forum moderation at request of fscouter

[Bob White]

The rowdiest kids are always going to dislike the adult that requires them to behave.

[Eamonn]

Here I go sticking my neck out.

"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."

I fail to see the reason why?

If I felt I was the one who was being treated unfairly, I would look at my options.

1/ Knowing that I'm a guest here I might look at myself and the way I behave and see what changes are needed.

2/ I might decide that this forum is not the place for me and seek out a forum that is a better fit?

3/ I might take a look at how the moderators behave in other Scouting Forums and maybe use that as some kind of a yard-stick?

4/ If it seemed that I was only having a problem with one member of the moderator team I might try to communicate with him or her and see what can be done to work out our differences.

5/ I might try and appeal to the owner of the site to have all the moderators removed and new ones selected and installed?

 

I see no real reason to involve all the forum members in a discussion which is lightly to bring up the wrong doings of a few forum members and could become a "You said" - "I said"

"Yes you did!" - "No I didn't" type discussion.

 

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

Yes I'm guilty as charged!

Maybe I'm also guilty of not following each and every thread.

To be honest my feelings on the Problems With The Leader Application thread were /are that we'd had this discussion not so long ago and I wasn't seeing anything new. So I personally wasn't getting anything from it. I didn't post in the thread.

Still being that the site owner has trusted a group of forum members to keep an eye on things, I'm happy that Frank is doing what I should have been doing.

 

Along them lines.

A little while back a member of the moderator team let it be known to the other moderators that he was so fed up trying to deal with a couple of forum members that crossing the line frequently, that he was not going to have anything to do with them. He felt that he had allowed them to get to him and he was unsure if he could deal with them in a fair and Scout-like way.

 

Many of us who have been forum members for a while, can I think guess who is going to post what. We know that no matter how much some people try they are going to come off sounding pompous, others come off sounding sarcastic. The list goes on. We have people we tend to agree with At least most of the time and even when we disagree with them we are happy not to add the same measure of venom.

Some of us do allow some people to push our buttons. Most of us most of the time seem OK to not rise to the bait. Sadly at times some of us do and more sadly it seems that some go out of their way annoy and push their luck goading other forum members in the knowledge that they will rise to the bait.

I'll admit that there are times when I notice stuff that in my view /opinion is not right, but for different reasons I let slide. Sometimes one of the other moderators does pick it up and sometimes it just slides by.

I'm not sure if the moderator team is ever going to be able to deliver evenhanded and across the board moderation. Being as we are individuals with different backgrounds and opinions.

We as a team are not in contact with each other other than in this forum and have no idea who will visit when. This does mean that when it comes to looking at what is going on and what action should be taken or not taken we are very much on our own.

We do very often discuss what we have done or not done after the fact.

Sometime back we only had two moderators (Hoops and OGE) The team was enlarged because things weren't going so well and at times both moderators were busy doing other things.

The only way I can see too ensure that everything was always evenhanded and across the board,would be to only have one moderator. Of course this could at times cause problems.

I'm not sure what the outcome might be if the forum was not moderated? I kinda feel that it would make little or no difference to most of the forum members we have right now. I do wonder what might happen if shall we say less desirable sorts came along?

At the end of the day it makes little or no difference what I think. Terry the site owner has decided that the site is better with a moderation team. He was the person who selected the moderators, it will be up to him if and when he decides to thank me for my past services!

Some forum members might not like it, but the team of moderators were not elected they were selected by the site owner.

Terry can of course if he wants set guidelines for the moderators to follow.

It would then be up to each moderator to decide if he wanted to continue or not.

There is a link at the very bottom of the page that is a contact to the site owner. If anyone feels that myself or any of the moderators are doing a bad job, I would urge them to contact Terry the site owner.

All of the moderators are forum members and just like every other forum member are also guests when it comes to visiting and using this site.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

As the one who posted the comment Eamonn is referring to at the beginning of his last post, I have contacted the moderator in question via PM & either received a response less than satisfactory or no response at all. And based on the willy nilly way posts are edited, I have started copying a lot of posts prior to delete or editing so I have a record of the total inconsistency of moderation by the moderator in question.

 

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

(Edit was to reword a sentence that was worded incorrectly in the original post)(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Beavah]

The rowdiest kids are always going to dislike the adult that requires them to behave.

 

Yah, this is true, eh?

 

But what's interestin' in several of these cases in da last year or so is that it was other regular posters who jumped in on behalf of their colleagues - even colleagues they disagreed with. Like packsaddle in this case, eh? He wasn't initially the guy whose posts were deleted, he was a bystander.

 

I think when regular posters as bystanders start objectin' to things as being unfair, we have to sit up and take a lot of notice.

 

Eamonn offers some suggestions as how to "receive" moderation. I reckon those are just fine, eh? I've been through 1-4; maybe it's time for some version of #5? I don't know. I try to consider those things and a few others in any event.

 

In a similar spirit, I've got these suggestions for moderators on how to receive feedback from us users:

 

1) Assume anyone who takes the time to write is someone who cares deeply about Scoutin' and about this little online community. Treat 'em as your best friend and fellow scouter pullin' you aside.

 

2) When groups of your "customers" get together in public to share a perception of unreasonable moderation (or a need for more moderation), don't make excuses. Take 'em seriously and at their word. Folks don't start public discussions of moderation unless there's been a breakdown. And a breakdown is somethin' yeh need to learn from and try not to repeat.

 

3) We all have folks who get under our skin, eh? Work it out so that others handle 'em, just as Eamonn suggested one moderator did. And when yeh get feedback from such a person, set it aside to re-read it when yeh aren't annoyed, or privately ask other "regulars" for their honest perceptions.

 

4) When the task starts to annoy you or get your dander up, it's time to quit, eh?

 

5) Recognize that moderation is an act of authority, and folks expect authority to be fairly and consistently applied. Rightly so. Coordinate and discuss with other moderators before, rather than after the fact.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Eamonn, normally I am comfortable with the process of 'moderation' that I observe and, to my knowledge, up 'til now, unless I asked for a moderator to delete something I wrote, I've never received such an extreme form of censorship. However, in anticipation of getting deleted, I indeed DID save my posts and I can post them again here if anyone is interested in seeing them. I am quite certain they contain nothing in the way of personal attacks, etc. What they DO contain is questions for the moderator...who subsequently deleted my posts.

 

But calling the moderation process on the carpet is not my intent. I am asking for the specific moderator who deleted those posts to:

1. take responsibility and identify himself explicitly

2. explain specifically what Bob White and I wrote that violated those 'guidelines'

Under other circumstances I might pursue this through PM. The reason for doing this publicly is that FScouter invited this public forum and I intend to accommodate him. Now is the time for whomever that moderator is to step up and answer the questions.

 

Bob White, heh, heh, I tend to agree. However, since YOU were fingered as one of the rowdies, perhaps you could give an opinion as to how YOUR posts violated those 'guidelines'. I know you don't like for others to speak for you and I respect that. So now you have the chance to explain what you think you did wrong...or perhaps how your post did NOT violate those 'guidelines'. Personally, having read the exchange, I didn't see your post as having crossed any lines of decorum whatsoever.

 

Still waiting for the answers........come out, come out, whoever you are.....

 

Edited part: Beavah, I guess we were writing at the same time. Great post. Ahem, I confess that when I read those 'guidelines' I too wondered about that 'accent' you have...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[FireKat]

Mostly, I think the moderators have been doing a great job on this site. I have not notice the thngs that have got others upset. I may (and probably did) miss the discussions in question. I do not use the 'ignor' function unless the person is just spouting junk that has no relevence to the discussion. If they just post views I personally do not like in a fair way, that is their right and I may learn something from them none the less. Yes, they can and do upset me at times but I know they have a right to ther opinions, just as I have a right to mine. I try to see if the opposition side may have vaild points. I welcome criticism if it given in a teaching way, not to insult. I am always trying to learn. As long as the moderators allow free discussion of oppisite points of views I will support them.

[FScouter]

I thought it was clear that the moderation done in the leader application topic in the Council Relations forum was done by this moderator. I did state the reasons early in this topic. The post from Bob White was in response to the attack initiated by Gold Winger, with support from Ed. With the posts from GW and Ed being deleted, a defense from Bob standing alone then serves no purpose, thus it was deleted as part of the group.

 

Packsaddle posted his objections, turning the topic into a discussion about forum moderation. The forum software has a spin-off feature that enables one to easily start a new discussion based on an idea from the parent topic. None of his posting would have been deleted had he chosen to spin-off or otherwise start a new topic. It really doesnt work to abruptly change topics in the manner that was done. There is no ability for the moderators to split an exiting topic, or that would have been done. Instead, I asked that a new topic be started, and deleted those posts. Packsaddle obliged, re-posted what was deleted and continued on with this new topic.

[BadenP]

There seems to be a general concensus that F-Scouter is too heavy handed in his moderator position and that he adds insults to the poster he deletes or edits. Beavah may have a valid point when he suggested that F Scouter may not enjoy the position anymore or be burned out, I think that there was never a truer statement. Another poster suggested rotating moderator positions more often, this would indeed reduce the type of burnout F-Scouter may be experiencing. In any case short of profanity or threats to others free discussion should be allowed and encouraged, even the founding fathers cursed, insulted and swore when hammering out the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Jefferson when he was VP to John Adams published scandulous articles in order to discredit him. I rarely agree with Merlyn for example but I would not want to see his posts deleted, its good to read opposing viewpoints if for no other reason than to give you a tighter focus on your own view.

 

So F-Scouter I would like to see you ease up and not exacerbate the situation even more defending your old cronies in here by deleting the posts of others, and if you truly are burned out be a man about it and resign as moderator.

[Its Me]

 

Moderation by nature is always seeking the comfortable middle. Too hot for some, too cool for others and never just right for all. I believe in the judgement of Fscouter, that he was correct in deleting the posts. No great body of work was deleted. Maybe some elegant wit, but profound enlightenment on the subject matter - Nah!

 

Now lets get back to debating whether forest green epaulets are different enough from light green or whether Jesus used the seven habits of highly effective people.

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

As a moderator and owner of other forums, I can assure everyone that the moderators on this forum allow more than most others would. They may not be judicous as one would like, but I see far more "getting by the moderators" here than anywhere else. Let them do their job and behave, and there shouldn't be any problems. Here the harshest "punishment" seems to be having posts deleted. On other forums, banned members are off the forum without any knowledge until they try to login and can't. Count your blessings, it could be worse.

 

Stosh

[dan]

I have no issues with the moderators on here, I think they do a great job. Let me be a moderator and watch the posts disappear before you very eyes!

The moderators on here put up with a lot more than I would.

 

I do not read the post with all of the bickering in them. Unless I need a laugh. And want to see how other units must be run.

[packsaddle]

FScouter, I think it was clear that you were the one. I just wanted to read your explicit admission because your previous posts were in 3rd person and made no specific attribution. Thing is, if you had just answered the question at the time I asked it, this whole thing probably would have fizzled right there. You didn't.

I ask you now, do you think you chose wisely?

 

For those of you who did not read the exchange that led to this topic, unless you had read that exchange or participated in it, short of FScouter resurrecting those posts, you have no basis to judge other than your own pre-existing notions. Sorry.

 

Regarding the way the thread went, it made no more digression than many other threads that experience off-topic directions. Again, I note that 'off topic' is not listed in FScouter's own guidelines. Pointless chatter IS listed but the exchange certainly wasn't completely pointless or merely chatter. I do have to wonder what standard is applied to identify pointless chatter, though. Maybe I'll spin a new topic.

 

Regarding the exchange itself, I too read the exchange and I disagree with FScouter's version. And because it IS on topic in this thread, it would be good for him to show us those posts that were deleted by him and explain his reasons for the way he characterized them? I'm open to real evidence so show it to me.

 

I specifically singled out Bob White's post for a reason. He had made a statement about how we serve in the BSA house and that in order to remain in good standing we must abide by BSA rules. Gold Winger had just given a mild retort to the effect that if we disagree or otherwise do not abide by the rules, then we must not be the best kind of scout.

Bob White then responded that in his opinion, anyone who does not abide by the rules is no kind of scout at all.

One thing I've noticed about Bob White since he 'returned' is that he has made a serious effort to be courteous and objective (Thank you, Bob) and this was being displayed in his posts that FScouter deleted.

Bob's posts were his personal opinions and Bob expressed them in his own well-known manner but in carefully-measured and non-personal terms. And they hardly violated any of the guidelines that FScouter elaborated in the other thread that he started just after I started this one. Bob White deserved better. So FScouter, for those three short posts, what was it about Bob White's posts that you judged in violation of the guidelines? Those three were continuous with the current tag end in that thread. There was no problem with continuity (whatever). The only option left is that Bob White must have crossed the line somehow. How?

 

Again I disagree with his assessment of the exchange. Bring those posts back so we can all see them and judge for ourselves.

 

I also don't buy the argument that because FScouter needed to delete someone's remark, he had to delete all the posts by other members who had engaged in the exchange. Essentially this argument is that he really needed to delete this one guy's post - and in order to help everyone else to follow the thread, he also needed to delete all of theirs as well. He needed to protect the thread from lack of continuity or something like that. Utter nonsense.

I think that if FScouter had merely edited that one offending remark and added the "edited by moderator" wording, most of us are smart enough to understand what was going on without 'cleansing' the entire exchange.

 

FScouter, if you read through any of the threads on contentious topics, I suspect you'll find scores of instances in which your unwritten 'guideline' of deletion would have nearly wiped out the entire thread. And again I note the absence of this guideline on your list.

 

The further argument that my subsequent posts needed to be deleted because they were off topic also makes little sense. I could offer an alternative that you simply didn't want to face the issue and you already knew you could just make the whole thing go away. But if my alternative is wrong and if the 'off-topic' guideline exists, I am interested in learning how you choose which off-topic posts to delete. They are hardly rare occurrences. Seems to me that rules, oops, I mean 'guidelines' ought to be applied fairly...and that means to all off-topic posts. Anyone have any idea of what would be left?

[Lisabob]

I'm not a fan of disappearing posts. In fact I find it highly aggravating. And this is not the only recent occurrence of this phenomenon. It has happened within the last month in threads in other more obscure parts of the board as well. (last time I noticed, I think it was also in the council relations section and my recollections were that it was a pretty harmless couple of posts that were mysteriously deleted. I think none of them were mine, but it was annoying and made it hard to follow the thread because stuff that had been there, suddenly was not. Grr.).

 

I also wonder if pack and Beavah and yes, me too, might take greater offense at this in large part because we work in fields where freedom of expression and freedom from censorship are highly prized cultural practices in their own right, regardless of the content. Speaking for myself, in my professional capacity I've grown accustomed to people having the absolute right to spout off on whatever they please, with no repercussions (and yes sometimes this becomes a problem but that's another topic). Consequently, deletions strike me, at least, as highly aggressive acts that should be extremely rare occurrences.

 

I do not agree with FScouter's judgment in this case; I wish he had let the posts be, and give the readers more credit for judging what is valid or useful on their own.

 

Still - pack - I don't know what exactly you hope to accomplish here, and I'm not sure you'll get what you want anyway. I can see where moderating is a rather thankless task. Hounding FScouter further in such a public way may very well have the effect of making other future moderators less willing to take on the burden of moderating. And that may result in larger forum problems than what we have right here, right now.

 

So my recommendation is that you continue to pursue this with FScouter and Terry as you feel the matter demands, but calling a particular member out again and again probably isn't going to result in anything positive.

[evmori]

If I recollect correctly, none of the three posts was an attack on anything. It would be nice to see them again so we could all make that determination. And it would be nice if when a post was edited or deleted, the poster was contacted via PM to let them know it was edited/deleted & why. and it would be nice if the moderators played by the same rules they want us to play by.

 

And the funny thing is, I pretty much am in the same camp as Bob White on the topic under discussion here!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutldr]

This horse is dead! Let's move on!

 

My days are filled with heat, humidity, mosquitoes and smoke from the Great Dismal Swamp peat fires. Makes me want to pitch a tent in the backyard and fire up the ole' Dutch oven!