Thinking of Leaving

[Cowher]

Sometimes it would be helpful though if folk suggested what rule they thought was being broken as comments do not always make this clear and it is not fair that we should then have to guess. In such cases we often seek further clarification from the reporter.

I actually think that the reporter shouldn't say what rule is in violation. If you can't tell whats wrong with the thread then the thread isn't in violation.
I also was a mod at a forum. I found that using a guide that I learned from a really good book worked well. I can't say what good book because I don't want my post to be reported. But basically if you have issue with someone go talk to them. If they refuse to stop then bring someone else into it. Like a mod. If they still don't stop then the post would be reviewed by the mods and if warranted would be removed or locked.
It never went past step two. Actually in the 3 years I was active there was one. He was trolling and refused to stop so he was kicked out. But he was the exception.
This is still one of the best forums I have been a part of. But I witnessed the fall of a few forums. They tanked over moderation. Members, mods, owner, let's not let that happen here. And if anyone who is upset about being over moderated then leaving is certainly not helping anything. But staying and refusing to let this forum go to naziville would be awesome.

Disclamer. I'm not saying this forum is associated with Nazis. Rather if over moderation continued and got much worse then it would become a place where no one would feel safe expressing their views.

[Father Bill]

Well, this is Steve's sandbox, and we need to play by his rules. He has the financial and temporal investment that makes him vulnerable, and we need to appreciatively respect the fact that we all benefit from his investment. That doesn't mean however, that we should never discuss the terms of membership, nor that they might not benefit from adjustment.

As an example for possible adjustment - not by the members, but by Steve who, as I have stated, bears the fiscal responsibility for the site, and with the advice of those whom he trusts, I would question, for example, the last part of Rule #5 which says that we can't compare political systems. As an example only, I will state right now that Canada has a Parliamentary Consititional Monarch, whereas the United States of America is a Republic.

Now technically that is a comparison, so I suppose that I should now be censured but I did not make any value judgement on either of those. By that I mean that I didn't say that either was better than the other, or that I have a preference for either form of government. Actually, I see fascinating and powerful advantages in each of those forms. My thought however, is that the wording might better state that it is not the comparing, but rather making a value judgement on anyone's preference that should be forbidden. (And by the way, PLEASE let's not start a discussion of the relative merits of these two forms of government as a result of my example. It is here because it demonstrates the very possibility of a neutral comparison, not as a provocation or attack of any kind.)

Possibly, this is a very innocuous (I hope) demonstration of the kind of confusion which could some grief for some of the members: the use of broad rules which while incredibly useful and sensible, may indeed create some misunderstandings between those involved in a discussion. I totally understand and support the purpose of Rule 5 as stated in the first half, but perhaps the second half might in some circumstances create issues in the minds of some folks.

Should the rules be reviewed? Of course! - by the owner and his trusted advisors. Everything in this planet should be reviewed from time to time. I am a priest and I constantly review my understanding of scripture and theology. Did I not, I think I should be removed from my position.

Should our own use and interpretations of the rules and this forum be reviewed? Yes, by each of us individually, and when necessary, by the moderators.

Pax!

Lovingly,

Bill

[McClef]

But it isn't completely transparent Steve. I had a post reported a while back. Mea culpa, I will admit to pushing to the edge on that one. The mod did fully inform me after about a week and I was given one demerit point, that aspect of the system was at least functionally transparent.

It was what went on before where there was no transparency. I was not informed who got their knickers in a knot and pushed the button (although I have a good inkling who it was). I was not given the opportunity to have a discussion with them via PM to iron out the differences. Odds are I would have withdrawn the post, I'm a reasonable guy.

We do not reveal the identity of the reporter because of the need for confidentiality. The reportee could possibly gang up on the reporter and seek revenge and this would tend to discourage people from making a report in the first place. If the reporter wishes to make themselves known then that is their choice, but we will not reveal our "sources" without their permission.

Nor do we make public the award of any disciplinary points - these are kept confidential on a person's profile and available only to staff. Nor do we reveal in public what disciplinary awards have been made against an individual, not even to the reporter who is merely informed of the result of the actual finding on their complaint. Only the person receiving the infraction is informed of the fact.

We do try to be transparent whilst preserving confidentiality.

I actually think that the reporter shouldn't say what rule is in violation. If you can't tell whats wrong with the thread then the thread isn't in violation.

The Moderators do not act as a DA who decides what case is to be answered and indeed sometimes we simply cannot work out what the reporter thinks the case should be from their comments. For want of a better analogy we are more like a Supreme Court, assessing the case made by all parties against the standard of the Rules.

I would draw your attention to our FAQ:

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...dispute_policy

We are governed by its provisions. It is our "good book."

[Kilt]

To clarify,

There were two reports filed against the same post. We often see this. Some threads or posts will generate many reports, all of exactly the same thing.

It is a pretty good bet that if the Moderators receive more than one report of the same post that something is going on.

In this case one of the reports was called back. It had nothing to due with the post or the rule but more because the report was delivered via PM and not according to proper procedure.



If a single post within a thread is reported we can sometimes pull and move just that one post. Often however, others have quoted the post or continued the discussion beyond the reported post. In these cases we have no option but to move the entire thread.



Even though I do not vote on rules violations I am ultimately responsible for everything. I keep track of all reports and also of the votes cast by the Moderators and the resulting decisions made.

If you put things in proper perspective very few threads are actually closed. You would also be surprised by how many times the Moderators decision on reports is that no violation has occurred and the thread is returned to the forum.

I know that the ones that are closed get the attention. That is only human nature. But the facts speak for themselves. There are far fewer threads closed today than at any other time in the history of this forum.

The difference now is that the system is more transparent. You know when things are done by the Moderators. It is policy that no post is ever moved or closed without leaving behind a notice of some sort. No thread is closed without a full reason being stated.
No thread or post just disappears. There is always an explanation left for the action of the Moderators.

This is also true of our disciplinary policy. Only spammers trying to post about their porn site or Viagra sales are ever banned without notice. (we average 150 a day)
If someone has had their membership revoked they have had 4 separate offenses. The policy on how the moderators must handle all this is plainly spelled out in our FAQ's.

Since I have owned the forum only one membership has been revoked, and only one person is on a temporary suspension.

Not too bad a record for over 250,000 posts and over 5500 members in the same time frame.

O'Callagahn,

It is not an impression that the Forum Moderators are required to notify any and every person involved if a post is reported, it is a fact.

You are living proof that the Moderators do not take sides, they do not treat reports emotionally. They weigh the facts and act only in accordance with the published rules.

You were not penalized simply because it was found that the report that was submitted was just that, a report. the Moderators found that you had not violated the rules. During the process you were offered the chance to speak on your behalf. The Moderators listened to you and took your input into account in their deliberations.

The matter was resolved amicably, no harm done and no one holds it against you.



I've been seeing complaints of over-moderation ever since this forum started back in 2004. And you know what? It is simply not true. Yes, the forum is moderated but the stress needs to be put on the first part of the word. The forum is moderate. Those who are asked to become Moderators are asked because they have a proven record of being moderate in everything they do.

I would like everyone to realize that if a thread is closed, if a post is removed, there is a very good reason behind it. The voting among the Moderators showed that a rule was in fact broken.

Perhaps instead of what some seem to think about the forum being over-moderated is in fact the result of more people attempting to skirt the rules.


Our rules are simple. There are only 12 of them. Basically all we ask is that our members remember that this forum is about kilts. We ask that you leave your politics, religion, and weapons at the door. And we ask simply that you think about the other members who share this forum before you hit submit.

Wow....I would say something to this but would become the SECOND person being kicked off the forum. Nevermind, that is not true.

[mookien]

Father Bill: Assuming I understand your post correctly, what you suggest about establishing a distinction in the rules between substantiated fact and advocacy/opposition makes a lot of sense in principle, but would be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement successfully in practice.

Take the relatively dry, precise subject of science, for example. Start a discussion about "global warming" and ask participants to confine their comments to facts, not opinion. There will be a short distance between the statement of the first "fact" and the first lively argument about that "fact". Now, switch the subject to one of politics or religion and the problem grows exponentially.

Even if one confines the discussion to a comparatively simple topic, like kilts and Scottish attire, and insists on the use of simple, undisputed facts, like "blue and purple are two distinct colors", ... oh, never mind. ;)

I think it's best just to avoid some topics as the rules stipulate.

[Tony]

I think it's best just to avoid some topics as the rules stipulate.

Nae insults, nae guns, nae politics, nae religion - nae bother.

[bdkilted]

All to true gentlemen, but keep in mind that most of us are Scots and as such we seem to be genitically inclined to disagree. We have disagreements with our friends in the real world, but we don't abandon them. Let us all agree to thicken our skins. If it appears, as speculated that there is one or two people who are taking offense at the littlest thing and creating problems for the rest of us, we should ostersize them and not abandon the rest.
A suggestion to the moderators: Keep a list of who complains, even if it is just to share between all of you. If one name comes up too frequently, you can deal with that person as a whiner, instead of interfering with the enjoyment the rest of us get from the treads.

[CMcG]

<snip>
Our rules are simple. There are only 12 of them. Basically all we ask is that our members remember that this forum is about kilts.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[sydnie7]

[snip]
A suggestion to the moderators: Keep a list of who complains, even if it is just to share between all of you. If one name comes up too frequently, you can deal with that person as a whiner, instead of interfering with the enjoyment the rest of us get from the treads.

Why does reporting a post that (in the reporter's opinion) breaks the rules make that person a "whiner"? IMHO it makes them someone who respects the values of this forum -- as put forth in the rules that everybody agrees to abide by when they sign up -- and who is willing to take the time to keep it that way.

BTW the only posts I have ever reported were obvious spam that had crept past the oft-overworked mods -- ads for drugs and the like. I have seen many other posts that I could have reported, but chose instead to close the thread and read elsewhere. But I don't think the person who chooses to report such a thread is necessarily or automatically a "whiner."

Tony and mookien have said it best -- avoid the topics that are clearly against the rules, and the problem goes away.

[bdkilted]

Sydnie7, I did not call you a whiner. If you look at the context of the post, I was referring to those who take offense at other's words, just for the sake of being offended. This is where creating a thicker skin comes in....