Moderation, Yep, It's long. 2007-09-29

Moderation, Yep, It's long.

I started to respond to this in the thread it came from, and realized i was derailing a discussion of mod selection with bigger concepts that are only tangentially related. I'll post it here for now, and find a better, more public place for it later.

ilikemonsters:

KatieJ:
Discussion is good - to a point. I remember many instances where it took more than 5 rounds of email to communicate to a member that they had violated a part of the AUP and/or forum rules. The ranting (and that's what it was, not discussion) was because the member didn't like the rules that were in force when they joined the site. I'm sorry, but I think that's excessive. I don't think anyone has the right to throw tantrums because the site isn't doing what they want - and there's evidence of that many times as well.

Oh jeez! More than 5 rounds of email is pretty excessive. I guess my persuasive argument kinda falls apart without the assumption that people will be at least somewhat rational.

I think there's a world of difference between hashing and rehashing someone's already-occurred sanction, and having open, inclusive discussions of moderation as a concept. One is akin to arguing with the drunk guy as to why, no, he cannot have yet another drink to spill on the patron next to him. The other is like comment cards, focus groups, and "how can we serve you better" surveys. I trust we're all smart enough here to know which is dumb, and which has value.

The problem, as i see it, is that the latter are being treated as the former, and increasingly so of late. Any sign of dissension is shouted down, any question is seen as challenge, and gets the ever-popular party lines of "vote with your feet" or "you agreed to these rules, you need to suck it up".

I'll speak for no one but myself. I absolutely agreed to the rules around here, and on those occasions when i'm told "hey bigmouth, back it up. You're veering dangerously close to bad touching here, and that's not ok", i'm the first to say fine. Fine, because i know where the line is, and whether i like it or not, i agreed to colour inside the lines. I don't get timed out. I do occasionally get warned, and i do, even more rarely, get deleted. There are ways to be vociferous, passionate, and even combative without violating. It would probably serve a lot of people some real good to learn how to do that, and to learn what violating really means. We'd likely have fewer complaints about flaming, and subsequent moderating, if they did.

Meanwhile - i understand it's really hard to entertain that voiced dissension and challenge to the status quo when one's inundated with it. It's really hard to respond rationally, objectively, and open-mindedly when someone's screaming the dissension in your face. I know. I've had customers stand in the center of my shop screaming about the salesclerk that sold the item they had on hold in error, and WHAT THE FUCK AM I GOING TO WEAR TO MY WEDDING NOW YOU BASTARDS I WANT HIM FIRED. I'm not firing anyone, and i'm not dealing with you when you're screaming obscenities. Absolutely not.

I am, however, more than willing to discuss this with you when you're able. Frustrated and angry's ok, 'cause i get where that's coming from, and when it's my job to serve you, i need to engage with you through that frustration to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Because i want to keep your business, and you just want pretty shoes for your fucking wedding. I get that, 'cause i would too, and i really can help. It's what i'm here for.

It's no different here. It's frustrating when you voice a concern to the salesclerk, and are told we aren't discussing this, because this is the way it is. (It happens. Not with all of you, not all the time, but it happens, and you know it's true). It gets incredibly frustrating when you try to escalate those concerns, responsibly and respectfully, through the channels, and hear the same party line. And speaking of that, where the hell is the customer service rep? Ali? Hello? Is there anyone in there?

And it passes frustrating doing 90, when things get worse, not better, and the responses remain the same. Then it hits anger.

I take offense at the suggestion that those who vehemently express dissatisfaction with the current "rules" are labeled whiny, sour grapes assholes who just have an axe to grind. I welcome the mods to share my sanction history publicly, because it'll be a short discussion. I also encourage them to share their personal feelings, because it'll help negate this ridiculous idea that being friends with mods gets you off the hook. There are a few mods in this thread that don't like me, and several others on the site that don't either. Sanctions are no more a popularity contest than mod selection is, in my experience.

If i fuck up, i get slapped. I get slapped harder by those that are my friends, because how dare i make more work for them. "Smarten the fuck up, you know better", that's what i'd expect. As well i should, because i do.

There are many who challenge "the rules" for reasons not remotely related to being an asshole or a thorn in your side. Some of us do it because THE RULES AREN'T WORKING ANYMORE. The thing with sets of rules, including AUPs, is that they should be evergreen. Living documents that are constantly revisited and revised to reflect the current climate, the current needs, and, to smaller degree, the current wants of those who are expected to live within those rules. Because they are the reason for those rules, and, ultimately, they're the ones who are going to make or break them. They're the ones who drive the business, and i have the distinct feeling that some here forget that, in their frustration to police the rules.

When one tries to question and challenge those rules from within, without stepping outside the rules, and gets smacked down anyway?

You're damned right it moves from concern to frustration to anger pretty fast. When one hears from those administering the rules that it's their call to take responsibility for changes to those rules, it just becomes more logical - and more fun - to bang one's head against the wall until it's bloody, just so one can debate with the stain.

Police officers don't set rules; they enforce them. They certainly make recommendations, when they see that "ticketing people for jaywalking on a street with no cars is kind of dumb", and those recommendations go to those who *are* responsible for changing the rules.

The people, that is, as represented by their elected officials. In a democracy, anyway.

Bcom's not a democracy. That's probably just as well, given the number of poopularity threads around here. Good lord, if the criteria for 'good policeman' was based on 'who's the most fun bobby at parties' (yes, i'm ashamed that i not only used, but know that reference), it'd be anarchy that even the clash wouldn't support. Lord help us.

That doesn't mean i think bcom needs to be a dictatorship either. A benevolent dictatorship makes for a hot relationship. It does not make for a hot forum.

So it's clear, i don't advocate user selection or user nomination (beyond the current system, which i think could stand review) or even user voting in the sense of "if 20 people want this person, we'll do it", because i think that's asking for trouble. It's also impossible to manage, because which 20 get the say?

I do, however, advocate feedback. "These 5-6 people are currently under consideration for moderatorship. **Note: This is not a vote** This is, though, a chance for you users to SANELY AND WITHOUT VIOLATING provide your feedback as to this person's suitability for this forum and for the job at hand. Here are the criteria we use in selecting a moderator (you'd need to be clear in that, rather than the vague 'well they have to be a good citizen' we've heard so far. What makes a good citizen? How active must they be? How recently must they have cleaned up their act?...and so forth). Discuss, debate, don't violate or you're ass'll be in a mexican jail faster than you can say 'flame'."

I also think public announcements to the effect of "welcome these new mods to this forum" are more than a good idea, they're necessary. I found out, quite by accident (and rumour mill) about three new mods in the last month. Others found out later, and others still likely aren't aware. There's no reason to hide that information, so why wouldn't you announce it?

The bottom line is that it makes no sense to argue "the system's in place, you gotta work with the system" when the system's not working, not anymore. That Sam stepped down, having had enough, that KatieJ's now stepping down for much the same reason (not to mention the countless others over time) is a good indicator. That even users that have long supported moderators and the calls they make are now crying foul is an even better indicator.

If you get one guy (or 5) who's been smacked crying victim, order another beer. If you get one guy who's never been smacked saying 'wtf', offer to buy him a beer and shoot the shit, if you've got the time and money, and then go home and bang your wife. If you get 5, wonder what's in the beer, and switch to whiskey. And when you get 30 and 40?

It might be a good time to put the stein down and find out what the hell's wrong with the lines, 'cause somehow, it's souring the beer.