Regarding Mod decisions: thread closure; requirements for lock; deleted posts

naisho

naisho

Forum Disorders M.D.,Ph.D
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
6,433
Reaction score
11
Hello,

I have a few question to ask that I need to understand before proceeding with future posts, just for the sake of my own time spent as well as anyone else's.

I haven't noticed much changes stated in the original forum rules that Alex posted, so I wanted to ask on behalf of not just myself, but for everyone else who post.

Was wondering in pure curiosity --
  • What causes certain threads to be locked in the event that there were no hostility going on?

  • Is there a list of offenses [that the public can also put to use] that will immediately entitle for the thread to become locked?

  • Also, part two I'm curious in is what specifics would entitle for posts to become deleted without prior warning that are not pertaining to trolling, enticement, or provoking?
Some of these concern much of our posters here, I am not completely speaking on my behalf because I haven't had this happen (personally) to me, so I sought to speak out for the rest as a middleman representative to the modding team.

-----------
Suggestion:
Is it possible that from a moderator's stance, we can be greeted with a one (or two) times per thread with no chargeback, of a warning from a mod that the thread will be closed / deleted, explaining why, without deletion of the posts, if it is not considered to be an offensive form of discussion?
This is my opinion of what I think may help keep the social + collateral deterioration at a minimum and let the AD public community realize that what they are posing is subject to cause termination of the said thread. Just my opinion, I come from an extensive forum experience to speak of this.

If the violation is considered to be met, then the consequences/actions as previously stated by the warning would entitle the thread to become locked (or cleaned) for that part.
----------

The general consensus seems to be that there feels to be a social uproar when some of the actions are done without explaining, and especially without a warning of some sort that can deter people from continuing to realize what they were doing wrong.

It also seems to cause some kind of social detrimentality, as it discourages some people from posting again, if they decide to.

It also seems to cause some "grief" to posters who have taken the time to explain something pertaining to a subject, possibly more than a matter of a few minutes - half an hour's worth of typing/statement in particular context on a specific topic (but possibly not immediately related to the original topic) only to find it to removed later.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and post.

Please, do understand that I am not trying to prosecute a moderator with anything, as I do not have a need to do so. I am trying to seek to have some questions qualmed. The mod team has done a great job keeping the forum trouble free as of late!

- Naisho
 
You mentioned you read the rules that Alex posted, here is the part that a moderator's and administrator's rights that is already there.

Here are the basic ground rules that will be enforced on the Forum. First of all, the Administrator and Moderators reserve the right to remove, edit or move posts without explanation. If you have any questions, please contact me at webmaster@alldeaf.com
Click to expand...

AllDeaf Rules

The following rules above stated are the reasons that thread to be locked or deletion without explanation. It all comes to common sense and respect for AllDeaf community. If any posts in threads go off topic or derailing, it's bound to be locked or deletion without explanation.

Another part that Alex posted that has more explaining clearly Courtesy and Respect at AllDeaf

Any more questions.. you can PM Alex.
 
Hello Calvin,

Thanks for taking the time to reply and link me to the proper pages.

However, I think there has been a mistake - sorry I have not been clear in my previous assessment.

I.
Yeah, I have read the excerpt from Alex countless times -- however the questions pertaining are still uncovered by said Forum Laws; it does mention the right to remove posts.
But, the question I am referring to are those that are not related of common sense based posts, as it was mentioned of non-trolling, non-enticing, non-provoking type posts.

Needlessly, if said quote by Alex stating that this covers any type of post, of an example from being any single post even if pertaining to the original topic without hostility can be removed, then it is set in stone and cannot be refuted. I guess I was unclear on this aspect.
It [the question] was merely branched off the original rule to the extent that it did not cover one of the offenses.

That is where the question (#3) I'm requesting based on, if there is a subsection solely attributed to it, or a list that could enlighten some of us on what violates a reason to post.


II.
As for my issues regarding #1, and #2, I could not find them in both links. I follow and recognize the need for the "common sense" ground, but I, and we, feel that often if not, when we consider common sense we are referring to chatter that exhibit symptoms of some of the following, if not all:

  • Hostility, Flaming

  • Trolling/enticing/provoking

  • Spamming, scamming

  • Plaglarism

(I think that covers most..)
If such topics do not pertain to include said offenses above, the issue I am inquisiting is on context of topics that can become locked and not even be among those.
Unless, for a few reasons I can ponder of:

  • a. OP (Original Poster) requested lockdown

  • b. Necroism based lock - timelimit exceeded

  • c. Minor issue lock (Covers all else that may be unlisted?)


Unless, if I am to be mistaken, if topics are handled the same way as posts are done -- my apologizes for failing to take this into account. But this is the real question, as posts are one; topics are another thing.

Lately, it has also seem that the courtesy and respect has well been chugging along in the right direction, as there has been little outbreaks that we've noticed. We are also all guilty of a little run-off on certain topics as well, that is the happy crew we are ;).


Conclusion:
I have also tried contacting the webmaster/Alex in regards to another question some time ago -- he seems to be a busy man, and has yet to reply. I took the common courtesy not to pile up his inbox out of respect for the time being, and thought of putting it here so that the proper authority such as the modship can offer their opinions.

PS,. If I seem to be not making much sense, I apologize and will rewrite any points later on if requested, that seem confusing. It is the time and it is late for me, but I am trying to take a break from researching at the same time!
 
This is a good thread, naisho.

I do not need to add anything here, you said is good enough.

I thought to myself why not to share expression/suggestion to this thread here.
 
Naisho -

I appreciate you taking the time and the interest for the rest of this board to come up with these questions that a lot of members would be in need of deserve to be aware. I'm fine with that since you have represented yourself and for others in a nice way.

After reading your post, There are some things I am not quite sure of what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that you and the rest of the crew are not sure as to why the moderators are removing the said post/threads that has nothing to do with the Forum rules that is stated on the post?

As for your question #3 -
Also, part two I'm curious in is what specifics would entitle for posts to become deleted without prior warning that are not pertaining to trolling, enticement, or provoking?
Click to expand...

There are times that a post will be deleted because it is usually in response to the beginning of the post that is considered to be trolling, enticing, belittling or provoking. Also, another thing is, posts that will be removed is to be taken in consideration only because of what is stated above.

I hope this will answer your question. Also, Can you at least try to clear this refinement with what such article you've mention in your original post, please?
 
I think I'm going to get back to you guys later today..


For the best course of action, I would think it is wise for not just me, but everyone else that may be involved that I don't say anything for now because my brain is muddled with biological concepts and add tje fact that haven't slept for 28 hours, otherwise I think I may start contrasting analogies or examples that may make you guys go..
:monkey: :scratch:

I even proofread some of what I just said and I don't think its making sense to myself, unless I'm not properly thinking right now.

Don't go away, after these messages, we'll be rightttt back.

Well, not immediately, some time later today!


Seriously speaking now though. sobering up and thinking, I would have to suggest that for this issue, there is no time restraint, so I don't see a need to accelerate the issue for the time being. We'll get back on track later. Unless others on the forum are willing to come up to podium to testify for the time being that I will be inaccessible.

Oh and yeah, if you do, please do keep it on topic because I would honestly not like to see this thread become locked.
 
i am glad that naisho raised a question about this.

I for one am disappointed that one of my thread is locked by moderator without my permission. i would like to keep my thread open. if mod dislikes one of those posts that mod can delete it without lock my thread. i created it to open for everyone to participle and post in my thread.

i notice lots of them requested moderator to lock the thread. i assume that moderator would not able to lock my thread without my permission. :shrug:
 
Alrightey,
I crammed a couple hours of sleep this morning, so I'm artificially rejuvenated for the time being. I didn’t do so well on my exam I think, it seems that I studied the wrong materials. Moving on.

In the following: excuse me if I still seem to be in the incoherent rambling nonsense mode, I will try my best not to come in contact with it.


So let’s re-hash this into cliffnotes version for those that want a short summary of what’s going on.

The short version:

Basically, I have a question - or rather a few. These questions seem to reside in similar boundary within the forum rules, but not exactly “stated” by them per se.

As in, it’s more of a utilization of a person’s common sense as the appropriate action to remedy the problem presented. Not that they violate the terms of guidelines.

  • 2 of them pertain to the requirements that entitle a topic to become locked.

  • 1 pertains to deletion of posts that are generally not offensive, life-threatening, spam, negativity etc (thus, doesn’t fit in the criteria of common sense prerequisite to delete the post).

The question I’m pursuing regarding locked topics, I will state bluntly in simpler terms:

I. Topics and Threads:
  • A. Are there a list of reasons outside of common sense that can get a topic locked?

  • B. If there was no particular negativity shown by the community in a topic, what can cause it to get locked?

II. User Posts:
  • A. If a user’s post does not seem to initiate, follow, transgress, or conclude with any of the following:

  • a. Hostility

  • b. Flaming

  • c. Trolling

  • d. Provoking

  • e. Spamming (from advertisements and subcriteria)

  • f. Plagiarism

Meaning, none of the posts do not or barely (by barely, I am referring to the margin of error in human judgment) enter any of the examples from figure II’s A to F, what would be proper cause for their posts to become deleted?

I am again aware of the original statement that was also shared by Calvin at the start of this thread.
Calvin said:
Alex said:
Here are the basic ground rules that will be enforced on the Forum. First of all, the Administrator and Moderators reserve the right to remove, edit or move posts without explanation. If you have any questions, please contact me at webmaster@alldeaf.com
Click to expand...
You mentioned you read the rules that Alex posted, here is the part that a moderator's and administrator's rights that is already there.
Click to expand...

What I am writing about in section II – if what Alex says means that ANY POSTS falling from anywhere the boundary of correctness to incorrect: regardless of on topic, proper trim, negativity, then they [the moderating team] can simply remove ANY post whatsoever without regard to what it is, if this is the “absolute verdict”, then game over.

I took above in the sense that Alex was describing bad posts in general, not just “any post”.

The proper question focuses on when the issues are _not_ of negative context (what we were dubbing as common sense all along), as in they don’t fall in the “bad post” ground from examples a-f shown, then they are still entitled to be deleted?

Yes – you have it there Jolie, as in posts that do not reflect fig.2 A-F that can/may become removed.

That pretty much sums it up. I don’t really have examples to cite, because I think such posts or threads had already became “purged” in that retrospect. One example about a locked topic, is Frisky's concern. I believe [we] strongly believe the thread utilised an ulterior motive that is still "worth" its value even in the outcome it has reached now.

I also tried make these cliff notes shorter, but it comes out so long each time !
29bysk6.jpg



Also, there are feedbacks and suggestions I'd like to give (or gave already) but I think that's completely in another chapter. It's just mainly physiological and sociological "cause and effects" of these things occurring, and methods I think that can reduce the collateral damage to an minimum.
It mostly has to do with implementing a "topic/post warning" system that gets our users on the right track while still being able to contribute.
 
naisho said:
I. Topics and Threads:
  • A. Are there a list of reasons outside of common sense that can get a topic locked?

  • B. If there was no particular negativity shown by the community in a topic, what can cause it to get locked?

II. User Posts:
  • A. If a user’s post does not seem to initiate, follow, transgress, or conclude with any of the following:

  • a. Hostility

  • b. Flaming

  • c. Trolling

  • d. Provoking

  • e. Spamming (from advertisements and subcriteria)

  • f. Plagiarism

Meaning, none of the posts do not or barely (by barely, I am referring to the margin of error in human judgment) enter any of the examples from figure II’s A to F, what would be proper cause for their posts to become deleted?
Click to expand...

In regards of Section I --

A) Besides common senses - The thread are usually locked because of how members are not treating each other in a proper manner or can't hold a civilized discussion. Usually when a thread is locked, it is because it entails into a prolonged off topic issue which has no relation to the original post. Secondly, It is because some of the time a member (the thread creator) to ask moderators to close a thread. Thirdly, Of course - The forum rules states trolling, provoking, enticing and all that stuffs.

B) If there is no negativity in a thread and yet, the thread is closed - More than half of the time, it is caused by responses in such nature that is in related to the "beginning" of the offensive posts which naturally causes a chain reaction for everyone to join in the bandwagon.

naisho said:
The proper question focuses on when the issues are _not_ of negative context (what we were dubbing as common sense all along), as in they don’t fall in the “bad post” ground from examples a-f shown, then they are still entitled to be deleted?

Yes – you have it there Jolie, as in posts that do not reflect fig.2 A-F that can/may become removed.
Click to expand...

To answer your question, Naisho - It depends in overall because you see, If a Member A may seem not to say anything offensive but it also can be misinterpreted by another member which causes the commotion. Sometime, the moderators would reserve that in light to prevent any kind of further flame war.

naisho said:
That pretty much sums it up. I don’t really have examples to cite, because I think such posts or threads had already became “purged” in that retrospect. One example about a locked topic, is Frisky's concern. I believe [we] strongly believe the thread utilised an ulterior motive that is still "worth" its value even in the outcome it has reached now.
Click to expand...

In regards of Frisky Feline's Post; Let's look at this way -

Suppose you're having a party at your house and someone causes a ruckus to get the police involved. When the police are involved, Do we have to give the police the permission to shut down a party even if it is at your own house? No, It is because the police are doing their job to put a stop to it and to try to restore the peace to it.

It is the same thing for us moderators because if we see any members causing a ruckus on a certain thread; We will close it with no question asked.


naisho said:
Also, there are feedbacks and suggestions I'd like to give (or gave already) but I think that's completely in another chapter. It's just mainly physiological and sociological "cause and effects" of these things occurring, and methods I think that can reduce the collateral damage to an minimum.
It mostly has to do with implementing a "topic/post warning" system that gets our users on the right track while still being able to contribute.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see what you have to say about this because frankly, I feel that we all need to come to meet on a middle ground in order to understand each other and to get both (the moderators and the community) involved. Otherwise, if things were being held back, then how would us mods not know about this in order to improve our job and approach towards the community?

In all, I hope this will answer your questions. If there's any questions, feel free to ask away.

Thank You. :)
 
Jolie, there was one thread last year where everyone was really being nasty to each other because of our strong believes and for some reason, all the mods were not online...it went on and on for hours and then at the end, everyone was able to work out the differences to gain respect for each other.I was one of the ADers involved...to be honest, it was nice to be able to do that and to work things out at the end.
 
Jolie77 said:
In all, I hope this will answer your questions. If there's any questions, feel free to ask away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks Jolie. Simply said to interpret it at the basic to me: no matter what the consensus may be about any particular thread, the moderator who closes it will do so for his or her own reason(s), for they may see or want to perform pre-crime (I'm thinking of Minority Report here) methods before the thread or topic breaks loose. Basically, Alex's highlighted rule (for a good purpose) overrides any ethics or authority tied to any post or topic.

Well, that sums it about up. If you want to address Shel90's post, I wouldn't let my post deter you -- she is posting of a time I was probably lurking or not fully participating on the forum, so I cannot speak of that experience.


Jolie77 said:
I'd like to see what you have to say about this because frankly, I feel that we all need to come to meet on a middle ground in order to understand each other and to get both (the moderators and the community) involved. Otherwise, if things were being held back, then how would us mods not know about this in order to improve our job and approach towards the community?
Click to expand...

Alright, so I will let you in a little on this. I think it will be better to use some analogies instead, so anyone reading can get an idea of what's going on.

-----------------------------
Example:
Let's say you are in a chemistry class.
Your first homework is to write a report on anything about chemistry, the teacher wants to see how much you know about chemistry, and what can you relate it to.
There's no specific article you have to read, as the fact that as long as it is related to chemistry, you are fine.

Your two friends, Jane and John wrote just the darndest papers ever; their essays were practically two sentences, and another is one paragraph. They turned it in and got full points from the teacher.

Now you wanted to get really deep into the issue pertaining to chemistry. You followed a concept in Biochemistry -- it's chemistry, but it shares roots with biology. You write about the bacteria and the evolution of modern day human cells, going into great depths about how the chemical compounds of the Golgi bodies, Endoplasmic Reticulum, Enzymes work with protein synthesis, Sugar (C6H10O6) and glucose working at the smallest levels of production. So basically, you're writing a biological perspective along with all the chemistry information pertaining to it.

You've written 3 pages of this report, because you may have just been so captivated by the subject and passionately wanted to explain your point to the teacher to see what he/she may think of you. You basically put way more work in than your friends, and you know it.

On the way to school, you run into your principal. He's doing a random checkup, he knows you are in the school, and he decided to ask you to see your chemistry essay. You pull it out, he skims over it and says: "Sorry, this is not acceptable. This is about biology. We may be a religious school but we do not accept this. I am going to confiscate this."

He takes it away, and you show up to class empty handed.

Now, many people have different opinions on how they cope with this.
What would you do in a situation like this?
-----------------------------


The options mainly seem pretty limited:
a) argue with your principal (you're going against a higher power)
b) explain to your teacher that the principal thought it was not chemistry material, and your teacher is in favor of the principal.
c) explain to your teacher that the principal thought it was not chemistry material, and your teacher is in favor of you (and goes with you to talk to your principal)
d) say you don't have it, without a reason, and your teacher doesn't realize why but makes everyone aware that you didn't have your homework so everyone stares at you in class.
e) skip class, play sick, print another one, steal the paper back (etc random misc stuff covered here but don't really stay on topic)
(following suggestions added by another user)
f) contact your mom (you would probably have a cell phone by then)
g) contact another teacher (preferably a favorite teacher or a teacher that you feel will understand your situation)
h) talk with someone higher up... the superintendent or the school board
i) talk with your counselor



What I'm trying to convey here, people are different.. one person may exhibit A, another B+C, others D. There's probably other good examples I didn't even mention in there, but can't think of at the moment.

When you can take a look psychologically at the type D people -- can you put yourselves in their shoes, and think about how your self esteem would be after this event?

Some of them may take it like it's no big deal and move on.

Some of them may have their esteems crushed by this act, and from that point on, completely dropped out of school.

This is what I can loosely think of to resemble a poster+moderator resemblance here, when threads are cut off or deleted when they have not became "lukewarm" or even "hot" yet.

-----------------------------

Also -- I am not just directing this to Jolie, but anyone who reads this: do recall, that for an forum.. there has to be an opposing side if you wish for conversations to continue. If all everyone did was nod in agreement on something, face it, that forum would not exist after a year, everyone would find other forums or better hobbies to do instead. This is a fact that has been proven countless times. There are graveyards of forums across the net where the admins abandoned yet they are still alive with tumbleweeds in them.

The same goes for complete negativity, you have to keep it balanced or if all the on-topic debates post sections were continually weeded out of one opposition, it will easily pass away in due time.


This is where I am opting to propose for a
icon4.gif
Moderator Warning system.

I don't insist that this has to be taken upon for every single topic, but rather those that stay on context, but may be taking a slight turn, albeit not necessarily in the wrong direction -- it could be that the driver tilted left a little due to an itching, and will get back straight on the road. Or, s/he saw a pretty lady/guy walking alongside the road and needed a reality check that he's forgetting where he is driving.

Note that this isn't concerning flamewar topics, as trolling topics like that need to be immediately taken care of in my view.

What I see in the favor of doing this, is that it splits and benefits both sides -- the Moderators, AND the Users. The moderators have given their exertion that the topic has entered in uncharted waters, for the reason he/she thinks. It doesn't have to be in detail, enough to let the public know what is going wrong.

Yes, here is what I want to touch up on also -- you want to teach the public what they are doing wrong each time to get the topic locked, not just spank them and give them the reason right after it gets locked.. In these, the people don't really learn anything IMO.

When you give the topic a warning, it can help steer the thread back into place. Plus, best of all, look at it this way -- users will not get offended as much as the topic getting locked instead. Do you catch what I'm trying to say here?

I saw it done a few times in the past before, I wish I could encourage that it shows up more -- it especially could have been put more into use during the era of those mental/psychiatry diagnosis outbreak topics. We have 8 moderators now, so why not?

What also occurred during those threads, (as a result of no warnings) also lead to future bans.. Thus it is possible that using a deterring warning system can also prevent bannings by a moderate amount.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that sees the great capacity in Naisho's sensibility and level-headed decisions?

Naisho has the wonderful capacity to moderate in this forum. I hope Alex considers this next time a moderator opening comes up.
 
Last night I was reading your long post, Naisho and I was going to reply to it but then, I had some second thoughts so I opted out to wait until today to be able to respond with a clear mind.

Basically in overall - You have made a lot of very good points which I won't shred out at. This is something that has been lingering over me today and here I'm thinking - Granted, at times, things may have went out of hand but in order for it to be controlled; that is when everyone needs to look at it side by side in order to work it out at the end.

Like You said, Things needs to be balanced for the moderators and the community in an equal manner.

Call if it you will - I was only trying to use the best judgment given the extent of how the thread turns out. Some of you may not agree with this and some of you may agree with this. If you guys think that I've done something wrong or whatsoever it is, I apologize for that in advance.

As for the outline you've provided, Naisho - I think it is an excellent start for all of us to be able to get to the point where we can try to at least get to somewhere.

I may not be the best moderator and I'm not perfect either. Yes, I've made mistakes and there will be mistakes to be made in the future as well. But, Here I am trying to see it from both sides of the community to at least to try to make AllDeaf a better place for everyone. I try to do as the best as I can to my ability.

So, I've said my piece here and well, I do appreciate you taking your time to bring this situation to all of us.

By the way - As for these new mods; They are learning and they are getting on the rope to get around. It will take time for them to be able to be familiarized with the procedures. All I am asking is for you guys to give the new moderators a chance to see how this will turn out.
 
Hey Jolie,

Now, I don't want to make the wrong impression here -- and I think I've done that already. I can honestly think and say that, we are not trying to appeal (most) made decisions.

My report case presented does not proclaim for for some kind of imbalanced justice to be served.. That is not me.

Better yet to say, I can probably re-word it like this:
[We] are not trying to seek a claim over past issues that may have occurred and seek damages that have been caused by them.

That's in the past.. let us move onto the future.

The "modship" to me is just like a real life situation. I don't see you guys as superman OR superwoman with some super strength, xray vision, and able to cause an unanimous murmur once your opinion is tossed into a preexisting debate ;).

What I view you guys, are me, you, and everyone else on the forum - everyday people walking around in downtown city district. Some of us excel at certain things better than others. Some of us are firemen. Some of us are computer people. Some are teachers. Some of [you] are policemen in their uniforms walking around. Some are hotel managers. Some are doctors. Some are school kids. Some are college undergraduates. Some are a retired Nelly looking for the [insert store name here].

Some of those policewomen and policemen are wandering around off duty, in their casual clothing just as much as each and every other of us citizens.

We as a community "work" together to provide what we can do best -- a forum for everyone to partake in and have fun, get a kick out of conversing with each other and giving opinions, comments, suggestions about things.

The police force is employed by us (as we pay our imaginary tax dollars) to them to make sure that we don't go around creating issues among each other, keep the shady people off the benches and the alleyways, and thwart the solicitors.

What I may have been unable to state earlier was this example I just provided. You guys, are just like us guys, except with a special job to do because we chose you to do it for us. That's why [you] there are policemen, and that is how they are paid to do their jobs.

We just don't want to see that form of check and balance power go the wrong way, not over recent or past issues, but for the future. We don't want to lose our people, because without them we would not have the fun that we can continue to have.

It's a tough job for anything in a related case, it's harder to keep people devoted to a thing than it is to advertise for newcomers to come join in (our Introductions forum being an example of that :) ).
 
discuss moderator

I don't know what is happened. I wish be development to stronger. I am support to people I am wonder you are problem,


I don't want to trouble. Because I prevent to people trouble,,

I agree Alex is important authority power. I think so skills boss is job. I don't have business nothing. I wish be try better communication to people

I need to help you I set up vote moderator. i don't want to hard time. that is very strict to law. I am scared.

i don't like gossip because not good for people use name. unfortunately people think so not agree to who are you used on time. i don't know what is happened. I don't know why are you think so my opinion


i cannot do it but i try better improve english and try help you I need to support.

That is reason imporatant to support to become administrator. I don't want to trouble. I understand i honor to people I can do it hard work. if you supposed to impossible. i think so how can communication to you. I wish be moderator. I support to value to take care to people:hmm:
 
Back
Top