How determined?

[No Swansong]

Recently a number of reported post threads have had what seem to be bizarre outcomes.

I will not point out specific outcomes, or why I feel them to be bizarre as that is not necessary to my question. None of them were reports of myself so I don't have a personal stake in their outcomes.

My question is this?

How does each mod interpret whether or not something is a violation of the no flaming rule?

Here is why I ask:

Recently there have been such comments as "It can be refuted in the thread" "It has been refuted in the thread" "He is only stating an opinion" While I have always supported not taking action unless a report had been made I have never supported letting a flame stand only because it may or may not be refuted in thread. That would seem to indicate that there are two different sets of rules. One set for those who are flamed and have the ability to make a logical argument in response, (those who refute the flame and thus no action is taken) and another set for those without this ability in which case presumably the flame would be edited.

Additionally is it really true that because someone states an opinion their comment is not a flame? For example if I made the comment that "in my opinion all males who are in their early 40's are despicable pedophiles" is this not a flame because it is my opinion? It seems by some of the comments in the report threads that as long as someone states that something is their opinion then it is not a flame?

I was directed by a senior member of the staff to actually post this so I really would appreciate a response from the mods.

[longhair75]

Friend jtbdad

Moderation would be a very easy thing to do if there was a clear cut, indisputable line beyond which a post becomes a flame. Unfortunately for those of us trying very hard to moderate this forum fairly, this line does not really exist. Requesting that posts that approach this line to be edited sometimes closes down legitimate discussion of the issues. Closing down discussion would not be a good thing for anyone.

I try very hard to approach this with as much objectivity as I can muster. Sometimes I fail. I apologize for my imperfections, but I continue on to do the best I can. My PM box is always open if you have questions about my rulings, but I do not intend to argue every decision I make in the report forum.

[No Swansong]

Friend jtbdad

Moderation would be a very easy thing to do if there was a clear cut, indisputable line beyond which a post becomes a flame. Unfortunately for those of us trying very hard to moderate this forum fairly, this line does not really exist. Requesting that posts that approach this line to be edited sometimes closes down legitimate discussion of the issues. Closing down discussion would not be a good thing for anyone.

I try very hard to approach this with as much objectivity as I can muster. Sometimes I fail. I apologize for my imperfections, but I continue on to do the best I can. My PM box is always open if you have questions about my rulings, but I do not intend to argue every decision I make in the report forum.
Peter;
Thank you for answering me and you know I have nothing but respect and love for you. I do not intend to imply that you do not do you best or that your intentions are nefarious. Would you be kind enough however to answer the questions I asked? Perhaps asking them more succinctly would help.

Why does the possibility or the occurrence of an in thread refutation seem to affect whether a comment is ruled a flame? It seems to me that if it is a flame whether it is refuted or not does not change the fact that it is a flame. And, according to not only our Wiki, but also the general guidelines of the board flaming is not permitted.

and

Is it true that stating that a comment is an opinion, by default determines whether or not the comment is a flame? If not then why is it often used to validate a No Violation vote?

Again thank you for your kind response.

[Naomi4Christ]

Can anyone hear violins playing in the background?

[higgs2]

To call fellow posters hypocrites, in the context of how it was done, in my opinion, was a flame.

To say that "I call that impatience and stupidity at the cost of Unity" about the actions of a group when posting in a debate, in my opinion, is strong debate. Same with if someone said "I call that hypocrisy". Probably. Depending on the context.

We try our best to make fair calls. THree mods agreed on this particular call.

[higgs2]

Oh also there is a difference between call people names and naming words or actions. Depending on the context.

We all need to 1. be nicer and 2. toughen up.

And I do think some of the behavior in the report threads has been beyond the pale, and that will be addressed.

[karen freeinchristman]

:thumbsup: I think it is good that you've brought up these questions, jtbdad. Here are my responses:
Why does the possibility or the occurrence of an in thread refutation seem to affect whether a comment is ruled a flame? It seems to me that if it is a flame whether it is refuted or not does not change the fact that it is a flame. And, according to not only our Wiki, but also the general guidelines of the board flaming is not permitted.We have an agreed approach to reports in that we try to be light-handed whenever possible, as I'm certain you are aware of, having been a mod previously. The best thing for us all to do (not just the mods) when we see posts with comments that might be considered inflammatory is to seek clarification in the thread itself. If it is a glaringly obvious flame, that would be different. But many posts can be misunderstood on the net (again, I'm sure you know that), and many times people simply do not express very well what they are trying to say. I do think that if our misunderstandings can be rectified in the thread itself, that is a healthier way for us to proceed than for people to instantly hit the report button all the time.


Is it true that stating that a comment is an opinion, by default determines whether or not the comment is a flame? If not then why is it often used to validate a No Violation vote?
I actually do believe that if we stated our opinions very clearly as being our opinion, this would reduce the numbers of reports. But this isn't a 'by default' decision as a rule in moderation. The whole thing is determined mainly by context, and also by our experience with the poster in question. Yes, that is subjective to a degree. We would be robots if we didn't take personalities into account, though. I think context is the main criteria, and specific word choice, and intention. It is sometimes a judgement call, and that's why we now wait for consensus between at least two or three of us. People may think we are biased, but I do think we all try very hard to be objective in spite of the difficult tasks we face.

Anyway, that's my view. :)

[No Swansong]

To call fellow posters hypocrites, in the context of how it was done, in my opinion, was a flame.

To say that "I call that impatience and stupidity at the cost of Unity" about the actions of a group when posting in a debate, in my opinion, is strong debate. Same with if someone said "I call that hypocrisy". Probably. Depending on the context.

We try our best to make fair calls. THree mods agreed on this particular call.
Higgs I specifically kept individual report threads and specifics out of my question because I didn't feel it germain to my question. But now that you have brought specific posts up let me ask you, in one report thread it was ruled that the use of the word hypocrites was a flame "in this post" The question was asked then if it was a flame in that post how could it not be a flame in others to which no response was offered. So I will ask you how is the use of the word "hypocrites" (a favorite of a couple of posters on this board) not acceptable in the post reported but acceptable otherwise? (other than a quote of Scripture obviously)

[No Swansong]

Can anyone hear violins playing in the background?
Naomi can you explain your post please?

[No Swansong]

Oh also there is a difference between call people names and naming words or actions. Depending on the context.

We all need to 1. be nicer and 2. toughen up.

And I do think some of the behavior in the report threads has been beyond the pale, and that will be addressed.
Can you explain further please? Do you believe that using a term that calls into question the intelligence of a large group of Anglicans acceptable? It never has been, what about the rules changed so drastically that it is now?

[No Swansong]

Karen thank you for your kind response; I have a few follow up questions.



:thumbsup: I think it is good that you've brought up these questions, jtbdad. Here are my responses:
We have an agreed approach to reports in that we try to be light-handed whenever possible, as I'm certain you are aware of, having been a mod previously.

Agreed, however I am not asking about the approach I am asking about what seems to be double standards; one set of rules for some, another set for others. This was exactly what the 777 debacle was supposed to fix.

The best thing for us all to do (not just the mods) when we see posts with comments that might be considered inflammatory is to seek clarification in the thread itself.

If this is truly how the current team wishes for flames to be addressed why have we not been informed? It certainly has not been the agreed upon practice in the past.

If it is a glaringly obvious flame, that would be different.

As is quite clear what some feel is a glaringly obvious flame others declare just his/her opinion.

But many posts can be misunderstood on the net (again, I'm sure you know that), and many times people simply do not express very well what they are trying to say. I do think that if our misunderstandings can be rectified in the thread itself, that is a healthier way for us to proceed than for people to instantly hit the report button all the time.

I will be sure to keep in mind that we are to ask for clarification before a report is made.



I actually do believe that if we stated our opinions very clearly as being our opinion, this would reduce the numbers of reports. But this isn't a 'by default' decision as a rule in moderation. The whole thing is determined mainly by context, and also by our experience with the poster in question. Yes, that is subjective to a degree. We would be robots if we didn't take personalities into account, though. I think context is the main criteria, and specific word choice, and intention.


So the mod team is now judging intent? Can you please clarify this statement?

It is sometimes a judgement call, and that's why we now wait for consensus between at least two or three of us.

As far as I know we have always waited for concensus, unilateral decisions were only ever used in cases in which a post had to be immediately removed such as in the case of pornography etc.

People may think we are biased, but I do think we all try very hard to be objective in spite of the difficult tasks we face.


I have never stated a bias in the current team and that is not why I ask these questions.

BTW you didn't really answer my question about stating opinions. I would like to know specifically why sometimes the argument that he/she is just stating her opinion is an acceptable validation for a No Violation vote and sometimes it isn't. If a post is not a flame because it is a stated opinion then it should be the same in every case. Again I ask if I make the statement that "it is my opinion that all men in their early 40's are despicable pedophiles" is it a flame? If so, then why is it a flame when other posts have been ruled NV simply because the poster was stating an opinion?

Anyway, that's my view. :)

And I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

[No Swansong]

To call fellow posters hypocrites, in the context of how it was done, in my opinion, was a flame.

To say that "I call that impatience and stupidity at the cost of Unity" about the actions of a group when posting in a debate, in my opinion, is strong debate. Same with if someone said "I call that hypocrisy". Probably. Depending on the context.

We try our best to make fair calls. THree mods agreed on this particular call.
Higgs;
Since you are the one who directed me to open this thread would you be kind enough to answer my questions?

Specifically;

What does the potential of a flame being refuted in the thread have to do with whether the reported post is actually a flame?

Does stating that a comment is "my opinion" by default exclude the comment from the no flaming rules? If not then why is it sometimes used to validate NV rulings in report threads?

Does it not seem reasonable to you that either it does exclude a comment from the no flaming rules all the time or none of the time?

[higgs2]

Higgs I specifically kept individual report threads and specifics out of my question because I didn't feel it germain to my question. But now that you have brought specific posts up let me ask you, in one report thread it was ruled that the use of the word hypocrites was a flame "in this post" The question was asked then if it was a flame in that post how could it not be a flame in others to which no response was offered. So I will ask you how is the use of the word "hypocrites" (a favorite of a couple of posters on this board) not acceptable in the post reported but acceptable otherwise? (other than a quote of Scripture obviously)

Hi jtbdad. I thought the specific post was important, that's why I mentioned it. I'm glad you opened this thread like I suggested. I am not sure what specific cases you are referring to as far as the word "hypocrites" is involved so I'm not sure what to tell you about this.

[ContraMundum]

We do our best with the lousy, loose and liberal guidelines that the reforms of 7/7/7 left us.

Anyway- there will come a time (end of the year, wasn't it?) when the forum can vote for new mods. Maybe a better selection of victims will come forward and present their names for the chopping block. :D

We try, we do.

We can't please everybody.

Things tend to ebb and flow on this forum, so it will settle down again.

[ContraMundum]

Higgs;
Since you are the one who directed me to open this thread would you be kind enough to answer my questions?

Specifically;

What does the potential of a flame being refuted in the thread have to do with whether the reported post is actually a flame?

Does stating that a comment is "my opinion" by default exclude the comment from the no flaming rules? If not then why is it sometimes used to validate NV rulings in report threads?

Does it not seem reasonable to you that either it does exclude a comment from the no flaming rules all the time or none of the time?

The rules tend to work more like "common law" than "let's legislate every possible outcome and spend the rest of our lives stopping the loopholes".

In other words, there is no need to arbitrate unless there is a complaint, and then the complaint is looked at through the filter of the rules/guidelines.

However, some people are irritated by a lot, it seems. (I wish I could mention names, because if they were my kids....LOL) :) These people tend to become serial reporters, and of course they make life hard for everybody.

The key to running the forum is actually not in the hands of the moderators, but in the hands of the posters: be nice to each other and always think twice before you post and I guarantee you it will run a lot smoother!

[higgs2]

Higgs;
Since you are the one who directed me to open this thread would you be kind enough to answer my questions?

Specifically;

What does the potential of a flame being refuted in the thread have to do with whether the reported post is actually a flame?

Does stating that a comment is "my opinion" by default exclude the comment from the no flaming rules? If not then why is it sometimes used to validate NV rulings in report threads?

Does it not seem reasonable to you that either it does exclude a comment from the no flaming rules all the time or none of the time?

Sometimes a comment is better addressed in the thread than by mod action. We try not to interfere too much if the thread is not completely derailed by a comment and if it is not a blatant attack or insult.


As for "in my opinion", no it is not always going to mean a comment is excluded from flaming rules. This could certainly be abused if it were the "law". Actually, no it does not seem like we should make it a black and white rule. We need to use common sense. Context matters a great deal. We act by consensus.

And again, if people would just try to be kind to each other a lot more and toughen up a little more I think things would run a lot more smoothly.

I really don't want to get into legislating every little thing someone says. That could end up with lists and lists and lists of what can be said and what cannot be said.

And remember, with the new system all we are really doing is requesting edits, not punishing for flaming or other violations.

You seem to be deeply concerned about this, jtbdad, so I am glad you opened up this dialogue. I would think that people here would like mods to use common sense and consensus rather than blanket rulings on every little thing, but who knows, maybe some others will comment and let us know their thoughts.

[karen freeinchristman]

:thumbsup: We do our best with the lousy, loose and liberal guidelines that the reforms of 7/7/7 left us.

Anyway- there will come a time (end of the year, wasn't it?) when the forum can vote for new mods. Maybe a better selection of victims will come forward and present their names for the chopping block. :D

We try, we do.

We can't please everybody.

Things tend to ebb and flow on this forum, so it will settle down again.

The rules tend to work more like "common law" than "let's legislate every possible outcome and spend the rest of our lives stopping the loopholes".

In other words, there is no need to arbitrate unless there is a complaint, and then the complaint is looked at through the filter of the rules/guidelines.

However, some people are irritated by a lot, it seems. (I wish I could mention names, because if they were my kids....LOL) :) These people tend to become serial reporters, and of course they make life hard for everybody.

The key to running the forum is actually not in the hands of the moderators, but in the hands of the posters: be nice to each other and always think twice before you post and I guarantee you it will run a lot smoother!These are great responses, Contra!

I am asking about what seems to be double standards; one set of rules for some, another set for others. This was exactly what the 777 debacle was supposed to fix. My view is that there are not different rules for different people.



If this is truly how the current team wishes for flames to be addressed why have we not been informed? It certainly has not been the agreed upon practice in the past.This isn't really the mod team method for flames that have been reported. What I meant was that this should be the way that ALL members go about communicating with each other in threads. If there is a comment which someone thinks may be a flame, then they should not immediately report it, they should seek clarification by asking a question about it in the thread.



As is quite clear what some feel is a glaringly obvious flame others declare just his/her opinion.I do think that quite a few things could be excused if they are stated as opinion and not fact, BUT: I think what higgs posted about this is good, so I'll quote it here: "As for "in my opinion", no it is not always going to mean a comment is excluded from flaming rules. This could certainly be abused if it were the "law". Actually, no it does not seem like we should make it a black and white rule. We need to use common sense. Context matters a great deal."


So the mod team is now judging intent? Can you please clarify this statement?jtbdad, in a report we do have to judge intent to a certain extent; however, we endeavour to clarify intent when required through PM's or in the thread. And this is often what is done. Virtually always the benefit of the doubt is given and we double check the intent to make sure.



As far as I know we have always waited for concensus, unilateral decisions were only ever used in cases in which a post had to be immediately removed such as in the case of pornography etc.you're right, this is the case. My bad.



BTW you didn't really answer my question about stating opinions. I would like to know specifically why sometimes the argument that he/she is just stating her opinion is an acceptable validation for a No Violation vote and sometimes it isn't. If a post is not a flame because it is a stated opinion then it should be the same in every case. Again I ask if I make the statement that "it is my opinion that all men in their early 40's are despicable pedophiles" is it a flame? If so, then why is it a flame when other posts have been ruled NV simply because the poster was stating an opinion?It cannot be the same in every case because there are different types of flames and different contexts within threads. Your example statement "it is my opinion that all men in their early 40's are despicable pedophiles" would not be a flame in my view because it is stated as an opinion.

[TomUK]

In my view then if a post is a violation then it should be dealt with, regardless of how it is responded to in thread. I would hate to think that there are some who consider posting here but decide not to because of the occasional offensive comments which can be found but are seemingly not dealt with.

[Aymn27]

This thread has been very enlightening - I'm glad it was addressed here - because I think I've realized that I have been incorrect all along about a "liberal bias" in this forum....I was under the impression that if a rule was violated - the post was dealt with...but knowing how it actually occurs sheds light on the reason why there would be a "perceived liberal bias" - and I'm not being mean to liberals here - but it has been my experience that liberals are much more "emotional" and it would stand to reason that they would be offended more often, and report offensive posts more often....

wow - that's pretty revealing to me...

[karen freeinchristman]

In my view then if a post is a violation then it should be dealt with, regardless of how it is responded to in thread. I would hate to think that there are some who consider posting here but decide not to because of the occasional offensive comments which can be found but are seemingly not dealt with.I can see your point, but - I don't feel that it is the job of the moderator to 'report' posts. I think we have to address reports when they are made, and make them ourselves if we really feel we need to, but I think a lot of misunderstandings can be smoothed over in a thread.

This thread has been very enlightening - I'm glad it was addressed here - because I think I've realized that I have been incorrect all along about a "liberal bias" in this forum....I was under the impression that if a rule was violated - the post was dealt with...but knowing how it actually occurs sheds light on the reason why there would be a "perceived liberal bias" - and I'm not being mean to liberals here - but it has been my experience that liberals are much more "emotional" and it would stand to reason that they would be offended more often, and report offensive posts more often....

wow - that's pretty revealing to me...I'm not too sure what you mean by this, Aaron. Have you noticed who the past 10 or so reports have been made by? Are they liberals or conservatives making the reports? Or am I misunderstanding your post?

[No Swansong]

Hi jtbdad. I thought the specific post was important, that's why I mentioned it. I'm glad you opened this thread like I suggested. I am not sure what specific cases you are referring to as far as the word "hypocrites" is involved so I'm not sure what to tell you about this.
To prompt your memory a little it was a reported post of a staff member.

If you need a link I will send you one.

[No Swansong]

We do our best with the lousy, loose and liberal guidelines that the reforms of 7/7/7 left us.

Again I state that I am not questioning anyone's intentions. I hope to make that clear.

Anyway- there will come a time (end of the year, wasn't it?) when the forum can vote for new mods. Maybe a better selection of victims will come forward and present their names for the chopping block. :D

Not sure that will happen now that Erwin has finally sold the site. (took him about 10 days longer than I expected) I hope to keep the mods we have. I have worked with all of you both as a a co-mod and as a sup and have never questioned your sincerity or your ability. But you must admit there has been a great deal of inconsistency lately in the decisions on the reported posts.

We try, we do.

We can't please everybody.

Things tend to ebb and flow on this forum, so it will settle down again.

I don't question how hard you all work and again I state my support for the team and my pledge for continued support, however when I see what truly seems to be glaring inconsistencies in how reports are questioned I cannot remain silent. Nor do I expect that any of you would expect me to.

How about an answer to the questions.

What does the ability of an in thread refutation have to do with whether a post is judged a flame or not?

Is stating an opinion by default exempt from the no flaming rules as it seems to have been interpreted in some of the report threads?

[No Swansong]

In my view then if a post is a violation then it should be dealt with, regardless of how it is responded to in thread. I would hate to think that there are some who consider posting here but decide not to because of the occasional offensive comments which can be found but are seemingly not dealt with.
This is the point I was intending to make. If it is a flame it is a flame regardless of whether it is addressed in thread or not. The same should be true of "opinions"

To the other mods do all of you agree to this comment by Karen?
It cannot be the same in every case because there are different types of flames and different contexts within threads. Your example statement "it is my opinion that all men in their early 40's are despicable pedophiles" would not be a flame in my view because it is stated as an opinion.

[No Swansong]

I can see your point, but - I don't feel that it is the job of the moderator to 'report' posts. I think we have to address reports when they are made, and make them ourselves if we really feel we need to, but I think a lot of misunderstandings can be smoothed over in a thread.


But that is not what I have been addressing. I have been addressing report threads. Should all reports be treated and worked in the same manner? In other words if I post a comment and it is found to be a flame and another posts the same comment should it not also be found to be a flame?

I'm not too sure what you mean by this, Aaron. Have you noticed who the past 10 or so reports have been made by? Are they liberals or conservatives making the reports? Or am I misunderstanding your post?


Kind of hard to do Karen since we cannot see who the reports are made by.

[karen freeinchristman]

But that is not what I have been addressing. I have been addressing report threads. Should all reports be treated and worked in the same manner? In other words if I post a comment and it is found to be a flame and another posts the same comment should it not also be found to be a flame?
Oh, OK, I wasn't clear that you were addressing report threads in each instance you were talking about (an example of how easy it is for people to get the wrong impression, I guess). I thought you were also referring to flames in threads that hadn't yet been reported - and whether the mods should be on the lookout for words (such as 'hypocrite') in peoples posts that should be reported, in order to be consistant. If that were the case, then my view (as I think I already stated) would be that we don't go around hunting for flames to report, but rather wait until reports are made, or else try to clarify things within the thread. But since you were referring to report threads only, then yes, all reports should be treated the same and worked in the same manner. However, this does not mean they will all have the same outcome. This site could be moderated by a computer programme if that were the case - all it would have to do is scan for certain words.



Kind of hard to do Karen since we cannot see who the reports are made by.Oh. :doh: I forgot about that! I'll just state that I do not believe liberals report posts more frequently than conservatives.

[ContraMundum]

How about an answer to the questions.

What does the ability of an in thread refutation have to do with whether a post is judged a flame or not?

Is stating an opinion by default exempt from the no flaming rules as it seems to have been interpreted in some of the report threads?

I don't think anyone can actually answer this- because the whole system is based on the matter of whether or not offence is given, and with self-editing being the key mode of moderation now, all we can do is reason it out.

It doesn't sound terribly forensic, but it's all we have when you get to the bottom line.