Nominations for group moderator

ForumFeminist Theory

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

Nominations for group moderator

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jun. 6, 2016, 1:31 pm

See http://www.librarything.com/topic/224349

So:

1. Nominate users. Use the @ sign, so we know exactly who's nominated.
2. Second users. You can second whomever you like, and second more than one person.
3. If nominated, you can accept or decline the nomination.

2sturlington
Jun. 6, 2016, 1:58 pm

I nominate southernbooklady.

3Taphophile13
Jun. 6, 2016, 2:09 pm

4susanbooks
Bearbeitet: Jun. 6, 2016, 6:33 pm

Third. Or is that redundant? I'm not up on my parliamentary procedures.

5timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jun. 6, 2016, 10:44 pm

Second is fine. I'm not putting anyone into consideration, but you might want to have some choice too. And, well, she needs to accept or she's not in.

6proximity1
Jun. 7, 2016, 7:41 am

>5 timspalding:

...", but you might want to have some choice too."

LOL! Don't mind him, girls. A) He's a man and B) he's (obviously) new here.

7RidgewayGirl
Jun. 7, 2016, 8:10 am

>5 timspalding: I like the idea of finding a moderator through consensus. If there's a need for another name to be thrown into the hat, there are a few other regular posters here who would be just as fair-minded and are as respected as southernbooklady, and I'll be glad to offer their names up if required, but it really isn't a task that requires a contest.

8Jesse_wiedinmyer
Bearbeitet: Jun. 7, 2016, 9:28 am

I'm pretty sure I swore I wasn't going to participate, but I nominate Sturlington as leader of the shadowy feminist cabal.

9Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 7, 2016, 9:31 am

>7 RidgewayGirl:

Contest or affirmation?

10RidgewayGirl
Jun. 7, 2016, 9:39 am

I'd happily affirm either choice and will vote for both! Early and often.

11RidgewayGirl
Jun. 7, 2016, 9:41 am

I'd also consider whether to rename this group Shadowy Feminist Cabal, because that would be awesome. I think we should also use code names.

12sturlington
Jun. 7, 2016, 9:46 am

I'm waiting for southernbooklady to weigh in before commenting on my nomination, but thank you, Jesse.

Since Ursula K. Le Guin introduced me to the secret feminist cabal, I am more than happy to be a member of it.

13lilithcat
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:01 am

It might not be a bad idea to have co-moderators, in case one is unavailable for some reason.

14Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:06 am

I nominate lilithcat.

15.Monkey.
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:06 am

Yes, I think it would be good if more than one were allowed. Illness or vacation or simply random hiatuses from a site, etc, make it practical to allow more than one (which should also be the case for regular group "admins" as well *coughcough*).

16sturlington
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:08 am

>13 lilithcat: and >15 .Monkey.: I agree, having co-moderators makes sense. Also takes the pressure off that one person, gives them someone to consult with in edge cases.

17Taphophile13
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:38 am

18Bookmarque
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:46 am

I nominate sturlington. Not only for thoughtful posts, but that library!

19RidgewayGirl
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:47 am

Does sturlington need to be officially seconded to be considered? I second her nomination.

So how many moderators is a good number? Three strikes me as a good number.

20southernbooklady
Bearbeitet: Jun. 7, 2016, 10:58 am

Whoa. Moderation experiment! Look what happens when I take an afternoon off.

I'm gratified that people think I'd make a good moderator for the Feminist Theory group, but I do want to clarify a few things, in the interests of being open and transparent.

For one thing, I think folks should know that when the subject of moderation has come up in the past, I've been critical and generally against it, on the grounds that you can never really control the outside world, the best thing you can do is control your own responses.

Here's some links to previous posts I've made on the subject

http://www.librarything.com/topic/182134#4896644
http://www.librarything.com/topic/170463#4559246

When the subject of moderation came up vis a vis The Guardian newspaper policies, I took their test and would have passed all but one of their test cases -- meaning I'm far more leniant than the editors of an internationally respected newspaper.

And when I was asked privately and off list if I would be submitting a request that the troublesome poster in the Feminist Theory group be removed, I said I wouldn't, although I could see why others wanted to. In the entire time I've been on these forums, I've only ever "blocked" two people and then not for their offensiveness, but for the dishonest way they carried on a debate.

In general, I'm wary of group think and mob mentalities and the kinds of conversational rules that suppress outliers, anger, and honest emotions and reactions in the name of civility. I don't think "tone" can be consistently policed. When this subject came up with regards to the religion groups, I was against the idea because I felt it was directed against a few specific people whose posting style was abrasive, rather than directed towards creating a forum that allowed for deeper conversation. The situation that prompted this experiment in moderation is similar in some respects.

That all said, I do see the value in keeping discussions on topic, and in encouraging conversations based on some agreed values and assumptions, such as "women are human beings and deserve to be treated as such."

I don't have any problem stepping into the role of moderator as long as the terms of conduct are clear at the outset and everyone understands them. Having a specific goal is about the only way I think moderating could really work, in fact. I don't tend to take things personally, so I could promise that, at least. And years of retail management has taught me the doubtful art of creating a congenial atmosphere.

I'd also be okay as a co-moderator or a temporary one, and I think it would be necessary to have some way to allow the group to change moderators, if the one in place does not suit the expectations of the group members.

So if all that hasn't put people off, and if you all would accept a moderator that was more reluctant than enthusiastic, I'd be willing to give it a try, at the very least to hopefully encourage people we don't normally hear from to post more often, rather than leaving the group altogether.

ETA: I think both sturlington and lilithcat would be good moderators as well, because they both seem to have clear views as to what the group should be like.

21sturlington
Jun. 7, 2016, 11:05 am

>20 southernbooklady: These are all reasons why you'd be a great moderator, in my opinion. Anyone who actually wants the job shouldn't have it.

We are proposing ideas for a code of conduct in another thread. So far, I think the suggestions are generally aligned with what you say here, but please weigh in on that thread as well.

22sturlington
Jun. 7, 2016, 11:12 am

Also, i want to add that I have been on this group for a while , both as a poster and lurker, and I haven't seen much of anything that deserves moderation until recently, and all those posts were by one bad actor. This group is usually good at policing itself. I don't think the moderation duties would be all that onerous.

23LolaWalser
Jun. 7, 2016, 11:19 am

Well, if we can't have Nicki for President, this will have to do...

>20 southernbooklady:

Thanks for accepting a thankless job. :)

24proximity1
Jun. 7, 2016, 11:35 am

>22 sturlington:

"This group is usually good at policing itself. I don't think the moderation duties would be all that onerous."

Well, now, who could possibly doubt the accuracy of any of that? I certainly don't.

"This group" far surpasses "good at policing itself." That ought to surprise no one since there is very nearly unanimity among the participants on what seem to be all the most important (as the majority define that) topics and issues.

Dissent from these majoritarian views is very rare and when it does appear--especially from a man who doesn't demonstrate a fawning approval most of the time-- it is swiftly met with hostile rebuke because one of the defining characteristics of the Feminist Theory group is that such dissent is neither welcome nor (long) tolerated.

The moderator's ( why would you need more than one just to suspend and ban members?) task will be to quickly censor and eliminate any such dissenting opinion. Since it's so rare here, this job will be part-time at the worst.

What you want and insist on is a "women-friendly" (as in no annoying questioning or raising thorny problems which show the glaring flaws in the approved prejudices here as the group-think sees it) monothink and it's to re-establish and protect that goal that all this preliminary effort is directed.

Once I'm banned, it ought to be smooth sailing close-to-logic's wind as usual here for months at least, it seems to me.

25overlycriticalelisa
Jun. 7, 2016, 8:14 pm

if we needed more consensus, i second both southernbooklady and sturlington.

26Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 7, 2016, 8:26 pm


What you want and insist on is a "women-friendly" (as in no annoying questioning or raising thorny problems which show the glaring flaws in the approved prejudices here as the group-think sees it) monothink and it's to re-establish and protect that goal that all this preliminary effort is directed.


Oddly enough, Lilithcat has seemed more than capable of dissenting within the past 24 hours (Stanford Rapist thread).

No one has suggested she be removed.

27lilithcat
Jun. 7, 2016, 10:39 pm

>26 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Indeed. I have been reflecting on the fact that southernbooklady and I have been having a very civil conversation. Why that seems to be difficult for others to do, I cannot say.

28timspalding
Jun. 8, 2016, 2:13 am

Note: While I am open to co-moderators, and I'll program the system to allow it (a critical DB decision), I'd like to keep the test to a simple one, with just one moderator. And if multiple moderators are allowed in future, there will no hierarchy--all will be equally so.

29timspalding
Jun. 9, 2016, 12:10 pm

Okay, I believe three people have been nominated and seconded:

Southernbooklady
Sturlington
Lilithcat

But I'm unclear if all have agreed to be up for election. I don't see a clear yes or no from the latter two. So I'm PMing them and asking they say so here. Meanwhile, I'll be working on the voting mechanism. (Which should have been done but, well, hard week.)

If anyone else wants to nominate, second and say yes, go ahead, but I won't hold the vote for it to be finished.

30sturlington
Jun. 9, 2016, 2:16 pm

In the interest of choice, I'll keep my name in.

31lilithcat
Jun. 9, 2016, 3:43 pm

I will as well.

32marietherese
Jun. 10, 2016, 12:12 am

I just look lurk here on LT for the most part but I've been here from the early days (I have the ten year badge and a lot of those cute little helper stars) and have pretty much subscribed to every feminist and woman-centered group on the site, so I feel fine seconding Southernbooklady and Sturlington as mods. Both have been instrumental in adding great content and thoughtful discussion to the group and both have shown themselves to be balanced, compassionate, and cool-headed. They've accepted the challenge and I'm certain they are both well suited to it. So please log my vote for both, Tim.

33marietherese
Jun. 10, 2016, 12:25 am

And, parenthetically: I think moderators are a very good thing. I've been on the internet (and the pre-internet) for more years than I care to reveal, and I can aver unequivocally that trolls are the bane of lively, thoughtful discussion and once trolls are admitted, they're pretty much like bedbugs or mildew-it's almost impossible to get rid of them and they stink up the place. People move out if they have no options to fumigate and clean up. Like dukedomenough, I find Making Light has a great policy on trolling and I also like John Scalzi's moderation (which is more of a shepherding onto topic and a refusal to let the verbose and obsessed dominate the discussion, with the occasional foray into full smack-down mode when someone lets loose with the hate-speech).

34timspalding
Jun. 11, 2016, 4:47 am

35John5918
Jun. 11, 2016, 11:25 am

>7 RidgewayGirl: finding a moderator through consensus

I just want to say how refreshing I find it to see an idea like this being floated. Even though it has not been adopted in the end, nevertheless it is good to question established assumptions such as that voting is the only and/or best way of democratic participation.

36Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 11, 2016, 11:51 am

Oddly enough, I think consensus and democracy will overlap here.

And her whip hand will be weak.

37Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 11, 2016, 11:54 am

But while you've addressed the issue, how does one establish consensus distinct from direct questionig?

38John5918
Jun. 11, 2016, 12:14 pm

>36 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Yes, I think you're probably right.

>37 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Not sure how one does it online. Traditionally here we sit under a tree and talk about it, for days if necessary, until we have reached a position which everyone is comfortable with. Obviously today we don't usually get to do it the traditional way (although we have had conferences to resolve local conflicts, which have gone on for days and days until everybody has been heard and a broad consensus has been reached). But I do notice in meetings that there is a tendency not to disagree with what someone says. You start with your position, and you tell it in your own words. I then say, "Yes, I agree with Jesse" and I go on to repeat the same story but with some changes which represent my opinion which may actually be quite different from yours. The next person does the same, and we go round and round. It's all quite respectful of others' views even while disagreeing. It's not perfect, but then neither is voting.

When I think of voting and consensus I always think of The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver.

39Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 11, 2016, 12:19 pm

So consensus is simply less "simple majority" driven?

40John5918
Bearbeitet: Jun. 11, 2016, 3:07 pm

>39 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

It's far from simple majority. It involves getting as many people as possible (preferably everybody) to agree on a position that they can all live with and ultimately own. Call it a compromise, although I believe that word has negative connotations in some circles. Or a win-win situation.

41timspalding
Jun. 11, 2016, 3:22 pm

A friend of mine went to a school where consensus was paramount. When it came to the musical they were to put on, the entire class had to agree. My friend and another kid stubbornly refused to concede to the majority. It went on for quite a while, until my friend was sick one day, and they decided to decide "for" the other kid. :)

42LolaWalser
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 11:57 am

I want to note for the record that I object to lilithcat's nomination for a moderator. I know, it's belated, and indeed I have already cast my vote for the moderator (southernbooklady) aware that lilithcat was among those nominated. At the time I preferred to say nothing, in the interest of minimising potential for meta squabbling.

But then today I noticed that lilithcat has just joined the group. If the sequence is correct, she is our 1012th member.

So, not only was she not (to the best of my recollection) participating in the group until very recently (and in connection with our latest troll/Tim's sudden yen for moderation), she wasn't even a member.

Given that, I find it extremely odd that she should have been nominated and, lilithcat, I'm surprised you've accepted.

To be clear, I have nothing against lilithcat's (and similar, new or previously silent member) eventually becoming a moderator. I just find it bizarre that it happened this way. I'd hope we'd get to "know" members before considering them for a position in which they can smack down others.

ETA: And belonging to the group for whose moderation you're being considered is surely a MINIMAL requirement.

43.Monkey.
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:37 pm

Just for the record, I've had the group on my watch list rather than joined list for ages, which she could also have done. I participate when there's something I have an opinion on/knowledge of. Lots of times things are discussed that I only know vaguely about therefore my participation is less, hence keeping the group watched only, but it doesn't mean it's not a topic I'm not strongly conscious of nor that I don't lurk in nearly every thread posted here. So, I can only speak for myself, but, I doubt I'm the only one in that kind of mindset.

44LolaWalser
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:39 pm

>43 .Monkey.:

Right, of course. But you weren't nominated for a moderator so there's no relevance to my objection.

45Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:42 pm

Who would you have nominated in her place?

46timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 12:43 pm

>43 .Monkey.:

We should talk about it the next time it comes up, but I can see a case for members who participate in any way being allowed to be nominated. Group membership is, for many, about organizing the Talk feature. It doesn't have a 1:1 relationship to commitment or interest.

My general feeling is that the rule should be very wide, or absent, and members can decide. It seems likely to me that someone unknown to a group is unlikely to win a vote. But perhaps we need some rule, to prevent it in special cases.

47southernbooklady
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 12:43 pm

It's to be hoped that by having moderation in place, people who were hesitant to participate in the past will feel more open to doing so now. But I suspect that since LT as a rule doesn't require joining to post, this is new territory. "Joining" to date has been more about being able to filter what you see where than any specific statement of support for the group in question. I would think participation would be more significant than joining in that sense.

eta - x-post with Tim.

48timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 12:43 pm

"Joining" to date has been more about being able to filter what you see

Right. My thought too, at least for some.

eta - jinx

49southernbooklady
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:45 pm

my classic example are the 75 challenge groups -- I do check in on some of them, but I had to "unjoin" the group as a whole out of sheer self-defense. Even just watching them littered my groups feed impossibly, since the system has never been able to truly distinguish between the groups I'm a member of, and the groups I watch.

50LolaWalser
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:48 pm

>47 southernbooklady:, >48 timspalding:

My concern is that someone who was invisible in the group was out of the blue not just nominated, but actually placed on the "vote" list. Before she was even a member.

51Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:50 pm

Who would you have nominated in her place?

Who did you nominate?

52Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:54 pm

Mind you, I believe I nominated both of the people that were not named moderator.

I voted for neither of them.

I voted for no one. (Because this is not my group.)

I nominated two people who had been recently active. I did that in the hopes that people would step in to nominate their choices.

Who would you have nominated in her stead?

53LolaWalser
Jun. 20, 2016, 12:56 pm

>51 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

I didn't nominate anyone. Unless I'm mistaken, there was no obligation to nominate.

If there had been, I'd have suggested, after Nicki, Shannon (sturlington), and after her sparemethecensor--three people who were the most active here and of whom all I believe would be great moderators (the "order of appearance" being due simply to my perceived frequency of their posting, not relative "merit".)

But I voted only for Nicki to signify that IMO one moderator is enough for this group.

Now kindly stop badgering me.

54southernbooklady
Jun. 20, 2016, 1:00 pm

>50 LolaWalser: I can see why no one thought of it as a possible issue. People tend to have a presence across multiple threads, topics and groups, and it might not even register that a poster who is well known to you was not a regular or even a member of the group. "Invisibility" is hard to see. :-)

lilithcat is an FT participant, though -- I know because she and I had a discussion on the role of sentencing in the American judicial system in the Stanford rapist thread.

55Jesse_wiedinmyer
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 1:02 pm

You have registered your objection, I have registered my reasoning.

I was not nominating so much as trying to spur the process.

56LolaWalser
Jun. 20, 2016, 1:04 pm

>54 southernbooklady:

Yes, I know, that's what I meant by "until recently". Post-latest-troll.

57.Monkey.
Jun. 20, 2016, 2:15 pm

>44 LolaWalser: No I know, I was just throwing myself out there as an example as to how that could come up. :)

58lilithcat
Jun. 20, 2016, 3:31 pm

>42 LolaWalser:

Lola, I've been watching the group for quite a while. While I've joined a lot of groups, I read more than I have joined. The reality is that, except for groups that are "join to post" or private, there's no real difference. In this case, I felt that due to the trolling, it was important to do more.

59LolaWalser
Bearbeitet: Jun. 20, 2016, 3:50 pm

>58 lilithcat:

Understood--no doubt many of us watch or lurk in groups we're not members of. However, I'm sure you'd agree that such a POV, simply by virtue of being completely private, can't be the POV of active group members. No participation amounts to invisibility to the group. Hence my objection (which, I hope I've made that clear, is not absolute but circumstantial).

ETA: edited for clarity

Anmelden um mitzuschreiben.