Jump to content

Poll: would you mind being 'named and shamed'?


Dave_P
 Share

Would you be happy to be 'named and shamed' for wayward posting?  

70 members have voted

  1. 1. If one of your posts was deleted or edited by a mod, would you be happy for the mods to post an explanation of where you went wrong?

    • Yes
      62
    • No
      9


Featured Posts

Much has been made recently about moderators deleting posts, editing posts and closing threads with little or no explanation, leading to frustration among members. It has been suggested that to explain where a specific poster went wrong, would amount to bullying. I'm not so sure about this. It could also be said that the prospect of being named and shamed would be a deterrent to abusive posting and that all members would feel well informed about where the acceptable boundaries of good posting are, leading to less frustration and a happier forum.

 

I'm interested in what you all think about this?

Edited by Dave_P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if I've been abusive to anyone, I think a gentle nudge from a moderator, if I still don't behave then action should be taken. I don't subscribe to naming as in, Martyn was kicked off because he's a naughty boy, and we dont need naughty boys. I still can't see why it's a secret. If I want to know why Martyn is no longer posting, I should be able to ask the question, and get a straight forward answer. He has left,he has been suspended,we don't know etc.

 

I believe, I'm on a public forum, what I write is in public domain. As in A pub for example. If I misbehave in a pub I'd expect to be chastised. No different here. Behind the scenes to a certain extent is fine. There shouldn't be secrets either. It is public.

 

With regard to moderation. Rules are rules, rules should be kept, but moderation should have a certain tolerance.

Edited by Nightwatch
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if I've been abusive to anyone, I think a gentle nudge from a moderator, if I still don't behave then action should be taken. I don't subscribe to naming as in, Martyn was kicked off because he's a naughty boy, and we dont need naughty boys. I still can't see why it's a secret. If I want to know why Martyn is no longer posting, I should be able to ask the question, and get a straight forward answer. He has left,he has been suspended,we don't know etc.

 

 

I was imagining a deleted post being replaced with a statement that rule 'x' had been breached hence the deletion.

 

And that the text of the deleted post should be emailed to the author with an invitation to re-draft it compliantly and re-post. This email is important because without it, the poster may not remember exactly what he or she wrote, or even realise the post had been deleted.

 

It strikes me as just common courtesy to send an email containing the deleted text so the thought or idea being expressed is not lost, but this doesn't happen here.

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of recent posts of a similar nature, where various suggestions have been put forward, questions asked and people offering their services only for some of these to be deleted immediately without explanation or people being suspended I feel it is somewhat a waste of breath.

 

However, given that caveat I personally wouldn't have an issue if a post of mine being edited provided the moderation is fair and that the goalposts don't get moved.

For rules to work all sides need to abide by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a previous life if I had to remove a post I would leave the person's post in place and edit the content to "Post deleted for contravention of <insert rule>" and then PM the poster with an explanation.

 

If I came to the thread late and had to remove several posts I would post "Several posts deleted for contravention of <insert rule>. If your post has disappeared then please re-read the rules of posting at xyz".

 

It seemed to work well as a system. Of course I got abuse by PM sometimes - so what?

 

An important distinction was that my 'mod' name was completely different to my 'usual' username.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a previous life if I had to remove a post I would leave the person's post in place and edit the content to "Post deleted for contravention of <insert rule>" and then PM the poster with an explanation.

 

If I came to the thread late and had to remove several posts I would post "Several posts deleted for contravention of <insert rule>. If your post has disappeared then please re-read the rules of posting at xyz".

 

It seemed to work well as a system. Of course I got abuse by PM sometimes - so what?

 

An important distinction was that my 'mod' name was completely different to my 'usual' username.

 

 

This strikes me as the root of how it has all gone so wrong here. Mods should be anonymous.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if I've been abusive to anyone, I think a gentle nudge from a moderator, if I still don't behave then action should be taken. I don't subscribe to naming as in, Martyn was kicked off because he's a naughty boy, and we dont need naughty boys. I still can't see why it's a secret. If I want to know why Martyn is no longer posting, I should be able to ask the question, and get a straight forward answer. He has left,he has been suspended,we don't know etc.

 

I believe, I'm on a public forum, what I write is in public domain. As in A pub for example. If I misbehave in a pub I'd expect to be chastised. No different here. Behind the scenes to a certain extent is fine. There shouldn't be secrets either. It is public.

 

With regard to moderation. Rules are rules, rules should be kept, but moderation should have a certain tolerance.

 

I think one of the difficulties is keeping to the thin lines between openness, confidentiality and secrecy.

 

There is a need for confidentiality i.e. initial dealings between mods and members do not need to be public. Every mod request or decision does not need to be publicised. But if a member persists in rule breaking at what stage is that confidentiality put aside? And to what degree?

 

 

Agreed - but how do the mods keep keep that tolerance consistant?

 

One solution requiring no judgement and therefore easy and quick to administer is to have a zero tolerance policy. But it will not be long before accusations of heavy handed authoritarianism are made

 

On the other hand tolerance is difficult to apply consistantly. If it is not consistant (i.e. the mods are trying to make judgements on a case by case basis) then they are open to accusations of unfairness and inconsistancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of recent posts of a similar nature, where various suggestions have been put forward, questions asked and people offering their services only for some of these to be deleted immediately without explanation or people being suspended I feel it is somewhat a waste of breath.

 

However, given that caveat I personally wouldn't have an issue if a post of mine being edited provided the moderation is fair and that the goalposts don't get moved.

For rules to work all sides need to abide by them.

 

Precisely why I voted No. I don't believe that is a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly the Manchester United manager was sent into the stands as he had broken one or more of the rules. The referee made the decision. The referee considered the rules and determined the action had to be taken. I have seen nigh on fisty cuffs on the touch line with no action taken. You have good referees and not so good referees. One set of rules. Different interpretations and tolerances.

 

It happens everyday. Years ago I got stopped at two in the morning in Finchley by the Police. I was certainly over the DD limit but I was allowed to drive on. Said the truth that I'd had a drink working in the Officers Mess at Northwood. If that swung it then so be it. That wouldn't happen now. The law hasn't changed,but tolerance has.

 

Martyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Precisely why I voted No. I don't believe that is a given.

 

Strangely I think the opposite but for the same reason.

 

If the post and the reason for amending/deleting it are given publicly, surely the moderator has the chance to think twice about his decision before publishing it. Also my fellow members can make their own decision as to the justice of the decision made.

 

If the moderation is of doubtful quality/consistency (or even if its only perceived as such) let's shine a light on it and see for ourselves.

 

Personally, I would be happy if agreeing to this was a condition of joining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Strangely I think the opposite but for the same reason.

 

If the post and the reason for amending/deleting it are given publicly, surely the moderator has the chance to think twice about his decision before publishing it. Also my fellow members can make their own decision as to the justice of the decision made.

 

If the moderation is of doubtful quality/consistency (or even if its only perceived as such) let's shine a light on it and see for ourselves.

 

Personally, I would be happy if agreeing to this was a condition of joining.

Interesting. I'd not thought of it like that before. I'd been thinking about how it might modify the behaviour of posters, but I think you're right, it would certainly shine a light on mod responses and perhaps ensure they give plenty of consideration before acting.

 

Making it a condition of joining would be fair enough for new members, but what about those who have been members for some time? Martin above is clearly against it and I understand why. He's one of the most active members on here, would it be fair to impose a rule on him which he fundamentally objects to, perhaps leading to him leaving?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'd not thought of it like that before. I'd been thinking about how it might modify the behaviour of posters, but I think you're right, it would certainly shine a light on mod responses and perhaps ensure they give plenty of consideration before acting.

 

Making it a condition of joining would be fair enough for new members, but what about those who have been members for some time? Martin above is clearly against it and I understand why. He's one of the most active members on here, would it be fair to impose a rule on him which he fundamentally objects to, perhaps leading to him leaving?

 

When they changed the rules recently, they simply said that "by posting you agree to the updated rules". So, if anyone disagrees, they have the option to never ever post again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When they changed the rules recently, they simply said that "by posting you agree to the updated rules". So, if anyone disagrees, they have the option to never ever post again.

Yes, they do have that option but it's not an easy choice. If someone has posted on here thousands of time over many years, they have a personal investment in the site. Odd, but true. Exclusion by mod or by self-imposition is a tough thing. I imagine I'd be deeply hurt if I were banned and I suspect Nick Norman feels the same way, even if he'd never admit it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they do have that option but it's not an easy choice. If someone has posted on here thousands of time over many years, they have a personal investment in the site. Odd, but true. Exclusion by mod or by self-imposition is a tough thing. I imagine I'd be deeply hurt if I were banned and I suspect Nick Norman feels the same way, even if he'd never admit it.

 

Yes, exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they changed the rules recently, they simply said that "by posting you agree to the updated rules". So, if anyone disagrees, they have the option to never ever post again.

 

Interesting. Since there are 21,592 total members, the vast majority of which have not postedon here since the recent rule change, this must mean that they do not agree with the updated rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Since there are 21,592 total members, the vast majority of which have not postedon here since the recent rule change, this must mean that they do not agree with the updated rules.

 

 

Disagree 100%, it would be very unwise to try and infer reasons for no longer posting, from previous members. In fact out of those 21,592 members I bet there's a more than a few who have 0 posts. Its quite possible people have signed up, in order to access certain forum areas not visible to guests; or to use the search feature, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Since there are 21,592 total members, the vast majority of which have not postedon here since the recent rule change, this must mean that they do not agree with the updated rules.

 

That is stretching things very far,

 

This forum has had a large cohort of non posting members ever since I joined in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.