Moderation issues and concerns

[Wirestone]

I'll start this by quoting my post from the MIC box thread.

So people are now being banned, not for consistently and egregiously flouting the rules -- as has been the standard in the past -- but for momentarily losing their temper? And after apologizing?

How are these determinations being made, and by whom?

What kind of assurances can the board moderators give us that this new standard will be applied fairly?

Has any thought been made as to the chilling effect this will have on board dialogue, especially given that many folks backing Mike have been quick to claim persecution at criticism of their stances? How can we trust that this new, activist stance of moderators will not be used to shut down anti-Mike sentiment, especially given the history of some of the mods themselves?

These questions all still stand, and have not been answered to my satisfaction. Take this nugget:

And from a personal standpoint, I also won't ban people for having anti-Mike views. But like any extremist view, if it is seen to be stepping on the toes of others, all of the moderators will be using their best judgment.

In other words, they are not shutting down dissenting views, except when they are. And the backhanded implication that not liking Mike Love is "an extremist view" is quite troubling.

Then there's this:

Well, let me add then, that one of the reasons for us mods to be more strict is, that lately we have seen more and more discussions get out of hand BECAUSE we were not directly banning someone for not acting according the rules.

I was not aware that threads going off topic was a justification for banning people, which seems to be the implication here.

Finally, the notion that the posters in question are violating board rules seem to be a stretch. The actual wording of the pertinent rules sections is this:

2) Treat others as you want to be treated. Think about what you are saying before you post a message. Lift each other up, don't tear each other down. Harassment of members is not tolerated. Please behave and not be an embarrassment to the good name of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

Do any of the posts in question qualify as harassment?  And the rest of this section, heartwarming as it may be, strikes me as a general guideline for behavior, not an easily decipherable set of specific rules. In other words, there is massive room for moderators to decide that any given post falls short of these standards.

In general, the hand-off moderation of this board has been to its considerable benefit. While it scares some off, it has encouraged robust debate and discussion. And when bans have happened, they have been for behavior that the general community accepts as out of line.

Changing this basic principle of the board strikes me as a big deal. And I'm not sure what the compelling reason behind it is. Threads going off topic? That's happened for forever. Heated arguments? Those have happened too. People losing their tempers? Ditto.

So what is different this time? What exactly is so troubling?

Put simply, I do not trust this board's moderators to act in an objective and transparent manner. Their responses in the MIC thread have been less than reassuring. And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

And here's a bonus question, for him specifically:

One person can't call another an asshole, but it's acceptable to call women feminazis?

[Jason]

And from a personal standpoint, I also won't ban people for having anti-Mike views. But like any extremist view, if it is seen to be stepping on the toes of others, all of the moderators will be using their best judgment.

In other words, they are not shutting down dissenting views, except when they are. And the backhanded implication that not liking Mike Love is "an extremist view" is quite troubling.

I wasn't implying anything with regard to not liking Mike being "an extremist view". I would think that "like any extremist view" would have been a dead giveaway that we're going to keep an eye on ANYTHING that disrupts the flow of the community. That DOES include even the most rabid pro-Mike and anti-Mike brouhaha that may arise.

Then there's this:

Well, let me add then, that one of the reasons for us mods to be more strict is, that lately we have seen more and more discussions get out of hand BECAUSE we were not directly banning someone for not acting according the rules.

I was not aware that threads going off topic was a justification for banning people, which seems to be the implication here.

Threads going off topic is not a justification for banning people unless said veering off-topic has done something to disrupt the community. Phil Cohen is a prime example of that, and even then the moderators debated it for a while before actually doing something about it (and only because the response from the community was so great that we felt we had an obligation to do it).

Finally, the notion that the posters in question are violating board rules seem to be a stretch. The actual wording of the pertinent rules sections is this:

2) Treat others as you want to be treated. Think about what you are saying before you post a message. Lift each other up, don't tear each other down. Harassment of members is not tolerated. Please behave and not be an embarrassment to the good name of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

Do any of the posts in question qualify as harassment?  And the rest of this section, heartwarming as it may be, strikes me as a general guideline for behavior, not an easily decipherable set of specific rules. In other words, there is massive room for moderators to decide that any given post falls short of these standards.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. To offer my own perspective, I don't act on impulse, especially when it comes to watching the board. If I'm not sure about an issue I'll seek assistance from the other mods. I've also engaged members privately regarding certain issues and also welcome more of that in the future if anyone deems it necessary; my PM box is always open. I'm not unapproachable and neither are the other moderators. I believe in accountability and I want to be more so to everyone here. It's a moral responsibility on my part. I am sure the other moderators are in agreement.

In general, the hand-off moderation of this board has been to its considerable benefit. While it scares some off, it has encouraged robust debate and discussion. And when bans have happened, they have been for behavior that the general community accepts as out of line.

Changing this basic principle of the board strikes me as a big deal. And I'm not sure what the compelling reason behind it is. Threads going off topic? That's happened for forever. Heated arguments? Those have happened too. People losing their tempers? Ditto.

So what is different this time? What exactly is so troubling?

We still are hands-off, really. We come here to chat as fans, first and foremost. While we do receive a considerable amount of reported posts, very few have ever been about an issue requiring some kind of immediate action. We mostly just keep an eye on the thread and go from there. Usually such issues defuse relatively quickly. We're not out to look for reasons by any means.

And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

Well, in the interest of accountability on my part, I'll put this out there - if my continued presence as a moderator here is that much of a problem for the community, I invite everyone who ever had such a problem to come in here, publicly, and let me know. If the response from the community is overall negative, I will step down as a moderator.

And here's a bonus question, for him specifically:

One person can't call another an asshole, but it's acceptable to call women feminazis?

Not one of my better moments. I was also taken to task on it personally. It's not happening again.

[Dancing Bear]

And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

Well, in the interest of accountability on my part, I'll put this out there - if my continued presence as a moderator here is that much of a problem for the community, I invite everyone who ever had such a problem to come in here, publicly, and let me know. If the response from the community is overall negative, I will step down as a moderator.

"The Real Beach Boy" is an asshole. Simples as that.

But we need assholes to get rid opf scum like Rob McCabe. Nuff said.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I would like to think I'm a pretty levelheaded guy. I try to be as fair as possible. I want this board to be how it used to be. Lately the level of hostility has been unbearable.

[Wirestone]

That was quite a decent response, TRBB. Thanks for taking the time, and taking the questions seriously.

With all that being said, I think I probably need to take some time away from the board. I feel as though I've become more of a disruption than a contributor, which is unfortunate. And my perspective on the band simply doesn't feel very welcome anymore.

I do love the music, and I look forward to talking with all of you about it sometime in the future. L&M.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Not welcome? Hell, I personally look forward to your posts.

[Heysaboda]

That was quite a decent response, TRBB. Thanks for taking the time, and taking the questions seriously.

With all that being said, I think I probably need to take some time away from the board. I feel as though I've become more of a disruption than a contributor, which is unfortunate. And my perspective on the band simply doesn't feel very welcome anymore.

I do love the music, and I look forward to talking with all of you about it sometime in the future. L&M.

I also enjoy your posts, Wirestone.  Don't Go!

FWIW

In my view TRBB and the Others Mods do a really great job.  Yes, things get crazy around here, but they eventually settle down too.  That's coz, it's all about the music, man!

[smile-holland]

A lot to respond too. I’ll try to do my best to answer them.

So people are now being banned, not for consistently and egregiously flouting the rules -- as has been the standard in the past -- but for momentarily losing their temper? And after apologizing?

The rules say nothing on consistently breaking the rules before we act. But until now we’ve been very reserved acting on them. With the result that this last period more and more topics (apart from derailing in general) derail into name-calling, personal insulting, etc. Especially that is what we’re focussing more on.

As for the apology-aspect; that was indeed a bit unfortunate. What happened was that I (yes, it was me), had already placed the ban a couple of hours earlier… but I made a mistake not adding all triggers that are necessary to implement the ban. Hence the reason that Andrew had posted his apology, just before we corrected that mistake.

To make it clear: I’m not a fan of banning members here. I personally think AndrewHickey has done a good job in recent discussion on several (heated) topics. And I do welcome him back with open arms (just a few days to go). Same goes for AGD. I like his many contributions. And I’m sure OSD can deliver the right input as well… but I should definitely try to block the possibility for him to post those 

How are these determinations being made, and by whom?

See the rules and guidelines. Each moderator can act on these individually (as for instance we live in different time-zones, and we can’t always wait until every mod has made his mind up)

What kind of assurances can the board moderators give us that this new standard will be applied fairly?

I can only promise that I’ll do my utmost best to do so, as I have always done. And if I make a mistake with that, I’m not too proud to (a) not admit that and (b) not correct the mistake and make an apology for it.

Has any thought been made as to the chilling effect this will have on board dialogue, especially given that many folks backing Mike have been quick to claim persecution at criticism of their stances? How can we trust that this new, activist stance of moderators will not be used to shut down anti-Mike sentiment, especially given the history of some of the mods themselves?

I sincerely hope that it will result in members of this board at least thinking a bit more before they push the “post” button. Even if someone else on the board is succeeding in making your blood boil, it’s never an excuse to start with personal insulting yourself

And from a personal standpoint, I also won't ban people for having anti-Mike views. But like any extremist view, if it is seen to be stepping on the toes of others, all of the moderators will be using their best judgment.

In other words, they are not shutting down dissenting views, except when they are. And the backhanded implication that not liking Mike Love is "an extremist view" is quite troubling.

I think we have been more than kind to the so called anti-Mike members here. To give you an idea of the number of bans: the last 3-4 months there were 3 bans. AGD and Andrew Hickey for personal name calling, and oldsurferdude for responding to a posted picture of Mike Love with wife and (at least one) daughter, calling them hookers (for which a 7 days ban is quite mild)..

Well, let me add then, that one of the reasons for us mods to be more strict is, that lately we have seen more and more discussions get out of hand BECAUSE we were not directly banning someone for not acting according the rules.

I was not aware that threads going off topic was a justification for banning people, which seems to be the implication here.

I should have explained more clear. I’m not talking about derailing as in “off-topic”. We can simply request to get back on topic, and if it still continues it can ultimately end up us blocking the topic. I was specifically aiming at the personal insulting.

Changing this basic principle of the board strikes me as a big deal. And I'm not sure what the compelling reason behind it is. Threads going off topic? That's happened for forever. Heated arguments? Those have happened too. People losing their tempers? Ditto.

So what is different this time? What exactly is so troubling?

Yes, the things you mentioned have happened before. But lately it happens more and more. You might not have noticed that, but if you moderate this board daily, you do. The number of “reported posts” is going up and up. We (moderators) have been increasingly worried about the direction different discussion have been going this last period, specifically the short fuse some among us seem to have these days. That’s why we decided to be more strict on acting according to the rules. We have not changed the rules themselves: they’re still the same as, say, 5 years ago.

Put simply, I do not trust this board's moderators to act in an objective and transparent manner. Their responses in the MIC thread have been less than reassuring.

Again, we all do our best to moderate this board. If we have disappointed you with us acting the way we did in this specific topic, then I regret that, and for me it’s a sign to be better with communicating about it.

[drbeachboy]

The Mods do a great job in here. It can't be easy dealing with all the craziness that can go on in here. This was an unneeded thread, imho. It does make me laugh with all the name calling and arguments that go down here, that the Mods had to be called out. Plus, I wouldn't even bring up the right and wrongs of Mr. Hickey until he himself had a chance to respond first. We do seem to like to get into other people's business at times.

[?]

And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

Well, in the interest of accountability on my part, I'll put this out there - if my continued presence as a moderator here is that much of a problem for the community, I invite everyone who ever had such a problem to come in here, publicly, and let me know. If the response from the community is overall negative, I will step down as a moderator.

I would be extremely disappointed if you stepped down.  You have a lot of strong opinions and I disagree with a lot of them, but I've always respected the way you moderate on this site.  Yes, you dish it out but you've always been just as willing to take it too and that's a refreshing change from what you see in most online communities.

[Mike's Beard]

And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

Well, in the interest of accountability on my part, I'll put this out there - if my continued presence as a moderator here is that much of a problem for the community, I invite everyone who ever had such a problem to come in here, publicly, and let me know. If the response from the community is overall negative, I will step down as a moderator.

"The Real Beach Boy" is an asshole. Simples as that.

But we need assholes to get rid opf scum like Rob McCabe. Nuff said.

Who was Rob McCabe? I have very vague memories; wasn't he 'The Brianista From Hell'?

[Dunderhead]

and so an era in smileysmile.net/board has ended.

[Jason]

and so an era in smileysmile.net/board has ended.

What era has ended? The board isn't going anywhere.

[Jason]

And I will be blunt: While he might be funny, The Real Beach Boys spends a considerable part of his time here needling people. I feel -- and have felt for years -- that someone who behaves in the way he does has no business being a moderator.

Well, in the interest of accountability on my part, I'll put this out there - if my continued presence as a moderator here is that much of a problem for the community, I invite everyone who ever had such a problem to come in here, publicly, and let me know. If the response from the community is overall negative, I will step down as a moderator.

I would be extremely disappointed if you stepped down.  You have a lot of strong opinions and I disagree with a lot of them, but I've always respected the way you moderate on this site.  Yes, you dish it out but you've always been just as willing to take it too and that's a refreshing change from what you see in most online communities.

Well, if you're going to be a moderator on a forum on top of getting down and dirty in the debates, a thick skin is required. I don't ban people for disagreeing with me or calling me out. I never will, either. None of the moderators would. We're a fan community; we have debates and squabbles. Only if those squabbles disrupt the board does it really become an issue.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Those charged with being mods should, by virtue of their status, be above the petty squabbles endemic on this forum and strictly neutral in how they handle individual cases. Three of them are, one isn't.

[SloopJohnB]

They all seem remarkably neutral to me.

Except, understandably, when they are personally being attacked.

[Wirestone]

Those charged with being mods should, by virtue of their status, be above the petty squabbles endemic on this forum and strictly neutral in how they handle individual cases. Three of them are, one isn't.

Word.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Sometimes by one mod, acting in isolation.

[Wirestone]

Sometimes by one mod, acting in isolation.

And that's the whole problem.

[Alex]

Real Beach Boy can be a little cantankerous, but I would be too after dealing with countless Phils, ghosts, Newguys, thomasoggs, etc. I think all 4 of the guys are decent mods, TRBB is just a more blunt and outspoken personality than, say, Smile Holland.

[Mike's Beard]

I think including Jonas as an active Mod is rather stretching it these days. We have 3 Mods, they do a fine job, but I would suggest that before a banning all three should discuss and bring it to a vote. No acting alone.

[drbeachboy]

I think including Jonas as an active Mod is rather stretching it these days. We have 3 Mods, they do a fine job, but I would suggest that before a banning all three should discuss and bring it to a vote. No acting alone.

Here's a novel thought. How about we all interact better with one another, then no one needs be banned. Remember, the Mods only act out when we do. Don't blame them, blame ourselves.

[sockittome]

I think including Jonas as an active Mod is rather stretching it these days. We have 3 Mods, they do a fine job, but I would suggest that before a banning all three should discuss and bring it to a vote. No acting alone.

Here's a novel thought. How about we all interact better with one another, then no one needs be banned. Remember, the Mods only act out when we do. Don't blame them, blame ourselves.

Here's another thought:  if anyone feels like their temper is getting out of control....step away from the keyboard!  Read that angry post you just wrote one more time before you hit the button!  It's that easy!

And if you're just having a bad day....go listen to some Beach Boys music!

[Jason]

I think including Jonas as an active Mod is rather stretching it these days. We have 3 Mods, they do a fine job, but I would suggest that before a banning all three should discuss and bring it to a vote. No acting alone.

For the record, we tried doing that for a while, and it was leading to a lot of situations where we couldn't even get a vote at the same time, given the fact that Billy, Klaas and myself are in three different time zones, with Klaas in Europe.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think including Jonas as an active Mod is rather stretching it these days. We have 3 Mods, they do a fine job, but I would suggest that before a banning all three should discuss and bring it to a vote. No acting alone.

For the record, we tried doing that for a while, and it was leading to a lot of situations where we couldn't even get a vote at the same time, given the fact that Billy, Klaas and myself are in three different time zones, with Klaas in Europe.

You couldn't wait for, at worst, 12 hours to conduct a four person vote ?  Suspend the poster in question, hold the vote and then either reinstate or ban them. Advanced particle dynamics it ain't. 

Also, in the interests of fairness, a few people have assumed my "three are, one isn't" post was aimed at TRBB. It wasn't.