Moderation 101: When can mods, moderate
The question came up about the rules for best practices for site moderation.
- When all mods are on site, it is always best that a mod who is not involved in a discussion, moderate.
- When there is only one mod on a site, and there is only a slight incident, a mod may moderate an article that they were involved in, so long as they were not in that particular thread.
- If there is only one mod on site and havoc is ensuing on an article that they have commented on, (an emergency situation), a mod can moderate, but it will be reviewed by the RA. Obviously, this is not the best practice, but sometimes it is better than letting an article be ruined. Once the RA has reviewed the comment and are in agreement with the comment, they will signify this by owning the comment, and removing it from the mod who intervened. This way the community knows that it was looked at.
- All removed comments are logged.
I hope this clears up any questions about the who and whats of moderation.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
348 visitors
I know that this has been on some folks minds, so I have a chance to devote some time to this.
Dear Friend Perrie: Helpful.
Thank you.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Thanks Enoch!
Thank you for the clarification. I know there are some folks here who are confused about when and how mods can moderate. While there are some who do know how things are done, but, still choose to make an issue of it, there are also some who are confused abut it.
Hopefully, for them, this will clarify how the moderation works at times when there are limited mods available, and hopefully curtail those who try to spread the confusion.
Issue very well explained. I hope that all members will take the time to read it.
Thanks Raven!!
Well done!
Thanks Vic!
So what I get from this 'meta' is that regular member's CoC violations that are removed by mods are tallied and made note of in public and not reviewed by the RA unless appealed but mods get an automatic RA review if they violate the CoC rule against moderating on a seed that they've commented on.
I have seen what I considered a 'slight incident' involving a mod viewed as 'havoc ensuing' by a fellow mod and an intervention ensued.
I also note that there is no mention of what happens when the RA doesn't agree with the intervention or whether the RA agrees with or not, what happens if a mod DOES intervene in a THREAD that they have commented in.
Shouldn't that automatically be counted as a violation of the CoC shouldn't that be publicly noted?
I regularly spot check the violations. I do not check each and everyone. If a member wants a review of a violation, I will do so. Mods who moderate on a thread they have commented on, I review to make sure that was the only course of action, and not another mod online at the time. If there is, they should refer it to another mod, or if time is not of the essence, just let the violation sit till another mod comes online.
The intervention you saw, is not unusual. It is spelled out in the main part of the article. By me the RA taking the comment, it means I concur. If I didn't, the moderation would have been removed and the moderator would have been called into question. That rarely happens since they all know this, but on the two occasions it has, the mod was reprimanded or removed.
I answered that in both the article and in the above comment.
Poor moderation doesn't get a CoC violation. They either get spoken to by me, and the issue is ironed out or removed if it was a terrible infraction of moderation. As I said earlier, this has only happened twice.
Btw, by terrible moderation I am not referring to calls made by a moderator. Everyone brings to moderation their own viewpoint and that is why we review comments. Many times we all read the same comment different ways. That is never an issue and why we review comments. By bad moderation, I mean something that is an abuse of their position when moderating (as opposed to when they are just being members).
Actually, I don't think that you addressed this:
That is what happened in the intervention that I saw.
The answer is in the body of the article:
Now obviously, this call is left up to several things, like how many flags have gone down on that article or if things take a sudden change for the worse.
Now obviously this is somewhat objective. But if the intent of the mod was to calm the situation then that is a good thing. That is why I review these situations.
Actually, it sounds quite subjective to me.
It is my experience that the 'intent' of a member doesn't effect the ruling.
I meant subjective. But since moderation is not done by a machine, it will always have a level of subjectiveness.
That isn't true. Many a call has been reversed, but not all.
Once I got to "(an emergency situation)", I could no longer read this article with a straight face.
Did you ever have a "straight face"?
And what is up with that duck???
Thanks for the clarification, Perrie
Thanks Trout!!
I'm entering a goth phase.
yer on a roll today
He's goth to be that way.
Cheese and Whine will be served at the completion of this article.
It will be sponsored and served by the mods..
But I like beer and pretzels!
We're having grilled honey glazed pork chops
with fresh grilled corn on the cob
and grilled crispy string beans ( from Pei Wei's )
with a mix of higher end beers and cheap, cheap wines.
maybe some Barbie wine, lol
But there is nothing like listening to a good WHINE from some of our members...
I think I'm becoming tone deaf ...lol.
Don't you have to with being a moderator?
PS, if you ask the right person, we always have freshly grated Parmesan available as well as sliced Colby for those that inst...
Classic tone deaf.
Poor Alfalfa...he never got any respect
.
Poor guy never got any of that sexy Darla either!
.
Ah first loves.
As a kid of the 50's I was torn between Darla and Betty Boop but, in the end, it was dear Betty who tripped that first trigger.
Answers the modules, can a mod mod a mod from a modern model participant with a very modest modifier
Thanks for modes of modularities.
Thanks Ender!
There's something about the tango that brings even more emotion out of the lyrics.
Ruben Blades
From Sunday 7 AM to Sunday 7 AM (one week; last week), we had 527 flagged comments (I may have actually even missed some, but that is my count) and between 200 and 300 actual violations. Fun fact to chew on.
Yes it was a better site before we had the flags. I’d call them a failure and get rid of the feature.
Hello Perrie, I sincerely hope that life is treating in a manner that exceeds your wildest expectations : )
For the sake of the mods sanity - would it not be easier to 'lock' an article that "havoc is ensuing" on until a fellow mod, or the RA can review? I know that NO one really likes to have an article locked .. but it would seem to me that doing so would prevent claims of bias - while sparing the lone mod on sites hair... I could be wrong : )……...
Or you may be right...
Let's sing!
Well he does say he may be crazy in that song.. so I could believe that.
LOL .. now there is something I do not hear very often : )
Ooo yes.. I will never be able to forget that life lesson : )
Love that song. Have it in my phone.
Oh my, a kindred spirit.
I am probably the champion of locking articles where a few strong personalities have taken over and started very off topic personal dialogues. It only tends to happen when a seeder simply posts an article/seed, then vanishes, with little or no attempt to participate, let alone attempt to guide or moderate their own seed. Per the CoC the author/ seeder is expected to
So yes, rather than waste hours writing up offenders, I have, and will continue to lock articles that have
Yeah that’s probably the dumbest thing in the entire COC expecting the seeder to moderate when they are not moderators. It also destroys the the entire concept of moderators not being allowed to participate in a discussion.
Locking an article is the logical thing to do, until said time that moderators are available - or in other cases the seeder is available ... it appears that more and more members are locking their own articles before leaving for any length of time .. which in my opinion is, once again, is the logical thing to do...
Seeders should not have to moderate, and moderators should not seed articles, there is too much room for abuse. They should be more like Tyler and Sally were and use common sense.
And I would agree to an extent - if I were being paid what Sally or Tyler, et al, were being paid.
But if you remember, they all posted articles regularly and even had their own nation.
Any one, who seeds or writes an article, must take some sort or responsibility for said article/seed.
And if they are unwilling to do so, after being reminded of their responsibility and still refuse to do so, then they should lose their privilege to seed/author any articles until such time they are willing to do so. If they cannot abide by the CoC of this site, then they should not have the right to continue to ignore or abuse it.
Gregg,
That is the whole reason for this article. It is to explain how we try not to compromise moderation. It is also why our mods are diverse in their political beliefs. We do actually go into the mod group or get each other on chat and discuss a call if we are not sure.
And this is a volunteer job.. one that can be very thankless and easily criticized. I am not saying that isn't normal, but it is why I am also taking the time to explain all of this. The job would be not worth it (and frankly given to authoritative types), if all they did was moderate free. That is the last person you would want looking at your comment, and not one I would like working with, since then I would be the boss, as opposed to part of a team who is free to express themselves and have often come up with much better ideas than I ever had.
Dean,
When we say that, we mean that the seeder should tell members to get back on topic or keep comments away from the personal. In that way, they can and do guide a discussion better than just calling us in. But if things get out of line, they can just flag a mod.
I thought one of the reasons it is like this is because people didn't like when the old place took away self moderation.
The ability was taken away to moderate ones own seed or written article. People liked having that ability, especially on an original piece.
Was there abuse? Some thought so, not all. Now it seems some want the ability completely stripped. (again, not talking about any one individual) I think it still goes back to the personal responsibility thing.
E.A Spot ON!!
Why would ANY site not allow an Author or Seeder, that went to the trouble of setting up a Topic not Carry out what was the Original Thought / Reason / Purpose for them doing so, But hand it to someone that has NO Clue as to what the Merit was/is
E.A A Lot like someone asking " How should I set up My Site " They are then Given advice from someone with Years of Experience, They take the advice set up the " Foundation " then they get Haughty and say " Hell I will not go forth with the rest from now on " I DO it My Way " so how many here have a clue how safe is to set a FOUNDATION for one type of Structure, and then switch to a totally different one with HUGE Load differences?
NT never had members moderate their own comments. That was because of personal experience with being deleted when being quiet on topic. More often than not, those comments were never restored by the powers that be. I know I personally hated that aspect of the other place.
As for those who write and article, I would be willing to give them a little more leverage on moderating their own work, but that comes with great responsibility. If this was abused to shut down a point of view or person, then the privilege would be taken away.
Article is reopened.
Before this goes underway, this article seems to have strayed from it's original intent. It was how member moderators do what they do. It isn't about a critique on moderation. I will answer the comments made before, but I would like to focus on any questions that have to do with the actual functioning of the moderation.
There's too damn much moderation. We need to moderate our moderation!
Yeah I would love that... but people seem to have the need to take swipes at each other instead of having an actual discussion on a topic.
The funny thing is Lenny, most of the time you are pretty much on topic, so I can see your POV. But again, not the purpose of this article.
And some of the moderators are overstepping their boundaries. Lenny and myself had a conversation deleted on one of Bobs seeds last week and they didn’t even use purple or explain why our comments were deleted. Even Bob said he did not ask for the comments to be removed. We have a moderator that’s gone rogue. When I questioned why the comments were deleted no mod came forward to admit to the wrongdoing.
I am unaware of this happening and you are right Dean, this is poor form. They are supposed to write in purple and leave their initials behind so we know who it is. That being said, there are many steps at present to moderation, and a lot to places to make a mistake, and hence why I review everything that is logged.
This will not be a problem in the near future. The whole moderation is going to be automated and there will be no room for human error.
Good luck with that. Facebook certified of course. Guess it's worth a try.
At least nobody will be lying when they claim they are being judged by the inhumane.
All of the new rules coming down the pike like a swat team performing crowd control.
Not you Perrie. The new internet.
E.A yes I am sure some have read the reports of how accurate Automated moderation is on the Net right but we do have a .. running this site.
Lets see how this Terrible " editor issues " is fixed first
That was so unfunny that it was funny.
Seems rather odd to want to have a discussion about how the mods operate on this site when they aren't going to be here to function anymore.
You actually want to have an irrelevant conversation?
Based on the facts that you have just provided us this article is only useful for the purpose of Meta. As such, per your own rules it should be discussed in Meta and not on the front page.
200-300 coc violations given in one week is defacto proof that the moderation is too involved in the forum. I have serious doubts that the "flagging" system is appropriate since it it not only encourages people to complain about other members it also encourages the moderators to take action.
Owl,
I think you have misunderstood what I meant by automated.
The mods will still do their thing. But there are many steps that we have to do to moderate, like change the comment, remember to add our initials, log it, suspend members, write notes to the suspended members, take them off suspension etc. This will soon be from one central location and many of the functions will be covered the moment the mod takes an action.
This is just so that everyone understands how the mods work as member/ mods.
Actually what I have gotten out of this discussion, so far, is
.
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought for a minute there that we were going to be moderated by robots.
We are.
Perrie. is this new central location going to be manned by humans 24/7? Or even 16/7?
TG, read the new policies and regulations coming from Facebook and decide for yourself.
Owl, this isn't Face Book, this is News Talkers.
Newstalkers isn't a private group formed operated under the umbrella of Facebook anymore? When were we taken private? Would make me happy as all get out if Facebook was no longer in the picture.
Just checked, Facebook still lists NT as one of their private groups. Private groups supported by Facebook are like Nations were to Newsvine. To take it a step further social sites like Newsvine were Nations owned by Comcast. Big Corp. has control and is turning up the heat.
WTF are you talking about?
Wow, 13 members, formed 7 years ago and apparently no comments.
Anyone can have a Facebook page, it has no bearing on the ownership of this website.
I imagine perrie can take down her NT Facebook page at any time, it has no bearing o the operation of this site.
HA. I don't have a facebook account.
It never was. It has a half made fb page, but that is about it.
Is it within the rules to purposely misspell one politician's name?
No. You can misspell any public figures name. You can't do that to a fellow member.
This is probably the hardest part of the CoC for people to get. We know it from the flagging.
The CoC is there to protect members. The TOS legal issues. Nothing protects public figures
Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. I'll be sending you something I saved about one of our moderators who violated this rule several times as soon as I have time.
The article is reopened for a little while today. Please try to stay on topic.
closing this article.