• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I didnt see anyone discussing this in the back catalog, and with the recent post about trolls, I figured it would be nice to have a seperate line of discussion about Cake and your personal views on moderation. I feel this discussion is imporntant to have because i have seen good moderation grow communities into close knit friendly places, or watched a few bad decisions destroy 10K+ member servers.

      So what is Cake's methodology on moderation? Are you going to be a gentle touch, or will you use the ban hammer more frequently? What kind of tools are in development for the moderation team? Are you planning to have community members become moderators, or only leave moderation to the Cake team?

      What kind of sites / moderation styles have you studied during the creation of Cake?

      I also saw in the trolls posts that you plan to agressivily weed out trolls, what would that entail?

      Also, for any non Cake team members, please use this space to share stories of online moderation, both times when mistakes were made and times when they made the right decision from moment 1.

      Have a wonderful day everyone!

    • It's a huge topic and a vast gulf separates men & women on the issues. It's something I think about every day, many times a day, as a make-or-break issue for Cake.

      I've had my own experiences moderating ADVrider for 15 years, which now has 2 million unique visitors/month. Here's a small sampling of some things that have shaped my thinking:

      A Honeypot for Assholes

      The Immortal Myths about Online Abuse

      The Shitlord in the Forum Problem

    • caveat: I've never moderated a forum so just random thoughts:

      Place Cake from the outset as a safe place to post. Being blunt, it should be a place where anyone who isn't white, male and middle aged, should feel safe to post without receiving racist abuse.

      From the outset state clearly, " this is our site" if you post anything which we find objectionable, you will be banned. "

      Obvious infractions, rape threats, racism, white supremacists, and more of the horrible posts that twitter allow (I didn't realise twitter was so bad until I read the links above).

      It may require very clear terms and conditions to avoid a lawsuit but i think that the silent majority want a safe place to post and have conversations.

      if Facebook can be that strict, so can cake?

      The idea of allowing a poster to delete any objectionable posts from their thread is a good one, as you said in another thread, moderators may not react quickly enough to police a particular thread, the poster being able to moderate their posts allows that.

      Free speech is a nice idea but the psychos out there abuse that ideal and don't deserve a voice on your site.

      I know the above isn't perticularly eloquent but If you want women in particular to post frequently, then you have to create an enviroment that is abuse free.

      Politics can be discussed in it's own forum, like C&S, if needed. warn people that "here be trolls" and they enter at their own risk. Let the bottom feeders play there but only there.

    • The way I think about free speech is it's wonderful and essential, but your right to free speech ends when you use it to prevent someone else to speak freely.

      It reminds me of the famous line apparently spoken by a judge: "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins."

    • I think people who cite the constitutional right to free speech mis-understand what free really means. Libel, slander, defamation, fighting words, etc. are the legal tools which allow one to limit speech and the like. In moderation, I think it's better to use a modification of the Brandenburg test. Brandenburg says “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and “likely to incite or produce such action.” can be used to determine when speech may be limited.

      The hard part is deciding what the moderator's version of the test should be but in my view, it should probably refer to a violation of the site rules or code of conduct as the definition for "lawless action" or "produce such action". And the site rules should prohibit being a shitlord, douchebag, troll or making targeted attacks and the like.

      Bottom line is that you have no right to "free speech" on a private forum. Even if it is open to the public because you agree to the site rules and code of conduct. Applying a test to questionable posts that helps determine whether the post complies with the site rules should leave no doubt as to what the moderating decision is and whether it's right or wrong.

    You've been invited!