Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Should threads discussing moderation be allowed Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    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.
    Not every closed thread, every closed thread discussing a specific moderation in public. You know, if that became something that was allowed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    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.
    No, there's a difference between whether the rules are fair and whether the rules are being applied fairly. The former is important for the community to have input on. The latter, less so. That sounds a bit contrary... but bear with me. We're open an honest about how we're governed as a team, how you can complain, how your complaint will be dealt with and how we peer review everything we do as a team. Now the detail of how we execute our role isn't under the purview of the wider community, but I think we're pretty frank and open about how we go about our roles. There are very few aspects of the moderation team's typical duties that we're not happy to discuss.

    I can't comment about this case you're referring to. If you want to discuss it further - AAM is the place to go.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    No, there's a difference between whether the rules are fair and whether the rules are being applied fairly. The former is important for the community to have input on. The latter, less to. That sounds a bit contrary... but bear with me. We're open an honest about how we're governed as a team, how you can complain, how your complaint will be dealt with and how we peer review everything we do as a team. Now the detail of how we execute our role isn't under the purview of the wider community, but I think we're pretty frank and open about how we go about our roles. There are very few aspects of the moderation team's typical duties that we're not happy to discuss.

    I can't comment about this case you're referring to. If you want to discuss it further - AAM is the place to go.
    This highlights the very issue I mention. If the moderators don't understand something, and support from the wider community might help them to understand, I can't take it to them. Because moderators might not understand something being offensive, unless they see that many people from a particular minority will actually find it offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    This highlights the very issue I mention. If the moderators don't understand something, and support from the wider community might help them to understand, I can't take it to them. Because moderators might not understand something being offensive, unless they see that many people from a particular minority will actually find it offensive.
    False. The moderators are part of the community. We're all members first, moderators second. If I don't get it, one of the other 70 moderators will.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    False. The moderators are part of the community. We're all members first, moderators second. If I don't get it, one of the other 70 moderators will.
    False. Just because there are 70 moderators it does not mean that any of them will understand why a particular community will find something offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    False. Just because there are 70 moderators it does not mean that any of them will understand why a particular community will find something offensive.
    You're really suggesting that nobody in a pool of 70 diverse people will understand why you think someone is offensive? That's a statistical improbability, unless your argument isn't presented properly, of course.

    Either way - the course of action is to raise it in AAM if you have no joy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    You're really suggesting that nobody in a pool of 70 diverse people will understand why you think someone is offensive? That's a statistical improbability, unless your argument isn't presented properly, of course.

    Either way - the course of action is to raise it in AAM if you have no joy.
    You don't seem to understand, but I'll expand my argument properly.
    Okay lets say that 3 people do understand, that does not mean that they will discuss it. Even if they do, they might not be able to persuade the mod who is dealing with it.
    So even if someone does understand and agree, it doesn't mean that they'll have the power (as either a moderator, or a debater) to persuade. Even if they do, it doesn't mean that the mod dealing with it will agree with them.
    But if society generally has acceptable bigotry towards a minority, then it would still be a big presumption, no matter how diverse the 70 mods, that they have not accepted the socially acceptable minority.


    But even then, the scenario is all ready set up in AAM, what good would come out of making another topic in AAM?

    There's a lot ifs.
    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 if people follow the rules.
    I disagree with the bold bit; if any user was to say "oh, I was treated so unfairly, as a moderator gave me 14 warning points because I said I didn't like cats", then any moderator could easily look at the user's record, and say - no, that is untrue.
    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 if people follow the rules.
    No matter how you play it, that IS an infringement on a person's freedom of speech as defined in the UDHR

    Lets take this to a comparible real life situation. You commit a crime and you get punished. You still have the freedom to speak about the crime, and the punishment, in whatever context you want to. You may say whatever you like about those involved in catching you and punishing you. It may not be accurate... it may be just opinion, but people have a right to that. Those being spoken about also have a right to their side of the story... Of course, in a professional context, there is a confidentiality issue, which I understand completely... but in speaking publicly in a way that involves the other party, the punished or warned party has essentially given up that right to confidentiality. If a person testifies falsely in court for example, the other party have the right to give their evidence and side.

    This is especially the case in a forum setting. If someone is given a warning, it is on the understanding that in that moment, it is between themselves and the moderators. If they choose to then talk about it in an open forum, involving the moderator or team that has warned them, they have given up their right to confidentiality and the mods then have the right to give their side of the story and evidence. Of course the moderators should have right of reply. They have not chosen to disclose information about the warning, the warned person has, and has therefore given up their right to privacy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    No matter how you play it, that IS an infringement on a person's freedom of speech as defined in the UDHR

    Lets take this to a comparible real life situation. You commit a crime and you get punished. You still have the freedom to speak about the crime, and the punishment, in whatever context you want to. You may say whatever you like about those involved in catching you and punishing you. It may not be accurate... it may be just opinion, but people have a right to that. Those being spoken about also have a right to their side of the story... Of course, in a professional context, there is a confidentiality issue, which I understand completely... but in speaking publicly in a way that involves the other party, the punished or warned party has essentially given up that right to confidentiality. If a person testifies falsely in court for example, the other party have the right to give their evidence and side.

    This is especially the case in a forum setting. If someone is given a warning, it is on the understanding that in that moment, it is between themselves and the moderators. If they choose to then talk about it in an open forum, involving the moderator or team that has warned them, they have given up their right to confidentiality and the mods then have the right to give their side of the story and evidence. Of course the moderators should have right of reply. They have not chosen to disclose information about the warning, the warned person has, and has therefore given up their right to privacy.
    This is not a democracy. Don't be under any illusion it is. You waive your real world rights when you agree to use the website under the terms and conditions.

    I've made the position extremely clear on this and I'm not getting into a debate on whether we should do things in a court or not, because it's not going to happen. We don't have a right of reply.

    Consider a case where a user has posted porn. We remove it and ban the user for 7 days as policy dictates. The user then comes on and says that the mods banned them unfairly. What are we going to do? Reinstate the post containing pornography for everyone to scrutinise? What a nonsense.

    It's not going to happen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    This is not a democracy. Don't be under any illusion it is. You waive your real world rights when you agree to use the website under the terms and conditions.

    I've made the position extremely clear on this and I'm not getting into a debate on whether we should do things in a court or not, because it's not going to happen. We don't have a right of reply.

    Consider a case where a user has posted porn. We remove it and ban the user for 7 days as policy dictates. The user then comes on and says that the mods banned them unfairly. What are we going to do? Reinstate the post containing pornography for everyone to scrutinise? What a nonsense.

    It's not going to happen.
    No, TSR is not above UK law, European law, or international law. No contract is above the law and one does not waive one's human rights in agreeing to such a contract.

    Universal Declaration of human rights

    Article 2.

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
    Article 19.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
    If a user has posted porn, likelihood is it is not only moderators who have seen it, therefore, there is independent evidence from other users who can state this and back up the position of the mods.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    No, TSR is not above UK law, European law, or international law. No contract is above the law and one does not waive one's human rights in agreeing to such a contract.

    Universal Declaration of human rights





    If a user has posted porn, likelihood is it is not only moderators who have seen it, therefore, there is independent evidence from other users who can state this and back up the position of the mods.
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood, which I can understand. What Mad is saying (I hope I'm not wrong:P ) is that you don't have the right to freedom of speech on TSR. You can go into the street and say what you want within the law. But TSR can impose tighter restrictions if it so wishes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    No, TSR is not above UK law, European law, or international law. No contract is above the law and one does not waive one's human rights in agreeing to such a contract.

    Universal Declaration of human rights





    If a user has posted porn, likelihood is it is not only moderators who have seen it, therefore, there is independent evidence from other users who can state this and back up the position of the mods.
    No.

    You agree to use the service in the manner prescribed, or you cannot use the service. Simple as that. You do not have absolute freedom of speech on TSR, or any website for that matter. You agree to not post content that is against the T&C's - if you do then the moderators are well within their rights to prevent you from using the service.

    Being a barrack-room lawyer will not help this argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood, which I can understand. What Mad is saying (I hope I'm not wrong:P ) is that you don't have the right to freedom of speech on TSR. You can go into the street and say what you want within the law. But TSR can impose tighter restrictions if it so wishes.
    This.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood, which I can understand. What Mad is saying (I hope I'm not wrong:P ) is that you don't have the right to freedom of speech on TSR. You can go into the street and say what you want within the law. But TSR can impose tighter restrictions if it so wishes.
    READ

    I will repeat this:
    TSR is not above UK law, European law, or international law. No contract is above the law and one does not waive one's human rights in agreeing to such a contract.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    READ

    I will repeat this:
    TSR is not above UK law, European law, or international law. No contract is above the law and one does not waive one's human rights in agreeing to such a contract.
    There's a difference between freedom of speech and giving someone a platform. TSR is under no obligation to provide a platform. This does not mean that someone can sign their rights away.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    There's a difference between freedom of speech and giving someone a platform. TSR is under no obligation to provide a platform. This does not mean that someone can sign their rights away.
    This is exactly the point I am making. By signing up to tsr and agreeing to their rules, one does not sign one's rights away.

    Any contract is null and void if any part of it breaches laws and rights.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    This is exactly the point I am making. By signing up to tsr and agreeing to their rules, one does not sign one's rights away.

    Any contract is null and void if any part of it breaches laws and rights.
    Christ. Fine. Waive is not the right word. :rolleyes:

    YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ON TSR.

    End of story.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabloomybuzz)
    This is exactly the point I am making. By signing up to tsr and agreeing to their rules, one does not sign one's rights away.

    Any contract is null and void if any part of it breaches laws and rights.
    Perhaps you don't understand what a platform is in this context.

    If you go onto the street and make a statement, you do not have a platform. You have the right to make that statement.
    If you however go into my university and make that same statement, you have no right to do so.
    You might be invited to, and that's fine. But there is no obligation in your rights for the university to give you the lecture hall to make that statement.

    TSR has no obligation to let you post whatever you want on TSR. But that does not mean it is trying to stop you from having a right to go onto the street to make a statement.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why have human rights be brought into this discussion? Don't like it, don't post here.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise 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.