Since reports are fixed... you should probably be told the new Moderation Protocol

[Davidnic]

So let me get this right--anytime a moderator feels like your post ought to be edited you get written up???

If so y'all better freakin' make sure it breaks an actual rule and doesn't just offend your personal sensibilities....

There are posts of mine that for the sake of taste and charity it was better to edit--but that didn't break any rules...

"Persistently" is rather vague, no?

I understand your worries. I'm sure many people share them. Each area now has a supervisor to make sure mod actions are done consistently. This person only mods in one area so they can help to make sure everyone in that area is getting the same fair treatment. I am one of the Supervisors. If people want to know how the rules are viewed and modded they are free to ask and I guarantee they will get an answer, it may take a bit because we are going to ensure the answer is the right one. It is the hope that all rules are going to be enforced consistently across the board.

Let me give a scenario on how something might go down. Since it is one of the rules that people think is vague let's pick a firecracker to start:

Do not say racist or sexist things. If the swear filter is activated, edit your post, don't try to bypass it. Don't post graphics or text you would not be comfortable sharing with someone's grandmother.

With the above rule I can say that using euphemisms of words blocked by the filter in a context other than in a medical or recovery situation/discussion will likely be a violation.

So let's say a post gets reported for this and staff feels it is a violation. Edit and notice. The member can go to the reconciliation team if they feel this was done inappropriately.

Let's say the member chooses not to and over some time notices build up. And the staff sends it all to the admins. At that point every admin looks at the whole history of the situation. That is why a notice is done for everything...not just to document member actions but to make sure that all mod actions (good or bad) are documented.

All of the admins look at the situation. If they feel the rule(s) was enforced properly they will likely give an administrative warning. If they feel the mods are improperly enforcing a rule(s) they will let those mods know and steps will be taken to make sure everyone is on the same page and the member is not punished for situations that were not breaches of the rules.

If a member disagrees with admin decision they can go to the reconciliation team for review.

So all in all this system will make enforcement of the rules consistent across the board. It will document all actions by member and mod and if there are major situations then the admin review for the warning and the reconciliation team will make sure everything is consistent.

And it will be on the supervisors to make sure that consistency is being carried out area to area.


Any questions?

 

[helenofbritain]

Until and unless flagrant reporting of posters becomes a rules violation I continue to play under protest.

The lily livered sissy pants among use have been known the report every post I put up for day on end.

Sooner or later something is going to stick.

No it wont. If you are reported for posts that are NVs, they are NVs. Volume of reports doesn't necessarily equal culpability.

And the mods already keep an eye out for spite reporting, so you can relax on that score.

 

[helenofbritain]

..and if there are no more infractions how come I still have one ?

Probably because they haven't got around to wiping them yet. The techs are busy.

 

[helenofbritain]

So let me get this right--anytime a moderator feels like your post ought to be edited you get written up???

If so y'all better freakin' make sure it breaks an actual rule and doesn't just offend your personal sensibilities....

There are posts of mine that for the sake of taste and charity it was better to edit--but that didn't break any rules...

"Persistently" is rather vague, no?

And Cos' what the? Where you been? I read Vonnegut just for you and you bailed....

Shannon.

Mods only do things to posts that have been reported. They can't edit posts at random. If they report them first though...

That being said, if the first mod on a report, say, deletes a post because they think it broke the rules, but the next three mods say NV, the post will be reinstated and no action taken.

While posts may be unilaterally edited/deleted by the first mod on the spot, Notices are not sent out until consensus has been reached.

So one power-tripping mod can't ruin anyone's reputation by issuing a heap of Notices on their own.

 

[helenofbritain]

So let me get this right--anytime a moderator feels like your post ought to be edited you get written up???

If so y'all better freakin' make sure it breaks an actual rule and doesn't just offend your personal sensibilities....

There are posts of mine that for the sake of taste and charity it was better to edit--but that didn't break any rules...

"Persistently" is rather vague, no?

And Cos' what the? Where you been? I read Vonnegut just for you and you bailed....

Shannon.

Mods only do things to posts that have been reported. They can't edit posts at random. If they report them first though...

That being said, if the first mod on a report, say, deletes a post because they think it broke the rules, but the next three mods say NV, the post will be reinstated and no action taken.

While posts may be unilaterally edited/deleted by the first mod on the spot, Notices are not sent out until consensus has been reached.

So one power-tripping mod can't ruin anyone's reputation by issuing a heap of Notices on their own.

 

[Davidnic]

Shannon.

Mods only do things to posts that have been reported. They can't edit posts at random. If they report them first though...

That being said, if the first mod on a report, say, deletes a post because they think it broke the rules, but the next three mods say NV, the post will be reinstated and no action taken.

While posts may be unilaterally edited/deleted by the first mod on the spot, Notices are not sent out until consensus has been reached.

So one power-tripping mod can't ruin anyone's reputation by issuing a heap of Notices on their own.

Yep. And big thanks for starting this thread HOB.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Can I become a mod ?

Oh, who am I kidding.

 

[helenofbritain]

Another thing.

Notices will be clear about what happened. Someone with, say, 10 Notices for debating in OBOB and blatant flames will be treated differently to someone with 10 Notices for posts edited for borderline-ness.

That said, after 10 borderline Notices, it would be likely that the poster wasn't getting the message, and might need a talking to (rather than a banning) by an Admin anyway.

 

[helenofbritain]

Can I become a mod ?

Oh, who am I kidding.

Mod applications are on hold until July...

But if you apply to Team Faith you've got my vote

 

[helenofbritain]

Yep. And big thanks for starting this thread HOB.

No worries

And congrats on being made a Supervisor, David. You'll be great!

 

[helenofbritain]

...and bump!

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Shannon.

Mods only do things to posts that have been reported. They can't edit posts at random. If they report them first though...

That being said, if the first mod on a report, say, deletes a post because they think it broke the rules, but the next three mods say NV, the post will be reinstated and no action taken.

While posts may be unilaterally edited/deleted by the first mod on the spot, Notices are not sent out until consensus has been reached.

So one power-tripping mod can't ruin anyone's reputation by issuing a heap of Notices on their own.

Look let's be honest about the reality --moderators in OBOB have a history of treating posters like children and want to edit/delte things that might not be in line with their sensibilities--but are not in fact breaking rules. Report threads go something like "I vote n/v but it really needs to be edited." WHy? If it isn't breaking a rule--who cares if it's nice or not--moderators are there to enforce the rules as stated- not to decide whether or not a post is in accordance with their personal taste. Either a post is or is not breaking the rules--and the rules ought to be clear enough and concrete enough that absolutely NO interpretation is neccessary to apply them.

I don't know why I even am wasting the time- this site really kinda blows now and decent conversations are few and far between...

 

[Miss Shelby]

Look let's be honest about the reality --moderators in OBOB have a history of treating posters like children and want to edit/delte things that might not be in line with their sensibilities--but are not in fact breaking rules. Report threads go something like "I vote n/v but it really needs to be edited." WHy? If it isn't breaking a rule--who cares if it's nice or not--moderators are there to enforce the rules as stated- not to decide whether or not a post is in accordance with their personal taste. Either a post is or is not breaking the rules--and the rules ought to be clear enough and concrete enough that absolutely NO interpretation is neccessary to apply them.

I don't know why I even am wasting the time- this site really kinda blows now and decent conversations are few and far between...

you are so totally my queen--even when we could see our report threads and participate in them, the mods would ignore (you)--the reportee-- and refer to you in the 3rd person. condescending. I want CaDan moderating in here.

 

[Davidnic]

Look let's be honest about the reality --moderators in OBOB have a history of treating posters like children and want to edit/delte things that might not be in line with their sensibilities--but are not in fact breaking rules. Report threads go something like "I vote n/v but it really needs to be edited." WHy? If it isn't breaking a rule--who cares if it's nice or not--moderators are there to enforce the rules as stated- not to decide whether or not a post is in accordance with their personal taste. Either a post is or is not breaking the rules--and the rules ought to be clear enough and concrete enough that absolutely NO interpretation is neccessary to apply them.

I don't know why I even am wasting the time- this site really kinda blows now and decent conversations are few and far between...

So you would like a rule on things like language and such (anything that "offends personal sensibilities") that leaves no room for interpretation.

 

[Miss Shelby]

honestly, get some new blood in here. Get rid of the closed OBOB mod forum on a separate site where you all go to discuss things, and get some unbiased mods in here.

 

[MikeK]

So you would like a rule on things like language and such (anything that "offends personal sensibilities") that leaves no room for interpretation.

I can't answer for anyone else, but I would like that very much. Publish a list of words that must not be used and update it as needed.

We had a poster get banned for saying "sucks donkey wang" for crying out loud. Yes I know it was the last straw, but a straw is just a straw. That was dumb. If my grandmother saw adults getting punnished for stuff like that, she'd say "are the owners at that board always such pussies"? She's old and tough. She lived through the great depression and lost her husband in a tragic accident when they weren't yet 25. To imply that she would be insulted by language that someone might use in an internet conversation would likely be far more offensive to her than the language itself. The fact that she's old doesn't make her an idiot that tears up everytime a sassy word or "bad" topic gets mentioned. If anything, her years on thi splanet have made her even less sensitive to such talk - she's seen it all before and likely wouldn't care at all.

 

[Davidnic]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I would like that very much. Publish a list of words that must not be used and update it as needed.

We had a poster get banned for saying "sucks donkey wang" for crying out loud. Yes I know it was the last straw, but a straw is just a straw. That was dumb. If my grandmother saw adults getting punnished for stuff like that, she'd say "are the owners at that board always such pussies"? She's old and tough. She lived through the great depression and lost her husband in a tragic accident when they weren't yet 25. To imply that she would be insulted by language that someone might use in an internet conversation would likely be far more offensive to her than the language itself. The fact that she's old doesn't make her an idiot that tears up everytime a sassy word or "bad" topic gets mentioned. If anything, her years on thi splanet have made her even less sensitive to such talk - she's seen it all before and likely wouldn't care at all.

Well, to add my view to that, I would love a more specific rule on profanity. I can say with confidence that we are one of the more lenient areas.

As far as a list of words...you likely won't get a published list of profanity. At least I'd be surprised if you did. But more specific guidance is possible. With all the changes lately I'll see who that issue is raised with (I've done it before but everything was in flux).

If people want it more specific I'll see what I can do.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Yes I know it was the last straw

The last straw in a pile which was created by droned responses to cry baby reports.

That a mod can't rule on something unless it's been reported is stupid. In effect it comes down to the tattle tales making the call.

 

[Miss Shelby]

and secret mod forums off site and separate from regular mod forums breeds bias amongst mods and distrust amongst members.

 

[Davidnic]

honestly, get some new blood in here. Get rid of the closed OBOB mod forum on a separate site where you all go to discuss things, and get some unbiased mods in here.

You want some new mods then ask the people you want to be mods to apply when the apps reopen.

As far as the second point, having someplace to talk is more convenient than IM all the time. We don't make any decisions anywhere that are not also in the reports fully. Almost every staff member talks to each other about CF stuff on IM, google chat, some on the telephone and other means. There is nothing nefarious about that...especially when CF used to have such a habit of crashing. You know the nefarious things I talk to other staff about off site (be it somewhere else, IM, Google chat): Prayer requests that may be a bit to sensitive for open forums (like a health situation or death you can not share in public yet because you don't want a loved one to see it on a message board first), staying in contact during upgrades, asking for feedback from the other mods on how I am doing, general worries and notices about computer trouble or leave of absences that I like to have collected for my reference rather than spread across time and space. It's the same thing people use IM and MSN for, real time staff discussions, brainstorming and such.

When I was an admin in theology my co-admin and I would talk twice a day on MSN messenger about division of duties, what was up and problem issues. I did not then copy transcripts onto CF because anything relevant was always repeated in a decision...usually about 15 times before it was all said and done. The same thing with any other off site discussion I have be it a message program, other site, phone (never done that), PM, email or any other type of discussion.

As far as getting unbiased people if you think other mods would allow the language and such that goes on around OBOB...be my guest to try it anywhere else on the forum. Seriously, see how long it lasts. You think we are biased...give it a whirl.

You know you really know how to kick people in the teeth for trying.