Could we move the Israeli War threads into Politics? - Page 10

[ChasingPeace]

I am very sad and disappointed that this has happened. I thought that the N & CE and Politics forums were something that made this board extremely special and valuable. There is something very meaningful and valuable about learning the views and exchanging discourse, ideas, and news sources with other mothers (and some fathers, too!) all over the world. The N&CE and Politics forums were always one of my first stops when trying to sort out how I felt about an issue. It's a shame and a great loss to me.

As far as the problems that led up to this decision, speaking for myself, I often had difficulty understanding how the UA was interpreted. I recently got a violation, and I honestly don't understand why my remark was considered to be a violation. However, I do know that a lot of thought was put into drafting the UA and guidelines in order to create a safe, respectful online community here, and I deeply respect and appreciate that, so I accept that what I wrote must have been offensive, even though that was not my intention. But I'm not sure it wouldn't happen again, because I'm not sure why it was wrong. My point is that perhaps some posters who violate the UA may not be "refusing" to follow the UA, but aren't really aware that they are.

The only suggestions I can think of are to require posters to N&CE and Politics to review the UA and guidelines more regularly, like every 3 months or 6 months or x number of posts they would get a PM requiring them to review them again, and require posters to take a test identifying examples of UA violations after the review. I don't know if that's realistic or technically feasible.

Thanks to all who made the N&CE and Politics forums the wonderful places they were! I appreciate all the passionate posters from all sides who took the time to share their views and knowledge. I also would love to know if another site is created or already exists.

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

In this analogy, you seem to be missing the point that you aren't a bunch of children and we aren't your teachers or your mommies. It's not in our "job description," so to speak, to smooth out the way and make everyone's paths straight, level, and strewn with roses. At some point, the members need to step up and take some ownership as well.

But to extend your analogy in my teaching experience, adding more teachers doesn't make the "bullying" end. It makes people more passive aggressive and sneaky. Instead of the 90-pound weakling getting beat up on the playground, they get a swirly in the girls' room toilet.

I am as upset as the next person. Maybe even moreso. But I think it does a grave disservice to the time and energy and passion Adina, Joss, and Bethany have put into the forums to point the finger at them and say they weren't proactive enough or strict enough or didn't work hard enough.

Annettemarie,
I borrowed the anology from Abi. See her post, # 164.

Originally Posted by abimommy

I think that is an important distinction. People often took it personally because they were being personally insulted.

We don't really run the boards with the premise that people "shouldn't take it personally" sincere people should be able to post about their views without being bullied. We wouldn't tolerate bullying in children, it isn't ok in adults either.

Also, cyberbullying is illegal in some states.

http://www.mothering.com/sections/ne...tober2006.html

http://www.mothering.com/articles/gr...n/bullies.html

I concede the analogy isn’t perfectly on point but not for the reason you emphasize. Passive aggressive and sneaky behavior is far more insidious in real life than it is online. (BTW, a great book on this subject is “Odd Girl Out”). Which is to say that online the sneakiness can only go so far “underground”. It may be hiding out in the open but it is out there in the open. It really is a simple matter of activating one's receptors.

I believe that is what Jacque was getting at in her Aug/08 Notice going into the first Moratorium:

8/7/08
Three day moratorium for N&CE/Politics
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...ght=guidelines

... Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental or belittling. This issue has reached an extreme, and we will be more pro-active and quick to warn anyone for such behavior, which could ultimately lead to your loss of posting privileges here in N&CE.

And no, Mods and Admins are not Mommies and Teachers but they are here to apply the UA evenly. Something they cannot possibly do effectively if enforcement is driven almost entirely by member reporting. Since, as discussed previously ad nauseum, the minority cannot possibly compete with the majority’s reporting power.

Bottomline, it’s a simple matter of fairness. And I wouldn’t say that the individual Mods were “reactive” instead of “proactive”. I think it would be fair to say it was “the system” that was the problem. Although that’s a distinction without much of a meaningful difference if you are on the business end of all that passive aggressive, sneakiness.

And it’s worth emphasizing that –as far as I can tell-- this system works pretty well on virtually every other Board, with the recent, limited exception of the N&CE Board. So, no, it isn’t the Mods/Admins fault. But I think we can all agree that is cold comfort for the minority on the Politics board.

~Cath

BTW, is anyone else struck by the occasional Majority response to the Minority on these issues, which essentially is that if you don't like it you can leave? Which is remarkably similar to a Politics Board Majority sentiment frequently and generically projected onto a vague and amorphous group of "they" (whoever "they" are), most frequently in the context of "Patriotism".

~Cath

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by dawningmama

What you are talking about sounds a lot like affirmative action for conservatives. I can't imagine what that would look like. Can you give some examples of the kind of proactive moderation you are talking about, Cathmac?

dawningmama,
It would be simpler to quote Jacque on this point:

8/7/08
Three day moratorium for N&CE/Politics
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...ght=guidelines

... Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental or belittling. This issue has reached an extreme, and we will be more pro-active and quick to warn anyone for such behavior, which could ultimately lead to your loss of posting privileges here in N&CE.

[annettemarie]

CathMac, we know what Jacque wrote. You've quoted it several times now. What I don't understand is what, specifically, your vision of "pro-active" moderation looks like.

[dawningmama]

We were doing that bit you from Jacque that you quoted and bolded. So I'm still unclear on what you mean by proactive moderation.

[fullofgrace]

Again, we, as moderators, can't moderate for feelings or perceived lack of moral support. Lack of moral support isn't a UA Violation. Not liking an environment is not written into the UA as a violation. It's not a moderator's fault if there is a larger population of Opinion A vs Opinion B. Sometimes things just are the way they are.

Originally Posted by CathMac

aoife,
Members will post when they feel welcome.

You've said this more than once, but I'd like you to clarify. How do you specifically propose that moderators (not administrators) make that occur?

I'm not sure everyone understands that moderators are limited by the UA which is created between the administrators & Peggy O'Mara. At the end of the day, the final call as to what is and is not a UAV and how much action to take on it isn't made by us as it is not within our scope.



ETA: I hope that's coming out as I intend. I'm sincerely asking, but in type my direct discussion style can come off as rude when I don't mean it to.

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by Missy

Well, then.

**cough**ahem**


SQUEAK!!


If, in fact, that's really how it worked...

Missy,
How did I miss this?

If I didn't know better I would think you were trying to illustrate one or more of my key points.


~Cath

[Missy]

Nah, just looking for attention. Apparently I haven't been squeaking loud enough.

[studentmama]

I am not really seeing how the moderators could be more proactive without seeming like they are purposely supporting a point of view, which I would think would contradict the point of being a moderator.

I am sorry that the minority members somehow feel like there was some hidden conspiracy amoung members who supposedly all agree, but I would like to offer my own viewpoint.

Yes, it could be said that many members supported Obama, but to interpret that as we all agree on everything, we totally think alike, and somehow there is some hidden agenda to be against those in the minority, well, I think that is a far stretch of the imagination and instead of a critical look at peoples posts, an assumption of the posters intent based on their support for Obama. This also made for difficult discussions because instead posters actually reading what people said and taking posts at face value(which is all you can do on the internet), they were inferring posts based on the posters name, which caused many posters to try and repeat their point over and over to try and get their post heard, instead of inferred.

Yes, this is definitely a welcome discussion on moderation and we can talk about whether less or more is better, whether the UA should be changed, but to insinuate that somehow this is the moderators fault because they didn't advocate the minority position, well, I think that maybe folks are not understanding what the job of the moderator is. It's not to advocate a position, it's to moderate.

People are allowed to have opinions. People are allowed to counter those opinions with their own. It's that whole free speech thing. Sometimes opinions are in the minority, sometimes they are the majority. It happens. It's called discussion and moderators are supposed to be moderate, not advocate an opinion.

[kama'aina mama]

CathMac... It sounds like you want them to moderate on a curve or something. You keep refering to "borderline UAV's" and "skirting the UA" and honestly... if it's not against the UA it's within it. If it's against the UA the mods respond. If it's not, they don't.

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

CathMac... It sounds like you want them to moderate on a curve or something. You keep refering to "borderline UAV's" and "skirting the UA" and honestly... if it's not against the UA it's within it. If it's against the UA the mods respond. If it's not, they don't.

I thought what she was saying that if the majority see a vilation, there are more members to report it, whereas if there are only a couple of members seeing a violation, there are as many opportunities to report it. does that make sense? I'm very rtired - baby with strep

the mods CAN'T see every violation. so they rely on mmbers to report. but if the majority of memebers agree with a certain poster they are less likely to report that posters vilations.

[CathMac]

Hypothetical and composite examples

Originally Posted by annettemarie

CathMac, we know what Jacque wrote. You've quoted it several times now. What I don't understand is what, specifically, your vision of "pro-active" moderation looks like.

Originally Posted by dawningmama

We were doing that bit you from Jacque that you quoted and bolded. So I'm still unclear on what you mean by proactive moderation.

Originally Posted by aoife

Again, we, as moderators, can't moderate for feelings or perceived lack of moral support. Lack of moral support isn't a UA Violation. Not liking an environment is not written into the UA as a violation. It's not a moderator's fault if there is a larger population of Opinion A vs Opinion B. Sometimes things just are the way they are.

You've said this more than once, but I'd like you to clarify. How do you specifically propose that moderators (not administrators) make that occur?

I'm not sure everyone understands that moderators are limited by the UA which is created between the administrators & Peggy O'Mara. At the end of the day, the final call as to what is and is not a UA and how much action to take on it isn't made by us as it is not within our scope.

ETA: I hope that's coming out as I intend. I'm sincerely asking, but in type my direct discussion style can come off as rude when I don't mean it to.

Originally Posted by dawningmama

What you are talking about sounds a lot like affirmative action for conservatives. I can't imagine what that would look like. Can you give some examples of the kind of proactive moderation you are talking about, Cathmac?

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

CathMac... It sounds like you want them to moderate on a curve or something. You keep refering to "borderline UAV's" and "skirting the UA" and honestly... if it's not against the UA it's within it. If it's against the UA the mods respond. If it's not, they don't.

Sorry, I can’t put it any better than Jacque without using specific examples and risking violating Member Rule 7 &/or 8.

MDC UA – Rule #s 7 & 8
http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html
“Do not post to debate or challenge the MDC User Agreement, the moderators, administrators, or their actions. Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. If this is not successful, see Recourse.”

“Do not start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member.”

However, at the risk of sounding somewhat idealistic, I will generally say that it would be helpful if the Mods were more consistent when dealing with posts that could be perceived as “Passive Aggressive”. Without using specific examples I will say that often the Majority would take unwarranted offense at things as innocent as editing style / redaction, or even occasionally a “smilie” that struck them the wrong way (even one used to playfully “agree to disagree” consistent with the mutual previous use of said “smilie”). And even in some cases enlarged fonts: not “shouting” “all caps” mind you, merely enlarged or bold font.


I . kid . you . not.

Enlarged font.
Editing style / Redaction … ... ...,
Agreeing to disagree ,
Etc.


And yet, using a hypothetical example, a post which took direct personal issue with a fellow member while arguably inaccurately characterizing a post as (ironically enough) distorting a cited resource (by virtue of its editing style), might (again, this is a hypothetical example) be left in a thread … despite repeated “Reports” of the inaccurate characterization as a direct attack on a fellow members character ... such that it verged on libel.

Now, personally I’m not offended by what is arguably “gentle ribbing”, especially when it is obviously more a matter of “form” over “substance”. Unless it is clear from the context that the poster is deliberately “tweaking” someone or obviously trying to “poke, poke, poke” a raw nerve: the online equivalent of a “swirlie” in the Girls’ Room toilet to use Annettemarie’s characterization:

Originally Posted by annettemarie

...
But to extend your analogy in my teaching experience, adding more teachers doesn't make the "bullying" end. It makes people more passive aggressive and sneaky. Instead of the 90-pound weakling getting beat up on the playground, they get a swirly in the girls' room toilet.

But it should be obvious that if you enforce the UA based on the perception of Passive Aggressive posting then you should do so evenly. And, at the risk of repeating myself, you cannot rely upon member reporting since the perception of what crosses the line is obviously skewed by relative “reporting power”.

Otherwise, to extend my example, the hypothetical poster wouldn’t be asked to stop defensively describing how they edited or redacted articles in subsequent posts in an effort to pre-empt any accusations of deliberate distortion. Rather, the post that put them on the defensive would have been removed after the third or fourth request.

Anywhoo, enough hypothesizing. JMO.
~Cath

[kolleen9]

Originally Posted by CathMac

Sorry, I can’t put it any better than Jacque without using specific examples and risking violating Member Rule 7 &/or 8.


MDC UA – Rule #s 7 & 8
http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html
“Do not post to debate or challenge the MDC User Agreement, the moderators, administrators, or their actions. Constructive criticism and questions for purposes of clarification are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. If this is not successful, see Recourse.”
“Do not start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member.”

However, at the risk of sounding somewhat idealistic, I will generally say that it would be helpful if the Mods were more consistent when dealing with posts that could be perceived as “Passive Aggressive”. Without using specific examples I will say that often the Majority would take unwarranted offense at things as innocent as editing style / redaction, or even occasionally a “smilie” that struck them the wrong way (even one used to playfully “agree to disagree” consistent with the mutual previous use of said “smilie”). And even in some cases enlarged fonts: not “shouting” “all caps” mind you, merely enlarged or bold font.


I . kid . you . not.

Enlarged font.
Editing style / Redaction … ... ...,
Agreeing to disagree ,
Etc.


And yet, using a hypothetical example, a post which took direct personal issue with a fellow member while arguably inaccurately characterizing a post as (ironically enough) distorting a cited resource (by virtue of its editing style), might (again, this is a hypothetical example) be left in a thread … despite repeated “Reports” of the inaccurate characterization as a direct attack on a fellow members character ... such that it verged on libel.

Now, personally I’m not offended by what is arguably “gentle ribbing”, especially when it is obviously more a matter of “form” over “substance”. Unless it is clear from the context that the poster is deliberately “tweaking” someone or obviously trying to “poke, poke, poke” a raw nerve: the online equivalent of a “swirlie” in the Girls’ Room toilet to use Annettemarie’s characterization:



But it should be obvious that if you enforce the UA based on the perception of Passive Aggressive posting then you should do so evenly. And, at the risk of repeating myself, you cannot rely upon member reporting since the perception of what crosses the line is obviously skewed by relative “reporting power”.

Otherwise, to extend my example, the hypothetical poster wouldn’t be asked to stop defensively describing how they edited or redacted articles in subsequent posts in an effort to pre-empt any accusations of deliberate distortion. Rather, the post that put them on the defensive would have been removed after the third or fourth request.

Anywhoo, enough hypothesizing. JMO.
~Cath

I tried really hard to follow this concern and I'm completely confused. Sorry CathMac if you are not feeling supported, I don't it's intentional or purposely hurtful. Maybe you need to mail the specifics to an admin?

-Kolleen

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by studentmama

I am not really seeing how the moderators could be more proactive without seeming like they are purposely supporting a point of view, which I would think would contradict the point of being a moderator.

...

Yes, this is definitely a welcome discussion on moderation and we can talk about whether less or more is better, whether the UA should be changed, but to insinuate that somehow this is the moderators fault because they didn't advocate the minority position, well, I think that maybe folks are not understanding what the job of the moderator is. It's not to advocate a position, it's to moderate.

studentmama,
There hasn't been any suggestion that the Mods should "advocate" anyone's position. There have been multiple repeated statements urging the even handed interpretation and application of the UA and Politics Guidelines. That's a simple matter of fairness.

~Cath

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by kolleen9

I tried really hard to follow this concern and I'm completely confused. Sorry CathMac if you are not feeling supported, I don't it's intentional or purposely hurtful. Maybe you need to mail the specifics to an admin?

-Kolleen

kolleen,
If these had been real examples I assure you I would have.

~Cath

[Sustainer]

Cath, it seems like you're suggesting that moderators should pay more attention to reports from conservatives than to reports from liberals. If that's not what you're suggesting, then what *are* you suggesting that moderators should do? Specifically? I agree with another poster that it sounds like affirmative action for conservatives.

[CathMac]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

Cath, it seems like you're suggesting that moderators should pay more attention to reports from conservatives than to reports from liberals. If that's not what you're suggesting, then what *are* you suggesting that moderators should do? Specifically? I agree with another poster that it sounds like affirmative action for conservatives.

Sustainer,
Actually, what I have repeatedly, specifically stated in an assortment of different ways, is that the UA and Politics guidelines should be evenly interpreted and applied.

While more proactive moderating (as contemplated by Jacque back in August) should mitigate some of the disadvantage to the minority that doesn't mean that it wouldn't also benefit the majority in the unlikely event that there were a minority UAV that had somehow been missed by the majority membership.

~Cath

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

Cath, it seems like you're suggesting that moderators should pay more attention to reports from conservatives than to reports from liberals. If that's not what you're suggesting, then what *are* you suggesting that moderators should do? Specifically? I agree with another poster that it sounds like affirmative action for conservatives.

I've been reading this with interest, and tried really ~really~ hard to step back and make sure that I wasn't being defensive (as a self identified liberal), but basically: yeah that.

If you're looking for curved moderation for conservatives, or for the mods to a) go harder on the majority and b) softer on the minority - I don't think that'll fly. And if not - what are you asking?

I agree with the pp who said you may need to pm an admin and use specific examples. I also *completely* agree with kama who said that if it's not against the UA - it's not.

There have been some good suggestions in this thread, I'm impressed at how smart we all are.

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by CathMac

Sustainer,
Actually, what I have repeatedly, specifically stated in an assortment of different ways, is that the UA and Politics guidelines should be evenly interpreted and applied.

While more proactive moderating (as contemplated by Jacque back in August) should mitigate some of the disadvantage to the minority that doesn't mean that it wouldn't also benefit the majority in the unlikely event that there were a minority UAV that had somehow been missed by the large minority membership.
~Cath

Bolding mine.

So you ~are~ asking for the mods to jump on posts that are perceived as offensive to the minority? And isn't 'large minority' an oxymoron? I kid, I kid - I get what you mean. Personally, I just don't think the mods have the time (from what we've read here) to so minutely comb through threads like that.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by CathMac

Actually, what I have repeatedly, specifically stated in an assortment of different ways, is that the UA and Politics guidelines should be evenly interpreted and applied.

I'm sure the moderators take each report seriously, but you seem to be implying that it's inherently unfair that most of the reports come from liberals. But I don't see how the moderators can do anything about the fact that most of the people in the forum are liberal, other than some sort of special treatment for conservatives.