Preserving Law and Order with Anarchy

Note: the following is a pretend conversation, assembled in the Land of the Imaginary, where all exchanges are sprinkled with a healthy dose of self-righteousness and the words of my opponents are confined by coarse and scratchy rope which make their points seem unfairly lame.

So, Amy, when are you going to get that problem of inappropriate responses on ATAAW under control?

"Boy," I said in mock despair, "I surely do not know. Got a couple of minutes to go to the forums so that I can ask about threads where ranking members behave in hugely inappropriate ways?"

~*~

Support forums are different animals than social networks. That's part of the reason there are lot of responses to a social network post, but very few responses to a similar topic in a support forum.

Interestingly, a recent study funded by the US Government found 9 out of 10 people surveyed responded that they do not like to be moderated. 1 out of 10 people disagreed strongly and cited their love of moderating as the primary reason they continue to volunteer in that capacity.

To be fair, in a support forum where most posters are not known and crazy people frequently show up, someone has to be there to pull the trigger. Support forums are not warm and fuzzy. They are places to get specific help (i.e., support). And, even then, posters better invest time searching, first, to see if someone, somewhere posted an answer to their obscure problem, a situation tough enough to describe, let alone one that is so weird it's hard to specify decent search criteria.

Now, imagine a Web site that caters to a very small subset of those people who are known professional adults. Pull 5% of the members aside and whisper in their ear that they are now in charge of the others. Their job is to review, evaluate, remove, and rearrange the words and postings of site participants, in accordance with a lengthy set of sometimes subjective rules.

To spice it up, empower these moderators with private message interrogation capability so they can deliver stern messages, warning against future infractions. Then, lock conversations that get too heated, or start heading in that general direction, or fit the profile of a topic guaranteed to piss someone off.

Let that cook and, while it's brewing, start issuing increasingly longer bans to train those goofballs who respond incorrectly B: SQL and, therefore, end up off topic talking about Module Helpers when the (obvious?) correct on-topic answer was C: Plugins.

When you apply those forum moderating techniques to a social networking environment, what impact do you think those techniques have on that culture?

What impact might it have on Robert's Template Clubs vs Custom Joomla Templates thread?

- Would it increase or decrease the diverse number of participants?
- Would the comments be more or less helpful?
- Would the quality and quantity of free software and instructional video offered change?
- Would people be more or less inclined to return? Tell others? Post a new topic? Help another member? Bring donuts in the morning?

~*~

(The following is a joke is intended to make the same point as all of the words above, combined.)

Question: How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: None. That's a hardware problem.

~*~

No, that is not an A for Amy.

For goodness sake, you can't just let people post what they want! They might overtake the site as a platform for their personal political agendas!

I agree. There have to be rules. This Ning-type platform works better than a forum for social networks because the tools are more sophisticated. Interestingly, the rules are also more sophisticated although the rules are seldom written down or discussed. And yet, if the group is jiving right, most are unaware that there are rules. Members seem to naturally and effortlessly adapt, refining the rules as time passes and as the dynamics of interaction necessitate.

Paddling on the left brings change. Going around in circles too long induces vomiting.

As it turns out, in a social network, rules can be even more confining and far more complex than pages and pages of anal retentive forum rules. As the rules emerge, it can be confusing and frustrating and marked by conflict.

As an off of the wall example, let's say a crazy woman, nearly 50 years of age, normally friendly, leaves the group a comment that she invited leaders of the project who produce the software everyone uses to share their input on the group's branding exercise. Now, some of these people don't have an ID to the site. Bear in mind that IDs are available to anyone, without exclusion. Obtaining an ID can be done at no charge. In other words, the barriers to entry are extraordinarily low and the group norm is - ya gotta at least do that or we don't want your input.

Your honor, I object!

On what grounds?

On the grounds that the imaginary line drawn for "eligibility to share input" was six inches to the left yesterday, and this morning, when we arrived, it was relocated to here. /points to Ning floor

So, how were you harmed?

a) The crazy lady changed the rules without involving us and b) if these people respond, we will have input from non-members that she will probably encourage everyone read and consider.

~*~

Social Norms

The rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Deference to the social norms maintains one's acceptance and popularity within a particular group; ignoring the social norms risks one becoming unacceptable, unpopular or even an outcast from a group.

As it turns out, we comply or we do not comply with one another based solely on our willingness and ability, or our lack therein, to abide within the boundaries of unspoken and unwritten group norms. It would be impossible to identify what all the rules are for one's life. There is a separate sets of these rules for each combination of social groupings to which one belongs, including your immediate family, extended family, work environment, neighbors, and here.

Even if one could write down the rules, the list would out of date before the ink dried. The rules are constantly changing. Writing down the rules would make as much sense as trying to maintain a written copy of time, to the second.

We will constantly negotiate our rules. Sometimes, we will consciously talk about a rule, like the rule prohibiting personal attacks. Some might choose to flaunt their disregard for social convention and break what they know to be a rule. Those who have little need for social approval sometimes shatter group norms they do not agree with; for them, "being unpopular" might be a personal brand and as comfortable as an old pair of jeans.

Those people will likely hang out on the fringes, and come in and out of groups, sometimes behaving appropriately, and other times letting it all hang out. Their behavior is not any better in a moderated environment than it is in an environment not formally moderated. Taking moderated action might feel like something has been accomplished, but at best, it is an exercise in futility and could easily become sport for the offender whose skills are sharpened with practice.

Banning someone from all visibility in a community given our electronic world is *impossible* - so - like it or not, your best line of defense is learning to tolerate as much as possible, avoid what you can, and press the group norms button as hard and as frequently, as necessary, until compliance comes squirting out. When it does, take time to recognize and celebrate growth.

Externally defined rules and moderators are required for environments where members are not always known. In those settings, social norms have less influence. In groups were members are known, the most powerful moderating tool is already in place. All fingers are on the moderator button, and members are willing and able to push it when needed.