Mod Powers

Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Electric_Man, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. Electric_Man Templar

    I recently learned that it is possible for a moderator to edit somebody else's posts, which is not something that I think should happen for any reason.

    For the record, Orrdos altered the spelling of a poll choice in the cartoon character thread and also added his thread to the official thread list. Neither are an abuse of the power.

    In the case of an official thread that is there for the community (as in the latter case), it actually doesn't matter, but I really don't think that mod's should be altering spelling or content of ordinary posts that represent the person who posted it. If I mis-spelt a word, and a mod corrected it, I'd feel like the post was no longer my own. Call me weird, but I would.

    If a mis-spelling irks someone enough, then they can simply ask for me to edit it.

    I would prefer that this power is removed, or if it can't be without affecting the ability to delete spam posts, then it should be part of the moderator's code that it shouldn't be used.

    It says somewhere that a post represents the posters opinion and not that of the board's owners (as is only sensible), an edited post means that is also represents the editor's opinon.
  2. Roman_K New Member

    In other boards and forums I am/have been on, editing someone's post is mostly used to take out offensive content, such as a link that [i:5d8d9531d0]really[/i:5d8d9531d0] ought not be there. This may happen here. Now, if such a thing happens here, do we shoult at the perp until he edits his post, while said offensive content (such as a picture, which is an even better example), is still left around, or do we edit it out?

    And to answer the question to follow, sometimes it's best to leave the post as evidence of what happened, but to edit out that specific bit of offensive content that is, quite frankly, too damn offensive.

    As for editing posts for spelling etc, that I disagree with. Editing posts should be done only in a truly dire case, as described above.
  3. Maljonic Administrator

    I don't think posts should be edited for spelling mistakes without the owner's permission, it was the wrong thing to do in my opinion. I'm sure plenty of people would have pointed it out if it was a big mistake and the owner could have corrected it themselves, if they wanted to.
  4. Marcia Executive Onion

    I think spelling, or misspelling, is part of the writer's personality and shouldn't be fixed by anyone but the writer.

    In the past, on the HC board, we have dealt with offensive links, signatures, avatars, etc. by requesting that the poster remove them. I think the poster should always be asked first, and be given the opportunity to correct things himself. He should also have the opportunity to explain why he doesn't believe what he posted should be removed, if that's how he feels.
  5. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I'm with Marica on this one.

    I don't think that mods should edit posts, if there is a problem we should ask the poster to change it.

    I'm not sure if there would ever be a sitution where that would be needed. Possibly if someone posted pornographic material?
  6. Roman_K New Member

    Exactly, Rinso! That happens! Sometimes, talking and debating about it is *not* a good idea, because the pic or link is still there while we're doing it. Edit first and ask questions afterwards *is* a valid way of doing things in drastic cases. Hopefully, there won't be such cases.
  7. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I think in such cases the pic shouldn't be completely removed only made into a link with a warning. I dunno, though. I assume most of us would be happy to have strict no porn rule. In which case if people are breaking these our rules mods can act without consulting people?

    Also, I'm more inlined to delete pictures than inappropreicate language is that fair is one worse than the other? Is this a minor freindly board or just one that has certain smutt standards?
  8. Roman_K New Member

    Smut standards is the way to go, I feel.
  9. Tephlon Active Member

    I agree, all smut must be up to standard. :)

    Seriously though: I would say remove the picture and make it a link if you feel it's inappropriate. (Or if someone decides to post a 6 Mb picture of their guinneapig....)

    Language, including spellingmistakes and even racist remarks* should be left alone. It reeks too much of censorship.

    As for Doors changing the spelling of he Poll question.... I think it wasn't nescessary. A request to change it would have been enough.

    *Racist remarks can be discussed and if needed, changed by the original poster. If only because I feel we should be able to discuss EVERYTHING.
  10. Marcia Executive Onion

    [quote:1ecee90988="Tephlon"]

    Seriously though: I would say remove the picture and make it a link if you feel it's inappropriate. (Or if someone decides to post a 6 Mb picture of their guinneapig....)

    [/quote:1ecee90988]

    I agree. Also, include a warning with the link, as some people are at work when they look at the board.
  11. Pixel New Member

    I'm mainly with Ben on this, and others following the same vein, but there are exceptions. First of all, there are two issues here.

    Correcting someone's spelling by just editing their posts is both patronizing and counterproductive - patronizing because it is just taking a superior attitude and counterproductive because they may not notice it and therefore will not learn.

    On the matter of censorship, I have always beenn opposed to any curtaillment of freedom of speech - [i:4e02e95e6f]but[/i:4e02e95e6f] - we have to take into account outside factors - as an example - if someone were to start posting paedophile porn, then just in self-protection and for legal reasons let alone personal opinions on the matter the first person to spot it with the rights to chop it should do so - and I would point out that this is an area where I am still trying to reconcile my opposition to censorship with with a natural civilized child-protective state of mind - but then, whoever said moral issues were easy?
  12. Orrdos God

    Right.

    This comes down to a matter of trust. If you trust the mods not to make sweeping changes to your posts, then whether they have the ability to edit posts or not is irrelevant.

    Now, I for one would not be happy doing so.

    I corrected the spelling on a poll choice as I happened to be looking at it just when someone posted that it was spelt wrong. So, I just fixed it while I was there.

    I honestly didn't imagine that it'd blow up into anything. Nor do I want to spend my days going through peoples posts looking for spelling errors I can fix. Rinso alone would keep me going full time.

    It was a spur of the moment thing to fix a poll choice. I didn't edit the guys post in anyway, just changed a single letter in a poll and left a wee note to say that I'd done it.

    I don't see a huge problem with that, I don't think it's patronising to the poster nor do I think that I'm holding back his learning process. Correcting one word that's in a prominent place that was misspelled isn't the worst crime ever.

    In saying that, it's not something I'd normally do, out of laziness if nothing else. As I said, it was just a spur of the moment thing.

    If it has upset the poster, then he has my apologies.

    But, fuck it. I'll never do it again. I certainly don't agree with the censuring of peoples posts, but if I'd posted a poll and mispelt one of the options, I honestly wouldn't mind if someone edited it so it was spelt right.

    Perhaps it would be the first step towards the end of free speech and society as we know it, but I can't imagine one letter having that much of a effect.

    I would also point out that mods being able to edit posts is the norm for message boards. It's normally only used for family friendly boards, or boards that have legal obligations not to say things.

    But the ability is always there.

    I think it's easier if the mods retain the power to edit things, so we can alter thread lists or official threads and other stickies if the need arises.
  13. Maljonic Administrator

    Doors: I don't think what you did was that big a deal to be honest, even less so if you left a note about it, I didn't know that.

    I think it's just brought up an issue that some people might be paranoid about: that mods might alter their posts, which of course none of the mods here would do unless it had something terrible in it like unconsenting donkey pron links. And even then the mod in question would leave a note to say what's been done.

    People make spelling mistakes all the time here, like Smoking_Gnu who 'fell so stupid', unless you were being ironic? So, like Doors says, it would be more than a full time job to keep correcting everything so it's obviously not going to happen for whatever reason.
  14. Ba Lord of the Pies

    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.
  15. Maljonic Administrator

  16. Electric_Man Templar

    [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.
  17. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    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.
  18. Pixel New Member

    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! :) )
  19. Electric_Man Templar

    [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.
  20. Ba Lord of the Pies

    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.
  21. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [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.
  22. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    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.
  23. Orrdos God

    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.
  24. chrisjordan New Member

    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.
  25. Electric_Man Templar

    [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
  26. Pixel New Member

    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!
  27. chrisjordan New Member

    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'.
  28. Electric_Man Templar

    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)
  29. colonesque10 New Member

    [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.

Share This Page