Turn off the MeTa queue before it becomes a teenager February 11, 2025 4:35 PM Subscribe
Ten years, eight months and 12 days ago, the MetaTalk queue was turned on. The reason for doing so was a reduction in the availability of moderators at any given time and the high workload MeTa threads created relative to other parts of the site.
However, it has continued to be a contentious issue for members from time to time, much more so recently, where the queue is seen to have become much more of a filter than a queue, with perceptions that some people are now actually being Silenced All Their Life.
MeTa has historically been a combination of a community space where members of the community can interact in a less-focussed way than expected elsewhere on the site, a place where policy discussions can take place and a safety-valve of sorts, with the more informal interaction often happening in a thread where a more formal discussion has run its course. Things like free threads may have provided one of those outlets, but many community members are frustrated by the perceived stifling of important conversations.
It could be argued that, after over a decade, there's no valid reason to turn the queue off. However, it seems clear it is creating a lot of friction in the community and that argument assumes there have not been adverse consequences. While the reason for turning it on in the first place (lack of moderator coverage) is still present, that friction is creating work for moderators that would be removed by turning the queue back off. Removing the queue would no doubt create some different work, of course.
I propose the community consider the following options:
MeTa has historically been a combination of a community space where members of the community can interact in a less-focussed way than expected elsewhere on the site, a place where policy discussions can take place and a safety-valve of sorts, with the more informal interaction often happening in a thread where a more formal discussion has run its course. Things like free threads may have provided one of those outlets, but many community members are frustrated by the perceived stifling of important conversations.
It could be argued that, after over a decade, there's no valid reason to turn the queue off. However, it seems clear it is creating a lot of friction in the community and that argument assumes there have not been adverse consequences. While the reason for turning it on in the first place (lack of moderator coverage) is still present, that friction is creating work for moderators that would be removed by turning the queue back off. Removing the queue would no doubt create some different work, of course.
I propose the community consider the following options:
- Do nothing - leave the queue as is
- Back to the future - remove the queue as a permanent feature, acknowledging that certain times of year may necessitate turning it on for a specified period (this should be published in the site banner)
- Nuke it from orbit - remove the queue and let the cards fall where they may.
Mod note: Since December 24, 2024, the queue has been operating under the premise of just push anything through that isn't hugely fighty.
Number of MeTas published since then that are not authored by a mod is 35 (including this one)
4 in December
19 in January
9 in February
2 were not published
1 was a technical question that was answered in email
1 was an apology for a controversial post where it seemed like the fighting would just spill over into MeTa, so I made the judgement call to not publish it and contacted the OP with the reasoning
1 MeTa was delayed because it was a fighty situation and I was looking for the background story from a mod who was off shift. The member was told it would be posted within 24 hours, it only took several.
I think there were 1 or 2 posts that stayed in the queue for several hours during a mod gap, but I believe most of the others were published within the hour.
As to the issue of mod trust, it's in this comment in the sense that a question was asked and answered and numbers given.
If folks want a monthly breakdown of what MeTas were and were not published and the reasons why, that's fine, can do that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:26 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
Number of MeTas published since then that are not authored by a mod is 35 (including this one)
4 in December
19 in January
9 in February
2 were not published
1 was a technical question that was answered in email
1 was an apology for a controversial post where it seemed like the fighting would just spill over into MeTa, so I made the judgement call to not publish it and contacted the OP with the reasoning
1 MeTa was delayed because it was a fighty situation and I was looking for the background story from a mod who was off shift. The member was told it would be posted within 24 hours, it only took several.
I think there were 1 or 2 posts that stayed in the queue for several hours during a mod gap, but I believe most of the others were published within the hour.
As to the issue of mod trust, it's in this comment in the sense that a question was asked and answered and numbers given.
If folks want a monthly breakdown of what MeTas were and were not published and the reasons why, that's fine, can do that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:26 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
Seems like a lot of mod work and attention to review all those posts to address a problem that appeared 3% of the time?
posted by theclaw at 5:58 PM on February 11 [10 favorites]
posted by theclaw at 5:58 PM on February 11 [10 favorites]
A series of questions: Is the month and a half or so that MeTas have been mostly pushed through right away, a good enough sample? Given the current concerns about moderation (and without taking any stance on that for this question), could we expect an unmanageable increase in Metatalks all demanding mod time and effort? (One way of answering that might be, what were the statistics like before the Christmas Eve decision? Were a lot of posts in the queue being turned down prior to that? What kinds of posts were not allowed through?)
posted by mittens at 6:06 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
posted by mittens at 6:06 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
However, it seems clear it is creating a lot of friction in the community
There's a lot of friction in the community, or a very small number of very loud people complain about a lot of stupid shit?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 6:11 PM on February 11 [29 favorites]
There's a lot of friction in the community, or a very small number of very loud people complain about a lot of stupid shit?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 6:11 PM on February 11 [29 favorites]
I don't think that there's any need whatsoever to discuss the finer points of the pros and cons, the nuance-this and the nuance-that, just turn off the queue. Fuck it, throw caution to the wind, what's to lose? If it doesn't work out, and I'm not sure why it wouldn't, then turn it back on. Case closed, next!
posted by ashbury at 6:12 PM on February 11 [21 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 6:12 PM on February 11 [21 favorites]
Team Turn Off The Dang Queue
posted by phunniemee at 6:22 PM on February 11 [15 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:22 PM on February 11 [15 favorites]
There's a lot of friction in the community, or a very small number of very loud people complain about a lot of stupid shit?
Nouvelle_personne and rhymedirective have both publicly quit over the queue (and what preceded their desire to post in MetaTalk.) I too would like more data but neither of those ppl are people I remember as complaining a lot about stupid shit.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:42 PM on February 11 [31 favorites]
Nouvelle_personne and rhymedirective have both publicly quit over the queue (and what preceded their desire to post in MetaTalk.) I too would like more data but neither of those ppl are people I remember as complaining a lot about stupid shit.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:42 PM on February 11 [31 favorites]
I think completely eliminating the queue would likely lead to a different set of issues. Primarily, lack of mod responsiveness during off hours allowing free-for-all grudge matches and yet more lack of trust.
So, I propose a compromise. What if the queue existed only as an automated parking lot during breaks in mod coverage? A mod going off duty with a gap in coverage would turn on the queue. A mod coming on duty after a gap would immediately turn off the queue. At which point, all Metas in the queue would be automatically published.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:43 PM on February 11 [8 favorites]
So, I propose a compromise. What if the queue existed only as an automated parking lot during breaks in mod coverage? A mod going off duty with a gap in coverage would turn on the queue. A mod coming on duty after a gap would immediately turn off the queue. At which point, all Metas in the queue would be automatically published.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:43 PM on February 11 [8 favorites]
Primarily, lack of mod responsiveness during off hours allowing free-for-all grudge matches and yet more lack of trust.
We get this anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 6:47 PM on February 11 [19 favorites]
We get this anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 6:47 PM on February 11 [19 favorites]
Indeed. Which is why I hesitate to go all-in in that direction. Why make that worse, if we can, instead, address the trust issues by limiting the queue to off-hours and automating release of queued Metas? It's not a perfect solution, but it feels like an incremental improvement to me.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:26 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:26 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Nouvelle_personne and rhymedirective have both publicly quit over the queue (and what preceded their desire to post in MetaTalk.)
Nouvelle_personne did not close their account because of the queue, she submitted the MeTa and then closed her account about a minute later.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:03 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
Nouvelle_personne did not close their account because of the queue, she submitted the MeTa and then closed her account about a minute later.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:03 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
So maybe they hit submit and said “My post went into some damn queue?” and buttoned.
posted by umber vowel at 8:16 PM on February 11 [8 favorites]
posted by umber vowel at 8:16 PM on February 11 [8 favorites]
I’m the one whose apology post didn’t get passed.
I agree with the mod reasoning.
posted by Lemkin at 8:24 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
I agree with the mod reasoning.
posted by Lemkin at 8:24 PM on February 11 [3 favorites]
Given the extreme lack of moderation engagement in MeTa, it seems like the presence of the queue ends up implying that there will be moderation interaction and therefore makes it even more frustrating when there's not. I agree that it's also turned into a point of contention around the trustworthiness of the moderators, in terms of suspicion about what they're posting and not posting. I think we should get rid of it.
posted by lapis at 8:29 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
posted by lapis at 8:29 PM on February 11 [9 favorites]
(Though I have to say, I have no idea what any sort of vote or consensus or feedback will accomplish here, since there's apparently still no process in place for who makes decisions like this.)
posted by lapis at 8:30 PM on February 11 [5 favorites]
posted by lapis at 8:30 PM on February 11 [5 favorites]
Good grief! Yes, let’s have a pointless 200 comment thread about turning off the queue. Here’s the thing, you can keep on doing the same thing and get the same results or you can try something different and see what happens. Shit or get off the pot, as they say.
For what it’s worth, there doesn’t need to be a process for making this decision. “Engine Room, this is Captain Loup. Increase speed to 20 knots and turn off the queue”. Easy peasy.
posted by ashbury at 9:06 PM on February 11 [13 favorites]
For what it’s worth, there doesn’t need to be a process for making this decision. “Engine Room, this is Captain Loup. Increase speed to 20 knots and turn off the queue”. Easy peasy.
posted by ashbury at 9:06 PM on February 11 [13 favorites]
There's a lot of friction in the community, or a very small number of very loud people complain about a lot of stupid shit?
My observation is there's definitely a lot of friction. It's not from everyone or even a majority, but it's from quite a number of people, including those that have been supporters of the moderation team for many years and who I would consider valued and responsible members of the community. Also, a very small number of ratbags, yes.
Seems like a lot of mod work and attention to review all those posts to address a problem that appeared 3% of the time?
I agree, except that none of those posts not published were denied to address a problem - one was denied because of a perception of a possible problem, one because the issue had already been resolved (although making it public may have helped others with the same or a similar problem). I trust the judgement call that the one thread presented a potential shitfight was correct, although allowing sunlight onto such things can help. Acknowledging the possible drama for mods, MeTa threads can and have been closed many times when they go off the rails. So the net outcome looks like more work to manage the queue than to let things roll out naturally.
As to the issue of mod trust, it's in this comment in the sense that a question was asked and answered and numbers given.
Thanks for the prompt info on this. You are very well aware, though, that the issue of trust is not just related to the last six weeks or so, nor is it just related to the MeTa queue.
For what it's worth, I'm 100% on the back to the future team - use the queue only for specific and known pain points and make sure that information is published (preferably via the site banner).
posted by dg at 9:14 PM on February 11 [4 favorites]
My observation is there's definitely a lot of friction. It's not from everyone or even a majority, but it's from quite a number of people, including those that have been supporters of the moderation team for many years and who I would consider valued and responsible members of the community. Also, a very small number of ratbags, yes.
Seems like a lot of mod work and attention to review all those posts to address a problem that appeared 3% of the time?
I agree, except that none of those posts not published were denied to address a problem - one was denied because of a perception of a possible problem, one because the issue had already been resolved (although making it public may have helped others with the same or a similar problem). I trust the judgement call that the one thread presented a potential shitfight was correct, although allowing sunlight onto such things can help. Acknowledging the possible drama for mods, MeTa threads can and have been closed many times when they go off the rails. So the net outcome looks like more work to manage the queue than to let things roll out naturally.
As to the issue of mod trust, it's in this comment in the sense that a question was asked and answered and numbers given.
Thanks for the prompt info on this. You are very well aware, though, that the issue of trust is not just related to the last six weeks or so, nor is it just related to the MeTa queue.
For what it's worth, I'm 100% on the back to the future team - use the queue only for specific and known pain points and make sure that information is published (preferably via the site banner).
posted by dg at 9:14 PM on February 11 [4 favorites]
Turn off the queue for a month; evaluate.
posted by einekleine at 4:04 AM on February 12 [17 favorites]
posted by einekleine at 4:04 AM on February 12 [17 favorites]
Given the extreme lack of moderation engagement in MeTa, it seems like the presence of the queue ends up implying that there will be moderation interaction and therefore makes it even more frustrating when there's not.
If I'm posting a MeTa, it's for community engagement, I don't care about the mods. If I wanted to hear what the mods thought about something, I'd go use the contact form and talk to them directly.
When you submit a MeTa there's even a little box you have to check confirming that YES, my post requires community input. The queue is a mod-created barrier between members and the community we're a part of.
I can't speak to what's in nouvelle-personne's mind, but they were already getting deleted by the mods in a thread. They went to MeTa to have a discussion with their community about this, and then got blocked by the mods there, too. Such a waste.
I don't care if a MeTa gets posted off hours and a mod doesn't respond to it right away, because MeTas are for the community to discuss things. It's what this place is for, and has always been for.
posted by phunniemee at 4:29 AM on February 12 [28 favorites]
If I'm posting a MeTa, it's for community engagement, I don't care about the mods. If I wanted to hear what the mods thought about something, I'd go use the contact form and talk to them directly.
When you submit a MeTa there's even a little box you have to check confirming that YES, my post requires community input. The queue is a mod-created barrier between members and the community we're a part of.
I can't speak to what's in nouvelle-personne's mind, but they were already getting deleted by the mods in a thread. They went to MeTa to have a discussion with their community about this, and then got blocked by the mods there, too. Such a waste.
I don't care if a MeTa gets posted off hours and a mod doesn't respond to it right away, because MeTas are for the community to discuss things. It's what this place is for, and has always been for.
posted by phunniemee at 4:29 AM on February 12 [28 favorites]
I have had a few posts stuck in the MeTa queue for entirely justifiable reasons, so I’ll say it’s mostly helped me in the long run. However, I think a test period is probably a good idea — turn it off for a month and see how it goes.
The flip side would be that community would have to be ok with posts being deleted or shuttered if they get out of hand.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:47 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
The flip side would be that community would have to be ok with posts being deleted or shuttered if they get out of hand.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:47 AM on February 12 [4 favorites]
The flip side would be that community would have to be ok with posts being deleted or shuttered if they get out of hand.
They're doing this anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 4:49 AM on February 12 [9 favorites]
They're doing this anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 4:49 AM on February 12 [9 favorites]
Just turn it off. The community wants this.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:40 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:40 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
I think there should be a queue until and unless the structure of the site changes significantly.
The really valuable parts of Metafilter are the main site and AskMe. User stats show that most people spend their time on those sites. There should be a lot less MeTa posts, overall, unless we adopt a community-governance model.
I think having the mods forewarned and prepared for the attacks that show up here so often and be able to actually moderate them is important. The fact that Brandon could quickly drop some actual statistics here was helpful, it grounds and frames the conversation. These statistics are shaped by the queue, of course: there's good reason to believe that we'd have a lot more random fighty MeTas without a queue because people would stunt as they did before the queue.
I haven't seen any MeTas that looked urgent, yet, and I still haven't heard an argument for this urgency.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:50 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
The really valuable parts of Metafilter are the main site and AskMe. User stats show that most people spend their time on those sites. There should be a lot less MeTa posts, overall, unless we adopt a community-governance model.
I think having the mods forewarned and prepared for the attacks that show up here so often and be able to actually moderate them is important. The fact that Brandon could quickly drop some actual statistics here was helpful, it grounds and frames the conversation. These statistics are shaped by the queue, of course: there's good reason to believe that we'd have a lot more random fighty MeTas without a queue because people would stunt as they did before the queue.
I haven't seen any MeTas that looked urgent, yet, and I still haven't heard an argument for this urgency.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:50 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
I haven't seen any MeTas that looked urgent
Nouvelle_personne's post was urgent, to me, but it wasn't allowed to be posted immediately because of the queue.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:56 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
Nouvelle_personne's post was urgent, to me, but it wasn't allowed to be posted immediately because of the queue.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:56 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
unless we adopt a community-governance model
That is in fact happening, unless you mean volunteer moderation model which is not currently happening.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:02 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
That is in fact happening, unless you mean volunteer moderation model which is not currently happening.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:02 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
and I still haven't heard an argument for this urgency.
I haven't heard an argument for maintaining the queue.
So far, every argument in favor of the queue is dire foreboding of something that's happening already under the current system, except that it takes more mod hours to manage the queue and requires the aggrieved party fester in their upset.
posted by phunniemee at 7:06 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
I haven't heard an argument for maintaining the queue.
So far, every argument in favor of the queue is dire foreboding of something that's happening already under the current system, except that it takes more mod hours to manage the queue and requires the aggrieved party fester in their upset.
posted by phunniemee at 7:06 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
Nouvelle_personne did not close their account because of the queue, she submitted the MeTa and then closed her account about a minute later.
Did they close their account because the MeTa queue took too long, or because they knew that it might not get passed through because the nature of the proposed MeTa might get the hackles up of members and/or mods?
I remember that AskMe; n-p should have had their MeTa post approved in a timely fashion. But it didn't and now we've lost another member. Man, we keep hemorrhaging members...I wonder why.
posted by Kitteh at 7:07 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
Did they close their account because the MeTa queue took too long, or because they knew that it might not get passed through because the nature of the proposed MeTa might get the hackles up of members and/or mods?
I remember that AskMe; n-p should have had their MeTa post approved in a timely fashion. But it didn't and now we've lost another member. Man, we keep hemorrhaging members...I wonder why.
posted by Kitteh at 7:07 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
For option 2 (which is really what I'm leaning toward), I think I disagree with "may necessitate turning it on for a specified period (this should be published in the site banner)". Given the vast majority of users never even come to MeTa, there's no reason for inform every single visitor that the queue is active. Post a notice on the main MeTa page, perhaps, and definitely on the new post page but not elsewhere.
posted by skynxnex at 7:12 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by skynxnex at 7:12 AM on February 12 [1 favorite]
The really valuable parts of Metafilter are the main site and AskMe
No, not to me.
posted by Vatnesine at 7:18 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
No, not to me.
posted by Vatnesine at 7:18 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
That is in fact happening, unless you mean volunteer moderation model which is not currently happening.
Why did you link that in response to me, since I'm on the MOC and pretty active? It's also unresponsive! The MOC gets its authority from the Board, and doesn't have independent authority to act. Nor is the mechanism by which the MOC will act MeTa threads, so again it doesn't seem relevant to the queue?
I do think volunteer moderation might get you some of the way towards community governance, but even that wouldn't do all the work. Just for clarity, I think for Metafilter to make a true turn to community-governance model would require that governance include all users, that there be some form of direct legislation or amendment of policies, and a whole bunch of procedures for decision-making that don't exist. Plus a bunch of automated tools that we won't be able to implement in the current tech. Maybe there's a less fulsome account of community governance that you had in mind? Some forums do have community governance, but we're not really close yet. And that's okay!
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:19 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Why did you link that in response to me, since I'm on the MOC and pretty active? It's also unresponsive! The MOC gets its authority from the Board, and doesn't have independent authority to act. Nor is the mechanism by which the MOC will act MeTa threads, so again it doesn't seem relevant to the queue?
I do think volunteer moderation might get you some of the way towards community governance, but even that wouldn't do all the work. Just for clarity, I think for Metafilter to make a true turn to community-governance model would require that governance include all users, that there be some form of direct legislation or amendment of policies, and a whole bunch of procedures for decision-making that don't exist. Plus a bunch of automated tools that we won't be able to implement in the current tech. Maybe there's a less fulsome account of community governance that you had in mind? Some forums do have community governance, but we're not really close yet. And that's okay!
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:19 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
I was clarifying/adding, sorry for being terse about it. But the Board is community governance, because the community elects the board. That's actually one reason the current Board is not as active; they are planning elections for the next, permanent board.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:23 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:23 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
And just to add: there are a LOT of models of community governance. It doesn't by definition mean that everyone votes on everything. I mean, I think using simple modern platforms it would be possible to put a lot up for votes/polls here. But just definitionally, community governance definitely includes the structure we're currently putting together.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:29 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:29 AM on February 12 [5 favorites]
One thing: it used to be common for mods to drop a note to someone whose MeTa post was queued and delayed for a while to let them know about the delay. Is that still happening? Might go some way to reducing the irritation.
But the Board is community governance, because the community elects the board. That's actually one reason the current Board is not as active; they are planning elections for the next, permanent board.
That's a great answer, thank you. I'd argue that community governance tends to involve engagement in day-to-day affairs and not just elections. (The way folks often interpret the democracy/republic distinction in terms of representative government.) When the Board truly gets going, Board members should also have the power to release MeTa posts from the queue, as ideally some of them should be involved in the discussion. But still there should be a queue!
People forget how downright cruel and frankly offensive folks used to be in this part of the site.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:32 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
But the Board is community governance, because the community elects the board. That's actually one reason the current Board is not as active; they are planning elections for the next, permanent board.
That's a great answer, thank you. I'd argue that community governance tends to involve engagement in day-to-day affairs and not just elections. (The way folks often interpret the democracy/republic distinction in terms of representative government.) When the Board truly gets going, Board members should also have the power to release MeTa posts from the queue, as ideally some of them should be involved in the discussion. But still there should be a queue!
People forget how downright cruel and frankly offensive folks used to be in this part of the site.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:32 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
People are causally linking the MeTa queue with less fighting/more civility, but I don't think that's a causal connection, or at least isn't anymore.
posted by lapis at 7:54 AM on February 12 [12 favorites]
posted by lapis at 7:54 AM on February 12 [12 favorites]
So we're still harping over something that happened 10 years ago. And using it as an excuse to be more fighty. Wow. Just wow.
Turning on the queue will do nothing to improve Metafilter except encourage spam and have new people wonder why people are picking fights over something that happened 10 years ago.
posted by Melismata at 8:05 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Turning on the queue will do nothing to improve Metafilter except encourage spam and have new people wonder why people are picking fights over something that happened 10 years ago.
posted by Melismata at 8:05 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Why is spam going to be a problem in Metatalk but not in Ask, Meta, Projects, Fanfare, etc?
posted by bowbeacon at 8:06 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 8:06 AM on February 12 [11 favorites]
Trump ran for office almost 10 years ago. And people are still mad about it now? And using it as an excuse to be more fighty. Worrying about Trump being president now will do nothing except make people wonder why people are picking fights over something that happened 10 years ago. Wow. Just wow.
posted by phunniemee at 8:32 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 8:32 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
So we're still harping over something that happened 10 years ago.
I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization of the current conversation. When the queue was started, the context was different. Moderators (and owners) until that point had been available a lot more than just their hours on company time, and they were burning out. The queue was a way to impose a boundary on their time that back then they felt incapable of doing for themselves otherwise.
Now, I do agree that the people who were against the queue then were largely against it for the same reasons folks are now - they want community conversation to continue whether or not a mod is available. But the context is different, because now the moderators ARE drawing those boundaries for themselves - there's almost always only one mod voice in a given MeTa, and when that person is offline, they're offline and the conversation goes on without them anyway, and everyone knows and understands that we won't hear back from a mod until the next shift.
So if the mods are now feeling able to step in only when they are paid to do so, if they are able to separate their moderation duties from their personal life, if the community expectation isn't otherwise, then the queue has done what it was made to do. It has successfully shifted expectations about how mods and users interact on MeTa.
And now it is demonstrably causing real problems. If context matters in moderation decisions about individual posts and comments, shouldn't that also be true for decisions about broader processes like this?
posted by solotoro at 8:41 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization of the current conversation. When the queue was started, the context was different. Moderators (and owners) until that point had been available a lot more than just their hours on company time, and they were burning out. The queue was a way to impose a boundary on their time that back then they felt incapable of doing for themselves otherwise.
Now, I do agree that the people who were against the queue then were largely against it for the same reasons folks are now - they want community conversation to continue whether or not a mod is available. But the context is different, because now the moderators ARE drawing those boundaries for themselves - there's almost always only one mod voice in a given MeTa, and when that person is offline, they're offline and the conversation goes on without them anyway, and everyone knows and understands that we won't hear back from a mod until the next shift.
So if the mods are now feeling able to step in only when they are paid to do so, if they are able to separate their moderation duties from their personal life, if the community expectation isn't otherwise, then the queue has done what it was made to do. It has successfully shifted expectations about how mods and users interact on MeTa.
And now it is demonstrably causing real problems. If context matters in moderation decisions about individual posts and comments, shouldn't that also be true for decisions about broader processes like this?
posted by solotoro at 8:41 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
new people wonder why people are picking fights over something that happened 10 years ago.
Hi, new person here (January 30) although admittedly lurked quite a bit before joining.
I don't wonder why people carry feelings over things that happened 10 years ago. Feelings endure. Some people just don't mesh or see things the same way. Some topics are emotional, personal, hard to agree on.
I do wonder why there's a system of rules set up where the appropriate thing to do is take a derail or argument or moderation complaint to MeTa, and moderators routinely point to that as the appropriate channel, but then those same moderators block the channel they just pointed someone to.
Superficially, it seems in bad faith or disingenuous to me to instruct someone to take an issue to MeTa but then hold back their post when they do so. You get to have it one way or the other, imo.
The way I see it, Mefites also have the obligation to follow the guidelines, principles, and rules associated with MeTa when they post and comment here, and I know that doesn't always happen. And the mods are saying the queue heps them manage things when it doesn't.
So, social contract style, if the queue tool is going to be taken from mods and we are asking that they reduce use of other tools like deletions or editing post titles/comments (and it is reasonable to ask them to reduce or mostly eliminate those things), then we have an obligation each of us to be thoughtful in the way we post.
posted by fennario at 8:46 AM on February 12 [20 favorites]
Hi, new person here (January 30) although admittedly lurked quite a bit before joining.
I don't wonder why people carry feelings over things that happened 10 years ago. Feelings endure. Some people just don't mesh or see things the same way. Some topics are emotional, personal, hard to agree on.
I do wonder why there's a system of rules set up where the appropriate thing to do is take a derail or argument or moderation complaint to MeTa, and moderators routinely point to that as the appropriate channel, but then those same moderators block the channel they just pointed someone to.
Superficially, it seems in bad faith or disingenuous to me to instruct someone to take an issue to MeTa but then hold back their post when they do so. You get to have it one way or the other, imo.
The way I see it, Mefites also have the obligation to follow the guidelines, principles, and rules associated with MeTa when they post and comment here, and I know that doesn't always happen. And the mods are saying the queue heps them manage things when it doesn't.
So, social contract style, if the queue tool is going to be taken from mods and we are asking that they reduce use of other tools like deletions or editing post titles/comments (and it is reasonable to ask them to reduce or mostly eliminate those things), then we have an obligation each of us to be thoughtful in the way we post.
posted by fennario at 8:46 AM on February 12 [20 favorites]
Before the queue, it always seemed like the highest volume MeTa times were during holidays.
People would get bored or tired of their families and pour all their vitriol into a MetaTalk post, or a series of them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:49 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
People would get bored or tired of their families and pour all their vitriol into a MetaTalk post, or a series of them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:49 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
Just turn it off. The community wants this.
I see value in turning it off for a set period and evaluating.
I don't buy that "the community wants this". The majority of the community who bother to spend time here Meta (which I imagine is a thin minority indeed) -- maybe.
posted by philip-random at 8:51 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
I see value in turning it off for a set period and evaluating.
I don't buy that "the community wants this". The majority of the community who bother to spend time here Meta (which I imagine is a thin minority indeed) -- maybe.
posted by philip-random at 8:51 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
+1 vote for getting rid of the queue.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:55 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
posted by Sparky Buttons at 8:55 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Shut it off for a month. If shit blows up, turn it back on. Nothing is forever. Change is life. See what happens.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:56 AM on February 12 [12 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:56 AM on February 12 [12 favorites]
If shit blows up, turn it back on.
I had a conversation with someone at work yesterday who's dealing with a sclerotic team. It's hard for him to get anything done because they won't accept any risk. Everything is "no, because this one time ..." I was talking to him because someone on his team had suddenly and mysteriously flipped into "just do it" mode a little enthusiastically and we needed to back out of a busted process.
As we talked, though, we came down on "we should be making cycle times faster, and that means holding some things less dear and making yourself more resilient by making the cost of a 'mistake' lower, not getting rid of mistakes." We agreed we needed to support the one who had flipped into "mini change agent person" mode and show that there was leadership support for getting it wrong sometimes.
I lost my favorite job ever at an amazing place because we never really worked that out. We had layers and layers of things that didn't serve us, but we wouldn't put them down after years of risk aversion and years of prizing The Lore over figuring out what we needed today. We ended up sold for pennies on the dollar. It sucked.
Part of the challenge of the wider transition has to be understanding what parts of the culture matter and need to be preserved, and what things it turns out you can actually put down or set aside. Sometimes things you think are immortal lessons are products of conditions that don't apply because either the environment has changed or you have changed.
(Standard pitch: Make moderation less opaque with a transparent log that is prosecuted in simple, declarative language citing guiding principles instead of myriad rules and restrictions, and see what it does to the temperature here, where "spokesperson mod litigates with all comers at length" is plainly not working.)
posted by A forgotten .plan file at 9:11 AM on February 12 [18 favorites]
I had a conversation with someone at work yesterday who's dealing with a sclerotic team. It's hard for him to get anything done because they won't accept any risk. Everything is "no, because this one time ..." I was talking to him because someone on his team had suddenly and mysteriously flipped into "just do it" mode a little enthusiastically and we needed to back out of a busted process.
As we talked, though, we came down on "we should be making cycle times faster, and that means holding some things less dear and making yourself more resilient by making the cost of a 'mistake' lower, not getting rid of mistakes." We agreed we needed to support the one who had flipped into "mini change agent person" mode and show that there was leadership support for getting it wrong sometimes.
I lost my favorite job ever at an amazing place because we never really worked that out. We had layers and layers of things that didn't serve us, but we wouldn't put them down after years of risk aversion and years of prizing The Lore over figuring out what we needed today. We ended up sold for pennies on the dollar. It sucked.
Part of the challenge of the wider transition has to be understanding what parts of the culture matter and need to be preserved, and what things it turns out you can actually put down or set aside. Sometimes things you think are immortal lessons are products of conditions that don't apply because either the environment has changed or you have changed.
(Standard pitch: Make moderation less opaque with a transparent log that is prosecuted in simple, declarative language citing guiding principles instead of myriad rules and restrictions, and see what it does to the temperature here, where "spokesperson mod litigates with all comers at length" is plainly not working.)
posted by A forgotten .plan file at 9:11 AM on February 12 [18 favorites]
MetaTalk: make people wonder why people are picking fights over something that happened 10 years ago
posted by nobody at 9:18 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
posted by nobody at 9:18 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
It seems to me like the perceived continued need for the queue now is driven by, perhaps 1) the mods feeling the need to have a response to some posts at the time they're posted, and 2) avoiding fights. But these expectations are both impossible to reasonably fulfil in all cases while also posting promptly, and they are self-perpetuating. If there were no queue, then there could be no instant response. In a post about turning off the queue, the mods could reset expectations about when to expect mod responses. Having these expectations be longer then "when it's posted" would probably be better anyway - as we've seen, a reasonable response to a criticism will often require multiple people to weigh in and decide on a group position.
If it's about avoiding fights, see many previous helpful comments in other threads about whether people need to be protected from seeing conflict, and also keep in mind the other tools available (thread deletion and closing).
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:32 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
If it's about avoiding fights, see many previous helpful comments in other threads about whether people need to be protected from seeing conflict, and also keep in mind the other tools available (thread deletion and closing).
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:32 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
The queue was originally created (as I recall) to deal with stress around the Fall US holidays — Thanksgiving, Xmas, New Years, because mod resources were thin and things would run out of control. I think it was made permanent during 2016, and, of course, we have reduced mod resources now, but I’ll reiterate my support for a month long disabling to see what happens. It’s not like it can’t be turned on again if people abuse it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:34 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:34 AM on February 12 [6 favorites]
it seems like people are restating variations on the same items that have been posted, repeatedly, in this and previous MeTas
I don't see a productive way forward without at least piloting an end to the queue. Give it a month.
A majority of regulars to MeTa want it, and people who don't venture into MeTa probably don't care a lot either way. If things blow up, well, we learned and we can move on accordingly.
Even this contribution to the discussion is a distillation of what several people have already stated: try disabling the queue feature for a month! See what happens
posted by ginger.beef at 9:49 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
I don't see a productive way forward without at least piloting an end to the queue. Give it a month.
A majority of regulars to MeTa want it, and people who don't venture into MeTa probably don't care a lot either way. If things blow up, well, we learned and we can move on accordingly.
Even this contribution to the discussion is a distillation of what several people have already stated: try disabling the queue feature for a month! See what happens
posted by ginger.beef at 9:49 AM on February 12 [8 favorites]
everyone knows and understands that we won't hear back from a mod until the next shift
But do they? Do they really? Because it seems to me that there's a few people who either don't know and/or understand or they do know but don't understand and those people fit perfectly into the Venn diagram circle of DEMAND MOD RESPONSE NOW.
posted by cooker girl at 10:35 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
But do they? Do they really? Because it seems to me that there's a few people who either don't know and/or understand or they do know but don't understand and those people fit perfectly into the Venn diagram circle of DEMAND MOD RESPONSE NOW.
posted by cooker girl at 10:35 AM on February 12 [3 favorites]
Where.
I've mostly followed most of the contentious threads of late and the primary times that I see people "demanding" a timely response from the mods is when the mods have failed to deliver on a deadline that the mods have set for themselves.
I don't interpret an expectation that mods communicate clearly and with integrity about the actions they take to be a demand for immediate response.
a faint voice calls from offstage: ...perhaps a moderation log...
posted by phunniemee at 10:41 AM on February 12 [14 favorites]
I've mostly followed most of the contentious threads of late and the primary times that I see people "demanding" a timely response from the mods is when the mods have failed to deliver on a deadline that the mods have set for themselves.
I don't interpret an expectation that mods communicate clearly and with integrity about the actions they take to be a demand for immediate response.
a faint voice calls from offstage: ...perhaps a moderation log...
posted by phunniemee at 10:41 AM on February 12 [14 favorites]
I think I'm the person who is most-often mischaracterized as "demand[ing] mod response now", and if one goes and reads my comments, my "demands" come multiple days after self-set deadlines have passed.
posted by bowbeacon at 10:44 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 10:44 AM on February 12 [10 favorites]
I think we should get rid of the MeTa queue for 1,000 years, but I am willing to negotiate.
posted by snofoam at 10:44 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:44 AM on February 12 [7 favorites]
Please also allow anonymous metalk posts and assign the user name "Queue Anon" to them.
posted by sylvanshine at 11:49 AM on February 12 [16 favorites]
posted by sylvanshine at 11:49 AM on February 12 [16 favorites]
Please get rid of the queue.
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 12:46 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 12:46 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I don't buy that "the community wants this". The majority of the community who bother to spend time here Meta (which I imagine is a thin minority indeed) -- maybe.
100% agree. But, the people who don't come here shouldn't care either way. If anything (and that if is doing a lot of heavy lifting), it might make it better for people on the blue/green, etc. because some people might not blow up in a thread and just take it straight to meta instead.
Again, huge if.
FWIW, I like the month test. Pretty sure, I like the back to the future idea, too.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 1:01 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
100% agree. But, the people who don't come here shouldn't care either way. If anything (and that if is doing a lot of heavy lifting), it might make it better for people on the blue/green, etc. because some people might not blow up in a thread and just take it straight to meta instead.
Again, huge if.
FWIW, I like the month test. Pretty sure, I like the back to the future idea, too.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 1:01 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
I don't buy that "the community wants this". The majority of the community who bother to spend time here Meta (which I imagine is a thin minority indeed) -- maybe.
The people who bother to spend time here on MeTa are the only ones affected by it, so that seems like a reasonable population to poll.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:17 PM on February 12 [12 favorites]
The people who bother to spend time here on MeTa are the only ones affected by it, so that seems like a reasonable population to poll.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:17 PM on February 12 [12 favorites]
Get rid of the queue, but add a series of checkboxes to the posting form like:
- I will speak about site members and staff like they're human beings and I care about their feelings.
- I am aware that decisions about the site, whether large or small, are not made by either consensus or popular vote.
- I don't know, it seems like there should be a third thing.
posted by box at 2:08 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
- I will speak about site members and staff like they're human beings and I care about their feelings.
- I am aware that decisions about the site, whether large or small, are not made by either consensus or popular vote.
- I don't know, it seems like there should be a third thing.
posted by box at 2:08 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
☐ I am good actually please don't hug me.
posted by phunniemee at 2:16 PM on February 12 [18 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 2:16 PM on February 12 [18 favorites]
It was certainly not my intent to re-prosecute something that happened ten years ago and the inclusion of the original MeTa announcing this was just a reference for why it happened in the first place. The queue is something happening right now and is creating dissent and dissatisfaction right now.
I agree with phunniemee that MeTa is not primarily a mechanism to allow interaction with moderators, but to allow interaction among the community, or at least those that are invested enough to participate in such interactions. There are long-standing ways of engaging with moderators individually and in private and MeTa is not a good platform for those interactions.
I don't like the idea of turning the queue off for a month, implying it will be turned back on. Just turn it off. Review in a month what the impact has been, sure, but the default should be as much transparency and opportunities to bring issues up as possible. without needing to ask permission.
Somewhat off-topic (albeit related to the underlying issues), A forgotten .plan file's pitch to 'make moderation less opaque with a transparent log that is prosecuted in simple, declarative language citing guiding principles instead of myriad rules and restrictions ...' is consistent with the rules I posted in another MeTa as an example of how we could move towards a more useful set of guidelines for expected behaviour and how departures from that behaviour could be treated.
posted by dg at 2:27 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
I agree with phunniemee that MeTa is not primarily a mechanism to allow interaction with moderators, but to allow interaction among the community, or at least those that are invested enough to participate in such interactions. There are long-standing ways of engaging with moderators individually and in private and MeTa is not a good platform for those interactions.
I don't like the idea of turning the queue off for a month, implying it will be turned back on. Just turn it off. Review in a month what the impact has been, sure, but the default should be as much transparency and opportunities to bring issues up as possible. without needing to ask permission.
Somewhat off-topic (albeit related to the underlying issues), A forgotten .plan file's pitch to 'make moderation less opaque with a transparent log that is prosecuted in simple, declarative language citing guiding principles instead of myriad rules and restrictions ...' is consistent with the rules I posted in another MeTa as an example of how we could move towards a more useful set of guidelines for expected behaviour and how departures from that behaviour could be treated.
posted by dg at 2:27 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
Checklist!
- The vitriol with which I post this comes from me being bored / tired / scared of (check all that apply):
[] my family
[] the current presidential administration
[] this week’s asshole (please list username)
[] somebody who is Wrong on the Internet
[] all mods
[] only one mod
[] other (please identify:_______________)
posted by Vatnesine at 2:28 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
- The vitriol with which I post this comes from me being bored / tired / scared of (check all that apply):
[] my family
[] the current presidential administration
[] this week’s asshole (please list username)
[] somebody who is Wrong on the Internet
[] all mods
[] only one mod
[] other (please identify:_______________)
posted by Vatnesine at 2:28 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
I hated the queue on principle when it first appeared, and I still hate it fwiw
posted by likeatoaster at 2:34 PM on February 12 [19 favorites]
posted by likeatoaster at 2:34 PM on February 12 [19 favorites]
- I don't know, it seems like there should be a third thing.
I didn't vote for him.
posted by philip-random at 2:47 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
I didn't vote for him.
posted by philip-random at 2:47 PM on February 12 [2 favorites]
#StopTheQueue
posted by JohnnyGunn at 4:04 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 4:04 PM on February 12 [5 favorites]
Pull the plug on Metatalk. Nuke it from orbit. Only way to be sure.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:27 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:27 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
Mod note: The way things currently work are like so:
A post goes in the queue, a mod reviews it, and unless it's something terrible in terms of attacking another member/calling them out or the community, the post gets pushed through ASAP.
I do think the queue has been working great since the above change was implemented on December 24, 2024 and don't see a reason to veer from that. Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa.
I recognize this won't make a lot of people happy, but I do think it's in the best interests of the site.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:57 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
A post goes in the queue, a mod reviews it, and unless it's something terrible in terms of attacking another member/calling them out or the community, the post gets pushed through ASAP.
I do think the queue has been working great since the above change was implemented on December 24, 2024 and don't see a reason to veer from that. Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa.
I recognize this won't make a lot of people happy, but I do think it's in the best interests of the site.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:57 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
👎
posted by phunniemee at 5:03 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 5:03 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
What's the longest turnaround that's occured since the new system was implemented? The max permissible?
Also, not sure calling out the community or even another member are against the rules for MeTa. Certainly calling out the community can't be.
posted by sagc at 5:07 PM on February 12 [11 favorites]
Also, not sure calling out the community or even another member are against the rules for MeTa. Certainly calling out the community can't be.
posted by sagc at 5:07 PM on February 12 [11 favorites]
I recognize this won't make a lot of people happy, but I do think it's in the best interests of the site.
Everyone is welcome to have their individual opinions, but the opinions of individual mods should only be a tiny factor in deciding what to do about the queue. This statement sounds like you think you are the one making a decision about this, which doesn’t make any sense.
Since the mods have already started delegating their work to the still-forming Moderation Oversight Committee, and since many of the queue problems are related to moderation, and since it doesn’t seem like there is another acting body to make a decision around here, the obvious choice here is to have the Moderation Oversight Committee make the decision about what to do about the MeTa queue.
posted by snofoam at 5:15 PM on February 12 [22 favorites]
Everyone is welcome to have their individual opinions, but the opinions of individual mods should only be a tiny factor in deciding what to do about the queue. This statement sounds like you think you are the one making a decision about this, which doesn’t make any sense.
Since the mods have already started delegating their work to the still-forming Moderation Oversight Committee, and since many of the queue problems are related to moderation, and since it doesn’t seem like there is another acting body to make a decision around here, the obvious choice here is to have the Moderation Oversight Committee make the decision about what to do about the MeTa queue.
posted by snofoam at 5:15 PM on February 12 [22 favorites]
I distinctly recall my very first post to the blue after being a many year commenter but never posting. I clicked submit and poof it appeared on top of the blue. Just, wait what, immediate, yikes! I'd just assumed submitting would be an hours or days long review queue. So I for one am quite happy to have most anything I ever submit anywhere to have a buffering queue.
posted by sammyo at 5:17 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 5:17 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
As a fun exercise, go to the Metatalk archives and pick any month at random. Before the queue or after. There will be at least one post calling out the community in some way. That's part of what this place is for.
Seriously, go and have a look. I picked 10 months with my eyes closed and there are community callout posts in all of them. While I was there, r.i.p. mrbill. So many mefites gone. Why the staff continues to double down on driving more of the living ones away through mismanagement I'll never understand.
posted by phunniemee at 5:18 PM on February 12 [14 favorites]
Seriously, go and have a look. I picked 10 months with my eyes closed and there are community callout posts in all of them. While I was there, r.i.p. mrbill. So many mefites gone. Why the staff continues to double down on driving more of the living ones away through mismanagement I'll never understand.
posted by phunniemee at 5:18 PM on February 12 [14 favorites]
[] other (please identify: documented history of the mods gaslighting users, frustration over those who choose to overlook and/or minimize this)
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 5:20 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
posted by She Vaped An Entire Sock! at 5:20 PM on February 12 [6 favorites]
I do think the queue has been working great since the above change was implemented on December 24, 2024 and don't see a reason to veer from that.
I agree with snofoam: why does Brandon apparently think that this is his call to make? That, all by itself, is a problem!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:28 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
I agree with snofoam: why does Brandon apparently think that this is his call to make? That, all by itself, is a problem!
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:28 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
Well, Brandon didn't actually say that he's making this decision, he's just stating his opinion. He says "I do think..." twice. That said, it's also pretty easy to read this as him making the decision.
posted by ashbury at 5:44 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 5:44 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
Real question for all the mods: why is Brandon doing all the talking?
1 - I would like to hear what other mods have to say about all of this. That's probably a big kettle of fish but so be it
2 - Brandon takes a lot of heat for all mod actions. Maybe that should be shared?
3 - ummmm, nope, that's all I can think of for now
4 - still a real question that I hope gets answered
posted by ashbury at 5:53 PM on February 12 [9 favorites]
1 - I would like to hear what other mods have to say about all of this. That's probably a big kettle of fish but so be it
2 - Brandon takes a lot of heat for all mod actions. Maybe that should be shared?
3 - ummmm, nope, that's all I can think of for now
4 - still a real question that I hope gets answered
posted by ashbury at 5:53 PM on February 12 [9 favorites]
Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa.
But I thought the opposite problem--losing members over the friction in the process--was what we were trying to solve?
posted by mittens at 5:56 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
But I thought the opposite problem--losing members over the friction in the process--was what we were trying to solve?
posted by mittens at 5:56 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
I'd like to know who is actually capable of making this change, and not from a technical point but as a decision for the site. I have no idea whose call it would be right now. To be honest the various committees and subcommittees and PTAs and book clubs have been hard to keep track of.
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 5:58 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
posted by It Was Capitalism All Along at 5:58 PM on February 12 [8 favorites]
Community run means community run, not mod run by fiat, this isn't BB's call to make. There's literally no reason not to run a month long trial.
Also, I realize the 12/24 date was chosen for a reason but in the very recent past (12/5/24) I submitted a MeTa to discuss platforms available to the community should the transition to nonprofit fail. I was told no, such a MeTa "was not needed". So, it's not just that the queue introduces a delay. It provides the mods a way to refuse to let the community speak amongst themselves. I don't need mod input on any of my thoughts, they've worn my respect down to essentially nothing.
posted by donnagirl at 5:59 PM on February 12 [21 favorites]
Also, I realize the 12/24 date was chosen for a reason but in the very recent past (12/5/24) I submitted a MeTa to discuss platforms available to the community should the transition to nonprofit fail. I was told no, such a MeTa "was not needed". So, it's not just that the queue introduces a delay. It provides the mods a way to refuse to let the community speak amongst themselves. I don't need mod input on any of my thoughts, they've worn my respect down to essentially nothing.
posted by donnagirl at 5:59 PM on February 12 [21 favorites]
I also submitted a MeTa on November 18 that was met with “ we're gonna refrain from publishing your post.
It's a good thought, thank you!”
posted by bowbeacon at 6:08 PM on February 12 [15 favorites]
It's a good thought, thank you!”
posted by bowbeacon at 6:08 PM on February 12 [15 favorites]
bowbeacon: what was your MeTa about? The one they didn't publish?
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:14 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:14 PM on February 12 [1 favorite]
The MeTa I posted in October got pushback over email, I insisted I wanted it to go up, I was told to repost it myself but to add additional context to reflect what I had learned in our email exchange (just let it through the queue??? why I gotta post it twice???) which wasn't actually possible because of the 1 post a week limit, which counts against you even if your post doesn't get chosen, so Loup let it through the queue with the additional note I was asked to add, and then completely unsurprisingly even after all of that, they tripped on their own face about it anyway, closed it after less than a day with promises to never do such a thing again, and then just did essentially the same god damned thing again. This is the queue ✨working✨
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 PM on February 12 [13 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 PM on February 12 [13 favorites]
> why is Brandon doing all the talking?
i'm not a mod and i have no way how they'll spin it, or how the current Press Secretary was chosen for the position, but the answer is because loup was even worse at communicating with the users than Brandon Blatcher currently is. i don't know how long it went on before i spoke up about it, because i had been pretty much tuned out of MeTa for about 10 years until sometime last year. it was sometime i think after moggies-ricecooker-Gala-PetTaxWall-fundraiser-gate when Brandon Blatcher took over as primary spokesperson and loup's "accountability partner" (lol remember that?).
posted by glonous keming at 6:24 PM on February 12 [13 favorites]
i'm not a mod and i have no way how they'll spin it, or how the current Press Secretary was chosen for the position, but the answer is because loup was even worse at communicating with the users than Brandon Blatcher currently is. i don't know how long it went on before i spoke up about it, because i had been pretty much tuned out of MeTa for about 10 years until sometime last year. it was sometime i think after moggies-ricecooker-Gala-PetTaxWall-fundraiser-gate when Brandon Blatcher took over as primary spokesperson and loup's "accountability partner" (lol remember that?).
posted by glonous keming at 6:24 PM on February 12 [13 favorites]
Excuse my swearing again, but what the fuck.
When did BB become the King of Metafilter?
Every time he posts a comment I become even more concerned about how he views his position and what that means for moderation here.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:36 PM on February 12 [12 favorites]
When did BB become the King of Metafilter?
Every time he posts a comment I become even more concerned about how he views his position and what that means for moderation here.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:36 PM on February 12 [12 favorites]
bowbeacon: what was your MeTa about? The one they didn't publish?
It was announcing the Pet Tax wall, 5 days after Loup said they would make a post about it.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:37 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
It was announcing the Pet Tax wall, 5 days after Loup said they would make a post about it.
posted by bowbeacon at 6:37 PM on February 12 [10 favorites]
Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa
If members are leaving or have left purely over fights and arguments in MeTa, this would make sense. But I just don't see this happening. Some members have left after or during these things, but the actual cause of them leaving is not just because of those things - people are leaving because they're not happy with various aspects of how things are run or because of specific interactions they are not happy with. It's only able to be perceived in that way because those specific instances of people leaving are visible. It's not reasonable to conclude a causal relationship between any meaningful number of members leaving and MeTa specifically.
I too would like to know what person or body can make decisions generally and specifically concerning this request and how they can be contacted. We can beat our chests 'til the cows come home and it amounts to nothing more than pissing into the wind unless and until the entity with authority weighs in.
posted by dg at 6:54 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
If members are leaving or have left purely over fights and arguments in MeTa, this would make sense. But I just don't see this happening. Some members have left after or during these things, but the actual cause of them leaving is not just because of those things - people are leaving because they're not happy with various aspects of how things are run or because of specific interactions they are not happy with. It's only able to be perceived in that way because those specific instances of people leaving are visible. It's not reasonable to conclude a causal relationship between any meaningful number of members leaving and MeTa specifically.
I too would like to know what person or body can make decisions generally and specifically concerning this request and how they can be contacted. We can beat our chests 'til the cows come home and it amounts to nothing more than pissing into the wind unless and until the entity with authority weighs in.
posted by dg at 6:54 PM on February 12 [4 favorites]
If members are leaving or have left purely over fights and arguments in MeTa, this would make sense. But I just don't see this happening.
There is a very long history of an ugly Meta being the last straw for many. But I have real trouble believing "[h]aving the slight speed bump ... lessen[s] the chance of member's leaving the site over fights ... in MeTa" is a both a genuine and effective retention strategy. I have yet to see any evidence anyone has ever taken any measures to retain users. That's a key reason there has been such a large exodus.
Several months ago, I tried to run a Meta asking why there was no Code of Conduct for the mods, but Loup didn't want to run it then. They told me to try again later at some unspecified time, but I gave it.
The Guidelines, etc., most notably when Loup was spokesperson, were obviously created, nurtured and referred to not in the best interests of the site, but in the best interests of the mods, and Loup, in particular, to provide enough text to rationalize nearly any mod action. Just as importantly, perpetual work on the guidelines was a way for Loup to pretend to do work, and avoid all other commitments. It's unclear to me why MetaFilter is still paying them to do work "with an accountability partner," and what precisely they and the other two mods do much of the time. I hope that issue is taken up by the board/MoC at some point in the near future.
But to circle back: We should have a Mod Code of Conduct. Like the suggestions for a radically simpler set of values for users, it should likewise be simple and reflect core values, e.g.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:36 PM on February 12 [22 favorites]
There is a very long history of an ugly Meta being the last straw for many. But I have real trouble believing "[h]aving the slight speed bump ... lessen[s] the chance of member's leaving the site over fights ... in MeTa" is a both a genuine and effective retention strategy. I have yet to see any evidence anyone has ever taken any measures to retain users. That's a key reason there has been such a large exodus.
Several months ago, I tried to run a Meta asking why there was no Code of Conduct for the mods, but Loup didn't want to run it then. They told me to try again later at some unspecified time, but I gave it.
The Guidelines, etc., most notably when Loup was spokesperson, were obviously created, nurtured and referred to not in the best interests of the site, but in the best interests of the mods, and Loup, in particular, to provide enough text to rationalize nearly any mod action. Just as importantly, perpetual work on the guidelines was a way for Loup to pretend to do work, and avoid all other commitments. It's unclear to me why MetaFilter is still paying them to do work "with an accountability partner," and what precisely they and the other two mods do much of the time. I hope that issue is taken up by the board/MoC at some point in the near future.
But to circle back: We should have a Mod Code of Conduct. Like the suggestions for a radically simpler set of values for users, it should likewise be simple and reflect core values, e.g.
- Be transparent — Document your work,
- Be respectful — Remind and comment more, delete less.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:36 PM on February 12 [22 favorites]
A few more? The last one, in particular, may need more specificity. But given that most users will interact with the mods most, the mods should take some responsibility for user retention.
3. Consider context — Most users don't comment in a vacuum.posted by Violet Blue at 12:23 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
4. Be reliable — Keep your word.
5. Reach out — Let upset mefites know they matter.
Brandon here again, answering a few points:
I'm the only moderator regularly dealing with Meta, after loup stepped down from doing that task and asked me to do it, so here we are. I do communicate with the other mods about what's going on in MeTa and did mention this specific post and that I believe the queue serves a purpose and met with no objections. Will bring it up again in the mod slack later today.
The Moderation Oversight Committee (MOC) is the next step, as I understand it, if folks are unhappy with a mod decision. At this point, warriorqueen's MeFiMail seems to be the only point of contact. If anyone knows different about any of this, please let me know.
Some members clearly have issues with keeping the queue and I'm sympathetic to the concerns. Developing some stats and regularly publishing them is totally doable, we can talk about that and develop them of course. Shouldn't be anything complicated or require a long process.
The queue definitely was developed as a moderation tool and I think it works a lot better since December 24, 2024. It should be a light touch and has been. There's been very little problems under the newer changes, where publishing MeTa posts quickly is done. If there has been problem with it, please let me know.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:06 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
I'm the only moderator regularly dealing with Meta, after loup stepped down from doing that task and asked me to do it, so here we are. I do communicate with the other mods about what's going on in MeTa and did mention this specific post and that I believe the queue serves a purpose and met with no objections. Will bring it up again in the mod slack later today.
The Moderation Oversight Committee (MOC) is the next step, as I understand it, if folks are unhappy with a mod decision. At this point, warriorqueen's MeFiMail seems to be the only point of contact. If anyone knows different about any of this, please let me know.
Some members clearly have issues with keeping the queue and I'm sympathetic to the concerns. Developing some stats and regularly publishing them is totally doable, we can talk about that and develop them of course. Shouldn't be anything complicated or require a long process.
The queue definitely was developed as a moderation tool and I think it works a lot better since December 24, 2024. It should be a light touch and has been. There's been very little problems under the newer changes, where publishing MeTa posts quickly is done. If there has been problem with it, please let me know.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:06 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
The Moderation Oversight Committee (MOC) is the next step, as I understand it, if folks are unhappy with a mod decision. At this point, warriorqueen's MeFiMail seems to be the only point of contact. If anyone knows different about any of this, please let me know.
That's correct. We have not let the moderation team know that we're ready yet, because we're not. But once we are, we'll let you know. We are not an emergency response team. :)
posted by warriorqueen at 3:40 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
That's correct. We have not let the moderation team know that we're ready yet, because we're not. But once we are, we'll let you know. We are not an emergency response team. :)
posted by warriorqueen at 3:40 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
Got it! Would you prefer that the mods not mention you until you tell us?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:42 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:42 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Cat was out of the bag a while ago. But yeah it would be nice to wait until we say go and how and all those things.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:51 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:51 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Again, why does Brandon think that this is his decision, and that he can put the matter to rest by sharing his opinion that the queue is working and expressing his "sympathy" for the frustration members feel?
When Brandon was hired as a moderator, was he hired to make these sorts of decisions, or has he crowned himself? Serious question.
I didn't have much of an issue with the idea of a queue when this thread went up. But after reading some of the comments here about incidents where the queue was mishandled, I'm starting to think we should get rid of the queue.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:35 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
When Brandon was hired as a moderator, was he hired to make these sorts of decisions, or has he crowned himself? Serious question.
I didn't have much of an issue with the idea of a queue when this thread went up. But after reading some of the comments here about incidents where the queue was mishandled, I'm starting to think we should get rid of the queue.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:35 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
Several months ago, I tried to run a Meta asking why there was no Code of Conduct for the mods, but Loup didn't want to run it then.
Repeating this for emphasis. Jesus Christ.
Guidelines for thee but not for me.
Queue for thee but not for me.
What a joke.
posted by phunniemee at 4:50 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
Repeating this for emphasis. Jesus Christ.
Guidelines for thee but not for me.
Queue for thee but not for me.
What a joke.
posted by phunniemee at 4:50 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
Would you prefer that the mods not mention you until you tell us?
Good lord, maybe you all should have worked this out *before* the mods started telling everyone with complaints about their missteps to take it to the Moderation Oversight Committee?
posted by catspajamas at 4:56 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
Good lord, maybe you all should have worked this out *before* the mods started telling everyone with complaints about their missteps to take it to the Moderation Oversight Committee?
posted by catspajamas at 4:56 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
It's unclear to me why MetaFilter is still paying [loup] to do work "with an accountability partner," and what precisely they and the other two mods do much of the time.
This tiny site pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year. My mind continues to boggle at that. And "What exactly are loup's duties now? How exactly are they spending their time on shift?" remain open questions with unclear answers.
posted by catspajamas at 5:01 AM on February 13 [17 favorites]
This tiny site pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year. My mind continues to boggle at that. And "What exactly are loup's duties now? How exactly are they spending their time on shift?" remain open questions with unclear answers.
posted by catspajamas at 5:01 AM on February 13 [17 favorites]
Developing some stats and regularly publishing them is totally doable, we can talk about that and develop them of course. Shouldn't be anything complicated or require a long process.
Although this would help transparency a bit, I don't think it does much for the community. On the other hand, saying things like "I'm going to go ahead and say no, its for the best interest of the site; if you have problems with that take it to the committee who in this same thread said that they're still working on getting established and aren't ready yet" erodes my trust in the staff to compile and publish accurate stats, let alone to work in the best interest of the site.
We need real management here, ASAP. I understand (I've been there!) that building boards and committees and structures takes time and am very thankful to those who have stepped up. This site is suffering due to the lack of management of all kinds for the past 4-5 years or so. That is a deep hole to dig out of.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:30 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
Although this would help transparency a bit, I don't think it does much for the community. On the other hand, saying things like "I'm going to go ahead and say no, its for the best interest of the site; if you have problems with that take it to the committee who in this same thread said that they're still working on getting established and aren't ready yet" erodes my trust in the staff to compile and publish accurate stats, let alone to work in the best interest of the site.
We need real management here, ASAP. I understand (I've been there!) that building boards and committees and structures takes time and am very thankful to those who have stepped up. This site is suffering due to the lack of management of all kinds for the past 4-5 years or so. That is a deep hole to dig out of.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 5:30 AM on February 13 [14 favorites]
I basically left the site (with a few sporadic exceptions) 5-6 years ago for a mix of reasons, but mostly over-modding. I have watched many of my long-time, beloved mefite friends leave for similar reasons. What a loss. Folks have made efforts to continue community elsewhere, but as we know this special place is not easily replicated elsewhere.
To put it plainly, I disagree the queue has resulted in lsss users leaving. In fact, I would bet money the queue is just another a symptom of things which have caused exodus tenfold.
It is distressing to step back in for a moment and see that the progression that so frustrated me years ago has continued and worsened; and that MeTa has essentially become a place for mods to beg for money and placate user concerns. Gross, but also deeply sad. Man.
posted by likeatoaster at 6:11 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
To put it plainly, I disagree the queue has resulted in lsss users leaving. In fact, I would bet money the queue is just another a symptom of things which have caused exodus tenfold.
It is distressing to step back in for a moment and see that the progression that so frustrated me years ago has continued and worsened; and that MeTa has essentially become a place for mods to beg for money and placate user concerns. Gross, but also deeply sad. Man.
posted by likeatoaster at 6:11 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
Also seems like the queue offers the mods an opportunity - which is frequently seized - to get the first word and thus steer the conversation. That's a shitty dynamic for a community weblog.
posted by likeatoaster at 6:16 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
posted by likeatoaster at 6:16 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
When you read a FPP and your first thought is hmm, maybe this is the organizational strategy of the MeFi moderation team?
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:18 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Good lord, maybe you all should have worked this out *before* the mods started telling everyone with complaints about their missteps to take it to the Moderation Oversight Committee?
I'm trying.
posted by Diskeater at 6:31 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
I'm trying.
posted by Diskeater at 6:31 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Good lord, maybe you all should have worked this out *before* the mods started telling everyone with complaints about their missteps to take it to the Moderation Oversight Committee?
That doesn't seem like a "you all" issue. It seems like Brandon just started telling people to take it up with the MOC about any complaints about moderation so that he didn't have to deal with them.
It's also extremely apparent that no one is currently managing MetaFilter. The current Board members apparently see themselves as just users, not in charge of anything, despite literally legally being in charge of everything.
While committees are being set up, is Brandon in charge of sitewide decisions? Are we back to "no changes will be made until someone else is in charge" like we've apparently been for the last several years? Something other model? Is there any point to MeTa at all right now?
posted by lapis at 7:31 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
That doesn't seem like a "you all" issue. It seems like Brandon just started telling people to take it up with the MOC about any complaints about moderation so that he didn't have to deal with them.
It's also extremely apparent that no one is currently managing MetaFilter. The current Board members apparently see themselves as just users, not in charge of anything, despite literally legally being in charge of everything.
While committees are being set up, is Brandon in charge of sitewide decisions? Are we back to "no changes will be made until someone else is in charge" like we've apparently been for the last several years? Something other model? Is there any point to MeTa at all right now?
posted by lapis at 7:31 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
For instance, theoretically, if 100% of the non-moderator userbase decided right now to turn off the queue, but Brandon still wanted to keep it on, what would happen?
posted by lapis at 7:38 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by lapis at 7:38 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Right now I think it would go to the Board.
But I also think one of the upcoming steps is electing a permanent board, and that might be a platform issue (although not sure there are enough people to have a truly competitive process.) I think a lot of the slowness people are seeing is due to having a group of people on the board who were tasked with setting up the non-profit, but who didn't sign on to run the thing long-term.
And for the committee, we're really new, no practices to lean into or lines of responsibility or sight, so it takes some time (and ultimately since we're running with the transition board's blessing, I personally am in favour of going slow and narrow, but it will be a group decision.)
So yes, this is all still the long slow transition fuss, and it still comes down to that old business leaders decided that the site should be community-run rather than finding a new owner or being approached by someone in the community that was keen to run it.
There are a LOT of people who really want to see the site continue and succeed, but to my knowledge there are NO people who got up one day and said "I would really like to steer the ship to community run."
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
But I also think one of the upcoming steps is electing a permanent board, and that might be a platform issue (although not sure there are enough people to have a truly competitive process.) I think a lot of the slowness people are seeing is due to having a group of people on the board who were tasked with setting up the non-profit, but who didn't sign on to run the thing long-term.
And for the committee, we're really new, no practices to lean into or lines of responsibility or sight, so it takes some time (and ultimately since we're running with the transition board's blessing, I personally am in favour of going slow and narrow, but it will be a group decision.)
So yes, this is all still the long slow transition fuss, and it still comes down to that old business leaders decided that the site should be community-run rather than finding a new owner or being approached by someone in the community that was keen to run it.
There are a LOT of people who really want to see the site continue and succeed, but to my knowledge there are NO people who got up one day and said "I would really like to steer the ship to community run."
posted by warriorqueen at 7:44 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
taking Brandon at his word that the queue is working well for any range of values, what is the risk of shutting the queue off for a month?
the decision to turn off the queue doesn't seem like a huge operational decision, I'm not especially invested in this question other than curiosity: a lot of people think the queue should be paused for a month or abolished, why not just give it a shot?
again, taking Brandon at his word: what is the worst case scenario here? Because this is getting tiresome, and I'm willing to concede that I'm just missing something.
posted by ginger.beef at 7:51 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
the decision to turn off the queue doesn't seem like a huge operational decision, I'm not especially invested in this question other than curiosity: a lot of people think the queue should be paused for a month or abolished, why not just give it a shot?
again, taking Brandon at his word: what is the worst case scenario here? Because this is getting tiresome, and I'm willing to concede that I'm just missing something.
posted by ginger.beef at 7:51 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
But I also think one of the upcoming steps is electing a permanent board
Is it?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:55 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Is it?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 7:55 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
So yes, this is all still the long slow transition fuss, and it still comes down to that old business leaders decided that the site should be community-run rather than finding a new owner or being approached by someone in the community that was keen to run it.
I absolutely understand the longer term plans and I think they're good. But I am asking what the status is right now. If the Board makes decisions right now, are they reading MeTa and issuing guidance? Is Brandon asking them for guidance? He said he's checking in with the other moderators, not the Board.
If that's not happening (and I can understand why it may not be), then Brandon is functionally in charge right now. No users have the ability to make changes to the queue.
If Brandon is functionally in charge but shouldn't be, should MeTa be turned off until the people who are supposed to be in charge are actually in charge? Or should Brandon stop commenting as if he's the decision maker, or just stop commenting here entirely, and leave MeTa for community discussion? (In which case the queue is obviously unnecessary.)
posted by lapis at 7:57 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
I absolutely understand the longer term plans and I think they're good. But I am asking what the status is right now. If the Board makes decisions right now, are they reading MeTa and issuing guidance? Is Brandon asking them for guidance? He said he's checking in with the other moderators, not the Board.
If that's not happening (and I can understand why it may not be), then Brandon is functionally in charge right now. No users have the ability to make changes to the queue.
If Brandon is functionally in charge but shouldn't be, should MeTa be turned off until the people who are supposed to be in charge are actually in charge? Or should Brandon stop commenting as if he's the decision maker, or just stop commenting here entirely, and leave MeTa for community discussion? (In which case the queue is obviously unnecessary.)
posted by lapis at 7:57 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
But I also think one of the upcoming steps is electing a permanent board, and that might be a platform issue (although not sure there are enough people to have a truly competitive process.)
I think this is right: the folks we actually need to hear from are the Board. I'm fairly regularly saying things to warriorqueen that I'd like her to pass on to the Board, because I assumed that they would take on either an actual governance role (as originally proposed--the first Board) or a transitional role.
Board work can be tiresome, to be sure, especially during times of great change. But it's been a couple of months and we haven't heard from them. I think we should! Or alternatively, we should be seeing a posting for ED/CEO. Putting warriorqueen or the MOC in the position of handling all this is unfair if there are people actually authorized to do it. (It's not so unexpected in a community-run org, I'll say: sometimes it's governance by whoever shows up.)
I just think that if there are going to be Board elections, we should be hearing about them! Seems like a good place to channel some of this energy: I can't wait to see a bevvy of MetaTalk posts from folks with distinctive platforms running to represent us!
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:02 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
I think this is right: the folks we actually need to hear from are the Board. I'm fairly regularly saying things to warriorqueen that I'd like her to pass on to the Board, because I assumed that they would take on either an actual governance role (as originally proposed--the first Board) or a transitional role.
Board work can be tiresome, to be sure, especially during times of great change. But it's been a couple of months and we haven't heard from them. I think we should! Or alternatively, we should be seeing a posting for ED/CEO. Putting warriorqueen or the MOC in the position of handling all this is unfair if there are people actually authorized to do it. (It's not so unexpected in a community-run org, I'll say: sometimes it's governance by whoever shows up.)
I just think that if there are going to be Board elections, we should be hearing about them! Seems like a good place to channel some of this energy: I can't wait to see a bevvy of MetaTalk posts from folks with distinctive platforms running to represent us!
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:02 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
I just think that if there are going to be Board elections, we should be hearing about them!
Agree!
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:07 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
Agree!
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:07 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter: I'm willing to concede that I'm just missing something
posted by Lemkin at 8:26 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 8:26 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
This is just like the hiding comments thing. Brandon decides not to do it, it's not done. Which is ridiculous. There's a huge amount of benefit to trying it. It might not work, (It will work) but undoing the change is a 3 second process.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:30 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 8:30 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
what is the worst case scenario here?
Someone posts a particularly fightly meta when Brandon is off and no other mod is paying close attention to meta, and by the the time some mod notices they have to wade through 100 comments and they start deleting the worst of them, but they are human and make human choices, and some folks here disagree with those choices, and then Brandon comes back on shift and as the mod responsible for metatalk now has to deal with a 700 comment meta post about the original issue plus the bad job some other mod did while he was sleeping?
And at that point you'll say "well then the original mod shouldn't have done such a shitty job moderating in the first place!" and maybe you're right, but that's not really an argument for removing the queue, is it?
Brandon is the mod tasked with metatalk at the moment. The queue is a mod tool that he says makes his job easier. Six weeks ago he made changes to the way the queue is used. The complaints I've seen about the queue are from the way it was used prior to this change. If we believe Brandon that he will continue this new pattern of rapid-response to the queue, with no more per-day post limits, and no longer using it as an excuse to just indefinitely delay a meta he doesn't feel like dealing with, can someone please tell me what is gained by eliminating it completely?
posted by jermsplan at 8:31 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Someone posts a particularly fightly meta when Brandon is off and no other mod is paying close attention to meta, and by the the time some mod notices they have to wade through 100 comments and they start deleting the worst of them, but they are human and make human choices, and some folks here disagree with those choices, and then Brandon comes back on shift and as the mod responsible for metatalk now has to deal with a 700 comment meta post about the original issue plus the bad job some other mod did while he was sleeping?
And at that point you'll say "well then the original mod shouldn't have done such a shitty job moderating in the first place!" and maybe you're right, but that's not really an argument for removing the queue, is it?
Brandon is the mod tasked with metatalk at the moment. The queue is a mod tool that he says makes his job easier. Six weeks ago he made changes to the way the queue is used. The complaints I've seen about the queue are from the way it was used prior to this change. If we believe Brandon that he will continue this new pattern of rapid-response to the queue, with no more per-day post limits, and no longer using it as an excuse to just indefinitely delay a meta he doesn't feel like dealing with, can someone please tell me what is gained by eliminating it completely?
posted by jermsplan at 8:31 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
they have to wade through 100 comments and they start deleting the worst of them, but they are human and make human choices, and some folks here disagree with those choices, and then Brandon comes back on shift and as the mod responsible for metatalk now has to deal with a 700 comment meta post about the original issue plus the bad job some other mod did while he was sleeping
Again, this is already happening. This has happened continually over a decade of having a queue.
posted by phunniemee at 8:34 AM on February 13 [12 favorites]
Again, this is already happening. This has happened continually over a decade of having a queue.
posted by phunniemee at 8:34 AM on February 13 [12 favorites]
This tiny site pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year. My mind continues to boggle at that. And "What exactly are loup's duties now? How exactly are they spending their time on shift?" remain open questions with unclear answers.
They're working on the cookbook.
It'll be ready anyminute month now.
posted by bowmaniac at 8:35 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
They're working on the cookbook.
It'll be ready any
posted by bowmaniac at 8:35 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
If that happens, they can just turn the queue back on, and say "Whoops. THAT didn't work."
posted by bowbeacon at 8:35 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 8:35 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
It's almost impossible to overstate how much trust "Whoops, that didn't work" would restore to the management of this site. Giving something an honest try, and then not overanalyzing the results to death would be amazing.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:37 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 8:37 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
There's a lot of friction in the community, or a very small number of very loud people complain about a lot of stupid shit?
Number of comments in the last 57 threads by user (cut off at 30):
228 phunniemee
174 snofoam
168 warriorqueen
141 trig
135 Lemkin
120 sagc
108 bowbeacon
92 DirtyOldTown
89 knobknosher
76 atoxyl
73 glonous keming
71 Diskeater
70 Bugbread
67 mittens
67 Violet Blue
65 ginger.beef
65 donnagirl
61 clavdivs
58 brook horse
56 lapis
53 nobody
51 Dysk
49 NotLost
49 Miko
46 TheophileEscargot
39 cupcakeninja
33 tiny frying pan
33 Rhaomi
33 Alvy Ampersand
32 Vatnesine
30 Kitteh
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:37 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Number of comments in the last 57 threads by user (cut off at 30):
228 phunniemee
174 snofoam
168 warriorqueen
141 trig
135 Lemkin
120 sagc
108 bowbeacon
92 DirtyOldTown
89 knobknosher
76 atoxyl
73 glonous keming
71 Diskeater
70 Bugbread
67 mittens
67 Violet Blue
65 ginger.beef
65 donnagirl
61 clavdivs
58 brook horse
56 lapis
53 nobody
51 Dysk
49 NotLost
49 Miko
46 TheophileEscargot
39 cupcakeninja
33 tiny frying pan
33 Rhaomi
33 Alvy Ampersand
32 Vatnesine
30 Kitteh
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:37 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Oh, that omits threads about Christmas cards and other innocuous stuff.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:44 AM on February 13
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 8:44 AM on February 13
can we consider banning all those users?
posted by glonous keming at 8:47 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 8:47 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
Number of comments in the last 57 threads by user (cut off at 30):
I get the impression that this is being posted to support the idea that it's just a few vocal users who are frustrated, but it's not a complete picture. It doesn't include anyone who has posted less, but who might also be frustrated. For example, I'm not in your list - although I believe some of my comments have resonated, at least judging by their favorites. My posting style is just a lot less back-and-forth.
A more complete picture would attempt to take stock of how many people have commented, and roughly what they had to say when they did.
An even more complete picture would be a survey of some sort.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:47 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
I get the impression that this is being posted to support the idea that it's just a few vocal users who are frustrated, but it's not a complete picture. It doesn't include anyone who has posted less, but who might also be frustrated. For example, I'm not in your list - although I believe some of my comments have resonated, at least judging by their favorites. My posting style is just a lot less back-and-forth.
A more complete picture would attempt to take stock of how many people have commented, and roughly what they had to say when they did.
An even more complete picture would be a survey of some sort.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:47 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
can we consider banning all those users?
honestly it's an honor just to be nominated
posted by phunniemee at 8:48 AM on February 13 [30 favorites]
honestly it's an honor just to be nominated
posted by phunniemee at 8:48 AM on February 13 [30 favorites]
also fails to consider account wipes, which are known to be a non-zero-but-undeterminable quantity
posted by glonous keming at 8:49 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 8:49 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
can we consider banning all those users?
[gollum voice] That would kill us!
posted by Lemkin at 8:50 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
[gollum voice] That would kill us!
posted by Lemkin at 8:50 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I recognize this won't make a lot of people happy, but I do think it's in the best interests of the site.
Oh man we need a community governance model ASAP.
posted by grog at 9:03 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Oh man we need a community governance model ASAP.
posted by grog at 9:03 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
can we consider banning all those users?
I'm gonna suggest we form a committee.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:09 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
I'm gonna suggest we form a committee.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 9:09 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Non-vocal user here. Turn off the queue.
After the late December decision to let posts through more freely, it felt like there was a bit of unclenching by all parties. We're already backsliding on that. Turn it off and let's see what happens.
posted by echo target at 9:12 AM on February 13 [13 favorites]
After the late December decision to let posts through more freely, it felt like there was a bit of unclenching by all parties. We're already backsliding on that. Turn it off and let's see what happens.
posted by echo target at 9:12 AM on February 13 [13 favorites]
As a community-led site the obvious solution here is to give decision making authority about site features to the users who use them the most. I would be happy to join the other top MeTa commenters in discussing and making a decision about the queue.
posted by snofoam at 9:15 AM on February 13 [8 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:15 AM on February 13 [8 favorites]
A post goes in the queue, a mod reviews it, and unless it's something terrible in terms of attacking another member/calling them out or the community, the post gets pushed through ASAP.
rhymedirective's was none of this it did not get pushed through ASAP
Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa.
It sure looked like being queued up was one reason rhymedirective left.
Is there ANY evidence that someone stayed here because of the queue? Any thank you e-mails saying "I was upset when I wrote that, so thanks for not publishing it. I surely would have buttoned when reading the comments." I mean... justifying that as a reason the queue is necessary doesn't pass the smell test.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 9:19 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
rhymedirective's was none of this it did not get pushed through ASAP
Having the slight speed bump works well in terms of lessening the chance of member's leaving the site over fights and arguments in MeTa.
It sure looked like being queued up was one reason rhymedirective left.
Is there ANY evidence that someone stayed here because of the queue? Any thank you e-mails saying "I was upset when I wrote that, so thanks for not publishing it. I surely would have buttoned when reading the comments." I mean... justifying that as a reason the queue is necessary doesn't pass the smell test.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 9:19 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
can we consider banning all those users?
That would save me a lot of work I'm taking on, so let's do it now.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:19 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
That would save me a lot of work I'm taking on, so let's do it now.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:19 AM on February 13 [15 favorites]
Okay, here's my idea: duelling committees. Two committees enter, one committee leaves. The first committee to produce their minutes and implement their decisions wins. We continue in that manner tournament style until we have a single reigning committee that gains a permanent +5% buff to radiant damage.
posted by fight or flight at 9:20 AM on February 13 [13 favorites]
posted by fight or flight at 9:20 AM on February 13 [13 favorites]
Number of comments in the last 57 threads by user (cut off at 30):
That's a really interesting cross-section. I wouldn't have expected it, but it makes sense now that I look down it. I routinely disagree with a bunch of those folks, routinely nod along with another bunch, and just don't know a few very well. If that group were left to make a bunch of decisions, I am sure a few would not go my way. Seems fine, though. They're some of the most engaged people. I routinely flip the laptop closed thinking "why on Earth did that person write paragraphs about this picayune detail of the Lore? Jesus Christ consider your priorities!" But when I'm well fed and reflective, I think, "just means they're invested. Let 'em hammer it out."
posted by A forgotten .plan file at 9:25 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
That's a really interesting cross-section. I wouldn't have expected it, but it makes sense now that I look down it. I routinely disagree with a bunch of those folks, routinely nod along with another bunch, and just don't know a few very well. If that group were left to make a bunch of decisions, I am sure a few would not go my way. Seems fine, though. They're some of the most engaged people. I routinely flip the laptop closed thinking "why on Earth did that person write paragraphs about this picayune detail of the Lore? Jesus Christ consider your priorities!" But when I'm well fed and reflective, I think, "just means they're invested. Let 'em hammer it out."
posted by A forgotten .plan file at 9:25 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Non-vocal user here. Turn off the queue.
but do it without mentioning it. Then maybe ten days in (or hours if shit has gone haywire) mention it. I've got a feeling this would be preferable in terms of testing the waters. Because if we draw draw attention (effectively saying, "be on your best behaviour"), are we really going to get a clear view of things?
posted by philip-random at 9:32 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
but do it without mentioning it. Then maybe ten days in (or hours if shit has gone haywire) mention it. I've got a feeling this would be preferable in terms of testing the waters. Because if we draw draw attention (effectively saying, "be on your best behaviour"), are we really going to get a clear view of things?
posted by philip-random at 9:32 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Any thank you e-mails saying "I was upset when I wrote that, so thanks for not publishing it”
I think we were well-served by the decision that my apology MeTa would cause more trouble than it would alleviate. But I wasn’t planning to send the mods a balloon bouquet or anything. That’s, you know, their job.
That said, I don’t see a convincing argument for not turning off the queue for a month to see what happens. The site survived a long time without it,
posted by Lemkin at 9:33 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
I think we were well-served by the decision that my apology MeTa would cause more trouble than it would alleviate. But I wasn’t planning to send the mods a balloon bouquet or anything. That’s, you know, their job.
That said, I don’t see a convincing argument for not turning off the queue for a month to see what happens. The site survived a long time without it,
posted by Lemkin at 9:33 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
It seems reasonable for the user base, many of whom also double as donors, to request that relevant groups, community and otherwise, provide access dates. In no particular order:
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?
2
posted by Violet Blue at 9:33 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?
2
posted by Violet Blue at 9:33 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Inspired by Violet Blue, I have just submitted a MeTa to the queue about starting a conversation to create a moderating code of conduct/guidelines/principles/values for the site.
posted by phunniemee at 9:33 AM on February 13 [8 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 9:33 AM on February 13 [8 favorites]
Nah - mention it so that a handful of shitty posts get thru that 'proves' the queue is needed after all.
posted by Diskeater at 9:34 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 9:34 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
create a moderating code of conduct
No insider trading, for starters.
posted by Lemkin at 9:39 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
No insider trading, for starters.
posted by Lemkin at 9:39 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Number of comments in the last 57 threads by user (cut off at 30):
i clearly have not been offering enough of my THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS
posted by mittens at 9:43 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
i clearly have not been offering enough of my THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS
posted by mittens at 9:43 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
step 1 take your goldilocks group in the middle, we'll call them The Sixties
67 mittens
67 Violet Blue
65 ginger.beef
65 donnagirl
61 clavdivs
step 2 give all power and discretion re: all matters financial and non-financial
step 3 everything will be good, for everyone, forever, let's give this plan a shot
posted by ginger.beef at 9:46 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
67 mittens
67 Violet Blue
65 ginger.beef
65 donnagirl
61 clavdivs
step 2 give all power and discretion re: all matters financial and non-financial
step 3 everything will be good, for everyone, forever, let's give this plan a shot
posted by ginger.beef at 9:46 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
Nah - mention it so that a handful of shitty posts get thru
I'm not sure if this was directed at me but I saved the post text in my notes app and I'd be happy to send it to anyone who would like to review it for purity and determine for themselves if it was a stunt post or not.
posted by phunniemee at 9:48 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure if this was directed at me but I saved the post text in my notes app and I'd be happy to send it to anyone who would like to review it for purity and determine for themselves if it was a stunt post or not.
posted by phunniemee at 9:48 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
It was a snarky response to this comment.
posted by Diskeater at 9:49 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 9:49 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
@jermsplan
If we believe Brandon that he will continue this new pattern of rapid-response to the queue, with no more per-day post limits, and no longer using it as an excuse to just indefinitely delay a meta he doesn't feel like dealing with, can someone please tell me what is gained by eliminating it completely?
I think the way trust keeps coming up in these MeTas, maybe that answers your question? I like MeFi, I want it to flourish (if not die at the very least) and I'm wondering how turning off the queue is such a big deal. Maybe we turn off the queue and Something Very Bad happens? Bad enough to sink MeFi, moreso than this steady and prolonged acrimony in MeTa? I don't see a good reason not to at least give it a shot, this almost seems like a trivially simple choice at this point. Again: what am I missing?
posted by ginger.beef at 9:58 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
If we believe Brandon that he will continue this new pattern of rapid-response to the queue, with no more per-day post limits, and no longer using it as an excuse to just indefinitely delay a meta he doesn't feel like dealing with, can someone please tell me what is gained by eliminating it completely?
I think the way trust keeps coming up in these MeTas, maybe that answers your question? I like MeFi, I want it to flourish (if not die at the very least) and I'm wondering how turning off the queue is such a big deal. Maybe we turn off the queue and Something Very Bad happens? Bad enough to sink MeFi, moreso than this steady and prolonged acrimony in MeTa? I don't see a good reason not to at least give it a shot, this almost seems like a trivially simple choice at this point. Again: what am I missing?
posted by ginger.beef at 9:58 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
If the queue is so successful on MeTa, how come we haven’t implemented it across all the subsites?
posted by snofoam at 10:13 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:13 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
if UN Peacekeeping forces are so successful, why don't we just implement them everywhere all the time?
posted by philip-random at 10:17 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 10:17 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
I can’t believe I made that list!
I’m so proud, you guys!!
A single tear —-> 🥲
posted by Vatnesine at 10:27 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
I’m so proud, you guys!!
A single tear —-> 🥲
posted by Vatnesine at 10:27 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Exactly! The queue is like an ineffective measure that ends up actually starting a cholera epidemic in an already fragile place with no leadership.
posted by snofoam at 10:30 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:30 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
but they have worked well in some situations
posted by philip-random at 10:32 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 10:32 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Man if I knew we were getting leaderboards I would have upped my shitposting game.
posted by lucidium at 10:40 AM on February 13 [10 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 10:40 AM on February 13 [10 favorites]
Shit, are we actually discussing the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping forces here? I was actually conflating a prior incident post-earthquake, where Nepalese UN peacekeepers started a cholera epidemic, with the more recent leadership crisis in Haiti to create an overly precious MeTa-phor.
posted by snofoam at 10:42 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:42 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
So Brandon reads MeTa, gives his take on it to the mods, suggests a course of action based on that take, and the mods all agree. Solid process, no notes, zero possibility this could lead to undesirable consequences
posted by donnagirl at 11:06 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 11:06 AM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Also yeah, Diskeater and I have each asserted most times that Brandon invokes the moderation oversight committee that it isn't functional yet, and still he seems surprised by that information today. This is even more absurd when you realize he is on the slack channel that serves as the committee's only communication vector, and it is wildly clear there that the committee isn't up and running. Therefore, I propose a basic reading comprehension test for any new hires, because this ain't it.
i said it before and was threatened with banning; these mods gotta go. You can't heal a wound if you refuse to clean it out
posted by donnagirl at 11:16 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
i said it before and was threatened with banning; these mods gotta go. You can't heal a wound if you refuse to clean it out
posted by donnagirl at 11:16 AM on February 13 [11 favorites]
it's a chaotic situation as you've just described. I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion to get rid of the mods. Worst possible time while the site is in transition. Similar to deciding to clean house in a fire department while there's a building burning.
posted by philip-random at 11:24 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 11:24 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
But what if the firemen are arsonists?
posted by donnagirl at 11:25 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 11:25 AM on February 13 [5 favorites]
@ginger.beef, you are right, of course. I just think it's depressing. I didn't ask "Do we believe Brandon", but my question started with "If we believe Brandon" and the answer from a lot of folks seems to be "We don't trust Brandon, premise isn't valid, question is invalid."
To me, Brandon heard feedback, made a change, and things have been better since the change. I don't want to discount A non mouse pointing out rhyme's recent buttoning, but honestly if you come to post to meta hot about your comment being deleted, get told that the mod on duty wants to ping the mod who deleted your comment first, and button, I'm not sure how much the queue is to blame at that point.
The thing is, if I were in Brandon's shoes I think I would have given in and killed the queue by now just to get people to quit complaining about it. I assume there's some weighing in his mind of the pros/cons between having the queue as a tool vs constantly hearing from folks that they want to get rid of the queue. He keeps coming down on the side of the queue being worth it. I'm not in his head, and I don't use the queue, so I choose to trust him. I'm sure I'm getting mentally flagged as an idiot and mod apologist, but if MeTa is where the community comes together to talk through things, if figure I'm allowed to give my 2cents even if it's in the minority.
posted by jermsplan at 11:38 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
To me, Brandon heard feedback, made a change, and things have been better since the change. I don't want to discount A non mouse pointing out rhyme's recent buttoning, but honestly if you come to post to meta hot about your comment being deleted, get told that the mod on duty wants to ping the mod who deleted your comment first, and button, I'm not sure how much the queue is to blame at that point.
The thing is, if I were in Brandon's shoes I think I would have given in and killed the queue by now just to get people to quit complaining about it. I assume there's some weighing in his mind of the pros/cons between having the queue as a tool vs constantly hearing from folks that they want to get rid of the queue. He keeps coming down on the side of the queue being worth it. I'm not in his head, and I don't use the queue, so I choose to trust him. I'm sure I'm getting mentally flagged as an idiot and mod apologist, but if MeTa is where the community comes together to talk through things, if figure I'm allowed to give my 2cents even if it's in the minority.
posted by jermsplan at 11:38 AM on February 13 [7 favorites]
But what if the firemen are arsonists?
posted by donnagirl at 11:25 AM on February 13 [2 favorites +] [⚑]
to be clear, you're asserting that the mods are deliberately trying to destroy the site?
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 11:25 AM on February 13 [2 favorites +] [⚑]
to be clear, you're asserting that the mods are deliberately trying to destroy the site?
posted by philip-random at 11:44 AM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I'm sympathetic to a good faith approach to most comments by most people (except when I'm not, being the mercurial and inconsistent and often hypocritical creep I am, join me), I guess my thing with the queue is whether you are fine with the mods and Brandon in particular or not, there's just a lot of people who have been Not Fine with the situation and more than anything I'm curious as to: what is the harm in just shutting the queue off for a one month trial?
If one of the mods shows up and produces, I don't know, a log of the volume of spam and bullshit we don't see as a result of the queue, well that's something. I don't mod and don't presume to know what goes into their work, I'm just observing the state of affairs. And note, this hypocrite swore off MeTa not long ago, and here I am. What the fuck do I know!!
posted by ginger.beef at 11:48 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
If one of the mods shows up and produces, I don't know, a log of the volume of spam and bullshit we don't see as a result of the queue, well that's something. I don't mod and don't presume to know what goes into their work, I'm just observing the state of affairs. And note, this hypocrite swore off MeTa not long ago, and here I am. What the fuck do I know!!
posted by ginger.beef at 11:48 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Hey, Brandon again, just letting y'all know a note has been sent to the Interim Board asking them weigh in and/or give advice. Will let y'all know what they advise!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:50 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:50 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Maybe it's time to bring in a consultant.
posted by fennario at 11:51 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by fennario at 11:51 AM on February 13 [3 favorites]
everything will be good, for everyone, forever, let's give this plan a shot
I like the way this Snrub thinks.
posted by Lemkin at 11:56 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
I like the way this Snrub thinks.
posted by Lemkin at 11:56 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
g.b, "what is the harm?" I honestly don't know, though I did take a stab at imagining above. At an absolute bare minimum the harm is "BB loses a tool he has said he finds helpful." Maybe, after a few weeks, he finds he didn't really need the tool so much after all, and everyone is happy with the new normal. I hope! Truly, I hope the interim board tells BB to just shut it off and we'll see a period of less griping, more goodwill, and improved trust. I have to be honest, though, I'm cynical how much goodwill and trust shutting off the queue will buy the mods, given the point we've reached. I really would love to be proven wrong. As you say, what's the worst that can happen? People call for the mods to be fired harder?
posted by jermsplan at 12:12 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by jermsplan at 12:12 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Or alternatively, we should be seeing a posting for ED/CEO.
As Miko pointed out in December, the first step before posting the Executive Director position would be to create a budget:
As to where the money would be found to hire an ED: the board should be making a budget for the coming fiscal year. It would include on the revenue side anticipated income from fundraising and other revenue streams. On the expense side, it would include the payments to all contacted staff and other expenses...In short, a budget is a first order of business, if it does not exist already.
And a few weeks before that:
Because what has to happen? The board and LLC need to collaborate on a job description, which is going to require some other decision making about nonprofit operation. Then, there needs to be a financial plan that can guarantee the ED will be paid. Then some hiring criteria need to be developed, some sort of screening and interview process defined, and actual interviews and candidate communications.
Could this be done with competent leadership? Sure, happens all the time. Does the existing team seem ready to pull this off? Not at all.
Is anyone in site leadership working on a budget right now? I still don't see how Metafilter can hire an ED without first cutting current payroll significantly in the absence of what Miko called "a concrete plan for the needed additional fundraising" that the site would need to make that hire, but maybe someone's working on that now, too. I know the Steering Committee did an incredible job fundraising before it was disbanded, and the remaining leadership bungled the next fundraising round by not taking it seriously. Maybe when rank-and-file members are once again in control of fundraising it can become meaningful again.
posted by catspajamas at 12:21 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
As Miko pointed out in December, the first step before posting the Executive Director position would be to create a budget:
As to where the money would be found to hire an ED: the board should be making a budget for the coming fiscal year. It would include on the revenue side anticipated income from fundraising and other revenue streams. On the expense side, it would include the payments to all contacted staff and other expenses...In short, a budget is a first order of business, if it does not exist already.
And a few weeks before that:
Because what has to happen? The board and LLC need to collaborate on a job description, which is going to require some other decision making about nonprofit operation. Then, there needs to be a financial plan that can guarantee the ED will be paid. Then some hiring criteria need to be developed, some sort of screening and interview process defined, and actual interviews and candidate communications.
Could this be done with competent leadership? Sure, happens all the time. Does the existing team seem ready to pull this off? Not at all.
Is anyone in site leadership working on a budget right now? I still don't see how Metafilter can hire an ED without first cutting current payroll significantly in the absence of what Miko called "a concrete plan for the needed additional fundraising" that the site would need to make that hire, but maybe someone's working on that now, too. I know the Steering Committee did an incredible job fundraising before it was disbanded, and the remaining leadership bungled the next fundraising round by not taking it seriously. Maybe when rank-and-file members are once again in control of fundraising it can become meaningful again.
posted by catspajamas at 12:21 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
a note has been sent to the Interim Board asking them weigh in and/or give advice. Will let y'all know what they advise!
Is there a reason they cannot weigh in themselves, rather than going through you, Brandon?
posted by catspajamas at 12:25 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Is there a reason they cannot weigh in themselves, rather than going through you, Brandon?
posted by catspajamas at 12:25 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion to get rid of the mods.
I kinda lost the thread here, but if your UN peacekeepers comment was meant to be an analog to my comment just before it — which is how I took it since it uses the exact same wording — the peacekeepers are the MeTa queue, not the moderators. Basically everyone suggested getting rid of the queue and you're really the only one saying stuff about getting rid of the moderators.
If we're going to belabor awkward extended metaphors, let's keep it tight, folks! That includes the unnecessary pivot from peacekeeper metaphor to fire department metaphor. (Just in my personal opinion.)
posted by snofoam at 12:28 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I kinda lost the thread here, but if your UN peacekeepers comment was meant to be an analog to my comment just before it — which is how I took it since it uses the exact same wording — the peacekeepers are the MeTa queue, not the moderators. Basically everyone suggested getting rid of the queue and you're really the only one saying stuff about getting rid of the moderators.
If we're going to belabor awkward extended metaphors, let's keep it tight, folks! That includes the unnecessary pivot from peacekeeper metaphor to fire department metaphor. (Just in my personal opinion.)
posted by snofoam at 12:28 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
a note has been sent to the Interim Board asking them weigh in and/or give advice. Will let y'all know what they advise!
Maybe we should go ahead and get a request out to the oracle as well while we are at it, I feel like the turnaround time on those can be lengthy, too..
posted by snofoam at 12:30 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Maybe we should go ahead and get a request out to the oracle as well while we are at it, I feel like the turnaround time on those can be lengthy, too..
posted by snofoam at 12:30 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Either your famed, great queue must be sacked by Perseus' sons,
Or, if that be not, the whole land of Lacedaemon
Shall mourn the death of a king of the house of Heracles
posted by warriorqueen at 12:38 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Or, if that be not, the whole land of Lacedaemon
Shall mourn the death of a king of the house of Heracles
posted by warriorqueen at 12:38 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
I would like the queue turned off.
posted by michaelh at 12:39 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by michaelh at 12:39 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
s/InniTech/MetaFilter
s/customers/users
s/engineers/"board members"
posted by glonous keming at 12:39 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
s/customers/users
s/engineers/"board members"
posted by glonous keming at 12:39 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
to be clear, you're asserting that the mods are deliberately trying to destroy the site
Ok maybe not arsonists but perhaps people unsure how fire works holding handfuls of matches and a bunch of greasy rags.
In other words, not like cartoon villains twirling their mustaches but more out of a lack of motivation/interest/skill. People have been saying it for literally years, and I know you're not new here, so I won't belabor the point.
posted by donnagirl at 12:48 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
you're really the only one saying stuff about getting rid of the moderators.
It's easy to miss things in these threads, especially when the metaphors are flying fast and furious, but in this case I think it's fair to think that the comment you are asking about was a response to the one immediately before it that says "these mods gotta go."
posted by solotoro at 12:48 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
It's easy to miss things in these threads, especially when the metaphors are flying fast and furious, but in this case I think it's fair to think that the comment you are asking about was a response to the one immediately before it that says "these mods gotta go."
posted by solotoro at 12:48 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Thanks, yes, I am seeing that now! Too many comments, no reply functionality, etc.
posted by snofoam at 1:06 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 1:06 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion to get rid of the mods.
I kinda lost the thread here, but [...] Basically everyone suggested getting rid of the queue and you're really the only one saying stuff about getting rid of the moderators.
I wasn't responding to you with that. I was responding to the comment directly before mine from donnagirl ...
i said it before and was threatened with banning; these mods gotta go. You can't heal a wound if you refuse to clean it out
As for the UN stuff, I agree with you as to the metaphor ...
the peacekeepers are the MeTa queue, not the moderators.
hope that clarifies things at least a little.
posted by philip-random at 1:38 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I kinda lost the thread here, but [...] Basically everyone suggested getting rid of the queue and you're really the only one saying stuff about getting rid of the moderators.
I wasn't responding to you with that. I was responding to the comment directly before mine from donnagirl ...
i said it before and was threatened with banning; these mods gotta go. You can't heal a wound if you refuse to clean it out
As for the UN stuff, I agree with you as to the metaphor ...
the peacekeepers are the MeTa queue, not the moderators.
hope that clarifies things at least a little.
posted by philip-random at 1:38 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I’m a pretty quiet user. I think the queue has damaged user trust and should be turned off.
posted by hilaryjade at 2:06 PM on February 13 [13 favorites]
posted by hilaryjade at 2:06 PM on February 13 [13 favorites]
The Moderation Oversight Committee is not the place for this to be considered. This is not a moderation decision but a management decision.
So, given the moderators are the defacto management of MetaFilter at the moment and they have endorsed Brandon's decision not to remove the queue, I guess that's that. I don't agree with either the decision or the hand-wavy reasoning behind it, but at least it's a decision. That, in itself, is a significant departure from the norm these days.
posted by dg at 2:10 PM on February 13 [5 favorites]
So, given the moderators are the defacto management of MetaFilter at the moment and they have endorsed Brandon's decision not to remove the queue, I guess that's that. I don't agree with either the decision or the hand-wavy reasoning behind it, but at least it's a decision. That, in itself, is a significant departure from the norm these days.
posted by dg at 2:10 PM on February 13 [5 favorites]
I don’t post in MeTa much except to do gift exchange logistics and post pet pics occasionally, and I support stopping the queue. Oscar does as well if cat votes count.
posted by ActionPopulated at 3:14 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by ActionPopulated at 3:14 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
I’m going to enter my cat’s vote as “Present”, since he’s taking a nap at the moment.
posted by Lemkin at 3:56 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 3:56 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I support stopping the queue except for major US holidays as before.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:06 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:06 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
once the UN peacekeepers have their way with the site we won’t even HAVE holidays!
posted by mittens at 4:41 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
posted by mittens at 4:41 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Board member here, though I am currently suffering a first-time bout with COVID rn so apologies if it's a bit scattered.
catspajamas: "This tiny site pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year. My mind continues to boggle at that
My mind boggles too, because this keeps getting repeated despite not being accurate. When last discussed in December, the grand total for moderation coverage was just under $160k yearly, split between five people (equal pay but varying hours put in, all less than full-time). No health coverage or other benefits. Even adding in the maximum possible amount for developers frimble and kirk (who also set their own hours as needed) falls ~$20k short of this quarter-million number. Still not sure where that came from, but mods are not living the high life here and several work other jobs.
"What exactly are loup's duties now? How exactly are they spending their time on shift?" remain open questions with unclear answers."
Loup has been handling most of the backend work since taking over from cortex ~3 years ago, in addition to moderation. So apart from taxes (which Jessamyn did), stuff like payroll, bill-pay, financial records, development oversight, internal/external communication, etc. The site doesn't run itself, and they've been the one responsible for keeping it running day-to-day, though a lot of that has been invisible behind-the-scenes stuff.
bowbeacon: "This is just like the hiding comments thing. Brandon decides not to do it, it's not done. Which is ridiculous."
To be clear, we did decide to try this (which Brandon was on board with), but in testing, frimble flagged some notable accessibility issues with the tag that prevented us from using it as-is. It should be more feasible and cleaner in the new codebase.
Violet Blue: "It seems reasonable for the user base, many of whom also double as donors, to request that relevant groups, community and otherwise, provide access dates. In no particular order:
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?"
We've been looking into third-party voting platforms (warriorqueen and NotLost providing more input based on past experience). The key need there is for security and compatibility between the existing site member DB and the voting software, to prevent sockpuppets, leaking data, etc. Kirkaracha thinks that the new architecture can better handle doing it in-house via Laravel (the old site already a system used for SC stuff but it's super basic). The new design should be ready for initial testing sometime this month, last I heard. People interested in testing should have received MeMail about it by now; please contact kirkaracha if you haven't.
catspajamas: "Is anyone in site leadership working on a budget right now?"
We actually were just looking at the AWS spend a few days ago (with help from Frayed Knot), and there are *significant* further savings to be found there which shouldn't impact the site negatively. Basically an overzealous backup schedule that was allocating excessive storage on an unnecessary tier. Frimble is working on this now, but it should open up options that weren't really in reach before, which is great news but requires some rethinking. Stay tuned~
As for the queue Q, I think it does have its uses *if* used properly:
- only blocking the rare abusive/spammy/etc. post, with transparency
- letting uncontentious posts through ASAP
- timing more contentious posts when a mod can be around to participate
Based on Brandon's numbers, #1 hasn't been much of an issue, with only 2/35 non-mod posts denied (with feedback) and a handful delayed for less than a day (#2). I have noticed for #3 though, that sometimes a more confrontational or "do this" thread will go through without an attendant response for hours or even days. This is the greatest area for improvement -- if a post is going to be delayed, then it should be posted with a prompt response and during a time when there will be someone around for at least a few hours to stay on top of it and respond. This is clearly harder when mod coverage is lower, but then that's what queuing the post is for. (If anything, I feel like unqueuing MeTa will discourage mod involvmenet further, because it will be more common to discover some 300-comment angry thread long after the fact rather than being there from the start.) So my personal take is that preventing random fighty threads from popping up with no warning is a good thing given lower coverage, but that this brake needs to be exercised with care so that they are addressed more consistently once they are approved.
Is there a more concrete approach that would preserve this upside while giving people more confidence that threads aren't being suppressed unnecessarily? Maybe sign-off from the board (or the MOC once they're ready) before a submitted thread is denied, or a monthly tally of how many threads were approved or not plus reasons why? Or would people prefer testing a period without a queue, with the understanding that it would make it more difficult for mods to be involved consistently? (There's already room for improvement there, but this change seems likely to make things worse imho)
posted by Rhaomi at 4:42 PM on February 13 [12 favorites]
catspajamas: "This tiny site pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year. My mind continues to boggle at that
My mind boggles too, because this keeps getting repeated despite not being accurate. When last discussed in December, the grand total for moderation coverage was just under $160k yearly, split between five people (equal pay but varying hours put in, all less than full-time). No health coverage or other benefits. Even adding in the maximum possible amount for developers frimble and kirk (who also set their own hours as needed) falls ~$20k short of this quarter-million number. Still not sure where that came from, but mods are not living the high life here and several work other jobs.
"What exactly are loup's duties now? How exactly are they spending their time on shift?" remain open questions with unclear answers."
Loup has been handling most of the backend work since taking over from cortex ~3 years ago, in addition to moderation. So apart from taxes (which Jessamyn did), stuff like payroll, bill-pay, financial records, development oversight, internal/external communication, etc. The site doesn't run itself, and they've been the one responsible for keeping it running day-to-day, though a lot of that has been invisible behind-the-scenes stuff.
bowbeacon: "This is just like the hiding comments thing. Brandon decides not to do it, it's not done. Which is ridiculous."
To be clear, we did decide to try this (which Brandon was on board with), but in testing, frimble flagged some notable accessibility issues with the tag that prevented us from using it as-is. It should be more feasible and cleaner in the new codebase.
Violet Blue: "It seems reasonable for the user base, many of whom also double as donors, to request that relevant groups, community and otherwise, provide access dates. In no particular order:
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?"
We've been looking into third-party voting platforms (warriorqueen and NotLost providing more input based on past experience). The key need there is for security and compatibility between the existing site member DB and the voting software, to prevent sockpuppets, leaking data, etc. Kirkaracha thinks that the new architecture can better handle doing it in-house via Laravel (the old site already a system used for SC stuff but it's super basic). The new design should be ready for initial testing sometime this month, last I heard. People interested in testing should have received MeMail about it by now; please contact kirkaracha if you haven't.
catspajamas: "Is anyone in site leadership working on a budget right now?"
We actually were just looking at the AWS spend a few days ago (with help from Frayed Knot), and there are *significant* further savings to be found there which shouldn't impact the site negatively. Basically an overzealous backup schedule that was allocating excessive storage on an unnecessary tier. Frimble is working on this now, but it should open up options that weren't really in reach before, which is great news but requires some rethinking. Stay tuned~
As for the queue Q, I think it does have its uses *if* used properly:
- only blocking the rare abusive/spammy/etc. post, with transparency
- letting uncontentious posts through ASAP
- timing more contentious posts when a mod can be around to participate
Based on Brandon's numbers, #1 hasn't been much of an issue, with only 2/35 non-mod posts denied (with feedback) and a handful delayed for less than a day (#2). I have noticed for #3 though, that sometimes a more confrontational or "do this" thread will go through without an attendant response for hours or even days. This is the greatest area for improvement -- if a post is going to be delayed, then it should be posted with a prompt response and during a time when there will be someone around for at least a few hours to stay on top of it and respond. This is clearly harder when mod coverage is lower, but then that's what queuing the post is for. (If anything, I feel like unqueuing MeTa will discourage mod involvmenet further, because it will be more common to discover some 300-comment angry thread long after the fact rather than being there from the start.) So my personal take is that preventing random fighty threads from popping up with no warning is a good thing given lower coverage, but that this brake needs to be exercised with care so that they are addressed more consistently once they are approved.
Is there a more concrete approach that would preserve this upside while giving people more confidence that threads aren't being suppressed unnecessarily? Maybe sign-off from the board (or the MOC once they're ready) before a submitted thread is denied, or a monthly tally of how many threads were approved or not plus reasons why? Or would people prefer testing a period without a queue, with the understanding that it would make it more difficult for mods to be involved consistently? (There's already room for improvement there, but this change seems likely to make things worse imho)
posted by Rhaomi at 4:42 PM on February 13 [12 favorites]
discover some 300-comment angry thread long after the fact
Change the queue message during the trial period to something like "MetaTalk posts are no longer being queued and will be posted immediately - any staff response will be delayed".
Is there a more concrete approach that would preserve this upside while giving people more confidence that threads aren't being suppressed unnecessarily? Maybe sign-off from the board (or the MOC once they're ready) before a submitted thread is denied,
I don't think the answer at this point is 'more bureaucracy'.
or a monthly tally of how many threads were approved or not plus reasons why?
Like some kind of public record that the staff keeps? We could try that. If it works maybe the staff could also include other things in this public record.
Or would people prefer testing a period without a queue, with the understanding that it would make it more difficult for mods to be involved consistently?
Yep. One month trial. See what happens.
posted by Diskeater at 5:02 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
Change the queue message during the trial period to something like "MetaTalk posts are no longer being queued and will be posted immediately - any staff response will be delayed".
Is there a more concrete approach that would preserve this upside while giving people more confidence that threads aren't being suppressed unnecessarily? Maybe sign-off from the board (or the MOC once they're ready) before a submitted thread is denied,
I don't think the answer at this point is 'more bureaucracy'.
or a monthly tally of how many threads were approved or not plus reasons why?
Like some kind of public record that the staff keeps? We could try that. If it works maybe the staff could also include other things in this public record.
Or would people prefer testing a period without a queue, with the understanding that it would make it more difficult for mods to be involved consistently?
Yep. One month trial. See what happens.
posted by Diskeater at 5:02 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
if a post is going to be delayed, then it should be posted with a prompt response and during a time when there will be someone around for at least a few hours to stay on top of it and respond.
Honestly, and to reiterate something someone else said earlier - there has been an increasing trend for Meta's to have early official-sounding responses from Brandon which entirely set the tone for the rest of the thread.
If Metatalk is supposed to be the place where the community comes to discuss issues, having those discussions gated and steered by a mod right out of the gate is a bad thing.
Add me as another +1 ditch the queue (trial period if you have to)
posted by coriolisdave at 5:12 PM on February 13 [9 favorites]
Honestly, and to reiterate something someone else said earlier - there has been an increasing trend for Meta's to have early official-sounding responses from Brandon which entirely set the tone for the rest of the thread.
If Metatalk is supposed to be the place where the community comes to discuss issues, having those discussions gated and steered by a mod right out of the gate is a bad thing.
Add me as another +1 ditch the queue (trial period if you have to)
posted by coriolisdave at 5:12 PM on February 13 [9 favorites]
Even adding in the maximum possible amount for developers frimble and kirk (who also set their own hours as needed) falls ~$20k short of this quarter-million number. Still not sure where that came from
So, payroll is $230k, and you can say with a straight face that you have “no idea” where a quarter million comes from?
posted by bowbeacon at 5:26 PM on February 13 [18 favorites]
So, payroll is $230k, and you can say with a straight face that you have “no idea” where a quarter million comes from?
posted by bowbeacon at 5:26 PM on February 13 [18 favorites]
While we’re at it, can we get the board “staff” tags?
posted by bowbeacon at 5:33 PM on February 13 [9 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 5:33 PM on February 13 [9 favorites]
Hi Rhaomi,
Thanks for the update on voting-related information, which is a fundamental part of a community-driven site, but I was actually looking for approximate dates, e.g. the Board elections will probably be held in April, the new website looks like it will be finalized by May, etc.
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?"
posted by Violet Blue at 5:36 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the update on voting-related information, which is a fundamental part of a community-driven site, but I was actually looking for approximate dates, e.g. the Board elections will probably be held in April, the new website looks like it will be finalized by May, etc.
1. When will new Board elections be held?
2. When will the new website be available?
3. When will the MOC be operative?
4. When will the community be able to address budgets, and allocation of funds for both mods and, crucially, an ED?"
posted by Violet Blue at 5:36 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
So, payroll is $230k, and you can say with a straight face that you have “no idea” where a quarter million comes from?
It's worth saying I've never heard anyone imply that any individual mods/programmers are getting rich off the back of the site. Instead, the total figure strikes me, and all that I've heard address it, as:
(1) strikingly high especially in comparison to site costs and the trend for volunteer modding at comparable sites,
(2) likely not sustainable given that no outreach has been done in years so there is no income coming in, outside of fundraising, and
(3) possibly an impediment to hiring an ED whose job would include long-term financial planning, outreach and the long-term financial security of the site.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:43 PM on February 13 [12 favorites]
It's worth saying I've never heard anyone imply that any individual mods/programmers are getting rich off the back of the site. Instead, the total figure strikes me, and all that I've heard address it, as:
(1) strikingly high especially in comparison to site costs and the trend for volunteer modding at comparable sites,
(2) likely not sustainable given that no outreach has been done in years so there is no income coming in, outside of fundraising, and
(3) possibly an impediment to hiring an ED whose job would include long-term financial planning, outreach and the long-term financial security of the site.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:43 PM on February 13 [12 favorites]
Or would people prefer testing a period without a queue, with the understanding that it would make it more difficult for mods to be involved consistently?
This has overwhelmingly been the consensus in this thread, yes, do this, please for the love of god do anything different for once instead of having us all beat it to death just to be told no by Lord Brandon anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 5:43 PM on February 13 [15 favorites]
This has overwhelmingly been the consensus in this thread, yes, do this, please for the love of god do anything different for once instead of having us all beat it to death just to be told no by Lord Brandon anyway.
posted by phunniemee at 5:43 PM on February 13 [15 favorites]
Yeah, sites do not pay on the order of 70 cents per comment, in costs. They don’t pay 1 cent per comment. The staffing costs here stand out not on the scale of 30% higher than the norm, but on the order of 100x the norm.
posted by bowbeacon at 5:46 PM on February 13 [14 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 5:46 PM on February 13 [14 favorites]
Thanks Rhaomi for doing this work! I think we really need Board input more often, if you’re able.
I’ve got to imagine there are simpler ways to manage this voting issue using the existing site’s architecture, depending on how private and anonymous and auditable you need the voting to be. Heck, counting favorites or “flag this comment as fantastic if you want languagehat to be on the Board” already starts to get close to adequate. Flag with a write-in candidate could also work!
If you want to do some kind of ID verification to prevent sock puppets from voting, I understand. But at that point of mistrust it might be best to give up on secret ballots and just use public voting slates in comments! (Assuming, say, that we get seven votes and there are twenty candidates.)
Custom flags seem like another possible method…. Anyway, getting an elected Board in place that is fully elected seems like the current major block to Metafilter’s future. If there was a plausible way to announce a timeline and basic procedure, I think that would be good for the community.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:07 PM on February 13 [14 favorites]
I’ve got to imagine there are simpler ways to manage this voting issue using the existing site’s architecture, depending on how private and anonymous and auditable you need the voting to be. Heck, counting favorites or “flag this comment as fantastic if you want languagehat to be on the Board” already starts to get close to adequate. Flag with a write-in candidate could also work!
If you want to do some kind of ID verification to prevent sock puppets from voting, I understand. But at that point of mistrust it might be best to give up on secret ballots and just use public voting slates in comments! (Assuming, say, that we get seven votes and there are twenty candidates.)
Custom flags seem like another possible method…. Anyway, getting an elected Board in place that is fully elected seems like the current major block to Metafilter’s future. If there was a plausible way to announce a timeline and basic procedure, I think that would be good for the community.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:07 PM on February 13 [14 favorites]
I feel like unqueuing MeTa will discourage mod involvmenet further, because it will be more common to discover some 300-comment angry thread long after the fact rather than being there from the start.
Keeping up with long contentious comment threads is the fucking job though?
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:28 PM on February 13 [17 favorites]
Keeping up with long contentious comment threads is the fucking job though?
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:28 PM on February 13 [17 favorites]
Like, if the mods are discouraged from involvement by having to read a fucking thread, what are they even doing?
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:30 PM on February 13 [22 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:30 PM on February 13 [22 favorites]
We've been looking into third-party voting platforms ... The key need there is for security and compatibility between the existing site member DB and the voting software, to prevent sockpuppets, leaking data, etc. Kirkaracha thinks that the new architecture can better handle doing it in-house via Laravel (the old site already a system used for SC stuff but it's super basic).
Unless there are legal requirements related to election of boards that necessitate certain levels of security etc, there is already a system in place that has worked in the past. We are once again going down the path of making things as difficult as possible, with the only result being to delay them indefinitely. Countries all over the world manage to elect their political leaders with insecure processes and technology, so what we have is at worst equivalent to a third-world country. It's a fucking Web site for fuck's sake.
posted by dg at 6:40 PM on February 13 [16 favorites]
Unless there are legal requirements related to election of boards that necessitate certain levels of security etc, there is already a system in place that has worked in the past. We are once again going down the path of making things as difficult as possible, with the only result being to delay them indefinitely. Countries all over the world manage to elect their political leaders with insecure processes and technology, so what we have is at worst equivalent to a third-world country. It's a fucking Web site for fuck's sake.
posted by dg at 6:40 PM on February 13 [16 favorites]
You could have one comment for every option to vote on and we could favorite the one we were voting for. I suppose we could vote for two things then but that hurts no one except the person voting. Like this:
Favorite this comment if you prefer chess to checkers.
posted by Vatnesine at 7:05 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
Favorite this comment if you prefer chess to checkers.
posted by Vatnesine at 7:05 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
…And favorite THIS comment if you prefer checkers to chess.
posted by Vatnesine at 7:05 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by Vatnesine at 7:05 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
I suppose we could vote for two things then but that hurts no one except the person voting.
It doesn’t hurt anyone at all, it’s a perfectly cromulent way to vote.
posted by solotoro at 7:34 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
It doesn’t hurt anyone at all, it’s a perfectly cromulent way to vote.
posted by solotoro at 7:34 PM on February 13 [3 favorites]
📦#️⃣1️⃣,💷👊👶!
posted by clavdivs at 7:37 PM on February 13 [11 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 7:37 PM on February 13 [11 favorites]
as much as i appreciate the deeply significant symbolism of electing board members via favorite count, i don't think it's really the right solution because of the whole sock puppet issue
besides we all know who would win: the quidnunc kid
posted by glonous keming at 7:42 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
besides we all know who would win: the quidnunc kid
posted by glonous keming at 7:42 PM on February 13 [7 favorites]
clavdivs beat me to it
posted by glonous keming at 7:58 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 7:58 PM on February 13 [2 favorites]
No it doesn’t deter sock puppets. But it’s cheap and available right now, and won’t make me register anywhere or create a password.
Do you want the “right” voting system?
posted by Vatnesine at 8:14 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Do you want the “right” voting system?
posted by Vatnesine at 8:14 PM on February 13 [1 favorite]
Or the “right now” voting system?
posted by Vatnesine at 8:14 PM on February 13 [8 favorites]
posted by Vatnesine at 8:14 PM on February 13 [8 favorites]
I love that there is a legit concern about voter fraud because if there was a userbase that would buy votes, it would be this one.
posted by Diskeater at 8:40 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 8:40 PM on February 13 [4 favorites]
i just got a great idea for a fundraiser!
posted by glonous keming at 9:13 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 9:13 PM on February 13 [6 favorites]
I think given that the community org does have a pot of money, and voting for the board gives legal access to that money, a platform that includes some checks and balances is a good thing.
posted by warriorqueen at 3:58 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:58 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
If I am understanding correctly, voting in a real board is the first step towards actual community governance (and possibly any decision making about anything on the site), and the current plan of the interim board is to delay voting on the first real board until a new site has been made (originally slated for a preview last fall?) because the new site might make it easier to integrate voting capability?
posted by snofoam at 4:00 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:00 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
(I am no fan of dumb tech bro aphorisms, but I also think it is possible that “move glacially and let everything break on its own” is also not a winning strategy here.)
posted by snofoam at 4:03 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:03 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
I think putting any more than about 7 calendar days of effort into finding voting software is an unreasonable delay. This is a small website. It doesn’t need much.
posted by bowbeacon at 4:04 AM on February 14 [8 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 4:04 AM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Keeping up with long contentious comment threads is the fucking job though?
Yes, and the queue helped manage that! How? Because I knew when the mod gaps were, so it was no problem to keep an eye on the queue while I went about daily life, could check things, read a post, and send it through. Easy, peasy, takes a minute and I could literally be anywhere in the world to click a button.
If writing a note to explain why a post wasn't sent through that would take maybe five/10 minutes top.
All that goes away by turning off the queue, so it's difficult to see what the the upside is for the site to do so.
Yes, people have had concerns about conversations being stifled by use of the queue, but that hasn't been happening since the December 12/2024 change, so it doesn't seem like an issue.
Some have pointed that contentious fights still happen in MeTa and they're right. A queue isn't going to completely fix that and no one is claiming it would. But I have noticed when there are long contentious threads, there do seem to larger numbers of people closing their accounts or asking to have their account wiped, as mentioned in this comment about account wipes in 2024. Can I definitively prove that the queue helps with this? No, but it is the feeling I get as a mod, having to pay more intention to this stuff. Bottom line arguments will always happen to some extent, but starting off a MeTa post with a fight or attack needlessly escalates situations that a thread rarely recovers from, not without some grudges birthed (or nursed) and people leaving.
So can we please leave the queue as it is currently, where the only posts that are paused are potentially fighty ones? The writers of those posts will of course get a message explaining that there's a pause. If a problem does appear from doing the queue this way, we can address it then, yeah? Mods can past in the time of submission, which is similar to what's at the bottom of this comment of mine. It was going to be a MeTa but seemed appropriate for to a comment in that particular Meta.
If not, and we're going to proceed with testing, then I believe we'd need to get frimble to turn the queue off (there's no on/off switch that I'm aware of). Once it's off, I'd suggest keeping it off for 52 days, which is how long it's been since the 2024/12/24 . If it gets turned off in N days, then keep it off however many days it's been since that December change.
Finally, if testing, then we should establish what we're testing for so we can compare and contrast data/results.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:43 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Yes, and the queue helped manage that! How? Because I knew when the mod gaps were, so it was no problem to keep an eye on the queue while I went about daily life, could check things, read a post, and send it through. Easy, peasy, takes a minute and I could literally be anywhere in the world to click a button.
If writing a note to explain why a post wasn't sent through that would take maybe five/10 minutes top.
All that goes away by turning off the queue, so it's difficult to see what the the upside is for the site to do so.
Yes, people have had concerns about conversations being stifled by use of the queue, but that hasn't been happening since the December 12/2024 change, so it doesn't seem like an issue.
Some have pointed that contentious fights still happen in MeTa and they're right. A queue isn't going to completely fix that and no one is claiming it would. But I have noticed when there are long contentious threads, there do seem to larger numbers of people closing their accounts or asking to have their account wiped, as mentioned in this comment about account wipes in 2024. Can I definitively prove that the queue helps with this? No, but it is the feeling I get as a mod, having to pay more intention to this stuff. Bottom line arguments will always happen to some extent, but starting off a MeTa post with a fight or attack needlessly escalates situations that a thread rarely recovers from, not without some grudges birthed (or nursed) and people leaving.
So can we please leave the queue as it is currently, where the only posts that are paused are potentially fighty ones? The writers of those posts will of course get a message explaining that there's a pause. If a problem does appear from doing the queue this way, we can address it then, yeah? Mods can past in the time of submission, which is similar to what's at the bottom of this comment of mine. It was going to be a MeTa but seemed appropriate for to a comment in that particular Meta.
If not, and we're going to proceed with testing, then I believe we'd need to get frimble to turn the queue off (there's no on/off switch that I'm aware of). Once it's off, I'd suggest keeping it off for 52 days, which is how long it's been since the 2024/12/24 . If it gets turned off in N days, then keep it off however many days it's been since that December change.
Finally, if testing, then we should establish what we're testing for so we can compare and contrast data/results.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:43 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I think given that the community org does have a pot of money, and voting for the board gives legal access to that money, a platform that includes some checks and balances is a good thing.
There are some important considerations here:
1. Legally Board members need to reveal their real names and addresses and do a bunch of financial disclosures.
2. While there’s no requirement that Board members be US residents, there are good reasons to insist that at least some of them are.
3. Building a good Board is generally a founder’s job, and there are a mix of skills needed, from fundraising to legal expertise to understanding the underlying industry. Is there any chance that we can reserve some spots for these kinds of tasks? I’d love to be sure the Board is well-stocked with budget and legal advice, for instance. Having a couple of boring spots selected in advance by the current Board and five or seven member-elected Board members seems plausible: is that allowed by the by-laws?
Where are the by-laws, by the way? I’m assuming you adopted some standard template ones to start, but maybe not given how thoughtful y’all tend to be?
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:03 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
There are some important considerations here:
1. Legally Board members need to reveal their real names and addresses and do a bunch of financial disclosures.
2. While there’s no requirement that Board members be US residents, there are good reasons to insist that at least some of them are.
3. Building a good Board is generally a founder’s job, and there are a mix of skills needed, from fundraising to legal expertise to understanding the underlying industry. Is there any chance that we can reserve some spots for these kinds of tasks? I’d love to be sure the Board is well-stocked with budget and legal advice, for instance. Having a couple of boring spots selected in advance by the current Board and five or seven member-elected Board members seems plausible: is that allowed by the by-laws?
Where are the by-laws, by the way? I’m assuming you adopted some standard template ones to start, but maybe not given how thoughtful y’all tend to be?
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:03 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
So can we please leave the queue as it is currently, where the only posts that are paused are potentially fighty ones?
No thank you. Please turn it off.
posted by phunniemee at 5:15 AM on February 14 [18 favorites]
No thank you. Please turn it off.
posted by phunniemee at 5:15 AM on February 14 [18 favorites]
mods have made promises regarding how the queue will be used before. people feel that those promises were broken. how does saying "we really promise not to use it poorly" do anything to prevent mods forgetting to fulfil or outright ignoring those promises?
this constant refrain of "it's been OK for 52 days' does little to allay the lack of trust some people here have in mod promises.
posted by sagc at 5:37 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]
this constant refrain of "it's been OK for 52 days' does little to allay the lack of trust some people here have in mod promises.
posted by sagc at 5:37 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]
also, a good mod has other tools in their toolbox for managing contentious discussions than "don't even permit the discussion to be posted", or "force mod-suggested edits on the poster".
it's downright disingenuous to suggest that the only reasons people button in contentious threads are due to the length, or because the conversation is being allowed to take place. Perhaps own up to the the fact that mods have, through their interactions in Metatalk, been directly responsible for several buttonings this week?
It just doesn't really make me trust a vibes-based argument that the queue is good, which is at least in part what you're making. I do not trust you to have an accurate gauge on these things, frankly, given the various things you've misunderstood in the most self- and mod-flattering ways in the past.
posted by sagc at 5:44 AM on February 14 [8 favorites]
it's downright disingenuous to suggest that the only reasons people button in contentious threads are due to the length, or because the conversation is being allowed to take place. Perhaps own up to the the fact that mods have, through their interactions in Metatalk, been directly responsible for several buttonings this week?
It just doesn't really make me trust a vibes-based argument that the queue is good, which is at least in part what you're making. I do not trust you to have an accurate gauge on these things, frankly, given the various things you've misunderstood in the most self- and mod-flattering ways in the past.
posted by sagc at 5:44 AM on February 14 [8 favorites]
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life". I've always been confused about this - are people trying to moderate the site part-time while actively doing other jobs? Shouldn't mods have a clear delineation between "on the clock" and off?
posted by sagc at 5:46 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:46 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
but that hasn't been happening since the December 12/2024 change, so it doesn't seem like an issue.
Was this change AFTER nouvelle-personne's Metatalk post about racism wasn't allowed right away and that whole thing? Date wise, Dec 24th is after. Because it was the mod's perception that their post was too "fighty" to go up right away, with this change would their same post about their unfairly deleted comments in Ask go up immediately? This is one of the only things regarding the queue I care about.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:51 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Was this change AFTER nouvelle-personne's Metatalk post about racism wasn't allowed right away and that whole thing? Date wise, Dec 24th is after. Because it was the mod's perception that their post was too "fighty" to go up right away, with this change would their same post about their unfairly deleted comments in Ask go up immediately? This is one of the only things regarding the queue I care about.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:51 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
them doors aint gonna dash themselves
posted by glonous keming at 5:52 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 5:52 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
I mean, you just said, So can we please leave the queue as it is currently, where the only posts that are paused are potentially fighty ones?
And Nouvelle-personne's post to Metatalk was described, at the time, by you, as fighty. So I guess you wouldn't let it though the queue? So no, I don't want the queue to continue to exist.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:57 AM on February 14 [15 favorites]
And Nouvelle-personne's post to Metatalk was described, at the time, by you, as fighty. So I guess you wouldn't let it though the queue? So no, I don't want the queue to continue to exist.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:57 AM on February 14 [15 favorites]
or is it that brandon is the only one who can send a queued post through, and has to review them during other mods' shifts, when he knows there isn't a gap?
posted by sagc at 5:57 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:57 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
If the queue is going to continue to exist, I vote that one of the MOC be given control of it, and they get to decide what's "fighty" or not.
posted by fight or flight at 6:31 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by fight or flight at 6:31 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Or “flighty” I presume.
posted by snofoam at 6:35 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 6:35 AM on February 14 [4 favorites]
them doors aint gonna dash themselves
If you said that to another user, I’d flag it as offensive and it would be deleted. But the mods don’t get that luxury, looks like.
People have been weird about the budget but can we just acknowledge that $140k split five ways is $28k year—with no health insurance or other benefits, and with no payroll deductions either leaving a very small amount of money for what has become a very challenging job?
If they were working 40 hours a week they’d be getting paid about $12/hour after they cover the employer’s side of payroll taxes. And part of the deal is that sometimes a shift is quiet, so yeah you can go run an errand during it and keep tabs on your phone. Most remote workers get that kind of flexibility!
Maybe it’s more per hour since no one is able to be paid full time, but I don’t feel like anybody making $28k as a contractor should be required to work after their shift is over AT ALL and generally the lefties in this site celebrate true shirking under such conditions: if the mods posted about their situation anonymously to AskMe they’d be getting nothing but love, support, and recommendations to quit.
Y’all are gonna be terrible bosses, I fear.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:36 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
If you said that to another user, I’d flag it as offensive and it would be deleted. But the mods don’t get that luxury, looks like.
People have been weird about the budget but can we just acknowledge that $140k split five ways is $28k year—with no health insurance or other benefits, and with no payroll deductions either leaving a very small amount of money for what has become a very challenging job?
If they were working 40 hours a week they’d be getting paid about $12/hour after they cover the employer’s side of payroll taxes. And part of the deal is that sometimes a shift is quiet, so yeah you can go run an errand during it and keep tabs on your phone. Most remote workers get that kind of flexibility!
Maybe it’s more per hour since no one is able to be paid full time, but I don’t feel like anybody making $28k as a contractor should be required to work after their shift is over AT ALL and generally the lefties in this site celebrate true shirking under such conditions: if the mods posted about their situation anonymously to AskMe they’d be getting nothing but love, support, and recommendations to quit.
Y’all are gonna be terrible bosses, I fear.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:36 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
what has become a very challenging job
Has it?
posted by bowbeacon at 6:38 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Has it?
posted by bowbeacon at 6:38 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I mean, it’s about on par with being in customer service for Verizon or some other company with a lot of angry customers, right?
They have to deal with all this abuse and challenge and second-guessing. Their last three bosses quit. The future is extremely uncertain, the past has included layoffs, and revenues are not stable and trending badly. People call for them to be fired somewhat regularly. It’s apparently difficult to maintain work-life balance.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:53 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
They have to deal with all this abuse and challenge and second-guessing. Their last three bosses quit. The future is extremely uncertain, the past has included layoffs, and revenues are not stable and trending badly. People call for them to be fired somewhat regularly. It’s apparently difficult to maintain work-life balance.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:53 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
I feel like that's a very poor analogy, given the level of decision-making power over our experience the mods have. They're not just representing corporate policy, they're interpreting it to pretty intensive degrees (which is often necessary, given the form the rules take) and sometimes inventing and declaring it.
posted by sagc at 6:57 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 6:57 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
3. I think Mar 1 is a solid and achievable date, possibly earlier, although it will help if my institution stops having comms issues.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:02 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:02 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
I mean, it’s about on par with being in customer service for Verizon or some other company with a lot of angry customers, right?
I wouldn't think so, no.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:04 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
I wouldn't think so, no.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:04 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
Like, Verizon is a multi billion dollar corporation that charges its customers in the low hundreds of dollars a month to provide a utility so important to life in America that we have had federal laws about access to phone service for decades. Verizon's failures are potentially life-threatening to their customers, and customer service agents have zero power to rectify any of those failures.
Meanwhile, people are posting somewhat heated messages to Brandon because he has single-handedly decided not to implement a change that users are clamoring for on a small internet discussion board. He could fix that with a single button press, and if he fails to, nobody's life is really particularly meaningfully affected. Nobody loses a job offer or a Valentine's call from their wife overseas or anything else.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:09 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Meanwhile, people are posting somewhat heated messages to Brandon because he has single-handedly decided not to implement a change that users are clamoring for on a small internet discussion board. He could fix that with a single button press, and if he fails to, nobody's life is really particularly meaningfully affected. Nobody loses a job offer or a Valentine's call from their wife overseas or anything else.
posted by bowbeacon at 7:09 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Brandon, that was a good and fair comment explaining why you would like to have the queue. I'd still like to end the queue.
The queue being quick depends on you having goodwill and the energy to watch and quickly approve. If you ever lose it, or someone else with a different attitude starts working, or mod policy changes, posts are going to get stuck again. It isn't sustainable for the queue to be minimized by mods closely watching their notifications.
There are good posts that help build the community that people are not bothering to submit because of the existence of the queue. You cannot approve posts quickly enough to negate the chilling effect of not knowing if the staff will be responsive that day. Even a few minutes delay is off-putting enough to stop something fun or positive.
I think you would hear from the less frequently posting members in here if the queue disappeared, and more variety of posts again, after the queue is turned off and MeTa heals a bit.
Again, appreciate your comments and the attention you're paying to the queue.
posted by michaelh at 7:20 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
The queue being quick depends on you having goodwill and the energy to watch and quickly approve. If you ever lose it, or someone else with a different attitude starts working, or mod policy changes, posts are going to get stuck again. It isn't sustainable for the queue to be minimized by mods closely watching their notifications.
There are good posts that help build the community that people are not bothering to submit because of the existence of the queue. You cannot approve posts quickly enough to negate the chilling effect of not knowing if the staff will be responsive that day. Even a few minutes delay is off-putting enough to stop something fun or positive.
I think you would hear from the less frequently posting members in here if the queue disappeared, and more variety of posts again, after the queue is turned off and MeTa heals a bit.
Again, appreciate your comments and the attention you're paying to the queue.
posted by michaelh at 7:20 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
> I’d flag it as offensive and it would be deleted.
nothing stopping you, go right ahead. i'll add a flag to it. my intent was a stupid quick joke tying into the very real perception i have that the mods often are half-assing their mod jobs while engaging in their other jobs. they often can't seem to be bothered to even read a fucking thread. i'm sorry i did a classism but at the end of the day if the mods were better at their jobs perhaps people would have less to complain about.
back around the winter holiday times if felt like we might have finally turned a corner and we were gonna be looking at a Brand New Day for MetaFilter. i eased off my criticisms at the time, backed off, and gave them a chance to see where they took it. here we are middle of February it feels like we're back to autumn 2024 operational vibes.
posted by glonous keming at 7:22 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
nothing stopping you, go right ahead. i'll add a flag to it. my intent was a stupid quick joke tying into the very real perception i have that the mods often are half-assing their mod jobs while engaging in their other jobs. they often can't seem to be bothered to even read a fucking thread. i'm sorry i did a classism but at the end of the day if the mods were better at their jobs perhaps people would have less to complain about.
back around the winter holiday times if felt like we might have finally turned a corner and we were gonna be looking at a Brand New Day for MetaFilter. i eased off my criticisms at the time, backed off, and gave them a chance to see where they took it. here we are middle of February it feels like we're back to autumn 2024 operational vibes.
posted by glonous keming at 7:22 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Not for nothing, but if your apology includes "sorry, but..." then you're not really apologizing.
Like, if you want me to believe that you care about not being classist, then explaining why it's o.k. THIS time isn't going to do that. It just tells me that you're o.k. being classist if you don't like the person. And guess what, being biased against a particular group of people means that you will ALWAYS find something not to like about them. So...
At the end of the day if a person is bad at their job, then they're bad at their job. Lots of folks working a single job don't give it their full attention. Lots of folks work 2-3 jobs do a great job at all of them. If you're arguing that Brandon doesn't seem to be giving his full attention, you can do that without shitting on people that have to work shitty gig economy jobs.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:15 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Like, if you want me to believe that you care about not being classist, then explaining why it's o.k. THIS time isn't going to do that. It just tells me that you're o.k. being classist if you don't like the person. And guess what, being biased against a particular group of people means that you will ALWAYS find something not to like about them. So...
At the end of the day if a person is bad at their job, then they're bad at their job. Lots of folks working a single job don't give it their full attention. Lots of folks work 2-3 jobs do a great job at all of them. If you're arguing that Brandon doesn't seem to be giving his full attention, you can do that without shitting on people that have to work shitty gig economy jobs.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:15 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
no
posted by glonous keming at 8:18 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 8:18 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
All that said, the mods did break the social contract that made me o.k. with the queue existing. I'm generally pretty firmly in the camp of that the general failure in mod culture in Metafilter is the result of a lack of leadership, and until there IS that leadership back in place, there's no way for the mods to earn enough of the necessary trust for the queue to work.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:21 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:21 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
Maybe I'm missing something about how the moderators work so please correct me if that's the case, but I don't understand how the queue helps mods manage contentious posts. Even if a mod decides when the post goes up, there could always be problems later on when that mod wasn't available to respond right away, even if the post started off totally innocuous, right? And if no mods were actively watching a post because they were busy with something else during their shift, wouldn't they know if the comments started getting offensive or breaking rules because people would flag them?
I also don't think posts should be blocked because they're contentious or potentially contentious. If people are arguing or getting heated, I don't think that's something mods necessarily need to do anything about as long as everyone is following the guidelines. And it bothers me to tell people they can't start a conversation about something important to them solely because other people might not like it. People can just skip posts they find annoying if they don't want to fight about it. (This would be even easier with a block or hide function, so I hope that's coming soon.)
posted by birthday cake at 8:28 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
I also don't think posts should be blocked because they're contentious or potentially contentious. If people are arguing or getting heated, I don't think that's something mods necessarily need to do anything about as long as everyone is following the guidelines. And it bothers me to tell people they can't start a conversation about something important to them solely because other people might not like it. People can just skip posts they find annoying if they don't want to fight about it. (This would be even easier with a block or hide function, so I hope that's coming soon.)
posted by birthday cake at 8:28 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
them doors aint gonna dash themselves
come on man
posted by ginger.beef at 9:18 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]
come on man
posted by ginger.beef at 9:18 AM on February 14 [10 favorites]
it's downright disingenuous to suggest that the only reasons people button in contentious threads are due to the length,
it's downright disingenuous to suggest that Brandon made this claim -- emphasis on the ONLY.
Even if a mod decides when the post goes up, there could always be problems later on when that mod wasn't available to respond right away, even if the post started off totally innocuous, right?
true but the point Brandon made is that, in his experience (and he has it), many of the worst derails start early, first first few comments.
posted by philip-random at 9:31 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
it's downright disingenuous to suggest that Brandon made this claim -- emphasis on the ONLY.
Even if a mod decides when the post goes up, there could always be problems later on when that mod wasn't available to respond right away, even if the post started off totally innocuous, right?
true but the point Brandon made is that, in his experience (and he has it), many of the worst derails start early, first first few comments.
posted by philip-random at 9:31 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
fine "primarily related to", christ
posted by sagc at 9:33 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 9:33 AM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Perhaps own up to the the fact that mods have, through their interactions in Metatalk, been directly responsible for several buttonings this week?
Oh shit, who buttoned this week?
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:06 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Oh shit, who buttoned this week?
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:06 AM on February 14 [1 favorite]
When will the new website be available?
The site will be open for board and moderator testing by next Monday. I plan to have the site open for member testing by the end of February.
The site is not feature-complete. The focus has been on the core features for members: adding a post, commenting on a post, flagging, favorites, & etc. While the board and moderators test, I'll be working on additional member-specific features and the admin control panel.
I’ve got to imagine there are simpler ways to manage this voting issue using the existing site’s architecture, depending on how private and anonymous and auditable you need the voting to be.
As Rhaomi mentioned, I'm confident we can do this with the new site's code.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 10:12 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
The site will be open for board and moderator testing by next Monday. I plan to have the site open for member testing by the end of February.
The site is not feature-complete. The focus has been on the core features for members: adding a post, commenting on a post, flagging, favorites, & etc. While the board and moderators test, I'll be working on additional member-specific features and the admin control panel.
I’ve got to imagine there are simpler ways to manage this voting issue using the existing site’s architecture, depending on how private and anonymous and auditable you need the voting to be.
As Rhaomi mentioned, I'm confident we can do this with the new site's code.
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 10:12 AM on February 14 [5 favorites]
It’s possible that the queue makes Brandon’s life marginally easier (although even he seems to be saying that only based on vibes anyhow), but that’s beside the point because the site exists for the users and not the mods.
There are lots of things that might make things easier for the mods, like not having any discussion at all to moderate. That doesn’t mean that’s best for the site. Or even desirable for the site.
posted by night traveler at 10:46 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
There are lots of things that might make things easier for the mods, like not having any discussion at all to moderate. That doesn’t mean that’s best for the site. Or even desirable for the site.
posted by night traveler at 10:46 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
open up a brand new channel
phunnieMeeTalk
DOUBLE DARE
posted by ginger.beef at 10:57 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
phunnieMeeTalk
DOUBLE DARE
posted by ginger.beef at 10:57 AM on February 14 [2 favorites]
As folks have noted, questions about the site's unusually high costs have nothing to do with anyone "living the high life", but ok, I should have said the site costs a quarter million dollars a year to run, which it does, instead of the site "pays mods a quarter of a million dollars a year."
When last discussed in December, the grand total for moderation coverage was just under $160k yearly
So that's for mods only? And the budget for kirkaracha and frimble if they max out their allowed hours comes in at another $70K since you say it brings us up to $230K? All right.
I'm assuming the P&L statements' line item "Contractors/Consulting" includes both mods and developers, so can we look at those for last year? The year-to-date P&L loup posted on July 17 lists Contractor/Consulting costs of $112,085 (the P&L for July listed $26,394 for the month, so I assume at least some of that was for the 14 days from July 18-31 and should be added to the $112,000 but we'll let that go).
The August P&L lists $20,052 for contractor costs.
Sept: $16,832
Oct: $23,413
Nov: $18,817
Dec: $8,950, but loup said costs weren't actually half the usual monthly amount but were lower because they moved payment dates around:
>Does that reflect a reduction in spending or just something that crossed over into the new year?
The latter. December payroll came from the Foundation's bank in the beginning of January (we timed the transfer of funds, expenses, payments so that the LLC wouldn't have any transactions in 2025)
We'll have to wait for the January P&L to know for sure, but it'll probably be at least $16K so let's use that for December.
That comes to $207,199 for the year, which I assume means kirkaracha and frimble didn't max out their allowable hours last year. Add the ~$40,000 total for web hosting from the same P&Ls, and you're at a quarter mil for the site to run, which, again, is what I should have said. I apologize for the mistake.
posted by catspajamas at 11:10 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
When last discussed in December, the grand total for moderation coverage was just under $160k yearly
So that's for mods only? And the budget for kirkaracha and frimble if they max out their allowed hours comes in at another $70K since you say it brings us up to $230K? All right.
I'm assuming the P&L statements' line item "Contractors/Consulting" includes both mods and developers, so can we look at those for last year? The year-to-date P&L loup posted on July 17 lists Contractor/Consulting costs of $112,085 (the P&L for July listed $26,394 for the month, so I assume at least some of that was for the 14 days from July 18-31 and should be added to the $112,000 but we'll let that go).
The August P&L lists $20,052 for contractor costs.
Sept: $16,832
Oct: $23,413
Nov: $18,817
Dec: $8,950, but loup said costs weren't actually half the usual monthly amount but were lower because they moved payment dates around:
>Does that reflect a reduction in spending or just something that crossed over into the new year?
The latter. December payroll came from the Foundation's bank in the beginning of January (we timed the transfer of funds, expenses, payments so that the LLC wouldn't have any transactions in 2025)
We'll have to wait for the January P&L to know for sure, but it'll probably be at least $16K so let's use that for December.
That comes to $207,199 for the year, which I assume means kirkaracha and frimble didn't max out their allowable hours last year. Add the ~$40,000 total for web hosting from the same P&Ls, and you're at a quarter mil for the site to run, which, again, is what I should have said. I apologize for the mistake.
posted by catspajamas at 11:10 AM on February 14 [6 favorites]
I hope the COVID isn't too awful, Rhaomi, and that it passes soon.
We actually were just looking at the AWS spend a few days ago (with help from Frayed Knot), and there are *significant* further savings to be found there which shouldn't impact the site negatively.
That's great; it'll be neat to see how much lower than $40K next year's web hosting bill will be. But that good news is just a first step to a budget that will allow the site to hire an Executive Director. Once volunteers take over much of the site's functioning, does the Board still envision paying $160,000 a year for 5 mods?
Loup has been handling most of the backend work since taking over from cortex ~3 years ago, in addition to moderation. So apart from taxes (which Jessamyn did), stuff like payroll, bill-pay, financial records, development oversight, internal/external communication, etc. The site doesn't run itself, and they've been the one responsible for keeping it running day-to-day, though a lot of that has been invisible behind-the-scenes stuff.
Yeah, it's the invisibleness that's a problem, given loup's history of failing to deliver on the highly visible promises they made. Are they still working with an "accountability partner"? Will that person give a report to the Board about what they're seeing in terms of improved accountability?
posted by catspajamas at 11:20 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
We actually were just looking at the AWS spend a few days ago (with help from Frayed Knot), and there are *significant* further savings to be found there which shouldn't impact the site negatively.
That's great; it'll be neat to see how much lower than $40K next year's web hosting bill will be. But that good news is just a first step to a budget that will allow the site to hire an Executive Director. Once volunteers take over much of the site's functioning, does the Board still envision paying $160,000 a year for 5 mods?
Loup has been handling most of the backend work since taking over from cortex ~3 years ago, in addition to moderation. So apart from taxes (which Jessamyn did), stuff like payroll, bill-pay, financial records, development oversight, internal/external communication, etc. The site doesn't run itself, and they've been the one responsible for keeping it running day-to-day, though a lot of that has been invisible behind-the-scenes stuff.
Yeah, it's the invisibleness that's a problem, given loup's history of failing to deliver on the highly visible promises they made. Are they still working with an "accountability partner"? Will that person give a report to the Board about what they're seeing in terms of improved accountability?
posted by catspajamas at 11:20 AM on February 14 [9 favorites]
To be fair, there have also been comments indicating that the site in general costs orders of magnitude more to run than comparable or larger sites, even offering cost per comment comparisons, but it's not clear that these other sites are offering their members numerous extravagant galas, elegant pet-tax walls and fully-completed cookbooks.
posted by snofoam at 11:51 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 11:51 AM on February 14 [7 favorites]
All that goes away by turning off the queue, so it's difficult to see what the the upside is for the site to do so.
Not for nothing, but like HOW is this your takeaway from reading a lengthy comment section with near unanimous support from dozens of users, all painstakingly explaining what the "upside is for the site" of getting rid of the queue.
posted by likeatoaster at 4:51 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
Not for nothing, but like HOW is this your takeaway from reading a lengthy comment section with near unanimous support from dozens of users, all painstakingly explaining what the "upside is for the site" of getting rid of the queue.
posted by likeatoaster at 4:51 PM on February 14 [16 favorites]
Man, it kills me that we lost pretty much all the staff to burnout at once and so have lost so much institutional knowledge and continuity. I don't have the spoons or the desire to be that anymore but I'm sick with the flu and have been reading too much MeTa for my own good again so I'mma go on a little rant.
As many people have mentioned, the queue was originally a holidays-and-staffing-emergencies tool to basically give the 24/7/365 moderation a bit of a break when we were trying to eat Thanksgiving dinner. When the first staffing cuts hit, we made it permanent because for a while there, we had three daytime mods working full-time plus a rotating 16-hour shift to keep the coverage up and we desperately needed to be able to manage the timing of workload spikes. Staffing only ever got a little bit better and then the 2016 election season hit and it was just Too Much All the Time.
The thing is, this was an attempt to preserve the original function of MeTa, which was as a way for sidebar conversations about how a thread was going to not disrupt the original thread. Sometimes this involved moderation discussions, but a lot of the time - as phunniemee points out - this was purely so the community could talk amongst itself. One of the unexpected side effects of the queue was to shift the focus much, much more towards communication with the mods - it was a chicken-and-egg thing, I think. We were trying to manage how much we were needed, so the perception became that MeTa was for needing the mods, which meant that more and more MeTas were written to communicate with the mods.
And so MeTa became the #1 driver of burnout in the mods! Which was massively counterproductive! When I came back for my brief post-retirement stint as admin, I tried hard to shift the focus back towards the community talking amongst itself and not as a way to have conversations with the team, but that was a really artificial structure imposed on top of what MeTa had become, and no one after me was willing to continue it. Now that there is (or will be) a management structure that is separate from the mod team, I really think they need to think through how they want to manage feature requests, complaints, and intra-community discussions and significantly reset the expectations around what MetaTalk is for. That's probably not going to happen for quite a while, though, because it's going to need a) the permanent board and b) an ED who can be the person who drives the process.
In the meantime - because we're still probably talking months to years before Mefi's management structure is solid again - I think the current mod staff should really think hard about what everyone is getting out of the current process and whether it might make more sense to move to a zero-queue-but-the-guaranteed-way-to-reach-the-mods-is-the-Contact-Form system. That'd be what I'd do, but it's not my call anymore.
Thank. God.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:41 AM on February 15 [30 favorites]
As many people have mentioned, the queue was originally a holidays-and-staffing-emergencies tool to basically give the 24/7/365 moderation a bit of a break when we were trying to eat Thanksgiving dinner. When the first staffing cuts hit, we made it permanent because for a while there, we had three daytime mods working full-time plus a rotating 16-hour shift to keep the coverage up and we desperately needed to be able to manage the timing of workload spikes. Staffing only ever got a little bit better and then the 2016 election season hit and it was just Too Much All the Time.
The thing is, this was an attempt to preserve the original function of MeTa, which was as a way for sidebar conversations about how a thread was going to not disrupt the original thread. Sometimes this involved moderation discussions, but a lot of the time - as phunniemee points out - this was purely so the community could talk amongst itself. One of the unexpected side effects of the queue was to shift the focus much, much more towards communication with the mods - it was a chicken-and-egg thing, I think. We were trying to manage how much we were needed, so the perception became that MeTa was for needing the mods, which meant that more and more MeTas were written to communicate with the mods.
And so MeTa became the #1 driver of burnout in the mods! Which was massively counterproductive! When I came back for my brief post-retirement stint as admin, I tried hard to shift the focus back towards the community talking amongst itself and not as a way to have conversations with the team, but that was a really artificial structure imposed on top of what MeTa had become, and no one after me was willing to continue it. Now that there is (or will be) a management structure that is separate from the mod team, I really think they need to think through how they want to manage feature requests, complaints, and intra-community discussions and significantly reset the expectations around what MetaTalk is for. That's probably not going to happen for quite a while, though, because it's going to need a) the permanent board and b) an ED who can be the person who drives the process.
In the meantime - because we're still probably talking months to years before Mefi's management structure is solid again - I think the current mod staff should really think hard about what everyone is getting out of the current process and whether it might make more sense to move to a zero-queue-but-the-guaranteed-way-to-reach-the-mods-is-the-Contact-Form system. That'd be what I'd do, but it's not my call anymore.
Thank. God.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 6:41 AM on February 15 [30 favorites]
Feel better r_n! Glad to see you.
zero-queue-but-the-guaranteed-way-to-reach-the-mods-is-the-Contact-Form
Obviously this means a lot coming from you, a former mod. You know how things would likely go! I think what makes this stand out is the way you bite the bullet in moderators not being involved. There really are two interrelated questions: a) should MeTa be moderated like other parts of the site, with trolling and personal attacks deleted and lots of monitoring to keep things from getting out of hand and b) should there be a queue? I tend to think those are tightly linked questions.
I do think that “mods get rid of the queue but then pretty much never actually read the comments, just field flags with a light hand” is a semi-plausible model, but that was also how MetaTalk originally became Thunderdome. That was sometimes entertaining but there are other places you can find that online and in my opinion it’s a bad direction for the site as a whole to go. The move to stricter moderation here on this subsite was (again imo) a very good thing.
But overall site moderation seems to be a lot less firm than it once was, things stand in lots of threads that I’d normally have expected to be deleted. Maybe MeTa just is the once and future Thunderdome and the interregnum is ending.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:38 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
zero-queue-but-the-guaranteed-way-to-reach-the-mods-is-the-Contact-Form
Obviously this means a lot coming from you, a former mod. You know how things would likely go! I think what makes this stand out is the way you bite the bullet in moderators not being involved. There really are two interrelated questions: a) should MeTa be moderated like other parts of the site, with trolling and personal attacks deleted and lots of monitoring to keep things from getting out of hand and b) should there be a queue? I tend to think those are tightly linked questions.
I do think that “mods get rid of the queue but then pretty much never actually read the comments, just field flags with a light hand” is a semi-plausible model, but that was also how MetaTalk originally became Thunderdome. That was sometimes entertaining but there are other places you can find that online and in my opinion it’s a bad direction for the site as a whole to go. The move to stricter moderation here on this subsite was (again imo) a very good thing.
But overall site moderation seems to be a lot less firm than it once was, things stand in lots of threads that I’d normally have expected to be deleted. Maybe MeTa just is the once and future Thunderdome and the interregnum is ending.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:38 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
I tend to think those are tightly linked questions
I think you're right! I actually think MeTa needs to be significantly rethought because it's fundamentally unscalable in a way that has caused a ton of problems over the years, but that's a down-the-road question - right now it's almost impossible to moderate anyway because the "we're talking to the mods" and "we're yelling at each other" issues are so fundamentally intertwined.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:47 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I think you're right! I actually think MeTa needs to be significantly rethought because it's fundamentally unscalable in a way that has caused a ton of problems over the years, but that's a down-the-road question - right now it's almost impossible to moderate anyway because the "we're talking to the mods" and "we're yelling at each other" issues are so fundamentally intertwined.
posted by restless_nomad (retired) at 8:47 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
Perhaps own up to the the fact that mods have, through their interactions in Metatalk, been directly responsible for several buttonings this week?
It would be helpful if folks making claims would cite proof of what they're claiming.
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life".
The better question, IMO, is "how much checking of the queue are mods doing when they know no one else is working, but they work a little bit aiming to keep MeTa running smoothly during those gaps?"
And Nouvelle-personne's post to Metatalk was described, at the time, by you, as fighty. So I guess you wouldn't let it though the queue?
I would have reached out to them (and did), requesting a rewrite so that their concerns are brought up while not being an attack on a particular user or a group at large.
Past experience with MeTa posts that start off attacking others, even if right, does not end up going well and often leads to account closures, particularly the longer they go on.
I get that a lot of people reading this probably just thought "OH HELL NO, THE QUEUE MUST GO" and yeah we disagree. Being angry and expressing that anger isn't a problem. Being combative can be and that's what I aim to do with using the queue.
Otherwise, if people to discuss the nouvelle-personne situation, I'd recommend starting a new MeTa. It's being talked about in another Meta currently, it keeps coming up in various other MeTas, so it would be productive to have a thread devoted to that.
If they were working 40 hours a week they’d be getting paid about $12/hour after they cover the employer’s side of payroll taxes. And part of the deal is that sometimes a shift is quiet, so yeah you can go run an errand during it and keep tabs on your phone. Most remote workers get that kind of flexibility!
To clear, we're all part-time with various hours and we're all making $30 US dollars an hour as contractors.
like HOW is this your takeaway from reading a lengthy comment section with near unanimous support from dozens of users, all painstakingly explaining what the "upside is for the site" of getting rid of the queue.
It boils down to differences in perception along with past situations and issues still being on the forefront of members who are commenting in MeTa. There's still a lot of anger and mistrust about things and that's understandable.
But it's difficult to see to how turning off this feature, which has been working well for almost two months, will change or fix that. We're happy to track and report stats about MeTa queue posts, which could a long way to re-establishing trust.
If not, what will re establish trust?
Finally if the queue is turned off, does MeTa becomes more moderated, perhaps similar to the main site? What happens when there's a combative MeTa in a queueless world that attacks others, do the mods delete or let it stay aka is there any reason to delete a MeTa if there is no queue?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:02 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
It would be helpful if folks making claims would cite proof of what they're claiming.
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life".
The better question, IMO, is "how much checking of the queue are mods doing when they know no one else is working, but they work a little bit aiming to keep MeTa running smoothly during those gaps?"
And Nouvelle-personne's post to Metatalk was described, at the time, by you, as fighty. So I guess you wouldn't let it though the queue?
I would have reached out to them (and did), requesting a rewrite so that their concerns are brought up while not being an attack on a particular user or a group at large.
Past experience with MeTa posts that start off attacking others, even if right, does not end up going well and often leads to account closures, particularly the longer they go on.
I get that a lot of people reading this probably just thought "OH HELL NO, THE QUEUE MUST GO" and yeah we disagree. Being angry and expressing that anger isn't a problem. Being combative can be and that's what I aim to do with using the queue.
Otherwise, if people to discuss the nouvelle-personne situation, I'd recommend starting a new MeTa. It's being talked about in another Meta currently, it keeps coming up in various other MeTas, so it would be productive to have a thread devoted to that.
If they were working 40 hours a week they’d be getting paid about $12/hour after they cover the employer’s side of payroll taxes. And part of the deal is that sometimes a shift is quiet, so yeah you can go run an errand during it and keep tabs on your phone. Most remote workers get that kind of flexibility!
To clear, we're all part-time with various hours and we're all making $30 US dollars an hour as contractors.
like HOW is this your takeaway from reading a lengthy comment section with near unanimous support from dozens of users, all painstakingly explaining what the "upside is for the site" of getting rid of the queue.
It boils down to differences in perception along with past situations and issues still being on the forefront of members who are commenting in MeTa. There's still a lot of anger and mistrust about things and that's understandable.
But it's difficult to see to how turning off this feature, which has been working well for almost two months, will change or fix that. We're happy to track and report stats about MeTa queue posts, which could a long way to re-establishing trust.
If not, what will re establish trust?
Finally if the queue is turned off, does MeTa becomes more moderated, perhaps similar to the main site? What happens when there's a combative MeTa in a queueless world that attacks others, do the mods delete or let it stay aka is there any reason to delete a MeTa if there is no queue?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:02 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
how many participants in these past few threads have requested account wipes? pretty sure there was at least one "I'm out" comment that is no longer there.
posted by sagc at 10:52 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
posted by sagc at 10:52 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
Like, either say I'm lying and nobody left or say how many people left.
posted by sagc at 10:53 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
posted by sagc at 10:53 AM on February 15 [4 favorites]
how much checking of the queue are mods doing when they know no one else is working, but they work a little bit aiming to keep MeTa running smoothly during those gaps?
#pleaseanswer both this and my actual question, I guess.
posted by sagc at 10:54 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
#pleaseanswer both this and my actual question, I guess.
posted by sagc at 10:54 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
And Nouvelle-personne's post to Metatalk was described, at the time, by you, as fighty. So I guess you wouldn't let it though the queue?
I would have reached out to them (and did), requesting a rewrite so that their concerns are brought up while not being an attack on a particular user or a group at large.
So I was correct then, you wouldn't have let it through the queue. And didn't. So what has changed since 12/24? The queue is still the queue.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:57 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I would have reached out to them (and did), requesting a rewrite so that their concerns are brought up while not being an attack on a particular user or a group at large.
So I was correct then, you wouldn't have let it through the queue. And didn't. So what has changed since 12/24? The queue is still the queue.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:57 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
And you sure avoided account closures with your even-handed response to N-P, nobody buttoned there, no siree! How is what happened there an argument that you're evaluating these things in a way that's in the best interest of the community? Nobody but you sees it as an example of things working well.
posted by sagc at 10:58 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
posted by sagc at 10:58 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
The MetaTalk queue is coveted as fuck.
posted by snofoam at 10:58 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 10:58 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
What happens when there's a combative MeTa in a queueless world that attacks others,
When a mod eventually does come back on shift they can just Ctrl+F for every instance of the attacked party's name and replace it with "A User"
posted by phunniemee at 11:01 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
When a mod eventually does come back on shift they can just Ctrl+F for every instance of the attacked party's name and replace it with "A User"
posted by phunniemee at 11:01 AM on February 15 [7 favorites]
What happens when there's a combative MeTa in a queueless world that attacks others, do the mods delete or let it stay aka is there any reason to delete a MeTa if there is no queue?
Nouvelle-personne's post should have gone live so the community could discuss it. They buttoned because they were deleted in the Ask and then weren't allowed to discuss it here.
MetaTalk is the part of the site for talking about the site itself. People often use it for discussing policy and etiquette questions with the mods and other users, making feature requests, or asking questions about the site itself.
And yeah, they were "heated." Let that heat dissipate, give things a breather, and let the community react and respond. This fear of future fights or harm in the future and preventative action because of that harms things in the short term.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:01 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Nouvelle-personne's post should have gone live so the community could discuss it. They buttoned because they were deleted in the Ask and then weren't allowed to discuss it here.
MetaTalk is the part of the site for talking about the site itself. People often use it for discussing policy and etiquette questions with the mods and other users, making feature requests, or asking questions about the site itself.
And yeah, they were "heated." Let that heat dissipate, give things a breather, and let the community react and respond. This fear of future fights or harm in the future and preventative action because of that harms things in the short term.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:01 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Nobody but you sees it as an example of things working well.
speak for yourself, please.
I'm on record as being in favour of running a no-queue trial. I'm not remotely convinced that no queue will improve* things.
* improve being a loaded word in this sort of discussion as we're not necessarily aligned as to what that might look like.
posted by philip-random at 11:06 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
speak for yourself, please.
I'm on record as being in favour of running a no-queue trial. I'm not remotely convinced that no queue will improve* things.
* improve being a loaded word in this sort of discussion as we're not necessarily aligned as to what that might look like.
posted by philip-random at 11:06 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I'm not convinced turning off the queue would "make things better," either. But I do think it's ridiculous at this point that one moderator insists it's necessary to keep the queue when the majority of posters in this thread want it to try turning off. Very few users trust in the wisdom of the mods and a large part of that is because no one knows what they do or share or see amongst themselves. The conservative (and even paternalistic) approach to moderation seems out of step with the direction the site is moving in.
posted by CtrlAltD at 11:32 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
posted by CtrlAltD at 11:32 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
indeed.
how long will the hundreds of active users of this allegedly community-governed site tolerate one hybrid contractor/user and his clique of hybrid contractor/users (of varying degrees of one or the other) dictate the way the site is run? only time will tell.
we did not hire them. we had no say whatsoever. here we are today, in the face of a near-unanimous call to try something different. that request is being denied unilaterally.
posted by glonous keming at 11:45 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
how long will the hundreds of active users of this allegedly community-governed site tolerate one hybrid contractor/user and his clique of hybrid contractor/users (of varying degrees of one or the other) dictate the way the site is run? only time will tell.
we did not hire them. we had no say whatsoever. here we are today, in the face of a near-unanimous call to try something different. that request is being denied unilaterally.
posted by glonous keming at 11:45 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher:But it's difficult to see to how turning off this feature, which has been working well for almost two months, will change or fix that
Working well for whom?? The community has been pretty clear in this MeTa that it’s not working for us.
What is the cost of a one month trial? Why are you so adamantly, vehemently against trying something different?
Cos golly, doing the same thing over and over and over has been going SO WELL for metafilter, Lo these past many years.
posted by coriolisdave at 1:27 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
Working well for whom?? The community has been pretty clear in this MeTa that it’s not working for us.
What is the cost of a one month trial? Why are you so adamantly, vehemently against trying something different?
Cos golly, doing the same thing over and over and over has been going SO WELL for metafilter, Lo these past many years.
posted by coriolisdave at 1:27 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
this feature, which has been working well for almost two months
This implicitly acknowledges that it was not working well before that, right? And the change two months ago was… a shift in moderation guidelines toward a lower bar for approval and pushing things through faster? This take comes off as “trust us, we fixed it” but the fix is just mods subjectively doing things differently, not fundamentally changing the system, so from a user perspective it’s not so obvious what the meaningful difference is.
Finally if the queue is turned off, does MeTa becomes more moderated, perhaps similar to the main site?
If the queue is turned off, mods might have to occasionally close (or in severe cases delete) a post that they otherwise would have blocked. From a user perspective that’s not really more moderated, though, because posts that don’t make it through the queue are effectively pre-deleted anyway. Or do you mean that threads would have to be more actively moderated with the expectation that they would be more contentious? Because I don’t think we know that for sure. Hence discussion of trying things out.
posted by atoxyl at 1:29 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
This implicitly acknowledges that it was not working well before that, right? And the change two months ago was… a shift in moderation guidelines toward a lower bar for approval and pushing things through faster? This take comes off as “trust us, we fixed it” but the fix is just mods subjectively doing things differently, not fundamentally changing the system, so from a user perspective it’s not so obvious what the meaningful difference is.
Finally if the queue is turned off, does MeTa becomes more moderated, perhaps similar to the main site?
If the queue is turned off, mods might have to occasionally close (or in severe cases delete) a post that they otherwise would have blocked. From a user perspective that’s not really more moderated, though, because posts that don’t make it through the queue are effectively pre-deleted anyway. Or do you mean that threads would have to be more actively moderated with the expectation that they would be more contentious? Because I don’t think we know that for sure. Hence discussion of trying things out.
posted by atoxyl at 1:29 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
My personal instinct here is that a short wait for a post to go up probably isn’t that big a deal overall, as long as it feels transparent and consistent, but that the perception that posts may never go up is a problem. I’m taking your message here, Brandon, to be that mods are striving to improve that perception by applying a lighter touch, and I do think that’s visible. But on the other hand as I said it’s very much “take our word for it” when trust is not exactly at an all time high, and frankly we’ve seen a fair amount of seat-of-the pants decision-making in MeTa recently so the impression of consistency could be better, too.
posted by atoxyl at 1:41 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:41 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Apologies for the length...
This discussion reminds me of two (offline) situations I've experienced where I was really hurt by communication barriers. The people involved didn't have bad intentions, and there was only a minor power imbalance. I think there are some parallels with the Metatalk queue and also, more generally, with posting on Metafilter when you're concerned about your posts/comments getting deleted.
As far as I can tell, it varies from person to person whether people find these kind of situations acceptable or frustrating. It's frustrating to me, but the other people involved don't seem to see it as a big deal. I hope that sharing this will shed some light on why some people get upset about this kind of thing.
In the first situation, I was attending an in-person class while social distancing was required. It was a topic where you could benefit quite as much from hearing from other students as from hearing from the teacher. We got along quite well, but didn't have that much chance to chat with each other due to the awkward seating arrangements. Since it was tricky to exchange contact details under those circumstances, I arranged with the teacher to forward my details to each of the students, so they could reply if they wanted to stay in touch. I reminded her twice, but didn't get a response for a long time. By the time she got back to me, she herself could not access the e-mail adresses anymore (for privacy reasons). At the risk of sounding melodramatic: I've never seen or heard from my fellow students again. I think that's a shame!
In the other situation, there are people in charge (of communication and other matters) of, let's call it a sports team, and they somehow reject all proposals to create and share a list of members. If you have a message to share with the 'team', you send it to them and hope that they'll be willing to send it on. I've found that that really grates on me - how can they both expect us to act as a team but not allow us to communicate freely? (To be honest, it's not that they're preventing it - they're just refusing to facilitate.)
To me, having a queue feels similar. MetaTalk is intended to be a place to discuss things with the rest of the membership (according to the footer). How does an extra barrier fit with that purpose?
posted by demi-octopus at 1:42 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
This discussion reminds me of two (offline) situations I've experienced where I was really hurt by communication barriers. The people involved didn't have bad intentions, and there was only a minor power imbalance. I think there are some parallels with the Metatalk queue and also, more generally, with posting on Metafilter when you're concerned about your posts/comments getting deleted.
As far as I can tell, it varies from person to person whether people find these kind of situations acceptable or frustrating. It's frustrating to me, but the other people involved don't seem to see it as a big deal. I hope that sharing this will shed some light on why some people get upset about this kind of thing.
In the first situation, I was attending an in-person class while social distancing was required. It was a topic where you could benefit quite as much from hearing from other students as from hearing from the teacher. We got along quite well, but didn't have that much chance to chat with each other due to the awkward seating arrangements. Since it was tricky to exchange contact details under those circumstances, I arranged with the teacher to forward my details to each of the students, so they could reply if they wanted to stay in touch. I reminded her twice, but didn't get a response for a long time. By the time she got back to me, she herself could not access the e-mail adresses anymore (for privacy reasons). At the risk of sounding melodramatic: I've never seen or heard from my fellow students again. I think that's a shame!
In the other situation, there are people in charge (of communication and other matters) of, let's call it a sports team, and they somehow reject all proposals to create and share a list of members. If you have a message to share with the 'team', you send it to them and hope that they'll be willing to send it on. I've found that that really grates on me - how can they both expect us to act as a team but not allow us to communicate freely? (To be honest, it's not that they're preventing it - they're just refusing to facilitate.)
To me, having a queue feels similar. MetaTalk is intended to be a place to discuss things with the rest of the membership (according to the footer). How does an extra barrier fit with that purpose?
posted by demi-octopus at 1:42 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life".
The better question, IMO, is "how much checking of the queue are mods doing when they know no one else is working, but they work a little bit aiming to keep MeTa running smoothly during those gaps?"
***
If not, what will re establish trust?
I don't know, maybe try answering a fucking question with a straight answer now and then rather than continuing to obstruct and spin and playing the martyr? Like, you know what would keep people from "having" to work a little bit aiming to keep MeTa running smoothly during those gaps when no one else is working?
Try turning off the damn queue! There - I solved the problem.
posted by bowmaniac at 2:47 PM on February 15 [6 favorites]
how many participants in these past few threads have requested account wipes? pretty sure there was at least one "I'm out" comment that is no longer there.
Honestly it's hard to say, I've been looking for that comment for the past 30, 40 minutes and not finding it. 4 account wipes have been requested in February, 2 clearly stated it was for security/personal reasons, no reason given on the other two. Searched the MeTa threads created since February 1, didn't find it.
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life". I've always been confused about this - are people trying to moderate the site part-time while actively doing other jobs? Shouldn't mods have a clear delineation between "on the clock" and off?
I personally view the clock as a loose thing. If I'm on for three hours but not a lot happened and I know there's a three hour mod gap? Sure, I'll keep an eye on the queues while doing non-work things. If it's major, I'll deal with it to some limited extent.
But otherwise, I don't think there's double booking is going on
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:06 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Honestly it's hard to say, I've been looking for that comment for the past 30, 40 minutes and not finding it. 4 account wipes have been requested in February, 2 clearly stated it was for security/personal reasons, no reason given on the other two. Searched the MeTa threads created since February 1, didn't find it.
Finally: how much of moderation is happening concurrently with the mods "going about daily life". I've always been confused about this - are people trying to moderate the site part-time while actively doing other jobs? Shouldn't mods have a clear delineation between "on the clock" and off?
I personally view the clock as a loose thing. If I'm on for three hours but not a lot happened and I know there's a three hour mod gap? Sure, I'll keep an eye on the queues while doing non-work things. If it's major, I'll deal with it to some limited extent.
But otherwise, I don't think there's double booking is going on
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:06 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
General notes:
Contacted frimble a few hours ago about the process of turning off the queue, but don't expect to hear from them until tomorrow or so, due to them being in a vastly different time zone.
As to the queue, I'm mostly just listening at this point and leaning towards "ok, turn it off"
There are questions about how MeTa should be moderated without a queue, as lightly as before, same as the front page or something different? It may just be something that we figure out along the way.
But ultimately people feel unheard or censored, and that's the major problem. We can try things a different way if that helps people feel more comfortable.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:07 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Contacted frimble a few hours ago about the process of turning off the queue, but don't expect to hear from them until tomorrow or so, due to them being in a vastly different time zone.
As to the queue, I'm mostly just listening at this point and leaning towards "ok, turn it off"
There are questions about how MeTa should be moderated without a queue, as lightly as before, same as the front page or something different? It may just be something that we figure out along the way.
But ultimately people feel unheard or censored, and that's the major problem. We can try things a different way if that helps people feel more comfortable.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:07 PM on February 15 [5 favorites]
I'm going to bang this drum again: people do not need to be protected from conflict! Conflict is a natural and healthy part of being a grownup. MetaTalk is already only frequented by a fairly small and self-selected group who have opted in to seeing conflict happen!
Obviously mods should step in if things go truly off the rails or become the Let's Shit On User X All The Time show, but it is really okay if people fight a little in the part of the site devoted to users having honest conversations about site culture!
Honestly, i think mods need to do some serious workshopping and role-playing about how y'all intervene in conflicts, just in general. I think your radars are all way miscalibrated as far as when something needs an intervention, and what kind of intervention it needs.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:01 PM on February 15 [16 favorites]
Obviously mods should step in if things go truly off the rails or become the Let's Shit On User X All The Time show, but it is really okay if people fight a little in the part of the site devoted to users having honest conversations about site culture!
Honestly, i think mods need to do some serious workshopping and role-playing about how y'all intervene in conflicts, just in general. I think your radars are all way miscalibrated as far as when something needs an intervention, and what kind of intervention it needs.
posted by adrienneleigh at 4:01 PM on February 15 [16 favorites]
[solemnly] The Thunderdome reopens.
*goes back to stoning the edges on a trident*
posted by lucidium at 5:04 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
*goes back to stoning the edges on a trident*
posted by lucidium at 5:04 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
loup: Inappropriate language! I delete the comment. [rolls die] I got an 18!
restless_nomad: You successfully delete the comment, but you didn't check for context. The deleted comment had mitigating context, lessening the language penalty by one level. Users are unhappy! One of the users is preparing to cast Tenser's Obligatory MetaTalk Post.
loup: The queue will buy us a turn, I'm preparing a moderator comment to try and mitigate damage.
Brandon Blatcher: The queue was deactivated! Is there anything I can do?
restless_nomad: From the grocery store? You can try to moderate from your phone with the mobile interface penalty.
Brandon Blatcher: [rolls die] Shoot, I rolled a six.
restless_nomad: Distracted by your phone, you realize the checkout clerk has said something you didn't hear. You've been rude and suffer 1 embarrassment.
posted by neuromodulator at 5:10 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
restless_nomad: You successfully delete the comment, but you didn't check for context. The deleted comment had mitigating context, lessening the language penalty by one level. Users are unhappy! One of the users is preparing to cast Tenser's Obligatory MetaTalk Post.
loup: The queue will buy us a turn, I'm preparing a moderator comment to try and mitigate damage.
Brandon Blatcher: The queue was deactivated! Is there anything I can do?
restless_nomad: From the grocery store? You can try to moderate from your phone with the mobile interface penalty.
Brandon Blatcher: [rolls die] Shoot, I rolled a six.
restless_nomad: Distracted by your phone, you realize the checkout clerk has said something you didn't hear. You've been rude and suffer 1 embarrassment.
posted by neuromodulator at 5:10 PM on February 15 [15 favorites]
Flagged as fantastic
posted by coriolisdave at 5:36 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
posted by coriolisdave at 5:36 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I'm going to bang this drum again: people do not need to be protected from conflict!
I don't think everyone makes good distinctions between kinds of conflict.
Disagreement can be civil where there are differences of opinion, and that's fine if people agree to disagree, especially in an environment where different opinions about ideas, politics, and even the administration of the site are bound to come up.
Conflict, on the other hand, can be defined any number of ways, including as harassment, which has absolutely been known to happen here. Large numbers of people do not come here to be harassed. It can make threads unpleasant, it can incite anger. Most importantly, it can drive people away. I think it should be firmly discouraged.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:37 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I don't think everyone makes good distinctions between kinds of conflict.
Disagreement can be civil where there are differences of opinion, and that's fine if people agree to disagree, especially in an environment where different opinions about ideas, politics, and even the administration of the site are bound to come up.
Conflict, on the other hand, can be defined any number of ways, including as harassment, which has absolutely been known to happen here. Large numbers of people do not come here to be harassed. It can make threads unpleasant, it can incite anger. Most importantly, it can drive people away. I think it should be firmly discouraged.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:37 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Agree with Violet Blue: there’s a lot of abusive, harassing, hateful places on the internet. Metafilter shouldn’t become one of them.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:04 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:04 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher: The queue was deactivated! Is there anything I can do?
Brandon, dude that is funny (re) fresh (ing) undulation, mark place dialogue and, and, satyres flat imagery.
And so MeTa became the #1 driver of burnout in the mods! Which was massively counterproductive!
I would make up a long counterintuitive counter image scenario with the phone and grocery store but you see as I'm talking it's a waste of time.
in the business, sorry, an intelligence tradecraft, one methodology is to overwhelm The watcher or watchers in order to evade and/or disrupt whatever operation is going.
keep in mind, this is just a story, a waste of time.
though, the obverse can be done to the same effect with transparency.
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Brandon, dude that is funny (re) fresh (ing) undulation, mark place dialogue and, and, satyres flat imagery.
And so MeTa became the #1 driver of burnout in the mods! Which was massively counterproductive!
I would make up a long counterintuitive counter image scenario with the phone and grocery store but you see as I'm talking it's a waste of time.
in the business, sorry, an intelligence tradecraft, one methodology is to overwhelm The watcher or watchers in order to evade and/or disrupt whatever operation is going.
keep in mind, this is just a story, a waste of time.
though, the obverse can be done to the same effect with transparency.
posted by clavdivs at 8:32 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I don't think everyone makes good distinctions between kinds of conflict.
I agree, and I think your ensuing statement is an example. Conflict Is Not Abuse.
posted by solotoro at 8:36 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I agree, and I think your ensuing statement is an example. Conflict Is Not Abuse.
posted by solotoro at 8:36 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
I didn't mention harassment. I didn't even imply anything about harassment. I also didn't mention civility, and for an important reason: sometimes uncivil disagreement is fine and good! "Harassment" and "civility" aren't the only two binary options here, and while i have very little trust or confidence in the mods, they do a fairly good job of intervening when actual harassment is happening.
(solotoro: i agree that conflict is not abuse, but just fwiw, Sarah Schulman is a shitty person and her book is, in part, an apologia for actual abuse.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:48 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
(solotoro: i agree that conflict is not abuse, but just fwiw, Sarah Schulman is a shitty person and her book is, in part, an apologia for actual abuse.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:48 PM on February 15 [4 favorites]
neuromodulator: fantastic comment and i LOLed. :) Also, though, role-playing is genuinely a very useful tool for learning how to moderate better. I don't mean playing a TTRPG, i mean role-playing through actual situations that might arise.
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:49 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:49 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
for an important reason: sometimes uncivil disagreement is fine and good!
Actually, it's not. That's in part why there was a huge exodus from Metafilter starting in 2016, which led to large diaspora groups on Reddit, Facebook and Slack.
they do a fairly good job of intervening when actual harassment is happening.
No, I would say they have not. Otherwise so many wouldn't have fled.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:59 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Actually, it's not. That's in part why there was a huge exodus from Metafilter starting in 2016, which led to large diaspora groups on Reddit, Facebook and Slack.
they do a fairly good job of intervening when actual harassment is happening.
No, I would say they have not. Otherwise so many wouldn't have fled.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:59 PM on February 15 [1 favorite]
Still agreeing with Violet Blue. If I wanted to hang out someplace where people are aggro jerks I’d spend more time on Twitter.
Also, I’m curious if you’d be willing to link to something developing this? It’s hard to google for because of the book title:
just fwiw, Sarah Schulman is a shitty person and her book is, in part, an apologia for actual abuse
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:07 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Also, I’m curious if you’d be willing to link to something developing this? It’s hard to google for because of the book title:
just fwiw, Sarah Schulman is a shitty person and her book is, in part, an apologia for actual abuse
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:07 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
The much-discussed and currently in its own MeTa thread situation which led to nouvelle-personne buttoning is an excellent example of where there was uncivil disagreement (by n-p) which was, itself, perfectly fine. The mods, in attempting to "protect" users from having to see someone being justifiably upset and enraged, caused a vastly larger problem. Civility is a tool, not a virtue; and it's a tool that is frequently deployed to silence people (often marginalized people) who are saying things which one does not want to hear.
If one genuinely thinks that, in the absence of the queue and of aggressive deletions, MetaTalk will become a free-for-all harassment space, then i'm not sure why one would choose to remain on the site. I personally find that expecting one's fellow community to act like adults usually works, and that even when that fails, fairly small interventions usually carry the day from there.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:34 PM on February 15 [14 favorites]
If one genuinely thinks that, in the absence of the queue and of aggressive deletions, MetaTalk will become a free-for-all harassment space, then i'm not sure why one would choose to remain on the site. I personally find that expecting one's fellow community to act like adults usually works, and that even when that fails, fairly small interventions usually carry the day from there.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:34 PM on February 15 [14 favorites]
chaos will not be contained. all of my best friends have some chaos in them.
posted by philip-random at 10:41 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 10:41 PM on February 15 [3 favorites]
anotherpanacea:
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:42 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
- One Giant Red Flag, Folded Into A Book (William Gillis for the Anarchist Library)
- Trust in Instinct (Aviva Stahl, for The New Inquiry)
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:42 PM on February 15 [2 favorites]
chaos will not be contained. all of my best friends have some chaos in them.
That sounds pretty contained then, since best friends are forever
posted by B_Ghost_User at 12:00 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
That sounds pretty contained then, since best friends are forever
posted by B_Ghost_User at 12:00 AM on February 16 [5 favorites]
deployed to silence people (often marginalized people) who are saying things which one does not want to hear.
I think your rationale is questionable on a site that created a BIPOC Committee to make sure folks get heard.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:52 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
I think your rationale is questionable on a site that created a BIPOC Committee to make sure folks get heard.
posted by Violet Blue at 12:52 PM on February 16 [1 favorite]
The lack of queue and review for the rice cooker post, the misunderstandings in that committee regarding whether it would be posted, and the following immediate deletion of user concerns from the thread make me think there might be reason to be concerned regarding how well that works in practice. Just one of the more recent examples.
posted by sagc at 1:02 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
posted by sagc at 1:02 PM on February 16 [6 favorites]
All of these failings began and ended with the mods — those as member-observers of the BIPOC Board, and in responses in their capacity as moderators of the site. The rest of the BIPOC Board expressed reservations about the rice cooker post, which were ignored.
Have we tried implementing a queue specifically for mod comments and deletions? I jest, but only slightly; it actually might legitimately help resolve a lot of these issues.
posted by knucklebones at 6:13 PM on February 16 [8 favorites]
Have we tried implementing a queue specifically for mod comments and deletions? I jest, but only slightly; it actually might legitimately help resolve a lot of these issues.
posted by knucklebones at 6:13 PM on February 16 [8 favorites]
But it's difficult to see to how turning off this feature, which has been working well for almost two months, will change or fix that. We're happy to track and report stats about MeTa queue posts, which could a long way to re-establishing trust.
If not, what will re establish trust?
I mean, a lot more than two months of not having a(nother) giant glaring error with one single thing of many that people are upset about.
I'm going to be real blunt right now: there are a people out there with zero trust in you all as a team right now. Regardless to what degree that lack of trust is warranted, it is a REALLY tough road to come back from that. For starters there has to be some sort of accountability established, and I imagine there may have to be some public demonstrations of mods being held accountable for their actions. Like, not just "oops, our bad we've changed now see!" but like a clear set of publicly posted guidelines and procedures that if ignored will lead to consequences: "Mod _____ has been spoken with about their actions" followed by "Mod ____ has been placed on a probation period" and even "Mod ____ has been let go" if the problems continue.
I'm personally rooting for you all as people, I've been an employee in a situation with no leadership, and it SUCKS, because there's no way to make any changes for the better. But to earn back trust and rebuild the community, there needs to be SOMEBODY in charge, and there has to be some concrete actions to break this feeling that no matter how bad a mistake is made by the mods nothing will change.
Until that happens, you don't really have a clear avenue to rebuild trust. Yes a moderation log would help, but only if everyone does it every time. And, honestly, you're never going to convince people that that's happening unless there's some sort of consequence if it doesn't. In which case, you've just gone ahead and done the hard bit anyway.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:50 PM on February 16 [7 favorites]
If not, what will re establish trust?
I mean, a lot more than two months of not having a(nother) giant glaring error with one single thing of many that people are upset about.
I'm going to be real blunt right now: there are a people out there with zero trust in you all as a team right now. Regardless to what degree that lack of trust is warranted, it is a REALLY tough road to come back from that. For starters there has to be some sort of accountability established, and I imagine there may have to be some public demonstrations of mods being held accountable for their actions. Like, not just "oops, our bad we've changed now see!" but like a clear set of publicly posted guidelines and procedures that if ignored will lead to consequences: "Mod _____ has been spoken with about their actions" followed by "Mod ____ has been placed on a probation period" and even "Mod ____ has been let go" if the problems continue.
I'm personally rooting for you all as people, I've been an employee in a situation with no leadership, and it SUCKS, because there's no way to make any changes for the better. But to earn back trust and rebuild the community, there needs to be SOMEBODY in charge, and there has to be some concrete actions to break this feeling that no matter how bad a mistake is made by the mods nothing will change.
Until that happens, you don't really have a clear avenue to rebuild trust. Yes a moderation log would help, but only if everyone does it every time. And, honestly, you're never going to convince people that that's happening unless there's some sort of consequence if it doesn't. In which case, you've just gone ahead and done the hard bit anyway.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:50 PM on February 16 [7 favorites]
(Also I'm against public airing of disciplinary actions of employees, except to the folks that are directly involved in the incidents. It's just that depending on what exactly the behavior in question is, that could literally be every member of Metafilter)
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:57 PM on February 16 [5 favorites]
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:57 PM on February 16 [5 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I have two questions:
1. Is it true that moderators are picking which threads to approve?
2. If it's not true, how do we increase trust that it's not true when trust in (certain) moderators is low? Is there any oversight of the queue?
Pesonally, I don't have much of an issue with there being a queue if it's only used to release MetaTalk threads when there's more moderator coverage. However, misuse of the queue--or perceived misuse of the queue--is a big deal. I think there should be a strict time limit for how long it can sit in the queue, so someone who wants to raise an issue can have faith it will be posted in a reasonable timeframe. There should also be transparency about how the queue is handled so that it is not used--or is not perceived to be used--as a filter to shield moderators from criticism.
If there are posts in the queue which aren't appropriate for MetaTalk, then we should discuss how to handle them with transparency.
However, I honestly suspect that the real issue isn't the queue; the real issue is the larger lack of trust in moderation, because if that trust was there then the queue wouldn't be viewed with such suspicion. There will always be some disgruntled users in any forum who will be prone to conspiratorial thinking about its moderators, but if the general consensus is that the moderation is good and the moderators don't abuse their power, then that disgruntled user's conspiracy is easily filed away under "can't please everyone."
But it seems like there's a lot of suspicion around the queue? Not that I've done a poll or anything.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:52 PM on February 11 [11 favorites]