Feedback Poll How are we doing? - Recent Moderation

[jarhead714]

I agree with this statement but I think it can be a slippery slope in forum moderation. This isnt a peer-review committee of a scientific journal.

Its not a crime to be wrong, and moderation shouldn't revolve around factuality of opinion. Saying "the sky is red" isnt a crime, but blasting "the sky is blue" on a megaphone on a public street for hours might get you in trouble.

Let readers decide for themselves the "facts". Not moderators. Moderation should focus around disruption, NOT content.

Well stated.

 

[Dvrjon]

And another fairly useful generic thread begins to drift into individualized confrontations.

A comment on Moderation:

“I'll use this opportunity to check what you guys think of our recent moderation. We took a poll in the past, but in an effort to do better, let us know.”

This seemed to be an attempt at brainstorming and feedback. Now it's digressing into crosstalk between members/Mods with accusations/ explanations/justifications.

IM(LTH)O, on this type of topic (asking for feedback on Mods) Mods should be in listening mode since they have an implicit bias to the question. When necessary (crosstalk between members), Mods should properly step in and redirect the focus and then retire to listen.

Explanations and post-facto rationalizations only contribute to the general chaos, divert the focus, and have an effect which can chill and pollute the value of the input.

Essentially, over time, I have learned that one needs to refrain from asking folks how things are going and then interjecting why they’re going well.

That’s an analysis which is done after the listening session closes.

Best.

 

[GoldensRule]

And another fairly useful generic thread begins to drift into individualized confrontations.

Now it's digressing into crosstalk between members/Mods with accusations/ explanations/justifications.

"Let he who without sin cast the first stone." Or some such biblical bull. No seriously, I really enjoy your after action reports and debriefs.

 

[socalgunowner909]

Take two of these and relax everyone ... lol

 

[46knuck]

At this point in the poll the fact that 68% think moderation is just right should be seen as an amazing accomplishment. Now 15% don't care so they don't really count, that only leaves 16.7% who don't agree on the moderation decisions. So as of today that is pretty good numbers. Congratulations on a good start.

 

[ikeo1]

Given a little bit more time, requests will neither be a necessity nor desire.

Ultimately you’re right. The bigger we get the less this will likely happen. Your voice matters more now than later, should the site continue to grow.

I’ve always said I’ve never operated a forum, but I've led teams. You come from the mindset that I know what I'm doing with a bunch of people who like firearms. I don't. I know technology very well, which is why that's mainly one way communication. I also listen to input to changes requested for easier usability.

This discussion in particular is how we deal with communications.

As a result of these discussions we've made the following adjustments:

• Modified verbiage for "warnings" to "notices" to tone down the message
• Added thread bans
• Implemented chill out bans
• You can request a review and we can take a look if things were taken out of context
• Implementing an Mod Block feature. If you constantly bicker with certain people and it does not stop. Then their messages will be hidden
• Members have a clearer idea of how we moderate and our moderators get to have feedback for thought.

Potential changes:

• Move out of context posts to a separate thread into Casual corner, which is less moderated where you can have your side conversation.

I don't come from a military background, so your approach is foreign to me. I'm come from tech where we collaborate with each other and users to move fast to make frequent changes and grow fast. I appreciate feedback from random users because it gives me insight outside from the most vocal.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

I agree with this statement but I think it can be a slippery slope in forum moderation. This isnt a peer-review committee of a scientific journal.

Its not a crime to be wrong, and moderation shouldn't revolve around factuality of opinion. Saying "the sky is red" isnt a crime, but blasting "the sky is blue" on a megaphone on a public street for hours might get you in trouble.

Let readers decide for themselves the "facts". Not moderators. Moderation should focus around disruption, NOT content.

My response wasn't meant to be a guide for moderation so much as a commentary on why some opinions are more valuable than others. In one sentence, opinions are not equal.

Obviously it's not a crime to be wrong and nobody is claiming that. The freedom to be wrong is often why people debate differences of opinion, opinion which should ideally be based on fact.

One of the things that kills forums is ideologically-driven admins and moderators curating content based on their peculiar worldview. It's killed Reddit already. From what I can see, CAGuns makes every effort not to do that.

Moderation is doing a great job overall.

 

[ikeo1]

I agree with this statement but I think it can be a slippery slope in forum moderation. This isnt a peer-review committee of a scientific journal.

Its not a crime to be wrong, and moderation shouldn't revolve around factuality of opinion. Saying "the sky is red" isnt a crime, but blasting "the sky is blue" on a megaphone on a public street for hours might get you in trouble.

Let readers decide for themselves the "facts". Not moderators. Moderation should focus around disruption, NOT content.

This is the balance we look for.. Sometimes the disruption is included in the content and our general policy is to remove all disruptive content. If its quoted, then the entire post gets removed. This is why the suggestion for moving conversations out makes some sense.

Some people get upset because their content is removed, not because their content was an issue, but the quoted content was and its collateral damage from the disruption.

For the most part, we've always said people can be wrong here, since everyone kinda thinks they're right. The main difference is we're all for people being wrong, but just don't be overly dramatic and emotion and get on a soap box. We remove the soapbox. If you have valid points, rest on those without attacking the other person, then we're good to go. The comments can remain. If it starts to degrade into generalizations, we remove those so the context stays without the embellishment or exaggeration.

I respect well thought out arguments by people who've researched things thoroughly. IMHO, its easy to see those who use well reasoned thought vs regurgitation of tag lines.

 

[ikeo1]

You missed it when you posed the question. You run the show. To hell with what people in this site think of your moderation. If they (to include myself) don’t like it, well they can just STFU and move along. Right?

There are more moderators. This is also a way for members to provide feedback to the rest of the mods. I run things a certain way and I still back their decisions. The bottom line is correct. You can move along if you don't like it, but before you go, what didn't you like.

This reminds me of a member on CGN that likes to repeat the fact that I asked another member in DM why they didn't like the site. The person on CGN took it as I was trying to poach or beg, but my reality was to see what he didn't like about the site so I could understand a different perspective. This was early on and I've constantly adapted the site to user feedback.

I show the metrics often to illustrate our growth rate because of the changes we make. There's value with people who decide to leave constructive criticism. I've shown our growth rate and stickyness is kinda unmatched, and I think its because I listen to you guys.

This site was built based on the feedback from Reddit posters. A lot of the features especially the location & price filters were a direct requests. When I posted a similar message on CGN, it was removed in less than 24 hours.

For me, I like to listen to what people say, then prioritize our directions. I have my own ideas and lean on different people in the community. I've tuned out the haters these days, so it's not a big deal. I would prefer we all be on the same page, but they like to put political labels on everything.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1brjise/update_2_on_calgunss_alternative

 

[vplaza96]

For me, I like to listen to what people say, then prioritize our directions. I have my own ideas and lean on different people in the community. I've tuned out the haters these days, so it's not a big deal. I would prefer we all be on the same page, but they like to put political labels on everything.

BINGO! Some people have to politicize everything, turning it into us vs them no matter what the topic. Tribalism at its worst.

 

[treelogger]

To begin with: I agree with much of what has been said in this thread. So if I don't comment on your post, it probably means I agree.

Its not a crime to be wrong, and moderation shouldn't revolve around factuality of opinion. Saying "the sky is red" isnt a crime, but blasting "the sky is blue" on a megaphone on a public street for hours might get you in trouble.

It's not that easy. For example, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A" is just plain wrong. It is not a valid opinion. Saying that isn't a crime, but it is the kind of thing that should not be written here (nor anywhere else) without being corrected. And if nobody corrects it, or if the corrections are ineffective, it is also the kind of content that a moderator should remove, because it is extremely bad advice, which (if followed) would get someone into jail.

Now we have to distinguish from a few different cases. Saying "Open carrying a gun should always be legal, because of the 2A" is a statement of opinion. And whether that statement is a good policy or not is something we can debate, but as long as it clear that it is a wish, not a statement of fact, there is no need to moderate it. The change from "is" to "should be" is vital in this distinction.

Contrariwise, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A, and anyone who says otherwise is a t libtard who needs to be ignored or worse" is not only wrong, but also insulting, and an attempt to immunize the wrong statement against criticism and correction. That kind of writing needs to be moderated away immediately. And anyone who repeatedly writes things like this and is incapable of learning the difference between right and wrong, between wish and reality, between open discourse and factionalism, should be banned, because they are just going to disrupt the forum.

Let readers decide for themselves the "facts". Not moderators. Moderation should focus around disruption, NOT content.

So I disagree: factuality of an opinion does have to enter moderation

The bigger we get the less this will likely happen.

Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. Unlike most computer-based things, the scaling here is likely to be hyper linear. The more the forum grows, the more it will attract wackos from all ends of the spectrum (the spectrum is multi-dimensional and has more than 2 ends). I fear the moderation effort won't shrink, not even in relation to the number of posts.

One of the things that kills forums is ideologically-driven admins and moderators curating content based on their peculiar worldview. It's killed Reddit already.

Are you saying that moderators have killed the r/CAguns subreddit? I don't see that; there are lots of people there asking questions and getting answered. And it seems that extremist opinions (all guns are evil, or all guns for everyone all the time) and political grandstanding are pretty well moderated away there.

Moderation is doing a great job overall.

Finally, I'll add that I just agree with this.

 

[jarhead714]

BINGO! Some people have to politicize everything, turning it into us vs them no matter what the topic. Tribalism at its worst.

I don’t engage until engaged. Everything is cool until it’s not.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

To begin with: I agree with much of what has been said in this thread. So if I don't comment on your post, it probably means I agree.


It's not that easy. For example, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A" is just plain wrong. It is not a valid opinion. Saying that isn't a crime, but it is the kind of thing that should not be written here (nor anywhere else) without being corrected. And if nobody corrects it, or if the corrections are ineffective, it is also the kind of content that a moderator should remove, because it is extremely bad advice, which (if followed) would get someone into jail.

Now we have to distinguish from a few different cases. Saying "Open carrying a gun should always be legal, because of the 2A" is a statement of opinion. And whether that statement is a good policy or not is something we can debate, but as long as it clear that it is a wish, not a statement of fact, there is no need to moderate it. The change from "is" to "should be" is vital in this distinction.

Contrariwise, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A, and anyone who says otherwise is a t libtard who needs to be ignored or worse" is not only wrong, but also insulting, and an attempt to immunize the wrong statement against criticism and correction. That kind of writing needs to be moderated away immediately. And anyone who repeatedly writes things like this and is incapable of learning the difference between right and wrong, between wish and reality, between open discourse and factionalism, should be banned, because they are just going to disrupt the forum.


So I disagree: factuality of an opinion does have to enter moderation


Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. Unlike most computer-based things, the scaling here is likely to be hyper linear. The more the forum grows, the more it will attract wackos from all ends of the spectrum (the spectrum is multi-dimensional and has more than 2 ends). I fear the moderation effort won't shrink, not even in relation to the number of posts.


Are you saying that moderators have killed the r/CAguns subreddit? I don't see that; there are lots of people there asking questions and getting answered. And it seems that extremist opinions (all guns are evil, or all guns for everyone all the time) and political grandstanding are pretty well moderated away there.


Finally, I'll add that I just agree with this.

No, nothing I wrote was about CAGuns mods specifically. I was talking generally how mods who aggressively curate posts based on their own personal biases can ruin forums.

Reddit (not the CAGuns sub) banned my entire account for agreeing with someone that men should not be allowed in women's sports. Insane. That ban wasn't based on anything written in a gun sub. The gun subs are why I sitll look at Reddit at all these days.

I think the mods here are doing fine and I have been vocal about that, along with showing some modest financial support.

 

[jhsd20]

To begin with: I agree with much of what has been said in this thread. So if I don't comment on your post, it probably means I agree.


It's not that easy. For example, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A" is just plain wrong. It is not a valid opinion. Saying that isn't a crime, but it is the kind of thing that should not be written here (nor anywhere else) without being corrected. And if nobody corrects it, or if the corrections are ineffective, it is also the kind of content that a moderator should remove, because it is extremely bad advice, which (if followed) would get someone into jail.

Now we have to distinguish from a few different cases. Saying "Open carrying a gun should always be legal, because of the 2A" is a statement of opinion. And whether that statement is a good policy or not is something we can debate, but as long as it clear that it is a wish, not a statement of fact, there is no need to moderate it. The change from "is" to "should be" is vital in this distinction.

Contrariwise, saying "Open carrying a gun is always legal, because of the 2A, and anyone who says otherwise is a t libtard who needs to be ignored or worse" is not only wrong, but also insulting, and an attempt to immunize the wrong statement against criticism and correction. That kind of writing needs to be moderated away immediately. And anyone who repeatedly writes things like this and is incapable of learning the difference between right and wrong, between wish and reality, between open discourse and factionalism, should be banned, because they are just going to disrupt the forum.


So I disagree: factuality of an opinion does have to enter moderation

I think we mostly agree, and the disagreement comes from definition of "moderation". I refer to moderation explicitly as actions taken by mods using their authority as mods, such as deletion and banning.

In the first case when the statement is blatantly wrong - it can and should be corrected by other users, including moderators , but not by moderation via editing or deleting the post by a mod. After all opinions have been stated, if a reader still decides to follow the incorrect statement and goes to jail - that's not the forum moderators responsibility. You may feel it IS the responsibility of the moderators to delete the incorrect post and that's alright. We can disagree on this little point.

In your third case, that is an example of disruption i referred to, especially if repeated. This should absolutely be moderated. Its not the incorrect statement that is being moderated but the disruptiveness of the personal insults.

 

[ikeo1]

I think we mostly agree, and the disagreement comes from definition of "moderation". I refer to moderation explicitly as actions taken by mods using their authority as mods, such as deletion and banning.

In the first case when the statement is blatantly wrong - it can and should be corrected by other users, including moderators , but not by moderation via editing or deleting the post by a mod. After all opinions have been stated, if a reader still decides to follow the incorrect statement and goes to jail - that's not the forum moderators responsibility. You may feel it IS the responsibility of the moderators to delete the incorrect post and that's alright. We can disagree on this little point.

In your third case, that is an example of disruption i referred to, especially if repeated. This should absolutely be moderated. Its not the incorrect statement that is being moderated but the disruptiveness of the personal insults.

We only really react to the third case and posts associated with it. Otherwise the guideline is to leave posts alone. State your argument, be wrong or right, people will correct you, just don’t be a . If you cite penal codes or case law, even better. Let the reader weigh the options. We don’t want to remove content if we don't have to because there may be people who think like that so we don’t want to remove context and reasoning.

This one simple trick mods want you to know.

 

[ikeo1]

And another fairly useful generic thread begins to drift into individualized confrontations.

A comment on Moderation:

“I'll use this opportunity to check what you guys think of our recent moderation. We took a poll in the past, but in an effort to do better, let us know.”

This seemed to be an attempt at brainstorming and feedback. Now it's digressing into crosstalk between members/Mods with accusations/ explanations/justifications.

IM(LTH)O, on this type of topic (asking for feedback on Mods) Mods should be in listening mode since they have an implicit bias to the question. When necessary (crosstalk between members), Mods should properly step in and redirect the focus and then retire to listen.

Explanations and post-facto rationalizations only contribute to the general chaos, divert the focus, and have an effect which can chill and pollute the value of the input.

Essentially, over time, I have learned that one needs to refrain from asking folks how things are going and then interjecting why they’re going well.

That’s an analysis which is done after the listening session closes.

Best.

We'll get there... It's a bit of both... Air it out, then move on. I'd like to consider this organized chaos. Eventually this stuff gets buried, IMO its good to have a good fight, then shake hands if they're willing. Everyone owns firearms, and I'd like to still provide people with the best information and training...

 

[Wolkenflieger]

We'll get there... It's a bit of both... Air it out, then move on. I'd like to consider this organized chaos. Eventually this stuff gets buried, IMO its good to have a good fight, then shake hands if they're willing. Everyone owns firearms, and I'd like to still provide people with the best information and training...

Agreed. Reasonable adults generally work things out, even if they disagree.