Response to "Forum Rule Update: moderators actions"

[BrightSilence]

From what I see here there really aren't that many problems with the policy change as stated. Most of the people getting mad about it have complaints that really havent got anything to do with this, like silently deleting posts.

I think it should be clear that the policy itself is open for discussion, but the enforcement thereof isn't. Why should it be like that? Well if you only discuss the policy then instead of a discussion everytime (for example) a post is deleted silently, there will be one discussion making it clear to the moderators that this should not be done.

What is really the problem of not being allowed to comment on a single action if you are allowed to raise that issue over here to prevent it from happening ever again.

I know, there is a very thin line between reacting on a moderator action and raising a complaint about the rules/guidelines because of some moderator action. But at the least it takes personal attacks out of the equation.

As an ending to this post I just want to remind everyone that common sense and politeness are the best ways to avoid having any trouble with moderators at all. I've actually been around on a lot of forums without even reading the rules (don't worry, I read up on the rules of this forum) and never had a problem at all. It's just something to think about...

[Samara]

From what I see here there really aren't that many problems with the policy change as stated. Most of the people getting mad about it have complaints that really havent got anything to do with this, like silently deleting posts.

Well I can only speak for myself when I say that I have a problem with the policy itself. If people don't agree, that's fine...no skin off my nose. I just think that keeping everything hidden fosters more mistrust and confusion. How are people supposed to complain about something they're not even sure they should complain about? What a waste of time. And I certainly won't be utilizing it...no matter what I happen to see go down here. No amount of trying to reassure me with words is going to fix that. I simply don't trust the process. I'm not talking about any particular person, I'm talking about the process as a whole.

I firmly believe that the process should be more visible, and the expectations of of users and moderators both be clearly listed for everyone to see, that way if someone wants to complain they have something tangible to back up their complaint. I also think that moderators should be able to defend their choices publicly. NOt only to have that ability, but that responsibility. As I said before, with a clear outline of their duties, defending oneself isn't very difficult when the mod just has to say, "I understand that this bothers you, but the rules (provide link) say x, y and z. I've double-check with moderator z who backs me up on this."

If the guidelines and rules are clear enough...that will end the conversation right there unless they want to get into discussing the rule itself...but either way, the heat is off the moderator...and there is a public, documented version for everyone to see and learn from.

By hiding everything, nobody learns from past mistakes.

[longlostposter]

The problem with not having visible mod guidelines available is that it's impossible to tell if a mod has stepped outside the rules for mods.

Those of you who are putting my name in every post they submit, and attempting to make it look as if I am the only one unhappy, should read the thread. I understand many complaints have been received by Trainer regarding the "dean" moderator.

[ApotheosisAZ]

Samara, the new policy actually gives us all greater accountability. We are able to privately come to consensus on decisions and run them by Trainer for approval if needed.

We usually discuss our actions privately with other moderators, to make sure they would do the same thing under the same circumstances. It's really not "willy-nilly," and the new system gives you three levels to "vent" if you do not agree. It's one thing to distrust one person, but this way, the complaint is heard by three different people if you choose.

Your complaint can go all the way up to the Creators if need be, just not here on the board. It's a lot more effective to have a channel like this to go through. I think the new way is more efficient and will really give your concerns the recognition they deserve.

As I am an outspoken forum participant, I find myself compelled to applaud Marbella's concise and direct explanation of the benefits brought about by the forum's exciting new policy.

Her recognition of the three-level reporting system reminds one of the way that Neutrogena® Full Volume® fortifying mascara "builds three times fuller lashes."

[ShardinsKitten]

Samara, the new policy actually gives us all greater accountability. We are able to privately come to consensus on decisions and run them by Trainer for approval if needed.

We usually discuss our actions privately with other moderators, to make sure they would do the same thing under the same circumstances. It's really not "willy-nilly," and the new system gives you three levels to "vent" if you do not agree. It's one thing to distrust one person, but this way, the complaint is heard by three different people if you choose.

Your complaint can go all the way up to the Creators if need be, just not here on the board. It's a lot more effective to have a channel like this to go through. I think the new way is more efficient and will really give your concerns the recognition they deserve.

As I am an outspoken forum participant, I find myself compelled to applaud Marbella's concise and direct explanation of the benefits brought about by the forum's exciting new policy.

Her recognition of the three-level reporting system reminds one of the way that Neutrogena® Full Volume® fortifying mascara "builds three times fuller lashes."

it's not different the before, we could always take complaints all the way to the creators if need be.

However lets say so and so mod does whatever and I don't think it was right or fair. I could come to the forums and post about it, and see if other people have the same problem or see it the same way, and discuss it with ALL the mods at the same time, well the ones that choose to respond to it. If I still wasn't pleased with the result then yea I could message BK privately (or trainer or whoever) and try to go more in depth about or grab the mods attention more, and I could always go to the creators if I still wasn't happy about it. That doesn't change. If only one person complains about something it doesn't seem like a big deal when you have pages of a thread of people saying the SAME things maybe it is something you should pay attention even though this has not always worked in the past.


This rule is all kinds of bad really, I agree with what a lot of people have said about it on the against side, so I really don't see the need to repeat it all over again.

[Samara]

The problem with not having visible mod guidelines available is that it's impossible to tell if a mod has stepped outside the rules for mods.

That's exactly the problem!

How ridiculous is it...and time wasting...for people to contact Trainer with concerns and complaints about every little thing someone might feel a moderator did wrong? Especially if a moderator can't even defend their decision publicly for said user to even understand?

It's not fair to Trainer to have to field all of that. We don't need first level mediation here. Leave that for more pressing matters.

Here's how I see this...with the policy as it was announced:

User A posts a racy limerick about Sarah and Daniel in a video thread from Taylor. Moderator A feels that the limerick is actually pretty funny, albeit a bit too suggestive. However it is pretty off-topic, too. So, Moderator A deletes the post, rather than editing it. User A gets no PM or explanation...just notices that this post is gone. User A complains about his post being gone, and he's told to complain to Trainer. Trainer then has to research the situation, talk it over and then get bacl to User A to say, "THe moderator removed your post because it was too suggestive and off-topic."

Good grief...too many cooks in the kitchen!


Moderator should have just made a copy of the original offending content for archive purposes and then edited the post with a note that reads:

**Edited to remove mature content. Try to tame it down next time or link to it with a warning. For more information see the Forum Etiquette, Rules, and Policies, especially regarding "Mature Content". **

Where's the harm in that? It clearly explains why something removed without people wondering why posts were *poofing* for unexplained reasons. It also is a way for the mod to be accountable for their actions so nobody can complain about unfair treatment without having to have long, drawn-out discussions back and forth. Make a decision according to the rules and stick to it. That's it. Any moderator acting uprightly won't even need to defend themselves. And even if they did, that's where the archive comes in handy. If the moderator made a mistake, then the moderator needs to be educated. That can be done privately. But if a moderator does make a mistake, then a public apology is in order, too.

If only one person complains about something it doesn't seem like a big deal [but] when you have pages of a thread of people saying the SAME things maybe it is something you should pay attention [to]

Exactly!! This new "system" completely undermines that. Not that they've listened all that much in the past...although they have a few times, yes...I honestly believe that the majority of complaints are brushed off. That's my own opinion based on observation over the past many months.

[deagol]

Since there's nothing to puzzle about or a plot to poke holes in, I came back here, the funnest place in the forum.

Her recognition of the three-level reporting system reminds one of the way that Neutrogena® Full Volume® fortifying mascara "builds three times fuller lashes."

"God has given you one face, and you make yourself another."

[Killthesmiley]

wait...since when did Neutrogena make make up make up....

[longlostposter]

If only one person complains about something it doesn't seem like a big deal [but] when you have pages of a thread of people saying the SAME things maybe it is something you should pay attention [to]

Exactly!! This new "system" completely undermines that. Not that they've listened all that much in the past...although they have a few times, yes...I honestly believe that the majority of complaints are brushed off. That's my own opinion based on observation over the past many months.

The complaints are ignored, by and large, but it wouldn't bother me so much if I knew why they were being ignored. Anyone with half a brain can see without a dean telling them, that something is horribly wrong in the state of Denmark.

Why is nothing being done, BK?

[longlostposter]

]
"God has given you one face, and you make yourself another."

Deagol, I know I'm not your favorite person, but I think you are great.

[TOSG]

Broken Kid, I think that we deserve an explanation WHY the moderator guidelines are confidential.

The only reason that I can think of (I'm not implying that this is the case, but simply stating that this is the only reason that comes to mind) is to give the moderators a complete lack of accountability. If a moderator decides that a post goes against the guidelines, regular forumites have no grounds on which to challenge that decision - they don't even know what the guidelines are! Moderators' decisions - no matter how incorrect or corrupt they may be (god forbid) - are essentially bulletproof under this policy.

It's like having a full police force enforcing laws, but never telling citizens what those laws are. Not only is it unjust, it doesn't even lead to more people following the rules (how can they follow directions that they haven't been given?).


Please tell me that this lack of transperancy is for another reason. I'll know just how to interpret your silence on this issue, should that be the case.

[Taig]

It's amazing that those who have caused the unrest, and the supposed need for this rule, are now acting as if they are the good guys who are in compliance with everything. Nice work, Taig, Milowent, Curious George, Hyemew.

Hold on there sister...I am my own agent in this one.

I have been thinking WAY too much about this thing. TO be clear I stand by my previous post in practice however...

I have always felt that there is entirely too much meddling in the affairs of the users by some of the moderators. I prefer an open exchange of ideas without the threat of "discipline" by someone I do not know and whose qualifications are are just about limited to how much time they have on their hands and how much of an uberfan they are.

The only true measure of a good moderator is in the respect and approval of the members of the forum.

The "rules" are capricious and will change at the whim and in the interest of those who are running the show. In the meantime relax. This is not occupied France.

The best reason I've seen for bailing on this argument is Miss Matsie's plain spoken eloquence:

This forum kind of reminds me of Vietnam era America. It doesn't really matter how often you protest, what happens will happen. Perhaps they'll throw you a bone?

I dunno. This policy seems disproportionate to the actual need of the community. Also, the reasoning behind this new policy seems to reflect very poorly on the moderator community here, to me..

Plus, she said it before Milo, that sycophantic poo slinging vine swinging Monkey BOy friend and those other earth shoe wearing, Volvo driving, NPR listening accolytes decided to move on.


So relax baby...It's almost July 4th and I bet you don't even h ave a tan yet....c'mon over and hang out in the back yard, have a hot dog, play on the trampoline or just soak in the water where we children play.

[Samara]

I second TOSG's request.

The only thing I would add is another reason I can think of not publishing guidelines is that they simply don't exist or are in such piss poor shape that it would be embarrassing to publish them...and that decisions are made on the fly.

Like TOSG...I'm not saying that's the case, just one of the only feasible explanations for them not being published. However, in all honesty, given the nature of the somewhat vague rules already publicly posted...I can't expect the moderator guidelines to be much more detailed. So that tells me that they either don't actually exist or that they are rather subjective.

[Broken Kid]

Please tell me that this lack of transperancy is for another reason. I'll know just how to interpret your silence on this issue, should that be the case.

You're resorting to little tricks now.

I've made my comments here. I have no plans right now to make the full guidelines of how moderators should behave and respond to situations public. I feel that doing so will make it more difficult for moderators to do their job. I offered to put together a moderator checklist based on the guidelines. As 'mute pointed out, the golden rule is to be fair and impartial.

ETA: If this conversation continues to repeat itself instead of continuing to be productive, it probably is complete.

[longlostposter]

Decisions based on fear are almost always bad ones. They give the aggressor more power than they really have, and chances are the fear is baseless; it's just over-exaggerated in the mind of the one being targeted. IOW, what is feared doesn't come to fruition.

I sense fear here...fear of what, I don't know.