Moderation charter

[Christian Graus]

As Chris has suggested we need to agree on this - if we're going to have moderators, I believe we should therefore have a charter that states when they will moderate, what they will do, etc. I think any moderated post needs to be clearly marked as such, beyond that, the main questions are, in what circumstances do we think that moderation is required ?

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

[Rob Graham]

My "Charter" suggestions would be: Moderators responsible for: 1. removal of posts that contain links to the clearly obscene (as in the recent example that likely provoked this -no only disgustingly obscene but viral as well). 2. removal of posts that would likely bring discredit or legal liability to CP. 3. removal of posts that constitute unpaid advertisements and nothing more. 4. removal of posts that publish personal information about other members without their explicit permission. All of the above rely on the judgment and fairness of the moderator. Nothing else. Moderators are not censors or spam filters. We have gotten on rather well up until the recent childish garbage, and I would like to see that continue. That means no censorship of things that don't meet at least one the above criteria. I don't understand what you had in mind by the "clearly marked" business, but don't see any immediate facility for that, excepting perhaps the posting of an explanatory message after the deletion. That would at least serve to identify the moderator, permitting some opportunity for protest by the victim. I have mixed feelings about the wisdom of that, but would be willing to give it a try. Suggestions and criticism are welcome, but subject to being ignored :)

[Oakman]

I'll repeat myself since I was too dumb to see this post in time: To misquote Stan's favorite politician - The moderator who moderates least, moderates best, The only grounds I can think of for "moderation" are posts that are posted over and over again (we have one instance of that, obviously done as a troll) and posts, like today's, that could harm a reader's computer or seriously inconvenience anyone who followed a link. Moderators should be able to delete posts, and users who are repeat offenders. No moderator should hold the job for more'n a year.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

Suggestions and criticism are welcome

I've been meaning to talk to you about your haircut. . .

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Christian Graus]

I obviously missed something..... What I mean by clearly marked is, if a moderator edits a post rather than deletes it ( and if forced to moderate, I'd always choose the path of least impact, so edit if possible, for example to remove contact details of an unpaid ad, so it had no impact until it was removed by the voting mechanism ), then it should be clear to those reading that the post was moderated and by whom. I am mostly thinking, if you have several mods, you need for them to be accountable to the community whose standards they are meant to be upholding, for their actions.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

[Rob Graham]

I like your idea. It does appear that edit is allowed as an alternative to deletion, and I agree that it is better since it leaves a clear trail, and allows others to comment on overzealous moderation. Delete should be reserved only for repeat offenses, or perhaps not used at all.

[Lost User]

Removal of posts is not to be taken lightly and would be final unless Chris could be persuaded to hold a copy of the original posting, for an agreed period of time, so that any appeal process may be conducted and re-instated on successful appeal. However, I like the idea of allowing a moderator to edit posts to eliminate unnecessary nasty content, but again, should this edit facility be subject to appeal, and original post re-instated on successful appeal. Consequently, a procedure is required for the conduct of appeal and grievances by the original poster.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

It does appear that edit is allowed as an alternative to deletion, and I agree that it is better since it leaves a clear trail, and allows others to comment on overzealous moderation.

I do, too. But I cannot imagine any of the regs who have been put forward as a potential moderator being overly zealous. If anything, the reverse.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Christian Graus]

That's the sign of a good mod, in my opinion, but it's still good to have transparency, so there can be no claims of 'someone keeps deleting my posts', etc.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

[_Damian S_]

Christian Graus wrote:

post was moderated and by whom

:thumbsup::thumbsup: I second (third, fourth, whatever) this idea... Not that I think any of the suggested Mods would abuse their position, but it just adds an extra element of scrutiny - ie: "Do I really want to moderate this post, since everyone will know it was *me* who did the moderation?"

Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010

[Synaptrik]

Since we've been orphaned there really hasn't been a need for a moderator. But I vote in favor of whatever you all decide.

This statement is false

[Synaptrik]

I must have missed the post mentioned. But, I support what you've posted here.

This statement is false