Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #30 on: 2002-10-05 16:28:27 »
I was not planning on wasting my time, inviting further comments from self-justifying liars, appearing to whine, or providing an opportunity for lamers to comment or explode; but this thread seems to be missing a fairly large point (in Bill's case, seemingly not unusual), but for the benefit of the other thoughtful contributors for whom I still care, here are a few things I suggest are worth considering: Does anyone else agree with Bill's little list? Do his "nominees" think that they would be able to find the time, the inclination or the capacity to act as moderators?
By far the larger part of the moderation function (as I implemented it, anyway) was more an editors task. Editing messages (at least those with worthwhile content and bad formatting), indexing, cross-referencing, fixing links, creating archive copies of referenced material and formatting messages (though due to the primitive cross-referencing not as much as should happen), adding Amazon referral links for books etc (and adding the CoV tag to links posted by others), moving material around on the boards (although due to the lack of ability to move items from thread to thread, not as much as should be done) and creating FAQs. I put the time it took me as an average of several tens of hours a week and sometimes much more. I know that most of those Bill suggested don't have this kind of time to spare. I know I didn't, but for some long lost reason, once thought it worthwhile investing it anyway.
As it is, Bill seems so keen to inject asinine innuendos that he has forgotten that he had an opportunity to contribute to developing a formal moderation system, and that he departed and dynamited the structure intended to create this - without having commented on the documents which had been written and available for over a year before he left. Which meant that when we started moderating the BBS, as a moderator, I simply exercised my personal judgment about what contributed, and did not, on the boards.
Let me expand on the issue of "moderation" vs. "editing." Moderation, in the sense of suppressing material, or moving material which does not contribute to a particular thread to a more appropriate location, is (usually) far less important and definitely far less time consuming than the editing function. Speaking from experience, I think I "moderated" fewer than 10 messages (most in the last few days from Joe) in six months and one where I suppressed a personal reference (which was objected to by the referencee) in a message from Bill at the beginning. I don't think that any one, aside from Joe McPees perhaps, would disagree with my evaluation of the value of the posts subjected to “contentious moderation” (See for yourself, I simply moved them to the "Moderated material" thread on the "Free for All" board from the other boards, rather than deleting them). But then, anyone moderated is likely to object to it – no matter how invalidly. Encouraging such objections is highly counterproductive. So far as Bill goes, he still hasn't said what it was about moderation he got so freaked out about that he refused to communicate about it or develop a structure or method that he would have found acceptable; so I guess that any new moderators will eventually run into the same problem with him as I seem to have done. In any case, I would suggest that Bill Roh has no standing to make sneering comments or remarks, and little to offer to discussion of the process, but seeing that this is cheaper and easier than the task itself, I anticipate that no matter who ends up dealing with this, will end up on the receiving edge of the tongues of others to a far greater extent than they will ever receive thanks.
Which is why I don't think that anyone who would be halfway appropriate to appoint as a moderator is going to volunteer - and if they do – I doubt that they will stick with it. At the end of the day, the trouble is that due to a few nauseating (and noisy) individuals, the rewards offered by putting a lot into the CoV are a lot smaller than the rewards one can obtain elsewhere for a less effort. Which is a rather sad comment because it might once have been rather more.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
BillRoh
Guest
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #31 on: 2002-10-07 12:27:53 »
In response to David's question,
Is the regular list moderated in any manner at all right now? I was under the impression that no messages were checked prior being sent out, and that aside from administrating the list, nothing was done. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would do absolutely nothing to the main list.
As for the BBS, which is the area in which I and others are concerned, I mean moderation as you say it. Dealing with complaints about people's behaviour in individual threads and possibly moving offending posts. But it also means more than that - a moderator is a representative of the CoV. When this person takes actions they have to always appear to be motivated only by concerns for the CoV and to act in objectivity. In order to appear fair, people representing the CoV (moderators), should not be heavily involved in anything they moderate. In this case I use the word "moderate" NOT as the action of moderating, but as the representative title of someone in the CoV.
Those are the lines I am thinking along for someone in an official position of moderator.
To Hermit's points: I think I gathered, between the insults cast about, that Hermit is telling us that as moderator he was also the main editor, and that there a lot more work than a few minutes a week. I agree absolutely (not with the insults, but with his point), he was doing much more than moderating - and if he remembers, I did take the time to thank him. We are aware that there is a lot more to running the board than moderating. Moderation is only a very visible aspect of the task Hermit is doing - and is the reason that so many people have threatened to leave, have left, or othewise cast aspersions about the CoV. Indeed, it is the reason we are having this discussion. I think as editor, Hermit has done a great job, and dedicated a lot time. I don't think anyone would complain about the editing or look of the site or all the working links.
Now, I could care less if we do nothing like what I am suggesting, I am simply trying to contribute to the thread, and hoping that we do not choose a path that returns us to a place where we need to have this discussion all over again.
I think that a separation of powers is in order. The moderator(s) should be free to operate in maintaining the list, but when a complaint concerning a policing action is received and the complainant does not believe that the moderator addresses the complaint in an unbiased or good-faith manner, there should be an avenue of appeal, not to a single individual, but to an established committee comprised of several long-standing Virions who should arbitrate the dispute, and, after considering arguments from both sides, their decision should be both explained and binding. It is not in the interests of this list to take the chance of a small person with a large ego and his/her own irons in the fire making such decisions, nor is it healthy for any appeal to be inflicted upon a single other, who might themselves be accused of bias towards the unfair mandates of a moderator. Skill in maintaining a BBS does not automatically guarantee fairness in editorial judgment. An appeals committee would serve the dual purpose of separating powers of execution from powers of juridician, and in addition, would provide a greater level of consensus and a greater perception of objectivity to any decisions rendered.
Another reason for adopting my plan is that if either a moderator or a complainant appears constitutionally unable or unwilling to admit personal bias, error or maliciousness, a committee of respected peers overriding a flawed decision or upholding a just action might go a long way towards convincing such an individual that a personal reappraisal might be warranted.
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #34 on: 2002-10-07 21:16:30 »
Let's start formalizing and defining this "supreme judiciary" panel for the BBS ONLY and begin nomination procedures.
Let the rescue begin!!!
And let the listserv remain unmoderated, unless, say, the Supreme Court receives three complaints from three separate members, then employ pre-specified punitive measures if the panel majority finds overly disruptive ad-hominem exchanges are inhibiting free and unfettered rational discourse.
What say all?
PS--I also freely admit I really don't give two shits about the BBS. The listserv worked fine BEFORE the BBS and its attendant moderation.
The only use I would really like to see made of the BBS code would be to give everyone who wanted their own channel.
Then I could take "a walk down the street" and drop in and visit anyone that was home and open to visitors.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #35 on: 2002-10-08 08:56:58 »
Quote:
I also freely admit I really don't give two shits about the BBS. The listserv worked fine BEFORE the BBS and its attendant moderation.
I don't see much of a problem with the BBS. Frankly, I have wondered if the most elegant way to solve our current problems is to switch the list off, as was the stated intention in the past.
I don't see much of a problem with the BBS. Frankly, I have wondered if the most elegant way to solve our current problems is to switch the list off, as was the stated intention in the past.
That is the intention, but only when the BBS has the added feature of opting to receive messages via email. Otherwise I think the disruption would be too great and we would lose a lot of subscribers.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #37 on: 2002-10-11 15:41:18 »
I think the most elegant way would be to allow the format to remain largely the same with some important changes. Enough changes so that we can finally put the old list to rest because the new replacement or replacements and the old are sufficiently different animals, that it warrants starting all conversations over again. But sufficiently familiar so that we can bring along as much of the community as possible. Yes, some will drop out, but that happens regardless. We already seem to have frequent new crops such that a few exits don't seem to destroy the conversations unnecessarily. And undoubtedly some will leave because somehow the new format won't be true to their conception of what CoV is supposed to be. The bottom line, however, is that we have to be committed to growth and spread, otherwise we have consigned ourselves to death by default.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #38 on: 2002-10-11 16:12:53 »
Also I would like to add that I am rather happy that the War vote is over, regardless of how I or many of us may feel about its outcome. I am hoping that now we can use the opportunity to at least change the way that we talk about things around here.
In any case, I would suggest that Bill Roh has no standing to make sneering comments or remarks, and little to offer to discussion of the process, but seeing that this is cheaper and easier than the task itself, I anticipate that no matter who ends up dealing with this, will end up on the receiving edge of the tongues of others to a far greater extent than they will ever receive thanks.
Which is why I don't think that anyone who would be halfway appropriate to appoint as a moderator is going to volunteer - and if they do – I doubt that they will stick with it. At the end of the day, the trouble is that due to a few nauseating (and noisy) individuals, the rewards offered by putting a lot into the CoV are a lot smaller than the rewards one can obtain elsewhere for a less effort. Which is a rather sad comment because it might once have been rather more.
Hermit (Continuing to work on elsewhere).
I think this deserves some pointing out again, here. I personally am very gratfeful for the time and effort that Hermit has put into this, and have always maintained this position. I think perhaps the real problem of this last moderation scheme was exactly that whether by design or default Hermit alone carried too much of the weight. I know that I didn't help out as I am not much of a "computer person", but I have tried to make up a little by contributing monetarily, however paltry.
But if we are unable to make the next moderation scheme more of a team effort, it will undoubtably degrade or collapse despite the best efforts of one or two, and no matter the monetary flow or lack thereof. The tendency to let things get too personal, in either cultlike, or divisive ways eventually wins out.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #40 on: 2002-10-12 09:59:15 »
[rhinoceros] My POV has changed a bit.
Blunderov freaked out and unsubscribed. He was not like that. Who is next? There is something sick here which cannot be corrected by mere moderation.
There is a divergence in base premises. When a discussion reaches at the base premises and stil a judgement is not possible, then any attempt for meaningful memetic exchange and constructive discussion is futile. We can have only inane repetitions, contests of wit and personal denigration.
Considering the external reasons of this situation and the obsessive behavior of the virians who invest a lot of time to perpetuate it, this can only get worse. No constructive discussion will be possible for the forseeable future; the CoV is going to be promoting defensiveness of beliefs and close-mindedness. No sense of community either, except for those who get their kicks from personal and social embarassment of themselves or others. And of couse, there is also the issue of waste of our time.
We can't all get along. We can't expand to new members, except if we are interested in members who feel comfortable in this kind of situation.
What can we do? Other that "us or them", which would be a reasonable solution if a guardian of the virian principles decided to make categorical assessments and act upon them, the only alternative I can see would be separate lists or BBS sections with separate opt in/out and banning capabilities. Then, creative discussion might be possible to resume after some time, and we would also have a less distorted picture of what the virians want to talk about.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #41 on: 2002-10-12 19:42:07 »
Rhino brings out some very salient points, though I think his conclusions come thru a bit extreme. My personal CoV position on ad hominem is that generally a certain amount of it is inevitable, that we shouldn't act like the world is exploding when it happens, that any moderation scheme should not seek to completely obliterate it. It is indeed the conversant's free decision to get personal. We don't need to reward the behavior either, however, and if fights escalate to effectively control the list, then that is the time to step in and say "take this outside." or otherwise seek to tone down the volume. There are some ridiculously extreme opinions that float around CoV from time to time that suggest that we should have no moderation as it smacks of "censorship" or thought control or some other gross generalization. That is simply unworkable. On the other hand if you are going to talk about anything that catches the interest of a lot of people, it often runs the risk of drawing them in too personally. If you never run into an ad hominem, it is at least as likely that the subject is generally boring and trite as it is that the participants are unusually nice human beings. In the long run people who excessively ad hominem wear out their welcome and their credibility all by themselves such that the final heave ho comes as no shock to anyone. I'm not particularly thrilled when I see things go ugly, especially between people that I care about, but if you are going to go there, please lets not get stupidly mean. Even if our dialogues aren't always the prettiest, we can still maintain their value if we understand its not an all or nothing proposition.
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #42 on: 2002-10-13 07:49:33 »
[rhinoceros 1] <snip> Considering the external reasons of this situation and the obsessive behavior of the virians who invest a lot of time to perpetuate it <snip>
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #43 on: 2002-10-14 04:42:30 »
Quote:
"Blunderov freaked out and unsubscribed. He was not like that. Who is next? There is something sick here which cannot be corrected by mere moderation."
Why not? The situation remains the same; yet another Virian driven out after being defamed by someone who is no longer willing to engage in civilised debate but is incessantly absuing this list as a vehicle for personal propaganda.
Author
Logged
