Moderated Discussion Revisited
I don't know exactly how long the moderated discussion tables have been in effect, but I was wondering, from both ends, how it is going?
As one who submits posts, sometimes it is frustrating to have to wait 24 hours to have something posted. It kind of slows down the conversation.
From an administrative side, I wanted to ask if you have found if the values or benefits are greater than the risks of instant messages? Also, has it had an effect on the number of posts that have been submitted?
To fellow posters, how has it been for you?
Hopefully, we can aid in the understanding of both systems and what works better!
Some sites I blog on have
Some sites I blog on have privileges for frequent bloggers and levels. Maybe, based on number of posts, one could receive a status where posts are immediate if someone has earned trust that they aren't a fly-by-night poster. I'm sure that some radicals like Here Today who like to throw in herectical words like "priest***" will still have to be censored, but they seem to be the exception!
Clearer sorting of topics
Clearer sorting of topics and themes wuld be helpful. Ofttimes I look up a newly-posted comment and discover it's not on a theme that I want to follow through.
And the delays are "needling." But I know that not everything is possible and many of us reach the end of the day with unfinished business.
So, overall, thanks. Have a profoundly joyous Christmas.
Englishwoman
I really miss the
I really miss the spontaneity of the instantaneous messaging. I know I laughed a lot more and had a much better feel for everyone. I personally thought Frannie and HT were Priest and Priestess of the one liners, and I miss that repartee.
On the other hand, the spamming was annoying, and there were a few posters who seemed unable to maintain an appropriate demeanor and in a few instances, did manage to wiggle their way under my skin. OK, that still happens.
I wish we had the feature which used to track the threads on which we posted. If we had that back, it would save me alot of time trying to remember where I posted and I wouldn't miss so much of the conversation after long delays in uploading. I finally figured out some tricks, but it still takes way too long.
Have a merry Christmas and Happy New year one and all.
First of all, I apologize
First of all, I apologize for this past week. I was in bed for two days this week with some kind of bug. Once back to work, other pressures and responsibilities kept me from NCR cafe business. I understand your frustration, but I have many balls to juggle here.
The monitored discussion began just a little over 39 weeks ago. Let me remind all of you of one of my original posting on this subject: http://ncrcafe.org/node/982#comment-13536.
The stats for visitor numbers, postings and rejections remain fairly consistent. On every entry, you can see how many people have visited that page and how many of commented. Do the math to calculate for lurkers.
As I have said from the beginning, keeping our pages clear of pornography, prescription drug ads, and solicitations for donations is worth the trouble of moderation.
I know of no blog or discussion site that does not monitor comments. You can rail against it if you want, but I can see no way around it. You can call it censorship if you want and accuse me of censoring. Go ahead. I think we allow a much broader airing of views on these pages than any other site of this nature. If I am wrong, please introduce me to those other sites.
Let me remind you that, when you register with the café, you have the option of allowing other café members to contact you through the café via e-mail. The contact is made without revealing your personnel e-mail address. Many people still choose not to allow contact. If you want to send someone a one line zinger or song lyrics or ribald poetry, try using that method.
Finally let me remind you that the café will be closed for commenting from Dec. 24 morning until Jan. 2. Have a merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management
Dennis, I entered this
Dennis,
I entered this discussion topic before the long delay. I understand being sick and behind. I have spent half my life in that position! I raised the topic not to be adversarial or to spark debate, but moreso as a way to see what people are thinking and experiencing. I was worried no one even read this thread and after reading the comments, I am glad I brought it up. I see both sides of the issue. Just trying to think a little outside the box and look at some solutions. I don't know if there are other ways to prevent scamming, advertising, or profanities. I was just hoping to move the conversation a bit because of the frustration of not knowing if a comment was overlooked, approved, or even made it to the cafe and not lost in cyber-space. We seem to have a group of regulars who do post, but I remember the earlier days when actual near conversations were possible.
Regardless, thank you for providing us with this forum and for all the hard work you do. I was also wondering if John Allen, Joan and the other reporters read the comments or log on to cafe. It would be great for them to sometimes participate in the conversation.
Merry Christmas to all.
There are several Catholic
There are several Catholic sites that I can think of with spontaneity and a low level moderation: the Phatmass Phorum, Catholic Answer Forums, the Catholic community forums (catholic.org?), flyfree forum (catecheticsonline.com)
There are some truly unmonitored sites out there, but none that I frequent often enough to recall at the moment.
Some concrete ideas for the forum:
1) to stop the spam bots, requiring an e-mail verification or a word verification on sign up would eliminate most of the bots.
2) have a less strict table for debate, where we don't have to worry about words being replaced by editorial comments. (I doubt many here would agree to take this over to phatmass or other sites where the numbers would swing radically against the propositions they support, they would be nuts to do what I am doing and embed their conversation in "enemy" territory.) Step in when asked by participants in the conversation, but leave some room for it to get a little dirty.
3) if you insist on the complete moderated format, have a regular schedule for posting and an objective set of guidelines. If a word is banned, than it is banned for every use and is starred out every time (perhaps you could find a bit of code to do this automatically).
4) regardless an expanded selection of recent comments would be useful, or maybe a nicer version of the thematic tables page (any bbs forum is based on this page, and the system seems to make it easier to follow conversations than it is here.)
++++++
What I'm Listening To...
Here Today, I really
Here Today, I really appreciate your contribution to this table and I wouldn't mind going into "enemy" territory. If we can't dialogue, how can we be church? I love the debate, but I have to love the person first. We are all journeyers on the road to salvation. So what if your roadsigns are in Latin!
Of course, perhaps you
Of course, perhaps you should be grateful to Dennis, because he's also edited out a couple of my editorial coments to you over the last year, and I suspect you like them even less from older women than from older men. Merry Christmas, HT! :-)
I would rather have the
I would rather have the frank conversation than what this seems to be turning into, a conversation through a third party. Happy New Year!
++++++
What I'm Listening To...
Here Today, these are
Here Today, these are valuable suggestions, and I agree with you about them.
I might, however, err a bit on the side of trying to leave less room for discussions to get a little dirty. This may just be my own personal preference, or it may reflect my graduate school years in Canada, where the government is more sensitized to controlling hate speech than our own government is. Or it may reflect my Southern cultural background.
My concern with letting things get "a little dirty" is that--again, my own personal view--it seems to me the dumbing down of political discourse in the U.S. has gone hand in hand with the talk-radio phenomenon, where we keep letting commentators get just a little bit dirtier and a little bit dirtier still.
Please don't misunderstand: I don't mean by "dirty" salaciousness (and I know you didn't, either).
What concerns me is slur-slinging and name-calling.
Case in point, and one in which I have a vested interest, admittedly: perhaps before you were participating in these forums, the term "queer" was used rather casually by one poster. I took it as a slur, and challenged the poster--though I never wrote the moderators to ask for censorship. Never have done that.
Having lived through the civil rights period in the South, I've become very sensitive to the ways in which language frames social reality--and can demean despised groups. I have had to retrain myself linguistically to be very much aware of the manifold ways in which Southern culture historically has used linguistic structures to demean and marginalize African Americans. I have had to look at unconscious uses of language in my own speech patterns--a constant re-educational process.
For this reason, I completely understood the call for re-education of ourselves about linguistic structures of misogyny, when that call came along. I understand why the word "priestess" is as offensive as other words I used to use casually, such as "actress" or "stewardess."
Granted, a lot more has to change besides language, but language is a start. And it does frame how we view the world.
For all the reasons above, I personally don't have a problem with moderators asking that we adhere to some basic standards in how we carry on dialogue. I fully support your call for even-handedness in moderating, of course. Standards applied to one should be applied to all.
Sorry to be so long-winded this close to Christmas, when I'm thinking of further baking and cooking for our family's Christmas day meal, as I imagine many posters are also doing. A merry Christmas to you, Here Today, and to all taking part in these good conversations.
William D. Lindsey
"Case in point, and one in
"Case in point, and one in which I have a vested interest, admittedly: perhaps before you were participating in these forums, the term "queer" was used rather casually by one poster. I took it as a slur, and challenged the poster--though I never wrote the moderators to ask for censorship. Never have done that."
This is much more acceptable to my way of thinking than the current method, see if things can be handled peer-to-peer before having big brother moderator step in. (And since I was around since the beginning (remember telcontar?) I do vaguely remember the incident, I would refresh my memory if I could but...) My interest in the p word is not wholly unlike your interest in the incident you bring up.
As far as sexism in language goes, I think that for the most part it is only those who are looking to be offended that truly take offense. The trend goes to a minimalization (sp?) of the language, and a loss of meaning in what we say. Take actress for example. I see no reason not to use this perfectly good word (nor does at least one major film award) to specify an actor who is female. To say that actress is offensive because it is a feminine form of the word is to say that the feminine is offensive.
The p word is a different case than occupational terms, however, because it is a question of what is the priesthood in the Christian (ie Catholic) Church? Why didn't the early Church conform to the practice of the time that there were always {p word} but not always priests (and never the other way around)?
I agree that language has a lot in how we view the world, that is why I think that removal of words, particularly entire classes of words, from a language should not simply happen, if it should happen at all. Much of what is called 'hate speech' (ie racial slurs, rap music ;-)) would demean the person saying it and their cause more than their opponent. Much of what is left is disputed as being hate speech (any word ending in -ess indicating a female of the stem).
As far as letting it get dirty, those who tend to result to personal attacks, vulgar language, etc, hang themselves with their own rope. I remember there were two such posters back in the day, (one liberal, wwob; one conservative, I honestly can't recall, but I know I called him on it) who were nuisances, but were also largely ignored (well, I did like to troll-bait from time to time). But that is part of having a real discussion with the whole range of "normal" people as sevenup is not finding here.
God Bless!
++++++
What I'm Listening To...
And you as well. You can
And you as well. You can rationally analyze why something ought or ought not be considered offensive. But the fact that it is offensive to some remains. I used to use the word "girls" to describe mature women. I was told it was offensive. I stopped. Our language is rich enough to accommodate everyone's sensibilities. If you ask, why should I bother? The answer: out of charity.
I think that the problems in
I think that the problems in posting are very frustrating, especially to those who regularly enjoy this conversation with others. I very much miss it when it's not available, even though I try to temper my frustration with an understanding of the work problems that this must create sometimes for Dennis C. I also think it is harder to attract people to post when it is such a slow conversation, since even though I really like it, I've found myself starting to lose interest, or like Star, not getting enough immediacy for it to feel like a conversation. I think that we should try to find a way to solve some of the problems with it, now that a year of testing it out with moderation is passed. While I don't want to go back to having the posting taken over by spamming or whatevers, I think that we should look at possibilities such as these:
1. spot-checking of postings, rather than monitoring of each post,
2. trying now to see if, with a core group of regulars, the moderation request could come from members themselves who ask for Dennis to review a particular thread when it seems to be floundering toward something or nothing--a "hey, Dennis, can you step into this one?" sort of arrangement. I think we do have a pretty good sense of where NCR would want to step into this for at least a stronger look-see, and I'd like to see if that would work,
3. A place to go to to find out when the next time that new posts will become available. As a busy person among many here, I find myself checking it out far more than necessary or helpful to my other work, because I do want to stay a part of the discussion, and it is very hard to stay involved if too much time goes by. I don't remember where I've posted after awhile, so I lose interest or try to keep where I am in mind more than I really have time for, but I'm also trying to fit it into a busy life with free-er moments sometimes at odd times. Sometimes the weekend is our better time, after all, although obviously Dennis' worst in order to have his own life. If I knew when Dennis had time to get to them, I wouldn't be concerned that I'm not responding to someone who's responded to me, for instance.
Other ideas? I think there is a better solution out there that we should at least be trying out. Glad you posted this re-visit, jstab. Oh, and should we not see each other again before Christmas, Merry Christmas to all (you see, that's the problem...we don't know what's going to happen...).
Mixed. 1.I wish the
Mixed.
1.I wish the administrators would give us some feedback on the usage data and change over time including as well the "observer" only data and rater-non-poster.
2. It is not clear whether waiting two and three days for putting up postings is a factor of administrative resources, monitor availability or lack of postings. Whatever, it is disconcerting. For example this subject was dated Dec.14 but not open to review until Dec.21 Dennis C. could aid us here. I guess the larger question is are there other variables which intervene.
3.A positive dimension seems to be that the postings represent a bit more reflection and application to general readership rather than being sort of one-on-one more or less spontaneous chats between some.
4.A downer, for me, is that the "monitoring" seems to include a degree of censorship that implies "values" that go beyond those stated or imply inconsistencies that may or may not be fair in all cases.
For example, Dennis C. acknowledges that he censored the term "priestess" because of the derisive tone it sometimes carried. So, genuine uses significant to expression or neutral are arbitrarily excluded. Also, some of the opinions on other subjects of extreme disagreement, are expressed in discursive mode with derisive content re the subject and/or the poster which make the cut. Yet, the same or closely similar comments using concise language are cut. One can appreciate the difficulty for the monitors but the result is that argumentation is a matter of skill with language rather than respect for value standards.
5.And then there is the question of "censorship" period.
There are E-mail options
There are E-mail options available for intensive spontaneity. I am willing to sacrifice immediacy and broader audience for thoughtful stability and preclusion of the frivolous. It is instructive to observe the crafting of this forum as it evolves. These are Professional Journalists hosting this site and they are lending a unique perspective to the propagation of mass communications. Quite naturally they exercise editorial prerogatives based upon the established guidelines for the forum and their goals for journalism in general. The Board of Directors, or whoever makes the money decisions has priorities to observe and will guide the proceedings accordingly.
You made an important statement in a post may moons ago, ' Responsibility = Freedom ' . Decisions have to be made about the nature of the responsible and this is their house. So, at times I'll have to assume the role of Cub Reporter and revise and edit. I can still adapt and get my point across. If not, I can retreat or allow my Nordic character to assume that the standards of cool objectivity have not yet been observed and allow a passive condescension to substitute for outrage and disgust. We are allowed alot of latitude to make a point. I've found creative allusion to be very useful. Poetic imagery can communicate more effectively than much ponderous pontification. Humor sparks epiphanies of understanding at times when nothing else will.
Working in Corporate America has given me some insight into this sort of adaptation. One orientation program made an important point about trust. We were urged to view challenging policies as , ' Not a Threat, but an Opportunity '. They have experienced alot of success with their strategies and are encouraging you to put out the effort and discover the wisdom and rewards of their winning ways. It is an excellent point. Posters like 'Here Today' would rise rapidly in such an organization because he recognizes the mechanics of this structure quite well.
All in all, I was disappointed at first, but I've adjusted and am getting as much if not more satisfaction because I am forced to think before I talk. In person conversations one thing , but this is emerging as something quite unique. The absence of certain distractions has a sort of Monastic and ascetic quality to it. Space and Time are experienced in a special way if you allow it.
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
Need I comment? Purely on
Need I comment?
Purely on the usability the delays, often for more than 24 hours, really do tend to interfere with the continuity of the discussion.
Of course my major complaint is the censorship (no longer veiled with the banning of the word [THAT SOME PEOPLE INSIST ON USING FOR WOMEN PRIESTS DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS NOT TO USE THAT TERM BECAUSE ITS USE SHOWS DISRESPECT. AND I DON'T BUY THAT LANGAUGE-GENDER (AUHTOR/AUTHORESS, ACTOR/ACTRESS) SMOKESCREEN. SO WE HAVE HERE JUST ONE TINY EXAMPLE OF WHY THE DISCUSION BOARDS HAVE TO BE MONITORED. IF I CAN TRUST YOU IN LITTLE THINGS …]).
++++++
What I'm Listening To...
really, Dennis C, the
really, Dennis C, the editorial is a little over the top, as you said there is always email
++++++
What I'm Listening To...
jstab, the fact that you
jstab, the fact that you originally posted this on Dec. 14 and today, the 20th it becomes available for reading and commentary says it all.
It would be helpful for me to know how many postings are eliminated as unsuitable for one reason or another on a daily or weekly basis.
Frustrating is a good word. Static rather than dynamic. And the worst--patriarchal, as if the conversation has to have oversight. I don't want it to become a mud-slinging free-for-all so I don't want an unmoderated forum but the lack of spontanaeity is frustrating and probably limits some dialogues.
I know what you mean about
I know what you mean about slowing down discussion. I have been waiting since Saturday to see what this post is about, and it is now Thursday. I find that sometimes in the discussions that we have, sometimes a comment one makes does not ever get posted and then others think that you are not participating in the discussion
The Cafe Is Open for
The Cafe Is Open for Business.
I hope you all had a relaxing, refreshing holiday. Let the discussions resume.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management