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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Mod action listing?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:29 / 01.08.03

It occurs to me that maybe one way to avoid the occasional rows which break out over mod actions would be to make a list of mod actions and their reasons viewable. This also raises the possibility of a list of moved threads to which people could refer if they lost track of a topic and didn't know whether it had been moved.

12:44 / 01.08.03

Hmmm. I'd go for the list of moved topics, but not the rest. Then, anyone trying to find a moved topic may be faced with rumaging through a huge list of corrected links/images/spelling stuff.

12:46 / 01.08.03

On the whole, this is a good idea. The only problem I can see is that persistent trolls might decide to target those moderators who act against them.

For now, I think that an informal rule whereby a poster has a right to know which moderator(s) are responsible for actions might be a good idea.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

13:39 / 01.08.03

Seeing as we've just had a situation where Ganesh was targetted and threatened for moderating stuff from someone, do we really want to make easier for trolls to see who is clearing up their stuff? I don't also understanding exactly how/why making the mod list available to everyone is likely to stop arguments, seems to me that the opposite is true. And, if my experience is anything to go by, most of my requests are to fix HTML, delete duplicate posts, move topics to forums where they'd be better off. Boring stuff. If there is a secret conspiracy by the moderators to maliciously delete most of Rage's posts so the ones that are left make her look like a 16 year old with no impulse control, I wasn't involved.

14:00 / 01.08.03

Right. Ok. The reasons why we have multiple moderators that moderate each other is (1) so that no individual has any final say over any action and (2) so individuals can act in accordance with their principles without worrying about consequences (their action will simply get moderated by other people). So I'm not comfortable with displaying their names, but I would feel comfortable in saying that I'm hoping to make the moderator role more of a communally chosen one at some point in the future, which should mean that moderators look after each other and if people believe they can do a better job, then they can take over one of the current ongoing positions for a term of office...

Tryphena Absent

15:30 / 01.08.03

Ignoring the whole troll-name thing this idea doesn't seem practical. Yeah, theoretically it's great but the moderators who do a lot on the board would be doing a ridiculous amount of, erm, paperwork. Do we really want to conceive of barbelith's moderators in the same way that New Labour conceives of teachers? Hmm?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:04 / 01.08.03

Since all moderation actions have a 'reason' slot, there's no extra paperwork involved. The 'reason' box just gets logged, so you have a thing which says 'typo' or 'formatting' for basic and boring moderation actions, or something which says 'this post is offensive about eskimos and I think that's wrong' for more involved decisions.

There's no particular reason why moderator names would have to be shown that I know of - though of course, I'm not the one elbow-deep in UBB code.

It just seems to me that it's harder for a poster - troll or not - to cry 'foul' if the entire process is automatically visible to the community. This, I suppose, goes hand in hand with what I said not so long ago about moderation and PMs - that it may be a mistake to conduct discussion about strongly-held objections to moderation decisions out of the public eye.

16:41 / 01.08.03

The idea of putting moderation actions into the public sphere without referencing the specific moderators who suggested them or voted on them isn't a terribly bad idea I suppose... I might think about that more...

Our Lady of The Two Towers

05:49 / 02.08.03

Yeah, I was assuming it was going to have each moderator action and the name of the moderator who actioned it, but if it were just the action with no names I would be happier, though I'm still dubious as to whether this is going to solve any problems...

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

09:09 / 02.08.03

Without the names could work... otherwise the whole "distributed modding" thing would lose half of what I always figured it's raison d'etre was- partly, no-one can have unreasonable amounts of power, and partly no-one can take personal insult from an approved mod action, a non-approved one not actually having happened and therefore not known about, if you see what I mean. Of course, this assumes responsible action on the part of mods, but hey! If the mods were all gonna fuck around picking on people/generally being mad, there'd be no point in having them.

Not being totally conversant with all fora, that (the mad/picking on thing) doesn't, as far as I can tell, seem to be happening.

I'm thinking maybe a list of mod actions more as an information source- just to keep track of things. The thread moves thread seemed to get lost way down fairly quickly, as there was a dearth of threads being moved for a while.

A major caveat would be the amount of mod actions that are tiny (in my experience, the majority)- fixing links, adjusting typos, etc. In a list of all mod actions, the useful ones would soon get bogged down in all that malarkey, and after a while people just wouldn't be arsed to look.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:04 / 02.08.03

I suspect people would look if they were annoyed by a mod action, or if a dispute over an action were in progress. Otherwise, yes, it would be dull and drab and who'd care? But the point is to have it available unless there's a reason why it shouldn't be. Freedom of information, yes?

Transparency in self-regulation - it appears to me that Barbelith is intended to be a non-hierarchical community in so far as that's possible, in which moderators volunteer to do a (frequently rather boring) job, rather than get appointed to a position which confers superior access and power. Obviously, the reality is to a point going to be both, but the idea is to make moderation and administration function as services and self-regulation rather than governance and enforcement.

I find some of the discussion of moderation actions which crops up a bit opaque - often because a certain amount of discussion has taken place via PM - and it's made more so by the fact that once moderated, the original post is gone. It's self-defeating to keep backups of original posts, but it seems it's not impossible to log and display reasons for mod actions.

That way, mods and admins get to conduct their business with the benefit of posters being able to comment on decisions. It's a feedback system which allows them better information as to where they're brushing the edges of what posters consider to be unacceptable interference. There is a constant opinion-gathering process - necessary because opinions will shift through time. For posters, of course, there's the opportunity to moderate moderation actions.

Open = good.

16:55 / 02.08.03

I have to say that it's not necessarily an obvious choice that people should be able to see these things - I mean, it's likely - for one thing - to shift conversation further towards meta-conversation about the community for example...

Nietzsch E. Coyote

00:39 / 16.09.03

I was going to start a thread on this. I have been thinking about it for a while. I am afraid I disagree with the perspective that seems to have formed here.

As this site holds, or at least I think it used to, the concepts of democracy in high regard I feel what needs to be set up is a log or recording of moderator actions that are open for everyone to read. I would most definitely think that the inclusion of names would be part of the function.

One of the benefits of this that I can see is the ability for interested parties to learn by example what and how the moderators carry out their duties. This would be very beneficial to the later opening of moderation duty to more people because interested parties could learn the activity before they are engrossed in it.

Another obvious benefit is that it will put the discussion about so-called abuse of moderator status on more rational footing. It would remove some of the mythical status of that concept. We would be able to see patterns of abuse or point to evidence that shows that no abuse of power occurred. No other arrangement allows for this. Stripping the log of names has no benefit but to hide abuse if it is real or hide the proof of innocence.

In my opinion it does open up the potential for meta-conversation about the community but I view this as a good thing. A raising of the game in terms of meta-commentary would certainly liven up the policy. It would also enliven the spirit of positive change that at one point really formed a our own idealism. The idea that we could discover and use new forms of community that were more rational more communicative and more fun.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

07:34 / 16.09.03

I take your point, Tom - but I think it could also defuse the more lunatic discussions about moderator actions which crop up from time to time. It would also allow mods to see more of the whole picture. Basically, it seems to me that we already have the problem of meta-conversation, and therefore it's worth considering this.

On the other hand, it's possible that the situation as it stands is fine, and the community should learn to cope. There's a certain amount of toy-from-pram-throwing, but maybe that's natural. We're, what, three years old now?

07:52 / 16.09.03

On the whole it seems a not-unreasonable idea other than the inclusion of individuals' names, which leaves me ambivalent. On the one hand, yes, the more persistent trolls may be more likely to target particular moderators (and, having been on the receiving end of such attention more than once, I can confirm that it ain't nice); on the other hand, it'd be something of a relief, personally speaking, to be harangued only for those moderator actions in which I had a hand. Much more common than 'why did you agree to X' is the vaguer insinuation 'you're a clique' - and the latter may actually be more successfully rebuffed by referencing a record of moderator actions.

So, uh, yes. Ambivalent.

09:26 / 17.09.03

I agree that greater transparancy could be a very good thing. And it doesn't necessarily need a thread anywhere prominant, maybe there could be a specific area that you could get to via a link (visible on every forum index page) that lists all (or maybe just recent) moderation actions. Dull, boring, but usefull in situations like the current one.

However, thinking further on this I can see one flaw that I'm not sure how we would get around.

If you are a moderator who spends a lot of time on the Board you are bound to get hit by a large number of moderation requests because you are online and available to make/receive the requests. This could create a situation where a moderator looks like they are having undue influence on the Board, when in fact they are just spending a lot of time here. Does that make sense? Am I being paraniod, or am I not understanding the intricacies of the mod process.

Also if it were a specific area built into the UBB then there would be no avenue for acusations of moderators moderating the action list.

I guess it's kind of like Health & Safety Policy paperwork. It's dull, boring and takes up a lot of time, but boy when you actually need it you are greatful for the work you put in at the time.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:39 / 17.09.03

Listing mod actions is a great idea, but names should be an opt-in thing. People should be able to mod anonymously if they want. I can certainly see the value in being able to show exactly who proposed and who agreed changes, lockdowns and deletions, but the unpleasant fact is that there are some serious kooks out there in cyberspace. A list of which mod made which action is open to abuse.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

14:30 / 17.09.03

It's not going to matter much to me because the only time I've had to work was to delete Knodge posts, and I don't mind about him knowing that. But I really think that any system has to be fair to the people moderating as well as the people being moderated, so perhaps the full list including mod names should be available only to Tom or Cal, or administrators, and everyone else should just get to see the list of actions with no names attached. If anyone on Barbelith was feeling persecuted by anyone else it's likely they would be PMing Tom about the matter, if they say "well, post #A, #C, #G, #H& #I of mine were deleted or messed with in The Conversation, so I think someone may be after me" then Tom can see the list with mod names and see whether it's the same person starting it in each case. Let's remember, moderator abuse so far has been almost impossible to prove because there aren't any functions that mods can do on their own. The Watchmen watch the Watchmen.

15:51 / 17.09.03

Uh, taking the names away kind of makes it meaningless, as far as transparency goes.

Example: If I have a post deleted, I know it's been deleted. I don't think it should have been, so I go to the mod actions list. And I learn... it's been deleted. Well, I knew that already. Moderators deleted it. I knew that, too. What will I learn? The "reason for action" line?

Will that really help me? I suppose it could -- at least I'd have a reason. But as far as finding patterns of abuse, it's not gonna help. I don't think Tom's gonna have the time to look up names right away, when I'm fuming and fulminating. Apparently, it's something he's capable of doing already -- but I don't think it makes much of a difference as it is now, and can't see what will change with a mod-action-lookup.