Dear Community:

There has been some confusion in both threads and emails lately about the nature of this community, its rule and its moderators. At the risk of being both pedantic and ranty in the same post, I'd like to offer some clarifications.



First, meet your moderators:

drunkenatheist
fallofrain
quantumbitch
kamuela

Now before anything else, I'd like you to remember the definition of "volunteer". If you need to look it up, I can wait.

Okay, got it? Moderating a livejournal community is not a job -- it is a voluntary service. The only rules governing our behavior are whatever ones livejournal itself wishes to impose upon us. Now the four of us are commited to do what we do as fairly as possible, but we all have substantial commitments to people and jobs that come first. That means that, surprise surprise, we are not going to be hovering over the community at all moments waiting to fix any problems in an instant. It also means that given the choice to pay attention to the needs of abortiondebate and the needs of our families, friends and jobs, we are going to make the sane choice.

Some of you might notice that everyone on that list is prochoice. Okay, you got us. The moderating team is from one side of the debate. We also are not going to do anything about that in the near future. First off, there was an election to fill the fourth moderator spot and several prolifers voted for the current crop of moderators. Second, and more importantly, we are doing a good job with our duties. That's right: to any of the lurkers here who are still managing to hold two year old grudes -- we are doing a good job. We screen lead posts and have a rejection standard that rules out bad posts from both prochoicers and prolifers. Real and legitimate disputes are moderated appropriately. Trolls are banned. Rules are adjusted and posted to meet new needs.

Frankly, I have no doubts that a qualified prolife moderator would act in the same way as the current moderating team has, and I can think of no real purpose that would be solved by meeting the periodic requests for affirmative action in the moderating slate.

As for the frequent accusations that this community is biased: bull. This is an open membership community. We cannot help the fact that a majority of the membership is prochoice. We did not set it up that way. We did not solicit it to become that way.

Now while it is a fact that a prolifer may find her or himself outnumbered in a discussion and that that person may find such a situation unpleasant, there is nothing that we can fairly do about it. We cannot tell prochoicers to not defend or explain their views any more than we can go on some kind of recruiting drive to meet numberic "balance". We have on more than one occassion banned people from BOTH sides of the debate who are incapable of playing well with others. We have requested that people debate with respect. We have reminded people to do so.

But this is an emotional issue that runs deeply for people from both sides. So I don't doubt that it is unpleasant to get lots of replies to your ideas with a relatively smaller number of people who are agreeing with you.

But that isn't bias and there is nothing we can do about it. If prolifers who can defend their positions with logic, strength and respect decide to leave based on seeing being outnumbered as deliberate bias, we cannot help it.

Now a little bit about the rules. Some people seem to think there is bias or inappropriate moderator behavior if we do not micro-manage the community based upon the rules. That's not the way it works, and if you think about it, you know that.

We ask people to not use terms like "anti-choice" or "anti-life" but we are not going to swoop in and correct every misstep. We ask people to not use icons that deliberately call people stupid, but a) we don't see everything and b) we don't think icons that advocate a given side's position are insulting.

We do not allow testimonial posts on the main board, but we do not bar people from using personal experience in replies. We request no profanity on the main page, but certainly are not combing for the occassional swear throughout long threads.

We ask that people approach the debate with respect, but we will not enforce a narrow definition of respect.

Let's look at some hypotheticals:

To a prolifer, the issue at stake is one of killing a human being. To a prochoicer, the issue at stake is one of whether or not any being has the right to use another's body without consent. Both are deeply important perspectives and people have deep connections to the issue.

However, as moderators, we are not here to protect people from having their perspective challenged even if that makes people feel badly.

Hypothetical Prochoicer: Frankly, I don't see aborting a fetus as a big deal -- it's no different than making paprikash.

Hypothetical Prolifer: Frankly, I think abortion is murder and murder is always wrong. I don't care if you've been raped.

Both of these people are saying things that will offend people on the opposing side and the moderating team WILL NOT MODERATE them.

Compare to this:

Prolifer: I think abortion is murder. There is no ethical difference in my mind between a fetus and born person.

Jerk Prochoicers: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Abortion is no different than making paprikash! Mmmmm....paprikash. Give me your abortion bits so I can cook!

or

Prochoicer: I don't think aborting a fetus is a big, certainly not compared to taking away a woman's right to control her body.

Jerk Prolifers: MURDERER! You support murder and if you will not keep the baby you should keep your legs crossed!!!!

I really hope I do not have to explain the differences between the scenarios I have spun here. We moderate the second, not the first.

Now for my final pondering. I have noticed that there are certain kinds of people who do not do well here. They are, in no particular order:

1) People who have no idea how to play well with others. I am thinking of a formerly active prochoicer in this case.

2) People who only act nicely to others so they can try to change the other side's mind and get pissy when it doesn't work. I am thinking of a formerly active prolifer in this case.

3) People who do not know how to read and get overly dramatic and pissy when they misread what others have said. I am thinking of a formerly active prolifer in this case.

4) People who are utter and total pinheads. I am thinking of various people of both sides now.

5) People who only enjoy being within their own political circle jerk. I am thnking of various people of both sides now.

6) People who think moderators are supposed to impose an artificial sense of balance in every community and who over estimate the importance of internet communities.

7) Self-important windbags who cannot accept that they actually have to PROVE something before demanding that people from the other side DISPROVE it.

8) Pill-popping pinheads who hardly ever participate in the community in the first place and then create ranting communities dedicated to calling the members of this place jerks and idiots.

Now if none of those describe you, we look forward to your continued participation in abortiondebate