[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by fov

Thanks for your post, Snarky. Makes for good reading.

Why, thanks! I do try.

Did you know that the social structures of online communities are being studied intensely by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, economists, and experts in the field of Human Computer Interactions (HCI) known as Computer-Mediated Communication? There are complex theories describing the relationship between moderators and posters and what effect is has on the health of a community. Several of my university professors had done extensive research in this field.

Which is not to say that my comments were based on science. They were almost entirely derived from experience and intuition.

Deleting posts is not something we do lightly. In fact, the only time we ever really do it is in the case of spam.

I'm happy to hear that. Some forum that I'm on will occasionally "clean up" threads by deleting whole subdiscussions, and it grates.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Some people seem to have an exaggerated expectation of what we should or even CAN share publicly. Detailed explanations, full disclosure, documented case histories, whatever. Even if that were desirable, which it isn't (as what exists privately should stay private), it's just not possible. It may seem like a copout to say "everything is complicated", but it's also true. And while it's wonderfully idealistic to think that people would be satisfied with more feedback, it never works that way in practice.

Everything cannot be made public, obviously. I just don't see why having things out in the open is so bad that people are criticized when they raise their concerns in public instead of in a PM.

Well, that's not entirely true. I do realize the problems it causes: the way it can add fuel to conflict, and above all how it generates more work for the moderators. (If Fum hadn't made his post public, I wouldn't have posted a reply, and you wouldn't have to spend time responding to me.)

This is where that difference in perspective comes in. Maybe to you it just means more to deal with, while from where I'm standing it means a healthy, open dialog, and an opportunity to build the social capital of our community.

The people who run things have always found it more convenient to keep information confidential than to release it to the public. (You could even state it as a principle: The amount of classified material as a percentage of documents produced will steadily increase throughout the lifetime of an organization. I work in a company where the process has gone so far that I discovered yesterday I can't even read my own project blog.) However, the most convenient thing is not always the best thing. There's certainly information that shouldn't be made public. Say, the identity of undercover intelligence agents. However, I think most people would agree that the government over-classifies many documents, simply because it's the easiest thing to do.

Hmmm... I don't really mean to compare the mods here to the Bush administration. Just to suggest that increased transparency might be worthwhile, even if it's a hassle (and even if people are never going to be satisfied).

I don't think any of us ever said that we think people are TRYING to make trouble for us. That doesn't mean some don't act without thought to the trouble it DOES cause us. Everything anyone does around here takes time and effort, and the more people who think it's fun to publicly debate and question and challenge everything we do ad infinitum is showing no understanding of that. So if our answers start becoming more... blunt... it should hardly come as a surprise. I'm sure people would be much happier if we devoted that fourth hour a day to our answers instead of the three (random numbers here), but sometimes three is enough on this end.

I said this the last time, and I'll say it again. If anyone's goal is REALLY to "create and maintain a better community", we'd love that. And they can start by asking themselves what would help the staff instead of hinder them. Asking or demanding more may sometimes be necessary, but not often.

Hey! If you're implying that I don't sincerely have the best interests of this community at heart, I take offense at that!








Just kidding!
Well, except it did read like that when I first saw it. I guess it's about as silly as when a moderator takes a question about one of their decisions as personal criticism.

Yeah, it's very easy for these things to turn confrontational and escalate. If I may, I suggest we all cut each other some slack, and assume everyone has the best of intentions.