New Forums Part II

[Deleted member 26715]

Personally I would really rather the thread remained open and was left to die down naturally so @Shaun and @Moderators can reflect and maybe in a few days try to bring this to the widest possible consensus. Slamming another thread shut in people's faces seems likely to exacerbate the problem.

I respect that, what I didn't/don't want is a spiral down, whilst ever there is construction then I remove my request

 

[User482]

The original membership yes, things change and move on and they have. Unfortunately you don't get to see all the feedback just as a member and as a lot of it is confidential I can't tell you about it, this is the tricky part about me as a mod getting involved in these discussions.

My point was existential: cyclechat is here for a specific reason. And there are plenty of us still here!

Now, I've seen Moderators say something similar about feedback a number of times, but I'm not sure that it advances the discussion. Were people being bullied? Or were people crying foul because they didn't like having their views challenged? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do wonder if there is a risk that policy is decided on the basis of listening to the loudest voices.

ETA: I'd like to thank you for responding in a positive way. This is the first time I feel like we've had an opportunity to discuss this as adults, and that one of the team is listening to my views.

 

[mjr]

However, what seems to have been the problem was the inordinate amount of time Moderators were having to spend in applying CC rules in the Politics subforum. I'd be all for reinstatement of the Politics subforum and for some form of self moderation/regulation/free for all there. That way, the subforum lives or dies based on the people who post there. If it gets nasty and people stop posting then those who want a vibrant Politics subforum only have themselves to blame

How would those calling for different moderation be to blame if your free-for-all approach gets nasty and fails? Anyway, that's pretty much what's being tried on the other site anyway, isn't it?

I think what seems to have been the problem was an inability to develop the Politics board rules within that board and recruit Politics-only Moderators because of some barrier in the CC configuration. I guess what seems the problem varies depending on your point of view and experiences elsewhere.

 

[Crackle]

We keep hearing about how the forum was/is ‘haemorrhaging’ members... any figures to actually show that - or is that sim)ky the impression that some people have?

Could there be anything else that might be driving away members? Like the overt sexism and misogyny that a number of our female members have complained about (and some of whom have been treated outrageously for doing so)? Or what about the anti-immigrant tendency of some? How about the homophobia?

It seems that P&CA is being used an excuse for the failure to address some wider and more fundamental issues that are often ignored or excused as ‘banter’ elsewhere on the forum. Just look at the ‘Morrissey’ thread for example...

There are six female mods who are all pretty vocal about sexism and misogyny on CC. In terms of membership, we are positively represented on that front. Again, I'd suggest it's a difference of approach, a lot of that gets addressed unseen.

 

[mjr]

The original membership yes, things change and move on and they have. Unfortunately you don't get to see all the feedback just as a member and as a lot of it is confidential I can't tell you about it, this is the tricky part about me as a mod getting involved in these discussions.

Is it easy to give us any stats on the scale of the challenge, please? At least one of your colleagues has leakt the contents of a "Report" box without getting moderated, so a few stats shouldn't incur any punishment.

 

[Shaun]

However, what seems to have been the problem was the inordinate amount of time Moderators were having to spend in applying CC rules in the Politics subforum. I'd be all for reinstatement of the Politics subforum and for some form of self moderation/regulation/free for all there. That way, the subforum lives or dies based on the people who post there. If it gets nasty and people stop posting then those who want a vibrant Politics subforum only have themselves to blame

It doesn't work, we tried it. Another part of the problem with the political debate was the fallout into the rest of the forums and the souring of relationships (due to personal and political differences or labelling based on political opinions). Even after the opt-in, which was basically a means of letting people make an active choice to get involved - knowing it was going to get political - the same thing happened. Appeals came in from all sides wanting other parties to be moderated for this, that or something else. It only benefited those members who liked to discuss politics, but had a much wider and heavier impact on the rest of the community and the moderator team.

I may have made a decision many of you don't like, and you may not appreciate or understand why I've done it, but I do feel it was needed and if we do anything else in relation to news and current events it will need some careful consideration beforehand, and some time to pass before any change happens.

Please do use CC as you always have done and get from it what you can in the meantime, and I'll give consideration to any constructive feedback in terms of future changes around discussion of current events.

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[Mugshot]

Politics-only Moderators because of some barrier in the CC configuration

Why couldn't there be mods who just mod politics even though they still have the same privileges (?) as the rest of the mod team? What about a configuration stops that?

 

[mjr]

I respect that, what I didn't/don't want is a spiral down, whilst ever there is construction then I remove my request

Yeah, ironically, we must rely on participants to report honestly the start of any spirals down and mods to edit them out without stifling opinions. It's a very thin tightrope and I really hope we can walk it. If mods have to close the thread because of a surge of reports, I hope it can be temporary.

Edit: and in that light, I'm going to go back and delete an earlier post from before this had quite so many worthwhile contributions, to try to reduce the distractions.

 

[nickyboy]

How would those calling for different moderation be to blame if your free-for-all approach gets nasty and fails? Anyway, that's pretty much what's being tried on the other site anyway, isn't it?

I think what seems to have been the problem was an inability to develop the Politics board rules within that board and recruit Politics-only Moderators because of some barrier in the CC configuration. I guess what seems the problem varies depending on your point of view and experiences elsewhere.

I am happy to be corrected but I understand Moderation is a voluntary, unpaid activity and thus, I guess, a limited resource. It sounds like a large part of the Moderation resource was being used in the Politics subforum. So if we want the subforum back there needs to either be more Moderators or less moderation. I'm guessing it's not easy to get people to give up their free time so perhaps the answer is less (or no) moderation there?

I would hope that would lead to a self-regulating Politics subforum. Of course it could all go to hell in a handcart and become tumbleweed there without moderation. But I'm not sure what other option there is as the current one (no Politics at all) doesn't seem to work

 

[Crackle]

My point was existential: cyclechat is here for a specific reason. And there are plenty of us still here!

Now, I've seen Moderators say something similar about feedback a number of times, but I'm not sure that it advances the discussion. Were people being bullied? Or were people crying foul because they didn't like having their views challenged? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do wonder if there is a risk that policy is decided on the basis of listening to the loudest voices.

I could write a thesis on moderation now! You try to strike a balance. If both sides of an argument complain, you've probably got the balance right.

Have you seen Shaun's post in Site News, is there anything in there which is positive. I'm trying not to advance an agenda because I neither want to direct the members, Shaun or my fellow mods but at the same time I would like to see a resolution to all this.

 

[User482]

It doesn't work, we tried it. Another part of the problem with the political debate was the fallout into the rest of the forums and the souring of relationships (due to personal and political differences or labelling based on political opinions). Even after the opt-in, which was basically a means of letting people make an active choice to get involved - knowing it was going to get political - the same thing happened. Appeals came in from all sides wanting other parties to be moderated for this, that or something else. It only benefited those members who liked to discuss politics, but had a much wider and heavier impact on the rest of the community and the moderator team.

I may have made a decision many of you don't like, and you may not appreciate or understand why I've done it, but I do feel it was needed and if we do anything else in relation to news and current events it will need some careful consideration beforehand, and some time to pass before any change happens.

Please do use CC as you always have done and get from it what you can in the meantime, and I'll give consideration to any constructive feedback in terms of future changes around discussion of current events.

Thanks,
Shaun

Shaun, for the umpteenth time, it was you who solicited those appeals! My impression, post opt-in, was an overspill of political discussion across other areas of the site, usually by people who liked to pretend that they weren't having political discussion, while continuing to snipe at P&CA. I accept that you may have had a problem, my contention is that your solutions have made it worse.

 

[Inertia]

Why couldn't there be mods who just mod politics even though they still have the same privileges (?) as the rest of the mod team? What about a configuration stops that?

That seems to have been the obvious solution.

The only reason I can see against it, is if you don't think you can trust the political mods to stick to what you set them.

 

[classic33]

Seriously? What filter's already got it listed and has been deployed widely? Oh crikey - it was registered 2013-2015 before @Shaun registered it in June 2017. I didn't find a cached copy of the previous site. I wonder what it contained!

Companies do the same all the time, use a company name that's already registered. Why should a domain name be different?

 

[Tim Hall]

Has the site traffic hanged since the demise of P&CA? Obviously those posts that would have gone to P&CA aren't there anymore, but I'm curious to know if it's had a knock on effect.

 

[mjr]

Companies do the same all the time, use a company name that's already registered. Why should a domain name be different?

It's not different: when forming a company, one should check the previous use of that name, because sharing a name with a company struck off for certain reasons (or worse) can cause severe problems.