Electing a group moderator.

KeskusteluFeminist Theory

Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.

Electing a group moderator.

Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.

1timspalding
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 6, 2016, 1:31 pm

Okay, after a raft of complaints, Loranne, Abby and I have agreed it's time to go ahead to trial a plan we've long considered--allowing groups to have their own Terms of Service/Code of Conduct, and a moderator with power to enforce it.

Here's how it's going to work:

* You will nominate and vote on a moderator--or on not having a moderator.
* The moderator will be empowered to post the group-specific TOS and enforce it.
* If you choose a moderator, the moderator's decisions will only apply within the group.
* Moderator's decisions will be final. LibraryThing staff are not going to get involved in policing other TOSes or judging moderators.

Nomination:

* I'm opening a second thread for nominations for group moderator. Anyone can be nominated and the nominations will be open to all members. (Voting will be restricted, see below.) Here it is: http://www.librarything.com/topic/224350
* Nominees must be seconded.
* The nominee must publicly agree to be placed into the running. They can also say what they'd do or not do, or whatever.
* We'll keep this open until Thursday, June 9, noon, Eastern US time.

Voting:

* The vote will open shortly after nomination closes.
* Voting will be restricted to group members as of this post, and people who've posted in the group within the last two months (until this post).
* Voting will ask two questions--(1) do you want a moderator—yes or no? (2) who should be the moderator?
* Voting will continue until Monday, June 13, noon, Eastern US time.
* Voting will be secret.

This is a test. It may or may not be the blueprint for moderators and TOSes in other groups.

If LibraryThing staff think the process has failed in some terrible way, or we've neglected to cover some eventuality, we will act however we think is best for the group and the site.

2lorannen
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 1:38 pm

Just as a note: if anyone has thoughts or concerns about this proposal that they'd rather not share publicly on LT, you're welcome to drop me a message, or send me an email at loranne@librarything.com.

3sturlington
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 6, 2016, 1:57 pm

I am both sad and happy to see this development. I'm sad because, up until recently, LibraryThing was for me one of the very few places remaining on the Internet where intelligent, thoughtful, respectful conversations were openly taking place. But I suppose no place is 100% immune from the ugliness and vitriol that seem to be infecting all areas of online life.

I'm happy because I feel like the site administrators are taking seriously the goal of maintaining a civilized community here, and I appreciate that. I have faith that the members of this group could collectively come up with a reasonable code of conduct for our group.

4timspalding
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 2:00 pm

>3 sturlington:

Well, as is well-known, I'm something on an extremist on these topics. I don't want LibraryThing having a general policy which goes beyond the current TOS. But I've always kept open the possibility of having group-specific TOSes. So we'll try it here.

5Marissa_Doyle
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 2:03 pm

I think it's a good solution, allowing groups to set their own codes and standards. I very much hope it will work.

6andyl
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 2:45 pm

>3 sturlington: and >4 timspalding:

I would like to think that moderators would be the exception rather than the rule, and only suggested where there has been indications of problems in the past.

7.Monkey.
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 2:54 pm

I like this.

8japaul22
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 4:48 pm

Just to clarify, if you "watch" the group (as opposed to having joined the group) and haven't posted in the past two months, does that disqualify you from voting?

9.Monkey.
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 5:00 pm

I'd had it watched also, though I happen to have posted earlier today, lol. *shrugs*

10lorax
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 5:15 pm

>6 andyl:

Or in newly created groups, presumably? There are groups that have not been created because of the "anything goes anywhere" nature of LT conversations.

11klarusu
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 6:43 pm

>4 timspalding: This reply pretty much sums up my opinion but I just wanted to post here in support of and hope that a selective way of doing this could work enable some groups and conversations to happen that are otherwise unheard because of the fear of a group becoming a non-stop battleground. I follow the conversations on this group closely but haven't yet joined or posted so I won't do so until after the 'moderation' vote (with the exception of this post) as it's a choice for the existing group community but this pilot is fundamentally a good thing IMHO.

12sparemethecensor
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 9:07 pm

Sigh. So sad it has come to this. I tend toward Tim's views but I'm willing to participate in this experiment of finding a moderator for this group.

13Crypto-Willobie
kesäkuu 6, 2016, 10:19 pm

Will there be a mechanism for changing the moderator? by vote? or term limits?

14timspalding
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 6, 2016, 10:43 pm

japaul22

I think we'll count watchers. I forgot about that.

>13 Crypto-Willobie:

I'm not sure.

15proximity1
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 1:37 am


I don't regard your longstanding refusal to impose rules allowing censorship on discussion at this site generally as being the mark of an "extremism" on your part. I think that it's a mark of genuine respect for open debate, instead. And it's that freedom, open debate, rather than what would-be censors euphemistically call thoughtful, respectful conversation which is actually now--as usual--under threat in numerous major news and public discussion-sites on the web. I do agree with sturlington's view that LT is exceptional for its openness and usual quality.

16Jesse_wiedinmyer
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 1:53 am

I'm pretty certain Sturlington has already explicitly bemoaned the low quality of discussion in this case.

17proximity1
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 12:15 pm

Loranne, Tim and Abby --

I was going to send this via e-mail but decided I should post my views openly.

I, too, regard this measure as a shame--but obviously for different reasons than sturlington. From my point of view, as a virtual minority-of-one here, the terms are as ludicrous as proposing that a pack of hungry wolves and a single goat take a vote on what's for dinner.

Even if I had a candidate to nominate and a second for that candidate, there is virtually no chance at all here that this candidate would be selected. Your terms are tantamount to allowing one of the parties to a lawsuit to select the judge in the case. How you can find this an acceptable measure escapes me.

Do any of you suppose for a second that, if the tables were turned, we'd find sturlington and her band feining reluctant acceptance of what is certain to produce their hand-picked censor?

It would be more direct, less complicated and _much_ more candidly honest if you were to simply formally adopt what sturlington et al really seek: firmly closed reservations for discussions which admit of no opinions which run counter to a group of gossips' favorite prejudices: let this group --and watch how many others leap at the same opportunity--cloister itself and carry on in blissful apartheid.

I prefer to abstain from lending an implied acceptance of your proposal by joining in its process--which, in any case, leaves me nothing more than a spectator's role.

Your decision to adopt this trial method to relieve yourselves from what I recognise are onerous moderation chores is de facto handing an outright one-sided judgment to this group's self-protecting "home-team. "

They helped provoke your drastic response by their frequent concerted flagging--a tool which, after all, you gave them to abuse. Check your records and compare my use of flags with theirs over a weighted period of membership.

Some people want nothing to do with facing open uncensored criticism and chief among them are today's self-described "feminists" as seen here in this group. Where once feminists were in fact a discrimination-suffering minority, today we see their actual respect for minority opinion in action where they are able to simply win a judgment from the authorities which rules minority opinion definitively out of order.

This is a microcosmic lab example of the larger democratic dysfunction in American society.

18Jesse_wiedinmyer
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 5:25 am

The wolf/goat thing is a pretty apt analogy, sir. Though I think it might be a bit more apt to suggest that you have walked yourself here like a lamb walking itself to the slaughter.

19Jesse_wiedinmyer
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 5:50 am

Might I ask a few questions of you, Proximity?



This is a microcosmic lab example of the larger democratic dysfunction in American society.


How do you believe this to be the case? If such were true, you would neither be a lone wolf (or goat, depending) in the process. If such were true, you'd gladly be open to my suggestion for a poll. You would be just one more voice in the wilderness.

Why do you feel your lone voice has precedence? (I would find it fascinating if someone were to do a breakdown, by number of posts or some relative metric, on OUR respective contributions to this group.)

I believe that between the two of us, we would be well, well beyond a power distribution.

And I hereby apologize to all of the other users who feel that I have monopolized bandwidth with my responses. If my recently interactions have contributed to thread derailment, a "toxic" culture, or the speaking over of those most qualified to speak (women, I'm guessing), I offer my apologies, again.

As a final question (or set of questions), I request that you (rather simply) explain what your purpose in contributing to the group. Are you here to learn? Are you here to teach? ? Understand? Explain? Be heard? Listen? Debate? Discuss?

What is your optimal outcome?

If Proximity1 were the sole arbiter rather than putting this to democratic/parliamentary debate), what would be happening here?

20sturlington
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 7:30 am

>19 Jesse_wiedinmyer: It's pretty obvious why he's here. I'm done talking to him. I suggest you take the same tack. He has said he is abstaining from the process, which should mean he has no further reason to post in this thread.

I have to admit to being disappointed that i haven't been called the leader of a secret feminist cabal yet.

21proximity1
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 7:50 am

>20 sturlington:

"He has said he is abstaining from the process, which should mean he has no further reason to post in this thread."

It's so cute when you deliberately twist the facts in an effort to make a sham seem less disgusting.

In actual fact, while I'd have just as much reason to participate, once this elaborate censorship system is up and running, I'll have (practically speaking) no further right to post -- except to chime in here with the group's approved opinions.

--------------

ETA : >20 sturlington: "...the leader of a secret feminist cabal yet."

Lol! Exactly what is "secret" about it, hmmm?

Oh! The emotional labor ! Will no one else think of the emotional labor ?

"Check!, please!" ;^ )

22sturlington
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 7:42 am

Perhaps we should discuss a possible code of conduct for the group. I will start a new thread.

23Jesse_wiedinmyer
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 8:34 am

My apologies, Sturlington

24Marissa_Doyle
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 10:20 am

>20 sturlington: I hear Coventry is lovely this time of year. ;)

25timspalding
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 1:28 pm

>17 proximity1:

LibraryThing has a general, neutral TOS which is very open, prohibiting little more than personal attacks. And while LibraryThing is a community and business, not a suicide pact, and therefore open to change as situations warrant, I see no reason to think this principle will change.

But we have always had a number of flavors of formally private groups, which members control--"cloistered" groups, as you say. And I have long—long!—held open the possibility that groups could define their own TOS. Just as I do not regard the existence of private clubs, or codes of conduct at a meeting, or "block" buttons on Facebook, Twitter or LibraryThing, as a suppression of free speech, I do not regard groups with their own rules as one either. This is particularly true as LibraryThing offers so many other groups that would welcome the discussions you believe will be suppressed—"Pro and Con," spring to mind—none of them with any local terms, not to mention the ability for you to form your own group!

I hold no brief for either "side"--are there only two?--in the group's recent squabbles. Frankly, I have only read certain posts for TOS violations, not to decide where I "stand" on the issues, which don't interest me and anyway I'm busy. But, as I've said before on this topic, there are times when it seems reasonable for a group to exercise some control over its content or membership. A French group might prefer its conversations not to be continually derailed with Spanish, or with accusations that French speakers are all monsters, and France is a terrible country. An ancient history group find their conversations clogged by a determined and extremely prolix fan of intercontinental pyramidology and ancient aliens.

In such situations, what should we do? My strong tendency is against rules and particularly software to uphold them. Most such situations work out. People have long argued that LT has no way to deal with polite, TOS-abiding Nazis, but in practice such (rare) individuals never last long before they violate the TOS or give up. (Flaming people on LibraryThing just isn't as fun as doing so on Twitter, or whatever. And we police our TOS, while Twitter does not.) Similarly, most people don't enjoy hanging around a group when everyone else tells them to leave. But my default position against new rules and rule-software is practical, not a principled stand. If problems persist, I don't think LibraryThing's only answer must be "you gotta accept it" or "start a private group and invite only some people."

On the topic of flagging, we do indeed give people a tool. But we do not take flags as determinative of anything. That is, you can't be suspended for being flagged; you can only be suspended for violations of the Terms of Service. (Spam is another matter, but it doesn't apply here.) We sometimes look at flags across the site, to see if there are problems, but we don't promise to, and we have long insisted that only a message to us is sure to garner our attention. That said, if you believe you were wrongly flagged, let us know, and point to the specific messages. If true, we will at least issue a warning.

26proximity1
kesäkuu 7, 2016, 2:25 pm

>25 timspalding:

In that case, I don't understand why this group hasn't been offered a "by invitation only" format. They'd leap at it and it would be the ideal of what they want.

Rhetorical questiou a busy man can skip:

You don't have that and it's too cumbersome to implement it? Okay, then. I see your view. If such a "private, friends-only" attitude is acceptable to you, then I won't crash it's intent--as it couldn't be clearer that that is this group's intent.

In the other real world, if your views prevailed, would there not still be white-only clubs? men-only clubs? The very things which many feminists fought hard to break down-'that is, in sum, precisely the kind of special preserve this group's most active are demanding for themselves.

Why should the law impose openness on men who aren't interested in allowing women into rheie club's membership? Women had a good answer--fortunately, it doesn't really apply here. But one day, in certain parts of the internet, the same reasons almost certainly shall come to apply.

27timspalding
Muokkaaja: kesäkuu 7, 2016, 3:38 pm

>26 proximity1:

"Offered by a 'by invitation only' format"? I don't quite catch you, although I guess your point is made clear later.

If such a "private, friends-only" attitude is acceptable to you, then I won't crash it's intent--as it couldn't be clearer that that is this group's intent.

I don't see that moderation, or behavior standards, reduce to "private, friends only" arrangements.

There are many situations in real life where people are welcome to participate without pre-invitation, but someone moderates according to a set of standards. Down the street from me there's a leftist resource center and a Baptist church. Both have open doors, but also reserve the right to moderate and ultimately eject people who refuse to abide by local rules.

Were I ever to go to either, I'd realize this, and behave accordingly, both out of politeness and circumspection. I'd recognize that retailing my (non-leftist, Catholic) views aggressively and repeatedly was disruptive and derailing. And if I were asked to leave out for refusing to shut up about Hayek and the Pope, I'd not run to attacks on their "openness." You can call such open, but moderated, situations a "special preserve" if you like, but such "special preserves" are fundamental to normal society, and have always been. Indeed, I'd argue that free speech depends more on private "special" preserves--a printing press I own, and you can't monkey with--than absolutely unrestricted spaces. In either case, there are many of the latter on LibraryThing.

28krolik
kesäkuu 8, 2016, 3:08 am

25LibraryThing is a community and business, not a suicide pact

Yes, that's the crux of the matter. It astonishes me how much energy gets wasted by posters going apeshit about what some stranger said on an internet forum.

29timspalding
kesäkuu 10, 2016, 12:44 am

Sorry, the voting interface isn't done. We're having some problems with new tools—basically my new editor gives me half-second pauses between every keystrokes :). I'll let you know when it's ready.

30timspalding
kesäkuu 11, 2016, 4:47 am

Join to post