Aaron, I was not aware of the mechanism; now that you've explained it, I think it's a great system. It allows for a moderator to immediately see the specific nature of the complaint and consequently it can be dealt with expediently.
-Jon On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote: > > > On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > > I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To > > check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate > > speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other > > discussion board ever for examples of this. > > I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that > Robert's mock-ups showed it. > > The labeling of something as having one or the other of these issues is > *not* part of a public discussion or even a back-and-forth discussion. > Saying publicly, "that's hate speech" and having a conversation about it > is *exactly* the sort of problems you are talking about, and not at all > how flagging works on Snowdrift.coop. > > Flagging on Snowdrift.coop is an *anonymous* hiding of someone's post > with a specific statement about which item(s) in the formal Code of > Conduct are involved. In other words, you don't get to reply at all. > There is no thread, there is no reply. There is *only* the fact that > your comment is hidden, and you get to repost it by fixing the issue. > > It is a fundamentally different thing than getting a specific reply in a > conversation. You post something someone says is unconstructive > criticism, your post is flagged and hidden, and all you have is the fact > that your post is hidden and was checked as unconstructive criticism. > You don't get to reply, and you don't get told who flagged you. You get > to look at your post and figure out how to make it constructive, and > then you repost, and *then* we can predict reasonably that constructive > conversation will continue and bad feelings will subside as people are > happy that they are having productive discussion. > > In short, I don't think our design is bad, but I *do* think the public > posting of something in the manner the mockup might have indicated > *would* be bad for the very reasons you bring up. > > > > > > I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional de-escalating > > forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you do this." > > > > While that makes sense for de-escalating if there's actually a > persistent conflict, the point is not to even *have* back and forth > discussion that includes problematic, disrespectful statements. I've > seen tons of forums where the focus gets lost and tons of things go > badly despite good will from some people because the topic gets > overwhelmed by the long discussion that mixes various defensiveness with > attempts at de-escalation. > > Again, the point is that "I feel this when you do this" in various > forums gets replies like "whatever, screw you" if someone is really > upset or just being a jerk. And there's tons of subtle misunderstandings > where a comment had *zero* ill-will but was read that way by someone, > and then the whole thing becomes a long thread about the communication > instead of the topic at hand, and little things get misunderstood and > blow up all the attempts at reconciliation. > > Again, this is about nipping it in the bud, fix the problematic post > immediately, no discussion. If you think it was fine, just fix it anyway > and try again so we can move on. > > I can't say this strongly enough: I agree *completely* that publicly or > even in a back-and-forth discussion saying "that's defensive" isn't the > optimal communication style. But our flagging system is not that. The > unfortunate fact is that we *cannot* accept a totally loose style of > flagging that is all about just expressing feelings. We absolutely have > to have clear guidelines with precise items that can be pointed to as > violations because that sort of strict Code of Conduct is the only way > that marginalized people or those worried about caustic environments can > feel safe. > > It cannot be the burden of someone who receives a personal attack to > rise up and express in great politeness how they feel and work on > de-escalating. For this type of situation where we're not discussing > personal relations, we're discussing projects and decisions and general > things, we have to simply say that personal attacks are not acceptable, > period. The thing is, while some forums shame people for slipping or > even ban them etc., we give them the chance to fix the comment and move on. > > We don't *need* to de-escalate because we block the entire initial > escalation. The very first time anything is unconstructive or attacking > or condescending it gets flagged, fixed, reposted, and we move on. The > goal is to stop the escalation in the first place. > > This is also not the right solution for a small in-person meeting. It's > the solution for a generalized, anonymous, open online forum which has > it's own issues. Real enforcement of Code of Conduct, not just > guidelines for de-escalation, is an absolute requirement. I would not > have recognized this myself a few years ago, but having gotten involved > in the online tech world, I know how serious the problems can be and how > inadequate just promoting de-escalation can be. > > > I have a couple ideas. First, to just have a flag button, but not the > > option to check various offenses that are stated in accusatory language. > > Second, there could be just one button that says something like "I feel > > uncomfortable with this" and then the space to specify. I would > > especially like this option if there was a "this friend speaks my mind" > > button next to it that was equally prominent. > > > > Yes, we want to also include friendly things to express agreement and > thanks. I think our goal is to do that with tags, although we could have > some separate dedicated things. Those two are the main items: > "agreement" and "thanks". > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
