a discussion thread about moderating this forum

[Stella_Omega]

Why can't we have some bare minimum of rules, and be able to request that they be implemented?

Why can't we ask that one line insults be removed?

Why should the most civilised forum be forced to host the ugliest thread on all the boards?

There are mods on some forums here. I know that you are a mod, Pure; perhaps you can tell us what your duties are, and where the limits are? I'd like to know more about the forums that have mods. How did they get them? Who decided that AH didn't need moderation, and what has changed since then?

If we did a poll, and if the poll showed we'd like some sort of lever for the toilet, could we get that?

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Why can't we have some bare minimum of rules, and be able to request that they be implemented?

Why can't we ask that one line insults be removed?

Why should the most civilised forum be forced to host the ugliest thread on all the boards?

There are mods on some forums here. I know that you are a mod, Pure; perhaps you can tell us what your duties are, and where the limits are? I'd like to know more about the forums that have mods. How did they get them? Who decided that AH didn't need moderation, and what has changed since then?

If we did a poll, and if the poll showed we'd like some sort of lever for the toilet, could we get that?

Why must we log in to post a message on the forum board but do not have to log in to post a nasty bashing comment to someone's story?

When they have anonymous posters log in to post a comment, that's when these forums should be moderated.

It lunacy that a writer works days or weeks on a story only to have the mad mob of AH regulars attack it.

Hey, if you people allow me to post a story without attacking it with anonymous comments, I'll never post on these forum pages again.

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Let's take the moderation a step further.

No more alts. You have one IP address, you have one identity...period. This other shit with numerous alts with you guys arguing with yourselves is...crazy.

Moreover, I think those people who post here 24/7 and who have tens of thousands of posts should be limited to posting only 23 1/2 hours a day. How's that?

Perhaps, those who use these boards the most should be charged for the pleasure. How about a penny a post payable by credit card at the end of the month.

And who is going to moderate these boards, one of you guys?

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

It's all one in the same, Erin. Stories are tied into the boards and vice versa.

 

[where]

when the GB got fed up with all trolls a posting board was made with agreed upon rules of moderation. It's still going and I can give you an invite if you like. It even has it's own written erotica forum. I'm not sure if you would like it though. lots of people didn't like the rules and so made their own board and then some more went and made another board.

I thought the moderation was a great idea at first, but it quickly became very... irritating. And it seemed inconsistent. I suspect if you get what you wish for, you may come to regret it.

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[michchick98]

And really (and I'm guilty of this as well), no one would behave like that in real life. It's the idea that if there are no rules then people can act however they want.

Too true. However, in real life it's much harder to ignore someone than it is on the internet. For the first time since I've started coming to this forum, I have seven people on my ignore list. I don't see what they post, even if it's about me (unless someone quotes one of them) and I let them go on and on, spewing the same old shit.

But when they attack someone's emotional pain, it's time for a moderator to step in and take charge, because sometimes putting the offending poster(s) on ignore is simply not enough. What's been said today by a select few is reprehensible and makes me not so proud to be a member of this particular forum.

So, in an answer to Stella's question: Yes, I'd like to see this forum moderated. I think its long overdue.

 

[Belegon]

I have long been against moderation... however, certain individuals have gone so far now as to cross even my line.

We have always been kinda self-policing. We've had our share of troublemakers and predators, but the stuff we have been seeing with people basically mocking severe emotional pain is just too much.

I would now vote in favor of limited moderation.

 

[TxRad]

Too true. However, in real life it's much harder to ignore someone than it is on the internet. For the first time since I've started coming to this forum, I have seven people on my ignore list. I don't see what they post, even if it's about me (unless someone quotes one of them) and I let them go on and on, spewing the same old shit.

But when they attack someone's emotional pain, it's time for a moderator to step in and take charge, because sometimes putting the offending poster(s) on ignore is simply not enough. What's been said today by a select few is reprehensible and makes me not so proud to be a member of this particular forum.

So, in an answer to Stella's question: Yes, I'd like to see this forum moderated. I think its long overdue.

We've been given tools, the ignore button and the report post button, but we don't use them. Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone, more than most. Maybe it's time to start using these tools and see how it goes. If the management take our use of these tools seriously then well and good, if not then it is time to see if a moderator is the way to go.

 

[Darkniciad]

The problem would be finding someone who could keep a distance and only deal with the most horrific of hurtful posts. The right person is likely to be spit on for not moderating just as often ( if not more often ) as for taking action.

It would also need to be a moderation identity that is used only for moderation, in the same manner as Crim has an alternate ID to post for the Library thread.

The mod also needs to explain any action taken, in a simple, concise manner, and not respond to criticism of the decision except in the case of a reversal of opinion brought on by considering the criticism.

A moderator, in all ways, needs to stay above the fray.

I can think of a couple of people who could probably fill those shoes -- but I also doubt that they'd have anything to do with it if asked.

Therein lies another major problem. Getting the people who could actually do the job to do it. Those who can avoid abusing the power are often the ones the least likely to want the power.

 

[sr71plt]

I think putting time in responding to this thread should be predicated on the Web site management listening to its site contributors. I don't get a sense that this is happening. I don't particularly object to that if it's the way they want to run the site, but I don't see putting much effort to giving suggestions when no one is listening to them.

As far as what has been suggested here, I quite agree that it would be better to require a sign-on to comment on a story--and to a lesser extent I agree that a sign-on should be required to vote on a story. It happens at other sites and they stay in business without trouble.

I also heartily agree with the principle of not permitting alts. The issue there is that this seems to negate the ability of more than one person in a household participating at Lit. unless they have multiple ISPs or can work the system (as some apparently can) to give them the appearance of coming from more than one ISP. This is already denying these folks votes on the stories, because Lit. is sweeping away any repeat votes from an ISP. As far as the forum and alts, I know of sites where the ISP is included in the posted name, so it isn't that hard for readers to figure out who is alting and/or posting in agreement because they are sleeping together.

 

[Stella_Omega]

We've been given tools, the ignore button and the report post button, but we don't use them. Yes, I'm as guilty as anyone, more than most. Maybe it's time to start using these tools and see how it goes. If the management take our use of these tools seriously then well and good, if not then it is time to see if a moderator is the way to go.

They do not take the report post button seriously, I promise you. Which is the reason why people don't push it.
I asked Laurel about why "problematic and harrassing posts" was even part of the language in that link.

Please, let's try to limit this thread to this forum and its issues?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I am a moderator/mentor on another board. If I were to see some of the things posted there that I have seen there, the posts would be removed and the poster banned . . . in a heartbeat. I take my responsibilities very seriously and so do my fellows. We run a very civilized board there.

Would the same standard apply here? Perhaps not. That happens to be a family oriented board and we always keep in mind that some of our fellow divers are children. There is a difference in that.

 

[shereads]

A lever for the toilet is a good way to put it.

Today I made my first-ever request to remove a post (or preferably, to saw off the leg before the gangrene spreads.) I haven't done it before not because there is a shortage of viciousness, but out of a belief that attempts to censor political/social hate-speech only benefit the speaker. (Like that billboard contest that was intended to insult Rush Limbaugh, and is more likely to give him the added credibility of victimhood.)

But what we witnessed today, directed at a person's real-life grief, crossed a line that is approximately the size of the San Andreas fault.

I have faith that when Laurel and Manu see what happened here today, there will be a correction. Whether or not there needs to be a forum monitor in order for that to happen becomes a matter of the scope and frequency with which the users of the AH want someone else's judgement to supercede our own ability to Ignore toxic posts and posters.

For what it's worth, I was just beginning to lurk the last time the AH was a monitored forum. I had the impression that the monitor - god bless her for trying - allowed herself to get sucked down into the mud alongside the other wrestlers. Can't imagine a more thankless job, unless it's Hall Monitor at Sing-Sing.

 

[where]

They do not take the report post button seriously, I promise you. Which is the reason why people don't push it.
I asked Laurel about why "problematic and harrassing posts" was even part of the language in that link.

posts on the GB are often removed if they contain threats or personal info. This only happens if someone reports it though.

 

[sr71plt]

The problem would be finding someone who could keep a distance and only deal with the most horrific of hurtful posts. The right person is likely to be spit on for not moderating just as often ( if not more often ) as for taking action.

It would also need to be a moderation identity that is used only for moderation, in the same manner as Crim has an alternate ID to post for the Library thread.

The mod also needs to explain any action taken, in a simple, concise manner, and not respond to criticism of the decision except in the case of a reversal of opinion brought on by considering the criticism.

A moderator, in all ways, needs to stay above the fray.

I can think of a couple of people who could probably fill those shoes -- but I also doubt that they'd have anything to do with it if asked.

Therein lies another major problem. Getting the people who could actually do the job to do it. Those who can avoid abusing the power are often the ones the least likely to want the power.

I don't see the necessity of running straight to a moderator. As I've suggested elsewhere, I think one fell swoop of the Web site asserting its ownership interests and deleting everything posted on the site by one or two key troublemakers would get a message across to everyone else with a minimum of fuss and consternation to those not significantly acting out.

And I think those one or two seeing a couple of years of their work evaporate would deliver a message even they would understand. Even if they came back under a new name, consider how long it would take them to build up their portfolio here again (only to be zapped again if they hadn't learned anything from the process).

Sometimes the solutions aren't all that difficult. Of course here it hinges on the interest and courage of the Web site owners.

 

[ishtat]

My personal preference is for the forum not to be moderated. I also prefer not to ignore anyone. That way I know who the stroppy, difficult and unreasonably provocative posters are and can disregard them. I don't like using the ignore button either because it feels to me that i would be surrendering.

However there have been comments on this board in the last two days that are beyond vile and beyond any excuse whatsoever.

The proprietors might seriously have to consider whether leaving these comments up could leave them and the people that put them up open to legal action. That seems doubtful but cannot be excluded as a possibility.

If you had asked me last week whether I favoured moderation my response would have been an unequivocal no. I am very much less sure now but would like to know Laurel & Manu's response

 

[Wyldfire]

Please don't get me wrong here, I do understand the frustration factor here. But correct me if I'm wrong, are we trying to vote to remove those lovely little banners at the top of this entire site? You know, supporting the Free Speech thing?

 

[Stella_Omega]

...attempts to censor political/social hate-speech only benefit the speaker...

Uh, no, not in forums. You remove the hate speech. It doesn't exist. The speaker is not benefited.

 

[sr71plt]

Please don't get me wrong here, I do understand the frustration factor here. But correct me if I'm wrong, are we trying to vote to remove those lovely little banners at the top of this entire site? You know, supporting the Free Speech thing?

Sigh. Yes, probably. Because that "free speech" thing is misleading--it misleads posters here to think they have "inalienable rights" here rather than "limited privileges"--which leads some juvenile posters to go the limit on that. This isn't your public park corner. This is a privately run business. The "right" of free speech doesn't exist here. If the Web site owners didn't want to have their cake and eat it too--have a forum here but not take any responsibility for it--they wouldn't raise the false "free speech" issue at all. It's a fig leaf of convenience. Let's be honest on that point.

 

[Darkniciad]

I don't see the necessity of running straight to a moderator. As I've suggested elsewhere, I think one fell swoop of the Web site asserting its ownership interests and deleting everything posted on the site by one or two key troublemakers would get a message across to everyone else with a minimum of fuss and consternation to those not significantly acting out.

And I think those one or two seeing a couple of years of their work evaporate would deliver a message even they would understand. Even if they came back under a new name, consider how long it would take them to build up their portfolio here again (only to be zapped again if they hadn't learned anything from the process).

Sometimes the solutions aren't all that difficult. Of course here it hinges on the interest and courage of the Web site owners.

Honestly, that's the only way that's going to work with certain individuals, and I'm in firm agreement that it would work wonders in this case.

From there on, it couldn't hurt to have someone capable of handling the power to put the kibosh on things before they have a chance to blow up, if possible. A combination of members taking advantage of ignore ( whether software based or selective post/thread skipping ) and quick, proper moderation can help keep these things contained.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sigh. Yes, probably. Because that "free speech" thing is misleading--it misleads posters here to think they have "inalienable rights" here rather than "limited privileges"--which leads some juvenile posters to go the limit on that. This isn't your public park corner. This is a privately run business. The "right" of free speech doesn't exist here. If the Web site owners didn't want to have their cake and eat it too--have a forum here but not take any responsibility for it--they wouldn't raise the false "free speech" issue at all. It's a fig leaf of convenience. Let's be honest on that point.

Thank you, sr71plt You've put it beautifully.

And wyldfire, remember that "Free Speech" here does not include fictional beastiality or underage sex-- why should "Free Speech" include gratuitous hatefulness toward real people?

 

[JagFarlane]

They do not take the report post button seriously, I promise you. Which is the reason why people don't push it.
I asked Laurel about why "problematic and harrassing posts" was even part of the language in that link.

Please, let's try to limit this thread to this forum and its issues?

Part of the problem is possibly a large number of people reporting posts that really aren't serious and thus backlogging the response.

I am a moderator/mentor on another board. If I were to see some of the things posted there that I have seen there, the posts would be removed and the poster banned . . . in a heartbeat. I take my responsibilities very seriously and so do my fellows. We run a very civilized board there.

Would the same standard apply here? Perhaps not. That happens to be a family oriented board and we always keep in mind that some of our fellow divers are children. There is a difference in that.

Having been a forum moderator to one adult site and a server operator for a group of other adult sites, I'd have to respond as such...No. Its a lot harder to moderate an adult site, as you have to make a lot of decisions on grey areas. What I might tolerate, someone else may not tolerate, and thus ask why I am allowing it. There are a few guidelines attached to most forums, things like legal age, posting on things that are illegal [child porn, beastiality, etc.] but for a lot of topics, its a grey area. Take for example all the mud slinging that occurred last year, for some, they would have screamed for a mod, for others, they would have hated the mod for restricting them.
Truthfully, for this board, you need both someone with very thick skin, and rather lenient.