Mac_Fife wrote:The site administrator/owner is responsible for ensuring that the site stays on the right side of the law and meets the terms and condition imposed by the hosting service or provider: Those terms are a contract between the site owner and the host and it may not always be appropriate for those terms to be public knowledge, and in that respect the owner needs to be "cut some slack" on vetoing certain content, but I don't really expect that to ever become a major issue: If it does then it probably means we have bigger problems anyway.
I’ve never imagined such a thing. What would an example be?
I agree that when a post is being edited, deleted or otherwise changed the reason should be clear in the moderators mind. I think good rules for the moderator to work from makes the likelihood of bias less. I don’t know that will reduce the claims of bias. I do think the rules and citing them will make claims of bias less believable.
Lord Chaos wrote:My approach to moderating would probably be more draconian than some people would like. I would enforce:
Clarity. Some posts I've seen on MOUL and others are simply incomprehensible. Send 'em back and tell the writer to try again.
Kindness. Give the other person a break; maybe they had an off day and weren't as clear as they wanted to be.
Patience. If this post isn't clear, let them try again.
I like these ideas. I can’t see a way to enforce them and keep a discussion moving. Forums have randomness in when people post and each post changes the tone of the conversation. Even when a post is removed it likely lives for some time and colors the following posts.
I also think Clarity is a subjective thing. I’m not sure how one would decide objectively. On several forums what Chaos calls kindness they refer to as respect. Make the assumption they are at least rational of thought and mean well. I see patience as part of respect too.
Mac_Fife’s
post…
I agree consistent enforcement is important. The nature of moderation tends to make that difficult. On a busy forum moderators can’t read everything. Consistent enforcement is really up to the forum members, IMO. I also believe that reduces the work placed on moderators.
The severity of posts… item #3… inaccuracies and mischaracterization… in many cases these are difficult to call. I think any claim/statement that could be slander require authentication/substantiation and possibly rewording. In such case I think a moderator should immediately place a note in the post citing the problem and rule and request clarification with notice of pending action.
I don’t know if we can suspend a thread or post (temporarily hide) on this forum. In some a moderator can. In others they can’t. I suggest any method for handling such posts assume we can’t suspend posts.
Item #4 – this moves into the area of
ad hominem attacks (See
POST). I would like to have a clear rule on what is and is not acceptable. My belief is a person losing a point in a discussion often resorts to personal attacks and name calling. They have nothing else left. Citing the rule and identifying the problem fits with the idea that posts may not be removed but will likely get used as an example of poor behavior.
There is the consideration of whether posts are removed or the text is changed by the moderator. Revisionism is a real consideration in my mind. I tend to favor leaving all posts except those that break criminal laws, i.e., racial, religious and sexual hate. Even then I would likely leave the post and replace the body text of it with a citation of why the text was removed.
With posts that break rules, I think adding what they did wrong to the post is better than removing them. Condemning the behavior and warning that future abuse of the rules will result in some action is better.
What other actions are open to a moderator? Can a user be suspended for a week? That lets the discussion move on without them. For a point that is of value to them that is some measure of discomfort.
The continuation of these ideas is what does one do when a person repeatedly must be edited and warned? Is there a point when banning is appropriate? Where is that point? Is it a private or public thing? Is there an appeal process?