A comment on moderation

[chrpai]

In other words, it's subjective and self-reinforcing?

The 99.9% argument is kind of useless without context. For example, I'm guessing 98% of the members of this board rarely post.

 

[HowardE]

In other words, it's subjective and self-reinforcing?

Of course its subjective. It's impossible to define every situation and appropriate responses. If that were the case, we could have robot mods, and just automate the process.

Written words do have intent. If the intent appears to be crossing the line of what has been defined as part of the TOS, there may be discussion among the moderators as to appropriate action.

If someone says, "Hey jerk... go screw yourself." that's easy to moderate.

Other times, it's more vague as to what the user meant.

However... If we have users who require habitual moderation, the recurring patters of language, attitude, intent are assumed.

There have also been members who have been banned, simply because they require too much attention from the moderators. I won't name names of anyone, but certain users just have to be voted off the island for the greater good. Mods are volunteers, and devote a lot of time to helping to keep SB a civil and fun place. If one user is consuming so much of a volunteers free time, then from my perspective, that user has reached the point of diminishing returns, and it causes the moderator to resent even being a mod because they're not having fun, they're just being cops.

 

[HowardE]

Additionally, any decision made by a moderator can be appealed if the user who has been moderated feels it has been done unfairly.

We do have the email address appeals {at} scubaboard.com for that. Those are read and evaluated by an un-involved senior Advisor and decisions made by a mod (or a group of mods) could in fact be overturned.

Just because something was done a certain way one time, doesn't mean it has to be done that way forever and ever.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Most of the time, the moderation on this site is based solely upon the words written. What else do we have?

We don't usually inspect motives, or validate posts. We simply have no interest in that. However, intent is a part of the equation.

However, when some users are habitual offenders and are repeatedly moderated, the leash is shortened, and the latitude of interpretation is lessened.

99.9% of the users on this site go on posting all of the time without ever being moderated. Most of the moderator efforts are truly focused to a small portion of users.

I agree, you need to look at what is posted. My comment was not intended to be critical of moderation of the board but rather a misinterpretation of the meaning of the word malice.

My personal feeling is that over moderation occurs more often than under-moderation on this board, but overall I would rate the moderation on this board as deserving of an "A". Certainly the gray areas require subjective determinations and good judgement and I think the decsions almost always follow the directive of making this place friendly and welcoming to new divers, in particular.

 

[HowardE]

I should add that some areas of the board are more moderated than others.

These areas have special notes, stickies, or some way to identify themselves as "GREEN ZONES" where moderation will be enforced quite strongly.

If you are overly harsh in an area where it specifically states,

Please note: This forum has special rules. This forum is intended to be a very friendly, "flame free zone" where divers of any skill level may ask questions about basic scuba topics without fear of being accosted. Please show respect and courtesy at all times. Remember that the inquirer is looking for answers that they can understand. This is a learning zone and consequently, any off-topic or overly harsh responses will be removed.

then you should expect to be moderated strictly.

 

[lowviz]

Moderation on this board is exemplary. However, users are the ones that *indirectly* keep it that way.

My favorite quote:

Trust, but verify is a form of advice given which recommends that while a source of information might be considered reliable, one should perform additional research to verify that such information is accurate, or trustworthy. The term was a signature phrase adopted and made famous by U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Reagan frequently used it when discussing U.S. relations with the Soviet Union. The phrase was learned by Reagan from Suzanne Massie, a writer on Russia. She told Reagan, "The Russians like to talk in proverbs. It would be nice of you to know a few. You are an actor – you can learn them very quickly".^[1]

After Reagan used the phrase at the signing of the INF Treaty, his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat that at every meeting,"

to which Reagan answered

"I like it."^[2]

 

[The Chairman]

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not. I'm going to assume its not.

If it takes a felon to commit a felony, then you are an iron!

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

I should add that some areas of the board are more moderated than others......

I would also venture to guess some users get moderated a lot more than others. Once someone gains a reputation for behaving like an ass, its natural for the mods to read every post of theirs and not to give them the same benefit of the doubt that might be extended to someone without such a history.

 

[HowardE]

I would also venture to guess some users get moderated a lot more than others. Once someone gains a reputation for behaving like an ass, its natural for the mods to read every post of theirs and not to give them the same benefit of the doubt that might be extended to someone without such a history.

Yes... See post #10

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

 

[boulderjohn]

I would also venture to guess some users get moderated a lot more than others. Once someone gains a reputation for behaving like an ass, its natural for the mods to read every post of theirs and not to give them the same benefit of the doubt that might be extended to someone without such a history.

As a career educator, I assure you that is how it works in all schools and really anything like this as well. Students who feel they are picked on by teachers usually feel that way for a reason. Once the teacher realizes that Student A is a frequent cause of trouble, the teacher's focus naturally turns to Student A. Every act by that student is watched, and the tolerance threshold drops. If Student B is normally a very well behaved student, the teacher may not even notice a behavior by Student B that would get Student A punished. The teacher who makes the utmost attempt to be totally fair and even handed in all things cannot help but be that way to some extent. I used to tell students that if they want teachers to stop picking on them, stop acting in ways that draw negative attention.

---------- Post Merged at 02:12 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 01:56 PM ----------

To clarify my point about malice....

Yes, there are some people whom I really don't like much on ScubaBoard--only a few, but they exist. I wish they would go away, frankly, but I mean them no harm. I never act with an attempt to harm them, and therefore I show them no malice. Whatever you feel about someone is not important until you act in accordance to those beliefs. If I write posts that attack or vilify someone without any other purpose than to harm that person's reputation, then I am acting with malice.

When someone repeatedly and intentionally repeats incorrect information, I do call them on it. In that case, the purpose is to serve the greater good by making sure correct information comes to the fore and the population is not misinformed. The purpose is not to harm the person presenting the false information, so it does not show malice.

I do not see why a person who habitually acts to correct misinformation should be disqualified as a moderator. Is a moderator supposed to sit back and be silent when misinformation is being presented?