Let's talk about mod deletion policy January 30, 2023 1:27 PM Subscribe
I would very much like for the community to get a chance to opine regarding when and if mods should delete comments on Metatalk.
The specific instance that prompted this was taz deleting an angry and fighty critical comment from MollyRealized in the Fundraising update thread, as well as giving them an indefinte ban from Metatalk. I think this was a poor decision and/or poor mod policy.
In general, in Metatalk, I do not think comments should be deleted unless they are racist, sexist, or other -ist. The community can self-police. If someone has a dissenting and outlying opinion, others will push back on that and let them know. If someone is being an asshole, we can see that and calibrate accordingly.
Can we come to any consensus in terms of updating mod policy on comment deletions? Can we get the mods to default to "let the people talk" on Metatalk?
This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say and allow the SC to reflect on that feedback, and provide the mods clear guidelines in this regard.
The specific instance that prompted this was taz deleting an angry and fighty critical comment from MollyRealized in the Fundraising update thread, as well as giving them an indefinte ban from Metatalk. I think this was a poor decision and/or poor mod policy.
In general, in Metatalk, I do not think comments should be deleted unless they are racist, sexist, or other -ist. The community can self-police. If someone has a dissenting and outlying opinion, others will push back on that and let them know. If someone is being an asshole, we can see that and calibrate accordingly.
Can we come to any consensus in terms of updating mod policy on comment deletions? Can we get the mods to default to "let the people talk" on Metatalk?
This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say and allow the SC to reflect on that feedback, and provide the mods clear guidelines in this regard.
Mod note: Chiming in with a few notes for now:
– I am directly in touch with MollyRealized as we speak BUT we cannot disclose specifics on why the comment was deleted. Please understand that a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well.
– When an issue with a member becomes a trend it is a common practice for us to ask members to self-regulate rather than taking harsher actions and we DO trust the community's ability to communicate and talk through their disagreements.
– Yes, having a "let the people talk" policy in MetaTalk and not deleting comments unless they go against either the Content Policy or Guidelines is the default moderation policy, but there might be exceptions (covered in the "Enforcement" section of the Content Policy).
– In the past, I've asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates to me. And I think it would be reasonable for the Mods to apply a similar "lighter" moderation in MeTas that are either from the SC or Site Updates in order to make the communications with members in said threads a more coherent process.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:42 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
– I am directly in touch with MollyRealized as we speak BUT we cannot disclose specifics on why the comment was deleted. Please understand that a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well.
– When an issue with a member becomes a trend it is a common practice for us to ask members to self-regulate rather than taking harsher actions and we DO trust the community's ability to communicate and talk through their disagreements.
– Yes, having a "let the people talk" policy in MetaTalk and not deleting comments unless they go against either the Content Policy or Guidelines is the default moderation policy, but there might be exceptions (covered in the "Enforcement" section of the Content Policy).
– In the past, I've asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates to me. And I think it would be reasonable for the Mods to apply a similar "lighter" moderation in MeTas that are either from the SC or Site Updates in order to make the communications with members in said threads a more coherent process.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:42 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
The previous era of what seemed like continual knock down drag out arguments on MeTa, full of call outs and flameouts, were not good. Whatever we end up doing, I vote for not that.
posted by zamboni at 1:42 PM on January 30, 2023 [70 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 1:42 PM on January 30, 2023 [70 favorites]
I think it’s debatable whether the comment in question was “mean” and directed at the SC. Of course since it was deleted lots of people didn’t see it. I think an argument could be made that it would be better suited to start a new metatalk post to discuss the specific things that commenter wanted to bring up.
posted by JenMarie at 1:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 1:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Loup, can you identify the issue with the member that was raised by the initial comment?
Does that violate privacy concerns?
Does the fact that MR waived her member privacy concerns bear on this matter?
Is there really no way to communicate why MR's comment was deleted w/o privacy concerns? What rule was at issue here?
Surely the issue can be communicated generally, without going into particulars.
posted by angrycat at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Does that violate privacy concerns?
Does the fact that MR waived her member privacy concerns bear on this matter?
Is there really no way to communicate why MR's comment was deleted w/o privacy concerns? What rule was at issue here?
Surely the issue can be communicated generally, without going into particulars.
posted by angrycat at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Also, to Loup: so is this a situation where people forgot that you were the one who was supposed to moderate site updates?
posted by angrycat at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2023
posted by angrycat at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2023
– When an issue with a member becomes a trend it is a common practice for us to ask members to self-regulate rather than taking harsher actions and we DO trust the community's ability to communicate and talk through their disagreements.
Okay, three things about this:
1 -- taz did not ask MollyRealized to self-regulate. taz told MollyRealized to stop and walk away, with an implied threat of further sanction, which was then carried out when MollyRealized did not stop and walk away.
2 -- Can these actions please not be taken in public? "Comment deleted. Stop being gross, username." is not necessary, nor is telling the whole site when someone is given a timeout.
3 -- You can't claim to be respecting a user's privacy while alluding to a trend of misbehavior that you won't discuss further.
posted by Etrigan at 1:55 PM on January 30, 2023 [34 favorites]
Okay, three things about this:
1 -- taz did not ask MollyRealized to self-regulate. taz told MollyRealized to stop and walk away, with an implied threat of further sanction, which was then carried out when MollyRealized did not stop and walk away.
2 -- Can these actions please not be taken in public? "Comment deleted. Stop being gross, username." is not necessary, nor is telling the whole site when someone is given a timeout.
3 -- You can't claim to be respecting a user's privacy while alluding to a trend of misbehavior that you won't discuss further.
posted by Etrigan at 1:55 PM on January 30, 2023 [34 favorites]
I am directly in touch with MollyRealized as we speak BUT we cannot disclose specifics on why the comment was deleted. Please understand that a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well.
Loup, are you aware that MollyRealized already gave permission for you to discuss this in their Reddit post? As for "the integrity of the decision making process", it seems that's at the very heart of the matter, that the process lacks integrity because it lacks clear guidelines, it lacks accountability, and it lacks documentation. The purpose here is specifically to discuss the thought process that allowed taz to a) remove the comment, b) block MollyRealized completely from using the site, and c) not tell anyone that they had been blocked. If you're not prepared to do that...
In fact, looking through that Fundraising thread, I still can't find any mod stepping forward to admit, "Yes, MollyRealized was blocked from using MetaFilter because of their comment(s) in this thread".
I also want to keep bringing people's attention to the moderation log at Lobste.rs, how simple, clear and useful it is.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:57 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Loup, are you aware that MollyRealized already gave permission for you to discuss this in their Reddit post? As for "the integrity of the decision making process", it seems that's at the very heart of the matter, that the process lacks integrity because it lacks clear guidelines, it lacks accountability, and it lacks documentation. The purpose here is specifically to discuss the thought process that allowed taz to a) remove the comment, b) block MollyRealized completely from using the site, and c) not tell anyone that they had been blocked. If you're not prepared to do that...
In fact, looking through that Fundraising thread, I still can't find any mod stepping forward to admit, "Yes, MollyRealized was blocked from using MetaFilter because of their comment(s) in this thread".
I also want to keep bringing people's attention to the moderation log at Lobste.rs, how simple, clear and useful it is.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:57 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's helpful that we have the demand for 100% visible moderation juxtaposed against an immediately prior comment demanding exactly the opposite.
posted by Mid at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2023 [28 favorites]
posted by Mid at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2023 [28 favorites]
The previous era of what seemed like continual knock down drag out arguments on MeTa, full of call outs and flameouts, were not good.
But old school MeTa was so much fun! The shiposting! The flame wars! The img tag! The taters! Deleting comments was anathema.
But we're a different community now, and moderators gotta moderate. As well they should.
posted by slogger at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
But old school MeTa was so much fun! The shiposting! The flame wars! The img tag! The taters! Deleting comments was anathema.
But we're a different community now, and moderators gotta moderate. As well they should.
posted by slogger at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Can these actions please not be taken in public? "Comment deleted. Stop being gross, username." is not necessary, nor is telling the whole site when someone is given a timeout.
I have a funny feeling that if mods did keep things under wraps, they would be criticized for not publicly speaking out against malefactors; in fact, I think they actually have received that criticism in the past.
I'm not saying either way is the One True Path, mind you. Just commenting that I've seen passionate arguments for both positions.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:05 PM on January 30, 2023 [35 favorites]
I have a funny feeling that if mods did keep things under wraps, they would be criticized for not publicly speaking out against malefactors; in fact, I think they actually have received that criticism in the past.
I'm not saying either way is the One True Path, mind you. Just commenting that I've seen passionate arguments for both positions.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:05 PM on January 30, 2023 [35 favorites]
Based on some on- and off-site reading I would like to suggest two policy points.
1. I'm fine with temporary site bans if a member is asked to leave a thread and won't. I think as a matter of policy there ought to be a stated general expectation for the length of that ban and that if mod coverage is an issue, it might be for business days and include the intervening non-business days like weekends and holidays. I understand user urgency but especially if Loup is the only mod supposed to communicate about user issues of this level, they ought to get their days off without being hassled.
2. I don't know what the deal with the Metafilter-related subreddits are but as a site user, I'm side-eyeing the significant involvement of Reddit in this case. It might be less icky to me if it were somebody's blog but even as a Reddit user myself I have some memories of negative vibes/interactions between Metafilter and Reddit. People are going to do their own thing and that includes complaining publicly off-site about stuff they don't like. But I'd like to see some official policies about how mods/individual members handle cases like all the back-and-forth about what one person or another said on Reddit in the previous MeTa come out of this situation, however it's resolved. I don't know what the right answer is; I just think there ought to be some clarity around whether or not it's acceptable to bring those arguments back to MeTa.
And in the "mods marking deletions in the thread" vs "mods not marking deletions in the thread" I'd prefer deletions marked, FWIW.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
1. I'm fine with temporary site bans if a member is asked to leave a thread and won't. I think as a matter of policy there ought to be a stated general expectation for the length of that ban and that if mod coverage is an issue, it might be for business days and include the intervening non-business days like weekends and holidays. I understand user urgency but especially if Loup is the only mod supposed to communicate about user issues of this level, they ought to get their days off without being hassled.
2. I don't know what the deal with the Metafilter-related subreddits are but as a site user, I'm side-eyeing the significant involvement of Reddit in this case. It might be less icky to me if it were somebody's blog but even as a Reddit user myself I have some memories of negative vibes/interactions between Metafilter and Reddit. People are going to do their own thing and that includes complaining publicly off-site about stuff they don't like. But I'd like to see some official policies about how mods/individual members handle cases like all the back-and-forth about what one person or another said on Reddit in the previous MeTa come out of this situation, however it's resolved. I don't know what the right answer is; I just think there ought to be some clarity around whether or not it's acceptable to bring those arguments back to MeTa.
And in the "mods marking deletions in the thread" vs "mods not marking deletions in the thread" I'd prefer deletions marked, FWIW.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I have a funny feeling that if mods did keep things under wraps, they would be criticized for not publicly speaking out against malefactors; in fact, I think they actually have received that criticism in the past.
Part of the problem we have now is that the vast majority of deletions are already totally secret. We only see them when something is really egregious and a bunch of people are strongly responding (in which case those strong responses are themselves deleted opaquely), or the person has allegedly transgressed some X number of times (where X is pretty clearly not a constant) to the point that there must be this Official Mod Comment that will be in permanent public record that Username does this gross thing a lot. So we have a hidden process that leads to public sanction, and then if anyone pushes back, it goes private again and the mods refuse, even when specifically allowed by the user, to discuss it further. That's the worst of all combinations.
If we as a community want a Lobste.rs style of public moderation log, then great. I'll go along with that. But until we get it (and I'm sure it will take a lot of programming time and effort to implement), we shouldn't have this thing where the mods get to make vague accusations of invisible patterns of behavior. Either make moderation private or make it public.
posted by Etrigan at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Part of the problem we have now is that the vast majority of deletions are already totally secret. We only see them when something is really egregious and a bunch of people are strongly responding (in which case those strong responses are themselves deleted opaquely), or the person has allegedly transgressed some X number of times (where X is pretty clearly not a constant) to the point that there must be this Official Mod Comment that will be in permanent public record that Username does this gross thing a lot. So we have a hidden process that leads to public sanction, and then if anyone pushes back, it goes private again and the mods refuse, even when specifically allowed by the user, to discuss it further. That's the worst of all combinations.
If we as a community want a Lobste.rs style of public moderation log, then great. I'll go along with that. But until we get it (and I'm sure it will take a lot of programming time and effort to implement), we shouldn't have this thing where the mods get to make vague accusations of invisible patterns of behavior. Either make moderation private or make it public.
posted by Etrigan at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
– I am directly in touch with MollyRealized as we speak BUT we cannot disclose specifics on why the comment was deleted. Please understand that a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well.
Why does it undermine the integrity of the decision making process?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
Why does it undermine the integrity of the decision making process?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
There is one thing that concerns me about the alleged banning of a user over this situation. People are saying that, in effect, the user was 'shadow banned' by being banned while still showing as active in their profile. If this is true, I'd like to know why this was done - maybe I've missed it, but I don't believe this has ever been done before. I'm not interested in what random people on Reddit say, I want to know the truth, from someone that actually knows the facts.
Either make moderation private or make it public
I disagree with almost everything you've said on this topic, but I do agree with this. However, this clearly falls into the territory of 'be careful what you wish for' because there are lots of traps in both.
posted by dg at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Either make moderation private or make it public
I disagree with almost everything you've said on this topic, but I do agree with this. However, this clearly falls into the territory of 'be careful what you wish for' because there are lots of traps in both.
posted by dg at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
I have a funny feeling that if mods did keep things under wraps, they would be criticized for not publicly speaking out against malefactors; in fact, I think they actually have received that criticism in the past.
At least one memorable time that I recall: During travelingthyme’s first month on the job they removed a comment in a thread and specifically mentioned the user’s name. Then cortex actually edited the mod’s comment to sound less harsh and removed the username. It got brought up in a MetaTalk thread and other users got extremely upset about it. Eventually the original mod note was restored.
The lesson here is that under the current system, the only way other users find out about moderator overreacting is if it gets brought up on MeTa. And the only way to affect any change has been to repeatedly call for accountability in the comments.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:45 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
At least one memorable time that I recall: During travelingthyme’s first month on the job they removed a comment in a thread and specifically mentioned the user’s name. Then cortex actually edited the mod’s comment to sound less harsh and removed the username. It got brought up in a MetaTalk thread and other users got extremely upset about it. Eventually the original mod note was restored.
The lesson here is that under the current system, the only way other users find out about moderator overreacting is if it gets brought up on MeTa. And the only way to affect any change has been to repeatedly call for accountability in the comments.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:45 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
To be clear I don't think completely public mod decisions is a panacea, but the current state is not very functional.
I have experience moderating a similarly web 1.0 forum and based on that the one thing I'd invite mods to do is to consciously open themselves to the possibility that processes can change. Complainers can be frustrating, irritating and annoying and also be correct.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
I have experience moderating a similarly web 1.0 forum and based on that the one thing I'd invite mods to do is to consciously open themselves to the possibility that processes can change. Complainers can be frustrating, irritating and annoying and also be correct.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
'a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well."
Why does it undermine the integrity of the decision making process?
I would also like to understand this process, and how it would be undermined by transparency.
In general, I am in favour of more transparency rather than less, and for deletions to be marked in threads. It's disconcerting to see content in a thread one minute and then look back a few minutes later to find it missing. It's also annoying to come into a thread and find a lot of comments discussing something that only a few people have seen.
posted by rpfields at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Why does it undermine the integrity of the decision making process?
I would also like to understand this process, and how it would be undermined by transparency.
In general, I am in favour of more transparency rather than less, and for deletions to be marked in threads. It's disconcerting to see content in a thread one minute and then look back a few minutes later to find it missing. It's also annoying to come into a thread and find a lot of comments discussing something that only a few people have seen.
posted by rpfields at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
I do not think comments should be deleted unless they are racist, sexist, or other -ist.
What is the underlying philosophy there? If the point is to not upset people unnecessarily it seems like a much larger array of activities should be addressed.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:06 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
What is the underlying philosophy there? If the point is to not upset people unnecessarily it seems like a much larger array of activities should be addressed.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 3:06 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would actually like to see MetaTalk comments more heavily moderated to stay on topic. I think discussing topics is great. But a lot of MetaTalks turn into continued discussions on tangential issues. I would love to discuss fundraising in the fundraising thread, marketing in a marketing thread, and so on.
As far as banning users, I would like to see:
- clear warnings like “next step is a 2-day timeout if you keep posting on the thread” or whatever. I’m also in favour of standardizing some of the mod language.
- an appeal process at some point once the SC has had time to clarify their role. It might go to a joint team of mods + SC members or some other thing. I think this should only be available to people who have posted more than say 50 comments (I.e. not spammers) and should be sent to anyone banned so that they have a way to present their case that isn’t via Reddit. Maybe a log of just username and decision could be available so that there isn’t a sense of mystery.
As far as MetaFilter as an organization goes, I continue to be uncomfortable discussing mod/staff work in public among a hundred people. But that is why I think having a second-tier process for bans would be good. A user ban is a more significant step than a deleted comment.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
As far as banning users, I would like to see:
- clear warnings like “next step is a 2-day timeout if you keep posting on the thread” or whatever. I’m also in favour of standardizing some of the mod language.
- an appeal process at some point once the SC has had time to clarify their role. It might go to a joint team of mods + SC members or some other thing. I think this should only be available to people who have posted more than say 50 comments (I.e. not spammers) and should be sent to anyone banned so that they have a way to present their case that isn’t via Reddit. Maybe a log of just username and decision could be available so that there isn’t a sense of mystery.
As far as MetaFilter as an organization goes, I continue to be uncomfortable discussing mod/staff work in public among a hundred people. But that is why I think having a second-tier process for bans would be good. A user ban is a more significant step than a deleted comment.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
we cannot disclose specifics on why the comment was deleted. Please understand that a key part of the moderation policy includes not discussing the background of the actions being taken with third parties, not only because of member privacy (which yes, is the main reason) but because it undermines the integrity of the decision making process as well.
This is rather bizarre to me. At the end of the day we are talking about someone's public web comment, not medical records or nuclear negotiations. If it comes to pass that this process is somehow wrapped up in an extremely delicate behind-the-scenes human safety issue that the site moderators are carefully dealing with, I will eat crow with genuine humility, but if the situation is more or less as it appears, the present amount of mystery and reservation bewilders a little.
posted by dusty potato at 3:40 PM on January 30, 2023 [19 favorites]
This is rather bizarre to me. At the end of the day we are talking about someone's public web comment, not medical records or nuclear negotiations. If it comes to pass that this process is somehow wrapped up in an extremely delicate behind-the-scenes human safety issue that the site moderators are carefully dealing with, I will eat crow with genuine humility, but if the situation is more or less as it appears, the present amount of mystery and reservation bewilders a little.
posted by dusty potato at 3:40 PM on January 30, 2023 [19 favorites]
I think one challenge in considering the best policy here is that not all MetaTalk posts are the same. For example, this thread is a policy discussion. We also regularly have the informal-discussion MetaTalktails posts which are intentionally lighthearted, community-building discussions. There are also news/site-update posts, question-asking posts, and, very sadly, user obituary posts, among others. Clearly the kinds of comments that are disruptive to the discussion are very different in each of these cases; I don't think any of us wants to see them all treated exactly the same, but delineating exactly what's appropriate in each type of post, or even identifying which category a given post falls into, is not necessarily straightforward, and is part of the judgment call that I think we need moderators to make. Being a judgment call, the moderators aren't always going to get it right.
That said, I think this is a very good discussion to have, as the moderators' judgment calls do need to be generally in line with what we want as a community. Personally, I in general would like to see fewer comment deletions on MetaFilter overall, and greater reliance on thread-guiding moderator comments, but that is also more difficult without full-time mod coverage, and I'm not sure where the practical balance lies.
My personal preferences for moderation approaches to MetaTalk threads are as follows (keeping in mind I'm just one user expressing opinions, and not taking a hard stance regarding the practicalities of actually following these approaches):
posted by biogeo at 3:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [56 favorites]
That said, I think this is a very good discussion to have, as the moderators' judgment calls do need to be generally in line with what we want as a community. Personally, I in general would like to see fewer comment deletions on MetaFilter overall, and greater reliance on thread-guiding moderator comments, but that is also more difficult without full-time mod coverage, and I'm not sure where the practical balance lies.
My personal preferences for moderation approaches to MetaTalk threads are as follows (keeping in mind I'm just one user expressing opinions, and not taking a hard stance regarding the practicalities of actually following these approaches):
- Across all types of post, I think it's probably uncontroversial that comments breaking basic guidelines regarding slurs, sexism, racism, etc., should be deleted. That seems to be the current approach and it's a good one. Everything below is assuming we're working from that baseline.
- For policy discussions, I would prefer to see deletions used very rarely if at all (aside from the given baseline minimum), but much greater involvement of moderators in guiding the discussion to remind people of the guidelines and help people to be their best selves in what are often contentious and fast-moving threads. However, I would also prefer moderators to play a greater role in reminding people to try to keep things on-topic, and suggesting that new policy posts be spun off when an off-topic discussion threatens to crowd out the original topic of discussion. But actual deletions should be a last resort within policy discussions.
- For chat and community-building discussions, I would prefer to see deletions used for off-topic comments that run contrary to the intent and function of those posts. For example, trying to start a site policy discussion in a MetaTalktail thread seems like a pretty obvious off-topic derail to me that defeats the purpose of the MetaTalktails, and deleting such comments without warning is reasonable and does no harm to the integrity of policy discussions in general, which can still happen elsewhere.
- For news and site update posts, I think the line between on- and off-topic discussions is blurrier. In general I would prefer mods to err on the side of not deleting but this is a judgment call. I do think encouraging spin-off posts is better than letting things languish in a news post where people are less likely to see them and where they hijack the news-sharing and discussion function of the post. Such suggestions should be accompanied with a clear statement of expectations for the MetaTalk queue, for example, "It would be better to continue this discussion in its own MetaTalk post. Please submit one, and let us know using the contact form if you'd like help preparing one. As a heads-up, if you submit a post within the next couple of days, it's probably going to be Monday [or whatever] before we release it from the queue, so that we can ensure adequate mod coverage when it goes live. However, that is an estimate, and it could also be a few days after that." If the conversation on that topic continues to the point of crowding out the original purpose of the post, an additional mod note saying something like "Further discussion about this topic needs to go in its own post. Once someone creates one we'll approve it when there's adequate mod coverage. (Or: There is a post currently in the queue, which will be released once there's adequate mod coverage.) Please hold your further thoughts on this topic until we can release that post. To keep this post usable for discussion about [original topic], we're going to start deleting any continued discussion about [new topic] as a derail here, but those thoughts will be welcome in the new thread."
- In all cases where a comment is deleted both on MetaTalk and on the rest of MetaFilter, I would prefer to see a moderator note in-thread indicating that a deletion has occurred. The fact that deletions don't always seem to be consistently noted is a frequent source of confusion and frustration, both for me personally and expressed by others. I have personally wondered on more than one occasion whether a comment was deleted or I misremembered what someone else said; in some cases it turned out it was one, and others the other. At the very least being able to rely on moderator notes identifying that deletions have occurred should be a given. If there are occasional mistakes where a note isn't left, I think we can live with that, but in my opinion the policy should be that a note is always left to record a deletion along with a brief reason ("a few deleted due to derail", "one deleted due to breaking community guidelines", etc.).
posted by biogeo at 3:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [56 favorites]
Biogeo I think that's an excellent and very achievable approach.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:51 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 3:51 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Can we come to any consensus in terms of updating mod policy on comment deletions? Can we get the mods to default to "let the people talk" on Metatalk?
I'm going to guess not because I currently don't have any significant problem with the way mods currently operate.
I also think mods should definitely be deleting comments in meta if they are inflammatory or derailling ( which IMO the instigating comment was both) or are a user flaming out. Probably.other instances too. And like I wrote previously if I have done something so offensive it warrants deletion and a time out I would prefer that not be permanently memorialized in some publically accessible mod log.
posted by Mitheral at 4:01 PM on January 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
I'm going to guess not because I currently don't have any significant problem with the way mods currently operate.
I also think mods should definitely be deleting comments in meta if they are inflammatory or derailling ( which IMO the instigating comment was both) or are a user flaming out. Probably.other instances too. And like I wrote previously if I have done something so offensive it warrants deletion and a time out I would prefer that not be permanently memorialized in some publically accessible mod log.
posted by Mitheral at 4:01 PM on January 30, 2023 [9 favorites]
Once someone creates one we'll approve it when there's adequate mod coverage. (Or: There is a post currently in the queue, which will be released once there's adequate mod coverage.)
Ah, but that's the catch-22, isn't it? There can't be a new post without mod coverage, mod coverage is at an all-time low because of low funding and low membership. Membership can't go up without site outreach... which brings us back around to what MollyRealized was posting about in the first place.
Also, that provides a very convenient excuse for mods to circle the wagons defensively around themselves and let a topic die, by pruning comments out of one thread in the expectation of a MeTa that comes too late to stop the bloodflow.
I have been beating a drum for volunteer mods to be trained by the existing mods for a while now, but that's for a different MeTa. Having a clear policy with an accountability process would certainly help with that, though.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Ah, but that's the catch-22, isn't it? There can't be a new post without mod coverage, mod coverage is at an all-time low because of low funding and low membership. Membership can't go up without site outreach... which brings us back around to what MollyRealized was posting about in the first place.
Also, that provides a very convenient excuse for mods to circle the wagons defensively around themselves and let a topic die, by pruning comments out of one thread in the expectation of a MeTa that comes too late to stop the bloodflow.
I have been beating a drum for volunteer mods to be trained by the existing mods for a while now, but that's for a different MeTa. Having a clear policy with an accountability process would certainly help with that, though.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
Moding is a hard job; it shouldn't be volunteer.
posted by Mitheral at 4:06 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 4:06 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
Ah, but that's the catch-22, isn't it?
Can you expand on why you think it’s a catch-22?
posted by zamboni at 4:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Can you expand on why you think it’s a catch-22?
posted by zamboni at 4:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
People, Processes, Technology : the three pilars of any operation.
Has anyone ever suggested that by implementing quality management and continuous improvement directly into processes Metafilter could streamline moderation functions with the byproduct of creating and tracking all those moderation metrics users have been asking for in the process? Formally pursuing ISO 9001 certification may be a bridge too far, but surely something of value could be found within.
posted by some loser at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2023
Has anyone ever suggested that by implementing quality management and continuous improvement directly into processes Metafilter could streamline moderation functions with the byproduct of creating and tracking all those moderation metrics users have been asking for in the process? Formally pursuing ISO 9001 certification may be a bridge too far, but surely something of value could be found within.
posted by some loser at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2023
Moding is a hard job; it shouldn't be volunteer.
modding is actually extremely easy. modding well is hard, which is the point of this meta, surely? is metafilter modding as good as it could or should be, and if not how could or should it change?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
modding is actually extremely easy. modding well is hard, which is the point of this meta, surely? is metafilter modding as good as it could or should be, and if not how could or should it change?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2023 [5 favorites]
If there were more funds, yes, some more notes from mods would be great. Or, as biogeo suggests, thread-guiding by mods. That said, I do not think the deletion in the thread that sparked this one was a bad call.
The community can self-police
I think this is, with respect, the opposite of the point of MetaFilter. Moderation is one of the reasons the site is not a cesspool. I think the "let the people talk" approach is "let them fight" by another name. Yes, MetaTalk is a place to talk about the site, but I don't think antagonist, dramatic, shit-stirring serves any better purpose here than elsewhere on the site.
MetaFilter may be Old Web, but MeFites are no longer Old Web. The traits of decades of online discourse are part of us now, some more than others, and I don't think a free-for-all in the style of primitive forums, listservs, etc. is a good way forward. That is not how the site evolved, and I think that's part of what's attractive about it. While I can see the merits of (perhaps; at some point) wrapping MetaFilter up into an app, or whatever, I don't think it should strive to be something that it is not.
This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say
Indeed. Thank you for this post, Meatbomb. I don't agree with you, but this discussion seems productive. Kudos.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
The community can self-police
I think this is, with respect, the opposite of the point of MetaFilter. Moderation is one of the reasons the site is not a cesspool. I think the "let the people talk" approach is "let them fight" by another name. Yes, MetaTalk is a place to talk about the site, but I don't think antagonist, dramatic, shit-stirring serves any better purpose here than elsewhere on the site.
MetaFilter may be Old Web, but MeFites are no longer Old Web. The traits of decades of online discourse are part of us now, some more than others, and I don't think a free-for-all in the style of primitive forums, listservs, etc. is a good way forward. That is not how the site evolved, and I think that's part of what's attractive about it. While I can see the merits of (perhaps; at some point) wrapping MetaFilter up into an app, or whatever, I don't think it should strive to be something that it is not.
This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say
Indeed. Thank you for this post, Meatbomb. I don't agree with you, but this discussion seems productive. Kudos.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
Has anyone ever suggested that by implementing quality management and continuous improvement directly into processes Metafilter could streamline
(12) Multiply paper work in plausible ways.posted by zamboni at 4:33 PM on January 30, 2023 [18 favorites]
is metafilter modding as good as it could or should be
Given that what the community wants from the mods is incoherent--see Mid's comment above "It's helpful that we have the demand for 100% visible moderation juxtaposed against an immediately prior comment demanding exactly the opposite."--it's going to be hard for the mods to do as well as they could.
I think sorting out how moderation works in the new Metafilter world is going to result in some departures and maybe some more flameouts, which makes me sad. But no moderation policy is going to satisfy the desires of everyone in this thread, much less everybody on Metafilter.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Given that what the community wants from the mods is incoherent--see Mid's comment above "It's helpful that we have the demand for 100% visible moderation juxtaposed against an immediately prior comment demanding exactly the opposite."--it's going to be hard for the mods to do as well as they could.
I think sorting out how moderation works in the new Metafilter world is going to result in some departures and maybe some more flameouts, which makes me sad. But no moderation policy is going to satisfy the desires of everyone in this thread, much less everybody on Metafilter.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
gentlyepigrams, would you agree with biogeo's suggested approach above?
posted by Sebmojo at 4:45 PM on January 30, 2023
posted by Sebmojo at 4:45 PM on January 30, 2023
Echoing cupcakeninja, this is an important and well-crafted post. Thanks, Meatbomb.
posted by biogeo at 4:56 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 4:56 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
I really appreciate the update from Loup but I feel still in the dark as to what happens going forward. Are Loup's preferences going to be made manifest (e.g., only Loup is moderating site updates, there will be a lighter moderation hand in metatalk threads).
What does 'a lighter moderation hand' mean, specifically?
What role does the SC have vis-a-vis moderation policies, specifically? If this is under discussion, can there be an explicit statement to that affect?
posted by angrycat at 5:24 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
What does 'a lighter moderation hand' mean, specifically?
What role does the SC have vis-a-vis moderation policies, specifically? If this is under discussion, can there be an explicit statement to that affect?
posted by angrycat at 5:24 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I was supposed to end my shift a few hours ago, but this conversation is really important so let me address some of the comments above.
In all honesty, there is no reasonable policy that can be implemented for anything that happens off the site. If MR waived her member privacy concerns through her comments in another site, we can’t take that as an official agreement. We don’t see everything that is posted outside of MetaFilter and we have a policy on not acting on things outside the site except things that affect Trust & Safety.
MollyRealized’s contributions to MetaFilter were valued and Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself and these decisions were taken by the mods/admin, and not from the SC. I will not disclose any details about the specifics that lead to this for the time being and I hope you can understand this.
That being said, this was a situation where I think any of the mods would have proceeded in the same way. If a member is given a time-out, this generally happens AFTER there has been communication with the member privately. I do understand that seeing it from the outside you’ll get an incomplete picture of the decisions being made. To my eyes, that is preferred to warnings and communication happening within the thread and derailing it.
I believe that openly discussing anything that affects the overall feeling of the community is healthy and necessary, but member privacy is and should remain a constant that we respect. So let me go over why discussing the background of the actions being taken is something I would advise against and why I think it undermines the integrity of the decision making process:
– I think policies should be made and defined with more robust reasoning than a specific user case. I’d rather discuss the underlying policy than the specific actions taken and the private communications with a member.
– Moderation is very contextual and Moderation tools affect the decision making process. These tools should remain private (the more someone knows how a system works the more it can be abused).
– It can and will generally increase the anxiety and unwanted “public” attention for the member in question.
– Can lead to higher friction with the member in question.
– It would require changes to the Privacy Policy that I personally think would not be the best use of the resources we have.
I hope this helps.
posted by loup (staff) at 5:29 PM on January 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
In all honesty, there is no reasonable policy that can be implemented for anything that happens off the site. If MR waived her member privacy concerns through her comments in another site, we can’t take that as an official agreement. We don’t see everything that is posted outside of MetaFilter and we have a policy on not acting on things outside the site except things that affect Trust & Safety.
MollyRealized’s contributions to MetaFilter were valued and Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself and these decisions were taken by the mods/admin, and not from the SC. I will not disclose any details about the specifics that lead to this for the time being and I hope you can understand this.
That being said, this was a situation where I think any of the mods would have proceeded in the same way. If a member is given a time-out, this generally happens AFTER there has been communication with the member privately. I do understand that seeing it from the outside you’ll get an incomplete picture of the decisions being made. To my eyes, that is preferred to warnings and communication happening within the thread and derailing it.
I believe that openly discussing anything that affects the overall feeling of the community is healthy and necessary, but member privacy is and should remain a constant that we respect. So let me go over why discussing the background of the actions being taken is something I would advise against and why I think it undermines the integrity of the decision making process:
– I think policies should be made and defined with more robust reasoning than a specific user case. I’d rather discuss the underlying policy than the specific actions taken and the private communications with a member.
– Moderation is very contextual and Moderation tools affect the decision making process. These tools should remain private (the more someone knows how a system works the more it can be abused).
– It can and will generally increase the anxiety and unwanted “public” attention for the member in question.
– Can lead to higher friction with the member in question.
– It would require changes to the Privacy Policy that I personally think would not be the best use of the resources we have.
I hope this helps.
posted by loup (staff) at 5:29 PM on January 30, 2023 [31 favorites]
gentlyepigrams, would you agree with biogeo's suggested approach above?
I think it's a good starting place for discussion and I generally agree with it! Having said that, I'm sure there are people who will find something to disagree with in it and I'm also open to giving them a hearing (in MeTa). I think biogeo's comments in both this thread and the one that preceded it have been solid, fwiw.
I'm serious about thinking people are going to leave and/or flame out even if we come to really great mod principles and practices. I do think there are a lot of questions about how the new Metafilter is going to work (e.g., around the roles of the Steering Committee and the mods) and I expect us as a community to take time to work that out. And unfortunately I do think the process of determining how the new Metafilter structures work will end up with unhappy people leaving.
To me that's not a fault thing but an understanding that in a community as large as Metafilter, people are going to have disagreements that can't be solved without somebody leaving. Similarly, people have deep investment in Metafilter as a community and an identity and people who are deeply hurt and upset when Metafilter mods/community/etc. do something they don't like or didn't expect. I don't want it and it makes me sad but I expect it to happen anyway.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think it's a good starting place for discussion and I generally agree with it! Having said that, I'm sure there are people who will find something to disagree with in it and I'm also open to giving them a hearing (in MeTa). I think biogeo's comments in both this thread and the one that preceded it have been solid, fwiw.
I'm serious about thinking people are going to leave and/or flame out even if we come to really great mod principles and practices. I do think there are a lot of questions about how the new Metafilter is going to work (e.g., around the roles of the Steering Committee and the mods) and I expect us as a community to take time to work that out. And unfortunately I do think the process of determining how the new Metafilter structures work will end up with unhappy people leaving.
To me that's not a fault thing but an understanding that in a community as large as Metafilter, people are going to have disagreements that can't be solved without somebody leaving. Similarly, people have deep investment in Metafilter as a community and an identity and people who are deeply hurt and upset when Metafilter mods/community/etc. do something they don't like or didn't expect. I don't want it and it makes me sad but I expect it to happen anyway.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would very much like for the community to get a chance to opine regarding when and if mods should delete comments on Metatalk.
If mods stop deleting comments in Metatalk, I think they should either double-down on bans, or delete Metatalk itself. A free-for-all for people to be their absolute shittiest selves is not something I want to exist here, nor do I want any kind of policy decisions to be made by the loudest group of a subsite.
Part of the reason I did not want to be part of the SC is because I did not want to deal with a lot of the Metatalk contingent. Posts like this - and the conversation in the previous thread - make me LESS likely to engage with the site at all. I think they're toxic, and the worst part of the site.
posted by curious nu at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2023 [30 favorites]
If mods stop deleting comments in Metatalk, I think they should either double-down on bans, or delete Metatalk itself. A free-for-all for people to be their absolute shittiest selves is not something I want to exist here, nor do I want any kind of policy decisions to be made by the loudest group of a subsite.
Part of the reason I did not want to be part of the SC is because I did not want to deal with a lot of the Metatalk contingent. Posts like this - and the conversation in the previous thread - make me LESS likely to engage with the site at all. I think they're toxic, and the worst part of the site.
posted by curious nu at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2023 [30 favorites]
In all honesty, there is no reasonable policy that can be implemented for anything that happens off the site.
Just following up on this since 1. I made a comment about off-site commentary earlier in this thread and 2. Loup's comment came up while I was replying to Sebmojo: I am not looking for mods to do anything about what people say or do offsite. One long-term, not-top-priority outcome of this discussion that I would like to see is a policy about people bringing offsite discussion about MetaTalk back to MetaTalk in particular (regardless of yes/no/under X circumstances/etc.).
Also Loup, thanks for replying on your time off. I appreciate it.
And having said that I feel like I've commented enough in this thread today and am going off to do other things.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:41 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just following up on this since 1. I made a comment about off-site commentary earlier in this thread and 2. Loup's comment came up while I was replying to Sebmojo: I am not looking for mods to do anything about what people say or do offsite. One long-term, not-top-priority outcome of this discussion that I would like to see is a policy about people bringing offsite discussion about MetaTalk back to MetaTalk in particular (regardless of yes/no/under X circumstances/etc.).
Also Loup, thanks for replying on your time off. I appreciate it.
And having said that I feel like I've commented enough in this thread today and am going off to do other things.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 5:41 PM on January 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself and these decisions were taken by the mods/admin,
Loup, I appreciate you're not allowed to talk about some things, and thank you for engaging as you have thus far. I really don't understand this though. Maybe I'm being thick. But if the comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, why would it be deleted?
I mean, I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm really not. I just don't understand why the comment would be deleted if the content wasn't problematic.
Maybe my imagination is limited or I don't have the expertise to know why such a deletion would be in line with site policy. But I really don't.
And I sense that there are a lot of people acting with good intentions here (Loup, the SC, amongst others) but I feel like I'm being asked to to take on faith explanations that are really really opaque, and again, maybe I'm being thick here, but I have a less of an insight than before.
Why would a comment be deleted for reasons outside the substance of the comment itself? This is a rhetorical question if an answer would violate privacy concerns, but the question is intended to describe my unease with the situation.
posted by angrycat at 6:25 PM on January 30, 2023 [29 favorites]
Loup, I appreciate you're not allowed to talk about some things, and thank you for engaging as you have thus far. I really don't understand this though. Maybe I'm being thick. But if the comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, why would it be deleted?
I mean, I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm really not. I just don't understand why the comment would be deleted if the content wasn't problematic.
Maybe my imagination is limited or I don't have the expertise to know why such a deletion would be in line with site policy. But I really don't.
And I sense that there are a lot of people acting with good intentions here (Loup, the SC, amongst others) but I feel like I'm being asked to to take on faith explanations that are really really opaque, and again, maybe I'm being thick here, but I have a less of an insight than before.
Why would a comment be deleted for reasons outside the substance of the comment itself? This is a rhetorical question if an answer would violate privacy concerns, but the question is intended to describe my unease with the situation.
posted by angrycat at 6:25 PM on January 30, 2023 [29 favorites]
Loup: Respectfully, there is a bit of doublespeak in what you're saying. Your first comment was that you were directly in touch with MollyRealized, but you also say you can't take their Reddit comments as permission to talk about the deletion. Unless MR has their account reinstated here, the solution should be simple: ask them with your direct contact if their permission was genuine. Otherwise, you cause a tangle of bureaucracy where you won't authenticate the outside information, but also they can't authenticate it themselves here because, well, their account is closed.
these decisions were taken by the mods/admin, and not from the SC.
No one that I'm aware of claimed the Steering Committee was involved in the decision to delete the comment, let alone suspend the account. But the decision wasn't made by "the mods". Taz did it. They were (likely) the only mod on duty, they made a unilateral decision. You have already said you "asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates" to you. So why didn't taz? Either they hadn't received this message, or there was some over-riding reason they felt it was necessary. So what was it? I strongly believe that the reason was personal: MR's comment was anxious, emotional and also somewhat combative with the tone of the post, and taz reacted without consulting anyone to preserve the celebration of the moment.
It's admirable to have taz's back, but was any other mod or Jessamyn involved in the decision process? From the deletion of the original comment up to the blocking of MR's account, did taz contact or consult with anyone? I strongly believe the answer is "no", and that's why I want to include a discussion of mod accountability in this post. Because if there's less mods than ever right now, and each of them is acting independently, AND there's no oversight from the Steering Committee, AND there's no defined rules, AND no accountability structure, then the site's relationships with members, especially at emotional moments, is totally dependent on moment-by-moment decisions of lone moderators.
I think policies should be made and defined with more robust reasoning than a specific user case. I’d rather discuss the underlying policy than the specific actions taken and the private communications with a member.
Part of the problem is that the communications never stay private. Every time the site has attempted to hide behind "user privacy" as a justification for questionable mod actions, it has always spilled out and tainted the site's reputation. Remember odinsdream? Ask restless_nomad about the shitshow they had to clean up when cortex decided to delete someone's account, then lie about the reason for it in MetaTalk.
We cannot usefully define future policies without doing an autopsy of how the current (lack of) policies failed in this instance. How the site failed this user. And dozens of other users, one by one, behind closed doors. Why would a subreddit like r/metafiltermeta even exist unless there were enough people getting a sour feeling from mod interactions?
These tools should remain private (the more someone knows how a system works the more it can be abused).
Strongly disagree, and as counter-argument I point to... every other site whose bread-and-butter is user interaction in a message board style. Slashdot, Reddit, SomethingAwful, Lobste.rs, and so many other sites that are clones of those. They have clearly defined policies, and clearly defined ways those policies are enforced. It's the secrecy that scares the users, and the user reaction is what you're using to justify more secrecy!
It would require changes to the Privacy Policy that I personally think would not be the best use of the resources we have.
This is a Steering Committee/Jessamyn issue, no? I don't understand the logic that, if the policy is making the site more hostile to members (or at least makes that hostility difficult to defuse) your conclusion is that it's the users who must adapt and not vice-versa.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 6:28 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
these decisions were taken by the mods/admin, and not from the SC.
No one that I'm aware of claimed the Steering Committee was involved in the decision to delete the comment, let alone suspend the account. But the decision wasn't made by "the mods". Taz did it. They were (likely) the only mod on duty, they made a unilateral decision. You have already said you "asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates" to you. So why didn't taz? Either they hadn't received this message, or there was some over-riding reason they felt it was necessary. So what was it? I strongly believe that the reason was personal: MR's comment was anxious, emotional and also somewhat combative with the tone of the post, and taz reacted without consulting anyone to preserve the celebration of the moment.
It's admirable to have taz's back, but was any other mod or Jessamyn involved in the decision process? From the deletion of the original comment up to the blocking of MR's account, did taz contact or consult with anyone? I strongly believe the answer is "no", and that's why I want to include a discussion of mod accountability in this post. Because if there's less mods than ever right now, and each of them is acting independently, AND there's no oversight from the Steering Committee, AND there's no defined rules, AND no accountability structure, then the site's relationships with members, especially at emotional moments, is totally dependent on moment-by-moment decisions of lone moderators.
I think policies should be made and defined with more robust reasoning than a specific user case. I’d rather discuss the underlying policy than the specific actions taken and the private communications with a member.
Part of the problem is that the communications never stay private. Every time the site has attempted to hide behind "user privacy" as a justification for questionable mod actions, it has always spilled out and tainted the site's reputation. Remember odinsdream? Ask restless_nomad about the shitshow they had to clean up when cortex decided to delete someone's account, then lie about the reason for it in MetaTalk.
We cannot usefully define future policies without doing an autopsy of how the current (lack of) policies failed in this instance. How the site failed this user. And dozens of other users, one by one, behind closed doors. Why would a subreddit like r/metafiltermeta even exist unless there were enough people getting a sour feeling from mod interactions?
These tools should remain private (the more someone knows how a system works the more it can be abused).
Strongly disagree, and as counter-argument I point to... every other site whose bread-and-butter is user interaction in a message board style. Slashdot, Reddit, SomethingAwful, Lobste.rs, and so many other sites that are clones of those. They have clearly defined policies, and clearly defined ways those policies are enforced. It's the secrecy that scares the users, and the user reaction is what you're using to justify more secrecy!
It would require changes to the Privacy Policy that I personally think would not be the best use of the resources we have.
This is a Steering Committee/Jessamyn issue, no? I don't understand the logic that, if the policy is making the site more hostile to members (or at least makes that hostility difficult to defuse) your conclusion is that it's the users who must adapt and not vice-versa.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 6:28 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
I also have the same question as angrycat; if the comment wasn’t inappropriate, why is it that any mod would have taken the same action as taz did and deleted it?
posted by JenMarie at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 6:32 PM on January 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
I think policies should be made and defined with more robust reasoning than a specific user case. I’d rather discuss the underlying policy than the specific actions taken and the private communications with a member.
You can have great policies and yet execute them poorly.
Not to drag a personal grievance into this, but while I freely concede that an occasional comment of mine might reasonably be considered to merit a knuckle-rapping, the one that I did get one for was, from my point of view, based on such a staggering misread of my comment that it honestly made me question mod judgment in a way I never have, and the rapping had a tone of such hostility, that, well, frankly it carried a tone of "we hope you just go away for good on your own." I truly truly truly am not looking to re-litigate that, but I think the policy in question was probably reasonable. It was all in the execution. This is just the example I happen to know and feel comfortable mentioning.
posted by praemunire at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
You can have great policies and yet execute them poorly.
Not to drag a personal grievance into this, but while I freely concede that an occasional comment of mine might reasonably be considered to merit a knuckle-rapping, the one that I did get one for was, from my point of view, based on such a staggering misread of my comment that it honestly made me question mod judgment in a way I never have, and the rapping had a tone of such hostility, that, well, frankly it carried a tone of "we hope you just go away for good on your own." I truly truly truly am not looking to re-litigate that, but I think the policy in question was probably reasonable. It was all in the execution. This is just the example I happen to know and feel comfortable mentioning.
posted by praemunire at 6:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Given how limited mod hours are as a resource (as a proxy of funding), any call to increase the amount of paperwork that has to be done before performing a moderating action is also a call for less moderation.
The moderation is what we have that distinguishes ourselves as a site. Without it, we could spin up as a dying subreddit or the like elsewhere, dwindling into the night with recursive "DAE remember sixcolors?" memes.
Even the known limits of mod hours become part of the Grand Conspiracy of Mods. "How dare they not approve a MetaTalk when it's the weekend and there isn't on-duty moderation until Monday"
I have no faith that a moderation log would be used to benefit the site, instead of slicing finer technicalities for why *I* am posting with the wisdom of saints and should be immune to correction, but *they* are being unduly protected & their continued free commenting is further evidence of the perfidy of the mods.
I can't tell if the proposal to create anonymous rating for mod customer service to be tied to their pay is satire or earnest. I can only recoil in horror, hoping the former.
posted by CrystalDave at 6:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
The moderation is what we have that distinguishes ourselves as a site. Without it, we could spin up as a dying subreddit or the like elsewhere, dwindling into the night with recursive "DAE remember sixcolors?" memes.
Even the known limits of mod hours become part of the Grand Conspiracy of Mods. "How dare they not approve a MetaTalk when it's the weekend and there isn't on-duty moderation until Monday"
I have no faith that a moderation log would be used to benefit the site, instead of slicing finer technicalities for why *I* am posting with the wisdom of saints and should be immune to correction, but *they* are being unduly protected & their continued free commenting is further evidence of the perfidy of the mods.
I can't tell if the proposal to create anonymous rating for mod customer service to be tied to their pay is satire or earnest. I can only recoil in horror, hoping the former.
posted by CrystalDave at 6:47 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
Even the known limits of mod hours become part of the Grand Conspiracy of Mods. "How dare they not approve a MetaTalk when it's the weekend and there isn't on-duty moderation until Monday"
Meatbomb submitted this MeTa on Wednesday.
posted by Etrigan at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
Meatbomb submitted this MeTa on Wednesday.
posted by Etrigan at 7:25 PM on January 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
I was basically on team “inconsolable over bad decisions the powers that be insist on making” a couple years ago. Today, I am not. I am sure I changed more than the site, but the structure of the site has also improved a ton in the last year. I don’t really know what has flipped that switch for me, but I do assume that most people here also love the site, including and perhaps especially, the mods, owner and SC.
This is still totally a place where one can persist in trying to prove someone else is wrong on the internet. But this is better as a place to learn, share and maybe connect with some people.
I think if people were able to embrace the positive aspects of the site, rather than use it as a valve to release pressure over the admittedly very shitty real world all around us, it could be a better experience for all and a more effective haven for human connection.
posted by snofoam at 7:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
This is still totally a place where one can persist in trying to prove someone else is wrong on the internet. But this is better as a place to learn, share and maybe connect with some people.
I think if people were able to embrace the positive aspects of the site, rather than use it as a valve to release pressure over the admittedly very shitty real world all around us, it could be a better experience for all and a more effective haven for human connection.
posted by snofoam at 7:44 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
What are the current moderation policies? Like, the underlying guidelines moderators are using to decide when to step in, when to delete, when to make a comment from a deletion, etc? My current desire is just to see those clearly written out.
In my ideal world, those policies and guidelines would be grounded in an anti-oppressive framework that explicitly grapples with the tension between a desire for peace as the absence of tension vs peace as the presence of justice, to steal a phrase.
If the current policies, whether implicit or explicit, are just based on the mod-on-duty's judgment with no further guiding principles or reflection (unless the users protest publicly), and especially if there's no plan to change that, I'd like to know that, too.
posted by lapis at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
In my ideal world, those policies and guidelines would be grounded in an anti-oppressive framework that explicitly grapples with the tension between a desire for peace as the absence of tension vs peace as the presence of justice, to steal a phrase.
If the current policies, whether implicit or explicit, are just based on the mod-on-duty's judgment with no further guiding principles or reflection (unless the users protest publicly), and especially if there's no plan to change that, I'd like to know that, too.
posted by lapis at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2023 [8 favorites]
even as someone personally aggrieved by MR’s last MeTa, I object to the deletion of their comment!
posted by haptic_avenger at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by haptic_avenger at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm another one who doesn't have much to say on this subject.
In my case the reasons are: (a) I don't generally have a problem with how moderation decisions are done on the site or specifically on MeTa; (b) I can see how people might be unhappy with the specific deletion that prompted this thread, but having seen the screenshot of the comment that's floating around, it seems like it was within reasonable moderator discretion (setting aside whatever other issues may have been in play); (c) I don't see much benefit in attempting to rehash the various legendary fights over the visibility of moderation decisions; (d) while I don't doubt there is room for improvement, I basically trust current site leadership to figure out the least-bad approach to this and related issues; and (e) I do doubt that incremental improvements in moderation practices will have a substantial effect on site health, so it doesn't really seem like the benefits of extensive public discussions like those of the past are likely to outweigh the costs.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:19 PM on January 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
In my case the reasons are: (a) I don't generally have a problem with how moderation decisions are done on the site or specifically on MeTa; (b) I can see how people might be unhappy with the specific deletion that prompted this thread, but having seen the screenshot of the comment that's floating around, it seems like it was within reasonable moderator discretion (setting aside whatever other issues may have been in play); (c) I don't see much benefit in attempting to rehash the various legendary fights over the visibility of moderation decisions; (d) while I don't doubt there is room for improvement, I basically trust current site leadership to figure out the least-bad approach to this and related issues; and (e) I do doubt that incremental improvements in moderation practices will have a substantial effect on site health, so it doesn't really seem like the benefits of extensive public discussions like those of the past are likely to outweigh the costs.
posted by Not A Thing at 8:19 PM on January 30, 2023 [12 favorites]
But if the comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, why would it be deleted?
– On a general level, this is covered in the Content Policy under the "Enforcement" section. Some content removal decisions can be based on trends that we identify as well as previously issued warnings or agreements. I apologize for being vague and hope this provides some context, but again, disclosing the background of the moderation actions being taken is a precedent I don't want to set.
ask them with your direct contact if their permission was genuine.
– This is way more complicated than that. Not only we respect member privacy and surrounding applicable laws, but as a general rule, privacy rights are not optional and people can not waive their rights that easily. Proceeding to disclose any private information without, at least, prior consultation with Legal Counsel would be irresponsible.
But the decision wasn't made by "the mods".
– Yes, it was. As the Mod on duty Taz acted accordingly to policy and, as I mentioned above, any of the mods would have proceeded in the same way.
You have already said you "asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates" to you. So why didn't taz?
– I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm referring to the Site Updates explicitly (which, by the way, should return to a more regular schedule soon.
Strongly disagree, and as counter-argument I point to... every other site whose bread-and-butter is user interaction in a message board style. Slashdot, Reddit, SomethingAwful, Lobste.rs, and so many other sites that are clones of those. They have clearly defined policies, and clearly defined ways those policies are enforced. It's the secrecy that scares the users, and the user reaction is what you're using to justify more secrecy!
– I was referring to the moderation tools, not the policies. I don't know of a site whose moderation tools are public and when it comes to policy, both the Content Policy and Community Guidelines are public.
Meatbomb submitted this MeTa on Wednesday.
– Yes, that is correct. This was delayed longer than usual because I did ask the SC for feedback prior to approving it. This was done to avoid making the SC's hard work even harder. As soon as I started my shift on Wednesday I brought the MeTa in the queue to the SC's attention and replied to Molly letting her know that this would take longer than usual.
You can have great policies and yet execute them poorly.
– Yes! This is 100% true, that's why threads like these are necessary for us to define and refine both policy and how it should be executed.
posted by loup (staff) at 8:23 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
– On a general level, this is covered in the Content Policy under the "Enforcement" section. Some content removal decisions can be based on trends that we identify as well as previously issued warnings or agreements. I apologize for being vague and hope this provides some context, but again, disclosing the background of the moderation actions being taken is a precedent I don't want to set.
ask them with your direct contact if their permission was genuine.
– This is way more complicated than that. Not only we respect member privacy and surrounding applicable laws, but as a general rule, privacy rights are not optional and people can not waive their rights that easily. Proceeding to disclose any private information without, at least, prior consultation with Legal Counsel would be irresponsible.
But the decision wasn't made by "the mods".
– Yes, it was. As the Mod on duty Taz acted accordingly to policy and, as I mentioned above, any of the mods would have proceeded in the same way.
You have already said you "asked the rest of the Mod Team to leave moderation of site updates" to you. So why didn't taz?
– I'm sorry for the confusion, I'm referring to the Site Updates explicitly (which, by the way, should return to a more regular schedule soon.
Strongly disagree, and as counter-argument I point to... every other site whose bread-and-butter is user interaction in a message board style. Slashdot, Reddit, SomethingAwful, Lobste.rs, and so many other sites that are clones of those. They have clearly defined policies, and clearly defined ways those policies are enforced. It's the secrecy that scares the users, and the user reaction is what you're using to justify more secrecy!
– I was referring to the moderation tools, not the policies. I don't know of a site whose moderation tools are public and when it comes to policy, both the Content Policy and Community Guidelines are public.
Meatbomb submitted this MeTa on Wednesday.
– Yes, that is correct. This was delayed longer than usual because I did ask the SC for feedback prior to approving it. This was done to avoid making the SC's hard work even harder. As soon as I started my shift on Wednesday I brought the MeTa in the queue to the SC's attention and replied to Molly letting her know that this would take longer than usual.
You can have great policies and yet execute them poorly.
– Yes! This is 100% true, that's why threads like these are necessary for us to define and refine both policy and how it should be executed.
posted by loup (staff) at 8:23 PM on January 30, 2023 [15 favorites]
I feel like I'm being asked to to take on faith explanations that are really really opaque
I feel like there is something going on in the background that we can't be told about for some reason. Given this is a discussion about site policy itself, albeit using that one action as an initial example, there must be many more examples that could be brought into play to further the discussion. It's clear that continuing to push for specific details of that one action is not going to get the result people are wanting, so maybe better to discuss the existing policy (or lack thereof) and what changes are wanted rather than continue to beat that drum.
If there aren't lots of other examples of what's going wrong, it's fine to discuss what the community might want to have in place to prevent hypothetical future problems. That's what policy should be used for.
posted by dg at 8:29 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
I feel like there is something going on in the background that we can't be told about for some reason. Given this is a discussion about site policy itself, albeit using that one action as an initial example, there must be many more examples that could be brought into play to further the discussion. It's clear that continuing to push for specific details of that one action is not going to get the result people are wanting, so maybe better to discuss the existing policy (or lack thereof) and what changes are wanted rather than continue to beat that drum.
If there aren't lots of other examples of what's going wrong, it's fine to discuss what the community might want to have in place to prevent hypothetical future problems. That's what policy should be used for.
posted by dg at 8:29 PM on January 30, 2023 [4 favorites]
Meta-ing on this but if this is the reaction to moderation on a pretty low level (if you're going to tell someone their business at great length, don't pick a mod), I'd hate to see what would happen if the site did gain an influx of members and inevitably people with actual differing belief systems slipped through.
posted by kingdead at 8:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 8:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [11 favorites]
Not only we respect member privacy and surrounding applicable laws, but as a general rule, privacy rights are not optional and people can not waive their rights that easily. Proceeding to disclose any private information without, at least, prior consultation with Legal Counsel would be irresponsible.
I am a lawyer whose practice includes a significant emphasis on U.S. privacy laws and related laws (though I am not your lawyer). This is nowhere close to a correct statement of the law. I can see absolutely no reason why you could not disclose information with the consent of the affected user.
Similarly, your earlier statement that greater transparency would require revisions to the privacy policy doesn’t make sense to me.
posted by gd779 at 8:52 PM on January 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
I am a lawyer whose practice includes a significant emphasis on U.S. privacy laws and related laws (though I am not your lawyer). This is nowhere close to a correct statement of the law. I can see absolutely no reason why you could not disclose information with the consent of the affected user.
Similarly, your earlier statement that greater transparency would require revisions to the privacy policy doesn’t make sense to me.
posted by gd779 at 8:52 PM on January 30, 2023 [14 favorites]
This is nowhere close to a correct statement of the law.
I don't think the following was intended as a statement of law, but if it was, it would be a pretty darned correct one:
Proceeding to disclose any private information without, at least, prior consultation with Legal Counsel would be irresponsible.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't think the following was intended as a statement of law, but if it was, it would be a pretty darned correct one:
Proceeding to disclose any private information without, at least, prior consultation with Legal Counsel would be irresponsible.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:09 PM on January 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Also there is not a single statement about US law in the quoted passage? Certainly there are many jurisdictions, notably in the EU, where privacy rights indeed are not waivable. (I note that MeFi's privacy policy is prudently ambiguous as to whether the GDPR applies.) More to the point, without detailed information about exactly what sort of information is involved, and who the relevant data subjects are, it would be incredibly irresponsible to opine on what the relevant legal considerations might be.
Saying you are an attorney and then telling someone that it is legally wrong for them to consult with an attorney about a legal issue is just incredibly bad, especially in this context, regardless of whether you utter the magic incantation "I am not your lawyer" or not.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
Saying you are an attorney and then telling someone that it is legally wrong for them to consult with an attorney about a legal issue is just incredibly bad, especially in this context, regardless of whether you utter the magic incantation "I am not your lawyer" or not.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:38 PM on January 30, 2023 [6 favorites]
2 -- Can these actions please not be taken in public? "Comment deleted. Stop being gross, username." is not necessary, nor is telling the whole site when someone is given a timeout.
I think that "[one comment deleted]" is useful (answers all those questions about why the flow of conversation is odd, reassures you that you're not going mad when it looks like a comment is there then not) but the "stop being gross" type comments add nothing, are utterly unnecessary and can come across as quite mean in a very unbecoming and unwelcoming way.
posted by Dysk at 9:56 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
I think that "[one comment deleted]" is useful (answers all those questions about why the flow of conversation is odd, reassures you that you're not going mad when it looks like a comment is there then not) but the "stop being gross" type comments add nothing, are utterly unnecessary and can come across as quite mean in a very unbecoming and unwelcoming way.
posted by Dysk at 9:56 PM on January 30, 2023 [20 favorites]
I think in the past, moderators were asked to be more specific in deletion reasons because there were instances where they deleted both sexist/racist/etc comments and the pushback against them and left a comment like, "Cut it out" that seemed to be addressed to both sides, rather than being clear that the sexist/racist/etc comment was the problem.
Which is why I'd like to know what the moderation guidelines are and how they're being applied.
I also think that deleting comments, even offensive ones, ends up being gas-lighty (e.g., a user being a repeated problem but the userbase having no lasting proof of it) and I'd rather the moderation come down hard against them without deleting them.
posted by lapis at 10:02 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
Which is why I'd like to know what the moderation guidelines are and how they're being applied.
I also think that deleting comments, even offensive ones, ends up being gas-lighty (e.g., a user being a repeated problem but the userbase having no lasting proof of it) and I'd rather the moderation come down hard against them without deleting them.
posted by lapis at 10:02 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
And I should have said: I'd rather the moderation come down hard publicly against them without deleting them.
posted by lapis at 10:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by lapis at 10:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah +1 on "[one comment deleted]" style mod messages. I'd be happy if that kind of message became policy for almost any content deletion. In the distant far future it would be nice if deletions left a message like that automatically.
I have very mixed feelings about other commentary. There have been some situations where I've stumbled upon the aftermath of a deletion and I'd love to know who the missing stair was, but my definition of "missing stair" is not anyone else's, and there's a lot of room for badness in those differences.
posted by Alterscape at 10:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I have very mixed feelings about other commentary. There have been some situations where I've stumbled upon the aftermath of a deletion and I'd love to know who the missing stair was, but my definition of "missing stair" is not anyone else's, and there's a lot of room for badness in those differences.
posted by Alterscape at 10:03 PM on January 30, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think in the past, moderators were asked to be more specific in deletion reasons because there were instances where they deleted both sexist/racist/etc comments and the pushback against them and left a comment like, "Cut it out" that seemed to be addressed to both sides, rather than being clear that the sexist/racist/etc comment was the problem.
I wouldn't mind a "[infringement] isn't done here" type comments (I've seen deletions with comments like "don't misgender people", which is clear, useful, and great!) That's quite different to "stop being gross" or "you're acting like a baby and we've talked about this" which are definitely not verbatim deletion comments, but give the idea of what I have found problematic about many of them. Naming the user in question just doesn't seem to add anything except an unintentional mean-spirited tone.
posted by Dysk at 10:08 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
I wouldn't mind a "[infringement] isn't done here" type comments (I've seen deletions with comments like "don't misgender people", which is clear, useful, and great!) That's quite different to "stop being gross" or "you're acting like a baby and we've talked about this" which are definitely not verbatim deletion comments, but give the idea of what I have found problematic about many of them. Naming the user in question just doesn't seem to add anything except an unintentional mean-spirited tone.
posted by Dysk at 10:08 PM on January 30, 2023 [13 favorites]
I guess I'm struggling with how it can simultaneously be the case that:
1. "threads like these are necessary for us to define and refine both policy and how it should be executed."
and
2. "Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself"
On the one hand, it's important and necessary for us to have open discussions like these to define and talk through site policy and its implementation. On the other hand, the MetaTalk comment we're discussing (MetaTalk being the place where we have open discussions to define site policy and its implementation) was deleted, but its content wasn't inappropriate, and the reason it was deleted despite not being inappropriate in its content is a secret we can't discuss.
I'm broadly on board with the idea that it's usually more helpful to discuss general classes of issues than specific comments/users, and I get that this is surely supremely frustrating for you as moderators, feeling that you made the right decision given the context while being criticized by those of us who don't have the context. But I'm not really sure how to have a site policy discussion about deletions on MetaTalk if none of us can know why certain MetaTalk comments whose content isn't inappropriate are being deleted.
I don't really know how to move forward given that. Is this a place where it would help to have the Steering Committee look more closely at what actually happened and make any policy recommendations they consider warranted?
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
1. "threads like these are necessary for us to define and refine both policy and how it should be executed."
and
2. "Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself"
On the one hand, it's important and necessary for us to have open discussions like these to define and talk through site policy and its implementation. On the other hand, the MetaTalk comment we're discussing (MetaTalk being the place where we have open discussions to define site policy and its implementation) was deleted, but its content wasn't inappropriate, and the reason it was deleted despite not being inappropriate in its content is a secret we can't discuss.
I'm broadly on board with the idea that it's usually more helpful to discuss general classes of issues than specific comments/users, and I get that this is surely supremely frustrating for you as moderators, feeling that you made the right decision given the context while being criticized by those of us who don't have the context. But I'm not really sure how to have a site policy discussion about deletions on MetaTalk if none of us can know why certain MetaTalk comments whose content isn't inappropriate are being deleted.
I don't really know how to move forward given that. Is this a place where it would help to have the Steering Committee look more closely at what actually happened and make any policy recommendations they consider warranted?
posted by zachlipton at 10:43 PM on January 30, 2023 [26 favorites]
"The reasoning behind our decisions to delete comments has to be secret, because if not, it undermines the integrity of the decision making process" is, I have to say, some Kafkaesque stuff.
(Yes, yes, on a small scale with extremely low stakes, this is not the USSR, no one is in prison, etc., but still, it's the total opposite of what any fair and transparent system does.)
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:35 PM on January 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
(Yes, yes, on a small scale with extremely low stakes, this is not the USSR, no one is in prison, etc., but still, it's the total opposite of what any fair and transparent system does.)
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:35 PM on January 30, 2023 [10 favorites]
Two outcomes I'd really like to see by the end of this thread.
1. When should there be mod notes in a thread after comments are deleted?
2. What happens if, PURELY HYPOTHETICALLY, a mod makes a mistake?
At the moment it seems to me that the mods feel like they're defending the walls of Minas Tirith against a besieging army of orc-users, and that to admit that a mod made a mistake means throwing one of their own to the slavering, grunting mob of orcs outside. So they tend to double down on every decision, even if they can't articulate why.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:01 AM on January 31, 2023 [14 favorites]
1. When should there be mod notes in a thread after comments are deleted?
2. What happens if, PURELY HYPOTHETICALLY, a mod makes a mistake?
At the moment it seems to me that the mods feel like they're defending the walls of Minas Tirith against a besieging army of orc-users, and that to admit that a mod made a mistake means throwing one of their own to the slavering, grunting mob of orcs outside. So they tend to double down on every decision, even if they can't articulate why.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:01 AM on January 31, 2023 [14 favorites]
This is way more complicated than that. Not only we respect member privacy and surrounding applicable laws, but as a general rule, privacy rights are not optional and people can not waive their rights that easily.
This is quite bizarre. Here are two simple questions:
Can you tell MollyRealized why her comment was deleted, that is, can you give her this information you're reluctant to give us? Because if you can't, then people can get banned and not even know why, which seems very worrying.
Second, if she can in fact have this information, then, once she is again allowed to post comments, is she allowed to repeat it here? Because if she posts it herself, there's no possible way you could be liable for violating her privacy, so if she's not allowed to post that information here even if she wants to, the reason must be something other than her privacy.
This might all be perfectly innocent, but it's a really bad look, and all the vague excuses make it look like you seriously have something to hide. Not that you're in need of one, but anyone with any experience in public relations could tell you, you're not handling this well.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:58 AM on January 31, 2023 [15 favorites]
This is quite bizarre. Here are two simple questions:
Can you tell MollyRealized why her comment was deleted, that is, can you give her this information you're reluctant to give us? Because if you can't, then people can get banned and not even know why, which seems very worrying.
Second, if she can in fact have this information, then, once she is again allowed to post comments, is she allowed to repeat it here? Because if she posts it herself, there's no possible way you could be liable for violating her privacy, so if she's not allowed to post that information here even if she wants to, the reason must be something other than her privacy.
This might all be perfectly innocent, but it's a really bad look, and all the vague excuses make it look like you seriously have something to hide. Not that you're in need of one, but anyone with any experience in public relations could tell you, you're not handling this well.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:58 AM on January 31, 2023 [15 favorites]
This particular case of comment deletion is a good example of why there's a Steering Committee. I trust them to do the service we elected them to do, with a full appraisal of the circumstances that aren't appropriately discussed publicly.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:12 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:12 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
I've now been on Reddit, and I've seen the screenshot of the original comment, and while I can maybe see why it might have been deleted (although leaving it up and telling her to slow down a bit might have been preferable), it's in no way "bad behavior" or something that warrants account disabling, even temporarily.
I'm honestly shocked to see how innocent and inoffensive it was (and it brought up a few good points, even!), at most a bit strongly worded and bombastic "here's what you're doing wrong!", but people can and should argue more forcefully on this site every day, especially when it's about site policy and how to run the site, on MeTa, the site that's explicitly for that.
In short, this smells really, really bad, and definitely warrants a good explanation, not some vague excuse about how "we can't tell you, but it's all for your own good".
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:20 AM on January 31, 2023 [26 favorites]
I'm honestly shocked to see how innocent and inoffensive it was (and it brought up a few good points, even!), at most a bit strongly worded and bombastic "here's what you're doing wrong!", but people can and should argue more forcefully on this site every day, especially when it's about site policy and how to run the site, on MeTa, the site that's explicitly for that.
In short, this smells really, really bad, and definitely warrants a good explanation, not some vague excuse about how "we can't tell you, but it's all for your own good".
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:20 AM on January 31, 2023 [26 favorites]
What. The. Actual. Fuck.
The cabal can run the site however they like, that's their prerogative, but without further explanation all I'm seeing here is tripling down on stupid.
posted by wierdo at 1:22 AM on January 31, 2023 [12 favorites]
The cabal can run the site however they like, that's their prerogative, but without further explanation all I'm seeing here is tripling down on stupid.
posted by wierdo at 1:22 AM on January 31, 2023 [12 favorites]
I'm wondering what's the landing space here? Where can this discussion actually go? From the long (and wordless) delay in posting this MeTa, and from loup's comment about the "integrity of the decision making process", I gather that the Mefi team is unwilling to discuss the kerfuffle surrounding MollyRealized's deletion (both comment + account), that led to this MeTa, because the team doesn't see any reason to revisit, or possibility to elaborate on, those decisions. In which case, what's there to actually "define and refine"?
If we're not allowed to know the contents of MR's comment (given that it was deleted), and we're not allowed to ask why the comment was deleted (for it might compromise the "integrity of decision making process"), and we're not allowed to know why their account was (wordlessly) banned when they protested the deletion, then on what basis can we even begin to "define and refine"? What's the raw material here? I think taz's deletion was wrong and the ensuing ban even more so. But what's the point in saying so if the mod response is "well, but you don't know what was going on -- and we can't tell you, because that would infringe on the integrity of the decision making process".
posted by dmh at 2:41 AM on January 31, 2023 [17 favorites]
If we're not allowed to know the contents of MR's comment (given that it was deleted), and we're not allowed to ask why the comment was deleted (for it might compromise the "integrity of decision making process"), and we're not allowed to know why their account was (wordlessly) banned when they protested the deletion, then on what basis can we even begin to "define and refine"? What's the raw material here? I think taz's deletion was wrong and the ensuing ban even more so. But what's the point in saying so if the mod response is "well, but you don't know what was going on -- and we can't tell you, because that would infringe on the integrity of the decision making process".
posted by dmh at 2:41 AM on January 31, 2023 [17 favorites]
All I want now is a quadratic favorites facility so I can blow an entire year's worth of favoriting on zamboni's fantastic link above.
posted by flabdablet at 3:00 AM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 3:00 AM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Also, next time a mod comes down my chimney could you make sure that only red presents go in the red sock and green ones in the green sock, please and thank you
posted by flabdablet at 3:05 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 3:05 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
In the funding thread one of the SC backed away from any mod oversight function. It is ill-defined or not yet defined what is the relationship, but the name "steering committee" and the quite generous remit it has been granted by the owner suggests to me that at some point they need to take this on. The idea that the staff we pay for are working entirely secretly and unaccountably makes no sense.
An ombudsman or some similar subcommittee spin off?
A general statement of mod values and the purpose(s) of deletions and user bannings?
Up to this point the mod m.o. has been at the whim and pleasure of the owner. Are there any rules mods are following that should be deprecated? (E.g. Metafilter doesn't do I/P, You cannoy be negative within the first X comments in a thread, topics must always be tightly focused with mods pruning tangents...)
posted by Meatbomb at 3:21 AM on January 31, 2023 [12 favorites]
An ombudsman or some similar subcommittee spin off?
A general statement of mod values and the purpose(s) of deletions and user bannings?
Up to this point the mod m.o. has been at the whim and pleasure of the owner. Are there any rules mods are following that should be deprecated? (E.g. Metafilter doesn't do I/P, You cannoy be negative within the first X comments in a thread, topics must always be tightly focused with mods pruning tangents...)
posted by Meatbomb at 3:21 AM on January 31, 2023 [12 favorites]
edit to add: I am not attributing any ill-will or nefarious intent on specific mods, my beef is much more with the process and system as it currently exists.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 3:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
> the name "steering committee" and the quite generous remit it has been granted by the owner suggests to me that at some point they need to take this on.
Given that we only have type of paid resource currently, I'd say the SC should be empowered not just to set moderation policy, but also define tasks for mods outside of moderation, e.g. mandate a certain amount of effort be directed towards promoting the site on social media or managing ad campaigns. Perhaps this is already being worked on behind the scenes?
posted by iivix at 3:35 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Given that we only have type of paid resource currently, I'd say the SC should be empowered not just to set moderation policy, but also define tasks for mods outside of moderation, e.g. mandate a certain amount of effort be directed towards promoting the site on social media or managing ad campaigns. Perhaps this is already being worked on behind the scenes?
posted by iivix at 3:35 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion because so many people in the past have asked for derails to be pulled in early so as to avoid ... well, derailment and others obviously disagree with that tactic.
As far as I can tell, the previous thread was a summing up of the fundraising effort and MollyRealized's comment was a derail because it was about all of the other things that need to be done and expressed in a way that threw a massively wet blanket over what was meant to be a celebration of the site having been pulled out of the shit (for now, anyway).
If taz had been more tactful in their deletion comment it may have prevented all of this escalation, but it seems to me that they were justified in trying to keep things positive and deleting the comment because it was a derail, and then it backfired because the deletion became what people focused on (not least, MollyRealized, and with fair reason; nobody likes a scolding) and that fucked up the whole celebratory thing. Worked out like shit for everyone, really.
And that's because it's impossible to please everyone with every mod decision. And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times.
This is what I'm getting from this whole thing.
posted by h00py at 3:59 AM on January 31, 2023 [58 favorites]
As far as I can tell, the previous thread was a summing up of the fundraising effort and MollyRealized's comment was a derail because it was about all of the other things that need to be done and expressed in a way that threw a massively wet blanket over what was meant to be a celebration of the site having been pulled out of the shit (for now, anyway).
If taz had been more tactful in their deletion comment it may have prevented all of this escalation, but it seems to me that they were justified in trying to keep things positive and deleting the comment because it was a derail, and then it backfired because the deletion became what people focused on (not least, MollyRealized, and with fair reason; nobody likes a scolding) and that fucked up the whole celebratory thing. Worked out like shit for everyone, really.
And that's because it's impossible to please everyone with every mod decision. And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times.
This is what I'm getting from this whole thing.
posted by h00py at 3:59 AM on January 31, 2023 [58 favorites]
Ok so basically MR’s comment was deleted as a punishment to MR, not because of any broader moderation goal about curating content to meet the needs of the MeFi community? That’s really a problem to me because it stops me from reading MR’s comment as part of the punishment.
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:10 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:10 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'd say deleting a derail is part of the curation process.
posted by h00py at 4:17 AM on January 31, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by h00py at 4:17 AM on January 31, 2023 [14 favorites]
Up to this point the mod m.o. has been at the whim and pleasure of the owner.
As it quite properly should forever remain.
At some future point it might become feasible for Metafilter LLC to be restructured as a mutual co-operative, where everybody who pays their five bucks for an account also gets one formal vote at shareholder meetings. What we currently have is a Steering Committee, one of whose aims I would hope is to get us to that point, but we're not even close to being there yet.
If we do get to the point of being a member-owned organization then we are going to need something like a board of directors, and tweaking moderation policy and ensuring that management employs people who implement it satisfactorily will become their job. And we'll need formal processes for keeping the directors accountable to the owners, i.e. us.
But unless and until that's how this place is organized, all of the self-righteous motherhood-and-apple-pie about accountability and transparency strikes me as empty grandstanding.
And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times
A thousand times this. I would also recommend trying to retain a sense of proportion.
so basically MR’s comment was deleted as a punishment to MR
No. MR's comment was deleted because in the professional judgement of a moderator paid by this site's owner using funds voluntarily donated by this site's members that was the right way to deal with it.
"Punishment" is absolutely the wrong lens to be looking at this through. It's not all about you. It's not all about any of us. It's about all of us, and keeping it about all of us is far harder work than many who aren't doing it are giving it credit for, as I believe the site's current owner is particularly well placed to understand.
posted by flabdablet at 4:19 AM on January 31, 2023 [34 favorites]
As it quite properly should forever remain.
At some future point it might become feasible for Metafilter LLC to be restructured as a mutual co-operative, where everybody who pays their five bucks for an account also gets one formal vote at shareholder meetings. What we currently have is a Steering Committee, one of whose aims I would hope is to get us to that point, but we're not even close to being there yet.
If we do get to the point of being a member-owned organization then we are going to need something like a board of directors, and tweaking moderation policy and ensuring that management employs people who implement it satisfactorily will become their job. And we'll need formal processes for keeping the directors accountable to the owners, i.e. us.
But unless and until that's how this place is organized, all of the self-righteous motherhood-and-apple-pie about accountability and transparency strikes me as empty grandstanding.
And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times
A thousand times this. I would also recommend trying to retain a sense of proportion.
so basically MR’s comment was deleted as a punishment to MR
No. MR's comment was deleted because in the professional judgement of a moderator paid by this site's owner using funds voluntarily donated by this site's members that was the right way to deal with it.
"Punishment" is absolutely the wrong lens to be looking at this through. It's not all about you. It's not all about any of us. It's about all of us, and keeping it about all of us is far harder work than many who aren't doing it are giving it credit for, as I believe the site's current owner is particularly well placed to understand.
posted by flabdablet at 4:19 AM on January 31, 2023 [34 favorites]
I agree, if you can't explain the problem with the comment but stand by the deletion for days ....well that's my monthly pledge revoked. I funded this place when I thought it would be different, but its not.
Its ok to make mistakes (in moderation as in life), but you own it and explain how/why it happened and how it wont again. You don't lie or hide behind your own rules or delete people so they can't respond themselves.
posted by Lesium at 4:38 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Its ok to make mistakes (in moderation as in life), but you own it and explain how/why it happened and how it wont again. You don't lie or hide behind your own rules or delete people so they can't respond themselves.
posted by Lesium at 4:38 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'd say deleting a derail is part of the curation process.
But if it was a derail, then its content wasn't appropriate for the topic, and yet, per loop:
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself…
I'd agree that it could be seen as a derail. But we're being told the content wasn't the problem.
If it was a derail then a mod comment that that's what it was, and to start a new topic, would have been fine, I'd have thought. And an acknowledgment that "it was a derail, it could have been handled better, etc" would have handled it, instead of nearly a week of whatever this is.
posted by fabius at 4:42 AM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
But if it was a derail, then its content wasn't appropriate for the topic, and yet, per loop:
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself…
I'd agree that it could be seen as a derail. But we're being told the content wasn't the problem.
If it was a derail then a mod comment that that's what it was, and to start a new topic, would have been fine, I'd have thought. And an acknowledgment that "it was a derail, it could have been handled better, etc" would have handled it, instead of nearly a week of whatever this is.
posted by fabius at 4:42 AM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
Content doesn't make a derail, context does? Mods delete things based on context rather than content all the time.
posted by sagc at 4:49 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by sagc at 4:49 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
Sure, but understanding that would require seeking a sympathetic reading of the text instead of strip-mining it for grar.
posted by flabdablet at 4:51 AM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 4:51 AM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
I'd say deleting a derail is part of the curation process.
I think there's a substantial difference between moderation and curation, and I don't think that Metafilter moderators should be curating.
> Up to this point the mod m.o. has been at the whim and pleasure of the owner.
As it quite properly should forever remain.
The owner is on record as wanting "the people who use the site are the ones who really get to help run the site". And that was before the community had to run an emergency fundraiser to help cover next month's bills. So from where I'm standing, of course accountability and transparency are owed to the users and members of the site.
posted by dmh at 5:24 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
I think there's a substantial difference between moderation and curation, and I don't think that Metafilter moderators should be curating.
> Up to this point the mod m.o. has been at the whim and pleasure of the owner.
As it quite properly should forever remain.
The owner is on record as wanting "the people who use the site are the ones who really get to help run the site". And that was before the community had to run an emergency fundraiser to help cover next month's bills. So from where I'm standing, of course accountability and transparency are owed to the users and members of the site.
posted by dmh at 5:24 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
Content doesn't make a derail, context does?
Sure, I was assuming that:
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself…
meant the comment's content in the context of the thread that it was in, given everyone's talking about the comment in that context, rather than any other.
posted by fabius at 5:27 AM on January 31, 2023
Sure, I was assuming that:
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itself…
meant the comment's content in the context of the thread that it was in, given everyone's talking about the comment in that context, rather than any other.
posted by fabius at 5:27 AM on January 31, 2023
To return to the question of whether MetaFilter can disclose information with MollyRealized’s consent: as I mentioned, I’m a lawyer who dedicated a significant portion of my practice to privacy law and related subjects. While it is always good to consult a lawyer before any decision, I don’t strenuously advise lawyers to consult legal counsel before giving candy to babies. Disclosing information with the consent of the affected person is, absent other facts (such as the person in question being mentally incompetent in some way) on a similar level of harmlessness. That said, I am not your lawyer and yes, always consult an attorney to obtain legal advice which is specific to your situation. (LPT).
Also, GDPR doesn’t apply to US entities. I know it says it does, but that is true in practice only to the extent that the entity in question is a multi-national corporation with assets in the EU. The odds of an EU privacy regulator bringing an enforcement action against a niche website in the US with a rapidly falling user base because a mod disclosed private conversations with the consent of all participants seems… low.
posted by gd779 at 5:41 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
Also, GDPR doesn’t apply to US entities. I know it says it does, but that is true in practice only to the extent that the entity in question is a multi-national corporation with assets in the EU. The odds of an EU privacy regulator bringing an enforcement action against a niche website in the US with a rapidly falling user base because a mod disclosed private conversations with the consent of all participants seems… low.
posted by gd779 at 5:41 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
Also, that was not legal advice, merely a general statement of the law (which is all that was).
I would ask for a clear statement from Jessamyn or the SC: who do the mods answer to, if anyone? Does the SC set binding policy, which the mods must follow (and then who provides employment law supervision and discipline to the employers), or does the SC provide non-binding advice and the buck stops with loup or Jessamyn?
posted by gd779 at 5:48 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
I would ask for a clear statement from Jessamyn or the SC: who do the mods answer to, if anyone? Does the SC set binding policy, which the mods must follow (and then who provides employment law supervision and discipline to the employers), or does the SC provide non-binding advice and the buck stops with loup or Jessamyn?
posted by gd779 at 5:48 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
flabdablet: “self-righteous motherhood-and-apple-pie about accountability and transparency strikes me as empty grandstanding” and “understanding that would require seeking a sympathetic reading of the text instead of strip-mining it for grar.”
Can we not dismiss people’s views as being self-righteous grandstanding? Or are members not allowed to talk about, heaven forbid criticise, aspects of Metafilter, because it’s not a co-op?
Even if you think the mods’ actions were unimpeachable here, the fact is that a lot of members are unhappy with them – not just “troublemakers”! – so the way through this can’t be simply through derision and dismissal.
posted by adrianhon at 5:50 AM on January 31, 2023 [23 favorites]
Can we not dismiss people’s views as being self-righteous grandstanding? Or are members not allowed to talk about, heaven forbid criticise, aspects of Metafilter, because it’s not a co-op?
Even if you think the mods’ actions were unimpeachable here, the fact is that a lot of members are unhappy with them – not just “troublemakers”! – so the way through this can’t be simply through derision and dismissal.
posted by adrianhon at 5:50 AM on January 31, 2023 [23 favorites]
I'd say deleting a derail is part of the curation process.
except it was not deleted as a derail, and prior to this MetaTalk had much more liberal conventions for derailing.
if the mods actually want posts that are just for Happy Fun News And No Criticism, maybe there needs to be a new tab for “Site News”.
posted by haptic_avenger at 6:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
except it was not deleted as a derail, and prior to this MetaTalk had much more liberal conventions for derailing.
if the mods actually want posts that are just for Happy Fun News And No Criticism, maybe there needs to be a new tab for “Site News”.
posted by haptic_avenger at 6:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Can we not dismiss people’s views as being self-righteous grandstanding?
If they're as manifestly thoughtful and well presented as e.g. biogeo's comment above then I'll happily not do so.
Tediously generic and non-specific demands for accountability and transparency that make no attempt to explain what it is that the apparently aggrieved party actually wants, though? Feh.
posted by flabdablet at 6:47 AM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
If they're as manifestly thoughtful and well presented as e.g. biogeo's comment above then I'll happily not do so.
Tediously generic and non-specific demands for accountability and transparency that make no attempt to explain what it is that the apparently aggrieved party actually wants, though? Feh.
posted by flabdablet at 6:47 AM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times
A thousand times this.
I agree, and yes to adrianhon's comment too. In the last thread, flabdablet, you called people who don't agree with you axe grinders and complainers who just want to complain and will always complain. Those characterizations are unfair ad hominems about people who care enough about this community to participate in discussions about what they think would improve it. Even if you disagree with them, please don't characterize people as simply oppositional when, for the most part, they could be doing something else and are engaging here because they care. We would do better in these conversations to talk to people's arguments, not the character you might presume them to have.
One of the ideals I have for this website is that we can talk about it. That we can talk about how the community works, what we want the community to be, and what values we practice here together. That ideal has roots in MeFi practice but hasn't yet been fully lived; the SC is a great step toward that, but if they aren't structurally empowered to set policy and values, it won't work; and if the mod team is not open to responding to that kind of effort it will fail. So there's a fundamental conflict between that value and the lack of moderation transparency.
I also have to note that, to my chagrin, the record is clear that moderators have not always been fully honest with users about their background user interactions, and that the privacy metric has prevented accountability for that.
We need to be able to talk openly. We could all work on tone and continue working on it, because words do matter (especially when they're all we have). If someone is being abusive, I don't see why the comment shouldn't be deleted with note and the person asked to rephrase with mindful constructive intent. Shutting down a valid point of view because it's just uncomfortable, though, isn't something I think we should be aiming for.
It may be that not many people value the open discussion it takes to shape and uphold a community and its values, and so it's worth sacrificing to other ideals. I just haven't fully given up on that ideal yet, and would like to see the staff and users come together in a more constructive way to inform the moderation practice in a way that makes members - let alone any new users - feel valued, safe, and managed by clear and fair expectations.
posted by Miko at 6:47 AM on January 31, 2023 [42 favorites]
A thousand times this.
I agree, and yes to adrianhon's comment too. In the last thread, flabdablet, you called people who don't agree with you axe grinders and complainers who just want to complain and will always complain. Those characterizations are unfair ad hominems about people who care enough about this community to participate in discussions about what they think would improve it. Even if you disagree with them, please don't characterize people as simply oppositional when, for the most part, they could be doing something else and are engaging here because they care. We would do better in these conversations to talk to people's arguments, not the character you might presume them to have.
One of the ideals I have for this website is that we can talk about it. That we can talk about how the community works, what we want the community to be, and what values we practice here together. That ideal has roots in MeFi practice but hasn't yet been fully lived; the SC is a great step toward that, but if they aren't structurally empowered to set policy and values, it won't work; and if the mod team is not open to responding to that kind of effort it will fail. So there's a fundamental conflict between that value and the lack of moderation transparency.
I also have to note that, to my chagrin, the record is clear that moderators have not always been fully honest with users about their background user interactions, and that the privacy metric has prevented accountability for that.
We need to be able to talk openly. We could all work on tone and continue working on it, because words do matter (especially when they're all we have). If someone is being abusive, I don't see why the comment shouldn't be deleted with note and the person asked to rephrase with mindful constructive intent. Shutting down a valid point of view because it's just uncomfortable, though, isn't something I think we should be aiming for.
It may be that not many people value the open discussion it takes to shape and uphold a community and its values, and so it's worth sacrificing to other ideals. I just haven't fully given up on that ideal yet, and would like to see the staff and users come together in a more constructive way to inform the moderation practice in a way that makes members - let alone any new users - feel valued, safe, and managed by clear and fair expectations.
posted by Miko at 6:47 AM on January 31, 2023 [42 favorites]
to my chagrin, the record is clear that moderators have not always been fully honest with users about their background user interactions
Given your own record of thoughtful comment I have no reason to doubt you, but this point is so diametrically opposed to my own experience that I would appreciate learning more about what prompted it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:56 AM on January 31, 2023
Given your own record of thoughtful comment I have no reason to doubt you, but this point is so diametrically opposed to my own experience that I would appreciate learning more about what prompted it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:56 AM on January 31, 2023
*emits concerned and prolonged Marge Simpson grumbling noises*
posted by loquacious at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by loquacious at 6:58 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
flabdablet, it seems you are an active MetaTalk guy, you really have not seen any of that stuff? There were a bunch of big dramatic threads where this sort of thing happened.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 7:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Reading between the lines here and on Reddit, it seems to me that MR was asked/told to stop posting in MeTa, either before the latest incident or during it, likely because MR had recently posted two threads in which MR made site improvement suggestions and then became angry with people who pushed-back on those suggestions and fought with people in a way that devolved into MR-against-the-world. (Though I believe most of those comments are now deleted.) The mods likely believed that the same pattern was starting again when MR lobbed in an unnecessarily contentious and verbose comment into the fundraising thread. At least one commenter had already started calling out MR, and it isn't hard to see where the thread was going to go. Because mod resources are relatively thin, rather than letting it play out into yet another MR-against-the-world pile-on, they deleted it. It's frustrating that the mods can't/won't come right out and say this, but their caution is understandable given the various legalistic threats that have been directed at the site (valid or not). Probably an artful mod comment might have helped tamp down the confusion/anger over what happened, but that's easier said than done.
The mods are in a tough place when someone develops a relationship with MeTa where they repeatedly become embroiled in pile-ons that seem to make everyone, including the user, unhappy. I think this is more about that than an anti-criticism prejudice by the mods or broader issues about accountability/transparency. I think those are all fine issues to raise and debate, but I think it is a mistake to try to dissect this particular episode in the service of those issues. There's a saying that hard cases make bad law - because trying to fit principles to outlier cases tends to warp the principles into something that can't be readily applied to everyday situations. I think biogeo's list of principles above is probably a good set of principles for everyday cases. But this case is probably something different.
posted by Mid at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2023 [75 favorites]
The mods are in a tough place when someone develops a relationship with MeTa where they repeatedly become embroiled in pile-ons that seem to make everyone, including the user, unhappy. I think this is more about that than an anti-criticism prejudice by the mods or broader issues about accountability/transparency. I think those are all fine issues to raise and debate, but I think it is a mistake to try to dissect this particular episode in the service of those issues. There's a saying that hard cases make bad law - because trying to fit principles to outlier cases tends to warp the principles into something that can't be readily applied to everyday situations. I think biogeo's list of principles above is probably a good set of principles for everyday cases. But this case is probably something different.
posted by Mid at 7:14 AM on January 31, 2023 [75 favorites]
to my chagrin, the record is clear that moderators have not always been fully honest with users about their background user interactions
Given your own record of thoughtful comment I have no reason to doubt you, but this point is so diametrically opposed to my own experience that I would appreciate learning more about what prompted it.
Given your own record of thoughtful comment I have no reason to doubt you, but this point is so diametrically opposed to my own experience that I would appreciate learning more about what prompted it.
Ask restless_nomad about the shitshow they had to clean up when cortex decided to delete someone's account, then lie about the reason for it in MetaTalk.posted by Etrigan at 7:17 AM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Jesus Christ people. Is it January or something? If you don’t like it here, you can leave.
posted by Melismata at 7:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 7:25 AM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
MR had recently posted two threads ... that devolved into MR-against-the-world
I feel like this discussion would be a lot more honest if anyone on either side would acknowledge that this was a Molly-specific problem. I'm not sure any of this would have happened if that comment would have been posted by any other user. I personally liked Molly, and found her comments pretty interesting even when she was at her most pugilistic, but clearly many people disagree, and that dislike that some harbor for her is clearly the reason this happened. I'm not saying that taz is one of the people who doesn't like Molly, but at the very least taz was aware of other people's opinions about Molly and her posting style, and that awareness is what drove the mod actions, from the comment deletion all the way to the shadow-ban. Had I been the one to post the comment, with the same formatting, I doubt there would have been any sort of pile-on. People might have disagreed with it, people might have just ignored it, but would taz have had to get involved with it?
And if taz is one of the people who doesn't like Molly (which is understandable - I've worked in customer service and had plenty of customers whom I disliked quite intensely; it happens, even if we wish it didn't and even if we actively try to counteract those feelings), I think it would go a long way toward reestablishing trust if she would just admit that.
Personally, if someone is getting piled on every time they post, I would kind of hope that mods would side with the person getting piled on rather than the pilers-on.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:59 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
I feel like this discussion would be a lot more honest if anyone on either side would acknowledge that this was a Molly-specific problem. I'm not sure any of this would have happened if that comment would have been posted by any other user. I personally liked Molly, and found her comments pretty interesting even when she was at her most pugilistic, but clearly many people disagree, and that dislike that some harbor for her is clearly the reason this happened. I'm not saying that taz is one of the people who doesn't like Molly, but at the very least taz was aware of other people's opinions about Molly and her posting style, and that awareness is what drove the mod actions, from the comment deletion all the way to the shadow-ban. Had I been the one to post the comment, with the same formatting, I doubt there would have been any sort of pile-on. People might have disagreed with it, people might have just ignored it, but would taz have had to get involved with it?
And if taz is one of the people who doesn't like Molly (which is understandable - I've worked in customer service and had plenty of customers whom I disliked quite intensely; it happens, even if we wish it didn't and even if we actively try to counteract those feelings), I think it would go a long way toward reestablishing trust if she would just admit that.
Personally, if someone is getting piled on every time they post, I would kind of hope that mods would side with the person getting piled on rather than the pilers-on.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:59 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
And that's because it's impossible to please everyone with every mod decision. And that's why we need to try and give each other a fucking break at all times.
In this particular case there was a pretty obvious middle ground (at least in hindsight) that could have involved deleting the comment or not. In either case, an invitation to post a new MeTa discussing the perceived lack of effort in bringing new members to the site and saying that no discussion on that topic is allowed in the existing thread would have been a much better way to handle it. Regardless, that isn't what happened and mistakes continued on both sides. Molly continued to engage despite being told to knock it off (though I find it darkly amusing that we expect people not to respond when they continue to get piled on even after their comment was deleted and those comments referencing the now deleted comment don't themselves get deleted) and was given a timeout of unspecified duration when most likely a clearly communicated day off would have sufficed. I'm assuming the shadow ban thing was some kind of bug and not intentional.
More generally, I'd be in favor of mass deleting the interminable pileons, given that they are often the real problem, not someone's perhaps out of place but not guideline breaking comment.
posted by wierdo at 8:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
In this particular case there was a pretty obvious middle ground (at least in hindsight) that could have involved deleting the comment or not. In either case, an invitation to post a new MeTa discussing the perceived lack of effort in bringing new members to the site and saying that no discussion on that topic is allowed in the existing thread would have been a much better way to handle it. Regardless, that isn't what happened and mistakes continued on both sides. Molly continued to engage despite being told to knock it off (though I find it darkly amusing that we expect people not to respond when they continue to get piled on even after their comment was deleted and those comments referencing the now deleted comment don't themselves get deleted) and was given a timeout of unspecified duration when most likely a clearly communicated day off would have sufficed. I'm assuming the shadow ban thing was some kind of bug and not intentional.
More generally, I'd be in favor of mass deleting the interminable pileons, given that they are often the real problem, not someone's perhaps out of place but not guideline breaking comment.
posted by wierdo at 8:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
Kevinbelt - Not trying to snark, but it's funny how you used ellipses to delete the part of the comment where I talked about MR's behavior as part of the explanation for the pile-ons. By which I mean, I agree very much that it is an MR-specific issue (or a "difficult user X"-specific issue, not just MR), but I don't agree that it is a question of whether a mod "likes" a particular user. Choosing to post in a contentious/argumentative way tends to provoke arguments!
posted by Mid at 8:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Mid at 8:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Ask restless_nomad about the shitshow they had to clean up when cortex decided to delete someone's account, then lie about the reason for it in MetaTalk.
You can, but you're not gonna like it when I tell everyone that that is the least charitable possible reading.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2023 [51 favorites]
You can, but you're not gonna like it when I tell everyone that that is the least charitable possible reading.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2023 [51 favorites]
Can I make some specific proposals.
1. Any thread with 3 or more comments deleted should get a mod message saying some comments have been deleted and why.
2. The Steering Committee appoints an ombudsman or subcommittee. If you think your account has been unfairly suspended/deleted you can appeal to them, and within a set time they can get the decision reversed.
That just means a bit more transparency around deletions, and a route of appeal if someone genuinely thinks the mods have been unfair.
I don't think there can be a viable appeal process over comment deletions as there are just too many. But account suspensions are rare enough this shouldn't be a huge burden.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2023 [13 favorites]
1. Any thread with 3 or more comments deleted should get a mod message saying some comments have been deleted and why.
2. The Steering Committee appoints an ombudsman or subcommittee. If you think your account has been unfairly suspended/deleted you can appeal to them, and within a set time they can get the decision reversed.
That just means a bit more transparency around deletions, and a route of appeal if someone genuinely thinks the mods have been unfair.
I don't think there can be a viable appeal process over comment deletions as there are just too many. But account suspensions are rare enough this shouldn't be a huge burden.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2023 [13 favorites]
shadow-ban
Just to clarify, folks are using this word to mean
Just to clarify, folks are using this word to mean
the user is temporarily banned without 'this account is disabled' appearing on their profile, not in the usual sense?
The phrase "shadow banning" has a colloquial history and has undergone some usage evolution. It originally applied to a deceptive sort of account suspension on web forums, where a person would appear to be able to post while actually having all of their content hidden from other users. More recently, the term has come to apply to alternative measures, particularly visibility measures like delisting and downranking.posted by zamboni at 8:43 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm going to repeat this from h00py (in part anyway) because it goes a long way toward explaining the "why" of where we are -- I think. Because it is just an interpretation based on incomplete info (ie: h00py is not privy to either the thinking behind the original post or the mod decisions).
the previous thread was a summing up of the fundraising effort and MollyRealized's comment was a derail because it was about all of the other things that need to be done and expressed in a way that threw a massively wet blanket over what was meant to be a celebration of the site having been pulled out of the shit (for now, anyway).
If taz had been more tactful in their deletion comment it may have prevented all of this escalation, but it seems to me that they were justified in trying to keep things positive and deleting the comment because it was a derail, and then it backfired because the deletion became what people focused on (not least, MollyRealized, and with fair reason; nobody likes a scolding) and that fucked up the whole celebratory thing. Worked out like shit for everyone, really.
bolding mine obviously (and sorry for speaking in my outdoor voice but sometimes that feels appropriate).
And now, I wish we could all take a few moments (minutes?) to just breathe and reflect on all the beauty and goodness here there everywhere. Myself, tending to be a glass-half-full type, I'm not going to be shy about reflecting that however unfortunate and painful etc this has all been, it has gotten us (the community) to a necessary and inevitable discussion as to (as Meatbomb put it way up top) "when and if mods should delete comments on Metatalk. [...] This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say and allow the SC to reflect on that feedback, and provide the mods clear guidelines in this regard."
posted by philip-random at 9:02 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
the previous thread was a summing up of the fundraising effort and MollyRealized's comment was a derail because it was about all of the other things that need to be done and expressed in a way that threw a massively wet blanket over what was meant to be a celebration of the site having been pulled out of the shit (for now, anyway).
If taz had been more tactful in their deletion comment it may have prevented all of this escalation, but it seems to me that they were justified in trying to keep things positive and deleting the comment because it was a derail, and then it backfired because the deletion became what people focused on (not least, MollyRealized, and with fair reason; nobody likes a scolding) and that fucked up the whole celebratory thing. Worked out like shit for everyone, really.
bolding mine obviously (and sorry for speaking in my outdoor voice but sometimes that feels appropriate).
And now, I wish we could all take a few moments (minutes?) to just breathe and reflect on all the beauty and goodness here there everywhere. Myself, tending to be a glass-half-full type, I'm not going to be shy about reflecting that however unfortunate and painful etc this has all been, it has gotten us (the community) to a necessary and inevitable discussion as to (as Meatbomb put it way up top) "when and if mods should delete comments on Metatalk. [...] This is a new era of communiuty governance, I think we all need to have a say and allow the SC to reflect on that feedback, and provide the mods clear guidelines in this regard."
posted by philip-random at 9:02 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
about the shitshow
Yeah, I remember that one. It was horrible, like watching time slow down as two heavily loaded trains fail to brake in time to avoid smashing into each other on a wet track made of pure stress, with one of them getting buzzed by some fuckwit in a helicopter gunship while the other had hornets loose in the driver's cabin.
I'm not at all persuaded that the existence of any formal policy, publicly documented or otherwise, could have stopped that wreck; and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank restless_nomad for taking on the human-to-human work that kept the ensuing toxic spill from spreading even further than it did.
a route of appeal if someone genuinely thinks the mods have been unfair
I would be absolutely astonished to learn that Jessamyn would fail to give anybody a fair hearing should such a circumstance arise in the near term.
posted by flabdablet at 9:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I remember that one. It was horrible, like watching time slow down as two heavily loaded trains fail to brake in time to avoid smashing into each other on a wet track made of pure stress, with one of them getting buzzed by some fuckwit in a helicopter gunship while the other had hornets loose in the driver's cabin.
I'm not at all persuaded that the existence of any formal policy, publicly documented or otherwise, could have stopped that wreck; and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank restless_nomad for taking on the human-to-human work that kept the ensuing toxic spill from spreading even further than it did.
a route of appeal if someone genuinely thinks the mods have been unfair
I would be absolutely astonished to learn that Jessamyn would fail to give anybody a fair hearing should such a circumstance arise in the near term.
posted by flabdablet at 9:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
This whole thread has serious "going back to the bar to argue with the bartender about why your friend was kicked out last night" vibes.
Nobody gets paid enough to deal with this nonsense.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [43 favorites]
Nobody gets paid enough to deal with this nonsense.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [43 favorites]
Nobody gets paid enough to deal with this nonsense.
Which is why it falls on the volunteer SC, the owner who is not drawing a salary, and all of us folks who are here of our own volition. For free!
posted by Meatbomb at 9:22 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
Which is why it falls on the volunteer SC, the owner who is not drawing a salary, and all of us folks who are here of our own volition. For free!
posted by Meatbomb at 9:22 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
I slowly backed into the crowd
Me and Eddie we looked at each other
We never mentioned it to this day
But my friend, she went and told her mother
Oh jeez, can you believe that?
posted by flabdablet at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2023
Me and Eddie we looked at each other
We never mentioned it to this day
But my friend, she went and told her mother
Oh jeez, can you believe that?
posted by flabdablet at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2023
tiny number of blatantly racist/sexist/spam comments.
In other words, like it was when it was Matt Haughey's part-time hobby.
Pick any three meta threads from 15 years ago. Be appalled at the language in at least two. Rinse repeat until you are convinced things are much better now.
Also, GDPR doesn’t apply to US entities. I know it says it does, but that is true in practice only to the extent that the entity in question is a multi-national corporation with assets in the EU. The odds of an EU privacy regulator bringing an enforcement action against a niche website in the US with a rapidly falling user base because a mod disclosed private conversations with the consent of all participants seems… low.
Still as policy it would not hurt to conform to the spirit of the EU legislation. US protections are ŵholly inadequate.
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
In other words, like it was when it was Matt Haughey's part-time hobby.
Pick any three meta threads from 15 years ago. Be appalled at the language in at least two. Rinse repeat until you are convinced things are much better now.
Also, GDPR doesn’t apply to US entities. I know it says it does, but that is true in practice only to the extent that the entity in question is a multi-national corporation with assets in the EU. The odds of an EU privacy regulator bringing an enforcement action against a niche website in the US with a rapidly falling user base because a mod disclosed private conversations with the consent of all participants seems… low.
Still as policy it would not hurt to conform to the spirit of the EU legislation. US protections are ŵholly inadequate.
posted by Mitheral at 9:26 AM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
If you read any of the 'twitter files' that idiot Elon released concerning the safety team at Twitter, you have a sense of how tricky moderation of any sort is. For me, it's kind of like trying to define what a game is (very difficult) and I'm content to let the Mods do their thing using their best judgement.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by bluesky43 at 9:31 AM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
what the end game is of the last of the Web 1.0
Play our cards right and we'll still be furiously talking past each other as Web 4.0 is going great and Google acquires and then capriciously shutters Twitter.
posted by flabdablet at 9:38 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Play our cards right and we'll still be furiously talking past each other as Web 4.0 is going great and Google acquires and then capriciously shutters Twitter.
posted by flabdablet at 9:38 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
I would be absolutely astonished to learn that Jessamyn would fail to give anybody a fair hearing should such a circumstance arise in the near term.
It isn't just about a fair hearing, though. An appeal/escalation process means:
- a second, fresher set of eyes on whether a policy is being applied consistently - still won't be perfect of course. I don't know that this has to fall on the site owner if there's a community willing to help out. Again I think this would take time to work out and think about.
- support for the mods for their decisions - I sometimes have to reverse a decision on behalf of my team but even when I have to do that it's an opportunity to be supportive of that person's work in general. It also gives me a chance to say "yes, that was right," when it was, and share the emotional load of that kind of fraught decision-making and communication.
(And usually I have to say if someone on my team has made a really bad decision, it's because something about their work isn't going right (exhaustion/stress/misunderstanding/etc.) and maybe it's a chance to fix that.)
- a route for a banned person to take time to express their concern/'side'/what their future course of action might be to (in my view) which could lead to a good result.
- possibly, a way to track trends and address them in a more systems-oriented way
posted by warriorqueen at 10:01 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
It isn't just about a fair hearing, though. An appeal/escalation process means:
- a second, fresher set of eyes on whether a policy is being applied consistently - still won't be perfect of course. I don't know that this has to fall on the site owner if there's a community willing to help out. Again I think this would take time to work out and think about.
- support for the mods for their decisions - I sometimes have to reverse a decision on behalf of my team but even when I have to do that it's an opportunity to be supportive of that person's work in general. It also gives me a chance to say "yes, that was right," when it was, and share the emotional load of that kind of fraught decision-making and communication.
(And usually I have to say if someone on my team has made a really bad decision, it's because something about their work isn't going right (exhaustion/stress/misunderstanding/etc.) and maybe it's a chance to fix that.)
- a route for a banned person to take time to express their concern/'side'/what their future course of action might be to (in my view) which could lead to a good result.
- possibly, a way to track trends and address them in a more systems-oriented way
posted by warriorqueen at 10:01 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
one...ahem...example.
It's not hard at ALL to find yuck in the "good old days" of MeFi. I looked all of 3 min for this example. I'll take current moderation any day.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
It's not hard at ALL to find yuck in the "good old days" of MeFi. I looked all of 3 min for this example. I'll take current moderation any day.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:04 AM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
Given the furor it has caused here in the past if a moderator has even been perceived to refer to private communication with a user, it makes sense that nobody here is willing to go into more detail around the circumstances of this deletion and user consequences.
But it's not that hard to figure out that this is an aspect of this situation. The content of those communications are private in the sense that users very much expect it to be private barring something legally actionable like a threat, or announcements routed through moderators for various reasons (like if a user dies, or if some kind of technical problem is occurring). And it doesn't matter if the user "waives" that expectation of privacy, it would still be a trust catastrophe if site-runners did so - it doesn't matter if it's Metafilter or the local florist or your online calculus class.
I know it's frustrating to some people to not have that additional context, and to feel owed that additional context in order to decide if the moderation decision was right or wrong. There's no way to do that, though, that doesn't turn into a re-litigation of the moderation decision, as it has already become, AND a referendum on a particular user in a way that is guaranteed to be unhealthy, and I don't think it is really possible to consent to that, certainly not unless this place wants to put a pre-submit-button policy that everything you ever say here is subject to trial by userbase.
posted by Lyn Never at 10:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [25 favorites]
But it's not that hard to figure out that this is an aspect of this situation. The content of those communications are private in the sense that users very much expect it to be private barring something legally actionable like a threat, or announcements routed through moderators for various reasons (like if a user dies, or if some kind of technical problem is occurring). And it doesn't matter if the user "waives" that expectation of privacy, it would still be a trust catastrophe if site-runners did so - it doesn't matter if it's Metafilter or the local florist or your online calculus class.
I know it's frustrating to some people to not have that additional context, and to feel owed that additional context in order to decide if the moderation decision was right or wrong. There's no way to do that, though, that doesn't turn into a re-litigation of the moderation decision, as it has already become, AND a referendum on a particular user in a way that is guaranteed to be unhealthy, and I don't think it is really possible to consent to that, certainly not unless this place wants to put a pre-submit-button policy that everything you ever say here is subject to trial by userbase.
posted by Lyn Never at 10:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [25 favorites]
Given the furor it has caused here in the past if a moderator has even been perceived to refer to private communication with a user, it makes sense that nobody here is willing to go into more detail around the circumstances of this deletion and user consequences.
It's happening right here in this thread and it happened in the previous thread, and there was no such furor arising from the mere reference. Quite the opposite; people are not willing to take the mod team's word for it that such private communication exists and supports their version of the conversation.
And it doesn't matter if the user "waives" that expectation of privacy, it would still be a trust catastrophe if site-runners did so - it doesn't matter if it's Metafilter or the local florist or your online calculus class.
So anything sent to the mods disappears forever into a black hole, except that mods can refer obliquely to it and will in fact ban people for posting their own communications or pointing to it elsewhere? If that's the case, then fine, but they should stop dressing it up as concern for the user's privacy.
posted by Etrigan at 10:27 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
It's happening right here in this thread and it happened in the previous thread, and there was no such furor arising from the mere reference. Quite the opposite; people are not willing to take the mod team's word for it that such private communication exists and supports their version of the conversation.
And it doesn't matter if the user "waives" that expectation of privacy, it would still be a trust catastrophe if site-runners did so - it doesn't matter if it's Metafilter or the local florist or your online calculus class.
So anything sent to the mods disappears forever into a black hole, except that mods can refer obliquely to it and will in fact ban people for posting their own communications or pointing to it elsewhere? If that's the case, then fine, but they should stop dressing it up as concern for the user's privacy.
posted by Etrigan at 10:27 AM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
people are not willing to take the mod team's word for it that such private communication exists and supports their version of the conversation.
They are also not going to take the mod team's word, necessarily, that any communication produced is complete and accurate. It's a lose-lose proposition, and erring on the side of user privacy is the way to go, imo. The whole point of the Steering Committee is that there is a group of volunteers willing to get into the weeds on this kind of thing in controlled circumstances where the user in question can realistically understand and consent to the consequences of that discussion. Debating it in Metatalk has historically not led to mutual understanding and deescalation.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2023 [41 favorites]
They are also not going to take the mod team's word, necessarily, that any communication produced is complete and accurate. It's a lose-lose proposition, and erring on the side of user privacy is the way to go, imo. The whole point of the Steering Committee is that there is a group of volunteers willing to get into the weeds on this kind of thing in controlled circumstances where the user in question can realistically understand and consent to the consequences of that discussion. Debating it in Metatalk has historically not led to mutual understanding and deescalation.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:49 AM on January 31, 2023 [41 favorites]
From the deletion of the original comment up to the blocking of MR's account, did taz contact or consult with anyone? I strongly believe the answer is "no", and that's why I want to include a discussion of mod accountability in this post.
taz consulted with the entire mod team who were available (and me, and I also spoke with loup and taz individually and spoke to the SC) and there was some discussion with SC (which loup alluded to above) about their roles in moderation decisions generally which is ongoing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [31 favorites]
taz consulted with the entire mod team who were available (and me, and I also spoke with loup and taz individually and spoke to the SC) and there was some discussion with SC (which loup alluded to above) about their roles in moderation decisions generally which is ongoing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:09 AM on January 31, 2023 [31 favorites]
I thought the SC didn’t know what was going on with regard to the deletion? There were some comments from SC members to that effect, yes?
posted by angrycat at 11:32 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by angrycat at 11:32 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Are there plans from the SC to weigh in on this?
I am working on a MetaTalk to propose and discuss establishing an official ombudsperson role at MetaFilter, who would be a non-mod trained to adhere to necessary discretion around member privacy, moderation tools, etc., and who could talk with the mod team in cases like this one to independently assess whether the procedure followed adhered to the publicly stated moderation policies. The idea being that hopefully if there is an official designee who can peer behind the curtain and report back, so to speak, that would alleviate the good-faith concerns of some members, while also allowing the mod team to have a single person to interact and discuss the case with rather than have fighty contentious MetaTalk free-for-alls. However, if the SC is already fulfilling that role then perhaps a formal and distinct ombudsperson role is not necessary. So far it's seemed like the SC may not have the bandwidth/preparation to do this job on top of everything else they're doing but maybe I'm mistaken. If it's not necessary, or if such a suggestion is a nonstarter with jessamyn, I won't go through with the MetaTalk.
posted by biogeo at 11:37 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
I am working on a MetaTalk to propose and discuss establishing an official ombudsperson role at MetaFilter, who would be a non-mod trained to adhere to necessary discretion around member privacy, moderation tools, etc., and who could talk with the mod team in cases like this one to independently assess whether the procedure followed adhered to the publicly stated moderation policies. The idea being that hopefully if there is an official designee who can peer behind the curtain and report back, so to speak, that would alleviate the good-faith concerns of some members, while also allowing the mod team to have a single person to interact and discuss the case with rather than have fighty contentious MetaTalk free-for-alls. However, if the SC is already fulfilling that role then perhaps a formal and distinct ombudsperson role is not necessary. So far it's seemed like the SC may not have the bandwidth/preparation to do this job on top of everything else they're doing but maybe I'm mistaken. If it's not necessary, or if such a suggestion is a nonstarter with jessamyn, I won't go through with the MetaTalk.
posted by biogeo at 11:37 AM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]
And it doesn't matter if the user "waives" that expectation of privacy, it would still be a trust catastrophe if site-runners did so - it doesn't matter if it's Metafilter or the local florist or your online calculus class.
I feel like I’m in bizarro world. Why on earth would this be “a trust catastrophe”? It sounds like exactly the way it should work, maintain strict privacy, but when a user waives it, then don’t. Its a really simple principle that also has the advantage of not making you look like you’re desperately trying to keep something secret.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
I feel like I’m in bizarro world. Why on earth would this be “a trust catastrophe”? It sounds like exactly the way it should work, maintain strict privacy, but when a user waives it, then don’t. Its a really simple principle that also has the advantage of not making you look like you’re desperately trying to keep something secret.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
Why on earth would this be “a trust catastrophe”?
From my point of view, knowing that the mods will not talk about some things, even if a user specifically says it's ok to talk about it, gives me more trust in them. They'll "die with the lie" so to speak and while I can't say I always think they should always do that, it's generally a good policy to have.
I realize everyone may not feel that way, just explaining how I see it, in the hopes of furthering understanding to those who disagree.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:13 PM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
From my point of view, knowing that the mods will not talk about some things, even if a user specifically says it's ok to talk about it, gives me more trust in them. They'll "die with the lie" so to speak and while I can't say I always think they should always do that, it's generally a good policy to have.
I realize everyone may not feel that way, just explaining how I see it, in the hopes of furthering understanding to those who disagree.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:13 PM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]
From my point of view, knowing that the mods will not talk about some things, even if a user specifically says it's ok to talk about it, gives me more trust in them. They'll "die with the lie" so to speak and while I can't say I always think they should always do that, it's generally a good policy to have.
speaking as a privacy professional, this is absurd. feeling unable to talk without consent is fine, but don't blame privacy for not speaking when you have that consent.
also what does 'die with the lie' mean? I don't understand what it is intended to convey.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:37 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
speaking as a privacy professional, this is absurd. feeling unable to talk without consent is fine, but don't blame privacy for not speaking when you have that consent.
also what does 'die with the lie' mean? I don't understand what it is intended to convey.
posted by Sebmojo at 12:37 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
people are not willing to take the mod team's word for it that such private communication exists and supports their version of the conversation
Yeah, well. Other people have no patience left for a contingent who would rather get their intractable trust issues stroked and validated by cracking the sads in some social media grievance feedlot than cultivate the tiniest crumb of doubt to give those who have stepped up to help run this joint the benefit of.
The Mods Cannot Be Trusted gets wheeled out every. fucking. time! one makes a decision that's the slightest bit contentious and it's just straight-up toxic. Nobody with a shred of self-awareness would go that route if they had a genuine interest in making this community safe and welcoming. Because the simple fact is that the folks this site employs as mods can and should be trusted to a greater extent than would be reasonable for the general population. Nobody motivated by anything other than care for this community would keep on trying to meet its impossibly contradictory demands for the shit wages we fund.
Airing laundry that's actually dirty is fair and reasonable. Wilfully shitting the sheets beforehand, not so much.
posted by flabdablet at 12:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [16 favorites]
Yeah, well. Other people have no patience left for a contingent who would rather get their intractable trust issues stroked and validated by cracking the sads in some social media grievance feedlot than cultivate the tiniest crumb of doubt to give those who have stepped up to help run this joint the benefit of.
The Mods Cannot Be Trusted gets wheeled out every. fucking. time! one makes a decision that's the slightest bit contentious and it's just straight-up toxic. Nobody with a shred of self-awareness would go that route if they had a genuine interest in making this community safe and welcoming. Because the simple fact is that the folks this site employs as mods can and should be trusted to a greater extent than would be reasonable for the general population. Nobody motivated by anything other than care for this community would keep on trying to meet its impossibly contradictory demands for the shit wages we fund.
Airing laundry that's actually dirty is fair and reasonable. Wilfully shitting the sheets beforehand, not so much.
posted by flabdablet at 12:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [16 favorites]
"a contingent who would rather get their intractable trust issues stroked and validated by cracking the sads in some social media grievance feedlot than cultivate the tiniest crumb of doubt to give those who have stepped up to help run this joint the benefit of."
OK. Who exactly are you referring to here? Please list the usernames.
posted by adrianhon at 1:00 PM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
OK. Who exactly are you referring to here? Please list the usernames.
posted by adrianhon at 1:00 PM on January 31, 2023 [8 favorites]
I would just like to ask whatever governs metafilter to consider the following:
The only very bad moderation experience that I can say with confidence I am fully apprised of is when Cortex and Eyebrows McGee attacked a user, and EM stated that the user had caused real world harms to Cortex.
At that point, I started listening to people who had left the site and had bad experiences. Certainly, those stories, given the incident I am fairly sure about described above, sounded quite credible.
I think my opinion solidified when off-site, I saw some correspondence from Taz to a user. What I recall most about that correspondence was how emotional the letter was. Why? I have students who work in retail who deal with crap day in, day out. If they lashed out at customers like I have personally witnessed EM and Taz do, they wouldn't be employed.
If I lashed out at my students like that in an email, I wouldn't be employed.
I'm not saying that public facing jobs don't often suck. I'm not saying that moderation isn't hard.
But for me, I just can't trust you guys, you know? It's not a personal thing (well, okay, I think Eyebrows McGee is a liability to the site, so I guess one could accurately say that I have bad feelings towards her).
It's just, the system seems quite dysfunctional.
And look, I'll cop to some of my own fuckery: I came in here a while back after somebody got banned and said a lot of angry shit at EM. I am sorry for that--EM, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, you didn't deserve that.
Regardless, every time I see a note from EM, or a hyper peppy chat around and find out post posted by EM, I recoil.
And it's not because EM is Stalin or anything.
It's because I saw her behave very badly and to date, she has not acknowledged same
I need to not participate in a site where behavior like that is condoned. Because I know myself: I am a hot head. And I do not like bullying behavior, if that can be defined as people acting badly towards those with lesser power.
I really believe that those who regulate this site lack a real sense of accountability to the user base
I'll try to peace out now, because I don't see from the mods in this thread an ability to engage with these concerns, and I truly am not here just to cause drama/hurt feelings
posted by angrycat at 1:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [33 favorites]
The only very bad moderation experience that I can say with confidence I am fully apprised of is when Cortex and Eyebrows McGee attacked a user, and EM stated that the user had caused real world harms to Cortex.
At that point, I started listening to people who had left the site and had bad experiences. Certainly, those stories, given the incident I am fairly sure about described above, sounded quite credible.
I think my opinion solidified when off-site, I saw some correspondence from Taz to a user. What I recall most about that correspondence was how emotional the letter was. Why? I have students who work in retail who deal with crap day in, day out. If they lashed out at customers like I have personally witnessed EM and Taz do, they wouldn't be employed.
If I lashed out at my students like that in an email, I wouldn't be employed.
I'm not saying that public facing jobs don't often suck. I'm not saying that moderation isn't hard.
But for me, I just can't trust you guys, you know? It's not a personal thing (well, okay, I think Eyebrows McGee is a liability to the site, so I guess one could accurately say that I have bad feelings towards her).
It's just, the system seems quite dysfunctional.
And look, I'll cop to some of my own fuckery: I came in here a while back after somebody got banned and said a lot of angry shit at EM. I am sorry for that--EM, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, you didn't deserve that.
Regardless, every time I see a note from EM, or a hyper peppy chat around and find out post posted by EM, I recoil.
And it's not because EM is Stalin or anything.
It's because I saw her behave very badly and to date, she has not acknowledged same
I need to not participate in a site where behavior like that is condoned. Because I know myself: I am a hot head. And I do not like bullying behavior, if that can be defined as people acting badly towards those with lesser power.
I really believe that those who regulate this site lack a real sense of accountability to the user base
I'll try to peace out now, because I don't see from the mods in this thread an ability to engage with these concerns, and I truly am not here just to cause drama/hurt feelings
posted by angrycat at 1:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [33 favorites]
I just find all the talk of privacy very weird. Like, 1) why are people sharing things that are deeply private with the moderators of a discussion website, and 2) if people are doing so, why do the mods seemingly lack the capability to separate out private information from community-relevant information about the moderation process?
If I get barred from my local pizza place, and some other patron asks "why did that person get blacklisted?" and the owner says "because he refused to wear shoes in the establishment", I might not appreciate the fact that that was shared, but it's not some sort of human rights violation.
The counter-argument of "Well the mods can't do anything right! If they share that info it causes a furor!!" sets up a very toxic binary where for any complaints to be valid, all complainers must be reasonable and not contradict each other. That will never be true! Community-facing work inherently involves some kind of discernment process that hopefully involves pushing a bit past one's comfort level in terms of receiving criticism that might be hard to hear but does ultimately draw a boundary to accept that some complaints are unreasonable or in poor faith.
I think the current dynamic is bringing up a red flag for some because weaponizing the concept of privacy to keep people in the dark is a fairly common and familiar tactic of unaccountable bureaucracies, rather than of communities that people feel a sense of co-creation within.
posted by dusty potato at 1:25 PM on January 31, 2023 [18 favorites]
If I get barred from my local pizza place, and some other patron asks "why did that person get blacklisted?" and the owner says "because he refused to wear shoes in the establishment", I might not appreciate the fact that that was shared, but it's not some sort of human rights violation.
The counter-argument of "Well the mods can't do anything right! If they share that info it causes a furor!!" sets up a very toxic binary where for any complaints to be valid, all complainers must be reasonable and not contradict each other. That will never be true! Community-facing work inherently involves some kind of discernment process that hopefully involves pushing a bit past one's comfort level in terms of receiving criticism that might be hard to hear but does ultimately draw a boundary to accept that some complaints are unreasonable or in poor faith.
I think the current dynamic is bringing up a red flag for some because weaponizing the concept of privacy to keep people in the dark is a fairly common and familiar tactic of unaccountable bureaucracies, rather than of communities that people feel a sense of co-creation within.
posted by dusty potato at 1:25 PM on January 31, 2023 [18 favorites]
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to decline to discuss the details of someone's account, the reasons for a ban, or to release any communication between an individual and the company. Doing so has been a termination-level offense. Even when the community really wants to know! I am genuinely pretty confused by people's apparent feelings of entitlement to that information.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 1:30 PM on January 31, 2023 [31 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 1:30 PM on January 31, 2023 [31 favorites]
I am genuinely pretty confused by people's apparent feelings of entitlement to that information.
Because the user herself wants the information to be public, because she thinks it'll expose wrongdoing by the mods, and the mods are still saying "No, we can't release this information, not because we did something wrong, but because of this user's privacy." You don't see how this is a different situation, and how this looks bad?
As for flabdablet's comment above, this case is, as far as I can remember, the first time I've complained about the mods in the nearly 18 years I've been on this site. I've had a few comments deleted, mostly for derailing, and those deletions were fair, I generally thought the moderation was fair and light-handed, but I also think it's gotten heavier and, well, weirder lately, things get deleted which aren't really bad behavior or have bad content, and this is one such case. I'm definitely not part of some "contingent" of whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:45 PM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
Because the user herself wants the information to be public, because she thinks it'll expose wrongdoing by the mods, and the mods are still saying "No, we can't release this information, not because we did something wrong, but because of this user's privacy." You don't see how this is a different situation, and how this looks bad?
As for flabdablet's comment above, this case is, as far as I can remember, the first time I've complained about the mods in the nearly 18 years I've been on this site. I've had a few comments deleted, mostly for derailing, and those deletions were fair, I generally thought the moderation was fair and light-handed, but I also think it's gotten heavier and, well, weirder lately, things get deleted which aren't really bad behavior or have bad content, and this is one such case. I'm definitely not part of some "contingent" of whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:45 PM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to decline to discuss the details of someone's account
Metafilter is not a big corporation, so that analogy is not valid. It is more like community, paid for by literal user donations (much like a community via taxation) and publishing allegations and punishment is relatively public. So that's the disconnect. Think of it like "defund the cops" line - what management needs them to do vs what the community needs them to do is worthy of questioning.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
Metafilter is not a big corporation, so that analogy is not valid. It is more like community, paid for by literal user donations (much like a community via taxation) and publishing allegations and punishment is relatively public. So that's the disconnect. Think of it like "defund the cops" line - what management needs them to do vs what the community needs them to do is worthy of questioning.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:46 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
If you think moderation is about being a cop we're not gonna meet in the middle here.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 1:51 PM on January 31, 2023 [20 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 1:51 PM on January 31, 2023 [20 favorites]
A "big company" is not only not mutually exclusive with the 'unaccountable bureaucracies' I referred to above-- most of them are perfect examples of the set. So, I guess I'm a little surprised to see that held up as the model since we are talking about a site that is now funded entirely (or maybe almost entirely?) by donors and directed by volunteers, following the revelation that the site was imminently going to close due to financial issues. Maybe I'm really out of sync here but I don't see Metafilter as remotely akin to a "big company" either in the basic, conventional sense of being serious as a self-sustaining business nor in the aspirational sense in which I think many members feel they are a partner in co-creating this community.
And at the end of the day, while I wish MR well, it's not (for me and probably others) about advocating for her personally nor wanting to be a looky-loo re whatever her relationship with the mods was. It's about the fact that people don't want to get banned from the community, and literally don't know what not to do since they saw someone get banned for a reason that will not be disclosed.
posted by dusty potato at 1:52 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
And at the end of the day, while I wish MR well, it's not (for me and probably others) about advocating for her personally nor wanting to be a looky-loo re whatever her relationship with the mods was. It's about the fact that people don't want to get banned from the community, and literally don't know what not to do since they saw someone get banned for a reason that will not be disclosed.
posted by dusty potato at 1:52 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
If you think moderation is about being a cop we're not gonna meet in the middle here.
Like it or not, you all jailed and metaphorically killed (to the extent they moved away and are no longer donating) a member of the site this weekend. If you don't like 'cop', then fine, building inspector. But you do need to own up to what happened even if you think the community doesn't deserve an explanation, even if you think it was their own fault.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:57 PM on January 31, 2023
Like it or not, you all jailed and metaphorically killed (to the extent they moved away and are no longer donating) a member of the site this weekend. If you don't like 'cop', then fine, building inspector. But you do need to own up to what happened even if you think the community doesn't deserve an explanation, even if you think it was their own fault.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:57 PM on January 31, 2023
Like it or not, you all jailed and metaphorically killed
This is a deeply inappropriate metaphor.
posted by dusty potato at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2023 [84 favorites]
This is a deeply inappropriate metaphor.
posted by dusty potato at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2023 [84 favorites]
If I use the contact form to ask why one of my comments was deleted, do mods still respond to those emails, or was that cut with the reduced staffing?
In one thread I called someone an asshole, (not a mefite, I think it was Erdogan?), but I can't remember for sure. The comment was deleted, and I got no response via the contact form.
posted by ryanrs at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
In one thread I called someone an asshole, (not a mefite, I think it was Erdogan?), but I can't remember for sure. The comment was deleted, and I got no response via the contact form.
posted by ryanrs at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
I haven't been here in a long time, so I don't really have any skin in the game, but a cursory look at this thread and what the banished user had to say gives me the strong impression that things have really gone south here. I think everyone - mods, mod supporters and mod detractors - needs to take a breather.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:01 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:01 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
If you think moderation is about being a cop we're not gonna meet in the middle here.
It might, and bear with me here, be possible to draw comparisons and analogies between things without saying that those things are identical. It's pretty clear and trivial to anyone that yes, being a mod in an online community is in some ways comparable to being a cop. Specifically, you get more power over other users and their comments so you can enforce the rules of the community. This doesn't mean the mods shoot black people, it just means that there are some considerations around power, accountability, and transparency that might be comparable (but not identical).
I honestly feel like the mods and their defenders here are reading everything in the worst faith possible so they can make comments like the above and not answer the substance of the complaints, and it also feels like they're avoiding this discussion altogether, waiting for things to blow over and letting normal users who agree with them argue in their stead. It's a really bad look, and it feels totally wrong for this site.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:02 PM on January 31, 2023 [15 favorites]
It might, and bear with me here, be possible to draw comparisons and analogies between things without saying that those things are identical. It's pretty clear and trivial to anyone that yes, being a mod in an online community is in some ways comparable to being a cop. Specifically, you get more power over other users and their comments so you can enforce the rules of the community. This doesn't mean the mods shoot black people, it just means that there are some considerations around power, accountability, and transparency that might be comparable (but not identical).
I honestly feel like the mods and their defenders here are reading everything in the worst faith possible so they can make comments like the above and not answer the substance of the complaints, and it also feels like they're avoiding this discussion altogether, waiting for things to blow over and letting normal users who agree with them argue in their stead. It's a really bad look, and it feels totally wrong for this site.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:02 PM on January 31, 2023 [15 favorites]
I do think it should probably be noted that, in a discussion about moderation actions taken against a user who became increasingly agitated and combative about positions they held, causing them to double down on those positions, there's a user becoming increasingly agitated and combative about the positions they hold, causing them to double down on those positions. Flabdablet, I don't mean to make this personal, but you've posted ten times in this thread, including some rather insulting dismissals of others' opinions, after posting 15 times in the last thread, including some rather insulting name-calling. Maybe there's something else that Molly was doing that we don't know about, but from what we can see right now, it looks like the big difference between Molly and flabdablet is that flabdablet is defending the status quo that Molly was challenging. This is why I said that it felt like banning Molly was personal. If there's more to the story, I'd kind of like to hear it.
posted by kevinbelt at 2:04 PM on January 31, 2023 [38 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 2:04 PM on January 31, 2023 [38 favorites]
In one thread I called someone an asshole, (not a mefite, I think it was Erdogan?), but I can't remember for sure. The comment was deleted, and I got no response via the contact form.
Was this the thread about something else where the exonym for Turkey debate showed up? I had a few comments deleted there too, and then there was a FPP about the Turkey issue the next day, which seems fine. If you got a comment deleted for calling Erdogan an asshole in the actual Turkey exonym discussion, though, that seems weird.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:04 PM on January 31, 2023
Was this the thread about something else where the exonym for Turkey debate showed up? I had a few comments deleted there too, and then there was a FPP about the Turkey issue the next day, which seems fine. If you got a comment deleted for calling Erdogan an asshole in the actual Turkey exonym discussion, though, that seems weird.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:04 PM on January 31, 2023
I'm actually not confused about people's desire to rake through the ashes of a decision or to demand detailed information about it at all.
I've spent many years making, singly and as part of a group, tiny, small, large and fucking huge decisions (with massive financial and other repercussions, including the loss of many people's livelihoods) about compliance and, no matter how small or large the decision, there are people seeing that decision that want to know every little detail of why, when, how, why, why, why. I've done this within various levels of transparency and, honestly, it makes no fucking difference how much or how little you share about the reasons for a decision, there are always people that want to dive into the minutiae and argue every single aspect of the decision. If you share less, they argue for more transparency but, if you share more, they argue over tiny aspects of the decision that are often tangential to the decision anyway.
My long experience is that, when you treat decisions as a private conversation between the decision-maker and the subject of the decision, any angst from parties not directly related to the decision is less and falls off faster. I don't like that this is the case, but it simply is. More importantly, though, the occasions where hanging all the dirty laundry out for the world to see would lead to the subject of the decision coming off smelling like roses are vanishingly few. Most often, those subject to decisions argue ferociously against any relevant information being made public, because they know the court of public opinion is going to hang them.
I have no idea what any communication between parties might reveal in this case and I really don't give a shit. It's none of my business. One thing I am sure of, though, is that laying out every communication in the case that sparked this shitstorm would not lessen the arguments about whether it was the right decision or not one iota.
I do think it would be useful to have a set of guidelines that lay out expected behaviour more clearly than the current ones, as well as behaviour that will lead to moderation action. At least then the community can be aware a user has been acted against because of failure to adhere to xxx, without expecting to be appraised of every single fact. I don't think it would lessen the disagreement (because there are always nuances), but at least it would give some framework around what triggers decisions.
posted by dg at 2:09 PM on January 31, 2023 [18 favorites]
I've spent many years making, singly and as part of a group, tiny, small, large and fucking huge decisions (with massive financial and other repercussions, including the loss of many people's livelihoods) about compliance and, no matter how small or large the decision, there are people seeing that decision that want to know every little detail of why, when, how, why, why, why. I've done this within various levels of transparency and, honestly, it makes no fucking difference how much or how little you share about the reasons for a decision, there are always people that want to dive into the minutiae and argue every single aspect of the decision. If you share less, they argue for more transparency but, if you share more, they argue over tiny aspects of the decision that are often tangential to the decision anyway.
My long experience is that, when you treat decisions as a private conversation between the decision-maker and the subject of the decision, any angst from parties not directly related to the decision is less and falls off faster. I don't like that this is the case, but it simply is. More importantly, though, the occasions where hanging all the dirty laundry out for the world to see would lead to the subject of the decision coming off smelling like roses are vanishingly few. Most often, those subject to decisions argue ferociously against any relevant information being made public, because they know the court of public opinion is going to hang them.
I have no idea what any communication between parties might reveal in this case and I really don't give a shit. It's none of my business. One thing I am sure of, though, is that laying out every communication in the case that sparked this shitstorm would not lessen the arguments about whether it was the right decision or not one iota.
I do think it would be useful to have a set of guidelines that lay out expected behaviour more clearly than the current ones, as well as behaviour that will lead to moderation action. At least then the community can be aware a user has been acted against because of failure to adhere to xxx, without expecting to be appraised of every single fact. I don't think it would lessen the disagreement (because there are always nuances), but at least it would give some framework around what triggers decisions.
posted by dg at 2:09 PM on January 31, 2023 [18 favorites]
I don't mean to make this personal, but you've posted ten times in this thread, including some rather insulting dismissals of others' opinions, after posting 15 times in the last thread,
I don't think this should be an enforceable rule or anything, but for any spicy Metatalk thread, three or so comments from any single commenter regardless of their angle of discussion seems to be more than enough.
posted by mochapickle at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don't think this should be an enforceable rule or anything, but for any spicy Metatalk thread, three or so comments from any single commenter regardless of their angle of discussion seems to be more than enough.
posted by mochapickle at 2:16 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Oh wow, I thought the mods just deleted that one fundraising comment, but everything MollyRealized ever posted is gone.
e: oops, this was by Molly's request.
posted by ryanrs at 2:23 PM on January 31, 2023
e: oops, this was by Molly's request.
posted by ryanrs at 2:23 PM on January 31, 2023
Yes - at MR's request (which they shared on Reddit)
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:24 PM on January 31, 2023
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:24 PM on January 31, 2023
ryans, that was per Molly's request.
posted by mochapickle at 2:24 PM on January 31, 2023
posted by mochapickle at 2:24 PM on January 31, 2023
If I use the contact form to ask why one of my comments was deleted, do mods still respond to those emails, or was that cut with the reduced staffing?
I fairly recently received a detailed and thoughtful message from a mod on a moderation disagreement. So, yes, while it wasn't instantaneous, there was a reasonable follow-up that while I may disagree with it was not just sending my query to the circular filling cabinet or sending out a generic boilerplate.
posted by Candleman at 2:27 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
I fairly recently received a detailed and thoughtful message from a mod on a moderation disagreement. So, yes, while it wasn't instantaneous, there was a reasonable follow-up that while I may disagree with it was not just sending my query to the circular filling cabinet or sending out a generic boilerplate.
posted by Candleman at 2:27 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to decline to discuss the details of someone's account, the reasons for a ban, or to release any communication between an individual and the company. Doing so has been a termination-level offense. Even when the community really wants to know! I am genuinely pretty confused by people's apparent feelings of entitlement to that information.
But this is not a request for information about a user. This is a complaint/comment about the behavior of staff towards a user. To follow your example, all the big companies that I know at least try to feign the appearance of taking comments by users/customers seriously, especially when it concerns the behavior of staff.
posted by dmh at 2:31 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
But this is not a request for information about a user. This is a complaint/comment about the behavior of staff towards a user. To follow your example, all the big companies that I know at least try to feign the appearance of taking comments by users/customers seriously, especially when it concerns the behavior of staff.
posted by dmh at 2:31 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
Yo, dudes, dudettes (and various otters) this thread is great, almost like old meta!
I do sometimes think it'd be interesting to keep a live scrapper going just to be able to go back and get a hint of what the whoorah is all about. It's the one issue about deleting posts, the obscurification. I just get curious at times what is really going on, but not really enough to work hard at it.
posted by sammyo at 3:03 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
I do sometimes think it'd be interesting to keep a live scrapper going just to be able to go back and get a hint of what the whoorah is all about. It's the one issue about deleting posts, the obscurification. I just get curious at times what is really going on, but not really enough to work hard at it.
posted by sammyo at 3:03 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'd like to add (and then I'll shut up) that even if MR's comment was overbearing, management would still do well to consider why someone, who's been a member in good standing for a long time, would feel the need to write a lengthy missive, full of frustration, and finally decide to nuke their contributions from the site altogether.
Part of that I think is to acknowledge that the final fundraising update took much longer to appear than anticipated, leading to an abrupt lull in communications after a period of frantic activity that raised a lot of expectations. After all the fundraising, brainstorming, events, updates, and auctioning, there was just nothing. Not even the regular site updates. (On a personal level I also didn't receive any sort of acknowledgement for making a donation.) It's no surprise to me how such lapses, sudden absences almost like fugue states, feed into existing uncertainties and insecurities, which then find a release in overbearing comments and threads like these.
posted by dmh at 3:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
Part of that I think is to acknowledge that the final fundraising update took much longer to appear than anticipated, leading to an abrupt lull in communications after a period of frantic activity that raised a lot of expectations. After all the fundraising, brainstorming, events, updates, and auctioning, there was just nothing. Not even the regular site updates. (On a personal level I also didn't receive any sort of acknowledgement for making a donation.) It's no surprise to me how such lapses, sudden absences almost like fugue states, feed into existing uncertainties and insecurities, which then find a release in overbearing comments and threads like these.
posted by dmh at 3:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
As a side note, are MR's contributions that were all deleted recoverable? Or provided to MR? Because I feel like they might regret doing that, and that would be sucky if everything was unrecoverable. On the other hand, I see why the ability to recover them might be contrary to a request to delete them.
posted by Glinn at 4:40 PM on January 31, 2023
posted by Glinn at 4:40 PM on January 31, 2023
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to decline to discuss the details of someone's account, the reasons for a ban, or to release any communication between an individual and the company.
On the other hand, it is also standard at every community-board-style discussion site I've ever been to save this one that, when mods delete a comment, they leave the lacuna there with a note saying "This comment was deleted because User X violated Rule Y and was given a time-out for Z days (or some other appropriate mod action.)" See for example, Reddit, Something Awful, etc.
If you're feeling merciful you can leave out the "User X" part but in my opinion that should not be 100% of the time. It's clear that mods are keeping a behind-the-scenes memoranda of how their interactions with particular users have gone in the past, and that those memos inform and shape their future reactions, and it creates an imbalance if that knowledge is entirely kept from the users. Remember that, if the site truly is planning to bring in brand new users, it would be useful for them to have access to information, to maybe keep a mental note of users or topics they just don't want to get mixed up with (i.e., the missing stair, the one-issue wonk, or the rapid-fire commenter, etc.)
I am genuinely pretty confused by your apparent feelings that users are never entitled to that information.
Also, I've been immersed in work for the past 18 hours, so I apologize if my thoughts are unorganized:
Has anyone from the Steering Committee weighed in here? Some members were clear in the Fundraising thread that they would not have wanted the comment deleted, that they would have preferred to engage with the topic. Has ther ebeen a mod response to that? If the Committee wants one thing and the mods do something else, is the a method to address this? I'm not suggesting a command structure but there should be an opportunity to avoid unilateral mod action.
Looking above, I see Jessamyn had written: "taz consulted with the entire mod team who were available (and me, and I also spoke with loup and taz individually and spoke to the SC) and there was some discussion with SC (which loup alluded to above) about their roles in moderation decisions generally which is ongoing."
To clarify, does this mean that taz consulted with the mod team before blocking MollyRealized's account? You're saying that he asked you and the mods, essentially "Is it time to block this account?" and you agreed "yes, that is the appropriate action to take here?" Or are you saying that they spoke with you after and you support their decision?
I guess what I'm really asking is: What elements of the modding/banning/deleting process are Jessamyn and the mods preapred to alter if user feeling is strong? What is your offer? What is on the table? Can the Steering Committee become involved?
If the answer to all those questions is "Nothing, nope, not at all" then why was this MeTa approved anyway? Is it just meant as a pressure release valve to contain criticism? Is it just so users can gripe at each other? Is anyone taking notes or are we going to arrive back here in a few months with nothing altered?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
On the other hand, it is also standard at every community-board-style discussion site I've ever been to save this one that, when mods delete a comment, they leave the lacuna there with a note saying "This comment was deleted because User X violated Rule Y and was given a time-out for Z days (or some other appropriate mod action.)" See for example, Reddit, Something Awful, etc.
If you're feeling merciful you can leave out the "User X" part but in my opinion that should not be 100% of the time. It's clear that mods are keeping a behind-the-scenes memoranda of how their interactions with particular users have gone in the past, and that those memos inform and shape their future reactions, and it creates an imbalance if that knowledge is entirely kept from the users. Remember that, if the site truly is planning to bring in brand new users, it would be useful for them to have access to information, to maybe keep a mental note of users or topics they just don't want to get mixed up with (i.e., the missing stair, the one-issue wonk, or the rapid-fire commenter, etc.)
I am genuinely pretty confused by your apparent feelings that users are never entitled to that information.
Also, I've been immersed in work for the past 18 hours, so I apologize if my thoughts are unorganized:
Has anyone from the Steering Committee weighed in here? Some members were clear in the Fundraising thread that they would not have wanted the comment deleted, that they would have preferred to engage with the topic. Has ther ebeen a mod response to that? If the Committee wants one thing and the mods do something else, is the a method to address this? I'm not suggesting a command structure but there should be an opportunity to avoid unilateral mod action.
Looking above, I see Jessamyn had written: "taz consulted with the entire mod team who were available (and me, and I also spoke with loup and taz individually and spoke to the SC) and there was some discussion with SC (which loup alluded to above) about their roles in moderation decisions generally which is ongoing."
To clarify, does this mean that taz consulted with the mod team before blocking MollyRealized's account? You're saying that he asked you and the mods, essentially "Is it time to block this account?" and you agreed "yes, that is the appropriate action to take here?" Or are you saying that they spoke with you after and you support their decision?
I guess what I'm really asking is: What elements of the modding/banning/deleting process are Jessamyn and the mods preapred to alter if user feeling is strong? What is your offer? What is on the table? Can the Steering Committee become involved?
If the answer to all those questions is "Nothing, nope, not at all" then why was this MeTa approved anyway? Is it just meant as a pressure release valve to contain criticism? Is it just so users can gripe at each other? Is anyone taking notes or are we going to arrive back here in a few months with nothing altered?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]
Nothing about mod or SC comments so far have indicated there is any intention to review or change current processes, unless I have misread or missed something.
Coming from an admin position at a much more rambunctious community, I know exactly how much it sucks to be on the other side of this kind of thing, it really does suck a lot, but that's the situation that you (mods/SC) are in. None of these issues are going to go away by being ignored, and ultimately I believe you'd agree that you are all here to serve the community.
Unless you think the status quo is perfect and as good as it's ever going to be, it's ultimately on you to come back with ways in which processes are going to change or to say that everything is fine and nothing will change.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:04 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
Coming from an admin position at a much more rambunctious community, I know exactly how much it sucks to be on the other side of this kind of thing, it really does suck a lot, but that's the situation that you (mods/SC) are in. None of these issues are going to go away by being ignored, and ultimately I believe you'd agree that you are all here to serve the community.
Unless you think the status quo is perfect and as good as it's ever going to be, it's ultimately on you to come back with ways in which processes are going to change or to say that everything is fine and nothing will change.
posted by Sebmojo at 5:04 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]
> Because I feel like they might regret doing that, and that would be sucky if everything was unrecoverable.
The mods just can't get a break. Shouldn't they keep a copy in case the person regrets their action? But also, if someone is so mad they want their account deleted isn't it unethical to keep a copy?
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
The mods just can't get a break. Shouldn't they keep a copy in case the person regrets their action? But also, if someone is so mad they want their account deleted isn't it unethical to keep a copy?
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:07 PM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]
I don't know how to think about moderation, in general or specific. Mostly I'm glad it isn't me having to make the calls or defend them. But I am sad to see MollyRealized gone.
posted by eirias at 5:21 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by eirias at 5:21 PM on January 31, 2023 [6 favorites]
The mods just can't get a break. Shouldn't they keep a copy in case the person regrets their action? But also, if someone is so mad they want their account deleted isn't it unethical to keep a copy?
This is the false binary I outlined earlier in the thread, which basically states that if any two people ever have criticisms that are directly incompatible with one another, the mods "can't do anything right!!" and clearly there's no point in even trying. The fact that the same thing can make certain people happy and other people unhappy isn't some sort of evil enchanted crucible that the mods have been lured into, it's a basic reality of doing any human-centered work in the world. It's honestly a very poor excuse for retreating from a community process.
posted by dusty potato at 5:24 PM on January 31, 2023 [16 favorites]
This is the false binary I outlined earlier in the thread, which basically states that if any two people ever have criticisms that are directly incompatible with one another, the mods "can't do anything right!!" and clearly there's no point in even trying. The fact that the same thing can make certain people happy and other people unhappy isn't some sort of evil enchanted crucible that the mods have been lured into, it's a basic reality of doing any human-centered work in the world. It's honestly a very poor excuse for retreating from a community process.
posted by dusty potato at 5:24 PM on January 31, 2023 [16 favorites]
> Because I feel like they might regret doing that, and that would be sucky if everything was unrecoverable.
Anyone who tells you they can delete a comment from the internet is fooling themselves or trying to fool you. There are plenty of site snapshots around, starting with the Internet Archive.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Anyone who tells you they can delete a comment from the internet is fooling themselves or trying to fool you. There are plenty of site snapshots around, starting with the Internet Archive.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 5:50 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
Can somebody post a link to this Reddit post?
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:05 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 6:05 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]
The mods just can't get a break. Shouldn't they keep a copy in case the person regrets their action? But also, if someone is so mad they want their account deleted isn't it unethical to keep a copy?
I made the comment you are replying to and I don't really know where this is coming from, or if you are accusing me of something? What I was doing was wondering aloud whether MR might be sad they lost all their contributions, and if there might be any recourse. Which was probably a dumb comment but there was no complaint about the mods in it.
posted by Glinn at 6:08 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
I made the comment you are replying to and I don't really know where this is coming from, or if you are accusing me of something? What I was doing was wondering aloud whether MR might be sad they lost all their contributions, and if there might be any recourse. Which was probably a dumb comment but there was no complaint about the mods in it.
posted by Glinn at 6:08 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]
> I made the comment you are replying to and I don't really know where this is coming from, or if you are accusing me of something?
No, I'm not, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I'm pondering how there's no good answer to that particular situation.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:25 PM on January 31, 2023
No, I'm not, and I apologize if it comes across that way. I'm pondering how there's no good answer to that particular situation.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:25 PM on January 31, 2023
While we’re reminding ourselves about pronouns, taz’s are she/her.
posted by zamboni at 6:34 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 6:34 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]
> Can somebody post a link to this Reddit post?
There's this one and this one.
posted by secretseasons at 6:58 PM on January 31, 2023
There's this one and this one.
posted by secretseasons at 6:58 PM on January 31, 2023
And also this one which seems to be a masterpost
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:06 PM on January 31, 2023
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:06 PM on January 31, 2023
Most people don't learn to behave by reading rules or policies or FAQs. I've been here a little while now and have never knowingly read anything formal telling me how to behave, though I know they are out there. I have read a large number of in-thread moderator comments though and that is very useful.
What is not useful to me at all are silently deleted comments, or even a mod note saying some comments are deleted (and that's all).
Think of how you learn to behave in a group of people in the real world. You do by watching, by listening, by being alerted to the dynamics of group interaction and subtle constraints people put on one another. Sometimes, yes there is conflict, and sometimes people leave.
Other than the -isms, I am not sure deletion is helpful. Hide the comment but make it visible by a click. Every deletion should have a mod comment. This is how people learn: see the comment, see the deletion, see the reason. Having a memory hole for bad behaviour doesn't help anyone to learn. And suggesting more rules, policies, etc will lead to more rules lawyering by those inclined but no real learning for the vast majority who are expecting normal, slightly messy, social processes to unfold. That is the essence of community.
So in a meta-sense, I'm in favour of hiding, not deleting, and allowing each user to thereby build their own mental model of what is acceptable, or not, and why, and to build a mental profile of each others vicissitudes and transgressions. I think in the other thread there was reference to site values, which is wishy washy, but so are people, and the way to create shared values is not to disappear the frictional processes by which they are shaped.
posted by Rumple at 9:41 PM on January 31, 2023 [25 favorites]
What is not useful to me at all are silently deleted comments, or even a mod note saying some comments are deleted (and that's all).
Think of how you learn to behave in a group of people in the real world. You do by watching, by listening, by being alerted to the dynamics of group interaction and subtle constraints people put on one another. Sometimes, yes there is conflict, and sometimes people leave.
Other than the -isms, I am not sure deletion is helpful. Hide the comment but make it visible by a click. Every deletion should have a mod comment. This is how people learn: see the comment, see the deletion, see the reason. Having a memory hole for bad behaviour doesn't help anyone to learn. And suggesting more rules, policies, etc will lead to more rules lawyering by those inclined but no real learning for the vast majority who are expecting normal, slightly messy, social processes to unfold. That is the essence of community.
So in a meta-sense, I'm in favour of hiding, not deleting, and allowing each user to thereby build their own mental model of what is acceptable, or not, and why, and to build a mental profile of each others vicissitudes and transgressions. I think in the other thread there was reference to site values, which is wishy washy, but so are people, and the way to create shared values is not to disappear the frictional processes by which they are shaped.
posted by Rumple at 9:41 PM on January 31, 2023 [25 favorites]
And on a separate, but related topic, a lot of artificial friction is created by the fetishization of staying on topic and the snuffing out of harmless derails. How boring that the community cannot, politely, allow conversations to drift in a natural and organic way.
posted by Rumple at 9:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [21 favorites]
posted by Rumple at 9:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [21 favorites]
But the ongoing response and the defensiveness are hard to parse and I also see why people are getting upset and feeling like there is something uncool going on.
This is the part that really feels like a strong, clear pattern to me. I know it's a cliche, but there does seem to be a real knee-jerk circle-the-wagons type response, where any admission of any kind of fault or error is right off the table, and even simple explanations or anything other than stonewall silence can't be expected. This isn't helping build trust. However much you think that airing the dirty laundry and having the messy fights and having to admit you were human and made a mistake might erode trust in the mod team, the toxic effect that situations like this one has are far worse, and it's just the same thing over, and over, and over.
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to...
And this is the crux of the issue, for me. Mefi is a community. You've just done a massive fundraising round to get literal buy-in from much of the membership. This isn't a big company, and we expect something other than corporate norms here. Especially given that the vast majority of the time, mefi culture and the mod team don't act with the detached corporate professionalism that is being hidden behind this time. Like, I've never seen the same kind of silence or insistence on 'no comment' for happier situations or news, for example. It's not some consistent corporate policy, and nor should it be. Which is why it feels like a really bad excuse when trotted out now.
posted by Dysk at 10:00 PM on January 31, 2023 [20 favorites]
This is the part that really feels like a strong, clear pattern to me. I know it's a cliche, but there does seem to be a real knee-jerk circle-the-wagons type response, where any admission of any kind of fault or error is right off the table, and even simple explanations or anything other than stonewall silence can't be expected. This isn't helping build trust. However much you think that airing the dirty laundry and having the messy fights and having to admit you were human and made a mistake might erode trust in the mod team, the toxic effect that situations like this one has are far worse, and it's just the same thing over, and over, and over.
It has been standard at every big company I've worked in community or customer service for to...
And this is the crux of the issue, for me. Mefi is a community. You've just done a massive fundraising round to get literal buy-in from much of the membership. This isn't a big company, and we expect something other than corporate norms here. Especially given that the vast majority of the time, mefi culture and the mod team don't act with the detached corporate professionalism that is being hidden behind this time. Like, I've never seen the same kind of silence or insistence on 'no comment' for happier situations or news, for example. It's not some consistent corporate policy, and nor should it be. Which is why it feels like a really bad excuse when trotted out now.
posted by Dysk at 10:00 PM on January 31, 2023 [20 favorites]
So I was moderately curious and read what was going on. Against my better judgement. And now I'm going to actually respond, also against my better judgement.
Oh my god mods deleted one person's axe grindy comment (and gave them a time out) and that caused them to run to reddit to round the wagons among people who have left metafilter years ago but still have time to be angry about it, and follow through with sending the mods DCMA (????) notices and passive aggressive freakouts and people are making a 150+ metatalk thread DEMANDING ANSWERS? Seriously?
You want to know why metafilter is bleeding members? It's shit like this. People turning the smallest molehill into the biggest fucking mountain and then acting like they are Brave Defenders Of Justice for doing so. The mods on this site are not some power you need to fight. They are people who seriously fucking care and are doing this as a job, yes, but also doing it because they care deeply about metafilter. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick get a tiny sense of proportion. Fuck.
posted by aspo at 11:34 PM on January 31, 2023 [101 favorites]
Oh my god mods deleted one person's axe grindy comment (and gave them a time out) and that caused them to run to reddit to round the wagons among people who have left metafilter years ago but still have time to be angry about it, and follow through with sending the mods DCMA (????) notices and passive aggressive freakouts and people are making a 150+ metatalk thread DEMANDING ANSWERS? Seriously?
You want to know why metafilter is bleeding members? It's shit like this. People turning the smallest molehill into the biggest fucking mountain and then acting like they are Brave Defenders Of Justice for doing so. The mods on this site are not some power you need to fight. They are people who seriously fucking care and are doing this as a job, yes, but also doing it because they care deeply about metafilter. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick get a tiny sense of proportion. Fuck.
posted by aspo at 11:34 PM on January 31, 2023 [101 favorites]
> You want to know why metafilter is bleeding members? It's shit like this.
I'd be interested to see evidence of this. Can you point to a user who has left Metafilter because they feel like users are unfair towards Mods or that there is too much drama in MetaTalk? Genuine question. I do see users having left because they felt like they were treated unfairly here (by mods or other users), but I haven't seen this use case yet.
posted by iivix at 12:51 AM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
I'd be interested to see evidence of this. Can you point to a user who has left Metafilter because they feel like users are unfair towards Mods or that there is too much drama in MetaTalk? Genuine question. I do see users having left because they felt like they were treated unfairly here (by mods or other users), but I haven't seen this use case yet.
posted by iivix at 12:51 AM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
run to reddit to round the wagons among people who have left metafilter years ago...
Many of them are still on MeFi but find Reddit a better place to discuss MeFi than MeFi. I don't know what that tells you.
...but still have time to be angry about it
Yes, still have time to care about the place, like everyone else here. A few people there don't like MeFi any more, but many like it but are frustrated, and would love to see it improve. Like many people here.
You want to know why metafilter is bleeding members? It's shit like this. People turning the smallest molehill into the biggest fucking mountain and then acting like they are Brave Defenders Of Justice for doing so.
Yes, it was a molehill, and could have remained so. But we've had, what, a week of no straight answers, slow reactions, and what feels like obfuscation.
posted by fabius at 1:04 AM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Many of them are still on MeFi but find Reddit a better place to discuss MeFi than MeFi. I don't know what that tells you.
...but still have time to be angry about it
Yes, still have time to care about the place, like everyone else here. A few people there don't like MeFi any more, but many like it but are frustrated, and would love to see it improve. Like many people here.
You want to know why metafilter is bleeding members? It's shit like this. People turning the smallest molehill into the biggest fucking mountain and then acting like they are Brave Defenders Of Justice for doing so.
Yes, it was a molehill, and could have remained so. But we've had, what, a week of no straight answers, slow reactions, and what feels like obfuscation.
posted by fabius at 1:04 AM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
it is also standard at every community-board-style discussion site I've ever been to save this one that, when mods delete a comment, they leave the lacuna there with a note saying "This comment was deleted because User X violated Rule Y and was given a time-out for Z days (or some other appropriate mod action.)" See for example, Reddit
Reddit is not the counterexample you're looking for. It varies from sub to sub, but it is quite common for comments to be deleted with no information as to why, no recourse, and bans handed out way more capraciously than Metafilter (the difference being that subreddit moderators can only ban people from their sub, not the entire site).
posted by Candleman at 1:23 AM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Reddit is not the counterexample you're looking for. It varies from sub to sub, but it is quite common for comments to be deleted with no information as to why, no recourse, and bans handed out way more capraciously than Metafilter (the difference being that subreddit moderators can only ban people from their sub, not the entire site).
posted by Candleman at 1:23 AM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Honestly I don't find the mod responses very satisfying in this thread. I don't really see the purpose of this thread if we are simply not allowed to have access to the reasons why MR was banned.
If you don't want moderator decisions to be available to the general user population, then announce that as a general policy and debate that. Clearly debating the specific example of MR isn't going to be productive, because we literally don't know what the private correspondence you had with them was.
Honestly I sometimes question the very existence of metatalk. It seems to generate nothing but heat, anger, and people quitting the site for good. A lot of good users have left metafilter for good as the outcome of their dissatisfaction with a metatalk thread. I honestly think many of them would not have done so if we handled these discussions differently.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 3:15 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
If you don't want moderator decisions to be available to the general user population, then announce that as a general policy and debate that. Clearly debating the specific example of MR isn't going to be productive, because we literally don't know what the private correspondence you had with them was.
Honestly I sometimes question the very existence of metatalk. It seems to generate nothing but heat, anger, and people quitting the site for good. A lot of good users have left metafilter for good as the outcome of their dissatisfaction with a metatalk thread. I honestly think many of them would not have done so if we handled these discussions differently.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 3:15 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Would this minimal change (adding a poster's "total comments" and "deleted comments" count to their name) be possible?
Whether or not it's possible, I think - with all due respect - that it is a TERRIBLE idea, as it would likely cause enormous shit-storms.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on February 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
Whether or not it's possible, I think - with all due respect - that it is a TERRIBLE idea, as it would likely cause enormous shit-storms.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on February 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
Defacto deletion of Reddit comments doesn't even require mod action, comments can drop into the memory hole if a handful of early readers decide it isn't worthy for what ever reason. This capriciousness is touted as a feature and there is essentially no penalty for bad actors. Voting is even secret.
posted by Mitheral at 3:56 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 3:56 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
If people decide on a change to make mod actions more visible (e.g., placeholder noting each deleted comment or something), I think it might make sense to try on MetaTalk first, or implement only on MetaTalk.
In fact, it could be a good idea to focus the whole conversation about mod norms, communication, etc. on MetaTalk to start with. It’s the place where these blowouts mostly happen. It’s already been established that there is a higher bar for mod action in this part of the site. It could simplify the conversation about what changes could be good or even possible. We wouldn’t have to consider whether proposed changes would be good or bad on other parts of the site where, compared to here, people seem pretty happy.
posted by snofoam at 4:01 AM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
In fact, it could be a good idea to focus the whole conversation about mod norms, communication, etc. on MetaTalk to start with. It’s the place where these blowouts mostly happen. It’s already been established that there is a higher bar for mod action in this part of the site. It could simplify the conversation about what changes could be good or even possible. We wouldn’t have to consider whether proposed changes would be good or bad on other parts of the site where, compared to here, people seem pretty happy.
posted by snofoam at 4:01 AM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
I feel like it has become a pattern for trans members to be...pegged as dangerously unstable or disruptive to the community's cohesion or something and then there is a hair trigger when it comes to modding them and they end up quickly banned for things that don't seem banworthy out of context. I am not saying this is a purposeful thing, but I am wondering if anyone else is seeing the same pattern.
It does seem worth noting that the ability to request your comments and posts be deleted stems from the disaster Etrigan referenced above, involving inexplicable bans of trans people and the buttoning of a substantial fraction of the trans user base. I'm more likely to notice/hear about inexplicable bans of trans people, so I won't comment on overall trends, but I certainly thought of that mess seeing this post (and restless nomad's characterisation of Etrigan's summary... needless to say, the latter is much closer to my memory, though perhaps restless nomad was speaking to their specific involvement).
posted by hoyland at 4:38 AM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
It does seem worth noting that the ability to request your comments and posts be deleted stems from the disaster Etrigan referenced above, involving inexplicable bans of trans people and the buttoning of a substantial fraction of the trans user base. I'm more likely to notice/hear about inexplicable bans of trans people, so I won't comment on overall trends, but I certainly thought of that mess seeing this post (and restless nomad's characterisation of Etrigan's summary... needless to say, the latter is much closer to my memory, though perhaps restless nomad was speaking to their specific involvement).
posted by hoyland at 4:38 AM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
I am pretty worried that this is back to the same (as I commented above) but I do think its interesting that restless_nomad has commented more then the actual site owner or (a joint message from) the SC (yes I realise most of restless_nomad's comments were referencing a past situation) ..... Its been days now.....where is the leadership? Who is actually responsible for mod decisions? I love this place but this seems like we are repeating issues again that I thought new ownership/SC were meant to solve?
posted by Lesium at 5:02 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by Lesium at 5:02 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
this discussion is a real bummer!
(this is a tangent, but: I've interacted minimally with /r/metafiltermeta and read it regularly enough; there are (rare) instances of axes being ground there, but mostly it's people who seem run down by certain patterns and perceived trends wanting to discuss that and try to preserve their sense of community and shared understanding, in a place where it isn't actively tossing molotovs at actual MeFi boards; if anything it's far less antagonistic or damaging than it's being made out to be by a few folks here.)
to circle back to a key point of confusion or disappointment or whatever that I have: this comment by loup
I know loup's walking a tightrope (whether that tightrope exists, or what its parameters are, is another thing being discussed I suppose) but based on that being the lion's share of actual information conveyed by active staff, I have to agree more broadly with those who don't really understand why this post was allowed to exist in this context. what are we doing here other than yelling about things we have not been allowed (or should not be allowed, whatever) to understand?
posted by Kybard at 7:34 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
(this is a tangent, but: I've interacted minimally with /r/metafiltermeta and read it regularly enough; there are (rare) instances of axes being ground there, but mostly it's people who seem run down by certain patterns and perceived trends wanting to discuss that and try to preserve their sense of community and shared understanding, in a place where it isn't actively tossing molotovs at actual MeFi boards; if anything it's far less antagonistic or damaging than it's being made out to be by a few folks here.)
to circle back to a key point of confusion or disappointment or whatever that I have: this comment by loup
Molly’s comment wasn't inappropriate in its content, and the decision to delete it and to give her a time-out weren’t in direct response to the comment itselffelt and feels tremendously unhelpful in the larger context of being unwilling to provide other detail or explanation. some folks in here have tried squaring the circle of that inital "why" re: molly's first post being deleted, but those efforts all feel fundamentally at odds with this statement, which only further stokes the irritation and frustration across the board.
I know loup's walking a tightrope (whether that tightrope exists, or what its parameters are, is another thing being discussed I suppose) but based on that being the lion's share of actual information conveyed by active staff, I have to agree more broadly with those who don't really understand why this post was allowed to exist in this context. what are we doing here other than yelling about things we have not been allowed (or should not be allowed, whatever) to understand?
posted by Kybard at 7:34 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
What elements of the modding/banning/deleting process are Jessamyn and the mods preapred to alter if user feeling is strong?
Over time, nearly anything is on the table, that is what we mean by "community run." It's been bumpy getting from "One guy in charge makes all decisions and the users (and mods) have to manage their own uncertainty about what is happening in any given day/month/year" to "The community working with the Steering Committee can guide the path forward for this creaky 20+ year old website and help advise on all complex issues facing the site with better transparency." and it takes time to set up structures that will allow that to happen.
where is the leadership? Who is actually responsible for mod decisions?
Mods are responsible for in-the-moment decisions. loup is the staff member responsible for managing the mod team and day to day operations. SC advises on moderation topics generally as well as many others. I own the place and am the ultimate "buck stops here" person if it gets to that and handle legal and taxes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:02 AM on February 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
Over time, nearly anything is on the table, that is what we mean by "community run." It's been bumpy getting from "One guy in charge makes all decisions and the users (and mods) have to manage their own uncertainty about what is happening in any given day/month/year" to "The community working with the Steering Committee can guide the path forward for this creaky 20+ year old website and help advise on all complex issues facing the site with better transparency." and it takes time to set up structures that will allow that to happen.
where is the leadership? Who is actually responsible for mod decisions?
Mods are responsible for in-the-moment decisions. loup is the staff member responsible for managing the mod team and day to day operations. SC advises on moderation topics generally as well as many others. I own the place and am the ultimate "buck stops here" person if it gets to that and handle legal and taxes.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:02 AM on February 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
What (if any) actual power does the SC hold in relation to the mods?
Is the SC empowered to shape moderation policy, and if so, what is their process and the extent of their purview? Or are they just a bipoc board (whatever happened to that?) by another name & demographic makeup that's expected to do site labor the mods can't take on?
posted by knucklebones at 8:09 AM on February 1, 2023
Is the SC empowered to shape moderation policy, and if so, what is their process and the extent of their purview? Or are they just a bipoc board (whatever happened to that?) by another name & demographic makeup that's expected to do site labor the mods can't take on?
posted by knucklebones at 8:09 AM on February 1, 2023
what are we doing here other than yelling about things we have not been allowed (or should not be allowed, whatever) to understand?
Yelling about the fact that we have not been allowed (or should not be allowed?) to understand this and other things.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:26 AM on February 1, 2023
Yelling about the fact that we have not been allowed (or should not be allowed?) to understand this and other things.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:26 AM on February 1, 2023
To clarify, is the SC empowered to enact changes to site policy, or is their role just advisory?
posted by knucklebones at 8:27 AM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by knucklebones at 8:27 AM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
What jessamyn has just written confirms my own understanding. We are here to give our opinions about moderation policy. This is something that will eventually be acted upon. We are in transition.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:32 AM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 8:32 AM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
I would very much like for the community to get a chance to opine regarding when and if mods should delete comments on Metatalk.My two cents: I would prefer to see a relatively lightweight moderation stance here, along the lines of
- Deleting comments that are threatening, bigoted, or abusive
- Deleting comments that are off-topic
- Deleting spam (certainly in the commercial sense, maybe also in the "posting the exact same thing repeatedly" sense)
- Leaving just about everything else alone
Comments should not simply disappear off the page without a trace, as this both makes discussion hard to follow and erodes trust in the community.
posted by 4rtemis at 8:53 AM on February 1, 2023 [10 favorites]
The reason the comments disappear is because the second somebody sees the reason for deletion up in a thread, they're going to start a Metatalk thread about it, especially if it's for bigotry ("I'm not a bigot!") I don't like my precious gems of wisdom disappearing either but there's no perfect way to mod, especially in a community that is attempting to be egalitarian.
posted by kingdead at 9:07 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 9:07 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
That's exactly what the MeTa queue is for, though, isn't it? It seems circular to say we can't list deletion reasons because people will start MeTas and also we need a queue because otherwise people start unhelpful MeTas.
posted by lapis at 9:21 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by lapis at 9:21 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
I've been trying to figure out why I'm paying so much attention to this situation that doesn't really matter to me. In part, it's because I sympathized with Molly's previous MetaTalk posts. Quoting Mid again, this time without elision:
MR had recently posted two threads in which MR made site improvement suggestions and then became angry with people who pushed-back on those suggestions and fought with people in a way that devolved into MR-against-the-world
There are two things that stand out about those posts to me. One is that the site improvements Molly was suggesting were to have mods take a rather heavier hand in deleting comments, which is ironic in hindsight. But the other, significantly more important thing, is why those threads devolved into "MR-against-the-world" (which is inaccurate, as I and others posted multiple times in support of Molly, but whatever). The reason Molly kept commenting in her own threads is because several people in the threads were insistent that the phenomenon she was describing did not exist, when it demonstrably did (and still does) exist, and I myself posted several direct examples of it in real time. I'm not a big "that's gaslighting" person, but... is that not the very definition of gaslighting? Attempting to convince someone that their lived experiences are somehow false or misremembered even though those experiences are verifiable and documentable (and in this case, verified and documented), thereby causing the victim to become more and more fragile?
So yeah, that's what bothers me: people here gaslit Molly (who, it should be noted, pointed out in at least one of her original posts that she was already in a fragile state) until she became more and more upset, and then a mod used her previously being upset as pretense for pretty drastic action. Molly got her account deleted without explanation, while the people gaslighting her are still here, posting happily. I think that's something we should probably be talking about: that gaslighting was allowed to occur unmoderated, and that a mod seemed to think it was more appropriate to punish the victim of the gaslighting rather than the perpetrators. I would request that the moderation team address this, please.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:03 AM on February 1, 2023 [23 favorites]
MR had recently posted two threads in which MR made site improvement suggestions and then became angry with people who pushed-back on those suggestions and fought with people in a way that devolved into MR-against-the-world
There are two things that stand out about those posts to me. One is that the site improvements Molly was suggesting were to have mods take a rather heavier hand in deleting comments, which is ironic in hindsight. But the other, significantly more important thing, is why those threads devolved into "MR-against-the-world" (which is inaccurate, as I and others posted multiple times in support of Molly, but whatever). The reason Molly kept commenting in her own threads is because several people in the threads were insistent that the phenomenon she was describing did not exist, when it demonstrably did (and still does) exist, and I myself posted several direct examples of it in real time. I'm not a big "that's gaslighting" person, but... is that not the very definition of gaslighting? Attempting to convince someone that their lived experiences are somehow false or misremembered even though those experiences are verifiable and documentable (and in this case, verified and documented), thereby causing the victim to become more and more fragile?
So yeah, that's what bothers me: people here gaslit Molly (who, it should be noted, pointed out in at least one of her original posts that she was already in a fragile state) until she became more and more upset, and then a mod used her previously being upset as pretense for pretty drastic action. Molly got her account deleted without explanation, while the people gaslighting her are still here, posting happily. I think that's something we should probably be talking about: that gaslighting was allowed to occur unmoderated, and that a mod seemed to think it was more appropriate to punish the victim of the gaslighting rather than the perpetrators. I would request that the moderation team address this, please.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:03 AM on February 1, 2023 [23 favorites]
people who have left metafilter years ago but still have time to be angry about it
I've been over to the MetafilterMeta subreddit a few times and for the most part, this is not what I've seen there. There are a number of people who are still active here who are commenting there, along with some others who have left or no longer participate actively here. The thing they have in common is that they all care about this site. IMHO this interest and commitment is an asset rather than something to be disparaged or discounted.
It seems to me that there is enough concern among the community about the way moderation is handled to merit some serious review by site management, including both the staff and the Steering Committee. I'm glad to see from Jessamyn's comments and others that this is happening, but while we're in transition, there will no doubt be more discussions like this one.
For my part, I would like to see a standard practice where deletions are marked in threads, even if it is only "comment deleted due to rules violation/derail" or something similar, without more explanation. That would go a long way towards transparency and trust, as well as towards eliminating some of the confusion when things disappear or discussions continue based on comments some people have seen and others have not.*
*Yes, some users will no doubt try to relitigate the deletion in Metatalk, but it's not like that's not happening now anyway.
posted by rpfields at 10:05 AM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
I've been over to the MetafilterMeta subreddit a few times and for the most part, this is not what I've seen there. There are a number of people who are still active here who are commenting there, along with some others who have left or no longer participate actively here. The thing they have in common is that they all care about this site. IMHO this interest and commitment is an asset rather than something to be disparaged or discounted.
It seems to me that there is enough concern among the community about the way moderation is handled to merit some serious review by site management, including both the staff and the Steering Committee. I'm glad to see from Jessamyn's comments and others that this is happening, but while we're in transition, there will no doubt be more discussions like this one.
For my part, I would like to see a standard practice where deletions are marked in threads, even if it is only "comment deleted due to rules violation/derail" or something similar, without more explanation. That would go a long way towards transparency and trust, as well as towards eliminating some of the confusion when things disappear or discussions continue based on comments some people have seen and others have not.*
*Yes, some users will no doubt try to relitigate the deletion in Metatalk, but it's not like that's not happening now anyway.
posted by rpfields at 10:05 AM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
the disaster Etrigan referenced above ... restless nomad's characterisation of Etrigan's summary
Just for the record, I was quoting The Pluto Gangsta's comment there.
posted by Etrigan at 10:18 AM on February 1, 2023
Just for the record, I was quoting The Pluto Gangsta's comment there.
posted by Etrigan at 10:18 AM on February 1, 2023
Kevinbelt, mr's account was deleted at her request. She was previously stopped from posting on it though, apparently in a way that didn't show as account disabled. Her account is linked further up in the thread.
posted by Sebmojo at 10:26 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 10:26 AM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
There are a number of people who are still active here who are commenting there
Years ago, there was an unofficial MeFi offshoot site, and one of their first rules was something like 'MetaFilter issues belong on MetaFilter, not here.' That sub seems to be the exact opposite of that.
posted by box at 10:41 AM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
Years ago, there was an unofficial MeFi offshoot site, and one of their first rules was something like 'MetaFilter issues belong on MetaFilter, not here.' That sub seems to be the exact opposite of that.
posted by box at 10:41 AM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
My 3 cents, for what it's worth.
- Mods could stand to be a more communicative about what's going on behind the scenes, even if they can't comment on specifics, especially in fightly threads. Posting a short daily note would go a long way to relieving some of the understandable worry that the community can get. A "hey, we're looking into it" or "We're still looking into it, we'll update things tomorrow" would be nice.
- The site is in a state of transition and it'll probably be that way for at another year, at the very least. So things will be bumpy as the community figures what the new roles for itself, the Steering Committee, and the moderators. Patience will be needed.
- Individual users should decide for themselves why they're on the site and if they're enjoying themselves. If folks want things to change, they should not only make suggestions but also be willing to pitch in an help from time to time. This doesn't mean you have to do anything big, could be as simple as reminding people what the general rules are if others have questions or concerns. For example, some people were wondering why the mods were silent over the weekend. I pointed out that coverage over the weekend is thin and that they have a general practice these days of waiting until Monday to deal with weighty topics and/or MeTa posts.
- Be nice and thankful to the Steering Committee. They're volunteers and we should all be considerate of treating them right, even as we have questions or concerns about anything they've done.
- Metafilter is a community and a shared resource. The SC and mods can only do so much. For instance the SC is working on the budget for next year. Now, as they're working on that, people are are repeatedly calling for them to weigh on the situation with MR and modding policies, which takes more time away from them doing the budget. Creating MeTas to offer suggestions and those descending into fights takes mods away from doing other things and creates all sorts of ill feelings among users. In short, a community individual actions can have a huge impact on the site, in good and bad ways. If we want to have a good and fun community (that's why we're here, right) all of should be mindful of what we're doing and be doing things that enhance the community. Intense discussions will always yeah, but please try to keep them from getting fighty.
- Look, pineapple is just fine on pizza, stop saying it isn't.
> Look, pineapple is just fine on pizza, stop saying it isn't
But don't call it Hawaiian, please. Putting pineapple on something doesn't make it "Hawaiian." Also, have you tried pineapple and cashews on pizza? Delicious.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:03 AM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
But don't call it Hawaiian, please. Putting pineapple on something doesn't make it "Hawaiian." Also, have you tried pineapple and cashews on pizza? Delicious.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:03 AM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
apparently in Hawaii, they call the standard ham + pineapple pizza The Canadian. Because Canadians are the fools* who popularized the monstrosity. Also Canadian bacon is what Americans call what Canadians call back bacon (which is oft times thought to be the same thing as ham -- it sort of isn't).
* I'm Canadian so I get to say this.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
* I'm Canadian so I get to say this.
posted by philip-random at 11:16 AM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Can we not derail a serious discussion?
posted by Candleman at 11:20 AM on February 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by Candleman at 11:20 AM on February 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
Can we not derail a serious discussion?
I think a little levity does wonders to bring the temperature down and it made me smile, so derail away says I!
posted by kbanas at 11:39 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think a little levity does wonders to bring the temperature down and it made me smile, so derail away says I!
posted by kbanas at 11:39 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
OK. I read the Reddit thread (with some trepidation; I don’t like Reddit) because if I am to give my opinion on moderation I felt I ought to have the context. And… I don’t really understand why that comment was deleted. I worry, not for “freeze peach” concerns of my own (I am mostly boring, and also temperamentally inclined to trust the mods to tell me if I am being too irascible) but because a struggling business needs what Molly was bringing to the table with that comment. I hope someone on the SC has read Exit, Voice, and Loyalty because the insights there seem terribly relevant to this situation. Molly was using her voice out of loyalty. I would like to see her reinstated. I would really like to see more caution applied when moderating on the topic of how to keep Metafilter alive. We need our dissenters, on this issue much more than anywhere else.
posted by eirias at 11:45 AM on February 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
posted by eirias at 11:45 AM on February 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
Years ago, there was an unofficial MeFi offshoot site, and one of their first rules was something like 'MetaFilter issues belong on MetaFilter, not here.' That sub seems to be the exact opposite of that.
And?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:46 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
And?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:46 AM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
Years ago, there was an unofficial MeFi offshoot site, and one of their first rules was something like 'MetaFilter issues belong on MetaFilter, not here.' That sub seems to be the exact opposite of that.
Yes, I think that's why they call this one MetafilterMeta. My understanding is that it was created as a forum for discussions that have not been, or would not be, allowed to take place here. I can see how there would be disagreement about the value of such a place, but FWIW, a significant number of people seem to think it's needed.
posted by rpfields at 12:04 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yes, I think that's why they call this one MetafilterMeta. My understanding is that it was created as a forum for discussions that have not been, or would not be, allowed to take place here. I can see how there would be disagreement about the value of such a place, but FWIW, a significant number of people seem to think it's needed.
posted by rpfields at 12:04 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
Molly was using her voice out of loyalty. I would like to see her reinstated. I would really like to see more caution applied when moderating on the topic of how to keep Metafilter alive.
it's my understanding that Molly's ban was only a temporary thing (so technically more of a suspension) -- that her subsequent seemingly permanent disappearance from Metafilter was her decision. Unless I missed something along the way. So it follows that her reinstatement would be her call.
I agree that she will be missed. I was one hundred percent behind at least one of the recent METAs she posted (which has since been deleted):
Stop With the "You Need to Be Freaking Out / Be Afraid" Messaging
posted by philip-random at 12:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
it's my understanding that Molly's ban was only a temporary thing (so technically more of a suspension) -- that her subsequent seemingly permanent disappearance from Metafilter was her decision. Unless I missed something along the way. So it follows that her reinstatement would be her call.
I agree that she will be missed. I was one hundred percent behind at least one of the recent METAs she posted (which has since been deleted):
Stop With the "You Need to Be Freaking Out / Be Afraid" Messaging
posted by philip-random at 12:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
In a serious site/community-direction conversation, one category of comment I think is particularly unhelpful to everyone, including the SC and the mods, are comments that discredit and undermine other members.
I'm seeing a whole lot of belittling, sneering, thinly veiled negative characterizations of others. It's just bullying. What if, for a short while, we could sit with the others' point of view? And recognize that everyone is here because they care about the place? And that their opinions, even if opposite to yours, might still have some merit and even if they don't, still come from a member of the community and a human who deserves a basic modicum of respect?
I don't think anyone "wins" by imputing negative motivations to anyone else here. You don't "win" by saying someone's unstable, selfish, ego-driven, axe-grindy, complainy, bootlicking, or anything else. These issues will not be decided by whoever marginalizes, dismisses, and mischaracterizes the most people. If we're going to win at all, we win by taking everyone seriously and looking for common ground.
This applies to everyone, but I think particularly to those whose core point is "just stop complaining." Here's the thing: People in your community are experiencing a frustrating problem. Presumably you'd like everyone in the community to be content with the conditions of the community, for the most part. So find some empathy. Maybe you can help them get past it and they'll come to agree with you, or maybe you'll come to agree with them, but chances are calling them names and questioning their motives isn't going to have the outcome you claim to be looking for.
posted by Miko at 12:55 PM on February 1, 2023 [61 favorites]
I'm seeing a whole lot of belittling, sneering, thinly veiled negative characterizations of others. It's just bullying. What if, for a short while, we could sit with the others' point of view? And recognize that everyone is here because they care about the place? And that their opinions, even if opposite to yours, might still have some merit and even if they don't, still come from a member of the community and a human who deserves a basic modicum of respect?
I don't think anyone "wins" by imputing negative motivations to anyone else here. You don't "win" by saying someone's unstable, selfish, ego-driven, axe-grindy, complainy, bootlicking, or anything else. These issues will not be decided by whoever marginalizes, dismisses, and mischaracterizes the most people. If we're going to win at all, we win by taking everyone seriously and looking for common ground.
This applies to everyone, but I think particularly to those whose core point is "just stop complaining." Here's the thing: People in your community are experiencing a frustrating problem. Presumably you'd like everyone in the community to be content with the conditions of the community, for the most part. So find some empathy. Maybe you can help them get past it and they'll come to agree with you, or maybe you'll come to agree with them, but chances are calling them names and questioning their motives isn't going to have the outcome you claim to be looking for.
posted by Miko at 12:55 PM on February 1, 2023 [61 favorites]
"So yeah, that's what bothers me: people here gaslit Molly (who, it should be noted, pointed out in at least one of her original posts that she was already in a fragile state) until she became more and more upset, and then a mod used her previously being upset as pretense for pretty drastic action. Molly got her account deleted without explanation, while the people gaslighting her are still here, posting happily. -KevinBelt"
"I don't think anyone "wins" by imputing negative motivations to anyone else here. You don't "win" by saying someone's unstable, selfish, ego-driven, axe-grindy, complainy, bootlicking, or anything else. These issues will not be decided by whoever marginalizes, dismisses, and mischaracterizes the most people. If we're going to win at all, we win by taking everyone seriously and looking for common ground. -Miko"
I wanted to amplify these paragraphs because I think its important to remember that there are real life emotional consequences to how people are treated here. It's pretty tough for me to see how much negativity people bring out in order to keep from having to read things they disagree with.
posted by Jarcat at 1:19 PM on February 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
"I don't think anyone "wins" by imputing negative motivations to anyone else here. You don't "win" by saying someone's unstable, selfish, ego-driven, axe-grindy, complainy, bootlicking, or anything else. These issues will not be decided by whoever marginalizes, dismisses, and mischaracterizes the most people. If we're going to win at all, we win by taking everyone seriously and looking for common ground. -Miko"
I wanted to amplify these paragraphs because I think its important to remember that there are real life emotional consequences to how people are treated here. It's pretty tough for me to see how much negativity people bring out in order to keep from having to read things they disagree with.
posted by Jarcat at 1:19 PM on February 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
Molly got her account deleted without explanation
again, for clarity's sake -- I don't think this is what happened. That is, she requested the deletion.
If I'm wrong, please set me straight.
posted by philip-random at 1:38 PM on February 1, 2023
again, for clarity's sake -- I don't think this is what happened. That is, she requested the deletion.
If I'm wrong, please set me straight.
posted by philip-random at 1:38 PM on February 1, 2023
disabled without explanation (or visible effect except for her), then deleted by request.
posted by Kybard at 1:40 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Kybard at 1:40 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
people here gaslit Molly
gaslighting --
to manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
Just to be clear here is there a real accusation being made that people conspired to manipulate MR into questioning her own sanity? Because that's a pretty serious thing if so.
Or did people just not see the same things she saw and tell her that?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
gaslighting --
to manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning.
Just to be clear here is there a real accusation being made that people conspired to manipulate MR into questioning her own sanity? Because that's a pretty serious thing if so.
Or did people just not see the same things she saw and tell her that?
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
(SC member.)
To clarify (since there were direct questions about this):
The SC began discussion about the deletion (and then later, as the SC found out, time-out) with the mods/admin after the deletion (and time-out) took place. taz did not consult directly with the SC before or after the deletion and time-out, but the mods/admin as a whole / team have discussed the issue with the SC after the deletion and time-out took place, when the SC broached the subject with the mods/admin. The SC has given feedback to the mods/admin and has made clear their (SC's) opinion on the issue to the mods/admin. Discussion about the SC's role in moderation decisions / policy is still ongoing, as jessamyn mentioned.
The SC isn't structured or intended to weigh in on mod decisions in the moment when they are happening (and realistically can't be), but we will consider how an appeal / ombuds-type process could work in the future.
posted by aielen at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
To clarify (since there were direct questions about this):
The SC began discussion about the deletion (and then later, as the SC found out, time-out) with the mods/admin after the deletion (and time-out) took place. taz did not consult directly with the SC before or after the deletion and time-out, but the mods/admin as a whole / team have discussed the issue with the SC after the deletion and time-out took place, when the SC broached the subject with the mods/admin. The SC has given feedback to the mods/admin and has made clear their (SC's) opinion on the issue to the mods/admin. Discussion about the SC's role in moderation decisions / policy is still ongoing, as jessamyn mentioned.
The SC isn't structured or intended to weigh in on mod decisions in the moment when they are happening (and realistically can't be), but we will consider how an appeal / ombuds-type process could work in the future.
posted by aielen at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
It looks like we're at the pedantic dictionary definition stage of questioning people's stated experiences. I don't know why I bothered posting.
posted by Jarcat at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by Jarcat at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
Just to be clear here is there a real accusation being made that people conspired to manipulate MR into questioning her own sanity? Because that's a pretty serious thing if so.
For better or worse, the definition of 'gaslighting' has broadened and it's widely used on Metafilter to mean something closer to 'brazenly and maliciously lying'.
In this case, the commenter actually defined how they were using the term directly before the "people here gaslit Molly" quote. Whether or not their claim is accurate, it's helpful to discuss its merits based on what the commenter clearly wrote.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
is there a real accusation being made that people conspired to manipulate MR into questioning her own sanity?
I did not mention any conspiracy. But it’s unquestionable that people told her something that happened did not happen, with the clear implication (maybe even said outright; I don’t remember and obviously can’t go back to check) that she was fabricating this entirely factual phenomenon for attention. I do not object to pedantry; that dictionary definition is exactly what I’m alleging.
posted by kevinbelt at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2023 [10 favorites]
I did not mention any conspiracy. But it’s unquestionable that people told her something that happened did not happen, with the clear implication (maybe even said outright; I don’t remember and obviously can’t go back to check) that she was fabricating this entirely factual phenomenon for attention. I do not object to pedantry; that dictionary definition is exactly what I’m alleging.
posted by kevinbelt at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2023 [10 favorites]
To be clear, I’m not saying everyone who disagreed with Molly in those threads was gaslighting. Plenty of people disagreed sincerely. Some thought the problem existed but was not as prevalent as Molly thought. Some thought the problem was prevalent but did not think the proposed solutions were implementable or desirable. Some people took the “you get what you pay for” angle, which is fair. But others denied that any such problem existed at all, and when confronted with direct evidence that the problem did in fact exist, continued to deny its existence and “doubled down” with increasingly personal attacks on Molly. That’s what I’m concerned about, not reasonable disagreement.
posted by kevinbelt at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
I do not object to pedantry; that dictionary definition is exactly what I’m alleging.
I'm on the same page as you here, my complaint about pedantry wasn't to discredit the accuracy of any claims, but rather to note the attempt to obfuscate said claims by questioning an already established premise.
Speculation zone: I think part of the problem is people aren't seeing their individual actions as being part of the collective response that someone is experiencing. With the exception of the *very nice human being* who posted 15 times in this thread, I think it's easy to see yourself as a lone voice even when you're accidentally piling on.
posted by Jarcat at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
I'm on the same page as you here, my complaint about pedantry wasn't to discredit the accuracy of any claims, but rather to note the attempt to obfuscate said claims by questioning an already established premise.
Speculation zone: I think part of the problem is people aren't seeing their individual actions as being part of the collective response that someone is experiencing. With the exception of the *very nice human being* who posted 15 times in this thread, I think it's easy to see yourself as a lone voice even when you're accidentally piling on.
posted by Jarcat at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Are people referring to the
posted by zamboni at 3:50 PM on February 1, 2023
doesn’t answer the question flagMeTas, or something else?
posted by zamboni at 3:50 PM on February 1, 2023
Quotes from the thread:
posted by Violet Blue at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
“Personally, if someone is getting piled on every time they post, I would kind of hope that mods would side with the person getting piled on rather than the pilers-on.”But isn't the user experience within the purview of the mods? To prevent bullying? To help ensure a reasonably welcoming even-handed user experience, and maintain or grow the user base, rather than shrink it? If there was one word I'd use to describe MetafilterMeta's users, it's a little broken-hearted. Many were victims of pile-ons in one way or another. Uneven modding mostly didn't enhance those experiences. Mods can never be everywhere at all times. But they can take consistent steps to discourage pile-ons and to ensure the object of the pile-on doesn't end up alienated.
"More generally, I'd be in favor of mass deleting the interminable pileons, given that they are often the real problem, not someone's perhaps out of place but not guideline breaking comment."
"to see yourself as a lone voice even when you're accidentally piling on"
posted by Violet Blue at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
My two cents... I guess I'd like one clear and stated goal of moderation to be to try to allow people to continue to participate in the long term (if they want to), and also to save face (if they want to). I think that is how Metafilter tries to work, but it is not a universal moderation goal so it is probably worth saying up-front.
I do think that involves the site management not making every single thing they know/think about a person or situation public. Which might make the mods look bad or secretive sometimes, but maybe that's okay too. And like others have said: it would be good to reduce the stigma of being modded, in the interest of community and recognizing that any of us could have a day when we are not our best selves on the internet.
But I'm fine with moderators intervening to try to cut off a contentious off-topic derail. I also want mods to be able to make judgment calls and use their understanding of prior posts/comments and site dynamics. That seems like the point of human moderation to me.
As a reader, I like the idea of placeholder for deleted comments - threads usually make more sense when you can see where something was removed, unless it's removed before anyone reacts, and I don't think that's feasible or anyone's best use of time and energy.
posted by mersen at 4:01 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
I do think that involves the site management not making every single thing they know/think about a person or situation public. Which might make the mods look bad or secretive sometimes, but maybe that's okay too. And like others have said: it would be good to reduce the stigma of being modded, in the interest of community and recognizing that any of us could have a day when we are not our best selves on the internet.
But I'm fine with moderators intervening to try to cut off a contentious off-topic derail. I also want mods to be able to make judgment calls and use their understanding of prior posts/comments and site dynamics. That seems like the point of human moderation to me.
As a reader, I like the idea of placeholder for deleted comments - threads usually make more sense when you can see where something was removed, unless it's removed before anyone reacts, and I don't think that's feasible or anyone's best use of time and energy.
posted by mersen at 4:01 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
Thank you for the helpful update aielen (and SC)!
posted by adrianhon at 4:02 PM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by adrianhon at 4:02 PM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
I'm assuming that we are talking about the "Add an off topic flag for AskMe" thread? (loosely paraphrasing gist of the title from memory) I don't think anyone denied that there were any off topic answers to AskMe questions. When someone writes "this is not a problem" in this context, that doesn't literally mean that "this thing never happens" it means "skim over the unresponsive answers and focus on the good ones, it's not a big deal." or "the existing flagging options cover this." Obviously, opinions on whether it's an action-worthy problem and worth the bandwidth to address are entirely subjective. Some people find off topic answers highly vexing, some people don't care and think the solution could be worse than the problem. The way Molly phrased the original post, there was some softening language to the effect of "maybe I'm the only one that feels this way and if people don't agree I'll drop it " which implied that she was open to dissenting opinions and was feeling the temperature of the room. When dissenting opinions actually materialized (including mine) there was a lot of pushback.
The only factual matter of disagreement was whether the issue was getting worse, which I suppose could be analyzed if someone did the work. If I remember correctly, the person who more or less created AskMe (jessamyn) agreed with Molly that off topic answers were irritating but thought the off topic answer problem had existed from day one, wasn't getting worse and wasn't really solvable, humans gonna human.
I'm not seeing any gaslighting here. I believe that everyone involved was acting out of care for Metafilter, and it's really unfortunate that things got to this point.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
The only factual matter of disagreement was whether the issue was getting worse, which I suppose could be analyzed if someone did the work. If I remember correctly, the person who more or less created AskMe (jessamyn) agreed with Molly that off topic answers were irritating but thought the off topic answer problem had existed from day one, wasn't getting worse and wasn't really solvable, humans gonna human.
I'm not seeing any gaslighting here. I believe that everyone involved was acting out of care for Metafilter, and it's really unfortunate that things got to this point.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
I feel like there's a meaningful line between mods using their access to user history and mod notes about users as a way to inform themselves about a current situation, and using them to develop a narrative that starts to come with labels ("fighty," "problem user," "not great," even "having a hard time"). I find that language often feels disrespectful to an individual and connotes implied value judgments. Users who get deletions and mod letters often feel quite surprised that they've been carrying that type of label for some time, unbeknownst to themselves. This is a human situation and handling people with respect for their humanity might mean not offering characterizations about who they are or appear to be in the limited window available here, but about the specific issue at hand at the moment.
posted by Miko at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by Miko at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2023 [22 favorites]
Mod note: I want to give high-level context to where we are at right now, what is next, and how I think we can translate the feedback and questions in this thread into actionable items.
The site is and has been in a state of constant change for the past year or so. This includes, moderation, governance, finances, reporting, staffing, site ownership, etc. This will likely continue for a while. The main goal of these changes has always been cementing MeFi as a community-driven site and trying to ensure its existence in the long run.
This, of course, could not be possible without the existence and direction of the SC and the contribution from all of you. During this process, one question that has been asked several times (going all the way back to the initial discussion Cortex and I had with the Transition Team) is: “What things can the Steering Committee change?”
Every time that question has been asked the agreement has been that nothing is off the table.
In the long run, the SC, and the community at large should be empowered to shape not only moderation policy but the entire site.
That being said, my recommendation has always been to avoid drastic changes in how moderation operates. This is not to say that moderation doesn’t need to change, BUT given the limited resources we have I’d rather prioritize site operations, site growth, technical changes, finances, governance and long term planning.
My point here is that there are more changes to come, and this thread, your contribution to it, and the guidance of both Jessamyn and the SC should help us with that.
Going back to the subject at hand, discussing the overall policy openly is and should always be an option. This is healthy for the community. Finding the most effective and conflict-free way to do that, is one of the challenges we have ahead.
That being said, our policy is to avoid discussing specifics about mod decisions with third parties. Let me be clear, there’s no ill intent behind this, the reason for us not discussing these issues publicly is simple: it opens an unmanageable amount of variables with the resources we have (unwanted “public” attention for the member in question, the possibility of members being pressured to waive their privacy right, discussions going on forever arguing every single aspect of a specific decision rather than the policies themselves, etc.).
Disclosing any of the communications we have with members privately would put us into a decision making process that can and, most likely, will go wrong about how much can and should be disclosed (bear in mind that Communications between members and mods can happen across several channels, years and even accounts).
Hopefully we can stop speculating about MollyRealized’s case, I know it's frustrating when you have no additional context and it puts us (the mods) in a tricky situation, that I still consider better than disclosing the specifics for the reasons mentioned above. As RN said “It's a lose-lose proposition, and erring on the side of user privacy is the way to go, imo.”
Some things I can clarify:
– Mods do not only take actions based on the content, several times we need to act based on context (previous interactions, warnings, trends, etc).
– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
– We don’t wipe accounts (posts and comments deleted) unless the member who owns the account requests it.
– The actions taken have been reviewed collectively by the mod team, myself and Jessamyn.
– The actions taken have been discussed with the SC as well (as aielen mentioned already).
With all the above being said, I think there are some things we can agree on:
*On a technical level*
– It would be good to have a [Comment Deleted] placeholder for when a comment is deleted.
*On a Policy & Procedure level*
– Comments should only be deleted on Metatalk/Site Updates/Policy Discussions when they violate current policies (Guidelines, Content Policy, Microaggressions page).
– Metatalk comments that are disruptive in one way or another but do not violate the guidelines can be addressed by the mods, but not necessarily deleted.
– Members may be given a time-out from the site when they fail to work with moderation towards a solution.
– Notifying the member affected about the length of their time-out or the criteria for the ban to be lifted should be required.
– Moderation notes for deletions should be more standardized and point out the rules being violated. For example.
– Threads from the SC should require communication between the Mods and the SC prior to any action being taken.
– We need to work with the SC to define an appeal process.
– The mods and the SC need to do a post mortem of this situation. This hasn’t happened yet because this thread has been prioritized over that.
posted by loup (staff) at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [63 favorites]
The site is and has been in a state of constant change for the past year or so. This includes, moderation, governance, finances, reporting, staffing, site ownership, etc. This will likely continue for a while. The main goal of these changes has always been cementing MeFi as a community-driven site and trying to ensure its existence in the long run.
This, of course, could not be possible without the existence and direction of the SC and the contribution from all of you. During this process, one question that has been asked several times (going all the way back to the initial discussion Cortex and I had with the Transition Team) is: “What things can the Steering Committee change?”
Every time that question has been asked the agreement has been that nothing is off the table.
In the long run, the SC, and the community at large should be empowered to shape not only moderation policy but the entire site.
That being said, my recommendation has always been to avoid drastic changes in how moderation operates. This is not to say that moderation doesn’t need to change, BUT given the limited resources we have I’d rather prioritize site operations, site growth, technical changes, finances, governance and long term planning.
My point here is that there are more changes to come, and this thread, your contribution to it, and the guidance of both Jessamyn and the SC should help us with that.
Going back to the subject at hand, discussing the overall policy openly is and should always be an option. This is healthy for the community. Finding the most effective and conflict-free way to do that, is one of the challenges we have ahead.
That being said, our policy is to avoid discussing specifics about mod decisions with third parties. Let me be clear, there’s no ill intent behind this, the reason for us not discussing these issues publicly is simple: it opens an unmanageable amount of variables with the resources we have (unwanted “public” attention for the member in question, the possibility of members being pressured to waive their privacy right, discussions going on forever arguing every single aspect of a specific decision rather than the policies themselves, etc.).
Disclosing any of the communications we have with members privately would put us into a decision making process that can and, most likely, will go wrong about how much can and should be disclosed (bear in mind that Communications between members and mods can happen across several channels, years and even accounts).
Hopefully we can stop speculating about MollyRealized’s case, I know it's frustrating when you have no additional context and it puts us (the mods) in a tricky situation, that I still consider better than disclosing the specifics for the reasons mentioned above. As RN said “It's a lose-lose proposition, and erring on the side of user privacy is the way to go, imo.”
Some things I can clarify:
– Mods do not only take actions based on the content, several times we need to act based on context (previous interactions, warnings, trends, etc).
– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
– We don’t wipe accounts (posts and comments deleted) unless the member who owns the account requests it.
– The actions taken have been reviewed collectively by the mod team, myself and Jessamyn.
– The actions taken have been discussed with the SC as well (as aielen mentioned already).
With all the above being said, I think there are some things we can agree on:
*On a technical level*
– It would be good to have a [Comment Deleted] placeholder for when a comment is deleted.
*On a Policy & Procedure level*
– Comments should only be deleted on Metatalk/Site Updates/Policy Discussions when they violate current policies (Guidelines, Content Policy, Microaggressions page).
– Metatalk comments that are disruptive in one way or another but do not violate the guidelines can be addressed by the mods, but not necessarily deleted.
– Members may be given a time-out from the site when they fail to work with moderation towards a solution.
– Notifying the member affected about the length of their time-out or the criteria for the ban to be lifted should be required.
– Moderation notes for deletions should be more standardized and point out the rules being violated. For example.
– Threads from the SC should require communication between the Mods and the SC prior to any action being taken.
– We need to work with the SC to define an appeal process.
– The mods and the SC need to do a post mortem of this situation. This hasn’t happened yet because this thread has been prioritized over that.
posted by loup (staff) at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [63 favorites]
I do think that involves the site management not making every single thing they know/think about a person or situation public.
I agree that this should be the default stance of the mod team/site management. In this particular case, however, Molly wanted there to be an open discussion about what happened (or did at the time, who knows if that's still the case), presumably out of some lingering desire to see the site do better going forward. While every timeout or ban should not be litigated here regardless of how the affected user feels (that would be a nightmare for all involved!), I don't think it's unreasonable to have such discussions on rare occasion when some of the community and the user themselves feels like it's a situation deserving of special attention and illustrates a specific point of contention over policy.
Having been the personification of the term problem child for many years in school, I get why people in positions of authority take the seemingly easier path of dealing with the lone voice that is (rightly or wrongly) causing a mass of poor behavior on the part of a larger group. It's a hell of a lot less work and it can sometimes be hard to see that's what is happening in the moment. It may not be fair, but life ain't fair, kid. (Speaking to my past self there)
That said, we should as much as possible, attempt to avoid that dynamic both as users and moderators. If someone has already said what you were going to say, you don't need to add your comment to the pile unless you're approaching it from a completely different angle. On the mod side, I feel like they should be nipping that kind of repetitive argumentation in the bud when possible or cleaning it up after the fact. Leave a couple of comments that best represent the positions being stated with the least amount of unnecessary vitriol and shit can the rest.
And then for us users, maybe we could drop the shame/anger/feeling of being silenced when deletions like that happen. There are some deletions worth feeling bad about, generally when we are being our worst self and somebody has to come clean up our mess. Making people handle that shit isn't a kind thing to do. However, when something is deleted for being part of a repetitive pileon when that wasn't actually what you intended to participate in? The problem isn't necessarily what you said, it's the cumulative effect of twenty people saying it at once.
I know some people get really annoyed by not having a copy of their writings, so perhaps in the longer term it would be possible for deletions to trigger an (optional) automatic email to the user with the content of the comment.
And personally, I find it really annoying when comments referring to some other deleted comment remain, so it would be nice if there was some placeholder text where the deleted comment would have appeared noting the deletion, preferably with a note as to why it was deleted. If that's not possible, more aggressive pruning would be appreciated. (See above about how sometimes it's ok if your words get memory holed. This isn't the Library of Congress.)
posted by wierdo at 5:42 PM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
I agree that this should be the default stance of the mod team/site management. In this particular case, however, Molly wanted there to be an open discussion about what happened (or did at the time, who knows if that's still the case), presumably out of some lingering desire to see the site do better going forward. While every timeout or ban should not be litigated here regardless of how the affected user feels (that would be a nightmare for all involved!), I don't think it's unreasonable to have such discussions on rare occasion when some of the community and the user themselves feels like it's a situation deserving of special attention and illustrates a specific point of contention over policy.
Having been the personification of the term problem child for many years in school, I get why people in positions of authority take the seemingly easier path of dealing with the lone voice that is (rightly or wrongly) causing a mass of poor behavior on the part of a larger group. It's a hell of a lot less work and it can sometimes be hard to see that's what is happening in the moment. It may not be fair, but life ain't fair, kid. (Speaking to my past self there)
That said, we should as much as possible, attempt to avoid that dynamic both as users and moderators. If someone has already said what you were going to say, you don't need to add your comment to the pile unless you're approaching it from a completely different angle. On the mod side, I feel like they should be nipping that kind of repetitive argumentation in the bud when possible or cleaning it up after the fact. Leave a couple of comments that best represent the positions being stated with the least amount of unnecessary vitriol and shit can the rest.
And then for us users, maybe we could drop the shame/anger/feeling of being silenced when deletions like that happen. There are some deletions worth feeling bad about, generally when we are being our worst self and somebody has to come clean up our mess. Making people handle that shit isn't a kind thing to do. However, when something is deleted for being part of a repetitive pileon when that wasn't actually what you intended to participate in? The problem isn't necessarily what you said, it's the cumulative effect of twenty people saying it at once.
I know some people get really annoyed by not having a copy of their writings, so perhaps in the longer term it would be possible for deletions to trigger an (optional) automatic email to the user with the content of the comment.
And personally, I find it really annoying when comments referring to some other deleted comment remain, so it would be nice if there was some placeholder text where the deleted comment would have appeared noting the deletion, preferably with a note as to why it was deleted. If that's not possible, more aggressive pruning would be appreciated. (See above about how sometimes it's ok if your words get memory holed. This isn't the Library of Congress.)
posted by wierdo at 5:42 PM on February 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
The moderators have back channels with which to discuss us but we have nowhere on MetaFilter to discuss moderation without being directly observed and moderated. That's why the subreddit or other gathering areas away from MetaFilter are necessary. Imagine Amazon workers trying to organize solely on Amazon premises - it's impossible!
I'd like to see a policy change to the effect that it shall in no way be considered detrimental to a user's reputation among the moderators that the user happens to communicate or compare notes or even complain about MetaFilter on other platforms.
posted by hypnogogue at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'd like to see a policy change to the effect that it shall in no way be considered detrimental to a user's reputation among the moderators that the user happens to communicate or compare notes or even complain about MetaFilter on other platforms.
posted by hypnogogue at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
And thanks loup. That list of action items makes me feel heard. It sounds like a good set of changes that will at the very least move things in the right direction.
posted by wierdo at 5:50 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 5:50 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
I missed this, can someone link the comment where the reasoning was explained?
posted by JenMarie at 5:54 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
I missed this, can someone link the comment where the reasoning was explained?
posted by JenMarie at 5:54 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
For better or worse, the definition of 'gaslighting' has broadened and it's widely used on Metafilter to mean something closer to 'brazenly and maliciously lying'.
I would never see "gaslighting" to mean "brazenly and maliciously lying".
posted by NotLost at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would never see "gaslighting" to mean "brazenly and maliciously lying".
posted by NotLost at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Members may be given a time-out from the site when they fail to work with moderation towards a solution.
We could probably use more clarity and standardizing of steps around this one. It seems to me that sometimes mods think that they have signaled that someone needs to work toward a solution, but that’s not clear to that person.
posted by Miko at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
We could probably use more clarity and standardizing of steps around this one. It seems to me that sometimes mods think that they have signaled that someone needs to work toward a solution, but that’s not clear to that person.
posted by Miko at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
…and a further thought: when someone does fail to reach a solution with the mods, and gets a time out, and after sober consideration does believe there is a policy or member relations issue with the way that all went down — well, I think in a truly community-oriented space there needs to be a place for them to raise that up for discussion. A blanket ban on analyzing the policy side of that issue is something that would prevent the kind of growth and community-oriented evolution of practice one would hope to see in a user-driven site.
In short, people need to be able to talk about their own lived experience in some way here, in a way that also solicit the views of others and identify points on which there’s strong consensus, and that ideally would to inform policy and practice in an iterative way. While we understand that being in transition means a lot of this is undefined, a community-led entity needs ways that community members can modify and influence the governing systems.
posted by Miko at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
In short, people need to be able to talk about their own lived experience in some way here, in a way that also solicit the views of others and identify points on which there’s strong consensus, and that ideally would to inform policy and practice in an iterative way. While we understand that being in transition means a lot of this is undefined, a community-led entity needs ways that community members can modify and influence the governing systems.
posted by Miko at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
I feel like there's a meaningful line between mods using their access to user history and mod notes about users as a way to inform themselves about a current situation, and using them to develop a narrative that starts to come with labels ("fighty," "problem user," "not great," even "having a hard time").
I find this interesting, can you expound upon this? After all, humans categorize by nature right? So a user is often the cause or in the middle of fights will gain a particular designation by almost human default, right? Is there some other way of doing that will note the interactions without using labels?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
I find this interesting, can you expound upon this? After all, humans categorize by nature right? So a user is often the cause or in the middle of fights will gain a particular designation by almost human default, right? Is there some other way of doing that will note the interactions without using labels?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
– Mods do not only take actions based on the content, several times we need to act based on context (previous interactions, warnings, trends, etc).
– Comments should only be deleted on Metatalk/Site Updates/Policy Discussions when they violate current policies (Guidelines, Content Policy, Microaggressions page).
Those two things are at odds, are they not?
– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
I don't believe you have. In fact, I believe you've repeatedly argued you either can't or don't need to.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
– Comments should only be deleted on Metatalk/Site Updates/Policy Discussions when they violate current policies (Guidelines, Content Policy, Microaggressions page).
Those two things are at odds, are they not?
– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
I don't believe you have. In fact, I believe you've repeatedly argued you either can't or don't need to.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think JenMarie and NotMyselfRightNow may be misinterpreting this statement:
posted by secretseasons at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.I don't think it means "we have addressed, publicly, the reasoning..." but rather I think it means "we have addressed, with Molly, the reasoning..."
posted by secretseasons at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
I think that loup is saying that they have communicated the reasoning behind the mod actions to MollyRealized, not that they have addressed the reasoning publicly. There is some ambiguity in the phrase "addressed with" that I think is the source of the confusion. Perhaps loup can clarify if my reading is mistaken.
posted by biogeo at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
loup, thank you very much for that very helpful and clarifying comment.
I support all the things listed under "some things we can agree on."
Thank you to you and jessamyn and all the mods for all your efforts keep the site healthy for everyone - members and mods alike.
posted by kristi at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
I support all the things listed under "some things we can agree on."
Thank you to you and jessamyn and all the mods for all your efforts keep the site healthy for everyone - members and mods alike.
posted by kristi at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
secretseasons - thanks, would not have read that sentence that way!
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Question for the steering committee: have the moderators shared with you their secret reasoning behind deleting the comment and giving Molly a “time out” [*], or are you as in the dark as the rest of us?
[*] what a fucking patronizing term
posted by dorothy hawk at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
[*] what a fucking patronizing term
posted by dorothy hawk at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
given the limited resources we have I’d rather prioritize site operations, site growth, technical changes, finances, governance and long term planning.
I would venture that getting a better moderation process off the ground now actually is a part of long-term planning for site growth. If new users arrive only to bounce off an opaque process, it's actually a net loss because they will tell other people about their experience. I said it in the Fundraising thread, but right now this site's biggest "outreach" is what other people are saying on Reddit, and it is not a good look.
it opens an unmanageable amount of variables with the resources we have (unwanted “public” attention for the member in question, the possibility of members being pressured to waive their privacy right
This is disingenuous. MollyRealized has done everything possible to indicate that you have permission to discuss the specifics of this particular case. The only possible way it could be clearer is if the account was reactivated and they left a comment here expressly for that purpose. You may have a general principle about this, but you have every signal that you can speak freely on this specific case. As Molly herself said in the Reddit post:
– The actions taken have been reviewed collectively by the mod team, myself and Jessamyn.
A question that I believe remains unanswered is whether taz made the decision to delete the comment, and later to shadowban MollyRealized, before or after consulting with the mod team. To put it bluntly, did the mod team confer beforehand and say "Yes, it's appropriate to shadowban MollyRealized in this circumstance", or did taz act only on her own judgment in the moment?
I'm honestly very encouraged by what you're suggesting under Policies and Procedures. but it seems a little focused on what mods and users and the SC say to each other privately. I'd really encourage that as much of this take place in the sunlight as possible. You may have already noticed that users in this thread have spotted a trend of mod interactions vis-a-vis trans users, and that certain mods have their own idiosyncrasies become a trend in their interactions. This is the sort of benefit that comes with visibility, and accountability.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:57 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
I would venture that getting a better moderation process off the ground now actually is a part of long-term planning for site growth. If new users arrive only to bounce off an opaque process, it's actually a net loss because they will tell other people about their experience. I said it in the Fundraising thread, but right now this site's biggest "outreach" is what other people are saying on Reddit, and it is not a good look.
it opens an unmanageable amount of variables with the resources we have (unwanted “public” attention for the member in question, the possibility of members being pressured to waive their privacy right
This is disingenuous. MollyRealized has done everything possible to indicate that you have permission to discuss the specifics of this particular case. The only possible way it could be clearer is if the account was reactivated and they left a comment here expressly for that purpose. You may have a general principle about this, but you have every signal that you can speak freely on this specific case. As Molly herself said in the Reddit post:
If they wish to continue not speaking about it, it is not to protect my privacy but to protect the privacy of their decision-making process. That is a valid reason, perhaps, but I’d like it to be perfectly clear what grounds a "we’re not going to speak about it" is going to stand on. Honestly, I think if they'd like to preserve that sort of process, that's fine, let's just make it clear which pillar of privacy it's standing on– We have addressed the reasoning behind the specific actions taken with Molly.
– The actions taken have been reviewed collectively by the mod team, myself and Jessamyn.
A question that I believe remains unanswered is whether taz made the decision to delete the comment, and later to shadowban MollyRealized, before or after consulting with the mod team. To put it bluntly, did the mod team confer beforehand and say "Yes, it's appropriate to shadowban MollyRealized in this circumstance", or did taz act only on her own judgment in the moment?
I'm honestly very encouraged by what you're suggesting under Policies and Procedures. but it seems a little focused on what mods and users and the SC say to each other privately. I'd really encourage that as much of this take place in the sunlight as possible. You may have already noticed that users in this thread have spotted a trend of mod interactions vis-a-vis trans users, and that certain mods have their own idiosyncrasies become a trend in their interactions. This is the sort of benefit that comes with visibility, and accountability.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:57 PM on February 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
Yes, while in general the status report is encouraging, the quadrupling-down (or whatever level we're on now) on the "we're not going to tell you the reason because of *vague handwaving*" thing is just as bad as it was in the beginning. It was originally supposedly because of Molly's privacy, which she waived, then because it would be bad in general somehow, and now we're being told it might lead to pressure on other users to waive their right to privacy? It's incredibly obvious, through all of these ever-changing excuses, that this is because the mods know making the reason public will make them look bad.
Which brings me to the other thing missing from the generally-encouraging status report: I see no acknowledgement of the possibility that the mods could have made a mistake. I see that they're doing a postmortem, which I think is good, but I think it would be great to state right now that "It's possible we made the wrong call here, and if that turns out to be the case, we will apologize to Molly".
As previously mentioned, this goes especially for the decision to time out/shadow ban Molly, and not so much for the deletion of the comment, which I think was unnecessary, but not that big a deal.
It'd be great if staff could admit they might be fallible, and also work towards making as much of this as open and transparent as possible.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [21 favorites]
Which brings me to the other thing missing from the generally-encouraging status report: I see no acknowledgement of the possibility that the mods could have made a mistake. I see that they're doing a postmortem, which I think is good, but I think it would be great to state right now that "It's possible we made the wrong call here, and if that turns out to be the case, we will apologize to Molly".
As previously mentioned, this goes especially for the decision to time out/shadow ban Molly, and not so much for the deletion of the comment, which I think was unnecessary, but not that big a deal.
It'd be great if staff could admit they might be fallible, and also work towards making as much of this as open and transparent as possible.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2023 [21 favorites]
I really dont understand this idea of protecting private correspondence at all costs.
We're not asking for the exact wording, or even the gist. We are asking for the reasoning that led to the banning. If the claim is that reasoning is protected because it is based in part on private correspondence, that seems truly remarkable to me.
For example, if MR had engaged in a pattern of behaviour, had been warned about it, and then persisted (as other speculated about it) I dont really see how that couldnt be exposed. You wouldnt need to expose the content of their messages to provide that sort of reasoning.
It feels very unfortunate in this particular instance, where MR has repeatedly waived any right to privacy, that mods feel unable to even share the broad overview of why they banned them.
Surely the mods can understand how their behaviour looks like from the outside. Pointing at principles of privacy really doesnt help here, because these policies have managed to conspire to make mod decisions utterly opaque, and forces the user base to just trust the mods that the actions taken were reasonable.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:12 AM on February 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
We're not asking for the exact wording, or even the gist. We are asking for the reasoning that led to the banning. If the claim is that reasoning is protected because it is based in part on private correspondence, that seems truly remarkable to me.
For example, if MR had engaged in a pattern of behaviour, had been warned about it, and then persisted (as other speculated about it) I dont really see how that couldnt be exposed. You wouldnt need to expose the content of their messages to provide that sort of reasoning.
It feels very unfortunate in this particular instance, where MR has repeatedly waived any right to privacy, that mods feel unable to even share the broad overview of why they banned them.
Surely the mods can understand how their behaviour looks like from the outside. Pointing at principles of privacy really doesnt help here, because these policies have managed to conspire to make mod decisions utterly opaque, and forces the user base to just trust the mods that the actions taken were reasonable.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 12:12 AM on February 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
Miko: I'm seeing a whole lot of belittling, sneering, thinly veiled negative characterizations of others. It's just bullying. What if, for a short while, we could sit with the others' point of view? And recognize that everyone is here because they care about the place? And that their opinions, even if opposite to yours, might still have some merit and even if they don't, still come from a member of the community and a human who deserves a basic modicum of respect?
One of the extremely difficult hairs to split throughout MetaFilter history—going back at least as far as the long 2007 conversations about sexism on here—has been finding where the line between "personal attack" and "meaningful expression of emotion" is best drawn. It's long been a policy that users should not directly target other users (though plenty of exceptions to that get made on MeTa), but the question of "justified emotion" is a thorny one. That's not a MetaFilter-specific snarl of thorns, obviously, since it's the question that underlies discussions of tone arguments, respectability politics, and what-have-you.
That last bit is probably germane to this incident, because this is far from the first time that people have pointed out that trans users receive disproportionate criticism and blowback when they express anger or frustration here. At the same time, some demographics of users—or at least certain types of venting favored by said demographics—get overlooked more readily. "People getting mad at other people getting mad" seems to be one that receives less moderator attention, and perhaps that's because a lot of people are exasperated at how angry this place gets, but it also means that there're probably a disproportionate amount of incidents where people get loudly peeved at users who are complaining about something that feels unjust, in a way that (perhaps-)unwittingly reinforces reactionary and prejudicial tendencies.
I feel like that's a fairly non-controversial thing to say, right? Without getting into the weeds about which specific incidents saw this specific thing happen, this is both a general phenomenon—people complaining about injustice getting pushback for their tone, while people complaining about those people getting lauded—and a MetaFilter-specific phenomenon, going at least as far back as those 2007 threads where a woman making a fairly mild complaint was accused of "having the vapors" for daring to speak up.
The ongoing challenge, though—again, not just here, but in progressive communities period—is that that line between "expression of emotion" and "personal attack" really starts to blur. Emotion can be infectious: people tend to drift towards whatever emotions they encounter in a space. Which is why pretty much every strategy I've ever encountered for healthy communication emphasizes: articulate emotion, but separate it from the thing you're trying to say. Because when you act from a place of intense feeling, whether good or bad, you both lose the ability to regulate what you're saying and you make it harder for other people to make that distinction with what you're saying back.
(It's that old joke about how simply saying "you're an asshole" isn't healthy or productive, since you're supposed to talk about your feelings—so instead you say "I feel like you're an asshole." Problem solved!)
On top of that, the more personally invested someone is in a conversation, the harder it becomes for them to distinguish contrary expressions of feelings from personal attack. That makes them inclined to respond more emotionally, which sets the whole cycle off—but it also means that people who can participate in a conversation more abstractly and detachedly come across as more reasonable, or at least more capable of conversing civilly. That's where "tone argument" as a concept comes from: people for whom there are fewer stakes are going to be able to avoid emotion more easily. But that doesn't make it less true that intense emotions flat-out up the risk of everything collapsing into a big contentious shit-fit—in part because intense emotion triggers the sort of empathic response that leads people to feel personally invested in things in the first place, whether or not those things are about them to begin with.
I feel like this is the double-edged sword that more-or-less defines MetaTalk's existence as a whole. On the one hand, these lengthy and emotional threads create enough space that people's experiences and voices are seen and (eventually) acknowledged. On the other hand, MetaFilter's handful-of-linear-conversations approach to posting and commenting means that shit can get super-heated and fly off the rails pretty rapidly, because we're all tightly packed into a relatively sparse selection of threads on a given day or week. And people venting anger and frustration quickly katamaris into a snarl of bitter feelings aimed in every direction—which is why there's always a popular consensus that everyone involved is making mountains out of molehills and getting way too pissed off about basically everything. The most-favorited comment in this thread—hell, I favorited it!—more-or-less says exactly that.
And like I said, that's a little problematic! Because if the takeaway is just that people here are too angry, that's privileging the reaction to people's feelings over people's actual feelings. And that, combined with the way that privilege and bigotry amplify which people get pushback and when, creates inertia to meaningful change, callousness towards people or groups whose feelings really are important, and an overall suspicion of anybody who would critique or complain, period.
But that can all be true while MeTa also has a serious problem with just how angry and fighty it can be. Intense emotion does make level conversation harder. The pushback against how volcanic this place gets can be problematic and reflect a weariness and exhaustion with just how miserable this place can get. (And like I said earlier, this mirrors a discussion that I see in a lot of leftist spaces, which can be prone to fury and resentment and grievance and paranoia, all of which comes from justifiable places, but which wind up being deeply unpleasant just the same. This is not a new phenomenon; it's part of what gives rise to the trashing phenomenon that Jo Freeman wrote about nearly half a century ago.)
One of the major challenges has to do with giving people room to express their feelings while simultaneously trying to make MeTa conversations genuinely productive. But another of the major challenges, I think, has to do with how people treat MetaFilter's staff. Because they're essentially in a position where, "professionally," they are expected to reply to whatever they receive in the emotion-detached-from-articulation manner that helps communications be productive—regardless of what users lob their way. And they receive, time and again, regardless of which era of management we're talking about, the same set of things:
Because even within the first ten comments on this thread, people pointed out that basically any staff decision will be met with people who don't just disagree, but are outraged. If they're open about their practices, they get criticized for revealing too much about other users. If they're closed about them, then they're opaque. If they mention a user's history, or imply that certain users have left them feeling exhausted or weary or untrusting, then that's a vendetta—but if they don't mention any of that, then they're guilty of concealing their "grudges." It's a lose-lose situation for them, and it will remain lose-lose if we can't find some way to reconcile the fact that a culture of constant, ongoing outrage will simply never be healthy, even with the pretense that it's being lobbied at "the owners" and is therefore punching up rather than down.
I don't mean to single out the way that people treat management around here as if that is "actually" the major, singular problem here. But I think that, if we want to get to a place where the kinds of people who most see unjust blowback for expressing anger or hurt or feelings of unfairness genuinely have room to be heard, we have to find a way of having those conversations in a way that doesn't create an us-vs-them mentality. And we need to figure out a way of letting moderators moderate with less of a hairpin-trigger reaction to each and every moderator decision. Because the accusation that moderators are doing their jobs in bad faith makes it essentially impossible to have this discussion. We can talk about biases in moderation, or discuss ways to make it clearer why mods make some of the trickier decisions that they make—and to make it clearer in ways that give the userbase room to disagree with those decisions. But we can only have that conversation if that pushback against "thinly-veiled negative characterizations of others" includes the not-remotely-veiled negative characterizations of the moderation staff that recur time and again.
I feel like the inciting incident here was a particularly tricky one; I can't imagine a single approach here that would have left everyone feeling happy. I've been a long-time fan of MollyRealized and her previous accounts on here, but over the last few months, I've felt increasingly uncomfortable with, and disturbed by, her conduct on here—not just her MeTas, but the ways that she handled herself on some of the FPPs that she made on MetaFilter. By the time those MeTas were posted, I cringed just when I saw the username below the post, before I read a single comment. And I really don't mean that in the sense of personal judgment: it seems like she's really struggling right now and is not in a great place, and I can think of no worse place for someone like that to be than MetaTalk, a site that has not been great for my own mental health dips either.
And I don't compulsively read either MetaFilter or MetaTalk nowadays. I'm reading and posting on this one largely due to insomnia, but I tend to skim the site rather than digest it, and I bob in and out of checking it at all. So I suspect that, if Molly was sticking out to me, there was likely a lot that I didn't notice—and even just the bits that I caught were enough that my instinct is to be sympathetic to a comment removal.
My point isn't that I think this specific removal was justified; I'm on the fence about it, actually. But I think the situation was tricky, and I think that sticky situations really can't end well unless people are able to find room to breathe and to proceed in a somewhat-measured way. I'd love a MetaTalk in which we could have a serious discussion of this specific incident, because there are a lot of difficult aspects of this situation that I'd love to have a conversation of: how moderators handle users whose mental health has been poor while remaining compassionate; how to address a user's recent pattern of behavior without resorting to "insinuation" (and whether every new thread should be a clean slate for each participant); what's expected of users who participate in MeTa, if anything. But that conversation was never going to happen, and I cringed when I saw what this post was about, because let's be real: each and every one of us knew exactly how every part of this thread was going to go.
I'm trying hard to talk about this all in an evenhanded way, which has probably made it three times longer than it should have been. I know that I have a tendency to be sympathetic to MeFi's staff, both for the reasons I'm discussing here and because I've been in their position before; I hope that that hasn't led me to be dismissive of the various criticisms people made in their handling here, even if I don't share those criticisms myself. I do think that there's something inherently loaded in discussing "civility," one that favors institutions and systemic privilege, even if I simultaneously do believe that good faith is basically necessary to any hope of community being possible. But hopefully I'm saying all this in a way that leaves it open to disagreement, and am not offering my take in a way that perpetuates the problems that I'm trying to identify. (And my sincerest apologies if that is not the case.)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [64 favorites]
One of the extremely difficult hairs to split throughout MetaFilter history—going back at least as far as the long 2007 conversations about sexism on here—has been finding where the line between "personal attack" and "meaningful expression of emotion" is best drawn. It's long been a policy that users should not directly target other users (though plenty of exceptions to that get made on MeTa), but the question of "justified emotion" is a thorny one. That's not a MetaFilter-specific snarl of thorns, obviously, since it's the question that underlies discussions of tone arguments, respectability politics, and what-have-you.
That last bit is probably germane to this incident, because this is far from the first time that people have pointed out that trans users receive disproportionate criticism and blowback when they express anger or frustration here. At the same time, some demographics of users—or at least certain types of venting favored by said demographics—get overlooked more readily. "People getting mad at other people getting mad" seems to be one that receives less moderator attention, and perhaps that's because a lot of people are exasperated at how angry this place gets, but it also means that there're probably a disproportionate amount of incidents where people get loudly peeved at users who are complaining about something that feels unjust, in a way that (perhaps-)unwittingly reinforces reactionary and prejudicial tendencies.
I feel like that's a fairly non-controversial thing to say, right? Without getting into the weeds about which specific incidents saw this specific thing happen, this is both a general phenomenon—people complaining about injustice getting pushback for their tone, while people complaining about those people getting lauded—and a MetaFilter-specific phenomenon, going at least as far back as those 2007 threads where a woman making a fairly mild complaint was accused of "having the vapors" for daring to speak up.
The ongoing challenge, though—again, not just here, but in progressive communities period—is that that line between "expression of emotion" and "personal attack" really starts to blur. Emotion can be infectious: people tend to drift towards whatever emotions they encounter in a space. Which is why pretty much every strategy I've ever encountered for healthy communication emphasizes: articulate emotion, but separate it from the thing you're trying to say. Because when you act from a place of intense feeling, whether good or bad, you both lose the ability to regulate what you're saying and you make it harder for other people to make that distinction with what you're saying back.
(It's that old joke about how simply saying "you're an asshole" isn't healthy or productive, since you're supposed to talk about your feelings—so instead you say "I feel like you're an asshole." Problem solved!)
On top of that, the more personally invested someone is in a conversation, the harder it becomes for them to distinguish contrary expressions of feelings from personal attack. That makes them inclined to respond more emotionally, which sets the whole cycle off—but it also means that people who can participate in a conversation more abstractly and detachedly come across as more reasonable, or at least more capable of conversing civilly. That's where "tone argument" as a concept comes from: people for whom there are fewer stakes are going to be able to avoid emotion more easily. But that doesn't make it less true that intense emotions flat-out up the risk of everything collapsing into a big contentious shit-fit—in part because intense emotion triggers the sort of empathic response that leads people to feel personally invested in things in the first place, whether or not those things are about them to begin with.
I feel like this is the double-edged sword that more-or-less defines MetaTalk's existence as a whole. On the one hand, these lengthy and emotional threads create enough space that people's experiences and voices are seen and (eventually) acknowledged. On the other hand, MetaFilter's handful-of-linear-conversations approach to posting and commenting means that shit can get super-heated and fly off the rails pretty rapidly, because we're all tightly packed into a relatively sparse selection of threads on a given day or week. And people venting anger and frustration quickly katamaris into a snarl of bitter feelings aimed in every direction—which is why there's always a popular consensus that everyone involved is making mountains out of molehills and getting way too pissed off about basically everything. The most-favorited comment in this thread—hell, I favorited it!—more-or-less says exactly that.
And like I said, that's a little problematic! Because if the takeaway is just that people here are too angry, that's privileging the reaction to people's feelings over people's actual feelings. And that, combined with the way that privilege and bigotry amplify which people get pushback and when, creates inertia to meaningful change, callousness towards people or groups whose feelings really are important, and an overall suspicion of anybody who would critique or complain, period.
But that can all be true while MeTa also has a serious problem with just how angry and fighty it can be. Intense emotion does make level conversation harder. The pushback against how volcanic this place gets can be problematic and reflect a weariness and exhaustion with just how miserable this place can get. (And like I said earlier, this mirrors a discussion that I see in a lot of leftist spaces, which can be prone to fury and resentment and grievance and paranoia, all of which comes from justifiable places, but which wind up being deeply unpleasant just the same. This is not a new phenomenon; it's part of what gives rise to the trashing phenomenon that Jo Freeman wrote about nearly half a century ago.)
One of the major challenges has to do with giving people room to express their feelings while simultaneously trying to make MeTa conversations genuinely productive. But another of the major challenges, I think, has to do with how people treat MetaFilter's staff. Because they're essentially in a position where, "professionally," they are expected to reply to whatever they receive in the emotion-detached-from-articulation manner that helps communications be productive—regardless of what users lob their way. And they receive, time and again, regardless of which era of management we're talking about, the same set of things:
- People insinuating that they fundamentally don't care about the userbase, the community, or MetaFilter.
- People responding to their painstaking attempts to communicate comprehensively and neutrally with outrage, accusations of conspiracy, and outright slander.
- People flat-out bringing up past grievances with moderators who aren't even in the discussion, because they see a chance to complain about their least favorite moderator again.
- Outright personal attacks, which they can either let stand or delete and get accused of censorship.
Because even within the first ten comments on this thread, people pointed out that basically any staff decision will be met with people who don't just disagree, but are outraged. If they're open about their practices, they get criticized for revealing too much about other users. If they're closed about them, then they're opaque. If they mention a user's history, or imply that certain users have left them feeling exhausted or weary or untrusting, then that's a vendetta—but if they don't mention any of that, then they're guilty of concealing their "grudges." It's a lose-lose situation for them, and it will remain lose-lose if we can't find some way to reconcile the fact that a culture of constant, ongoing outrage will simply never be healthy, even with the pretense that it's being lobbied at "the owners" and is therefore punching up rather than down.
I don't mean to single out the way that people treat management around here as if that is "actually" the major, singular problem here. But I think that, if we want to get to a place where the kinds of people who most see unjust blowback for expressing anger or hurt or feelings of unfairness genuinely have room to be heard, we have to find a way of having those conversations in a way that doesn't create an us-vs-them mentality. And we need to figure out a way of letting moderators moderate with less of a hairpin-trigger reaction to each and every moderator decision. Because the accusation that moderators are doing their jobs in bad faith makes it essentially impossible to have this discussion. We can talk about biases in moderation, or discuss ways to make it clearer why mods make some of the trickier decisions that they make—and to make it clearer in ways that give the userbase room to disagree with those decisions. But we can only have that conversation if that pushback against "thinly-veiled negative characterizations of others" includes the not-remotely-veiled negative characterizations of the moderation staff that recur time and again.
I feel like the inciting incident here was a particularly tricky one; I can't imagine a single approach here that would have left everyone feeling happy. I've been a long-time fan of MollyRealized and her previous accounts on here, but over the last few months, I've felt increasingly uncomfortable with, and disturbed by, her conduct on here—not just her MeTas, but the ways that she handled herself on some of the FPPs that she made on MetaFilter. By the time those MeTas were posted, I cringed just when I saw the username below the post, before I read a single comment. And I really don't mean that in the sense of personal judgment: it seems like she's really struggling right now and is not in a great place, and I can think of no worse place for someone like that to be than MetaTalk, a site that has not been great for my own mental health dips either.
And I don't compulsively read either MetaFilter or MetaTalk nowadays. I'm reading and posting on this one largely due to insomnia, but I tend to skim the site rather than digest it, and I bob in and out of checking it at all. So I suspect that, if Molly was sticking out to me, there was likely a lot that I didn't notice—and even just the bits that I caught were enough that my instinct is to be sympathetic to a comment removal.
My point isn't that I think this specific removal was justified; I'm on the fence about it, actually. But I think the situation was tricky, and I think that sticky situations really can't end well unless people are able to find room to breathe and to proceed in a somewhat-measured way. I'd love a MetaTalk in which we could have a serious discussion of this specific incident, because there are a lot of difficult aspects of this situation that I'd love to have a conversation of: how moderators handle users whose mental health has been poor while remaining compassionate; how to address a user's recent pattern of behavior without resorting to "insinuation" (and whether every new thread should be a clean slate for each participant); what's expected of users who participate in MeTa, if anything. But that conversation was never going to happen, and I cringed when I saw what this post was about, because let's be real: each and every one of us knew exactly how every part of this thread was going to go.
I'm trying hard to talk about this all in an evenhanded way, which has probably made it three times longer than it should have been. I know that I have a tendency to be sympathetic to MeFi's staff, both for the reasons I'm discussing here and because I've been in their position before; I hope that that hasn't led me to be dismissive of the various criticisms people made in their handling here, even if I don't share those criticisms myself. I do think that there's something inherently loaded in discussing "civility," one that favors institutions and systemic privilege, even if I simultaneously do believe that good faith is basically necessary to any hope of community being possible. But hopefully I'm saying all this in a way that leaves it open to disagreement, and am not offering my take in a way that perpetuates the problems that I'm trying to identify. (And my sincerest apologies if that is not the case.)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 12:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [64 favorites]
Thanks loup, that looks like a sensible summary to me, and the action points if implemented I think will help prevent and remedy bad vibes over moderation actions. There is one aspect that I mentioned upthread but did not see reflected in your summary, and I would like to reiterate for your consideration.
From my perspective as a long-time mostly lurking user, one thing I've noticed is that there can be long periods where it's unclear what is going on "inside Metafilter", which contributes to pent-up feelings of frustration and anxiety. Case in point is the final fundraising update, which I think was announced mid-December, but then didn't arrive until the end of January, with no updates or progress reports in between that I'm aware of. It creates bad blood for the community to be kept in the dark on a matter of vital importance to the community, which sets the stage for bad vibes later on.
Given the limitations in terms of money and time, obviously Mefi staff can't (and should have to) respond to everything all the time. But precisely for that reason Metafilter should make a priority of managing expectations about staff availability and communication bandwidth. The status updates every two weeks should really be there every two weeks. If there's a contentious MeTa held back in the queue, that should be communicated early, with a due date on when it can be expected. Etcetera. I feel like this is the sort of basic transparency that would mitigate a lot of uncertainty and bad faith speculation.
posted by dmh at 3:22 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
From my perspective as a long-time mostly lurking user, one thing I've noticed is that there can be long periods where it's unclear what is going on "inside Metafilter", which contributes to pent-up feelings of frustration and anxiety. Case in point is the final fundraising update, which I think was announced mid-December, but then didn't arrive until the end of January, with no updates or progress reports in between that I'm aware of. It creates bad blood for the community to be kept in the dark on a matter of vital importance to the community, which sets the stage for bad vibes later on.
Given the limitations in terms of money and time, obviously Mefi staff can't (and should have to) respond to everything all the time. But precisely for that reason Metafilter should make a priority of managing expectations about staff availability and communication bandwidth. The status updates every two weeks should really be there every two weeks. If there's a contentious MeTa held back in the queue, that should be communicated early, with a due date on when it can be expected. Etcetera. I feel like this is the sort of basic transparency that would mitigate a lot of uncertainty and bad faith speculation.
posted by dmh at 3:22 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
“She was previously stopped from posting on it though, apparently in a way that didn't show as account disabled.”
This is how time-outs have always worked. I do not believe that time-outs were ever visible on the user profile and why would anyone want them to be? The user is notified. No one else needs to know and doing it otherwise could act as shaming the user. Account Disabled happens for multiple reasons; most often, the user doing it themselves. It has no stigma.
True, sometimes the mods mention a time-out in the thread (should they? maybe not), but I really don't see having this status displayed on the user's profile page being good for anyone.
“I'd be interested to see evidence of this. Can you point to a user who has left Metafilter because they feel like users are unfair towards Mods or that there is too much drama in MetaTalk?”
I don't know if the former has ever happened, but the latter happens far too frequently. I've done it. I'm tempted to do it right now. Nothing makes me less comfortable at Metafilter than the MeTa brawls. People are at their worst and I learn things about them I don't want to know.
There seems to be some amnesia about site history. (Well, aside from personal grudges. No one ever seems to forget theirs.)
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:29 AM on February 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
This is how time-outs have always worked. I do not believe that time-outs were ever visible on the user profile and why would anyone want them to be? The user is notified. No one else needs to know and doing it otherwise could act as shaming the user. Account Disabled happens for multiple reasons; most often, the user doing it themselves. It has no stigma.
True, sometimes the mods mention a time-out in the thread (should they? maybe not), but I really don't see having this status displayed on the user's profile page being good for anyone.
“I'd be interested to see evidence of this. Can you point to a user who has left Metafilter because they feel like users are unfair towards Mods or that there is too much drama in MetaTalk?”
I don't know if the former has ever happened, but the latter happens far too frequently. I've done it. I'm tempted to do it right now. Nothing makes me less comfortable at Metafilter than the MeTa brawls. People are at their worst and I learn things about them I don't want to know.
There seems to be some amnesia about site history. (Well, aside from personal grudges. No one ever seems to forget theirs.)
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:29 AM on February 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
– Metatalk comments that are disruptive in one way or another but do not violate the guidelines can be addressed by the mods, but not necessarily deleted.
I think this should not apply to posts that are linked by an all-subsites banner. Most users don't come to MetaTalk, and I think they're likely to be put off by what Jessamyn used to call "nerd thunderdome" stuff.
(I suspect this was the main problem with MollyRealized's original comment: the thread was high profile, linked from an all-subsites banner and expected to be a happy celebration, not an argument over site changes).
– Members may be given a time-out from the site when they fail to work with moderation towards a solution.
There was a couple of good comments on /r/metafiltermeta on this "work with moderation towards a solution" kind of stuff. It makes both mods and users lives more stressful if mods are expected to be a kind of counsellor instead of just having rules in place. Can't we just have something like: comments are deleted if they break the guidelines, 3 separate deleted comments in a day means a week's timeout, 3 timeouts means a permanent ban.
(Separete would mean after a mod warning each time, not if a mod comes along and deletes three comments in one swoop).
So yeah, people are rubbing their hands and going "tee hee, what if someone deliberately posts 2 terrible comments per day, your system doesn't deal with that": well just ban them too. The current system of total ambiguity just raises unrealistic expectations and perceptions of bias.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:59 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
I think this should not apply to posts that are linked by an all-subsites banner. Most users don't come to MetaTalk, and I think they're likely to be put off by what Jessamyn used to call "nerd thunderdome" stuff.
(I suspect this was the main problem with MollyRealized's original comment: the thread was high profile, linked from an all-subsites banner and expected to be a happy celebration, not an argument over site changes).
– Members may be given a time-out from the site when they fail to work with moderation towards a solution.
There was a couple of good comments on /r/metafiltermeta on this "work with moderation towards a solution" kind of stuff. It makes both mods and users lives more stressful if mods are expected to be a kind of counsellor instead of just having rules in place. Can't we just have something like: comments are deleted if they break the guidelines, 3 separate deleted comments in a day means a week's timeout, 3 timeouts means a permanent ban.
(Separete would mean after a mod warning each time, not if a mod comes along and deletes three comments in one swoop).
So yeah, people are rubbing their hands and going "tee hee, what if someone deliberately posts 2 terrible comments per day, your system doesn't deal with that": well just ban them too. The current system of total ambiguity just raises unrealistic expectations and perceptions of bias.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:59 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
But it’s unquestionable that people told her something that happened did not happen, with the clear implication (maybe even said outright; I don’t remember and obviously can’t go back to check) that she was fabricating this entirely factual phenomenon for attention. I do not object to pedantry; that dictionary definition is exactly what I’m alleging.
Thank you for the clarification. I was having trouble with context.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2023
Thank you for the clarification. I was having trouble with context.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2023
I don't mean to single out the way that people treat management around here
I agree with much that is in the comment I'm quoting generally, but wish to point out that the behavior I was noting was really specific, in this thread, belittling of people as having imagined grievances, disorders, or personality flaws, which I still maintain is not something to encourage in MeTa. It was not referring to people who have just reason to be emotionally activated and are expressing themselves respectfully even if passionately, but specifically to those who are detached enough to not understand why a deletion and set of confusing interactions with mods might be a big deal.
It is interesting and probably telling to see the word "management" used in these recent discussions. That terminology feels appropriate to unionized workplaces and labor organizing, but it doesn't make sense to me here. Users aren't employees. The staff, in a community-driven space, are in a service role to the community; their tasks include management of many aspects of that community but "management" as a role is not exactly an expression of identity that fits with the characterization we have so far of new site direction. Mods do have asymmetric and positional power, and that's been invested in them by the community. That power differential is something anyone in such a role needs to be conscious of and use with care. And having systems to feed into how that power is used is necessary. Also, when in that role, it's true that you get buffeted by multiple reactions to your work. That's part of the gig. I do think we need to be respectful to one another generally (and one can be very angry and still be respectful), but also that we don't need to shield anyone from honest criticism or questioning.
Is there some other way of doing that will note the interactions without using labels?
Of course there is. And let me clarify. Because of what happened to me, people have reached out and shared with me a fair number of their own private communications with mods. In general, I've been taken aback by how personal, projective, sometimes nasty enough to warrant the description "verbally abusive." Many have gone very much too far in the direction of "this is something that is wrong with you as a human that means you can't participate here," and a lot of "me" language ("we're frustrated," "exasperated," "irritated,") or and not far enough in the direction of "this is what we need for you to continue to participate," which is cut-and-dried, "I" language. This seems like a small point but is actually an enormous one. First, the language accounts a lot for the disparity between users who are saying "I have a problem here" and users who don't see any problem, because these communications are not public and, according to present policy, cannot be made public here. Second, it's more likely to achieve a positive resolution. Third, it's simply much more respectful, and I'd like to think that demonstrating respect at all times, even in contentious moments, is a value the staff would want to uphold.
That "this is what we need" stuff also needs to be standardized across users. It should not be referencing things like "we know you're going through a hard time," or "we've noticed this tendency you have," but look something more like "as of now you have had X warnings and X deletions for X reasons. We are reaching out to you to you to clarify the participation policy and get your agreement to observe it in order for you to continue to participate. Here are the (specific needs from a standard menu - similar to flag menu) we need you to observe. X more warnings/deletions will result in a temporary ban, and X more will result in an account termination. We value your participation and want you to continue being part of the community, but need all users to observe these standards. Please let us know what you need in order to work within the policy."
That's probably something mods will immediately poke holes in, because that's not exactly the way it can work, but it needs to be something like that. None of that will be unfamiliar to people with professional management experience, where you need to be as fair as you can, use systems that make objective sense, never put into writing anything that you wouldn't want coming up in a lawsuit or couldn't produce evidence of, avoid insulting or overly personal language, etc. I know this example is facile, but strongly believe that reviewing and shifting the mod stance and communication style is going to be essential to rebuilding community trust and ensuring that people are actually treated fairly, not treated differently based on their individual relationships, communication style, interactions that happened 10 years ago, personal profiles/ pejorative labels they've taken on among the staff, etc. And further, to ensure it's not just a fair system but also an equitable one, it needs to be modifiable through community reflection to ensure the system and practices themselves aren't unfairly privileging or disprivileging different categories of users.
Also, this needs to be more proactive and two-way transparent between users and moderators. Many users have heard that mods have been accumulating a set of beliefs or internal flags about their participation for a long time before the user was made aware of this in their first actual off-board interchange with them - meaning by the time that interchange happens, it's beyond the point where one could call it constructive.
I realize much of this was SOP under past leadership, and we are in a BND of sorts here. Things may be changing, and I take heart that at least some of these problems are now being openly discussed and recognized as priorities for the SC, leadership and staff. So I raise all this as considerations to inform the development of policy and practice going forward. There is a tremendous amount of improvement that could be made here in internal culture, user relations, and site communications in order for users both old and new to have the safety of clarity and transparency when participating.
posted by Miko at 7:09 AM on February 2, 2023 [70 favorites]
I agree with much that is in the comment I'm quoting generally, but wish to point out that the behavior I was noting was really specific, in this thread, belittling of people as having imagined grievances, disorders, or personality flaws, which I still maintain is not something to encourage in MeTa. It was not referring to people who have just reason to be emotionally activated and are expressing themselves respectfully even if passionately, but specifically to those who are detached enough to not understand why a deletion and set of confusing interactions with mods might be a big deal.
It is interesting and probably telling to see the word "management" used in these recent discussions. That terminology feels appropriate to unionized workplaces and labor organizing, but it doesn't make sense to me here. Users aren't employees. The staff, in a community-driven space, are in a service role to the community; their tasks include management of many aspects of that community but "management" as a role is not exactly an expression of identity that fits with the characterization we have so far of new site direction. Mods do have asymmetric and positional power, and that's been invested in them by the community. That power differential is something anyone in such a role needs to be conscious of and use with care. And having systems to feed into how that power is used is necessary. Also, when in that role, it's true that you get buffeted by multiple reactions to your work. That's part of the gig. I do think we need to be respectful to one another generally (and one can be very angry and still be respectful), but also that we don't need to shield anyone from honest criticism or questioning.
Is there some other way of doing that will note the interactions without using labels?
Of course there is. And let me clarify. Because of what happened to me, people have reached out and shared with me a fair number of their own private communications with mods. In general, I've been taken aback by how personal, projective, sometimes nasty enough to warrant the description "verbally abusive." Many have gone very much too far in the direction of "this is something that is wrong with you as a human that means you can't participate here," and a lot of "me" language ("we're frustrated," "exasperated," "irritated,") or and not far enough in the direction of "this is what we need for you to continue to participate," which is cut-and-dried, "I" language. This seems like a small point but is actually an enormous one. First, the language accounts a lot for the disparity between users who are saying "I have a problem here" and users who don't see any problem, because these communications are not public and, according to present policy, cannot be made public here. Second, it's more likely to achieve a positive resolution. Third, it's simply much more respectful, and I'd like to think that demonstrating respect at all times, even in contentious moments, is a value the staff would want to uphold.
That "this is what we need" stuff also needs to be standardized across users. It should not be referencing things like "we know you're going through a hard time," or "we've noticed this tendency you have," but look something more like "as of now you have had X warnings and X deletions for X reasons. We are reaching out to you to you to clarify the participation policy and get your agreement to observe it in order for you to continue to participate. Here are the (specific needs from a standard menu - similar to flag menu) we need you to observe. X more warnings/deletions will result in a temporary ban, and X more will result in an account termination. We value your participation and want you to continue being part of the community, but need all users to observe these standards. Please let us know what you need in order to work within the policy."
That's probably something mods will immediately poke holes in, because that's not exactly the way it can work, but it needs to be something like that. None of that will be unfamiliar to people with professional management experience, where you need to be as fair as you can, use systems that make objective sense, never put into writing anything that you wouldn't want coming up in a lawsuit or couldn't produce evidence of, avoid insulting or overly personal language, etc. I know this example is facile, but strongly believe that reviewing and shifting the mod stance and communication style is going to be essential to rebuilding community trust and ensuring that people are actually treated fairly, not treated differently based on their individual relationships, communication style, interactions that happened 10 years ago, personal profiles/ pejorative labels they've taken on among the staff, etc. And further, to ensure it's not just a fair system but also an equitable one, it needs to be modifiable through community reflection to ensure the system and practices themselves aren't unfairly privileging or disprivileging different categories of users.
Also, this needs to be more proactive and two-way transparent between users and moderators. Many users have heard that mods have been accumulating a set of beliefs or internal flags about their participation for a long time before the user was made aware of this in their first actual off-board interchange with them - meaning by the time that interchange happens, it's beyond the point where one could call it constructive.
I realize much of this was SOP under past leadership, and we are in a BND of sorts here. Things may be changing, and I take heart that at least some of these problems are now being openly discussed and recognized as priorities for the SC, leadership and staff. So I raise all this as considerations to inform the development of policy and practice going forward. There is a tremendous amount of improvement that could be made here in internal culture, user relations, and site communications in order for users both old and new to have the safety of clarity and transparency when participating.
posted by Miko at 7:09 AM on February 2, 2023 [70 favorites]
You're absolutely right: Having a well defined, continuously improving, repeatable, standardized PROCESS is a great idea!!!!
posted by some loser at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by some loser at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Seconding that "time-out" is maybe not the best term. Telling someone to take a time out because they are too emotionally involved or whatever is infantilizing and hostile at exactly the wrong time. I think it would be more nuetral to describe it as a "temporary ban" or "[n]-day account suspension".
If another adult told me to take a "time out," I might walk away, or I might regard it as a golden opportunity to be maximally dickish, but in any case I would regard that person with contempt.
posted by surlyben at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
If another adult told me to take a "time out," I might walk away, or I might regard it as a golden opportunity to be maximally dickish, but in any case I would regard that person with contempt.
posted by surlyben at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
Alternatives to "time out" would be great; we'd like to avoid words like "ban" because it really usually is just a short amount of time off (which can be programmatically set or open-ended). Suggestions?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:20 AM on February 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:20 AM on February 2, 2023 [9 favorites]
mandatory (or mod-enforced) break or temporary account lock was what came to mind for me.
posted by Suffocating Kitty at 10:28 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Suffocating Kitty at 10:28 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
Adding my voice to the "we need to interpret kindly, be sensitive to feelings, etc." also applying to the mods and site management.
There's been a lot of discussion of how the community ought to look kindly on MR or reddit commentary because people are loyal to the community or care a lot or are upset because they feel the community is going wrong. That can also be true and at the same time the behavior that comes from those emotions can damage the community and site they care about.
Also people can have very different good-faith readings of the same events and comments. I would agree that people on the subreddit care a lot about Metafilter but I read the comments as nourishing anger at the site, at people who disagreed with the consensus of the reddit, and modeling how to attack the site when you leave by using the DMCA, which could get Metafilter cut off by its provider, and which MR was not the first to talk about doing in the subreddit. I may be alone in that but it was what I saw when I reviewed the posts in the subreddit (not just the MR posts; I skimmed a number of other posts).
I'm trying very hard as I read comments in this thread to assume they're made in good faith and I hope everybody else is too, while recognizing that good faith and loyalty and other strong and positive emotions are good intentions that can lead us down the road to hellish and fighty MeTa threads.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:34 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
There's been a lot of discussion of how the community ought to look kindly on MR or reddit commentary because people are loyal to the community or care a lot or are upset because they feel the community is going wrong. That can also be true and at the same time the behavior that comes from those emotions can damage the community and site they care about.
Also people can have very different good-faith readings of the same events and comments. I would agree that people on the subreddit care a lot about Metafilter but I read the comments as nourishing anger at the site, at people who disagreed with the consensus of the reddit, and modeling how to attack the site when you leave by using the DMCA, which could get Metafilter cut off by its provider, and which MR was not the first to talk about doing in the subreddit. I may be alone in that but it was what I saw when I reviewed the posts in the subreddit (not just the MR posts; I skimmed a number of other posts).
I'm trying very hard as I read comments in this thread to assume they're made in good faith and I hope everybody else is too, while recognizing that good faith and loyalty and other strong and positive emotions are good intentions that can lead us down the road to hellish and fighty MeTa threads.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:34 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
Alternatives to "time out" would be great ... usually is just a short amount of time off
Breather.
Cambridge dictionary: a short rest, or a brief rest after a period of work.
Collins dictionary: if you take a breather, you stop what you are doing for a short time and have a rest.
Macmillan dictionary: a short rest from work or activity. To take a breather means to have a rest.
posted by Wordshore at 10:40 AM on February 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
Breather.
Cambridge dictionary: a short rest, or a brief rest after a period of work.
Collins dictionary: if you take a breather, you stop what you are doing for a short time and have a rest.
Macmillan dictionary: a short rest from work or activity. To take a breather means to have a rest.
posted by Wordshore at 10:40 AM on February 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
"Take a break" or "take two days off from the site" seem fine to me. Not judgmental.
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
dmh:
Case in point is the final fundraising update, which I think was announced mid-December, but then didn't arrive until the end of January, with no updates or progress reports in between that I'm aware of.
To briefly clarify: Updated fundraising numbers (excluding MetaFilter Events income and affiliate link income, since those numbers were unavailable at that time) were presented on Dec 18 (alongside a general overview of MetaFilter as a business) in a live session that was free to attend. The Steering Committee also held a live session on Dec 13 that was free to attend, answering questions about the SC's work, fundraising, ongoing projects and future plans.
Given the limitations in terms of money and time, obviously Mefi staff can't (and should have to) respond to everything all the time. But precisely for that reason Metafilter should make a priority of managing expectations about staff availability and communication bandwidth.
Fundraising updates and communication have been put together by the SC, which are a volunteer team (and not part of the Metafilter paid staff). There is definitely much that could be improved in terms of managing communication (as noted in a previous comment), determining when and how much to post (for February, there are 4-5 planned MeTa updates/posts from the SC) and managing workload. The SC will continue to work on improving/optimizing communications as much as is possible given its circumstances.
posted by aielen at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
Case in point is the final fundraising update, which I think was announced mid-December, but then didn't arrive until the end of January, with no updates or progress reports in between that I'm aware of.
To briefly clarify: Updated fundraising numbers (excluding MetaFilter Events income and affiliate link income, since those numbers were unavailable at that time) were presented on Dec 18 (alongside a general overview of MetaFilter as a business) in a live session that was free to attend. The Steering Committee also held a live session on Dec 13 that was free to attend, answering questions about the SC's work, fundraising, ongoing projects and future plans.
Given the limitations in terms of money and time, obviously Mefi staff can't (and should have to) respond to everything all the time. But precisely for that reason Metafilter should make a priority of managing expectations about staff availability and communication bandwidth.
Fundraising updates and communication have been put together by the SC, which are a volunteer team (and not part of the Metafilter paid staff). There is definitely much that could be improved in terms of managing communication (as noted in a previous comment), determining when and how much to post (for February, there are 4-5 planned MeTa updates/posts from the SC) and managing workload. The SC will continue to work on improving/optimizing communications as much as is possible given its circumstances.
posted by aielen at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
just a short amount of time off (which can be programmatically set or open-ended). Suggestions?
24 hr roadside suspension ... or words to that effect.
I think the key point is that, right now, right here, you (MeFite who has gotten Mod attention) are not helping. It may not even be your fault. But for the greater good, we're telling you to take a breather (good word). If you think this is wrong, unfair etc, here are your options:
[relevant links including one to ombudsperson]
posted by philip-random at 10:43 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
24 hr roadside suspension ... or words to that effect.
I think the key point is that, right now, right here, you (MeFite who has gotten Mod attention) are not helping. It may not even be your fault. But for the greater good, we're telling you to take a breather (good word). If you think this is wrong, unfair etc, here are your options:
[relevant links including one to ombudsperson]
posted by philip-random at 10:43 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I like PLONK, but then I'm old school.
posted by banshee at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by banshee at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Mysterious Journey
posted by box at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by box at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
As a non-native speaker of English, I want to say that 'time off' sounds good and clear. Please let's not get too obscure.
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:58 AM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:58 AM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
So much for my idea "revocation of user write privileges" then.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
"Breather" to me is also patronising - hey, step back, breathe, calm down buddy...
posted by Meatbomb at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
'Time off,' 'taking a break,' etc all seem a little cutesy and euphemistic to me. I think terms that sound like some sort of cheerful voluntary agreement but aren't have higher potential to escalate issues between disciplined users and the mods. 'Temporary ban' or '2-day (or however long) ban' is exactly what it is, so why not just call it that? Not the most important detail in the world, but just my two cents.
posted by dusty potato at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
Can they just say, “don’t post in this thread for 24hrs” or whatever? We don’t actually need a cutesy name, just a specific instruction.
posted by JenMarie at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
A "temporary ban" sounds oxymoronic to me. "Ban" isn't a great word for something that lasts a few days. "Time out" or "time off" seems fine to me. If you want to make it more compulsory sounding, a "temporary freeze" or "temporary hold" or "temporary lockout" might be OK. "Temporary" could be replaced with "2 day" or whatever.
I have written and not posted a lot of other things because they seem non-additive at this point.
posted by Mid at 11:22 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I have written and not posted a lot of other things because they seem non-additive at this point.
posted by Mid at 11:22 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
Can they just say, “don’t post in this thread for 24hrs” or whatever? We don’t actually need a cutesy name, just a specific instruction.
I believe we're talking about sitewide, software-enforced bans? Not just mod instructions.
Or I could be confused, another problem with all the euphemisms.
posted by mark k at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I believe we're talking about sitewide, software-enforced bans? Not just mod instructions.
Or I could be confused, another problem with all the euphemisms.
posted by mark k at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
Something value-neutral like “pause” or “hiatus”?
posted by staggernation at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by staggernation at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Okay then how about “we are temporarily disabling your ability to post for 24hrs.”
posted by JenMarie at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
Also helpful to the poster and everyone else: add a reason.
Reason being, a specific broken guideline they can easily cite.
This should not be difficult.
posted by JenMarie at 11:27 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
Reason being, a specific broken guideline they can easily cite.
This should not be difficult.
posted by JenMarie at 11:27 AM on February 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
I think one thing these threads over the last several years have shown is that one person's preferred polite phrasing is another person's rage trigger. On the one hand it's the responsibility of the mod team to avoid language that a significant fraction of the membership says they don't like, but on the other hand it's the responsibility of everyone to recognize that language is fundamentally ambiguous in many cases, especially when the topic is emotionally charged, and try to presume good faith even if the exact wording grates on you.
That said, I think "temporary ban" or "suspension from posting" are pretty neutral phrases, pairing well with matter-of-fact reasons. ("We are suspending you from posting for 2 days because you continued to post in that thread after we told you to stop.") I'm certain some people would absolutely hate that language but I hope it'd only be a few.
posted by biogeo at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
That said, I think "temporary ban" or "suspension from posting" are pretty neutral phrases, pairing well with matter-of-fact reasons. ("We are suspending you from posting for 2 days because you continued to post in that thread after we told you to stop.") I'm certain some people would absolutely hate that language but I hope it'd only be a few.
posted by biogeo at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
Suspension seems like the right word.
posted by drlith at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
posted by drlith at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
Read only mode.
posted by zamboni at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
I second "pause," like "pausing your account for 24 hours."
"Ban" or "suspension" still sounds like a scary punishment that the principal gives you, no matter how you qualify it with "temporary" or whatever. Totally agree with pairing it with a straightforward reason.
posted by chococat at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
"Ban" or "suspension" still sounds like a scary punishment that the principal gives you, no matter how you qualify it with "temporary" or whatever. Totally agree with pairing it with a straightforward reason.
posted by chococat at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
"Ban" or "suspension" still sounds like a scary punishment that the principal gives you
Which is actually exactly what's happening.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:08 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
Which is actually exactly what's happening.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:08 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
Okay then how about “we are temporarily disabling your ability to post for 24hrs.”
Mods: request for clarification.
How I viewed it was taz was specifically asking MR to take a break from MeTa and then when that didn't happen her account was temporarily disabled.
I assumed taz asked instead of told because the mod tools are such that disabling posting/commenting would have to be sitewide. That is, if taz blocked MR on MeTa, MR would necessarily be blocked from all of MeFi. So, taz couldn't say "we are temporarily disabling" without causing draconian consequences.
Is that correct?
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 12:11 PM on February 2, 2023
Mods: request for clarification.
How I viewed it was taz was specifically asking MR to take a break from MeTa and then when that didn't happen her account was temporarily disabled.
I assumed taz asked instead of told because the mod tools are such that disabling posting/commenting would have to be sitewide. That is, if taz blocked MR on MeTa, MR would necessarily be blocked from all of MeFi. So, taz couldn't say "we are temporarily disabling" without causing draconian consequences.
Is that correct?
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 12:11 PM on February 2, 2023
mandatory (or mod-enforced) break, Breather, "Take a break", Sabbatical, PLONK, Mysterious Journey, 'time off', 'Temporary ban', “don’t post in this thread for 24hrs”, "temporary freeze","temporary hold", "temporary lockout", pause, hiatus, Suspension,
well at least we can all agree on something
posted by philip-random at 12:28 PM on February 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
well at least we can all agree on something
posted by philip-random at 12:28 PM on February 2, 2023 [12 favorites]
If short term bans do behave differently from regular bans, we should update the FAQ. Here’s what it currently says (minus the list of banworthy offenses).
posted by zamboni at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
What's up with banning? What does one see when they've been banned from MeFi?Reading this, I would assume that short term bans get the
Users who have been banned will not be able to log in to MetaFilter or access MeFiMail or their Recent Comments page. If they are already logged in, they will be unable to comment or post. There will be a small "this account has been disabled" notice on the user page of banned users.
If a user is already logged in, they will not be able to post or comment on the site. Banning is usually temporary, but sometimes permanent. Giving someone a "timeout" means their account has been banned for a short time.
[…] Short term bans or timeouts automatically expire after a given amount of time (24 hours or 1 week).
this account is disabledbanner, but it sounds like that may not be the case. Purely descriptive terms for what happens might be
account lockor
account suspension,given that you can no longer log in.
posted by zamboni at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think something like “temporary bean” or “take two days on the beanplate” would be clear, neutral and easily understood. But, actually, I’m just kidding.
posted by snofoam at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
"Temporary" could be replaced with "2 day" or whatever.
A temporary ban of X days (or hours), so you’ll regain posting privileges at X time EST.
In short, make it as crystal clear as possible what the length is and when they can return.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
A temporary ban of X days (or hours), so you’ll regain posting privileges at X time EST.
In short, make it as crystal clear as possible what the length is and when they can return.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
Might be good to have the mod notes about a user appear on the user’s profile (visible only to said user) so there’s no surprise for the user.
If the user is a problem for the site, it makes sense for it to be very clear to said user.
This is an off the cuff thought and may require more thinking out 😂
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:53 PM on February 2, 2023
If the user is a problem for the site, it makes sense for it to be very clear to said user.
This is an off the cuff thought and may require more thinking out 😂
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:53 PM on February 2, 2023
we should update the FAQ
Done. It will take a while for policy/development to catch up with how this should work ideally, but at least the FAQ is accurate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
Done. It will take a while for policy/development to catch up with how this should work ideally, but at least the FAQ is accurate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [8 favorites]
Equally off the cuff: maybe we ditch mod notes entirely.
It's hard to give someone a Brand New Day when you're dwelling on something they did twenty years ago, and it's just as hard to hold people to consistent standards when you're grading some of them on a curve.
I know that people will have reasons why they think this is a bad idea, but the way we've done it up to this point isn't exactly universally acclaimed either.
posted by box at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2023
It's hard to give someone a Brand New Day when you're dwelling on something they did twenty years ago, and it's just as hard to hold people to consistent standards when you're grading some of them on a curve.
I know that people will have reasons why they think this is a bad idea, but the way we've done it up to this point isn't exactly universally acclaimed either.
posted by box at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2023
Just to make this completely clear to everyone:
Temporary suspensions do not have the "disabled" text on the profile.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:26 PM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Temporary suspensions do not have the "disabled" text on the profile.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:26 PM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Equally off the cuff: maybe we ditch mod notes entirely.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect employees of a company to do their job without the ability to make notes on users, operations, and issues.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:36 PM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
I don't think it's reasonable to expect employees of a company to do their job without the ability to make notes on users, operations, and issues.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:36 PM on February 2, 2023 [14 favorites]
I don't think it's reasonable to expect employees of a company to do their job without the ability to make notes on users, operations, and issues.
Something for the SC to review with jessamyn, way way down the line. I think miko made some very valid points about professionalism and subjectivity regarding this issue, but it is not something that can realistically be addressed right now.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:56 PM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
Something for the SC to review with jessamyn, way way down the line. I think miko made some very valid points about professionalism and subjectivity regarding this issue, but it is not something that can realistically be addressed right now.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:56 PM on February 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
Users who get deletions and mod letters often feel quite surprised that they've been carrying that type of label for some time, unbeknownst to themselves. --Miko
I haven't been on here as much as I used to be, and I haven't kept up with the MollyRealized situation (though I think we got along well on at least one other account), but I can comment a bit on this particular aspect of the situation.
Years ago there was a question on AskMe where I had this sort of "oh! I know this. Or used to know this" reaction, so I went through my previous account's comments trying to find where I had addressed the issue in the question. While using that account I had been severely (even, at times, suicidally) depressed. Reading the comments was a revelation, and not in a good way--all o_O and "Christ, what an asshole" about my own comments.
At the time I was so deep in my own emotions--barely staying afloat--that I had no idea how I was coming across or what effect it must have been having on others.
When I talked to one of the mods about it I got the impression that mods tried (maybe still do try?) to take a light hand with people who are having mental and/or emotional health issues. I can understand why, while at the same time understanding that my behavior on that account did no favors to this community.
I'm not a philosopher and don't know how to square the needs of the few against the needs of the many, especially when the level of need is so stark and the direction of the need so opposed (in my case:"GRAR I hate everything someone please convince me it might someday be okay" and in everyone else's case "we didn't come here to be amateur unpaid therapists").
I have no doubt whatsoever that I had a reputation among the mods and that I was oblivious to that reputation (and, if I had known about it, I'm sure I would have argued that I didn't deserve it). But I have thought about this situation a lot over the years, and I feel like it has some bearing here.
Silently keeping a tally of grievances against a user is no way to solve problems. There must be a way to communicate--gently and kindly, but clearly--about problem behaviors to users, and to do so sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, just as I'm not a philosopher, I'm also not a psychologist, so I don't know this would be done. But stress and/or mental health issues aren't going away, so I feel like some sort of professional training in this regard--for any mod on any site--is imperative for the health of the community.
I'm curious: have the mods here had training on how best to deal with problem behaviors among users and/or how to address mental / emotional health issues as they might manifest on a site like this? If so, how often/how recently? If not, could it be prioritized?
posted by johnofjack at 3:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
I haven't been on here as much as I used to be, and I haven't kept up with the MollyRealized situation (though I think we got along well on at least one other account), but I can comment a bit on this particular aspect of the situation.
Years ago there was a question on AskMe where I had this sort of "oh! I know this. Or used to know this" reaction, so I went through my previous account's comments trying to find where I had addressed the issue in the question. While using that account I had been severely (even, at times, suicidally) depressed. Reading the comments was a revelation, and not in a good way--all o_O and "Christ, what an asshole" about my own comments.
At the time I was so deep in my own emotions--barely staying afloat--that I had no idea how I was coming across or what effect it must have been having on others.
When I talked to one of the mods about it I got the impression that mods tried (maybe still do try?) to take a light hand with people who are having mental and/or emotional health issues. I can understand why, while at the same time understanding that my behavior on that account did no favors to this community.
I'm not a philosopher and don't know how to square the needs of the few against the needs of the many, especially when the level of need is so stark and the direction of the need so opposed (in my case:"GRAR I hate everything someone please convince me it might someday be okay" and in everyone else's case "we didn't come here to be amateur unpaid therapists").
I have no doubt whatsoever that I had a reputation among the mods and that I was oblivious to that reputation (and, if I had known about it, I'm sure I would have argued that I didn't deserve it). But I have thought about this situation a lot over the years, and I feel like it has some bearing here.
Silently keeping a tally of grievances against a user is no way to solve problems. There must be a way to communicate--gently and kindly, but clearly--about problem behaviors to users, and to do so sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, just as I'm not a philosopher, I'm also not a psychologist, so I don't know this would be done. But stress and/or mental health issues aren't going away, so I feel like some sort of professional training in this regard--for any mod on any site--is imperative for the health of the community.
I'm curious: have the mods here had training on how best to deal with problem behaviors among users and/or how to address mental / emotional health issues as they might manifest on a site like this? If so, how often/how recently? If not, could it be prioritized?
posted by johnofjack at 3:03 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
Silently keeping a tally of grievances against a user is no way to solve problems.
It's reasonable and useful for moderators to have a behind-the-scenes tally of when a user's behavior is on the edge of problematic. There's the old saying that if you ran into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. But if you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
If you were just having a bad day or phrased something poorly, maybe there's a note or maybe there isn't, and if it was a one-off occurrence then you don't need to have an intervention with a mod because of it. Probably there are many such occurrences on a regular basis where someone is in the grey area of bad behavior but not quite over the line yet in a way that is clearly articulable, and then the next day they're back to perfectly fine.
"Mod-only notes" lowers the stakes of that interaction to a point where most users will likely never need to care about it, and that's a good thing for both parties involved. I fully support them having this capability.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:23 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's reasonable and useful for moderators to have a behind-the-scenes tally of when a user's behavior is on the edge of problematic. There's the old saying that if you ran into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. But if you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
If you were just having a bad day or phrased something poorly, maybe there's a note or maybe there isn't, and if it was a one-off occurrence then you don't need to have an intervention with a mod because of it. Probably there are many such occurrences on a regular basis where someone is in the grey area of bad behavior but not quite over the line yet in a way that is clearly articulable, and then the next day they're back to perfectly fine.
"Mod-only notes" lowers the stakes of that interaction to a point where most users will likely never need to care about it, and that's a good thing for both parties involved. I fully support them having this capability.
posted by 0xFCAF at 3:23 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
I would be willing to be any amount of the money that the ability of mods to keep notes about user behavior have prevented far more bannings and timeouts and flame-outs than they've caused over the the life of site. Mainly because I expect the number caused is exactly zero.
posted by Ipsifendus at 3:31 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Ipsifendus at 3:31 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
I would be willing to be any amount of the money that the ability of mods to keep notes about user behavior have prevented far more bannings and timeouts and flame-outs than they've caused over the the life of site. Mainly because I expect the number caused is exactly zero.
i'm happy to provide a counter example to your last sentence. nearly every negative interaction i have had with the staff of this site revolved around them dredging up some past event (including, once, an off site post on my personal social media) to explain a decision they made in the present, and yes i did flame out. i work in customer service: it's fine to think that someone is a problem customer - and even to note that on the account 0 but you really don't need to rub that in their face with examples every time they do something wrong. i don't think the mods would characterize themselves that way, of course, but naturally it really feels personal to be told you're a "problem user" lol.
i think guidelines will already help remediate this type of thing of course; if we're focusing on explaining deletions and mod decisions via actual policy language instead of ad-hoc justification then use of the type of language Miko pointed out that so often frustrates users should naturally decline.
posted by JimBennett at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
i'm happy to provide a counter example to your last sentence. nearly every negative interaction i have had with the staff of this site revolved around them dredging up some past event (including, once, an off site post on my personal social media) to explain a decision they made in the present, and yes i did flame out. i work in customer service: it's fine to think that someone is a problem customer - and even to note that on the account 0 but you really don't need to rub that in their face with examples every time they do something wrong. i don't think the mods would characterize themselves that way, of course, but naturally it really feels personal to be told you're a "problem user" lol.
i think guidelines will already help remediate this type of thing of course; if we're focusing on explaining deletions and mod decisions via actual policy language instead of ad-hoc justification then use of the type of language Miko pointed out that so often frustrates users should naturally decline.
posted by JimBennett at 3:50 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
dredging up some past event (including, once, an off site post on my personal social media)
This seems like something there should be policy around. Can off-site online posts and behavior factor into a user's suspension, banning, etc.? I definitely don't think it should, but if it can, there should be clear policy around it, not some surprise thing where you protest a deletion and staff confronts you with a Facebook post from six months ago.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
This seems like something there should be policy around. Can off-site online posts and behavior factor into a user's suspension, banning, etc.? I definitely don't think it should, but if it can, there should be clear policy around it, not some surprise thing where you protest a deletion and staff confronts you with a Facebook post from six months ago.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 4:32 PM on February 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
i will clarify up front that the offsite post i made mentioned this site by name and it was inflammatory and made in anger. i still do not think it should have been brought up in the context and manner it was. i'm not trying to make this about me, this is just an example to me of how a mod note on my account could have still informed decision-making in a positive way if i hadn't felt like it was a tool being used against me to justify what i perceived to be an unrelated moderation decision - especially because it was framed as if it was being brought up because the staff was concerned about my mental health. which may have been true! but certainly felt patronizing and insulting in the moment! that series of events permanently altered my relationship with this site.
there are more constructive ways to point out to people that they are exhibiting a pattern of behavior that isn't working. i am hoping that having guidelines a moderator can point to will help. to me, mod notes (or at the very least how those notes are communicated to users) should be more like "This person has rubbed against this guideline X times, in these specific instances" and less (as a made up example) "This person has a long time pattern of being fighty and arguing over mod decisions".
posted by JimBennett at 4:49 PM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
there are more constructive ways to point out to people that they are exhibiting a pattern of behavior that isn't working. i am hoping that having guidelines a moderator can point to will help. to me, mod notes (or at the very least how those notes are communicated to users) should be more like "This person has rubbed against this guideline X times, in these specific instances" and less (as a made up example) "This person has a long time pattern of being fighty and arguing over mod decisions".
posted by JimBennett at 4:49 PM on February 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Equally off the cuff: maybe we ditch mod notes entirely.
It may be worth thinking about whether they should expire after a year, or something, if there's not been similar behavior since. There's no reason to keep someone stuck in their worst day from several years ago.
posted by lapis at 5:39 PM on February 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
It may be worth thinking about whether they should expire after a year, or something, if there's not been similar behavior since. There's no reason to keep someone stuck in their worst day from several years ago.
posted by lapis at 5:39 PM on February 2, 2023 [11 favorites]
I might be remembering this incorrectly, and again, I can’t go back and check now, but one of the reasons Molly was advocating for in the flag-for-not-answering-the-question thread was the ability for mods to do data analysis in order to identify patterns of problem users. IIRC this is one of the reasons she got piled on so badly. People were horrified at the notion of mods identifying a user as a “problem” and taking any sort of action against that user as a result. “How dystopian!” But now I’m being told that mods identifying a user as a problem and taking action as a result is essential to any sort of functioning community. Four legs good, two legs better!
One might get the idea that the objection to Molly’s suggestion was that data analysis might have revealed the objectors as “problem users”, whereas subjective, qualitative moderation would allow the in-group to continue doing whatever they wanted, only punishing out-groupers like Molly. Hmmm.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:42 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
One might get the idea that the objection to Molly’s suggestion was that data analysis might have revealed the objectors as “problem users”, whereas subjective, qualitative moderation would allow the in-group to continue doing whatever they wanted, only punishing out-groupers like Molly. Hmmm.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:42 PM on February 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
We don’t know much of anything about the kinds of notes and stats that are kept, so it’s hard to know where and how to improve the process, though it needs improvement. As I said, I’m sure there is a crisp and respectful way to keep what data needs keeping and use it appropriately and with clarity for all involved. That is something I hope the SC and staff can figure out over time, as Meatbomb suggests.
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Miko at 7:07 PM on February 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
Am I the only one who thinks it’s super weird and maybe inappropriate for mods to be making decisions based on their perceptions of a user’s mental health? They’re not therapists or social workers and even if they were, diagnosing someone via comments on a public website seems hella weird.
Every time I see that a mod has said something to a user about their mental health it makes me feel all weird. If I were the receiving end of a message that “the staff was concerned about my mental health” I don’t think I’d find that helpful. I’d be confused at best, and pissed off at worst.
I’m open to the possibility that this sort of framing is helpful to some or that there’s some theory behind why mods do this. But I can’t see it; to me, this practice seems like a bad idea.
posted by dorothy hawk at 7:43 PM on February 2, 2023 [30 favorites]
Every time I see that a mod has said something to a user about their mental health it makes me feel all weird. If I were the receiving end of a message that “the staff was concerned about my mental health” I don’t think I’d find that helpful. I’d be confused at best, and pissed off at worst.
I’m open to the possibility that this sort of framing is helpful to some or that there’s some theory behind why mods do this. But I can’t see it; to me, this practice seems like a bad idea.
posted by dorothy hawk at 7:43 PM on February 2, 2023 [30 favorites]
Imagine having a job and a bunch of people (with influence) are debating whether you can keep notes about the most important part of it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:59 PM on February 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:59 PM on February 2, 2023 [13 favorites]
Imagine having a job and a bunch of people (with influence) are debating whether you can keep notes about the most important part of it.
Almost all jobs have rules about what official notes and information you can and can't keep about people. The European Union Data Protection Directive even sets this in fairly stringent law. You have a right to know what information about you is being kept, who it's disclosed to under what circumstances, etc. This is normal.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:05 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Almost all jobs have rules about what official notes and information you can and can't keep about people. The European Union Data Protection Directive even sets this in fairly stringent law. You have a right to know what information about you is being kept, who it's disclosed to under what circumstances, etc. This is normal.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:05 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Almost all jobs have rules about what official notes and information you can and can't keep about people. The European Union Data Protection Directive even sets this in fairly stringent law. You have a right to know what information about you is being kept, who it's disclosed to under what circumstances, etc. This is normal.
yeah, you can keep notes, and people can see them if they want.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:25 AM on February 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
yeah, you can keep notes, and people can see them if they want.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:25 AM on February 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
On the topic of mod notes (by which I mean the user-specific notes use to maintain a history of a user), I have a serious proposal that I would like the SC to consider: make the private mod notes visible to the user, on their profile page.
I think this resolves the need for mods to inform themselves about a user's history, while addressing Miko and others' concerns around mods "developing a narrative" and the disjunction that occurs when a user is banned from the site based on this history in a way that they consider out-of-the-blue.
I can foresee a number of objections, and I have attempted to consider them fairly:
posted by siskin at 4:03 AM on February 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
I think this resolves the need for mods to inform themselves about a user's history, while addressing Miko and others' concerns around mods "developing a narrative" and the disjunction that occurs when a user is banned from the site based on this history in a way that they consider out-of-the-blue.
I can foresee a number of objections, and I have attempted to consider them fairly:
- Knowing that notes will be visible to the user will have a chilling effect and inhibit what mods record - Good! If this encourages notes to be bland and factual like "given a warning for name calling" or "four comments deleted for centering issues around the US" then that's a good thing.
- Users will be upset when they see their notes - yes, I expect some will. But if the notes are straightforward and factual, that's a lot less likely. Also, people have already been even more upset when mod decisions are made about them based on a history that they do not recognize.
- What about existing mod notes that go back decades, that were written before this policy, and may be recording information that would upset the user if they saw them? - I think the idea of such notes is exactly what concerns people. If the mods do think that such notes exist, then let's delete all notes and have a BND.
- How can mods work when their private notes about users will no longer be private? - It is already a legal requirement to make all personal information available to the person is about on request, for European citizens (this is the GDPR "Right of access"). It's true this is hard to enforce against a purely US website - but "we are breaking this law because we can get away with it" is not the attitude that I think most users would expect Metafilter to take.
- I don't want to see the mod notes on myself! - Fine, then let's have it in a "details" tag or something so you can't view it by accident.
posted by siskin at 4:03 AM on February 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Mod notes are "an employee's impressions of someone's behavior based on their public facing statements and actions." The only even slightly private aspect would be any email exchanges between mods and users, it's not like metafilter is collecting personal data to resell to the highest bidder.
How is this any different than Shift One bartender commenting to Shift Two bartender that Patron Joe in the corner tends to get loud and argumentative after more than four drinks, and btw, he told you that he just broke up with his girlfriend so maybe he's in a bad place right now? It's all observations/impressions of his public behavior and information that he voluntarily shared with you. Any speculation about his mental heath is presumably to allow him MORE latitude -i.e. he may be acting like an asshole now, but that's just because of extenuating circumstance X.
At the end of the day it's a matter of trust. I trust that the mods and ownership generally make the right calls, whatever notes they might have on me are going to be used appropriately, and any personal info they have on me will be things that I voluntarily chose to reveal on the internet or someone's subjective impressions of my behavior based on their observations of my public facing activity. I'm comfortable with that.
How do people who are concerned about the mod's dossiers deal with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon etc? These are large corporations who are actively trying to manipulate your behavior and even shape your perception of reality for their financial gain. In that case, paranoia is entirely justified. Whatever happens on MeFi seems like absolute chump change in comparison. I hope people aren't going to get all legalistic about GDPR, transparency and whatnot- let's not be ungovernable and make life harder for a site that's getting back on its feet. If you're here, presumably you enjoy the site- let's not saddle it with more burdens.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 5:02 AM on February 3, 2023 [17 favorites]
How is this any different than Shift One bartender commenting to Shift Two bartender that Patron Joe in the corner tends to get loud and argumentative after more than four drinks, and btw, he told you that he just broke up with his girlfriend so maybe he's in a bad place right now? It's all observations/impressions of his public behavior and information that he voluntarily shared with you. Any speculation about his mental heath is presumably to allow him MORE latitude -i.e. he may be acting like an asshole now, but that's just because of extenuating circumstance X.
At the end of the day it's a matter of trust. I trust that the mods and ownership generally make the right calls, whatever notes they might have on me are going to be used appropriately, and any personal info they have on me will be things that I voluntarily chose to reveal on the internet or someone's subjective impressions of my behavior based on their observations of my public facing activity. I'm comfortable with that.
How do people who are concerned about the mod's dossiers deal with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon etc? These are large corporations who are actively trying to manipulate your behavior and even shape your perception of reality for their financial gain. In that case, paranoia is entirely justified. Whatever happens on MeFi seems like absolute chump change in comparison. I hope people aren't going to get all legalistic about GDPR, transparency and whatnot- let's not be ungovernable and make life harder for a site that's getting back on its feet. If you're here, presumably you enjoy the site- let's not saddle it with more burdens.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 5:02 AM on February 3, 2023 [17 favorites]
This is super bananas. People who work together use written notes to coordinate their work. They aren’t writing the notes for you. Requiring them to write the notes in a form that will be acceptable to you (the person who demands the notes) will require them to spend giant amounts of time (across all users) composing notes in a way that will stand up to selective publication in angry Reddit posts. Do you really think this is where limited site resources should be spent? I’m all for grater sensitivity and asking the mods to not make nasty notes, but at a certain point, if you consent to participate in a larger enterprise, you have to accept that not everything in the enterprise is tailored to you. You either trust the folks that you’ve thrown in with, or you don’t, but asking them to perform under a public microscope subject to every single person’s drive-by opinion and armchair pontification on how they would do things is just not the way any actual organization works.
posted by Mid at 5:12 AM on February 3, 2023 [58 favorites]
posted by Mid at 5:12 AM on February 3, 2023 [58 favorites]
I can well imagine that if mod notes were made public, we'd have 3x or more fighty MeTas on the reg.
posted by Kitteh at 5:17 AM on February 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 5:17 AM on February 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
If we do end up deciding that mod notes should be public, I hope we will set a start date in the future and not require anybody to go back in time to edit for public consumption. That seems like a waste of site resources.
I am agnostic on the idea of making mod notes public and agree with arguments in both directions, so I am not advocating anything regarding that here, only the idea that we shouldn't go back in time.
I do like the idea of mod notes expiring after a year (or whatever).
posted by joannemerriam at 5:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I am agnostic on the idea of making mod notes public and agree with arguments in both directions, so I am not advocating anything regarding that here, only the idea that we shouldn't go back in time.
I do like the idea of mod notes expiring after a year (or whatever).
posted by joannemerriam at 5:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
If people want robotic moderation rather than professional moderation by humans, let's just code up an algorithm to handle it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the job of moderation under the type of micromanaging constraints being proposed here. Either we believe that MetaFilter benefits from professional moderation or we don't, and if we don't, let's spare the human beings who moderate the indignity of being forced to act as robots.
posted by biogeo at 5:56 AM on February 3, 2023 [42 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 5:56 AM on February 3, 2023 [42 favorites]
How can mods work when their private notes about users will no longer be private? - It is already a legal requirement to make all personal information available to the person is about on request, for European citizens (this is the GDPR "Right of access"). It's true this is hard to enforce against a purely US website - but "we are breaking this law because we can get away with it" is not the attitude that I think most users would expect Metafilter to take.
While I fully agree with the principles behind GDPR, speaking as a lawyer whose practice includes a significant focus on privacy law, I'll say that this is not correct. Countries have the right to pass laws which apply within their own borders. The EU does not actually have the legal authority to pass a law which applies to non-EU legal entities or citizens. So the GDPR can say what it wants, but it doesn't technically apply to a US legal entity which is not making a special effort to sell into the EU but just happens to be on the internet.
Think of the chaos if this rule were otherwise: imagine if every country in the world (the U.S., China, Belgium, Belize) could all make contradictory laws and have them apply with moral force to everyone with a website? It would be impossible to have an internet. So countries get to tell you what to do only if you (the person or a legal entity who is being told they have a legal obligation) is a present in the country passing the law.
So if you are in the US and like GDPR, write your congressperson. But until Congress changes the law, U.S. legal entities which are not physically present in the EU aren't bound by GDPR in a moral sense.
(Caveat: not all legal philosophers agree with this, as with any moral argument, but I think it is reasonably widely accepted and, in any event, only practical).
posted by gd779 at 6:28 AM on February 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
While I fully agree with the principles behind GDPR, speaking as a lawyer whose practice includes a significant focus on privacy law, I'll say that this is not correct. Countries have the right to pass laws which apply within their own borders. The EU does not actually have the legal authority to pass a law which applies to non-EU legal entities or citizens. So the GDPR can say what it wants, but it doesn't technically apply to a US legal entity which is not making a special effort to sell into the EU but just happens to be on the internet.
Think of the chaos if this rule were otherwise: imagine if every country in the world (the U.S., China, Belgium, Belize) could all make contradictory laws and have them apply with moral force to everyone with a website? It would be impossible to have an internet. So countries get to tell you what to do only if you (the person or a legal entity who is being told they have a legal obligation) is a present in the country passing the law.
So if you are in the US and like GDPR, write your congressperson. But until Congress changes the law, U.S. legal entities which are not physically present in the EU aren't bound by GDPR in a moral sense.
(Caveat: not all legal philosophers agree with this, as with any moral argument, but I think it is reasonably widely accepted and, in any event, only practical).
posted by gd779 at 6:28 AM on February 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
Being a professional means willingly participating in reasonable review and oversight, but having the freedom and independence to make decisions using one's judgment and experience, and communicate privately with colleagues based on the same.
I think expanding the amount of review and oversight of the mod team in the interest of greater community confidence in the team and the moderation process is a reasonable idea. In my opinion, some of the ideas that are now being proposed, such as making mods' notes about members subject to public review, stray too far into turning them from professionals into powerless button-pushers.
posted by biogeo at 6:39 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think expanding the amount of review and oversight of the mod team in the interest of greater community confidence in the team and the moderation process is a reasonable idea. In my opinion, some of the ideas that are now being proposed, such as making mods' notes about members subject to public review, stray too far into turning them from professionals into powerless button-pushers.
posted by biogeo at 6:39 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
I think it's reasonable to disagree on whether the GDPR should apply to US companies from a moral perspective, but from the "Territorial Scope" section of the GDPR (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/), I think it's true that the EU considers that the GDPR applies to US companies from a legal perspective, when they provide services to people in the EU.
posted by siskin at 6:42 AM on February 3, 2023
posted by siskin at 6:42 AM on February 3, 2023
I think that having clearly expressed guidelines, transparency in applying the guidelines, and the ability for users to understand how they have been applied to them makes things better for the site, rather than imposing undue burdens. I also think that it's hyperbolic to describe this as turning moderators into "robots" and "powerless button pushers", and I don't think that's helpful.
posted by siskin at 6:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by siskin at 6:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
So countries get to tell you what to do only if you (the person or a legal entity who is being told they have a legal obligation) is a present in the country passing the law.
This is not strictly true, is it? The US insists that Gary McKinnon committed a crime against the US despite never setting foot there, for example.
posted by Dysk at 6:52 AM on February 3, 2023
This is not strictly true, is it? The US insists that Gary McKinnon committed a crime against the US despite never setting foot there, for example.
posted by Dysk at 6:52 AM on February 3, 2023
How is this any different than Shift One bartender commenting to Shift Two bartender that Patron Joe in the corner tends to get loud and argumentative after more than four drinks, and btw, he told you that he just broke up with his girlfriend so maybe he's in a bad place right now?
1. A bar is a transactional business, not a community enterprise
2. It’s not a documentation process.
3. It’s not discoverable.
4. It’s not transparent to the customer
5. Those impressions may be mistaken and the information the impressions are based on may be incorrect.
posted by Miko at 6:53 AM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
1. A bar is a transactional business, not a community enterprise
2. It’s not a documentation process.
3. It’s not discoverable.
4. It’s not transparent to the customer
5. Those impressions may be mistaken and the information the impressions are based on may be incorrect.
posted by Miko at 6:53 AM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure it's practical to change the mod notes system. If you cancel it or make it too hard to use, people are just going to use private notes or memory which is worse. Making them public would be a nightmare of drama.
But clearer guidelines over deletions/suspensions/bans are going to make life easier for the mods, not harder.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:06 AM on February 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
But clearer guidelines over deletions/suspensions/bans are going to make life easier for the mods, not harder.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:06 AM on February 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Miko, you seem to be saying that the bartenders *shouldn't* be doing this? Your first point is the only one that is about how a bar is different. Everything else would apply equally to mods and bartenders, if I understand correctly?
posted by sagc at 7:37 AM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 7:37 AM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think that having clearly expressed guidelines, transparency in applying the guidelines, and the ability for users to understand how they have been applied to them makes things better for the site, rather than imposing undue burdens. I also think that it's hyperbolic to describe this as turning moderators into "robots" and "powerless button pushers", and I don't think that's helpful.
I agree with the first sentence, but I do not agree that some of the specific suggestions now being proposed actually serve to clearly express guidelines or improve transparency in their application. To the contrary, I think that they will make it easier for some individuals, some of whom may just have bad days like we all do and some of whom regularly skirt the margins of acceptable behavior on MetaFilter, to portray routine moderation decisions as personal attacks by individual moderators. While having clearly-communicated guidelines regarding moderation is important, and having some form of review to ensure that the guidelines are being followed us important, subjecting every individual moderation decision to potential public review by the entire community, filtered through only what the individual being moderated chooses to disclose, is an incredible level of micromanagement, and removes all agency for reasonable decision-making from the moderators.
posted by biogeo at 8:06 AM on February 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Borrow from sport. A yellow card is a warning. You get to keep posting, but you have been warned. A red card means you can't post for 3 days. If one gets 2 yellows it is the equivalent of a red. Cards can be appealed... to whom, I am not sure. Maybe a sub committee of the steering committee?
If one gets multiple red cards then the same committee discusses a longer ban including a permanent ban.
posted by terrapin at 8:23 AM on February 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
If one gets multiple red cards then the same committee discusses a longer ban including a permanent ban.
posted by terrapin at 8:23 AM on February 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
> If people want robotic moderation rather than professional moderation by humans, let's just code up an algorithm to handle it.
I'd like to see predictable, fair, and accountable moderation. I think it's genuinely worth asking what role automation could play to ensure that moderation meets those criteria. I don't mean to automate all moderation, maybe just to augment staff tasks or empower staff with more standardised data. But maybe to automate basic moderation, why not, if it works?
posted by iivix at 8:54 AM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'd like to see predictable, fair, and accountable moderation. I think it's genuinely worth asking what role automation could play to ensure that moderation meets those criteria. I don't mean to automate all moderation, maybe just to augment staff tasks or empower staff with more standardised data. But maybe to automate basic moderation, why not, if it works?
posted by iivix at 8:54 AM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
How about instead of automating the moderation, we automate the Metatalk threads.
Every time a mod takes an action, a thread will be automatically opened on Metatalk to debate whether that action was reasonable. The contents of these threads are quite predictable and we have 20 years of training data, so we can use ChatGPT to generate all the arguments with a high degree of accuracy.
posted by automatronic at 9:16 AM on February 3, 2023 [33 favorites]
Every time a mod takes an action, a thread will be automatically opened on Metatalk to debate whether that action was reasonable. The contents of these threads are quite predictable and we have 20 years of training data, so we can use ChatGPT to generate all the arguments with a high degree of accuracy.
posted by automatronic at 9:16 AM on February 3, 2023 [33 favorites]
It feels pretty dysfunctional to me for users to be at the point of providing input on fine-grained details of the moderation workflow; I just don't think it's a practical way to operate, in even the most participatory setting. I think this grows naturally out of a situation where trust is lacking that site management will figure out the details on their end to work towards outputs that the community would like to see-- which is really the way improvement ought to ideally unfold, imo.
posted by dusty potato at 9:28 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by dusty potato at 9:28 AM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
It feels pretty dysfunctional to me for users to be at the point of providing input on fine-grained details of the moderation workflow;
This whole "show us the mod notes" feels like a red herring from the calls above for the most minute amount of accountability and transparency...
posted by Jarcat at 9:44 AM on February 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
This whole "show us the mod notes" feels like a red herring from the calls above for the most minute amount of accountability and transparency...
posted by Jarcat at 9:44 AM on February 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the job of moderation under the type of micromanaging constraints being proposed here.
Yes to this, and also this:
It feels pretty dysfunctional to me for users to be at the point of providing input on fine-grained details of the moderation workflow; I just don't think it's a practical way to operate,
I don't think the mods around here are perfect. I'd be afraid if they were. Likewise the rules and regs under which they operate. Yes, we can improve things. And having a discussion like this is essential to that process. But however that improvement works, I'm pretty confident that NOBODY is going to get exactly what they want: mods, users, serving committee, ownership -- anyone else I'm missing?
We're not going to "system" or "policy" our way out of our various concerns and conflicts and confusions (and other things that don't even start with "con"), because Metafilter is people and people are beyond complex. We don't even know how our brains work (not really) and many of us don't even believe in our souls even as we hurtle through space at a speed and a trajectory that cannot really be calculated because relativity (or whatever) and and and and ...
Well anyway, I do think if we were to decide that all mod notes be made public, then we would inevitably have secret mod notes. That's all I came here to say.
posted by philip-random at 9:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Yes to this, and also this:
It feels pretty dysfunctional to me for users to be at the point of providing input on fine-grained details of the moderation workflow; I just don't think it's a practical way to operate,
I don't think the mods around here are perfect. I'd be afraid if they were. Likewise the rules and regs under which they operate. Yes, we can improve things. And having a discussion like this is essential to that process. But however that improvement works, I'm pretty confident that NOBODY is going to get exactly what they want: mods, users, serving committee, ownership -- anyone else I'm missing?
We're not going to "system" or "policy" our way out of our various concerns and conflicts and confusions (and other things that don't even start with "con"), because Metafilter is people and people are beyond complex. We don't even know how our brains work (not really) and many of us don't even believe in our souls even as we hurtle through space at a speed and a trajectory that cannot really be calculated because relativity (or whatever) and and and and ...
Well anyway, I do think if we were to decide that all mod notes be made public, then we would inevitably have secret mod notes. That's all I came here to say.
posted by philip-random at 9:51 AM on February 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Jarcat, do you think the proposal to show them to users is in bad faith, or that users discussing it are doing so in bad faith? That seems to be what you're implying. Otherwise, it's not a red herring it's just... Another topic people want to discuss.
posted by sagc at 10:00 AM on February 3, 2023
posted by sagc at 10:00 AM on February 3, 2023
Sagc, neither of those are what I'm saying. First of all, I was technically discussing the topic, I just happened to have a view that it wasn't as helpful to focus the discussion around it. Still on topic, believe it or not!
I said 'feels like' because *I* felt like there were more productive/fair angles to address the conflicting needs people have presented in this thread.
My opinion is not a threat to yours, don't worry.
posted by Jarcat at 10:04 AM on February 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I said 'feels like' because *I* felt like there were more productive/fair angles to address the conflicting needs people have presented in this thread.
My opinion is not a threat to yours, don't worry.
posted by Jarcat at 10:04 AM on February 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I think users and mods alike would benefit from a more objective, quantifiable, and professional system of consequences and communication. Having a Steering Committee gives a clear vision of how creating those revised policies could work. What’s less clear to me is how those policies would be enforced. Micromanaging the staff is not going to be helpful, but having staff that aren’t really accountable to the community will just perpetuate the problems we’ve accumulated. Is this oversight function on the SC? Or is that a Jessamyn thing?
posted by rikschell at 12:03 PM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 12:03 PM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
Can someone help me out here? Beyond the original complaint about a deleted comment, what exactly have the mods done that people are upset about? I see a lot of insinuations of wrongdoing but no actual concrete examples of things that need to be reigned in. It is a long thread though, so it's possible I missed it.
posted by aspo at 12:58 PM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by aspo at 12:58 PM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Every time I see that a mod has said something to a user about their mental health it makes me feel all weird. If I were the receiving end of a message that “the staff was concerned about my mental health” I don’t think I’d find that helpful. I’d be confused at best, and pissed off at worst.I dunno, I feel kind of the opposite myself. Maybe in a community where mental health problems were harshly judged or stigmatized this would be an issue, but MetaFilter strikes me as the opposite of that in most ways.
I started posting on MetaFilter when I was 19 years old, which is embarrassingly young. I was using MetaFilter at a point in my life where I had serious insecurities and anxiety issues, sometimes exacerbated by a mixture of too-much-caffeine and any-amount-of-weed. MetaFilter saw me through an abusive relationship that messed me up (which I didn't talk about or process as abusive at the time); it saw me through the point of my life where I was not only broke but didn't really know if I'd ever find a way to not be broke. I was also, not to put too fine a point on it, very young, very confused about how people and communities worked, and fairly delusional about a lot of things about the world. (In other words, I was 19.)
I've since learned that I'm also somewhere on the autistic spectrum (shocker!) and have ADHD, which means that hyperfixation and anxiety loops are a permanent risk for me if I'm not medicated, on top of everything else in life. So there are clinically diagnosable underpinnings to all that, too.
All of which is my way of saying, god, I'd have been so grateful for people here to have assumed that I was dealing with mental health issues. I've done enough shameful shit online in my lifetime that it would be a profound mercy for people to take it in with the understanding that I Was Not Okay. Because, first of all, it happens to be true, but second, the alternative explanation would be that I was just an insufferable dipshit. And that's not wrong exactly, but... gee, I hope it's not the only takeaway, you know?
I've had friends go through some pretty profound mental health crises too, sometimes to the point where I've had to cut them out of my life. And "X is clearly going through something pretty awful and is not in a great place" is never intended as a put-down, when I have to explain it to myself or others; it's meant to lend them some dignity, to create a separation between them-at-their-worst and them-as-I-know-and-love-them. It also lets me deal with some of the conflicts that I feel when somebody I know is in that place, because it helps me acknowledge that the way they're treating me is Not Okay and that I need to act on that knowledge, without condemning them for what would otherwise be friendship-destroying behavior.
There've been times on MetaFilter where someone I've known and liked for years has a phase where they just sorta suck ass, and I go, "Man, whatever they're going through, I sure hope they work their way through it." And sometimes they do! And a couple of months or years later, they're back to being their old delightful self. I feel like noting the shift partly serves as a reminder that who they are right here, right now is not who they always are, in ways that help me process their behavior more compassionately. (It also keeps me from getting wounded or mad, so that's nice too.)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 1:57 PM on February 3, 2023 [37 favorites]
Regarding moderator transparency, I think there's been some good discussion about what aspects of the moderation process should be made clearer, what steps should be more consistent, and which parts of that process might be problematic or corrosive. It feels like "mod notes should not include personal attacks" is a pretty sound policy, and "moderators should not allude to secret personal histories of various users" is probably for the best. (I'd argue that that one is different from "moderators should take a user's very recent behaviors into account.")
Personally, I think that the moderation results, as in the actual articulation of which things are being done and why, is probably best kept transparent. I do not think that the moderation process needs to be done entirely in the open. "X user was asked not to do Y, based on recent behavior, and they did Y, so they're suspended for Z days" feels like the most that people would ever need to see. If the decision is clearly articulated, transparently visible, and reflects a system that we collectively understand, that kills the confusion or suspicion or paranoia around a mod choice, even if some people disagree with it. We don't need to see every single conversation that moderators have about a user; if someone is suspicious that there's a vendetta against them, they can have that talk with the mods in private or we can have a MetaTalk thread about it and that can function, less as Word of God, more as "people talking with each other."
Similarly, regarding nasty personal feelings (or messages) from moderators to users, I like the metaphor that MetaFilter already uses by letting a moderator post Official Staff Commentary in dotted boxes on the blue. When mods are dealing with professional business—and user complaints are always professional—they keep things neutral and impersonal; if a user tries to exploit that professionalism in some way, by pushing grievances of their own or getting abusive, they have every professional right to take a step back or announce that some statement of theirs is definitive. The moment it's not about MetaFilter itself, Taz gets to flip me the bird for mentioning that I think that tomato sauce is overrated.
I think I've seen the most user upset happen when a staff member who tries to approach things from a very personal, human place winds up crossing professional lines because they were a little too honest when they should have shifted gears. I am okay with my close friend telling me to fuck off or that what I'm saying or doing is pretty gross; if that friend somehow wound up also being my therapist, I would feel pretty betrayed if they said and did the same things. Conversely, if my doctor is having a bad day and secretly wishes that I would die, I don't really mind, so long as he treats me correctly and professionally.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we can get from the place we're at now to the place where everybody's mostly happy without a lot of massive, fundamental shifts. And I think that that little bit of extra explicitness about policy and decisions will go a long way—less because the system needs to change than because it needs to be clearer about when, exactly, things happen and why.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 2:22 PM on February 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Personally, I think that the moderation results, as in the actual articulation of which things are being done and why, is probably best kept transparent. I do not think that the moderation process needs to be done entirely in the open. "X user was asked not to do Y, based on recent behavior, and they did Y, so they're suspended for Z days" feels like the most that people would ever need to see. If the decision is clearly articulated, transparently visible, and reflects a system that we collectively understand, that kills the confusion or suspicion or paranoia around a mod choice, even if some people disagree with it. We don't need to see every single conversation that moderators have about a user; if someone is suspicious that there's a vendetta against them, they can have that talk with the mods in private or we can have a MetaTalk thread about it and that can function, less as Word of God, more as "people talking with each other."
Similarly, regarding nasty personal feelings (or messages) from moderators to users, I like the metaphor that MetaFilter already uses by letting a moderator post Official Staff Commentary in dotted boxes on the blue. When mods are dealing with professional business—and user complaints are always professional—they keep things neutral and impersonal; if a user tries to exploit that professionalism in some way, by pushing grievances of their own or getting abusive, they have every professional right to take a step back or announce that some statement of theirs is definitive. The moment it's not about MetaFilter itself, Taz gets to flip me the bird for mentioning that I think that tomato sauce is overrated.
I think I've seen the most user upset happen when a staff member who tries to approach things from a very personal, human place winds up crossing professional lines because they were a little too honest when they should have shifted gears. I am okay with my close friend telling me to fuck off or that what I'm saying or doing is pretty gross; if that friend somehow wound up also being my therapist, I would feel pretty betrayed if they said and did the same things. Conversely, if my doctor is having a bad day and secretly wishes that I would die, I don't really mind, so long as he treats me correctly and professionally.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we can get from the place we're at now to the place where everybody's mostly happy without a lot of massive, fundamental shifts. And I think that that little bit of extra explicitness about policy and decisions will go a long way—less because the system needs to change than because it needs to be clearer about when, exactly, things happen and why.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 2:22 PM on February 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Conversely, if my doctor is having a bad day and secretly wishes that I would die, I don't really mind, so long as he treats me correctly and professionally.
With do respect if said Doctor "secretly wishes (I) to die" how would I know it. IME, my doctor gets "testy" when I'm not doing what they say. A doctor may not harm but they can sure as well cause pain if needed.
Moderators aren't doctors, they don't keep charts.
posted by clavdivs at 2:53 PM on February 3, 2023
With do respect if said Doctor "secretly wishes (I) to die" how would I know it. IME, my doctor gets "testy" when I'm not doing what they say. A doctor may not harm but they can sure as well cause pain if needed.
Moderators aren't doctors, they don't keep charts.
posted by clavdivs at 2:53 PM on February 3, 2023
I would need to see evidence of these non-existent charts before I accept this.
posted by philip-random at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
Thanks for explaining, Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out for me.
posted by dorothy hawk at 5:32 PM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by dorothy hawk at 5:32 PM on February 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
i don't really care about how mods keep their notes but i do think that there should be guidelines and systems in place to prevent the misuse and personalization of those notes by the staff.
I dunno, I feel kind of the opposite myself. Maybe in a community where mental health problems were harshly judged or stigmatized this would be an issue, but MetaFilter strikes me as the opposite of that in most ways.
i am providing a specific example of someone who flamed out of this site because of that practice, IE myself. i don't think the mods of a website i post on have any right to speculate about my mental health. that may be different for more long term or active community members with personal relationships with the mods. i do not know the mods of this website personally and i would argue that they do not know me just because they had read some angry posts i made. the paternalistic "we're looking out for you" tone the mods take in these situations seems like a great way to just piss off people who are already mad (see: the dozens and dozens of users who have quit this site after a negative mod interaction).
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we can get from the place we're at now to the place where everybody's mostly happy without a lot of massive, fundamental shifts. And I think that that little bit of extra explicitness about policy and decisions will go a long way—less because the system needs to change than because it needs to be clearer about when, exactly, things happen and why.
with all due respect isn't the entire purpose of this thread because the system hasn't been working well enough? it seems like some of the users of this site hear people say over and over again "i have a problem with the way this website does X" and hear "everything is fine" or something. i'm glad everything is fine for you! that doesn't mean that things are actually working fine. i kind of wish you guys would just say "i don't care if this stuff bothers you" because that's the actual message of posts like this lol.
posted by JimBennett at 6:06 PM on February 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
I dunno, I feel kind of the opposite myself. Maybe in a community where mental health problems were harshly judged or stigmatized this would be an issue, but MetaFilter strikes me as the opposite of that in most ways.
i am providing a specific example of someone who flamed out of this site because of that practice, IE myself. i don't think the mods of a website i post on have any right to speculate about my mental health. that may be different for more long term or active community members with personal relationships with the mods. i do not know the mods of this website personally and i would argue that they do not know me just because they had read some angry posts i made. the paternalistic "we're looking out for you" tone the mods take in these situations seems like a great way to just piss off people who are already mad (see: the dozens and dozens of users who have quit this site after a negative mod interaction).
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like we can get from the place we're at now to the place where everybody's mostly happy without a lot of massive, fundamental shifts. And I think that that little bit of extra explicitness about policy and decisions will go a long way—less because the system needs to change than because it needs to be clearer about when, exactly, things happen and why.
with all due respect isn't the entire purpose of this thread because the system hasn't been working well enough? it seems like some of the users of this site hear people say over and over again "i have a problem with the way this website does X" and hear "everything is fine" or something. i'm glad everything is fine for you! that doesn't mean that things are actually working fine. i kind of wish you guys would just say "i don't care if this stuff bothers you" because that's the actual message of posts like this lol.
posted by JimBennett at 6:06 PM on February 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
If people want robotic moderation rather than professional moderation by humans, let's just code up an algorithm to handle it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to do the job of moderation under the type of micromanaging constraints being proposed here. Either we believe that MetaFilter benefits from professional moderation or we don't, and if we don't, let's spare the human beings who moderate the indignity of being forced to act as robots.
not to single this post out but to use it a springboard for my own thoughts here, i guess this is where i just come at things from a totally different perspective. what makes metafilter's moderation professional? is it because the mods are paid? the way the site is run is not especially professional to me. i think maybe we have "hobbyist moderation" or something. "enthusiast moderation"?
professionalism indicates structure, guidelines, processes, etc., things many of us have been arguing for years this site needs. that doesn't mean taking the human element out of things, to me. it doesn't equal micromanagement either. it's just regular old management. which is what the mods need. guidance, leadership, etc. so that they don't end up in a situation where some offhand comment they made doing a deletion results in a 500 comment fight. a proper set of guidelines would protect users AND make the lives of the mods easier. i primarily look at moderation as a Customer Service job. every customer service professional has a set of guidelines and rules for how to interact with customers set by their organization. we should have this for our customer service professionals as well.
i just think as this community moves out of the owner-operated era of this site we are going to need more structure to survive and thrive. that doesn't seem crazy to me. when you look at old school community spaces that are thriving like Something Awful or AO3 these kinds of practices are why they're still going. until this site has positive user churn again these kinds of organizational changes should not be off the table. which means yes, crazy suggestions are going to come up (EX making mod notes public). but let's not throw the cat out with the bathwater.
posted by JimBennett at 6:27 PM on February 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
not to single this post out but to use it a springboard for my own thoughts here, i guess this is where i just come at things from a totally different perspective. what makes metafilter's moderation professional? is it because the mods are paid? the way the site is run is not especially professional to me. i think maybe we have "hobbyist moderation" or something. "enthusiast moderation"?
professionalism indicates structure, guidelines, processes, etc., things many of us have been arguing for years this site needs. that doesn't mean taking the human element out of things, to me. it doesn't equal micromanagement either. it's just regular old management. which is what the mods need. guidance, leadership, etc. so that they don't end up in a situation where some offhand comment they made doing a deletion results in a 500 comment fight. a proper set of guidelines would protect users AND make the lives of the mods easier. i primarily look at moderation as a Customer Service job. every customer service professional has a set of guidelines and rules for how to interact with customers set by their organization. we should have this for our customer service professionals as well.
i just think as this community moves out of the owner-operated era of this site we are going to need more structure to survive and thrive. that doesn't seem crazy to me. when you look at old school community spaces that are thriving like Something Awful or AO3 these kinds of practices are why they're still going. until this site has positive user churn again these kinds of organizational changes should not be off the table. which means yes, crazy suggestions are going to come up (EX making mod notes public). but let's not throw the cat out with the bathwater.
posted by JimBennett at 6:27 PM on February 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
professionalism indicates structure, guidelines, processes, etc., things many of us have been arguing for years this site needs
Yes, exactly. This is also important in bringing new members in. It's one thing if you've been here for years and "just kind of know" who to talk to, who to listen to, what the mods mean, how things work, who to trust. But needing to have that much background knowledge just in order to participate is too high a bar. Clear and consistent -- and public! -- guidelines and processes makes places more welcoming and equitable.
posted by lapis at 7:43 PM on February 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
Yes, exactly. This is also important in bringing new members in. It's one thing if you've been here for years and "just kind of know" who to talk to, who to listen to, what the mods mean, how things work, who to trust. But needing to have that much background knowledge just in order to participate is too high a bar. Clear and consistent -- and public! -- guidelines and processes makes places more welcoming and equitable.
posted by lapis at 7:43 PM on February 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
I second JimBennett regarding stronger guidelines, structure, process and their usefulness to help avoid dynamics like this. Importantly, it makes no sense at all to fault moderators for any weaknesses in them, and for the inevitable dust-ups as a result.
It's a huge enterprise to change such things in the presence of existing community norms and limited mod time. It sounds as though evaluating moderation guidelines is something that is on the SC's agenda. I'd expect it to consume many, many, many hours of time. I'm sure this will involve ample opportunity for input from members. There are lots of site priorities for the SC and it sounds as though their efforts will be divided among multiple issues.
Given all of this, I hope we can continue to be gracious towards the efforts of the SC and mods, and understanding of the fact that the pace of change relating to moderation will likely be slow. I don't mean to undermine any of the concerns articulated here in saying so.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:29 PM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
It's a huge enterprise to change such things in the presence of existing community norms and limited mod time. It sounds as though evaluating moderation guidelines is something that is on the SC's agenda. I'd expect it to consume many, many, many hours of time. I'm sure this will involve ample opportunity for input from members. There are lots of site priorities for the SC and it sounds as though their efforts will be divided among multiple issues.
Given all of this, I hope we can continue to be gracious towards the efforts of the SC and mods, and understanding of the fact that the pace of change relating to moderation will likely be slow. I don't mean to undermine any of the concerns articulated here in saying so.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:29 PM on February 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Starting with the rules or processes is a bit like starting at the end. This topic may be easier to discuss if we start at the beginning: What is the purpose of the site? And what is the purpose of the mods?
I know many here might be inclined to say something about community, but I don't think that's exactly right because before we get to community, we start with conversation. I also know when it comes to conversation, many will say, as some already have, that the most important thing is that mods should delete any forms of bigotry. Let's take that as a given.
So, now, what kinds of conversations do we want to be having, and how can mods facilitate them? What inhibits conversation here, and what promotes it?
posted by Violet Blue at 10:08 AM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
I know many here might be inclined to say something about community, but I don't think that's exactly right because before we get to community, we start with conversation. I also know when it comes to conversation, many will say, as some already have, that the most important thing is that mods should delete any forms of bigotry. Let's take that as a given.
So, now, what kinds of conversations do we want to be having, and how can mods facilitate them? What inhibits conversation here, and what promotes it?
posted by Violet Blue at 10:08 AM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
every customer service professional has a set of guidelines and rules for how to interact with customers set by their organization. we should have this for our customer service professionals as well.
With respect, we have these. What we don't have, and what most organizations don't have, is public-facing versions of these. And as we move towards being community run, figuring out how to make this process more transparent is part of the remit. But I would caution people to please not presume that because they haven't seen a document, that it doesn't exist.
loup (and the mod team, and somewhat cortex before now, and the Transition Team, and the SC most recently) have done a lot of work towards professionalizing the workplace, some of which has had visible results to users (content policy, guidelines, BIPOC Board, Transition Team, Steering Committee) and some of which has not (ticketing systems, Slack bots, GSuite stuff, password managers, misc financial stuff). I say this not as an excuse that we're not further along, but to support the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:21 AM on February 4, 2023 [46 favorites]
With respect, we have these. What we don't have, and what most organizations don't have, is public-facing versions of these. And as we move towards being community run, figuring out how to make this process more transparent is part of the remit. But I would caution people to please not presume that because they haven't seen a document, that it doesn't exist.
loup (and the mod team, and somewhat cortex before now, and the Transition Team, and the SC most recently) have done a lot of work towards professionalizing the workplace, some of which has had visible results to users (content policy, guidelines, BIPOC Board, Transition Team, Steering Committee) and some of which has not (ticketing systems, Slack bots, GSuite stuff, password managers, misc financial stuff). I say this not as an excuse that we're not further along, but to support the work that has already been done and is continuing to be done.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:21 AM on February 4, 2023 [46 favorites]
every customer service professional has a set of guidelines and rules for how to interact with customers set by their organization. we should have this for our customer service professionals as well.
With respect, we have these
So, to go back to the discussion with MR, what guidelines and rules w/r/t were at issue that led to the deletion of the initial post?
i'm not talking about her follow up in the thread that led to her account being disabled. I'm talking about the initial post
posted by angrycat at 12:05 PM on February 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
MR's intial comment was off topic in a fighty way. It wasn't even a borderline case IMO. I saw it live, thought to myself "Well that's getting deleted so don't even reply", and when I checked in the morning it was gone.
And I thought that without even considering MR's history.
posted by Mitheral at 1:11 PM on February 4, 2023 [22 favorites]
And I thought that without even considering MR's history.
posted by Mitheral at 1:11 PM on February 4, 2023 [22 favorites]
I get that you view it that way but the mods explicitly said that the comment wasn’t inappropriate in contents.
posted by JenMarie at 1:32 PM on February 4, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 1:32 PM on February 4, 2023 [8 favorites]
MR's intial comment was off topic in a fighty way.
Mod norms used to be that Metatalk was much more free-form and what might be deletable as off topic in the Blue or fighty in Askme would be ok here. Also I find it particularly suspect that the deletion would be content-based when MR was criticizing site management.
Anyway I know that Metafilter is a private venue and the 1st Amendment does not apply. But it’s not a business and I didn’t used to think it was a club where you had to observe written/unwritten decorum as adjudicated by the cool kids. MR was not a customer or a consumer. She like all of us are *jointly creating* Metafilter. It does not exist without us.
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Mod norms used to be that Metatalk was much more free-form and what might be deletable as off topic in the Blue or fighty in Askme would be ok here. Also I find it particularly suspect that the deletion would be content-based when MR was criticizing site management.
Anyway I know that Metafilter is a private venue and the 1st Amendment does not apply. But it’s not a business and I didn’t used to think it was a club where you had to observe written/unwritten decorum as adjudicated by the cool kids. MR was not a customer or a consumer. She like all of us are *jointly creating* Metafilter. It does not exist without us.
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Let's talk about mod deletion policy
I guess in theory they could be fired, but they can’t actually be deleted.
posted by snofoam at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
I guess in theory they could be fired, but they can’t actually be deleted.
posted by snofoam at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
the mods explicitly said that the comment wasn’t inappropriate in contents
my impression here was that it didn't break any content regulations (racist, sexist etc), with the inference being that it was inappropriate in terms of context or as it was just put:
off topic in a fighty way
I didn't see it so I'm just going to have to trust that it was. And I do have that trust.
posted by philip-random at 2:31 PM on February 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
my impression here was that it didn't break any content regulations (racist, sexist etc), with the inference being that it was inappropriate in terms of context or as it was just put:
off topic in a fighty way
I didn't see it so I'm just going to have to trust that it was. And I do have that trust.
posted by philip-random at 2:31 PM on February 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
My sense from the back and forth in the comments to this post (and this is me spitballing) is that some community members think the deletion of MR's comment was not only a bad individual mod decision but the result of a bad policy (e.g., too much mod deletion overall OR mods trying to control MeTa discussion OR etc.). Or perhaps that mods were moderating MR very closely because she had posted contentious MeTa posts in the past (or as mentioned above, whether her trans identity played a role). If community members are unhappy about moderation because they think the mods are on the wrong track, either with MR or overall mod policy, I don't know what would satisfy those members. (Admission of wrongdoing? Change of overall deletion policies? etc.?)
At the same time other members clearly recognize and/or accept that there were reasons behind the deletion of MR's comment and trust the moderator who made that decision (and by extension broader site management like the SC and Jessamyn) in following current site moderation rules and extrapolating them to deal with new cases/edge cases.
This is a disagreement inside the community (or at least the minority that participates in MeTa threads, particularly angry/fighty ones) and not amenable to solutions that will satisfy all participants and community observers. I don't know what to do about that but I also don't have a good sense of what changes to moderation/policy/etc. would satisfy community members who are upset with the deletion, never mind how community members who think the deletion was a reasonable/correct response would respond to those changes.
I'm glad it's not mine to solve and I'm wishing good luck to the SC and Jessamyn (and mods) who are the people who have to work it out. I'm also trying to accept Metafilter-as-it-is-growning-and-evolving rather than what I want Metafilter to be. That's hard to do when we have strong attachment to the community but it's part of being in a community successfully, both successfully for the community and for each of us as people.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 2:46 PM on February 4, 2023 [17 favorites]
At the same time other members clearly recognize and/or accept that there were reasons behind the deletion of MR's comment and trust the moderator who made that decision (and by extension broader site management like the SC and Jessamyn) in following current site moderation rules and extrapolating them to deal with new cases/edge cases.
This is a disagreement inside the community (or at least the minority that participates in MeTa threads, particularly angry/fighty ones) and not amenable to solutions that will satisfy all participants and community observers. I don't know what to do about that but I also don't have a good sense of what changes to moderation/policy/etc. would satisfy community members who are upset with the deletion, never mind how community members who think the deletion was a reasonable/correct response would respond to those changes.
I'm glad it's not mine to solve and I'm wishing good luck to the SC and Jessamyn (and mods) who are the people who have to work it out. I'm also trying to accept Metafilter-as-it-is-growning-and-evolving rather than what I want Metafilter to be. That's hard to do when we have strong attachment to the community but it's part of being in a community successfully, both successfully for the community and for each of us as people.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 2:46 PM on February 4, 2023 [17 favorites]
I would hope they would look at the deletion reason, and their actions afterwards, and see if it had the desired result. Just as a guess, in the vacuum where an actual reason exists, if it was deleted for being off topic, did the deletion and subsequent mod communication achieve the desired result of keeping things on topic? Or perhaps could different steps have yielded a better result?
posted by JenMarie at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by JenMarie at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
At the risk of being too cynical, I think that everyone wants a better outcome, but there are so many ways for a thread to sour. I’m sure no one wanted a celebratory thread to turn into a shitstorm, but leaving the comment may have also done that, just in a different way. I think mods mostly have to do what they think is the right thing in the moment, but no one can predict the future or know what might have happened in an alternate timeline. As we can see from the variety of opinions here, it might just be a matter of who gets upset and/or exactly what they get upset about.
I am imagining a multiverse drama where a mod keeps going back in time and making different decisions, but the thread always goes bad in different ways.
posted by snofoam at 3:33 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
I am imagining a multiverse drama where a mod keeps going back in time and making different decisions, but the thread always goes bad in different ways.
posted by snofoam at 3:33 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
METAFILTER: the thread always goes bad in different ways
posted by philip-random at 3:44 PM on February 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 3:44 PM on February 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don’t think anyone’s asking the mods to be perfect. But some acknowledgement that they’re not always perfect would go a long way toward building trust. Instead of doubling down and insisting that what they did was right and implying that they’re infallible, just say “we got this one wrong, and we’ll try to do better next time”. Even the best process will sometimes yield bad results. And even if you stay firmly within the rules, you can still do something regrettable.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:22 PM on February 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 4:22 PM on February 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
I'm just going to have to trust that it was. And I do have that trust.
This. If one doesn't trust the ownership and moderators then I am not sure why one would be here. It is like any relationship.
I trust jessamyn and I trust her judgement in people, and therefore I trust the moderators.
posted by terrapin at 4:41 PM on February 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
This. If one doesn't trust the ownership and moderators then I am not sure why one would be here. It is like any relationship.
I trust jessamyn and I trust her judgement in people, and therefore I trust the moderators.
posted by terrapin at 4:41 PM on February 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
Metatalk is a perpetual trainwreck. I strongly disagree with those who want it to be an unmoderated free-for-all. I suppose this comes from recognizing that people bringing up a grievance are upset and deserve some leeway. But then everyone takes that leeway, every discussion is a mass of contradictory demands, and it's a toxic environment for both mods and the people complaining.
I would suggest more threads, but with a narrow focus. In this case, a lot of trouble could have been avoided by opening a separate thread on attracting new users. Maybe Metatalk needs its own code of conduct; having it be an almost free-for-all is going to make all interventions feel arbitrary.
At the same time, I think people need to adjust to a larger decisionmaking structure. It's not "nudge Cortex until he reacts" any more. You've got the SC, the BIPOC board, the admin and mod team. Discussions and decisions take time. Even more so if you want good ones.
posted by zompist at 4:52 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
I would suggest more threads, but with a narrow focus. In this case, a lot of trouble could have been avoided by opening a separate thread on attracting new users. Maybe Metatalk needs its own code of conduct; having it be an almost free-for-all is going to make all interventions feel arbitrary.
At the same time, I think people need to adjust to a larger decisionmaking structure. It's not "nudge Cortex until he reacts" any more. You've got the SC, the BIPOC board, the admin and mod team. Discussions and decisions take time. Even more so if you want good ones.
posted by zompist at 4:52 PM on February 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
I can sort of understand why the reasoning behind the initial deletion and subsequent temporary ban has to be a secret. I don’t agree, but I follow the reasoning.
I can’t possibly for the life of me understand why the policy guiding that reason has to also be a secret. It’s hard for me to believe that Jessamyn is lying about there being a policy backing this, but also … it takes 60 seconds to publish a document somewhere. My mind is actually kinda boggling that “this is all explained by a secret policy” is the position we’re being asked to “just trust” here.
posted by dorothy hawk at 4:57 PM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
I can’t possibly for the life of me understand why the policy guiding that reason has to also be a secret. It’s hard for me to believe that Jessamyn is lying about there being a policy backing this, but also … it takes 60 seconds to publish a document somewhere. My mind is actually kinda boggling that “this is all explained by a secret policy” is the position we’re being asked to “just trust” here.
posted by dorothy hawk at 4:57 PM on February 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
Instead of doubling down and insisting that what they did was right and implying that they’re infallible, just say “we got this one wrong, and we’ll try to do better next time”.
I recognize that there are a subset of people here who clearly think the decision was bad, but it isn’t universal. Dictating that it is wrong, and not admitting so is doubling down on a mistake, leaves no room for discussing what norms the members want. I don’t see how it furthers the discussion. I feel like there is a minority here that are marginalizing themselves by taking intractable positions and demanding appeasement. The powers be here acknowledge imperfection by constantly talking about how they are trying to make things better, and doing things. On a practical level, I would imagine they focus their efforts on the broad spectrum of people who are working to share ideas and improve and less time trying to please those demanding penance for wrongs.
posted by snofoam at 5:03 PM on February 4, 2023 [18 favorites]
I recognize that there are a subset of people here who clearly think the decision was bad, but it isn’t universal. Dictating that it is wrong, and not admitting so is doubling down on a mistake, leaves no room for discussing what norms the members want. I don’t see how it furthers the discussion. I feel like there is a minority here that are marginalizing themselves by taking intractable positions and demanding appeasement. The powers be here acknowledge imperfection by constantly talking about how they are trying to make things better, and doing things. On a practical level, I would imagine they focus their efforts on the broad spectrum of people who are working to share ideas and improve and less time trying to please those demanding penance for wrongs.
posted by snofoam at 5:03 PM on February 4, 2023 [18 favorites]
And even if you stay firmly within the rules, you can still do something regrettable.
This could equally be said of MR's deleted comment.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:25 PM on February 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
This could equally be said of MR's deleted comment.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:25 PM on February 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
I feel like there is a minority here that are marginalizing themselves
Whereas there are a number of us who are members of a minority group who feel like members of our group seem to get marginalised or pushed out by the mods disproportionately often. The list of trans members who are no longer here is long.
posted by Dysk at 11:43 PM on February 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
Whereas there are a number of us who are members of a minority group who feel like members of our group seem to get marginalised or pushed out by the mods disproportionately often. The list of trans members who are no longer here is long.
posted by Dysk at 11:43 PM on February 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
Whereas there are a number of us who are members of a minority group who feel like members of our group seem to get marginalised...
Just to clarify my own comment, I was saying that there are users who seem to be assuming that their opinion on right and wrong mod decision-making is fact, and I think they are a minority of users. I think that, to whatever degree their ideas on improving the site depend on everyone accepting their opinion as fact, they are choosing to sideline themselves from whatever productive discussion might be happening.
I don't think the MR thing had anything to do with her being part of a minority group. Yes, the site as a whole should continue to improve its inclusivity. But I don't think the mods/management are discriminating, I think they are trying to make things better.
posted by snofoam at 4:33 AM on February 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
Just to clarify my own comment, I was saying that there are users who seem to be assuming that their opinion on right and wrong mod decision-making is fact, and I think they are a minority of users. I think that, to whatever degree their ideas on improving the site depend on everyone accepting their opinion as fact, they are choosing to sideline themselves from whatever productive discussion might be happening.
I don't think the MR thing had anything to do with her being part of a minority group. Yes, the site as a whole should continue to improve its inclusivity. But I don't think the mods/management are discriminating, I think they are trying to make things better.
posted by snofoam at 4:33 AM on February 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
Instead of doubling down and insisting that what they did was right and implying that they’re infallible, just say “we got this one wrong, and we’ll try to do better next time”.
I'm afraid those of us thinking this might happen should give up on our hopes at this point. There hasn't been the slightest hint that anyone "in charge" thinks the original comment deletion, or MollyRealized's suspension, might, possibly, maybe, have been mistakes, or could have been handled better.
So we must assume that the mods, loup, Jessamyn, and the-SC-collectively think what happened was fine, and what any of them would have done in that situation, or would in the same situation in the future.
But the rest of us will never, ever know why it happened, other than it wasn't due to the content of the comment.
posted by fabius at 6:37 AM on February 5, 2023 [13 favorites]
I'm afraid those of us thinking this might happen should give up on our hopes at this point. There hasn't been the slightest hint that anyone "in charge" thinks the original comment deletion, or MollyRealized's suspension, might, possibly, maybe, have been mistakes, or could have been handled better.
So we must assume that the mods, loup, Jessamyn, and the-SC-collectively think what happened was fine, and what any of them would have done in that situation, or would in the same situation in the future.
But the rest of us will never, ever know why it happened, other than it wasn't due to the content of the comment.
posted by fabius at 6:37 AM on February 5, 2023 [13 favorites]
If my time on the Transition Team is any measure, the SC will be extremely cautious in expressing a collective opinion and will take time to make it, partly because they’re all volunteers and because they’ll want to be united. So I wouldn’t count on anything just yet, though I realise it’s frustrating to wait.
posted by adrianhon at 8:44 AM on February 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by adrianhon at 8:44 AM on February 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
I am very late to this thread and cannot claim to have read everything, but have read a fair bit - a few thoughts offered in a helpful spirit:
-I think there needs to be a bit more recognition that text (as opposed to an in-person conversation) is much more prone to misinterpretations. I saw (via Reddit) MollyRealized's deleted comment and to me it seemed....fine? Fairly benign, honestly. Which then reminds me of a number of other comments I've seen deleted, which I've found confusing as to why. I still remember one comment from a self-identified neurodivergent user that I found really thoughtful and informative, but it got deleted because parts of it were deemed too argumentative. And I read much of MollyRealized's previous threads and while I disagreed with some of her points, I thought those they generated some productive conversation, and yeah, some unproductive conversation, but that seems....ok? I'm all for deleting comments that are hateful or make threats against people, but if a user is coming across as unproductively argumentative, this doesn't strike me as serious problem. I think it would be better to warn them first (privately), with a public mod redirection "Hey folks, let's keep the discussion on [topic], thanks!" before deleting any comments. Because it's quite possible they don't realize it or intend it - the lack of vocal tone of text does make it tricky.
-I don't think mods should have to share their private notes, but giving people early warnings is preferable to only giving them a warning when they're close to being banned. I say this as someone who manages classrooms - I certainly don't share with my students all of the notes (mental and otherwise) I make about their conduct in class, but as soon as I think a student might be on a non-ideal trajectory, I let them know.
posted by coffeecat at 4:06 PM on February 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
-I think there needs to be a bit more recognition that text (as opposed to an in-person conversation) is much more prone to misinterpretations. I saw (via Reddit) MollyRealized's deleted comment and to me it seemed....fine? Fairly benign, honestly. Which then reminds me of a number of other comments I've seen deleted, which I've found confusing as to why. I still remember one comment from a self-identified neurodivergent user that I found really thoughtful and informative, but it got deleted because parts of it were deemed too argumentative. And I read much of MollyRealized's previous threads and while I disagreed with some of her points, I thought those they generated some productive conversation, and yeah, some unproductive conversation, but that seems....ok? I'm all for deleting comments that are hateful or make threats against people, but if a user is coming across as unproductively argumentative, this doesn't strike me as serious problem. I think it would be better to warn them first (privately), with a public mod redirection "Hey folks, let's keep the discussion on [topic], thanks!" before deleting any comments. Because it's quite possible they don't realize it or intend it - the lack of vocal tone of text does make it tricky.
-I don't think mods should have to share their private notes, but giving people early warnings is preferable to only giving them a warning when they're close to being banned. I say this as someone who manages classrooms - I certainly don't share with my students all of the notes (mental and otherwise) I make about their conduct in class, but as soon as I think a student might be on a non-ideal trajectory, I let them know.
posted by coffeecat at 4:06 PM on February 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
I was curious about what the formal, member-facing policy is about how conflicts or problematic edge-case comments are handled. Maybe I am not finding something but these are the only things I found:
(from the Guidelines page):
OK, so what does that mean? Sounds exhausting for everyone involved.
If I don't agree with a deletion or temporary or permanent ban decision, I just have to... contact the mod on duty and have a back and forth with them about it (and probably one or both of us is not at our best at the moment)? If I think the mod's being really unfair or missing something, I... what, email Jessamyn?
If I'm a mod and take a disciplinary action, what criteria do I use? How do I communicate this with the user, the rest of the mod team, and the community (and when is it appropriate to speak publicly about what happened?)
These are questions that I for one, as a longtime community member, am very murky on. It's not something that can be changed or fixed overnight, definitely, but I do hope that the staff, the SC and the BIPOC are keeping it at the forefront of their efforts.
Look, there's going to be conflict. This is a big enough site that a "eh, we'll discuss it and get back to you maybe" is not a workable or sustainable policy, particularly when there have been very real and consistent concerns about how this lack of policy has impacted marginalized communities (particularly MeFites who are trans). It needs to be a priority.
I'm not arguing that every mod note needs to be made public (for the record, I think that's an unhelpful proposal). What's needed is not transparency about individual situations/problems (though sometimes this may be helpful), but transparency about the process by which moderation decisions are made and what recourse members who feel unfairly treated can take.
This actually came up in my non-online life the other day. I'm a hospital social worker and I lead a monthly group for patients with a psychologist colleague. In group, we were discussing what people would like to see in a dream clinic if they had a billion dollars to design it however they wanted, and the question of how to bring up complaints or grievances came up. The psychologist and I realized that we don't actually know the specific process for patients to say "hey, I felt confused because the nurse sat me down to wait for labs but I didn't know how long it was gonna take and after 10 minutes I felt like people might have forgotten I was there," or (more seriously) "I didn't feel like I was treated kindly by [staff member]", or whatever. So we both committed to look into what that process is and communicate it back to the group at next month's session.
That's what professional accountability looks like. You hold yourself to explicit policies that help everyone to understand how conflicts will get resolved (even if that resolution ends up being a banning or whatever). Even if people don't agree with the resolution in a given case, they should be able to understand and respect the process by which the decision was made, and not feel like it could potentially have been "well, mod X was in a bad mood, and there were some super secret mod notes, and maybe this and that and the other went into the mix and then a MeTa got out of hand and the person doubled down, and now they're not here anymore I guess?" That kind of opaque non-process is not good for anyone.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 5, 2023 [52 favorites]
(from the Guidelines page):
Want to tell us about a problem?(from the Content Policy):
If you want to report a post or comment, please click the flag [!] link below it to raise it to the moderator's attention. Also, as moderators, we recognize we have areas of ignorance, and you can let us know if there's a problem we may not recognize by adding a note to your flag or contacting us directly. Please make sure to check our Content Policy for more details on how flagging works.
Enforcementand, as part of the FAQ question "Why was my comment deleted?":
If you want to report a post or comment, you can use the flag [!] link next to the content you are reporting. Also, you can contact us to report any other abusive behavior or issue. Our team evaluates each report on a case-by-case basis. In some cases we will remove content or take another publicly visible action, but in other cases we might take other actions that aren't publicly visible or watch the discussion closely and evaluate further actions as the conversation progresses. We ask you to keep in mind that if you report something to us and it is not removed it might mean that we have taken other actions.
Here are some of the actions we may take:
Removing content.
Contacting the member directly.
Issuing a public warning (moderation note in a thread).
Issuing a private warning.
Temporary or permanent bans.
Please keep in mind that when we take any of these actions, we do not reveal who has reported the content so that your privacy in reporting is still assured.
Also, we do keep a record of every report and might add private notes to the threads or user accounts. Over time this helps us to identify patterns of abusive behaviour, and take the necessary actions.
Occasionally a comment will be removed which then leaves several comments responding to it just hanging there, responding to nothing. Historically, the responses would usually be removed to avoid confusion for readers and to curtail derails. More recently, due to community feedback the moderators have shifted toward more often leaving such responses in place even if the original comment is deleted, generally with an explanatory note.I mean. At least it's consistent? But for the most part the policy seems to boil down to "let us know if there's a problem, here are the actions we may take, it's up to our discretion." (Or as the "Enforcement" section says, "Our team evaluates each report on a case-by-case basis.").
Mods use their own discretion and the input of flags or other contacts from members to help guide those decisions. If you have a question about a comment removal, please use the contact form to ask about it. The MetaFilter comment deletion rate is about 1%. Most people never have a comment deleted.
OK, so what does that mean? Sounds exhausting for everyone involved.
If I don't agree with a deletion or temporary or permanent ban decision, I just have to... contact the mod on duty and have a back and forth with them about it (and probably one or both of us is not at our best at the moment)? If I think the mod's being really unfair or missing something, I... what, email Jessamyn?
If I'm a mod and take a disciplinary action, what criteria do I use? How do I communicate this with the user, the rest of the mod team, and the community (and when is it appropriate to speak publicly about what happened?)
These are questions that I for one, as a longtime community member, am very murky on. It's not something that can be changed or fixed overnight, definitely, but I do hope that the staff, the SC and the BIPOC are keeping it at the forefront of their efforts.
Look, there's going to be conflict. This is a big enough site that a "eh, we'll discuss it and get back to you maybe" is not a workable or sustainable policy, particularly when there have been very real and consistent concerns about how this lack of policy has impacted marginalized communities (particularly MeFites who are trans). It needs to be a priority.
I'm not arguing that every mod note needs to be made public (for the record, I think that's an unhelpful proposal). What's needed is not transparency about individual situations/problems (though sometimes this may be helpful), but transparency about the process by which moderation decisions are made and what recourse members who feel unfairly treated can take.
This actually came up in my non-online life the other day. I'm a hospital social worker and I lead a monthly group for patients with a psychologist colleague. In group, we were discussing what people would like to see in a dream clinic if they had a billion dollars to design it however they wanted, and the question of how to bring up complaints or grievances came up. The psychologist and I realized that we don't actually know the specific process for patients to say "hey, I felt confused because the nurse sat me down to wait for labs but I didn't know how long it was gonna take and after 10 minutes I felt like people might have forgotten I was there," or (more seriously) "I didn't feel like I was treated kindly by [staff member]", or whatever. So we both committed to look into what that process is and communicate it back to the group at next month's session.
That's what professional accountability looks like. You hold yourself to explicit policies that help everyone to understand how conflicts will get resolved (even if that resolution ends up being a banning or whatever). Even if people don't agree with the resolution in a given case, they should be able to understand and respect the process by which the decision was made, and not feel like it could potentially have been "well, mod X was in a bad mood, and there were some super secret mod notes, and maybe this and that and the other went into the mix and then a MeTa got out of hand and the person doubled down, and now they're not here anymore I guess?" That kind of opaque non-process is not good for anyone.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:40 PM on February 5, 2023 [52 favorites]
YES. 10,000 times yes to everything tivalasvegas just said.
posted by lapis at 8:16 PM on February 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by lapis at 8:16 PM on February 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't think the MR thing had anything to do with her being part of a minority group. Yes, the site as a whole should continue to improve its inclusivity. But I don't think the mods/management are discriminating, I think they are trying to make things better.
On the surface, abs looking at this incident in isolation, that does seem fair. But when it is part of a greater pattern, as it appears to be, you need to start asking if there is some unconscious or indirect discrimination going on, especially in light of what was a pretty anodyne comment as the catalysing incident. I'm not saying the mods are transphobes or bigots, but I am saying that their standard practice seems to disproportionately alienate trans members of this community, and that that is a problem.
posted by Dysk at 11:59 PM on February 5, 2023 [22 favorites]
On the surface, abs looking at this incident in isolation, that does seem fair. But when it is part of a greater pattern, as it appears to be, you need to start asking if there is some unconscious or indirect discrimination going on, especially in light of what was a pretty anodyne comment as the catalysing incident. I'm not saying the mods are transphobes or bigots, but I am saying that their standard practice seems to disproportionately alienate trans members of this community, and that that is a problem.
posted by Dysk at 11:59 PM on February 5, 2023 [22 favorites]
The psychologist and I realized that we don't actually know the specific process for patients to say "hey, I felt confused because the nurse sat me down to wait for labs but I didn't know how long it was gonna take and after 10 minutes I felt like people might have forgotten I was there," or (more seriously) "I didn't feel like I was treated kindly by [staff member]", or whatever. So we both committed to look into what that process is and communicate it back to the group at next month's session.
This sort of thing has been part of the Code of Conduct for a lot of spaces I've participated in. For instance, as a Unit Leader of my local Girl Guides unit, if my Guides or their parents have any issues with any of us leaders/volunteers, they can come to someone else in the leadership/volunteer team to talk to us about it, or they can escalate to our District Manager or higher if they feel like they can't trust any of us more direct adults. There's even a form for this specific thing. I've also been at events where there was a specific contact number for grievances, including grievances against other staff members who are acting out of line, and some stated processes around how that feedback would be taken on.
posted by creatrixtiara at 1:38 AM on February 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
This sort of thing has been part of the Code of Conduct for a lot of spaces I've participated in. For instance, as a Unit Leader of my local Girl Guides unit, if my Guides or their parents have any issues with any of us leaders/volunteers, they can come to someone else in the leadership/volunteer team to talk to us about it, or they can escalate to our District Manager or higher if they feel like they can't trust any of us more direct adults. There's even a form for this specific thing. I've also been at events where there was a specific contact number for grievances, including grievances against other staff members who are acting out of line, and some stated processes around how that feedback would be taken on.
posted by creatrixtiara at 1:38 AM on February 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
I am saying that their standard practice seems to disproportionately alienate trans members of this community, and that that is a problem.
I don't have a feeling here either way but considering the lack of demographic data of all aspects of the membership it is really difficult to quantify this. It is possible the trans community is disproportionately represented here verses whatever the baseline one wants to choose and the perceived disproportionate alienation is actually representative of the Metafilter population while simultaneously being disproportionate of the baseline. IE I'm a member of a class that is mostly resides in Canada and is a small minority there. My group is wildly over represented on Metafilter simply because I'm here and the demographic baseline includes something like 80% Americans.
The lack of good numbers can also lead to confirmatory memory selection bias because there isn't any data to offset the bias.
posted by Mitheral at 3:07 AM on February 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't have a feeling here either way but considering the lack of demographic data of all aspects of the membership it is really difficult to quantify this. It is possible the trans community is disproportionately represented here verses whatever the baseline one wants to choose and the perceived disproportionate alienation is actually representative of the Metafilter population while simultaneously being disproportionate of the baseline. IE I'm a member of a class that is mostly resides in Canada and is a small minority there. My group is wildly over represented on Metafilter simply because I'm here and the demographic baseline includes something like 80% Americans.
The lack of good numbers can also lead to confirmatory memory selection bias because there isn't any data to offset the bias.
posted by Mitheral at 3:07 AM on February 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
If a sub community of Metafilter repeatedly says that site policies affect them disportionately, the best way to handle this, IMO, is to listen to what they're saying and ask them for suggestions on how changes so that subgroup no longer feels unwelcomed.
Saying, essentially, that there's no way to prove their statements or that they might be misremembering things isn't the way to go. Ultimately we want people to feel they've been heard and their concerns addressed. It's the right thing to do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:41 AM on February 6, 2023 [38 favorites]
Saying, essentially, that there's no way to prove their statements or that they might be misremembering things isn't the way to go. Ultimately we want people to feel they've been heard and their concerns addressed. It's the right thing to do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:41 AM on February 6, 2023 [38 favorites]
Ultimately we want people to feel they've been heard and their concerns addressed. It's the right thing to do.
Yes, but if possible it is good to find things you can quantify because then you can tell if you're making progress or not.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:46 AM on February 6, 2023
Yes, but if possible it is good to find things you can quantify because then you can tell if you're making progress or not.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:46 AM on February 6, 2023
I think the mods (and community) should take extra care to support users/groups that might be disproportionately impacted by harassment, discrimination or inadvertent microaggressions. Any vulnerable group or person, and more generally, keeping in mind that any user might be part of a group like that. The starting point should definitely be to listen and believe and take concerns seriously. I think the mods, though imperfect and human, are already making an effort to do this. I think that's where some of the ideas about actually having data are coming from: if we are already trying and still getting some things wrong, we need to figure out what is still going wrong.
If, for example, trans people are leaving at higher rates, that's a problem. But if you ask any mod, SC member, etc. I'm sure 100% will say, in complete honesty, we are not anti-trans and that is important to us. Somewhere in between may be actionable things that need to be discovered. (I think BIPOC board is an example of putting something in place to find those actionable things.)
posted by snofoam at 7:17 AM on February 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
If, for example, trans people are leaving at higher rates, that's a problem. But if you ask any mod, SC member, etc. I'm sure 100% will say, in complete honesty, we are not anti-trans and that is important to us. Somewhere in between may be actionable things that need to be discovered. (I think BIPOC board is an example of putting something in place to find those actionable things.)
posted by snofoam at 7:17 AM on February 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Equity is another reason to have policies and procedures in writing, and consistently followed. People in various communities might understandably feel hesitant to reach out, unprompted, to appeal to an authority, unless there are clear, explicit, and communicated guidelines to do so. Moderators may unconsciously be treating members from various communities differently unless there are clear, explicit, and communicated guidelines about how to handle various situations.
posted by lapis at 8:02 AM on February 6, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by lapis at 8:02 AM on February 6, 2023 [9 favorites]
Moderators may unconsciously be treating members from various communities differently unless there are clear, explicit, and communicated guidelines about how to handle various situations.
And it's actually much beyond this, too -- users may unconsciously be treating members from various communities differently unless there are clear, explicit, and communicated guidelines and reminders around our values, behaviors, and community expectations.
"Always be nice; never be too angry; and this one random person on duty at any given time gets to decide when you cross a line" is an unspoken rule that's horrible from an equity lens, because some people are considered "too angry" regardless of their actual content or tone, because society being able to dismiss them as "angry" serves the purpose of keeping them marginalized.
posted by lapis at 8:05 AM on February 6, 2023 [17 favorites]
And it's actually much beyond this, too -- users may unconsciously be treating members from various communities differently unless there are clear, explicit, and communicated guidelines and reminders around our values, behaviors, and community expectations.
"Always be nice; never be too angry; and this one random person on duty at any given time gets to decide when you cross a line" is an unspoken rule that's horrible from an equity lens, because some people are considered "too angry" regardless of their actual content or tone, because society being able to dismiss them as "angry" serves the purpose of keeping them marginalized.
posted by lapis at 8:05 AM on February 6, 2023 [17 favorites]
For me, the one thing that has come out of this discussion that resonates is trans members consistently saying the mods can do better. I assume the guidelines members are looking for are in the works with the SC (who are volunteers, so it takes time) but I hope the feedback of trans members is incorporated. And if trans members are so inclined, maybe there could be some kind of official volunteer group/board/etc. to work with/advise the SC/mods to improve practices and procedures.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:01 AM on February 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 10:01 AM on February 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
I assume the guidelines members are looking for are in the works with the SC
Are they? I've not seen anything suggesting that, but I may have missed it.
posted by lapis at 10:59 AM on February 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Are they? I've not seen anything suggesting that, but I may have missed it.
posted by lapis at 10:59 AM on February 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
maybe there could be some kind of official volunteer group/board/etc.
A counterargument to this might be, what's needed isn't so much a board where a limited number of people who have the time and energy can contribute an opinion, but rather that those opinions have already been stated, at length, in the large number of threads that have gone pretty much exactly like these past few.
I dunno, I keep going back to dorothy hawk's comment up there about being uncomfortable with decisions made with regard to a user's mental health. I feel like any third-party speculation about a user's mental state should be deleted on sight. What a horrifying thing, to have stated an opinion--even a disagreeable one, even a VERY LOUD one--and to have people be like, ah, well, you're crazy, maybe we should take that into account. No! That's terrible!
Is this pattern--user makes comment about the site, site finds it disagreeable, heat gets turned up until user buttons--just something fundamental to metatalk? I wasn't even going to comment on this thread, because I wasn't sure there was anything to say that hasn't already been said on all the other threads where this has happened. But...is it just something we should expect? If a comment wasn't deleted, but handled via some other technical feature--hidden behind something like a spoiler tag, etc.--would things get so inflamed? Or is the pattern so entrenched that no technical solution exists? Is it, after all, a consensus-building feature in itself?
posted by mittens at 2:11 PM on February 7, 2023 [10 favorites]
A counterargument to this might be, what's needed isn't so much a board where a limited number of people who have the time and energy can contribute an opinion, but rather that those opinions have already been stated, at length, in the large number of threads that have gone pretty much exactly like these past few.
I dunno, I keep going back to dorothy hawk's comment up there about being uncomfortable with decisions made with regard to a user's mental health. I feel like any third-party speculation about a user's mental state should be deleted on sight. What a horrifying thing, to have stated an opinion--even a disagreeable one, even a VERY LOUD one--and to have people be like, ah, well, you're crazy, maybe we should take that into account. No! That's terrible!
Is this pattern--user makes comment about the site, site finds it disagreeable, heat gets turned up until user buttons--just something fundamental to metatalk? I wasn't even going to comment on this thread, because I wasn't sure there was anything to say that hasn't already been said on all the other threads where this has happened. But...is it just something we should expect? If a comment wasn't deleted, but handled via some other technical feature--hidden behind something like a spoiler tag, etc.--would things get so inflamed? Or is the pattern so entrenched that no technical solution exists? Is it, after all, a consensus-building feature in itself?
posted by mittens at 2:11 PM on February 7, 2023 [10 favorites]
What a horrifying thing, to have stated an opinion--even a disagreeable one, even a VERY LOUD one--and to have people be like, ah, well, you're crazy, maybe we should take that into account. No! That's terrible!
One of the many downsides of being an out trans woman is that even people who don't automatically consider being trans to be in itself a mental illness will think you are, at the very least, emotionally compromised. This then comes in very handy to cis people if you try to center minority views in a discussion. They can just dismiss you out of hand. With compassion, and maybe a little bit of guilt over the terrible ways society has treated you to make you end up... the way you are.
Cis people (and stealth trans people) get to have their hissy fits and people will have the decency to get mad at them and then for the most part forget the whole thing ever happened.
posted by tigrrrlily at 3:39 PM on February 7, 2023 [16 favorites]
One of the many downsides of being an out trans woman is that even people who don't automatically consider being trans to be in itself a mental illness will think you are, at the very least, emotionally compromised. This then comes in very handy to cis people if you try to center minority views in a discussion. They can just dismiss you out of hand. With compassion, and maybe a little bit of guilt over the terrible ways society has treated you to make you end up... the way you are.
Cis people (and stealth trans people) get to have their hissy fits and people will have the decency to get mad at them and then for the most part forget the whole thing ever happened.
posted by tigrrrlily at 3:39 PM on February 7, 2023 [16 favorites]
Hidden comments? Intriguing concept, mittens!
posted by Vatnesine at 4:31 PM on February 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Vatnesine at 4:31 PM on February 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've not seen anything suggesting that, but I may have missed it. re: SC and working on site policies.
I think the SC is working on policy because of what it says on the SC page: "The Steering Committee is a group of Mefites who set and implement site policies and priorities" and goes from there. I know that keeping the lights on has been the first priority but site policies (including things like moderation policy) are part of what they volunteered to do. I trust that they will over time and that discussions like the one we're participating in will inform site policy.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:57 PM on February 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think the SC is working on policy because of what it says on the SC page: "The Steering Committee is a group of Mefites who set and implement site policies and priorities" and goes from there. I know that keeping the lights on has been the first priority but site policies (including things like moderation policy) are part of what they volunteered to do. I trust that they will over time and that discussions like the one we're participating in will inform site policy.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 9:57 PM on February 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
It hasn't been listed in anything I've seen from the SC, or about the SC. I would love it if they were working on it, which is why I keep posting about it, but their complete lack of response concerns me.
posted by lapis at 10:09 PM on February 7, 2023
posted by lapis at 10:09 PM on February 7, 2023
I would love it if they were working on it, which is why I keep posting about it, but their complete lack of response concerns me
I've have taken the time to read the thread and voted for 90% of the SC. I voted because I trust them, impicitly.
you might read this?
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 AM on February 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've have taken the time to read the thread and voted for 90% of the SC. I voted because I trust them, impicitly.
you might read this?
posted by clavdivs at 12:03 AM on February 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't think the MR thing had anything to do with her being part of a minority group. Yes, the site as a whole should continue to improve its inclusivity. But I don't think the mods/management are discriminating, I think they are trying to make things better.
It occurs to me that these things are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, I think that it's possible one or more moderators ARE discriminating in certain cases whilst simultaneously making a genuine effort to, you know, uphold community values or whatnot. Working to make things better does not necessarily preclude unconscious bias towards trans members, for example. If these biases are coloring their moderation decisions -- that's a concern that should be addressed.
posted by some loser at 3:59 AM on February 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
It occurs to me that these things are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, I think that it's possible one or more moderators ARE discriminating in certain cases whilst simultaneously making a genuine effort to, you know, uphold community values or whatnot. Working to make things better does not necessarily preclude unconscious bias towards trans members, for example. If these biases are coloring their moderation decisions -- that's a concern that should be addressed.
posted by some loser at 3:59 AM on February 8, 2023 [4 favorites]
I have read every comment in both threads, which have spanned many days. My memory is not perfect, which is why I wanted to phrase "I haven't seen anything" in a way that left room for me to be wrong. The linked comment talks about SC considering their role in regards to moderation, which does not address the policies and procedures I was talking about.
I don't know why any of this is getting framed as being about trust. I can trust people in general and still think they make mistakes, because we're all human, and I can trust people and still want clear, explicit, public policies and procedures. I trust my fellow therapists more because I can look up our public Code of Conduct, for instance. My job in local government is easier because I have policies and procedures that guide my decisions, so I don't have to start from scratch each time something weird comes up. I'm not suggesting anything here as punishment for anyone.
posted by lapis at 4:13 AM on February 8, 2023 [11 favorites]
I don't know why any of this is getting framed as being about trust. I can trust people in general and still think they make mistakes, because we're all human, and I can trust people and still want clear, explicit, public policies and procedures. I trust my fellow therapists more because I can look up our public Code of Conduct, for instance. My job in local government is easier because I have policies and procedures that guide my decisions, so I don't have to start from scratch each time something weird comes up. I'm not suggesting anything here as punishment for anyone.
posted by lapis at 4:13 AM on February 8, 2023 [11 favorites]
I don't know why any of this is getting framed as being about trust.
I frame it about trust because I perceive many of the complaints (not yours) about the mods as being found in DIStrust of the mods. Not just "they made a mistake" or even "they don't understand what's going on with trans community members flaming out" but just plain old bad faith/no interest in fixing what the person complaining feels is wrong/no care about community unhappiness. My sense is that the mods/SC/site management care but are getting a lot of feedback, much of it conflicting.
But I mostly popped back in this morning to answer the comment their complete lack of response concerns me.. It's been 16 days as of this morning since the original fundraising thread was posted and we know that's what the Steering Committee has been preoccupied with. Most of the two weeks and change has been taken up with this thread. We also know that the fundraising effort has eaten up time for Loup's reports and SC updates. With absolute sincerity and no snark at all, I really don't understand how folks think the SC is supposed to have done significant work on anything else, never mind reported it to the community or having documents ready for review.
Maybe a lot of this work should already have been done under previous management; I wouldn't even disagree with that idea. But the SC can only go from where we are and as quickly as their schedules permit. I understand impatience; at the same time I'd like to not make being on the SC suck any more than it has to by demanding more than SC members have time/ability to give.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:58 AM on February 8, 2023 [15 favorites]
I frame it about trust because I perceive many of the complaints (not yours) about the mods as being found in DIStrust of the mods. Not just "they made a mistake" or even "they don't understand what's going on with trans community members flaming out" but just plain old bad faith/no interest in fixing what the person complaining feels is wrong/no care about community unhappiness. My sense is that the mods/SC/site management care but are getting a lot of feedback, much of it conflicting.
But I mostly popped back in this morning to answer the comment their complete lack of response concerns me.. It's been 16 days as of this morning since the original fundraising thread was posted and we know that's what the Steering Committee has been preoccupied with. Most of the two weeks and change has been taken up with this thread. We also know that the fundraising effort has eaten up time for Loup's reports and SC updates. With absolute sincerity and no snark at all, I really don't understand how folks think the SC is supposed to have done significant work on anything else, never mind reported it to the community or having documents ready for review.
Maybe a lot of this work should already have been done under previous management; I wouldn't even disagree with that idea. But the SC can only go from where we are and as quickly as their schedules permit. I understand impatience; at the same time I'd like to not make being on the SC suck any more than it has to by demanding more than SC members have time/ability to give.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:58 AM on February 8, 2023 [15 favorites]
Geez. That’ll teach me to look at MeTa.
posted by DaveP at 5:10 PM on February 8, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by DaveP at 5:10 PM on February 8, 2023 [7 favorites]
Are we going to get any statement on outcomes of this discussion from the mods/SC/Jessamyn? Folks have shared a lot of perspectives, and it would be reassuring to see what conclusions have been drawn, and that we're not all just shouting into the void.
posted by Alterscape at 5:21 PM on February 10, 2023
posted by Alterscape at 5:21 PM on February 10, 2023
The SC has been reading along and talking about this thread in our group chat, but this is a complicated set of issues to provide a response to. We aren't well set up to quickly come to consensus on things and provide immediate responses to MetaTalk threads, but we aren't ignoring this thread.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:38 PM on February 10, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:38 PM on February 10, 2023 [16 favorites]
Thank you, jacquilynne. I appreciate the quick response and confirmation that folks from the SC are tracking this.
posted by Alterscape at 6:43 PM on February 10, 2023
posted by Alterscape at 6:43 PM on February 10, 2023
Loup says they were in contact with MollyRealized at the top of this post. Is there any possibility that someone from the Steering Committee could reach out to them, perhaps invite them to have their say privately, or reopen their account and comment here?
The last time (that I recall) a trans MeFite had been treated this way by a mod -- where the emotional content of their comments were held against them, followed by dissembling about the rationale -- restless_nomad was brought in to communicate and play intermediary. The result was an honest conversation about communication breakdown and how mod assumptions about a trans person's state of mind affected their interactions and decisions. I hope something was learned then, and perhaps now that we have a Steering Committee there can be some insight about how the process failed again and can be improved.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:57 PM on February 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
The last time (that I recall) a trans MeFite had been treated this way by a mod -- where the emotional content of their comments were held against them, followed by dissembling about the rationale -- restless_nomad was brought in to communicate and play intermediary. The result was an honest conversation about communication breakdown and how mod assumptions about a trans person's state of mind affected their interactions and decisions. I hope something was learned then, and perhaps now that we have a Steering Committee there can be some insight about how the process failed again and can be improved.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:57 PM on February 12, 2023 [9 favorites]
Loup says they were in contact with MollyRealized at the top of this post
They did and point of contact for that matter (Molly) and the larger issues at hand going forward with mod and Jessamyn' input, this is evident from comments in this thread. Agreed. for I do not wish to argue Pluto, I believe we both have been here long enough and know better, why. history for one. We, never thought I'd RW but we have laughed, argued, stolen a horse or two, I believe in brand new days, start overs and coming back is hard. a situation were someone leaves is hard and I'll say hardest for the person who left or is timed/banned. So, anyone can reach out to molly but why the SC. To me this could be something but as jacquilynne said "this is a complicated set of issues to provide a response to. We aren't well set up to quickly come to consensus on things and provide immediate responses to MetaTalk threads." honest. But when it comes to a ban or button issue, I see a problem with the SC getting directly involved in these sensitive matters and here's why, I don't want the SC to be mefis Oyer and terminer/audiendo et terminando in these matters it's a dangerous approach to moderation concerning a members membership. This does not exclude SC being involved in the process of a new policy or the possibility of an ombuds like situation. Your example of R_N contribution is apt and should be a factor in a new policy going forward and I said going forward because, well at times it seems so formal like things arent gonna go forward.
posted by clavdivs at 3:02 PM on February 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
They did and point of contact for that matter (Molly) and the larger issues at hand going forward with mod and Jessamyn' input, this is evident from comments in this thread. Agreed. for I do not wish to argue Pluto, I believe we both have been here long enough and know better, why. history for one. We, never thought I'd RW but we have laughed, argued, stolen a horse or two, I believe in brand new days, start overs and coming back is hard. a situation were someone leaves is hard and I'll say hardest for the person who left or is timed/banned. So, anyone can reach out to molly but why the SC. To me this could be something but as jacquilynne said "this is a complicated set of issues to provide a response to. We aren't well set up to quickly come to consensus on things and provide immediate responses to MetaTalk threads." honest. But when it comes to a ban or button issue, I see a problem with the SC getting directly involved in these sensitive matters and here's why, I don't want the SC to be mefis Oyer and terminer/audiendo et terminando in these matters it's a dangerous approach to moderation concerning a members membership. This does not exclude SC being involved in the process of a new policy or the possibility of an ombuds like situation. Your example of R_N contribution is apt and should be a factor in a new policy going forward and I said going forward because, well at times it seems so formal like things arent gonna go forward.
posted by clavdivs at 3:02 PM on February 13, 2023 [3 favorites]
The SC has been reading along and talking about this thread in our group chat, but this is a complicated set of issues to provide a response to. We aren't well set up to quickly come to consensus on things and provide immediate responses to MetaTalk threads, but we aren't ignoring this thread.
Not to be a nudge, however it's been 6 days since a member of the Steering Committee posted this comment, which was itself 10 days after this post was approved.
At this point, a new MeTa has gone up with a detailed proposal for an ombudsperson. Will the SC's eventual reply go in this thread at all, or jump straight into the other one? I would respectfully request that, since the new post raises and crystallizes some of the questions and comments posted here, that there should hopefully not be a lengthy delay.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2023
Not to be a nudge, however it's been 6 days since a member of the Steering Committee posted this comment, which was itself 10 days after this post was approved.
At this point, a new MeTa has gone up with a detailed proposal for an ombudsperson. Will the SC's eventual reply go in this thread at all, or jump straight into the other one? I would respectfully request that, since the new post raises and crystallizes some of the questions and comments posted here, that there should hopefully not be a lengthy delay.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:15 PM on February 16, 2023
On the contrary, several of them have already commented in the Fundraiser thread and here. I believe they're the only ones who can intercede and form some sort of accountability process, because it's part of the growth strategy for the site.
While I have no issue with waiting for a consensus response, it's your basic Peter Parker scenario: because they share the power, they also share responsibility. The proposal of an ombudsperson has been brought up, time moves on and silence will not be a tenable position forever.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:14 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
While I have no issue with waiting for a consensus response, it's your basic Peter Parker scenario: because they share the power, they also share responsibility. The proposal of an ombudsperson has been brought up, time moves on and silence will not be a tenable position forever.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:14 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think this all goes back to my original point about policies, procedures, people: things like response times should typically be outlined clearly in the Service Level Agreement or similar document. If service levels were formally defined we would all have an easy reference for determining what the expected response time is, among other things.
posted by some loser at 6:38 AM on February 17, 2023
posted by some loser at 6:38 AM on February 17, 2023
The moderation team made a reasonable decision at a point in the Trump era: we're going to err on the side of deleting comments that disagree with the prevailing tenor of a conversation in a thread, regardless of their merit, because those comments can stoke arguments that are unpleasant to moderate. The site is better in some ways and worse in some ways; it's not to my taste, which is why it takes me weeks to stumble upon a thread like this. I certainly don't sit around reddit threads and bitch about it though, I just do other things with my life.
In business it's a lot easier to retain an existing customer than to develop a new one; hopefully as the site continues to evolve in its transition, it devotes some resources to discovering what led longterm users in good standing to drift away.
posted by Kwine at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2023 [7 favorites]
In business it's a lot easier to retain an existing customer than to develop a new one; hopefully as the site continues to evolve in its transition, it devotes some resources to discovering what led longterm users in good standing to drift away.
posted by Kwine at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2023 [7 favorites]
Longtime users drifting away? Here’s an example.
Or my comment earlier in this thread.
Then add in things like the comment window refusing to let me click in it to keep typing, so I have to somehow know to click the preview button to be able to finish a comment (bug reported over a year ago).
I like what MeFi used to be, but every time I come back I end up regretting it.
Bother.
It’s just not a pleasant place around here, and maybe the solution is more hard-assed mods. Or maybe I should just find another place on teh intarwebs.
posted by DaveP at 2:35 PM on February 20, 2023
Or my comment earlier in this thread.
Then add in things like the comment window refusing to let me click in it to keep typing, so I have to somehow know to click the preview button to be able to finish a comment (bug reported over a year ago).
I like what MeFi used to be, but every time I come back I end up regretting it.
Bother.
It’s just not a pleasant place around here, and maybe the solution is more hard-assed mods. Or maybe I should just find another place on teh intarwebs.
posted by DaveP at 2:35 PM on February 20, 2023
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Because if we're a community, it behooves us to be kind to each other, regardless of how righteous we feel, and regardless of whether we're directing our anger at another user or at the SC - the SC, after all, are still *part* of the community.
posted by sagc at 1:36 PM on January 30, 2023 [8 favorites]