Moderation

All in the context.

"I think you're naive to argue this." is one thing.

"Only someone utterly naive would believe this garbage!" is crossing the line into insult.

The key point here is the difference between criticizing an argument and attacking a person for making that argument. I try to stay on the right side of that line, though sometimes I slip.

Adapted Lens Talk was my main DPR hangout for the last few years, and I can't remember ever seeing an issue there. Before that, I used to hang out on M4/3 Talk, and I'd sometimes seen and experienced personal attacks there. One poster didn't like a statement I made and started throwing insults, including ridiculous stuff like 'Anyone with a flickr tag in their signature is a lousy photographer and doesn't know anything worth saying.'

Stuff like that makes discussion worse, not better. I think it's a legitimate target for moderation.

I'd like to think that mods could start with just a quiet and gentle reminder to people if they are straying into personal attacks. Not everyone who indulges in personal attacks is a troll, sometimes people just get carried away in the heat of the moment and need the calming voice of authority to reduce the temperature. A light touch can provide that. Real trolls are a different matter, of course, but that is usually more blatent and obvious: first ever post on a forum "Product x sucks and you're all idiots for buying that stuff".

Knowing the basis for moderation is something we never knew at DPR. Available to all is a great idea!

'You've broken the law and I am going to judge you and instigate a punishment of my choosing. Tommorrow I will decide on a completely different approach. One part of the website will have completely different laws to another part. You are not allowed to ask why or argue'

Excellent way to moderate I think

In general, I agree, but I am concerned about ruleslawyering. The guidelines need to be flexible enough that you minimize arguments about letter versus spirit of the law. See the example about naive above. Having published rules shouldn’t be used as an excuse; I’ve seen too many cases of someone being an asshole, then pointing to published rules and saying “Show me where I broke those!”

I admit, I’m biased. I’ve been online since I got my first modem in 1984, used BBS’s in high school, discovered Usenet in college, picked up Fidonet after graduating and losing internet access. (Remember when the Internet was only available at universities, and some corporations and government entities?) Started participating in mailing lists in the late 90’s. Watched as web forums drove out everything else in the 00’s. Been in ‘top-posting vs threaded reply’ netiquette arguments. ^^;;

I’ve seen examples of overzealous moderation. I’ve seen a lot more examples of asshole behavior ruining discussion. So when it comes to moderation, I’m more concerned about stamping out the flames than I am about the bootheel of oppression. I’ve also seen way too many complaints about overzealous moderation that boiled down to ‘I can’t be an asshole anymore and I don’t like it!’, which makes me wary of those claims. So that’s my bias. <wry g>

You know what, just reading this thread reminds me of just what a true angel I am, perfect would be an understatement. Lord of goodness comes to mind, I just love everyone and every post ever posted. Oh it's so hard being the only one that's beyond perfectness and yet, so humble with it.

Thanks.

Mr Angel ;-)

I was looking for a post of yours to reply to. This one is a good one to do that. I agree on the mission statement - Bill did a fine job on what he has written.

But I'm replying on the moderation and have a couple of more comments. (or so)

1. I hope you go with a mainly hands off approach. I've been through the Kim Jong-un version, and not looking to go through that again.
2. I would hope that if you do ban someone, that you leave their posts and threads intact. Whomever posts here is contributing to the success of your endeavor, as we all did on DPReview. There was a member on DPR, his last username was RazorSharpWO. He could be cocky, rude, arrogant and a whole bunch of other things. I think he had went through at least a couple of usernames before this last one. But he was a very good photographer with a nice body of posts. When he got banned all that disappeared. I have seen on other forums where the posts are still there, the username is still there, but underneath the username it said banned. And it's not like we were friends, in one post he said that he would like to bash my head into concrete. Which I did report, but most everything I let slide for the mods to find. I'm not the thin skinned type. So if someone needs to go, there body of posts may still be of value to other members.
3. There are people here who have had a lot of problems with the mods on DPR and others that didn't. The ones that didn't, seem to be wanting a more authoritarian type of moderation. But there are two types of personalities involved. I've said this before on DPR that there are people that will go into a bank, there's no customers at either service counter, but they will still wind their way through the cattle fencing. They don't get in trouble that way. I'll walk up to the first available service counter. Sometimes you do get a bit of a dirty look. So I can see why they don't get into any trouble with the mods. They're passive, likely know the rules off by memory, and expect them to be followed as written. Not my idea of a good time.

Hi All !, Also a DPR refugee (oldguy-Yuri). I'll try to keep my comments short (a real challenge for me, LOL!).
All well and good to think that we can all remain civil, inclusive and post interesting informative knowledgeable stuff.
That is not the human 'thing'. What we should expect, especially as the membership grows further, beyond the 1300+ already on board; expect Everything !
Especially on the interweb. There almost no constraints when it comes to what appears and what the personnas might exhibit.
So expecting that, DPrevived is best if it's prepared to deal with that.
Clearly worded guidelines both for member participation and for any structure dealing with issues. Things left unconsidered in some fashion will surely arise.
So best to have some SOP which gives clear application.
I'm going to broach something which I haven't seen mentioned. Pardon me if I'm ignorant. But, more than 1 mod per forum is the working process? Minimum of 2 or some greater number of mods, for the quite active forums ? Allowing a 'forum' to be a kingdom, run by a despot, even a benevolent one, is a formula for problems.
This serves to distribute work load, and also allow (require ?) that there be a discussion between Mods before any 'action' at any level, is taken, even if it's to communicate with a member who might benefit from a discussion on 'protocol'.
I frequented M43 forum in DPR, and it's been quite active, often 20+ threads a day - I'd expect a minimum of 3 mods for this activity level.
No reason why mods in slow forums can't also mod in other slow forums, but never with the same Mod they already work with in another forum.
If a member is to be 'banned' for any longer time (more than a day or 2), then a consensus of 3 Mods should be required.
If a member needs permanent banning - there are NO photo-Gods here - then it stands that all their 'stuff' here should go also.
Harsh? I don't think so. If someone is a permanent ban, there's likely more questionable stuff in prior posts/content.
Enough for now.
Thanks Bob, and to anyone who working with you on getting this effort going! A huge job. Which is developing better and faster than might be expected!
Thx
Yuri

I don't particularly like that idea, and I especially don't like it if those people are former moderators of Open Talk.

Let's just put it this way: Term limits are a good thing.

I haven’t read the whole thread but here’s a few of my thoughts..

Firstly to be clear I’ve never been a moderator at DPR or anywhere else. I think they get a bad rap though. Of course there are bad apples, but at the end of the day it’s a voluntary role and a thankless task; talk of fixed terms etc only works if you imagine there’s a queue for the position, that rarely seems to be the case!

To make moderation work, the first thing you need is a clear set of rules that everyone is agreed on - one that gives the mods the necessary authority to deal with issues but is transparent enough that their actions shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Get those right and the rest should be a lot easier.

On the whole “what is a personal attack” question, I just think it’s whenever you start shooting the messenger rather than the message. We’ve all seen it happen, where views are so entrenched (or, in my case, so demonstrably correct and incontrovertible) that one side decides to try and weaken the source of those views instead through snide comment and snark or worse - that never ends well and needs nipping in the bud.

There's a lot of tooing and froing here about rules/moderation
ChatGPT's suggestion for basic forum rules, tweaked by me a bit...

Welcome to our web forum! We want everyone to have a positive and enjoyable experience, so we ask that you follow these rules:

Be respectful: Treat others with kindness and respect. Do not insult, threaten, harass, or discriminate against anyone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other personal characteristic.

Stay on topic: Keep your posts relevant to the forum category and topic. Do not post spam or promotional content.

No personal information: Do not share personal information about yourself or others, including phone numbers, addresses, or any other sensitive information unless you do son a private thread. This is for your safety

No illegal content: Do not post any content that is illegal or violates any copyright laws.

No trolling: Do not intentionally disrupt the forum or provoke other members.

No NSFW content: Do not post any content that is not safe for work or may be deemed offensive.

Moderation: The moderators reserve the right to remove any content that violates these rules or is deemed inappropriate, after discussing this with you and any other party involved.

There is an arbitration panel 'here' fi you believe a moderator is treating you or your case unfairly

Thank you for your cooperation and we hope you have a great time on our forum!

softmarmotte wrote: ChatGPT's suggestion for basic forum rules...

LMAO
Why don’t we get AI to run the forum, the machines are coming anyway. lol

A couple of bits but that was one :)

Same here. Please keep the Canon moderator away (also policing the Open forum and a few other). If not, it would be like the pilgrims moving to a new land and taking the king with them.