Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Posts deleted without comment

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).
MDW1954
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2358
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:46 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382029

Postby MDW1954 » January 29th, 2021, 5:51 pm

csearle wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:Not all moderators can do that, only those who are allocated to that particular board. I cannot moderate this board, for example but, on the ones which I do moderate, I can see that posts have been deleted and also read them.

Thanks. So basically you need to identify a moderator for the board the post was on...
Any moderator will do. We just pass these on to one/all of the applicable moderators. I make it sound like this often happens, it doesn't. In my case about three times since the site opened. C.


Further to what csearle has said I can moderate ALL the boards to do with shares, but NOT the personal finance boards eg Dealing With Debt.

As a general rule, if it is to do with shares etc, the moderators are csearle, MDW1954, and dspp. On many of the most popular shares boards, eg HYP-P etc, tjh290633 is also a moderator.

MDW1954

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 592 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382050

Postby SteMiS » January 29th, 2021, 6:30 pm

XFool wrote:
Mike4 wrote:I find John's complaint perplexing. I'm curious about what happens when one has a post deleted. How does one find out? How is John finding out? Is one informed by PM or a Notification? Maybe it happens to me too, but without me noticing.

That is exactly one of the issues here. Not the only one.

You "find out" by noticing (if you do) that one of your posts is apparently 'missing in action'. Whereby, depending on the timing and the state of your memory, the process is:

Did I dream I made a post? Did I post it on another thread rather than where I am now looking? Did I merely Display it, see the post as it would appear and then forget to actually Submit it? Did I Submit it but another post was made in the interval and I missed the warning and assumed it had been posted, but it wasn't? Then, if you don't know the thread moderator (I usually don't), you either have to shrug your shoulders - likely none the wiser - or have to resort to Room 101...

The bit I've underlined has happened to me quite a few times. I think I've posted and it turns out I haven't. Is it really necessary to have this feature on the boards?

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382051

Postby Mike4 » January 29th, 2021, 6:35 pm

SteMiS wrote:
XFool wrote:
Mike4 wrote:I find John's complaint perplexing. I'm curious about what happens when one has a post deleted. How does one find out? How is John finding out? Is one informed by PM or a Notification? Maybe it happens to me too, but without me noticing.

That is exactly one of the issues here. Not the only one.

You "find out" by noticing (if you do) that one of your posts is apparently 'missing in action'. Whereby, depending on the timing and the state of your memory, the process is:

Did I dream I made a post? Did I post it on another thread rather than where I am now looking? Did I merely Display it, see the post as it would appear and then forget to actually Submit it? Did I Submit it but another post was made in the interval and I missed the warning and assumed it had been posted, but it wasn't? Then, if you don't know the thread moderator (I usually don't), you either have to shrug your shoulders - likely none the wiser - or have to resort to Room 101...

The bit I've underlined has happened to me quite a few times. I think I've posted and it turns out I haven't. Is it really necessary to have this feature on the boards?


Seconded.

This is really easy to miss, and I bet its responsible for 50% of the posts believed deleted.

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4814 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382077

Postby csearle » January 29th, 2021, 7:49 pm

SteMiS wrote:The bit I've underlined has happened to me quite a few times. I think I've posted and it turns out I haven't. Is it really necessary to have this feature on the boards?
I've fallen foul of this too. I think the thinking behind it is well meant, i.e. your reply might be different given an intervening post, but it should be much more clear when one's post has actually been published. Would be interesting to find out if there are any phpBB options around this.

Chris

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382101

Postby Gengulphus » January 29th, 2021, 9:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
Gengulphus wrote:One particular area where that feedback would be useful is to do with the site rule "Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster." People's opinions can differ markedly on whether a post is commenting ad hominem / personally / critically, I think mainly because some interpret comments as doing that only if they clearly attack the poster, while others also do so if they're only being dismissive about the poster's arguments on the basis of who posted them. E.g. a comment along "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you - you're successful and well off." lines wouldn't strike the former group as breaking the rule - calling someone successful and well off isn't criticising them! Or at least, it isn't if you only pay attention to the very commonly-used meaning of 'criticise' as meaning 'comment adversely on' and if you don't notice or disregard the implication of being blind to concerns that matter to less successful and not so well off people - and the latter group don't do at least one of those things, possibly paying attention to the alternative meaning of 'criticise' as 'comment analytically on', so e.g. a film critic criticises a film regardless of whether their review ends up slating the film or being a glowing review.

That's not intended to ask for a resolution of such differences of interpretation here, but just to say that they do exist (***) ...
...
(***) As a recent piece of evidence that such differences of interpretation exist among TLF users, see the exchange in the first section of viewtopic.php?p=379952#p379952.

There is one way of knowing where that line is drawn, even if you are not informed every time your post is removed and so you do not realise. If when you post something that is in the grey area between obviously ad hominem and obviously not, then you can make a point of looking back at that post a few hours later, and/or a day or two later, and see if it is still there. One case would prove nothing, and of course different Mods may assess the same thing differently. But over a long period of time one should be able to form a reasonable judgement about what is allowed and what is not.

That assumes you know which posts of yours are in that grey area, but I believe that most of us know when we are taking some risk versus no risk. And pushing a line is a good way of learning where that line is, if you are not otherwise clear. Ask any two year old.

Of course a post may just remain because nobody reported it, but even then one might reasonably assume that if nobody disliked it enough to report it, then it cannot be that bad. Whilst if nobody read it then ultimately it doesn't matter either way.

Also, if someone else accuses you of making an as hominem post, as in the example you cited, then one can always choose to simply explain why in fact it is not ad hominem, rather than submitting the matter for arbitration.

As I indicated, my remarks were not intended to get a resolution to your clear difference of opinion with SteMis in viewtopic.php?p=379952#p379952 about whether you'd made an ad hominem remark, but as an example indicating that such differences of opinion do exist. And I'll expand upon that by saying now that I'm not going to present any arguments here in favour of either SteMis's opinion or your opinion on that matter. The opinions that actually count are those of the admins and moderators, and I'm content with having put a piece of evidence that such differences of opinion do exist before them and otherwise leave them to form their own opinions on the matter.

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382103

Postby Lootman » January 29th, 2021, 9:47 pm

Gengulphus wrote:As I indicated, my remarks were not intended to get a resolution to your clear difference of opinion with SteMis in viewtopic.php?p=379952#p379952 about whether you'd made an ad hominem remark, but as an example indicating that such differences of opinion do exist. And I'll expand upon that by saying now that I'm not going to present any arguments here in favour of either SteMis's opinion or your opinion on that matter. The opinions that actually count are those of the admins and moderators, and I'm content with having put a piece of evidence that such differences of opinion do exist before them and otherwise leave them to form their own opinions on the matter.

That particular skirmish was of minor importance in any event, and trivial compared to many that have happened on PD, HYP and elsewhere. The fact that it remains intact is an indicator that the moderators agree with that characterisation.

You may be content to leave it to the moderators, and ultimately we all have to. That does not mean that we should be indifferent to the issue, and I indicated one way in which you could learn where the line is drawn, if you wished to. Personally I find it helpful to do that and am not aware that I trouble the Mods much as a result. TMF had bigger defects in this regard, in my view.

But more broadly I agree, in that there are disagreements about permissible behaviour. I see nothing wrong with that. I am much more worried about over-zealous moderation, which I do not detect much on TLF, than the fact that someone somewhere may be slightly offended by another Lemon.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382107

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » January 29th, 2021, 10:11 pm

I found this page

There's an empty column titled Other.

Is it possible that could be used to show which moderator oversees which boards?

AiY

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382885

Postby JamesMuenchen » February 1st, 2021, 9:21 pm

How come posts like this get allowed to stand?

viewtopic.php?p=382186#p382186

Redsturgeon did step in to say no more, but I don't understand why abusive posts are not summarily deleted when off-topic ones are.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382896

Postby redsturgeon » February 1st, 2021, 10:00 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:How come posts like this get allowed to stand?

viewtopic.php?p=382186#p382186

Redsturgeon did step in to say no more, but I don't understand why abusive posts are not summarily deleted when off-topic ones are.


If you think a post breaks the rules then report it. It will then be looked at and dealt with according to the site rules. It is not my job to consider each and every post to decide if a third party has been subject to abuse when they don't report it as such. The site depends on users using the reporting system.

In the case highlighted neither of the protagonists seem have noticed that they were the subject of abuse.


John

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4814 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382899

Postby csearle » February 1st, 2021, 10:05 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:How come posts like this get allowed to stand?

viewtopic.php?p=382186#p382186

Redsturgeon did step in to say no more, but I don't understand why abusive posts are not summarily deleted when off-topic ones are.
Which bit is the most offensive?
thus he's just making up stuff to troll.
perhaps? I have no idea whether the user being referred to is making stuff up but I do know that he likes a lively debate (and usually stays short of out-and-out trolling, which ist hier natürlich verboten.

The best course of action if you think a rule had been breached is simply to report that post explaining exactly why and allow the moderators there to take a view.

Chris

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382930

Postby Lootman » February 1st, 2021, 11:46 pm

redsturgeon wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:How come posts like this get allowed to stand?

viewtopic.php?p=382186#p382186

Redsturgeon did step in to say no more, but I don't understand why abusive posts are not summarily deleted when off-topic ones are.

If you think a post breaks the rules then report it. It will then be looked at and dealt with according to the site rules. It is not my job to consider each and every post to decide if a third party has been subject to abuse when they don't report it as such. The site depends on users using the reporting system.

In the case highlighted neither of the protagonists seem have noticed that they were the subject of abuse.

For my part I did notice the attempt at abuse but it did not unduly concern me. I don't mind a bit of a rhetorical knockdown/dragout if it happens. I do try to stay onside of the scrimmage line however.

As a matter of policy I do not report others as I prefer to deal with issues myself as they arise through the natural flow of the debate.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382972

Postby Gengulphus » February 2nd, 2021, 9:32 am

redsturgeon wrote:If you think a post breaks the rules then report it. It will then be looked at and dealt with according to the site rules. It is not my job to consider each and every post to decide if a third party has been subject to abuse when they don't report it as such. The site depends on users using the reporting system.

In the case highlighted neither of the protagonists seem have noticed that they were the subject of abuse.

That statement can be read in two different ways:

* The first is that as the two protagonists hadn't reported it, it could be allowed to stand - with the implication that whether anyone else had reported it wasn't relevant to that decision.

* The second is that nobody had reported it, and you are just noting the two protagonists in particular as not having reported it.

The point being that the second is simply a more-or-less inevitable consequence of the way the moderation system works - if nobody reports a post, removing it is unlikely even to be considered - whereas the first would mean that slanging matches are tolerated as long as none of those taking part in them are offended by them. That would be OK if the purpose of the site rule "Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster." were only to protect posters from being insulted, but at least IMHO it's also to try to prevent threads from being diverted away from on-topic discussion of whatever the thread is about into off-topic discussion of the posters concerned. Diverting threads in that way must in particular be a tempting tactic for those faced with an argument against their position that they want to avoid answering without too obviously doing so - and it can even be done without the slanging being all that obvious, e.g. with a remark like "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you - you're successful and well off."

Personally, I think both protecting posters from being insulted and trying to prevent such diversions of on-topic discussions are purposes of the rule, and that you intended your remarks to be read in the second way. But I can easily imagine some people reading them the first way, and so concluding that it's OK for them to engage in such tactics, or that there's no point reporting slanging matches if they're not one of the protagonists... So could you clarify which reading you did intend, please?

Gengulphus

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382975

Postby scrumpyjack » February 2nd, 2021, 9:40 am

Maybe have a topic 'Off Topic posts' and rather than delete OT posts, move them there?
Then topics can be kept 'pure', others can read those posts and feelings may be less wounded?

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#382977

Postby redsturgeon » February 2nd, 2021, 9:41 am

Gengulphus wrote:
redsturgeon wrote:If you think a post breaks the rules then report it. It will then be looked at and dealt with according to the site rules. It is not my job to consider each and every post to decide if a third party has been subject to abuse when they don't report it as such. The site depends on users using the reporting system.

In the case highlighted neither of the protagonists seem have noticed that they were the subject of abuse.

That statement can be read in two different ways:

* The first is that as the two protagonists hadn't reported it, it could be allowed to stand - with the implication that whether anyone else had reported it wasn't relevant to that decision.

* The second is that nobody had reported it, and you are just noting the two protagonists in particular as not having reported it.

The point being that the second is simply a more-or-less inevitable consequence of the way the moderation system works - if nobody reports a post, removing it is unlikely even to be considered - whereas the first would mean that slanging matches are tolerated as long as none of those taking part in them are offended by them. That would be OK if the purpose of the site rule "Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster." were only to protect posters from being insulted, but at least IMHO it's also to try to prevent threads from being diverted away from on-topic discussion of whatever the thread is about into off-topic discussion of the posters concerned. Diverting threads in that way must in particular be a tempting tactic for those faced with an argument against their position that they want to avoid answering without too obviously doing so - and it can even be done without the slanging being all that obvious, e.g. with a remark like "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you - you're successful and well off."

Personally, I think both protecting posters from being insulted and trying to prevent such diversions of on-topic discussions are purposes of the rule, and that you intended your remarks to be read in the second way. But I can easily imagine some people reading them the first way, and so concluding that it's OK for them to engage in such tactics, or that there's no point reporting slanging matches if they're not one of the protagonists... So could you clarify which reading you did intend, please?

Gengulphus


To clarify:

- If you see something which you think breaks the site rules, report it. It can then be dealt with appropriately by a moderator.

- It is not OK to indulge in slanging matches with other users.

- Any off topic posts can be subject to moderation.

- It is difficult to write down rules which can be consistently applied to every situation since we have a team of moderators each using their own judgement and each case needs to be treated on its merits.

- It is unrealistic to expect perfection.

John

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383032

Postby JamesMuenchen » February 2nd, 2021, 11:51 am

csearle wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:How come posts like this get allowed to stand?

viewtopic.php?p=382186#p382186

Redsturgeon did step in to say no more, but I don't understand why abusive posts are not summarily deleted when off-topic ones are.
Which bit is the most offensive?

Out of accusing someone of trolling, because they're not getting their Viagra, or calling them a fud?

Hard to say. I would say none of it is acceptable. Or on-topic for that matter.
But it's not up to me.

RedSturgeon left it there and you seem to find it OK too.

csearle wrote:the best course of action if you think a rule had been breached is simply to report that post explaining exactly why and allow the moderators there to take a view.

redsturgeon wrote:If you think a post breaks the rules then report it. It will then be looked at and dealt with according to the site rules. It is not my job to consider each and every post to decide if a third party has been subject to abuse when they don't report it as such. The site depends on users using the reporting system.

This is the constant refrain, which is the reason I brought that example here.

Redsturgeon (the chief mod, as I understand it) clearly read that post and thought some action was needed BUT a generic "settle down" warning was all that was required.*

Csearle seems to think it is fine.

Previously I've reported such posts and normally the report has been closed without any action. The best one can expect is that the abuse is removed and, if you're lucky, the mod doesn't add it in the mod box like "stop calling Lootman a fud" which is kind of counter-productive.

There's rarely any action and even more rarely any sanction. In my experience. Which is why I hardly bother to report such things any more.


* …a warning which, by the way, the offending poster immediately ripped on. Both in replying to the mod box and in editing his post to repeat the offending term and blame his auto correct.

redsturgeon wrote:- It is difficult to write down rules which can be consistently applied to every situation since we have a team of moderators each using their own judgement and each case needs to be treated on its merits.


You have the rules written down, it shouldn't be hard to consistently apply them.
app.php/rules
Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster.

Swearing is actively discouraged.

Each discussion board has its own focus for discussions. While the site owners are happy for things to shift slightly off-topic, please respect the fact that the regular users of that board may not wish it to diverge too far away from its stated intent. Once again, mutual understanding and respect is requested.


I make that 3 violations in one post.

And to be clear, it's not just about this one post. This sort of thing happens frequently. As JohnHemming said, the mods seem far more interested in guarding topic-discipline or the sanctity of HYP than puerile abuse of their posters. And yes, it's puerile and childish and we can all take a sticks and stones attitude to it like Lootman, but it does get wearing.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is the kind of 'abuse', and from the same source, as JohnHemming was complaining about before he left.

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1586 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383034

Postby gryffron » February 2nd, 2021, 11:57 am

Gengulphus wrote:So basically you need to identify a moderator for the board the post was on, which you can do as long as you can find a reasonably recent "Moderator Message" on that board in which the moderator has identified themselves. Not necessarily easy, but it should usually be a lot easier than identifying the specific moderator who deleted a particular post.

By far the easiest way to message a specific board's moderators is to raise an alert on that board. Alerts are only notified to that board's moderators. So an alert on the same thread, or a nearby one, would go to (all) those moderators able to deal with the request. Which is far better than messaging a single moderator as it is more likely to be dealt with quicker.

Gryff

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383046

Postby redsturgeon » February 2nd, 2021, 12:33 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:
I make that 3 violations in one post.




You are clearly good at this perhaps you should volunteer to moderate. :)

I can only reiterate that having moderated for the time that TLF has been live, it is harder than you think.

If anyone here would like to hold me to account for every moderator decision they disagree with then for me it would rapidly become more trouble than I would consider it worth to continue.

I have better things to do with my time than argue the toss constantly, the pay is not that good.

John

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7086
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3794 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383049

Postby Mike4 » February 2nd, 2021, 12:49 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:I make that 3 violations in one post.


So have you reported this post that is troubling you?

It troubles me too actually but only because I don't know what a "fud" is. I looked it up in the urban dictionary and it says acronym for fear, uncertainty and doubt. I feel I'm missing something!

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383054

Postby XFool » February 2nd, 2021, 1:09 pm

Mike4 wrote:
JamesMuenchen wrote:I make that 3 violations in one post.

So have you reported this post that is troubling you?

It troubles me too actually but only because I don't know what a "fud" is. I looked it up in the urban dictionary and it says acronym for fear, uncertainty and doubt. I feel I'm missing something!

Are you missing auto-spell on a phone? "foe filter" --> "fud filter"


Just a bystander. :)

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Posts deleted without comment

#383069

Postby Lootman » February 2nd, 2021, 2:00 pm

Gengulphus wrote:Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster.[/i]" were only to protect posters from being insulted, but at least IMHO it's also to try to prevent threads from being diverted away from on-topic discussion of whatever the thread is about into off-topic discussion of the posters concerned. Diverting threads in that way must in particular be a tempting tactic for those faced with an argument against their position that they want to avoid answering without too obviously doing so - and it can even be done without the slanging being all that obvious, e.g. with a remark like "Well, you would say that, wouldn't you - you're successful and well off."

I agree with you. But that said one sign that I am making "an argument against their position that they want to avoid answering" is when instead of countering my point, they turn personal and call me names. That effectively is an admission that the other party knows that he or she is starting to lose the debate.

So I am happy in that case for the incidence of abuse to remain, as evidence to readers that my argument is prevailing.

But if the exchange is upsetting for others then I can see why it might be removed upon complaint. As I rarely report posts I have no idea how often reporting a post like that leads to its removal.

As an aside I am still in two minds about the Mandy Rice Davies line being used. Sometimes, as in that famous trial, context is informative. Personally if someone is advocating for X I might want to learn that he is, say, a paid representative of the company that sells X.


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests