Playing Nice In The Forums

[zuma]

One of the tasks that you will assume if elected to the Board of Directors is the responsibility to moderate the forums. Several of you have already commented on the unfortunate nature of some posts made by some members in the forums, but I would like to know specifically at what level you think the forums should be moderated?

As you may know, all board members have the ability to moderate the forums, but we have pretty much let people say whatever it is they want to say, hoping the cream will rise to the top, and the dregs will sink to the bottom. In the past year, there were perhaps 5 – 8 posts deleted, about half for obscene content, and the other half that were obvious spam. Otherwise, members have had full freedom to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive it may be to other members.

My first question is, do you agree that we should continue minimal moderation of the forums, or would you like to see some limits placed on offensive posts?

My second question is related to the policy that I cut and pasted from the Utah Geocachers Association that follows this paragraph. Please reveiw it, and comment whether you think it would be worthwhile for the WGA to adopt a similiar policy:

“In recent weeks there has been growing concern among the UTAG officers that some threads in the forums have become very negative and inflammatory. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, we don’t want to see the forums become a dumping ground generating bad blood among our members and our guests. Most noticeably, we’ve recently received requests from a few cachers to have their UTAG membership cancelled. We’ve complied, but we still regret having to do so.

This message is not intended to point a finger at any one thread, post or poster. However, after much discussion, we’ve created the Forum Rules of Etiquette to help ensure everyone feels welcome in the forums and to help maintain the friendly atmosphere that should prevail. This is the norm amongst the majority of the threads.

1. These Forums exist to foster goodwill among all cachers and offer us a convenient medium to exchange information.

2. We can all express our opinions and we encourage you to do so. However, attacks on others will not be tolerated nor allowed.

3. In the future, posts that are mean spirited or attack another member will be deleted and the entire thread may be locked or deleted.

4. Everyone needs to make an effort to be kind and fair to those who have ideas which differ from their own. Personal issues should be brought up privately with the individuals who are involved.

5. Any posts about politics are subject to deletion and any posts about religion will be deleted.

Thank you for your help and cooperation in our efforts to promote a positive and pleasant geocaching experience in Utah.

-The UTAG Board of officers”

I know that is a long question, but it is an important topic, and I look forward to your replies.

zuma

[Barry Butrymowicz]

@zuma wrote:

My first question is, do you agree that we should continue minimal moderation of the forums, or would you like to see some limits placed on offensive posts?
zuma

So far the minimal moderation has been working OK, but members have left the WGA with bad blood, so it could be stepped up a bit.

@zuma wrote:

My second question is related to the policy that I cut and pasted from the Utah Geocachers Association that follows this paragraph. Please reveiw it, and comment whether you think it would be worthwhile for the WGA to adopt a similiar policy:
zuma

Like this policy, but have some areas that do not need to be so strong.

@zuma wrote:

3. In the future, posts that are mean spirited or attack another member will be deleted and the entire thread may be locked or deleted.
zuma

Threads should be locked before it gets to the point that they need to be deleted. Once deleted, there is no record of what has happened in the past

@zuma wrote:

5. Any posts about politics are subject to deletion and any posts about religion will be deleted.
zuma

I understand that politics and religion are touchy subjects, but depending on the post, and where in the forums it is (Off topic) the could be allowed there. Everyone think the Packers are Gods, are we going to consider watching the packer games “religion” I hate football, but do not pipe up in the packer or Brett Farve columns.

[thepharmgirl]

Q: Do you think the BOD should censor forum posts and to what degree? Should we adopt Forum Rules similar to Utah’s?

A: This is a tough one. I thought about your question at work all night long. And I keep changing my mind about it.

For now, I decided I don’t like censorship. I don’t like the idea that as a board member, I would have to troll the forums every 5 minutes to babysit grown adults and make sure people are behaving. It’s silly to even have to think about it. If that’s my expected role as a WGA board member, I quit the race. I’m running because I think I can contribute in many helpful ways that would benefit the WGA. But being a Forum Policewoman is just not one of them.

Yes, I get angry, annoyed, and disappointed at what I perceive to be negative and sometimes disrespectful comments in our forums. I feel like it does reflect poorly on the WGA, but even worse on the individual who wrote it. I think discussions or debates get out of hand because people are passionate about their viewpoint or, more commonly, because they misinterpret another person’s comment or intent. Some people just lack good communication or personal skills in general (and they’ll admit that). But it is, afterall, a forum. It’s a place where people can voice their opinions, concerns, and thoughts, even negative ones (despite my distaste for them). What may seem like a petty argument to some may be a very important and worthwhile discussion to others.

But these “arguments” can be very intimidating and off-putting to a new cacher (or any cacher) who visits our site and reads the forum for the first time. I know I have been too intimidated to post my opinion at times. Our forum often sounds like a bunch of angry, disgruntled cachers (maybe it is!). Why would new members want to stick around?! I wish everyone would take a moment before hitting the “Submit” button and consider whether it’s an appropriate and respectful comment.

Perhaps to keep the majority of forum topics a “positive” and helpful place for cachers to share information, there can be a separate “Pout, Moan, and Sulk” category (gee, did those initials work out that way? 😉 ) or “Debater’s Dungeon” where people can duke out their discussions away from the General and Announcement Forums. If discussions get “mean-spirited” or “negative”, they get sent to the dungeon. (I was only jesting with this idea. It’s sort of funny.)

It’s a good idea to have a General Code of Conduct for the Forums, but for now, the only censoring I am currently in favor of is deleting personal attacks, severe profanity, or spam. Otherwise, I just have to hope people will be sensible about what they’re writing.

[Team Deejay]

I think the current level of moderation is about right. I also think there is a lot of self-policing among the general membership, where people will send a note/PM to someone if they feel they were out of line in the forums, which I believe is better than heavy moderation. That said, I wouldn’t want our forums to be like the GC.com forums, where people seem to be competing to see how inflammatory they can be with their posts.

I think the Utah guidelines are too strict. I’m all for kindness and such, but threatening to delete people’s thought will stifle communication. Additionally, as our organization is tasked with interacting with governmental organizations, political discussions seem to be on task. Even religion might have a place with regard to what is allowed to be on a cache page. I guess I could go along with points one and two.

[Team Black-Cat]

[-cheeto-]

My first question is, do you agree that we should continue minimal moderation of the forums, or would you like to see some limits placed on offensive posts?

Yes I agree we should continue minimal moderation of the forums as it has been done based on your description of what has been moderated.

Since I am on the forums often this should not be an issue for me to help with.

I also believe that all moderators should have the title “moderator” posted next to their name on their posts. Yeah some of us know only the BOD are moderators but there has been confusion especially with newer members.

Threads should not be locked by a moderator unless the OP (original poster, who started the thread) requests it or the discussion is now completely off-topic.

I agree with other candidates that threads should not be deleted by moderators even if the OP requests it. (unless no other posts have been made) It is not fair to others to have their responses deleted because the OP changes their mind. And as rsplash mentioned, a new thread will just open up anyway requiring members to re-post their ideas from memory.

My second question is related to the policy that I cut and pasted from the Utah Geocachers Association that follows this paragraph. Please reveiw it, and comment whether you think it would be worthwhile for the WGA to adopt a similiar policy:

I think having a posted forums etiquette/policy should be a priority for this years BOD and be incorporated into our Bylaws in addition to posted in the forums in each area as a “sticky” post. This policy should also mention who our moderators are, the rights and responsibilities of our moderators, and the consequences of not following the policy.

Now my public breakdown of the example policy:

First, I don’t see the word respect in that policy. First and foremost, we should treat each other with respect in our forum posts. Just because we don’t agree with each other, doesn’t mean we can’t respect each other. I would like to see “treat each other respectfully” added as a “#1”

On number 2 I would want to clarify the word “attacks” a bit better. Using the term “personal attack” might be better. See my new #1

I don’t agree with number 3. See my prior answer on moderation and deleting posts. However, see my thought at the end of this response on consequences.

Number 4 is fine and should be combined with the idea to respect one another. Treating each other fair goes hand in hand with respect.

I agree with my fellow candidates who have already spoken up regarding number 5. This is fine in moderation if posted to the off-topic area. Certainly if any of the other points of the “policy” were broken during a thread like this, moderator action would be needed.

In addition to just the threat of “moderation” a policy like this should carry some consequences. I would imagine that in the “rare” instances that posts were moderated this past year, that the offending poster was sent a private message indicating why. As a moderator, if we do take action we should be able to point the member to the policy and the consequences for their actions if they continue.

I’m really happy that moderating is done infrequently here because it does say a lot about our membership. However, it is important to have a policy like this in place for a group our size. This is an excellent idea to “borrow” from other organizations and make our own.

[Averith]

I would be reluctant to change the level of moderation that is currently being exercised in the forums. I’m a firm believer in free speech in all things, even if the result is some ruffled feathers.

With that being said I would hope that everyone in the forums would behave in a courteous manner and treat others with respect. My mom always told me to treat others the way you would like to be treated, and I think this is good advice for everyone when writing forums or in life in general.

I agree that some kind of rules of conduct would be useful for the forums, and I feel that the Utah Geocaching Association’s policy would be a very good starting point for the WGA to craft our own policy.

[uws22]

I believe the system here is working quite well, especially when I compare it to some of the sports boards I frequent that are much more heavy handed when it comes to deletion of posts, moving of posts/threads, and even banning of posters. I’m not saying that’s where things would end up, but posters are very sensitive about the actions that others may have on their posts.

Much like the UTAG board, these sports boards have a “Rules of the Road” forum that helps set the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn’t. I think it has had a positive effect just by judging how newcomers have handled the board as opposed to newbies before that forum was created.

[labrat_wr]

My first question is, do you agree that we should continue minimal moderation of the forums, or would you like to see some limits placed on offensive posts?

I think it is okay to let the kids play. Like a playground monitor, the mods should be there to stave off trouble and help protect the integrity of the forums. Will there be bullying in the forums, yeah to some extent, so what is the mods responsibility there? I don’t know if the mods use the PMing available to contact any poster that is getting too rough to ask them to cut back a bit or not. I think this could be a method to use, without just jumping to hit the delete button. Offensive posts are hard to mediate. Some are not meant to be offensive but if someone takes the post literally (we all know that sarcasm cannot always be understood written down, without any inflections or facial expressions) these posts may cause some bad blood. Maybe there is a “this is supposed to be sarcastic” emoticon out there somewhere. I would think that, unless the post is blatant vulgarity or a vicious attack, there should be some discussion among the mods to determine if the post should be deleted/thread closed/thread locked and archived. Like the others, I don’t think the thread should be deleted.
Remembering that the posts should be family friendly should go far in preventing deletions.

My second question is related to the policy….

I see great merit in having some policy but need to warn us all that once a policy is written, it must be adhered to, under all conditions.
This policy would need to be well worded without grey areas because, as sure as rain, the BOD would get called out if there was a breech of policy.
Perception of what is “against the policy” by one may be okay for another.
On the other hand, if it is called “General Rules of Etiquette” there may be a little more leeway on interpretation, thus again requiring some concensus from the mods.

Looking at the UTAG rules, some are well worded, some are too strong, and some a bit wishy-washy (subject to deletion? – only if the reviewing mod disagrees???) I think this would be something the BOD may look at to see if it will fit the WGA (obviously, there would be revisions to meet our organizations view and mission)

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[K0rpl]

To answer the first question, I do not think the Moderation has to get stronger. I do think that the Good will rise, and the Bad will fall. This is with everything. Much the same with kids bullying at school. If you don’t let it be known that it bothers you, They drop off, and go somewhere else to try and get a reaction from others.

For the second question, I do beleive what Utah has there is well written, but I do not believe we have to be that strong.

There was a Off-Topic area where people can talk about anything they want. Does not even have to be about geocaching. And if members do not want to read what is in that forum, they do not have to. I am a member of several other forums, that can get much worse than this. These forums are pretty tame by comparison, and I don’t feel that it gets too carried away.

[Author]

Posts