COMPLAINTS: Vanishing and Moving Messages

[Beavah]

Yah, so we've had several folks lately complain that their posts have been "vanished" without comment or shifted between threads.

 

I have to say, I have seen several of these messages before deletion, including the original message by BadenP from which this thread is spun. I did not find BadenP's posting offensive or off-topic. It certainly did not rise to the level of utterly bizarre and deliberate personal attacks like those in the "Plants" thread.

 

What's up, guys? It wasn't very long ago that we had some community input that suggested moderation should be "signed". I agree with that, eh? More to the point, I reckon it should be even-handed and light-handed.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

I was kind of surprised by the moderation on the forum. I try very hard to keep my posts in the third party when I refer to controversial issues or if personally challenged by other forum members. But I find that some of my posts have disappeared even when serious efforts were made to insure no personal attacks. I have noticed that certain topics and viewpoints have been removed from the forum. That is rather unfortunate. For many years I moderated a number of forums and we made sure the members knew why moderation was applied. I spent many hours "discussing" inappropriate posts to members off-forum. I find the moderation on this forum takes a different tack from what would be considered normal for forums in general.

 

Stosh

[FScouter]

Its kinda hard to sign a deleted post! Perhaps a post could be made to the effect bizarre personal attack posted by JoePoster has been deleted by moderator FScouter, or such could be added. But knowing which moderator did what edit or deleted what post really serves no purpose except perhaps to satisfy a morbid curiosity.

 

If it must be known, it was I that deleted two posts from badenP. Two PMs were sent regarding same. Both deleted posts were directed by name to three individual forum members. Both posts contained comments specifically and publicly questioning the intelligence of another forum member and that persons ability understand basic common sense. Neither post had any content other that a public berating of another. He was warned in another PM recently about this specific issue.

 

The best moderation is done by each forum member, before one hits the submit button. Post deletion is really in the hands of he who has made the post. Healthy debate and even heated debate on issues is totally appropriate. Berating the idea or opinion of another person begins to go beyond debate. We do seem to have seen a lot of that the last few days. Publicly berating another forum member is too much.

[Beavah]

Thanks, F.

 

FWIW, I'm not sure which version of BadenP's posting that I saw. But from my perspective, while it did address an individual poster directly, it really was addressing the individual poster's ideas. In fact, I remember it as being more positively worded than his current version (?).

 

At very least, it did not rise to anywhere near the level of messages unapologetically calling people frauds and liars and such, which remained without deletion. Many of GW's odd sniping comments, like those Vicki pointed out, remained undeleted - except perhaps when directed at certain people? From my POV, it sure has da feel of a double standard. But we all have our friends and those who annoy us, eh? Sometimes it's hard to recognize our own biases, myself included.

 

Anyway, feedback is a gift, so I'll shut up now and let other folks offer their feedback.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Oak Tree]

FScouter, your final comments about having each poster be their own best moderator are good thoughts.

 

On your earlier point, I would suggest that there are indeed reasons beyond morbid curiosity that would apply to having moderators sign and explain their actions. First of all, it lets others in the community see what's going on. It removes the feeling of having a 'secret police' force that operates in darkness. It can also prevent abuse of power by moderators (not that I'm implying any is going on here) because they need to think carefully about using their authority.

 

It also provides some background for the community. What is happening on this thread? What types of posts are being deleted so that I know not to post them? Does one moderator in particular seem sensitive to a certain point of view, or are all the moderators pretty much in total agreement that I'm behaving wildly inappropriately?

 

And finally, I'll have to say that I also find the standards are not equally applied. At least in my mind, there are certain types of posts that I find inappropriate (some, as Beavah said - bizarre and deliberate; others just insulting) and they stay on the forum.

 

Clearly it's a tough job to be a moderator and have to figure out where the censorship line is drawn. But because it's important and it matters to the community, it's very helpful to have it discussed openly.

[BadenP]

The reason F-Scouter deleted my posts were because they were addressed to Bob White with a comment on the credibility of his answers. F-Scouter since becoming a moderator has done this on several other occassions, he is kind of a Bob White protector so watch out guys cuz it will happen to you too. By the way F-Scouter I have not received any pms from you, but I am glad I was right as to who the culprit was.

 

Those of you who have been in this forum for a while remember how caustic Bob was to many posters when they opposed his views, he drove away some very good people from here, including two who were my friends. When Bob went away for a while things here improved immensely and my friend came back with a new identity. Now Bob has returned and as long as he is kept in check by the moderators that is fine with me, that includes you too F- Scouter.

Well I have stated my position and I hope Bob is aware that I will continue to challenge any suspect or incorrect advise he gives out and he is welcome to do the same. Thank you all.

[Gold Winger]

Sniping? You guys haven't seen sniping.

 

"F-Scouter since becoming a moderator has done this on several other occassions, he is kind of a Bob White protector so watch out guys cuz it will happen to you too."

 

It is that way in the real world too. There are always those who can do and say what they what and they are protected but others who act the same way will be hung in effigy. Chris Rock and Michael Richards come to mind.

[evmori]

If the mods delete or edit a post, the poster should be at least given the courtesy of a PM to let them know why. And the deleting & editing should be the same regardless of the poster, which now it isn't.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[RememberSchiff]

What happen in the forum: Cub Scouts topic: Improving Webelos Programming

 

error '80020009'

 

/forums/viewThread.asp, line 32

[Its Me]

All moderators should have a tag line under their ID to identify them as moderators. Most forums have this and I am surprised that this one does not.

 

I am not sure that posters who drive threads to near double digit pages on the tiniest of interpretations is considered bad for a site that sells advertising.

 

I will say that these are bad discussions meant only to validate the agitator's need for approval. The agitator argues not to win a point but to validate that he and not you is the superior scout leader. He appears to be looking for the approval of a few key members on the board. Two of which are moderators.

 

(This message has been edited by Its Me)

[hops_scout]

Its Me,

 

For a time, the moderators did have that dinstinction under their name. When Terry brought on additional moderators I guess 2 years ago he went away from that. From what I remember, his reasoning was that the moderators are participants FIRST, and moderators second.

[Lisabob]

I have to agree that moderators should be very careful about deleting posts, and that this should really be a last resort. It is very hard to have a "community" when most of the community is unaware that such editing or censorship is occurring, or when people know that such things sometimes happen but have no idea when, where, or how often. So in that sense it would be more helpful for the moderators to make it clear when they've removed the content of a post.

 

Also, while in general I think the moderators have done a pretty good job on this forum and while I don't envy any of you the "power and glory" that goes with the title, I'd also ask you to give us readers a little more credit. If someone posts something that makes them appear idiotic because they're stooping to unwarranted attacks, I'm pretty confident that I can make my own judgments about both the person writing that kind of garbage, and the degree to which I would put any stock in what they've asserted (either in that message, or in any future messages). As long as we're not getting into really foul language or something like that, I think it should stand. Now if the target of such posts complains, then maybe that's another matter. But as I understand it, that's not the case here (is it?).

[BrotherhoodWWW]

This type of behavior by moderators really bothers me. I for one self moderate prior to clicking on the submit button. I've been involved on several forums for years. One of which I very seldom browse my way to, not because the information is poor quality, not because the forum software is poor (like the software that this forum is using, but that is another topic altogether. vBulletin is much better!), but because the moderation is overbearing, sometimes confrontational and not evenly applied!

 

I currently serve as the Admin on BT3Central.com; a site dedicated to woodworking. I am simply amazed that the members of that site conduct themselves more in line with the ideals of the Scout Oath and Law than some of the posters on this site. We have our share of heated debates. The members mostly do a great job of being respectful of others. The few times that things go astray the moderators work as a team and take necessary action, normally removing the offensive content but leaving the non-offensive content intact. This happens with open communication between forum staff and the poster that posted the offensive content.

 

I for one normally put plenty of thought into what I post. I try my best to respond with honesty and respect of others and their opinions even when I disagree with those opinions. So when a moderator wipes out a topic to which I have posted I tend to question why I even bother to post at all. Just like in life the easy way is often not the best way. At the end of the day it really does come down to a judgment call on the part of the moderator.

 

Just as a Scout is Reverent and respectful of others beliefs IMHO I believe that we as Scouters should be respectful of others in the way they administer the scouting program to their unit(s)! Even though we may not agree with their ways. I would hazzard to guess that there is a very small persentage of the units that operate 100% as the program is prescribed by BSA. How often do we see units that pick one method at the expense of all 7 other methods. How many of us also with serious disagreements with some of BSA policies still try our best to provide the Scouting program for our units. I tend to think most come to this forum to share and learn from other's experiences and to seek encouragement. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Vicki]

So, just sticking my toes in the water here - I agree with GW on one point - you guys haven't seen sniping! Although I'll immediately qualify that by saying some of the attacks on Pappy and by Pappy did sink to that level. Sharing some IMO-type observations here - the Merlyn/Ed stuff is just tedious. Bob White skirted the edge in the thread (I think) Cheffy started when he heavily implied that those who disagreed with his interpretation of YP either hadn't taken it, hadn't taken it from a qualified instructor, or were just stupid. Couple of other places have been more than a little reminiscent of the old Bob. But, in the main, tolerable for the information he's able to share if you get past the patronizing tone. Everybody already knows where I think GW crossed the line:

[acco40]

Hey look, this poster has an asterisk near his name.Well, duh - that means that they are a moderator - and by the way "senior" is a reference to the amount of posts they have submitted, not their age!

Hey, I don't like that tone? Are you mocking me?

Well, if the shoe fits ...

 

Well, Jane, you ignorant person ...

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

 

 

The nerve - that moderator (or is it staff member?) editied my post and didn't even PM me! Harumph! I guess next time he may even delete this post!

 

 

Well, all I can say is that I think moderators are ... (This message has been edited by a staff member.) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)