Moderation

[Elianna]

Justin recently started a thread asking about a moderation question.

 

Several others responded, saying we agreed with his concerns, or at least agreed with his interpretation of a post in question.

 

As that thread was closed and deleted, I do not know what response forum moderators would make to his points.

 

I do not wish to discuss his specific issue, but I would like to discuss thread moderation in general:

 

If someone finds a post offensive, is it policy that the whole thread is automatically deleted?

 

Is it policy to not give any feedback on any decisions? I don't mean ASKING for our opinions, but posting reasons for deleting threads/posts. Or even a post saying that a thread was deleted/locked, so that one could send that person a message to discuss it.

 

I hope that any regular forum member who posts in this thread will be polite. I am not trying to start a thread criticizing moderators (I know that they have a hard time). I would just like to discuss policies in a calm, adult, and open manner, so that everyone knows where they stand.

 

And I would hope that if someone feels that this thread is inappropriate, they would tell me why.

[awm]

One problem is that the moderators sometimes seem to remove a whole thread when they could just delete a particular offensive post. There was a recent thread about guessing the identity of bridge players that was pretty interesting, and then a few posts got off-topic about identifying BBO posters and something arguably offensive was said. It would've been nice if the moderators could've just deleted the posts about identifying posters and replaced them with a comment saying "discussion of the style of posters is off-topic and inappropriate for this forum" while allowing the more appropriate bridge-related content to remain.

[cherdanno]

Generally, I would hope that posts or threads are not deleted because they offend a particular poster (or moderator, for that matter), but because they break rules. I would also appreciate clarification of these rules, given that I obviously don't understand them.

Meanwhile, to get the focus a little off the moderators, I think the former forum poster "cherdano" (where did he go?) said s.th. untypically wise for him in this thread (paraphrased):

We should not expect everything that offends us to be censored. We should not put our moderators in the position where they have to make a decision about everything that "we" (which will always just be some of us) find unacceptable.

[Elianna]

Generally, I would hope that posts or threads are not deleted because they offend a particular poster (or moderator, for that matter), but because they break rules. I would also appreciate clarification of these rules, given that I obviously don't understand them.

Meanwhile, to get the focus a little off the moderators, I think the former forum poster "cherdano" (where did he go?) said s.th. untypically wise for him in this thread (paraphrased):

We should not expect everything that offends us to be censored. We should not put our moderators in the position where they have to make a decision about everything that "we" (which will always just be some of us) find unacceptable.

Yes, I agree.

 

I did not mean to put the focus on the moderators. I do not want to start a thread criticizing them. I realize that they have a very tough job.

 

My main hope is to launch a clarification of rules and policies, in the hopes that if they are stated, they will be clearer for the whole community, and there might be less people unknowingly falling foul of those rules.

 

I think that it would benefit everyone to have transparent rules rather than opaque ones like "be nice", which are up to interpretation.

[inquiry]

Justin recently started a thread asking about a moderation question.

 

Several others responded, saying we agreed with his concerns, or at least agreed with his interpretation of a post in question.

 

As that thread was closed and deleted, I do not know what response forum moderators would make to his points.

 

I do not wish to discuss his specific issue, but I would like to discuss thread moderation in general:

If someone would paraphrase the points in the deleted thread, I would be more than happy to share my views.

 

If someone finds a post offensive, is it policy that the whole thread is automatically deleted?

 

No. In fact if you check, you will find many post edited to remove offensive material (to one or more person), and some stuff that could be interpreted as offensive to one or more person is sometimes left un-edited and un-deleted.

 

Is it policy to not give any feedback on any decisions?  I don't mean ASKING for our opinions, but posting reasons for deleting threads/posts.  Or even a post saying that a thread was deleted/locked, so that one could send that person a message to discuss it.

 

When editing a post, there is frequently a comment left by uday, myself, rain and others. I will give an example.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=198017 AND for followup, see my post maybe three places later in the same thread.

 

There are also times we just note where text was edited, see this thread where several times, uday inserted [edit ui] in place where stuff was removed. That thread had been deleted (well moved to a private location), edited, then restored (see last post by uday)

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=79449

 

I hope that any regular forum member who posts in this thread will be polite.  I am not trying to start a thread criticizing moderators (I know that they have a hard time).  I would just like to discuss policies in a calm, adult, and open manner, so that everyone knows where they stand.

 

And I would hope that if someone feels that this thread is inappropriate, they would tell me why.

 

Your post is fine: it seems every now and then we have a discussion of "censorship" (ok here it is called moderation). For a taste of the discussion in the past search the forum for censorship, or thead deletion, etc. As a general rule, it is fairly clear a discussion by moderators of the moderation is not helpful as both sides have valid positions. One particular thread where I expressed my views and my "training" for the job as a moderator is the following thread which was an open letter to me (and uday) about censorship from "The_Hog" (Ron) (Censorship of Forums, an open letter to Ben and uday (author The Hog). From reading that thread, you can find why open discussions of this topic by moderators do not really help either side. Still, I am willing to disscuss any issue of moderation that you like.

[Elianna]

Justin recently started a thread asking about a moderation question.

 

Several others responded, saying we agreed with his concerns, or at least agreed with his interpretation of a post in question.

 

As that thread was closed and deleted, I do not know what response forum moderators would make to his points.

 

I do not wish to discuss his specific issue, but I would like to discuss thread moderation in general:

If someone would paraphrase the points in the deleted thread, I would be more than happy to share my views.

The original thread (that Adam alluded to) was asking if the twenty best players were playing in an individual annonymously, would they recognize each other by their styles, and there were several informative statements about variance among these top experts.

 

Then someone said an interesting challenge would be identifying posters by their posts. And someone said that they could recognize Ken Rexford (who did not seem insulted by this). And according to what I heard, someone said that they could recognize someone else (but I did not read that post).

 

Then all of a sudden (overnight it seemed), this thread was gone.

 

Instead, there's a thread Justin started in the Water Cooler asking if it's an insult to say that they'd recognize a certain poster in less than 6 posts.

 

Then that thread was suddenly gone.

 

No explanation for either why the (otherwise) interesting thread was gone, and no response to Justin's thread.

 

I understand deleting posts that others deem offensive, but did the whole thread have to go? And with no explanation? And then a thread asking about it was summarily shut down, with no response.

 

I appreciate you taking the time and engaging. I know that both you and Uday are very vigilant about taking ownership of post deletion, and that you have tough judgement calls that someone has to make. I do appreciate that the two of you don't sweep things under the rug, and respond to complaints that members have.

[gwnn]

At the very least, there should be a thread which shows all major moderating decisions. The way things are is really too much.

[jdonn]

At the very least, there should be a thread which shows all major moderating decisions. The way things are is really too much.

Yes it's impossible to understand. I support that the job of moderating is difficult. Deleting the first thread was overkill but not inherently wrong. But deleting the second thread, where no specific poster or moderator was mentioned, is amazing. Do we get to have threads at all?

[gwnn]

It's just that I have a poor memory and addicted to the forums and sometimes when a thread is zapped I begin to have my doubts "has this thread ever existed? or was it just a dream" (yes sometimes I dream about reading the forums and I'm not ashamed to admit it). B) Anyway sorry for the off topic.

[helene_t]

IMHO it's ok to remove inflammatory posts without notice. Some posts just ask for it, it's not a particular interesting, thankful (or well-paid) job to be a mod, and it's not like the posts in question are particularly important.

 

Mods do make mistakes (I think the post Justin was referring to should not have been deleted, for example), but it's not the end of the World. Moderator accountancy would be a nice feature but it's not on my top 100 list of BBO priorities.

[inquiry]

The original thread (that Adam alluded to) was asking if the twenty best players were playing in an individual annonymously, would they recognize each other by their styles, and there were several informative statements about variance among these top experts.

 

Then someone said an interesting challenge would be identifying posters by their posts. And someone said that they could recognize Ken Rexford (who did not seem insulted by this). And according to what I heard, someone said that they could recognize someone else (but I did not read that post).

 

Then all of a sudden (overnight it seemed), this thread was gone.

 

Instead, there's a thread Justin started in the Water Cooler asking if it's an insult to say that they'd recognize a certain poster in less than 6 posts.

 

Then that thread was suddenly gone.

 

No explanation for either why the (otherwise) interesting thread was gone, and no response to Justin's thread.

 

I understand deleting posts that others deem offensive, but did the whole thread have to go? And with no explanation? And then a thread asking about it was summarily shut down, with no response.

 

I appreciate you taking the time and engaging. I know that both you and Uday are very vigilant about taking ownership of post deletion, and that you have tough judgement calls that someone has to make. I do appreciate that the two of you don't sweep things under the rug, and respond to complaints that members have.

As a general rule, threads that are "deleted" are not really deleted, but rather moved to a location where they are no longer accessible. It almost amounts to the same thing as being deleted, but they can be edited and restored (or simply restored) -- if upon reflection such action is deemed necessary. Individual post, however, if deleted are simply gone.

 

Having said that, I can not find an "identify the expert thread", however, I assume the thread in question is the "how quickly can you judge ability" thread.

 

I have found the missing poll thread started by Justin in the hidden area and have completed reading it. The poll starts off fine. Justin was clearly voicing a concern that some post in the other thead were deleted (interestingly, I have learned, neither deleted post was by him). For what it is worth, both authors were told why their post were deleted. One apologized for stepping over the line, one apparently bordered on being belligerent. Neither post mentioned Ken Rexford, and mentions of Ken have not been deleted from that thread, nor from this thread, and was not the reason the Poll thread was removed.

 

Instead, the deleted post from the identify ability thread was mentioning another BBF member. And the poll thread then turned to the same forum member, where this time, albeit the player was not mentioned by name -- I assure you 80% of forum regulars would recognize from the discussion (not to mention those who were discussing him/her by name surely knew who was being talked about.

 

Since you are interested, let me give my view on Justin's main questions, copied directly from the poll, followed with my best quess as to why that thread was "deleted". (For the record, a large majority of voters agreed with Justin's premise that this is not a personal attack).

 

Say a poster then made a joke about figuring out who was who based on anonymous posts.

 

Say a poster then said they could recognize a particular poster (mentioned by name) in half a dozen posts or less.

 

Would you consider this a personal attack?

 

No I would not, as long as unflattering characteristics of that members posting style was not held out to defend the identification of the member.

 

Would you consider considering this a personal attack to be ludicrous?

 

As long as nothing negative about the posting style was stated or strongly implied, I would not view considering it as a personal attack as reasonble.

 

Would you consider this post getting DELETED for being a personal attack correct?

 

Depends upon the context. The post mentioning Ken were not deleted. There were post, however, very unflattering to another member of the BBF community that were deleted. At least one of the posters APOLOGIZED for the comments they made about this person. I take that as proof enough the moderator was right in that case.

 

The discussion in the deleted Poll thread eventually got around to the same member as the discussion became very pointed towards the same characteristics that allowed the easy identification of a particular member in the "identify ability" thread. Care was taken not to mention this person by name, but using unflattering characteristics (like long rambling post in my case), you can see where it is going to be a potential minefield and cause problems for moderators.

 

Was there anything inherently wrong with the deleted thread? Certainly not with the OP (well it did take an obvious swipe at whatever moderator deleted the post in ability thread by a number of ways). However, the context of both leads to "intersting" discussion were people begin giving examples to prove the point that they could identify posters, and therein, in both threads, what happened is the discussion turned from the theoretical can it be done(?), to the more specific concrete examples of look how easy it is to do. I realize how it would be fun to read that kind of stuff. I can also see how it could hurt some peoples feelings, and make others less likely to post (as, of course, so can the frustation over "censorship").

 

Let me finish this post with the following observations. While I would agree with Justin's characterization about anonymous posters not being a personal attack, the fact is that the deleted post were not anonymous, as the content of the post clearly led to the identy of the poster. This is where the line got crossed, and his poll was misleading (in this context), imho. We often dance around semantics with our editing a lot. We let go comments like "you made a stupid bid" when discussing auctions, but we routinely edit comments like "you are a stupid bidder". The person being spoken about often doesn't see these as different so we get complaints we ignore. However, many are careful to keep this difference in mind when posting. We have to draw the line somewhere, holding up a member for ridicule while not specifically calling him/her by name but by providing sufficent information so that the vast majority clearly know who is being poked is stepping over the line. This is what got the poll thread removed.... perhaps because of the original questions raised by Justin, but certainly for where the thread eventually headed.

[Jlall]

Thanks Ben, you are an excellent moderator and always have been. Every move you make is transparent, and whether we agree or not you always take the time to give a thought out explanation for your decisions. Obviously not everyone will always agree with the decisions you make, but I think we all agree you make them with good intentions for the community every single time.

 

It is too bad nobody sent me a message about why my thread was deleted, or to tell me that they were the one who deleted it.

 

It is interesting that that respect and common courtesy was given to the people who had their posts deleted, but not to me when my whole thread questioning the decision of a mod was deleted.

 

I wonder, is the mod who deleted my thread trying to hide the fact that it was them, or trying to give me a passive-aggressive "Screw you," or perhaps trying to imply that I do not deserve the same respect and courtesy given to the others who had their posts deleted.

 

Or perhaps my crime of creating a constructive thread discussing the decision and their judgment was so great that it should be treated the same way spam is treated; undignified with a PM/explanation.

 

I hope that whoever deleted my thread (obviously I have no idea who it was) understands how bad it looks to the community when a discussion about their decision that was quite constructive is deleted without any explanation or any clue as to who it was.

 

I also hope that the mod who deleted the other posts (I do know who this is, but no idea if it's the same one that deleted my thead ofc) was able to read the thread and take note that very few forum regulars if any found anything wrong with the deleted posts. Maybe that means nothing to them, but I like to believe all mods are like Ben and try to help the community in good faith by doing their job well. Hopefully the mods realize they are fallible, and when a large majority of the community they're modding for feels like they have gone overboard, that is cause for some introspection. We don't expect you guys to be perfect, but we hope if everyone says you made a mistake that will be a learning experience.

 

In this way the mods and posters can help keep each other in check, and learn from the others where the boundaries are/should be, and there is a harmonious balance.

 

Also, one other thing Ben if you don't mind. I brought this up later in the thread but:

 

Another yellow posted almost the exact same thing about the exact same member that the member got their post deleted did (sorry if that is hard to read, I am trying not to use anyone's name). His post did not get deleted, despite having the same connotations and implications.

 

Do you think this indicates a double standard in play? Of course I understand a mod not wanting to delete the post of a yellow, but surely one who feels that when someone else made the same post it was a personal attack can back their convictions and delete both posts, else they can delete neither. This definitely bothered me.

 

Also, I will ask this flat out. Is it perfectly fine to openly criticize the decision or judgment of a mod in the community as long as no personal attacks are used? Or should we expect posts of that nature to be deleted. Honest question, it would simply be nice to know and get on record.

 

Also, imo if someone in my thread made reference to the people involved and did not keep it anonymous, their post should be edited or deleted. Deleting the whole thread imo does not make sense. In the past I have seen people like Uday warn in a thread "if the discussion continues this way, the thread will be deleted" after deleting a post or two. This makes sense to me, especially in such a sensitive situation where it may look like the mods are deleting the thread to cover up a bad decision. AFAIK the content of my poll thread was very legitimate, if one or two posters made bad decisions it shouldn't kill the entire thread, again IMO. So again, it would seem that the mod who deleted my thread used at least questionable judgment. Again, I have no idea who that mod might be since no one wanted to take credit for deleting that thread.

[Elianna]

Having said that, I can not find an "identify the expert thread", however, I assume the thread in question is the "how quickly can you judge ability" thread.

 

I have found the missing poll thread started by Justin in the hidden area and have completed reading it. The poll starts off fine. Justin was clearly voicing a concern that some post in the other thead were deleted (interestingly, I have learned, neither deleted post was by him). For what it is worth, both authors were told why their post were deleted. One apologized for stepping over the line, one apparently bordered on being belligerent. Neither post mentioned Ken Rexford, and mentions of Ken have not been deleted from that thread, nor from this thread, and was not the reason the Poll thread was removed.

I am not sure, but I thought that it was a different thread than that. I remember the how quickly to judge ability thread, and Adam posted in that. That one was interesting, too.

 

I thought that this was a different thread, asking about top experts' styles. Someone started it by saying how the experts at his (her?) club had specific styles or mistakes (like overbidding), and then others responded by saying that top experts don't vary so much because they don't make as many mistakes of that sort. And there was some debate about that.

 

I mentioned KR because there was some discussion about him (just so that you knew what point in the conversations I saw), not because he was necessarily involved as either a criticizer or someone being criticized.

 

I realize how it would be fun to read that kind of stuff. I can also see how it could hurt some peoples feelings, and make others less likely to post (as, of course, so can the frustation over "censorship").

 

The part that was fun was not about other posters. That part could be deleted for all I care (though the ones getting deleted deserve some feedback as Justin notes). The part that was interesting to me was about styles of top experts, and it was a shame to lose a whole thread over other things going on.

 

Although now that I've looked, I've refound that thread here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=35520

 

I had understood from Justin's other thread THAT one was deleted, but I may have been under the wrong impression, and I'm sorry about that. Unfortunately, Justin's thread is no longer here, and I can't re-read it to see why I was confused.

 

So in short:

We were talking about different threads being deleted (which was my fault). But I still think that Justin's WHOLE thread should not have been deleted.

 

And I do not think that making fun of other posters is fun. It's just that if posts are found to be objectionable (by whoever's judgement), it would be nice if it were addressed to the poster, and when there's feedback about moderation, it were acknowledged, as you are doing, instead of being summarily deleted, like Justin's thread.

 

(Sorry, not so "in short")

[uday]

Add a thread to record nontrivial moderation-based edits? Good idea.

 

Is it perfectly fine to openly criticize the decision or judgment of a mod in the community as long as no personal attacks are used?

 

I think it is perfectly fine.

[inquiry]

I am not sure, but I thought that it was a different thread than that. I remember the how quickly to judge ability thread, and Adam posted in that. That one was interesting, too.

 

I thought that this was a different thread, asking about top experts' styles. Someone started it by saying how the experts at his (her?) club had specific styles or mistakes (like overbidding), and then others responded by saying that top experts don't vary so much because they don't make as many mistakes of that sort. And there was some debate about that.

Is this the thread you meant? If so, it was never deleted.

Expert personality thread about 20 experts in an individual

[Echognome]

I missed the threads that were deleted (I think), but want to say that I've always appreciated Ben's and Uday's transparency about the decisions they make in moderating threads. I wish more would follow their lead. I have no idea how many other moderators there are, but I cannot recall any other moderator explaining their actions within the forums or laying it out there. It just seems to me that a style of "this is what I did and this is why I did it" commands a lot more respect than just doing it and offering no explanation.

[Elianna]

I am not sure, but I thought that it was a different thread than that.  I remember the how quickly to judge ability thread, and Adam posted in that.  That one was interesting, too.

 

I thought that this was a different thread, asking about top experts' styles.  Someone started it by saying how the experts at his (her?) club had specific styles or mistakes (like overbidding), and then others responded by saying that top experts don't vary so much because they don't make as many mistakes of that sort.  And there was some debate about that.

Is this the thread you meant? If so, it was never deleted.

Expert personality thread about 20 experts in an individual

I realize that my above post was very long, but if you read to the end, I addressed that.

[gwnn]

Awesome Ben! Thank you!