Wiki'd

First and foremost you, the Skepti-Forum member, are responsible for upholding the rules linked in the HELPLINE thread that is pinned to the top of each forum you join. If ever in doubt, look there first. The current Facebook Rules are here.

By “upholding the rules” we mean that you are both bound by them, and also agree to hold others to them as best you can. Everyone is accountable to the community for their behavior. This is what makes us work. We don't always work perfectly, but the alternatives of autocracy don't work perfectly either. We've got to pick our poison. I know which I choose.

We're going to disagree about these rules constantly. Too little moderator enforcement makes some people unhappy. Too much makes other people unhappy. The more time we spend disagreeing over rules, the less time we spend talking about the original post.

Were you referred here from a thread where you discussed something wholly unrelated to the original post? What was the topic again? How can we get back to it? Go see and think how you can really advance it with your next reply.

Here's a map for not getting lost in the weeds.

1) Don't feed the trolls. Does it seem like someone is trolling? If so, don't respond. There's no penalty for not responding. Here's the greatest secret of the Internet you've never been told: The last responder loses the argument.

While composing this, another member asked “how do we deal with trolls?” There's a universal answer to this question, which is another question: Did you feed it?

That's the only way they cause trouble. And the compulsion to feed them is great. They're like kittens. Big punchable kittens.

This is the entire crux of community moderation: self restraint. It's damn easy to talk about how other people should have it. I do it all the time.

2) If you must respond to perceived trolling, answer the better post your opponent could have written. If you always elevate their argument, and make a steel man instead of a straw man, you'll win the battle. It's not enough to refute the argument they present. You must refute the best argument they could present. By refuting both, you show that not only do you understand their position well enough to defeat it, but you can argue it better and still defeat it. If they don't quit trolling after that, you only lose if you respond further.

3) When your opponent has devolved to insulting you, you're winning. The only way you can still lose is to sink to their level. Ignoring the insults adds points to your win. Allowing the thread to end with them issuing a final insult guarantees you victory. Knowing when to quit is 98% of the game.

If you have passed #3 and are still stuck, you can contact an Associate Moderator. Some forms of abuse are intolerable and can't be answered with reason. You can find the moderators listed in the HELPLINE thread pinned at the top of the forum where you're having trouble.

A note on moderating other members - It will be tempting to use the rules as cudgel in debates and become hyper-vigilant looking for the smallest infraction to call out. This is easier than prevailing with your argument and when you notice the tendency it is time to step back and look closer at why your arguments aren't prevailing. As associate/principal moderators we try to avoid both debating and moderating in the same thread. When we do break this rule, we're on guard and double check ourselves that the moderation is genuinely needed. The most important skill you need as a member is to receive criticism without becoming defensive. By the time you're emotionally embroiled in a topic, you're no longer a good moderator. Ask for help when you need it! You get triple points for posting in the thread that you've become too emotionally engaged and are taking a break. We all get this way at times.

When our ideas are attacked, it often feels like our person is being attacked and we become defensive. Often we return the attack we've taken personally in kind. This is how it spirals out of control.

A note from Michael Fest - If all members adhere to the guidelines he suggests, no further moderation will be required from anyone:

When commenting, think of it as though you were contributing towards a Wikipedia-like resource page. The goal is to create a source of information for others to refer to. Make a point, provide a reference and engage in discussion without adding any negativity towards other comments. When you disagree, do it in a charitable way. “That is an interesting point, however I can't quite agree because xxxx”.

Positive encouragement in a discussion keeps participants involved, on topic and helps prevent the exchange from turning into a pointless argument.

Not all arguments are pointless, but they all have the potential to spiral out of control. Know when to take a breather and step back to cool off. We all get worked up on topics we're passionate about and we all have to learn how to do this sooner or later if we persist in debate long.

A note from Ken Wood - This captures some things I glossed over on the first draft and adds some points I didn't think about at all.

The act of moderation can feel unwanted, unnecessary, and undesirable. After all, nobody wants to be moderated. It can be embarrassing to be called out in front of everyone, and when it happens it often leads to an unpleasant exchange of words. Sometimes there will be an argument over whether or not a rule was even broken, or why the rule exists in the first place. Often, it will effectively end the discussion, or cause members to leave the forum in a fit of rage.

This raises the question, why do it? It’s not as if moderators are sitting around waiting for someone to break the rules. Moderators have better things to do than upset and scare members, or negatively impact the discussions. Our job is to support the community by urging members to speak up, and by ensuring discussions have value. The rules are important; they were made by trial and error for the specific purpose of helping us critically analyze controversial topics, while having rational and respectful discourse.

How do we moderate without upsetting the community and disrupting the flow of conversation? This is a tricky proposition, but I believe it can be done. The key is to use the rules as a tool for furthering the exploration of the topic. When someone posts a meme, for example, we can ask how the meme helps further the current discussion. Does it help answer any of the questions posed in the original post? Does it support, or defend either side of the argument? Does it constitute proper evidence, and why? We can ask if the meme helps our community achieve any of its goals. We're here to challenge less effective science communication strategies while offering evidence based alternatives, and to demonstrate the application of critical thinking strategies on public scientific issues. Does the posting of this meme help us do that? Consider this with all of our rules. Challenging the community to think it about their actions may lead to more thoughtful contributions, and that would be helpful to everyone.

A note from Amber Sherwood K

Be Spock. Once you've started to argue with a member, you've already lost ground. If you're annoyed with a member, nobody in the forum should realize it. If someone argues with you over a mod decision, simply refer them to the rule, repost the infraction that broke the rule, reiterate the consequence and direct them to the moderation thread if they have questions or think the rule is unfair. More than one response will only further derail the thread, allow the member to dig in their heels and allow more opportunity for the discussion to become personal. It's always a good idea to frame mod notes as “one” or “they” or “members” instead of “you”. The less someone can personalize a moderator interruption, the less likely they are to feel they are being attacked and counterattack.

Sometimes enforcing the rules is as much managing perceptions as knowing the letter of the law. I think Amber nails it. Moderators need the proverbial “patience of a saint”.

Everyone in the group is on a track to becoming an associate moderator. Not everyone will want the job, and that's fine. You can't be a good community moderator without understanding the same principles of being a good associate moderator. You can't be a good associate moderator without understanding the same principles of being a good principal moderator.

Moderators make mistakes. It's just a fact of life. A key quality of a good moderator is their willingness to be accountable for every single action they take, regardless of whether the results are praise or blame or indifference.

If you've read the section above then you've mastered the real art of moderation. The rest is icing. Now you have the kick button. The real secret here is knowing when NOT to exercise it. Sometimes there's no question. If a member's first post is a sunglass spam, they're gone, easy-peasy. If only all the members were sunglass spammers!

Chances are you're going to be called on to resolve disputes. This is a trap. You can't resolve disputes. Only the people in the disputes can resolve them. You may be able to mediate, but the job is theirs. If you want to go down that road, see the Mediation Guide.

Unless there is egregious abuse, your first recourse is going to be an official warning/request. “Egregious abuse” is a judgment call. If someone is threatening violence, or doxing another member, I would kick first and ask questions later. If this is “mere” name-calling/trolling, you are almost certainly going to find infractions on more than one side. One person is probably more at fault, but your job in these instances isn't to find fault and assign blame as much as to lead people out of the morass. The real problem here is that they like the morass. It's drama that makes their lives a little more exciting. They wouldn't have fed the troll if this weren't true, and they wouldn't be calling on you as the Hand of God to smite the enemy.

If you, as moderator, get caught up in the drama, things are going to go south. They will get ugly. They won't end well. And all sides have an interest in getting you caught up. By the time you've been summoned, the trap has usually been laid. Avoiding this trap is your job. It won't make you popular. It won't make you wealthy.

Wait, why did you take this gig again?

Bad news. Your Associate Moderators just realized that you have been using them as meat shields to protect you from the unwashed masses. Now is a good time to find another gig before they spread the word and mutiny.

Just kidding. You have an awesome group, and once they realize it you're gonna have so much fun and spend all your time drinking Long Island Ice Teas and making beautiful Dedicated Threads that get featured in Better Homes and Gardens.

Really, I hope you didn't come here for useful advice. Everything I know is summed up as “don't feed the trolls”. Pretty much all trouble starts because people can't follow this one simple rule. Even you, right now, are feeding a troll somewhere. It's in your basement or attic. You like it, and it needs you.

Because we're no better than the rest of that lot. We just got saddled with some accountability and no real power.

So take it to the ombudsman. Your job is to not rock the boat. At least not until it's time to go Titanic on the mob.

This is the elite ninja position of community moderation. It also doesn't officially exist yet. Please don't tell the Principal Moderators that. The whole rube goldberg moderation machine that we've built rests on you, our illusory perfect Moderator who is Just and Benevolent in bestowing Wisdom upon us Plebes. You alone wield the true power of Title Caps All The Time.

(We should have an official ombudsman position. This job is to hear grievances about moderation and be empowered to hold all lower tier moderators (down to individual member) accountable for their use and abuse of moderator power. For the time being there's a chain of escalation that all Principal Moderators are issued on induction.)

It's easy to continually kick accountability up the food chain. In the end, each member is accountable for their own actions. As we build community on this principle, there's less and less need to look above for help in resolving disputes. Asking other people to fix our conflicts weakens us. Our own problem-solving skills atrophy when not exercised regularly. We can be offended and get over it and advance the goal of the original post. What was that post topic again? Time to get the train back on track….

All blame for unattributed portions of this document should be assigned to: MikeLewinski