Proposal for changes in moderation

[jm5]

I should add, even tho I posted the poll above in jest satirically. It is still serious.

I personally don’t see the need for a poll on all these issues. I feel that if the mods were proactive and open to ideas and listened to the community in the past they would have tried these changes a long time ago.

IMO Option 1 & Option 2 are practices moderators should be doing anyway but I can see both options being an issue for some.

Instilling option 3 removes the necessity of option 4.

So that would leave 2 polls:

Would this suffice as a serious proposal for moderators approval to be presented to the community?:

Greetings all,

I would like to highlight two issues that have been coming up in Meta. I would like to point out that the community has lost quite a few members over these issues.

1. Complaints have been made over time of mods controlling directions of discussions, deleting posts, and splitting topics.
2. Complaints have been made that topics in Meta are too hidden to garner support.

Please see this post for a detailed breakdown from one user. If more interested please do search on “moderation” to see many more threads over the years.

Considering item 1 it is proposed that the mods:

@Team_2E16

[1.] Allow people to speak their mind as, where and how they wish, as long as they are not threatening and abusive to others.

[2.] Allow a looser policy on subject-related secondary subjects within a thread, to allow people to more deeply explore the pros and cons of a proposed idea about some aspect of SAFE, without splitting the topic off and putting it in Off-Topic, where lack of views leads to lack of engagement, and thus lack of discussion, and thus lack of solutions, and finally a narrowing of viewpoints, if the discussion ever takes off in the first place.

Do you agree?

• Yes
• No

Concerning item 2:

I know that quite a while ago the Meta category was decided to be hidden off the front page.

For those that don’t know the Meta category is the place to have a “Discussion about this forum, its organisation, how it works, and how we can improve it.”

An unintended consequence of hiding Meta from the front page is

@Team_2E16

the internet equivalent of George W. Bush’s “Free Speech Zones”. ‘We’re not going to ban freedom of speech, but we’re “only” going to put it over here where nobody else can see it’.

Do you not see, to people who agree with the dissent expressed in meta, that putting it outside of the awareness of the majority of the community makes it seem as if you are hiding criticism against yourselves?
Do you not realise that, whether you intend to do this for a purpose or not (and I’m pretty sure you don’t intend this), it looks a lot like you are? And whether or not you are, the effects are practically and effectively the same?

And what is your solution? To allow dissenters to ‘draw up a detailed proposal’? And then, if the moderators deem this proposal to be ‘detailed’ enough, then, and only then, will it be presented to the community. This represents a further roadblock towards getting community support: that criticism of the moderators is approved of by the moderators for presentation to the wider community. Really? You really, really don’t see the problem here?

That if someone wants change, your moderation group is the sole judge of whether the proposal is detailed enough to be presented to the community? That you are the judge of whether the community even gets to see it, unless they already know and care about these issues, or happen to be browsing meta. Why would someone browse meta? For fun? Do you not see that OF COURSE these issues don’t get much support, because few know about the complaints. Most people go along to get along, tolerating their own complaints about the way things are, until someone else has the cajones to speak up. And the system here, in effect, silences those who dissent. I’m not joking when I say that it results in the corporate helpline model.

We get to say it, but in the tradition of every corporate helpline, your complaint goes nowhere. “Oh, I understand, sir, yes I’m very sorry, but unfortunately we can’t do anything about that. I’m here to help you, Sir.”. And the point is, of course, always implied that a) you are in the minority, Mr Complainer, and b) nobody else supports your views, because nobody else is complaining. This is part of what causes some to explode with rage, frankly. How can anybody else who might have agreed join the discussion if they don’t know it exists? And finally, if you skew the moderation on this forum towards one particular philosophy, one way of thinking, YOU ARE GOING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT WAY AND REPEL PEOPLE WHO DON’T. Which will cause people to more and more agree with your views and ways of doing things, creating more of an echo chamber. In this case, a technical echo-chamber. Not completely bland and colourless yet, thanks to the project itself, but the forum moderation is leading in this direction.

In the spirit of @dirvine’s comment

@dirvine

Difference is good, we should all love the fact the differences exist and we should not try and make everything the same in any way.

Should Meta be on the front page under Community so that we can all be aware of current community issues and all have a chance to actively participate if we so choose?

• yes
• no

Please do vote and/or discuss. If there are any improvements or suggestions to this poll or post please share.