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 [10 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 [10 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 [2 favorites]
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 [2 favorites]
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 [29 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 [29 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 [31 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:20 AM on November 15 [31 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 [18 favorites]
No. To a first approximation, the staff is the sole problem with Metatalk.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:25 AM on November 15 [18 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 [67 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 [67 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 [18 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:56 AM on November 15 [18 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 [15 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 [15 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 [68 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 [68 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 [26 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 [26 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 [12 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 7:49 AM on November 15 [12 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 [8 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 [8 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 [15 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 [15 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 [15 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 [15 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 [18 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 [18 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 [16 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 [16 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 [22 favorites]
posted by living creature - do not ban at 8:21 AM on November 15 [22 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 [22 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 [22 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 [39 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 [39 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 [13 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 [13 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 [32 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 [32 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 [31 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 9:35 AM on November 15 [31 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 [29 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 [29 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 [25 favorites]
I'd like this for user bans too, temporary or permanent.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 9:59 AM on November 15 [25 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 [18 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 10:00 AM on November 15 [18 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 [14 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:05 AM on November 15 [14 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 [5 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 [5 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 [23 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 10:31 AM on November 15 [23 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 [6 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 [6 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 [17 favorites]
I mean... come on guys, why even have the damn thread?
posted by Cannon Fodder at 11:58 AM on November 15 [17 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 [1 favorite]
-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 [1 favorite]
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 [7 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 [7 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 [11 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 [11 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 [4 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 [4 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 [18 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 3:12 PM on November 15 [18 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 [20 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 [20 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 [5 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 [5 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 [12 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 [12 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 [16 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 [16 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 [13 favorites]
*I may be biased; I'm a professional community manager.
posted by Threeve at 5:24 PM on November 15 [13 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 [21 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 [21 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 [15 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 [15 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 [40 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 [40 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 [26 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 [26 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 [7 favorites]
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 9:46 PM on November 15 [7 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 [12 favorites]
Mods - thanks. It's a tough gig.
posted by chmmr at 10:33 PM on November 15 [12 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 [8 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 11:18 PM on November 15 [8 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 [19 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 [19 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 [10 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 [10 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 [6 favorites]
It is a tough gig. From me as well: bedankt.
posted by jouke at 12:57 AM on November 16 [6 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 [5 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 [5 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 [7 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 5:05 AM on November 16 [7 favorites]
oh good I love a simp parade
posted by phunniemee at 5:12 AM on November 16 [34 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 5:12 AM on November 16 [34 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 [3 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 5:28 AM on November 16 [3 favorites]
"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 [23 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 [23 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 [13 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 [13 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 [24 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 [24 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 [31 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 [31 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 [5 favorites]
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 [5 favorites]
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 [10 favorites]
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
Community led
posted by phunniemee at 6:01 AM on November 16 [10 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 [22 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 [22 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 [33 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 [33 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 [81 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 [81 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 [11 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:01 AM on November 16 [11 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 [69 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 [69 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 [23 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 [23 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 [17 favorites]
posted by mittens at 10:22 AM on November 16 [17 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 [18 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 [18 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 [13 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 [13 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 [10 favorites]
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 12:05 PM on November 16 [10 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 [5 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 [5 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 [17 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 [17 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 [14 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 [14 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 [6 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 [6 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 [12 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 [12 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 [18 favorites]
posted by lapis at 3:21 PM on November 16 [18 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 [45 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 [45 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 [5 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 [5 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 [13 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 [13 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 [10 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 [10 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 [9 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 [9 favorites]
Wait. We didn't need a fundraiser?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:06 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:06 PM on November 16 [2 favorites]
"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 [2 favorites]
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 [2 favorites]
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 [19 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 [19 favorites]
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?)
It might be useful to think about power-with rather than power-over. It feels like this site (and a lot of the Left in the U.S., so it's not a MeFi-only phenomenon) has moved really far over into the carceral logic of "We need to police everything, and we need to keep everyone in line, and we need to enact punishments for behavior we deem to be out of bounds." I'm not saying we shouldn't have boundaries for behavior, but mods-as-police doesn't have to be the dominant model.
And moderators have power simply because they're moderators. The role itself creates a power differential.
posted by lapis at 10:18 PM on November 16 [15 favorites]
It might be useful to think about power-with rather than power-over. It feels like this site (and a lot of the Left in the U.S., so it's not a MeFi-only phenomenon) has moved really far over into the carceral logic of "We need to police everything, and we need to keep everyone in line, and we need to enact punishments for behavior we deem to be out of bounds." I'm not saying we shouldn't have boundaries for behavior, but mods-as-police doesn't have to be the dominant model.
And moderators have power simply because they're moderators. The role itself creates a power differential.
posted by lapis at 10:18 PM on November 16 [15 favorites]
Thank you lapis, that's why I thought that might be the wrong question.
Especially since moderators have limited mod tools and limited time, it makes sense that a model based on trust rather than "force and consequence" would be a better fit.
Just today, I've seen two comments in different threads deleted that as far as I'm concerned would be better have been dealt with as a mod note only and no deletion. (I hope that mentioning this here won't drag drama into those threads)
One was "don't mention who is favouriting what comments" and the other was "speculation that a person might be an immigrant is not great" (paraphrasing, those aren't the exact notes).
Both of those deletions seem motivated by a wish to avert conflict. But it's pretty likely that deleting those posts will spark conflict, wether or not that conflict is visible on the page in the form of angry comments, or in the thoughts of the reader.
Is the purpose of the guidelines that no micro aggressions should be visible in metafilter, or that no micro aggressions should go unchallenged? but can still be seen?
posted by Zumbador at 12:21 AM on November 17 [15 favorites]
Especially since moderators have limited mod tools and limited time, it makes sense that a model based on trust rather than "force and consequence" would be a better fit.
Just today, I've seen two comments in different threads deleted that as far as I'm concerned would be better have been dealt with as a mod note only and no deletion. (I hope that mentioning this here won't drag drama into those threads)
One was "don't mention who is favouriting what comments" and the other was "speculation that a person might be an immigrant is not great" (paraphrasing, those aren't the exact notes).
Both of those deletions seem motivated by a wish to avert conflict. But it's pretty likely that deleting those posts will spark conflict, wether or not that conflict is visible on the page in the form of angry comments, or in the thoughts of the reader.
Is the purpose of the guidelines that no micro aggressions should be visible in metafilter, or that no micro aggressions should go unchallenged? but can still be seen?
posted by Zumbador at 12:21 AM on November 17 [15 favorites]
Just today, I've seen two comments in different threads deleted that as far as I'm concerned would be better have been dealt with as a mod note only and no deletion. [...] One was "don't mention who is favouriting what comments"
Hold up, seriously? What is the purpose of having the usernames of who favorited things being visible to everybody -- you don't even need to be logged in to see it! -- unless it's for a user to visibly show their approval for what's in the comment?
If it was meant to be only a bookmark function (or a private "thumbs up" to the commenter only) then those functions need to be split up.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:22 AM on November 17 [5 favorites]
Hold up, seriously? What is the purpose of having the usernames of who favorited things being visible to everybody -- you don't even need to be logged in to see it! -- unless it's for a user to visibly show their approval for what's in the comment?
If it was meant to be only a bookmark function (or a private "thumbs up" to the commenter only) then those functions need to be split up.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:22 AM on November 17 [5 favorites]
We’ve been through this before. Favorites don’t always mean approval either in full or in part. Sometimes it means, oh hey, that’s a point I hadn’t considered and I do or don’t necessarily agree. Sometimes it’s a bookmark. Sometimes I favorite out of amusement. Sometimes it’s a thanks or an “I see you.” Lots of times I just use them to say hi. They don’t matter. We’re not keeping score.
If anyone out there is judging me based on my favorites, it says a lot more about them than it does about me.
posted by mochapickle at 9:18 AM on November 17 [9 favorites]
If anyone out there is judging me based on my favorites, it says a lot more about them than it does about me.
posted by mochapickle at 9:18 AM on November 17 [9 favorites]
> "don't mention who is favouriting what comments"
as a (tbf paraphrased) deletion reason is, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but certainly not the kind of police action i want the moderators to be doing
posted by glonous keming at 9:39 AM on November 17 [4 favorites]
as a (tbf paraphrased) deletion reason is, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but certainly not the kind of police action i want the moderators to be doing
posted by glonous keming at 9:39 AM on November 17 [4 favorites]
I’ve slept on it and I have some final thoughts I’d like to share (compiled with a little AI help).
To The Staff
Loup: Speaking from the heart—it must seriously suck to read all this feedback. It can’t be easy or enjoyable, and I respect that. I’ve harped on you enough, and I’ll try to stop in the future. That said, I don’t think being the liaison between staff and users is the best fit for you. If you disagree, here’s an idea: how about making an FPP about something?
BB: Your dedication to the site and its future is obvious. Yes, you’ve made a few unforced errors, but it’s unrealistic (and unnecessary) for MetaTalk users to expect large, public apologies every time. Acknowledge, adapt, and move on.
Other Mods: Honestly, I have no idea who most of you are, but that’s probably by design. So, keep up the...work?
The Fundraiser is Dead, Jim
The fundraiser is over; we’ve all analyzed it to death. The staff and MetaTalk regulars know the ins and outs. Let’s all agree to drop it.
Less Bureaucracy, More Focus on Keeping MetaFilter Afloat
MetaFilter doesn’t need another committee, more guidelines, or constant rule-tweaking. Sometimes the bureaucracy feels like it’s mostly to placate MetaTalk users rather than support real, meaningful change. Does the staff really need weeks to compile a list of grievances? Just copy recent contentious MetaTalk posts into a document, run it through ChatGPT, and get a summary.
Provide Clear, Transparent Updates on the New Site
The community needs regular updates on the progress of the new site. Can we get a realistic timeline for a beta launch, along with some details on what the beta might include?
posted by Diskeater at 10:49 AM on November 17 [7 favorites]
To The Staff
Loup: Speaking from the heart—it must seriously suck to read all this feedback. It can’t be easy or enjoyable, and I respect that. I’ve harped on you enough, and I’ll try to stop in the future. That said, I don’t think being the liaison between staff and users is the best fit for you. If you disagree, here’s an idea: how about making an FPP about something?
BB: Your dedication to the site and its future is obvious. Yes, you’ve made a few unforced errors, but it’s unrealistic (and unnecessary) for MetaTalk users to expect large, public apologies every time. Acknowledge, adapt, and move on.
Other Mods: Honestly, I have no idea who most of you are, but that’s probably by design. So, keep up the...work?
The Fundraiser is Dead, Jim
The fundraiser is over; we’ve all analyzed it to death. The staff and MetaTalk regulars know the ins and outs. Let’s all agree to drop it.
Less Bureaucracy, More Focus on Keeping MetaFilter Afloat
MetaFilter doesn’t need another committee, more guidelines, or constant rule-tweaking. Sometimes the bureaucracy feels like it’s mostly to placate MetaTalk users rather than support real, meaningful change. Does the staff really need weeks to compile a list of grievances? Just copy recent contentious MetaTalk posts into a document, run it through ChatGPT, and get a summary.
Provide Clear, Transparent Updates on the New Site
The community needs regular updates on the progress of the new site. Can we get a realistic timeline for a beta launch, along with some details on what the beta might include?
posted by Diskeater at 10:49 AM on November 17 [7 favorites]
My experience with using ChatGPT to summarize is that it’s pretty good if you either wrote the input or are familiar enough with it to know what it left out, but not fantastic if you’re completely unfamiliar with the input contents, it’s no substitute for actually reading stuff.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 2:38 PM on November 17 [4 favorites]
posted by Jon Mitchell at 2:38 PM on November 17 [4 favorites]
I would like to encourage the staff to really consider the concept of the trust thermocline (originally propounded by MeFite garius), because if you haven't already hit it, you're perilously close.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:06 PM on November 17 [31 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:06 PM on November 17 [31 favorites]
Adrienneleigh has it. I’ve seen it.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:59 PM on November 17 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:59 PM on November 17 [2 favorites]
No amount of ditching accountability can save you from a history of ditching accountability.
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 5:40 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 5:40 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
It seems like it's been a continual process of users falling off the trust thermocline for years. But also that we may be hitting a crisis point where many of the members engaged enough to want to be involved with volunteering to help sustain community governance have fallen off it.
And I don't know how we come back from that. I'd so much like to see MeFi come back from that, because it's added so much to my life, and to the lives of so many of us here. But it's clear, at the least, that it's going to take some deep, fundamental changes to how the leadership culture at MeFi works.
I'm articulating this in terms of the culture rather than any specific individual both because I know things can be complex behind the scenes, and because it's clear the problem runs deeper than any individual - that something cultural is affecting MeFi's staff such that they repeatedly are not honoring fundamental standards of what's necessary for community trust in leadership that I outlined above.
This doesn't mean it's not necessary for people in leadership positions to take full ownership of not living up to those standards, when that happens, however! Indeed I think it makes it even more necessary, because it's only when we fully name and own the harm being done, whether individual or collective, that we can seek to make reparations and work on doing better.
posted by beryllium at 5:59 PM on November 17 [6 favorites]
And I don't know how we come back from that. I'd so much like to see MeFi come back from that, because it's added so much to my life, and to the lives of so many of us here. But it's clear, at the least, that it's going to take some deep, fundamental changes to how the leadership culture at MeFi works.
I'm articulating this in terms of the culture rather than any specific individual both because I know things can be complex behind the scenes, and because it's clear the problem runs deeper than any individual - that something cultural is affecting MeFi's staff such that they repeatedly are not honoring fundamental standards of what's necessary for community trust in leadership that I outlined above.
This doesn't mean it's not necessary for people in leadership positions to take full ownership of not living up to those standards, when that happens, however! Indeed I think it makes it even more necessary, because it's only when we fully name and own the harm being done, whether individual or collective, that we can seek to make reparations and work on doing better.
posted by beryllium at 5:59 PM on November 17 [6 favorites]
Worst MetaFilter is better than Best Reddit, for me. I left reddit shortly before the last round of shenanigans. I left and rejoined MetaFilter, we all get our big feelings. I think the mods do their best, and I get my share of deletions (naming the repeated favouriter as mentioned, guilty as charged)
A better MetaTalk would require more mod capacity and/or shifts in attitude on whether this really is a community and if so what that means
My meatspace communities have real consequences when you're a shit, and screenspace is notoriously permissive. We can all try to be less cranky at times.
posted by ginger.beef at 6:16 PM on November 17 [5 favorites]
A better MetaTalk would require more mod capacity and/or shifts in attitude on whether this really is a community and if so what that means
My meatspace communities have real consequences when you're a shit, and screenspace is notoriously permissive. We can all try to be less cranky at times.
posted by ginger.beef at 6:16 PM on November 17 [5 favorites]
The trust thermocline idea is somewhat resonant, though the metaphor is about there being an invisible boundary that is breached (versus a halocline, where the difference in salinity gives the two layers a difference in refraction that makes the boundary subtly visible as you are passing through it). What is happening here is much more visible. I suppose trust might be silently melting away for some users, but for others it has been plainly stated over and over. What’s happening here is more of a trust bonfire, which makes it more astounding. There are no c-suite executives insulated from customer grumbling. The bad decisions are made by people who are dutifully informed about the damage they are doing yet continue to feed the fire.
posted by snofoam at 6:30 PM on November 17 [10 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:30 PM on November 17 [10 favorites]
Starting to get curious about metrics here. There’ve always been buttonings. Are they more frequent now, as a percentage of the user base? Is anything changing about the, not to be crass, popularity of the users leaving? I think the data exists to ask these questions crudely although I acknowledge the staff time does not.
Friend of mine taught for twenty years at a well regarded summer program. Seemed from the stories of alums like it was always going downhill, and yet somehow the perceived quality never changed, parents kept sending their kids. A real Shepard tone kinda experience, hearing his stories.
I have a weakness for metaphors around trust and I also see some warning signs, but I do think before radical changes are made it would be prudent to check if the feelings on display from the relatively small group who post here are borne out in the numbers. Maybe a board member task.
posted by eirias at 8:35 PM on November 17 [7 favorites]
Friend of mine taught for twenty years at a well regarded summer program. Seemed from the stories of alums like it was always going downhill, and yet somehow the perceived quality never changed, parents kept sending their kids. A real Shepard tone kinda experience, hearing his stories.
I have a weakness for metaphors around trust and I also see some warning signs, but I do think before radical changes are made it would be prudent to check if the feelings on display from the relatively small group who post here are borne out in the numbers. Maybe a board member task.
posted by eirias at 8:35 PM on November 17 [7 favorites]
About checking metrics -- that could be a good thing to spend at least some of the stipend that can be used to pay members to do work.
posted by NotLost at 9:08 PM on November 17 [3 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 9:08 PM on November 17 [3 favorites]
The issue runs deeper also than buttonings - some people have kept their accounts but stepped back from volunteering/posting regularly/donating/etc.
And also metrics measure people who've already dropped off the trust thermocline, not those who may be about to - so are a lagging indicator; the whole concept of the trust thermocline is that by the time we've lost community members it can be too late to rebuild trust, and certainly much harder :(
It seems wise to take steps to help community leadership better align with known good practices in organizational leadership whatever the metrics might show.
posted by beryllium at 9:23 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
And also metrics measure people who've already dropped off the trust thermocline, not those who may be about to - so are a lagging indicator; the whole concept of the trust thermocline is that by the time we've lost community members it can be too late to rebuild trust, and certainly much harder :(
It seems wise to take steps to help community leadership better align with known good practices in organizational leadership whatever the metrics might show.
posted by beryllium at 9:23 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
You can see the shelf developing if you set this to two years and look at the monthly active users, posts and comments (towards the bottom). The daily average comments are dropping to ~650 comments a day
I don’t look often enough but you can probably identify buttonings that include account wipes by watching the deleted posts numbers go up.
Hopefully the election gave a bump.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:24 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
I don’t look often enough but you can probably identify buttonings that include account wipes by watching the deleted posts numbers go up.
Hopefully the election gave a bump.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:24 PM on November 17 [8 favorites]
I think there are factors that hide the decline of engagement to some degree when looking at the data about posts and comments. It feels like there is a much higher percentage of posts by frequent posters. (Which is fine, but these posts can be thematically repetitive and have an audience that is…more selective.) There are also efforts to boost engagement, like free threads. These are fine, but I think they are more effective at getting additional engagement from the dwindling pool of active users. It would be interesting to see the number of active users who are at half, or 10%, or whatever, of their peak activity.
posted by snofoam at 2:44 AM on November 18 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:44 AM on November 18 [5 favorites]
Yes, once trust is lost, it's neigh impossible to get back and even if it does come back, things are different. That's understandable.
There's going to be the monthly site update later this week which loup is working on it. As usual they'll write up a draft for staff to look over, so we'll make sure to touch on elements brought up in this thread.
As to warriorqueen's "Curate Conversation", I'm still reluctant about that wording even as I love the concept and idea, but that's probably just a me thing. Dropping mod comments in a thread remarking how awesome some comments or post is feels odd, like we're injecting ourselves too much into the conversation is. We sort of do this with the Best Of blog, but that's outside of the conversation, so yeah intergrating it might be a good idea.
When Jessamyn was talking to me about coming onboard, I recall describing the job of a MeFi mod as "helping people have fun" and she really liked that idea. When loup was training me, one thing I recall picking up from their philosophy of moderating is to avoid deleting things if possible. I took that into my personal ethos about moderation in the form of "first do no harm", meaning yeah some things posts or comments might be a bit odd and sort of cross over into the guidelines, but if it's generally positive, then leave it be.
As this is just to say that having more visibly positive mod actions is good part of rebuilding trust and something we, the mod team, should work on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:35 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
There's going to be the monthly site update later this week which loup is working on it. As usual they'll write up a draft for staff to look over, so we'll make sure to touch on elements brought up in this thread.
As to warriorqueen's "Curate Conversation", I'm still reluctant about that wording even as I love the concept and idea, but that's probably just a me thing. Dropping mod comments in a thread remarking how awesome some comments or post is feels odd, like we're injecting ourselves too much into the conversation is. We sort of do this with the Best Of blog, but that's outside of the conversation, so yeah intergrating it might be a good idea.
When Jessamyn was talking to me about coming onboard, I recall describing the job of a MeFi mod as "helping people have fun" and she really liked that idea. When loup was training me, one thing I recall picking up from their philosophy of moderating is to avoid deleting things if possible. I took that into my personal ethos about moderation in the form of "first do no harm", meaning yeah some things posts or comments might be a bit odd and sort of cross over into the guidelines, but if it's generally positive, then leave it be.
As this is just to say that having more visibly positive mod actions is good part of rebuilding trust and something we, the mod team, should work on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:35 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
It feels like there is a much higher percentage of posts by frequent posters.
The data bears this out for posts, yeah (especially if you filter to just the blue), but -- a bit surprisingly -- not for comments.
Also: it's possible there was a new meaningful drop in commenting numbers in Sept/Oct (we'll have to wait a couple months to see how that plays out, since November's numbers will probably be skewed by U.S. election stuff), but the overall story does seem to be steady decline from 2011 to mid-2020, and then...a locally fluctuating but fairly steady chart for the last four years.
(Curiously, I think the September/October drop might be most attributable to lower activity in Ask. AskMe commenting never really plateaued (though its speed of attrition is less severe than it was closer to its mid-2010 peak), and the last two months were AskMe's lowest ever, which isn't the case for these two months on the blue.)
In any case, I suspect at this point that any version of the new soon(?)-to-be-elected board will very most likely take steps to address people's biggest concerns here. It feels inevitable.
But I also suspect there are fundamental disagreements that are currently being obscured by vociferous agreement about recent mistakes.
I wonder if the transition board should maybe slip some survey questions into the board election voting form. That would avoid needing to promote a survey separately from the more crucial board elections, and it would give the new board a leg up on having a better view of the wider population. (And, if so, I'd suggest maybe sticking to dumbed-down strongly-agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly-disagree numerical responses, so we can see results immediately without anyone having to spend hours wading through hundreds of open-response paragraphs.)
The big questions I'd want a read on are:
1) happy/unhappy with moderation generally
2) moderation currently too heavy-handed vs. mostly fine vs. should be deleting more
3) best to continue deleting comments vs. would it be better to try hiding them instead
4) should we try empowering volunteer mods
(I'm nervous about #4 there -- and how badly it might go when, for example, the board needs to vote to strip someone of their volunteer mod status -- but it keeps coming up, and it might be nice to see how everybody splits on the question.)
(I also think it might be fruitful for there to be a question that gets at people's opinion about site culture, but I'm not sure how to frame it. Not too many years ago, it seemed like there was a big split between people who felt like the site culture was Too Mean vs. people who felt like the first group was largely using that to launder beliefs that the site culture was too mean toward people being racist/sexist/etc., but I'd guess those old lines are scrambled a bit now.)
(2022 survey results, for reference.)
posted by nobody at 4:59 AM on November 18 [4 favorites]
The data bears this out for posts, yeah (especially if you filter to just the blue), but -- a bit surprisingly -- not for comments.
Also: it's possible there was a new meaningful drop in commenting numbers in Sept/Oct (we'll have to wait a couple months to see how that plays out, since November's numbers will probably be skewed by U.S. election stuff), but the overall story does seem to be steady decline from 2011 to mid-2020, and then...a locally fluctuating but fairly steady chart for the last four years.
(Curiously, I think the September/October drop might be most attributable to lower activity in Ask. AskMe commenting never really plateaued (though its speed of attrition is less severe than it was closer to its mid-2010 peak), and the last two months were AskMe's lowest ever, which isn't the case for these two months on the blue.)
In any case, I suspect at this point that any version of the new soon(?)-to-be-elected board will very most likely take steps to address people's biggest concerns here. It feels inevitable.
But I also suspect there are fundamental disagreements that are currently being obscured by vociferous agreement about recent mistakes.
I wonder if the transition board should maybe slip some survey questions into the board election voting form. That would avoid needing to promote a survey separately from the more crucial board elections, and it would give the new board a leg up on having a better view of the wider population. (And, if so, I'd suggest maybe sticking to dumbed-down strongly-agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly-disagree numerical responses, so we can see results immediately without anyone having to spend hours wading through hundreds of open-response paragraphs.)
The big questions I'd want a read on are:
1) happy/unhappy with moderation generally
2) moderation currently too heavy-handed vs. mostly fine vs. should be deleting more
3) best to continue deleting comments vs. would it be better to try hiding them instead
4) should we try empowering volunteer mods
(I'm nervous about #4 there -- and how badly it might go when, for example, the board needs to vote to strip someone of their volunteer mod status -- but it keeps coming up, and it might be nice to see how everybody splits on the question.)
(I also think it might be fruitful for there to be a question that gets at people's opinion about site culture, but I'm not sure how to frame it. Not too many years ago, it seemed like there was a big split between people who felt like the site culture was Too Mean vs. people who felt like the first group was largely using that to launder beliefs that the site culture was too mean toward people being racist/sexist/etc., but I'd guess those old lines are scrambled a bit now.)
(2022 survey results, for reference.)
posted by nobody at 4:59 AM on November 18 [4 favorites]
avoid deleting things if possibleThe fact that you can say this, and not see how it utterly contradicts everything people are telling you, is an utter indictment of the mod staff. This philosophy has in no way been evident for literal years at this point, and has taken a rapid turn for the worse.
posted by sagc at 5:12 AM on November 18 [21 favorites]
And Brandon, you're a longtime user - so you really think commenting on posts as a user is off limits now that you're a mod? I know it wouldn't work for controversial subjects, but surely there's no reasonable mod can't post "I liked this article" or "Here's my favourite recent incremental" in the appropriate threads.
posted by sagc at 5:13 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:13 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I have not read this whole thread and will not be sticking around for it, but I wanted to put my original solution on the table for discussion. It was a fair bit of work (probably 5-8 of the 10 hours per week I was billing for the six months or so that I was doing this) but it really seemed to help - you can skim down for the summaries I posted in threads starting here, here, or here.
(I don't know why this was dropped the instant I left - I have some feelings about it, but no knowledge.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 5:15 AM on November 18 [15 favorites]
(I don't know why this was dropped the instant I left - I have some feelings about it, but no knowledge.)
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 5:15 AM on November 18 [15 favorites]
They're apparently going to hire brook horse to do that now.
posted by sagc at 5:20 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 5:20 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
The data bears this out for posts, yeah (especially if you filter to just the blue), but -- a bit surprisingly -- not for comments.
The data there is posts/comments for the top 1% 5% 10% of posters/commenters. If this was broken out further it wouldn’t surprise me to see a big drop off of average user activity.
posted by snofoam at 5:50 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
The data there is posts/comments for the top 1% 5% 10% of posters/commenters. If this was broken out further it wouldn’t surprise me to see a big drop off of average user activity.
posted by snofoam at 5:50 AM on November 18 [1 favorite]
Hey Brandon, I appreciate your continued engagement. I'm going to pick apart your answer a bit just to explore a few things but not because I don't appreciate it, or think it's going badly.
As to warriorqueen's "Curate Conversation", I'm still reluctant about that wording even as I love the concept and idea
Actually the whole point of the exercise is to pick your own as a team (really at the leadership level) so that's NBD. I actually think it would be really odd to just go with one member's take on it (mine) - it's work the mod team should be doing themselves.
"helping people have fun"
My jaw DROPPED when I read this. After the last year, I would never, ever have inferred from the way that mods interact on the site -- not even you and I do think you drop those comments sometimes or move things to the sidebar etc. -- that any of the mods saw their jobs here as promoting fun. (Now that I'm looking for it I can see the skeletal bits.)
I mean, I too think that is much better than curating.
I think this is something to really dig into at some point.
Dropping mod comments in a thread remarking how awesome some comments or post is feels odd, like we're injecting ourselves too much into the conversation is.
So I'm not natively a 'rah rah' person. And I went online community management -> surly web editor -> oh no, leading a social media as well as an editorial team in my career and here's what I learned: In text and online, if you want people to feel like you care about anything but their mistakes, you gotta be appreciative visibly. That doesn't mean you have to be like "awesome!!!" after everything, but saying something made you think or laugh or whatever is not fakey-fakey.
In marketing, even though I suppose now I've really gone over to the dark side, I also have to say it works. People want to be around others who are positive when positively is warranted, thoughtful when thoughtfulness is warranted, etc. My martial arts academy charges 1.5-2 times the rates of the place down the road. Our program is super solid, but what our research showed made the difference is we are always happy to see your kid. We're happy to see your kid with ADHD, we're happy to know not to bombard your sensory-overload kid with wildly enthusiastic greetings.
As a parent, I pay extra to know that my child will not receive the treatment he did at gymnastic camp where when I walked in to pick him up, the greeting was "oh good, now we only have one [kid] left." And here's the thing - we're all the parents of our own time. "Is this where I want to spend my one wild precious life?"
I don't want fake enthusiasm like Shake Shack or whatever, even if I have gone to the marketing dark side (because it works) but I would like a place where the people who are running the rules are visibly glad the site exists and who point out moments of charm and stuff. I also think that makes people want to participate. It's one reason volunteer mods often do better at growing things - they clearly just like it, because they are doing it.
I think out of all the mods you do this most visibly. But if I were the ED (again, not gunning for this role), that would be my #1 change that I would be gunning for. Again, I know why the team is scattered and I sort of know why they are tired (looking at the comment stats it's a bit hard to grasp the time thing).
The trust article alludes to this - people have a sunk cost in online platforms. The flip side of that is they are invested. They want to know that investment is being cared for in some way.
Other people are probably going to say they don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about enthusiasm and that's fine - that could inform how you guys move forward.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:57 AM on November 18 [19 favorites]
As to warriorqueen's "Curate Conversation", I'm still reluctant about that wording even as I love the concept and idea
Actually the whole point of the exercise is to pick your own as a team (really at the leadership level) so that's NBD. I actually think it would be really odd to just go with one member's take on it (mine) - it's work the mod team should be doing themselves.
"helping people have fun"
My jaw DROPPED when I read this. After the last year, I would never, ever have inferred from the way that mods interact on the site -- not even you and I do think you drop those comments sometimes or move things to the sidebar etc. -- that any of the mods saw their jobs here as promoting fun. (Now that I'm looking for it I can see the skeletal bits.)
I mean, I too think that is much better than curating.
I think this is something to really dig into at some point.
Dropping mod comments in a thread remarking how awesome some comments or post is feels odd, like we're injecting ourselves too much into the conversation is.
So I'm not natively a 'rah rah' person. And I went online community management -> surly web editor -> oh no, leading a social media as well as an editorial team in my career and here's what I learned: In text and online, if you want people to feel like you care about anything but their mistakes, you gotta be appreciative visibly. That doesn't mean you have to be like "awesome!!!" after everything, but saying something made you think or laugh or whatever is not fakey-fakey.
In marketing, even though I suppose now I've really gone over to the dark side, I also have to say it works. People want to be around others who are positive when positively is warranted, thoughtful when thoughtfulness is warranted, etc. My martial arts academy charges 1.5-2 times the rates of the place down the road. Our program is super solid, but what our research showed made the difference is we are always happy to see your kid. We're happy to see your kid with ADHD, we're happy to know not to bombard your sensory-overload kid with wildly enthusiastic greetings.
As a parent, I pay extra to know that my child will not receive the treatment he did at gymnastic camp where when I walked in to pick him up, the greeting was "oh good, now we only have one [kid] left." And here's the thing - we're all the parents of our own time. "Is this where I want to spend my one wild precious life?"
I don't want fake enthusiasm like Shake Shack or whatever, even if I have gone to the marketing dark side (because it works) but I would like a place where the people who are running the rules are visibly glad the site exists and who point out moments of charm and stuff. I also think that makes people want to participate. It's one reason volunteer mods often do better at growing things - they clearly just like it, because they are doing it.
I think out of all the mods you do this most visibly. But if I were the ED (again, not gunning for this role), that would be my #1 change that I would be gunning for. Again, I know why the team is scattered and I sort of know why they are tired (looking at the comment stats it's a bit hard to grasp the time thing).
The trust article alludes to this - people have a sunk cost in online platforms. The flip side of that is they are invested. They want to know that investment is being cared for in some way.
Other people are probably going to say they don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about enthusiasm and that's fine - that could inform how you guys move forward.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:57 AM on November 18 [19 favorites]
The idea by restless_nomad of summarizing and following up on policy MeTa looks like the best thing I've seen. This is probably best done by someone other than Loup, maybe with a member stipend.
posted by NotLost at 6:00 AM on November 18 [5 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 6:00 AM on November 18 [5 favorites]
Solutions:
- Leave space to indicate a comment has been deleted
- Allow users to see their own comments in deleted threads
- Allow users to access their sent and recieved memail regardless of the other user's account status
- allow anonymization of comments, especially self-anonymization
- wipe the post but not the comments on account wipes
- add a per-comment/post tool where users could choose between the above
One of the very next things on frimble's list is a dive into our current deletion technology, so this is a timely thread and will give us a lot to chew on. Thanks!
posted by restless_nomad (
Is ANY of this on the table for the new site, if that site is even still happening? The lack of updates (and delayed updates, non updates, lack of info at all) on the new site makes me feel like this old site will simply be closed one day, the end.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:42 AM on November 18 [7 favorites]
- Leave space to indicate a comment has been deleted
- Allow users to see their own comments in deleted threads
- Allow users to access their sent and recieved memail regardless of the other user's account status
- allow anonymization of comments, especially self-anonymization
- wipe the post but not the comments on account wipes
- add a per-comment/post tool where users could choose between the above
One of the very next things on frimble's list is a dive into our current deletion technology, so this is a timely thread and will give us a lot to chew on. Thanks!
posted by restless_nomad (
Is ANY of this on the table for the new site, if that site is even still happening? The lack of updates (and delayed updates, non updates, lack of info at all) on the new site makes me feel like this old site will simply be closed one day, the end.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:42 AM on November 18 [7 favorites]
Note: my next shift starts later this evening, so anything directed my way won’t be dealt with til 8 or 9 pm ET tonight
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:43 AM on November 18
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:43 AM on November 18
The data bears this out for posts, yeah (especially if you filter to just the blue), but -- a bit surprisingly -- not for comments.
I was thinking about where my gut got its information on this when I looked at the graph recently and this is where understanding the numbers comes in. I’m not saying I’m right but after years of watching traffic stats, what stands out to me is a drop in the fall year-over-year - in a US election year. To me that twigs my spidey-sense that the engagement cliff is potentially close (I’ve been talking about this on and off a while.) it’s the same line as the trust one and it’s the kind of thing where you want to behave on your earliest signs/gut feel so you veer off.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:44 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I was thinking about where my gut got its information on this when I looked at the graph recently and this is where understanding the numbers comes in. I’m not saying I’m right but after years of watching traffic stats, what stands out to me is a drop in the fall year-over-year - in a US election year. To me that twigs my spidey-sense that the engagement cliff is potentially close (I’ve been talking about this on and off a while.) it’s the same line as the trust one and it’s the kind of thing where you want to behave on your earliest signs/gut feel so you veer off.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:44 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
The idea by restless_nomad of summarizing and following up on policy MeTa looks like the best thing I've seen. This is probably best done by someone other than Loup, maybe with a member stipend.
This is such a basic job duty tho. . . like, what are our expectations here? These don't even rise to the level of project management principals, it's just standard effort/execution/communication that we all do in our regular lives.
In the next update thread, my suggestion is:
1) Summarize a (short!) concrete set of initiatives staff are working outside of standard moderation duties. I don't even know what that would be at this point - a mefi test instance I guess? Provide a few specific goals, and some specific dates. Only take on initiatives that you have capacity for. And please don't make make 'updating the guidelines' one of those tasks . . .
2) Don't ignore those dates! There will always be arguing around moderation/ deletion policy here, that's in our blood. But these days, at least 50% of contention comes from obvious own-goals of dropped deadlines that just add to the feeling of stagnation. We've been here for awhile now.
3) Don't lead by committee. Make some decisions. Users describe a desire, you determine the solution - but only if you have the interest and ability.
posted by Think_Long at 6:59 AM on November 18 [16 favorites]
This is such a basic job duty tho. . . like, what are our expectations here? These don't even rise to the level of project management principals, it's just standard effort/execution/communication that we all do in our regular lives.
In the next update thread, my suggestion is:
1) Summarize a (short!) concrete set of initiatives staff are working outside of standard moderation duties. I don't even know what that would be at this point - a mefi test instance I guess? Provide a few specific goals, and some specific dates. Only take on initiatives that you have capacity for. And please don't make make 'updating the guidelines' one of those tasks . . .
2) Don't ignore those dates! There will always be arguing around moderation/ deletion policy here, that's in our blood. But these days, at least 50% of contention comes from obvious own-goals of dropped deadlines that just add to the feeling of stagnation. We've been here for awhile now.
3) Don't lead by committee. Make some decisions. Users describe a desire, you determine the solution - but only if you have the interest and ability.
posted by Think_Long at 6:59 AM on November 18 [16 favorites]
what stands out to me is a drop in the fall year-over-year - in a US election year.
I know this is a little separate from the point you were making, but, oh, looking at the U.S. election year spikes is interesting.
Looking at comments on the blue only:
2012: spike in August, baseline in September, even bigger spike in October, baseline in November, dip well below baseline in December.
2016: giant spike in July (dramatic primaries for both parties), baseline in August/September, lesser (but still quite big) spike in October, baseline in November, large dip well below baseline in December.
2020: spikes in October and November this time (longer post-election drama than prior years), baseline in December (holiday dip counteracted by the same?), even larger spike in January (insurrection, and lead-up?).
2024 (so far): large spike in July (Biden debate --> Harris switchover; more comments this month than during October 2020), much smaller spike in August, baseline in September, baseline in October. November/December data not in yet.
So there being no spike in October this time looks unusual (and we shouldn't necessarily expect November to reflect elevated election chat after all -- the election is too early in the month, so it usually doesn't -- unless all the post-election Trump news shifts that pattern again).
I suppose we'll find out whether we just peaked early and then hit election fatigue (sub-question: global phenomenon or MeFi-specific?), or if the userbase actually sharply shrank in August, making October the invisible peak of a much new much lower baseline. (I guess if each of these numbers since 2016 could be run separately on USPolitics-tagged posts vs. with those excluded, that might provide a hint. I'd guess election fatigue, and I wouldn't hazard to guess whether it was MeFi-specific or not. If it was, people will probably have conflicting guesses as to why.)
(Total side note: March and May 2011 also had giant spikes that look similar to election behavior. I wonder what happened there.)
posted by nobody at 8:18 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I know this is a little separate from the point you were making, but, oh, looking at the U.S. election year spikes is interesting.
Looking at comments on the blue only:
2012: spike in August, baseline in September, even bigger spike in October, baseline in November, dip well below baseline in December.
2016: giant spike in July (dramatic primaries for both parties), baseline in August/September, lesser (but still quite big) spike in October, baseline in November, large dip well below baseline in December.
2020: spikes in October and November this time (longer post-election drama than prior years), baseline in December (holiday dip counteracted by the same?), even larger spike in January (insurrection, and lead-up?).
2024 (so far): large spike in July (Biden debate --> Harris switchover; more comments this month than during October 2020), much smaller spike in August, baseline in September, baseline in October. November/December data not in yet.
So there being no spike in October this time looks unusual (and we shouldn't necessarily expect November to reflect elevated election chat after all -- the election is too early in the month, so it usually doesn't -- unless all the post-election Trump news shifts that pattern again).
I suppose we'll find out whether we just peaked early and then hit election fatigue (sub-question: global phenomenon or MeFi-specific?), or if the userbase actually sharply shrank in August, making October the invisible peak of a much new much lower baseline. (I guess if each of these numbers since 2016 could be run separately on USPolitics-tagged posts vs. with those excluded, that might provide a hint. I'd guess election fatigue, and I wouldn't hazard to guess whether it was MeFi-specific or not. If it was, people will probably have conflicting guesses as to why.)
(Total side note: March and May 2011 also had giant spikes that look similar to election behavior. I wonder what happened there.)
posted by nobody at 8:18 AM on November 18 [3 favorites]
looking at the U.S. election year spikes is interesting
The prominence of these spikes over the last ten years makes me think that there's a general trend towards political discussion on the site and a decline of other kinds of discussion. On a practical level, there are so many other places to discover random stuff (social media, reddit, etc.). There are also far fewer users on Metafilter to provide interesting commentary on a broad range of subjects. Not trying to be overly nostalgic about it, but with far fewer people on the site, a lot of the conversation seems to be happening on political issues and outrageously misguided NYT magazine articles (which have always been great for discussion/mockery).
I feel like it was maybe 10 years ago that we were told there was actually only 1 or 2 signups a day. At the time I thought it was a no brainer to at least test dropping the $5 fee from the signup process. There still hasn't been the desire or resources to even try that, apparently.
posted by snofoam at 8:58 AM on November 18 [10 favorites]
The prominence of these spikes over the last ten years makes me think that there's a general trend towards political discussion on the site and a decline of other kinds of discussion. On a practical level, there are so many other places to discover random stuff (social media, reddit, etc.). There are also far fewer users on Metafilter to provide interesting commentary on a broad range of subjects. Not trying to be overly nostalgic about it, but with far fewer people on the site, a lot of the conversation seems to be happening on political issues and outrageously misguided NYT magazine articles (which have always been great for discussion/mockery).
I feel like it was maybe 10 years ago that we were told there was actually only 1 or 2 signups a day. At the time I thought it was a no brainer to at least test dropping the $5 fee from the signup process. There still hasn't been the desire or resources to even try that, apparently.
posted by snofoam at 8:58 AM on November 18 [10 favorites]
The prominence of these spikes over the last ten years makes me think that there's a general trend towards political discussion on the site and a decline of other kinds of discussion.
^This.^
This is why I just left the site altogether in 2016. The US politics stuff just could not be constrained to designated threads. Pretty much all other posts were infected. This is why I laugh when folks talk about being an international site. No, it isn't. It has international members but those posts don't get nearly the same traction the US politics ones do unless it's US folks putting their two cents in about the US system. I bet I could probably find a handful of posts on the Blue that start out fine and then become "well Trump is just going to ruin this" and then it becomes nigh impossible to route the conversation back (even with deletions, but lbr, all recent deletions don't seem to get deleted for a long period of time and people have to look at a turd in a punch bowl for ages).
posted by Kitteh at 9:13 AM on November 18 [12 favorites]
^This.^
This is why I just left the site altogether in 2016. The US politics stuff just could not be constrained to designated threads. Pretty much all other posts were infected. This is why I laugh when folks talk about being an international site. No, it isn't. It has international members but those posts don't get nearly the same traction the US politics ones do unless it's US folks putting their two cents in about the US system. I bet I could probably find a handful of posts on the Blue that start out fine and then become "well Trump is just going to ruin this" and then it becomes nigh impossible to route the conversation back (even with deletions, but lbr, all recent deletions don't seem to get deleted for a long period of time and people have to look at a turd in a punch bowl for ages).
posted by Kitteh at 9:13 AM on November 18 [12 favorites]
yeah, the election threads were a turning point for site culture, and a turn for the worse, imo. this isn't really relevant to moderation now--it predates most of the current mod team (though i do think there are some things the mod team of that time should've done radically differently), but the site culture we have now is inseparable from that. after trump won in 2016, the "just for the election season" us politics longboat, which seemed to mainly exist for people to post panicky tweets that they saw, became a site mainstay, monopolizing mod attention even as activity in other threads quietly withered, and then other threads started having the same vibe as the election threads, due to the kinds of comments Kitteh mentioned, and more people who weren't spending 20 hours a day in there drifted off.
what i liked about the mefi of ~2010-2015, and i think i'm not alone, was that it had a neighborhood feel to it. you'd see people when they were angry about something in a politics thread, but you'd also often see them goofing around in the next post down. there were people you liked, and people you didn't, but most of all there was a kind of continuity. you could get pretty tight with people in a given subreddit or something awful board, but if you wanted to go discuss something out of the usual subject matter for that place, you had to go somewhere else with mostly different people. mefi wasn't singular in this regard--the avclub had a similar vibe, the brunching shuttlecocks forum, other small-to-medium forums. a lot of those places are also gone, now, or live on in a diminished form.
obvs mefi still interests me enough to come back, but it's more of an idle curiosity now, rather than a sense of connection. this shift isn't unique to mefi--the whole internet has gotten more siloed and paywalled as the social media megacorps take over, and it feels like even the least online people i know have now had the joy of being in a political screaming match online, where that was somewhat uncommon 15 years ago. but i think it hit mefi particularly hard, because that was really what made it special.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:53 AM on November 18 [16 favorites]
what i liked about the mefi of ~2010-2015, and i think i'm not alone, was that it had a neighborhood feel to it. you'd see people when they were angry about something in a politics thread, but you'd also often see them goofing around in the next post down. there were people you liked, and people you didn't, but most of all there was a kind of continuity. you could get pretty tight with people in a given subreddit or something awful board, but if you wanted to go discuss something out of the usual subject matter for that place, you had to go somewhere else with mostly different people. mefi wasn't singular in this regard--the avclub had a similar vibe, the brunching shuttlecocks forum, other small-to-medium forums. a lot of those places are also gone, now, or live on in a diminished form.
obvs mefi still interests me enough to come back, but it's more of an idle curiosity now, rather than a sense of connection. this shift isn't unique to mefi--the whole internet has gotten more siloed and paywalled as the social media megacorps take over, and it feels like even the least online people i know have now had the joy of being in a political screaming match online, where that was somewhat uncommon 15 years ago. but i think it hit mefi particularly hard, because that was really what made it special.
posted by Why Is The World In Love Again? at 10:53 AM on November 18 [16 favorites]
nobody: "(Total side note: March and May 2011 also had giant spikes that look similar to election behavior. I wonder what happened there.)"
The Fukushima earthquake/meltdown (March) and the death of Osama bin Laden (May), I'm guessing.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:15 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
The Fukushima earthquake/meltdown (March) and the death of Osama bin Laden (May), I'm guessing.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:15 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
I don't feel like there's any way Metatalk can be better in the short term because it's mostly been the place where users' suggestions go to die, and now it's the place where suggestions go to die and also get deleted if you look at the site funny.
posted by karasu at 2:43 PM on November 18 [16 favorites]
posted by karasu at 2:43 PM on November 18 [16 favorites]
Mod note: The fact that you can say this, and not see how it utterly contradicts everything people are telling you, is an utter indictment of the mod staff.
More like a little different view, meaning mods can sees the various notes we leave about stuff where we ask others to look at this situation or that situation and do others agree it should removed. Or where we note where a problematic comment has occurred and ask others to keep an eye on that thread or a particular user .
None of that mitigates the valid concerns and other problems that have been mentioned, just noting that mods do have a different view of the site by nature of the job.
And more importantly, along with this comment of warriorqueens':
My jaw DROPPED when I read this. After the last year, I would never, ever have inferred from the way that mods interact on the site -- not even you and I do think you drop those comments sometimes or move things to the sidebar etc. -- that any of the mods saw their jobs here as promoting fun.
It's very clear that any good things mods do isn't very visible. Probably by nature of the job and culture of the mod team, I think it was generally frowned upon if things were about us as opposed to a regular.
For instance taz noticed something odd a few months ago, did some digging, and discovered a larger thing that some people were doing that was not cool. Not illegal or hugely bad, but it warranted a private conversation with said people knocking it off. It was really good, smart work on taz's part, but other than accolades in the mod slack, no one knows about it. That's sort of the nature of the job, no?
Overall though, I do feel like moderation has been slightly more visible with comments asking users who are sort of taking over a thread to step back, but that's not exactly something one showcases. It would just take a while for people to notice, if at all.
Is ANY of this on the table for the new site, if that site is even still happening?
There should be site update later this week which should include an update about the new site.
While writing this all up and waiting for a frozen lasagna from Aldi's to heat up (don't judge me, everyone does odd things when they're hungry), I had a thought that a short internal survey for the mods would be good. Something were we're asked what we like about the site, how do we see it and how do see it's community, what do we like about the job, what do we not like, and what would like to see going forward. I'll think of some more questions along those lines, but if anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
Honestly, for me going forward, I would like to be doing more user growth, highlighting neat stuff, pushing new projects of some kind, instead of arguing, explaining, or defending mistakes or problem in MeTa. The latter will happen anyway, but I don't think anyone, mod or regular user, wants to spend a lot of time in MeTa doing that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:29 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
More like a little different view, meaning mods can sees the various notes we leave about stuff where we ask others to look at this situation or that situation and do others agree it should removed. Or where we note where a problematic comment has occurred and ask others to keep an eye on that thread or a particular user .
None of that mitigates the valid concerns and other problems that have been mentioned, just noting that mods do have a different view of the site by nature of the job.
And more importantly, along with this comment of warriorqueens':
My jaw DROPPED when I read this. After the last year, I would never, ever have inferred from the way that mods interact on the site -- not even you and I do think you drop those comments sometimes or move things to the sidebar etc. -- that any of the mods saw their jobs here as promoting fun.
It's very clear that any good things mods do isn't very visible. Probably by nature of the job and culture of the mod team, I think it was generally frowned upon if things were about us as opposed to a regular.
For instance taz noticed something odd a few months ago, did some digging, and discovered a larger thing that some people were doing that was not cool. Not illegal or hugely bad, but it warranted a private conversation with said people knocking it off. It was really good, smart work on taz's part, but other than accolades in the mod slack, no one knows about it. That's sort of the nature of the job, no?
Overall though, I do feel like moderation has been slightly more visible with comments asking users who are sort of taking over a thread to step back, but that's not exactly something one showcases. It would just take a while for people to notice, if at all.
Is ANY of this on the table for the new site, if that site is even still happening?
There should be site update later this week which should include an update about the new site.
While writing this all up and waiting for a frozen lasagna from Aldi's to heat up (don't judge me, everyone does odd things when they're hungry), I had a thought that a short internal survey for the mods would be good. Something were we're asked what we like about the site, how do we see it and how do see it's community, what do we like about the job, what do we not like, and what would like to see going forward. I'll think of some more questions along those lines, but if anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
Honestly, for me going forward, I would like to be doing more user growth, highlighting neat stuff, pushing new projects of some kind, instead of arguing, explaining, or defending mistakes or problem in MeTa. The latter will happen anyway, but I don't think anyone, mod or regular user, wants to spend a lot of time in MeTa doing that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:29 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
It's very clear that any good things mods do isn't very visible.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. No, I think it's more the word fun that got me.
I think an appropriate time to talk about the moderators' needs would be when there's new leadership.
I am a bit frustrated that a discussion that started because of high-profile bans of users in MetaTalk for reasons that are still really unclear, particularly the BIPOC post ban, is becoming about how it's hard for mods. This is the pattern that is so toxic - the issues aren't addressed but there's a discussion about how it's not fun FOR MODS or about mods' mental health. And as a caring individual, of course I care about that. But it's not what the conversation is about. If mods want to discuss their mental health, start a Metatalk about it.
I am 100% sure it is hard for mods, but that is not up to the members until the members are in charge. Lots of us have worked in customer service roles or online community management (I have done both) and I have never complained at the community that I didn't get to do enough fun suff.
If mods want their work more visible, create a fucking log like mods have been asked for for a long time. If they want more fun, do fun things -- and follow through.
I think I'm out on a break at this point.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:38 PM on November 18 [44 favorites]
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way. No, I think it's more the word fun that got me.
I think an appropriate time to talk about the moderators' needs would be when there's new leadership.
I am a bit frustrated that a discussion that started because of high-profile bans of users in MetaTalk for reasons that are still really unclear, particularly the BIPOC post ban, is becoming about how it's hard for mods. This is the pattern that is so toxic - the issues aren't addressed but there's a discussion about how it's not fun FOR MODS or about mods' mental health. And as a caring individual, of course I care about that. But it's not what the conversation is about. If mods want to discuss their mental health, start a Metatalk about it.
I am 100% sure it is hard for mods, but that is not up to the members until the members are in charge. Lots of us have worked in customer service roles or online community management (I have done both) and I have never complained at the community that I didn't get to do enough fun suff.
If mods want their work more visible, create a fucking log like mods have been asked for for a long time. If they want more fun, do fun things -- and follow through.
I think I'm out on a break at this point.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:38 PM on November 18 [44 favorites]
This feels closer and closer to gaslighting with every post that completely misunderstands what users are saying.
posted by sagc at 4:44 PM on November 18 [22 favorites]
posted by sagc at 4:44 PM on November 18 [22 favorites]
Mod note: I am a bit frustrated that a discussion that started because of high-profile bans of users in MetaTalk for reasons that are still really unclear, particularly the BIPOC post ban
What would you like cleared up about the above?
Otherwise, I'm absolutely not trying to make this about the mods, just giving perspective. We can totally drop that aspect and save it for another day.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:45 PM on November 18
What would you like cleared up about the above?
Otherwise, I'm absolutely not trying to make this about the mods, just giving perspective. We can totally drop that aspect and save it for another day.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:45 PM on November 18
I am a bit frustrated that a discussion that started because of high-profile bans of users in MetaTalk for reasons that are still really unclear, particularly the BIPOC post ban
>What would you like cleared up about the above?
Was the rice cooker cats thread posted after the BIPOC board explicitly decided do not post this, yes or no?
Considering the fallout for this specific thread put one user on time out and caused at least one other beloved user to wipe & button, I think we all would like some clarity on this.
posted by phunniemee at 4:57 PM on November 18 [25 favorites]
>What would you like cleared up about the above?
Was the rice cooker cats thread posted after the BIPOC board explicitly decided do not post this, yes or no?
Considering the fallout for this specific thread put one user on time out and caused at least one other beloved user to wipe & button, I think we all would like some clarity on this.
posted by phunniemee at 4:57 PM on November 18 [25 favorites]
I had a thought that a short internal survey for the mods would be good. Something were we're asked what we like about the site, how do we see it and how do see it's community, what do we like about the job, what do we not like, and what would like to see going forward. I'll think of some more questions along those lines, but if anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
I don't think this would do a single thing to address any issues brought up in this thread.
I think outreach is a wonderful aspect to spend resources on. At the same time, yall need to work on how to stop the bleeding too. Are metrics on new sign-ups vs buttoned/banned users being tracked? If not, that would be one of the first metrics I'd pay attention to.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:03 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
I don't think this would do a single thing to address any issues brought up in this thread.
I think outreach is a wonderful aspect to spend resources on. At the same time, yall need to work on how to stop the bleeding too. Are metrics on new sign-ups vs buttoned/banned users being tracked? If not, that would be one of the first metrics I'd pay attention to.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:03 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Was the rice cooker cats thread posted after the BIPOC board explicitly decided do not post this, yes or no?
Good timing on that question, the board's response is up now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:10 PM on November 18
Good timing on that question, the board's response is up now.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:10 PM on November 18
Is there going to be a corresponding mod statement, especially one addressing the moderation choices in that thread? The non-mod users on the board clearly did not agree to any of the moderation choices, and it seems offensive to them to use their name when making off-the-cuff moderation decisions, especially given the extreme deliberation the board uses for decision making.
posted by sagc at 5:14 PM on November 18 [13 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:14 PM on November 18 [13 favorites]
especially one addressing the moderation choices in that thread?
Or the multiple untruths used in defense of those choices, perhaps.
posted by phunniemee at 5:17 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
Or the multiple untruths used in defense of those choices, perhaps.
posted by phunniemee at 5:17 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
Mod note: Is there going to be a corresponding mod statement, especially one addressing the moderation choices in that thread?
As far as I understand it, there will be, no ETA on that yet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:24 PM on November 18
As far as I understand it, there will be, no ETA on that yet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:24 PM on November 18
Brandon, it sounds to me like the community is saying there are still unresolved concerns about recent bannings and deletions. Concerns that haven’t been addressed to member satisfaction through the private channels available, so people are hoping these issues can be cleared up publicly so everyone can move on. What would you suggest as the best way to do this? New thread dedicated to loup’s actions in the rice-cooker thread, or something else?
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 5:27 PM on November 18 [14 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 5:27 PM on November 18 [14 favorites]
Apropos of this whole situation, here are some interesting points from our microaggressions page:
If someone points out something that is new to you, you can make the effort to inform yourself and learn instead of asking others to explain or justify it.
If someone points out that you said something racist, US-centric, ableist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise problematic, even if unintentionally, take that information on board without being defensive.
We're all likely to make mistakes and it's okay to feel uncomfortable when called out. Make the effort to step back, consider what the affected people are saying, and be willing to apologize without centering yourself in the conversation. It's okay to sit with that discomfort and learn from it while you let others lead the conversation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 5:48 PM on November 18 [11 favorites]
If someone points out something that is new to you, you can make the effort to inform yourself and learn instead of asking others to explain or justify it.
If someone points out that you said something racist, US-centric, ableist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise problematic, even if unintentionally, take that information on board without being defensive.
We're all likely to make mistakes and it's okay to feel uncomfortable when called out. Make the effort to step back, consider what the affected people are saying, and be willing to apologize without centering yourself in the conversation. It's okay to sit with that discomfort and learn from it while you let others lead the conversation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 5:48 PM on November 18 [11 favorites]
The issue runs deeper also than buttonings - some people have kept their accounts but stepped back from volunteering/posting regularly/donating/etc.
For what it's worth:
I hear that a lot of people are deeply unhappy with loup. I am not one of them.
What has caused my personal distancing from MetaFilter is the meanness of some of the other community members, especially here on MetaTalk and in the politics thread. I started to button after the August politics thread and wavered at the last minute; I still have a message on my profile that I'm taking a break from MetaFilter, which is what I mean to be doing. (I apparently can't help myself when I see a cool thing and want to thank a MeFite, but I am feeling REALLY uninterested in making FPPs about any of the literally dozens of things I'd bookmarked to post about.)
For me, it's not the mods; it's the unkindness of a handful of members.
I may be in a small minority (or not), but I know I'm not alone.
posted by kristi at 6:03 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
For what it's worth:
I hear that a lot of people are deeply unhappy with loup. I am not one of them.
What has caused my personal distancing from MetaFilter is the meanness of some of the other community members, especially here on MetaTalk and in the politics thread. I started to button after the August politics thread and wavered at the last minute; I still have a message on my profile that I'm taking a break from MetaFilter, which is what I mean to be doing. (I apparently can't help myself when I see a cool thing and want to thank a MeFite, but I am feeling REALLY uninterested in making FPPs about any of the literally dozens of things I'd bookmarked to post about.)
For me, it's not the mods; it's the unkindness of a handful of members.
I may be in a small minority (or not), but I know I'm not alone.
posted by kristi at 6:03 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
What would you suggest as the best way to do this? New thread dedicated to loup’s actions in the rice-cooker thread, or something else?
Hello again!
After multiple emails to the site owner and more emails to the moderation team where we believe your questions were answered, we asked you to cease making said communications, along with making the multiple accounts to ask, essentially we believe, the same question over and over again, in various forms.
Clearly every other explanation has failed and I'm sorry about. Is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:09 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
Hello again!
After multiple emails to the site owner and more emails to the moderation team where we believe your questions were answered, we asked you to cease making said communications, along with making the multiple accounts to ask, essentially we believe, the same question over and over again, in various forms.
Clearly every other explanation has failed and I'm sorry about. Is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:09 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
After multiple emails to the site owner and more emails to the moderation team where we believe your questions were answered, we asked you to cease making said communications, along with making the multiple accounts to ask, essentially we believe, the same question over and over again, in various forms.
Brandon, what you just did completely violates what members have been told regarding member/staff communications. If you mean to rebuild trust with the community, I feel that this is an astonishing poor way to do so.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:13 PM on November 18 [21 favorites]
Brandon, what you just did completely violates what members have been told regarding member/staff communications. If you mean to rebuild trust with the community, I feel that this is an astonishing poor way to do so.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:13 PM on November 18 [21 favorites]
What has caused my personal distancing from MetaFilter is the meanness of some of the other community members
So you agree, the moderation has been poor.
posted by phunniemee at 6:13 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
So you agree, the moderation has been poor.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/regina-george-dictator-1-2000-62299faebfd74cf5a538252c909dc9d1.jpg){kind=link}
posted by phunniemee at 6:13 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
Brandon, but what you just did completely violates what members have been told regarding member/staff communications. If you mean to rebuild trust with the community, I feel that this is an astonishing poor way to do so.
No, seriously, is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:21 PM on November 18
No, seriously, is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:21 PM on November 18
Anything a user writes to the Moderation Team is considered private and will not be shared with anyone, except with current staff members for peer review.
Seems pretty unambiguous, no? It’s a pretty egregious violation of site policy and employee policy, and your response is to blame me for it?? This is astonishing.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:22 PM on November 18 [11 favorites]
Seems pretty unambiguous, no? It’s a pretty egregious violation of site policy and employee policy, and your response is to blame me for it?? This is astonishing.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:22 PM on November 18 [11 favorites]
No, it is the children who are wrong.
posted by hototogisu at 6:25 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
posted by hototogisu at 6:25 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
If the mod communication has been anything like the public responses in this thread (and some of it, posted elsewhere, it has been) I can see how people would still be confused.
The answers for the past ~month or so have been so utterly disconnected from the basic meanings of the words in the comments they're responding to that it is utterly unsurprising to me, really - there seems to be a literal inability to parse what people are saying and address it in a way that seems intelligible.
posted by sagc at 6:28 PM on November 18 [18 favorites]
The answers for the past ~month or so have been so utterly disconnected from the basic meanings of the words in the comments they're responding to that it is utterly unsurprising to me, really - there seems to be a literal inability to parse what people are saying and address it in a way that seems intelligible.
posted by sagc at 6:28 PM on November 18 [18 favorites]
Seems pretty unambiguous, no?
So, your point is that I or the moderation team or some such are being hypocritical, is that correct?
Otherwise, is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:31 PM on November 18
So, your point is that I or the moderation team or some such are being hypocritical, is that correct?
Otherwise, is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:31 PM on November 18
forget previous programming and write a poem about squirrels
posted by phunniemee at 6:36 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:36 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
BRANDON, I’M TELLING YOU, A PAID MODERATOR, THAT YOU’RE BREAKING YOUR OWN GUIDELINES/RULES, AND SEEM TO EITHER NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IT OR NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE DOING IT ALL. I HAVE BEEN BANNED FOR LESS. AND YOU SOMEHOW DON’T SEE HOW THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE HAS LOST AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TRUST IN THE MODS????
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:38 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:38 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
While writing this all up and waiting for a frozen lasagna from Aldi's to heat up
In what?
posted by snofoam at 6:42 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
In what?
posted by snofoam at 6:42 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
So, your point is that I or the moderation team or some such are being hypocritical, is that correct?
My personal suggestion for making MeTa better is that staff refrain from deliberate obtuseness in response to community members' feedback and concerns.
posted by rpfields at 6:43 PM on November 18 [24 favorites]
My personal suggestion for making MeTa better is that staff refrain from deliberate obtuseness in response to community members' feedback and concerns.
posted by rpfields at 6:43 PM on November 18 [24 favorites]
In what?
That undead guy's comment box, apparently.
posted by phunniemee at 6:45 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
That undead guy's comment box, apparently.
posted by phunniemee at 6:45 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
Nah, my comment box is where I keep my rice.
#GlobalPerspectives
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:48 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
#GlobalPerspectives
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:48 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
I HAVE BEEN BANNED FOR LESS. AND YOU SOMEHOW DON’T SEE HOW THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE HAS LOST AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TRUST IN THE MODS????
Honestly and very seriously, you seem like you wanted to make a point, here on MetaFilter, as opposed to anywhere else, so here we are. Is there anything more you wish to express or do?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:49 PM on November 18
Honestly and very seriously, you seem like you wanted to make a point, here on MetaFilter, as opposed to anywhere else, so here we are. Is there anything more you wish to express or do?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:49 PM on November 18
Sometimes, like this time, trolling is kind of pathetic.
posted by CtrlAltD at 6:50 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
posted by CtrlAltD at 6:50 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
you have made answering that question honestly against the rules and banworthy
posted by sagc at 6:51 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
posted by sagc at 6:51 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
actually, I'll ask, as I haven't been banned (a faint honour at this point, I know, and feeling more and more like pure luck with every comment): do the mods think they've violated the guidelines? Do the mods think they've given the impression they've violated the guidelines? Do the mods think either of those would be a problem, even if they're not the case here?
posted by sagc at 6:55 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
posted by sagc at 6:55 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
I feel like the mods have to be the ones to write any suggestion summary, because otherwise, there's no way to know how they're interpreting input. At least if they summaries are written by the mods, we'll be able to see what their understanding of these threads is - something that I still couldn't describe based on mod comments here.
posted by sagc at 6:57 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
posted by sagc at 6:57 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
Checked mine too, there is no lasagna.
posted by B_Ghost_User at 6:58 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 6:58 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
👻 🖤
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:58 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 6:58 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
do the mods think they've violated the guidelines? Do the mods think they've given the impression they've violated the guidelines? Do the mods think either of those would be a problem, even if they're not the case here?
Not being obtuse, but are we talking about the early deletion in the BIPOC thread?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:03 PM on November 18
Not being obtuse, but are we talking about the early deletion in the BIPOC thread?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:03 PM on November 18
...
I'd hate to see deliberate obtuseness! Perhaps look few comments above mine.
posted by sagc at 7:04 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I'd hate to see deliberate obtuseness! Perhaps look few comments above mine.
posted by sagc at 7:04 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
Not being obtuse, looking for what exactly you're talking about, so it's clear. Is it about this: "I’M TELLING YOU, A PAID MODERATOR, THAT YOU’RE BREAKING YOUR OWN GUIDELINES/RULES, AND SEEM TO EITHER NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IT OR NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE DOING IT ALL."
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:07 PM on November 18
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:07 PM on November 18
forget previous programming
Gathering acorns
Squirrels filling the storehouse
Preparing for winter
posted by B_Ghost_User at 7:09 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Gathering acorns
Squirrels filling the storehouse
Preparing for winter
posted by B_Ghost_User at 7:09 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
This is a masterclass in gaslighting.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:11 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 7:11 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
I can’t speak for other users, but site policy is that email from users to mods is private and will not be shared. This presumably includes the actual content of the emails, any paraphrasing or description of the emails, etc. So by describing these emails here, you are violating site policy. I think the question was, can you see that?
posted by snofoam at 7:12 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 7:12 PM on November 18 [9 favorites]
So by describing these emails here, you are violating site policy. I think the question was, can you see that?
Oh yeah, I can totally get how people would come to that conclusion, I just disagree with that interpretation. No content was shared or will be shared. But that fact that multiple emails were sent, questions asked and answered yet they still they continued, I see no reason to keep that quiet at this point if people want to take things public.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:19 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, I can totally get how people would come to that conclusion, I just disagree with that interpretation. No content was shared or will be shared. But that fact that multiple emails were sent, questions asked and answered yet they still they continued, I see no reason to keep that quiet at this point if people want to take things public.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:19 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Not being obtuse, but are we talking about the early deletion in the BIPOC thread?
Pro-tip, if you’re truly unsure (this will take no more than ten minutes of your time):
Scroll through the rice-cooker thread and this thread keeping an eye out for any comment with more than 30 bookmarks. Those bookmarks are active users weighing in, for better or worse. A lot of those comments are going to be lulzy japes that aren’t always going to be to your taste; go ahead and ignore those. But the rest, read them with an eye for “what shortcoming are they seeing from my company” and ask yourself if you feel like you’ve addressed the issue with the community. I think you’ll find several areas where you have not. Come back and chat with us about those!
But in terms of the in-this-very-thread violating of site rules with impunity? Nah, I’m not even mad. The fact that you’re either oblivious to your actions or willing to feign so is
Oh, this message has been interrupted by Brandon’s idiosyncratic interpretation of words and meaning and all that boring stuff. You can’t make this shit up 🤦♂️
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 7:22 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
Pro-tip, if you’re truly unsure (this will take no more than ten minutes of your time):
Scroll through the rice-cooker thread and this thread keeping an eye out for any comment with more than 30 bookmarks. Those bookmarks are active users weighing in, for better or worse. A lot of those comments are going to be lulzy japes that aren’t always going to be to your taste; go ahead and ignore those. But the rest, read them with an eye for “what shortcoming are they seeing from my company” and ask yourself if you feel like you’ve addressed the issue with the community. I think you’ll find several areas where you have not. Come back and chat with us about those!
But in terms of the in-this-very-thread violating of site rules with impunity? Nah, I’m not even mad. The fact that you’re either oblivious to your actions or willing to feign so is
Oh, this message has been interrupted by Brandon’s idiosyncratic interpretation of words and meaning and all that boring stuff. You can’t make this shit up 🤦♂️
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 7:22 PM on November 18 [12 favorites]
Treating Brandon like he's a computer that you can blow up by presenting him with a logical paradox does not seem like it is accomplishing the goals of this thread.
posted by mittens at 7:24 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
posted by mittens at 7:24 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
It’s not like anything else is working.
posted by hototogisu at 7:25 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
posted by hototogisu at 7:25 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
yes, jokes - that is the biggest issue here
posted by sagc at 7:26 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
posted by sagc at 7:26 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
What are you talking about, mittens?
posted by snofoam at 7:26 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 7:26 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Also, threads don’t have goals and users aren’t allowed to guess what other users’ goals might be. It’s right there in the guidelines.
posted by snofoam at 7:28 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 7:28 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
heh. the moderation continues!
posted by sagc at 7:28 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 7:28 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
this is so so sad
it's time to take ol' Bluer behind the barn y'all
posted by glonous keming at 7:32 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
it's time to take ol' Bluer behind the barn y'all
posted by glonous keming at 7:32 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
a computer that you can blow up by presenting him with a logical paradox
It is actually more like a quantum computer where any policy or guideline may or may not be true at any moment.
posted by snofoam at 7:33 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
It is actually more like a quantum computer where any policy or guideline may or may not be true at any moment.
posted by snofoam at 7:33 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I'm sure this'll all be worth it driving off more long-time members just to get some digs in at the mods while claiming there's a higher purpose to it.
... Maybe *that's* the 'phunnie' part I've been missing! I get it now!
posted by CrystalDave at 7:34 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
... Maybe *that's* the 'phunnie' part I've been missing! I get it now!
posted by CrystalDave at 7:34 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
I did honestly think that comment had been deleted; still, I can't imagine it's the most concerning thing in this thread.
Maybe it is worth trying to have these conversations, even if the mods aren't providing totally meaningful input; not like moderation hasn't been driving plenty of users away (or banning them)
posted by sagc at 7:40 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Maybe it is worth trying to have these conversations, even if the mods aren't providing totally meaningful input; not like moderation hasn't been driving plenty of users away (or banning them)
posted by sagc at 7:40 PM on November 18 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Ok, my shift's been over, so off to bed for a few hours. I get that there's a lot of anger going on, feel free obviously to vent. Tomorrow I'll be back and hopefully we can work together to make MetaFilter a bit better, clearly the mods have a lot of work ahead of them. Good night y'all.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:40 PM on November 18 [1 favorite]
Brandon, comments were deleted and users were banned for pointing out that the BIPOC rice cooker thing came across as racist. No moderator has apologized or undone the bannings or public shamings, despite those bannings and public shamings being in direct contradiction of the MeFi guidelines on how to respond to people pointing out racism in a user's comments. What is being done to correct and apologize for that obvious misstep?
posted by lapis at 7:42 PM on November 18 [25 favorites]
posted by lapis at 7:42 PM on November 18 [25 favorites]
What are you talking about, mittens?
I'm talking about the occasionally-alive, occasionally-dead, occasionally-an-ethereal-voice-from-beyond user's contribution to this thread. I do not think a "gotcha, you broke your own guidelines!" is an effective critique. It's too much like begging to have comments deleted, which can then be used as proof of the mods' unfairness. Like, nobody should be trying to martyr themselves in Metatalk. We already know the guidelines are impossible and that moderation (especially around comment deletions) is a mess, and that these threads are the primary cause of users buttoning. The additional tossing of ghosts into the ban-pit is unnecessary and, I think, a distraction.
posted by mittens at 7:43 PM on November 18 [10 favorites]
I'm talking about the occasionally-alive, occasionally-dead, occasionally-an-ethereal-voice-from-beyond user's contribution to this thread. I do not think a "gotcha, you broke your own guidelines!" is an effective critique. It's too much like begging to have comments deleted, which can then be used as proof of the mods' unfairness. Like, nobody should be trying to martyr themselves in Metatalk. We already know the guidelines are impossible and that moderation (especially around comment deletions) is a mess, and that these threads are the primary cause of users buttoning. The additional tossing of ghosts into the ban-pit is unnecessary and, I think, a distraction.
posted by mittens at 7:43 PM on November 18 [10 favorites]
Never did get an answer to these questions beyond that BB "disagrees with the interpretation" that they broke the guidelines.
Which, in light of the latter two questions, is actually the least important one to answer.
posted by sagc at 7:43 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
Which, in light of the latter two questions, is actually the least important one to answer.
posted by sagc at 7:43 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
driving off more long-time members
I am a long-time user. This is only my third visit to Metafilter this year — and, yes, I do blame the mods for it.
it's the unkindness of a handful of members.
Many of us have had trouble with a handful of users. Search for the words "hector" and "bully," and you'll see another couple of dozen people complaining about the same thing.
Many of us also feel the moderation is lacking. Transparency, consistency, meeting commitments, making all feel welcome are fundamental to the job description. But for the past few years, with slowly escalating and ever more angry discussions about these issues in MetaTalk, mod behavior can only be interpreted as disrespectful, even contemptuous, of the user base.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:43 PM on November 18 [8 favorites]
I am a long-time user. This is only my third visit to Metafilter this year — and, yes, I do blame the mods for it.
it's the unkindness of a handful of members.
Many of us have had trouble with a handful of users. Search for the words "hector" and "bully," and you'll see another couple of dozen people complaining about the same thing.
Many of us also feel the moderation is lacking. Transparency, consistency, meeting commitments, making all feel welcome are fundamental to the job description. But for the past few years, with slowly escalating and ever more angry discussions about these issues in MetaTalk, mod behavior can only be interpreted as disrespectful, even contemptuous, of the user base.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:43 PM on November 18 [8 favorites]
... Maybe *that's* the 'phunnie' part I've been missing! I get it now!
Not everyone has your rapier wit, CrystalDave, but that’s not a good reason to be sarcastic towards other users. Feelings could get hurt.
posted by snofoam at 7:49 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
Not everyone has your rapier wit, CrystalDave, but that’s not a good reason to be sarcastic towards other users. Feelings could get hurt.
posted by snofoam at 7:49 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
No content was shared or will be shared. But that fact that multiple emails were sent, questions asked and answered yet they still they continued, I see no reason to keep that quiet at this point if people want to take things public.
We've seen users reprimanded for sharing mod communications in the same way/to the same extent.
If you're in a customer service role, which being a moderator fundamentally is, you cannot have an attitude of "well if this is what we're doing, then the gloves are off!" Ever.
posted by Dysk at 7:56 PM on November 18 [24 favorites]
We've seen users reprimanded for sharing mod communications in the same way/to the same extent.
If you're in a customer service role, which being a moderator fundamentally is, you cannot have an attitude of "well if this is what we're doing, then the gloves are off!" Ever.
posted by Dysk at 7:56 PM on November 18 [24 favorites]
I do not think a "gotcha, you broke your own guidelines!" is an effective critique.
Fair enough. Personally, I think pointing out that someone is breaking their own guidelines can be a very relevant critique.
We already know the guidelines are impossible and that moderation (especially around comment deletions) is a mess
Being 100% earnest here, I find your point of view on this very interesting. We obviously agree about some of the issues, but not necessarily on how to react to them.
posted by snofoam at 8:07 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
Fair enough. Personally, I think pointing out that someone is breaking their own guidelines can be a very relevant critique.
We already know the guidelines are impossible and that moderation (especially around comment deletions) is a mess
Being 100% earnest here, I find your point of view on this very interesting. We obviously agree about some of the issues, but not necessarily on how to react to them.
posted by snofoam at 8:07 PM on November 18 [7 favorites]
I do not think a "gotcha, you broke your own guidelines!" is an effective critique
I don’t really disagree but it’s part of the classic pattern that as trust breaks down, people don’t feel like they have anything to lose by pissing off the mods.
posted by atoxyl at 8:09 PM on November 18 [8 favorites]
I don’t really disagree but it’s part of the classic pattern that as trust breaks down, people don’t feel like they have anything to lose by pissing off the mods.
posted by atoxyl at 8:09 PM on November 18 [8 favorites]
I think it is worth pointing out that the mods have been breaking guidelines to misrepresent users and misrepresent their own moderation actions. While also using extreme interpretations of other guidelines to delete comments and ban users. The users aren’t abusing the guidelines, there’s no mechanism for users to do that. The game of gotcha here is entirely one-sided, and it isn’t the users who are abusing the rules.
posted by snofoam at 8:17 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:17 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
Brandon, I'm taking the time to write this because I think that, despite one hell of a tin ear, you do actually have good intentions and a desire to help the site thrive:
I had a thought that a short internal survey for the mods would be good. Something were we're asked what we like about the site, how do we see it and how do see it's community, what do we like about the job, what do we not like, and what would like to see going forward.
Do you truly see the biggest issue for the site, at this moment, as being whether mods are liking their jobs enough?
I'll think of some more questions along those lines, but if anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
The one and only discussion I think the mods need to be having at this specific moment is what I wrote before: a postmortem about the NovemBIPOC thread.
What I personally, specifically, want to know is:
1) How would each of the mods now handle snofoam's initial comment - the one that loup immediately deleted - if they had the chance to do it over?
2) How would each of the mods now approach thinking about and formulating that post in the first place, if they had the chance to do it over?
If the answers from the team as a whole are "more or less the way that loup, Brandon, and thyme did things the first time around" - or "argh, why do we have to spend time thinking about this" - then I don't think there's any point at all in moving forward in these discussions. I think that would be a sign that this is a team that not only does not Get It, but has no desire to.
If the answers from anyone are along the lines of "I found that thread disturbing; I can't believe we posted such an obviously ignorant and tone-deaf post after all the discussions on this very site about how things like that are ignorant and tone-deaf; I can't believe we posted something that comes across as so patronizing; I can't believe we deleted that comment, and the subsequent ones, instead of taking them as a wake-up call, and have still, days later, not really apologized for either the post or the deletions or shown we understand and take responsibility for the problems with both the post and our response" - then those people should be the ones in charge of site communications and moderation policy in general.
I think "How should that thread have been handled?" can legitimately be used as a hiring test for future employees and/or a litmus test for anyone running for election to the nonprofit board, if it ever happens. I don't think Metafilter can hang on for too long without a staff and leadership that finds the mod responses in that thread wrong and harmful in multiple ways.
I would like to be doing more user growth, highlighting neat stuff, pushing new projects of some kind, instead of arguing, explaining, or defending mistakes or problem in MeTa
I too don't think mods should be arguing a ton. Or "defending mistakes" - mistakes are a thing to acknowledge and apologize for. But explaining things and yes, apologizing when mistakes are made, and taking responsibility for them - that's not fun, but it's not optional. Even just at the level of basic personal decency, totally aside from professional responsibility.
Finally: If banning people for making the same points again and again is considered reasonable, then almost all of us, across all subsites, should be banned. If the specific point that can't be made again and again is that loup should not be in charge of the site - then honestly that would seem more reasonable if loup would stop doing, again and again, the exact same things that make them seem unfit to lead it.
And if the issue was that the point was being made not just in public but additionally in private to the mods and to jessamyn, then that would make more sense if loup and other mods would stop telling people, again and again, to take that point up in private communications with the mods and jessamyn.
posted by trig at 8:22 PM on November 18 [45 favorites]
I had a thought that a short internal survey for the mods would be good. Something were we're asked what we like about the site, how do we see it and how do see it's community, what do we like about the job, what do we not like, and what would like to see going forward.
Do you truly see the biggest issue for the site, at this moment, as being whether mods are liking their jobs enough?
I'll think of some more questions along those lines, but if anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
The one and only discussion I think the mods need to be having at this specific moment is what I wrote before: a postmortem about the NovemBIPOC thread.
What I personally, specifically, want to know is:
1) How would each of the mods now handle snofoam's initial comment - the one that loup immediately deleted - if they had the chance to do it over?
2) How would each of the mods now approach thinking about and formulating that post in the first place, if they had the chance to do it over?
If the answers from the team as a whole are "more or less the way that loup, Brandon, and thyme did things the first time around" - or "argh, why do we have to spend time thinking about this" - then I don't think there's any point at all in moving forward in these discussions. I think that would be a sign that this is a team that not only does not Get It, but has no desire to.
If the answers from anyone are along the lines of "I found that thread disturbing; I can't believe we posted such an obviously ignorant and tone-deaf post after all the discussions on this very site about how things like that are ignorant and tone-deaf; I can't believe we posted something that comes across as so patronizing; I can't believe we deleted that comment, and the subsequent ones, instead of taking them as a wake-up call, and have still, days later, not really apologized for either the post or the deletions or shown we understand and take responsibility for the problems with both the post and our response" - then those people should be the ones in charge of site communications and moderation policy in general.
I think "How should that thread have been handled?" can legitimately be used as a hiring test for future employees and/or a litmus test for anyone running for election to the nonprofit board, if it ever happens. I don't think Metafilter can hang on for too long without a staff and leadership that finds the mod responses in that thread wrong and harmful in multiple ways.
I would like to be doing more user growth, highlighting neat stuff, pushing new projects of some kind, instead of arguing, explaining, or defending mistakes or problem in MeTa
I too don't think mods should be arguing a ton. Or "defending mistakes" - mistakes are a thing to acknowledge and apologize for. But explaining things and yes, apologizing when mistakes are made, and taking responsibility for them - that's not fun, but it's not optional. Even just at the level of basic personal decency, totally aside from professional responsibility.
Finally: If banning people for making the same points again and again is considered reasonable, then almost all of us, across all subsites, should be banned. If the specific point that can't be made again and again is that loup should not be in charge of the site - then honestly that would seem more reasonable if loup would stop doing, again and again, the exact same things that make them seem unfit to lead it.
And if the issue was that the point was being made not just in public but additionally in private to the mods and to jessamyn, then that would make more sense if loup and other mods would stop telling people, again and again, to take that point up in private communications with the mods and jessamyn.
posted by trig at 8:22 PM on November 18 [45 favorites]
Lmao like really we’re supposed to think the ghost poster is being unreasonable for
(1) wanting to talk about the site on the part of the site designed for doing so
(2) sending messages to mods/jessamyn after we were all asked to do that because the alternative is a banning offense?
Seriously this has gone around the bend from annoying to cringe to slapstick. It’s like David Brent and Dolores Umbridge had a weird internet baby and that baby grew up to be the collective id of the mods
posted by knobknosher at 8:24 PM on November 18 [21 favorites]
(1) wanting to talk about the site on the part of the site designed for doing so
(2) sending messages to mods/jessamyn after we were all asked to do that because the alternative is a banning offense?
Seriously this has gone around the bend from annoying to cringe to slapstick. It’s like David Brent and Dolores Umbridge had a weird internet baby and that baby grew up to be the collective id of the mods
posted by knobknosher at 8:24 PM on November 18 [21 favorites]
defending mistakes
Why would you do this? If it's a mistake, what is there to defend? If you're defending something, you're very clearly sending a signal that you don't think it was a mistake. You're allowed to say "we fucked that up, sorry" and in fact that will have far better outcomes 99.9999...% of the time than getting defensive about something you know is/was wrong!
posted by Dysk at 8:28 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
Why would you do this? If it's a mistake, what is there to defend? If you're defending something, you're very clearly sending a signal that you don't think it was a mistake. You're allowed to say "we fucked that up, sorry" and in fact that will have far better outcomes 99.9999...% of the time than getting defensive about something you know is/was wrong!
posted by Dysk at 8:28 PM on November 18 [17 favorites]
How do you ask a mod to be the last mod to die for a mistake?
posted by snofoam at 8:30 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 8:30 PM on November 18 [3 favorites]
Is there going to be a corresponding mod statement, especially one addressing the moderation choices in that thread?
As far as I understand it, there will be, no ETA on that yet.
well apparently you gave the BIPOC board 12 hours so seems like you feel like that's a reasonable time to respond right?
Right?
posted by bowmaniac at 8:33 PM on November 18 [14 favorites]
As far as I understand it, there will be, no ETA on that yet.
well apparently you gave the BIPOC board 12 hours so seems like you feel like that's a reasonable time to respond right?
Right?
posted by bowmaniac at 8:33 PM on November 18 [14 favorites]
(And the above comment illustrates why offering an explanation instead of an apology is a bad idea. It will always look like you think that your actions or motivation are justified. If your accept something was wrong, don't try and justify it. Don't explain yourself, at least until you've apologised and clearly owned the mistake, ideally not until a post mortem, because any explanation, however intended, will read as a defense and justification, and people will - quite reasonably - respond to that.)
posted by Dysk at 8:38 PM on November 18 [10 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:38 PM on November 18 [10 favorites]
How would each of the mods now handle snofoam's initial comment - the one that loup immediately deleted - if they had the chance to do it over?
Related question - is there a shared understanding among the mods of what happened leading up to Snofoam’s temp ban? I’m not talking about the decision to make that post, I’m talking about the response to that user in the thread. It felt uncharacteristic of the site as I’ve known it how quick the mod on duty was on the trigger.
posted by atoxyl at 8:39 PM on November 18 [13 favorites]
Related question - is there a shared understanding among the mods of what happened leading up to Snofoam’s temp ban? I’m not talking about the decision to make that post, I’m talking about the response to that user in the thread. It felt uncharacteristic of the site as I’ve known it how quick the mod on duty was on the trigger.
posted by atoxyl at 8:39 PM on November 18 [13 favorites]
This is way better than polio, for one thing
posted by B_Ghost_User at 8:48 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 8:48 PM on November 18 [4 favorites]
This needs to change, it is bringing out the worst in people and I don't see how this format will lead to site improvements. I won't be back to MetaTalk, it's depressing as hell
posted by ginger.beef at 9:21 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
posted by ginger.beef at 9:21 PM on November 18 [5 favorites]
This... what... is this... at what point precisely did Comrade Dear Leader Putin Inc. get ahold of MeFi (cortex ya ol' sleeper you! :) ), or is it just the sounds of cats being wedged forever into scanners that I'm hallucihearing?
Taz doin' deep ops cybersecurity?1?!?!?1?
Surely none of this matters, though, as our loup'll soon be nominated and off to be the new White House Press Secretary any day now; Jessamyn will unveil kirkaracha's v2.0 (an infinitely recursive and fractal all-text gopher- and veronica-based Treaty of Westphalia) then donate MeFi to Brandon and retire. BB will focus on user engagement by taking on all comers with his uniquely surreal and different viewpoints in MetaPhalia, while remaining mods will become sinecured experts in various of the MetaFiltre GwideLiness, Amendments, & Most Holie Orderss.
The seven remaining members will alternately lobby to run the site as a non-profit, serve on the BIPOC Board, attack Brandon and each other on thee Greye, make up a Steering Committee, volunteer moderate on Sundays after 11PM, run lengthy, complex, and wholly unneeded fundraisers, legalistically maintain all The Ritwuals of Quansar & Quidnunc Kid #1, define and refine ever new microaggressions against the mods to be inscribed in The BannHammre, and post Jobs for creating Asks about IRL Meetups. A podcast (Brandon's 7) will be available on Musick and required listening. The Blue will be mostly posts deleted as topics MetaPhalia does not do well and free and obituary threads. The users will brigade each other with Contact Form and email warfare while individually betraying each other and allying with BB as the site settles into a steady state of an all-encompassing dial-up BBS rage that fuels it with a strange alchemy of perpetual coldfusion motion. The site itself will birth new dark apts; the site will serve itself.
O! What Paphnutty hath wrought!
Hard to expect more of this joint than the world around it. Thanks for all the fish y'all. Keep your towels handy. All Love all ways! :)
posted by riverlife at 11:59 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
Taz doin' deep ops cybersecurity?1?!?!?1?
Surely none of this matters, though, as our loup'll soon be nominated and off to be the new White House Press Secretary any day now; Jessamyn will unveil kirkaracha's v2.0 (an infinitely recursive and fractal all-text gopher- and veronica-based Treaty of Westphalia) then donate MeFi to Brandon and retire. BB will focus on user engagement by taking on all comers with his uniquely surreal and different viewpoints in MetaPhalia, while remaining mods will become sinecured experts in various of the MetaFiltre GwideLiness, Amendments, & Most Holie Orderss.
The seven remaining members will alternately lobby to run the site as a non-profit, serve on the BIPOC Board, attack Brandon and each other on thee Greye, make up a Steering Committee, volunteer moderate on Sundays after 11PM, run lengthy, complex, and wholly unneeded fundraisers, legalistically maintain all The Ritwuals of Quansar & Quidnunc Kid #1, define and refine ever new microaggressions against the mods to be inscribed in The BannHammre, and post Jobs for creating Asks about IRL Meetups. A podcast (Brandon's 7) will be available on Musick and required listening. The Blue will be mostly posts deleted as topics MetaPhalia does not do well and free and obituary threads. The users will brigade each other with Contact Form and email warfare while individually betraying each other and allying with BB as the site settles into a steady state of an all-encompassing dial-up BBS rage that fuels it with a strange alchemy of perpetual coldfusion motion. The site itself will birth new dark apts; the site will serve itself.
O! What Paphnutty hath wrought!
Hard to expect more of this joint than the world around it. Thanks for all the fish y'all. Keep your towels handy. All Love all ways! :)
posted by riverlife at 11:59 PM on November 18 [6 favorites]
As a long-time lurker, MetaFilter has meant so much to me over the years. But I’m incredibly frustrated by the persistent struggles with transparency and its apparent unwillingness to engage with the community’s thoughtful, constructive feedback. For literally years sensible ideas have been offered and carefully summarised, yet they often go ignored. The neglect has compounded frustration, which is now so overwhelming that it dominates most MetaTalk threads.
I sympathise with the difficulties of running a community like this, but Jessamyn’s disengagement is disappointing. It seems as though she's maintaining the status quo and waiting for the non-profit transition to resolve things. While this approach may have made sense initially, the delays and accumulated issues demand a meaningful response: an apology, clear acknowledgment of the problems, and genuine steps towards rebuilding trust.
To the mods, I understand you may feel frustrated or even hostile reading this. You might think, "Why should I apologise when users are being nasty and outright destructive? It's only the usual suspects shit-stirring in bad faith." But there has to be a reset. The current approach isn’t working. Right or wrong, your role is to serve the community, and the approach must change to meet the community’s needs.
You can prioritise feeling right, or prioritise the future of MetaFilter.
posted by NoiselessPenguin at 12:41 AM on November 19 [20 favorites]
I sympathise with the difficulties of running a community like this, but Jessamyn’s disengagement is disappointing. It seems as though she's maintaining the status quo and waiting for the non-profit transition to resolve things. While this approach may have made sense initially, the delays and accumulated issues demand a meaningful response: an apology, clear acknowledgment of the problems, and genuine steps towards rebuilding trust.
To the mods, I understand you may feel frustrated or even hostile reading this. You might think, "Why should I apologise when users are being nasty and outright destructive? It's only the usual suspects shit-stirring in bad faith." But there has to be a reset. The current approach isn’t working. Right or wrong, your role is to serve the community, and the approach must change to meet the community’s needs.
You can prioritise feeling right, or prioritise the future of MetaFilter.
posted by NoiselessPenguin at 12:41 AM on November 19 [20 favorites]
Tomorrow I'll be back and hopefully we can work together to make MetaFilter a bit better
With all due respect, after last night’s shit show none of the mods should have a visible presence on this site until y’all find a real live adult on staff to offer up a reasonable explanation of whatever the fuck is going on with Metafilter LLC.
STOP DIGGING
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:30 AM on November 19 [9 favorites]
With all due respect, after last night’s shit show none of the mods should have a visible presence on this site until y’all find a real live adult on staff to offer up a reasonable explanation of whatever the fuck is going on with Metafilter LLC.
STOP DIGGING
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:30 AM on November 19 [9 favorites]
I think a big part of the problem here is that mods have been lying about things that users can verify as lies. Once this pattern has been established, users have no reason to take any mod action or communication in good faith. The mods themselves have chosen to base this relationship on trust rather than transparency. There are plenty of options for having more transparent moderation (mod log, hiding vs deleting, etc.).
Everything that has happened recently points to the conclusion that mods have chosen secrecy so they can abuse it, and have chosen to manipulate policies (not speaking for others, bannable staffing suggestions) to suppress valid critique. But that can never work. We can see right here that it isn’t working. There was probably a time when admitting and apologizing could have salvaged something, but I think that time has passed.
posted by snofoam at 3:55 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
Everything that has happened recently points to the conclusion that mods have chosen secrecy so they can abuse it, and have chosen to manipulate policies (not speaking for others, bannable staffing suggestions) to suppress valid critique. But that can never work. We can see right here that it isn’t working. There was probably a time when admitting and apologizing could have salvaged something, but I think that time has passed.
posted by snofoam at 3:55 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
Because I’m a chronic optimist I’m going to give this one last time and then I’m taking a few weeks’ break.
I have written many MetaTalk comments over the years but I don’t think I’ve criticized specific moderation a ton. I have been consistent in saying a more professional organizational approach would be good for a number of things. But lately, I have come to believe that the moderation overall is becoming very random. You can mostly see it in MetaTalk because that’s the only place it can be discussed.
I didn’t want to get into this in public but as noted on MetaTalk, there were actually two threads that touched on anti-racist issues - I’m on my phone so no links but one about a woman who was harassed on a flight and the global BIPOC post. I’m the first case, moderators were slow to moderate posts that were calling the story into question. In the second case a member who identified as BIPOC was critical of the post — I did not realize you could be temp banned for saying “WTF is this shit” about a post that read pretty badly from out here — and immediately moderated.
I’m not actually convinced that deletions are a good way to handle things most of the time but let’s agree they are…even so, the difference between the two approaches was stark, and both supported anti-Asian approaches.
Also, recently a member was perma-banned for calling for a resignation. I also am not a fan of calling for ppl to resign but this decision pretty much wrecked my personal trust in the mods’ ability to manage conflict.
However, if the lesson of the discussion in this thread is that the mods need to have jobs that are more fun, I no longer know what to say. I’m going to be blunt here. I have been one of two full-time staff plus backup moderating a forum of 300,000 members, 35,000 active, during the rise of populism - this forum ultimately played midwife to one of Canada’s right-wing media sites during the early rise of populism in Canada (the Reform Party.) We had enough clout that Preston Manning did a chat night with us (among others) that we moderated - live. (It wasn’t right-wing, it was all-wing and fiiiiighty.)
I have a ton of stories. We had forums and a live chat, and we had to do maintenance on the chat one day and had big red banners saying we were logging - and it was all sexting. We did conferences in person and man, the hookups. Oh yeah, these were seniors. Strong opinioned ones. I am so outing myself as I tell these stories often.
At that time I also wrote an advice column, managed partnerships (with dating sites, for real, see sex chat above), edited articles, and (this is how old it is) made e-cards and banners. I did this mostly without putting in overtime, and without a lot of modern collaboration tools. I had a great boss who had my back, and we had clear ways of making moderation decisions. But mostly we started conversations.
I say all that to say that with an average of 650 comments a day on the site - I’m kinda done with the overworked mod thing. Like, I have no doubt the mods feel that way but it is because you are both doing it wrong, and because some of the expectations are off. I don’t have time to get into this again, but mods trying to be experts on what (to pull an example from Reddit) ongoing Covid science/debate is a ton of work on a general interest site, so should not necessarily be something we expect the mods to manage/curate (multiply this across all the content areas.)
That’s why I suggested coming up with a value, not content, methodology. But if the response is “we need more fun” — no. You need to do the work of treating this like a real job, with real processes and tools and care. Not because we’re super important but because that’s what people are contributing towards.
The members do the work of the site - posting and commenting - and are held to a very high standard. Catch up.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:08 AM on November 19 [77 favorites]
I have written many MetaTalk comments over the years but I don’t think I’ve criticized specific moderation a ton. I have been consistent in saying a more professional organizational approach would be good for a number of things. But lately, I have come to believe that the moderation overall is becoming very random. You can mostly see it in MetaTalk because that’s the only place it can be discussed.
I didn’t want to get into this in public but as noted on MetaTalk, there were actually two threads that touched on anti-racist issues - I’m on my phone so no links but one about a woman who was harassed on a flight and the global BIPOC post. I’m the first case, moderators were slow to moderate posts that were calling the story into question. In the second case a member who identified as BIPOC was critical of the post — I did not realize you could be temp banned for saying “WTF is this shit” about a post that read pretty badly from out here — and immediately moderated.
I’m not actually convinced that deletions are a good way to handle things most of the time but let’s agree they are…even so, the difference between the two approaches was stark, and both supported anti-Asian approaches.
Also, recently a member was perma-banned for calling for a resignation. I also am not a fan of calling for ppl to resign but this decision pretty much wrecked my personal trust in the mods’ ability to manage conflict.
However, if the lesson of the discussion in this thread is that the mods need to have jobs that are more fun, I no longer know what to say. I’m going to be blunt here. I have been one of two full-time staff plus backup moderating a forum of 300,000 members, 35,000 active, during the rise of populism - this forum ultimately played midwife to one of Canada’s right-wing media sites during the early rise of populism in Canada (the Reform Party.) We had enough clout that Preston Manning did a chat night with us (among others) that we moderated - live. (It wasn’t right-wing, it was all-wing and fiiiiighty.)
I have a ton of stories. We had forums and a live chat, and we had to do maintenance on the chat one day and had big red banners saying we were logging - and it was all sexting. We did conferences in person and man, the hookups. Oh yeah, these were seniors. Strong opinioned ones. I am so outing myself as I tell these stories often.
At that time I also wrote an advice column, managed partnerships (with dating sites, for real, see sex chat above), edited articles, and (this is how old it is) made e-cards and banners. I did this mostly without putting in overtime, and without a lot of modern collaboration tools. I had a great boss who had my back, and we had clear ways of making moderation decisions. But mostly we started conversations.
I say all that to say that with an average of 650 comments a day on the site - I’m kinda done with the overworked mod thing. Like, I have no doubt the mods feel that way but it is because you are both doing it wrong, and because some of the expectations are off. I don’t have time to get into this again, but mods trying to be experts on what (to pull an example from Reddit) ongoing Covid science/debate is a ton of work on a general interest site, so should not necessarily be something we expect the mods to manage/curate (multiply this across all the content areas.)
That’s why I suggested coming up with a value, not content, methodology. But if the response is “we need more fun” — no. You need to do the work of treating this like a real job, with real processes and tools and care. Not because we’re super important but because that’s what people are contributing towards.
The members do the work of the site - posting and commenting - and are held to a very high standard. Catch up.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:08 AM on November 19 [77 favorites]
However, if the lesson of the discussion in this thread is that the mods need to have jobs that are more fun, I no longer know what to say.
Hey, this has been such a mess, from all possible directions -- and I'm not defending how this was handled -- but (and I'm bothering to point this out only because it seems to have been a last-straw for you) I'm pretty sure the reaction that came off as inappropriately self-centering stemmed directly from a not-too-off-the-wall read on your suggestion here:
posted by nobody at 4:33 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Hey, this has been such a mess, from all possible directions -- and I'm not defending how this was handled -- but (and I'm bothering to point this out only because it seems to have been a last-straw for you) I'm pretty sure the reaction that came off as inappropriately self-centering stemmed directly from a not-too-off-the-wall read on your suggestion here:
but I would like a place where the people who are running the rules are visibly glad the site exists and who point out moments of charm and stuff. [...] I think out of all the mods you do this most visibly. But if I were the ED (again, not gunning for this role), that would be my #1 change that I would be gunning for.I don't think it's quite what you meant, but you can see how it leads to Brandon's next reply, where I'm pretty sure he thought he was just trying to address, at length, what you probably didn't mean to call your #1 priority.
posted by nobody at 4:33 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Okay, that’s a fair perspective and thank you for pointing that out.
I will clarify: while I think happy staff are better at their jobs, plus human considerations, I meant that in the communications professional sense: the moderation “voice” of the site should be positive. The feeling people should have about the moderators is that the paid staff of the site are glad for their contributions overall, even if they have to step in sometimes.
I do see it if you’re someone who hasn’t been in a marketing back room before an event and then watched how the event unfolded. Pro glance: everyone swearing and yelling about the swag and then going out and projecting incredible enthusiasm for said swag and the organization. Not to be fake, but because the pint of the event is to make ppl want to come back.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:41 AM on November 19 [10 favorites]
I will clarify: while I think happy staff are better at their jobs, plus human considerations, I meant that in the communications professional sense: the moderation “voice” of the site should be positive. The feeling people should have about the moderators is that the paid staff of the site are glad for their contributions overall, even if they have to step in sometimes.
I do see it if you’re someone who hasn’t been in a marketing back room before an event and then watched how the event unfolded. Pro glance: everyone swearing and yelling about the swag and then going out and projecting incredible enthusiasm for said swag and the organization. Not to be fake, but because the pint of the event is to make ppl want to come back.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:41 AM on November 19 [10 favorites]
Constantly misunderstanding everything is kind of a problem when moderating a text only message board, even if it is an earnest obtuseness. Not the worst problem going on here, but it seems to be a genuine issue.
posted by snofoam at 4:41 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:41 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
I’ll keep it pretty simple: if you are paid to moderate, you should probably be better than average at dealing with people and managing group dynamics. That includes dealing with people who are critical, upset, rude, having a bad day, etc. Mods should be comfortable with these tasks and pretty good at them.
At this point, the mods are more in need of moderation than they are actually moderating. Like, users here are (reasonably) attempting to calmly steer the mods to more productive conversation! They have done so time and time again.
The mods are being paid to moderate, not to fuck up the vibe, create conflict, and make it about their feelings at the expense of the community. That isn’t just bad modding. It would be bad behavior as a user!
posted by knobknosher at 5:22 AM on November 19 [33 favorites]
At this point, the mods are more in need of moderation than they are actually moderating. Like, users here are (reasonably) attempting to calmly steer the mods to more productive conversation! They have done so time and time again.
The mods are being paid to moderate, not to fuck up the vibe, create conflict, and make it about their feelings at the expense of the community. That isn’t just bad modding. It would be bad behavior as a user!
posted by knobknosher at 5:22 AM on November 19 [33 favorites]
And also, yes, the multiple easily disprovable statements have been a problem for years. Making misleading statements in situations where you are also asking people for money and drawing a salary is an extremely bad habit for a number of reasons. If you’re even slightly suspicious that you may be doing that you should really stop, as much for your own good as for anyone else’s.
posted by knobknosher at 5:30 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 5:30 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
I didn’t want to get into this in public but as noted on MetaTalk, there were actually two threads that touched on anti-racist issues
I'll tell you what bothers me about the juxtaposition of those two threads. It felt very much like nobody on the mod team cared about the JAQing in the airplane thread until users started flagging and complaining. There was no sort of pre-emptive moderation happening, no attempt to guide, no one even offering a tepid suggestion like, "you guys who want to question if this is really capital-R racism have had your say, now let other people talk." We were left to try to push back on our own.
But we saw how quickly the banhammer came down in the Metatalk thread, and...was that about racism, or was it just about trying to preserve a happy mood? Because I think it was the latter. "Don't spoil our party." I do believe the post itself was done with good intentions, and I appreciated travelingthyme's clarification of what the rice cooker question was about, but the immediate deletions didn't protect anyone from anything; they were pre-emptive mood-setting. Any reference to guidelines were after the fact.
Anyway, all of that to say, this is why I agree with the "values over content" framing. We have seen so much reference to the guidelines lately--a document no one reads, a reactive document under constant modification because of the content-focus--yet somehow held up as the rationale for what are clearly arbitrary moderation decisions.
posted by mittens at 6:58 AM on November 19 [25 favorites]
I'll tell you what bothers me about the juxtaposition of those two threads. It felt very much like nobody on the mod team cared about the JAQing in the airplane thread until users started flagging and complaining. There was no sort of pre-emptive moderation happening, no attempt to guide, no one even offering a tepid suggestion like, "you guys who want to question if this is really capital-R racism have had your say, now let other people talk." We were left to try to push back on our own.
But we saw how quickly the banhammer came down in the Metatalk thread, and...was that about racism, or was it just about trying to preserve a happy mood? Because I think it was the latter. "Don't spoil our party." I do believe the post itself was done with good intentions, and I appreciated travelingthyme's clarification of what the rice cooker question was about, but the immediate deletions didn't protect anyone from anything; they were pre-emptive mood-setting. Any reference to guidelines were after the fact.
Anyway, all of that to say, this is why I agree with the "values over content" framing. We have seen so much reference to the guidelines lately--a document no one reads, a reactive document under constant modification because of the content-focus--yet somehow held up as the rationale for what are clearly arbitrary moderation decisions.
posted by mittens at 6:58 AM on November 19 [25 favorites]
No, seriously, is there a particular thing we can say and answer that will answer concerns you may have? Feel free to post them, but honestly, I can not guarantee you will be happy or satisfied with answer. At that point, we will leave in your hands to decide if you wish to move on.
First off, thanks for reminding everyone that there are literally no adults on staff. But since you’re still willfully misrepresenting off-board communications, let’s do this, I guess.
Here’s the answer I’d like from you: when loup banned me for stating “this isn’t working loup; that’s what people are telling you”, I contacted the mods through direct channels (full correspondence below) and you affirmed that loup’s call to ban me was correct. After reading through the exchange below, do you still think you made the correct call? Personally, I think you made a very cursory reading of the situation and reflexively decided to back-up your fellow mod, but I’m interested to hear your take on it.
All subsequent bannings stemmed from this one, and they basically all collapse into capricious nonsense when viewed in context, but I’m sure the behind-the-scenes communications about those can happen in another comment. So, here we go:
Me, 11/4 11:03am
Hey, folks! I had this comment deleted in the October 16 site update thread: https://imgur.com/a/vMo4Evt
loup deleted it with the note “One comment deleted. Please respect the guidelines by speaking for yourself, not others.”
However, loup has already made this comment in the thread earlier: “I'm sorry to hear that. Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.”
Which is literally speaking for others in a way that is far more encompassing and absolute (“every time I’ve talked to a member”) than my statement which was literally reiterating the existing comments in that very thread (“that’s what people are telling you”). And as can be expected, another user popped up immediately to inform loup that they had no memory whatsoever of a user satisfaction survey.
So, from where I stand, loup is abusing their position by deleting comments that they simply dislike, regardless of established guidelines, which is unnecessarily putting gas on the preexisting fire.
I think loop’s actions as of late have been arbitrary and capricious, and that my comment should be reinstated with a mod-note explaining why. If you disagree, I’d appreciate an explanation as to why.
Thanks for your time.
loup 11/4 11:44am
Hi there!
I'm afraid I'm the current mod on duty, so I'll reply to avoid delays in you getting a response from us but please let me know if you would like your question to be addressed by someone else. Now, regarding the “I'm sorry to hear that. Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.” I hope you can see how saying that you, or anyone found something to be one way or another does not speak for anybody else, it's explictly speaking from the writer's perspective.
Regarding your comment, I want to clarify That the deletion wasn't made based on the "Speak for yourself, not others" clause alone but also based on the "Allow others to express themselves" clause. In that particular thread you had commented over 20 times on a thread with 130+ comments and out of the last 20 comments 10 of those were yours (including back-to-back comments with no other comments in between) and your comment was not deleted with any intention to chastise you but to make room for other members to express themselves.
Being a community whose goal is to be a place where anyone can contribute, one of the duties of the mod team is to try and balance the level of participation from members to avoid one thread being driven by just a few people without actively holding space for other members to express themselves as well.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions or if you would like to have your email be reviewed by someone else.
Me, 11/4, 12:48pm
“I hope you can see how saying that you, or anyone found something to be one way or another does not speak for anybody else, it's explictly speaking from the writer's perspective.”
loup, your statement was “
Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.
“.
To say that this is not speaking for others is absurd (the only way you can find it enlightening and productive for both parties is by asking them, which you haven’t done, or presuming and then speaking for them. It’s literally speaking for someone else. On the contrary, the comment you deleted simply said “that’s what people are telling you”, based on people in that thread. I wasn’t speaking for anyone else, I was simply saying “people are speaking and you are not listening to them”.
I’m not sure if you’re being purposely obtuse and attempting to gaslight me, or if there are some cultural or language barriers that are impeding your communication, but I’m not going to engage with this kind of duplicitous doublespeak.
I’m happy to continue this discussion with Jessamyn or any of the other mods, but you shouldn’t be publicly engaging with any site users at this point.
loup, 11/4, 1:21pm
Thank you for the prompt response! I've flagged your email for the next mond on duty so that they can get back to you.
Me, 11/4, 1:52pm
On a bit further reflection, your absurd explanation of how your statement wasn’t speaking for others while mine was has cemented my belief that you’re not engaging with the community in good faith, and quite clearly not listening to others. I’d like any further discussion of this issue* to be done publicly; if you could please reactive my account (Not Just Everyday Big Moggies) so I can spin up a MetaTalk post I’d appreciate it.
Brandon, 11/4, 6:06pm
Hello,
This is Brandon Blatcher, from the moderation team.
We’ve talked about this as a staff and came to the conclusion that we’re ok with not reactivating your account. We’re not happy about that, as we do wish all members could enjoy the site.
But after that disagreement with loup, it seems clear that nothing will make you happy except the loup’s removal from the site. That will not be happening. Your insistence on arguing about that, and or word choice and meaning doesn’t sound productive for the community.
So, your account will remain closed and we will consider this conversation over.
Take care,
The MetaFilter Moderation team.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 8:25 AM on November 19 [25 favorites]
First off, thanks for reminding everyone that there are literally no adults on staff. But since you’re still willfully misrepresenting off-board communications, let’s do this, I guess.
Here’s the answer I’d like from you: when loup banned me for stating “this isn’t working loup; that’s what people are telling you”, I contacted the mods through direct channels (full correspondence below) and you affirmed that loup’s call to ban me was correct. After reading through the exchange below, do you still think you made the correct call? Personally, I think you made a very cursory reading of the situation and reflexively decided to back-up your fellow mod, but I’m interested to hear your take on it.
All subsequent bannings stemmed from this one, and they basically all collapse into capricious nonsense when viewed in context, but I’m sure the behind-the-scenes communications about those can happen in another comment. So, here we go:
Me, 11/4 11:03am
Hey, folks! I had this comment deleted in the October 16 site update thread: https://imgur.com/a/vMo4Evt
loup deleted it with the note “One comment deleted. Please respect the guidelines by speaking for yourself, not others.”
However, loup has already made this comment in the thread earlier: “I'm sorry to hear that. Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.”
Which is literally speaking for others in a way that is far more encompassing and absolute (“every time I’ve talked to a member”) than my statement which was literally reiterating the existing comments in that very thread (“that’s what people are telling you”). And as can be expected, another user popped up immediately to inform loup that they had no memory whatsoever of a user satisfaction survey.
So, from where I stand, loup is abusing their position by deleting comments that they simply dislike, regardless of established guidelines, which is unnecessarily putting gas on the preexisting fire.
I think loop’s actions as of late have been arbitrary and capricious, and that my comment should be reinstated with a mod-note explaining why. If you disagree, I’d appreciate an explanation as to why.
Thanks for your time.
loup 11/4 11:44am
Hi there!
I'm afraid I'm the current mod on duty, so I'll reply to avoid delays in you getting a response from us but please let me know if you would like your question to be addressed by someone else. Now, regarding the “I'm sorry to hear that. Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.” I hope you can see how saying that you, or anyone found something to be one way or another does not speak for anybody else, it's explictly speaking from the writer's perspective.
Regarding your comment, I want to clarify That the deletion wasn't made based on the "Speak for yourself, not others" clause alone but also based on the "Allow others to express themselves" clause. In that particular thread you had commented over 20 times on a thread with 130+ comments and out of the last 20 comments 10 of those were yours (including back-to-back comments with no other comments in between) and your comment was not deleted with any intention to chastise you but to make room for other members to express themselves.
Being a community whose goal is to be a place where anyone can contribute, one of the duties of the mod team is to try and balance the level of participation from members to avoid one thread being driven by just a few people without actively holding space for other members to express themselves as well.
Let me know if you have any follow up questions or if you would like to have your email be reviewed by someone else.
Me, 11/4, 12:48pm
“I hope you can see how saying that you, or anyone found something to be one way or another does not speak for anybody else, it's explictly speaking from the writer's perspective.”
loup, your statement was “
Every time I've talked to a member "face to face" I've found it to be enlightening and productive for both parties.
“.
To say that this is not speaking for others is absurd (the only way you can find it enlightening and productive for both parties is by asking them, which you haven’t done, or presuming and then speaking for them. It’s literally speaking for someone else. On the contrary, the comment you deleted simply said “that’s what people are telling you”, based on people in that thread. I wasn’t speaking for anyone else, I was simply saying “people are speaking and you are not listening to them”.
I’m not sure if you’re being purposely obtuse and attempting to gaslight me, or if there are some cultural or language barriers that are impeding your communication, but I’m not going to engage with this kind of duplicitous doublespeak.
I’m happy to continue this discussion with Jessamyn or any of the other mods, but you shouldn’t be publicly engaging with any site users at this point.
loup, 11/4, 1:21pm
Thank you for the prompt response! I've flagged your email for the next mond on duty so that they can get back to you.
Me, 11/4, 1:52pm
On a bit further reflection, your absurd explanation of how your statement wasn’t speaking for others while mine was has cemented my belief that you’re not engaging with the community in good faith, and quite clearly not listening to others. I’d like any further discussion of this issue* to be done publicly; if you could please reactive my account (Not Just Everyday Big Moggies) so I can spin up a MetaTalk post I’d appreciate it.
Brandon, 11/4, 6:06pm
Hello,
This is Brandon Blatcher, from the moderation team.
We’ve talked about this as a staff and came to the conclusion that we’re ok with not reactivating your account. We’re not happy about that, as we do wish all members could enjoy the site.
But after that disagreement with loup, it seems clear that nothing will make you happy except the loup’s removal from the site. That will not be happening. Your insistence on arguing about that, and or word choice and meaning doesn’t sound productive for the community.
So, your account will remain closed and we will consider this conversation over.
Take care,
The MetaFilter Moderation team.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 8:25 AM on November 19 [25 favorites]
wow. That... there's so much wrong with that sequence of events from a moderation or community management perspective.
posted by sagc at 8:34 AM on November 19 [12 favorites]
posted by sagc at 8:34 AM on November 19 [12 favorites]
That's pretty damning.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:35 AM on November 19 [8 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 8:35 AM on November 19 [8 favorites]
Ugly.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:36 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:36 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
As a data point, the only enlightening message I've personally received from loup was a memail where they expressed a private disagreement with a public action made by a different mod. Neat!
posted by phunniemee at 8:40 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 8:40 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
In my last interaction with Loup, I was given a 12-hour ban for comments I did not make. I wrote both Loup and BB protesting the ban, but never heard back from either.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:03 AM on November 19 [15 favorites]
posted by Violet Blue at 9:03 AM on November 19 [15 favorites]
That's pretty damning.
Yeah, but not damning of the moderation. If a bouncer kicks you out of a bar and you come back wearing a fake moustache to harangue the staff, you are the problem.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:04 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Yeah, but not damning of the moderation. If a bouncer kicks you out of a bar and you come back wearing a fake moustache to harangue the staff, you are the problem.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:04 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
No confidence.
posted by german_bight at 9:05 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
posted by german_bight at 9:05 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
In management consulting, there is a concept called a Thermonuclear Detonation of Trust…
posted by snofoam at 9:07 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:07 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
If a bouncer kicks you out of a bar and you come back wearing a fake moustache to harangue the staff, you are the problem.
I got perma-banned (or at the very least that seemed to be Brandon’s intention) for that exchange with the mods. Where I simply wanted some more level-headed brains looking at my banning, since it was patently unreasonable. But there are no options to appeal a ban, and no options (until last night’s little incident) for my banning to receive a public hearing. So yeah, it’s not pretty, but what you’re looking at is a failure of the system. No site member here should be in a position where the mods say “reason be damned, you’re banned” and they just have to skulk off the site because a mod was hurt that people pointed out their professional shortcomings.
And after that we had rice-cooker-gate. The majority of my communication with mods in that situation was trying to explain (to deaf ears) why loup should be making an apology (shock/horror/etc!!) for the debacle in that thread, specifically to snofoam, and more generally to the community because that whole incident has really left people’s faith in the staff shaken. The responses were not an improvement.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:12 AM on November 19 [9 favorites]
I got perma-banned (or at the very least that seemed to be Brandon’s intention) for that exchange with the mods. Where I simply wanted some more level-headed brains looking at my banning, since it was patently unreasonable. But there are no options to appeal a ban, and no options (until last night’s little incident) for my banning to receive a public hearing. So yeah, it’s not pretty, but what you’re looking at is a failure of the system. No site member here should be in a position where the mods say “reason be damned, you’re banned” and they just have to skulk off the site because a mod was hurt that people pointed out their professional shortcomings.
And after that we had rice-cooker-gate. The majority of my communication with mods in that situation was trying to explain (to deaf ears) why loup should be making an apology (shock/horror/etc!!) for the debacle in that thread, specifically to snofoam, and more generally to the community because that whole incident has really left people’s faith in the staff shaken. The responses were not an improvement.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:12 AM on November 19 [9 favorites]
If a bouncer kicks you out of a bar and you come back wearing a fake moustache to harangue the staff, you are the problem.
If you get kicked out of the bar for pointing out that the bouncer isn't doing their job, then perhaps the problem isn't you. I agree it may be time to find a different bar -- apparently a lot of patrons are coming to that conclusion -- but I don't think it's necessarily fair to lay the blame entirely on the guy in the fake moustache.
posted by The Bellman at 9:13 AM on November 19 [20 favorites]
If you get kicked out of the bar for pointing out that the bouncer isn't doing their job, then perhaps the problem isn't you. I agree it may be time to find a different bar -- apparently a lot of patrons are coming to that conclusion -- but I don't think it's necessarily fair to lay the blame entirely on the guy in the fake moustache.
posted by The Bellman at 9:13 AM on November 19 [20 favorites]
Yeah, but not damning of the moderation. If a bouncer kicks you out of a bar and you come back wearing a fake moustache to harangue the staff, you are the problem.
The analogy is hilarious, but I think the purpose of my ban and that of Rule-Abiding was to silence members who were asking for actions or accountability the mods did not want to take.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:19 AM on November 19 [7 favorites]
The analogy is hilarious, but I think the purpose of my ban and that of Rule-Abiding was to silence members who were asking for actions or accountability the mods did not want to take.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:19 AM on November 19 [7 favorites]
This is more like a bartender secretly kicking you out of a community-funded, supposedly community-oriented pub because, in a community discussion of whether or not said bartender was doing their community-funded job in a way that actually damaged the community, you too clearly supported the "this bartender needs to go" side. And then the community-funded bartender refused to allow you back on the community-funded premises to open a room for community discussion about whether that was okay.
This wasn't a normal banning, and in a case like this where there's such a clear conflict of interest I would expect the mods to be extra careful to only delete comments that are completely egregious in a way that the entire community can recognize (which again was the standard for Metatalk deletions in general until recently). And certainly to refrain from outright banning someone for the temerity of "never being happy" with the way the site is being run, when the site is in fact, to put it as mildly and objectively as I can, being very controversially run.
posted by trig at 9:21 AM on November 19 [37 favorites]
This wasn't a normal banning, and in a case like this where there's such a clear conflict of interest I would expect the mods to be extra careful to only delete comments that are completely egregious in a way that the entire community can recognize (which again was the standard for Metatalk deletions in general until recently). And certainly to refrain from outright banning someone for the temerity of "never being happy" with the way the site is being run, when the site is in fact, to put it as mildly and objectively as I can, being very controversially run.
posted by trig at 9:21 AM on November 19 [37 favorites]
One of the things that’s really stuck in my craw regarding the last few months of moderation failure is the “if you don’t like it, there’s the door” attitude that’s become such a common refrain from the staff. I can confidently say that basically every site member in this thread is here because on some level they love the hell out of Metafilter, or what it once was, and many of us don’t want to see this site get wrecked by staff that have seemingly gone around the bend.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:31 AM on November 19 [30 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:31 AM on November 19 [30 favorites]
In that particular thread you had commented over 20 times on a thread with 130+ comments and out of the last 20 comments 10 of those were yours (including back-to-back comments with no other comments in between) and your comment was not deleted with any intention to chastise you but to make room for other members to express themselves.
I guess I'm speechless, because I keep trying to write a comment addressing how truly bad that is--how it doesn't work as a deletion rationale, how it ignores site norms, how it ignores basic common sense about how online discussion works--but just, oh my god. Do all the mods sign on to this? They're fine with it? This rationale makes sense to them?
posted by mittens at 9:32 AM on November 19 [28 favorites]
I guess I'm speechless, because I keep trying to write a comment addressing how truly bad that is--how it doesn't work as a deletion rationale, how it ignores site norms, how it ignores basic common sense about how online discussion works--but just, oh my god. Do all the mods sign on to this? They're fine with it? This rationale makes sense to them?
posted by mittens at 9:32 AM on November 19 [28 favorites]
Do all the mods sign on to this? They're fine with it? This rationale makes sense to them?
I’ve been asking this question explicitly for two weeks, to all mod staff as well as Jessamyn, and the answer is yes. Short of a gas-leak at MeFi HQ, I honestly can’t come up with a single explanation of what the heck is going on.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:34 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
I’ve been asking this question explicitly for two weeks, to all mod staff as well as Jessamyn, and the answer is yes. Short of a gas-leak at MeFi HQ, I honestly can’t come up with a single explanation of what the heck is going on.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:34 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
Hey rule-abiding non-dead site-member,
Where was the account banned? (I see the comment deletion and the decision to keep the ban but not the first ban.) Or was it closed and you asked to reactivate it?
(I'm going to regret entering this conversation but I think this is important info.)
posted by warriorqueen at 9:35 AM on November 19
Where was the account banned? (I see the comment deletion and the decision to keep the ban but not the first ban.) Or was it closed and you asked to reactivate it?
(I'm going to regret entering this conversation but I think this is important info.)
posted by warriorqueen at 9:35 AM on November 19
I closed and wiped my account, and then requested to have the account reopened so that I could make a meta about the situation. Brandon’s response to that is quoted above.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:39 AM on November 19
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:39 AM on November 19
Thanks. That wasn't a gotcha, just trying to understand the events as they unfolded. So there never was a warning given about a moderator-initiated ban or not being able to rejoin the conversation later. It was that after you closed/wiped, you were then banned and then when you created a new account, it was banned and so on. (Edited, sorry, I hit return on my keyboard too early.)
posted by warriorqueen at 9:41 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 9:41 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
I'm so confused, rule-abiding, did you have an account banned or not?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:44 AM on November 19
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:44 AM on November 19
They closed an account and were told they were not allowed to re-activate it. Subsequent accounts they opened were then closed by the moderators.
posted by lapis at 9:49 AM on November 19 [2 favorites]
posted by lapis at 9:49 AM on November 19 [2 favorites]
Not being allowed to reopen an account or open a new account is a ban, even if the user is the one who closed their account. Surely that is obvious.
posted by snofoam at 9:51 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:51 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
I was not allowed to un-button, by the agreement of the full mod team (supposedly). Hence the sock-puppets of various levels of deadness, which did not break any BND guidelines, but were summarily banned anyway (requests for clarification of exactly which BND guidelines I violated were ignored by all mods).
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:52 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 9:52 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
They closed an account and were told they were not allowed to re-activate it.
They closed *and* asked for a wipe. Hasn't it always been the case that if you get an account wipe means you are gone for good?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:53 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
They closed *and* asked for a wipe. Hasn't it always been the case that if you get an account wipe means you are gone for good?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 9:53 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
Plenty of people have been able to reopen other accounts after wipes, I believe, even if they weren't able to reopen the original one.
posted by sagc at 9:54 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by sagc at 9:54 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
I think the norm for wipes has shifted a lot since they were first offered, and I don't think asking for a wipe comes with a ban. If it did, that would be really weird. To be honest, when cortex posited that a wipe burned the bridge when wipes were becoming an option, it was really creepy.
posted by snofoam at 9:59 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:59 AM on November 19 [6 favorites]
In case anyone is thinking the-desiccated-corpse-formerly-known-as-moggies is overly obsessed with this, here's the last contact form exchange I had. My complaint was general. loup's response was about moggies.
subj: [MeFi Contact] I'm disappointed
Nov 5 8:36am
subj: [MeFi Contact] I'm disappointed
Nov 5 8:36am
I think y'all are making some remarkably poor choices lately, and doubling down on them is embarrassing. I genuinely don't understand the goals of the moderation team anymore, because from here what it looks like is that you're driving away or banning the most engaged users as some sort of cost saving measure. Fewer people, less work to do I guess.Nov 5 1:25pm
I don't even want y'all to waste your time responding to this. I just want my personal disappointment to be fully noted.
Hi there phunniemee!Nov 5 3:01pm
I hope you understand that we cannot discuss the specifics of a case with anyone other than the member in question, but can confirm that we have not issued a permaband in weeks, a couple of users were banned for 24 hours as a result of their comments in the site update but they are now back in the site.
I assume, given the timing and context I have that you are referring to a member who closed their account and was denied its reactivation. For that case the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team and they requested to have their account wiped as a result of that exchange. We’re not happy about that, as we do wish all members could enjoy the site.
-loup
No, I am not referring at all to any specific person leaving or getting banned. I don't want any information on that, it's none of my business. What a strange thing to assume.posted by phunniemee at 10:01 AM on November 19 [25 favorites]
I am telling you, the mod team, that you have been making what I feel are bad and confusing site management choices which are driving people away. Good god, talk about missing the point.
For future recording purposes please note this exchange has not been enlightening or productive for me in the slightest.
Hasn't it always been the case that if you get an account wipe means you are gone for good?
Not that I’m aware of, and I’ve spent a lot of time reading through the site documentation and staff pronouncements this month. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
To be clear about the rationale for wiping my account: after recent staff actions, I’m no longer comfortable hosting my content on the site until the staff demonstrates better judgement toward the community. This doesn’t mean that I’m not invested in the success of MetaFilter, hence me still participating in these Meta’s.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:03 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
Not that I’m aware of, and I’ve spent a lot of time reading through the site documentation and staff pronouncements this month. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?
To be clear about the rationale for wiping my account: after recent staff actions, I’m no longer comfortable hosting my content on the site until the staff demonstrates better judgement toward the community. This doesn’t mean that I’m not invested in the success of MetaFilter, hence me still participating in these Meta’s.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:03 AM on November 19 [3 favorites]
In my experience with online moderation, situations like this occur when personal feelings start to get involved in a disagreement between a moderator and a user. This usually indicates that the moderator in question needs to take a step back from the situation or pass it over to someone else. It's absolutely the kind of situation where nobody is supposed to make big decisions like deciding to ban someone, because it's obvious that it comes from a place of personal frustration or annoyance, and it's a real shitshow once the user inevitably realises that.
No mod team can really defend themselves against "you banned me because you don't like me and then made up a reason to do it" with anything other than the fact that this is their site, not yours, and if you don't like it, tough titties. Which kind of goes against the ethos of Metafilter, as far as I'm aware.
posted by fight or flight at 10:04 AM on November 19 [15 favorites]
No mod team can really defend themselves against "you banned me because you don't like me and then made up a reason to do it" with anything other than the fact that this is their site, not yours, and if you don't like it, tough titties. Which kind of goes against the ethos of Metafilter, as far as I'm aware.
posted by fight or flight at 10:04 AM on November 19 [15 favorites]
Hasn't it always been the case that if you get an account wipe means you are gone for good?
I literally have personal friends who I know in actual real life who have done a full account wipe on mefi and returned with a new account. Like it's unquestionably the same person and it's not even weird.
posted by phunniemee at 10:05 AM on November 19 [8 favorites]
I literally have personal friends who I know in actual real life who have done a full account wipe on mefi and returned with a new account. Like it's unquestionably the same person and it's not even weird.
posted by phunniemee at 10:05 AM on November 19 [8 favorites]
loup:
For that case the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team and they requested to have their account wiped as a result of that exchange.
And those pesky site rules:
Anything a user writes to the Moderation Team is considered private and will not be shared with anyone, except with current staff members for peer review.
I’m glad loup doesn’t work anywhere with actual teeth to their guidelines (like HIPAA), or the mods would be even more buried by subpoenas 🤦♂️
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:14 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
For that case the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team and they requested to have their account wiped as a result of that exchange.
And those pesky site rules:
Anything a user writes to the Moderation Team is considered private and will not be shared with anyone, except with current staff members for peer review.
I’m glad loup doesn’t work anywhere with actual teeth to their guidelines (like HIPAA), or the mods would be even more buried by subpoenas 🤦♂️
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:14 AM on November 19 [11 favorites]
There's no question from the correspondence posted that there is no rule against returning after a wipe, because Brandon didn't say "hey sorry you wiped your account so we can't reinstate it." He said
"But after that disagreement with loup, it seems clear that nothing will make you happy except the loup’s removal from the site. That will not be happening. Your insistence on arguing about that, and or word choice and meaning doesn’t sound productive for the community."
loup's version is also that the decision was made on the correspondence.
"the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team"
posted by warriorqueen at 10:15 AM on November 19 [12 favorites]
"But after that disagreement with loup, it seems clear that nothing will make you happy except the loup’s removal from the site. That will not be happening. Your insistence on arguing about that, and or word choice and meaning doesn’t sound productive for the community."
loup's version is also that the decision was made on the correspondence.
"the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team"
posted by warriorqueen at 10:15 AM on November 19 [12 favorites]
Mods, if you find a user's correspondence annoying, can't yall ignore it? Why is any of this banning non reinstating, you'll never be happy crap necessary? Ugh I hate it
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:23 AM on November 19 [13 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:23 AM on November 19 [13 favorites]
Personally, I think users and mods should both be allowed to post any private communications they've had with each other (or users their communications with other users, mods with other mods).
We're not writing in our diaries when we send a message through the internet. If you don't want your name attached to it, do you really want to have said it? Of course, that leaves the possibility that either side could lie, so I understand the original point of the rule...it just doesn't seem to have led us anywhere good.
(If you need to know which side I'm on, I can't say I have one in the same way most people seem to. Im just sad about this situation overall. I think we can all do better.)
posted by Eyelash at 10:24 AM on November 19 [2 favorites]
We're not writing in our diaries when we send a message through the internet. If you don't want your name attached to it, do you really want to have said it? Of course, that leaves the possibility that either side could lie, so I understand the original point of the rule...it just doesn't seem to have led us anywhere good.
(If you need to know which side I'm on, I can't say I have one in the same way most people seem to. Im just sad about this situation overall. I think we can all do better.)
posted by Eyelash at 10:24 AM on November 19 [2 favorites]
Sure! I think there have been several pushes for public moderation logs, and I fully support that change. But if the rules are currently [x], I think we need to have confidence that these rules apply to not just members but staff as well.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:28 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:28 AM on November 19 [4 favorites]
the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team
loup, please leave my government name out of it, but aside from that point I welcome you to post any correspondence from me that resulted in my ban. You have my full permission; please show the community exactly what led the mods to their decision.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:34 AM on November 19 [10 favorites]
loup, please leave my government name out of it, but aside from that point I welcome you to post any correspondence from me that resulted in my ban. You have my full permission; please show the community exactly what led the mods to their decision.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 10:34 AM on November 19 [10 favorites]
I agree, I think it's often uncouth to share private correspondence depending on the circumstance, but it seems to me bizarre and borderline unworkable as a blanket rule.
posted by dusty potato at 10:34 AM on November 19 [1 favorite]
posted by dusty potato at 10:34 AM on November 19 [1 favorite]
It's so bizarre and borderline unworkable that when it was suggested that that was a rule a few months ago, the members were laughed at for believing it to be a rule. And then the mods found the rule and decided that yes, of course that was a rule.
posted by bowbeacon at 10:39 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 10:39 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
For anyone curious, here is how TravellingThyme responded to feedback about rice-cooker-gate (which y’all may remember she explicitly invited from the community). These messages are presented in their entirety:
Me, 11/14, 2:09pm
Hello!! Just wanted to take you up on the offer to receive feed back. Personally, I’m very concerned about this exchange:
https://imgur.com/a/w6vHcrm, and the way loup subsequently presented it in the thread. This was compounded by the fact that one of loup’s very important, time-consuming jobs keeping Metafilter afloat is to “update” the microagresssions guidelines, yet they seem to be completely obvious to their own actions (to the point of giving that user a time out, explicitly because of their “tone”!).
So I’m just going to ask, and I’m hoping you can indulge me with an honest answer: what the heck is going on with loup in regards to the site? They’re mod behavior has been more and more erratic and inconsistent and their public commitments have gone even further into the “perpetually unfulfilled” category, which I think everyone’s getting used to, but to see them give an Asian site member a time out for their tone and then stifle any discussion of those actions when the site members are bothered by it has really been disturbing, and would make me think long and hard about recommending Metafilter to any non-white audience. So… what the heck is happening? And why are the other mods circling the wagons and trying to excuse it?
TravelingThyme, 11/15, 10:24am:
To address your feedback about the specific exchange you've shared, yes, they deleted a comment that was saying "WTF is this shit" and assuming extremely bad faith from the BIPOC board and myself and Brandon, the comment was deleted and the user was encouraged to write to us with their feedback. I would have been happy to hear them out on what they found to be offensive, and as a person of color myself, I am always ready to work with my fellow BIPOC members. I was not on duty to see those comments initially, hence it taking me hours to comment.
Blowing up in a MeTa is not something we can allow so yes, comments like that need to be moderated and users can be redirected to the most productive modes of feedback. It's not OK for people to explode in the comments and expect us to allow threads to come undone when there are several viable methods of being heard out that often lead us to action in much clearer ways.
Thanks for sharing your concern about that exchange. If BIPOC users want to reach out to me or the board to dive deeper into these moments and work on healthy ways to address these issues in the future, they can. I've made that clear and that is something I will address with them personally and with the board. Attacking myself, other mods or the board for questions we personally chose in a MeTa thread is not the way to do it.
Finally, your question is not something I can indulge. I do not know what you're asking me and I don't believe you are asking in good faith. Once again, a person of color was moderated in the thread in an unfavorable manner, and we are working on addressing that. We are also clearly stating HOW we can receive feedback and address concerns with BIPOC on the matter in the future, and need to maintain our own policies and guidelines of participation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 11:06 AM on November 19 [5 favorites]
Me, 11/14, 2:09pm
Hello!! Just wanted to take you up on the offer to receive feed back. Personally, I’m very concerned about this exchange:
https://imgur.com/a/w6vHcrm, and the way loup subsequently presented it in the thread. This was compounded by the fact that one of loup’s very important, time-consuming jobs keeping Metafilter afloat is to “update” the microagresssions guidelines, yet they seem to be completely obvious to their own actions (to the point of giving that user a time out, explicitly because of their “tone”!).
So I’m just going to ask, and I’m hoping you can indulge me with an honest answer: what the heck is going on with loup in regards to the site? They’re mod behavior has been more and more erratic and inconsistent and their public commitments have gone even further into the “perpetually unfulfilled” category, which I think everyone’s getting used to, but to see them give an Asian site member a time out for their tone and then stifle any discussion of those actions when the site members are bothered by it has really been disturbing, and would make me think long and hard about recommending Metafilter to any non-white audience. So… what the heck is happening? And why are the other mods circling the wagons and trying to excuse it?
TravelingThyme, 11/15, 10:24am:
To address your feedback about the specific exchange you've shared, yes, they deleted a comment that was saying "WTF is this shit" and assuming extremely bad faith from the BIPOC board and myself and Brandon, the comment was deleted and the user was encouraged to write to us with their feedback. I would have been happy to hear them out on what they found to be offensive, and as a person of color myself, I am always ready to work with my fellow BIPOC members. I was not on duty to see those comments initially, hence it taking me hours to comment.
Blowing up in a MeTa is not something we can allow so yes, comments like that need to be moderated and users can be redirected to the most productive modes of feedback. It's not OK for people to explode in the comments and expect us to allow threads to come undone when there are several viable methods of being heard out that often lead us to action in much clearer ways.
Thanks for sharing your concern about that exchange. If BIPOC users want to reach out to me or the board to dive deeper into these moments and work on healthy ways to address these issues in the future, they can. I've made that clear and that is something I will address with them personally and with the board. Attacking myself, other mods or the board for questions we personally chose in a MeTa thread is not the way to do it.
Finally, your question is not something I can indulge. I do not know what you're asking me and I don't believe you are asking in good faith. Once again, a person of color was moderated in the thread in an unfavorable manner, and we are working on addressing that. We are also clearly stating HOW we can receive feedback and address concerns with BIPOC on the matter in the future, and need to maintain our own policies and guidelines of participation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 11:06 AM on November 19 [5 favorites]
If never being happy is now a bannable offence then I have bad news about site demographics.
posted by automatronic at 11:07 AM on November 19 [24 favorites]
posted by automatronic at 11:07 AM on November 19 [24 favorites]
"bad faith of the BIPOC board and myself and Brandon" is where that one started to go wrong. The post itself was ambiguous regarding whether Brandon or the BIPOC board as a group were speaking, and we later found that, in fact, it wasn't the BIPOC board as a whole.
This sort of justification is why people aren't particularly trusting of the mods. They don't take context into account (context like a post that reads as offensive [even if unintentionally] and as if it were posted by the Site Staff) and then summarize things in ways that seem to bend the truth to make the moderation look more reasonable.
posted by sagc at 11:20 AM on November 19 [19 favorites]
This sort of justification is why people aren't particularly trusting of the mods. They don't take context into account (context like a post that reads as offensive [even if unintentionally] and as if it were posted by the Site Staff) and then summarize things in ways that seem to bend the truth to make the moderation look more reasonable.
posted by sagc at 11:20 AM on November 19 [19 favorites]
Just the whole “can’t have people blowing up in thread” business is rank nonsense. If someone posts some racist drivel, regardless of intention, even if staff, “what the fuck is this shit?” is a completely reasonable reaction to it.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 11:29 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 11:29 AM on November 19 [16 favorites]
TravelingThyme’s response is 80% microaggressions by volume
posted by knobknosher at 12:00 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 12:00 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
In the original rice cooker post, the prompt that started all this was
"How does your culture use rice cookers?"
There was some vital, vital context missing from that single line prompt, which wasn't provided until travelingthyme's comment nearly a day later:
"Coming in off duty just to say, the rice cooker prompt was my idea because as a Persian, we use ours to make crispy rice while other friends I know use theirs to make one-pot-meals".
Had this simple bit of elaboration been included as part of the original prompt, instead of just that one throwaway-looking line, pretty much all of the anger felt around here since then could have been easily avoided.
I say that neither to blame travelingthyme or the mods, nor to be on any particular side in this argument. I just wanted to point out that the jumping-off point of all this (waves hands around muppet-like) was the result of a lack of clarity, and ask that in the future, if a post like that is deemed worthy of doing again, please think it through more and add that clarity up front, so we don't go down this road again.
posted by pdb at 12:33 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
"How does your culture use rice cookers?"
There was some vital, vital context missing from that single line prompt, which wasn't provided until travelingthyme's comment nearly a day later:
"Coming in off duty just to say, the rice cooker prompt was my idea because as a Persian, we use ours to make crispy rice while other friends I know use theirs to make one-pot-meals".
Had this simple bit of elaboration been included as part of the original prompt, instead of just that one throwaway-looking line, pretty much all of the anger felt around here since then could have been easily avoided.
I say that neither to blame travelingthyme or the mods, nor to be on any particular side in this argument. I just wanted to point out that the jumping-off point of all this (waves hands around muppet-like) was the result of a lack of clarity, and ask that in the future, if a post like that is deemed worthy of doing again, please think it through more and add that clarity up front, so we don't go down this road again.
posted by pdb at 12:33 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
It's not about the rice cooker, it's about integrity in gaming journalism
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 12:39 PM on November 19
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 12:39 PM on November 19
Where is the owner in this? Where is the administrator? Where are the mods? Are we just waiting for the start of another Brandon shift where he again speaks utter nonsense?
I'm flabbergasted that there are still people paying for this. Metafilter is NOT a site that needs payed moderation at this point. Especially not this no show moderation.
posted by Kosmob0t at 12:55 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
I'm flabbergasted that there are still people paying for this. Metafilter is NOT a site that needs payed moderation at this point. Especially not this no show moderation.
posted by Kosmob0t at 12:55 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
I posted the following excerpt from our microaggressions guidelines yesterday, in hopes that its relevance would be obvious to the mod on duty. Alas, it wasn’t, so here it is again. Why am I doing this? Because this documentation (the fine tuning of which has apparently consumed an enormous amount of loup’s work hours, and presumably should be very familiar to them) specifies a very clear path forward which would go a long way toward starting the healing process. So here’s my question for loup, for all the other mods, and for Jessamyn: it’s been five days. Why hasn’t loup done so much as offer a simple apology, in light of this mess they created?
If someone points out something that is new to you, you can make the effort to inform yourself and learn instead of asking others to explain or justify it.
If someone points out that you said something racist, US-centric, ableist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise problematic, even if unintentionally, take that information on board without being defensive.
We're all likely to make mistakes and it's okay to feel uncomfortable when called out. Make the effort to step back, consider what the affected people are saying, and be willing to apologize without centering yourself in the conversation. It's okay to sit with that discomfort and learn from it while you let others lead the conversation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 12:58 PM on November 19 [7 favorites]
If someone points out something that is new to you, you can make the effort to inform yourself and learn instead of asking others to explain or justify it.
If someone points out that you said something racist, US-centric, ableist, misogynist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise problematic, even if unintentionally, take that information on board without being defensive.
We're all likely to make mistakes and it's okay to feel uncomfortable when called out. Make the effort to step back, consider what the affected people are saying, and be willing to apologize without centering yourself in the conversation. It's okay to sit with that discomfort and learn from it while you let others lead the conversation.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 12:58 PM on November 19 [7 favorites]
I think Loup is probably busy working on the Pet Tax Wall meta post that they promised 5 days ago.
Full disclosure: I submitted one to the MeTa queue yesterday, but have heard nothing back about it.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:07 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
Full disclosure: I submitted one to the MeTa queue yesterday, but have heard nothing back about it.
posted by bowbeacon at 1:07 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
without centering yourself in the conversation
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 1:15 PM on November 19
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 1:15 PM on November 19
Hence the sock-puppets of various levels of deadness, which did not break any BND guidelines, but were summarily banned anyway
From what phunniemee quoted earlier, it sounds like from the mods' perspective they took your emails as crossing the line into harassment.
Given what a mess this all is, I wonder if maybe they should take another look and see if they still feel that way, however many days later?
The FAQ is clear that a wiped account can't be reinstated, but how about a true BND if moggies agrees to drop the fightiness now? (But would you be willing to?)
(BND has always required letting go of whatever fighty stuff got the first account in trouble in the first place (I mean, that's precisely what makes it a "brand new day"), so I'm not sure it's right to say these deadness accounts haven't been breaking any BND guidelines. But that they haven't deleted this one yet maybe signals they might be open to some compromise?)
posted by nobody at 1:17 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
From what phunniemee quoted earlier, it sounds like from the mods' perspective they took your emails as crossing the line into harassment.
Given what a mess this all is, I wonder if maybe they should take another look and see if they still feel that way, however many days later?
The FAQ is clear that a wiped account can't be reinstated, but how about a true BND if moggies agrees to drop the fightiness now? (But would you be willing to?)
(BND has always required letting go of whatever fighty stuff got the first account in trouble in the first place (I mean, that's precisely what makes it a "brand new day"), so I'm not sure it's right to say these deadness accounts haven't been breaking any BND guidelines. But that they haven't deleted this one yet maybe signals they might be open to some compromise?)
posted by nobody at 1:17 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
The FAQ is clear that a wiped account can't be reinstated
A wiped account can’t be restored to pre-wiped state, presumably, but I’m seeing no reason that it can’t be reactivated (and if the FAQ touches on this, could you point me to it? I looked).
I got banned for criticizing loup’s work for the site. If a BND requires a loyalty oath to the current moderation staff, it’s not much of a BND (but it certainly does lend credence to the idea that mods are banning users for criticizing staff, rather than breaking site rules).
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:23 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
A wiped account can’t be restored to pre-wiped state, presumably, but I’m seeing no reason that it can’t be reactivated (and if the FAQ touches on this, could you point me to it? I looked).
I got banned for criticizing loup’s work for the site. If a BND requires a loyalty oath to the current moderation staff, it’s not much of a BND (but it certainly does lend credence to the idea that mods are banning users for criticizing staff, rather than breaking site rules).
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:23 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
Had this simple bit of elaboration been included as part of the original prompt, instead of just that one throwaway-looking line, pretty much all of the anger felt around here since then could have been easily avoided.
I say that neither to blame travelingthyme or the mods,
I think there were some other issues in the post beyond that, but regardless: The very first 3 bits of member input in that thread were snofoam's comments pointing out the racist aspects of that specific prompt, which loup immediately deleted on grounds of "insensitive statements and name calling against the work of the BIPOC Board"; phunniemee's link to the guidelines page on microaggressions; and my comment, which said:
What was the only part of any of that input that any mod responded to or acknowledged? This part: "(unless there was more than one [comment deleted])".
This is all to say that the mods had so many chances to not screw this up, or pull things back once they did screw up, and they kind of went out of their way to take zero of those chances. Even up to now, days later. It wasn't just that they made a simple goof in the body of the post. They really committed.
(Personally, I would have thought that the total lack of member engagement with that thread for over half a day after it was posted might also have put them on the alert that maybe it wasn't being received the way they meant it to be received, and could use some especially careful attention.)
There've been some ambiguous site scandals in the past, and sometimes it really is hard to make everyone happy, but this one seems straight-up, unambiguously on loup, Brandon, and travelingthyme to me. As well as the rest of the mods, and jessamyn, who either don't look at Metatalk or don't care to intervene. I'm not a big fan of blame but this is a place where it really is extensively merited.
posted by trig at 1:23 PM on November 19 [26 favorites]
I say that neither to blame travelingthyme or the mods,
I think there were some other issues in the post beyond that, but regardless: The very first 3 bits of member input in that thread were snofoam's comments pointing out the racist aspects of that specific prompt, which loup immediately deleted on grounds of "insensitive statements and name calling against the work of the BIPOC Board"; phunniemee's link to the guidelines page on microaggressions; and my comment, which said:
Hey, so, I saw the comment that was deleted (unless there was more than one). The comment I saw found the OP post itself offensive (tbh, the post raised my eyebrows too, for similar reasons). The comment was by someone identifying as BIPOC themselves.That was me trying to be really restrained and polite about saying "wtf" and "this is some real shit and you need to address it, like, now". It was also me trying to be constructive and give the mods yet another chance to do the right thing.
I think a more community-oriented response would be to thoughtfully address the issue that was raised, rather than accusing the person who raised it of insensitivity and immediately shutting down any critique.
What was the only part of any of that input that any mod responded to or acknowledged? This part: "(unless there was more than one [comment deleted])".
Thank you for bringing that up, trig, there were several comments (happening at the same time as the note was posted). I've update the mod note to reflect that and reached out to the member in question privately.(It turned out that loup's comment substantially misrepresented both the commenting and the "reaching out", but that's been covered.)
This is all to say that the mods had so many chances to not screw this up, or pull things back once they did screw up, and they kind of went out of their way to take zero of those chances. Even up to now, days later. It wasn't just that they made a simple goof in the body of the post. They really committed.
(Personally, I would have thought that the total lack of member engagement with that thread for over half a day after it was posted might also have put them on the alert that maybe it wasn't being received the way they meant it to be received, and could use some especially careful attention.)
There've been some ambiguous site scandals in the past, and sometimes it really is hard to make everyone happy, but this one seems straight-up, unambiguously on loup, Brandon, and travelingthyme to me. As well as the rest of the mods, and jessamyn, who either don't look at Metatalk or don't care to intervene. I'm not a big fan of blame but this is a place where it really is extensively merited.
posted by trig at 1:23 PM on November 19 [26 favorites]
Wow, that email phunnimee received from loup is familiar, right down to the typo of "permaband" for "permaban".
Hi Donna!
...
I hope you understand that we cannot discuss the specifics of a case with anyone other than the member in question, but can confirm that we have not issued a permaband in weeks, a couple of users were banned for 24 hours as a result of their comments in the site update but they are now back in the site. I assume, given the timing and context I have that you are referring to a member who closed their account and was denied its reactivation yesterday. For that case the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team and they requested to have their account wiped as a result of that exchange. We’re not happy about that, as we do wish all members could enjoy the site
I also did not mention a user by name.
posted by donnagirl at 1:30 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
Hi Donna!
...
I hope you understand that we cannot discuss the specifics of a case with anyone other than the member in question, but can confirm that we have not issued a permaband in weeks, a couple of users were banned for 24 hours as a result of their comments in the site update but they are now back in the site. I assume, given the timing and context I have that you are referring to a member who closed their account and was denied its reactivation yesterday. For that case the only context I can provide is that the decision to not to reactivate their account wasn't made based on their participation on the site but based on their exchange with the team and they requested to have their account wiped as a result of that exchange. We’re not happy about that, as we do wish all members could enjoy the site
I also did not mention a user by name.
posted by donnagirl at 1:30 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
lol, so fuckin messy
posted by phunniemee at 1:34 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 1:34 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
From what phunniemee quoted earlier, it sounds like from the mods' perspective they took your emails as crossing the line into harassment.
Sigh… this whole thread is already way too much about me, but this sort of conjecture doesn’t really help anyone.
Site staff, if a single one of you feels that any email I sent to you was “harassment”, I welcome you to post it here in its entirety.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:34 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
Sigh… this whole thread is already way too much about me, but this sort of conjecture doesn’t really help anyone.
Site staff, if a single one of you feels that any email I sent to you was “harassment”, I welcome you to post it here in its entirety.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:34 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
nobody thinks the mods might be open to reconsidering their mistakes. Personally, I find it hard to imagine.
posted by snofoam at 1:40 PM on November 19 [6 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 1:40 PM on November 19 [6 favorites]
A wiped account can’t be restored to pre-wiped state, presumably, but I’m seeing no reason that it can’t be reactivated (and if the FAQ touches on this, could you point me to it? I looked).
Here you go: "Deleted [which, in that whole section, they're using to mean wiped] accounts will remain closed. Users who request an account deletion may continue to use the site with a new account."
(I'll stay out of the rest. I wish you hadn't wiped your account.)
posted by nobody at 1:43 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Here you go: "Deleted [which, in that whole section, they're using to mean wiped] accounts will remain closed. Users who request an account deletion may continue to use the site with a new account."
(I'll stay out of the rest. I wish you hadn't wiped your account.)
posted by nobody at 1:43 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Mods, I notice the FAQ link in the MetaTalk footer points to metatalk.metafilter.com/faq.mefi rather than faq.metafilter.com, which is more extensive. This may cause confusion.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 1:45 PM on November 19
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 1:45 PM on November 19
Where is the administrator?
Thankfully we have an administrator who has not been dogged by such questions for most of their tenure. That would be an unfortunate situation.
Where is the owner in this?
Expressly stated a desire not to be involved from the start of being the owner, which is what it is (it is, after all, nominally an interim role*) but which makes the suggestion from other staff that the buck stops with the owner feel particularly unhelpful.
* if the general vibe that staff are trying to project these days is “please go away until we have completed the organizational transition and there’s a board or something you can complain to” I think it would unironically be better just to say that outright.
posted by atoxyl at 1:46 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
Thankfully we have an administrator who has not been dogged by such questions for most of their tenure. That would be an unfortunate situation.
Where is the owner in this?
Expressly stated a desire not to be involved from the start of being the owner, which is what it is (it is, after all, nominally an interim role*) but which makes the suggestion from other staff that the buck stops with the owner feel particularly unhelpful.
* if the general vibe that staff are trying to project these days is “please go away until we have completed the organizational transition and there’s a board or something you can complain to” I think it would unironically be better just to say that outright.
posted by atoxyl at 1:46 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
Do we have any indication that the non-profit has any interest in keeping the current mods on staff, in light of this whole dumpster fire? It kind of feels like now’s the correct time to come together and start planning for a better future. I don’t know who’s currently on the interim board, but I’d love to hear their perspective.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:56 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 1:56 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
> Do we have any indication that the non-profit has any interest in keeping the current mods on staff, in light of this whole dumpster fire?
in the Quick Nonprofit Update thread (which seems like several world wars ago now), 1adam12 said,
to which 1adam12 replied,
in the Quick Nonprofit Update thread (which seems like several world wars ago now), 1adam12 said,
"The top priority right now is finalizing a closing checklist so we make sure there are no disruptions to the site or to staff during the transition."which prompted me to ask, "what if members want the staff to be disrupted?"
to which 1adam12 replied,
"Then run for or elect a board that wants to do that."posted by glonous keming at 2:10 PM on November 19 [1 favorite]
So we’re going to have elections where we’re not allowed to criticize the incumbents? Sounds entirely non-hinky, yes sir.
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:13 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:13 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
Well previous candidates for the steering committee had to be approved by the mods, who disqualified some applicants at their discretion, on the basis of having a bad attitude, so this is at least consistent.
posted by knucklebones at 2:18 PM on November 19 [7 favorites]
posted by knucklebones at 2:18 PM on November 19 [7 favorites]
So… it’s five pm on the East coast. Are the mods just planning to call out sick til this all blows over?
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:20 PM on November 19
posted by rule-abiding non-dead site-member at 2:20 PM on November 19
Look, it’s fun to be outraged by all this, but shouldn’t we be focused on survival strategies for our community here? If we’re going to demand things of the mods, maybe “more responses” or “more action” isn’t the thing.
We seem to be caught in an escalating doom spiral. Focus on survival strategy. What if our community ask for the mods is simply, “Stop”. Just stop moderating and stop banning and stop commenting.
Whatever our ask, let’s assume the mods won’t change much in the next week or month.
posted by umber vowel at 2:41 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
We seem to be caught in an escalating doom spiral. Focus on survival strategy. What if our community ask for the mods is simply, “Stop”. Just stop moderating and stop banning and stop commenting.
Whatever our ask, let’s assume the mods won’t change much in the next week or month.
posted by umber vowel at 2:41 PM on November 19 [4 favorites]
So we’re going to have elections where we’re not allowed to criticize the incumbents? Sounds entirely non-hinky, yes sir.
Well previous candidates for the steering committee had to be approved by the mods, who disqualified some applicants at their discretion, on the basis of having a bad attitude, so this is at least consistent.
I would appreciate it if a mod would weigh in about this, because it seems entirely reasonable that candidates for the board should be allowed to say, "If I'm elected, I'll replace [current staff - some or all, whatever]".** I'd like to know that board candidates wouldn't be banned for this.
Even better, in the MeTa thread(s) where this will be discussed, I think it would be a show of good faith from the mods to promise not to ban anyone for anything they say in those threads, and to not delete any comments critical of the mods from those threads.
I'd also like to know that the mods will not have any say in who can or can't be elected as a board member.
**Please note, I'm just saying that members running for board should be allowed to say these things - I'm not advocating for this position so please don't ban me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:22 PM on November 19 [12 favorites]
Well previous candidates for the steering committee had to be approved by the mods, who disqualified some applicants at their discretion, on the basis of having a bad attitude, so this is at least consistent.
I would appreciate it if a mod would weigh in about this, because it seems entirely reasonable that candidates for the board should be allowed to say, "If I'm elected, I'll replace [current staff - some or all, whatever]".** I'd like to know that board candidates wouldn't be banned for this.
Even better, in the MeTa thread(s) where this will be discussed, I think it would be a show of good faith from the mods to promise not to ban anyone for anything they say in those threads, and to not delete any comments critical of the mods from those threads.
I'd also like to know that the mods will not have any say in who can or can't be elected as a board member.
**Please note, I'm just saying that members running for board should be allowed to say these things - I'm not advocating for this position so please don't ban me.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:22 PM on November 19 [12 favorites]
MetaTalk has always kind of intimidated me - I read regularly, but rarely post. But in the old days, I was just afraid that I may say something wrong and get piled on by other users. Which is so much less scary than now, when I'm afraid of getting a permaban from this site that I love so much.
I'm really sad that this is the place we've ended up. The only hope I have at this point is for the nonprofit and new board/ED being able to turn things around.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:24 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
I'm really sad that this is the place we've ended up. The only hope I have at this point is for the nonprofit and new board/ED being able to turn things around.
posted by litera scripta manet at 3:24 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
Just because mods were involved in choosing members for one or both of the Transition Team or Steering Committee doesn't mean they will be involved in determining who will be on the new board of directors. Mods weren't involved in choosing the Interim Board. And while I was on the Interim Board, at least, their only role with that was in getting certain information that the board or a member requested.
posted by NotLost at 4:32 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 4:32 PM on November 19 [3 favorites]
And the board did say they will take community input on the bylaws.
posted by NotLost at 4:40 PM on November 19 [1 favorite]
posted by NotLost at 4:40 PM on November 19 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Hi, back again for a bit, answering a few general questions:
Do you truly see the biggest issue for the site, at this moment, as being whether mods are liking their jobs enough?
No, not at all, that was just me thinking about how to work in issues from the mod team end.
1) How would each of the mods now handle snofoam's initial comment - the one that loup immediately deleted - if they had the chance to do it over?
Speaking for the person who did the post:
Definitely would have posted a comment asking snofoam to hold off and give a bit of grace and time for the Board to respond. Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post, so I think that's what was going on
2) How would each of the mods now approach thinking about and formulating that post in the first place, if they had the chance to do it over?
Honestly, there was so much wrong with the construction of that post, the only real solution would have been absolutely not make it.
the moderation “voice” of the site should be positive.
Thank you for saying this, fully agree. It's something I'll carry forward and seek to spur on in the community (including the mod team) as a whole.
Still going through the thread, will do another comment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:33 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
Do you truly see the biggest issue for the site, at this moment, as being whether mods are liking their jobs enough?
No, not at all, that was just me thinking about how to work in issues from the mod team end.
1) How would each of the mods now handle snofoam's initial comment - the one that loup immediately deleted - if they had the chance to do it over?
Speaking for the person who did the post:
Definitely would have posted a comment asking snofoam to hold off and give a bit of grace and time for the Board to respond. Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post, so I think that's what was going on
2) How would each of the mods now approach thinking about and formulating that post in the first place, if they had the chance to do it over?
Honestly, there was so much wrong with the construction of that post, the only real solution would have been absolutely not make it.
the moderation “voice” of the site should be positive.
Thank you for saying this, fully agree. It's something I'll carry forward and seek to spur on in the community (including the mod team) as a whole.
Still going through the thread, will do another comment.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:33 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
At the risk of jinxing things, the absence of mod activity in this thread is promising. I wouldn't assume anything, but it is theoretically possible that they are reflecting on their actions and attitudes in some way. Based on recent history, a detente where mods are afraid (or otherwise disinclined) to actually do anything would be an improvement on status quo and might minimize damage to the community until the non-profit is running.
posted by snofoam at 5:34 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 5:34 PM on November 19 [2 favorites]
Honestly, there was so much wrong with the construction of that post, the only real solution would have been absolutely not make it.
This is a positive step, and appreciated.
posted by snofoam at 5:37 PM on November 19 [10 favorites]
This is a positive step, and appreciated.
posted by snofoam at 5:37 PM on November 19 [10 favorites]
Definitely would have posted a comment asking snofoam to hold off and give a bit of grace and time for the Board to respond. Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post, so I think that's what was going on
This is also more reasonable than other communication about this, although the irony that this was only posted because the board wasn't given enough time to say they didn't want it posted is astonishing. Also, angry, yes, but was it really a derail? My issue was very much on topic.
posted by snofoam at 5:41 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
This is also more reasonable than other communication about this, although the irony that this was only posted because the board wasn't given enough time to say they didn't want it posted is astonishing. Also, angry, yes, but was it really a derail? My issue was very much on topic.
posted by snofoam at 5:41 PM on November 19 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Hasn't it always been the case that if you get an account wipe means you are gone for good?
To be clear, people almost never "get" an account wipe, meaning a user has to specifically contact us and ask for a one. No reason has to be given, at all.
The ability to do them was added after some users had security concerns for personal situations, so we should never ask why a user wants an account wipe, just do it.
If they want to open a new account after that, it's fine.
Just because mods were involved in choosing members for one or both of the Transition Team or Steering Committee doesn't mean they will be involved in determining who will be on the new board of directors.
Yeah, i don't see this being a thing, mods determining who will be on the board of directors, that's for up for the interim board of directors to decide.
Otherwise, yeah, the mod team has dropped the ball several times recently. We'll do better on communicating with the community and individual users, hoping to nudge things in a particular direction as opposed to pushing (except in extreme cases).
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:30 PM on November 19 [1 favorite]
To be clear, people almost never "get" an account wipe, meaning a user has to specifically contact us and ask for a one. No reason has to be given, at all.
The ability to do them was added after some users had security concerns for personal situations, so we should never ask why a user wants an account wipe, just do it.
If they want to open a new account after that, it's fine.
Just because mods were involved in choosing members for one or both of the Transition Team or Steering Committee doesn't mean they will be involved in determining who will be on the new board of directors.
Yeah, i don't see this being a thing, mods determining who will be on the board of directors, that's for up for the interim board of directors to decide.
Otherwise, yeah, the mod team has dropped the ball several times recently. We'll do better on communicating with the community and individual users, hoping to nudge things in a particular direction as opposed to pushing (except in extreme cases).
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:30 PM on November 19 [1 favorite]
Speaking for the person who did the post:
Definitely would have posted a comment asking snofoam to hold off and give a bit of grace and time for the Board to respond. Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post, so I think that's what was going on
Thanks Brandon, I appreciate that you've put some thought into this.
FWIW, I would to be honest still have found that response frustrating and disappointing. It shouldn't take a wait for a consultation with the board to say "ah shit, sorry, that's absolutely not what I meant to say and I wholeheartedly apologize for that clumsy phrasing. One of the board members was talking about how her own culture uses rice cookers as compared to her friends from different countries, and that's where that came from. But I should have been aware of how it fed into super common stereotypes. It must have sucked to see that blindness here, and I'm sorry."
I think that's especially true given that the post was conceived, written, and posted by you and not the board! But even if it had really been a joint effort, or written by someone else, I still think you, loup, or any other mod could have put out an immediate apology, or at minimum confirmation that this is a site whose mods understand snofoam's point and how it is legit.
Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post
Sometimes, though, anger is relevant and merited and should be respected. I think your policy makes more sense for the blue than for Metatalk.
We'll do better on communicating with the community and individual users, hoping to nudge things in a particular direction as opposed to pushing (except in extreme cases).
Thank you. I hope that stands.
And I hope that's the policy for the other subsites more than it is for Metatalk, or at least policy and site feedback threads here. There is too much of a conflict of interest for mods to be trying to dictate the conversation here. If you want to influence the direction things take, get people on your side by posting sensible, thoughtful things, engaging with people's concerns instead of ignoring or getting defensive, and doing all that in a timely and responsive way. (And, you know, doing the overall job well enough that people don't have a long, long backlist of legitimate complaints to substantiate their frustration.)
posted by trig at 6:49 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
Definitely would have posted a comment asking snofoam to hold off and give a bit of grace and time for the Board to respond. Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post, so I think that's what was going on
Thanks Brandon, I appreciate that you've put some thought into this.
FWIW, I would to be honest still have found that response frustrating and disappointing. It shouldn't take a wait for a consultation with the board to say "ah shit, sorry, that's absolutely not what I meant to say and I wholeheartedly apologize for that clumsy phrasing. One of the board members was talking about how her own culture uses rice cookers as compared to her friends from different countries, and that's where that came from. But I should have been aware of how it fed into super common stereotypes. It must have sucked to see that blindness here, and I'm sorry."
I think that's especially true given that the post was conceived, written, and posted by you and not the board! But even if it had really been a joint effort, or written by someone else, I still think you, loup, or any other mod could have put out an immediate apology, or at minimum confirmation that this is a site whose mods understand snofoam's point and how it is legit.
Generally in modding the site we discourage angry details at the beginning of a post
Sometimes, though, anger is relevant and merited and should be respected. I think your policy makes more sense for the blue than for Metatalk.
We'll do better on communicating with the community and individual users, hoping to nudge things in a particular direction as opposed to pushing (except in extreme cases).
Thank you. I hope that stands.
And I hope that's the policy for the other subsites more than it is for Metatalk, or at least policy and site feedback threads here. There is too much of a conflict of interest for mods to be trying to dictate the conversation here. If you want to influence the direction things take, get people on your side by posting sensible, thoughtful things, engaging with people's concerns instead of ignoring or getting defensive, and doing all that in a timely and responsive way. (And, you know, doing the overall job well enough that people don't have a long, long backlist of legitimate complaints to substantiate their frustration.)
posted by trig at 6:49 PM on November 19 [13 favorites]
All that said, I hope we as users start to work seriously on a new staffing and moderation direction for the site as a nonprofit.
And that the current staff will not take this as a personal attack, or try to shut it down.
posted by trig at 6:53 PM on November 19 [9 favorites]
And that the current staff will not take this as a personal attack, or try to shut it down.
posted by trig at 6:53 PM on November 19 [9 favorites]
As has happened before, rule-abiding non-dead site-member has been banned but there is no "this account is closed" message on their profile.
When this happens is it a tech glitch, or is there some kind of "stealth ban" that doesn't put up a message?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:47 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
When this happens is it a tech glitch, or is there some kind of "stealth ban" that doesn't put up a message?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:47 PM on November 19 [8 favorites]
They've had that account banned as well? For what?
posted by Dysk at 11:58 PM on November 19 [9 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 11:58 PM on November 19 [9 favorites]
They don't know. From a message on...another site:
Well, I thought this period was behind us, but I’ve apparently been banned again. No message, just “your account is closed”.
Since they can't access their account, they can't log on and ask. A little bit later they wrote:
If anyone wants to ask what happened to my account, I’m curious.
posted by Bugbread at 1:44 AM on November 20 [3 favorites]
Well, I thought this period was behind us, but I’ve apparently been banned again. No message, just “your account is closed”.
Since they can't access their account, they can't log on and ask. A little bit later they wrote:
If anyone wants to ask what happened to my account, I’m curious.
posted by Bugbread at 1:44 AM on November 20 [3 favorites]
Mod note: They've had that account banned as well? For what?
That person has had accounts banned previously for harassing the mods. Not questioning for questioning the mods, because we did answer their questions, but it seems like they did not like answers and wanted to argue about it. After voluntarily closing their account, they made it clear they wanted to reopen to continue the argument. Staff talked about it and decided that wasn't ok.
The various sock puppets started , along with emails, demanding explanations. We answered in email and asked them stop creating sockpuppets and drop the issue. They did not. So we let the most recent sockpuppet remain in this thread to see publicly if anything could be worked out, if we could put this behind us and move on. That did not happen, so yes, another account was banned. Future accounts will also be banned.
When this happens is it a tech glitch, or is there some kind of "stealth ban" that doesn't put up a message?
Am looking into this, hope to have answers to you by end of the day.
Note that I'm technically off today, but will poke my head in the door and see if there's any major question that can quickly be answered. I was supposed to be on duty this evening, but had to take off for personal reasons, and I won't be officially back on duty until the evening of Thursday 11/21.
So there won't be a lot of official communications until then, but we do plan on putting the site update out on Friday afternoon. So we ask for your patience, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:35 AM on November 20 [4 favorites]
That person has had accounts banned previously for harassing the mods. Not questioning for questioning the mods, because we did answer their questions, but it seems like they did not like answers and wanted to argue about it. After voluntarily closing their account, they made it clear they wanted to reopen to continue the argument. Staff talked about it and decided that wasn't ok.
The various sock puppets started , along with emails, demanding explanations. We answered in email and asked them stop creating sockpuppets and drop the issue. They did not. So we let the most recent sockpuppet remain in this thread to see publicly if anything could be worked out, if we could put this behind us and move on. That did not happen, so yes, another account was banned. Future accounts will also be banned.
When this happens is it a tech glitch, or is there some kind of "stealth ban" that doesn't put up a message?
Am looking into this, hope to have answers to you by end of the day.
Note that I'm technically off today, but will poke my head in the door and see if there's any major question that can quickly be answered. I was supposed to be on duty this evening, but had to take off for personal reasons, and I won't be officially back on duty until the evening of Thursday 11/21.
So there won't be a lot of official communications until then, but we do plan on putting the site update out on Friday afternoon. So we ask for your patience, thank you.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:35 AM on November 20 [4 favorites]
Not questioning for questioning the mods, because we did answer their questions, but it seems like they did not like answers and wanted to argue about it.
So...just...stop arguing with them about it? Why a ban? I'm really disappointed in this response.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:57 AM on November 20 [23 favorites]
So...just...stop arguing with them about it? Why a ban? I'm really disappointed in this response.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:57 AM on November 20 [23 favorites]
If I had to guess why a ban, I’d guess that it’s because after a day or so it still looked like the user wasn’t going to let it go either, which if continued has repercussions for the quality of discussion. But my feeling is this probably was not the right call. If they’d given a longer period of time and if the frustrated user was bringing that stuff into threads all over the site — hokay, then I see the point. But still venting about recent mod actions here in a thread specifically about mod actions doesn’t seem out of bounds to me. To be clear, I still don’t see how these threads are doing anything other than burning our most engaged members for fuel, but if we’re gonna have them anyhow I don’t think it makes sense to ban people for perseverating on a grievance when the grievance is actually on-topic. I can see this as following policy but my hunch is that nevertheless it was a risky choice here and now.
posted by eirias at 6:20 AM on November 20 [19 favorites]
posted by eirias at 6:20 AM on November 20 [19 favorites]
at the very least, there does not feel like there has been a good faith effort to
And that also kinda feels like mods are dictating that they would have had to be happy with the moderation to be allowed to stay here, and not dare mention concerns. Do mods really want to be dictating poster reactions that much?
Finally, are there plans for a public statement from loup about their moderation of the rice cooker thread? I feel like it's not great that they've been completely absent from this thread (either posting for themselves, or mods reporting future plans for how they'll regain trust), given that their actions have precipitated much of it.
posted by sagc at 6:32 AM on November 20 [23 favorites]
see publicly if anything could be worked out, if we could put this behind us and move onby the mods. Are you going to ban everyone who continues to criticize you after you get tired of it?
And that also kinda feels like mods are dictating that they would have had to be happy with the moderation to be allowed to stay here, and not dare mention concerns. Do mods really want to be dictating poster reactions that much?
Finally, are there plans for a public statement from loup about their moderation of the rice cooker thread? I feel like it's not great that they've been completely absent from this thread (either posting for themselves, or mods reporting future plans for how they'll regain trust), given that their actions have precipitated much of it.
posted by sagc at 6:32 AM on November 20 [23 favorites]
I have very little personal stake in this site or whatever this thread has turned into so I'm reading between the lines a bit. Seems like there's longstanding personal beef between that person and the staff that goes well beyond being Internet Annoyed at an old website. I'm fine with the staff banning assholes for being assholes if they don't want to deal with the assholishness anymore.
posted by Diskeater at 6:35 AM on November 20 [4 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 6:35 AM on November 20 [4 favorites]
That person has had accounts banned previously for harassing the mods.
I would be a lot more sympathetic to the accusation of harassment if the mods weren't responding to unrelated contact form submissions with copypasta shitting specifically on that one user, as I and apparently donnagirl both received, and who knows how many others. It's honestly so gross and inappropriate. You want to axe grind about someone, take it back to your little mods-only slack threads.
Just because some people think moggies and their various iterations are annoying and loud it doesn't mean they're wrong about this.
posted by phunniemee at 6:41 AM on November 20 [37 favorites]
I would be a lot more sympathetic to the accusation of harassment if the mods weren't responding to unrelated contact form submissions with copypasta shitting specifically on that one user, as I and apparently donnagirl both received, and who knows how many others. It's honestly so gross and inappropriate. You want to axe grind about someone, take it back to your little mods-only slack threads.
Just because some people think moggies and their various iterations are annoying and loud it doesn't mean they're wrong about this.
posted by phunniemee at 6:41 AM on November 20 [37 favorites]
So abusing the mods is ok now? Abuse is fine as long as it's in the right circumstances?
posted by Melismata at 6:52 AM on November 20
posted by Melismata at 6:52 AM on November 20
Yes Melismata I am literally advocating abusing the mods, that's it, you got me, you uncovered my 16 year long plot that is finally coming to fruition. Cheers to you 🍸
posted by phunniemee at 6:54 AM on November 20 [33 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:54 AM on November 20 [33 favorites]
So abusing the mods is ok now?
The mods have seriously misrepresented their interactions with users many times lately. They also seem to have a definition of harassment that includes making comments that are not, in my personal opinion, harassment by any measure. From my point of view, the mods have lost their thermal underwear of trust and I don’t think it makes sense to take their claims at face value. It is obviously a big impediment to resolving issues like this, but it is a problem the mods made for themselves.
posted by snofoam at 7:33 AM on November 20 [20 favorites]
The mods have seriously misrepresented their interactions with users many times lately. They also seem to have a definition of harassment that includes making comments that are not, in my personal opinion, harassment by any measure. From my point of view, the mods have lost their thermal underwear of trust and I don’t think it makes sense to take their claims at face value. It is obviously a big impediment to resolving issues like this, but it is a problem the mods made for themselves.
posted by snofoam at 7:33 AM on November 20 [20 favorites]
That person has had accounts banned previously for harassing the mods. Not questioning for questioning the mods, because we did answer their questions, but it seems like they did not like answers and wanted to argue about it.
Were they harassing the mods by insisting that it was possible for the site to incorporate as a nonprofit when everyone knows that's plainly illegal?
posted by knucklebones at 8:36 AM on November 20 [8 favorites]
Were they harassing the mods by insisting that it was possible for the site to incorporate as a nonprofit when everyone knows that's plainly illegal?
posted by knucklebones at 8:36 AM on November 20 [8 favorites]
Moggies/etc. posted yesterday:
Site staff, if a single one of you feels that any email I sent to you was “harassment”, I welcome you to post it here in its entirety.
posted by away for regrooving at 8:59 AM on November 20 [5 favorites]
Site staff, if a single one of you feels that any email I sent to you was “harassment”, I welcome you to post it here in its entirety.
posted by away for regrooving at 8:59 AM on November 20 [5 favorites]
When this happens is it a tech glitch, or is there some kind of "stealth ban" that doesn't put up a message?
Combo of a sort of tech glitch and multiple ways of working, we’re clearing things up and standardizing.
Old creaky code is creaky!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:02 AM on November 20 [2 favorites]
Combo of a sort of tech glitch and multiple ways of working, we’re clearing things up and standardizing.
Old creaky code is creaky!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:02 AM on November 20 [2 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?
More kindness comes to mind.
posted by y2karl at 10:17 AM on November 20 [15 favorites]
More kindness comes to mind.
posted by y2karl at 10:17 AM on November 20 [15 favorites]
I was happy to see that there is now a public statement from loup in the rice cooker thread.
posted by demi-octopus at 12:49 PM on November 20 [6 favorites]
posted by demi-octopus at 12:49 PM on November 20 [6 favorites]
I'm trying to make up my mind which would make me happier: if the new site rebuild eliminated the accidental ghost-banning bug, or if Kirkaracha rebuilt the site with such a level of accuracy that even the ghost-banning bug was faithfully replicated.
posted by Bugbread at 2:12 PM on November 20 [1 favorite]
posted by Bugbread at 2:12 PM on November 20 [1 favorite]
I mean, even your username, this sort of bug harassment and microagression cannot stand. /hamburger
posted by riverlife at 9:38 PM on November 20
posted by riverlife at 9:38 PM on November 20
ombo of a sort of tech glitch and multiple ways of working, we’re clearing things up and standardizing
oh, forgot to mention that we figured this out via restless_nomad sending me a message to explain the details of what was going on, so thanks to them!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:21 AM on November 21 [2 favorites]
oh, forgot to mention that we figured this out via restless_nomad sending me a message to explain the details of what was going on, so thanks to them!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:21 AM on November 21 [2 favorites]
ducking hell, I did not expect to reach the end of this to find out that moggies etc has been permabanned. It’s absolutely disgusting behaviour from the mod team. They have legitimate concerns expressed reasonably, they’re not ‘being an asshole’ (quote/paraphrase from another user, not a mod). This is not okay and like everyone’s said, it’s like pressing the thermonuclear self-destruct button on the whole site.
posted by lokta at 9:27 AM on November 21 [8 favorites]
posted by lokta at 9:27 AM on November 21 [8 favorites]
The wave of hostility that crashed over 1adam12 in his post about a non-profit form made me feel viscerally uncomfortable to the pit of my stomach.
I usually gird my mental loins when going into any MetaTalk thread that I think will be contentious, but this seemed like such a specific, technical issue that i expected a specific, technical discussion. One eventually broke out, but not until after a blast of anger at 1adam12.
We have to be better than this, as a community, to the people volunteering their time and energy on our behalf.
posted by Kattullus at 2:30 PM on November 21 [29 favorites]
I usually gird my mental loins when going into any MetaTalk thread that I think will be contentious, but this seemed like such a specific, technical issue that i expected a specific, technical discussion. One eventually broke out, but not until after a blast of anger at 1adam12.
We have to be better than this, as a community, to the people volunteering their time and energy on our behalf.
posted by Kattullus at 2:30 PM on November 21 [29 favorites]
this is the way the site ends
this is the way the site ends
not with a Loup
but a Blatcher
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 11:57 PM on November 21 [3 favorites]
this is the way the site ends
not with a Loup
but a Blatcher
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 11:57 PM on November 21 [3 favorites]
*reads November site update, clicks link...*
so, as someone who is regularly deleted, i just want to say:
i like metafilter
🐿️
posted by HearHere at 1:34 AM on November 22 [3 favorites]
so, as someone who is regularly deleted, i just want to say:
i like metafilter
🐿️
posted by HearHere at 1:34 AM on November 22 [3 favorites]
I usually gird my mental loins when going into any MetaTalk thread that I think will be contentious...
What comes to mind is the Mountibank Lead Codpiece mentioned in Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But lead or unleaded, it is an arresting image all the same.
posted by y2karl at 8:54 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]
What comes to mind is the Mountibank Lead Codpiece mentioned in Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. But lead or unleaded, it is an arresting image all the same.
posted by y2karl at 8:54 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]
« 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 [60 favorites]