Damage? Please tell me what damage I have personally done.
1 Like
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
8 Likes
Beautifully put Leo and about time!
4 Likes
I just wanted to thank Leo for taking so much time to think so carefully about these issues, and say I think he has identified some core issues that I think need to be taken on board for this site to be as successful as it could be. I also appreciate in particular Promofaux’s contribution, as well as a number of other people’s posts up the thread. And i was particularly perturbed to read Clausy’s Twitter thread, indicating he has been fired from the moderation team, without any explanation or note of the fact here.
As regards bans, it may be that only one person has been permanently banned (though I remember reading about plenty of others over the years), but I must say that there are plenty of people who made extremely useful contributions to this site, who no longer contribute for reasons that have been identified, and I think that is a great shame.
11 Likes
Thanks for the thought put in here leo. I won’t go in to more detail on my own views save one point you highlight above which rings very true - it’s very hard to make any point on this forum without being accused of being divisive or making ‘zero sum’ arguments (often used incorrectly but cela vie). Whilst this isn’t a direct attack on the poster, its a tacit way of criticising the poster, and moreover gets very tiresome!
I suspect this thread may soon have run its course as it’s clear that there are a small number of people as the subject of lots of replies, although I daresay that’s to be expected when a thread like this is set up!
7 Likes
On the original matter, I share the opinion expressed extremely well by Oakr that your current geographic location should not negate contributions to the Forum. There are many with strong links to the area for whom these contributions can be a welcome addition.
However, I can also see circumstances where this does seem incongruous. At one point, about half of the comments on the “unsafe crossing for pedestrians” topic originated from members who do not live in London. I can easily understand why some would find it hard to understand why a topic of specific interest to local residents, would be dominated by people who are not directly affected by it. And it is natural for people then to question intent when the tone or subject of the discussion changes, particularly when it becomes political.
This topic also is an example of one which was side tracked into a more political discussion. As the OP noted, he was not the first to do so. But I think we should be mindful that one politicized response should not be an open invitation to continue that line of debate. I can fully understand the strong desire to intercede and put my counterpoint across, I did that enough when we had political grohup. But it has been some time now since the moderators took the brave decision to remove political debate from this site and I for one believed this to be the right decision despite my own penchant for it.
My own suggestion to members would be that if an overtly political point IS raised to simply ignore it. Without oxygen it will die. On a community-based website, there is really no need to offer a political counterpoint just because someone else did. If you have to start a response with a quote from the previous post, add links to media articles, challenge people to provide evidence or proof and throw around accusations of divisive behaviour…. then maybe the topic has become a political debate rather than a community discussion.
Once again the “unsafe crossing” topic offers a great example. Foresthull’s timely reminder of the original topic tickled my funny bone. But also a reminder of a topic gone completely off track.
On that matter I would also suggest the moderators don’t make the assumption that a flag has been raised for simply those reasons. A flag by its very nature is raised when someone doesn’t like a comment. I’ve flagged posts as I’m concerned the discussion is becoming politicized. I think the suggestion to add comments is a great one and to be encouraged.
When anyone with TL4 or above flags a post, the flag immediately takes effect and hides the target post. So quite often hidden posts are not the result of moderation or discussion by moderators.
Edit to add: I was really saddened to learn of @clausy’s suspension as a moderator. I thought he brought great balance to the moderator team and had made many positive contributions in that role.
7 Likes
Hi @LeoGibbons,
Good post, and thank you for taking your time to think about this and write it all up. I know you are active across a number of social media platforms and so it’s particularly interesting to hear your thoughts on this community (as well as it’s easy of use).
I agree that politics comes into all sorts of things, sometimes from unexpected places and angles, even creeping in unintentionally - it is very hard to avoid. So for a while the forum had an area set aside for general politics to be discussed. It was an opt-in category and was provided to house those discussions that had wandered. But that area wasn’t very constructive and got a lot of people’s backs up, no one wanted to moderate it, and so it was closed it down.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, on all sides of the argument, I think this is not true. The aforementioned general politics section showed that even without a overt ‘culture-war’ type discussion, needling and jibes could foster bad feeling over a long time. It was not good and it did not bring people together.
Untrue. The guidelines are basically taken from the software defaults with some tweaks. You can see pretty much the same text here: https://meta.discourse.org/faq
Similarly the system of trust levels, member areas (#lounge) and other things on which aspersions are sometimes cast, these are all pretty much standard features of the software which have been designed and honed to try and promote healthy online discussion.
This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been a huge amount of effort in setting up and tailoring the site to make it work better for SE23, or that feedback to continue to improve things isn’t welcome - it is, as this topic possibly shows. I just want to be clear that things have not been constructed to benefit any particular individuals.
Correct. But no-one is powerless to complain about someone’s behaviour - if you see a problem flag it - that’s the way to deal with things that fall outside the guidelines, rather than replying within the topic. Of course you can also message the @moderators too if something doesn’t quite fit the flag system or you are unsure.
The thing we don’t want is ‘he said’ ‘she said’ types of arguments corroding genuine discussion - hence complain off to the side through a flag (which also gets our attention more quickly).
That said, all too often we get flags where no forum guideline has been broken. Flags aren’t simply for disagreement - they are for a problem.
As a Councillor it is of course true that your input is valued as you have unique insights and can help shape the area more than other members. But no one is protected more or less. The same guidelines apply to everyone and we try and treat everyone fairly when problems arise.
The off-hand comment to Sophie wasn’t flagged and while it could have had a better tone, as Councillors I think you have thick enough skins to take that that one. At times I think you, Cllr Gibbons, can also give as good as you get, and if we were to try and moderate every little thing that would also kill any discussion. Over moderating can be as bad as under-moderating.
It baffles and concerns me that you would think this. Sure we are running a bit wide of the topic title, but we are making good ground. Perhaps it’s the topic title that needs updating 
Well I’ll thank you 
Anyway, I think we shall let this topic run for a while (maybe the week, or until it goes astray!) and then at some point we’ll sum up and close it. There are some common themes here and most people are probably unaware of discussions that go on behind the scenes, but we have been trying to improve things, though I think some expectations are a bit high - it’s barely been 2 months since I took over as admin!
@LeoGibbons, I was very sad to read your post.
I’ve publically defended you against attacks from other people before (ad-hom / straw-man etc), because I believe those policies are universally a good thing and that they should apply to all people.
Whilst I would love to set a few records straight, I’m not going to defend myself from the various personal accusations made on this topic.
I’ve seen this sort of topic before on other forums, and I know how it works. I know that the best thing for me to do is to step away from this kind of thing and not feed it.
Regarding politicized rants that include barbs at persons or institutions or culture-war posturing:
I genuinely do not think ‘ignore it’ and it’ll go away, is a viable strategy. People will either 1. Rise to political rants and try and counter them, or 2. Simply leave the thread/forum
- Will lead to usually lead a hostile and unpleasant atmosphere that will often veer off the local-issue at hand. 2. Will mean a handful of people who indulge or support the first ranter are the only ones remaining - turning the forum into a cliquey talking shop.
I really would encourage @ForestHull to meet (online) with his moderator team, together and individually, so they can speak candidly. I also encourage him to speak to some ex-regulars and ex-moderators and hear their feedback on ways the site can improve and move forward.
I go back to this.
1% of players are trolls who do 5% of all toxic behaviour. 95% of toxic behaviour comes from “average” players "having a bad day.
Banning abusive players while giving them immediate feedback results in 92% of toxic players improving
Moderators need to look at who is a poster having a bad day, getting riled and typing a reply before taking a breath and who is a repeat offender, consistently dragging down the tone of debates, politicizing threads in a hyper-adversarial manner, aggressively picking apart people’s comments and/or making direct or indirect accusations at them.
I think moderators should be able to impose sin-bin bans, where posters are provided with feedback on why mods have taken this action.
With a few tweaks to how moderating operates and a targeted approach to block the minority of repeat hostile posters who are regularly complained about, I think the forum could be transformed.
In my view, it’s whether the owners of the forum have the guts to do it.
8 Likes
Thank you for this post. Everything you said rings true from my experience. I used to very occasionally engage on this forum but stepped away a long time ago… one of those ones who felt driven out because of my ‘liberal’ views.
8 Likes
“To my certain knowledge we have only banned 1 person.”
I guess that makes me unique @Londondrz. Thank you @ForestHull for giving me a second chance. I hope I don’t blow it.
I was, like many, an early supporter of se23.life but like others withdrew when the nature of the forum changed. Much later I was banned as many of you may recall. That is now history for all those that wish to move on which includes me.
I return to thank Leo for such an eloquent post that said so much which is key to a forward looking forum which seeks to be as diverse as the community it serves.
I only want to be in a place where I feel welcome. This thread is a test of how welcome one may receive from those who share different opinions. I may be from that foreign land known as SE26 but Forest Hill Library and Forest Hill Pools are important to me. I’ve been involved with many local community organisations in Forest Hill and Sydenham for over 30 years. I think, in my indulgent moments I still have something to contribute and much to learn. But only if people are willing to treat one civily and without prejudice.
I shall stand back now and watch how things play out here. I hope to be back - but only if it’s a welcoming place. That’s in other people’s hands.
Stuart
10 Likes
I personally find it hard to walk away from some political views that remain up on the forum. That isn’t because I relish long-running political debate (although sometimes it is enjoyable), but more often because I see this forum as a bit of a billboard for SE23, I know it is one of the first things I saw when researching the area before moving here (echo comments about excellent software and organisation adding to the draw (again, will thank Chris again for hard work in setting it up)). That being the case, there are some views that I feel strongly should be challenged if shared publicly on a forum for my local area. I would hate for casual observers to think that some of the views I’ve argued against in the past are representative of the area, and I think lack of responses challenging those views could be seen as tacit approval or acceptance. In hindisght there are certainly some debates that I shouldn’t bother with, as they’re actually just not that important, but I do think it is important to challenge issues relating to race and equality. This is where some topics really go off the rails I think - where such posts are not removed for general politics, leaving them unresponded to feels wrong and so a frosty debate ensues that often ivolves direct or indirect references to the character of the poster. If it became the case that these views are neither removed nor open to rebuke then I would likely leave the forum.
To bring that back round to this topic - I do not at all suggest that people not living in SE23 don’t use the site and agree with others that there are lots of interesting posts from those that do not live here - but it can feel like the site is a bit of a soapbox for people looking for a chance to critcise/promote a political position. Where that person lives in SE23 I could at least see that they are making the point to show that someone in the area holds that particular view, but when they don’t live here it feels purely like the site is being used to broadcast political views to the community.
10 Likes
Afternoon all.
There are a lot of points made above. I’m going to read them later this evening, let them soak in and then give my own comments after a small period of reflection.
Between now and then all I would ask if whatever’s people’s thoughts on other members of the site, that comments should be made constructively but without deliberately insulting or provoking other members. That only leads one way.
3 Likes
Just responding to explain a few technical points here…
The posts are indeed hidden, but can be clicked to be expanded and read by anyone. Moderators are messaged automatically, as is the author to tell them this has happened and if they edit the post, it can be restored.
This has actually happened up thread:
The same happens automatically if enough people flag a post too. The idea is that the community has some control over things itself; it’s not solely down to moderators to regulate. The Trust Level 4 members do have some extra power here as their flag collapses posts right away, but most are former moderators, or highly trusted individuals that might make good moderators.
I don’t think there is anything nefarious about this, and any action is evident, and moderators can see who placed flags and change things if needed. I don’t think this has been mis-used, and nothing is erased or censored in this way. If I’m wrong, feedback is good
I think there is a lot that most members do not see, and probably for the best to be honest. The team frequently discuss things, communicate with members, and we have a route of ‘official warnings’, silencing, temporary suspension and finally bans in dealing with repeat offenders. I think that encompasses the sin-bin concept enough, though hopefully most people never see it first hand.
I think the stats about tolls can be summed up as ‘a few bad apples spoil the bunch’.
2 Likes
I am TL4 as a legacy of being an active moderator of this site.
Over the years, I put in a lot of time and effort to help organise content on this site, and to perform some pretty mundane housekeeping.
I don’t covet power, and I will happily give it up, just as I did when I relinquished mod rights during my time as site admin and owner.
Please demote my trust level, @ForestHull.
Those are my feelings too. I like a good political debate and have been guilty of being drawn in to arguements here. I tend to back off a lot though as:
A. This is primarily a local board not a wider politics debate - there are plenty of areas of the internet for that.
B. There are a few on here with a fairly aggressive, winner takes all debating style and I find it tedious, annoying and really inappropriate for a local forum which should primarily about sharing information and views.
15 Likes
that was an epic post by Leo, I support most of what’s said, though one doesn’t have to agree with everything to admire his thoughtful summing up of issues with examples.
I’d say I’ve backed off hugely from contributing, and currently mostly make do with light hearted topics and things like pictures of baking and birds, which thankfully remain uncontroversial to other users.
Observing what people have said, it seems clear that even when contributors are not called out for violating the Guidelines (as judged by moderators, who rightly have to make the call sometimes) there is still considerable dissatisfaction that some users habitually cross an as yet undefined tonal line that is generally thought to be unpleasant or unwelcome. I reject totally the idea further up this thread that this is all to do with content or that users are collectively unable to tolerate difference. It’s about behaviour and the standard of behaviour generally expected by the users of this forum.
If I am right that there is still dissatisfaction, even with general adherence to the Guidelines, then are the current Guidelines actually fit for what the forum needs?
For me, it is something to do with frequency of contribution, Some threads become dominated by a single user, or small group of users who effectively wear down other contributors until they give up and walk. Some walk from the forum completely.
It is also something to do with tone. Some contributions and comments could be assessed as, for example, domineering, overbearing, arrogant, sneering, patronising, disingenuous. Sometimes just short of obviously ad hominem attacks, but rude, insulting nevertheless.
What to do? If there was will to change, even then maybe this is not easily defined in improved Guidelines. But if it could be, then these kinds of postings could be called out by flagging or by moderators, a yellow card system requests to moderate style and behaviour and so on.
8 Likes
I find the system whereby contributors can anonymously flag posts really creepy - Orwellian,might say, the sort of thing one might expect to find on a forum run by the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. It seems to me it would be better that if you think a post breaches forum guidelines you should either counter-post on the lines of ‘I think this breaches forum guidelines because… Mods, please adjudicate. Love and peace, Robin’ or you should send a private message to the moderators on the same lines. Meanwhile, the offending post should stand. Mods could also of course remove a post off their own bat if they wished to do so, on the understanding that the author of the post could ask for an explanation.
I also find the ban on political discussion on the forum very irritating. Everything is potentially political, as Leo said, and I would like to think that FH is the sort of place where residents could be trusted to discuss politics in a polite and rational way. And ad hominem arguments are sometimes justified, so long as the homo concerned has the right of reply.
2 Likes
Until they are combined in which case there may be a feisty debate about vegetarianism to contend with.
5 Likes
I think it depends how you look at it. The theory is that it gives more power to those actually using the site so that it becomes everyone’s joint responsibility to ensure the forum is tidy. The flags aren’t anonymous - the mods (at least) can see who has flagged them and choose to agree/override them. They are particularly helpful on the occasions where a spammer has posted non-relevant links to dodgy merchandise etc and the community ensure they’re gone before the majority even spot them. And as @ForestHull mentioned, if there’s only a single flag, they’re still visible despite being collapsed if a member chooses to look.
I would have agreed with you until I started as a moderator here. Just as some people become ridiculously competitive when behind a buzzer, some get overly invested in what should be relatively low-impact discussions. In ‘general politics’, nothing you write on a local forum is ever going to change the world after all - and if you care so strongly, there are better places to use that energy that might actually have an impact. @LeoGibbons may have some suggestions.
I remember getting on a train at Victoria one evening and opening the forum to find a flagged post. It took me the journey to Peckham Rye and time on the bus home to read the thread, try to work out the gist of what was being complained about and then another 30 minutes at home writing on the thread and to the three members involved to ask them to act like adults rather than toddlers. I strongly encouraged losing #generalpolitics and I can’t see a situation where I’d vote to have it back.
I believe strongly in the good things this forum offers - news on events, shops, photos of the area, people’s other interests, wanted/offered, recommendations of tradespeople or restaurants - which is why I’ve continued to stay as a moderator despite the various dramas. And I generally think to effect change in something you think is valuable but flawed, it’s better to stay engaged.
9 Likes