Could we move the Israeli War threads into Politics? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:04 PM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
ChasingPeace is offline  
#182 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:16 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
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:

Quote:
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 is offline  
#183 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:20 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawningmama View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
CathMac is offline  
#184 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:25 PM
 
annettemarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the Restricted Section
Posts: 41,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

Flowers, fairies, gardens, and rainbows-- Seasons of Joy: 10 weeks of crafts, handwork, painting, coloring, circle time, fairy tales, and more!
Check out the blog for family fun, homeschooling, books, simple living, and 6 fabulous children, including twin toddlers

annettemarie is offline  
#185 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:27 PM
 
dawningmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: North Carolina!
Posts: 4,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

I'm a morning person.  We actually do exist.
dawningmama is offline  
#186 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:41 PM
 
fullofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 15,723
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
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.

Wife of 1. Mom of 3. Conquering disability challenges, one achievement at a time.
 

fullofgrace is offline  
#187 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 12:41 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy View Post
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
CathMac is offline  
#188 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 01:46 PM
 
Missy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: virginia
Posts: 4,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Nah, just looking for attention. Apparently I haven't been squeaking loud enough.
Missy is offline  
#189 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 01:52 PM
 
studentmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 2,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
studentmama is offline  
#190 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 01:54 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#191 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:00 PM
 
vbactivist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post
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.
vbactivist is offline  
#192 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:17 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawningmama View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoife View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawningmama View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kama'aina mama View Post
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.


Quote:
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by annettemarie View Post
...
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
CathMac is offline  
#193 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:30 PM
 
kolleen9's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
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
kolleen9 is offline  
#194 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:32 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentmama View Post
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 is offline  
#195 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:33 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolleen9 View Post


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
CathMac is offline  
#196 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:40 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#197 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:50 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post
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
CathMac is offline  
#198 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:56 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sustainer View Post
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.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
#199 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 02:59 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,726
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
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.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
#200 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
#201 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:02 PM
 
studentmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 2,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cath, it's a system where members report things, you can't change individuals who are reporting, that's up to the members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
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.
This is the attitude I can't understanding. Maybe I am misunderstanding your posts, but it really seems like you think the majority is in cahoots with each other. I think this attitude is really misguided and you are reading far to into peoples posts. This was the point I was trying to make earlier. You read "majority," where I read different viewpoints.
studentmama is offline  
#202 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:12 PM
 
fullofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 15,723
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Disclaimer - I am being sincere. No amount of smilies will convey that without my saying it outright. So I'm saying it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CathMac View Post
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”.
Cath, again, perception and 'could be's are not listed in the User Agreement as UAVs. Moderators can't remove or alert posts that are not listed as UAVs. You can definitely make suggestions for changes in the wording and listings in the UA to admin, though.

Taking offense is also not a UAV as it is written. Critical dissection of links, sources and quotes is also not a UAV per administration, posted by moderators:
Quote:
# When you post a web link, book, article, etc. as a source of information, it will likely be reviewed and quite possibly critiqued by your fellow members. It is their right to do so.

# When you assert something as either fact or your opinion, some members will agree with you and some will not. Further information and opinions about political parties, candidates, policies, behaviors, etc. may get posted in an attempt to either 'debate' or debunk your post or the article it contains. This is also allowed if it remains within the UA.
.....

Quote:
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.
Moderators also can't remove posts because someone feels defensive. There is only so much we can do. We also can't remove a thread or post just because someone wants it gone. If the post that one feels badly upon reading is not listed in the UA as a UAV, it isn't alertable or removable. How anyone reacts to a post is not anything a moderator can control. Again, per admin, posted by mods:
Quote:
# How members react or feel upon reading something is not within the scope of what we moderate, as feelings are not covered in the User Agreement. All members are allowed to post opinions and information regarding any and all topics contained within a thread should they so choose, provided they follow the rules. If the rules are followed but your feelings sting, then that would be a case where you would need to use the ignore feature, or send that member a private message and ask them to clarify.

# You are always more than welcome to ignore the opinions of those with whom you do not agree, and you are truly under no obligation to engage them in conversation. By utilizing MDC's ignore feature, their posts will not display on your screen, nor will you receive PMs from them. Members can always be taken off of your ignore list; it doesn't have to be permanent. Even just used as a stop-gap during a heated thread, the ignore feature could prove helpful for you.
Sometimes we all have to take things with a grain of salt, grumble to ourselves, and move on. And it's cases like those where the ignore feature can be everybody's friend. Well, not moderators, we can't use ignore.

Again, I strongly suggest wording a PM to admin regarding the wording of the User Agreement if there are nuances you would like handled a certain way.

Wife of 1. Mom of 3. Conquering disability challenges, one achievement at a time.
 

fullofgrace is offline  
#203 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:16 PM
 
avent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Learning about ancient history along with the kiddos
Posts: 654
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As someone who usually disagrees with CathMac's point of view, I'm also trying to understand what she is saying. I have seen and participated in threads that were pretty hard on her point of view but within the UA. Some definitely pushed the boundaries though.

I think what she's saying is that she would like the mods to read the posts sooner and moderate more quickly ("proactively") rather than waiting for reports. It's not so much "affirmative action" for conservatives as much as a lopsidedness which naturally happens if reporting is the main mechanism for zeroing in on posts. So not giving additional benefit to the minority point of view, but giving a nod to the fact that if a situation is greatly lopsided and reporting is the main way to find offending posts, it will be unbalanced. It doesn't mean paying more attention to minority posts or reports, but rather getting in front of the problem by not waiting for reports.

At least I think that's what she's saying.
avent is offline  
#204 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:20 PM
 
fullofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 15,723
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is extremely helpful, but it is only one tool used.

Wife of 1. Mom of 3. Conquering disability challenges, one achievement at a time.
 

fullofgrace is offline  
#205 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:20 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really don't see the point of pointing fingers in either direction.

Neither side has the monopoly on inappropriate posting.


Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#206 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:22 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoife View Post
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is only one tool used.
This is true, we do read the forums.


If we didn't read them and only responded to reports that would be a HUGE reduction in the workload for moderators. However most N&CE/Politics posters do not report posts. Most of the UAVs are found through reading.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#207 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:24 PM
 
studentmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 2,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
This is true, we do read the forums.


If we didn't read them and only responded to reports that would be a HUGE reduction in the workload for moderators. However most N&CE/Politics posters do not report posts. Most of the UAVs are found through reading.
This is good to know. I guess I was of the understanding that UAV's were only dealt with if they are reported. Sorry for misunderstadning that.
studentmama is offline  
#208 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:25 PM
 
CathMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nursemummy View Post
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.

nursemummy,
Well, that should have been a hyperbolic redundancy and instead turned out to be an oxymoron due to a typo which I have corrected (thanks for pointing it out).

Agreed. They don't have the time. Which is why I would argue in favor of more Mods.

On the other hand overreporting by the majority could easily be mitigated by by the manner in which the UA is applied:

Font size, editing style, smilies? Really?

It's a matter of perception. If enough people report a perceived infraction then it is treated as disruptive even if doesn't quite reach the level of an actual UAV.

In contrast, I wouldn't even bother reporting those types of things myself. Which is one less voice in an already teeny tiny quintet. So even if one or two people in that small group were to report a comparable violation --on principle alone-- then it seems extremely unlikely that the arguable violation would be perceived as problematic. In fact, its probable that they will be perceived as complainers.

So not only is the minority under reporting on the basis of size, they are less likely to report technical UAVs. And if they are anything like me they have a tendency to agonize over that final edit before hitting the send button, which can be time consuming.

~Cath
CathMac is offline  
#209 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:27 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We do not moderate for "disruptive" we moderate for violations of the User Agreement.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#210 of 240 Old 01-23-2009, 03:27 PM
 
Sustainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 10,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoife
I understand that. But that idea was formulated under the assumption that reports are the only way some of us moderate (or did moderate) a forum, and it is incorrect. A report is extremely helpful, but it is only one tool used.
And even if reporting *were* the only tool used, how is it unfair not to have an army of conservatives to report UAVs by liberals? I would like to know how Cath's suggestion would work on a micro scale. The way things are now, if a conservative is reading a thread, and they see a UAV, they can report it. A mod will read the report, and if it is a UAV, it will be removed. I guess I just don't see what's unfair about that.

-Alice, SAHM to dd (2001) and ds (2004) each of whom was a homebirth.jpg, who each self-weaned at 4.5 years bfolderchild.gif, who both fambedsingle2.gif'd, who were bothcd.gif, and both: novaxnocirc.gif.   Also, gd.gif, and goorganic.jpg!

Sustainer is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off