Rules of Engagement on Deck

[dl meckes]

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?

Of course we each must speak for ourselves, but I think each of us has discussed the benefits and detriments of moderation and we haven't come up with any formal implementation that would be satisfactory.

What bothered me was the degree of negativity I was feeling on the Deck. (Not that I expect or wish for all sweetness and light, mind you.)

And I do support peer-to-peer moderation, but I'm uncomfortable with a top-down approach and because of that, I think the peers should drive decisions. The Deck doesn't belong to a few people.

[Jim O'Bryan]

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?

Grace

The entire board does not favor moderation. However it was a very heated discussion as, many users had asked for it. Remarks, suggestions, ideas and thoughts do not fall on deaf ears. You know that.

The advisory board has lived this project for almost 5 years. It has consumed amazing amounts of our time banks. We believe as we did from day on that this project can move the city forward at an incredible pace, which it has when allowed to.

My point, is if the board said no moderation, and the users still cried out for it, we would revisit it. The project is bigger than the board.

FWIW

.

[Gary Rice]

Sigh...

If only more people would agree with me and my banjo, there would be no need to think about moderation...

[Grace O'Malley]

So a few members asked for moderation, is that right? And the board kindly discusses it. Are you obliged to do more?

What about those of us who do not want the board moderated?

How many users requested moderation? Is this a case of a few "squeaky wheels" wanting to impose their views on the rest of us?

Should we have a vote, then, and let the majority view prevail?

[Jim O'Bryan]

So a few members asked for moderation, is that right? And the board kindly discusses it. Are you obliged to do more?

What about those of us who do not want the board moderated?

How many users requested moderation? Is this a case of a few "squeaky wheels" wanting to impose their views on the rest of us?

Should we have a vote, then, and let the majority view prevail?

Grace

You tell me. Do you want a vote?

It was more than a few, and it was also the feel of negativity that many of us was tearing the project down. I was to blame as well as anyone. Three times people have asked me to be removed as publisher.

I see it as waves in an ocean. There are some very interesting trends I have noticed in all forums. Energy builds, arguments build then they explode and go quiet.

Always reminds me of the "Chocolate Schnapps" episode of South Park. I am as guilty as anyone, you can hold your own on this as well. We are passionate about Lakewood, and where it is going and how it has been handled. We all believe we are right, then we get relaxed with participants and then it gets "family ugly."

I will gladly use Shawn Juris and I as examples. I hope Shawn does not mind. I know his hot buttons and he knows mine. This makes all Shawn and Jim "discussions" a possibility of mutual assured destruction in public. We both have our fingers on the button and we both tend to be trigger happy when dealing with each other. The truth is, we both want what is best for Lakewood, and willing to go the limit to discuss it.

However, we both and you play to a regional and national stage. This puts pressure on all of us. Lakewood needs and wants engaged residents, and businesses. It still bothers me that Lakewood politicians would take to a regional platform to talk about crime out of control in Lakewood. It also bothers me when at a meeting far from Lakewood, a person asks me why I do not want Shawn to buy pants in Lakewood.

The Lakewood Observer, was never created to put shooters on the cover. It was created to put residents on the cover. It was created to amplify the good deeds and the positives. To build the brand and define the brand. To be a knowledge base for city officials and residents, while helping businesses, and non-profits connect with the people. It was never about the news, it was never about the politics.

The one thing that has always amazed every other media source and blog in the free world was us using "real names." That we had elevated civic discourse to a new level.

So the question is - How do we retain those ideals and values, how do we move the city forward, how do we continue to grow and make a difference? How do we bring more into the discussion, how do we keep Observers happy?

So do we vote, or do we continue with self moderation and gentle reminders.

I think the entire board prefers the self moderation, but how about you?

Every suggestion made, every comment made is digested.

Sorry as usual like in your backyard, I took a quick question and turned it into a two beer answer.

.

[dl meckes]

So a few members asked for moderation, is that right? And the board kindly discusses it. Are you obliged to do more?

What about those of us who do not want the board moderated?

How many users requested moderation? Is this a case of a few "squeaky wheels" wanting to impose their views on the rest of us?

Should we have a vote, then, and let the majority view prevail?

The advisors need to visit the issue for a variety of reasons. We have been asked about moderation by more people than Deck users, including groups that are interested in starting their own Observers (and have lots of questions for us).

Everyone has been surprised that we have no formal moderation.

So far, the best "policy" we've come up with involves banjos and the singing of Kumbaya...

It's important to hear all sides of the issue, so it's a discussion point, rather than an action plan. Asking people about the best way to handle different issues may give us workable ideas or it may simply encourage further discussion.

After reading the posts on the Deck, people get a better idea of what it means for posters to own their words by using real names, they get a better sense of the passion that sometimes consumes posters, and they better understand why formal moderation isn't an easy solution.

Defining "good neighbor standards" is difficult. It's kind of like the old definition of pornography - "I know it when I see it". That can be very arbitrary and unfair. That's why, IMO, it's better if Deck posters speak up if something bothers them. At least at that point, we can discuss why we are bothered.

It's worthwhile to discuss what works and what doesn't work, to discuss concerns, etc. and open the discussion to all.

I think we can learn from hearing the concerns of our good neighbors.

[sharon kinsella]

So, how are we "supposed" to react when people make statements that our hurtful to groups of residents?

This, at least for me, is what pushes buttons. Blanket statements that define residents who are not the "norm".

Not everyone who lives in Lakewood is on the boards. Many people I know won't go on because they feel that they aren't "smart" enough or "educated" enough to have their points of view be accepted. Some have told me that they don't even understand what some people are saying in their posts.

Are we supposed to behave as if we don't have problems here like the rest of society in order to build the "brand"? Shouldn't the "brand" be that Lakewood is a welcoming community and is working hard at diversity?

This venue is not a welcoming place for everyone. Just like many organizations don't feel like a welcoming place to all.

Would "these "people" have us act like we have no bigger issues in Lakewood than leaf pickup and the dog park, which are important to the city, while other topics aren't?

Should their be a hidden place where only the opposing views are spoken in familiar language while posing as pollyanna on here?

Wouldn't it be nice if part of building the brand truly embraced all residents and showed that Lakewood was brave enough and strong enough to break down the walls?

I sincerely believe that the Observer crew, advisory board and founders want to have a truly participatory vehicle that will create a real and vibrant Lakewood. In order to carry that vision forward maybe there are other issues to be addressed.

[Grace O'Malley]

The most active areas of the Deck are those that are the most "combative." if you can call it that.

For posters who want only "sweetness and light." there are areas on this site to discuss cooking, sustainability or whatever else is of interest to them. Again, however, these areas do not seem to attract as many participants as the Lakewood forum or the Election forum. Wonder why?

The the more active forums here are pretty tame compared to other web forums, and surprisingly so, in spite of no moderation! In fact, I'd say there already IS a high level of self-moderation and "community controls" in place that keep the forum from becoming a free-for-all.

Moderation itself is often a source of controversy and animosity. I belong to boards where almost half of the conversation consists of complaints about the moderation and attacks on the moderator. Moderation of a poster who who holds views opposite yours is a lot easier to condone than having yourself or a like-minded poster moderated.

I'd think long and hard before I opened that can of worms. As they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[dl meckes]

I'd think long and hard before I opened that can of worms. As they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I agree, but I also like looking at worms.

[Shawn Juris]

What if those arguing a topic could simply chose to debate the topic. Debate has a moderator and rules. So if two or more people escalate a post from opinion to arguing they can chose to actually debate it. This wouldn't censor their views but it would add structure that often is missing in this progressions that unravel.
I would think that this would take a separate area and the involvement of a moderator. The rules and terms would be clearly defined and they can have their back and forth in public view. Might set up an interesting venue come the next round of elections.

[Grace O'Malley]

OK then, here's some worms.

How will the moderator "moderate" the following examples:

Poster makes even-toned post that implies that all Sec 8 recipients are lazy. This is his/her sincerely held belief.

Poster expresses their concern that certain peoples are moving into Lakewood and ruining it.

Poster points out another poster's seemingly contradictory posts and cites a previous post by that person. Subject poster objects and claims they are being "attacked."

Poster is offended that another poster claims Sec 8 recipients are cause of increased crime and responds in an emotional manner. First poster complains they are being attacked.

Poster calls presidential candidate an "idiot." Supporter of that candidate objects and asks for post to be moderated.



Again, having participated in moderated boards, all I have seen is the board and the moderator burdened with "he said, she said" and the complaints and counter-complaints for moderation degenerate into kindergarten-like antics. I'd hate to see that happen here.

And most importantly, who has the TIME to moderate this board? Do you realize how many people you would need and how many hours it would take?

[Dee Martinez]

Speaking only for myself, any one of your examples would be OK.
But what if
Poster A says all Section 8 people are lazy.
Poster B says, "I would expect you to say that because your a moron"
Poster A replies "No. YOU are."
Poster B says. "No. YOU"

That HAS kind of happened here.
In any case boards have their own flavors nuance and personalities. I am on one or two that are like the House of Lords and others that are like Animal House. I choose to what level I participate/support. Choice is everything!

I DO have a question, though. What IS the structure of the Observer? Is it a 501. (c) 3? A not-for-profit? A true for-profit cpmmercial enterprise? I know the claims are that no one "owns" the Observer but whose house gets a lien slapped on it if the printer or Ohio Tax Dept isnt paid?

[Grace O'Malley]

Now Dee, your last question is "off-topic!" Please remain on topic.


Many boards have a topic patrol and enforce the notion that a thread must remain "on topic." I personally detest this. In real life, a conversation meanders where it will and that's the beauty of it.

[Rick Uldricks]

deleted

[dl meckes]

What if those arguing a topic could simply chose to debate the topic. Debate has a moderator and rules. So if two or more people escalate a post from opinion to arguing they can chose to actually debate it. This wouldn't censor their views but it would add structure that often is missing in this progressions that unravel.
I would think that this would take a separate area and the involvement of a moderator. The rules and terms would be clearly defined and they can have their back and forth in public view. Might set up an interesting venue come the next round of elections.

Interesting suggestion that could have legs.

Who makes the "call", who defines the rules and terms, who "enforces" them, who defines or makes the separate area (and I will suggest that separate areas are where threads go to die), who moderates and how are they chosen?