Our social media communities are no strangers to dissent and
conflict. A cozy virtual living room discussion with trusted friends
sharing birthing and breastfeeding stories can turn to red hot anger
or ice-cold silence in the click of a keystroke.
And what if it's not your virtual living room, but rather
your virtual waiting room? What if your professional reputation, your
livelihood is at stake?
What do you do when things go off the rails? How can you
keep your online community a civil and respectful place while still encouraging
the dissent that makes it vibrant and valuable? How can you respect all members
and provide a safe and supportive environment?
All of
us have spent years honing our ability to mediate conflict and dissent in real
life - we do it without thinking. We don't really think about "rules"
when it comes to face-to-face communication, but that's because we have spent a
lifetime learning the rules of civil discourse. Look people in the eye whey
you're talking to them. Listen more than you talk. Be as polite as you would to
a stranger. Remember the Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be
treated yourself.
So when
we participate in social networks we are in fact bringing a lifetime of
adherence to the rules of civil discourse to those virtual spaces.
So why
does it break down so often?
Well,
remember, it breaks down in real life too. Who hasn't lost their mind after
waiting in a long supermarket lineup only to get to the front of the line and
have the clerk put down the "closed." sign? We can all think of times
when civil discourse degenerated into chaos. Tears. Slammed doors. Storming out of rooms. Like the Thanksgiving dinner when Uncle Ted had too much to drink
and told his new daughter-in-law what he really thinks about her
mother.
We know
the rules, and we know when we are breaking them, whether it's online, or
face-to-face. The next day Aunt Jill takes Uncle Ted aside and says "you
now you had too much to drink and when you drink you're an ass. Now you will go
make this right." And at the next family dinner the hard liquor is put
away and Uncle Ted keeps himself to one glass of wine.
In the online world there must be a whole new level of
discourse and care in communication. Online there are no visual cues. You can’t
see Aunt Jill off in the corner turning three new and vibrant shades of red.
Uncle Ted, even in his pickled state can sometimes see his new
daughter-in-law’s crushed expression and figure he’s gone too far.
And in the family sitting room the offended party can’t just
push a button and make the whole scene go away as in an online chat room. In
the face-to-face world there is no off button. Oh, you can run out of a room
‘cause your boozy uncle is a cad, but you have to find your keys, your car,
your way home. There is time. Time for Aunt Jill to soothe hurt feelings, time
for daughter-in-laws hubby to make a gallant stand, time to explain what was
said and even mitigate it a bit, since in the world of face-to-face, there is
no written record.
But that’s what the Internet is all about. There is a
written record, and it’s darn near immutable. Harsh, black and white. There are
no tones, no whispers… no shouts save all caps and the overused exclamation
point!
Yet the key to managing conflict and dissent online is to
apply the lessons of face-to-face communication – follow the rules. But
surprisingly, many communities don’t even have rules. Or there are pages of
rules that nobody reads.
 |
Over on the Daily Kos in 2011 member Wee Mama
used this image in her outline of rules for civil online
as outlined in Paul Graham's essay How to Disagree. |
It doesn't have to be complicated. Recently I joined a forum
and was presented with this argument pyramid and told, "keep it in the top
two or three and you're good to go."
NationBuilder, a software firm that helps build communities,
offers a strong suite of tools for forum moderators, and advises:
Rules: The simplest and surprisingly most
effective way to keep a nation civil is by having a set of rules and enforcing
them.
NationBuilder's suggested rules are very simple, things
like: "1 account per person", "be civil, no personal attacks,"
"respect everyone's time, no spam."
Moderating is of course more complex than a well-crafted set
of rules. How you enforce them is key to your success. Some people may call out
rule-breakers in public forum as a way of showing rule-breakers won't be
tolerated. Others prefer a behind-the scenes approach. I've seen good success
simply by having key community members model the tone you want others to
adopt.
Some never ban, while others run a very strict site. Some
communities have no censorship rules, others have off-limit subjects. NationBuilder
doesn't recommend banning unruly members as a way to resolve conflict, noting
it's difficult to keep persistent people from coming back with a fake ID. But
Michael Brito, social business VP for Edelman Digital, who was in my
home town of Edmonton recently, was asked about the challenges of moderating
online communities. Brito's response was tailored to corporations and brands,
and he said it succinctly- you need a rule of thumb for the good, the bad and
the ugly:
Amplify the
positive, allow and refute the negative, and ban the ugly.
His examples of what constitutes 'ugly' was hate speech.
Bullying. Things that are illegal. You decide your threshold.
How do you manage your online communities? Have
you changed your approach over the years? Do different communities require
different styles of moderation?
On Friday, April 26, 2013 at 1:30 pm eastern
I'll be the Guest Moderator of a #BirthGenius
Managing Conflict and Dissent Online Twitter chat. I'd love for you to join me and the Birth Genius hosts along
with other birth and breastfeeding professionals for a chat about how you
cope with trolls and whether or not you declare subjects off-topic. Tell us how you keep
the peace and encourage healthy and vibrant communication in your virtual
communities. Do you have rules?
Find me on Twitter at @humanmilknews or @jodinechase
