Aaaaaaaak!  *Runs away tearing out hair and mumbling gibberish*

I'll try to come up with a more coherent answer later.

*sigh*

My other regular board is pretty heavily moderated right now but it's also a more diverse group (if that's possible). The mods are pretty fair but come down hard when rules are being broken. This is good to some extent but also makes discussion of contentious issues difficult since mods tend to monitor those quite closely and are pickier about the rules.

For WC, I don't see the degree of personal and group attacks that we see over there, although I have seen some stuff here that would have generated a mod warning there (though not, perhaps, an actual ban or suspension). I think the current mod policy here is working. I certainly haven't felt particularly offended at anything that has happened.

EDIT: There are a couple threads that have been a bit testy, though, so mod action might be warranted in a case like that. Certainly my other board has been known to close threads that generated repeated mod action.

Just noticed someone posting as "Jesus" on a thread. I thought using names like this was a "no-no"?

It is, CH.  You should notify Admin.

I like the way things work now.  In RL, we come across rude and offensive people all the time (and are sometimes rude and offensive ourselves) and we need to be able to correct as necessary without always running to others to moderate our lives, IMO...cms

We have a moderater?  Oh yeah that is right the fundys have a moderater the liberals do not.

Oh well then let us introduce him to you, Serena.  His name is Aaron and his user id is Admin2. 

I have wondermailed with him at length.  Like I said the fundys have a moderator.  His name is Aaron.  The liberals say whatever they want.

Have any liberals been banned from the site?

The plaintiff rests.

Hmmm.  I tend not to divide each of us by the labels that you do.  I have seen people get banned but I am not knowledgable of every banning?  Does Aaron e-mail you with each banning?  Each one of us can only say what is within the code of conduct.  If we stray from that, a warning will ensue.  It has nothing at all with worldview but everything to do with behaviour...cms

Most of the users who have been banned have been friends of mine and I am knowledgeable about their banning from them.

He most certainly does not discuss the banning of other users with me.

The code of conduct is usually enforced only against the fundys.

Few liberals have ever gotten a warning.  Most of the warning are gotten by the fundys.  Even when the liberals deserve a warning they do not get one.

The liberals have the same behaviour and nothing ever happens to them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you.  You say that your friends tell you about their banning but that Admin does not discuss warnings or bannings with you.  So perhaps there are other warnings of which you are unaware because the poster is either not your friend, or even communicating with you at all.  Thus, unless you are an admin sockpuppet, you cannot know who receives warnings...cms

I have been accused of being many sockpuppets but now admin?  Ask Aaron to clarify that.  I am pretty sure he will back me on the fact that I am just a regular member of wondercafe like you.

I know the majority of the warnings and keep up with several banned members via e-mail.

I actually wasn't accusing you of being a sockpuppet of admin.  I was simply saying that that would be the only way that you could know what admin did in regard to warnings.  How is it that you believe that you know the majority of warnings?  I would think that warnings would be private between admin and the perpetrator...cms

Okay.

The perpetraters chose not to keep them private and informed me.   The liberals whom I and others complained about who were breaking the rules of conduct bragged that they did NOT get a warning and thought it funny that we complained about them and bacame more blatent in breaking the rules.

Seriously?  Your logic is deeply flawed here.  Just because a percentage of those receiving warnings may have told you does not, in fact, mean that it is the majority.  If I received a warning, I'm pretty sure that I would not think (or desire) to immediately contact you and let you in on that fact. 

Nevertheless, it still comes down to behaviour, not viewpoint.  Although perhaps it is your contention that "fundys" behave more poorly than "liberals" and thus require more warnings...cms

You are a liberal so it is unlikely that you ever had a warning.

The liberals behave equally as bad or worse than the fundys.  It comes down to viewpoint.

By the standard definition; no.

Examples, please.  And simply disagreeing with you is not an example of poor behaviour...cms

No you did not get a warning or no you are not a liberal?

No; I am not a liberal.

Saying that you have seen it does not count.  Please show us examples and show us how they contravene the guidelines of conduct or are hate speech...cms

You are not a fundy and I do not believe that you have gotten a warning.

I don't believe that I am a fundy and no; I have not received a warning to date.  Nor do I believe that my behaviour has warranted it. 

Sorry, that doesn't work.  Don't make the argument if you can't back up your point...cms

I don't think that threads like Freundly-giant and hate the sin should be allowed to go on as long as they have.  On other forums that I am on a thread becomes locked as soon as it becomes obvious that it is just going around in circles.  A locked thread can be viewed but not posted to.  On other forums, people who often cause threads to be locked are suspended and if they continue, banned.  In fact, on a well moderated forum, this thread would be locked, if not now, very soon.

The lack of moderation on this site has frustrated me for a very long time.  I've said it before and I'm sure I'll end up saying it again some time in the future.

For heavens sake Serena.  I have had fundys (both atheists and Christians) tell me I'm lying, insult me, mock me, swear at me.  I've had someone hound me in parenting about my parenting methods and the fact that I might not want to be bothered by someone else's small children when dining in a nice restaurant.  And I've had you tell me that my 5 year old grandson is a lying.  Are those things hurtful?  Of course.  But not nearly as hurtful as some that I've seen on this site - and generally not from the liberals.

I've sometimes been shocked by some of the language used on this site, and some of the hatred shown.  Sometimes when I go back to check a post again I find that its been removed.  Sometimes when reading a thread I realize that people have replied to a post that I've missed and its since been pulled.  But only a handful of times have I been aware of people being banned.  But then, perhaps I'm not in the loop.

Somegirl - I tend to agree.  Some threads just go on and on, saying hurtful things.  Sometimes good discussions get buried when a few people highjack a thread and take over.  I can choose to ignor them - but I am aware of how hurtful they can be to some people and I do wish something could be done.  But I think it would be a hard decision to make - other than admin to come out and say "Unless you have something new and helpful to add to the discussion, please do not post."   And then act upon it.  Right now the fundies seem to be back in full force on the religion thread.  I think it is best to ignor the threads they start - but its harder when they take over another thread.

The door opens a bit and a figure in a WheelChair glances inside...

He shakes the ShopVac in his and and speaks...

"I'm not afraid to use this again.... I've already cleaned the Freundly-giant Room and Shooed people on their way... don't make my come in here and start Hoovering."

So far people have respectfully not continued in the Freundly-giant Discussion and have moved on to other events here in the Cafe. Please remember... Dialogue by all means...just Dialogue respectful of each other. Otherwise...I'll Start Hoovering and shooing people.

Peaceful Respectful Dialogue to ALL

Wolfie

On the This Popped Out At Me Thread that I  started in Religion, I flagged someone who is using the username" Jesus".  I quoted the Code of Conduct but some are saying they don't think its too bad. Now, if we have rules, why aren't we adhering to them? I have seen other user names like this  be removed.

Hi Crazyheart,

Did you check to see if the user was hispanic?  "Jesus" (pronounced:  hay soos) is a pretty common name in central america.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I've had fundies repeatedly and intentionally insult me and my beliefs, and my relationship with God.

None of them have been banned. Considering they continue to do so, I suspect they havn't been warned either.

I have been warned at least once, and I have abided by that warning.

So your contention, Serena, that fundies always get stepped on, and liberals never do, is false. It is also shows a bit of the martyr complex that we see so often with some people..

My reaction was not because I disagree with the Guidelines, it's because after posting one heart after a two year absence, your (crazyheart's) move was to flag as offensive to get his username to the attention of Admin.  No welcome, no questions, no gentle reminders of the Guidelines.

? sorry, nighthawk...not following, but maybe because I didn't read the thread.

I have wondermailed people if i was concerned that their posts are questionable, and they have amended them. These were folks who I knew and was surprised at the content.  I am in no way related to admin or have any role on this site, other than participant. (and member of uccan). I have also, actually fairly recent, had a bump with CrazyHeart about a thread.  The attestation that this is sorely a conservative / liberal item is pure hogwash.

anyhow, at times early i wanted moderation...but like cjms...you can't always go running for your big brother to rescue you.

i've learned over time ..and i am still learnig..and sometimes do a really bad job...but I am trying.

Hi crazyheart,

More active than they are at present?  What is our evidence that the moderators are not active?  Could the actual issue be that they are not active in the way that we (probably more of an "I" issue than a "we" issue) want then to be active?

What is off limits?  Is it the same as what we think should be off limits?

Ad hominems.  We in the wondercafe make them a regular part of our dialogue.  Should moderators be standing by to yank whatever and whichever ad hominems get posted?

I strongly identify with Calvinism.  Calvinism can take a beating from time to time even when I am keeping my mouth shut.  Should Calvinism be off limits?  Should I be running to admin with a complaint whenever anyone even looks cross-eyed at Calvinism?  What about when they decide that because Fred Phelps is a Calvinist or Apartheid was put into place by Calvinists that all Calvinists are inherently dangerous and should be cast out.  Should I go to Admin then?

I read comments that are made and that strike others as cruel, hateful, and petty not to mention a bunch of other adjectives that are unpleasant.  On a few occasions I'm the one typing them.  On a few occasions I am the one they are typed at.

Community isn't all flowers and sunshine.  We have differences of opinion.  We type when we should be sitting on our hands or playing with the dog or sticking our heads in a bucket of really cold water for a very, very, very long time.

We also, for the most part, do it from the shadows.  We hide behind our cool avatars and our usernames and profiles that may or may not reveal a whole lot about who we are or what we are about.  Which is not all that unwise, there are people out there who use the internet to harvest personal information so some safeguards are reasonable.  Still, any wall we can hide behind is a wall that we can snipe from.

All of us bring our passions to this place.  Sometimes we find those passions shared and sometimes we don't.  Fair enough right?  Sometimes we find our passions in conflict with the passions of others and it isn't a matter of carving out space for one another it is a matter of which passion will be allowed to live.  That is when things get tense.  That is when the gloves come off.

I suspect that it is in moments like that when we want a Moderator who is not just more active but more sympathetic to our perspective.  I hear echoes of "I can't believe they can get away with saying that to me" more than I hear echoes of, "I can't believe I got away with saying that to them."  Which I think is normal and reflective of human brokenness.

We want a moderator to stand up for us and what we believe but more than that we want a moderator to stand against them and what they believe.

That isn't a moderator.  That is a friend in a high-place willing to flex their muscle.

In the context of "hate speech" I think that while their are legal lines those legal lines change depending upon who is interpreting them.  If that wasn't so we wouldn't need lawyers representing the plaintiff and the defendant.  The judge would simply say, "this is a line and you did (or didn't) cross it.

The clarity of that line is, I suspect, a form of literalism and it blinds those who insist upon it being where it is every bit as much as literalism blinds anyone who holds to literalism.

Again, I don't think that what is wanted is an active Moderator so much as a transparent one.  One of the frustrations I hear voiced is "I flagged this as offensive and nothing happened."  At the very least I think that the person flagging as offensive should hear from the Moderator that the thread was looked at and they have decided to do X for reasons Y and Z.

I don't think that will actually change how the Moderators respond.  I certainly do not think that it will solve the problem except it will most likely change the line of argument from "I flagged this and nothing happened" to "I can't believe this is being allowed to stand I'm leaving."

We are hundreds of individuals with as many perspectives.  There is going to be difference of opinion.  There is a wide spectrum of how to deal with that difference, having a moderator get heavy only deals with appearances.  That would allow us to live with the illusion that we were all friendly and accepting and loving of all others.

Clearly, the reality is different.

We are friendly and accepting and loving of some others and most likely ones that are more agreeable.

I wouldn't want a Moderator who was simply an extension of what I thought simply because I make mistakes and I don't need a Moderator who makes the same ones.  I need someone who can catch those mistakes and point them out to me.  Whether I agree with them or not is not really an issue.  Rules exist for reasons and if I am operating outside of the rules I need to be reigned in.

And if it is someone else, so do they.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks John. And just to stipulate , again, I am happy with what Admin is doing.

Comment on the discussion between Serena and crazyheart about whether evangelicals are mod'ed more heavily than liberals:

I have no evidence either way other than the hearsay that Serena posted, so I'm not going to take a side here. On my other board, the solution to accusations of mod's being unfair to one group or view was that all bans and suspensions now get posted with specific reasons as to why the action was taken. The thread is open and users can discuss the ruling. Of course, some of the ban discussions get pretty heated themselves (as seems to be happening here), so that in and of itself is a problem with doing it that way. However, it does help clear the air if there is a concern about why someone was banned. They also have multiple mods who will discuss things "backstage" (ie. privately) and have the authority to repeal or change a ruling if someone appeals a call or raises a concern.

On another note, that board has a specific forum called "Trouble Tickets" for discussion of technical issues, board rules, mod actions, etc., something that might be considered for WC to avoid having Social or other fora cluttered with these sorts of discussions.

I would rather not be publicly flogged if my post gets marked as "out of line", or "maybe I should amend".

Hi Pinga,

Public flogging without it is enough eh?  

Which happens.  What goes on in a thread does not always stay in the thread.

It might generate a new thread or it might fuel comments in several separate threads.  It will all depend on what the injured party feels is most necessary and how all parties decide to respond.

If we are unable to moderate ourselves (which is not true of all participants at wondercafe) how would having a more active moderator help?

Grace and peace to you.

John

I once posted something that I meant to be funny.  It was a local joke going around my part of the country.  A short time later I began to feel uncomfortable about how it would read on the screen and without the culture.  I went back to amend (withdraw) it.  It was gone.

I sometimes have a weird sense of humour and sometimes I say something tongue in cheek that is taken at face value - but I never intended to hurt and I agree that in this case I stepped over the line.

I was never contacted, no one ever commented.  But I'm glad somebody flagged it and admin withdrew it.  I've never crossed that line again on the Cafe.

My one wish regarding moderation and moderators on this site would be that they would reply to me (do the reply to any of you??) either when I have flagged something as a concern or when I've emailed them directly.  It kind of feels like my concerns go out into cyber space and disappear... I have no idea that anyone reads them or considers my points of concern??  It would feel a bit more respectful if they replied, either with a brief acknowledgement that they at least hear my concern... or maybe even a pointer toward the code of conduct and a reason why they will or will not take action...

Perhaps this is not practical, I don't know.  But it just seems to me like the whole "flag as offensive" option doesn't actually mean anything...

I don't have a philosophical stance on moderation... though, I guess I do wish that there would be clearer standards for issues that are outlined in our Charter of Human Rights, for example.  So, sexist comments, comments against same-gender marriage...   What I am thinking is that if we uphold these values as citizens of a country and as members of a community, should not the same standards apply here? 

Just thinking...

Nishy

Nishy - I would think that good manners would require that any contact be acknowledged - whether or not any action is taken.  But you are not alone.  I haven't flagged much - usually by the time I've noticed something really offensive (as opposed to something that really annoys me and gets my dander up) someone else is usually on the case.

Once a new poster came on with really offensive language and a definite intention of insulting everybody he could.  I flagged his post.  Within a short time it disappeared from the thread and soon all trace of him disappeared.  I don't even remember his name.  But I have no idea whether it was because I flagged him, or someone else, or several of us, or if admin had noticed him on their own.

Hi Agnieszka,

I think that is a fair request.

Personally, I don't have much contact with Admin.  I have reported spam wondermail and I typically do not get a response to that.  Which is fine by me.  I delete the spam and move on to something new.

If I have a request for help I find I get a response but that response isn't immediate.

I know that even with a relatively quick response the problem might take some time to fix.  I don't know if that has anything to do with their busyness or my ability to royally screw things up.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I wanted some opinions about the use of the word 'dumb'

I have seen the word dumb used as a synonym for stupid numerous times on this site. (Did a search, and while sometimes it is used correctly many pages showed up on the search and most of the time it was not used in a politically correct manner). While this is used commonly in many places, I don't know if it's something that we should accept.

A while ago (5ish years?) 'gay' became a synonym for stupid with many of my peers.  (ie. ugh that concert last night, it was sooooo gay)  Many people, especially within the GLBT community saw this as offensive.  Is there really any difference between the two?

What if another word started to be used in a similar fashion, how would you feel?

Or is dumb different because the synonym has been used for so long?

Thoughts?

(side note for those of you who don't know, dumb = the inability to speak, to be mute)

Edit:  Oops! I did actually read this thread but for some strange reason when I wrote this late at night cuz I couldn't sleep I thought my post fit in perfectly with the conversation.  I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on this, maybe in a new topic?

Sooo, to fit back in with the rest of you:

I think this thread is moderated ok, although sometimes it can be a little slow.  The slowness is hard to fix though, I don't think this site has enough people to warrant having for example, 1 moderator per topic at any given time of day to take anything extremely offsensive down right away.

As to how it is moderated; I've seen much worse occur in other sites.  I think that if it was too heavily moderated we would lose many of the good discussions (even if the offending poster isn't part of the 'good' discussion sometimes what they post gets others thinking and posting too).

As to user names such as Jesus, I don't think it matters how it's pronounced, because on here it looks the same.  I think it's a clear violation of the guidelines of conduct.  If someone really wanted to use their name they could do something like "Jesus_akaHesus" which I think is reasonable.  There are some weird names out there, just because your legal name is a swear word doesn't mean you can use it on here!  Many of us with names that don't oppose the guidelines still use different usernames.

who has been banned?  The only ones I know were vicious & intent on wreaking havoc with every single post/wondermail.  I know that some were conservative, but 'extreme' would be the deciding adjective.  I know of very few actually banned. 

There is a clear difference between attacks and general frustration/ disagreement.  In my opinion, I'm satisfied to have much of the general stuff go on as if we're adults rather than having an overanxious referee running around with yellow & red cards. 

Birthstone, I agree with your point about "having an overanxious referee". 

From my point of view, however, *any* sign of a referee would be good.  Perhaps I have simply not been here long enough but when someone says "admin" I think "tooth faery".  They are said to be here, even to do some amazing things, but I've not seem either one directly or any signs of one's existence.  So, to me it's all heresay.

Ah, nishie, Aaron pops in all over the board. Just watch for him.

The only time i flagged something i did get a wondermail saying "thanks we see it."

I don't like the idea of someone overruling the talk ad hoc and yet I get as frustrated as anyone by the endless, ongoing anti gay threads.

I tend to agree with Rev john, if we all took the

" i disagree and your post is offensive'"stance perhaps they would go.  After all there are tons of on line conversations they can join into.

The thread in social about "you guys encourage hate" has made me aware though that the ad campaign actually has encouraged the bigoted type of threads that we get.

that is a really unintended consequence of perhaps a not well thought our campaign.

i would hope that admin has seen that thread and passed on the comments by the poster and Stevie to whoever does the campaigns.

It just occured to me (perhaps I'm a bit dense) that having more moderators - or more active moderators - would take time.  Someone suggested having one moderator for each thread.  I presum being moderator would be a paid position (as opposed to volunteer).  And who pays?  The site is free for anyone to use.  So where does the money come from?

I think to keep costs down - and hopefully to keep the site running for another year, and another, and another - we will have to continue to monitor it ourselves and report to admin those threads that we find offensive, and then give them the opportunity to check the tread as decide what action to take.  In the meantime, as suggested, perhaps the users themselves might gently remind others if they find threads offensive. 

It reminds me of a church conflict.

We can expect someone else to address those who are out of control, or spewing hate...or just not aware of what they said..and howit mgiht be taken.

or we can take care of it ourselves...and only escalate as appropriate.

the skills one learns on this site to know the difference are good skills.  It sucks that we need them but, at least in my life, I need better ones in real life, as well.

Each thread would be overkill, but 1 per forum (R&F, Social, etc.) might not be a bad idea. Although, I find that most of the stuff that needs mod'ing tends to come up on R&F and Social so maybe a couple mods for those boards and 1 to look after all the others might be enough. On the other site I mention above, mods are volunteers (there's a good dozen or so of them), but are selected, and can be overruled, by admins, who are paid staff (there's only 2-3 of those, but WC could probably make do with 1).

As I've said before, WC isn't that bad a place and the mods' light touch is probably a good thing here. More moderation probably isn't required. The main thing is for the users to use the "Flag as offensive" function to get mods attention when things go bad and for the admins to ensure that there are enough mods so that reports can be acted on quickly. A moderated "Trouble tickets" forum for discussion of board technical and rules issues would be a good idea (I discuss this more in a post higher up) but having the discussions in Social seems to be working for now.

Mendalla