Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Public Statement From Stephen Speicher

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

For clarities sake, and so that people understand the logistics, although there is a list of 7 moderators, I have only seen 4 of them "active" of late (both numbers exclude Mr. Hughes).  I welcome correction by any moderator who has a different count.  This load may be more work for these moderators than you realize.  And also keep in mind, our actions are not simply limited to reacting to complaints, but also involve more proactive measures at times.

...

Watching this thread evolve, there appear to be 3 separate problem/issues here.

1. Obviously, the problem of how moderators do/don't do there jobs and the judgment they exercise in doing so, specifically the case regarding Mr. Speicher and the moderator NIJamesHughes.

2. The actual workload of the current moderators. From what Mr. Laughlin has said and you ellude to above, even if the moderators do their job perfectly, there is still a large percentage of this board that goes unmoderated.

3. The issue involving a "hacker" (which I find to be the most bizarre/disturbing issue that has popped up in this thread).

These are three separate issues and need to be dealt with accordingly. That being said, this is the best online forum I have ever participated in. I hope that all these issues are resolved.

If Mr. Speicher does not return, he will be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won’t have time to deal with issue, or even read the entirety of the thread until I get back, but I will comment on some of the things I read:

The security of this forum is such that any hacking is extremely unlikely. The only real way to get into someone’s account is to know their password – and even I don’t have access to them because the password is never recorded. Moderators can falsify content, but that can be detected and corrected.

Attempting to circumnavigate moderation (such as registering under another username when your posting privileges are limited) is grounds for an immediate and permanent ban, regardless of any other circumstances. (Other kinds of intellectual dishonesty, especially any content posted under false pretenses is also grounds for a ban.)

I am well aware of the pitfalls of choosing moderators hastily as well as that of accepting volunteers rather than nominating them. I have therefore been very careful in the latter case – which is not to say that I am infallible or my methods perfect.

I do not accept moderators on the basis of familiarity of Objectivism, but primarily on my evaluation of their skills as moderators, including their interpersonal and conflict-resolution skills. I know from experience that the only the latter is essential for an effective moderator, and no degree of familiarity with Objectivism can replace it.

While I sympathize with Stephen’s concerns, given the facts that I pointed out in previous posts, leaving the forum over the recent events is unjustified, at least if the time he’s invested here is any indication of its value to him. It’s his decision, but it’s also his loss, especially considering that I have been implemented the vast majority of his policy suggestions and previously took action in regard to the actions of several moderators WITHOUT a public airing.

I have received several requests for moderator status from several members, and I will review current and future requests, but I cannot promise a prompt reply. I prefer at least 100 posts to assist me in making a decision, so I may defer approval until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MisterSwig, with all due respect, you see the correct policing of the forum by moderators and feel that no new ones are needed, yet you don't know how much work the existing moderators have to do, and how much it cuts into their personal life. The only ones that know the moderator situation are the moderators themselves and the admins, and they've been saying that if we can get more people to help moderate, it will be good. If we get a lot of applications and therefore have some excellent choices, it will be great. Let's not forget that moderators are real people too, and they accept the task of spending a lot more time than the users and burden of dealing with very unpleasant people sometimes, for the sake of sheltering the rest of you from the necessity of having to endure them. Don't take this expenditure of time and effort for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Veksler,

I sympathize with you and I extend my proverbial hand to assist you in any way I can.

This post apparently signifies that at least one person is intentionally, and with malice, trying to destroy the integrity of your property. You have been violated and this angers me. Though I know you only by pictures and words the value of your work to me has been truly immense, thank you.

I just want to clarify something. By the way you quoted Quasar's sentence it looks as if you have made the same reading error I did upon first skimming it. The original quote was:

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. Also, Bobby Dobbs, AKA Thesweetscience, AKA Imakefights, AKA Allaction80, AKA DVDBoxing, et al. has emailed me again since making that post and has assured me that Quasar will be short lived.

Notice that there are two seperate sentences there, and that he is not claiming to be <list of pseudonyms>. The way you only quoted a part of the sentence makes it look as if he is doing that.

Anyway, I have nothing to do with this, just wanted to clear that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarities sake, and so that people understand the logistics, although there is a list of 7 moderators, I have only seen 4 of them "active" of late (both numbers exclude Mr. Hughes).  I welcome correction by any moderator who has a different count.  This load may be more work for these moderators than you realize.  And also keep in mind, our actions are not simply limited to reacting to complaints, but also involve more proactive measures at times.

I would like to add two points to RationalCop's on-target post.

First, the current situation is even more grim than RationalCop suggests. Think of the situation this way: If four are active (at least three hours per day for most of the four), that would mean coverage for only 12 hours during the day. Sometimes four moderators are on-duty at once, but sometimes none or only one. I also know that at least two, and probably more of the moderators spend even longer hours here, but we still can't cover everything. Sometimes that means a REPORT! goes without a response for 12 or more hours -- an unacceptable situation.

Second, the most active moderators are striving for excellence not mere maintenance. As RationalCop said, we generally want to be proactive not just reactive. The goal isn't just to kill the biggest bugs (trolls and other egregious violators) in the garden, so to speak, but to groom the garden to discourage all pests. Further, I know that the most active moderators would like to be, in one form or another, participatory moderators not just penalizers. What I mean by that is that we would like to create a garden clean enough that we would have time to actually participate in threads and offer some guidance to new students of Objectivism. A moderator can't do much of that when he is scurrying around fighting a lot of brush fires (more than regular members see).

[Edited to add sentence about REPORT! response delays.]

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering how quickly this thread has grown to a great length and that I've only just now read the first 2 pages of this thread, I'll try to be brief.

I have to chime in with some of the other posters by stating that (although I apparently don't agree with everything which Mr. Speicher posted or at least in the manner which he posted) he far more often than not offered _many_ well-reasoned and well-informed posts. I think that there are times when he literally was the sole person giving Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand proper reference/representation. If he no longer feels comfortable posting here, then it truly is already a major loss for this forum.

Now, given the confusion as to what's transpired, I would like to see Betsy's suggestions about software changes that make posts salvagable by moderators and/or original posters implemented. Moreover, I really think it would be appropriate for a full (if brief) explanation as to the whys and wherefores of this situation to be posted on the front of the forum area (if not at the mainpage of the website.) That is, a poster _must_ be allowed means to defending/representing himself.

If the handling of Mr. Speicher's posts are anything remotely true as to how he depicted it, then I have to say that I find this is entirely unprecedented as far as I have known in my use of the Internet (of about 10 years), and I find this experience to be rather bizarre and unjustified.

I hope that this situation gets rectified _and_ that an elaboration will be easily available to _anyone_ who comes across this forum.

I think the most important and essential point to be made in this regard is that if any moderator has any issue with a post, then that original poster should be immediately and clearly notified of what the issue is in a way that the poster must be able to access i.e. send a resolution scenario to the poster via e-mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now read up to part of page 6 of this thread. If anyone reads page 3, then they will see that the situation is more serious than what was originally indicated. The posts on page 4 make it obvious that NJJamesHughes should never moderate for this website again. Posts on page 6 make it apparent that (as I had suspected) this forum has not only been trolled but is under attack by a concerted takedown attempt. It's unclear from my vantage as to the degree that NJJamesHughes is involved with this, but what needs to be reiterated is that people who troll and/or do worse shouldn't simply be completely banned.... they should be reported to their ISPs.

Loss of Internet service altogether (for TOS agreement violations) for trolls and DOS attackers _will_ do the trick. (nods)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears as if all of this hoopla about NIJamesHughes being 19 is now irrelevant. If he entered his birth date correctly, the boy turns 20 today. Happy Birthday James, and you may want to be careful about recording tonights "activities" in your on-line journal. If the past is any indication, those things may be held against you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears as if all of this hoopla about NIJamesHughes being 19 is now irrelevant. If he entered his birth date correctly, the boy turns 20 today. Happy Birthday James, and you may want to be careful about recording tonights "activities" in your on-line journal. If the past is any indication, those things may be held against you.

What you are ironically criticizing is called moral judgment, using past behavior to back up the claims. It is entirely proper to do so (to pass moral judgment).

(edited for minor correction)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears as if all of this hoopla about NIJamesHughes being 19 is now irrelevant. If he entered his birth date correctly, the boy turns 20 today.

Almost as irrelevant as this. The hoopla has NOTHING to do with age.

If the past is any indication, those things may be held against you.

Not "may be", "will be". Same for everyone. Should it be otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost as irrelevant as this. The hoopla has NOTHING to do with age.

Not "may be", "will be". Same for everyone. Should it be otherwise?

I was referring only to age-related hoopla.

As for his being awkward with women, a good philosophy won't solve that problem, so it shouldn't come into play when considering his abilities as a moderator.

Drinking should not be cause for a moral condemnation. He said that he only drinks occasionally; I doubt that it has ever interfered with his moderating abilities.

My "ironic criticism" was based on the premise that moderating ability is not determined by age, or what happens on the weekends, but by the ability to judge good post from bad. There are far too many posts on this forum that add nothing to their respective topics (for evidence look back on this very thread). Those posts by Stephen Speicher probably should have been deleted. The only issue here should be the method NIJamesHughes used when doing away with those posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is GC's private property devoted to building an Objectivist online community. It has a different nature than a commons.

That is true, but since he obviously can't constantly hawk over the site - he has a life and vocation afterall - it does fall to the users to create a desirable environment. You're right, technically it is private property and not a commons. However, since people are able to use it free of charge and anyone is permitted to post as long as they abide by the rules it does have a very open structure.

I believe the most important quality we need in moderators is reason. We need the best and brightest--a few will do--to be our judges and to right wrongs, once we make a complaint against someone. I don't think it should be a high priority to get more and more moderators. More moderators does not equal a better board. More rational moderators equals a better board. And since I think this is the best Objectivist board on the Internet, that should tell you what I think of our current moderating team.

The present problem did not arise from a lack of moderators, as far as I can tell. This place is not crawling with trolls or littered with inappropriate posts. It seems that this all started when a moderator edited Stephen's posts without notifying him. If that is truly the case, then I think this problem can be resolved without new moderators.

I agree with you here on all points. I think a few more moderators would be useful simply given the volume and complexity of the board but the requirements for moderators should definitely be the focus. Also, you have made a very good point that other than NIJamesHughes OO.net has great moderators, few trolls, and has developed a wonderful forum for the study and discussion of Objectivism.

Edited by me to fix the quote boxes.

Edited by Elle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MisterSwig, with all due respect, you see the correct policing of the forum by moderators and feel that no new ones are needed, yet you don't know how much work the existing moderators have to do, and how much it cuts into their personal life.

I was a moderator of this board, and, unless things have radically changed, I have some idea about the workload, what moderators do, and how much time they spend doing it. But my experience moderating is a side issue of relative little significance to the general audience. David has already addressed my primary concern in his latest post. So, I will leave this thread satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I sympathize with Stephen’s concerns, given the facts that I pointed out in previous posts, leaving the forum over the recent events is unjustified, at least if the time he’s invested here is any indication of its value to him.  It’s his decision, but it’s also his loss, especially considering that I have been implemented the vast majority of his policy suggestions and previously took action in regard to the actions of several moderators WITHOUT a public airing.

I may be commenting where comments are not wanted, but since I admire your achievemt, GC, with this website, and value this forum so highly, I will take that risk. Please take my comments in the benevolent spirit in which they are offered.

Are you certain that the above statement is what you want your public position on this issue to be?

Seems a little too tinged with vitriol, wouldn't you say? I understand you are otherwise occupied this week and somewhat out of the loop, but that is all the more reason to be circumspect in issuing statements.

One thing I have learned in handling business crises is to separate the "personal" from the "business." That is, not to let personal emotional reactions to a situation interfere with doing what is in the long-term best interest of the business. RationalCop offered some words of wisdom in post #140, particularly about stepping back and taking a deep breath. I would like to add to that: and check your premises!

Are you certain that you are absolutely clear as to why Stephen Speicher took the action he did? Have you considered that the issue is not about "actions of - moderators", but about integrity?

Even if you think his action is unjustified, can you understand why he would reasonably deem his action entirely justified and necessary (even in view of the facts you noted in previous threads)?

Does the fact that you previously implemented changes he suggested ("without a public airing") really have anything at all to do with what is at issue here?

Does it benefit anyone to be putting things in terms of whose loss it is? Would it not be more productive to look at things from the perspective of how can the greatest value be gained in this situation?

I understand that managing this website is a demanding task and a huge responsibility and that it is not always possible to accomodate everybody's requirements. Maybe this is one instance where some accomodation in needed to serve the best long-term interest of ObjectivismOnline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is my response to Stephen’s original post:

What happened:

NIJamesHughes edited a total of three posts by Stephen Speicher. In each case, he replaced a post with the text of a forum rule and added a notification with his name and timestamp that he edited the post. I am not aware of any other case where James edited Stephen’s posts, nor of him or any other moderator ever changing a post without some notification that the post had been changed – aside from minor spelling and formatting changes by me.

Analyzing James’ actions:

If indeed Stephen’s post violated the forum rules, the proper action would have been to delete the post and send him a warning or a PM. I would then be able to review the deleted post and decide whether the action was proper. Replacing a post with the text of a forum rule therefore violated several of the moderation guidelines regardless of whether Stephen’s post violated the forum rules.

Therefore, Stephen had a legitimate grievance against James’ actions. Given this evidence, I’ve decided that my preliminary action of removing James as moderator was correct. I am responsible for selecting him as a moderator in the first place, but when I reviewed his posts and background on Dec 4 2004, he seemed like a qualified candidate. Furthermore, I have no evidence of any reason why he should not remain as a normal participant of this forum, as several other former moderators have done. On the bizarre matter of “N1JamesHughes” I am forced to conclude that someone working at TGS, Inc. attempted to frame James by creating a similar-looking account.

Proposed policy changes:

In addition to the complaint about James’ action, Stephen and Betsy Speicher as well as others brought up a number of complaints about current moderation policy as well as suggestions for policy changes. I posted several policy clarifications and minor changes shortly after seeing this thread, so you can review those on the Wiki. Other minor changes are currently being discussed in the moderator forum. Because my changes do not cover all the issues brought up, I will nevertheless discuss their ideas. I will list my summary of the complaints and discuss their merits, the proposed solutions, the viability of the proposed solutions, and finally present my conclusions.

The complaints include the following claims:

1. No notification is given to the author of a post when a moderator edits it.

2. The original post is erased when a post is modified by a moderator.

3. The author of a post is not aware of what posts of his have been edited.

4. The posts can be edited by a moderator and the edited content presented as the author’s writing.

5. The above was in fact done.

The validity of the complaints under current policies:

1: This is partially true. There is no automatic process or rule that requires a moderator to notify the author every time he edits a post. However, the moderator guidelines do state, that he should contact the author when forum policies are being broken, so in most cases, the author would in fact be notified when a post of his is edited or deleted. Possible exceptions could be a single warning refers to a pattern of behavior, and thus covers several posts that may have been deleted without being individually identified, or minor grammatical or formatting changes.

2. This is generally not true, with some exceptions. If a post is deleted, it is not permanently erased. If it is edited by a moderator however, the original content may be overwritten by the moderator. In addition to the exceptions noted above, moderators may leave some parts of a post intact and delete the rest, though this happens very rarely, and the offensive part is included in the warning's description. Also, a description of what was deleted must be added to the post.

3. This is wrong. A member may view his post history and see all his edited posts clearly marked with a name and timestamp of the moderator who edited them.

4. While this is strictly against the rules, the forum software will not stop the moderators from attempting to do so.

5. There is no evidence of this ever being done.

Here are the demands presented on the forum to correct these problems. (As a preface, I want to mention that (2) and (3) are already the forum policy, so I will not spend time on those. Also, it is implied that all editing restriction placed on moderators should apply to me as well.)

1. The moderators should be prevented, by the software, from editing other members' posts.

2. If a post is somewhat inappropriate, the poster should be warned privately and the moderator may respond publicly in a separate posting.

3. If a post is deemed too offensive, the moderator may delete it and must post the reason why and inform the poster. (Perhaps this can be done automatically by the software.) The poster will then have the option of reposting without the offensive content or appealing to the other moderators and/or forum owner to have the post reinstated.

4. Under no circumstances should the original post be deleted or altered in such a way that the original content is unavailable to the moderation staff and the author.

In analyzing these suggestions, I had to consider a number of broad objectives regarding the moderation of the forum. Here they are, ranked in approximate order of importance:

-The forum must facilitate the primary objective of the website – that is, to function as a marketplace of ideas about Objectivism.

-The forum software must support the forum’s policies

-The technical demands of implementing the policies should be reasonable.

-The moderators should be able to review and remove inappropriate content.

-The posters should be notified when content violates the rules or their posts are modified.

-The administrator should have access to the moderator actions so he can review and possibly reverse them.

-The moderation process should be private.

-The posters should be able to appeal moderator actions.

-The public record of threads should provide an accessible and on-topic information source to new readers.

-The public record of forum threads should represent the content actually posted, with explanation of how moderators have altered it.

-The bureaucratic overhead of moderation should be minimized

-The bureaucratic overhead of moderating the moderators should be minimized.

-Moderation should be integrated with a moderator’s normal participation in the forum.

Implementing these objectives requires a compromise among these goals. One of the compromises is a balance between preserving an accurate historical record of content versus maximizing their value and accessibility to readers. For example, switching the forum to a Wiki would provide a 100% accurate historical record, while severely affecting the usability of the website as an active discussion forum. Allowing moderators to edit whatever they want without any record would minimize bureaucracy, while detracting from my ability to audit them and presenting a public record of changes.

One method of simplifying my workload has been a policy of “trust but verify.” “Trust” means that moderators are given wide discretion as to what they can do, broadly worded guidelines, and less that 100% audit trail requirements. “Verify” means that I screen moderators prior to accepting them and periodically review their behavior. I believe that such a policy is the only way to handle the necessary workload without a paid staff of either moderators or administrators (that’s me) given the limitations of current technology.

With the above context in mind, I will address requirement 1: “the moderators should be prevented, by the software, from editing other members' posts.”

Given the objectives and technical limitations I have listed, such a rule both impossible. (a) The software simply doesn’t support such a requirement. (B) Moderators need to be able to edit posts for a variety of reasons, such as correcting spelling, grammatical, and formatting mistakes (often at the authors request), removing content from a post when it is only partially inappropriate, and moving, joining, splitting, and otherwise organizing topics. (c.) I trust the moderators not to abuse their privileges – and to react appropriately when they do.

“3. If a post is deemed too offensive, the moderator may delete it and must post the reason why and inform the poster.” This is in fact the course generally taken – given the stipulations I previously mentioned. Additionally, since the moderation process must be private, the moderators cannot present a public record of their communications to users, but only a limited indication of what content is removed.

“4. Under no circumstances should the original post be deleted or altered in such a way that the original content is unavailable to the moderation staff and the author.” Here again this rule is generally followed, with the exceptions of formatting and minor changes I previously mentioned.

Some have expressed concern that allowing moderators to edit posts “leaves open the possibility of abuse, in which the words of one person are put in the mouth of another.” (Ed from OC) This a non-sequitur. While there are important practical reasons why mods must be able to edit posts, it does not follow that moderators will abuse that ability – and *they never have*. Giving police officers guns “leaves open the possibility” that they might shoot an innocent, but this is not a reason to ban them. The proper policy is to properly select, audit, and train moderators, not prevent them from doing their jobs.

On a concluding note, the forum rules are under continual evolution and proposed additions may be posted on the Wiki. Also, I consider the fact that the “edit by” checkbox cannot be made mandatory a deficiency in the forum software. I will consider ways to modify it, and I welcome your help in doing so.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm satisfied. I hope Mr. Speicer will read this and will give us his reaction now.

Remember that without moderator powers this forum would be overrun by trolls and abusers, bad spelling, and would lose its value.

Also, considering that the user can ALWAYS know when his own posts have been edited, by who, and when - I'd say the whole danger of a moderator abusing his privilege is minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if the software and workload allow for the following suggestion but I’ll post it anyway.

I think a moderator should have only one power Re a given post: to suspend it until whatever problem he has with it can be resolved, through private discussion with the writer. Neither the writer nor the moderator should be able to move a post, correct spelling or grammar, delete it, or alter it in any way without the other’s consent. If the two can’t work something out in a reasonable amount of time the mater should be brought to the owner, his ruling being final.

This is the only way moderating content can be done honorably.

I haven’t been here very long. Even with the little experience I have, however, it’s clear to me that the Speichers are two of the dozen or so pillars of reason on this site.

If my suggestion increases moderator workload too much, then I suggest that a list of the best, most knowledgeable posters be created and their posts be treated as I suggest ie, with the respect their abilities command -- the Speichers should definitely be on that short list.

On a personal note:

I don’t know either Stephen or Betsy personally.

I’ve been reading Stephen’s posts on HBL for years. On that forum one sees Stephen having substantial impact on some of Objectivism’s most respected intellectuals, month, after month, after month. (Those who doubt this can sign-up for a free month of HBL.)

To those who attack Stephen’s content I say to you respectfully: tread lightly because chances are you’re wrong. To those who attack his character and/or style I say: tread lightly because, chances are, you’re being defensive.

Thank you.

Johnrgt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the only way moderating content can be done honorably.

The technical methodolgy that provides the ability to moderate is not what determines whether such moderation is honorable. Rather, it is the conduct and judgement of the moderator which determines honorability. I see this suggestion severely hampering our duties. Hamstringing moderators in this fashion would also pretty much negate the reason why GC has moderators. He has moderators so that they can assist in running the forum in his stead, while remaining under his ultimate authority.

As analogy, your suggestion is tantamount to a suspect and a police officer (or magistrate or judge) coming to an agreement as to whether or not the suspect should be charged or punished. That judgement belongs solely to the authority, and is then subject to a system of checks and balances. Otherwise, there is no authority for the authority figure (moderator)

As it is now, the moderator is between judge and magistrate, but GreedyCapitalist is the Supreme Court of OO. There is a system of checks and balances in place that helps keep moderators honorable, or removes them from being able to moderate.

[Edit: Spelling Correction - RationalCop]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AisA,

I’m not sure what a moderator’s workload entails, but if notifying and coordinating an edit with a post’s writer is too much trouble then something is definitely off.

I'm not crazy about the analogy you drew.

Asking for notification and mutual approval of edits doesn’t erode a moderator’s right to temporarily suspend a suspect post; it simply holds the moderator accountable and educates the membership on what is and isn’t acceptable.

JohnRGT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a monster thread has grown here in a few days...

GreedyCapitalist, for the record I think you've handled the situation effectively and even-handedly, both regarding the moderator and the requests for rules/features. Nice job.

It seems that the crux of this issue is that stephen_speicher, as an academic who depends on his reputation "in print", is unwilling to tolerate that someone could masquerade as him/edit his posts without his knowledge. The fact that it was done calls into question the safety and integrity of all his previous posts.

The first problem, then, would seem to be that a user is not automatically notified when there is a change to their post. Such notification is left to the discretion of the moderator. I have not seen any suggestion by GreedyCapitalist or anyone else that this notification can be made automatic, and since the forum software appears to be a commercial product, it's not going to be possible to just add this feature unless it's part of an upgrade by the the manufacturer.

The second problem would seem be with the lack of an audit trail to follow in case posts are edited. Based on what I have read here, the forum software:

1) Saves deleted posts (really it's just "moving" them out of the live forum into a hidden area).

2) Does not make a copy of edited posts; i.e. it updates them in-place, so that the original contents are gone unless there's a backup of the database.

Assuming my description is correct, can either of these issues be remedied? Can notification be made automatic and can copies be kept of edits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AisA,

I'm RationalCop, not AisA.

I’m not sure what a moderator’s workload entails,
Of late, I spend at least a couple hours a day on here in the capacity of a moderator. There's plenty of workload for the few moderators that are active. I would estimate that you proposed procedure would entail at least doubling the time it would take a moderator to do his/her job, if not longer.

but if notifying and coordinating an edit with a post’s writer is too much trouble then something is definitely off.

Specifically, what "something" is "off"?

I'm not crazy about the analogy you drew.
I'm not "crazy" about the manner in which you choose to hamstring our ability to do our job. What you describe is a mediator, not a moderator. However "crazy" you aren't about my analogy, I think it stands.

Asking for notification and mutual approval of edits doesn’t erode a moderator’s right to temporarily suspend a suspect post; it simply holds the moderator accountable and educates the membership on what is and isn’t acceptable.

There is already a system in place that effectively holds moderators accountable and educates the membership on what is and isn't acceptable. This system takes into account the time and effort that GC can spend on this site, as well as that of voluntary moderators. Your proposal would entail far more day to day work on the part of GC, something he has tried to reduce to manageable levels by having moderators to begin with. I'm sure you realize this, but I think it bears repeating, both the moderators and the admins have jobs and responsibilities outside this forum, and there is a limited amount of time we each can spend here performing these duties. Our ability to carry out those duties would be smothered by the process you suggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy/Stephen,

One way to ensure your posts can't be edited, even by GC, is to make them a page on speicher.com and then just post a link in the forum. The moderators can only edit the link, which will break it. In effect you are limiting their powers to deleting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy/Stephen,

One way to ensure your posts can't be edited, even by GC, is to make them a page on speicher.com and then just post a link in the forum. The moderators can only edit the link, which will break it. In effect you are limiting their powers to deleting.

Even if that weren't a ridiculous waste of time and if people would be willing to click on the link and break the flow of the thread every time they want to read a post, it's still against the forum rules:

• Improper links

No advertisements or spam of any kind will be tolerated, including any posts made solely to advertise your website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...