Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Not ratifying any moderation action which hasn't got a reason..

Tom Coates

08:44 / 15.12.02

Right - from now on, if I see a moderation action that hasn't got a reason explaining why the post needs a change (ie. "double post", "changed spelling of tree" - whatever) then I'm going to disagree on principle. Not putting in a reason just makes the moderators job really slow.

Cherry Bomb

09:51 / 15.12.02

My first instinct is, "I agree." But my second thought is some people who are new to Barbelith may not know that they HAVE to give a reason just to change something. Is there a way to introduce that as a compulsory field? What I do now is usually pm the person if there's a problem like this. But a compulsory field would be easier.

bio k9

09:51 / 15.12.02

I like to write "Because I demand it!" Is that still ok?

No.

Often I feel my reasons for alteration and deletion are better than the posts themselves.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:38 / 15.12.02

The reasons are often my favourite part to read when moderating.
Seriously, though, this makes sense, but I see the point about new users. A compulsory field would speed things up doubly. But (this also links to a point raised a while back) on those (frequent) occasions when the modified post appears as identical (or even is just slightly different but very long) it's a real hassle going through two huge wodges of text and not knowing what you're looking for.

Seth

13:39 / 15.12.02

Fair enough. I suppose I've been as guilty of this as anyone. That and making dumb unfunny jokes in my amendment fields.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

12:16 / 16.12.02

I don't see any reason why any newbie shouldn't be able to work these things out for themselves, we've been fairly lucky on Barbelith with not having that many brain-dead cretins and if they are wondering why their stuff gets rejected they could always start a 'why do my requests for moderation' thread here.

(And to whoever it was that tried to get something changed this morning/late last night, I couldn't see any difference between the two versions of what you posted, which is why I said 'no')

Tryphena Absent

13:59 / 16.12.02

Hmm, are we directing new folks to read the FAQ? If we are then we can revise what's been said there and just say straight out that any moderation request will not be fulfilled without a reason in the required space.

Tom Coates

22:10 / 16.12.02

I'm going to see if it's basically possible for me to redesign the FAQ so that it resembles the rest of the site, and then I'm thinking of putting it on the top navigation to the site. I'm unbelievably proud of it as well, by the way - everyone's done terribly well...

grant

13:42 / 17.12.02

That wiki business is so in the spirit of the site. And, I suppose, the web in general.

Sax

06:18 / 19.12.02

Well, I've just had a request for modification from one poster (no names mentioned... actually, fuck it, it was YOU, Felicia Hardy on Testosterone) For a long rambling post that had no reason for a moderation request and after three readings I still couldn't see what had been changed. So I agree with Tommo.

Add Your Reply