On 10/19/2015 11:14 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > I don't like the way flagging is currently presented in the forum. To > check a box that labels another comment as "defensiveness" or "hate > speech" has a lot of potential for escalating conflict...see every other > discussion board ever for examples of this.
I think you're misunderstanding how it works based on the way that Robert's mock-ups showed it. The labeling of something as having one or the other of these issues is *not* part of a public discussion or even a back-and-forth discussion. Saying publicly, "that's hate speech" and having a conversation about it is *exactly* the sort of problems you are talking about, and not at all how flagging works on Snowdrift.coop. Flagging on Snowdrift.coop is an *anonymous* hiding of someone's post with a specific statement about which item(s) in the formal Code of Conduct are involved. In other words, you don't get to reply at all. There is no thread, there is no reply. There is *only* the fact that your comment is hidden, and you get to repost it by fixing the issue. It is a fundamentally different thing than getting a specific reply in a conversation. You post something someone says is unconstructive criticism, your post is flagged and hidden, and all you have is the fact that your post is hidden and was checked as unconstructive criticism. You don't get to reply, and you don't get told who flagged you. You get to look at your post and figure out how to make it constructive, and then you repost, and *then* we can predict reasonably that constructive conversation will continue and bad feelings will subside as people are happy that they are having productive discussion. In short, I don't think our design is bad, but I *do* think the public posting of something in the manner the mockup might have indicated *would* be bad for the very reasons you bring up. > > I would like to see a format that allowed for traditional de-escalating > forms of expressing offense: ie "I feel this when you do this." > While that makes sense for de-escalating if there's actually a persistent conflict, the point is not to even *have* back and forth discussion that includes problematic, disrespectful statements. I've seen tons of forums where the focus gets lost and tons of things go badly despite good will from some people because the topic gets overwhelmed by the long discussion that mixes various defensiveness with attempts at de-escalation. Again, the point is that "I feel this when you do this" in various forums gets replies like "whatever, screw you" if someone is really upset or just being a jerk. And there's tons of subtle misunderstandings where a comment had *zero* ill-will but was read that way by someone, and then the whole thing becomes a long thread about the communication instead of the topic at hand, and little things get misunderstood and blow up all the attempts at reconciliation. Again, this is about nipping it in the bud, fix the problematic post immediately, no discussion. If you think it was fine, just fix it anyway and try again so we can move on. I can't say this strongly enough: I agree *completely* that publicly or even in a back-and-forth discussion saying "that's defensive" isn't the optimal communication style. But our flagging system is not that. The unfortunate fact is that we *cannot* accept a totally loose style of flagging that is all about just expressing feelings. We absolutely have to have clear guidelines with precise items that can be pointed to as violations because that sort of strict Code of Conduct is the only way that marginalized people or those worried about caustic environments can feel safe. It cannot be the burden of someone who receives a personal attack to rise up and express in great politeness how they feel and work on de-escalating. For this type of situation where we're not discussing personal relations, we're discussing projects and decisions and general things, we have to simply say that personal attacks are not acceptable, period. The thing is, while some forums shame people for slipping or even ban them etc., we give them the chance to fix the comment and move on. We don't *need* to de-escalate because we block the entire initial escalation. The very first time anything is unconstructive or attacking or condescending it gets flagged, fixed, reposted, and we move on. The goal is to stop the escalation in the first place. This is also not the right solution for a small in-person meeting. It's the solution for a generalized, anonymous, open online forum which has it's own issues. Real enforcement of Code of Conduct, not just guidelines for de-escalation, is an absolute requirement. I would not have recognized this myself a few years ago, but having gotten involved in the online tech world, I know how serious the problems can be and how inadequate just promoting de-escalation can be. > I have a couple ideas. First, to just have a flag button, but not the > option to check various offenses that are stated in accusatory language. > Second, there could be just one button that says something like "I feel > uncomfortable with this" and then the space to specify. I would > especially like this option if there was a "this friend speaks my mind" > button next to it that was equally prominent. > Yes, we want to also include friendly things to express agreement and thanks. I think our goal is to do that with tags, although we could have some separate dedicated things. Those two are the main items: "agreement" and "thanks". > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
