Skip to main content
Kath-H
Inspiring
August 7, 2009
Answered

Moderation in this forum

  • August 7, 2009
  • 12 replies
  • 43644 views

OK, here goes.


For a long time there has been little or no evidence of any hosts, moderators or Adobe employees in here. John C and kanguyen make very welcome appearances from time to time, and both show an immaculate attitude, but little happens to improve things - although thanks to those who made a proper sticky about the use of this forum.


We have been relieved of a host who was allegedly a Community Expert in 'Creative Suite', but had apparently fulfilled none of the criteria for a Community Expert - such as being an expert in something. Nor did this person have more than a very wobbly grasp of how the forums actually work. With zero credibility, said person annoyed people by moralising and lecturing at them.


So now we have a pretty bolshy group of people who are sitting about, kicking their heels, hoping against hope that someone will sort out this buggy, defective software. Many have made very detailed, constructive suggestions and requests, others have gone to the trouble of making work-arounds. In the meantime they are chatting amongst themselves, which is normal behaviour for bored people in a waiting room who are still hoping for something to happen.


There are people who have used the WebX forums for years and years and appreciated them, even with their faults. These people are still grumpy about being shifted onto something they see as much worse. So there are bad moods around.


In my personal opinion, there have been quite a lot of posts, probably some of them mine, that are unnecessarily off-topic, sarcastic and hostile. A bit of a tug on the reins would be no bad thing in my view.


However, moderating a group such as the one gathered here is not easy. To be successful, it is necessary to show good humour, a sense of humour, a willingness to explain actions, and a degree of courtesy and respect, even to those who are not behaving particularly well at the time. Oz was a shining example, and brought a considerable degree of order to the Lounge (an even wilder corner of the West ) without antagonising anyone - well, maybe just the one serial reprobate who is unreachable anyway.


The proverbial 'firm but fair' - and a very nice bloke.


To suddenly begin mass deletions, without showing any of these qualities, may well be counter-productive.


For me, Jochem has a head start, since I believe he is the possessor of a minor-planet-sized brain and the skills to sort this mess out in minutes if he were given the chance. Good start. Now we need a better balance between discouragement of excessive pointless and snarky posts, information about what progress is being made / might be made / won't be made on forum fixes and improvements, individual help like JC has always provided for people who have weird stuff going on with their account, and a degree of visible humanity - please - to gain the consent of those being moderated.

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer

    I still can't get past the idea that "discussion" was invited and yet at the same time not needed.

    Jochem,

    I don't understand how you can be so hard-headed and stubborn!  I do understand that when we, any of us, do something, we generally feel we are correct in our actions.  BUT that does NOT mean we cannot learn from others and see that perhaps what we *thought* was correct, is just possibly slightly off-center from being correct.  One must be willing to see that there *are* other ways to look at things and that our way is not the only way.

    I liken being a forum moderator to being a manager over staff that are from different cultural, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds.  You want them to work for you right?  If your goal is to have them work *with* you and not *against* you, then you can't take the approach you're taking in these forums right now.  In real life, you would have a full mutiny on your hands with the "my way or the highway approach".  It takes patience, sensitivity and a strong sense of fairness.  Believe me, it's not an easy task!  I am speaking from my own personal real life situation here, so I really do know where of I speak.

    Please, take the positive, meant in the best way comments from here and allow yourself to grow.  It shouldn't hurt too much!

    edited for grammar

    12 replies

    Inspiring
    August 7, 2009

    Kath-H wrote:

    So now we have a pretty bolshy group of people who are sitting about, kicking their heels, hoping against hope that someone will sort out this buggy, defective software. Many have made very detailed, constructive suggestions and requests, others have gone to the trouble of making work-arounds. In the meantime they are chatting amongst themselves, which is normal behaviour for bored people in a waiting room who are still hoping for something to happen.

    Normal or not, there are places where lounging is appropriate, and places where it isn't.

    However, moderating a group such as the one gathered here is not easy. To be successful, it is necessary to show good humour, a sense of humour, a willingness to explain actions, and a degree of courtesy and respect, even to those who are not behaving particularly well at the time.

    But all of that needs to be balanced against the goal of the moderation. It is counterproductive if threads about topic X end up with posts about other topics, only to have those posts edited, and then an explanation of the edit being posted.

    So if you want to know about why moderators make certain decisions, ask away. Just don't do it in the thread were it occured. Nor by private message, but just in a thread like this one. And without the name-calling.

    To suddenly begin mass deletions, without showing any of these qualities, may well be counter-productive.

    It probably is. That is one of the reasons why moderators have so far restrained from purging the archives and are focussing only on new messages.

    Now we need a better balance between discouragement of excessive pointless and snarky posts, information about what progress is being made / might be made / won't be made on forum fixes and improvements, individual help like JC has always provided for people who have weird stuff going on with their account, and a degree of visible humanity - please - to gain the consent of those being moderated.

    Gaining consent is not a purpose of moderation. In some cases it may be a means to an end, an end being for instance a reduction in the number of off-topic messages and thread highjacks.

    Seriously, I don't understand what the big deal is. Let's see what happened in the first 48 hours of me being a moderator:

    1. I moved a thread with explanation to the right forum.

    2. I locked a thread moving off-topic with explanation.

    3. I locked a thread moving off-topic with explanation.

    4. I locked a new off-topic thread with explanation.

    5. I deleted a thread in which the originator of thread 4 started name-calling.

    Everything after that is people swooping in, calling me heavy handed, hijacking threads about other topics etc. I fail to see why this chain of events would surprise anybody. And while I am willing to entertain it, I even fail to see why this chain of events would be reason to start a thread about moderation

    August 7, 2009

    What I believe to be legitimate reasons for deleting posts or locking threads are Spam & Profanity.  Name calling is not really reason to lock a thread.  I've been called Q-Ball, Q-Tip and I've had my intelligence questioned a number of times, by a couple of people.  I wasn't pleased by that but I don't see any reason to remove, or lock, a thread over it.  That's just silly.  Being a good moderator is commendable, but we don't need our mommies to do that.

    I have been asking for people to use reasonably good manners here for a long time.  I wish we would respect each other.  Most of us do so, even if we disagree.  But when people are less than polite, censorship is not the answer.  Threads disappear for the most trivial reasons.

    And yes, I agree we need to be less "snarky".  We also need a forum that isn't plagued with so many problems.  It's a two way street.

    August 8, 2009

    Kath,

    These forums—and Adobe—no longer deserve our support.

    When I next get logged off sometime later today, I'm not planning to log back on—ever again.  Adobe has effectively killed the forums, as they anihilated the Adobe Studio Exchange.


    Ramón G Castañeda wrote:

    When I next get logged off sometime later today, I'm not planning to log back on—ever again.

    I am not surprised Ramón but it is sad to hear it. We've had our ups and downs over the years and you don't suffer fools gladly (any more than I do) but you, and your encyclopaedic knowledge, will be severely missed.


    I don't want to believe it but it really does seem as if adobe intends to let the user to user forums wither and die.

    Kath-H
    Kath-HAuthor
    Inspiring
    August 7, 2009

    But Dave knows it doesn't work that way anymore. So I am concluding he

    is knowingly sending someone the wrong way and being very vocal about

    how 'helpful' he is, and would like to know why.

    See, comments like that (from Jochem) send off all kinds of fireworks - dave's been around the forums since Adam was a lad and the notion that he would behave that way is quite breathtakingly insulting to one of the most helpful and good-hearted people around here.


    Policing/moderating by consent is the only way that works Jochem - please try harder. An apology for the above would be a good start.

    Kath-H
    Kath-HAuthor
    Inspiring
    August 7, 2009

    [Edit: Do as you would be done by, Jochem.]

    August 7, 2009

    Do as you would be done by.

    The Ethic of Reciprocity