Moderator Guidelines PLEASE READ and feel free to edit

[TracyP]

Re: Moderator Guidelines PLEASE READ

Ok, good points Cathy and Roger. I will edit tonight or anyone else that wants to can. I was not thinking when I said that I wanted to do all of the edits:embaresse:nah:. So please feel free to edit away:confused_. Do we want this whole thing in front of the members or do we want a condensed version? Bas brought a good point up in a PM early on in this process. A member could hold us to the fire if we did not exactly follow step by step the guidelines that we adopt. Example: You deleted my post, however you did not do X before you did O. You moderators are not following your own guidelines:dontknow:. End example.

 

[TracyP]

I made most of the changes that Cathy and Roger suggested. Cathy the paragraph about sending the PM states that there does not have to be a "separate" PM in addition to the automated PM, as long as a detailed explanation is included in the automated PM. Feel free to edit this template:thumbs_up.

 

[toolman]

I suspect that not everyone is aware that whatever we end up with, not only will we follow it, but it must be available for all users to see. At least that was my intention. I firmly believe that the structure of the process must visible.:swoon::elvis:

Do we want this whole thing in front of the members or do we want a condensed version? Bas brought a good point up in a PM early on in this process. A member could hold us to the fire if we did not exactly follow step by step the guidelines that we adopt. Example: You deleted my post, however you did not do X before you did O. You moderators are not following your own guidelines:dontknow:. End example.

Well My 2 cents on the moderator guidelines our looking good. :icon_thum But being visible to all members???? :dontknow: I have no problem with it but as tracy's example shows it may not be in our best interest. The moderator guidelines are guidelines to help the staff to do the same thing each time we moderate. The members have the site policy to follow. And if the moderator guidelines are followed by the staff, the staff will moderate its self. I believe in a month we the staff will have to make changes to the guidelines in one way or another, if it is visible how will all the members look at that? Well this is my 2 cents. If out in left field :slap: just hit me.

 

[Bas]

And if the moderator guidelines are followed by the staff, the staff will moderate its self. I believe in a month we the staff will have to make changes to the guidelines in one way or another, if it is visible how will all the members look at that? Well this is my 2 cents. If out in left field :slap: just hit me.

That's my take on it as well. This is not about being arrogant or "above" review, but it's the job of the senior moderators (and their peers) to ensure the moderators are adhering to the guidelines.

Having the moderator guidelines out in the open could help in some cases. It shows we're trying to be fair, consistent etc. But, I think most people already think that we're trying to do the right thing. Posting or not posting the guidelines won't change that. And there will be a select few that will use it to beat us over the head with it.

I think I'm going to go scrape some glue for a bit. That always helps put things in perspective.

 

[McRabbet]

Steve/DaveO/fellow staffers:

I agree with Bas and Chad on this one -- let our Policy be the visible standard. The Moderator guidelines are just that: GUIDELINES. They are one of the key tools that the staff will use to help steer discussion on the forums away from policy violations and to keep our members on track. They define a consistent approach for the staff to follow, but don't need to be out front as a target for nitpickers.

 

[SteveColes]

Well, guys as usual, I strongly disagree:elvis::gar-La;. HOW we moderate and why needs to be out in the open. Or we will always have more non-constructive criticism than we would otherwise.

 

[cskipper]

I believe that what types of things could cause us to moderate a post or thread is good information for everyone. However, the steps (procedure) for doing so doesn't need to be shared. It's not a secret, but the vast majority of folks who visit the site could care less. The "pot-stirrers" will only start up again and start to pick on where the comma's are (yeah I know, I did), if a specific sentence could mean two things, if something is ambiguous, etc... Take it from a pot-stirrer in a former life, you will only be adding fuel to the fire.

Plus, if the whole thing is going to be shared, the phrasing could need re-vamped again. Example:
Offensive Material Within A Post
When possible, the first step should be to edit the offensive material from the post and, is the first thing listed it talks about ...

This theoretically would need to read more like, When possible, the moderaator should first edit...

 

[cskipper]

I made most of the changes that Cathy and Roger suggested. Cathy the paragraph about sending the PM states that there does not have to be a "separate" PM in addition to the automated PM, as long as a detailed explanation is included in the automated PM. Feel free to edit this template:thumbs_up.

I understand that. However, all of the above steps state that a PM is supposed to be sent. This really doesn't matter, but it's an inconsistency that pot-stirrer's would like to catch.

 

[SteveColes]

I believe that what types of things could cause us to moderate a post or thread is good information for everyone. However, the steps (procedure) for doing so doesn't need to be shared. It's not a secret, but the vast majority of folks who visit the site could care less. The "pot-stirrers" will only start up again and start to pick on where the comma's are (yeah I know, I did), if a specific sentence could mean two things, if something is ambiguous, etc... Take it from a pot-stirrer in a former life, you will only be adding fuel to the fire.

Plus, if the whole thing is going to be shared, the phrasing could need re-vamped again. Example:
Offensive Material Within A Post
When possible, the first step should be to edit the offensive material from the post and, is the first thing listed it talks about ...

This theoretically would need to read more like, When possible, the moderaator should first edit...

Everyone, please change the language so that the process can be published. Whether we do or not, we should be able to. Plus, I feel strongly and less someone comes up with a reason stronger than I have seen so far, I will want it published.

As far as pot stirrers are concerned, we will deal with that very strongly. I'll more to stay about that in a day or two. Still mulling over how what exactly to say to staff

 

[Bas]

Everyone, please change the language so that the process can be published. Whether we do or not, we should be able to. Plus, I feel strongly and less someone comes up with a reason stronger than I have seen so far, I will want it published.

I'm sorry Steve, but it's no longer your call. The board gets to set the policy, but the execution of that policy is the responsibility of the web master (and staff). Since you adjudicated the post, you no longer get to decide day-to-day operations. Your only recourse would be to appoint a different web master.

This thread was about discussion the content of the guidelines, not whether it should be published. Since we're getting too far off topic, I'm closing this thread.








:gar-La; OK, I hope that got you going. If it didn't, I want whatever medication you're taking. :banana: But that's what rule lawyering can lead to. Just imagine if someone made Yet Another Political Post, you moderated the post but didn't specify the relevant section in the site policy. The poster then cries foul in the Member Announcements how we're not following our own rules and we're being heavy-handed bullies.

Will you
(a) Reply to the poster, apologizing for not following the rules, and belatedly quote the site policy?
(b) Smile, go to the shop to make some shavings, and let someone else on the staff handle it?
(c) Reply to the poster, apologizing for not following the rules, and belatedly quote the site policy, then ban the user permanently?
(d) Start foaming at the mouth?

OK, so I'm exaggerating just a tiny bit :rolf: But this is the kind of rule-lawyering I'm worried about.

Granted, with some disclaimers we can defuse some of the nitpickers ("These guidelines are to help new moderators get started, not absolute rules. Not all cases require the same steps, use your best judgment etc.") but then we're sort of undermining what we're trying to do.

I do understand the point about openness. Making people understand the how and why can help avoid a lot of problems. We don't go out of our way to be a "clique", but I can understand how it's perceived. Publishing the guidelines could help improve things in that area.

Since you've been at this for a tad bit longer, I'm willing to defer to your judgment in this case. If only for the opportunity to say "I told you so" :gar-Bi:slap:

 

[cskipper]

Disclaimer - I'm reasonably sure that Steve will not agree with this, and I did steal it from another forum. It does, however, work for me.

"... Although the administrators and moderators of The Wood Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of The Wood Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of The Wood Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason..."

 

[TracyP]

I have changed the wording in the template. Let me know what you think.

 

[McRabbet]

There is a ton of redundant language in the Guidelines as they are currently written. I've done a re-write that also changes the document to less of a personal guide to Moderators but more a Public Document. While this is turning into the old cartoon on "How to build a Swing", I think this is an approach that all can live with.

Moderation Guidelines
As a general rule whenever posts or threads have been edited, deleted or closed for one of the reasons cited below, Moderators will usually send a Personal Message (PM) to the posting member with an explanation of the action and how the original material was a breach of forum policy or otherwise unsuitable for the website. In addition, such Moderator actions will be posted in the Moderator's forum to alert all staff.

Offensive Material Within A Post
When possible, the moderator should edit the offensive material from the post and let the conversation continue.

If the moderator is unsure, the post will be placed in moderation until it can be reviewed.

Posts That Cannot Be Edited
In the event that the moderator cannot edit out the offensive material, the post will be deleted. This is done as a soft delete so it can be restored if needed.

Offensive Thread
If the thread is an obvious violation of policy, the moderator will delete the thread.

If the moderator is unsure, the thread will be placed in moderation and a thread will be posted in the Mod’s forum explaining the action so it can be discussed.

Threads That Need to be closed
Sometimes, a thread or post is not in direct violation of policy but evokes heated exchanges. The moderator will post a reason for closing in the thread and then close it. The moderator will then post a thread in the Mod’s forum explaining the actions.

Offensive Avatars And Signatures
When an offensive avatar or signature is found, a PM will be sent to the user if they are currently online stating the policy that is violated, giving them a chance to change it. If they are not online, the Moderator should delete the offensive material and send a PM stating any policy that was violated.

Posting an explanation to the Moderator and Admin Forum
A thread shall be posted in the Moderator and Admin forum for each action for three reasons:
- To ensure the moderators and admins know what is happening
- To know who is posting material in violation of policy
- To promote consistency in moderation

Sending a PM
There is an automated PM that goes with most moderation actions. A Moderator is encouraged to send a separate PM. While the automated PM contains the reason for the moderation, it is preferred that the Moderator send a courteous but brief PM with a reference to the site policy.

Most members will accept valid reasons for deleting or editing a post, but some may disagree with the policy in general. Moderators do not set the policy, they only enforce it. The policy is created by the Board of Directors. Any policy discussions should be held in the Member Announcements Forum instead, where all can participate.

Sample text
The following is suggested as sample text when taking an action against a post:

Hi "member's name",

I edited your post entitled "All Dutch people are heretics". The North Carolina Woodworker site policy prohibits certain subjects to be discussed, such as ethnicity or religion. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated!

Moderator name


Should a Moderator be contacted by the poster, the following might be useful:

Hi "member's name",

Your post was edited because it was in violation of the North Carolina Woodworker site policy. This action is not a pronouncement of the accuracy or validity of your post. However, there are topics that evoke heated discussions and detract from the primary purpose of the site, maintaining a friendly site for discussing woodworking.

Moderator name

 

[SteveColes]

Bas, I sort of got lost here with your intentions. I'm not sure what part of this I really should be responding to. I was looking for a smilie that meant that but I couldn't really find it. So
:neener:


First, your example of lawyering which argues the board doesn't have the right to say how policy is carried out is wrong:rotflm::nah:

Now to the point that you were trying to make. yes, there will be those who will want to debate:argue: every point:slap: but without a reasoanble amount of visibilty, how do you answer the question, why was thread1 closed and my thread2 deleted. Or why was my post deleted, I didn't say anything wrong (that person didn't, they just had the misfortune to respond to a post that was deleted becuase it had to be andthe responding post, just didn't make sense anymore.

Moderation needs to be a step by measured step of escalation. Starting with a minor edit and through about 10 steps of escalation to the ultimate of deleteing a thread.

I'm sorry Steve, but it's no longer your call. The board gets to set the policy, but the execution of that policy is the responsibility of the web master (and staff). Since you adjudicated the post, you no longer get to decide day-to-day operations. Your only recourse would be to appoint a different web master.

This thread was about discussion the content of the guidelines, not whether it should be published. Since we're getting too far off topic, I'm closing this thread.








:gar-La; OK, I hope that got you going. If it didn't, I want whatever medication you're taking. :banana: But that's what rule lawyering can lead to. Just imagine if someone made Yet Another Political Post, you moderated the post but didn't specify the relevant section in the site policy. The poster then cries foul in the Member Announcements how we're not following our own rules and we're being heavy-handed bullies.

Will you
(a) Reply to the poster, apologizing for not following the rules, and belatedly quote the site policy?
(b) Smile, go to the shop to make some shavings, and let someone else on the staff handle it?
(c) Reply to the poster, apologizing for not following the rules, and belatedly quote the site policy, then ban the user permanently?
(d) Start foaming at the mouth?

OK, so I'm exaggerating just a tiny bit :rolf: But this is the kind of rule-lawyering I'm worried about.

Granted, with some disclaimers we can defuse some of the nitpickers ("These guidelines are to help new moderators get started, not absolute rules. Not all cases require the same steps, use your best judgment etc.") but then we're sort of undermining what we're trying to do.

I do understand the point about openness. Making people understand the how and why can help avoid a lot of problems. We don't go out of our way to be a "clique", but I can understand how it's perceived. Publishing the guidelines could help improve things in that area.

Since you've been at this for a tad bit longer, I'm willing to defer to your judgment in this case. If only for the opportunity to say "I told you so" :gar-Bi:slap:

 

[TracyP]

Rob, Thanks for taking the redundancy out of it. I like the edits you made:thumbs_up

 

[NZAPP1]

I had a chance to review this today and think it is good:icon_thum

 

[Bas]

First, your example of lawyering which argues the board doesn't have the right to say how policy is carried out is wrong:rotflm::nah:

Actually, that was the only point I was trying to make in my ramblings. Brevity is not one of my strong talents Not too long ago, one of our users wanted a decision to be reversed because he was a member of the corporation. Wrong of course, but people will "interpret" things to fit their needs. The same kind of misinterpretation is likely to happen with our moderator guidelines.

But...the more I think about it, why bother worrying about the 1% of people who stir up things. We should be worrying about the 99% of non-stirring-up people instead.

@Rob - edits look great!

 

[sapwood]

ccasion1 Rob!
That is sooo much better :mrgreen:

Roger

 

[SteveColes]

Actually, that was the only point I was trying to make in my ramblings. Brevity is not one of my strong talents Not too long ago, one of our users wanted a decision to be reversed because he was a member of the corporation. Wrong of course, but people will "interpret" things to fit their needs. The same kind of misinterpretation is likely to happen with our moderator guidelines.

But...the more I think about it, why bother worrying about the 1% of people who stir up things. We should be worrying about the 99% of non-stirring-up people instead.

@Rob - edits look great!

point taken, sorry I was thick:embaresse

 

[SteveColes]

Disclaimer - I'm reasonably sure that Steve will not agree with this, and I did steal it from another forum. It does, however, work for me.

"... Although the administrators and moderators of The Wood Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of The Wood Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of The Wood Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason..."

By itself, I don't feel it serves our purposes. But as an add on, it does. In particular the last sentence.