Moderation Poll

[Pale Rider]

I’m not sure that ‘dislike’ could be used with the same nuance.

It's not mean't to be.

I suggested 'dislike' purely as the opposite of 'like', but 'disagree' would probably be better.

No nuance, just 'I think that post is garbage'.

 

[newfhouse]

Maybe we could co-opt one of the like smileys.

 

[mjr]

Seeing as we may have a reprieve for NACA, albeit hidden away in an extra site. Do you think we need moderators?

Yes because there are at least a dozen ways it could become a zoo without them.

If you want unmoderated discussion, go play on Usenet. Never heard of it? That's because the lack of moderation has pretty much killed it, or at least killed the desire of many people to keep online good web interfaces to it.

However, I don't really agree with either of the "Yes" options either. I think we need simpler rules than Cyclechat's NACA (and PCA before it) but I think we need a bit more than just dealing with illegal material and the various "-isms". The options above seem like a forced choice between something which has failed repeatedly and a minimalist alternative which will fail in a different way.

Primarily, I suggest we ban any discussion of other posters: no telling people what they think, what they are, what they would do in a given situation, and so on. Discussing their actual actions or the ideas they put forwards is fine, but discussing them is not. If someone posts excerpts of Mein Kampf or similar (managing to shoehorn it on-topic somehow), then you may say that you think it's a racist text, that it's wicked to share it, and so on, but you may not start speculating whether the poster is a racist.

And I would like it if we could consider some of the more innovative ideas from the last NACA thread, such as anonymising all posts (with author identities only visible to moderators) and whatever else it was.

I suggest we consider the e-democracy forum rules, summarised as this:

• Real Names — OK, we'll have to modify that to be post as your CC name...
• Limits on Posting — Two per member per day in most forums.
• Keep Topics within Forum Purpose — Local issues on a local forum for example.
• Be Civil — No name-calling. Respect among citizens with differing views is our cornerstone.
• No Attacks or Threats — This keeps the forums safe. If content is illegal it will be forwarded to the proper legal authorities.
• Private Stays Private — Don't forward private replies without permission.
• Avoid False Rumors — Asking for clarification of what you've heard in the community can be appropriate if issues-based. You alone are responsible for what you post.
• Right to Post and Reply — Sharing your knowledge and opinions with your fellow citizens is a democratic right.
• Items Not Allowed in Forums — No chain letters, etc.
• Public Content and Use — You are sharing your content forever, but retain your copyright.
• Warnings — You may receive informal or official warnings from the Forum Managers.
• Suspension — With your second official warning in one year, you are suspended for two weeks. It goes up from there.
• Appeals Process — You can appeal a warning(s) once you receive a third warning and six month removal. Rare appeals are not received most years.

Moderation might be heavy-handed and often unnecessary but it should be swift and low-workload. Rather than having moderators discuss most edits while the offensive content stays on show inflaming the situation, I would let them act first and log their actions for other moderators to review, with maybe some anonymised stats being shared occasionally so that members can hopefully learn what types of behaviour is causing problems and seek to avoid it.

 

[mjr]

Maybe we could co-opt one of the like smileys.

In the past, there were other symbols on CC. It was possible for a short while to call another member a spanner, for example. I think that was added as a thank-you for mechanical help by someone maybe unaware that some people use "you spanner!" as an insult.

 

[newfhouse]

Limits on Posting — Two per member per day in most forums.

That would kill the more conversational threads stone dead. It doesn’t sound attractive at all.

Moderation might be heavy-handed and often unnecessary but it should be swift and low-workload.

Low workload or not, who is going to volunteer for duty? It’s all very well saying there should be rules, with firm but fair (or even arbitrary) application, but who - with the qualities required - is willing and able to dedicate themselves to the role? Can we have a show of hands…?

 

[classic33]

Yes because there are at least a dozen ways it could become a zoo without them.

If you want unmoderated discussion, go play on Usenet. Never heard of it? That's because the lack of moderation has pretty much killed it, or at least killed the desire of many people to keep online good web interfaces to it.

However, I don't really agree with either of the "Yes" options either. I think we need simpler rules than Cyclechat's NACA (and PCA before it) but I think we need a bit more than just dealing with illegal material and the various "-isms". The options above seem like a forced choice between something which has failed repeatedly and a minimalist alternative which will fail in a different way.

Primarily, I suggest we ban any discussion of other posters: no telling people what they think, what they are, what they would do in a given situation, and so on. Discussing their actual actions or the ideas they put forwards is fine, but discussing them is not. If someone posts excerpts of Mein Kampf or similar (managing to shoehorn it on-topic somehow), then you may say that you think it's a racist text, that it's wicked to share it, and so on, but you may not start speculating whether the poster is a racist.

And I would like it if we could consider some of the more innovative ideas from the last NACA thread, such as anonymising all posts (with author identities only visible to moderators) and whatever else it was.

I suggest we consider the e-democracy forum rules, summarised as this:

• Real Names — OK, we'll have to modify that to be post as your CC name...
• Limits on Posting — Two per member per day in most forums.
• Keep Topics within Forum Purpose — Local issues on a local forum for example.
• Be Civil — No name-calling. Respect among citizens with differing views is our cornerstone.
• No Attacks or Threats — This keeps the forums safe. If content is illegal it will be forwarded to the proper legal authorities.
• Private Stays Private — Don't forward private replies without permission.
• Avoid False Rumors — Asking for clarification of what you've heard in the community can be appropriate if issues-based. You alone are responsible for what you post.
• Right to Post and Reply — Sharing your knowledge and opinions with your fellow citizens is a democratic right.
• Items Not Allowed in Forums — No chain letters, etc.
• Public Content and Use — You are sharing your content forever, but retain your copyright.
  [B[
• Warnings — You may receive informal or official warnings from the Forum Managers.
• Suspension — With your second official warning in one year, you are suspended for two weeks. It goes up from there.
• Appeals Process — You can appeal a warning(s) once you receive a third warning and six month removal. Rare appeals are not received most years.[/B]

Moderation might be heavy-handed and often unnecessary but it should be swift and low-workload. Rather than having moderators discuss most edits while the offensive content stays on show inflaming the situation, I would let them act first and log their actions for other moderators to review, with maybe some anonymised stats being shared occasionally so that members can hopefully learn what types of behaviour is causing problems and seek to avoid it.

Most of that was done on the other site, which you disliked because the reaction wasn't instant or the way in which it was done wasn't to your liking.

Those last three won't apply if there are no mods on here. And should a single mod make a decision, act on that decision and it's over ruled by other mods. Content removed and then replaced.

You may have noticed the lack of a report button on here. How do you plan on reporting something you don't like?

 

[Shaun]

Perhaps we need a 'Like', 'Agree', 'Dislike', 'Disagree', 'Trolling' buttons....agree with the ambiguity of 'like' alone.

They are called reactions in the software and can be changed if everyone wants something different here. I'd suggest a maximum of seven for practical reasons in terms of screen/device layout, but it's up to you folks.

 

[mjr]

That would kill the more conversational threads stone dead. It doesn’t sound attractive at all.

Two, four, whatever. Anything to stop one member bombing every thread in a forum and posting contradictions every time they've not got the last word.

And isn't this site to discuss news? If you want a conversation with someone, use private messages.

Low workload or not, who is going to volunteer for duty? It’s all very well saying there should be rules, with firm but fair (or even arbitrary) application, but who - with the qualities required - is willing and able to dedicate themselves to the role? Can we have a show of hands…?

I think it's a bit early to seek volunteers. First, we should figure out what we're asking them to volunteer for. I'd be willing to do some moderating (as I have on other sites in the past) with fairly simple rules, but I'd not be willing to spend the huge amounts of time reportedly needed to moderate according to CC rules.

Most of that was done on the other site, which you disliked because the reaction wasn't instant or the way in which it was done wasn't to your liking.

I think that is an incorrect summary, both in what was done and my view of it. The above is a great example of why discussing other members — especially telling them their views — should be banned.

You may have noticed the lack of a report button on here. How do you plan on reporting something you don't like?

1. I have never reported something merely because I don't like it.
2. I assume the lack of a report button is another software setting which could be changed.

 

[Milkfloat]

Low workload or not, who is going to volunteer for duty? It’s all very well saying there should be rules, with firm but fair (or even arbitrary) application, but who - with the qualities required - is willing and able to dedicate themselves to the role? Can we have a show of hands…?

I would be willing to volunteer for a ‘light touch mod’, I.e. stopping the serious transgressions like racism, sexism and true bullying as opposed to an inability for someone to make their case. I would not want to get involved in petty squabbles between posters, I would just let the thread die out or just lock it, temporary bans for major transgressions. My goal would be for this place to be slightly tougher than CC and if people cannot behave even with moderation then it turns into a complete zoo and the naysayers on the main CC site are proven correct.

 

[Milkfloat]

They are called reactions in the software and can be changed if everyone wants something different here. I'd suggest a maximum of seven for practical reasons in terms of screen/device layout, but it's up to you folks.

I think a dislike or don’t agree would be of huge benefit - get rid of the face with sunglasses to make way for it. Rather than a poll, if you like this suggestion then hit the like button, if you don’t like it then give me the guy with sunglasses.

 

[classic33]

Two, four, whatever. Anything to stop one member bombing every thread in a forum and posting contradictions every time they've not got the last word.

And isn't this site to discuss news? If you want a conversation with someone, use private messages.


I think it's a bit early to seek volunteers. First, we should figure out what we're asking them to volunteer for. I'd be willing to do some moderating (as I have on other sites in the past) with fairly simple rules, but I'd not be willing to spend the huge amounts of time reportedly needed to moderate according to CC rules.


I think that is an incorrect summary, both in what was done and my view of it. The above is a great example of why discussing other members — especially telling them their views — should be banned.


1. I have never reported something merely because I don't like it.
2. I assume the lack of a report button is another software setting which could be changed.

Your opinion, and my opinion both valid. However to say that you had no problems with slow moderation would be incorrect.

As for the report button or the lack off, it was more a question of the 10 - 15 daily reported posts, you referred to more than once, and the speed at which action was taken. No way of reporting posts, no action to be taken.

 

[newfhouse]

Two, four, whatever.

Is the forum software capable of this? Either way I think a hard limit is undesirable and could be gamed, a bit like PMQs.

And isn't this site to discuss news? If you want a conversation with someone, use private messages.

Discussion, conversation, whatever. It’s often to and fro or the slight meander that makes a thread. PMs are not the same thing at all.

I think it's a bit early to seek volunteers.

That wasn’t my intention. What I was trying to illustrate was the difficulties we/Shaun will face in finding even a couple of suitable people to make it work.

 

[Banderill]

Not a fan of a hard limit on posts per day. Where's the fun in that? Removes the spontaneity.

Maybe add a poll option for "Wait and see ..." ?

 

[mjr]

Is the forum software capable of this? Either way I think a hard limit is undesirable and could be gamed, a bit like PMQs.

I've no idea if the software is capable. Of course it can be gamed, like anything, but I feel the fall-out of that game are better than people gaming unlimited posting by sitting on the site all the time posting bickering replies to every disagreeing post or by setting up bots to do it.

Discussion, conversation, whatever. It’s often to and fro or the slight meander that makes a thread. PMs are not the same thing at all.

One person's "to and fro" is what the CC rules called excessive "chattiness".

One person's "slight meander" is what the CC rules called "thread spoiling" and "derailing".

That wasn’t my intention. What I was trying to illustrate was the difficulties we/Shaun will face in finding even a couple of suitable people to make it work.

If we get the rules correct and the software isn't clunky, I don't think there will be difficulty getting enough volunteers. I've long felt that the main site made hard work of that in a couple of ways. The difficulty will be picking the right volunteers from the pool.

 

[mjr]

I think a dislike or don’t agree would be of huge benefit - get rid of the face with sunglasses to make way for it. Rather than a poll, if you like this suggestion then hit the like button, if you don’t like it then give me the guy with sunglasses.

Would it be simply 👎 or something else? And I think dislike and disagree are different meanings, so we should probably pick one and I'd go for disagree because I could disagree with a post but still appreciate it was posted.

I'd probably ditch laugh, love, sad and wow. Keep hugs because some negative stories really feel odd to "like".

Should minor reports use the reaction system too, maybe with 🛂 (the border/passport control sign) used to indicate you think a moderator should check the post, or would it deter too many people from reporting posts? It would notify the author and give them a chance to reconsider it (assuming we are eventually allowed to edit our posts - see https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/edit-facility.12/ ) I think there still has to be confidential reporting for the worst shoot, though.