Should we bring back a moderator team?

[ceeboo]

I can find nothing to disagree with there - in fact, I wonder if I should retract (at least partially) my views on intent. Perhaps focusing on effect makes more sense.

Yeah, As I already said, I am struggling with this. While I do think intent should be a consideration, I'm not sure how any potential moderator would know the intent of another - and I don't think it would be fair, to any potential moderator, to put them in what would no doubt be a difficult position. If not an impossible position. Again, I am still thinking all of this stuff through and don't have any answers in my mind at this point. Maybe there aren't any?

I definitely agree with your last para - and this thought is part of what makes moderation an art rather than a science,

Yeah, perhaps you're right. Maybe it ought to be an art and not a science. Thinking some more.

or, if you like, a Pacific whale rather than a rabble-rousing raccoon.

Yes! I do like!

[Res Ipsa]

I have been thinking more about "trolling" in general, So I decided to do a simple Google search. One of the places it sent me to had the following to say about trolling (This is only a part of the link's contents)


Signs of Trolling:

It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.

Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.

Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.

Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.

Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.

Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.
=============================================================================================================================


So considering that I have fairly frequently partaken in at least the two I have put in blue - I guess I am a troll. Actually, as I consider all of these, I think we have a lot more trolls around here than one might imagine.

I wouldn’t label you as a troll, but you’ve trolled sometimes. So have most of the regulars in Paradise. ***Shrugs***

[Res Ipsa]

I'm currently multi-tasking between making breakfast, and commenting here, which is my excuse for not mentioning what I believe is another relevant aspect of the Cee/Mok axis comments: they are (again, generally) asides, not derails.

I think that’s a useful distinction. Normal conversations have a meandering quality, including humorous interjections. I wouldn’t consider those derails, even though they may result in a little banter or riffing of the original comment.

[Res Ipsa]

First, let me be clear - I am still thinking all of this through and I have come to no conclusions because I think this whole trolling thing is really complex and it has many layers.

Having said that, I'm not sure if intent (no matter what the intent is) matters. If I post something in a thread that's off-topic, it's off-topic. Full stop. And I have done that many times - So have others. Now, these off topic posts rarely bother me (many times I enjoy them and find them to be examples of people's wit and humor - but what if they do bother other people and/or other people don't enjoy them or find them humorous?)

Again, I am still thinking all of this trolling stuff through and I am not sure what lines to draw or if they should be drawn at all. From my view, if the lines are drawn too straight and tight, there is a very real risk of placing handcuffs on people that will limit them in sharing their gifts and/or expressing their exceptional wit, humor and banter in the community - and that, in my opinion, would be a real loss for everyone.

I can find nothing to disagree with there - in fact, I wonder if I should retract (at least partially) my views on intent. Perhaps focusing on effect makes more sense.

There's a timing issue involved, of course, in that a mod who is looking at effect rather than anything else might not be inclined to nip in the bud an apparent attempt to derail, because perhaps nobody will rise to the bait, and so it becomes moot. This, however, may embolden the would-be disrupter.

I definitely agree with your last para - and this thought is part of what makes moderation an art rather than a science, or, if you like, a Pacific whale rather than a rabble-rousing raccoon.

Just based on my own experience, a moderator has to look both at internet and effect, keeping in mind that some of the cues that we normally use to one internet are missing on a written message board. The rules aren’t rules for rules sake — they have a purpose. And keeping the purpose in mind makes it easier in my opinion for a moderator to decide when to act and when not to act.

[ceeboo]

.

[ceeboo]

oops

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

oh please. This is just more contrarian posturing. It's a completely ridiculous position to take, unless your goal is simply to disrupt.

For real. CFR, Qultellus.

I won’t hold my breath for the diaper dandy, by the way. He never comes through.

- Doc

Did the diaper dandy ever pony up, or has he moved on to some other thread derailing fart-thought that escaped his dependz?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

I can find nothing to disagree with there - in fact, I wonder if I should retract (at least partially) my views on intent. Perhaps focusing on effect makes more sense.

Yeah, As I already said, I am struggling with this. While I do think intent should be a consideration, I'm not sure how any potential moderator would know the intent of another - and I don't think it would be fair, to any potential moderator, to put them in what would no doubt be a difficult position. If not an impossible position. Again, I am still thinking all of this stuff through and don't have any answers in my mind at this point. Maybe there aren't any?

I definitely agree with your last para - and this thought is part of what makes moderation an art rather than a science,

Yeah, perhaps you're right. Maybe it ought to be an art and not a science. Thinking some more.

or, if you like, a Pacific whale rather than a rabble-rousing raccoon.

Yes! I do like!

Great conversation. Moderators are placed in an impossible position — necessarily so. That’s why, if I feel the need to talk to a moderator, I do it via PM.

Line drawing is arbitrary. There is a whole range of locations where one could place the line between derail and not derail. And when dealing with cases close to the line, the moderator’s decision will look arbitrary because the placement of the line is arbitrary.

Consistency is important, but perfect consistency is impossible. Consistency requires treating like things the same and unlike things differently. But any two situations are both the same and different. And two cases adjacent to the line are, for practical purposes, indistinguishable.

In practice, the line is more like a band, because moderators here are instructed to enforce the spirit of the rules, which gives moderators a range of discretion. Still, no matter how good and fair a moderator tries to be, it will always be possible to pick two decisions and credibly argue that they are inconsistent. And, human nature being what it is, there will always be people who do just that.

So, yeah, moderators are tasked with an impossible job. It helps to understand that going in.

And on intent, one can infer intent from content, tone, and pattern of posting. But the potential for misunderstanding has to be taken seriously.

[Chap]

No-one is going to die or lose their job, their marriage, or their immortal soul (assuming they have one) if a moderator makes a questionable call in dealing with one of their posts.

Some moderation is necessary in order to keep this board an interesting environment for discussion. I am very happy for anybody that Shades approves of to do the job, and if they occasionally screw up, then it does not really matter much.

[Dr Moore]

Publicly flagging and reflagging every message for moderator action adds negative value. There is a link to report offensive messages. Use it, and stop cluttering up the boards, people. It’s not helpful to try and “win” by repetitively shaming or questioning the few people who care enough to maintain and moderate the forums.