Musings of a new moderator

by onacruse 49 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  onacruse

  Part 1 (Personal considerations)
  

  First and foremost, I'd like to thank all of you for being patient with me this last week, and for the supportive comments you've sent me I also appreciate, and need, the constructive criticism you've offered. I am, after all, only a man, and WTS-damaged goods at that. Considering how much I've changed over this last year, I can't imagine how much more a new-and-improved-model I'll be by next summer.

  Over the last month, I've expressed myself forcefully about how I think we "should and shouldn't" speak to each other here. Perhaps my increasing level of frustration has shown through a little? LOL And yes, my own inconsistencies have shown through as well; e.g. my "pondering" thread included comments that violated the very principles I was trying to espouse.

  I apologize if I've hurt anyone.

  Part 2 (Group considerations)

  That being said, I must admit that being a moderator is a heck of a lot harder than talking about moderators. When Simon invited me to help, and I unexpectedly found it within my "power" to edit out things that offended me, my first reaction was "Heck, now what do I do???" All of a sudden, theory became reality. Should I stand back and cut slack for "respected" posters simply because of their years of experience? After all, I've only been involved with the db environment for a little over a year...I'm still in diapers! Who am I to second-guess those who've already been around the block a dozen times?

  A couple of examples:

  The "f" word: I'm a construction worker...I've used that word at least a couple of times myself So what "right" do I have to restrict such language on this db?

  Personal attacks: By my own nature I have a very conservative feeling about the difference between attacking someone and simply being straight-forward and honest. How dare I impose my admittedly conservative opinions on others? Isn't that what I'm just escaping from?

  In both of these cases, my decisions must be based on the ethic of this forum; not the influence of a minority (be they "respected posters" or otherwise), but on the concensus. If some posters choose to leave because they disagree with that concensus, then so be it. I put very little stock in the speculation that all the "good" posters will leave, and that we'll be left with a pile of fluff.

  Part 3 (Practical considerations)

  I've been strongly, and rightly, advised to use a "light touch." The very best scenario would be for me, if I see something that offends me, to contact the poster directly, politely ask them to change their post, and let them take the initiative. Perhaps I am right, perhaps they are right...it could easily cut both ways.

  But consider: this board moves so fast, by the time I've exchanged even one p/m or e-mail, it can easily be a full day before the post is "corrected." By that time possibly several dozen, and perhaps even hundreds, of other people have already seen the supposedly offensive post, and the damage is done. It gets quoted, requoted, and within a matter of hours, even sometimes minutes, the only way to "moderate" the thread is to delete the whole thread!

  So sometimes, in spite of my desire to use the lightest touch possible, I can't see that there is any other way than to make my best judgment-call and p-m after the edit, explaining why I did what I did.

  ***********

  I invite you all to offer your comments, critical or otherwise, about this topic.

  Craig
• 

  Hamas

  My personal piece of advice is not to take this shit too seriously.
• 

  onacruse

  Hamas, this db has changed my life beyond my imagination.

  I quite rightly take it very seriously.

  Each to his own.

  Craig
• 

  StinkyPantz

  I think that all threads/posts should be judged equally regardless of WHO starts them. What isn't allowed for one poster should not be allowed for another.

  Ona, you've done a good job! Keep it up!!
• 

  teejay

  >>>> My personal piece of advice is not to take this shit too seriously. -- Hamas
  
  Easily the best piece of advice I've heard all day.
• 

  onacruse

  SP:

  What isn't allowed for one poster should not be allowed for another.

  Agreed. And within the human limits of time and energy that we all face, this has been the intent here for a long, long time.

  Craig
• 

  Simon

  Actually, I disagree with that.

  Poster A makes continual insults, arguments etc...

  Poster B is helpful, friendly and supportive.

  If something really bothers poster B and is 'borderline' or perhaps they post something that requeires some degree of trust from us then I would be more inclined to let it go than if poster A did it.

  Has no one ever read the story of the boy who cried wolf? Same principle.

  If you think this is unfair or unrealistic then I wonder how you get through life because you can't be living in the real world.
• 

  Euphemism

  Well, I hate to be a backseat driver, and I greatly respect the work of the mods here... yourself definitely included. But since you asked for advice...

  1. Avoiding thread-hijacking

  IMHO, one of the major judgment calls a moderator has to make is whether a debate is hijacking a thread.

  I personally have no problem with debates per se; I can just ignore the threads. (This is easier if the threads are moved to the "debates" forum. IMHO, the mods could be a bit more proactive about this.)

  What bothers me is when an interesting discussion gets buried under a pointless debate or personal attacks. IOW, when a thread gets hijacked. It would be ideal if the board had a thread-splitting feature; the moderators could spit off the irrelevant portion into a separate thread, perhaps placed in the debate forum, and those of us who wanted to keep up with the original thread could do so.

  2. Personal attacks

  If two people are attacking each other, I don't give a darn. Throw it into "heated debate" and let them have at.

  The problem is when the attacks are one-sided. And the challenge, as you noted, is deciding what constitutes an attack. Perhaps we could have some sort of 'restraining order' system, where if a person feels that they are being persistently attacked by someone else, the latter person is forbidden from directly replying to them or mentioning them by name? That's the best solution I can come up with off-hand.

  3. Threads about moderation

  I also have a request for the mods... please stop locking the threads that criticize moderator decisions. It's true, of course, that most of these threads are a pile of baloney. But why not just move it to the debates forum, and ignore it? Let the whiners knock themselves out. Their rantings aren't doing you any harm.

  4. Technical solutions

  After writing all the above... I decided that there's a much simpler solution. Move to a Slashdot-style rating system. Any chance of that, Simon?

  At the very least, I think it would help a ton to get the Ignore feature back. Pretty please?
• 

  StinkyPantz

  Editted to erase my post because I don't want Onacruse's thread to be locked because of me.

  But I am glad that we now know there is an unspoken pecking order. We now know that threads will not be judged equally. The question is, where do you stand?
• 

  Big Tex

  My personal piece of advice is not to take this shit too seriously.

  Okay fine, but then you get people bent out of shape because moderators are being "unreasonable" or "arbitrary". We can't have it both ways. If on one hand we tell Simon and the mods to "not take it so seriously" and then on the other complain when they do have to take action, then I submit that is not fair. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, it seems to me.

  Personally I applaud Craig's serious attitude. He is, in my opinion, demonstrating a sincere desire to be fair while at the same time continue to help people. We can pick about the fine points, but basically I see a good hearted attempt to lay out to the entire board what he's about and where and why he might take action. What's so bloody wrong with that?