Moderation: Too much or too little?

[gypsyjim]

Outside of that, we encourage people like yourself to defend or decry various practices and let the reader sort things out. Any more than that, Bob, and we might cease being an interactive service protected by (get this) the decency laws.

Officially, ScubaBoard does not vet any information. We rely on our usership to correct and debunk.

One flaw in that is that when user do attempt to correct what they see as useless, bad, or even unsafe advice in a post, they may be attacked and accused of either dog piling or flaming. Attempting to correct what you see as poor advice has been seen to sometimes start some pretty nasty fights.

So in spite of (or maybe because of?) the most recent smiley inquisition, a lot of valuable points have come up that will help shape responses in the future.

One thing I like about SB, is that even when we are not always going to agree with the staff's choices and explanations, you guys (gals too) do seem to listen, and usually do a decent job of explaining your reasoning. I/we may not agree with it, but at least we get to see that you are aware of the user's points.

I agree with that. It is also practiced on many levels. And the general response when that is done is that we're "picking" on a user. Most days we can't win for losing, because no matter which way we decide to handle something, someone is going to think it's the wrong approach. The best we can do is to try and pick what we feel is the most appropriate approach for a given situation and then rely on the feedback like we've been getting here to help us improve the next decision.

Hey, when the readers try to correct what we see as a flawed post WE often get accused of attacking too!

The problem is that if we moderate *some* content, we need to moderate *all* content. If we moderate one thing and miss another, then the implication is that we have endorsed that by default. So if we miss something and someone takes it as sound advice (because otherwise we'd have moderated it right?) and then gets hurt, odds increase that we're gonna get the blame for it. And the last time I checked I was a volunteer - I'm not compensated nor insured for my opinions here and I sure as hell don't want to be liable for failing to properly vett some piece of information that gets someone killed or injured. Even if I was found not liable, what's it gonna cost me to defend myself? No thanks.


I know this sounds overly simple, but the best solution is to report the post. As has been said time and time again, we don't see everything. If we're made aware of it, we can do something to address that and the individuals who like to respond that way.


We have to go off our best judgment and sometimes if an action is not clear we choose to do nothing rather than to enforce too much moderation. Unless we have the same first hand inside information that you have, it's hard for us to look at a post against the same yardstick you're using.

Is it possible that when readers "Report" what they see as unsafe, or simply very poor advice, the mods could at least add a post to the thread, advising other readers that this advice has been reported and there are serious questions about that advice? That way SB has not actually offered any official up or down opinion on any of that advice, avoiding any implication that ScubaBoard themselves review and monitor such advice. Covers the legal boy's worries.

Just a thought on how to deal with the occasional advice, posted by a less well informed, or even well intentioned user, without other readers being accused of "Picking a fight", "Dog piling" or "Flaming".

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 AM ----------

My above suggestion of the staff placing a Mod post to call attention to a Report may already occur, and I just may never have witnessed such a posting. If so, excuse my interruption in this discussion.

 

[The Chairman]

One flaw in that is that when user do attempt to correct what they see as useless, bad, or even unsafe advice in a post, they may be attacked and accused of either dog piling or flaming. Attempting to correct what you see as poor advice has been seen to sometimes start some pretty nasty fights.

Attacking ideas is never a problem though some people like to be more confrontational than others. No, they don't always appreciate it when people disagree with them, but you can do it without violating the ToS and attacking the person.

"Bounce diving to 200 ft is an dumb idea" is fine, while "You're dumb for bounce diving to 200 ft" is not. While it's impossible to reason with an unreasonable person, the people who subsequently read the dialog can easily detect who makes sense and who makes nonsense. If you want people to take YOUR advice, then I suggest that you resort to logic, reason and facts that you can substantiate. If you find the other side is getting frustrated and starting to call you names, simply stay above the fray and use the "Report Post" function.

That being said, we do frown on the habits of a few who seem to be POV Warriors and try to derail EVERY thread into a discussion trying to foist their POV into it. Use the "Report Post" function and let us deal with it. We likewise frown on those who become cyber-stalkers in an effort to debunk the efforts of their least favorite POV Warrior. Two wrongs simply don't make a right.

There is a discussion in the back room about when we should intervene when it comes to name calling. Is telling someone that they are an "unsafe diver" calling them a name? How about when people are called a "troll" or a "POV Warrior"? Should we hold the line only for recognized epithets like idiot, a-hole and stroke, or should we expand it to include anything other than their name?

 

[The Chairman]

Unless we have the same first hand inside information that you have, it's hard for us to look at a post against the same yardstick you're using.

This is so true! Often we get a reported post where the reporter is telling us that X is stalking them and making veiled references. Unless you explain those veiled references, we can't hope to understand it. This is especially true when a couple breaks up. We often get "S/he's looking at me!" reports and really, what the hell are we supposed to do about it? To one we are under-moderating but to the other we are way over moderating. Obviously, if there is any sign of a threat we opt on the side of safety and ask them to seek law enforcement to intervene. In any case, it's imperative that you give us the back ground information we need to make a decision.

 

[dlndavid]

no worries, no popcorn smilie, we still got

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 AM ----------

...and my take/use of the popcorn smilie, was better get situated, the show is about to begin.

 

[gypsyjim]

There is a discussion in the back room about when we should intervene when it comes to name calling. Is telling someone that they are an "unsafe diver" calling them a name? How about when people are called a "troll" or a "POV Warrior"? Should we hold the line only for recognized epithets like idiot, a-hole and stroke, or should we expand it to include anything other than their name?

should we expand it to include anything other than their name?

Ouch. If we were to look up "Over Moderating" in the dictionary, I expect that is exactly the sort of description we might find.
I would vote, wait until blatant, obvious name calling, as we are all adults (well mostly) and we are already living in a way too PC world as it is. If a poster objects and reports another poster I would hold to a pretty stiff standard as to what is actual "name calling", and what is simply opinion they may not like.

Too often people chose to be offended, when none was intended. I am not responsible for how others react to me or my words, unless I have really stepped over an obvious, recognized line in the sand. If someone should take offense with my choice of wording, they are always welcome to discuss it with me, and if I find their objection valid, I will adjust my words accordingly.

 

[boulderjohn]

Too often people chose to be offended, when none was intended. I am not responsible for how others react to me or my words, unless I have really stepped over an obvious, recognized line in the sand.

But who recognized that line in the sand?

A number of years ago the Governor of Arizona shocked everyone by using what I would have thought was a recognized offensive term for African Americans. He said he did not mean to offend, and the word had always been used in his household without any thought that others might be offended. Baseball pitcher John Rocker had the same experience when his very offensive words during an interview was published in Sports Illustrated. In those cases, the wordings were clearly offensive to most people other than those who spoke them. In both of those cases, I would argue that it was more than the words that were offensive; they in fact were accurate indicators at an attitude that others found offensive. (See John Rocker's current web site for confirmation.) If it is YOUR attitude, then you will never think others should be offended by it.

On the other hand, the opposite is true as well. Some people will be offended by something that really is completely innocent. Some people really will take offense not only where it is not intended, but when an objective viewpoint would be that there really wasn't anything offensive there.

And then there is everything in between.

The hard part for moderators is that all of those get reported. Some are easy to judge; some are very difficult. In the difficult cases, someone is going to think the final decision was wrong, no matter what it turned out to be.

 

[dlndavid]

for what?

 

[lowviz]

...//... There is a discussion in the back room about when we should intervene when it comes to name calling. ...//...

Use the KISS principle, ban name calling.

...//..."Bounce diving to 200 ft is an dumb idea" is fine, while "You're dumb for bounce diving to 200 ft" is not. ...//...

-not like we can't figure out a way around it.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Use the KISS principle, ban name calling.

It'll get awfully confusing when everybody runs around calling out "Hey You!"

Oh and by the way,

 

[lowviz]

...//...

[-]Troublemaker.[/-] Such behavior could lead a person to believe that this is an attempt at making trouble.