The Observation Deck

Bryan Schwegler wrote:In the end, if the board chooses to not be moderated, I agree with Ken's idea of self-moderation.

However, I would like to see the board implement the tools to allow the members to do that such as the "ignore" function noted above. Most forum software has this ability, it would be great to be able to ignore the posters you feel you'd like to be able to ignore.

Or if you prefer, you can call it what it was called in the old Gravity NNTP reader..."The Bozo Bin".

Bryan

In the end the button would be the same as ignore.

As we know from the past I have an opinion on everything, including women's health! I simply ignore.

There is not a single person on this Deck that at times does not add to a discussion.

I am hoping we self moderate as it would seem we have done.

Gary can work magic with a simple Kumbayyah.

For that I am grateful.


.

If there is a moderator or board of moderators then I suggest that they not be allowed to post their opinions. If is not fair that someone can dominate the discussion and remove all contrary opinions

David Scott wrote:If there is a moderator or board of moderators then I suggest that they not be allowed to post their opinions. If is not fair that someone can dominate the discussion and remove all contrary opinions

David

I want this understood and you have the post it best goes with. I have never met anyone in my like like the advisory board members, when it comes to open dialog.

One of the first things given up by everyone was control.

For some it was easy for others it was tough. But now today there is not a better group dedicated to civic discourse maybe anywhere in the world.

One reason I rarely write for the paper is that it would be unfair to use the leverage to get my opinions out over the opinions of others. Ken Warren, Steve Davis and myself lead the group in stories not printed because of space.

Many take the Observer and the Advisory Board for granted. I do not, I know how much time each adviser spends, and cannot thank them enough. To dedicate time over your own projects to get another person's view out, even when they do not agree with ours, is special.

One thing we do not want to see is "Board Moderation" we prefer self moderation, but like everything else LAKEWOOD's MEDIA PROJECT does is we turn to you, he users and viewers to help with the decision.

David, as always thanks for weighing in.


.

Kenneth Warren wrote:At the meeting I spoke in opposition to the idea of a moderator for the the LO Deck.

Despite the agonies and animosities of the LO Deck, freedom, sharp tongues, clear ideas, common decency, real names, a commitment to truth still seem best to me.

In an open civic communication channel that aspires, as I believe the LO does, to build the community's capacity for common learning, understanding, judgment and commitment, the best moderation is self-moderation.

So I will propose an order of self-moderation rooted in a common commitment to understanding, along with consideration, fairness and respect for another person.

Such self-moderation involves speaking to issues, to differences in views, to differences in relationships, to differences in content.

Self-moderation avoids labeling other people and making personal attacks.

Self-moderation might possibly reduce the levels of communication directed to a person with the intention to annoy, disqualify, humiliate, infuriate, intimidate, mislead, offend, or vilify.

But you never know how messages are given and how messages are received.

Kenneth Warren

Bravo!! There are many times I dislike the tone, tenor, posture of posts - but it only serves to help inform my view of the poster. Free expression of ideas is the way we move the city forward, IMHO.

Diane Helbig wrote:Bravo!! There are many times I dislike the tone, tenor, posture of posts - but it only serves to help inform my view of the poster. Free expression of ideas is the way we move the city forward, IMHO.

Diane

After all it was Ken Warren at one of the first meetings, where he said. "In the end we are framed by our words and our actions."

Many of us had come out of a place of darkeness heavy editing, delition of things without the same views and battling the moderator using 6 different names to prove a point.

The light and fresh air has been good.

Don't you think?

Since I know Bryan has created an account on http://lakewoodcares.com and since I believe he has mentioned running a few phpbbs, he knows that in the latest version of phpbb3 (the software that runs the Deck), there is a "friends and foes" feature that allows a registered user the option of ignoring posters chosen as "foes".

We may upgrade to phpbb3, but at the moment, we're testing it on other sites to get a feeling for it. I'm not entirely convinced that I want to move the Deck to that release at this moment.

I sharply argue against censorship or various moderation schemes. Most are difficult to implement without a lot of real time problems. I do not want to see a group or a board with an official job of policing the Deck.

I prefer self-moderation. I understand that posters feel passionately about communicating. We sometimes reveal aspects of ourselves in those exchanges and I do believe there is some value there as well.

I think all contributors can help civility along by letting each other know when we believe posts have gone too far. This is how we can shape and communicate our Deck community standards.

JMO

Jim O'Bryan wrote: The light and fresh air has been good.

Don't you think?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do! Light and fresh air are always good for the spirit.

IMHO it isn't possible to 'moderate' objectively. let's all just be ourselves and enjoy (or suffer) the consequences. I learned a long time ago to think before I speak - because once said, it is a bell you can't unring.

Diane Helbig wrote: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do! Light and fresh air are always good for the spirit.

IMHO it isn't possible to 'moderate' objectively. let's all just be ourselves and enjoy (or suffer) the consequences. I learned a long time ago to think before I speak - because once said, it is a bell you can't unring.

Well said, Diane. I think that since the Deck requires real first and last names to post, that in and of itself requires some self-moderation, unless you want to make yourself look stupid. I've seen too many conversations quickly devolve into personal attacks on other boards - I've been the target of a couple myself.

Just say no to feeding the trolls!

dl meckes wrote:Since I know Bryan has created an account on http://lakewoodcares.com and since I believe he has mentioned running a few phpbbs, he knows that in the latest version of phpbb3 (the software that runs the Deck), there is a "friends and foes" feature that allows a registered user the option of ignoring posters chosen as "foes".

We may upgrade to phpbb3, but at the moment, we're testing it on other sites to get a feeling for it. I'm not entirely convinced that I want to move the Deck to that release at this moment.

I sharply argue against censorship or various moderation schemes. Most are difficult to implement without a lot of real time problems. I do not want to see a group or a board with an official job of policing the Deck.

I prefer self-moderation. I understand that posters feel passionately about communicating. We sometimes reveal aspects of ourselves in those exchanges and I do believe there is some value there as well.

I think all contributors can help civility along by letting each other know when we believe posts have gone too far. This is how we can shape and communicate our Deck community standards.

JMO

dl,
I've never actually moderated any phpbb forums so I wasn't completely sure of the features, but it's good to know that it exists. The large Mac forum that I currently moderate runs on vBulletin and used to run on IPB.

There we have several general forum rules (basically mutual respect and no illegal activity discussions) but we also practice self and community moderation. We do this through several tools:

1. A buddy list and ignore function. I would imagine this is similar to the friends and foe function of phpbb. I think this would be useful here.

2. A user reputation system. The forum members themselves can vote positive or negative on posts and over time a user's reputation will grow or shrink depending on their contribution to the community. This has been wildly popular and successful, but I'm not so sure it would be appropriate here.

To be honest though, I think some in this thread are overreacting by claiming moderation = censorship. It doesn't and they are distinctly unique from each other. I agree that self-moderation is preferable, but you can't expect the community to effectively moderate themselves without proper tools to do so.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:There we have several general forum rules (basically mutual respect and no illegal activity discussions) but we also practice self and community moderation. We do this through several tools:

1. A buddy list and ignore function. I would imagine this is similar to the friends and foe function of phpbb. I think this would be useful here.

2. A user reputation system. The forum members themselves can vote positive or negative on posts and over time a user's reputation will grow or shrink depending on their contribution to the community. This has been wildly popular and successful, but I'm not so sure it would be appropriate here.

To be honest though, I think some in this thread are overreacting by claiming moderation = censorship. It doesn't and they are distinctly unique from each other.

1. Yes, buddy and ignore are probably the same - and I like that terminology better than friend or foe. (Note to self, get busy and change every instance of that in the language file!)

2. I don't believe most online voting is a real measure of anything.

3. I think moderation can equal censorship depending on how it is implemented. I do believe in self and community moderation. There's nothing wrong with our good neighbors speaking up.

And thanks, Bryan for the clarification about your online forum experiences. I'll have to look into vBulletin and see how it runs!

dl meckes wrote: And thanks, Bryan for the clarification about your online forum experiences. I'll have to look into vBulletin and see how it runs!

No problem. Overall I do like vBulletin and IPB better than phpbb, they're much more professional, fleshed-out products. Of course that's also considering the fact they cost money to license and are commercial products as opposed to phpbb which is open source.

Another open source alternative I like quite a bit is PunBB. It's tremendously easy to skin and has a very simple, clean interface.

And I also agree that good neighbors speaking up is a positive experience. However, sometimes neighbors can be beligerent or some can purposely seek out opportunities to harass others. Eventually allowing the community to "ignore" those it feels fall into those categories I think would be a positive step towards true community moderation.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Eventually allowing the community to "ignore" those it feels fall into those categories I think would be a positive step towards true community moderation.

That's why I love usenet newsreaders and have a pretty hefty killfile.

dl meckes wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:Eventually allowing the community to "ignore" those it feels fall into those categories I think would be a positive step towards true community moderation.

That's why I love usenet newsreaders and have a pretty hefty killfile.

Haha, yes, it's a great feature. I have to be honest though that for all my championing of an ignore feature here, I've only ever used that option 2 times in all my years on the internet.

But I do know others would find the feature invaluable.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I have to be honest though that for all my championing of an ignore feature here, I've only ever used that option 2 times in all my years on the internet.

But I do know others would find the feature invaluable.

I killfile people right and left (on usenet). I do appreciate the option to have a "cooling off" period where I can just killfile someone for a week or so.

One of my favorite usenet hangouts attracts a lot of seriously deranged people, so not having that option - like when I'm forced to use Google Groups - reminds me of the benefit.

So of the members of the Advisory Board, JOB, DL, and Ken have both stated here that they do not favor moderation.

Would the remaining members care to state where they stand and the rationale behind their position? If they favor moderation, what do they hope to accomplish with its use? What difference do they see if moderation is implemented? Why do they think its needed? Why now?