20

Good moderating on Raddle: what does that look like?

Submitted by hotcool in meta

I'm new to moderating. I want to do a good job but I'm not sure what that looks like. I'd appreciate some input on what's expected, what to look for, little "house keeping" tips etc. This post could also be as a guide for other moderators.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

12

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

These are my personal preferences, especially from when I was just a moderator and not an admin:

  • I do as little as possible in terms of actually changing what others say.
  • I keep an eye out for breaches of the Terms of Service, and I discuss unclear ones in the meta chat.
  • I do what I can to have good politics for the particular forum, i.e. I’ve done a lot of reading about f/Sex_Work from a radical perspective. Still, I'm not a sex worker so I'd hand that over in less than a heartbeat to one.
  • In general, but especially in sensitive forums like f/abuse, f/offmychest, and f/radmentalhealth, I think it’s very important to have extra good politics and always respond thoughtfully and compassionately when people are sharing themselves.
  • Raddle requires moderators to give reasons why they delete other’s content - so making those reasons as clear as possible seems desirable, especially if deleting something from a user who is not brand new. Sometimes archiving the whole page and pasting the archived link in the “reason” box is helpful. Transparency is our friend.
  • Sometimes when I delete someone’s post I think it’s also worthwhile to message them directly and explain it. For example, in f/Africa news is generally not allowed, so if somebody posts news I’ll delete it, I repost it elsewhere (usually f/news) and send the OP a message explaining why.

(Lately I’ve worried also that I have undue influence and have been working on mitigating that. Like this post, I debated whether to respond at all, or to wait some time before posting. I worry that I might close out conversation, if I try to be comprehensive, and also that some people might misinterpret my answer as some sort of policy).

7

ziq wrote

Best thing you can do on a forum is encourage conversation. Think up topics and foster the debate to go into interesting places. The more people that engage with your forum, the more it'll grow.

5

hotcool wrote

Lots of good advice in this thread, especially this. Thank you.

6

Copenhagen_Bram wrote (edited )

When the moderator doesn't say stupid, unsensitive things on his own forum, recieving lots of downvotes and requests to demod himself.

Source: I did this in /f/offmychest.

5

jorgesumle wrote

I moderated f/Anarquismo and now I moderate f/Anarchismus

I just changed the sidebar. The forums I moderate aren't very active, so I'm lucky don't have any dilemma. But thanks for bringing this up; we all can learn from this thread.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Right - sidebars! Maintaining those with all relevant info in an accessible way, and keeping it up to date (for example, by adding 'related' forums when they are made) is a big one for moderation, I think.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I mentioned this to Tequila_Wolf.

The thing about administration is that whatever is allowed is a reflection of the ideology of the page.

If you allow nonsense, you are nonsense.

I'm trying to move away from a Facebook collective I've helped to facilitate over a bunch of years.

As an admin, if I'm allowing a 'anything anyone says is true' sort free-for all, that's the ideology of my group effort.

I've already been trolled by what I feel is completely unfair and nasty characterizations of what it means to explain yourself.

Asking someone to explain themselves is not an attack, but in response I was attacked by bandwagon of unfair labeling, aspersions and insults.

That's not activism to me, but a hipster group identity cult.

Unfair attacks went on, and no one seem to notice, but gave me only concern trolling and tone policing, because everyone seem to think truth is what the group says, not what the truth actually is.

It's really the difference between mature work and kiddie playtime for youth cults.

The way you admin reflects the ideology of the website.

I'm not terrible interested in fighting my way through this place to find a space for rational discourse.

just my impression after a few days.

6

________deleted wrote

You can't accuse all anarchists of being racist anti-feminist kiddies for no reason and then call yourself 'rational'. As a staunch collectivist who is often critical of anarchism, I'm completely befuddled by your attacks on anarchists. They don't seem to be based on anything other than your personal biases.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Bullshit argumentation is bullshit argumentation.

Words mean things, and if you get reactionary when someone asks you to explain yourself, you don't get to attack them as 'not a real anarchist'.

I'm only here to serve the truth.

Are you willing to examine your own beliefs? If not, I can't engage that sort of discourse that has no chance of going anywhere. It's a waste of time for everyone.

Words mean things.

6

________deleted wrote

Bullshit argumentation is bullshit argumentation.

Agreed. So "people who value the individual as much as the collective are racist anti-feminist rightwing kiddies" is bullshit argumentation and should be called out. See?

Words mean things.

Agreed. So maybe don't throw around words like 'reactionary' and 'racist' when the people you're accusing have done literally nothing to warrant those labels?

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you speak against child development psychology you do not speak for feminists and civil-rights activist who focus on child-development.

You really need to look at that line of argumentation.

What do you know about child-development as it related to social justice?

Child development is about psychology. If you speak against psychology, you speak against a rational pro-feminist and anti-racist child-development for urban communities.

Racism isn't always conscious. Sometimes it;s just through well meaning incompetence.

Latent racism is real racism. It's not whatever anyone thinks it is.

5

________deleted wrote (edited )

if you speak against child development psychology you do not speak for feminists and civil-rights activist who focus on child-development.

Please quote me doing that because I have no idea what you're talking about.

What do you know about child-development as it related to social justice?

I don't understand why you're asking me this. I know nothing of child development.

Child development is about psychology. If you speak against psychology, you speak against a rational pro-feminist and anti-racist child-development for urban communities.

I don't believe I've ever spoken about psychology on raddle. Very confused.

Racism isn't always conscious. Sometimes it;s just through well meaning incompetence.

Please quote me being unconsciously racist because this is starting to feel like gaslighting.

Latent racism is real racism. It's not whatever anyone thinks it is.

Not sure what that has to do with your attacks on raddle anarchists, especially since a lot of us here are PoC.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

I was explaining the problem I was having the RadMentalHealth thread. Not you personally. Sorry, I should have made that clear.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

'Please quote me'

I have one thread in the RadMentalHealth.

I won't post again until I figure out if I can coexist.

Mental health is connected to feminism, civil-rights and community organizing. So my experience in this mental health forum is related to those issues.

These guys are saying what I'm saying, which is across many disciplines, is "Scientism'.

That is basically anti-science, which is completely off-the wall when it comes to working in real life education and social science.

On facebook I needed to separate myself from the anti-science people, who disrupt any community-based feminism and anti-racism.

That's a thing.

4

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

I won't post again until I figure out if I can coexist.

You can easily coexist by not insulting everyone that has an opinion that differs from your own and accusing them of being bigots for being anarchists.

4

________deleted wrote

Being critical of scientism doesn't make someone anti-science. It makes them anti-scientism.

Dictionary:

Scientism describes (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.

Science and scientism are 2 wholly different words.

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Asking someone to explain themselves is not an attack, but in response I was attacked by bandwagon of unfair labeling, aspersions and insults.

Ah, but being condescending to someone because you end up disagreeing with them is indeed an attack. You're NOT a victim.

1

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

What if there's no such thing as truth, just ideas that many people agree on?

2

TimmyCatChores wrote

Good question

Truth is conditional on the scope of attention. Some truths are easily known to a deterministic degree and some truths can never be known.

Human truth is indeed dependent on shared ideas.

Humanity evolves through the collective sharing of ideas.