A Personal Look at the Message Board
I’ve been Communications Director for three months, and my main job in that capacity has been to oversee the “moderation” of the Message Board. I find the experience problematic, because it is very time consuming and because I am always dealing with angry people. Still, it is an important job, and it is certainly not boring. I feel comfortable with it (after a period of adjustment that was immeasurably eased by the mentoring and advice of my monitors), but I have promised Gail that I will pass the position on to some other lucky Board member next September.
There are four successive layers of message board moderation, and they operate independently. First, members call potentially offensive posts to the attention of the monitors. The first available monitor then evaluates the post and makes a call. That call may then be appealed to me, either by the poster or the reporter, and I make a call. The Executive Director is empowered to reverse calls made by the Communications Director, although to my knowledge this has never happened.
So I am just one level in the process, but I have some additional heft because as Communications Director I also have the responsibility for ensuring, in a general way, the implementation of message board policies. So I think it would be useful if I frankly explain my “take” on our message board policies. In doing this, I recognize that these views may not be shared entirely by the membership, or even by the monitors and/or by the Executive Director, and I invite all concerned to comment on a DISCussion Board thread that I will initiate.
First, my style as Communications Director has little to do with my personal feelings about censorship. I believe in the freedom of speech, and I don’t mind participating in a forum in which I might be ripped, cursed or otherwise offended. This is because it would be hard for anyone other than Gail to hurt my feelings, and also because I feel articulate enough to defend myself. I recently authored a thread on the NEFA message board, which has much less restrictive policies than ours, and have no bad feelings about the resulting experience.
My style has everything to do with what I believe that the PDGA should be doing. First, our message board is one of our windows to the public, and if it is distasteful we may alienate potential friends. Secondly, there are many PDGA members who are not as bulletproof or as thick of skin as I, and they may be disenfranchised by a board that permits abusive and otherwise offensive posts. Only about ten percent of our members post. I want to encourage more participation from the thin of skin.
I believe that our message board policies defining offensive material are good ones. They permit plenty of disagreement and criticism, and even civilly articulated expressions of contempt. I would not change them except to add a prohibition on the posting of personal data, and that is a work in progress. I have increased the suspension penalties (effective December 1) because I felt that 1) a three-day suspension was a relatively meaningless wrist slap, 2) the monitors were dealing too often with repeat offenders, and 3) it should cut down on account sharing.
I need to explain the last point. Some members allow nonmembers and suspended members to post on their account. We have a policy against this, but it is fundamentally unenforceable. I expect that, with increased penalties, members will be less likely to share their accounts.
There is much more to say, but I have said enough here. For most readers, this is boring stuff compared with what normally appears in this space -- the climactic events of a major disc golf tournament. So I want to keep it short, but also open-ended.
Many members have serious misconceptions about the message board and its moderation, and I would like to make all this as clear as possible. I have started a thread on the DISCussion Board called “Message Board Myths” to get people thinking about how message board moderation really works. Please respond there with comments and questions.