Petition to End Moderating

Wed, 10 Sept 2008, 07:52 pm

On a different thread, Dazza said: I think that everyone needs to have their moderation rights revoked! I for one would be happy to give up the privelage of moderation if it means that this silly consorship will stop. I have echoed these sentiments on my blog: As for moderating comments, I have a suggestion. If we can't use it, we lose it. I am prepared to lose my ability to moderate comments if other people are misusing it. If the content is defamatory or illegal, perhaps we should leave Grant to sort it out. What does everyone else think? I propose that since this is a public forum, we make a democratic petition to make an amendment to the website, namely, no registered member has the option to moderate comments. If you are for or against the abolishment of moderating powers, please post with a yes or no. Let the people's choice count.

Thread (41 posts)

Threaded Flat

Daniel KershawWed, 10 Sept 2008, 07:52 pm

Bass GuyWed, 10 Sept 2008, 08:07 pm

Seconded, Kershaw.

With you on this one. I vote we get rid of the whole moderation business. It's causing more trouble than it's worth. Eliot McCann "proud and insolent youth; prepare to meet thy doom!"

LogosWed, 10 Sept 2008, 09:27 pm

Not surprisingly

I agree but then I'm opposed on general principles to censorship of any kind. edit: This is getting ridiculous. Someone seems to have moderated down every post that Moory has put on the site and a completely innocuous thank you post on a thread about NIDA has been moderated down. Someone is just doing this to create a fuss aren't they. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Grant MalcolmWed, 10 Sept 2008, 10:03 pm

Having your moderation cake...

...and eating it too.

Whether or not a comment is reduced to a subject line depends on two things: the number of votes and what comment viewing options you've selected.

If you're offended by posts being moderated to a subject line, change the comment viewing options to "All the rubbish"

If you don't want to have to skim past content others might have moderated down, select "Best of the best".

Or something in between.

Essentially in almost all cases _you_ have a choice between sanitised and warts and all versions. The default will be marginally sanitised depending on the votes provided.

I'll continue to keep an eye on this. It may be that some further adjustments to moderation formulae are necessary as more people get the hang of using the system. I'll let you all know.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

Daniel KershawWed, 10 Sept 2008, 10:35 pm

Thanks for the info Grant.

Louisa FitzhardingeWed, 10 Sept 2008, 11:01 pm

I agree - the moderation on

I agree - the moderation on here has gotten a bit ridiculous lately. Although perhaps, if moderation abilities are revoked, we could look at renaming the 'report as spam' button to 'report as offensive' or something like that; that way Grant doesn't have to sort through every thread to find posts that he needs to deal with. Another option could be to nominate a few contributors as 'moderators', so only content they deem offensive would be removed. --- Louisa Fitzhardinge University Dramatic Society http://uds.asn.au

Daniel KershawWed, 10 Sept 2008, 11:09 pm

Louisa said: Another option

Louisa said: Another option could be to nominate a few contributors as 'moderators', so only content they deem offensive would be removed. - this is a good idea, especially if I get to wield that power irresponsibly.

drueThu, 11 Sept 2008, 12:38 am

moderators...

I have to agree with Louisa, I think having a few moderators would be a great idea... Just as an example they actually use this idea on the website www.dance.net It seems to work fairly well... although in order to post on this website you "must" be registered... Still I'd say it would be worthwhile idea to look at! ~Drue

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 07:48 am

I believe Grant does have

I believe Grant does have to check the posts that are marked as spam (correct me if I'm wrong oh great site admin). My vote: I don't mind either way. If the majority wants the moderation gone, I'm fine with that. I don't agree with appointing a handful of official 'moderators' - that could just as well lead to abuse. Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

DazzaBThu, 11 Sept 2008, 08:36 am

Yes on Proposition "End Moderating"

I'm putting in my yes vote right here, right now. I can't agree with the concept of "some" people having the power to moderate though as, like Na says, this just leads to another form of abuse. "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams

JoeMcThu, 11 Sept 2008, 09:00 am

As with nearly every other

As with nearly every other forum, have either selected moderators or as suggested keep a spam button, to alert a Moderator &/or Grant to adjudicate on the content. Also to post you need to be registered as a member.

Instead of always bitching about the Walter Wally's - get rid of them completely!

jeffhansenThu, 11 Sept 2008, 09:11 am

Moderators

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the editors such as Na, Labrug, crgwlms and a few others already have the power to remove posts? I think I remember this being stated somewhere along the track. Yes, most sites, especially those with a CHAT facility have moderators, and I have no problem with having the same here. Of course, they would need to be long time users with a solid reputation before being appointed. www.meltheco.org.au

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 10:40 am

Nope. I have the ability to

Nope. I have the ability to vote and report spam just like everyone else; no special removal functions here. The only thing I can do is to add threads to the FAQ. Even if I did have the ability, I wouldn't use it. It's not up to me to decide what's a good post and what's a bad one... outside of using the vote function occasionally like everyone else. Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

LogosThu, 11 Sept 2008, 11:07 am

Give me the power.

You WILL give me the power to moderate and I WILL moderate all of you of the site until only I am left. It's getting worse, there's a real storm of it going on. Can we work out who is doing it and perhaps issue a stern warning. I don't seem to be able to. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 11:15 am

Grant could easily find out

Grant could easily find out the person's IP address, but the only thing he could do is ban that address: this neither stops someone from continuing (since IPs rotate) nor sends a notification to the person (that would convince them to stop). LOL - maybe you should have power! Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 12:59 pm

Reading with interest

I've been holding back on the disussion as I am for moderation and appear to be in a minority. Personally, I think the problem rest not with the powers of moderation, yet I acknowledge they can be abused, but that it is more that there is far more negative moderation and not enough positive moderation.

When first given the ability to moderate posts, I'll admit that that is exactly what I did - moderated down those posts that I thought were slanderous without content, or spam attacks - attacks without relevance.

I now focus far more on positive moderation - voting up comments.

I believe in moderation of some sort and most site like this do engage some form of moderation facility, being in the sole hands of the site admin, a delegated list of power users, or thrust into the hands of any member upon reaching a certain status level. It's not censorship as far as I see it unless through moderation comments are removed completely. I am not sure (100%) that this does that as such. Grant would know better of course.

You as a reader still have the choice to view all these posts either by selecting the heading line or by adjusting your post filter options. Freedom of expression and freedom of choice being exercised on both fronts.

If you see a post moderated down and find it unworthy of the mod, then switch your filter to see ALL THE RUBBISH, find the post and mod it up. I do.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 02:50 pm

Couldn't put it better

"It's not censorship as far as I see it unless through moderation comments are removed completely." "Freedom of expression and freedom of choice being exercised on both fronts." Why is it that moderation is seen so much as censorship? How is this different than everyday life, where we choose which newspapers we read and what conversations we want to listen to - or what music we like? I don't watch the football. Does this mean I'm censoring the athletes who take part? Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

LogosThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:22 pm

i/ Moderation is often an attempt to remove from general sight posts that offend the moderator. This is censorship as it assumes that the moderator has the right to dictate who reads what. (I am not totally opposed to moderation the removal of genuinely scurrilous, obscene and offensive posts should be carried out but not simply because people disagree.) 2/ You by choosing not to watch football are not attempting to stop others from watching football. This is your choice you are not imposing it on others. The moderator is imposing his view on others. You can choose to read the paper or book or watch the TV show you want to. You can choose to read posts or not. If somone moderates them they are removing choice. Why am I explaining this to you Na, I bet you wanted somebody who disagrees to comment. Thanks Jeff for all the demoderating you seem to have done. I've done a bit. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:32 pm

No... I really am just

No... I really am just tired of this conversation. It seems to be all we've discussed this year. You know I am normally an advocate of free speech above and beyond (and normally agree with you on these matters). Perhaps I've just stopped getting annoyed at this stuff. I am fully happy to go along with whatever is decided; I hope Grant turns up to put in his two bits about any issues that might be going on in the backend and/or his views on the subject. Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:32 pm

Personal to Overall

Its a valid point Na. If the moderation REMOVES the post, then that is censorship because it has completely removed the possibility of another person viewing it and making their own opinion.

While moderating posts down on this site reduces the post to a header line, which I think some see as 'removal' in a way, people are still able to view the message, comment on it, and if they set their filters correctly, even moderate it themselves. To me, that is not censorship however it is akin to enforcing one's opinion on others without their consent, which can be seen as a form of censorship I s'pose. Then again, if enough people participate in the activity it simply becomes a democratic process like any state or federal election.

If on the other hand, a person was to choose what "newspapers" they themselves were to read or not read, this decision would not impact another's ability to chose similarly for themselves. This would be the same as the site having no moderation facility what-so-ever. Everyone gets to see everything and they choose to read or not to read as the case may be. However, newspapers and magazines are "moderated" in their own way through editorial approvals and so forth, so I think the comparison is a little lacking. Having no moderation on this or other sites would be comparable to a newspaper being run by the journalists with content approval. They could write what-ever they wanted, and you wouldn't have the opportunity to comment, unless you happen to write to the editor, and they didn't take offence to your letter. That would be more like an unmoderated, and registered users only site.

I'm getting a bit carried away here. You gave me a visual idea Na and I took it several thousand miles. I'll crawl back in my box now.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

LogosThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:38 pm

Take a look at tech talk

My partner and I have just had a look in the Tech talk forum and it has been decimated, The whole radio mics thread was moderated. I've moderated it up with Rapunzels help and will examine some more threads. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:43 pm

This is a prime example

... of the power of moderation. If a post is not moderated up by anyone, than a single down vote, a vote of 1, will knock the post down. We need more people to vote up. Vote all posts. If you are sick and tired of posts being moderated down, then take action like Logos and start voting posts up. Have a positive impact on the content of this site. Have your say on what stays and do not let those taking advantage of the low moderation interaction reduce this forum. You have the power to choose.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 03:45 pm

Then maybe this issue is

Then maybe this issue is not about the actual act of moderation and more about problems with Grant's fine-tuning of the function. Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

DazzaBThu, 11 Sept 2008, 04:17 pm

Okay, so I still think that

Okay, so I still think that in general the moderation function here is being mis-used, but I'm taking on board the point that we need to moderate up as well as down. I'll admit to being one who doesn't think to moderate up - if the post is still visible then there's no problem right? Wrong - as Jeff says "If a post is not moderated up by anyone, than a single down vote, a vote of 1, will knock the post down." So, I've started trying to remember to moderate up. I'm sure we can all agree that Grant has enough work to do as it is without re-writing the code for the site to take away the moderation feature. And realistically, I don't want that to happen, I was just coming from a "if you abuse a privelage it should be taken away" stand point. But I'm now going to throw my lot in with Jeff and Logos and start moderating where it is waranted as often as I can remember - in an upwards fashion, not downwards. Maybe this is the answer - if enough of us do this then the few who are taking advantage of the moderation system will lose their power and hopefully get bored and start using their time in more positive ways. DazzaB "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Scott Adams

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 04:24 pm

Nailled

Dazza, you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Yes, by the very functionality of the Moderation feature, it requires volume to be effective. Consistent volume. Not just when you see a need. All the time.

Sadly, it is the bad things in life that get the attention. All too often, we forget to acknowledge to good things in life. The same is true for moderation. Forget to acknowledge to good things, and they soon will be forgotten.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

NaThu, 11 Sept 2008, 04:33 pm

It wouldn't necessarily be

It wouldn't necessarily be a rewrite of code. My guess is that (since this site uses an out-of-the-box program) it's just a matter of 'unplugging' the moderating feature... of course, that doesn't necessarily include a few design issues to remove the actual code from the page layout. Without him being here to answer, it's hard to know just how much work is involved in any changes we'd like made. Mermaid shadow puppet now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jeffhansenThu, 11 Sept 2008, 04:45 pm

Then I stand

Then I stand corrected. www.meltheco.org.au

Walter PlingeThu, 11 Sept 2008, 07:01 pm

Mod

I think moderation on this website is great. Everyone is just talking absolute bullshit all the time anyway.

Grant MalcolmThu, 11 Sept 2008, 08:05 pm

If it aint broke...

don't fix it.

Any experienced Drupal developer will tell you that a fair bit of this site is anything but "out of the box"

:-)

But the code is very modular and moderation can be switched off with the click of a button.

In spoke of some vocal support, there is far from a consensus on this and I suspect, in light of some of the clarification provided by posters above, some might now accept a change isn't necessary.

A fair few people have realised two things in the last couple of days:

1) they can change their comment viewing preferences up and down according to their personal taste- hiding or revealing comments

2) they've developed a new found appreciation and passion for voting or moderating - not just in the sense of censoring the less palatable but also endorsing the worthy.

Given the increased number of votes or moderations, I've made a small modification to the ratings which should make it a little less easy to moderate things away.

Regards
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 08:23 pm

Yay for Grant!

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

Bass GuyThu, 11 Sept 2008, 08:36 pm

We Are The Mods, We Are The Mods....

We Are, We Are, We Are The Mods.... To reduce the entirety of this discussion to "Everyone is just talking absolute bullshit all the time anyway" does nothing to further or hinder the arguments for or against... particularly when these ill-advised "thoughts" are articulated by yet another "Walter"... "Proud and insolent youth; prepare to meet thy doom!"

Daniel KershawThu, 11 Sept 2008, 08:40 pm

Assumption

Grant, I am prepared to accept any decision you make, but I think it is unfair to assume that people have the time or want to moderate comments, whether it is up or down. I personally don't want to waste time moderating the comments I read. I just want to read the thread uninterrupted. This also means, I don't want to change my filter settings. As you saw with the All Shook Up threads, people were misusing the moderate function for their own agendas, leading to a great deal of that discussion being moderated. My worry is if the site becomes non-user friendly, then people will simply stop visiting. I am also supportive of the idea of making amendments to the moderating system if it will help. As always Grant, I thank you for your response and your endless work to keep this wonderful website running. Thank you.

LabrugThu, 11 Sept 2008, 09:05 pm

Two Birds...

Dan, IMHO if you have time to read, you have time to moderate. Set your filter to ALL THE RUBBISH, save it and that becomes your default from now on - unless you change it later. Even when you log out and come back a day or four later. As you read, you moderate. The only additional thing you need do is to then click the Moderate button once done.

If anyone adopts a policy of moderating all posts they read with the approprate filter setting, then it will not take that much more time than that spent reading the posts in the first place.

Then again, it only takes a handful of people to start positive moderation to counter the effects of the few moderation abusers out there, so it you don't want to participate in moderation, then that is your choice of course and I am sure no-one will hold it againsts you.

We don't need EVERYONE to moderate, just enough.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

Walter PlingeFri, 12 Sept 2008, 02:15 pm

Bass guy aren't you just

Bass guy aren't you just hiding behind an identity too? Or are you really Captain Hook? Also, the tagline at the end of each comment...necessary?

LabrugFri, 12 Sept 2008, 03:15 pm

He's not hiding

I click on his User Name and I can see his real name, roughly where he resides and other stuff. I can't click on Walter Kennedy and find out anything further about that though can I.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

drueFri, 12 Sept 2008, 03:33 pm

a change of heart...

Well I did state that I thought having moderators would be a good idea and I totally stand by that... well kinda! :P I've changed my settings to "All The Rubbish" and for me personally it's not a problem anymore, the only thing I would worry about is those users who are, a) new to the site b) don't use the site regularly or c) aren't registered and therefore don't have the option (well really they should register anyway... I mean it's not difficult!) It's these users that will most likely be subjected to a broken strand of conversation and may just stop using the site because it can get confusing?

Daniel KershawFri, 12 Sept 2008, 07:10 pm

Drue, C) is an excellent

Drue, C) is an excellent point :)

Bass GuyFri, 12 Sept 2008, 07:12 pm

Three answers for Mr Kennedy.

1) "Bass guy aren't you just hiding behind an identity too?" Both yes and no. I'm not hiding per se (obviously I was not born with the name Bass Guy) but when I first started this account I couldn't use "Eliot McCann" as my account login for some reason. I play bass, and am male; hence "Bass Guy". 2) "Or are you really Captain Hook?" Good GOD, no!!! I'm just lucky enough to be playing him in Marloo's "Peter Pan" later this year. Besides, Hook's picture is prettier than any of me. 3) "Also, the tagline at the end of each comment... necessary?" No, not necessary, but appropriate given the circumstances. It is a famous line of Hook's from "Peter Pan". Although I will confess it does sum up my feelings on some of the comments I read on this site.... hee hee hee... Hoping this clears things up. TTFN, El "Proud and insolent youth; prepare to meet thy doom!"

Luke HeathSat, 13 Sept 2008, 02:16 pm

"bass"is for criticism

Even though he uses "Bass Guy" as his sign-in name, he signs most of his posts with his real name... so how can that be hiding his identity?

Walter PlingeSat, 13 Sept 2008, 02:40 pm

Point taken Luke.I was

Point taken Luke. I was trying to just identify what is wrong with anonomous sign in? Why is it necessary to know the persons name? The tagline comment was just bitchiness really, no point was being made there. 'Most of his posts'- Luke Im not on here often enough

LabrugSat, 13 Sept 2008, 07:14 pm

It needs but a few.

Newbies can access the FAQs where some of the details are located. Quite often old threads are brought back to help inform those new members.

At the end of the day, it only takes a few to overcome rubbish votes. Due to the averaged system, it would take about 5 negative votes to over come 1 excellent and reduce a post to a single headline. That's about a 1 to 5 ratio. However, Grant has recently adjusted the algorithim, so I'd say it would be even higher.

Absit invidia

Jeff Watkins

Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page

Finding an Agent - ITA

← Back to Billboard Bulletins