h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>
If you want to see change in the processes, then get involved - it's easy to criticise when you're watching
<<

Sorry Aly, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of h2g2. There are those of us who are not formal volunteers who *are* involved. It's always been like this. Much of how the community side of h2g2 operates is generated out of the community. To suggest that anyone who is not a formal volunteer is merely a watcher is insulting. Who do you think developed alot of the moderation/CE policy before the sale?

And of course those of us who are unable to supply RL IDs are prevented from being involved.


>>
I have no issues with people discussing the moderation policies, however individual cases simply cause unrest as it is very rare that anyone other than those involved know the full extent of what has happened. In addition, those involved won't always tell the full story either. I was once told that there are always three sides to a story. One, the other and then somewhere in the middle, the truth. Everyone sees events from their own perspective.
<<

True, and IME that includes the mods and CEs not always knowing what is going on too. Transparency has worked for us in the past. If the issue here is rudeness about the mods, then deal with the rudeness. Removing our ability to discuss issues is taking a hammer to something that needs more subtlety.

As Mina says, there has never been a prohibition on discussing individual moderation decisions. The bbc Eds used to ask us not to do it, but they still left it up to us (trust), and for the most part that wasn't a problem.

Kea : you are entirely right that you don't have to be a volunteer to contribute. You can contribute by giving constructive feedback on policies and procedures, or on moderation in general. Surely that's more constructive that going over and over a single individual mod decision anyway?

If you are willing to be IDed then the ID procedure is very flexible and there are plenty of work-around for people in specific situations who don't have a lot of ID, though they may take longer than 10 minutes. I am sure that everyone who is willing to be IDed is able to be IDed. If you are not willing to be IDed then you won't be able to be a mod, but of course you can still contribute with constructive feedback as above.

>>Surely that's more constructive that going over and over a single individual mod decision anyway?

That depends really. If the going over and over leads to researchers feeling better about the site, I would say that is something we actually need at the moment (as opposed to long standing members leaving because of moderation problems).

(not that I've seen anything excessive or out of the ordinary this week, so I'm a bit confused as to what has sparked off this decision at this time).

If the mods are feeling unfairly criticised, and that is affecting their ability to do their job, or take part in the site as researchers, then I also agree that is a problem that needs solving. I just don't think that censoring conversation about individual decisions is the way to do that.

Just putting this in a separate post as it's unclear where the boundary lies...

I have plenty of constructive feedback and ideas to give on the moderation problems and solutions, as experienced from the community side. Problem is that last year I basically got told to STFU, and those posts weren't modded, despite being yikesed by a number of researchers. One long termer left the site as a result (unbeknownst to me until later).

I was also being harassed by a researcher and the moderation system was unable to do much about that, so I buggered off for a while.

All in all my presence or absence isn't a bit deal (and I think it was good for the other side of the fence that I was gone for a while too). But it does concern me that people are leaving, that people here who have valuable insight into the place are feeling like it's not worth the effort or hassle to put constructive effort in.

There is no doubt that the core team and SVs have done some amazing work in the past year. There is a glaring gap though (the community), and it makes me really sad that we are in this situation. I have no fears for the EG, but I do think the community is struggling. This situation with the mods and being told now that we cannot talk amongst ourselves about things that directly affect us... it just feels like more of the community being undermined.

Kea 'That depends really. If the going over and over leads to researchers feeling better about the site, I would say that is something we actually need at the moment (as opposed to long standing members leaving because of moderation problems).'

I've been on h2g2 since 2001, and I cannot think of one situation where going over and over leads to someone feeling better about the site. Can you think of one situation where that happened? In my experience it just seems to keep the wound open.

To answer the question put to Z - the Transgressions Procedure came out of people going over and over and over the banning of one particular member. Which made a LOT of people feel better.

Sorry, put to kea, by Z.

> and I cannot think of one situation where going over and over leads to someone feeling better about the site.<

If you put it like that, ie going over and over, then yes that has connotations of something destructive or at best pointless.

It depends on the good heartedness and essential motivation to make things better of parties involved. Yes there maybe periods where it gets blocked or goes wrong. That's *real life* in my experience...and I would say overall suppressing communication is something that doesn't work for me in real life.

But maybe a web site is a whole other kettle of fish...

Z, I haven't seen anyone going over and over in a problematic way, but I do know that the majority of discussions of mod decisions I have seen have led to increased awareness and tolerance of moderation.

One thing I have also noticed is this: there is a difference in perception between those in the community that have been modded alot and those that have been modded rarely (I noticed this last year when we were talking about moderation pre-sale/pre-move). As someone who has been modded enough, and generally for stepping over an unclear boundary rather than outright breaking of HRs, I find the discussions about decisions to be useful. I've often come into threads where people are frustrated and confused about what is going on, and talking about it helps sort things out.

I have also talked quite a few times with the bbc Eds about issues I have been modded on. I mostly found that helpful and was then able to clarify back in the community around something or other.

My question for you I guess then is have we been in the same conversations and seen different results, or have we been in different conversations?

I'm also wondering if the value in the discussions is invisible because you lurk in different places.

ok, here's an example..

Someone posts in a hot debate thread. They've been posting alot and this particular post is long, took them quite a bit of time and energy to compose and rebuts a number of points that others have made. They come back a few minutes later and see it has been hidden. In the meantime others have replied to it and the original poster is annoyed and increasingly frustrated, not knowing why the post was removed.

Others come along and are also annoyed and frustrated because they're know missing half the conversation that others have been privy to.

People start talking about it, and cursing the bbc mods ('cause this is a premove example ). They also start cursing the Eds, until someone points out to them that the Eds and the mods are not the same people.

Eventually someone else comes along and says, hey I saw the post and I think it was removed because it contained a long cut and paste from another site and it probably breached copyright.

Then ensues a conversation about copyright and what is acceptable and not.

Later the original poster comes back and says, hey I got this email from the bbc, and it didn't tell me why I was modded, so I emailed the Eds (and thanks to whoever clarified the difference), and the emailed me back a very nice email telling me that the bit that broked the HRs was in fact the cut and paste and that I was welcome to put the rest of the post back in a new post.

*

I made that up, but that scenario is pretty common IME.

LOTS of the conversations about modding the past few years have been like that - discussions about individual moderations that have led to clarification or at least easing of tensions. I'm thinking about the time when we started getting modded for making blank posts (I got told it was offtopic, but it didn't last long so I assume the Eds a word in someone's ear). If something like that happened now, would we really not be allowed to talk about it?

Oh yeah, and once I got modded for using the word paedophile. I pointed this out to the Eds and they got the word taken of the filther list. But it made sense to talk about it onsite, so that we knew what was going on. This is what builds culture and makes us different from message boards - people talking about events that affect them directly and knowledge about the community is built up over time. We learn where we stand in relation to the rules, to common sense, to each other's sensibilities and to history.

Kea and Mina thanks for your comments.

Back to work now - though mulling all over...

(Comments as researcher, not mod, nor person with much power..)

This message floored me.

Starting with the censorship of the community. As has been pointed out we have not previously been banned from speaking about moderation decisions and that because discussion was possible has proved to be a beneficial process for individuals and the wider community.

I am disappointed that this new policy of censorship has been endorsed by anyone who knows and understands the history of moderation on this site and how it has been experienced by researchers. I feel genuinely betrayed that it is a policy that is considered right, or even necessary and in the manner in which it has been imposed.

The way that some researchers have been characterised as being untruthful, inciting unrest, unable to determine with any reasonableness for themselves what has happened onsite and to call on other researchers not to listen to them is an error of judgement in its assessment of researcher’s characters and their intentions and a misrepresentation of how people would behave or have behaved.

We are not and have not been going over and over a moderation decision, we have been dealing with a situation that has had ramifications.

Ed was not liked by all, but he was liked and well thought of by many. He left. This understandably upset people who have lost a friend here. Because Ed was a long standing member of the community, this upset a number of researchers and his leaving rippled.

The reason why he left also left a bitter taste in mouths. A small number of researchers called the comments that were made about Ed’s daughter.

This was a normal and to be expected response, I do not believe that anyone’s behaviour or responses to this situation have been unreasonable or disproportionate given the circumstances

Ed himself has been very clear about why he has left - because he can not be on a site where his daughter is insulted. He makes no bones about the fact that he is not interested in issues about moderation

For others though his leaving has again for them raised the issue of moderation, the atmosphere on this forum and why people leave, or have to take extended breaks or feel unable to participate.

Again, this is not unreasonable and I have not seen this being done in way that is has been unfairly or personally directed towards volunteers that warrants the language that has been used in this message or the course of action that has been decided on.

Your message says to me Aly, that you think very little of some researchers here and still have a way to go in your understanding of this community’s culture, how it works, or could work given adequate support to do so.

Not only do I feel that researchers have been misjudged, they have been publicly misjudged, I think it was inappropriate for you to label researchers onsite in this way given the position you have.

You are, of course, entitled to say and do whatever you like, you own the joint. I am saddened though that you have chosen to use your authority in such a manner and I don’t think it bodes well for the future of this part of the community

Peanut.

Pretty much sums up what I thought; though as a very minor contributor to this site, I didn't feel I had the right to say it. And I wouldn't have said it as well either.

Also agreed with Peanut - I find this decision to be rather extreme.

Well said Peanut.

This kind of hit and run posting, not even from a non-italic account, make me think this was perhaps ONE person who didn't consult with any of the team who are from h2g2. Perhaps I'm wrong, I can't know.

But she came back, made one more post, then ran off again. How seriously are we supposed to take 13 years of experience?? Most of us 5 figure user numbers can claim exactly the same...

I keep missing out on stuff.

Is this ED you speak of the very same Edwardo the Bonobo
we all know and love?


~jwf~

"not even from a non-italic account"



Either

not even from an italic account

or

from a non-italic account

Take your pick...

Firstly, thank you for all the feedback received. It is nice to hear your opinions when it's written in a way that's constructive. I do find it interesting how you've focused in on the Ed issue. The issues raised in the first post had been going on before any of that kicked off.

I really don’t feel the need to respond to the personal attacks. If you really feel the need for my account to be made italic, it can be – but to be honest, you all know who I am, and I don’t feel that’s necessary. I’ve never been one to go with a “badge of power.”

Change is horrible. There are not many people out there that like it. Unfortunately, I do. I believe that change is a good thing at times going forward as hard as it can be to stomach at the time.

You have to realise we are a whole different beast to what we were with the BBC. Paid moderators are paid to take all manner of rubbish people throw at them. Paid moderators won’t care what you think of them, or how many emails you write because they are being paid to answer them. They won’t even care if you are wasting theirs, or your own time to write them because again, it’s about the money – the more emails they get, the more they appear “needed” so they keep their jobs.

The fact is, many of you have written a crazy amount of emails to the mod and CE teams and unrealistically expect them all to be answered! Then, when the moderators have either given an answer which isn’t liked or answered enough times, continually saying the same thing over and over, just in different ways, they just can’t do it any longer. That’s when it appears that certain people have then been taking it on site and shouting out loud about it and getting as many people involved as they can. Kea, look at your posting here. It reflects the amount of emails being sent by some of you to the mod/CE teams (not just you Kea). It’s like you have a thought, and then another, and then another etc. Stop. Think about what you want to type and then put it all in one email or one post. 3 posts, all under each other, aimed at putting more fuel on the fire. Take a break and remember that these people are volunteers.

One researcher said the following about this thread. I actually can’t put it better myself so I’m going to copy it here.

“1) Moderation or "Why can't I claim I'm being harassed by the Mods? The BBC used to let me do it!"

2) Technology or "How dare you try to modernise the site? The BBC never did!"

3) Volunteers or "I'm well within my rights to s**t on the volunteers! The BBC used to let me, after all."

I don't by the way consider this a fine example of h2g2 community spirit.”

By all means, if you have anything constructive to say, we’d love to hear it. If you want to address individual decisions or concerns, write to the Mod/CE teams, but only ONE email please, not the incessant amount they are currently receiving. I'm simply asking you to keep it off site if you only have negative or non-constructive points to make. It pulls down the entire site and serves no benefit.

Have a think about what you’re comparing us to and why the BBC reacted in the way they did. Do you really want to be stuck in the BBC way, or are you ready to make a really exciting journey into the future?

You may not agree with the policies but I’ve invited you to help change them from the inside. So unless you’re prepared to do that, I’d say, give it a try. You may find h2g2 a far nicer place because of it.

Aly