Admin editing of posts.

[Redbeard]

I would like to protest the administrative editing of posts. A specific example can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=30322#p30322

Now, I believe that it is vital to moderate the posts on L19, however the manner in which this is done is very important. I do not think it is right for a moderator to edit the content of a post. They should remove the post entirely and send a notice to the poster explaining exactly why the post was removed.

Any other suggestions?

[Joaz Banbeck]

I would like to protest the administrative editing of posts. A specific example can be found here: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 322#p30322

Now, I believe that it is vital to moderate the posts on L19, however the manner in which this is done is very important. I do not think it is right for a moderator to edit the content of a post. They should remove the post entirely and send a notice to the poster explaining exactly why the post was removed.

Any other suggestions?

I think that the majority of the time we do delete the entire post. It does not appear that way to the average viewer because you don't see it. We often do exactly as you suggest, contacting the poster and encouraging them to repost in a less confrontational manner. Again, you never see that either.

But what should we do when there is an intense and probably productive discussion with good points being made on both sides, and one poster gets just a bit too carried away and adds something to an otherwise relevant post that could inflame the thread? Do you delete the entire post, even when 99% of it is contributing to the discussion?

In the particular post that you reference, the writer is one of the most 'liked' posters on L19. And the vast majority of that post is clearly a relevant contribution to the discussion. Should we delete all of that post just because of one 5- or 6-word sentence? Or should we allow the natural flow of the discussion to continue?

[Jordus]

Trying to balance out what is offensive and what is not is quite a difficult task. One has to weigh the consequences of how offended the Original Poster will feel that their post was edited and how offended another party may feel when reading the post. As Joaz stated before removing the post in its entirety isn't always the preferred solution either if it does have contributing factors.

We also had someone point out an objection to word filters etc...What I think we all need to keep in mind here is that this forum is here for the entire Go Community and this community of ours includes children. I think it is in the best interest of the community to work to keep everything tolerable for as many people as possible.

As to the issue of forum policing getting too "heavy handed", I know the majority of posts edited needed the editing. As to the posts that people believe did not deserve editing, I personally apologize but please keep in mind that it is done with the best interests of the community in mind. We are in no way targeting you or trying to censor your opinions. We just want to keep a clean community for everyone to enjoy, Old and Young alike.

[Redbeard]

In the particular post that you reference, the writer is one of the most 'liked' posters on L19. And the vast majority of that post is clearly a relevant contribution to the discussion. Should we delete all of that post just because of one 5- or 6-word sentence? Or should we allow the natural flow of the discussion to continue?

It's a very hard call to make. Personally, I would have deleted the post and contacted the author as has been done before. Perhaps if the author had been allowed to edit his own message, he would not have been offended and left the thread. In addition, the next few posts veered off topic and discussed the edit instead of the subject at hand. I would think that deleting the post and letting the author re-write it if he wishes would have kept the thread more relevant. By removing a single line or paragraph from the post the moderator has put themselves in the position of content editor, which is likely to upset the author and the readers of the thread.

Moderating a discussion is very difficult and there is no way you can please everyone. However, I think that it would be best for the moderators to agree on a consistent method and guideline for moderating posts and adding that to the Forum Rules. That way everyone will know what to expect. Please understand, my concern is not with the fact the post was moderated (that is a judgment call I leave to the moderators) but the method in which the moderation was done.

[Kirby]

Do you think that posters will be less upset if their posts are deleted instead of edited?

[Jordus]

[
It's a very hard call to make. Personally, I would have deleted the post and contacted the author as has been done before. Perhaps if the author had been allowed to edit his own message, he would not have been offended and left the thread. In addition, the next few posts veered off topic and discussed the edit instead of the subject at hand. I would think that deleting the post and letting the author re-write it if he wishes would have kept the thread more relevant. By removing a single line or paragraph from the post the moderator has put themselves in the position of content editor, which is likely to upset the author and the readers of the thread.

That certainly would be the preferred method. However, if there is offensive material in the post, how long will it sit there viewable to anyone as we wait to contact the OP and have them receive the message and remove it themselves? (I am assuming we are not deleting the post since the OP is editing their own message) Some people post and don't sign back in for days. Do you have a suggestion to avoid this?

[kirkmc]

I strongly object to admins editing posts. If there are issues, they should hold the posts (I'm sure there's a way to hold them unpublished), contact the posters and ask them to make changes. They should in no way start editing posts themselves. If I understand from the thread in question, the word a*s*s was replaced by donkey at some point, or deleted. That is not in any way an obscene word in my dialect of English, and I was pretty stunned by that edit.

[karaklis]

I'd like to express a big thanks to the mods who put their efforts in keeping this forum friendly. I think the way it is run currently is excellent.

[Jordus]

I strongly object to admins editing posts. If there are issues, they should hold the posts (I'm sure there's a way to hold them unpublished), contact the posters and ask them to make changes. They should in no way start editing posts themselves. If I understand from the thread in question, the word a*s*s was replaced by donkey at some point, or deleted. That is not in any way an obscene word in my dialect of English, and I was pretty stunned by that edit.

In the example you wrote that was not an edit by moderators. There is a word filter in the forum set-up. You may not have an objection to that word, but this is a site dedicated to the Go community and that community includes children. There are also plenty of people who would be offended at the use of this language. I think sacrificing the use of about only a dozen words in the English language full of hundreds of thousands of words if not more is not really that great of a sacrifice... EDIT I think Karaklis said it best with "Family Friendly"

As to the holding of posts, all posts are published immediately upon posting.... I am not sure there is a way to pull them without deleting however I have not dived to far into the moderator functions.... I will look into it...

[Solomon]

Here's the policy I try to follow for myself as a moderator:

The only time I will ever edit another person's post is when an explicit image/video or illegal link is posted. And by explicit I mean something that's clearly pornographic or gore; 18+. If the image is borderline, I will most likely leave it...and trust me, from the places I've lurked on the interpipes "borderline" is very lenient and will probably be considered explicit by another mod and get removed anyways. Also, by illegal link I mean anything to a site that hosts illegal or harmful material; warez. Regarding links to youtube videos that may be copyrighted, I think there should be some slack here and the job of removing copyrighted videos should be left to Youtube.

The only time I will ever delete a post altogether is if it's my own post or it's an ad/spam post from a bot or the post only contains explicit image(s) and no contributing text.

Regarding personal attacks, I think the best course of action is to PM the user and just ask the user to take it easy and politely ask him or her to edit the personal attack out of the posts(s). If the user refuses to do so and is just escalating the situation, a warning is given. Multiple warnings -> temp. suspension -> ban.

Regarding profanity...well, not much can be really said when there's already a word filter implemented. All I'll say though is that I'm not in favor of the word filter and that I'd prefer leniency in this department instead. But that's just, like, my opinion man.

Basically if you look at the forum rules I posted, if it's in violation of 1 - 4, I will just ask nicely and handle it as I would for personal attacks. If it's in violation of 5 - 7, then I'll just edit it out or remove it altogether. Admins/mods make mistakes, that is obvious. But I hold the view that an admin who is too light on the moderating is much, much better than an admin who is too heavy on it. At least, that has been my experience from moderating other forums in the past. Anyways, I'm curious to what people think about the sort of moderating policy I hold for myself. Is it fair? If not, what would you suggest I change?

[kirkmc]

I strongly object to admins editing posts. If there are issues, they should hold the posts (I'm sure there's a way to hold them unpublished), contact the posters and ask them to make changes. They should in no way start editing posts themselves. If I understand from the thread in question, the word a*s*s was replaced by donkey at some point, or deleted. That is not in any way an obscene word in my dialect of English, and I was pretty stunned by that edit.

In the example you wrote that was not an edit by moderators. There is a word filter in the forum set-up. You may not have an objection to that word, but this is a site dedicated to the Go community and that community includes children. There are also plenty of people who would be offended at the use of this language. I think sacrificing the use of about only a dozen words in the English language full of hundreds of thousands of words if not more is not really that great of a sacrifice... EDIT I think Karaklis said it best with "Family Friendly"

As to the holding of posts, all posts are published immediately upon posting.... I am not sure there is a way to pull them without deleting however I have not dived to far into the moderator functions.... I will look into it...

The forum's word filter doesn't like a*s*s? Seriously? And this would offend people? Oh, try and be serious...

First, the forum does not come with a built-in word filter; the admins have to add words. (I know this because I'm setting up a phpBB forum these days and just checked.) While I can think of plenty of words that should be added, I would like to know who seriously thinks that a*s*s is an obscene word...

I'm all in favor of keeping the forum family-friendly, as long as we're not childish about it.

[kirkmc]

As to the holding of posts, all posts are published immediately upon posting.... I am not sure there is a way to pull them without deleting however I have not dived to far into the moderator functions.... I will look into it...

A quick look at the phpBB admin interface doesn't show me any way to hold a post. Perhaps it's possible, but I don't know this software very well yet.

[John Fairbairn]

I was affected by a couple of recent edits. However, before that, I had expressed the view that I felt adminning was getting heavy-handed in threads that did not involve me. I can't remember exact details, but one that made a strong impression on me was an admin jumping in to a discussion before it got too heated, warning people not to get carried away. I don't think that's the way to treat adults. While I wouldn't want to see again the foul abuse that characterised rec.games.go, I think people should be allowed to become a little heated and express their true feelings. You learn more about them that way.

Still, on its own that warning didn't bother me too much. Moderating is always a judgement call, but I believe in it as a general principle. I also know it is a thankless task, so I'm glad that there are people willing to take it on. I suspect it's a bigger job than most people realise.

And I'm not even specially irritated by moderation of my own posts. I happen to believe it was wrong in this case and that they were minor points that only ended up derailing the discussion by the interventions being so silly. They related to modes of expression, not substantive points. Applying one of them generally, Aristotle would never have been allowed to write his Art of Rhetoric. But, still, I am not above moderation.

My real irritation actually comes from a combination of the pc mentality that especially pervades part of American society and the belief that the American way is the only way, which again only some Americans also suffer from. I objected, for example, to an attempt at being censored (by an American individual here, not by an admin) for using "Oriental" which is totally acceptable here in the UK. As we saw from the recent discussion on that, many Americans were surprised that word that was an issue even in America, so I am certainly not talking about all Americans. Equally, there are plenty of Europeans who have been caught up in the pc net. But I do believe the movement is stronger in the USA than elsewhere, and that what characterises the pc movement is that it is run by activists who are prepared to be underhand to impose their agenda. Nugatory though it is, the secret filtering of words on this forum is, in my view, ultimately one result of that agenda. (Filtering is fine - the hidden part isn't. How many posts have been changed without the posters noticing?).

It is my belief that heavy-handed adminning gives grist to the mill of these pc people, and that the problems will only get worse if we don't speak up now. I feel we are already moving towards a position where it is now pc not to say "you" or to hold any opinion about other people or groups at all. A further major problem with high-profile adminning is that makes people censor themselves unnecessarily, so that it becomes a vicious circle.

Not only do I think that is absurd, it is actually at least as irritating and offensive as the odd swear word (which I don't use - the donkey word is not British English except as a joke). I object to people who condemn you for holding an opinion instead of being sanctimoniously non-judgemental. I get irritated by the twee he/she lark. I get irritated by people who want us to talk only about issues and not people, when other people are the most interesting thing in the world. I'm not claiming that irritation makes me right, or that the people who irritate me are bad. But I don't want to ban these people. Conversely, I'm just claiming the right not to be banned or edited by them.

However, if admins do want to continue to intervene frequently, in order to avoid inadvertent and , I'm sure, unintended imposition of a pc agenda and American thought imperialism, I think (a) there should be a secret filter that deletes he/she or (b) admins also should step in and warn people not to be sanctimonious or yukkily sentimental. I would also urge them to remember that there are (a) other countries in the world with different mores, and (b) there are traditions for modes of expression other than the ones taught on certain American campuses.

To give a specific example: you don't have to refer to me tweely as "someone who is liked here". I have a name. Unlike most people here I declare it. You can use it. You can even call me "you" or "you donkey".

[topazg]

As a moderator, I would like to offer my views on how administration and moderation are done best in an environment like this.

Firstly, I consider to be an admin an administrator first and a moderator second, as they are fundamentally different roles. I see moderation as a task that admins perform when they are thin on the ground in moderators for essential moderation tasks. FWIW, I don't think we have ever reached the point where moderating energy is spread too thinly over the forums.

There are a few things I will action immediately. Spam, illegal or material I consider the majority of people would feel are highly inappropriate for children (warez, porn, gratuitous violence).

Other than that, I turn a blind eye to most minor infractions of the rules, particularly when there is content in the post which is of value. The rules are there to serve the community, the community isn't there to serve the rules. Likewise, moderators are there to maintain the atmosphere and handle situations when called upon to do so, not act as the forum police and rule with an iron fist.

If the community is happy with the direction and content of a conversation, then I'll let things take their course. If people object and complain about something, I will act with discretion to sort the issue out as invisibly as possible, normally involving PMs to the people involved. A good moderator should be rarely seen in my opinion. In my experience the only time people complain loudly about the lack of moderation is when spam gets out of control. I hear many complaints in the other direction, about over-zealous moderation.

[kirkmc]

John, you donkey.

I totally agree with everything you've said. What is most ridiculous about the a*s*s word getting filtered is that not only is that not really an insult in American English, but in British English it is _not_ at all an insult. (You use a*r*s*e for the body part.) So this list of filtered words - which I'd like to see - is very specific to US English, whereas many people - such as you (donkey) - speak a different dialect.

Having been a translator and writer for donkeys' years, I have often seen things that can lead to misunderstandings in a given culture, and when you target a specific country or culture you need to take them into account. But with an international forum like this one, you need to be much more careful, lest you impose a false sterility by filtering words which are at best questionable outside of a specific dialect. While I don't disagree with filtering some of the most egregious curse words, I strongly object to filtering words that one person believes are offensive without carefully considering their usage.