Moderation thoughts.......

[Jack Tarlin]

First off:

This is NOT meant to be a criticism of any particular individual or event, it's merely a general comment.

It seems to me that the level of severity in thread moderation has ratcheted up recently, i.e. the number of deleted posts is up, and the number of locked threads is up as well.

I understand full well the difficulty that moderators have, and I also know that over-seeing and policing threads is time consuming and sometimes, really annoying.

But then again, I also realize that people VOLUNTEER to moderate threads, i.e. if you don't want to spend time over-seeing them, then don't do it.

That being said, it seems to me that instead of locking down (i.e. killing) threads that might have some value, it'd prehaps be better if moderators went after individual posters. I.e. if someone is being a problem on a thread, whether it's making inappropriate comments; violating website policy; obvious trolling; making 100 posts that say the same thing; or most important, ignoring warnings and admonitions from moderators, well it seems to me that the answer is to do something about the individual poster, and not taking out the whole discussion.

In short, if there's someone on a thread that has created a problem or is inhibiting or killing a good discussion, then perhaps the moderator should send a PM to the individual involved, detailing the problem, and strongly advising a change in behavior. If the behavior persists, then a sterner warning is put in place. If that doesn't work, then ban the guy from that thread or give him a time out from the whole website.

But to kill off perfectly good discussions because of a handful of idiots doesn't seem to me to be the way to go. It penalizes the good along with the bad; it rewards trolling and bad behavior; it potentially wipes out valuuable and useful discussions.

Oh, and it also gives credence to the perception that the website's moderation has become excessive, and is leading to some good folks leaving the site for locations that are perceived to be freer......and that would be a great pity.

I'd be very happy to hear other opinions on this.

[The Solemates]

i agree. i hate it when threads are closed, and I think WB has had way too much moderation in the last several months.

but then again, what are the basic ground rules for what you term "individual posters" and "handful of idiots"?

I know you gave specific examples, but what one person may deem as "a problem", "inappropriate", "violations" etc. may not be what another says is just that. in the end, I guess the moderator has to make that choice.

I personally liked it better though when no threads were getting shut down and no posts were getting deleted.

[Jack Tarlin]

No, don't get me wrong. There are sometimes threads that badly need to be shut down. And I have no problem whatsoever when this happens.

All I'm saying is that sometimes there's a baby and the bath water issue here, where an entire discussion is suddenly deep sixed, when it's really one person who's creating the problem.

And THAT's where the moderation needs to step in.

[John B]

"But to kill off perfectly good discussions because of a handful of idiots doesn't seem to me to be the way to go. It penalizes the good along with the bad; it rewards trolling and bad behavior; it potentially wipes out valuuable and useful discussions."

Agreed 100%.

Personally I'm skeptical of the need to have a moderator/censor monitor adults talking to adults. In one thread that was locked down today, no one was cussing, no one was posting porno, no one said anything about someone's momma, no one yapped about politics. Evidently the moderator/censor was the only one bothered -- and he certainly does seem to be bothered by a lot -- and locked the thread because people didn't obey his orders. I was actually enjoying the thread. I bet all but one were, too.

I agree with Solemates. I liked it a lot better with no censors. If I didn't like to read someone's stuff, I put them on block. Easy enough.

[the goat]

i tend to agree with the sentiments jack posted above.

each mod has their own "moderation style"; i'm a mod here and i strongly prefer the laissez-faire approach.

i have and will continue to urge other moderators in the same direction.

[NICKTHEGREEK]

You make several good points in your opening post. This site is over moderated, unevenly moderated, and unfairly moderated in the opinion of many. Unfortunately our personal behavior has much to do with ramping this up, and neither of us has a leg to stand on to complain. If we tried pulling the usual stunts on Trailplace we'd be banned quicker than another WB regular was and have to use regular e-mail to disagree. I somehow think Rock will pretty much moderate his site as he sees fit as well. That leaves Backpacker. The politics forum is pretty wild and wooly, but it's a true backpacking site and far from AT-centric. Take your pick.
If I want pulitizer quality writing from my newspaper, I buy a paper with pulitizer winning writers. Boycott this site for some finite period, pitch your tent somewhere else and see if anyone takes their business to the new location. The mountain to what's his name so to speak.

[Lone Wolf]

Personally I'm skeptical of the need to have a moderator/censor monitor adults talking to adults. In one thread that was locked down today, no one was cussing, no one was posting porno, no one said anything about someone's momma, no one yapped about politics. Evidently the moderator/censor was the only one bothered -- and he certainly does seem to be bothered by a lot -- and locked the thread because people didn't obey his orders. I was actually enjoying the thread. I bet all but one were, too.

you mean the thread about "Cost" where JAK posted 1,000,000 times and moderator HikerRanky deleted a bunch the closed it?

[John B]

you mean the thread about "Cost" where JAK posted 1,000,000 times and moderator HikerRanky deleted a bunch the closed it?

That's the one. I put JAK on block long ago, so the million posts didn't bother me.

[Two Speed]

Might want to take it easy, guys. This whole thread is very close to a violation of TOS #3:

Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

[Phreak]

It's a privilege, not a right to be on WB. The mods/owners have the right to run it how they see fit. I see 3 options: people can accept the policies on here, go to another site where there is less moderation, or start your own site.

Just my $0.02

[Wilson]

I think more moderators than posters have said goodbye to the site lately.

[The Solemates]

Might want to take it easy, guys. This whole thread is very close to a violation of TOS #3:

Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

this is exactly what we are talking about. bringing junk like this up when there is good discussion going on.

[The Solemates]

No, don't get me wrong. There are sometimes threads that badly need to be shut down. And I have no problem whatsoever when this happens.

All I'm saying is that sometimes there's a baby and the bath water issue here, where an entire discussion is suddenly deep sixed, when it's really one person who's creating the problem.

And THAT's where the moderation needs to step in.

ok, but who decides who this person is? and on what basis?

personally i dont care bc it made for good reading, but you and wolf were making just as many snide comments as the person you are calling the problem.

[Bulldawg]

I will say, as a moderator here, that I usually will not close a thread. In fact, I have never closed a thread here. I am one of the lucky one's whose forums don't usually create a lot of discontent. I did have one thread a while back that had a lot of good info, but also had some of the common bickering crude we deal with sometimes. I spent a good portion of an hour cleaning the thread up rather than deleting it, which I could have easily done, because it did have some great info. Just my $.02 anyway.

[TD55]

Might want to take it easy, guys. This whole thread is very close to a violation of TOS #3:

Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

Does this mean the topic of the closed thread will never be opened again? Seems like a pretty important topic. Be a shame if one very frustating poster stopped such an interesting discussion.

[Tin Man]

It's Friday, 5 O'Clock, to heck with moderation, I am pouring another. Cheers!

[lonehiker]

Take actions against posters not the thread. Having a thread in regards to "cost of a thru-hike" (as an example) is important as it is a major factor on planning a hike on the AT and it very well may be the main reason that many thru-hikers don't complete their hike. Simply locking it isn't effective as someone (soon) will probably start another thread with this very subject. And do you want to guess what the results will be.......?

[Lone Wolf]

It's Friday, 5 O'Clock, to heck with moderation, I am pouring another. Cheers!

headin' to Dot's soon myself where i will drink in moderation

[Ender]

It's a privilege, not a right to be on WB. The mods/owners have the right to run it how they see fit. I see 3 options: people can accept the policies on here, go to another site where there is less moderation, or start your own site.

Just my $0.02

Agreed. And the result here has been a lot more civil than in the past.

I think it's a pendulum (sp?) that swings from heavily moderated to lightly moderated and back as people learn to moderate themselves, and then get slack, and then relearn to self moderate, and on and on and on.

I feel for the moderators... it seems to me like it would be harder than herding cats.

[saimyoji]

I think Homer may already be drunk. What's the "cost" of getting drunk in MA these days? Do you bring your own hole with you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTLwiccIOxI