Forum Moderation Of Posts

[Find Now, Log Later?]

... that, should it be be necessary for moderators to review the contribution of any forum user prior to posting the contribution for public consumption, the forum user is notified, via PM or e-mail, at the time the contribution is reviewed and posted or rejected. The full text of the contribution should be appended to the notification, and, should the moderator decide the contribution needs to be edited or rejected, the forum user should receive a complete and concise explanation as to why such action was deemed necessary.

[+Marcie/Eric]

LOL

[+ShowStop]

Are we moving back to Russia before the fall of the former Soviet Union? Why the need for all this moderation? Do you feel the need for less freedom of speech? Is Groundspeak gonna pay to hire another staff member to head up this Gestapo moderator team? Is one question enough or are 5 too many?

[+carleenp]

Well, OK.... but don't post alot or they will have to spend so much time on writting reports that they will put it off and it will take forever when they do get to it.

 

I can see a brief note, but it sounds like you want some sort of in depth report. Do you honestly not know when you are pushing the line with something?

 

Also why send a copy of a post that is posted to the forum? I could see a copy of something that is not posted and a quick note why. But after that it seems unnecessary.

Edited April 19, 2005 by carleenp

[+woof n lulu]

Take a deep breath Bassoon and back away from the keyboard...

[+WascoZooKeeper]

[+Robespierre]

It's just an attempt to get attention, folks. He doesn't intend it.

[+hydee]

Your asking for the forum moderators to have to jump through a ton of hoops to keep a user happy who was placed on moderated posts because they couldn't follow the forum guidelines to start with. Seems to me they have already invested a lot of time in a user by the time they reach that point.

 

All posts that meet the forum guidelines will be posted without modification. That seems pretty fair.

 

If a user that is placed on moderated posting does not like the idea of his or her posts being read by a moderator before being posted I will offer them one additional option. They may send a request to me asking that terms of their posting ability be adjusted to "disable posting" for duration of the time they would have been on "moderated posting". Then nothing will be at risk of being deleted or edited.

[Angst]

... that, should it be be necessary for moderators to review the contribution of any forum user prior to posting the contribution for public consumption, the forum user is notified, via PM or e-mail, at the time the contribution is reviewed and posted or rejected. The full text of the contribution should be appended to the notification, and, should the moderator decide the contribution needs to be edited or rejected, the forum user should receive a complete and concise explanation as to why such action was deemed necessary.

You are already notified when you are put on moderated posting. No need to beat a dead horse by notifying you again with each successive post.

[+carleenp]

You are already notified when you are put on moderated posting. No need to beat a dead horse by notifying you again with each successive post.

Ooh! Shiny sockpuppet name!

Edited April 19, 2005 by carleenp

[+Renegade Knight]

Posting and appending aside, if posts are in a moderation queue then when and if the post is ever approved for appearance in the forums the notice that the post actually went through should be as automatic as the notice you get that says your post went into the queue to begin with.

 

That's a forum software function. Maybe it's simple to enable. Maybe it doesn't exist. An automatic link to the approved post would suffice in the notice.

 

Since any post that is tweaked should already have the mod who tweaked it saying as much, there should be no need for a change there.

[+Renegade Knight]

... that, should it be be necessary for moderators to review the contribution of any forum user prior to posting the contribution for public consumption, the forum user is notified, via PM or e-mail, at the time the contribution is reviewed and posted or rejected.  The full text of the contribution should be appended to the notification, and, should the moderator decide the contribution needs to be edited or rejected, the forum user should receive a complete and concise explanation as to why such action was deemed necessary.

You are already notified when you are put on moderated posting. No need to beat a dead horse by notifying you again with each successive post.

There is for a few reasons. For one you need to know when you are off moderated posts. So if the first one notifies you, then to keep tabs on your probation you would need some kind of banner "YOU HAVE 122 MORE DAYS OF MODERATED POSTS TO GO" is more work to program than the automatic notice feature.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Are we moving back to Russia before the fall of the former Soviet Union? Why the need for all this moderation? Do you feel the need for less freedom of speech? Is Groundspeak gonna pay to hire another staff member to head up this Gestapo moderator team? Is one question enough or are 5 too many?

I don't think you read my post correctly. I did not call for increased moderation. I would suggest you attempt to comprehend the original post prior to posting questions of an incendiary nature.

[Keystone]

One of the original poster's recent contributions to the forums contained profanity directed at a moderator. This was deleted. If you seriously think that the moderators are going to waste their time explaining that word !@*#2&*! is profanity, that personal attacks are contrary to the forum guidelines, etc., for such posts, then I'd encourage you to frequent a forum where there are moderators with that much time on their hands. Me, I'd much rather direct my efforts into helping people with their questions about geocaching, how to use the website, and so forth.

 

Ordinarily it takes multiple forum guideline violations to get put on modded posting. Often modding begins by a warning within the thread, followed by (usually multiple) written warnings. My suggestion would be to pay heed to those warnings, and make positive contributions to the forum community, which can certainly include respectful dissent and disagreement.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Your asking for the forum moderators to have to jump through a ton of hoops ... All posts that meet the forum guidelines will be posted without modification. That seems pretty fair.

 

If a user that is placed on moderated posting does not like the idea of his or her posts being read by a moderator before being posted I will offer them one additional option. They may send a request to me asking that terms of their posting ability be adjusted to "disable posting" for duration of the time they would have been on "moderated posting". Then nothing will be at risk of being deleted or edited.

Because some of the forum moderators have been known to abuse their positions, it seems perfectly fair to, as you say "make them (all) jump through a few hoops" to assure forum participants that the moderators are also held accountable for their actions.

 

For example, what is the timeframe in which posts must be reviewed? A few hours? A few days? A few weeks?

 

What are the criteria that cause a post to be rejected outright?

 

What are the criteria that would cause a post to be withheld for days before it finally "appears" in its original, unaltered form?

 

...  ("The user") may send a request to me asking that terms of their posting ability be adjusted to "disable posting" for duration of the time they would have been on "moderated posting".

 

Precisely what, and who, determines "the duration of time" that someone "would have been on moderated posting?"

 

The moderators should be held to at least as high a level as accountability as all users.

[+welch]

... that, should it be be necessary for moderators to review the contribution of any forum user prior to posting the contribution for public consumption, the forum user is notified, via PM or e-mail, at the time the contribution is reviewed and posted or rejected. The full text of the contribution should be appended to the notification, and, should the moderator decide the contribution needs to be edited or rejected, the forum user should receive a complete and concise explanation as to why such action was deemed necessary.

You'd need about as many mods as posters... unless the mods can read very quickly.

It would a lot easier to just unplug the forums and put common questions into a FAQ of some sort and redirect everyone there. Anyone that still has questions can either wait for an event and ask there, or bomb the contact email address .

[Jeremy]

take a deep breath... exhale.

 

let. it. go.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

One of the original poster's recent contributions to the forums contained profanity directed at a moderator. This was deleted.

Methinks you don't know even the partial story. The fact is, I intentionally included the "profanity" because I knew it would not be posted ... because over the past several months, any number of posts of mine also never appeared, and no reason was ever given. Other posts, both of an innocuous and substantive nature, were apparently withheld for days (or longer) without explanation ... I can only assume the intent on the part of the moderator was to derail the natural course of those discussions. And the most important fact of the matter is, the post containing the "profanity" proved to be a most effective tool, because since I submited that post, every one of my subsequent posts has appeared in a reasonably timely manner.

 

Now, let's examine the recent behavior of the moderator to whom the "profanity post" was a response: In the days leading up to the post, that moderator (let's use the pseudonym "G.L."):

 

1. Posted under a sockpuppet account.

 

2. Posted off-topic in and/or derailed numerous threads.

 

3. Habitually showed disrespect to other posters, sometimes within the same post where "G.L." was "reminding" other participants to "be respectful."

 

To me, that's clear evidence of a lack of regard for the rules/guidelines that that moderator is charged with upholding. It clearly suggests that the other moderators do not hold "G.L." to the same standard of accountability that they hold "regular forum users." It also raises serious concerns about whether "G.L." performs his "behind the scenes" duties with similar wanton disregard for the rules/guidelines he is supposed to be upholding.

 

Respect and Accountability. It ain't just for "forum users."

[Jeremy]

To me, that's clear evidence of a lack of regard for the rules/guidelines that that moderator is charged with upholding.

The problem, after positioning yourself in front of a mirror, is staring you in the face. Volunteers who help keep this form a nice place honestly don't need to deal with childish activities like your own. If you don't want to play nice I'm perfectly agreeable to keep you in the corner facing the wall.

 

Respect and Accountability.  It ain't just for "forum users."

 

That is true. Are you still looking in the mirror? Perhaps you should take accountability for your own actions and quit blaming others. The action taken against you is extremely rare and normally not done. But you apparently can't learn what is or isn't acceptable in these forums. We're not a day care center and we shouldn't have to act like one. If you don't shape up I'd be happy to show you the door.

[Jeremy]

Addressing the original topic, our future policy will just be to completely ban a user from posting instead of allowing their posts to be moderated. It is entirely too much work to moderate posting. Perhaps the cool down period will be more effective (for some). Serial offenders is another story altogether.

[+Anonymous']

 

Usually I say that there is no such thing as a dumb idea, but that is a really dumb idea. It would take way too much time and effort to moderate every poster.

[+Marcie/Eric]

How do *I* become a moderator?

[+welch]

How do *I* become a moderator?

I think one of the requirements is that you have thick lizard like skin....

[+sbell111]

Whoa. I thought this thread was a joke.

 

I still think the idea is.

[+Miragee]

Addressing the original topic, our future policy will just be to completely ban a user from posting instead of allowing their posts to be moderated. It is entirely too much work to moderate posting. Perhaps the cool down period will be more effective (for some). Serial offenders is another story altogether.

I used to participate in a Forum like that.

 

There were "wagers" on how long it would take for a person to be "Tombstoned" if they continued their non-welcome posting habits.

 

I actually can't imaging "moderating" someone's posts . . .

[+cachew nut]

It seems to me that if some of his posts are not appearing at all then there may be something fishy going on. It might be worthwhile to investigate to see if there is anything more to it.

 

I personally, believe it or not, have experienced some heavy-handedness by some moderators in the past, and just recently just a slap on the wrist when it could have been worse. I've also seen moderators stray from their own assigned forums into other forums to hand out their own versions of justice. Seems like there could be some different standards being applied by different moderators.

 

Anyway, having said all that, I wish to continue contributing productively to these forums, but sorry, I'm not giving up my social security number.

[Jeremy]

Anyway, having said all that, I wish to continue contributing productively to these forums, but sorry, I'm not giving up my social security number.  

No need. We already have that info.

 

In respect to the original poster who cannot respond to my post, I'll be locking this thread. But suffice to say I'm an annoying insensitive hypocritical prick.

 

[edit: who can't spell]

Edited April 21, 2005 by Jeremy

[Find Now, Log Later?]

But suffice to say I'm an annoying insensitive hypocritical prick.

I do, however, admire your honesty.