Post in 15. Moderating or facilitation discussions

2005 Dec 08 15:28 UTC

In terms of epanels (online consultations) I was quite pleased to
learn that Bristol was taking a post-moderation approach.
Essentially dealing with trouble when it arises seems to be a much
more sustainable course in terms of the labour required to run an
online event.

I think the choices Carol laid out need to be better explained to
potential government hosts or the default cautious pre-moderation
approach will lead them to conclude the effort required is too
significant to continue such consultations online.

Here are some useful guides from Canada:
http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/onlineconsultation/text/publications-e.html

Moderated versus Facilitated

E-Democracy.Org uses the term facilitation to describe our Issues
Forum approach. We also have Forum Managers and not "List Owners" or
"Moderators." These semantics are hugely important. Like John Glover
mentioned, instant e-mail delivery limits the usefulness of
attempting post-moderation in our model.  Although, for the UK legal
environment, we tweaked our rules to allow removal of a _potentially_
libellous posts where in the U.S. context we wouldn't be at legal
risk unless a court ruled that a post was libellous.

Warnings and Suspension of Posting Rights

In exchange for the freedom to post without a prior filter (people
can intentionally risk a sanction just like they can shout at a
public meeting and be removed), we have a system of rules,
complaints, and warnings.  Unlike the BBC we've turned away from
relying only on complaints from other participants to address
violations in the forum.  We've empowered the Forum Manager to issue
informal and formal warnings when they see something that crosses the
line (this can be quite subjective and the tone of forums varies
based on local control and each Forum Managers approach.)  Today, a
complaint essentially compels the Forum Manager to check if a
violation has occurred while not allowing participants to use the
rules against each other.

Two key things we do to promote more civil discussions (that is the
goal right?) - requiring real names and limiting posts (typically) to
two posts in 24 hours per participant.  Like a "talking stick" in a
group discussion or parliamentary procedure where others get a chance
to address the topic before someone speaks to it over and over again,
this spreads out the participation and helps avoid tit for tat
arguments.  Passionate people hold back because they only have one
more shot left that day.  In a web-only environment both of these are
approaches are pretty alien, so as GroupServer allows web-only
participation, we need to educate citizens on the value of this
approach even though it does not follow web norms.  (Perhaps that is
why it works better.)

MJ asked about splitting forums.  Over the years, we've encouraged
people who do not like our approach to set up their own forum
externally and to post an invitation to join via our forums.  The
work involved often means that doesn't happen.  (Although state-wide
political blogging has diffused the audience for political
discussions and limited the reach of our original "mn-politics"
forum.) We also like to link to alternative forums in a community
<http://www.e-democracy.org/brighton-hove/> (left column "Online
Forums") and try to explain that voluntarily agreeing to abide by
rules <http://www.e-democracy.org/mninteract/> is not censorship.
However, the burden on a government not to censor/limit speech may be
greater than on a voluntary-based citizen-led initiative. We aren't
paid to put up with B.S. from ornery (or crazy) citizens, while that
is part of a civil servants job description.

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org

From:
http://www.e-democracy.org/rules/

...

Suspension

6. Suspension Process - The warning process starts with probation and
results in removal periods that grow in length based on repeat
offenses.  Warnings are specific to each forum. Due to variations in
forum purposes and management styles, similar conduct may not result
in the same sanction.  The initial warning process and suspension
level is private in order to avoid public member embarrassment - a
penalty greater than that deserved.

While under suspension, a member may not post nor ask others to
forward their comments to the forum. While they may read the postings
from the web, they may not forward or comment on those posts in other
E-Democracy.Org forums on which they maintain full posting rights.

   A. First Warning - The first official warning is recorded. The
member is not suspended. Each warning expires after one full year.
The member should consider themselves on probation.

   B. Second Warning - The second official warning results in
immediate suspension from that specific forum for two weeks. Another
two week suspension may be granted should the initial first warning
expire before their third rule violation.

The first two warnings may not be appealed at this time.  They may
only be appealed on their merits if a third warning is given within
one year of the first warning.

   D. Third Warning - A third warning within a year of the first two
warnings results in an immediate suspension for six months from the
specific forum.

Notification of the suspension of this member must be sent to the
local E-Democracy Chapter and the E-Democracy.Org Board. After any
member appeals are heard, at that member's request, the Forum Manager
will post a basic notice to the public forum that that member has
been suspended for six months. The Forum Manager shall remind forum
participants that public discussion of suspensions violate the rules
and shall offer a link to the appropriate web forum that allows
discussion of E-Democracy rules and administration: http://e-
democracy.org/townhall

Upon returning, the member may receive a fourth warning if the first
warning is still active or within two months which ever is longer.
Another third warning suspension will be granted after two months
assuming that only their first active warning has expired.

   E. Fourth Warning - A fourth official warning results in full
removal from all E-Democracy.Org forums for five years.  After any
appeals are processed, an announcement about the removal of this
member will be publicly posted to the forums to which that member
belongs and sent to all E-Democracy Chapters and the Board.  The
removed member has the option to provide an up to 300 word public
statement that will be linked in the rules section of the E-Democracy
web site. This will be linked to an optional 300 word statement from
the Forum Manager about the causes for removal.

7. False Identity Process and Removal - If it is determined with
careful consideration by the Forum Manager or E-Democracy.Org that a
participant's actual identity is in question, E-Democracy.Org will
immediately suspend posting for that person on all forums until such
time that a one page letter including a photocopy of a government
issued ID with the full address and notarized signature (on the same
page) is delivered to E-Democracy.Org. If no proof of identity is
provided within two weeks, the e-mail address(es)/members accounts
shall be deleted and banned from all E-Democracy.Org forums.

Any identified individual found to have violated this rule will be
suspended from all participation in E-Democracy.Org forum's and
activities for five years.  This includes any and all e-mail accounts
associated with that person whether real or falsified. If it appears
that fraud, forgery, identity theft, or computer crime laws have been
violated, E-Democracy.Org will notify the appropriate legal
authorities in the political jurisdiction most closely associated
with the forum.

The only exception to this rule is the case-by-case prior approval by
the Forum Manager and E-Democracy Chapter or E-Democracy Board for
the use of an alias by someone under official court protection or
participation by individuals in countries where political expression
is illegal and the serious threat of oppression or retribution
exists.  As an exception to this section, the charters for special
time-limited web-based online events on sensitive topics may be
designed to allow anonymous participation with Chapter or Board
approval only.

8. Appeals and Due Process - Any third or fourth warning may be
appealed under our due process procedure to the local E-Democracy
Chapter or the E-Democracy.Org Board should a local forum management
steering committee not exist.  At that time, the validity of the
first or second warning may also be reviewed and the total number of
warnings reduced if any of the Forum Manager warnings are overturned.
 A forum member's suspension shall remain in effect during the review
process.  The review process may last no more than three weeks from
confirmation that the appeal was received.

9. Technical Removal - Technical maintenance, full e-mail inboxes, or
excessive bounced messages may cause a member to be temporarily or
technically removed from the forum or result in a delayed
distribution of their posts. In these cases, the member may rejoin
the forum at any time.

10.  Mission Responsibilities - It is the responsibility of the E-
Democracy Board to develop and protect each forum as an
organizational initiative within the non-profit mission of E-
Democracy.Org.  The E-Democracy Board reserves the right to remove
any participant upon careful consideration and stipulate the terms
and duration of that removal.  Notices on such removals will be
linked from the rules section the E-Democracy.Org website.

^               ^               ^                ^
Steven L. Clift    -   -  -  W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis    -   -   -  -   E: <email obscured>
Minnesota  -   -   -   -   -   - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA    -   -   -   -     Skype/MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift

Join Democracies Online: http://dowire.org
Start an Issues Forum: http://e-democracy.org/if