A (Temporarily) Better MetaTalk November 15, 2024 5:39 AM Subscribe
What would make MetaTalk more useful and effective, in your opinion, in the short term—the next X months until MetaFilter crosses the line into community-run status? Are there specific issues that you have noticed in recent weeks or months that you feel could reasonably be remedied and improve your experience here?
I am aware that you have previously made suggestions to improve MetaFilter and MetaTalk. So have I. This post was spurred by some recent and short-term things:
* We’re so close! I’m wondering if there are any steps that would help us all get MetaFilter across the finish line. Maybe a bad metaphor. "Emerge from its LLC chrysalis?"
* The 2024 U.S. election has added great specific and free-floating anxiety to most all of our lives. Perhaps in consequence, the temperature seems to be hotter around here lately.
* Multiple MeTas have become badly derailed in the last month, with mods repeatedly following practices that users have identified as contrary to site guidelines and good practice, and with users engaging in repeated personal attacks.
* There seems to me to have been an uptick in public requests for mods to resign or step down from their current roles. If you are a person who has made such requests, then in the current site structure, staffing environment, and timeline, what would you propose as a reasonable solution for "problematic" mods?
* Some MeTas advertised on the banner have been unwelcoming, to say the least, and arguably showing us at our dysfunctional worst. Is there a banner-related solution to this? More banner? Less banner? No banner?
I am aware that you have previously made suggestions to improve MetaFilter and MetaTalk. So have I. This post was spurred by some recent and short-term things:
* We’re so close! I’m wondering if there are any steps that would help us all get MetaFilter across the finish line. Maybe a bad metaphor. "Emerge from its LLC chrysalis?"
* The 2024 U.S. election has added great specific and free-floating anxiety to most all of our lives. Perhaps in consequence, the temperature seems to be hotter around here lately.
* Multiple MeTas have become badly derailed in the last month, with mods repeatedly following practices that users have identified as contrary to site guidelines and good practice, and with users engaging in repeated personal attacks.
* There seems to me to have been an uptick in public requests for mods to resign or step down from their current roles. If you are a person who has made such requests, then in the current site structure, staffing environment, and timeline, what would you propose as a reasonable solution for "problematic" mods?
* Some MeTas advertised on the banner have been unwelcoming, to say the least, and arguably showing us at our dysfunctional worst. Is there a banner-related solution to this? More banner? Less banner? No banner?
We need site updates. Do we need comments to be open on those posts?
We need community announcements when e.g. a longstanding member dies. Those threads don’t get derailed in nearly the same proportion.
I don’t know if we are benefiting from open-ended community discussions about other topics right now. I do think they’re a distinctive part of site culture and that there is a place for them in future. I don’t know if they’re helping the transition, though.
I think that’s what I’d do if I were god-emperor. Update posts from mods: no comments. Community grieving posts and other similar non contentious topics: comments open. Everything else: on hold through the establishment of the 501(c)3.
posted by eirias at 6:01 AM on November 15 [8 favorites]
We need community announcements when e.g. a longstanding member dies. Those threads don’t get derailed in nearly the same proportion.
I don’t know if we are benefiting from open-ended community discussions about other topics right now. I do think they’re a distinctive part of site culture and that there is a place for them in future. I don’t know if they’re helping the transition, though.
I think that’s what I’d do if I were god-emperor. Update posts from mods: no comments. Community grieving posts and other similar non contentious topics: comments open. Everything else: on hold through the establishment of the 501(c)3.
posted by eirias at 6:01 AM on November 15 [8 favorites]
I'd prefer to be moderated by someone who actually wants to be here.
Probably good for me to stay out of this post as OP, but I will add -- I was trying to frame this post around actionable things. Many users are irritated about various things right now, and some mods and aspects of moderation are clearly a part of that! phunniemee, what would you envision as a temporary fix or short-term remedy to the frustration you have with moderation here? Is there anything that you think would help you feel more welcome here that does not involve serious permanent staff changes?
(I am not myself necessarily for or against permanent staff changes. That seems to me to be something that the future MetaFilter community/leadership would determine. YMMV.)
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:13 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
Probably good for me to stay out of this post as OP, but I will add -- I was trying to frame this post around actionable things. Many users are irritated about various things right now, and some mods and aspects of moderation are clearly a part of that! phunniemee, what would you envision as a temporary fix or short-term remedy to the frustration you have with moderation here? Is there anything that you think would help you feel more welcome here that does not involve serious permanent staff changes?
(I am not myself necessarily for or against permanent staff changes. That seems to me to be something that the future MetaFilter community/leadership would determine. YMMV.)
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:13 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
Is there anything that you think would help you feel more welcome here that does not involve serious permanent staff changes?
At this point? After many years in a row of ignoring actionable feedback? There is not, actually! Thank you for asking!
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 AM on November 15 [24 favorites]
At this point? After many years in a row of ignoring actionable feedback? There is not, actually! Thank you for asking!
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 AM on November 15 [24 favorites]
Also, to clarify, I personally feel plenty welcome here. I have some brain pathology where I've just decided to be comfortable wherever I land. But many, many others don't feel comfortable here anymore and haven't for a long time (rest in piece all of our buttoners) and I'm annoyed that poor management decisions here have made this an unwelcome place for people who I enjoy.
posted by phunniemee at 6:20 AM on November 15 [27 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:20 AM on November 15 [27 favorites]
Is there anything that you think would help you feel more welcome here that does not involve serious permanent staff changes?
No. To a first approximation, the staff is the sole problem with Metatalk.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:25 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
No. To a first approximation, the staff is the sole problem with Metatalk.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:25 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
This is a discussion board. We absolutely need open discussion, even if you don't like the opinions expressed. The whack-a-mole of closing threads and banning discussion topics doesn't work: people will just comment in the next not-closed thread, or find different ways to express the Forbidden Opinion.
What we need is: more truth. The staff should only say true things. They should not try to hide uncomfortable true things.
If content is deleted, say so.
If content is edited, say so.
Don't delete comments and selectively quote bits of different deleted comments together in a misleading way.
Don't say something is going to happen if there's less than a 75% chance it will happen.
Don't give misleading summaries of private communications.
Prefer public communications to private when possible. If the communication is reasonable, people will see it's reasonable. If it's unreasonable, it looks even worse when the recipient posts it on reddit, than if you'd made it in public on Metafilter in the first place.
Just try to learn from Richard Nixon's mistakes. The cover-up can be a bigger deal than the crime.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:51 AM on November 15 [56 favorites]
What we need is: more truth. The staff should only say true things. They should not try to hide uncomfortable true things.
If content is deleted, say so.
If content is edited, say so.
Don't delete comments and selectively quote bits of different deleted comments together in a misleading way.
Don't say something is going to happen if there's less than a 75% chance it will happen.
Don't give misleading summaries of private communications.
Prefer public communications to private when possible. If the communication is reasonable, people will see it's reasonable. If it's unreasonable, it looks even worse when the recipient posts it on reddit, than if you'd made it in public on Metafilter in the first place.
Just try to learn from Richard Nixon's mistakes. The cover-up can be a bigger deal than the crime.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 6:51 AM on November 15 [56 favorites]
I think the problem is that (some of) the moderators have locked themselves into a highly defensive, us-against-them mindset that is leading to harsh moderation and bad communication with users. I am not sure that the solution has to involve serious permanent staff changes but it might require a rethink on which staff members are responsible for managing MetaTalk and the degree to which they are managing it.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
To add to what I just posted, in the thread that set this off again, the goal was to protect the BIPOC board from what was seen as harsh criticism, and I don't think the goal was necessarily bad, but it was badly handled, as is so often the case these days. A response in the vein of traveling thyme's eventual reply would likely have largely diffused the situation, but because the mods have taken such a huge step back from actually talking to users, the reaction was a deletion instead of a reply and then just snowballed until it resulted in unwarranted bans and unfortunate buttonings and badly spun summaries of communications with users (the last of which has been a problem since at least the cortex days).
Has any of the staff taken any kind of training in de-escalating conflicts? There are people who offer de-escalation training specific to customer service contexts that would possibly be appropriate here.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:23 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
Has any of the staff taken any kind of training in de-escalating conflicts? There are people who offer de-escalation training specific to customer service contexts that would possibly be appropriate here.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:23 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
The other day in one of these threads, Loup mentioned being a project manager, and a little light-bulb went off above my head: Aha. It gave me some insight to these threads, because--and this is just a theory!--project management is entirely the wrong skillset to be the Voice of the Mods on Metatalk.
As I say, this is just a theory. Probably most of us in these threads have some work experience where we think, if only they would utilize MY job's skills, Metatalk would be so much better. But I really do think, unless your job experience includes dealing with angry, disappointed customers, and having to pick up the pieces after projects have exploded, and having to do the long (and stressful) work of rebuilding trust with customers, it may not immediately be apparent to you how your guiding of a Metatalk thread should work.
Since a lot of my job is trying to convince angry villagers to put down their pitchforks and not terminate contracts, these more contentious Metatalks have looked so familiar in terms of what goes wrong and then what keeps going wrong.
My suggestions would all be about repositioning oneself. A mod should not be an authority figure in a Metatalk thread, finger over the mute button. A conversation that looks like it's about problems and solutions may actually be about emotions, grudges and trust, and those should be dealt with in the conversation, before problems and solutions. If your handling of a project item is what's causing the stress, apologize after you've fixed it--fixing it should be the very next item on the agenda.
Don't try to control the flow of complaints until after you've rebuilt trust. Like, I would never tell one of my customers during a crisis, "You need to use our official support line to complain." No, you say, "I am the person you can talk to." Obviously that comes with a responsibility to actually, y'know, solve the issues, and show that you're solving the issues. But you've got to make yourself the person they can trust. Which means shouldering your team's failures, and doing far more listening than any one person should ever have to do...but that's how you rebuild.
I could go on for the next three hours, but, y'know, gotta get back to work. But the message here is: Work on trust first. Work on emotions first. Care about the people who are complaining to you, even if their volume and velocity piss you off, or scare you, or make you feel a little numb after a while. Care about what they're complaining about, care about the emotions they're trying to express to you.
posted by mittens at 7:24 AM on November 15 [54 favorites]
As I say, this is just a theory. Probably most of us in these threads have some work experience where we think, if only they would utilize MY job's skills, Metatalk would be so much better. But I really do think, unless your job experience includes dealing with angry, disappointed customers, and having to pick up the pieces after projects have exploded, and having to do the long (and stressful) work of rebuilding trust with customers, it may not immediately be apparent to you how your guiding of a Metatalk thread should work.
Since a lot of my job is trying to convince angry villagers to put down their pitchforks and not terminate contracts, these more contentious Metatalks have looked so familiar in terms of what goes wrong and then what keeps going wrong.
My suggestions would all be about repositioning oneself. A mod should not be an authority figure in a Metatalk thread, finger over the mute button. A conversation that looks like it's about problems and solutions may actually be about emotions, grudges and trust, and those should be dealt with in the conversation, before problems and solutions. If your handling of a project item is what's causing the stress, apologize after you've fixed it--fixing it should be the very next item on the agenda.
Don't try to control the flow of complaints until after you've rebuilt trust. Like, I would never tell one of my customers during a crisis, "You need to use our official support line to complain." No, you say, "I am the person you can talk to." Obviously that comes with a responsibility to actually, y'know, solve the issues, and show that you're solving the issues. But you've got to make yourself the person they can trust. Which means shouldering your team's failures, and doing far more listening than any one person should ever have to do...but that's how you rebuild.
I could go on for the next three hours, but, y'know, gotta get back to work. But the message here is: Work on trust first. Work on emotions first. Care about the people who are complaining to you, even if their volume and velocity piss you off, or scare you, or make you feel a little numb after a while. Care about what they're complaining about, care about the emotions they're trying to express to you.
posted by mittens at 7:24 AM on November 15 [54 favorites]
So many thoughts.
MetaTalk
I don't support closing MetaTalk at this point in MF's history, because that may result in a lack of engagement with the running-of-the-site right at the point that that will be needed.
I think it is already hard to get board and committee members, and I suspect there will not be a big slate to vote on (this is from past experience and looking at current activity.) So I think this kind of engagement is crucial.
At the same time, people may not volunteer for things because they don't want to deal with the MetaTalk.
So I think the middle ground is reminding ourselves that everyone who posts contributes to the atmosphere. I also think for some things, it's okay to go a bit slower or get responses a little later. (There are time-sensitive things where this is not the case.) This is especially true of things like responses from a board where probably there's some discussion among that group first. So we as a group can practice it.
Moderation
I think the moderation team needs support and I would put time on the table towards that. I'd like to see:
1. A shift in seeing the members as audience to seeing them as customers/donors/stakeholders. I know that statement is going to probably burn because I think the mods believe that they do think that way - but their practices as viewable in public don't support it right now.
By that I don't mean open the door to the US toxic-restaurant-jobs style of "the customer is always right," but an awareness that yes, whatever action you take is what people will gauge their involvement with the site by, and involvement with the site is what you want, and so there should be a pretty high bar on the tone of communications, how conflict is handled, what's shared, visibility into work being done, etc.
2. Training and practice/procedure development in customer service - on preview exactly what Jacquilynne and mittens just said - but I'd actually say it's more developing value-based (as opposed to rules-based) decision-making tools.
3. Communications training. Just basic workhorse comms discipline. Create checklists for run of the mill "threads gone wild" and stick to them.
4. (Private) retrospectives would be a really good practice and then reporting back to the community on lessons learned, whether eventually via the board or a log or something else.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:38 AM on November 15 [22 favorites]
MetaTalk
I don't support closing MetaTalk at this point in MF's history, because that may result in a lack of engagement with the running-of-the-site right at the point that that will be needed.
I think it is already hard to get board and committee members, and I suspect there will not be a big slate to vote on (this is from past experience and looking at current activity.) So I think this kind of engagement is crucial.
At the same time, people may not volunteer for things because they don't want to deal with the MetaTalk.
So I think the middle ground is reminding ourselves that everyone who posts contributes to the atmosphere. I also think for some things, it's okay to go a bit slower or get responses a little later. (There are time-sensitive things where this is not the case.) This is especially true of things like responses from a board where probably there's some discussion among that group first. So we as a group can practice it.
Moderation
I think the moderation team needs support and I would put time on the table towards that. I'd like to see:
1. A shift in seeing the members as audience to seeing them as customers/donors/stakeholders. I know that statement is going to probably burn because I think the mods believe that they do think that way - but their practices as viewable in public don't support it right now.
By that I don't mean open the door to the US toxic-restaurant-jobs style of "the customer is always right," but an awareness that yes, whatever action you take is what people will gauge their involvement with the site by, and involvement with the site is what you want, and so there should be a pretty high bar on the tone of communications, how conflict is handled, what's shared, visibility into work being done, etc.
2. Training and practice/procedure development in customer service - on preview exactly what Jacquilynne and mittens just said - but I'd actually say it's more developing value-based (as opposed to rules-based) decision-making tools.
3. Communications training. Just basic workhorse comms discipline. Create checklists for run of the mill "threads gone wild" and stick to them.
4. (Private) retrospectives would be a really good practice and then reporting back to the community on lessons learned, whether eventually via the board or a log or something else.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:38 AM on November 15 [22 favorites]
It would be great if the staff could also respond to the prompts in this post.
posted by Diskeater at 7:49 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 7:49 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
I hear what you’re saying, warriorqueen. I have the subjective sense that many users are so upset that they simply can’t engage in good faith anymore even though their upset comes from a genuine place of care for the site and the community. I see plenty of pushback on things that is polite and clear (I’d like to mention trig, who I think has contributed a bunch of good stuff), but anger is so salient that it sucks the air out of the room. I wouldn’t volunteer to work in this kind of environment. I wouldn’t even do it for money, you know?
I think mittens’ points about trust are excellent. Can we rebuild trust in this setting, with these tools?
A wise person I know once said that he builds trust by inviting his strongest critics into the fold to help him make positive change. If there is a pressing need right now or soon for bodies to do work — can we apply that insight here somehow? Can the nascent 501(c)3 bring good-faith critics on board?
posted by eirias at 7:50 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
I think mittens’ points about trust are excellent. Can we rebuild trust in this setting, with these tools?
A wise person I know once said that he builds trust by inviting his strongest critics into the fold to help him make positive change. If there is a pressing need right now or soon for bodies to do work — can we apply that insight here somehow? Can the nascent 501(c)3 bring good-faith critics on board?
posted by eirias at 7:50 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
It would be great if the staff could also respond to the prompts in this post.
^ this. If loup is unable to honestly engage with criticism in this thread, they simply cannot remain the public face of Metafilter management.
posted by living creature - do not ban at 7:57 AM on November 15 [9 favorites]
^ this. If loup is unable to honestly engage with criticism in this thread, they simply cannot remain the public face of Metafilter management.
posted by living creature - do not ban at 7:57 AM on November 15 [9 favorites]
I see plenty of pushback on things that is polite and clear (I’d like to mention trig, who I think has contributed a bunch of good stuff), but anger is so salient that it sucks the air out of the room. I wouldn’t volunteer to work in this kind of environment. I wouldn’t even do it for money, you know?
I agree on the one hand. And on the other, I have worked in this type of environment in online community (a very large forum with politics discussions), in media including social media, leading a team in direct, front-desk customer service in person during Covid, and now in higher ed comms (on the web end, so not directly in crisis comms or customer service).
And part of doing that work professionally is seeing that anger as a problem to be solved, not a personally-directed situation.
I'm not talking about chasing journalists everywhere doxxing them, that's a different thing. But if you work in comms or in interactive media, you end up dealing with angry/unhappy people or situations. Sometimes people slam you 'personally' but it's not personal. I love that as members we can try to make a better atmosphere for our staff, but in the end - that has to happen at the organizational management end.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:58 AM on November 15 [12 favorites]
I agree on the one hand. And on the other, I have worked in this type of environment in online community (a very large forum with politics discussions), in media including social media, leading a team in direct, front-desk customer service in person during Covid, and now in higher ed comms (on the web end, so not directly in crisis comms or customer service).
And part of doing that work professionally is seeing that anger as a problem to be solved, not a personally-directed situation.
I'm not talking about chasing journalists everywhere doxxing them, that's a different thing. But if you work in comms or in interactive media, you end up dealing with angry/unhappy people or situations. Sometimes people slam you 'personally' but it's not personal. I love that as members we can try to make a better atmosphere for our staff, but in the end - that has to happen at the organizational management end.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:58 AM on November 15 [12 favorites]
Adding on to mittens' fantastic comment with something that is actionable, I think management's (loup's??) time should move from working on the guidelines to something else aligned with building trust. Maybe move forward with the Trans/non-binary survey that was started in June, and then disappeared into the ether? This is just one example. Honestly, at this point the guidelines seem like the mods are building a wall to hide behind and defend themselves from the users, and give people bans when they don't like what they have to say. This is the opposite of trust and community building.
We, the user base, are volunteering our time and energy to create all of the content for this site (and in a lot of cases, paying to do so!), and I'd like to see us treated with more respect and honesty, even when we're mad.
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:01 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
We, the user base, are volunteering our time and energy to create all of the content for this site (and in a lot of cases, paying to do so!), and I'd like to see us treated with more respect and honesty, even when we're mad.
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:01 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
Oh, I agree with that, re: professionalism! It’s everyone else I have in mind.
Are these conversations strengthening our community or weakening it? It sounds like in a lot of cases the constructive user input we could get this way doesn’t go anywhere (and to be fair — if my presentations had an audience of thousands I also would not be following up on every suggestion). I don’t think anything we’ve chosen to do with the less constructive input has made the angry people feel heard or supported, which sucks for everyone.
Maybe I’m wrong though!
posted by eirias at 8:10 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
Are these conversations strengthening our community or weakening it? It sounds like in a lot of cases the constructive user input we could get this way doesn’t go anywhere (and to be fair — if my presentations had an audience of thousands I also would not be following up on every suggestion). I don’t think anything we’ve chosen to do with the less constructive input has made the angry people feel heard or supported, which sucks for everyone.
Maybe I’m wrong though!
posted by eirias at 8:10 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
> A response in the vein of traveling thyme's eventual reply would likely have largely diffused the situation
This gave me an idea for a small actionable item. Maybe it should be policy that staff/mods can only post a new MetaTalk at the beginning of a shift, with a few hours ahead of them to check in and re-rail early if there's been a misunderstanding.
Of course, users should be able to post anytime, and anyone should be able to comment anytime. But would a rule like this for staff posts help to prevent ~24hrs of angry misunderstanding before a mod comes back to the post?
posted by secretseasons at 8:17 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
This gave me an idea for a small actionable item. Maybe it should be policy that staff/mods can only post a new MetaTalk at the beginning of a shift, with a few hours ahead of them to check in and re-rail early if there's been a misunderstanding.
Of course, users should be able to post anytime, and anyone should be able to comment anytime. But would a rule like this for staff posts help to prevent ~24hrs of angry misunderstanding before a mod comes back to the post?
posted by secretseasons at 8:17 AM on November 15 [14 favorites]
Oh, and in terms of actionable steps the mods can take right now? loup can provide Snofoam a well-deserved public apology for their microaggressions (and subsequent macroagressions) in the global perspectives thread. Conversely, they can publicly defend their actions. If they’re unwilling to do either, I don’t see how the community can feel safe knowing this person is in charge of the site. If management is unwilling to apologize for their racism when called out, a change is needed. #commonsense #notharassment
posted by living creature - do not ban at 8:21 AM on November 15 [20 favorites]
posted by living creature - do not ban at 8:21 AM on November 15 [20 favorites]
A wise person I know once said that he builds trust by inviting his strongest critics into the fold to help him make positive change. If there is a pressing need right now or soon for bodies to do work — can we apply that insight here somehow? Can the nascent 501(c)3 bring good-faith critics on board?
I like this. Building in some serious advocatus diaboli energy to an oversight/reaction board could be helpful. I think that's more likely to be a long term thing, and, hey, we already have The Subreddit That Dare Not Speak Its Name, but this could be a real structural organizational commitment to listening to criticism. It would need to have some track record of success, I suppose, before any lost trust would be regained, but maybe there's some potential there.
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
+1. Could the mods build in time to review/update this regularly? Weekly or monthly? That plus keeping it public and letting us know that they have eyes on it regularly seems like it could be valuable.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:21 AM on November 15
I like this. Building in some serious advocatus diaboli energy to an oversight/reaction board could be helpful. I think that's more likely to be a long term thing, and, hey, we already have The Subreddit That Dare Not Speak Its Name, but this could be a real structural organizational commitment to listening to criticism. It would need to have some track record of success, I suppose, before any lost trust would be regained, but maybe there's some potential there.
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
+1. Could the mods build in time to review/update this regularly? Weekly or monthly? That plus keeping it public and letting us know that they have eyes on it regularly seems like it could be valuable.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:21 AM on November 15
I am not and have not been convinced that metatalk is or to be honest ever has been a good way to have a constructive conversation about the future of this website. But here are some things that make me frustrated
1) A frankly contradictory list of made up rules about what can be said by users here
a) You cannot call for a mod/admin to resign
b) You cannot quote correspondence from a mod/admin unless given express permission
c) You cannot quote from the reddit where individuals may be sharing additional information about deleted threads, or correspondence from mods
d) Sometimes, you cannot make a comment which is "off topic". This is extremely inconsistently applied, usually because metatalk threads are not actively moderated
Note that this is made worse by moderators and admin not necessarily obeying rules b and d themselves.
In the last handful of threads there have been users who have quit, who have been banned, who have been temp banned. The reasons have been quite varied in their nature.
2) A feeling of dishonesty in communication from the moderator community.
I like to think the best of the moderation team, but recently deletions have been described in ways that do not appear to conform with the actual reality of what happens. This does not build trust.
I feel compelled to discuss the subreddit here, because I actually don't really like it. I think a lot of the members there can be mean spirited in lots of different ways. But the one thing that it has going for it is the conversation is honest and open in a way that it does not feel like happens here. And by here, I specifically mean metatalk! Honestly the rest of the site is fine, and if you were to spend time there you would not know of these dramas that continually flare up here.
I am to be honest somewhat in favour of just mostly locking down metatalk as suggested above until community transfer is complete. It is clear that there isn't a desire, or the possibility, for real change, from the current team, so having conversations which will not achieve anything other than making more people unhappy does not seem a great use of anyone's time.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:24 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
1) A frankly contradictory list of made up rules about what can be said by users here
a) You cannot call for a mod/admin to resign
b) You cannot quote correspondence from a mod/admin unless given express permission
c) You cannot quote from the reddit where individuals may be sharing additional information about deleted threads, or correspondence from mods
d) Sometimes, you cannot make a comment which is "off topic". This is extremely inconsistently applied, usually because metatalk threads are not actively moderated
Note that this is made worse by moderators and admin not necessarily obeying rules b and d themselves.
In the last handful of threads there have been users who have quit, who have been banned, who have been temp banned. The reasons have been quite varied in their nature.
2) A feeling of dishonesty in communication from the moderator community.
I like to think the best of the moderation team, but recently deletions have been described in ways that do not appear to conform with the actual reality of what happens. This does not build trust.
I feel compelled to discuss the subreddit here, because I actually don't really like it. I think a lot of the members there can be mean spirited in lots of different ways. But the one thing that it has going for it is the conversation is honest and open in a way that it does not feel like happens here. And by here, I specifically mean metatalk! Honestly the rest of the site is fine, and if you were to spend time there you would not know of these dramas that continually flare up here.
I am to be honest somewhat in favour of just mostly locking down metatalk as suggested above until community transfer is complete. It is clear that there isn't a desire, or the possibility, for real change, from the current team, so having conversations which will not achieve anything other than making more people unhappy does not seem a great use of anyone's time.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 8:24 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
Not to be too Pollyanna, but I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation. I know we have had many like it over time. I know many of us are or have been very irritated or upset with things lately. I really appreciate seeing the suggestions about ways to make MetaTalk better right now, ways to think about the future of the site, and the not-offered-in-a-flaming-thread sharing of deep critiques and frustrations.
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:29 AM on November 15 [6 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 8:29 AM on November 15 [6 favorites]
Sometimes, you cannot make a comment which is "off topic". This is extremely inconsistently applied, usually because metatalk threads are not actively moderated
Anyone paying attention to the rhyme and/or reason of recent moderation actions in MetaTalk will know there’s been one common denominator to them, far more than transgressions of established guidelines: they hurt loop’s feelings. That’s been the over-riding principle of Meta moderation for months now, and it’s frankly detrimental to the community. It’s clear that loup is unable to fulfill the role they’ve assigned to themselves, and it feels like the whole community’s forward momentum is being put on hold while they figure out how to extricate themselves from a situation they clearly don’t want to be in. I don’t envy them, and I’m sure it sucks to be hearing what they’re hearing, but this isn’t about loup as a person, it’s about loup as an administrator that’s made certain decisions.
loup, do what needs to be done, and do it now. You’re causing harm by continuing the current status quo.
posted by living creature - do not ban at 8:43 AM on November 15 [19 favorites]
Anyone paying attention to the rhyme and/or reason of recent moderation actions in MetaTalk will know there’s been one common denominator to them, far more than transgressions of established guidelines: they hurt loop’s feelings. That’s been the over-riding principle of Meta moderation for months now, and it’s frankly detrimental to the community. It’s clear that loup is unable to fulfill the role they’ve assigned to themselves, and it feels like the whole community’s forward momentum is being put on hold while they figure out how to extricate themselves from a situation they clearly don’t want to be in. I don’t envy them, and I’m sure it sucks to be hearing what they’re hearing, but this isn’t about loup as a person, it’s about loup as an administrator that’s made certain decisions.
loup, do what needs to be done, and do it now. You’re causing harm by continuing the current status quo.
posted by living creature - do not ban at 8:43 AM on November 15 [19 favorites]
posted by living creature - do not ban
lol dead
oh no i'm next
posted by phunniemee at 8:49 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
lol dead
oh no i'm next
posted by phunniemee at 8:49 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
but I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this conversation.
Agreed and thank you for making such a fantastic post about all this, it does a great job of highlighting the various issues.
I won’t be on duty till this evening, eastern time, just wanted to say thanks for so many thoughtful comments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:56 AM on November 15 [4 favorites]
Agreed and thank you for making such a fantastic post about all this, it does a great job of highlighting the various issues.
I won’t be on duty till this evening, eastern time, just wanted to say thanks for so many thoughtful comments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:56 AM on November 15 [4 favorites]
I've gone on before in this space about the need for a moderation log. In the short-term, the site can build trust by making an ad-hoc moderation log in each thread:
1) Anytime a comment is deleted, it doesn't simply vanish, Instead, the comment should be changed so that it's text is simply reduced to "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]"
1A) Do this once for each comment deleted. Meaning if three comments are deleted, there should be three "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]" statements
1B) Yes, mods should identify which of them took an action IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL MOD ACTION IS NECESSARY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
2) For every batch of comments deleted -- i.e. if the same mod comes in and removes three comments for being "fighty" or whatever, there should be a mod post with explanation: "Several comments deleted for violating Guideline #X" No comment deletions without a mod post.
2A) YES, BE CLEAR WHAT GUIDELINE WAS BEING BROKEN
2B) "But Pluto, what if it's not as cut-and-dried which Guideline is being broken?" Then there's no need to delete the comment in the first place, only the mod post is necessary to warn and/or redirect the thread.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 9:00 AM on November 15 [31 favorites]
1) Anytime a comment is deleted, it doesn't simply vanish, Instead, the comment should be changed so that it's text is simply reduced to "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]"
1A) Do this once for each comment deleted. Meaning if three comments are deleted, there should be three "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]" statements
1B) Yes, mods should identify which of them took an action IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL MOD ACTION IS NECESSARY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.
2) For every batch of comments deleted -- i.e. if the same mod comes in and removes three comments for being "fighty" or whatever, there should be a mod post with explanation: "Several comments deleted for violating Guideline #X" No comment deletions without a mod post.
2A) YES, BE CLEAR WHAT GUIDELINE WAS BEING BROKEN
2B) "But Pluto, what if it's not as cut-and-dried which Guideline is being broken?" Then there's no need to delete the comment in the first place, only the mod post is necessary to warn and/or redirect the thread.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 9:00 AM on November 15 [31 favorites]
it does a great job of highlighting the various issues
Such as?
thanks for so many thoughtful comments
Such as?
Your issues are very important to us, please stay in this thread and your concerns will be addressed.
posted by Diskeater at 9:01 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
Such as?
thanks for so many thoughtful comments
Such as?
Your issues are very important to us, please stay in this thread and your concerns will be addressed.
posted by Diskeater at 9:01 AM on November 15 [11 favorites]
If there is a pressing need right now or soon for bodies to do work — can we apply that insight here somehow? Can the nascent 501(c)3 bring good-faith critics on board?
How many committees have there been? How many members--a lot of whom ended up leaving altogether because they were frustrated that rarely any action is taken, if ever--have given up their own free time to try and keep this place workable with various issues to be addressed? Like, we do not need continual committees/good faith critics etc of people who want to help but seem to end up ignored or not gotten back to in ages for anything to move forward? What guarantee do we have from the staff that they will actually follow up on yet another committee's work?
For example, my spouse volunteered to help with an ED search for MeFi earlier this year. His help was accepted! And he hasn't heard a damn word about it in months. He has shrugged and said, "well, I guess they don't want help that badly."
I try to be generous to the mods as modding can be a no-fun job, but honestly, this feels like farce now.
posted by Kitteh at 9:15 AM on November 15 [28 favorites]
How many committees have there been? How many members--a lot of whom ended up leaving altogether because they were frustrated that rarely any action is taken, if ever--have given up their own free time to try and keep this place workable with various issues to be addressed? Like, we do not need continual committees/good faith critics etc of people who want to help but seem to end up ignored or not gotten back to in ages for anything to move forward? What guarantee do we have from the staff that they will actually follow up on yet another committee's work?
For example, my spouse volunteered to help with an ED search for MeFi earlier this year. His help was accepted! And he hasn't heard a damn word about it in months. He has shrugged and said, "well, I guess they don't want help that badly."
I try to be generous to the mods as modding can be a no-fun job, but honestly, this feels like farce now.
posted by Kitteh at 9:15 AM on November 15 [28 favorites]
I mean, I'm not a longstanding or power user or w/e so I'll just throw my cards on the table and say that I think loup is a bad mod that is causing more problems than they solve. I expect retribution for saying this, delete this comment or close my account or w/e, but it's how I feel, and this site doesn't have enough members or member growth to continue to alienate people.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:35 AM on November 15 [27 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 9:35 AM on November 15 [27 favorites]
For example, my spouse volunteered to help with an ED search for MeFi earlier this year. His help was accepted! And he hasn't heard a damn word about it in months. He has shrugged and said, "well, I guess they don't want help that badly."
Yes but in another year when there's still no director and your spouse has gone and got busy with his personal workload, they can say another version of "the user who had stepped forward to help with this project has a scheduling conflict and will be unable to support in the capacity originally offered," like it's his bad time management instead of theirs. This info has certainly made me recontextualize all the previous times a user has had to drop off of some board or committee and it's been used in Metatalk as explanation for lack of progress. Has it really been 100% that user each time?
posted by phunniemee at 9:50 AM on November 15 [26 favorites]
Yes but in another year when there's still no director and your spouse has gone and got busy with his personal workload, they can say another version of "the user who had stepped forward to help with this project has a scheduling conflict and will be unable to support in the capacity originally offered," like it's his bad time management instead of theirs. This info has certainly made me recontextualize all the previous times a user has had to drop off of some board or committee and it's been used in Metatalk as explanation for lack of progress. Has it really been 100% that user each time?
posted by phunniemee at 9:50 AM on November 15 [26 favorites]
I've gone on before in this space about the need for a moderation log. In the short-term, the site can build trust by making an ad-hoc moderation log in each thread:
I'd like this for user bans too, temporary or permanent.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 9:59 AM on November 15 [21 favorites]
I'd like this for user bans too, temporary or permanent.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 9:59 AM on November 15 [21 favorites]
I hope the repeat $5 income stream from the multiple accounts y'all keep banning is enough to pay for the time and effort it's taking to keep hunting them down, otherwise this is a pretty goofy way to spend mod time/community resources.
posted by phunniemee at 10:00 AM on November 15 [17 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 10:00 AM on November 15 [17 favorites]
Honestly, only a portion of the constructive conversation is even possible here. Some of the most helpful solutions are explicitly forbidden as points of discussion. Heavy handed moderation, bizarre interpretation of the vague, poorly-written and often unhelpful guidelines ensure that other parts of the discussion are suppressed, deleted or self-censored. Some of this discussion has moved to places like the Metafiltermeta subreddit, and a lot of people have just given up because it’s not clear that there is any value in offering feedback of any kind.
posted by snofoam at 10:05 AM on November 15 [13 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:05 AM on November 15 [13 favorites]
from the multiple accounts y'all keep banning
OK, let's begin the accountability process here. Did this account close all by itself or is a mod going to step forward and say, "I banned this user -- knowing full well that the account had opened today and posted in this thread and nowhere else -- and here's why"?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:08 AM on November 15 [4 favorites]
OK, let's begin the accountability process here. Did this account close all by itself or is a mod going to step forward and say, "I banned this user -- knowing full well that the account had opened today and posted in this thread and nowhere else -- and here's why"?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 10:08 AM on November 15 [4 favorites]
No way the staff can comment on that because of "privacy issues".
posted by Diskeater at 10:11 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
posted by Diskeater at 10:11 AM on November 15 [1 favorite]
Oh god, I just suddenly thought of what an ED search is going to look like with all our dirty laundry on such public display. (Why am I only thinking of this now? Sometimes I’m not very bright.)
posted by eirias at 10:26 AM on November 15 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 10:26 AM on November 15 [2 favorites]
It’s really okay for an ED to know what they are walking into.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:31 AM on November 15 [20 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 10:31 AM on November 15 [20 favorites]
Yeah, in many ways preferable… repeating the search in two months is no win. Just one of those headdesk moments, imagining what this is gonna look like to an outsider.
posted by eirias at 10:35 AM on November 15 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 10:35 AM on November 15 [2 favorites]
There’s a whiole lot of good all over the site too. :)
posted by warriorqueen at 10:38 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 10:38 AM on November 15 [7 favorites]
1) Anytime a comment is deleted, it doesn't simply vanish, Instead, the comment should be changed so that it's text is simply reduced to "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]"
One thing that occurred to me in the other thread is that it would also be helpful, given that we perpetually seem to have MeTas resulting in account wipes, would be to tombstone purged comments rather than vanish them. That would have defused at least one situation in that thread.
posted by hoyland at 11:17 AM on November 15 [5 favorites]
One thing that occurred to me in the other thread is that it would also be helpful, given that we perpetually seem to have MeTas resulting in account wipes, would be to tombstone purged comments rather than vanish them. That would have defused at least one situation in that thread.
posted by hoyland at 11:17 AM on November 15 [5 favorites]
So um a user has been silently been banned during a thread where users are calling for more transparency. And the only comments from the mods was to say they're too busy right now.
I mean... come on guys, why even have the damn thread?
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:58 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
I mean... come on guys, why even have the damn thread?
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:58 AM on November 15 [15 favorites]
I have a simple but bold suggestion.
-We kidnap cortex
-We convince him that the handover was all a dream (using fake posts as needed to fill in any suspicious gaps)
-We all come together and gain a better appreciation of one another as we gaslight the fuck out of him
-When he discovers our deception and sues the site into oblivion, we will have gone out with a bang and not a whimper.
whyisareyoubooingme.jpg
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:12 PM on November 15
-We kidnap cortex
-We convince him that the handover was all a dream (using fake posts as needed to fill in any suspicious gaps)
-We all come together and gain a better appreciation of one another as we gaslight the fuck out of him
-When he discovers our deception and sues the site into oblivion, we will have gone out with a bang and not a whimper.
whyisareyoubooingme.jpg
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:12 PM on November 15
It would be great if the staff could also respond to the prompts in this post.
I can’t possibly be the first person to say this, but:
To loop back on something means to take some time to think and then give a thoughtful, truthful answer.
To loup back on something means to ignore it forever, no matter how simple or straightforward the request.
posted by kate blank at 12:58 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
I can’t possibly be the first person to say this, but:
To loop back on something means to take some time to think and then give a thoughtful, truthful answer.
To loup back on something means to ignore it forever, no matter how simple or straightforward the request.
posted by kate blank at 12:58 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
The slender wisdom I've learnt from being a something awful admin is that if your community wants something then as a moderator or admin you should do your best to make it happen even if it's irritating, enraging or counter intuitive to you personally.
Also be transparent about what you're doing, mefi has run out of the levels of trust needed to operate behind the scenes.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:19 PM on November 15 [11 favorites]
Also be transparent about what you're doing, mefi has run out of the levels of trust needed to operate behind the scenes.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:19 PM on November 15 [11 favorites]
anyway, before we spin up a kidnapping committee, I want to second what Kitteh and phunniemee are saying, because both the steering committee and the BIPOC advisory board have had a ton of attrition, and while some degree of that is inevitable with volunteer teams, I think the amount and rate is not, and once you burn out that enthusiasm, it doesn’t come back easily.
as near as I can tell, the only people who have reported back on the BIPOC board’s activities in nine months are loup and Brandon. the last I can find from a (non-mod) member of the board speaking in that capacity is from February. I get that full minutes have been an issue (and the minutes that have been posted are very thorough and well-organized, I don’t doubt that a lot of work went into preparing them), but I think the last thread would have gone very differently if there had been some informal updates from board members in recent site updates. Doesn’t have to be as detailed or comprehensive as minutes, but if there had been something like “hey, we’re talking about a posting drive for BIPOC members, and brainstorming some prompts”, I think that could’ve averted a lot of grief. I don’t even know at this point who is on the committee, or what the committee views as goals or issues for the site, short or long term.
This is not a criticism of the BIPOC board; rather, I’m worried that the lack of information is coming out of, and perpetuating, a situation in which a lot of people are spinning their wheels and not being protected from burnout. which, in fact, was an concern several BIPOC members raised when the idea was first mooted.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 1:20 PM on November 15 [8 favorites]
as near as I can tell, the only people who have reported back on the BIPOC board’s activities in nine months are loup and Brandon. the last I can find from a (non-mod) member of the board speaking in that capacity is from February. I get that full minutes have been an issue (and the minutes that have been posted are very thorough and well-organized, I don’t doubt that a lot of work went into preparing them), but I think the last thread would have gone very differently if there had been some informal updates from board members in recent site updates. Doesn’t have to be as detailed or comprehensive as minutes, but if there had been something like “hey, we’re talking about a posting drive for BIPOC members, and brainstorming some prompts”, I think that could’ve averted a lot of grief. I don’t even know at this point who is on the committee, or what the committee views as goals or issues for the site, short or long term.
This is not a criticism of the BIPOC board; rather, I’m worried that the lack of information is coming out of, and perpetuating, a situation in which a lot of people are spinning their wheels and not being protected from burnout. which, in fact, was an concern several BIPOC members raised when the idea was first mooted.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 1:20 PM on November 15 [8 favorites]
I hope the repeat $5 income stream from the multiple accounts y'all keep banning is enough to pay for the time and effort it's taking to keep hunting them down. . .
If you're in line to get banned for pointing out the (obvious) reasons MeFi is collapsing STAY IN LINE.
posted by The Bellman at 2:49 PM on November 15 [3 favorites]
If you're in line to get banned for pointing out the (obvious) reasons MeFi is collapsing STAY IN LINE.
posted by The Bellman at 2:49 PM on November 15 [3 favorites]
The thing that gave my desert-adapted ungulate a herniated disk was the runaround of people being told that concerns should be taken first to the public-facing admin whose disengagement was the complaint to begin with or else escalated to the formal owner who has been open about their desire not to get involved in day-to-day running of the site. Everyone can see how that might come off as “don’t bother,” if not a less polite formulation, right? I’m still in it for the experiment of community governance but these exchanges really drove home that current governance is busted.
posted by atoxyl at 3:12 PM on November 15 [15 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 3:12 PM on November 15 [15 favorites]
You know, if the current mods, who have been supported by the community financially and through many years of supportive comments are so incredibly fragile that they can't handle even mild criticism without characterizing it as an attack then they should maybe not be moderating or addressing metatalk at all. I don't know what else they'd do with their time, though, as they seem to see their primary function as banning and deleting comments here, in metatalk.
So I guess, great job mods, keep that enthusiasm and energy going for banning and deleting!!!!! That's what the people want!
And finally, as a light-skinned/white passing person of color, my additional suggestion is that you should STOP TONE POLICING PEOPLE OF COLOR. JUST FUCKING STOP. You being a person of color does not make it okay for you to treat other people of color in a shitty oppressive way. It does not make it okay for you to take criticism as an "attack" and describe it with violent language. This is particularly important feedback for those mods who may also be light-skinned/white-passing people of color.
FYI I put a "fuck" in there because of how much the mods like deleting things. An early Christmas present from me to the mods.
posted by knobknosher at 3:43 PM on November 15 [15 favorites]
So I guess, great job mods, keep that enthusiasm and energy going for banning and deleting!!!!! That's what the people want!
And finally, as a light-skinned/white passing person of color, my additional suggestion is that you should STOP TONE POLICING PEOPLE OF COLOR. JUST FUCKING STOP. You being a person of color does not make it okay for you to treat other people of color in a shitty oppressive way. It does not make it okay for you to take criticism as an "attack" and describe it with violent language. This is particularly important feedback for those mods who may also be light-skinned/white-passing people of color.
FYI I put a "fuck" in there because of how much the mods like deleting things. An early Christmas present from me to the mods.
posted by knobknosher at 3:43 PM on November 15 [15 favorites]
"I banned this user -- knowing full well that the account had opened today and posted in this thread and nowhere else -- and here's why"?
So um a user has been silently been banned during a thread where users are calling for more transparency
I would prefer mods to be more direct about this but we don’t have to play dumb here, either. I do not believe that the content of their comments is over the line (now or the first time) but it’s not a surprise when somebody returning after a ban to continue an argument gets a hair trigger re-ban.
posted by atoxyl at 3:49 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
So um a user has been silently been banned during a thread where users are calling for more transparency
I would prefer mods to be more direct about this but we don’t have to play dumb here, either. I do not believe that the content of their comments is over the line (now or the first time) but it’s not a surprise when somebody returning after a ban to continue an argument gets a hair trigger re-ban.
posted by atoxyl at 3:49 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
What would make MetaTalk more useful and effective, in your opinion, in the short term—the next X months until MetaFilter crosses the line into community-run status? Are there specific issues that you have noticed in recent weeks or months that you feel could reasonably be remedied and improve your experience here?
I think it has all already been said, but... TRANSPARENCY. Any feedback from the mods at all! (Loup saying they should be the only one responding is absolutely not working. Actual follow through when something is said to be done? Like, we were supposed to have a beta version of the re-write of the site how long ago now? And, loup said they had a post all ready to go for the halloween gala which just... never appeared? jessamyn threw one up at the last minute?
What's "broken" about MeTa is what is broken across the whole site. Inconsistent moderation and no clear communication (dare I say transparency, again?) when a comment is deleted, etc. I will say taz and Brandon Blatcher are usually good with commenting when a comment is deleted.
It's really, REALLY weird to me that someone who is a Project Manager by day can't stick to a deadline for... anything. ANYTHING! Here. I deal with PMs at least twice a year and we solve problems within a week at worst (usually by end of day).
So. What would make MeTa better? What would make MeFi better? Honest and open discussion from [current head mod which happens to be loup, atm]. I can't wrap my head around someone being the head moderator on a comment driven website and they... don't comment! as a moderator or a member.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:33 PM on November 15 [10 favorites]
I think it has all already been said, but... TRANSPARENCY. Any feedback from the mods at all! (Loup saying they should be the only one responding is absolutely not working. Actual follow through when something is said to be done? Like, we were supposed to have a beta version of the re-write of the site how long ago now? And, loup said they had a post all ready to go for the halloween gala which just... never appeared? jessamyn threw one up at the last minute?
What's "broken" about MeTa is what is broken across the whole site. Inconsistent moderation and no clear communication (dare I say transparency, again?) when a comment is deleted, etc. I will say taz and Brandon Blatcher are usually good with commenting when a comment is deleted.
It's really, REALLY weird to me that someone who is a Project Manager by day can't stick to a deadline for... anything. ANYTHING! Here. I deal with PMs at least twice a year and we solve problems within a week at worst (usually by end of day).
So. What would make MeTa better? What would make MeFi better? Honest and open discussion from [current head mod which happens to be loup, atm]. I can't wrap my head around someone being the head moderator on a comment driven website and they... don't comment! as a moderator or a member.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:33 PM on November 15 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Just a couple of small notes:
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
+1. Could the mods build in time to review/update this regularly? Weekly or monthly? That plus keeping it public and letting us know that they have eyes on it regularly seems like it could be valuable.
Sure, I can work on that. I'll update it tomorrow afternoon at the lastest, after going through that thread and this one again.
b) You cannot quote correspondence from a mod/admin unless given express permission
This is incorrect information, that FAQ has been updated.
Otherwise, no major announcements or notes at this time.
I agree that things have obviously been frayed and tensions are high between the community and staff and the mods could have done better. This sucks and nobody wants the tension, especially from the mod side.
I like to think of MeTa as one way for users and mods to interface and hash goals and issues, so I try to approach this portion of the site with the idea that we're all on the same side of wanting the site to be better.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:44 PM on November 15 [2 favorites]
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
+1. Could the mods build in time to review/update this regularly? Weekly or monthly? That plus keeping it public and letting us know that they have eyes on it regularly seems like it could be valuable.
Sure, I can work on that. I'll update it tomorrow afternoon at the lastest, after going through that thread and this one again.
b) You cannot quote correspondence from a mod/admin unless given express permission
This is incorrect information, that FAQ has been updated.
Otherwise, no major announcements or notes at this time.
I agree that things have obviously been frayed and tensions are high between the community and staff and the mods could have done better. This sucks and nobody wants the tension, especially from the mod side.
I like to think of MeTa as one way for users and mods to interface and hash goals and issues, so I try to approach this portion of the site with the idea that we're all on the same side of wanting the site to be better.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:44 PM on November 15 [2 favorites]
that... does not seem to be experience of the various posters who have been banned or had their comments deleted or threads closed.
Is there any plan for mods to address this utter deterioration of trust? "no major announcements or notes at this time" is perhaps the least useful thing to post, given the many, many valid concerns raised in this thread.
posted by sagc at 5:07 PM on November 15 [12 favorites]
Is there any plan for mods to address this utter deterioration of trust? "no major announcements or notes at this time" is perhaps the least useful thing to post, given the many, many valid concerns raised in this thread.
posted by sagc at 5:07 PM on November 15 [12 favorites]
Community management is the piece that's most needed here.* A good community manager would push for clear guidelines, consistent and transparent moderation, and a feedback process where users feel heard, know the outcome of their feedback, and set expectations appropriately. It might not be simple... but it's pretty simple.
*I may be biased; I'm a professional community manager.
posted by Threeve at 5:24 PM on November 15 [11 favorites]
*I may be biased; I'm a professional community manager.
posted by Threeve at 5:24 PM on November 15 [11 favorites]
I try to approach this portion of the site with the idea that we're all on the same side of wanting the site to be better.
Not to put too fine a point on it but recent MeTa interactions have been about the furthest I can remember the site being from feeling like staff and users are on the same side.
posted by atoxyl at 5:25 PM on November 15 [16 favorites]
Not to put too fine a point on it but recent MeTa interactions have been about the furthest I can remember the site being from feeling like staff and users are on the same side.
posted by atoxyl at 5:25 PM on November 15 [16 favorites]
[quote] Actual follow through when something is said to be done
This is the biggest thing that's missing to me. When asking for money that's going to wages, then the people asking and organizing the asking need to be responsive to the community and follow through on promises. If there isn't bandwidth to do that, then don't ask for money. If there's enough money to get by without asking, then don't ask for money.
Volunteers dropping the ball would be understandable. But a person who claims to be a professional project manager really has no excuse not to manage projects. I have never understood why the site can't be run by a volunteer team of enthusiastic, involved community members-- a dozen Brandons. They might still make mistakes, but at least they'd be around and understand the site.
posted by CtrlAltD at 5:32 PM on November 15 [12 favorites]
This is the biggest thing that's missing to me. When asking for money that's going to wages, then the people asking and organizing the asking need to be responsive to the community and follow through on promises. If there isn't bandwidth to do that, then don't ask for money. If there's enough money to get by without asking, then don't ask for money.
Volunteers dropping the ball would be understandable. But a person who claims to be a professional project manager really has no excuse not to manage projects. I have never understood why the site can't be run by a volunteer team of enthusiastic, involved community members-- a dozen Brandons. They might still make mistakes, but at least they'd be around and understand the site.
posted by CtrlAltD at 5:32 PM on November 15 [12 favorites]
> What would make MetaTalk more useful and effective, in your opinion, in the short term
1. loup should not attempt to communicate with the community anymore. they can keep the sinecure for all i care since they seem to be untouchable, but no sane person who has witnessed the past $time_period of loup's interactions with the userbase would keep them tasked with community relations. run payroll, comply with the subpoenas, keep the storeroom stocked, whatever. no more usercomms. if community updates need to be posted, pass that off to someone else.
2. everyone on the mod team, just stop with the tryhard feelygood carebear stuff. focus on doing your job: moderating a internet forum with a couple thousand "active" users.
for example, how much negative emotions, burnout, loss of good will, loss of community trust, fights, account wipes of extremely long-term and valued community members have occurred as a direct result of this year's attempted fundraiser, that for many indications, appears to have been largely unnecessary? we ended up losing dozens of users, tens of thousands of comments, including some of the timeless classic comments, over the botched communications, banhammer meltdown, deceit, & malice [blink]from the moderation team[/blink] stemming from the fundrasing attempts that failed to generate significant donations, and sound like they are superfluous at this time.
if this glorified chatboard is to survive long enough to complete the non-profit thing, the existing staff of this website should focus primarily on keeping the wheels on, keeping the cart moving forward, and staunch the hemorrhaging of trust, good will, and USERS.
QUIT DIGGING.
posted by glonous keming at 9:05 PM on November 15 [28 favorites]
1. loup should not attempt to communicate with the community anymore. they can keep the sinecure for all i care since they seem to be untouchable, but no sane person who has witnessed the past $time_period of loup's interactions with the userbase would keep them tasked with community relations. run payroll, comply with the subpoenas, keep the storeroom stocked, whatever. no more usercomms. if community updates need to be posted, pass that off to someone else.
2. everyone on the mod team, just stop with the tryhard feelygood carebear stuff. focus on doing your job: moderating a internet forum with a couple thousand "active" users.
for example, how much negative emotions, burnout, loss of good will, loss of community trust, fights, account wipes of extremely long-term and valued community members have occurred as a direct result of this year's attempted fundraiser, that for many indications, appears to have been largely unnecessary? we ended up losing dozens of users, tens of thousands of comments, including some of the timeless classic comments, over the botched communications, banhammer meltdown, deceit, & malice [blink]from the moderation team[/blink] stemming from the fundrasing attempts that failed to generate significant donations, and sound like they are superfluous at this time.
if this glorified chatboard is to survive long enough to complete the non-profit thing, the existing staff of this website should focus primarily on keeping the wheels on, keeping the cart moving forward, and staunch the hemorrhaging of trust, good will, and USERS.
QUIT DIGGING.
posted by glonous keming at 9:05 PM on November 15 [28 favorites]
i missed the edit window, or else i would have added, OMFG you mean to tell me the BIPOC board specifically decided not to make a "rice cooker" post and yet THE MODERATION TEAM MADE ONE ANYWAY and it turned into yet another giant self-own?
how much more credulity are we to extend
i can't fucking believe it
posted by glonous keming at 9:13 PM on November 15 [21 favorites]
how much more credulity are we to extend
i can't fucking believe it
posted by glonous keming at 9:13 PM on November 15 [21 favorites]
Is this a bad time to ask how the Pet Tax Wall is doing?
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 9:46 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 9:46 PM on November 15 [4 favorites]
I've been here for about 20 years and this is still one of the only places on the 'net that you get the sense the mods are trying. Even if it's imperfect and doesn't always hit the mark.
Mods - thanks. It's a tough gig.
posted by chmmr at 10:33 PM on November 15 [8 favorites]
Mods - thanks. It's a tough gig.
posted by chmmr at 10:33 PM on November 15 [8 favorites]
Rules proposal - if you are banned as a result of a farcical series of misunderstandings, you should not only be unbanned but allowed to have two main accounts going forward.
posted by atoxyl at 11:18 PM on November 15 [6 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 11:18 PM on November 15 [6 favorites]
2) A feeling of dishonesty in communication from the moderator community.
QFT.
1) Anytime a comment is deleted, it doesn't simply vanish, Instead, the comment should be changed so that it's text is simply reduced to "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]"
1A) Do this once for each comment deleted. Meaning if three comments are deleted, there should be three "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]" statements
THIS. The number of times I've contacted the mod team to ask why comments were being memory holed without comment, only to be told that it was covered by a previous comment on the thread - ten (undeleted) comments and 36 hours ago, announcing one deletion of a different comment. No, that does not cover the other completely separate and unrelated deletions you had to make later, wtf?
posted by Dysk at 11:29 PM on November 15 [16 favorites]
QFT.
1) Anytime a comment is deleted, it doesn't simply vanish, Instead, the comment should be changed so that it's text is simply reduced to "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]"
1A) Do this once for each comment deleted. Meaning if three comments are deleted, there should be three "[Comment deleted -- $Mod_name_here]" statements
THIS. The number of times I've contacted the mod team to ask why comments were being memory holed without comment, only to be told that it was covered by a previous comment on the thread - ten (undeleted) comments and 36 hours ago, announcing one deletion of a different comment. No, that does not cover the other completely separate and unrelated deletions you had to make later, wtf?
posted by Dysk at 11:29 PM on November 15 [16 favorites]
This isn't a metatalk this is a eulogy.
It wouldn't be metafilter without someone trying to jerk off the worst mods on the internet, so here's to you chmmr, someone that is definitely not a mod sockpuppet.
This website made me a worse person with less empathy to narcissists, and a complete intolerance to pseudoleftist identity politics, purity testing and circular firing squads, so thanks for that painful series of lessons.
Absolutely disgraceful.
This place used to be special and the dysfunctional, geriatric moderation quite literally killed it while celebrating itself the entire time. A dynamic that should sound very familiar to anyone living in America.
I hope someone preserves this insane time capsule so the aliens that find earth after we wipe ourselves out in the next few decades can understand why Kamala and Hillary both lost so badly.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 11:41 PM on November 15 [7 favorites]
It wouldn't be metafilter without someone trying to jerk off the worst mods on the internet, so here's to you chmmr, someone that is definitely not a mod sockpuppet.
This website made me a worse person with less empathy to narcissists, and a complete intolerance to pseudoleftist identity politics, purity testing and circular firing squads, so thanks for that painful series of lessons.
Absolutely disgraceful.
This place used to be special and the dysfunctional, geriatric moderation quite literally killed it while celebrating itself the entire time. A dynamic that should sound very familiar to anyone living in America.
I hope someone preserves this insane time capsule so the aliens that find earth after we wipe ourselves out in the next few decades can understand why Kamala and Hillary both lost so badly.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 11:41 PM on November 15 [7 favorites]
For what it's worth: I agree with chmmr.
It is a tough gig. From me as well: bedankt.
posted by jouke at 12:57 AM on November 16 [5 favorites]
It is a tough gig. From me as well: bedankt.
posted by jouke at 12:57 AM on November 16 [5 favorites]
@hobo gitano de queretaro As you've observed I have no personal relationship with the mods, simply have been here to see the changes since the early days.
TBH, "jerk off the mods" is quite disrespectful and if you are keen to raise the tone of the conversation, I'd politely request that you consider your phrasing.
Nothing further.
posted by chmmr at 4:55 AM on November 16 [4 favorites]
TBH, "jerk off the mods" is quite disrespectful and if you are keen to raise the tone of the conversation, I'd politely request that you consider your phrasing.
Nothing further.
posted by chmmr at 4:55 AM on November 16 [4 favorites]
We’re right on schedule: welcome Cortex, ask him to do impossible things, tar and feather him and force him out after a few years. Now we’re doing the exact same thing to Loup. The mods have an impossible job and if you don’t like it here go elsewhere. Jessamyn is wise to stay uninvolved.
posted by Melismata at 5:05 AM on November 16 [4 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 5:05 AM on November 16 [4 favorites]
oh good I love a simp parade
posted by phunniemee at 5:12 AM on November 16 [26 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 5:12 AM on November 16 [26 favorites]
The way I know the mods haven't gone power-mad is there's a good number of names I wouldn't be so restrained as to keep around were I in their position. So much the better probably, I'd be terrible at it.
posted by CrystalDave at 5:28 AM on November 16 [1 favorite]
posted by CrystalDave at 5:28 AM on November 16 [1 favorite]
"impossible things" like stick to a damn schedule that loup set for themselves
like updating documents that are allegedly to track suggestions more than once
like requesting mods think a tad more about their utterly wild banning practices lately
like wishing the person who said they find Metatalk the worst part of their job wasn't in charge of Metatalk
but no, it's the users who are wrong, and the mods beyond reproach. if you don't like a place, shouldn't you try to improve it? "if you don't like it here go elsewhere" seems at odds with the idea of community governance, but what do I know.
posted by sagc at 5:34 AM on November 16 [17 favorites]
like updating documents that are allegedly to track suggestions more than once
like requesting mods think a tad more about their utterly wild banning practices lately
like wishing the person who said they find Metatalk the worst part of their job wasn't in charge of Metatalk
but no, it's the users who are wrong, and the mods beyond reproach. if you don't like a place, shouldn't you try to improve it? "if you don't like it here go elsewhere" seems at odds with the idea of community governance, but what do I know.
posted by sagc at 5:34 AM on November 16 [17 favorites]
I'm glad that this post produced a few ideas, which hopefully the mods will take under consideration to help move things along. I can't really speak to the general aggrieved complaints about problems that we all know exist, or the people who thrive on bringing them up again and again, or I would be permanently banned as a user from MetaFilter.
Look into your hearts and find your humanity. If you read that and immediately think "but the mods," "I blame Jessamyn for," "this guy is a sock," or the like, I urge you to consider taking a break from MetaFilter. We all have times when we need a break from things, and those of you who come to this place primarily these days to yell at the mods and yell at each other are not only hurting MetaFilter, but hurting yourselves. Please ask yourselves whether you want to be in the place of pain and bile occupied by some (not all) of the users of the I-hate-MetaFilter-let's-talk-about-it-even-though-I-buttoned-five-years-ago club over on Reddit.
Good day.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:43 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
Look into your hearts and find your humanity. If you read that and immediately think "but the mods," "I blame Jessamyn for," "this guy is a sock," or the like, I urge you to consider taking a break from MetaFilter. We all have times when we need a break from things, and those of you who come to this place primarily these days to yell at the mods and yell at each other are not only hurting MetaFilter, but hurting yourselves. Please ask yourselves whether you want to be in the place of pain and bile occupied by some (not all) of the users of the I-hate-MetaFilter-let's-talk-about-it-even-though-I-buttoned-five-years-ago club over on Reddit.
Good day.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:43 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
I don't know what might help make MetaTalk more useful and effective - Some of the things that worry me about it:
There's a core of relatively few people who participate in MetaTalk posts (more who watch silently) so it's of dubious value as a place to figure out what "the community" think. We get the same people over and over, saying the same things.
It's also not always clear what the purpose of MetaTalk is. Some people seem to believe that anything that's stated here is automatically going to be come a Hard Rule - so the moment anyone says "maybe think twice before doing x" people seem to think that means "Oh now we're no longer allowed to do x" and react with anger and frustration rather than "no I don't agree because of y".
It's also not clear whether this is a place where we non-mod people are in charge of the conversation and mods just observe and don't really intervene, or whether this is a place to talk to mods, or what exactly? It seems like people expect one, and get the other, and then get frustrated?
I have no idea how to fix any of these things, but that's what stands out to me.
posted by Zumbador at 5:50 AM on November 16 [16 favorites]
There's a core of relatively few people who participate in MetaTalk posts (more who watch silently) so it's of dubious value as a place to figure out what "the community" think. We get the same people over and over, saying the same things.
It's also not always clear what the purpose of MetaTalk is. Some people seem to believe that anything that's stated here is automatically going to be come a Hard Rule - so the moment anyone says "maybe think twice before doing x" people seem to think that means "Oh now we're no longer allowed to do x" and react with anger and frustration rather than "no I don't agree because of y".
It's also not clear whether this is a place where we non-mod people are in charge of the conversation and mods just observe and don't really intervene, or whether this is a place to talk to mods, or what exactly? It seems like people expect one, and get the other, and then get frustrated?
I have no idea how to fix any of these things, but that's what stands out to me.
posted by Zumbador at 5:50 AM on November 16 [16 favorites]
MetaTalk has become more and more constrained through the years. Even just a few years ago, this was a place for community notices. If there was a meetup, it was advertised here. Photos from the meetups were here as well. Births, deaths, marriages, and the like, were all here, and community activities like postcard exchanges. Now all we have is obit posts for members and the occasional community activity thing. The rest is like an eternal housing association meeting, minus the coffee and pastries.
I’ll admit that the main reason I stay away from the Gray is that the users I see getting angry in MetaTalk are people I really cherish, and I cherish the mods, and because most of the things that are being argued about I don’t really have a strong opinion on, all I see is people I have affection for arguing with each other.
What I would like to see change is for there to be more reason for people to come here. On some level I’ve become inured through the years to the constant grar, partly because I remember the old days and that was here too, but I miss the silliness and baby pictures and photos of happy drunk MeFites in a friendly looking bar in a city I wouldn’t be able to tell you offhand whether was real or the setting of a comic book series (Riverside? Real or comics? Who knows!).
Would that fix everything? Obviously not, but it would at least give people who aren’t invested in the issues constantly debated on MetaTalk a reason to use this subsite.
posted by Kattullus at 5:54 AM on November 16 [21 favorites]
I’ll admit that the main reason I stay away from the Gray is that the users I see getting angry in MetaTalk are people I really cherish, and I cherish the mods, and because most of the things that are being argued about I don’t really have a strong opinion on, all I see is people I have affection for arguing with each other.
What I would like to see change is for there to be more reason for people to come here. On some level I’ve become inured through the years to the constant grar, partly because I remember the old days and that was here too, but I miss the silliness and baby pictures and photos of happy drunk MeFites in a friendly looking bar in a city I wouldn’t be able to tell you offhand whether was real or the setting of a comic book series (Riverside? Real or comics? Who knows!).
Would that fix everything? Obviously not, but it would at least give people who aren’t invested in the issues constantly debated on MetaTalk a reason to use this subsite.
posted by Kattullus at 5:54 AM on November 16 [21 favorites]
This frankly mean-spritedness from the community, is something that would have been unheard of in days past.
I've been a lurker for years, and have seen the value that comes when MeFi works well as a community.
It's not over. When there used to be the site banners, one of them was "We're all in this together".
Be kind. Be forgiving. That's the ethos the site was built on.
posted by chmmr at 6:00 AM on November 16 [1 favorite]
I've been a lurker for years, and have seen the value that comes when MeFi works well as a community.
It's not over. When there used to be the site banners, one of them was "We're all in this together".
Be kind. Be forgiving. That's the ethos the site was built on.
posted by chmmr at 6:00 AM on November 16 [1 favorite]
Is Metatalk a hopeless shithole or could there be an answer somewhere?
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
posted by phunniemee at 6:01 AM on November 16 [8 favorites]
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
posted by phunniemee at 6:01 AM on November 16 [8 favorites]
I would like to pick up on the “impossible job.” I think that as currently structured, there are systemic issues that result in the kind of cycle Melismata outlined.
The thing is, there will always be conflict. Members post here drunk, on their worst days, get cranky, have partial information, have a ton of opinions, and differing communication styles, to name a few things. Thats leaving out just plain new people who we are not that blessed to welcome, and societal-level issues. The goal of a moderation or community engagement team for an online forum cannot be to prevent conflict. And frankly, expecting “everyone” to do something- anything - is high-burnout territory.
The community can commit to values like don’t launch attacks on a person’s personal life or attributes, and the community could I guess also decide not to allow commentary on people’s work. And we can all build and contribute to that culture.
But for a healthy service team, there are also a whole suite of ways to address and deal with conflict in ways that aren’t quite so burnout friendly.
I support asking the community to care for the mods. But on a professional level…that’s the wrong question. You can’t make everyone happy. But you can commit to practices that lead towards less upset. You can create ways of working that provide support and breaks. A simple posting calendar where there’s lead time to get BIPOC board feedback would have prevented mess - like right now you could be discussing Black History Month. What you need is a bit of planning, a feedback phase, and follow-through.
When everything is ad hoc, it’s really stressful. But the community is not responsible for that. We see the arguing, but there’s a lot that can be done to just…not get there as quickly or focus on other things. The mods do have the power but not the leadership, I think. Maybe we can address that. But I don’t think all the blame should go to the people who express unhappiness.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:53 AM on November 16 [19 favorites]
The thing is, there will always be conflict. Members post here drunk, on their worst days, get cranky, have partial information, have a ton of opinions, and differing communication styles, to name a few things. Thats leaving out just plain new people who we are not that blessed to welcome, and societal-level issues. The goal of a moderation or community engagement team for an online forum cannot be to prevent conflict. And frankly, expecting “everyone” to do something- anything - is high-burnout territory.
The community can commit to values like don’t launch attacks on a person’s personal life or attributes, and the community could I guess also decide not to allow commentary on people’s work. And we can all build and contribute to that culture.
But for a healthy service team, there are also a whole suite of ways to address and deal with conflict in ways that aren’t quite so burnout friendly.
I support asking the community to care for the mods. But on a professional level…that’s the wrong question. You can’t make everyone happy. But you can commit to practices that lead towards less upset. You can create ways of working that provide support and breaks. A simple posting calendar where there’s lead time to get BIPOC board feedback would have prevented mess - like right now you could be discussing Black History Month. What you need is a bit of planning, a feedback phase, and follow-through.
When everything is ad hoc, it’s really stressful. But the community is not responsible for that. We see the arguing, but there’s a lot that can be done to just…not get there as quickly or focus on other things. The mods do have the power but not the leadership, I think. Maybe we can address that. But I don’t think all the blame should go to the people who express unhappiness.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:53 AM on November 16 [19 favorites]
"The mods have an impossible job "
I think the question a lot of people are asking is, "do they?". This is a low traffic message board with a hundred or so very active users and a few hundred more semi-active users. Of course, we all know the the mods spend a good chunk of time dealing with "subpoenas from law enforcement or discovery in lawsuits", but aside from that, a comment within the last year or so revealed some statistics that showed that on average, only about a dozen comments are removed per day (obviously, this thread has skewed that number). That's something that could easily be dealt with by one part time person. But according to these numbers, the site spends about $240,000 per year on "contractors/consulting". Since there's nothing else in the P&L report that mentions "payroll", I assume that "contractors/consulting" is to pay the seven mods and developers. All those jobs appear to be part time, and none of us know how the hours are split, but that comes out to an average of $34,000 per person per year for part time work that to most people appears to be pretty simple. Roughly $48,000 of the $240,000 appears to come from advertising, and the rest comes from contributions from the dwindling number of users.
All of the latest drama has come from a two incredibly silly things (a much-delayed halloween costume contest, and a much-delayed graphic of tiny pictures of 55 user's pets ) and one thing that's not silly, but will always before referred to as the incident about a rice cooker. Some of this was part of a fundraiser that was also poorly handled, and then were told that it doesn't really matter because the site doesn't really need money at this point.
So when users complain about the mods, it because they're paying them, the job itself seems very easy (unless proven otherwise), and they continuously appear to be incompetent, both with their actual jobs (like the rice cooker incident and all the bannings) and all the ancillary stuff that really shouldn't be a mod's job (halloween costume contests, posters of pets… and subpoenas, of course).
So to answer the question of how to make a better MetaTalk: shut it down. 95% percent of the drama on this site happens here, and 99% of the ability for the mods to appear incompetent happens here. If people want to make suggestions, set up a suggestion form. If whoever's in charge of the site (I know there currently isn't anyone, but I'm assuming that in the future there will be) thinks it's an idea worthy of discussion, make a post about it and let people discuss it.
posted by jonathanhughes at 8:03 AM on November 16 [22 favorites]
I think the question a lot of people are asking is, "do they?". This is a low traffic message board with a hundred or so very active users and a few hundred more semi-active users. Of course, we all know the the mods spend a good chunk of time dealing with "subpoenas from law enforcement or discovery in lawsuits", but aside from that, a comment within the last year or so revealed some statistics that showed that on average, only about a dozen comments are removed per day (obviously, this thread has skewed that number). That's something that could easily be dealt with by one part time person. But according to these numbers, the site spends about $240,000 per year on "contractors/consulting". Since there's nothing else in the P&L report that mentions "payroll", I assume that "contractors/consulting" is to pay the seven mods and developers. All those jobs appear to be part time, and none of us know how the hours are split, but that comes out to an average of $34,000 per person per year for part time work that to most people appears to be pretty simple. Roughly $48,000 of the $240,000 appears to come from advertising, and the rest comes from contributions from the dwindling number of users.
All of the latest drama has come from a two incredibly silly things (a much-delayed halloween costume contest, and a much-delayed graphic of tiny pictures of 55 user's pets ) and one thing that's not silly, but will always before referred to as the incident about a rice cooker. Some of this was part of a fundraiser that was also poorly handled, and then were told that it doesn't really matter because the site doesn't really need money at this point.
So when users complain about the mods, it because they're paying them, the job itself seems very easy (unless proven otherwise), and they continuously appear to be incompetent, both with their actual jobs (like the rice cooker incident and all the bannings) and all the ancillary stuff that really shouldn't be a mod's job (halloween costume contests, posters of pets… and subpoenas, of course).
So to answer the question of how to make a better MetaTalk: shut it down. 95% percent of the drama on this site happens here, and 99% of the ability for the mods to appear incompetent happens here. If people want to make suggestions, set up a suggestion form. If whoever's in charge of the site (I know there currently isn't anyone, but I'm assuming that in the future there will be) thinks it's an idea worthy of discussion, make a post about it and let people discuss it.
posted by jonathanhughes at 8:03 AM on November 16 [22 favorites]
This frankly mean-spritedness from the community, is something that would have been unheard of in days past.
chmmr, I both agree and disagree with that. I disagree because, if you go back and look at old Metatalk threads (as well as threads on the blue and green), the overall tenor if transplanted here today would seem incredibly harsh, coarse, mean-spirited, etc. I mean, the delegation that set this all off was loup deleting a comment because - after noting that the mods' post to encourage BIPOC participation was chock full of insulting stereotypes - it said "WTF is this shit?"
The idea of deleting "WTF is this shit" back in Matt's time would have been so weird I don't think anyone would have believed it. I think if you told Matt that one day his site would become a place where that comment would be deleted, he would not have believed it. "WTF is this shit" would not even have registered as coarse, let alone some kind of serious offense against mods.
There has always been heavy criticism of the mods, at least since around 2005 when I started lurking. But this was supposed to be a place for discussion, and that discussion was known for being often rowdy, spirited, passionate, and often full of disagreement and conflict. And absolutely chock full of curse words, snark, colorful language, what have you. From the mods as much as anyone else. Whether that was good or bad - that was Metafilter for the majority of its existence and you can look back in the archives if your memory has sanded off the edges.
I'll also note that Metatalk used to explicitly be the one place where comments were never deleted, unless they were really extreme (like, violent) personal attacks. It almost never happened. Something like a "fuck off" or even "fuck you" stayed unremarked and often got favorites.
So that was the site as many of us knew it, and that is the site that loup, travellingthyme, and others knowingly signed on to work for. The job description wasn't to be a mod for a generic community. It was to be he a mod for this one.
It is not an impossible job. It was done well for a long time. It is a difficult job. It is also still a considerably easier job than, say, teaching school (talk about working with a difficult, unappreciative audience that you can't just expel or tell off or cancel class on whenever they act a little rude). It is a hard, meaningful job that takes real skill and deftness. (Just like effective teachers don't punish kids for not liking them or not playing along with their lesson plans - they find ways to help kids want to play along and learn from them, and worry more about doing right by the kids than being liked.) I've seen a lot of talk about moderation as a PM job, a public communications job, and others - but to me, in terms of the skills needed to do it well, if doing well means encouraging a rich community rather than a docile, "easy" one - it's closer to teaching than anything else.
It takes skills, the current team repeatedly shows it doesn't have those skills, and that makes for a bad experience for them and a very bad one for theclass members and readers of the site.
But I also do agree that the tenor here has changed. Despite all the (harsh, rowdy, personal) criticism you used to see of mods, it used to be a tiny minority. Because overall the mods were really, really, solid and good. As far as the tech side, they seemed to know what they were doing, were constantly developing the site, and were extremely responsive. As far as the policy side, they took what felt like a "we're all adults" approach that clamped down on some specific things but overall intentionally preferred to err on the side of giving people free rein, with some nudging to make sure things didn't go crazy. When people opened Metas about deletions they disagreed with (something that used to be common, before The Queue), sometimes they defended their decisions, and other times they apologized and took them back. What they did not generally do is take someone pushing back on a deletion as a personal insult or threat.
All that led to a membership that wanted to play along with the mods. Good will, trust, confidence - those are things people give you if you earn them. Lose them instead, and yes, that will make your job harder and less pleasant. To complain about the result instead of doing the hard work to start earning people's trust again - that is the sort of attitude that leads to farces.
Katullus talked about cherishing the mods. I used to (well, "cherish" is a bit personal for people I've never met, but I felt fondness and appreciation for them). They weren't just mods - they interacted heavily with people here, they joked around and shared thoughts and personal stories, they were a "backbone of the community". That too helped build a sense of who these people were and where they were coming from, which made it easier to want to support them and give them leeway when they messed up.
I have no idea who loup and travellingthyme are; they do make it clear that to them this is a place to only be around while on shift. And the rest of the mods barely participate in a visible way anymore. That's fine - but it also has effects.
I have a lot of things I wanted to say but no time. Briefly:
I don't think we can fix things on our end. I don't think there is a will to fix things on their end.
I think on our end, we need to start working for the day after. The nonprofit transition team needs to be looking at loup et al as people who are not going to be here once the transition happens (loup themselves has implied many times that they have been staying here only as a favor). We need to be thinking about what qualities we want in the new director, how to find them, how to pay them. What the timeline for hiring them will look like. (I think it needs to be as quick as possible.)
We need concrete plans and timelines for replacing the team we have with one that has the right skills for this community.
As far as concrete, actionable changes that can happen here before that - I mean, so many have been proposed. People have been asking for loup to stop being the sole/chief point of community contact for years, since before cortex left. People have been asking for deletion logs, notes, etc. for years. Someone here mentioned that comments shouldn't be deleted but only hidden. That was a concrete request that was made a while ago after yet more extremely contentious deletions. Back then I suggested doing a trial run of that using the html details tag. You know, not a perfect implementation but a low-cost way to try it out, see how it actually plays out in practice, and evaluate if it's worth implementing in a more solid way. Brandon's response was that that, and and other changes, were off the table because of (handwaving) the transition.
We've had so many discussions about what we, as users, can or should be doing differently, and about what the mods and managers can or should be doing differently.
I am curious what kinds of discussions the staff has amongst themselves about what they need to change on their ends. A thread like the NovemBIPOC one deserves a postmortem. It deserves a serious "let's understand how, and why, we fucked up". It deserves a discussion of things like why the entire staff seemed to think the purpose of that thread was to get BIPOC members to discuss the content of the OP - rather than to help Mefi be a place where BIPOC members want to post more, feel enthusiasm for posting more. (I am not even addressing the apparent bizarre disconnect between the mods and what the board actually wanted.) It deserves an understanding of how serious this fuckup was, and what they're going to do to both make amends and ensure it doesn't happen again.
I hope the staff has the sense professional responsibility, and personal responsibility towards the community, to have at least done that. But what in any of the mods' conduct over the past years, and days, would give me any faith that they have?
We need to be putting our energy towards planning for replacement. The transition can't fix any of this on its own.
posted by trig at 8:09 AM on November 16 [60 favorites]
chmmr, I both agree and disagree with that. I disagree because, if you go back and look at old Metatalk threads (as well as threads on the blue and green), the overall tenor if transplanted here today would seem incredibly harsh, coarse, mean-spirited, etc. I mean, the delegation that set this all off was loup deleting a comment because - after noting that the mods' post to encourage BIPOC participation was chock full of insulting stereotypes - it said "WTF is this shit?"
The idea of deleting "WTF is this shit" back in Matt's time would have been so weird I don't think anyone would have believed it. I think if you told Matt that one day his site would become a place where that comment would be deleted, he would not have believed it. "WTF is this shit" would not even have registered as coarse, let alone some kind of serious offense against mods.
There has always been heavy criticism of the mods, at least since around 2005 when I started lurking. But this was supposed to be a place for discussion, and that discussion was known for being often rowdy, spirited, passionate, and often full of disagreement and conflict. And absolutely chock full of curse words, snark, colorful language, what have you. From the mods as much as anyone else. Whether that was good or bad - that was Metafilter for the majority of its existence and you can look back in the archives if your memory has sanded off the edges.
I'll also note that Metatalk used to explicitly be the one place where comments were never deleted, unless they were really extreme (like, violent) personal attacks. It almost never happened. Something like a "fuck off" or even "fuck you" stayed unremarked and often got favorites.
So that was the site as many of us knew it, and that is the site that loup, travellingthyme, and others knowingly signed on to work for. The job description wasn't to be a mod for a generic community. It was to be he a mod for this one.
It is not an impossible job. It was done well for a long time. It is a difficult job. It is also still a considerably easier job than, say, teaching school (talk about working with a difficult, unappreciative audience that you can't just expel or tell off or cancel class on whenever they act a little rude). It is a hard, meaningful job that takes real skill and deftness. (Just like effective teachers don't punish kids for not liking them or not playing along with their lesson plans - they find ways to help kids want to play along and learn from them, and worry more about doing right by the kids than being liked.) I've seen a lot of talk about moderation as a PM job, a public communications job, and others - but to me, in terms of the skills needed to do it well, if doing well means encouraging a rich community rather than a docile, "easy" one - it's closer to teaching than anything else.
It takes skills, the current team repeatedly shows it doesn't have those skills, and that makes for a bad experience for them and a very bad one for the
But I also do agree that the tenor here has changed. Despite all the (harsh, rowdy, personal) criticism you used to see of mods, it used to be a tiny minority. Because overall the mods were really, really, solid and good. As far as the tech side, they seemed to know what they were doing, were constantly developing the site, and were extremely responsive. As far as the policy side, they took what felt like a "we're all adults" approach that clamped down on some specific things but overall intentionally preferred to err on the side of giving people free rein, with some nudging to make sure things didn't go crazy. When people opened Metas about deletions they disagreed with (something that used to be common, before The Queue), sometimes they defended their decisions, and other times they apologized and took them back. What they did not generally do is take someone pushing back on a deletion as a personal insult or threat.
All that led to a membership that wanted to play along with the mods. Good will, trust, confidence - those are things people give you if you earn them. Lose them instead, and yes, that will make your job harder and less pleasant. To complain about the result instead of doing the hard work to start earning people's trust again - that is the sort of attitude that leads to farces.
Katullus talked about cherishing the mods. I used to (well, "cherish" is a bit personal for people I've never met, but I felt fondness and appreciation for them). They weren't just mods - they interacted heavily with people here, they joked around and shared thoughts and personal stories, they were a "backbone of the community". That too helped build a sense of who these people were and where they were coming from, which made it easier to want to support them and give them leeway when they messed up.
I have no idea who loup and travellingthyme are; they do make it clear that to them this is a place to only be around while on shift. And the rest of the mods barely participate in a visible way anymore. That's fine - but it also has effects.
I have a lot of things I wanted to say but no time. Briefly:
I don't think we can fix things on our end. I don't think there is a will to fix things on their end.
I think on our end, we need to start working for the day after. The nonprofit transition team needs to be looking at loup et al as people who are not going to be here once the transition happens (loup themselves has implied many times that they have been staying here only as a favor). We need to be thinking about what qualities we want in the new director, how to find them, how to pay them. What the timeline for hiring them will look like. (I think it needs to be as quick as possible.)
We need concrete plans and timelines for replacing the team we have with one that has the right skills for this community.
As far as concrete, actionable changes that can happen here before that - I mean, so many have been proposed. People have been asking for loup to stop being the sole/chief point of community contact for years, since before cortex left. People have been asking for deletion logs, notes, etc. for years. Someone here mentioned that comments shouldn't be deleted but only hidden. That was a concrete request that was made a while ago after yet more extremely contentious deletions. Back then I suggested doing a trial run of that using the html details tag. You know, not a perfect implementation but a low-cost way to try it out, see how it actually plays out in practice, and evaluate if it's worth implementing in a more solid way. Brandon's response was that that, and and other changes, were off the table because of (handwaving) the transition.
We've had so many discussions about what we, as users, can or should be doing differently, and about what the mods and managers can or should be doing differently.
I am curious what kinds of discussions the staff has amongst themselves about what they need to change on their ends. A thread like the NovemBIPOC one deserves a postmortem. It deserves a serious "let's understand how, and why, we fucked up". It deserves a discussion of things like why the entire staff seemed to think the purpose of that thread was to get BIPOC members to discuss the content of the OP - rather than to help Mefi be a place where BIPOC members want to post more, feel enthusiasm for posting more. (I am not even addressing the apparent bizarre disconnect between the mods and what the board actually wanted.) It deserves an understanding of how serious this fuckup was, and what they're going to do to both make amends and ensure it doesn't happen again.
I hope the staff has the sense professional responsibility, and personal responsibility towards the community, to have at least done that. But what in any of the mods' conduct over the past years, and days, would give me any faith that they have?
We need to be putting our energy towards planning for replacement. The transition can't fix any of this on its own.
posted by trig at 8:09 AM on November 16 [60 favorites]
Agree with all of trig's comment. My problem currently is putting energy towards future and then when it arrives, the same people who got us to this place are in charge. I am not uttering the bannable harassment phrase. I am wondering how and when the post-transition hiring/staffing model will be made clear.
posted by donnagirl at 9:01 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:01 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
I'm writing this while listening to training so it will be long I think but here goes:
The question of the mods' job is a really good one (I disagree with teaching because I don't think the mods are conveying subject matter expertise; that's actually I think a big issue, when they try to behave as if they have it - maybe facilitation.)
My view is still that that mods more need support in customer service - not meaning they are a call centre, but the much higher-level question of what is the experience we want members to have when they deal with MetaFilter the organization. I went through a good program on this and redid a lot of stuff around it so let me explain.
To make sure customers/members/clients have an experience that makes them want to participate/modify their behaviour/stick around and learn things/whatever (do martial arts), you need kind of three things:
1. A clear mission. Disney Parks' is "Create Happiness." My martial arts academy came up with "Empower our students." I would recommend here it be "Curate Conversation." but I think this is a factor.
This is because your view of what you're doing has to be somewhat flexible but also help you decide what you don't do. I think fundraising is outside of "curate conversation" and I think that's fine. But creating positive conversation is totally within that.
The Disney example (I went through Disney U on this) is - say you have a shuttle driver who gets people from point A at 10:10 to point B a 10:30. But at 10:30, he sees people who have lost their car, wandering around upset.
If you understand that you want visitor to leave the park happy, you invite those customers to hop in your shuttle and you drive them around to find their car...because otherwise you just know their story of their Day At Disney will be "it was fine, except we walked for 65 minutes trying to find the car."
You might have to radio that you're running late. It's definitely not your fault these idiots lost their car. But you prioritze the relationship of the customer to your park because you understand what you want their experience of Disney to be.
I don't think the mods know what their job is at that fundamental level, and so all the little bullshit questions - "you were late because you helped people find their car" "people shouldn't lose their cars" "it's not our job to be people's brains for them" has no guiding way to sort out.
(Note this won't prevent all issues. But if everyone can see that you're working towards "create happiness" at least there's a common starting point.)
2) An environment that supports that. For me this involves tech, which I will leave out of this conversation right now, and also staff procedures that support that.
But also there should be regular things that mods do to create a good environment out here for the members. I mean, we could define the mod job as "enforce the rules" and then no. But let's say it's broader and about conversation.
This CANNOT, however, be helter-skelter. It could be "we think that curating conversation will be helped by BIPOC-focused posts, weird fun facts about Australia posting, food posts, and fanfare posts" or whatever (I made this up. It is hard work to get from 1 to 2 but you can do it) Then you figure out a good 6-12 month plan on how you will gradually and consistently do that.
You can't clean the garbage up at Disney when you have time. You can't theme stuff in some areas and not in others. You can't have actors who are smoking in front of the kids. It's that level of things.
Part of what is very hard to understand from the outside is why this kind of task continually publicly fails. But it does, so something to dig into. But the reason the staff need to do this is that they are the consistency. Then when other people join in, it's great. But if everyone is tired after the US election, the post about what to do with cream cheese still goes up.
3) You need decision-making tools. This is complicated to go into a bit but we did it at my academy and it's great. Disney's example is that they always prioritize decisions in this order: Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency. No matter what your role is. At my academy it was Safety, Connection (with the students and their families), Empowerment, Technique/Tradition, Efficiency (because we could not decide on four.)
But then you have someone who is freaking out about a self defence move. Okay, safety first. But next is connection. You don't correct their technique before you establish that you're glad they' in the class. You empower them by asking if they want to keep working on it, or do they want to take a break. Then you go to technique. (And trust me, in martial arts this is an uphill battle because a lot of old-school instructors will just start talking about technique loudly.)
Here I would want the mod team or the board or both to go through defining these things. (I would be careful about safety because safety in companies usually means physical safety - I'd want different clearer language)
But once you define them, your day-to-day stress gets easier (once you turn off the part of your brain that is like This Is Disney Bullshit).
And here's why:
When you want the best for something, "the best" becomes a huge barrier to doing work sometimes. "I want the best for BIPOC members" is an incredible tangle to sort out if you feel caught between the BIPOC-led post (yes yes I know) and the first comment.
But let's say your decision key is:
Proactivity
Connection (we're gonna connect with people first - this is the high-touch approach)
Inclusion
Rules enforcement (we're gonna enforce the rules *after* we connect and are paying attention to issues around inclusion)
Content
Okay so proactive, we're not going to let a frustrated comment sit. Second, connection - reach out to the member and let them know the concern and see if they will offer to have their comment deleted or elaborate. Inclusion - this is where you take the member's racialized experience into consideration. Rules - okay only if everything else fails, then you enforce a rule (in this case I'm still not sure what the rule would be, but moving on), and THEN content which includes is the discussion on track or needs a nudge or whatever.
Again, this doesn't solve everything.
But what it does is it lays out the foundation of a process (processes are different) where mods can make decisions and express them. And then sometimes, okay, you didn't connect right or you forgot something, whatever. It allows discussions to move from "you're doing a bad job" to "explain your thinking about how you followed our key principles here" and often that actually just kind of...works?
It did with my pretty inexperienced staff anyway. And my marketing and comms team kind of has this already in some ways but we're still doing that work, just maybe more at the "okay do our processes really support this?" level.
Why I bring this up here is I think closing MetaTalk without having clear ideas around what we want and how we want to get there is a bandaid along the lines of just deleting comments. It won't resolve the deeper issues. Maybe we just actually have to address those issues now, or start to.
Do we have to wait? Honestly I don't think we do, if the moderation team is willing to enter into a process to define some things better...with the understanding that it's sandy foundational work, so might need to be done again.
Okay I'm off for multiple hours and also have said a lot in this thread.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:26 AM on November 16 [40 favorites]
The question of the mods' job is a really good one (I disagree with teaching because I don't think the mods are conveying subject matter expertise; that's actually I think a big issue, when they try to behave as if they have it - maybe facilitation.)
My view is still that that mods more need support in customer service - not meaning they are a call centre, but the much higher-level question of what is the experience we want members to have when they deal with MetaFilter the organization. I went through a good program on this and redid a lot of stuff around it so let me explain.
To make sure customers/members/clients have an experience that makes them want to participate/modify their behaviour/stick around and learn things/whatever (do martial arts), you need kind of three things:
1. A clear mission. Disney Parks' is "Create Happiness." My martial arts academy came up with "Empower our students." I would recommend here it be "Curate Conversation." but I think this is a factor.
This is because your view of what you're doing has to be somewhat flexible but also help you decide what you don't do. I think fundraising is outside of "curate conversation" and I think that's fine. But creating positive conversation is totally within that.
The Disney example (I went through Disney U on this) is - say you have a shuttle driver who gets people from point A at 10:10 to point B a 10:30. But at 10:30, he sees people who have lost their car, wandering around upset.
If you understand that you want visitor to leave the park happy, you invite those customers to hop in your shuttle and you drive them around to find their car...because otherwise you just know their story of their Day At Disney will be "it was fine, except we walked for 65 minutes trying to find the car."
You might have to radio that you're running late. It's definitely not your fault these idiots lost their car. But you prioritze the relationship of the customer to your park because you understand what you want their experience of Disney to be.
I don't think the mods know what their job is at that fundamental level, and so all the little bullshit questions - "you were late because you helped people find their car" "people shouldn't lose their cars" "it's not our job to be people's brains for them" has no guiding way to sort out.
(Note this won't prevent all issues. But if everyone can see that you're working towards "create happiness" at least there's a common starting point.)
2) An environment that supports that. For me this involves tech, which I will leave out of this conversation right now, and also staff procedures that support that.
But also there should be regular things that mods do to create a good environment out here for the members. I mean, we could define the mod job as "enforce the rules" and then no. But let's say it's broader and about conversation.
This CANNOT, however, be helter-skelter. It could be "we think that curating conversation will be helped by BIPOC-focused posts, weird fun facts about Australia posting, food posts, and fanfare posts" or whatever (I made this up. It is hard work to get from 1 to 2 but you can do it) Then you figure out a good 6-12 month plan on how you will gradually and consistently do that.
You can't clean the garbage up at Disney when you have time. You can't theme stuff in some areas and not in others. You can't have actors who are smoking in front of the kids. It's that level of things.
Part of what is very hard to understand from the outside is why this kind of task continually publicly fails. But it does, so something to dig into. But the reason the staff need to do this is that they are the consistency. Then when other people join in, it's great. But if everyone is tired after the US election, the post about what to do with cream cheese still goes up.
3) You need decision-making tools. This is complicated to go into a bit but we did it at my academy and it's great. Disney's example is that they always prioritize decisions in this order: Safety, Courtesy, Show, Efficiency. No matter what your role is. At my academy it was Safety, Connection (with the students and their families), Empowerment, Technique/Tradition, Efficiency (because we could not decide on four.)
But then you have someone who is freaking out about a self defence move. Okay, safety first. But next is connection. You don't correct their technique before you establish that you're glad they' in the class. You empower them by asking if they want to keep working on it, or do they want to take a break. Then you go to technique. (And trust me, in martial arts this is an uphill battle because a lot of old-school instructors will just start talking about technique loudly.)
Here I would want the mod team or the board or both to go through defining these things. (I would be careful about safety because safety in companies usually means physical safety - I'd want different clearer language)
But once you define them, your day-to-day stress gets easier (once you turn off the part of your brain that is like This Is Disney Bullshit).
And here's why:
When you want the best for something, "the best" becomes a huge barrier to doing work sometimes. "I want the best for BIPOC members" is an incredible tangle to sort out if you feel caught between the BIPOC-led post (yes yes I know) and the first comment.
But let's say your decision key is:
Proactivity
Connection (we're gonna connect with people first - this is the high-touch approach)
Inclusion
Rules enforcement (we're gonna enforce the rules *after* we connect and are paying attention to issues around inclusion)
Content
Okay so proactive, we're not going to let a frustrated comment sit. Second, connection - reach out to the member and let them know the concern and see if they will offer to have their comment deleted or elaborate. Inclusion - this is where you take the member's racialized experience into consideration. Rules - okay only if everything else fails, then you enforce a rule (in this case I'm still not sure what the rule would be, but moving on), and THEN content which includes is the discussion on track or needs a nudge or whatever.
Again, this doesn't solve everything.
But what it does is it lays out the foundation of a process (processes are different) where mods can make decisions and express them. And then sometimes, okay, you didn't connect right or you forgot something, whatever. It allows discussions to move from "you're doing a bad job" to "explain your thinking about how you followed our key principles here" and often that actually just kind of...works?
It did with my pretty inexperienced staff anyway. And my marketing and comms team kind of has this already in some ways but we're still doing that work, just maybe more at the "okay do our processes really support this?" level.
Why I bring this up here is I think closing MetaTalk without having clear ideas around what we want and how we want to get there is a bandaid along the lines of just deleting comments. It won't resolve the deeper issues. Maybe we just actually have to address those issues now, or start to.
Do we have to wait? Honestly I don't think we do, if the moderation team is willing to enter into a process to define some things better...with the understanding that it's sandy foundational work, so might need to be done again.
Okay I'm off for multiple hours and also have said a lot in this thread.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:26 AM on November 16 [40 favorites]
I hope that the organizational Brand New Day when MeFi actually becomes a non-profit can actually be the moment when the ship turns around. I think it's going to be a tough job to do so, because even though we aren't a non-profit yet, there are so many signs here of a small non-profit that has lost its way: hostility between staff and the community it serves, committees with unclear outcomes, meetings that end with people having different understanding of action items, recriminations over what should be very minor details like meeting minutes, calls for volunteers without clear work for the volunteers to do, strange fundraising projects that go nowhere, difficulties getting a clear financial picture, a focus on process rather than outcomes, and so on.
But I struggle to see how we are going to be able to hire professional staff in the way that has been discussed within the existing budget (is MetaFilter big enough to support an ED in the sense that people seem to be talking about that position?). I think long-term sustainability probably looks more like the community managing this site than hoping we can bring in more money to support a bunch of staff. There will always be a need for moderation, but that need might not always be fulfilled with staff shifts like it is now. Fundamentally, we're asking people to donate to pay for the moderation staff and it seems like people are less and less happy with how that money is being spent. Asking people to also pay for more management might be difficult.
But in the meantime, it's pretty clear nothing is going to change significantly, so all we can do is try to be patient.
posted by ssg at 9:27 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
But I struggle to see how we are going to be able to hire professional staff in the way that has been discussed within the existing budget (is MetaFilter big enough to support an ED in the sense that people seem to be talking about that position?). I think long-term sustainability probably looks more like the community managing this site than hoping we can bring in more money to support a bunch of staff. There will always be a need for moderation, but that need might not always be fulfilled with staff shifts like it is now. Fundamentally, we're asking people to donate to pay for the moderation staff and it seems like people are less and less happy with how that money is being spent. Asking people to also pay for more management might be difficult.
But in the meantime, it's pretty clear nothing is going to change significantly, so all we can do is try to be patient.
posted by ssg at 9:27 AM on November 16 [10 favorites]
Here's the reason I keep saying that metatalk is not working and should be shut.
Unlike the rest of the site, where the moderators role is to quietly curate conversations, metatalk, at least the most contentious threads, exists to be an interface between the user base and moderators.
That is the expectation, at least for me, is that moderators are active participants about moderation norms, and what does and doesn't work. They do not have to agree with any particular member, or even the whole community, but they need to be there to respond to the comments and questions given by the wider user base.
My understanding was that the origin of the queue was in fact to facilitate this: to ensure that the moderators are there to engage with the conversation happening.
Over the last few years, this model appears to have been dropped. In fact with some slightly disturbing regularity what seems to happen is people arguing, getting angry, and then Brandon Blatcher comes in, possibly says some constructive things, and then mentions that he is going off shift so won't be around for a few days.
Then, after far too long, loup comes in and makes a really long comment that will address some, but not most, of the conversation had until this point.
The most frustrating part of this is that these threads appear to still be quietly moderated in the background, with users banned and posts deleted, but no actual conversation from mods.
I find this model pretty frustrating, and I don't think it actually generates any value at all. If the moderation team are unable or unwilling to get directly involved in conversations where there are repeated, actionable requests, then they need to stop these conversations happening.
Metatalk, as it exists right now, is by far the least functional part of the site, and has actively led over the last few years to some of the most prolific users quitting, actively making the whole website worse for everyone
posted by Cannon Fodder at 9:50 AM on November 16 [17 favorites]
Unlike the rest of the site, where the moderators role is to quietly curate conversations, metatalk, at least the most contentious threads, exists to be an interface between the user base and moderators.
That is the expectation, at least for me, is that moderators are active participants about moderation norms, and what does and doesn't work. They do not have to agree with any particular member, or even the whole community, but they need to be there to respond to the comments and questions given by the wider user base.
My understanding was that the origin of the queue was in fact to facilitate this: to ensure that the moderators are there to engage with the conversation happening.
Over the last few years, this model appears to have been dropped. In fact with some slightly disturbing regularity what seems to happen is people arguing, getting angry, and then Brandon Blatcher comes in, possibly says some constructive things, and then mentions that he is going off shift so won't be around for a few days.
Then, after far too long, loup comes in and makes a really long comment that will address some, but not most, of the conversation had until this point.
The most frustrating part of this is that these threads appear to still be quietly moderated in the background, with users banned and posts deleted, but no actual conversation from mods.
I find this model pretty frustrating, and I don't think it actually generates any value at all. If the moderation team are unable or unwilling to get directly involved in conversations where there are repeated, actionable requests, then they need to stop these conversations happening.
Metatalk, as it exists right now, is by far the least functional part of the site, and has actively led over the last few years to some of the most prolific users quitting, actively making the whole website worse for everyone
posted by Cannon Fodder at 9:50 AM on November 16 [17 favorites]
Warriorqueen, regardless of what happens in this thread, I want you to know I love that comment and am copying it down to think over when I work with a new team in coming weeks.
posted by mittens at 10:22 AM on November 16 [13 favorites]
posted by mittens at 10:22 AM on November 16 [13 favorites]
I love how warriorqueen is thinking about this and tbqh I wish we could hire her as ED but I am not sure given our budget that we can afford her. It’s wild, I don’t disagree with you on any of the goals, warriorqueen, or the nuts and bolts of strategy, I just don’t see how any of what has been happening on MetaTalk is producing those results, or can. It’s great for generating case studies in what is not working, but I don’t feel like we get much traction from it — I feel like most of what happens here is like… waste heat, or offgassing, or something.
posted by eirias at 10:57 AM on November 16 [5 favorites]
posted by eirias at 10:57 AM on November 16 [5 favorites]
Look into your hearts and find your humanity.
It’s natural to feel more empathy towards a handful of clearly defined people rather than towards a more amorphous crowd. That said, there needs to be empathy for the many, many, many people (1) having donations intentionally misdirected (2) being misled about the use of those donations (3) watching a valued community’s efforts being wasted and frustrated by people who refuse to get out of the way (4) being accused of serious things and/or excluded from the community for trying to address to fix items 1-4.
Anger is not always inappropriate. Sometimes it is a perfectly normal and reasonable reaction.
posted by knobknosher at 11:41 AM on November 16 [15 favorites]
It’s natural to feel more empathy towards a handful of clearly defined people rather than towards a more amorphous crowd. That said, there needs to be empathy for the many, many, many people (1) having donations intentionally misdirected (2) being misled about the use of those donations (3) watching a valued community’s efforts being wasted and frustrated by people who refuse to get out of the way (4) being accused of serious things and/or excluded from the community for trying to address to fix items 1-4.
Anger is not always inappropriate. Sometimes it is a perfectly normal and reasonable reaction.
posted by knobknosher at 11:41 AM on November 16 [15 favorites]
I can't really speak to the general aggrieved complaints about problems that we all know exist, or the people who thrive on bringing them up again and again, or I would be permanently banned as a user from MetaFilter.
And yet you went on to condescendingly insult the hell out of the people you think are doing this. Passive aggressively acting like you’re saying something for someone else’s own good when you’re really being nasty to them is not actually morally superior to telling them to fuck off and get a hobby.
posted by knobknosher at 11:44 AM on November 16 [9 favorites]
And yet you went on to condescendingly insult the hell out of the people you think are doing this. Passive aggressively acting like you’re saying something for someone else’s own good when you’re really being nasty to them is not actually morally superior to telling them to fuck off and get a hobby.
posted by knobknosher at 11:44 AM on November 16 [9 favorites]
it seems like the people who are discontent are providing some of the most concrete and focused feedback about how to make Metatalk work better, which was at least the stated purpose of this post. if one wished to make a “thank you mods we love you” post (which is fine! which people have made in the past!), it would be better to frame it that way explicitly.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:05 PM on November 16 [8 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:05 PM on November 16 [8 favorites]
Mod note: Those are really good thoughts warriorqueen, thanks for taking the time to write them up! I posted them in the mod slack to make sure everyone sees them. I like the "Curate Conversation" idea, but also want to mull it over some, hopefully refine it. Which isn't to say I'm the sole decider about it, just that it involves a bit more thought. But it's a fantastic starting point.
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
We're working with a user to do this particular task, just ironing out some details, looking to update that document in a week.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:43 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
There's been a lot of user feedback that does seem to go ignored. Maybe adding on to Brandon's list , and doing some of those things, will go a long way. Side note - that was started on Nov 1 with two items, and remains unchanged.
We're working with a user to do this particular task, just ironing out some details, looking to update that document in a week.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:43 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
What would make MetaTalk more useful and effective, in your opinion, in the short term
Refocus it as being around defining community aspirations. Assume that the mods will not participate in this or any other subsite, or if they do participate they will only make things worse. Address all conversations to fellow users, not to mods. Imagine that MetaFilter is a conversation (or series of conversations) you are having in real life, where such options as deleting comments or banning users do not exist. If a given conversation is going badly, find ways inside the conversation to refocus it and move forwards in a better direction.
posted by one for the books at 1:02 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
Refocus it as being around defining community aspirations. Assume that the mods will not participate in this or any other subsite, or if they do participate they will only make things worse. Address all conversations to fellow users, not to mods. Imagine that MetaFilter is a conversation (or series of conversations) you are having in real life, where such options as deleting comments or banning users do not exist. If a given conversation is going badly, find ways inside the conversation to refocus it and move forwards in a better direction.
posted by one for the books at 1:02 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
I posted them in the mod slack to make sure everyone sees them.
Does this mean that the mods aren’t all going to read this entire thread? Does that seem nuts and insulting to anyone else? Or just me?
posted by bowbeacon at 1:08 PM on November 16 [11 favorites]
Does this mean that the mods aren’t all going to read this entire thread? Does that seem nuts and insulting to anyone else? Or just me?
posted by bowbeacon at 1:08 PM on November 16 [11 favorites]
One specific issue that could reasonably be remedied is BIPOC board meeting minutes.
First, I'd like to sincerely thank whoever is responsible for writing up meeting minutes. Thank you for wanting to do an excellent job in putting them together.
Going forward, I suggest that minutes are taken during the BIPOC board meeting by the note taker in a document with collaborative editing enabled, such as in Google Docs or in Etherpad. Anyone in the meeting is encouraged to edit these minutes in the collaborative document at any time during or after the meeting, until the following meeting. This is a common way to take minutes for an online meeting.
At the following meeting, one of the first items on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the prior meeting. The designated poster of minutes then has one week to post the approved minutes publicly. This is a typical approach for approving meeting minutes in a timely manner.
This guarantees everyone has the opportunity to have input on making sure the minutes meet their standards, and that something is communicated with the community at large in a reasonable time frame.
posted by Mirth at 1:09 PM on November 16 [11 favorites]
First, I'd like to sincerely thank whoever is responsible for writing up meeting minutes. Thank you for wanting to do an excellent job in putting them together.
Going forward, I suggest that minutes are taken during the BIPOC board meeting by the note taker in a document with collaborative editing enabled, such as in Google Docs or in Etherpad. Anyone in the meeting is encouraged to edit these minutes in the collaborative document at any time during or after the meeting, until the following meeting. This is a common way to take minutes for an online meeting.
At the following meeting, one of the first items on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the prior meeting. The designated poster of minutes then has one week to post the approved minutes publicly. This is a typical approach for approving meeting minutes in a timely manner.
This guarantees everyone has the opportunity to have input on making sure the minutes meet their standards, and that something is communicated with the community at large in a reasonable time frame.
posted by Mirth at 1:09 PM on November 16 [11 favorites]
Does this mean that the mods aren’t all going to read this entire thread? Does that seem nuts and insulting to anyone else? Or just me?
It actually sounds quite reasonable, but don't let that slow you down! Stay on your grind.
posted by neuromodulator at 1:44 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
It actually sounds quite reasonable, but don't let that slow you down! Stay on your grind.
posted by neuromodulator at 1:44 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
I posted them in the mod slack to make sure everyone sees them.
> Does this mean that the mods aren’t all going to read this entire thread? Does that seem nuts and insulting to anyone else? Or just me?
They haven't been following our participating in policy-related threads for years (at least as a rule; Brandon joining in was a major change).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on whether you believe loup (and recently Brandon) are effective at understanding what members are saying, and conscientious about keeping the rest of the staff up to date on it. And (imo) whether the rest of the staff spend any time thinking about it on their own, or just follow whatever loup lays down without giving real input or pushing back.
posted by trig at 2:04 PM on November 16 [10 favorites]
> Does this mean that the mods aren’t all going to read this entire thread? Does that seem nuts and insulting to anyone else? Or just me?
They haven't been following our participating in policy-related threads for years (at least as a rule; Brandon joining in was a major change).
Whether that's reasonable or not depends on whether you believe loup (and recently Brandon) are effective at understanding what members are saying, and conscientious about keeping the rest of the staff up to date on it. And (imo) whether the rest of the staff spend any time thinking about it on their own, or just follow whatever loup lays down without giving real input or pushing back.
posted by trig at 2:04 PM on November 16 [10 favorites]
Hey apologies, but I'm off duty and won't be back until evening, so nothing official will probably be posted until Monday afternoon. This is me just setting expectations.
And it's not a matter of dodging the question. The fact that the question is being asked is failure from the mod side because it means members are feeling that not we're engaged with the community. Ideally, in my world, I think we should encourage more mod engagement, but that's going to be slow process, but obviously a good goal. I'll suggest a thing or two in the mod slack and hopefully we can go from there.
Sorry, I'd rather not talk specifics at this point, cause this is just an off the cuff idea in my tired head, so we'll see how it goes and i'll report back in week or so about how things went. Yeah, it's frustrating to y'all, I am asking for a bit of grace on this particular thought/subject.
I'm am glad I sat and replied to this before taking off, so thank you trig for your thoughts. It's been a long MeFi mod day (not a complaint or ask for sympathy) but I'm walking out with a bit of skip in my step about trying something else that could benefit the site.
Otherwise, I will be mentally chewing on warriorqueen's thoughts while off duty. Should it be Curate Conversation? Curate Conversation? That's an obvious shift from the site's quote/unquote stated goal "community weblog". Which isn't a big deal, but do we want to make it explicit that the shift is from posting links to talking about links? Is that a big deal or not? Anyway, that's what I'm thinking on.
Take it easy y'all!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:16 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
And it's not a matter of dodging the question. The fact that the question is being asked is failure from the mod side because it means members are feeling that not we're engaged with the community. Ideally, in my world, I think we should encourage more mod engagement, but that's going to be slow process, but obviously a good goal. I'll suggest a thing or two in the mod slack and hopefully we can go from there.
Sorry, I'd rather not talk specifics at this point, cause this is just an off the cuff idea in my tired head, so we'll see how it goes and i'll report back in week or so about how things went. Yeah, it's frustrating to y'all, I am asking for a bit of grace on this particular thought/subject.
I'm am glad I sat and replied to this before taking off, so thank you trig for your thoughts. It's been a long MeFi mod day (not a complaint or ask for sympathy) but I'm walking out with a bit of skip in my step about trying something else that could benefit the site.
Otherwise, I will be mentally chewing on warriorqueen's thoughts while off duty. Should it be Curate Conversation? Curate Conversation? That's an obvious shift from the site's quote/unquote stated goal "community weblog". Which isn't a big deal, but do we want to make it explicit that the shift is from posting links to talking about links? Is that a big deal or not? Anyway, that's what I'm thinking on.
Take it easy y'all!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:16 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
I don't think warriorqueen was saying the SITE should shift its mission, but that the moderators/employees/owners should HAVE a guiding sense of values for how you're moderating the site and interacting with users.
posted by lapis at 3:21 PM on November 16 [14 favorites]
posted by lapis at 3:21 PM on November 16 [14 favorites]
I manage continuing education credits for my organization, among other things. My previous clerical person (whom I did not hire but was in place before I was) saw it as her job to police people requesting those credits, and like it was a favor she was granting to them to give them their certificates. Because she saw her role as gatekeeper, essentially, she would make people jump through hoops to prove their attendance, ask managers to provide her with information she could easily look up herself (like email addresses) to enroll their staff in trainings, and otherwise made life difficult for people doing trainings. (The person who hired her has a similar attitude, so I get where she got it.)
Thankfully, we were able to hire someone else into the role. For this employee, I've emphasized that offering these continuing education credits is something we do to make our employees' lives better, and that many of these trainings, while optional, are things that I see as important for our organization and I want to make everyone's experience as easy as possible (so that they'll keep wanting to take trainings). I've also emphasized that she should think of herself in service to the organization as a whole, and that succeeding in this role would mean that everyone found her responsive, helpful, and respectful. I have done my best to also make things as easy as we can for her, in terms of how we're setting up systems, so that she knows I have her back and that she can and should have boundaries around her energy and time, but without falling into gatekeeping or resentment. I also specifically hired her because I could see that she already came into the role with talents and skills in responsiveness, being helpful, and being respectful.
When people are talking about the values driving the process of moderation, that's more what I mean, at least (I don't want to speak for warriorqueen). A clerical person who sees her role as gatekeeping and a clerical person who sees her role as facilitating might be doing the same tasks (in my case, checking attendance, issuing certificates, and enrolling students), but the gatekeeper is going to do all that in a way that's suspicious of people, that makes them feel defensive, and that adds a level of grar to every interaction. The person who sees her role as facilitating is going to work toward making the process and experience pleasant and easy, and when things get difficult, is going to come to me for help so we can figure it out rather than just yelling at the person with the difficulty for making her job difficult.
No job is just a series of equally prioritized tasks. How you work, what you address, what you let slide, what you focus on, etc. -- all that is guided by a set of values. If the organization's not defining those, or is not in agreement on what those are, then the unspoken values tend to get entrenched in ways that are hard to see for the people in them (similar to the way White Supremacy Culture functions, for instance). My impression, as a user, is that under cortex the overall philosophy became "the users are unreasonable and the moderators' job is to push back and shut things down as much as possible," and I think that was toxic. I think it's still part of the unspoken (or maybe not so unspoken) moderator culture, and I think the site, and MetaTalk, would be better if the moderators could start unpacking that, start looking at what caused it on the moderator side (which doesn't mean the users weren't partially responsible, either, but it feels like y'all are stuck thinking that was the only issue), and start looking at how to rebuild trust and rebuild culture.
Less gatekeeping (deletions, banning, etc.), more facilitating (participating in conversations, following through on action items, etc.).
posted by lapis at 3:41 PM on November 16 [27 favorites]
Thankfully, we were able to hire someone else into the role. For this employee, I've emphasized that offering these continuing education credits is something we do to make our employees' lives better, and that many of these trainings, while optional, are things that I see as important for our organization and I want to make everyone's experience as easy as possible (so that they'll keep wanting to take trainings). I've also emphasized that she should think of herself in service to the organization as a whole, and that succeeding in this role would mean that everyone found her responsive, helpful, and respectful. I have done my best to also make things as easy as we can for her, in terms of how we're setting up systems, so that she knows I have her back and that she can and should have boundaries around her energy and time, but without falling into gatekeeping or resentment. I also specifically hired her because I could see that she already came into the role with talents and skills in responsiveness, being helpful, and being respectful.
When people are talking about the values driving the process of moderation, that's more what I mean, at least (I don't want to speak for warriorqueen). A clerical person who sees her role as gatekeeping and a clerical person who sees her role as facilitating might be doing the same tasks (in my case, checking attendance, issuing certificates, and enrolling students), but the gatekeeper is going to do all that in a way that's suspicious of people, that makes them feel defensive, and that adds a level of grar to every interaction. The person who sees her role as facilitating is going to work toward making the process and experience pleasant and easy, and when things get difficult, is going to come to me for help so we can figure it out rather than just yelling at the person with the difficulty for making her job difficult.
No job is just a series of equally prioritized tasks. How you work, what you address, what you let slide, what you focus on, etc. -- all that is guided by a set of values. If the organization's not defining those, or is not in agreement on what those are, then the unspoken values tend to get entrenched in ways that are hard to see for the people in them (similar to the way White Supremacy Culture functions, for instance). My impression, as a user, is that under cortex the overall philosophy became "the users are unreasonable and the moderators' job is to push back and shut things down as much as possible," and I think that was toxic. I think it's still part of the unspoken (or maybe not so unspoken) moderator culture, and I think the site, and MetaTalk, would be better if the moderators could start unpacking that, start looking at what caused it on the moderator side (which doesn't mean the users weren't partially responsible, either, but it feels like y'all are stuck thinking that was the only issue), and start looking at how to rebuild trust and rebuild culture.
Less gatekeeping (deletions, banning, etc.), more facilitating (participating in conversations, following through on action items, etc.).
posted by lapis at 3:41 PM on November 16 [27 favorites]
Just popping in to say yes, Lapis has it exactly - that would be the customer service mission.
Disney’s overall mission is different and so was my company’s.
That’s actually one of the key things if you actually go through the process of creating a customer service vision. It’s not about the company’s work or about the specific roles (that’s other work) - it’s “no matter what the situation how do we treat people and with what considerations.” More or less. When I went through the course in how to set up a culture of customer service there was obviously a lot more detail but most of the course was working those things out for your own company. I wish Disney still offered it online (this was over Covid) but it looks like it’s back to in- person only and costs a lot more.
I love how warriorqueen is thinking about this and tbqh I wish we could hire her as ED
That is super sweet, thank you. I have a job I love so not up for any outside jobs. But I appreciate it.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:36 PM on November 16 [4 favorites]
Disney’s overall mission is different and so was my company’s.
That’s actually one of the key things if you actually go through the process of creating a customer service vision. It’s not about the company’s work or about the specific roles (that’s other work) - it’s “no matter what the situation how do we treat people and with what considerations.” More or less. When I went through the course in how to set up a culture of customer service there was obviously a lot more detail but most of the course was working those things out for your own company. I wish Disney still offered it online (this was over Covid) but it looks like it’s back to in- person only and costs a lot more.
I love how warriorqueen is thinking about this and tbqh I wish we could hire her as ED
That is super sweet, thank you. I have a job I love so not up for any outside jobs. But I appreciate it.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:36 PM on November 16 [4 favorites]
I also want to add, for me MetaTalk is where we speak to each other, all of us. If the mods noped out I think there would still be tons of value in things like discussion of the non-profit, card and gift exchanges, etc.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:39 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
posted by warriorqueen at 4:39 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
Brandon Blatcher: Should it be Curate Conversation? Curate Conversation? That's an obvious shift from the site's quote/unquote stated goal "community weblog".
It does match the statement of purpose unanimously approved by the transitional non-profit board earlier this year!
With every hard MeTa it seems to get closer to universally broken among members who read MeTa, even those of us who have long appreciated MeFi and also how difficult moderation can be...
I think underlyingly what's needed is for all people in leadership roles at MeFi, paid or volunteer, to:
As far as MetaTalk is concerned, I think in the long run a different format that's easier to facilitate, with facilitators with the needed skillsets, may be better suited to continuing the tradition of community input/feedback/discussion in a way that's emotionally sustainable for both members and facilitators. (MeTa could continue to exist for community-building purposes, just not be the "how should we do things differently" discussion space.)
But changing the format won't itself fix the community-trust problem - that's central here and no technical or procedural change can rebuild trust that needs to be rebuilt in a human way.
posted by beryllium at 4:54 PM on November 16 [8 favorites]
It does match the statement of purpose unanimously approved by the transitional non-profit board earlier this year!
To foster education, appreciation, participation, and community, by curating and creating content from across the world and supporting inclusive, thoughtful discussion.I think the key issue here in the short run, though, is "how do we rebuild trust in MeFi's leadership"? Because it's clear that trust in the current moderators to curate conversation in an inclusive, thoughtful, community-oriented way has been deeply broken by many years of decisions that have felt to many community members like the opposite of those adjectives.
With every hard MeTa it seems to get closer to universally broken among members who read MeTa, even those of us who have long appreciated MeFi and also how difficult moderation can be...
I think underlyingly what's needed is for all people in leadership roles at MeFi, paid or volunteer, to:
- clearly and accurately represent their own actions; the actions of boards, committees, and volunteers; and the actions of users
- make working and volunteering at MeFi a positive experience; value the work of volunteers empowered to help carry out MeFi's mission
- demonstrate that they consider the substance and intent of writing more important than its tone; demonstrate strong ability to interpret intent and context, particularly with respect to sensitive topics and marginalized community members; recognize the difference between tone-policing and anti-harassment action
- offer full, clear, genuine apologies and center the emotions of people harmed when they make mistakes, and take steps to prevent mistakes from recurring; leadership requires the ability to focus on what's best for the community rather than what's best for oneself. (This does not mean they should tolerate abuse - no one benefits from that, and setting clear boundaries around abuse helps everyone! - but does require distinguishing painful feelings about sharp, strongly-worded critical feedback from abuse.)
As far as MetaTalk is concerned, I think in the long run a different format that's easier to facilitate, with facilitators with the needed skillsets, may be better suited to continuing the tradition of community input/feedback/discussion in a way that's emotionally sustainable for both members and facilitators. (MeTa could continue to exist for community-building purposes, just not be the "how should we do things differently" discussion space.)
But changing the format won't itself fix the community-trust problem - that's central here and no technical or procedural change can rebuild trust that needs to be rebuilt in a human way.
posted by beryllium at 4:54 PM on November 16 [8 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher: Should it be Curate Conversation?
No, thank you.
posted by snofoam at 5:40 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
No, thank you.
posted by snofoam at 5:40 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
then Brandon Blatcher comes in, possibly says some constructive things
I started writing a comment on this earlier. Brandon is an outlier on at least two different axes -- he's the only(?) active mod with a history as a user, and he's a black man. I'm not sure what this adds up to, but it has stood out to me that he ends up being the one having to try to clean up the mess.
posted by hoyland at 5:42 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
I started writing a comment on this earlier. Brandon is an outlier on at least two different axes -- he's the only(?) active mod with a history as a user, and he's a black man. I'm not sure what this adds up to, but it has stood out to me that he ends up being the one having to try to clean up the mess.
posted by hoyland at 5:42 PM on November 16 [3 favorites]
To lapis's point: What are the ways the mods could use to ensure that they're facilitating rather than gatekeeping?
Does facilitating (as opposed to gatekeeping) necessarily imply more work, or more exposure to emotional burnout because of the emotional labour/ vulnerability required?
I am worried that the, similar to how a teacher or therapist without strong boundaries will inevitably burn out or wobble into unprofessional behaviour, the blurred line between mod and fellow-mefite-user might cause problems.
I also think that there's a expectation by some mefites that all problematic comments will be deleted, and that the mods are implying agreement or support to problematic comments left undeleted.
And there is a contradictory push that mods should not delete any comments.
Would it help if deletions were actually much more rare, so that people stop expecting them to happen so much? Combined with more frequent, and more explicit mod notes that are phrased more as facilitating rather than participating ?
"x and y users comments received multiple flags and violate guidelines this and that. I've not deleted them, but please drop this derail"
Mods need to be able to bring consequences, otherwise they have no power, but what consequences would support facilitating rather than gatekeeping (or is this the wrong question?)
Hiding comments rather than deleting them?
Is deleting a comment a "consequence" that's intended to keep users in line, or is it a tool to improve the conversation?
I would like to see far fewer deletions, and clearer, more consistent mod notes to try and shift our expectations away from "anything that doesn't get deleted is acceptable".
I'd also like to see a more generous attitude towards derailing, to get away from the cycle of "mefites a makes throwaway problematic statement, mefites b and c push back, mefites b and c get told not to derail"
Keeping the conversation on very tight rails might be another place where gatekeeping vs facilitating happens.
posted by Zumbador at 6:29 PM on November 16 [4 favorites]
Does facilitating (as opposed to gatekeeping) necessarily imply more work, or more exposure to emotional burnout because of the emotional labour/ vulnerability required?
I am worried that the, similar to how a teacher or therapist without strong boundaries will inevitably burn out or wobble into unprofessional behaviour, the blurred line between mod and fellow-mefite-user might cause problems.
I also think that there's a expectation by some mefites that all problematic comments will be deleted, and that the mods are implying agreement or support to problematic comments left undeleted.
And there is a contradictory push that mods should not delete any comments.
Would it help if deletions were actually much more rare, so that people stop expecting them to happen so much? Combined with more frequent, and more explicit mod notes that are phrased more as facilitating rather than participating ?
"x and y users comments received multiple flags and violate guidelines this and that. I've not deleted them, but please drop this derail"
Mods need to be able to bring consequences, otherwise they have no power, but what consequences would support facilitating rather than gatekeeping (or is this the wrong question?)
Hiding comments rather than deleting them?
Is deleting a comment a "consequence" that's intended to keep users in line, or is it a tool to improve the conversation?
I would like to see far fewer deletions, and clearer, more consistent mod notes to try and shift our expectations away from "anything that doesn't get deleted is acceptable".
I'd also like to see a more generous attitude towards derailing, to get away from the cycle of "mefites a makes throwaway problematic statement, mefites b and c push back, mefites b and c get told not to derail"
Keeping the conversation on very tight rails might be another place where gatekeeping vs facilitating happens.
posted by Zumbador at 6:29 PM on November 16 [4 favorites]
Wait. We didn't need a fundraiser?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:06 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:06 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
"Wait. We didn't need a fundraiser?"
https://www.metafilter.com/206301/If-we-can-go-out-on-any-high-note-for-2024-this-is-a-good-option#8650267
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:31 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
https://www.metafilter.com/206301/If-we-can-go-out-on-any-high-note-for-2024-this-is-a-good-option#8650267
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:31 PM on November 16 [1 favorite]
According to loup,
a) we're totally fine financially, no worries at all
b) staff is constantly missing deadlines and cutting back on activity and burned out and stressed because there are not enough paid hours for work to be done and workload to be shared, plus the pay is low, there's no health insurance, etc. Definitely no breathing room to implement tech ponies, or invest in good fundraising, or do real work on attracting new members, or participate in Metatalk, or have anyone pick up other mods' slack when needed, or do anything but keep the lights on and respond to flags.
c) there is no conflict between (a) and (b)
When Mefi was hiring a web dev late last year, the terms advertised were $35/hr with 0 guaranteed hours per week and a max of 15. For web dev. In 2023. What kind of quality would you expect to attract with that? (We got very lucky - we got a longtime member/mefi fan who afaict could afford to basically take on a familiar-to-him project for fun.)
What are we going to be able to offer to attract the kind of quality this site needs for management and modding?
posted by trig at 7:57 PM on November 16 [5 favorites]
a) we're totally fine financially, no worries at all
b) staff is constantly missing deadlines and cutting back on activity and burned out and stressed because there are not enough paid hours for work to be done and workload to be shared, plus the pay is low, there's no health insurance, etc. Definitely no breathing room to implement tech ponies, or invest in good fundraising, or do real work on attracting new members, or participate in Metatalk, or have anyone pick up other mods' slack when needed, or do anything but keep the lights on and respond to flags.
c) there is no conflict between (a) and (b)
When Mefi was hiring a web dev late last year, the terms advertised were $35/hr with 0 guaranteed hours per week and a max of 15. For web dev. In 2023. What kind of quality would you expect to attract with that? (We got very lucky - we got a longtime member/mefi fan who afaict could afford to basically take on a familiar-to-him project for fun.)
What are we going to be able to offer to attract the kind of quality this site needs for management and modding?
posted by trig at 7:57 PM on November 16 [5 favorites]
« Older Seeking global perspectives from the community | “I have no idea how all these MeFites got wedged... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by phunniemee at 5:53 AM on November 15 [48 favorites]