Questions about Moderation

[Movingon]

Hi Folks

 

If a member's post gets moderated for whatever reason, is there a formal procedure which is followed laying down things like notifying the moderated user, telling them a full and justified reason why their post was edited or unapproved, and advising them who to contact to challenge and/or appeal the decision made?

 

Is there a formal hierarchy of decision verification? i.e. if a post is moderated is the decision referred to a second moderator for ratification?

 

Is there a definitive list of reasons for moderating posts which all (moderators and members) can see which makes clear what policy is being followed by the team?

 

Finally, and perhaps most contentiously, can you reassure me that moderation is ONLY undertaken by post content, and not by poster identity?

 

I think that in a community this large, policing needs to be transparent and fair; and there need to be clearly understood, publicly readable policies to which the membership and the moderating staff can refer.

 

Thanks

Edited November 23, 2008 by jonni2bad
Yes, as my PM to you will show...

[Michael Browne]

In theory, yes, in practice not really.

[jonni2bad]

Hi Folks

 

If a member's post gets moderated for whatever reason, is there a formal procedure which is followed laying down things like notifying the moderated user, telling them a full and justified reason why their post was edited or unapproved, and advising them who to contact to challenge and/or appeal the decision made?

 

Firstly, it will depend upon the situation.

 

If, for instance, a new user to the site (who should have read the site rules but probably wouldn't have) posts something which is believed to be worthy of editing, then it is very likely that they will be notified of the reasons.

 

This would hopefully ensure that the user does not repeat the action.

 

Since time is always at a premium, it might well be that the Site Team member makes multiple edits to a user's posts, or to several users, and then does not have time to contact each member immediately.

 

Experience has shown us that a very small minority of users have no idea why their posts will be edited, or indeed any other actions taken against them.

 

When a user has been given warning about their behaviour and they repeat the same or similar, then I don't suppose we will always consider it a good use of our time to spend even longer repeating ourselves, so posts may be edited, unapproved or otherwise and a message may not be sent.

 

Sometimes, rather than sending a PM, Site Team members may only leave a short note on the bottom of a post.

 

There is no formal requirement, as such.

 

If the posts in question are of such a nature, or if there is a history, or if there are other things that I'm not prepared to share on an open forum, the posts will be reported first, and then edited or unapproved.

 

This ensures that the actions of Site Team members are noted by the rest of the team. It also ensure that the Site Team are full aware of the process involved in any account moderation.

 

Since we trust in the actions of the Site Team and since any edited or unapproving is trackable, there is no reason why an appeals process needs to be implemented for unapproved or edited posts. To do so would simply bog us down with unnecessary work.

 

Where someone replies to a Team member and explains their actions, perhaps by offering a reason why they believe they have done nothing wrong, then that is generally shared with the Site Team as a whole.

 

Is there a formal hierarchy of decision verification? i.e. if a post is moderated is the decision referred to a second moderator for ratification?

 

No. There would be very little point in placing people in a position of trust and asking them to carry out quite minor tasks, only to hinder them by seeking the agreement of another appointed member.

 

If the implication is that Site Team members can carry out actions without the knowledge of the rest of the team, then the answer above clears this up.

 

Is there a definitive list of reasons for moderating posts which all (moderators and members) can see which makes clear what policy is being followed by the team?

 

No.

 

If we were to simply imply that 'only' the transgression of very specific things would result in action, then not only would we be compiling a very, very lengthy set of rules that even less people would bother to read, but we would also be making it quite clear that there could never be any action taken unless every last minute detail of the rule had been broken.

 

We can't get into a position where we have to seek Counsel's opinion.

 

Finally, and perhaps most contentiously, can you reassure me that moderation is ONLY undertaken by post content, and not by poster identity?

 

Firstly, it is only ever really a contentious issue for the very tiny minority who find themselves moderated, or perhaps, at a push - for those who know of someone who has been moderated. We will never know if they get to hear the whole story...

 

As to reassuring you that actions are only specific to post content, no - I cannot do so.

 

For reasons which we - that is the entire team, not me personally - are not prepared to discuss openly, actions have and will continue to be taken which are not singularly attributed to post content.

 

This does not mean, however, that any user's account would face sanctions merely because they had drawn an unlucky number in a sweep stake.

 

I can only generalise, but as a rule a user will not face account moderation (this is the action by which their future posts will need to be approved before they are seen by everyone else) for slight and minor transgression of the site rules and they will be given warning about their conduct, allowing them an opportunity to put right the actions which have been highlighted to them.

 

When I say "generally" I am also referring to the fact that a user might see their account moderated for minor actions, if they were to continually do so - so a build up of minor points might see this happen.

 

This, however, is very rare. Users are typically moderated because they abuse other members of the forum, either openly or via PM, and continue to do so after a warning.

 

Some are also moderated because of reports about their conduct which we believe is harmful to this site. I am not going to discuss individual examples and in fact we do not do this at any time. As a totally fictitious example, perhaps we may have received reports about users touting for business, or charging for items that you and I know to be free.

 

Finally, accounts that are moderated will be known to the site team, but will not be published. When an account faces any form of moderation, other members of the Admin Team will be aware - this means that such actions can not be the result of a despot on Vodka.

 

Much as I like Vodka...

 

Moderation is not just the task of one person. Anyone who feels 'hard done to' can send a message to me, or any other member of the site team. They can also email Admin directly, and copies of this will be circulated. Again, despite a common misconception, the whole Admin team will know of the case.

 

Rogue actions by an individual would be, at best, incredibly difficult to mask.

 

It is also the case that some users simply will not accept that they might just have behaved like school kids and would rather spend their every waking minute attempting to change our minds about their behaviour, even though the evidence of it stares any right minded individual in the face.

 

We will not please everyone, all the time.

 

I think that in a community this large, policing needs to be transparent and fair; and there need to be clearly understood, publicly readable policies to which the membership and the moderating staff can refer.

 

See site rules.

 

We have done our best to highlight some specific actions which are not going to endear users to CAG.

 

The most common problem, by a country mile, is because of users not following the basics of "...be respectful and reasonable to people...".

 

Subsequently, the next biggest problem comes from: "Any attempts to avoid moderation". User Example01 thinks that it will be fine if they simply start a new account, usually as Example02. Others go to more elaborate lengths...

 

We have also been less specific in the case of "The Group reserves the right to delete or edit any topic/post for legal or any other reasons" because this is very hard to quantify, as I explained above.

 

Constable Savage does not operate here...

 

"Now then, Savage, I want to talk to you about some moderating that you've been bringing lately. I think that perhaps you're being a little over-zealous."

 

"Which charges did you mean then, sir?"

 

"Well, for instance this one: 'Responding with too many capital letters.'

 

Savage, maybe you're not aware of this, but it is not illegal to use a capital letter, neither is 'searching the forums' an offence."

 

"Are you sure, sir?"

 

"Also, there's no rule against 'Logging in at 1pm' or 'starting 2 threads each week' "

 

You get the drift... I hope that your questions were answered in full.

Edited November 23, 2008 by jonni2bad

[Bigmac versus]

There are users who are hell bent on causing grief and through their actions stop genuine peeps getting help. It is a difficult job being a moderator and quite often a thankless task as the claims of over moderating are cried quite often by these problem users. There are times when moderators efforts are appreciated but these are few and far between. CAG needs to be protected first and foremost and if that means removing or editing peeps posts then most people will understand the reasoning for it regardless if they agree with it or not.

 

Keep up the good work Team.

 

George

[Movingon]

George; this thread was not intended to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of anything. Mine were genuine questions aimed at the site team; questions which have been raised through things I have heard and seen. I won't discuss them further because it would be counter-productive. Suffice to say I have reason to ask the specific questions I have asked, and the answers have confirmed my fears and increased my discomfort.

 

So - thanks J2B for your reply, and I would be quite happy if the thread were now closed because its purpose is clearly served and further replies debating the issue would serve only to raise tensions.

[jonni2bad]

OK.

 

I will in that case close the thread.