Dear Oprah - The Other Perspective

[Gord]

It is sad to witness the unraveling of this board. It has been a source of much fun and inspiration in the brief time I have been a member. But it has also been a source of much pain and aggravation. How did it come to this?

Problem #1
Threads and posts were being altered. Threads and posts were being deleted. Members (such as Dallara) were being banned and sanctioned. There was no clear understanding or criteria governing any of these actions. There was no communication from the moderators indicating that they had altered anyone’s posts or even deleted them. Things were just happening.

Problem #2
A number of members politely requested an explanation as to why posts they had written or were following had been altered or deleted. These requests were met with deafening silence from the board’s administration. Others came to the defence of the site administration with some questionable arguments that simply did not address the issues that have been raised. Meanwhile, Problem #1 continued.

Some of the more interesting, but rather irrelevant justifications for what has been going on included that I have sampled from some recent threads include:

From the Dear Oprah thread:

“I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the moderators and owner are on a mission to personally attack and single out members.” So then where is Dallara? Banished for having transgressed some unwritten law! That’s where. Just because you don’t see it happening on the board, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

“I think they have done a good job of communicating…” Others would disagree.

“If there are some that can’t or won’t make an honest attempt to comply, then it is beneficial to my selfish needs that those members leave, angry or not.” (my emphasis). Those who are challenging the editing and deletion of the moderators and the censuring of people have no legitimate concerns and are just being selfish? The “selfish needs” of others have greater legitimacy?

From the Doug & Support thread:

“Doug owns the website”. This is a tenuous argument for justifying the altering and deletion of members’ contributions. In accepting membership money, no matter how small, Doug has an obligation to members. This isn’t a financial or legal obligation, but it is an obligation to be fair and impartial to all. And that fairness and impartiality is what is being legitimately questioned.



Problem #3
The request for clarification of the criteria / rationale for the actions of the moderators was finally met with a set of rules that is unevenly enforced, and those rules only apply to posting members – there is no corresponding rules or code of conduct for moderators.

I find it strange that Dallara has been banned for apparently being insulting in some of his posts. Yet anyone who supports Dallara and questions the wisdom of how he has been treated is fair game for abuse. For example, in the “Dear Oprah” thread, those who have challenged Doug and the mods are described using some of the following terms: “pseudo-virtual friends”, “whining and self-serving”, of spreading “false accusations and wild speculations”, “never learned classy behaviour”, “angry children”, “thin-skinned” and “crying”. Talk about a double standard here. If you happen to disagree with the site administrators, you can be banned for insulting posts. If you support the position of the site administrators, however, it is okay to insult a whole group of people who have legitimate concerns that are based on principle.

And while it is true, as stated in the Doug & Support thread that ‘Doug has established rules and asked for decorum”, those rules do not prevent high-handedness on the part of moderators. In DJs “Thanks For The Memories” thread, it is stated by one member “I don’t quite understand why there are soooo many folks visiting r1150r.org who find themselves so easily offended by being asked to play by the rules.” But it’s obvious! Those rules are totally one-sided and do not fully address the fundamental problems that have led to this current debate. The rules clearly convey the idea that the “problem” is all the fault of a group of members and that there are no “problems” with how the site is being moderated. This whole debate is about more than “is it too much to ask (repeatedly) that members place their posts in the appropriate forums.” It is about the fact that the contributions of members have been altered without acknowledgement by the perpetrators that this has been done. And until the administration of the board acknowledges this as a legitimate issue, the problem will fester.

Problem #4
There is a continuing lack of recognition that it is the contributions of the members of this board that makes it successful, not its technical features, or its administration.

When I read posts like “…moderators need to be more pro-active, actually police-ing the site more” (DJ “Thanks” thread), or “Ya, what the hell happened? Just too many people?” (“Doug & Support” thread), or “it’s Doug’s site”, or even “if/when the Mod’s actively take back the site”, one can’t help but feel unwelcome. What made this site stand out was the irreverent, quirky, and entertaining mix of personalities. What made this site stand out was the ability to be both informed and entertained by Dallara – and even shocked by him. It was refreshing to be outraged by Lance one minute, and then beautifully entertained by DJ the next. It was the ability to have sometimes heated discussions with AndyfromPoland or JToole, yet knowing that if we ever did meet, our common bond in motorcycling would help us overcome any controversy we had on the board. But it seems the site is no longer intended to bind its members together, or to be a refuge for us to pass some time in. Instead, the site is to be “cleansed” so that those casual passersby who might look in won’t be offended. The site is to be “cleansed” so that our children can look in. The site is to be “cleansed” so that our co-workers can look over our shoulders. It appears that the site is no longer intended to be first and foremost a place for its members to share who they are – warts and all – with each other. I question the statement made in the “Dear Oprah” thread that the “…the owner and the moderators are accomplishing their mission.”

So what is the solution to these problems? Well, it is probably already too late to save the goodwill on the board. Some of the more informative, vibrant, and challenging members have already left. There are a number of things that might save this board from unraveling completely:

Solution #1
Establish accountability for moderators who alter or delete members’ posts by (a) establishing published rules governing what moderators can and can’t do, (b) require moderators to post any rationale they have for altering or deleting posts, (c) remove any moderator who cannot abide by rules

Solution #2
Respect the diversity and contribution of the board’s membership. Don’t attempt to homogenize such a heterogeneous group. Some are better riders than others. Some are more technically adept than others. Some are smarter than others. Some are different nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, religions, political and even sexual persuasions than others. Some are better communicators than others. We need to accept that with such a mixed group, it is inevitable that there are situations where things get heated, people disagree, and don’t always communicate effectively (nicely!). So what? Let the dynamics unwind, just like real life. Let the members be accountable for posting what they post.

In closing, there is a rather telling post that disturbs me greatly. It reads:

“…I absolutely feel that the “rules” are extremely fair and do-able by everyone (BTW, if you think the rules are unfair in some way, then you really do have a problem, and are not seeing the big picture and taking others into consideration” (my emphasis added).

More than anything this captures the essence of the problem. The board is infallible. It’s members are the problem. Until this attitude changes, the board will continue to unravel.

[DSKYZD]

I for one will not make any apologies for any of the moderating I've done on the board.

I cannot remember ever editing someone's post. It may have happened long ago, but I would have owned up to it. I have moved threads and deleted double posts. Sometimes when moving threads I would pm the author if I felt it might not be clear why the post was moved.

As for any controversial postings or expressions of displeasure with the "administration" I leave those alone and cannot speak for the other moderators. I would almost bet money that most, if not all, of the editing you speak of has been done by Doug. As moderators we've been asked to email him when we find something that is need of attention instead of deleting it ourselves.

I can't help but think the moderators have been lumped together and are seen as a form of authority to be rebelled against.

Lately I've read a lot of the talk about the "deafening silence". My silence is the result of the feeling I have done nothing that needs to be explained or apologized for. Again, I am speaking for myself only. Initially I stayed out of what is going on with board, my own participation has dwindled over the last few months. Somewhat for personal reasons and somewhat for feeling like I was wasting my efforts when I tried to "moderate". I quit moving threads because they were always met with a new thread crying "where did my thread go". So I left things alone. Maybe that IS part of the problem. I know too that Doug himself has not spent as much time on the board. Bill Haycock has persued other interests recently, Herb has had to concentrate on healing himself, and Mark has is busy with school and family. Pat also has admitted to spending time on the Truimph boards. I do believe that Chris and Gene have stepped down as moderators.

What I'm trying to get at is that for whatever reason the majority of the authority on this site has not been present as much as we have in the past. As a result a lot of things got by that should not have.

I for one am back and will be making more of an effort to enforce the rules as they have been outlined. I've always tried to be fair even when I couldn't understand their negativity. It was difficult and it still is difficult not to let personal feelings get involved. When I read something that just rubs me the wrong way I LEAVE IT ALONE. I know that a quick action is not the best and I should think before doing anything hastily. Most of the time those things were addressed by Doug. Sometimes they were not and were just left to sit. Was that the right thing to do? Who knows?

Let me say this, I am sorry to each and every one of you that feels hurt. I am sorry that anyone feels like leaving the board. You're all right that something's wrong when people feel that. I feel like I am trying to right some of the wrong that has gone on. But unfortunately that in itself is seen has hostile action.

Again, I will not apologize for anything I have done or will do in the future because I don't feel the actions I take are unfair or heavy handed. Some may not like that statement.

I will apologize to those of you who feel the need to leave, not because I feel I may have offended you, but because it makes me sad to see people go. You are all right that members are what make this board great. I do feel that some members have not been putting their best foot forward lately. I still think you are all good people and I still think that is the best board around. Rough times? Sure, but they'll get better.

Merry Christmas R1150R.net.


DSKYZD

[Gord]

I for one will not make any apologies for any of the moderating I've done on the board.

A very eloquent and appreciated response DSKYZD.

I do not want to get in to apologies though. Apologies have been demanded from certain paying members of the board. Interestingly, I don't recall seeing any requests for apologies from the paying members who may feel their reputations have been impugned for not following orders. But I am sure they would appreciate the honesty and openness of what you have shared. I know I do.

The reality is I don't think it is realistic to try and moderate manners, language, "tone", civility, context, verbiage, or the like. Censorship of how people convey their thoughts does not work. Determining what is an offensive image (short of the very obvious sexual stuff like kiddy happytime, full penetration, cum shots, oral sex, anal sex, fellatio, cunnilingus, and then the violent stuff like dismemberment, disembowelment, drawinbg and quartering, garroting, murder, and the like) is also highly subjective. So I emphathize with the tough job that moderators have to deal with.

But I am still trying to understand why Dallara is not welcome.