• Welcome to Computer Association of SIUE - Forums.
 

Moderation

Started by William Grim, 2009-02-15T10:59:42-06:00 (Sunday)

Previous topic - Next topic

William Grim

Quote from: Ross Mead on 2009-02-15T04:18:52-06:00 (Sunday)
Tony, you made the point that I was hoping to make -- I completely agree!

In an effort to refrain from the long rant of disappointment that is building up inside me, I will simply ask that this not happen again...

[To whom it concerns] (yes, I am hiding your name from searches from potential employers...  ;-)), you know I respect you as a friend and, of course, as a long-time contributor to CAOS; however, I completely disagree with your judgment on this issue.  It is not your [lone] place to be moderating these boards, especially without even consulting the existing officers.  Yes, I understand that you had/have good intentions,... but you can't just take matters into your own hands.  I'm not going to sit here and harp on this -- I'm sure that you can understand my frustration (just as I can understand your perspective).

(Not to mention that there are plenty of times where the aforementioned considerations were ignored, most notably, in regards to certain professors... "A coodah is a whatah?" anyone?  :lol:)

And as far as editing posts (i.e., not deleting them) goes, that needs to stop as well.  [To the officer responsible for that] (again, defending identities here... you and I know who you are... ), respect your position and, more importantly, those that elected you... or I won't help you with your Senior Project...  ;-)

Where that professor is concerned, I never did agree with the ridicule of him in the way it took place.  Hence, I never bought any shirts with the saying.  However, he actually did say those things, making it more of a mockery on him rather than an ad hominem attack.

As a moderator, it actually is my place to do some moderation.  That's why some of us are moderators, and I use my position responsibly.  It has always been my belief to let people post pretty much any idea or opinion they have.  However, a line is crossed when attacking another person in ad hominem fashion.  I cannot think of any reason this would ever be considered "cool" or "acceptable" and should be allowed to stand.

Tony, I have to say you are fantasizing about an idealistic world.  Out here, people do actually care about things like that, whether you like it or not.  It doesn't make them bad people, and it does help them determine people's opinions of you.  If someone were ridiculed often, I certainly wouldn't want to hire them, because I don't think they'd make good leaders or get along well with people that matter.  You may also not want to make friends with them, thinking you wouldn't get along with them or worried you may be labeled along with them.

Think about these questions before replying that you guys want to be idealistic about "freedom of speech."  How many attacks on another person are okay before it becomes enough to tarnish their image for no more reason than someone having fun at another's expense?  How does it make SIUE look?  Would you want to go to a school where it is perceived that people like to bash each other?  What if your professors made posts making fun of you or wrote recommendation letters doing the same?
William Grim
IT Associate, Morgan Stanley

Mark Sands

IMHO If someone feels offended by a post, he/she can ask a moderator for it to be removed.
Mark Sands
Computer Science Major

Ross Mead

#2
QuoteWhere that professor is concerned, I never did agree with the ridicule of him in the way it took place.  Hence, I never bought any shirts with the saying.

But you never removed the posts either...

QuoteHowever, he actually did say those things, making it more of a mockery on him rather than an ad hominem attack.

The posts that you deleted contained two pictures: one that is in [the person in question's] signature and one [of you] that is in the CAOS archive -- both are which publicly accessible and capture a moment in time that, believe it or not, did happen.

QuoteAs a moderator, it actually is my place to do some moderation.

You are a self-appointed "global moderator" -- you were not elected.  I do not feel that someone who is not an officer (or at least recent officer) should be holding such a position, especially when you've been away from the school for a few years now.  I asked for my status to be demoted as soon as I stepped down from office -- it just seemed appropriate.  How would you feel if George Bush continued to make policy as "President"?  (BTW, am I "attacking" him and, if so, am I preventing him from getting another job?  Hmm... )

QuoteHowever, a line is crossed when attacking another person in ad hominem fashion.

Stop saying "attacking".  It's satire.  Didn't you just say that mocking someone for events that, indeed, occurred was acceptable?

QuoteI cannot think of any reason this would ever be considered "cool" or "acceptable" and should be allowed to stand.

I was actually talking to [the person in question] when I made my post mocking him -- he thought it was funny (i.e., he got it).  This post was deleted (i.e., you didn't get it).  In regards to the posts that mocked [your publicly accessible photo], you reserve the right to feel offended and, thus, do something about it.

QuoteTony, I have to say you are fantasizing about an idealistic world.

Careful!  A potential employer could read that!

QuoteOut here, people do actually care about things like that, whether you like it or not.

"Out here, people don't understand satire and/or, instead, trust the opinions of faceless people on a global message board [(1) that they've never met and/or (2) that have never actually met the potential employee] over the first-hand interactions they've had with the potential employee."  Sounds like a smart move on their part... sign me up... ?

QuoteIf someone were ridiculed often, I certainly wouldn't want to hire them, because I don't think they'd make good leaders or get along well with people that matter.  You may also not want to make friends with them, thinking you wouldn't get along with them or worried you may be labeled along with them.

Or the person is (1) open to criticism and/or (2) willing to poke fun at himself or herself.  Plus, there's other contextual information that goes along with these posts, namely, emoticons or "LOL" or "haha", which often tell people that they are kidding.

QuoteThink about these questions before replying that you guys want to be idealistic about "freedom of speech."

Are you saying that "freedom of speech" is idealistic?  For some reason, I thought it was Constitutional... hmm... my bad...

QuoteHow many attacks on another person are okay before it becomes enough to tarnish their image for no more reason than someone having fun at another's expense?

"Attacks"... ?

QuoteHow does it make SIUE look?

Hopefully like we're able to read and write satirically, to debate issues which sometimes lead to personal conflict (and then overcome it!), and, at a minimum, interpret meaning and intent from text...

QuoteWould you want to go to a school where it is perceived that people like to bash each other?

Because I would make my decision based on a message board that consisted primarily of one major and represented of a fraction of the overall student body... ?

QuoteWhat if your professors made posts making fun of you or wrote recommendation letters doing the same?

Hopefully my professors are writing a letter of recommendation based on their first-hand experience with me and, I would imagine, are fully capable of developing their own opinions...

For the existing officers of CAOS, here are my suggestions on how to address future issues regarding the editing or removing of a post (and potentially amending this or something like it to the organization constitution):

1) If a person (member or nonmember) on CAOS feels that a post or posts are inappropriate, the person is to report said post or posts to an officer.
2) If the officer feels that the post or posts are, indeed, inappropriate, the officer will motion to take action (but not actually take action at this step), pending a second to that motion by another officer.
3) If a different officer seconds the motion to take action against a post or posts that are deemed to be inappropriate, the post will then be edited (i.e., not removed!) with the following text:

QuoteA complaint has been made against this post.  The post has been deemed inappropriate by the moderators of CAOS and has, thus, been removed.

Motion: <insert linked officer member name (not necessarily his or her real name) that motioned for removal>
Second: <insert linked officer member name (not necessarily his or her real name) that seconded the motion>

Please contact the moderators if you have any questions or comments: <insert contact information>.

4) In the case that an officer is the person making the initial complaint, an immediate motion to take action (but not actually take action at this step) can be made, pending a second to that motion by another officer.

These are just suggestions and are, thus, open to discussion.

William Grim

To cut your diatribe of logical fallacies short, I will just say that you are wrong.  Calling people names is a form of trolling and has no place in general communication.  I am not self-appointed and do not care that because you rescinded your position you think that I am less than you because I did not.  In actuality, I was granted this privilege after leaving SIUE, and it is up to them to revoke it.  However, I think others are going to agree that making fun of others is an illegitimate activity for a forum hosted by an educational institution.

It is quite apparent that, still being part of an insulated educational world, you share an idealistic view of expression of thought.  The world is not black and white, though.  It is shades of grey, and no one in this forum has had their ability to conduct constructive communication hindered.

Maybe everyone would be happier with more of a /. version of moderation.  People could be labeled -1 flamebait and -1 troll in those cases and garner negative karma when they've been naughty.  Maybe /. even has their source code available.
William Grim
IT Associate, Morgan Stanley

Ross Mead

#4
QuoteTo cut your diatribe of logical fallacies short, I will just say that you are wrong.

Speaking of logical fallacies!  I welcome the argument...

QuoteCalling people names is a form of trolling and has no place in general communication.

Except when it's in jest.  A Comedy Central roast would make you cry... (for the record and to be absolutely clear... this remark was a joke... :-P)

QuoteI am not self-appointed...

But you weren't elected either...

Quote... do not care that because you rescinded your position you think that I am less than you because I did not.

I never said you did, and I genuinely don't feel that way.  Rather, I feel that it's a policy that should be enforced by CAOS (not because of this issue... I just think that it's a good general policy... ).

QuoteIn actuality, I was granted this privilege after leaving SIUE...

And I can genuinely understand why -- your knowledge of the boards surpasses that of just about anyone else on here; you know the infrastructure of the site inside and out.  That being said, there are bounds (maybe that weren't clearly drawn), and I think you crossed them.  My opinion...

Quote... it is up to them to revoke it

I'm not necessarily saying they should (again, your knowledge of the boards is invaluable); however, I think that considerations should be made as to who has special privileges in the forums, what those privileges entail, and, more importantly, what they don't entail.  What good are elected officials if someone else is making such decisions?  Where's the accountability?

QuoteIt is quite apparent that, still being part of an insulated educational world, you share an idealistic view of expression of thought.

wow!  speaking of attacks!  for sakE of keeping this post aLive and addressing the Issue (not The person), I will refrain from addreSsing This remark...

QuoteThe world is not black and white, though.  It is shades of grey, and no one in this forum has had their ability to conduct constructive communication hindered.

I'm glad that a single moderator has the final say on what's constructive and, consequently, what's being hindered...

QuoteMaybe everyone would be happier with more of a /. version of moderation.  People could be labeled -1 flamebait and -1 troll in those cases and garner negative karma when they've been naughty.

Whatever works, just so long as a there is some serious thought given to moderation and censorship on the CAOS forums.

In case anyone is wondering, this is not intended to be a personal war between myself and [the moderator in question]; rather, this is an effort to address an issue that is important to a forum such as this and, consequently, the organization as a whole.  I have my opinions and [the moderator in question] (note: a friend) has his.  That being said, let us know what you think; [the moderator in question] and I can do this for days (and we have... trust me...  ;-)), but it means nothing without your input [about the issue].  My argument is open to criticism.  I really believe that this is an important issue, which could lead to some amendments to the organization constitution (yes, we have one!).  This affects you.  So... speak!   :-P

Tony

Here is the problem, and why i believe you are wrong.  You feel it is wrong and there is no way anyone would ever think it is right.  However, not everyone feels that way, obviously or we wouldn't be having this discussion and the act wouldn't have been committed in the first place.  Just because you or anyone person, or group of people have an opinion about something does not give them the right to enforce that opinion on everyone else without input from everyone.  That is the whole reason Democracies exist.

Now, just for the record, I do not agree with calling people names, "flaming" people, excessive arguing, or any of that, but it is not my place to tell others they cannot.  Especially in this case because it was clearly a joke.  If anything it was a display of comradery.  If that is a rule of this board that nothing of the sort can take place, then maybe.  But as far as I know it is not.

Grim, I have mad respect for you.  You are an extremely smart person, but I think you are wrong here.  In your last post you say "To cut your diatribe of logical fallcies..." but you are committing fallacies as well.  You are saying because you do not agree with it and because you don't see how anyone else can agree with it, that nobody could possible agree with it.  Draw a ven diagram =p of that and it is obvious that is an incorrect way of thinking.

Maybe the fix to this is come up with rules of moderation.  As in anything, there has to be rules.  Police have rules, the government (supposedly) has rules, everyone has rules.  You can't just make them up as you go.  I believe if someone ask for something (that is about them) to be removed then it should.  I believe if things get off topic, someone is being harassed (after asking people to stop), etc., then it should be removed.  But, all of that needs to be made into rules.  I could be wrong as well.  Just because someone thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it is.  That is an ideal of Fascism and we know how well that works.
I would rather be hated for doing what I believe in, than loved for doing what I don't.

Tony

I need to make something clear I guess.  I am not for or against "censorship".  My personal beliefs are that if you decide to post on a board like this then you have to follow the rules.  If the rules say, if you say anything bad towards anyone your whole post will be removed, or worse your membership will be revoked, then so be it.  I do not have to post here.  I do not have to be a part of this organization.  I choose to be and can come and go as I please.  It is their property therefore they can do what they want inside the limits of the law.  However, I do not believe there are any such rules, and I do not believe one person gets to make those rules.  So, I believe there should be some rules set and followed.
I would rather be hated for doing what I believe in, than loved for doing what I don't.

William Grim

This discussion should just digress to CAOS then.  They can make up whatever ground rules they want and run with them, and I will obey those rules.

For the record, I did not say everyone would and should follow my ideas on this.  But, in the case of general morality, I don't think the censoring was inherently fallible.  I do think Justin was tossing around a joke I can handle... I even laughed at it.  But, in general, I thought it was inappropriate because others are unlikely to know how to interpret what it says about me.  The same goes for the posting Ross made about someone else.

Also, I'm not the only one moderating these forums.  Therefore, I can't be the only one making decisions on what goes or doesn't on the forums.  Based on the feedback, it seems that people have a more general problem with the moderation.

Going on what may be faulty memory here, I'm fairly certain we've had issues like this in the past.  Back then, we just removed or edited the posts.  This was okay back then, and I think this debate is really more about new leadership wishing to flex their muscles and show us who's boss.

Anyway, let CAOS adopt a more formal policy, document it, and I, for one, will follow the policy as it's written.  It is not my aim to be a tyrant or degenerate.  However, you are going to have to expect that there is always room for interpretation in certain kinds of situations.  We wouldn't want our judges following the letter of the law completely pedantically, because it's their job to interpret the intentions of the law and judge accordingly.
William Grim
IT Associate, Morgan Stanley

Ross Mead

#8
Word!

QuoteLet CAOS adopt a more formal policy, document it, and [moderators and members alike] will follow the policy as it's written.

Officers of CAOS, as a long-time member, it would be greatly appreciated if this was addressed at the next official meeting, with results being posted as well as *gasp* amended to the constitution!  :D

(I'll even get on a webcam to join in the discussion... if anything, it just gives you a reason to view my perty face...  ;-))

Jarod Luebbert

Quote from: Ross Mead on 2009-02-15T21:57:06-06:00 (Sunday)
Word!

Officers of CAOS, as a long-time member, it would be greatly appreciated if this was addressed at the next official meeting, with results being posted as well as *gasp* amended to the constitution!  :D

(I'll even get on a webcam to join in the discussion... if anything, it just gives you a reason to view my perty face...  ;-))

Will do. We have a meeting tomorrow. It will be discussed tomorrow then we'll post the outcome.
Jarod Luebbert
Computer Science Major

raptor

All:

For those unaware I am our current/new President.  I have just now become aware of this debate, and I promise to you this issue will be carefully discussed and addressed.  It has become clear that our typical style of moderation requires some nature of a formal outline, which we will deliver in as timely a fashion as is possible.

Thank You,

Scott
President of CAOS
Software Engineer NASA Nspires/Roses Grant

Justin Camerer

Justin Camerer
Do yo' chain hang low?

Tangent Orchard

Just to give two cents of input without getting into the core of the debate, I come from a couple of other forums where harsh comments are dealt with by editing the post to only say

Post removed.  No personal attacks, please. -Name

It seems to work really well.  Constitution-amending aside, could we possibly see more of that on our forums? =)

William Grim

Slashcode is available in case you guys go that route.
William Grim
IT Associate, Morgan Stanley

raptor

Officers met today and discussed the situation.  We've devised a set of rules that will dictate who is allowed what privileges and how moderation should occur.  This will be drafted and posted soon.

Scott
President of CAOS
Software Engineer NASA Nspires/Roses Grant