Urban Hat€monger ?

I know he isn't I don't see the point in arguing something that really isn't an issue just for the sake of it.

__________________

Guybrush

GB, calm down dude

Yes, it can. To prevent situations like this from arising in the future, I suggested that moderators give warnings not to let things escalate. I suggest that they do not openly take any side or call anyone a troll because it will only fuel the conflict. Doing so may be okay when it is a clear cut case, but this has too much greys in it.

A moderator calling someone a troll and not acting on it undermines that moderators authority. When a mod calls someone a troll, I think it should be a near undeniable fact that the person is, in fact, a troll and that appropriate and just moderation is about to happen.

I also suggested that people should be more aware of how their actions here may either escalate or soften a conflict. Like others here have said, be the change. Take the high road now and then. Help make MB friendlier. Is this irrelevant and derailing?

Sopsych this and Sopsych that. Can we leave the guy out of it from now on? My arguments don't really need Sopsych. His situation can be used to illustrate a point, but as I've pointed out to you a number of times, it's about principles and what members and mods can do. I can use other non-Sopsych drama examples in the future to illustrate the exact same points.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Freebase Dali

Your observations seem to be neglecting some key points:

1. The member is not a newcomer. They're someone that changed their name. Their join date and post count should be sufficient for discerning this information.

2. Other members resort to frustration after multiple attempted reasoning fails, and since other members are ALSO PART OF THE COMMUNITY, their input is just as valid. Whether their reactions are acceptable or not is really the question here, but we cannot question their reactions without also questioning why those reactions take place in context with the situation, which isn't simply that someone has an unpopular opinion, and IS that such a person is joining a COMMUNITY debate about behaviors where such a person frames their position in such a way as to be progressively antagonistic in response to the community not agreeing. Perception is just as important as intent, and you seem to be disregarding the wider perception because you're not seeing past your own. I challenge you to make an assumption about community reactions had Sopsych framed his debate in a way people would be receptive to, rather than defensive to. And you cannot simply fault the defensive reactions without also faulting the causal factors. It works both ways. For instance, you are framing your position in a way that does not antagonize others, yet you are pushing an unpopular opinion. It should be obvious why you're getting a different reception, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you're Tore. If you had the same attitude that Sopsych has displayed, you'd be getting the same reactions he did, whether that's a failure of behavior or not.

3. Moderators can have their own opinions, and the fact that they might line up with the majority of people in a discussion does not mean what you're making it out to mean. I understand why you would make such a correlation in favor of your own bias, however, it should be pretty clear that an unpopular opinion is simply going to be unpopular for the majority, just like yours is right now. The only reason your posts are moved to their own thread is because they're framed along the discussion of this thread as intended, and are not antagonistic, in reference to the perception of the community, which is what mods are here to look after. If the entire community was in here on the same lines as Sopsych and yourself, then and only then could you point at unfairly defensive moderator behavior looking out for their own interests. You know we're not robots, and we are also part of the community. Just because we happen to align ideologically with the majority points only to statistical probability, not subversive behaviors. And, also, it should be noted that this is a discussion that really requires moderators to be a part of, so our positions are relevant here in the broader discussion.

4. Situation escalates to the point where a moderator felt the need to separate a divergence in discussion from spoiling the intent of a post. Which clearly has not been effective. The ineffectiveness of it is the only thing you can fault here, and it's on all of our heads.

If we want to discuss how to improve this place, anyone that knows anything about how people react to criticism should be careful to make sure that their efforts don't undercut their intentions, and this goes for all sides. We would all be better off if we focused on what we can do better, rather than what we're doing wrong. The sooner this happens, the more receptive individuals will be to the kind of discussion we really need to be having here.

__________________

Guybrush

Labelling him as troll is what I think of as siding against him.

This post above is one I wholeheartedly agree with.


I think regarding how you guys moderate, I wish members in general had more respect for the rules and the moderators here. I think you guys labelling people as trolls just as any other member might without there being any visible consequences to that labelling, that undermines your authority. I also think that when you ask the community how you should moderate in a given situation, that also undermines your authority. Instead of decisive authority, we see insecurity. Moderators gain authority and respect by being decisive and fair.

I am sorry if this offends. I'm just being honest here. I think one of the reasons why it is difficult to moderate here is that there basically are few rules and guidelines that tell you how to do the job. New mods are given their position and are expected to figure it out. Different mods moderate with different approaches and overall, it seems a little inconsistent .. perhaps even a bit unpredictable - and far too lenient.

I think a more secure, visible and defined stance regarding rules and more consistent approach to moderation will give more respect to rules and moderators. A good place to start could be to define some rules and guidelines you guys can agree on. Some protocol that you abide by and which tells you how to do the job. A higher level of authority that you can refer to, if you will, and which might give you some rules to go by in situations so that you are no longer insecure about what to do and how to approach things.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Urban Hat€monger ?

Unless I've missed something I have only seen moderators ask him to stop trolling the thread. I've not seen one call him an actual troll.

__________________

Freebase Dali

There's no reason to call someone a troll. We can just ban them, since it's against the rules.
However, if we don't want to be so drastic, it's a bit hard to tell someone to stop trolling by avoiding the "T word". Using such terminology is effective because everyone knows what it means and you don't have to go any further. If a mod thinks someone is trolling, they will say so and that will be a warning before any further steps are needed.

I don't see why it's necessary for a mod to have to beat around the bush in this regard. If we think you're trolling, we tell you to stop trolling. Trying to be "PC" about something like this is ridiculous.

Also, if mods aren't supposed to "side against" anyone by calling them out on a problem, then I guess our jobs are useless.

__________________

Guybrush

Difficult sentence

I don't want to refer to the previous situation out of respect for the anger and irritation it causes in some others as well as wish for that anger to not further blind people to my points.

So instead, let's say Hitler is here and I troll him because I think he's a douche. If I troll, I accept that and am prepared to take responsibility for it. I would accept it if a moderator took some punitive action against my trolling. If my trolling of Hitler contributed to derailing a thread, then the derailment of that thread is on my conscience too. I can't blame Hitler for my own actions. I don't want moderators who blame Hitler for my actions.

If Hitler breaks rules, I should report him. If he is a continuing disturbance on the forum, I can express those views as long as I act within the rules. I can also tell the moderators about how I feel. In any case, it is their job to deal with Hitler, not mine.

I am hoping that by using this example, I am making clear the point that it doesn't really matter who it is I'm trolling or why. It could be the world's biggest asshole. The point is I should be held responsible for my own actions. I want to be held responsible for my own actions and if I do troll, I like to think that it is a choice that I take while knowing and accepting the consequences that choice may entail.

That was my point. Accountability and responsibility where it is due.

edit :

Again, this seems defensive and like it misrepresents. For example, I am not suggesting mods don't take sides. They take the side of the rules they should enforce. What I am suggesting is that moderators moderate members rather than argue with them. If you have a problem with Sopsych, give him warnings in a PM, not in a public thread because that will only rouse more anger towards him which again will be disruptive. And why would you argue with a member about whether or not he trolls? It is your call to make. If the moderators join in in singling out a person, even if that person is wrong, moderators behaving that way may unintentionally legitimize anger or even condone acts like trolling or name calling. For example, if moderators ask a person publically to stop trolling, then they have established that the official stance of the mods is that this person is a troll. That does have an effect on the social interactions here.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Freebase Dali

I'm not sure what to make of this analogy, but you know that in our rules we have a stipulation about people inciting others into breaking rules. In this case, we would not only place responsibility on the rule breaker, but the person intentionally antagonizing another into such an action.

Simply being an icon of being hated, or whatever that might be in this community is definitely not inciting, as you obviously know since HHBH is still here. But there's a difference between being unpopular and using that unpopularity in order to antagonize.
The problem is, how do we determine whether they're doing that or not? Well, we simply look at that person's interactions over a period of time and make a judgement call. There's no hard science to this, and part of our duties as mods are to make those judgement calls. Fortunately, we also have a resource and it's the community. We can base our judgement calls on what kind of effect a person is having on the majority. And since the community as a whole is what we're here to protect, it's very hard for us to feel guilty about doing what's better for it, and I, for one, do not apologize for looking out for the community as a whole.

So, really, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, unless you're trying to say that people here are trolling Sopsych, to which, the only instance I've seen was deleted appropriately.

__________________

Freebase Dali

I would agree with this. We shouldn't be arguing, but instead should be just handing out punishments for whatever crimes.
But the thread was meant to be a discussion between everyone. How will the mods, who are also members, make their positions known on the issue we're trying to solve, if we're not allowed to point them out?

Of course, it's still a thread that's under the scope of our rules, so we still have to enforce them. But of all places, we wanted this to be a place where we could discuss ideas. Unfortunately, it got out of hand, which was why the thread split. There's your example of moderators moderating.

Regarding your troll thing... let me use my own analogy.

If a person walks into a store and steals an item, then someone yells "shop lifter!" and he gets caught, are they wrong for doing that? Are they socially stigmatizing the shop lifter? After all, they did shop lift. Like you said, it's down to the personal responsibility of those taking an action. Others should not be penalized for enforcing a rule by calling a goat a goat, rather than a hair 4-legged mammal with horns.

__________________

Guybrush

The point about accountability was one I tried to make pages ago, but which has so far only been met with misunderstanding as far as I can tell.

The reason I brought it up is that when we discuss drama, hostility and how it arises in our community, it doesn't really help us to simply blame other people. When we contribute to that drama, we can't simply focus on what other people have said and done. We also have to look at how we behave. We have to accept that we are parts of the dramatic machinery and take some responsibility in regards to that fact.

__________________
Something Completely Different