Announcement: PRSI moderation review and hate speech/discrimination rule changes

[Scepticalscribe]

I understand that the site might have decided to keep the permission in case of emergency. In this case, auditing is required.

I am not sure that I entirely understand the point you are trying to make.

As - by custom, tradition, and understanding, if not as an actual rule - moderators (who are volunteers) do not moderate threads in which they have posted as ordinary members, as other mods do so, by invitation or request - I fail to see the need for what you seem to have proposed.

 

[I7guy]

I understand that the site might have decided to keep the permission in case of emergency. In this case, auditing is required.

Is there a specific (or general) example of something that occurred in the past. Because it seems to me it is what it is.

 

[cube]

Is there a specific (or general) example of something that occurred in the past. Because it seems to me it is what it is.

I would not be asking these questions if I did not have my doubts.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I would not be asking these questions if I did not have my doubts.

Doubts are one thing, but have you seen an example occur where a mod moderated a thread that they had already participated in, or posted in, in their capacity as an ordinary member of the forum?

In my eleven years membership of this forum, I haven't seen this happen; that is not to say that it doesn't happen, but, firstly, I personally haven't seen it, and secondly, applying the principle that you do not sit in judgment in a situation where you are also a participant to the dispute, or may otherwise, be involved in it, moderators do not moderate threads where they post as members of the forum.

And, earlier in this thread, @annk has already made clear that if a thread that a moderator has posted in (as an ordinary forum member) is thought to require moderation, then, another moderator is called in and tasked to attend to this.

 

[cube]

Doubts are one thing, but have you seen an example occur where a mod moderated a thread that they had already participated in, or posted in, in their capacity as an ordinary member of the forum?

In my eleven years membership of this forum, I haven't seen this happen; that is not to say that it doesn't happen, but, firstly, I personally haven't seen it, and secondly, applying the principle that you do not sit in judgment in a situation where you are also a participant to the dispute, or may otherwise, be involved in it, moderators do not moderate threads where they post as members of the forum.

And, earlier in this thread, @annk has already made clear that if a thread that a moderator has posted in (as an ordinary forum member) is thought to require moderation, then, another moderator is called in and tasked to attend to this.

You don't know who deleted a post.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You don't know who deleted a post.

Does this matter hugely?

If a post was deleted, I have to assume that this action was considered appropriate or justified in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, if memory serves, under the previous system, it used to be noted which moderator had edited or deleted or removed a post although that does not seem to be the case at present.

However, I am prepared to accept in good faith that moderators do not moderate threads where they have already posted posts in their capacity as ordinary members of the forum, and that such threads - if moderation is considered necessary - are moderated by other members of the staff.

 

[cube]

Does this matter hugely?

If a post was deleted, I have to assume that this action was considered appropriate or justified in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, if memory serves, under the previous system, it used to be noted which moderator had edited or deleted or removed a post although that doe snot seem to be the case at present.

However, I am prepared to accept in good faith that moderators do not moderate threads where they have already posted posts in their capacity as ordinary members of the forum, and that such threads - if moderation is considered necessary - are moderated by other members of the staff.

Of course it matters if a moderator is abusing her powers.

 

[MacDawg]

The moderators and administrators have painstakingly listened to grievances from those in the PRSI (and other Forums) about bias and unfairness from every side imaginable.
They have taken steps repeatedly to fine tune their rules and procedures to accommodate the feelings of those involved time after time.
Frankly, they have given it far more attention than it deserved IMO, but nonetheless, they have crafted a reasonable and rational approach to the PRSI and all Forums.
They have been as transparent as possible about their thought process and procedures in doing so.

We get it, you got butt-hurt over something or more likely somebody, and you have made it your mission to complain and dissect with no hope for any resolution.
The procedure when you have a grievance is to submit the Contact Us Form and dialogue with the Admins and they will give your specific case consideration.
At that point, you can either accept it or not, and if not, it may be time to find another hobby to occupy your time.

The Site and Forum Feedback section is for healthy dialogue about issues on the Forums, not a place to endlessly regurgitate the same tripe as some sort of petty revenge for hurt feelings.
This is an Internet discussion board about Apple products, not a Senate hearing on a Supreme Court Justice.
We should all take a step back at times and lighten up a bit and not take things so seriously, especially ourselves and our self importance.
Learn to take time to enjoy some of the simple things in life rather than wallow around in bitterness.

 

[cube]

The moderators and administrators have painstakingly listened to grievances from those in the PRSI (and other Forums) about bias and unfairness from every side imaginable.
They have taken steps repeatedly to fine tune their rules and procedures to accommodate the feelings of those involved time after time.
Frankly, they have given it far more attention than it deserved IMO, but nonetheless, they have crafted a reasonable and rational approach to the PRSI and all Forums.
They have been as transparent as possible about their thought process and procedures in doing so.

We get it, you got butt-hurt over something or more likely somebody, and you have made it your mission to complain and dissect with no hope for any resolution.
The procedure when you have a grievance is to submit the Contact Us Form and dialogue with the Admins and they will give your specific case consideration.
At that point, you can either accept it or not, and if not, it may be time to find another hobby to occupy your time.

The Site and Forum Feedback section is for healthy dialogue about issues on the Forums, not a place to endlessly regurgitate the same tripe as some sort of petty revenge for hurt feelings.
This is an Internet discussion board about Apple products, not a Senate hearing on a Supreme Court Justice.
We should all take a step back at times and lighten up a bit and not take things so seriously, especially ourselves and our self importance.
Learn to take time to enjoy some of the simple things in life rather than wallow around in bitterness.

If the site was more transparent and had more safeguards people would trust it more and have less reason to use the Contact form.

I believe contacting the site would rarely result in a satisfactory answer, so it is only to be done in an extreme case.

These are general questions and feedback so this is the proper place to address them.

 

[MacDawg]

I believe contacting the site would rarely result in a satisfactory answer

Of course you do
Hence the current impasse

I don't know how the site could be more transparent than it is without running every decision through you first, and I don't believe that is going to happen

I also believe that the vast majority of users on this site find it helpful and even an enjoyable experience
While there may be a very small minority that don't "trust" the moderation and administration, I think that is to be expected in any large scale community

 

[I7guy]

If the site was more transparent and had more safeguards people would trust it more and have less reason to use the Contact form.

I believe contacting the site would rarely result in a satisfactory answer, so it is only to be done in an extreme case.

These are general questions and feedback so this is the proper place to address them.

Why would you want to be part of a community where you believe a website is acting in bad faith?

 

[cube]

Of course you do
Hence the current impasse

I don't know how the site could be more transparent than it is without running every decision through you first, and I don't believe that is going to happen

I also believe that the vast majority of users on this site find it helpful and even an enjoyable experience
While there may be a very small minority that don't "trust" the moderation and administration, I think that is to be expected in any large scale community

I already mentioned some possible technical improvements above.

 

[Weaselboy]

I already mentioned some possible technical improvements above.

Your suggestion that mods be blocked from moderating in threads they post is not practical. There is a lot of moderating that occurs that has nothing to do with enforcing the rules. Things like fixing a link to an image in someones comment, or fixing quote tags or code tags, or fixing a thread title misspelling... that sort of thing. If I can't do that in a thread where I have posted it really limits my ability to help fellow forum members. There are also occasions where an obvious spam post shows up in a thread where I am active, and I need to be able to remove it.

 

[cube]

Your suggestion that mods be blocked from moderating in threads they post is not practical. There is a lot of moderating that occurs that has nothing to do with enforcing the rules. Things like fixing a link to an image in someones comment, or fixing quote tags or code tags, or fixing a thread title misspelling... that sort of thing. If I can't do that in a thread where I have posted it really limits my ability to help fellow forum members. There are also occasions where an obvious spam post shows up in a thread where I am active, and I need to be able to remove it.

I said that I understand that the permission might be required, but then some auditing should be put in place.

The obscurity of the "off topic" alert is what motivated my question.

 

[Weaselboy]

I said that I understand that the permission might be required, but then some auditing should be put in place.

The obscurity of the "off topic" alert is what motivated my question.

There is a forum tool where the admins can look at a log and see every single moderator action myself and other mods have taken, so as mentioned earlier, if a mod were to "go rogue" they would fairly quickly be identified and dealt with.

If there is some specific complaint or suspicion you have here, you should collect up any evidence you have and send it to the admins using the contact us link and they can research.

For example, if you think a particular mod is inappropriately removing or editing your posts, the admins will be able to see that and deal with it.

 

[cube]

There is a forum tool where the admins can look at a log and see every single moderator action myself and other mods have taken, so as mentioned earlier, if a mod were to "go rogue" they would fairly quickly be identified and dealt with.

If there is some specific complaint or suspicion you have here, you should collect up any evidence you have and send it to the admins using the contact us link and they can research.

For example, if you think a particular mod is inappropriately removing or editing your posts, the admins will be able to see that and deal with it.

It would be easier if the user was told who deleted a post, like when one receives a moderation message.

 

[Weaselboy]

It would be easier if the user was told who deleted a post, like when one receives a moderation message.

That is not an option in the current forum software.

If you think a particular moderator is somehow targeting you, you really need to send a note in to the admins as I mentioned. They would be glad to research this for you.

 

[cube]

That is not an option in the current forum software.

OK, then you should file an RFE with your vendor.

 

[MacDawg]

Whatever your original constructive criticism or thoughtful inquiries might have been in the beginning, you have chased them breathlessly and relentlessly down a deep and dark rabbit hole commonly known as "trolling"

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I said that I understand that the permission might be required, but then some auditing should be put in place.

The obscurity of the "off topic" alert is what motivated my question.

Candidly, I should imagine that there is little that is "obscure" about a post being labelled "off topic"; it tends to be fairly obvious in a thread when a post is off topic.

It would be easier if the user was told who deleted a post, like when one receives a moderation message.

Is that necessary, unless you are of the opinion that the decision was inappropriate or somehow unfair or unclear?

Usually, (not always) when a post has been deleted, you receive a notification letting you know that this has happened, and why the post was deleted.

These reasons range from violations of forum rules (insulting members, posting one word posts, or frivolous posts, or off topic posts, for example) to posts that were removed - not necessarily because they violated any rule in themselves - but, because they were a response to a post that itself was deemed a violation of forum rules.

In my experience, usually when a post has been removed the reason for removing or deleting it is pretty obvious.

 

[cube]

Candidly, I should imagine that there is little that is "obscure" about a post being labelled "off topic"; it tends to be fairly obvious in a thread when a post is off topic.



Is that necessary, unless you are of the opinion that the decision was inappropriate or somehow unfair or unclear?

Usually, (not always) when a post has been deleted, you receive a notification letting you know that this has happened, and why the post was deleted.

These reasons range from violations of forum rules (insulting members, posting one word posts, or frivolous posts, or off topic posts, for example) to posts that were removed - not necessarily because they violated any rule in themselves - but, because they were a response to a post that itself was deemed a violation of forum rules.

In my experience, usually when a post has been removed the reason for removing or deleting it is pretty obvious.

What is obscure is that it does not say who deleted the post.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

What is obscure is that it does not say who deleted the post.

And why - with respect - should it?

 

[cube]

And why - with respect - should it?

Because whether something is off topic can be subjective. Safeguard.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Because whether something is off topic can be subjective. Safeguard.

Determining what is subjective is, in itself, possibly a subjective matter. But, in this context, that is something of an irrelevancy.

However, this is yet another area where the concept of good faith applies; if the mods (upon mature reflection, collectively) decide that a post is off topic, I rarely see any reason to dispute that decision, not least because it usually is.

 

[cube]

Determining what is subjective is, in itself, possibly a subjective matter. But, in this context, that is something of an irrelevancy.

However, this is yet another area where the concept of good faith applies; if the mods (upon mature reflection, collectively) decide that a post is off topic, I rarely see any reason to dispute that decision, not least because it usually is.

If it is always decided among several different people it would be OK.