My three cents worth:

1) I don’t think moderators should be players. I think Luke and Gordon (if he is still a moderator) have to choose one or the other, just like someone keen on AFL (and fit enough) can be a player or a umpire but not both.

2) I think moderators, like employees of Anglican Media (and council members like me) should be supporters of the diocesan mission (at least).

3) These forums should be open to people who want to question what mainstream Sydney Anglicans believe.

4) Sydney Anglicans should be articulate enough to win any arguement here (which generally happens) and to do it graciously (which we do, err, sometimes).

These forums’ robust debate can be seen to fit oddly within the official website of Sydney Anglicanism which exists to support the “imagined community” of the diocese.

But they have proved that “iron sharpens iron” often enough that I think they should continue. I want our iron sharp.

Luke Stevens - 28 May 2008 12:32 AM

I take the deeply profound point about free speech not being 100% free, however there is obviously a specific context we’re discussing here.

It’s just important to establish that we agree.

Now, if you are content with a janitorial role, to use your expression, and would be OK not to be known as a ‘moderator’ (using the coding that you suggested to expedite this), then we don’t really need to discuss your specific case, nor was I wanting the focus to end up on your situation.

Apart from that, I’m in broad agreement with Jeremy, and want to keep the discussion rolling on what good moderation looks like.

So, I would love to think that the moderators were regular church attenders who were, yes, cheerleaders (and even pray-ers) for the diocesan mission. They don’t have to shut people up, but you might expect that there’d be a bit of rah rah and unabashed enthusiasm for things like evangelizing Roman Catholics, supporting their local ministers and the like.

What’s wrong with that?

talking of cheerleaders, I wonder if we could get some of the diocesan opinion leaders to come on to the forums for special sessions. So we might have a Gafcon-goer on in the next few weeks answering questions about that, or Ray Galea on why he has nothing in his hand.

lol, Gordon, really, you can’t have it both ways, either it is about me or it isn’t. You say “We don’t really need to discuss your specific case, nor was I wanting the focus to end up on your situation” and then two paragraphs later you make specific reference to my OP thread about catholics and local ministers (and massively misrepresent it in the process, but I’ll leave that be). Which is it? Do you think I should be censored or not? These little games are really quite silly.

To reiterate my position for the 1000000000000th time, moderators (such as myself, and I’ve been a moderator for 5+ years now) act as both moderators on occasion and ordinary members the rest of the time. However, every post in their forum carries the label “Moderator” despite this having nothing to do with 99% of the posts a moderator may make. Therefore, I think the label next to posts should go, moderators are indicated on the forums home page, and a moderator can announce when they have their moderator hat on (1% of the time), and participate normally the other 99% of the time.

Gordon Cheng - 28 May 2008 12:48 AM

Apart from that, I’m in broad agreement with Jeremy, and want to keep the discussion rolling on what good moderation looks like.

Such a discussion should be about when it is/isn’t appropriate to use moderator powers, given that is what a moderator does.

So the question becomes: should a moderator use their powers to edit/delete/censor those they disagree with, and/or disagree with the party line?

Interestingly, this approach was tried by one moderator at one time, and the complaints were such that the forums were restructured to limit this persons role.

I don’t think it’s approach anyone is keen to revisit.

If there is a need for someone to run diocesan PR in the forums, then perhaps a “Cheerleader” role can be created, with the appropriate label next to their name, a position at AMS can be created for such a person, and they can be employed to post uplifting thoughts every hour or so.

Beyond that, I think things are fine as is, with the exception of the moderator label appearing to cause such consternation amongst a few people, and I’ve suggested a solution there, complete with code.

Interesting how these “general” moderator topics come up when a moderator posts something (unrelated to actual moderating) you disagree with though, eh Gordon?

I think Luke’s opinion is clear, but there will be others who want to contribute to the discussion as well. What do we want of moderators in future?

For example, it’s a bit of a pity that Dannii’s one-liner got lost, where he said:

Dannii Willis - 27 May 2008 09:38 PM

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 1 Timothy 3:8-13 applies.

That’s spot on, isn’t it? Or at least, it would be an ideal to aim for. Here’s the passage:

8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

And the related broader question is, how else can the forums better serve the diocesan mission?

We return to the point that the forums are funded by the diocese, and it’s reasonable to ask what the benefit of them is.

And, does the Bible actually offer principles (such as 1 Tim 3) that apply to our understanding of discussion? I’m pleased that the posting policy alludes to Ephesians 4:15, are other passages relevant?

I do like Proverbs 10:19, and I’m sure it applies as much (probably more) to me as to anyone.

G’day,

It’s worth noting that Moderators do not have Moderation powers on every section of these forums. I only moderate those threads in the Understanding the Bible section. Gordo from memory looks after the Media section and Luke the General Discussion area.

Thus any contributions that I make to a discussion in the General Discussion section are made as a non-moderator.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Hey Mark, I reckon you’re a tough but fair moderator.

I never really get tired of that joke. ;-)

What I mean is, you took me to task at some point and I apologized in the light of what you said, because I thought it was pretty reasonable.

So do you mind my asking, what does good moderation look like to you?

That question is as broad or as narrow as you want to make it.

Can I put in my two cents worth please.  Re the comments about Happy Birthday Israel (there is another thread going on this called Missing Happy Birthday Israel)

I suspect that it was cancelled because my penultimate post was a copy of the Prime Minister’s resolution in parliament in support of Israel.  Perhaps it was considered bad publicity for the Diocese if critics of Israel were to be seen to be criticizing the Prime Minister and the bipartisan parliamentary resolution (which a reply to my post would probably have necessitated) on an Anglican webiste.

I also suggested that one of the thread contributors had been defamed by a post and that too might have been too controversial to be discussed.

On the subject of moderation, I had assumed that a moderator by definition was relatively unbiased as to the subject matter of a particular debate.  This is apparently not the case as Luke Stevens made his feelings (bias?) quite clear on this topic at least.

As far as the Diocesan mission goes, if I were a non Christian unfamiliar with Anglicanism and I read some of your threads I would run a mile.  You are certainly not an advertisement for Christian love or even Christian courtesy.  Why not watch Question Time in Parliament.  The pollies probably behave better than some of us do.

It was locked because of allegations of defamation, and you were asking for legal opinion on the matter. Given the discussion had generated to that point, I locked it and moved it to Dead Horses.

Sorry to push on this, but I don’t want to lose the question for Mark.

Gordon Cheng - 28 May 2008 09:32 PM

So do you mind my asking, what does good moderation look like to you?

That question is as broad or as narrow as you want to make it.

Perhaps, Chairman Cheng, you could share your own thoughts on the topic, given you are a moderator and the topic appears to be very important to you? :)

edit: forgot the smiley

The topic is important, yes, because it concerns where these forums are heading.

But my view? I’m just a pleb, sharing ignorance as best I can.

Gordon Cheng - 28 May 2008 09:32 PM

Hey Mark, I reckon you’re a tough but fair moderator.

I never really get tired of that joke. ;-)

What I mean is, you took me to task at some point and I apologized in the light of what you said, because I thought it was pretty reasonable.

So do you mind my asking, what does good moderation look like to you?

That question is as broad or as narrow as you want to make it.

My approach is to try and let the debate run as freely as possible. I will only intervene if I see people playing the man and not the ball. On such occasions I will normally do so via PM and give the person concerned a chance to edit. The forums should ideally provide an opportunity for the debating of ideas, not the attacking of people.

I am also watching for any inflammatory posts. So, for example, one guy posted what I considered to be a racist rant using (wrongly) a passage out of Genesis. I gave him the opportunity to edit but he chose not to. The result was that I deleted his posts, locked the thread, got in contact with admin and they did the rest.

In terms of contributing, I’ve tended to shy away from contributing to the threads that I moderate. I just think that it’s a safer way to operate. I understand where Luke is coming from and have no problem with it but that hasn’t been my approach.

I hope that answers your question Gordo.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

@Gordon - Well you’re not just a pleb, you’re a moderator in a particular forum. Perhaps you could elaborate on where you see the forums heading?

Thanks Mark.

Hey Luke. Well, let a thousand flowers bloom, as Chairman Mao used to say.

I’m going to have to think about it more, but at the moment I don’t really think the forums are doing much good.

It would be good to think about how you would set forums up as if they had never existed. Wipe 5.5 years

a quarter of your life, mate ;-)

of discussion and chat into googlable but genuine oblivion, thank all those thus far involved, and start all over again.

What would it look like?

And why?

It’s a costly question, but worth asking every now and then. How about we ask it now?