ATAR Notes: Forum
Administration => Site Discussion => Suggestions => Topic started by: dcc on June 29, 2009, 09:04:52 pm
-
Often on VN, a user will create a post (which is deemed inappropriate by the powers that be) that will be deleted by a moderator / administrator. At the moment, it does not seem that providing the REASON for post deletion is practised by the moderation team. I know from personal experience, there is nothing more frustrating then having a post deleted (especially when the post, in my opinion, was contributing to a discussion) and not knowing why.
Why should it be done?
- Provides users with helpful information as to why their posts are being deleted (sometimes users may not even notice a post deletion, it doesn't seem to trigger any sort of action within the forum software)
- Transparency. Users will be able to know that they can trust the moderation team, as all deletions are being done per the code of conduct (i.e. no personal vendettas / silly deletes)
- Professionalism. I know from other forums (e.g. the GameArena forums hosted by BigPond) that when you see an active log of deletions on a thread, it warns other uses that posting similar content is similarly unacceptable. It may transpire that deletion information is provided to a user personally, however if these deletions were done in a public fashion (as per 'transparency') this could prove a powerful aid in demolishing the common spam that VN faces.
How should it be done?
Possible methods include:
- Send a simple PM to users upon the deletion of a post, stating why the post was inappropriate and thus deleted.
- Provide a post in the thread in question giving a quick explanation of why the post was inappropriate and thus deleted.
Why some say it shouldn't be done:
Now some members of the moderation team feel that the above measures would place too much work on them.
I got about 6 reported posts from this thread alone today I'm pretty sure. Would be too difficult to give a reason for deletion for every post. And anywya, what as up with the reported posts from this thread? Whats all the commotion?
I say to them, do your job. If you really are interested in providing a vibrant and knowledgeable place for VCE students to communicate, then the effort involved in writing out a single sentence explaining a deletion should be a price that you are willing to pay.
Why did I suggest this?
My reasons for suggesting this is because recently I posted in a thread, and had 3 posts deleted, without any reasoning given. There is nothing more frustrating then not knowing why something has been deleted (especially when the posts were on-topic). That is why I have suggested this.
-
I stand by costargh's reasoning for post deletion. A cursory glance at the deletion board reveals more than 300 PAGES of deleted posts. This undertaking would be too cumbersome for moderators who give their own time to this community to keep it in order.
If you think a post of yours was deleted unfairly (this is actually included in the CoC for this very reason), you are more than welcome to contact me via a private channel and I will investigate the matter for you, or if it was me who deleted the post, shed light on my reasoning.
What dcc failed to mention in his post was that he did this, and I explained to him why I deleted the posts. You did find out why it was deleted, all you had to do was ask. PM me, I'll tell you why and you can have a chance to convince me that I'm wrong.
-
What dcc failed to mention in his post was that he did this, and I explained to him why I deleted the posts. You did find out why it was deleted, all you had to do was ask. PM me, I'll tell you why and you can have a chance to convince me that I'm wrong.
After I had been banned for making these posts. But that's irrelevant. It shouldn't be too difficult to send a single PM to a user / make a post. Too much work? Hire some more moderators.
A system which relies upon the user to determine reasoning does not educate peers as to what sort of posts are deemed inappropriate.
In addition, perhaps as a result of this system, the number of posts that need to be deleted will decrease.
-
You wouldn't have been banned if you didn't stop posting things which were against the CoC.
The CoC informs you about what is appropriate. We've never had this problem before. Nobody (or a rare few) have ever complained about reasons for post deletions. This indicates to me that most people can glean understanding from the reasoning behind their posts being deleted.
-
Why are you making such a big thing about this?
Whinge and cry all you want, the system at the moment works.
-
This indicates to me that most people can glean understanding from the reasoning behind their posts being deleted.
Or perhaps they are wary of being banned for questioning authority? I really do not think there would be much effort involved in providing reasoning for deletion in the future, and as I have stated multiple times above, the public knowledge of a post deletion serves to educate all members of VN, not just those who have their posts deleted.
-
I have never banned anyone for using private channels to calmly discuss a moderating decision. That is libelous of you to insinuate that I would be intimidating about such a thing, when both the CoC, and the signature that I append to each one of my messages encourages the exact opposite.
Methinks you're simply a bit cut up about your own run in with the moderation process.
-
I agree with robbo - edit the post instead of purely deleting
-
Why are you making such a big thing about this?
Whinge and cry all you want, the system at the moment works.
Because the status quo is not necessarily a optimal solution.
I support dcc's position on this matter, just for the record. Even with 300 post reports per day, if you are intending to ban or remove posts by users, the moderator should already have a reason in their minds on why they are deleting posts (if they don't, then I would be seriously questioning their judgement). It is not hard to just type up a few words. Even a word or something like Section 3 Ban or something would suffice.
-
(I've no idea what the back-story to this is, nor do I want to.)
I think this is a good idea in theory, as it would introduce more transparency in regards to moderator actions.
However, obviously I've no idea how practical or impractical it would be to actually implement.
Out of curiosity... how many of those 300 pages is that porn spam?
It's been cropping up a lot lately -.-
Does anyone think this thread needs a touch of droodles?
-
Why are you making such a big thing about this?
Whinge and cry all you want, the system at the moment works.
I know of another place that has a system like this. I think people called it Nazi Germany. Posts disappear without reason when they shouldn't be deleted and when they should be deleted they aren't.
In this post you didn't lock a thread to "avoid accountability". What the hell is that? You're a mod and you're meant to take accountability. Do your job.
If we don't have a reason why a post was deleted how are we meant to know what we're doing wrong? For all I know hundreds of my posts have been deleted and I wouldn't know why because no one told me that they were deleted or why they were deleted. How are new users meant to know what they're doing wrong if their post gets deleted and they have no reason why it was deleted?
It just seems stupid to not have a reason.
-
i agree with dcc!
-
I didn't lock that thread because I was seeking other moderators opinions: I am relaitvely new to moderation and don't understand in as much depth as Mao and others how these things work.
-
If the moderator's believe that it would be too much work to implement this sort of system site-wide, I still believe it is worthy of a trail in a smaller subset of the site.
Although enwiabe (in the IRC channel) seems to have disregarded the idea completely ( @enwiabe: a rarity, to be sure for any activity to occur in robbo's brain ), I'm certain that some of the other moderators could at least attempt something similar to this. VN would be vastly improved because of it.
-
I'm afraid I agree with dcc.
It takes an extra what, minute? to type a reason for a deleted post. Sure there are 300 pages of deleted posts, but he is not asking us to give a reason for every single one of those. Just that from now on, a reason be given. How many posts are deleted every week? Seriously?
When we agreed to be global moderators we also agreed to invest time into this site, and a minute every now and then is surely not too much to ask.
We're in a position of power (albeit a rather cursory one), and we should be fully accountable for our actions.
-
Yeah, I have to agree with dcc as well on this one.
-
Yeah, I have to agree with dcc as well on this one.
-
I fully agree with what ninwa said, I mean how long does it take to just post a quick message giving the reason for a removal of post? Surely it won't take much time.
-
I predict that the amount of spam/off-topic posts remaining on the site will increase if this change is implemented.
Consider the effects.
-
Less lazy moderators?
-
I predict that the amount of spam/off-topic posts remaining on the site will increase if this change is implemented.
Why?
-
What I'm wondering is, does this make the 'remove' button redundant, and every post has to be edited instead?
-
It could be possible that upon the removal of a post, you use the 'quick reply' function to provide a concise explanation of why the post was removed.
-
I predict that the amount of spam/off-topic posts remaining on the site will increase if this change is implemented.
Consider the effects.
Whut? dcc's explanation on how this would decrease the amount seems pretty logical to me.
What I'm wondering is, does this make the 'remove' button redundant, and every post has to be edited instead?
And why's this relevant? =\
And yeh, I guess I do agree with dcc and I'll try and include reasons when I do delete (well, edit). It's kind of a reflex to just click the remove button now though. Problem is, I have a feeling this is only going to inevitably lead to more arguments against what is delete-worthy or not given that we now have to supply reasons, of which there are many grey areas within. Even worse is that our own names are going to be attributed to each delete, so I have a feeling there's going to be lots of grudges being held and mod-targeted flame to be had, which might make us less inclined in the end to delete certain posts. However, still, I think dcc's idea is still the way to go and this is just a side-effect we'll needa deal with.
EDIT:
It could be possible that upon the removal of a post, you use the 'quick reply' function to provide a concise explanation of why the post was removed.
Probably best to stick with editing people's post in a standard format. Quick replies will make the thread too messy if the deleted post wasn't the last one there.
-
And yeh, I guess I do agree with dcc and I'll try and include reasons when I do delete (well, edit). It's kind of a reflex to just click the remove button now though. Problem is, I have a feeling this is only going to inevitably lead to more arguments against what is delete-worthy or not given that we now have to supply reasons, of which there are many grey areas within. Even worse is that our own names are going to be attributed to each delete, so I have a feeling there's going to be lots of grudges being held and mod-targeted flame to be had, which might make us less inclined in the end to delete certain posts. However, still, I think dcc's idea is still the way to go and this is just a side-effect we'll needa deal with.
I think this is actually a good thing. It makes the moderators accountable to the people they moderate and will allow us to clear up the fuzzy edges in the CoC which may occur from time to time in an open and honest manner. Sort of like how Science is done.I predict that the amount of spam/off-topic posts remaining on the site will increase if this change is implemented.
Consider the effects.
I predict the amount of leprechauns will increase if this change is implemented.
Consider the effects.
-
Problem is, I have a feeling this is only going to inevitably lead to more arguments against what is delete-worthy or not given that we now have to supply reasons, of which there are many grey areas within. Even worse is that our own names are going to be attributed to each delete, so I have a feeling there's going to be lots of grudges being held and mod-targeted flame to be had, which might make us less inclined in the end to delete certain posts. However, still, I think dcc's idea is still the way to go and this is just a side-effect we'll needa deal with.
Yeah, there will be arguments, but most of the cases are quite clear-cut. And if they're not I suppose it'll be moderator's discretion - which is how it is now anyway. So better to have arbitrary decisions + reasons rather than arbitrary decisions on their own.
As for mod-targeted flame, we're all big girls and boys, we can deal with it :P and if it gets really bad, well then it would be harrassment, which is ban-worthy. I don't think anyone on VN is that spiteful though (or has so little of a life IRL that they have to carry grudges against people they've most likely never met on a VCE website).
Probably best to stick with editing people's post in a standard format. Quick replies will make the thread too messy if the deleted post wasn't the last one there.
Agreed, it won't even take a minute, maybe 30 seconds.
-
Not sure if it's impossible to implement here, but I know that GameFAQs uses a system wherein posts are deleted with a reason attached (ie. you get a message from the site saying your message was deleted for "xyz" reason). The user is then given the opportunity to contest it if they feel that their moderation is unjustified, and in the event of a certain number of failed contests (can't remember how many), their right to do so is simply removed. Perhaps some kind of system similar to this could be implemented here?
In regards to personal feuds erupting, in the event of moderators being unwilling to reveal their moderations perhaps an "Anonymous" moderator account could be created for use in such circumstances?
Just my two cents.
-
In regards to personal feuds erupting, in the event of moderators being unwilling to reveal their moderations perhaps an "Anonymous" moderator account could be created for use in such circumstances?
Just my two cents.
No I think that ruins the whole point of this exercise, which is increased accountability. Having this big, Orwellian Big Brother doing the moderator tasks doesn't really increase accountability, I think.
-
yo kids.
http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=35&order=desc&page=2
Scroll down till you see the pink threads. They show reason and moderator name for the deletions (also for individual posts but I'm not going to bother digging them up for examples). Does SMF have something like that?
As for people having personal vendettas against moderators ... go outside and hug a tree. It might do you some good.
-
If it's too hard to ask of the moderating team then maybe with a few more moderators the job could be divided up a bit more.
-
I see that everyone is agreeing with dcc, maybe even a bit too vehemently. I would like to bring a couple more things to light:
Mods don't get paid, everything is purely voluntary. Other than the power to delete/lock/edit/ban on an Internet forum, there really isn't anything else going for it.
And not everyone can be trusted to be mods. And everyone who has been picked for moderatorship has the sensibility to understand and appreciate the 'common sense' aspect of the CoC and did what they believe was right.
If it was hard work by you to answer a question or a serious post on topic, it would never have been deleted in the first place. Otherwise, ask yourself why it should have been there in the first place. But if it bothers you enough that you have to go to the argument's most basic elements, to compare a pruning process based on common sense to Nazi Germany, then please, get real. Maybe it's time to move on.
I do not quite understand why this topic evolved into an argument as seen, it is a good suggestion, but probably not doable considering we are using SMF.
-
i agree with d to the c to the c
-
If it's too hard to ask of the moderating team then maybe with a few more moderators the job could be divided up a bit more.
I honestly don't think that's much of an issue. If a mod doesn't have the time to write out the reason, leave the post alone and another mod can take care of it. If other members want to help make this system work though, use the report to mod button with a well-worded reason, and us mods can just copy-paste that into the edit box. It'll take like 10 seconds to deal with reported posts in this way. Simply doing this will avoid the need for more mods. If you guys want this system, then I assume you wouldn't mind helping to make it work.
-
How many posts are deleted each week on average?
-
Mods don't get paid, everything is purely voluntary. Other than the power to delete/lock/edit/ban on an Internet forum, there really isn't anything else going for it.
And not everyone can be trusted to be mods. And everyone who has been picked for moderatorship has the sensibility to understand and appreciate the 'common sense' aspect of the CoC and did what they believe was right.
Firstly, when we accepted the offer of modship, we knew perfectly well that it wasn't paid and had pretty much nothing going for it. That's not an excuse. If you were not prepared to volunteer our time for no more than a few thank you's now and then, then you should not have accepted in the first place.
Secondly, we're not perfect. What we believe is right, or what our common sense says is right is not always the majority view. Deleting things merely because we think it is "right" opens the way to abuse of power - not that I can imagine any of the current mods abusing their power, but it may eventually lead to a mistrust of moderators. And that is definitely not what we want.
-
I do not quite understand why this topic evolved into an argument as seen, it is a good suggestion, but probably not doable considering we are using SMF.
I thought we were just sticking with an edit system? As in like, instead of deleting the post, just edit the post with a standard format instead giving the reason and perhaps moderator name also (although this comes up on the edit tag regardless).
-
I do not quite understand why this topic evolved into an argument as seen, it is a good suggestion, but probably not doable considering we are using SMF.
I thought we were just sticking with an edit system? As in like, instead of deleting the post, just edit the post with a standard format instead giving the reason and perhaps moderator name also (although this comes up on the edit tag regardless).
And if you delete a series of posts then you can just edit the first one with those details, delete the ones in between and perhaps just edit the last one with 'end deleted section'. So at least we know what's happened. It's a bit weird to come and see a whole group of posts just disappear. In terms of information given you can just say post(s) deleted. Reason: whatever it may be. Just a short sentence even as in 'refrain from going off-topic' and if there's any disagreement about whether said posts were off-topic we can pm the mods to discuss it further, in which case I guess the mods should be ready to explain their interpretation of the bounds of that topic. All that does is add accountability and transparency...although it does add to your workload (which is why I asked how many posts are deleted per week).
-
although it does add to your workload (which is why I asked how many posts are deleted per week).
Varies quite considerably, but I don't think it's that much, especially if you guys help to report posts in the manner I said above.
-
But if it's just the odd MSN-style post here and there, then if it is simply edited rather than deleted then the post is still 'physically' there, occupying space.
-
POST DELETED: Off-topic
-
POST DELETED: Off-topic
-
POST DELETED: Off-topic
-
POST DELETED: Off-topic
-
But if it's just the odd MSN-style post here and there, then if it is simply edited rather than deleted then the post is still 'physically' there, occupying space.
Makes it easy to quickly scroll past them anyway though. Look below your post =P
-
But it makes reviewing the situation a nightmare. If you'd deleted the posts, shinny, I'd be able to see what happened. You are removing accountability of yourself. Now it's "his word against yours" for both /0 and TrueTears that you were justified in deleting their posts. If you are going to post reasons for deleting people's posts (something you're more than entitled to do shinny), you are NOT to edit the posts to remove content. It prevents me from ensuring that the situation was handled appropriately. If either of them has a complaint or query about it, I have no way of verifying anything.
Next time, delete the posts and post "posts deleted for being off-topic" if you absolutely MUST provide a reason.
-
But it makes reviewing the situation a nightmare. If you'd deleted the posts, shinny, I'd be able to see what happened. You are removing accountability of yourself. Now it's "his word against yours" for both /0 and TrueTears that you were justified in deleting their posts. If you are going to post reasons for deleting people's posts (something you're more than entitled to do shinny), you are NOT to edit the posts to remove content. It prevents me from ensuring that the situation was handled appropriately. If either of them has a complaint or query about it, I have no way of verifying anything.
Next time, delete the posts and post "posts deleted for being off-topic" if you absolutely MUST provide a reason.
Oh there's no records of edits? Guess that complicates things =\ The only problem with that is (which I've stated) is that it gets messy if there's multiple posts I need to delete in multiple places, which aren't the last few posts made. Makes it hard to see what I've deleted and why.
-
So suddenly the idea dos not seem so crash hot, does it? There is no edit log whatsoever.
Perhaps next time you'd be better suited to bite your tongue before launching into vehement support for a half-baked idea, the consequences of which I have foreseen.
-
So suddenly the idea dos not seem so crash hot, doesn't it? There is no edit log whatsoever.
Perhaps next time you'd be better suited to bite your tongue before launching into vehement support for a half-baked idea, the consequences of which I have foreseen.
Well it's a half-baked idea at the moment due to technical constraints I was unaware of. I still think, and it seems many others too, that it is an idea we should implement if possible for the reasons already given. Don't get angry at me just because I wasn't aware of such constraints =\
-
Then just delete the posts and say
4 posts deleted
Reason: off-topic
I don't think the editing idea was pivotal to the discussion anyway so if there are technical issues with it then we can just dismiss it...
-
So suddenly the idea dos not seem so crash hot, doesn't it? There is no edit log whatsoever.
Perhaps next time you'd be better suited to bite your tongue before launching into vehement support for a half-baked idea, the consequences of which I have foreseen.
Well it's a half-baked idea at the moment due to technical constraints I was unaware of. I still think, and it seems many others too, that it is an idea we should implement if possible for the reasons already given. Don't get angry at me just because I wasn't aware of such constraints =\
I was not angry. I was pointing out errors in judgment.
-
Then just delete the posts and say
4 posts deleted
Reason: off-topic
I don't think the editing idea was pivotal to the discussion anyway so if there are technical issues with it then we can just dismiss it...
Yeh I'll probably just stick with doing a log sort of thing with whose post was deleted and why, if the other mods agree given that we're kind of divided right now. The editing thing just seemed a bit neater to me but I guess it's out of the question now.
I was not angry. I was pointing out errors in judgment.
Misinterpretation of language then, whoever's fault that is.
-
Of course, like any open-source software, modifications can be installed onto SMF to make this possible.
For example
Edit logs:
http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=445
-
I don't see what the big argument is about anyway. It's obvious we're not going to reach a conclusion everyone is happy with. And anyway we don't often delete posts so it's not some massive issue. Mods like me and shinny who support this idea will start putting reasons after deleting per NE2000's idea:
Then just delete the posts and say
4 posts deleted
Reason: off-topic
and the others can keep doing their thing, and people will just have to go to the one avenue of appeal open to them atm (asking admin to review the deleted post).
It's either (a TINY TINY bit) more work for us, or for admin.
-
Ahh I love the good 'ol fights on VN, haven't seen them around for a while.
In the meanwhile, I would like to re-express my point: it's a post on an Internet forum, how important can it possibly be? If a sensible person chose to delete it, there must be some reason (and from personal experience, the 'remove' button is not used unless absolutely necessary). If abuse is such a huge problem, someone would have noticed, reported it to admin, and the problem would be rectified pretty quickly.
IMO, the system currently is fine. If a reason/warning/explanation begs to be given, then the mod will post. I think everyone on the team has enough integrity to be accountable for his/her own actions. [again this is based on personal judgements, break that down into its basic elements and argue about possible abuse if you must]
Though one interesting thing is the irony when someone decided to commit a pointless necromancy, a mod goes on to delete it then posts 'previous post deleted for necromancy'. But then again it's only a post on the Internet, who am I to say that will be an actual problem?
-
Or, why don't we implement a post hiding facility (and thread hiding) similar to what's on Whirlpool at the moment. It means that we remain accountable, not just to the administration, but to the public as they will see a post / thread once existed there.
It also means that posts can easily be restored if there's been an overstepping of mod power. Best of both worlds I say.
-
Or, why don't we implement a post hiding facility (and thread hiding) similar to what's on Whirlpool at the moment. It means that we remain accountable, not just to the administration, but to the public as they will see a post / thread once existed there.
It also means that posts can easily be restored if there's been an overstepping of mod power. Best of both worlds I say.
Was hoping for something like that too, but is there an SMF plugin for that kinda stuff?
-
You'll have to write it yourself. It's do-able, you know.
Won't be that difficult either. You'd add two three fields to the Posts table (hidden_ind, hidden_userid [foreign key constraint to Users], hidden_reason) and then wrap the piece of PHP code that prints Posts in the DB to HTML with a conditional:
IF hidden_ind = TRUE THEN
PRINT posts // existing code
ELSE
PRINT "This post has been hidden by " + moderatorName + " with reason: " + hidden_reason "." // moderatorName from join with Users table on hidden_userid
END IF