Forum Questions

[GameSetAndMath]

An open letter to all administrators/moderators with a suggestion for a protocol on deletion of posts.

There are so many aspects of this forum that are appealing to us, as members: knowledgeable
and mostly collegial posters, nice blogs, video vaults, contests (to name a few). I am concerned
that one negative point does not unnecessarily bring down the value of this whole forum,
detract from the positive experiences and unnecessarily create conflict among its members.
The negative point is arbitrary deletion of posts made by members.

As I feel that my post was unjustly deleted and as I noticed that another member's post
was deleted, I think it is time for this forum to develop a solid protocol for deletion of posts
made by members. No, I am not asking you to go back on the new guidelines developed.
The two messages that I mention above did not violate the new guidelines, but were
arbitrarily and unjustly deleted.

In order to make my criticism a constructive criticism, I am going to take it
upon myself to suggest an action plan to remedy the situation.

I do realize that sometimes moderators have to delete a post immediately to prevent
it from having a chain reaction and being quoted by so many other members. I take that
into account also in the following action plan.

1. When a moderator notices a post that is probably inappropriate, the moderator should
delete it immediately. This deletion should be provisional pending final decision.

2. The moderator that performed the deletion should immediately notify the member
that they decided to delete the message temporarily and a final decision on it is
pending.

3. The moderator that performed the deletion should send a copy of the message to
all other administrators and moderators along with an explanation as to why
she choose to delete it.

4. All other moderators/administrators, who are available, should independently weigh in on the issue.

5. After a period of at least 24 hours (but before 48 hours) and after at least
three different moderators/administrators (possibly and preferably all too) have had a
chance to weigh in, the majority opinion of all the moderators/administrators
who weighed in should be the final decision.

6. If the final decision is in support of deletion, a PM should be sent to the
member saying so and also providing a reason in support of it. This will
help the member to understand as to what rule is being violated, so that
the member will not repeat the same mistake.

7. On the other hand, if the decision is against the deletion, the post
should be reinstated and a PM should be sent to the member of the
decision reached. No need for an explanation or apology by the moderators
in this case.

IMHO, the recent problems are arising as one moderator is performing
deletions based on whims and fancies. Involving a committee of moderators
in the decision of deletions would probably help to ensure the integrity of the
decision.

Also, having a time delay in making the final decision would help for
the tempers of the moderators to cool off a little bit and make a more considered
decision.

Finally, one may say that this is a trivial matter and the above procedure
is way too complex. However, britbox claims that only about dozen or so
posts were deleted from over 115,000 posts. With such a low rate of deletion,
the above protocol should be logistically feasible to implement.

A dozen or so outside of those two threads and excluding the gibberish ones trying to flog Nike trainers or selling viagra.

What you are suggesting isn't as others have already stated a million miles away from what goes on already.

I think you've made some fair points and they've been taken on board. The above process is probably too rigid to be done to the letter as people are in different timezones, have outside commitments etc... and also bear in mind this is a voluntary co-operative type of community and we're all in different continents... and yes, sometimes mistakes are made too. But the gist of what you've said is along the right lines IMO.

Going forward, I'd like to draw a line under this before the US Open. Agreed?

I understand the issues that you mention. I did not mean to give you a rigid protocol,
but a sample sketch. The key elements must be to bring in more heads into the process
and have a delay in final decision so that heat of the moment does not adversely
influence the decisions.

Anyway, taking a cue from Israel and Palestine, let us all declare ceasefile until midnight
of Monday, the 8th of September. :chillout:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That is perfectly said BB!!!

Going forward, if I need to be reprimanded, can I ask that BB or Riot do it?:blush:

I didn't know you can choose your executioner.

Can we also have a death wish whereby a poster about to be banned gets an
uncensored last post? :lolz:

 

[Billie]

GSM, I don't know either but it doesn't hurt to ask, right?

Very good idea about the last post before being banned, to get everything off your chest, and then it can be deleted in a day or 2. :clap

 

[tented]

I understand the issues that you mention. I did not mean to give you a rigid protocol,
but a sample sketch. The key elements must be to bring in more heads into the process
and have a delay in final decision so that heat of the moment does not adversely
influence the decisions.

As others have said, this is essentially the way we currently do things. With big decisions, such as whether or not someone should be banned, we operate by majority vote, and the dissenter(s) support the decision. But these kinds of decisions are discussed over several days, if not weeks, whereas deleting a post can sometimes require quick action. If that happens the mods will alert the others what happened, and why, and we'll discuss it.

Mainly, though, I want to stress the absolute rarity of deletions. The concept has been in the spotlight recently due to a new policy being implemented, but this is actually a sign of how rarely we delete things. Now that it has happened, it has caught several people's attention because it's something unusual. If we deleted posts on a regular basis, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In a way, then, this should be interpreted as a good sign.

 

[Kieran]

I love all this stuff about comparing the forum to living in China, Korea, Russia, Israel and Palestine. It brings it home to me how important we all are, and just how momentous a thing it is that we reached a major accord on civilised behaviour...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

one day we will all live in peace inside a spare pair of mc hammers massive trousers.

 

[Front242]

I understand the issues that you mention. I did not mean to give you a rigid protocol,
but a sample sketch. The key elements must be to bring in more heads into the process
and have a delay in final decision so that heat of the moment does not adversely
influence the decisions.

As others have said, this is essentially the way we currently do things. With big decisions, such as whether or not someone should be banned, we operate by majority vote, and the dissenter(s) support the decision. But these kinds of decisions are discussed over several days, if not weeks, whereas deleting a post can sometimes require quick action. If that happens the mods will alert the others what happened, and why, and we'll discuss it.

Mainly, though, I want to stress the absolute rarity of deletions. The concept has been in the spotlight recently due to a new policy being implemented, but this is actually a sign of how rarely we delete things. Now that it has happened, it has caught several people's attention because it's something unusual. If we deleted posts on a regular basis, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In a way, then, this should be interpreted as a good sign.

It's clearly not the case that the deletion of posts goes to a majority vote as certain people here just take offense to anything about a certain player and hit the warning and delete button immediately.

Said person can't even take a bit of humour to what was posted as a joke in response to a user's signature here. I'll spell it out for those who missed it. NADAL2005RG has a signature with a quote from John McEnroe about Nadal. I posted another actual quote from Patrick McEnroe about Nadal and here is the message I received for what was posted as a joke.

"spurious doping allegations after being warned" (+2 points) <---- Now seeing as I've shown my post to other members of the staff here who could see the humour aspect of it, the post was neither a doping allegation or worthy of deletion or a warning (since it was an actual quote by Patrick McEnroe) and was definitely not a majority vote but just sour grapes from one person on the team here. So, no..things are not done fairly here.

 

[Front242]

The same team member gave me this also "Ignoring moderation - reposting deleted info" (+2 points) eventhough it was pointed out to multiple staff members that the post was made to defend against people here accusing me of trolling and bs and and not a case of "ignoring moderation". Again, nothing more than sour grapes by the same person. If you think that's treating people fairly I'm a monkey's uncle.

 

[Front242]

Oh and don't forget all and sundry are allowed to call me a troll, racist, Nadal hater, delusional, accusations of being on PEDs and medication but yet nothing happens to them. Class. Good work and yes, oh so fair. :clap Pat on the back. Make it a cow pat. A big steaming fly infested one.

 

[Front242]

^ Btw, this only applies to basically the same one person as I'm 100% sure this was not a majority vote and no one else was even approached to make a call as those fair minded mods out there would not have done such a thing so all the decent people, you're all excluded.

 

[tented]

Interactions between admins/mods & users are private. We don't publicize who has been given warnings, who has been suspended, etc.

This privacy has led some users to think nothing is being done to "the other guy." It's incorrect to assume nothing was done to others just because something was done to you. It's none of your business what happens to others, and it's none of their business what happens to you.

In short, you're making false assumptions.

 

[Front242]

Interactions between admins/mods & users are private. We don't publicize who has been given warnings, who has been suspended, etc.

This privacy has led some users to think nothing is being done to "the other guy." It's incorrect to assume nothing was done to others just because something was done to you. It's none of your business what happens to others, and it's none of their business what happens to you.

In short, you're making false assumptions.

I know nothing is being done to "the other guy"(s) because I was told so. I've a pm saying if said people continue to keep calling me or others what I've listed above they will receive a warning(s) also. So since they haven't obviously the double standards are clear and it's bs.

 

[tented]

Interactions between admins/mods & users are private. We don't publicize who has been given warnings, who has been suspended, etc.

This privacy has led some users to think nothing is being done to "the other guy." It's incorrect to assume nothing was done to others just because something was done to you. It's none of your business what happens to others, and it's none of their business what happens to you.

In short, you're making false assumptions.

I know nothing is being done to "the other guy"(s) because I was told so. I've a pm saying if said people continue to keep calling me or others what I've listed above they will receive a warning(s) also. So since they haven't obviously the double standards are clear and it's bs.

You're wrong, Front. You have no way of knowing who has been given a warning. Just because users say they weren't, that doesn't mean it's true. People lie.

 

[Front242]

Interactions between admins/mods & users are private. We don't publicize who has been given warnings, who has been suspended, etc.

This privacy has led some users to think nothing is being done to "the other guy." It's incorrect to assume nothing was done to others just because something was done to you. It's none of your business what happens to others, and it's none of their business what happens to you.

In short, you're making false assumptions.

I know nothing is being done to "the other guy"(s) because I was told so. I've a pm saying if said people continue to keep calling me or others what I've listed above they will receive a warning(s) also. So since they haven't obviously the double standards are clear and it's bs.

You're wrong, Front. You have no way of knowing who has been given a warning. Just because someone says they weren't, that doesn't mean it's true. People lie.

tented I'm not wrong and I'll quote what was told to me by the person in question and in fact you were copied on the message:

"I've told you that I've asked them to stop, and if they don't, they'll get an official warning."

^ That means, currently said people calling me every name under the sun got no warnings and are allowed way more chances than me. It's not open for debate. The double standards are ridiculous and blatantly clear. The message was from Aug 22nd and you can read it again and see that I'm 100% right.

 

[tented]

Interactions between admins/mods & users are private. We don't publicize who has been given warnings, who has been suspended, etc.

This privacy has led some users to think nothing is being done to "the other guy." It's incorrect to assume nothing was done to others just because something was done to you. It's none of your business what happens to others, and it's none of their business what happens to you.

In short, you're making false assumptions.

I know nothing is being done to "the other guy"(s) because I was told so. I've a pm saying if said people continue to keep calling me or others what I've listed above they will receive a warning(s) also. So since they haven't obviously the double standards are clear and it's bs.

You're wrong, Front. You have no way of knowing who has been given a warning. Just because someone says they weren't, that doesn't mean it's true. People lie.

tented I'm not wrong and I'll quote what I was told to me by the person in question and in fact you were copied on the message:

"I've told you that I've asked them to stop, and if they don't, they'll get an official warning."

^ That means, currently said people calling me every name under the sun got no warnings and are allowed way more chances than me. It's not open for debate. The double standards are ridiculous and blatantly clear. The message was from Aug 22nd and you can read it again and see that I'm 100% right.

That doesn't mean warnings haven't been given out since. Again, you're making false assumptions about things which are private. Just because you put your own warnings on blast doesn't mean others do.

 

[Front242]

^ Pull the other one. You know they haven't.

 

[tented]

^ Pull the other one. You know they haven't.

OK, apparently you think you've come up with a clever way of tricking me into naming names. It won't work. Sorry!

Enough of this. This is a personal matter with you. It isn't about forum policy. If you have any other questions on this, PM me. Don't turn this thread into your personal rant.

 

[Front242]

^ It has everything to do with forum policy since it was claimed a majority vote was used to make decisions. I've pointed out this is untrue and certain people abuse their power and victimize others, in this case, me.

 

[tented]

^ It has everything to do with forum policy since it was claimed a majority vote was used to make decisions. I've pointed out this is untrue and certain people abuse their power and victimize others, in this case, me.

Re-read it, Front. At no point did I state a majority vote was used to make all decisions. In fact, I purposely made a point of stating there are instances when that's not even possible.

 

[Front242]

^ It has everything to do with forum policy since it was claimed a majority vote was used to make decisions. I've pointed out this is untrue and certain people abuse their power and victimize others, in this case, me.

Re-read it, Front. At no point did I state a majority vote was used to make all decisions. In fact, I purposely made a point of stating there are instances when that's not even possible.

Well there should be. Otherwise you have one person with a trigger happy warning button index finger doing as they please with no intervention from others to see the glaring unfairness and stupidity of their actions. You should also re-read where I said that I showed said post to other team members here who saw the humourous side of my post and laughed at it being on the receiving end of a warning. Clearly very sensitive people here with serious sour grapes.