babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble reactions   » Moderator comments in the feminist forum

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Moderator comments in the feminist forum
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, respectfully, I believe you are way off base in your comments to me.

Please show me where I flew off the handle? Where did I do any shadow moderating?

My post was short and to the point regarding a male who was posting "poor hard done by men" crap in the feminist forum. I would have made exactly the same comment to any man saying that in the feminist forum.

Moreover, you came into the thread last night, and made other comments/posts after my post to apples, and apparently saw nothing wrong with what I said, but somehow this morning, I was "shadow moderating"?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 24 August 2008 08:36 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Michelle, respectfully, I believe you are way off base in your comments to me.

Please show me where I flew off the handle? Where did I do any shadow moderating?

My post was short and to the point regarding a male who was posting "poor hard done by men" crap in the feminist forum. I would have made exactly the same comment to any man saying that in the feminist forum.

Moreover, you came into the thread last night, and made other comments/posts after my post to apples, and apparently saw nothing wrong with what I said, but somehow this morning, I was "shadow moderating"?


Would you appreciate being referred to as "a female" ??? We could even add some descriptors "a white british columbian boomer female". I have a screen name you know.

I really don't appreciate having my experiences dismissed as "crap" as my comment was not "crap" by the way but reflects events which took place in reality and which I know are not unique as I've discussed it with others. Sometimes in life there are a lot of legitimate angles to look at a situation.

[ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 08:50 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Would you appreciate being referred to as "a female" ??? We could even add some descriptors "a white british columbian boomer female". I have a screen name you know.
I did not use your screen name in this commentary, as it is/was not about you.

quote:
I really don't appreciate having my experiences dismissed as "crap"
Was not posting that your experiences were crap.

quote:
Sometimes in life there are a lot of legitimate angles to look at a situation.

yes, I concur there is, just as there is a place to look at such things, or not look at such things.

Frankly, it is a paradox, IMV, that women/girls are selected for shit jobs in retail, while men/boys are over-looked/rejected because they are not as exploitable. It is a statement of patriachy that this situation occurs.

what would you have females do about this type of situation? And I ask that most seriously.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2008 08:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, first of all, just so people know what we're talking about, here is what I wrote:

quote:
remind, you are not the moderator of this forum or any of the other ones. Please stop policing 500_Apples and other people on babble. It's getting very tiresome. The real moderators consult with each other on issues that come up on babble, we think about setting tone, we consider the seriousness of the incident before intervening, and we try to keep each other in check when it comes to personal animosity.
When you shadow-moderate this discussion forum, you do none of those things, and as a result, end up flying off the handle over things that the actual moderators might have let slide, or might have handled differently. If everyone on babble took it on themselves to moderate these forums based on their personal animosity towards other posters, this place would be nothing but people telling each other where they can and can't post, etc.

So I'm going to ask you, one more time, to please stop doing this. And that goes for any others who feel the urge to do so as well. remind isn't the only one who does it, but this is the instance that is in front of me at the moment.


remind, you have had a long history of animosity with several posters on babble, including 500_Apples. Understandable - we all have people we have a hard time getting along wtih on babble, including the moderators.

Here is your post in that thread:

quote:
Poor apples, it is tough to be a man in this female biased work world, and in the feminist forum, no less! On both accounts!!!

You make a good point about so-called "reverse discrimination".

But the second half of your statement was chastising him for posting in the feminism forum. This is after a long history of you demanding that he stay out of the forum, and going after him whenever he posts in the forum after we asked him to stay out.

This is the moderators' job, not yours, to a) decide whether people need to stay out of certain forums or threads, or b) enforce that ruling if they don't do so.

The way you intervened, with multiple exclamation points, with angry denunciation, angry-face smilies - that is not an appropriate reaction to what was really just a mild transgression.

babble moderators have a listserv we use to discuss issues that come up on the boards. We we bounce stuff off of each other, we try to moderate with some restraint, and we consult with each other on anything we think will be controversial on the boards.

And the other thing that we do is to try to be self-aware of the babblers we may feel animosity towards on a personal level, and to share that with the other mods when we feel the urge to unload on them with both barrels when we're triggered by them. There have been times where I've said to myself, okay, this person has been really getting on my nerves lately, so I'm not sure whether my reaction is to that, or to something that really does need intervention.

And so I write to the list, or to one of the other mods like, say, bigcitygal to see if they're seeing what I'm seeing there. It's a cooling off technique, and a way of trying to give people a fair shake.

The moderators also have discussions about tone, about long-term issues the forum might be having, about what kind of allowances to make in certain cases if there are extenuating circumstances that we might know about but which isn't general forum knowledge, about our tolerance threshold for rulebending, etc. Yes, that does mean that occasionally we let something slide if we don't think it's important enough to fight about. Sometimes we pick our battles. Sometimes if the thread has continued after the transgression without incident, we'll just leave it alone in order for discussion to continue.

When individual babblers who aren't moderators start trying to enforce the rules of the forum, especially when based on long-term animosity towards certain other babblers, this not only undermines the real moderators, but it also creates a poor tone for the forum, and of course there are none of the kind of checks and consultation that results in a more reasonable and less knee-jerk response.

And also, this consultation between the moderators also helps us because we don't all have the same "trigger babblers" so if one of us has flown off the handle at someone, the rest of us can say, you know, I saw that differently, and I know that for me personally, this has helped me see situations differently and to even go back and say, sorry, I was mistaken about that one.

If everyone on babble took the role of moderator on themselves whenever they thought someone they didn't like was out of line, this forum would be filled with nothing but denunciations of other babblers' participation.

I'm glad you started this thread, because this is something that I've been trying to articulate in my mind for a while when I see the same thing in other threads. There are some other babblers who do this, and it's really not helpful.

It's more helpful, if you feel the need to intervene about someone's behaviour on the forum, to contact the moderators. We all have e-mail addresses and private message boxes and at least one of us will see your message. We won't always respond right away and sometimes we won't intervene because we might not agree with you about how egregious it is or perhaps we'll think that things have moved on and it's not necessary.

In this particular case, 500 Apples didn't do anything so terrible. He mentioned a way that this sexism against women can also affect men. Feminists have long argued that sexism against women also affects men negatively too. 500's anecdote could be argued to be an example of this. Or it could be argued to be a way of crying "reverse sexism". I think we should be open to that kind of discussion without knee-jerk denouncements of people.

You assume that 500 Apples is purposefully posting in the feminism forum after being asked not to, just to needle the feminists on babble. The moderators do not necessarily share your point of view about his motivations, and that is a determination for us to make, and to act upon once we make it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 09:27 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No actually, the latter part of my post was not chastizing 500_apples for posting in the feminist forum, it was for posting what he did in feminist forum, in a discussion about women being exploited in/by the retail world, and frankly I was being angrily sarcastic, not pointing out reverse discrimination. But thanks for the benefit of doubt.

I purposefully did not chastize him for being in the feminist forum, or at least I thought I had, and saved that as an email to you the mods. Which I did do.

You may not be aware, but 500_apples and I exchanged several long emails about our animousity towards each other, shared some misconceptions we had of each other, and I thought we had resolved it. And I was posting from that position, and did not believe he was doing it to needle feminists, but more to show that women were off base in their complaints of discrimination, which signified to me he still does not get/believe in "women's oppression and exploitation", or perhaps thinks it is equal. I felt that his making it all about the "poor hard done by men" in that thread/forum was out of place, and sarcastically said so.

I do believe there should be a discussion about reverse discrimination, caused by patriarchy, and I believe 500_apples experiences were valid, and a place to start. But not in that thread or forum.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2008 11:01 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
remind, I feel that it is not at all useful for you to both send an e-mail of complaint to the moderators, and then try to enforce the discipline yourself in the forum - and then afterwards, when called on your shadow-moderating, give a completely different interpretation to your public comment than your e-mail to us suggested.

What happened is this:

First you posted that sarcastic and angry response to 500 Apples in the thread, which you now are claiming had absolutely nothing to do with any of your past interactions with him, had nothing to do with reminding him that he shouldn't be in the feminism forum and wasn't in the least based on your interpretation of his motives behind posting there.

Then right afterwards, you sent an e-mail to the moderators complaining about him posting in the feminism forum and did imply a motive. And I'm supposed to believe there's no connection at all between those two, that your mindset completely changed between your post and your e-mail?

I'm glad that you and he have had productive discussions by e-mail. That's great. But the fact is, what he posted wasn't that bad, it wasn't worth such a heated response, in which you clearly told him he shouldn't have posted what he did in the feminism forum (which is the moderators' job to determine). As it turns out, what he posted could be interpreted as a springboard into a discussion of how patriarchy also hurts some men. Also, it turns out that he didn't realize the thread was in the feminism forum, which is what I assumed the problem was, having heard from him privately in the past about how he navigates the threads.

These are all things that the moderators take into account. Things that you, on the other hand, did not take into account at the time. Which is why it's best to leave the moderating to the moderators.

[ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 August 2008 11:59 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, okay, do not want to take up more moderating time on this, and this will be my last post, but I never said a word about him baiting feminists in my email to you. Nor do I feel that is why he posts in the feminist forum, and my quibble was him getting away with it, and that it might give him room to believe he was now able to post in it, without getting the principles of feminism, that caused his banning. In fact, I do not believe he was banned for baiting feminists, I believe he was banned because he cannot accpet women are oppressed and exploited, and his posts show that.

My exact words were:

quote:
Just wanted to point out that 500_apples knows full well he is banned from the femist forum, yet he takes every opportuity he can get to post in it, and gets away with it.

Anyhow, my apologies for taking up your time with this, and I will endeavor to words my posts, and emails to you, in a clearer manner.

Also, I will again re-iterate, I do not believe 500_apples and I have any former anomousity to each other, now, and any disagreeing stance that I may have with him, and hopefully he with me, should be viewed as normal difference of opinion and conduct.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 24 August 2008 05:40 PM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frankly I can't understand how a babbler can be permitted to continue posting in a forum from which he has been banned.

Hopefully the new software will enable the moderators to enforce this kind of decision automatically.


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2008 06:02 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, the new software will not allow this. (I've asked. Sigh.) So, while we're dealing with imperfect technology, we're just going to have to put up with some mistakes on the part of people like 500 Apples (who I believe did not mean to break the rules) and the occasional moderating lapse in enforcing the rules. Sorry!

remind, thanks for that last post, it was a good clarification. I appreciate it, and I'm glad that you and 500_Apples are making an effort to work through your differences. Something for the rest of us (including me) to emulate!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 25 August 2008 05:18 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
what would you have females do about this type of situation? And I ask that most seriously.

I was not blaming the 16-21 year old who take these jobs.

It's always easier to observe a problem than to fix one, and in this case I don't know what the best path forward is.

I suspect this specific problem would whither away in a full employment economy, but that misses the point.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 25 August 2008 05:26 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, why can't they build in that feature? This is important.

Applying a forum-specific ban, whether permanent or for shorter or longer periods of time, would save tons of moderator time and aggravation. It would certainly improve the standard of conduct on the board, allowing new or returning babblers a greater opportunity to participate in discussion without fear of flaming. Discussions could go further if they were not so often derailed by unauthorized participants. And a forum-ban feature would even allow an intermediate sanction to full banning, so that the board could try to hold onto babblers who may be overly disruptive or disrespectful in some respects but have valuable contributions to make otherwise.


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 August 2008 05:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:
Well, why can't they build in that feature? This is important.

I totally agree with you. But I was told that would not be possible.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 25 August 2008 05:55 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A solution would be to have the name of any banned Babbler(s) appear at the right of the black Author / Topic bar at the top of that forum's threads... This way, if s/he ignores or forgets that condition, h/she would be called on it right away.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 25 August 2008 06:01 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't much care for that idea. People can be asked not to participate in a forum for all sorts of reasons, and it does not mean they're bad human beings who deserve to have their name on some sort of a public list.

Really though, I don't think it's too much to expect for people to be aware of which forum they're posting in when they post. It's up to the mods to develops some sort of consistant approach to this.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 25 August 2008 06:32 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(EDITED OUT)

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 25 August 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Creeping featuritis is a sure way to slow down a software project (if not screw it up completely). Some things are really better left for consideration for Version 2 if they weren't in the original spec. Otherwise you may never see Version 1.
From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 25 August 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yah, I've seen that happen a couple places I worked. Where I am now the new system took over five years to roll-out. Then again though, in both instances the original product was probably better than the initial replacement -- fewer features but more reliable. So why not spend the time and get it right? Unless it's attached to revenue somehow?

What platform is the new software on? Lots of my friends and two of my brothers are software developers, I want to pick their brains and see how doable they think it is!


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 August 2008 07:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Drupal.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca