Thanks for all the responses, folks. I was impressed with their seriousness, and wanted to take a day or so to give them all some thought and give you an equally serious reply, as I believe this whole unfortunate situation has all the aspects of an unforced error on multiple levels. Various people have given me suggestions as to how I might have handled things better, which I appreciate and have given a lot of consideration.
Adding to that, since I am the one who knows what it feels like to be on the other side, I am in turn going to offer my suggestions as to how such unhappy endings might be prevented and/or avoided in the future. I am not doing this in the hopes of a do-over in my own case — these are just some thoughts brought about by the occasion.
Here goes —
SUGGESTIONS
Mild snarky humor should be an allowable method of expression on the board.
Hakeemfan in particular has criticized me for using “sarcastic hyperbole,” which I acknowledge doing, and maybe that’s as good a place as any to start. Hyperbole and irony are time-honored figures of speech. They are taught in rhetoric classes as effective ways of making a point. They’re neither good nor bad in a vacuum. It’s a matter of how they are employed, and in my own case, perhaps some “user error” occurred. But that’s not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sarcasm is a form of irony. It can be light and funny, or mean and sardonic. It is an effective indirect measure of calling attention to elements of absurdity. I realize that this can be problematic, especially for people who aren’t inclined to enjoy laughing at themselves, as they may “automatically” feel that the user is trying to make them look ridiculous. The use of irony is especially risky in written communications, since it can be hard to assess the sender’s intent with no verbal or body language cues. Users of the technique should be sensitive to writing in such a way as to avoid misunderstandings, and receivers should try to avoid overreacting. Mods could play a useful role in helping to smooth things over if a serious miscommunication occurs.
What I mean by hyperbole is the use of exaggeration to make a point, distinguished from run-of-the-mill lying in that the usual hyperbolic statement is obviously not meant to be taken literally. It is a just another useful method of expression, neutral in and of itself.
Irony, hyperbole, and other figures of speech are in such common use that prohibiting them seems like not living in the real world. They can do much to add to the fun of the message board experience.
Possibly, the old-timers could be a little more sensitive to people who are known to wear their hearts on their sleeves. Maybe people who are super-sensitive should consider avoiding making highly provocative statements that tend to attract that kind of response, and/or lighten up a little.
If, however, certain figures of speech are indeed to be considered verboten, then that should be made clear in the board rules. This is because a certain degree of snark typifies the culture on most fan boards, and punitive reactions to it are only going to blindside unsuspecting posters and possibly result in driving people away.
Moderators should avoid making posts asking someone to leave the board.
Such statements, even if they are conditional, and even if the moderator does not actually have the power to ban, and even if the mod doesn’t really intend to carry out the threat, are way too harsh and world-rocking (in an internet sense) to toss around as just another expression of irritation. I see that Kamm has already reached this decision on his own, perhaps with some prompting from fifteenth, but who knows when it will come up again? If the authorities really are officially banning a poster, that shouldn't be (and afaik isn't) done by a post.
Moderators (and all posters) should consider, well, moderating their language.
Especially when mods are criticizing a regular poster’s behavior, I would suggest that emotionally charged words (such as, in this case, “condescending,” “narcissistic,” “gaslighting,” “lacking in reading comprehension,” and maybe even “troll”) are not helpful, and just ratchet up the combativeness level to unpredictable and even unacceptably high levels.
In a situation where a mod is so impassioned that he feels compelled to react with combustible language (and I totally see how someone could get to that point!), maybe he should turn the confrontation over to a less personally involved mod, who can deal with the matter in a less emotional manner.
In a case where the mod was not able to restrain himself, and has already used this type of language, maybe the other mods could feel freer than they do now to reach out, maybe with a question or offer of assistance, and see if they can sprinkle a little oil on the waters, just as they might in the case of a dust-up between two regular posters. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be done in a public way. Just possibly turning a conflict down to simmer before it boils over or explodes.
Of course, that leaves unaddressed the way oil-sprinkling is accomplished. If the “authorities” observe a mod being very aggressive toward a poster who is not generally considered problematic, the default policy might be to regard that as an alert that attention might be merited, as an alternative to viewing it as a cue to automatically jump in to defend it, or to be extra sure to stand back. (They might still reach the conclusion that the aggression is justified and defensible, but it would be the result of a thought process rather than a reflex.)
How should missteps by mods be addressed?
I’m not talking about “punishments.” I’m talking about how such situations are dealt with vis a vis the regular board posters, particularly the ones who are not directly involved but who may still find the matter upsetting. Of course, it depends on the circumstances, and since these situations are relatively rare, there (fortunately) doesn’t to be much “case law” to fall back on. Hence, a suggestion of a few possibilities.
Denying that the transgression really happened. I don’t see that as helpful. The person on the other end of the comments knows very well that it happened, and pretending it didn’t comes across as hostile and off-putting.
Deleting offending posts
I think that can work, if it’s done quickly enough.
The question must then be answered as to how the mods are supposed to know what does and doesn’t merit deletion. I think a snarky remark, without more, shouldn’t be enough, because then you would have to delete so many posts that the board would be filled with deletions and people might start leaving in droves. Drawing a bright line at personal attacks, as burekemde suggests, wouldn’t cover every inflammatory post, but would be a step in the right direction.
I’m not generally a fan of one person deleting another person’s posts, but I agree that the practice can be used judiciously in certain situations.
Providing a short explanation
If the offending post has been on the board long enough that a substantial number of people have already read it, then I think that either deletion or inaction without an explanation is more confusing than anything else. At that point, maybe a brief explanation is more in order. (“We can’t allow posters to call each other “stupid,” “ugly,” “ignorant,” whatever, on the board.”) (Or, a la fifteenth’s eventual post, “The statement by Mod X does not reflect the position of the board.”) Just something so that people aren’t left bewildered.
If warranted and sincere, an acknowledgement
If the offending poster feels after review that he may have gone a little too far, it can be culture-reaffirming to admit it, and say he was wrong. I know I have done that a number of times, and have always been glad I did, as I never wanted to leave anyone with hurt feelings.
This is only if the poster really feels it, of course. If he doesn’t, either leave that step out, or in rare instances involving a very serious mistake, maybe a statement from the board should be considered. Not suggesting that any of this should apply in my own case, just talking in generalities — if someone has stepped over a line, intentionally or not, it should be regarded as a positive to acknowledge it.
Anti-abuse policies should apply to all posters, including mods.
In a close case, I am not opposed to giving the mods the benefit of the doubt. I’m in favor of it, really. And I’m not talking about official discipline, which of course mods have the right to mete out, while posters don’t and shouldn’t. But in clear cases, if the regular posters are not supposed to treat each other in proscribed ways, the mods shouldn’t do it either. Double standards aren’t conducive to friendly discussion, and lead to resentments and outraged feelings.
Policies should be clear, and should be administered consistently.
It is confusing when some very abusive posts are allowed to stand, while other relatively minor comments are harshly addressed. It is very hard to understand what the rules are when policies are enforced against certain posters and not others. The moderators should decide what policies they want to enforce, and then enforce them. This includes the “just be respectful” rule. If it is not clear what that generally comprises, or if not all posters have to observe it, then it isn't working. I understand that the mods want to “govern” with a light touch, and I actually think that’s great, but some kind of consistency and predictability seems to be warranted.
Mods (and posters) should avoid carrying their personal animosities into board discussions.
I know I felt somewhat “persecuted” by Kamm, and he evidently harbored the same feeling with respect to me. It’s not necessary to be someone’s bestie to treat them with courtesy and respect. Maybe if someone isn’t our fave, we should be extra careful to play nice. Couldn’t hurt, anyway.
Or, could it? That reminds me of a story in the biography of a famous saint, I forget which one. She described an exercise at her convent one day where all the nuns were directed to be especially nice to the sisters that they didn’t particularly like. She was thereafter very suspicious of the nuns who were kind to her on that day, lol. So maybe that idea really could backfire, who knows.
General
I am not suggesting that any of the above lines of thinking have not in fact already been considered, either in my particular case, or generally. I would guess that it is very possible that the mods are totally aware that harsh language by their ranks is going to run some people off, and that, in any particular instance, they might well rather risk that consequence than risk offending a co-moderator by trying to rein him in. That’s a “business” decision that I can understand in any given fact pattern, even if I don’t wholly agree with it with respect to cases which exceed normal board standards of tolerance.
As far as my own intent, I guess maybe the mods and posters will think I have my nerve making suggestions in this current posture, but I would not be taking the time and energy to do so if I hadn’t enjoyed and respected the board as a whole, and didn’t care about what happened to it going forward. It’s actually easier to make statements like these on the way out then when you are still trying to maintain an ongoing relationship with a bunch of existing expectations.
Anyway, back to the current mods. These guys are not any more immune to making mistakes than the rest of us, but they mostly have great judgment. It will be their choice as to exercising that judgment to think about these suggestions, or to choose to write me off as a 21st-century King Lear, howling words of madness in the wilderness. Or, any other result. I know there is a finite amount of time and attention that they or anyone else can spend on board stuff, and I get it if this is all just too abstract and low on the priority list. Cool beans, either way.
Maybe the Mavs' new winning ways will put us all in a better mood.
Adding to that, since I am the one who knows what it feels like to be on the other side, I am in turn going to offer my suggestions as to how such unhappy endings might be prevented and/or avoided in the future. I am not doing this in the hopes of a do-over in my own case — these are just some thoughts brought about by the occasion.
Here goes —
SUGGESTIONS
Mild snarky humor should be an allowable method of expression on the board.
Hakeemfan in particular has criticized me for using “sarcastic hyperbole,” which I acknowledge doing, and maybe that’s as good a place as any to start. Hyperbole and irony are time-honored figures of speech. They are taught in rhetoric classes as effective ways of making a point. They’re neither good nor bad in a vacuum. It’s a matter of how they are employed, and in my own case, perhaps some “user error” occurred. But that’s not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Sarcasm is a form of irony. It can be light and funny, or mean and sardonic. It is an effective indirect measure of calling attention to elements of absurdity. I realize that this can be problematic, especially for people who aren’t inclined to enjoy laughing at themselves, as they may “automatically” feel that the user is trying to make them look ridiculous. The use of irony is especially risky in written communications, since it can be hard to assess the sender’s intent with no verbal or body language cues. Users of the technique should be sensitive to writing in such a way as to avoid misunderstandings, and receivers should try to avoid overreacting. Mods could play a useful role in helping to smooth things over if a serious miscommunication occurs.
What I mean by hyperbole is the use of exaggeration to make a point, distinguished from run-of-the-mill lying in that the usual hyperbolic statement is obviously not meant to be taken literally. It is a just another useful method of expression, neutral in and of itself.
Irony, hyperbole, and other figures of speech are in such common use that prohibiting them seems like not living in the real world. They can do much to add to the fun of the message board experience.
Possibly, the old-timers could be a little more sensitive to people who are known to wear their hearts on their sleeves. Maybe people who are super-sensitive should consider avoiding making highly provocative statements that tend to attract that kind of response, and/or lighten up a little.
If, however, certain figures of speech are indeed to be considered verboten, then that should be made clear in the board rules. This is because a certain degree of snark typifies the culture on most fan boards, and punitive reactions to it are only going to blindside unsuspecting posters and possibly result in driving people away.
Moderators should avoid making posts asking someone to leave the board.
Such statements, even if they are conditional, and even if the moderator does not actually have the power to ban, and even if the mod doesn’t really intend to carry out the threat, are way too harsh and world-rocking (in an internet sense) to toss around as just another expression of irritation. I see that Kamm has already reached this decision on his own, perhaps with some prompting from fifteenth, but who knows when it will come up again? If the authorities really are officially banning a poster, that shouldn't be (and afaik isn't) done by a post.
Moderators (and all posters) should consider, well, moderating their language.
Especially when mods are criticizing a regular poster’s behavior, I would suggest that emotionally charged words (such as, in this case, “condescending,” “narcissistic,” “gaslighting,” “lacking in reading comprehension,” and maybe even “troll”) are not helpful, and just ratchet up the combativeness level to unpredictable and even unacceptably high levels.
In a situation where a mod is so impassioned that he feels compelled to react with combustible language (and I totally see how someone could get to that point!), maybe he should turn the confrontation over to a less personally involved mod, who can deal with the matter in a less emotional manner.
In a case where the mod was not able to restrain himself, and has already used this type of language, maybe the other mods could feel freer than they do now to reach out, maybe with a question or offer of assistance, and see if they can sprinkle a little oil on the waters, just as they might in the case of a dust-up between two regular posters. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be done in a public way. Just possibly turning a conflict down to simmer before it boils over or explodes.
Of course, that leaves unaddressed the way oil-sprinkling is accomplished. If the “authorities” observe a mod being very aggressive toward a poster who is not generally considered problematic, the default policy might be to regard that as an alert that attention might be merited, as an alternative to viewing it as a cue to automatically jump in to defend it, or to be extra sure to stand back. (They might still reach the conclusion that the aggression is justified and defensible, but it would be the result of a thought process rather than a reflex.)
How should missteps by mods be addressed?
I’m not talking about “punishments.” I’m talking about how such situations are dealt with vis a vis the regular board posters, particularly the ones who are not directly involved but who may still find the matter upsetting. Of course, it depends on the circumstances, and since these situations are relatively rare, there (fortunately) doesn’t to be much “case law” to fall back on. Hence, a suggestion of a few possibilities.
Denying that the transgression really happened. I don’t see that as helpful. The person on the other end of the comments knows very well that it happened, and pretending it didn’t comes across as hostile and off-putting.
Deleting offending posts
I think that can work, if it’s done quickly enough.
The question must then be answered as to how the mods are supposed to know what does and doesn’t merit deletion. I think a snarky remark, without more, shouldn’t be enough, because then you would have to delete so many posts that the board would be filled with deletions and people might start leaving in droves. Drawing a bright line at personal attacks, as burekemde suggests, wouldn’t cover every inflammatory post, but would be a step in the right direction.
I’m not generally a fan of one person deleting another person’s posts, but I agree that the practice can be used judiciously in certain situations.
Providing a short explanation
If the offending post has been on the board long enough that a substantial number of people have already read it, then I think that either deletion or inaction without an explanation is more confusing than anything else. At that point, maybe a brief explanation is more in order. (“We can’t allow posters to call each other “stupid,” “ugly,” “ignorant,” whatever, on the board.”) (Or, a la fifteenth’s eventual post, “The statement by Mod X does not reflect the position of the board.”) Just something so that people aren’t left bewildered.
If warranted and sincere, an acknowledgement
If the offending poster feels after review that he may have gone a little too far, it can be culture-reaffirming to admit it, and say he was wrong. I know I have done that a number of times, and have always been glad I did, as I never wanted to leave anyone with hurt feelings.
This is only if the poster really feels it, of course. If he doesn’t, either leave that step out, or in rare instances involving a very serious mistake, maybe a statement from the board should be considered. Not suggesting that any of this should apply in my own case, just talking in generalities — if someone has stepped over a line, intentionally or not, it should be regarded as a positive to acknowledge it.
Anti-abuse policies should apply to all posters, including mods.
In a close case, I am not opposed to giving the mods the benefit of the doubt. I’m in favor of it, really. And I’m not talking about official discipline, which of course mods have the right to mete out, while posters don’t and shouldn’t. But in clear cases, if the regular posters are not supposed to treat each other in proscribed ways, the mods shouldn’t do it either. Double standards aren’t conducive to friendly discussion, and lead to resentments and outraged feelings.
Policies should be clear, and should be administered consistently.
It is confusing when some very abusive posts are allowed to stand, while other relatively minor comments are harshly addressed. It is very hard to understand what the rules are when policies are enforced against certain posters and not others. The moderators should decide what policies they want to enforce, and then enforce them. This includes the “just be respectful” rule. If it is not clear what that generally comprises, or if not all posters have to observe it, then it isn't working. I understand that the mods want to “govern” with a light touch, and I actually think that’s great, but some kind of consistency and predictability seems to be warranted.
Mods (and posters) should avoid carrying their personal animosities into board discussions.
I know I felt somewhat “persecuted” by Kamm, and he evidently harbored the same feeling with respect to me. It’s not necessary to be someone’s bestie to treat them with courtesy and respect. Maybe if someone isn’t our fave, we should be extra careful to play nice. Couldn’t hurt, anyway.
Or, could it? That reminds me of a story in the biography of a famous saint, I forget which one. She described an exercise at her convent one day where all the nuns were directed to be especially nice to the sisters that they didn’t particularly like. She was thereafter very suspicious of the nuns who were kind to her on that day, lol. So maybe that idea really could backfire, who knows.
General
I am not suggesting that any of the above lines of thinking have not in fact already been considered, either in my particular case, or generally. I would guess that it is very possible that the mods are totally aware that harsh language by their ranks is going to run some people off, and that, in any particular instance, they might well rather risk that consequence than risk offending a co-moderator by trying to rein him in. That’s a “business” decision that I can understand in any given fact pattern, even if I don’t wholly agree with it with respect to cases which exceed normal board standards of tolerance.
As far as my own intent, I guess maybe the mods and posters will think I have my nerve making suggestions in this current posture, but I would not be taking the time and energy to do so if I hadn’t enjoyed and respected the board as a whole, and didn’t care about what happened to it going forward. It’s actually easier to make statements like these on the way out then when you are still trying to maintain an ongoing relationship with a bunch of existing expectations.
Anyway, back to the current mods. These guys are not any more immune to making mistakes than the rest of us, but they mostly have great judgment. It will be their choice as to exercising that judgment to think about these suggestions, or to choose to write me off as a 21st-century King Lear, howling words of madness in the wilderness. Or, any other result. I know there is a finite amount of time and attention that they or anyone else can spend on board stuff, and I get it if this is all just too abstract and low on the priority list. Cool beans, either way.
Maybe the Mavs' new winning ways will put us all in a better mood.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)