Suggestion for Moderation Procedure

In the WTF thread, Luke Setzer wrote:

I think Duncan has the right idea. Perhaps this could become an ongoing part of a person's profile -- a moderation scorecard in which other members can sanction or unsanction that person's freedom to post without moderation. This would be a different score than the current Atlas points score.

I only hesitate because it smacks of simple majority rule rather than judicious rule.

Luke, I think your hestitation is warranted.

I am concerned that a provision for majority censure could easily lead to group politics, cliques, and disaster.

SOLO is not immune to that in any event, but I fear that a formal mechanism which institutionalizes popular negative "scoring" will only lead to more frequent hard feelings and resignations, or even worse, mob excommunications based not on conduct but upon viewpoint.

SUGGESTION

Representative democracy might be a better model. If anything is to be done by popular vote, perhaps it should the yearly election of a three-person committee who are responsible for voting on moderation--and this based upon written principles laid out in a formal document which applies uniformly to ALL, irrespective of what anyone is doing or has done for SOLO, including proprietary rights.

I think the present arrangement of positive Atlas-point endorsements and automatic off-moderation is a good one, and that a Moderation Committee would only be called upon in the case of extreme misconduct.

The details of how this (or alternatives) might be implemented are something to think about and calmly discuss.

In addition, someone may wish to approach Mr. Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, himself an Objectivist, for suggestions on how SOLO might manage some of its inevitable growing pains.

Nathan Hawking

Post 1

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:45pm

Thanks, Nathan, for these suggestions and for confirming my misgivings about the majority vote idea.

Perhaps our SOLO Law leader has some commentary regarding sensible conflict resolution procedures. Would a new staff position of Ombudsman make sense? When I started the Yahoo! Groups list called hydrino in 2000, we had similar growing pains. I finally appointed a volunteer to serve as Ombudsman to smooth the rough waters, though we have yet to employ his services. Nevertheless, I would rather have the spare tire in my trunk and never need it than to have a flat tire in the middle of nowhere and have no spare.

At the risk of having Linz shoot me in the left brain, allow me to share this:

Stephen Covey offers suggestions for conflict resolution via Habit 4, "Think Win/Win," and Habit 5, "Seek First To Understand, then To Be Understood."

Actually, these skills of empathy draw on the right brain as far as I know, so a shot in the left brain would likely just deepen the process.

In any case, I could imagine a private forum for such conflict resolution with the conflicted parties temporarily moderated and an Ombudsman as forum leader. Each person would first need to state, in his own words, the viewpoint of the other person until the other person feels completely understood -- not accepted, but understood. This process tends to reduce defensiveness and to build empathy towards a mutually agreeable resolution -- a "Third Alternative" better than either original viewpoint. I suppose some would call this a dialectic process, but in any case, it works.

Does anyone here work in a dispute resolution firm? If so, please comment.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/14, 5:56pm)

Post 2

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:59pm

Does anyone here work in a dispute resolution firm?

I think the proper question is, does anyone have experience with kindergarteners?

Post 3

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:07pm

The reason that I'm tending towards a sanction/no sanction system rather than a sanction and then moderation for extreme cases system, is because the latter seems very all or nothing. And when you have a member who has contributed worthy content in the past and has been around for a while make some inappropriate post, you then have a difficult decision to make. Moderating him would be unpopular by some and him, leaving it alone would encourage more of the same. With a sanction/no sanction system, a person who has accumulated a lot of Atlas points can be unsanctioned by people if he steps over the line, but if it's not too bad, it probably wouldn't moderate him. This could create a system where justice can be proportional, rather than just one-size fits all. Also, the constant sanction/unsanctions could help more visibly establish where the line is that Soloists want to draw.

This is, of course, contingent on the idea that if people perceive that someone has been unfairly unsanctioned or even unfairly sanctioned, they can then cast their own vote until it looks to the community as if each post has achieved the proper level of sanctions. For example, sometimes I will see a post and think, "That looks pretty good", and start to sanction it, but then see that it already has a ton of sanctions -- more than I think it deserves -- and so not sanction it afterall. I'm hoping for a similar effect and also hoping that corrections to unjustified unsanctions will create a benevolent and just atmosphere, rather than just a negative atmosphere from the unsanction in the first place.

Post 4

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:23pm

I agree with Nathan. I like the idea of a committee (or Jedi consul, or Admiralty, or whatever you want to call it) consisting of very few cool-headed knowledgeable people who would take cases of dispute, violation, etc., comb through hundreds of posts to find the truth, and deal out judgment - moderation, banning, or spanking. ;-)

I wouldn't even mind that such arbiters are appointed by Joe and Linz, though it might be better that they should be confirmed by Soloists who care. Well, sounds like I am describing the Supreme Court. ;-)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 6/14, 7:49pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:31pm

Jeff:

The reason that I'm tending towards a sanction/no sanction system rather than a sanction and then moderation for extreme cases system, is because the latter seems very all or nothing.

My concern, Jeff, is that punishment and negativity could all too easily become a cultural theme and a central group preoccupation. Institutionalizing NEGATIVE feedback is, I think, probably counter-cultural--at least counter to the sense of life and culture which drew me here!

As a group, there is considerable goodwill, recent events notwithstanding. Those little Atlas guys are a part of that generally positive spirit of affirmation. On SOLO, either positive stuff happens, or nothing, or posts disagreeing with our position.

I think the posting mechanism--people speaking out against abuse--is sufficient negative feedback for bad behavior. If that fails to reform the behavior, then extreme measures probably SHOULD be what kick in.

Nathan Hawking

Post 6

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:31pm

Jeff,

I'm just throwing out some ideas here...

First, I think it might be useful (in addition to the time limit you mentioned) to have a limit on the number of unsanctions (and perhaps sanctions) a person can give within a given time period (a day? a week?). That way, an "enemy" would be limited in the amount of damage they'd be able to accomplish.

Second, I'm wondering (but I'm not sure that even I like it!) whether a person's sanction / unsanction limit might not be proportional to their accumulated (net) sanction total. In this way, someone who is new would (again) be limited in the damage they could do.

Finally, maybe unsanctions should be even less than half a point. Maybe a quarter? That way, it would take a clear unanimity of opinion before really pulling down the vote.

Post 7

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 6:31pm

Well, sounds like I am describing the Supreme Court.

Yep. This is all beautifully interesting. Intelligent people in a group small enough to (potentially) consciously form a social contract... so exciting! I can't wait to see how it turns out.
(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/14, 6:33pm)

Post 8

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:19pm

Finally, maybe unsanctions should be even less than half a point. Maybe a quarter? That way, it would take a clear unanimity of opinion before really pulling down the vote.

I agree on this, the atmosphere on this site in general remains very positive and in the case of non-sanctions becoming a reality, allowing them the same value as sanctions would tend toward allowing too much power to bitter and hateful individuals who simply want to hurt other posters.

---Landon

Post 9

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:38pm

Why not a model like slashdot? They have a rating system where certain people get randomly chosen to be raters for x period of time. The raters then rate the posts from 1 to 5 (and also can denote specific properties like 'informative' or 'humorous'). These average to form the posts overall rating.

Finally, users viewing the messages then have the ability to filter by minimum rating. This ensures that even objectionable unpopular posts do not get censored or moderated, but only the raters and the most tolerant other users with the most free time (ie. those who set their filter low) will see those posts. Also, this way discourages bad individual posts rather than users, so a great contributor who has a bad day and curses everybody under the sun won't be punished in general, and a troll/flamethrower who posts an atypically good post could still get seen.

Thoughts?

Post 10

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:45pm

Nathan wrote:

I think the posting mechanism--people speaking out against abuse--is sufficient negative feedback for bad behavior. If that fails to reform the behavior, then extreme measures probably SHOULD be what kick in.

Perhaps we need to "Begin with the End in Mind" (Covey Habit 2). Here I suggest some common ends all healthy people desire:

All of us want to feel happy.
All of us want to feel understood.
All of us want to feel respected.
All of us want to feel able to live and worthy of living.
All of us want to resolve conflict peacefully.
All of us want to experience growth and continual life enrichment.

In the interest of minimizing public conflicts and upsets like the ones we have seen lately, perhaps we need a "face saving" procedure established that allows conflicts to resolve privately via a mediator. In other words, I agree with you about the need for negative feedback, but I think that a private experience of that feedback might serve our interests best. We need to employ proven procedures that get results in line with the aforementioned ends.

I think a combination of timely and measured public sanctions and unsanctions along with an effective, mediated private alternate dispute resolution (ADR) system would optimize the achievement of the SOLO mission.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:49pm

Kernon:

Second, I'm wondering (but I'm not sure that even I like it!) whether a person's sanction / unsanction limit might not be proportional to their accumulated (net) sanction total. In this way, someone who is new would (again) be limited in the damage they could do.

Finally, maybe unsanctions should be even less than half a point. Maybe a quarter? That way, it would take a clear unanimity of opinion before really pulling down the vote.

One other problem I have with the technical approach, unsanctions, goes to the nature of power.

It's a rule in business management that one should never give someone responsibility unless they also have the power to discharge that responsibility. The fact that we're already worried about how to fine-tune a pushbutton scheme suggests to me a potential to get very messy, either by being ineffectual or by making the button-pushers too powerful.

I would rather be subject to the (hopefully) good judgment of people I elect to moderate than to the transient passions of anonymous button clickers. There's something to be said for speaking our minds publicly if we have a complaint.

Nathan Hawking

Post 12

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 8:16pm

Luke:

Nathan wrote:
I think the posting mechanism--people speaking out against abuse--is sufficient negative feedback for bad behavior. If that fails to reform the behavior, then extreme measures probably SHOULD be what kick in.
Perhaps we need to "Begin with the End in Mind" (Covey Habit 2). ...

Indeed.

In the interest of minimizing public conflicts and upsets like the ones we have seen lately, perhaps we need a "face saving" procedure established that allows conflicts to resolve privately via a mediator. In other words, I agree with you about the need for negative feedback, but I think that a private experience of that feedback might serve our interests best.

People on SOLO are usually pretty measured in their responses to conduct they question, including gentle (or not so gentle) public hints, and even private SOLOmails.

I received one just yesterday asking me if I wasn't being to hard on my debate adversary, which I appreciated very much.

But a private mechanism would take some of the burden off SOLO members, and might lessen the need for public rebuke.

We need to employ proven procedures that get results in line with the aforementioned ends.

I think a combination of timely and measured public sanctions and unsanctions along with an effective, mediated private alternate dispute resolution (ADR) system would optimize the achievement of the SOLO mission.

That's one of the problems with this latest set-to, isn't it? The public nature almost guaranteed irreconcilable differences, rather than problem resolution and mended fences. I agree that there needs to be a private component to the procedure.

Nathan Hawking

Post 13

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:39pm

Jeff, Joe and Linz,

Nobody is saying this, but I sort of like Solo just as it is right now, warts and all.

The present blow-up is now petering out. Others will happen. We will survive. Solo is still a very benevolent place to be. Please, guys, keep that fact in mind when you think about essential changes in moderation and grading policy. In Brazil, they say you don't substitute players on a (soccer) team that is winning. That goes for rules for websites too.

For empirical evidence of my opinion, how about the recently reported growth of this site? How about the number of new articles that achieve 40 or 50 sanction points or higher? How about the fact that Solo is talked about A LOT on other Objectivist forums? How about the overall quality of the discussions? How about the endless list of reasons that the many newcomers state for coming over here, always stressing "benevolent" (mostly in other words) somehow? How about the fact that despite this blowup, Solo is still thriving?

If you don't believe this, look at the number of recent new posts.

This is not the first crisis Solo has had, nor will it be the last. Solo not only survived all of them, look at what a magnificent achievement it is right now!

Michael

Post 14

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 2:13am

One observation, though I'm not sure how accurate it is (having only read this forum for a couple months): It seems to me that sanctions are used to convey a range of messages. Sometimes they indicate approval for the way something was presented, sometimes they indicate agreement with a point being made, and sometimes (but not always) they mean both.

The current explanation for sanctions merely says, "If you read an article or see a review of a book or movie or any gallery item, and you like it, you can 'sanction' it ..." Might there be difficulties with antisanctions being similarly loosely defined?

When there are only sanctions, the lack of distinction is less problematic. Although it might be more useful to say outright for which reason you are giving the sanction, the ambiguity between "I concur" and "Excellent work" isn't quite so harmful as the ambiguity between "I beg to differ" and "This is out of line."

Post 15

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:06am

Michael�don't worry, I too like SOLO as it is, warts & all. That's even though there's a body of opinion that considers *me* the biggest wart! Sir Robert frets on another thread about transmitting our bust-ups to the world. The bust-ups are actually an infinitesimal part of the product, and I think the world might actually be impressed to see, for the first time, an Objectivist community deal with its blow-outs openly & freely with uninhibited participation by the rank & file.

The current blow-out is unquestionably the worst we've had, but observe the genuine, over-riding concern to fix it rather than form eternal enmities. It probably will be fixed, but not, of course, at any price. And if it isn't ... well, SOLO will keep growing exponentially anyway. Of course it's not perfect, just as its leader is not perfect, but it has so much more going for it than the other games in town that there's just no contest. When TOC lifts its game, of course, there'll be a match. But with the goodwill on both sides that has blossomed since Sir Robert's announced return to TOC, the rivalry will be friendly, often put aside for collaborative ventures ... and *good* for Objectivism. (Of course, SOLO will still win hands down!)

We're doing fine. And we'll keep getting better & better.

Linz

Post 16

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:21am

Hear, Hear Michael and Lindsay

OK out there! Everybody join in and post what you're thinking and feeling!! SOLO is ours and it is wonderful!!!

Jim

Post 17

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:36am

BTW, as far as the sanction system is concerned, I'd just as soon dump the bloody thing altogether. It brings out the social-metaphysical child in people�"I've got more Atlas icons than you"�and deflects them toward writing posts/articles that they think will win them Atlas points rather than grappling with more problematic issues. I suspect this is the reason we've seen such a surfeit of warm-fuzzy articles about pets, great-grandmothers, etc., & a drop-off in hard-ass articles of the kind *I* like to write & read. Absolutely no offence meant to those who write about pets & great-grandmothers�there've been some outstanding sense-of-life articles on these sorts of subjects�but I think the Atlas system is subtly seducing folk in the direction of dessert at the expense of meat & potatoes. Dichotomy-free SOLO, of course, likes to see meat & potatoes AND dessert.

However, the boys, Jeff & Joe, love their toys, & I wouldn't dream of trying to force the issue or dampen their creativity! As I often say, I like to see the young folk enjoying themselves! :-)

One thing, though�the elaborate labrynths of committees, sub-committees, sub-sub-committees, Councils of Ombudsmen & Franklin Covey conflict-resolution procedures some have proposed here to deal with insults & umbrage will be implemented over my dead body! Give me insults & umbrage any day! :-)

Linz

Post 18

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:53am

Linz, I had long meant to suggest to you and Joe privately exactly what you suggest above (and for the very same reasons): that the entire sanction system might be best retired. My suggestion would've applied to posts only (rather than articles) simply because I see *no* upside to post-sanctioning -- all of a sudden, the tongue becomes a magnet for all butts in sight -- whereas at least for articles, it might be informative. But even that death wouldn't be mourned by me.

Seeking praise for its own sake is a human weakness that requires conscious supression, and doesn't need to be tempted.

Alec

Post 19

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:48am