BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderator Mailing List

  
 
Seth
23:48 / 16.01.03
First of all, some apologies. There are several regulars here who know that I've been thinking about this idea for some time, and I just haven't got round to introducing it to the board at large. I mentioned it a while back to the Magick forum mods, but for some reason it just never came together.

The idea is start a mailing list to increase the communication between moderators off-board. This would have a number of benefits, the primary one being protection for board members. Sadly, I'm aware of a few cases in which posters have been on the receiving end of harrassment via private messages. This has caused a number of quality people to reassess their involvement with Barbelith. This is the kind of thing that should be dealt with privately, as their can be such a massive grey area concerning what constitutes harrassment, people's intentions sometimes being very different from what they're able to communicate. It would be nice to be able to deal with these situations without "naming and shaming" unless it's absolutely necessary.

It also increases communication between the people responsible for the various forums. Over the last couple of days I've sent one PM mailshot out to all the moderators, specifically drawing their attention to a Magick thread and asking for their assitance and input. Not every member of Barbelith regularly consults every forum, and so it's good to be able to draw the attention of the various moderators to places where their skills may be needed (without sending in excess of twenty PMs).

Moderators will invariably be more aware of their forum "regulars" and their interests. Sometimes a debate or idea requires that the right person be on hand to provide input: a quick shout of "I could do with the input of someone who understands Transformational Grammar" will soon be met by the suggestion of a knowledgeable fictionsuit.

Of course, any potential benefits come at the cost of a degree of transparency in the moderation process. The idea of this thread is therefore to debate the pros and cons. Let's refrain from statements like "it's a good idea because..." or "it's a bad idea because..." for the time being - we can do all that when we come to make any decisions.

How do you think this would be helpful? What disadvantages does it have?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:46 / 17.01.03
Well, the obviosu disadvantage is that it contributes to the conception of a "two-tier" Barbelith, in which the moderators stand above the non-moderators, and in effect discuss things over the non-moderators' heads. It also raises questions about moderator accountability and transparency, as per - under what circumstances would a moderator be required to justify their actions, and would it be allowable to quote form the mailing list with reference to those actions?

This could be gotten around by having a list that only moderators were on but that anyone could view, perhaps....or would that defeat the object of a space where the mods did not need to worry about being under public scrutiny *all the time*, as opposed to only at the end of the discussion and contemplation process? And it would also mean that in effect dirty laundry would be being washed in public. OK, scratch that.

Advantages - it would keep mods clued in to stuff that was happening on the edges of their awareness (for example, I read the Magick and Film and TV less frequently than the Conversation, and spend far more time looking at the Head Shop than the Creation, because other mods are more invovled with the Creation as a forum), and to discuss how they handle moderation to provide the best possible service to Barbelith (for example, exp. recently argues in the Magick against deleting posts for any other reason than duplication, which I think is a very interesting question, but doesn't *need* to be thrashed out in the Policy, necessarily). It would be an easier way for Tom to keep in touch with the purely administrative affairs of the Board, and a tighter relay for discussing particular changes to the board structure proposed by people in the Policy. Dowenside to that being that you might end up with parallel and thus incoherent discussion...

In a sense, I feel moderators need to rememebr always that they aren't moderators because they are special, in particular; they are moderators because they are there, and Tom trusts them not to fuck up too badly. The difference between moderating on Barbelith and moderating on most BBSes - expressed through distributed modding - needs to be maintained, which is one reason the idea of a mod list makes me nervous. But I can see a lot of practical advantages.

However, I'm not sure I can see how the instance you gave, of peope being harrassed off the board - would be handled differently if a mod mailing list existed. Could you explain how you would see such a situation going?
 
 
grant
14:23 / 17.01.03
I'm not sure having a modlist would be any better than simply being able to cc a list of users with PMs (a capacity we don't have yet).

For some of the reasons Haus suggests, I'm a little wary of anything other than an informal group, anyway. I remember (back in the misty days of youth) that users who made over a certain amount of posts were allowed into The Supercollective. Oh, how we youngsters dreamed of what might be going on behind that locked door! How we railed against the fascist elite, manipulating our every move! And how let down we were once we got in and realized that it was basically this, the Policy forum.

So, yes, a hypothetical. Poster X has it in for AnarkoTek. Every discussion turns into a flame war. But now AnarkoTek lodges a complaint with the mods about getting blatantly creepy PMs from Poster X - not outright threats, but verging into psycho-stalker turf. When approached, Poster X denies harassment. What can mods do?

Being able to *forward* PMs (as well as ccing) would be handy for this, maybe. Mods could discuss the actual text in question rather than a biased recollection of the text, and do so without either party chiming in and going, "See! See!" or "I never wrote that! I never wrote that!"

Actually, if Tom was able to monitor PMs - which is part of Cross & Flame's setup - that'd make authentication much easier. But it's a little intrusive. (I always assume that "private" messages are only as private as they are inconspicuous, but that's just me. Other people take it much more seriously.)

Anyway, in private (on a mailing list), the mods could become a sort of tribunal, making up their own minds with whatever evidence is presented. A bit grim and very authoritarian - except mods don't have much power to *do* anything, do they? What could they do other than recommend a course of action to Tom - and maybe start deleting posts in specific fora (only with the support of two other mods).

In public discussion, the accused and accuser get a chance to state their cases, along with a chaotic amalgam of members chiming in at inopportune times, ticking everyone off and making mountains out of all possible molehills. Any course of action would be utterly transparent, though. What could mods actually do? Mods could sway public opinion, or get trampled under it, or both. Poster X and AnarkoTek both lose face, more than likely, and people get ticked off and leave.

Hmm. I've oversimplified.
 
 
cusm
15:48 / 17.01.03
I really do like the idea of increased communication. I think this would definitely help mods work out how to handle issues. Though I see the real issue is the private vs public nature of the list. While a lot can be hashed out in public, some things really are better discussed discretely. I'd be all behind a mod-only forum as an easy solution to this, save the rightous (and justified at that) ruckus it would cause.

Maybe we should just air it all here in the policy, then? That seems to be the best way to use the current setup. Better to not use closed doors at all if we can avoid it.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:10 / 17.01.03
Increased communication, yes... mods list, possibly not. BUT I like the idea of cc'ing pms. This would be useful not only for modding purposes, but joint projects- barbesquatting, the Mafia game... although I suppose in both those cases just reading the thread works perfectly well.

I'll think more about this, having just diasagreed with myself.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:27 / 18.01.03
Have thought a little more. I could see the benefit, definitely, in cases where there was behaviour of a kind reminiscent of the "t" word, that was kind of borderline, but boardwide (if such a word exists). Then mod A could talk to all the other mods BEFORE suggesting deletion (rather than just those on their own forum) and find out how said poster was behaving/being received in other fora (yes, I know we can read threads, but without reading EVERY thread in EVERY forum, we may miss out on something important) without having to provoke what could be an already volatile situation.

This could, of course, be just as easily achieved with a "cc" function (which, if they so chose, mods could hotkey to cover all other mods), which would also remove any element of "two-tiered"ness- people who liked, say, cheese could have a "cc" list of other cheese-o-philes, working on an identical principle.

At the least, it would provide a more convenient way of discussing "t" problems with others (not just mods, natch) en masse without starting a fight.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:00 / 19.01.03
Actually, as per my last point, it could be handy right now.
 
 
Seth
14:49 / 19.01.03
Agreed - a mailing list or a means of sending PMs to all mods simultaneously would be an excellent way of organising a concerted effort across the board to deal with this kind of thing.
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:20 / 19.01.03
As a non-moderator, I'd like to express a little discomfort with some of the tone of this. Its not that I distrust the mods, who I think do a good job for no reward. Its more that I think the division between mods and ordinary members is unhealthy. We've already seen a couple of incidents where (without justification) a mod was accused of acting inappropriately. To some extent it may be inevitable for these kinds of frictions to develop, but we should think carefully about moves that may exaccerbate them.

Moreover, I think that the board should act as a community where possible. Board problems can often be dealt with by broad consensus - we may be seeing that now. Of course, there are situations which are best dealt with privately.

I'm not sure if I am saying anything constructive here, but I think it is important that a non-mod contribute to this.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
20:10 / 19.01.03
Think of it like 'Global Frequency', we're just like you, it's just that we receive the signal, go off and deal with some wanker, then come back and rejoin society.

But I think a CC function for PMs has been asked for before.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:38 / 19.01.03
I've got to agree with Lurid. It's not so much that allowing the moderators to communicate en masse would lead to misuse of the ability, more that the argument that it could is one that we could probably do without. Keep moderation as visible and accountable as possible.

The problem with introducing a CC function into PMs is that it opens up the road for mass PM spamming. I know it's happened before (I'm not talking about your recent PM here, exp), but on those occasions I've at least been able to derive some pleasure from the knowledge that the nerk responsible has had to waste more time sending them out than I have reading them...
 
 
Linus Dunce
22:42 / 19.01.03
Yes, what Lurid said. I don't see how anyone could complain if mods individually communicate with each other, but formalising mod broadcasts will create an idea of a "House of Lords" that may, at some point in the future, cause a lot of suspicion, resentment and friction.

CCed PMs for posters would be bad too I think, for a lot of good stuff would go via that route rather than appear on the boards for everyone to enjoy, as well as create incoherent threads for what was left.

I wasn't around to see the work of the infamous Knowledge, but are they really that much of a problem on Barbelith?

Threatening PMs, though, are serious. We could give posters a means to forward PMs to moderators and remind new people how easy it is to stalk someone from, say, a domain name or an e-mail address they may be thinking of giving out.

And leave it at that?
 
 
Tom Coates
22:44 / 19.01.03
I have to say it makes me a little uncomfortable as well. One of the points of the moderation process here is that it allows people to act in accordance with their personal beliefs without it being a problem. A moderation list would make that process of convincing each other about the right thing to do easier, but it would limit diversity in the moderators, so I'm a little uncomfortable. Does that make sense to people or am I talking out of my butt?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:30 / 20.01.03
Have to say, I hadn't thought of the PM spamming thing. A mailing list would obviously be fraught with problems, though. Hmmm.
 
 
cusm
14:28 / 20.01.03
Dispite my immediate reaction of wanting the mod list, I'm thinking more and more than an open thread in the policy would be the better way to handle most issues. If its big enough to affect multiple fora, it probably ought to be made public anyway, right? I think an effort by mods to use (and check often) this forum more for that purpose would be the right direction for this. Mods just need to make a priority out of looking here if they don't already and I suspect the rest will follow naturally.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:29 / 20.01.03
Well, I would suggest that we need *something* to help mods coordinate, more than we did, say, a week ago, depending on whether the current rain of quasitrolls continues. Individual conscience is a fine and noble thing, and allowed by the distributed modding, but it isn't everything...we could do with a place to think about these things, and being able to name specific incidents without having to worry about the thread being rotted down to nothing by the users whose behaviour is being discussed leaping in (anyone remember this happening?) or people who feel passionately about a situation but don't actually have any part in administrating it putting in their own entirely valid but in some cases distracting or unhelpful oppos...

Hmmm. Tricky.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:46 / 20.01.03
Totally randomly - is there, perhaps, a way that you could open a thread that only moderators can contribute to but the rest of us could read? We would have access to it, comment on it in a separate forum but not be able to create a ridiculous amount of threadrot if something was being addressed that concerned a specific person. It's also clear that there is no need for everything to be discussed and a certain amount of diversity will always be maintained, that's not necessarily something that you need to worry about until you see signs of it happening.
 
 
innercircle
20:48 / 20.01.03
why and who deleted us moved us and fucked with our titles?

icu
 
 
grant
21:06 / 20.01.03
From the FAQ, for innercircle:

"Distributed moderation" is a brand new kind of moderation unique (so far as we know) to Barbelith.
The reasoning behind distributed moderation is that normal kinds of moderation leave too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people. Normally, a moderator can do anything they want within reason - they can delete posts, delete threads or edit posts as they see fit. But this causes huge problems. Sometimes moderators make mistakes and do things that they shouldn't do. Sometimes they do completely appropriate things but people misinterpret why they have been done. And sometimes they are simply resented because they have power while other people don't...

Distributed moderation is a new way of avoiding these things being such a problem, and it works by lessening the power available to any specific individual and giving this new limited power to very many more people.

Now if a moderator wants to make a change they can simply 'suggest' it. They can do no more. It won't automatically happen. Other moderators in the same forum can see the suggestion and vote yes or no. When a certain number of yes's have occurred - or no's - then the action is either passed or abandoned respectively.

There are administrators (like Tom) as well, who can suggest a moderation action in any forum, and vote on any action across the board - but they still don't have absolute power to do anything. Everyone - even Tom - can be over-ruled if the other moderators disagree...

It's also worth pointing out that you, just by joining the board, become your own moderator, at least as far as your own posts go. If you have to change something, click that link next to your post, under your name, that says "moderate post." And please, use that space that says "Reason for request." It makes life easier for the rest of us that approve the edits.
 
 
Ganesh
21:29 / 20.01.03
Have come to this relatively late in the discussion (witness my similar - if much less evocative - recollection of the Supercollective elsewhere...) but, while I like the practicality of all-moderator communication, I agree that it'd essentially be a more diffuse version of the Supercollective, with all the accompanying 'us & them' resentment and no decent clubhouse...

I would like the option to cc messages, though.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:57 / 20.01.03
After an evening of thrashing this out with mods in various areas, I think that threads which can only be posted to by moderators, but which can be viewed by anyone, might be an interesting experiment in the Policy, allowing people to start their own threads spinning off from the thread according to their own feelings, but keeping the thread itself moderation-specific. Also, the option to CC PMs, possibly as some form of scrteen capture (i.e. making it difficult or impossible to alter the PM as it was received) would be very useufl for potential instances of harrassment.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:22 / 21.01.03
I wouldn't object that strongly to mod-only contributor threads, but I have to say, I'm not sure why they would be necessary. I would say that the justification would be that the person being discussed might interfere and bomb the thread - in which case, that really means they should be banned anyway, just for doing that.

Apart from that I can't see any good reason why mod threads should be treated any differently. I very much support the Barbelith concept of distributing modding and I really don't want to see any differences created between normal posters and mods unless it is absolutely required.

A mod PM mailing list might be useful to alert mods to a particular issue which they might not have otherwise noticed and which is being discussed on a Policy thread, but I would say it should be discussed publicly on the thread afterwards, not via the list.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:23 / 21.01.03
ccing/forwarding PMS I do think is a very good idea, for plenty of reasons unconnected with abuse as well as in cases of abuse
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:38 / 21.01.03
I don't think i understand the value of Haus' mod-post-only topics, seeing as poster-X doesn't have moderator access anyway, what's value is there in hir being 'doubly unable' to delete/change something? And what would we talk about?

Going back to the CC function, could we limit the number of people you could CC in one go? I've occasionally wanted to send basically the same message to 2 or 3 people, if you make it say 5 then it makes it a bit easier for 'legitimate uses' but still fairly difficult for spammers.
 
 
Linus Dunce
10:37 / 23.01.03
I've just received a PM that should really have been a public post, expanding on a story I had linked to. The sender explained to me they didn't want to get involved in the thread for reasons you can guess.

I think this is evidence that thread material can go underground via PMs thus causing holes in the thread -- CCing PMs would make this practise even easier.

So, why don't we add a "show all threads for this user" search link on suitnames instead of having CCed PMs? This would enable mods to quickly examine a suspect user's work and MO without losing their independent point of view.

Also, from a personal POV it would be nice for users to check out the posts of someone they've noticed writing something they liked, fall in love, get married and move to Idaho. :-)
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:42 / 23.01.03
Nice for stalkers too... I would be uncomfortable with that idea - I think there have been enough cases of people being pursued onto/around this board (I had one instance of this as a moderator in Books of all places), and I don't think it should be made any easier for those reasons. It would be nice if we were all nice, but sometimes we aren't. I think it might be a bit iffy to confine it to moderators as well...
 
 
Linus Dunce
10:43 / 23.01.03
Er, thinking about it a bit longer, a "show all posts for this user" would make it easier for a bad person to harrass an individual.

"Show all posts for this user" could be therefore be only for mods. I don't think anyone would mind them having this privilege.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:57 / 23.01.03
I don't think i understand the value of Haus' mod-post-only topics, seeing as poster-X doesn't have moderator access anyway, what's value is there in hir being 'doubly unable' to delete/change something? And what would we talk about?

Well, I'm not worried about deleting or changing so much as spamming, harrassing, choking, threadrotting, posting lengthy and largely irrelevant screeds of material to make the thread unreadable...ringing any bells?

As for what we would talk about - exceptional circumstances involving actions on the board, basically. Hopefully, nothing.
 
  
Add Your Reply