Amino's users

For me, moderation on Amino means creating a place where very different entrepreneurs can help and inspire each other. In March 2011, I explained why we didn’t simply throw difficult users out immediately and why I preferred self-regulation to a long list of rigid rules.

The video is from 25 March 2011. Here, I describe Amino’s practice at the time, my experiences and features we were working on back then.

Moderation on Amino needs to make room for differences

I began by thanking people for their greetings on Amino’s sixth birthday the day before. We were also launching a new service at Amino Nyt. But what I wanted to discuss was how we ran the forum in relation to troublemakers, moderators and rules of conduct.

Over the previous few days, one person had been very provocative. Several people asked why we hadn’t simply thrown him out straight away. That gave me a reason to explain the philosophy behind how we managed Amino.

There needed to be room for almost anyone interested in entrepreneurship: The school pupil wanting to get started, the newcomer, the experienced entrepreneur and people abroad who’d made lots of money. And people who were simply interested too.

We could all be inspired. A school pupil could ask something that made the experienced person think: That’s bloody right, why hadn’t I thought of it? In return, the experienced person could offer useful tips and tricks. Diversity was part of what made Amino Amino.

A bad beginning doesn’t have to be the whole story

We had some odd characters on Amino. I’d seen users who started very badly later become valued members. Some were professionally capable and intelligent but struggled socially.

That could appear as awkwardness or aggression. My explanation in the video was also that someone who’d been teased might choose to provoke others. Then a negative response might feel like something they’d chosen rather than another rejection.

I used a fairly crude comparison with a girl dyeing her hair green so she could think people were looking at her hair rather than at her. And with how breaking up with your partner can feel better than being left. Those were my illustrations of the mechanism, not knowledge of the individual user’s life.

So both the moderators and I were quite tolerant. We knew a good resource could be hidden in someone who initially annoyed others. But there was a limit. The specific user I mentioned without naming had received a week’s break because it had become too much. I still hoped he could return and become a strong resource.

At Jubii, I learnt that fighting fire with fire could be expensive

Another reason for caution came from my many years of experience with communities. I talked about roughly fifteen years with Jubii and how social media certainly wasn’t entirely new.

Meeting aggression with aggression could escalate a conflict. An angry person might be technically skilled or get help from someone who was. I described problems on Jubii’s chat where we’d thrown out some guys and, according to my account, they’d taken Jubii down for three weeks.

We never found out who they were. The criminal investigation police were involved, and I described it as a situation where we were close to bankruptcy. That experience gave me great respect for how serious a ban and subsequent conflict could become for the business.

It was both consideration for potentially good contributions and the risk of escalation that meant I didn’t see banning someone as a completely simple solution.

I wanted to treat people like adults

So why didn’t we just have fixed rules for everything? Firstly, I wasn’t particularly fond of them. I wanted to deal with adults who took responsibility and thought carefully. Luckily, the vast majority could.

I compared it with a shouting swimming-pool attendant or a gym message saying your mother doesn’t work there. I felt you were being treated like a child. My thought was that being treated that way could make you start behaving that way too.

In my view, harsh rules and strict enforcement could help lower the standard. I wanted an environment of adults who helped maintain a decent atmosphere themselves.

A single rule violation doesn’t tell you everything

The other problem with rigid rules was what we’d do if one of Amino’s very best members broke one someday. If we’d banned a troublemaker for the same thing, others could rightly ask why the valued member wasn’t banned too.

Then we’d face a choice between losing a very resourceful user and going back on our principles. I’d rather be able to consider the context and the person than make every decision about one rule. Also read Min vej som leder about my experiences of people and responsibility in leadership.

So I described the practice as somewhat fluid. What I was trying to create was general self-regulation, where people helped each other and took responsibility for the community.

Two superusers and a 24-hour thinking break

Superusers were part of that thinking: Experienced, well-rated members who could help keep things in order. I mentioned a feature I’d just commissioned. If two superusers voted for the same person to take a break, that person would be excluded for 24 hours.

It was a feature we were having built, not something I described in the video as a finished, tried-and-tested result. A moderator would also be able to intervene. That way, action could be taken while I or others slept. I was in a different time zone myself.

I thought the judgement of two competent, sensible people could be a reasonable basis for a short thinking break. If it occasionally went wrong, the user could return after a day. A log would show who’d done what so we could investigate afterwards. Superusers who misused the responsibility could face consequences too.

I saw Amino as a little ecosystem

My ultimate goal was a community that could flourish like a balanced habitat or aquarium. The fish eat the algae, and the plants absorb nutrients. The parts help each other, so the system can largely function on its own.

I believed it could become the most pleasant kind of community. Diversity needed to thrive. You could be an eccentric with high intelligence, but that didn’t mean you could shout insults or keep annoying others.

I said there were almost 800,000 posts on Amino and nearly a thousand new ones a day. My encouragement was to look at the latest posts and see how many were helpful and how many were negative.

I estimated perhaps two or three per cent were negative on Amino, whereas in other forums it could be twenty or thirty per cent. That was my assessment in the video, not a documented comparative study. But I thought we had something to be proud of. Have a great weekend!