Moderators--a simple proposal

[tall73]

This is a re-work of a previous suggestion. Since reports are now open we have more options at our disposal.

A. Let everyone who bears an Adventist icon work Adventist reports.

B. Have a simple rule--If a statement is both negative and addresses the poster rather than the discussion topic then there is a violation.

C. The first 5 people, whoever they are, who arrive on the scene work the report, weighing in on the two elements--was the post negative, and did it involve the poster rather than the post? The people must sign their name (as it is anonymous at the moment...mods can check if disputes arise.)

D. If three of the first five agree then a pm a decision is posted in the reports, and sent to the poster in question by pm.

E. Penalties will consist of FSB's from the Adventists section. First offence = a one-day FSB. Second = a one-week FSB. Further offenses = two-week FSB's.

F. The FSB's would be recorded in a forum sticky.

G. Actual moderators would only need to be involved if they violate the FSB.

 

[JonMiller]

If we do this, they shuld clearly point out what is wrong with the post. And if they have to many times when the mods consider them to be in error, they aren't allowed to report anymore.

JM

 

[tall73]

If we do this, they shuld clearly point out what is wrong with the post. And if they have to many times when the mods consider them to be in error, they aren't allowed to report anymore.

JM

Correct, and perhaps I am assuming a couple things based on my previous mod work, but the specific phrase that is in violation, and the reasons why, should be highlighted.

As for spite reporting or false reporting, we could perhaps include something on that.

 

[sentipente]

How does the "offending" post enter the reporting system?

 

[longhair75]

Correct, and perhaps I am assuming a couple things based on my previous mod work, but the specific phrase that is in violation, and the reasons why, should be highlighted.

As for spite reporting or false reporting, we could perhaps include something on that.

Friend Tall73

Many reports fall into these categories. Usually a Mod working the report will simply state that there is no violation or even "nv"

Most action from reported posts occur only after the Moderators reach a consensus. It has been difficult lately to work reports with the CF rules in flux, and no real enforcement power in place

 

[longhair75]

How does the "offending" post enter the reporting system?

Friend Sentipente,

Every report from this forum generates a private message in the inbox of each Moderator assigned to this forum (in this case friends stone, higgs2 and me) and at the same time starts a report thread in the Ecumenical reports forum. This message contains the reported post, a link to the post, a link to the thread where the post may be found, the reason stated by the reporter for initiating the report and finally, a link to the reported person's profile.

 

[sentipente]

Friend Sentipente,

Every report from this forum generates a private message in the inbox of each Moderator assigned to this forum (in this case friends stone, higgs2 and me) and at the same time starts a report thread in the Ecumenical reports forum. This message contains the reported post, a link to the post, a link to the thread where the post may be found, the reason stated by the reporter for initiating the report and finally, a link to the reported person's profile.

According to Tall73's proposal there would no longer be dedicated moderators but any member of the forum with an Adventist icon can work the report. Would reports go to the private box of each member under this proposal?

 

[longhair75]

According to Tall73's proposal there would no longer be dedicated moderators but any member of the forum with an Adventist icon can work the report. Would reports go to the private box of each member under this proposal?

No. The mechanism of the reports are not set up for that to happen. Friend Tall73's idea would work, and the SDA members can contribute to the reports, but there would still need to be actual moderators to finalize issues. If you would like to see how these reports operate, click on the link marked "ecumenical reports" It is the first link in the congregations section.

 

[sentipente]

No. The mechanism of the reports are not set up for that to happen. If you would like to see how these reports operate, click on the link marked "ecumenical reports" It is the first link in the congregations section.

How, then, will the first step in Tall73's proposal work? That is the part I am missing. How will I know that John Doe's post has been reported so that I can go to work on it? (I'm off to check that link).

 

[longhair75]

How, then, will the first step in Tall73's proposal work? That is the part I am missing. How will I know that John Doe's post has been reported so that I can go to work on it? (I'm off to check that link).

Just check the link once in a while. The specific reports from the SDA forum are clearly marked

 

[sentipente]

Thanks, longhair.

 

[longhair75]

You are very welcome

 

[tall73]

Thanks for your input Longhair75. The reports could be viewed pretty simply as you outlined.

Yes, regular mods would still be needed in some instances.

However, my view would be that posts that were deemed personal attacks would stand, WITH a note in the thread that they were deemed a violation, therefore giving instruction on what not to do.

The exception to this would be when privacy was violated, in which case the mods could be called on to edit.

This would give us the 24 hour coverage we need, allow all to see how the system works and get involved, and would allow people to be instructed in how to post properly.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I like the idea of notes in the thread about a violation for instuction.

I'm just not sold on this idea. I guess I see room for error, prejudice, and gossippy situations. "oh my gosh, guess who reported me?" That sort of thing.

I'm not closed to the idea either.....

I just don't know.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Well, wait...I do see a problem with notes in the thread for instruction purposes actually...

That's a surefire way to derail a lot of threads and get them off-topic.

See what I mean?

 

[sentipente]

I thought he was referring to the thread in the reports section.

 

[sentipente]

No one will ever know who made the initial report unless the person identifies himself later in the thread.

 

[TrustAndObey]

So you don't see WHO made the report?

 

[TrustAndObey]

But sent, if the violation is posted in the thread (as in the CHAT thread, Tall might be talking about something else, so I'll need clarification), then people are gonna know who said it to begin with.

 

[sentipente]

So you don't see WHO made the report?

It only says an Anonymous Reporter. Even subsequent contributions to the thread have the same ID.