Google “forum moderation” and you’ll get thousands of high quality technologies, articles, blog posts, books, on the subject. It’s a complex topic. Complex as human nature and social organization itself.
Given Swaylock’s mission:
An online resource for high-quality information related to surfboard and surfcraft design, construction, manufacture & history. It continues to grow and evolve, attracting professionals, amateurs, and enthusiasts of all aspects of the surfing life.
How do you think Swaylock’s could or should be moderated?
The danger of actual membership moderation (e.g. voting people out) is that a minority of members can control who participates. If they don’t like somebody, unifying as a block, the minority can vote people out.
That has become the latest socio-political model (math ellipsis)…
During the period when members could downvote, every member had to have a minimum number of points to post (no exceptions/no apparent recourse). And everytime somebody received a downvote they “lost a point.”
I believe during that time also – the site had been revamped – all members lost some points. Some older members who had been inactive for awhile lost all points.
There was a group/clique of members who took it upon themselves to decide whether somebody was worthy of posting on Sways. Several new members who had few points were downvoted into non-existence. This deeply curbed new member participation. The downvote group worked together, with one member actually retro-actively downvoting old posts on old threads.
The net impact for those with few points was silencing them because they feared losing critical posting points. If somebody was downvoted to zero points, they had basically received a “downvote ban” by a membership minority. The group/clique responsible was fully aware of their newfound downvote power.
With respect, “downvote” is a feature that was retired years ago, before I got into moderating. I would even go so far as to say that to whatver extent it did cause posters to self-censor, that problem has already been solved. I.e., Swaylock being responsive to our needs. These days, if a new poster has problems with the 10-pt minimum to respond I just modify their status for them upon request.
I am aware that downvoting was discontinued and that moderators can currently override the point requirement. Things have improved significantly as a result.
However, comments were made in Paler’s current thread calling for considering the re-instatement of downvotes.
Mike commented about wanting a decentralized algorithm that was dependent on the wisdom and actions of the “crowd.”
My OP in this thread was to point out the potential dangers of crowd mediated regulation/moderation. There is the tyranny of the minority as well as the majority.
How about about having a pop up before to confirm your post that warns “there’s a possibility you could be heckled, don’t take it personally and don’t let it discourage you from posting”. This is a diverse group and there’s bound to be disagreement and a little conflict. Most of the shit talk i find entertaining.
LOL fishnsurfn well said. Its not all rainbows unicorns and cotton candy. Kinda like surfing, it can be a lot of fun - with an occasional wipeout, but mostly its sitting in the lineup with a surly crowd, some of whom will hoot for a good ride, and some who will burn you every wave they get a chance.
Anyway I guess you all kinda know how I would moderate a site like swaylocks, ha.
I’m gonna call my style “unapologetic moderating in moderation”,
I consider myself a master of the thankless job, please don’t thank me and take that away from me.
seems like its just me and gdaddy lately, and I’ve been awol a lot. If you think you’d be good at it, and are interested, shoot me a pm, I’ll mull it over. What I look for is someone with an even temper, tact, slow to anger, unafraid to be a little unpopular at times, and a love for the craft of of surfboard building.
“How do you think Swaylock’s could or should be moderated?”
Maybe you could be a bit more specific in your question? What are the current problems you’re trying to solve with moderation?
From my perspective there is very rarely a need for moderation besides spam posts. Less is more when it comes to moderation. I’ve rarely seen anything on Swaylock’s that I felt needed to be moderated.
Applying some sort of AI/Algorithm will likely create more work than it solves (except in the case of spambots). You’ll just spend the time moderating the moderation and not know exactly why/how it was applied in the first place.
The trick with Swaylocks really seems more about how to get re-engagement of the core audience.
“Community” building is starting to come back around after the social networks have really shown their disadvantages. So it’s almost to the point where it’s come full circle and forums will likely come back into fashion again after so many of them moved into FB Groups that have slowly died off and not returned to their forum roots.
In my opinion I don’t see a large need for moderation, maybe that’s just because it’s already getting done? I wouldn’t change much, the system doesn’t seem too broken currently.
Since I moderate or admin a number of social media groups on Facebook, the standard seems to be establishing some basic ground rules for posts and comments. One rule that is strictly enforced in most groups is no tolerance for ad hominems. If a person disagrees with a comment or idea they must stick to the topic at hand and not resort to personal insults.
Here on Sways, that seems to get by to some extent but the more extreme cases do wind up in the “sin bin”.
Much like FB groups, this forum is moderated by volunteers so expectations must be adjusted accordingly. I think the points minimum should be eliminated. It prevents new members from full participation which is no doubt discouraging. This would possibly add to the need for more moderator action in the event of off topic posts and spam, but if you want to have an open forum that comes with the territory.