A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling
Post Reply
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Si »

One could write an interesting paper on how moderation has changed over the....wow....decade and a half or so since I first started it.

"In the beginning.." the world was a (slightly) happier place. And the forum less used, thus the mods (who then also had more time free to look after the forum) could actually read almost every thread and when an issue occurred they would go to great pains to enter into a reasonable discourse with the person(s) concerned by PM to try to explain exactly what the issue was and why they might either have taken action or were just asking the person to take the edge of their posts in future. Of course this still resulted in a small number of people getting very upset, hurling abuse at the moderators, threatening violence, stalking moderators around the internet, etc....and over what? An argument about whether riding a bike with only one pannier could ever be justified. 'Tis the nature of the internet: people who, if met in a cafe would seem like spiffing chaps and chappesses who could happily discuss the most controversial of subjects in balanced and friendly tones face to face, just feel that they have been gravelly wronged when a criticism of their view appears written on a screen in their home by a faceless person on the internet that they'll probably never meet. You know the old joke cartoon: "I can't come to bed yet dear, someone has said something wrong on the internet". We've all been there and felt ourselves falling into the trap.

Well, things went on like this for a while. Overall, it seemed that most people were fairly happy with the forum. A few weren't and so, quite reasonably, upped sticks and went elsewhere. And one or two, quite strangely, seemed to really hate the forum but refused to leave...go figure as our American cousins say.

However, behind the scenes things were a little different. Some of the moderators felt that they were being slowly worn down by all of the the abuse and none stop criticism (oh yes, although you personally might have only abused or criticised the moderators once in the last ten years, that doesn't mean that others haven't been filling the gaps and that there isn't a none stop stream of things to deal with). At the same time several of the moderators found that their personal circumstances have changed - new jobs, less free time, added pressures at home. And I fear that I have not helped the situation because I now spend most of my time not working on a PC and so can't do much moderating, thus heaping even more pressure on Vorpal's shoulders.

And then came the double whamy of Brexit and Covid. You all might not have noticed but since these two things started there has been much more discontent on the forum and a lot more people getting upset about what might have been relatively minor things that weren't related to Brexit or Covid. And, we also have a lot more posting on the forum, such that moderators can no longer read even half of what's written...and so rely on people reporting issues.

The upshot is that the moderation team is flagging a bit. This has led to some changes:
- the softly-softly approach is less often used....these days it's sometimes a case of just hacking a big chunk out of a thread because in the past there have been occasions where trying to talk to everyone concerned via PM, having protracted discussions with them and trying to keep them calm, could take a whole day's worth of a moderator's own, unpaid, time, for which they often just got a load of abuse....THIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION.
- tolerance is a lot less. For instance, I was just looking at a post that was pulled because of it's abrasive nature. In the old days the moderator might have just taken the poster aside and said something like "I understand where you are coming from with this and why you feel strongly about it, but your abrasive response is more likely to just lead to an escalation in bad feeling, insults being thrown and the thread drifting off topic, so we'd be really grateful if you could tone it down a little please". Sometimes this would have worked, sometimes not but we had the capacity to try and defuse things gently. Now it's all a bit different, we don't have that capacity, and the miscreants of the past have used up most of the good will that we might confer onto those that err slightly today.
- banning is becoming more likely. In the past we have given some people numerous chances to get back in step with the forum rules, and even allowed them to reregister with a new ID so that everyone (them, the people they'd been falling out with and the mods) could all go for a fresh start. This is now much less likely for the reasons given above.

This is how we got to where we are now. It's not ideal...far from. I would be more than happy for CUK to pay me to sit here and moderate in a manner that allowed me to treat each issue with kid gloves to enter into in depth private discussion of each decision with those concerned, to try to steer threads back on course with a gentle touch, etc etc (or, rather, pay Vorpal to do it as she's much more patient and diplomatic than me). But that ain't going to happen...the forum will, as far as we can see, continue to be staffed by volunteers who have limited time, who are under external pressures as we all are, and who are sometimes feeling a bit jaded.

Thus, we hope that people will try to not let their external issues effect the way that they address others on the forum. We don't expect people to meekly agree with others just so that they don't rock the apple cart but to argue their cases in a friendly or, at least, respectful way. For instance in the case of:
Person A: by and large widgets don't tend work because their flanges are too wide.
Person B: you are wrong: the flange on my widget is perfect
Now, should person A go for :
1. I believe that I am correct because I have experience of using 78 different widgets over the past 30 years, I have read the following peer reviewed papers on widget use and I also have a PhD in engineering which had a module on widgets. Thus although you might have found a widget to work in your particular case, as I said in the vast majority of cases the flanges tend to be too wide.
...or...
2. you are talking out of your hat...you are ignorant and know nothing. I have a much superior knowledge to you so shut up now.

Although we all might feel like taking the second option when confronted with someone we know to be wrong, do we really think, when viewed in a considered way, it is the best alternative. Let's look at it from the passer-by's POV. First up they might be somewhat surprised that a pair of adults might be getting into a heated argument about widgets...well that's the internet for you. But then they might get intrigued and read on...and guess what they, for some odd reason, tend to decide that the person who is talking the most sense is the one who has remained calm, polite and delivered a cutting, logical and respectful argument rather than the one who is starting to appear aggressive or starting with the name calling and insults, however minor they may be. Likewise, if Person A (above) goes with option 1. rather than option 2. then the thread is less likely to decline into name calling, the moderators are less likely to get involved and person A is less likely to feel aggrieved because the moderators have stopped Person A from punishing the person who Person A can clearly see is the one in the wrong.

Yes, I know exactly the two points that you are going to raise now:
1. that you think it hypocritical for moderators to ask you to be all PC and touchy-feely while they are ruling the forum with an iron rod. Yep, you've, in part, got a point...but then I would refer you back to the points I made above about how the forum (and world) have changed and how the moderators would like to spend much more time applying much more finesse to their judgements. But that, in the real world, at the moment, ain't going to happen; whereas you do have time to step back and consider if your post is phrased in the best way to get your point across without falling foul of the evil-moderator's wrath.
2. If the mods are under such pressure why don't they step aside and let a new set of bright-eyed and bushy tailed mods take over? Problem is finding them....the method that has been used in the past for recruitment is to go over any perspective candidates' posting history and see how they have managed situations where they, as a rank and file forum user, have been put in a position where they might have reacted abrasively to provocation. This method has back fired in the past: for instance one person I approached immediately left the forum and she has scarcely been seen since. In another case the mods hadn't had the time to read every single post made by a prospective candidate over the last few years, which resulted in someone raising the issue of a view aired in the past and the candidate, rather than being the cause of more work for the mods, stepped down (interesting topic for another thread: can someone be a moderator if their wider views haven't always chimed with those of the forum as a whole? In some cases I would say yes....we got loads of abuse for moderating people who were anti-charity merger (and aired their viewed in an aggressive and insulting way) when we were also anti charity merger, thus we were able to put our own feelings on the subject aside...but, as I say, that's for another day/thread). There are several users still on the forum who we would like to join the moderation team because they have consistently acted in a very level-headed and polite way when they have encountered provocative subjects....but they have declined because either they don't have the time or they have seen the way some people have treated the mods in the past. So it's tricky.

But, thing is (and I know that you've heard all of this before)....if the forum isn't strongly moderated then CUK will pull the plug on it (some here can remember the old, unmoderated forum in which many/most threads declined into aggressive abuse and very strong language, which in turn meant many left the forum very quickly).
If the moderators can't moderate the forum in a swift and economical way then there is a good chance they won't moderate it at all, which takes us back to the previous point: no forum. So it's not as perfect as we'd like it to be but it's probably as perfect as it's going to get at the current moment in time. We persist though, as by and large we think that the forum is of benefit to CUK and to its members/cyclists.

An alternative has been voiced within the forum staff ranks. That we cut the forum down, getting rid of everything but the most basic cycling sections (Know-how, touring (inc LEJOG & Camping), For Sales) . And if anyone tried to err off topic in those sections then they would get immediately binned. This would mean that a lot of the more controversial topics would not be allowed (brexit, trump, covid vaccines, uni-pannierists, etc) and thus the mods would have a lot more time to moderate the remaining cycling-specific topics, and also to offer a bit more lee-way in what they allow to remain unmoderated, and to indulge in more direct PM discussion with people before moderating. This has worked very well on another forum I use, which was having similar issues.

Bet you now think you've wasted a load of your valuable riding time by reading through all this guff eh? Don't blame you, I don't half go on when I'm let loose. But hey yeah, the use of scarce time is sort of why moderation is becoming more of a blunt weapon now, innit.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Jdsk »

I've read it once... and that didn't feel like a waste of time at all.

Thanks to everyone who spends their time keeping the forum so useful.

Jonathan
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Oldjohnw »

I have said it elsewhere and will repeat here: my thanks to the mods. And thanks for this helpful treatise.
John
User avatar
simonineaston
Posts: 7993
Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
Location: ...at a cricket ground

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by simonineaston »

I will read it sometime soon - honest...
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by thirdcrank »

si

The main point I would make is that there are some who are totally civil in a formal sense but who provoke others with the skill of a matador brandishing their muleta. And that's a civil way of saying they know they are being provocative but observe the rules. I get the impression that their biggest triumph - awarded both ears - is when they get a massive chunk of a good thread axed.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by slowster »

Disparate thoughts:

1. I guess that there must be a difficult balance to strike, and sometimes the line is a fine one, or worse the line is very blurred and it's very subjective at what point to intervene and take action.

2. A forum which needed very little moderation would probably be very dull. Strong and passionate disagreement, even with a slight clash of personalities, can result in a more engaging - and possibly even more informative - discussion.

[The current Gates Belt drive thread is possibly an example. I think one poster in particular resorted to ad hominems ('Luddite'), which Si deleted (but not entirely since subsequent quotations of them remain). It seemed to me that the ad hominems were self-defeating and demonstrated that he had lost the argument, and crucially that those on the receiving end were capable of taking them in their stride without tit for tat escalation (and they had the advantage of numbers as well).]

3. That said, if I were the admin, one thing I would do is remove the :roll: emoji. It is rarely used by posters to refer to themselves self-deprecatingly, and when used to refer to others it is little more than a contemptuous ad hominem, which is likely to encourage a spat. I have wondered if the off-the-shelf forum software incorporates such emojis and the friends/foes function because it is designed to encourage adversarial posting (which might make commercial sense on a forum funded by advertising revenue and thus clicks).

4. If a moderator does not immediately intervene, it leaves a gap for ordinary members to respond and call out others who cross the line of (subjective) acceptability. That can create a positive dynamic of collective self-moderation reducing the burden on moderators (it's my impression that I have seen that happen to a degree on the Singletrackworld forum), although others might call it groupthink and say that it is a dictatorship of the majority/the loudest posters who are shutting down dissent (or 'cancel culture' to use a current buzz phrase).

However, by continuing not to intervene in the face of repeated harmful posts moderators can put a significant burden on a very small number of members to fill that gap and respond. I think that happened with the thread on lockdown, with repeated posts questioning and undermining the effectiveness of lockdown - each seemingly reasonable on the face of it in isolation, but collectively part of a prolonged pattern of harmful posting. Jdsk challenged those and other similar posts, providing links and evidence to rebut the insinuations, and it must have taken up a great deal of his time. I do not know Jdsk, but I gathered from his posts that he has a strong scientific/medical background. Late last year I became so concerned about the failue of moderators to act on the lockdown thread and elsewhere, and the burden that was as a result being borne by Jdsk in responding to the harmful posts, that I drafted a post detailing the issue and calling on the moderators to act. Unfortunately I was sidetracked and did not feel able to post it*. Neverthless looking back over the last year or so, I think it was wrong for moderators not to intervene earlier in this and similar examples, e.g. Covid denialism.

Something that I think needs to be borne in mind is not just the harm caused by allowing that pattern of posting to develop, but also what the forum might be losing as a result. Such posting takes up other posters' time in responding and probably discourages even more posters from participating in the thread, with the result that better and more informative/interesting discussion is 'crowded out' and doesn't take place.

[*I sent the draft to Jdsk in case he wished to comment before I posted it. He suggested that I raise the moderation aspect separately from the science denialism and post that in the 'feedback about moderation' thread. That led me to skim through that thread before I posted to try to understand what had gone before. With the result that I came across a few posts which disturbed me enough to make me take a look at the poster's history, where I found other even more disturbing posts within about 15 minutes. He hadn't been a member for 'the last few years', only since 2019. I would not have mentioned this had you not alluded to it, but I want to make it clear that I came across the first posts by chance and it took very little time to find the rest.]

5. Personally I deeply dislike the practice of deletion by moderators, especially when there is no evidence or record of what has been deleted. For me it's uncomfortably close to Winston Smith re-writing and erasing history. Obviously if something is potentially libellous then it cannot be left, but otherwise my own preference would be to let the offending statement stand and for the perpetrator to receive a public warning on the thread or even a temporary/permanent ban. For posts just to be deleted and the person concerned to carry on - possibly even unaware of the deletion - and not feel any sanction or consequence for their action seems wrong, and I would imagine is likely to encourage repeat behaviour.

6. Similarly I think the fact that moderation is not more overt, including sanctions such as bans, itself has a somewhat negative effect on the forum. When it appears that some posters are getting away with blue murder and that no action is taken by moderators, it can be very disconcerting and make posters doubt where the boundaries lie. I think it is analagous to children seeing their brother or sister misbehave and not apparently get punished for it (because the parent does it privately) - knowing and seeing that you and your siblings will get punished equally reinforces recognition and respect of the boundaries.

7. The point that thirdcrank makes about some posters who deliberately provoke others and apparently want to disrupt a thread and even get it closed, is one that I have seen made by others (I think on the 'feedback on moderation' thread PDQ Mobile complained about it happening in Brexit related threads). I appreciate that suspicions of such behaviour would take a lot of time to assess the various posts, and it may be easier and (in the short term) quicker just to moderate individual posts, but failing to tackle the root cause just means that it will continue and create more work for moderators. Even if it means spending more time upfront reviewing a poster's pattern of behaviour, if they are guilty then a final warning or even a preemptory ban should save more work in the long run.

8. Lastly but very much not least, over the last year with people's lives being very significantly affected and curtailed by Covid-19 and lockdowns etc., I think this and similar forums have probably helped a huge number of people to cope with the impact of Covid-19 on their lives by providing a place to talk to others. That is greatly to the moderators' credit.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4951
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Cowsham »

Jdsk wrote:I've read it once... and that didn't feel like a waste of time at all.

Thanks to everyone who spends their time keeping the forum so useful.

Jonathan


Ditto but that Person A -- Option 1 -- could do with joining a brass band. :lol:
I am here. Where are you?
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56349
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Mick F »

Thank you Si.
Excellent post.

My thoughts are tending to cut down on the number of message boards.

One idea:
Tea Shop used to be a fun place, then the fun stuff was taken away and put on a Fun and Games ghetto, which is rarely looked at, which leaves the majority of Tea Shop being occupied by contentious stuff.
Maybe it needs the Contentious Stuff being put in a separate ghetto and the Fun and Games going back into Tea Shop.
Mick F. Cornwall
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by mikeymo »

thirdcrank wrote:si

The main point I would make is that there are some who are totally civil in a formal sense but who provoke others with the skill of a matador brandishing their muleta. And that's a civil way of saying they know they are being provocative but observe the rules. I get the impression that their biggest triumph - awarded both ears - is when they get a massive chunk of a good thread axed.


You are making a lot of inferences about other posters' intentions there. I invite you to consider the possibility that what you perceive as an intention to provoke is actually a result of you being provoked, whether that was the intention or not. If one's reaction to a post is - "they are being totally civil but it makes me angry, therefore they are being deliberately provocative", then that may say more about the reader than it does the writer. Anybody can dismiss something using the tired old cliché of "stop being passive-aggressive".

Even if you are correct, so long as people do "observe the rules" I don't think that deliberate provocation is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes ways of looking at things need to be changed, and a sudden change of view is often brought about by a challenge, or what you might call a "provocation".

Or just don't be provoked.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by thirdcrank »

Maybe it needs the Contentious Stuff being put in a separate ghetto and the Fun and Games going back into Tea Shop.


IIRC, the fun and games stuff was shifted out because it was clogging the search facility, in much the same way that fatbergs clog sewers.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by mjr »

Thanks to the mods, but two mods(!) to the opening post, besides those above:

1. I feel that, more often, Person A does not say that most widgets are unsuitable, but rather that no suitable widgets exist and they continue to assert this, backed by their appeal to authority, despite person B actually having such a widget. Part of the reason Brucey is so good is that he clearly distinguishes the possible from his view of the desirable.

2. The forum software has moved on, but mods seem either unwilling or not allowed to use some of the new tools like single-board bans. There is an element who seem to enjoy flinging personal abuse around in an attempt to get political topics locked and some boards would benefit from excluding them if they won't behave IMO.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by mikeymo »

mjr wrote:personal abuse


Is there a definition of that anywhere, for the purposes of this forum??
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by thirdcrank »

In my perfect world there would be a way of banning people without their knowledge. ie Their posts would be visible to them and nobody else; not even a marker as there is with the foe facility.

Nobody could be provoked/ irritated / tempted to reply in kind, the person in question couldn't bleat about free speech and eventually they might get bored and move on. There would have to be some way of dealing with posts along the lines "what's happened to knucklehead? He's not posted recently."

I can only dream
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by Psamathe »

mikeymo wrote:
mjr wrote:personal abuse


Is there a definition of that anywhere, for the purposes of this forum??

I believe that one of the great assets of this forum is that it is lively and active and has a wide range of people checking/visiting frequently. Thus post a question and responses start accumulating quickly meaning people are getting the help they seek. I think a lot of that activity comes from the indirect and non-cycling activity encouraging people to visit frequently and then seeing the other posts they can offer input on - so those topics some seek banned are contributors to the overall success of the forum.

For example, strictly constrain the forum to cycling only posts and how many people would be visiting to respond to yet another "what bike should I buy for £500?" or "what disk brakes should I buy?" - more repeat threads with a minor variant. I think such constraints would quickly reduce visits, responses would be slower and the forum would no longer be the place it is, not as useful, not as successful providing cycling help to those seeking it.

Ian
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: A thesis on moderation and why it's crap for everyone

Post by mikeymo »

Psamathe wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
mjr wrote:personal abuse


Is there a definition of that anywhere, for the purposes of this forum??

I believe that one of the great assets of this forum is that it is lively and active and has a wide range of people checking/visiting frequently. Thus post a question and responses start accumulating quickly meaning people are getting the help they seek. I think a lot of that activity comes from the indirect and non-cycling activity encouraging people to visit frequently and then seeing the other posts they can offer input on - so those topics some seek banned are contributors to the overall success of the forum.

For example, strictly constrain the forum to cycling only posts and how many people would be visiting to respond to yet another "what bike should I buy for £500?" or "what disk brakes should I buy?" - more repeat threads with a minor variant. I think such constraints would quickly reduce visits, responses would be slower and the forum would no longer be the place it is, not as useful, not as successful providing cycling help to those seeking it.

Ian


That wasn't the question I was asking. I deliberately edited mjr's post down to two words, to make my question clear. But perhaps that wasn't clear enough.

Is there a definition of "personal abuse" anywhere, for the purposes of this forum??
Post Reply