Moderation: Too much or too little?

[Cave Diver]

Let me expand, for the most part I am unaware of any moderation (that's a good thing). It's when the moderation does occur that I often find myself asking "really?" and, "for what?"

The most common reason for people to feel that way is because they are only seeing one side of things. They may see a couple of posts, and then come back later and see deletions or some other form of moderation has occurred, but they don't see everything that happened in between, or ongoing trends with a particular user, or all the reported posts, etc. It's often like trying to decipher the plot of a movie just by looking at two or three photographs.

There are a couple of the moderators who have a huge maternal/paternal streak -- I would like to ask them if they had a tough day with their kids, but that would probably get removed, huh?

We don't moderate criticism of staff. That is assuming of course that it's placed appropriately. If you take a thread off on a tangent about the moderation that occurred in it, then those comments may get deleted as being off topic, or they may get split to a separate thread. If you truly wish to discuss an issue, the best course would be for you to start a thread on it either in the Whine and Cheeze forum, or here in the Feedback section and not derail the thread in question.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

I have no problem with the moderation of the "flame free" areas - those areas need a bit of supervision to keep things in line with the spirit of being flame free.

There are other areas of the board where it is not the level of moderation that concerns me, but the extreme inconsistency. One example from long ago involved a moderator deleting a post from a long time board member because he responded to a post with :bs:

The moderator took offense, and called it a TOS violation. When it was pointed out that :BS: is a Scubaboard smiley, and how could it be a TOS violation if it was in the list of "official" smileys, the post was eventually reinstated.

I understand the mods are volunteers, and each has an individual perspective, but the wild swings in what is permitted or deleted by different moderators seems to show a lack of communication or inconsistent training. If the mods can't agree on the TOS, how can they expect the users to do so?

And yes, this is only a problem when the edges get pushed.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Considering that Voodoogasman has a "posting style" and "idea base" which is wildly divergent from pretty much everyone else on Scubaboard, it would be my vote to leave him fairly uncensored, and un-moderated. I'd call this a special case, and the forums he posts in will certainly react sufficiently, in 99% of the train wrecks he could be involved in

I would suggest giving him his own Avatar, maybe Superman from the Bizarro Universe, or an image inside of two facing mirrors, indicating a different dimension of being.

In any event, understanding can benefit from conceptual boundaries. We have people that push these boundaries in many directions, as a big discussion ensues....Voodoo tends to push in directions no one else does, and this actually has a value, in the evolution of a good discussion thread.
So maybe his Avatar should look like a picture from a Structural Geology text book...two tectonic plates coming together...the Boundary Pusher....

Divergent views are fine. I don't think the mods have a problem with those.

Boundary pushing can be fine ... depending on the boundary. Where diver safety is concerned, I think the mods have to be concerned about liability ... ScubaBoard has already been sued once, and even if the case is without merit, it still costs a lot of money to defend, and threatens the future existence of the board. That has to be factored into any decision to moderate, and if a post can be construed as violating the policies of the board and it's allowed to remain unmoderated, then liability becomes a legitimate concern.

Personal attacks are not fine ... regardless of someone's posting style or divergent views about diving. They're a violation of ToS. And when someone attacks the messenger rather than the message, they deserve to be moderated regardless of their views. Not moderating them not only sends a message that the rules don't apply to this person, it also has a chilling effect on other people's ability to participate.

When the ToS are violated, people should be moderated ... regardless of who they are, what their diving views are, or what their position on ScubaBoard staff happens to be.

To my concern, the vast majority of people who get moderated on ScubaBoard deserve to be. Most of the time they know that they're breaking the rules and do it anyway. Among those who are chronically moderated, there is a pervasive attitude of either "the rules don't apply to me" or "the rules are unfair".

Every one of us is entitled to our opinion about the fairness of the rules ... but every one of us agreed to follow them when we signed up to become members here. Our behavior doesn't just affect ourselves, or those we are responding to ... it affects the ability of others to participate in a conversation. The ToS is the internet equivalent of the rules of the road .. they don't exist for your benefit, they exist to provide a framework that makes it possible for everyone to participate. And if you decide to break the rules, and get a "ticket", then it's not the fault of the ticket issuer ... it's your fault for violating them. Man up and take responsibility for your actions ... that's what adults are supposed to do.

If you feel the rules are too onerous, you always have the right to express your opinion in Site Support, if you can do so constructively ... or in Whine & Cheeze, if you really just want to rage against the empire. But if you choose to ignore the rules, attack other posters, promote unsafe diving practices, or otherwise violate the ToS that you agreed to abide by when you joined the board, then don't expect a lot of sympathy when a moderator removes your post. You earned it.

Over the years, we've had a few moderators who abuse their position, who moderate based on personal views ... or based on who they like or dislike. But those people tend not to remain on staff for very long. For the most part, the mods try hard to be fair. Having been a moderator, I can tell you that moderators are usually pretty critical of themselves and each other ... which makes it a pretty self-limiting position. Sure, sometimes one of them will make a mistake, or a decision that some of us don't agree with. But give them some credit ... for the most part they do a pretty good job of keeping the place free of trolls and attacktics ... which lets the majority feel comfortable participating here. And that has a great deal to do with why this board has been so successful.

I'm pretty comfortable with the level of moderation that goes on here. I've watched a bunch of mods come and go over the years. I was a moderator myself for a time. And, to my concern, I think the staff we have right now is about as fair and even-handed as we've ever had on the board. Perhaps they've learned from the mistakes of the past ... and there have been some ... but I just don't see a lot of moderation going on here that I think is unwarranted ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[redacted]

For some reason, I am under the impression that moderation is subject to happen without a trace. I am hoping I am wrong. If not, I suggest that moderation (editing) of a post always include an indication in the post that such editing has occurred. When entire posts are deleted, I suggest a moderator post be made at the last point of the deletions indicating that posts have been deleted.

 

[lowviz]

Speaking to your first point, my experience is that the mod will leave his/her fingerprints on your post in the "edit reason" line. -seems only fair...

Deleted posts are usually easy to spot by the appearance of the "net police" icon. There may be some question as to who was deleted, though.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

For some reason, I am under the impression that moderation is subject to happen without a trace. I am hoping I am wrong. If not, I suggest that moderation (editing) of a post always include an indication in the post that such editing has occurred. When entire posts are deleted, I suggest a moderator post be made at the last point of the deletions indicating that posts have been deleted.

Speaking to your first point, my experience is that the mod will leave his/her fingerprints on your post in the "edit reason" line. -seems only fair...

Deleted posts are usually easy to spot by the appearance of the "net police" icon. There may be some question as to who was deleted, though.

C'mon guys.

You both have been here long enough.

Some threads/posts have minor edits made to tone down a posts (and "edited by" fingerprints are left behind).
Some threads have a single post deleted and a "mod post" warning.
Some threads have many, mnay posts deleted, and maybe a single "mod post" saying "play nice, or bannings will occur."
And some threads disappear without a trace. No indication they ever existed.
And some stay in the backroom forever ("I saw death in the eye..."). Guess they need a good laugh bach there once in a while.

 

[gypsyjim]

My big complaint is that sometimes I sign on to SB only to read a pile of posts discussing some huge thread blow up, and of a bunch of posts being deleted. I search and search and can't find the because it has been cleaned up.


No way to go back and re-watch all that drama that I must have missed. Watching a can be a great spectator sport! No fair!




Just kidding, but there are times I have to wonder what really happened while I was elsewhere that seemed to have ruffled more than a few feathers.

As I said, I think the mods do a pretty darned good job, especially as they are all volunteers, and being such, they at times have targets painted on their backs when they try to do that sometimes thankless job.

 

[lowviz]

...//...And some stay in the backroom forever ("I saw death in the eye...")....//....

Nice summary, and thanks for the laugh!

 

[Cave Diver]

I think this thread has provided some good questions and hopefully been helpful in explaining some of the process.

For some reason, I am under the impression that moderation is subject to happen without a trace. I am hoping I am wrong. If not, I suggest that moderation (editing) of a post always include an indication in the post that such editing has occurred. When entire posts are deleted, I suggest a moderator post be made at the last point of the deletions indicating that posts have been deleted.

Speaking to your first point, my experience is that the mod will leave his/her fingerprints on your post in the "edit reason" line. -seems only fair...

Deleted posts are usually easy to spot by the appearance of the "net police" icon. There may be some question as to who was deleted, though.

Hoaty pretty much nailed the above observations, but to expand on it a little further, moderation rarely happens without a trace. We try to refrain from editing posts when possible. Editing usually only occurs when the majority of a post is good, but contains a small portion that needs to be removed (posting personal info, a personal attack, etc.) Whenever that happens, we will state the reason in the edit line as noted above.

Normally, if a post is problematic, we're just going to delete the entire thing. If deleted posts only involve one or two users, then we typically try to PM the affected parties directly regarding the reason. If deleted posts involve multiple users, then we are normally going to just leave a mod post in the thread indicating that deletions were made, and some clue as to the reason to help keep it from recurring.

Those deletions are between staff and the person affected. It's not typical for us to publicly name whose post was deleted, although many users will make reference to it themselves.

We also prefer *not* to have threads disappear without a trace. When the thread is pulled, it's usually because it's very active and is requring moderation faster than we can keep up with posts, or it's a large thread that is time consuming to dig through to see what needs to stay and what needs to go. Unfortunately, the nature of moving such threads don't lend itself well to leaving only the original post or a fragment with a mod note. Once the thread has been moved, even if it's put back it's no longer the "same thread". i.e bookmarks, subscriptions etc are all different, because to the system, it's a brand new thread.

There are a few of us who have the ability to protect the original post and move everything else but even then, that can be a time consuming process and lends itself to mistakes. That's why this method is rarely utilized. And sometimes, once we move it and everthing has been reviewed, it is decided that it's just not worth the amount of time that it would take to sanitize the thread to return it to service. Sometimes it's just easier to remove it and let people start from scratch if it's a topic they're passionate about discussing.

 

[VooDooGasMan]

To add to dans statement of me I Miss KNOWONE, curious now when his last sign in date was.