Jacob advised that he wants this forum to be self-directed by its members. Members include moderators. I'm calling them out, not Jacob.

Moderators need rules, and the rest of us should know what those rules are. I thought he was looking for some kind of consensus for guidelines. giving carte blanche to moderators without any guidelines is a recipe for more discord than we've had here already. People need to know why things happen.

I want everyone to know that I'm reading this thread and thinking a lot about this.

In terms of deleting posts, vs editing just part of them -- there is a strong argument for deleting. According to how the law works, every individual is liable for their posts, unless those posts are edited. If they're edited, then the person who edited them is open to liability as well. If we have an official policy of editing, then the forum as a whole is legally liable for all posts. That's a dangerous situation.

Right now, I'm thinking there should be a set of standard reasons for a post to be moderated. When that happens, the entire post should be replaced with one of the standard reasons. The next step would be to create the list, and to create clear guidelines for when to use them. I definitely do not like moderation, and prefer things to not be censored. But, their is definitely a need for moderation, and I do think the moderation program is due for an upgrade.

Thanks for the insight. As evidenced by the differing opinions, we have our work cut out for us.

For once, I actually agree with dspeakes. Moderators do need rules. There cannot be certain posts that are moderated at will while some others are not moderated at all. It conveys a double standard when it shouldn't.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2015 12:14AM by Eric in Tampa.

Sorry, Eric. I'm trying to read your mind, but can't. I don't understand the third sentence.

I had no idea about the liability if a post is edited. Is the post considered edited if it was deleted entirely?

That's a lot to think about, especially if the moderators are volunteers. I wouldn't want to be sued over a post in this forum, especially if I was volunteering. That being said, I think the best suggestion is one that Jacob came up with:

"Right now, I'm thinking there should be a set of standard reasons for a post to be moderated. When that happens, the entire post should be replaced with one of the standard reasons. The next step would be to create the list, and to create clear guidelines for when to use them. I definitely do not like moderation, and prefer things to not be censored. But, their is definitely a need for moderation, and I do think the moderation program is due for an upgrade."

I have seen where mods have stepped in where there was name calling and personal insults, and have seen where there was no moderation. We, as forum members, can call the offending posters out on it but some are not going to stop because they are "allowed" to get away with it because the mods do not delete the post.

If there was more consistency in moderation I think that a fade away button wouldn't be needed (flag button would be just fine) and above scenario would be remedied. I, too, have concerns about people taking sides and having a dogpile on the poster.

I would also like, no LOVE, if the mods had the ability to delete spammer accounts. If they do it once, they will do it again.

Also, I recall someone making the suggestion about the need to contact the mods. If there is a situation that is not being dealt with, with clear-cut guidelines in place, I would have to assume the situation did not fit the guidelines, and it should be Jacob that should be contacted, not the mods because they are only following his guidelines.

I appreciate mod comments when they're helpful in setting a positive tone and establishing boundaries. The following comments fail:

"<Inflammatory, highly disturbing, and not even remotely funny remark involving multiple other posters removed. Seriously, WTH dude?>"

I find the moderator comments to be inflammatory. "Highly disturbing and not even remotely funny" are subjective, and weren't needed in the chide. "Seriously, WTH dude". There's nothing wrong with that in conversation, but the phrase is inappropriate in an editorial context.

My post has absolutely nothing to do with the deleted post.

I have to agree with Mert that we seem to have a mod who seems to be seeking acclaim for what he/she may think are droll comments, but which actually are unnessesarily disruptive in and of themselves. If a post is offensive or disrespectful, a simple "edited for disrespect of forum members" will certainly suffice. But what we are seeing seemes to be, "Look at me; I'm a very clever mod!" That gets followed by posts from a few posters who coo about how cute the mod was. Meanwhile, several really mean spirited posts attacking new members as trolls just sit around without comment from mods.

I'm in complete agreement with Mert and Walesmaven. I was shocked when I read "<Inflammatory, highly disturbing, and not even remotely funny remark involving multiple other posters removed. Seriously, WTH dude?>" That type of comment from a mod certainly does not set a positive tone for the forum nor does it establish boundaries.

And I share the concern about inconsistency. As wales said, "several really mean spirited posts attacking new members as trolls just sit around without comment from mods."

A moderator should be neutral and if they cannot be, they shouldn't be a moderator. Since moderators are also forum members why hide behind the anonymity of a moderator? If they want to make a snarky remark let them post it under their username.

I agree with the above. While I found the original post to be offensive, the mod went overboard on the edit. As Walesmaven said, "edited for disrespect of forum members" would have been perfectly adequate.

I really prefer to know that a moderator is present though I do not regularly visit the Forum. However, aside from Jacob, who are the other moderators? Are they allowed to post? Could they have the "moderator" title on their posts? Or does that take away their effectivity?

There were a few times when some members post like moderators or sounded with the authority of a moderator and the thread went somewhere else. Personally, I'd like to know who they are.

The mods are anonymous, and presumably, regulars on the forum.

I think their anonynimity is essential. Using their forum names could lead to all sorts of nastiness, stalking, PMs etc. However, it might be useful to give the mods numbers, like "Mod 101" etc. that would attach when they comment of edit a post. That way, the source of intemperate mod actions would be transparent (at least to Jacob and the other mods who might have some influence.)

I am not a mod, and never have been. Several posters who may sometimes sound like mods by the way that they post are just speaking from long experience of the forum and what Jacob and the mods are and are not likely to tolerate, IMHO. I do know a few who certainly are not mods but get PMs often because the poster thinks they may be!

Personalized mod comments don't bother me. I think if I were to be the one who posted something inappropriate, I'd prefer a relaxed, "Really LJ? WTH were you thinking woman," rather than a cold, antiseptic rebuke.

I'm opposed to numbers for the moderators as being too impersonal. I'd like to see each moderator have a unique forum moderator name, different from the regular forum name. I'd like to see them welcomed aboard by name when they start moderating and told thanks and goodbye when they stop.

I'd also like to see the moderator guidelines posted openly, visible to all forum members. Then everyone will understand the responsibilities as well as the limitations of the moderators.

Sounds good to me. Numbers was just an option to throw into the discussion.

I only see one problem with posting the moderator guidelines publicly...people won't read them. Just look at how many times people ask, "Which MSC shops McDonalds?" And right below the box where they type the question/comment it plainly says, "Do not reveal the clients of mystery shopping companies." If they can't read that, why do we think they would read a list of moderator guidelines?

Okay, I'm being a bit cynical in that I understand that posting the guidelines is mainly a CYA for Jacob and the Mods. And it would be nice to be able to read the guidelines so we have some idea of if something needs reporting. But I don't really expect to see posting the guidelines to make any real difference.

It might lighten the burden on the mods if there were a posted list of rules and we could link for the benefit of the offender -- "you might want to edit that post, you're violating forum rule #5" and linking to the rules, which might induce them to edit their own post.

I agree with dspeakes. State the guidelines, then we the people can police ourselves, citing forum guidelines.

I belong to other forums, unrelated to shopping. One has a larger membership, and revolves mods. While doing duty as a moderator, members are precluded from posting so as to avoid conflict of interest. While moderator, their screen name differs. Of course, frequent contributors guess or discern who is playing what role, based on verbiage. Guessing games mean nothing.

@walesmaven wrote:

I think their anonynimity is essential. Using their forum names could lead to all sorts of nastiness, stalking, PMs etc. However, it might be useful to give the mods numbers, like "Mod 101" etc. that would attach when they comment of edit a post. That way, the source of intemperate mod actions would be transparent (at least to Jacob and the other mods who might have some influence.)

From my experience on another forum, I would guess that the source of each edit is already transparent to at least Jacob and likely other mods as well. I would expect that Jacob and/or mods have features active that are not available to general members.

In another Meta thread, kimmiemae recalled Jacob's post: "Right now, I'm thinking there should be a set of standard reasons for a post to be moderated. When that happens, the entire post should be replaced with one of the standard reasons. The next step would be to create the list, and to create clear guidelines for when to use them. I definitely do not like moderation, and prefer things to not be censored. But, their is definitely a need for moderation, and I do think the moderation program is due for an upgrade."

Mayhaps he is indirectly asking members to develop and hash out a list?