Rules of Engagement on Deck

[Shawn Juris]

In the interest of self-moderation, how about a member driven scoring system. It's already been established that there is just one id per person. So in the case that Dee mentioned if two individuals were being childish the other members could mark them for it. I've seen other sites use a credibility indicator. Surely, there is some method to rating our peers that goes beyond just how many posts we've done.

[sharon kinsella]

Who are your peers?

Sounds subjective to tell you the truth.

[Grace O'Malley]

They use a rating system on the Buzz and it doesn't do a thing.

What does it accomplish? Let;s face it, ranking posts or posters also can degenerate into a popularity contest with little regard for the actual content of the post.

[Lynn Farris]

99.9% of the time I am totally against censorship. I enjoy spirited debate.

But I think threats of physical violence against a poster should be deleted - and both people notified. There may be other totally inappropriate postings - I'm thinking ala Brother Petty who tried to get on. I would trust DL or any of the other moderators to do what was appropriate.

I agree with fixing links or shrinking pictures - those aspects of moderation are totally acceptable.

I also like the idea of an ignore button.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssqBjaTzOU

[Jim O'Bryan]

I'm thinking ala Brother Petty who tried to get on. I would trust DL or any of the other moderators to do what was appropriate.

Lynn

I would like to jump in here, and try to once again make a point. The advisory board does not sit up on Mt. Olympus and think we are gods. We see ourselves as users of this forum nothing more.

Not one person on the AB called for censorship, or even moderation. It was a topic many people had asked about so we talked. It is a bridge we needed to cross before the changes being made.

The most simple concept on this: One person, one name, one vote, all equal.

In the end, we are all neighbors.


.

[Bryan Schwegler]

I still think many are going overboard here. I think there's a complete difference between censorship and deleting opposing viewpoints (ala the Buzz) and simple moderation of personal attacks, threats of violence, etc.

It's pretty easy to know a personal attack from a disagreement in viewpoint.

The best solution if the board doesn't want official moderation is the ignore option for the posters.

[Brian Pedaci]

Nobody wants there to be policing of content.

What is needed, though, is a voice of authority to step in when a conversation diverges from the issues of our city and turns personal. Someone to clear the air and tell the pugilists to return to their corner and cool off.

Self-moderation and community-moderation are all well and good, but my telling someone to chill out and take a conversation to PM is entirely different than a moderator's warning, backed up by a ban on posting for a set time (24 hours, 3 days, etc?) if the warning is not heeded. In other words, if someone's either incensed enough or lacking in social skills enough to get to the point where intervention is required, they're not going to respect the polite requests of their peers to conduct a respectful conversation.

[Kenneth Warren]

Jim:

In the meeting, after discussing the effects of personal attacks, the aftermath of the political season on participation levels and how we might attempt to "tone up" the quality of conversation and community commitment to fair and considerate treatment of one another on the LO Deck and become more relevant, Dan Ott stated that he believed from his experience and observation that a board without a moderator will eventually die and that the LO Deck should be moderated.

I asked him if the boards referenced used real names, and he said they did not. At that point I stated that I did not believe his hypothesis applied to the LO Deck and that I opposed moderation but felt a community effort to raise the awareness and commitment levels to self-moderation could be productive of a re-energized and more relevant project.

And that's pretty much where we left the matter, as I recall, with Heidi saying something to the effect that she would think further about general guidelines.

Now your post opened up a productive discussion at the outset of the New Year.

Our communication is our culture. Our communication reflects the systems that mark, brand and even scar us, landing us in social locations where we will inevitably judge what is said and done in other communications and cultures by the standards of our own.

I may be wrong but I believe LO Deck can be more than a community bulletin board. As the communication, deliberation and action of the total LO project joins the civic alignment documented and celebrated in the paper, I see Lakewood raising the bar for the community-wide achievement of heightened meaning, enriched experience, deeper understanding, reasoned judgments and productive commitments.

That's why, I believe, the capacity of participants on the LO Deck to overcome the passions that make for misery in communication with trust, self-respect, concern for others, courage and forgiveness will be key to the success of the project and the city in the next year.

There is world-class potential here. Let's get it uncorked.

Kenneth Warren

[Jim O'Bryan]

Nobody wants there to be policing of content.

What is needed, though, is a voice of authority to step in when a conversation diverges from the issues of our city and turns personal. Someone to clear the air and tell the pugilists to return to their corner and cool off.

Self-moderation and community-moderation are all well and good, but my telling someone to chill out and take a conversation to PM is entirely different than a moderator's warning, backed up by a ban on posting for a set time (24 hours, 3 days, etc?) if the warning is not heeded. In other words, if someone's either incensed enough or lacking in social skills enough to get to the point where intervention is required, they're not going to respect the polite requests of their peers to conduct a respectful conversation.

Brian

I think one of the things we are desperately trying to do is let everyone know, in this version of "word jazz" we shoul all be able to express concerns without calling in the parents.

I like the idea of PMing someone and asking them why the personal attack? We all have the ability to edit our posts.

Why on earth should my opinion hold any more water than yours?

In the end, we are residents and we are Observers, and here we are equal.


.

[Bill Grulich]

PLEASE READ!!!

Here's an interesting consideration about speech.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Bill Grulich

[Jim O'Bryan]

That's why, I believe, the capacity of participants on the LO Deck to overcome the passions that make for misery in communication with trust, self-respect, concern for others, courage and forgiveness will be key to the success of the project and the city in the next year.

There is world-class potential here. Let's get it uncorked.

Kenneth Warren

Ken

While I remember other aspects of that meeting, I do remember Dan's comment, and Heidi's comments. However Dan's comments go back to forums allowing handles.

We did have serious concerns as did others about the Deck being negative, hateful, vengeful and hurting more than helping the city.

However, as we sat at that meeting we were also aware that the board was self moderating to the middle yet again. As mentioned earlier we have see the emotional waves form crests and fall. This was nothing new. What was troubling was the division that has not been seen in Lakewood in years. I would have to say that was the most disturbing trend, were ripples from outside and amplified by the Deck.

Ken, we both know that the Observation Deck is one very small part of this project. Visible, but only one small part. The Lakewood Observer is not a forum, it is a tool for residents, the city and civic groups to use. Perhaps one of the greatest things we bring to this project was convincing Lakewood businesses that care about Lakewood to sign on long term to fund the project. To fund the discussion, the discourse no matter where it heads.

.

[Amy Bennett]

I find it interesting that this discussion is centered around the possibility of moderation impacting free speech when I find myself rarely posting because I fear being attacked and/or confronted in a way that I see as personal and hurtful. My point is that there is no way to count how many of these kinds of cases there are because we choose not to post.

Just a thought. Please don't attack.

[Diane Helbig]

This thread, it seems, is what the Deck is all about - the free and open exchange of ideas, beliefs, thoughts, views.

Bravo!

[Grace O'Malley]

Amy makes an interesting comment.

I cannot recall what she's posted here before, or what the response was, but she felt uncomfortable. Was she actually attacked, did she worry that she MIGHT be attacked, or did she FEEL she was attacked?

These are important distinctions. Certainly, there may be a case where the poster is confronted. But, there are equally likely occurrences.

For example, some posters, or potential posters, may be expecting something that won't happen. Others may be particularly sensitive to comments that, because they are not made in person with the attendant body language and tone, appear to be stronger or more forceful than the respondent really intended.

A moderator may just focus on content, but I guarantee you they will be forced to look at intent. I've seen moderated boards where arguments lasted longer than the original thread over who really meant what when they posted. A moderator cannot be a mind reader and yet if a member complains that they FEEL the post was directed at them in a negative way, who's to say who is right or wrong? I've seen very innocuous-looking posts that really were veiled insults that were left standing because to a casual reader there was nothing "mean" in the post while conversely, an innocent post was deleted because some paranoid person complained.

Again, its a can of worms and since I don't see any real problems here. why mess with what seems to work so well?