Announcement: PRSI moderation review and hate speech/discrimination rule changes

[Doctor Q]

I appreciate the response. You're going to be relying on the judgment of moderators and I get that. At the same time, you must understand each moderator, no matter how well intentioned, brings his or her biases and beliefs to "calls" on whether something is or is not "hate speech." I think you are implicitly admitting this is an imperfect system. I think that's correct.

However, if you read your rules on moderation (or whatever they are called), there is a statement to the effect that "the moderators are almost always right." That's clearly (and respectfully) laughably incorrect, based on the above--there is no precise definition so moderators cannot "almost always be right" (unless they're always right in the same way my mother was "always right" when I was a child---she was the boss and I was the child). I just hope the powers that be take human fallibility into account when the ban hammer is dropped on someone because perhaps the moderator leans a little further one way or the other.

We address the bias issue in multiple ways:

• We carefully select moderators from among forum members who have already proven to have a fair and even-handed approach to discussions, not somebody who seems to have an agenda to push.
• We look for diversity among the team members.
• We use a team of moderators, who each see everything the others do so they can question any action.
• When evaluating a reported post that we think might be violating a forum rule, we look to "case law" (previous situations with the same issue) and stay consistent. If not, and a rules violation isn't obvious, then no action is taken until the moderation team has a chance to discuss the case.
• We don't moderate a post if any moderator thinks it's not appropriate to moderate. No single moderator can control the forums based on personal opinions.
• The administrators oversee moderation, bring up any concerns they have with the moderators, and make adjustments to rules and policies to avoid unfairness or bias.
• We consult arn (the site owner) if we can't settle an issue ourselves.
• We review any moderation action that is challenged by the user. If we don't have a good explanation that's in line with the rules and in keeping with how we've handled similar cases, then the moderation decision is reversed. Only a small percentage of cases end up being reversed, which is where "the moderators are almost always right" comes from.
• We look for and measure bias when we can. See the first posts in this thread.

There's still a possibility that our whole team has a bias one way or another on a certain issue. For example, almost everyone who volunteers as a moderator or administrator has above-average experience and knowledge with technology. Perhaps that affects how we interpret rules in some cases. A more obvious bias might be toward Apple, since this is an Apple-focused site, but most of our moderators and administrators use Windows PCs as well as Macs, and we're careful not to interfere with opinions pro and con about Apple and its products. So we're admittedly human and can't be 100% unbiased, but we think we're well above average for a moderated forum site.

And remember, our mothers were indeed always right!

 

[steve62388]

I have a question.

At various times moderation feels a bit like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. We see posts from moderators mentioning robust debates behind the scenes. So on that basis I will assume you consider your decisions very carefully.

A question to all Mods (I would appreciate seeing a range of answers). Do you ever wonder whether you will end up on the wrong side of history? There are many opinions held in the past that are now considered wrong or worse. What, if in your quest for ‘balance’, your moderation views end up being the equivalent of appeasement or apologist?

Isn’t anybody prepared to take a stand?

 

[MacDawg]

For what its worth, here's a bit of perspective

The PRSI is a handful of passionate people who believe their thoughts, ideas and views (and arguments) shape the hearts and minds of the masses and make a difference in our world
They don't

In reality, nobody outside that handful of people even notices the PRSI except the Moderators who have to give a disproportionate amount of time to police it

 

[steve62388]

For what its worth, here's a bit of perspective

The PRSI is a handful of passionate people who believe their thoughts, ideas and views (and arguments) shape the hearts and minds of the masses and make a difference in our world
They don't

In reality, nobody outside that handful of people even notices the PRSI except the Moderators who have to give a disproportionate amount of time to police it

I wish it were true, but the web has amplified these voices. I fear it is now a case of the tail wagging the dog.

 

[JayMysterio]

For what its worth, here's a bit of perspective

The PRSI is a handful of passionate people who believe their thoughts, ideas and views (and arguments) shape the hearts and minds of the masses and make a difference in our world
They don't

In reality, nobody outside that handful of people even notices the PRSI except the Moderators who have to give a disproportionate amount of time to police it

The question is who is the perspective for?

No one I've ever read, same side of discussions or not, have ever imagined their opinions mattered anywhere but in PRSI.

Which is why many of us are always mystified why PRSI seems to set some off so vehemently, when no one else seems to care about it or care for it.

PRSI seems to hold greater importance for those who don't participate in it, than those of us who do participate in the forum.

 

[annk]

I have a question.

...We see posts from moderators mentioning robust debates behind the scenes. So on that basis I will assume you consider your decisions very carefully.

Yes. That's why it can sometimes take some time, depending on how much discussion is needed.

A question to all Mods (I would appreciate seeing a range of answers).

Not sure what you mean by a range of answers. Answers from more than one person, answers that vary?

Do you ever wonder whether you will end up on the wrong side of history?

Speaking for myself and generally, sure. It's never possible to know what will happen in future - that applies to everything I do in my life. All I can do is make the best decision based on the information I have at hand, as responsibly as possible. Knowing it's only the internet - not life and death - helps of course

There are many opinions held in the past that are now considered wrong or worse.

That's certainly true in a broad historical context in many areas. I'm not sure it's quite so relevant in the context of moderating according to rules that are clearly set out and made available to all users when they register. Moderating involves deciding whether or not a post is worded within the rules. My opinion on post content is much less important - that is, it's not important whether or not I agree with the content of a post, as long as it's worded within the rules. So the guidelines I have when moderating will help me avoid bias when making decision, and therefore "wrong" moderation "opinions".

Of course, how we all interpret posts is very dependent on the context in which we live. A very broad, general example: A politically-charged post will create less arguing in cases where elected leaders are relatively uncontroversial, and more arguing in cases where the political landscape is highly polarized. Same post, different interpretations.

What, if in your quest for ‘balance’, your moderation views end up being the equivalent of appeasement or apologist?

Not sure what you mean, as balance implies healthy discussion on the basis of a well-thought-out set of rules, as well as occasional discussion/revision of the rule set - both of which exist here. We do however see continually that users we decide against are unhappy, and users we decide in favor of are happy. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, so we've had to let go of trying to please everyone. In that sense, balance is not possible.

Isn’t anybody prepared to take a stand?

Again, not sure what you mean. Moderation = taking a stand. Publishing rules = taking a stand. Announcements that give nuanced explanations about moderation = taking a stand. Responding to users who send in contact message = taking a stand. Responding to you here = taking a stand.

 

[cube]

Do moderators moderate their own threads?

 

[annk]

Do moderators moderate their own threads?

No one has his/her "own" thread. Do you mean would a moderator (or admin, for that matter) moderate posts in a thread he or she started? The answer would be yes, for the same reason we'd moderate anything else - because we see a clear rules violation in a post. If I post an announcement as an admin, leave the thread open for comments, but only frivolous and insulting posts are made in the thread, I'll delete them and leave the announcement as a closed sticky. The violations are clear, and I'm acting in my capacity as an admin. I didn't post as a regular user.

Moderators never review their own moderation (though they can participate in the discussion to explain why they felt there was a violation - that's part of how we learn). Admins always review moderation done by moderators.

If I moderate a post and a user sends a contact message to complain about the moderation, I ask another administrator to review my moderation. I can't be both judge and jury.

If however a moderator or admin (when participating in a discussion as a regular user) is involved in a thread where there is a disagreement of some sort, the moderator/admin asks another mod/admin to take care of any violations that might be in the relevant posts. In those cases, the mod/admin recuses him/herself completely by asking "backstage" that the others look at the situation, and leaves any moderation decision up to the rest of the team, so as to avoid any suspicion or possibility of bias. I doubt very much, based on what I've seen the last several years, that any of us would moderate vengefully. All moderation can be seen by all mods and admins, and everything is documented. But by recusing ourselves when we've been posting as a regular user, we ensure that we are acting ethically. It's a matter of knowing which hat you've got on at any given time.

If a mod posts a mod note in his capacity as moderator, disagreeing in the thread is not an option, because the post would be off topic. Such a post might well be moderated by the person who posted the mod note, because the correct way to ask or complain about the content of a mod note is via the Contact Us form.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question, but I truthfully wasn't sure what you meant, and wanted to cover all bases.

 

[cube]

No one has his/her "own" thread. Do you mean would a moderator (or admin, for that matter) moderate posts in a thread he or she started? The answer would be yes, for the same reason we'd moderate anything else - because we see a clear rules violation in a post. If I post an announcement as an admin, leave the thread open for comments, but only frivolous and insulting posts are made in the thread, I'll delete them and leave the announcement as a closed sticky. The violations are clear, and I'm acting in my capacity as an admin. I didn't post as a regular user.

Moderators never review their own moderation (though they can participate in the discussion to explain why they felt there was a violation - that's part of how we learn). Admins always review moderation done by moderators.

If I moderate a post and a user sends a contact message to complain about the moderation, I ask another administrator to review my moderation. I can't be both judge and jury.

If however a moderator or admin (when participating in a discussion as a regular user) is involved in a thread where there is a disagreement of some sort, the moderator/admin asks another mod/admin to take care of any violations that might be in the relevant posts. In those cases, the mod/admin recuses him/herself completely by asking "backstage" that the others look at the situation, and leaves any moderation decision up to the rest of the team, so as to avoid any suspicion or possibility of bias. I doubt very much, based on what I've seen the last several years, that any of us would moderate vengefully. All moderation can be seen by all mods and admins, and everything is documented. But by recusing ourselves when we've been posting as a regular user, we ensure that we are acting ethically. It's a matter of knowing which hat you've got on at any given time.

If a mod posts a mod note in his capacity as moderator, disagreeing in the thread is not an option, because the post would be off topic. Such a post might well be moderated by the person who posted the mod note, because the correct way to ask or complain about the content of a mod note is via the Contact Us form.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question, but I truthfully wasn't sure what you meant, and wanted to cover all bases.

There is a conflict of interest. A regular user can't just delete posts in their own thread.

 

[I7guy]

There is a conflict of interest. A regular user can't just delete posts in their own thread.

Why does this matter? A regular user could totally edit a post to say delete me. Unless you’re saying a moderator could delete his/her own off-topic or against the rules post.

Similar to abuse of power.

 

[cube]

Why does this matter? A regular user could totally edit a post to say delete me. Unless you’re saying a moderator could delete his/her own off-topic or against the rules post.

Similar to abuse of power.

I'm saying that the moderator is free to decide that a post is "off topic" in her own thread and delete it, which is a prerogative that a normal user does not have.

 

[Doctor Q]

I'm saying that the moderator is free to decide that a post is "off topic" in her own thread and delete it, which is a prerogative that a normal user does not have.

A moderator who deleted an on-topic post for being off-topic, for personal reasons, would be corrected by the other moderators.

A normal user who spots an off-topic post should report it, and the moderators will confirm that it's off-topic and remove it.

I don't see how that's a conflict of interest. If it's unfair that moderators can perform actions that regular users cannot, then the only fair system would be to make everyone a moderator or have no moderators at all.

 

[MacDawg]

If it's unfair that moderators can perform actions that regular users cannot, then the only fair system would be to make everyone a moderator or have no moderators at all.

Or have moderators who are only moderators and not able to create threads or post
Which is not feasible, but I seem to recall it being proposed a while back

 

[cube]

A moderator who deleted an on-topic post for being off-topic, for personal reasons, would be corrected by the other moderators.

A normal user who spots an off-topic post should report it, and the moderators will confirm that it's off-topic and remove it.

I don't see how that's a conflict of interest. If it's unfair that moderators can perform actions that regular users cannot, then the only fair system would be to make everyone a moderator or have no moderators at all.

When they open a personal thread they are acting as a regular user, they should not be allowed to just silence what bothers them.

It is another moderator who should decide that the post is off-topic in the first place.

There's still the potential for abuse if moderators constitute an exclusive club and just act on the reports from other moderators.

 

[I7guy]

When they open a personal thread they are acting as a regular user, they should not be allowed to just silence what bothers them.

“What bothers them”? That’s a pretty deep rabbit hole.

My viewpoint is I’m a guest at a site and should abide by the regulations, and, after many threads and responses by mods and admins and listening to their viewpoints I’m going under the assumption that “vigilante justice” is not taking place.

 

[cube]

“What bothers them”? That’s a pretty deep rabbit hole.

My viewpoint is I’m a guest at a site and should abide by the regulations, and, after many threads and responses by mods and admins and listening to their viewpoints I’m going under the assumption that “vigilante justice” is not taking place.

Whether a post if off-topic is subjective, that's why they should not judge their own threads.

 

[MacDawg]

Whether a post if off-topic is subjective, that's why they should not judge their own threads.

And yet, being that the Moderators is just an "exclusive club" they will take care of and protect their own, right?

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't believe there is any solution you would find acceptable
Whatever is proposed, implemented or discussed you will find fault with it
It is what you do

 

[cube]

And yet, being that the Moderators is just an "exclusive club" they will take care of and protect their own, right?

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't believe there is any solution you would find acceptable
Whatever is proposed, implemented or discussed you will find fault with it
It is what you do

It would be colluding, not protecting.

 

[I7guy]

It would be colluding, not protecting.

I don't know the percentage of threads started outside of the news section that are moderator based, but they have to be a small percentage of the total started threads. In this context, colluding/protecting is the same thing as you defined the problem. Is this a real issue you raised, or some hypothetical situation meant to tear at what is a subjective system anyway?

As @MacDawg stated above, there is no perfect system and nothing that can be done to make it perfect...there is no perfect human system anywhere.

 

[Doctor Q]

When they open a personal thread they are acting as a regular user, they should not be allowed to just silence what bothers them.

They are not allowed to just silence what bothers them.

There's still the potential for abuse if moderators constitute an exclusive club and just act on the reports from other moderators.

They do not just act on the reports from other moderators.

This is by policy, and administrator oversight makes sure it happens in practice.

 

[cube]

They are not allowed to just silence what bothers them.


They do not just act on the reports from other moderators.

This is by policy, and administrator oversight makes sure it happens in practice.

Then you can just remove the moderators' permission to delete "off topic" posts in threads they start.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Then you can just remove the moderators' permission to delete "off topic" posts in threads they start.

I think it has already been stated in an earlier post in this thread that moderators do not moderate threads that they themselves have started.

If that thread comes to need moderation, another member of staff will be asked to do the needful.

 

[cube]

I think it has already been stated in an earlier post in this thread that moderators do not moderate threads that they themselves have started.

If that thread comes to need moderation, another member of staff will be asked to do the needful.

If the moderation permission has not been not removed, I hope basic auditing has been programmed then.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If the moderation permission has not been not removed, I hope basic auditing has been programmed then.

I doubt that there is any need for the moderation permission "to be removed" in the case of needing to moderate a thread that a moderator has started.

It is a convention - but one widely adhered to - that one cannot be judge and jury in a case where one is an active participant or plaintiff.

Thus, moderators do not play a role as moderators in threads where they have already contributed as ordinary posters.

Other moderators will attend to that (or be asked to attend to that) should the need to have the thread moderated arise.

The other alternative is to institute a rule - or convention - that moderators do not post as private members, which, as they are volunteers, strikes me as perfectly ridiculous.

Besides, those who join the forum have agreed to abide by the rules of the forum, and it is to be assumed that any such undertaking was given in good faith.

 

[cube]

I doubt that there is any need for the moderation permission "to be removed" in the case of needing to moderate a thread that a moderator has started.

It is a convention - but one widely adhered to - that one cannot be judge and jury in a case where one is an active participant or plaintiff.

Thus, moderators do not play a role as moderators in threads where they have already contributed as ordinary posters.

Other moderators will attend to that (or be asked to attend to that) should the need to have the thread moderated arise.

The other alternative is to institute a rule - or convention - that moderators do not post as prime members, which, as they are volunteers, strikes me as perfectly ridiculous.

Besides, those who join the forum have agreed to abide by the rules of the forum, and it is to be assumed that any such undertaking was given in good faith.

I understand that the site might have decided to keep the permission in case of emergency. In this case, auditing is required.