Stop deleting threads and posts!

[Rick58]

Ya know after reading through this I decided to read the rules of the road..yeah, yeah I know, but rather late then never. Reading through the holly scrolls, I happened upon this cut and paste:

"* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated."

PLEASE! <looking for the eye rolling smiley>


I know as well as everyone else that this NEVER goes on uninterrupted much less deleted. Makes one wonder...doesn't it.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I'm done here.

Since we're on the topic of swansongs, I should probably clarify that I meant done here as in this thread, not TPF.

 

[Overread]

Ya know after reading through this I decided to read the rules of the road..yeah, yeah I know, but rather late then never. Reading through the holly scrolls, I happened upon this cut and paste:

"* No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated."

PLEASE! <looking for the eye rolling smiley>


I know as well as everyone else that this NEVER goes on uninterrupted much less deleted. Makes one wonder...doesn't it.

It's my understanding that that ruling was made more during the early days of Digital DSLRs when Digital VS Film threads were very rampant and heated debates. Most of them have cooled off significantly to the point where they are generally not a problem and thus not something we leap in to stop any more (and I say any more the old Digital VS film days were just before my time here).

 

[cgipson1]

I'm done here.

Since we're on the topic of swansongs, I should probably clarify that I meant done here as in this thread, not TPF.

I started to razz you about that.. but it was too obvious!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Just wow @ thread

 

[The_Traveler]

I'm pretty surprised that Tyler left.
It seemed that in the past few months he had actually calmed down a bit and was less confrontive than previously.
Schweetylen's leaving is a loss; he seemed like a nice guy with no more than the normal hostility.
I would think that the admins would try and cater to the 'success' stories for the sake of the site.
It would certainly go a long way to show the members that the staff really cares if they could review that whole name change thing and keep Robin active.

 

[unpopular]

I'm pretty surprised that Tyler left.

I am 99.5% certain he'll be back.

 

[manaheim]

I have to say I think the quality of the forum has gone up significantly since the new breed of more active mods came on board.

That said, I think they're still cutting their teeth a bit and I've seen a bit of what I would call "overzealous" moderation. Not surprising, and I don't hold it against you guys.

However, I might suggest that you consider developing a strict criteria around posts that are outright deleted. I can guarantee you that deleting will be perceived as repressive and the community as a whole will react violently to it. In certain circumstances I think people will understand it (like child pornography or racial slurs or some such), but other than that I think a swift and strict lock is sufficient and reasonable.

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps the mods could just put an offending thread in the mod forum and talk it over before 'deleting' - second opinion kind of thing.

 

[Overread]

Generally speaking if one mod feels that a thread is worth removing from view its normally with a good enough reason that the removal is done sooner rather than later. Whilst we do have active mods now we are not all online at the same time. A discussion between us all can sometimes take a few days as we don't all come around daily (or always have time to properly assess a more complicated situation).

As such there are times when a mod feels that its prudent to remove from view a thread or to give a short term (generally under a week) suspension* to a user in order to prevent things from spiralling further out of control. Sometimes, such as thread removals, this is pre-emptive action. The thread itself might not yet be on the downward spiral, but can often contain enough of a spark that its felt that its best to stop it before it develops.

These situations do get talked about - and we do react to feedback from the users. tirediron has already mentioned in this thread that he'll look into the matter of the name change not being approved. Sometimes though we have to take a stand on a choice or direction of action that we feel is best even if some of the forum members do not agree. We, sadly, can't appease everyone though we try our best to do so.



* - this is very rare and normally only done when its clear that one or two members need a very short forced break from the site and are continuing discussions/arguments even after a moderators warnings. Longer term suspensions and out right bans from the site are something we will discuss before we impose them.

 

[pixmedic]

Generally speaking if one mod feels that a thread is worth removing from view its normally with a good enough reason that the removal is done sooner rather than later. Whilst we do have active mods now we are not all online at the same time. A discussion between us all can sometimes take a few days as we don't all come around daily (or always have time to properly assess a more complicated situation).

As such there are times when a mod feels that its prudent to remove from view a thread or to give a short term (generally under a week) suspension* to a user in order to prevent things from spiralling further out of control. Sometimes, such as thread removals, this is pre-emptive action. The thread itself might not yet be on the downward spiral, but can often contain enough of a spark that its felt that its best to stop it before it develops.

These situations do get talked about - and we do react to feedback from the users. tirediron has already mentioned in this thread that he'll look into the matter of the name change not being approved. Sometimes though we have to take a stand on a choice or direction of action that we feel is best even if some of the forum members do not agree. We, sadly, can't appease everyone though we try our best to do so.



* - this is very rare and normally only done when its clear that one or two members need a very short forced break from the site and are continuing discussions/arguments even after a moderators warnings. Longer term suspensions and out right bans from the site are something we will discuss before we impose them.

I absolutely agree.. there needs to be an IMMEDIATE stop to rebel instigators posting illegal MEME'S and Swansongs before it becomes an epidemic, Spiraling the forum into utter chaos and madness.
thankfully there are Mods here willing to take that hard line up on that wall to keep the rest of us safe.. we want them on that wall. we NEED them on that wall! HOO-RAH!

 

[The_Traveler]

Mods,

I don't think there is so much anger at what you guys are doing, because most of it has paid dividends, there are two habits that seem to cause the most problem: inconsistency and invisibility.
The inconsistency is something that you guys have to iron out. Rather than leaving it to one mod to decide, it would be nicer if at least two mods take a stance on the final deletion of a thread. I have never seen a thread disappear and then return, meaning that decisions are never questioned by another mod. That, in itself, is bad policy, imo.

We have the situation now where things that seem sort of harmless are disappeared along with the worst of stuff.

Stop moderating to the letter and moderate to the spirit.
If something isn't doing anything hurtful, leave it.
If a thread is removed, leave the initial post and explain why it was removed.
Then the moderation will make some sense and we aren't dealing with the invisible, all powerful hand.

 

[molested_cow]

Well, all of this is really weird. This is the freaking internet, but the way it's being handled is like a suspect terrorist being air lifted to Gitmo and never to be heard again.

Actually, an internet forum is basically a reality show. A for-profit site makes money from advertisers and the more traffic it gets, the higher it can charge. A "heated" thread generates more traffic than an average one, so what's really bad about it? What's the WORST that can happen? Some one decided to leave? Come on, it's the internet! If a person gets emotionally stirred to a point that he/she feels hurt, then he/she should not have been online in the first place.

We all hate Jersey Shore, but we all love to hate it. That's the point!

 

[pixmedic]

Mods,

I don't think there is so much anger at what you guys are doing, because most of it has paid dividends, there are two habits that seem to cause the most problem: inconsistency and invisibility.
The inconsistency is something that you guys have to iron out. Rather than leaving it to one mod to decide, it would be nicer if at least two mods take a stance on the final deletion of a thread. I have never seen a thread disappear and then return, meaning that decisions are never questioned by another mod. That, in itself, is bad policy, imo.

We have the situation now where things that seem sort of harmless are disappeared along with the worst of stuff.

Stop moderating to the letter and moderate to the spirit.
If something isn't doing anything hurtful, leave it.
If a thread is removed, leave the initial post and explain why it was removed.
Then the moderation will make some sense and we aren't dealing with the invisible, all powerful hand.

a great example of that...a gun thread, clearly against forum rules, is allowed to stay because "it didn't get ugly".
schwettys "goodby thread" , also against the rules, but not ugly, immediately removed. Inconsistent.
I understand that different mods have different views, but honestly, that just comes off sounding like an excuse. yes yes, we know mods are volunteers and don't get paid anything, we are reminded of that often enough. and we DO appreciate the work that the mods do..mostly.
But consistency among the people dictating what you can and cannot do here is important, and a lack of such breeds ill-content. but when that lack of consistency is mentioned, all we hear is "mods are people too, we aren't paid to do this, mods all have different views of the "rules"...and after a while, it starts feeling like the generic cop-out appeasement speech. personally, I would be more than happy if , when this issue came up, a Mod said "enough people have mentioned this problem that the mods are going to arrange a meeting, through emails or whatever, and actually discuss this as a group, and reach some sort of consensus". And then let us know what that decision was, and why they decided on it. because obviously, moderating to the "spirit" of the law means totally different things to different people. all we get is "those are the rules, and some Mod decided to enforce it"
If we are undeserving of an explanation for why things are done the way they are, just say so, its not like we HAVE to be here if we choose not to be. (another wonderful take it or leave it battle cry)

 

[Overread]

Stop moderating to the letter and moderate to the spirit.

a great example of that...a gun thread, clearly against forum rules, is allowed to stay because "it didn't get ugly".
schwettys "goodby thread" , also against the rules, but not ugly, immediately removed.

As you can see we can't appease everyone. If we work to the letter of the rules we are classed as oppressive and if we work within the flavour of the rules we get classed as inconsistent.


As for threads that vanish and reappear - we honestly don't delete that many threads. Barring spam threads most of the only deleted content is one off posts or parts of posts which are, generally, insulting/degrading or flame bait (and those removals normally come with a notice to the person who posted them or a note in the thread itself to stop the fight and get back on track). Very few threads made by legitimate members are removed - and most of them which are are nearly always at a fight stage to the point where keeping the thread on view or where cleaning out the fight is simply not worth while.

On the subject of more open moderation I have requested that the "suspend" notation is added to the forum software instead of "ban" when a member is given a time-out - unfortunately this is something software side with the site and out of my hands to fix.