| |
|
1) Well, I think that's where best practice comes in. To stick wiith our current and instructive example, I would say that Could someone moderate the summary to this thread into something that isn't so unnecessarily offensive and stupid? is a sub-optimal request. It neither identifies a specific problem nor suggests a resolution, since the requested action is to change it in a way that resolves an issue that has not been explained outside the context of the emotions of the requester, represented as fact: that is, a moderator action should be taken to make it less unnecessarily stupid and offensive, but what makes it stupid and offensive to an unnecessary degree is not specified, leading possibly to a moderator going to it in the expectation of finding something stupid and offensive and thus reading it as, say, a personal attack on somebody within the thread's reaction to the thread having been moved. You might want to compare this post is breeching etiquette, trust and ethics; an emotive appeal that may colour subsequent readings, and causes an immediate problem for moderators...
So, I would suggest that some contributions to this thread are currently below what I'd like to see as the minimum standard for a moderation request - a moderator proposing an action directly has to offer a specific change and give a specific reason, and I don't see a problem with the same standards appplying in this thread. And thus, no, the statement that this is being done already is incomplete - it is being done, but not always to a satisfactory level.
Alternatively, one might possibly post "could a moderator look at (x) and judge what action they feel is appropriate regarding it", but it seems a bit information-light...
2) Should it be that they copy the text and then PM it back to the person who they are editing?
That's what Seth did with his deletions, and it seems sensible practice for a significant modification - deletion is easier, since the thread/post is still accessible, but I believe that modified text is not currently stored by Barbelith's archiving. I'm not sure that providing another bottleneck around Tom (requests for deleted or moderated text) is a good idea. So, we can a) decide that if soomething important is deleted Tom exists as a first and last resort for retrieviing it, b) decide that if something is changed or deleted that should be that and deny recourse except in as-yet-unidentified circumstances or c) decide on a mechanism whereby text is returned to the poster, for example by PM, if that text is lengthy or significant - that also has the advantage of rewarding effort in contribution.
Topic summaries make up a very small number of changes, and as such I don't see a vast complication in this. A responsible moderator could probably keep it on file for a bit and ask in the thread, f'r example, whose text it was and whether they wanted it. Since there are on average eight people or so who have the ability to change any given summary in the first place, and they should all be taking an interest in the forum they are moderating, it should not be beyond the bounds of credulity to assume that they will read this and the issue can thus be resolved pretty quickly.
There's a broader philosophical question about the way moderation happens (conciliation is a relevant term here) - in this case, for example, we had one set of moderators voting to overturn the decision of a previous set of moderators. That could in other circumstances lead to threads being bounced repeatedly from forum to forum, or text being repeatedly revised and returned. That's a broader question, and probably deserves its own thread - Tom has set up the board to support the idea that if in doubt one should allow content to stand, and I have a feeling that it makes sense for each change to make the next change less desirable, as the extant situation has been created not by one poster but by a quorum of moderators. As I say, broader question. |
|
|
