Inquiry

[bladespark]

Moderating. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. Lately I feel as though a couple of places I'm on are over-moderated. Or over zealously moderated, or something. In fact I've left one board over it, because getting your posts locked and deleted any time you dare actually have a disagreement with somebody gets old really fast.

But I'm curious to know if this is just me, or if others agree that you can have too much modding as well as too little. So! Poll time.

[Poll #923538]

It's a sticky situation. But I'll tell you that from my own point of view, getting your posts deleted is FRUSTRAING. Especially when you didn't mean to say anything that was offensive at all. In the latest case the mod did contact me and let me know why my post was deleted, which was good, but I would have MUCH preferred being contacted and asked to edit it myself, rahter that just having it summarily removed.

Comments

[ellixis.livejournal.com]

My opinion on such things is that unless it turns into a scary stalkertastic personal insult kind of thing, let 'em have their argument. Nothing will get resolved if nobody is allowed to air grievances and have discussions, debates, and arguments.

[beetlecat.livejournal.com]

Lock it and let it die.

I have been in enough flame wars to know that they're useless - you'll never change the other person's opinion.

But I don't agree with deleting things willy-nilly. It's like being in preschool. People are adult enough to moderate/delete their own comments if they want. Only delete if it is an obvious troll.

[xodiac.livejournal.com]

The second half of your poll is a little lopsided. I'd have probably chosen the last choice of the first half, unless the post was obvious flamebait or trolling. But your second half has all these, "do something" and then "do nothing, arguments are fine." Which is my view, too, but you left nothing for a response where it's not merely arguing. The original post doesn't have to be flamebait to garner a flame, after all. And while arguments are fine, there comes a point where the participants should be contacted and told to calm down, often enforced by locking the topic.

So while I agree with you in general, you left no room for exceptions in your poll. And I believe there are exceptions.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Well, this is a mostly casual question. I didn't feel like taking the time to try and figure out every single solitary possible scenario and all possible responses to it, etc. There's definitely room for exceptions. I just think that a lot of mods over do it.

[shadesfox.livejournal.com]

One of the things I may actually do is post in the thread about 'maybe this isn't such a good idea'. Usually having a mod say that out in the open gets things to cool off, though locking is a fun tool.

[nsdragon.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Big bold mod letters are quite effective at quelling arguments.

But if it continues after that, feel free to lock all over.

[springmoone.livejournal.com]

From my experience, people just don't listen when you tell them not to start a flame war. So I lock it.

[silveradept]

Depending on the severity of things, different options are in order. First, though, really, someone has to get offended. That can be a mod or another poster. If things look to be getting out of hand and not contributing to the discussion, then a lockdown or a cool-off is probably in order. But my first instinct is to let it ride and have the argue until things move away from being informative.

[coyoty.livejournal.com]

I would leave things on an "attack ideas, not people" basis. I would give a warning on first personal attacks and other uncivil behavior, to shame and serve as an example of what to avoid, then delete if they continue. As long as the debate is civil, and related to the forum, I would let it continue. Of course, with every generalization there's going to be exceptions, so I would deal with those as they come up on a case-by-case basis.

[sphix.livejournal.com]

If it hits flame-war status, ask everyone to cool down, then all else failing, lock it. But until then, "free speech" should apply, no? I've been to some boards that have boards nigh unto the Fourth Reich, and it angers me to no end.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

I would step in before anyone was offended (although that happens really fast on the internet and usually I find at least one response by the time I can get to it) and try to rephrase the original sentiment to be a lot less offensive. I'd appeal to the better side of the person posting ("That sounds rather harsher than it was intended, I'm sure.") In private, I'd probably message the appropriate parties and try to moderate a dialog.

If private messaging doesn't work, I would probably limit the posting ability of the offending party until he/she cools down.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

Ah. You have made an assumption here. "Until he/she cools down." In the case that prompted me to post this, NOBODY WAS UPSET. Nobody. One person had, very calmly, stated an opinion. Not in anger, not attempting to cause trouble. Just because it was her opinion. It was not in inflammatory terms, nor was it /intended/ to be taken offensively. The second person found it offensive anyhow, and posted a sharp disagreement. But "cooling down" had nothing to do with it because nobody was "hot" to begin with.

[2dlife.livejournal.com]

I also said that I'd PM first. If there was no one upset, I find that both parties would be rather responsive to a PM.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I'm always inclined to a more laissez-faire attitude because it if you are active you have to be consistent - and if something is only POTENTIALLY offensive (I'm assuming here that it's not a direct attack against another poster or something horrendously racist or something as that would be just plain offensive rather than potentially) then the next time someone has their feathers ruffled they may demand you act as you have in the past (I have seen forums ruined not by overactive censorship but by extremely inconsistent censorship) and there will be lots of arguments about "potential offense"

So i would ay leave off unless 1) It goes from potentially offensive to obviously and disgustingly so or 2) it devolves into a slanging match of no productive quality