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

Dogster: Thinking about that post.

To be fair, some of Alyson's interventions on this thread could read as if they were calculated to cultivate that feeling of 'them and us' you mention.

To some extent, I sympathise. I'm also inclined towards bluntness and non-pussyfooting. But it's not always the best way to secure goodwill and co-operation.

Us? Them?

They are not mutually exclusive. Them (volunteers) is a subset of Us (community). They are not mutually exclusive.

I was using the term in the sense Z used it up in Post 48:

"Why does this have a feeling of 'them' and 'us'. I could understand when we were BBC staff and users. But now?"

Which is why I said that some interventions on this thread seemed guaranteed to foster that kind of feeling. Badly handled, IMO. As I said, I can be inclined towards bluntness myself at times, but it doesn't always foster goodwill and co-operation. Which is what we're all looking for, after all...

I think what adds to these feeling of us and them is that fundamental decisions made about moderation away from the community without consultation.

Some of these changes like open modding for instance are not bad changes they just have not been well implemented and this leads to confusion and conflict.

Some of these changes are in direct conflict of what the community has come to some broad agreement on in the many months of discussion pre-move on community threads on site and on Noesis. Editing for instance.

I think the decision to ban discussion about mod decisions is a mis-guided one, it doesn't resolve the issues, it is a form of censorship and then to fuel to fire you would edit posts in this in this way.

Not only do I think it is a poor decision, it goes against the grain of h2g2 and the manner in which has been introduced and is going to be enforced has created bad feelings.

Which is a distraction from the very real issue that the volunteers are overwhelmed and appear to be at the point of burn out

Peanut

Not everyone is subscribed to Ask (shocking, I know) I only found this because I pop over to Ask about once a week or so, and look at the first 2 pages of conversations, at most. Maybe a link in an Announcement to this thread would be a good idea? Or, in future, for policy decisions, starting with an Announcement and starting a thread in Ask with a link, for those who aren't subscribed to the Announcements?

I don't really have anything to contribute to the actual discussion--not only am I tired and not able to be online much at present, but I've never had much to do with moderation from any angle (well, except for once, but that case isn't really relevant here)--I guess I'm just too boring and conflict-avoidant.

Hey... Erm, at no point did I say that moderation could not be discussed on site. I said

" From today, ALL posts criticizing moderation decisions will be edited or deleted."

The key word here is "criticizing" - maybe what I should have written was "criticizing in a non constructive manner".

I also said "I have no issues with people discussing the moderation policies" in my second post.

The Mod/CE team are in talks about how we can make some elements of moderation more open, and I'm sure information on that will be made available in due course.

Aly

Peanut

You say that the volunteers are 'burnt out' This is your opinion and totally without any basis in fact. The truth is that the volunteers are bouyant and happy. We have great camaraderie and a lot of communication. Aly, as you perhaps remember, is part of this great team, as well as our adviser.

You also suggest that we are overwhelmed with emails and complaints. Let me state categorically that this is totally false. There are _ two_ people who have been complaining constantly, harassing the moderation team and the Community Editors with demands to reverse decisions in cases that didn't involve either of them personally. The great majority of members seem perfectly content; we have really very few complaints coming into the mod system at all

There is also the assumption that is was difficult to be IDd, this is not true either. The fact is that neither you nor kea were happy to share your true identities with NPL - and this is why you are not moderators. The rest of the team are trusting enough to be known to each other as real people and this is evidence to me of total trust and confidence.

I am only sorry that you are on the opposite side of a mirror to all the volunteers who have stepped up to the mark and who are building h2g2 for a strong and happy future.

In the meantime, I want to really emphasise the fact that the Guide is far bigger than the Community alone. We are a writing site, and those who write, Scout, sub-edit and curate put such a lot of work into h2g2, these are the people who calmly get on with things, have fun and enjoy themselves here. So, please lets all start looking at the positives rather than petty squabbles by a minority who think there is a problem, when in fact there is nothing but smoke.

Ah, the above post was from me, I'd been working as a GE earlier and forgot to log out.

apologies!

Lanzababy

Not sure if this is within the scope of the tools at present, but wouldn't this thread be better placed in somewhere like Announcements rather than Ask? If a change is being made (or discussed) regarding moderation then surely it is an announcement/discussion topic rather than a question?

I've read through this thread with interest, having been on both sides of the moderation fence. I've tried several times to formulate a reply, but without success. I find I agree with pretty much everything said by everyone! I think that moderation is a topic that will never be 'one size fits all' and (looking at any site on the web) will always ultimately be a top-down process. h2g2 involves its community much more in the discussion of how the moderation process should work than anywhere else I know, but the buck has to stop somewhere. I'm not sure if I'm making my thoughts clear, or if I'm entirely clear on them myself, but I thought it might be a point to consider. I find that words on a screen are often open to interpretation, easy to phrase badly, and can be impossible to retract (although I'm not sure I'd favour an 'edit' button for many of the reasons already discussed above). We all make mistakes both in judgement and wording. They key word there being ALL.

The thing I've personally taken from the above posts is that, while we may not all be on the same page at the same time, we all share a wish for h2g2 to be the best it can be. I think, whilst we are all voluntary community members, not everyone is part of the volunteer team that runs the site. Inevitably, there is a bit of 'them' and 'us' in that. I can't see how a site like this can work any other way. You couldn't ask every member to comment/decide on every moderation decision taken, any more than a government could run a country if it had to get every constituent's individual permission before passing or changing a law.

We are a fledgling site (despite our baggage ) and really we are still finding our feet. Discussion is an essential part of this, and if we want a strong community, then the community must take a lead on saying what they do and don't want out of the site. If people don't get what they want, they leave. If too many people feel things aren't right, there will be no community left any more.

You can always exercise your right 'not to vote', of course and many researchers are happy just to chat and enjoy the conversations here without having to think about how the sytem works. It can sap all the fun out of the 'h2g2 experience' if you find yourself repeatedly falling over the kind of moderation arguments referred to above, so I think it's understandable to want to cut down on this. Rather than halting discussion, maybe moving discussion away from the thread in question to a designated area might be an option? It is always a shame if a topic gets lost amongst moderation issues, and it dissuades some researchers from contributing further to either the topic or maybe the site as a whole. This is a huge loss to all of us. How about we MOVE rather than REMOVE the kind of posts outlined in the original post to this thread? Then neither the original topic or the moderation discussion has to be stifled. I appreciate I don't have a full grasp of h2g2's tools, but this is generally a simple thing to do in most online forums.

The difference between politics and h2g2 is that if you air your thoughts here in a constructive way, someone might actually take them on board. Personally, I appreciate that. I don't feel it was always the case in BBC days.

My . I don't have the answers, just an opinion, which may or may not be clear to anyone but me, and you are free to disagree. Although, if I take exception to your comments, you may be on the receiving end of a .

PS. I too struggle sometimes to read through long posts, so my apologies for the length of this one. It (slightly) reflects how long I spent typing it! Have a if you managed to read it all.

Alyson Post 40:

“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.”

Lanzababy Post 68: (to Peanut)

“You also suggest that we are overwhelmed with emails and complaints. Let me state categorically that this is totally false. There are _ two_ people who have been complaining constantly, harassing the moderation team and the Community Editors with demands to reverse decisions in cases that didn't involve either of them personally. The great majority of members seem perfectly content; we have really very few complaints coming into the mod system at all”

These two seem to be mutually exclusive. If the first is correct then there is indeed a problem, and I’m sure that most if not all Researchers would agree that it is not a good situation. If the second is correct, why was this thread started?

That was exactly my thought, hygienicdispenser. The parts of Peanut's post which Lanzababy strongly disagreed with seemed to be only reiterating what Alyson had already said in previous posts.

I can't help thinking this situation could have been handled better.

Perhaps if we all creep quietly away and pretend it never happened.




(Yeah, that's going to happen...)

The truth of the matter is that Aly was trying to be diplomatic, and not embarrass individual researchers. However, there are in fact two or three researchers who inundate the mods and Community Editors with abusive emails demanding they reverse moderation decisions that *do not involve them* - at least one of whom has been very active in this thread.

Sadly, where attempts at diplomacy have subsequently failed, further details have been provided.

Kind regards,

psychocandy
Community Editor and Moderation Team Leader

Alyson,

> " From today, ALL posts criticizing moderation decisions will be edited or deleted." The key word here is "criticizing" - maybe what I should have written was "criticizing in a non constructive manner".

The key question is: can we say "I think this decision was wrong because ..."? I believe that such a statement can be constructive.

I'd also urge everyone involved in making the decisions not to do so in anger, because such decisions are rarely the best ones.

Hi Dogstar,

The difficulty we've had here is that certain researchers have felt they can over rule what the Community has agreed in the past.

No one moderator has full control, we moderate as a team of at least 2 and preferably 3 wherever possible. We do this so there is no bias towards any individual.

We have received abusive emails, flaming emails... and even threats that we are not doing what 'they' want 'us' to do about the moderation of certain researchers.

We have always politely informed them we cannot discuss the moderation issues of other researchers. We will stand by that.

If others feel we are not doing enough, they only have to follow the links in the Opening Post and join the Mods.

We are not on 'burn out' as was stated further back.... However, we are fed up of the partial truths and inuendos that have been posted.


Regards,

lil...
Community Editor and P/T Moderator.

If this really is a problem caused for the community volunteers by one or two people, wouldn't it be better to have a word with them, rather than starting a thread like this, which gets *everybody* involved and opens a whole new can of worms?

Just sayin'.

Dogster

>The key question is: can we say "I think this decision was wrong because ..."? I believe that such a statement can be constructive.

>I'd also urge everyone involved in making the decisions not to do so in anger, because such decisions are rarely the best ones.

Only if it follows with something like "A better way of handling that may have been...."

Mods NEVER moderate in anger. That is lesson number one

Aly

There are few here who remember what the forums here used to be like when the site first started, before there was moderation. I remember when the Lovelace button was introduced.
Back then the forums were fun and witty, until a few people started spiking them.

Over night we went from completely unmoderated forums to community post moderation. If the community felt a posting was out of order, they had the ability to yikes it to bring it to the attention of the in house moderators.

Over the years, the level of moderation, and the level of discussion about it has changed. Some things though have always been the same.
The community has always had the ability within the Guide to bring something to the attention of the moderators.
Individual moderation decisions have never been discussed on site.
There had always been the ability to discuss the moderation process, but now these discussions are paid attention to, they have an influence and an impact on the process. That's a huge difference. We have a way of tailoring this to our site.
More than this, we now have moderators who actually get us, because they are us. There is no us and them, we are them. Anyone who feels there is a divide, is creating it themselves. Every single member of every single group is a volunteer from the community. If you think they are "them" then this is purely you putting yourself outside.

It is difficult to get perfection, but it is possible to get construction. We can work to produce a moderation system that works well for everyone. And we can achieve that. But we have to start that with the knowledge and understanding of where we currently are. The moderators are members of the community. They are us. We should always remember that when dealing with the moderators. Some of them are open about doing the role, others prefer to keep it quiet. But each time we have to deal with them, think of the names of the individuals you're dealing with.