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

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderating the Temple

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7(8)9 10 11 12 13... 35

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:27 / 20.09.06

And if such an arse were to pop up, I would personally tear them a new one.

16:55 / 20.09.06

I'd say as a topic starter Stoat you could put a line in the summary stating respectful critical thoughts welcome asshatery not.

I'm sure the mods could rally around it and keep it healthy.

Personally I had a great time talking to Dix-Neuf about hir take on it and would be very interested in a thoughtful space for discussion on people's relationship with their Christian faith.

16:57 / 20.09.06

Mordant, could we have a topic where deleting nasty posts was the reaction and all arguements over the posts happened say in a Policy thread like this one?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:07 / 20.09.06

Not a bad idea... but who gets to decide what's nasty or not?

17:29 / 20.09.06

Although I see the point that's being advanced here, I do dislike the "entry level" or "P.hd" tags idea.

This is in part because I self-admittedly am entry-level. I plan to remain so for a long time. My visits to the temple have been few and far, but I did get sufficiently motivated towards the end of the "Call to Arms" thread to try to slow things down and deconstruct what the hell was going on. I can't honestly say why I felt the need to wander in but I'm fairly glad I did.

However, I love the Temple. I love it because it's not elitist; I love it because the ideas that pop up there are often so... I want to say "vibrant", but that makes it sound like a jazz-music combo wearing shirts made out of leftover wallpaper. I hold myself back from making contributions not only because I'm intimidated by the scale of the place, the posts and the posters, but because I believe in the "one word in the right place instead of a hundred against the wrong" theory, if that makes sense. And, I trust the moderators.

My apologies, however, because it's been a long and particularly hard day at work and I'm well aware I'm rambling. In as short as I can manage at the moment:

I) I agree that demarcation of level of experience may be a useful tool But

II) I don't think there's a method that could be used that could theoretically not be seen as elitist or standoffish

and

III) No one person could decide whether something is 'nasty or not'. Perhaps a conclave of three moderators could do this; one to flag, one to concur and one to ajudicate, but that makes moderators like auditors and, also, it would take a long time for something like this to occur if moderators were not around for any length of time.

What I do admire is the willingness to spin clumsy thread into shiny gold; Stoat finding something positive to spin out of Khorosho's 'unique viewpoint' and the "Quantum Touch" / "Initiation Oriented Gaming" threads spun from the clusterproblem that was "Call to Arms".

So... In conclusion, the one finding of all this is that I need more sleep and less stress. But mainly, I just wanted to say that I love the Temple even if I can't contribute on a similar level to a lot of people here. I stop by every time I pass through and I'm almost always surprised.

(If I can help, anyone of course just has to let me know!)

17:55 / 20.09.06

yeah I think we have nix'd any level tags, maybe some sort of 'considerate' or respectful tag as an option is floating around for us to clarify.

As for nasty I do think we can trust the mods to quickly remove anything that qualifies as hate speech and I think the current two mod system works pretty well.
Example being 'dumb Xians' in this context would be a clear body for the airlock.

maybe something like a 'facilitated topic' tag that clearly lets people know that a standard of engagement is expected? Or the blatant 'moderated topic'?

Not sure how others would feel but if I was going to start a thread for something near and dear to my heart that often draws fire I might invite the mods to help rather than have the topic crushed under fnording.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:01 / 20.09.06

I think there is an argument for a 'moderated topic' tag, sort of the 'low-snark' tag's evil twin.

18:20 / 20.09.06

Perhaps a conclave of three moderators could do this; one to flag, one to concur and one to ajudicate, but that makes moderators like auditors and, also, it would take a long time for something like this to occur if moderators were not around for any length of time.

Not really -- this is how Barbelith is supposed to work, isn't it? Distributed moderation? One person proposes, others concur or disagree? It's the one thing we've got already built into the board architecture....

18:33 / 20.09.06

Yes, please post. I'd like a bit more discussion of more-or-less mainstream theology in the Temple.

18:35 / 20.09.06

Erm . . . that was in response to Stoat's proposed topic on Christianity, mentioned a page ago.

18:57 / 20.09.06

any perceivable badness with 'moderated topic' tag?

I realize the process would need to be proofed out but I'm thinking of it as the current mod system but with a hands on approach. Way back at the top of this topic Mordant mentions a hands-off approach and I think we can see that working sometimes but that there are some subjects that could use some firm rules of engagement.

I agree that it shouldn't be perceived as a skill or experience level barrier just a "don't be a jerk 'cause it won't fly here" barrier.

20:35 / 20.09.06

I don't sense any perceived badness with the 'Moderated Topic' tag - but my query is more that aren't all topics 'moderated topics' at the end of the day?

20:37 / 20.09.06

Grr... Cut off halfway through.

In that when you say 'moderated topic', could this mean more 'moderated (lower case) by participants' rather than 'overseen by moderators' which I believe is what currently happens?

Grant - I only suggested three moderators as I thought the current system was two - suggestion goes to two moderators to agree, being three steps, instead of suggestion, flag, concur, adjudicate? I was only thinking of a further step but I think I see now that that would just be somewhat unnescessary.

Must sleep.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:10 / 20.09.06

I don't sense any perceived badness with the 'Moderated Topic' tag - but my query is more that aren't all topics 'moderated topics' at the end of the day?

Indeed. As such, perhaps "rigorously moderated topic"? Most people with any experience of message boards will understand what moderation is. As MC says, people will generally think that what they are saying is not deserving of deletion on the grounds of being utter cock, so doing this may lead at times to further recrimination, the realisation that moderators cannot moderate as quickly as posters can post, a brief campaign of abusive posting and a regrettable but necessary banning, but most of the time people calm down after a bit.

14:20 / 21.09.06

How about labelling things 'Hawk' or 'Dove'? Not so much a marker of exclusion as much as how vigorously half-formed musings will be tolerated.

Nah, 'Headshop' or 'Moderated' or 'This thread is under the protection of Azrael, do not fuck with it' should do it.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:09 / 21.09.06

How about forcing people who want an easy ride to go away and start their own bloody threads, with a suitable tag in the summary to ward off teh meen mods? ("I am soulbonded to Raistlin Majere," perhaps, or "nevar again the Burning Times!!1!")

Sorry, foul mood.

18:18 / 21.09.06

How about we assume every single thread is tagged 'Serious Stuff Only' and burn everything else? Who's with me? WHO'S WITH ME?

A MAN CAN ONLY READ ABOUT THE INVISIBLE ASTRAL NEO POSSE OF CHOSEN ONES SO MANY TIMES BEFORE REACHING FOR THE BANHAMMER!!

19:39 / 21.09.06

the new main page of the wiki made me melty with hope....

20:05 / 21.09.06

The romantic in me is liking the Hawk/Dove idea but I suppose 'Moderated Topic' is more precise. It just seems, so clinical. You see, I would go with the Hawk and Dove thing simply because it's so unconfrontational. it explains exactly what's expects of you without sounding like you're at the beginning of an exam.

'Moderated Topic; Please turn your papers over now.'

20:35 / 21.09.06

How about we assume every single thread is tagged 'Serious Stuff Only' and burn everything else? Who's with me? WHO'S WITH ME?

I'm with you!

Though I do think that ignorant questions ought to be tolerated in the stupid questions thread...

23:30 / 21.09.06

ok well can we ask the Temple mods to be a bit more hands on in general except for the 'stupid'/101 threads?

for example *when* Stoat starts his thread on Christian faith I'd like to see some lightening strike fast deletes of any 'Xian = teh Dumb' posts. How can we empower the mods to do this without a drawn out inthread discussion of the right to be an asshat?

I appreciate the board's approach to open table discussions around POV but I hate the fact that the asshat brigade has a chilling effect on thoughtful exchanges.

I trust the existing two mod system to balance out view point bias on what is delete-worthy but do we as a collective want the in thread meta discussion? Where is the line, is it purely a language level in the sense that if a poster is a drive by troll offender we empower the mods to delete quickly where as if they take the time to express themselves a bit more thoughtfully we wrestle with it in dialogue?

Stoat sorry to single you out but can you speak to what kind of posts you are leery of to the point of not wanting to start your topic?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:55 / 21.09.06

It was largely the beginning of the "God Is Imaginary" thread that had me worried, really... and posts similar to it.

I mean, it's not like I've actually been scared, just that I wasn't sure if I could actually be arsed dealing with that. I've still got some working out to do for a while, anyway. I should add, most of the time I've thought it would be worthwhile, but have not got round to it... recently not quite so sure though. (Which has, paradoxically, made me think more about it, so I'll actually do it now).

07:24 / 22.09.06

One of the ways to chivvy things along a bit is to add a few more Temple mods. Should we ask xk anyone xk if they xk want to xk be one and then get Tom to xk add them?

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:14 / 22.09.06

Way-ull... I'd like to have a slightly clearer idea of what exactly gets a post deleted and what processes go on before it is deleted, and how we stop people replying to the post that is going to get deleted in the interim, but the Temple is badly moderator-light - dix-neuf and Pegs are pretty much off the board, and I haven't seen Charrelz or cusm around lately.

11:26 / 22.09.06

So we could try and get mods added perhaps? I think we're on four or five active at the moment.
Anyone volunteering? *giving xk the stare* Anyone?

11:31 / 22.09.06

I just reread the first page of this thread and I think not much has changed. We've tried the hands off approach, let's try more active moderation for a bit- if it causes outrage and revolution, well, back to the softly softly approach.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:49 / 22.09.06

Fair enough. I'll moderate if need be, although people tend to get a bit tetchy if I'm on too many fora at once. And could we poss. drop the xk stuff? I think we get it. If ze feels like stepping up to the plate, ze can be confident that hir submission will find favour from a number of members. However, ze should not feel under pressure to take on what can be a pretty thankless and emotionally disruptive set of duties. It's hir choice, not hir duty.

11:55 / 22.09.06

for example *when* Stoat starts his thread on Christian faith I'd like to see some lightening strike fast deletes of any 'Xian = teh Dumb' posts. How can we empower the mods to do this without a drawn out inthread discussion of the right to be an asshat?

Sorry, but I disagree. I'd love to see Stoat post on the subject, and I'd love to see intelligent discussion follow, but I don't agree that "light[]ning strike fast deletes" are the appropriate response to criticism -- even stupid criticism.

Seems to me that the first response to (for example) 'Xian = teh Dumb' posts is for other people in the Temple -- whether moderators or not -- to (i) SUBSTANTIVELY slap the poster down for a sloppily thought-out post, and/or for not engaging with the substance of the subject under discussion, and (ii) try to get the discussion back on track. If the entire discussion seems to be getting off track, seems to me that another reminder from the moderator should follow. Only in the most extreme circumstances should a post actually be deleted -- better if the discussion simply flows around it, even if there are a few bumps along the way.

Just my two cents, or pence, or whatever.

13:45 / 22.09.06

i and ii there seem to be mutually exclusive in my experience evKG.

ze should not feel under pressure Are you calling me a bully Haus? gives'm the Eye* To be frank I'd prefer to have as many sensible non-mods as possible to reduce teh m33n mods accusations, but one or two more would lighten the load in the Temple. I can think of half a dozen people I'd like as mods but as you say, it's their choice- it's only xk I feel confident enough to hassle without hir feeling pressured.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:24 / 22.09.06

It's not the existence of stupid posts that bothers me- anywhere on the board, really, unless they are actually just downright out of order. It's the ability stupid posts have of dragging intelligent thread down with them. And I'm not entirely sure how one would go about moderating for that. As I say, the God Is Imaginary thread ended up having some great stuff in it, but it really did seem like a monumental effort on the part of those concerned to spin straw into gold, rather than a discussion that was both enjoyable AND informative.

We get this also in the Switchboard, though thankfully it's a LOT less common- and given the nature of the subject matter, it's easier for us to just produce some statistics, or accepted findings, which works surprisingly often. And I appreciate that in the Temple, where the onus is more on personal practice, it can become a lot more nebulous. If someone claims a famous celeb gave them a cursed book which led to someone shooting themselves in the face or whatever, beyond saying "I'm guessing that never actually happened" there isn't a lot one can do. And being constantly talked down to by people who have instantly become "Ascended Masters" simply by watching a wire-fu cyberpunk movie must get incredibly wearying.

One of the main reasons I don't really post there (though I am working on this Christianity thread now) is that, from reading it, it often seems a lot of effort. Yes, that's not a bad thing by any means- but a lot of the times people's hard work seems to get diverted away by having to pile through a bunch of shit, and it's to their credit that they don't give up and DO manage to do the good stuff as well.

I'll often see mods (not exclusively, but that's who this thread's about, really) in there expressing exasperation, frustration and weariness, and it doesn't read like the usual internet outburst- it seems 100% genuine, and the amount of work people have put into making the forum what it is is incredible.

(Caveat- I'm aware that, though I read the Temple, I don't read ALL of it, as not all of it is of interest to me, so the proportion of bollocks may be much lower than it seems to me, especially given that when I DO read a thread I normally wouldn't, it's usually because it's been mentioned in the Policy, so I may be being overly pessimistic).

15:56 / 23.09.06

I believe Ev KG has some good points about letting threads rear themselves but can we discuss what constitutes unacceptable hate speech in the context of the Temple?

It sounds to me like the community prefers the dog pile approach to sloppy pontificating but what about straight up vile? What approach do we take with religion/path/flavor bashing? As Stoatie pointed out it is mostly an opinion driven area with few sources of outside reality checks.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:07 / 23.09.06

Consistent homophobia gets you banned, consistent racism gets you banned, holocaust denial gets you banned, anti-Semitism ought to get you banned, but usually goes hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial. Path bashing? Neither banned nor deleted, usually. I think one would have to expand on what makes a post vile, and what vileness, specifically, entitles one to do to it.

21:09 / 23.09.06

Maybe a sort of in thread tag? You could just put in the number of the post your reffering too and tag it's level of stupidity. That way conversation can continue as if the stupidity never happened.

So, for example, I found xk's last post in this thread completely stupid and rage inducing, rather than distracting the thread I could just write:

635797 = bad, misogynist xkphobic = 5

at the top and continue with relevantness.

I recognise that we should sometimes engage with the stupidity, rather than just push it under the carpet, so maybe we could have a refferal thread where only discussion of posts tagged thusly happened? Maybe the discussion could happen via PM?

This system would take pressure of mods and stop thread rot.

Obvious downsides are that it's dismissive without explanation, and that theres nothing to stop a poster saying "Wha? My post was ace? What the fuck? Explain yourself!!" in thread unless it becomes a generally accepted standard.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:51 / 23.09.06

It's a method. But what does it achieve? The person who posted may never even read it, and while the discussion goes on others will keep responding to the post in-thread...

21:57 / 23.09.06

Consistent homophobia gets you banned, consistent racism gets you banned, holocaust denial gets you banned, anti-Semitism ought to get you banned, but usually goes hand-in-hand with Holocaust denial. Path bashing? Neither banned nor deleted, usually. I think one would have to expand on what makes a post vile, and what vileness, specifically, entitles one to do to it.

ok well can we consider adding:
Christianophobia as opposed to reasonable criticism of Christianity or its claims.

...to the list of ban worthy asshatery?

Perhaps just having such things on our radar as a community will improve the Temple. Though yeesh that term is cumbersome.

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7(8)9 10 11 12 13... 35