There has been a lot of conversation about staff moderation of late and as one of “them”, I’d like to offer some things to consider.
First, having to ‘moderate’ any post or thread isn’t something that any staff member looks forward to. This may come as a surprise, but it’s the truth. No one on staff looks forward to deleting posts or locking threads.
What appears as ‘inconsistent’ moderation is actually forebearance. We do our best to not interfere with a thread or a post until it is either an obvious violation of guidelines or has devolved into a contest of who can toss out the last slur.
‘Judgement Calls’ - the grey areas. We may see that two members who have a long standing relationship are trading good natured barbs. We leave that alone. But one of those members may have a long standing disagreement with another member and the exchanges are anything but good natured. We may choose to ‘moderate’ one and not the other. Depending on you POV, this may appear inconsistent, but it is in fact our personal understanding of specific relationships. Are we always right? Of course not. We’re about as perfect as everyone else in the membership.
Having visited with all active moderators, I am assured that all have good intent. It doesn’t make any of us perfect, but each does their level best to ‘not moderate’ as much as is possible.
So what is the perfect solution to moderation? It’s very simple. None. Of course, that means that every member is willing to take responsibility for moderating their own posts.
So do all the moderators a big favor. Make our jobs easy. Look at your own posts before hitting the submit button. Disagree with any idea you like, but don’t demean the person who posted that idea. Civility may be vastly over-rated, but it is essential in an open forum such as ILP.
I think that you do a lot of what I’m suggesting. You will break in an ask questions about what’s going on and whatnot. That’s a lot different than just deleting stuff.
When you remove posts you remove an event or a happening. That has nothing to do with reality. Personally, I find that disgusting. No one can gauge the importance of what is being said or what others can gain from a stupid discussion.
The fact is that there are several people here that I used to find both stupid and annoying, but now enjoy and like. That was the result of working through some fights. I’m glad that they weren’t stopped for our own good, because that would not have been really good, but just a perception about what was good.
I put forth the challenge that if any of the mods can beat the posters in a seemingly troubled thread then they can close that thread. That is directly in line with the spirit of the site.
I completely agree D only a certain kind of person can be insightful enough to be a mod, and I’m not sure that I have ever met that person. Meanwhile, people that lack insight will not identify themselves because they can’t and that’s why good intentions are reported.
Quite liked the abstract argument myself Adler, very poetic, and in some cases, quite correct.
Does seem to gloss over the quality of insults/opinions being thrown around though.
There is a mile of blue-water between trading well thought out and cutting gibes, in devastating prose, with just calling someone a fucking retard or a noxious toad ad-infinitum… Don’tcha think…? Call me egotistical, but even a lowly word-monger like myself can guage that the importance of those situations quite adequately.
I agree. But I also think that if a post is JUST an insult to the person (that’s in the rules anyway), then that post doesn’t contribute to the thread at all and should be deleted.
If you’ve ever noticed one of your posts deleted, but nobody else did, then the moderators did a good job with it (assuming the post was just a worthless insult and nothing else).
A person hears something that they never heard before. It shocks them. They respond:
You are an asshole and a crazy one at that!
Person B: Really, so you think that I’m an asshole. Why dickweed!
Person A: Because you said such and such and it hurt my feelings.
Person B: Alright, let me explain it one more time. So…
Person A: Oh, I never thought of that before.
In this stupid example we can see that the “asshole” post was very important to Person A understanding what Person B meant. It doesn’t always work that way, but we really need to find out if it does and when that will be we really don’t know.
A person hears something that they never heard before. It shocks them. They respond:
You are an asshole and a crazy one at that!
Post is deleted, unless in Mundane Babble perhaps. Moderator marks the post as deleted so that others can see what has been done and the moderator can be held accountable. Moderator PM’s the poster and says that is the third time I’ve had to delete your post, one more time and you will be banned for a month. All the other people who have been offended by such a poster but have remained silent are relieved to no longer have to deal with such an idiot. That person finds another site where assholes gather freely spreading his/her brand fucked up conversation. All are happy.
The problem is with the moderator, and the values and insight within which he or she is able to operate, and how those values reflect whatever ben is trying to achieve.
Let them post in MB. Or find another site. Or ben should find another moderator. A site should define itself. Unfortunately, the authenticity of the moderator seems to be central in this.
Then let it be in Rant or Mundane, unless the ethos of it is deemed to affect the site itself. It comes down to the quality of “mind” of the moderator, and how that quality reflects whatever ben wants to promote. The mean spiritedness here though is absurd, and infectious. It drowns out any possibility of conversation at times. It seems to me though that it is promoted by specific individuals, at specific times, and that if those individuals were addressed, the middle-grounders would express themselves differently. I recall once the quiet humorous yet biting Gamer let loose his barbs on a first time poster in the Philosophy section who had the temerity to state that he was asking a “serious” philosophical question. Needless to say, Gamer defended himself by saying something to the order of “that’s the way it is here, he better get used to it”. Needless to say that poster was never heard from again. Well, it doesn’t’ have to be that way here, at least not in every section at every moment. In the end the question is what do you want ILP to be?
No small part of the dilemma is that we are all addressing our remarks to a persona. To be sure, there has to be a real live person attached to that persona, but for anyone to suggest that they ‘know’ anything about the actual person is BS. That is true for ALL of us. We are responding to words. Whether those word ‘match up’ with the real person behind them is at best, guessing. This makes it even more important to maintain cilvilty in our dealings with one another.
Is shock language a useful way to generate an insight? It certainly can be. But the question should be, is an internet forum the appropriate venue for such conversation? Too many of the normal face-to-face ‘cues’ in communcation simply aren’t present. All we have, and all we are in ILP is words, and there is a bit more to all of us than just words.
As a moderator, I know that there is more to each member here than just words, but words are all I have to go by in making those ‘judgement calls’ on the limits of civility. Civility by my definition? Yes. Absolutely. But there isn’t anyone in this forum who would have any more than their own sense of ‘appropriate’ to go by.
I can only guess, but much of the tension we see in the forums wouldn’t exist is a face-to-face discussion at your favorite pub. As ‘real’ as ILP appears, there is an artificiality that exists as well. It would appear that we sometimes forget that.
Actually, that’s the exact reason that I took so long to register and post after being a long time visitor. I also think that that type of attitude is self-perpetuating, because what happens is only people like that are willing to join the forums (not entirely, but it happens to some degree).
Not to sound like a shit disturber, or maybe Dr. S, but I don’t buy this… not entirely.
Why did you become a mod? I can’t figure out for the life of me why someone would want to do that… lol… oh a philosophy site, but I assume it’s to make the site a better place right? So in that case… you DO look forward to moderating as you look forward to changing the site, ridding it of whatever unnecessities you feel are such.
Such is the paradox I felt when I first considered ‘the mod’… To achieve your goal, you must tread through the ‘dirty’ waters, but you do it none the less… willingly.
To this extent… I suppose I gotta applaud those of you that try. I certainly reserve the right to complain however.
I think he or she moderates best who moderates least. Free exchange, even occasionally rude and boorish exchange, is what makes this site what it is. After repeated warnings, ban someone if you must. But locking and deleting things willy nilly cuts the beating heart out of ILP.
This the same Catch22 crap we have at the Uni. If the class does well, it’s because the class is clever. If the class does badly, it’s the teacher’s fault.
Let’s re-write:
If ILP does well, it’s because the posters are wonderful, if ILP goes into a slump, it’s all those damn moderators’ faults.
You can’t figure out why anyone would want to be a mod? Damned good question. Neither can I. I ask myself that question quite a lot.
I can’t speak to every moderator’s history, but I didn’t go seeking the opportunity, I was asked by Ben. To say yes or no I had to ask myself, why am I here? While there are several possible answers to that question, it finally came down to I saw ILP as having value to me. I’m one of those dummies who actually believes that I have the responsibility to support those things I’m involved with. Becoming a member of staff wasn’t sought, but was accepted to be supportive of the site. I had no burning desire to moderate anything. I still don’t. I would be happy as a pig in **** if no one had to moderate anything. But people being how they are… On occasion, ‘moderating’ becomes necessary. If Ben hadn’t thought moderation necessary, there would have been no need for posting guidelines.
To answer your question, I, nor any of the moderators look forward to moderating any thread or post. As much as possible I would like the forum to be created by the members and not by some staff interpretation of what is correct or proper. But to be a healthy,dynamic, evolving venue of inquiry and discourse, it must of necessity exist within the framework of civility. It seems simple enough, but the subjectivity of what is civility is the thorn in everyone’s side. We each bring our own personal definition of that term to the party, and each moderator must apply their own understanding in their role as moderators.
Are there any perfect answers? Yes. As many answers as there are members.
I invite anyone who would like to try their hand at the position of moderator to petition Ben directly. I’m sure he would consider one and all. Just think of the challenges and opportunities!
On occasion, ‘moderating’ becomes necessary. If Ben hadn’t thought moderation necessary, there would have been no need for posting guidelines.
