Proposal: creation of a MetaFilter ombuds February 16, 2023 8:35 AM Subscribe
I'd like to present for discussion by the MetaFilter community the proposal that we establish an official ombudsperson role, to act as a non-moderator community representative when questions about specific moderation decisions arise.
Objectives
My objectives with this post are (1) to propose that we establish an official ombudsperson role, (2) to give a rationale for the creation of this role, (3) to describe an example of how this role could operate, (4) to provide a basis from which the MetaFilter community can have a discussion on the merits of the general idea and its specific implementation within the discussion thread of the post, and (5) to propose a specific process to move from this discussion to a decision-making process by the Steering Committee.
Non-objectives
I believe discussion about moderation policy more broadly would be better suited to other posts. There is currently a MetaTalk thread on the comment deletion policy. I also think extensive discussion of specific moderation decisions would be a distraction here.
What is an ombudsperson?
An ombudsperson (frequently also called in many organizations an ombudsman, regardless of gender, or ombuds) is someone whose job it is to represent the interests of the general public within the organization. This person usually does not have any other official capacity within the organization, to prevent conflicts of interest. An ombudsperson is usually not tasked with specific regulatory oversight or decision-making authority, but instead to investigate concerns and determine whether stated organizational policies are being followed, in letter and spirit.
What would the value of an ombudsperson be to MetaFilter?
MetaFilter has several published documents related to moderation (guidelines, content policy, privacy policy). Transparency in moderation policies is essential for a self-governing online community. However, specific moderation decisions are generally not transparent, in order to protect member privacy, protect moderation tools and techniques from abuse (per this comment by loup), to protect moderators from abusive behavior by bad actors, and to allow moderators to apply their best professional judgment without micromanagement. Unfortunately, in some cases this can result in contentious moderation decisions in which the mod team affirms that their actions are consistent with policy, but cannot provide sufficient details regarding the decision-making process for that specific case to give a fully transparent explanation. Some community members, for varying reasons, are not always willing to trust the mod team's assurances here, and this creates an impasse, where the mod team refuses to give additional details citing user privacy and other concerns, while some members refuse to accept this explanation as sufficient. Over the past several years we have seen several cases of this occur, which have led to multiple contentious MetaTalk threads, reduced community comity, and negative impacts on the mental health of both moderators and other members.
An ombudsperson would be tasked with helping to resolve these situations. Having an official role at MetaFilter, they could be bound by privacy agreements, and thus permitted to view member information that cannot be publicly disclosed, but not being part of the moderation team they could assess, through conversation with the mods and review of their communications with members, whether the actions of the moderators are indeed consistent with the publicly-available moderation policies that members have accepted. An ombudsperson would thus be able to give an independent opinion regarding whether they concur that the moderators' actions were consistent with policy, and also whether the published moderation policies were adequate in covering a specific moderation action, or whether the published policies need to be clarified to be brought in line with actual moderation practice.
Isn't this the Steering Committee's job?
The SC has a lot of jobs. It's reasonable for the SC to help select an ombuds, but asking them to actually do that job on top of everything else might be a lot. I also think it's probably better for an ombudsperson to be fully independent aside from that role.
This seems like an excessive burden on the mod team. Isn't this adding a layer of micromanagement?
Ideally, I would hope this would make the mod team's job easier by freeing up the energy and mental resources they expend when contentious MetaTalk threads occur challenging specific moderation decisions. Instead of things spiraling with increasing heat and bad feelings, as often happens, the ombuds could be tasked with looking into the issue and making a report back to the community, hopefully heading off further speculation and recriminations until their report is available. Importantly, an ombuds does not have a management role over the mod team: they are not empowered to dictate their actions, only to ask questions, review decisions, and make a public report. That said, it will be important that the ombuds role does not become an avenue for abuse, allowing bad actors to demand review of routine moderation decisions, and is only employed for significantly contentious decisions. Delineating the proper process for deciding when the ombudsperson should become involved would be a valuable discussion topic in this thread.
How many ombudspersons do we need?
I'd suggest two, with only one being involved in any given investigation. Two means that it's more likely one of them will be available at any given time. Too many would degrade the single-point-of-contact feature between the mod team and the community during review of contentious decisions, and make privacy management more difficult. I don't know exactly how many "too many" is, but two seems like a reasonable number.
How would we select ombudspersons?
I think there are two reasonable approaches: either selection by the Steering Committee, or by general election. If by general election, I propose the two ombudspersons be elected by a version of approval voting, as follows. For each candidate on the ballot, electors may select "approve," "disapprove," or "neither approve nor disapprove." Any candidate of whom fewer than 50% of members approve or greater than 20% disapprove is removed from consideration; of the remaining candidates, those who receive the highest number of "approve" votes are elected to the open seats. If fewer candidates remain than open seats to be filled after passing the approval and disapproval thresholds, the election is reheld until the open seats are filled.
In either case, I propose the site owner (jessamyn) should have veto power over any individual's election as ombudsperson. Furthermore, I propose that either the Steering Committee or the site owner should be able to recall an ombudsperson and begin replacement proceedings.
Upon selection, I propose that the ombudspersons undergo any necessary training by the moderation team and/or Steering Committee in handling private user information, and sign any necessary legal documents regarding disclosures, etc. They should work out communication processes, go over any moderation tools necessary for them to be familiar with, etc., with the moderation team, so that they are ready to look into moderation decisions when needed.
What would an ombuds investigation look like?
I propose than an ombuds investigation can be initiated by either the moderation team or the Steering Committee. At this time, one of the ombudspersons is tasked with carrying out the investigation. They then:
The idea is the provide every reasonable avenue for addressing concerns about moderation decisions, consistent with the site's general approach to moderation. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with every moderation decision, but if affirmation that the rules were followed by an ombudsperson is not sufficient to convince people that the process is at least fair, then there may be no approach to a moderated online community that will satisfy them.
What if the moderation team asserts that their decision was correct, but the ombudsperson finds that it was not consistent with site policy?
In that case we'll probably have some very difficult conversations on MetaTalk about how to move forward from there.
Proposed decision process for establishing an ombuds role
I propose that we discuss my above proposals, plus criticisms, alternatives, and other thoughts, for a period of at least 7 days and no more than 30 days (when this thread closes), until one or more concrete proposals for the mandate and responsibilities of the ombudspersons, and the procedures for selecting them, are clearly articulated for voting, and there is a general consensus that the discussion has produced all of the concrete proposals that are likely to be produced. At this time, I propose that the Steering Committee conduct a non-binding poll of the MetaFilter membership, in which each proposal is presented with the options to "approve," "disapprove," or "neither approve nor disapprove." The Steering Committee will then take the results of the poll under advisement, along with any necessary input from the moderation team, the site owner, legal counsel, etc., and reach a decision regarding the establishment of an ombuds role, reporting the result of its decision-making and its rationale back to the community in a MetaTalk post.
Conclusion
I have attempted to describe a possible role for an ombudsperson for Metafilter, as I see it, and give some details to a proposal for the functioning of that role and the selection of individuals for it. However, I do not have specific experience or expertise with this type of role myself. I think it is essential that the defined ombuds role is something that a strong majority of the community feels will represent them well, and is also something that the moderation team feels they can have a productive working relationship with. I fully expect that there are complications and difficulties that I have not considered in drafting this proposal, and welcome them being raised in the discussion. I also expect that there will be people who may like some aspects of this proposal but not others, and hope that a few alternatives may be prepared for the community to vote on. I further expect that there will be some people who don't like the idea at all, and welcome arguments against it.
These are difficult discussions to have, but important for shaping the community as we move forward towards greater community-governance. My thanks to all of you who are willing to engage in them in good faith, presuming good faith from others, and working to be patient with those who disagree with you.
Objectives
My objectives with this post are (1) to propose that we establish an official ombudsperson role, (2) to give a rationale for the creation of this role, (3) to describe an example of how this role could operate, (4) to provide a basis from which the MetaFilter community can have a discussion on the merits of the general idea and its specific implementation within the discussion thread of the post, and (5) to propose a specific process to move from this discussion to a decision-making process by the Steering Committee.
Non-objectives
I believe discussion about moderation policy more broadly would be better suited to other posts. There is currently a MetaTalk thread on the comment deletion policy. I also think extensive discussion of specific moderation decisions would be a distraction here.
What is an ombudsperson?
An ombudsperson (frequently also called in many organizations an ombudsman, regardless of gender, or ombuds) is someone whose job it is to represent the interests of the general public within the organization. This person usually does not have any other official capacity within the organization, to prevent conflicts of interest. An ombudsperson is usually not tasked with specific regulatory oversight or decision-making authority, but instead to investigate concerns and determine whether stated organizational policies are being followed, in letter and spirit.
What would the value of an ombudsperson be to MetaFilter?
MetaFilter has several published documents related to moderation (guidelines, content policy, privacy policy). Transparency in moderation policies is essential for a self-governing online community. However, specific moderation decisions are generally not transparent, in order to protect member privacy, protect moderation tools and techniques from abuse (per this comment by loup), to protect moderators from abusive behavior by bad actors, and to allow moderators to apply their best professional judgment without micromanagement. Unfortunately, in some cases this can result in contentious moderation decisions in which the mod team affirms that their actions are consistent with policy, but cannot provide sufficient details regarding the decision-making process for that specific case to give a fully transparent explanation. Some community members, for varying reasons, are not always willing to trust the mod team's assurances here, and this creates an impasse, where the mod team refuses to give additional details citing user privacy and other concerns, while some members refuse to accept this explanation as sufficient. Over the past several years we have seen several cases of this occur, which have led to multiple contentious MetaTalk threads, reduced community comity, and negative impacts on the mental health of both moderators and other members.
An ombudsperson would be tasked with helping to resolve these situations. Having an official role at MetaFilter, they could be bound by privacy agreements, and thus permitted to view member information that cannot be publicly disclosed, but not being part of the moderation team they could assess, through conversation with the mods and review of their communications with members, whether the actions of the moderators are indeed consistent with the publicly-available moderation policies that members have accepted. An ombudsperson would thus be able to give an independent opinion regarding whether they concur that the moderators' actions were consistent with policy, and also whether the published moderation policies were adequate in covering a specific moderation action, or whether the published policies need to be clarified to be brought in line with actual moderation practice.
Isn't this the Steering Committee's job?
The SC has a lot of jobs. It's reasonable for the SC to help select an ombuds, but asking them to actually do that job on top of everything else might be a lot. I also think it's probably better for an ombudsperson to be fully independent aside from that role.
This seems like an excessive burden on the mod team. Isn't this adding a layer of micromanagement?
Ideally, I would hope this would make the mod team's job easier by freeing up the energy and mental resources they expend when contentious MetaTalk threads occur challenging specific moderation decisions. Instead of things spiraling with increasing heat and bad feelings, as often happens, the ombuds could be tasked with looking into the issue and making a report back to the community, hopefully heading off further speculation and recriminations until their report is available. Importantly, an ombuds does not have a management role over the mod team: they are not empowered to dictate their actions, only to ask questions, review decisions, and make a public report. That said, it will be important that the ombuds role does not become an avenue for abuse, allowing bad actors to demand review of routine moderation decisions, and is only employed for significantly contentious decisions. Delineating the proper process for deciding when the ombudsperson should become involved would be a valuable discussion topic in this thread.
How many ombudspersons do we need?
I'd suggest two, with only one being involved in any given investigation. Two means that it's more likely one of them will be available at any given time. Too many would degrade the single-point-of-contact feature between the mod team and the community during review of contentious decisions, and make privacy management more difficult. I don't know exactly how many "too many" is, but two seems like a reasonable number.
How would we select ombudspersons?
I think there are two reasonable approaches: either selection by the Steering Committee, or by general election. If by general election, I propose the two ombudspersons be elected by a version of approval voting, as follows. For each candidate on the ballot, electors may select "approve," "disapprove," or "neither approve nor disapprove." Any candidate of whom fewer than 50% of members approve or greater than 20% disapprove is removed from consideration; of the remaining candidates, those who receive the highest number of "approve" votes are elected to the open seats. If fewer candidates remain than open seats to be filled after passing the approval and disapproval thresholds, the election is reheld until the open seats are filled.
In either case, I propose the site owner (jessamyn) should have veto power over any individual's election as ombudsperson. Furthermore, I propose that either the Steering Committee or the site owner should be able to recall an ombudsperson and begin replacement proceedings.
Upon selection, I propose that the ombudspersons undergo any necessary training by the moderation team and/or Steering Committee in handling private user information, and sign any necessary legal documents regarding disclosures, etc. They should work out communication processes, go over any moderation tools necessary for them to be familiar with, etc., with the moderation team, so that they are ready to look into moderation decisions when needed.
What would an ombuds investigation look like?
I propose than an ombuds investigation can be initiated by either the moderation team or the Steering Committee. At this time, one of the ombudspersons is tasked with carrying out the investigation. They then:
- Post either a comment or a new MetaTalk post indicating that they are beginning to look into the moderation decision in question.
- Set up a meeting time with one or more members of the moderation team to discuss the decision, and post a comment to MetaTalk indicating that they have done so with a rough timeline.
- Provide daily posts updating on their status, even if nothing has changed (e.g., "Reminder, I am still going to be meeting with the moderators this coming weekend." or "We had to reschedule our meeting, we're now planning to meet on Wednesday.")
- Meet and discuss the moderation decision. The moderator(s) should be prepared to explain their decisions according to stated policy, the details of the case, and their professional judgment. The ombudsperson should explain back to the moderator(s) their understanding of how the decision was reached, and the moderator(s) should confirm that the ombudsperson's understanding is correct.
- The ombudsperson then posts a comment to MetaTalk indicating their findings, which should in general be one of the following: (a) the moderation decision was consistent with published moderation policies, (b) the moderation decision was contrary to published moderation policies, (c) published moderation policies were inadequate to cover this case, but the decision was generally consistent with site values, (d) published moderation policies were inadequate to cover this case, and the decision deviated from site values. Other findings may also be possible, but must not reveal details that compromise member privacy or non-public information about moderation tools. They may also issue a non-binding recommendation.
The idea is the provide every reasonable avenue for addressing concerns about moderation decisions, consistent with the site's general approach to moderation. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with every moderation decision, but if affirmation that the rules were followed by an ombudsperson is not sufficient to convince people that the process is at least fair, then there may be no approach to a moderated online community that will satisfy them.
What if the moderation team asserts that their decision was correct, but the ombudsperson finds that it was not consistent with site policy?
In that case we'll probably have some very difficult conversations on MetaTalk about how to move forward from there.
Proposed decision process for establishing an ombuds role
I propose that we discuss my above proposals, plus criticisms, alternatives, and other thoughts, for a period of at least 7 days and no more than 30 days (when this thread closes), until one or more concrete proposals for the mandate and responsibilities of the ombudspersons, and the procedures for selecting them, are clearly articulated for voting, and there is a general consensus that the discussion has produced all of the concrete proposals that are likely to be produced. At this time, I propose that the Steering Committee conduct a non-binding poll of the MetaFilter membership, in which each proposal is presented with the options to "approve," "disapprove," or "neither approve nor disapprove." The Steering Committee will then take the results of the poll under advisement, along with any necessary input from the moderation team, the site owner, legal counsel, etc., and reach a decision regarding the establishment of an ombuds role, reporting the result of its decision-making and its rationale back to the community in a MetaTalk post.
Conclusion
I have attempted to describe a possible role for an ombudsperson for Metafilter, as I see it, and give some details to a proposal for the functioning of that role and the selection of individuals for it. However, I do not have specific experience or expertise with this type of role myself. I think it is essential that the defined ombuds role is something that a strong majority of the community feels will represent them well, and is also something that the moderation team feels they can have a productive working relationship with. I fully expect that there are complications and difficulties that I have not considered in drafting this proposal, and welcome them being raised in the discussion. I also expect that there will be people who may like some aspects of this proposal but not others, and hope that a few alternatives may be prepared for the community to vote on. I further expect that there will be some people who don't like the idea at all, and welcome arguments against it.
These are difficult discussions to have, but important for shaping the community as we move forward towards greater community-governance. My thanks to all of you who are willing to engage in them in good faith, presuming good faith from others, and working to be patient with those who disagree with you.
What if the moderation team realizes that a mistake was made as the result of the investigation? I would suggest some kind of acknowledgement, such as: admission of the error, clarification of policies, communications of training adjustments, etc.
posted by xo at 8:58 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by xo at 8:58 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
I don't understand why this has to be so opaque and bureaucratic - secret mod notes, secret mod discussions, case by case decisions, meetings with an ombudsperson? Imagine trying to explain this to potential new users.
There should be a standardised policy that's easy to access and to understand. E.g. post bigotry in a thread once, receive a warning. Do it again in the same thread, get a timeout. Get five timeouts in a month, get banned.
Follow a set policy in a predictable, equitable way for everyone, and make the decisions publicly viewable in a moderation log for each user. That is what I personally mean when I say I want transparency and accountability.
posted by iivix at 9:28 AM on February 16, 2023 [25 favorites]
There should be a standardised policy that's easy to access and to understand. E.g. post bigotry in a thread once, receive a warning. Do it again in the same thread, get a timeout. Get five timeouts in a month, get banned.
Follow a set policy in a predictable, equitable way for everyone, and make the decisions publicly viewable in a moderation log for each user. That is what I personally mean when I say I want transparency and accountability.
posted by iivix at 9:28 AM on February 16, 2023 [25 favorites]
I don't understand why this has to be so opaque and bureaucratic - secret mod notes, secret mod discussions, case by case decisions, meetings with an ombudsperson?
Yes. I think the site needs better, clearer policies and procedures, not more layers of people.
posted by lapis at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2023 [24 favorites]
Yes. I think the site needs better, clearer policies and procedures, not more layers of people.
posted by lapis at 9:35 AM on February 16, 2023 [24 favorites]
some kind of acknowledgement, such as: admission of the error, clarification of policies, communications of training adjustments, etc.
I think if we had this the problem would be solved, but that's just like my opinion, dudes
posted by Jarcat at 10:09 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think if we had this the problem would be solved, but that's just like my opinion, dudes
posted by Jarcat at 10:09 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I propose than an ombuds investigation can be initiated by either the moderation team or the Steering Committee.
This puts review power in the hands of the reviewees which won't reduce the sort of Metas the ombudsperson position is suppose to reduce. Instead it'll just drop it back one step and the Metas will nominally be about why a mod action wasn't reviewed while also having a bunch of back and forth about the action.
Ombudspersons should be able to instigate reviews. Either own their own or at the request of the membership.
posted by Mitheral at 10:18 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
This puts review power in the hands of the reviewees which won't reduce the sort of Metas the ombudsperson position is suppose to reduce. Instead it'll just drop it back one step and the Metas will nominally be about why a mod action wasn't reviewed while also having a bunch of back and forth about the action.
Ombudspersons should be able to instigate reviews. Either own their own or at the request of the membership.
posted by Mitheral at 10:18 AM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
The Steering Committee are representatives of the site membership.
posted by biogeo at 10:26 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 10:26 AM on February 16, 2023 [4 favorites]
I want to love this, but I don't trust that it wouldn't just be more of the same. "We can't trust the ombusperson they work for Mefi they'll be in on the bias" and it'd just be more of the "we cant' trust the mods" "We can't trust the staff" "we don't trust anyone in any position of authority -ever-"
posted by FritoKAL at 11:14 AM on February 16, 2023
posted by FritoKAL at 11:14 AM on February 16, 2023
"We'd like more information about things" =/= "We can't trust the mods."
It would probably be helpful to avoid framing things in such polarizing binaries. BTJLMO,D
posted by Jarcat at 11:20 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
It would probably be helpful to avoid framing things in such polarizing binaries. BTJLMO,D
posted by Jarcat at 11:20 AM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
This whole concept seems well thought-out and is well-presented here. It also seems like a lot of work, especially things like daily updates on investigations.
The SC is still a new thing that is being figured out as they go. I agree that it is not ideal to pile too many responsibilities on them. On the other hand, they are members who were voted in. It seems logical that this role would make sense for the SC. Like, is there anyone who would be running for ombudsperson who shouldn't just run for the SC instead? Maybe we see if the SC can take on some of this role, along with maybe helping define policies more clearly, and then maybe check in again in 6 months or a year to see if a separate ombudsperson is still a priority for people.
posted by snofoam at 11:54 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
The SC is still a new thing that is being figured out as they go. I agree that it is not ideal to pile too many responsibilities on them. On the other hand, they are members who were voted in. It seems logical that this role would make sense for the SC. Like, is there anyone who would be running for ombudsperson who shouldn't just run for the SC instead? Maybe we see if the SC can take on some of this role, along with maybe helping define policies more clearly, and then maybe check in again in 6 months or a year to see if a separate ombudsperson is still a priority for people.
posted by snofoam at 11:54 AM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I may be wrong here but my impression of the last two metas which seem to have led to this one was that the idea of having an ombudsperson was something a large majority of people actually agreed on. The notion that, given a grievance with a mod decision (or just overall mod inclination), a site user had an option to explore beyond just going "public" with it in a Meta ... assuming they even could go public with it as that mod decision may have been suspending them, or worse.
As to the mechanics of how this might work, that's what biogeo's post seems to be about. A lot of thought has obviously gone into it. There are a lot of words to mull over. I don't expect we're going to suddenly (or perhaps ever) agree on everything, but on that, I'm with biogeo ...
The Steering Committee are representatives of the site membership.
We voted them in to speak and act for us. It makes sense that it's the Steering Committee who would ultimately have to come to agreement on something and put it into use.
posted by philip-random at 11:58 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
As to the mechanics of how this might work, that's what biogeo's post seems to be about. A lot of thought has obviously gone into it. There are a lot of words to mull over. I don't expect we're going to suddenly (or perhaps ever) agree on everything, but on that, I'm with biogeo ...
The Steering Committee are representatives of the site membership.
We voted them in to speak and act for us. It makes sense that it's the Steering Committee who would ultimately have to come to agreement on something and put it into use.
posted by philip-random at 11:58 AM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is currently necessary but I'm not against the idea.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'm disappointed this post was approved.
This feels.. I don't know.. paternalistic? "Here's what you need to do to make your job easier." Has either the mod team or the SC asked for this kind of input?
biogeo, I wish you'd contact the SC directly and volunteer to head it up, if it's something you feel passionate about. The SC is specifically empowered to make these kinds of changes. "Open discussion" in MetaTalk almost never goes well.
posted by curious nu at 12:03 PM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
This feels.. I don't know.. paternalistic? "Here's what you need to do to make your job easier." Has either the mod team or the SC asked for this kind of input?
biogeo, I wish you'd contact the SC directly and volunteer to head it up, if it's something you feel passionate about. The SC is specifically empowered to make these kinds of changes. "Open discussion" in MetaTalk almost never goes well.
posted by curious nu at 12:03 PM on February 16, 2023 [3 favorites]
"We'd like more information about things" =/= "We can't trust the mods."
It's not clear to me that this proposal, as written, would provide any more information to the general membership than is already provided. The ombudsperson would privately and confidentially speak to the mods and then make their judgment public, without including any of the private information that they're not allowed to reveal.
This proposal seems aimed at providing a sort of procedural legitimacy to moderation decisions, the imprimatur of an independent investigator. And it's easy to assume that this would offer legitimacy in the abstract, where we can all assume that the ombudsperson would surely be wise and just and never make a decision that we would disagree with. But I would honestly be interested to hear from the folks who strongly believe that recent mod decisions (either the most recent blow up or others)were grievous errors on the following question:
Suppose there had been an ombudsperson (freely and independently selected through whatever process you consider best) and they had investigated the issue, and come back with the conclusion that in the incident in question the mods had acted entirely within the letter and spirit of the published policies. Would that have made you happier with the decision? Would it have lowered the temperature of the resulting conversations?
posted by firechicago at 12:09 PM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's not clear to me that this proposal, as written, would provide any more information to the general membership than is already provided. The ombudsperson would privately and confidentially speak to the mods and then make their judgment public, without including any of the private information that they're not allowed to reveal.
This proposal seems aimed at providing a sort of procedural legitimacy to moderation decisions, the imprimatur of an independent investigator. And it's easy to assume that this would offer legitimacy in the abstract, where we can all assume that the ombudsperson would surely be wise and just and never make a decision that we would disagree with. But I would honestly be interested to hear from the folks who strongly believe that recent mod decisions (either the most recent blow up or others)were grievous errors on the following question:
Suppose there had been an ombudsperson (freely and independently selected through whatever process you consider best) and they had investigated the issue, and come back with the conclusion that in the incident in question the mods had acted entirely within the letter and spirit of the published policies. Would that have made you happier with the decision? Would it have lowered the temperature of the resulting conversations?
posted by firechicago at 12:09 PM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
I may be wrong here but my impression of the last two metas which seem to have led to this one was that the idea of having an ombudsperson was something a large majority of people actually agreed on.
I think it would be surprising if many people were actively against having an ombudsperson. But I would imagine that a lot of people don't think the site needs one or that it is something important enough to prioritize over a long list of other things that would help the site. This is basically how I feel.
I don't think it makes sense to generalize about what the site membership wants from a couple Meta threads where many of the participants wanted to hold mods accountable for decisions they felt were wrong. A couple/few dozen people commenting on a topic is something worth listening to, but it isn't an indication of consensus.
posted by snofoam at 12:41 PM on February 16, 2023 [20 favorites]
I think it would be surprising if many people were actively against having an ombudsperson. But I would imagine that a lot of people don't think the site needs one or that it is something important enough to prioritize over a long list of other things that would help the site. This is basically how I feel.
I don't think it makes sense to generalize about what the site membership wants from a couple Meta threads where many of the participants wanted to hold mods accountable for decisions they felt were wrong. A couple/few dozen people commenting on a topic is something worth listening to, but it isn't an indication of consensus.
posted by snofoam at 12:41 PM on February 16, 2023 [20 favorites]
I support this idea. Though more of the role as arbitrator and suggest arbitrator as the offical role if approved. Ombuds is ok and catchy but arbitration is what I believe this is about. I suggest the person chosen have experience in this as a baseline. It would be a member but I'm Leary as these folks must have mod experience, SC committee experience would be great and above all, a clear role as to who can overide the arbitrator' decision if need be, I'd suggest that person be Jessamyn only. I believe this role would have a limited need. I see a problem with folks not deferring to a mod request because an arbitrator would possibly intervene. an arbitrator does not intervene, they intercede. IMO, the recent situation with Molly would serve well as example. With a clearer policy for mods and that would include members adhering to new policy, a situation can be reviewed and I feel Loup should make the initial case for arbitration though this does not discount a mod or member requesting this, through loup. This will free up energy to mods to continue on, knowing that the issue is getting action.
The arbitrator could not change current policy but fully consult staff on any matter not immediately under thier purview.
aribration is hard, done in a limited capacity legally and the decision should be final even if Mods might not agree and any final rendering should be approved by Jessamyn.
Great idea and work Biogeo, this could potentially solved alot of problems as it gives folks a feeling that their case can heard outside mod scope. It also frees up mod energy to move forward.
The arbitrator in conjunction with Loup and
or Jessamyn, could decide about a member coming back, they could be contact on that point.
We shouldn't need an independent watchdog because metatalk should fill that role. The fact that it no longer seems to do so is very, very sad to me.
I see that but do not ascibe to the "no longer seems" as this proposal could ensure that if not addressed, better framework is available.
Metafilter has always needed a "watchdog" in Matt's time, it was Matt. But then OP took more of a role to cut down on chatter and what not then another member might back that up if threads were derailed again. Harsh, inappropriate language also help curb the worst...It worked but didn't. First moderation times, members would back mod decisions, reenforcing better community standards and today, official persons are being proposed to help, not hurt.
it's a fair deal.
posted by clavdivs at 2:26 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
The arbitrator could not change current policy but fully consult staff on any matter not immediately under thier purview.
aribration is hard, done in a limited capacity legally and the decision should be final even if Mods might not agree and any final rendering should be approved by Jessamyn.
Great idea and work Biogeo, this could potentially solved alot of problems as it gives folks a feeling that their case can heard outside mod scope. It also frees up mod energy to move forward.
The arbitrator in conjunction with Loup and
or Jessamyn, could decide about a member coming back, they could be contact on that point.
We shouldn't need an independent watchdog because metatalk should fill that role. The fact that it no longer seems to do so is very, very sad to me.
I see that but do not ascibe to the "no longer seems" as this proposal could ensure that if not addressed, better framework is available.
Metafilter has always needed a "watchdog" in Matt's time, it was Matt. But then OP took more of a role to cut down on chatter and what not then another member might back that up if threads were derailed again. Harsh, inappropriate language also help curb the worst...It worked but didn't. First moderation times, members would back mod decisions, reenforcing better community standards and today, official persons are being proposed to help, not hurt.
it's a fair deal.
posted by clavdivs at 2:26 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
First, the important linguistic info. Ombudsman is Swedish, deriving from umboð 'commission'. We could use English cognates to make it Bybeadleman. The boð part is cognate to Buddha.
Second— it's probably worth trying. A lot of things shouldn't be necessary, and yet are useful. In theory people can just talk to the mods, but some people are conflict-avoidant and others are conflict-seeking and both types can benefit from having an intermediary to talk to.
Third, I think the whole idea of an ombudsperson is that the user can summon them. When there's a user-moderator conflict, it doesn't make much sense that the defusing option is only under the control of the moderator.
posted by zompist at 2:39 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
Second— it's probably worth trying. A lot of things shouldn't be necessary, and yet are useful. In theory people can just talk to the mods, but some people are conflict-avoidant and others are conflict-seeking and both types can benefit from having an intermediary to talk to.
Third, I think the whole idea of an ombudsperson is that the user can summon them. When there's a user-moderator conflict, it doesn't make much sense that the defusing option is only under the control of the moderator.
posted by zompist at 2:39 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
I was taught that the ombudsperson position should report directly to the very highest level of the organization (board of directors / owner) so that their findings cannot be suppressed by those who might might be tempted to do so for various reasons.
posted by some loser at 2:45 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by some loser at 2:45 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
I am not against an omsbud role if the community decides it's a good idea. Might just be worth building it into the roles of the SC moving forward if the community decides it's a good idea. No reason an omsbud couldn't be an SC member as opposed to someone external to both the SC and the mod team? Might cut down on elections and paperwork.
What I think may not be reasonable is the amount of work involved. Daily updates about topics on contentious threads, threads that can get full of not-happy people demanding answers with more frequency than daily, people who may not be mollified that someone official is looking into it, might be a lot for a person to take on as a volunteer gig.
So again, it may really make sense to have an omsbud person but I don't think it's going to make tough MetaTalks any less tough.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2023 [24 favorites]
What I think may not be reasonable is the amount of work involved. Daily updates about topics on contentious threads, threads that can get full of not-happy people demanding answers with more frequency than daily, people who may not be mollified that someone official is looking into it, might be a lot for a person to take on as a volunteer gig.
So again, it may really make sense to have an omsbud person but I don't think it's going to make tough MetaTalks any less tough.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2023 [24 favorites]
SL, In a municipality, yes. The decision goes to the top but ombudfolk handle more then one type of problem, here it would quite specific. As zompist said, it is crucial that the ombudfolk would not intervene in a mod decision, that would stand. The role would be limited. An SC member seems logical.
The psychology is that threads won't become upsetting, continuous because no consensus has been achieved. Perhaps the labor for said role would be more limited as their roles are defined to member issues with members or staff that cannot be solved by current methodology.
posted by clavdivs at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
The psychology is that threads won't become upsetting, continuous because no consensus has been achieved. Perhaps the labor for said role would be more limited as their roles are defined to member issues with members or staff that cannot be solved by current methodology.
posted by clavdivs at 3:09 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
To clarify since it's come up a couple of times: my intended proposal is that members can invoke an ombuds investigation by reaching out to the Steering Committee, or moderators can also invite an ombuds investigation if they feel it would be helpful in resolving a dispute. Members should not need to go through the mod team to initiate an ombuds investigation. The rationale for going through the SC is to provide a guard against bad actors abusing the process, while removing responsibility for making the decision about whether an investigation is warranted from the ombuds, preserving their impartiality. However, I can see arguments in favor of having members directly ask the ombuds to make a decision on whether to investigate, as well, and that could definitely be an alternative approach for consideration. If we decide to have the ombuds job be performed by a member of the SC then that would probably be the more logical approach, anyway.
posted by biogeo at 3:26 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by biogeo at 3:26 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
Daily updates about topics on contentious threads, threads that can get full of not-happy people demanding answers with more frequency than daily, people who may not be mollified that someone official is looking into it, might be a lot for a person to take on as a volunteer gig.
Having done this here, for money, I can say that this level of interaction is not a volunteer-level gig. It's something I feel pretty strongly is a level of commitment and necessary expertise that would ethically require compensation.
There seems to me to be two major components to the role as proposed - one is the initial analysis, which I would expect would look like a couple-times-a-month email chain between a mefite, the mod team, and the SC, mediated by a volunteer. The second part is the public statement and management of the subsequent discussion, and that's the part I think would need some pretty serious thought towards scoping - how much debate with the ombudsman are they expected to manage? Is this a static report or an ongoing discussion? If it's not a static report, what is the intent of the subsequent discussion?
I am, in general, a little skeptical about the utility of inserting layers in moderation discussions. You certainly can, and I don't foresee any huge problems caused, I am just a little skeptical that the fundamental reaction to moderation is going to change just because there's another person (or people) signing off on it.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 3:27 PM on February 16, 2023 [20 favorites]
Having done this here, for money, I can say that this level of interaction is not a volunteer-level gig. It's something I feel pretty strongly is a level of commitment and necessary expertise that would ethically require compensation.
There seems to me to be two major components to the role as proposed - one is the initial analysis, which I would expect would look like a couple-times-a-month email chain between a mefite, the mod team, and the SC, mediated by a volunteer. The second part is the public statement and management of the subsequent discussion, and that's the part I think would need some pretty serious thought towards scoping - how much debate with the ombudsman are they expected to manage? Is this a static report or an ongoing discussion? If it's not a static report, what is the intent of the subsequent discussion?
I am, in general, a little skeptical about the utility of inserting layers in moderation discussions. You certainly can, and I don't foresee any huge problems caused, I am just a little skeptical that the fundamental reaction to moderation is going to change just because there's another person (or people) signing off on it.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 3:27 PM on February 16, 2023 [20 favorites]
First, the important linguistic info. Ombudsman is Swedish, deriving from umboð 'commission'.
It exists in both Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, going back far enough that it is in joint heritage through old Norse. It is derived from umboðsmaðr which is closer to representative. Ombud is still a word in use in Danish at least, meaning proxy or someone entrusted to act on someone's behalf. The term has been in use in Nordic countries for at least five hundred years before the Swedes and Norwegians created the modern ombudsman.
It is not reasonable to give the origins of the term, or the modern ombudsman, to Sweden alone.
posted by Dysk at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
It exists in both Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, going back far enough that it is in joint heritage through old Norse. It is derived from umboðsmaðr which is closer to representative. Ombud is still a word in use in Danish at least, meaning proxy or someone entrusted to act on someone's behalf. The term has been in use in Nordic countries for at least five hundred years before the Swedes and Norwegians created the modern ombudsman.
It is not reasonable to give the origins of the term, or the modern ombudsman, to Sweden alone.
posted by Dysk at 3:51 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
I don't have a strong opinion about whether an ombuds would be a big benefit to MetaFilter, but I would like to say that this is an extremely thoughtful and respectful proposal, and I am immensely grateful to you, biogeo, for the care and time you put into making it.
I think the mods do a fantastic job overall and I trust them, individually and as a team. I know that there are errors and missteps, but I compare MetaFilter to any other organization or website I'm involved in and, in my experience, the site philosophy, the processes and policies, and the individuals doing the actual work are miles above and beyond any other organization I know of.
If an ombuds would make life easier for the mods by relieving them of the emotionally exhausting and occasionally abusive firestorms in MetaTalk, or if it would make the site better by providing a more trusted channel for those who are upset about a moderation decision, then that would be great.
I guess I might suggest, if we do this, doing it on a trial basis - maybe a year long - and then trying to evaluate the impact on the community and on the staff. It seems to me like it might be worth the money (I totally agree with others above that this is NOT a volunteer-level position), but it would be good to be able to assess that over time.
Thank you, biogeo, for thinking about this so carefully and for bringing the idea here to the community.
posted by kristi at 4:16 PM on February 16, 2023 [10 favorites]
I think the mods do a fantastic job overall and I trust them, individually and as a team. I know that there are errors and missteps, but I compare MetaFilter to any other organization or website I'm involved in and, in my experience, the site philosophy, the processes and policies, and the individuals doing the actual work are miles above and beyond any other organization I know of.
If an ombuds would make life easier for the mods by relieving them of the emotionally exhausting and occasionally abusive firestorms in MetaTalk, or if it would make the site better by providing a more trusted channel for those who are upset about a moderation decision, then that would be great.
I guess I might suggest, if we do this, doing it on a trial basis - maybe a year long - and then trying to evaluate the impact on the community and on the staff. It seems to me like it might be worth the money (I totally agree with others above that this is NOT a volunteer-level position), but it would be good to be able to assess that over time.
Thank you, biogeo, for thinking about this so carefully and for bringing the idea here to the community.
posted by kristi at 4:16 PM on February 16, 2023 [10 favorites]
(Also, to my Scandinavian eyes, "ombuds" as a shorthand is jarringly wrong. It is a combination of "ombud" and "man" - s is used to join compound words together in Scandinavian languages. It would be like having a hyphenated word in English shortened to just the first half with a hanging hyphen. "Ombud" is the preferred gender neutral term in modern Norwegian, f.eks.)
posted by Dysk at 4:45 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:45 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
Do any other internet forums have ombudspeople on retainer for the function of allowing people to appeal mod decisions? If the answer is, as I suspect, no, we have to ask ourselves why that is the case and what practical realities (expense, complication, etc) have made the presence of an ombudsperson seem unnecessary.
I'm not saying that just because a practice may be unprecedented it should be rejected out of hand, but this proposed procedure feels like something more appropriate for a much higher stakes enterprise than an internet forum.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 5:00 PM on February 16, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'm not saying that just because a practice may be unprecedented it should be rejected out of hand, but this proposed procedure feels like something more appropriate for a much higher stakes enterprise than an internet forum.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 5:00 PM on February 16, 2023 [8 favorites]
I also really appreciate the thought and care that went into this proposal.
But I'd like to note, as someone who plays an ombuds-adjacent role in her professional life, that it is absolutely not anything I'd advise anyone do without skill and experience, or for free. Or in a capacity that requires daily updates to a large public crowd of people. I'd be worried about burning someone out very quickly in this role as outlined here.
That's not to say don't go ahead with the general idea of an ombuds if the community and the steering committee like it! Just that if you do move ahead, I wouldn't necessarily recommend implementing the proposal exactly as written up here. I really think you'd want to build in more time for a process to play out, and less real-time play-by-play updating.
posted by Stacey at 5:13 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
But I'd like to note, as someone who plays an ombuds-adjacent role in her professional life, that it is absolutely not anything I'd advise anyone do without skill and experience, or for free. Or in a capacity that requires daily updates to a large public crowd of people. I'd be worried about burning someone out very quickly in this role as outlined here.
That's not to say don't go ahead with the general idea of an ombuds if the community and the steering committee like it! Just that if you do move ahead, I wouldn't necessarily recommend implementing the proposal exactly as written up here. I really think you'd want to build in more time for a process to play out, and less real-time play-by-play updating.
posted by Stacey at 5:13 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
this proposed procedure feels like something more appropriate for a much higher stakes enterprise than an internet forum.
I say this with all the love in my heart for you fantastic weirdos and for my entire career: internet forums are among the highest-stakes enterprise many people will ever feel like they have meaningful input into.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 5:15 PM on February 16, 2023 [26 favorites]
I say this with all the love in my heart for you fantastic weirdos and for my entire career: internet forums are among the highest-stakes enterprise many people will ever feel like they have meaningful input into.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 5:15 PM on February 16, 2023 [26 favorites]
Absolutely YES to the ombudsman role. The finer details can be hashed out (I'm not sure the voting system and the daily updates are viable, and certainly when I've dealt with ombudsmen before there was no expectation of a quick response or regular updates). But yeah there should be somebody the userbase could go to to say "hey I don't trust the mods, help".
posted by creatrixtiara at 5:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by creatrixtiara at 5:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't there be a seperate ombudsperson for each of the various cabals?
posted by sammyo at 7:13 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 7:13 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think we ought to elect them in a multi-stage process like a doge.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:20 PM on February 16, 2023
posted by kevinbelt at 7:20 PM on February 16, 2023
I'm not certain how an ombudsperson would have prevented the situation that unfolded these past few weeks. In brief:
--MollyRealized had their comment in the Fundraiser thread deleted by taz. It didn't violate any guidelines (or at the very least, it hasn't been explained what guidelines where broken).
--Possibly after some private communication, taz also shadow-banned MollyRealized. It's still unclear whether taz made the decision to do this after consulting with others from the mod team/Jessamyn, or not. It's 100% clear that taz did not ask members of the Steering Committee if they wanted the comment removed or MR to be banned, in fact some of them indicated that they would have been prepared to engage with the topic, either in that post or in a follow-up MeTa. (This is not to say that taz was supposed to or was obligated to do this, but it was an option.)
--It's not fully clear to what extent the decision to shadow-ban (regardless of whether taz spoke to someone beforehand) was informed by interacting with MR at that time, versus the "mod notes" that are taken from previous interactions. It's not clear what those mod notes said about MR, because...
--Even though MollyRealized has expressly given her permission for the mods to discuss the circumstances of her ban in the Reddit comments she posted, and even though the mods could confirm this permission (since loup has said they are in contact with MR), there has been a refusal to do a post-mortem on the decision process that led to this. The only other way MR could confirm this would be for her to post her permission, but this is paradoxically no longer possible since the account was disabled.
So -- and I ask this with sincerity -- what in the proposal here would have enabled an ombudsperson to prevent this?
(a) Would the ombuds have the power to restore a comment/lift a ban if they decided that a mod acted inappropriately?
(b) Would the ombuds have the ability to disclose specifics in their report if given permission by the user to do so?
(c) Would the ombuds be able to conduct a broader review of mod policies, and to discuss them with the SC and the Mod Team and then -- this is the key part of being an ombuds -- release their findings to the public?
If the answer to any of those questions is "No", then an ombuds couldn't have prevented this mess. I admit I've been beating the drum for an Moderation Log, because it answers all the questions through a process of OPENNESS, instead of added layers of bureaucracy. "This Mod performed This Action on This Post for This Reason". "This Mod gave A Warning to This User regarding This Rule". "This User is temporarily locked out of This Thread because they repeatedly broke This Rule." And you can go back and look at the historical timeline of everything that mod has done, or what else happened on that post, or on that day. Having the data available without needing to file a request, or await an inquest, or hire additional staff.
The mod team are generally friendly people, but they are also friends with each other and they always circle wagons against even the suggestion that power was wielded incorrectly. Openness and honesty in the process invites participation. Secrecy and red tape hides abuses of power, even if those abuses are unintentional, and even if the people behind it have excellent intentions.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:40 PM on February 16, 2023 [18 favorites]
--MollyRealized had their comment in the Fundraiser thread deleted by taz. It didn't violate any guidelines (or at the very least, it hasn't been explained what guidelines where broken).
--Possibly after some private communication, taz also shadow-banned MollyRealized. It's still unclear whether taz made the decision to do this after consulting with others from the mod team/Jessamyn, or not. It's 100% clear that taz did not ask members of the Steering Committee if they wanted the comment removed or MR to be banned, in fact some of them indicated that they would have been prepared to engage with the topic, either in that post or in a follow-up MeTa. (This is not to say that taz was supposed to or was obligated to do this, but it was an option.)
--It's not fully clear to what extent the decision to shadow-ban (regardless of whether taz spoke to someone beforehand) was informed by interacting with MR at that time, versus the "mod notes" that are taken from previous interactions. It's not clear what those mod notes said about MR, because...
--Even though MollyRealized has expressly given her permission for the mods to discuss the circumstances of her ban in the Reddit comments she posted, and even though the mods could confirm this permission (since loup has said they are in contact with MR), there has been a refusal to do a post-mortem on the decision process that led to this. The only other way MR could confirm this would be for her to post her permission, but this is paradoxically no longer possible since the account was disabled.
So -- and I ask this with sincerity -- what in the proposal here would have enabled an ombudsperson to prevent this?
(a) Would the ombuds have the power to restore a comment/lift a ban if they decided that a mod acted inappropriately?
(b) Would the ombuds have the ability to disclose specifics in their report if given permission by the user to do so?
(c) Would the ombuds be able to conduct a broader review of mod policies, and to discuss them with the SC and the Mod Team and then -- this is the key part of being an ombuds -- release their findings to the public?
If the answer to any of those questions is "No", then an ombuds couldn't have prevented this mess. I admit I've been beating the drum for an Moderation Log, because it answers all the questions through a process of OPENNESS, instead of added layers of bureaucracy. "This Mod performed This Action on This Post for This Reason". "This Mod gave A Warning to This User regarding This Rule". "This User is temporarily locked out of This Thread because they repeatedly broke This Rule." And you can go back and look at the historical timeline of everything that mod has done, or what else happened on that post, or on that day. Having the data available without needing to file a request, or await an inquest, or hire additional staff.
The mod team are generally friendly people, but they are also friends with each other and they always circle wagons against even the suggestion that power was wielded incorrectly. Openness and honesty in the process invites participation. Secrecy and red tape hides abuses of power, even if those abuses are unintentional, and even if the people behind it have excellent intentions.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 7:40 PM on February 16, 2023 [18 favorites]
I don’t think we’ve maximized or refined the work of the Steering Committee enough to determine whether we need an Ombud at this time.
posted by calgirl at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by calgirl at 8:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
The Pluto Gangsta, I think "it hasn't been explained what guidelines were broken" isn't a neutral reading of the mod comments in past metatalk threads, and I hope that people don't derail biogeo's excellent post into yet another relitigation of that incident.
posted by sagc at 8:17 PM on February 16, 2023 [26 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:17 PM on February 16, 2023 [26 favorites]
I don't want to derail, we could take this discussion back to Meatbomb's MeTa from two weeks ago, but has it been explained and I missed it? The Guidelines are here, the Content Policy is here, what was broken? Honestly, no BS, did I miss it?
The text of what MR posted is available in the Reddit thread, which is linked in Meatbomb's MeTa post. I completely grant that it was an emotional comment, and perhaps revealed more about MR's state of mind than she intended. And I grant that it was only partly related to the Fundraising post, but still. It was an earnest attempt to discuss what MetaFilter would do with the money. Members of the SC literally posted that they might have preferred to engage with the comment rather than see it deleted.
To stay relevant to this particular MeTa thread, what could an ombuds as suggested here have done to prevent it? And also, (because I forgot to mention this before) would the ombuds' remit include the ability to analyze trends in moderation towards users from marginalized groups? MR is not the first trans user to have "mod notes" factor into how their comments were removed prior to account deletion.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:39 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
The text of what MR posted is available in the Reddit thread, which is linked in Meatbomb's MeTa post. I completely grant that it was an emotional comment, and perhaps revealed more about MR's state of mind than she intended. And I grant that it was only partly related to the Fundraising post, but still. It was an earnest attempt to discuss what MetaFilter would do with the money. Members of the SC literally posted that they might have preferred to engage with the comment rather than see it deleted.
To stay relevant to this particular MeTa thread, what could an ombuds as suggested here have done to prevent it? And also, (because I forgot to mention this before) would the ombuds' remit include the ability to analyze trends in moderation towards users from marginalized groups? MR is not the first trans user to have "mod notes" factor into how their comments were removed prior to account deletion.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:39 PM on February 16, 2023 [6 favorites]
I couldn’t agree more with Pluto Gangsta. Unless you can explain why having an ombuds would have produced a better — or, fuck, even just a different — outcome in MollyRealized’s case, or with odinsdream before that, this is just adding another layer of obfuscation on top of a moderation that can’t or won’t communicate with the community they’re trying to serve.
posted by dorothy hawk at 8:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by dorothy hawk at 8:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [10 favorites]
Unless I am misunderstanding, and you're saying that the lack of a clear answer on this is part-and-parcel of the moderator's secrecy. In that case I would respond that the secrecy itself is part of the issue, which would be neatly solved by more clear notes from moderators when comments are removed. If the ombuds is not empowered to pierce that veil and report back, then I don't see it as helpful.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [7 favorites]
I don't want to derail? You are literally posting paragraphs of text about whether a comment should have been deleted, weeks ago, in multiple threads, over and over.
posted by Mid at 9:00 PM on February 16, 2023 [18 favorites]
posted by Mid at 9:00 PM on February 16, 2023 [18 favorites]
How is it a derail to ask how an ombuds would help in a specific situation?
If the answer is “they wouldn’t have helped in that situation” then say so. I’d be happy to move on. Calling it a derail feels like a tactic to avoid answering the question though. Maybe that’s not how you’re intending it, probably not even, but it’s how it looks. I genuinely want to know: would a ombuds have led to a different outcome?
posted by dorothy hawk at 9:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
If the answer is “they wouldn’t have helped in that situation” then say so. I’d be happy to move on. Calling it a derail feels like a tactic to avoid answering the question though. Maybe that’s not how you’re intending it, probably not even, but it’s how it looks. I genuinely want to know: would a ombuds have led to a different outcome?
posted by dorothy hawk at 9:48 PM on February 16, 2023 [13 favorites]
I think there's some misunderstandings here about what an ombud/ombudsman does, and the likely outcomes.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [15 favorites]
I think it is essential that the defined ombuds role is something that a strong majority of the community feels will represent them wellTo me the point of an ombud/ombudsman is that they do not represent anyone, much less represent majorities, which may seem like a definitional quibble but is I believe very important. They don't act on anyone's behalf, instead act for the abstract notion of fairness. They're never elected, for that reason. It's one of the most appealing aspects of independent oversight bodies that they can act against majoritarian systems. But also...
Not everyone is going to be satisfied with every moderation decisionIt's a very bad test to measure the integrity or independence of an ombud/ombudsman by broader satisfaction in their decisions. Plenty of fair and transparent outcomes leave all parties dissatisfied—particularly those of majorities, when they feel frustrated by an unelected person!
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:02 PM on February 16, 2023 [15 favorites]
The purpose of an ombuds, as I see it, is not to produce a different outcome in any specific moderation decision. Rather, as I attempted to outline in the main post, it is to provide a mechanism for the community to establish, after the fact, whether the mod team did in fact follow established policies and procedures in cases that result in questions being raised. Specifically, it is to address the situation described in the first paragraph under the heading "What would the value of an ombudsperson be to MetaFilter?" in which the mod team affirms that they did follow established procedures, but some members of the community are unwilling to accept their affirmation without evidence, and the mod team is unwilling to provide the necessary evidence. The purpose of an ombuds in this case is to empower a non-moderator representative of the community to review potentially sensitive information with the mod team and independently report whether they can support the mod team's affirmation that the decision was proper, without making the sensitive information public.
I understand that some people feel that the better solution would be to declare that no information relevant to moderation should be considered sensitive, and all moderation decisions should be public. That would be an alternative approach to addressing this problem, and I think a carefully thought-out proposal for it could be worth discussing. However, this would be a pretty dramatic change in the way MetaFilter operates. I am far from convinced that a majority of the community want that level of public information around moderation decisions, and I'm concerned that our mod team may not feel that they would be able to operate under such restrictions (though to my knowledge none of them have expressed a clear opinion publicly). Furthermore, I do not think that such a change would necessarily produce different outcomes in specific moderation decisions, either: it would also primarily address the question of whether such decisions were appropriate after-the-fact.
The question of whether there are specific, clearly-defined policies delineating specific circumstances in which moderation action is taken, and no others, is a separate question, and could potentially lead to different moderation decisions. This, too, would be a pretty dramatic change in the way MetaFilter operates. Personally I think it would result in bad actors abusing the system by tailoring their behavior to avoid breaking the letter of the policies while still violating their spirit, and would be ultimately bad for MetaFilter, but a carefully thought-out proposal describing this change could still be good to discuss.
posted by biogeo at 10:34 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
I understand that some people feel that the better solution would be to declare that no information relevant to moderation should be considered sensitive, and all moderation decisions should be public. That would be an alternative approach to addressing this problem, and I think a carefully thought-out proposal for it could be worth discussing. However, this would be a pretty dramatic change in the way MetaFilter operates. I am far from convinced that a majority of the community want that level of public information around moderation decisions, and I'm concerned that our mod team may not feel that they would be able to operate under such restrictions (though to my knowledge none of them have expressed a clear opinion publicly). Furthermore, I do not think that such a change would necessarily produce different outcomes in specific moderation decisions, either: it would also primarily address the question of whether such decisions were appropriate after-the-fact.
The question of whether there are specific, clearly-defined policies delineating specific circumstances in which moderation action is taken, and no others, is a separate question, and could potentially lead to different moderation decisions. This, too, would be a pretty dramatic change in the way MetaFilter operates. Personally I think it would result in bad actors abusing the system by tailoring their behavior to avoid breaking the letter of the policies while still violating their spirit, and would be ultimately bad for MetaFilter, but a carefully thought-out proposal describing this change could still be good to discuss.
posted by biogeo at 10:34 PM on February 16, 2023 [2 favorites]
secret mod notes are hilariously right and wrong at the same time. I've been through many times of the "Mr. zengargoyle..." as they flip open a folder or read a text file from police to security clearance to MetaFilter. It's usually smirktastic. You probably don't want to know about your secret mod notes besides for the amusement value.
posted by zengargoyle at 11:15 PM on February 16, 2023
posted by zengargoyle at 11:15 PM on February 16, 2023
Good plan, let's do it!
That's not to say we shouldn't do other things too, but don't let them get in the way.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:58 PM on February 16, 2023
That's not to say we shouldn't do other things too, but don't let them get in the way.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:58 PM on February 16, 2023
Too much bureaucracy, I feel. This is just a blog, not a legislative chamber or an authority. In most cases it doesn’t really matter very much what is or isn’t posted or deleted here. Let the mods do whatever they do: if you don’t like it, read something else, or you know, gyob.
posted by Phanx at 3:49 AM on February 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 3:49 AM on February 17, 2023 [9 favorites]
I think the proposal is thoughtful, but I also think that trusted mods/site owner(s) used to fill this role and it would be best if we could get back to that place -- i.e., work to reestablish more trust/confidence through existing site governance, plus the SC. I think that, not that many months ago, loup was essentially this person for many people on the site. And before that, Jessamyn was the "trusted voice." I think we have to recognize that the scale of the operation here is just not that large - and, arguably, the ratio of user activity to "people with titles and functions" is already somewhat lopsided toward the titles/functions. At a certain point, adding more boxes on the org chart -- even with the best intentions and the best people acting in good faith -- can create more friction and miscommunication over who is responsible for what or who got what right or wrong. Making decisions in any organization can be messy and there are many decisions that inevitably leave some people feeling disappointed or that there was not enough transparency or that they might have decided differently, etc. Even in the most transparent amazingly run organization, there will be significant disagreement and second-guessing. IMHO, adding more voices or more functions to decision-making here will not significantly reduce the inevitable messiness and disagreement of group decision-making, and may increase it. That's not to say that things can't be improved, but the question in my mind is: (a) how much would they be improved (or made worse); and (b) is this the area in which we most need improvement/focus? Just to make something up, wouldn't it make more sense to have a Chief Getting More Users position than a Chief Litigator of MeTas position (joking here a little)?
posted by Mid at 4:39 AM on February 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Mid at 4:39 AM on February 17, 2023 [6 favorites]
I think Grand Inquisitor sounds better than Chief Litigator but I'm open to either.
posted by some loser at 4:44 AM on February 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by some loser at 4:44 AM on February 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think jessamyn herself wants to get away from the old model of the site owner running everything, and have the membership be as self managing as possible.
The last Meta clearly exposed a lot of dissatisfaction. We don't need to relitigate it or demand witch-hunts. But we shouldn't just ignore it either.
This is a concrete proposal for an improvement and I think it deserves to be seriously considered.
I think the actual proposal could be simplified though. Just have the SC do the job, either selecting among themselves, or having the role rotate through them, or just doing it collectively: whatever is easiest. If someone thinks they have been subject to an unfair moderation decision, they appeal to the ombud. If the ombud agrees, the comment or their account is restored. I don't think we need debates or information beyond "Accepted" and "Denied". But from the last Meta I think we could do with some resort for people who feel the mods are acting unfairly.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:15 AM on February 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
The last Meta clearly exposed a lot of dissatisfaction. We don't need to relitigate it or demand witch-hunts. But we shouldn't just ignore it either.
This is a concrete proposal for an improvement and I think it deserves to be seriously considered.
I think the actual proposal could be simplified though. Just have the SC do the job, either selecting among themselves, or having the role rotate through them, or just doing it collectively: whatever is easiest. If someone thinks they have been subject to an unfair moderation decision, they appeal to the ombud. If the ombud agrees, the comment or their account is restored. I don't think we need debates or information beyond "Accepted" and "Denied". But from the last Meta I think we could do with some resort for people who feel the mods are acting unfairly.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:15 AM on February 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
I trust restless_nomad's point that this work needs to be paid if it needs to be done.
I am neither persuaded or not-persuaded on the point of whether the ombud position is needed yet. Not because of any flaw in the argument (and thanks biogeo for making the proposal and putting in the work, even if the community decides against!) but because 1. I'd like to see SC thoughts on this subject, which would weigh significantly with me, and I think that will take some time, longer than I'd like because as always, VOLUNTEERS, but also 2. I am not convinced that people who think the mods are acting unfairly will think any better of an ombudsperson who agrees with the mods.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:27 AM on February 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
I am neither persuaded or not-persuaded on the point of whether the ombud position is needed yet. Not because of any flaw in the argument (and thanks biogeo for making the proposal and putting in the work, even if the community decides against!) but because 1. I'd like to see SC thoughts on this subject, which would weigh significantly with me, and I think that will take some time, longer than I'd like because as always, VOLUNTEERS, but also 2. I am not convinced that people who think the mods are acting unfairly will think any better of an ombudsperson who agrees with the mods.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:27 AM on February 17, 2023 [19 favorites]
I think the actual proposal could be simplified though. Just have the SC do the job, either selecting among themselves, or having the role rotate through them, or just doing it collectively: whatever is easiest. If someone thinks they have been subject to an unfair moderation decision, they appeal to the ombud. If the ombud agrees, the comment or their account is restored. I don't think we need debates or information beyond "Accepted" and "Denied". But from the last Meta I think we could do with some resort for people who feel the mods are acting unfairly.
I agree with this as a proposal, with the following thoughts:
- I don't think people should be able to appeal the removal of specific comments. I think that's too granular and also, I think the time/effort of it won't pay off that much. There could however be a feedback form where people could note when they are concerned about a specific comment being removed, whether their own or others', which go into a spreadsheet which could be reviewed periodically to see if there are patterns that should be addressed.
- For bans as I said in the last thread I support there being an escalation process.
I think this should ideally rest within other site governance or management structures because for me, anyway, it's not about every single situation being resolved perfectly. That's just not going to happen.
However, I do think there is a benefit to having people who are banned escalate their concerns as I outlined last time but to summarize:
1. It does give them a voice and a "sober second thought" process. This is especially important to me where it's someone who has been on the site for a while. Maybe there are times that there would have been ways forward.
2. Formalizing an escalation process gives you an opportunity to track and categorize the situations where members push back. If most bans happen on Friday nights or on particular discussions, or after particular exchanges, that is great information that could inform a bunch of things - staffing, decisions about content, or even moderation tools.
3. It can inform behind-the-scenes design decisions that can help, whether moderation tools, use of 'canned' responses, policies, UX/UI, etc.
I come at this having been the escalation point for several online communities professionally as well as cowboy Internet days, plus managing a customer service team now.
While I always want to resolve a specific situation, the real changes that make the whole experience better (for staff and for members) usually come from changes at the systems/procedures, policy, or design level.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:09 AM on February 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
I agree with this as a proposal, with the following thoughts:
- I don't think people should be able to appeal the removal of specific comments. I think that's too granular and also, I think the time/effort of it won't pay off that much. There could however be a feedback form where people could note when they are concerned about a specific comment being removed, whether their own or others', which go into a spreadsheet which could be reviewed periodically to see if there are patterns that should be addressed.
- For bans as I said in the last thread I support there being an escalation process.
I think this should ideally rest within other site governance or management structures because for me, anyway, it's not about every single situation being resolved perfectly. That's just not going to happen.
However, I do think there is a benefit to having people who are banned escalate their concerns as I outlined last time but to summarize:
1. It does give them a voice and a "sober second thought" process. This is especially important to me where it's someone who has been on the site for a while. Maybe there are times that there would have been ways forward.
2. Formalizing an escalation process gives you an opportunity to track and categorize the situations where members push back. If most bans happen on Friday nights or on particular discussions, or after particular exchanges, that is great information that could inform a bunch of things - staffing, decisions about content, or even moderation tools.
3. It can inform behind-the-scenes design decisions that can help, whether moderation tools, use of 'canned' responses, policies, UX/UI, etc.
I come at this having been the escalation point for several online communities professionally as well as cowboy Internet days, plus managing a customer service team now.
While I always want to resolve a specific situation, the real changes that make the whole experience better (for staff and for members) usually come from changes at the systems/procedures, policy, or design level.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:09 AM on February 17, 2023 [12 favorites]
trusted mods/site owner(s) used to fill this role and it would be best if we could get back to that place
As nice as this sounds, it sounds like jessamyn disagrees with it. That leaves "trusted mods", which, considering that the entire issue is trust in the mods, seems a bit disingenuous to suggest. The only reason this suggestion is being made is that a significant number of people here no longer believe that mods can be trusted. A doctrine of mod infallibility does not seem to solve that problem.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:35 AM on February 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
As nice as this sounds, it sounds like jessamyn disagrees with it. That leaves "trusted mods", which, considering that the entire issue is trust in the mods, seems a bit disingenuous to suggest. The only reason this suggestion is being made is that a significant number of people here no longer believe that mods can be trusted. A doctrine of mod infallibility does not seem to solve that problem.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:35 AM on February 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
There is definitely a significant number of people in this discussion who "no longer believe that mods can be trusted".
I trust restless_nomad's point that this work needs to be paid if it needs to be done.
I assumed it would have to be a paid position. And as such, one of the determining factors is "can we afford it?", which of course raises the question of "can we afford not to do it?"
To which I'd add, this comment strikes me as important:
I don't think it makes sense to generalize about what the site membership wants from a couple Meta threads where many of the participants wanted to hold mods accountable for decisions they felt were wrong. A couple/few dozen people commenting on a topic is something worth listening to, but it isn't an indication of consensus.
This is a good discussion. Lots of good points being raised. But yeah, we're just the people in the neighbourhood who have the time, the focus, the inclination to take part. I do wonder if the majority of Mefites think more along these lines than any other:
Too much bureaucracy, I feel. This is just a blog, not a legislative chamber or an authority. In most cases it doesn’t really matter very much what is or isn’t posted or deleted here. Let the mods do whatever they do: if you don’t like it, read something else, or you know, gyob.
posted by Phanx at 3:49 AM on February 17 [4 favorites +]
posted by philip-random at 10:41 AM on February 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
I should clarify that I don't necessarily think that any version of this role would need to be paid, but the "daily updates and monitoring related MeTas" part definitely would. (I don't think that part is intrinsic to the concept of the role.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:44 AM on February 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 10:44 AM on February 17, 2023 [2 favorites]
if you don’t like it, read something else, or you know, gyob
This attitude might be the default, but if we do not want to continue the trend towards shutdown it needs to change. I thought we were trying to retain and add members.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:51 AM on February 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
This attitude might be the default, but if we do not want to continue the trend towards shutdown it needs to change. I thought we were trying to retain and add members.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:51 AM on February 17, 2023 [5 favorites]
I disagree with the proposal on the grounds that it A) is overly formal/bureaucratic, and B) does not establish a norm that mod decisions need to be motivated and that the motivation needs to be public, to the extent that's possible without violating privacy/trust (it may be embarrassing if the motivation is a naked "we don't trust this user", but it's hardly a violation of privacy and/or trust).
This proposal adds a test to establish whether moderation decisions are "proper", which is a different, and IMO less important rubric.
posted by dmh at 11:03 AM on February 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
This proposal adds a test to establish whether moderation decisions are "proper", which is a different, and IMO less important rubric.
posted by dmh at 11:03 AM on February 17, 2023 [8 favorites]
The only reason this suggestion is being made is that a significant number of people here no longer believe that mods can be trusted.
That's my stumbling block...is this even true? What numbers are significant? Does any website forum of the same size have the same percentage of people who feel suspicious of moderation? What do we make of that?
These all feel to me like questions the user survey, and the Steering Committee, are best able to answer.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:19 AM on February 17, 2023 [22 favorites]
That's my stumbling block...is this even true? What numbers are significant? Does any website forum of the same size have the same percentage of people who feel suspicious of moderation? What do we make of that?
These all feel to me like questions the user survey, and the Steering Committee, are best able to answer.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:19 AM on February 17, 2023 [22 favorites]
As a data point, I would definitely like an independent advocate. Like, right now I have a query I sent on 11 Jan to the contact form and have heard nothing back. It is probably an oversight, but I sometimes suspect I carry a whiff of “difficult person” to some of the team here—even though I’ve demonstrated positive change. The ambiguity with nonresponse to a contact form enquiry gets to be an access issue with my disability (autism and PTSD)—and like many access issues, the core of the issue is an unplanned expenditure of energy: I’m having to spend energy coaching myself that it’s probably just an oversight, and not one or more mods being ineffably squicked out by my existence.
I would like to think that social justice on this site also applies to me, but I’ve waited over a month because I don’t always have the spare energy to carry the uncertainty of a second ask, and to coach myself again if it’s not acknowledged. If there were an ombuds, I’d probably feel more confident raising the follow up with them. I’d be very happy to contribute money towards paying an ombuds.
I apologise for mentioning my stuff, but it illuminates why an ombuds might be helpful for folks like me.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 2:57 PM on February 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
I would like to think that social justice on this site also applies to me, but I’ve waited over a month because I don’t always have the spare energy to carry the uncertainty of a second ask, and to coach myself again if it’s not acknowledged. If there were an ombuds, I’d probably feel more confident raising the follow up with them. I’d be very happy to contribute money towards paying an ombuds.
I apologise for mentioning my stuff, but it illuminates why an ombuds might be helpful for folks like me.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 2:57 PM on February 17, 2023 [4 favorites]
(Also, I don’t take it personally—I catch myself in the same thinking patterns I describe here! I have confidence and courage that this community is a place where we can look at the hard things, the unsaid things, and do better together, so that’s why I’ve mentioned the issue at all.)
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2023
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2023
Just as a side note, I spoke up in a prior thread about some concern over the way it went with Molly, but that doesn’t mean I don’t trust the mods in general. I think they’re good people doing a hard and important job.
I’ve never dealt with an ombuds directly, so I don’t really know what level of outcome to expect. I hadn’t actually pictured granular, Judge Judy style outcomes where the issue is re-decided and someone owes someone else sixty bucks. Maybe something more like the erstwhile Public Editor *pours out a forty*.
posted by eirias at 3:56 PM on February 17, 2023
I’ve never dealt with an ombuds directly, so I don’t really know what level of outcome to expect. I hadn’t actually pictured granular, Judge Judy style outcomes where the issue is re-decided and someone owes someone else sixty bucks. Maybe something more like the erstwhile Public Editor *pours out a forty*.
posted by eirias at 3:56 PM on February 17, 2023
is this even true?
Allow me to direct your attention to the two previous several-hundred-comment MetaTalks on this general topic, where multiple users have explicitly said that mod distrust is in fact a problem. Or to plenty of other threads in which trans users specifically say that they’ve perceived a bias that has caused a lack of trust in the mods. Or to the fact that theres a BIPOC Advisory Board because a lot of people fail to trust the mods on race issues. Or to the entire subreddit where former members discuss how they left the site because of a lack of trust in the mods.
Once again, I’ll point out that users insisting an obvious problem is not actually real and is just a figment of some other users’ imagination is the exact issue that got MR so worked up that she got her account disabled for being a “problem user”.
Seriously, go back and read this post again. This is an official-ass proposal that biogeo put a shitload of thought into. Do you think he did that because he was taking an especially long dump and needed something to occupy himself with? People don’t write long-ass proposals with formal objectives to address made-up problems.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:22 PM on February 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Allow me to direct your attention to the two previous several-hundred-comment MetaTalks on this general topic, where multiple users have explicitly said that mod distrust is in fact a problem. Or to plenty of other threads in which trans users specifically say that they’ve perceived a bias that has caused a lack of trust in the mods. Or to the fact that theres a BIPOC Advisory Board because a lot of people fail to trust the mods on race issues. Or to the entire subreddit where former members discuss how they left the site because of a lack of trust in the mods.
Once again, I’ll point out that users insisting an obvious problem is not actually real and is just a figment of some other users’ imagination is the exact issue that got MR so worked up that she got her account disabled for being a “problem user”.
Seriously, go back and read this post again. This is an official-ass proposal that biogeo put a shitload of thought into. Do you think he did that because he was taking an especially long dump and needed something to occupy himself with? People don’t write long-ass proposals with formal objectives to address made-up problems.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:22 PM on February 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Allow me to direct your attention to the two previous several-hundred-comment MetaTalks on this general topic, where multiple users have explicitly said that mod distrust is in fact a problem.
I read them all, thanks! I don't really think I deserve such vitriol for my very mild mannered suggestions. I'm not gaslighting anyone by sharing my opinion.
(The temperature is way too high on these threads and I'm tired of it. Why even engage? I think I'm done. Have a good night.)
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:58 PM on February 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
I read them all, thanks! I don't really think I deserve such vitriol for my very mild mannered suggestions. I'm not gaslighting anyone by sharing my opinion.
(The temperature is way too high on these threads and I'm tired of it. Why even engage? I think I'm done. Have a good night.)
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:58 PM on February 17, 2023 [13 favorites]
As the author of the proposal, I'm trying to strike a balance between providing some clarifications on the one hand, and not being overly controlling of the conversation on the other. However, I do think it might be helpful to occasionally summarize points/concerns that have been raised in the discussion so far, to make it easier to follow the discussion and move us toward a summary that the Steering Committee can take a look at and then make a decision about how to address. Since I have a bit of time this evening I'm going to go ahead and try to do that.
Members who have expressed opinions regarding the proposal that I could confidently categorize:
I'm particularly sympathetic to the concerns raised that the level of effort expected from the ombuds role, as I proposed it, is too great. I'd very much like to hear thoughts, especially from those with experience, regarding where the line lies between a reasonable level of effort to expect from this type of volunteer position versus what should be compensated work.
I can imagine two alternative approaches to limit the effort investment from the ombuds role. One would be to place a pre-defined limit on the frequency of such investigations, and the other would be replace the "triggering" process with a regularly scheduled (monthly?) meeting between the ombudsperson and the mod team, at which time any open issues would be discussed. I'm thinking the regularly-scheduled process is probably superior to what I proposed above, but would welcome feedback on the details of implementation.
Although I tried to make this proposal as strong as I could, I'm much more invested in the idea of participatory self-governance in intentional communities than I am in the specific from of solution here. As I think I was the first person to suggest the idea of an ombudsperson in recent MeTa threads, and it seemed to gain some traction, I felt some responsibility to try to make the idea more concrete so that its specific implementation could be discussed openly and clearly. My opinion is that asking the Steering Committee to do all the work of hashing out these issues is asking a lot of them, and there is a lot of expertise in the larger community that we can draw on in identifying problems and alternative solutions. I think that's already been on display in this thread. My hope is that at the end of this discussion, we'll have a good basis that members of the Steering Committee can look at for making concrete decision, making the process easier for them and hopefully producing a better outcome for everyone.
posted by biogeo at 9:37 PM on February 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Members who have expressed opinions regarding the proposal that I could confidently categorize:
- General agreement or endorsement: clavdivs, zompist, creatrixtiara, TheophileEscargot, The Last Sockpuppet
- Opposition: iivix, lapis, curious nu, calgirl, dorothy hawk, Phanx, dmh
- Tolerance without endorsement: snofoam, Rock 'em Sock 'em, jessamyn, kristi, Stacey, gentlyepigrams
Additional / alternative proposals
- xo proposed a contingency for the mod team realizing they've made a mistake as a consequence of the investigation.
- iivix (endorsed by lapis) proposed that moderation decisions should be based on clearly and publicly stated rules only, and that all moderation actions should be publicly logged. I interpret these as two distinct, though related, ideas, and I think either or both could be more fully fleshed-out as complete alternative solutions to the problem that this proposal attempts to address, but without further detail regarding implementation it may be hard to evaluate and discuss these alternatives.
- Mitheral, with agreement from zompist, proposed that the ombudspersons should be able to initiate investigations without the process being triggered by either the SC or the mod team.
- TheophileEscargot proposed that the ombuds role be assigned on a rotating basis to members of the Steering Committee, and that the ombuds have the ability to reverse moderation decisions.
- warriorqueen proposed a concrete escalation procedure for appealing moderation actions.
Questions from the community not previously addressed
- mittens asked whether the ombudsperson's MetaTalk threads would be open to comments. I think they should be.
Specific concerns or questions that have been raised and not addressed
- jessamyn, restless_nomad, Gotanda, Stacey, and others are concerned that the level of work expected from the ombudspersons under this proposal is too great to be reasonable for a volunteer position, and should require a salary and specialized training/experience.
- Larry David Syndrome asked whether there is a precedent for this type of position in other online communities.
- tiny frying pan asked how common distrust of the mod team actually is, noting this is a question that should be answered by user survey. Notably, in the most recent user survey last year, Mefites generally expressed a positive opinion of moderation on MetaFilter; however, this question specifically was not addressed.
Other general points
- A common objection to this proposal is that it is too complex/bureaucratic.
- There has been some discussion regarding whether the terms "ombudsperson"/"ombuds"/"ombudsman" are accurate labels for the role described in this proposal (e.g., Fiasco da Gama's comment). My feeling is that whatever term most clearly communicates the concept to the membership is what we should end up using, and while the name is less important than the concept, the name is also important, so I'm glad to see discussion on this point as well. (On a linguistic note, I'd like to point out that regardless of its Scandinavian roots, the modern English shortening "ombuds" does seem to be standard -- but going rogue and choosing "ombud" for its etymological fidelity is the kind of maverick move I'd expect from this community.)
- The Pluto Gangsta, with agreement from dorothy hawk, is skeptical that this proposal would have produced different outcomes in recent contentious decisions.
I'm particularly sympathetic to the concerns raised that the level of effort expected from the ombuds role, as I proposed it, is too great. I'd very much like to hear thoughts, especially from those with experience, regarding where the line lies between a reasonable level of effort to expect from this type of volunteer position versus what should be compensated work.
I can imagine two alternative approaches to limit the effort investment from the ombuds role. One would be to place a pre-defined limit on the frequency of such investigations, and the other would be replace the "triggering" process with a regularly scheduled (monthly?) meeting between the ombudsperson and the mod team, at which time any open issues would be discussed. I'm thinking the regularly-scheduled process is probably superior to what I proposed above, but would welcome feedback on the details of implementation.
Although I tried to make this proposal as strong as I could, I'm much more invested in the idea of participatory self-governance in intentional communities than I am in the specific from of solution here. As I think I was the first person to suggest the idea of an ombudsperson in recent MeTa threads, and it seemed to gain some traction, I felt some responsibility to try to make the idea more concrete so that its specific implementation could be discussed openly and clearly. My opinion is that asking the Steering Committee to do all the work of hashing out these issues is asking a lot of them, and there is a lot of expertise in the larger community that we can draw on in identifying problems and alternative solutions. I think that's already been on display in this thread. My hope is that at the end of this discussion, we'll have a good basis that members of the Steering Committee can look at for making concrete decision, making the process easier for them and hopefully producing a better outcome for everyone.
posted by biogeo at 9:37 PM on February 17, 2023 [10 favorites]
Also, I wanted to say that, as I'm sure you all can imagine, I approached the process of posting this MeTa with no small amount of trepidation. Although things are often tense in these threads, and this one is no exception, I've nevertheless been extremely gratified with the discussion so far, from those generally supporting the proposal, those opposing it, and those with other comments. I'm sincerely grateful to all you weirdos who, like me, care enough about this community to provide your thoughts and opinions here. Let's try to remember we're all trying to make MetaFilter better, and everyone needs a hug.
posted by biogeo at 9:41 PM on February 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 9:41 PM on February 17, 2023 [11 favorites]
For what it's worth, I'm a concrete example of a participant here who answered positively about moderation during the survey. I now have some concerns. I wasn't thinking about the series of events that happened with odinsdream when I answered the survey, and I probably should've been. Now that everything that recently happened with Molly has happened, I feel less trusting about moderation decisions here. I personally agree with others saying that an ombud/mediator who serves at the pleasure of the staff is unlikely to address my concerns, so adding this role feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Then again, there may be other situations I'm not thinking of where the overhead is worth it and could resolve tensions, in which case I'm not going to argue against it.
posted by Alterscape at 9:48 PM on February 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Alterscape at 9:48 PM on February 17, 2023 [3 favorites]
If this is done, the person should not serve "at the pleasure of the staff." The person needs to have a defined term, for more independence.
I lean toward the idea of " regularly scheduled (monthly?) meeting between the ombudsperson and the mod team, at which time any open issues would be discussed."
I am open between an ombudsperson (member advocate?) or clear standards for bans.
posted by NotLost at 9:57 PM on February 17, 2023
I lean toward the idea of " regularly scheduled (monthly?) meeting between the ombudsperson and the mod team, at which time any open issues would be discussed."
I am open between an ombudsperson (member advocate?) or clear standards for bans.
posted by NotLost at 9:57 PM on February 17, 2023
Thanks for the summary biogeo. I value the thoughtful and constructive nature of your contributions even if I don't agree with the need for an ombudsperson.
As for whether the community does or doesn't "trust the mods", I don't think the demand for more transparency/accountability hinges on (a lack of) trust. I trust my doctor, but I still want them to explain what they're doing. When a mod surreptitiously disappears an on-topic comment by a prominent member without notice or reason, and the decision can't or shouldn't be questioned because of "trust", I think that's a twisted dynamic.
posted by dmh at 3:53 AM on February 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
As for whether the community does or doesn't "trust the mods", I don't think the demand for more transparency/accountability hinges on (a lack of) trust. I trust my doctor, but I still want them to explain what they're doing. When a mod surreptitiously disappears an on-topic comment by a prominent member without notice or reason, and the decision can't or shouldn't be questioned because of "trust", I think that's a twisted dynamic.
posted by dmh at 3:53 AM on February 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
I trust my doctor, but I still want them to explain what they're doing.
Exactly. Practically every job acknowledges that practitioners can make mistakes and has some kind of review process to identify them. Doctors and lawyers have review boards. I'm a programmer and I need to get code past code review before it goes into the main repository. That's a good thing because I'm a human being and I can fuck up sometimes. Saying that there should be no review process because the practitioners never make mistakes isn't "trust" it's "blind faith".
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:26 AM on February 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
Exactly. Practically every job acknowledges that practitioners can make mistakes and has some kind of review process to identify them. Doctors and lawyers have review boards. I'm a programmer and I need to get code past code review before it goes into the main repository. That's a good thing because I'm a human being and I can fuck up sometimes. Saying that there should be no review process because the practitioners never make mistakes isn't "trust" it's "blind faith".
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:26 AM on February 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
I’m not opposed, that’s a misreading, but I can see how you’d think that from my words. My position is more neutral. It might very well do some things, whatever, but it doesn’t sound like it’ll help fix the thing I think most needs fixed.
posted by dorothy hawk at 5:48 AM on February 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by dorothy hawk at 5:48 AM on February 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
If there are problems with a lack of clarity in the site guidelines, poor mod decisions, a lack of transparency in mod decisions, or a lack of trust in the mods, perhaps we should address those issues before appointing another layer of people to address situations caused by those issues?
For one thing it'd make the role of ombudsperson less onerous if they could make their judgements based on clear guidelines and more transparent decisions.
It sometimes seems odd to me that a site of this (relatively small) size, comprised of a relatively homogenous group (compared to the world/internet at large) apparently requires full-time moderation to make it an acceptable place to spend time. Adding another layer to this seems over the top, or suggests there are real problems somewhere.
posted by fabius at 5:56 AM on February 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
For one thing it'd make the role of ombudsperson less onerous if they could make their judgements based on clear guidelines and more transparent decisions.
It sometimes seems odd to me that a site of this (relatively small) size, comprised of a relatively homogenous group (compared to the world/internet at large) apparently requires full-time moderation to make it an acceptable place to spend time. Adding another layer to this seems over the top, or suggests there are real problems somewhere.
posted by fabius at 5:56 AM on February 18, 2023 [13 favorites]
Practically every job acknowledges that practitioners can make mistakes and has some kind of review process to identify them. Doctors and lawyers have review boards.
There are no life or death decisions here. No money worth speaking of. No life altering choices. In fact the decisions under discussion are practically the lowest stakes there could possibly be. The local coffeshop or bookstore or hardware store or bunny hill or cemetery with half a dozen employees doesn't have a position reviewing all their decisions. When the bartender at your local social club cuts someone off for the night no one expects an independent review to occur to make sure they followed some behaviour banning policy. Realistically what is the worst that could happen from any particular individual mod decision? Someone gets banned for a few days? Anything greater could at minimum be reversed on appeal to jessamyn.
Now maybe we want some sort of review of trends rather than individual actions. That seems reasonable and common for anything with multiple shareholders. But it is also pretty much the role of the steering committee.
posted by Mitheral at 6:39 AM on February 18, 2023 [18 favorites]
There are no life or death decisions here. No money worth speaking of. No life altering choices. In fact the decisions under discussion are practically the lowest stakes there could possibly be. The local coffeshop or bookstore or hardware store or bunny hill or cemetery with half a dozen employees doesn't have a position reviewing all their decisions. When the bartender at your local social club cuts someone off for the night no one expects an independent review to occur to make sure they followed some behaviour banning policy. Realistically what is the worst that could happen from any particular individual mod decision? Someone gets banned for a few days? Anything greater could at minimum be reversed on appeal to jessamyn.
Now maybe we want some sort of review of trends rather than individual actions. That seems reasonable and common for anything with multiple shareholders. But it is also pretty much the role of the steering committee.
posted by Mitheral at 6:39 AM on February 18, 2023 [18 favorites]
With private retail businesses, e.g., I generally assume the rules are that the owner gets to make the rules. Is that this site's position, that what jessamyn says goes, no explanation needed? Or what the moderators say goes, no explanation needed? Various users have implied that, but I have never seen that stated as an official position. While I would disagree with it as a stance, I would appreciate the transparency of having it spelled out explicitly, and having moderators stop using just-so stories about moderation that are different from that. Right now, moderators are talking about policy violations but unable/unwilling to share the policies, which is what (I think) is making these issues so much worse for everyone.
I would also point out that even your local bar in the U.S., at least, is subject to anti-discrimination laws, health and safety laws, labor laws, etc, some of which come with regular inspection and oversight and others of which are subject to review based on written laws and regulations.
posted by lapis at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
I would also point out that even your local bar in the U.S., at least, is subject to anti-discrimination laws, health and safety laws, labor laws, etc, some of which come with regular inspection and oversight and others of which are subject to review based on written laws and regulations.
posted by lapis at 6:56 AM on February 18, 2023 [3 favorites]
It sometimes seems odd to me that a site of this (relatively small) size, comprised of a relatively homogenous group (compared to the world/internet at large) apparently requires full-time moderation to make it an acceptable place to spend time.
The cutoff for a functional online community to be small enough to need zero moderation is less than a hundred active members. For groups this diverse - and this is a diverse group, compared with, say, a small-town knitting club - that number is down in the 20s or 30s at best. For really small groups, "moderation" often looks more like "someone has admin access and can sort out account issues and occasionally tells someone to go home, they're drunk" but having someone formally designated as that person can head off a lot of the weird toxic dynamics groups can fall into otherwise.
You get into the hundreds, not even the thousands, on an open-access forum? You are going to have conflicts that need moderation, you're going to need someone actively paying attention to the interpersonal dynamics, you're going to need people who can figure out what the norms are and how they need to be enforced. Otherwise you end up in a situation where the worst behavior drives out the people who won't tolerate it and you end up in a toxic spiral. (This is a well-understood and documented pattern - I was trying to find the essay I originally read about it something like twenty years ago, but no dice.)
It's not intuitive because you can't *see* all the other people in the same way, but think - are there any other groups you know of offhand that have a couple thousand people interacting daily and have zero power structures? I can't think of any - the ones I can think of that don't have formal power structures absolutely have informal ones, and those are the ones that lead to the worst behaviors.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 7:23 AM on February 18, 2023 [16 favorites]
The cutoff for a functional online community to be small enough to need zero moderation is less than a hundred active members. For groups this diverse - and this is a diverse group, compared with, say, a small-town knitting club - that number is down in the 20s or 30s at best. For really small groups, "moderation" often looks more like "someone has admin access and can sort out account issues and occasionally tells someone to go home, they're drunk" but having someone formally designated as that person can head off a lot of the weird toxic dynamics groups can fall into otherwise.
You get into the hundreds, not even the thousands, on an open-access forum? You are going to have conflicts that need moderation, you're going to need someone actively paying attention to the interpersonal dynamics, you're going to need people who can figure out what the norms are and how they need to be enforced. Otherwise you end up in a situation where the worst behavior drives out the people who won't tolerate it and you end up in a toxic spiral. (This is a well-understood and documented pattern - I was trying to find the essay I originally read about it something like twenty years ago, but no dice.)
It's not intuitive because you can't *see* all the other people in the same way, but think - are there any other groups you know of offhand that have a couple thousand people interacting daily and have zero power structures? I can't think of any - the ones I can think of that don't have formal power structures absolutely have informal ones, and those are the ones that lead to the worst behaviors.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 7:23 AM on February 18, 2023 [16 favorites]
And to bring my point back around to the topic: If the policy is, "The moderators get to decide, full stop, no further rules required, and their decisions can be based on all sorts of things that are not written down anywhere," then I think an ombuds makes some degree of sense, as an interpersonal mediator. (I think this is a bad model prone to all sorts of problems, but it's procedurally consistent.)
If the policy is that there actually are policies and procedures other than "Mod choice," then I think an ombuds isn't going to be at all effective unless those policies and procedures are clear, consistent, and public. So I'd rather start by getting policies and procedures that are clear, consistent, and public, and seeing if that solves the problem; adding an ombuds before that happens would just be further obfuscating the actual problem.
posted by lapis at 8:06 AM on February 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
If the policy is that there actually are policies and procedures other than "Mod choice," then I think an ombuds isn't going to be at all effective unless those policies and procedures are clear, consistent, and public. So I'd rather start by getting policies and procedures that are clear, consistent, and public, and seeing if that solves the problem; adding an ombuds before that happens would just be further obfuscating the actual problem.
posted by lapis at 8:06 AM on February 18, 2023 [5 favorites]
Speaking just for myself and not as any sort of official stance from the moderation team, I don’t think having an Ombuds as described is a great idea. MeFi is a small website and any sort of stakes here are small. An ombuds sounds like something needed at a place or community that’s a much larger in size or that has a larger scale.
That said, it’s not a terrible idea either. If the community decides it’s necessary, then so be it. I just think the people who do not trust the moderation and think it's necessary will be disappointed, when an ombuds tells them that a disputed Mod decision was fine and correct, which I believe would happen most of the time.
Will people who don’t trust the mods actually believe it when the ombuds says “Ok, I learned all the background details and actually agree with the mod decision”? I suspect not and that the people who didn’t trust the mods will then demand to know details of the issue and that won’t happen, so we’re back at square one, possibly with people demanding a second ombudsperson.
That gets into some basic issues and assumptions also in my part. One of the key and defining principles here at Metafilter is that the mods are absolutely 100% privacy driven. They’d rather be seen as unfair or other negative things than divulge any of a user’s personal information, which I generally agree with. User privacy is absolutely a major concern and that should not change.
But Loup and Jessamyn have repeatedly said that “nothing at this point is off the table” in terms of making the site a community run place. So in the spirit of sentiment does 'we will never divulge a user's private information' need to continue? If not, how does it change?
I don’t have any answers other than that needs to be thought out carefully and I my lone opinion, should absolutely continue. Yet all of here on Metafilter are considering a vast remodel of an old house. How far do we wish to go? What’s our timetable here? What’s our overall goal? And specifically, how much does a user’s privacy matter in those foundations?
Because I want to note that the idea of an ombuds or having the Steering Committee perform that function, which is a by design a regularly rotating group of people, does mean a user’s private information will be seen a larger number of people. Does the Steering Committee that will be place in the later part of 2023 need all the privacy details from the Committee of 2022? What about the SC of 2024? 2028?
Overall though, the issue (in my eyes) is a lack of trust of the mods, so that prompts several questions:
Proposing an ombuds person or group isn’t a terrible idea, but I think it’s also a bandage that covering over deeper issues. I’d recommend looking at those deeper issues first.
(and a reminder that these are my own thoughts and shouldn't be taken as representative of any moderation stance or that I even think I'm right about anything other than user privacy has to be key foundation of the site)
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2023 [20 favorites]
That said, it’s not a terrible idea either. If the community decides it’s necessary, then so be it. I just think the people who do not trust the moderation and think it's necessary will be disappointed, when an ombuds tells them that a disputed Mod decision was fine and correct, which I believe would happen most of the time.
Will people who don’t trust the mods actually believe it when the ombuds says “Ok, I learned all the background details and actually agree with the mod decision”? I suspect not and that the people who didn’t trust the mods will then demand to know details of the issue and that won’t happen, so we’re back at square one, possibly with people demanding a second ombudsperson.
That gets into some basic issues and assumptions also in my part. One of the key and defining principles here at Metafilter is that the mods are absolutely 100% privacy driven. They’d rather be seen as unfair or other negative things than divulge any of a user’s personal information, which I generally agree with. User privacy is absolutely a major concern and that should not change.
But Loup and Jessamyn have repeatedly said that “nothing at this point is off the table” in terms of making the site a community run place. So in the spirit of sentiment does 'we will never divulge a user's private information' need to continue? If not, how does it change?
I don’t have any answers other than that needs to be thought out carefully and I my lone opinion, should absolutely continue. Yet all of here on Metafilter are considering a vast remodel of an old house. How far do we wish to go? What’s our timetable here? What’s our overall goal? And specifically, how much does a user’s privacy matter in those foundations?
Because I want to note that the idea of an ombuds or having the Steering Committee perform that function, which is a by design a regularly rotating group of people, does mean a user’s private information will be seen a larger number of people. Does the Steering Committee that will be place in the later part of 2023 need all the privacy details from the Committee of 2022? What about the SC of 2024? 2028?
Overall though, the issue (in my eyes) is a lack of trust of the mods, so that prompts several questions:
- Does a large part of the community actually distrust the moderation?
- If so, when did that large part of the community lose trust in the moderation?
- What can be done to regain trust?
Proposing an ombuds person or group isn’t a terrible idea, but I think it’s also a bandage that covering over deeper issues. I’d recommend looking at those deeper issues first.
(and a reminder that these are my own thoughts and shouldn't be taken as representative of any moderation stance or that I even think I'm right about anything other than user privacy has to be key foundation of the site)
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2023 [20 favorites]
I suspect user privacy was a bigger deal pre-social media, truthfully, and the continued insistence on it at the expense of everything else seems outdated and from an era when being online was completely separate from one's everyday identity. (I'm not talking about selling user data, but just the idea that we must protect information because the internet is a scary place filled with scary weird people who are trying to do nefarious things.) I could totally be wrong about it, but that's how it reads to me.
I have steadily felt over the last six years like the moderators have bunkered down and started seeing themselves as defending themselves from the users here, whom they see as hostile. It's not that I particularly mistrust them as people, but I do think the worldview got very skewed (for reasons that I understand) and has become unhealthy and trauma-driven. I don't think they're drunk on power or malicious, but I think they're acting defensively and as if the users are to be controlled and subdued.
I think having written, clear, consistent, public policies and procedures that everyone can follow will help. There are principles of trauma-informed care in medicine that when dealing with traumatized people (which at this point, given the way the world is, I think we all are), it requires transparency in order to build safety and trust. I try to use these principles in management as well, where in addition to being clear and consistent, I make sure I'm sharing as much information about why I'm making a decision as I can, fostering collaboration and shared decision-making as much as possible, and being clear about what my decision-making model is for any given decision. Happily, these principles also help support diversity and inclusion, because people get clear information about how they can participate and what to expect from that participation, and there are clear guidelines in place for how to address transgressions. That's why I'm beating this drum here.
posted by lapis at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
I have steadily felt over the last six years like the moderators have bunkered down and started seeing themselves as defending themselves from the users here, whom they see as hostile. It's not that I particularly mistrust them as people, but I do think the worldview got very skewed (for reasons that I understand) and has become unhealthy and trauma-driven. I don't think they're drunk on power or malicious, but I think they're acting defensively and as if the users are to be controlled and subdued.
I think having written, clear, consistent, public policies and procedures that everyone can follow will help. There are principles of trauma-informed care in medicine that when dealing with traumatized people (which at this point, given the way the world is, I think we all are), it requires transparency in order to build safety and trust. I try to use these principles in management as well, where in addition to being clear and consistent, I make sure I'm sharing as much information about why I'm making a decision as I can, fostering collaboration and shared decision-making as much as possible, and being clear about what my decision-making model is for any given decision. Happily, these principles also help support diversity and inclusion, because people get clear information about how they can participate and what to expect from that participation, and there are clear guidelines in place for how to address transgressions. That's why I'm beating this drum here.
posted by lapis at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
"Privacy" means a couple different things here, and the kind referred to above was the privacy of your interactions with staff, which, if you feel like that hasn't been respected, is well worth talking about.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 9:50 AM on February 18, 2023 [4 favorites]
Just for the record I would say I am open to the proposal but am still deciding whether I am convinced of the need for an ombuds.
To elaborate: I believe that Metafilter would be improved by more explicit guidelines around things like deletion and banning, whether that's coming from the mods writing down their practices or the SC setting written expectations that the entire membership can see, and/or other and additional expectations.
At the same time, a la BB, while I recognize that there is a group of people who are unhappy with/distrust mod decisions (specifically MR but also other cases), I'm not sure whether that's a big group or just a small and loud group, or whether the effort it would take the site to satisfy some of these demands would be worth it.
I personally feel that there are people who are not going to be satisfied by any forward-going improvements from strong feelings about past incidents that are probably past the point of change (like, I don't think MR is coming back no matter what the mods/SC/jessamyn do, which is sad, but here we are) and I don't know how the mods/SC/jessamyn can "fix" that problem. I do not think an ombuds will solve that problem, so if that's what we're trying to fix, I think it adds complexity without adding a solution.
Writing that out clarifies for me that I think the first order of business is getting a clear statement of mod policies/procedures (which will take some time, and also will require some thought about the changes going on with the site, e.g., specifically in this case does a fundraising report require stricter/different moderation than other MetaTalk threads?) and that if that's not satisfactory to enough of the site, then an ombuds proposal might answer objections.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
To elaborate: I believe that Metafilter would be improved by more explicit guidelines around things like deletion and banning, whether that's coming from the mods writing down their practices or the SC setting written expectations that the entire membership can see, and/or other and additional expectations.
At the same time, a la BB, while I recognize that there is a group of people who are unhappy with/distrust mod decisions (specifically MR but also other cases), I'm not sure whether that's a big group or just a small and loud group, or whether the effort it would take the site to satisfy some of these demands would be worth it.
I personally feel that there are people who are not going to be satisfied by any forward-going improvements from strong feelings about past incidents that are probably past the point of change (like, I don't think MR is coming back no matter what the mods/SC/jessamyn do, which is sad, but here we are) and I don't know how the mods/SC/jessamyn can "fix" that problem. I do not think an ombuds will solve that problem, so if that's what we're trying to fix, I think it adds complexity without adding a solution.
Writing that out clarifies for me that I think the first order of business is getting a clear statement of mod policies/procedures (which will take some time, and also will require some thought about the changes going on with the site, e.g., specifically in this case does a fundraising report require stricter/different moderation than other MetaTalk threads?) and that if that's not satisfactory to enough of the site, then an ombuds proposal might answer objections.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2023 [11 favorites]
I think an ombudsperson / independent reviewer / mediator-type role along the general outlines laid out here could be useful but agree that policies need to be clarified first, particularly comment deletion, temporary and permanent banning policies. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to appeal to someone (either jessamyn, an ombuds, some other body or whatever) if mods take an action that you disagree with and you're not able to resolve it directly with the mod. But first, everyone has to generally understand what the thresholds are for, particularly, deletion of MeTa comments (which historically was a space that mods were very loathe to delete comments in; this has changed, for better and for worse) and bannings.
I'd like to see the process, ultimately, be a clearly laid-out but relatively informal one along these lines:
-mod takes an action such as deleting a comment or giving someone a timeout/temp ban/whatever we're calling it
-community member disagrees, discusses with mod, they are unable to come to a resolution
-either community member or mod says "we're not resolving this, can we discuss it with the ombuds"
-a day or two later, they meet with the ombuds in real time to discuss the issue(s) and try to work toward a resolution or at least a mutual understanding of what happened
-ombuds periodically reports back to mods/staff and the community about general issues, with an eye toward supporting clearer and more workable site policies; maybe reporting on individual situations in very rare/unique situations.
I think I view this as more of a mediator position: helping to resolve conflict when possible, and at least to provide everyone with the feeling that they've been fairly heard, and to the wider MeFi community that decisions are being made reasonably fairly, even if someone may not agree with any specific decision.
Any strict policy is going to open up the possibility of rules-lawyering of course, but MeFi should take an approach that tries to work out a good resolution rather than deciding who is right and who is wrong according to The Rules.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on February 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
I'd like to see the process, ultimately, be a clearly laid-out but relatively informal one along these lines:
-mod takes an action such as deleting a comment or giving someone a timeout/temp ban/whatever we're calling it
-community member disagrees, discusses with mod, they are unable to come to a resolution
-either community member or mod says "we're not resolving this, can we discuss it with the ombuds"
-a day or two later, they meet with the ombuds in real time to discuss the issue(s) and try to work toward a resolution or at least a mutual understanding of what happened
-ombuds periodically reports back to mods/staff and the community about general issues, with an eye toward supporting clearer and more workable site policies; maybe reporting on individual situations in very rare/unique situations.
I think I view this as more of a mediator position: helping to resolve conflict when possible, and at least to provide everyone with the feeling that they've been fairly heard, and to the wider MeFi community that decisions are being made reasonably fairly, even if someone may not agree with any specific decision.
Any strict policy is going to open up the possibility of rules-lawyering of course, but MeFi should take an approach that tries to work out a good resolution rather than deciding who is right and who is wrong according to The Rules.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:32 PM on February 18, 2023 [8 favorites]
If there are problems with a lack of clarity in the site guidelines, This is essential and I believe it is being worked on.
Biogeo' text has the member, let's call it plaintiff as I believe at that point the member should not be a defendant, directly appeal to the SC for whatever formal process that will get rolling. I suggested that this initiation be led by Loup. I agree with biogeo as Loup would be in on the process and they can better direct the process and whatnot. importance of the member going to the SC is very clear to me now as in the ombuds roll.
perhaps I'm having a bit difficulty with the terminology which is all fine but I look at an ombuds to be a position to look over matters not strictly adhering to a ban/time out or perhaps a contentious common deletion I'm not keen on the ladder, see problems with that in a procedural role.
well I guess I'll just ask the question, is the ombuds roll exclusively for member ban etc or would this role be larger complaints about the site, deleted comments, general matters that a member might not feel comfortable going to the mods about.
if the role is larger than just arbitration then perhaps grievances list pertaining to the situation of the member and the problem they're having there- in.
if we just need an arbitrator for situation like Molly's which I think would have been a great case for arbitration because the guidelines aren't quite clear yet, we need those. without a comprehensive policy that's on all of us.
I use the model of family law for arbitrator, I think we all know what this is, a judge or one of the parties request arbitration rather than take the case to court the idea is to save money, time and to have an amicable discussion with a third party this is usually a lawyer and I can tell you they make about $2,000 a session. I participated in three arbitrations and had to have judges approval for me to even be in the room. one as assistant, one as forensic examiner, one to convey information.so yeah that's kind of weird that I have a little experience but I think if others here have had experience in arbitration and or in the legal community taking biogeos framework and tweaking it would be a great idea whether in-thread or off books. a typical arbitration can last one day and with this kind of situation I think that type of time frame, 1 to 3 days depending on situation is extremely reasonable. I suppose anybody can initiate an arbitration. why I believe this is important. not so much for the present but ever more so for the present but in the past. a long time ago I did see mods make a few what I thought were mistakes and felt the members were stuck or set aside without any sense of arbitration. A couple of those did alienate some older members and you know how that works. so I guess what I'm asking for is the clarification of the role itself. as I said before the last thing I want to see the SC become is a Oyer and termine for metafilter but I do believe reaching out to the SC is important because one, they're are multiple members. two, they've been elected and three they're all trusted members of this community.. from member to SC to loup, however the process is initiated should not include the SC making the final decision.
the idea of an arbitrator is to work out differences and then they present their findings to the judge now who that judge would be is going to be one of either two people here on metafilter As to cost, I think this could be a concern if there are multiple cases but I don't see that, I see this as a really rare occasional role.
privacy shouldn't really be a hard thing to workout. Just to be clear an arbitrator does not just clear up problems that come along, they make a decision based on site policy concerning the members issue and way an opinion. this would be done behind closed doors and divulged accordingly.
posted by clavdivs at 3:29 PM on February 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Biogeo' text has the member, let's call it plaintiff as I believe at that point the member should not be a defendant, directly appeal to the SC for whatever formal process that will get rolling. I suggested that this initiation be led by Loup. I agree with biogeo as Loup would be in on the process and they can better direct the process and whatnot. importance of the member going to the SC is very clear to me now as in the ombuds roll.
perhaps I'm having a bit difficulty with the terminology which is all fine but I look at an ombuds to be a position to look over matters not strictly adhering to a ban/time out or perhaps a contentious common deletion I'm not keen on the ladder, see problems with that in a procedural role.
well I guess I'll just ask the question, is the ombuds roll exclusively for member ban etc or would this role be larger complaints about the site, deleted comments, general matters that a member might not feel comfortable going to the mods about.
if the role is larger than just arbitration then perhaps grievances list pertaining to the situation of the member and the problem they're having there- in.
if we just need an arbitrator for situation like Molly's which I think would have been a great case for arbitration because the guidelines aren't quite clear yet, we need those. without a comprehensive policy that's on all of us.
I use the model of family law for arbitrator, I think we all know what this is, a judge or one of the parties request arbitration rather than take the case to court the idea is to save money, time and to have an amicable discussion with a third party this is usually a lawyer and I can tell you they make about $2,000 a session. I participated in three arbitrations and had to have judges approval for me to even be in the room. one as assistant, one as forensic examiner, one to convey information.so yeah that's kind of weird that I have a little experience but I think if others here have had experience in arbitration and or in the legal community taking biogeos framework and tweaking it would be a great idea whether in-thread or off books. a typical arbitration can last one day and with this kind of situation I think that type of time frame, 1 to 3 days depending on situation is extremely reasonable. I suppose anybody can initiate an arbitration. why I believe this is important. not so much for the present but ever more so for the present but in the past. a long time ago I did see mods make a few what I thought were mistakes and felt the members were stuck or set aside without any sense of arbitration. A couple of those did alienate some older members and you know how that works. so I guess what I'm asking for is the clarification of the role itself. as I said before the last thing I want to see the SC become is a Oyer and termine for metafilter but I do believe reaching out to the SC is important because one, they're are multiple members. two, they've been elected and three they're all trusted members of this community.. from member to SC to loup, however the process is initiated should not include the SC making the final decision.
the idea of an arbitrator is to work out differences and then they present their findings to the judge now who that judge would be is going to be one of either two people here on metafilter As to cost, I think this could be a concern if there are multiple cases but I don't see that, I see this as a really rare occasional role.
privacy shouldn't really be a hard thing to workout. Just to be clear an arbitrator does not just clear up problems that come along, they make a decision based on site policy concerning the members issue and way an opinion. this would be done behind closed doors and divulged accordingly.
posted by clavdivs at 3:29 PM on February 18, 2023 [1 favorite]
Firstly, I sincerely appreciate the work that went into putting this proposal together and the manner in which it was presented that allows us to discuss something fairly concrete rather than our usual mode of shouting into the wind.
The purpose of an ombuds, as I see it, is not to produce a different outcome in any specific moderation decision. Rather, as I attempted to outline in the main post, it is to provide a mechanism for the community to establish, after the fact, whether the mod team did in fact follow established policies and procedures in cases that result in questions being raised.
This is a really important clarification. No matter how streamlined and efficient you make any sort of decision review process, it can never match the fast-moving pace of a busy online forum, so any such role is not going to be able to redress something that someone believes has gone wrong. The real benefit of such a role would come from an objective review of actions taken and recommendations on how to avoid recurrence. It's critical that everyone understands this distinction - a sound decision review role would never have been able to intervene fast enough to 'fix' the recent issue. if such a role were in place, we would expect that, before now, a finding would have been published as to the correctness of the decision/s accompanied by any recommendations to clarify guidelines or whatever and, to the extent possible and where appropriate, recommendations to (eg) reinstate accounts, have MetaFilter LLC apologise and acknowledge mistakes etc.
The best that could be hoped for would be a finding that the decision was/was not in accordance with the published guidelines. If it was but was still less than ideal, a proposal for how recurrence could be avoided would be expected, if that were possible (sometimes people are going to disagree on-line and that's all that happened). If it was not in accordance with guidelines, the review person has a can of worms sitting in front of them. It's relatively straightforward to publish a finding that a specific decision was not consistent with published guidelines, but what happens next is harder. Moderators are employees and entitled to be treated in accordance with employment laws, but are also entitled to be treated with humanity and not dragged through the court of public opinion because they made a mistake once. Importantly, they are not employed by the members here, but are employed by Meta
Filter LLC. So, making recommendations about what to do when a moderator has (eg) made a decision outside the published guidelines may not always be able to be public, beyond saying that this occurred and that the matter has been referred to that person's employer. We have no right to expect that interactions between an employee and an employer be made public.
I support the concept of an independent decision review role, but I don't believe it's the thing that needs to be done next. Putting someone in this position right now would be setting them up for failure and everyone else up for disappointment. This is because I believe the guidelines & content policy are not sufficiently robust to measure the correctness of decisions against. Yes, trying to get community agreement on what these look like would make herding cats look like a walk in the park. If the community wants an effective review process, though, this is essential as a first step. In my view, doing this would reduce the need for an independent review process in the first place.
Should such a position/process be created, there are some critical things that I believe need to be in place:
- The reviewer/s must be available. This means any member must be able to lodge a complaint and ask that it be investigated. The reviewer/s have the right to investigate or to not investigate any complaint
- The reviewer/s must be independent. This means they are not subject to direction from anyone and are not seen as an advocate of any person or group
- The reviewer/s must have clear and published jurisdiction and powers, including the ability to commence an investigation without a complaint being made
- The reviewer/s must follow procedural fairness in any investigation.
Whether such a person or persons should be paid is something that needs to be considered and this will impact the way they are selected. Is it reasonable to demand that a company pay someone they have no say in hiring? I think not. There are obvious issues of trust if MetaFilter LLC hires someone and says 'here is your ombudsman', but that's no different for moderators and perhaps the best way is (as per the original proposal) popular vote of some sort, with a veto available for the owner. Ideally, such people would not be beholden to the company in any way, but that can't really be avoided if this is to be a paid position.
posted by dg at 4:06 PM on February 19, 2023 [7 favorites]
The purpose of an ombuds, as I see it, is not to produce a different outcome in any specific moderation decision. Rather, as I attempted to outline in the main post, it is to provide a mechanism for the community to establish, after the fact, whether the mod team did in fact follow established policies and procedures in cases that result in questions being raised.
This is a really important clarification. No matter how streamlined and efficient you make any sort of decision review process, it can never match the fast-moving pace of a busy online forum, so any such role is not going to be able to redress something that someone believes has gone wrong. The real benefit of such a role would come from an objective review of actions taken and recommendations on how to avoid recurrence. It's critical that everyone understands this distinction - a sound decision review role would never have been able to intervene fast enough to 'fix' the recent issue. if such a role were in place, we would expect that, before now, a finding would have been published as to the correctness of the decision/s accompanied by any recommendations to clarify guidelines or whatever and, to the extent possible and where appropriate, recommendations to (eg) reinstate accounts, have MetaFilter LLC apologise and acknowledge mistakes etc.
The best that could be hoped for would be a finding that the decision was/was not in accordance with the published guidelines. If it was but was still less than ideal, a proposal for how recurrence could be avoided would be expected, if that were possible (sometimes people are going to disagree on-line and that's all that happened). If it was not in accordance with guidelines, the review person has a can of worms sitting in front of them. It's relatively straightforward to publish a finding that a specific decision was not consistent with published guidelines, but what happens next is harder. Moderators are employees and entitled to be treated in accordance with employment laws, but are also entitled to be treated with humanity and not dragged through the court of public opinion because they made a mistake once. Importantly, they are not employed by the members here, but are employed by Meta
Filter LLC. So, making recommendations about what to do when a moderator has (eg) made a decision outside the published guidelines may not always be able to be public, beyond saying that this occurred and that the matter has been referred to that person's employer. We have no right to expect that interactions between an employee and an employer be made public.
I support the concept of an independent decision review role, but I don't believe it's the thing that needs to be done next. Putting someone in this position right now would be setting them up for failure and everyone else up for disappointment. This is because I believe the guidelines & content policy are not sufficiently robust to measure the correctness of decisions against. Yes, trying to get community agreement on what these look like would make herding cats look like a walk in the park. If the community wants an effective review process, though, this is essential as a first step. In my view, doing this would reduce the need for an independent review process in the first place.
Should such a position/process be created, there are some critical things that I believe need to be in place:
- The reviewer/s must be available. This means any member must be able to lodge a complaint and ask that it be investigated. The reviewer/s have the right to investigate or to not investigate any complaint
- The reviewer/s must be independent. This means they are not subject to direction from anyone and are not seen as an advocate of any person or group
- The reviewer/s must have clear and published jurisdiction and powers, including the ability to commence an investigation without a complaint being made
- The reviewer/s must follow procedural fairness in any investigation.
Whether such a person or persons should be paid is something that needs to be considered and this will impact the way they are selected. Is it reasonable to demand that a company pay someone they have no say in hiring? I think not. There are obvious issues of trust if MetaFilter LLC hires someone and says 'here is your ombudsman', but that's no different for moderators and perhaps the best way is (as per the original proposal) popular vote of some sort, with a veto available for the owner. Ideally, such people would not be beholden to the company in any way, but that can't really be avoided if this is to be a paid position.
posted by dg at 4:06 PM on February 19, 2023 [7 favorites]
If it’s only a small part of the community that distrust the mods, why did they lose trust? Can that trust be regained? Is it worth the effect to regain that trust?
I'll talk mine through.
First, a minor thing. I have gotten the impression that there's some way for mods to leave permanent mod notes about a user on their profile (or maybe they just have a really long memory)? and if that's true, I don't like that. It's like talking about people behind their back. I'd go into more detail but I don't even know if it's a real thing. I've just gotten the impression that it is.
The main thing that my personal distrust for the moderation (not the mods, who I fully trust are all doing their very best) comes from is because sometimes I see comments of mine get deleted when other comments that were identically parallel, sometimes even in the same thread, are left to stand. And I'm left not knowing why. And it's really hard to advocate for myself when I don't have the comment in hand to reference, so the conversation would be uneven. I know I could ask for the deleted comment, but it feels fighty to do so, so I won't. Even though I would probably learn a lot if I had automated access to my deleted comments.
And I don't feel like arguing with someone who clearly disagrees with me about whether it was acceptable to post whatever my answer was. It's usually (but not always imo) something that, while it definitely answers the question and Metafilter would benefit from it not being deleted, is on the edge of the Overton Window. I know the mods are overworked and moderation is hard and we're all human so I'd rather put my energy elsewhere.
I can't think of much that's recent, hopefully that means it's been changing.
posted by aniola at 8:46 AM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
I'll talk mine through.
First, a minor thing. I have gotten the impression that there's some way for mods to leave permanent mod notes about a user on their profile (or maybe they just have a really long memory)? and if that's true, I don't like that. It's like talking about people behind their back. I'd go into more detail but I don't even know if it's a real thing. I've just gotten the impression that it is.
The main thing that my personal distrust for the moderation (not the mods, who I fully trust are all doing their very best) comes from is because sometimes I see comments of mine get deleted when other comments that were identically parallel, sometimes even in the same thread, are left to stand. And I'm left not knowing why. And it's really hard to advocate for myself when I don't have the comment in hand to reference, so the conversation would be uneven. I know I could ask for the deleted comment, but it feels fighty to do so, so I won't. Even though I would probably learn a lot if I had automated access to my deleted comments.
And I don't feel like arguing with someone who clearly disagrees with me about whether it was acceptable to post whatever my answer was. It's usually (but not always imo) something that, while it definitely answers the question and Metafilter would benefit from it not being deleted, is on the edge of the Overton Window. I know the mods are overworked and moderation is hard and we're all human so I'd rather put my energy elsewhere.
I can't think of much that's recent, hopefully that means it's been changing.
posted by aniola at 8:46 AM on February 24, 2023 [1 favorite]
It looks like for the most part everything that people want to say regarding this proposal has been said, which is great. I'd like to go ahead and summarize again my understanding of the various positions raised in this discussion. I'll then propose some user survey questions that the SC might use to gauge general opinion on the site regarding the proposal and its variations.
Members who have expressed opinions regarding the proposal that I could confidently categorize:
On the basis of the above, I propose asking the Steering Committee to conduct a survey of the of the MetaFilter membership, with the following wording:
I'm open to feedback on the above before I move forward with sending it to the Steering Committee to ask them to consider running the survey. My hope, again, is that this will help them to decide whether this is an issue they should take up and make a decision about. To reiterate, I don't believe the SC should be bound by the results of the survey, as there are numerous practical concerns that they are certain to need to discuss amongst themselves, with the moderation team, and with the site owner, before making a decision regarding whether this is a practical and desirable path forward. Rather, a survey will help them to decide whether this is a priority for them to discuss based on member interest.
Once the discussion seems completely finished, I'll send this comment (or a revised version of it if there are substantial criticisms to address first) to the Steering Committee and ask them to take a look at it. I'll also be volunteering to provide any labor required to administer the survey if they want it.
posted by biogeo at 8:45 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
Members who have expressed opinions regarding the proposal that I could confidently categorize:
- General agreement or endorsement: clavdivs, zompist, creatrixtiara, TheophileEscargot, The Last Sockpuppet
- Opposition: iivix, lapis, curious nu, calgirl, Phanx, dmh
- Tolerance without endorsement: snofoam, Rock 'em Sock 'em, jessamyn, kristi, Stacey, gentlyepigrams, dorothy hawk, Brandon Blatcher, tivalasvegas
Additional / alternative proposals
- xo proposed a contingency for the mod team realizing they've made a mistake as a consequence of the investigation.
- iivix (endorsed by lapis) proposed that moderation decisions should be based on clearly and publicly stated rules only, and that all moderation actions should be publicly logged. I interpret these as two distinct, though related, ideas, and I think either or both could be more fully fleshed-out as complete alternative solutions to the problem that this proposal attempts to address, but without further detail regarding implementation it may be hard to evaluate and discuss these alternatives.
- Mitheral, with agreement from zompist, proposed that the ombudspersons should be able to initiate investigations without the process being triggered by either the SC or the mod team.
- TheophileEscargot proposed that the ombuds role be assigned on a rotating basis to members of the Steering Committee, and that the ombuds have the ability to reverse moderation decisions.
- warriorqueen proposed a concrete escalation procedure for appealing moderation actions.
- fabius, seconded by gentlyepigrams, tivalasvegas, and dg, proposed that any decision to implement an ombudsperson should happen only after an increase in the clarity of site moderation policy.
- clavdivs and tivalasvegas both proposed a role of arbitrator or mediator as an alternative or complementary model for addressing moderation disputes.
Specific concerns or questions still open
- jessamyn, restless_nomad, Gotanda, Stacey, and others are concerned that the level of work expected from the ombudspersons under this proposal is too great to be reasonable for a volunteer position, and should require a salary and specialized training/experience.
- Larry David Syndrome asked whether there is a precedent for this type of position in other online communities.
- tiny frying pan asked how common distrust of the mod team actually is, noting this is a question that should be answered by user survey. Notably, in the most recent user survey last year, Mefites generally expressed a positive opinion of moderation on MetaFilter; however, this question specifically was not addressed.
On the basis of the above, I propose asking the Steering Committee to conduct a survey of the of the MetaFilter membership, with the following wording:
This survey is to gauge the opinion of the MetaFilter membership regarding establishing a formal role and process for reviewing certain contested decisions by the moderation team, as described in this MetaTalk thread. For the purposes of this survey, this role will be termed an "ombudsperson." This is an opinion survey to help inform the Steering Committee of the site membership's general sentiment on these ideas, and will not directly result in the establishment of an ombudsperson role.I have attempted to give a list of statements for the proposed survey that broadly summarizes the various ideas that have been presented in this thread with regards to the ombudsperson role, but if anyone feels that there is something I really missed, please say so. I have not included ideas that, while they may be good ideas to include in a survey of the site membership, do not quite seem to me to fit with this specific set of questions focused on the ombudsperson issue.
For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove:
- MetaFilter should establish an ombudsperson role, in some form.
- MetaFilter should reconsider this issue after first addressing other concerns (e.g., clarification of moderation policies and procedures).
- MetaFilter should establish an ombudsperson role even if it is determined that it would require funds (e.g., for a salary or an honorarium).
- If MetaFilter does establish an ombudsperson role...
- they should be directly elected by the site membership.
- they should be appointed by the Steering Committee.
- they should be hired staff.
- they should operate on a regular schedule, for example, meeting with the moderation team once per month to discuss any issues brought to them during that month.
- they should operate as-needed, responding to a process initiated by the Steering Committee.
- they should operate as-needed, operating at their own discretion.
I'm open to feedback on the above before I move forward with sending it to the Steering Committee to ask them to consider running the survey. My hope, again, is that this will help them to decide whether this is an issue they should take up and make a decision about. To reiterate, I don't believe the SC should be bound by the results of the survey, as there are numerous practical concerns that they are certain to need to discuss amongst themselves, with the moderation team, and with the site owner, before making a decision regarding whether this is a practical and desirable path forward. Rather, a survey will help them to decide whether this is a priority for them to discuss based on member interest.
Once the discussion seems completely finished, I'll send this comment (or a revised version of it if there are substantial criticisms to address first) to the Steering Committee and ask them to take a look at it. I'll also be volunteering to provide any labor required to administer the survey if they want it.
posted by biogeo at 8:45 PM on February 27, 2023 [7 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by mittens at 8:47 AM on February 16, 2023