[MeFi Site Update] November 2024 November 21, 2024 2:04 PM Subscribe
Welcome to this month’s Site Update!
You can find the previous update here.
Profit & Loss
– You can find this month's P&L report here. The previous P&L reports are here.
Admin
– Internal communications about changes to Guidelines and Content Policy are still ongoing and we'll share a draft of these changes on a separate Meta post to get feedback from the community. The lack of appropriate mod engagement and lack of clear expectations when it comes to MetaTalk are two problems we want to address (collectively). We want Metas to stay on topic (fundraising in the fundraising thread, marketing in the marketing thread, and so on).
– We are shifting responsibilities around so that there are clearer communications and expectations. Moving forward Brandon will be the main communicator in MetaTalk (and my accountability partner when it comes to delivering). That doesn't mean that I will not be present here; we just want to make it so that the mod team can be more present overall.
– Jessamyn has filed MetaFilter LLC’s Beneficial Ownership Information Report (BOIR), finished the site valuation and compiled a list of considerations for the MeCoFo upcoming transition.
– Deactivated MeFi’s Twitter/X Account due their new ToS.
– Opened a MeFi Buesky account.
– We are moving away from Teepublic and have set up a RedBubble account where you can find The Pet Tax Wall we created for the fundraiser as well as other merch. This is just a first step, so we are looking for help designing new merch, if you’d like to help, please Contact Us .
– We are considering having the MeFi podcast back and are looking for help in production and editing. Please Contact Us if you would like to be part of it.
– We are still finalizing the Digital Cookbook with the contribution of a fellow MeFite who offered help but has been unable to get it done yet.
– We’ve been kicking around ideas for Theme Day posts and welcome any suggestions to have some fun along these lines.
Tech
– Work towards the new site is still ongoing. We’ll provide updates as they are available.
– Allocated server resources ahead of time and monitored peak loads on webserver and database during the US Elections night. (the site completely went down during the 2016 elections so we wanted to be prepared this time around)
– Fixes for the way Bluesky handles in “also on”
BIPOC Advisory Board
We are back to the regular monthly cadence and have added placeholders for the missing meeting minutes in the BIPOC Board’s Page.
If you have any questions or feedback not related to this particular update, please Contact Us instead. If you want to discuss a particular subject not covered here with the community, you’re welcome to open a separate MetaTalk thread for it.
posted by Sparky Buttons at 2:23 PM on November 21 [5 favorites]
posted by sagc at 2:30 PM on November 21 [4 favorites]
The phrasing on this considering the demonstrated time management capability of paid staff makes my tummy hurt.
posted by phunniemee at 2:34 PM on November 21 [19 favorites]
posted by jgirl at 2:50 PM on November 21 [2 favorites]
okay, that's a good start
and lack of clear expectations when it comes to MetaTalk are two problems we want to address (collectively). We want Metas to stay on topic (fundraising in the fundraising thread, marketing in the marketing thread, and so on).
If this translates to more deletions and policing, no thanks. What mods think the topic is and what users think the topic is should be allowed to conflict. If you don't like the way a thread is going, open a new one yourselves, point to it, engage with it seriously.
posted by trig at 3:02 PM on November 21 [23 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:12 PM on November 21 [1 favorite]
Lets Musk use all user content for AI training.
posted by brook horse at 3:26 PM on November 21 [7 favorites]
Have you started looking at this list with an eye on what you can cut. Why would you do a podcast at this time? Why does MeFi need a Bluesky account? Can you sunset the BIPOC advisory board and let your successors handle it? Should mods take a back seat on engagement (such as theme posts) until the site cools down and the mods have some user trust.
I’m also a little concerned about the lack of tech updates on a project that was supposed to be almost done. Is that project realistically going to finish? The old saw about how the last 20% of the project is 80% of the work comes to mind. I like the idea of the rewrite because your successor could then implement mod tools for non-paid moderation, done right the rewrite is strategically important. That said, site migrations require operational excellence and I don’t have confidence in those abilities at all. If the rewrite is not ready now, should it be paused until after the transition takes place.
posted by shock muppet at 3:49 PM on November 21 [30 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 4:06 PM on November 21 [12 favorites]
Maybe do it as a bingo for December ... e.g.
----------+-----------+----------+----------+---------- Rework an | Games | Under- | Who?? | A land FPP from | people | ground | | of con- 2009 | play | or sea | | trasts ----------+-----------+----------+----------+---------- Rework an | Begins | Over- | How?? | I, for AskMe as | with | head | | one, an FPP | J | | | welcome ----------+-----------+----------+----------+---------- Via Music | This is | WILD- | What?? | Your Fanfare & | just to | CARD | | favorite Projects | say ... | POST | | band ... ----------+-----------+----------+----------+---------- Via | The art | In the | Why?? | Schmoopy Mefi's | of the | mind's | | Own | essay | eye | | ----------+-----------+----------+----------+---------- Dedicated | Ballet, | Inside | When?? | Eponys- to a fave | holiday, | and | | terical Mefite | or entree | outside | | ----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------Not sure those all work, but the idea is, like, if you choose to make 5 front-page posts in December that match any 5 categories arranged in a line (vertically, horizontally, or diagonally), then you have completed the bingo challenge. How to interpret the categories is up to you. As always, FPPs should meet community guidelines, and posts run the usual risk of, uh, feedback.
If trying for a bingo gives someone a reason to take that risk, then it's a success in at least one respect.
posted by Wobbuffet at 4:33 PM on November 21 [12 favorites]
This is a horrible time to resurrect the podcast.
I don't know what an accountability partner is. If you need one to do this job, maybe this job isn't a good fit for you.
Please, for all that is holy, no more MeTas asking for community feedback. Do something with the feedback all of you have already received.
Can you or someone please provide an update on the new site beta test?
posted by Diskeater at 4:43 PM on November 21 [31 favorites]
Actually, hiding the Pet Tax Wall away from public scrutiny is probably the only mod decision I find myself agreeing with lately. It was a well intentioned I'm sure but frankly a weird idea to start with, and its unfortunate use as a rhetorical device to excuse why other site projects fell to the wayside both built up expectations and became a local meme. I don't know what I expected, but the execution--given the buildup and the implication that other projects were put to the side to work on it--is embarrassing. Making a whole metatalk to advertise this would NOT be a celebration of a fundraising opportunity, it would be yet another opportunity to centralize the failures of site management. I'm here for the lulz, the Pet Tax Wall is stupid and I would love to make fun of it with all of you in good humor, but it's not going to be that in a whole post. It's going to be shit on site management again time (rightly), and people will get mad, and more people I like will probably button or get permaband [sic].
I would LOVE to move past all this recent trash with a staff that says you know what, you right, we've been fucking up. But we're moving forward now with full effort into the transition. Make a Metatalk post/banner link about the Redbubble account later, if/when there's new and more merch. The Pet Tax Wall can definitely be a part of a bigger and better merch selection, but it would be Bad Idea Jeans to make it the sole focus of anything.
posted by phunniemee at 4:44 PM on November 21 [32 favorites]
Am reaching out to the interim board and Jessaymn to see what if, any thing, they want or expect in terms of smooth transition. The staff did do a Zoom call with them previously about a month or so ago and nothing was brought up that said "hey, please don't X or just focus on Y" but I just want to touch bases again.
Otherwise, there's no reason not to encourage people to post and have some fun.
As to the fundraiser and MeFi swag, I want to take a closer look at what we're doing. Saw online that someone ordered the Pet Tax mug and it arrive with a broken handle. While that's not our fault, it's worth checking around to see if that's a problem and to look at quality of other merch. So if anyone has ordered some MeFi merch and it arrived broken or some such, let us know via the Contact Us form or post in here. We can't fix it, but definitely want to know if a particular supplier is consistently substandard. Even if you see something online about crappy quality in merchandise, please let us know
No one is sunsetting the BIPOC board except that Board itself.
Beta testing for the new site isn't ready, will look into more details about it.
Thanks for your patience as we find get answers to all this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:17 PM on November 21 [4 favorites]
At a time when there's diminished mod capacity, I think it would be really helpful if you could explain what you actually want here. Ie: "We are really broke, and we are worried if people shitpost in the fundraising thread, no one will donate." or "We don't have the mod capacity to engage as much in Metatalk and are worried we will miss something important if we don't engage in a triviality thread". As it stands, without explanation, it comes off like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, and I don't think it actually is: ie, it's making mod decisions look worse than they should.
I suspect mods are doing a very natural thing, which is reacting to criticism by being defensive, instead of reacting to criticism with vulnerability. But the latter tends to actually work to diffuse the criticism, whereas the first one only increases it.
posted by corb at 5:22 PM on November 21 [8 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:27 PM on November 21
But I also realize that MeTas have generally gotten less moderation in the past, and maybe this isn't the time to change that.
I think if mods are going to review practices in general, it should be about making moderation more consistent.
posted by NotLost at 5:30 PM on November 21 [10 favorites]
posted by box at 5:30 PM on November 21 [4 favorites]
It is the job of your successor to grow this asset. It’s your job as the MeFi LLC team to steward the stagnating asset, just stop the bleeding and adapt to shrinking membership. This means thinking differently and thinking smaller.
posted by shock muppet at 5:31 PM on November 21 [20 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 5:41 PM on November 21 [3 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 5:56 PM on November 21 [4 favorites]
That is the instinct for making things more complicated than they need to be striking yet again.
posted by trig at 5:57 PM on November 21 [28 favorites]
Given the difference in a year since I made that comment, I also want to point out
that keeping Metas on topic is not the same as disallowing critique. (I do still think it would help ppl who want to not see the same arguments over and over still be able to participate in other things.) this is the hammer that was deployed in the Global thread and it is a bit worrying.
So I hope this new model includes letting critical topics through the queue. Last year I wouldn’t have felt I had to say that but the last few months has shaken my trust in the reasons for deletions a bit. I say this knowing mods are human and in a system that hasn’t set everyone up for success. But I think timing and implementation of this is important and I worry that the timing for this change isn’t free of - charge, I guess. I counsel going thoughtfully on that at this point.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:05 PM on November 21 [14 favorites]
Trying to make everyone happy just results in making no one happy.
posted by stormyteal at 7:35 PM on November 21 [5 favorites]
For what it's worth, cupcakeninja's thoughtful post actually came after the more light hearted posts that currently appear as though they came later. The mods talked about it and felt that its approach on talking about so many heated subjects should be published as quickly as possible, so we pushed it through. So yeah, critical topics and criticism itself is absolutely fine and needed, plain and simple.
Ok, that's it for me for tonight, I'll be back on shift Friday evening, eastern time.
Thank you everyone, for taking the time to out point the link snafu, share your thoughts and ideas, voice criticisms, and express your concerns. Take it easy y'all, be kind to yourself and others and I hope to have some answers for you over the coming week.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:37 PM on November 21 [2 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 7:40 PM on November 21 [2 favorites]
This is absolutely a waste of energy and a drain on your focus. Most of what al listed at this point really is ancillary to the two essential jobs doing no harm to damage Mefi and its assets, and supporting the transition.
You’ve had one call recently with the nonprofit group and they…didn’t seem to want anything? What a huge red flag. Rather than waiting to be asked, isn’t the staff putting together a timeline and road map for transition that you can collaborate on? Aren’t you all best positioned to be crafting general budget outlines and and operating routine documents for them to work with? Is this that seat of the pants that all this time later, no one’s done that?
I just….it’s too uphill.
posted by Miko at 8:32 PM on November 21 [35 favorites]
Okay but what if people keep treating it as an incredibly serious item of business and it inflates the irony/meme value to the point that it actually sells thousands?
posted by atoxyl at 9:42 PM on November 21 [8 favorites]
posted by coolname at 10:30 PM on November 21 [3 favorites]
I agree with Miko that staff should really concentrate on the essentials rather than new podcasts etc.
I would appreciate more detail on what's happening with the new site.
This update says "Work towards the new site is still ongoing"
The last updates we had were:
September 18th update:
Early access to the new site has been delayed in order to include more complete features and actions that users can test and kirkaracha and I are expecting to make it available by Sunday, September 29.October 16th update:
Early access to the new site is delayed due to some issues with the new host service. kirkaracha is working as we speak to fix it and we hope to have it ready later this week.October 30th comment:
For full context, those DNS issues were resolved and then others popped, kirkaracha has been tackling them and monitoring them. As soon as we are certain we are good to go we’ll share access to the new site for testing.Previously it sounded like the site was ready for preview, but only hosting issues and DNS issues were delaying it. This update seems less specific.
What state is the actual code in? Is it ready to go live, ready for preview, or not yet complete enough for preview?
Is it the code or the hosting that are delaying the new site preview?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:35 PM on November 21 [8 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 6:17 AM on November 22 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 6:23 AM on November 22 [10 favorites]
The podcast, the cookbook, the pet tax, all of that straight up feels like busy work. You can do all of that--and lbr, it's not like there aren't already significant delays with things--AFTER making sure the new site looks great, runs great, and that the also very delayed non-profit stuff is dealt with in a timely fashion.
And while it's nice that MeFi is on BlueSky, I really don't know what ROI would be on that. Keep it as a placeholder, use it minimally if you want to have that.
posted by Kitteh at 6:37 AM on November 22 [17 favorites]
Well hell, I've been doing that for free.
IF YOU'VE FALLEN DOWN MEFI RABBIT HOLE YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION
posted by phunniemee at 6:42 AM on November 22 [33 favorites]
You say that now, but wait until MeFi's Alf Hog Theme Week.
posted by mittens at 7:26 AM on November 22 [11 favorites]
I was ... struck by that.
posted by jgirl at 7:43 AM on November 22 [7 favorites]
and I typed that even before I looked over the last ten days of Metatalk car crashes, good lord.
posted by Kwine at 7:57 AM on November 22 [11 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 8:43 AM on November 22 [25 favorites]
I know it is not fun to read. But it's not surprising that when polite, constructive input makes no difference, a lot of people won't bother sticking with it. Right now we're at a point where polite, constructive input has made at most a slight dent over the course of years. It sucks all around.
posted by trig at 9:01 AM on November 22 [15 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:04 AM on November 22 [25 favorites]
So I think Metafilter is in danger of something that, when staff is organized, I call “progressive union busting,” and when unorganized, I call “Big Boss Energy.”
Workers never, in any industry I have organized, spend every minute of every day productively focused on the most efficient means of accomplishing the company’s mission. Attempts to make them do such are the bane of workers existence and unions existence, because they are soul sucking and hellish Taylorism.
What I would expect of Metafilter staff is to try to work in the interests of Metafilter and the interests of moderation. Sometimes that might involve rabbit holes. Why do two users keep getting fighty? What *is* the history of moderation in this area? How did we use to do things? All of that involves deep diving. And the freedom to do it is what makes people willing to work without throwing up a middle finger and quitting.
We are not going to dig ourselves out of the financial hole by time studying the staff.
posted by corb at 9:10 AM on November 22 [41 favorites]
posted by trig at 9:15 AM on November 22 [23 favorites]
The bingo idea is a fun way encourage posting, so if anyone has suggestions for that, feel free to post.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:17 AM on November 22
posted by lapis at 9:17 AM on November 22 [5 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 9:19 AM on November 22 [12 favorites]
Maybe it’s some kind of 12 monkeys thing and some of the staff traveled through time and read this thread years ago.
posted by snofoam at 9:19 AM on November 22 [6 favorites]
It is an opportunity to serve a community and assist it in reminding it about how good it is. Obviously there’s issues, but they can be worked on and handled.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:47 AM on November 22 [3 favorites]
posted by cgg at 9:55 AM on November 22 [29 favorites]
I used to get exhausted by it like you describe. Then I became convinced (years of disturbing staff stuff convinced me) and now it is the "you're all so negative and terrible" complaints that drain and exhaust me. Not saying you should stop - your take is legit and it would be hypocritical - but your negativity and my negativity are both, you know, negative and can equally affect others negatively :-)
posted by trig at 10:07 AM on November 22 [23 favorites]
Not at all. Watching people spend years of their lives holding grudges about the minutiae of a site's operation is often entertaining. I'm not obligated to read it, though. I'd probably think differently if it was my joerb.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:13 AM on November 22 [9 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 10:19 AM on November 22 [16 favorites]
posted by trig at 10:30 AM on November 22 [11 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 10:53 AM on November 22 [1 favorite]
Of course, but you understand that the underlying frustration people have is that the missions get accomplished unbelievably slowly, if ever, and that why, what more important things staff have to take care of, is quite opaque? The MeFi-rabbit-hole remark wouldn’t raise eyebrows - would be endearing, even - if everyone thought we were getting this:
What I would expect of Metafilter staff is to try to work in the interests of Metafilter
But that’s not the situation!
posted by atoxyl at 11:52 AM on November 22 [12 favorites]
Replies: "we are angry grawr!"
There's a reason I don't participate in Metatalk often. It's the lightning rod for a lot of awfulness. I do believe that constructive work happens somewhere else. Sure ain't happening here.
posted by Nelson at 11:54 AM on November 22 [15 favorites]
posted by trig at 12:34 PM on November 22 [3 favorites]
Are you talking about the people paid to run Metafilter? Where is that work happening and what is that work?
Sure ain't happening here.
Agreed. Some people on the Metafilter payroll aren't doing work, are making up busy work to do instead, and then they aren't doing the busy work either.
posted by Diskeater at 12:35 PM on November 22 [7 favorites]
I cannot read this comment as written in good faith.
posted by Nelson at 12:45 PM on November 22 [2 favorites]
I don't think constructive work is happening. Read any of the BIPOC meeting notes and see how many times the sentence "waiting on loup to do X" appears. We are in month four of fundraiser month and so far the only thing that has happened is the Pet Tax Wall merch. The new site beta is MIA. The most recent update, in its entirely, is "beta testing for the new site isn't ready, will look into more details about it."
And there's years of this.
That's why I think what I think.
What constructive work is the staff doing?
posted by Diskeater at 12:57 PM on November 22 [12 favorites]
Also, if you maybe have never looked at that page, then that could also be a way to gauge how much value has been delivered for years of constant labor.
posted by snofoam at 1:42 PM on November 22 [8 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 1:51 PM on November 22 [14 favorites]
This is a clear, concrete change that the community has been asking for, and now it has been implemented. Great to see!
Let’s give Brandon a chance.
posted by umber vowel at 2:00 PM on November 22 [15 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:23 PM on November 22
As demonstrated by your (kind!) comment, mefites are really really nice to moderators. I don't think there's any huge danger of them being micromanaged -- the problems with loup not completing work have really been noted (by me at least) for years.
I don't think it's micromanaging to want loup to do their job or [censored because I will get banned for saying it]. Like, I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but if someone needs an accountability buddy, it's good that they get one, and I want every job to be reasonably supportive. But also, this site does not have money to burn on that.
Someone who has been that notably poor at doing their basic job over the course of years does not need more staff hours, they need a long runway to find another job because that's the right thing to do. They also need a deadline to find another job so the community's resources are generally preserved. In my opinion the necessary "please find another position" talk needed to happen a year ago. Hopefully it's happening now.
Saying that is not an attempt to score points or be cruel. That's the reality of a situation with limited resources. When the non-profit board can't get $5,000 (or can they??) it's totally fine to be worried that there is a really questionable value-for-money situation happening and say something about it.
Mods definitely don't need to be perfect, but they need to be generally doing their job. The community needs that.
And if there's no leadership at the top to be making that decisions, unfortunately it's going to come across as very mob/grudge/give it a rest from people. When the only resources you have are rhetorical power and persistence, yeah, you become the "annoying" protesters who won't give it a rest. (Sorry, the union talk put me in the overly grandiose metaphor mood).
Workers never, in any industry I have organized, spend every minute of every day productively focused on the most efficient means of accomplishing the company’s mission. Attempts to make them do such are the bane of workers existence and unions existence, because they are soul sucking and hellish Taylorism.
So I think both of these metaphors are hopelessly tortured (perhaps because I do not know what Taylorism is, perhaps it is a libertarian thing?) But what I see here are (1) working class people* trying to maintain a non-capitalist community space, something rare and important in our current culture (2) donating their funds (earned by labor) and their labor directly (commenting, posting) (3) which labor is being directed to the benefit of a handful of people (4) who control the means of production (the servers, the copyright to the content) (5) while suppressing dissent in order to maintain that control of the means of production.
Under this metaphor, the mods aren't the unionized or non-unionized workers. They're something like management.
But again, both metaphors are pretty tortured.
*If you live off of your labor, instead of your investments, you are "working class" in this scenario. I know it's not the usual American use of the term, but I think it's a good way to think about things.
posted by knobknosher at 2:26 PM on November 22 [12 favorites]
Ah, forgot this!
Staff are the number one most expensive thing about this site. Most sites like this spend much less money on staff. People who seem to be nit-picking staff are doing so because they have basically been told that they can't suggest big changes (like staffing changes). It is what it is. But to the extent that this site is in financial trouble, we absolutely do need to take a look at whether the staffing budget is being used well. Not perfectly, no one is perfect, but decently enough that it's not a net negative.
posted by knobknosher at 2:32 PM on November 22 [11 favorites]
Over the last several years, the political ones, in particular, but certainly others have repeatedly been "informally managed" by a small group of users who harass — rather than debate or ignore — users they disagree with. The harassment can get quite extreme, with folks following you around a thread, piling on, lying about you, and following you to other threads to continue the abuse.
This is exhausting, it's unpleasant, and over the years it has driven lots and lots of people away, including me. I have brought up the issue from time to time, most recently in this thread, and easily found if you search for the words "hector" or "bully." Although Loup claimed steps would be taken, they weren’t. So I brought it up again in this thread, but other issues drowned it out, so I will ask again here: When is Metafilter going to set and stick to a no bullying policy? To me, that’s central to protecting the assets.
posted by Violet Blue at 3:42 PM on November 22 [8 favorites]
- It’s just a message board, and it’s not a good idea to get too worked up about it. But it is a message board that actually has a significant budget and a large staff, relative to the number of users and the amount of traffic. It shouldn’t be a surprise that people feel like the site could be getting more out of that somehow.
- A few years ago there was a move (as I understand deliberate) away from having staff drawn from the community and towards bringing in people with relevant experience from outside. There are upsides and downsides to this, but it’s not a surprise that users tend to think of these folks a little more as employees and a little less as community members, and thus being a bit more demanding about results.
- a couple of fundraisers ago the site had an emergency fundraiser, which revealed just how messy MetaFilter was on a business level. It also brought a lot of energy to bear on fixing the deficit, improving business practices, and building toward the future. Since then, however, concrete change has been slow, and the energy has plainly petered out. I am lead to believe that the reason fundraising, specifically, hasn’t been as big a deal is that site finances are doing fine, and I’m glad to hear it, but the desultory nature of the official efforts has not given us another pep rally moment like we had in 2022, and the pep gauge is lit up on “E.” So again with the sense of unrealized potential.
- of the two genuinely big things that we know are in the works, one (the nonprofit transition) seems to be driven primarily by unpaid volunteers? This could be a misunderstanding on my part but that’s how it feels.
posted by atoxyl at 3:46 PM on November 22 [16 favorites]
It's only considered bullying if it's directed at the mods. Otherwise it's just sparkling aggrievance.
posted by phunniemee at 3:48 PM on November 22 [32 favorites]
So I think some of the older posters can definitely confirm that I have not always had the best relationship with the mods. In fact, there were years where I lived in fear of the banhammer dropping and losing the community I had come to love and think of as a second home. So I hope that I can be taken as a relatively neutral evaluator when I speak in defense of mods here - it’s coming completely from a pure labor/nonprofit perspective and not from any personal bias in their favor,
I sat on the BIPOC board briefly, and I want to say that from my experience, it was a project that was hampered most of all by trying to run faster than it had the infrastructure for. Like - it had *such* good intentions. It wanted to pay people for their work! It wanted to be transparent about notes, but also be protective of the people involved and their privacy! But in doing so, it made about fifteen hours more work per meeting for itself. Because all notes need to be run past all members, and they all need to make redactions. It’s the kind of thing you can do best when you have an org full of people who are all used to working together, or who all know what kind of redactions are going to be requested and can do them on the fly real-time. But we weren’t there. Even scheduling meetings was incredibly hard, because it was taking people from really different worlds and trying to smash them together.
And I think that’s part of the problem going on right now with Metafilter. People want *more* with *less*. Mods to be more sensitive to more subjects, the site to work better, a new nonprofit structure, more involvement from marginalized members, less white supremacist structures - but at the same time as there is less money than ever before for full time staffing, and as everyone is having a collective mental breakdown from Trump world and Gaza and post Covid and a million other things.
And like - all of the things above cost either money or time. Neither of which we have in large supply.
Loup is the anti-white supremacist hire, right? The one who came on explicitly to teach folks to undo white supremacist structures and culture? White supremacist culture involves things like perfectionism. From the Dismantling Racism workbook:
Perfectionism shows up as:So honestly, it kind of sounds like there was a loud clamor for Metafilter to incorporate anti-white-supremacy work into its structure, and once it started to, people didn’t like it, and now there’s a loud clamor to get back to the white supremacy culture because god damn is white supremacy culture efficient at being good capitalists.
• little or no appreciation expressed among people for the work that others are doing; when appreciation is expressed, it is often or usually directed to those who get most of the credit anyway;
• more common is to point out either how the person or work is inadequate;
• or even more common, to talk to others about the inadequacies of a person or their work
without ever talking directly to them;
• mistakes are seen as personal, i.e. they reflect badly on the person making them as
opposed to being seen for what they are – mistakes;
• making a mistake is confused with being a mistake, doing wrong with being wrong;
• the person making the "mistake" or doing something "wrong" rarely participates in
defining what doing it "right" looks like or whether a "mistake" actually occurred;
• little time, energy, or money is put into reflection or identifying lessons learned that can
improve practice, in other words there is little or no learning from mistakes, and/or little
investigation of what is considered a mistake and why;
• a tendency to identify what’s wrong; little ability to identify, name, define, and appreciate
what’s right;
• linked to the characteristic of one right way, where the demand for perfection assumes that we know what perfection is while others are doing it wrong or falling short.
Whether or not that’s a good thing is up to the viewer.
posted by corb at 5:14 PM on November 22 [9 favorites]
What??
posted by atoxyl at 5:21 PM on November 22 [25 favorites]
Less fights in MetaTalk. For years it's been the most fighty part of the site. Does it need to be? If not, what can be done to change it? Internally we've talked about:
- Moderating MeTa in manner similar to the main site i.e. mods are in the thread nudging the tone to be less combative between users
- Closing threads as a routine practice instead of rare thing after a thread has gotten incredibly argumentative
- Publishing some threads with comments closed
- Making sure threads are about limited topics instead of many
You’ve had one call recently with the nonprofit group and they…didn’t seem to want anything?
To be clearer, it was more of the staff meeting the board and they asking if we had any questions. Generally, we asked "what, if anything, would you like us to do different or prepare for the change" The answer was, in my words: "We're not asking y'all do anything different, so don't let anything drop and keep going forward"
Speaking for myself, I took this to mean "we're not changing anything right away" but of course, that doesn't mean there won't be any changes. I get that seems like a red flag to some, but I, again speaking just for myself, view as reasonable way for them focusing on more important issues like bylaws, board instructure, and selecting a board of directors, among other things.
But that meeting was a month ago, so I have reached out to see if they've changed their mind. We'll see what they say.
As to bullying, here's the FAQ entry on it, aka we do discourage it.
Otherwise, there's nothing major to announce overall, still looking into details about the new site and interim board. Please have patience with all this, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:22 PM on November 22 [3 favorites]
This is the kind of reasoning that started the great Metafilter exodus. There are now 700+ full- or part-time Mefites on Reddit, a similar number on Slack, at least one major group on Discord, and so on. Why do folks think all of those people are there, rather than here? Has anybody ever really wondered why management did absolutely nothing to stem the flow?
We can't see each other, in the vast majority of cases we don't know one another's gender, and all people expect after extending long-term good will is a little integrity about how people perform the tasks they have agreed to do. These expectations are not unreasonable, but this kind of rationalization is.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:28 PM on November 22 [14 favorites]
posted by knobknosher at 5:31 PM on November 22 [34 favorites]
Otherwise, both were hired at a time when the site was looking for a more diverse cast of mods, but I am not sure either was explicitly positioned as joining with a mission of undoing white supremacy culture, and I have definitely never thought of loup as somebody who was here to take up that cause.
posted by atoxyl at 5:42 PM on November 22 [16 favorites]
You and Loup both made appearances in this MetaTalk thread, which is where I collected just this smattering of quotes (there were more!) in live time.
- [T]here really are only a handful of people creating the vast majority of the problem.
- [T]he handful of problematic participants can't or won't fix it themselves
- [L]et people get their bad feels out, before they wander into non-political threads and bring their doom and venom there.
- I feel inside me, because you can't have a conversation about that, you're not talking to someone, you're pointing your doom at them.
- Doomerism is the hill some users will die on, and pushback just makes them post more doom more places. They won’t compromise with the rest of the community, and the mods refuse to negotiate or enforce any kind of compromise
- HECTOR - to rhetorically bully or intimidate. No matter how virtuous the point being made, HECTORING one's allies is rude and divisive.... Make your point. Consign the rest of us to the lowest circle of hell for not enthusiastically capitulating to your unappreciated brilliance if you want. Defend your point clearly and succinctly if challenged. Then move on…. Here, you're just being a dick. You are being intolerable, and you're choking the life out of this site.
- And frankly, it's not even the topic that has me soured on these discussions itself, it's the increasing accusations from other users that they know better than me what is in the contents of my head, what my priorities are, and what my level of engagement is. If this was a debate about something like how to butter bread or something, and I faced the same kind of bullying, I'd still be this damn frustrated.
- [W]hat gets me about the discussion of I/P policy in US election threads is the high horses of the folks with strong opinions. It all comes off as "if you disagree with me in the slightest, you're a bad person and I'm going to rub your nose in it"
The problem is that a fighty topic get posted, people then fight about it, usually a small group, who then want to endlessly fight about it, which creates negative feelings all around and often people shut down, either by quitting the thread or the site, and then only the people who really want to fight about the issue are left…. Nobody wants to live someplace where there's a never ending argument about the same topic, over and over."But what are the mods doing about it? I have talked to you, Loup, and Jessamyn about this at varying points in the past, and got no real response. My more contemporary comments about it are all public. Yet the response is still some handwavey thing about talking to nonresponsive mods according to the Guidelines, which is where issues go to die.
posted by Violet Blue at 5:47 PM on November 22 [6 favorites]
Like, for example, it would be really inappropriate for me to say my mother in law being loosey goosey around time is anti-white supremacy--I know that "Indian time" is a cultural concept, but she's never actually identified that to me as being part of her tribe's culture or said whether that's something she values or not, so it would be weird of me to assume that she has a particular value around time just because of her indigenous background.
I don't think we should be making assumptions that imply anyone who isn't white has values that are in contradiction to the ones outlined as being part of perfectionism. For all we know, Loup and/or their culture value some or all of the things listed in those bullet points. There are certainly cultures that are not white or white supremacist that value perfectionism in various ways.
Idk, this just seems to be a weird thing to randomly put on an individual BIPOC staff member simply because they are BIPOC?
posted by brook horse at 5:48 PM on November 22 [28 favorites]
If loup is the moderator who is supposed to be engaging in anti-white supremacy work* and loup does not do that work, that is a bad thing.
Sometimes the truth is pretty simple, and doesn’t really require paragraphs of analysis or tortured reasoning.
The truth is that it’s very reasonable for people to want Metafilter’s limited funds to be spent on real projects, and real work that is actually getting done.
At this point, I’m going to step out of this argument because I don’t want to keep hammering on loup’s performance in order to respond to increasingly goofy arguments. It sounds like they are in a position where hopefully things are going to improve for them. I think it’s very very positive for Brandon to take over communication.
* I am not actually sure if this is true, to be perfectly honest
posted by knobknosher at 5:49 PM on November 22 [17 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 6:12 PM on November 22 [17 favorites]
For reference, here is the original post describing Loup's hiring. While there's mention of both Loup and travelingthyme bringing "a genuine enthusiasm to making the MetaFilter community a more deliberately, thoughtfully inclusive and anti-oppressive space on the internet," nothing implies they were hired to "teach people" anything.
posted by brook horse at 6:18 PM on November 22 [23 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:23 PM on November 22 [19 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:55 PM on November 22
posted by Diskeater at 7:13 PM on November 22 [7 favorites]
Please keep in mind it's totally ok to stop commenting about a derail and move on.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:15 PM on November 22 [3 favorites]
Correct. I am surprised that people are surprised about this. The nonpprofit has been driven by volunteers essentially since Jessamyn said a nonprofit was feasible, since the forming of the first iteration of the interim boarf. Nonprofits at least often start as all-volunteer efforts.
It seems like if the LLC were to be driving the nonprofit, that could at least look fishy.
posted by NotLost at 8:40 PM on November 22 [1 favorite]
If it makes you feel better, I don’t think anyone has expected perfection from loup for a long time, if ever.
posted by snofoam at 9:43 PM on November 22 [5 favorites]
That's true for all of them, especially when it comes to customer service and user retention.
posted by Violet Blue at 9:50 PM on November 22 [1 favorite]
The LLC is staffed by the people who have some of the info needed to establish the nonprofit. Also, the nonprofit isn’t some totally separate thing from today’s Metafilter, it is Metafilter.
Maybe there is also some confusion because the LLC can’t use volunteers, so volunteers can’t work on that side. The opposite is not true at all, LLC staff totally can and should be working to establish the nonprofit! The nonprofit is potentially their new employer when the LLC winds down. Assuming that all the work for the nonprofit has to be done by volunteers is ridiculous and has no basis in reality.
posted by snofoam at 9:52 PM on November 22 [7 favorites]
Much of what the volunteers needed to do has been to make decisions -- such as about bylaws, state to incorporate in, form of incorporation, various policies, and job description for the executive director. Those decisions shouldn't be made by the LLC staff.
posted by NotLost at 9:59 PM on November 22
posted by snofoam at 10:08 PM on November 22 [5 favorites]
The post does refer to relevant work being completed by Jessamyn, specifically:
Jessamyn has filed MetaFilter LLC’s Beneficial Ownership Information Report (BOIR), finished the site valuation and compiled a list of considerations for the MeCoFo upcoming transition.
posted by atoxyl at 11:30 PM on November 22 [1 favorite]
I agree.
But for the staff to help with information for one form, or even multiple forms, is very different from the staff driving the entire, overall process.
posted by NotLost at 5:10 AM on November 23
If anyone is actually suggesting this, then they are very misguided about what the current staff seems interested in or capable of doing. I think the interim board and site owner should push the staff to do whatever they can to help and be open with the members/donors if they aren’t getting the help they need.
posted by snofoam at 5:33 AM on November 23 [6 favorites]
The thing is, at the point MetaFilter was out of money — it was so hard to get that information — the community here, led by the elected SC, really stepped up, providing a cushion that has meant each month the staff hasn’t had to worry about losing their jobs and the community hasn’t had to worry MF would vanish. There were other options, like ending paid moderation. We collectively did not do that.
At that time, I thought it was a partnership in making the site sustainable.The moderation costs here are not in line with - well anything really. I have done this work, so I’m not speaking from ignorance. I truly believed that in investing in the staff, they would really bring a level of care and concern to their work (I’m not talking about feelings but results) that would contribute to that sustainability.
Instead, the one of mods on the BIPOC committee temp-banned a member for rewriting their feedback more politely until they snapped. just think about that. And like - you could hear the silent indrawn breath after that post went up. It was an incredibly badly executed post.
The mods also apparently ban people without warning. I’m not cool with that. I’m also not cool with the way lately I expect threads to be disjointed due to undocumented (no note) deletions.
And critique of work that was promised just not happening was shut down.
We’ve invested in a new site no one knows the real status of (but we didn’t actually have the money for it and do it’s all resting on one generously underpaid person) and that site still won’t have the basic features (block/hide) that would make community management so much less focused on OH MY EYES and free up time for thought.
In other words, I think the quality of work and engagement and decision-making has gone down, not up. Instead of getting partnership, it’s the old organizational saw “just give me a list, honey.” (And oh yeah, I ordered a new car.)
And you know - there are systemic reasons for that. It’s not about good or bad people.
But to me, the contract to be in community is getting severed. I’m hoping I’m wrong but I’m not sure I’ll be around for it. It’s really painful.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:46 AM on November 23 [56 favorites]
That's one reason I would like mod notes on things. I'm sure the feeling is you get more arguing. And you do sometimes, sure. But it also gives a window into what's happening and people can self-adjust, or adjust expectations, or whatever. At least it's, again, respectful.
I don't understand why in the BIPOC thread loup couldn't have left the second comment rewrite (I don't agree WTF is this shit should have been moderated, but I can say that's an area of wobble) while he talked to the member like "hey, we see your concern. This post is intended this way so if it's okay let's all try to focus on that."
The result is - sometimes I think about posting Indigenous content here, although I'm not Indigenous. And often I'm like well, I'm not sure I have the right perspective or understanding to do so. But if I do take that risk, I sure as hell don't want a Métis or Anishnaabe member getting banned because they wanted to tell me it was shit.
You see what I mean? If there's no conversation and it's just delete, ban - it doesn't become about shades of good-enough. It becomes about power without accountability.
The other concern for me is - in MetaTalk you see these things because people are feisty. But what's happening elsewhere?
Anyways, sorry. These posts are a downer I know. I don't know why I continue to think discussion will help but...this is a discussion board, I guess it makes sense discussers are here.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:18 AM on November 23 [42 favorites]
What I am concerned and peeved about is that management keeps asking for volunteers for various committees, they get those volunteers, those volunteers do the actual work, and they see nothing for their efforts from the mods/management. People are giving up their free time to help this site live and they get crickets. (Or if they do hear from mods/management, it takes a long time. That's fine! But indicate that instead of getting defensive when you are called to carpet about why those efforts haven't borne fruit or what the hold up is.)
That is not a member volunteer problem. That is a People Theoretically in Charge Problem.
posted by Kitteh at 6:31 AM on November 23 [16 favorites]
posted by mlis at 7:24 AM on November 23 [5 favorites]
How do you think we fucking get to "things like Charlottesville" if not "white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture is just objectively better for reasons that are so obvious that everyone should just understand"?
A link to the Dismantling Racism workbook
Some relevant notes from white supremacy culture problems and their antidotes:
sense of urgency
• continued sense of urgency that makes it difficult to take time to be inclusive, encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making, to think long-term, to consider consequencesantidotes: realistic workplans; leadership which understands that things take
• frequently results in sacrificing potential allies for quick or highly visible results, for example sacrificing interests of communities of color in order to win victories for white people (seen as default or norm community)
• reinforced by funding proposals which promise too much work for too little money and by funders who expect too much for too little
longer than anyone expects; discuss and plan for what it means to set goals of inclusivity and diversity, particularly in terms of time; learn from past experience how long things take; write realistic funding proposals with realistic time frames; be clear about how you will make good decisions in an atmosphere of urgency; realize that rushing decisions takes more time in the long run because inevitably people who didn’t get a chance to voice their thoughts and feelings will at best resent and at worst undermine the decision because they were left unheard
defensiveness (which I'm seeing from mods and from some commenters right now)
• because of either/or thinking (see below), criticism of those with power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude)antidotes: understand that structure cannot in and of itself facilitate or prevent abuse; understand the link between defensiveness and fear (of losing power, losing face, losing comfort, losing privilege); work on your own defensiveness; name defensiveness as a problem when it is one; give people credit for being able to handle more than you think; discuss the ways in which defensiveness or resistance to new ideas gets in the way of the mission
• people respond to new or challenging ideas with defensiveness, making it very difficult to raise these ideas
...
• white people spend energy defending against charges of racism instead of examining how racism might actually be happening
• the defensiveness of people in power creates an oppressive culture
It seems like people are afraid of losing Metafilter. I definitely am. I love Metafilter. It's the place I go first whenever I want to talk about anything on the internet. But we have to be careful that our fear doesn't make us create this sense of urgency that creates more problems in the long run, or defensiveness that worsens the problem.
Even if you don't care about white supremacy culture (which I do think you should), pressing for perfectionism is just going to make mods react with defensiveness. Approaching with a sense of openness and curiousity is going to have better results. For example, I could have started a shitfight over why mods are locking down discussion in MeTa, but I just, like, asked where they were coming from, and got a reasonable response: they want less fights in MeTa. Now whether that's realistic or not is something that's up for debate: there's a long cultural history of MeTa being the brawl space, but it lets us know where folks are coming from and lets us start having a conversation about how everyone can get their needs met together.
posted by corb at 8:13 AM on November 23 [9 favorites]
Local Quaker meetings, called "Monthly Meetings," meet once a month to do business, and approve minutes at the next month's biz meeting. But a number of Quaker organizations meet only quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly, and these organizations approve minutes as they go. Usually after every two or three business items, the recording clerk (secretary) reads back what they've written, and the meeting as a whole tweaks and corrects it, those minutes are approved, and we move on.
I'm mentioning this because delays in getting minutes published seems to be a problem the BIPOC board is having communicating with the community. There was also lack of clarity among board members about what had been agreed about the Meta about cultural differences. Approving minutes as you go means that, except for corrections and some edits the meeting might trust the recording clerk to make on their own, the minutes are ready to be distributed almost as soon as the meeting is over.
It's a skill, definitely, and it takes a bit of extra time during meetings, but it's the best way we know to make sure that the minutes of an occasional meeting are both available and accurate.
posted by Well I never at 8:27 AM on November 23 [20 favorites]
There seems to be consensus (backed by funding choices) from the user base ("The Community") that community control will be better than the current leadership.
It is not rushing decisions to ask that transition be executed competently and urgently, because the leadership still in place is suffering some serious lack of community confidence stemming from a variety of behaviors. The apology from loup was literally the first tiny step I've seen toward a modicum of transparency and responsibility in this increasingly contentious space. I applaud it - and did we notice how it helped to defuse the angry and nearly unsatisfiable tone in discussion?
So, let's not back ourselves into a corner of analysis paralysis now, please. There is urgency because this community wants to support this site (and it's community) to still exist. It is not perfectionism to expect respect and transparency about this process, because when the process presents vulnerability and transparency it helps to defuse the natural distrust built up from years of inconsistency and actions that seldom have any transparency behind them. To my ear that comes from an overabundance of caution and inventing constraints in an attempt to avoid offense or wrong behavior, but the effect has been presenting as capriciousness and bad faith. Turns out the reasons don't matter, because here we are.
The only priority right now should be the transition to community control, every other project should then be at the discretion of the new board and community. Site growth, engagement, good will, fun times are such a distant third to getting this done because they give the appearance - intended or not - that there is reluctance or resistance to this transition.
Actions matter more than words.
posted by Lenie Clarke at 8:37 AM on November 23 [6 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 9:08 AM on November 23 [37 favorites]
posted by lapis at 9:12 AM on November 23 [11 favorites]
I’m not white. I considered it. I think you care more about getting attention and making yourself seem more reasonable than everyone else than you actually do about the goals you claim to espouse. Witness:
For example, I could have started a shitfight over why mods are locking down discussion in MeTa, but I just, like, asked where they were coming from, and got a reasonable response: they want less fights in MeTa.
C’mon now. You’re not the first person to think about this and you’re not the first person to try communicating with the mods.
posted by knobknosher at 9:28 AM on November 23 [24 favorites]
Can I ask the powers that be for some clarification on this? Because I see it said often but I also just saw a volunteer very publicly blamed for why the digital cookbook was not yet done.
posted by bowmaniac at 9:53 AM on November 23 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:55 AM on November 23 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 9:57 AM on November 23 [2 favorites]
The interim board responded to my email asking what they'd like the mods to focus on and they replied with a bunch of positive suggestions that I personally think are very good. There's few details to work internally with various mod schedules, but here's the gist of a few things the moderation team will focused on:
- All the mods posting to the Best Of blog with the idea of encouraging more regular positive interactions with the site and community
- Doing Wobbuffet's bingo idea in December to encourage more posting and fun
- Doing the "hiding removed comments instead of deleting them, via the details tag" experiment previously mentioned by trig, which leads into the following ask: Could about 5-10 people make a test comment in this specific thread (aka the one we're in right now) that they're willing to have hidden via the details tag as rough test case. Ideally it would be comments of different lengths, thanks. From there we can do it on larger scale once we've touched bases with all the mods about changes in workflow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 10:42 AM on November 23 [8 favorites]
Comment removed. Part of the details tag test
HIDE ME cause I'd like to be A SPECIAL TEST CASE 🙏
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:45 AM on November 23 [1 favorite]
Comment removed. Gonna use regular mod voice to say this was really long comment that definitely set off a few flags and I probably should have asked for this test before going out for lunch, but leave and learn, right and on is this mod comment too long and does it break anything in this test situation?!
In the name of the most holy and individual Trinity: Be it known to all, and every one whom it may concern, or to whom in any manner it may belong, That for many Years past, Discords and Civil Divisions being stir'd up in the Roman Empire, which increas'd to such a degree, that not only all Germany, but also the neighbouring Kingdoms, and France particularly, have been involv'd in the Disorders of a long and cruel War: And in the first place, between the most Serene and most Puissant Prince and Lord, Ferdinand the Second, of famous Memory, elected Roman Emperor, always August, King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Lord of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines, with his Allies and Adherents on one side; and the most Serene, and the most Puissant Prince, Lewis the Thirteenth, most Christian King of France and Navarre, with his Allies and Adherents on the other side. And after their Decease, between the most Serene and Puissant Prince and Lord, Ferdinand the Third, elected Roman Emperor, always August, King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburg, of the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Burgovia, the Higher and Lower Lusace, Lord of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines, with his Allies and Adherents on the one side; and the most Serene and most Puissant Prince and Lord, Lewis the Fourteenth, most Christian King of France and Navarre, with his Allies and Adherents on the other side: from whence ensu'd great Effusion of Christian Blood, and the Desolation of several Provinces. It has at last happen'd, by the effect of Divine Goodness, seconded by the Endeavours of the most Serene Republick of Venice, who in this sad time, when all Christendom is imbroil'd, has not ceas'd to contribute its Counsels for the publick Welfare and Tranquillity; so that on the side, and the other, they have form'd Thoughts of an universal Peace. And for this purpose, by a mutual Agreement and Covenant of both Partys, in the year of our Lord 1641. the 25th of December, N.S. or the 15th O.S. it was resolv'd at Hamburgh, to hold an Assembly of Plenipotentiary Ambassadors, who should render themselves at Munster and Osnabrug in Westphalia the 11th of July, N.S. or the 1st of the said month O.S. in the year 1643. The Plenipotentiary Ambassadors on the one side, and the other, duly establish'd, appearing at the prefixt time, and on the behalf of his Imperial Majesty, the most illustrious and most excellent Lord, Maximilian Count of Trautmansdorf and Weinsberg, Baron of Gleichenberg, Neustadt, Negan, Burgau, and Torzenbach, Lord of Teinitz, Knight of the Golden Fleece, Privy Counsellor and Chamberlain to his Imperial Sacred Majesty, and Steward of his Houshold; the Lord John Lewis, Count of Nassau, Catzenellebogen, Vianden, and Dietz, Lord of Bilstein, Privy Counsellor to the Emperor, and Knight of the Golden Fleece; Monsieur Isaac Volmamarus, Doctor of Law, Counsellor, and President in the Chamber of the most Serene Lord Arch-Duke Ferdinand Charles. And on the behalf of the most Christian King, the most eminent Prince and Lord, Henry of Orleans, Duke of Longueville, and Estouteville, Prince and Sovereign Count of Neuschaftel, Count of Dunois and Tancerville, Hereditary Constable of Normandy, Governor and Lieutenant-General of the same Province, Captain of the Cent Hommes d'Arms, and Knight of the King's Orders, &c. as also the most illustrious and most excellent Lords, Claude de Mesmes, Count d'Avaux, Commander of the said King's Orders, one of the Superintendents of the Finances, and Minister of the Kingdom of France &c. and Abel Servien, Count la Roche of Aubiers, also one of the Ministers of the Kingdom of France. And by the Mediation and Interposition of the most illustrious and most excellent Ambassador and Senator of Venice, Aloysius Contarini Knight, who for the space of five Years, or thereabouts, with great Diligence, and a Spirit intirely impartial, has been inclin'd to be a Mediator in these Affairs. After having implor'd the Divine Assistance, and receiv'd a reciprocal Communication of Letters, Commissions, and full Powers, the Copys of which are inserted at the end of this Treaty, in the presence and with the consent of the Electors of the Sacred Roman Empire, the other Princes and States, to the Glory of God, and the Benefit of the Christian World, the following Articles have been agreed on and consented to, and the same run thus.
I.
That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true, and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty, and his most Christian Majesty; as also, between all and each of the Allies, and Adherents of his said Imperial Majesty, the House of Austria, and its Heirs, and Successors; but chiefly between the Electors, Princes, and States of the Empire on the one side; and all and each of the Allies of his said Christian Majesty, and all their Heirs and Successors, chiefly between the most Serene Queen and Kingdom of Swedeland, the Electors respectively, the Princes and States of the Empire, on the other part. That this Peace and Amity be observ'd and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.
II.
That there shall be on the one side and the other a perpetual Oblivion, Amnesty, or Pardon of all that has been committed since the beginning of these Troubles, in what place, or what manner soever the Hostilitys have been practis'd, in such a manner, that no body, under any pretext whatsoever, shall practice any Acts of Hostility, entertain any Enmity, or cause any Trouble to each other; neither as to Persons, Effects and Securitys, neither of themselves or by others, neither privately nor openly, neither directly nor indirectly, neither under the colour of Right, nor by the way of Deed, either within or without the extent of the Empire, notwithstanding all Covenants made before to the contrary: That they shall not act, or permit to be acted, any wrong or injury to any whatsoever; but that all that has pass'd on the one side, and the other, as well before as during the War, in Words, Writings, and Outrageous Actions, in Violences, Hostilitys, Damages and Expences, without any respect to Persons or Things, shall be entirely abolish'd in such a manner that all that might be demanded of, or pretended to, by each other on that behalf, shall be bury'd in eternal Oblivion.
III.
And that a reciprocal Amity between the Emperor, and the Most Christian King, the Electors, Princes and States of the Empire, may be maintain'd so much the more firm and sincere (to say nothing at present of the Article of Security, which will be mention'd hereafter) the one shall never assist the present or future Enemys of the other under any Title or Pretence whatsoever, either with Arms, Money, Soldiers, or any sort of Ammunition; nor no one, who is a Member of this Pacification, shall suffer any Enemys Troops to retire thro' or sojourn in his Country.
IV.
That the Circle of Burgundy shall be and continue a Member of the Empire, after the Disputes between France and Spain (comprehended in this Treaty) shall be terminated. That nevertheless, neither the Emperor, nor any of the States of the Empire, shall meddle with the Wars which are now on foot between them. That if for the future any Dispute arises between these two Kingdoms, the abovesaid reciprocal Obligation of not aiding each others Enemys, shall always continue firm between the Empire and the Kingdom of France, but yet so as that it shall be free for the States to succour; without the bounds of the Empire, such or such Kingdoms, but still according to the Constitutions of the Empire.
V.
That the Controversy touching Lorain shall be refer'd to Arbitrators nominated by both sides, or it shall be terminated by a Treaty between France and Spain, or by some other friendly means; and it shall be free as well for the Emperor, as Electors, Princes and States of the Empire, to aid and advance this Agreement by an amicable Interposition, and other Offices of Pacification, without using the force of Arms.
VI.
According to this foundation of reciprocal Amity, and a general Amnesty, all and every one of the Electors of the sacred Roman Empire, the Princes and States (therein comprehending the Nobility, which depend immediately on the Empire) their Vassals, Subjects, Citizens, Inhabitants (to whom on the account of the Bohemian or German Troubles or Alliances, contracted here and there, might have been done by the one Party or the other, any Prejudice or Damage in any manner, or under what pretence soever, as well in their Lordships, their fiefs, Underfiefs, Allodations, as in their Dignitys, Immunitys, Rights and Privileges) shall be fully re-establish'd on the one side and the other, in the Ecclesiastick or Laick State, which they enjoy'd, or could lawfully enjoy, notwithstanding any Alterations, which have been made in the mean time to the contrary.
VII.
If the Possessors of Estates, which are to be restor'd, think they have lawful Exceptions, yet it shall not hinder the Restitution; which done, their Reasons and Exceptions may be examin'd before competent Judges, who are to determine the same.
VIII.
And tho by the precedent general Rule it may be easily judg'd who those are, and how far the Restitution extends; nevertheless, it has been thought fit to make a particular mention of the following Cases of Importance, but yet so that those which are not in express Terms nam'd, are not to be taken as if they were excluded or forgot.
IX.
Since the Arrest the Emperor has formerly caus'd to be made in the Provincial Assembly, against the moveable Effects of the Prince Elector of Treves, which were transported into the Dutchy of Luxemburg, tho releas'd and abolish'd, yet at the instance of some has been renew'd; to which has been added a Sequestration, which the said Assembly has made of the Jurisdiction of Burch, belonging to the Archbishoprick, and of the Moiety of the Lordship of St. John, belonging to John Reinbard of Soeteren, which is contrary to the Concordat's drawn up at Ausburg in the year 1548 by the publick interposition of the Empire, between the Elector of Treves, and the Dutchy of Burgundy: It has been agreed, that the abovesaid Arrest and Sequestration shall be taken away with all speed from the Assembly of Luxemburg, that the said Jurisdiction, Lordship, and Electoral and Patrimonial Effects, with the sequestred Revenues, shall be releas'd and restor'd to the Elector; and if by accident some things should be Imbezel'd, they shall be fully restor'd to him; the Petitioners being refer'd, for the obtaining a determination of their Rights, to the Judge of the Prince Elector, who is competent in the Empire.
X.
As for what concerns the Castles of Ehrenbreitstein and Homestein, the Emperor shall withdraw, or cause the Garisons to be withdrawn in the time and manner limited hereafter in the Article of Execution, and shall restore those Castles to the Elector of Treves, and to his Metropolitan Chapter, to be in the Protection of the Empire, and the Electorate; for which end the Captain, and the new Garison which shall be put therein by the Elector, shall also take the Oaths of Fidelity to him and his Chapter.
XI.
The Congress of Munster and Osnabrug having brought the Palatinate Cause to that pass, that the Dispute which has lasted for so long time, has been at length terminated; the Terms are these.
XII.
In the first place, as to what concerns the House of Bavaria, the Electoral Dignity which the Electors Palatine have hitherto had, with all their Regales, Offices, Precedencys, Arms and Rights, whatever they be, belonging to this Dignity, without excepting any, as also all the Upper Palatinate and the County of Cham, shall remain, as for the time past, so also for the future, with all their Appurtenances, Regales and Rights, in the possession of the Lord Maximilian, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, and of his children, and all the Willielmine Line, whilst there shall be any Male Children in being.
XIII.
Reciprocally the Elector of Bavaria renounces entirely for himself and his Heirs and Successors the Debt of Thirteen Millions, as also all his Pretensions in Upper Austria; and shall deliver to his Imperial Majesty immediately after the Publication of the Peace, all Acts and Arrests obtain'd for that end, in order to be made void and null.
XIV.
As for what regards the House of Palatine, the Emperor and the Empire, for the benefit of the publick Tranquillity, consent, that by virtue of this present Agreement, there be establish'd an eighth Electorate; which the Lord Charles Lewis, Count Palatine of the Rhine, shall enjoy for the future, and his Heirs, and the Descendants of the Rudolphine Line, pursuant to the Order of Succession, set forth in the Golden Bull; and that by this Investiture, neither the Lord Charles Lewis, nor his Successors shall have any Right to that which has been given with the Electoral Dignity to the Elector of Bavaria, and all the Branch of William.
XV.
Secondly, that all the Lower Palatinate, with all and every the Ecclesiastical and Secular Lands, Rights and Appurtenances, which the Electors and Princes Palatine enjoy'd before the Troubles of Bohemia, shall be fully restor'd to him; as also all the Documents, Registers and Papers belonging thereto; annulling all that hath been done to the contrary. And the Emperor engages, that neither the Catholick King, nor any other who possess any thing thereof, shall any ways oppose this Restitution.
XVI.
Forasmuch-as that certain Jurisdictions of the Bergstraet, belonging antiently to the Elector of Mayence, were in the year 1463 mortgag'd to the House Palatine for a certain Sum of Money: upon condition of perpetual Redemption, it has been agreed that the same Jurisdictions shall be Restor'd to the present Elector of Mayence, and his Successors in the Archbishoprick of Mayence, provided the Mortgage be paid in ready Mony, within the time limited by the Peace to be concluded; and that he satisfies the other Conditions, which he is bound to by the Tenor of the Mortgage-Deeds.
XVII.
It shall also be free for the Elector of Treves, as well in the Quality of Bishop of Spires as Bishop of Worms, to sue before competent Judges for the Rights he pretends to certain Ecclesiastical Lands, situated in the Territorys of the Lower Palatinate, if so be those Princes make not a friendly Agreement among themselves.
XVIII.
That if it should happen that the Male Branch of William should be intirely extinct, and the Palatine Branch still subsist, not only the Upper Palatinate, but also the Electoral Dignity of the Dukes of Bavaria, shall revert to the said surviving Palatine, who in the mean time enjoys the Investiture: but then the eighth Electorate shall be intirely suppress'd. Yet in such case, nevertheless, of the return of the Upper Palatinate to the surviving Palatines, the Heirs of any Allodian Lands of the Bavarian Electors shall remain in Possession of the Rights and Benefices, which may lawfully appertain to them.
XIX.
That the Family-Contracts made between the Electoral House of Heidelberg and that of Nieuburg, touching the Succession to the Electorate, confirm'd by former Emperors; as also all the Rights of the Rudolphine Branch, forasmuch as they are not contrary to this Disposition, shall be conserv'd and maintain'd entire.
XX.
Moreover, if any Fiefs in Juliers shall be found open by lawful Process, the Question shall be decided in favour of the House Palatine.
XXI.
Further, to ease the Lord Charles Lewis, in some measure, of the trouble of providing his Brothers with Appenages, his Imperial Majesty will give order that forty thousand Rixdollars shall be paid to the said Brothers, in the four ensuing Years; the first commencing with the Year 1649. The Payment to be made of ten thousand Rixdollars yearly, with five per Cent Interest.
XXII.
Further, that all the Palatinate House, with all and each of them, who are, or have in any manner adher'd to it; and above all, the Ministers who have serv'd in this Assembly, or have formerly serv'd this House; as also all those who are banish'd out of the Palatinate, shall enjoy the general Amnesty here above promis'd, with the same Rights as those who are comprehended therein, or of whom a more particular and ampler mention has been made in the Article of Grievance.
XXIII.
Reciprocally the Lord Charles Lewis and his Brothers shall render Obedience, and be faithful to his Imperial Majesty, like the other Electors and Princes of the Empire; and shall renounce their Pretensions to the Upper Palatinate, as well for themselves as their Heirs, whilst any Male, and lawful Heir of the Branch of William shall continue alive.
XXIV.
And upon the mention which has been made, to give a Dowry and a Pension to the Mother Dowager of the said Prince, and to his Sisters; his Sacred Imperial Majesty (according to the Affection he has for the Palatinate House) has promis'd to the said Dowager, for her Maintenance and Subsistence, to pay once for all twenty thousand Rixdollars; and to each of the Sisters of the said Lord Charles Lewis, when they shall marry, ten thousand Rixdollars, the said Prince Charles Lewis being bound to disburse the Overplus.
XXV.
That the said Lord Charles Lewis shall give no trouble to the Counts of Leiningen and of Daxburg, nor to their Successors in the Lower Palatinate; but he shall let them peaceably enjoy the Rights obtain'd many Ages ago, and confirm'd by the Emperors.
XXVI.
That he shall inviolably leave the Free Nobility of the Empire, which are in Franconia, Swabia, and all along the Rhine, and the Districts thereof, in the state they are at present.
XXVII.
That the Fiefs confer'd by the Emperor on the Baron Gerrard of Waldenburg, call'd Schenck-heeren, on Nicholas George Reygersberg, Chancellor of Mayence, and on Henry Brombser, Baron of Rudeheim; Item, on the Elector of Bavaria, on Baron John Adolph Wolff, call'd Meternicht, shall remain firm and stable: That nevertheless these Vassals shall be bound to take an Oath of Fidelity to the Lord Charles Lewis, and to his Successors, as their direct Lords, and to demand of him the renewing of their Fiefs.
XXVIII.
That those of the Confession of Augsburg, and particularly the Inhabitants of Oppenheim, shall be put in possession again of their Churches, and Ecclesiastical Estates, as they were in the Year 1624. as also that all others of the said Confession of Augsburg, who shall demand it, shall have the free Exercise of their Religion, as well in publick Churches at the appointed Hours, as in private in their own Houses, or in others chosen for this purpose by their Ministers, or by those of their Neighbours, preaching the Word of God.
XXIX.
That the Paragraphs, Prince Lewis Philip, &c. Prince Frederick, &c. and Prince Leopold Lewis, &c. be understood as here inserted, after the same manner they are contain'd in the Instrument, or Treaty of the Empire with Swedeland.
XXX.
That the Dispute depending between the Bishops of Bamberg and Wirtzberg on the one, and the Marquiss of Brandenburg, Culmbach, and Onalzbach, on the other side, touching the Castle, Town, Jurisdiction, and Monastery of Kitzingen in Franconia, on the Main, shall be amicably compos'd; or, in a judicial manner, within two years time, upon pain of the Person's losing his Pretensions, that shall delay it: and that, in the mean time, the Fort of Wirtzberg shall be surrender'd to the said Lords Marquisses, in the same state it was taken, according as it has been agreed and stipulated.
XXXI.
That the Agreement made, touching the Entertainment of the Lord Christian William, Marquiss of Brandenburg, shall be kept as if recited in this place, as it is put down in the fourteenth Article of the Treaty between the Empire and Swedeland.
XXXII.
The Most Christian King shall restore to the Duke of Wirtemberg, after the manner hereafter related, where we shall mention the withdrawing of Garisons, the Towns and Forts of Hohenwiel, Schorendorff, Turbingen, and all other places, without reserve, where he keeps Garisons in the Dutchy of Wirtemberg. As for the rest, the Paragraph, THE HOUSE OF WIRTEMBERG, &c. shall be understood as inserted in this Place, after the same manner it's contain'd in the Treaty of the Empire, and of Swedeland.
XXXIII.
That the Princes of Wirtemberg, of the Branches of Montbeillard, shall be re-establish'd in all their Domains in Alsace, and wheresoever they be situated, but particularly in the three Fiefs of Burgundy, Clerval, and Passavant: and both Partys shall re-establish them in the State, Rights and Prerogatives they enjoy'd before the Beginning of these Wars.
XXXIV.
That Frederick, Marquiss of Baden, and of Hachberg, and his Sons and Heirs, with all those who have serv'd them in any manner whatsoever, and who serve them still, of what degree they may be, shall enjoy the Amnesty above-mention'd, in the second and third Article, with all its Clauses and Benefices; and by virtue thereof, they shall be fully re-establish'd in the State Ecclesiastical or Secular, in the same manner as the Lord George Frederick Marquiss of Beden and of Hachberg, possess'd, before the beginning of the Troubles of Bohemia, whatever concern'd the lower Marquisate of Baden, call'd vulgarly Baden Durlach, as also what concern'd the Marquisate of Hachberg, and the Lordships of Rottelen, Badenweiller, and Sausenberg, notwithstanding, and annulling all the Changes made to the contrary. After which shall be restor'd to Marquiss Frederick, the Jurisdictions of Stein and Renchingen, without being charg'd with Debts, which the Marquiss William has contracted during that time, by Reason of the Revenues, Interests and Charges, put down in the Transaction pass'd at Etlingen in the Year 1629. and transfer'd to the said William Marquiss of Baden, with all the Rights, Documents, Writings, and other things appertaining; so that all the Plea concerning the Charges and Revenues, as well receiv'd as to receive, with their Damages and Interests, to reckon from the time of the first Possession, shall be intirely taken away and abolish'd.
XXXV.
That the Annual Pension of the Lower Marquisate, payable to the Upper Marquisate, according to former Custom, shall by virtue of the present Treaty be intirely taken away and annihilated; and that for the future nothing shall be pretended or demanded on that account, either for the time past or to come.
XXXVI.
That for the future, the Precedency and Session, in the States and Circle of Swabia, or other General or Particular Assemblys of the Empire, and any others whatsoever, shall be alternative in the two Branches of Baden; viz. in that of the Upper, and that of the Lower Marquisate of Baden: but nevertheless this Precedency shall remain in the Marquiss Frederick during his Life. It has been agreed, touching the Barony of Hohengerolt Zegk that if Madam, the Princess of Baden, verifies the Rights of her Pretension upon the said Barony by authentick Documents, Restitution shall be made her, according to the Rights and Contents of the said Documents, as soon as Sentence shall be pronounc'd. That the Cognizance of this Cause shall be terminated within two Years after the Publication of the Peace: And lastly, no Actions, Transaction, or Exceptions, either general or particular, nor Clauses comprehended in this Treaty of Peace, and whereby they would derogate from the Vigour of this Article, shall be at any time alledg'd by any of the Partys against this special Agreement. The Paragraphs, the Duke of Croy, &c. As for the Controversy of Naussau-Siegen, &c. To the Counts of Naussau, Sarrepont, &c. The House of Hanau, &c. John Albert Count of Solms, &c. as also, Shall be re-establish'd the House of Solms, Hohensolms, &c. The Counts of Isemburg, &c. The Rhinegraves, &c. The Widow of Count Ernest of Sainen, &c. The Castle and the County of Flackenstein, &c. Let also the House of Waldeck be re-establish'd, &c. Joachim Ernest Count of Ottingen, &c. Item, The House of Hohenlo, &c. Frederick Lewis, &c. The Widow and Heirs of the Count of Brandenstein, &c. The Baron Paul Kevenhuller, &c. shall be understood to be inserted in this place word by word, as they are put down in the Instruor Treaty between the Empire and Swedeland.
XXXVII.
That the Contracts, Exchanges, Transactions, Obligations, Treatys, made by Constraint or Threats, and extorted illegally from States or Subjects (as in particular, those of Spiers complain, and those of Weisenburg on the Rhine, those of Landau, Reitlingen, Hailbron, and others) shall be so annull'd and abolish'd, that no more Enquiry shall be made after them.
XXXVIII.
That if Debtors have by force got some Bonds from their Creditors, the same shall be restor'd, but not with prejudice to their Rights.
XXXIX.
That the Debts either by Purchase, Sale, Revenues, or by what other name they may be call'd, if they have been violently extorted by one of the Partys in War, and if the Debtors alledge and offer to prove there has been a real Payment, they shall be no more prosecuted, before these Exceptions be first adjusted. That the Debtors shall be oblig'd to produce their Exceptions within the term of two years after the Publication of the Peace, upon pain of being afterwards condemn'd to perpetual Silence.
XL.
That Processes which have been hitherto enter'd on this Account, together with the Transactions and Promises made for the Restitution of Debts, shall be look'd upon as void; and yet the Sums of Money, which during the War have been exacted bona fide, and with a good intent, by way of Contributions, to prevent greater Evils by the Contributors, are not comprehended herein.
XLI.
That Sentences pronounc'd during the War about Matters purely Secular, if the Defect in the Proceedings be not fully manifest, or cannot be immediately demonstrated, shall not be esteem'd wholly void; but that the Effect shall be suspended until the Acts of Justice (if one of the Partys demand the space of six months after the Publication of the Peace, for the reviewing of his Process) be review'd and weigh'd in a proper Court, and according to the ordinary or extraordinary Forms us'd in the Empire: to the end that the former Judgments may be confirm'd, amended, or quite eras'd, in case of Nullity.
XLII.
In the like manner, if any Royal, or particular Fiefs, have not been renew'd since the Year 1618. nor Homage paid to whom it belongs; the same shall bring no prejudice, and the Investiture shall be renew'd the day the Peace shall be concluded.
XLIII.
Finally, That all and each of the Officers, as well Military Men as Counsellors and Gownmen, and Ecclesiasticks of what degree they may be, who have serv'd the one or other Party among the Allies, or among their Adherents, let it be in the Gown, or with the Sword, from the highest to the lowest, without any distinction or exception, with their Wives, Children, Heirs, Successors, Servants, as well concerning their Lives as Estates, shall be restor'd by all Partys in the State of Life, Honour, Renown, Liberty of Conscience, Rights and Privileges, which they enjoy'd before the abovesaid Disorders; that no prejudice shall be done to their Effects and Persons, that no Action or accusation shall be enter'd against them; and that further, no Punishment be inflicted on them, or they to bear any damage under what pretence soever: And all this shall have its full effect in respect to those who are not Subjects or Vassals of his Imperial Majesty, or of the House of Austria.
XLIV.
But for those who are Subjects and Hereditary Vassals of the Emperor, and of the House of Austria, they shall really have the benefit of the Amnesty, as for their Persons, Life, Reputation, Honours: and they may return with Safety to their former Country; but they shall be oblig'd to conform, and submit themselves to the Laws of the Realms, or particular Provinces they shall belong to.
XLV.
As to their Estates that have been lost by Confiscation or otherways, before they took the part of the Crown of France, or of Swedeland, notwithstanding the Plenipotentiarys of Swedeland have made long instances, they may be also restor'd. Nevertheless his Imperial Majesty being to receive Law from none, and the Imperialists sticking close thereto, it has not been thought convenient by the States of the Empire, that for such a Subject the War should be continu'd: And that thus those who have lost their Effects as aforesaid, cannot recover them to the prejudice of their last Masters and Possessors. But the Estates, which have been taken away by reason of Arms taken for France or Swedeland, against the Emperor and the House of Austria, they shall be restor'd in the State they are found, and that without any Compensation for Profit or Damage.
XLVI.
As for the rest, Law and Justice shall be administer'd in Bohemia, and in all the other Hereditary Provinces of the Emperor, without any respect; as to the Catholicks, so also to the Subjects, Creditors, Heirs, or private Persons, who shall be of the Confession of Augsburg, if they have any Pretensions, and enter or prosecute any Actions to obtain Justice.
XLVII.
But from this general Restitution shall be exempted things which cannot be restor'd, as Things movable and moving, Fruits gather'd, Things alienated by the Authority of the Chiefs of the Party, Things destroy'd, ruin'd, and converted to
other uses for the publick Security, as publick and particular Buildings, whether sacred or profane, publick or private Gages, which have been, by surprize of the Enemys, pillag'd, confiscated, lawfully sold, or voluntarily bestow'd.
XLVIII.
And as to the Affair of the Succession of Juliers, those concern'd, if a course be not taken about it, may one day cause great Troubles in the Empire about it; it has been agreed, That the Peace being concluded it shall be terminated without any Delay, either by ordinary means before his Imperial Majesty, or by a friendly Composition, or some other lawful ways.
XLIX.
And since for the greater Tranquillity of the Empire, in its general Assemblys of Peace, a certain Agreement has been made between the Emperor, Princes and States .of the Empire, which has been inserted in the Instrument and Treaty of Peace, concluded with the Plenipotentiarys of the Queen and Crown of Swedeland, touching the Differences about Ecclesiastical Lands, and the Liberty of the Exercise of Religion; it has been found expedient to confirm,and ratify it by this present Treaty, in the same manner as the abovesaid Agreement has been made with the said Crown of Swedeland; also with those call'd the Reformed, in the same manner, as if the words of the abovesaid Instrument were reported here verbatim.
L.
Touching the Affair of Hesse Cassel, it has been agreed as follows: In the first place, The House of Hesse Cassel, and all its Princes, chiefly Madam Emelie Elizabeth Landgravine of Hesse, and her Son Monsieur William and his Heirs, his Ministers, Officers, Vassals, Subjects, Soldiers, and others who follow his Service in any manner soever, without any Exception, notwithstanding Contracts to the contrary, Processes, Proscriptions, Declarations, Sentences, Executions and Transactions; as also notwithstanding any Actions and Pretensions for Damages and Injuries as well from Neutrals, as from those who were in Arms, annull'd by the General Amnesty here before establish'd, and to take place from the beginning of the War in Bohemia, with a full Restitution (except the Vassals, and Hereditary Subjects of his Imperial Majesty, and the House of Austria, as is laid down in the Paragraph, Tandemomnes, &c.) shall partake of all the Advantages redounding from this Peace, with the same Rights other States enjoy, as is set forth in the Article which commences, Unanimi, &c.
LI.
In the second place, the House of Hesse Cassel, and its Successors, shall retain, and for this purpose shall demand at any time, and when it shall be expir'd, the Investiture of his Imperial Majesty, and shall take the Oath of Fidelity for the Abby of Hitsfield, with all its Dependencys, as well Secular as Ecclesiastical, situated within or without his Territorys (as the Deanery of Gellingen) saving nevertheless the Rights possess'd by the House of Saxony, time out of mind.
LII.
In the third place, the Right of a direct Signiory over the Jurisdictions and Bayliwick of Schaumburg, Buckenburg, Saxenhagen, and Stattenhagen, given heretofore and adjudged to the Bishoprick of Mindau, shall for the future belong unto Monsieur William, the present Landgrave of Hesse, and his Successors in full Possession, and for ever, so as that the said Bishop, and no other shall be capable of molesting him; saving nevertheless the Agreement made between Christian Lewis, Duke of Brunswick and Lunenburg, and the Landgravine of Hesse, and Philip Count of Lippe, as also the Agreement made between the said Landgravine, and the said Count.
LIII.
It has been further agreed, That for the Restitution of Places possess'd during this War, and for the Indemnity of Madam, the Landgravine of Hesse, who is the Guardian, the Sum of Six Hundred Thousand Rixdollars shall be given to her and her Son, or his Successors Princes of Hesse, to be had from the Archbishopricks of Mayence and Cologne, from the Bishopricks of Paderborn and Munster, and the Abby of Fulden; which Sum shall be paid at Cassel in the term of eight Months, to reckon from the Day of the Ratification of the Peace, at the peril and charge of the Solvent: and no Exception shall be used to evade this promis'd Payment, on any Pretence; much less shall any Seizure be made of the Sum agreed on.
LIV.
And to the end that Madam, the Landgravine, may be so much the more assur'd of the Payment, she shall retain on the Conditions following, Nuys, Cuesfeldt, and Newhaus, and shall keep Garisons in those Places which shall depend on her alone; but with this Limitation, That besides the Officers and other necessary Persons in the Garisons, those of the three above-nam'd Places shall not exceed the number of Twelve Hundred Foot, and a Hundred Horse; leaving to Madam, the Landgravine, the Disposition of the number of Horse and Foot she shall be pleas'd to put in each of these Places, and whom she will constitute Governor.
LV.
The Garisons shall be maintain'd according to the Order, which has been hitherto usually practis'd, for the Maintenance of the Hessian Soldiers and Officers; and the things necessary for the keeping of the Forts shall be furnish'd by the Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks, in which the said Fortresses are situated, without any Diminution of the Sum above-mention'd. It shall be allow'd the Garisons, to exact the Money of those who shall retard Payment too long, or who shall be refractory, but not any more than what is due. The Rights of Superiority and Jurisdiction, as well Ecclesiastical as Secular, and the Revenues of the said Castles and Towns, shall remain in the Arch-bishop of Cologne.
LVI.
As soon as after the Ratification of Peace, Three Hundred Thousand Rixdollars shall be paid to Madam, the Landgravine, she shall give up Nuys, and shall only retain Cuesfeldt and Newhaus; but yet so as that the Garison of Nuys shall not be thrown into the other two Places, nor nothing demanded on that account; and the Garisons of Cuesfeldt shall not exceed the Number of Six Hundred Foot and Fifty Horse. That if within the term of nine Months, the whole Sum be not paid to Madam the Landgravine, not only Cuesfeldt and Newhaus shall remain in her Hands till the full Payment, but also for the remainder, she shall be paid Interest at Five per Cent. and the Treasurers and Collectors of the Bayliwicks appertaining to the abovesaid Arch-bishopricks, Bishopricks and Abby, bordering on the Principality of Hesse, shall oblige themselves by Oath to Madam the Landgravine, that out of the annual Revenues, they shall yearly pay the Interest of the remaining Sum notwithstanding the Prohibitions of their Masters. If the Treasurers and Collectors delay the Payment, or alienate the Revenues, Madam the Landgravine shall have liberty to constrain them to pay, by all sorts of means, always saving the Right of the Lord Proprietor of the Territory.
LVII.
But as soon as Madam the Landgravine has receiv'd the full Sum, with all the Interest, she shall surrender the said Places which she retain'd for her Security; the Payments shall cease, and the Treasurers and Collectors, of which mention has been made, shall be freed, from their Oath: As for the Bayliwicks, the Revenues of which shall be assign'd for the Payment of the Sum, that shall be adjusted before the Ratification of the Peace; and that Convention shall be of no less Force than this present Treaty of Peace.
LVIII.
Besides the Places of Surety, which shall be left, as aforesaid, to Madam the Landgravine, which she shall restore after the Payment, she shall restore, after the Ratification of the Peace, all the Provinces and Bishopricks, as also all their Citys, Bayliwicks, Boroughs, Fortresses, Forts; and in one word, all immoveable Goods, and all Rights seiz'd by her during this War. So, nevertheless, that as well in the three Places she shall retain as Cautionary, as the others to be restor'd, the said Lady Landgravine not only shall cause to be convey'd away all the Provisions and Ammunitions of War she has put therein (for as to those she has not sent thither, and what was found there at the taking of them, and are there still, they shall continue; ) but also the Fortifications and Ramparts, rais'd during the Possession of the Places, shall be destroy'd and demolish'd as much as possible, without exposing the Towns, Borroughs, Castles and Fortresses, to Invasions and Robberys.
LIX.
And tho Madam the Landgravine has only demanded Restitution and Reparation of the Arch-bishopricks of Mayence, Cologne, Paderborn, Munster, and the Abby of Fulden; and has not insisted that any besides should contribute any thing for this Purpose: nevertheless the Assembly have thought fit, according to the Equity and Circumstances of Affairs, that without prejudice to the Contents of the preceding Paragraph, which begins, Conventum praterea est, &c. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER AGREED, the other States also on this and the other side the Rhine, and who since the first of March of this present Year, have paid Contributions to the Hessians, shall bear their Proportion pro Rata of their preceding Contributions, to make up the said Sum with the Arch-bishopricks, Bishopricks and Abby above-named, and forward the Payments of the Garisons of the Cautionary Towns. If any has suffer'd Damage by the delay of others, who are to pay their share, the Officers or Soldiers of his Imperial Majesty, of the most Christian King, and of the Landgravine of Hesse, shall not hinder the forcing of those who have been tardy; and the Hessian Soldiers shall not pretend to except any from this Constraint, to the prejudice of this Declaration, but those who have duly paid their Proportion, shall thereby be freed from all Charges.
LX.
As to the Differences arisen between the Houses of Hesse Cassel, and of Darmstadt, touching the Succession of Marburg; since they have been adjusted at Cassel, the 14th of April, the preceding Year, by the mutual Consent of the Interested Partys, it has been thought good, that that Transaction, with all its Clauses, as concluded and sign'd at Cassel by both Partys, should be intimated to this Assembly; and that by virtue of this present Treaty, it shall be of the same force, as if inserted word by word: and the same shall never be infring'd by the Partys, nor any other whatsoever, under any pretence, either by Contract, Oath, or otherways, but ought to be most exactly kept by all, tho perhaps some of the Partys concern'd may refuse to confirm it.
LXI.
As also the Transaction between the Deceas'd monsieur William, Landgrave of Hesse, and Messieurs Christian and Wolrad, Counts of Waldeck, made the 11th of April, 1635. and ratify'd to Monsieur George, Landgrave of Hesse, the 14th of April 1648. shall no less obtain a full and perpetual force by virtue of this Pacification, and shall no less bind all the Princes of Hesse, and all the Counts of Waldeck.
LXII.
That the Birth-right introduc'd in the House of Hesse Cassel, and in that of Darmstadt, and confirm'd by His Imperial Majesty, shall continue and be kept firm and inviolable.
LXIII.
And as His Imperial Majesty, upon Complaints made in the name of the City of Basle, and of all Switzerland, in the presence of their Plenipotentiarys deputed to the present Assembly, touching some Procedures and Executions proceeding from the Imperial Chamber against the said City, and the other united Cantons of the Swiss Country, and their Citizens and Subjects having demanded the Advice of the States of the Empire and their Council; these have, by a Decree of the 14th of May of the last Year, declared the said City of Basle, and the other Swiss-Cantons, to be as it were in possession of their full Liberty and Exemption of the Empire; so that they are no ways subject to the Judicatures, or Judgments of the Empire, and it was thought convenient to insert the same in this Treaty of Peace, and confirm it, and thereby to make void and annul all such Procedures and Arrests given on this Account in what form soever.
LXIV.
And to prevent for the future any Differences arising in the Politick State, all and every one of the Electors, Princes and States of the Roman Empire, are so establish'd and confirm'd in their antient Rights, Prerogatives, Libertys, Privileges, free exercise of Territorial Right, as well Ecclesiastick, as Politick Lordships, Regales, by virtue of this present Transaction: that they never can or ought to be molested therein by any whomsoever upon any manner of pretence.
LXV.
They shall enjoy without contradiction, the Right of Suffrage in all Deliberations touching the Affairs of the Empire; but above all, when the Business in hand shall be the making or interpreting of Laws, the declaring of Wars, imposing of Taxes, levying or quartering of Soldiers, erecting new Fortifications in the Territorys of the States, or reinforcing the old Garisons; as also when a Peace of Alliance is to be concluded, and treated about, or the like, none of these, or the like things shall be acted for the future, without the Suffrage and Consent of the Free Assembly of all the States of the Empire: Above all, it shall be free perpetually to each of the States of the Empire, to make Alliances with Strangers for their Preservation and Safety; provided, nevertheless, such Alliances be not against the Emperor, and the Empire, nor against the Publick Peace, and this Treaty, and without prejudice to the Oath by which every one is bound to the Emperor and the Empire.
LXVI.
That the Diets of the Empire shall be held within six Months after the Ratification of the Peace; and after that time as often as the Publick Utility, or Necessity requires. That in the first Diet the Defects of precedent Assemblys be chiefly remedy'd; and that then also be treated and settled by common Consent of the States, the Form and Election of the Kings of the Romans, by a Form, and certain Imperial Resolution; the Manner and Order which is to be observ'd for declaring one or more States, to be within the Territorys of the Empire, besides the Manner otherways describ'd in the Constitutions of the Empire; that they consider also of re-establishing the Circles, the renewing the Matricular-Book, the re-establishing suppress'd States, the moderating and lessening the Collects of the Empire, Reformation of Justice and Policy, the taxing of Fees in the Chamber of Justice, the Due and requisite instructing of ordinary Deputys for the Advantage of the Publick, the true Office of Directors in the Colleges of the Empire, and such other Business as could not be here expedited.
LXVII.
That as well as general as particular Diets, the free Towns, and other States of the Empire, shall have decisive Votes; they shall, without molestation, keep their Regales, Customs, annual Revenues, Libertys, Privileges to confiscate, to raise Taxes, and other Rights, lawfully obtain'd from the Emperor and Empire, or enjoy'd long before these Commotions, with a full Jurisdiction within the inclosure of their Walls, and their Territorys: making void at the same time, annulling and for the future prohibiting all Things, which by Reprisals, Arrests, stopping of Passages, and other prejudicial Acts, either during the War, under what pretext soever they have been done and attempted hitherto by private Authority, or may hereafter without any preceding formality of Right be enterpris'd. As for the rest, all laudable Customs of the sacred Roman Empire, the fundamental Constitutions and Laws, shall for the future be strictly observ'd, all the Confusions which time of War have, or could introduce, being remov'd and laid aside.
LXVIII.
As for the finding out of equitable and expedient means, whereby the Prosecution of Actions against Debtors, ruin'd by the Calamitys of the War, or charg'd with too great Interests, and whereby these Matters may be terminated with moderation, to obviate greater inconveniences which might arise, and to provide for the publick Tranquillity; His Imperial Majesty shall take care to hearken as well to the Advices of his Privy Council, as of the Imperial Chamber, and the States which are to be assembled, to the end that certain firm and invariable Constitutions may be made about this Matter And in the mean time the alledg'd Reasons and Circumstances of the Partys shall be well weigh'd in Cases brought before the Sovereign Courts of the Empire, or Subordinate ones of States and no body shall be oppress'd by immoderate Executions; and ail this without prejudice to the Constitution of Holstein.
LXIX.
And since it much concerns the Publick, that upon the Conclusion of the Peace, Commerce be re-establish'd, for that end it has been agreed, that the Tolls, Customs, as also the Abuses of the Bull of Brabant, and the Reprisals and Arrests, which proceeded from thence, together with foreign Certifications, Exactions, Detensions; Item, The immoderate Expences and Charges of Posts, and other Obstacles to Commerce and Navigation introduc'd to its Prejudice, contrary to the Publick Benefit here and there, in the Empire on occasion of the War, and of late by a private Authority against its Rights and Privileges, without the Emperor's and Princes of the Empire's consent, shall be fully remov'd; and the antient Security, Jurisdiction and Custom, such as have been long before these Wars in use, shall be re-establish'd and inviolably maintain'd in the Provinces, Ports and Rivers.
LXX.
The Rights and Privileges of Territorys, water'd by Rivers or otherways, as Customs granted by the Emperor, with the Consent of the Electors, and among others, to the Count of Oldenburg on the Viserg, and introduc'd by a long Usage, shall remain in their Vigour and Execution. There shall be a full Liberty of Commerce, a secure Passage by Sea and Land: and after this manner all and every one of the Vassals, Subjects, Inhabitants and Servants of the Allys, on the one side and the other, shall have full power to go and come, to trade and return back, by Virtue of this present Article, after the same manner as was allowed before the Troubles of Germany; the Magistrates, on the one side and on the other, shall be oblig'd to protect and defend them against all sorts of Oppressions, equally with their own Subjects, without prejudice to the other Articles of this Convention, and the particular laws and Rights of each place. And that the said Peace and Amity between the Emperor and the Most Christian King, may be the more corroborated, and the publick Safety provided for, it has been agreed with the Consent, Advice and Will of the Electors, Princes and States of the Empire, for the Benefit of Peace:
LXXI.
First, That the chief Dominion, Right of Sovereignty, and all other Rights upon the Bishopricks of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and on the Citys of that Name and their Diocesses, particularly on Mayenvick, in the same manner they formerly belong'd to the Emperor, shall for the future appertain to the Crown of France, and shall be irrevocably incorporated therewith for ever, saving the Right of the Metropolitan, which belongs to the Archbishop of Treves.
LXXII.
That Monsieur Francis, Duke of Lorain, shall be restor'd to the possession of the Bishoprick of Verdun, as being the lawful Bishop thereof; and shall be left in the peaceable Administration of this Bishoprick and its Abbys (saving the Right of the King and of particular Persons) and shall enjoy his Patrimonial Estates, and his other Rights, wherever they may be situated (and as far as they do not contradict the present Resignation) his Privileges, Revenues and Incomes; having previously taken the Oath of Fidelity to the King, and provided he undertakes nothing against the Good of the State and the Service of his Majesty.
LXXIII.
In the second place, the Emperor and Empire resign and transfer to the most Christian King, and his Successors, the Right of direct Lordship and Sovereignty, and all that has belong'd, or might hitherto belong to him, or the sacred Roman Empire, upon Pignerol.
LXXIV.
In the third place the Emperor, as well in his own behalf, as the behalf of the whole most Serene House of Austria, as also of the Empire, resigns all Rights, Propertys, Domains, Possessions and Jurisdictions, which have hitherto belong'd either to him, or the Empire, and the Family of Austria, over the City of Brisac, the Landgraveship of Upper and Lower Alsatia, Suntgau, and the Provincial Lordship of ten Imperial Citys situated in Alsatia, viz. Haguenau, Calmer, Sclestadt, Weisemburg, Landau, Oberenheim, Rosheim, Munster in the Valley of St. Gregory, Keyerberg, Turingham, and of all the villages, or other Rights which depend on the said Mayoralty; all and every of them are made over to the most Christian King, and the Kingdom of France; in the same manner as the City of Brisac, with the Villages of Hochstet, Niederrimsing, Hartem and Acharren appertaining to the Commonalty of Brisac, with all the antient Territory and Dependence; without any prejudice, nevertheless, to the Priviliges and Libertys granted the said Town formerly by the House of Austria.
LXXV.
Item, The said Landgraveship of the one, and the other Alsatia, and Suntgau, as also the Provincial Mayoralty on the ten Citys nominated, and their Dependencys.
LXXVI.
Item, All the Vassals, Subjects, People, Towns, Boroughs, Castles, Houses, Fortresses, Woods, Coppices, Gold or Silver Mines, Minerals, Rivers, Brooks, Pastures; and in a word, all the Rights, Regales and Appurtenances, without any reserve, shall belong to the most Christian King, and shall be for ever incorporated with the Kingdom France, with all manner of Jurisdiction and Sovereignty, without any contradiction from the Emperor, the Empire, House of Austria, or any other: so that no Emperor, or any Prince of the House of Austria, shall, or ever ought to usurp, nor so much as pretend any Right and Power over the said Countrys, as well on this, as the other side the Rhine.
LXXVII.
The most Christian King shall, nevertheless, be oblig'd to preserve in all and every one of these Countrys the Catholick Religion, as maintain'd under the Princes of Austria, and to abolish all Innovations crept in during the War.
LXXVIII.
Fourthly, By the Consent of the Emperor and the whole Empire, the most Christian King and his Successors shall have perpetual Right to keep a Garison in the Castle of Philipsburg, but limited to such a number of Soldiers, as may not be capable to give any Umbrage, or just Suspicion to the Neighbourhood; which Garison shall be maintain'd at the Expences of the Crown of France. The Passage also shall be open for the King into the Empire by Water, when, and as often as he shall send Soldiers, Convoys, and bring necessary things thither.
LXXIX.
Nevertheless the King shall pretend to nothing more than the Protection and safe Passage of his Garison into the Castle of Philipsburg: but the Property of the Place, all Jurisdiction, Possession, all its Profits, Revenues, Purchases, Rights, Regales, Servitude, People, Subjects, Vassals, and every thing that of old in the Bishoprick of Spire, and the Churches incorporated therein, had appertain'd to the Chapter of Spire, or might have appertain'd thereto; shall appertain, and be intirely and inviolably preserv'd to the same Chapter, saving the Right of Protection which the King takes upon him.
LXXX.
The Emperor, Empire, and Monsieur the Arch Duke of Insprug, Ferdinand Charles, respectively discharge the Communitys, Magistrates, Officers and Subjects of each of the said Lordships and Places, from the Bonds and Oaths which they were hitherto bound by, and ty'd to the House of Austria; and discharge and assign them over to the Subjection, Obedience and Fidelity they are to give to the King and Kingdom of France; and consequently confirm the Crown of France in a full and just Power over all the said Places, renouncing from the present, and for ever, the Rights and Pretensions they had thereunto: Which Cession the Emperor, the said Arch-Duke and his Brother (by reason the said Renunciation concerns them particularly) shall confirm by particular Letters for themselves and their Descendants; and shall so order it also, that the Catholick King of Spain shall make the same Renunciation in due and authentick form, which shall be done in the name of the whole Empire, the same Day this present Treaty shall be sign'd.
LXXXI.
For the greater Validity of the said Cessions and Alienations, the Emperor and Empire, by virtue of this present Treaty, abolish all and every one of the Decrees, Constitutions, Statutes and Customs of their Predecessors, Emperors of the sacred Roman Empire, tho they have been confirm'd by Oath, or shall be confirm'd for the future; particularly this Article of the Imperial Capitulation, by which all or any Alienation of the Appurtenances and Rights of the Empire is prohibited: and by the same means they exclude for ever all Exceptions hereunto, on what Right and Titles soever they may be grounded.
LXXXII.
Further it has been agreed, That besides the Ratification promis'd hereafter in the next Diet by the Emperor and the States of the Empire, they shall ratify anew the Alienations of the said Lordships and Rights: insomuch, that if it shou'd be agreed in the Imperial Capitulation, or if there shou'd be a Proposal made for the future, in the Diet, to recover the Lands and Rights of the Empire, the abovenam'd things shall not be comprehended therein, as having been legally transfer'd to another's Dominion, with the common Consent of the States, for the benefit of the publick Tranquillity; for which reason it has been found expedient the said Seigniorys shou'd be ras'd out of the Matricular-Book of the Empire.
LXXXIII.
Immediately after the Restitution of Benfield, the Fortifications of that Place shall be ras'd, and of the Fort Rhinau, which is hard by, as also of Tabern in Alsatia, of the Castle of Hohember and of Newburg on the Rhine: and there shall be in none of those Places any Soldiers or Garison.
LXXXIV.
The Magistrates and the Inhabitants of the said City of Tabern shall keep an exact Neutrality, and the King's Troops shall freely pass thro' there as often as desir'd. No Forts shall be erected on the Banks of this side the Rhine, from Basle to Philipsburg; nor shall any Endeavours be made to divert the Course of the River, neither on the one side or the other.
LXXXV.
As for what concerns the Debts wherewith the Chamber of Ensisheim is charg'd, the Arch-Duke Ferdinand Charles shall undertake with that part of the Province, which the most Christian King shall restore him, to pay one third without distinction, whether they be Bonds, or Mortgages; provided they are in authentick form, and that they have a particular Mortgage, either on the Provinces to be restor'd, or on them which are to be transfer'd; or if there be none, provided they be found on the Books of Accounts, agreeing with those of Receipts of the Chamber of Ensisheim, until the Expiration of the year 1632, and have been inserted amonst the Debts of the publick Chamber, and the said Chamber having been oblig'd to pay the Interests: the Arch-Duke making this Payment, shall keep the King exempt from the same.
LXXXVI.
And as for those Debts which the Colleges of the States have been charg'd with by the Princes of the House of Austria, pursuant to particular Agreements made in their Provincial Assemblys, or such as the said States have contracted in the name of the Publick, and to which they are liable; a just distribution of the same shall be made between those who are to transfer their Allegiance to the King of France, and them that continue under the Obedience of the House of Austria, that so either Party may know what proportion of the said Debt he is to pay.
LXXXVII.
The most Christian King shall restore to the House of Austria, and particularly to the Arch-Duke Ferdinand Charles, eldest Son to Arch-Duke Leopold, four Forest-Towns, viz. Rheinselden, Seckingen, Laussenberg and Waltshutum, with all their Territorys and Bayliwicks, Houses, Villages, Mills, Woods, Forests, Vassals, Subjects, and all Appurtenances on this, or the other side the Rhine.
LXXXVIII.
Item, The County of Hawenstein, the Black Forest, the Upper and Lower Brisgaw, and the Towns situate therein, appertaining of Antient Right to the House of Austria, viz. Neuburg, Friburg, Edingen, Renzingen, Waldkirch, Willingen, Bruenlingen, with all their Territorys; as also, the Monasterys, Abbys, Prelacys, Deaconrys, Knight-Fees, Commanderships, with all their Bayliwicks, Baronys, Castles, Fortresses, Countys, Barons, Nobles, Vassals, Men, Subjects, Rivers, Brooks, Forests, Woods, and all the Regales, Rights, Jurisdictions, Fiefs and Patronages, and all other things belonging to the Sovereign Right of Territory, and to the Patrimony of the House of Austria, in all that Country.
LXXXIX.
All Ortnaw, with the Imperial Citys of Ossenburg, Gengenbach, Cellaham and Harmospach, forasmuch as the said Lordships depend - on that of Ortnaw, so that no King of France can or ought ever to ; pretend to or usurp any Right or Power over the said Countrys situated on this and the other side the Rhine: nevertheless, in such a manner, that by this present Restitution, the Princes of Austria shall acquire no new Right; that for the future, the Commerce and Transportation shall be free to the Inhabitants on both sides of the Rhine, and the adjacent Provinces. Above all, the Navigation of the Rhine be free, and none of the partys shall be permitted to hinder Boats going up or coming down, detain, stop, or molest them under any pretence whatsoever, except the Inspection and Search which is usually done to Merchandizes: And it shall not be permitted to impose upon the Rhine new and unwonted Tolls, Customs, Taxes, Imposts, and other like Exactions; but the one and the other Party shall contented with the Tributes, Dutys and Tolls that were paid before these Wars, under the Government of the Princes of Austria.
XC.
That all the Vassals, Subjects, Citizens and Inhabitants, as well on this as the other side the Rhine, who were subject to the House of Austria, or who depended immediately on the Empire, or who acknowledg'd for Superiors the other Orders of the Empire, notwithstanding all Confiscations, Transferrings, Donations made by any Captains or Generals of the Swedish Troops, or Confederates, since the taking of the Province, and ratify'd by the most Christian King, or decreed by his own particular Motion; immediately after the Publication of Peace, shall be restor'd to the possession of their Goods, immovable and stable, also to their Farms, Castles, Villages, Lands, and Possessions, without any exception upon the account of Expences and Compensation of Charges, which the modern Possessors may alledge, and without Restitution of Movables or Fruits gather'd in.
XCI.
As to Confiscations of Things, which consist in Weight, Number and Measure, Exactions, Concussions and Extortions made during the War; the reclaiming of them is fully annull'd and taken away on the one side and the other, in order to avoid Processes and litigious Strifes.
XCII.
That the most Christian King shall be bound to leave not only the Bishops of Strasburg and Basle, with the City of Strasburg, but also the other States or Orders, Abbots of Murbach and Luederen, who are in the one and the other Alsatia, immediately depending upon the Roman Empire; the Abess of Andlavien, the Monastery of St. Bennet in the Valley of St. George, the Palatines of Luzelstain, the Counts and Barons of Hanaw, Fleckenstein, Oberstein, and all the nobility of Lower Alsatia; Item, the said ten Imperial Citys, which depend on the Mayory of Haganoc, in the Liberty and Possession they have enjoy'd hitherto, to arise as immediately dependent upon the Roman Empire; so that he cannot pretend any Royal Superiority over them, but shall rest contented with the Rights which appertain'd to the House of Austria, and which by this present Treaty of Pacification, are yielded to the Crown of France. In such a manner, nevertheless, that by the present Declaration, nothing is intended that shall derogate from the Sovereign Dominion already hereabove agreed to.
XCIII.
Likewise the most Christian King, in compensation of the things made over to him, shall pay the said Archduke Ferdinand Charles three millions of French Livres, in the next following Years 1649 1650, 1651, on St. John Baptist's Day, paying yearly one third of the said Sum at Basle in good Money to the Deputys of the said Archduke.
XCIV.
Besides the said Sum, the most Christian King shall be oblig'd to take upon him two Thirds of the Debts of the Chamber of Ensisheim without distinction, whether by Bill or Mortgage, provided they be in due and authentic Form, and have a special Mortgage either on the Provinces to be transfer'd, or on them to be restor'd; or if there be none, provided they be found on the Books of Accounts agreeing with those of the Receits of the Chamber of Ensisheim, until the end of the Year 1632, the said Sums having been inserted among the Debts of the Community, and the Chamber having been oblig'd to pay the Interests: And the King making this Payment, the Archduke shall be exempted for such a proportion. And that the same may be equitably executed, Commissarys shall be deputed on the one side and the other, immediately after the signing of this present Treaty, who before the Payment of the first Sum, shall agree between them what Debts every one has to pay.
XCV.
The most Christian King shall restore to the said Archduke bona fide, and without delay, all Papers, Documents of what nature so-ever, belonging to the Lands which are to be surrender'd to him, even as many as shall be found in the Chancery of the Government and Chamber of Ensisheim, or of Brisac, or in the Records of Officers, Towns, and Castles possess'd by his Arms.
XCVI.
If those Documents be publick, and concern in common and jointly the Lands yielded to the King, the Archduke shall receive authentick Copys of them, at what time and as often as he shall demand them.
XCVII.
Item, For fear the Differences arisen between the Dukes of Savoy and Mantua touching Montserrat, and terminated by the Emperor Ferdinand and Lewis XIII. Fathers to their Majestys, shou'd revive some time or other to the damage or Christianity; it has been agreed, That the Treaty of Cheras of the 6th of April 1631. with the Execution thereof which ensu'd in the Montserrat, shall continue firm for ever, with all its Articles: Pignerol, and its Appurtenances, being nevertheless excepted, concerning which there has been a decision between his most Christian Majesty and the Duke of Savoy, and which the King of France and his Kingdom have purchas'd by particular Treatys, that shall remain firm and stable, as to what concerns the transferring or resigning of that Place and its Appurtenances. But if the said particular Treatys contain any thing which may trouble the Peace of the Empire, and excite new Commotions in Italy, after the present War, which is now on foot in that Province, shall be at an end, they shall be look'd upon as void and of no effect; the said Cession continuing nevertheless unviolable, as also the other Conditions agreed to, as well in favour of the Duke of Savoy as the most Christian King: For which reason their Imperial and most Christian Majestys promise reciprocally, that in all other things relating to the said Treaty of Cheras, and its Execution, and particularly to Albe, Trin, their Territorys, and the other places, they never shall contravene them either directly or indirectly, by the way of Right or in Fact; and that they neither shall succour nor countenance the Offender, but rather by their common Authority shall endeavour that none violate them under any pretence whatsoever; considering that the most Christian King has declar'd, That he was highly oblig'd to advance the Execution of the said Treaty, and even to maintain it by Arms; that above all things the said Lord, the Duke of Savoy, notwithstanding the Clauses abovemention'd, shall be always maintain'd in the peaceable possession of Trin and Albe, and other places, which have been allow'd and assign'd him by the said Treaty, and by the Investiture which ensu'd thereon of the Dutchy of Montserrat.
XCVIII.
And to the end that all Differences be extirpated and rooted out between these same Dukes, his most Christian Majesty shall pay to the said Lord, the Duke of Mantua, four hundred ninety four thousand Crowns, which the late King of blessed Memory, Lewis XIII. had promis'd to pay to him on thu Duke of Savoy's Discount; who by this means shall together with his Heirs and Successors be discharg'd from this Obligation, and secur'd from all Demands which might be made upon him of the said Sum, by the Duke of Mantua, or his Successors; so that for the future neither the Duke of Savoy, nor his Heirs and Successors, shall receive any Vexation or Trouble from the Duke of Mantua, his Heirs and Successors, upon this subject, or under this pretence.
XCIX.
Who hereafter, with the Authority and Consent of their Imperial and most Christian Majestys, by virtue of this solemn Treaty of Peace, shall have no Action for this account against the Duke of Savoy, or his Heirs and Successors.
C.
His Imperial Majesty, at the modest Request of the Duke of Savoy, shall together with the Investiture of the antient Fiefs and States, which the late Ferdinand II. of blessed memory granted to the Duke of Savoy, Victor Amadeus, also grant him the Investiture of the Places, Lordships, States, and all other Rights of Montserrat, with their Appurtenances, which have been surrender'd to him by virtue of the abovesaid Treaty of Cheras, and the Execution thereof which ensu'd; as also, of the Fiefs of New Monsort, of Sine, Monchery, and Castelles, with their Appurtenances, according to the Treaty of Acquisition made by the said Duke Victor Amadeus, the 13th of October 1634. and conformable to the Concessions or Permissions, and Approbation of his Imperial Majesty; with a Confirmation also of all the Privileges which have been hitherto granted to the Dukes of Savoy, when and as often as the Duke of Savoy shall request and demand it.
CI.
Item, It has been agreed, That the Duke of Savoy, his Heirs and Successors, shall no ways be troubled or call'd to an account by his Imperial Majesty, upon account of the Right of Sovereignty they have over the Fiefs of Rocheveran, Olme, and Casoles, and their Appurtenances, which do not in the least depend on the Roman Empire, and that all Donations and Investitures of the said Fiefs being revok'd and annul'd, the Duke shall be maintain'd in his Possession as rightful Lord; and if need be, reinstated: for the same reason his Vassal the Count de Verrue shall be re-instated in the same Fiefs of Olme and Casoles, and in the Possession of the fourth part of Rocheveran, and in all his Revenues.
CII.
Item, It is Agreed, That his Imperial Majesty shall restore to the Counts Clement and John Sons of Count Charles Cacheran, and to his Grandsons by his Son Octavian, the whole Fief of la Roche d'Arazy, with its Appurtenances and Dependencys, without any Obstacle whatever.
CIII.
The Emperor shall likewise declare, That within the Investiture of the Dutchy of Mantua are comprehended the Castles of Reygioli and Luzzare, with their Territorys and Dependencys, the Possession whereof the Duke of Guastalla shall be oblig'd to render to the Duke of Mantua, reserving to himself nevertheless, the Right of Six Thousand Crowns annual Pension, which he pretends to, for which he may sue the Duke before his Imperial Majesty.
CIV.
As soon as the Treaty of Peace shall be sign'd and seal'd by the Plenipotentiarys and Ambassadors, all Hostilitys shall cease, and all Partys shall study immediately to put in execution what has been agreed to; and that the same may be the better and quicker accomplish'd, the Peace shall be solemnly publish'd the day after the signing thereof in the usual form at the Cross of the Citys of Munster and of Osnabrug. That when it shall be known that the signing has been made in these two Places, divers Couriers shall presently be sent to the Generals of the Armys, to acquaint them that the Peace is concluded, and take care that the Generals chuse a Day, on which shall be made on all sides a Cessation of Arms and Hostilitys for the publishing of the Peace in the Army; and that command be given to all and each of the chief Officers Military and Civil, and to the Governors of Fortresses, to abstain for the future from all Acts of Hostility: and if it happen that any thing be attempted, or actually innovated after the said Publication, the same shall be forthwith repair'd and restor'd to its former State.
CV.
The Plenipotentiarys on all sides shall agree among themselves, between the Conclusion and the Ratification of the Peace, upon the Ways, Time, and Securitys which are to be taken for the Restitution of Places, and for the Disbanding of Troops; of that both Partys may be assur'd, that all things agreed to shall be sincerely accomplish'd.
CVI.
The Emperor above all things shall publish an Edict thro'out the Empire, and strictly enjoin all, who by these Articles of Pacification are oblig'd to restore or do any thing else, to obey it promptly and without tergi-versation, between the signing and the ratifying of this present Treaty; commanding as well the Directors as Governors of the Militia of the Circles, to hasten and finish the Restitution to be made to every one, in conformity to those Conventions, when the same are demanded. This Clause is to be inserted also in the Edicts, That whereas the Directors of the Circles, or the Governors of the Militia of the Circles, in matters that concern themselves, are esteem'd less capable of executing this Affair in this or the like case and likewise if the Directors and Governors of the Militia of the Circles refuse this Commission, the Directors of the neighbouring Circle, or the Governors of the Militia of the Circles shall exercise the Function, and officiate in the execution of these Restitutions in the other Circles, at the instance of the Partys concern'd.
CVII.
If any of those who are to have something restor'd to them, suppose that the Emperor's Commissarys are necessary to be present at the Execution of some Restitution (which is left to their Choice) they shall have them. In which case, that the effect of the things agreed on may be the less hinder'd, it shall be permitted as well to those who restore, as to those to whom Restitution is to be made, to nominate two or three Commissarys immediately after the signing of the Peace, of whom his Imperial Majesty shall chuse two, one of each Religion, and one of each Party, whom he shall injoin to accomplish without delay all that which ought to be done by virtue of this present Treaty. If the Restorers have neglected to nominate Commissioners, his Imperial Majesty shall chuse one or two as he shall think fit (observing, nevertheless, in all cases the difference of Religion, that an equal number be put on each side) from among those whom the Party, to which somewhat is to be restor'd, shall have nominated, to whom he shall commit the Commission of executing it, notwithstanding all Exceptions made to the contrary; and for those who pretend to Restitutions, they are to intimate to the Restorers the Tenour of these Articles immediately after the Conclusion of the Peace.
CVIII.
Finally, That all and every one either States, Commonaltys, or private Men, either Ecclesiastical or Secular, who by virtue of this Transaction and its general Articles, or by the express and special Disposition of any of them, are oblig'd to restore, transfer, give, do, or execute any thing, shall be bound forthwith after the Publication of the Emperor's Edicts, and after Notification given, to restore, transfer, give, do, or execute the same, without any Delay or Exception, or evading Clause either general or particular, contain'd in the precedent Amnesty, and without any Exception and Fraud as to what they are oblig'd unto.
CIX.
That none, either Officer or Soldier in Garisons, or any other whatsoever, shall oppose the Execution of the Directors and Governors of the Militia of the Circles or Commissarys, but they shall rather promote the Execution; and the said Executors shall be permitted to use Force against such as shall endeavour to obstruct the Execution in what manner soever.
CX.
Moreover, all Prisoners on the one side and the other, without any distinction of the Gown or the Sword, shall be releas'd after the manner it has been covenanted, or shall be agreed between the Generals of the Armys, with his Imperial Majesty's Approbation.
CXI.
The Restitution being made pursuant to the Articles of Amnesty and Grievances, the Prisoners being releas'd, all the Soldiery of the Garisons, as well the Emperor's and his Allys, as the most Christian King's, and of the Landgrave of Hesse, and their Allys and Adherents, or by whom they may have been put in, shall be drawn out at the same time, without any Damage, Exception, or Delay, of the Citys of the Empire, and all other Places which are to be restor'd.
CXII.
That the very Places, Citys, Towns, Boroughs, Villages, Castles, Fortresses and Forts which have been possess'd and retain'd, as well in the Kingdom of Bohemia, and other Countrys of the Empire and Hereditary Dominions of the House of Austria, as in the other Circles of the Empire, by one or the other Army, or have been surrender'd by Composition; shall be restor'd without delay to their former and lawful Possessors and Lords, whether they be mediately or immediately States of the Empire, Ecclesiastical or Secular, comprehending therein also the free Nobility of the Empire: and they shall be left at their own free disposal, either according to Right and Custom, or according to the Force this present Treaty ought to have, notwithstanding all Donations, Infeoffments, Concessions (except they have been made by the free-will of some State) Bonds for redeeming of Prisoners, or to prevent Burnings and Pillages, or such other like Titles acquir'd to the prejudice of the former and lawful Masters and Possessors. Let also all Contracts and Bargains, and all Exceptions contrary to the said Restitution cease, all which are to be esteem'd void; saving nevertheless such things as have been otherwise agreed on in the precedent Articles touching the Satisfaction to made to his most Christian Majesty, as also some Concessions and equivalent Compensations granted to the Electors and Princes of the Empire. That neither the Mention of the Catholick King, nor Quality of the Duke of Lorain given to Duke Charles in the Treaty between the Emperor and Swedeland, and much less the Title of Landgrave of Alsace, given to the Emperor, shall be any prejudice to the most Christian King. That also which has been agreed touching the Satisfaction to be made to the Swedish Troops, shall have no effect in respect to his Majesty.
CXIII.
And that this Restitution of possess'd Places, as well by his Imperial Majesty as the most Christian King, and the Allys and Adherents of the one and the other Party, shall be reciprocally and bona fide executed.
CXIV.
That the Records, Writings and Documents, and other Moveables, be also restor'd; as likewise the Cannon found at the taking of the Places, and which are still in being. But they shall be allow'd to carry off with them, and cause to be carry'd off, such as have been brought thither from other parts after the taking of the Places, or have been taken in Battels, with all the Carriages of War, and what belongs thereunto.
CXV.
That the Inhabitants of each Place shall be oblig'd, when the Soldiers and Garisons draw out, to furnish them without Money the necessary Waggons, Horses, Boats and Provisions, to carry off all things to the appointed Places in the Empire; which Waggons, Horses and Boats, the Governors of the Garisons and the Captains of the withdrawing Soldiers shall restore without any Fraud or Deceit. The Inhabitants of the States shall free and relieve each other of this trouble of carrying the things from one Territory to the other, until they arrive at the appointed Place in the Empire; and the Governors or other Officers shall not be allow'd to bring with him or them the lent Waggons, Horses and Boats, nor any other thing they are accommodated with, out of the limits they belong unto, much less out of those of the Empire.
CXVI.
That the Places which have been restor'd, as, well Maritime as Frontiers, or in the heart of the Country shall from henceforth and for ever be exempted from all Garisons, introduc'd during the Wars, and left (without prejudice in other things to every one's Right) at the full liberty and disposal of their Masters.
CXVII.
That it shall not for the future, or at present, prove to the damage and prejudice of any Town, that has been taken and kept by the one or other Party; but that all and every one of them, with their Citizens and Inhabitants, shall enjoy as well the general Benefit of the Amnesty, as the rest of this Pacification. And for the Remainder of their Rights and Privileges, Ecclesiastical and Secular, which they enjoy'd before these Troubles, they shall be maintain'd therein; save, nevertheless the Rights of Sovereignty, and what depends thereon, for the Lords to whom they belong.
CXVIII.
Finally, that the Troops and Armys of all those who are making War in the Empire, shall be disbanded and discharg'd; only each Party shall send to and keep up as many Men in his own Dominion, as he shall judge necessary for his Security.
CXIX.
The Ambassadors and Plenipotentiarys of the Emperor, of the King, and the States of the Empire, promise respectively and the one to the other, to cause the Emperor, the most Christian King, the Electors of the Sacred Roman Empire, the Princes and States, to agree and ratify the Peace which has been concluded in this manner, and by general Consent; and so infallibly to order it, that the solemn Acts of Ratification be presented at Munster, and mutually and in good form exchang'd in the term of eight weeks, to reckon from the day of signing.
CXX.
For the greater Firmness of all and every one of these Articles, this present Transaction shall serve for a perpetual Law and establish'd Sanction of the Empire, to be inserted like other fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Empire in the Acts of the next Diet of the Empire, and the Imperial Capitulation; binding no less the absent than the present, the Ecclesiasticks than Seculars, whether they be States of the Empire or not: insomuch as that it shall be a prescrib'd Rule, perpetually to be follow'd, as well by the Imperial Counsellors and Officers, as those of other Lords, and all Judges and Officers of Courts of Justice.
CXXI.
That it never shall be alledg'd, allow'd, or admitted, that any Canonical or Civil Law, any general or particular Decrees of Councils, any Privileges, any Indulgences, any Edicts, any Commissions, Inhibitions, Mandates, Decrees, Rescripts, Suspensions of Law, Judgments pronounc'd at any time, Adjudications, Capitulations of the Emperor, and other Rules and Exceptions of Religious Orders, past or future Protestations, Contradictions, Appeals, Investitures, Transactions, Oaths, Renunciations, Contracts, and much less the Edict of 1629. or the Transaction of Prague, with its Appendixes, or the Concordates with the Popes, or the Interims of the Year 1548. or any other politick Statutes, or Ecclesiastical Decrees, Dispensations, Absolutions, or any other Exceptions, under what pretence or colour they can be invented; shall take place against this Convention, or any of its Clauses and Articles neither shall any inhibitory or other Processes or Commissions be ever allow'd to the Plaintiff or Defendant.
CXXXII.
That he who by his Assistance or Counsel shall contravene this Transaction or Publick Peace, or shall oppose its Execution and the abovesaid Restitution, or who shall have endeavour'd, after the Restitution has been lawfully made, and without exceeding the manner agreed on before, without a lawful Cognizance of the Cause, and without the ordinary Course of Justice, to molest those that have been restor'd, whether Ecclesiasticks or Laymen; he shall incur the Punishment of being an Infringer of the publick Peace, and Sentence given against him according to the Constitutions of the Empire, so that the Restitution and Reparation may have its full effect.
CXXIII.
That nevertheless the concluded Peace shall remain in force, and all Partys in this Transaction shall be oblig'd to defend and protect all and every Article of this Peace against any one, without distinction of Religion; and if it happens any point shall be violated, the Offended shall before all things exhort the Offender not to come to any Hostility, submitting the Cause to a friendly Composition, or the ordinary Proceedings of Justice.
CXXIV.
Nevertheless, if for the space of three years the Difference cannot be terminated by any of those means, all and every one of those concern'd in this Transaction shall be oblig'd to join the injur'd Party, and assist him with Counsel and Force to repel the Injury, being first advertis'd by the injur'd that gentle Means and Justice prevail'd nothing; but without prejudice, nevertheless, to every one's Jurisdiction, and the Administration of Justice conformable to the Laws of each Prince and State: and it shall not be permitted to any State of the Empire to pursue his Right by Force and Arms; but if any difference has happen'd or happens for the future, every one shall try the means of ordinary Justice, and the Contravener shall be regarded as an Infringer of the Peace. That which has been determin'd by Sentence of the Judge, shall be put in execution, without distinction of Condition, as the Laws of the Empire enjoin touching the Execution of Arrests and Sentences.
CXXV.
And that the publick Peace may be so much the better preserv'd intire, the Circles shall be renew'd; and as soon as any Beginnings of Troubles are perceiv'd, that which has been concluded in the Constitutions, of the Empire, touching the Execution and Preservation of the Public Peace, shall be observ'd.
CXXVI.
And as often as any would march Troops thro' the other Territorys, this Passage shall be done at the charge of him whom the Troops belong to, and that without burdening or doing any harm or damage to those whole Countrys they march thro'. In a word, all that the Imperial Constitutions determine and ordain touching the Preservation of the publick Peace, shall be strictly observ'd.
CXXVII.
In this present Treaty of Peace are comprehended such, who before the Exchange of the Ratification or in six months after, shall be nominated by general Consent, by the one or the other Party; mean time by a common Agreement, the Republick of Venice is therein compriz'd as Mediatrix of this Treaty. It shall also be of no prejudice to the Dukes of Savoy and Modena, or to what they shall act, or are now acting in Italy by Arms for the most Christian King.
CXXVIII.
In Testimony of all and each of these things, and for their greater Validity, the Ambassadors of their Imperial and most Christian Majestys, and the Deputys, in the name of all the Electors, Princes, and States of the Empire, sent particularly for this end (by virtue of what has been concluded the 13th of October, in the Year hereafter mention'd, and has been deliver'd to the Ambassador of France the very day of signing under the Seal of the Chancellor of Mentz) viz. For the Elector of Mayence, Monsieur Nicolas George de Reigersberg, Knight and Chancellor; for the Elector of Bavaria, Monsieur John Adolph Krebs, Privy Counsellor; for the Elector of Brandenburg, Monsieur John Count of Sain and Witgenstein, Lord of Homburg and Vallendar, Privy Counsellor.
In the Name of the House of Austria, M. George Verie, Count of Wolkenstein, Counsellor of the Emperor's Court; M. Corneille Gobelius, Counsellor of the Bishop of Bamberg; M. Sebastian William Meel, Privy Counsellor to the Bishop of Wirtzburg; M. John Earnest, Counsellor of the Duke of Bavaria's Court; M. Wolff Conrad of Thumbshirn, and Augustus Carpzovius, both Counsellors of the Court of Saxe-Altenburg and Coburg; M. John Fromhold, Privy Counsellor of the House of Brandenburg-Culmbac, and Onolzbac; M. Henry Laugenbeck, J.C. to the House of Brunswick-Lunenburg; James Limpodius, J.C. Counsellor of State to the Branch of Calemburg, and Vice-Chancellor of Lunenburg. In the Name of the Counts of the Bench of Wetteraw, M. Matthews Wesembecius, J. D. and Counsellor.
In the Name of the one and the other Bench, M. Marc Ottoh of Strasburg, M. John James Wolff of Ratisbon, M. David Gloxinius of Lubeck, and M. Lewis Christopher Kres of Kressenstein, all Syndick Senators, Counsellors and Advocates of the Republick of Noremberg; who with their proper Hands and Seals have sign'd and seal'd this present Treaty of Peace, and which said Deputys of the several Orders have engag'd to procure the Ratifications of their Superiors in the prefix'd time, and in the manner it has been covenanted, leaving the liberty to the other Plenipotentiarys of States to sign it, if they think it convenient, and send for the Ratifications of their Superiors: And that on condition that by the Subscription of the abovesaid Ambassadors and Deputys, all and every one of the other States who shall abstain from signing and ratifying the present Treaty, shall be no less oblig'd to maintain and observe what is contain d in this present Treaty of Pacification, than if they had subscrib'd and ratify'd it; and no Protestation or Contradiction of the Council of Direction in the Roman Empire shall be valid, or receiv'd in respect to the Subscription and said Deputys have made.
Done, pass'd and concluded at Munster in Westphalia, the 24th Day of October, 1648.
posted by glonous keming at 10:47 AM on November 23 [24 favorites]
Comment removed.
Does it look better if we put the reason for the removal after a heard return?!
THE
∧∧
(･_･)っ CONCEPT
(っ /
Lﾉ┘
∧__∧
⊂ (・_・) OF
ヽ ⊂二/
(⌒) /"
／ ＼
| ● ● | LOVE
＼ ＿＿＿ ／
posted by lucidium at 10:56 AM on November 23 [2 favorites]
Comment removed for violating X, Y, and Z.
Glonous keming I laughed until tears ran down my cheeks. Excellent test! Mods please hide this comment so that my shameful emotional response is not visible to all. I am also including a link to see if we can hide comments with links in them. futility closet
posted by Vatnesine at 11:03 AM on November 23 [8 favorites]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 11:11 AM on November 23 [4 favorites]
Comment removed for reasons B, D, F. Does doing partial bold look good or is it too much?
Oh my
> Doing the "hiding removed comments instead of deleting them, via the details tag" experiment
This is legit amazing!
Putting
- a bunch of tags in this post to test. This one's unclosed
posted by trig at 11:34 AM on November 23 [5 favorites]
i'm helping! that was me helping! 😃
posted by glonous keming at 11:53 AM on November 23 [14 favorites]
posted by Zumbador at 11:57 AM on November 23 [5 favorites]
posted by lapis at 11:58 AM on November 23 [10 favorites]
Yes, this could have been done by the staff, but it's good experiment on paying community members to do small jobs for the site in their particular expertise. Hopefully this is the start of something good!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:00 PM on November 23 [14 favorites]
Comment Removed > Mod Note: this is a mod note
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:05 PM on November 23 [3 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:06 PM on November 23 [10 favorites]
posted by michaelh at 12:28 PM on November 23 [4 favorites]
posted by NotLost at 12:34 PM on November 23
May require some dev time, but it might be doable to add a special tag (like the "staff" tags) that mods can toggle on hidden comments, to avoid people portraying their own comments as if they'd been removed. Ofc, doing that maliciously could simply be treated as a bannable offense, same as fake-quoting other users. (Fun fact: doing that, by adding a "posted by..." in small tags to your comment, actually triggers a unique error message!)
I'd also make a post and banner announcing the change, to give people not in this thread a head's up about the experiment, explain what it's meant to target (fighty/derail/problematic comments as opposed to straight-up spam/doxxing/etc.), and to underscore the need to not engage with hidden comments in the thread any further.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:45 PM on November 23 [3 favorites]
So glad to see movement on this. I hope this is part of the path forward.
posted by Vatnesine at 12:56 PM on November 23 [24 favorites]
posted by Vatnesine at 12:58 PM on November 23 [3 favorites]
As to the new site, holidays have slowed things down a bit on a personal level, while various idiosyncratic issues have cause more problems than anticipated. Posting, commenting, and flagging are working for the most part on the site, but other aspects are proving trickier than originally thought.
So when are we going live with a beta? There is currently no ETA, so work will continue. When we have more substantial news, we’ll definitely share it with the community.
These posts are a downer I know. I don't know why I continue to think discussion will help but...this is a discussion board, I guess it makes sense discussers are here.
They are not a downer and thank you for continually sharing your thoughts in public like this. Much like your time on the Steering Committee, they are thoughtful and a value to site discussions.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:11 PM on November 23 [5 favorites]
Comment removed at the user's request.
This example wraps things in the code tag for a different look, as bold seems too loud and the italics tag is generally used to quote someone else.
User’s original comment would appear here.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 1:28 PM on November 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:38 PM on November 23
May require some dev time, but it might be doable to add a special tag (like the "staff" tags) that mods can toggle on hidden comments, to avoid people portraying their own comments as if they'd been removed.
Yeah, I'm hoping this is treated as a feasibility experiment to see how it plays out in practice and how people feel about it. (Hence the hacky temp use of the details tag.) And then if it's good it can be implemented in a more solid way.
Really happy to see it happen.
posted by trig at 1:54 PM on November 23 [8 favorites]
Comment removed for being too something-Brandon.
Can you hide this one please? I don’t know if this is a good test but I don’t want to be left out! Also it’s a pretty good recipe if you are looking for an easy vegan dessert
https://chocolatecoveredkatie.com/vegan-chocolate-mousse-recipe/
posted by knobknosher at 2:10 PM on November 23 [4 favorites]
I think these are all GREAT THINGS, and I am really pleased to see them happening.
Thanks to all involved in those things!
posted by kristi at 2:14 PM on November 23 [13 favorites]
This comment removed for also being too something-Brandon.
How about some broken HTML?
posted by brook horse at 2:17 PM on November 23 [4 favorites]
I think hacking a user's comments isn't the way to go with this, as it is editing a user's comment, which we've traditionally have been very "No don't do that except in very rare circumstances". Plus I'm not thrilled with leaving a comment still viewable, but acknowledge that some people prefer it.
I also think it doesn't completely removed the need to delete a comment so that it's not viewable on site. There are definitely some circumstances, such doxing someone or similar where a comment should be deleted as opposed to hidden.
Overall, if this is something that people think should be done, I'd strongly think it should be coded in so that mods do not have edit a user's comments, so it's clear who's done what. If it's coded in, i don't care if it's done with the current site or the new one, but definitely prefer not having to interact with user's raw comment.
Mod wise, its breaks Recent Activity, sorta, as it only shows the last comment I made, as opposed to the last comment I edited.
These are just my personal thoughts on this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:36 PM on November 23 [4 favorites]
Taz, TravelingThyme, and goodnewsfortheinsane will be around doing the usual modding activities outside of MeTa.
Thank you to everyone for their thoughts!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 2:52 PM on November 23
posted by june_dodecahedron at 2:52 PM on November 23 [7 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 2:53 PM on November 23 [16 favorites]
I don't myself feel strongly about this either way, but I'm pretty sure when the interim board suggested "[d]oing the 'hiding removed comments instead of deleting them, via the details tag' experiment," they meant experimenting with it on the site, as an experimental mod policy for some set period of time, to see how it works out in practice -- not just experimenting with the design here.
I'd think the idea would be to see how well or badly it goes as a live experiment on each of the subsites, before deciding whether to devote future resources toward coding it up.
(And if you make a regular mod comment when comments have been hidden -- just like you currently [mostly] do when comments are deleted -- that solves the Recent Activity problem.)
posted by nobody at 3:07 PM on November 23 [2 favorites]
"Mod Note: tiny frying pan, we deleted that because Reason."
This feels basic to almost all forums I've been on, but is inconsistent here.
posted by tiny frying pan at 3:28 PM on November 23 [12 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 3:29 PM on November 23 [1 favorite]
Thank you so much. I needed that.
posted by automatronic at 6:02 PM on November 23 [13 favorites]
posted by panic at 7:58 PM on November 23 [3 favorites]
posted by axiom at 8:19 PM on November 23 [6 favorites]
Sweet Jesus, what was that about?!?
Yeah, it would be good to have some mod-specific styling built into the site to avoid user spoofery
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:40 PM on November 23 [2 favorites]
How does it work on a screen reader, is it accessible? Can we get a check from a user with a screen reader?
posted by Vatnesine at 10:01 PM on November 23 [4 favorites]
Yes, or they might do it to be funny. If it's that easy, someone will do it, believe me.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:40 AM on November 24 [5 favorites]
posted by automatronic at 2:32 AM on November 24 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 2:59 AM on November 24 [7 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 4:08 AM on November 24 [4 favorites]
Anyway, don’t assume just because something has been around for a long time it’s fully accessible—but also someone has almost certainly written a detailed post about it already, so we can just look things up.
Demonstration of what could be difficult for some screen readers
👋posted by brook horse at 6:25 AM on November 24
posted by bowbeacon at 6:42 AM on November 24 [3 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 7:29 AM on November 24
posted by brook horse at 7:44 AM on November 24 [1 favorite]
posted by brook horse at 7:50 AM on November 24 [7 favorites]
Thanks for noting that- I'm in the middle of redesigning a site for work and I have been tempted by the details tag. I'll have to see if some combination of ARIA roles and javascript will help bridge that accessibility gap.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 11:46 AM on November 24 [2 favorites]
posted by slater at 1:13 PM on November 24
posted by JiBB at 2:19 PM on November 24
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:45 PM on November 24 [1 favorite]
Thanks BB, appreciate it. Sorry I was cranky in the other thread. These efforts seem very positive.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:44 PM on November 24 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:19 PM on November 24 [1 favorite]
posted by phunniemee at 6:17 AM on November 25 [7 favorites]
Highly recommend you start 4 files:
Site updates
- highly recommend you start a file where you put things you want in future/next updates as they happen or at the end of each shift. Having to troll through emails and past MetaTalks and Slack discussions to remember what everyone said is a slog.
It's especially hard in a job where a chunk of your time could be eaten up by a feisty set of comments.
- also highly recommend you pull financial reports earlier than you post them (not saying this doesn't happen, but in case it doesn't)
Suggestions
brook horse is doing this, so whatever process is recommended is good. But I would recommend these get updated from the staff slack as well.
Criticisms
- don't copy these verbatim but summarize and stick in a file - I used Figma for my team (it's whiteboarding; there are tons of other products) so I could summarize and tag the criticism and drop it in categories on the board like "lack of timely response" "price" "belt advancement" etc. This helps you identify patterns over time. We changed our contract after reviewing this
Kudos
- by human nature this file will probably be the smallest, but it also is super important. Copy and paste these and go back to it when you feel frustrated or blue.
Two stories:
When I was a senior web editor I was responsible for the traffic numbers for the websites, first a smaller newer one and then a large behemoth where there were 5 web editors + a bunch of print editors. My company was a very by-the-numbers company.
The result was that I had traffic numbers each month that I had to hit. If I missed them three months in a row, standard procedure was I would be fired; my boss would essentially have to go and explain why I shouldn't be. This was in the early clickbait and slideshow era of online media.
Although I looked at the numbers every day, every time I had to produce that report and I wasn't sure we were wildly over our numbers budget I would honestly spend half a day just wasting my time stressing and zeroing in on [insert editorial sin here].
What I learned was...produce the report as soon as you can. We reported around the 5th, so I pulled the reports on the 1st and had a meeting with my team to go over them at first and later we just did it every week. Because that meant that if something had gone wrong we could all come up with how to communicate that, and it also meant that by the time I was presenting the numbers "for real" I was less emotional about it.
I never got fired; I did get laid off eventually but not because I didn't meet our numbers.
This wasn't how I would want to manage but I learned a lot.
Second story: After Covid we really didn't know at my martial arts academy if we would make it financially. We'd burned through a lot of cash because when we shut down we turned off everyone's payments, and then we paid our core staff to make videos and eventually teach online classes for free. (Maybe not the smartest decision but we'd never had a pandemic before, also we thought it was going to be 2 weeks and then 6 weeks, etc.)
(I also had to lay off a lot of our staff including myself and I'm so glad we were in Canada at that time.)
Anyways, when we started back up we had an absolute customer service nightmare on our hands:
- we restarted memberships based on their contracts and how many months they had left, and had no idea at the start how many people would freak out and look to quit and how many would stay
- our staff - who mostly came back or stayed!! - were able to see the numbers due to how our CRM worked and they were freaking out to see revenue tank because although they didn't know the total payroll, they were not stupid, and as people quit (some people had month-to-month contracts, some people argued, some people paid the exit fee) and the numbers went down it was hugely stressful. Meanwhile we were open, closed, open, closed, online, in person, 10 ppl to a class, 6 feet apart in a class, back to 10, all government-mandated.
Here's what I learned through all that: Our staff, anyway, felt better when they had specific things to do rather than sitting around worrying about their jobs or focusing on the latest person to sigh about the vaccine mandate. (Yelling was something else so myself and my boss were on site constantly to make sure we would get the yelling.)
We started a thing where we called every family every two months (so 450-ish calls a month; we divvied them up) to ask them how things were going. (We tried email but didn't get a great response rate.) We were very deliberate about it.
And guess what? Most students (or their parents) might have a complaint or two, but when we reached out to the "okay middle" we learned that our perception that Everyone was upset and about to quit and Everyone was a jerk was just not true. It wasn't all happy talk, but we made those connections. We learned a lot. Also, people appreciated it, even those that let our calls about it go to voice mail.
We were back at 75% revenue within two months and fully recovered by the time I started looking for a job in Feb 23. There were bumps in there, don't get me wrong.
I don't think this is a specific lesson for the team and I don't think the mods need to reach out to everyone. But it taught me a) ask, don't assume - we learned things that we had to change but we also learned people did appreciate things b) it's better to do something than sit and watch it tank and c) the story in your head is almost always worse than things actually are.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:03 AM on November 25 [26 favorites]
posted by isauteikisa at 8:36 AM on November 25 [2 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 8:47 AM on November 25 [6 favorites]
posted by isauteikisa at 9:04 AM on November 25 [1 favorite]
Oh, we've also been tagging stuff posted to the Best Of blog with the -sidebar- tag. Fun fact, tags are based linked to subsite, so there's different sidebar tag lists for the front page, AskMe, Projects, and Music
They are JUST suggestions
They're GOOD suggestions, thank you! Currently we're using some internal code to put stuff on an agenda and do reminders, but I like the idea tracking all the things going forward, will work on putting a workflow together Saturday or so.
Definitely gonna chew over the the stories you shared, there's some good nuggets in there, worthy of future site discussions.
If we're still testing the hidden comments thing, can I suggest marquee or blink tags for the styling?
Oh, the PTSD from early web days, lol!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:22 PM on November 26
posted by Vatnesine at 6:23 PM on November 26 [4 favorites]
Apologies for the delay in responding, just wanted to touch bases with all the mods, while taking some time for the holidays.
At this point we're decided that going forward with hiding comments instead of deleting them via the Details tag isn't good as things stand right now. Mainly, it needs to be a larger discussion as we talk about and work out what it means and what changes are involved. The way everything works now using the Details tag breaks how users expect things to work and breaks how moderators work, so without doing some coding, we think it's best to pause the experiment. The main issues we see are:
- It has moderators editing a user's comments on a larger scale than we've previously ever done or even considered.
- There will still be instances of where it's best to remove a comment from view (slurs, personal attacks, etc), so we'd need to determine what those policies are
- Defining policies on what to when users still choose to interact with hidden comments
- It breaks the moderator workflow (we know longer see on the backend where our own or other moderator comments are.
- Whether hiding vs removing comments should be done
- If done, what's the priority level for implementing it
- The method for implementing it
- Communicating that change, defining policies, and educating the site community abou them.
- All the mods have posted to the Best Of blog and we aim to continue that going forward.
- Wobbuffet's bingo idea is being workshopped with community input and we aim to publish that on December 1
- Currently looking at doing an Ask The Moderator question hour next Saturday, around 9am-10am eastern, where I'll be available for more immediate questions. Will put a link in the banner as we get closer to that day
- Brook horse fleshed out ideas on how to collect feedback (using money from the Community Fund), and we'll be working on formalizing that into spreadsheet to dig back through previous feedback from the community.
- Did a few more encouraging type comments from a moderator to see how that goes
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:21 AM on November 30 [5 favorites]
That seems pretty weird, honestly - unless I've missed something, the experiment hasn't actually started yet? There was a quick check here in the thread to make sure it was plausible on a technical level, and a bunch of people expressed enthusiasm, but it was never rolled out outside of this thread, right?
The experiment as I understood it would have been a time-limited rollout to see how it affected the community in practice and how the community felt about it in practice, in order to decide whether to put in the effort of doing a good technical implementation, coming up with a solid policy, etc. In other words the point of the experiment was exactly to provide the information necessary to make the decisions you described.
It seems pretty weird to have brought this up and gotten people excited (well, me, anyway) and then shut it down before it even started for reasons that existed and were very much available to think through before announcing you'd do it (yes, it involves "editing" comments, although arguably less than deleting them does; yes, some comments might possibly need to be straight-up deleted, and yes it would be worth devoting a few minutes to deciding how egregious a comment would need to be for that to happen; yes, you'd need to communicate the experiment effectively; yes, it would temporarily change your workflow; yes, of course people might still interact with hidden comments, seeing how that would work out in practice is one of the reasons to do this as an experiment...)
So I find this confusing and disappointing, and don't really understand how you guys apparently didn't consider and decide that stuff before starting. I'm curious what you thought you were doing. But whatever, I'm too tired, and maybe it is actually better to leave it to a team that knows how to operate.
posted by trig at 12:44 PM on November 30 [24 favorites]
Just - bah.)
posted by trig at 12:47 PM on November 30 [4 favorites]
"The food a this place is horrible! And the portions are so small!"
posted by some loser at 4:23 AM on December 1 [2 favorites]
Brandon, is there any commitment from the moderation team in doing anything with brook horse's work?
And I agree that the decision to stop forward movement on a highly requested change that was getting a lot of popular support here because it would inconvenience moderators for a while, which means that not only is the change request denied but now there's more ill will because you got people's hope up, is rather indicative of why folks are really annoyed at the chaotic and seemingly self-serving decision making process around here.
posted by lapis at 7:37 AM on December 1 [11 favorites]
That's correct.
The idea, at least from the mod end, was to try it on MeTa and see how it goes. Ultimately, it became clear there are a number of issues that should pause this from being implemented at this time. If done we definitely believe it should be coded into the site instead of done as a hack.
We realize that doesn't make everyone happy, but we do think it's the best thing for the site as whole until the change over happens.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:49 AM on December 1
Like, were the mods under the impression that what users wanted was "an experiment with the technical usage of the details tag limited to one MeTa thread", as opposed to "an experiment with hiding comments that would otherwise be deleted"? Because as far as there was any interest in the former, I understood it as being entirely with the understanding that we were progressing toward the latter.
The idea that this now has to be routed through the nonprofit as some sort of committee with steps, etc... this is why people think y'all are bad at managing change, or being proactive, or even concerned with the state of the site. The excuses for not implementing it now... Do you really think they're insurmountable? Do you really think there's no way to manage wrapping a post in a details tag, and that site culture is going to be so upset about it that they'll think it's "editing comments"? You're the one who silently edited a content warning into someone's post, and had to be carefully walked through why they'd be upset!
And if it breaks the workflow... that's why it was supposed to be an experiment, so that you could gather data as to whether it was worth making it park of the workflow! Is the mod experience so moment-to-moment chaotic that this is impossible to work around?
Like, if you'd like to provide more details about what the issues are, I'm sure users could help solve them; this whole "we've tried nothing, and we're not getting anywhere" attitude is exhausting. To give it a try, though:
- Make a banner announcement and link to explanations when hiding the comment
- Determining what to completely-delete does seem hard - on the other hand, I'm sure both the users and the mods have some instinct here, and could propose something that would work on a trial basis, and be reevaluated by the community later
- Send 'em to Metatalk. That would require Mod interaction in Metatalk, but that seems to be part and parcel of what the community wants - the ability to respond to deletions that they don't agree with. Can't have one without the other
- Surely this could be dealt with in... most threads? by scrolling up to previous mod interactions. Perhaps augment it with a spreadsheet, or in-thread Mod comments noting broader moderator actions. There seem to be options here.
posted by Vatnesine at 9:41 AM on December 1 [6 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 9:42 AM on December 1 [3 favorites]
(Personally I did not use to care about this that much, except the last year or so and especially since things heated up politically, I personally have see comments vanish on a return to the thread and also found some comments responding to things I can't see. And I have no data, because none is available that I'm aware of, but it seems to me that warnings are being given less frequently - the recent bannings in MetaFilter supports that view.)
So there are basically three options right?
1. Create a public moderation log
2. Ensure the mod team comments every time they delete a comment (this comes with a lot of baggage around belief from the community since the way things disappear has created an expectation of secrecy)
3. Some front-end solution like this one.
It seems like none of these are something mods are willing to do, so I wonder if instead the mod team could post why they aren't going to address the concern about comment deletions and maybe share the guidelines they are using internally around comment deletion, if those are easily available to copy and paste over.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:26 AM on December 1 [9 favorites]
By all this pre-discussion you will not in fact get to something perfect, anyway! You will get better faster by doing it.
(For that matter, you will learn better what should be coded into the site to support mode workflow — speaking as a software developer, I would bet that requirements you write today would be incomplete — by doing it manually and taking notes.)
Trying out the <details> tag is squarely in the sweet spot of both 1) meeting a long-standing and increasing user need for transparency, and 2) being really fairly easy to try out as changes go. I was happy to hear the mods could get on board with taking this opportunity to do a dang thing. If we can't do this, I have a hard time seeing concretely how the formal change to a non-profit structure is really going to make meaningful changes possible.
I'll sleep on it, but I think I'm off monthly donation.
posted by away for regrooving at 11:32 AM on December 1 [12 favorites]
Brookhorse's work was great and as mentioned, we're going to incorporate it into a spreadsheet to go back through previous threads and keep a running track moving forward.
So there are basically three options right?
1. Create a public moderation log
2. Ensure the mod team comments every time they delete a comment (this comes with a lot of baggage around belief from the community since the way things disappear has created an expectation of secrecy)
3. Some front-end solution like this one.
Thanks for boiling this down, gonna respond to these points which I think cover points others have brought up.
Yes, all of those things are currently paused under MetaFilter LLC.
Once the switch over to the non-profit occurs (no firm ETA at this point other than soonish), I'm guessing they'll be back on the table, but that's up to the new entity. From there it's a matter of deciding what should be done and if so, what's the priority. Until then, the mods as a team do believe that there should be a technical solution to hiding rather than removing comments , rather than having us apply hacks to a user's comments. We absolutely do not want to be placed in the position of having to regularly do that and possibly getting flack for doing so, and/or possibly accusations that we've changed something.
I think there's a question of whether hiding as opposed to deleting cancels the need for moderation log, but that's something to be worked out.
And I'll talk to the team about leaving notes for every single comment removal. That is the goal, but some may have refrained from doing so for minor removals. I think I've done it occasionally when the first comment of a thread mentions something is spelled wrong or link is off, but that's it.
Overall, I'd say this isn't anything like "No, this will never happen" but more like "hey, once we're under new management, we'll take this up again if they want us to".
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:54 AM on December 1 [1 favorite]
The thing is, this mode of defense is not actually keeping flack off the mods. The status quo is that deletions are non-transparent, and occasionally are poor decisions which creates potential mistrust of every non-transparent deletion. As we have all seen, this combination can spin into a real shitshow.
Make a clear statement that mods will never alter the original comment text itself, and then do that! You will get less flack than you do today.
Until then, the mods as a team do believe that there should be a technical solution to hiding rather than removing comments , rather than having us apply hacks to a user's comments. We absolutely do not want to be placed in the position of having to regularly do that and possibly getting flack for doing so, and/or possibly accusations that we've changed something.
posted by away for regrooving at 12:29 PM on December 1 [8 favorites]
Once the switch over to the non-profit occurs (no firm ETA at this point other than soonish)How many more years will it take for the mods to realize that doing nothing is not a neutral act, but something that actively harms both the current site and any potential future version of the site?
Yes, all of those things are currently paused under MetaFilter LLC.The LLC is spending resources rewriting the entire site from scratch. So if the mods don’t want a hacky solution, that means they’d be willing to use the new codebase to add the feature in properly, even before the nonprofit takes over, right?
posted by april of time at 12:41 PM on December 1 [14 favorites]
That sounds great - I think this would be a really positive step and it’s been frustrating to see noises made about it in the past which were then dropped. It certainly seems at the moment like the majority of deletions are silent, but of course there’s no way to tell!
Personally I would like to see something to the effect of ‘comment by (user) removed by (mod) for (reason)’, and I would like that to be hard wired into the deletion interface so that it’s not something mods need to be ‘reminded’ about, but even just a real and consistent policy of always leaving a note would feel, to me, like a genuine change in acknowledgement of frustrations felt by the community.
posted by Pre-Taped Call In Show at 12:55 PM on December 1 [12 favorites]
> It has moderators editing a user's comments on a larger scale than we've previously ever done or even considered.
I wouldn't worry about this, since it's not "editing" in the sense of changing the content, any more than deleting a comment is. Mods have access to the edit logs and can keep each other honest about not altering content outside of this.
> There will still be instances of where it's best to remove a comment from view (slurs, personal attacks, etc), so we'd need to determine what those policies are
Use hiding for fighty/derail/problematic comments and save deletions for actively harmful stuff like slurs (which are largely filtered already), spam links, doxxing, etc. Err on the side of hiding, since deleting borderline comments has been more trouble than it's worth (especially in MeTa).
> Defining policies on what to when users still choose to interact with hidden comments
Clear communication of the experiment (banner/MeTa/posts in each subsite) can set expectations ("do NOT engage"), then treat people who engage anyway the same as any derail -- hide comment, warn, temp ban repeat offenders.
> It breaks the moderator workflow (we know longer see on the backend where our own or other moderator comments are.
Sign the mod note in the "summary" field on every hidden comment with the name of the mod responsible, plus maybe a searchable phrase like "[Comment Hidden]", with a link to the announcement or FAQ (a keyboard macro would help make this fast and consistent). Then searching the site for "[mod name] summary details comment hidden" will turn up every comment hidden by that mod. Mods can also manually add the thread to their Recent Activity if they want to keep an eye on it. This won't necessarily replace a bespoke behind-the-scenes tracker for mod comments, but if there's a similar tool for tracking recent edits, that could work similarly. Mods could also leave their own comment in addition to hiding comments if they think it's a thread that other mods should be aware of.
I admire wanting to wait for "official" community permission (plus new tools) to make a change like this, but experimenting with it now will help lay the groundwork for that and ensure any official implementation goes more smoothly if it does prove to be effective. *Not* experimenting with it until then, even with a groundswell of support, gives the impression of being forced into it rather than being willing to accommodate (I know and appreciate you've been willing to experiment with other things, ofc -- all the more reason to maintain that positive trend rather than give an appearance of backsliding).
posted by Rhaomi at 1:31 PM on December 1 [12 favorites]
We just had a big blow-out over a mod edit to a users comment, where the folks who were upset very explicitly said that it wasn't the substance of the edit that was the problem, it was that if mods ever edited users comments without their consent that we could never know if the mods were using this power for nefarious purposes, even though the mods were very clear that they did not do this, and no one had any evidence that they ever had. So I have a hard time believing that adding routine editing of users comments to mods workflow is ever going to cause less flak to be thrown in the mods direction, no matter how much they swear they're only doing it in a well-intentioned and transparent way.
posted by firechicago at 1:37 PM on December 1 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 1:45 PM on December 1 [10 favorites]
posted by sagc at 1:46 PM on December 1 [11 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 1:50 PM on December 1 [13 favorites]
posted by firechicago at 2:41 PM on December 1 [2 favorites]
If Forbes were writing a pearl-clutching thinkpiece about this I wonder would they call it noisy quitting or quiet pay collecting or
posted by phunniemee at 2:53 PM on December 1 [15 favorites]
If this or something like it is that important, let's just do it. That's currently not happening under the LLC, so let's just do it once things change over.
I admire wanting to wait for "official" community permission (plus new tools) to make a change like this, but experimenting with it now will help lay the groundwork for that and ensure any official implementation goes more smoothly if it does prove to be effective.
There's not a lot more to test, imo. The idea and concept seems to work, might be a few tweaks here and there, but otherwise it works, people feel things are more transparent, all good stuff.
There are some worries about hiding vs deleting among that mods, including me, but that's reasonable and not insurmountable at all. But if we're going to do this because some people in the community do not trust what moderators are deleting, then I definitely want whatever mechanism to be coded so that there aren't accusations further down the road. The mechanism should not be easily susceptible to mod's making mistakes, as I honestly did with a comment while trying things out in this MeTa.
*Not* experimenting with it until then, even with a groundswell of support, gives the impression of being forced into it rather than being willing to accommodate (I know and appreciate you've been willing to experiment with other things, ofc -- all the more reason to maintain that positive trend rather than give an appearance of backsliding).
I hear ya, but again no one is against the idea or saying "never". If we're going to do it, please let's have it so that mods don't have to apply several hacks for every removed comment just to get the functionality similar to what we have on the backend. No one is against transparency. It's not a matter of feeling forced or being forced at least on the mod end, but absolutely do want to having to apply hacks.
Otherwise, that's about it from me for now, I'm technically not on shift this evening. I'll be on Tuesday evening. I will encourage the others mods to read people's responses here.
Good night!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:44 PM on December 1 [1 favorite]
"people feel things are more transparent"
who knew this comment would be so evergreen
posted by sagc at 4:49 PM on December 1 [4 favorites]
Maybe we could just automate the entire moderation process. It couldn’t be much worse than what we’ve got now.
posted by snofoam at 4:53 PM on December 1 [9 favorites]
This either means nothing or is basically you redoing what brook horse already did. There are two possible conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the literally years long process you have created to do something that used to be done by mods simply reading metatalk. Those two possible conclusions are that you as a team are either (1) fundamentally incapable of using your judgement to understand and implement community feedback where reasonable or (2) fundamentally unwilling to incorporate feedback (and lying about it while dragging your feet). Neither option inspires confidence that the moderator budget is being spent appropriately.
We absolutely do not want to be placed in the position of having to regularly do that and possibly getting flack for doing so, and/or possibly accusations that we've changed something.
lmao so much of this kind of explanation could be boiled down to folks not wanting to do work, period. Many of the mods are pretty much never seen around here. Believe it or not, people are being charitable when they imagine that much of the mod work is being done unseen instead of imagining that it's just not happening.
In any event, if so little can be done until the non-profit goes live, and/or mods can't do basic mod work (e.g. providing simple transparency) until the site's code changes, then again it becomes hard to justify the massive moderator spend
But god forbid the non-profit get legal help it doesn't strictly need that might be a waste of money lmao
posted by knobknosher at 5:23 PM on December 1 [14 favorites]
no one is against the idea or saying "never"But saying "after the nonprofit takes over" is in practice indistinguishable from "never" because it's a process that has no schedule and no ETA and has been going on for years with minimal progress.
That's currently not happening under the LLC, so let's just do it once things change over.But why once things change over? I get wanting it to be implemented properly, but I don't think anyone has explained why the LLC, which is rewriting the entire site from scratch to make it easier to add new features, can't add a new feature for mods. (Obviously the new site not being done yet means we'd have to wait anyway, but that would be unrelated to the progress of the nonprofit.)
posted by april of time at 5:23 PM on December 1 [15 favorites]
Was this in response to my question, "Is there any commitment from the moderation team in doing anything with brook horse's work?" Because it doesn't answer the question. Keeping track of suggestions is not a commitment from the mod team to do anything with those suggestions, and I was specifically asking because I wanted to know if "We're tracking them now" was the only plan for them.
posted by lapis at 5:24 PM on December 1 [18 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 6:11 PM on December 1 [12 favorites]
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 2:32 AM on December 2 [3 favorites]
posted by Kosmob0t at 3:36 AM on December 2 [2 favorites]
Brandon, why this passive language? You, loup, and the others are the LLC. Jessamyn has declined to be a manager for this site. You are the decision makers.
If the idea is that the "new entity" will keep you all as employees and just act as your boss, will you suddenly turn into a group of people who can put together a solid plan and execute it well under a reasonable timeframe? Or will you continue not only implementing badly but also digging your heels hard against anything the community asks for that requires any more effort on your parts than making "fun" posts and comments now and then?
everything you're talking about doing is ultimately a hack that has the mods doing a bunch of things to sort of duplicate functionality we already have and it's still not 100%.
You know, I wasn't the person who suggested hiding comments in the first place, or the person who suggested that that could be accomplished with the details tag. The first of those things had been suggested/requested many times, because of increasing lack of confidence in mod decisions and various instances of ass-covering by mods that turned out to look very different once you knew what the deleted comments actually said. Mods were, and are, losing people's trust and this was, and is, hurting Metafilter. The second of those things - using the details tag as a cheap way to implement- was suggested in one of the big, recurring Meta blowouts about said problem.
I suggested doing an experiment with comment hiding, using the details tag.
Why an experiment? For two reasons:
1) comment hiding seemed, and still seems, a potentially great way to increase transparency and, as a result, make Metafilter a site where people can better trust the mods. A win for both users and mods, right? But, as various people pointed out, some issues might come up if we started doing that. Would these truly be big issues? Serious issues? In my opinion probably not, but who knows? Loup/Brandon said 'there may be issues and there are no resources so we're not doing that, or any other thing you all have asked for wrt transparency and accountability.' I said, instead of ruling it out and committing to endless more predictable rounds of community dismay at mod overreach, let's do a brief experiment to find out if these potential issues are actually issues in practice.
2) loup, frimble, and the rest of you have a... very bad record at implementing change. You are the team that thought it was just fine to turn "changing a ! into a ⚑" into a 3-year total site refactoring - and to make the actual, requested change the last step in that 3-year, unrequested process. This is far from the only example. It's just one of the most surreal ones. loup, specifically, seems to have a pathological need to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
So yes, no shit, using the details tag is "ultimately a hack". That is, for fuck's sake, exactly the reason behind it. Waiting for you all to implement something better would - based objectively on your track record - take an unacceptable amount of time. And, since loup has done such a bad job of fundraising for the last two years, I absolutely understood loup's argument that there was not enough paid dev time to commit towards putting together a better workflow. (Though right after I suggested the experiment, loup announced that kirk was being hired to rewrite the entire site from scratch...)
So the point of using the details tag to do an experiment - not a permanent change, a time-limited experiment, I don't know how to say this more clearly - was
- to find out, in a short period of time, if all the terrible potential dealbreakers of comment hiding would actually be real dealbreakers at all, or whether this would actually be a great way to increase mod transparency and accountability and make the site healthier for everyone
- to take advantage of the fact that this would be a time-limited thing by using a quick-and-dirty hack (the details tag) to avoid the classic cycle of you all taking years to implement some trivial crap in the most convoluted possible way.
In other words, the whole essence of this experiment was "let's stop making the perfect the enemy of the good".
Mods' answer, after actually raising hopes for once?
"It's not perfect, so we won't even give it a short try."
Brandon, I honestly don't know if the time-limited aspect of this went under the radar for you. And I am curious if the other mods who, according to you, signed off on not doing this ever looked at this thread and saw how much enthusiasm your initial announcement about doing the experiment was greeted with.
posted by trig at 7:31 AM on December 2 [27 favorites]
At this point, what isn't paused? If the things listed above are paused, why would we have any sort of hope for change to come out of brook horse's compilation of suggestions?
Is that why there's been no commitment to change - do the mods thing they don't have permission, or the right, or something, to make these community-requested changes?
posted by sagc at 7:41 AM on December 2 [15 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 7:44 AM on December 2 [11 favorites]
Until then, the mods as a team do believe that there should be a technical solution to hiding rather than removing comments , rather than having us apply hacks to a user's comments. We absolutely do not want to be placed in the position of having to regularly do that and possibly getting flack for doing so, and/or possibly accusations that we've changed something.
So here's the core thing:
1. Right now, what's happening is people don't know what's being deleted and why. But what's more - we don't -- at least I don't -- even know what the community norms are for deletion any more. I was STUNNED a member's comments were deleted and they were temporarily banned for pointing out a racist trope in a MetaTalk post. When did "don't upset the poster" become a norm for this site? Is that a rule now? It wasn't off-topic...it just wasn't.
I don't understand what policy that was and honestly, if that error was made in MetaTalk I worry that it speaks to a shift in culture over moderation that hasn't been documented or discussed - because the bar for deletion in MetaTalk should be so much higher. Maybe it was just a bad day. But how can I tell, as an engaged user?
This was a kind of lightbulb moment for me, because if those comments were deleted like some every day occurrence, what else is getting deleted?
And how many people, especially newer, less engaged members, are leaving or not bothering to comment or to post because they have no idea what the norms are any more? And the community cannot know because the moderators will "try" to comment for every deletion?
I got loup's stats from the February 2023 discussion on this topic. Since those were totals for 2 years I've divided them up and I get on calculating generous averages:
5.5 Ask Metafilter deletions a day
7.5 Metafilter deletions a day
If that's still the case (and really I would love to get refreshed stats on this) we're talking about what, one-three deletions per hour of moderator time? I don't think there'd be a ton of flack to deal with, assuming most deletions fall within the guidelines as they should. I actually as a supervisor would worry that at that pace moderators are going to delete more comments just to feel like they are doing something.
Now I actually have some doubts about those stats because I don't see how I can personally be noticing comment deletions at that rate - I don't come close to reading every thread and I don't refresh threads all the time. But those are the stats that were shared. If the deletion percentage of comments - 1.4% for Ask, 1.6% for MF, 1.5 for MetaTalk - has changed a lot, that seems worth taking up as a community.
I will also note for the nth time that people joining in discussion want:
- to know what the norms are (unless they're just a jerk)
- to have their time appreciated
- to have clear communication when/if things go wrong
I'll also note that on the 'net, part of how most people decide whether or not to invest time in a community is to read along, get a sense for things, and then start participating a bit more. Having a broken experience that way is silent - people just don't do it, they don't start reaming the mods. So privileging "flack" over "loss of engagement" is not actually serving the community.
A thriving community might well have more flack (and develop ways to handle it). It might not. But by pre-determining that's the goal, you've decided which group will remain disempowered in the relationship.
That is the goal, but some may have refrained from doing so for minor removals. I think I've done it occasionally when the first comment of a thread mentions something is spelled wrong or link is off, but that's it.
So wait...comments are deleted for pointing out wrong spelling or broken links? What happened to a friendly 'fixed" and moving on? Like...it's not a huge deal but it's weird? When did "tidy threads" become an overriding goal?
I have seen comments vanish without a note myself personally, and not account wipes. I don't know if the mod team is not communicating this internally or what is going on, but saying "that's the goal" is insulting. This was agreed to in 2023. At even a generous 50 comments a day I think there should be capacity to leave a note.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:59 AM on December 2 [38 favorites]
I think? what Brandon meant was that sometimes he leaves a note when fixing spelling or broken links, but not otherwise. But the larger points stand.
I do think that just deleting comments even with a note still doesn't solve the problem of bad deletions like in the NovemBIPOC thread. In which loup left notes but those notes were, at best, seriously misleading about the nature of the comments deleted. A moderation log that actually includes the text of the deleted comments might work.
But if mods are so loath to spend a few extra minutes per shift doing a details tag explanation for a comment being hidden, or writing a note in an internal mod log about their comment-hiding activity, or doing a fucking ctrl-F for mod-hidden comments - is there any amount of effort they are willing to put into real transparency?
I just keep being struck by how out of all the feedback in all these threads, the only thing that seems to have been accepted is "mods should make some positive comments and posts". Apparently if it's not fun, it'll just have to wait for "the new entity". Who are unpaid volunteers, fitting this into their spare time, and quite possibly in over their heads.
posted by trig at 9:13 AM on December 2 [15 favorites]
I think I've done it occasionally when the first comment of a thread mentions something is spelled wrong or link is off, but that's it.
I interpreted that as he deletes the first comment after fixing the spelling or link. Brandon please weigh in.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:17 AM on December 2
This kind of thinking only makes sense to me if we assume the leadership of the nonprofit will put a more capable team in place as part of the transition. I find it surprising that the current team is sticking so strongly to can't/won't right now. This is what I would do if I were deferring changes to a future team.
If I were planning to be part of the future team, I would be excited to make improvements to the site now, to show that I belong on that future team, and also because the ownership change is just on paper. Metafilter exists now. Metafilter could be improved now. The community is here now. Staff could listen to the community now. There's no signing of a paper that suddenly changes everything. Like, be the metafilter you want to be in the world, etc.
posted by snofoam at 9:19 AM on December 2 [29 favorites]
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 10:55 AM on December 2
posted by donnagirl at 7:49 PM on December 2 [22 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:00 AM on December 3 [8 favorites]
My guess it the current community will fracture but sometimes that's the way of communities, and groups will find their spaces.
The technical debt on this site is already pretty astonishing and will torpedo sustainability as well as findability, new user acquisition, etc. plus the cost and maintenance issues, so there has to be a platform.
The current status is a lesson in the perfect being the enemy of the good (on many axes for many years), but maybe that is what is charming.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:27 AM on December 3 [12 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 6:46 AM on December 3 [15 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:04 AM on December 3
posted by warriorqueen at 7:08 AM on December 3 [4 favorites]
posted by sagc at 7:11 AM on December 3 [12 favorites]
Oh I did miss a yes! Yes we will ban you for suggesting anyone should lose their job over this.
It's just too stupid and sad, friends. We (the community) gave our dollars and our time and our words to make Metafilter what it is, and they are going to delete our words and waste our time and ban our friends and spend our dollars until there's nothing left, and then shrug and likely ask for donations for severance pay.
posted by donnagirl at 7:31 AM on December 3 [15 favorites]
Obviously current staff are fine to make tiny day-to-day decisions like this while still operating under the LLC.
posted by snofoam at 7:32 AM on December 3 [9 favorites]
I mean, yes, if your intended level of quality is 4chan. Myself, I'm here because the moderation and the userbase is much more pleasant than just about anyplace else on the internet. I'd rather we not lose sight of that distinction in hopes of chasing lower costs, especially since the recent organizational changes are explicitly removing any profit motive.
posted by Mayor West at 7:39 AM on December 3 [4 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 8:01 AM on December 3 [3 favorites]
Just because they're paying an insane amount for web hosting doesn't mean they have to pay an insane amount for web hosting.
posted by bowbeacon at 8:06 AM on December 3 [3 favorites]
- to take advantage of the fact that this would be a time-limited thing by using a quick-and-dirty hack (the details tag) to avoid the classic cycle of you all taking years to implement some trivial crap in the most convoluted possible way.
In other words, the whole essence of this experiment was "let's stop making the perfect the enemy of the good".
Mods' answer, after actually raising hopes for once?
"It's not perfect, so we won't even give it a short try."
You can't make a small improvement
to benefit the community? Why? Because you know the site is closing soon? Because the new site is around the corner except no its not because we can't even let you know when it *might* be available for testing?
Hiding a comment and making a mod note is too difficult?!?!? this was such an easy win and its been abandoned? Like wtf 😒
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:14 AM on December 3 [21 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:44 AM on December 3 [3 favorites]
This has already happened; there’s a group of people that haven’t joined one of several split-offs, but the fracture goes back a long way.
posted by Miko at 8:47 AM on December 3 [11 favorites]
When the non-profit takes over, we can form a committee.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 8:59 AM on December 3 [4 favorites]
This was literally possible, was a happy experiment, was working, by all evidence. But it's scary (wut) and too much work (wut).
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:05 AM on December 3 [2 favorites]
No, the LLC can't use volunteers. Unless we can blame them for why a digital cookbook that was part of a fundraiser that ended in October still hasn't been finished.
posted by bowmaniac at 9:24 AM on December 3 [3 favorites]
I can no longer access the P&L reports folder -- it's deleted -- and when I went back none of the links worked.*
I'm going ahead with this comment anyway because I feel like me not having all the information is a consequence of whatever decision it was to lock that information up.
Earlier I did cruise that folder and although my memory and math may be foggy, I'm pretty sure that over the last year MetaFilter LLC has had operating losses overall in the range of $8-10k so far, could be more or less, meaning that in many months the actual costs have exceeded the regular subscription/donations income. (I'm not sure if the fees for the non-profit stuff are in those P&Ls because I can't look at them.)
What's made up the difference is the annual fundraising pot (or you could probably argue some of the original 'what was left in the bank' from the LLC at the point that the big fundraiser produced more subscriptions/donations.) So thanks to that work mostly by volunteers, there is a runway.
Anyways, all that is to say that there is no 'profit' to put back into the non-profit and there is no rosy picture of money under the current state because new members are not joining.
Sometimes you can squeeze more from the members you have but overall (unless you're doing really professional fundraising), no new members = fewer and fewer dollars. Attrition is the normal state of content and community on the web. Because getting new members is a longterm problem, you can't figure that out 3 months before your next donation drive.
Anyways - the discussion is not generally about 'chasing lower costs.'
It's about a) value - I don't want to comment on this and
b) also what are the steps to survive, which I will comment on.
If you wait until you're out of money you end up cutting costs very rapidly. That is in fact what would have happened when cortex left, had volunteers not run a very effective fundraising campaign. Moderation would probably have been cut in about half.
Right now if status quo stayed - that is, no leadership or at least no paid leadership - it would be several years (by my calculation which is suspect as the info is locked up) before the bank account was depleted. But again, there has to be a plan for growth or it will be.
When the non-profit takes over, we can form a committee.
The original Steering Committee did have a plan to partly address things, which was to hire an admin for the business. I don't think that was envisioned as a leadership role; I think the idea was to take the stuff like payroll etc. off loup's plate so that they could be positioned more for engaging the community. In any case the LLC did not use those funds for that purpose (you could argue they are in the bank I guess.)
Then the interim board (current) has stated one of their goals was hiring an ED. I am sure there are good human reasons that hasn't happened but I don't think the long-term goal is to run every decision through a committee, it's to hire. My understanding is there are volunteers ready to help with that.
Can MeFiCoFo or whatever it is afford an ED is a big question...this year's fundraising didn't really help. What I said about about the several years vanishes as soon as you hire one additional person, especially if you want them at full-time status and not a side gig.
doesn't mean they have to pay an insane amount for web hosting.
I believe that is the reason for the rewrite, for sure, besides that ColdFusion is expensive and simultaneously getting more expensive and dying but each month it goes longer the more those costs are present. (My understanding is extremely limited.)
* I am quite cranky about this only because the money has always been pitched as a community effort. If the LLC team doesn't like that money is being discussed, I dunno what to say. If this had been a functioning business handed over to someone wanting to run the business there would never be these discussions.
As a non-profit even though I don't think monthly reporting is required it will be public in the future anyway.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:44 AM on December 3 [16 favorites]
The other thing is, for an ED, you either have to hire someone with a long history of dedication, or you have to hire a professional who has someone with long dedication supervising them. I’m not sure we have the capacity for either; this is why I am skeptical of the Hire An ED call.
posted by corb at 10:20 AM on December 3
posted by Miko at 10:30 AM on December 3 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 10:32 AM on December 3 [5 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 10:59 AM on December 3
How so? This is how most nonprofits work. The ED manages under the oversight of the board of directors.
posted by snofoam at 11:18 AM on December 3 [2 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 11:23 AM on December 3 [5 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 11:23 AM on December 3
I don't think the person needs to come from this community and in fact it might be a requisite strength to have experience outside of this community, preferably professionally.
If the budget is significantly above 10k, the website will fail in short order.
In October the contribution revenue (monthly recurring is I think what that means) was around $17k + $3500 in ad revenue, down from $21k + 3,000 the year prior. So assume we're not switching platforms at the same time but we are switching payment methods, probably $13k/month at what would hopefully be the nadir.
But that will depend on the perceived value left in the MeFi supporting membership.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:59 AM on December 3 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 12:08 PM on December 3 [1 favorite]
posted by warriorqueen at 12:25 PM on December 3 [1 favorite]
So from my experience, there needs to be at least one focal point - either the executive board or the ED - who genuinely cares about the organization. It doesn't have to be community involvement in nonprofits with more of an actual mission - if everyone is agreed they need to save the cats or stop a disease or what have you, then you can have someone come from outside with an existing passion to save the cats or stop the disease. But when the nonprofit is centered around 'preserve this community space' - and I have seen those - you really need someone who is passionate about preserving the community space.
Those people can be the executive board of the nonprofit, they don't have to be the paid staff/ED, but they do have to be fairly active and hands-on. So you can have a business leadership ED as long as there's a deep bench community board to make sure their choices are in line with the mission of preserving the community, which the business guy won't understand.
However, the problem with hiring a business ED with no dedication to the community is that you then get what you pay for. Either you pay real-professional prices, which I'm not sure Metafilter can afford - I know what EDs cost, and it's not cheap - or you pay lower prices and get someone who isn't very good at their job and doesn't know what they're doing. If you are hiring someone with commitment to the community, they'll take the lower pay and still be good at things because it matters to them - but if not, you're going to get someone who phones it in. And again - I've seen this happen, this is a common failure point in organizations.
Looking at the profit/loss, we're already operating at a loss even before hiring an ED, which would conservatively be another 5k a month at least for a nonprofit professional. I also didn't realize Metafilter staff were classed as independent contractors - this isn't legal advice, but in my judgment, I think that's probably misclassification and will look like an obvious dodge to get around paying payroll taxes. If I were on the board, one thing I would suggest would be looking into one of the nonprofit payment processing orgs, that take fees to handle all the payroll stuff, etc and knows how to handle having employees in different states and locations which all have different tax requirements; this way you could focus on having Metafilter employees handle the stuff that they need to be good at and not be overheavy.
posted by corb at 12:46 PM on December 3 [3 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 12:51 PM on December 3 [2 favorites]
Keeping track of suggestions is not a commitment from the mod team to do anything with those suggestions, and I was specifically asking because I wanted to know if "We're tracking them now" was the only plan for them.
Agree, start with keeping track and then decide what’s good to implement. If you’re looking for a firm commitment right now about what the mods think would be best to do from brook horse’s document, I have no answers at the moment, but can promise to have some by Saturday afternoon (12/7 eastern time)
I honestly don't know if the time-limited aspect of this went under the radar for you. And I am curious if the other mods who, according to you, signed off on not doing this ever looked at this thread and saw how much enthusiasm your initial announcement about doing the experiment was greeted with.
It was understood that it would be time limited. But yeah, after talking it over with other mods it was agreed that just doing it would be a better way to go, rather than doing experiments across the entire site. People tend to get aggravated about changes and the idea of experiments messing with their “world” aka, how they use the site.
If folks are wondering what a comment was removed, they’re welcome to send an email. Yes, not everyone cares for that solution, but is a way we have. It is the hope to have better solutions as we move forward.
So wait...comments are deleted for pointing out wrong spelling or broken links? What happened to a friendly 'fixed" and moving on? Like...it's not a huge deal but it's weird? When did "tidy threads" become an overriding goal?
Absolutely not, and here’s an example of what I mean, at the beginning of this Fanfare thread. Had that mistake be caught/noticed within a few minutes, previously I might have just made the correction and removed the comment about contacting a mod. T
These days I just leave the ask for a fix, make the fix and leave a note. I think it's better to leave those physical signs that users can ask for fixes, as long as it doesn't disrupt the thread and I don't think those kinds of requests ever have.
Currently am reminding other mods to leave a note for everything, no matter what, even if it seems or feels odd to leave it the thread. Just leave it, make notes, move on.
Pretty sure some of the mods are non-US residents and may be non-US citizens.
That is correct.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:03 PM on December 3 [1 favorite]
Such as?
posted by Diskeater at 4:08 PM on December 3 [4 favorites]
The solution is for the people getting paid to do the absolute rock bottom minimum task of saying “one deleted, let’s keep this a bit closer to the original topic.” There does not need to be a tech solution for this. As you know, mods have been able to do this for a very long time.
If the problem is that people will get mad at the mods, the solution is (1) if you are confident in your modding simply acknowledge that people may disagree and move on (if everyone agrees you do not need moderation, so disagreement is not a sign that something is wrong) OR (2) if you are not confident in your moderation, think about it, and say something like “ thanks for bringing that up, you’re right” and fix it, or, if after you think about it you think you did the right thing, go back and do step one.
The existence of conflict cannot be an excuse for moderators not to do their job. Addressing conflict in constructive ways is 90% of the job, maybe more.
Currently am reminding other mods to leave a note for everything, no matter what, even if it seems or feels odd to leave it the thread. Just leave it, make notes, move on.
Have you taken over managing the other mods from loup? I know we were pretending all of a sudden that they had no kind of management role and were just a spokesperson that you all threw to the wolves for years for some reason. Were they never managing the other mods? Is anyone managing anyone? Are you just the only person who gives a shit so you’ve taken on the role of reminding people they have to do things to get paid?
I don’t know, I guess I don’t care that much about what y’all are doing or how you’re arranging things but the organizational chaos is wild.
posted by knobknosher at 4:21 PM on December 3 [20 favorites]
agreed that just doing it would be a better way to goAre mods using a different version of English, where words mean different things? Between this and "Agree, star t with keeping track and then decide what’s good to implement."...
How on earth does not doing something equal just doing something? How does "I agree, we should track and evaluate suggestions" answer the question of "are you committed to listening to the suggestions?"?
If y'all "hope" for better solutions, maybe you could... Try better solutions, rather being so scared of user confusion that you won't even try? Every comment here disproves it further, but I sincerely do believe that (if the mods tried really, really hard, I guess) they could have written a post that successfully explains the experiment.
Perhaps the assumption that any changes to metafilter are breaking someone's "world" is one of those things we could experiment with changing! It certainly shouldn't be used to block every attempt to fix things here.
posted by sagc at 5:36 PM on December 3 [9 favorites]
If that's still the case (and really I would love to get refreshed stats on this)
We'll get updated deletion stats and post them, might take a day or two, what with people being in different parts of the world.
Will look into the P&L links being broken again, not sure what the problem is, Google drive seems to keep reverting them for some reason.
I was STUNNED a member's comments were deleted and they were temporarily banned for pointing out a racist trope in a MetaTalk post.
That was a perfect storm of bad mod decisions piling on top of each other. It shouldn't have happened, but it did, and we apologize.
Maybe it was just a bad day. But how can I tell, as an engaged user?
Looking into this, but in the meantime, seriously, if anyone is wondering about a missing comment and didn't see a note, email us. SERIOUSLY. I want to know why a note wasn't left and see what the problem or rationale was on the backend.
Yeah, it's email isn't the solution a lot of people want, but it's what we have for the moment, so I encourage people to use and when doing so, include a link to the thread Please just ask.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:46 PM on December 3 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 5:55 PM on December 3 [5 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:55 PM on December 3 [5 favorites]
This stuff started really long time ago and definitely before you started on, Brandon, so I’m not trying to put all this on you, but I think there needs to be a significant acknowledgement that people sometimes avoid contacting mods because they don’t want to be trashed, either privately or publicly on the site
Like, you all really do say a bunch of heated stuff in response to people’s emails that have been sent to you, and you say critical things about those emails here on the site in public. Part of repairing the trust needs to include an acknowledgement that stuff like that is going to make people not want to email you, and that the effort needs to go both ways
posted by knobknosher at 6:15 PM on December 3 [9 favorites]
How many active mods does Metafilter have? Send a group email and say "hey chuckleheads, don't delete shit without leaving a note, ok?"
Or should the users come up with the Mefi Mod Group email list as well?
posted by Diskeater at 6:22 PM on December 3 [7 favorites]
This stuff started really long time ago and definitely before you started on, Brandon, so I’m not trying to put all this on you, but I think there needs to be a significant acknowledgement that people sometimes avoid contacting mods because they don’t want to be trashed, either privately or publicly on the site
Like, you all really do say a bunch of heated stuff in response to people’s emails that have been sent to you, and you say critical things about those emails here on the site in public. Part of repairing the trust needs to include an acknowledgement that stuff like that is going to make people not want to email you, and that the effort needs to go both ways
Can we speak in specific terms about this, either here or via, um, email? What sort of things have been said, by what mod, on what email dated when (or what was its title)?
This is not a gotcha. I'm genuinely looking for clarification on what mods said terrible things and when. I haven't noticed mods saying awful things, but could have a blind spot.
Otherwise, back tomorrow evening to pick this up.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:30 PM on December 3
posted by phunniemee at 6:33 PM on December 3 [10 favorites]
The receipts are already out there, as it were.
posted by sagc at 6:37 PM on December 3 [9 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:56 PM on December 3 [5 favorites]
Can mods see other mods’ mails?
posted by warriorqueen at 7:10 PM on December 3
Speaking of effort, I kind of can’t be assed to find a bunch of these examples. But a basic positive step would be to say and mean that the mods are not going to negatively characterize other people’s emails even if they feel they need to do so to defend themselves from criticism
Like, just thinking about it I remember times when the mods have publicly said that they were worried for people’s mental stability based on things they said to the mods in private comms. It wasn’t in a nice way either. Like, that kind of thing is really fucked up and you guys should make a commitment not to do it just to win arguments
posted by knobknosher at 7:11 PM on December 3 [6 favorites]
This revelatory series of mod emails right here was, for me, the final death rattle of the last shred of hope I might ever have had in the current leadership.
posted by phunniemee at 7:19 PM on December 3 [10 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 7:42 PM on December 3 [11 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 7:57 PM on December 3
No. I am asking if there is a team commitment to taking the feedback seriously and to implementing changes based on that feedback. As a principle, as a goal. Because my assumption, based on previous actions, is that y'all are simply going to say, "Nah, we can't do that," or "It will just have to wait for the non-profit," to the majority of those suggestions, since that has been the pattern, and then this will be another complete waste of a user's time. I'm asking if the mod team has had any self-reflection about that pattern and is therefore on board with actually doing anything -- as a guiding principle -- based on the feedback that's being compiled.
posted by lapis at 10:29 PM on December 3 [11 favorites]
I think one issue that I see with having folks email the mods is just that there is already low mod capacity. One thing said in public can resolve a question for twenty people at once, but emailing 20 people back takes significantly more time.
posted by corb at 11:54 PM on December 3 [6 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 3:08 AM on December 4 [15 favorites]
Just replying to a few things this evening, sorry for delay the various queues have busy today and this evening.
Can mods see other mods’ mails?
For MeFiMails, no. But emails by mods should be by Reply All, so yeah.
But a basic positive step would be to say and mean that the mods are not going to negatively characterize other people’s emails even if they feel they need to do so to defend themselves from criticism
Having received some particularly ugly emails, I’m not going to unilaterally commit to that idea.
That said, I absolutely do think that any mod communication should follow the idea that if you're going to be embarrassed or regretful about something you've written appearing on the front page of any major news site, then you shouldn’t say or write it.
Like, just thinking about it I remember times when the mods have publicly said that they were worried for people’s mental stability based on things they said to the mods in private comms.
I’m aware of some past emails that were terrible and shouldn’t have happened. I believe those cases were done years ago and/or by mods who no longer work. I don’t think it’s super productive to go and try to find every single instance of those, but yeah, we shouldn’t be repeating those past communication mistakes.
I'm asking if the mod team has had any self-reflection about that pattern and is therefore on board with actually doing anything -- as a guiding principle -- based on the feedback that's being compiled.
Yeah! But I do think one of the first orders of business is establishing a better way of measuring what the whole community thinks about things. I don’t mean to slight anyone but one of the eye opening things about the last user survey was how many people thought the moderation was fine, if not great.
It was also clear that a decent sized group were not happy about somethings and that’s worth paying attention.
That survey was two years or so years ago, so that findings shouldn’t be taken as gospel and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything now. Just giving a broader view of that we’ll need better tools to establish what the community as whole wants. But making changes based on feedback is a no brainer, IMO.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:34 PM on December 4
posted by sagc at 5:36 PM on December 4 [2 favorites]
Nah, definitely wanted to address those in a separate comment, apologies for not communicating upfront. Will get to them in a bit.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:43 PM on December 4
Like the almost universally celebrated comment hiding?
posted by bowbeacon at 6:43 PM on December 4 [5 favorites]
Thanks for citing those, though I won't quibble with a mod trying to be helpful. There's ways to do it and we can always ways the team can do better and that's what we'll aim.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:50 PM on December 4
I agree it’s not productive. You asked 🤷🏻♂️ I think there is overlap between current mod staff and mod staff who have been doing shit like this, but if you don’t, cool. I think the culture seems to be much the same even with personnel changes (for example, the misrepresentation of user comments reacting to the rice cooker thing to make them sound worse was very recent. Mod emails responding to people about that claiming that people were “attacking” certain mods were also recent). If you don’t think the culture is similar, cool.
What would be productive, and what I suggested, IIRC, is a commitment not to do that kind of shit going forward, specifically, to stop publicly misrepresenting users’ statements in a negative light.
You don’t seem to think that is a current problem. I disagree. That makes me somewhat skeptical that you can thoughtfully make a commitment not to continue that behavior going forward. If you think you’re doing that, great. If you don’t think it’s necessary, great. It’s your site.
And tbh only reason I even suggested that is because you asked people to email with issues with comment deletion. People doing that are basically doing the mod team a favor. I assumed that request was in good faith, but maybe the point was to prove that actually the moderation is great and everyone is just whining because they refuse to link to various moderator fuckups here in this thread to prove that things have not always been great. Idk idk
posted by knobknosher at 6:57 PM on December 4 [10 favorites]
posted by sagc at 7:00 PM on December 4 [11 favorites]
I'm sure you have received terrible emails; people are awful. When you're in a customer-facing job, you catch a lot of that stuff.
However, in your mind that means you can't commit to the idea that you won't "negatively characterize" users? I don't think it would negatively characterizing an email to say "it used hate speech and abusive language," if it did. It would just be accurate, factual.
It would be negatively characterizing to say "this user is clearly mentally unbalanced and has a vendetta against me and just wants to tear down MetaFilter." Do you see the difference?
There was kind of a lot of the latter in mod emails and mod chatter - yes, mostly in the era before yours, Brandon, but the staff indulged in communications out of view of the majority of users that were intrusive, presumptuous, and downright mean. That's the legacy that gave rise toward the calls for transparency, consistency in moderation practice, and basic respectful treatment of users.
The art of not reacting emotionally when people are off the rails is an important skill for this job. Mods weren't great at it in the past. If MetaFilter is to survive, then encouraging consistency - through clear policies, consitently executed by everyone ; transparency - preferring openness to private communication whenever possible; and respect - treating everyone with a basic dignity even when they're having an episode, and if they're truly abusive, giving them a gentle push out the door - would be important core working principles. That's all people are asking.
posted by Miko at 6:51 AM on December 5 [16 favorites]
Would it be useful to hear I didn't perceive it as helpful? It was vaguely threatening doublespeak: "no of course we didn't permanently ban anyone, we just declined to let someone open/reopen an account". It was creepy as fuck but if you perceive it as helpful then A+++ no notes in holding the thin grey line.
posted by donnagirl at 7:48 AM on December 5 [10 favorites]
Besides the emotional thing and this history, I think there's a moderation practice that does not serve moderators well, which is that believing that if they keep explaining the rationale/why they are right/why they decided whatever, that's helpful conversation.
But really most customer service is about preserving the relationship. You can't make the package arrive any faster and you can't change the rules about who can swim in the deep end. But you can say hey yeah, it's really frustrating this is late and I am really sorry about that/it is super annoying that you have to pass the swim test every year if you're under 12 and we can't test you today and I'm sorry and hope you'll come back tomorrow.
Some explanation is helpful, but explaining to every parent that every day lifeguards see kids in the deep end that shouldn't be there while their parents are on their cell phones instead of supervising them and while it will work out 49/50 times they do not want to risk a drowning the 50th time is only going to piss those parents off because THEIR kid can swim and THEY never look at their cell phones and you could even say hey, I saw you on your cell phone last week, or you could admit that it's stupid because this kid just qualified for super swim team.
But at the end of the day the first explanation is just going to make parents angry and the second is just going reinforce that your rules are stupid and should be argued with. A lot of communications is just not talking.
That's one reason I don't think all this email/MeMail is necessarily serving the community if it's wordy. I think a MeMail questioning a usual-type mod decision should kick off two things:
1) a review of the decision in the moment, because sometimes honestly anyone moderates a little too hard in the moment and if you can identify that right up top and just fix it, it goes a long way.
1 also - a MeMail saying hey, I know it sucks to have a comment deleted. I've reviewed it though and I think my decision to delete your comment in [thread] will stand due to [briefest summary of rule/reason, like I mean 5 words]. I'll have the next mod on shift take a look though.
2) the next mod should review it. This just adds accountability and shouldn't be a big deal. Then they should also write a short MeMail saying yea/nay, apologizing if a mistake's been made, empathizing again and saying the person's participation is valued.
Is that 'fake'? Well NOW it is after years of people trying to explain the fine detail of everything to each other but honestly I think it's more efficient and more effective at focusing the discussion on creating good conversation and not hammering each other into the ground. (A fine distinction for here, of course.)
I'm sure there are examples of productive conversations but I don't think we should be asking staff to be educators or defenders of The Right Way. (To be clear, I'm not sure anyone has ever asked that, although I'm sure there are some percentage of examples where Minds Were Changed Once Upon A Time.)
This is one of the parts of mod culture where I think the mods are seriously confused because to them, they are just conversing in a way similar to the way discussion on the site happens. And that goes back to having owners conversing that way and burning out and all that.
But what they don't appreciate is that at the moment they are making a Mod Request or Deleting Things, it's no longer a conversation that way. It's an application of power and we've all asked that it be a professional and coherent one in exchange for it being professionalized via being paid.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:19 AM on December 5 [22 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 11:26 AM on December 5 [7 favorites]
they are just conversing in a way similar to the way discussion on the site happens
Right, that's not the mode to be in for mod communications. Instead: short, clear, unemotional.
posted by Miko at 11:31 AM on December 5 [8 favorites]
That survey was two years or so ... ago,
you've got to be fucking kidding me.
posted by Kybard at 1:47 PM on December 5 [8 favorites]
I'm sure you have received terrible emails; people are awful. When you're in a customer-facing job, you catch a lot of that stuff.
However, in your mind that means you can't commit to the idea that you won't "negatively characterize" users? I don't think it would negatively characterizing an email to say "it used hate speech and abusive language," if it did. It would just be accurate, factual.
We're in agreement here to the point where I'm sort of cringing at the phrase "people are awful" (which is not a slight against you at all!). But I phrase those sort of comments as "people are being very peopely". Yes, it may be not great behavior or comments, but people are people and may not present themselves in the best way in all instances. No need to take it personally, as it's rarely personal, just a matter of circumstances. Stick the facts or problems and help them find solutions and move on.
So again, we're agree there, I don't have problem making a commitment to treat people fairly and avoiding characterizing them negatively.
...
Would it be useful to hear I didn't perceive it as helpful? It was vaguely threatening doublespeak: "no of course we didn't permanently ban anyone, we just declined to let someone open/reopen an account". It was creepy as fuck but if you perceive it as helpful then A+++ no notes in holding the thin grey line.
That is helpful, thank you for taking the time to articulate the reasons why you found it creepy. I'm sorry we didn't communicate that better and hope to improve that area as we go forward.
Having worked with loup and had extensive conversations over Zoom, I can see how they absolutely were trying to be helpful, it just didn't come across that way. My statement was focusing on their desire to be helpful, which has been consistent IMO, whatever mistakes have been made.
But yeah, we can definitely work on communicating better and will.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:14 PM on December 5
posted by phunniemee at 4:41 PM on December 5 [16 favorites]
That's never been metafilter policy beyond allowing brand new days. Two mods who are no longer employed here were condescending and rude in public and private to many, many now ex-mefites. Cortex used to berate mefites by email.
Preserving relationships? They trashed more than they preserved.
Now loup is sending copy pasta to mefites by memail and badmouthing people behind their backs. That is also disrespectful and not helpful Brandon.
Yes some mods and an owner who behaved poorly are no longer employed here but the behavior still exists from someone who is.
posted by qi at 7:54 PM on December 5 [4 favorites]
Sure thing! Thank you for waiting! I've compiled all deletions vs posts by subsite for the past 4 years here. Please note that account wipes are also included in there because the database doesn't track them differently from regular comment removals.
posted by loup (staff) at 10:06 AM on December 6 [2 favorites]
posted by B_Ghost_User at 11:13 AM on December 6 [7 favorites]
Is there any way to get additional info on deletions or is a total number all that's available because "deleted = deleted"?
posted by Diskeater at 2:18 PM on December 6 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:39 PM on December 6
posted by riverlife at 7:45 PM on December 6 [7 favorites]
posted by hilaryjade at 8:13 PM on December 6 [4 favorites]
Nope, no additional information on deletions. If there's specific information you're seeking, let me know and I'll ask, but there is no reason attached to deletions if that's what you're asking.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 9:37 AM on December 7
Including account wipe deletions obviously skews that higher, and makes it look like the mods are doing more day-to-day deleting than they actually are.
I had guessed that this context/detail wouldn't be included in the contact with Frimble, but decided to wait and see if I was correct. I was!
posted by sagc at 10:30 AM on December 7 [8 favorites]
posted by Diskeater at 10:41 AM on December 7 [2 favorites]
If there's specific questions people want asked about this, it would be helpful to ask them instead of waiting to see if they'll be asked, thanks.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:19 PM on December 7
The specific question being asked here is how many quantifiable thread-specific moderator actions are actually taking place on an average daily basis to justify the currently very high monetary cost of professional staffed moderation.
posted by phunniemee at 12:27 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]
I thought the question ought to have been clear, is the point.Please note that account wipes are also included in there because the database doesn't track them differently from regular comment removals.Is there any way to get additional info on deletions or is a total number all that's available because "deleted = deleted"?
posted by sagc at 12:31 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]
If there's specific questions people want asked about this, it would be helpful to ask them instead of waiting to see if they'll be asked, thanks.
I'll write this as clearly as I can: that comment comes across as you chiding people for your own gaps in reading comprehension. Those gaps have been coming up in quite a few threads. It happens to everyone but - as a mod for a text-based website, please read more thoughtfully.
posted by trig at 12:51 PM on December 7 [9 favorites]
I'm here to help and part of that is answering questions or getting answers to questions.
If folks have a question, but don't ask it to see if the person picks up their unstated question, then comments about how they were right about the unstated question being missed, well, that's a choice.
As answers to the current code/database have to happen across time zones and thus take time, I encourage people to be upfront about their question(s) on that subject, if they'd like the answers as quickly as possible.
Happy to move from this until frimble answers again.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:53 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:58 PM on December 7
Part of being here to help is putting in the barest bit of effort to understand what people are asking, rather than repeatedly*not* trying to understand them, then blaming them for any attempts to clear up the confusion.
I posted this 1.5 months ago. There have been (what seem to be) issues with understanding comments for some time now. It contributes to the overall gaslighty feel, where everything the mods have to be carefully walked up to every question, then proceed to answer something basically orthogonal.
posted by sagc at 2:03 PM on December 7 [9 favorites]
"Shift's over, back Tuesday evening. Take care y'all"
There's that professional response to user concerns that we've come to know and love!
posted by sagc at 2:05 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]
I imagine everyone would, for different values of "this". Just because you're happy to move on, doesn't make it unilaterally so.
Of course, dropping that comment, and then immediately going off shift, does send a certain message about what you think the mods can unilaterally do.
posted by sagc at 2:09 PM on December 7 [6 favorites]
Deletions are a poor proxy for a productivity measurement though, aren't they? A comment can receive a number of different forms of moderation. A flagged comment could be deleted, or could receive a mod response; an unflagged comment could be caught and deleted/commented on prior to anyone else spotting the flagging. A flagged comment might turn out to be okay, and left in place, with or without a comment. And is the average day the appropriate denominator here--knowing how certain threads will require vastly more moderation, but are somewhat dependent on big political events or news items? (Or is that true? Does a Trump megathread, for example, require more moderation per comment than "Hey look at this website about Vermeer", or does it just require more moderation because it gets more comments?)
I appreciated Loup providing that spreadsheet but if you're interested in productivity, it's not very useful data other than sort of gesturing toward a possible metric. (Suddenly I'm imagining a world where the site cares deeply about mod productivity, and comment deletions go way, way up...managing toward a metric!)
posted by mittens at 2:31 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 2:36 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]
That's true, although they do show something. Also for a while now it's definitely seemed like the primary form of moderation the current mods use is deletion, with very little in the way of trying to understand context, or nudge the conversation, or engage with problematic users behind the scenes in ways beyond banning or stonewalling them. Every once in a while there's been a push by members in Meta for more complex moderation, but it's not clear how long that generally lasts.
If flag numbers are tracked, that would be useful accompanying information in this context.
Productivity aside I'm personally curious about how many comments get deleted in Metatalk, since that's a relatively recent development and since it seems to be used mostly to shut down criticism.
TBH, the number of people requesting account wipes is probably also worth knowing (acknowledging that there can be reasons for that unconnected to dissatisfaction with the site).
posted by trig at 6:55 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]
Btw I don't think anyone is intentionally doing this as a test, which is what you imply. There wasn't any complicated level of subtext here. It's on the level of how when you ask someone if they know the time, "yes" is not a helpful answer.
You're right that maximal clarity is the best approach, and I think we all sometimes leave out important bits of context. But having spent a lot of time rereading your comments to try to understand what you're trying to say (and not always succeeding), and having seen you (and loup) frequently misread comments in ways that sometimes seem so implausible that I have to tell myself it's probably not an intentional stonewalling method, or a matter of selective deafness - please, do better on this, and with less blaming miscomprehension on your part on users whose paid job is not communicating effectively on this website.
posted by trig at 7:11 PM on December 7 [11 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 8:53 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]
It seems like Ask questions don't usually get the full deletion like that, and an explanation might be instructive for future askers.
posted by box at 6:36 AM on December 8 [3 favorites]
posted by trig at 7:35 PM on December 9 [3 favorites]
The answer is part of this comment in another thread.
Trig, your question about account wipes has been asked, am gathering information.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:49 PM on December 10 [1 favorite]
Policy because it’s the user’s choice to do an account wipe and we want to avoid going back and forth with removing content. Users can choose to close their account, instead of wiping it, and contact us when they want to reactivate it.
Technical because wiped content can still reside in the database, but accessible only via developers, and only the raw text. Favorites and any other info about the comment or post is completely deleted. Deletion reasons are not recorded and there’s no distinction made between wiped or mod deleted.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:09 PM on December 11
posted by Diskeater at 4:01 PM on December 11 [2 favorites]
That may change in the future.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:31 PM on December 11
Both of those things are pretty standard practices for data like this, so I'd hope so?
If so, then an account wipe is "multiple comments by the same user that are deleted with the exact same timestamp", even if there's nothing explicit describing it. And that can be identified in a query.
Can you publish the database schema, please? That doesn't reveal any private information, and would allow users to help with questions like this.
posted by siskin at 2:11 AM on December 12 [4 favorites]
The database doesn't have that.
I'm assuming "atomically" means "automatically" and that is also a no, they're done at a user's request.
Can you publish the database schema, please?
Talked it over with the developers, kirkaracha and frimble, and they both thought it wasn't a good idea to do that and I see no reason to disagree with them on that.
Otherwise, frimble broke their arm and headed into surgery tomorrow morning, so they're going to be out of commission for a bit, not sure how long. But it's been made clear to them that their health and rest should be a priority.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 1:14 PM on December 12
Talked it over with the developers, kirkaracha and frimble, and they both thought it wasn't a good idea to do that and I see no reason to disagree with them on that.
This is very silly and also sucks. Also the new codebase that kirkaracha is working on really needs to be open-sourced.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:18 PM on December 12 [5 favorites]
Why isn't it a good idea? I mean, I can think of arguments for or against it, but it would be nice to see the mods try to *make* them, rather than asking us to trust someone who knows little enough about databases to make the above mistake.
posted by sagc at 1:24 PM on December 12 [4 favorites]
posted by Strutter Cane - United Planets Stilt Patrol at 1:32 PM on December 12 [2 favorites]
So, with frimble injured, and if I'm accurately reading between the lines on these comments, kirkarcha is unresponsive, this means work on the new site is at a near-complete standstill? Is the new website even partly functional? What features work, and what is missing? Milestones reached? Future changes envisioned? Something, anything concrete to show from the last 12 months of "working on the new site, to be unveiled in October 2024?"
Let's float sensitive questions: how much would it cost to reclaim the project from kirkarcha and assign to someone else, or restart with a new dev? Could the site open a separate donation fund created expressly for that purpose?
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:56 PM on December 12 [6 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:09 PM on December 12 [4 favorites]
posted by glonous keming at 3:49 PM on December 12 [2 favorites]
posted by bowbeacon at 3:57 PM on December 12 [1 favorite]
posted by april of time at 4:49 PM on December 12 [3 favorites]
Next week's site update will talk more about the progress of the new site. Yes it's still in progress and will proceed, so alternatives are not needed. Open source is a point of the rewrite and that's very much going to happen.
If folks can think of good reasons not share the DB schema, then there's not much point about arguing about it.
And frankly, having kirkaracha focus on developing instead of answering questions is a better use of his time.
Thank you for the kind note about frimble!
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:44 PM on December 12
"because there are reasons, and thou shalt not argue" does not build trust. A competent representative to the community might recognize that fact.
posted by sagc at 5:53 PM on December 12 [6 favorites]
posted by sagc at 5:57 PM on December 12 [2 favorites]
That said, I do think at some point it would be important to have him and other developers to talk directly, either in MeTa or somewhere, no exact time frame for that.
And in the interest of setting low expectations, folks should not expect next week's site update to to include anything like "Oh we're all set, going live in two weeks". It'll be more like a progress report.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:17 PM on December 12 [1 favorite]
As far as delays in development, look, that notoriously happens with software projects, “last 20 percent takes 80 percent of the time” etc. (though that was a reason people were wary of embarking on a rewrite to begin with) and if the reason is actually just that other stuff got in the way for the developer that’s plenty sympathetic. We saw the rates MeFi was offering, we know this is gig one takes for love, not money. It just kind of feels like there’s nobody on staff who is used to communicating and managing expectations about this kind of project? If there were a little more clarity about what is in the works at any point that might take some pressure off of when.
posted by atoxyl at 7:16 PM on December 12 [5 favorites]
> The big general answer is that wiped accounts are not recoverable for policy and technical reasons. [...] Technical because wiped content can still reside in the database, but accessible only via developers, and only the raw text. Favorites and any other info about the comment or post is completely deleted. Deletion reasons are not recorded and there’s no distinction made between wiped or mod deleted.
So I asked the question above. The reason I asked was that up to this conversation I had assumed that wiped accounts were actually wiped - that is, deleted - from the database. That seemed like a reasonable assumption, especially in light of the GDPR.*
I think if a user's posts, comments, other site activity, and personal data are not actually deleted from the database, that needs - at minimum - to be made clearer both in the documentation and individually to any user requesting an account wipe. The FAQ does explain, at the bottom, that "delete" actually means 'make wholly and sometimes only partly inaccessible', where 'inaccessible to the public but not devs or possibly mods' is I guess technically implied, but earlier it also says things like "If you need to completely delete your account for privacy or safety reasons, Metafilter can accommodate you" and "deleting the original will not remove copies outside our control", and "to get your account deleted...", which all imply reference actual deletion. Deletion is not the same as hiding.
But beyond that I think this is a problematic policy. A user should be able to get their content removed entirely. Devs or hypothetical management/owners with fewer scruples, or even hackers, shouldn't have access to content you've revoked consent for. Yes, there are probably copies around on the internet, but that doesn't absolve the site of responsibility for best practices, and actual deletion seems like the right thing to do ethically. And it's probably the required thing legally speaking, though I am not a GDPR expert and maybe you've gotten legal consultation about this.
Anyway, I think this needs to be changed.
* here's a more prose-y explanation of the "right to be forgotten"
posted by trig at 8:15 PM on December 12 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 9:47 PM on December 12 [1 favorite]
And realistically if a DPA did decide to take up the cause of a disgruntled buttoner there's most likely going to be a warning and a chance for MetaFilter, LLC to say "my bad," and get compliant. Given it's a tiny site and is not collecting scads of PII, that'd be a minor pain in the ass (congratulations, angry buttoner!) but hardly Herculean.
And there's no EU business entity, which means the DPA is going to have to be so het up about the gross breach of privacy our angry buttoner has been subjected to that they come look up some US agency to, I dunno, send a terror squad to Vermont? To collect the pet tax poster take for the year? Then they phone the DPA and say "sorry, all we got was $208.29, a bag of stems and seeds, and a proof copy of a cookbook"?
posted by mph at 11:01 PM on December 12 [6 favorites]
I can think of reasons not to share the schema - most likely "it's embarrassing" or "people would ask more questions about it, which would be annoying". While both are probably true, in my opinion they are less important than "a small step towards openness".
posted by siskin at 2:00 AM on December 13 [3 favorites]
In practice, though, there is pretty much zero chance of any enforcement. GDPR enforcement is poor even against larger EU-based companies. So a policy of "breaking the law, but not getting punished" is entirely feasible for Metafilter. It looks like Elon Musk's X/Twitter has the same policy, so there is social media precedent.
posted by siskin at 2:16 AM on December 13 [2 favorites]
posted by trig at 4:54 AM on December 13 [9 favorites]
I was guilty of assuming too much technical knowledge above, so to be explicit about some of the ways that the supposedly deleted content could become public:
* The Metafilter site database is incorrectly secured
* A technical change inadvertently ignores the deletion flag
* There are bugs when migrating data to the new site
* Database backups are to a different system that is less secure than the main database
* Current or future owners of Metafilter have a change of policy around privacy
* Current or future owners of Metafilter see commercial benefits in selling the content, e.g. for training LLMs
* Developers work on unredacted versions of the Metafilter database on their local machines, and those local machines are compromised
These may seem unlikely - but versions of all of them have happened to other organizations.
I don't think Metafilter will face legal consequences from the EU for not deleting content, although I do think it is illegal. However, I do think it is unethical not to respect users' wishes around deletion of their content.
posted by siskin at 5:42 AM on December 13 [7 favorites]
It definitely makes more sense to frame this in terms of the spirit of account wipe requests than the GDPR. I said this in the other thread but without, well, knowing the DB schema the quick and dirty solution that feels like it gets most of the way there in spirit is just overwriting the text of each wiped comment with some placeholder?
posted by atoxyl at 8:32 AM on December 13 [2 favorites]
posted by trig at 10:12 AM on December 13 [4 favorites]
My original preference when account wipes were being discussed was for those kinds of visible placeholders though, if not simply anonymization, but since you seemed to be coming at this from the angle of minimizing what remains of an account (without breaking anything) I was thinking in terms of enhancing the current procedure rather than replacing it.
posted by atoxyl at 11:43 AM on December 13 [1 favorite]
posted by trig at 1:19 PM on December 14 [1 favorite]
Ad-Hoc Moderation LogIt was submitted 14 December 2024 at 1732 Eastern.
With the topic of a moderation log discussed more frequently in recent weeks (see here, here, and here), but no clear indication if the "new version" of MetaFilter will implement it, it falls to users to do so. The purpose of this thread is to record instances of moderators deleting or editing posts or comments, and leaving their own comments, in other threads (including MetaTalk, AskMe, MetaFilter, etc.)
The intended purpose of this thread is ONLY TO COLLECT DATA in one place. This thread is NOT for: (1) Reposting a deleted comment, (2) asking (politely or otherwise) why something was edited or deleted, nor (3) critiquing mod actions.
If you become aware of a mod editing or deleting a comment, leaving a "staff" comment of their own in a thread, or removing a thread, please note it below. That’s all.
Optionally, if you have received a message from a mod (either by email or MeMail) concerning the above actions, and you are willing to share it, AND it does not involve another member other than the mod and yourself, consider sharing those as well.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:33 PM on December 14 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:03 PM on December 3
so did this ever get followed up on? no?
posted by glonous keming at 8:15 PM on December 14 [3 favorites]
Is it the case that every comment has the IP address of the commenter recorded against it? Is it also the case that this IP address is kept for all time? And that the IP address is never deleted, even when a user asks for an account wipe for safety reasons? And hence might be made public in future via one of the mechanisms I describe above? Which can tie users to physical locations, match them with other accounts etc.
I suspect this is true because of Brandon's reluctance to make the schema public above, and when I searched metatalk for references to IP addresses I found this old post by Cortex that suggests it was true then.
Logging IP addresses for the short term is common, to help prevent abuse (on systems I've worked on, generally for a few weeks). But keeping them indefinitely is generally illegal for organizations doing business in the EU, and is unethical anywhere, particularly after a supposed account wipe. I don't think Metafilter should be doing this, if it is.
Brandon, are my suspicions correct? #pleaseanswer
posted by siskin at 12:29 PM on December 15 [2 favorites]
posted by trig at 3:57 PM on December 15 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:03 PM on December 3
so did this ever get followed up on? no?
No it was not. I completely dropped the ball on this and there is no excuse, simply put.
I apologize to the community for this fumble, and in particular to brook horse, who took the time to put this together.
Over the next two days I'll be meeting with loup to go back over the document (and the upcoming December site update) and will respond by Wednesday afternoon, at the latest, about brook horse's document.
#pleaseanswer in general, both about siskin's question, about the need to turn account non-deletions into actual deletions, and about whatever else has been brought up and not addressed.
Yep, will go back over the thread and see what's been missed and respond accordingly.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:36 PM on December 15
Is it the case that every comment has the IP address of the commenter recorded against it? Is it also the case that this IP address is kept for all time? And that the IP address is never deleted, even when a user asks for an account wipe for safety reasons? And hence might be made public in future via one of the mechanisms I describe above? Which can tie users to physical locations, match them with other accounts etc.
I suspect this is true because of Brandon's reluctance to make the schema public above, and when I searched metatalk for references to IP addresses I found this old post by Cortex that suggests it was true then.
To be fair, this is not information that could be determined from the database schema in isolation. Even if there's a per-comment IP field, there's nothing to say that that doesn't get NULLed or overwritten with 127.0.0.1 on an account wipe. (I mean, i would bet money against, it, but it's not something the schema itself would tell anyone.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 5:46 PM on December 15
posted by NotLost at 6:51 AM on December 16 [8 favorites]
posted by Miko at 1:04 PM on December 16 [3 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 4:53 AM on December 17 [2 favorites]
What is the current leadership/management/supervision structure?
Per loup's comment back on October 31, 2024:
Currently, Jessamyn is the owner of MetaFilter LLC but I take care of decision making when it comes to daily operations, for more strategic things I will confer with Jessamyn and we'll come to a decision together.
Then we have 2 tech members, one maintaining the old site and another building the new site.
And then there’s the mods, there are 5 of us and we all work on general moderation across all siubsites while having specific assignments (like maintenance of the Bes of MeFi blog, social media account or the BIPPOC Board).
All or most of the admin work is currently done within the mod shifts already assigned to stay within the operational budget we have.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 7:38 AM on December 17
If loup is still the only manager, shouldn't they be making decisions like discontinuing the hidden comments experiment?
I remain confused about who currently is making active choices about plans, etc; it certainly doesn't feel like it's loup *or* jessamyn.
posted by sagc at 7:43 AM on December 17 [6 favorites]
posted by donnagirl at 10:10 AM on December 17 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 3:26 PM on December 17 [5 favorites]
A random mod: "Hey, a decision needs to be made about this" They'll either be like "I'm not sure what do" or "I have an idea about this".
Then loup will be like
A. Yeah let's do that
B. Yeah, let's do that, but with this, this, this
C. That won't work because of X or Y, what about this.
Loup or Jessamyn never really say "Do this". It's more like "Hey, we have a problem, suggestions?"
Loup makes the schedule with input from individual staff members.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:50 PM on December 17 [1 favorite]
How often do random mods actually suggest user-facing changes or improvements? Or are these conversations generally just about moderation decisions?
How often do mods push back against input from loup?
How much time weekly or monthly is spent discussing the feedback from users on MetaTalk?
Loup or Jessamyn never really say "Do this".
What kinds of things is Jessamyn involved with?
posted by trig at 7:31 PM on December 17 [4 favorites]
posted by trig at 7:49 PM on December 17 [3 favorites]
Not specific metric on mods suggesting changes, but it does happen. The current site is being sunsetted which probably (my guess) means their aren't many suggestions for that reason. Usually if a problem comes up (moderation or tech) someone makes a suggestion on to avoid the problem in the future or fix it.
There isn't pushback per se, but conversations.
Example: loup: "Hey what do y'all think of doing X" and the conversation goes from there.
MeTatalk feedback happens as its brought up.
Jessamyn is focused on the transition to a non-profit, day to day stuff is handled with loup, with consultation with Jessamyn at times. Loup keeps track of things. Accountability is usually along the lines of "hey you forgot to mention this, what about that response/act/etc"
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:30 AM on December 18
It would be appreciated if Jessamyn extended her focus to participating in the community discussion about that transition!
Loup keeps track of things. Accountability is usually along the lines of "hey you forgot to mention this, what about that response/act/etc"
Given all the frustration that's been piling up over how this quasi-system is working out in practice..... has any of you brought up the idea of implementing something more professional? If so, has that idea been rejected? Has it been accepted in a "sounds nice, maybe one day we'll kinda sorta do it" kind of way?
posted by trig at 7:23 AM on December 18 [5 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 8:28 AM on December 18
Brandon Blatcher: "If you’re looking for a firm commitment right now about what the mods think would be best to do from brook horse’s document, I have no answers at the moment, but can promise to have some by Saturday afternoon (12/7 eastern time)"
December 15
Glonous Keming: "so did this ever get followed up on? no?"
December 16
Brandon Blatcher: "No it was not. I completely dropped the ball on this and there is no excuse, simply put. Over the next two days I'll be meeting with loup to go back over the document (and the upcoming December site update) and will respond by Wednesday afternoon, at the latest, about brook horse's document."
It is now Thursday, and I must admit, I am zero percent surprised.
posted by Bugbread at 1:14 AM on December 19 [5 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 5:37 AM on December 19
> Given all the frustration that's been piling up over how this quasi-system is working out in practice..... has any of you brought up the idea of implementing something more professional?
>> Nothing specific, no. More use of Google calendar/docs to keep track of things. Thus ends responses for today, back tomorrow!
...
>>>>>>Yep, running late on that, should be done with by Saturday morning, thanks for your patience!
When a system is not working, it needs to change.
posted by trig at 8:28 AM on December 19 [2 favorites]
This is not a good way to start an update post when members are having trust issues and issues with organizational effectiveness.
posted by shock muppet at 2:19 PM on November 21 [12 favorites]