ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
When all this has calmed down, can we have a proper chat about what MNHQ, actually want please?(142 Posts)
I'd like to know whether the site is moving in another direction. And what that means for some of our important supportive boards.
I've seen some awful threads and posts left up for far to long. I'm also cynical of the IF you report it gets dealt with party line. As it doesn't. The trolling and goading that occurs in Bereavement, FWR, SN and Relationships, is left far too long after it has been reported.
Yet it is very obvious that some posters are either being monitored or targeted by reporters as they are deleted with alarming speed and precision.
With respect it's your site, but I'm buggered if I know what I can and can't say anymore.
I think that Relationships and Feminism are the two main areas that need on-thread moderation.
From what I read, these are the two areas of the site that are targeted most by people trying to get their jollies by upsetting people.
I'd agree with that, ScaryNutella.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I've read that MNHQ tweeted the "P" Beaker thread. That kind of thing is a very cack-handed way of attracting traffic of the negative sort: the servers then can't cope with it (technical inability to cope) and it made MN look silly (it wasn't that funny and made MNers look a bit simple, and easily amused).
A bit more discrimination would be appropriate.
What screamingnaan said
I think it could be time to go back to having mods for each section.
I thought it worked well.
I agree with Nutty to. I don't see why they can't implement it either, it's been suggested for years, how long do they need to consider it for?
I still think giving some power to regulars in certain areas would allow faster deletion of truly blatantly offensive material....I agree that pre-modding can't work here. But give the people in the thick of the power to remove attrocious posts!
The problem with regulars as mods is that although they know and care about the boards it creates a split and a bit of an odd dynamic. There are the chosen and the not chosen if you go down the route of tapping a select few on the shoulder. Then those who are on the boards a lot are often contributing heavily so they can't be impartial and those who try to become impartial lose some of their involvement so it fundamentally alters the balance and often regulars will cease to be regulars, which defeats the point.
Volunteer mods is not necessarily a bad idea though, with each committing to a set time slot per week, or every couple of days, with a bit of give in the 'timetable, and if regulars apply for those and are chosen then on their own heads be it almost - but specifically choosing regulars is a recipe for resentment IME.
The other consideration is whether those mods act as and when they see something, which is very subjective, or they act on reports in which case you need to come up with a system - one central account for the volunteer mod of each section possibly - to cope with that.
I think atm we have posters who consider themselves mods of their chosen topic, and act very aggressively against anyone who seems the least bit inclined to challenge their opinions and ruling of the board. If they were officially recognised mods, then anyone attacked by them could legitimately complain to MNHQ, and MNHQ would be obliged to take complaints seriously.
It's because the aggressors are not in an official mod role - but they see themselves as mods - that the water is so very muddy.
Volunteer peer moderation has usually worked really well on other fora I've been on, along with at least 2 MMORPs I've played in the past, could MN maybe look into that? I'm not even talking about regular posters moderating an area they are particularly familiar with, but a group of, say, 5 volunteers on hand to respond to reports on the whole board. In that way, you shouldn't get so called 'board royalty' over-policing their own personal bug bears, but a more balanced range of moderation views across the boards.
These peer mods could maybe have powers to silence, but not ban, to hide but not delete controversial posts and, if these solutions don't seem to be calming things down, they can call in the heavier guns of MNHQ?
It might also save MNHQ mods having to wade in to smaller spats, so that they can more easily deal with some of the serious trolling that has been evident over the last couple of months.
CaptChaos, that is being discussed over on this thread
Volunteer night-time mods are already in place.
In that way, you shouldn't get so called 'board royalty' over-policing their own personal bug bears, but a more balanced range of moderation views across the boards - I agree with that.
Self-appointed mods to often cause more problems than they solve, for all that they usually have the best of intentions, which is why officially recognising them rarely makes things better. You get the 'over policing of personal bugbears' capt mentioned.
But MN is a huge board and not everywhere needs the same level of scrutiny so it might work in certain sections.
Also MNHQ's big advantage is that they are outside the discussion. They have XyzMumsnet to clearly mark them out when they comment or PM. Volunteer peer mods in the truest sense won't have that, and it'll be very difficult to know when they speak with a mod hat or not. It works in small communities where a respected regular can defuse a situation as well as, if not better than, an official mod and where there are very clear community norms but I don't think either of those apply to MN.
Community management is very tricky and I really don't envy MN their task of deciding how best to approach this.
I think the danger lies in the self-appointment.
That means a complete lack of accountability.
I agree with this.
Either people can be reported and deleted for breaking the spirit of the rules - i.e. goading, passive-aggressive seemingly naice but actually bitchy type posts - or they can't.
If mnhq aren't going to delete posts and threads like that, then why are they surprised if people lose their tempers and tell them to fuck off?
At the moment, there are a fair few new names who aren't really new. They know how it works, they know how to stay on the "right" side of the guidelines, they know who to follow around and goad and gloat over.
And reporting atm is a bit of a waste of time.
It seems to me, having been here for a while now, that this type of thing goes in cycles. Every year there is a huge thread and a huge fracas whereby lots of MNetters get upset and repeatedly ask the question of what we can and can't say.
I feel like what we can and can't say has changed over the years I have been here, and I don't believe it's a good thing.
It does seem to have gotten a lot less tolerant here recently, but I also feel that in 'real' life.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times ?
Feels sad, though.
I wasn't thinking of self appointment though. The peer mods I'm talking about have always been appointed by the site/MMORPG owners
And thanks Milly I had only really read Justine's post on there, which sort of turned me off, it felt like we were being shown someone else's none to brilliant exam results, and I'm really not up for that!
1 - I agree that problematising some notion of "goady" is counterproductive. I had issues with it on the original "goady fuckers" thread, vaguely wondered about posting about it, but Threadie in one of her fabulous disguises did very eloquently, and I considered it done.
2 - I couldn't give a shit about consistency in moderation. According to some weak quantitative means certainly. I know some people thought it was unseemly to publish AF's stats, but I thought - there is no shame in it. I hope she doesn't mind that they are out there, but those numbers are meaningless. The very system according to which they are compiled is as nonsensical as "number of times men called Dave shut you up by calling you a fiery redhead" or something. This fetish of consistency is standing in for something more substantive because of insecurity about what that might be, and about articulating it too. (2 different things)
3 - On the whole, I do seem to like it here, as I am here a lot. I have had a metric fuck-ton of support here and I am so fucking grateful for that. but I do get pissed off with the "la la la la la fingers in ears" attitudes to how feminists get treated these days on the interwebs. And I am a bit eye-rolly about determined "equality" standing in for actual fairness. I have written in more detail about this elsewhere.
4 - this is such a weird situation, isn't it? that someone is monetising our cameraderie? Don't you think that is weird. You would have said, "oh you can't put a price on a nice dry, wry atmosphere, but a solid shoulder to cry on when you need it." But there is a price on it. How do we feel about that? I don't exactly care. Because I don't come here and try to be kind or funny to get paid, so why should I care if someone else is making £££ out of it. but... are there costs? Ultimately right now this is a net gain for me as an individual because I have nowhere else like this to go and I need it. But there are books being sold, and things we have all said make those books up, and if I have ever said anything useful to any of you lot ever, I am very glad but you know what, I quite actively and deliberately said it FOR FREE. not to be sold off
On the subject of stats, it has just occurred to me that I have never reported a post of someone else's because of a "personal attack". I can't imagine the thought processes of someone who would report a poster for a "personal attack" like "fuck off" or even, hilariously, something like "you bossy boots". I have been hurt and annoyed by posts of course, but now I think about the thought processes of going and whining about it just - I just - FFS, have these people no self-respect?
That's the problem mildred.
There are obviously some
precious people over-reporters around.
I have never, ever reported an attack on me. And I would rather others didn't either. If people are rude, I'd like the comments to stay as evidence.
I like that post, Mildred.
I'm not sure why the night modder idea has turned so sour- afaik, we actually asked for it, after the site was brought to its knees by spam like "Watch Borussia Dortmund online free" etc, and a late night troll posting vile stuff about dead babies and stuff like that. It's not supposed to be about sophisticated judgement calls, but about zapping very obvious wrong 'uns who target the site after 2am or so until office hours start again. It would be monitored, so anyone who got a God Complex would be fucked off pretty quickly.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Well put Annie.
It does seem to me these days that any argument between a "regular" and a "newbie" ends up with the reg getting a tap on the wrist or more.
We have to be nice to the newbies. That's fine, I'm happy to do that. But surely the newbies should at least be asked to be nice to us too. And that's the bit that seems to be missing atm
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.