Concerns about moderating policies

[2airishuman]

This is quite consistent with just about every analogous system I know. When I was a school administrator, I was absolutely forbidden to make any kind of public announcement of any disciplinary action I taken. Doing so would embarrass the teacher and cause potential legal actions after that public disclosure.

That's different. You (well, the district) are paying them, which gives you (union contracts aside) a degree of ability to choose which ones to hire.

We make make all kinds of moderating decisions during a day. Many are so minor they are barely worth mentioning. Should we write an explanation of all of those? Some are quite obvious--like SPAM. Should we write explanations for all of those? In 90% of the cases, the person who was moderated regrets the actions and is accepting of the moderation--do you want us to make a public announcement about each one and embarrass them all? Let's say that a thread got out of hand and we had to take out 30 posts (and that happens)--do you want us to write an explanation for each of those? Do you want us to then argue publicly with every person we moderate who does not agree with what we did?

I know from experience, and from your own admission, that you are able to see not only black and white, but shades of grey.

And again, I don't "want" anything. I don't have a horse in this race. Your choices, I'm just pointing out cause and effect as I see them. The only actual advice I've offered is to stop recusing yourselves after your first meaningful interaction because you're "involved" at that point.

 

[The Chairman]

The only actual advice I've offered is to stop recusing yourselves after your first meaningful interaction because you're "involved" at that point.

In a thread this is paramount. Too often we've seen mods on other forums use their power to unfairly direct the discussion and we don't like it. I don't like it. We're not here to control the discussion, no matter what @Bennno contends. We're here to keep it civil, sane and on topic. With very few exceptions, we don't vet facts or contentions. Rumors make it on ScubaBoard from time to time, only to be immediately corrected by the informed. Our job is to keep those discussions civil, if not friendly. However, because our community is so darn quick to snuff out bad info, most rumor mongers give us a pass. Craptitudes will not go unchallenged for long. Our community is our strength... yeah, even @Bennno.

What's more, and this bears repeating, our staff doesn't go looking for trouble. There's a bit of that in the green zones, but for the most part, we won't consider a post or thread for moderation unless someone in the community has reported it first. In this way, the community tells us what's important or unacceptable to them. If you don't report it, we probably won't know a problem exists. If we like what you're reporting (unfriendly, etc) and you're not involved in a bunch of squabbles, then you might even be asked to be a moderator. This is not a given and more users become mods because they stand out by helping others and participation.

Back to moderators recusing themselves. It's no biggie in a thread. Once they post, they no longer want to moderate the thread anyway. There are exceptions in case a thread needs emergency attention. The problem becomes bigger with users. If a user publicly or privately complains about a mod, they'll take a look and decide if the complaint has any substance. If a mod finds themselves being filled with disgust or a "here we go again" attitude anytime a user is brought up then they will probably do themselves and us a favor and back off. They'll probably tell the back room why and they might bring out any salient facts we may need, but they won't be involved in the final decision. This can change as time moves on and it's never spurious. We just want to be fair.

 

[Bennno]

We're not here to control the discussion, no matter what @Bennno contends. We're here to keep it civil, sane and on topic. With very few exceptions, we don't vet facts or contentions. Rumors make it on ScubaBoard from time to time, only to be immediately corrected by the informed. Our job is to keep those discussions civil, if not friendly.

Aha? So, IF this is true, how come there was a +90! page thread doing staight up character assassination of your cave instructor 'friend'? It was all based on rumor and even the official report that came out way later was obviously based upon hearsay and the guy how compiled the 'evidence' was kicked out shortly after.
What about the 80(?) page revo thread you started to damage their company. You had no case whatsoever, yet you use the platform to go after them for legal business practices, you deam not OK.

Both thread almost exclusively witch-hunts! This is what you call civil or friendly?

If ANYONE had started a thread like that about YOU or John, it would have been shut down immediately.

 

[Storker]

What about the 80(?) page revo thread you started to damage their company.

Did you report this "company assassination"? I, at least, didn't notice that. Didn't you read what @NetDoc just wrote?

our staff doesn't go looking for trouble. [...] for the most part, we won't consider a post or thread for moderation unless someone in the community has reported it first.

Once they post, [moderators] no longer want to moderate the thread anyway.

 

[RandomGuy1]

Here's where you and I see things quite differently.


Is about Johny as a person: clear personal attack

Is about Johny's behavior (not him as a person), not a clear personal attack. Depends on context.

Isn't clearly directed towards anyone in particular (unless there's someone who thinks that the shoe fits), generally not a personal attack.

To make it personal: I know I've behaved like a fool more than once in the past. I acknowledge that and will (reluctantly) accept it if someone points out my foolish behavior, but I still resent being called a fool. Do you see the difference?

All these at least to me are the same thing.
Johny dives with split fins. Johny is a moron.
Johny dives with split fins. Johny diving with split fins makes him a moron.
Johny dives with split fins. Anyone who dives with split fins is a moron.

These are all clearly about Johny and calling him a moron and all mean exactly the same thing (at least in my minds eye). Why should one be moderated and the other not?

With that said, I personally think folks should just get over themselves. People out there aren't going to always agree, and you shouldn't be so thin skinned that some random person on the internet calling you a name elicits a response. Alas, that is not the world we live in. With that said, if anyone ever calls me a name please don't delete or moderate the post. I would like it left up there for all the world to see. Either I did / said something stupid and I earned it, or whoever wrote it is wrong. Either way it shouldn't be covered up and hid.

 

[Bennno]

Is it against the ToS if I call your questions stupid, Storker? Can you look this up for me, as you have already PMed me, I'm to stupid to read or write in English.
Thank you.

BTW: It say 'Staff Member' under your pic, are you actually being paid by Pete to write your posts?

 

[Bennno]

All these at least to me are the same thing.
Johny dives with split fins. Johny is a moron.
Johny dives with split fins. Johny diving with split fins makes him a moron.
Johny dives with split fins. Anyone who dives with split fins is a moron.

These are all clearly about Johny and calling him a moron and all mean exactly the same thing (at least in my minds eye). Why should one be moderated and the other not?

Of course, you're right. You're saying the same thing... Storker just needs a cop-out.

 

[Storker]

Johny dives with split fins. Johny is a moron.

"Johny is a moron" is on Johny as a person and a clear personal attack.

Johny dives with split fins. Johny diving with split fins makes him a moron.

Your second sentence still claims that Johny is a moron, albeit with slightly different words. However, stating that "diving with split fins is a moronic thing to do" or is on the action, not the person and within the ToS.

Johny dives with split fins. Anyone who dives with split fins is a moron.

You're again only rewording the attack on Johny as a person. "...is a moron" about a person is not the same as "is moronic" about the action. If the "Anyone who does... is a moron is preceded by "Johny does...", it's still a clear attack on a specific person. This is all provided that Johny is a member on this board. You are free to call Trump a moron or Hillary a crook since they (AFAIK) aren't members here. However, you can only do that in the Pub unless it's about Trump's moronic diving or Hillary's crooked diving.

Again: Anything that goes directly on a person is against the ToS provided that person is a member here. If it's on an action, it's (generally) within the ToS.

Is it against the ToS if I call your questions stupid, Storker?

No. That's attack at my question (i.e. my actions), not at me as a person. You're free to call any of my questions stupid. However, calling anyone (Johny, Bennno, or Storker) stupid is an attack on the person and against the ToS.

are you actually being paid by Pete to write your posts?

Are you actually serious? Honest question.

 

[Nirvana]

Here's where you and I see things quite differently.


Is about Johny as a person: clear personal attack

Is about Johny's behavior (not him as a person), not a clear personal attack. Depends on context.

Isn't clearly directed towards anyone in particular (unless there's someone who thinks that the shoe fits), generally not a personal attack.

To make it personal: I know I've behaved like a fool more than once in the past. I acknowledge that and will (reluctantly) accept it if someone points out my foolish behavior, but I still resent being called a fool. Do you see the difference?

I think most people, including the ones disagreeing with you on this thread, acknowledge that attributing a given characteristic to a single act from a person is not the same thing as attributing that same characteristic to the person. As you said, we have all done things that, in retrospect, we think were stupid, even though we don't consider ourselves stupid.

However, in a conversation, negative qualifications are frequently applied to actions as an underhanded way to insult someone or disqualify their arguments. For instance, rarely does someone says, completely out of context, that adopting practice [A] is "moronic". More often than not, who says it wants to disqualify those that agree with doing [A], generally, those on the other side of the ongoing argument.

Similarly, by saying that what someone does is "stupid", it is implied that it does not merit further consideration, and that quite possibly that person's arguments should not be taken seriously. Very rarely is an adjective like this perceived as friendly or even civil.

Therefore, it is true that qualifying someone, qualifying someone's actions and qualifying a given action in abstract are not the same. Nevertheless, these constructions' implied meanings are similar enough to warrant, in most cases, an identical response.

 

[Storker]

However, in a conversation, negative qualifications are frequently applied to actions as an underhanded way to insult someone or disqualify their arguments.

Quite right. Which is why this is one of the issues that are often discussed among the moderators. Examples are easy. Real-world cases... not so much.