• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Third party editing of posts...

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
I think expecting something, or in the case of another poster, demanding something be done, is a quick way of someone on the other end of that expectation or demand to dig in their heels out of their own principle. Considering the posting here flowed purely from that edit, as well as a now banned person contacting you off-line (I received a PM from you about J.Gleason) and basically screaming to the top of his lungs about supposedly "libeling" him and threatening to sue me (in a similar fashion to a robber threatening to sue the victim for calling him a robber or a violent criminal before he's convicted of a crime or after his charges is dismissed), you face the problem of this post being the fruit of J.Gleason's poisonous tree, at least if I was the owner of the forum, which I am not.

As the victim of the specific "anon edit", I'm not particularly complaining. This isn't a governmental site, nor is it a Sarbanes-Oxley regulated company. If you're already questioning the integrity of the forum and publicly posting a suggestion rather than addressing it directly via PM to Administrator (John), then it seems to me that nothing he can do to reassure people questioning it's integrity will actually hold and work. Someone will always complain, someone will always scream conspiracy, and someone will always threaten another poster with a lawsuit when they exercise their first amendment right to criticize a persons criminal action.

Edit: I'm not speaking for Administrator here or for the forum, but as the only person who was got anon edited at issue and doing forum administration work in other forums besides OCDO, it needs to be pointed out that running forums on purely "principle" and doing what was suggested gives rise to numerous problems and issues that may occur, and unnecessarily hamstrings forum administration work due to continual arguments of "You promised this", "You stated that", and so on. PM Administrator or ask him to post here for an official OCDO position, which may be different from my own.


Why should you complain. The anon edit was of a possible personal attack you made. You basically stated that in your humble opinion Gleason was a felon. You now once again portray him as a criminal. This once again reinforces my original question(which was deleted without trace), are the mods the only ones who are allowed to make personal attacks?

You compare Gleason(whom I don't even know) to a violent criminal who has not been convicted or had the charges dismissed. Guess what in this country that means they're NOT a criminal. Regardless of what the "victim" thinks. This uproar (at least for me) is not about Gleason's banning, it's about how when a moderator made a comment that could have been taken as a personal attack it was edited to remove it with no tag as if the comment was never made.

To add insult to injury you continue to compare someone to criminal when they haven't even been accused, and no other mods call you on it. We can't call it a blue wall of silence since your fellow mods are secret. I guess I'll just have to call it the white wall of silence.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
The previous posting contained a personal attack, but here is what he had issue with:

"(in a similar fashion to a robber threatening to sue the victim for calling him a robber or a violent criminal before he's convicted of a crime or after his charges is dismissed)"

I stand by what I said. The person who was banned, to me, clearly engaged in acts against me personally and against WCI as a third party in a manner that clearly violated Wisconsin law and is punishable in Wisconsin as a Class H Felony. Are you saying that the personal attack rule applies to making statements about someone committing a criminal acts using this forum as a conduit? Besides, "that's the way it is in this country, innocent until proven guilty", only applies to the government. OJ Simpson could not sue the Brown's and Goldman's for calling him a murderer of their children. 1st amendment is pretty powerfully protective of opinion, especially of crime victims, even in cases where a private individual is asking a court to engage in post-hoc restraint. Administrator, of course, will make the final call as to whether or not my postings are allowed on that subject.

Administrator made a decision to delete the reference, though not due to it being a personal attack. What is the "benefit" I get from it being deleted without reference?
 
Last edited:

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
As this has become a bash fest towards me personally and the moderator team...

I'm closing the thread and moderating it out of view, but I've sent a PM to John so that he may review the thread and remove specific references and make his own statement.
 
Last edited:

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
My posts are my request. I have zero doubt that he is fully aware of this thread. He can respond or not. The request is out there.

Don't make that assumption ever. I am in the middle of law school exams and largely only get to look at reported posts.


John
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
This uproar (at least for me) is not about Gleason's banning, it's about how when a moderator made a comment that could have been taken as a personal attack it was edited to remove it with no tag as if the comment was never made.

I was the one who edited Gray's posting and didn't take the time to make the ubiquitous EDITED BY COMMENT that I usually place in a post when I remove personal attacks. It was my fault and one I subsequently corrected.

Tomas is absolutely correct in his initial post that any edits should reflect if they have been edited.

As for this thread becoming a bash fest over the forum, please feel free to discuss any shortcomings as you see fit. We will try to improve the forum based upon your feedback. Consequently, the thread has been reopened and all moderated posts have been unmoderated. Just don't make this an attack on the mods ... I am the one who makes policy here. Throw your punches in my direction.


John
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Don't make that assumption ever. I am in the middle of law school exams and largely only get to look at reported posts.

John

Yet, somehow, the thread came to your attention. I stand by my assumption.

BTW, thank your for your response in your second post. However, I will not throw punches in your direction. At most, I will strongly state my opinion about policy. It is good to know that you wish to have all third party edits documented in the edited post. It would be better if we were assured that such was automatic by the software and include the screen name of the individual who altered the poster's words.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
The previous posting contained a personal attack, but here is what he had issue with:

"(in a similar fashion to a robber threatening to sue the victim for calling him a robber or a violent criminal before he's convicted of a crime or after his charges is dismissed)"

I stand by what I said. The person who was banned, to me, clearly engaged in acts against me personally and against WCI as a third party in a manner that clearly violated Wisconsin law and is punishable in Wisconsin as a Class H Felony. Are you saying that the personal attack rule applies to making statements about someone committing a criminal acts using this forum as a conduit? Besides, "that's the way it is in this country, innocent until proven guilty", only applies to the government. OJ Simpson could not sue the Brown's and Goldman's for calling him a murderer of their children. 1st amendment is pretty powerfully protective of opinion, especially of crime victims, even in cases where a private individual is asking a court to engage in post-hoc restraint. Administrator, of course, will make the final call as to whether or not my postings are allowed on that subject.

Administrator made a decision to delete the reference, though not due to it being a personal attack. What is the "benefit" I get from it being deleted without reference?

Unless a prosecutor in WI decides to file charges against Gleason and he is convicted, then yes I would say calling him a criminal is a personal attack. Strange you feel so strong about protecting your 1st Amendment rights, but feel it necessary to edit or out right delete others. Let's see if I have this correct when you call someone ,who has not been charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, a criminal it's because you feel under WI law they are? You didn't just call them a criminal, by the way, you compared them to a violent criminal. When someone else, say me for example, calls you out on this, then it becomes a "bash fest" towards you and the thread should be shut down( thankfully John was gracious enough to see it wasn't bashing but criticizing and re-opened it). Do I not get 1st Amendment protection too?

How was editing of your post a benefit you ask? Well, without the people who originally saw it, you could just pretend you never made a personal attack and act as if it never happened. John has provided the reason as to why it happen that way, and I can see how that could easily happen. The problem is when my post was completely deleted as well as those who quoted it no tag was given for any of them. If it was because they contained the original attack why not just "edit" them. Instead at least 3 posts were whooshed away like they were never there. So, true you are the only one who has had their posts "edited" while others have had them out right deleted.

If it was not a personal attack why delete it. Was it the rest of the post, which I also called you out on?
 

Tomas

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
702
Location
University Place, Washington, USA
This thread got much broader than I originally intended, and began trying to address more specific individual issues than I envisioned.

Most of the third party editing I've seen on OCDO has had hit-or-miss notification in the form of random text embedded in the post manually (sometimes without attribution).

So long as it is a manual entry, stealth changes by invisible hands are possible. If the software assures there is an mark left every time, that can't happen.

That is the only point I was trying to address - assuring correct attribution of posts and changes to them.

I went through a period on my largest site where the software did not have the built in ability to assure that edits were always publicly accounted for, and I discovered a couple of mods who would make subtle changes in posts they did not agree with and leave no tracks...

Now that I use software that allows all members of my forums to keep an eye on such things, I always use it.

On that forum I give the original poster 5 minutes to correct typos and such without leaving a mark, but after that, or once there has been a reply, and at all times for third parties, editing leaves a public mark.

That way all my members can be assured that posts are made by who they say they are and that no one has changed them.

Take care!
Tom
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
It's not really an unrealistic expectation in any forum with integrity.

If my name is on a post it should reflect my thoughts, I should be able to stand behind it, and others should be able to depend on it being mine.

Anonymous or invisible edits disrupt that confidence.

I've been a member of several forums that edit posts "invisibly" or "anonymously" I don't appreciate it.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
Unless a prosecutor in WI decides to file charges against Gleason and he is convicted, then yes I would say calling him a criminal is a personal attack.

Calling someone a criminal is not a personal attack. It was previously explained that libelous remarks and defamation are not bashing or personal attacks and will not be deleted. You see, John doesn't know if the remarks are true and can't hire a PI to verify facts.

Now, calling someone a name such as stupid or idiot can get the post deleted because name calling is a persoanl attack.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Helping Tomas get this thread back on track:

The software should be configured to leave a detailed audit trail of who edited the post and when, automatically and unavoidably, every time a staff member edits a member's post.

It is a matter of integrity.

JM strongly held O.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
the mod under discussion - and attack - seems to moderate only those posts touching its peculiar interests there are plenty of off topic posts and particularly in wisconsin aslo one of its peculiar interests very odd
Moderators, for the most part, are only likely to moderate posts that have actually been reported. Barring that, it is quite rational to conclude that a moderator that is active on a specific forum area WILL be more likely to moderate posts that they encounter by reading them.

I have yet to see some "non-rule-breaking post moderation," which is what you seem to imply. In fact, I see that frequently, rule-breaking posts stay as-is for quite some time.


Just what is it you think you are witnessing?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I have witnessed self-serving moderation recently: The I-got-the-last-word-and-locked-the-thread incident in the Secret Mods thread. It happens. The only way to stop it is for mods to deliberately avoid moderating in threads in which they participate. Report it to other mods or the admins, and let them handle it.

That's how I handled it on ALOC when I felt that another poster was out of line in a thread I was participating in. I let the other mods and the admins handle it. I would've handled it differently, but can we say that the difference wouldn't have been due to my bias?

Caveat: Admins don't really have that luxury picking and choosing where they moderate. The buck stops with them.
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
Currently I am a moderator on another forum with over 20,000 members. We have a total of 8 moderators to cover every post made there. The owner of the forum is extremely selective when it comes to the board's moderators. This isn't to show how cool I am, but to set the stage for my following comments...

With the sheer numbers of posts, it is extremely difficult to make the correct decision concerning our moderation in each and every case. There are times when we simply mess it up, honestly. Knowing this, we have instituted a few "agreements" as policy.

When we delete, modify, or in anyway change a post that has been made, we always send a PM to the member to notify them that an action has been taken. In that PM we explain what we did and why. You can imagine how we don't always get a sunny response but by doing this we hope to eliminate any question about the matter. We also always leave a comment in the original post giving a short explanation, as well.

There is simply no way to moderate a site no matter how large the membership without someone feeling slighted and wanting to drag it out into a public argument. We try to work things out through private messages as much as possible though. Doing so gives respect to the member in question and attempts to prevent an appearance of a public flogging.

There are ways to show in public why a post was altered and by who, that much is easy. Almost every forum template has that option, usually without going into code to do it. We find it to be a very useful tool and try to always leave a short note if we change a post. We are very hesitant to do so, with respect to leaving people's posts as they originally intended but with that many postings in a day, it's a tool that gets used quite often.

It all comes down to trust. Without the basic trust between the moderators and the moderated, the forum would simply cease to be a place where people would want to post. We feel the best policy is to attempt to resolve all matters between us and a member through PM, but when we modify a post, we will always leave an Edit line explaining why. This insures that anyone else who might be following the discussion will have the confidence in us that we take our positions seriously and hold their trust in the highest regard.

In the end, no issue between us and the general membership is ever more important than the trust between us.

With all of that said, I can say that in my short time here, I find the moderation to be very fair and even handed.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Moderators, for the most part, are only likely to moderate posts that have actually been reported. Barring that, it is quite rational to conclude that a moderator that is active on a specific forum area WILL be more likely to moderate posts that they encounter by reading them.

I have yet to see some "non-rule-breaking post moderation," which is what you seem to imply. In fact, I see that frequently, rule-breaking posts stay as-is for quite some time.


Just what is it you think you are witnessing?

I had a post deleted about having my post deleted. What rule did that break? It is all well and good to say things like "I have yet to see some "non-rule breaking post moderation" as if the rules were cast in stone, but when the #2 rule is

(2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion.

Your statement sounds a little hollow. I accept that the Administrators get to make the rules on their site, just don't act like they or those they empower can't delete posts for whatever reason they want and that anyone who has had there posts "moderated" automatically broke any rule. You can't break Rule #2, it's there for their discretion.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Currently I am a moderator on another forum with over 20,000 members. We have a total of 8 moderators to cover every post made there. The owner of the forum is extremely selective when it comes to the board's moderators. This isn't to show how cool I am, but to set the stage for my following comments...

With the sheer numbers of posts, it is extremely difficult to make the correct decision concerning our moderation in each and every case. There are times when we simply mess it up, honestly. Knowing this, we have instituted a few "agreements" as policy.

When we delete, modify, or in anyway change a post that has been made, we always send a PM to the member to notify them that an action has been taken. In that PM we explain what we did and why. You can imagine how we don't always get a sunny response but by doing this we hope to eliminate any question about the matter. We also always leave a comment in the original post giving a short explanation, as well.

There is simply no way to moderate a site no matter how large the membership without someone feeling slighted and wanting to drag it out into a public argument. We try to work things out through private messages as much as possible though. Doing so gives respect to the member in question and attempts to prevent an appearance of a public flogging.

There are ways to show in public why a post was altered and by who, that much is easy. Almost every forum template has that option, usually without going into code to do it. We find it to be a very useful tool and try to always leave a short note if we change a post. We are very hesitant to do so, with respect to leaving people's posts as they originally intended but with that many postings in a day, it's a tool that gets used quite often.

It all comes down to trust. Without the basic trust between the moderators and the moderated, the forum would simply cease to be a place where people would want to post. We feel the best policy is to attempt to resolve all matters between us and a member through PM, but when we modify a post, we will always leave an Edit line explaining why. This insures that anyone else who might be following the discussion will have the confidence in us that we take our positions seriously and hold their trust in the highest regard.

In the end, no issue between us and the general membership is ever more important than the trust between us.

With all of that said, I can say that in my short time here, I find the moderation to be very fair and even handed.


How can you tell if the moderation is fair and even handed when posts are deleted with no tags? You as a normal member don't even know they were there unless you happen to read them before they got deleted. I know of one thread that had one post edited and at least three deleted without a trace. No notification of what, if any, rules these posts violated, nothing. As a moderator on another forum is it your position that the deletion of someone's input in a discussion is valid and ethical form of control? I can see if that person blatantly breaks the rules that the post could be edited and those edits tagged, but how is it you can judge the fairness of an action if you don't know it happened?

I realize on the forum you moderate you said you PM the poster when you edit or delete their post, my question was more to your final appraisal
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
How can you tell if the moderation is fair and even handed when posts are deleted with no tags? You as a normal member don't even know they were there unless you happen to read them before they got deleted. I know of one thread that had one post edited and at least three deleted without a trace. No notification of what, if any, rules these posts violated, nothing. As a moderator on another forum is it your position that the deletion of someone's input in a discussion is valid and ethical form of control? I can see if that person blatantly breaks the rules that the post could be edited and those edits tagged, but how is it you can judge the fairness of an action if you don't know it happened?

I realize on the forum you moderate you said you PM the poster when you edit or delete their post, my question was more to your final appraisal

The deletion of someone's input is always the last thing we want to do. Doing so can break the chain of thoughts in the thread, rendering it effectively broken beyond the point of saving. However, there are times when a post is simply too offensive (according to the moderators, that is there job after all) to remain. Sometimes I look at the post after I've deleted something and realize the entire post wasn't worth saving. If a thread has too many different posters in it getting way off focus with insults or off topic matter it's sometimes better just to kill the thread as a whole.

Normally if I delete a few posts or whatever, I'll also make a statement in the thread as to why I did it. It's then up to the membership to either take the hint and move on, or continue to make the same kinds of posts which will lead to the same result. Trust me, members have no problem bringing up what they feel to be over-moderation in the open forum. While I would personally prefer it to be through the PM system, it still comes out in the open forums most times. Mostly it's someone who wishes to turn the general membership against me or my action, but normally it results in that person getting slammed by others for being an idiot. Again, there was a reason I stepped in in the first place, and I'm pretty good at making sure of my reasons before doing so.

One way we try to mitigate the fairness is to have another group constantly watching our moderation actions. It serves as a kind of checks and balance system. Mods are human and can make mistakes like anyone else. People in this group will PM us and bring up their points and we take a look at what we did over again. Also, the other mods are constantly reviewing the deleted threads in a hidden area that is password protected. This gives us a chance to make sure the action was justified or maybe gives us a chance to fix something we see another mods did wrong in the process.

So in that regard, we are moderated as well, to help insure fairness as best we can.

So in regard to your first question, yes, there are times when deletion is a valid and ethical resolution. There are also times where the answer can be no, as well. It all depends on the situation and the posts. You have to look at the flow of the conversation and see where a questionable post either fits in or distracts to the whole thread, and whether or not it violates some of the established rules or not.

As well, the membership can judge for themselves whether or not it was a fair decision based on the message a mod places in the "edited for" block. I'll also add little things like "Post was edited/ deleted due to the following reasons....." and maybe something like "Im locking this thread but leaving it up as an example of how not to deal with others" :)

As to my final appraisal in my last post, I'm assuming you meant where I stated that I find the moderation here to be fair?
If so, that is based on the times I've seen it happen here, and with the understanding of how these things work. There's simply no way to be perfect in every case. There are times when mods get it right, and many other times when they get it wrong. You can usually tell the intentions of such actions as to whether or not mods are bullies or simply doing the best they can to mitigate the damage across the board. From what I have observed so far, I find the moderation here to be fair and done in a way that helps to create a better board, and not so much based on mods who want to whip out the ban hammer or the deletion key at first sign of trouble.

Of course, I've only been here a short time so that has to be considered too.

But, over all, I'd say these guys are doing their best to do the right thing, albeit with an occasional glitch here and there, which is completely natural.

On a side note- someone brought up the issue of mods being involved with threads and then moderating the same thread, and that maybe mods shouldn't be doing that. Here's my opinion on that issue:

Firstly, Mods are members too. They have the same interests as the general membership and the right to participate in the various discussions just the same as anyone else. In fact, most mods are picked from the general membership anyway. So it goes without saying that mods are also interested in the same discussions on a board.

Given that, we all know that there are times when a moderator can disagree with others in a thread. Personally, if I find myself getting involved with heated discussions in a thread, I ask another mod to look it over and see if I'm ok. I usually bow out of any moderation in these cases and let other mods handle it. Doing that removes any doubt in the thread as to maybe me strong-arming the others I may be debating.

I do not, nor ever have, declared myself the winner and closed a thread, out of anger or for any other reason, on any board i have moderated. If I was to do something like that my credibility would sink to absolute zero, and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I had a post deleted about having my post deleted. What rule did that break? It is all well and good to say things like "I have yet to see some "non-rule breaking post moderation" as if the rules were cast in stone, but when the #2 rule is

(2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion.

Your statement sounds a little hollow. I accept that the Administrators get to make the rules on their site, just don't act like they or those they empower can't delete posts for whatever reason they want and that anyone who has had there posts "moderated" automatically broke any rule. You can't break Rule #2, it's there for their discretion.
No, it does not "ring hollow." It was a simple statement of what I have (or have not) seen for myself. I made no reference to any specific policy of this website, merely a statement of my observations.

I fully understand #2 up there. I also have not seen "non-rule-breaking post moderation." If I HAD seen some, I would mention it.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
The deletion of someone's input is always the last thing we want to do. Doing so can break the chain of thoughts in the thread, rendering it effectively broken beyond the point of saving. However, there are times when a post is simply too offensive (according to the moderators, that is there job after all) to remain. Sometimes I look at the post after I've deleted something and realize the entire post wasn't worth saving. If a thread has too many different posters in it getting way off focus with insults or off topic matter it's sometimes better just to kill the thread as a whole.

Normally if I delete a few posts or whatever, I'll also make a statement in the thread as to why I did it. It's then up to the membership to either take the hint and move on, or continue to make the same kinds of posts which will lead to the same result. Trust me, members have no problem bringing up what they feel to be over-moderation in the open forum. While I would personally prefer it to be through the PM system, it still comes out in the open forums most times. Mostly it's someone who wishes to turn the general membership against me or my action, but normally it results in that person getting slammed by others for being an idiot. Again, there was a reason I stepped in in the first place, and I'm pretty good at making sure of my reasons before doing so.

One way we try to mitigate the fairness is to have another group constantly watching our moderation actions. It serves as a kind of checks and balance system. Mods are human and can make mistakes like anyone else. People in this group will PM us and bring up their points and we take a look at what we did over again. Also, the other mods are constantly reviewing the deleted threads in a hidden area that is password protected. This gives us a chance to make sure the action was justified or maybe gives us a chance to fix something we see another mods did wrong in the process.

So in that regard, we are moderated as well, to help insure fairness as best we can.

So in regard to your first question, yes, there are times when deletion is a valid and ethical resolution. There are also times where the answer can be no, as well. It all depends on the situation and the posts. You have to look at the flow of the conversation and see where a questionable post either fits in or distracts to the whole thread, and whether or not it violates some of the established rules or not.

As well, the membership can judge for themselves whether or not it was a fair decision based on the message a mod places in the "edited for" block. I'll also add little things like "Post was edited/ deleted due to the following reasons....." and maybe something like "Im locking this thread but leaving it up as an example of how not to deal with others" :)

As to my final appraisal in my last post, I'm assuming you meant where I stated that I find the moderation here to be fair?
If so, that is based on the times I've seen it happen here, and with the understanding of how these things work. There's simply no way to be perfect in every case. There are times when mods get it right, and many other times when they get it wrong. You can usually tell the intentions of such actions as to whether or not mods are bullies or simply doing the best they can to mitigate the damage across the board. From what I have observed so far, I find the moderation here to be fair and done in a way that helps to create a better board, and not so much based on mods who want to whip out the ban hammer or the deletion key at first sign of trouble.

Of course, I've only been here a short time so that has to be considered too.

But, over all, I'd say these guys are doing their best to do the right thing, albeit with an occasional glitch here and there, which is completely natural.

On a side note- someone brought up the issue of mods being involved with threads and then moderating the same thread, and that maybe mods shouldn't be doing that. Here's my opinion on that issue:

Firstly, Mods are members too. They have the same interests as the general membership and the right to participate in the various discussions just the same as anyone else. In fact, most mods are picked from the general membership anyway. So it goes without saying that mods are also interested in the same discussions on a board.

Given that, we all know that there are times when a moderator can disagree with others in a thread. Personally, if I find myself getting involved with heated discussions in a thread, I ask another mod to look it over and see if I'm ok. I usually bow out of any moderation in these cases and let other mods handle it. Doing that removes any doubt in the thread as to maybe me strong-arming the others I may be debating.

I do not, nor ever have, declared myself the winner and closed a thread, out of anger or for any other reason, on any board i have moderated. If I was to do something like that my credibility would sink to absolute zero, and rightfully so.


Thank you for your reasoned and well thought out response. I have no doubt you do an excellent job moderating on that other forum. I sincerely hope we will also have moderators of such character here, I am willing to wait and see. I also realize there are bound to be some initial bumps in the road. I have no doubt that the Administrators are working to provide the fairest forum possible for the discussion of topics related to Open Carry. With that said, there have been what I believe to be significant bumps so far. I hope that the deletion of posts without the courtesy of an explanation will be addressed.

Just one more quick question, if I have not taxed you patience to much, on that other forum you moderate,you mention the mods are often PMed questions, are the mods open or hidden?
 
Top