BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Old moderators advising new moderators...

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Tom Coates
12:04 / 28.06.03
So here's my suggestion - old mods give the young 'uns some pointers towards what is and what is not acceptable moderatorial procedure - or to put it in another way - "How to suggest moderator actions that we'll vote 'agree' on"...

My first suggestion - NEVER DRAMATICALLY EDIT THE TEXT OF A POST EVEN A TROLLISH ONE. Fix the odd typo if you want, correct the HTML by all means, but if you have to do major revisions to make it appropriate, then delete the post instead. It's still in the system and can be reinstated later if you've made a mistake...
 
 
Ganesh
12:57 / 28.06.03
I'd add that, if you feel a post requires editing, it's infinitely preferable to contact the poster in the first instance and request that they edit the post themselves.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:47 / 28.06.03
Yeah. You can always put a poster to fire and sword later, but it's very hard to rehydrate the smut on the floor once you've immolated them.

I still think we need a Shark Button.
 
 
Sax
20:39 / 28.06.03
Nick, tell me you're not outing yourself as QUINT. Please.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
07:30 / 29.06.03
Oh, God, I was for a while. I'd forgotten that. And half a dozen other versions of the same suit, actually.

But actually, the 'Shark' button was Mordant or Rothkoid's idea (I think) for dealing with very annoying people and threads in dire need of excitement.
 
 
Lionheart
04:40 / 30.06.03
Never ever EVER delete topic threads without notifying anybody. you've got to give at least 24 hour notice though I myself prefer 48 hours of notice.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
05:03 / 30.06.03
Mine. Something good had to come out of Deep Blue Sea.

My mod advice? Don't be quick to edit. And when you do, make the edits (HTML fixes, etc) as transparent/invisible as possible. It ain't your post, after all.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:07 / 30.06.03
Think about it and notify the person in question before suggesting a delete.

Tom, can we be "BarbeMentors," you know, take the new mods "under our wing" and show them around the place?
 
 
Sax
11:22 / 30.06.03
I think when a new poster says or does something non-Barbe a gentle PM to them works, especially if you just know what they've done is going to get them flamed. It helps prepare them, gives them the chance to moderate their own post, and explains why they got flamed.

Also, and this is from experience - be careful if you try to delete another poster's double-post. If you move the second post for deletion, they might simultaneously move the first post for deletion, leaving no posts at all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:57 / 30.06.03
Two things I question here:

Never ever EVER delete topic threads without notifying anybody. you've got to give at least 24 hour notice though I myself prefer 48 hours of notice.

I disagree. If a thread is duplicate, it needs to have a post put on it saying "this is a duplicate thread", with an suggestion that people post on the non-duplicate one. If a thread is clearly trolling, or utterly irrelevant and in the Revolution or the Spectacle, then it is reasonable to move to have it deleted or moved to the Conversation, with a message in-thread to that effect if necessary. If there is some complexity, then a discussion in-thread on what to do with the thread is often useful.

But a set time period? Why? The topic can always be reinstated if there's a problem.

Also, Tom, I love you dearly, but:

My first suggestion - NEVER DRAMATICALLY EDIT THE TEXT OF A POST EVEN A TROLLISH ONE. Fix the odd typo if you want, correct the HTML by all means, but if you have to do major revisions to make it appropriate, then delete the post instead. It's still in the system and can be reinstated later if you've made a mistake...

I would not "fix the odd typo", because by doing so I am imposing my idea of what *should* have been written over what somebody else *did* write. There are Barbeloids whose posts make little grammatical sense, or are badly spelled, but just because you *can* spell better, or believe yourself able to, you don't have the right to do so with their voice - that's how they have expressed themselves. We're not schoolteachers or subeditors.

If it is comprehensible, leave it. If it is incomprehensible, ask. If you really object to a misspelling, use your own voice to correct them.

Modding other people's posts without their permission should be a) because a link is broken, since one can be reasonably sure that they want the link to work or b) to resize an image, because it is deforming the frame or c) if HTML, for example an open bracket, is damaging the comprehensibility of the text, or possibly d) to put in spoiler space. If anyone has another idea of when editing *visible* text (i.e not HTML) is allowable, they are welcome to bowl it in, but this strikes me as a very bad idea.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:01 / 01.07.03
when editing *visible* text (i.e not HTML) is allowable

I'd say fixing typos in titles & abstracts, to help with the search function - I think 'comodified' was changed to 'commodified' in the Head Shop for this reason - is acceptable.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:29 / 01.07.03
Yeah, I proposed that one, for just that reason.
 
 
sleazenation
08:04 / 02.07.03
erm how does one resize an image again?
 
 
w1rebaby
11:23 / 02.07.03
add width="500" (or whatever) inside the img tag

The problem with that is that resizing the image's dimensions doesn't actually resize the image's filesize. If someone embeds a huge 500K picture, it remains a 500K picture when resized, and anyone on dial-up will take forever to load it.

Not much you can do about that. People just have to pick images that are small. Perhaps something for the wiki... I was actually going to give the "posting images" page a good going over, there are a few problems with it, but it's hell to post code examples in the wiki, isn't it? Is there any way round this?
 
 
cusm
16:45 / 02.07.03
I think there is a [nowiki] tag or something similar you can use to embed code. Check the code for the FormattingText page for examples.
 
 
Whisky Priestess
08:08 / 04.07.03
I agree with Haus about the spelling/grammar editing: people will regard our changes as needless busybodying and Christ, if I tried to correct all the infelicities of language on Barbelith I'd be here all ... life.

The other downside of tidying up people's ill-spelt and badly written posts is that, by making them less painful to read, you are lending the poster a spurious and undeserved air of, if not intelligence, literacy.

And my real question is - if I want to add a topic abstract (i.e. to the Think Too Much thread in the Conversation, how do I go about it?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:27 / 04.07.03
You go to "moderate topic," and it should all be clear to you when you get there.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:14 / 05.07.03
Yep - just remember to click on the right box before you submit the request - the default action is to move a thread to the Conversation, which can get terribly confusing...
 
 
Ganesh
08:49 / 07.07.03
I'd advise new moderators to forego the fuck ass postmodern pussy preaching of their College. Old geezer thigh-eating and freak-hating are also best avoided.
 
 
Tom Coates
16:54 / 09.07.03
Can anyone translate Ganesh for me? Re: typos - if someone writes in a highly idiosyncratic style, then personally I'd want to ask them to stop but I wouldn't do so, because it's up to them. But that's not the same as someone making a small typo in the course of their post. The whole point of small typos is that they're accidental errors that don't reflect on the personality of the person concerned. Don't forget that moderation here is distributed specifically so that if one person suggests a change that other people don't think is justified, they can say no and put a stop to it. As a rule of thumb, I'd only say "don't make any substantive change to someone else's post" - the level of what 'substantive' should mean being something between you and the people who will be voting on your action determine between you.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
17:06 / 09.07.03
Most of the time the poster responsible notices their own typo and submits it for correction anyway.

One change that I have been partly responsible for in the past is when people put multiple empty lines between paragraphs in their posts. I suspect some may class that as interference on a similar level to correcting someone's spelling for them, but I'd argue that huge empty gaps in posts makes threads look ugly and - in more practical terms - increases the length of each page (more of a serious point when that poster's contributed a number of posts that follow suit to one thread).
 
 
—| x |—
17:25 / 09.07.03
I've avoided posting to this thread because I am one of the "young 'un" moderators, but...I agree with Tom on the typo thing. I don't see any harm in deleting a double word, or adding a missing letter, or etc.. Not really substantive changes to people's messages, not really giving them any air they don't already have, etc.. Typos can be adjusted easily and without destroying or imposing anything upon a person's post (so long as we don't start "correcting" what is stylistic, as Tom points out).

As for grammar, I mean, who would really want to try? In one post I suggested for moderation, I recommended a small grammatical change because there was a "tense" problem or missing word or something (I can't quite recall). It didn't change the person's message in any drastic way, but simply made it easier to read (as the change said what they seemed to be saying). I mean, I know that some of my posts end up having terrible grammar mistakes simply because of poor editting and a sleepy head: I wouln't mind if a mod replaced, say, an 'is' with the appropriate 'are' (a mistake I make often when I am typing fast) when I've written something like "dogs and cats is good pets." Again, it simply makes things easier to read, and it is not any sort of dramatic reconstruction that alters the voice of the person in any serious manner.

That's my two cents.
 
 
Ganesh
17:54 / 09.07.03
I was Rage-talking, Tom, y'Bung Fungi.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:09 / 09.07.03
OK, so how about we do an "opt-in" system? If you don't mind having the body content of your posts edited for perceived errors in grammar and spelling, stick your name down in this thread...
 
 
Tom Coates
08:47 / 10.07.03
That's impossible and impractical to enforce. I'm going to start a rights and responsibilities component to the sign-up process, I think - but we really need to distribute the moderation process more and then let a culture emerge in suggested actions / agreements & disagreements.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:49 / 10.07.03
Nightmare. Edited for grammar? God help us. On the one hand we'd have to edit half the board and we'd end up with homogenised soup. On the other, there are going to be fights about proper use of commas and elipses.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:04 / 10.07.03
Personally, I think the moderators should be as hands off as possible. Adding abstracts and fixing html seem ok, but I can't see why a moderator would want to fix a typo or grammar. If it affects comprehension, one should PM the poster, if it doesn't then it should be left alone or again referred to the poster.

To be fair, I'm sure that small changes will cause no problems in the majority of cases. But I don't see why they should be carried out - it seems disturbingly paternalistic to me. And I can see that it might cause problems during a shit storm. In which case having guidelines about not editing anybody else's posts would save a lot of bother.

Are moderators here to maintain the essential functions of the board? Or are they here to make sure that no typos ever disgrace these hallowed pages?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
09:29 / 10.07.03
Add another vote to "leave grammar the fuck alone". Let people look like arses to those with better grammar-fu... it's too much dicking around, otherwise.

And besides, I have to feel (mostly) superior to somebody.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:25 / 10.07.03
Yeah. Plus I get pissed off with that little paperclip doodad which pops up in MSWord and tries to tell me that you spell 'agonise' with a 'z' and never an 's' - can you imagine how annoying that's going to get if you know it's an actual person being that pissy?
 
 
Tom Coates
14:25 / 10.07.03
I'm not suggesting that people should correct every typo that they see - by no way is typo correction a RESPONSIBILITY of moderators. On the other hand, if they see one and it annoys the buggery out of them (like bad formatting with lots of spaces does with me) then they should feel free to put it to the community of their peers and see what they think...
 
 
—| x |—
07:33 / 11.07.03
I don’t think that all and every grammatical error &/v typo ought to be remedied. However, in reading over some of my posts (and those of others), I do notice small mistakes that could easily be changed and would make for an easier read (esp. to those whose English might not be so good to begin with). Sometimes I mod my posts, sometimes I don’t. I am certainly not suggesting that mods &/v admin ought to rewrite and reconstruct every poorly written sentence! My God—Haus would be so busy that we’d never hear from him again!

The idea of PMing someone and asking them to fix a typo or grammatical mistake seems sort of ridiculous to me. I mean, it is such a round about way to make a small and inconsequential (other than the consequence of an easier read) change to a member’s message. As well, it seems somewhat overly passive, and even, perhaps to some, condescending: “Hello, I am a mod here and I feel the community would benefit if you changed those four typos in [insert link to post here] and that grammatical mistake in this sentence, ‘S’. Thank-you.” I mean, c’mon, fercrisakes!

As for the idea of editing typos in shit storm, I mean, why bother? We can exercise discretion, can’t we?

[NB, the above question are rhetorical and designed to provoke a “Yes” answer…]

[[NB: don’t you want to fix the mistake in the above sentence? Wouldn’t it make for an easier read and harm none?]]

[[[NB, the above question are rhetorical and designed to provoke a “Yes” answer…]]]

and so on…

Anyway, as for Nick’s peeve with Word and the possible Americanization of spelling, I am getting used to seeing an ‘s’ where I’d write a ‘z’ and so wouldn’t bother with it meself!
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:14 / 11.07.03
So, let me get this straight, no one is proposing fixing *every* typo, only those where we are motivated to do so by frustration. Well, when you put it like that...

The fact that this needs agreement by another moderator is a reasonable point, I suppose. But I would like to hear what other board members feel about it.

As well, it seems somewhat overly passive, and even, perhaps to some, condescending: “Hello, I am a mod here and I feel the community would benefit if you changed those four typos in [insert link to post here] and that grammatical mistake in this sentence, ‘S’. Thank-you.” I mean, c’mon, fercrisakes!

I agree to some extent. Changing the typo at all seems overly interfering to me and I don't understand why people would do it. What the above says is that it is far better to do these things without the knowledge or consent of the poster; to avoid being 'passive'.

As for the idea of editing typos in shit storm, I mean, why bother? We can exercise discretion, can’t we?

Mostly, sure. Always? I doubt it.

[[NB: don’t you want to fix the mistake in the above sentence? Wouldn’t it make for an easier read and harm none?]]

No and no.

[[[NB, the above question are rhetorical and designed to provoke a “Yes” answer…]]]

Exactly. These are often matters of taste.
 
 
—| x |—
09:53 / 11.07.03
“…let me get this straight, no one is proposing fixing *every* typo, only those where we are motivated to do so by frustration.”

I don’t think that qualifies as “getting it straight.” No one has said anything about fixing typos based on frustration. Personally, my posting style typically means I copy people’s messages to a Word file, and then write a response. This means that all the typos show up and it is easy for me to remedy them in this sort of situation. There’s no frustration, only convenience and ease, which results in these same things for other readers.

“What the above says is that it is far better to do these things without the knowledge or consent of the poster; to avoid being 'passive'.”

In a sense, yes—but likely not the sense you’ve in mind! What I mean is that if we are going to fix typos (if we feel like doing so), then what is the point about being so passive about it: simply do it. I find it difficult to believe that people are going to complain or feel violated if you fix a typo for them—personally, I’d be thankful: it’s better than having someone change the title of a thread without the knowledge or consent of the member who started it! I mean, I fail to see what the big deal is—we are bickering over typos, fercrisakes! Like Tom has expressed, it’s not like this is “required mod duties” or anything. If a mod wants to edit for typos, then why does it matter? It clears up the text, and any writer I know is happy to have hir typos caught and fixed.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:14 / 11.07.03
I'm thinking about why a moderator would edit for typos. Ease of reading? Perhaps. I can't say that I find the odd typo hard to decipher. And the idea that a moderator feels the need and the right to impose a certain standard seems dodgy to me.

I think most telling is the following,

If a mod wants to edit for typos, then why does it matter?

If a mod wants...The assumption here seems entirely wrong headed.

It clears up the text, and any writer I know is happy to have hir typos caught and fixed.

Right. So we can dismiss any *poster* objection. In fact, asking their opinion would be "passive". This attitude to moderation, while insignificant in the details perhaps, seems overly patronising.

But this is getting nowhere. I'd like to hear from posters. If people are happy to have mods police their mistakes, then I guess thats what people will do.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
14:17 / 11.07.03
To be quite honest, even if other posters *do* want moderators to fix spelling mistakes in their posts I'm not prepared to do it. Three reasons why.

Firstly, if someone is that damned lazy that they can't be bothered to read their own posts through after they've submitted them (preferably before), then I'm not about to spend my time on a 56k modem fixing what they couldn't be arsed to in the first place. Moderators are here to ensure the board runs smoothly, not tidy up after those who can't be bothered.

Secondly, I've never come across another message board where moderators fix spelling or typos of their own accord. Even on those where posts are routinely deleted for being percieved as offensive or off-topic it'd be seen as petty, paternalistic (cheers Lurid, I was trying to think of a word to express my main objection to it and you nailed it right on the head), overbearing interference.

Which leads neatly into point three. I've just been discussing a recent moderation decision with someone via PM, explaining why I disgreed with an action that I considered too harsh and instead went for a slightly lighter decision. It's all about how moderation was initially introduced to Barbelith and the reasons why. Simply put, whenever the issue was raised I was always anti-moderation, as were nearly all other posters here. It became an inevitability when the board started to gain vast numbers of new members and greater publicity. It was stated at the time that all moderation actions should be transparent and as minor as possible, and all moderators should be accountable. Always avoid unnecessary action. One of the ways to ensure that moderation powers are not misused is to stop moderators from sticking their fingers in when there's not really any good reason for doing so. Allowing moderators to fiddle with the contents of somebody else's posts without that person first requesting it themselves, even for a seemingly minor action such as fixing a typo, leads us into a murky grey area where it's easy for an unscrupulous moderator to alter a post's meaning or someone else to accuse a moderator of doing so.

And, quite apart from anything else, moderators aren't selected on their ability to spell correctly or produce perfect grammar. They're certainly not selected on their ability to avoid typos.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply