Moderators who can't recognize spam

sopsych · 10-09-2012, 02:06 PM

I want a relaxed atmosphere. My point is that fast-moving threads are where strife often takes place, with people going at each other instead of reporting posts. (That applies to probably every online community that I've followed.)

On another note, concerning informally reporting problems and moderator presence, I've only seen one moderator whose posts always make that clear. Can someone else change his or her set-up so that readers instantly will know it's a moderator? Especially if it's a moderator issuing a public No-no. Maybe that guy wouldn't have started this thread if he'd known who to contact with his complaint. And bartenders usually wear bartender-identifying clothing, you know

Edit: on some forums, the moderator usernames are listed under each page of threads, which would help a little.

Mojo · 10-09-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

With a PM, you send a message to that user. With a moderation notice like that, you send a message to the whole community.

I don't think it matters so much that you wouldn't like it because I don't think you'd do anything that would warrant such moderation. Neither do I think it's a punishment's requirement that you would like it done to you before it's a valid strategy. I wouldn't like to be publicly moderated either or to go to prison for that matter. That doesn't mean I can't see the value of these things as consequences for rulebreaking.

If people on these forums are aware of the consequences for breaking rules, but choose to break them anyways, then I generally don't feel sorry for them when they suffer those consequences. Getting moderated in public is not such a gruesome punishment for namecalling in public. In my opinion, the punishment fits the crime.

edit :

I also think it would be effective; people would soon learn not to do it. Which of course would be the point of doing it this way in the first place.

Are people not already aware of the consequences? I mean, if someone takes the time to read the rules and know what they can and can't do then surely they know that something may happen if they break them?

Then when they break them we act on it, message the user privately as it frankly isnt anyone elses business and if they do it again we take it further.

I think I see what you're saying. That if these things were made visible it may deter others from doing the same thing but if someone else does the very same thing then we would privately message them and take the same action with them too.

Really I think that beyond that, beyond having rules and acting on those who break them, I don't think making everything visible to everyone else is necessary. Not unless the problem was way out of hand and the forum was imploding as a result of all the work moderators were being given, which it isn't.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 10-09-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

On another note, concerning informally reporting problems and moderator presence, I've only seen one moderator whose posts always make that clear. Can someone else change his or her set-up so that readers instantly will know it's a moderator? Especially if it's a moderator issuing a public No-no. Maybe that guy wouldn't have started this thread if he'd known who to contact with his complaint. And bartenders usually wear bartender-identifying clothing, you know

Edit: on some forums, the moderator usernames are listed under each page of threads, which would help a little.

Look at my username, then back to yours, then back to mine, now back to yours. What do you see?

I'm on a horse.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 10-09-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

With a PM, you send a message to that user. With a moderation notice like that, you send a message to the whole community.

I don't think it matters so much that you wouldn't like it because I don't think you'd do anything that would warrant such moderation. Neither do I think it's a punishment's requirement that you would like it done to you before it's a valid strategy. I wouldn't like to be publicly moderated either or to go to prison for that matter. That doesn't mean I can't see the value of these things as consequences for rulebreaking.

If people on these forums are aware of the consequences for breaking rules, but choose to break them anyways, then I generally don't feel sorry for them when they suffer those consequences. Getting moderated in public is not such a gruesome punishment for namecalling in public. In my opinion, the punishment fits the crime.

edit :

I also think it would be effective; people would soon learn not to do it. Which of course would be the point of doing it this way in the first place.

Nope I disagree with this. There are members that are usually well behaved that slip up sometimes in the heat in the moment. I do not think it would be effective to pubically state their post has been moderated. Another reason is I feel like it's the whole freedom of speech thing, if you mess it up yes you get a warning (or infraction depending on what has happened), but having your post edited would not be fair. I also believe that other members will see 'moderator has edited this text' and wonder what actually was there to warrent an edit and possibly create another thread like this to go on and on for 15 pages.

As far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Are we able to actually move on now? I'd like to think we are on the same page after discussing it for 12 pages.

Burning Down · 10-09-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

Look at my username, then back to yours, then back to mine, now back to yours. What do you see?

I'm on a horse.

Jeez man, get off your high horse for ****'s sake.

Stephen · 10-09-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

I do not think it would be effective to pubically state their post has been moderated.

party pooper

Guybrush · 10-09-2012, 05:31 PM

Well, feel free to disagree. I've been an active member on a couple of boards with that style of moderation and I was impressed, both with how they were moderated and with the friendliness in tone on both those boards. I also liked it because it shows clearly that the rules actually mean something and are taken seriously. It means I can expect the "law" to be upheld. I like that. Plus moderators might get some cred for the work which nowadays mostly goes unnoticed.

Vanilla, you write "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". MB might not be broken, but I think it's got a few dents here and there and could use a little polish. There's always stuff that could be better. I think the "if it ain't broke" way of thinking may pacify you to the possibilities that will let you develop, improve and move forward.

Trollheart · 10-09-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wisdom

I've only seen one moderator whose posts always make that clear. Can someone else change his or her set-up so that readers instantly will know it's a moderator? Especially if it's a moderator issuing a public No-no. Maybe that guy wouldn't have started this thread if he'd known who to contact with his complaint. And bartenders usually wear bartender-identifying clothing, you know

Edit: on some forums, the moderator usernames are listed under each page of threads, which would help a little.

Once you've been around here for a little while you should be easily able to identify who the mods are. It's not like there's hundreds of them, after all. You get to know them, they get to know you, you get to know not to feck with them and they give you a little latitude, providing you've earned it.

It's not

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 10-09-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Well, feel free to disagree. I've been an active member on a couple of boards with that style of moderation and I was impressed, both with how they were moderated and with the friendliness in tone on both those boards. I also liked it because it shows clearly that the rules actually mean something and are taken seriously. It means I can expect the "law" to be upheld. I like that. Plus moderators might get some cred for the work which nowadays mostly goes unnoticed.

Vanilla, you write "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". MB might not be broken, but I think it's got a few dents here and there and could use a little polish. There's always stuff that could be better. I think the "if it ain't broke" way of thinking may pacify you to the possibilities that will let you develop, improve and move forward.

Well this isn't those forums, it's Music Banter. What we do works fine here. None of the mods agree with this method you are speaking about so maybe it's not worth going on about?

I think the only dents are the spammers and their links. And we currently manage that fine. What I'm saying tore, is there is nothing wrong with the way we deal with people who insult each other and I don't see how public humiliation will improve the situation.

And fyi, I couldn't give a rats ass about recognition for my work, that's not why I'm doing it. It's like making music just so you can make money.

Paedantic Basterd · 10-09-2012, 10:24 PM

The main problem I have with Tore's suggestion is that I do not see how it is possible to apply it consistently and fairly, since offense is subjective.

Until we can address that question, I'm only casually going to consider the proposition.

Frankly, there are only three members here who are vocally disturbed by the way we take care of matters. If more would like to speak up, then I would feel more pressure to revise our strategies.

10-09-2012, 02:06 PM	#111 (permalink)
sopsych Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: indoors Posts: 722	I want a relaxed atmosphere. My point is that fast-moving threads are where strife often takes place, with people going at each other instead of reporting posts. (That applies to probably every online community that I've followed.) On another note, concerning informally reporting problems and moderator presence, I've only seen one moderator whose posts always make that clear. Can someone else change his or her set-up so that readers instantly will know it's a moderator? Especially if it's a moderator issuing a public No-no. Maybe that guy wouldn't have started this thread if he'd known who to contact with his complaint. And bartenders usually wear bartender-identifying clothing, you know Edit: on some forums, the moderator usernames are listed under each page of threads, which would help a little. Last edited by sopsych; 10-09-2012 at 03:47 PM.

10-09-2012, 05:31 PM	#117 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	Well, feel free to disagree. I've been an active member on a couple of boards with that style of moderation and I was impressed, both with how they were moderated and with the friendliness in tone on both those boards. I also liked it because it shows clearly that the rules actually mean something and are taken seriously. It means I can expect the "law" to be upheld. I like that. Plus moderators might get some cred for the work which nowadays mostly goes unnoticed. Vanilla, you write "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". MB might not be broken, but I think it's got a few dents here and there and could use a little polish. There's always stuff that could be better. I think the "if it ain't broke" way of thinking may pacify you to the possibilities that will let you develop, improve and move forward. __________________ Something Completely Different

10-09-2012, 10:24 PM	#120 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	The main problem I have with Tore's suggestion is that I do not see how it is possible to apply it consistently and fairly, since offense is subjective. Until we can address that question, I'm only casually going to consider the proposition. Frankly, there are only three members here who are vocally disturbed by the way we take care of matters. If more would like to speak up, then I would feel more pressure to revise our strategies.