Will TLF exhibit the same fair moderation as TMF boards?

[Lootman]

TNF moderation was onerous, petty, unreasonable and favoured a "gilded few" who could do no wrong and whose complaints were always acknowledged.

Yes, I recall one occasion when another Fool and I were having a very technical (but good natured) debate on a very technical subject. Evidently I was winning the debate because the other Fool (*) reported my post as being "off topic". The moderator duly removed the post and told me why. I pointed out, respectfully, that unless that mod had very detailed knowledge of this very technical topic, then how could he know what was and was not off topic?

He admitted that he didn't know the topic, but said that he "trusted" the judgement of the other Fool. To which I replied that I did not realise that moderators had an inner circle of favourites whose word they will take over others.

So yes, from the horse's mouth I did secure a de facto admission that there was a secret set of Fools with an unofficially elevated status, who would get the benefit of any doubt. Perhaps it is inevitable that a favoured clique or gilded few will always emerge. But to my mind it undermined the idea that moderation was always consistently and objectively applied.

(*) Obviously I cannot know for certain it was my adversary but, for various reasons, I was fairly certain.

[Gengulphus]

I'm not sure how many posts have had to be removed already from LemonFool, but have Stooz and yourself had any thoughts regarding how users will be notified if they have any posts removed?

If you look at the User Control Panel, "Board preferences" tab, "Edit notification options" menu item, the top notification option is "Your topics/posts are approved or disapproved by a moderator" and you can select to be notified, emailed, both or neither.

So being informed in some way looks likely, unless one makes the neither choice - which is probably a poor one if you want to avoid escalating problems with the moderators!

I would be surprised if it didn't give a reason, though not at all surprised if it was a 'bare bones' reason chosen from a standard list.

The other thing the TMF post-removal emails did was include the text (though unfortunately not the formatting) of the post so that one could edit out the problem and resubmit. That or equivalent functionality is also highly desirable in my view, though there are quite a number of ways I can imagine such functionality being provided, quite a few of them better than TMF's.

Gengulphus

[Lootman]

TNF moderation was onerous, petty, unreasonable and favoured a "gilded few" who could do no wrong and whose complaints were always acknowledged.

Yes, I recall one occasion when another Fool and I were having a very technical debate on a very technical subject. Evidently I was winning the debate because the other Fool (*) reported my post as being "off topic". The moderator duly removed the post and told me why. I pointed out, respectfully, that unless that mod had very detailed knowledge of this very technical topic, then how could he know what was and was not off topic.

He admitted that he didn't know the topic, but said that he "trusted" the judgement of the other Fool. To which I replied that I did not realise that moderators had an inner circle of favourites whose word they will take over others.

So yes, from the horse's mouth I did secure an admission that there was a secret set of Fools with an unofficially elevated status, who would get the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is inevitable that a favoured clique or gilded few will always be favoured. But to my mind it undermined the idea that moderation was always consistently and objectively applied.

[Itsallaguess]

The other thing the TMF post-removal emails did was include the text (though unfortunately not the formatting) of the post so that one could edit out the problem and resubmit. That or equivalent functionality is also highly desirable in my view, though there are quite a number of ways I can imagine such functionality being provided, quite a few of them better than TMF's.

Gengulphus

Agreed, I think that's also an important point and one that should be taken into consideration, especially with regards to the benefit of doing so in conjunction with the other aspects (tell a poster when they've had a post removed, and also then tell them why...).

Again, the relatively small overhead of time spent carrying out such notifications would, in my opinion, reap rewards where posters aren't then having to come back to someone on the boards asking the same questions were they not to receive such notifications, and possibly arguing over those post removals on the discussion boards.

By generating good, meaningful post-removal notifications, TMF did well to remove the 'removal debate' from the boards and into another domain, shutting down lots of avenues for disruption to the great benefit of the boards themselves, I thought.

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[DiamondEcho]

The other thing the TMF post-removal emails did was include the text (though unfortunately not the formatting) of the post so that one could edit out the problem and resubmit. That or equivalent functionality is also highly desirable in my view, though there are quite a number of ways I can imagine such functionality being provided, quite a few of them better than TMF's. Gengulphus

Also experienced by me elsewhere on a board with this structure, where the Modding worked well...
No notifications via PMs/e-mail/other back-channel. I mean if you're deleting a post that clearly breaches the T+Cs why the need to be discreet that's what happened?

So in such a case a Mod would delete a post and might simply post 'publicly broadcasting' a warning to the miscreant. The latter is publicly shamed, and it also serves as a reminder to others to behave; whacking one monkey to keep the rest of the tribe in-line, as such Sometimes interludes requiring Modding are something of a collective event.

Such a warning post would not be done under a Mods regular user-name [there is nil/-ve value in personalising it IMO/E] but rather a Moderator ID that is shared by all Mods. It would have a distinctive font-colour so it stands out clearly as a a) Mod caution/warning, or that b) Mod-deletion has happened and [briefly] why. The two might appear as below... as if directed at me or me and a sub-set of other Lemons!

a)
------------------------------
'DiamondEcho, you and some others are steering this thread off-topic. Kindly keep to the topic or take your side-topic and start a new thread. Thanks for your understanding and co-operation'
MODERATOR
-------------------------------
b)
-------------------------------
DiamondEcho, we deleted your post as it breaches the T+Cs regarding X [required virtue]. Kindly read the T+C's once more [link] to remind yourself of why your post was deleted.
MODERATOR
--------------------------------

If a poster gets B^ they should hopefully register that they are on thin-ice. If they're a spammer then it's often enough to get rid of them permanently. If it's a regular they should realise they're at some risk of losing access. If the latter is out of it, maybe drunk and shouty and does not cease and desist, 2nd warning and their login would be suspended for say 3 days [esp if they have lost it on a Friday night, as they might be on a w/e bender]. Long enough for them to sober up and think about the risk of losing access. '3rd strike' is the very last chance saloon, suspension of a week, after which your ID would be suspended permanently. IME very few good people who happen to have a bad day or couple of day are stupid enough to continue right through to permanent suspension - actually I can't say I ever saw it get to the 3rd deletion and warning.

[SKYSHIP]

How do I post a NEW TOPIC....

It says press New Topic button.....but where is it?

[PinkDalek]

How do I post a NEW TOPIC....

It says press New Topic button.....but where is it?

Go to the board in question. For instance you are in the "Biscuit Bar":

viewforum.php?f=21

You should see New Topic towards the top and towards the bottom.

[Lootman]

So in such a case a Mod would delete a post and might simply post 'publicly broadcasting' a warning to the miscreant. The latter is publicly shamed, and it also serves as a reminder to others to behave; whacking one monkey to keep the rest of the tribe in-line, as such Sometimes interludes requiring Modding are something of a collective event.

You know, I think that is a truly horrible idea. It's almost guaranteed to be incendiary and to undermine that user's faith and trust in the site and its owners.

People follow rules for a number of reasons. Some because they agree with the rules. Some because they believe all rules should be followed. And some because they fear punishment. But that leaves a large category of users who don't fit into any of those categories, and yet they still follow the rules. Why? Because they like, trust and respect the rule-makers enough to want to be a good citizen.

So whilst we can debate endlessly exactly what the rules should be and how the moderation works, miscreants can always find ways around them. The real aim is to foster a community who care enough to want to comply with the rules. That means goodwill and, right now, TLF has that in spades because of the great job the two sponsors have done here.

Squandering that with public shaming exercises would be shocking.

By the way, my last post appeared twice. Anyone know how that might have happened?

[Bubblesofearth]

I'll go out on a limb and say that TLF will not, and cannot, offer anything like the same level of moderation as TMF. The reason for this is simple, mods on here are volunteers whilst those on TMF were paid. If there is one thing that being a volunteer (I'm currently a volunteer on a couple of committees) means it is that there is a limit to how much work you are prepared, or indeed should be prepared, to do.

The upshot of this is that much of the moderation will need to be done by by us, the users, and the most effective form of moderation is to not respond to anything that is offensive or off-topic. If posters are ignored they will, unless unusually stubborn, either go away or change their behaviour.

Huge thanks to C&S for setting up TLF but it's now up to all of us to ensure it is a viable community.

BofE

[PinkDalek]

By the way, my last post appeared twice. Anyone know how that might have happened?

It looks like you attempted to amend it (as I noted you got rid of, inter alia "(but good natured)" which was amusing in itself).

Bree appears to have spotted duplicates of that nature and you can see his tests at "Testing 123 ...":

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=395

PD

[Gengulphus]

I'll go out on a limb and say that TLF will not, and cannot, offer anything like the same level of moderation as TMF. The reason for this is simple, mods on here are volunteers whilst those on TMF were paid. If there is one thing that being a volunteer (I'm currently a volunteer on a couple of committees) means it is that there is a limit to how much work you are prepared, or indeed should be prepared, to do.

Agreed entirely.

The upshot of this is that much of the moderation will need to be done by by us, the users, and the most effective form of moderation is to not respond to anything that is offensive or off-topic. If posters are ignored they will, unless unusually stubborn, either go away or change their behaviour.

There's a problem with that: if people generally know what's on-topic and what's not, and the culture of ignoring off-topic stuff has become well-established, it works. But if either of those is not the case, then people will respond to off-topic stuff because they don't know it's off-topic and/or because they see others responding to it and figure it must be OK, and so the culture of ignoring off-topic stuff doesn't really get going...

So basically, that sounds to me like a reasonable place to aim for, given the shift to a volunteer moderator system which will have the limitations you mention. But I don't think TMF has the culture of ignoring off-topic stuff at present - I've seen plenty of posts starting with something like "Off-topic, I know, but ..." not just get responded to, but get responded to so massively that they've taken over the thread they're in...

So if that's where TLF wants to go, it's probably going to need kick-starting with quite a lot of moderator effort to get rid of ingrained habits. That may well run into problems with getting enough volunteer moderator time and/or with alienating users. I.e. this is a route that risks losing quite a few people from TLF...

But I'm not certain whether there is a route out of the current 'honeymoon' period for TLF that doesn't risk that...

Gengulphus

[stooz]

In short, I hope the rules will be fair.
Tmf costs were actually costly due to legal cover for litigation like deformation.
So simply. It's just not allowed. No debate.

We hold no responsibility for anyone's posts.

I may question Definition of a post.
I may warn posters. Multiple warnings may result in short or permanent bans, to include not even seeing the site at all, just a picture of a puppy.

I may remove posts and warn.
I may lock thread that are not resolving themselves.

Going off topic is fine. You can submit a request to split a topic, creating two.
But I don't look for favouritism.
And as I am no power house company than can cover being sued, if left the result may be the immediate and instant removal of the entire site without any warning.

So please.
Play nice. For your own benefit.

[DiamondEcho]

You know, I think that is a truly horrible idea. It's almost guaranteed to be incendiary and to undermine that user's faith and trust in the site and its owners.

Perhaps my point was lost. You don't usually to even need to consider it unless a poster is 'going nuts' or 'gone rogue'. It's not like on TMF where a person might one-time exclaim 'bloody hell' or what ever and get censored for it. Beneath it is a wide area of maturity and thicker-skinned acceptance of different means via which people might express legitimately themselves.

[Raptor]

I belive that self moderation is a must but a few guidelines would be nice, moderators are not super human and will be volunteers, who will more than likely have other things to do, like work, holidays and a life.

You will always get tthe odd rogue who wants to fight, may way or no way, but you have the tools to curb that.....

Good luck with whatever you and Clariman do, you have my backing.

Raptor

[Instep]

In short, I hope the rules will be fair.
Tmf costs were actually costly due to legal cover for litigation like deformation.
So simply. It's just not allowed. No debate.

We hold no responsibility for anyone's posts.

I may question Definition of a post.
I may warn posters. Multiple warnings may result in short or permanent bans, to include not even seeing the site at all, just a picture of a puppy.

I may remove posts and warn.
I may lock thread that are not resolving themselves.

Going off topic is fine. You can submit a request to split a topic, creating two.
But I don't look for favouritism.
And as I am no power house company than can cover being sued, if left the result may be the immediate and instant removal of the entire site without any warning.

So please.
Play nice. For your own benefit.

Thank you Stooze (and Clariman). We appreciate the risks you are taking. You should post this message prominently on Lemonfool.

Instep

[peterh]

Thank you Stooze (and Clariman). We appreciate the risks you are taking. You should post this message prominently on Lemonfool.
Instep

Ditto. And I can't understand the fixation around moderators.

[Bubblesofearth]

In short, I hope the rules will be fair.
Tmf costs were actually costly due to legal cover for litigation like deformation.

OK, now I'm imagining one poster with another ones head in a giant vice

[DiamondEcho]

Thank you Stooze (and Clariman). We appreciate the risks you are taking. You should post this message prominently on Lemonfool.
Instep

Ditto. And I can't understand the fixation around moderators.

It'll be clearer when the existence of this forum gets more 'indexed' in the various search engines and inevitably starts attracting search-engine-spam, spammers, and the occasional newbie have-a-go lunatic who doesn't realise this is a polite co-operative place. So whilst things are at almost zen-like levels of harmony right now, I don't think we should imagine it will always be thus, without the contingency of Mod-intervention ever being needed in future.

[DiamondEcho]

Another tip to keep in mind for the future, re: the edit function not being used to devalue a topic in retrospect.

The other forum I frequented for years with an edit feature as here had a practise of making it a point of copying the whole 1st post in a new topic where it was asked by a newbie. Then the person replying would add their reply underneath it, i.e. in the 2nd post of the topic. If the latter forgot to do this then a later poster would do it.

Might sound odd and a waste of bandwidth, but seems not. Note: This does not apply to more simple/short posts or posts from established posters. But IME especially on contentious and/or complex matters [especially thinks like legal/immigration/debt issue.] Some newbies show up having heard the forum is a good source of advice write about their issues, receive lots of guidance and then perhaps having copied off those replies to elsewhere then delete all their posts. It means a topic is a) instantly redundant and pretty much has to be deleted for tidiness. b) No one coming along with the same issue in future has the benefit of their question already being there and searchable.

I haven't tested the edit function here vs the clock. If the edit function times-out after say an hour or two or what ever then ^ would not be required. In the other place I'm thinking of, the edit function had no time-out function, perhaps that was the source of the problem...

[robbelg]

I believe the edit function is just 8 minutes, probably the same for delete.

stooz was quite clear it would never be days or even hours