Open Discussion of Moderation Policy

As you may have seen, public discussion on moderating decisions on a site I admin was polarising and detrimental. But the idea of requesting self editing as an alternative to deletion seems OK if mods could find time.

Mods editing comments would be an absolute deal breaker for me on further participation.

But what about clarity on rules? Is there a statement somewhere on the PS site that explains the aims, rules and guidelines? If there isn’t, would it be too much trouble to produce one? If there is, where is it?

I think the slow mode is not fit for purpose. Why is it thought necessary? What is it intended to do, precisely?

How is thread-splitting supposed to work?

Pre-moderation is surely unnecessary for users once they have established a track record. I find it very off-putting and I fail to see any benefit to PS. Maybe pre-moderation can kick in where a user refuses to comply with mod requests.

Like Tim, not sure what this means.

Anyway, I’ve chipped in with a few suggestions. A rules page, getting rid of slow mode, getting rid of pre-moderation by default, confusing thread splits. I’m done. You only got this because you asked for it. :slight_smile:

4 Likes

I take your statement to mean that moderation policy is not only inconsistent, but that it’s intentionally inconsistent. I don’t think that’s a good policy.

3 Likes

It has been a while, but this is (in my memory) one of the latest statements we have had regarding norms of communication on this website. As far as I know we have never invalidated these rules, and I still use them as a guideline in moderating.

1 Like

Well, that’s helpful. Is it feasible to make the statement more accessible to forum users?

2 Likes

To see if I can REALLY dig myself a hole, let me get back to those things I skipped before … :wink:

Topic splitting IS heavy handed, but not as heavy as shutting things down completely. Ideally it let’s both discussions continue, or one to continue minus distractions.

I don’t split threads as often as other mods, and when I doI try to give some warning or notice. Sometimes that notice is enough to kick a topic back on track.

I’d like to remind everyone that splitting a topic doesn’t really require moderator privileges; You can quote appropriate text, copy it and use it to start a new thread, then post a link to your new thread in the old one. If more people did this, mods wouldn’t need to.

That’s fair. This would still fall back on moderator discretion if the OP doesn’t remain active in the discussion.

There was some talk about granting privileges for members to curate topics. That might take the heat off moderator to manage certain threads.

I think this used to be pinned to the top for all users, but then for some reason it was disabled after a while. Now that there are some newer users, I think we could enable it again, @swamidass?

Which statement do you want pinned?

This one: An Update about Peaceful Discourse

1 Like

I’d have to question if “shutting things down completely” was the major alternative. In most cases, the reason for splitting is the discussion going off-topic, which would not generally seem to rise to the level that requires this. This is particularly true where the split-off topic is closely related to the original topic.

Except that in many cases, discussion on the original/titled topic (or the immediately-previous off-topic) has ceased, leaving the old topic moribund.

Given that this method (which I would refer to as ‘starting a new topic’ rather than splitting a topic) lacks the potential for disruption inherent in splitting using moderator tools, it is non-problematical.

This potential for disruption is particularly apparent where either the thread has already wandered onto multiple topics (either serially or in parallel) or where the split isn’t performed with sufficient care. This can result in posts relating to the original (or even a third) topic being included in the split, or posts related to the split topic being left behind. In the worst cases it can lead to you having to search for posts in different topics in order to follow a conversation (as the split results in the thread of conversation pin-balling backwards and forwards between the two).

Whilst this would not constitute an argument against ever splitting (an argument I would not make), I would suggest it is an argument for being more cautious and careful about doing so.

1 Like

Update: My comments have been well received and there will be some new moderator tools to aid communications in the next release.

@swamidass: another suggest was to turn on Whispers so that mods can have hidden discussion within a thread.

1 Like

Should I do that? It’s a one way street.

Yes, but we should discuss how to use them. They should be related to management of that thread and splits. Treat them as comments that might become public in the future (because future mods will see them, at least). Anything needing private discussion ought to be a private thread.

We could also do this publicly, allowing members to see the decision process and comment, which might help transparency.

AND I remembered an old trick - we used a hashtag on all public moderation comments to make it easy for other mods to search for them. Whispers might need a hashtag too.
#PSmods
#fnord

Very true. Also you might accidentally click the wrong button and make them public. So it is critical that even private communications about difficult people remain professional.

I’ll enable the option soon.

1 Like

I appreciate that good moderation is hard, and that hard-working but imperfect humans are involved in the process. Overall, I think the PS moderation team is doing pretty well.

One policy that would be useful, IMO, would be to bar any moderator that has substantively participated in a thread from also moderating it. The suggested policy would prevent two kinds of problems:

  1. Once someone has participated in a thread, they are more likely to have an emotional involvement that can cloud their impartial judgment.
  2. The reading public’s perception of impartial moderation would be lost if a substantive participant also moderated. Here’s an analogy: In the U.S., judges are required to recuse themselves if there’s a plausible appearance of conflict of interest, even if a judge correctly believes they can remain impartial. Better to recuse oneself and to keep the courtroom, a forum for argumentation, free from even the appearance of bias. Similarly, the policy of “if you participate you must not moderate” would help keep the moderation of the PS forum clear of any accusation of bias.

My $.02,
Chris

5 Likes

That’s a good idea too. We try to do this already, but it bumps into trouble when a given mod is the only one online to approve comments. Approving comments isn’t the problem of course - it’s the not approving or other actions, which is where our communications are breaking down, I think.

We need to get better at recognizing conflicting interests, real or apparent. Better transparency would help.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

I’ve been chewing on this for a while for how to best respond. Replying to Steve and Tim, but intended for all …

This is the reality of moderating an online community. I faced the same problem of consistency moderating an atheism community. There were didn’t have the problem of balance with theism, but we still enforced rules of respectful discussion for all. Here we have an Apples & Oranges situation between different worldviews - there is no equivalence, and a moderator can only make a judgement call. Judgement calls are hard, and someone is generally left unhappy about it, including the moderator.

Enforcing respectful discussion offers more room for improvement.

  1. People sometimes state opinions as if they are facts.
  2. Others argue against opinion as if it were fact.

This is what I’m getting at with “the wrong argument”. The first may be a false premise, and the second is accepting a false premise as the basis of argument. This is where people start talking past each other and the argument goes south. It’s not so much a moderation issue as it is an education issue for the desired tone of community discussion (also a responsibility of the mods).

As for who decides, anybody can ask for clarification of what another meant. Mods not following a discussion aren’t even likely to spot the opinion/fact confusion as comments are approved. I’d like to see a lot more users taking the initiative to good discussion instead of taking the bait to argument, and this is not the first time I’ve tried to get the point across.

Good moderation is (IMO) primarily a matter of educating people to the expectations of the community. When users understand the expectations, the mods don’t need to make so many tough judgement calls.

With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan: a moderator’s job is not an 'appy one.

Ahh. :slight_smile:

The issue then is in the way that it was worded, not the substance. I have no problem with people correcting false premises. When you said “the wrong argument” I thought it sounded like ‘arguments you should not be arguing about’, which had me concerned.

I think we all need to be careful to distinguish between what we can prove, which would be the only things meriting the label “fact”, what we think we know (e.g. things that we half remember reading some weeks or months ago, but may be a bit fuzzy on the details), which we should either check ourselves or ask others if they can confirm, and what we believe.

1 Like