Forum policy review 2018

[Johanna]

Another forum I'm a moderator on has a locked forum news thread where mods announce their major actions, including bans (of non-spambots). We explain who was banned, why and for how long. The "why" part doesn't necessarily go into great detail, but we use language based on the forum rules. There is a separate feedback thread where normal users can respond to the posts in the news thread. Maybe with some tweaks, a similar concept could work here.

I like this.

We wouldn't even need a new forum if all the actions are written in the same (locked) thread (eg. in the "Unilang - Information, Input, and Questions" forum)

This subforum is currently open to everyone though, mostly so that non-members can read through things like the policy, announcements and discussions and clarifications about the forum as a whole before they decide whether they want to sign up or not. Then again, it's all in the details and can be solved rather easily.

The really big thing here is that that information really shouldn't be available to anyone outside the global moderating team once someone's ban has expired, in my opinion. This means that we really have to be on our toes if we go with this solution and make sure we don't miss the expiration date of any single non-permanent ban. If we instead install this extension, while you can only see that a person is banned, they can be sure that it's not public information forever.

[linguoboy]

I'm sorry to hear you felt like that, and that you still feel like that

Thank you for that.

but you were invited to appeal your warning, and the chances of getting it annulled were pretty good. You chose not to, and as I told you at the time, I couldn't really do anything on my own.

As I recall, the sticking point was that I didn't want my fate determined in yet another closed session of the mods and instead pressed for an open discussion, but the moderators weren't willing to consider that kind of transparency. I'm open for correction on this point, of course.

[dEhiN]

If we instead install this extension, while you can only see that a person is banned, they can be sure that it's not public information forever.

The problem with using this extension alone is that it still gives no information on or opportunity for input about the ban. That would still end up with the mod team deciding behind closed doors who's banned and why.

So we now have a few pages of back and forth discussion. Perhaps we can start using some polls to start making concrete decisions? I'm not sure if one massive poll is enough given that several simultaneous issues and solutions have been discussed. If everyone is ok with it, perhaps a couple of the mods could distill what has been discussed so far into poll options? I'm ok with being one of them, but it might be a lot to do alone.

Another suggestion I had, but forgot to bring up, is whether having a higher minimum amount of global mods, or having the language forum mods have a say in some global stuff help alleviate fears about closed door discussions and inconsistent, closed moderating?

[Johanna]

If we instead install this extension, while you can only see that a person is banned, they can be sure that it's not public information forever.

The problem with using this extension alone is that it still gives no information on or opportunity for input about the ban. That would still end up with the mod team deciding behind closed doors who's banned and why.

Yes, but can you guarantee that a thread will always be kept up-to-date?

What I am getting at is that we still have to weigh transparency against the right to privacy for individual members, and in my world, privacy wins. If you can present an automatic solution that also gives us the option of adding some info, I'm all for it

[linguoboy]

Another suggestion I had, but forgot to bring up, is whether having a higher minimum amount of global mods, or having the language forum mods have a say in some global stuff help alleviate fears about closed door discussions and inconsistent, closed moderating?

How will having slightly more people discussing things behind closed doors alleviate concerns about how too much forum business happens behind closed doors? Unless you're planning to make every active member a mod of some sort.

[dEhiN]

Another suggestion I had, but forgot to bring up, is whether having a higher minimum amount of global mods, or having the language forum mods have a say in some global stuff help alleviate fears about closed door discussions and inconsistent, closed moderating?

How will having slightly more people discussing things behind closed doors alleviate concerns about how too much forum business happens behind closed doors? Unless you're planning to make every active member a mod of some sort.

It was just a suggestion. My thinking was that if part of the problem is distrust of the current mods, due to past interactions and actions, then perhaps having new blood might alleviate that problem. I realize one of the issues is about too much forum business happening behind closed doors. But it also seemed to me that a lot of the grievances of the past that are continuing into the present have to do with the same individuals. For example, Vijay wasn't convinced that revisiting his grievances with me would make a difference because the rest of the mod team still consists of members who he distrusts. Perhaps if the majority of the mod team was fresh blood, then he might have been willing to take a chance. Again, just a suggestion.

[Johanna]

Just a question: if you're an employee or a customer of a certain business, do you feel entitled to know what has transpired between HR and individual employees?

Do you think that you should be privy to any and all discussions among management?

[vijayjohn]

No, but UniLang isn't a business, and I daresay no business is run like UniLang.

[Johanna]

No, but UniLang isn't a business, and I daresay no business is run like UniLang.

No, but it's what it comes closest to.

[vijayjohn]

No, but UniLang isn't a business, and I daresay no business is run like UniLang.

No, but it's what it comes closest to.

No it's not. It comes closest to a forum because that's what it is. You're just making a bunch of false equivalences. I'll let you guess whether that's a great way to rebuild trust among your users.

Like linguoboy said, we're reasonable adults being given ridiculous excuses, and you're only exacerbating that problem right now.

[Johanna]

Yes, this is an internet forum. Such forums are no democracies since they're privately owned.

[linguoboy]

Just a question: if you're an employee or a customer of a certain business, do you feel entitled to know what has transpired between HR and individual employees?

Do you think that you should be privy to any and all discussions among management?

It's interesting that you've chosen to take this tack, since the things I'm advocating for here are the same things I'm advocating for at my place of work. (For instance I complained that they fired someone and kept it so secret that even colleagues collaborating on projects weren't told. As a result, they agreed to start announcing all personel changes on an intranet website quite similar to what's been proposed here to keep track of bannings and which you're resisting on "privacy" grounds.)

We had a similar level of distrust between management and non-management, so we hired an outside consultant to help us restructure the organisation in a less hierarchical, more transparent way. Obviously we couldn't afford to do that here, but I can certainly point you to the resources we're using. They're pretty well documented, because this is the direction most progressive companies are moving.

It's not enough to compare Unilang to a "business" without asking what sort of business we're in. After all, you wouldn't run a hotdog stand the same way you would a social media empire and a small design firm has different needs than a nonprofit hospice.

So what business do you think we most resemble and why? What is our "product" and who are our "customers"? And what implications does all this have for how we should be run?

[Johanna]

Just a question: if you're an employee or a customer of a certain business, do you feel entitled to know what has transpired between HR and individual employees?

Do you think that you should be privy to any and all discussions among management?

It's interesting that you've chosen to take this tack, since the things I'm advocating for here are the same things I'm advocating for at my place of work. (For instance I complained that they fired someone and kept it so secret that even colleagues collaborating on projects weren't told. As a result, they agreed to start announcing all personel changes on an intranet website quite similar to what's been proposed here to keep track of bannings and which you're resisting on "privacy" grounds.)

We had a similar level of distrust between management and non-management, so we hired an outside consultant to help us restructure the organisation in a less hierarchical, more transparent way. Obviously we couldn't afford to do that here, but I can certainly point you to the resources we're using. They're pretty well documented, because this is the direction most progressive companies are moving.

It's not enough to compare Unilang to a "business" without asking what sort of business we're in. After all, you wouldn't run a hotdog stand the same way you would a social media empire and a small design firm has different needs than a nonprofit hospice.

So what business do you think we most resemble and why? And what implications does this have for how we should be run?

There is a lot of food for thought here...

I honestly don't know what kind of business, especially since it differs between countries, just that it's more of one than a democratic country.

A very important aspect, however, is that a forum is subject to actual laws. You understand this, but not everyone does, apparently.

[linguoboy]

I honestly don't know what kind of business, especially since it differs between countries, just that it's more of one than a democratic country.

Democracy isn't just for countries, you know.

(Personally, I would say we're not much a country or a company. This is basically a social group. We just meet in a virtual online space rather than a rented hall.)

A very important aspect, however, is that a forum is subject to actual laws. You understand this, but not everyone does, apparently.

You know full well that's untrue. At one time, I would even have said a remark like that was unworthy of you.

[aaakknu]

A few minutes ago, banned users became visible in a separate list, but now it's gone.

[Naava]

A few minutes ago, banned users became visible in a separate list, but now it's gone.

Maybe it was a test? I saw them getting their own orange group for a moment, too. It would certainly make it easy to know that the reason why someone isn't answering your questions or quotes is not because they choose to be silent but because they're banned, but it's also really visible - it's like a constant reminder that this person has done something wrong, and I don't know if I like it.

[Aurinĭa]

We're testing the extension that was mentioned earlier, the one that would show banned users as part of a special banned group. It doesn't seem to work as it should, though, so we'll have to see whether it can be made to.

[Naava]

It doesn't seem to work as it should, though, so we'll have to see whether it can be made to.

Can you tell what was wrong with it? I don't think I could help, I'd just like to know.

//Okay, thanks!

[Aurinĭa]

I'm not sure what is causing the problem. Basically it shows some banned users as banned, and some banned users not. An extension that only does what it's supposed to do some of the time is of course no use. Further testing will be done, though.

[Aurinĭa]

I have split off a number of posts that can now be found in this thread. Please use this topic for actual discussion of the forum policy.