Rule #2: Discussion of Moderation

[Heyo]

Transparency (I have a hard time understanding) as in the moderators have less moderation involvement in posts?

Transparency as in it is more clear to the one breaking the rules and the bystanders what is considered breaking the rules.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am 90% happy with the way it is, and and am grateful to the moderation team here. It's far better than many other forums, or if I was in charge. If I was in charge I would have already banned everyone except myself. That way nobody can disagree.

 

[Heyo]

I have been in forums in which this occurs and my experience of it is negative. What too often happens is that it becomes a way for troublesome people to call moderators' stances into question or to use the moderation of individuals as a weapon against them for pursuing vendettas against either them or the moderators involved. Also, some people have difficulty accepting criticism and whine about moderation decisions interminably, thus making more work for the moderators.

I've not been on too many forums, so my experience is limited. The one I was on before RF had open moderation rules. Moderators commented on post with warnings and moderation in thread. It was possible to answer to moderation in a corner named "the duck's den" (iirc) which was open. There was surprisingly little drama.

On the whole I think the way it works here is better. Sometimes I get moderated when I think I should not have been, but it doesn't happen enough for me to accumulate points to a level that has consequences, so I am content to run with a point or two against me which duly expires, making room for the next one. I have never felt picked on, or that decisions of any moderator have been systematically perverse.

I don't even have any points, just a dozen warnings. I may be a bit allergic against secrecy, especially in view of others who have received points or even bans.
And I see that many don't have the same concerns - which is also a valuable information for me and I wouldn't know without this discussion.

I prefer to regard this forum as like a cricket match in the days before camera replays: the umpire's decision is final, so just accept it and get on with life.

"Umpire's decision is final" is OK but here the decision isn't only final but also secret. You don't know who won the game and the players aren't allowed to talk about it.

 

[Quagmire]

A week ago I asked the following question in a "site feedback" thread:



Since I've got no answer yet, I suspect that the moderators aren't too delighted to see such an OP but also aren't opposed to it.

Just speaking for myself, Heyo, the reason your suggestion wasn't responded to is because it was buried inside a thread about something else.

And since by the time I saw that thread it had basically devolved into chit chat, the conclusion I drew was, "Okay, this is resolved, nothing to do here".

The next time you have a suggestion or proposal for the staff I would suggest you give it its own SF thread and put something in the title to let everyone know what it's about.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Since I've got no answer yet, I suspect that the moderators aren't too delighted to see such an OP but also aren't opposed to it.

I've been busy for the last two weeks, so I've opted not to participate in any Site Feedback threads needing detailed responses for the time being. It isn't specific to your thread or suggestion.

Basically, my approach to almost any exchange in Site Feedback is "don't start it until you know you'll have the time to finish it." It feels more professional (and less rude ) this way.

 

[Koldo]

There's a semi-open option. When I see something that to me is a clear rule violation and report it, sometimes I see the post is gone and at other times "crickets".

There could be a policy of a private mod reply to the one submitting the apparent rule violation saying, in effect, we reviewed your submission. We did not think it was egregious enough to take action in this case.

I'm specifically thinking of proselytizing such as posting what looks to me like a sermon in a debate thread. Without some form of feedback or examples, I might be tempted to ask people sotto voce how they can possibly disagree with the utterly divine wisdom of the Great Green Arkleseizure as revealed in all his holy books.

The crickets, as you call it, are the exact reason my rule of thumb is to never report any post.

 

[Heyo]

The crickets, as you call it, are the exact reason my rule of thumb is to never report any post.

I only ever reported two posts, both obvious spam. I attribute it to the efficiency of the mods that it wasn't more.
It may also be that I don't see some controversial posts as rule breaking. I have the option to debate any issue with the author and prefer it that way. I'd only report post where the post may be against the law, it is so obviously against the rules that even I can't deny it or when people are attacked who can't defend themselves.
I've been wrong in my judgement of what may be OK in my own posts. It would be hypocritical to report others for what I might have done myself.

 

[Heyo]

The next time you have a suggestion or proposal for the staff I would suggest you give it its own SF thread and put something in the title to let everyone know what it's about.

I didn't want to make a lone suggestion without having some feedback. As posts come in here, I see opinions that my suggestion might not be so popular as I first thought it to be. The arguments are also more nuanced as they where when @Sunstone put out his questionnaire. (Yes, I remember that one.)
With your permission I'll let this run a little bit longer and gather more opinions before I come up to you.

 

[Quagmire]

I didn't want to make a lone suggestion without having some feedback. As posts come in here, I see opinions that my suggestion might not be so popular as I first thought it to be. The arguments are also more nuanced as they where when @Sunstone put out his questionnaire. (Yes, I remember that one.)
With your permission I'll let this run a little bit longer and gather more opinions before I come up to you.

Sure, Heyo. But you don't really need my permission for this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been wrong in my judgement of what may be OK in my own posts. It would be hypocritical to report others for what I might have done myself.

Reporting material violations, ie, the kinds of things we don't
want to see (eg, bullying, advocating violence, bad Covid info)
are worth reporting.
One needn't be more virtuous than Caesar's Wife to report
such things. It's about creating the best forum we can.
That's not the moderator's job...that's everyone's job.

BTW, even some of staff admit to being human.
BTW, I don't report proseltyzing because I never
really notice it....dang near everything looks like it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Reporting material violations, ie, the kinds of things we don't
want to see (eg, bullying, advocating violence, bad Covid info)
are worth reporting.
One needn't be more virtuous than Caesar's Wife to report
such things. It's about creating the best forum we can.
That's not the moderator's job...that's everyone's job.

BTW, even some of staff admit to being human.
BTW, I don't report proseltyzing because I never
really notice it....dang near everything looks like it.

I report most of your posts. I figure that you're not annoying enough yet, so I do you that favour.

 

[Revoltingest]

I report most of your posts. I figure that you're not annoying enough yet, so I do you that favour.

If I'm not offending others,
I'm failing at posting.

 

[ChristineM]

If I'm not offending others,
I'm failing at posting.

Sweet old you, offend others, never..?

 

[Heyo]

If I'm not offending others,
I'm failing at posting.

 

[Koldo]

I only ever reported two posts, both obvious spam. I attribute it to the efficiency of the mods that it wasn't more.
It may also be that I don't see some controversial posts as rule breaking. I have the option to debate any issue with the author and prefer it that way. I'd only report post where the post may be against the law, it is so obviously against the rules that even I can't deny it or when people are attacked who can't defend themselves.
I've been wrong in my judgement of what may be OK in my own posts. It would be hypocritical to report others for what I might have done myself.

I see nothing wrong with a post being controversial. They often make for interesting debates. Just to mention an example of what I am talking about: in a heated debate people may resort to personal attacks and trolling. I have reported those before just to hear the crickets, so I just don't bother anymore.

 

[Quagmire]

I see nothing wrong with a post being controversial. They often make for interesting debates. Just to mention an example of what I am talking about: in a heated debate people may resort to personal attacks and trolling. I have reported those before just to hear the crickets, so I just don't bother anymore.

Most likely your definition of "personal attacks" and/or trolling is different from ours.

In the good old days, before we switched over to Xenforo, it was easy to go over a members reports, that is the reports that they've made and sent us, to check something like this out.

There have been times in the past that we've had members come out into the open forums like you just did and say "Well, I made reports and reports and nothing happened, blah blah blah blah blah", and then it turns out they never actually made any reports, or if they did it was one or two over the course of however many years and about something that may have upset them but wasn't actually a rule violation.

You're saying here that you reported actual personal attacks and trolling and nothing was done about it. I seriously doubt that.

But I'll give you a chance to verify it.

How about sending me a conversation message telling me who you reported along with a rough timeframe and I'll go check it out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see nothing wrong with a post being controversial. They often make for interesting debates. Just to mention an example of what I am talking about: in a heated debate people may resort to personal attacks and trolling. I have reported those before just to hear the crickets, so I just don't bother anymore.

Some have actually been locked due to controversy.
The topic was within the rules, but too many posters
objected & derailed it. I've one in mind...& no, I'm not
revisiting it.

 

[Koldo]

Most likely your definition of "personal attacks" and/or trolling is different from ours.

In the good old days, before we switched over to Xenforo, it was easy to go over a members reports, that is the reports that they've made and sent us, to check something like this out.

There have been times in the past that we've had members come out into the open forums like you just did and say "Well, I made reports and reports and nothing happened, blah blah blah blah blah", and then it turns out they never actually made any reports, or if they did it was one or two over the course of however many years and about something that may have upset them but wasn't actually a rule violation.

You're saying here that you reported actual personal attacks and trolling and nothing was done about it. I seriously doubt that.

But I'll give you a chance to verify it.

How about sending me a conversation message telling me who you reported along with a rough timeframe and I'll go check it out.

The problem is not that nothing has been done. The actual problem is that I have heard crickets. It is the lack of communication, and I am afraid that nothing you can do at this point would change what happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're saying here that you reported actual personal attacks and trolling and nothing was done about it. I seriously doubt that.

I've a few examples.
Do we really want to go there?

It has happened. But I also recognize that there'll
be disagreement about whether a perceived attack
rose to the level of warranting moderation.
The goal shouldn't be establishing that it happened.
Just reducing the perception that it does happen.

 

[Koldo]

Some have actually been locked due to controversy.
The topic was within the rules, but too many posters
objected & derailed it. I've one in mind...& no, I'm not
revisiting it.

Ah yes. I merely meant that I see nothing wrong with controversial posts.