Jump to content

"You have the option to ignore them"


Recommended Posts

Burgundy Ashe

weird. Why is it being said in moderator green posts? It's kind of unprofessional. "Don't calm down the discussion... just ignore the person. Don't open up your thoughts to other people's ideas. Stay in an echo chamber."

 

I would kindly request that moderators don't tell members to ignore each other. This is, in my opinion, antisocial. It's in my opinion comparable to being against social connection, interaction, and ... moderation. 

 

moderation: 

Quote

 

the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions.

 

 

blocking someone is an extreme reaction.

 

another definition since that one isn't talking about a role of a moderator:

Quote

 

the action of making something less extreme, intense, or violent.

"the union's approach was based on increased dialogue and the moderation of demands"

 

 

ah, here we go:

 

Quote

moderator:

an arbitrator or mediator.

"Egypt managed to assert its role as a regional moderator"

what this all says is that a moderator is someone who tries to help extreme contrary to be more moderate. A meeting of the ways. 

 

saying "you have the option to ignore them" in the moderator posts is just ironic really. 

 

yes, blocking someone is a reasonable reaction. But, it is extreme, and not a moderate action. As moderators are a mediator, they should seek to encourage people finding neutral ground, not to take condemning action unless rules have three times been broken.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lysandre, the Star-Crossed

Neither side is obligated to listen to or even speak to the other, the advice to disengage or refuse to engage is just a matter of generic conflict management. Green posts are advisements to correct one's course before rules are broken to the best of my knowledge, and it stands to reason that they'd want to simply avoid escalation of conflict instead of actually resolving it. There's no reason to have to resolve it, so there's no real incentive to give advice in that direction.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
LeChat
1 hour ago, Burgundy Ashe said:

...Why is it being said in moderator green posts?...

Hi. It's being said because it's what's mentioned Admods should help mention to members, in order to help calm arguments between members, if there are reports, etc., according to AVEN's moderation rules (i.e. like an Admod handbook) of links.

 

Admods know and are given those as guidance for helping to moderate AVEN.

 

When there is a report(s) that have resulted from members arguing, Admods need to do something about it. There are rules Admods have to follow, when there are reports, resulting from arguments between members, etc.

 

...just a friendly reminder, again, that while non-staff members might think an Admod's actions aren't necessary, there are reports, discussions, etc. in the backroom, among staff, that non-staff aren't aware of.

 

Admods aren't allowed to breach information from the backroom, regarding reports, Admods' report discussions, etc., in order to explain to non-staff members why they wrote a green or red post in a thread. Only Admod staff know the information, an Admod's reasons why, etc.

 

As a reminder, from the TOS, about red or green Admod messages:

Quote

4.6 Warn and Ban System and other official notices


The Admod Team has every right to issue the following disciplinary measures as they see fit:

 

a. "Play nice warning" -- Official communications from Moderators or Administrators are posts in bold green or red text. These are similar to nudges but are not directed at anyone in particular. They are posted in a thread that might escalate into flaming.
 

Green or red posts in a thread may be considered a nudge depending upon the severity of the situation. Even though they do not name anyone specifically, continuing the action that prompted the green/red post may result in editing or removal of content and further disciplinary action per the discretion of the moderator.  Green and red posts that do not fall under this criteria include thread/post moves, post locks, or other in-thread instructions or announcements...

 

Personally, I think of Admods' green or red posts as a kind, polite, warning option, giving a member(s) a second chance to change how they're posting, instead of giving a member(s) a nudge or a warn, outright.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale

I have to disagree. Moderator's jobs aren't to bring users to a consensus, but to enforce the ToS and make sure users aren't behaving disrespectfully. If mods were saying to ignore another user who's being mean and committing ToS violations, that'd be one thing, but suggesting ignoring a user because you disagree with their opinions or arguments is fair game.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Being a Mod isn't quite the same as being a mod of a political debate, nor is it being as A Speaker in a chamber of politics debating and listening to current proposed bills.

 

However I do practice an approach to moderation as outlined, liking to limit Green Text personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Snao Cone

This thread is needlessly nitpicky, using a definition of a word that is completely unsuited to the context of a community forum. Why did you post this thread? What did you want to feel after posting it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Morays
52 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

This thread is needlessly nitpicky, using a definition of a word that is completely unsuited to the context of a community forum.

I agree, this kind of argument always strikes me as willfully ignorant of how language really works. The actual, stated role of a forum moderator is not comparable to a mediator, and insisting they must be because the words share common linguistic ground is a little bit incoherent. AVEN has never described or positioned its staff as facilitators of discussion; their only job is to enforce ToS and do their best to prevent harassment and abuse.

 

If you have an issue with the way the moderating team handles conflict, OP, I'd suggest laying out your concerns more plainly instead of making needlessly baroque appeals to Merriam-Webster.

 

And for the record, ignoring someone who is actively upsetting you isn't inherently the same thing as hiding in an echo chamber, and I'm very suspicious of the claim that it is. Depending on the context, it can be the healthiest and most mature course of action to disengage from a conversation; further dialogue isn't always productive and is sometimes just bound to be inflammatory.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
LeChat

Also, some members, like new ones, find the reminder/information helpful, if they weren't aware that AVEN has an option for members to put other members on "ignore."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Frenchace

I agree but for a different reason. For me the role of a moderator is to make people respect the ToS, and the role of the ToS is to establish rules that create a safe place for people. If someone needs to do some thing as strong as ignoring someone to feel safe here, then there is a problem, either in the ToS or in the capacity of the moderators to make them apply. So yeah, I don't like when moderators say "you can still ignore them" because even if it is a good advice (contrary to irl you can ignore people here), for me it always sounds as if the moderators say "sorry this place is not safe for you but we can't do nothing about it, you'll have to make it safe on your own". Which would be fine if it doesn't prevent the real issues to be addressed. Because yes, we can ignore people; but wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to?

 

Now I say all this with all of my respect for the moderators who don't do an easy job, so thanks again for all the things you do on AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LeChat

@Frenchace Hi. Thank you, for your comments.

 

I thought it might help if I clarified that, of course, the ignoring advice isn't about ignoring racism, transphobia, etc., saying that's okay or that Admods can't do anything about it

 

It's about helping remind members not to break the TOS, themselves, by getting into personal insults, vigilante modding, etc. about it, if they see a post they find upsetting, problematic, etc. and to, instead, report it to Admods, for staff to look at it, handle it, etc.

 

Also, sometimes, there are differences of opinion between members that aren't breaking the TOS (abut it might be causing members to continue to argue, report each others' posts, etc.) and Admods can't do anything about, except remind members they have the option to step away, if a thread is causing them to feel upset; to put a member on "ignore," etc.

 

If it helps, here's a made-up example:

 

Member 1: "I prefer politicial candidate X."

 

Member 2: "I prefer politicial candidate Y."

 

(members argue back and forth; one--or both--report each others' posts. No one's broken the TOS, but since the members feel heated about their political candidates, it'd be advised, if they want, to put each other on "ignore.")

 

That's why I've, generally, always tried to take the time to go above and beyond the basic info/templates Admods are advised to use, try to include more info/explanation in greenies and to try to help members understand what I or other Admods mean/meant (as much as possible, without breaching info), trying to reduce miscommunication, confusion, etc. and don't only include advice to "ignore" a member, without any other explanation.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me ignoring someone doesn't have to always mean putting them on ignore. It can mean that, but it can also mean just not responding to their posts. Yeah, in a perfect world maybe people wouldn't have to worry about that (in fact, mods wouldn't even be needed in that case). But here admods have rules and procedures we have to follow, too. It can take time to do deal with things, in part because of the rules and procedures, in part because there might not be someone available to do anything immediately. And, as @LeChat said, sometimes things get heated even though no one is violating the TOS per se. So the point of suggesting ignoring someone is multi-faceted; to keep things from escalating, to remind people about the TOS, to give admods time to deal with the original issue without adding more issues to deal with, and to avoid needing to lock a thread to achieve those other things. We are limited in the actions we can take quickly and unilaterally. People often don't like it when threads are locked (understandably in some cases at least), so usually a greenie is one of the first things we do and suggesting people ignore other members might be part of that. Greenies are a reminder to people, some of whom might be new to AVEN and not aware of how things work here, to try to keep things civil or to get things back on track. They not meant to be harsh or wielded like a sledgehammer, but more a note to members to "play nice" (not that people can't have discussions and differences, but that those shouldn't devolve into personal attacks, rancor, etc.).

 

I like to think we do pretty well, admods and members alike, most of the time. :) 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...