Mod queue and other dumb ideas

[trailblazer]

Okay, I was hoping for some actual discussion of WTF is going on in this forum. Instead, the thread on which I was hoping to do it got closed.

So I'll try one more time, in the hopes that we can keep the hostility elsewhere. (If not, it's an excellent sign for a lot of people here that it's probably time to move on.)

I'll begin with the so-called "mod queue." I am very much against this proposed enforcement tool for a variety of reasons. First, no one has indicated the standards with which it will be applied in the first place. If it's done for a member who hasn't been under suspension for at least 30 days, I'd say that it's a ridiculously harsh punishment. Second, I see no possible way that such a censorship, however temporary, could be applied fairly. For example, if I make a series of posts in the queue, and Helene approves 80% of them, I would stake my life that Matt Larson would look at those same posts and approve almost none of them.

Next, there's this business of "ask a mod" if you think there's a problem. Well, I have tried to do this in the past: it never goes very far. True, I'd prefer not to cajole the mods into releasing too much private information, but if they won't even discuss issues with the great unwashed via PM, what other options do we have?

Finally, just to assure you that this isn't simply a rant on my part, I want to be proactive and make a suggestion. Not only should USPOL publish the warning system, but the number of warning points that any member has should always be displayed on that person's public profile. This is hardly a privacy issue, if you screw up in the "real world" (by breaking a law), it's a matter of public record. This way, nobody can argue that someone was arbitrarily yanked, and a lot of rancor that's so obvious here can be resolved much more quickly.

Just my $0.02.

[Helene]

My $0.02 on the subject:

If you can't manage to participate on a forum for 15 days without incurring enough points to get you on mod queue, there's something wrong with your posting style.

The rules were not created in order to annoy you, to silence you, to drive you away, or to censor you. They were created over time, as the forum got bigger and the level of respect posters showed each other declined. The purpose of this forum is to discuss politics, and to be as open as possible to as many view points as possible. The rules were created to support this.

They aren't complicated rules, they aren't unfair rules. They are, I admit, not enforced consistently. That is due to the fact that there are just too many posts, and we do not do this professionally.

Again, if you cannot go through 15 days without ending up on mod queue, perhaps the mod queue is the best place for your posts to end up.

As far as questioning bias. I have in my time here not seen a mod act with intentional bias, except for sglaine. He is no longer a mod. I will vouch for any of the other mods, that they will never disallow a post based on the ideology of the poster. And if you think my word isn't worth much, well, that's your prerogative.

Helene

[iamwhatiseem]

All I would say is moderators are not getting paid.
They have lives. Asking a mod a question may take time - because they have lives.

I have been here for 2 1/2 years - have never even been warned before. Once when I was really pissed I had a post deleted and the mod sent me a P.M. saying why...but I already knew why, and expected it to be deleted anyway.

If we act like adults - it really doesn't matter what the punishments are - you will never get there in the first place.

[ViolaLee]

Sorry I got your thread closed trailblazer. My friend WEB's banning has me a little sad today.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Okay, I was hoping for some actual discussion of WTF is going on in this forum. Instead, the thread on which I was hoping to do it got closed.

I'm game.

I'll begin with the so-called "mod queue." I am very much against this proposed enforcement tool for a variety of reasons. First, no one has indicated the standards with which it will be applied in the first place. If it's done for a member who hasn't been under suspension for at least 30 days, I'd say that it's a ridiculously harsh punishment. Second, I see no possible way that such a censorship, however temporary, could be applied fairly. For example, if I make a series of posts in the queue, and Helene approves 80% of them, I would stake my life that Matt Larson would look at those same posts and approve almost none of them.

First of all, I don't like the mod queue, either. It creates extra work for the mod team which is certainly the last thing we need. It's a pain in the butt to have to go into the mod panel every now and then to check and see if there are posts that need to be approved. However, I don't make the rules for the site, Marc does, so I have to do what I have to do. The standards will be laid out in a post detailing the new warning system, as soon as Marc gives his approval.

Second of all, this is not nearly as harsh as a suspension. On a suspension the user is incapable of doing anything. When on the mod queue, a poster still gets the opportunity to post.

Third of all, the mods and admins we have now were chosen because they are fair minded and do not let their politics govern their moderating. Case in point, sglaine was an incredibly biased moderator. He played favorites like no other and even openly admitted to going after conservative posters because he didn't like them. The mod team tried to address this and we couldn't, so we ended up booting him from the mod team. At the moment, I have not personally witnessed any sort of bias from any of the mods and I can certainly see every single warning that is issued. You may be pleasantly surprised to see each mod goes after liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, anarchist, pro-American, anti-American just the same, if you were able to view the warning system.

Next, there's this business of "ask a mod" if you think there's a problem. Well, I have tried to do this in the past: it never goes very far. True, I'd prefer not to cajole the mods into releasing too much private information, but if they won't even discuss issues with the great unwashed via PM, what other options do we have?

I'm always more than happy to discuss things in PMs. It makes me feel special and needed.

Feel free to contact me with whatever bugs you and I'll be more than happy to help you out. Part of being a mod means helping the regular posters, not just punishing them, and I try my best to perform this duty.

Finally, just to assure you that this isn't simply a rant on my part, I want to be proactive and make a suggestion. Not only should USPOL publish the warning system, but the number of warning points that any member has should always be displayed on that person's public profile. This is hardly a privacy issue, if you screw up in the "real world" (by breaking a law), it's a matter of public record. This way, nobody can argue that someone was arbitrarily yanked, and a lot of rancor that's so obvious here can be resolved much more quickly.

Just my $0.02.

Suggestion noted. However, Marc does not want people's warnings and such to be made public. Someone with a lot of warnings on them may be ignored or poked fun at for having these warnings. We want everyone to have equal footing in a debate around here and having warnings displayed publically will uneven the grounds.

And the final thing that everyone should remember is: if you don't break the rules, you don't have anything to worry about. There has never ever been a case here where someone completely innocent was attacked by the mod team for no reason at all.

[iamwhatiseem]

Originally Posted by Samantha

Sorry I got your thread closed trailblazer. My friend WEB's banning has me a little sad today.

WEB and I talked several times in PM's about his posts.

The guy went overboard numerous times, and he would be the first to admit it.

He's smart, made excellent threads to discuss, was informative and articulate.

He just could not stop posting direct insults at people that he disagreed with.

[partofme]

Originally Posted by Samantha

Sorry I got your thread closed trailblazer. My friend WEB's banning has me a little sad today.

I'm in a pretty good mood.

[Speakeasy]

And I also wanted to add that punishments are supposed to be harsh. We want to discourage rule breaking as much as popular. If people really, really, really hate the mod queue, perhaps that will inspire them to think one extra second before they post.

As Helene noted, you have to make several board infractions in a matter of 15 days in order to end up in the queue. If this is a problem for you, we don't want you here.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by Samantha

Sorry I got your thread closed trailblazer. My friend WEB's banning has me a little sad today.

I'd like to add that the mod team was accused many times by many people of giving WEB a free pass and looking the other way when he broke the rules (which was quite often).

Basically, it's another 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario for us.

[Fidei Defensor]

I think the mod queue is a great idea. I've seen serial violators of the rules here, and it is very predictable that they will quickly turn to insulting fellow posters. Those who have routinely done this I think can fairly be said to have lost the right to post without first having their posts looked at to ensure compliance. It's clear that some cannot behave themselves without closer scrutiny.

[partofme]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'd like to add that the mod team was accused many times by many people of giving WEB a free pass and looking the other way when he broke the rules (which was quite often).

Basically, it's another 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario for us.

Not to slam WEB while he isn't here to defend himself but I have been very suprised by him being on here for such a long time considering I have seen him break rules more than any other member so I support you guys and do not think you are in the wrong at all.

[Traveler]

Yeah but i think because he made a number of posts of some length, had posted so much he was given leniency in the sense overall he wasn't abusive but i too have seen him slam people various times and have nothing happen and the posts just remain there.

Dunno what the mod queue is but it seems a good idea.

Just looking at the other thread on the matter, to me its not really a problem is a mod edit's something out and if it states edited or quote removed by moderator its fine.

[MattInFla]

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Okay, I was hoping for some actual discussion of WTF is going on in this forum. Instead, the thread on which I was hoping to do it got closed.

So I'll try one more time, in the hopes that we can keep the hostility elsewhere. (If not, it's an excellent sign for a lot of people here that it's probably time to move on.)

I'll begin with the so-called "mod queue." I am very much against this proposed enforcement tool for a variety of reasons.

There is nothing "proposed" about this - it is in place. Marc put it in place as a part of the forum software upgrade.

Originally Posted by trailblazer

First, no one has indicated the standards with which it will be applied in the first place.

The way it works is if you accumulate 10 or more active warning points in a 15 day period, you go on the moderation queue. This happens automatically, and the moderators have no way of changing it.

Originally Posted by trailblazer

If it's done for a member who hasn't been under suspension for at least 30 days, I'd say that it's a ridiculously harsh punishment. Second, I see no possible way that such a censorship, however temporary, could be applied fairly. For example, if I make a series of posts in the queue, and Helene approves 80% of them, I would stake my life that Matt Larson would look at those same posts and approve almost none of them.

Wow. You'd stake your life and be utterly wrong. Bummer.

The only thing being examined when considering a post in the mod queue is whether or not it complies with the forum rules.

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Next, there's this business of "ask a mod" if you think there's a problem. Well, I have tried to do this in the past: it never goes very far. True, I'd prefer not to cajole the mods into releasing too much private information, but if they won't even discuss issues with the great unwashed via PM, what other options do we have?

As far as a warning that directly effects you personally, send a PM and you will get an explanation. Actually, you get a PM whenever you get a warning automatically.

As far as a warning or other action effecting another user goes - frankly, it's none of your business.

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Finally, just to assure you that this isn't simply a rant on my part, I want to be proactive and make a suggestion. Not only should USPOL publish the warning system, but the number of warning points that any member has should always be displayed on that person's public profile. This is hardly a privacy issue, if you screw up in the "real world" (by breaking a law), it's a matter of public record. This way, nobody can argue that someone was arbitrarily yanked, and a lot of rancor that's so obvious here can be resolved much more quickly.

Just my $0.02.

Similarly, the rancor can be resolved by members not trying to intrude on events that occur between other members and the staff.

Matt

[ViolaLee]

Originally Posted by Matt

Similarly, the rancor can be resolved by members not trying to intrude on events that occur between other members and the staff.

No offense Matt, but this is the kind of attitude that causes problems between mods and us little people. You guys have such a back off attitude towards posters. It's not only you, it's other mods as well. Some of us are offended by that.

[MattInFla]

Sam, other posters are entitled to their privacy.

For example, let's say I issued you a warning. Should I then be free to tell anyone who asks about it?

Marc set the rules up. One of the things that has been stressed to the moderators is that we do not discuss moderation actions with people who are not involved. Ever.

In the past, we have had users who liked to post about their warnings in the open forums, and we were not permitted to respond with our side, because of the privacy policy.

Matt