that - we are teachers, and these skills are part of OUR education.  The kinds of scientific skills/knowledge shared in vaccine and evolution threads, the kinds of social studies awareness shared in Hobby Lobby and other SCOTUS threads, the kinds of "how to tell if a source is reliable" or "how to analyze an argument to see if it holds up" or "when to be skeptical of statistics" skills - these are critical for teachers to have.  Our children - our students - are better off with a teacher who has this exposure to a group of people who are, collectively, pretty savvy in this stuff, and who can exercise emerging skills, ask questions, and challenge their existing assumptions/knowledge/skills through their participation in the forum.  This is particularly true for Chat Board threads, where the "party line" an individual may be getting from the echo chamber of their like-minded community/media (whether red or blue) can be challenged, sometimes radically so.  

While I agree in theory, it seems like sometimes the arguments become who can yell the longest and with the most support.  I cringe when someone with a different view than the majority gets piled on.  That isn't using our education.  I think that we can ask questions politely to find out what their view is and then move on.  It seems like people get scared that if they don't pounce on certain viewpoints and just leave it up to people to make up their own minds that others will be sucked into thinking the 'wrong' thing.  

[Unicorn.]

 

 

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

That would be a really bad idea imho.  I think it's a violation of privacy and it would cause people to look for that person's posts, and result in them being reported more often. 

 

 

nm on NWAF's post

[justasque]

While I agree in theory, it seems like sometimes the arguments become who can yell the longest and with the most support.  I cringe when someone with a different view than the majority gets piled on.  That isn't using our education.  I think that we can ask questions politely to find out what their view is and then move on.  It seems like people get scared that if they don't pounce on certain viewpoints and just leave it up to people to make up their own minds that others will be sucked into thinking the 'wrong' thing.  

Which is why we need thoughtful moderation of these threads - to keep the thoughtful debate, and avoid the arguments.

[Azalea]

I agree. Occasionally I get the impression that some people are just itching to practice their debate skills or something, they will come into a thread that is moving along swimmingly and turn it in a controversial direction.

 

The debate skill that offends me is when debaters will not respond to factual refutations of their assertions. Ignoring the valid points made by your opponents at a high school debate is an effective tactic, but is not helpful here.

[MomatHWTK]

In addition to being able to ignore specific threads, I'd like to be able to ignore social groups- even in the new content feed. 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Folks,

 

This thread has been very helpful, but it's starting to get long and unwieldy, and we're starting to revisit the same topics more than once. Sometime this evening, I'll close the thread and ask you to give us a couple of weeks to figure out how to proceed. And I'll be asking for more feedback later, so please don't feel that this will be your only chance to express your thoughts.

 

SWB

[Jean in Newcastle]

The debate skill that offends me is when debaters will not respond to factual refutations of their assertions. Ignoring the valid points made by your opponents at a high school debate is an effective tactic, but is not helpful here.

I disagree.  I don't think these boards are the best place to try and refute "facts".  This is where you get the heated arguments over sources and what is a fact and what is an opinion.  I think you should state your arguments, your sources (if appropriate) and then let the chips fall where they may.  

[maize]

I disagree.  I don't think these boards are the best place to try and refute "facts".  This is where you get the heated arguments over sources and what is a fact and what is an opinion.  I think you should state your arguments, your sources (if appropriate) and then let the chips fall where they may.  

 

I tend to agree with this. Honestly, debate as a frame of reference can be problematic. The discussions I enjoy are the ones where people express and discuss their own point of view and take sincere interest in those of others without the intent or need to win as in a debate, to prove themselves right and others wrong. I enjoy discussing things with people who hold different views; such discussions in my opinion build up the community as a whole and go a long ways towards broadening minds and helping people see and think in new ways. The polarization of "prove I am right" debating has the opposite effect on a community.

[swimmermom3]

I think we might be misunderstanding one another somewhere.  I don't think we need guidelines developed for using Likes, I just think that perhaps it might be helpful to include in a document that already exists (community guidelines) some basic info on what they are for and how they affect the system.  I assume they affect the system somehow, since there is a cap on them....

 

As for stars -- I haven't got a clue how those are to be used, either, much less how and where to use them.  I think I really could benefit from a general Dummies guide to the WTM forums.  Most of what I do I picked up by just reading posts and responding.  I realize there are functionalities to these forums of which I know little or nothing.

 

You are too polite and I am a bit dim. :tongue_smilie:  Now I get what you are saying. I hadn't thought about the cap, which I used up by 3am due to insomnia and this thread.

 

[maize]

I would be in favor of increasing the cap on likes! 

[justasque]

The debate skill that offends me is when debaters will not respond to factual refutations of their assertions. Ignoring the valid points made by your opponents at a high school debate is an effective tactic, but is not helpful here.

I think the key here is to remember that you are often unlikely to change the mind of posters who begin the thread with views the polar opposite of yours.  Again, if I keep in mind that my biggest audience is the lurkers who are following along but not posting, I can usually ignore any lack of satisfactory response by those on the other side of the fence. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

nm on NWAF's post

 

Ugh, are you trying to torture me?! Now I neeeeeed to know!  :tongue_smilie:

[SKL]

OK I hope that nothing I said implies that I have a problem with debate or argument on the chat board.  It is good, and most people know how to do it without ruining things for everyone.  It is OK if it gets a little dicey and people let each other know they are sensitive to certain things etc.  The fact that people are diametrically opposed to each other just adds value, as long as people can express themselves without attacking others personally (politely or otherwise).

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I think the moderators are doing fine.

 

I appreciate the freedom this board offers. I don't think that further controls are necessary or beneficial.

 

I also think it's fine to have private sub-groups.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Ultimately, I agree. We're not going to be able to legislate posters into posting the way we wish they would. We're just not. I don't think the answer to the current situation is to MAKE MORE RULES. Not everyone is going to be comfortable all the time. This isn't our living room. I also don't necessarily think it's right to make Susan spend more money and tie herself and her staff up in knots because we can't play nice. IMO, the discomforts and inconveniences here are all just part of being members of a large, diverse, and free community. If the value provided is enough for you in spite of the annoyances, stay. If the annoyances outweigh the value, then don't stay. There may be a better place to have the discussions you're in search of somewhere else, or you can start that community and make it what you want. And I mean this in the simplest, calmest, most snark-free way possible. There have been times where I couldn't take the attitude here, so I left for awhile. Then I came back. Then I stuck to the education boards. Then I decided that the benefits of being on the chat board outweighed the mental "costs." It is what it is.

 

I also could not care less about what gets said in the private groups. Either it gets said in a private group or it gets said on a private FB group somewhere else. So what? I don't think we need to worry about some sort of hazy "conduct unbecoming of a WTM boardie" standard. 

 

I also don't care about the moderator situation. I'd almost rather not know who the mods are, so I don't know who to be annoyed at (if I get annoyed at them, which is rare). There has been speculation in the past that they are forum members. If that's the case, I'd rather not know, and I'd rather other people didn't know so they can't be targeted in some way if they try to use the forums the way the rest of us do. (I also often think their smackdown comments are funny--maybe that's just me.)

 

There have been lots of good suggestions here, but in the end I think that we're all just going to end up back at square one, because there are too many people and too many personalities to manage here. And I'm completely fine with that. 

[AMJ]

You are too polite and I am a bit dim. :tongue_smilie:  Now I get what you are saying. I hadn't thought about the cap, which I used up by 3am due to insomnia and this thread.

 

 

Not at all, your response helped me state what I was trying to suggest more clearly.  The past week or two has seen trauma hit our family (death of a loved one), and while I posted on that a day or two ago it is only today, and mostly with this thread, that I am starting to get back into the forums.  As I read through this thread I realize that something appears to have happened while I was gone, something that seems to have had a strong impact and was at least in part responsible for this thread being started.

 

Everyone, please don't start responding here to tell me what I missed.  This thread is not the appropriate place, and as far as I can tell the information would have little or no sway in whatever feedback I might give to SWB here, as per her original post.

 

But do realize that not everyone involved in this conversation shares the same knowledge, experience, or perspective.  Also, some of us are short on sleep, and rather distracted by matters external to these forums. 

 

Again, sorry for the aside, SWB, but it kept niggling in my mind to clarify my assumptions and lack of knowledge of recent events.

[Aiden]

Ultimately, I agree. We're not going to be able to legislate posters into posting the way we wish they would. We're just not. I don't think the answer to the current situation is to MAKE MORE RULES. Not everyone is going to be comfortable all the time. This isn't our living room. I also don't necessarily think it's right to make Susan spend more money and tie herself and her staff up in knots because we can't play nice. IMO, the discomforts and inconveniences here are all just part of being members of a large, diverse, and free community. If the value provided is enough for you in spite of the annoyances, stay. If the annoyances outweigh the value, then don't stay. There may be a better place to have the discussions you're in search of somewhere else, or you can start that community and make it what you want. And I mean this in the simplest, calmest, most snark-free way possible. There have been times where I couldn't take the attitude here, so I left for awhile. Then I came back. Then I stuck to the education boards. Then I decided that the benefits of being on the chat board outweighed the mental "costs." It is what it is.

 

I also could not care less about what gets said in the private groups. Either it gets said in a private group or it gets said on a private FB group somewhere else. So what? I don't think we need to worry about some sort of hazy "conduct unbecoming of a WTM boardie" standard. 

 

I also don't care about the moderator situation. I'd almost rather not know who the mods are, so I don't know who to be annoyed at (if I get annoyed at them, which is rare). There has been speculation in the past that they are forum members. If that's the case, I'd rather not know, and I'd rather other people didn't know so they can't be targeted in some way if they try to use the forums the way the rest of us do. (I also often think their smackdown comments are funny--maybe that's just me.)

 

There have been lots of good suggestions here, but in the end I think that we're all just going to end up back at square one, because there are too many people and too many personalities to manage here. And I'm completely fine with that. 

 

Even on those occasions when I've felt that a moderator was rude, my impression was that they were trying to get the point across while being humorous. After all, "funny" is kind of a characteristic of PHP--don't we all love laughing at their Facebook posts? The problem is that, especially when delivering a "haha, just kidding ... but not really" reprimand, sometimes the humor falls flat.

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Even on those occasions when I've felt that a moderator was rude, my impression was that they were trying to get the point across while being humorous. After all, "funny" is kind of a characteristic of PHP--don't we all love laughing at their Facebook posts? The problem is that, especially when delivering a "haha, just kidding ... but not really" reprimand, sometimes the humor falls flat.

 

 

 

But so what? Some people find it funny, some people don't. It's usually a one-line, off the cuff, throwaway comment. Who is it hurting, really? There are humans behind the mod mask. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. No one is perfect.

[wellread]

I just had an idea.  Maybe the Original Poster (OP) of a thread could be the "owner" and first line "moderator" of that thread. 

 

The OP would have functions only she (or he) could do on a thread:   She could end a thread (lock it), or push a button that says something like "This post is offensive/off-topic/totally unhelpful" on a small, limited number of the comments. 

 

When the OP clicks on that button on a particular post, a dialogue box could come up which explans that this button is NOT to be used to let a poster know that the solution/idea/etc isn't that helpful-- but to let a poster know they have stepped way over the line into rudeness/hostile argumentativeness/way off topic/derailing the discussion/etc.   (My definition, label, and wording are clearly in the "needs work" category of this first brainstorming attempt-but I hope some of the idea is coming across.)

 

It could become board etiquette to stop posting to a thread if the OP tags your comment in this way.  Such "tagging" could also could get forwarded to the board moderator who could ignore and wait to see what happens, or step in and intervene as now.

 

Anyone could still report posts to the moderator if the post is really offensive. 

 

If a thread gets going off in another direction (which is one of the great/horrible things that can happen in a thread), someone could start a new thread and folks could jump over to the new thread to continue the discussion on the new tangent.  And whoever started the tangent thread would be the OP and the owner of the new tangent thread.  And if people really wanted to discuss the tangent, they would jump over to the new thread.

 

This would allow for the existence of threads with differing degrees of 'civility' and argumentativeness, etc, depending on the Original Poster's desire/tolerance.

 

Upon reflection and discussion, this might turn out to be a horrible idea.  Or it could be a good idea that can't be done.   One problem I can see immediately is that it might be hard or impossible or expensive/time consuming to implement in the software.

 

 

edited for spelling... hope I didn't miss more 8-|

[Aiden]

But so what? Some people find it funny, some people don't. It's usually a one-line, off the cuff, throwaway comment. Who is it hurting, really?

 

I didn't say it was really hurting anyone, and I didn't object to them doing it. But I was trying to acknowledge that to the person on the receiving end of the smackdown, and possibly to others who don't see why the smackdown was done, it can be perceived as snark rather than humor. Earlier in this thread--or maybe it was the "Where's Sparkly Unicorn" thread; I'm not sure--several people were saying that the moderators were rude and condescending and violating the same rules they were deleting posts for violating. I simply offered an explanation that they may have been trying to soften the situation a bit with humor, but to those who were being smacked down, there wasn't anything humorous about it.

 

So I guess maybe I do object a little--if the moderators are going to use humor in their comments, they should be extra careful to ensure that the humor will get across. Maybe that isn't the right context for humor, and they should go for professionalism there, because it can be difficult to distinguish humor from snark in those situations, and snark isn't particularly compatible with the atmosphere the moderators are trying to establish and maintain.

[ErinE]

I'd rather if the mods remained anonymous, too.

I agree. I'm concerned it becomes easy for members to dismiss. "Such and such moderator always deletes X posts therefore that moderator is biased." I also see it as an avenue to attack specific moderators. The board has had anonymous moderators since I've joined, and I haven't seen a problem. I've seen people from both sides of an issue chastised for controversial posts.

 

I've assumed PHP selects moderators based on their ability to enforce PHP's policies equally. Is there another avenue, beyond the moderators themselves, to make a complaint if a member feels the moderation is unequal?

[Mnemosyne]

Susan, another thought - maybe create a specific board for debates with very clear, specific rules over how debates should go? It would allow people interested in debating to go there and specifically debate, while leaving other threads free of that if that's not what the topic starter had in mind (i.e. a thread about a personal issue wouldn't turn into a debate).

[Alte Veste Academy]

Susan, another thought - maybe create a specific board for debates with very clear, specific rules over how debates should go? It would allow people interested in debating to go there and specifically debate, while leaving other threads free of that if that's not what the topic starter had in mind (i.e. a thread about a personal issue wouldn't turn into a debate).

Hmmm. Separate the Chat Room in two? Interesting! Say The PHP Cafe and The Rumpus Room? :tongue_smilie: Then an offended OP could simply declare to a poster, "Ma'am, this is not The Rumpus Room." :lol:

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Susan, another thought - maybe create a specific board for debates with very clear, specific rules over how debates should go? It would allow people interested in debating to go there and specifically debate, while leaving other threads free of that if that's not what the topic starter had in mind (i.e. a thread about a personal issue wouldn't turn into a debate).

Hmmm. Separate the Chat Room in two? Interesting! Say The PHP Cafe and a Rumpus Room? :tongue_smilie: Then an offended OP could simply declare to a poster, "Ma'am, this is not The Rumpus Room." :lol:

 

I actually love that idea. Rumpus Room :lol:

[texasmama]

Susan, another thought - maybe create a specific board for debates with very clear, specific rules over how debates should go? It would allow people interested in debating to go there and specifically debate, while leaving other threads free of that if that's not what the topic starter had in mind (i.e. a thread about a personal issue wouldn't turn into a debate).

Another board I am a member of has this feature, and it gives the folks who love to debate a place to do so while the other folks can steer clear.  The rules are a bit different in that part of the board.

[8filltheheart]

Hmmm. Separate the Chat Room in two? Interesting! Say The PHP Cafe and The Rumpus Room? :tongue_smilie: Then an offended OP could simply declare to a poster, "Ma'am, this is not The Rumpus Room." :lol:

That is an interesting idea. I won't venture into the chat room now bc I have enough conflict IRL--I do not need to go in search of it or face it for beliefs. But a chat room that was simply friendly chatter would entice me. :)

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

That is an interesting idea. I won't venture into the chat room now bc I have enough conflict IRL--I do not need to go in search of it or face it for beliefs. But a chat room that was simply friendly chatter would entice me. :)

 

Although...then we run into, "What is friendly chatter?" Are Duggar-related topics just friendly chatter? What's to stop them from spiraling down? Is asking for advice for a friend whose DH has left their religion and wants the wife to do so too friendly chatter, or is it debate-board-worthy? I mean, if we can ruin topics like crockpots and shopping carts (or buggies), where will the line of demarcation be? 

[Azalea]

I think the Rumpus Room is a clever idea. New posters might not know ahead of time that a topic like cupcakes may make people go to war, so being able to move a thread easily would be very nice. 

[maize]

I actually love that idea. Rumpus Room :lol:

I like this idea as well :)

[Azalea]

Although...then we run into, "What is friendly chatter?" Are Duggar-related topics just friendly chatter? What's to stop them from spiraling down? Is asking for advice for a friend whose DH has left their religion and wants the wife to do so too friendly chatter, or is it debate-board-worthy? I mean, if we can ruin topics like crockpots and shopping carts (or buggies), where will the line of demarcation be? 

 

I think the examples you have listed, if you have been on this board for even a year, are clearly ones that are known to be controversial. But being able to move threads to the Rumpus Room would solve the problem.