Turns out Kim Keller is a character in a series of graphic novels made by a guy who goes by the initials L.E.O. It had absolutely nothing to do with the police and it was all just a series of coincidences that led up to a harmless misunderstanding.
But if *I* had that misunderstanding, it's reasonable to assume that my other players might also have the same misunderstanding, and have cause to feel unwelcome or unsafe.
So we talked about it a little and we ended up erasing the memento, which I didn't feel good about (I would have preferred to just change it so that it didn't set off any potentially harmful misinterpretations).
The important part here is catching these things early, because if someone misinterprets this thing to mean blue lives matter, and talks about how that makes them uncomfortable, and the creator isn't around at the time, then that sort of convo can spiral.
This is the sort of thing that can easily lead to long and often unproductive conversations about what's allowed on the site, about censorship, about consideration of others' feelings, about culture wars in general, and then twelve hours later when the original author logs back on they're confronted with this absolute FIREHOSE of Discourse about a thing that they *didn't even mean to say.* They were literally talking about something completely different!
By then the conversation isn't even about the thing they made, it's about These Things In General, and the creator will either have horribly uncomfortable and complicated feelings about this whole Thing they've accidentally unleashed, or they'll take one look at it and go "Nope," erase the thing, post "I was actually talking about a graphic novel," and go hide for a little while until it all blows over.
Moral of the story is that it's _totally okay_ to apply your moderation privileges to things that are absolutely, 100% harmless, but which have the potential to be misunderstood to be something hurtful. Catch them early before they're seen and misunderstood, explain to the creator that you know they didn't mean it like that, and where possible work with the creator in question to resolve the issue and avoid misinterpretations.
Online Community Moderation Thread Part 93819: the same story going round and round forever
Been watching this Scott Cawthorn thing play out (the Five Nights At Freddy's guy, who it turns out was secretly donating the game's profits to far-right abusers while publicly donating to useful groups to give himself a veneer of respectability).
If you've been moderating for a while you'll see the same social mechanics play out over and over like clockwork, and you'll feel frustrated at this.
You'll be like, "This only last happened a couple of years ago, don't people learn?"
Remember, your site has new users since the last spin of the merry-go-round. Some of them are in their teens!
The FNAF community is handling their Milkshake Duck situation poorly because they trend so young that for many of them, *this is their first Milkshake Duck.* Their first ever! You remember how much you flailed and how much of an ass you made of yourself during *your* first Milkshake Duck, don't you?
You'll continually go through the same stories over and over until a portion of your userbase is old enough to recognize these cyclic events, and then you'll keep going through them because you have new users, but the old users will roll their eyes and go "Pfft, kids today."
The solution - I'll say it again! - is to list common harmful social mechanisms *right there on your website,* so people recognize and derail them on the fly.
Again, it's gotta be right there on your site, and *tailored to your audience,* and in a place that's easily accessible for reference. If you're a gerbil site, talk about the time Yummy Nuts Gerbil Food partnered up with the Handmade GerbilSkin Pillow guy and the absolute mess of how your community responded. Your community has some cultural memory but on the internet it's not worth Jack if it's not written down.
(armchair admin moment: Y'know what I would've done if I ran the FNAF subreddit during Milkshake Chica? I would've posted a notice and then shut that crap down. Gone read-only for a couple of days. Milkshake Duck events are a time for personal reflection and emotional processing, not for reading the hot takes of internet strangers. ("Hot take" is shorthand for "I haven't thought this through at all but I want to be the first to post it in case I get lots of redoots or uptweets or whatever."))
(surfing random waves of algorithmically-amplified emotion is not a healthy thing to do during a traumatic event. A Community Consensus will attempt to form within literal minutes of the news breaking, regardless of whether anyone's had time to sit with their emotions or not.
Of course shutting down a subreddit while it's at the absolute peak of its traffic is unthinkable, because corporate-owned internet wants us to think that numbers going up is good.)
(it's often a good idea to do the things that corporate-owned internet would find unthinkable. Corporate-owned internet does not have its users' interests in mind.)
One wrinkle to the "Shut it all down and let people think for a minute" approach is that for a non-zero portion of the userbase, this community IS how they think, how they process, how they identify themselves, and suddenly yanking that away and forcing them to sit with their own emotions would be cruel to them. I'm aware of that.
I said earlier in this thread, "You will have to deliberately hurt someone." That's important to keep in mind if you want to run a community website.
Online Community Moderation Thread continued, red flags for an early ban:
* using "god" or "hero" or "deity" or other wanky self-aggrandizing crap in their username. You'll wanna be up to speed with the semi-obscure names of almost-forgotten gods that undesirables tend to use, including spelling variants (we had a guy who named himself Asmodius who ended up in prison, you can probably guess why but it's actually worse than you think).
* framing commonly-held community standards as "unwritten rules" and demanding that every infraction of theirs results in a new Official Rule. This ends up with you writing new rules for one person - which means making everyone read the new rules (and go "huh? people were seriously doing that?") when really only one person is the problem, and that can easily be solved with a ban rather than pointlessly inconveniencing your entire userbase.
* Talking about free speech, censorship or the first amendment in the context of a single website is an early indicator that you're dealing with someone who has a child's understanding of free speech. This is someone who'll cause you problems later on, because when they say "free speech," they really mean "free web hosting / free audience." Ban early, and if you feel like you must, remind them that they can make their own website with whatever rules they like.
(the "if you feel like you must" bit is there because some admins do feel like they must explain bans to the banned. A ban is so you don't have to deal with or talk to that person again, and I personally don't bother. I'll talk to them plenty before the ban, but after it's done they're outta my life and someone else's problem. If you talk to those you've banned, you're opening yourself up to an pointless and unpleasant interaction that will never end.)
A common denominator between many of the folks you'll want to ban from your website is that they all want to see what they can get away with.
More often than not, they treat everyone around them the same way. That includes work colleagues, intimate partners, you get the idea.
Someone who consistently bends the rules will eventually victimize your other users, if they're not already doing so. You'll find out when half a dozen come forward at once.
Ban before that point.
Semi-related to the topic of serial abusers and their crossover with people who get banned from websites, and on the subject of people not coming forward with reports of abuse; if people treat you as the admin with disproportionate respect, if they call you "sir" or "ma'am" or "boss," that's a problem. That makes you less approachable, which means people are less likely to come to you with abuse reports. Tell folks to knock it off, you just made a website.
(me, early in Improbable Island days, a twentysomething dumbass who thought he knew better despite being in the internet's Edgy Cringe Is Cool Actually era: "Haha lol I have a cult"
me, very shortly thereafter: "oh shit I have a cult, this is Bad Actually"
me now, a latethirtysomething dumbass who thinks he knows better but at least does know better than he did ten or twelve years ago: "Don't let folks turn you into a cult leader kids, it's Awful Actually")
(lotta Actually going on here huh)
(the "Don't call the admin sir" thing is actually in the coc. Improbable Island has probably the biggest coc you've ever seen (
https://www.improbableisland.com/coc.php) and that particular thing used to say "unless it's obvious you're joking," but now it doesn't, because to newbies it's never obvious someone's joking)
Earlier on I said "If it's make a new rule for one person or ban the person in question, just ban" - I also wanna make clear that codifying your community norms, writing them down as part of your CoC in a descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) way to remind you and others of what the community is like when it's at its best is Good Actually.
I also wanna reiterate that online community management is tricksy and subtle and sometimes contradictory
Online community management thread part ten billion: hobby degradation
Another awful online social dynamic I wanted to highlight (in case you hadn't had enough of those by now) is the zombie-consumerism takeover of the hobby forum.
It works like this. Rich guy joins the forum and starts posting pictures of their massive collection of gerbil tanks, admin doesn't say "Hey this site is "look how nice I am to my gerbils," not "look at my huge bank account," piss off Richie Rich," trouble ensues.
Many hobby communities end up like this.
If the "I'm rich, look at my stuff" posts are left up then they'll inevitably become popular because folk like shinies. Popular posts set the tone, especially if you've been shortsighted enough to attach visible engagement numbers to posts.
(adding a "high score" to casual social interaction is a really bizarre thing to do with predictably awful results but sites do it anyway for quick dopamine hits)
You'll get more of these sorts of posts.
Furthermore you'll get fewer "Look at this awesome gerbil tank I found in a dumpster and spent a few weekends refurbishing, here are my tips" posts, because the tone of the place has been changed by the rich invaders. The tank refurbishers now look upon their method of engagement with the hobby as being out of necessity - which for many it was! Talented hobbyists get that way because they weren't able to just buy their way out of a problem!
If this dynamic is left unchallenged then the community devolves into wallet-flashing and unboxing videos. The point is no longer to engage with the hobby itself but to spend as much money as possible, as visibly as possible, and to critique others' spending habits (when someone spends a lot of money on a thing but suspects they might have been ripped off, some feel ashamed and are quiet, and some feel compelled to defend their decision to anyone who'll listen).
This isn't a dynamic you have to tolerate. It happens because admins don't remove wallet-flashing posts. The solution is self-explanatory; treat these types of posts as spam, move them to the trash, grumble a little bit about how rich people ruin everything, rinse and repeat.
(it's tempting in situations like this to go "This always happens under capitalism." That's a cop-out. Yes, capitalism and the fetishization of consumption are to blame. No, that's not a road you want to go down, because it dead-ends at "Welp, nothing we can do." You can't fix capitalism as a whole all by yourself, but you can fix your online community. Capital will try to persuade you that you can't; ignore it)
Thread housecleaning:
This thread is long and unwieldy and hard to process and neverending because the subject is long and unwieldy and hard to process and neverending. If you're intimidated by its length then consider this a taster for what you'll have to deal with as an admin!
This is a stream-of-thought thing where I just toot out whatever comes to mind as I think of it, it doesn't have a table of contents or chapters. I might write a book one day, I might not, consider this a draft.
Thread housekeeping (housecleaning was a brainfart) part 2:
Some folks are asking again if they can turn this into a blog post; by all means link to the thread as it evolves but hold off for now 'cause I'm by no means finished, also be considerate of others replying who don't want that. Check earlier housekeeping posts for my stance on screenshotting etc
Popping this onto the end of the community moderation / admining thread because it's tangentially related and there's notes of responsibility to audience etc.
I'm writing an MotD about COVID-19, trying to encourage those of my players who haven't yet gotten the vaccine to get the vaccine.
This isn't the sort of thing you'd expect a game website to do, and I'm... kind of wondering why that is, and trying to deconstruct my hesitation and figure out why this makes me uncomfortable.
I guess my biggest concern is that I run a game website, and it's not my place to give public health advice. But then I can counter that by looking at the tactics of our enemies; internet trolls, psychopaths and hostile foreign governments are similarly unqualified to give medical advice and yet they do so anyway, to great effect.
Whether I like it or not, whether I'd normally do it or not, these aren't normal times and if I've got an audience, some of whom could be persuaded to get a vaccine, some of whom wouldn't get a vaccine otherwise, then I've got an obligation to make the best attempt I can.
Next consideration, how many minds am I likely to change... probably not that many, but if it's even potentially non-zero then I've kinda gotta make the effort.
I'll let y'all know if I get any blowback, but tbqh yeah there's gonna be blowback. Being an admin is kind of all about blowback.
Update: there was absolutely no blowback whatsoever and some people gave me money.
I wibbled around a lot, typed out some very long MotD's and deleted them, and ultimately went with something shorter:
"A rare serious update here, especially for those of us in the USA: the Delta variant of Covid-19 is here, and it's not fucking around.
"If you live in a country where vaccines are available, and you've been putting off getting one, I implore you to ask your doctor about it.
Plenty of folks figured they had a low risk of getting or spreading the disease and were putting off getting the vaccine so as to let the elderly and immunocompromised get first dibs.
"If this describes you, I applaud your patience, but those of us at most risk have all had the jab now and Delta is killing and hospitalizing people who previously didn't have as much to worry about.
Again, ask your doctor, they (usually) know what they're talking about - don't trust me, I'm just a stranger on the internet, and the internet is full of bullshit."
In my experience, people who are slowly realising they've made a horrible mistake are just as likely to buckle up and double down as they are to actually change their behaviour, unless handed an escape hatch. Hence giving the willfully unvaxxed an opportunity to go "Uh, yeah, just making sure everyone else who needed it more than me got it first!"
Adding onto the community moderation thread:
I just saw a guy in another thread do the whole Let The Lies Spread argument: instead of banning misinformation and propaganda from your site, allow it to stay up because your users will argue it and show it to be nonsense, and anyone watching will see it debunked and form a sensible conclusion.
If that's a thing you believe is true, still, in 2021, when people are eating sheep deworming paste, then you should NEVER run a social website.
@ifixcoinops imagine if a 20th century publication had just had the editorial policy "we will print literally any letter that is sent into us, no matter how harmful, misleading, or outright libelous it is" They'd have been shuttered in two months.
"Everyone deserves to be provided with a platform and an audience" has NEVER been what free speech was about.