OUTLINE: Moderation guidelines

(ie: jess changing what i wrote)

I seem to sense a certain category missing in this list:
- Intentionally hurtful posts towards other posters.
- Links/images that are not work safe.
- Libellous/slanderous statements.
- Copyright infringement.

Are blatantly offensive posts considered covered under the banner of free speech then? For example not directed intentionally towards a specific poster, but are misogynist and offensive towards women in general. Or, perhaps violently offensive towards a specific race. Does a post have to be aimed directly at an individual in order to be considered hurtful?

Moderators will NOT interfere with a thread based solely on the poster who started it

How does this mesh with the idea, being discussed on another thread, and winning support, of requiring registration and banning repeat offenders? Or does the idea of "banning" negate the need for this?

Moderators reserve the right to moderate a thread in the manner they see fit.

Imprecise, and nebulous to the point where it almost seems to condone moderator abuse. I think you need to be a lot more specific here. For example, "Moderators may delete posts, they may change the wording of posts only for the purposes of google-proofing, and they may insert text describing the reason for deletion. They MAY NOT insert extraneous text, or use moderation to insult or comment on the character of individual posters."

Although moderators and users alike may find it hilarious to alter text, it is stooping to the same level as abusers, and it provides a poor example of exactly the sort of childish behaviour that the moderators are supposed to be controlling.

It's really hard pretending to be objective and "above" when moderators are involved in the same behaviour that trolls are.

Is this sticking all the posts into one thread, copying the text from one and posting it in the other, or just deleting the least-used thread?

Imprecise, and nebulous to the point where it almost seems to condone moderator abuse.

It's (I assume) modified by the list of things that the moderator can moderate for, though maybe this link should be made explicit. If in the process of fixing something the moderator wants to call someone a doodyhead, I have no problem with this.

Also you can always ask another moderator to undo something.

Just think about it. Has it actually ever helped control a poster's behaviour, or has it just triggered more posts and more threads of outrage on the moderator board, about "moderator abuse"?

moderators within their rights: fuck you ex machina, seriously

Time to change ILX? All over this thread

Look no further than the now-named "Jon and Kate Masturbate" thread for an example. Jon and I going at it hammer and tongs, having a bit of fun flaming each other.

Dan walks in and decides to moderate. Does he:

1) Put on his "Moderator Hat" and say firmly but sensibly "Look, you two, knock it off". Result: Kate goes "Whoops, sorry, I got carried away there, I'll stop" and the thread dies away.

2) Go in there, moderate the title to an insulting but amusing epithet. Result: Kate, insulted, insults Dan back, draws him into the argument, Jon goes off to the Moderator board, the argument spreads over there, requiring thread locking. I can't ignore the thread now, cause every time I log onto ILX, there's my name up in lights, with new answers saying "click me".

Sheesh, I mean, look upthread, Jon is *still* outraged about Jess changing one of his posts when, as far as I'm aware, Jess hasn't been a moderator since last year.

I am speaking as someone who *is* part of the problem. I'm perfectly capable of being a reasonable person if treated reasonably. I am also quite capable of being temper-tantrum throwing infant who chucks her toys out of her pram if I feel like I'm being infringed upon. For examples - just look through the moderator board for the shitstorms that C*l*m and JW have also blown up over "comedic" post-changing.

I understand that moderating can be a thankless and frustrating task. But, seriously. There are better ways to blow off steam than doing something which escalates and exacerbates the problem.

But what is the ultimate aim of moderation? Is it preserving the peace and keeping ILX a harmonious place? This kind of moderation doesn't make things stop, it makes them worse. Put a stop to this sort of "moderation abuse" and put it directly in the moderation policy.

I'm going to check my email now. Lord knows what awaits me there.

I think that being able to enable or disable images on a per thread basis is a GOOD IDEA.

Have you guys seem how gmail intercepts HTML email messages with images?

I think that being able to enable or disable images on a per thread basis is a GOOD IDEA.

Have you guys seem how gmail intercepts HTML email messages with images?

That's good to know. May I note something else said above?

Jon and I going at it hammer and tongs, having a bit of fun flaming each other.

The 'bit of fun' description is where ways are parted here -- though perhaps you are being a little sarcastic. Acknowledging that the mods have to deal with some EXTREMELY frustrating situations and posters and more is most wise. Describing a situation where either party could have stopped and *let things be* before Dan chose to step in illustrates exactly what is meant. Blaming Dan for reacting over something when the fault lay with the people involved does not strike me as constructive.

Both you and Jon could have thought to yourself, "Wow, this is really pointless and stupid," and stopped. Did you REALLY need someone else to tell you you were getting carried away? Did Jon? Did you actually feel surprised that after engaging in said 'thankless task' for all this time that there might have come a point where Dan -- who has easily been one of the most level-headed folks on this board and a fantastic moderator all around -- felt like he might as well been named Sisyphus for all that he's done in trying to moderate calmly and carefully?

The mods are not perfect, they are quite human. I certainly do not claim to be flawless in the job. But as I see it the basic guidelines above -- which can be modified as time goes on, but stand as a good start -- strike a fair balance between pointing out that action can and will be taken and that the mods are not trying to act on whim. Dan had developed them about a week back after some consideration and was waiting to post them, and now here they are.

Finally, we mods will happily take criticism and thoughts on these guidelines but at this point I think we are all VERY collectively tired of self-exculpation and justification for flamewars and fuckups.

What does this mean?

Moderators reserve the right to moderate a thread in the manner they see fit.

This means that if someone asks for a thread to be deleted, a moderator can instead decide to delete or modify the offending portion of the thread.

Are there particular actions that are irreversible? Should there be more restrictions on those?

I am not at all comfortable with the idea of spelling out when things should be locked and when they should be deleted.

1) illegal
2) bust the functionality of the board
3) fall under the category of things specific people have repeatedly requested before, with the tacit assumption that they would do so again

I don't have a real problem sitting back and waiting for the official request, if that's what we all decide, though it should be noted in advance (or on the moderation board in some form) that there are a limited number of moderators for certain areas of the board and that like it or not, we have jobs, dates, etc, and we may NOT get to a request right away if we're out doing something else. We may also be reading other threads for our own enjoyment (heaven forbid) and not notice a new request on the mod thread within two minutes. I've already seen some instances where people make a request for moderation and then start to get belligerent within a few minutes that nothing has been done about it, even when there are no moderators online that can handle the issue on that particular board. If we stop being proactive, we can probably expect a few kinks in this area, so fair warning on the timing may be a good idea if we choose to go this route.

How does this mesh with the idea, being discussed on another thread, and winning support, of requiring registration and banning repeat offenders? Or does the idea of "banning" negate the need for this?

If I might offer a guess as to what Dan was getting at here:

It means that moderators can't just go in and lock or delete a thread because it was started by a particular poster, whether that poster's a known (or universally suspected) troll or a generally good citizen.

Right, that was obvious. But I think it bears pointing out that it's not at odds with the idea of banning. Consider that moderators take requests from the community at large. So, say 10 threads are started by a user called Chuckles. Nine of them get complaints from different ilx0rs asking for deletion or modification (because of the nature of the thread or something Chuckles posted on them), and the moderator(s) sees fit to act on those complaints. Now there are nine Chuckles threads which have been moderated because of something Chuckles did and one that hasn't. Obviously Chuckles is on his way to getting "banned" (however that might be implemented), but none of his threads were moderated just because they were Chuckles' threads. If he makes an 11th thread, moderators aren't allowed to do anything to it until they get some kind of complaint they deem worthy of answering.

I'm sorry if you saw that as an ad hominem attack, but it wasn't meant as such.

amazing randy is not me.

someone told me that ilx was spoof proof or that you could get a real-time IP scan/grab or some such nonsense that i might be imagining.

i am offended by this nonsense. the only trolling i have ever done was piss off people unnecessarily by being annoying and starting pointless arguments. i have never attacked someone's sexuality, race, gender -- i have only attacked class.

i am so so SO fucking offended that you would even THINK that i would do shit like the amazing randy...that i have, for the first time, offered up my email address on ilx.

and you know what? if you want to get rid of the amazing randy and if we are sharing the same fucking ip address. then ban it. I. DON'T. CARE. i am not having people ASSUME that i am a fucking bastard who would ATTACK race/religion/creed/sexuality... AND I WILL NOT HAVE MY 'INTERNET' NAME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FUCKING GARBAGE.

Backtracking a touch -- Stence, it wasn't helpful in turn to react to Nicole that way. Her point is spot on regarding a typical pitfall any of us could make, and we need to keep that pitfall out of any talk on this subject. Your suggested addition for the guidelines is a bit glib, perhaps, but the point is good.

AND WHERE IS THE KRAFTWERK PIECE.

i work from home. and i have aol.

jon, moderators, you can ban my address from all the boards except i love music. i don't mind. i hardly post and was drawn by the noise board's chaotic style. am just a lurker now. listen dudes, i have to get something done tonight. if the solutation is banning my ip. you know what? just do it. i honestly am so fucking annoyed by this scenerio that it can only be a good thing and i see now how easily this ilxing can slip into a lynching (not a jokey-joke lynching like calum -- but a false witness witness) and don't have the stomach to go through it again.

and ip banning isnt going to work either, people just use a proxy.

however, if someone were to start using many proxies to do this kind of shite en masse, i think a "lockdown mode" would help

I didn't want to respond to this, Ned, but I feel like I have to. Her point was not a general point to everyone, it was posted with a quote from me and then used "you," which is specific enough for me to take it as ad hominem. That had nothing to do with my point about building consensus (and how that could be a good thing), but was about whether or not I actually practice what I preach - which is maybe fair enough for a "psychoanalyze hstencil" thread (should someone be pathetic enough to start one - NOT A SUGGESTION BTW) but really is no different from any of the other personal attacks that Dan has expressed that he doesn't want on this board. Which is why, aside from my initial post in response , I'm not going to ad hominem Nicole back. I do think that I should clarify what's going on here, if only to reinforce the point aboutout how people have very clearly different standards when it comes to behavior on ILX (ie. if Jon or I had done the exact same thing to Nicole or to Ned or to any number of people, the outcry would begin).

As far as d00mie is concerned, I am sorry that I assumed he and Randy are one in the same, but we have no proof that they're not. That said, I would be happy to go into the noizedude board and modify any of my posts implicating that they are the same, if it so pleases.

1. HAVE I EVER, DURING THE PAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS, POSTED UNDER ANY DIFFERENT NAME, THEN A VARIATION OF SOMETHING FROM TEH DOOM PATROL/THIRTEEN FLOOR ELEVATORS DR DOOM SONG ... LIKE EVAH?????

2. AND DURING THE THREE AND A HALF YEARS HAVE I EVER ATTACKED RELIGION, SEXUALITY OR RACE?

NO.

IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PERPERATE BULLSHIT THEN FUCKING GO AHEAD. BUT I DON'T APPRECIATE NOR DO I PARTICULARLY LIKE YOU CONTINUING TO FUCKING SLANDER ME. IN A SELF-RIGHTEOUS JERRY SPRINGER TALK SHOW AUDIENCE WAY. IF YOU WANT A LYNCHING I CAN POINT YOU TO SEVERAL BNP PARTIES IN MY AREA THAT COULD USE IT.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS OF DOOM. NOW DEAL.

im posting from 170.163.100.107

All posts equating Randy and Doomie on the noizedude board have been changed.

Again, I'm very sorry if you perceive things that way, but that was not the case.

But in all seriousness, I was upset and offended and am glad to get it resolved.

O.k. I have to get something done in time to watch big brother.

PHEW I AM GLAD THAT I AM GOING ON HOLIDAYS TOMORROW.

Less of the 'hounding' stuff, please, dear Mr Ned 'I Wear My Heart On My Sleeve Next To My Chevron' Raggett! I do not 'hound' people, I just have a position on intervention which differs from yours. And that's okay.

Enjoy Acapulco!

A couple of things:

- There was at least one instance where I moderated one of Nicole's posts that was directed at Jon.

- The question of whether people actually believe that one of the building attempting to build consensus is actually interested in building consensus or is interested in being stubborn until people cave in to his or her viewpoint seems to me to be a pretty fundamental issue when you are trying to build consensus. This is not meant to say that this is an accurate description of you or your position but rather that it's a question that can and should be levelled at everyone participating in the discussion.

As for moderating, I think the moderators' behaviour goes wrong far more rarely than everyone else's, and that they have done a good job in demanding circumstances (I think the only person who has ever complained about my actions as a mod was Calum when I deleted some of his abuse). I like these guidelines, though I would quite like something in there about really extreme racism/sexism/homophobia - I'd like to have some explicit right to act on such things.

Maybe rephrase the discretion bit to include something about protecting the tone and interest and survival of the boards?

I think the make-up of the moderators could be reconsidered during this break. I am happy to stay or stand down; or to be added as a moderator on ILBooks or ILComics, if they are short of mods, since I am becoming pretty regular there too. There have been suggestions of maximum continuous periods for moderators, with minimum breaks between - maybe six months on, six months off - and if we have enough responsible people, this sounds a good idea.

My main regret is the absence of Tom in all this - I wish he were here to at least take part, as all this was his in the first place.

- I expect that most posters would complain to the moderators if they encountered such material, lessening the need for the moderators to have proactive rights to edit/delete these posts.

- They are already covered by "Intentionally hurtful posts towards other posters" unless we are arguing that the current posting base has no race/gender/sexual orientation.

- If we did explicitly put in race/gender/sexual orientation, WE SHOULD ALSO PUT IN RELIGION AND POLITICS. This leads right back to point 2.

My current feeling on the boards right now is that moderation is most successful and least intrusive when posters request it than when it is imposed upon them, hence the general statement about moderators being reactive rather than proactive.

- Intentionally hurtful posts towards other posters.

Do the requests have to be made by the injured person?

(no-one will read this, bah)

It's up to the individual what they actually find hurtful. One person's "hurtful" is another person's "just good fun", after all.