Asking for your input on new site rules
June 10, 2023
Given recent events, here are the two changes that I’m planning on making for the site:
Developing a new set of rules and guidelines with input from the site community, and
Creating the Community Moderator system, where a rotating group of users will be able to make moderation decisions.
I’m developing the second part now and I’ll talk more about it when it’s closer to being ready, but today I wanted to gather ideas for new site rules.
In general, the rules need to be broad enough to cover most realistic situations in which they’d need to be applied, and not get too numerous and precise in an attempt to address every possible scenario. For example:
- Activity descriptions need to be three paragraphs or longer.
versus:
- Activity descriptions should provide a clear description of how to perform the activity.
I think the second is probably better because it allows for activities where a very short description is adequate.
My plan is to gather your rule ideas for a week, and then make a Google survey where I ask everyone to vote on which rules you think should be adopted on the site, starting the week of June 19. I’ll give one example of a rule that I plan on putting forward:
- Activity attachments should only consist of classroom materials. (This rule is because sometimes I see people attach completely unrelated files to their activities, like resumes or job applications. Please don’t do this – it’s not the purpose of the site, and it means anyone can see these files.)
Rules for comments and activities will need to be slightly different, since they have different purposes. It might be worth separating the rules into site-wide content guidelines, activity rules, and comment rules.
Please leave your rule suggestions in comments to this post, or send them to me using the site Contact system. If you want to talk about the situation in general, I’d request that you leave comments on the previous “June freeze” post.
I agree with most comments about a report button, perhaps on both posts and comments. I disagree with the "getting rid of comments" sentiment. Comments are extremely beneficial in terms of sharing ideas, alerting the poster of errors or giving feedback (positive or constructive). Getting positive comments like "This was a great activity!" may seem unnecessary but I think they are part of what makes this a warm and welcoming community, and also help let many first-time teachers know that they are heading in the right direction.
I personally disagree with upvotes and downvotes as I think this creates a more reddit-like atmosphere that can lead to people getting dunked on by having -20 downvotes. In the case of inappropriate or rule-breaking comments, I think a comment report button should be adequate (which immediately hides the comment until reviewed) as well as general management by moderators.
I agree with Jason as well. For the hundreds of activities and hundreds of users, we have one troll who is transparently posting inflammatory political content unrelated to teaching English. I don't think this points to an issue with the structure of the site; I think this user is misusing the website and should be banned.
Along with that, I've never seen anything problematic in the comments until these posts. Getting rid of comments because of this issue would be a waste. As others have mentioned, it's easy to miss small mistakes and I really appreciate when people comment to let me know of something I should fix or an easy way to make my activity better. I also appreciate being able to ask the creators questions about their activities.
As for some concrete guidelines, how about something along the lines of:
-If material is content-based, contents are verifiable and align with MEXT guidelines for teaching XYZ...
-Material is age- and English-level-appropriate for students.
-Material is informative, useful, and beneficial for students.
-Material does not infringe on existing copyrights or trademarks.
-Material does not involve hate speech, racism, violence, sexual content, harrassment, etc.
The modding team can interpret some, of course, but it would give them a place to begin.
Comments can be incredibly helpful as errors can be pointed out or general suggestions given to improve activities. This entire website is essentially a platform for collaboration between ALTs nationwide, be it through such discussions or just sharing activities.
A couple of ALTs have pointed out that the activities in question do not seem like they were ever intended for a classroom give the level of English and complexity of the topics included, and as a primarily JHS ALT, I understand where this is coming from. An arguement could be made that new ALTs misjudge the level of English the average student has or perhaps Gordy's are simply far more advanced than my students who don't know the word "or".
(Cont.)
Either way, the activity went against MEXT guidance on LGBT topics - such as using the correct term in Japan, LGBT, not LGB. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when you are directly contradicting official guidance, there is either a deliberate agenda involved, or you simply do not respect our position and the Japanese education system we are a part of. This reflects on all ALTs.
Comments being banned would not prevent outrage: it would only provide a platform for more provocative activities with zero consequences. As several users have suggested, a report button would be a good idea and if individuals need to be banned, do so for the longevity and reputation of this website.
Finally, as I mentioned yesterday, having MEXT guidelines in English and clearly pinned would make it clear what is and isn’t permitted. If something is vague, that’s one thing, but the terminology used in the activities that started all this is not in line with the guidelines we as educators should follow.
TakoyakiTacos is making sense. Enforce the MEXT guidelines and leave it at that.
I am curious to know what the majority of you define as hate speech. Is it just an opinion/or wording you don't agree with?
seeing as you want opposing viewpoints banned from the site citing hate speech.
From the responses to my resources having moderators would likely mean unfair judgement because everyone was talking about their personal opinions and feelings. Moderators would have to be impartial and actually understand and enforce the MEXT guidelines.
All the examples of Halloween, Christmas, and Black history month are not valid comparisons of "social issues" to validate having lessons on the LGBTQ movement because they are not controversial; the MEXT guidelines are clear about talking about LGBTQ is.
You bring up a good point, gordy1. Do mods have to be impartial and enforce MEXT guidelines? Or should they make judgment calls on what brings overall benefit to the website (i.e., weighing the educational value of the activity against its potential drawbacks)? I think we all like to think that there is some right here to speak freely, but this is a privately owned website and the owner has the right to decide who can use it and how. There is no guarantee anyone's content will or should be allowed just for "fairness" (this goes for creators and those who comment). The owner doesn't owe us the space. If someone doesn't like it, they are free to make their own website where they can post what they'd like (and take down what they don't like).
These are genuine questions that should be addressed when selecting a mod team and training them. What's the goal of moderating? What are the values and mission of the website?
I agree with the other users pointing out that all of this is stemming from a single user who has not made any contributions outside of two activities that are 1) of questionable value for English teaching 2) designed to cause an uproar. They also contained factual inaccuracies.
Personally, I think that activities that are obviously meant to inflame others should be deleted. Obviously, there comes a judgement call there, but I think the two activities in question fall far enough to one side that it's fairly obvious what the intent is.
@sbrshteacher
Personally, I would argue that the most important objectives for this site should be:
Enforcing the guidelines of MEXT in order to avoid content that is not in line with the educational system that we are a part of.
Protecting the reputation of the website in order to prevent it from dying out, even when it means suppressing free speech.
Allowing the exchange of ideas in regards to teaching the content in the curriculum as approved by MEXT.
I do not consider the free exchange of political opinions, or lessons unrelated to MEXT approved content, to be important to this space. It just creates unnecessary controversy that harms the site’s image, and there are better places for that anyway. Of course, that’s just my personal opinion and it’s ultimately up to the owner of this site to decide what to do.
If Jake has to manage the site, deal with trolls, and now has to manage community mods, I really think its more than fair for this site to either have ads or require a sub so that at least the site can pay for itself. Can't imagine dealing with all of this makes someone glad to be paying for this site out of pocket when they aren't even an ALT anymore. I'm just here to get activities when I'm in a hurry. These past couple weeks have just made me feel really bad for the moderator. I think this has all blown way out of proportion and simply removing activities that gain mass amounts of hate comments is completely fine.
I believe that everybody has a voice and deserves to be heard. But there is a time and place for everything. We are all here to share materials. Not change the world. If an activity is controversial, I think we're all capable enough to just, you know, not use that activity. No need to attack people we don't agree with. Anyway, I think this will be the last time I'll comment on this issue. Hope this all works out and everybody is happy lol.
I would second the motion that anything JHS/ES should be tied to the text book and/or adhere to MEXT guidelines. HS, adult lessons and English board material should have their own label and also less restrictions.
A 3 strike rule for users causing consternation on the site may also be required. In this case 2 activities were posted within a short time frame by the same user on the same subject matter. With the reaction to the first topic, they should have taken that as a sign to perhaps stay away from posting additional, potentially inciting, materials. *cont
*cont Whether or not this person was acting in good faith, albeit misguidedly, or a bad actor we cannot know. They should be presumed to be acting with the best intentions. However, they must also extend the same curtesy to other users. For one person to create this much controversy should trigger some reflection on their actions. Not to change their ideology but to question whether their actions are good for this absolutely invaluable resource. If any user of this site is incapable of doing that then perhaps this is not the place for them.
Can we agree to not allow activities that are clearly political? As in, it's not just a social issue but clearly politically motivated? I think the previous activity in question rewarded students with stickers for identifying right-wing political commentators. I don't see how that's in any way appropriate. I'd feel incredibly weird handing out stickers to students for naming Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, and I'm sure whoever uploaded that activity wouldn't be a fan of it either. So I'm not sure why there's this large hubbub about trying to find a way to accommodate this one user clearly acting in bad faith as exemplified by this double standard. I am sure the moderator received many many vicious, counterproductive, and underserved messages about this, but that doesn't nullify this elephant in the room. Just my two cents.
Yeah something that is grounded in MEXT guidelines seems best. I can't say I have ever been asked to create a presentation on a complex social issue. If that is something that is genuinely asked of you, then I feel that you should work closely with the school and teacher to create the activity/presentation.
I use this site to find activities for grammar points or stuff related to textbook material. If I am asked to present about Christmas, my country etc then I tackle it personally since it's a personal topic.
This really has become a storm in a teacup. Ban racism and hate speech. It really is just that.
Having clear guidelines about what is allowed on this site, plus having trained moderators whose jobs will be to make sure activities align with said guidelines, is a great idea.
In my experience, the vast majority of the activities on this website are helpful, informative, and appropriate for a wide platform. I would like to point out what many others have pointed out, this was all started by a single OP, multiple people informing the OP about the issues, and OP arguing with the people in the comments, refusing to edit their activity.
If you put your content on a public platform meant for education, you must be ready to admit and correct your mistakes. I believe, in this case, the best course of action would be having a moderator take the activity down and explain to the OP how and why the activity goes against the guidelines and give them the chance to correct their mistakes.
The moderator's opinion wouldn't matter here. They're obligated to go along with the guidelines.
Gordy, can I ask for clarification? You say to “Enforce MEXT guidelines, and leave it at that.”
You end your statement with, “All the examples of Halloween, Christmas, and Black history month are not valid comparisons of "social issues" to validate having lessons on the LGBTQ movement because they are not controversial; the MEXT guidelines are clear about talking about LGBTQ is.”
I could be misunderstanding you, and I apologize if I am, but are you saying that talking about LGBTQ issues goes against MEXT guidelines?
I agree with Jason and Garza, This is by and large a non-issue and the result of the actions of one bad actor. Make a provision for no hate speech, offer a warning to people that break that rule once, and on a second time delete the content and/or account
We're all adults and professionals here. I think that the comment section can be quite nice for feedback and advice from other ALTs, but in the recent posts I have seen a lot of comments and arguments that really just shouldn't have happened. I think having a three strike or better yet, one strike you're out kind of system would be a good fix.