Brandi Jasmine's Law of Internet Nuts: In every group of 100 people, there will be 10 nuts. In every group of 100 nuts, there will be 10 serious nuts. And in every group of 50 serious nuts, there will be at least one sociopath.
I came up with this "Law" after more than 10 years' observation of and participation in open, unmoderated forums on the Usenet and world wide web. I noticed that it was interesting how I could tell the number of overall subscribers a list had (give or take a decimal point), by counting the number of active participants. There seemed to be a mathematical formula to the mixture that didn't depend on topic matter, or the type of list.
There is a great need for expert moderators to set up "bully free" Internet discussion groups. This would seem to be an easy thing to do, but the entire time I have been online, there have been only a handful of lists I would consider properly and effectively moderated ... including some of my own early efforts. There is no teacher like failure!
In the early days, I firmly and naively believed that I could talk sense into anyone. I also believed it was important to give my visitors the most freedom possible to express themselves. I was shocked by how abusive they turned out to be, especially towards me. The more I fought for freedom, the worse things got.
Now I know that most discussion groups require a fair but strong handed moderator if they are to avoid the kind of toxic flamage that is epidemic on the Internet. Before most people can do that though, they have to get a good grip on their own reactions, so they can learn how to stop the reaction cycle. I highly recommend James Roswell Quinn's book, "Controlling Others for Love and Profit" ("If you believe that, then you better wake up. Controlling others is not the solution - It is the problem."). Reading this book, you will find out what the four basic reactions are, identify your own reactions, and come up with more effective alternatives.
Your first online step though will be to decide what level of moderation you will use.
In most of the public "groups" services, like MSN and Yahoo, they permit three levels of moderation:
1) Unmoderated ... in other words, no one is in charge, anything goes.
2) Light Moderation ... a human moderator screens messages after they are posted. Those who break the rules are given warnings, then banned after they break the rules a certain number of times.
3) Pre-Screened or Heavy Moderation ... no posts are permitted to go to the list until the moderator approves them.
Each level has its possible drawbacks and benefits. However, in a community of children where bullying is or could be an issue, there is only one choice. A responsible adult should be given the task of pre-screening messages for abusive content.
If you choose "Unmoderated", you will have no work to do ... but within a few days, weeks or months, you will have nothing but one raging flame war after another. The bullies will end up in charge of your list. Your best contributors will unsubscribe. It is as inevitable as the next Microsoft patch. If you doubt this assertion, download a Usenet reader and subscribe to alt.astrology. There is still a flame war going on in there that I first noticed in 1992.
I know of only a handful of lists where "light" moderation is working well, and in these lists, the participants are usually screened themselves beforehand. This cuts down on flaming and personal attacks, but the only way to eliminate them altogether is to pre-screen messages.
If you do choose "Light Moderation", expect a heavy workload. You should be the kind of person who is able to log in 2-3 times a day to check on your list. It may help to have a co-moderator who can jump in quickly to "firefight" for you if things get out of hand in the event you are called away. "Internet Time" is faster than "real world" time ... and it contracts even faster when someone is calling you names on your favorite group. I have seen the nicest, kindest people degenerate into flaming hysterics in a shockingly short period of time.
You will also need a thick skin. If there is a disagreement over your policies or decisions, the best you can hope for in most cases is that both sides won't approve of your decision in the end. Even if it seems clear to you who the "violator" is, the "victim" is likely to feel you have not gone far enough, no matter what you do. This is especially the case if you are fair and are following reasonable policies. You will not be able to please everyone.
If you choose "Heavy Moderation" your workload will be lighter. "Trolls" and bullies won't even bother with your list. The whole point of the game to them is to get noticed through bad behavior. You won't be a target. You may notice though that there are less posts and traffic. You may also notice that there are some good-hearted people who just don't have the patience to wait for you to approve their posts - subscriptions will tend to be lighter too. This can all be a good thing, if your aim is more "signal" and less "noise".
Your second step will be to decide upon and write up a clear set of guidelines or "rules" for your list, and the simpler and clearer they are the better. Make sure that you do your best to be absolutely fair when enforcing them.
Writing guidelines
Start with a short paragraph that introduces your group, defines what is "on topic" (and what is not), and explains the general policies of your group. If you want to write a long-winded, legalistic set of policies, by all means do so, but do that in two steps - first a short set of guidelines, with a link to the formal policy. If you are the sort who favors (or are forced by circumstances to adopt) long-winded legalese, you may want to have your visitors check off an "I agree" box before they sign up.
In one of the sites I came across, the manager chose to set the tone of his guidelines with the following statement. I liked it.
"If you don't like our guidelines, chances are you are part of the problem these rules address. Do us both a favor, and find another group."
You might not want to be so blunt, but in my experience, bluntness up front does help drive away bullies. They know you won't tolerate their abuse, so they don't even bother to test you.
There are some standard rules that will be very important to the moderator of a group concerned with bullies:
-
No name calling.
-
No personal attacks.
-
No posting private information about other participants, or any third party.
-
No complaining about fellow members in the group - either send those comments in private to that person or to the moderator.
-
If in doubt, contact the moderator, via private email.
Some other general rules that will also make your life easier:
-
If all you want to say to another person is "I agree" or "You're wrong", please send that to the person via private email.
Dealing with spam
Will you allow any form of commercial comment on your list? I find some of the rules too extreme. A four-line signature file, containing a short comment and a URL should be acceptable. I think affiliate URLs and comments leading to web sites that the poster owns should be permitted, particularly when the content is on-topic for the group.
Handling Disagreements
Understanding the difference between argument/disagreement and abuse/bullying/namecalling is critical to good list management, but in my experience online, few volunteer moderators have a good grasp of that difference. In fact, some of the worst bullying that I have seen starts when there is a simple disagreement that escalates into name-calling which is tolerated by moderators because they feel that they are obligated to let each party have their say.
As a volunteer or the commercial owner of a discussion group, get over the idea that you owe anyone anything. People can vote with their feet if they don't like your decisions. And the fear that people will leave should not influence those decisions. If they are the kind of people you really want in a quality group, they will stay. If not ... frankly you are better off without them. I know this sounds harsh, but I have wasted too many hours trying to reason with people who later spit on my efforts. Let them go. Life's too short. You are spending time and money setting up a space for people to chat on shared interests ... and you are entitled to set the rules. One of those rules will be the line between argument between argument and abuse.
The moment that one participant calls another participant a name, they have crossed the line from argument into abuse, no matter what may appear to have "started" it. Argument aimed at ideas is one thing. Sarcasm aimed at a person is something different.
Argument: "On www.xyz.com you will find out that you are wrong about that."
Abuse: "Only a moron would believe that."
There is another difference to note between argument and abuse. Not only is the abuser name-calling ("moron"), but they aren't backing up their position. Argument and disagreement should not be discouraged, they can lead to learning. Not only is name-calling hostile and abusive, there is very little one can learn from it.
"Net.Nannies"
There are a small but unfortunately common group of people who feel their intentions are good, but unfortunately their actions usually backfire. These are the self-designated "net.nannies", the guardians of netiquette that you will have to deal with from time to time.
These folks don't like to see any kind of disagreement. They think it is abusive to disagree. That's "rude". The only time they speak in a harsh manner, it is towards someone they consider to be too disagreeable (or when they have too shocking an opinion). It's like they feel they have a free pass to be nasty, because the other person gave them permission by being opinionated.
Most folks who "net.nanny" do so because they have been on all too many discussion groups that are poorly moderated. They just want to cut off any abuse before it starts. Unfortunately, these folks don't understand the reaction cycle. Nobody likes to be called rude or hostile just because they have an opinion, or do not agree. And no matter how simpatico the participants in a given list may be, there will be disagreements. That's not automatically a bad thing. This kind of accusation usually sparks exactly the sort of behavior that the "net.nanny" says s/he doesn't want. It does not occur to them to make their objections in private, even when such objections are expressly against the list's policies. It is never helpful to call someone rude ... even if that's patently obvious.
And not everyone displaying this behavior is well-intentioned. Calling someone down in a hostile manner for being "rude" or "sarcastic" can also be a cowardly way to be hostile and nasty while still trying to appear to be the good guy. If you call them on their passive-aggressive style, on it you will hear objections like "People should be nice." Well, you don't get someone to be nice by putting them down in public. All attempts at "behavior correction" by any party other than the moderator should be blocked or halted immediately, not matter how justified they may seem. The worst flame wars I have seen have started with "How could you be so mean/hostile/nasty/sarcastic?" If you see this, it is your cue to step in, stop the thread, and privately inform/remind your net.nanny that you will handle any posts that cross the line. If you are firm with this, they will either leave, or become comfortable enough to let you handle any abuse that may arise.
A sub-set of this sort of behavior is the "self-designated moderator" who feels their job is to remind everyone what is and is not "on topic" or appropriate for discussion. Again, that is your job. Thank them privately and remind them that you will handle it in the future. In public, you may wish to post a reminder or clarify what is and is not on-topic.
Censorship
When you block threads and remove posts you will be accused of censorship. That's going to hurt. It's one of the nastiest accusations bullies can use against moderators.
The truth only hurts if you are in denial. You are a censor.
That's part of your job. There is nothing wrong with it. If these folks want a platform to abuse others in, they can start up their own groups, find unmoderated groups or take their abusive behavior to the Usenet. You don't have to justify your decisions to anyone who accuses you of being a censor. It is an absolute waste of time to try to argue with them. In my experience it is a waste of text and time (I can say this with authority, having wasted a lot of text and time on it). Present them with a choice: accept my decisions and stay, or take your arguments elsewhere. You are providing a service, probably free of charge, with little if any personal gain ... you are entitled to set the standards you will work under.
Common excuses
Online bullies, like offline bullies, will often try to justify their behavior with common excuses.
Excuse: "S/He started it!"
Response: "It doesn't matter who started it. What matters is who is prepared to end it. If you are not prepared to let this go, then you are either a bully, or you are in the process of becoming a bully. Abuse is not a justifiable way to defend yourself, even when you feel the other person is not nice. You can defend yourself without name-calling or invective, and if you do not do so, I cannot take your side in a dispute."
Excuse: "I was just teasing, playing, joking around."
Response: "Teasing, playing around and joking are acceptable behavior between friends, until someone says "stop" or "no more". As soon as it becomes unwanted by the receiving party, it becomes bullying, no matter how cute or funny it seems to you."
