Moderation of MDC - What do you think? - Page 2

[Chamomile Girl]

I like the less moderation.  It bugged the crap out of me that people who can't hold their own in a debate got coddled with kid gloves under the old system.  Frankly it also grates that certain boards are supposed to be "support only" and the members there get all up in arms if you post anything contrary to their party line (like those who bash the public education system in the homeschooling forum but haven't actually been inside a school since their formative years...but goodness forbid if one points this out!).

[Ornery]

I don't think the board was all nicey- nicey before even when there was high moderation.  I think it went underground and turned into people shaming people and passive aggression being used as a weapon. 

[tinybutterfly]

Originally Posted by Ornery 

I don't think the board was all nicey- nicey before even when there was high moderation.  I think it went underground and turned into people shaming people and passive aggression being used as a weapon. 

I agree.

And it is a shame that as adults some of us choose to be either mean and snarky or passive aggressive. It would be great if we could figure out how to communicate in a constructive manner without resorting to either of those tactics, but some people enjoy stirring the pot and that is just the way it is. Some choose to be mean, whether overtly or covertly.

For those people who do not seem to be able to practice self-moderation or self-restraint, maybe a little moderation by the powers that be is a good thing for the rest of the community.

I am not talking about coddling anybody, just enforcing a modicum of respectfulness towards fellow members.

I have to go shuffle laundry. I'll try to come back later. If I can't, at least I voted.

ttfn!

[Summersalt]

Sweet baby Jebus, less moderation is a wonderful thing.

[kmeyrick]

Originally Posted by Ornery 

I don't think the board was all nicey- nicey before even when there was high moderation.  I think it went underground and turned into people shaming people and passive aggression being used as a weapon. 

Yes, I noticed this too. I would say we could moderate for downright meanness, but I think it's important that MDC not shut down every dissenting opinion. As for the UC board, I don't think it should be *support only* if there are people out there that know for a fact a poster is uninformed about the risks she is taking. Even quite few UCers themselves will agree that not every birth should be attempted that way.

It's not okay for people to be mean on this board, I agree. Fair enough. I'm not sure how well the old UA did controlling that problem.

[ursusarctos]

Originally Posted by mommato5 

That board in particular needs people who are willing to say "Um, that is dangerous, what are you thinking?". If you can't handle dissenting opinions, again, how are you going to raise children?? Some of the advice there IS dangerous and has caused deaths because people listen to it. Their private board is also probably a big part of why that board is so slow. If women cannot be coddled, they don't want to participate.

Sigh. I think MittensKittens sums up my response to that line of thinking very well:

Originally Posted by MittensKittens 

I agree that the UC board has a lot of people in the category who comes there just to argue - not necessarily to point out something is dangerous, with real arguments and evidence - which would be a different matter. UC is a controversial choice. The opinions that UC is dangerous is all around. Sometimes, hearing concerns sets us up for better preparation. Still, if I wanted to hear opinions opposed to UC, I'd walk into my OB's office instead - the UC board is for people who have already chosen UC and need to inform themselves, I think. It's why I first came to MDC. At that point, that particular board was full of constructive information. That changed now.

In addition, I have often seen women advised by other UCers not to UC if the situation seems like a bad one. And for the record, I am not planning a UC, I just support it and used to really like the UC forum for its interesting philosophical discussions and positive attitude.

I also agree with everything tinybutterfly has said.

[Drummer's Wife]

What about just calling people out when they are exceptionally rude or make bad calls (ie namecalling or admitting to abusing their kid)? 

I mean, why would we need mods to babysit and put the smack down, when we as members could influence the ambiance we want here?  For example, with circumcision - if you are so sure of your decision to have done this to your baby boy, and you are open to admitting it here, couldn't you handle anyone telling you it was wrong?  I mean, you can defend your decision if you are comfortable with it, right? 

It would just be known, then, that if you mention circumcision as a good thing on MDC, you are likely to get a ton of backlash.  If you aren't up for discussing a certain issue here on MDC knowing others are going to throw in their input, well then, don't. 

it can still be a NFL/AP at heart community that lets people hash out their differences in a respectful way.  That's allows for learning and growing, IMO. 

[Buzzer Beater]

Originally Posted by tinybutterfly 

I've been gone awhile.

And wow, just the little I have seen since coming on yesterday...it's a free-for-all out there.

I will go vote other.

I am one who would fall in the happy medium camp for amount of moderation needed.

Yes, we are all adults, but ya know, not all adults seem to be able to be respectful to others. That is a problem.

And some people think being mean and snarky is fun. Okay. Enough of those people will change the tone of the board for sure. And just as heavy moderation will shut down constructive discussion, so will overt and heavy meanness and snarkiness. The result is the same, people will be afraid to post.

Personally, I would prefer it if we could all behave in a respectful manner towards one another, even if we heartily disagree and skip the name-calling and attacking.

I know it can be done. I visit another board that has a much more respectful tone, even though there are huge debates on very touchy topics.

I don't understand why it is not working here.

Or maybe after an initial upheaval and a period of people running amok and being wild, things will settle down and constructive discussion will take place again without all the anger and belligerance. I hope that is the case.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if it's not okay to talk to a child in a hateful way why is it okay to talk to another adult in a hateful way? And then the adult is told to put on her big girl panties and get over it. I just don't get it. If we can be respectful towards our children, why can't we be respectful towards one another?

Off to vote other.

I really agree with the bolded. But how DO we handle outright rude people? Run and hide from our own threads?

Why does lighter moderation have to come with less respect? I don't understand the desire to swear and snark on a board that is for discussion. I come here to learn and exchange ideas with other folks, not defend myself from folks who think it's fun to stir people up and cuss. I can "hold my own in a debate" until people start getting mean.

[lobster_mom]

I prefer minimal moderation, BUT minimal moderation alone would not get me posting here regularly again. A long series of bad decisions by the Mothering owners has 'poisoned the well' for me, and probably for many other former and potential posters.

[stik]

Also not a UCer, but I did notice that early this year, the UC forum became a very scary place because a new user went kinda crazy trying to proselytize and it suddenly because completely impossible to have anything remotely resembling a rational discussion of risk in there.  People were attacked for not being true believers.  

I think that's the kind of thing moderation should focus on.  I think it's good that have lively debates with a variety of opinions, and brings more traffic to the site.  I think the tone is more important than making people agree with each other.  I think the UA should be reduced to a small set of core principles and some expectations about tone and mutual respect.  

[Galatea]

Tone is important.  I think there is a lot of bleedover here from other sites that encourage snark.  I just wish people would be nice.  Being nice would solve so many problems.  But people apparently cannot be nice.

[tracymom1]

I voted other.

I am on the fence a bit... I generally choose to avoid the "heated" discussions on the internet because I really just don't care that much. I have enough people IRL who disagree with me to argue with, lol!!

I do, however, think that there should be a place for disagreement and debate on MDC. I think that drawing the line at name-calling and blatant rudeness is probably a good place to be. Yes, that means there leaves a bit of wiggle room for the mods and UA as far as what is actually considered "rude" behavior - it is a subjective line that not everyone may agree upon. Oh well. Its the internet. We aren't all going to get along and there will be some arguing - but as long as the intent isn't there to hurt someone's feelings just for the sake of causing trouble, then maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Personally, I like hearing varying opinions of controversial issues. It is the name-calling and general nastiness that tend to get in the way of making an otherwise valid point. There has to be some middle ground.

[CrazyCatLady]

I strongly prefer minimal moderation.  However, I don't think moderation is the main problem with the site right now.  I've been a member long enough that I can remember a time back before the heavy moderation, where people still managed to play nice and get along for the most part (before 2007).  The difference was that MDC was more of a community then, a safe place for AP and NFL people.  MDC meant a lot to it's members, and because of that respect for the community, people tried harder to show respect towards one another. 

Then it became all about money.  And the crazy UA kicked in, important members were banned, the magazine disintegrated, MDC tried to please everybody by becoming more accommodating to people not so much on the stereotypical AP spectrum, the new website design sucks, we have new members from who knows where posting weird stuff, nobody "knows" each other anymore, etc.  This place is so far from what it used to be and I don't think there is any getting back to what it was unfortunately.  Bad decision after bad decision made by the people in charge have told me for years now that money matters most, and our opinions matter very little.

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope MDC can restore itself (even a little bit, I understand that some changes were necessary).  But honestly right now I have more respect for parenting...at least they have never tried and pretended to be something that they're not. 

So I voted for minimal moderation (obviously).  But maybe I should have checked other.  I do wish that non-AP encouraging posts and some of the really strange rangers (aka...trolls) on here were a little more moderated again.  Seems like this could all be handled with a little common sense instead of just one way or the other yk?

I really miss you, old time MDC.

Edited by CrazyCatLady - 6/15/11 at 10:32am

[GuildJenn]

I appreciate the lighter moderation. I do try to post in a generally respectful way and always have. But in the past I got so frustrated having threads I participated in continually locked, deleted, or edited to the point of incoherence that I essentially gave up. I felt it was so disrespectful of my time that someone who got upset because perhaps she didn't get all "go mamas!" that the entire thread would just vanish.

I also have been encouraged to come back more because although I believe in a lot of NFL, there are things I don't believe in, and in the past it seemed there was no room to share my views on those things (particularly involving risk management in pregnancy and birth). The newer moderation style has let me see that it wasn't just me, all those years.

That said, I still don't participate on MDC as much any more for a few reasons, some personal and also:

- the new format can be incredibly slow for me and as I said, I need respect for my time...as a parent this is the commodity I find most precious much of the day. This is reason #1. There was a Canada's Wonderland ad that kept preventing me (as a Cdn visitor) from loading the site, but I didn't have time then to write in about it. I do wonder why this kind of thing is not getting checked.

- I have gone much more to mobile and I didn't like the "buy this app" solution (just personal preference, but it is a trend to go more mobile)

- As someone who works in online media I appreciate very much the struggle to monetize the site more effectively but I find things like the sponsored post in the adoption forum -- and any sponsored posts -- just put me off, because it makes me feel like there is a growing gap between the reasons I value the site and what the site needs to do to pay its staff. And that is really a tough one. I know it takes time, but it does impact on my choice to participate and to which degree.

All that negative stuff aside, I have been very impressed at the willingness to ask the members and make decisions - really really impressed. This thread is an example. So go team.

[Adaline'sMama]

I feel like if we could moderate ourselves there wouldnt be 8 active threads on the boards right now arguing whether or not MDC is "crunchier than thou". There are basically about 10 people that are constantly complaining that MDC is "snotty" and ladies here are "hurting people constantly" and that we are all trying to win some award. Basically, I feel like every "hot thread" other than the one about welfare moms is really just about what MDC is vs. what its supposed to be. There are very few places to share NFL-AP advice and ideas with other parents, and I really liked MDC being my place to go for that. I also liked the old UA better than the current one.

[greencarnation]

I voted other.  I think it is crucial to have an forum where freethinking and debate are allowed, but I am shocked at how mainstream it has gotten here!  I got chewed out by several people the other day, because I refused GD testing!  I felt like I might as well be on pregnancy.com or something!  

So, I think a light hand at moderation, while still making the focus on AP, natural birth, and free choice as women and mothers is the goal to shoot for.

[tinybutterfly]

Originally Posted by tracymom1 

I voted other.

I am on the fence a bit... I generally choose to avoid the "heated" discussions on the internet because I really just don't care that much. I have enough people IRL who disagree with me to argue with, lol!!

I do, however, think that there should be a place for disagreement and debate on MDC. I think that drawing the line at name-calling and blatant rudeness is probably a good place to be. Yes, that means there leaves a bit of wiggle room for the mods and UA as far as what is actually considered "rude" behavior - it is a subjective line that not everyone may agree upon. Oh well. Its the internet. We aren't all going to get along and there will be some arguing - but as long as the intent isn't there to hurt someone's feelings just for the sake of causing trouble, then maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Personally, I like hearing varying opinions of controversial issues. It is the name-calling and general nastiness that tend to get in the way of making an otherwise valid point. There has to be some middle ground.

Originally Posted by greencarnation 

I voted other.  I think it is crucial to have an forum where freethinking and debate are allowed, but I am shocked at how mainstream it has gotten here!  I got chewed out by several people the other day, because I refused GD testing!  I felt like I might as well be on pregnancy.com or something!  

So, I think a light hand at moderation, while still making the focus on AP, natural birth, and free choice as women and mothers is the goal to shoot for.

I agree that disagreement and debate should definitely be allowed and that though I don't enjoy participating in those threads, I do enjoy reading the varying opinions as long as people are reasonably respectful. I am not sure where that line is between playful sarcasm, sarcasm and outright verbal abuse.

I have only been checking in the past couple of days, so haven't yet read any really mainstream stuff. I haven't had time to read as much as I would like to be able to right now. I imagine that was surprising to run across here. This has been one of the places I go to so I do not feel so "odd" about some of the choices I have made regarding my births, parenting, how we run our home, etc. and I am only lightly sprinkled with granola...but my neighbors think we are "weird."

[larzanna]

I just saw this, and i had not realized that the UA had changed, however, now that i know that, the last little while is making way more sense!! The threads have gotten really mean and off topic lately.

So i voted for more moderation, however i will say that when you personally got "moderated" that it came across as kind of mean, and was sometimes for really stupid stuff.

So i guess i would say somewhere inbetween, but if i had to choose i would take more over less since less has not seemed to work.  

[katec67]

I haven't been here in a long time.  I came back yesterday and was unpleasantly surprised by the change of tone in the forums.  I used to love these forums as a great place to get information I couldn't find elsewhere.

First the print magazine folds and now the forums are a different, more obnoxious place.  Very disappointing.

[Daffodil]

I like the idea of more minimal moderation, but I'm not sure I like the way it's working out here.  I'm fine with people swearing or talking about sex.  I'm fine with people presenting opposing, non-supportive opinions - posts in the gifted forum saying that the gifted label harms children, posts in the homeschooling forum saying that school is the better choice for a lot of kids, posts in the UC forum saying that UC is dangerous and unwise.  I think that makes for some interesting discussion.  I'm fine with the occasional mean but funny response to a post.  I'm even fine with unkind and possibly unfair generalizations about whole groups of people - fundamentalist Christians, atheists, people who are into EC, people who use strollers, whatever. 

But I've been seeing more and more personal attacks and petty squabbling, and I don't like that.  Comments like "You bore me."  And the part of the huge Trolls thread that turned into an argument about whether or not people from TWWS had interfered in a particular person's life and whether that was justified - those posts were full of all kinds of personal details, accusations and counter-accusations, and I don't think it was a discussion that should have been taking place in a public forum. 

I don't want to see the moderators squashing real discussion, even if it involves arguments and disagreements.  But if someone posts basically just to insult someone else, or to continue their own personal ongoing fight, that's the kind of thing I'd like to see stopped by moderation.