Self-moderation as a community effort on The TaoBums

[Stigweard]

Edited August 22, 2011 by Stigweard

[Mal]

Now you understand me

 

How do we as a community become more self-moderated??

 

Follow this principal as a member - Be respectfull of other, No personal insults.

[Mal]

I can even be a bit more constructive

 

The hardest thing with TTB is I don’t WANT to stop people saying “that’s bullshit”, but I want to prevent the escalation into “you are bullshit”

 

I don’t care if people get passionate, even upset and then settle down and discuss the issue. But I want to prevent people getting so upset that they can’t settle down to a discussion.

 

As moderators we do try to hold up our own behavior as an example, that's something Sean wanted us to do.

 

And generally I think the majority of the "elder" members of TTB do show the more “juniors” TTB's good examples of behavior to model.

 

Just like how a good family / tribe would work, that's the direction I want to move in, and I feel we are moving that way pretty well.

 

“If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth.”

 

Yes, so how best to welcome people to our little village that Sean has provided?

Edited August 22, 2011 by Mal

[Apech]

Hi Stig,

 

That was a very long post! I read it but can't remember every point you made ... but you are clearly passionate about this subject. I agree that self moderation is the ideal and I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that statement. No-one on here anyway. Obviously this is why we often offer the reported poster an opportunity to self-edit and very rarely edit anything anyway - even if it is thought to break the 'rules'.

 

I don't agree with the generally accepted (?) notion that TTBs has got more negative, childish or bad tempered ... or whatever ... I see the opposite. It seems to me there is a general growing acceptance that the 'no insult' and respect the other poster approach is helpful and constructive to good debate and not the other way around. Within this I, like Mal don't want to see the passion die ... so strong language as such has never been an no no ... just insults.

 

If there is to be self-moderation then presumably people posting would need their own personal ethos against which they judged their own post. Rather in the way you might distinguish ethics (a personal belief system or set of values) form morals (values imposed by society). One thing I don't understand then is what actually happens if a member of this community refuses to respect others and maybe indulges in a bit of trolling. What is the sanction? How would the community exclude this person ... or take whatever action without moderators?

 

If I have missed the point , forgive me.

[Stigweard]

Hi Stig,

 

That was a very long post! I read it but can't remember every point you made ... but you are clearly passionate about this subject. I agree that self moderation is the ideal and I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that statement. No-one on here anyway. Obviously this is why we often offer the reported poster an opportunity to self-edit and very rarely edit anything anyway - even if it is thought to break the 'rules'.

 

I don't agree with the generally accepted (?) notion that TTBs has got more negative, childish or bad tempered ... or whatever ... I see the opposite. It seems to me there is a general growing acceptance that the 'no insult' and respect the other poster approach is helpful and constructive to good debate and not the other way around. Within this I, like Mal don't want to see the passion die ... so strong language as such has never been an no no ... just insults.

 

If there is to be self-moderation then presumably people posting would need their own personal ethos against which they judged their own post. Rather in the way you might distinguish ethics (a personal belief system or set of values) form morals (values imposed by society). One thing I don't understand then is what actually happens if a member of this community refuses to respect others and maybe indulges in a bit of trolling. What is the sanction? How would the community exclude this person ... or take whatever action without moderators?

 

If I have missed the point , forgive me.

Thanks Mal and Apech for your reflections.

 

Let's continue for a moment with Semco's model seeing that that is what I am throwing up as an "ideal" model that we should be trying to emulate.

 

As I mentioned the workers have organized themselves into smaller work groups and they only have a "manager" if the group feels it is necessary. If they do then the work group writes up the job description of what they think the manager should be able to do and their responsibilities. The workers interview the prospective manager and the workers vote for the best applicant.

 

In day to day operation, if one member of the work group or pod becomes a problem then the "moderation" comes laterally from the other workers NOT down from management. In fact Semco has gone to great lengths to prevent the possibility that management can control the workers. So if moderation is required then the work group has the right to simply stop work there and then and call a team meeting. Only those people interested enough in the issue attends, there are no closed doors and neither are there any obligations.

 

Semco encourages lively and bold debate, even if the meeting turns into a shouting match it's allowed. I am sure though they maintain a principle of respect however, just as here. Basically whoever feels they have an interest in the issue can pitch in and voice their view.

 

And the debate is allowed to continue for as long as necessary until the group reaches some sort of consensus as to what should be done. Maybe it means the disruptive member gets booted out of the team, maybe the member admits fault and moderates his/her behavior.

 

Then, and only then, does the management act and does so only to enact what the team decide for themselves.

 

So, how would this translate to The TaoBums??

 

[doc benway]

Whew!

I get the feeling this is important to you Stig.

 

I honestly don't have the time or energy to adequately (or even inadequately) respond to all or even some of your points and questions. I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect. It's just that the moderation and management of the site is not that important to me.

I'm comfortable helping out by contributing a few extra hours a week that I can (?) spare. I'm happy to support Sean's vision and I really don't have the motivation to make any broad and sweeping changes on my own initiative.

 

I feel bad not doing justice to your passionate and thorough dissection of my previous post but there are times when I simply need to pick and choose how to spend my time. As I get older, this becomes a more and more precious commodity. I disagree with some of your points, agree with others, and both agree and disagree with yet others.

 

I like this place. It really hasn't changed that much in my estimation over the few years I've been involved. Maybe a little more mainstream and better organized. Perhaps a little less edgy and quirky. There used to be those folks that posted alot and some are gone and now there are others and in the future that will continue to change. It's just an internet forum. I get some good ideas here, I try and share some of my own, for better or worse. And I really would prefer to spend more time away with things like meditation, Tai Ji Quan, music, work, and family.

 

I think some of the behavior here is worse than in other forums because we encourage a discussion of topics that other forums generally restrict or ban entirely. Namely, religion, spirituality, politics, and so on. Given what we discuss I think we do a pretty damn good job (not the mods but the forum in general). That said, Sean owns a private forum and I consider myself and the rest of us his guests. I have no interest in trying to suggest, encourage, intimidate, coerce, or pressure him to change the way he prefers to manage his house so I'm going to respectfully choose to just let this go.

 

I agree 100% with self-moderation. I would have no problem if Sean dropped all rules and said- OK guys, have fun it's a free for all. I think I would still participate and simply disengage when I'm no longer comfortable in any given discussion. On the other hand, if Sean decided that he wanted to try and remake this forum as some socialistic utopian community like you advocate, I'd be equally fine with that. The bottom line is that I really don't care either way. To borrow from your brilliant topic in general discussion, I just don't give a shit. I offered to help because I wanted to give back a little something to the community I enjoy sharing with and that's about as far as it goes.

 

Please accept my personal choice to disengage from this topic. As I read your post, I began formulating all of my replies and it dawned on me - it's just not worth it. You are, but not the subject matter. I just don't care enough about the method of moderation to engage in a complex debate about it. I don't mean to be rude and I mean no personal offense.

 

Be well my friend.

[Mal]

I like Ricardo Semlars ideas, I think it was GIH who exposed me to them and I have even tried to bring some of them into my work environment. Google is another corporate model that I really like.

 

Growing in that sort of direction is something I want TTB to do.

 

I like the lateral moderation "ideal" If people did that, without being insulting, and while respecting each others views, it wouldn't really be a "dispute" it would be a discussion. If it still became a “dispute” and people self moderated, the dispute would just tail off and stop. (I.e. trolls would be forced to another bridge as they have nothing to eat under this one)

 

All I would have to do is create personal practice sections and delete spam. That would be nice

[Stigweard]

Please accept my personal choice to disengage from this topic.

 

Be well my friend.

And please accept my personal choice to be very much interested and engaged in the subject and advocate positive change here on TaoBums.

 

[Marblehead]

And please accept my personal choice to be very much interested and engaged in the subject and advocate positive change here on TaoBums.

 

 

Don't you just love your freedom of choice? Yea!!!

[doc benway]

And please accept my personal choice to be very much interested and engaged in the subject and advocate positive change here on TaoBums.

 

Enthusiastically accepted!

[Stigweard]

[Mal]

[Stigweard]

Wondering if we could use this as a test run for this idea:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20404-seth-ananda-needing-to-be-banned

 

???

 

 

[Stigweard]

I would be more than happy to help facilitate this (but absolutely no I don't want to be a moderator). Please give this close consideration, what would it hurt to trial this out for 3-months of so??

 

[Stigweard]

Previously I had only tabled this as an idea to explore, now I am formally tabling it for open consideration:

 

Self Moderation on the TaoBums

 

First create a new moderation forum, or open the Concierge Dungeon to all members.

 

New moderation considerations get added to the Mod Forum in two ways:

 

1. Formal reports are made via the report buttons wherein the Moderators post it into the Mod Forum

 

2. Any member can post their own complaint in the Mod Forum about another member or situation at any time

 

Following this, any member, whether moderator or not, can pitch in to discuss the situation to determine if it is an actionable offense or not and what action, if any, should be taken. Moderators act as facilitators to the discussion only, they are there to help those members who have expressed interest or concern in the matter come to some sort of consensus over what to do.

 

Once a majority or consensus decision has been reached by involved parties then, and only then, do the moderators carry out the formal action that the members decided upon.

 

I am formally asking for a 3-6mth trial of this idea before anyone makes any judgment of whether or not it may work.

[dawei]

Now you want it without judgement... sorry, I think life does not work that way

 

I am generally against this... what if there are no issues in 3-6 months; it is not an indication of the current mod group but the TTB season.

 

I personally don't know what problem we are trying to solve but the latest issues raise some concerns to me.

 

I think the mods need to make some better decisions on overall interactions and potential warnings. What is the point of reporting posts if it is a tool alone.

 

Changing mods does not mean there is a better handling of issues. Raise the current issues and improve them. JMO. Sorry to derail.

[Stigweard]

Now you want it without judgement... sorry, I think life does not work that way

No that's not what it's about at all. If you thought through the suggestion properly it's about judgement/moderation becoming more lateral rather than top-down. Meaning the moderation comes from your fellow members rather than from an appointed "police-force".

 

I am generally against this... what if there are no issues in 3-6 months; it is not an indication of the current mod group but the TTB season.

It's not about the members of the mod group, but the structure of moderation management. And I think the current crap going on has EVERYTHING to do with how it's structured.

 

I personally don't know what problem we are trying to solve but the latest issues raise some concerns to me.

It's quite ALARMING if you asked me.

 

I think the mods need to make some better decisions on overall interactions and potential warnings. What is the point of reporting posts if it is a tool alone.

I think we need to stop loading more pressure on moderators, expecting them to "do better". Why not take the pressure off them completely and make members responsible for their own behavior??

 

Changing mods does not mean there is a better handling of issues. Raise the current issues and improve them. JMO. Sorry to derail.

This has got nothing to do with changing mods if you read the above properly (though I think every mod should frequently question whether they are doing the forum a true service). It's about trying to create a format where inter-member disputes can be effectively diverted out of main discussions into an agreed upon area where as a community we can work out what needs to happen.

 

We had an opportunity right there in our laps to actually LIVE our philosophical/spiritual beliefs; to be a self-moderated community and to constructively and cooperatively help the members involved. I was engaged and ready to facilitate, I was virtually BEGGING to be given an opportunity to prove what we could do as a community.

 

I was ignored and the arbitrary slap-down of the ruling robbed us of that opportunity.

 

To say that that is a travesty is an understatement.

[dawei]

We had an opportunity right there in our laps to actually LIVE our philosophical/spiritual beliefs; to be a self-moderated community and to constructively and cooperatively help the members involved. I was engaged and ready to facilitate, I was virtually BEGGING to be given an opportunity to prove what we could do as a community.

I have rarely disagreed with you except with this moderation issue but you respectful answer and further share your thoughts; which i appreciate since I don't know the history and in fact it continues to share your 'vision' with those following the thread. So disagreement is not just combative but sometimes searching for POWs (Power of Words)

 

I really like your visionary approach for a better forum and a specific method instead of just tossing chum to sharks; Although I don't agree yet in principle I kind of support the energy of your vision. I think it is idealistic and I am a dead solid realist; but somewhere in the middle is usually life tasting of both bowls.

Edited September 8, 2011 by dawei

[Ambrose_Bierce]

[Stigweard]

I have rarely disagreed with you except with this moderation issue but you respectful answer and further share your thoughts; which i appreciate since I don't know the history and in fact it continues to share your 'vision' with those following the thread. So disagreement is not just combative but sometimes searching for POWs (Power of Words)

 

I really like your visionary approach for a better forum and a specific method instead of just tossing chum to sharks; Although I don't agree yet in principle I kind of support the energy of your vision. I think it is idealistic and I am a dead solid realist; but somewhere in the middle is usually life tasting of both bowls.

Well I appreciate the in-principle support for my visionary approach

 

And disagreement is fine and dandy, I kinda thrive on it if you haven't noticed It helps to further discussion and explore potentialities. Even if it turns out I am wrong, which I quite often am, arguing a point all the way has yielded wonderful results, even if it is to find out that what you thought was wrong.

 

Why do you think it is idealistic and not realistic?? We already have a precedent in Semco that this sort of libertarianism actually does work, so it is quite literally realistic within the context of their organization.

 

The question is, can it be be translated effectively to our community? Is that too much of an idealist thought?

 

And what would it hurt to give it a go?

 

Would it cause more disturbance on the forum? No doubt there would be a little bit of shuffling around as people got used to the idea of working it out themselves rather crying "FOUL!" and waiting for a moderator to swing their paddy-whacker.

 

If it didn't work? Cool, we go back to the old way of doing things.

 

But what if it did work? Think of the benefits of members working stuff out themselves and moderators just simply enforcing this consensus.

 

There would be no more "You suck moderators!" or "You are corrupt moderators!" or "You are wrong moderators!"

 

There would be no opportunity for this because members carry the responsibility of what happens.

 

Anyway I am good for it, and would do whatever I could to help with the process ... hehehe ... of course

[dawei]

Why do you think it is idealistic and not realistic?? We already have a precedent in Semco that this sort of libertarianism actually does work, so it is quite literally realistic within the context of their organization.

I should say that self-moderation is possible; it can just get really ugly. Instead of yelling "You suck moderators!" , you get "You suck [insert name]!" and worse. That may become a very negative distraction and experience for some.

 

Maybe if flamming occurred it got moved to a 'BBQ pit' of sorts and if it continues, it's only in there and not the general area.

Edited September 8, 2011 by dawei

[Stigweard]

I should say that self-moderation is possible; it can just get really ugly. Instead of yelling "You suck moderators!" , you get "You suck [insert name]!" and worse. That may become a very negative distraction and experience for some.

 

Maybe if flamming occurred it got moved to a 'BBQ pit' of sorts and if it continues, it's only in there and not the general area.

Cheers for the continued engagement dawei.

 

As I outlined, all we would have to do is have a dedicated Moderation Forum where we direct all discussion over moderation considerations/actions. No doubt at all people will fling some crap around, but it would be quarantined in one area rather than having open flaming wars over "he said she said" crap occurring in topics and ruining conversations which is what is happening right now.

 

The problem is that, because mods wait for discussion behind closed doors (which means people don't see anything "happening"), it can take several days before anything gets done. By that stage, and this is happening with more regular occurrence, a good discussion will break down into shit fights on the open forum ruining a good discussion. Then by the time mods "do something" more people are involved and the judgement they hand down looks hypocritical because other people have also stepped over the line. So, as we have just seen, the person who cops the judgement rightfully cries, "Foul", and also rightfully accuses the mods of hypocrisy and bias.

 

It's a system that isn't working and is creating an ever-increasing stench on the forum.

 

In contrast I want you to look at the living example that has just gone down:

 

[Moderation] -- tulku

 

It was seen by members, reported to the open-forum by members, discussed by members, and the perpetrators of said offenses VOLUNTEERED to go back and moderate their own comments!!!

 

A living example of how this idea can and would work, and it did so completely without any moderator having to hit a single key-stroke!!!

 

[doc benway]

 

In contrast I want you to look at the living example that has just gone down:

 

[Moderation] -- tulku

 

It was seen by members, reported to the open-forum by members, discussed by members, and the perpetrators of said offenses VOLUNTEERED to go back and moderate their own comments!!!

 

A living example of how this idea can and would work, and it did so completely without any moderator having to hit a single key-stroke!!!

 

Before you get too excited Stig, tulku edited his post after my PM to him requesting that he do so and suggesting that further mod action would depend on his response.

[Stigweard]

If there was to be a compromise made it would be this:

 

Perhaps transparent modding could be implemented to address any concerns or suspicions of bias, unfairness or misinterpretation of rules?

 

Is there some reason why any moderator discussions need to be closed-door in internal, private PMs?

 

If not, why not just limit all moderation debates to the public mod logs for everyone to view and participate in? Mods would still maintain final authority, but at least their collective thought processes and factors being weighed could be openly seen and understood by all? Protests could then still be aired and logged for the record, if nothing else, lol. Much like a court-of-law?

 

Also, the initial reports or complaints wouldn't have to be included - just any moderator debate about it would. However, there could be a "reported" counter button on each post that displays the number of times it HAS been reported.

 

(And if the mods themselves desired some privacy to protect themselves from any blowback, they could adopt separate Mod IDs. The more important thing here would be for the actual judicial interpretation and decision-making to be fully-exposed and open for public debate and democratic "townhall" input.)

 

So, this would become more like a traditional top-down hierarchy...with a slight Wiki twist.

 

And no, this still wouldn't guarantee 100% fairness, but nothing can - as that can be fairly subjective in many cases..

 

 

Well, just my .02! Take it or leave it!

[Stigweard]

EDITED: Retracted PM, as I rightly should, and offer an apology for posting it in the first place

 

Steve, you said that you were disappointed with me.

 

Well my "friend" I am disappointed that you sent me a PM rather than discuss this in the open. In it you are denying the forum the sharing of knowledge and ideas between members.

 

In fact all moderators are robbing people of their words by having these secret discussions in the Concierge Dungeon. You folks are supposed to be the "elders" of the community but you are taking your wisdom behind locked closed doors, having your discussions (which everyone should be reading and thereby learning from), and the only thing we see is the slap down of your "judgments".

 

And I am disappointed Steve that you are trying to read something into my actions beyond the sincerity of what I am presenting. You are basically accusing me of being a revengeful pouting child. Thank you very much for your condescension and your patronization [/sarcasm].

 

And I am disappointed Steve that you would say this:

Do I trust people to have ownership? Well, it's not my forum but if it were, the answer would be no. I see more immaturity, disingenuity, manipulation, and other negative behavior on this forum than most others I am involved in. I suspect it's because there are a lot of people really looking at deep issues in themselves and others. I also think it's because the subject matter attracts some wacky folks. Finally, I think some of our topics appeal to a younger age group. The bottom line is that the overall tenor of the forum is such that I personally would not trust most of the membership to be involved in a position of authority.

 

Because this is what you believe you are supporting the idea of an autocratic moderation team that regards the general membership as irresponsible, manipulative adolescences.

 

Guess what though Steve? The more you treat people that way the more they will act that way. Which will then apparently justify the autocratic model, and the dysfunctional cycle perpetuates itself.

 

Quote: The social environment of a community manipulates the behavior of those in that community.

 

Now I want to make a really clear point here ... I am not specifically fighting "against" the Mod Team, even though it may seem that way.

 

I am fight FOR free-spirited libertarianism, I am fighting FOR the basic human right to be self-determined. I am highlighting the ideal presented by Laozi and showing that, in comparison, the autocracy of the TaoBum Mod Team is a violation of human liberty.

 

But ever my focus is on trying to discover ways, means, and processes to achieve Laozi's libertarianism.

 

Edited September 10, 2011 by Stigweard