Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I'm starting another thread - which is really a continuation of the previous post re dealing with inflammatory posts and comments. On Site Stuff, MNHQ have revealed more about their issues with FWR - i.e. the moderation workload. They need that reducing.

Please do also take on board the fact that the combative tone isn’t just in relation to goady posts or trolls - the majority of deletions take place in discussions where there isn’t a debate or conflict. It’s a root and branch problem.

What's the nature of the root and branch problem - is there a pattern to the deletions? Are they from certain OPs? Without fully understanding the problem, I am unsure what solutions to focus on - ie. will self policing the tone work as that assumes it's our comments that are the problem? Or is it, as I suspect, trolling that is increasing the mod workload?

I personally don't report much as I am conscious of their workload. Am I alone in this? Thus, I have asked them if they have analysed which accounts are doing the reporting (to see if Sealion and troll accounts are swamping them). Or is it the mods trawling through comments policing the tone??? Or is it us?

BTW @Datun has suggested pinning a post emphasising self policing. Great idea if it is us - but if so, what phrasing is OK and not? Would I be right in thinking saying "self id doesn't take sufficient account of concerns about women and children is fine"? But what is off limits? I still come back to what is that the root cause of the mod workload increase?

Secondly, I keep pointing out that Sealions/concern trolls use covert bullying so the pattern of someone's comments is important, not just a one off remark. As with coercive control in DV, each individual incident can seem inconsequential, but over time the drip, drip cumulative effect leaves women alternating between enraged and cowering. And with Sealions it's not just the comment reported but a pattern of covert bullying remarks consisting of dismissing others concerns, falsely accusing others(Transphobia), criticism that is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.

Where I think we may need to be smarter is in dealing with Sealions. I have heard it argued that the debate is needed. But if one is wasting one's time on Sealions, it just gives them more ammunition to report and complain about. It feeds them. Hence more mod workload. The only way I have found effective is not to engage with known Sealions. I just ignore them. I don't engage personally with them. So we potentially have a conflict between those who want to have the debate and yet at the same time needing to call time and IGNORE Sealions, after they have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage healthily. For example on the Inflammatory post - I would have preferred to call time on certain Sealions much earlier - there's no point in being nice if it defeats the object ie having debate with someone who wants to engage plus not increasing the mod workload.
Would love some of your thoughts…..

Half an hour?

Mice,

Nice to explain to a Jew (yes I am actually Jewish) how my post was right out of Goebbel’s playbook. Talk about abusing your privilege...

See what I did there? Made it all about you and me and nothing to do with the actual subject being discussed.

If you actually read my posts, my comments were about a mode of communication, not the underlying relative victimhood.

I have little sympathy for TRAs and much sympathy with those who want open debate on the subject. My point is that if you are not pro free speech on all subjects and you make it all about the speaker and not what they say, you don’t get to pick and choose which groups or subjects that applies to.

I am betting it was time spent writing and deleting comments.

Oh ive done that so many times on threads thebewilderness

And i reread what ive written before i post and i think 'fuck...even im bored by that'

And most of my posts are boring...so imagine what doesnt go through

My settings are 100 posts per page.
So reading 2 pages is 200 posts.
That could easily take up half an hour.

Maybe i should have said

Only half an hour?

It wasn't supposed to be a criticism

My recommendation in terms of dealing with the larry's of this world would be to ignore them completely. Don't feed the trolls, it just encourages them and mumsnet talk guidelines don't allow us to address them as they truly deserve.

I love the comment from Juells - yep waste of time with some OPs - but I do smile at all the smart comments on this thread. And yes Kittens - I agree - ignore.

I laughed just now as I set out originally to say let's ignore the trolls more and stop wasting valuable time and energy on them only to find that they used the post to do just that - I should have guessed……..

Gallows humour sometimes at having some of our words gagged by guidelines and hands tethered together by law - but we still win in the end

Thank you for your wit, wisdom and repartee

If anyone feels like engaging with trolls in a more entertaining way can I make a suggestion?

That's really funny AAK

My point is that if you are not pro free speech on all subjects and you make it all about the speaker and not what they say, you don’t get to pick and choose which groups or subjects that applies to.

Yes that’s lovely. And nothing to do with what I’m arguing. Or anyone on this thread is arguing. We are arguing for free speech. Not that we have it in the UK. Never mind.

Ad hom attacks on speakers are TRA territory (physical and verbal.). The women on this board are engaging with the factual content of the speech. Rather well as it turns out.

No ad hom attacks on me, then?

And no, once you start using terms such as ‘mansplaining’, ‘privilege’ and ‘safe space’ (with regards to ideas rather than physical space, you no longer can claim to believe in free speech.

That trollhunting movie looks fab!

Glad to see fwr is back in active sand trending again.

Thanks MNHQ.

privilege’ and ‘safe space’

Neither of which I said - are you referring to another poster?

I’m just telling you to stop using rhetorical devices akin to those used by abusers to imply the TRA movement is the fault of radical feminists.

And again -‘if YOU do x (now my fault) then YOU can no longer believe in free speech.’ Gosh. My fault!

Reverse. Blame.

I haven’t mentioned ‘privilege’ (but you did) or safe spacing (you did.) my point is that TRA ideology is NOT the fault of feminism in any shape or form. It’s like saying ‘you made me do it’ ‘I only hit you because (something your fault.)

Why is it the fault of the radfems? You’ve still not answered that. Can you answer in a cogent way? One that doesn’t rely on ‘uppity women asking for too much and look what you did?’

The cause of Male violence is not women’s actions or women’s existence.

Hyper,

I will answer cogently, if you take the trouble to read my actual words and not infer meaning or intent that are not there.

I have never claimed TRAs are the fault of Radfems. What I do claim is the success of their nonsensical logic is based on communicating using the same silencing tactics that radfems use to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

And a clause that starts ‘if’ is conditional. The phraseology I used above was constructed to convey exactly what I mean, nothing more and nothing less. If you do believe in certain concepts, they are antithetical to free speech.

You said that TRAs came through the door that radfems opened. That’s blaming

You claim that they use the same silencing techniques but that’s simply untrue. The radfems on here ARE debating. They tackle the TRA Logic with facts, with debate. They have no need to silence anyone - they don’t WANT to silence anyone. The self ID petition asks for consultation (discussion) not to simply shut down the debate. We want to talk about this - far and wide! Get it out there, talk about it, that’s what they are pushing. And they’re not afraid of discussion because they have good retorts, good facts, good data to back up their position.

The people no platforming, reporting academics for teaching, using #nodebate hashtags, threatening over twitter and other social media, threatening MN with boycotts and punching women to the floor at speakers corner are not radfems - they are TRAs. So I simply cannot accept your premise that they are using radfems techniques. They aren’t. By equating the two again you remove culpability from TRAs and assign it to radfems.