*****
I’m starting with Rule #1 and moving down the list. That may mean this will go over more than one diary, if it gets a bit long. Let’s start and see.
#1: Remember that there are real people on the other end of your communication, along with thousands of others who may read but never reply.
What does this mean for purposes of community moderation, or for purposes of posting, in general? We normally think in terms of a single audience for our comments; the community. That’s a few thousand people on any given day who may read what we’ve written, most of whom have at least some familiarity with common nomenclature and language used on the site. These are people with whom we will probably have to interact in the future. From my standpoint, that means trying to stop at least one step short of a mortal insult, no matter how bad you feel their statements are. Preferably a long way short of it, if you can manage it.
All this, of course, is ignoring the four to six million other daily visitors who are the main readership of Daily Kos. This is a good thing in most cases, because, IMO, part of the appeal we have to that outer audience is the feel of being in a community. It does mean that taking the time to explain some of the more esoteric terms that we use is generally a Good Thing.
*****
#2: Value the norms of a “reality-based community.” Support your arguments with links to supporting documents and original source materials. Such original sources should be credible news and information sites.
This means that it is never an error to request cites when an author is trying to prove a point without using them. Even if it’s basically an opinion piece, either diary or comment, if it uses statements about what has happened or what other people than the author think, it is legitimate to call for cites to back up those statements. Before you request a cite, you should at least have skimmed any links given, to make sure they don’t speak to the issues you’re questioning. It is an error to suggest that those cites do not exist, when you’re asking. For one thing, you could be entirely wrong. Wiping egg off your face in public is no fun at all.
If the author is building a case entirely on their own knowledge and opinions, it is still legitimate to ask for a fuller explanation, especially if the wording is unclear to you, or ambiguous. In this case, the better you are at meta-speak, the more likely you are to be able to finish the discussion without one of you stepping on the other’s toes.
(Some time, I need to define what I mean by that term, other than saying I know it when I see it. That’s not really good enough. Sigh. Meta is when you’re talking about how you’re talking about something; critiquing an argument instead of picking a side in it. It’s standing outside the box and pointing out that it might be the wrong size box. Sometimes it starts a whole new fight, but if done correctly it can weasel around and cut one off.)
*****
#3: Strive to be accurate.
Use trustworthy sources. If a claim seems especially exciting, but isn’t widely reported, take a moment to check your work and verify the facts you can. And if you find out you made a mistake, own it and correct it. If commenters are skeptical, take their concerns seriously. Don’t be a part of spreading Fake News or conspiracy theory.
It is possible to legitimately flag a diary or comment for simply linking to a source that is a known problem, such as Stormfront. It can be more useful, in the long run, to check to see whether the information is available at a reputable source before going with that option. It’s also reasonable, unless there is a history of this kind of usage, to ask the author whether they realize that the source is generally untrustworthy.
If whatever it is sounds too good to be true, pointing that out and suggesting that alternate sources for the information might be useful to have can make a positive difference. Under most circumstances, though, moderation may be the last thing that the participants in the argument wish to see. Sometimes, it’s better to sit back and keep out of the fight, or at least remember that you’re a participant and not a moderator in those circumstances.
*****
#4: Keep in mind the formal site mission:
“Daily Kos fights for a progressive America by empowering its community and allies with information and tools to directly impact the political process.”
I don’t know what this means in terms of moderation. Anything that admin wants it to mean, I suspect. Anyone who wants to take it on, be my guest.
I suppose I could cite it as a counter to the Doom diaries, but I’m not at all sure.
*****
#5 through #10
do not impact the moderation process in any way that I can see.
*****
#11: Read the whole comment or story before recommending.
And base your recommending decisions not on who wrote it, but on how positive a contribution to the discussion it is.
Translation: Ten lines of wonderful explanation followed by or including a single instance of bigotry or vicious insult; you have the option of not recommending it and moving on, or you can say something. If it’s a diary, you can ask for a revision if the rest seems worth the effort.
If it’s a first comment, you can write an explanation of why the comment is a problem, hoping that the newcomer will have a chance to learn from it. In most cases, it won’t matter, though — the comment is likely to be both the first and last they’ll write.
*****
#12: Fight hard but fight fair. Write an argument, not an attack.
Remember, other people are just as passionate, committed, and ornery as you are. That’s supposed to be an advantage for us, right? Democrats boast about having a big tent. Learn from those who oppose you; let their challenges help you formulate your positions more clearly and draw upon better evidence.
If you decide to try to moderate once this type of fight has been started, try to pick subjects on which you are absolutely neutral to start with, and stick to general points (meta) rather than to any statement that attacks or defends any point being made by either side. Sometimes this will get you out unsinged. Good luck.
*****
#13: Accept that reasonable people may in the end still disagree.
This can be the hardest of all to end well, but it can be done, as long as opinions aren’t inextricably mixed with factual information. It’s much easier if both sides have been determinedly civil throughout the conversation.
*******
Comments are open. For agreement and argument and everything in between — and sideways, too. Enjoy.
*****
Next time: The same thing on the Do Nots that I didn’t cover earlier. After that, probably the Dos and Do Nots of the Ratings system and how Help Desk policies may to be changing.
Tentatively, these diaries are set for Tuesday and Friday evenings at 9:00 pm Eastern time/8:00 pm Central/7:00 pm Mountain/6:00pm West Coast. If you have a topic you’d like to see discussed in one of them, leave a comment or kosmail me about it.
Anyone who wants to discuss community moderation topics is welcome. Of course, if you wish to tell us that community moderation is a failure and it’s all just an excuse for some people to set themselves up to judge others, please remember that Conspiracy Theories are not acceptable topics for discussion.
Previous diaries in this series, and a compilation of historical diaries showing the growth of Community Moderation on Daily Kos, can be found at A Guide to Community Moderation.
A caveat:
I do not speak for the Help Desk. This group does not speak for the Help Desk. In the unlikely event that any member of the Help Desk joins the group it still will not speak for the Help Desk. Kos and the rest of the Daily Kos staff, usually speaking through the Help Desk, are the ultimate authority in any and all disputes. Moving on...
Decisions about what to moderate, what to say, and how to say it, have always been individual ones. At most, it’s my hope that this group will offer advice which will make at least some parts of moderation more comfortable for more users.
Comments are closed on this story.