It has been quite some time since Chris and Russ implemented the moderation function in the forums. We still have not clearly articulated just what constitutes a moderable post. This has lead to posts being moderated because:
(1) Someone was singled out for attack.
(2) They contained vulgarity.
(3) They were obviously offensive.
(4) A single person found them offensive.
(5) A single person could have found them offensive.
(6) A lack of significant content.
(7) A lack of any content.
Now it seems posts are being moderated because previous posts were moderated by others; essentially as a retaliatory measure. Clearly the time has come to specify what we, as a communtiy, want the conditions to be a post has to satisy for it be moderable. So let's get with the program. I'll start the ball rolling: I think any post that contains a racial or ethnic slur ought to be moderated straightaway. Additionally, any post that attacks the character of another ought to be moderated, though posts questioning behavior ought to be allowed, if the behavior in question is publically verifiable.
This is just a first stab, obviously refinements will be necessary to these rules, other rules will be adopted, and rules can revised if a substantial number of folks come with good reasons for revision. What I want here is a code of conduct for moderators.
Bennett
Originally posted by bbarrHow do you or someone gets appointed to a moderator?
It has been quite some time since Chris and Russ implemented the moderation function in the forums. We still have not clearly articulated just what constitutes a moderable post. This has lead to posts being moderated because:
(1) Someone was singled out for attack.
(2) They contained vulgarity.
(3) They were obviously offensive.
(4) A single pers ...[text shortened]... h good reasons for revision. What I want here is a code of conduct for moderators.
Bennett
Based on what?
Harri
a.k.a. Luck
Originally posted by bbarrBennett.
It has been quite some time since Chris and Russ implemented the moderation function in the forums. We still have not clearly articulated just what constitutes a moderable post. This has lead to posts being moderated because:
(1) Someone was singled out for attack.
(2) They contained vulgarity.
(3) They were obviously offensive.
(4) A single pers ...[text shortened]... h good reasons for revision. What I want here is a code of conduct for moderators.
Bennett
You circled round selection.
You talked in a different post about a circle of frauds.
All I ask is to bat on the same pitch.
Is that too much?
Linda
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by bbarrI agree, a clear definition of "moderation" is required. That aside I would add to Bennet's post:
It has been quite some time since Chris and Russ implemented the moderation function in the forums. We still have not clearly articulated just what constitutes a moderable post. This has lead to posts being moderated because:
(1) Someone was singled out for attack.
(2) They contained vulgarity.
(3) They were obviously offensive.
(4) A single pers ...[text shortened]... h good reasons for revision. What I want here is a code of conduct for moderators.
Bennett
* Posts should not be offensive to any group or individual, but it is important to remember that it is also reasonable to disagree with any group or individual in a civilised discussion.
* Flame wars should just be deleted before they start, anyone who has been here over six months would not want a return to any of the sillyness and "camp forming" of the past.
* Threads need to make sence, moderators should "tidy up" where posts or threads are obviously going nowhere, are off the point, or are a clear error. We could have it that threads could be locked down once they are deemed to have died.
* If a post is moderated then the moderator should say why it was moderated - i.e. offensive language, or no post.
Andrew🙄
Originally posted by missleadI was aiming at a discussion concerning rules for post moderation, but you raise a good point. There should also be a process of selection for moderators. I think it's currently the policy that to become a moderator you need only ask Chris/Russ (I"m not a moderator, so I'm not sure about this). If that is the case, then obviously it is too lenient a policy. I think one should have to have subscribed to the site (or be an original pawn-star) to be a moderator, have played and posted here for a significant amount of time, and agree to a code of conduct. The length of time that constitutes 'significant' is, of course, open to discussion. The code of conduct I was hoping would arise from discussion in this thread.
Bennett.
You circled round selection.
You talked in a different post about a circle of frauds.
All I ask is to bat on the same pitch.
Is that too much?
Linda
Yes I talked in a different post about a circle of frauds, but I don't see the relevance to the current discussion. If you would make the connection clear, I'd be happy to respond.
I have no idea what the baseball metaphor is supposed to refer to. Sorry.
Originally posted by royalchickenThat list is not meant to be criterial of moderable posts, merely a run-down of reasons post have been moderated in the past. I think the disparity between them indicates a lack of any coherent policy regarding moderation. Are you suggesting that the other reasons posts have been moderated were good reasons, i.e., ones we should adopt? I think removing a post because one person found it offensive is too strict. This speaking from personal experience. In one thread I remarked off-hand about the apparent difference in divine personality between the old and new testaments. This was found offensive to one and thereupon moderated. Any reasonable person could have seen that no disrespect was intended, and that the post pertains to matters of fact, things actually in the text. So perhpas we ought to come up with a set of guidelines for determing what constitutes a reasonable objection to a post. For instance, if a post is explicitly derogatory concerning a person's race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. (e.g., "Americans Suck"😉) then it ought to be moderated. If you claim, rather, that "America purports to be a democracy, but last elected a president with less than half-the citizens actually voting, and less than half of those who voted cast there ballot for the eventual president", that would be a matter of fact, not explicitly derogatory and hence not subject to moderation. What do you think?
I think all of Bennett's numbered criteria are good except #5.
No, I think that a rant section could lead to tons of personal attacks and the like.
Bennetts' reference to a "circle of frauds" is appropriate becuase he did not mention anyone by name. It was directed at the people who knew who he was talking about.
Bennett, I think she was refering to cricket.
Miss Take/misslead (sorry, I cannot remember who). If I remember correctly, you were asked to leave for a very specific incident which will go unmentioned. Both of you say you are leaving for good then you come back. Thats fine if you come back. But, when you do, all you do is stir the pot. So, please make your mind up, are you going to play in the sandbox nicely, or are you going to take your ball and go home?
As for material that should be censored:
Swearing
Racial slurs
Attacks on family members
Personally, I believe that if someone is questioned, that is fine. Why? Because you are here to defend yourself.
Blatant sexual references. Innuendo is fine.
Have I left anything out?
One more thing. Repeat offenders should loose posting rights for a set amount of time. Compulsive offenders should lose posting rights for life.
Lets just all get along...
Bill
I agree with most except that I think that if one person finds it offensive then it should be gone also. I don't see the logic that if a group finds it offensive it's gone but if one finds it offensive, then it should stay....it seems a little tipsy....mosts posts that are iffy are talked about by the mods......I agree with punishing offenders too......
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599534
Originally posted by willatkinsThats a very fair list in my opinion. I agree, you are here to defend yourself. If you broaden the list too much you will miss out on some good conversation. As a newcomer I would like to add that this is, afterall,cyberspace for gods sake, thicken that skin up just a bit. There are 30 threads to a page and there are plenty of different topics for everyone. As I have said in the past if you dont like what you see in one thread, go to another. Personal and racial and family attacks aside, the less you censor the better for all. I did not know Mr. Schliemann that well but what an excellent example of someone who should have taken a deep breath now and then and just clicked off on a few things he didnt like to read here.
No, I think that a rant section could lead to tons of personal attacks and the like.
Bennetts' reference to a "circle of frauds" is appropriate becuase he did not mention anyone by name. It was directed at the people who knew who he was talking about.
Bennett, I think she was refering to cricket.
Miss Take/misslead (sorry, I cannot reme ...[text shortened]... ompulsive offenders should lose posting rights for life.
Lets just all get along...
Bill
Originally posted by !~TONY~!The point is that one person may be unreasonable, and what they find offensive may bear no connection to either the intentions of the poster or what is written.
I agree with most except that I think that if one person finds it offensive then it should be gone also. I don't see the logic that if a group finds it offensive it's gone but if one finds it offensive, then it should stay....it seems a ...[text shortened]... about by the mods......I agree with punishing offenders too......
Suppose I found a paragraph in the Bible, the letters of which could be rearranged to form another paragraph that expressed something flat out silly. Suppose I post it as 'Anagram', with the in post heading 'I found an anagram in the Bilble" and print both the original paragraph and the anagram. So I've said nothing false about the Bible, I haven't even expressed an opinion about the text I used to form the anagram, yet suppose someone becomes offended, claiming I've somehow trivialized a favorite passage of theirs. Now this seems like an unreasonable objection. But this post would have been ruled out under the policy that one offended person is sufficent to moderate a post. Do you think that this is the right way to do things? I think one offended person should be sufficient to get moderators to confer about a post, and that if a number of moderators all agree, it should be removed, but to simply remove any post anyone finds offensive for any reason is a sure way to take make the forums a dull place for everyone.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 599534
Originally posted by bbarrI do not think a post should be removed because 1 person finds it offensive. I'm not sure a post should be removed if more than one person finds it offensive. I agree that any post can be brought to the attention of the moderators, for consideration of removal if a member does find it offensive, but a rigid guideline of what actually is offensive should be followed, and if the guideline is too broad you are right, things will get dull.
The point is that one person may be unreasonable, and what they find offensive may bear no connection to either the intentions of the poster or what is written.
Suppose I found a paragraph in the Bible, the letters of which could be rearranged to form another paragraph that expressed something flat out silly. Suppose I post it as 'Anagram', with the in ...[text shortened]... finds offensive for any reason is a sure way to take make the forums a dull place for everyone.