Si wrote: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.
Having the joys of a wide geographical area moderation I take the following approach:-
1) most squabbles like a playground sort themselves out.
3) Can't be non judgemental-avoid and leave for someone else to deal with it.
4) Defend right to say things even if you disagree.