Moderation concerns regarding the LDS discussion forum

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Moderation concerns regarding the LDS discussion forum

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thanks, hic. Same questions here, I just didn't know how to craft them.

I'd also like a really set way to moderate, maybe even a template to follow loosely. Something like in hic's concern #3. Seems like that would assure that things are being done consistently and universally on all the forums. It would also protect the mods from being accused of moderating unfairly, I think, because it would be very cut-and-dry.

arbilad · Head Chef

I would appreciate it if all moderators would weigh in on this topic, since it is concerning a moderation action (a warning) that was taken. According to the rules of the forum, such disputes are taken care of by a panel of other moderators. We have never specifically stated who is on that panel, so, for the purposes of this discussion, I am making all non Cat Herder moderators a part of the panel for this specific discussion.
Note, I'm not saying that Cat shouldn't post to this thread, I'm saying that Cat isn't on the panel that makes the final decision regarding the moderation action, whether it was appropriate or inappropriate. Cat, feel free to post your reasons behind making the warning you made.
Anyone who has input on this, feel free to post to this thread.
This post should not be regarded as me expressing an opinion on the action in any way, positive or negative. I will do that in a bit. Right now I'm just making clear the ground rules.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

On the porn/pollster thread started by arbi, Catherder replied to one of my posts ...

"Ladies, if you have a problem with the fact I put on the moderator's hat in that other thread by asking what I did of you, then avail yourself of the moderation review process. I stated my reason for the request when I made the request.

"Folks, in the effort to keep LDS Discussions threads on topic and gospel related, I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent or that are derailed completely into something that becomes non-edifying. I don't want to do that, but the option is there. So please, try and keep the conversations here edifying."

I think some things are worth bringing up.

The only "reasons" I could find you stating in the "porn talks not useful" thread (requesting I rephrase something... that "something" was not clear to me) were that you thought I was aggressive, defensive, had invalid reasons for being so, and my perceived "posture" which translates to misunderstanding, anger, resentment, uncharitable thoughts and finger-pointing.

While this all may sound good, I find sometimes your moderation "no-no talks" turning into some sort of diatribe/monologue and I get lost in the translation. Is he saying I'm pointing fingers at someone? Is he saying my aggressiveness... wait, was I aggressive? What sentence is he talking about I wonder?

There were also some instances on the porn pollster thread between you and others that I did not agree with or appreciate. I will not bring those up specifically, because I don't want to stir up problems where they may not exist. For now, I will just put out a concern I have.

As for cat's second paragraph quoted above, I also have an issue with "original post's intent" being determined by a moderator if that moderator did not in fact create that post. (How could he know the poster's intent?) And the concept of what's non-edifying. I really don't want to have to censor everything I write to pass the test of "Is cat going to like this? Or is cat going to personally get something out of my post that edifies him?"

Seems very subjective to me. I'd like to be told what sentence or word offends cat and not have to guess. I'd like to first have a gentle reminder to get back on track if I'm digressing. (bok is great at the gentle/humorous reminders) I'd like everyone to be treated with equal respect and given equal "wiggle room" ... as in the comment by cat that "Most people know ray does such and such..." Who's most people? Cat and ray? We should all give ray a break because he's been online since 1986?

(Please, no disrespect here ray... I'm using you as an example of unfairness I perceive on cat's part... I myself try to give you a break. )

As for my own personal feelings, I have perceived some bullying, heavy-handedness and a superiority complex coming from Cat at times. This could be my own personal take on things. I am far from being one who does not offend.

Just thought we might talk about these things...

(I moved this from a thread I started, but didn't know hic already started one.)

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

My response to your concerns:

1. This has been historically our area for gospel discussion. So, no, there has been no set in stone statement that discussion needs to be limited to edification. It is a guideline based on what we have done in the past. And, there is precedence in other discussion areas wtihin the forum of asking that discussions be delimited and derailment be avoided. As moderator over this area, I have been very, very careful in doing or saying anything that would be considered unfair.

2. A moderator can participate in a discussion that said moderator has power to moderate over. A moderator is expected to recuse him or herself from moderating in the discussion if they are one of the ones that is causing the need for a moderation. I do not feel I or my comments were part of the problem I observed. I made an open ended request as moderator. No moderation occured. No editing, no deleting, no closing.

3. I stated my reason for the request with the request itself. It was to prevent devolvement into contention, finger pointing, and all around hard feelings. I have seen it happen (this exact same argument and talking past each other) in other forums, and inevitably it turns into a shouting match with the loudest side winning.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

My response to your response to my concerns:

1. I would still like to flush this out a bit. I need to know if I am to be expected to keep threads in LDS discussions edifying.

2. Ok, to further comment I think I need to quote the post I was referring to:

Jen and Coco, would you please consider rephrasing or replacing your posts above? Comments of this sort are not productive.

Similar comments in the past have caused a great deal of consternation and contention in other forums as the way those opinions often are presented end up trumping the seeking of understanding in a charitable fashion.

No one is putting blame on anyone else for anything. What has been presented, and perhaps may have some backing in clinical research, is that those individuals who are prone to problems with or addiction to porn may turn to it as a false substitute for the emotional and spiritual (and ergo physical) intimacy that was missing or strained in a relationship before the giving in to temptation occured (whether or not either or both partners in the marriage were aware of pre-existing strain in the relationship). That observation is not wrong, it is not right. It is just what it is, an observation that is indeed often useful in helping to not only help redeem the individual who has stumbled, but the relationship as well.

As moderator in this discussion area and thread, I ask that people continue to think objectively, openly, and with a great deal of kindness and respect on these sorts of sensitive but important topics... even if your opinion differs.

The above is a complete quote of one of Cat's posts in the porn talks thread.

I see a request that Jen & Coco edit themselves. You mentioned that you were moderator. To me, that implies this was an official moderation action by warning.

3. And I still can't figure out what exactly they had done that was out of line, how it was out of line or what exactly you wanted them to change. Ok, so the why was to prevent contention. I'll add to my #3 concern that I felt that was a premature warning. I could see disagreeing taking place, but I didn't see contention yet. I would not be ok with discouraging topics of discussion based on past experiences.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm just going to quote a rule from the moderation appeals process, so we know specifically what Hic is referring to:

6. With the exception of removal of spam or material that is not in keeping with LDS standards in assigned Forum areas, forum moderators shall excuse themselves from moderating a discussion that has turned caustic if the assigned moderator has taken part in said discussion as a Participant and the contribution(s) to said discussion could reasonably be inferred as part of the fuel for the fire. In such situations the backup moderator for that area, if one exists, will moderate. If no such backup moderator exists, the Forum Owner will moderate.

I'll also request that there is a formal rule that any moderating action be limited to enforcing the 5 rules of the forum, not on precedents or history. Not everyone has been here since day1. Really, I think it would be best of things are dealt with in a very concrete way.

Also, is there a definition for what "moderation" is? Maybe there wasn't editing, deleting, or closing, but I would consider a request to change the wording of a post to be moderation, especially when the moderator has expressly said that he's acting as a moderator. I'd also classify what hic quoted in her first concern as threatening. But there's no rule behind the threat, so I'm confused. Hence my request for more concreteness in what is moderated.

As to the specific incident with Coco and I, we have both stated that we don't know exactly what statements you want edited and how, and which rule we were breaking. You inferred that we might look at a rule, but did not state that it had been broken, or where. Therefore your stated reason for the request was ambiguous.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbi... If you want more input I may have to get back to you... I have another urgent doctor's appt and have spent the morning trying to take care of some family finance stuff, in case the doc sends me to "Siberia"...

I will have hubby's phone later and can post from there... I think... right now I am headed out the door with Son2 driving me cause hubby needs to sleep... (BTW, I wouldn't mind a few prayers... the last 72 hours has not gone well, physically for me...)

Short answer is that I think we should not be too involved when we are moderating a thread... That is why I mostly don't participate in the ones I am suppose to moderate.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

response to hiccups response to my response:

1. It will be worked on.

2. Key to my comment is the context in which I brought up the whole moderator thing at the end... "I ask that people continue to think objectively, openly, and with a great deal of kindness and respect on these sorts of sensitive but important topics... even if your opinion differs." There was no warning given. Only a request directly to the two of them to consider rephrasing or replacing their comments, and then a general request for everyone to stay respectful.

3. I suppose all I can say is that unless you had seen / been involved in it elsewhere, I ask to trust me on my decision to take a proactive, pre-emptive stance. The disagreement turning into argument can be avoided if folks simply try to understand what the other person is trying to say instead of assuming something they are not. What happened elsewhere is very unbecoming of brothers and sisters in the gospel.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Re: #3...

Okay, Chief Anderton.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Again, can we please consider moderating only based on concrete rules, not on the mod's perception or opinion? You want others to trust your decisions, but that's assuming that everyone will agree with them. It's too subjective. I'm not comfortable with that.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

As the humor moderator I'd like to state that I'm the least formal about what and where one should apply rules and procedures.

My attitude is to give everyone as much latitude and longitude as the moderator's patience will endure. This annoys some people, because it creates a sense of arbitrary arbitration. :)

As for rules... Here's how it works from a very high level:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. threads are moderated by the respective forum moderators as seen fit within the judgement of the moderators.(generally offtopic posts are moved to forums where they're on topic.)
2. any and all arguments about moderation should be hashed out here.
3. we talk about it, eventually if there's something actionable, a vote will be posted here.
4. pending completion of the vote, charter or rules are modified and corrections, apologies and moderations of moderations are applied...

As for more specific details, I'll have to read this and the offending thread more carefullly... when I have more time. :)

--Ray

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

btw, if someone thinks I need to be moderated, please post the specific instance of my abuses here... ...and I'll be glad to agree with you.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

response to jen:

I am quite familiar with what you quote. I penned it.

If that is what you three feel I violated, then it has to be determined by the panel that my previous contributions to the thread could reasonably be construed as contributing to any disagreement that had turned caustic.

As I was attempting to prevent things between you two (you and coco) and Val from turning caustic, I don't think the clause applies. Of course, that is up to the panel to decide, isn't it? You (and a number of other sisters) and he have had this disagreement that wass starting in the thread elsewhere, if I remember right.

If you have a concern about moderators only moderating based on the 5 umbrella rules, and not on moderator panel policy or forum history, then that is actually a general rules discussion and should be a seperate discussion from whether or not I was wrong in making the request I did.

With regards to which statement(s) my request was concerning... it was towards all of both of your comments made in response to Val's comment 4 up from the bottom on page 1. I did not specify anything because I simply wanted to give you two the opportunity to reconsider your response and maybe look at his comment differently. As said, there was no warning or threat given.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

this is all nice, Cat, but I think we should all be focusing more on me.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm probably going to get blasted for this.
Is this what's going to happen every time one of the moderators puts on the moderator hat?
Particularly Cat, since people seem to like to criticize him around here. Are we going to start whole new threads about moderation every time it may happen?

Frankly, I don't see where Cat did anything wrong or overstepped his bounds. Perhaps I'm biased, but I try to remain objective. Maybe he could have been a more specific about the comments he was referring to when he issued warnings, but other than that...

Perhaps it isn't written in black and white that the LDS Discussions should only be about edification, but I certainly don't think they should ever become contentious. I think Cat did what he did because he saw that on both threads (where it's an emotionally charged subject) that the discussion was on the verge of becoming contentious. Even I saw that, which is why I stayed out of it. At the very least I saw sarcasm going on. Cat was trying to nip it in the bud before it got out of hand. And similar topics have gotten out of hand on other forums.

There are moderators for a reason. I am sure the moderators don't like to have to put on the moderator's hat (I know Cat doesn't) but for whatever reason sometimes they feel they need to.
It shouldn't automatically become a subject for debate.
I'll say what I've said before, if we don't like something the moderator does or if we don't understand it, then maybe we should take it up with the moderator(s) privately. Particularly if we need clarification on anything.

In this instance, as Cat pointed out, no moderation actually took place. I don't think issuing a warning is necessarily a bad thing. I've seen other moderators do that a couple of times.

It isn't possible to spell out every single rule for every single situation that may come up.
We could talk about it until we're blue in the face and we will still end up back where we started.

-- Edited by Poncho29 at 14:55, 2007-10-17

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Who gets to define "edifying"? Is there an appeals process?

Derailment is an old and honored tradition of such forums as this. It is the natural progression of conversation.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

When all is said, ultimately I feel my request was allowable in the Primary role of moderator as defined here in Bountiful (under Appeal Process for Moderation):

2. The primary function of Forum Moderation is to maintain discussion and forum integrity. Moderators acknowledge they are human and are prone to mistakes, and it shall not lessen their credibility or delegated authority if they need to apologize from time to time.
Asking that thread discussions stay on topic and difusing sources of contention when recognized or perceived I think could reasonably be understood to be a part of maintaining discussion and forum integrity.

(Oh, Arbi... I didn't notice that the little thread ray started was in the Moderation Discussion area... ray, ray, ray... being naughty again... . Perhaps you could re-open it and put it in the humor section...)

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Cat Herder wrote:

response to jen:

I am quite familiar with what you quote. I penned it. If that is what you three feel I violated, then it has to be determined by the panel that my previous contributions to the thread could reasonably be construed as contributing to any disagreement that had turned caustic.

What the heck - a panel? A jury? "Reasonably construed..." Whatever.

See how you're twisting the parameters? You moderate us pre-emptively, but we're (excuse me, the panel) supposed to determine that you contributed to a caustic disagreement. What if the panel determines you were "about to"?

As I was attempting to prevent things between you two (you and coco) and Val from turning caustic, I don't think the clause applies. Of course, that is up to the panel to decide, isn't it? You (and a number of other sisters) and he have had this disagreement that wass starting in the thread elsewhere, if I remember right.

Attempting to prevent things is totally beyond the scope of moderation, in my opinion. The moderator's previous experiences which may or may not be shared by the other forum participants is all he has to go off of. I think cat's (negative) experience with Nauvoo colors his moderating. He's often comparing threads here to threads from the past on Nauvoo. It also assumes the worst in posters, that things will automatically get out of hand when a less than boring topic is discussed. It assumes posters will not resolve things on their own, which often happens given a few more posts or a few more hours to go think...

And I'm sick of the gender card being pulled.

If you have a concern about moderators only moderating based on the 5 umbrella rules, and not on moderator panel policy or forum history, then that is actually a general rules discussion and should be a seperate discussion from whether or not I was wrong in making the request I did.

I think this discussion goes beyond the single moderating incident on the one thread used as an example.

With regards to which statement(s) my request was concerning... it was towards all of both of your comments made in response to Val's comment 4 up from the bottom on page 1. I did not specify anything because I simply wanted to give you two the opportunity to reconsider your response and maybe look at his comment differently. As said, there was no warning or threat given.

All our comments from part way down page one to the end of the thread? O...kay....

And for what it's worth, after reviewing the thread a-gain, I don't see any aggressiveness or problems with the way Jen or I were communicating with Val. Once you stepped in and ...were you trying to speak in Val's defense? (because I don't view him as needing defending) that's when things began to take a turn.

Maybe Val could give his thoughts on whether he saw us as aggressive or disrespectful or just being jerks.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

My post was on topic... well... as ontopic as I am... which of course... is... um... well... I was told I had received preferential treatment by the moderators. Rather than make a big stinky about it, I posted my opinion that such could post their protestations in the form of an award.

What better way to diffuse the obviously personal nature of the accusation than to turn it around into an award, rather than a personal attack?

When life gives you lemons, why not make a nice hat out of them?

--Ray

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

poncho: btw, this forum here (moderation discussion) is for the sole intent of disputing moderation. It should be noted that No moderation actually took place, Cat just issued a warning... but by posting their objections here, the board members who do so are exercising their rights as members and yeah, every time a moderator makes a moderation it is open to scrutiny by the whole board.

Moderators are not supposed to take it personally, though some of the posts criticizing the moderators do at times seem more like cathartic personal attacks, rather than actual attempts to change some kind of moderation procedure.

Unlike other boards that make the discussion of moderation taboo, Bountiful was founded upon the idea that we could aire such things anytime we wanted... Hopefully that doesn't mean that we can't exercise a little temperance.

--Ray

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm pm-ed you Cat.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Arbi, could you explain a little more to the others how this process is supposed to work? It appears there is some confusion, including who makes up the panel and what the issue at hand is.

I would hope that individuals could be considerate enough not to turn this into a "Here is everything I hate / dislike / get annoyed about you, Cat Herder" session...

I have provided my reasoning and my defense for why I made the request I did as moderator.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Those wondering...

Moderators:
Ray ( of the most important forum: Humor)

and then there's

Roper
Polly
Cat Herder

Arbi - he's something of the board's CEO too... he tweaks settings and stuff...

Moderator emeritus obsoletus:
Bokbadok

--Ray

PS> Enough civilities, people, let's get back to trashing me and my reputation as a famous dancer.

arbilad · Head Chef

I will be posting and helping out soon, but for some reason they like me to work when I'm at work, so I haven't had much time. I'm not ignoring anyone, I've just had bigger fish to fry.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:

poncho: btw, this forum here (moderation discussion) is for the sole intent of disputing moderation. It should be noted that No moderation actually took place, Cat just issued a warning... but by posting their objections here, the board members who do so are exercising their rights as members and yeah, every time a moderator makes a moderation it is open to scrutiny by the whole board.

Moderators are not supposed to take it personally, though some of the posts criticizing the moderators do at times seem more like cathartic personal attacks, rather than actual attempts to change some kind of moderation procedure.

Well, that's what I was trying to point out. No moderation ever actually took place. I don't see what everyone is all up in arms about. I don't think Cat is taking anything personally, but it seems as though other people are. Cat did not attack anyone. But, there are people here who seem to think it's ok to attack him.

-- Edited by Poncho29 at 20:38, 2007-10-17

glumirk · Senior Member

Wow, this is one big fight. Here's my objective opinion, trying to come from both sides:

I think the basis of the "debate" was that Jen and Coco were talking about the strengths of men, and Val was talking about the weaknesses of me.

I'm sure Val knows a little more about being a man than Jen and Coco, so he was relying on personal stories involving himself and family.

Jen and Coco have had husbands/sons (sorry, I don't know all the details of their families) but I'm sure they don't know as much as personally as Val does about the inner-workings of a man's mind.

I can see where Cat put up a little warning sign because Jen and Coco were basically downing Val's opinion vehemently, like it was an impossibility.

For instance, this is how I took Val's comment: I think that we all know that physical weakness can aid spiritual weakness (like if you are tired it's a lot easier to yell at your children when calm words could have worked much better. And both of our bishops warned my husband and I not to be together when we were tired when we were dating because it could lead to us getting too physical because our defenses were down and Satan knows that when are defenses are down he can attack us more.) So I can see where Val's opinion came from (and please let me know if this is wrong, but this is how I see it): a lack of physical intimacy can cause a man to be a little weak in that concern, and thus try to fulfill it some other way, that could even be absolutely disgusting to him when he thinks about it later, but in the moment, when he is weak, it's appealing. Now, we would all want every man to always be as diligent as Joseph of Egypt, but if a normally good man is lacking a bit spiritually, and lacking a bit physically, it makes the sin that much easier, and he can blame it on lack of intimacy.

So basically, when I read Cat's post, I understood where he was stepping in. It wasn't like he could just go change what people had to say, he just wanted to make sure it didn't become a heated "I'm right and you're wrong" discussion.

However, I also can see where Jen and Coco were confused about what they were supposed to be watching in their words. They were very careful in their phrasing according to what they believed, and I can't even figure out what they could edit or reword to fix anything. One thing I absolutely hate is getting a grade back from a teacher, and not knowing where I missed the points. So maybe Cat could have posted his moderation post publicly, to prevent the contention that could come from a conversation like that, and then pm'd the two he was concerned about and thoroughly explain why he said that. I think that Jen and Coco didn't see what was wrong with their posts, and that's where this whole topic came from. It took me looking 3 times to understand, as I didn't see anything wrong the first two times I read it.

Sorry if I am out of line, but I think this whole issue just came up because of a couple misunderstandings, so I tried to write out why everything made sense to me..

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thanks, Glumirk. You're not out of line. I understood that Valhalla was talking about mens' weaknesses, and how resistance could be more difficult with acts of intimacy lacking. I also heard more blame than prudent being placed on the woman, should he give in to the temptation.

But this is about the moderation, or not moderation, or whatever it was. I'm feeling inconsistency and heavy-handedness is cat's moderating. I'm also seeing a lot of fuzzy or ambiguous moderating or not moderating or whatever, which is why I call for more clear, across-the-board moderation. It's the best way I can think of for things to be as fair and evenly applied as possible.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

What exactly was heavy-handed about Cat's "moderation"? I saw nothing heavy-handed about it. In fact, I know he tried to be polite as he could about it. Coco also accused him of bullying.
He wasn't bullying anyone. If he wanted to be heavy-handed he could have deleted the comments automatically or he could have chastised people more rudely by telling him what they said was "not right" or "was rude." Or he could have closed the thread entirely. All he wanted to do was help people (of both sides) be more tolerant of the opposite view.

I wonder, if any other moderator had made the comments Cat made, would we even be having this discussion?
I've kept silent in previous situations, because I try to remain neutral, but in this particular instance I just couldn't keep silent any longer. Because this is not fair.

It's unfortunate that there has been a huge misunderstanding here. No one, least of all Cat has any desire to tread on anyone else's feelings. But, contrary to popular belief, Cat does not have a superiority complex.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Yeah! Everyone knows Elastigirl is far superior to Mr. I.

In reply to Arbi's request for moderator input: I don't agree with the following approach for reasons I'll explain below.

Folks, in the effort to keep LDS Discussions threads on topic and gospel related, I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent or that are derailed completely into something that becomes non-edifying. I don't want to do that, but the option is there. So please, try and keep the conversations here edifying.
The expectation hasn't been formally stated that all discussions in the LDS area will stay on topic and conform to a standard of "edifying." In the Strengthen Thy Brethren area, we do have a statement giving the expectation that discussion will be uplifting. So I won't fault members for not meeting expectations that haven't been clearly stated. Most topics drift--that's the nature of discussion boards.

Additionally, I can see how "I might start exercising power to close threads" might be interpreted as authoritarian.

That said, I think Cat did a commendable job on each occasion to communicate without giving offense. He was clear and polite. My opinion is that some seemed to take offense where none was intended.

If we're to have expectations like those discussed above for certain areas of the forum, I believe we need to seek consensus on those expectations and have them clearly stated. I'd rather not go that route. I'd rather leave things pretty much the way they are, with this very process serving as mediation for discussions that develop into perceived conflict.

-- Edited by Roper at 21:48, 2007-10-17

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'd like to know what folks would propose as solutions to redress issues of perceived naughtiness...

Jen, Coke, Hick? Any idears on how to make things more rigid and structured so that we don't have any freedoms anymore?

--Ray

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Okay, I'll quit trying to be diplomatic (believe it or not, I was trying) and say it straight. Bear in mind that I've liked Cat since Nauvoo days, even though I've been annoyed with him of late. So it's not a witch (warlock?) hunt. And I've really enjoyed talking to you, Poncho, so I hope you won't be too angry with me when I say that you're probably not going to be the most objective person in this. I wouldn't be if it were my husband "on trial".

Here's how the whole interaction came across to me:

Valhalla was saying some things that I was really offended by. I talked them over with my husband, I thought about them, and couldn't get past that. I expressed my offense. Something similar happened with Coco, apparently. She expressed hers, as well.

Cat Herder didn't like it. His response between the lines seemed to be something like this: "I don't like what you're saying/don't like how you're saying it/don't agree with you. I can't really moderate it based on the rules of the forum, so I'm just going to ask you to change it. I'll throw in a little reminder that I'm a moderator here, and hopefully that will be enough to make you change it so that this won't have to escalate."

Heavy-handed. Bullying.

Neither Cocobeem nor I were willing to do so without clarification. At least a couple of times we asked him exactly what needed changed, and why. There was a lot of lecturing and some quoting of things that may or may not have applied, but he wouldn't or couldn't give the specifics we asked for. So he didn't push it, and we didn't change anything. But annoyed undercurrents remained, probably from both sides.

Then today there was the other thing. "Folks, in the effort to keep LDS Discussions threads on topic and gospel related, I may start exercising the power to close threads that stray to only tangential discussions of the original post's intent or that are derailed completely into something that becomes non-edifying. I don't want to do that, but the option is there. So please, try and keep the conversations here edifying."

So what, now he's making up rules as we go? Threatening to close threads if he determines he doesn't feel edified enough, or he's not satisfied that they're staying enough on-topic? Based on what? His opinion? Yours? Someone else's? Totally arbitrary and subjective. I'm not the only one that took exception to that. Beefche commented, as well as Cocobeem, Hiccups, and I. Maybe there were more, I can't remember.

Heavy-handed. Trying to make something happen by virtue of being a moderator, and not based on anything better than "precedence", which I knew nothing of, and I'm not sure how many did. If Cat wants to express concern that something is possibly going down the wrong road, or say something as a community member and not a moderator, perhaps he should consider seperating his member posts from his moderator posts, and clearly label his moderator posts, so that there can be no confusion. Otherwise it could look like he's just trying to throw his weight around when he doesn't have a moderator's leg to stand on, like in this incidence (not saying it was definitely that way, just that that's how it seemed to me and I think Coco too; and since we were the ones being addressed, that counts for something, doesn't it?)

So there it is. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to consider that. Is Cat Herder willing to consider that he might be?

I don't know. I know I'm not the only one. Maybe it's all just he said, she said. That's why, for the umpteenth time, I'm asking for a solid way to moderate that's based on written rules to go off of, so that things aren't based on someone's opinions or perceptions or whims. It protects everyone, I think. Especially the mods, because if there is something absolute to point at and they're able to cite it, they can't be accused of things like this.

My suggestion:

The moderator would post something like: __________________ posted "________________________." It is a violation of rule # ___________________________. The action will be ________________________.

Simple, clear, no room for interpretation or misinterpretation.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Ray, knock it off. :p

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Jen, you sure you don't just want a robot for a moderator?

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

rayb wrote:

I'd like to know what folks would propose as solutions to redress issues of perceived naughtiness...

Jen, Coke, Hick? Any idears on how to make things more rigid and structured so that we don't have any freedoms anymore?

--Ray

See, I'm not getting this comment at all. As far as I see it, Cat stepped in to "tsk tsk" myself and Jen where it was totally unneeded. He was essentially moderating a pre-crime. (See fantastic reference to Minority Report a few posts up.)

Maybe Cat *is* a robot.

I think the problem is when things are too rigid... we get the - well, I won't say "constant" moderating, looking over your shoulder feeling, but I'll say I didn't even know who the other moderators were, besides Cat, and I assumed Arbi since he's the Father of Bountiful. If we are going to have constant moderation or threats (reminders) of it, if we're going to be treated as incompetent bratty children who can't be trusted to speak of the more interesting (difficult) topics without acute surveillance and premature feedback, then YES - we need rules and lots of them. I dislike trying to guess what's going to vex Cat next.

Personally, I like more freedom. I don't think I was out of line. I don't think Jen was out of line. I don't think Val was hurt or offended by us. (Still waiting on his feedback.) I was not upset by what Val posted. I think we were just beginning to figure out what he meant - I mean, OBVIOUSLY nobody thinks they can pin their sins on another person... an online conversation takes longer to arrive at a meeting of the minds than a real life one. Why not give us some leeway? When mods jump in to solve a problem that doesn't exist, yes, it creates the problem. I'd venture to say there's more hard feelings all around NOW than had Cat not jumped in to save Val or stiff-arm Jen and me.

As for resolutions?

Maybe ray and cat could switch their moderating duties for a while?

And Ponch, I understand your concern for your spouse, but I don't think your posts are helping overcome the problem. If I'm feeling any emotion in this thread, it's coming from you.

arbilad · Head Chef

I really liked Glumirk's summation of the situation.
In a way, there's really so much to agree on in this thread. We have to have rules to maintain civility and have this remain a fun place to be. But we also need to avoid over moderation.
What I really don't want to be a result of this discussion is anyone walking on egg shells, either posters or moderators. I don't want posters to be wondering whether they can even participate for fear of being slapped down. I don't want moderators not moderating when they see the need for fear of being dogpiled and reviled.
Cat asked me to review who the moderation board is and how the appeals process works. Basically, everyone who is not Cat but who is a moderator is on the moderation review board at the moment. Ray summarized who the moderators are. When someone has a problem with a moderation action, they post it here. Cat was right to encourage people to take complaints out of the thread in question and take them here. Once that has been done the moderation review committee convenes, listens to what people have to say about it, discusses it, and makes a decision. If necessary, the moderation action in question is repealed.
In this situation there really is no specific action to repeal, even if the moderators decide that Cat acted out of line. In fact, I see that as a problem right now in this thread; no one has proposed a specific outcome. Jen and Coco, what specific action do you want to see taken, if the moderators decide that Cat was wrong? An apology? For his moderation comments in that thread to be amended or deleted? For a specific policy or way of doing things to be put in place?
Cat is right; we don't want this to become a rag on Cat session. Even if he took an incorrect action, that will make other moderators more timid in taking action if they feel that they will be publicly put in the stock and mocked, so to speak. So, let's get a specific goal in mind, and have the moderators discuss whether or not action is needed.
BTW, Jen, I agree that moderation action needs to reference specific rules and specific violations need to be quoted. The problem is that not everyone agrees on specific interpretations of the rules. Not even moderators always agree. So while we should cite specific rules and violations of such, it still will not make the process perfect.

beefche · Profuse Pontificator

My only issue was the statement that threads in LDS Discussions should be on topic as the OP intended. I think Roper's assessment sums up my feelings on the matter.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm on my way out the door and might be gone most of the day.

What I want is one of two things. If things are going to be so tightly micromanaged, I would like to see an absolute process through which moderation can happen, which I mentioned already. OR I'd like to see Cat Herder cool it and wait to put on his moderator hat until things actually need moderated as per the rules. That would be my preference, since I'm a fan of freedom as well. :)

arbilad · Head Chef

Jen, one thing I absolutely do not want on this forum is tight micromanagement. For one thing, I don't have the time for it, and it wouldn't give the correct image if I had a laissez-faire approach to moderation and another moderator had a micromanagement approach.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Shoot, why don't I throw in my 2 cents.

1) I think it is within Cat's moderation responsibilities to warn about comments that may be going the contentious direction in order to keep the tone of the discussion proper. Such a warning should be an opportunity to review our comments more closely as the discussion continues to avoid getting contentious or getting more contentious.

2) While a moderator (from my interpretation of things) has the ability to make sure a discussion belongs where it does (LDS Discussions, Humor, etc.), a moderator does not have the responsibility of keeping the discussion within a certain parameter of the original post. As already stated, the progression of a discussion can expand and still be "in touch" with the original post. It should be up to the post originator to reign things back in if they wish to keep the topic more narrow and if that attempt does not work to their satisfaction than perhaps request moderation (such as closing the thread to further discussion).

See, just 2 cents for now.

Ros · Senior Member

I just have one thing to say..

I love Ray!

That is all.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

If I were to choose which of Jen's two options that I think may work better, I'd say I'd like to see Cat "cool it" some, too. Not to the laissez-faire extreme, but a little less uptight. Like I said, I don't think there existed a problem with offense or pre-contention until Cat put it out there. I think he should've *at least* waited for a response from Val to see if Val took the comments as "non-productive" or something hurtful/offensive and worth rephrasing. Sometimes it's all in one's head. (Spoken from experience!

)

And I would have to disagree with TT's #1. I find much of these posts viewed as pre-contentious resolve themselves and those that may be at odds with each other have an easier time of diffusing the bad feelings between themselves if allowed to talk things through without an overseer. Once the mod takes over, negotiation often shuts down.

Since arbi has asked what action we'd like to see taken, maybe I'll ask, what options are there?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

beefche wrote:

My only issue was the statement that threads in LDS Discussions should be on topic as the OP intended. I think Roper's assessment sums up my feelings on the matter.

beefche,
I appreciate that you are being a bit more objective than what I have felt has been presented by others of the non-moderator persuasion.

Everyone,
I think this is right along what needs to happen... that is, specific forum areas need to have defined guidelines as to what is deemed appropriate discussion / discussion format and what is not. This protects everyone and provides a sense of orderly framework.

The only problem is that whenever I have ever suggested this in public or in private, no one wants to do it because they feel it is going to infringe on their "freedom", or "we don't want a lot of rules", or "just let things go as they will".

And then as revealed by one of coco's recent comments, people generally don't seem to bother to read stickies at the top of discussion areas anyway... people don't seem to seek an understanding of the rules and policies by which this forum is intended to operate even when publicly posted when they join it. Every forum area has listed at the bottom who the moderator(s) are for that area.

So, what am I supposed to do in a situation where things have a extraordinary potential to blow up because there are so many different emotions and histories and other things brought to the table by people?

With that in mind, I am sorry if anyone felt I overstepped bounds by trying to politely keep things from turning caustic... and as usual, I became the lightening rod for everyone's frustrations.

There have been some pretty hurtful things said and alluded to and about me and my motives over the past 48 hours both publicly and privately by a small number of you. Not a one of you know me. And aside from one other person besides Poncho, only one of this whole forum has ever spoken in real life with me. But it seems you don't find a problem with labeling me with all the worst possible assumptions about my personality (which you really have never seen) you can think of... control freak, superiority complex, misogynist, unrighteous dominion, heavy-handed, bully, above the law, tainted because of bad experiences elsewhere, annoying, unwilling to admit being wrong, finger pointer... and this is just some of the stuff I have seen directed at me this time around.

But you know, responding to any of that simply is not worth the energy or frustration. It isn't worth it to me to try and continually defend myself against people's limited perceptions. And it certainly would do no good for me or any of you if I responded in kind and follow the path of listing out things I can come up with to dislike about any of you in my limited perception.

All that matters is that those who do know me know that the allegations and accusations aren't true.

And that is all the time, energy, and effort I am going to waste on this.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Cat, you are being heavy-handed as a moderator. I back Coco up on this.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Here's a solution:

We could all just not participate in the forums where Cat moderates if we don't like the way he does it.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Shiz, if that's not bullying, I don't know what is.
I guess no one is really interested in a real solution.
Whatever rules or guidelines that may or may not end up being established, what it all boils down to is people are going to say and do whatever they want no matter what. If they end up being moderated or come close to being moderated they are going to complain. Period.

FTR, Coco stated she sensed alot of emotion coming from me. Well yeah, naturally. But I'm not the only one who has demonstrated plenty of emotion on this.
Maybe I'm not completely objective, but I also would not back up Cat if I felt he was wrong.
I don't hesitate to tell Cat when I think he is in the wrong and he knows that. It may or may not influence what he does, but at least he knows how I feel.

I guess what people really don't like is what they interpret as Cat wanting to always be right is only the fact that if he truly believes in something he doesn't back down. He picks and chooses his fights and this particular fight isn't worth it. More time and energy is wasted on people trying to prove he is wrong rather than him trying to prove he is right.

Oh well. Maybe we should all try harder at seeking to understand one another. We're all talking at each other rather than to each other.

-- Edited by Poncho29 at 11:36, 2007-10-18

-- Edited by Poncho29 at 11:43, 2007-10-18

arbilad · Head Chef

Is there a way to lower the emotional temperature of this thread? I don't want anyone to go away angry.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

That's closer to avoiding confrontation, I think. You actually have to be present to bully or get bullied, if I'm not mistaken.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

I don't know. It might be time to close this thread. Are we getting closer to any resolution?

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Sometimes anger is appropriate. Especially when someone violates your rights or boundaries in some way.