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

Here's a good point well made by swl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F20154027?thread=8073299&post=106833444#p106832406 "Can I ask that moderation be handled by adults on the new hootoo and that members be treated with courtesy? "For instance, would it be possible to warn members privately (or publically) if a post crosses an imaginary and/or arbitrary line? I have no problems with posts that offend being summarily removed but treating long-serving members of the community with contempt is part of the BBC baggage I would hope the new community-led hootoo might leave behind."

I think we all share that sentiment.

It's all down to the effort required to monitor the site maturely and how we can minimise the cost. The BBC clearly have outsourced that function to some low-cost agent.

The problem won't go away when the BBC leave, so we'll need some creative ideas to tackle it. If we somehow relaunch the site, the problem will become more acute with an influx of new researchers.

I share the sentiment, I just think that slw is overstating the case. He's not being treated as a long time member of the community, he's being treated as a nameless blob by the new bbc moderation system just like everyone else. A system that doesn't work properly btw, it's not something specific to swl. Lots of people are not getting emails, or explanations (self included).

Sorry, but the thing that annoys me as much as the moderators behaving badly is hootooers who don't communicate clearly what is going on (this isn't about swl so much as the general culture of complaints about moderation on hootoo). People are quick to jump to assumptions about what is happening and post that on site, and often don't bother to talk to the Eds to get to the bottom of the problem. As a result the community ends up with partial information about what is happening with moderation issues and confusion reigns (swl being put on premod recently is a case in point).

*

I've been thinking about what it would be like here with much more liberal moderation. The thread that swl got modded in was the joke thread and some of the posts were about slang terms for vagina, bordering on nasty kind of slang terms. They were the kinds of 'jokes' that get used to demean women and then when women complain they get told they have no sense of humour. A number of researchers yikesed those posts.

So I'd like to know how the noohootoo will handle such matters. I certainly can't be bothered debating misogyny everytime it rears its ugly head. I can of course avoid such threads, but should I have to? What happens if such posts turn up in an otherwise ok thread that I'm participating in?

I think moderation is going to be one of the thorniest noohootoo issues.

Well, as I said, I have no problem with a post that is deemed offensive being removed - summarily, no discussion, no hesitation. I appreciate that sensitivities vary and posting whilst under the influence/posting whilst distracted/forgetting which site one is on can lead to some faux pas.

What I object to is, out of the blue, days after the event finding oneself under pre-moderation. No explanation offered. Only by contacting the Eds through Facebook did I get a reply - and not a satisfactory one either.

This to me is a fundamentally wrong way to treat anybody. There are many things wrong with the moderation process here (not least the blanket e-mail giving any one of a dozen reasons why a post was removed). Saying the House Rules covers things doesn't wash either. It's unfair to punish without warning or explanation. It's high-handed and dictatorial.

Perhaps a future Hootoo will have a pm system along the lines that numerous other message boards operate. This allows all members, not just mods, to communicate privately and it would allow Kea (say) to pm me after a post and say "Hey - that was a bit near the knuckle and a bit offensive".

This self-regulation amongst peers can be remarkably effective.

Do yoni know how much immoderate joy it gives me that post 4 in a thread about moderating moderation has been moderated? it appeals to my love of the ridicolou s,natch.

Ok, flippancy aside, this thread is in Magrathea's workshop. It's here to build a new world.

Swl, and indeed anyone who's been no the receiving end, if you were designing a moderation system for an h2g2 run by volunteers (ie on the cheap) what proesses and what standard emails would you put in place for the moderaton system?

Re-designing it is on our list of things to do, and now seems an appropriate time.

Ben

Uhm, mrs. Zen,
Shouldn't this thread be IN one of the Workshops?

! Martin
--- jus' puttin' a muddy boot in

SWL, my own feeling is that the bbc moderation system is so dysfunctional now that there's no point in complaining about it The fact that we're leaving is very fortunate.

I'm sure I'd be as annoyed as you if I was put on premod in the way you were. Will you say what the Eds said? Ben just said your post here was hidden, are you still on premod.

*

I think the first thing to decide in a new system is where the boundaries lie for what's acceptable and what's not. Do we go with the BBC's boundaries, and if so, how to we make it clearer what they are? I think how moderators operate will follow on from that clear set of guidelines.

Personally I'm fairly happy with the BBC limits from say up to a year ago, with the exception of the filter. I think the filter should go, and gross swearing (of the having sex with a mother kind) can be dealt with by yikesing. I'm also in favour of using asterisks for harder swear words, because it's a middle ground between people like me who swear commonly and people who find that hard.

One boundary that will need more clarity is defamation. Can we get legal advice on that? Do we have to be as careful as the bbc, or will the fact that we're not a big media corporation give us more leeway?

*

SWL, I'm not in favour of PM on hootoo for other reasons. I'm interested how you've seen it work in moderation terms. Given the number of arguments we have on site about political correctness gone mad, I'm not sure I'd want to engage at that level. With some people it would be fine, with others it'd be a pain in the arse.

Hootoo really isn't that big so we're not talking about a massive problem. The pm system would allow us to moderate ourselves by and large and would at least encourage a two-way communication. If the pm system isn't technically feasible, then I would suggest that a standard e-mail should be steered clear of. It doesn't take long to say "Look swl, that post/that behaviour really isn't appropriate, please don't do it again or we'll have to start censoring you".

Community moderation works. It's really just an extension of the PR process after all.

I would have thought that once we're clear of the BBC, we're not going to get the same kind of casual poster and we'll have a majority who are here because they actively want to be here to contribute, not to flame & troll.

Ah, I guess that answers that question then (a premoderated post awaiting clearance).

Are you meaning that the moderators would PM people? I thought you meant that researchers would PM/email each other.

If it's the latter, I'm not in favour. Just had a stupid argument with someone on site yesterday where there was very little chance of resolution. Both of us are regulars.

I'm also not in favour of asking people to not do something again if that's all that happens. Posts need to be actually removed as well.

I'm probably not understanding what you are meaning.

The email's got the standard disclaimer that it shouldn't be shared.

The e-mail itself is largely irrelevant though. It's being disciplined without warning, with no prior notice and with no immediate explanation as to why that sticks in the craw.

I appreciate that not everybody likes pm systems, I suppose there's the opportunity for stalking and abusiveness.

One thing I would say is the moderators need to have a seperate identity and to be totally anonymous. This avoids bitterness and also the cliques that tend to develop. Some boards have a private area where the mods can discuss site issues and agree upon a course of action.

Is pm pre-mod? What does that mean in practice?

<>

Both. (pm that is, not email)

<>

You can ignore PMs, delete them unread or even block the sender.

<>

Well, I'd agree. But giving someone the opportunity to apologise, re-phrase or explain themselves is always good. If something's offensive then either the poster can remove it or yes, it is removed by A N Other. I have no problem with that.

No - pm is "Private Message". Similar to Facebook or LinkedIn.

pm = personal messaging (at least that's what I've been thinking).

>>The email's got the standard disclaimer that it shouldn't be shared.

Yeah, but that only applies if you're not the intended recipient. If the email was meant for you, then you can do what you like with it.

I'm concerned about the premod process too - how come you ended up there? Isn't premod for people that repeatedly ignore moderation and warnings? That's not your situation is it?

>>
One thing I would say is the moderators need to have a seperate identity and to be totally anonymous. This avoids bitterness and also the cliques that tend to develop. Some boards have a private area where the mods can discuss site issues and agree upon a course of action.
<<

I agree. The question is can moderators also be researchers?

<>

That's what I had thought too, but both Airscotia and I got hit out of the blue. I'd had 3 posts yikesed in 4 months - on totally different threads for totally different reasons.

SWL, did they say how long you would be on premod? I think one month used to be standard

Och, I'm maybe not the person to be asking about moderation. All I'm saying is the people who control the new site have to communicate clearly and they should treat all community members the way they would like to be treated themselves. The mechanics of how that happens are mere details.