BARBELITH underground
 

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


Moderation Task reasons

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:15 / 04.09.02
Nick has now had his big drama queeny strop for the day, and we can all go home and rest.

Since this was a public statement anyway, in that it appeared as a Moderation request to change a post, I don't see the harm in repeating it here.

Yeah. It's quite funny. I don't think it's a terribly useful way to approach moderation, however. I happened to get the request, so I thought I'd bring it up.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
16:58 / 04.09.02
What the heck was being moderated?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:58 / 04.09.02
Well, if that was the sole content of a moderator's attempt to persuade others to edit or delete another Barbeloid's post, then it is outrageously flippant and should certainly have been denied, and the moderator in question reprimanded according to individual conscience. As we have established, editing another person's post is not to be undertaken lightly.

If, on the other hand, it was some random Barbeloid modifying their own post, I'm not sure what the problem is, exactly. If moderator requests are a public forum, as this thread presupposes, this is presumably no worse than saying Nick has had a big drama queeny strop on the board, which seems fairly tame compared to some of the insults bandied about here both seriously and in jest. If moderator requests are private or privileged, then this is presumably equivalent to saying that Nick has had a big drama queeny strop in a private message, which I was not aware it was incumbent upon Barbeloids to censor.

It does raise an interesting question - are moderation requests like private messages (and remember the "Ierne's Blind Date" fiasco, kids), or like posts to Barbelith? If somebody entertainingly fucks up a moderation request, or says something revealing or embarrassing, for example, is it acceptable practice for a moderator to publish it on the board for yucks?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:02 / 04.09.02
You send a private message to an individual. A moderation task message will be read by at least one person, not specifically selected, though it is possible for more than one to see it, I think. In any case, Moderator communications are for wearing the grown up hat.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:05 / 04.09.02
But are moderator communications communications *with* moderators or communications *by* moderators? I would go on to ask if there is a qualitative difference between editing somebody else's posts and one's own, but we have already established elsewhere that there is.
 
 
Tom Coates
22:09 / 04.09.02
Just to be a complete and overwhelming megabitch, can anyone who's planning to complain about moderation requests - even very good friends of mine - PLEASE WRITE AN ABSTRACT ON ALL THEIR NEW THREADS. Otherwise the lynching will begin...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
23:00 / 04.09.02
[aside]
Tom; is there ever going to be - the mysterious Column 2 springs to life? - a way to see abstracts without going into the thread? Even if it's just a mod-only tool? It'd make it easier on housekeeping, I spose.

[/aside]

I think it's pretty clear-cut, as Haus and Nick have both suggested: mod requests *will* be read, and ergo should be treated as -somewhat- public. Posting them for yuks is probably a bit iffy, and I wouldn't do it, I guess. I would, however, ask that people actually bother to put the requests *in*, rather than just whacking in an edit request and not bothering to explain why.

I like to think that my subtly self-deprecating mod requests ("I fucked it up. Again. Because I cannot spell.") at least raise a smile somewhre, which is pretty much all I can ask...
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:01 / 04.09.02
While we're on the subject, I swear that roughly eighty percent of the moderation requests I'm receiving don't alter the original post in any way whatsoever. I'll read and compare the original with the proposed change and... nothing. Someone say that it's not just me.
 
 
Mazarine
15:13 / 05.09.02
I get about 20% like that, I'd say.
 
 
Tom Coates
15:20 / 05.09.02
Yeah it's much easier if people clarify what they're changing in their reason field. We know this to be true... But really, there isn't any need for people to be snarky in them... Still - never mind now...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:54 / 05.09.02
E. Randy... I've had a few like that too. And wondered why.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
07:52 / 06.09.02
I don't see any problem with people being snippy/rude/stoopid in the reason field of their moderation request. Surely this is another example of having to swap between your fictionsuit hat and your moderator hat as and when you're performing each function... and, to be honest, the above hardly qualifies as vicious abuse or slander. It's just petticatty (Jack's New Word for the day). Hardly worth having a strop about. Y'old drama queen.

I too, have had the mysterious request to alter a post with no alteration visible. Also with no reason given. Why (oh why) should I have to pore through all of a person's post, or in some cases, half of a thread, to detect and sort a problem that should have been brought to my attention to begin with? I get enough of that at work, for Christ's sake... Recently I've begun implementing a blanket DISAGREE on all such cases, and have PMed the entity concerned to advise them. So far no one's come forward to re-request the edit with a reason added, which probably speaks for itself in terms of the importance of the request.
 
 
cusm
13:59 / 06.09.02
Note that being snarky in requests to alter your own posts is very different from a mod being snarky in altering someone else's post. You can call yourself stupid all you like and we'll laugh along with you. The thing to avoid is for moderators to start slinging about when altering the work of others. That's where its a bit touchy, and time for the grown-up hat.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:31 / 07.09.02
So, it seems that if this was a request to moderate somebody's one post, then it is qualitatively different to an attempt by somebody to moderate somebody else's post.

Any advance?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:54 / 07.09.02
The no-reason thing is a bit of a pain (and by "pain" I mean total thundering nusiance), but my wrath is tempered by my understanding of the arcane mysteries of the Moderation Request.

So hark, Oh Puny Mortal Non-Moderators, while I explain. When you alter your post, the moderators will see a little link at the top of their screen saying that there are moderation tasks for that forum. When we click the link, we see the original post followed by the altered post, the reason for the request, and the option to agree or disagree with the change. If you've made a big change in a short post, it is easy to spot and there are no probs.

If, on the other hand, you've changed one letter in a six-hundred word post and your reason for requesting said change consists entirely of "sp.", then you're looking at Wrath. When you pay us to proofread, we'll proofread. Till then a simple "Changed fether to feather" will help you to avoid mod-rage.

It's especially important to stay on the right side of the Magick mods. You wouldn't like us when we're angry.

We can... do things.
 
 
Ariadne
20:50 / 08.09.02
Well. I think I've just discovered the reason for the confusion over posts that don't seem to need changed - MC kind of explains above, but the basic version is: misunderstanding of the process.

Tonight I accidentally posted my home address to the board. Gulp. And so I immediately requested a change. But i didn't understand how it worked, and so it took immense patience on the part of trijhaos to get it changed.

I just hit 'moderate' and wrote my concerns in the bottom box. I.e. "please get rid of this post". But because I hadn't hit 'delete' or changed the wording in the top box, there was little xe could do. And so my address stayed on the site for a lot longer than it should have.

So I think that pretty much explains it - people are writing the changes they want in the 2nd box and not altering the first, because it's not clear that that's what they should do. And then the mods are confused.

Thanks again to trijhaos.
 
 
Tom Coates
21:41 / 08.09.02
We clearly need some more help text around the place, which next time I get a moment I'll endeavour to build in. In the meantime, I think individuals with issues should keep those issues wherever possible in private messages and only drag it into the spotlight when they feel they have no other choice. And that means no sniping about people in moderation requests and no griping about the same on the board. Generally, genuinely, remember - if you're arguing with a difficult person, you will generally win the argument by being the person who appears most reasonable.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:08 / 09.09.02
I had a similar thing with the Delete/Modify post thing, asked a stupid question that was answered by the Abstract for the Thread and had to send two requests to delete my post. Is it really necessary to have the two seperate functions? Surely Moderators have the ability to delete posts already, so why not just in the reason write 'please delete this post' and be done with it?
 
  
Add Your Reply