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.
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 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:
Once someone has participated in a thread, they are more likely to have an emotional involvement that can cloud their impartial judgment.
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.
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.
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.
People sometimes state opinions as if they are facts.
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.
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.
