Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forum Moderation
#1
Quote:David Deary wrote: Why has a post been removed from this thread? Unless I imagined it, there was another post on this thread.

I am beginning to get tired at the excessive level of moderation on this forum. In the recent past, topics have disappeared and posts deleted without any consultation or communication. In my view, It’s another reason that this forum is dead compared to the old one. It is odd that personal attacks are allowed to stand on this ‘public’ forum against certain posters and legitimate points that cannot be construed as an attack are removed.

I would ask the moderators to seriously consider whether they are applying the forum rules linked below.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=413">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=413</a><!-- l -->

But there has been consultation and communication, just not necessarily such which has been made public. And why would we actually do that? Have we really removed anything if a discussion on removing it (specifically) is left for all to see? And precisely the reason I sent you an email was to answer your query above, without taking the discussion off topic by responding in it. Perhaps the forum is dead compared to the old one, I wouldn't really know having barely been involved with the old one. It's difficult to make the causal connection as to why that might be, however, except to state that I haven't received any complaints regarding moderation from anyone who has not already been an active participant on the forum; and hence must conclude that the lack of participation has its roots elsewhere. Might I suggest, in fact, that it's more likely people are disillusioned with the forum because of the petty, infantile bickering that predominates on many discussions, irrespective of how much time passes? Something which this "excessive" moderation - as you put it - is trying hard to fix.

I also should point out that I neither want to nor believe that I am directing policy on here. It is a personal opinion of mine that an organisation like Chess Scotland will do itself considerable harm if it is to be seen to do nothing in light of some of the diatribe some people have posted on here since my joining. Nonetheless, if the powers that be wish to change the way things operate from top to bottom - I will happily comply with any such change so long as it is legal. And I genuinely mean that without reserve, for people continually questioning why things are done as they are is tiring and time consuming, and I scarcely have time for it. One of the problems with moderating is that in almost all cases someone gets a response that they don't like. You are perfectly entitled to disagree, and indeed to privately voice that disagreement to me or the other moderators (or anyone else who takes your fancy), but ultimately it's not a trial by jury here - someone has to make as objective a decision as they can. We have the unenviable job of keeping order around here, and in so doing some people become annoyed at us along the way. It's not personal for me, I try very hard to treat things impartially.

In any case, you are within your rights to think otherwise of my intentions. But I do think we should discuss the way the forum is run in here, along with any suggested changes to it, however radical...
Reply
#2
Quote:Have we really removed anything if a discussion on removing it (specifically) is left for all to see?

actually inaccurate. a whole thread was recently removed without warning and for a pretty poor excuse too.
Reply
#3
Andrew, I have opted to answer your post here rather than your email as you have quoted me here. I fully expect some of this post to be redacted but here goes…

I don’t think there is any doubt that this forum is dead compared to the old one. One reason was the naming convention whereby there was an insistence that all posters use their full name and were not even allowed initials. Another is the hyper moderation, I’ve always been a fan of self moderation where in the event a poster crosses the line other posters pull them up for it. The moderators stepping in should be a last resort but on this forum the moderators deleting topics, posts and editing posts is the norm. Something is amiss with that, I do agree that the petty and infantile bickering between the same culprits probably puts people off but it was the same on the old forum and dare I say on any forum.

You point out that you are not trying to direct policy which is fair enough. However, what I will say is that I have seen more and more posts being removed that disagree with a certain poster’s views. The latest one posted by Pat was fair enough and to me asked a fundamental question concerning whether members and non-members should have the same access and rights to post on this forum. I would have thought a more sensible course (if you had to act at all) would have been to move the post to a topic of its own and reminded posters to remain on topic in the Council meeting thread. Deleting posts should not be your default setting!

A little off topic but still relates to the forum. In terms of the non-members vs members question on the forum - from memory I believe Derek posted on a previous thread (apologies if I have got that wrong) that non-members (parents in that case) should be able to view topics and post as the forum is a great resource for information. I believe this was the case with the old forum but the current forum has so few posts and so much moderation I doubt a non member could find any useful information with the exception of the tournament and events sections. In my view, I don’t see why those cannot be public and open to non-members but the rest of the forum be for CS members only. Another reason I believe some of the forum should be members only is that we all post with our real names and sometimes the bile that is spouted from certain quarters can damage people’s names and reputations (including CS’s). Irrespective of how quickly the post is amended or moderated. This is one of the reasons I no longer post as frequently. For me, the naming convention and members(private)/non-members(public) issue is linked - If you want to use real names the forum should be a public/private hybrid and if you want pseudonyms it should be public.

Finally, what I will say is that a certain group of individuals who wish to influence policy seem to be able to have any post removed that they do not agree with. This is concerning, I tend to notice posts and topics disappearing as I check the forum frequently but to the casual poster they probably wouldn’t notice. I recall a post that I complained about which really irked me where someone had insisted my club supported a policy that we did not and it was entirely fictitious but the moderators would not remove it. Then I see a post being removed which wasn’t fictitious had no insult but was not to the liking of a certain poster being removed by the moderators and I begin to question the consistency of moderation and the inference to influencing policy. :\
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Reply
#4
You make some valid points David. But I do want to dispel the belief of favouritism. Even if to some it may appear that way, it's not; I always try to play it impartially as I see it. Obviously that's not perfect and I can make mistakes, but it's certainly not deliberate.

If people don't want to use their real names then let's discuss that. If the popular choice is to revert to the previous method then we can make that happen.

If people think non-members should be allowed to use only some parts of the forum then we can make that happen too. Let's discuss it here.

I don't want it to appear like it's some kind of dictatorship. Ultimately the forum is supposed to be a useful resource for everyone to use, and at the moment we can only really speculate as to why fewer people are using it. It's probable that there are a few different reasons, as outlined in the posts above (among others), each contributing somewhat.
Reply
#5
Quote:But I do want to dispel the belief of favouritism

Really? I would like to believe this, name the complainer then. Either privately or better still publicly, they are hiding behind anonymity that you afford them. You seem to be easily influenced as you yourself stated that the post was not that far wrong, i think you said borderline. I fully agree with Davids post, well articulated and bluntly honest. Beware that over moderation will not encourage fair and honest debate.
Reply
#6
Patrick McGovern Wrote:
Quote:Have we really removed anything if a discussion on removing it (specifically) is left for all to see?

actually inaccurate. a whole thread was recently removed without warning and for a pretty poor excuse too.

The above doesn't suggest that I haven't/don't remove anything (even whole topics). It's a rhetorical question suggesting that leaving or allowing a discussion about the details of a removed post defeats the purpose of removing the post in the first place. Ironically, it could be even worse than if nothing was done to the original post, because it very publicly disects the details of it. Therefore, "excessive moderation" can often look so because posts discussing the details of an original deletion are also removed.


Patrick McGovern Wrote:
Quote:But I do want to dispel the belief of favouritism

Really? I would like to believe this, name the complainer then. Either privately or better still publicly, they are hiding behind anonymity that you afford them.

I find this pretty hypocritical of you, as your post named nobody yet obviously had a particular person in mind. I don't see any good in naming people who complain. In fact, I see good in keeping that information private, as it prevents them from becoming the target of any backlash. Besides, I don't see why it's particularly important whether you know who complained or not? How does that knowledge change anything for the better?

Patrick McGovern Wrote:You seem to be easily influenced as you yourself stated that the post was not that far wrong, i think you said borderline. I fully agree with Davids post, well articulated and bluntly honest. Beware that over moderation will not encourage fair and honest debate.

A borderline case would be harder to judge one way or the other, don't you think? Therefore going one way, whether it the right way or not, doesn't make me easily influenced. If I felt something was just on the wrong side of borderline, and dealt with it, this would be the correct decision. Whether this was on the wrong side of borderline or not is a different debate. I accept that there might have been other better ways of dealing with this one rather than simply deleting it. Perhaps David's suggestion of moving it to another topic and having a discussion (argument?) on it would work. My concern was not that you questioned whether non-members should be allowed to post or not, this is a very valid question. My concern was it bringing into question the posting rights of a particular user (and in a way I felt was provocative), rather than non-members in general. This was both unfair and unneccessary, particularly given the contructive discussion and valuable contributions from lots of people, irrespective of their membership status.
Reply
#7
Must say that I was wondering whether the post was aimed at me but certainly didn't complain - rather I was going to post a reply highlighting the fact non-members are able to bring experience to the debate and if you disagreed with their views then debate it, don't just dismiss the view because it is being advanced by a non-member.

I was surprised to see that the post had been removed - it was not offensive in anyway, provocative perhaps. It seems to have been removed in anticipation of a bun fight?

In view of the position taken with regards Andy B's comments regarding N. Short I am not convinced that there is a consistent approach to moderation, or at least not one that I understand.

That said it is a thankless task. Not one I would like to do as you are bound to be seen to get it wrong by somebody.
Reply
#8
Mike Scott Wrote:In view of the position taken with regards Andy B's comments regarding N. Short I am not convinced that there is a consistent approach to moderation, or at least not one that I understand.

I think it's a bit different to what was written about Nigel Short. I mean Nigel isn't a user on our forum, and so it was very unlikely there would be a big argument over posting something about him. Andy's intention was not to directly use his post to offend Nigel Short, and I imagine Nigel would have probably just shrugged it off even if he had read it; as, given his celebrity-like status in the Chess world, he must be used to reading that sort of comment. Not that that necessarily makes it right or nice, but I do think it makes it different.
Reply
#9
Quote:Must say that I was wondering whether the post was aimed at me
, no it was not Mike =) I had no one in particular in mind.

However given Andrew's known friendships it is likely that the complainer to a reasonable post ;
Quote:I was surprised to see that the post had been removed - it was not offensive in anyway
(not my words) narrows down the list. This brings into question impartiality. I think that there mat be an overprotection of certain member/non-members.

as i said before healthy debate is being strangled, I wonder why??
Reply
#10
Patrick McGovern Wrote:
Quote:Must say that I was wondering whether the post was aimed at me
, no it was not Mike =) I had no one in particular in mind.

I'm sorry Pat, but it's quite clear you had a particular person in mind and your post was strongly indicative of that. If not then why add the words "...yet are proudly professed non members", as this clearly doesn't apply to all non-members. Indeed, most non-members are neither proud of the fact nor otherwise.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)