Response to complaints about Nifflers
Aug. 30th, 2003 12:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwendolyngraceThis is a lengthy response to posts found here.
Comments, Questions
First off, thanks for pointing this out, albeit in a wank, but understand that we need our users to alert us to breaks in the system, because most of the moderators at FA are focused on their own tasks. We spend out time making the site run, adding fics to the archive, monitoring behaviour in the Park, and so on. We aren't aware of every instance of trouble. So it's helpful to know when there's a problem we need to fix.
It sounds like the Niffler system is breaking down. So let's fix it. Now, my question to y'all is: How? What do you recommend?
For one thing, let's leave "fangirls" out of this. Problems of this nature are generally systemic. It's possible that there are nifflers out there abusing
their power, but what evidence is there of that? If you really think that there's a problem that comes down to people not doing their jobs, that's one thing. And as Heidi says, those people won't be Nifflers much longer.
But in my experience, few people who volunteer for something like that intend to screw it up. They don't log on to FA saying to themselves, "Hm, now let's see, whose day can I ruin today?" Do they? I
think they're saying, "What have I read recently that I would recommend?" - which, admittedly, is not what Nifflers are necessarily supposed to do.
Still, I'd rather you see the combination of factors that led up to this turn of events, rather than simply lay blame. FA is large, as you all know, and complex. With that complexity comes more complicated problems. As I see it, here are the "root causes" of the problem:
1. Several key personnel at FA were unavailable or otherwise committed at the time when the last round was chosen. Heidi was off procreating; I and several
others were working full-steam on Nimbus.
2. There were a lot more applicants than we usually get. We received applications from over 50 people that round.
3. Many of those applicants were fully qualified. Think grad school applications here. Most everyone who applies is qualified; there are only so many spots open.
4. Pressed for time and running up against the deadline, with no staff, the folks who had to make the decision picked out the top tier of applicants and...
made decisions. They were perhaps bad decisions, but given the circumstances, they also weren't necessarily wrong.
5. After being appointed, people's vacations got in the way, including mods, who ordinarily would be better staffed to monitor how things are going, but
who were in a constant state of covering for each other because of absences, planned and unplanned.
6. Nifflers, thus left unchecked and also going on their own holidays, relied on things they knew, rather than actively seeking out fics they weren't previously familiar with.
Now, how do we fix it? Well, first off, few of us will be planning any events this time, so that's easy right there. Heidi can't possibly have another baby in the next 3 weeks, so that's better. By the time anyone is actively involved in event planning, we'll have a coverage system to help take care of it. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the applicants' other writing, but I thought the whole point of the application was so that we *didn't* have to spend an inordinate amount of time researching. Would you feel better if we added an interview process? A questionnaire? How do we keep people from lying?
Someone mentioned closing the threads to posts after making the recommendation. That's a great idea. There are other mechanical things we can look into to clean
up the Nifflers' area, now that we know there's a serious issue.
What else? We can educate the Nifflers better this time, reminding them that while we don't dictate their fic choices, they should avoid authors who have
already been niffled, and that they should try to branch out more from their own preferred reading in order to test new markets. Okay. We can ask
point-blank if they plan to be away or if the time commitment will be a problem. We can tell them that they *must* let us know if that situation changes. Very good.
We can also monitor how Nifflers do. Of course, that's more police work on our part as mods, but it's a suggestion. So there you have a number of lessons we
can apply to the next go-round, and more importantly, to next year or the next time there's a major fandom gathering that will leave FA short of staff.
Now, I have another topic to discuss here, about which I'd like some enlightenment. Folks here criticised FA for trying to "make everyone happy" and yet they also criticised us because they are not among the happy hordes. Again, do you think that we deliberately set out to "make everyone happy - except you?"
I'll say it again: FA is huge. Ever so much larger than we ever thought it would become. Understand that for the site to continue to grow - and by that, I mean to mature and to improve - we need our users to treat it as a partnership. This is not a competition; it is not a rivalry. We as mods are not "out to get you" and you as users, I hope, are not planning to slit our throats in the night and take over. We are partners: we, the mods who tirelessly try to improve the site, and you, our consumers.
Perhaps sometimes we're so busy doing what we're doing - like trying to get everything in place for some new features and upgrades - that your suggestions appear to be met with negativity. We have to work on that. But without those suggestions, without problems, we'll never know where the systems need improvement.
Third and final topic: PCness. I'm not sure what y'all mean by this. Particularly when combined with the word, "censorship." I find these accusations difficult to hear, and so forgive me if I sound defensive. But there's a big, huge difference between being "Politically Correct" and being "inclusive." If by PC, you mean that we strictly enforce a policy of
tolerance and we don't allow users to insult one another on the basis of their creed, race, colour, sexual orientation, or any other superfluous reason,
then I guess we're PC in your eyes. I call that "inclusive", because I don't really care what your opinions are about blacks, gays, or R/H shippers. I
only care that when you're speaking about them on my site, you'll do so respectfully.
Which leads to the topic of censorship. In what ways do you feel censored? Because you can't swear a blue streak on-site? That's a legal consideration, not a preferential one. Because, again, we don't allow insulting, derogatory language that could lead to flame wars? Well, I guess, if you really need to do
that, then yes, we're censoring you. Y'all have livejournals you can deride other people endlessly if you want to, but no, not on the site. Again, though,
that's because we want to be inclusive. Aside from the fact that we all feel strongly that people are people and that's all there is to it, this is a legal
consideration here as well. As a non-profit incorporation, we must ensure that the site is open to all people equally. We don't want any group to feel singled out or ganged up on or driven away. Okay, that's not true. There is one group that I, at least, want driven away: people who can't keep a civil tongue in their fingers. (We could also do without people who can't string together two sentences without making a spelling error or a grammar mistake or using netspeak, but that's minor.)
So again, I ask: where do you see unreasonable censorship? Where do you think FA is unreasonably "correct" toward minority groups, both in and outside the fandom? Or is there some other definition of PC you would employ? Is there some other area where we're deficient? Tell me. Where have we been truly unjust?
If you know of any instance, I'd like to hear about it. Not to punish the person or persons who committed the act, but to figure out how we can stop the site from reflecting that inequity.
Gwen
Comments, Questions
First off, thanks for pointing this out, albeit in a wank, but understand that we need our users to alert us to breaks in the system, because most of the moderators at FA are focused on their own tasks. We spend out time making the site run, adding fics to the archive, monitoring behaviour in the Park, and so on. We aren't aware of every instance of trouble. So it's helpful to know when there's a problem we need to fix.
It sounds like the Niffler system is breaking down. So let's fix it. Now, my question to y'all is: How? What do you recommend?
For one thing, let's leave "fangirls" out of this. Problems of this nature are generally systemic. It's possible that there are nifflers out there abusing
their power, but what evidence is there of that? If you really think that there's a problem that comes down to people not doing their jobs, that's one thing. And as Heidi says, those people won't be Nifflers much longer.
But in my experience, few people who volunteer for something like that intend to screw it up. They don't log on to FA saying to themselves, "Hm, now let's see, whose day can I ruin today?" Do they? I
think they're saying, "What have I read recently that I would recommend?" - which, admittedly, is not what Nifflers are necessarily supposed to do.
Still, I'd rather you see the combination of factors that led up to this turn of events, rather than simply lay blame. FA is large, as you all know, and complex. With that complexity comes more complicated problems. As I see it, here are the "root causes" of the problem:
1. Several key personnel at FA were unavailable or otherwise committed at the time when the last round was chosen. Heidi was off procreating; I and several
others were working full-steam on Nimbus.
2. There were a lot more applicants than we usually get. We received applications from over 50 people that round.
3. Many of those applicants were fully qualified. Think grad school applications here. Most everyone who applies is qualified; there are only so many spots open.
4. Pressed for time and running up against the deadline, with no staff, the folks who had to make the decision picked out the top tier of applicants and...
made decisions. They were perhaps bad decisions, but given the circumstances, they also weren't necessarily wrong.
5. After being appointed, people's vacations got in the way, including mods, who ordinarily would be better staffed to monitor how things are going, but
who were in a constant state of covering for each other because of absences, planned and unplanned.
6. Nifflers, thus left unchecked and also going on their own holidays, relied on things they knew, rather than actively seeking out fics they weren't previously familiar with.
Now, how do we fix it? Well, first off, few of us will be planning any events this time, so that's easy right there. Heidi can't possibly have another baby in the next 3 weeks, so that's better. By the time anyone is actively involved in event planning, we'll have a coverage system to help take care of it. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the applicants' other writing, but I thought the whole point of the application was so that we *didn't* have to spend an inordinate amount of time researching. Would you feel better if we added an interview process? A questionnaire? How do we keep people from lying?
Someone mentioned closing the threads to posts after making the recommendation. That's a great idea. There are other mechanical things we can look into to clean
up the Nifflers' area, now that we know there's a serious issue.
What else? We can educate the Nifflers better this time, reminding them that while we don't dictate their fic choices, they should avoid authors who have
already been niffled, and that they should try to branch out more from their own preferred reading in order to test new markets. Okay. We can ask
point-blank if they plan to be away or if the time commitment will be a problem. We can tell them that they *must* let us know if that situation changes. Very good.
We can also monitor how Nifflers do. Of course, that's more police work on our part as mods, but it's a suggestion. So there you have a number of lessons we
can apply to the next go-round, and more importantly, to next year or the next time there's a major fandom gathering that will leave FA short of staff.
Now, I have another topic to discuss here, about which I'd like some enlightenment. Folks here criticised FA for trying to "make everyone happy" and yet they also criticised us because they are not among the happy hordes. Again, do you think that we deliberately set out to "make everyone happy - except you?"
I'll say it again: FA is huge. Ever so much larger than we ever thought it would become. Understand that for the site to continue to grow - and by that, I mean to mature and to improve - we need our users to treat it as a partnership. This is not a competition; it is not a rivalry. We as mods are not "out to get you" and you as users, I hope, are not planning to slit our throats in the night and take over. We are partners: we, the mods who tirelessly try to improve the site, and you, our consumers.
Perhaps sometimes we're so busy doing what we're doing - like trying to get everything in place for some new features and upgrades - that your suggestions appear to be met with negativity. We have to work on that. But without those suggestions, without problems, we'll never know where the systems need improvement.
Third and final topic: PCness. I'm not sure what y'all mean by this. Particularly when combined with the word, "censorship." I find these accusations difficult to hear, and so forgive me if I sound defensive. But there's a big, huge difference between being "Politically Correct" and being "inclusive." If by PC, you mean that we strictly enforce a policy of
tolerance and we don't allow users to insult one another on the basis of their creed, race, colour, sexual orientation, or any other superfluous reason,
then I guess we're PC in your eyes. I call that "inclusive", because I don't really care what your opinions are about blacks, gays, or R/H shippers. I
only care that when you're speaking about them on my site, you'll do so respectfully.
Which leads to the topic of censorship. In what ways do you feel censored? Because you can't swear a blue streak on-site? That's a legal consideration, not a preferential one. Because, again, we don't allow insulting, derogatory language that could lead to flame wars? Well, I guess, if you really need to do
that, then yes, we're censoring you. Y'all have livejournals you can deride other people endlessly if you want to, but no, not on the site. Again, though,
that's because we want to be inclusive. Aside from the fact that we all feel strongly that people are people and that's all there is to it, this is a legal
consideration here as well. As a non-profit incorporation, we must ensure that the site is open to all people equally. We don't want any group to feel singled out or ganged up on or driven away. Okay, that's not true. There is one group that I, at least, want driven away: people who can't keep a civil tongue in their fingers. (We could also do without people who can't string together two sentences without making a spelling error or a grammar mistake or using netspeak, but that's minor.)
So again, I ask: where do you see unreasonable censorship? Where do you think FA is unreasonably "correct" toward minority groups, both in and outside the fandom? Or is there some other definition of PC you would employ? Is there some other area where we're deficient? Tell me. Where have we been truly unjust?
If you know of any instance, I'd like to hear about it. Not to punish the person or persons who committed the act, but to figure out how we can stop the site from reflecting that inequity.
Gwen
