Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Should threads discussing moderation be allowed Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Provided no names of moderators are mentioned?


    Do. Not. Say. Anything. Against. The. Rules.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    *This thread is gonna be deleted like mine*

    Edit: it hasn't yet, wow. If its in the chat forum, why is it any mods business?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes... or if the mods want us to discuss it in AAM, allow a thread there where anyone can join, rather than an individual debating alone with the mods because its fairer
    Offline

    15
    If you browse this forum, you will see countless threads discussing moderation, criticising it and providing constructive feedback. There was a very active one yesterday about the way the moderator team deals with holocaust denial threads. However, discussing specific warnings or specific moderator actions is what the AAM is for. It ensures privacy and provides a confidential environment for both the user and the moderator and, given they are the only parties really involved, the public forums are not an appropriate place. It's also the reason why your warning histories aren't available for everyone to see.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    If you browse this forum, you will see countless threads discussing moderation, criticising it and providing constructive feedback. There was a very active one yesterday about the way the moderator team deals with holocaust denial threads. However, discussing specific warnings or specific moderator actions is what the AAM is for. It ensures privacy and provides a confidential environment for both the user and the moderator and, given they are the only parties really involved, the public forums are not an appropriate place. It's also the reason why your warning histories aren't available for everyone to see.
    That's probably for the best. Speaking for myself. :moon:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand what the big deal is tbh, even names of moderators should be allowed. You signed up for the job in the first place, great power comes great responsibility as well as accountability :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    Provided no names of moderators are mentioned?


    Do. Not. Say. Anything. Against. The. Rules.
    Yes. Otherwise we descend into Soviet Russia.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with the other thread that was deleted earlier today was it was discussing individual warnings which have been given out, which isn't allowed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, the Mods have been abusing their power for far too long! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuy117)
    Yeah, the Mods have been abusing their power for far too long! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    I think you mistake TSR for a nation or place where you are more than a user using a provided service.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuy117)
    Yeah, the Mods have been abusing their power for far too long! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
    You could always set up your own forum...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmhumphries)
    The problem with the other thread that was deleted earlier today was it was discussing individual warnings which have been given out, which isn't allowed.
    Why isn't it? Why shouldn't people discuss their own warnings if they choose to disclose them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    Why isn't it? Why shouldn't people discuss their own warnings if they choose to disclose them?
    I don't make the rules, I was just pointing out that is the rule. As far as I know, I believe that the intent behind it is keeping things private for the user and the (anonymous) moderator involved. And yes, I know that in itself leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but you will have to wait for a mod to come along and give a better answer I'm afraid
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No as its likely to cause flame wars
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest with you, yes.
    There should of course be a few rules, such as the moderators should have anonymity if they want it [but that of course can be lifted by other moderators should any rule breaking occur in those posts]. The poster who has had a moderation action against them should need to consent. And the thread should be closed with a statement for why it's been closed, instead of deleted.

    But the problem that might occur is, there might simply not be enough moderators for that on TSR.
    I think it's not allowed for practical reasons personally.


    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    If you browse this forum, you will see countless threads discussing moderation, criticising it and providing constructive feedback. There was a very active one yesterday about the way the moderator team deals with holocaust denial threads. However, discussing specific warnings or specific moderator actions is what the AAM is for. It ensures privacy and provides a confidential environment for both the user and the moderator and, given they are the only parties really involved, the public forums are not an appropriate place. It's also the reason why your warning histories aren't available for everyone to see.
    What do you think? Because the privacy issue only counts if the person who has had a moderation against them doesn't want these things to be private.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    To be honest with you, yes.There should of course be a few rules, such as the moderators should have anonymity if they want it [but that of course can be lifted by other moderators should any rule breaking occur in those posts]. The poster who has had a moderation action against them should need to consent. And the thread should be closed with a statement for why it's been closed, instead of deleted.But the problem that might occur is, there might simply not be enough moderators for that on TSR.I think it's not allowed for practical reasons personally.What do you think? Because the privacy issue only counts if the person who has had a moderation against them doesn't want these things to be private.
    Its not just that though. As well as the mods respecting members' privacy it's also their job to prevent flame wars. Think about it. If a member is t liked a lot of people might just start saying nasty things. And is this attractive to a newbie reading a forum?? What sort of impression would that give them??
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MalevolntPhantom)
    Its not just that though. As well as the mods respecting members' privacy it's also their job to prevent flame wars. Think about it. If a member is t liked a lot of people might just start saying nasty things. And is this attractive to a newbie reading a forum?? What sort of impression would that give them??
    If it's about newbies then you could easily make it so that you could only post in that forum after you'd made 100 posts and/or been a member for 1 month.

    And people who flame would be warned and eventually banned and then perm banned.
    I really don't see how those are persuasive arguments. It's not as if you would be allowed to break the rules in those threads.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    I don't understand what the big deal is tbh, even names of moderators should be allowed. You signed up for the job in the first place, great power comes great responsibility as well as accountability :dontknow:
    We're entirely accountable. To the site's owners who manage us from above, and through peer review throughout the moderation team. And besides... great power? Woo... I can ban someone on an internet forum... my balls are trembling, the power is so amazing... Please.

    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    Why isn't it? Why shouldn't people discuss their own warnings if they choose to disclose them?
    Because the moderation team act in a professional way. It is our policy that we don't discuss warnings with anyone but the member concerned. If the member's then able to go and spout false information about how they've been treated, the moderation team has no right of reply. Because there is this imbalance we do not allow members to discuss their warnings with anywhere but in Ask A Moderator. That's the fairest and most constructive way to do it.

    And before someone starts suggesting an open court where users can oversee the moderation process... no - this isn't going to happen. Why? Because the reason people get warned in the first place is because they typically post content that shouldn't be on the site in the first place. It makes no sense to then open this up to scrutiny.

    We have a tried and tested way of working and act in the interest of the community at large - not to some agenda or bias. There's a well publicised appeal process, unlike most other forums, and we'll gladly reverse decisions that were made in error. So before people start wheeling out the usual insults saying that we're like the Stasi or the Gestapo - no, we're not. We're a very passionate bunch of volunteers that want to make this place as great as it can be and we can only do this if people follow the rules.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    We're entirely accountable. To the site's owners who manage us from above, and through peer review throughout the moderation team. And besides... great power? Woo... I can ban someone on an internet forum... my balls are trembling, the power is so amazing... Please.



    Because the moderation team act in a professional way. It is our policy that we don't discuss warnings with anyone but the member concerned. If the member's then able to go and spout false information about how they've been treated, the moderation team has no right of reply. Because there is this imbalance we do not allow members to discuss their warnings with anywhere but in Ask A Moderator. That's the fairest and most constructive way to do it.

    And before someone starts suggesting an open court where users can oversee the moderation process... no - this isn't going to happen. Why? Because the reason people get warned in the first place is because they typically post content that shouldn't be on the site in the first place. It makes no sense to then open this up to scrutiny.

    We have a tried and tested way of working and act in the interest of the community at large - not to some agenda or bias. There's a well publicised appeal process, unlike most other forums, and we'll gladly reverse decisions that were made in error. So before people start wheeling out the usual insults saying that we're like the Stasi or the Gestapo - no, we're not. We're a very passionate bunch of volunteers that want to make this place as great as it can be and we can only do this is people follow the rules.
    I disagree with you, a lot. I think that if you open it up you're more likely to receive a fair balance of whether people agree with the rules, think they can be improved. the theory of the rules is great, but the execution of them isn't always as good as it could be.



    A bigger problem I feel though is when you try to get someone's post deleted/edited and the moderation team won't really understand the point you're making. Sometimes I've felt in the past that a post should be deleted and the user warned for bigotry, but if the bigotry isn't directed at a TSR user it's a lot more difficult. This can be especially try of animal issues. I remember years ago I was on a vegetarian or vegan thread, and someone kept posting pictures of meat. The moderators couldn't understand why I found it offensive.

    But the pictures represented something that I disagree with so strongly, and the images were attached so clearly with the sole purpose of flaming me, that I felt the decision could only have been made from moderators who see meat on their plates on a daily basis and don't understand how it feels for veggies.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    To be honest with you, yes.
    There should of course be a few rules, such as the moderators should have anonymity if they want it [but that of course can be lifted by other moderators should any rule breaking occur in those posts]. The poster who has had a moderation action against them should need to consent. And the thread should be closed with a statement for why it's been closed, instead of deleted.
    Why should every single closed thread have a post explaining why it's been closed? I've done it a few times - once was because there's a limit (10,000) on how many posts per thread and have done it a few times before because the thread was old and it was clear that posters wanted to discuss the original question.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.