Should Forum Rules violations be made public?

Website Policy and Announcements
1

Here is an issue that has perplexed me. As a moderator, I don’t want to berate a Forum Rules violator in “public,” that is, in the thread where the violation occurred.

On the other hand, many forum members have told me they want to know that moderators are taking action on violations. Now other members have no way to know whether a moderator has formally (and privately) warned the violator – or whether a moderator has even noticed the violation.

The situation has long been this, in part: Posts that contain egregious violations are deleted. The violator is formally (and privately) warned for the violation, put on “probation” (moderator preview) or banned. Except to notice a deletion of a post, other members have had no way to know that moderator action has taken place.

Here is another fact to consider: One of the most time-consuming tasks a moderator faces is composing and responding to PMs. PMs address, typically, only one person at a time, and they leave others in the dark about what action, if any, has been taken about a violation.

Recently, following what I interpreted as a new policy, I began adding boldface, square-bracket notes identifying any changes I had made to the post or any violations in the post. Here is a made-up example:

[bASIC QUESTIONS FORUM, moderator note: This post, in its original form, violates the Forum Rules against quoting whole articles, and was edited accordingly. – Burgess Laughlin]

The central question, in summary, is this: What is the best – most just, most informative, and least time-consuming – way to handle violations of the Forum Rules?

What solution would you offer that you would be willing to implement if you were a moderator?

2

This question is difficult to answer without knowing the volume of reported violations you receive.

Ignoring the workload implications, I believe the best policy is to return the post in its entirety to the poster along with a statement identifying your objections: “Please run a spell check” or “Devoid of intellectual content” etc.

The poster then has the option of changing the post, appealing the ruling to the moderator or administrator, or dropping it entirely. This allows you to control the content of posts, yet maintains the integrity of a poster’s authorship. It also guarantees that no post will ever be modified without the poster’s knowledge.

You would continue to have the power to issue public warnings. “Please spell check from now on.” “Future posts that contain information inconsistent with Objectivism will be removed and returned to sender.” Etc.

If the software does not allow you to return posts, you could copy the content of the post into a private mail to the poster, and replace the text in the post with the statement, “Returned by moderator to poster.”

It is easy to copy the content of one’s posts, make corrections and repost. So I see no need for an individual to have the ability to edit their posts or ask you to do it for them.

If this procedure is too much work, I would be interested to know what changes are required to make it feasible, because this is the only procedure that I can see that guarantees that the words that appear under my name are mine and mine alone.

3

As a moderator, I don’t want to berate a Forum Rules violator in “public,” that is, in the thread where the violation occurred.

I think we should distinguish between minor errors (such as misspelling or miscapitalizing a couple of words or an occasional, probably unintentional, failure to follow a rule of etiquette) and major violations (intentionally disruptive posting, spreading of anti-Objectivist ideas, failure to heed repeated warnings, etc.).

In the case of minor errors, there should be no public “scolding” ; if the post is edited, the reason for the edit should be phrased as a polite reminder rather than a formal warning.

In the case of major violations, where the poster deserves being berated, a public censure might very well be in place, especially if other posters have been complaining about the violator and you want to reassure them that you have taken action.

4

This question is difficult to answer without knowing the volume of reported violations you receive.

The volume is not that much at all: a couple of reports a day, on average.

5

That’s quite a bit, CF, if added to everything else.

6

I think that posters should be reprimanded for any violations of the forum rules, however I don’t think a moderator should ever modify the content of someone’s post (misspelling and miscapitalization are content-idenpendent).

If you think a post is in violation, then put that post on probation (with a notification stating the reason) until the author rewrites it. Is there a way to change the status of a post back and forth between hidden and non-hidden? (I agree with AisA here.)

I think we should distinguish between minor errors (such as misspelling or miscapitalizing a couple of words or an occasional, probably unintentional, failure to follow a rule of etiquette) and major violations (intentionally disruptive posting, spreading of anti-Objectivist ideas, failure to heed repeated warnings, etc.).

If you are going to advocate different moderator actions for each of these three categories, then you need to objectively define what the dividing lines are. There should be no question in the mind of a moderator over which action to take.

I think it is debatable about whether or not a moderator should edit to correct misspelling or miscapitalization. I think, since these errors are content independent, that editing is permissible, but only when a moderator is certain about the word the author intended to use.

7

I forgot to answer the actual question of this thread: “Should Forum Rules violations be made public?”

Taking the “probation of a post” idea further, what happens when the poster fails to correct their violation? A failure would be either, they repeat the violation in their attempt to correct it, fail to correct it with in a certain time frame, or they refuese to correct it. The status of the post should be changed from “hidden” to “deleted”. Instead of the post being where it was, there is just a blank post with the words “post deleted”.

If a poster does fail in the above, then they deserve to be publicly reprimanded. However,the fact that their post was deleted is displayed publicly is a public reprimand. It tells all other readers that this person violated the rules and didn’t correct their violation. For anyone who values their own reputation, this is sufficient punishment.

Repeated violations warrent other additional punishment, but the current policies and rules already take this into account.

8

Is there a way to change the status of a post back and forth between hidden and non-hidden?

Yes, this is very simple actually.

9

If you are going to advocate different moderator actions for each of these three categories, then you need to objectively define what the dividing lines are.

The dividing line is: honest errors vs. breaches of morality.

10

The dividing line is: honest errors vs. breaches of morality.

Yes, I do agree. But what then are the principles that a moderator can use in detecting the difference?

11

I think of this forum as a social gathering place. A big party with many different conversations going on amongst various groups. And I’m floating from conversation to conversation. Sometimes I speak, other times I listen.

If there is some drunk, obnoxious, irrational person, yelling and screaming but saying nothing, I probably won’t listen very long. If there is some confused but intelligent, inquisitive person asking questions politely, I am glad to enlighten them.

Since there is no danger of physical harm being done, I’d rather moderators just blend into the background. When I get tired of an irrational person I will stop conversing with them. And if my judgment is sound, others will agree with me and many of them will also choose not to sanction irrationality. Thus, like O.J., the irrational become pariahs and wither away.

If a moderator comes over to my conversation, I want to know why he is there. Who made a report to him and why. I would hope that whomever reported him first politely reminded him of his bad behavior or unprincipled argument. And if I’m involved in that same conversation and am rational myself, I should already know what is going on before the moderator gets there.

Except for the most vile and disgusting tantrums and dogma, I say let every post stand, unedited. Let me judge the character of those with whom I choose to converse. “Judge and prepare to be judged.”

Moderators should never have to berate anyone but if a rebuke is necessary let it be a public rebuke. And if they are right, they will be applauded.

Having everything aired in public should also cut down tremendously on PM’s.

12

The volume is not that much at all: a couple of reports a day, on average.

Yes, in the short time I was a moderator, I saw only a few formal REPORTS per day, seven days a week. Few members will click the button and file a report. Instead, what usually happens is that the well-poisoning gets worse and worse until someone finally takes initiative.

A reactive moderator – one who waits until problems fester enough to produce a REPORT – may have little to do each day. However, a proactive moderator – one who patrols various forums, while keeping the Forum Rules in mind – will find more work than he can handle, at times.

[Edited to add italics.]

13

Yes, in the short time I was a moderator, I saw only a few formal REPORTS per day, seven days a week. [Edited to add italics.]

Does this mean you are no longer a moderator?

14

Yes.

15

Yes, I do agree.  But what then are the principles that a moderator can use in detecting the difference?

The same principles one can use to judge the morality of people in general. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

16

The same principles one can use to judge the morality of people in general. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Perhaps. But it is nevertheless the responsiblity of the Moderators to be good at it.

So I suppose this simply emphasizes the need for competent Moderators who are willing enough to put in the time and thought that all important tasks require.

Continue to be on the lookout, GC. :lol: