|
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! >
What Do Moderators Do? Please Read
What Do Moderators Do? Please Read
Page:
1
nacoran
2124 posts
Jun 15, 2010
2:17 PM
|
Some people seem to be running scared, thinking this is an episode of 'Moderators Gone Wild'.
Moderators aren't running around deleting posts willy-nilly. Moderators don't have good tools with this software. Aside from spam:
1. I deleted one thread, and that was because the original poster had already deleted the original post. Everything else on the thread was people telling him they thought the post was inappropriate or making fun of the post.
2. I used the little locking banner a grand total of once. I deleted any posts that were made after the banner went up. Moderators can't actually lock threads. The locking banner is usually ignored anyway. People post after it goes up and I think in every single case it has been reversed.
3. I have asked people to watch their language maybe half a dozen times.
4. I have talked to someone off thread once; Ironically, I had their email from when they, legitimately, had complained about someone attacking them.
5. I've acted as a booster. I've told people about this site. I've hosted the Skype chat.
Aside from turning one or two spam messages into self-parodying posts I have never edited anyones remarks. I've asked for guidance on policy and I've watched people leave the forum because there was a lack of moderation or because of arguments that got out of hand when threads turned ugly. I have tried making the peace between arguing sides. Deleting a thread makes me so uncomfortable I can't even describe it. I posted to explain my decision so it didn't seem capricious.
On most forums there would be a way for moderators to flag remarks, to ban a member for a day, or to actually lock a thread until it was reviewed. It's like being a cop and being out in the neighborhood with a nuclear bomb instead of a gun and a can of pepper spray.
I know Dutch Bones got tired trying to keep the peace, and he quit his job as moderator. I'm in a 'working on not quiting' phase of my life right now and I'm hanging on by a thread.
Adam seems to have the spam issues under control. I've asked this a couple times in other threads, but it didn't get much attention. If the vast majority of people don't want moderators running around, what is the point of moderators running around? If people do want moderators, what is it you want us to be doing? The creed is a wonderful thought, but people seem to all read it differently. I humbly ask for clarification, both from Adam, and from the forum, so that I have some idea of what the hell I'm doing.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
arzajac
241 posts
Jun 15, 2010
2:28 PM
|
I would want moderators to do exactly what you have been doing, in exactly the same way.
I have no doubt about your intentions because you seem to know the (huge) difference between moderation and censorship.
Cheers! (And thanks for your work!)
|
Buzadero
445 posts
Jun 15, 2010
2:38 PM
|
Again, I cite Human Nature 101.
The position of Moderator is a no-win one. There will always be a vocal minority who are never happy with what you do. These same folks will complain that you aren't doing enough, then turn right around and whine that you are doing too much.
It is a fact that (in general) people are rarely quiet and satisfied, preferring to passively snivel about how things should be rather than be happy about just how good they have it.
----------
~Buzadero
Underwater Janitor, Patriot
|
saregapadanisa
229 posts
Jun 15, 2010
2:39 PM
|
Thanks for the post, Nacoran.
That's the opportunity for me to thank you formally for your great not-so-easy job as a moderator, as well as for your great contribution to the forum.
|
Greg Heumann
539 posts
Jun 15, 2010
2:59 PM
|
+1 to both arzajac and saregapadanisa. I've done my share of moderating. It is a thankless job. Most of the time you have to do nothing, but once in a while you have to intervene to keep the peace. And because unreasonable people are just that, they rarely understand why you did what you did and instead make themselves out to be victims. On behalf of moderate people everywhere I thank you for moderating and hope you'll keep it up.
----------
/Greg
BlowsMeAway Productions
BlueState - my band
Bluestate on iTunes
|
captainbliss
159 posts
Jun 15, 2010
3:07 PM
|
+2
@nacoran:
You seem to be doing a thankless job with grace, humility, fairness and
/I'm hanging on by a thread./
a fine sense of humour.
Thank you.
xxx
|
Tuckster
590 posts
Jun 15, 2010
3:26 PM
|
Nate- I also think you're doing a fine job. You've been very fair. The fact that you're agonizing over it just reinforces that you're the right man for the job.
|
MrVerylongusername
1074 posts
Jun 15, 2010
3:37 PM
|
Nate - don't agonize over it. As an ex-primary teacher I know exactly how you feel trying to keep the peace between squabbling kids.
This is the only forum I've ever visited that has a 'creed' rather than a set of unambiguous, explicit rules to which all new members agree before their membership is approved. Maybe it's one of those quirks that makes this place different, but it would make your job of moderator a little easier to have clear lines in the sand.
Last Edited by on Jun 15, 2010 3:38 PM
|
nacoran
2133 posts
Jun 15, 2010
6:48 PM
|
Thanks guys.
I guess I am just trying to find where the community wants the line to be drawn.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
Andrew
1017 posts
Jun 16, 2010
2:58 AM
|
I don't care what you do as long as you don't attempt to paraphrase anything. Either delete what someone says or let it stand. And if you delete something, never refer back to it, never say why you did it (other than that it infringed the rules, in your opinion) without the evidence to support your claims (this is just another form of paraphrasis).
Bertrand Russell once said "I'd rather my philosophy were reported by my worst enemies in the philosophy world than by my best friends who are ignorant of philosophy."
----------
Kinda hot in these rhinos!
Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 3:04 AM
|
nacoran
2136 posts
Jun 16, 2010
10:06 AM
|
Andrew, that's interesting advice. Like I said, I try not to delete things. I'd rather let someone know they don't seem to be following the creed and let them adjust what they said.
If something infringes on the rule I usually say why. It's seems to come down to three types, excessive use of profanity or attacking a forum member or something sexist/racist/attacking someone's religious beliefs. I agree about not altering what someone says.
The two times I deleted anything I made an announcement and quick explanation. I understand what you are saying about explaining potentially misrepresenting what was said. On the occasion I deleted remarks after posting the blocking banner I even cut and pasted, with citation, comments that I felt may have been posted without seeing the banner, that crossed in the ether as it were, onto my last post. The funny quirk in the system on this site is that a thread will fall farther down the board if you remove the last comment, but edits don't move it back up. My goal that day was to let it die by sliding down the board without actually denying anybody the right to comment.
When I deleted the one thread entirely, I didn't want to 'disappear' anything. I would have preferred the locking banner, but angry people tend to ignore that. So I deleted the thread and explained why, just saying that there were personal attacks and that the original post had been removed by the author. I deliberately didn't use anyone's names, I think pretty much for the reasons you said. I didn't want to accuse someone of something right after deleting what they said. I wanted the explanation out there without any accusations towards anyone. In retrospect, in a crunch I would probably take a screen shot copy for the record, so that if Adam felt he wanted to review it he could.
Thanks for you comment. I really do appreciate getting feedback.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
wolfkristiansen
3 posts
Jun 16, 2010
2:43 PM
|
Hi nacoran, I won't presume to know what's right or wrong for forum moderators, though I think they are necessary once a forum reaches a certain size. Dirty-South Blues Harp forum has reached that size.
I have watched "FJM" moderate the harp-l harmonica discussion group for a while. He's the current moderator, and seems to have a handle on it. FJM interjects in a timely fashion to squelch arguments that threaten to become destructive. I tried to look for recent examples, but couldn't find any. So, going by memory, here's what FJM the moderator (as opposed to FJM the harmonica enthusiast) does:
1. Forbids discussions about discussions. You are not allowed to argue about what should be talked about in the forum. You are not allowed to argue about whether someone was on topic or not on topic. You are not allowed to argue about whether someone attacked someone else or didn't. You are not allowed to argue about whether someone was rude, or sexist, or displayed any of the myriad faults we humans are susceptible to. Going by memory, he tells people to direct concerns along those lines to him by way of personal message, not the public forum.
2. Forbids discussions about topics that don't, somewhere, talk about harmonica.
In other words, he steers combatants back to the raison d'etre of the forum-- in harp-l's case, harmonica, in this forum's case, "harp-related topics", with emphasis on *modern* *blues* *harmonica*.
The harp-L "rules and netiquette" can be found easily on the internet. They set out in a more formal fashion what I described above. If you've not seen them, have a look.
Kudzurunner started this forum, and says in the forum description, "This is a very lightly moderated forum". If I've said anything that contradicts his vision, I defer to him. I'm guessing there's been some recent talk about tightening the rules, though.
One last thing, thanks for being a moderator. They are needed in all forums attracting strongly held opinions-- the joy and danger of any forum about art, be it music, literature, film, etc.
Cheers,
wolf kristiansen
|
arzajac
243 posts
Jun 16, 2010
3:16 PM
|
I don't know that much about Harp-L, but I don't think it should be used as a model for a forum, specifically this forum.
For one thing, a mailing list is different than a forum. You either get the messages or not. Every message gets to your mailbox. An online forum is not the same. If you don't want to read a topic, you can ignore it completely. It's more of a random-access discussion than concentrated threads which lends itself to being able to handle clutter better.
Or rather, you don't need to "weed out" certain threads within a discussion to keep the lines of communication open for the main topic.
From my experience, if you have the luxury of being able to avoid forbidding discussions, you should do so.
But that's just my opinion, I know many people may not agree...
Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 3:43 PM
|
GermanHarpist
1546 posts
Jun 16, 2010
5:27 PM
|
As I see it, just as diverse as the people on this forum are the wishes on how it should be moderated. IMO the way you do it is just right!
Thanks for your work, man. IMO, we couldn't ask for a better moderator.
|
GermanHarpist
1547 posts
Jun 16, 2010
5:35 PM
|
The question is if you're happy with the situation as a moderator. If not, I think this would be the chance to change it the way you'd like it.
In that regard, although I should really focus on my studies, I'd still hang around for that discussion... :)
|
nacoran
2142 posts
Jun 16, 2010
5:48 PM
|
GH, get back to studying!
I had a roommate back in college... every time we had papers do we'd clean the dorm room instead of buckling down. It was probably the only time the place got cleaned.
Arzajac, I like off topic discussions, but if the same people keep having the same argument in thread after thread it makes it that much harder to find the good stuff. I really wish there was a way to combine threads on here. Even a little thing like being able to change the title of a thread if someone forgot to mark it as off topic would be nice.
----------
Nate
Facebook
Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 6:34 PM
|
GermanHarpist
1552 posts
Jun 16, 2010
6:36 PM
|
thanks, nacoran. Same here, my room is sparkling clean... :)
I hope you don't me editing your post. I prefer being GH on MBH.
Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 6:37 PM
|
nacoran
2150 posts
Jun 16, 2010
7:09 PM
|
No problem. :)
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
kudzurunner
1594 posts
Jun 16, 2010
7:21 PM
|
Nacoran: You're doing great.
This is a forum devoted to blues harmonica. Harp-L is a forum devoted to all styles of harmonica. That's one major difference.
Another major difference is that this forum is located, for better or worse, on a website started by Adam Gussow and devoted to his music, his teaching, and his particular take on what blues harmonica is and might be in the context of the present (aka "modern") moment. It's as though P.T. Gazell or Jason Ricci or Paul Lamb started a forum on a personal website. In that respect, it's entirely different from Harp-L, which doesn't occupy space in one particular harmonica player's website. This doesn't mean that the forum must reflect my personal biases. It does, however, mean that it is fair to expect that my posts on the forum will tend, from time to time, to reflect my teaching mission as communicated on the website as a whole. Some people are clearly shocked by this. They shouldn't be.
Those are both material differences: real differences; significant differences.
This forum should not, as far as I'm concerned, model itself on Harp-L. That's like Sonny Terry modeling himself on Tommy Morgan. Why would Sonny want to do that? Diversity is good. Harp-L is good. It's all good.
This doesn't mean that we can't learn something useful from the way in which other, more mature harmonica-focused websites have handled their own growth pains and legislated themselves into whatever mellow version of the Pax Romana they currently enjoy. It just means that there's more than one good way to skin a cat, and there's no reason why Harp-L, or the Bushman forum, needs to be our Miss Manners. Those forums already exist. This place can be different. And groovy.
Last Edited by on Jun 16, 2010 7:28 PM
|
MP
472 posts
Jun 16, 2010
7:32 PM
|
great work nacoran!
@ adam, i am clearly shocked!
|
nacoran
2151 posts
Jun 16, 2010
8:00 PM
|
Ok, so I have a simple request to you guys out there in Harpland, if you have a problem, don't storm off. Speak up before you get to that point.
Thanks for the feedback.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
GermanHarpist
1554 posts
Jun 17, 2010
5:00 AM
|
"...don't storm off. Speak up before you get to that point."
I think that's a very fair point...
|
Honkin On Bobo
306 posts
Jun 17, 2010
7:36 AM
|
Ok, it looks like I'm in the minority here, perhaps even the sole dissenter, but since you've asked I'm going to comment. I thought that the thread that chris (Buddha) started, that was in it's entirety deleted, was an extremely heavy handed wielding of the moderator's power.
If I recall correctly it was entitled "fringe knowledge" or some such thing. I didn't find it off topic in the least, as I think buddha makes use of certain elements of the meta-physical to improve his musicianship. His post wasn't really my cup of tea so I really didn't get that far into it, but I do check out almost everything he posts, at least in a cursory way, because he can play and build harps, and he has a lot of interesting things to say about how to better yourself as a musician.
The response was that several people made jokes about it which caused Buddha to yank the link (which is his right). I myself, tried to humorously add that we'd jumped the shark, mostly because the word uranus was flying around, which in typical MBH forum fashion led to a brief discussion of what "jumping the shark" meant, and then a shot at me for watching a TV show that was only suitable for people under 14.
Here's the thing, at no point did I see the level of personal attacks take place that was alleged...and as far as the original link being gone...who knows, somebody might have cajoled Buddha into re-posting it.
There was one poster who shall remain nameless who habitually can't censor himself......OK it was nastyolddog....but how can you get mad at that guy?...hell, I want to sit down with him at the barbie and have a beer, but who can afford an airline ticket to Australia?
Perhaps this is a good time to offer a comment on the whole "leaving the board" phenomena. I can't for the life of me figure out how anybody could get so worked up about something a relatively anonymous person would say on an internet forum. There are certain exceptions of course. If you're using your real name and you post some footage of yourself playing and get ripped to shreds (without asking for it) by the community, I'd say you've got a gripe. But when skinflute68 proclaims his departure because myoldgreyboot12 thinks that Little Walter was a visionary or because his religious sensibilites were offended, I think it's silly. And I think it's even sillier that anybody wrings their hands over it.
Look I understand the desire and benefit of maintaining some sense of civility here. I really do, I even applaud it. But if given the choice of feeling like I'm talking to my grandmother in the bingo hall vs. on the front porch with my musical buddies..yes, with all the saltiness, cursing, namecalling, and stuff that happens when "the boys" get together (ladies, this does not exclude you...I'm sure if you're a female blues musician you can give as good as you get).....i'm taking the front porch everyday of the week and twice on sundays (after dinner at grandma's house, of course).
Just sayin' let's be careful of what we are trying to shape here.
Lastly, nac, take everything I wrote with a grain of salt...everybody else thinks you're doing a great job..including the single most important (if not only) vote, the kudzurunner. My opinion has no numbers, nor does it have the weight of somone who is offering a lot of "how to" harmonica content, unless there is anybody out there who needs advice on how to mangle your reeds while trying to perfect all the second position bends.
You might even ask why did I even bother posting this at all?
You know what?....I have no freakin' idea.
Last Edited by on Jun 17, 2010 8:01 AM
|
Buzadero
454 posts
Jun 17, 2010
7:39 AM
|
That was well stated. Thanks (and, "ditto")
----------
~Buzadero
Underwater Janitor, Patriot
|
nacoran
2157 posts
Jun 17, 2010
9:59 AM
|
Honkin, thanks for posting. I really wish I'd kept a copy of that thread for reference. I didn't delete the thread in a vacuum. There had been a couple really similar threads in the previous couple days that had blown up into big messes. At the moment I arrived at the thread Buddha's post was gone and all I saw were attacks. I posted I was going to delete it because it didn't seem to have any value at that time. The reason I announced I was going to delete it before deleting it was I was hoping everyone would see it was being deleted and say good riddance. Instead, I saw a couple more attacks flying back and forth without regard to what I said. Unfortunately, the way the forum software works you have to delete each post on a thread by hand. I started doing that. Then a couple people reposted the original comment when I was part way through. At that point I'd already deleted even more of the context of the argument and it became an issue of what was being said misrepresenting people.
So, what can we do to make things work better in the future? The software won't let anyone but Adam lock a thread. (I don't know if he can later unlock it, I don't know enough about the software.) There is that little banner that says 'don't post until Adam reviews the thread' but my experience is that people keep posting anyway. The only way it works is if the moderator sits there and diligently deletes any new posts.
I really didn't enjoy deleting the thread. I made a mistake in not keeping a copy of it. Context is always important. Here is a proposal for a couple ways people could make the moderators job a little easier. Don't delete your posts completely. I've noticed a couple complaints that one person will post something, another person will react, and the first person removes the comment leaving the second person's comments just hanging. If you are going to remove a comment, hit the edit button instead and just type in, comment removed by author. Second, when the little 'Don't Post' banner goes up, don't post until Adam gets a chance to rule on it. Think of it as a time for people to calm down a little. It also gives the moderators something less deadly than the nuclear option. I'll use that next time.
As to what we are trying to shape here, that's the million dollar question and the reason I posted this in the first place. I love a good debate about religion, but I've noticed that instead of asking questions to get the other side to think a lot of the religious debate around here turns into two sides trading insults. I know people who love that kind of argument. In the right arena, I've enjoyed that sort of exchange. The problem is, some random harper comes in off the street and they see their beliefs, not being discussed, but attacked. And you know what? If it had been the other side of the argument that was attacking, I might have let it go. And I do mean the other side. I felt more compelled to take action because MY side was attacking.
Anyway, I really do appreciate your post Honkin'. This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to provoke. I find I do my best thinking when I'm discussing with other people. For the record, I was one of the people screaming at Dutchbones for deleting a thread back when we drove him crazy. The irony is not lost on me.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
captainbliss
178 posts
Jun 17, 2010
10:21 AM
|
@Honkin on Bobo, @nacoran:
/I didn't find it off topic in the least, as I think buddha makes use of certain elements of the meta-physical to improve his musicianship./ (HoB)
/Buddha's post was gone and all I saw were attacks/ (nac)
Two excellent points, from which one might suggest six moderation guidelines?
In principle, how about:
1. On topic + no nastiness = no worries
2. On topic + nastiness = cause for concern
3. Off topic + no nastiness = no worries
4. Off topic + nastiness = cause for concern
5. No apparent topic + no nastiness = no worries
6. No apparent topic + nastiness = delete without worries
For some users of MBH, playing harmonica seems pretty holistic and on / off topic debate may be unduly constraining. Some users clearly come here socially. No worries. Some users enjoy random humour. That's cool.
Nastiness is the enemy, I think. OK, users can get passionate about things and tempers can rise, which is often wonderful, but... When even a sympathetic reader could find no apparent connection to the primary aims of MBH, why tolerate any unpleasantness at all?
So...
Where do we draw the nastiness line?
xxx
EDIT @nacoran: yes, *on* topic. Thanks for the catch!
Last Edited by on Jun 17, 2010 7:45 PM
|
MrVerylongusername
1083 posts
Jun 17, 2010
10:28 AM
|
It is pretty easy to dsicriminate between personal insults and the kind of locker room ribbing that goes on between posters who are obviously friends (Buddha and Buzedero being a good example).
Anything that is personal shouldn't be tolerated. Since World Cup fever is rife I suggest a soccer style yellow card / red card system. One warning, second offence=banned. Most forums I know operate that kind of system.
|
toddlgreene
1450 posts
Jun 17, 2010
11:20 AM
|
nacoran-I feel semi-guilty, since I was a contributor(detractor?)in the aforementioned deleted thread. Now, I did no intentional insulting, just my normal smartass chuckle inducing stuff-and there was some blatant insulting going on in that thread-but did you delete it based on a humorous segue? Did I cross the line?
You do a good job-not a job I would want, but I'll admit that moderators are a necessity, even if sometimes they come across as a necessary evil.
----------
Todd L Greene, Co-Founder
|
earlounge
99 posts
Jun 17, 2010
12:01 PM
|
I think the creed is all that is necessary, but I think the moderators should feel free to do what ever they think is best. Like Adam said, this forum is on his website and he (or his moderators) can do what they want. If you don't like it then eat a whaaah burger with a side of french cries.
I have found that Google searches produce links directly to this forum. (this is actually how I found the forum the first time) So your conversations here are searchable by the masses and on display like a harp Wikipedia of sorts. People oblivious to the "forum" may think any information found here is a reflection of Adam directly. So next time you post your opinions and jokes, please realize this fact.
|
nacoran
2162 posts
Jun 17, 2010
2:18 PM
|
Todd, I don't remember who said what. I really should have saved a copy. No worries though. I'm just trying to get a feel for what people think. Even although I've been a moderator on a couple sites, each one is different. I belonged to poetry site once. For some reason poets like to post their stuff but aren't real big on giving feedback on other people's stuff. One of the big jobs on that site was plowing through a few dozen poems a night and making a few comments and encouraging other people to do the same.
On here, a lot depends on the topic. Some subjects get people riled up and they are more likely to misread a joke as an attack. That's one of the problems that comes with not being face to face. As silly as they are, that's one of the reasons I started using smiley faces whenever I say something that I'm not sure is going to be taken the right way. I make a point to never use a smiley face sarcastically. I wish I could make the :p look better on here! :)
Captain, I think you've got a repeat! I think 2 should be an 'on topic'. That sums up my feelings pretty well.
----------
Nate
Facebook
|
Post a Message
|
