Moderation

There are ways to criticize ideas, statements, thoughts, etc. constructively while avoiding putting unwanted labels on the person communicating those ideas. There's a world of difference between "I think there may be some context you are missing, have you considered X" and "You are naive for believing this and I can objectively prove how naive you are because you didn't account for Y".

I try to follow the THINK before posting guideline. Is the posting:
True?
Helpful?
Inspiring?
Necessary/New?
Kind?

I sometimes fail, but it's a good starting point for more positive interactions.

A hidden moderators forum with the permissions where a post can be sent or copied to for the mods to discuss the post and the actions required. From there it can be deleted, amended, or locked. Sometimes it may just be sent back or left in place, that's up to the mods and admin to work out.

In 23 years at DPR I can only think of one particular forum that needs a more strict, hard type of moderation and no, I won't say which one.

Danny.

Athena, I think we are splitting hairs. There is nothing wrong with telling someone "look I think you are being a little naive here". Especially if you have tried all that you have suggested.

The world needs to get over this offence culture nonsense. Sometimes you just gotta take it on the chin, move on and not loose your mind over something someone wrote on the internet. There is nothing wrong with a little heated discussion. It makes it a hell of a lot more interesting than this cancel culture we have adopted, almost planet wide at the moment.

Yes that was me who used the rehabilitate and in my post I had it enclosed in quotes, "rehabilitate". I would hope that showed I didn't mean the literal meaning of the word. By "rehabilitate" I meant as to make it clear to members where/how they have strayed in order to hopefully make them think about their behaviour for the future.
Of course forums like this are not a court of law but I feel that clear checks and balances need to be in place for at least the levels of ordinary members and moderators.
Having Admin keeping oversight on the moderators is essential imo to help establish and maintain fair and just moderation of forums.

Yes that was me who used the word rehabilitate and in my post I had it enclosed in quotes, "rehabilitate". I would hope that showed I didn't mean the literal meaning of the word. By "rehabilitate" I meant as to make it clear to members where/how they have strayed in order to hopefully make them think about their behaviour for the future.
Of course forums like this are not a court of law but I feel that clear checks and balances need to be in place for at least the levels of ordinary members and moderators.

I understand what you meant but I repeat...Moderation should be a hands off approach. A huge...less is more situation.

To be honest, reading through this thread I am a little surprised, but not totally, at the very bad experiences some have had with moderators over at DPR. I posted my experiences earlier this thread.

In any case, reading through this thread I feel it will be essential for Admin to have and maintain oversight on the moderators to help establish and maintain fair and just moderation of forums.

That is another reason I why I feel Admin are the best people for any appeals against moderator actions.

On another note, I don't know if DPR had it in place, after repeat warnings maybe multiple lengths of bans could be an option for repeat offenders or to give normally good and polite members who "flew off the handle" in a totally unacceptable way on the spur of the moment an opportunity to cool off.

For example:
3 day ban
7 day ban
14 day ban
Permanent ban

Obviously common sense would need to be exercised when handing out bans.

Just to play devil's advocate though...what really is the point in a permanent ban? The user can just make another account. Okay they loose a username they like or whatever. So?

Yes that is true. If they come back and choose to behave appropriately then that is totally fine. If they keep offending then keep banning them, which is quick and simple for the mods and/or Admin, and make them jump through the hoops, albeit not very onerous ones, of changing email and username.

A very wise man once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", so everyone deserves an opportunity to come back and change their behaviour in a positive way.

One of the issues with the Internet is it is perceived to be the "Wild West" by some. You add anonymity and that the more subtle forms of communications such as expression, body language adds more issues for civil behavior on the Internet, be it Facebook, Tweeter, etc., on on a photography forum. Satire and sarcasm often don't translate in a multilingual environment while it is often a value form of communication.

Seems to me the first things that needs to be established is a "code of conduct." Such a code of conduct should be easily understood and state what is expected based on mutual respect and common courtesy. Such a code should be unambiguous and clear. DPR Rule 1 - Be Nice - is not unambiguous nor clear. Of course mods are needed. However, mod need a set of standards and rules to execute their function. There actions should be based on a well established code of conduct and guidelines and not their whim. Seemed to me on DPR - too often people didn't really understand the rules and code of conduct. Too often discussions evolved into "food fights even with flying personal insults" - leaving mods with little option other than locking threads and taking other actions.

The first step is to develop a code of conduct for the mods to use in their moderation. After that a structure for reasonable and consistent moderation should be developed so it is uniform. "An appellate "court" seems to be a bit too much as if an offender is banded - there is little way to keep them coming back under a different name.

Oh, no, please no fact checkers here.

Agreed, moderators should not be getting involved in whether a thread is factually correct or not.
Anyone flagging a posting because of this should be shot at dawn.

Anyway… moderators will be far too busy looking for bubblegum stuck under chairs. lol

Hi Nigel.
glad your using your old user name like me without being stalked and put on permanent moderation. i can totally agree with all your post, as you know I got the same response's from not only the mods but DPR staff, telling me to delete my gallery ( 700 images) and change my name so the mods wouldn't stalk me, the only problem was when i posted an extreme macro or a dance image i would be placed on moderation without even posting a comment LOL. same as you i was never rude to any member just posted my thoughts on equipment that i owned and lots of my favorite images. I will never forget posting an image in Portrait Forum in response to a post and getting a ban because Quote from mod mako2011 " i was belittling the op " ;-) ) that was enough for me and the portrait forum went from a vibrant social site to no one even posting there any more he single handed ruined the forum.

Don

I chose that language mostly to illustrate comments that are personal as opposed to being directed to the issue at hand. It's not intended to illustrate where I would personally draw a bright line of conduct that is prima facie unacceptable. Certainly, the issue of finding where that line resides is open to robust discussion and rigorous examination. I don't claim to have infallible wisdom on the issue.

I would personally draw a bright line at members dropping f-bombs and other profanities in their posts. If moderators are empowered to delete posts, that's one I'd delete first and ask questions later. At the other end of the spectrum, while criticism of my taste in music is personal in nature, I wouldn't consider that worthy of immediate intervention. I'm a Barry Manilow fan, after all.

I don't know of a foolproof way to objectively define where the threshold lies beyond which personal comments are unacceptable. The best I can offer is the suggestion to select moderators who would use the full authority of that position only as a last resort, would use private one-to-one communication as a first step toward correcting misbehavior, would escalate to corrective public communication if the behavior persists, and would take more formal action if the member ignores prior communication asking that they not resort to personal insults in their forum posts.

I do share your concern that moderation not err on the side of discouraging a robust exchange of ideas. It is a discussion forum and diversity of opinion should be encouraged. I also believe it's important to acknowledge that, while a single post in which I tell someone they're being naive may not rise to the threshold of deserving attention by a moderator, if this becomes my modus operandi and I repeatedly deploy similarly personal digs in my interactions with others, I should expect a moderator to step in and nudge me back in the "disagree without being disagreeable" lane.

Both conduct and moderation exist within spectrums. There has to be some latitude and grace extended by both parties.

It's certainly a very good start. Having worked on mission statements over the last 40 years I would say. Start with this. Shrink it by half an dmake it more punchy. Highlight the 3 key words and you are about done

I agree. It is not personal. If someone says things about the topic that, to the mind of someone else, is pretty shortsightened he can say that is a foolish and naive thing to say because....It is a statement about a remark of someone, not about someone. The remark and not the person is foolish and naive. So that is not ad hominem.
I think moderation is needed though.
1) People talking others down because they do not agree most of all if they do not tell them why it is.
2) People bashing other systems for just that reason.

Vey light in moderation I'd say. The very obvious troll should be banned for a while and if he/she continues banned for ever.