Ethics in Moderation

Originally submitted by: The Administrator

As a moderator of this site and others, through the years, I have been saddled with a few ethical issues. An online forum or social network is always in balance between order and chaos. A site needs a mission or purpose, and it is the moderator's duty to maintain some degree of focus, while encouraging an open idea-sphere. It is a forum, after all, and by definition, everyone should have a voice. The internet gives us the opportunity to view real democracy, and many people may not be ready to handle this. People's ideas of freedom tend to differ, and some forum members like to voice their opinions while they stifle others. The forum is a way to create communities, but quite often, it can polarize the very community if represents. A forum that is created to discuss politics, for instance, is going to be most likely slanted one way or another. The forum is most likely a partisan one. The members are of similar mind, in all likelihood. But within that community, there will be disparate voices, micro-divisions that will most likely create good discussion and dissection of the issues. Most likely. But what also is likely to happen is in-fighting and disunity within the community. There are feuds, factions, and teams that form. The idea that members have anonymity is dangerous. Really, a worthwhile experiment would be a forum with full transparency. No avatars, no aliases. You are representing yourself here. You would be completely responsible for your own opinions, and you would have to answer for it in the real world. You would have to be honest, and you could not hide behind a false identity. While this idea would prevent participation among many members, it would also create an air of civility. This is the age of the blog, and the internet celebrity. The virtual personality. There will come a time when we shall want a return to the real world and be ourselves. But I digress. I have had to settle disputes. I have had to edit content when I thought a forum post was too much. People get nasty, far nastier than they ever would in person. Seeing one's words in print on a screen brings a sense of power. Whomever has the best handle on the language tends to be the most persuasive. But just because you win the fight don't make you right, as George Clinton said. Many forums have moderator approval settings. This is a spam control, first and foremost. But it is also a tool for shaping the media in your forum. A forum is not always a true democracy. It is an educational tool, it is propaganda, it is a soapbox, it is a platform. It is all of these. While you can control some of the content and include just the posts that you deem worthy, you must also allow the contrary voices. They are the ones who will promote the strongest discussion, quite often. You only have control over your own ethics, in the end. You never know exactly where the other members are coming from. You will always have a hard time pushing your ethical agenda on anyone. People don't like being told what is right or wrong. So you have to let them figure it out for themselves. Maybe in the end, this medium is all just self-talk. We hardly care about the discussion at all. We are more concerned with our own post. Then we warp around the world and travel to a new site altogether to do the same thing. You might leave a comment somewhere on a site that offends someone, or hurts someone. And you may never return to the site again. Do you want to be responsible for your own ideas and opinions? Are you a grafitti artist, tagging web pages and moving on? Or are you going to become involved in the community itself? If you try the latter, and become a part of something, your discussion may help bring about changes to the forum. Or changes in the real world itself.