I have noticed a marked increase in the number of mod actions performed in the forums over the past few months. This has ranged from simple edits of posts (with red text to denote what action was taken, or perhaps just to warn about possible ToS violations), to separating of threads*. It is actually the latter that started to get me worked up over this issue, as I would open a new thread, but the OP appeared to be replying to an existing thread. The lack of context was quite confusing in a number of instances (some cases I know for a fact were split from other threads, because I first read them while they still existed as a part of that thread; some other cases have a note attached to explain where it came from--but this still eliminates context, as it no longer holds the place in the old thread that it was meant to). For awhile, it seemed like any post Robert Jasiek made in "someone else's" thread would be quietly shuffled off into its own segregated thread.

What finally tipped me over the edge into posting this was seeing a mod edit/warning about someone's humorous post, denouncing it as advertisement. I (somewhat facetiously) reported the edit as being offensive, and then decided I should make this post to both provide the mods some context behind the report, and to open a discussion about the current moderation levels, and the potential effects it might have on the L19 culture.


*There might have been other things I noticed at times, but have since forgotten.

I voted acceptable, but later saw the post you referred to and agree that it was pretty... zealous mod action.

Edit: Softened wording a bit.

As far as I understood, Robert started quite a few new threads referring to things in other threads because he had been warned not to “derail other people’s threads” or something <shrug>. This, I think, was a legitimate and peaceful way for him to react, in order to continue a discussion with people who also want to talk about [whatever].

Greetz, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I don't think generalising is particularly useful. I think the particular instance you're referring to is rather extreme and I'm very surprised it hasn't been fixed but by and large I don't notice overzealous moderating on here.

I forgot to first that, now I will second it

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

You only just now noticed an increase? You've been away for a while, haven't you?
I actually thought its calmed down a bit recently.

I chose both ends of the spectrum, I think there's too much, yet at the same time, I'm thankful they keep the chaos at bay.

No, I've not been away; I lurk far more than I post. I also probably end up closing the tab on already written posts more frequently than I actually submit....

You're right though, it does seem to fluctuate (and I also voted for both ends!)

I agree that the specific case you're referring to was innapropriate, but like Boidhre, I see it as an isolated incident. That's why I answered the poll with "This poll is inappropriate", because imho it's an overreaction to an overreaction and that just doesn't seem helpful. That being said, I do have faith that the mods on this board are mature enough to simply take this as constructive criticism so maybe it will turn out for the better after all.

As for the Robert Jasiek threads: this is just gentlemanly behaviour on his part.

Agreed. Mr. Jasiek sets a fine example of starting a new thread for a new topic rather than risking diverting the topic.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Yeah, I agree Mr. Jasiek has really cleaned up his act, plus I hear his new book is fabulous.

I was hit with a little red ink the other day, I could see how if you weren't following the thread or had a different cultural background, it might seem especially edgy, so I edited it. I think more activity on L19 is a good thing.

Personally, I have hard time defining what is 'appropriate level of admin intervention'. It is very subjective. Objectively - the forum works, there is no major issues, the users get heard instead of squished, so something seems to be working.

As for the recent "advertisement", I think that its a judgement call. What has happened? Some brand names were used, and some red ink was spilled. So what? No posts were deleted, no thread locked, no users banned - what's the harm, why should it irk anybody? To me, this was a gentle reminder from the admin saying "I'm here and I'm watching" - pretty much exactly what I love to see from admins. To me, this level and method of intervention should be rewarded, this is why I voted the way I did.

Where I have problems with is deleting posts and banning good contributors rather than educating them. Thankfully we have very little, if any, of that, and when we do it is usually justifiable (although not always justified, but this again is highly subjective.) The recent red intervention was educating users, so it was just right in my book, and I would like to see more of it, where appropriate. Even if sometimes some users (including me) will think the admin is overly critical, there is seriously no harm in some red ink, and no voice is being silenced.

PS>
For the record - my choices were 'just right" and 'could be more'.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I put up the red notice on the facebook thread mainly as a reminder rather than as a warning. You may think that it is extreme but from my perspective it is to nip potential problems in the bud. You may think that the post is just a parody and nothing harmful, but what happens if people continue to parody on the thread with further interpretations of the parody. At what point would this seem not so acceptable to the forum members? If the thread is filled with legions of parody and we receive complaints, will we have to remove these posts under the guidelines regarding advertising? Would this also affect the first post of parody if we had to remove the others? I hope you can now see why I posted the red notice.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Thanks for the explanation. I still disagree with your decision (the same argument could be made to ban a lot of things), but at least I know where you are coming from now.

Personally I think this was a gross misjudgment, though not a particularly serious one. Consider it this way: either it's advertising or a joke, if it's advertising we have a shill who has infiltrated our community and been an active member for many, many months only to finally and blatantly advertise several unrelated brands and not both to add any links to help them monetise on this. Or it's just a regular having a bit of fun. Now, if you want to chastise the fun, that's a separate question, but I would seriously doubt the judgement of anyone who genuinely thought that post was advertising. If it was a 10 post account created a few days ago I'd be a lot more sympathetic but advertising spam doesn't even look like that post anyway so I'd still be leaning towards the joke explanation as an admin.

Link to facebook advert mody thread please?

I wasn't going to make a response in this thread, but I figure it would probably be best to just say that I'm not offended by tchan's decision.

Yes, my post was a joke, an attempt to parody the ridiculous nature of online advertising. My reason for using the real product names was because, in each statement, the name of the shoe has something to do with the go terms. The reason I used the full product name in the third one is because I found it funny how ridiculously long the name was. I thought that would be the best way to make the joke work. I don't think I was wrong; I think this made it funnier. Yet I also realize it would be foolish to try to defend something I wrote up in 5 minutes as some sort of art that needs integrity.

Clearly this is not personal, and I know tchan has a good sense of humor when it comes to online advertising. I obviously didn't think it was a TOS violation; I wouldn't have posted it if I thought so. Still, I can see where he is coming from. In future I will avoid using product and brand names when I could avoid it.


My master plan has been foiled! And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling red letters...

_________________
"You have to walk before you can run. Black 1 was a walking move.
I blushed inwardly to recall the ignorant thoughts that had gone through
my mind before, when I had not realized the true worth of Black 1."
-Kageyama Toshiro on proper moves

Actually I played the shill and promoted my brand, and no-one cared. Oh well, sub-master plan foiled! :D:D:D

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

This is a very classy post. I would have taken affront with the admin's actions. Your approach was better.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Oh my goodness! Is this what we've been talking about?
Even though I participated in the voting, I had no idea of the actual context and for most of the thread felt like I was missing out on some inside joke that everyone else was in on (because I don't have time to read every thread on this server)

I think what tchan did was perfectly fine and acceptable given the circumstances. On the other hand, I, myself would have just left it alone and ignored it altogether. (which again, probably explains why I voted on both ends of the spectrum). Overall, not a big enough deal to have spawned this whole meta-thread about it (though I can sympathize with a general need to discuss such actions from time to time).