Enforcing standards in the forum

[OfficerImpersonator]

I've noticed what I perceive to be a spike in the number of offensive postings, often leading to the thread being "doghoused".

Has any consideration been given to deleting individual posts instead of shutting down entire threads?

It seems a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few bad apples.

If I were the forum dictator, a personal insult or profanity would result in the post being deleted, but not the entire thread being moved to the dog house. Then, those following the rules could continue the discussion without the distraction of offensive posts.

 

[akbeemer]

OfficerImpersonator For Forum Dictator

You may need to use force to get this done, but I'm right behind you. A good, safe distance behind you.

 

[darrylri]

You may have noticed that two threads slept in the doghouse last night.

Before that happened, however, 3 separate warnings were sent out and at least one posting was summarily deleted.

It is impossible for the moderators to watch every posting, every instant. Often times it doesn't take but a few minutes for a formerly pleasant (or at least not unpleasant) thread to get out of control.

For example, on one of the threads, I gave out a warning and deleted a message. Then I went out to a dinner engagement. I checked in again 2.5 hours later and discovered that the thread had simply exploded. As I was doghousing it, another mod had also discovered it and had closed it, which would have been my next action. It's simply unreasonable to expect to get faster coverage, even if we were paying for staff to watch the forum.

It is also not much fun to write people up. When a thread goes into the ditch, it is simply a lot easier and quicker to clean up the accident and get the traffic flowing again.

If there's some issue you feel is left hanging when a thread is closed, you are welcome to start a new thread on that particular issue. Perhaps you might emphasize that you don't want whatever problem caused the other thread to go away to happen to yours. The mods will help you with this request, as the original poster in the new thread. (But again, you can't expect 24/7 response, not even close.)

"Can't we all just get along?" --Rodney King

Darryl Richman
Forum Administrator

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

I understand it's difficult for volunteers to keep an eye on things 24/7/365, but I'm just curious as to why entire threads are doghoused instead of simply removing the offending posts.

Seems to me it takes the same amount of work to pull a few bad posts as it does to kill an entire thread. I'll presume that most offending posts are brought to the mods attention by fellow members, so why can't the posts be removed instead of entire threads snuffed out in response to two or three offensive posts?

 

[cmunger]

bad threads

Hey, I give you guys (moderators) a ton of credit for keeping an eye on things and handling each situation...esp. w/o being paid to do so and the time you spend...helmet nod to ya.

 

[darrylri]

I understand it's difficult for volunteers to keep an eye on things 24/7/365, but I'm just curious as to why entire threads are doghoused instead of simply removing the offending posts.

Seems to me it takes the same amount of work to pull a few bad posts as it does to kill an entire thread. I'll presume that most offending posts are brought to the mods attention by fellow members, so why can't the posts be removed instead of entire threads snuffed out in response to two or three offensive posts?

Actually, it takes a lot less effort to move a thread to the doghouse. It's a single operation. Internally, the mods also maintain a log of actions taken, so each time something needs to be done, there's some more "paperwork" behind it. Doghousing a thread is about half the effort of moderating even one forum posting.

For example, I just moderated two postings. I had to go through the forum's infraction screens and send messages to each of the posters. Then I had to make entries in the log. Then I had to delete their posts. I believe it took 15 or 20 minutes out of my life to do this. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot, but it's the middle of the day here and I'm actually trying to get some "real life" work done.

Emotionally, going through the post moderation routine is not much fun, either. It's confrontational, especially when you get a PM (or two or three) in return discussing/arguing about it.

The thing is, people come here with different expectations than in most other forums. They've paid their $40/year to be a member, and that changes the relationship people seem to expect. Because that membership is to a club that is more than just this forum, and the club tries to put on a particular approach to motorcycling, it means that this forum is simply not going to be the wide open, freewheeling place that many other forums are. But some people just won't accept that and try to change it to what they want, on their own.

 

[akbeemer]

I agree with Don's action in shutting down the two threads last night; they were out of hand. However, I think there is merit to trashing just some specific responses rather than the entire thread. LightningÔÇÖs response that precedes mine is an example of a comment that is just name calling and ought to go, but the thread has merit and should continue.

 

[mika]

On first blush redacting sounds good and I have made the argument for it before, but by what standard and who does the redacting? Sending a thread to the dog house ends an individual thread but the subject or subjects within the can be brought back in a new thread at any time.

In the case of this thread the topic can be brought back and the next round of testimony by the big three in front of congress will provide a good basis to start a new thread(s) that bring the discussion back on topic.

Bad behavior by a few has ended more than one party attended by many that I have been to. That didnÔÇÖt stop us from having parties or the previous offenders from showing up and acting fine and having fun the next time.

 

[RJM2096]

Those threads did turn ugly. Despite my feelings about giving us more freedom on what we discuss, poor manners and escallating ill will should not be tolerated. Good call.

 

[deilenberger]

I agree with Don's action in shutting down the two threads last night; they were out of hand. However, I think there is merit to trashing just some specific responses rather than the entire thread. LightningÔÇÖs response that precedes mine is an example of a comment that is just name calling and ought to go, but the thread has merit and should continue.

Kevin,

While it might seem simple to just go in and redact some of the offensive postings - it wouldn't have been easy, since people were quoting each other and including the offensive posts. Every time a moderator deletes a posting, we have to make a detailed note about the When/Why/Who in the moderator action log. That takes considerably longer than the posting deletion. If we're issuing an infraction at the same time, we have to write the user receiving the infraction explaining why, and then we have to document the infraction issed in the moderator action log. These actions on those two threads would probably have taken me an hour to complete if I tried redacting posts, and to tell the truth, to me it wasn't worth wasting an hour of my life on.

In this case - both threads had spiraled out of control, and tempers were starting to flare, so it appeared prudent to simply close the threads and move them out of general sight.

Best,

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

First of all, I am not criticizing any moderator, volunteer, poster, or member.

It seems like tweaking the software to delete all references to a post when that post is deleted would be an easy fix. It also seems that there is FAR TOO MUCH paperwork involved with deleting a post and/or reprimanding a member and/or "doghousing" a thread.

Excuse me for saying this, but it ain't my fault the MOA bureaucratized the process to the point that it's too much of a PITA for anyone to bother with the process. How about we eliminate some of the red tape so it's easier - and faster - for mods to do their jobs?

If the rules for automatic deletion of posts were clear and concise (i.e. your post will be deleted and you will be reprimanded - no excuses or exemptions - if you personally insult a fellow member or use profanity), then there isn't much wiggle room for offenders to complain or seek redress.

There has got to be a simple way to efficiently and effectively police the forums without having to nuke an entire thread because of a few offensive posts.

 

[akbeemer]

I too was not intending to criticize the mods. I certainly do not envy your jobs and realize that until you are in the position to make tough judgment calls you cannot realize just how difficult the call, and the people involved, can be. In my job I often have to deny people what they want and to say ÔÇÿnoÔÇÖ, so I am aware of what an onerous task it can be. My thought was to add a tool to your bags to make your jobs easier. If you do not think the tool will work IÔÇÖll defer to your experience.

 

[BUBBAZANETTI]

First of all, I am not criticizing any moderator, volunteer, poster, or member.

It seems like tweaking the software to delete all references to a post when that post is deleted would be an easy fix. It also seems that there is FAR TOO MUCH paperwork involved with deleting a post and/or reprimanding a member and/or "doghousing" a thread.

Excuse me for saying this, but it ain't my fault the MOA bureaucratized the process to the point that it's too much of a PITA for anyone to bother with the process. How about we eliminate some of the red tape so it's easier - and faster - for mods to do their jobs?

If the rules for automatic deletion of posts were clear and concise (i.e. your post will be deleted and you will be reprimanded - no excuses or exemptions - if you personally insult a fellow member or use profanity), then there isn't much wiggle room for offenders to complain or seek redress.

There has got to be a simple way to efficiently and effectively police the forums without having to nuke an entire thread because of a few offensive posts.

The process is a necessary one. As mentioned above, accountability is important, and its better that we run a tight ship than have things be haphazard and get slammed for it later.

Removing post is in effect editing threads, something we do not do. Doghousing is a much more effective resolution. It leaves the thread, in its entirety for people to peruse, but just stops an off track, potentially inflamatory discussion.

And, sometimes unfortunately, "what the mods say goes" does not work. The paper trail that follows that concept makes the deletion of individual posts look like nothing.

 

[OfficerImpersonator]

But moving a thread to the "Doghouse" kills the thread. It's akin to prescribing a full frontal lobotomy to treat a broken arm.

There has simply got to be a better way to delete the offending material without eliminating the potential for future discussion within the thread.

 

[mika]

But moving a thread to the "Doghouse" kills the thread. It's akin to prescribing a full frontal lobotomy to treat a broken arm.

There has simply got to be a better way to delete the offending material without eliminating the potential for future discussion within the thread.

How?
When?
Which is more important the thread or the ability to discuss a topic? Flawed as the current system may be it does not eliminate the possibility to discuss a topic.

 

[deilenberger]

First of all, I am not criticizing any moderator, volunteer, poster, or member.

It seems like tweaking the software to delete all references to a post when that post is deleted would be an easy fix. It also seems that there is FAR TOO MUCH paperwork involved with deleting a post and/or reprimanding a member and/or "doghousing" a thread.

I would tend to agree - as a moderator for some BMW car forums/lists - there is much less documentation. The difference is - those are free services. The MOA forum is not free - and we have a BoD to answer to. If the actions we take eventually lead to a member being banned forever from the forums - we really do need a trail that can be followed to show why that action is necessary. On a free forum - "diss me" and you're history. On the MOA forums - we have a process in place that must be followed. We have simplified it somewhat - but it still takes longer to document an action then to perform the action.

Tweaking the software also isn't a real option, since the V-Bulletin package is just that - a package with limited functionality. Right now - there is no artificial intelligence built into it that would search for all occurrences or references to a thread and delete them. I think that sort of capability is really beyond what the MOA can afford to pay for.

Excuse me for saying this, but it ain't my fault the MOA bureaucratized the process to the point that it's too much of a PITA for anyone to bother with the process. How about we eliminate some of the red tape so it's easier - and faster - for mods to do their jobs?

I'd love to - how?

If the rules for automatic deletion of posts were clear and concise (i.e. your post will be deleted and you will be reprimanded - no excuses or exemptions - if you personally insult a fellow member or use profanity), then there isn't much wiggle room for offenders to complain or seek redress.

There has got to be a simple way to efficiently and effectively police the forums without having to nuke an entire thread because of a few offensive posts.

I wish we could have simple rules - but in a member paying organization, we do have to dot our I's and cross our T's. It's never as simple as we wish it was. All the moderators are volunteers - so time we spend moderating is time we could be using doing things we like to do - like riding our bikes, hugging the family. Good stuff like that... but there is a core group that tries their best to keep things on an even keel here for the good of the community. Not everyone agrees with our actions - and that's to be expected and OK. My only hope is - people who don't agree with our actions step up and volunteer also - to help make the community and the MOA stronger.

Best,

 

[MOTOR31]

Ya know I think it's this deilenberger guy that's the problem here. I saw in the last couple doghouse threads that he was the last guy to post in them and they got sent to the doghouse. It seems we gotta keep him outa the thread to keep it from being sent down south!

 

[akbeemer]

Ya know I think it's this deilenberger guy that's the problem here. I saw in the last couple doghouse threads that he was the last guy to post in them and they got sent to the doghouse. It seems we gotta keep him outa the thread to keep it from being sent down south!

Ya, he's well known as a rabble rouser.

 

[knary]

And, sometimes unfortunately, "what the mods say goes" does not work.

If it did, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[ian408]

As a admin in a larger forum, I can appreciate the effort required to make even a quick pass through all topics and prune the offensive posts. And most moderators don't get paid to do this--I know I can spend at least 8-10 hours a week doing it.

I guess the short answer is if it ends up in the doghouse, then maybe the posters ought to take some responsibility to see they don't cause that to happen again