Moderation again

[Dod101]

Although RedSturgeon seems to think we do, I get no notification, explanation or anything else when my posts are 'modified' or edited by a mod and am getting thoroughly fed up of it. I am not knowingly a trouble maker as I think most would testify As I have said, where the mod is judge jury and executioner they have a huge responsibility and not to let the offender know of the transgression (no point in calling it an 'alleged' transgression as there seems to be no appeal) is most unsatisfactory. At first I think a comment of mine was called unwarranted and then disparaging.

I do wish there was at least some feed back from the mods.

Dod

[PinkDalek]

Although RedSturgeon seems to think we do, I get no notification, explanation or anything else when my posts are 'modified' or edited by a mod ...

I don't think RedSturgeon has said that. Some mods do PM, others don't. I think melonfool has said she is one of the former, when she has the time. I know others respond by PM but certainly not all. Some use a Mod Box only. Others a separate reply, as well as a Mod Box. Unfortunately, Mod Box comments do not generate a Notification, as you can see from this prior thread on this board viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6630.

Are the answers to this thread going to be much different from when you raised the issue of Moderation back here?:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11649

In that thread, for example, dspp wrote:

Sometimes I will drop a note to the errant poster saying what I have done and why. But if I have a flight to catch, or a pint to run for, then I won't - there just is not the time. I also know that I have unread messages (PMs) sitting in my sentmail box because the errant posters aren't picking up their PMs. So I wonder why I bothered to take the extra time to tell them why they were edited, since they obviously can't be bothered at their end.

He meant sitting in his Outbox, which we discussed elsewhere but those posts have now gone!

[Gengulphus]

Although RedSturgeon seems to think we do, I get no notification, explanation or anything else when my posts are 'modified' or edited by a mod ...

Well, I've had a bit of a look and not managed to find anything in which RedSturgeon has indicated that he thinks that we do. The closest I've found is viewtopic.php?f=29&t=12199&start=40#p146466 this afternoon, but that's Redsturgeon telling you what to do to get a response, not telling you he thinks you've already had one, so it doesn't seem to be what you're referring to in the bit I've quoted... That doesn't mean that what you're referring to there doesn't exist - but it does mean that I won't be able to find it unless you tell me where it is, and I imagine the same goes for just about every other reader of this thread...

As far as the rest of what you say goes, I agree that the lack of a notification, explanation or similar when posts are deleted/edited is very unfortunate. But it does seem inevitable given that the phpBB software doesn't do it automatically and the moderators have limited time to spend on the job... Having just had a good look around the phpBB website, I'm pretty certain that automatic notifications of post removals / edits by moderators is not something the standard phpBB system can be set up to do and that it is likely to be possible to write an extension to the standard phpBB system to provide such notifications, but also that if anyone has written and released such an extension, it's well-hidden! So while I think it would be possible to fix the lack of notifications, explanations, etc, it would be quite a bit of work - especially for anyone who didn't have experience of writing phpBB extensions... (And in case anyone is wondering, no, I don't have such experience!)

So basically, while I agree it's a problem, I'm afraid I don't see any prospect of it being solved.

Gengulphus

[Leothebear]

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?

[csearle]

So basically, while I agree it's a problem, I'm afraid I don't see any prospect of it being solved.

Yes. My take on it is that if it is in my opinion a relatively minor transgression then I add a mod comment and leave it at that not caring too much if the (IMO) transgressor sees it or not. If I really want the (IMO) transgressor to note my moderation then I PM him/her.

Chris

[Dod101]

I agree with you Leothebear. I think this is all getting a bit out of hand. I have had several of my posts edited by the mods for no good reason that I can see and no explanation. It is of course difficult to know what is wrong when I cannot even remember what I said and the offending bit has been removed. it has been removed!

It seems that strong directly held opinions are not allowed. Well it is going to make for a very uninteresting set of Boards.

We cannot go back to TMF of course but it was a model of good moderation in comparison.

It is like the ref in a football match. The best ones let the game flow with the occasional light touch unless there is something flagrantly wrong, but no yellow cards being flashed all over the place.

Dod

[melonfool]

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?

There are/have been plenty of trolls and trouble makers. You maybe don't see them as we swiftly sort them out. How nice for you

Mel

[melonfool]

I agree with you Leothebear. I think this is all getting a bit out of hand. I have had several of my posts edited by the mods for no good reason that I can see and no explanation. It is of course difficult to know what is wrong when I cannot even remember what I said and the offending bit has been removed. it has been removed!

It seems that strong directly held opinions are not allowed. Well it is going to make for a very uninteresting set of Boards.

We cannot go back to TMF of course but it was a model of good moderation in comparison.

It is like the ref in a football match. The best ones let the game flow with the occasional light touch unless there is something flagrantly wrong, but no yellow cards being flashed all over the place.

Dod

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.

We have no issue with strongly held opinions, you will find plenty across the boards.

It seems to me, to solve your specific issue, we ought not to delete parts of your offending posts but delete the whole post, that way, if you later want to know what it was, we can resend you the text as the posts are only 'soft' deleted.

Would that help?

Mel

[Dod101]

Hi Mel

Yes that would help. 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.

It would not be difficult for any of you to see the mod I am unhappy with, and he simply does not respond to my requests for clarification.

Dod

[GoSeigen]

Hi Mel

Yes that would help. When I said bits of my post were removed 'for no good reason' I should have added 'that I can remember'
Dod

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.

I have recently had a PM correspondence with a mod about my being wrongly accused of impersonating a moderator.


It seems to me that mods can become a bit trigger happy, taking too little time to read posts properly and consider their actions. I, like you, think this could be improved by making mods accountable for each edit and deletion they make by noting how those modified posts had broken the rules in their opinion.


GS

[Dod101]

Thanks GS. 'Removed' or 'Edited'? Not a lot of difference. 'Edited out' is what actually happened.

Anyway yes I think the mods can be trigger happy and maybe have not got the time to read the thread and therefore the context of the comment complained of. I do not know though because the mods tell me that they only react to reports (which I can well understand) but they do not have to react to a report. They could tell the reporter to go away and get a life.

My main complaint though is that as judge jury and executioner they have a significant responsibility, especially where they do not give the offender/the accused any right of response and I think they get it wrong sometimes. The accused (that is not a term recognised on TLF) has no apparent right of reply.

I am mightily p****d off.

Dod

[Leothebear]

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?

There are/have been plenty of trolls and trouble makers. You maybe don't see them as we swiftly sort them out. How nice for you

Mel

Mel,
Please address my initial point.
Leo

[melonfool]

We don't only react to reports actually (I tend to but I know not all mods do). And we do sometimes tell the reporter that we are not taking any action, or just don't take any action, or take action different to that the reporter requested.

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.

It was me who falsely accused GS of impersonating a mod (though his post was reported and dealt with for other reasons) and that was a mistake made by a different mod who had edited but not left a mod box, just the words, so it looked to me, coming to it new, like the poster had done it to preempt any moderation.

I posted in the mod discussion to ask if anyone knew what had happened and the other mod said it was them and they'd obviously accidentally left the mod box off. So I apologisd to GS and am disappointed it had been brought up here.

Mel

[melonfool]

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?

There are/have been plenty of trolls and trouble makers. You maybe don't see them as we swiftly sort them out. How nice for you

Mel

Mel,
Please address my initial point.
Leo

No, it's off topic. If you want to discuss what goes on in the Snug you should start a new thread. I don't mod the Snug so I can't comment on it anyway. Which is why I didn't.

Mel

[GoSeigen]

It was me who falsely accused GS of impersonating a mod (though his post was reported and dealt with for other reasons) and that was a mistake made by a different mod who had edited but not left a mod box, just the words, so it looked to me, coming to it new, like the poster had done it to preempt any moderation.

So if Mod No. 1 had explained what they were doing and why it would have been clear to both Mel and to me.

I posted in the mod discussion to ask if anyone knew what had happened and the other mod said it was them and they'd obviously accidentally left the mod box off. So I apologisd to GS and am disappointed it had been brought up here.

I'm sorry Mel is disappointed but I didn't "bring it up here" in the sense of expecting something to be done or to elicit a further apology/explanation; I mentioned it in passing, in good faith and without naming names, as an example of the sort of confusion which results when we do not take care to document what we are doing. [EDIT: looking back at my post I guess this would have been clearer if I'd written a "For example.."]

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.

Perhaps we can contrast the TLF process with wikipedia's, where every edit leaves a record of the editor's identity and reasons for the edit: although disputes still arise, the editing system is more transparent and fair.

GS

[GoSeigen]

Thanks GS. 'Removed' or 'Edited'? Not a lot of difference. 'Edited out' is what actually happened.

Anyway yes I think the mods can be trigger happy and maybe have not got the time to read the thread and therefore the context of the comment complained of. I do not know though because the mods tell me that they only react to reports (which I can well understand) but they do not have to react to a report. They could tell the reporter to go away and get a life.

This is not always the case. I have been told by mods on more than one occasion that they have modified or deleted a post without any report being made about the post. 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.

My main complaint though is that as judge jury and executioner they have a significant responsibility, especially where they do not give the offender/the accused any right of response and I think they get it wrong sometimes. The accused (that is not a term recognised on TLF) has no apparent right of reply.

I am mightily p****d off.

Dod

Yes, it seems transparency and fairness necessarily take second priority because the way the software works is inconvenient and time-consuming. We may just have to live with that. At least we avoid the worst of the direct flaming and trolling that occurs on other sites.

GS

[Dod101]

I have been told by mods on more than one occasion that they have modified or deleted a post without any report being made about the post. 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.

The software is of no concern to me and nor should it be, and all the more so should mods be transparent and responsible if they are taking it upon themselves to edit/remove stuff without a report being made. In fact I think that should be verboten. So they can in effect be not only judge jury and executioner but if you are right, censor as well.

That should not be allowed.

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

The software is of no concern to me and nor should it be, and all the more so should mods be transparent and responsible if they are taking it upon themselves to edit/remove stuff without a report being made. In fact I think that should be verboten. So they can in effect be not only judge jury and executioner but if you are right, censor as well.

That should not be allowed.

I think we've got to be careful not to start demanding things from our volunteer mods....

Whilst it's clear that in a more ideal world, things would occur a little more smoothly and perhaps even automatically, we've unfortunately got what we've got with the current software and it's suite of mod-tools, and our mods only have a limited time to do the dirty-work behind the scenes to allow this site to represent the great community that it does in the best way possible.

If you think that greater demands can be made over and above that, then I think you might find the volunteer mods might take a different view of the tasks being demanded of them, with some perhaps very unfortunate results...

Debate and requests around moderation are one thing, but please let's not get into setting demands of people that are giving their free time to try to keep this site going in as orderly a way possible....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Dod101]

Whilst it's clear that in a more ideal world, things would occur a little more smoothly and perhaps even automatically, we've unfortunately got what we've got with the current software and it's current suits of mod-tools, and our mods only have a limited time to do the dirty-work behind the scenes to allow this site to represent the great community that it does in the best way possible.

Nope. That is where I disagree. This site does not represent the community, great or otherwise, 'in the best way possible'. And as long as people keep saying it does nothing will happen. I agree that it is fortunate for the site promoters that they can call on volunteer mods. As for some of the mods, maybe only one or two, they appear trigger happy and apparently take it upon themselves to modify/edit posts, even if there has been no report. That is censorship.

I have had at least two posts 'modified' that way and the mod concerned will not even tell me what my 'crime' was. I do not usually get worked up about things and until it happens to you it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. I am mightily p****d off.

Dod

[Itsallaguess]

Nope. That is where I disagree.

This site does not represent the community, great or otherwise, 'in the best way possible'. And as long as people keep saying it does nothing will happen. I agree that it is fortunate for the site promoters that they can call on volunteer mods. As for some of the mods, maybe only one or two, they appear trigger happy and apparently take it upon themselves to modify/edit posts, even if there has been no report. That is censorship.

Well, I think we need to be very careful when people use words like 'censorship', as it implies an intention to sway board-content in a very personal way, and I'm absolutely sure that this isn't the case.

What we're talking about where mods might get involved with posts that have not yet received user-generated reports, is preventative-maintenance, and not censorship Dod, so please try to see it in that light....

I'd expect such preventative maintenance to be carried out under exactly the same board-rule-adherence checks that are used against any specific post-report, to determine if a post does indeed contain content that goes against the agreed rules and intent of those rules, so just because an action might be taken against a post that's not actually been reported, I wouldn't expect the 'tests' for such action to be any different to those tests carried out when reviewing an actual post-report.

This is a benefit of having moderators actively involved with the boards that they are over-seeing. They can often nip issues in the bud before they get out of hand, and sometimes this will happen before some potential issues actually do get reported. That should be seen as a 'good thing' if possible, given the potentially worse situation of always waiting until an issue really blows up before action is taken....

We can debate all day whether you agree with such interpretations of those rules, or not, in any specific case, and that's a different story that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis if you don't agree with something, but I do think we should try to get away from using words like 'censorship' if we can help it, as it's not likely to help at all when trying to deal with these types of issues.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess