Moderation 101: When can mods, moderate

  

Category:  meta

By:  perrie-halpern  •  2 years ago  •  165 comments

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

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

I know that this has been on some folks minds, so I have a chance to devote some time to this. 

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1  Enoch  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

Dear Friend Perrie: Helpful.

Thank you.

Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Enoch @1.1    2 years ago

Thanks Enoch! 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

All removed comments are logged.

Except when they're not as happened last week(?) with a certain prepubescent antagonist?  Just sayin.

But, what is the action of a moderator when another moderator also happens to be falling into the antagonist instigator role on a thread?   No bias right?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    2 years ago

9mm,

In the rare case that a comment is not logged, it don't count. 

But, what is the action of a moderator when another moderator also happens to be falling into the antagonist instigator role on a thread?   No bias right?

First of all, we seem to get cries of bias from both sides of the political spectrum. The moderation team is actually made up of 1 conservative, 2 libertarians, 2 liberal and 1 independent. If you feel that there was bias in your moderation, you can inquire, (which you have), and other eyes will look at the comment. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    2 years ago
No bias right?

NEVER.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.2    2 years ago

Kind of reminds me about this song:

But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    2 years ago

I Learned "One thing" ....for sure. Big hugs

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @1.3    2 years ago

Thanks Raven!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago

Well done!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.5.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.5    2 years ago

Thanks Vic!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    2 years ago
The question came up about the rules for best practices for site moderation.

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? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.7.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @1.7    2 years ago
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 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. 

I have seen what I considered a 'slight incident' involving a mod viewed as 'havoc ensuing' by a fellow mod and an intervention ensued. 

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 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.

I answered that in both the article and in the above comment.

Shouldn't that automatically be counted as a violation of the CoC shouldn't that be publicly noted? 

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).

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.2  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.7.1    2 years ago
I answered that in both the article and in the above comment.

Actually, I don't think that you addressed this:

or whether the RA agrees with or not, what happens if a mod DOES intervene in a THREAD that they have commented in.

That is what happened in the intervention that I saw. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.7.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @1.7.2    2 years ago
or whether the RA agrees with or not, what happens if a mod DOES intervene in a THREAD that they have commented in.

The answer is in the body of the article:

  • 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. 

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.7.4  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.7.3    2 years ago
Now obviously this is somewhat objective.

Actually, it sounds quite subjective to me. 

But if the intent of the mod was to calm the situation then that is a good thing.

It is my experience that the 'intent' of a member doesn't effect the ruling. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.7.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dulay @1.7.4    2 years ago
Now obviously this is somewhat objective.

Actually, it sounds quite subjective to me. 

I meant subjective. But since moderation is not done by a machine, it will always have a level of subjectiveness. 

But if the intent of the mod was to calm the situation then that is a good thing.

It is my experience that the 'intent' of a member doesn't effect the ruling. 

That isn't true. Many a call has been reversed, but not all. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
2  Hal A. Lujah    2 years ago

Once I got to "(an emergency situation)", I could no longer read this article with a straight face.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2    2 years ago

Did you ever have a "straight face"? ;)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago

And what is up with that duck???

Thanks for the clarification, Perrie

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.1    2 years ago

Thanks Trout!! 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
2.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.1    2 years ago

I'm entering a goth phase.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.3    2 years ago

Giggle

yer on a roll today

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.4    2 years ago

He's goth to be that way. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.6  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago
Did you ever have a "straight face"?

chuckle

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     2 years ago

Cheese and Whine will be served at the completion of this article. 

It will be sponsored and served by the mods..

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @3    2 years ago

But I like beer and pretzels!

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    2 years ago

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

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    2 years ago

But there is nothing like listening to a good WHINE from some of our members...

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @3.1.2    2 years ago

I think I'm becoming tone deaf ...lol.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    2 years ago

Don't you have to with being a moderator?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.1    2 years ago

PS, if you ask the right person, we always have freshly grated Parmesan available as well as sliced Colby for those that inst...angel

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
3.1.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.3    2 years ago

Classic tone deaf.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @3.1.6    2 years ago

Poor Alfalfa...he never got any respect

 
 
 
Old Hermit
3.1.8  Old Hermit  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.7    2 years ago
Poor Alfalfa... he never got any respect

.

Poor guy never got any of that sexy Darla either!

Image result for our gang darla

Image result for our gang darla

.

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.

8449cf96a32a82e9f0068238518073c9.gif

 
 
 
Ender
4  Ender    2 years ago

Answers the modules, can a mod mod a mod from a modern model participant with a very modest modifier

Thanks for modes of modularities.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @4    2 years ago

Thanks Ender!

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    2 years ago

There's something about the tango that brings even more emotion out of the lyrics.

Ruben Blades

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7  Colour Me Free    2 years ago

Hello Perrie, I sincerely hope that life is treating in a manner that exceeds your wildest expectations : )

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.

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 : )……...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Colour Me Free @7    2 years ago
while sparing the lone mod on sites hair...  I could be wrong : )……...

Or you may be right... 

Let's sing! 

 
 
 
badfish
7.1.1  badfish  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 years ago

Last time I played that song on the record player, Billy Joel drove his car through my living room.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  badfish @7.1.1    2 years ago

Well he does say he may be crazy in that song.. so I could believe that. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7.1.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 years ago
Or you may be right...

LOL .. now there is something I do not hear very often : )

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7.1.4  Colour Me Free  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    2 years ago

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @7.1.4    2 years ago

Ah, you remembered...in one ear and right out the other...

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7.1.6  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @7.1.5    2 years ago

Ooo yes.. I will never be able to forget that life lesson : )

 
 
 
Ender
7.1.7  Ender  replied to  Colour Me Free @7.1.4    2 years ago

Love that song. Have it in my phone.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2  Split Personality  replied to  Colour Me Free @7    2 years ago

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

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

Authors (with assistance from administration) moderate their own articles. Authors are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality when reporting abuse.

So yes, rather than waste hours writing up offenders, I have, and will continue to lock articles that have

been abandoned by the seeder and gotten out of control

or articles where I am aware that the seeder is suspended and cannot defend him or her self or moderate.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Split Personality @7.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
7.2.2  Colour Me Free  replied to  Split Personality @7.2    2 years ago

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...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.2.1    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2.3    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.4    2 years ago
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.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.6  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Split Personality @7.2.4    2 years ago
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.

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.7  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.2.1    2 years ago
Yeah that’s probably the dumbest thing in the entire COC expecting the seeder to moderate when they are not moderators.

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. 

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.8  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.2.7    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
user image
7.2.9    replied to  Ender @7.2.8    2 years ago
I thought one of the reasons it is like this is because people didn't like when the old place took away self moderation.

                                              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

 
 
 
user image
7.2.10    replied to  @7.2.9    2 years ago
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?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.2.11  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @7.2.8    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    2 years ago

I agree about locking the article if it becomes toxic.  Sometimes things are said that should not be said. I know you have told members not to communicate with each other when they don't click. Is it possible to tell a mod not to communicate with a member, including moderate them as well?  If so, I might join back in again. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
8.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 years ago

Hi B .. I was just out watering the garden and thinking about you, figured I would text and see how you are .. just sat down and TA DA here you are.  You have been missed!

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Colour Me Free @8.1    2 years ago

Hi Colour, I think if I actually do take a long break, I will not say a word..  : )

Thank you, I hope your spring is going well, I am having a graduation party next Saturday for my girl and about 50 people are coming, so I have been busy.

Yeah,, text me soon. : )

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.1    2 years ago

Congratulations and good luck with the celebration.

Many here look forward to your return.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
8.1.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.1    2 years ago

Congratulations ... I know you enjoy catering large get togethers, but 50 peeps is Christmas dinner on steriods : )

(not so) lil man will be a Senior in the fall .. and starts his radio gig tomorrow night - he is so excited!

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.2    2 years ago

Thanks....

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Colour Me Free @8.1.3    2 years ago

I bet you are excited!  You will be proud I am sure..

Yep, it's a lot of work but worth it when it's ready. : )

Thank you...

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.2  owlsview677  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 years ago

Wow! Is it a COC violation if I say that is the stupidest comment possible on social media?

Choose your own moderator and guarantee one sided moderation. Might as well just transform NT into two echo chambers.

Equal rights people. Everybody on a seed/article picks their own moderator and the others on ignore.

Why bother changing anything? The comment count is up. Previous changes has not changed the fact that dang near every article on the front page still gets filled up with conduct violations the majority of which never get any attention. Not a complaint, just a fact.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  owlsview677 @8.2    2 years ago

I don't think you are aware of the background and the article in question.  Suffice it to say that K/B doesn't want any interaction with another particular member.

Whether he is commenting as a member or a Mod is immaterial, I think Kathleen is asking for a  'Blocking' or 'Ignore' feature.

Any member can exercise their own personal ignore policy and the other member is expected to honor that.

For some it's easier said than done, lol.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.1    2 years ago

One thing I don't get, and can't find in the C of C.

I was banned from responding to a particular member, and apparently, they were banned from responding to me.

When I asked for someone else to be banned from responding to me, I was told no. 

Why?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  owlsview677 @8.2    2 years ago
Wow! Is it a COC violation if I say that is the stupidest comment possible on social media?

No, it is not a stupid comment, and there ya go, getting derogatory and personal, and yes, it should be a violation. I've seen plenty of evidence that certain moderators selectively pick who to cite for violations, l...they have their buddies and favorites who never get written up. And some mods will pick on some seeders and members...it's all very obvious.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
8.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.1    2 years ago

“Any member can exercise their own personal ignore policy and the other member is expected to honor that.”

I see nothing in the COC indicting that is true. I could be wrong but fail to see it. 

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.2.5  owlsview677  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.1    2 years ago

Honor? If half of the people here had honor no mods would be necessary .

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.2.6  owlsview677  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.3    2 years ago

LOL. Yeah I have seen you get picked on, and I have seen you complain about being picked on when you weren't.

Learn the COC. I made no violation. I referred to the comment as being stupid, not the commentor. You guys made the rules.

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.2    2 years ago

I'm not sure of what & whom you are referring to but I think it would best be discussed in IM or Personal Notes.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.2.8  Kathleen  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.1    2 years ago

Pretty much... No interaction would be what I was getting at. Although, I have my mental ignore button for some of the lovely's on here. : )

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.2.9  Kathleen  replied to  owlsview677 @8.2    2 years ago

I can ignore anyone I want. 

Starting now.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
8.2.10  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.8    2 years ago

It’s not in the COC SP is just making up bullshit on the fly. 

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.2.11  owlsview677  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.9    2 years ago

Thanks, It would be dishonorable of me to ignore you in return. I wouldn't be able to participate in discussions like this one if I did.  To developed an informed opinion I believe it necessary to pay attention to everyone regardless of any personal feelings I may or may not have.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.12  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.2    2 years ago

I will never convince anyone of fairness.. but where to find the CoC is pretty easy to do. It is at the bottom of every page. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  owlsview677 @8.2.11    2 years ago

I believe her point is that if two members do nothing but argue, and especially when those arguments end up in code violations, which take up moderators' time and derails seeds, wouldn't it be better if those two would simply agree to ignore each other?

Ignoring one  or two members doesn't really affect your ability to comment on any articles. There are almost always many people commenting, with differing views. If there isn't, you can always seed your own article.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.2    2 years ago

Note: this comment was not ignored but answered privately. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.2.16  Split Personality  replied to  Dean Moriarty @8.2.10    2 years ago

Besides "Impasse"  and "Agree to Disagree" there's this line  in the CoC;

When asked to refrain from posting a given word or phrase by a fellow member, one is expected to do so.

How far is it a leap of logic or courtesy to extend that to "all " words for the improvement of everyone's experience here?

Several people are exercising this daily and it  appears to improve everyone's experience of the website.

It's a new's discussion forum, not a Rodney Dangerfield insult contest forum without judges...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.2.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.3    2 years ago

That is a documentable fact.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.2.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to    2 years ago

I can testify to that.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.2.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.7    2 years ago

 Well I disagree I’d like to know more about those circumstances.

 
 
 
user image
8.2.20    replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.13    2 years ago
you can always seed your own article.

E.A  LOL are YOU sure, without Leaving yourself open to " Hackers Crackers and Nutcases " the " New " rules need that  the SEEDER uploads a PHOTO from their Hard drive, do YOU have any idea what the Meta Information of that reveals?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2.21  Greg Jones  replied to  owlsview677 @8.2.6    2 years ago
LOL. Yeah I have seen you get picked on, and I have seen you complain about being picked on when you weren't

No...I don't get picked on, I was referring to another person and a moderator. And I certainly don't complain about the moderating or lack thereof, until this article gave the opportunity. But the untrue statement of yours above makes you part of the problem, instead of being part of the solution.
 
 
 
devangelical
8.3  devangelical  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 years ago

While you're at it, ask why everybody can say cunt here, but not the word cult.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @8.3    2 years ago

C of C states it is a violation.

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.3.2  owlsview677  replied to  devangelical @8.3    2 years ago

Sex is liberal, religion is conservative.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.3.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  owlsview677 @8.3.2    2 years ago

He is referring to the fact he can't call faiths cults, which you can't for the most part, since the site recently voted for that in the updating of the CoC. 

The site has always allowed cursing, since we are an adult site.

I don't think of this as liberal v conservative thing.. just what the group wanted. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
8.3.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3.3    2 years ago

Some of the site voted. You decided it could be detrimental to allow everyone to vote. 

 
 
 
lennylynx
8.3.5  lennylynx  replied to  devangelical @8.3    2 years ago

Now THAT is an awesome question Deva!

 
 
 
lennylynx
8.3.6  lennylynx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3.3    2 years ago

When the definition of the word 'cult' obviously and accurately describes a group, by any fair minded estimation, it should be fair to refer to the group as such.

 
 
 
charger 383
8.3.7  charger 383  replied to  owlsview677 @8.3.2    2 years ago
Sex is liberal, religion is conservative.

If that is so, Then I just became a flaming ass liberal, cause I don't like religion and do like sex 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.3.8  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @8.3.4    2 years ago

Dean,

I did not decide that it was detrimental for everyone to vote. You keep saying that, and frankly I find it offensive at this point. I sent out several notices asking people to participate in the discussion and notified the community on many occasions to be a part of the discussion or you wouldn't get a ballot. Then I even extended the voting period to include people who said they didn't receive their ballot. I don't see how you either a. missed that all, b. didn't get a ballot if you participated. But implying that I singled you out to not vote, is beyond the pale, since I have no reason for you not to vote nor can I see how it would be detrimental if you did vote. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.3.9  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @8.3.7    2 years ago

LMAO... Good one!

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.10  Kavika   replied to  Dean Moriarty @8.3.4    2 years ago
Some of the site voted. You decided it could be detrimental to allow everyone to vote.

Dean, Dean, Dean you know darn well that you didn't have a legit voter ID. We simply can't have non NT citizens (illegals) voting on NT...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dean Moriarty @8.3.4    2 years ago

Classic tyranny of the majority 

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.12  Kavika   replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.11    2 years ago

Landshark, we are a law and order site. Illegals voting is not condoned or accepted. No exceptions. 

BTW do you have your papers?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kavika @8.3.12    2 years ago

Facts prove otherwise.  Is all easy to explain to people that are to listen.

 
 
 
Kavika
8.3.14  Kavika   replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.3.13    2 years ago

Facts, you deal in facts...LOLOLOLOL. 

 Is all easy to explain to people that are to listen.

Please translate that word salad to English.

 
 
 
owlsview677
8.3.15  owlsview677  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3.3    2 years ago

Which group is that? The RW Bible thumpers?

Does this mean that a woman can be referred to as a "cunt" but a Hari Krishna can not be referred to as a cult member?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.3.16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  owlsview677 @8.3.15    2 years ago

Hari Krishna's can be referred to as cult members, as that is what they are recognized as. Christians can not. 

Bible thumpers is just a way to be derogatory, but still allowed, since it is not about all Christians/Jews. 

And a woman can be referred to as a C*nt so long as she is not a member here. 

Did I pass the quiz? :)

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.3.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kavika @8.3.14    2 years ago

Hay lenguas que no habla mucha gente, pero que sin embargo son lenguas nacionales.

Quizás prefiera español en su lugar.
 
 
 
owlsview677
8.3.18  owlsview677  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3.16    2 years ago

Not even close. Oh, maybe technically in so far as your structure of the rules is concerned. Krishna's consider themselves true believers, a religion.

So let's be clear. Christians here only recognize Krishnas as being a cult meaning that with their blessing Newstalkers condones the practices of labeling and discrimination as long as nobody here is directly mentioned.

Sorry, off topic again. The Civility Bots are on the way. What the group wants and even what you want soon will not matter. The rules of conduct will be dictated to us by Facebook and will supersede any COC you come up with.

I fault you not for the great effort you have put into this site. You have fared much better than many other similar sites have. Not bad at all considering the stacked deck of human nature you have faced.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
lennylynx
10.1  lennylynx  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10    2 years ago

There's too damn much moderation.  We need to moderate our moderation!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lennylynx @10.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lennylynx @10.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.1.2    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
owlsview677
10.1.4  owlsview677  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.3    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
user image
10.1.5    replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.4    2 years ago
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.Image result for superewoman graphics

Lets see how this Terrible " editor issues " is fixed first

 
 
 
owlsview677
10.1.6  owlsview677  replied to  @10.1.5    2 years ago

That was so unfunny that it was funny. :)

 
 
 
owlsview677
10.1.7  owlsview677  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.3    2 years ago
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.
this article seems to have strayed from it's original intent. It was how member moderators do what they do.
I would like to focus on any questions that have to do with the actual functioning of the moderation.

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.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  lennylynx @10.1    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.9  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.7    2 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.8    2 years ago

Actually what I have gotten out of this discussion, so far, is

  • That most complaints (flags) are dismissed by one of the 2 or 3 Mods available -  with no notice to the complainant.   
  • I do not think that will change, but I do sometimes contact people by IM to tell them why I took no action -

.

  • and that on "other" platforms the offender was notified by the system that their comments were deleted and why
  • I think that is worthy of being considered by our IT site building experts.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.1.9    2 years ago

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought for a minute there that we were going to be moderated by robots.

 
 
 
owlsview677
10.1.12  owlsview677  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.11    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.12    2 years ago

Owl, this isn't Face Book, this is News Talkers.

 
 
 
owlsview677
10.1.14  owlsview677  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.13    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.1.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.14    2 years ago

WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1.16  Split Personality  replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.14    2 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.17  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.1.15    2 years ago

HA. I don't have a facebook account.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.1.18  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  owlsview677 @10.1.14    2 years ago
Newstalkers isn't a private group formed operated under the umbrella of Facebook anymore?

It never was. It has a half made fb page, but that is about it.

 
 
 
charger 383
11  charger 383    2 years ago

Is it within the rules to purposely misspell one politician's name? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @11    2 years ago

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 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
11.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1    2 years ago
No. You can misspell any public figures name. You can't do that to a fellow member.

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

The article is reopened for a little while today. Please try to stay on topic. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
14  Kathleen    2 years ago

Okay....

I just had an article locked before I could respond. It was a cheap shot and a last word on two comments. Not personal, but I wanted to respond to it, I could not.

Is this allowed?

It was the Trump article about him saying he wanted his people to stand at attention.

I thought is is immature and not allowed.

 
 
 
GregTx
14.1  GregTx  replied to  Kathleen @14    2 years ago

Out of curiosity, do you know which mod locked it? BTW nice to read you again Kathleen.😊 

 
 
 
Kathleen
14.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  GregTx @14.1    2 years ago

Thank you....

I am not sure... It could have been the seeder too.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @14.1.1    2 years ago

Most of the time the author locks the article and not a mod. Nice to see you Kathleen, too!

 
 
 
lennylynx
14.2  lennylynx  replied to  Kathleen @14    2 years ago

If they ever bring in a rule banning immaturity, I'm in big trouble! Happy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @14    2 years ago

Kathleen, no one made a cheap shot toward you, so you are out of line to make that claim.

Nonetheless, I will open the article and you can have the last word. Once you have your last word I am closing it again.

 
 
 
Kathleen
14.3.1  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @14.3    2 years ago

I did not say at me.... Read what I said above.

Good, I will.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.4  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @14    2 years ago

It happens to me all the time. I have no idea why. /s

 
 
 
Kathleen
14.4.1  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @14.4    2 years ago

It's kind of cowardly really. When I do an article, I own up to it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.4.2  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @14.4.1    2 years ago

In practice, the person closing the article is supposed to say it. If you have all noticed here, when I shut the article down, not only did I state it, I also wrote about when I would return. Although the latter is not necessary, it is nice to inform your guests. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.4.3  Split Personality  replied to  Kathleen @14.4.1    2 years ago

But in reality, you close an article because you are responsible and have to go do other things.  All perfectly reasonable, no?

Someone else may have been ready to comment on your article at that precise moment and been "blocked", got pissed off and was never heard from again, ( at least on that article).

You at least get a second chance tonight - that is the exception, not the average.

It's a timing issue, based on the seeder's life styles. 

When I lock an article as a Mod or a member I state why  & when it will be/ can be reopened.

 
 
 
Split Personality
14.4.4  Split Personality  replied to  Kathleen @14.4.1    2 years ago

Yes you do and it is appreciated.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
15  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

closing this article. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






The Magic Eight Ball
loki12


31 visitors