Feedback on moderational policy

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I don't what it has to do with me at all. Anybody saying
> 'and don't let so-and-so misdirect you with their sophistry'
> should be just gone the 2nd time they do it. Nothing like
> that would tolerated for a second on any other mailing list
> or forum I can think of! It's completely ridiculous. The
> only reason to bring me up is because I'm the guy who's
> confronted it in the past. I'll continue to do so, because
> tolerance of such behavior is ultimately the cause of the
> breakdowns you mention. But I'd rather moderators do it,
> because that's their job. -Carl

I was going to discuss this offlist with you, but if this is going to
involve a criticism of my moderational policy, then I think it's all
the better that it is discussed online. I would love to get feedback
from everyone on how they would like to see the moderators handle
situations like these on the list.

I was offered a "position" as moderator on this list because you
wanted to step down, pass the torch, were tired of being constantly
criticized, and because you said you thought I had good judgment. Now
that I'm here, I am going to do my job. This means that I may do
things differently than you did, but I'd be happy to get feedback from
you or anyone else on it.

In this case, I brought you up because I saw a random negative comment
directed towards "Carl" in a thread that had nothing to do with you.
This has happened more than once. I was going to led it slide, but as
you clearly didn't appreciate being randomly attacked out of nowhere,
and as stuff like this from all sides has been getting on my nerves a
lot recently, I thought it best to address it publicly. I don't think
that this list should turn into a source of stress for anyone, or that
anyone should feel depressed about their involvement on it. It has
become crystal clear to me recently that if it weren't for this list's
penchant for random personal attacks, we'd be covering an enormous
amount of ground.

This time, I feel Cam was in the wrong. There are other previous times
where I felt that you were the aggressor. At those times, I would ask
you to stop, which you generally do. Caleb posted a message ragging on
Jon Szanto a while ago, and I politely asked him to stop as well. I
didn't put anyone on moderation or ban anyone, and I am now extending
the same courtesy to Cameron by politely giving him the chance to cut
out remarks like that from his posts. If he refuses and keeps
expressing how he thinks he's of intellectually superior stature than
you, then things will change.

I prefer this because I think that it is humiliating and unnecessary
to just immediately threaten to ban or moderate someone. Everyone gets
heated or bummed out sometimes and posts negative things they later
regret. I think that this is a fact of life that should be predicted
and accounted for in advance when moderating this list. We are adults,
and I think everyone should have the chance to comply with a simple
request to please not resort to personal attacks. If they really just
continue repeatedly with it and refuse to stop, at that point do I
think that it's proper to put them on moderation until they cool off.

If people think that the "ask politely -> warn -> moderate -> ban"
approach is a bad system, I would be happy to do something else.
Whatever I do means that it will apply across the board. It could be
that if Cam posts something negative about Carl and Carl complains
about it, I chastise him publicly by putting Cam on moderation. It
also means that if Carl posts something negative about Cam and Cam
complains about it offlist, I will also put Carl on moderation. Or if
Michael S says something negative about Carl, or if Carl says
something negative about Michael S, or if Paul Erlich rejoins and says
something negative about Jon Szanto, I put everyone on moderation.

I could do that, or I could basically act as a liaison to resolve
tension between people who sometimes clash, and use moderation only if
the aggressor really just refuses to stop. Despite these occasional
clashes, I think that we have an otherwise really nice community here,
and hope we can self-regulate it like adults. If everyone feels this
isn't working, I could do something else.

Whatever everyone thinks, let me know, but keep in mind that the
"rules" bind you too. And I will bind myself by whatever rules we
choose, and will never censor or limit criticism of any part of my
moderation on this forum.

-Mike

Mike,

I've been the moderator of a variety of lists, ranging from groups of
Catholics to Army Rangers, and it's not always an easy job. Thanks for
taking on the task; this list is clearly not an easy one to moderate.

I've found that it's best to let people know the affected parties
(offlist) when you feel that someone has been out of line, and have
steady consequences for getting further out of line.

In this case, you could warn Cameron offlist that you felt his comment
was out of line, cc:ing Carl so he knows that you're taking action.
Don't put it out to the list, and don't allow people to send
meta-conversation out to the list. Just tell Cameron and Carl. If
Cameron continues to make disparaging comments, moderate him and him
alone, rejecting messages that seem out of line. Only unmoderate him
when it seems like he's gotten the point. Similarly, if Carl protests
onlist, he could be moderated as well. The level of meta-discussion is
just way too high.

It seems to me that Carl's not exactly an angel here either. If his
comments are too rude and provocative, you can tell him that and, if
he doesn't lighten up, moderate him as well. Normally I wouldn't
moderate someone just for being brusque, but if it's a consistent
problem then you could use moderation as a tool.

Occasional moderation of individuals allows for people to cool down,
and it reminds them of the fact that their words have consequences.
Moderate someone if they get too heated too quickly perseverate on
some personal issue. Also watch for those who *occasionally* send out
something that appears designed to piss people off. If they send
something once every few weeks, say, they sometimes feel that the
moderator will say, "Hey, cut that out!" but there'll be no real
consequences; then they'll be a jerk again a few weeks later, and the
offended party just has to deal with it. To hell with that. Feel free
to put those people on moderation indefinitely until they can prove
that they're not going to be jerks anymore. I once had a guy on
moderation for almost a year. It was no skin off my nose if his posts
went out more slowly.

You won't satisfy everyone, but it's not your job to satisfy everyone.

I've only had to moderate an entire list once or twice, and I've
banned very few people. It's better, in my opinion, to let people get
away with too much than to talk too little. That said, people should
know that your job is to be the bastard if need be, and that "going
too far" is defined by your perception of the situation, not theirs.
That's the only way you can do your job, after all.

So that's my opinion: Be the bastard! I'm certainly willing to put up with that.

Respectfully,
Jake