![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
Support Admin by posting contributions to this thread.
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:23:41
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
"The present policy of intervention as rarely as possible is still the correct one and possibly the only one."Everyone who participates in these conversations should be aware of Guardian Unlimited's talk policy. It is as much an appeal as a warning. "We want the Talk to be the place on the net where you will always find lively, entertaining and, above all, intelligent discussions. The last thing the net needs is yet another site where any attempt at conversation is drowned out by a few people hurling mindless abuse at each other."
It goes on to say that sometimes, and reluctantly, some postings have to be removed, and indicates the reasons why this might be done. "We discourage obscenity and mindless abuse... We will not tolerate racism, sexism or homophobia. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy... We will consider removing any content that other users might find extremely offensive or threatening. If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems on our boards."And so we come to the space between theory and practice. More bans are being imposed than at any time since the talk boards started, although we are still speaking of a tiny number. Where it was once extremely rare to ban a user, there are now on average two bannings or banishments a week. Because of the ease with which some email addresses and user names can be changed, however, it is possible that a few individuals are being repeatedly banned under different names.
More postings than before are being removed, and users warned that they risk banning by breaches of the few guidelines. Some have been warned because of racist remarks in the context of the Middle East conflict.
Although vigilance is exercised, it is impossible to watch all the talk boards all the time. Users themselves will usually draw attention to something that seems to abuse and therefore threaten the freedom that they enjoy.The present policy of intervention as rarely as possible is still the correct one and possibly the only one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4397576,00.html
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:27:23
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
", , ,butthose lookin g for some subtlety in human communication won't stick around."
While system managers or hosts usually have the ability to remove or "censor" a given comment, I discourage it as a practice. And I especially dislike the approach where there are paid censors who prescreen everything to make sure it conforms to their standards.
Better for people to speak freely and frankly to each other because when each individual knows that he or she may speak freely and that they in fact take full responsibility for what they say, then it improves the content of the system.
I encourage all online systems to be places where controversial subjects may be discussed in a civilized way. Of course, how you defines "civilized" determines what you will allow. I frown on ad hominems, personal harassment, and threats but otherwise give wide berth to the variety of tastes and styles found wherever individuals gather.
However, a problem can arise if you have a registration system that allows the person to make public comments before you validate their entry. If someone is a nuisance to the other participants and you can't get them to stop and decide you must bar their entry, it can become a kind of game for the other person to continually come back in under new names and make the same comments. Then you either let them control the conversation or you have to assign someone to spend considerable time following them around erasing their remarks.
So, again, a decision has to be made between easy entry and ability to control the conversation when necessary. You could just let anyone say anything at all and declare that anything goes, but those looking for some subtlety in human communication won't stick around.
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:29:29
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
Hosting is heart work. It is not virtual. Like anything having to do with the heart, it's earthbound. It is messy. It is mixed. And it is incredibly rewarding.
-- Evelyn Pine
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:35:04
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
The thing about over-regulation is that it does not work.
Forums are not protected by people being gagged from discussing negative things. People make their own decisions, and pretending that rules can circumvent that does not make sense.
The banning thing is just daft. If a person really upsets you, dont read their posts.
To me, the whole thing is paternalistic. To me, that is about people who have very little power in their day to day lives. They come online and set up an environment where nobody is permitted to soil their illusions.
One of the few reasons that i can think of for banning someone is if they published very personal information about another person, particularly contact details.
http://forums.delphiforums.com [private forum]
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:49:29
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
There is concern amongst some participants that a topic or a forum won't feel "safe" to them. This elusive quality of safety depends on a few factors. The size of the group, the nature of the subject matter, the personalities of the people who happen to be in there talking, and the way that forum is hosted.
A forum environment that has a hostile atmosphere will discourage participation by those who have less aggressive tendencies. The hosting is important because in overseeing the discussion, you don't want things to sink down too far but setting too high of a standard for "niceness" can also kill off a discussion before anything worthwhile gets figured out.
That means that some temperatures will rise some of the time. There will always be some rough spots whenever a group works to define itself. Without any ferment at all, the "brew" will quickly go flat.
Some of the arguments and debates we've had over the years have been pointless personal hassles, but many have led us to a fuller understanding of what we were as an entity, or what we thought we ought to be. It is important to note that policy and custom has been shaped at times by arguments and hassles that were often quite personal in nature.
Posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:52:55
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
The currency is human attention. Work with it. Discourage abuse of it.You are in the relationship business.
Welcome newcomers. Help them find their place.
Show by example.
Strive to influence and persuade.
Have a big fuse. Never let the bottom drop out.
Use a light touch. Don't be authoritarian.
Affirm people. Encourage them to open up.
Expect ferment. Allow some tumbling.
Don't give in to tyranny by individual or group.
Leave room in the rules for judgment calls.
Encourage personal and professional overlap.
Think "tolerance."
Posted by Zo on April 26, 2003, at 0:09:26
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
Words are a malleable medium, and they can be made to say things by inference, innuendo, and ambiguity which are very hard to pinpoint. Suppose you set up a forum in which you wanted everyone to be nice to each other, and you made a rule saying just that.You might have a difficult time enforcing it because language can be made to imply something unkind even while saying something ostensibly respectful.
Excessive niceness, through hyperbole, can even convey an insult.
Rather than creating a rule, you may want to depend on the direct yet respectful approach, calmly asking people to clarify whether an insult was actually meant--and always making it easy to save face.
If a rule is inherent in, or indispensable to, the basic design or operation of your forum, be consistent in enforcing it.
Avoid like the plague situations in which a rule applies to one person or group and not to another. If your forum has a hard and fast rule, apply it always, not just when you feel like it.
Posted by Zo on April 26, 2003, at 0:13:54
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
Then there is the more extreme action: booting someone off of the system.
In the six years I was at the WELL, we did this only three times. At The Gate, in three years, we have done it twice. I feel booting should be limited almost solely to deep and repeated harassment by one person to
another. However, in each of these cases, the boot wasn't permanent.When the person agrees to shape up, they can re-enter.
Rather than treating it like being exiled from a country, never to return, it is more like being told to step outside of the saloon until you cool down. Because the point isn't to get rid of people. The point is to try to make
it so everyone wants to stay and talk.Cyberspace Innkeeping: Building Online Community
Copyright 1992,93,98 by John Coate tex@sfgate.com
Posted by BekkaH on April 26, 2003, at 22:17:22
In reply to A Collection of Moderating Guidelines, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:19:43
Hi to Zo and her cat, from Bekka and her cats.
Posted by shar on April 26, 2003, at 22:32:21
In reply to Re: Principles of Cyberspace Innkeeping, posted by Zo on April 25, 2003, at 23:52:55
Great examples of rules/guidelines/parameters/etc.
My take on PB, as most people know, is I'm pretty comfortable with how things are handled here already, especially since this is a mental health board with a lot of feisty people (imo of course) who don't hide their lights under barrels and do speak their minds.
It's a fine line to provide safety and freedom, have standards that must be somewhat flexible but not too flexible, allow for teasing and playing but not letting it ...well, you get the idea. It's all very mushy (not hard and fast), and a big responsibility, not one I would want.
Great info, thanks for posting it all.
Shar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.