a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
so as a random asshole that's just kinda seen this drift past, not really having a stake in this either way - but seeing some patterns repeated, same-day even (!) - i think that as the dust settles, it might be a good opportunity ponder shit. specifically, 2 questions:
1. what makes 'screenshot dunking' especially bad over subtoots?
2. what is effective moderation, and the push-pull of public vs. private actions?
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
the first question is something that i think is often accepted innately as a matter of local mores, but is worth discussing explicitly from time to time.
in an ideal world there would be no subtoots OR screenshot dunking. that's something to certainly strive for, and an ideal that i also fail to achieve.
however the cultural begrudging acceptance of subtoots versus screenshot dunking is worth teasing apart and considering imho.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
in short, it's additional information, and why that additional information is being included, and how that additional information has usually been used online.
screenshot dunking includes the username. it means that the point of bad behavior is not anonymized whatsoever.
usually this is done online with a specific purpose. the subtext is a call to action of harassment against a specific individual.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
and while both methods end up robbing the person targeted of agency to participate in the conversation, only screenshot dunking then explicitly, from the outset, identifies them as the persona non grata target.
this ends up being a straight-up harassment tactic, even when it was not intended to be such. good ideas can still end up falling into this pitfall by specifically holding up a single person as Bad (tm).
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
subtooting, while also bad, at least gives a chance for the *behavior* to be discussed instead of the *person*. you can argue that it has more social utility there because with that distance, you can get people examining bad behaviors - and checking themselves for those bad behaviors, too.
again, in an ideal world there would be neither. but i'm not going to pretend i haven't subtooted also, lol.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
and when you consider its use as a harassment tactic - "there's the target! kill! kill!" - it makes it a lot more clear why people may be willing to let subtoots pass as "uncool behavior, but ok occasionally", while strongly coming down on the side of "no screenshot dunking allowed".
there's a lot more to be said about why subtoots are also bullshit - but like i said, i'm mindful i live in a glass house lol
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
2 is an interesting question that's been plaugeing people for a very long time. essentially, it's about management. yes i know capitalism is bad but go with me here for a second in these metaphors since this is kinda the sphere where such questions tend to come up and be discussed the most explicitly, in terms of sheer people wrangling. i promise to not get full HR department on you.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
moderation exists in this push and pull between two forces - private or public, concealed or open.
both strategies have advantages. private means people get to save face and will be better at cooperating. private means you can talk to the few troublemakers without an entire dogpile. private is a good way to be kind, and not lean on public embarrassment or societal enforcement.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
and the extremes can both end up really shitty.
yes, i know, this is very centrist of me. please stay your hand on the guillotines.
i think that both systems of extremes can work, IF you are aware of the pitfalls and work to actively negate them. and honestly most of the time on a practical level this means borrowing tactics from the other point of view and using a mixed system.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
for example: all public is tempting for transparency, but it also means that you can create a culture of fear where rules are enforced by pressure from the community and users are anxious about when their turn on the chopping block will be.
you can negate this by not doing specific callouts - keeping things a bit more private, but general reminders, instead of naming and shaming people directly.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
or all private is tempting because it means you get to do things behind closed doors with a deft hand, giving people time to cool off instead of forming an angry mob.
however, i've seen a lot of communities fall because this ends up reading to the average user as do-nothing moderation. jokes about users being like babies with no object permanence aside, it also means "one set of rule for friends, one for everyone else" is easy to do.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
i've seen both sets of pitfalls kill online communities, if i'm being honest. both can be misused.
but what happened recently, i think, was an example of how sometimes a view of privacy can end up backfiring.
admin and mods, in people-wrangling by answering reports, are basically in a customer service job. if things are all done behind closed doors, while this is more discrete, it can also mean that the mods end up looking like...
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
well, looking like these dudes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaWU1CmrJNc
getting the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything in response to a problem is understandably upsetting, even when the mods really are doing something, they're just not saying what they're doing.
sometimes it's valuable to de-escalate by letting people in the door and saying "i understand your concerns and i'm working on it right now".
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
basically, understand that you're at the customer service desk, and right now someone is upset. a little validation and understanding will go a long way to making them feel heard, their concerns respected, and re-frame the problem from Them vs. Do-Nothing Admin to, instead, Them And The Admins vs. The Problem, which is where you want to be.
i'm not saying, by the way, that the customer is always right.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
but sometimes the better part of valor is de-escalating the situation so that it doesn't blow up in everyone's faces.
often when you de-escalate, you can actually get somebody realizing that their complaint is off-base initially, too, and apologising for it.
basically good moderating depends on being good at working with people, and willing to do that 'customer service' role.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
and both situations kinda have the same solution, honestly:
recognizing the agency of another person.
screenshot dunking not only sets a person up for harassment, but it robs them of the opportunity to be seen as a proper part of that conversation. it steals away the agency for them to put their ideas in context, or defend them appropriately - while still being forced to be directly part of that conversation with no wiggle room.
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
similarly, recognizing somebody's concerns as a moderator is you acknowledging that agency of them coming to you to report a problem, and their genuine reaction of having a problem. keeping it all behind closed doors unfortunately reads as dismissal - often belittling the problem and robbing them of agency to problem-solve (since you just dismissed there was a problem at all).
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it; final (sorry)
at the end of the day, people are people. sometimes they get things right. sometimes they get things wrong.
but remember always that they are real people on the other side of the keyboard, as best you can. the internet does a stunningly good job of dehumanizing; no faces to see, no voices to hear, just words on a screen.
sometimes, pushing back against that is important.
...
and that's about all i got /shrug
a long ramble re: recent meta and what can be learned from it
on the flip side, public means that users get to enjoy transparency and know that everyone gets the same deal, or see when mods might be compromised and challenge that. public means that you can generalize questions to reinforce the rules to the rest of the users as a "hey, reminder, we don't do that here". public means that trouble users won't be able to twist your words as easily if it's all out there to begin with.