Moderation of MDC - What do you think? - Page 15 - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: Moderation of MDC - What do you think?
I think the current minimal moderation is great. It allows members the freedom to express their opinions without fear of their thread being shut down or a warning issued. Discussions of all types should be permitted and the community should be allowed to respond with their opinions unrestricted. I feel there are some situations where heavy moderation may be necessary but these are very few (explain). 416 56.68%
I do not like the minimal moderation and feel that it is leading to problems. To help protect the integrity of the forums and make the community a comfortable place to post we need the moderators to return to their previous moderation approach. They should oversee discussions more and remove things that are mean, snarky, sarcastic, and harassing. They should remove threads and posts that are against Mothering's parenting philosophies. Members who refuse to post appropriately should be moderated and those who persist in such behavior should be warned consistently and, if necessary, their membership removed. 204 27.79%
Other (explain what sort of moderation you think should be in place) 114 15.53%
Voters: 734. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#421 of 612 Old 06-18-2011, 08:46 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I would also challenge any mama (or dad) out there who would like to criticize any of the administrators of MDC or any other members to do so with the same gentleness that we would show our children (while keeping in mind that we are addressing adults).  There are no second-class humans: not children, not mods, not UCers.

JMJ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#422 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:13 AM
 
labortrials's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think 'consistent' moderation is key.  At times, MDC moderators go 'thread-lock loco!"  Threads will be closed for review and never re-opened or officially shut down / deleted.  Now we have the complete opposite situation.  I've all but left MDC's forums as of late.  I'm 38 weeks pregnant and find the environment THREATENING to my preparations for a homebirth after two cesareans.  How can that BE?!!!!  MDC has a serious troll problem to boot.

 

I think we have to decide what kind of community we want to be and work to preserve that through formal and informal moderating behaviors.  MDC isn't a place for everyone . . . folks can go to mainstream forums if they don't agree with the overall philosophy I thought Mothering purported to defend.

 

I know this will cause more work, in a way, for the moderators, which I regret.  But it's necessary, worthwhile work!  Thank you for asking our opinions!

 

I voted OTHER . . .


Kimberly, mom & wife - blogging.jpg about pregnancy and birth
DD 2004; 3 angel1.gif babies 2007-08; rainbow1284.gif twin DDs 2009; DD 7/12/11 hospital uhoh3.gif VBAC bouncy.gifafter 2 cesareans!

labortrials is offline  
#423 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:18 AM
 
Dacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 62
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I came to Mothering earlier this month because I have been formulating my birth plans and parenting philosophy for years, and now that I feel closer to putting them into action, I wanted to build up some community around myself and get to know others who felt similarly to me. Similarly is not identical! If I am in a community where UC and breastfeeding and such are supported, but where I decide not to follow the most hardcore granola crunch version of every philosophy promoted on the board, I still feel I should be able to discuss things from my own perspective among those I have built community with. I don't want to have to find an entirely different community in which I can discuss the dirty little non-crunch secret that I was spanked once and it didn't scar me mentally for life. That community would give a rats hairless behind about me, because in most other aspects we don't agree!

 

Likewise, as a prospective UCer, I would like to know that if I go to the UC board with questions, I won't hear 100% support regardless of situation. I could just as easily talk into a can. I would also like to know that if something happens to prevent UC, I can still talk about my own experience on the board, somewhere outside of the UC forum, and not feel like an outcast in the community or forced to talk about it like it was some awful loss. Maybe it won't be! For me! Who knows? Will I be able to show my shameful face here again? Who knows?

 

Meh. I voted other.


Signatures are sooo mainstream.

Dacks is offline  
#424 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 03:10 AM
 
onyxravnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 2,455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

Originally Posted by Snowflake777 View Post

I'm somewhere in between. I think that moderation was too strict before, but not strict enough now.

 

I think if you're going to have forums which are intended to lean towards certain philosophies, they have to be pretty tightly moderated. Otherwise MDC might as well just call itself a mainstream forum.

thumb.gif i agree with this as well. I jumped on the board a few months ago and was astonished to see a thread that was clearly not ... 'mothering' I can't remember exactly but it was  more then just a different of opinion, it was a thread where the OP and the following comments were pro formula, spanking, and the like.... it just... it felt like i could of gotten that #$@ from any old board. What i liked about mothering is that it felt like home. that people could get support for non mainstream ideas and people could find the 'alternative' information they where looking for. 

 

It was to strict before but it seems like its too loose now. is there somewhere in between?


transtichel.gifAk Hippie mama  ribbonpb.gifYamia  DSD '03 blahblah.gif  DS '07 ribboncesarean.gif  DS2 '09  hbac.gif & DS3  uc.jpg '12

homeschool.gifwinner.jpgfamilybed2.gifnovaxnocirc.gifcd.gifgd.gif

 

onyxravnos is offline  
#425 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 03:59 AM
 
ewe+lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: just journeying along .....
Posts: 2,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I agree with Snowflake and others, somewhere inbetween, I have actually just returned to MDC after not posting here for sometime because of the VERY aggressive posts which were happening, in fact I posted recently on the thread about schooling and still there are some agressive posts and attacking the OP and others which is unpleasant, we can all disagree with others, but still remain kind and courteous, in fact to bring the atmosphere of the old MDC that I used to know and love there may need to be some vigorous moderating so that the life philosophy of Mothering may return.


ewe + dh = our little lambs + we and have many just : and : life .
ewe+lamb is offline  
#426 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 06:48 AM
 
MarineWife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on the edge
Posts: 11,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Getting back to the point at hand, I do believe that some of the forums (at least) need to be moderated so that the integrity of that forum is kept. I have seen the exchanges on this site change over the years from engaging and informative to downright nasty and really not inline with AP/NFL ideals to the point that I stopped posting, for the most part, in all but 2 groups. This place is not interesting or enjoyable anymore. It feels hostile. Are there trolls sometimes? Probably, as there are trolls everywhere. If you don't like what's being said in a forum or a post, don't go there. There are plenty of things on the internet that I don't like. I'm not going to spend my time and energy trying to "fix" every one of them. This whole thing is tiring.

Where is that ignore button?

knit.gifSAHM to 3 boys and 1 man; 22 jammin.gif, 9REPlaySkateboard04HL.gif, 5 FIREdevil.gifand now 1 year oldtoddler.gif!

MarineWife is offline  
#427 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 08:07 AM
 
MarineWife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: on the edge
Posts: 11,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post



 

So if a poster thinks/knows there may indeed be a problem, why shouldn't she be allowed to say so? Why? It's a forum. If people aren't allowed to be honest then I propose the following:

 

1. On the UC Forum, please respond to OPs through happy smilies only.

2. If you believe there is a danger, please light a candle and keep your thoughts to yourself. Remember, no matter how crunchy you yourself may be, remember that all tragedies are a failure of your own faith.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It's a forum. Not everyone has to agree or support each other all the time no matter what.
 


So even if it's a fact (and sorry, some stuff just is)


Again, show me the facts that support either statement in that situation. Until someone does, both are still just opinion. I'm not saying they aren't evidence-based supported opinions but they are still just opinions. Is anyone an educated, experienced birth professional? Did anyone examine that particular woman to find out her particular risk factors for anything? Seems that those who claim so fervently that they are presenting facts, especially without providing anything to support their "facts", are the self-appointed experts.

knit.gifSAHM to 3 boys and 1 man; 22 jammin.gif, 9REPlaySkateboard04HL.gif, 5 FIREdevil.gifand now 1 year oldtoddler.gif!

MarineWife is offline  
#428 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 10:20 AM
 
kmeyrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineWife View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post



 

So if a poster thinks/knows there may indeed be a problem, why shouldn't she be allowed to say so? Why? It's a forum. If people aren't allowed to be honest then I propose the following:

 

1. On the UC Forum, please respond to OPs through happy smilies only.

2. If you believe there is a danger, please light a candle and keep your thoughts to yourself. Remember, no matter how crunchy you yourself may be, remember that all tragedies are a failure of your own faith.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It's a forum. Not everyone has to agree or support each other all the time no matter what.
 


So even if it's a fact (and sorry, some stuff just is)




Again, show me the facts that support either statement in that situation. Until someone does, both are still just opinion. I'm not saying they aren't evidence-based supported opinions but they are still just opinions. Is anyone an educated, experienced birth professional? Did anyone examine that particular woman to find out her particular risk factors for anything? Seems that those who claim so fervently that they are presenting facts, especially without providing anything to support their "facts", are the self-appointed experts.



Well, certifiable information has been posted and promptly removed. Those who claim fervently that hospitals and midwives are all incompetent and all symptoms are all normal somehow get a pass. The bottom line is- it is a forum. The point of a forum is where people post their thoughts and they may not all be unanimous. If they must be unanimous, it is no longer a forum, is it?

kmeyrick is offline  
#429 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 10:25 AM
 
Kontessa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MD
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake777 View Post

I'm somewhere in between. I think that moderation was too strict before, but not strict enough now.

 

I think if you're going to have forums which are intended to lean towards certain philosophies, they have to be pretty tightly moderated. Otherwise MDC might as well just call itself a mainstream forum.


 

  I agree with this, it was too moderated before hand. However if I wanted to be bashed with mainstream thinking or be beaten with the bible or any religion for that matter I would have joined other such forums. Maybe have some unmoderated areas that people can free for all if they wish but have some safe support areas as well to keep trolls out.

 


Army wife to wonder hubby. Mama to 4 and Surrogate mother x2.: Zoey Born 5/7/2010
Kontessa is offline  
#430 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 11:46 AM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post

The truth is that a couple of the members who posted disrespectfully in that thread have made a habit of posting in other areas as well in an insulting manner and have disrupted the honest discussion that other members were trying to have,... but most of the members on that thread are members who have a history of being a support to other moms on these forums, and even if they got out of hand on this one thread, they do not deserve to be labeled as "trollish," and they do not deserve to be banned (and most of them have not, from what I can tell).


I have been corrected.  It appears that most of the people who posted in the latter portion of the thread have been banned.  Admins, could you clarify what the guidelines are for banning members?  I can understand banning members who are consistently creating a hostile atmosphere such that their presence takes away from rather than adds to our sense of community.  That's not what we want here, and if it is obvious that the banishment of one member is what is needed to protect the rest of the community, then so be it.  I have a harder time with the idea of banning a member who goes overboard once or who even agrees with a poster who has gone off the deep end.  Please clarify, in your opinion, were all these members treating others with disrespect in other places as well?  Were they all warned that they needed be careful about their tone?  Or was this the first and final offense for some?  I know that it would take a lot of time to really look into individual cases before banning, but I think that using gentleness first would be very important in order to foster a sense of community.

 

JMJ is offline  
#431 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Kerynna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMJ: 

In that vein, Cynthia, I find your use of the term "troll" to be offensive and not an example of the high level of gentleness and respectful language that I would hope to see from a mod, especially the top mod on this forum.  I understand that you have been in the trenches of moderating a site with thousands of diverse users for a long time, and you've seen a lot more than I have, and I am sure you have developed a method of communicating that you find to be most helpful.  I'm also sure that you have a better idea than I do of when a member is up to no good.  However, I see calling mothers who are posting here "trolls" as name-calling, and while it is a reasonably well defined term in internet forums, it does not address well the exact behavior that you are criticizing.

 

 

 

I submitted a question along these lines and I received a reply via PM :

[quote]Trollish members is addressed to no one in particular so it is not namecalling of anyone. Just a generality.[/quote]

 

I'm glad to know I am not the only one who took it as namecalling, but I guess it's okay as long as we don't single anyone out.

Kerynna is offline  
#432 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:23 PM
JMJ
 
JMJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerynna View Post

I submitted a question along these lines and I received a reply via PM :

[quote]Trollish members is addressed to no one in particular so it is not namecalling of anyone. Just a generality.[/quote]

 

I'm glad to know I am not the only one who took it as namecalling, but I guess it's okay as long as we don't single anyone out.


It seems to me to be name-calling of many people in particular.... all the people who then went on to be banned.  I can pick out each individual "trollish" member because they're not members anymore.  It may not violate the UA, but I would hope that in the future, mods who are supposed to model the sort of gentleness that we are promoting on MDC would choose not to use that term.

 

JMJ is offline  
#433 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:31 PM
 
rhiandmoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 1,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineWife View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by kmeyrick View Post



 

So if a poster thinks/knows there may indeed be a problem, why shouldn't she be allowed to say so? Why? It's a forum. If people aren't allowed to be honest then I propose the following:

 

1. On the UC Forum, please respond to OPs through happy smilies only.

2. If you believe there is a danger, please light a candle and keep your thoughts to yourself. Remember, no matter how crunchy you yourself may be, remember that all tragedies are a failure of your own faith.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. It's a forum. Not everyone has to agree or support each other all the time no matter what.
 


So even if it's a fact (and sorry, some stuff just is)




Again, show me the facts that support either statement in that situation. Until someone does, both are still just opinion. I'm not saying they aren't evidence-based supported opinions but they are still just opinions. Is anyone an educated, experienced birth professional? Did anyone examine that particular woman to find out her particular risk factors for anything? Seems that those who claim so fervently that they are presenting facts, especially without providing anything to support their "facts", are the self-appointed experts.


Well for example, in a specific recent thread I am thinking of, someone posted that it would be obvious to any caring attentive mother immediately after delivery whether or not her baby is in respiratory distress. In reality the signs of respiratory distress in newborns are very subtle, and easily over looked. And saying that all you have to be is caring and attentive to notice is really hurtful to those mothers who had newborns with a hard time breathing, but didn't notice for whatever reason (not trained, busy being the one who just gave birth, etc). And the signs that this poster said to be on the lookout for were actually the most serious signs of respiratory distress where you would need to have an intubation kit and support machinery available to turn the situation around. People posting were not just experienced parents who had btdt first hand with their own newborns, but nurses and midwives who had btdt with training and IRL experience handling the situations. The thread devolved into a major altercation because of one extremely overzealous poster and now the thread has been "in moderator review" for weeks and will never come back. *Poof*

 

I mean on the one hand, I guess it's a good thing that the really harmful advice that all you have to do is love your baby and you'll be able to notice a life threatening situation is not there, but also the discussion is gone, the links to wav files, videos, literature, etc giving helpful and accurate advice are also gone. :(

 

 

 

 

 

midwives who post to say "Hey that's a really dangerous collection of symptoms" or "when Y starts happening, there's not much that can be done and action needs to be taken well before that, like if you notice something a lot more subtle like X" are often told they are fear mongering and not letting people experience birth and death on their terms.

 

 

 

 

rhiandmoi is offline  
#434 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Banned
 
Sfcmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: A little to the left
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post




I have been corrected.  It appears that most of the people who posted in the latter portion of the thread have been banned.  Admins, could you clarify what the guidelines are for banning members?  I can understand banning members who are consistently creating a hostile atmosphere such that their presence takes away from rather than adds to our sense of community.  That's not what we want here, and if it is obvious that the banishment of one member is what is needed to protect the rest of the community, then so be it.  I have a harder time with the idea of banning a member who goes overboard once or who even agrees with a poster who has gone off the deep end.  Please clarify, in your opinion, were all these members treating others with disrespect in other places as well?  Were they all warned that they needed be careful about their tone?  Or was this the first and final offense for some?  I know that it would take a lot of time to really look into individual cases before banning, but I think that using gentleness first would be very important in order to foster a sense of community.

 

Yes! Claification please! Its no wonder people go to ther sites to talk a out mdc when repeated requests for more info go unanswered...
Sfcmama is offline  
#435 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 12:56 PM
 
newsolarmomma2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What was not working is how differing opinions were shut down, even when posts were respectful and stated factual information. Many of these topics aren't black and white, there is a lot of in between. I think so long as people are polite, they should be able to comment. Petty rudeness should be deleted.

newsolarmomma2 is offline  
#436 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 03:01 PM
 
Jennifer Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think I could take the UC forum more seriously if it weren't such an echo chamber.  If it presented the reality, for better and worse, of unassisted birth.  I think when you are able to freely discuss your bad experiences with your UC, the death of your child during UC, the death of the mother during UC, birth injuries during UC along with the wonderful, heartwarming successes and idyllic births, people could feel like the choice was actually informed instead of just seeing the narrow category of "ideal birth" and everything else whisked away.  You don't have to directly compare it to births with full medical intervention, just tell the honest, full story of the births that are unassisted, ALL of them, attempted and completed, not just the ones with a happy ending.

 

The thing people seem to forget is that "natural childbirth" can also include death.  Before medical interventions came about, a lot of mothers and children died.  The interventions came about, not because some monolithic patriarchy was trying to control women, but because people were tired of seeing the women and children in their lives die when it was preventable.  I think if you acknowledge that UC isn't always a choice that has a positive outcome for the birth dyad, people could at least support those for whom there are fewer risks.

 

THAT is what I mean when I say "echo chamber".  It is not that random people should go in there and say "your crazy", it is that people who are already there can share their actual experiences, or the experiences of sisters/partners/friends, no matter the outcome.  Showing just the people who had positive outcomes, with nothing else, gives people a false sense of security.  


Mom to 10yo Autistic Wonder Boy and 6yo Inquisitive Fireball Girl . December birthdays.

Jennifer Z is offline  
#437 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Jennifer Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Back to the OP:

I do think there should be some moderation, for tone.  

The things I think should not be tolerated include:

  1. Racist remarks (including any slang for a racial minority group)
  2. Bigoted remarks (including terms like "retard" or "fag")
  3. name calling for "regular" people  (celebrities, politicians, etc should be fair game.  They chose that for themselves), and if you do it to/about a child, you should be banned.  Including calling kids "damaged" if they are born with differences.  Unacceptable.
  4. proselytizing or spamming, for products or religion.  (i.e. Mentioning it in your signature, as an identification, should be fine, but telling somebody they are going to hell because they are gay/living in sin/have red hair is not)

 

Everything else should be unmoderated.  I also think you should be allowed to cuss, as long as it doesn't fit into one of the above categories.

 


Mom to 10yo Autistic Wonder Boy and 6yo Inquisitive Fireball Girl . December birthdays.

Jennifer Z is offline  
#438 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 03:48 PM
 
newsolarmomma2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 150
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Perhaps you haven't noticed, since you apparently don't choose these things, but it is impossible not to be exposed to anti-UC, anti-vax, etc. opinions if you have any interaction with the outside world at all. Or even if you just google the subjects. People don't live in isolation in the support-only subforums. They go there because, having already made their decisions, they are seeking like-minded people, rather than having to engage with others (the great majority) who don't understand where they are coming from. Or because they are making up their minds about the topic, and seeking out one side of the story, which is from those who choose to UC, not vax, etc. They get the other side of the story everywhere else, all the time. It's tiring to spend all your energy defending your controversial life choices, over and over, against the same tired arguments, when you just want to have a constructive conversation with people who understand where you're coming from, or could give you insight other than "but that's dangerous!!!" and so on."

THIS.^

If I wanted to hear negative opinions about UC, I wouldn't come here, I would go anywhere else online. I am all for honesty, and would love to see more empirical evidence! But, when it comes down to it, there needs to be a place for UC without the random negativity. And I agree, it's different when someone asks "should I, because of XYZ" and people give them info- that's fine. But too many take this as an opportunity to stop in and give their off topic, general opinion. seriously, I don't live in a bubble. My last UC turned transfer and CS, so I know what can happen. If I have a question, I will ask. Please answer it honestly, but without adding your value judgements too.

I think if all sub forums were more specific about their policy, it would be best. if support means "go mama" and nothing else, say so. To some, this is not what support means. it would help if every board was more clear. Adding another paragraph or two isn't going to hurt, but could help.

The private board has slowed the UC forum to a crawl, and while it might be necessary (don't know?) it does exclude people who need it- including those who "lurk and learn" which is what I did for years prior to getting an account and posting. I understand that is might be their answer to the moderation question, but it leaves people like me without a place to go (unless you get accepted to the private board. Which is not guaranteed). Planning a UC is already lonely enough, without one of the bet sources for info and support being unavailable.
newsolarmomma2 is offline  
#439 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 04:37 PM
 
QueenOfTheMeadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: with the wildlife
Posts: 17,836
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

QotM, I appreciate so much the commitment you've made, and the hard work you do.  Thank you! love.gif

 

For what it's worth, so far I have no reason to leave MDC.  I see we're going through a tumultuous transition.  I'm with the other members here who predict things will calm down in a bit.  I predict that, for better or worse, MDC just isn't going to be the same.  

 

 

 


Thank you! love.gif

 
QueenOfTheMeadow is offline  
#440 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 04:37 PM
 
eclipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Mexico
Posts: 7,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think if members are going to be banned/suspended, they need to receive clear communication about what is happening and why (what part of the UA they violated, etc). There are several members right now that are either banned or suspended who say they have not received any communication about it from MDC - and they don't know if they are banned or suspended, whether its temporary or permanent, etc. I'm not asking for those decisions to be made public, necessarily (although one of the biggest complaints against heavy moderation has been the lack of transparency about it), but I think those members deserve to know their fate - even if the answer is "We think you've been causing trouble and we have suspended your account and we haven't decided yet if it's permanent or not."


That aside, last night there was a disturbing post made on the Parenting board by a brand new (1st post) member, and the moderators grabbed it and took it down very quickly. That's the sort of firm, no negotiation, moderating I support. So, compliments to the mods on a job well done, and quickly, on that one.
eclipse is offline  
#441 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 07:24 PM
 
formerluddite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 877
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

i've read about half of this thread, and seen most of my thoughts out there already.

 

but, i appreciate the opportunity for people to put their true faces out there. with the heavy moderation, i could never really tell what tone was behind the post. if no one can actually say what they mean, then everything said by anybody can be viewed as (possibly) a carefully phrased dig. like, "bless your heart." could be sweet and sincere, could be condescending. same with "hope this helps," and "gently." doesn't violate the old UA, but still might well be meant to convey some serious snark.

 

if someone thinks i'm an idiot, i'd rather know it upfront.

 

that said, i'm in the "pendulum still swinging, hope it settles into a nice middle ground" camp. also, i'm not in favor of *poofed* threads. when i see that, i just end up thinking that these forums, the thoughts of the members, are a product we're producing that's put up for sale, after a little "sanitizing."


my signature is usually illegible
formerluddite is offline  
#442 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 07:30 PM
 
Three~Little~Birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the kitchen, probably!
Posts: 908
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinybutterfly View Post

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. bigeyes.gif

 

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 totally agree with this!
Three~Little~Birds is offline  
#443 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 07:52 PM
 
chaoticzenmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse View Post

I think if members are going to be banned/suspended, they need to receive clear communication about what is happening and why (what part of the UA they violated, etc). There are several members right now that are either banned or suspended who say they have not received any communication about it from MDC - and they don't know if they are banned or suspended, whether its temporary or permanent, etc. I'm not asking for those decisions to be made public, necessarily (although one of the biggest complaints against heavy moderation has been the lack of transparency about it), but I think those members deserve to know their fate - even if the answer is "We think you've been causing trouble and we have suspended your account and we haven't decided yet if it's permanent or not."


That aside, last night there was a disturbing post made on the Parenting board by a brand new (1st post) member, and the moderators grabbed it and took it down very quickly. That's the sort of firm, no negotiation, moderating I support. So, compliments to the mods on a job well done, and quickly, on that one.



I agree.  My hope is that once everyone gets a chance to take a deep breath and recover from the chaos, there will be some clarity and calmness about the whole thing.  One banning in particular has made me very sad and I hope she is able to come back.  I don't blame admin for putting out the fire and I'm glad that they did, but yeah, we need some clear guidelines, not a hard line and not a free-for-all.

 


Our children make a study of us in a way no one else ever will.  If we don't act according to our values, they will know.~Starhawk Rainbow.gif  New  User Agreement! http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/user-agreement

chaoticzenmom is offline  
#444 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 08:16 PM
 
karne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom View Post




  I don't blame admin for putting out the fire and I'm glad that they did, but yeah, we need some clear guidelines, not a hard line and not a free-for-all.

 

I agree with this.

 

ETA: I voted other, although my leanings are more toward the first option.  I think it's pretty clear when negative posts are happening in order to stir the pot in hopes of confrontation, and I'm not sure there's a real reason NOT to moderate that. 

karne is offline  
#445 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Bena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


  I am also one who left for a while due because I couldn't stand the holier than you attitude.  But I came back in the last week to find some even nastier stuff.  It's just not fun.

Honestly, I was sorta lurking, but wasn't going to bother to vote because what I was seeing made me think, what's the point.  But then I found this post which I think clearly defines my idea of a an ideal UA.   So I went ahead and voted other.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevaMajka View Post

My ideal UA would be something like this:

 

- don't post to advocate or defend cio, harsh sleep training, physical punishment, elective cesarean section, routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations. Don't post to advocate formula feeding (because it obviously is sometimes defendable).

 

- no namecalling or personal attacks

 

- no racism, homophobia, sexism, etc etc.

 

I am personally not bothered by the snark and cursing, and would be fine with a board that allowed sex talk.

 

"Do not defend spanking" would still allow people to post that they spank but want to stop, or to post that "I was spanked and I'm fine" as long as they make it clear that it doesn't make spanking ok.

 



 

Bena is offline  
#446 of 612 Old 06-19-2011, 09:36 PM
 
Unreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 2,296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I went from a regular poster...to lurking...to not coming by the site more than once a month, if that....mostly because things were so ridiculous with the moderation - the flow of information that originally drew me to MDC was gone :-/

However - having said that - there definitely needs to be some basic guidelines, we don't let our kids get bullied, why should we let our MDC friends get bullied, etc. And well, there are always trolls.

I dunno...back in the day....I had a healthy list of people on the site that I had on my ignore list. I didn't want to see what they said - it would only raise my blood pressure.....
And moderators were around, but I certainly never feared posting because of them (which is what was happening when I stopped posting). They took care of posts that were reported and users that were punkasses. And I loved them all joy.gifjoy.gifjoy.gif See? love!

I voted other. I think there need to be guidelines - just to allow some protection against trolls and other rudeness, but please oh PLEASE don't go back to the insanity that was over the past few years.

mom to three boys:  reading.gif(18 bigeyes.giffencing.gif(10&7)
Unreal is offline  
#447 of 612 Old 06-20-2011, 07:09 AM
 
hildare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in-the-sticks-off-a-dirt-road, GA
Posts: 2,680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurski View Post

I voted for the first option--current minimal modding.  I'm relatively newish, and until recently only really spent my time in my DDC and then LWaB, so I was woefully unaware of a lot of the issues that folks have been kind enough to share in this, and other, threads.

 

I agree with PPs who stated that threads and posts shouldn't just disappear; if a post violates the UA, then call the poster out on it in the thread.  If someone's too sensitive to be chastised in a public forum, s/he may want to rethink posting online.  Same for keeping threads.  Lock them, with an explanation, if you must, but don't simply disappear them.  Down with censorship, no?

 

I'm a bit confused by those folks crying out for more moderation, because it would seem, to me anyway, that part of embracing NFL/AP philosophies is an explicit decision to push back (to whatever extent you feel comfortable) against "mainstream" culture.  In other words, it's a decision to rage against the machine, push back against dominant authorities and prevailing paradigms, fight "The Man" (or whatever phrase for questioning floats your boat)...yet here you are (a general you--not anyone in particular) calling for the powers that be to protect and shelter you, to make you feel safe and unexposed to those big bad internet meanies. 

 

I don't get it--how can you be anti-authoritarian, yet need the authorities to police your internet playspace?

i agree with you that the threads should not be disappeared.  what people said ought to stay so that if someone is a d bag it needs to hang around forever so that it can be revisited if need be.  however, if someone started a thread and requests that it go away then i am ok with that.

that being said:
mdc isn't anti-authoritarian.  not by any stretch of the imagination. 

and, just so you know, i have spent mucho time in f2f and online anti-authoritarian groups.  they are moderated.  anarchist forums are moderated.  if you don't believe me, google some anarchist forums and read the mod policy. 

irl anti-authoritarian groups operate by consensus. i shall compare anti-authoritarian/anarchist groups to mdc atm.  they work like this:

when you meet as a group, it is assumed that you are there for a common purpose.  (mdc has lost this.  with the new shifts in multiple directions, there doesn't seem to be a unifying purpose.. at least to me).

when you meet as a group, racist/homophobic/justplain mean stuff isn't really tolerated by the group.  anarchists believe in freedom of association.  if you are a racist a hole, you will get your ass handed to you, and probably asked by everyone else not to return.  (mdc can't do that, members cannot collectively banish someone: here's where i personally agree with people allowing moderation - not the smack down of old, but a moderation that can kick those folks out.  not for 'tone' or whatever, but for being racist/homophobic or belittling someone personally). 

when you meet as a collective, yes, everyone has a voice.  but when you as a group are trying to achieve a goal, discuss something specific, etc.  there is not time for random chit-chat.  in a setting like that, the group can control people that are getting off topic.  and, you know.. have some cookies and talk about whatever later when the original issue/question has been talked about.

some of the problems i have with mdc of late is that the threads are getting so off track, people are having side conversations and making comments that are funny etc. but 4 pages later, the original intent of the thread is lost.  so... i suggest that mdc make a space for chit chat or whatever.  and a sex board.  and yes, moderate to control for trolls, stupid racist crap that nobody wants to hear, and to keep people on track. 

 

 


Is it getting lonely in the echo chamber yet?

hildare is offline  
#448 of 612 Old 06-20-2011, 07:15 AM
 
elizawill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 5,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

in the forums i post most often, the moderation is great. they step in only if necessary. they're polite & they try to put the thread back if and when possible. i don't frequent forums that have a lot of hot topics though, so the moderation isn't a strong necessity to begin with usually - fermentation, vegetarianism, and homeschooling don't usually bring out the beast, lol.


homeschooling mama to DD 10 & DS 7 blogging.jpg

elizawill is offline  
#449 of 612 Old 06-20-2011, 08:04 AM
 
Irishmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with heartmama
Posts: 45,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaoticzenmom View Post





I agree.  My hope is that once everyone gets a chance to take a deep breath and recover from the chaos, there will be some clarity and calmness about the whole thing.  One banning in particular has made me very sad and I hope she is able to come back.  I don't blame admin for putting out the fire and I'm glad that they did, but yeah, we need some clear guidelines, not a hard line and not a free-for-all.

 


yeahthat.gif
Irishmommy is offline  
#450 of 612 Old 06-20-2011, 09:12 AM
 
KittyKat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cruisin' along in my Ford Econoline
Posts: 1,973
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have participated in several online groups over the years.

 

The ones that have been the most helpful, and enjoyable, have been the ones where moderation happened, but for the most part it was minimal.

 

If someone said something you didn't like, you were free to disagree with them.

If a discussion got heated and emotional, you were free to take a break, or report any posts you felt crossed the line.

If someone continually posted inflammatory or trolling material, they would get a warning and possibly a ban.

 

The groups that I drifted away from (including this website, I don't visit here very often anymore) had extremely heavy moderation. People were banned for mentioning the fact that someone had been banned when their friends asked how they were doing and where they had gone. I was banned from an online forum once for posting in a thread topic about BIRDWATCHING with mentions of what kind of birds frequent my backyard. Apparently, the motives of the OP were suspect according to one mod, and everyone who posted in the thread got suspended. Over birdwatching. Yeah.

 

There's got to be a happy medium. Mods should be like lifeguards in a pool. They step in when there's roughhousing, or someone in trouble in the deep end. They don't critique whether you are doing the backstroke or the butterfly, or if you just want to dogpaddle in the shallow end.

KittyKat is offline  
Closed Thread

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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