Racism and our community

[Piddy]

Question.  Are moderators allowed to post under another moniker?  If so, couldn't that cause some bias when moderating should they have a disagreement with someone in one of these hot button threads (current topics like racism, police behavior etc.), human nature being what it is. 

 Again, if so why not use their moderator moniker?  I've heard some concern regarding this and thought I'd ask what some are saying behind the scenes.  I guess I'm asking if this is the case then why not full disclosure?  And what is the reason to allow this?

[jspice]

I’ve seen a moderator post vile things to a couple of posters using their regular account and then they deleted the post once the intended audience had seen it. 
 

** Not regarding the race debate 

Edited June 12, 2020 by jspice

[Paul]

2 hours ago, Piddy said:

Question.  Are moderators allowed to post under another moniker?

Yes. In fact, it's an expectation that the volunteers who are moderators that wish to share their opinions that are not intended to be opinions of the moderation team post their thoughts that aren't representative of LoveShack.org with a separate account. We do this intentionally to prevent the appearance of bias.

In the past, people would think that when a moderator offered their opinion on what to do in their relationship (for example), that their response was the voice of authority, or that the moderator was an expert of sorts. In the past, participants would ask for a specific moderator's input, or think that a moderator had posted the definitive solution, so there was no point in continuing the discussion.

2 hours ago, Piddy said:

If so, couldn't that cause some bias when moderating should they have a disagreement with someone in one of these hot button threads (current topics like racism, police behavior etc.), human nature being what it is. 

Every person on earth has their own frame of reference, including moderators. This is an additional challenge moderators face, for certain, in the self-reflection and self-awareness required to leave those opinions aside and take on the role the work requires. Going back to my gardening analogy earlier in the thread, I might really dislike carrots, and feel that people who eat them are just simply the worst, but with my gardener hat on, I need to put those feelings aside and make sure the carrot seeds are planted and watered, the weeds are removed, and there's plenty of sunlight.

There are no people who lack "bias," or maybe better termed, "one's individual perspective," yet I think the fact that moderators separate their participation as a community member and as a community moderator into two separate accounts serves as a reminder to both themselves and to others which hat they're wearing in any given particular post or action.

Many moderators across our history never shared or disclosed that they have two separate accounts, and I personally think it's better when they choose not to. Additionally, many moderators in the past decided to stop posting once they became moderators.

1 hour ago, jspice said:

I’ve seen a moderator post vile things to a couple of posters using their regular account and then they deleted the post once the intended audience had seen it. 

That's unfortunate and completely inappropriate. I'd like to know the specifics privately so we can look into that and make sure we're all on the same page. I will say that there have been times when a moderator has made a post using the wrong account accidentally, and that there have been times where another Moderator A saw something that was inappropriate posted by Moderator B and removed it. We're all human, we're all prone to make mistakes, or to lose ourselves in a moment of passion. But, we try to hold each other accountable, I think.

The other challenge for anyone doing the sort of thing we do is to make sure you're giving yourself enough time for self-care. There have been a few former moderators that became burned out from the repetitive nature and tediousness of spending probably 90% of our time on the 5% of people who struggle, and if we're not careful, that can spill out. Add that to the challenges we each face in our personal lives, with jobs, family, partners, children, etc. and it can be overwhelming. I've experienced the burn out myself and had to take time away.

Reporting posts and using the Contact Us link to share when people have concerns about moderation are one of the best ways community participants can help identify times when we need to sit back and take a deeper look at an issue. Those reports and messages are viewable by the entire team of volunteers, and they help us remain accountable to each other and ourselves. That hadn't always been the case, yet was a priority when we made the last upgrade.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Paul
Words hard, coffee more.

[Paul]

7 hours ago, gaius said:

A conversation where the diversity of opinions range from the black community should get 10 trillion in reparations to the black community should get 100 trillion in reparations has no appeal. I'm sure many members will find it stimulating though.

Maybe a bit of transparency would help in the context of this thread. While I appreciate your kind remarks in the statements just prior to what I've quoted above thanking us for creating this venue and place, as a moderator I would edit your post and delete the quoted statement as it's a thought that's not relevant to the thread and is off-topic. I'll leave it to try and demonstrate through example the sorts of decisions we make.

I understand that conversations surrounding race and racism spawned this thread, yet our focus here is on how we as community participants conduct ourselves when we don't see eye to eye, and this would be a wonderful topic for a thread created to talk about your thoughts on the matter and to hear what other people think about that subject.

I also think that the comment reads as sarcastic and sarcasm is a form of verbal aggression, that hardly ever translates well when it comes to expressing yourself in a manner that is consistent with what we expect:

We expect that all community participants interact in a manner conducive to free-flowing, collaborative participation from all visitors, fostering an environment free of harassment, character attacks, and other forms of individual and group berating. We realize that all members may not share the same definitions on issues surrounding personal morality, appropriate behavior, and other sensitive topics of discussion that often appear on the site; we encourage all to voice their own opinions while refraining from criticizing other participants for the perspective they hold. Each person that posts on the forum is to be treated with the utmost respect and civility regardless of how absurd or ridiculous the opinion expressed might seem to you from your perspective.

Personal attacks against other participants will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We define personal attacks as posted comments which are intended to provoke, demean, or ridicule another participant. It is inevitable that members will sometimes disagree in their responses to any given problem, and LoveShack.org encourages healthy debate comprised of constructive questions and criticisms, so long as they pertain to the post and thread at hand. Personal dislike of another member has no place in any post, on any thread.

As a global community, it is important to recognize that not all participants are native speakers of English, nor are they all acquainted with colloquialisms popular in your particular area of the world. We expect that our community participants use language that not only reflects proper terminology, but that is in no way vulgar, profane, obscene, pornographic, demeaning, or pejorative to the subject being described or those contributing to the discussion. This is especially important to remember when dealing with sexual health issues.

Your remark suggests, in a very veiled way, that participants here have a solitary opinion, are closed to the idea of discussing alternatives, and instead of considering whether or not something is a good idea, they're predetermined that it is, and will circularly get lost in the specifics. When you make a comment like the one I quoted above and would have removed as a moderator, you're starting out the gate in a pejorative way to anyone that might feel differently from you. You're saying: "Why bother, because you other people are just going to disagree in a manner where you don't even realize you're not considering my perspective?" Ask yourself: How does communicating in that fashion tell other people that I'm here to actively listen to what they have to say?

What we'd expect instead would be something like the following, in a thread that either you or someone else opened where the subject would be on-topic:

Example alternative language you could have used, that would fit our guidelines:

Quote

I'm concerned that I haven't heard a discussion on whether or not the government should give reparations for slavery. I've heard many talk about how much should be given, yet not about whether or not it's something that should be done. What are your thoughts on the matter? Here are mine....

I hope this provides continued clarity. There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion here, or asking others to challenge theirs, so long as its done in a manner where you're not derailing other people's conversation who are on topic and where you're taking the time to be respectful and civil toward others.

Best,
Paul

[Angelle]

16 hours ago, jspice said:

I understand the overall policy absolutely. 
Also, I get that these are volunteer positions but what I am concerned about is not about not being able to respond rapidly but rather the skewed response. 
 

There is a very strong bias from some here who have the ability to steer the conversation, to delete or edit posts, or even ban members. Things get very personal sometimes. 
 

Take the post you removed and edited; how many posts from very early in the thread did you have to clean up? That’s not a lack of response time in my opinion. 

I don’t know if any reader here will even back me up, but a lot of people notice the heavy handedness in moderating certain subsets in certain discussions. 
 

Again, thank you for actively showing that everyone’s opinions are welcome here.

Im not a super active poster, but I had been thinking about deleting my account. 

I will back you up. I signed up for this account, just to lurk occasionally. I left in the past, because of the above. 

[Angelle]

5 hours ago, jspice said:

I’ve seen a moderator post vile things to a couple of posters using their regular account and then they deleted the post once the intended audience had seen it. 
 

** Not regarding the race debate 

I witnessed this myself. I can't remember the name of a person who was attacked directly, but there was nothing discreet about it. She was called a name. I also was moderated under the same person's incorrect assumptions about a post that I made. When I sent him a message about it, he was rude to me, and banned me. I can't send a message now, otherwise I would have done that. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Angelle

[Paul]

Hi Angelle,

17 minutes ago, Angelle said:

I witnessed this myself. I can't remember the name of a person who was attacked directly, but there was nothing discreet about it. She was called a name. I also was moderated under the same person's incorrect assumptions about a post that I made. When I sent him a message about it, he was rude to me, and banned me. I can't send a message now, otherwise I would have done that. 

Just reiterating what was shared before: a moderator behaving in a manner that's contrary to our guidelines, or using their access to harass or attack another member in such a way would be entirely unacceptable. We should be leading by example, and whether intentional or not, it's not okay regardless of who they are.

It's true that it takes some time before a new account will get access to private messages, yet anyone can get in touch with the moderation team at the following address with details: https://www.loveshack.org/contact/ (or click on the Contact Us link at the bottom of any page).

We've made a lot of intentional (and largely overdue!) changes through our latest site upgrade to make it harder for these things to go unnoticed and to increase transparency within the moderation team. I'm sorry and am happy to hear more from you about how we can be better moving forward, including restoring your previous account. If you wouldn't mind, please send us a message privately with your previous display name or e-mail address included. I will look into it and respond personally.

Best,
Paul

[Atwood]

I was feeling really upset and apprehensive about returning to LoveShack after seeing what the discussions had become. I needed some space to clear my head before I felt I could return. I'm relatively new and I thought I would come back and see how things were going, and it fills me with relief and faith that LoveShack is in really good hands after seeing this post. Thank you 🖤

[carhill]

Since the topic is racism and our community, and this is election season in the US, let's rewind to the last national election season, 2016, and examine the 183 incidences of use of the word 'racism' in community discussion of a topic nearly guaranteed to inspire impassioned debate.

https://www.loveshack.org/search/?q=racism&item=528090&type=forums_topic&sortby=newest

The political forum is chock full of racism debates, some going back a decade or more, some more recent than the 2016 election discussion. It's easy to drill down to specifics if one wishes to. The forum search engine works remarkably well. It's easy to see who posted what and any interactions from moderation and administration. Myself, I rarely posted to such topics but often read them to get others POV since it is of international interest, and found the various POV's presented and documentation provided to be fodder for more independent research. A good resource.

 

 

 

 

 

[Piddy]

6 hours ago, Paul said:

Yes. In fact, it's an expectation that the volunteers who are moderators that wish to share their opinions that are not intended to be opinions of the moderation team post their thoughts that aren't representative of LoveShack.org with a separate account. We do this intentionally to prevent the appearance of bias.

In the past, people would think that when a moderator offered their opinion on what to do in their relationship (for example), that their response was the voice of authority, or that the moderator was an expert of sorts. In the past, participants would ask for a specific moderator's input, or think that a moderator had posted the definitive solution, so there was no point in continuing the discussion.

Every person on earth has their own frame of reference, including moderators. This is an additional challenge moderators face, for certain, in the self-reflection and self-awareness required to leave those opinions aside and take on the role the work requires. Going back to my gardening analogy earlier in the thread, I might really dislike carrots, and feel that people who eat them are just simply the worst, but with my gardener hat on, I need to put those feelings aside and make sure the carrot seeds are planted and watered, the weeds are removed, and there's plenty of sunlight.

There are no people who lack "bias," or maybe better termed, "one's individual perspective," yet I think the fact that moderators separate their participation as a community member and as a community moderator into two separate accounts serves as a reminder to both themselves and to others which hat they're wearing in any given particular post or action.

Many moderators across our history never shared or disclosed that they have two separate accounts, and I personally think it's better when they choose not to. Additionally, many moderators in the past decided to stop posting once they became moderators.

That's unfortunate and completely inappropriate. I'd like to know the specifics privately so we can look into that and make sure we're all on the same page. I will say that there have been times when a moderator has made a post using the wrong account accidentally, and that there have been times where another Moderator A saw something that was inappropriate posted by Moderator B and removed it. We're all human, we're all prone to make mistakes, or to lose ourselves in a moment of passion. But, we try to hold each other accountable, I think.

The other challenge for anyone doing the sort of thing we do is to make sure you're giving yourself enough time for self-care. There have been a few former moderators that became burned out from the repetitive nature and tediousness of spending probably 90% of our time on the 5% of people who struggle, and if we're not careful, that can spill out. Add that to the challenges we each face in our personal lives, with jobs, family, partners, children, etc. and it can be overwhelming. I've experienced the burn out myself and had to take time away.

Reporting posts and using the Contact Us link to share when people have concerns about moderation are one of the best ways community participants can help identify times when we need to sit back and take a deeper look at an issue. Those reports and messages are viewable by the entire team of volunteers, and they help us remain accountable to each other and ourselves. That hadn't always been the case, yet was a priority when we made the last upgrade.

I just think it's a bad idea to allow moderators to interact anonymously.  Transparency is the way to go IMO.  If I ask a person if they are a moderator can they lie or are they required to disclose that info.  I should have the knowledge of whether I'm interacting with a moderator.  And have the choice as to whether to engage or not.  And wouldn't a moderator take the side of another moderator in a dispute over a post?  Bad idea all around IMO.  For what it's worth.  🙂

Edited June 12, 2020 by Piddy

[gaius]

5 hours ago, Paul said:

Your remark suggests, in a very veiled way, that participants here have a solitary opinion, are closed to the idea of discussing alternatives, and instead of considering whether or not something is a good idea, they're predetermined that it is, and will circularly get lost in the specifics. When you make a comment like the one I quoted above and would have removed as a moderator, you're starting out the gate in a pejorative way to anyone that might feel differently from you. You're saying: "Why bother, because you other people are just going to disagree in a manner where you don't even realize you're not considering my perspective?" Ask yourself: How does communicating in that fashion tell other people that I'm here to actively listen to what they have to say?

See, that kind of illustrates what I'm talking about. I have always believed people here have a great diversity of opinion, I've said before many times that's one of the main things I enjoy about the forum. But you had a different, more negative interpretation than what was intended.

My comment was in regard to the fact that if I now say reparations aren't warranted that could be interpreted as a denial of institutional racism. And be considered against forum policy. It creates an atmosphere where only a very small diversity of opinions are allowed. Because it's not hard to find a negative interpretation in most of the things people say. Even if that's not the original intent.

I'm going to make one more follow up post and then leave this topic be, as I've made my point the best I feel I can. Thank you for your time Paul, and for letting us discuss this aspect of the forum.

 

[gaius]

1 hour ago, carhill said:

Since the topic is racism and our community, and this is election season in the US, let's rewind to the last national election season, 2016, and examine the 183 incidences of use of the word 'racism' in community discussion of a topic nearly guaranteed to inspire impassioned debate.

https://www.loveshack.org/search/?q=racism&item=528090&type=forums_topic&sortby=newest

The political forum is chock full of racism debates, some going back a decade or more, some more recent than the 2016 election discussion. It's easy to drill down to specifics if one wishes to. The forum search engine works remarkably well. It's easy to see who posted what and any interactions from moderation and administration. Myself, I rarely posted to such topics but often read them to get others POV since it is of international interest, and found the various POV's presented and documentation provided to be fodder for more independent research. A good resource.

I made a thread years back called "Could you deal with your sister/daughter/female friend converting to Islam?". And said I couldn't. Under the current guidelines I'm guessing that it would be deleted just for the title, certainly for the opinion I offered in the opening post. 

And granted, the whole first page was filled with replies from white, non-islamic people with no first hand experience on the topic to offer, speaking for Islamic people and declaring it offensive. But as the thread progressed, women who actually had experience with converting trickled in and started sharing their experiences. Which were often very nuanced and interesting. They weren't offended because they more than anyone understood that it was a complicated issue.

It ended up turning into the most informative thread I've ever read in my time here. I learned more than I ever have in any other thread. Because the conversation was allowed to continue even though it had the potential for offense. And my only intention with this post is to mourn the passing of that dynamic. I'll miss it. Because it can breed incredible conversations and moments. But I guess time marches on.

[Paul]

10 minutes ago, gaius said:

My comment was in regard to the fact that if I now say reparations aren't warranted that could be interpreted as a denial of institutional racism. And be considered against forum policy. It creates an atmosphere where only a very small diversity of opinions are allowed. Because it's not hard to find a negative interpretation in most of the things people say. Even if that's not the original intent.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, there's no policy against stating an opinion, even if that opinion is unpopular, so long as the opinion is expressed within the standards of our Community Guidelines. It is incorrect to say that only a small diversity of opinions are allowed.

If your opinion is that institutional racism does not exist, and you posted "I, gaius, do not think that institutional racism exists and reparations aren't warranted," then that would be a perfectly acceptable, allowable statement to make. Why would it not be? If you made that same statement in a thread in the Pregnancy forum in response to a thread started by someone with a question about the third trimester and back pain who self identifies as a black woman, it would completely inappropriate since it would off-topic from the subject of the thread: backpain in the third trimester.

Choosing to convey your thoughts through sarcasm is almost a guaranteed way to assure yourself that you will, at best, be misunderstood, and at worst, be seen as aggressive and hostile to the open exchange of ideas. It's not the idea you express, but the way you express it. It would be just as aggressive and hostile to state the opposite of your beliefs in a sarcastic way.

I think the issue may be that a lot of people don't realize that the words that they choose to convey things--especially things they feel very passionate or strongly about--are not received in the manner in which they were intended.

[Paul]

37 minutes ago, Piddy said:

I just think it's a bad idea to allow moderators to interact anonymously.  Transparency is the way to go IMO.  If I ask a person if they are a moderator can they lie or are they required to disclose that info.  I should have the knowledge of whether I'm interacting with a moderator.  And have the choice as to whether to engage or not.  And wouldn't a moderator take the side of another moderator in a dispute over a post?  Bad idea all around IMO.  For what it's worth.  🙂

We're sliding off-topic, yet there's a big red heart and a different color on the posts that moderators make for the express purpose of them not being anonymous.

There's no "you have to tell me you're a moderator if I ask if you are a moderator" rule. We encourage people to not self-disclose that they are a moderator and to maintain a boundary between those two very different hats of community participant and moderator. I believe it's important that moderators not disclose their regular posting accounts. If a person is so generous as to volunteer their time here, they should still be able to enjoy taking off their moderator hat and being a part of the conversation.

To hold ourselves accountable, everything that a moderator does is logged. If someone deletes a post, or edits a post, we keep a copy of who did it, when they did it, what the post was before it was edited, etc. It's all transparent between moderators, viewable by all of us, and when we disagree, we talk about it and look for consensus. When someone reaches out with a question or concern, we can review what happened and when.

In cases where a moderator made a call that I or one of the other directors didn't agree with, the action is reversed. As the curators and, by extension, representatives of this community, moderators are here to support and cultivate a place that serves our primary directive. That's the one and only side they should take, and if you see them failing to do that, send a note so that I or someone else can look into it.

[Piddy]

28 minutes ago, Paul said:

We're sliding off-topic, yet there's a big red heart and a different color on the posts that moderators make for the express purpose of them not being anonymous.

There's no "you have to tell me you're a moderator if I ask if you are a moderator" rule. We encourage people to not self-disclose that they are a moderator and to maintain a boundary between those two very different hats of community participant and moderator. I believe it's important that moderators not disclose their regular posting accounts. If a person is so generous as to volunteer their time here, they should still be able to enjoy taking off their moderator hat and being a part of the conversation.

To hold ourselves accountable, everything that a moderator does is logged. If someone deletes a post, or edits a post, we keep a copy of who did it, when they did it, what the post was before it was edited, etc. It's all transparent between moderators, viewable by all of us, and when we disagree, we talk about it and look for consensus. When someone reaches out with a question or concern, we can review what happened and when.

In cases where a moderator made a call that I or one of the other directors didn't agree with, the action is reversed. As the curators and, by extension, representatives of this community, moderators are here to support and cultivate a place that serves our primary directive. That's the one and only side they should take, and if you see them failing to do that, send a note so that I or someone else can look into it.

Thanks for the response.  Still think it's a terrible idea for reasons I stated.  I have nothing more to add.  

[Paul]

28 minutes ago, gaius said:

I made a thread years back called "Could you deal with your sister/daughter/female friend converting to Islam?". And said I couldn't. Under the current guidelines I'm guessing that it would be deleted just for the title, certainly for the opinion I offered in the opening post. 

There is no community guideline, rule, or policy that would make "Could you deal with your sister/daughter/female friend converting to Islam?" an inappropriate title for a thread where the initial post discusses that topic, nor would a discussion of that topic be against our guidelines. Nor, would it be against the guidelines to state in a post, "I, gaius, could not deal with my sister, daughter, or female friend converting to Islam. Here's my thoughts on the matter. I struggle with reconciling this particular belief system or practice with my own moral or spiritual compass, etc...... What are yours?" This would be a completely acceptable, allowable thread to open.

If your thread was instead, "I, gaius, believe all sisters, daughters, and female friends that choose to wear green shirts on days of the week that are cloudy are idiot simpletons who are stupid face poopy heads," your thread would NOT be appropriate because you'd be posting in a manner inconsistent with our Community Guidelines by berating a group of people through your use of the words "idiots," "simpletons," and "stupid face poopy heads" as classifying descriptors. This does NOT mean that LoveShack.org has a policy against talking about green-shirt-on-cloudy-day wearers. This instead means LoveShack.org has a policy that demeaning or berating a group of individuals, regardless of your rationale for doing so, is not permitted.

If your thread was instead, "I, gaius, am really upset, because I just received an e-mail from my sister's daughter and in it she said that anyone who wears a green shirt on a cloudy day of the week is a 'poopy face stupid head.' I can't believe she'd be so hurtful and stereotype people in that way, and I'm looking for your advice on how to help educate her on seeing people as individuals," then your thread would be perfectly acceptable as the context of your post makes it clear that we're talking about the act of berating a group as being a bad thing. Talking about bad behaviors is okay. Using those bad behaviors is not okay.

Does that make sense/help clarify things, @gaius? 

 

[Paul]

15 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Thanks for the response.  Still think it's a terrible idea for reasons I stated.  I have nothing more to add.  

I appreciate the insight and feedback! We'll agree to disagree, but feel free to reach out privately and I'd be happy to listen and/or brainstorm ways we could make it better (or start a thread on the subject).

[Paul]

All,

In the interest of transparency, an additional 178 posts were restored to the first thread. After another moderator pointed out posts that were not restored that should have been, I took another look and was surprised to see how many were missed. As I was going back through, I identified a bug in the process that causes posts selected by a moderator to be deleted or restored to be deselected as we move across different pages of posts. While I had selected posts to be restored, as I would jump between pages, the number selected would vary wildly.

I've logged the issue with our software provider, and will be checking the remaining threads as well. My apologies.

Best,
Paul

[SincereOnlineGuy]

7 hours ago, Paul said:

 a moderator behaving in a manner that's contrary to our guidelines, or using their access to harass or attack another member in such a way would be entirely unacceptable. We should be leading by example, and whether intentional or not, it's not okay regardless of who they are.

 

This is extremely illogical in a thread where there is so much discussion on moderators maintaining anonymity at the same time.

 

Envision a story in People Magazine that would say: 

 

Sally Struthers is doing wonderful things for impoverished children in Africa!

(and you should, too...    you can donate by sending a check to this address:

... )

 

So how about we replace Sally Struthers with anonymity...

Nobody has a clue just WHO is helping people in Africa.

Few will be inclined to be lead by some anonymous person.

NOBODY is going to look up to, or even bother to look at that particular anonymous person for such a grand "example" of anything!!

 

Lots of websites simple will not allow multiple accounts, and that is most probably how it should be here, especially for moderators who are supposedly setting such grand examples.

 

"Come to the ______________ Basketball Camp!    You'll learn lots of great things to improve your game, by following our examples.  Sign up here...  send $100"

 

But nobody gets to know just whose supposedly fantastic example will be put forth for all to gleefully emulate.

 

 

 

[Paul]

4 hours ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

This is extremely illogical in a thread where there is so much discussion on moderators maintaining anonymity at the same time.

I think there may be some confusion.

This is off-topic for this thread, yet we'll stay in special exception/learning mode. In any other thread, we would have removed your post for being off topic, as our expectation is we keep replies to threads on the same topic as the first post in a thread. The first post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with moderator anonymity.

Borrowing from your analogy:

How to think of moderators, when performing moderation duties: Sally Struthers, spokesperson and TV personality, at a promotional event to raise awareness and fundraise for anti-hunger campaigns, dressed in a bright yellow glittery leotard, with I'M SALLY STRUTHERS embroidered on her chest and a giant red heart logo, with a microphone in her hand, while everyone listens to what she has to say in eager anticipation. Note that since I'm using my moderator identity right now, my post has a yellow background, I'm identified as a moderator, and there's a big red heart logo under my name. I am in no way anonymous right now.

How to think about moderators, when using their private account to talk about their relationships: Sally Struthers, the not at work citizen, wearing sweatpants, dark sunglasses, a baseball cap, and a turned up collar, running into a drug store to buy hemorrhoid cream and laxatives.

In one case, it's important we know who she is (doing official business or representing an organization), in the other she's a person wanting to be discreet and private and her responsibilities are just to be a common citizen who could benefit from additional fiber in her diet.

I hope this helps! If you want to continue discussing moderator anonymity, please reach out privately or start a thread on the topic in consideration of those more interested in the thread's intended subject matter.

[Libby1]

13 hours ago, Paul said:

There is no community guideline, rule, or policy that would make "Could you deal with your sister/daughter/female friend converting to Islam?" an inappropriate title for a thread where the initial post discusses that topic, nor would a discussion of that topic be against our guidelines. Nor, would it be against the guidelines to state in a post, "I, gaius, could not deal with my sister, daughter, or female friend converting to Islam. Here's my thoughts on the matter. I struggle with reconciling this particular belief system or practice with my own moral or spiritual compass, etc...... What are yours?" This would be a completely acceptable, allowable thread to open.

I think it's very useful if people can post about these sorts of ideological conflicts.  Being honest about them helps us to evolve.  There's obviously a responsibility to phrase it in a way that clarifies that they're expressing an internal conflict they find it difficult to resolve, rather than just celebrating the position they hold as absolutely fine - and seeking to disparage other ideologies in the process.  Which I think is what your post covers.  There's always a risk with such threads that some posters will take the opportunity to demonstrate how enlightened they are, in comparison with the struggling person, rather than giving them any sort of guidance about how they might manage their conflict. 

I appreciate how difficult the task of moderation must be.  How hard it is to balance one person's desire to express themselves freely,  with other people's desire not to read anything that offends them.  How to deal with people who are simply out to offend, and also how to deal with people who are looking for things to be offended by.  I'm assuming reports and complaints about the thread were made, and that this is why moderation stepped in to take it down.  I'm a bit mystified by that.  I didn't see any posts in there that looked beyond the boundaries of reasonable discussion about a difficult subject or that I'd anticipate people being horrified by. 

On hearing that there were in fact people who were horrified and outraged by posts in the racism discussion, I think it's fair to predict that the "I'm struggling with my female relative/friend converting to Islam" would probably also invoke quite a lot of sharp inward gasps and expressions of horror.  Has moderation any particular policy to deal with those people whose horror and outrage might inhibit such discussions from being held in a useful way?

[Paul]

8 hours ago, Libby1 said:

I think it's very useful if people can post about these sorts of ideological conflicts.  Being honest about them helps us to evolve. 

Yes! 

8 hours ago, Libby1 said:

There's obviously a responsibility to phrase it in a way that clarifies that they're expressing an internal conflict they find it difficult to resolve, rather than just celebrating the position they hold as absolutely fine - and seeking to disparage other ideologies in the process.  Which I think is what your post covers.  There's always a risk with such threads that some posters will take the opportunity to demonstrate how enlightened they are, in comparison with the struggling person, rather than giving them any sort of guidance about how they might manage their conflict. 

This is close. I don't think that people need to be self-aware enough to be able to achieve this ideal, though how wonderful for those who are at that point or can take on that perspective! I'd change what you're saying slightly to: there's a responsibility to phrase what a person is feeling or believing, even if it's just celebrating that belief, in a manner that does not disparage others as a person.

8 hours ago, Libby1 said:

How hard it is to balance one person's desire to express themselves freely,  with other people's desire not to read anything that offends them.  How to deal with people who are simply out to offend, and also how to deal with people who are looking for things to be offended by. 

Consider the following:

Let's imagine you really have a strong opinion about people who choose to wear green shirts on cloudy days. It makes your blood boil just thinking about a person taking a green shirt out of their closet and putting it on, knowing there's grey skies outside. The utter nerve! Going outside where everyone can see all that green, and rubbing it straight into your eyeballs. You grew up in a household where the motto was "cloudy skies, blue spotted ties!" You embody this belief, that your parents, community, place of worship, and fifteen generations of ancestors all were passionate about. This is a part of your identity. It's scandalous and offensive to everything you stand for every time these green shirt wearing people flaunt their lack of morals, by crossing into your field of vision on a rainy day. You, everyone you know, the people you interact with on social networks, the media outlets and personalities you subscribe to, and everyone you care about in this world all do the civilized thing and wear blue spotted ties on cloudy days, unlike those leafy colored shirt wearing heathens. The problem with this world is people who wear green colored shirts on cloudy days. Everything can be traced back to it. Had they put on something red, there'd be no problem. Why can't they do that? Why are they so ignorant?

In the scenario I described above, let's imagine that you come to LoveShack.org and want to talk about interpersonal relationships. You come across a thread started by a member who mentions they're exited about meeting up with a romantic interest for dinner, and looking to get opinions on what color shirts they should coordinate to wear together to light the flames of passion even though the weather forecast for that day is calling for rain and thunderstorms.

GreenShirtLov3r69 posts a reply and shares that he and his current girlfriend have this special tradition they've formed, that whenever the weather forecast calls for rain, they both rush to their closets and put on green t-shirts as quickly as possible, run outside in the rain, and prance around in the streets pointing at their chests, screaming "look at me."

You are beside yourself. These ************** *** ****** *****ing ****ers, you think in your head. You compose a reply.

Quote

I, Libby1, hate everything about you, GreenShirtLov3r69. How dare you do this, knowing that blue spotted ties are the way to truth and all that is good in the world? You and the heathens like you are a terrible people for doing this!

This is exactly what you believe in your head. This is exactly how you feel.

A moderator comes along, removes your post and sends you a reminder to be civil and respectful, asking you to focus on the ideas and not the person, including the following tidbit from the Community Guidelines:

Hi Libby1,

We removed your post as it included character attacks toward another poster. Please review our section on civility and respect in our Community Guidelines, pasted below for reference. Thanks!

From our Community Guidelines:

We expect that all community participants interact in a manner conducive to free-flowing, collaborative participation from all visitors, fostering an environment free of harassment, character attacks, and other forms of individual and group berating. We realize that all members may not share the same definitions on issues surrounding personal morality, appropriate behavior, and other sensitive topics of discussion that often appear on the site; we encourage all to voice their own opinions while refraining from criticizing other participants for the perspective they hold. Each person that posts on the forum is to be treated with the utmost respect and civility regardless of how absurd or ridiculous the opinion expressed might seem to you from your perspective.

Personal attacks against other participants will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We define personal attacks as posted comments which are intended to provoke, demean, or ridicule another participant. It is inevitable that members will sometimes disagree in their responses to any given problem, and LoveShack.org encourages healthy debate comprised of constructive questions and criticisms, so long as they pertain to the post and thread at hand. Personal dislike of another member has no place in any post, on any thread.

If this doesn't just take the cake! Now you're seething because, in your mind, LoveShack.org obviously is part of the international confederacy of green shirt wearing on cloudy days, and only has biased moderators that probably are all sitting outside in the shade in green shirts. This whole operation is likely a sponsored psychological operation headed up by the green shirt wearing elite from Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and backed by nation state actors trying to influence the election for your local grocer's employee of the month.

Your post would have never been removed if LoveShack.org wasn't so biased against the blue spotted ties community.

Now, let's imagine a different reply. Same scenario, you encounter the same post, but this time you reply differently. You take a moment to breath, find a place of calm, and compose the following reply:

Quote

GreenShirtLov3r69,

I am offended!

In my opinion, green shirts should never be worn on cloudy days. Whenever I see someone that is wearing a green shirt on a cloudy day, I become infuriated! I was raised by a family that taught me, "cloudy skies, blue spotted ties," and I couldn't imagine ever going outside without my blue spotted tie when it's raining. The community I live in, the place of worship I attend, and fifteen generations of my family would all be horrified if I ever wore a green shirt on a cloudy day, and I feel the same way.

Why would you intentionally choose to wear a green shirt on a cloudy day, knowing how it makes people that grew up with the same upbringing as myself feel? I feel like when you and your girlfriend choose to wear your green shirts in the rain, you're not considering how much it offends me and my beliefs. It really upsets me to think about the two of you dancing in the street pointing at your shirts. Choosing to wear a green shirt on a cloudy day is a terrible thing to do!

Libby1

Your post is not removed by moderators, and you expressed the same sentiment as in the first sample. You stated you were offended, you stated that you think the act of wearing a green shirt on a cloudy day was something that was not okay for you, you shared how upset you were. You didn't write about who the person is, but instead you wrote about how the actions the person is taking or ideas the person is expressing make you feel. In other words, you wrote about how you feel and connected those feelings to actions or ideas; not the person or group performing or holding those actions or ideas. You didn't say GreenShirtLov3r69 was a "terrible person" (personal attack), you said that wearing green shirts on cloudy days was a terrible decision. You didn't say that "people like" GreenShirtLov3r69 were "heathens" (group berating).

8 hours ago, Libby1 said:

I'm assuming reports and complaints about the thread were made, and that this is why moderation stepped in to take it down.  I'm a bit mystified by that.  I didn't see any posts in there that looked beyond the boundaries of reasonable discussion about a difficult subject or that I'd anticipate people being horrified by. 

There were a very large number of posts that wrote in a way that mirrored our first example above instead of the second. My intention is to compile, and share here, a list of the common things that informed our removing posts, in a way that doesn't reveal the identities of posters that had posts removed. I'll need some more time to put that together, because there's a limit to the amount of cups of coffee any one person can safely consume in a given day, and there's so many posts.

I think we can learn from examples, like our green shirt on a cloudy day friend, that came directly from that discussion to help us all get a better sense for what the expectation is, and how changing the way we talk about things can help us gain perspectives, understand (but not necessarily agree with) other people, and evolve and grow as a person.

8 hours ago, Libby1 said:

On hearing that there were in fact people who were horrified and outraged by posts in the racism discussion, I think it's fair to predict that the "I'm struggling with my female relative/friend converting to Islam" would probably also invoke quite a lot of sharp inward gasps and expressions of horror.  Has moderation any particular policy to deal with those people whose horror and outrage might inhibit such discussions from being held in a useful way?

The same could be said about any topic that is surrounded by groups of people having strong feelings. Think about the topics of infidelity or cheating in a monogamous, closed romantic relationship. Think about subjects surrounding sexuality and gender identity. Think about same-sex partnerships. We welcome, encourage, and embrace real conversations about subjects that will be controversial in the world and cultures in which we live, and we recognize that for many people that feel strongly about a subject, the very idea of knowing that someone feels differently than themselves may be a difficult thing to bear.

This community is intended for people that are open to listen to the opinions of others, have spirited, yet respectful and civil conversations with each other, and be okay with the idea that not everyone will agree with them. Those who can't do that aren't coming from a place where they are ready to embrace self discovery and personal growth, and we expect those people to recognize that about themselves, and to set and maintain personal boundaries with themselves to not participate in a conversation they can't hear an opposing viewpoint on.

I know there are those who can't do that, and those are the people that take up most of our moderation time, needing to have their posts removed or restrictions put in place to keep them from distracting and preventing those who can from moving forward.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Paul
Oops!

[jspice]

On 6/12/2020 at 11:02 PM, Paul said:

 

That's unfortunate and completely inappropriate. I'd like to know the specifics privately so we can look into that and make sure we're all on the same page. I will say that there have been times when a moderator has made a post using the wrong account accidentally, and that there have been times where another Moderator A saw something that was inappropriate posted by Moderator B and removed it. We're all human, we're all prone to make mistakes, or to lose ourselves in a moment of passion. But, we try to hold each other accountable, I think.

I have sent a message to include 2 such incidents. 

[Angelle]

On 6/13/2020 at 8:46 PM, jspice said:

I have sent a message to include 2 such incidents. 

I would, but I can't PM. I asked a friend to pass along my email address. 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Angelle

[carhill]

1 hour ago, Angelle said:

I would, but I can't PM. I asked a friend to pass along my email address. 

 

No need to PM... see...

https://www.loveshack.org/support/