There’s excellent moderation advice in this article, which is ostensibly about moderating challenging offline political discussions …
… but I think this advice can also apply to online discussions:
-
A topic will be set for each meeting. It is permissible to post well-researched and sourced articles about the topic before and after the meeting only if you will be attending the meeting in person. The goal of this group is to take the conversations offline and to be neighborly. Therefore, articles should just be mostly suggested reading material. If comments get out of hand I will remove the post.
-
We should avoid labels as much as possible such as Democrats think this and Republicans do that. We can talk about party platforms but not assume that a neighbor’s ideas and opinions can be defined or assumed solely by the political party or religion they align with.
-
Participants goals should NOT be to try to influence or change their neighbor’s mind. The goal is to listen to understand and to speak to be understood. If we walk away from each meeting understanding the perspective of someone who does not share our ideas and opinions, that is a win!
-
At the meeting, a person is not allowed to dominate the conversation. If you need to make a point that is going to take some time to explain, ask for 5 min. You will have 5 minutes to make your point with no interruptions. No one should speak for more than 5 minutes at a time.
-
The focus will be on issues and policy — not on character traits of a politician. We may bring up how a politician spoke about or voted on an issue or policy, but not on anything unrelated to the issue or policy.
Some of this echoes what I have been thinking when looking at the most challenging, tumultuous discussions in Discourse. I want to elaborate on a few things in a reply and get your thoughts on this too.