As a moderator myself, I was interested in Mark’s comments on another thread when he said:

Let me recommend that people read the helpful thread on the position of the moderator (at present) to be found here. You will find the job requires mainly the very practical job of administering the Posting Policy, which applies equally to every forum user. It does not require that people pass a certain ‘orthodoxy test’ at present, nor does it prevent them from participating in any way that another poster might.

As a kind of unorthodox guy, I am really pleased that I don’t have to pass an orthodoxy test, as I’m pretty sure it would lead to me losing my job both here and elsewhere.

;-)

But I am wondering if, as one of the organizations that is committed to the support of the diocesan mission, whether it would be good to be a bit more fussy about people like me, or even me.

This is really meant to start the discussion. The real question is, to what extent do we want the forums (and with it, the moderators) to be supporters of the diocesan mission? And, what should this look like?

I think the issue may be one of perception.  If you were new to this site (or even an occasional viewer like myself) you will never have read the thread about moderators.  You would assume that they do in a way represent the diocese - not with 100% agreement on every point - but like a Bible study leader at church who backs up the mission of that church. 

It would be pretty easy to assume that moderators would show a level of godliness (eg. not slagging out on their home churches) and a level of responsibility (eg. not talking about boycotting their home church for a few weeks).  You certainly would not assume they would begin threads that contravenes both of these principles.  If you don’t know what I am talking about - look up the ‘Tis the season for Catholic bashing thread.

Greetings Andrew,

While I welcome the discussion of moderation - thanks Gordon! - I think I would prefer it if you kept to discussing how we might operate in general. This is a fairly thinly veiled prod at someone else. If you have a complaint to make regarding a particular post, report it. If you have a personal issue with someone, PM them.

Either way, let’s not let it get in the way of what might be a very helpful discussion on how we do things on the Sydang forum.

I like these forums but sometimes the tones come across in an ungodly way - there is enmity, strife, anger, rivalries, dissensions and divisions. Ungodliness can come across as sarcasm, unfair accusations about the faith of others or just an arrogance that is devoid of the Spirit’s gentleness.

There have been a number of times when I have thought that moderators should caution someone or even cause a temporary ban for a day or two if one persists. (Maybe they have done this and I am simply not aware).

I certainly think more moderating should occur. Perhaps the more posts someone has the more accountable they should be. Certainly moderators on all threads should lead by example. Perhaps moderators should not be appointed for life either (I don’t know if they are) should moderators not lead by example.

While I value this forum sometimes I think it operates on worldly rules for posting (e.g. I am free to say what i want) rather than on godly behaviour.

So I guess I advocate more moderation and godliness in posting and governing the forum.

Thanks Adam, I must say I agree with a lot you have to say and all of its sentiment.

For what it’s worth, quite a deal of moderating goes on though as a policy we don’t make disciplinary actions public. I’m not a great fan of shaming someone and generally speaking those being disciplined are quite apologetic.

I’ll also just mention in response to Adam’s comment that I have neither the power nor the brief to administer discipline or rebuke in my capacity as a moderator. The current role as I understand it is minimally defined, and any issues of discipline (including rebuke) lie with the management of Sydney Anglicans. Any rebuking you see me doing comes because I am a private citizen who happens to contribute to these boards, and I’m under instruction to refer disciplinary matters on.

I’ve been participating here for about 3 years, and I keep coming back because the atmosphere is generally pleasant, the topics interesting, and the posters make comments that make me think.

I find tone hard to discern in emails [could be a tone-deaf forum user] and I think it is very easy to read something into a person’s post that was unintended. I think we should all assume the other person has good intentions, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

I appreciate Adam and Mark’s posts in this discussion. Because I am sinful, I need to keep being reminded to act like a Christian. I will try, but please keep reminding me, because I need it.

Thanks to the moderators for the job you do, making this forum better than it otherwise would have been.

There are a few different issues here which need to be teased out…

Gordon Cheng - 27 May 2008 09:51 AM

But I am wondering if, as one of the organizations that is committed to the support of the diocesan mission, whether it would be good to be a bit more fussy about people like me, or even me.

This is really meant to start the discussion. The real question is, to what extent do we want the forums (and with it, the moderators) to be supporters of the diocesan mission? And, what should this look like?

The issues are (a) what moderators do and what moderation is (b) what the forums are for and (c) how all people participate in terms of behaviour, rather than views.

To cover these points briefly:

a) Moderation isn’t (and I think never should be) about advancing or suppressing any particular views, within the bounds of the Posting Policy. Being a moderator isn’t about being the thought police, it is, if anything, important to guard against that so free and open discussion can continue. Nor is it about being part of a cheer squad or political party where you fall into line for the good of the “team” (ala Malcolm Turnbull).

Moderators should never use their moderation powers (editing/deleting posts/topics) to advance or stymie particular views (again within the Posting Policy). Being a moderator is more of a janitorial role than anything - you tidy up here and there, and beyond that it is peoples behavior - not their views - that may be of concern. Discussion about “encouraging good moderation” should only really revolve around fairness of moderators actions - closing topics that have become overheated, moving threads to dead horses etc, and acting fairly in that regard. Moderators should generally not take into account the views being expressed, and given they are not enforcing orthodoxy (or any views), they don’t have to pass any kind of orthodoxy litmus test.

(b) On what the forums are for, in regards to “to what extent do we want the forums to be supporters of the diocesan mission?” my response would be that forums in and of themselves can’t support or not support anything, they can only reflect the views of those participating at the time as best as possible. I think these forums do a good job at giving everyone a fair go in that regard, whether you’re an atheist (Rob C), evangelical, or whatever. Of course you will be challenged about your views (which is a very good and important thing) but everyone gets a fair go.

The corollary of trying to impose some kind of agenda on a community of people with a variety of views invariably means, to me, the suppression of dissent, which is something I hope never happens, as without critical voices we all become weaker and duller in our own views, as we no longer have critical views to engage with to keep us sharp.

The forums are, and should only ever be in my view, a fair representation of the views of those participating in them. The invitation is always there for all watching that if you don’t like what’s being said, jump in and join the discussion!

Edit: And I should add the forums (as software and location) can enable discussions to take place in terms of supporting the Mission and Connect09 etc, which they do, but the forums as a community is just a group of people participating at a given time.

c) On the behaviour of all members including moderators along the lines of Adam’s comments, those are fair points but are separate issues from fairness in moderation decisions say, and the views they hold. Again it is important not to conflate all these things together (and I’m not saying Adam was, just that this thread could).

I think it’s also good to remember that the community functions best when everybody is helping to keep everybody else to a particular standard. There can be a risk of over-reliance on waiting for moderators/management to step in instead of addressing things directly (though this is obviously appropriate at times too!), but generally speaking if everyone encourages everyone else to uphold a particular standard then we all benefit and the community self-regulates to a large extent.

--

The most problematic thing seems to be one of perception, the (wrong) impression that if someone (usually me) has “Moderator” in bold red next to their name, then there is some expectation that they cannot participate as an ordinary member and express their views as an ordinary member would. Strangely this didn’t seem to be a problem when I had “Benevolent dictator” (heh) next to my name for a couple of years in previous incarnations of the site, but there you go.

It seems to me that no one really objects to the janitorial style duties a moderator has and to me (or anyone else) carrying them out - ie moving the odd thread to dead horses and so on, it’s just the big red label next to my name in contentious discussions, even though I’m not doing anything moderator-y and just participating as a general member.

So perhaps (and this is one for Mark & Robert to discuss) to address this mis-perception those labels should be removed from individual posts for all moderators (Mark, it’s just one line in a template ;) and the moderators can stay listed on the forums home page so people know who they are.

Then when someone is doing something moderator-y, ie editing/moving/deleting something (which is about 1% of the time) they can announce they have their moderators hat on, in bold, and for the other 99% of the time, their general contributions will be seen as those of a normal member (which is indeed what they are), not a “moderator”, who has no sway over a discussion anyway.

Thoughts?

I’ll just pick up on one of several points here, if I may.

Luke Stevens - 27 May 2008 02:45 PM

(b) On what the forums are for, in regards to “to what extent do we want the forums to be supporters of the diocesan mission?” my response would be that forums in and of themselves can’t support or not support anything, they can only reflect the views of those participating at the time as best as possible.

Speaking as a private citizen, I am happy to blather on in all sorts of contexts. If you provide the blog, I will come and do it forever and a day, unless (like Ship of Fools) you get sick enough of me to ban me, or (like Sydney Anglicans) make me a moderator, whichever comes first.

Sensing the way the wind blows, I’ve even scuttled back to Matthias Media and helped set up a blog (which is what you do when you want to make it *really* hard to get yourself banned).

;-)

But speaking as a Sydney Anglican whose church helps fund the diocese and distributes and promotes Southern Cross and all its incarnations, including this website and including this very forum, I suppose we are entitled to ask the question as to why you would fund something that is not supporting the mission?

That is, if we accept as true Luke’s statement that “forums in and of themselves can’t support or not support anything”. I am really not sure we should accept this as true, but maybe others will want to come in on the discussion before I come back to this question.

Being a moderator isn’t about being the thought police, it is, if anything, important to guard against that so free and open discussion can continue.

Sometimes I wonder how free and open discussion is on this forum. I know controversial topics like evolution can get jumped on. Seems to me that a good discussion with relevant points being posted, can be dead horsed (in accordance with the posting policy) because some people derail the discussion. So the discussion is held hostage by irresponsible posters. Doesn’t seem fair to me.

(I note though (to argue against myself!) that the “answering the atheists” thread has been going strong and has not been dead horsed. But I admit I am a bit careful about any references to evolution because of the problems discussion can cause.)

My point was that the forums are just a tool, they’re like an empty book. An empty book doesn’t support or not support anything, it’s what you write and how you use it (to stretch the metaphor) that matters. To that extent having a place for open discussion and debate without fear of people demanding why the $0.00 it cost for someone to post something seems like a good idea to me, if we value open discussion and debate, which I hope we all do. Furthermore, AMS has used the blank slate to create a great place for discussion, ideas (including on the Mission), prayer requests (including Connect09) to understanding the bible, keeping tabs on items in the media, feedback (hi), and general issues. Seems like a great asset to me.

Derek: Actually the Dead Horse forum is a good example of how discussion can continue, without being allowed to dominate. Anyone can contribute to those discussions, and that was thrashed out during the time when the Dead Horse forums were getting under way.

I was not surprised that the ‘Happy Birthday Israel’ thread was dead horsed, although I was surprised that it was locked, as I didn’t think this was consistent with the reason ‘Dead Horses’ existed.

I think the forums *do* advance the mission. I have learnt plenty from the contributions of other people here, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Forums like these are a great way to grow in knowledge about God and the Bible. And also a great way to become aquainted with a whole lot of new ideas, or new slants on old ideas.

It’s pretty hard to have a good discussion without a little bit of tension, of opposition. I remember one of the debates on women’s ordination a couple of years back, with good contributions from both sides. It was many pages long and there were plenty of good points made. Without the opposing point of view, I don’t know that the issue could have been explored in such detail.

If these forums *were* shut down, then the online discussion from the community would just pop up somewhere else - someone would register an unofficial sydney anglican forum somewhere, and the debates would continue. This way the diocese retains some control at least, and can use the forums to promote issues.

I am wondering if, as one of the organizations that is committed to the support of the diocesan mission, whether it would be good to be a bit more fussy about people like me, or even me.

I think this is a very important question.  I think there is a very strong case to argue that moderators ought to support the mission, given that this is a diocesan website.  I do not make any comments about any individual moderator here, as I think Mark Hadley’s point is well made.  However, as a principle I should like the criteria for all moderators to be:  They are converted, attending a Bible based fellowship/church regularly, and support the diocesan mission. 

Currently many people are surprised and dismayed by the fact that on occasions those with the title ‘moderator’ are openly critical of diocesan teaching and the mission.  I’m not talking about constructive criticism of various strategies etc, but forthright criticism of the teaching and mission strategy of the diocese. 

I think there is a very good case for a serious re-think about these forums and the role of moderators.  Thanks Gordon for raising this issue.

Gordon Cheng - 27 May 2008 03:17 PM

Derek: Actually the Dead Horse forum is a good example of how discussion can continue, without being allowed to dominate. Anyone can contribute to those discussions, and that was thrashed out during the time when the Dead Horse forums were getting under way.

Hi Gordon, what you say is true - discussion can indeed technically continue in the dead horse forum. I note however that not too much of this happens though. So the effect is to practically shut down (rightly or wrongly) the discussion.

I realise with some issues that that is definitely what should happen. I am not sure however how to decide what topics to ‘dead horse ‘ though.

Philip Griffin - 27 May 2008 03:28 PM

I think this is a very important question.  I think there is a very strong case to argue that moderators ought to support the mission, given that this is a diocesan website.  I do not make any comments about any individual moderator here, as I think Mark Hadley’s point is well made.  However, as a principle I should like the criteria for all moderators to be:  They are converted, attending a Bible based fellowship/church regularly, and support the diocesan mission. 

Well its hard to read this as anything other than being aimed at me, but I’ll try and keep it general. I disagree for the following reasons:
- Moderators, in their role as moderators, don’t influence, advance, or stymie any particular point of view. They need to be neutral, in their moderating actions, in regards to popular and unpopular views, and need to act with fairness in all cases. That’s it.
- Moderators aren’t handing the mike around, they aren’t telling people who can and cannot have their say, and I don’t think they should be - this is a place for free and open discussion, which the moderators can and should be able to participate in like anyone else, critical or not.
- Who, as a Christian, wouldn’t support the diocesan mission of seeing 10% of Sydney converted? I have severe reservations about “Support for the diocesan mission” being used as a big stick to weed out criticism. The freeness and openness of these forums are what make them what they are, and have allowed them to operate successfully over the last 5+ years much to everyone’s benefit. That freeness means if you want to post in support of the diocesan mission, you’re more than free to do so as often and as regularly as you like! The forums are what we the members make of them, and that’s a line I’ve maintained for the last 5+ years. Moderators, again, I repeat, as moderators have no influence on discussion one way or another, within the bounds of the Posting Policy. Moderation is about janitorial stuff and people’s behaviour, not advancing any particular views.

Currently many people are surprised and dismayed by the fact that on occasions those with the title ‘moderator’ are openly critical of diocesan teaching and the mission.

Again I think it’s the visibility of the title that causes problems, not moderator actions in and of themselves, given no one much seems to object to what’s done there. I’ve proposed a solution to this above.