Moderation System and Governance Structure

[drstevej]

It assumes the worst about THE LISTS. But, I'll take your word for it that my broad brushing was overly wide. But you have to admit that a list of Bad Things People Have Done is rarely consulted to find kudos-material.

The list was often consulted to see what the track record was. Often is was very good.

 

[heymikey80]

How is it prejudicial? If someone committed a violation, then it's just a record of it.

Here's how prejudice works, taking an example from recent US history.

The police in a certain area tag certain modes of dress or certain ethnicity or religious affiliation as an indication of criminality. They keep individuals under intense scrutiny, reporting every purported violation, building their method of declaring violations off the prejudiced group's "obvious intent to be criminals."

Such people became marginalized parts of the society, because they were "always getting in trouble."

Meanwhile, those who weren't tagged were essentially free to do as they pleased, coming under scrutiny only with grievous violations of the social order.

Tell me how this won't happen here. I don't particularly trust those with power not to be corrupted. All sociological experiments indicate they shall become corrupted without a strong checking power by some other group.

For instance, I came here after witnessing a number of people attacking another group of people, calling them names like "Alzheimer's victim", "dishonest and shameful", "unrepentant", "the usual suspects", "hardened", "so far gone".

Is the system capable of analyzing these statements, finding and reporting them in all the volume of what goes on in CF? And if not, can a discussion of this breadth ans sensitivity last without broad and sensitive constraints placed on it?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Exactly.

I fully appreciate the need for staff to have fully information when making decisions but to hold something against someone even years after they may have made a mistake is very un-Christ-like.

Perhaps there could be a system whereby the older notices are coloured differently than the ones obtained within the last 6 months? Or they become smaller and smaller?

 

[Edial]

Perhaps there could be a system whereby the older notices are coloured differently than the ones obtained within the last 6 months? Or they become smaller and smaller?

It is my guess that CF wants to start keeping records of violations.
Which is good.

It is also my guess that the functionality of the software allows for the warnings (notices) to stay forever, or expire in one's profile.
So, in order to keep records, the warnings (notices) are set not to expire.

Technically this makes sense because it automates the record-keeping.

Yet, there are ways to keep records manually while having the warnings (notices) set to expire in one's profile.

Some mods clearly have a problem issuing notices that stay in one's profile forever. They do not feel posters deserve having a permanent mark on their profile.

It is also my guess that CF weighed the option of automating the record-keeping against having it done manually.

I do not see how the mods that do not feel comfortable with this new modification would be able to issue notices (do their jobs) knowing that they do not expire.

So far I am doing a lot of guessing.

In any case, so far I have not seen an inclination by CF to change this new procedure.

We'll see.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[woobadooba]

The old system was better because it gave people a fresh start every year, kind of like the Day of Atonement...

Keeping a permanent record of guilt however, only goes to show how far this place has fallen from grace.

Do not remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; According to Your mercy remember me, For Your goodness' sake, O LORD. (Psa 25:7)

FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
(Heb 8:12)

 

[Edial]

The old system was better because it gave people a fresh start every year, kind of like the Day of Atonement...

Keeping a permanent record of guilt however, only goes to show how far this place has fallen from grace.

Do not remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; According to Your mercy remember me, For Your goodness' sake, O LORD. (Psa 25:7)

FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
(Heb 8:12)

Actually I heard some good news concerning this, but not from CF for some reason. Tenebrae tested it.

When warnings became unexpired notices I was concerned that a Notice would be visible to all forever, since warnings were (yet had an expiration point).

Tenebrae tested it on the sock and assured some of us that Notices on a profile are not visible to a general public.
Apparently CF changed the rights, but for some reason did not notify the mods.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Tenebrae]

Actually I heard some good news concerning this, but not from CF for some reason. Tenebrae tested it.

When warnings became unexpired notices I was concerned that a Notice would be visible to all forever, since warnings were (yet had an expiration point).

Tenebrae tested it on the sock and assured some of us that Notices on a profile are not visible to a general public.
Apparently CF changed the rights, but for some reason did not notify the mods.

Thanks,
Ed

Yup

Notices can only be seen by moderator staff and the person who has the notice

 

[Edial]

Yup

Notices can only be seen by moderator staff and the person who has the notice

Thanks for your good work.

Ed

 

[A New Dawn]

Actually I heard some good news concerning this, but not from CF for some reason. Tenebrae tested it.

When warnings became unexpired notices I was concerned that a Notice would be visible to all forever, since warnings were (yet had an expiration point).

Tenebrae tested it on the sock and assured some of us that Notices on a profile are not visible to a general public.
Apparently CF changed the rights, but for some reason did not notify the mods.

Thanks,
Ed

That is the way it always was when we had the warnings displayed on the profile. That was never in question to me. It was having them there for staff to see continually, even after they expire.

 

[Edial]

That is the way it always was when we had the warnings displayed on the profile. That was never in question to me. It was having them there for staff to see continually, even after they expire.

My concern was that notices would be displayed forever for all to see.

It is embarassing.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Since we bes moving to this new system why not just get rid of all the junk from the old system then? Or will we have to carry these no-longer-applicable infraction points around for the rest of our natural born days too?

Honestly things would go a lot better with a self-policing freedom of speech environment rather than a nanny-state one where bullies can switch over to crybaby mode at a moment's notice and get anyone they wish into "trouble" by complaining of things that don't even violate rules, only their thin-skinned prejudices. Ohhhh they don't want to have to hear the truth, so it becomes a "flame" or a "personal attack" all of a sudden to speak the truth about when someone has mistreated you and make them have to hear it!! Oh horrors!!! That kind of crap just needs to be eliminated and in fact those pulling it need to be "noticed" -- not those they target for this little nasty game.

 

[Amoranemix]

1.2. With the exception of the aforementioned protocol, all rule violations (by members with 50 posts or over) will result in a Notice. A notice is a warning (renamed), which is recorded in the member's profile, but carries no points. Notices will not expire. Violations that occur at or around the same time may be combined into a single Notice, provided the rule violating posts are documented in the Notice message.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Is it correct that a notice is only given for behaviour that violates forum rules, regardless of whether the behaviour is appropriate or not ? So an appropriate post that violates a forum rule should generate a notice while an inappropriate post that does not violate a forum rule should not generate one. Correct ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1.4.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] For members that persistently violate forum rules, or cause significant disruption in the forums, an Administrative Warning may be issued. Administrative Warnings remain in effect for 2 months, during which time the receiving member is on strict probation. Any violations of these rules may result in a permanent ban. If the violation is minor, the administrators may opt for a lighter penalty.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What is significant disruption ? What are 'the administrators ? Why does a violation during the probation period by default result in a ban ? Why is the first ban permanent ? How long is a permanent ban (this I asked several times already and I still haven't received an answer) ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

An Administrative Warning may be issued at any time, at the discretion of the administrators.

Does that mean there must be no good reason for an administrative warning ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The Reconciliation Team may overturn any suspensions or bans at their discretion.

They may may overturn those sanctions for whathever reason, right, for example because they are befriended to the victim ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The first staff member to comment in a report is responsible for taking ownership of that report. If he feels the post is in violation, he should unilaterally edit/delete the post or thread. The report should remain open, so that consensus may then be reached. If consensus finds that the post is in violation, a Notice may be issued, and the report closed without further action or review. If consensus finds that the post was not in violation, the post/thread should be restored.

Although I don't necessarily think that is a bad protocol under better circumstances, I still would like to be told the reasoning behind it. There is an obvious drawback that is illustrated by a mistreatment I received recently. Recently a post of mine was wrongly deleted and staff violated several protocols in doing so one of which was that the post was deleted without staff consensus. After 30 days the post has still not been restored. It is bad that staff misbehave by violating protocol, but legalizing staff misconduct by allowing it in the rules is even worse. Why is it being done ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

4.1. Moderators will only have access to their staff tools in their assigned forums. Outside of their assigned forums, moderators will not have access to any staff tools, and should be regarded as regular members.

Why is that ? During the semi-democratic period this was also under consideration and I was weakly against it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

4.4. Superadministrators will be the only staff with access to the Administrator Control Panel (AdminCP).

Why do administrators no longer have access to the administrator control panel ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

5.1. Moderators are responsible for actioning reports, including editing/deleting posts, closing threads, and issuing Counseling PM's and Notices. They may guide discussions, through the use of mod hats or staff notes.
5.2. Supervisors are responsible for oversight of a forum category. They may vote and participate in reports, and overturn moderator actions or consensus, when necessary
[*]. Supervisors cannot set forum policy or guidelines, nor discipline or manage staff. Supervisors are appointed by the Reconciliation Team.

[*] What qualifies as necessary ? Who decided whether it is necessary ? In what situations would that specification be useful and in what situations would it be detrimental ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]As far as I understand, the differences between moderators and supervisors are :[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- supervisors can use moderator tools everywhere[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- supervisors oversee a forum category, but what does that mean ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- supervisors can override moderator consensus[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]- supervisors are chosen by the RT among moderators[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Correct ?[/FONT]

5.3. Administrators are responsible for hearing appeals, setting forum guidelines, and managing team staff. Administrators issue Administrative Warnings, temporary suspensions, and bans. Administrators are appointed by the Advisors.

What is the procedure for imposing an administrative warning ?

5.4. The Reconciliation Team is responsible for hearing appeals, and conducting staff reviews. The Reconciliation Team may issue disciplinary action, as appropriate, to team staff (moderators, supervisors, and administrators), including forum reassignment, Letters of Counsel, Letters of Reprimand, demotion, and removal from staff.

Who decides what is appropriate and based on what ?

[4] If a member becomes a significant disruption, or has violated the rules frequently, the administrators collectively discuss the issuance of an Administrative Warning. An Administrative Warning remains in effect for 2 months, and would be a member's last warning, before a ban is applied.

Why is the subject not counseled before being issued an administrative warning ? The ban protocol I wikied foresaw counseling.

[6] The first staff member to comment is expected to take take action unilaterally. E.g, staff member A is the first one to comment in the report, he feels the post is in violation, so he edits the post (the use of deletions is highly discouraged unless the post cannot be salvaged[1]). The report remains open, so that consensus may be attained. If the other forum staff agree with the action taken, a Notice is issued, and the report is closed without further review. If the other forum staff disagree with the action taken, then the post is restored, and the report is closed.[2]

[1] How is the deletion of posts discouraged ? [2] Is the member compensated or apologized to for his/her mistreatment ? If so, how will that be done and if not, why not ?

That doesn't really explain whey notices never expire. Under the old system, everything expired after a year, so if you received some warnings about a particular way you posted and you changed your posting style and didn't receive any new warnings, the old ones would go away, showing that you positively responded to moderator advice. Now they stay on your record forever, whether or not you have improved the way you post.

The entries in the criminal record I proposed during the semi-democratic period also never expired, but due to the different circumstances under which they were kept I thought members would be sufficiently protected. I am generally against information being lost, but I agree that anything staff can use to harass members under the current state of the message board would better be lost quickly.

Notices are not disciplinary in nature; they are a means of documenting violations. I.e. in the past, warnings and infractions expired because they were point-based. After a set number of infractions accumulated, bans were automatically issued.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If notices are not disciplinary in nature, why do newbies receive counselling PMs ISO notices ? Disciplinary or not, are they to be used against the recipient ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

I wouldn't worry anyway. This site changes drastically every few months, just wait for the next change and then they'll probably disappear

It seems to get worse every few months since LeeD took over. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

It's prejudicial because people are not the same this year as they were two years ago. Yes, keeping the record will show that change, granted
[*]. But the fact of the matter is that such lists are never looked at in order to show good things about people--they're always used to find ammunition.

[*] I disagree. How many rule violations a member is framed for does not only depend on the member him/herself. It also depends on the forum, the rules, the other members and staff. A member may also receive less notices because his/her belief changed or (s)he became better at licking the right people's boots, which says nothing about the quality of the member.[/FONT]

The list was often consulted to see what the track record was. Often is was very good.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Thus in the old days positive feedback was also given in the record. What sort of feedback was that ? It would appear that the member's current record will only contain negative feedback.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

[/FONT]Tell me how this won't happen here. I don't particularly trust those with power not to be corrupted. All sociological experiments indicate they shall become corrupted without a strong checking power by some other group.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

There seemed to be insufficient oversight of staff after the first totalitarian reforms. Perhaps there will be more now, or perhaps there will be even less.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Is the system capable of analyzing these statements, finding and reporting them in all the volume of what goes on in CF? And if not, can a discussion of this breadth ans sensitivity last without broad and sensitive constraints placed on it?

Probably not.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Perhaps there could be a system whereby the older notices are coloured differently than the ones obtained within the last 6 months? Or they become smaller and smaller?

I think that would be a good idea. Insufficient, but all little bits help.[/FONT]

Some mods clearly have a problem issuing notices that stay in one's profile forever. They do not feel posters deserve having a permanent mark on their profile.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]It is indeed conceivable that some staff members would find a notice too severe because it lasts forever and will therefore refuse to give one even if it would be appropriate.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Tenebrae tested it on the sock and assured some of us that Notices on a profile are not visible to a general public.
Apparently CF changed the rights, but for some reason did not notify the mods.

Communication is still not one of the PTB's strengths.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Honestly things would go a lot better with a self-policing freedom of speech environment rather than a nanny-state one where bullies can switch over to crybaby mode at a moment's notice and get anyone they wish into "trouble" by complaining of things that don't even violate rules, only their thin-skinned prejudices. Ohhhh they don't want to have to hear the truth, so it becomes a "flame" or a "personal attack" all of a sudden to speak the truth about when someone has mistreated you and make them have to hear it!! Oh horrors!!! That kind of crap just needs to be eliminated and in fact those pulling it need to be "noticed" -- not those they target for this little nasty game.

I didn't understand the part where you explained how your proposal would earn LeeD more money. Please try again.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What do notices look like ? How are they formulated, kept and displayed ? Where can they be found ? Will they be deleted or reformulated if they do the member injustice ?[/FONT]

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Umm, yeah, will someone give me an explanation for why someone decided it would be a good idea to have protestants moderate OBOB?

Thanks.

 

[Rochir]

Or, for that matter, catholic mods moderating in non-catholic areas?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Hmm, there are Catholics moderating non-Catholic sections of the Congregational fora? Weird.

Who thought this up?!

 

[bubblefish]

Are they supers? As far as I know, supers are now modding over a category (similar to when we had a 'team structure'), so would be listed, but I assume that there would be some policy in place to stop them modding actively in other Congregational forums?

 

[Cirke]

I would like to see if anyone is willing to continue this discussion....hmmmm... It was very interesting to me to see why the mods are selective in what they consider "flaming"... But ah... no wonder if the Catholics are moderating the theology forums and the Protos the catholic....hmmmm... that makes great sense.. I see.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

"Flaming" is moderator code for statements the moderators don't like.

I've actually been accused of flaming for saying things like "No, Catholics don't believe Mary is God". I'm not exaggerating or leaving anything out.

 

[Philothei]

Pretty subjective since the mods do not follow rules either....sad

 

[MrJim]

Pretty subjective since the mods do not follow rules either....sad

Just found out the Rep Daddy DrSteve was banned~~thought this place was gonna change with Mr. Lee's takeover; I regularly check announcements and such, seems most are concerned with freakin' dolls and avatars and in the meanwhile everything else just sorta spirals down the drain...many of the congregational forums are dryin' up~used to be a hopping place around here, glad at least I got to experience some of it before it the flush.