ForumGarden

Something's been bugging me. In the Tags thread, G-Man, you and Chezzie indicated that you mods have secret meetings/discussions to discuss how you should respond to a given member's behavior. While it's good that you make decisions as a group instead of one member going off half-cocked (or is this only sometimes?) why do you think it's good or right to do it in secret?



I have tons of questions on this, but I'd like to ask them one at a time, since every answer will answer several questions while probably raising still others.

To my knowledge as a MOD our discussion are in the MOD forum area between the MOD'S. We discuss the problem and then get back to that person or persons with a proposed solution. We then bring it to the open forum if it is something we feel needs an open discussion. Nothing secret about it, its what MOD'S are suppose to do. It would be rather unfair to the person or persons to discuss the problem openly for all to see when a complaint is brought to our attention. Many times no action is taken end of discussion. That is why there are MOD'S we are the one's who are to keep the peace and resolve the problems. If necessary we always, and I mean always get Tombstone's approval for any actions we take. I'M sure if I have miss represented the MOD'S I will be correct by a MOD.

CARLA;1069073 wrote: To my knowledge as a MOD our discussion are in the MOD forum area between the MOD'S. We discuss the problem and then get back to that person or persons with a proposed solution. We then bring it to the open forum if it is something we feel needs an open discussion. Nothing secret about it, its what MOD'S are suppose to do. It would be rather unfair to the person or persons to discuss the problem openly for all to see when a complaint is brought to our attention. Many times no action is taken end of discussion. That is why there are MOD'S we are the one's who are to keep the peace and resolve the problems. If necessary we always, and I mean always get Tombstone's approval for any actions we take. I'M sure if I have miss represented the MOD'S I will be correct by a MOD.
It appears I offended you, which wasn't my intent.



While I understand and agree there may be some instances when you might fairly want a discussion kept from public view, and rare instances when you might need complete privacy (though I can't think of one offhand), why would it be "rather unfair" to the person or persons discussed to be kept out of the discussion? I mean, if you're discussing whether to infract, ban, or whatever you do to a member, wouldn't that member's input be valuable?

Acc not offended at all. I want to make it clear that our intentions are honorable but we are human. Yes we do involve the member or members in most cases with PM's or emails to get all sides of the situation before we ever take any action. If it is clearly a TOS violation or problem we try to act as quickly as possible. We don't take any of our actions lightly that is why we as a group discuss it to death sometimes. :wah:

[QUOTE]It appears I offended you, which wasn't my intent.

While I understand and agree there may be some instances when you might fairly want a discussion kept from public view, and rare instances when you might need complete privacy (though I can't think of one offhand), why would it be "rather unfair" to the person or persons discussed to be kept out of the discussion? I mean, if you're discussing whether to infract, ban, or whatever you do to a member, wouldn't that member's input be valuable?[/QUOTE]

Carla is right, the mods discuss any issue ranging from reported posts to possible violations of TOS. They discuss it to get input from more then one mod when possible, to make the fairest decision possible. Each case is looked at individually, and Tombstone is consulted when we think it necessary.

good topic acc!



-now, do all members get an infraction first or are some automatically banned at times?

(because perhaps certain mods don't like them?)

or does it vary from member to member?

Any action taken is based on the problem not the person or person's involved. We never allow our personal feelings to dictate our actions as MOD'S. I can say as long as I have been a MOD (which has been a fairly long time) I have never seen or been involved in an action based on any MODS like or dislike of a member. The responsibility is taken serious, every effort is made to be fair and correct in our decisions. It is a group no one MOD has any more power than the other.

[QUOTE]good topic acc!



-now, do all members get an infraction first or are some automatically banned at times?

(because perhaps certain mods don't like them?)

or does it vary from member to member?[/QUOTE]

Odie;1069098 wrote: good topic acc!



-now, do all members get an infraction first or are some automatically banned at times?

(because perhaps certain mods don't like them?)

or does it vary from member to member?


Blimey!... Do you have reason to ask such a questions? :-2

CARLA wrote: we always, and I mean always get Tombstone's approval for any actions we take.


I think Carla has already answered your question Odie, and is the case with forums I'm a member of too, moderators assist in the running of a forum, but ultimately all decisions lie with the administrator.

Odie;1069098 wrote: good topic acc!



-now, do all members get an infraction first or are some automatically banned at times?

(because perhaps certain mods don't like them?)

or does it vary from member to member?


If any Mod tried to act from personal animosity then that Mod would very quickly be jumped on by the other Mods and any actions taken for personal reasons would be reversed.

CARLA;1069083 wrote: Acc not offended at all. I want to make it clear that our intentions are honorable but we are human. Yes we do involve the member or members in most cases with PM's or emails to get all sides of the situation before we ever take any action. If it is clearly a TOS violation or problem we try to act as quickly as possible. We don't take any of our actions lightly that is why we as a group discuss it to death sometimes. :wah:
Really?? I don't want this to become a discussion about my tags issue but it's the only frame of reference I have. It's pretty clear to me that a secret discussion went on for weeks and the only pm prepared (but never sent) to me was about a decision, never to discuss anything with me at all.



I would appreciate any members here willing to discuss how they were solicited to get their side of the situation to help the mods make a decision.

chonsigirl;1069085 wrote: Carla is right, the mods discuss any issue ranging from reported posts to possible violations of TOS. They discuss it to get input from more then one mod when possible, to make the fairest decision possible. Each case is looked at individually, and Tombstone is consulted when we think it necessary.
In your opinion, is there justification in keeping these discussions secret?

My point being: town council meetings are public, though not generally televised. If a resident can sit in and listen if he wanted, or could ignore it even more easily. It seems to me it would be a simple thing to have a forum/section/ whatever you call it, set so that guests would be unaware of it, members could eavesdrop, but only mods could provide input. It's only a slight tweak from Problems, Solutions & Feedback, which doesn't appear on the front page, or the Compost Heap, which most people never find out about without nosing around.

CARLA;1069101 wrote: Any action taken is based on the problem not the person or person's involved. We never allow our personal feelings to dictate our actions as MOD'S. I can say as long as I have been a MOD (which has been a fairly long time) I have never seen or been involved in an action based on any MODS like or dislike of a member. The responsibility is taken serious, every effort is made to be fair and correct in our decisions. It is a group no one MOD has any more power than the other.
Have you ever seen or been involved in an inaction based on a mod's like or dislike of a member? It seems us old guys get by with alot more than noobs, but that might be because I don't see what goes on in secret.

Milly;1069140 wrote: Blimey!... Do you have reason to ask such a questions? :-2







I think Carla has already answered your question Odie, and is the case with forums I'm a member of too, moderators assist in the running of a forum, but ultimately all decisions lie with the administrator.
FG's mods are supposed to be limited to spam & TOS violations, unless things have changed. I wouldn't think that would take more than a few people, though 20 would definitely make for more balanced decisions.

abbey;1069162 wrote: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/probl ... ods-7.html
Thanks, Abbey. I missed out on that whole conversation.

Yes a forum area can be kept off the home page.

For each forum area, for any usergroup (like Registered Members or Guests) the following can each be set yes or no, so as you can see it's quite possible to allow Registered Users to sit in a viewing gallery and watch the Moderators Proceedings.

Forum Viewing Permissions

Can View Forum

Can View Thread Content

Can View Others' Threads

Can Use Email to Friend

Can Download Attachments

Can See Deletion Notices

Forum Searching Permissions

Can Search Forums

Post / Thread Permissions

Can Post Threads

Can Reply to Own Threads

Can Reply to Others' Threads

Can Edit Own Posts

Can Delete Own Posts

Can Delete Own Threads

Can Open / Close Own Threads

Can Move Own Threads

Can Rate Threads

Follow Forum Moderation Rules

Can Tag Own Threads

Can Tag Others' Threads

Can Delete Tags on Own Threads



I tried hard to get the discussion of tag use into the "tags" thread in public rather than a discussion in the Moderator forum area and to a large extent I succeeded. What stayed in the Moderator area was a discussion of who was making the tags with what we considered personally abusive labels. The problem you have with your suggestion that the moderator discussion area should be viewable by the membership is when it names names.

Local councils do, as you say, have open access for a lot of their work. They have committee meetings discussing individual constituents which are open too - planning applications, tree-felling applications. When it comes to committee meetings discussing reports from social services or rent appeals or housing applications those committee meetings are closed to the public. They're closed for reasons of personal privacy.

My own feeling is that the equivalents of those open meetings ought to take place in Problems And Feedback, so that all the membership can take part. The sole reason for the Moderator forum area is those closed meetings which discuss individuals. Most of it relates to spamming, is it or isn't it, have we seen him before, shall we leave that post because it's being discussed. Some of it relates to something like personally abusing labelling of tags (which isn't just you, acc, there was a lot of it going on and it *is* an existing TOS violation). We do what we can to separate the topic from the private stuff and as you've seen we join in on a public space to discuss the topic itself.

I think we need to keep the private area.

Every reported post generates a discussion thread in the moderator forum.

If reporting a post meant that every member of the forum could read your complaint, it would drastically effect the comfort level, upon which we rely, of members' willingness to tell us when something offends them.

As a mod, there are pros and cons to having all of our discussions visible. The pros would include ending post reports a la "he said bum bum!" the cons would be having huge blowouts between members because one complained about the other.

In this example, the pro does not outweigh the con.



Incidentally, the discussion you think was about you, Accountable, was actually a discussion about what rules govern the tags, as we needed to determine that in order to know what to do about complaints. Certainly your name arose though we were not able to decide on what should be said to you until we knew how to approach the use of tags. We did, however, agree that the tags should be taken out. You simply noticed it before we had a chance to talk to you about it. Nothing you might have said would change the fact that the tags had to be removed.

There are many members who, if they wished to make their problems public, could tell you that we've held discourse with them about moderation issues involving their accounts.

I don't moderate here - but I do on another board.

On said other board, I can tell you how things are run. And they are a bit different then they are here.

I have a different mod name then I use when I post. This way, when I feel the need to moderate something, people who assume that I am their "friend" doesn't feel that any admonition or deletion either doesn't apply to them or that they are being treated in a different manner.

As far as the "secret" mod forum - everything I do as a moderator, I post so that Admin can see what was going on while they were offline. If I edit someone's post to remove personal information or something else that is "against the rules", I let Admin know. Every post I delete, person I ban - whatever.

Yes, sometimes there are lengthy discussions on things. Usually these discussions are about things that will make the forum run smoother or how to deal with more then one member when things get out of hand when dealing with an issue that forum members are passionate about.

It isn't like we have our own little room where we sit around and talk smack about members.

Anonymous moderation's fine for those boards which practise it. I'd not like to see it here.

I was against moderation at all, I argued every step of the way that peer pressure of users was the only thing that would successfully moderate people's behaviour on FG. I lost.

What we've ended up with is the gradual exclusion of a half dozen people who wouldn't pay attention to a moderator consensus on manners - not on beliefs, note, solely on manners. In exchange we have a generally placid, quiet, fight-free environment in which civilities are the norm. Those with long memories will recall that the current moderation structure was introduced because we had lacked exactly that. Member Conduct in Section Six of the Terms and Conditions is tailored precisely to reflect Admin's intentions for the site and that, to the best of our abilities and with as light a touch as possible, is what the moderators aim for.

Odie;1069098 wrote: good topic acc!





-now, do all members get an infraction first or are some automatically banned at times?



(because perhaps certain mods don't like them?)



or does it vary from member to member?


I've seen spammers banned first day out, but that's pretty much it .



I tend to not know many folks online well enough to form an active like or dislike for them. Most folks are idiots at some point, IMO... and if I'm not willing to dislike myself when I've been an idiot, I'm certainly not going to dislike someone else who acts like one from time to time..

flopstock;1073766 wrote: I've seen spammers banned first day out, but that's pretty much it .



I tend to not know many folks online well enough to form an active like or dislike for them. Most folks are idiots at some point, IMO... and if I'm not willing to dislike myself when I've been an idiot, I'm certainly not going to dislike someone else who acts like one from time to time..


true, some are idiots from time to time.