BARBELITH underground
 

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


Off board dispute spreading on to Barbelith

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:47 / 29.02.04
Randy, you're right of course to an extent but I think that the deleting was an organic process spurred on by the namer getting a little out of hand. I started the thread before the posts were deleted, we didn't have a policy to work with then and we don't have one now. As Haus points out there is no consensus between individual moderators and frankly I'm glad I'm not a conversation moderator because I wouldn't have known whether to delete those posts or not. That indicates that we're winging it pretty heavily and when it's a question of harrassment or accusations of harrassment I don't think I want to do that because it's a little too upsetting for the people getting the rough end of the deal.

I don't know, generally the way we do things here works but this is one of the few times I think it could get pretty dodgy. People's off board problems tend to hold far more weight than their online arguments (like you didn't know that already).
 
 
Tom Coates
22:10 / 29.02.04
I think inevitably we have to wing it because - in the end - there IS a degree of personal discretion involved. There is scope for debate and as such, moderators have to decide according to their conscience. What occurs to me, however, is that when we talk about keeping moderators informed, we DO have a mechanism to do this - it's the reason field in the moderation action. if something is serious, I would hope that the reason would be expressed in such a way that the other moderators would understand this and act accordingly.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:24 / 29.02.04
Tom, as a quick tangent (but relevant to some points here):

When a moderator vetoes an action, would it be possible to have the board ask them to submit a reason, then automatically send that reason - with the name removed - to whoever initiated the action in the first place (and maybe any other moderators who agreed it before it was turned down)? I remember one particular action - unrelated to the ones currently under discussion - that got bounced around a few times before the originator was PMed with an explanation as to why it wasn't being agreed and a request to let it lie. Then, as now, such a function might have been useful.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:13 / 29.02.04
Usually if I'm turning down a request I try to pm the person involved with a reason...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:40 / 01.03.04
OK, so it looks like I am the only one to veto one of these requests. Maybe I should explain my thinking.

I only vetoed one deletion request which was a comment that was cryptically agressive. I didn't like the comment, but I didn't feel comfortable with deleting it either. My feeling was that, if we were going to intervene in a messy dispute, we should really do so openly. The problem is that the openness that would have made me feel more comfortable would also be much more intrusive.

Specifically, given that deletion is a very big deal, I would have liked a public warning directed at the poster. The purpose of this would be to give the poster some idea that they are bumping up against boundaries, because I believe that some people might respond to that, but more importantly to let general members know what is happening. That way, if moderators are being overzealous, by the standards of the general 'lither, they can be told.

The problem is that this seems very heavy handed, while the alternative is relative secrecy. There is a choice that needs to be made here and I'd like to hear what opinions poeple have.

The second reason that I vetoed it was that deletion only seemed justifiable to me if it was part of a pattern or was explicitly abusive. The second didn't hold and on thinking about the first, while I don't read every thread, I read enough of the board that I'd expect to notice a campaign of harrassment by one poster against another. The fact that I wasn't aware of that made me feel, perhaps unjustifiably, that the average 'lither would also not understand the deletion. That seemed like a good reason to veto.

(It was also suggested that the comment was threadrot but, again, I feel that a warning is more appropriate in the first instance, than deletion.)

Since then, I have noticed a pattern and haven't vetoed any more deletion requests. So matters have changed, from my perspective, but I'd still like some feedback about how people would like moderation to operate.
 
 
Cat Chant
12:57 / 01.03.04
I would have liked a public warning directed at the poster [rather than immediate deletion]... The problem is that this seems very heavy handed, while the alternative is relative secrecy

I guess there are always going to be some posters who would rather be warned first than be immediately deleted (which is a spooky feeling), and other posters who would rather not be rapped over the knuckles in public. But in general, I think Lurid is right that a public warning is appropriate, followed by immediate deletion of any and all later posts of a similar nature (in a situation where we have rough moderator-board consensus that harassment is occurring). Maybe mods requesting deletion of such posts should make it clear that a warning has been given.

I don't mod in the Conversation, so I haven't had much part in any of this particular situation, but olulabelle, could you clarify what you mean when you say:

Ask the people who are having trouble if they mind explaining, (by PM) about the specific situation which is occuring. If they don't, then they can send all the Moderators a summary of the problem, so all the Moderators have the same knowledge of the problem. The Moderators can then all make informed judgements based on the facts of the problem, rather than having to wildly guess whether something is actually harrassment, or just stupid and pointless posting.

By "the specific situation" do you mean the details of the off-board dispute (which I think would be inappropriate) or the on-board situation (eg "There is an off-board enmity between X and Y and Z. As a result X feels harassed by Y and Z's posts which name X in a context which isn't referring specifically to X's contributions to the thread")? I think if moderators get given too many details of the dispute they risk being de facto asked to arbitrate something which we seem to be agreeing isn't any of their business: they are only able to rule on whether Y and Z's behaviour is harassing on board, even if in fact in the off-board situation Y and Z are as pure as the driven snow and X is a total bastard.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:11 / 01.03.04
I'm not sure I like the idea of telling people that their posts are about to be moderated. It seems like a really good way to start a fight that might not be necessary. It occurs to me, however, that if we're going to do this, perhaps what we need to do is to present a moderation log for each user so that they can go and see which of their posts have been moderated and why. Maybe we could just throw it up as one page off the private message page that displays the original post, the edited one and the reason - but not the moderator who suggested it. I'm not sure I like it as an approach, it seems likely to cause big big battles, but it might be an option (if I could figure out how on earth to code it).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:45 / 01.03.04
I see the problem - I generally ask people in the thread if they'd mind a *thread* being moderated - locked or moved or deleted, which seems less personal than giving advance warning before moderating a person.. that's a tricky one.

More generally:


Specifically, given that deletion is a very big deal, I would have liked a public warning directed at the poster. The purpose of this would be to give the poster some idea that they are bumping up against boundaries, because I believe that some people might respond to that, but more importantly to let general members know what is happening. That way, if moderators are being overzealous, by the standards of the general 'lither, they can be told.


This is avery good point. I think the other thing here is that we are not necessarily aiming to censure, per se, just create an environment where everyone is making each other feel OK. In which terms, is it OK, for example, to say something like:

Hey, (name). It seems that (party of the second part) is being upset by these references you are making to hir life outside Barbelith. To be honest, we just dont quite get why they are happening, but we guess that you are upset about something. Which is gravy, but we have got a bit of an isue here, and it is being caused by your actions rather than anyone else's actions, so we thought you'd be the best person to talk to.

One of the accusatons currently levelled against you is that you are not really interested in Barbelith as a group, but only as a way to get to (Pot2ndP). If this is untrue, hopefully your good opinion of the board and its members means that, faced with the possibility that further actions of this kind are goign to piss a lot of people off and potentially ruin your good relationship with Barbelith, you'll find it advisable to think about how you are behaving. If not, then we might think that there is some truth in this suggestion.

In any case, please understand that we are not judging the situation, only the very few rules we try to keep on Barbelith. One of those rules is that if somebody feels harrassed, makes clear that they are feeling harrassed and are agreed with by a reasonable number of people re: that harrassment, we have to ask the person perceived as the harrasser to look very carefully at what they are doing. We woud ask you to do that now, to avoid unpleasantness further down the line that may damage your enjoyment of Barbelith.


It's a bit Pollyannaish, I know - the idea that people who are vitriolically opposed to each other in the flesh are expected to behave nicely on Barbelith, but actually I don't think it's as bad as all that - after all, people are rude to each other all the time on Barbelith; I often find myself in fights of varying politeness with people I happily hang out with outside the sphere of the Barbe. One has to fuflil the three criteria - a feeling of harrassment, a complaint of harrassment, a reasonable degree of assent in the identification of harrassment - to make the case.

So, to address Deva's question, I agree entirely that what has to count is the actual behaviour on the board - as you say, we can't really judge what is going on outside it. But that uncertainty shouldn't be a cause of hesitancy in what is basically the normal business of moderation.
 
 
Ex
11:09 / 02.03.04
I like it. Finetuning: is there any way to make this bit:

One of the accusations currently levelled against you is that you are not really interested in Barbelith as a group, but only as a way to get to (Pot2ndP).

sound less like there's a spy in the house of love? It rather diverts the point if the potential harasser can focus on who's levelling things at them, whether the leveller is a lying bastard and so forth.
How about "We often have posters on Barbelith who are not really interested in Barbelith as a group and join in order to harass board members. To prevent generating that kind of impression, you could [etc]."
Which still sounds mildly terrifying, but might fuel less flamewars.
 
 
Olulabelle
20:49 / 02.03.04
Ex, you are right.

Personally naming harrassing posters will possibly only serve to fuel the fire. Your way avoids that, which is a vital component.

Deva,

I would never suggest that members reveal all their personal private details to moderators, merely that they briefly summarise their ON BOARD problem with the relevant poster. If private off board details really need to be divulged in order for this to become relevant, then I think that the member divulging them has to be a bit 'general' with their description. For example, there is no point saying 'So and so hate me because...' and much more relevance in saying, So and so and I have had a relationship problem and this relates to the board in x, y and z fashion.
 
 
Cat Chant
08:09 / 03.03.04
Olulabelle - thanks. I was pretty sure that was what you meant but I thought I'd better just check.
 
 
Char Aina
16:23 / 04.03.04
who is leftylopez?
who are the multiple suits being mentioned upthread?


i think its really dishonest of anyone to have a few suits on the go, more so because no one is supposed to. it is really stupid of someone to think that naming folks with a couple of asterisks is not F**ck**g obvious(suggesting intent). the only way i realised that there was a dispute between folks i like was when these names were dropped, and it has soured a nice place even for me.

it must really fucking suck if you are more involved with/more tied to it.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply