Meet the MNHQ moderators. Live chat Friday 8th Nov, 1-2pm

[JustineMumsnet]

Hi all,
We promised you a webchat to discuss all things moderation (and anything else you fancy really). So, tomorrow lunchtime RebeccaMumsnet, RowanMumsnet and I (and possibly a few other team members - suspect that OliviaMumsnet might be lurking) will be on hand at 1pm to answer your questions. If you can't make it along, then do post your questions here in advance. Mind the guidelines at the top of the page now - only one question each and be nice .

@ButThereAgain

Do you sometimes feel that expectations of what moderation can achieve are too high, especially on a mass site in the public eye, and especially given that you have to maintain a fairly arms-length status in order to control your liability in relation to libel?

You often put yourselves in the position of apologising for outcomes that seem at least partly a function of certain impossibilities involved in moderating a site like MN, rather than being a function of failings on your part. It is lovely to apologise so frankly but I wonder if it creates a false impression of incompetence. Would it be better to just say that some of what is expected can't be achieved?

I think you make a good point here, but then again there's always things we can do better and just occasionally we are pretty incompetent .

I think Olivia might still be rocking in the corner after reading the suggestion about the name amnesty!

Unfortunately I spent most of the webchat in a maternity unit having an unscheduled couple of hours listening to baby's heartbeat and forgot it was happening but as an admin on a much smaller (but feels much bitchier in proportion) site I'd a) like to thank you for the mammoth and occasionally thankless task that is keeping talk running and b) suggest increasing capacity particularly for triggery areas. It does make a huge difference to the quality and responsiveness of moderation if people spend a lot of time familiarising themselves with the general tone and it makes it easier to spot trends that stats don't pick up in terms of tone and interactions.

Some sections of MN are 'fighty' - FWR springs to mind - but that's partly because sectioning them off concentrates that particular issue and associated style of posting and partly because ithey are just a huge target. I don't have an answer for that, but if you find one can you share it with me, please?!

Sorry Olivia [gordonsgin]

Justine

I started a thread in chat about gin. it looks promising!

do pop in please, when you have a minute! thanks.

(shame my other question didn't get answered, but maybe next time..)

I've only got to page 6 but Rebecca MN's considered explanation of what might constitute a PA made me laugh

I'm sure there will be other gems here too, and look forward to a good read through this evening as was out today or would have been glued to screen worse than usual

Nice idea MNHQ

Rowan thank you for answering my question - I agree that you had all pretty much answered it further up the thread!

The idea of going back to first principles with the Talk Values is a sound one and will always give better results than trying to apply discrete rules from a rule book. With a rule book, you always need to keep going back and adding more and more rules every time a new situation presents itself.

I have only just got in, so have not had time to read this thread in any detail.

As far as I can see, having scrolled twice, my post mid evening yesterday, fairly near the beginning of the thread, has not been answered. [not sure though that you are answering everyones posts or not].

I asked whether it was possible to have examples of what constitutes a pa and what does not, and put them in the Talk Guidelines so people can refer to them, and refresh their memories from time to time. As there are many posters who seem genuinely confused[especially new posters] of what is and what isnt a pa. Thanks.
And it might save your workload!

The just joined idea is a FAB one :):) I love it more than any other idea I have read in site stuff :)

The problem with a site like this is that no one ever knows the full story. It's a HUGE site, with history, private messages and friendships outside of the site. Being asked to 'take sides' is impossible. So I see that the black and white approach is the only one to take, even when for those of us that see the grey it might lead to an unjust outcome.

I think HQ should keep the gin, they earned it.

@trish5000

I have only just got in, so have not had time to read this thread in any detail.

As far as I can see, having scrolled twice, my post mid evening yesterday, fairly near the beginning of the thread, has not been answered. [not sure though that you are answering everyones posts or not].

I asked whether it was possible to have examples of what constitutes a pa and what does not, and put them in the Talk Guidelines so people can refer to them, and refresh their memories from time to time. As there are many posters who seem genuinely confused[especially new posters] of what is and what isnt a pa. Thanks.
And it might save your workload!

Argh, sorry if we missed that one - we did mean to answer it!

We pretty deliberately keep the Guidelines general, because in the end we're trying to create the conditions that allow the values Justine talks about to flourish - rather than trying to create a space in which everyone adheres to an extremely precise set of rules.

And we really do try to consider each case on its merits, so in all honesty there are some contexts in which a post would be deleted, and other contexts in which almost exactly the same post would be left to stand.

So, to sum up... no.

I really like the idea that posters can release names they don't want - no auction or publicity or anything.

But I suspect it would still be a tech nightmare.

@TheDoctrineOfWho

I really like the idea that posters can release names they don't want - no auction or publicity or anything.

But I suspect it would still be a tech nightmare.

Yes, every time we've brought this up in the past the Techs go quiet and start gently rocking back and forth. BUT you've given us renewed impetus to raise it again. I refuse to believe something - even a fudge - is not possible.

Zombies did you read the article Justine linked to in the Telegraph? It's lovely and positive about Mnet.

Zombie did indeed read it and she's full of admiration for the MNer who was quoted. She also admires the journalist for listening to us and taking our points on board.

< Bombay Sapphire >

Justine's really going to have to give up on the Gordens. Zombies are both tenacious and consistent.

I suggest tickers after our names in sparkles and twinkles which read

YouveCatToBeKittenMe has been a mumsnetter for 6 years 2 months and 12 days

It's a good article, shame the headline was written by someone who hadn't read it properly!

A link for Justine. Just to remind her why she puts up with all our shit

I've not long joined so aside from working today didn't want to post because, well, longer term members I felt would have a better handle on what to ask and I knew newer members may well ask what I wanted to anyway.

I am most happy about two things -

a) That MNHQ is obviously doing their best to facilitate free speech & support & laughs in a very difficult environment and,

b) That a journalist can write, and have published, a reasoned, insightful piece, that may not have been the 'brief' from their paper they were given I imagine but was more truthful :)

Thank you to whoever suggested the web chat Zombie, was it you? if so you are a star

And to MNHQ for being one of the few public places and businesses that responds positively to users [gin, cake, wine, ££££, as you wish]

Sorry I missed this.

Good chat and thanks to Rowan, Rebecca and Justine.

I would hope, looking at those stats of numbers of posts/posters some people who seem to have no patience might find some when reporting threads.

And to MmeL. I didn't start ::head tilt::!!!!