Moderation again

[melonfool]

Also, it's not clear that mod no.1 "obviously accidentally left the mod box off" any more than that I was obviously impersonating a mod-- the point being made on this thread is that TLF moderation policy permits mods not to leave any trace of what they have done. Therefore leaving a mod box off is not obviously a mistake but is an accepted and common practice -- a confusing, unhelpful one IMO, even for other mods! It has happened multiple times to me and, it seems, to others too.


GS

I meant it was obvious once he told me. It was obvious it was a mistake as he had written 'mod' but not used the mod tags to make the box - once he said he had modded that post it became clear what had happened.

This has not happened 'multiple times', surely? Mod boxes with changes yes, but just changing without the mod box - I hope that isn't happening? Leaving a mod box off is certainly not accepted or common practice - I don't know how we would know, but if you have any suspicions this is happening please PM one of the senior mods/admins (Stooz, Clariman, RS) - maybe take screen shots of some of your posts or something as you post them?

It is true that on the boards we moderate we could easily just change things and leave no trace - but that is the nature of the software we work with. I have no idea if an 'audit trail' can be built in.

But, it seems to me, that it would be better if most people agree, that we discard the 'mod boxes' altogether and just go for deletion? Maybe we need a poll on that? At least with a full deletion we have access to the text if we need to refer to it, or the poster wants a copy back (which I for one would be happy to provide, but do note there is no easy way to do this - we have to go to the deleted post, open it, copy it, then go to a PM and paste it in).

I can see how it would be annoying to have your post changed (even with a mod box), especially not to be told and not to know why it was changed. And for us mods it's an annoying thing to have to do actually, especially if you are on a phone, it's fiddly.

Mel

[melonfool]

[ It should also be noted that the board software permits only a single report to be made on each post. So a response has to be formulated to this single report without hearing what other users think.


GS

Actually, for information, I have recently found by accident that a post can be reported more than once after the first report has been closed.

RS and I both modded the same post but for different reasons (in fact, in that case, I closed the report without action), I noted RS had put a mod box in so asked if he had picked up a report and he had, but the report I had was about something different - so we worked out between us that it had been reported once for A, RS had modded and closed the report, then it was reported again for B (no idea if it was the same reporter), which I thought was not really an issue, so I closed the report without action.

So, it cannot be reported again while a report is still open but it seems it can be reported once there are no open reports.

I have not tested this extensively, btw!

Mel

[Dod101]

Ok Itsallaguess. Maybe 'censorship' is a bit OTT. I will refrain from using that word.

I do not want this to get out of hand, but I cannot persuade the mod concerned to tell me what it was that I said that warranted removal by him of my comment. I do not know whether it was reported or if he took action off his own bat. That is really all that I am complaining about but I am very annoyed because I am not one who knowingly makes offensive or derogatory remarks even like 'that is nonsense' , even if I think it is. I think a direct comment like that can be hurtful to the other party and whilst you can say that sort of thing, seeing it in print is different.

Anyway I think I have probably played this out pro tem at least.

Dod

[tjh290633]

I think that my moderation is relatively tolerant, but there are times when a post goes outside acceptable limits. In such a case I may delete the post in its entirety, which leaves a reason visible to fellow mods, but not to the ordinary poster nor to the author of the post. I have not been in the habit of sending a PM to the author, which I realise is part of the problem. If I delete part of a post and leave a mod box, there is no way to recover the deleted text. Using a mobile phone, there are limits to what are possible actions, and there are things easily done on a PC which are not practicable.

To those whose posts disappear without apparent trace, the mods can see the content and can recover the offending passages.

There has been comment about an interminable thread which has been locked, once it has got into a repetitive vortex. Where a number of posters have opposing views, there is a limit to how many times those views need to be repeated. Better if they can agree to differ.

TJH

[GoSeigen]

This has not happened 'multiple times', surely? Mod boxes with changes yes, but just changing without the mod box - I hope that isn't happening? Leaving a mod box off is certainly not accepted or common practice - I don't know how we would know, but if you have any suspicions this is happening please PM one of the senior mods/admins (Stooz, Clariman, RS) - maybe take screen shots of some of your posts or something as you post them?

I used the phrase from Mel's post "leaving a mod box off" and realise her meaning may be different to mine in this context. I was referring to instances where a post is edited and no mod box appears (and no pm is sent), i.e. the user is uninformed of any edit/deletion. This is what I think has happened to me multiple times. Perhaps this is not exactly what Mel meant by "leaving a mod box off", but I think the effect is the probably same -- it can be hard for the poster and other mods to figure out what is happening and/or what rule has been broken.

It is true that on the boards we moderate we could easily just change things and leave no trace - but that is the nature of the software we work with. I have no idea if an 'audit trail' can be built in.

But, it seems to me, that it would be better if most people agree, that we discard the 'mod boxes' altogether and just go for deletion? Maybe we need a poll on that? At least with a full deletion we have access to the text if we need to refer to it, or the poster wants a copy back (which I for one would be happy to provide, but do note there is no easy way to do this - we have to go to the deleted post, open it, copy it, then go to a PM and paste it in).

I can see how it would be annoying to have your post changed (even with a mod box), especially not to be told and not to know why it was changed. And for us mods it's an annoying thing to have to do actually, especially if you are on a phone, it's fiddly.

Mel

I think the mods have explained quite clearly the limitations of the software, especially on mobile devices. Not being personally familiar with it I don't know what to suggest.

Re. the question on full deletion, the process I'd favour is: Mod receives report -- checks against rules -- deletes post if necessary -- sends copy of deleted post in pm along with reason for deletion [so that user can easily modify and repost]. It seems this last step is the difficult and time consuming one. That's a real shame. You would think the authors of the software would have built in this sort of feature...

I don't care much for the mod boxes. ISTM that moderation to enforce the rules is largely a bilateral issue between the site management (represented by mods) and the individual user. Other users don't need to see this interaction which IMO should be kept private. Mod boxes ideally should only be used to report issues affecting all/many readers collectively.

GS

[melonfool]

So - to be clear:

Moderator Message:
This is a mod box

(no idea why it skips over to the right side of the post)

This is what I saw on your post (not these words):

'mod - removed unnecessary wording.'

Had the former been there I would have known it was a mod.

I saw the latter and assumed the poster had included it in their post to 'imitate' a mod.

Mel

[Itsallaguess]

I don't care much for the mod boxes. ISTM that moderation to enforce the rules is largely a bilateral issue between the site management (represented by mods) and the individual user.

Other users don't need to see this interaction which IMO should be kept private. Mod boxes ideally should only be used to report issues affecting all/many readers collectively.

I disagree. I think it's helpful for the overall tone of this website that active moderation is seen to be happening, and I think that in itself will help to align all of our poster's behaviour with that which is expected of them, which is often pointed out in the mod-boxes where some posters perhaps haven't met those particular expectations in some cases.

Again, disagreements might occur on a particular case by case basis, but in general I think they are a good method to help promote better behaviour by individual posters, as well as also to encourage it by the wider community simply because it's seen to be an active part of the board-management process.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[JamesMuenchen]

So - to be clear:

Moderator Message:
This is a mod box

(no idea why it skips over to the right side of the post)

This is what I saw on your post (not these words):

'mod - removed unnecessary wording.'

Had the former been there I would have known it was a mod.

Not necessarily

Moderator Message:
This is another mod box

It's easy to spoof them

It's only an html tag

regards
JamesMuenchen

Any time you quote a post with a mod-box, you can see the tags. So I wouldn't rely on them as being definitely from a Mod

[PinkDalek]

I disagree. I think it's helpful for the overall tone of this website that active moderation is seen to be happening, and I think that in itself will help to align all of our poster's behaviour with that which is expected of them, which is often pointed out in the mod-boxes where some posters perhaps haven't met those particular expectations in some cases.

Again, disagreements might occur on a particular case by case basis, but in general I think they are a good method to help promote better behaviour by individual posters, as well as also to encourage it by the wider community simply because it's seen to be an active part of the board-management process.

I don't disagree. However, particularly on Topics that spread over more than one page, it is not always obvious that any posts have been partially modded. Unless that moderation, including the Mod Box, is repeated later on in another reply. That's why I also favour a separate post by the moderator, as per the earlier referenced thread here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6630 . Obviously more work for the volunteers but some manage it.

Even that's no use if posters haven't set up their Notifications but it is often more visible.

[GoSeigen]

So - to be clear:

Moderator Message:
This is a mod box

(no idea why it skips over to the right side of the post)

This is what I saw on your post (not these words):

'mod - removed unnecessary wording.'

I can see that would be confusing. Is there no other way to tell that a mod has edited a post e.g. no history list of edits?

Had the former been there I would have known it was a mod.

I saw the latter and assumed the poster had included it in their post to 'imitate' a mod.

Mel

Or maybe not: strangely, anyone can pretend to be a mod by creating a mod box in their own post:

Moderator Message:
This is a fake mod box

GS

[melonfool]

There is no way to tell that a post has been edited - no. That is the whole point of this thread.

We are aware that people can make fake mod boxes (this has been discussed before), but we rather hope they don't - Mods tend to sign their mod boxes (I do and I think we have agreed we all will though it's easy to forget, especially when your name is Mel which is very close to 'Mod') so if it is not signed I might ask who did it and if no mod owns up we would then know it was a poster. You can only write in and edit your own posts, so we would know it must have been you, the OP.

I think a poster putting a fake mod box in would warrant more than a deletion or warning, personally.

Mel

[Lootman]

It's wrong to assume we always agree with every report. We can also see when people are revenge reporting. You'd be surprised how much that happens.

That's good that you pick up on Lemons who report others based more on spite than anything else.

That said I wonder if anyone is 100% consistent in reporting posts. I suspect that many Lemons might let something go if it is a poster whom they like and respect, whilst reporting the same post if it were someone else. That might not be so obvious to Mods but perhaps it doesn't matter anyway. We are all human.

You mentioned yesterday that I "don't agree with reporting posts". That's not quite true - clearly if nobody reported posts then there couldn't be much moderation. It's just that for me to report a post takes more than just a post breaking a rule. The post has to actually annoy me or insult someone, and few do. A mere technical infringement doesn't matter to me - the crime has to be material and offensive.

As an example, I don't swear in posts so the rule against swearing doesn't affect me either way. But I really don't mind seeing or reading a swear word so would never report someone for that. But if it were vile obscenity or hate speech, then I might.

[Stonge]

But, it seems to me, that it would be better if most people agree, that we discard the 'mod boxes' altogether and just go for deletion?

Mel

I agree with this. I've had several of my posts deleted. I trust the moderator that I crossed the line and therefore my posts were better deleted. In fact I rely on the Moderator to manage this and am grateful for the voluntary work they do. I do not expect them to have to inform me as to why they deleted my post. I don't think in any way that they were censoring my posts.

I'm happy that if I go too far with my comments they will be deleted and I will be allowed to continue to post. With subjects such as Brexit that arouse strong views and emotions sometimes it is difficult to keep to neutral language and still express a viewpoint.

Moderators do a good job. I vote for deletion rather than editing.



.

[Gengulphus]

IMO the Snug should be an exception. No mods for going off topic nor for serious topics. Mods for abuse only. Come on - Lemon Fools are not kids and
I've yet to experience a troll or trouble maker. Who agrees?

I disagree. In particular, the only guidance we've got about what is appropriate in the Snug is its tag line "A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers". That can't be taken entirely seriously, of course - the "No trainers" part is clearly more of a joke than anything else, and the "off topic" part leads to nonsense if taken seriously (an otherwise on-topic post cannot be off-topic because that would make it entirely on-topic, but also cannot be on-topic because that would mean it didn't meet the criteria, making it off-topic). I would take the "off-topic" part as simply a somewhat cryptic way of indicating that a very broad range of subject matter is acceptable for the discussion and banter. And I'm not at all sure what to make of the "pub related" part: if it's taken to mean "specifically related to pubs" then far too many topics would be off-limits; if it's taken to mean "such as might well happen in a pub", it might as well not be there because banter and discussion about anything might well happen in a pub...

But "light hearted" seems to me to be the essence of the Snug. That doesn't rule out serious discussion, but it does have to be conducted in a reasonably light hearted way - and discussions about some subjects do have a strong tendency to become heated quite quickly: there's a good reason why some real-life pubs have "No politics or religion" or similar rules! Discussions about Brexit tend to do that these days, for example. So I'm entirely happy that the moderators will tend to take action as soon as they see that a thread is heading that way: it's IMHO needed to keep the Snug as what it is and not 'Polite Discussions Mk 2'.

And while saying "Lemon Fools are not kids" is probably close to being entirely true (I'm not saying "entirely true" because any self-selected over-3000-strong group is pretty certain to contain some very atypical people!), it's easily observable in real life that a good number of adults feel so strongly about some subjects that they're unable to resist heated, anything-but-light-hearted replies whenever they come up.

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

Dod, you did say " that I can see" in your earlier post but it was omitted when you were quoted by Mel. OTOH you didn't say "removed for no good reason" but "edited for no good reason": that was also a misquotation.

No, it was neither a quotation nor a misquotation. What Mel said was:

I'm confused as to how you can say something was removed for 'no good reason' and yet not be able to remember what it was.

Only the words 'no good reason' are presented there as a quotation, and it's accurate but rather out of context: 'no good reason that I can see' would indeed have been better. But the rest is presented as a description of what Dod said (and Mel's resulting confusion), not a quotation, and I think a fair one. He did say something was removed, namely 'the offending bit', and I cannot see any reasonable way of reading what he said that makes that removal anything other than part (maybe all) of the edits for which he could see no good reason.

Gengulphus

[mc2fool]

...discussions about some subjects do have a strong tendency to become heated quite quickly: there's a good reason why some real-life pubs have "No politics or religion" or similar rules! Discussions about Brexit tend to do that these days, for example. So I'm entirely happy that the moderators will tend to take action as soon as they see that a thread is heading that way: it's IMHO needed to keep the Snug as what it is and not 'Polite Discussions Mk 2'.

And yet when a discussion on that topic occurred recently in the Snug in which the participants were clearly aware of that risk and posting appropriately so as to not head the "PD Mk 2" way a moderator still moved it to PD, on a "no politics" basis despite admitting the thread "isn't directly politics" but purely on his opinion that it would "inevitably" go that way -- and then immediately posted such a response himself!

IOW he moved it to PD so that he himself could post a response that wouldn't be allowed in the Snug, which is really quite a risible and atrocious misuse of moderator power.

[Gengulphus]

When I said bits of my post were removed 'for no good reason' I should have added 'that I can remember' or 'that the mod has given me', simply that it was 'disparaging'. That was his judgement/opinion and I have no way of defending the charge because I cannot remember but I am not given to disparaging remarks, like 'that is a ridiculous' or 'complete nonsense' which I have had levelled against me and have simply ignored.

The biggest problem I have is that there seems to be no right of defence. The ref/mod is right, full stop. It reminds me of the early days of the Hong Kong Sevens when in a parade of the teams and officials the refs wore dark glasses and carried a white stick each.

It has happened to me several times on TLF which almost never happened on the old TMF, because on the whole I am reasonably balanced in my views and do not insult others. I have no reason to because I enjoy contributing to TLF and have no reason to rock the boat.

What is very clear to me is that your views on what is 'disparaging' and the moderator's differ, and the same is almost certainly true about what is an 'insult'. There's nothing wrong with that, and some such differences are bound to exist between a moderator's opinion and the various opinions of the vast majority of the many users whose posts he or she moderates.

But moderators have to take the stance that when there are such differences, it's basically the user's job to adapt to the moderator's views. Not the other way around, as that would both be far too much of a burden on the moderator and lead to highly inconsistent moderation of different users - which of course would also attract considerable user complaints! The most one can expect is that the moderators adapt to some sort of consensus of the various moderators' views, so that moderation by different moderators isn't too inconsistent (though probably not totally consistent). And one should expect stooz's and Clariman's views to be very influential in that, because as administrators they're in a similar position over the moderators as the moderators are over ordinary users, and as site owners they bear the legal responsibility for the site.

In short, what you're seeing is IMHO a fact of life about the site: either you take on board the fact that the moderator concerned (and probably the moderators collectively) considered the remark (whatever it was!) disparaging and try to work out what sort of remark you need to avoid on this site, or that sort of thing is likely to continue happening for as long as you continue posting on this site. One thing I will suggest as a thing to watch out for is the "play the ball, not the man" principle: exactly the same word (e.g. "ridiculous" or "nonsense") might well be a lot less acceptable if aimed at the poster (e.g. "That's typical of your nonsense.") than if aimed at the argument they're making (e.g. "That argument is nonsense.", especially if accompanied by reasons why one thinks the argument doesn't make sense).

Gengulphus

[chas49]

So - to be clear:

Moderator Message:
This is a mod box

(no idea why it skips over to the right side of the post)

This is what I saw on your post (not these words):

'mod - removed unnecessary wording.'

I can see that would be confusing. Is there no other way to tell that a mod has edited a post e.g. no history list of edits?

Had the former been there I would have known it was a mod.

I saw the latter and assumed the poster had included it in their post to 'imitate' a mod.

Mel

Or maybe not: strangely, anyone can pretend to be a mod by creating a mod box in their own post:

Moderator Message:
This is a fake mod box

GS

I realise that this post (and the previous one with a spoofed mod box) have been posted in good faith. However, it should be pointed out that any attempt on another thread or another board to use a mod box when you're not a moderator is likely to be viewed as a serious breach of rules. I don't think we have an explicit rule forbidding impersonating a moderator, but I don't really think the lack of that rule would make it allowable. I am absolutely not saying that anyone on this thread has done anything wrong, but just pointing out that this isn't to be encouraged/repeated elsewhere.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am a moderator, but not on this particular board, so I won't use a mod box!

[PinkDalek]

More generally, app.php/rules#rule-0c includes:

Posts may be deleted without warning or explanation (we will endeavour to explain but this may not always be possible). The decision of the Admins and Moderators is final.

Maybe the first sentence should be amended to include "or edited".

[csearle]

One thing I will suggest as a thing to watch out for is the "play the ball, not the man" principle: exactly the same word (e.g. "ridiculous" or "nonsense") might well be a lot less acceptable if aimed at the poster (e.g. "That's typical of your nonsense.") than if aimed at the argument they're making (e.g. "That argument is nonsense.", especially if accompanied by reasons why one thinks the argument doesn't make sense).

This is exactly as I see it. Many posts are reported and the report closed without action because the supposed attack (or mocking description) is made of the reporter's argument rather than the reporter him/herself.

On the subject of the mod boxes I find they allow a much more nuanced way of providing feedback. They remain there and serve as a reminder to anyone who stumbles across them where a line was felt to have been crossed. Personally (apart from the multitude of spam posts and posts that might get our two visionaries into trouble) I don't really like deleting anyone's post, especially if they have made good points along with some transgression. The poster may also have invested much time and thought into their post only to see it deleted. How frustrating must that be! If something is off-topic but on-topic elsewhere then moving it (and leaving a link) is a much more friendly way of handling things. I agree with whoever said that along with deletions a PM should be sent with the deleted content to the poster, especially if it had clearly involved much typing.

Oh and on the word off-topic in the Snug tag line I interpret that to mean off-topic in most other places and therefore ok to post in the Sung.

Chris