Recently, I have been been musing what makes a good website leader, especially if you have to enforce order on said website, and based on my own experience and that of others whose moderation I've witnessed, I've come to a few conclusions.
1. Civil behavior is a two-way street: As a site moderator, you are obligated to enforce civility, especially if you want it returned. If you can't yet have rules to be civil, you are making it impossible to be taken seriously.
1a: While enforcing the rules, be civil: Even if a troublemaker is annoying you, keep your temper in check. Even if you are otherwise reasonable, you make it clear that you cannot deliver effective discipline without acting childish, which future troublemakers can exploit to make you angry. You should always present a wall of dispassionate calm in any official capacity.
This also applies to reading out the riot act or whatever other rules to those who have doubts or questions. Just because you don;t like having to repeat yourself or clarify why certain policies were passed or enacted, it is your job to explain these things, and if you have to be an arrogant douchebag while doing so, you are showing you are exempting yourself from your own rules on civility, thus setting a bad example.
2. If you request feedback, it should be responded to appropriately but reasonably: For example:
A. You get an obvious insult like "Kill yourself". Just delete it/disregard it and punish whoever couldn't give proper feedback without getting emotional over it.
B. You get a disagreement about the enforcement of a rule or policy (uncivil): See A.
C. You get a disagreement about the enforcement of a rule or policy (civil): Calmly and dispassionately explain the logic behind it and remain civil so long as the feedback is civil. Make it clear the policy will stick if you are unwilling to change it, but don't be uncivil while explaining, you degrade the ability of the people you are dictating this to to respond in kind and prove you cannot abide by your own rules on showing proper courtesy.
3. Mocking others for civil disagreement or dissent is counterproductive.
CAVEAT: If your website has a culture of irreverence and generally allowing this sort of thing, you may need to modify the below for your needs.
While this mostly goes without saying, if you ask for commentary on how you do things then insult the people who give it, why should they bother if all they'll get is disrespect for it?
If they are being unreasonable and uncivil in the process, then don't respond, just File 13 it and move on, resist the urge to make a public pillory, it just tells the world you allow being a jackass despite your own rules saying people shouldn't, it sends mixed messages.
Another reason is that even if you DO allow some degree of discourtesy as part of your site culture, you need to establish some form of limit on how far you take this, lest all respect for your authority goes out the window and the site members and staff cannibalize each other in a frenzy of insults and disregard of any rules.
4. If you are given a request from a user to be given a clear directive on a site policy, grant it insofar as it's possible to do so.
As everyone who has ever enforced rules is aware, while they are considered rigid and obvious on their face, taking this too far is asinine.
For instance: "Thou shalt not kill".
This Biblical law makes little sense unless you consider the added context it was given. It's a prohibition against wrongful death, as in, murder.
Otherwise, this means self defense or killing a creature for food would be verboten.
Likewise, if you have a site policy that is vague in some ways or has multiple interpretations for certain situations, and you are asked to provide a "what should I do in X case?", you have no good reason not to establish clarity. Otherwise, you will just have people walking on eggshells, wondering what is kosher and what isn't, and that makes enforcing rules harder on you because uneven application of your own rules means people will either be too scared to contribute or they'll disregard your authority because you refuse to set clear boundaries.
Basically, refusing to do this just makes your job harder for no good reason.
Huh. I think I made ATT rules a bit vague on purpose. The underlying principle is important to get in -- there have been quite a few times where y'all have discovered a rule that I wrote that covers a new circumstance well. If you make rules too clear, then some people will try to rules lawyer you constantly, and that isn't really any more fair.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important thing to get in when you're explaining rules to people is that "we're not out to get you." That's really why ATT:FUN is a core policy. It was also intentional that the troper's code were two sets of conflicting directives, where the true path is somewhere in the middle. After all, the end result is moderation!
I concur, hence why I said you should provide as much clarity as is reasonably possible, but your point is duly noted.
Delete