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…..

Yes I'd opt for not using pronouns at all rather than the wrong pronouns.

I mean we know we are being watched. This board has been a teensy bit unfair to LM with endless threads. Quite vocal about other transwomen like IW. SF definitely comes on here. All prominent TRAs who are experts in twisting even the most innocuous comment as "transphobic" they watch here and I suspect there is a legal case now on, since ManFriday happened and all bells went off.

Mumsnet feminists are being accused all over the Internet of "recruiting transphobes" and I think MNHQ are being accused of allowing whatever they call it, incitement to commit hatred, or that sort of thing...
So just be careful how you come across I guess. Nothing provocative or piss-taking and nothing encouraging others to target individuals.

Yes agree. I have tried to do this more carefully recently.

So the problem, as far as we know, is too many posts are getting reported and creating an unsustainable workload for the moderators?

And the solution is to hide this from active? Is that the only solution being suggested?

And this will help because it tacitly agrees that the reason people are reporting is because it's getting too wide an audience? It's becoming too influential? Have I got that right?

There are several issues about this. Firstly, anyone can report any post, which takes up mod time. Is the issue that assessing and forming a judgement on that post is what takes the time, or just the fact it's been flagged?

Because we cannot control the reporting of posts by trolls. They don't have to genuinely think we have overstepped any mark. They can just report willy-nilly. To piss off the mods. They're clever enough to take a phrase or word to make them sound authentically concerned.

Secondly, it puts us in a Catch-22. If we have noticed a sealion, and have alerted the mods, that in and of its self is just adding to their workload. Especially as the sealion posts often don't come across as particularly rule breaking. And they're often long. It's a pain in the arse for the mods.

Plus sealions do provide a very useful service. They think they are putting a spoke in the feminist wheel, but they're not. As long as one can remain patient and not rise to the obvious goadiness (always, always think of the lurkers), one gets the opportunity to restate one's case, over and over. It's a gift, really.

And their response is always incriminating. If not immediately, then eventually.

Asking feminist posters to remain above reproach should, in theory, work. But not if it's about the volume of reporting, rather than the real content of their posts.

I wonder if a sticky should also suggest something of a three strike rule? That if you are a serial post reporter, but your complaints are continually found to be groundless, you get a week's ban.

Because I think we do need to find out whether or not there is any real grounds for all this post reporting. If there is, then we can self regulate successfully. If there isn't, we can't, and there needs to be some kind of recourse for us. Banning serial post reporters for being arseholes could be a solution.

That's just me thinking out loud.

Sorry that response was to Rowan.

I wonder if a sticky should also suggest something of a three strike rule? That if you are a serial post reporter, but your complaints are continually found to be groundless, you get a week's ban.

Yes, there should be such a thing as vexatious reporting. It's a difficult line to draw though, I appreciate.

Datun that is a really good idea. I'd guess that MNHQ do not ban people lightly because they profit from the traffic.

Do you think you could post that idea to Site Stuff or contact MNHQ (somehow).

If trolls are reporting every and any post to cause workload, surely that is a reason enough to be banned even temporarily.

If Datun is right there's a risk of good old-fashioned bullying too. What's to stop people reporting someone they don't like over and over again until MNHQ give up and just ban that person to make their own lives easier? What if that's done strategically to shut down the voices that are waking the larges number of newbies up?

They wouldn't do that I don't think AAK.

I don't get how hiding feminism chat from Active fixes any problems with trolls through.
I mean they don't come here from "Active" in the first place.

*MNHQ wouldn't I mean.

Can I just add it's really, really easy to avoid pronouns. I know it goes against the grain of the principle, but the principle is massively compromised if you don't get to talk about it.

Secondly, I see no issue with talking about prominent transactivists when they say things that are damaging to women.

But when it generates into piss taking, mockery about clothes, hair, etc, the moral high ground is lost. And the report button will start to glow.

For instance, you can absolutely and justifiably, talk about clothing as a stereotype, and how it's damaging to women, and how transactivisim encourages it and here's an example.

Rather than a '...look at the state of 'er', sentiment. I know, again, we are being held to a higher account and it's deeply exasperating not being able to blow off steam and act in an entirely normal, rational way, with a bit of piss taking and time honoured mockery.

But it's actually quite satisfying being creative with a sentence, that absolutely nails it, but without even touching a guideline.

training in coercive control for moderators seems a really good idea. and perhaps then also a pinned post about how DV tactics come accross in online communication too? i had never heard of DARVO until somebody linked to it here and OH MY GOSH was it enlightening.

i keep wanting to suggest a short term support of extra voluntary moderators too but i am a bit uncomfortable about the whole women doing all the work for free implications this has.

What Datun said. As per bloody usual

[depressed]

Surely, surely, the fact that posts are being reported all over the shop is proof that the message is getting through.

Personally I don't believe self-regulating is going to stop the reporting. Not when much of the reporting is of posts along the lines of "a man is not a woman because he says so" or "transwomen aren't women".

MNHQ are in a difficult position. But essentially they've said "we agree with you, but we don't have the courage of our convictions. We've asked you to shut up modify your posts, but you won't so we are shutting you up hiding them.

They also seem to be saying "and we're a tad pissed off you've noticed, we hoped you wouldn't, that's why we didn't tell you"

Trolls are mostly coming directly here and bypassing the rest of the site entirely. Could be something was linked on Twitter, etc - they're not browsing the site for parenting tips and then running across a trans thread, the only reason they're here is to "fight transphobia".

I think we're definitely going to see specific individuals being targeted going forward. It's how to shut down a grassroots movement 101.

I was really agreeing with Datun's post of 9:28, but I'm happy to agree with her later post as well. Taking the personal out of it is good. But I don't think that will reverse this decision of MN.

Yes Kittens - this decision won't keep the TRAs causing havoc on FWR threads, it'll just keep the rest of MN from finding out about any of it

I might take another little MN break. I'm surprised by how fucking furious I am about this - the fact that MN, which prides itself on talking to and listening to its members, is happy to take this decision behind everyone's backs and with no discussion, just because they are being pressurised by a violent, aggressive, group of men

What's most alarming to me is that they brushed off FFJ pretty easily, but the TRAs? Not so easy. What's going on behind the scenes (not just at MNHQ, in general, in goverment/media/etc) that makes this the one group that you can't just tell to piss off?

This issue is not going to go away, whether MN decide to stifle debate or not.

As women's rights are trashed, the public will notice. Is it going to be the case that MN will then suddenly allow debate when it is politically expedient? The Boston Marathon, Lauren Hubbel and many other examples will combine to give a massive public WTF. The thousand cuts of transactivism. Because this madness is not just going to pass into normal life. It will erupt into public consciousness.

So sure, ban us. Ban the conversation. But it's not going away. And neither are the trolls who overload the reporting function.

I agree with Datun on the not getting personal re individuals. It is possible to write without using pronouns. Sure, we can 'police' ourselves here. But it isn't women on FWR who are being unreasonable here.

Transactivism is dangerous and cultlike. That's a truth and the truth will out.

I report posts if they are defamatory or may be so. The easiest way for TRAs to get this space closed to us is to goad us into a libel

I can bypass pronouns. I can avoid ad hominems. I can be polite.

But I think we all know how DARVO and coercive control work. If we stop doing A, complaints will shift to B. If we stop doing B, complaints will shift to C. Rinse and repeat, ad infinitum until anything worth having has been destroyed. The same old hackneyed pattern of preventing women coming together and talking, outwith male approval and supervision.

sigh

Also, the fundamental thing that TRAs don't want said is that male people can't become female. So sure, we can avoid certain pronouns and not criticize particular individuals (though both of these are imo already giving an alarming amount of ground that no other group would demand and actually get), but there's no way to phrase "a male person is not a woman" that won't cause anger, hurt feelings, etc. Even some of the trans people who post here have gotten snipey and "must you really when you know it hurts me?" about that. The people like Miranda and Hope and TruScum who're comfortable enough with themselves to say "yeah, I'm male, so?" are very much a minority.

But if we can't say that very fundamental thing when the battle is already lost. And I'm worried that that's the direction this is all heading.

LangCleg

But mumsnet make the rules up, here.

They don't have to do what they are told by TRAs.

The only way they will cave is if they are being blackmailed by having their revenue threatened.

Or does everyone really think it's about moderating taking up too much time? I'm not saying it isn't, but that seems like a problem that can be quite easily solved.

The answer to that would be to ask for volunteer mods. Or start charging a subscription.

A pound a year would give them £12 million...

I feel like I might need a break from FWR.
I’ve found this all very upsetting.

WAWAG, cut loose again.

The problem,in part, has been MN policy of encouraging us to report and not engage.

Also, relatively new posters on here might find terms like TIM offensive and report, when, as far as I know, they are ok with them.

I agree that if the reporting of threads is the issue, MN need to discourage users from over reporting.

I think that if users are reporting anything that they think may be slightly over the line then that's the exact opposite of helpful, and will just exacerbate the problem.

But mumsnet make the rules up, here.

They don't have to do what they are told by TRAs.

I agree. But, much as I sympathise with MNHQ if they are under sustained pressure from TRAs (they've held out longer than anyone else has!), they've been pretty clear that the onus is on us but to sort it we have to work blind.

And, as we all already know, the only way to deal with DARVO and coercive control is to not comply.

Insofar as I can see, we are in a Catch 22.