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 >

It's Cold Out There: Freezing vs The Airlock

  
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Tom Coates
11:59 / 20.10.06
I think the idea that the board could agree simply not to discuss someone who has been frozen for a few hours is unfortunately a bit of a fantasy, of the same kind that people used to argue about 'ignore the troll and they'll go away', which normally resulted in one person breaking and the troll getting quite enough food and continuing until eventually everyone broke.

For the kind of thing you're talking about - heat of the moment flamewars - I think you're talking about a much shorter freeze option, of the order of four-six hours, to be used much less disciminately on people who are in the middle of an escalating flame war on both sides. Or perhaps you actually make this an overt piece of the functionality - moderators have decided that you need a time out to calm down, you can name another user to have a time out as well (this would result in Haus getting timed-out semi-frequently as well, clearly).

Anything longer than a few hours becomes a punishment, rather than a break. The difference between this environment and the hospital one is that we're not looking after the person concerned when they have a problem, we're throwing them out and telling them that they can't come in again until they're better. I genuinely can't see that working at all, and I think the medicalising metaphor is concealing the actual purpose to which this would be used - to stop users who the moderators would basically like to ban from posting, while the discussion surrounding the ban took place.

Now as I've said, I see value in this as an option. Basically it's a short-term ban from the board, enacted as a technique to push people from the community at least for a short-time, until such a point that we can be adequately convinced that everyone feels that it was a reasonable thing to do. But it's not a cooldown time, particularly, it's a sanction.

Separately, as discussed above, I am very interested in ways we can take the heat out of arguments that are going wrong, and if one of the mechanisms at our disposal was a semi-blanket detonation on everyone who had been involved in it to go and get some air, I would be quite comfortable with that. That's not a one-person two day ban though. Again, that would be seen as punishment not reasonable facilitation.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:25 / 20.10.06
So more of a naughty step than a holding cell, yeah?

I must confess I'm a little uncomfortable with an open-ended extendable freeze- surely that would just amount to banning, but with only four or five mods needed (and a lot more work for the mods involved)? It's easy to conceive of a situation in which four or five mods could honestly (and I do mean honestly- I'm not talking about abuse of mod powers, and I don't think the mods would abuse them like that) believe someone needed to go, even if the majority of the rest of the board didn't agree.
 
 
electric monk
19:14 / 20.10.06
...to stop users who the moderators would basically like to ban from posting, while the discussion surrounding the ban took place.

I have a small fear that this is what we're hovering around, and I'm very uncomfortable with it. Soooo...

I think that, if we're going to go forward with making the Freeze an option, we absolutely need to keep the PM function intact for the freeze-ee. Understand that I'm looking at this possible board function in a "time out"/"naughty step" way, and this leads me to think that during the freeze there should be at least one person in contact with the freeze-ee to explain the "whys" of the freeze and listen to any complaints or explanations from the freeze-ee. When I put my son in a time-out, I explain right off why he's there. "You chose to do X, and this is the result." The middle might be full of crying or yelling but that's part of the process. There's also time at the end where apologies are made and the making up happens. The connection needs to be made between unacceptable behavior and consequences, and from there to forgiveness. There's GOT to be room for forgiveness, quite frankly. I think that if we can have someone talking to the person, helping them to cool down or at least assuring them that they're still welcome while the behavior they've presented is not... well, then we've got a viable tool for the betterment of the site. Additionally, we'll have someone to vouch for the person when they get de-frozen. Hard feelings are likely to linger, and it'd be to everyone's benefit if we could have someone that all parties involved would trust state plainly, "We talked about this. I think everything's cool. Carry on." On the flipside of that, we'd have someone able to say, "This isn't going to be resolved. We should consider a ban." once the freeze was over.

How we decide who talks to the freeze-ees is a question I have no answer for. Sorry.

I understand that this may be totally parental and more than a little idealistic of me. I also understand that what I've suggested is probably far outside the remit of Barbelith, at least in most people's opinion*. But I thought it was important to add these thoughts to the mix.



*Maybe not. It's just a general impression I have. Salt to taste.
 
 
Ganesh
23:07 / 20.10.06
I think the idea that the board could agree simply not to discuss someone who has been frozen for a few hours is unfortunately a bit of a fantasy, of the same kind that people used to argue about 'ignore the troll and they'll go away', which normally resulted in one person breaking and the troll getting quite enough food and continuing until eventually everyone broke.

There've been instances where we've had to not engage with someone, usually a Knowledge sock-puppet, but I've occasionally PMed people saying, "could you try not to aggravate X for the time being". It's usually been a bit of a behind-the-scenes thing, which tends to result in people asking, "yeah, but why?" I think if it were enshrined in the Wiki that we simply Did Not Talk about those whose suits were frozen, we could point to this as and when it happened. I think if the moderators knew not to do it themselves, that'd help.

I think there would be the odd person who didn't adhere to the rule, and might need warnings (or post deletions) but I think if people were aware that this was a hard-and-fast rule which would be enforced by moderators (by the aforementioned post deletion) it wouldn't be a complete "fantasy" at all.

I certainly don't think any of this presents such a problem that it's not worth trying. I'd start with really short suit-freezes, though, 24-48 hours at most, with the understanding that these are one-offs and not to be easily extendable without your consent, Tom.
 
 
Ganesh
23:17 / 20.10.06
Anything longer than a few hours becomes a punishment, rather than a break.

Bit of an arbitrary distinction, don't you think? I regularly take breaks of several days at a time, and you've been away for weeks/months at a time. How do we arrive at 4-6 hours as the line between break and punishment?

The difference between this environment and the hospital one is that we're not looking after the person concerned when they have a problem, we're throwing them out and telling them that they can't come in again until they're better.

That's not the point of my analogy. The point of my analogy is that, having the 'cooling-off' period means that a significant proportion of people never get to the stage of needing or wanting "treatment" in the sense of therapeutic (or punitive) measures to address their actions.

I genuinely can't see that working at all, and I think the medicalising metaphor is concealing the actual purpose to which this would be used - to stop users who the moderators would basically like to ban from posting, while the discussion surrounding the ban took place.

I disagree. I don't think there would be a single "actual purpose"; I think a suit-freeze would serve several purposes, and it's worth talking about them all here. I don't see the calm-before-the-ban as being the only reason for a suit-freeze, just one of them. I see it additionally as a way of potentially avoiding the banning discussion altogether - which would be the point of the medical analogy.

But it's not a cooldown time, particularly, it's a sanction.

I see it as potentially having value as a 'cooling -off' period too, even if you don't.

Separately, as discussed above, I am very interested in ways we can take the heat out of arguments that are going wrong, and if one of the mechanisms at our disposal was a semi-blanket detonation on everyone who had been involved in it to go and get some air, I would be quite comfortable with that. That's not a one-person two day ban though. Again, that would be seen as punishment not reasonable facilitation.

I don't think you can say that with authority until you've tried it. If it's written in tablets of stone that This Is What Happens In The Event Of X, it might be possible, in time, for it to be seen as facilitative rather than punitive. That's perhaps less likely if we continue to insist that suit-freezes over X amount of time are necessarily "punishment".
 
 
Ganesh
23:20 / 20.10.06
I must confess I'm a little uncomfortable with an open-ended extendable freeze- surely that would just amount to banning, but with only four or five mods needed (and a lot more work for the mods involved)? It's easy to conceive of a situation in which four or five mods could honestly (and I do mean honestly- I'm not talking about abuse of mod powers, and I don't think the mods would abuse them like that) believe someone needed to go, even if the majority of the rest of the board didn't agree.

So let's pilot it in a fairly minimal way, then. Let's opt for something along the lines of a four or five moderator non-extendable suit-freeze for 24 hours only. That would allow us to road-test the value of suit-freezing specifically as a 'cooling-off' mechanism. PM communication and an embargo on discussion of the suit in question could also be tested.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:28 / 20.10.06
I'd be in agreement with that.
 
 
electric monk
03:00 / 21.10.06
Sounds good to me as well.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:22 / 21.10.06
Hmm. If we're talking about any moderator from any forum voting on this, I think four or five votes twinges my safety sensors.
 
 
Ganesh
14:03 / 21.10.06
Six or seven, then. Or seven/eight. The numbers can always be adjusted. My point is, I think it's worth piloting a short-term, non-extendable suit-freeze in some form or other.
 
 
Quantum
14:27 / 21.10.06
I'd like a pilot study to try it out.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:49 / 21.10.06
I think the more mods needed the better, yes, but the principle proposed by Ganesh I have no problem with. Number-tweaking would come next, I guess.
 
 
invisible_al
18:01 / 21.10.06
Can I suggest a 48 Hour time limit on this as that covers a weekend where people might not be able to access the board.
 
 
Ganesh
19:47 / 21.10.06
I think barring someone for an entire weekend is quite a lot of power, and the potential usefulness of such a sanction needs to be balanced against the need to get to grips/experiment with the (to us, new) option on a more conservative scale. If a 24-hour freeze seemed to be of any use - or, at least, not actively escalatory or abused by moderators - then presumably it could be extended for longer periods.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:58 / 21.10.06
If people can't access the board for a weekend then surely that's their cooling-off period right there?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:59 / 21.10.06
(That was in response to al, rather than Ganesh).
 
 
invisible_al
23:00 / 21.10.06
I was thinking of Tom or the moderators, it allows a bit of response time for when not all of the mods are keeping an eye on the board. It also doesn't rely on the mods being available 24/7.

And we're talking about a non-expendable suit freeze weren't we? Ok I'd better go back and read the last 2 pages as I've just confused myself...
 
 
Ganesh
00:25 / 22.10.06
I'd be happy with either, really. As long as we give the idea a go, rather than dismissing it without trying.
 
 
Smoothly
13:33 / 22.10.06
I agree that this is worth trying. Although it might be a while before it got an outing, I think it would be a useful addition to the moderation tool-box.

I'd like to think that if an enforced suit-freeze was possible as a non stigmatised/punitive option, those individuals could request or agree to a voluntary 'lock-out' for a short period of time, on the understanding that others will not discuss them in their absence.

I think this is crucial. It's important that the freeze wasn't generally perceived as a punishment doled out by the board to an individual, but rather an agreement between everyone to take a time-out.

Of course, the freeze would seldom be activated voluntarily, but if it was understood - explicit in the wiki and as part of the board culture - that the freeze was a multilateral arrangement, I think it could have a genuinely de-escalating effect. Maybe it's a little paternalistic, but perhaps a bit of soft paternalism is exactly what these situations need.

I imagine it as the equivalent of being led out of the room with an arm round the shoulder and a promise that everyone was going to give it a rest. I'd expect the moderators who activated the freeze to see it as a correlative responsibility to enforce the reciprocal agreement to drop the discussion during that time.

It may be that others find it impossible to hold their fire during this period, but again, there would be the freeze option. In certain instances it may well be appropriate to impose a freeze on more than one of the combatants.
 
 
Ganesh
13:40 / 22.10.06
Big headnoddy yes to all of that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:05 / 22.10.06
Okay - so how about a 24-hour freeze, with six moderator votes required? I think one of the things about this is that we'll have to go through and find out who is actually still moderating, to work out an appropriate number, and play around with some test-firings.

It makes sense to me to use any such freeze where we feel that continuing behaviour along this curve will lead to a banning discussion, or where the argument is derailing a thread and the party/ies have been asked both to stop the argument and to leave the thread. Not wishing to delve too far into individual cases, but I think that might be exemplified by the last days of PW's stint on the board, where he was being asked, and indeed begged, to stop posting in the Policy. At which point one could perhaps have frozen, with an instruction that anyone continuing the struggle would also be moved for a freeze.
 
 
Tom Coates
21:31 / 22.10.06
Can I just point out to Ganesh that ideas are regularly dismissed without being tried because trying them is a time-consuming and labour intensive process. There is cost in implementing new functionality, a social cost personally for me in asking a friend to do me a favour and a significant time cost for him in building the functionality.

This is to say not that we shouldn't do things, but that we need to make sure that we're doing the right things - we can't just try things at random and see which ones work.

My personal feeling is that this proposal is not necessarily a bad piece of functionality but that it wouldn't be used for what you're suggesting it would be used for. I'd also point out that designing social spaces is sort of what I do for a living, and while I know I've not done a brilliant job here, I'm not pushing back and arguing that it would be misused on a whim, I'm suggesting that it would be misused from my experience here over the last eight years, from my time at the BBC, at UpMyStreet, at Yahoo and elsewhere. This idea seems to me to be one of a very very large number that we could have decided were interesting or useful, and it seems to me that it's been pushed through to this extent mostly by force of personality. That does not make it a bad idea, but I don't think we should pretend that the other options have been given serious consideration, because they haven't. The idea - for example - that if things have escalated, both sides of an argument should potentially be forced to take some time out has been passed quite effectively by.

Having said all of that, I think there's an extent to which it doesn't matter initially what people thought this functionality would be used for. If it were abstracted enough so that I was able to edit the number of moderators it would take to agree on a 'freeze' and I was also able to set the time period for which it would work in some init file somewhere, then potentially the same function could mean very different things and we could tweak it until it made sense - either as a short-term pause or as a longer sanction. I'm not totally sure that it's the right thing for us to be concentrating on - I know many people would rather we were fixing the new member stuff rather than this stuff for one, but it is contained and achievable.

I'll add it to the list of things to talk to Cal about, and get back to you all about it over the coming week.

That list (by the way) is as follows:
* Try and get the recently updated thread stuff actually supported
* A page for each user where you can review where they've previously been posting
* The ability for users to edit their own posts without needing moderator ratification for five minutes after they initially post it (I think this'll cut down the amount of trivial work mods have to do enormously, and as such make them more focused on making the right decisions when a bigger issue comes to their attention)
* Some form of user-freezing or banning functionality as per above.

Each of these seems to me to be relatively practical and a contained amount of work, and I've been trying to collate a list of things that would have significant impact on the site without being absurdly difficult so that Cal would ideally be able to do them all in a day. These acts would seem to me to improve the responsiveness of the board to problems substantially (by allowing mods to get a sense of a user's previous contributions, lowering the number of trivial requests they'd have to deal with and the delay for trivial requests to be enacted, encouraging more responses to conversations and giving mods some limited functionality to deal with trouble-makers).

The stuff that I'm going to try and work out in more detail if Cal is comfortable doing these things is a revised way of joining the community, a way in which the board can start to choose its own moderators and how we deal with systematic troublemakers without banning them. There's one other piece of functionality that I'm serious considering asking Cal for, which I think is going to piss off a whole bunch of people, and which I'll want to start another thread about.
 
 
Ganesh
21:50 / 22.10.06
Can I just point out to Ganesh that ideas are regularly dismissed without being tried because trying them is a time-consuming and labour intensive process. There is cost in implementing new functionality, a social cost personally for me in asking a friend to do me a favour and a significant time cost for him in building the functionality.

I accept all of that, but it's also been established that several of us here are interested in at least attempting to meet the financial part of that cost - which might diminish the "asking a friend for a favour" aspect. If we had some idea of the likely (financial) costs involved to build in the 'pilot' freeze function tentatively outlined above, we could talk more about this. I'm very willing indeed to contribute.
 
 
invisible_al
21:52 / 22.10.06
To be honest I'll take the rough with the smooth as long as we've got some change happening at last. Thanks Tom .
 
 
Ganesh
21:53 / 22.10.06
The idea - for example - that if things have escalated, both sides of an argument should potentially be forced to take some time out has been passed quite effectively by.

I don't think it has. Smoothly Weaving noted it above, and I've agreed that it'd be a good idea - and one that would presumably be possible with a suit freeze. Of course, an argument may have more than two sides and/or combatants involved in its escalation, so it may be necessary at times to consider enforced 'time out' for several people at once.
 
 
invisible_al
21:54 / 22.10.06
Ganesh, I don't think anyone here can afford to pay Cal with him being a Millionaire and all that. Only way he will do this is as a favour to Tom, and if he's the only one Tom trusts to do any coding for Barbelith then it's up to Tom how he deals with that, no matter how frustrating that can be at times.
 
 
Ganesh
21:57 / 22.10.06
I've no idea of the costs involved, so it's difficult to say for sure, Al. I'm also unsure of the financial resources of people on Barbelith.

But yes, I too am glad to see some movement. Thankyou for that, Tom.
 
 
Tom Coates
23:39 / 22.10.06
I've sent a provisional e-mail to Cal proposing that we try and have a stint working together on Barbelith for a while again. If he seems comfortable with that, then I'll send him the proposals for the work above and start trying to work out the next stage. I think he wants to fix some of the templating stuff around the place too so that the place is easier for me to mess around with visually. I think that would be a useful thing to do - the place is starting to look dated as well as feel dated. But really the ball's in his court now and I won't know whether we're going to progress until he gets back to me.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply