Moderation: Too much or too little?

[Dan G]

You're partly correct in what I was asking ... but I'm not referring so much to a specific action or post as I am a pattern of behavior.

I'm quite in favor of shielding new members, and especially those who are also new divers, from the shock of strongly-worded replies ... in fact, I've come to their defense on many occasions against such things.

What I'm not in favor of is shielding new members who display a pattern of behavior that invites... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I agree with most of this and it occurs to me (as someone who has only been active on SB since August 2011) that SB and staff is proactively working towards redefining/ rethinking how they moderate the board. This is a challenging endevour since the culture of SB is firmly established and many people will be able to point out inconsistencies as moderation and expectations change. I appreciate SB being willing to do this and think that we should tolerate the process while the process is still on-going.

Also, I wonder if a 'save post' feature would help. If we were able to save a post for a short while before posting it, perhaps it would cut back on the hasty/ cut to the quick replies. I read a post recently that stated that the poster "had just read what they posted and had some edits." It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't re-read what they have written and if they had, they would have edited the post prior hitting the "post" button.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I agree with most of this and it occurs to me (as someone who has only been active on SB since August 2011) that SB and staff is proactively working towards redefining/ rethinking how they moderate the board. This is a challenging endevour since the culture of SB is firmly established and many people will be able to point out inconsistencies as moderation and expectations change. I appreciate SB being willing to do this and think that we should tolerate the process while the process is still on-going.

Also, I wonder if a 'save post' feature would help. If we were able to save a post for a short while before posting it, perhaps it would cut back on the hasty/ cut to the quick replies. I read a post recently that stated that the poster "had just read what they posted and had some edits." It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't re-read what they have written and if they had, they would have edited the post prior hitting the "post" button.

For some, I'd also suggest reading the post immediately after posting it ... in the context in which it is posted. I sometimes (well ... often) realize after posting something that, although I know what I meant, it may not be obvious to another reader. Or I'll see something that I meant to type, but didn't (this is what comes from multitasking ... particularly for some of us whose brains aren't as agile as they used to be). The Edit Post function can be your friend ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[HowardE]

Also, I wonder if a 'save post' feature would help. If we were able to save a post for a short while before posting it, perhaps it would cut back on the hasty/ cut to the quick replies. I read a post recently that stated that the poster "had just read what they posted and had some edits." It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't re-read what they have written and if they had, they would have edited the post prior hitting the "post" button.

There is an "Auto-Save" and Restore Auto-Saved Content.

Also - if you stay logged in... you can leave it up on your screen before you post... or just compose it in Word or something else.

Users are also welcome to report their own posts if they feel they've posted too soon, or with a hot head.

-------

As a side note... SB is not changing its moderation philosophy over 1 user. The philosophy hasn't changed, we're just trying to stick to what we've originally said.

Users should be able to post in the Green Zone without fear of ridicule for asking a "stupid question" - in my book, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

Sometimes, we (SB Moderation team) are generous with our overall impression of some users who may in fact be trolls, but we must give the benefit of the doubt (as previously stated) that every user has the best intentions with their questions.

Sure some questions may be viewed as a "lightning rod" by veterans, but may be genuine questions by noobs nonetheless.

I should also add that as one of the main representatives of ScubaBoard at consumer dive expos, the #1 complaint about SB by people who DON'T post is "It's mean" That to me is something that we can do something about. We've created the Green Zones. Also from the other poll (report card thread) we see a lot of regulars posting, "yeah, the level of moderation is just fine" but we also have the occasional less heard from poster that it took some of them a YEAR to break the ice and post because of fear.

Some people seem to think that SB isn't going to change, that's just a ridiculous concept. SB changes all the time, it's an ongoing experiment. Some things work, and others don't. While a few people who are hell bent on being mean might not like it, the overall picture is that SB is MORE popular today than it was this time last year (by a lot). This isn't just a presumption, but it's shown via web stats, traffic to the site, and alexa rankings.

 

[vladimir]

For some, I'd also suggest reading the post immediately after posting it ... in the context in which it is posted. I sometimes (well ... often) realize after posting something that, although I know what I meant, it may not be obvious to another reader. Or I'll see something that I meant to type, but didn't (this is what comes from multitasking ... particularly for some of us whose brains aren't as agile as they used to be). The Edit Post function can be your friend ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I edit just about every one of my posts upon rereading them. Not usually for tone (yes, I intend to be this obnoxious ), but almost always for grammar or spelling and occasionally for syntactic flaws. And sometimes I reread something that's rude or stupid, and just delete it:

.....

As you say, that's the price of multi-tasking, which I am always doing when I'm on ScubaBoard. When I see people shuffling their feet along the street while texting, in the mistaken belief that they are walking normally, it reminds me that multi-tasking is just a euphemism for doing two things poorly.

 

[mathauck0814]

I should also add that as one of the main representatives of ScubaBoard at consumer dive expos, the #1 complaint about SB by people who DON'T post is "It's mean" That to me is something that we can do something about. We've created the Green Zones. Also from the other poll (report card thread) we see a lot of regulars posting, "yeah, the level of moderation is just fine" but we also have the occasional less heard from poster that it took some of them a YEAR to break the ice and post because of fear.

I wonder how many of those votes from regulars would change their vote in light of the protectionism going on with this Matt character.

 

[HowardE]

I wonder how many of those votes from regulars would change their vote in light of the protectionism going on with this Matt character.

This same "level of protectionism" has "gone on" with several other users in the past. Some of them have made adjustments to their styles, and have successfully integrated into the general populous of SB, and others have just not made it. More experienced users who feel it's their duty to "shake the tree" and force these users away from SB (or at the same time, may try to "show the mods what this person is really all about) may see this as SB protecting the user who is being attacked. We don't need individuals taking vigilante approach to "helping the moderators" flush out these rascals. The moderators discuss (often in nauseating detail) many of these users who need extra help, and as I have also said, we MUST give them the benefit of the doubt for being genuine.

There are several more experienced users whom have made it clear that they don't like the Green Zones. Might I suggest that those users avoid the green zones then.

May I also suggest to those users that if you don't want to participate in these "Green Zone" forums, that you may want to follow these instructions on how to exclude those forums from your "New Posts"

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/how-use-scubaboard/382251-how-custom-forum-searches-exclusions.html

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I wonder how many of those votes from regulars would change their vote in light of the protectionism going on with this Matt character.

Not mine ... and I voted in the "just fine" category.

We don't have the perspective of seeing what goes on behind the scenes ... although as a former mod I have a reasonable notion that this thread's being watched and discussed far more in depth than most of us would imagine.

It's important to express our thoughts on these topics ... but it's also important to not assume the mods aren't taking what we say seriously. Most of them will. I'll give them a bit of margin to weigh their own thoughts against those they read out here and do what they consider is in the best interest of the board.

I may or may not agree with their decision ... but I trust that they'll make the one they believe is in the best interest of the most people.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2012 at 09:05 AM ----------

This same "level of protectionism" has "gone on" with several other users in the past. Some of them have made adjustments to their styles, and have successfully integrated into the general populous of SB, and others have just not made it. More experienced users who feel it's their duty to "shake the tree" and force these users away from SB (or at the same time, may try to "show the mods what this person is really all about) may see this as SB protecting the user who is being attacked. We don't need individuals taking vigilante approach to "helping the moderators" flush out these rascals. The moderators discuss (often in nauseating detail) many of these users who need extra help, and as I have also said, we MUST give them the benefit of the doubt for being genuine.

There are several more experienced users whom have made it clear that they don't like the Green Zones. Might I suggest that those users avoid the green zones then.

May I also suggest to those users that if you don't want to participate in these "Green Zone" forums, that you may want to follow these instructions on how to exclude those forums from your "New Posts"

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/how-use-scubaboard/382251-how-custom-forum-searches-exclusions.html

... and frankly, Howard, I think that when staff uses hot-button words like "vigilante", they are also assigning motives unfairly ... and shaking a tree of their own. I'm not sure I see how this will help move the dialogue in a constructive direction ... if anything, it makes a lot of us shake our head and wonder why we even bother responding when staff asks us for feedback.

We need ... on both ends ... to quit being divisive and give each other some margin for constructive motivations. I think most members ... and most mods ... are sincerely trying to make their participation here a positive one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[gypsyjim]

I agree with most of this and it occurs to me (as someone who has only been active on SB since August 2011) that SB and staff is proactively working towards redefining/ rethinking how they moderate the board. This is a challenging endevour since the culture of SB is firmly established and many people will be able to point out inconsistencies as moderation and expectations change. I appreciate SB being willing to do this and think that we should tolerate the process while the process is still on-going.

Also, I wonder if a 'save post' feature would help. If we were able to save a post for a short while before posting it, perhaps it would cut back on the hasty/ cut to the quick replies. I read a post recently that stated that the poster "had just read what they posted and had some edits." It occurred to me that perhaps many people don't re-read what they have written and if they had, they would have edited the post prior hitting the "post" button.

For some, I'd also suggest reading the post immediately after posting it ... in the context in which it is posted. I sometimes (well ... often) realize after posting something that, although I know what I meant, it may not be obvious to another reader. Or I'll see something that I meant to type, but didn't (this is what comes from multitasking ... particularly for some of us whose brains aren't as agile as they used to be). The Edit Post function can be your friend ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I edit just about every one of my posts upon rereading them. Not usually for tone (yes, I intend to be this obnoxious ), but almost always for grammar or spelling and occasionally for syntactic flaws. And sometimes I reread something that's rude or stupid, and just delete it:
As you say, that's the price of multi-tasking, which I am always doing when I'm on ScubaBoard. When I see people shuffling their feet along the street while texting, in the mistaken belief that they are walking normally, it reminds me that multi-tasking is just a euphemism for doing two things poorly.

If not for the Edit button my spelling errors would be even far more numerous than they are now!

Sometimes I am amazed at how something I posted simply did not come out quite as I intended, and that little edit button can sure help keep me from looking too stupid. Spell Check is no good for when the posted word is spelled OK, but it was either not the word I intended to type, or I did not spot how part of the thought got cut up in my first edit, and I didn't spot it until after posting.

There are also even times where, upon rereading a post I have removed it completely, and just put in a space filler or a smiley, as I realized I might have drifted off subject, or said something that could have unintentionally hurt someone.

 

[HowardE]

... and frankly, Howard, I think that when staff uses hot-button words like "vigilante", they are also assigning motives unfairly ... and shaking a tree of their own. I'm not sure I see how this will help move the dialogue in a constructive direction ... if anything, it makes a lot of us shake our head and wonder why we even bother responding when staff asks us for feedback.

We need ... on both ends ... to quit being divisive and give each other some margin for constructive motivations. I think most members ... and most mods ... are sincerely trying to make their participation here a positive one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

What should I call it then Bob? Really?

Are there not people on a quest to "out" people they see as trolls?

Let's be real here, and not candy coat everything. There are people hell bent on taking on these things because they THINK the moderators will not. When one "takes the law into their own hands" are they not vigilantes? What would be the correct word then? "Man on a mission to right the wrong"? "Guardian Angel"?

If there's any other information that can be provided here, I am not sure what that is. It's clear that whatever SB does, there will be a few people who don't like it. We welcome those comments, and allow people to air their grievances. While some people choose to place every statement under a microscope and analyze each word to the precise meaning, I personally think the overall message is quite clear.

Thanks for sharing your interpretation.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

What should I call it then Bob? Really?

Are there not people on a quest to "out" people they see as trolls?

Let's be real here, and not candy coat everything. There are people hell bent on taking on these things because they THINK the moderators will not. When one "takes the law into their own hands" are they not vigilantes? What would be the correct word then? "Man on a mission to right the wrong"? "Guardian Angel"?

I would say there's no need to call it anything ... particularly in public dialogue. It just "kicks the dog" ... and kicking a dog rarely results in getting the dog to do what you want him to.

The staff members who I respect the most ... those who I think most effectively deal with the "problem kids" on the board ... do so without assigning labels, or making assumptions about someone's motives.

I agree that there's no reason to candy coat everything. But assigning labels or assuming motivations based on personal perceptions often leads a conversation in an unproductive direction. And in those rare instances where such tactics are truly called for, a private conversation with the involved parties will usually allow more margin for a successful outcome.

Where's the boundary between someone expressing themselves and "taking the law into their own hands"? Sometimes that's a matter of interpretation ... and it's often more productive to ask someone to why they posted something than it is to tell them what you believe their motives to be.

It boils down to what you think the desired outcome should be ... there's usually a difference between resolving the problem vs winning the argument ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)