[quote:bd67e92d18="Ba"]No one's actually blaming Doors. They just saw that this sort of thing needed a policy. That the policy is against what Doors did should not be seen as a condemnation.[/quote:bd67e92d18]

Yes (I would've said 'Exactly' but Mal stole the word already)

I see the need for the edit function as part of the removal of offensive pictures (pornographic or just so bloody huge that you you need a 1024m x 800m screen).

In the case of someone using offensive language or particularly racist/inflammatory words then I still think it shouldn't be edited. As I said earlier, the post represents the opinion of the poster not of the board as a whole. If that is their opinion, then they can stand by it, we can only argue against it. Which is the way debate should be.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

Mods cannot do their job properly without the ability to edit posts. A mods job is not to change the content of other people's posts, unless there is a serious problem, as discussed above. I understand Doors' action, and don't think he was out of line, but, as said, it shows that we need to clarify this issue.

Had no one expressed any of the above opinions, my instincts would have been to delete porn on sight (it is absolutely irrelevant on this board, may offend some, would be available to minors - and therefore break the law - and is perfectly accessible by other methods to those who wish to seek it).

I would never delete someone's political views, no matter how offensive, but a post containing racially hateful content is against the agreement we all signed to post on this board. If couched in abusive terms, I would have thought it would warrant a severe warning. While I respect the right to express an opinion, I wouldn't allow someone casting about racially abusive language and views to stay in my livingroom, so they can bloody well get out of my messageboard too.

In the case of a giant picture messing up the thread scrolling, I have seen different policies on different boards. Given the nature of our community, I would suggest requesting the poster change it before taking action. Something along the lines of; "The size of this picture messes up the page layout. Please could you resize or remove it. If you haven't seen this message by X time, I will temporarily remove the picture for the convenience of other forum users. Thank you."

Once we've reached a point where we feel like we've sorted out the mods rules, perhaps we should have a Mod's Charter that we should agree to in order to be mods.

Edit: I'm not sure if I made my point about racism clear. I would expect people to be able to express their views, however much I dislike them. But using insults and racial slurs is not the same as expressing a viewpoint. This is what I would object to.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

OK, sorry, Doors - I shouldn't have said "patronizing".

On the learning point, I think I am probably influenced by the fact that an unwritten part of my job description in the job I have just been made redundant from after seven years (due to the company going bankrupt) was, me being the only native English speaker, to correct other peoples' English, by specifically pointing out their errors to them, and expanding on the explanation to the more general case where appropriate - it does affect the way I look at it. (I'm not sure that sentence is a good advertisement for [i:02de74fc6a]my[/i:02de74fc6a] English, come to think of it! )

[quote:4e492630bd="Buzzfloyd"]I would never delete someone's political views, no matter how offensive, but a post containing racially hateful content is against the agreement we all signed to post on this board. If couched in abusive terms, I would have thought it would warrant a severe warning. While I respect the right to express an opinion, I wouldn't allow someone casting about racially abusive language and views to stay in my livingroom, so they can bloody well get out of my messageboard too.[/quote:4e492630bd]

Behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace, or incitement would be grounds for a warning, yes. But it still shouldn't be edited by a mod, it should left as a record of the poster's own misdemeanours.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

Ba is stuck using an 800 x 600 display setting for various reasons. He is not the only one on this board using that setting. If someone posts a large image or otherwise stretches out the board, making it difficult for Ba and others to read the thread in question, then Ba sees no reason not to immediately edit the thread. In the case of the image, putting it behind an url, and in the case of the stretching text, inserting a hard return. The mod in question would, of course, be expected to make a note of this. But this is simply part of making the forum accessible. It's not just about the content of their post, but about the way their post affects readability of the board.

[quote:ffb25decd5="Electric_Man"]Behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace, or incitement would be grounds for a warning, yes. But it still shouldn't be edited by a mod, it should left as a record of the poster's own misdemeanours.[/quote:ffb25decd5]
That's what I said.

Also, Ba, I very much see your point. I would be inclined to agree with you, but I'm aware of needing to take a very hands-off attitude as a mod in this community. Giving someone, say, half an hour to change their post themselves should satisfy those who are worried about excessive mod action or what have you.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

haven't read all this, dunno what's going on, but since no one listens to me that won't matter.

i've said for a while now:

the policy should be that a mod asks if anyone objects to their making a change, and after a reasonable time to wait for a complaint, they make the change.

if anyone complains later, undo the change.

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

No, I think the mods are invested with a level of trust that they know what they're doing.

I'm sure they can move a thread or delete spam without having to ask permission and then wait for an objection.

Simple admin tasks like that don't require that level of.. transparancy I suppose is the word. Checks and balances?

That sort of thing. Mods have a basic task to keep the place tidy really, to sweep it up a bit, and I think they should be allowed a bit of trust and freedom to get on with it.

If somone objects AFTER a mods done something, then is the time to look into it. To have an inquest or whatever.

As I said earlier in the thread, it's a trust issue. You either trust the mods and back their judgements, or you don't.

Now, perhaps we should ratify once and for all what the role of a mod is, and once that's been set in stone we should leave them to get on with their jobs in peace.

Of course a mod should be answerable to the boards, but not kept on a leash having to ask for permission to move a thread or make a sticky or whatever.

Set a remit, and let the mods operate in that remit.

Why are pirates called pirates?

I agree with this. The moderator selection process was painstaking for a reason. We made sure it was people we trusted and respected who got the job. Now let's trust them, at least with small decisions like moving threads.

I know Doors isn't being attacked here, but speaking in general, I think we should give some room to the people we've elected to do the job.

amelia: yo
i am a yoyo.

Chris: yes

[quote:9d629d4939="chrisjordan"]
I agree with this. The moderator selection process was painstaking for a reason. We made sure it was people we trusted and respected who got the job. Now let's trust them, at least with small decisions like moving threads.

I know Doors isn't being attacked here, but speaking in general, I think we should give some room to the people we've elected to do the job.[/quote:9d629d4939]

Actually, we haven't. The selection process was being done... then it fell apart after the split. The mods have not been properly elected yet. [u:9d629d4939]As can be seen here[/u:9d629d4939]

This part of mod powers was not discussed previously, I wasn't even aware that it [i:9d629d4939]was[/i:9d629d4939] a mod power. Therefore it needed clarifying.

We still don't have hard and fast rules for the mods, we only have the [u:9d629d4939]one thread[/u:9d629d4939] which is more of a discussion. The rules are not completely clear, and they need to be.

edit: Doors said a similar thing:
[quote:9d629d4939="Orrdos"]Now, perhaps we should ratify once and for all what the role of a mod is, and once that's been set in stone we should leave them to get on with their jobs in peace.

Of course a mod should be answerable to the boards, but not kept on a leash having to ask for permission to move a thread or make a sticky or whatever.

Set a remit, and let the mods operate in that remit.[/quote:9d629d4939]

I agree

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

I agree with Doors - you cannot appoint people to do a job and then micro-manage them - you [i:fbe72925d3]certainly[/i:fbe72925d3] cannot appoint people to do a job and then have a whole world-wide board micro-manage them - the whole system would grind to a halt!

Clearly, moving threads to more appropriate places (with a "signpost" post saying where they have gone), making stickies and deleting spam are in the basic job description - spam especially - we don't [i:fbe72925d3]want[/i:fbe72925d3] to be cluttered up with Nigerian scams, chain letters, people trying to sell us irrelevent things or people offering us links to "interesting" sites - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, squire?

As I have said before, anything clearly illegal (the example I gave was paedophile porn, as this is the most likely thing to get us closed down) should be deleted at the first opportunity - no vote, no seeking permission - just do it!

As for possible abuse of powers by deleting/editing other peoples' opinions, note that the community has selected some of its most opinionated members amongst the moderators - we have [i:fbe72925d3]already[/i:fbe72925d3] shown our trust that they will not abuse their power - we should just let them get on with the job!

If the mods we have are still interim mods, we need to sort out who're going to be the proper mods. If we're happy with the ones we've got (and it seems like we are, seeing as they've held that position for a couple of months now), then I think we can consider them properly 'elected'.

amelia: yo
i am a yoyo.

Chris: yes

The intention was to get the rules in place and then vote on the mods,

I think we should still have a vote on the mods as that's what we said we'd do, even though it could well turn out as the same result, which I doubt anyone would be unhappy with (except Garner, who would obviously prefer that everyone was stabbed)

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

[quote:cc4301891f="Pixel"]I agree with Doors - you cannot appoint people to do a job and then micro-manage them - you [i:cc4301891f]certainly[/i:cc4301891f] cannot appoint people to do a job and then have a whole world-wide board micro-manage them - the whole system would grind to a halt![/quote:cc4301891f]

I've read all the posts so far and being that there are obvioulsy many different view points I agree with different people on different points.

Firstly i'd say that Doors very slightly editing a poll question because he was there is not really an issue at all. I would also agree with Ben that Mod's shouldn't really alter spelling mistakes or content in our posts without asking us to do so or at the very least telling us there going to.

As for the part of Pixels post that I qouted i'd just like to add that probably over 60% of the members of this board didn't appoint anyone, via a vote, to be a moderator here. I myself wasn't here at the time because of damn flatmates and other personal issues. That is not to say I don't agree with the people who are doing it now it's just to say that I wasn't involved in the process. And that probably goes for an awful lot of people here. Maybe like Ben and Chris said...
[quote:cc4301891f]If the mods we have are still interim mods, we need to sort out who're going to be the proper mods. If we're happy with the ones we've got (and it seems like we are, seeing as they've held that position for a couple of months now), then I think we can consider them properly 'elected'.[/quote:cc4301891f]

Although i'd probably agree with CJ and say that we seem happy enough with the job that the mod's are doing currently.

Back to stay!