Polly's Thoughts on Future of Our Community

[writingprof]

Shrug. I'm just reporting on about 5-6 PMs I've gotten from members who are otherwise primarily lurking. It doesn't take a lot to push people away, especially if the content seems particularly bad. Remember, a few rotten apples spoil the bunch. Especially when they're the loudest apples.

I would love to hear their specific complaints. "I am not joining these fora because conservatives and progressives argue on some percentage of its threads"? Bruh, that's called the Internet.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Shrug. I'm just reporting on about 5-6 PMs I've gotten from members who are otherwise primarily lurking. It doesn't take a lot to push people away, especially if the content seems particularly bad. Remember, a few rotten apples spoil the bunch. Especially when they're the loudest apples.

I would love to hear their specific complaints. "I am not joining these fora because conservatives and progressives argue on some percentage of its threads"? Bruh, that's called the Internet.

Yes I'm curious too. Can you tell us more without saying anything that would put the spotlight on individual posters?

[Parasaurolophus]

Unrelated...  How does the moderation team prefer us to use the report post feature?  Polly brought up that most reports aren't about violations of the rules.  I'm a moderator on another site with much higher standards for people speaking respectfully to each other.  We like it when members report posts to alert us that something is trending in a problematic direction, or if members blow off steam by ranting in their reports instead of attacking each other.  If we only got reports of rules violations, we would feel underinformed.  (On the other hand, it's a bigger site so none of the mods read all the posts, and the topic tends to attract some creepers.  Plus, like I said, we are stricter about members being respectful.)

I can't speak for the others, of course. But I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I think that the reporting is currently under-used (we get very few reports, mostly for inter-personal conflicts). And, like you say, reports help me to get a sense of what peoples' concerns are and where they lie, what's working or not, etc. On the other hand, the moderation policies here are so light that most reports have no real effect, and I worry that it seems to reporters like they're sending them off into the void (which itself might generate a feedback loop resulting in less reporting). I have no idea whether that's a legitimate concern, it's just a worry I have.

In what way? I'm curious how you evaluate the health of the fora.

I think we've seen an increase in trolling in extant discussions, and a proliferation of high-visibility racist threads and posts. I think that this has given some members control of the Fora megaphone, and I think that fact is turning people away who might otherwise like to participate. I think we can even see this happening at the level of posts within those threads, where early on there was lots of genuine engagement by many different posters, but as things drag on fewer and fewer people post, the quality of discussion deteriorates, and only a few posters are left in the discussion, which turns into an echo chamber and post-count-upper for a while until a contrary voice pops back in briefly. (And, unfortunately, these posts are not being allowed to die when they reach that point. Posters just pop back in trying to rile up the opposition, which puts the post back at the top of the page for another month or more.)

Honestly, I don't see how the fact that people disagree (even strongly) is inherently unsettling, especially in a pseudonymous forum where there are no "real world" consequences to arguing with someone. There is no doxxing or swatting, and there is virtually never anything like a personal attack. The most that tends to happen is sarcasm, and even that only tends to arise during very heated debate, and occurs on both sides.

It's not the disagreement. As you know, I like a good internet brawl. It's the nature of the disagreement, the trolling that ensues, and the toxicity of the vitriol that ends up most prominently on display. I, for one, would be more comfortable with it all if it was confined to a single thread, which could peter out over time (or not, as the case may be). But it's not. It's across so many different prominent threads that it makes it look like those are the dominant views here (which they aren't). And understandably that turns newbies off.

It's like what would happen when your local watering hole is taken over by neo-nazis. At first, it's just one guy with a swastika on his jacket. Nobody's very comfortable with that, but it's just one guy, and he's being quiet and minding his own business, so it seems OK. Then, next week, he brings a couple buddies. They keep to themselves, though, so although nobody likes it, they tolerate it. Then the next week, the buddies bring buddies. And pretty soon, your bar is known as the local neo-nazi hangout.

I would be interested in the distinction you would make between "moderation" and "censorship". There's no absolutely clear line, and probably virtually everyone here agrees that some moderation is a good thing.

There's currently virtually no moderation. If it were up to me, I'd like to see us warning people about trolling and closing threads (temporarily or permanently) when the discussion gets out of hand, or when there's clearly no point to the thread beyond venting racial animus and trolling for a response.

I'd be interested in what counts as 'some moderation' in your books.

I would love to hear their specific complaints. "I am not joining these fora because conservatives and progressives argue on some percentage of its threads"? Bruh, that's called the Internet.

Yes I'm curious too. Can you tell us more without saying anything that would put the spotlight on individual posters?

It's not the existence of disagreements, heated or otherwise. It's the atmosphere created by the particular nature of some of these 'disagreements'. In any case: I've deleted most of the messages in my inbox, unfortunately, so I don't have a good record of them. But here's the last one I got, which I haven't yet pruned (note that there's more to this message, but I'm leaving it out because it singles some people out in a way that I think is not actually germane to this discussion):

I've been reading fairly regularly, but my impression is not good and I think hanging around here may not be great for my fragile mood.

[Cheerful]

I've been reading fairly regularly, but my impression is not good and I think hanging around here may not be great for my fragile mood.

Sorry that person suffers from a fragile mood.  These are moody times.

Not sure why people don't block or scroll on by posts they find redundant, annoying, disrespectful, not appropriately gentle and caring, not [insert one's world view].  Sometimes an OP takes offense when reply posts are not aligned with what OP wants to hear.

Many "nuts and bolts of working in academe" threads are mundane but can help newer academics, those on job market, etc.  Things like "can I submit 12 letters of rec with my job application?" People here are very helpful on these threads.

On the other hand, we have lighthearted yet meaningful threads like mamselle's cakes and pies.

Wish more people would venture out of lurkdom and post.  Overall, I've found this to be a diverse community of thoughtful, inquisitive, caring people.  When people share challenges or joys, others offer support or celebration.

[FishProf]

Assuming you are correct that everyone agrees there should be some moderation, what are you proposing?  Some of the most distasteful posts (to me) are the most enlightening.

[Langue_doc]

It's not the existence of disagreements, heated or otherwise. It's the atmosphere created by the particular nature of some of these 'disagreements'. In any case: I've deleted most of the messages in my inbox, unfortunately, so I don't have a good record of them. But here's the last one I got, which I haven't yet pruned (note that there's more to this message, but I'm leaving it out because it singles some people out in a way that I think is not actually germane to this discussion):

I've been reading fairly regularly, but my impression is not good and I think hanging around here may not be great for my fragile mood.

Academia is not for the faint-hearted. The fragile-mood people can ignore threads as well as posters that they find offensive, boring, or irrelevant. Some of the posters in the old CHE fora were vitriolic, to put it mildly. I haven't seen that kind of harassment on any of the threads here. I distinctly remember posters ganging up on some unsuspecting newbie (or even a regular forumite) and finding this harassment to be entertaining.

[writingprof]

I've been reading fairly regularly, but my impression is not good and I think hanging around here may not be great for my fragile mood.

Sorry that person suffers from a fragile mood.  These are moody times.

Indeed. This sounds like a person who would have died of starvation, while whining, a few hundred years ago. Happily, the racists and trolls of the world constructed a society where even the fragile typically have enough to eat. On behalf of my ancestors, you're welcome.

Many "nuts and bolts of working in academe" threads are mundane but can help newer academics, those on job market, etc.  Things like "can I submit 12 letters of rec with my job application?" People here are very helpful on these threads.

All joking aside, this is what I most miss about the old fora. We have these, but not to the extent that we used to. I suspect this is because the old CHE affiliation brought in truly clueless newbies, whereas here we're all jaded veterans who know that the nuts and bolts of the job market don't matter when the market itself is a gaping chasm that leads to hell.

[marshwiggle]

Assuming you are correct that everyone agrees there should be some moderation, what are you proposing?  Some of the most distasteful posts (to me) are the most enlightening.

Since I made the original comment, I'd say that this level of moderation is exactly what is required. I was corrected once when I violated rules, quickly and respectfuly, and that was it. I've never seen any posts on here which would warrant banning anyone permanently, so the current approach seems to be working.

I think we've seen an increase in trolling in extant discussions, and a proliferation of high-visibility racist threads and posts.

OK, I'd like to see an example of a racist thread. Some things I have noticed in threads that discuss racial issues:

• Anyone who has denounced the BLM rioters has also denounced the Capitol rioters.
• Anyone who has denounced the BLM rioters hasn't distinguished rioters by skin colour; i.e. rioters should all be jailed. (In fact, many have pointed out that many of the rioters were white.)
• No-one has denied that racism exists; what people have debated is whether a specific incident can be identified as racially-motivated purely on the basis of the skin colour or the individuals involved.
• No-one has suggested that peaceful protests outght to be illegal. In fact, I would guess most people would argue that protests which do not break the law are something which are part of the democratic process.
• Anyone who has expressed a disagreement with BLM has been on ideological grounds; i.e their disagreement is with the political platform of BLM. No-one has expressed disagreement with the basic statement that black lives matter as much as other lives. (On the other hand, people have drawn attention to the fact that certain black lives are treated as much more important than others based on how they were lost.)

I stand to be corrected on any of these, based on anything that has been posted here.

[writingprof]

OK, I'd like to see an example of a racist thread.

Found some. (Posts, anyway.)

White people are so fragile.

Paranoid demand for that is a white people thing.

For WOC, activism is sustaining. It allows me to survive in the sea of whiteness I find myself in. 

I'm really hoping this is the last election in my lifetime that is dominated by old white men.

If I'm honest, I need a break from white men.

What? This isn't the racism that Parasaurolophus had in mind? Shocking.

[Wahoo Redux]

OK, I'd like to see an example of a racist thread.

Found some. (Posts, anyway.)

White people are so fragile.

Paranoid demand for that is a white people thing.

For WOC, activism is sustaining. It allows me to survive in the sea of whiteness I find myself in. 

I'm really hoping this is the last election in my lifetime that is dominated by old white men.

If I'm honest, I need a break from white men.

What? This isn't the racism that Parasaurolophus had in mind? Shocking.

I very seldom agree with WP...

...but ouch!

We cannot be blind to double-standards. 

[eigen]

Wow, I lose power for 8 days and all kinds of interesting stuff happens.

I've said before, and I will say again, that both the last few years of the CHE forums and to a lesser degree the current iteration have a really bad reputation in higher ed online communities in general. This forum, and its predecessor, are very much about "have a tough skin and deal with it". That's some amount of OK for all of us here, but we need to accept that having the mentality that other people need to deal is going to severely limit or outright kill new blood coming in.

Perhaps a year and a half in is a good time to revive the "rules and moderation" discussion. I'm always on board.

One thing I will mention, since it got brought up earlier: no moderator deals with reports they are part of. That's why we have multiple people on the moderation team. Will all moderators see it? Sure. If you want to submit something confidential, PM to one of the other moderators would be the way to go.

[marshwiggle]

I've said before, and I will say again, that both the last few years of the CHE forums and to a lesser degree the current iteration have a really bad reputation in higher ed online communities in general. This forum, and its predecessor, are very much about "have a tough skin and deal with it". That's some amount of OK for all of us here, but we need to accept that having the mentality that other people need to deal is going to severely limit or outright kill new blood coming in.

I'm genuinely curious about this. There are all kinds of threads on here, and I only ever look at a small fraction of them. I see this as kind of like a library. Does my local library have a copy of "Mein Kampf"? I have no idea. I've never been interested in reading it, so I don't care. (I would expect my university library to have a copy.) Threads that don't interest me I don't read. Consequently, I have no concern with whatever sort of discussion happens on them. Do the people who find the discussions intimidating keep reading the threads that bother them? If so, I'd like to understand why.

As I've mentioned upthread, the anodyne topics tend to have very little discussion, and like web pages, frequently changing content is the key to keeping people reading. If the most "uncivil" threads were removed, I imagine the number of people reading would drop precipitously, which would mean that even threads like "Jedi mind tricks" would get many fewer contributions.

I'd be fascinated to see what would happen if some of the most frequent posters who are considered abrasive (and I'm guessing I may be considered one) stopped posting for a few weeks. My instinct is that the traffic would drop significantly without resulting in many others coming out of the woodwork.

[eigen]

That assumes traffic as an absolute thing is the best measure of the health of a community. I'd argue less "traffic" with a wider diversity of opinions has a place of value.

I've been here long enough that I feel like I can predict the life of almost any new thread based on who will post, what they will post, and when. There aren't really "new" ideas being shared in many of the threads here- just the same repeats of the same arguments with slightly different coverings. So to me, there's very little "new content" to read even if there are new posts- it's the same thing over and over.

What I would say is the most negative part of this community is that people can't leave things in isolated threads, but bring arguments into almost every new discussion they start.

What's the most frustrating, to me, is that members of the community can't self-regulate their posting vitriol even the slightest. There are a number of posters here that I would categorize as "shock value" posters who seem to try to find the moist incendiary way to say something that's not a direct personal attack, just to see what will happen.

None of this particularly bothers me, personally, but I definitely hear from new posters who leave because they can't stomach it, and that's not healthy for the community. People often characterize "academia" as eating its own young, and I would definitely say this forum is a microcosm of that.

You liken this message board to a library, but that's not (imo) a good analogy. It's a community. Is there information buried here? Sure. But it's not organized, it's not collated, it's not stored. If we wanted that, we'd make a community sourced wiki of academic knowledge rather than a message board.

[Caracal]

Unrelated...  How does the moderation team prefer us to use the report post feature?  Polly brought up that most reports aren't about violations of the rules.  I
I can't speak for the others, of course. But I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I think that the reporting is currently under-used (we get very few reports, mostly for inter-personal conflicts). And, like you say, reports help me to get a sense of what peoples' concerns are and where they lie, what's working or not, etc. On the other hand, the moderation policies here are so light that most reports have no real effect, and I worry that it seems to reporters like they're sending them off into the void (which itself might generate a feedback loop resulting in less reporting). I have no idea whether that's a legitimate concern, it's just a worry I have.

It seems like there ought to be a way to have a bit more moderation without it being heavy handed. Most of the time, self regulation works fine. Most of the academic threads with heated disagreements are just about ideas and nobody goes over the line into personal attacks. Even when things do stray towards the line, most people do ok at taking down the temperature. I've had plenty of occasions where I got offended by something, or someone got offended by something I wrote and we worked it out.

However, I think we could have a system where moderators avoid getting involved in everything, but deal with cases where you have posters causing persistent problems, whether that's about abusive and personal attacks or threads that seem designed solely to get a reaction.

[marshwiggle]

None of this particularly bothers me, personally, but I definitely hear from new posters who leave because they can't stomach it, and that's not healthy for the community. People often characterize "academia" as eating its own young, and I would definitely say this forum is a microcosm of that.

You liken this message board to a library, but that's not (imo) a good analogy. It's a community. Is there information buried here? Sure. But it's not organized, it's not collated, it's not stored. If we wanted that, we'd make a community sourced wiki of academic knowledge rather than a message board.

My library analogy was because there are so many threads on here, like books in a library. Am I unusual in only following a tiny fraction of them? At any one time, I'm probably only looking at a dozen or so, and I probably only comment regularly on half of those. If there were threads that bothered me I'd just ignore them.
For posters that can't stomach it, is it that they feel they have a perspective on a thread that hasn't been expressed, but they are afraid to do so for fear of attack? Or are they unsettled that the range of opinions expressed on an issue is wider than they expected in this kind of forum? I'd genuinely like to understand what peoples' expectations are, especially in regard to topics on which people disagree. Should they be avoided entirely, or should threads be cloded and/or deleted if they get too heated?