On regulating a forum
 

To better appreciate the job the moderators are doing in the Coat Room, I asked myself whether I could write down a simple set of rules for the maintenance of decorum and legitimacy in the contents of the threads of the Coat Room, and I couldn't do it. This is an invitation for others to try.

The Coat Room might be less troublesome to the moderators if there were clear-cut rules about the structure of the political/religious borders they are attempting to maintain. Since defining those is obviously not trivial, each of them use their own standards under Rob's watchful eye. With few exceptions, sometimes quite unintentional, these borders are not often crossed - we are a fairly self-regulating, well-behaved crowd.

The downside of formal "regulations", however, is the likelihood of angry "lawyering" of every call and potentially lengthy debates about those calls - not all that different from the occasional spasms we see here when a moderator makes a seemingly arbitrary call. Any set of regulations, no matter how ingeniously constructed, is susceptible to interpretation, and interpretations are value judgments that can be rather personal whether the rules are well-written or not. What offends one might be quite entertaining to another; what is an offhand comment to one is another's poison.

So, second-guessing a bit, what are the general "rules" here and what are their foundations? For starters, although the members are clearly multinational and at least one of the moderators is not in the United States, the forum "lives" in the United States of America and is subject to its laws and prevailing attitudes about what constitutes "good taste". For Americans, poking serious fun of their institutions is OK if done by a late-night show host, but is not appreciated when joined by foreigners - not really different from the way most of us treat members of our own families - it's OK if I criticize them, but I'm offended if you do. The average American is not unique in this regard, either. Chauvinism is a very common condition.

Next, obviously, a technical forum of any kind will want to maintain a certain "decorum", i.e. no chat about sex acts, no personal insults, no flames, no allusions to sexual preferences, no discussion (in any form) of religion, no overt political statements judging the performance of incumbent politicians and their institutions, no targeting of specific companies (though discussion about industries and their representative bodies seems OK) except to compare products. Equally obvious, the forum must remain comfortably within the law: certainly no recipes for circumventing the laws of the land and no violation of copyright provisions for any posted material will go unscathed. What's sought is just orderly debate about topics "technical", topics of general interest to this community with a technical "hook", or tasteful banter that doesn't cross the borders outlined above, but that will be of interest to this particular community.

Any takers? It's not easy.

http://forums.macosxhints.com/faq.ph...#faq_rule_main
http://forums.macosxhints.com/faq.ph...censor_explain

What more do you need?

I don't *need* any more. I was curious about how complex it could be to "regulate" or "moderate" good "nettiquette". Turns out given thought, that it's like trying to define pornography - to a large extent it's in the eye of the beholder. Another example is Eudora's "Mood Watch", a failed attempt to warn you of foul language in your emails which I leave turned off because its errors are ridiculous.

Not only is it not easy, the even more interesting question might be to what extent precise rules would do any good.

The Coat room is there to allow all sort of laid-back discussion and social interaction. I can't even remember the last ad hominem attack and any upcoming problems are usually "self-moderated" faster than a moderator would feel compelled to step up.

There has been a rather interesting thread some time ago
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=54589
and the resulting debate among the moderators as much as the complete absence of any real problems encourages me to believe that we might very well not need any rigid rules as long as the community as a whole has enough integrity to refrain from doing stupid things.

I gauge a forum's moderators on their discretion and responsiveness.

Discretion not to censor someone's post merely because it states an unpopular position, provokes heated replies or pushes the boundaries of the TOS.

Responsiveness to complaints with a quick warning to participants who are crossing the boundaries of the TOS and quick with a reasoned explanation when they seem to have acted without provocation.

Given those criteria, this forum is probably just a tiny little bit over-moderated.

But some forums that I contribute to are completely un-moderated and I find that often I'd rather hang out here just to get away from the insanity.

A little over-modded ain't bad.

As I was reading NovaScotian's original post it made me think again that we consider a situation differently if we are spectators or participants in an issue than we do if we are in a position of authority with respect to that issue. Put another way, we might very well have a clear-cut gut feeling about the validity of a decision, whereas if we had been in the position to make that decision we might think quite differently about it (and see some shades of gray). We use a different meter-stick*.

I recently served for two years as the representative of a body of 400 to our central administration and Board. As a regular member of that body, I had been incensed on many occasions by the actions of the Board. As the representative of that body, I was still incensed by several of the Board's actions, but my responses were more conservate, measured, and constructive than they had been as a typical member of that body. The results of my speech and conduct as the body's representative had more effect, and feeling the weight of that responsibilty caused me to consider my actions more carefully. It is probably much the same with the moderators here.

*Question to those outside the US: What is the equivalent statement where you live? I would have said '...use a different yard-stick.' but elected to use metric units (and, yes, it should have been a 0.9144 meter stick).

Those of us who were on the ground floor of starting this forum had also participated in other "lounge" type discussion forums on various boards and had seen how dysfunctional communication could become when topics pertaining to religion and politics were discussed without adequate moderation. The only rule that seemed to be operative on some of those boards was that flaming was not allowed, and even that was interpreted very loosely. We wanted nothing of the sort here, and decided early on that discussions of religion and politics were out of bounds, largely because these seem the most contentious. Shortly after the Iraq war began, a few such incendiary discussions cropped up, and we stomped them down. Since then, there's been but a trickle, and the community does a good job self-moderating, for the most part. These aren't the only areas we want to avoid, of course. Nova mentions others that pertain to decorum, and we've made it clear, too, that we aren't about helping people break the law in any way.

It would be impossible to spell out every instance of what's off-base, of course, but it probably would be helpful to be more specific about what we mean when we say no "discussing politics or religion." I've interpreted this in the spirit of our original intent, which was to prevent contentious discussions from developing. When someone insults a politician, it's not exactly discussing politics, but it's the sort of thing that's likely to lead to a heated rebuttal, or else more chiming in from those with similar views. Same goes for insulting remarks directed toward nations, races, political parties, etc. A spirited discussion of policies would be fine with me, but my experience with Internet forums has been that this is really difficult to pull off.

Anyway, those are a few rambling remarks. I appreciate your starting the topic, Nova. Maybe you all could come up with a set of recommendations for us on how we might hold discussions in the Coat Room. It would be helpful.

I am an admin on several boards and mod on others where any manner of discussion is allowed, including religion and politics, and it hasn't resulted in degradation on the serious parts of the forum. The "chat" section is just that, and if people don't like it, they can peruse the discussion/tech sections only. Each of these has varying degrees of what is allowed from anything goes to restrictions on the more glaring problems like threats, personal name-calling, etc.

Certainly I think there's a lot of room between "anything goes" and the current policy where people often feel they can't participate in a discussion without admonishment.

I think you're exactly right. The sole purpose of rules should be to make sure that a high-quality debate can take place.

Trying to come up with a list of topics deemed to be off limits because if by chance they were to be written about, that might perhaps, given the right phase of the moon, end up in being an unfriendly discussion, is an extremely complicated, rather controversial and completely superfluous approach.

Instead, stepping in whenever the -pretty strong- self-moderation of the forum has failed to deal with a real problem should be all it takes.

It is not the topic, but the quality of contributions from forum participants interested in an honest discussion that make all the difference. And it is my impression that the tone in the Coat Room is a lot more polite and distinguished than in quite some parliamentary debates...

It seems to me that some measured debate might be doable in this forum. And the way I see it, if you don't like the topic, or find it particularly insulting or distasteful, just avoid that particular thread.

If I was going to make any rules regarding debates in a forum it would certainly contain these two.

One: No ad hominum attacks (attacking the person rather than the argument), period. No exceptions.

Two: No hijacking a thread. You cannont alter or change the original point of debate. Expand perhaps, but not change.

I think I'd also make a proabition against swearing at all, I know it sounds arcaic but it can really help.

For my tastes, the rules and the degree of debate already afforded here are sufficient, and the moderation by those rules is necessary. When it comes to religious and political threads (and a few others), I think that 'self-moderation' is as attainable as a perpetual motion machine.

I think that different or additional rules might initially help because for awhile most people would know the rules; eventually however, most people would be as unaware of the new rules as they are of the current ones. In my opinion, about the only thing any moderator could do to keep such discussions from spiralling ever downward until they are closed is to limit the number of posts per participant to one post per 24 hours. That would give participants a cooling off period. If it is an interesting discussion worthy of going forward, it will not die. The one-post-per-participant-per 24 hour period would more likely increase the quality of the individual posts than it would drag the discussion to its death. The forum software is probably not capable of limiting posting rate on a per-thread basis, however.

I used to post here an average of more than 1 post a day. However, about 6 months ago I stopped cold, except to drop in and wish Hayne well on his 15,000th post. The reason for my departure was the bad taste left in my mouth after being involved in yet another 'discussion' thread about piracy or living up to the license agreement [which was mercifully closed (a heartfelt thank-you to the moderators)].

While such threads and many involving religion and politics arguably give their readers and participants a more informed point of view in the early going, I think they have a tendency to move in a disorderly direction that
(1) tends to get many people angry;
(2) tends to fix and harden (rather than alter or inform) people's point of view;
(3) tends to fracture a group as members of it align with others of like polarity.

It would be interesting to conduct a poll of the following nature:
After reading through or being involved in a discussion thread which was eventually closed:
(a) My point of view was changed by the discussion in the thread;
(b) My point of view was somewhat altered by the discussion in the thread;
(c) My point of view was unchanged by the discussion in the thread.

In that thread you made quite some thoughtful contributions. If the way that extremely weird discussion went was a traumatic experience to you, that's regrettable.

From your posts I see that you have an academic background and I'm troubled that you would want to severely restrict the rules. How about having a fair debate where the merit of the argument prevails instead ? Nothing prevents you from exposing the intellectually dishonest argument of another participant and you'd want to be able to respond and argue exactly as often as necessary on any subject of interest. You're also free to drop it if you feel you made your point and other posters either don't get it or go off in other directions.

Especially controversial questions need to be debated, even more so since spin-doctoring and massive lobbying call for increased awareness of "regular citizens" to avoid being misled by propaganda to adopt opinions far away from their well understood best interest. DRM and software patents are just two examples of very important issues widely misunderstood due to massive brain-washing efforts by the content mafia/patent trolls.

I have definitely learned about aspects previously unknown to me more than once and have likewise seen posters question their previous point of view after reading a thread or related material referenced in the debate. Even if it does not occur with every participant in every thread, that's an extremely important result in my opinion and anything to restrict the liberty of discussion in the Coat Room beyond the strict necessary to keep it civil is a Bad Idea.

Thank you, voldenuit, for the kind words.

I wouldn't say that I was traumatized. Angered and annoyed is more like it.

I don't believe I made any request to severely restrict the rules. I think things work pretty well the way they are, so I just placed my vote (as others have done) in the spirit of freedom of expression. My comment about time limits before reposting was essentially rhetorical. While I think it would improve the tone of the threads to have people wait before posting, I think it would be impossible to implement properly. The bad replies come because it is possible to post back immediately while still strongly angered. Thus, the time clock would be meaningless unless the clock starts after they've read the post they're responding to, and there would be no way to determine that.

I hear what you say, and it almost speaks to me...the problem is, the best argument doesn't always win in these kinds of 'discussions'. Sometimes (religion, for instance) the best argument is ill-defined. In many of these discussions, shades of gray abound. These issues are often not a part of the Ideal Plane. One that you mention, DRM, is one I'd be very interested in reading/participating in, and seeing the shades of gray fleshed out. I think that it could be conducted fairly calmly too, until it started moving too close to Apple (back to religion again). :)

Oh well. This place used to (and still does, to some degree) feel a little like a favorite bar or hangout to me. I guess I don't want to lose that, and the rancor of the discussions damages that. Sure, I could walk away from such a discussion; I have done so and do so more as time goes by. But if the issue did not mean something to me then I wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. So it is not so easy as all that.

I agree, people should be able to express their opinions and discuss what they want. But then, I also believe that that people ought to be able to have sex too. There is a proper time and place for everything, and whether or not this forum is a proper place is Rob's (and his moderators') business to decide.

A truly excellent analogy, macmath. That would be my view as well - a favorite hangout populated by folks with similar interests to mine, but occasionally differing views.

One is typically quite cautious in those circumstances not to engage in discussions about religion, but politics … that's another matter. Some of my best friends are liberals or socialists, and I'm rather conservative, preferring minimalist government. We are moderate folk, however, so we never, ever, resort to ad hominum attacks and thus maintain our friendship.

I have gained a lot of perspective from people on this forum, and I have changed my point of view on several things based on discussions here, both public and private.

Don't be afraid to speak your mind, now, voldenuit. ;)

I think macmath nailed some of the same concerns I've had, and I don't think you have to read too many "lounge" forums to see that things get out of hand more when religion and politics are discussed than (e.g.) regarding which hardware store is better for purchasing tools. We've been going on "probabilities," and if I were a betting man, I'd bet that our objective of preventing flamefests has been greatly enhanced by seriously curtainilg discussions on those two topics. As I noted in a previous post, I enjoy discussing these topics and do so on my own forum, but my experience has been that in a larger, somewhat unregulated setting, things can deteriorate quickly. I won't be hanging around here if that's allowed to happen.

Board self-moderation . . . ? It's been much better here than on most boards, but nothing you can depend on. Sometimes one or another the "regulars" have crossed the line, imo, and you need a moderator to step in when that happens.

It's a different board than when we first started off, however. Maybe the kinds of concerns we had back then don't apply with the kind of community that's developed, here. Ultimately, it's Rob's call, as we're all guests in his "house." To my understanding, the usual principles of public free speech don't apply to private property, so it's whatever he finds acceptable and not that matters most.

Self-regulation isn't reliable, but community regulation is. Even on the "almost everything goes" forums I run, the community does a good job of taking care of people that go way over the line.

By "board self moderation," I meant community moderation. Several of the forums I've been on that relied on this principle ended up falling apart. That's not even counting the numbers of people who didn't get involved in the first place when they read some of the kinds of exchanges going on.

Let's consider this: what would happen if we said that any topics were open for discussion provided the exhanges be respectful? How many threads do you think we'd have on political issues? Religious topics? Do you see a possible danger of religious and political topics becoming the majority of discussions? I think that's what would happen, as it seems to be the case in most lounge type forums. Would that be a good thing?

I think we'd even see threads pursuing the impact of religious beliefs on politics and vice-versa, and I'd stop visiting. I don't mind politics when the topic is something like control of the internet, for example, which can inordinately influence issues like network neutrality, but I don't want to read about animal rights, abortion, "intelligent design" vs. evolution, etc. in this venue - I come here to read about "techie" issues.

Isn't this the reason for a "Coat Room"? An area to hang your baggage and outside clothes. The majority of the forums is nicely segregated into general subjects.

The way I see it now is the Coat Room is a place where people can post non-offensive topics which may or may not relate to computers and technology.

I do not see this place ever becoming a haven for political ranting.

Having non-computer topics kept in the Coat Room is an easy way for those who don't wish to read any "offensive" material. The rest of this great forum will remain OS X oriented and untainted.

I often see topics I'm not interested in...and I don't click on them. Very simple way to save myself from any trauma or negative emotions.

The Coat Room should be like a break from work. Not on the clock. Not under any regulations. It will turn into whatever the majority makes it. Will it become a safe haven for child predators, political pontificators and smut peddlers? I really doubt it will.

Oh well. When it comes down to it, this forum is not public...and not a democracy.