Here There Be Dragons

NautArch

15:04

What I've seen and learned is that stackexchange 'moderators' aren't really there to moderate, but to handle exceptions. That leaves the 'true' moderation up to the community.

However, the community has different views about how to moderate and we don't agree that there are even guidelines that we should all be following. We each get our own guidelines and those guidelines conflict.

Someone_Evil

Are we talking about moderation or curation here?

NautArch

And when they conflict, people feel that we're 'not doing it right'.

@Someone_Evil Little bit of both. Is my starting point incorrect that moderators don't direct the community?

Because if that's wrong, then I'm wrong :P

Well, assuming not. Then I think the friction occurs when groups of users both feel like they're doing the right thing for the site, but are at odds. Without a clear guideline that we all agree to follow and that can be used as a measuring stick for how to engage, then it's a constantly changing free for all.

Someone_Evil

@NautArch Sort of depends on what you put into directing. Doing some amount of leading (nudgeing behaviour, starting discussions, etc.) comes with the hat but isn't exclusive to it. We really don't want to dictate how or whether to do a thing, though we might make a decision for one offs when they need to be handled quickly

NautArch

Complaints about change, in either direction, become unfounded because it really is just about how the majority or most outspoken/active members want the site to work.

@Someone_Evil Right, and therein lies my concern. The system isn't set up for the moderators to do more, and that's okay. But it leaves the site without a clear process means to maintain the process.

Little changes, or even bigger ones, in one direction or another are all totally valid. Complaints become invalid, because there isn't a clear bar to measure against.

So if the site's curation direction goes in a direction someone doesnt like, it's just as valid because we don't actually have a clear curation guideline.

Korvin's meta becomes meaningless, because if the site feels that is the direction to go, then it is. THomas' meta also becomes meaningless for the same reason. These shifts are baked in as reasonable and okay.

Someone_Evil

I mean the network is founded on goals for what the curation should achieve. When things (seem to) go against that, raising the concern and talking it out is appropriate, no?

Thomas Markov

15:19

I think there’s a necessary and meaningful distinction between “these guidelines should be enforced” and “enough people agree with these guidelines that violating them will probably have these consequences”.

Because the second one validates the position that opposes the guidelines.

And the first invalidates those positions.

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch Working with all volunteer groups is like herding cats, yes. 😉

NautArch

@Someone_Evil I don't think we are all agreed on what curation should be achieving and the methods we use to do that.

I think we all have our own ideas about it

But if there isn't a bar to raise the concern against, then where is the concern? Because one person's concern is another person's goal.

And both seem to be 100% valid.

Basically, I think it breaks down to one user saying to another "I don't like the way you curate"

and I don't think there is a valid leg to stand on with that.

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch And that's fine within about two or three sigmas

NautArch

If there isn't a guideline about curation methods, then any method that a user believes is helpful is valid.

Deleting things that shouldn't be there? VALID! Keeping things that shouldn't be there? VALID!

So we're left with "well, we each do thing differently, so et the users sort it out with votes"

But we don't like that because perceived directional changes about curation ruffle feathers.

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch Yes. The votes are the thing, and the exception handling (by community moderation) is that - exception handling, noise reduction, and janitorial services

NautArch

15:26

I'd very much like to keep specifics about the discussion (deletion, etc.) I'm trying to see if there is a larger issue underlying all these problems.

@Someone_Evil I think it is the emotions of those involved. The problem is, in general change is scary. And if someone believes they are 'right', then they aren't open to alternate or new data to change their mind.

But most importantly, they aren't right. And neither is the opposing force. Because there is no 'right'.

@KorvinStarmast I don't think there are guidelines, though, at the end of the day.

The one guideline is: don't be a jerk. We'll take pretty much anything except that.

← 35 messages moved from TRPG General Chat

Thomas Markov

I am here.

NautArch

@Someone_Evil Does the network have larger curation guidelines we can follow?

It seems like there are discussions on stack meta, but we don't like their outcomes here.

KorvinStarmast

@NautArch as I noted in main chat, meatspace calls. Later.

NautArch

@KorvinStarmast meeeaattt

Someone_Evil

15:43

@NautArch Beyond what's written in the help center, tooltips etc.?

NautArch

@Someone_Evil Yes, because our curation issues we have here don't seem to be covered.

Or they are, and we just don't like them.

So I'm not sure.

Someone_Evil

I mean there might be some old blog post or something burried between main meta or MSO, but I don't know where to find it specifically

NautArch

They are loose enough for lots of valid interpretations.

Someone_Evil

@NautArch Yeah, we'd work our own specifics to suit the question types we get

NautArch

@Someone_Evil But we haven't, or we don't like how things have ended up.

Someone_Evil

15:48

What is it about our results on that you don't like?

NautArch

The debates on meta that I don't think have a 'right' side.

Because we aren't clear.

And I don't think we can be clear, because that isn't what we want, either.

SO we're left with "users curate the site to their best ability." Which also means not complaining when curation practices shift due to community shifts.

Because it's shifting and the way before wasn't 'right', and neither is the what it is turning into.

It's just "what it is"

Someone_Evil

It relying on the human judgement of users doesn't mean those users can raise issues and talk about them

NautArch

The one thing we generally agree on is abusive answers. But even those can get a pass.

I'm not saying they can't, i'm saying that it has no real purpose than debate. And most of the time, it's people trying to convince others that they are right. But they aren't because there is no 'right'.

I'm mostly spitballing here, so valid counters I am more than open to. It just seems like guidelines/policy are more of what the community actually does and not what may be a guideline/stack policy about how to do things.

Someone_Evil

That seems to be looking at a discussion like something to win, rather than something with the goal of understanding something (a common perspective, but often not a healthy one)

@NautArch a given meta q can be a bit both or either. Sometimes it is just describe extant practice (usually teaching a newer user) and sometimes it is pushing/nudgeing something

NautArch

@Someone_Evil Yes, and I do think that's the general belief. Because curation options are not set in stone.

So what we one person believes is a valid curation is just as valid as someone else's.

Someone_Evil

15:58

What does valid mean in this context?

NautArch

And saying that someone is wrong is problematic, and that's very much how these discussions go.

Valid means "my idea of how to curate Q&As that falls within the general stack guidelines and policies".

Voting seems to be the primary means, but when votes don't match someone's idea of what fits, then meta occurs to undo community decisions.

Someone_Evil

I mean it can be. A given action can be against general principle. It can be the core ones, or more subtly related to the continued use of the site (this is, I think, more common)

NautArch

@Someone_Evil Sure, but those decisions are based on personal feelings and not on an agreed guideline.

Or even if it is on an agreed guideline, then there are still interpretations of those guidelines.

Someone_Evil

And if those interpretations differ enough to cause tensions, we have the tools to talk it out (or are supposed to). Often working with specific cases is more useful, because everything is multifaceted

NautArch

Sure, but what are we talking out? Just that someone disagrees with someone else when both are right?

If the solution is always "let the voters sort it out", then let the voters sort it out.

If voting is what actually determines site interactions fluidly, that is.

I also tend to like clear rules, and that lens may be coloring my views here.

But when I disagree with Kryan, we really are both coming from good places but different techniques.

So I don't think I should stop him from curating the way he wants to, and he shouldn't stop me from the same.

If others want to follow, that's a community decision.

Someone_Evil

16:15

@NautArch It generally is, and we do our best to fix the cases when specific problems pop up. But I suppose the disagreement here is over what is a problem, and maybe a touch of talking past that

NautArch

Right, I don't think differences in curation practice is actually a solvable problem.

Thomas Markov

@NautArch Sure it is.

Lay down guidelines and the mods enforce them when community curation diverges from them.

Which I think is what usually happens

NautArch

Can you enforce a guideline? Not so sure about that.

But when the decision is let's ignore the guidelines, then the guidelines become less useful and relevant.

Thomas Markov

16:30

Which is another problem I have with our citation expectations.

Are they guidelines or policy? Because we have site tools customized for enforcing them.

NautArch

16:55

Honestly? Part of me really likes guidelines. I think they make much more sense in how the stack is meant to operate. But policy is easier - and it enables us to curate as a group rather than individually.

→ 1 message moved to Trash

doppelgreener

17:13

policies and guidelines are more or less one and the same here

what we enforce is community standards

policies and guidelines are ways to describe those standards

i feel like there's a mistake here of going "give me rules to enforce", in which guidelines are not rules and policy are rules

... but that's not how our guidance system works

we here as community members are engaged in an ongoing conversation on mainsite, meta, and chat, about what works well and what doesn't to help this Q&A site function well.

we have worked out ways to help things work and we have worked out things that don't work well, and we engage in applying that learning to the mainsite. it's not a black-and-white exercise, it's one that requires continuous application of considered subjective judgement and case-by-case evaluation.

what we then do is in light of situations that seem like things might not be working well, we see what we can do to make things work well using the myriad tools we have available and using what we've learned as a community.

NautArch

I am in agreement, but that's also why the standards aren't really standard. We've only got different ways to meet that standard, and no one way is correct.

Trying to say someone is working towards the standard incorrectly is generally unfounded and less there is an issue of abuse.

doppelgreener

right, because there's no intention to make everything consistent and cohesive all of the time. case-by-case application means two similar cases can require different solutinos to help things wrok well.

NautArch

So the community is curated by the community. We each bring our idea as to what that means, and the whole is the whole. But I don't think it makes sense once we start saying "you are doing it wrong."

doppelgreener

i think the only way to do this wrong is to stop engaging in it like a continuous conversation

NautArch

I think the only way to do is not to call someone else's curation problematic if it isn't creating abuse.

If there is a one-off, that's fine. That is an exception to be considered and discussed. But if we're saying "in general, we should not be doing X, but Y", I don't think that's supportable in the manner we curate.

Akixkisu

17:28

@NautArch Meta tends to be about giving perspective on community dealings instead. It may introduce change, but all of our policies are in one way perpetuating because they are, but also only reflect how we may act.

NautArch

If the goal is community curation, then we have to live and die by that curation. Exceptions can always be dealt with, but in general, I think we need to let the community do their thing - even when one of us may no agree with it. You can disagree by voting and commenting why. Maybe minds will change.

We can't say "Our community decides" and then decide we don't like the decisions.

Akixkisu

@NautArch but we can.

doppelgreener

well, we can

Akixkisu

We just do it.

doppelgreener

it's an ongoing conversation. we're allowed to change our minds.

NautArch

17:31

@doppelgreener I don't think we can change our mind about letting the community decide.

doppelgreener

we're not talking about changing our mind about that though

NautArch

If we're going to let meta discussion override community action.

THat is what I'm talking about, though.

doppelgreener

we can 100% say it's on the community to decide, and then we can say we don't like what the community's decided

NautArch

I didn't realize you changed the subject.

sorry!

@doppelgreener Can we, though?

doppelgreener

... yes?

NautArch

17:32

I mean, who is right in this case?

doppelgreener

who's the "we" in these cases

and what are we deciding

NautArch

Whomever decided that the community is wrong?

doppelgreener

i think we're talking about things at crossways

NautArch

Quite possibly :)

Akixkisu

It is the core principle of governing democratically to keep the discussion going while excluding those voices that abhorred the fundamental principles of the way we govern. (Not to silence critical voices).

NautArch

17:33

Did you read the whole discussion? It started with I think there is an underlying problem that is creating some of the dissonance we see.

doppelgreener

i did not read the whole discussion, it is enormous

NautArch

@Akixkisu Is this a demcoracy? :D

Akixkisu

@NautArch mostly.

doppelgreener

it is kind of a literal pure democracy in the classic sense

NautArch

What I'm trying to say is it doesn't make sense for the community to drive practice, but for someone to say the way one person practices isn't correct and we should do something else.

doppelgreener

17:34

if the community generally decides $thing, and then $thing has undesirable outcomes the community does not like, the community is fully empowered to say "actually, we no longer want $thing, we want to un-choose that or choose something different". we do not have to say "well, we decided $thing, and now we're stuck, that' show it works," because... we're not stuck? that's not how it works?

NautArch

Sure, but is the community actually saying that? Or is a person or a small subset in meta?

doppelgreener

i don't know, that's why i asked you who the "we" is

i'm talking general principles here

NautArch

It feels like the larger community says things by voting

doppelgreener

it sounds like you have something very specific and concrete in mind here, like "can mods delete an upvoted answer"

NautArch

I guess what I"m saying is I think there is an inherent problem. If y'all don't see that at all and are unwilling to consider it, then there isn't much of a discussion.

Akixkisu

17:36

But it is correct to say that we aren't doing things correctly exactly on meta to discuss how we should do things. Whether we change accordingly or not is a different issue.

doppelgreener

in which case the "can the community override itself" is not the operating question (because yes, the community can override itself, but that's not the issue here)

NautArch

@Akixkisu Where do you know what is "correct exactly"?

I don't think there is an answer to that, which is my core point.

We don't have a 'correct exactly' we have standards the community acts on, which can change because of the shifting community.

doppelgreener

i'm losing track, but we do have first principles

NautArch

If we're going to start talking about "correct exactly" and "how we should do things", then we're moving into policy, and I don't think that's where we want to be.

Is it?

Or am I being too black and white?

doppelgreener

i mean you said "we're moving into policy" so maybe yes

Akixkisu

17:38

@NautArch the answer to that may be unsatisying because it doesn't rely on a source that is not socially constructed relations vaguely based on first principles.

doppelgreener

policy doesn't mean a thing here

NautArch

Doppel, I'm sorry, but I really don't feel it's fair to repeat myself about what I'm trying to say when I"ve said it above. I do think it'd be reasonable for you to read the history before jumping to conclusions.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener I thought you said earlier that it meant "guidelines"

Akixkisu

We come to agreements and we can challenge them again. Some we enforce more than others.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener here

doppelgreener

17:39

I'm not jumping to conclusions

I'm reading the words you're saying

NautArch

@Akixkisu A few people come to agreements, not the community. That isn't the same thing.

Akixkisu

It is an option to partake in community decisions.

NautArch

2 mins ago, by NautArch

If we're going to start talking about "correct exactly" and "how we should do things", then we're moving into policy, and I don't think that's where we want to be.

Akixkisu

Almost every community member may partake in them.

NautArch

Right, I said that in response to Akixkisu and that I didn't think that was where we wanted to be. I didn't mean to suggest that we want policy.

Akixkisu

17:41

Except those who have restricted rights due to exception handling.

doppelgreener

I reiterate I do not think anything I'm doing is "jumping to conclusions", and if you think it is I think we're miscommunicating

NautArch

@Akixkisu But they don't - so they're forced to live with the decisions and other members telling them they're doing it wrong?

Akixkisu

@NautArch we have policy and guidelines, regardless of how you want to call them, and they vary on the degree of in the moment enforcement.

NautArch

@doppelgreener Yes, I just tried to clarify myself above. But I really do think it'd behoove you to read the history.

Thomas Markov

IT DOTH BEHOOVETH THEE

doppelgreener

17:42

buddy I am trying to participate in this conversation that is of interest to me. I have things going on and do not have the attention span to read an entire backlog right now.

I get it would help to read the history.

I am not going to right now. I literally cannot. I'll manage.

I have ADHD, this is something I simply am not capable of doing sometimes.

My brain will not do it

So right now, I am trying to engage, and trying not to be a nuisance

and I am trying to understand what's in front of me, because that's what I can do.

NautArch

Was my clarification clearer?

Akixkisu

The same way Korvin didn't choose to become a moderator (I don't think anyone questions that Korvin would have been elected), every community member can choose to partake to a degree in how we govern things, and this will have consequences in our politics (that is what we are doing when we talk on meta with ramifications).

NautArch

@Akixkisu I don't think moderators govern here?

I thought they were more exception handlers than governors?

Akixkisu

They do, like you and I do.

But in a different way.

Thomas Markov

@Akixkisu Didnt korvin run one time?

Akixkisu

17:46

Not last year.

Thomas Markov

Korvin ran in 2017

The year Doppel and Nitsua were elected.

Akixkisu

Yep, contextualising last election.

NautArch

@doppelgreener Did you see yourself as a governor?

Akixkisu

If you have the diamond people will look differently at what you say.

NautArch

@Akixkisu Well, that's different than actually being a governor or acting as such.

But moderators are also just users and their votes as such are not differentiated from their moderation duties.

Akixkisu

17:50

We aren't talking about the idea of "the governor" with connotations, we are talkin about governing, which as I stated earlier all communiy member may choose to do, and most do.

The simple one being up voting.

NautArch

@Akixkisu Correct, and if we all are governors, and we have nothing specific to guide us, then its up to us to determine what is acceptable. It's not up to meta, it's not up to overseers, it's up to the larger community and we do so by voting and acting.

doppelgreener

I will try to be clearer myself and include where I'm coming from: To me, as I mentioned, all of how to operate our community is a big ongoing community-spanning conversation. We're working out things that do and don't work together. Calling the things we come up with to help the site work well labels like "guidelines" and "policy" is fine for shorthand, but the labels don't do much for me specifically.
Our community being hung up recently on what is and is not "policy" is, I think, an extension of the fact that "policy" doesn't mean or delineate anything really except for being one of thos…

NautArch

If we override the community, that needs to be exception-based. Not general. If the community general trend is shifting, then that is a community decision and I don't think a meta should override that unless it's create a problem of abuse.

Akixkisu

@NautArch we do have things to guide us, but most of the things aren't absolute.

doppelgreener

I think I was being kind of blunt when I said yes, and it definitely warranted more than what I said, so I'm sorry about that.

Akixkisu

17:53

Some we establish and abolish and some stem from what first principles, as outlined by se, we have.

doppelgreener

@NautArch That's kind of a big question. Moderators have at times been called "just janitors" or "just exception handlers", but the role is evolving and neither of those things are entirely true. Also, my position as a moderator was inherently connected to the issues I faced at the time I became a moderator, which were that the existing moderator team was no longer listening to the community, and the community no longer cooperated with or trusted the moderator team.

NautArch

@doppelgreener This isn't me, to be clear. I'm going off of what Akixkisu had said (which I don't agree with.)

Akixkisu

The way organising like this works can be frustrating - and we have room for that.

doppelgreener

I saw it as my job as moderator to reconnect the moderator team with the community will, rebuild the bridge, and re-establish trust.

I definitely governed, but in no capacity I couldn't do as a senior community member. If anything, I just got some help from the megaphone that being a diamond gives me 24/7.

NautArch

I didn't think there was an issue with the moderators and community. I knew there were some personality issues, but I didn't think there was a larger community issue.

But i'm fine saying there was. Just because I didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

But if moderators are going to govern, then I do think we need that governance. We need someone to guide these conversations amongst the disparate views to help distill positive outcomes that work for all.

Akixkisu

17:57

@NautArch other community members may have seen things differently, and they may no longer choose to be here.

doppelgreener

@NautArch there was an enormous complete breakdown that was reaching its peak around the time game recs got banned, and moderators wrote off everyone who was objecting to how that happened and ignored multiple heavily voted loud comlpaints

NautArch

I didn't think historically that moderators took on that role, but if that's changed, I'd like to see the change.

doppelgreener

the whole moderator-community bridge was not just on fire, it had already completely collapsed into the ravine with barely a trace remaining

NautArch

@doppelgreener I didn't see that, but I'll take your word. I think that for some members that was the case, but not for all.

doppelgreener

@KorvinStarmast might be able to comment

(if he's willing)

NautArch

17:58

But I wasn't here for the gamerecs issue.

doppelgreener

there were many other issues too, that was just the biggest most visible issue

NautArch

Okay, although I think we're digressing now.

doppelgreener

this is a digression, yeah. let me work my way back to actually answering your question.

NautArch

That wasn't helpful, deleted.

Akixkisu

Meta is and has alwas been (from what searches I have done), a place for politics.

NautArch

17:59

Going back,my concern is really that meta presents a place for vocal users to express dissatisfaction about how the site is operating. Not necessarily abusively, but in that "it doesn't fit what I thought it was."

Transcript for