Post in 15. Moderating or facilitation discussions

2005 Dec 09 12:30 UTC

Another really interesting and useful discussion.  Because Dialogue by Design
uses the 'time windows' approach for Issues Forums we don't have the pre- or
post-moderation debate but there are two points I want to make.

1.  I find the idea of pre-moderation intrinsically unattractive as, however
carefully you present it, the whiff of censorship is inevitable.

We draw participants' attention to the Ground Rules for each process, and we
have only on one or two occasions had to remove things on the grounds that they
are truly offensive and could get us into trouble.  We have also occasionally
during processes about policing issues removed information that might allow
participants to be identified and inadvertently put them at risk.

Otherwise our presumption is that participants must be free to say what they
like and others should be sufficiently mature to value open and robust debate
even if it sometimes means being offended. Freedom of speech is too precious to
be precious about it.

2.  My second point is that the use of the word 'moderation' is very
unfortunate and I would like to stop it being used in this context.  We use
'facilitation' instead - as Steven prefers.  There are two reasons for
disliking moderation:

First, it confuses management of process and management of content. Because we
come from the world of face-to-face meeting processes, we emphasise the need
for third parties to be absolutely clear whether they are facilitators,
moderators or mediators - and to have a total understanding of which is which
and what each role involves.

When we remove a submission we do so not because it is offensive - that would
be imposing our judgment on the content, but because it violates the Ground
Rules - which is a process decision and an entirely proper one for a
facilitator to make.  It may seem a subtle distinction: but it is a very
important one.

Secondly, the word 'moderation' is always liable to be interpreted as
moderating people's views - as in making them less extreme, toning them down,
or in some other way imposing the third party's opinion of what is acceptable
or not.  Do this in a face-to-face meeting and see what happens: you are out on
your ear just so fast.

I think some of those coming to e-democracy either from technical or
communications backgrounds would find it really useful to do some face-to-face
facilitation as well as 'moderation' training to boost their  understanding of
different third party roles.

Andrew Acland