All posts in the topic 15. Moderating or facilitation discussions (Short link)
Summary
- There are 18 posts — by 10 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Steven Clift at 2006 Jul 13 16:35 UTC
Hiya,
There are different ways for discussions to be moderated:
1. pre-moderation where nothing is published until it has been approved. If
dealing with a sensitive subject this could be a good option but if you have an
active e-panel or forum, this takes a lot of time and participants may feel
frustrated at the delay incurred. Our colleagues in Wolverhampton have this
approach as the council is nervous about letting people have their say without
some form of control.
2. post-moderation where everything is published but checked when it is live.
This implies more trust in participants but is slightly more risky in that
offensive messages could be posted. We use this approach in Bristol and so far
have not had to remove any messages. I tend to check forums once or twice a day
unless they are particularly lively debates.
3. moderation on request. The 'owner' of the forum doesn't moderate unless
another participant tells them something's wrong. The BBC have just introduced
this policy for their discussion forums
Most consultation software will allow both pre-moderation and post-moderation
and should allow you to define different approaches for different forums. Some
also allow you to introduce pre-moderation or other control measures for
particular participants so if they misbehave, they can be monitored for a
while.
We advise that a moderation log is kept so that all messages that are removed
and the reasons why are kept on record and are viewable on request. From a
freedom of information point of view this is important, but it is also good to
be able to defend yourselves against accusations of censorship.
People should be told if there are problems with their message and an
explanation given about what the problem is. A suggested rephrasing could also
be offered removing any offensive comments.
Does anyone have any particular questions or issues they would like to discuss?
With regards to moderation.
As Carol said there are a mixture of pre and post moderation facilities
available.
Some time ago I spoke to BBCi and they said that for large
consultations/debates post moderation is preferred as pre-moderation is not
that scalable.
If a forum is set to be post-moderated you can apply an override to moderate a
particular individual if they have breached your posting rules. This is
preferable to removing them from the list. You should notify them that you have
done this if it differs from your advertised policy.
On moderation it is also possible to edit a response for publishing, but
certain organisations we work with have been advised not to do this as there
are legal issues with regard to the ownership of the published copy and
potential change of context.
Like this forum, our software makes full use of email to ensure and stimulate
engagement. The one issue you need to be aware of in post-moderation is that
once a remark is published it is automatically distributed to the forum
member's email even if it is subsequently removed from the forum web site.
I suppose one question is how interactive debating sites impact corporate
communications policy. Normal (static) web based communications (press releases
etc) are usually tightly controlled. In conflict with this is the key to
successful forums is ensuring that the council's topic owner
(officer/councillor) is actively involved in facilitating and responding to
themed discussions in their specialist area. I would be interested to
understand the views of your communications department. Do they see this as a
loss of control?
Regards
John Glover
Tel +44 (0)1488 648 478
www.inovem.com
Carol Hayward <carol_hayward@bristol-city.gov.uk>
> Does anyone have any particular questions or issues they would like to
discuss?
I think it's important that the technical aspect of moderation is
kept apart from the social aspect of it and the policy-agreeing.
Some of the free software community's mailing lists are fairly
notorious for being flamepits or other wastes of space. Most of
the bad ones share a common trait: social moderation is done by
a sort of "mob rule" which can get ugly fast. None of the mob
feels a particular investment or responsibility in the social
aspect of the list - it's a purely technical communication
channel to them - so the social moderation is pretty thoughtless.
It seems to tend towards the dominant culture riding roughshod
over any minorities, or list heat death if there is no one
dominant culture.
(Disclosure: in my time, I've probably been part of some of those
mobs. Then I realised it didn't do much beside store up trouble.)
This is something where the Issues Forums guide looks very
right. As well as the forum manager who deals with the technical
aspect, there's the steering group who deal with the social
aspect, even if most of that is delegated to the forum manager
to implement through the technology. And a moderation log is a
good idea if someone else is to handle social moderation well.
One essential point that participants should accept is that
sometimes forums will split or merge because of differences
or similarities. The world hasn't found a way for fascists and
anti-facists to coexist without causing divisions, so why should
we expect online to be so far ahead of it?
Splits and merges don't seem to be addressed in the IF guide yet.
Should they happen or not?
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
At 1:24 PM +0000 12/8/05, MJ Ray wrote:
>One essential point that participants should accept is that
>sometimes forums will split or merge because of differences
>or similarities. The world hasn't found a way for fascists and
>anti-facists to coexist without causing divisions, so why should
>we expect online to be so far ahead of it?
>
>Splits and merges don't seem to be addressed in the IF guide yet.
>>Should they happen or not?
Steve Clift addressed this question already, but I'd like to add a
few thoughts.
E-Democracy.Org would discourage "splits" in an Issues Forum along
ideological lines. We believe, that the Greens, the Liberals, the
Conservatives, and even the fascists all have their own on-line
forums already. The entire purpose of an Issues Forum, is to create a
single place on-line where an individual can 'speak to' and 'hear
from' a real cross section of the community.
Extremists are members of the community and are given their space in
an Issues Forum, as long as they abide by the forum rules, which
would prevent them from using the forum for any illegal "hate speech"
as defined in each local community (or country). Also, the forums are
structure in a way, to make it difficult for any 1 or 2 individuals
to "take over" or "hijack" the forum.
If fascists and anti-fascists both show up a regular council hearing,
we don't generally split the hearing (or committee meeting) into two
different meetings - so that the two groups don't have to be
together. We use the rules of the meeting to keep order and try to
facilitate things such that we can keep as many people as involved as
possible while still getting business accomplished.
An Issues Forum should be that kind of place, where the rules and
culture of the space make it possible for a broad and diverse a group
of folks as possible can co-exist. AGAIN - when very divisive and
polarized situations arise, there is no automatic on-line feature
that will solve this problem. Issues Forums rely on the skill and
leadership of their forum manager and steering committee to navigate
them through these troubled times. E-Democracy.Org stands ready as an
resource to provide input and advice, if things become difficult in a
local Issues Forum.
Is this helpful?
Tim Erickson
E-Democracy.Org
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
If there's anyone on the list who is interested in becoming an online discussion facilitator/host, a course is taking place in January. The course was developed as part of the Local eDemocracy National Project to provide the skills needed to run online consultations. The course is delivered online and is an interactive course, designed to provide a combination of theoretical grounding and hands-on skills. The course is due to start on Monday 16th January and students will need to set aside around an hour a day to get the most out of it. If you're interested, please see the information at http://www.communitypeople.net/courses/ for more details
One thing that hasn't been covered yet is what you do after you've
moderated/facilitated/dealt with someone's comment. The temptation is
always to see them as a problem, deal with the comment, and possibly
ban them from the site. Yet if the person feels strongly enough about
an issue to overstep the mark in online discussion, they should
really be engaged with to try to resolve their grievance, following
the old maxim that an annoyed customer will tell more people than a
happy one. Obviously the poster has to be informed about a removed
comment anyway, so we'd recommend using that as an opportunity to
address their concerns as well if at all possible
At the risk of over-participating, my response to Gez's excellent point is that
you should not even start the process unless you know exactly what you will do
with the responses that you get.
This means anticipating all the possible types of responses - e.g.
observations, complaints, ideas, recommendations, warnings, information etc -
and having a plan for dealing with them. This should be done at the outset as
part of the design process.
If not, you risk raising and disappointing expectations, annoying people and
discouraging them from participating in future, and contributing to many
people's belief that much public engagement and consultation is essentially
fraudulent.
In response to Andrew, is there a danger that the process can become over
processed and that the experimental nature of a discussion/debate may raise
issues/reponses that you may simply not know what to do with.
I think health warnings about expectations/outcomes need to be given up front
at the outset, something that those often doing consutlation singularly fail
to do.
Over-processing can be a problem if it inhibits spontaneity and creativity
among participants - but I don't see why simply thinking through the possible
results of a process should do that - it's just intelligent planning. And it's
better than achieving lots of participation but not being able to make use of
it.
Besides, one can always have a category of response called "What on earth do we
do with this?" designed to keep everyone on their toes.
MJ Ray wrote: > The world hasn't found a way for fascists and > anti-facists to coexist without causing divisions, so why should > we expect online to be so far ahead of it? Well actually some people have. At least there are designs of consensus meetings which can find any underlying consensus between opponents. Peter Emerson has even found consensus between loyalists and republicans in Northern Ireland, in a preferendum meeting. It is detailed in his books (see http://www.deborda.org/) but in short the process is: 1. Get self-identified groups to work out in each group what option they want to solve a particular problem. They already know what voting system will be used at the end. 2. Have a time limited round in which each group presents their position, and answers and questions of clarification. Independent consensors can intervene to correct errors of fact, and to enforce time limits. 3. The groups then reword their options, to try and make them more attractive to the others, so that their preferred option is not ranked last. They hand in a wording for the votes. 4. The independent consensors combine options that are merely different wordings of the same outcome and put them into a vote covering a range of extreme and less extreme options. 5. Each group (or sometimes each individual, depending on the meeting design) then ranks the options. 6. The results are analysed using a deBorda count (last choice 1 point, second last choice 2 points and so on). The consensors then report back on the vote, highlighting those options that receive more than 75% of the maximum possible points. These are often the ones that everyone puts second or third, if they cannot get their preferred option. At the end of some meetings, Peter has even found consensus between supporters of Sinn Fein and the DUP. To generalise, the rules of engagement in a deliberative or voting process can be shaped to encourage (or discourage) consensus finding.
At 4:02 AM +1300 12/10/05, Andrew Acland wrote:
>This means anticipating all the possible types of responses - e.g.
>observations, complaints, ideas, recommendations, warnings,
>information etc - and having a plan for dealing with them. This
>should be done at the outset as part of the design process.
At 4:17 AM +1300 12/10/05, James Paton wrote:
>In response to Andrew, is there a danger that the process can become
>over processed and that the experimental nature of a
>discussion/debate may raise issues/reponses that you may simply not
>know what to do with.
I think that Andrew's points are good ones, if you are designing and
implementing a consultation process. That is, if government is
setting up a time limited process to get input on a specific proposal
or issue.
Bringing us back to the purpose of this workshop - Issues Forums and
E-panels, I'd like to remind folks that Issues Forums are not
consultations. An Issues Forum is an ongoing process that takes place
over years, on topics that cannot be anticipated at launch
(determined by participants - on the fly), with no particular
(specific) policy objective.
The purpose of an Issues Forum is to create a place where citizens
can communicate with each other as well as elected officials on a
variety of topics. With an Issues Forum, we don't necessarily 'deal
with' or 'process' contributions, we simply create a forum where
citizens can put their ideas and opinions and we make sure that there
are community leaders and elected officials there to listen. BUT, we
don't promise any kind of response or reaction. Its up to the
individuals and their ideas to get the attention of elected
officials, the media, or each other.
One of the characteristics of managing an Issues Forum, is that your
forum manager and steering committee must be prepared to deal with
the unexpected. You can't anticipate everything in advance, although
it is helpful to prepare for some things which you can reasonably
expect to encounter.
For me, the beauty of Issues Forum is that they are really shaped by
the participants and government officials who choose (sometimes after
encouragement) to participate. Like any other community, any Issues
Forum is subject to the particular participants and personalities
that choose to "show up." Over time, we believe that Issues Forums
make it much easier to "show up," but without an organized outreach
effort - Issues Forums do run the risk (as does most any process) of
being dominated by the "usual suspects."
Best wishes,
Tim Erickson
E-Democracy.Org
Carol Hayward <carol_hayward@bristol-city.gov.uk> > If there's anyone on the list who is interested in becoming > an online discussion facilitator/host, a course is taking > place in January. [...] > If you're interested, please see the information at > http://www.communitypeople.net/courses/ for more details How much is it? I see comments about payment in the pages, but the forms are Microsoft Word DOC files (why not HTML or xhtml forms?) and we're not all Microsoft customers.
Dear all,
Apologies for the multiple posts today but in response to my earlier email, I
was approached by a district council who are trying to sell the idea of
e-panels to their ICT development group who were
"scared at the thought that anyone could write something and have it
posted live without moderation."
My answer was:
There's nervousness from most councils about the idea of not premoderating
posts but from our own experience, we haven't had many posts we've needed to
remove.
Including our e-petitions forums, we've only had to remove less than a handful
in total since they've been live. It's the 'hot topics' where there's more
heated debate/polarised views that are more likely to attract offensive posts
or swear words.
eg We've got a very lively issue at the moment about a new 'Banksy' street art
image which has gone up on a council building. The council's asking members of
the public if it should stay or go. Most people support it but there are a few
people against it - a couple of whom have had rather rude and personal
responses to their comments. Out of around 200 comments I've removed two (I
think they're the first I've needed to within Ask Bristol which has now been
live since January 2005) - one included swear words, the other was personally
offensive towards another participant. As long as you deal with the situation,
the council shouldn't receive too much criticism.
To allow posts to appear without premoderation shows that you trust people.
This encourages more participation and helps to show that you're willing to
listen without censorship.
To manage the forums, I check at least once a day (depending how lively they
are) and sometimes at weekends. My policy is to be reasonably relaxed about
it. I don't mind the council being criticised. I don't mind a bit of bantering
as normally the participants handle themselves quite well and point out factual
errors etc. For people who swear or who are offensive, my policy is to remove
their post and email them to say why, asking them to resubmit without the swear
words/offensiveness if poss. But, as I said, it's been rare we've had to do so.
-end
Does anyone have any other thoughts that could add help the district council in
their deliberations?
Quoting Carol Hayward <carol_hayward@bristol-city.gov.uk>:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Apologies for the multiple posts today but in response to my earlier email, I
> was approached by a district council who are trying to sell the idea of
> e-panels to their ICT development group who were
>
> "scared at the thought that anyone could write something and have it
> posted live without moderation."
>
Part of this fear is cultural. ICT folks are training to provide network
"security" so any form of openness generates concern. It is important to note
that openness is a democratic value. It is also significantly cheaper to
post-moderate. Also, with Issues Forums we don't pre-moderate to help limit our
liability as a potential publisher.
From: Gavin Sealey <gsealey@hyperstorm.co.uk> > Post-moderation can be a problem since it is through practice or > design difficult to remove posts from the archive and impossible to > expunge from memory once emailed to the list. > For web-based forums post-moderation it is easier. With Issues Forum, where we use a mix of e-mail and the web, it is relatively meaningless unless an a web version of post is a top Goggle search results for someones name. In one case E-Democracy.Org edited the subject line of a rule violating post. We'ved focus our "guidence" (or control) on the forum on the overall accountability of the participants. If you violate rules and receive warnings, your ability to participate is limited for specific durations of time - an e-jail so to speak. This is even less resource intensive than the time required for balanced post- moderation and may actually encourage folks to be more responsible and toughtful about what they post. (Real names helps too.) Steven Clift E-Democracy.Org ^ ^ ^ ^ 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