Wouldn't it be better to have anonymous moderation? There seems to be an abundance of strange personalities (from posters and from mods) and that might help alleviate some of the tension created through moderating..

and rather then using flipped responses when moderating why not have a template system that a moderator could click in his/her response so that the offending poster knows the specific violation...
In the past i've received rather colorful explanations for why moderation was needed...now, the job of moderating this beast is purely voluntary so wouldn't having a click-able list of violation make it easy? you almost have to be political in your responses and thus far Ian has been the only person Ive seen be willing to invest the amount of time and patience to respond in a diplomatic fashion..(well, for the most part..heheheh)...

and when somebody objects to moderation have a non-partial moderator (i.e., one who didn't take action) respond...that would remove any biases...


My other suggestion would be to get rid of the following: If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgment in private, but you aren't 'entitled' to a "hearing" or even a response. The rules outlined on this page, above, will be used as moderation guidelines.

Why not allow people an opportunity to discuss moderations with the prince.org discussion forum? This might calm a lot of the people who feel unjustly moderated and end up leaving the site out of frustration...The situation can be discussed and when a response is given by the moderating team and ample time is given for discussion a thread can be closed and left for record. But this whole deleting of threads that's done sometimes...it only makes people feel frustrated and some end up leaving the site entirely.. and speaking of Ian again...before this rule was in place I remember Aaron and I (as kee) got into some heated discussions with Ian about his moderation skills...after those heated debates I noticed Ian took more care in his comments...And now? Well, now mods don't even respond if they don't feel like it...You send an org not and get nothing back...Is that being part of a community?

Besides, when a thread is deleted or a comment edited, isn't that done publicly? So why force the debate of said action to be done in private? It just reeks of John Aschcroft and that's never a good thing..

now let me point out that I am rarely moderated (don't laugh..for real ) ...but since the org is going to be initiating new mods soon I figured I'd give my thoughts on the how things can be changed for the better..i considered volunteering my help but am retracting cause i need to focus attention of my business...and I thought about just sending this to ben..but then i remembered the healthy discussions that was had in the past..(with aaron and ian) and i figured..maybe now would be a good time for another discussion...

so, any others have suggestions out there?

(and btw ben, you can consider any, some or none of this..its just a good ole dose of waxing philosophy )

thanks for listening/reading...

-nmh

i'm all burnt out on the moderation discussion. but good points, Kee

Ya know, Ian was always adamant about dealing with moderation issues privately. It was rare that a thread like this lasted very long. It seemed like he had a reason for this--I think it was based on experience--but I never really knew specifically what that reason was. Maybe I'll ask him...

teller said:

because in theory, it's nice to have open, honest, civilized conversations about specific moderation issues or actions, but in reality, it's ALWAYS ugly.

sosgemini,

u make some great points

i wrote a thread about

the effects of over moderation

not every one has what it

takes 2 make fair and objective

decisions

i think it's important 2 be able

2 take yourself out of the equation

and base decisions on the betterment

of the site

I'll do it!

AaronAlmighty said:

Oh right, that was it!

sosgemini said:

Thanks for taking the time to write that. A few comments in response:

1) We actually do have some orgNote templates in our moderation system. They cover the following offenses:

• Off-topic post
  
• Spam/ads
  
• Flame
  
• "Inappropriate message content"
  

If none of these apply, a "custom" orgNote can be created. In any event, the system will not allow a thread to be moved or removed without an orgNote being sent to the creator.

2) As for "appeals" to another moderator, our practice is not to allow this because we've had "divide and conquer" situations where the offending user tried to play one moderator against another.

3) I always respond to any orgNotes I get concerning my moderation actions. As best I can recall, I haven't received any from you.

Again, thanks for your comments. I don't know whether Ben is still on vacation, so you might want to send your post directly to him as well.

.
[This message was edited Thu Jan 8 20:41:20 PST 2004 by AaronAlmighty]

AaronAlmighty said:

matt said:

hey..thanks matt!!!

for the most part the current mods are doing a good job...i was just looking at this thread as a pre-emptive strike..cause it seems that the "heat" always is turned on when someone new gets the keys to the ride..

Good comments.

The new moderation system (coming soon, I promise, mods!) does have more "templates", and is more friendly. Plus, keeps a better log of all moderation activities so everyone knows what everyone else is doing (this seemed to be the cause of some confusion in the past).

I can't say more at the moment. I do think 'in private' is the place for mod issues. This isn't a democracy. Mods are held to the rules as well, though, and part of the issue is definitely that we need improved guidelines for moderators to help them as well. I need to bear down on some of these issues but have been still busy after the holidays. My life is changing in several significant aspects right now! But attention will get paid to this, I promise.

matt said:


this is the exact kinda moderation that needs to be avoided...its personal..you see it in matts responce...and why delete a thread on a technicality? aaron made one comment..sure it was the initial comment but many others had contributed to the discussion and the thread *poof* dissapears...

i say unlock ctheuncanny's thread and move it to the proper forum...undelete aaron's thread and move it to the proper forum...AND STOP BEING SOO CATTY!!!



cattyedit!!
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 8:19:53 PST 2004 by sosgemini]

sosgemini said:

Being banned from the site is a bit more than a technicality, I think. I did consider locking the thread instead of deleting it, but I don't want to encourage deactivated users to create new accounts so they can get the last word in.

As for the reference to Aaron's emails, I'm not trying to engage in a personal battle with him. There is, however, another side to the story of his deactivation than his self-serving post.

"this is the exact kinda moderation that needs to be avoided"... I explained what happened and why, locked (but did not delete) CtheUncanny's thread, indicated that I'd be willing to continue the discussion here, and I've followed through. If you have any constructive comments on how it should have been handled, I'm happy to consider them.

matt said:

i thought i was being constructive by recommending u unlock the threads and move them to the proper forum...

matt said:

JustKelley was banned but her threads were never deleted or locked after her banishment. I understand deleting Aaron's thread if you thought it was turning into a flame war but to say that you deleted it because he was deactivated isn't entirely true.

It also seems a bit petty to delete a thread so that deactivated users can't get the last word. I mean, the content of the thread should be taken into consideration but really...so what if they get the last word? You're still the moderator and you're always going to have more power no matter who gets the last word on some thread.

jessyMD32781 said:

thats why im sticking w/ my catty call...it was being constructive...

ben said:

I have yet to see evidence of the latter. It may not be a democracy, but it is a community, a diverse community, and I fail to see how constantly reminding us that it's not a democracy allows the community to flourish.

I agree that mods should be allowed a certain degree of leeway in their decision making process and shouldn't have to answer for every move they make, but it would be nice if there was some level of transparency here so that people could understand why decisions are being made. Part of the purpose for having a punitive sytstem such as "three strikes," deactivation, etc is that this provides a lesson for other users. When this system becomes completely obscure and mystified, it loses that value. People don't know how they should act, speculation runs free, etc.



I think that's a great idea. Would it be possible or desirable to make these guidelines public? And would it be possible to create a sytem whereby posters can report mod abuse of these guidelines? I don't see the point of guidelines if the people enforcing them are the people who are breaking them.


.
[This message was edited Tue Jan 27 11:31:20 PST 2004 by 2the9s]

2the9s said:

The problem is that the moderators have ABSOLUTE rights, and that's unlikely to change. No matter how obvious the leaps of logic and personal and/or arbitrary decisions of moderators in the past, they can do what they like and they have. The only mod that has shown some integrity in her work is Dansa, she does great here.

That no pleading or reasoning is of any use was painfully obvious in all matters dealing with the LS&R forum, both in the creation and moderation of. I will maintain to the end of time that this forum has no logical place on this website, and I also believe that I proved this point to Ben in emails based on his OWN WORDS in the FAQ's, but hit a dead end.
The moderators need public rules just like the rest of us. They also need a journal where they state the reason of their decisions, so u can plead your case to another mod when u're hit with a personal vendetta.

Teacher said:

Ben and Mods please read.

jessyMD32781 said:

One other thing, If Aarons thread was deleted because he was gone why was the thread about Tackam leaving allowed to stay with flames and all?

Teacher said:

This is already in place, actually. When a moderator enters a strike against a user, a box pops up for the mod to type in an explanation for the strike. Ditto when a strike is removed. Mods also can enter notes that neither add nor subtract a strike. A "journal" exists for each account.

As for "appeals" to other moderators, I oppose them for the reason we always have: users have tried to pit one moderator against another. If were are to allow them, though, I suggest that there be a set procedure; e.g., one appeal to Ben. We should avoid situations where a user can appeal to one mod after another until the user gets the result he/she wants.

I'm certainly open to suggestions for improving the moderation on the .org. But I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at some of the things that people are asking for. An appeals process for moderator decisions? A system for reporting "mod abuse"? I'm not aware of any other site like this one that has such things. Perhaps people would prefer no moderation at all, if they distrust the mods that much? There is always alt.music.prince...

theres gotta be a reason people are asking for it..maybe a poll would be a good way to find out the answer...

and i think this forum is one of the most "communal" ive ever seen online...once you build histories and have people building bonds...your gonna get loads of these types of emotional outbursts..

from posters and mods..

CtheUncanny said:

Aaron's thread was deleted because he posted it after he was banned (through an account that he took it upon himself to create after being specifically warned that any such accounts would be deactivated). Banned users have no posting privileges. This distingushes it from the thread about tackam (who did not post the thread, and in any event was not banned), and the JustKelley threads (posted by her before she was banned) that jessyMD32781 mentioned.

matt said:

That no other site u know of has it, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. No other fan site dedicated to an artist has a Love, Sex&Relationships forum either.
Part of the problem of THIS particular site is that there are so few mods, and u know this just as I/we do. Nominate 10 people for mods, set public rules for them to follow, and we'll have a MUCH better climate.

As for "pitting mods against each other", I think I speak for 99% of all users that that's the ONLY choice we have when another user has concocted some story, or a moderator has made a wrongful decision. Please don't tell me that breaking the rules of this site is the only risk we run of getting deactivated, that has not been the reason in the past. The status that Aaron spoke of is VERY much in place, to be frank some moderators have obviously been moved/intimidated by users' status or long-time history when they're making complaints, and decisions have been based upon this. I expect this to be contradicted by moderators of course, but I would be very surprised if ONE SINGLE REGULAR FORUM USER will.

Is posting in the journal mandatory, or is it something that the moderator CAN do if they want?

Teacher said:

1) If you're unhappy with a moderator's decision, the rules provide your remedy: discussing the issue with that specific moderator. Alternatively, or if a user gets no satisfaction that way, there's always the option of not participating on the .org. If a website is not to my liking, I simply go elsewhere, rather than demanding that it be changed to suit my whims. We're never going to please everyone.

2) Given your comments on deactivation, I think it's only fair to point out your possible bias; i.e., that you were deactivated by Ian, and Ben supported this decision in an email sent to you.

3) A strike cannot be applied or removed without text being entered in the pop-up window. I just tested this myself.

matt said:

I expected this answer, which is really not an answer at all of course. I was deactivated by Ian yes, after a faulty decision on his part, and Ben wouldn't do anything about it since Ian had made the decision. Ben did NOT take the time to look into the matter. This doesn't only concern me though, seeing as no users protest what I say I'd have to say they agree with me.
As for my suggestions for moderation, they weren't addressed at all. I didn't expect them to be really, it's just sad.
I am now VERY careful not to break the site rules, cos there really is no chance of getting a fair trial, especially not after voicing my opinions on this thread. I've come to learn this, and I know many others do the same
I thank you for the answer concerning the strikes, though of course u could enter the recipe for apple pie in the pop-up and be done with it

That means I won't discuss this any further, it's not important enough for me to get deactivated over, even though I did not break any site rules I feel it coming.

Teacher said:

Sure they were. Ben responded to your suggestion for moderator guidelines, and I responded to your suggestions for a journal of mod actions and letting users "appeal" to other mods. Is there something else you'd like a response for that I missed?