forum moderation at request of fscouter

[packsaddle]

In another thread, quite a few posts by Bob White, Gold Winger, and evmori simply vanished during one of their rather predictable exchanges.

However, when I questioned the reasons for their removal (I didn't see the problem), my posts were also removed and FScouter asked for this new topic to be created.

 

Here's what I asked:

 

"5:11:07

I have to say that I didn't see a problem with those posts. Moderators, why did you remove those?

Who was the person that Johnny Carson always noted would censor out his off-color remarks? Was that Sarah Goodbody? That stuff in this thread wasn't even off-color....hello, hello, is Sarah out there?

What rule of censorship was violated? In whose opinion?"

 

FScouter still has not claimed responsibility. Rather, as I surmised in a followup post, my question was deleted. So I ask it now.

 

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the thread, it was about the demand by BSA for SSNs on applications for whatever reasons (ho hum). But Bob White's advocacy for the BSA policy and Gold Winger's response, not to mention the somewhat equivocal response by evmori (sorry Ed, you kind of took both sides) were all deleted.

I detected no violation of decorum and so I asked who the moderator was and why they did it. Still unanswered. Instead, FScouter challenged anyone to start a new topic on moderators. Wecome to the topic!

I'm still waiting for the answers.

Edited part: corrections(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

Pack, I've never had a post deleted, but I did have one edited because I posted the full text of a Kinky Friedman song. I wonder if just responding to your post will put me in that fraternity. Only time will tell.

[FScouter]

The posts by Gold Winger, Ed, and Bob White all had the elements of insults and disparaging comments pointed at one another. All three of them have been reminded numerous times to knock it off. We ought to be able to treat each other with respect, and failing that, there is outside moderation.

 

All the resulting off-topic comments about forum moderation in that topic have also been deleted, and those those folks that care to may re-post them in a topic devoted to that subject.

[packsaddle]

Hi Gern,

My case is probably not a fair comparison because I knew there was about a 50% probability that my four posts would be deleted. But it succeeded in smoking out a moderator - which was my intent.

 

The posts by Bob White, Gold Winger, and evmori were deleted for cause still unknown. But your point is taken, I think this is the first time I've ever been touched by the fickle finger of deletion. As to why you've been spared, there is no way to predict or understand the whims of the moderators, I suppose.

I'm still waiting for answers.

 

Edited part:

I see FScouter was typing at the same time so I follow up with a question. FScouter, I read those posts so I ask with respect to Bob White, for example, what was it that he wrote that was as you describe? I detected no such thing. Bob White, I ask you the same question. What did you write that was a violation of forum decorum? It all seemed proper to me.

Also, FScouter, you still haven't claimed responsibility. Did you delete those posts?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

I see that FScouter decided to start his own thread on this topic so here's an excerpt from what he posted:

"Formal rules should not be needed if we can all remember two guidelines:

 

1. Keep It Scout-like

Play fair.

Treat other forum members with respect.

Keep the tone civil. Dont disparage another person or use personal insults.

Be careful about sounding condescending or patronizing.

Have patience with others that dont understand your point of view.

Make an effort to understand the points of view of others.

Consider if your post adds to the value of the forums, or just wastes other folks time. Avoid pointless chatter.

Keep your post readable. Give some attention to grammar, spelling, and basic sentence structure.

Your post is going to be read by thousands of others and becomes a permanent part of the Scouter.com Scouting resource. Put some thoughtfulness in your message.

 

2. Keep It Honest

Express your opinion, but explain WHY you hold the opinion.

Dont fabricate data to support your position.

Dont claim to speak for BSA, or another group, or the majority, unless based on fact.

Support your statements of fact with a source.

Dont rephrase or restate the position of another person in a way that could be misleading.

When quoting another person or source of information, be careful what you quote is not taken out of context.

Dont misstate your identity, your role in Scouting, or your background."

 

FScouter, what part of the above guidelines does 'off topic' fall into that it qualifies for deletion?

Moreover, are you going to be equally diligent at deleting ALL off-topic posts in the future?

 

Furthermore, that first line about rules not being necessary implies that there ARE NO rules, only the guidelines. So if these are 'guidelines' and not 'rules', what is the difference if violation of a 'guideline' results in the deletion of a post?

 

But back to the original question generated by the actual deletions (I'm assuming you were the one who deleted all those posts since you haven't answered my question...am I wrong?), what was it about Bob White's post that you found in violation of any of the above guidelines? Here's what I remember. I say 'remember' because contrary to what you describe above, his post is NOT part of the permanent record in the forums. It is completely erased from his record of posts...but here's what I remember about it:

He wrote to the effect that BSA had its policies and that we exist in BSA's house. As such anyone who does not abide by BSA policies is no kind of a scout at all.

I see no personal attacks here because he addressed no specific person, only as a hypothetical situation. Perhaps you have access to the actual text, if so please correct me.

But I don't see how that post violated ANY of your guidelines. When Gold Winger questioned the definition of 'abide', I don't see how THAT violated any of the above guidelines. When I took you to task for deleting all those posts, which of the above guidelines did I violate? None, I surmise because you only mentioned 'off-topic' as your reason for deleting mine.

 

Evmori, also as I remember, you have indeed made disparaging remarks about the ACLU, perhaps not in that thread but plenty of other times. Perhaps the forum moderator takes issue with your characterization. I offer this irony: I am, at this moment, performing exactly the function of the ACLU. As such, I am defending all of your rights as 'citizens' of these forums, to write posts in these forums. I am defending you against a (so-far unidentified) central authority who might, in fact, be censoring you in a manner that violates its own 'guidelines'. Are you 'getting' this?

 

FScouter, how about it? You asked for this topic, please answer the questions.

 

Edited part: Oops, corrected a grammatical error. Does 'bad grammar' qualify for deletion, really?

Seems like in the past, there was at least a note that a post had been edited by a moderator and not completely 'cleansed' from the forums...but, then, how could anyone else know for sure how many of us have been cleansed? We just vanish and in time all is forgotten. But not just now, I'm still waiting for the answers.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori]

This is no surprise and this has been going on for some time.

 

Let's look at some posts:

 

"Gee Brian ..."

 

What's with this "brian" stuff? Some kind of private joke or personal poke? It does seem rather infantile, else what is your point??

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob, and you were doing such a good job ignoring Ed, but finally succumbed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"... just as FScouter suggests."

 

Beavah, you have a bad habit of rewriting what other folks post; apparently you believe that bolsters your case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Such sagacious counsel Ed. What to do is what were debating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh please Ed, spare us. Give it up already. Get a LIFE man! And Bob, if you respond to Ed's prattling, you're just as irrelevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn animals. We set aside a perfectly good reservation for them. Why can't they stay there and leave us alone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the above were posted by FScouter in a variety of threads. The last one is an example of a poor language choice.

 

It seems we are to be moderated for similar posts but the moderator doing the moderation obviously feels it's OK to NOT follow the guidelines everyone else must follow! Guess some are more equal than others!

 

The posts that were deleted that started this topic should have been left alone! The moderation is not being done consistently across the board. Some posters are given less latitude than others and the moderator in question doesn't follow the guidelines he enforces! I'll bet this post gets whacked in whole or part.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Acid Test]

Packsaddle wrote: Evmori, also as I remember, you have indeed made disparaging remarks about the ACLU, perhaps not in that thread but plenty of other times. Perhaps the forum moderator takes issue with your characterization. I offer this irony: I am, at this moment, performing exactly the function of the ACLU. As such, I am defending all of your rights as 'citizens' of these forums, to write posts in these forums. I am defending you against a (so-far unidentified) central authority who might, in fact, be censoring you in a manner that violates its own 'guidelines'. Are you 'getting' this?

 

Pack,

 

I am really quite new to these forums but am an experienced member of others through the years. It is almost as if moderation is a pot ready to boil. Things go on for so long and then the moderators lay down the law.

 

Overall my short-term impression is that they are quite lenient. I have never seen where they would allow a person to remain a member of a forum when 15+ others have that person on an ignore list. 15!!! That is an astounding number!!! The fact that they allow this member, one that people obviously take issue with, to continue demonstrates considerable restraint.(This message has been edited by Acid Test)

[packsaddle]

Acid Test, I really do understand the reaction you are having and believe me, I've had the same reaction to some as well, and I suspect some have reacted that way to me in the past.

This just accentuates my point that either the moderation should be evenhanded and across the board, or it shouldn't happen. Selective and capricious application of edits and deletions are not productive, and I submit that they violate the very principles they are supposed to be promoting.

Thing is, there's no oversight on the moderators that I can detect. The posts by Bob White and by me violated none of the so-called 'guidelines' that FScouter articulated. FScouter might have a different view but after he invited me to start this topic, he has failed to respond to my questions. They are fair questions.

 

I will make an observation for ALL the moderators. Any anonymous deletion or edit, in my view, is contrary to the 10th point of the Scout Law. To me, and I apply this in my professional reviews, such anonymous acts are cowardly because they exploit both the position of power by the moderator (having such control) and the weakness of the recipient (being unable to know who did it or why). I'm open to your responses.

[Acid Test]

Pack,

 

Good post, I understand your point. Would it make sense to try FScouter off-line to get clarification? Maybe a private message away from the public eye would reach an accord sooner.

 

Best of luck

 

AT

[scoutldr]

Perhaps it's time to rotate the moderator jobs? I see nothing wrong with spirited debate, as long as it doesn't devolve into personal attacks. Two of our colleagues were "suspended" for a time due to this. One came back immediately following the suspension, another took a long time to come back, but eventually did. The current forum is mild compared to a few years ago.

 

Just remember the British version of the Scout Law..."A Scout is a Friend to all and a Brother to every other Scout." But that doesn't mean we can't disagree without being disagreeable.

[Acid Test]

You may end up with stricter or unfair moderation well beyond.

 

I think some of the issues on the thread in question I caused by confronting one the forum duds. This escalated and things boiled a bit. If this caused a moderator to become sensitive to other posts, I apologize.

[Eamonn]

I do admit to not following the Leader Application Problem thread.

Maybe as a moderator I should?

Having not seen what was posted I really have no right to say what I might have done.

 

Terry the owner of this site did invite a few forum members to serve as moderators.

My understanding of what we as moderators are allowed to do? Is that we have to use good judgment to ensure that the forum and the discussions fall within the boundaries of the Scout Oath and Law.

While I'm sure that none of the moderators are on any sort of a Power Trip. Moderators can take whatever action they want.

FScouter has contacted many of those who at times post things that are not in keeping with the Scout Oath and Law requesting that change their ways, change or voluntarily delete postings that don't meet the standard.

Lord knows that threads can and very often do take on a life of their own. Sometimes by accident and sometimes by design. Most times when it is by design the design is not the work of any of the moderator team.

While maybe it's OK for a thread to start out on Philmont then change direction and talk about the best boots and then change yet again to talk about wearing Scout uniforms for high adventure activities. To my mind when the thread becomes a conversation between a moderator who has used his best judgment to maybe alter something and another forum member. We are no longer dealing with Philmont,Boots or Scout uniforms.

While at times the banter between a forum member who also serves as a moderator and another forum member can be seen as entertaining by some. The best way of dealing with this is in private and can be done using the Private Message feature.

While of course each of the moderators is an individual, each of us have our own peculiarities, each of us have people who we may have allowed to get up our nose and each of us has our own pet peeves. But I think it is very unfair when one moderator is singled out for doing something that needed done.

We are a moderator team and stand by each other.

I may not have seen the changes that were made, but I stand by them being changed.

Just as in a Troop the ASM's stand by the Scoutmaster.

Do we always get everything right?

Of course we don't!

But we are doing our best.

I ended up in hot water because a forum member requested that I remove something that he had posted. I received a few PM's from other forum members who thought my reasoning was wrong (My main reason for deleting the posting was because he asked me!!) One member thought I was so out of line that he said he was going to quit the forum.

Sometimes it seems that we just can't win.

I have never taken the time and I'm not going to take the time to see how many postings have been edited or deleted or who posted them. I do think that very few postings are changed and the ones that are changed belong to just a handful of forum members.

Sometime back a couple of forum members were asked to take a vacation from the forum and cool their heels. This resulted in less editing and deleting by the moderators.

It was sad as both of these people do at times add a lot to the forum.

The moderators have at times talked about having a set of guidelines posted so that everyone will be aware what is and what isn't acceptable. My personal feeling is that we shouldn't really need such a list.

At times I know I have crossed the line,I may have had a bad day, I know that I do at times allow people to get up my nose and I have fallen prey to allowing myself to go after them and get them!! Worse still is that I somehow try and rationalize it by trying to make it their fault.

At times what has been called "rather predictable exchanges" Do get really old.

I'm not sure if the people who post them think that they are being funny? I'm not sure if there is some kind of moth to the flame thing going on? I'm not sure why it goes on?

I do know that at times it fails to pass the "Scout oath and Scout Law" standard that we are all trying to do our best to live by.

Eamonn.

 

[evmori]

A PM away from the public eye is not what is needed at this point. This needs to be brought out into the open for all forums members to discuss. This affects all the members of the forums, not just those who have had their respective post removed or edited.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah]

Yah, this topic seems to come up every few months, eh? Funny to come back from visitin' a few camps to this.

 

It always involves da same moderator.

 

Despite repeated requests, that moderator almost never "signs" or takes responsibility publicly for his choices.

 

Like Eamonn, da other moderators when they comment tend to disclaim knowledge.

 

That moderator, in my personal opinion, tends to be one of the few here who take sniping potshots at other posters (see Ed's small set of examples) without necessarily contributin' substance, insight, or experience to the topics. It seems to me his assumption is often that his fellow scouters are bad folk, or have an agenda, rather than readin' things in a more balanced light of bein' good people with a different outlook.

 

A number of folks, myself included at times, have opined that the particular moderator seems to play favorites or have personality conflicts with some members, and tends to act on those feelin's rather than just da content of the posts. Especially when that happens, I sometimes feel he's apt to shoot first, and perhaps PM afterward or perhaps not...

 

As much as I appreciate F's active involvement (because sometimes I think a little gentle redirection would encourage improved dialog and courtesy), I can't help but think that this topic arising on a regular basis - and particularly the animus he sometimes shows toward specific individuals - is a sign that the job is gettin' annoyin' for him, rather than being fun service.

 

That seems like it's da time to take a break and let others have a go, eh? Leastwise, that's what I counsel good Scoutmasters when they reach that point.

 

I have more concern about some of da new "Pirate Code" (or are they more like Guidelines, arrrh! ). There's lots of stuff there that's pretty broad, eh? Yah, I can't help but think that this poor old Beavah is goin' to be a target just for his cuddly North Coast accent! Or some other Scouter who perhaps didn't have the benefit of a good typin' teacher. When the guy who posted da Code can be interpreted by others as missin' points, perhaps it merits a more critical look before bein' adopted?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Acid Test]

Eamonn,

 

Could you post Terry's e-mail or a way to get ahold of him. As an observer, it sounds like posters here have a re-occurring issue with a single moderator. If Terry appointed this moderator, he should be made aware of the issue before we lose some valuable contributors.

 

 

FOUND IT - click on the picture of Bill at the top center of the page. It will take you to a message Terry wrote. There you will find a link on the left side to send him a private message

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=172740(This message has been edited by Acid Test)