Question 2: Moderation Standards

Should moderation standards be tightened?


Just to expand on this a little. The kernel of this question is again about thread disruption. It is linked to the first question about Site Guidelines but, regardless of whether or not our guidelines are given more clarity, some members feel that we are not tough enough in maintaining a clean flow of the topic under discussion and that we should come down more heavily on disrupters even when they are not overtly rude.

Our current moderating line is to edit/delete posts which are overtly rude or direct attacks on other members and to tidy up threads with occasional housekeeping to remove extraneous posts in the interests of a smooth flow.

This question is about whether we should harden our moderating line here to edit/delete posts which are not overtly rude and to be quicker in removing extraneous posts. You should note that this question is not about whether we pursue our existing line well enough, with fairness and consistency - that question comes next.

Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though.

In addition, some people have already participated in a similar poll recently in the Clean Up T2W thread. Note has already been taken of that poll, but I'd be grateful if you'd vote again here. Thanks.

jon

I do not believe it is so much a case of standards needing to be tightened, but rather stated guidelines needing to be more consistently and fairly applied.

In my view rudeness and aggression should be dealt with much more strictly.
Discussion and dissension are fine, it's when the personal aspect is introduced that threads deteriorate.
That is the area which needs attention.
Perhaps there should be a paid full time moderator who openly and briefly explains the reasons for his/her action and does not enter into endless futile debate. An explanatory PM to the member concerned would also be wise.
Threads where discussion wanders off topic might annoy the thread originator and other contributors, but, hey, progress comes by expanding the envelope as well as exploring the original contents.
Those who wish to continue discussing the latter simply post something relevant to bring it back on track.
Although I personally have disagreed strongly with the action of some mods from time to time I wouldn't dream of personally attacking them, privately or publicly.
What surprises me is that they still remain as unpaid mods. And no, in my experience none of them do it because they are power-crazed, egocentric or self righteous, unlike a few of the members........
Richard.

I also think the paid moderator should simply be called, "Admin" and should not post under that name to other threads - depersonalise the moderation function.
Richard

As Mr C says its the direct personal aspects which seems to spark online behaviour which may warrant a kind of net ASBO order to be slapped on an individual by, as he suggests, an unmarked paid Modbot.

I know some of the members see these posts as amusement? classed as bunfights , scoring retorts out of 10 etc. and to be honest 1 or 2 can be, but the undertone often becomes very hateful,very quickly for some aimed at selected individuals with grudges they wish to thrash out in public BB .

I've scored it much tighter on direct offensive agressive personal attacks of character which have nothing to do with the thread.

but only if you want to promote higher sensible, productive, discussion to aid a learning process.

If its volume of members spending with sponsors your after... leave things as they are maybe it would be better for business.

Well said Mr C, couldn't agree more!
KenN

What are meant by "overtly rude" and "direct attack"?

As per my previous post about how spin can be spun without being obvious.

Just take a look at the slant on the poll questions. 2 for an increase in control. 1 for stay same and 1 for 'bit looser'. LOL. What happened to 'a lot looser'?

As mr. charts and others have said, it's obvious when a member has gone over the line, the line laid down by the site guidelines. Nobody can complain if they overstep that mark. It;s all this pointless 'extraneous' material removal. In whose opinion is it extraneous?

Having a paid mod wont make that much difference in my view. Unless they have clear guidelines and a set remit, they'll make all the same mistakes the current bunch of volunteers make.

It is a mistake to tighten moderation standards. It is also a commercial mistake for this site. There was a disciplinary system of points in place before which was withdrawn. Surely that is a lesson.

Why is gratification sought by exercising a grating authority over others? There are already complaints against moderators acting unfairly.

But so be it.

The problem is what is " rudeness and aggression " ? one man's meat another man's poison , surely .

I'm all for keeping the chat on topic but over censorship can lead to PC rubbish surely .

Stockjunkie said:

The problem is what is " rudeness and aggression " ?

Click to expand...

thats the problem stock, kids today dont know , they call it socialising I think.

fxmarkets said:

thats the problem stock, kids today dont know , they call it socialising I think.

Click to expand...

And there are lots of them on this website unfortunately.

And many grown ups who ought to know better but never learn.

The tragedy is they all refuse to learn and cannot be taught.

Ah, yes. "They" refuse to learn. Whatever are we going to do about "them"? . . .

In the meantime, how does one vote on whether a standard should be "looser" or "tighter" if there's no general agreement on what the standard is?

dbphoenix said:

.. In the meantime, how does one vote on whether a standard should be "looser" or "tighter" if there's no general agreement on what the standard is?

Click to expand...

In your case, with great difficulty.

Everyone else can read the existing guidelines and as yet you have not been appointed King with a mandate to write a new set of guidelines. Tough.

Still waiting for you to express what you claim to understand so thoroughly. Not really expecting anything, though.

dbphoenix said:

Ah, yes. "They" refuse to learn. Whatever are we going to do about "them"? . . .

In the meantime, how does one vote on whether a standard should be "looser" or "tighter" if there's no general agreement on what the standard is?

Click to expand...

Are you asking me ? LOL

Are you kidding me, or are you really sure you are seeking two answers ? LOL

Look again, it is OBVIOUS, it is SCREAMING at you once again. LOL

Look again, it is OBVIOUS, it is SCREAMING at you once again. LOL

Click to expand...

Ah yes I see

This is a source of amusement to those very few able to correctly logically deduce and reason

LOL

dc2000 said:

Ah yes I see

This is a source of amusement to those very few able to correctly logically deduce and reason

LOL

Click to expand...

Yes, precisely, because it is obvious, isn't it ?

And if you do not understand this, you ought not to be here, because it is obvious, it is screaming at you. Ha Ha Ha.