Open Door Thread: Help Me Help You

[UbuWu]

Ok, the "closed politics thread???" thread is back now, but it is closed. Nothing wrong with that, but please add a post to it stating the reasons it is closed now. Especially if you yourself are the last one posting, it is a little bit strange to have it locked without stating why and if possible referring (quoting would eve be better) to the forum guidelines.

[UbuWu]

Several have said we should not remove threads. That is a bad idea. Are the supporters of this idea saying that if a severely racists , or a offensive (sexually) threads are started we should leave them here all to see?

There is no reason to remove whole threads in which a lot of people with good intentions posted because of some bad posts. Even in those cases you mention I rather see a good reply (and possibly locking the thread, but preferably not) from the moderators telling the poster that what he does is not appropriate on these forums (of course stating reasons) than having it just deleted. Be very cautious with deleting posts/threads, only keep that as a last resort when posts are very very offensive or otherwise inappropriate.

[matthew]

Examples of moderator/staff posts in that thread that I thought were very appropriate and well done.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...41&postcount=2
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...1&postcount=13
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=57

These demonstrate a standard I think is very acceptable and useful. Examples abound in many other threads as well of good moderation and good execution of moderator policy. In fact, I can think of (sorry no links) a few times when KiwiNZ has impressed me greatly.

My earlier post in this thread was not intended to belittle the contribution of the moderating/administration team, but in a sense to complement it by pointing out what I view as an anomaly in what is usually very clear, even-handedness in moderation. I also realize zenwhen is a new moderator and should be shown some slack here.

Do these guys need to delete stuff sometimes? Of course. There are the obvious things like violence, porn, spam and so on--all of which is mentioned in the moderator guidelines, right?

Anyway, this just highlights a weakness in an otherwise very strong community. What are the guidelines for administration/moderators as well as for users and how will those guidelines be put into practice? Consistency I can deal with, even when I may disagree. Arbitrary decisions or the appearance thereof bug the heck out of me.

[poptones]

Removing threads (even posts, IMO) is a bad idea. Silencing speech removes the person from accountability for their speech and it squashes any possibility of otherwise unforseeable positive outcomes.

Here's a not so simple example: a representative of my state by the name of Trent Lott made a statement at a birthday celebration for an old school southern politican about how he "supported his values." Problem was, the values at the time he was reminiscing were of strict segregation, racism and lynchings - not exactly "values" we would want out officials to hold today. pretty much as a result of these statements alone, Trent Lott was forced to step down as Senate majority leader.

If Trent Lott had been "moderated" he would have been completely removed from accountability in this.

We do have to have rules here. People are going to have to be accountable for what they post. If you make claims and don't back them up, you should have to answer for them.

In the case of my thread (which you locked) YOU REMOVED YOURSELF from accountability. Your first comments were not only flat wrong but argumentetive and when you backpedaled through a revisionist history there was no opportunity to point this out because YOU had locked the thread. But it doesn't matter anyway, as even before you had locked it you had edited not only your own statements but MINE AS WELL.

This policy of allowing argumentetive, overbearing moderators to both participate in and "moderate" the same discussion is, in every way, a very bad thing.

[TravisNewman]

zen-- I think that overall, you should just try to calm down and see things from other people's position more, and don't be so reactionary.

You admitted to intentionally flamebaiting, and that's not acceptable. Like someone else has said, the ends don't justify the means.

You admitted that you should have handled yourself differently with poptones.


I made no complaint when this happened, but you're asking for comment, so here goes:
Regardless of what you think of the case azz, jdodson, dataw0lf, and myself took to the Community Council, your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here." With the position of moderator, you also get a lot of responsibilities other than watching over posts. You represent the forum. That kind of conduct is unacceptable for a moderator, in my opinion.

I just think that, overall, you're too reactionary.

EDIT: just to add, people weren't attacking you because you're conservative. Hell, I'm about as bleeding-heart as I can be, and I agree with a lot of your points. I have a lot of conservative friends who I have meaningful discussions with. The problem was all in the abrasive tone you used. Saying that you're just being attacked because you're conservative is simply untrue, or at least unprovable (like it's not provable whether or not Bush lied, or was just terribly misinformed). From the posts there, and from the way I feel, it seems that you being conservative had nothing to do with it. It seems you may have gotten upset over the situation and just lost your cool over it. This is a situation where you need to take a few hours to cool off from before posting about, or even waiting til after a good night's sleep.

I applaud your move to open up the door to criticism. This is the kind of openness I hope all mods are open to, because it's really one thing that this forum needs (and the CC seems to agree with that too).

[macgyver2]

Several have said we should not remove threads. That is a bad idea. Are the supporters of this idea saying that if a severely racists , or a offensive (sexually) threads are started we should leave them here all to see? If that is the case I would like to read your calm considerd and constructive reason why .

I'm one of the several, so I shall reply.

Regarding completely removing threads...I already said it and so has UbuWu: completely removing a thread because of one post or person wrongs the rest of the posters in that thread. It clearly goes against openness, one of the things Ubuntu is all about.

As for editing/deleting...I disagree with that as well. It still goes against openness and it leaves no room for accountability. If someone makes a post and a mod edits it before others see it...well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that my definition of humanity towards others does not include "blind trust". I would really hope that no mods would edit or delete or hide something just because they personally disagree or don't like it, but I can't be sure that something like that will never happen. It also lets the offensive poster off the hook, too. In the thread that was completely removed, I didn't get to read the offending post until the thread was reinstated in its original form. I was able to say that I thought zenwhen was wrong to say what he did but I couldn't say the same thing about Knome_fan because I never saw what Knome_fan wrote. Now that the original post is open, I understand how it might have offended zenwhen (but it still didn't justify the extremity of the moderation, in my opinion). The best way to have accountability is to have openness.

Please include examples in the Media and public arena where that would occur.

Two things here...first, I don't see how what the Media does should apply here. Just because the Media does (or doesn't do) something doesn't mean it's right. Heck, if you're going to use the Media in my country as an example then we should all just start posting random, made-up howtos with half the facts left out.

That being said, if you really want an example from the public arena then take a look at TV or movie ratings. Programs are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, MA. Movies are rated along the same lines and also have disclaimers at the beginning that tell you if the movie contains Strong Sexual Content or Excessive Violence and so on. If I don't want to see Excessive Violence then I don't watch. If I see the disclaimer yet watch anyway, I can't then go and complain that there was excessive violence.

Now, a possible solution would be to provide content filters...on the forums. The overwhelming majority of posts wouldn't need to be touched. If, however, a post like the politics one were to come along, something that might be offensive to some but does not violate the Code of Conduct, then a mod could yellow flag it. If it got out of hand and someone posted something racist or otherwise against the Code of Conduct then a mod would red-flag it. They would still have the option to lock the red-flagged thread (with a justification as to the reason)...but nothing is edited or deleted or otherwise censored. If a user doesn't want to risk being offended then they know not to read red posts. If they don't even like the iffy topics they can even avoid the yellows.

I'll close by stating something about me...one of the things that really offends me is someone else telling me at what things I should be offended.

[matthew]

your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here."

I happened to be in the #ubuntuforums when that happened and can confirm the incident occurred as described. This is a prime example of reactionary and overzealous behavior that is so emotionally charged that it makes listening to your actual ideas (which have both merit and show real intelligence) hard.

[claydoh]

On post removals, I must jump on the bandwagon and put my vote against it. Closing them off, yes that is fine if needed.

As to your "flamebaiting" I for one saw what you were doing, and even agree with your tactics and the reason behind it. If I, a "regular" forum member had done that, thats one thing, but as a moderator, that is another story. You are in a tough spot, caught between your opinions and your responsibilities and I do not envy you that at all.

[zenwhen]

Ok, the "closed politics thread???" thread is back now, but it is closed. Nothing wrong with that, but please add a post to it stating the reasons it is closed now. Especially if you yourself are the last one posting, it is a little bit strange to have it locked without stating why and if possible referring (quoting would eve be better) to the forum guidelines.

That thread is going to stay how it is. This thread is serving that thread's purpose now. The thread in question is open. Let that one die.

This policy of allowing argumentetive, overbearing moderators to both participate in and "moderate" the same discussion is, in every way, a very bad thing.

I see your point, and am going to have to use discretion as far as your comments about that thread where we had our debate goes. I typed out a nice long paragraph about it and just backspaced it. I am done with the topic. We don't see eye to eye there.

I'll try to ignore the kind of things that drew me into that thread from now on. The misinformation in there couldn't have hurt anyone anyway I suppose.

zen-- I think that overall, you should just try to calm down and see things from other people's position more, and don't be so reactionary.

Both of those, I can and will work on.

You admitted to intentionally flamebaiting, and that's not acceptable. Like someone else has said, the ends don't justify the means.

I posted my onions without exaggeration. People weren't mature enough to handle it. Flame-baiting is posting something CREATED to draw flames. I posted my thoughts. We probably won't see eye to eye on this one. I wanted to show that conservative ideas would be balked at. I am pretty sure I did from a few of the comments on there. I do see how one could see it as flamebaiting and discount my ideas about the lack of tolerance for conservative ideas, but...

Azz's comment about supporting gay marriage (a VERY controversial topic) was as much flame bait as anything I said. He wasn't called out. I don't apologize for posting my ideas. The fact that i admitted I knew I would be flamed is the only thing that makes it “flame bait” The point is, I shouldn't have had to worry about being flamed at all.

I made no complaint when this happened, but you're asking for comment, so here goes:
Regardless of what you think of the case azz, jdodson, dataw0lf, and myself took to the Community Council, your conduct as a moderator in the #ubuntuforums channel was unacceptable. Because of my involvement, you told me "As far as I'm concerned, you're no longer welcome here." With the position of moderator, you also get a lot of responsibilities other than watching over posts. You represent the forum. That kind of conduct is unacceptable for a moderator, in my opinion.

No one made you leave. No one banned you. I just let you know how I feel. I don't pretend to like people. I certainly don't outside of these forums. I said it as nicely as I could say it, but had to say what I said. I wouldn't say it here, but could and did say it there.

EDIT: just to add, people weren't attacking you because you're conservative. Hell, I'm about as bleeding-heart as I can be, and I agree with a lot of your points. I have a lot of conservative friends who I have meaningful discussions with. The problem was all in the abrasive tone you used. Saying that you're just being attacked because you're conservative is simply untrue, or at least unprovable (like it's not provable whether or not Bush lied, or was just terribly misinformed). From the posts there, and from the way I feel, it seems that you being conservative had nothing to do with it. It seems you may have gotten upset over the situation and just lost your cool over it. This is a situation where you need to take a few hours to cool off from before posting about, or even waiting til after a good night's sleep.

You are probably somewhere around half right. I was also being flame-baited myself and was attacked in a lot of posts that were deleted by an Admin. I got worked up for a lot of reasons that are more or less unprovable, but should have avoided it anyway. I have admitted my wrongdoing there.

I will from now on make backups of anything I edit or remove. Not doing so was a big mistake.

I applaud your move to open up the door to criticism. This is the kind of openness I hope all mods are open to, because it's really one thing that this forum needs (and the CC seems to agree with that too).

Thank you for this comment. It actually does mean a lot.

I have received a great amount of feedback here. I will use it to help hone myself into a more moderate moderator. I thank all of you for your comments. If anyone has anything else to say, I will still be responding. I'll leave this stickied until 11PM Eastern time tomorrow.

[poptones]

I was also being flame-baited myself...

Whoopee. The fact you even use the expression "flame baited" just reveals more about your immaturity. It's like the old wifebeater argument "she made me hit her."

Go look at my comments on slashdot - I "flame bait" people all the time. Hell, that might even be all I post there any more - and people do it to me. That doesn't mean I reply to every one of them. I also rarely use "mod points" even when I have them because they usually end up getting wasted when I find myself unable to resist the urge to reply to some worthy comment.

Drawing people into arguments can be a useful debate tool, but when you are on a "moderation" staff you are supposed to be part of a team that fosters stability and harmony, not the gunslinger who gets the town shot up in a quickdraw.

...and was attacked in a lot of posts that were deleted by an Admin.

Oh, the irony...