Petition to SC - re-open thread locked 10/16/16-6:28am - Bagheera Kristan

[Lilith Ivory]

Yesterday I received the following petition from Bagheera Kristan. I post it here for SC members to discuss and also sent you a copy of the original petition, including pictures inworld

Preliminary note: The SC has two formats for filing complaints, neither which seems to fit this issue, so perhaps a third format needs to be developed for forum moderation complaints - or further clarity about how a complaint of this type fits into the two format given - or perhaps a less rigid model to accommodate the unexpected.

􀀂

** QUALIFICATION TO FILE:

I am a citizen affected by a forum moderator decision in that I cannot participate in the discussion that was happening in the locked down thread as defined by "Forum Moderation Guidelines (specific)" posted by Diderot Mirabeau, Jan 10, 2007.

􀀀

I have endeavored to make this petition is clear and complete enough for the SC to be able to act accordingly. Thank you.

Bagheera Kristan


** PETITION:

Request to the SC to re-open a forum thread "When something loses its meaning" that was locked by Coop, forum moderator, on 10/16/16 and 6:28am

􀀁


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7749&start=15

BACKGROUND:

In that thread, Coop gave an initial admonishment here:

= = =

"Ok people, let's all take a deep cleansing breath and step back from the keyboards.

What we learned today as a repeated lesson is that without inflection or cues from the speaker irony and sarcasm are generally taken literally. Whatever the intention of the original post may have been, where we ended up was not where we need to be. I will not comment on intentions of the original post, nor on the tone of the replies. What I will say is maybe it would be a good day to get some fresh air and walk in a park.

Frank discussion of next steps, ideas on how to make CDS government smaller while keeping the long-established democratic underpinnings are good things to discuss. There is work to be done, so let's all keep our heads about us, shall we?

Coop, wearing his new shiny Moderator hat."

- Tues, Oct 14, 2016, 2:57pm

= = =

and a lock down of the thread with the statement:

= = =

"I think it is obvious this topic has run long enough."

- Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 6:28am

= = =

In a subsquent thread I started entitled "Please clarify - why was that discussion locked?" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7763) Coop stated: "The thread already had two complaints, it was starting to get Trolly so I shut it down. The key to putting out fires is to not wait until the flames go to the foundation."

As both Han Held and I expressed in my thread, the problem in the first thread seemed to be caused by a single individual and shutting down the entire thread was an extreme measure that cut short a valuable discussion while actually validating the person who was acting out.

The discussion was valuable enough that not only did I want to participate (which is why I am filing this petition) but Brian Livingston picked up the discussion again using the thread I started as a platform.

Brian's action might work in the short term, but in the long term, historically, it means the thread will be incomplete. As it was an important thread discussing the long term viability and options for CDS, keeping it all in one place seems very important to the well-being of CDS.


** ACTION REQUESTED: Please re-open the thread and move Brian Livingston's post into it. Take individual action as necessary against individuals who are posting inappropriately (ad hominem attacks, etc.) while endeavoring to keep the continuity of the conversation in one thread.

** Thank you for your kind attention.




Post script opinion/observation: In his initial admonishment, it appeared to me that Coop was limiting people what they could discuss in a way that was beyond the bounds of simple moderation and putting forth a scope that more reflected his opinion as a citizen versus moderator. To me, it felt like censorship (i.e., talk about this, in this way, and nothing else). I doubt that was what he intended, but that is the way it felt. His subsequent locking of the thread further cemented this feeling of censorship. If I felt it, others might too.

[Callipygian]

Yesterday I received the following petition

As this is a matter regarding forum moderation, it should not be treated as a petition, but a request for peer review of a moderator's decision.

Bagheera wrote

Preliminary note: The SC has two formats for filing complaints, neither which seems to fit this issue, so perhaps a third format needs to be developed for forum moderation complaints - or further clarity about how a complaint of this type fits into the two format given - or perhaps a less rigid model to accommodate the unexpected.

The Forum Moderation Guidelines and Rules provide a clear process for requesting review as follows:

Article 7: APPEAL

7.1: The decision of a moderator is subject to peer review if so desired and the citizen affected by a sanction may therefore lodge an appeal by notecard to any of the listed moderators.

...

7.3: Any citizen observing irregularities in the handling of the appeal procedure may ask that the matter be brought before the SC sitting in ordinary session, by written request to the Dean.

I do not see why any additional process would be needed. My comments are as a peer reviewer.

Bagheera continued:

** QUALIFICATION TO FILE:

I am a citizen affected by a forum moderator decision in that I cannot participate in the discussion that was happening in the locked down thread as defined by "Forum Moderation Guidelines (specific)" posted by Diderot Mirabeau, Jan 10, 2007.

The Forum Moderation Guidelines were revised and posted in July of 2014, however, I believe the section you are referring too had no changes. The title of that document is 'Forum Moderation Guidelines and Rules'

Bagheera continued:

...
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7749&start=15

BACKGROUND:

In that thread, Coop gave an initial admonishment here:

= = =

"Ok people, let's all take a deep cleansing breath and step back from the keyboards.

What we learned today as a repeated lesson is that without inflection or cues from the speaker irony and sarcasm are generally taken literally. Whatever the intention of the original post may have been, where we ended up was not where we need to be. I will not comment on intentions of the original post, nor on the tone of the replies. What I will say is maybe it would be a good day to get some fresh air and walk in a park.

Frank discussion of next steps, ideas on how to make CDS government smaller while keeping the long-established democratic underpinnings are good things to discuss. There is work to be done, so let's all keep our heads about us, shall we?

Coop, wearing his new shiny Moderator hat."

- Tues, Oct 14, 2016, 2:57pm

= = =

and a lock down of the thread with the statement:

= = =

"I think it is obvious this topic has run long enough."

- Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 6:28am

= = =

In a subsquent thread I started entitled "Please clarify - why was that discussion locked?" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7763) Coop stated: "The thread already had two complaints, it was starting to get Trolly so I shut it down. The key to putting out fires is to not wait until the flames go to the foundation."

5.5 of the Forum Moderation Guidelines and Rules states:

A moderator may decide to lock a thread if it has drifted from its original topic, contains posts that are in violation of these guidelines or are in other ways deemed to be detrimental to the purpose of the forums. The moderator will post a message in the thread giving justification for locking the thread.

The moderator expressed concerns about the way the topic was heading, then locked it when a further infraction of 5.5 occurred. While another moderator might have worded the reminder of forum rules or the explanation of the reason for locking the topic differently, the actions themselves are, to me, a reasonable moderation considering past instances of trolling and the flaming that can ensue.

Bagheera continued:

As both Han Held and I expressed in my thread, the problem in the first thread seemed to be caused by a single individual and shutting down the entire thread was an extreme measure that cut short a valuable discussion while actually validating the person who was acting out.

A 'person acting out' is validated as soon as any other poster responds instead of clicking the report button to flag the post for a moderator to review. It was not that long ago that there was uproar and demands to make the Forums safer and more civil and to moderate more strictly; part of that uproar because of topics that deteriorated into insults and namecalling - sometimes within a very short period of time- because a trolling post was made and numerous people chose to respond. Those responses then give the instigator a level of justification : "I was just replying to their responses'

Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't come to mind - so I have no issue with a moderator stepping in sooner rather than later, considering this history.

Bagheera continued:

The discussion was valuable enough that not only did I want to participate (which is why I am filing this petition) but Brian Livingston picked up the discussion again using the thread I started as a platform.

Brian's action might work in the short term, but in the long term, historically, it means the thread will be incomplete. As it was an important thread discussing the long term viability and options for CDS, keeping it all in one place seems very important to the well-being of CDS.

Any member can begin a new topic. Han, Bagheera and Brian all have the ability to do so. If some posts from a locked topic are crucial to, or the starting point of the new topic, a link can be included or the post can be easily quoted in its entirety. If it is felt that the original topic sits 'incomplete', a request to the moderator to add a link to the new discussion can be made.


Bagheera continued:

** ACTION REQUESTED: Please re-open the thread and move Brian Livingston's post into it. Take individual action as necessary against individuals who are posting inappropriately (ad hominem attacks, etc.) while endeavoring to keep the continuity of the conversation in one thread.
...

I support the moderators actions and would not recommend reopening the topic.



Bagheera added:

Post script opinion/observation: In his initial admonishment, it appeared to me that Coop was limiting people what they could discuss in a way that was beyond the bounds of simple moderation and putting forth a scope that more reflected his opinion as a citizen versus moderator. To me, it felt like censorship (i.e., talk about this, in this way, and nothing else). I doubt that was what he intended, but that is the way it felt. His subsequent locking of the thread further cemented this feeling of censorship. If I felt it, others might too.

One man's 'censorship' is clearly another man's 'proactive moderation' As stated above, any member of the Forums can start a new topic and continue the discussion, so there is no censorship involved. Differences in interpretation of what is written are always a possibility, as are differences in how different moderators will word reminders, warnings and lock downs. It might be beneficial to assume that the Forum moderators are interested in maintaining civility, not censorship, and interpret accordingly.