Life In 19x19

We admins/mods have been having some discussions in the smoke-filled back room about how moderating should be done. We don't find ourselves in agreement on everything, so I'm trying to find out how you, the members of L19, want modding done.
By mischance, we have a recent post that is an example of something that may or may not require moderation. I'd like to offer it as a real-world example, and I'd like your opinions.

This is the post:

...As long as we're talking about people's flaws, nobody should worry about replying or even reading what [member name] has to say because he's been known to just surround himself with strong players, and in effect believe himself to be one of the the strongest players with a great ego and needs to read "Get Strong at Making Excuses" because he's quite lacking in that field if he's trying to be convincing.

A member reported it to us ( by clicking on the red exclamation mark icon ), and wrote this:

The last third of this post is a relatively unwarranted ad hominem attack on [member name]... I am not happy reading such things.

Given that post, and given that complaint about the post, what should a mod do?

Please note this is effectively three separate polls put together:
1) What, if anything, do we do with the post?
2) What, if anything, do we do about the poster?
3) Do we reply to the person who reported it?
and you have three votes.

Please also note that I have removed all three relevant members names here, in the hopes that discussion of the issue can be unbiased and dispassionate.

do the poll questions apply to this particular example (or similar), or for more serious examples, or in general to a wider range of offenses (both more and less serious)?

because I might answer differently based on my feeling of seriousness.

xed_over wrote:do the poll questions apply to this particular example (or similar), or for more serious examples, or in general to a wider range of offenses (both more and less serious)?

because I might answer differently based on my feeling of seriousness.

The poll applies to this particular example. In a subsequent posts you can always posit hypothetical different circumstances and offer a different opinion.

I really don't think moderating should be done by asking everyone to evaluate a particular post. I think some things are better left behind closed doors. Thus, I will not comment specifically about this post. In general though, I think moderators should favor a light hand over a strong one when it comes to moderating established users.

Dusk Eagle wrote:... I think moderators should favor a light hand over a strong one ...

I agree with you. Indeed, I think that everybody will agree with you. The problem is calibration.

If I say that I favor safe driving over speeding, I'll probably get 100% agreement on that issue too. But how fast is too fast?

Essentially what I am doing here is saying "You see that car that just drove past us? Was that too fast or was it ok?" I'm trying to calibrate.

Not sure why you're putting me in an uncomfortable spotlight like this; I think the way I handled that post was just fine.

I see the quote in OP as an expression of unkind opinion towards another board member. I haven't actually read what rules say about it, because the rules I follow are common sense and will to treat others as you'd like to be treated.

It's difficult to say where that resentment originated. Karmic law perhaps? I think it's often a kind of snowball effect that starts small and escalates until at some point one of the two people arguing will step over the superficial line in rules and get moderated. Therefore there are rarely answers that would be without controversy. Objective should be to bring peace to forums while respecting writers rights to have opinions.

I would do what KGS admins do at dan games when discussion is derailed from happenings in game: remind participants what the purpose of talking *here* is.

I like the way it is handles on teamliquid. Leave the post intact unless it is really over the line e.g. illegal or spam. But edit in a red warning below the post.

I hate deleted content. It makes me wonder what stood there, and thus costs me more time than simply skimming over the post. I get annoyed every time I notice deleted stuff. Especially if the following conversation refers to it.

So that post would be edited to something like this:

...As long as we're talking about people's flaws, nobody should worry about replying or even reading what [member name] has to say because he's been known to just surround himself with strong players, and in effect believe himself to be one of the the strongest players with a great ego and needs to read "Get Strong at Making Excuses" because he's quite lacking in that field if he's trying to be convincing.

Keep out the personal attacks -- ModeratorName

And I think you should reply to the poster if no action has been taken explaining why you disagree with him.

In the example you posted deleting or censoring the post would have removed the context from the two posts following it, thus disturbing the whole thread.

I think what you shouldn't have done is quote a post in public in this context, whether or not you removed names. Make up your minds among yourselves, but don't embarrass a poster by quoting their post in this context.

One other thing: I don't think posts should be edited by moderators in any way (other than what Jordus has been doing to the book review posts, adding polls, etc.). If you don't like a post, delete it; don't change it to something other than what the poster intended.

Oh, oops - I saw the thread, opened it, then saw the poll and voted on it, assuming it was talking about what moderators should do in general. I didn't realise it was just referring to this specific post. (Nonetheless I think the answers I gave were appropriate to this case too.)

I agree with the posters above who say that what to do with any particular example should be discussed behind closed doors, not on the public forum.

(I also agree that Araban's response, which I saw at the time he made it, struck me as entirely sensible )

I did not see the original post and have no idea what the moderated action was. But I do not believe that moderators should do anything except for remove spam posts and those with obscene language or links. If I wouldn't want my 10-year old reading it then I don't think it belongs here.

As far as personal attacks are concerned I would hope that the people here are intelligent enough to see that a post such as the one you quote is an indictment against the poster, not the one attacked. It should be left there for all readers to see what levels the poster has sunk to. It needs no action except for possibly a moderator edit in red as Li Kao suggests.

I guess I am not sure this is the best way to do this either. All it did for me was make me wonder who said that about whom, try to find out, and therefore highlight the unfortunate remarks.

I also agree with Araban, although I tend to think Joaz B did not intend to mean any harm, it opens up this particular moderator for criticism (although I would not have known who it was if Araban had not chimed in). Again, I think Joaz is really simply seeking some guidance, but this is also "icky" in light of the upcoming election of moderators.

It seems to me the moderators could have had this discussion privately, then put forward any conclusions they reached for comment, without resort to a particular instance or moderator's actions.

I more or less agree with Araban's approach (perhaps with a little less sarcasm (my interpretration, he could have been trying to be sincerely nice) and deleting the word "garbage" I guess what I am saying is right approach, but in a more neutral delivery.

It is a tricky case though, people were commenting about a person, it seems easy to transition such a discussion to being about the commentors. That being said, the comment above was pretty rotten, while the comments of the "target" were made in a very tactful and fair minded way.

Because of the nature of the discussion, I feel deleting the post or editing it would be wrong, but Araban was right to warn a new poster about the rules.

First, I think examples are helpful. Perhaps they should be hypothetical, instead--don't know.

Second, I'm in the "light moderation" school: I don't think personal attacks should be moderated unless (a) the thread devolves into nothing but an exchange of personal attacks, or (b) the personal attacks use offensive language or accusations of illegal/extremely immoral behavior. Perhaps the user should be asked to edit the post him/herself.

People should be able to handle the ocassional insult or ad hominem attack, and the more moderation-heavy a policy is, the more the moderator's subjective opinion is injected into moderation activities. I don't believe that moderators should protect a person's feelings as such, or enforce a person's view of civil discourse. Spam, offensive language, and posts that could cause trouble for the forum (e.g. obviously illegal links) should be removed.

But that's just me. That said, I do recognize that this is a difficult line to draw, and it is a difficult balance. I've been a part of forums whose heavy-handed moderation has driven away valuable contributors, and I've been involved in other forums that devolve into non-sensical offensive exchanges in which it is difficult to find useful content.

Just an idea, I like the idea of encouraging self moderation, so I think a PM from a moderator to give the offender a chance to edit their own text and take the high road. If they are obstinate the post is then outright deleted. This gives a chance for those who may have suffered a momentary lapse of taste to save face a little from a Moderator edit tag. On the other hand, this may be unduly onerous on the moderators who are just volunteers. Just a thought, but since this is such a tight community I tend to trust the discretion of the moderators in procedural matters.

I would appreciate a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards ad hominem attacks. To keep my perspective condensed: in the world of Go weaker players like myself need to take a lot on authority, and when you are listening to someone's position by virtue of their good authority, ad hominem arguments actually have a valid role to play in deciding what to believe.

For example, the insulted party (can we call him V.?) had just called another member of the Go community a blowhard and a bit of a fraud. I'm glad V. did this, because I respect V.'s opinions and I had downloaded a number of videos by the blowhard; with his ad hominem attack, V. saved me from watching them. But by the same token, if someone else has something ad hominem to say about V., I would prefer that it get an airing, rather than being squashed in the name of comity.