Third party moderation

[DaveC426913]

My suggestion is that members who are also moderators, when involved in a discussion, should not be the ones who moderate that thread.

If a member who is a moderator engages in a discussion, they should enage as a member, not a moderator for that thread. If, in the course of a discussion, they feel that some rule has been breached, he or she should - just like everyone else - report it to a third party to objectively intervene.

There is too much of potential for a perception of abuse if a moderator is involved subjectively in a discussion when it starts going awry. I have seen this happen more than once.

I've seen members get a warning from a debate opponent when, in any other circumstance the disagreement would have been trivially dealt with in-thread; I've seen members get banned when they crossed a debate opponent who had the moderator trump card.

Note: There will be differing points of view in every case (including the above ones) about whether the acton was justified or whether it was an inappropriate use of power. The point here is an ASSURANCE of objectivity to ALL parties.

[apeiron]

I second that motion :rofl:. But of course I can't say why. Well, not without further infractions and deletions.

But a separation of the powers of judge and executioner are indeed basic common-sense in any fair society. I would be interested in the reasons why PF would feel differently.

[russ_watters]

Typically, moderators will only act in clear-cut cases if they have a conflict of interest and will otherwise bring the issue up for discussion first. Either way, all moderator actions are "public" in that all moderators are informed of the actions of other moderators via a thread being opened in the moderator's forum.

And, of course, all members are welcome to PM other moderators to discuss the actions of moderators.

Also, either way, "airing of dirty laundry" is inappropriate and insults are infractionable.

[GeorginaS]

Okay, well I don't see any airing of dirty laundry here or insults, so I guess we're in good shape so far. But there have been instances that Dave's describing, of a moderator who is part of a conversation also moderating that conversation, when there is no clear infraction beyond disagreeing with the moderator in the capacity of a thread participant. (I can't even tell whether or not that sentence made sense.)

I have to agree and ask that there be some formal rule that -- unless there is gross abuse happening in the thread that shouldn't happen at all or in any event -- the moderator taking part in the discussion ought not be the one moderating it. I'd hate to feel as if I need to keep ideas or opinions to myself out of caution because those ideas aren't in concert with the moderator taking part in the discussion.

[apeiron]

Also, either way, "airing of dirty laundry" is inappropriate and insults are infractionable.

I support such privilege when it is earned and not abused. But the shield of secrecy should not be there just to protect the blushes of moderators.

[Borek]

Thirded. I think I have seen Mentors overreacting when they took part in the discussion (very, very rarely, but I remember being surprised by what have happened), after all, Mentors are humans, not machines :smile: Personally in such cases (me feeling abused and wanting to react) I would always ask others to judge the situation. That is, unless I would explode earlier, I am human as well :devil:

[Ivan Seeking]

If an infraction is issued that is claimed to be unfair, the infraction may be reversed by a vote of the staff, or by Greg if he chooses to intervene. No one here is moderating in isolation. Controversial decisions often involve a fair bit of staff discussion before a final decision is made.

It would be all but impossible to reasonably assign bias. Simply starting a thread does not imply bias. And taking a side is what we do as moderators when, the rules are being violated, the discussion has spun out of control, or the facts are not properly represented. People would be claiming bias everytime they don't like a moderating decision. In fact, that is common already. We have all received plenty of hate mail and insults of every variety, and we do regularly. No one likes being moderated.

That's why we have worked hard for years to develop guidelines for the forum. In fact, the guidelines are most valueable for the moderators. The rules are our working guide so that subjective judgements are kept to a minimum. The guidelines also allow everyone to know the rules and what is expected. All moderating decisions must be in compliance with the rules. Personal bias plays no role. If an infraction is issued unfairly, we already have rules to address that problem.

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that what you see may not be, and often is not representitive of what actually happens. While you may only see a strike in someone's name, the offending posts have probably been deleted. The staff can see them and review the actions taken, but you can't. By definition you would not normally see the posts that resulted in someone being banned, or infractions being issued. You really have no way to know what happened behind the scenes, so what you think you saw is almost certainly not the entire story.

[DaveC426913]

No one here is moderating in isolation. Controversial decisions often involve a fair bit of staff discussion before a final decision is made.

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

[Greg Bernhardt]

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator.

Dave, your OP is something the staff has talked about in the past and take efforts in doing.

[DaveC426913]

I probably should have led with this but it's never too late.

This post is not a criticism of PF or the moderators. Without exception, the moderators are doing a spectacular job. Nobody knows this more than me, whose 'Report Post' key is worn down to a nub. IMO, the quality of PF is, in huge part, due to their pretty much thankless and tireless devotion, and their thick skins.

[lisab]

I probably should have led with this but it's never too late.

This post is not a criticism of PF or the moderators. Without exception, the moderators are doing a spectacular job. Nobody knows this more than me, whose 'Report Post' key is worn down to a nub. IMO, the quality of PF is, in huge part, due to their pretty much thankless and tireless devotion, and their thick skins.

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

[cristo]

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often), or if we happen to stumble upon the thread by chance. As is always the case, if a member sees something that they think should be looked over by other mentors, they should report the thread.

[GeorginaS]

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often), or if we happen to stumble upon the thread by chance. As is always the case, if a member sees something that they think should be looked over by other mentors, they should report the thread.

Good to know. I'll keep that in mind, then.

And I'll take the shorter typing route (and because he said it better than I could have anyway) and echo what Dave said. Yes, absolutely.

[Borek]

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Seconded. If I am supporting Dave that's not because I have any doubts about honesty and amount of work Mentors put into running PF (and - having some experience - I know it is not an easy task to moderate forums with a lot of traffic, kudos to the whole Mentors team). Still, I remember being surprised by actions taken in threads which I have traced closely enough to assume I have seen most of the posts (if not all). And I don't remember who was involved, I just remember being surprised.

I don't pretend to know all, my feelings at the time could be easily wrong. I just like the idea.

[Evo]

Yes, I think anyone who's been around PF for a while and has also been on other forums, knows this to be true.

But I don't think it's a bad idea, having a third party monitor a lively discussion involving a moderator. It avoids the appearance of a conflict of interest.The problem when a different mentor gives an infraction to a member "out of the blue" is that the member then begins arguing with the uninvolved 3rd party mentor, which is a waste of time for both the member and the 3rd party mentor, as any new questions will just go back to the original mentor to be answered.

Members always have the opportunity to question an infraction. The guidelines state that the member should first contact the mentor that gave the warning if they feel that it wasn't warranted. If after speaking with the mentor they still wish to appeal, they may then contact another mentor, and if needed, Greg.

As Ivan mentioned, mentors cannot issue infractions without it opening a new thread in the mentor's forum showing all details of the post, member, explanation for infraction, type of infraction, points etc...

I think members may not be aware that we routinely report posts that may need infractions and ask for feedback from other mentors before action is taken.

Any mentor can take action in any forum. I think members may automatically assume if a mentor is assigned to a particular forum that all infractions, deletions, etc... come from that mentor, and that is simply not the case. You also can't assume that just because a mentor is involved in a thread that they are the one requesting the infraction. It may be another mentor, or even another member.

I think it is good that these questions be brought up here so that any misunderstandings about how the infraction process works is clear.

[zoobyshoe]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

[cristo]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.

[Borek]

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.

Agreed. The only situation I can imagine is when you are paid for the moderation, then being a member is (can be) secondary.

[GeorginaS]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.


I think that's a bit extreme. I have a current events message board and both the other owner and I participate in all of the discussions, but when one of us runs into trouble with another member, the other deals with it, including having discussions with each other about whether or not we ought to have done what we've done. Now, we're a much smaller bunch, and easier to manage than something as large as this place, but still, if someone's yanking my chain, I stand back and let the other lady deal with it just in case my buttons are getting pushed and the other member isn't actually behaving unreasonably.

The mentors/mods are valuable contributors to the conversations on these forums, and I'd really hate to see any of them stifled. I fall squarely in the camp of, if a mentor is having issues with someone within the context of a thread where they're a participant in the conversation, then the mod ought to ask someone else to review the situation. Or, as was pointed out, the other member contact another mod to help, I guess. But excluding mentors from the conversation just isn't a good plan.

[ZapperZ]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is the way it was on another large forum where I used to post. The moderators were obligated to maintain disinterest in the outcome of any discussions, and only responded to reports of abusive behaviors or rule infractions. They weren't permitted to participate in any discussions.

I would immediately resign my Mentor/Moderator position if that's the case. I'm a PF member and a physicist first, and a moderator/mentor second. I'm here not because I enjoy having my position as a mentor, but because I enjoy the physics discussion and participating in them. In fact, one of the criteria of being elected as a mentor is that the person has a solid background in the knowledge of a particular area, AND actively participates in the discussion in the forum.

I think all of you need to be aware of two important things here:

1. Each and every warning, infractions, etc. sent out to members are viewed by ALL mentors/administrators.

2. It is quite common for a mentor to recuse him/herself in a particular thread when he/she is involved, especially when an action needs to be taken that isn't an obvious violation.

If you think that a mentor has not acted fairly, then contact another mentor, contact Greg, or do a report (which is also read by all the Mentors). There's more than one way to convey your displeasure with a particular action, and believe me, we do get those!

Zz.

[Integral]

Notice that we are called Mentors, not moderators. As a Mentor our primary purpose it to interact with and guide discussions.

That certainly holds firm in the technical forums HOWEVER there are forums, GD and PW&A, where it is not possible to mentor. I fully agree that in those forums we should moderate and not or participate.

You may not be aware but it is not uncommon for a mentor, in our private forum, to ask for help when they become embroiled in a conversation and feel they can not be objective.

[Evo]

That certainly holds firm in the technical forums HOWEVER there are forums, GD and PW&A where it is not possible to mentor. I fully agree that in those forums we should moderate and not participate.
With that I'm with Zz and cristo. I was put in charge of GD because of my participation, P&WA just came with it. Philosophy is the same.

[waht]

I just would like take this opportunity and thank all the mentors and admins for doing an outstanding job. There is really nothing else like PF out there.

And also I think it's great that mentors are participating in discussions. You can poke them a bit. :biggrin:

[lisab]

With that I'm with Zz and cristo. I was put in charge of GD because of my participation, P&WA just came with it. Philosophy is the same.

I think one of the best things about PF is that the mentors participate in the discussions! GD and P&WA wouldn't be the same without you, Evo.

Reading through the posts here from the mentors, I understand better how the gears work.

Sometimes discussions do get pretty sparky (usually in P&WA). That's totally fine, it's OK that people have strong opinions. Often a mentor is actively involved, not as a guide to the discussion but as a voice from the right or the left. If then someone is banned and/or posts disappear...well, you can see how that would have the appearance of unfairness.

[Evo]

If then someone is banned and/or posts disappear...well, you can see how that would have the appearance of unfairness.That's very understandable. I will say that sometimes people get banned, not for a heated thread that is getting attention, but for something completely unrelated. But for people following the heated thread, I could see how they would think that was the reason.

We don't discuss why individual members get banned, but I know that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions for the other members. I hope that you will trust that we do discuss things a lot. It's for privacy reasons that we don't disclose what the member has done.

Of course any time you want to know what happened, just PM us and we'll tell you that we can't tell you. :tongue2:

It would be so much easier if we told you. Some forums do list banned members and the reasons they were banned. I think that's tacky.

[zoobyshoe]

That goes against the whole point of being a member, though. I for one would not stay here if all I was allowed to do was to deal with rule breaking, tell people off and deal with squabbles.
Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

[DaveC426913]

I think moderators should be dedicated moderators. In other words, that's all they do, and they should never be allowed to participate in threads.

This is a completely unrealistic and destructive suggestion for PF. If I thought for a second there was the slightest danger of this going any further, I would stand against it alongside the Mentors.

[DaveC426913]

A third party will monitor a thread when it is obvious that there is a conflict of interest. However, we only know about these threads if a member reports the thread, if the mentor reports it and states they have a conflict of interest (which happens quite often),
How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

The idea that a Moderator is left to decide for himself if there's a conflict of interest is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts what has been claimed several times in this thread - that multiple people are involved in the decisions.


The problem when a different mentor gives an infraction to a member "out of the blue" is that the member then begins arguing with the uninvolved 3rd party mentor,

How is this different from what any other member can expect when they report a thread?

You're suggestiong that, when a Mentor is involved, we simpy don't need to bother going through the arduous process of bringing a Moderator up-to-speed?

No, the default state is/should be that a member (any member) involved in a lively discussion, can report - and is subject to being reported. And then a Moderator steps in.

What's happened here is that that generalized procedure has been concatenated ofr this special case. Moderators can short-circuit the 3rd party intervention step. They simply - in the middle of a debate that started between equals - step outside the conversation for a moment long enough to pull rank.


I think members may not be aware that we routinely report posts that may need infractions and ask for feedback from other mentors before action is taken.

Absolutely 100% with you there. My question is: who is the appropriate person to take the action?

[Evo]

How is this different from what any other member can expect when they report a thread?

You're suggestiong that, when a Mentor is involved, we simpy don't need to bother going through the arduous process of bringing a Moderator up-to-speed

No, the default state is/should be that a member (any member) involved in a lively discussion, can report - and is subject to being reported. And then a Moderator steps in.As I've said, any member that feels they are right should challenge the infraction. When a 3rd party mentor agrees to give an infraction for another mentor, they just become a go between for the member and that mentor, since at that point infractions have already been approved.

What's happened here is that that generalized procedure has been concatenated ofr this special case. Moderators can short-circuit the 3rd party intervention step. They simply - in the middle of a debate that started between equals - step outside the conversation for a moment long enough to pull rank.If a member feels that is the case and that they need to speak to other mentors, I would encourage them to do so.

The mentors moderate each other. I know I have changed my ways due to feed back, I have human failings, but I also care about how I moderate. There is always room for improvement.

[zoobyshoe]

This is a completely unrealistic and destructive suggestion for PF. If I thought for a second there was the slightest danger of this going any further, I would stand against it alongside the Mentors.

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

[NeoDevin]

mentors cannot issue infractions without it opening a new thread in the mentor's forum showing all details of the post, member, explanation for infraction, type of infraction, points etc...

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

[NeoDevin]

It's not unrealistic and destructive. It's working as we speak on another forum as old as PF. I personally doubt Greg would want to undertake such a major restructuring, but I mention it because it is the most clearly disinterested form of moderation I've encountered.

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.

[cristo]

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator.

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

Because it could have been, say, a flat out insult (though I would still normally report it and get someone else to act). Anyway, my point is not to contradict others in this thread: if an infraction is issued, it opens a thread for discussion in the mentors forum. My point was that we don't know of any potential issues (i.e. before infractions/action taken), unless it is reported. This goes as with any thread flaring up between any two members.

Does this hold true for deleted posts too? Are other mentors able to see posts which have been deleted from threads? If a mentor has been involved in a heated discussion, and deletes/edits some posts and issues an infraction, is all of this visible to the rest of the mentors?

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.

[Integral]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.

[Borek]

At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote.

At some point I was even banned because of a wrong button being hit :rofl:

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, please recognize my earlier point, we are Mentors, not moderators. I have always felt that there is a very important distiction, Mentors guide while moderators watch. As Mentors it is our DUTY to interact. Without that interaction the forums would never have gotten off the ground.
I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

[zoobyshoe]

And so where do the moderators come from? That definitely wouldn't work here-- one of the qualities looked for when a member is asked to become a mentor is that they have been an active, contributing member who has shown to have knowledge in a certain area.

I have no idea where they come from. They are completely anonymous: moderator 1, moderator 2, moderator 3, moderator 4. That forum is an adjunct of a University. It's conceivable they are grad students or interns, but I don't really know.

[zoobyshoe]

I think to expect the mentors to volunteer their time to moderate, without actively being a part of the community, is unreasonable. Why would they have any interest in moderating a forum that they're not an active part of?

If PF ever starts producing enough income for Greg that he can hire staff, then it might make sense.
Indeed, there has to be some other incentive for them to do it.

[ZapperZ]

I understand that you are mentors. However you also perform the function of moderators. If I clash with you, not even in your capacity as a mentor, but just a member, over the issue of pot, or if I clash with ZapperZ over the pronunciation of Einstein's name, then later, if there is a moderation issue, how do I know you both can be completely objective? This would never be a possible issue if the moderators weren't also active members.

You don't! You just have to figure out for yourself if this forum is worth your time and are run with fairness most of the time. In other words, the free-market policy is at work here. You are more than welcome to go elsewhere if you feel that the way PF is run is unfair and autocratic. I know many crackpots view PF as the latter. However, and having been on many internet forums for so many years, I would challenge anyone to find another physics forum on the 'net that has so much valuable physics content and discussion, but yet, have so much concern over the members.

Zz.

[Evo]

Deleted posts are able to be seen by all mentors. Edits are different: there is no way to see the original post if it has been edited. Thus, if a mentor is editing a post's content, s/he will almost always report the post so that we have a copy in the mentors' forum.To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first. If a mentor were to try to edit a member's posts without first copying them, it would be easy to discover, the post(s) will show who edited it and the day and time.

[George Jones]

(I remember one instance, Evo, where you accidentally edited one of my posts into oblivion. You said that you couldn't recover it in that situation, and asked me to re-post it.)
At one time or another it happens to every mentor. You erroneously hit the edit button, instead of the quote. If the error is discovered only after cutting out huge chunks of text there is no going back.

On every post, mentors see "EDIT" and "QUOTE" buttons side-by-side, and most mentors have, on occasion, inadvertently clicked on "EDIT" instead of quote "QUOTE".

In a mentors' forum, I once did this thinking that I was posting about my daughter, but the unintentional and unknown "EDIT" gave another mentor a kid that they didn't know that they had.

[Gokul43201]

When a 3rd party mentor agrees to give an infraction for another mentor, they just become a go between for the member and that mentor, since at that point infractions have already been approved. I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.

[Evo]

I believe the point Dave is making, and one I agree with, requires that the third party Mentor not be merely a puppet that is administering the desired moderation on behalf of another Mentor, but an independent adjudicator who should not consult the involved Mentor in the decision-making. Else, the role of a third-party mod becomes one purely of appearances.

The exercise of having uninvolved mods make decisions becomes moot if the involved mod is the one steering this decision.Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors, but if the member is disputing his discussions with a specific mentor, that mentor does need to respond. The member has a right to have his questions answered by that mentor. Mentors can make mistakes.

If it becomes a case of the member making accusations against the mentor, or if the member states that the mentor made an error, that mentor definitely needs to be able to respond.

[DaveC426913]

Agreed, they would not be dictating the decision, the decision is agreed upon by a group of mentors...Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.

[Evo]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.It would depend on the circumstance, we are trying to delay giving infractions until several mentors can chime in, if the mentor is also involved with disputing the member, but that's not always practical, and that is why there is an appeal process. I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.

If it's just a zero point informational "warning", there is no need to ask for involvement by other mentors since it is not an infraction. It's basically just a "heads up".

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps I'm just dense because I'm just not getting it.

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?

This is the crux of the thread.

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence and that it does require a major overhaul on the way we do business here? Or is this whole thread instead related to something specific that you have problems with?

I read this thread, and if I don't know any better, I would think that PF is utterly dysfunctional and completely lack of any sensible moderation. I hate to think that because you had issues with a particular moderator or a particular thread, that that somehow is ample ground for wholesale overhaul of the monitoring process in this forum. That isn't sensible either!

Zz.

[Count Iblis]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

[cristo]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

[Count Iblis]

Er, no, we will not start airing dirty laundry here and delving into specific cases. The incidents you have been involved in have been reviewed by the mentors and by Greg several times.

I know that it has been reviewed behind closed doors. All I'm saying is that I don't object to everything that I have done here to be made visible to everyone. As far I am concerned, there is no dirty laundry to hide.

[Count Iblis]

Note also this response by Ivan:

I would add that what you see may not be, and often is not representitive of what actually happens. While you may only see a strike in someone's name, the offending posts have probably been deleted. The staff can see them and review the actions taken, but you can't. By definition you would not normally see the posts that resulted in someone being banned, or infractions being issued. You really have no way to know what happened behind the scenes, so what you think you saw is almost certainly not the entire story.

I'm willing to call his bluf on this issue by making visible all my postings, all my PMs, everything.

[Gokul43201]

I know that it has been reviewed behind closed doors. All I'm saying is that I don't object to everything that I have done here to be made visible to everyone. As far I am concerned, there is no dirty laundry to hide.And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request (tempted though they might be).

[ZapperZ]

I.m.o., there clearly is a systemic problem at PF. To explain that would require me to go into detail about specific incidents I've been involved in, leading to this threat itself being subject to moderation.

Like I said, you're not the only one. We have had many crackpots who have made similar accusation towards PF that's even worse - all the way to us being responsible for preventing the progress in science!

And since we ARE talking about science, you will understand that I would consider your view as only ONE data point and doesn't not represent the majority and the common running of this forum. In fact, the fact that you came back from a ban is also highly unusual and not the common situation that most of the members on here have faced. So you will understand that your "data point" is quite skewed off the normal distribution. This, in no way, reflects a systemic problem. It reflects YOUR problem with the forum.

Besides, if you think that poorly of how this forum is run, I don't understand why you keep coming back.

Zz.

[apeiron]

Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? .

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

[zoobyshoe]

You don't!
Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

[ZapperZ]

My feeling is that the problem is not systematic in that most moderations are fair. But I have definitely experienced an occasion of outright unfairness and the system to fix that hasn't worked so far.

From a user perspective, the moderation is also not a transparent process. We are not privy to any background discussions. So it is very easy to percieve decisions as unfair, hasty or personal.

So it is a system that works for the most part, but may not own up to its occasional mistakes, and has a systemic transparency problem.

This, I am not surprised. In fact, I would be VERY surprised if such a thing doesn't happen. It is why any infraction, etc. that are sent out are seen by all the Mentors. It means that on several occasions, such actions are debated, often quite spirited, on the fairness of such actions. However, we all have our lives to lead and in many cases, things things can slip through. Not only that, in many of these actions, especially when it originates out of the Philosophy/Politics forums where a lot of things borders on matters of opinion, the decision is not clear cut. You may think something isn't fair, but another member may think it is. So already there can easily be 2 different stories on the same thing.

Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem. Are they exceptions? Sure there is. There are "exceptions" to the members here too.

Doing as Dave suggests would ease the transparency issue and would also have prevented a situation where I was infracted 3 points by a moderator who admitted he was against "leftist ideologies" and misunderstood the case I was making.

Again, using a specific case as the "proof" doesn't quite makes sense to me. I'd rather that these cases be solved and handled on the individual basis. You have other mentors that you can contact, and you also have the Admins to bring your complaint further up. And I also presume that this again, as I said earlier, emanated out of the Politics/Philosophy forums, which also creates WAY too many problems that is disproportionate to its size and relevance to PF. Using what goes on there to reflect on the bigger part of this forum is not exactly a very accurate, nor "scientific" methodology.

Zz.

[Count Iblis]

And what if every member of this forum asks for the same to be done with them? Should the Mentors have to essentially make public thousands of reports, infractions and deleted posts (and then stand trial for every Tom, Dick & Harry's interpretation of events)? That's just flat out infeasible, and can't I imagine any Mentor/Admin feeling silly enough to humor this request.

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.

My opinion (but I think everyone should be able to judge for themselves based on all the facts) is that, particularly with involved moderators in a discussion, things can go wrong because we don't always automatically assume good faith. The problem is not due to "evil moderators" abusing their power.

What can happen in closed door discussions is that an initial judgement about the motives of a poster can stick and become more and more exaggerated. This is because the group will discuss based on previous cases when a similar perception of bad intentions may have occured. It is a bit like how Saddam's WMD threat became more and more urgent during discussions between Bush and Blair.

I think one can address this problem (assuming my judgement about this is correct), by having a better review system that includes the member defending him/herself before an infraction is issued and a review of all postings by a member.

[Gokul43201]

Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered. Is this other forum also an academic/education forum? Just curious.

What you mention (if applied to PF) would be the equivalent of running a school in which teachers were completely shielded from any disciplinary role. Can't say I'm aware of any place that such a system has been implemented.

[ZapperZ]

Honest answer, and one which I figured out and accepted long ago. Since Dave raised the subject of impartial moderation I thought I'd mention the best moderation system I've encountered.

Quite a few mentors have been here for years and it became clear to me years ago that, because they have also to moderate they suffer something like "battle fatigue": Integral once posted an explanation of reduced tolerance for crackpots because they constitute a "resource sink", meaning, simply, they wear the mentors out having to chase them around and correct them. Non-participating moderators would not be at risk of carrying that over into remarks as members.

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.

[DanP]

I think this forum is decently moderated. Yeah, I personally despise any form of moderation but sometimes evil is necessary. Besides, it;s just internet any no one should care too much even if not all moderation decision are perfect. It's the playgournd of it's owner and his moderation gang and as such, they can do anything they want.

It aint bad.

[russ_watters]

That's even better; the process is already in place. It should be a trivial matter to have one of those other staff take the action instead of the participating moderator. The thread has moved fast so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but often times, moderators do request to have another staff member take the action to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest or just to make sure the user knows that other moderators are involved (ie, in the case of multiple infractions for a single person: sometimes we have multiple moderators issue the infractions).

The difficulty with this is that we do not have a full-time/round the clock moderation staff (though having moderators on several continents does help). So that can be impractical, particularly in the case of a fast-moving thread where immediate action may be required.

Either way, the fact that every moderation decision is automatically brought up for discussion via the opening of a thread (the board software does this) ensures that bias as the reason for moderation would be picked-up. And trust me on this: moderators are not shy about challenging the decisions of others if they think there is an issue. And typically, moderators are also cognizant of where an issue might exist and go further out of their way to request additional opinions on the actions. How can there not be a conflict of interest if the infraction is a subjective one?

The idea that a Moderator is left to decide for himself if there's a conflict of interest is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts what has been claimed several times in this thread - that multiple people are involved in the decisions. I'm really not sure how you're misunderstanding this, Dave. What people have said about the system has been an accurate description of what goes on. I don't think you're properly connecting the dots.

The logic of ethics dictates that a conflict of interest exists when someone moderates on a discussion they are participating in. A moderator may, on their own, choose to take some action to avoid the conflict of interest, but if they don't it doesn't make much of a difference because there are automatic controls in place to counteract the issue.

Remember: we also moderate/judge each other (and Greg and chroot, us). I'm sure every moderator has been accused of taking action based on vindictive bias. If the senior staff ever agreed that it was a significant problem, I'm sure action would be taken to remove that moderartor to avoid damaging the forum - and I don't think such action ever has been taken. So this isn't something that really requires a convoluted procedure to be in place, where (for example), the physics moderator is the engineering mentor and vice versa. That would be too cumbersome to be worthwhile - it would double the number of threads a mentor has to read in order to do their job!

[Count Iblis]

ZapperZ, my data point point is a vector in a high dimensional space, so it is misleading to compare that to a single data point. It contains many bites of information. All this can be disclosed, I don't object to that on any privacy grounds.

Also, about the issue of leaving PF, I have to say that I was about to leave PF after my last ban a few weeks ago. I actually wrote a posting here on feedback forum in which I told that I was leaving and explained what i.m.o. was going wrong. That posting was removed, presumably because it contained too many details. The next day I visited PF again just to see if something had been done regarding some specific criticisms. I saw nothing and I simply could not resist going back the Homework Help forums to fix the specific example of the problem myself.

So, this explains why I have not left PF. It is simply why I came here in the first place: This is a place where you can discuss physics and math. If you mostly care about that, you can swallow unfair infractions.

[russ_watters]

Members always have the opportunity to question an infraction. The guidelines state that the member should first contact the mentor that gave the warning if they feel that it wasn't warranted. If after speaking with the mentor they still wish to appeal, they may then contact another mentor, and if needed, Greg. Also worth noting: if a user questions a moderator's decision via pm to that moderator, ethics requires that moderator to seek additional opinions, which typically includes copying the PM to the moderator's forum. So be polite when complaining about a moderator's decision! Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

[russ_watters]

Being a moderator on that forum is not about being a member. The moderators are put in place there to provide disinterested moderation. They are dedicated moderators. No one who joins as a member is allowed, or asked, to be a moderator. Whether or not that is true of other forums on the internet (I've never seen it be true in any forum I've ever been to), that just plain isn't the purpose of moderators in this forum.

There is one noteable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".

[Gokul43201]

I agree with you that this is not a basis for a new moderation system. All I want to do is act as a test subject. Not for the purpose of appealing any infractions I've got in the past, rather for others to see how the system really is working without the "you don't know what is going on behind the scenes" problem. If you study one case in all details then you can see far better what is going wrong and what is working well.I disagree. Even if we accept the premise that making one exception to a "no public discussion of individual moderation acts policy" will not open the floodgates to every distressed soul demanding a public exhibition, I don't see this as helping. For one reason, because it's just one data point (even in some large-n-dimensional space) among thousands. What if going through this elaborate process convinces everyone that the moderation was just and carefully meted out? Should everyone then extrapolate that every single action by the Mentors is squeaky clean? Or should we then find another volunteer?

I can't speak for the staff, but this not something I want to see happen (and I don't think I've personally dealt with any moderation concerning you). And that's not to say that I think the system can not use improvement - I strongly believe it needs improvement.

[DanP]

Flaming a moderator over an infraction doesn't gain a user much sympathy with the other moderators!

Sure, but it's the most funny thing you can do. And certainly much more valuable then gathering sympathy.

[russ_watters]

To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first. If a mentor were to try to edit a member's posts without first copying them, it would be easy to discover, the post(s) will show who edited it and the day and time. For everyone's info, there are two types of deletions, "soft" and "hard". AFAIK, a "hard" deletion records the action -- but the post is gone forever. I used to be in the practice of "hard" deleting the 10x a day Nike Air and iPhone spam we got, plus the once a day 9/11, 2012, and "Die Athiests!" crackpot spam, but I was criticized for deleting one that others didn't agree was as off-the-wall as I thought it was. So now I "soft" delete everything I delete.

[Gokul43201]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?There is one faulty assumption here: that modB and modC know as much as modA.

This is only theoretically possible (or perhaps feasible, give man-hour constraints) in relatively short threads. In a several page long thread, the mod that is the active participant in the thread is perhaps the only one that has a good idea of who started what minor bit of trouble where which say, blew up into a bigger conflagration owing to the unwelcome retorts of which others, and so on. Requiring two or more mods to be up to date on all troublesome threads, especially within the Lounge, is an unreasonable demand on Mentors' time. It is similarly, a terribly inefficient use of administrative power to wait for second and third opinions for obvious offenses (spam, outright crackpottery, blatantly clear violations of rules, minor things requiring only 0-point warnings, etc.).

The less demanding, but perhaps equally reasonable requirement that multiple (disinterested) mods get involved in the event of an appeal, has been found to be manageable and is, I believe, the SOP.

Nevertheless, as has been repeated here several times, participating Mentors do often request additional input from neutrals even before the infraction stage (and long before any possible appeal).

[russ_watters]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Zz.
I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any....

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance. I'll freely acknowledge being a moderator who is quick to act against people I perceive to be crackpots. "Battle fatigue" is as good a description as any....

Battle fatigue can be a big problem. As have we all, I have been critical of other moderators at times. I have also jumped to the wrong conclusion when judging a discussion. Sometimes we miss things. Sometimes we're tired. Sometimes we are stuggling with personal issues. There have been times that I have forced myself to stay offline because I knew I was in a very bad mood. But in the end, we are all trying to do what is best for the forum. One of the first things that new mentors have mentioned after their first few days, is that PF takes a lot more work than they ever knew. We have a lot of dedicated people who have donated countless hours to making PF the best that it can be. However, this comes with a personal price for everyone.

One big problem is that it takes far less time to post nonsense than it does to properly moderate the discussion. For example, someone could jump into a global warming discussion by blazing the page with links that can take many hours to sort through. Sometimes, the poster merely copied links from some GW [pro or con] site, so it took very little effort for the crackpot, but the moderator has a full time job ahead of them. It is a common technique used by crackpots that is intended to overwhelm the opposition with information. While the general membership can just give up and ignore the thread, the staff still has to deal with it.

...but there is a flip-side that is a clear positive: having seen how crackpots present themselves and evolve, most moderators gain some skill in identifying crackpots before they "come out". It's practically a game in the moderator's forum sometimes, predicting when someone's going to take that final step over the edge. Anyway, the positive of that is clear: shutting down crackpots before they drag-down a conversation.

So we learn to recognize posture. We know the symptoms of a problem member. We know the patterns. We know the techniques that crackpots use. We have learned to spot problem members long before they have violated any rule. As you said, we even joke sometimes about whether a new member is going to last a day, or a week. While we do make mistakes and misjudge members at time, I would also bet that our error rate is very, very low. The success of PF is testimony to this perception. PF has grown to be more than we even dared to hope, in the beginning.

I can say that my personal goal is to always to ensure that the most accurate information available is presented as clearly as possible; regardless of the conclusions or content. However, this doesn't always make members happy. If they have a strong bias wrt to a particular topic and they don't get their way, you can be sure that the first accusation against me, will be bias. That is the first excuse used to defend just about every crackpot argument, when moderated.

It is a thankless job peppered with hate mail, that we do for free. :biggrin:

Personally, I think this thread is much ado about nothing. We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today. But it is not reasonable to start selecting moderators according to any potential bias. Unless we are talking about something one can read as a definitive statement in a text book, every subject discussed here is open to bias on the part of every moderator. Part of our job is to recognize the difference between our personal bias, and the facts. This applies to all discussions. That's why we are very careful in selecting new staff members. The selection of new staff is based largely on their knowledge, performance, and objectivity. Nominees names may float for years before they are finally offered a mentorship.

[Redbelly98]

I have no idea where they come from. They are completely anonymous: moderator 1, moderator 2, moderator 3, moderator 4. That forum is an adjunct of a University. It's conceivable they are grad students or interns, but I don't really know.
It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.

[DaveC426913]

I have seen mentors give an infraction and then report themselves and ask other mentors if they feel it was appropriate.
There is no contention that moderators are, for the large part, conscientious. Does that make the problem raised just go away?

If it's just a zero point informational "warning", there is no need to ask for involvement by other mentors since it is not an infraction. It's basically just a "heads up".
Really.

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."



Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence and that it does require a major overhaul on the way we do business here?
Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

I said nothing about a "major overhaul"; that's disingenuous. The change is trivial. As pointed out, the process is already in place. All it needs to do is become standard procedure.


Again, I'm not making the case for this being the PERFECT means of moderating. I'm saying that given what we have, and given how PF has evolved into what it is now, I don't this as being a systemic problem.

We have checks and balances in place. We are always striving to make PF better than it is today.
Again, the fix I propose is trivial.


But I'm willing to make the following offer: All my postings, all my PMs, everything, including the ones that have been removed by the Mods are made visible to everyone. Also all the infractions, bans etc. I've received here are made public. Then everyone can decide for themselves if there really is a problem and if so what is the best way to fix it.
Alas, I am beginning to fear that, based on how this thread is going, like the Count here, I may simply become self-muzzling. If a Moderator is involved in a lively discussion with me, I may end up slipping on kid gloves.

[Evo]

I am talking with you, and I have a pair of scissors and you do not. And I find myself in an argument I don't like, so I poke you in the chest with the point of the scissors. When you cry foul, I say "Don't be ridiculous, it didn't even break the skin; it's just a heads up. And please, continue discussing as an equal."You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance? I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not. If you have an issue, follow the guidelines and we will be glad to answer you.

To address members in general that might have posted here about their situations, what a member may think about the infractions they received and the reality may be at odds. They can certainly contact the mentors if they aren't clear about their infractions.

[DaveC426913]

You're comparing a potentially deadly threat to an informational message that carries no significance?

That moderator's power is potentially deadly to my PF membership. That's the analogy.

Of course, he would never use that, just like I would never actually stab you.

Are you not seeing how a threat is a threat?



I think you are way over-reacting and don't realize the difference between an infraction, which goes against you, and a message that does not.

I think you are not considering the effect it has.

A slap is still a slap, whether or not you tell me it didn't actually leave a mark.

And again, if it were a dispassionate moderator, I could respond more dispassionately in turn. It would not feel so much like the guy I had been until just a moment ago having a conversation with.

[zoobyshoe]

It sounds like they are either paid, or perhaps assigned as part of TA duties, to be moderators. If so, then their incentive is a paycheck, or fulfilling requirements towards a graduate degree, or both.

At any rate, it is unreasonable to expect the same in a volunteer-run internet forum like this one.
No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.

[DaveC426913]

No, I would'nt expect anyone to volunteer for it. It would be up to Greg to figure out the incentive offered. Which, as I said, I doubt he'd do. It would be a major paradigm shift.
Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

[zoobyshoe]

I don't understand. Reduced tolerance for crackpots is "bad"?

Not if you enjoy battle fatigue.

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.


I think zoob is suggesting that the reduced tolerance means that we don't always give people a fair chance.
That's not exactly what I mean. I am leary of mentors, coming straight from the crackpot front, unwittingly taking an "enforcer" type attitude into their posts in threads. What is actually opinion, no better or worse than anyone else's may come out with the tone of being "moderation", i.e. the pronouncement of a moderator.
There is one noteable exception: Greg. His "disinterest" does give him a great trump-card and we appreciate it, but the other moderators are not intended to be "disinterested".
"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.

[zoobyshoe]

Right. So can we drop it? Or split it into a separate thread?

I'll drop it now.

[russ_watters]

"Disinterested" as I used it, means "unbiased". Enforcement of the guidelines, is, I am sure, intended to be "disinterested" as witnessed by all the attempts at checks and balances mentioned here. Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal. I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.

[Evo]

I assumed by "disinterested", you meant uninvolved in the discussion.He does say Non-participatory moderators would be the ideal.I assume that is a small forum with no where near the volume of posts we get in so many subjects by anyone wandering in off the internet.

[Moonbear]

I haven't chimed in here yet, but as a former moderator, I want to comment on how the process worked while I was still moderator, and I expect it works now.

First, it's not reasonable for the mentor who is active in the thread to not moderate that thread. Mostly, this goes against the grain of the function of mentors here, which is partly to help stimulate and guide discussion in our own areas of expertise. Often a mentor gets actively involved in a discussion BECAUSE they see the red flags of someone's posts and step in to try to guide discussion back on track, point out the flaws, etc., which basically gives a person a chance to either concede a misunderstanding or error, clarify their point, provide a reference to support their claim, etc., without any "disciplinary" action being needed.

On the other hand, there are a few areas of the forums where opinion is allowed within discussion, and then the mentor may be just responding as a person with an opinion and not in an official mentor capacity. In those cases, if we felt someone was getting out of control, rubbing us the wrong way, etc., we'd report the thread and ask for someone else to read it and see if we were overreacting in a heated debate or if the other person had indeed stepped over the line. The decision would go either way...often there was active debate in the mentor's forum defending the other member against the mentor.

If the mentors couldn't come to a decision, Greg was the final arbiter.

I will also concur with the above that often members don't see the full extent of the reasons for someone being banned or receiving an infraction, etc. The offending posts are quickly removed from view (but not gone...they can be reviewed by the other mentors). In addition, there were many cases where it was someone's reaction to a post being deleted and them being reminded of the forum rules that got them banned, not the original post itself. For example, if a mentor deleted a post and sent a warning explaining the rule violated and that person responded with a PM full of obscenities and tirades about first amendment rights and that they're going to say anything they want to say, when, where and how they want, rather than respectfully disputing it, that reaction can be the nail in their coffin. Even then, they usually just got a cool down temporary ban unless they returned and did the same thing again when the ban expired.

New mentors are usually amazed when they first view the mentor's forum and see how much really happens behind the scenes here. The moderation isn't as arbitrary as it might appear when you're only seeing the non-deleted posts.

[Moonbear]

My point was that to the extent any mentor has to go through the whole hassle of moderating, they're not at liberty to relax and be a "mentor"; the tension and vigilance of moderating gets carried over into mentor's " mentor" and "member" type posts.

Actually, the worst forum moderation I've ever seen was on a forum that had moderators who were just paid to be forum police and not actively engaged in discussions. Because they were not involved in the discussions, and not always fully knowledgeable on the topic being discussed, they tended to lock down threads and ban people for what seemed like even more arbitrary reasons than I've seen anywhere else. They wouldn't recognize that members were being playful or sarcastic with one another and hit up everyone in a thread with flaming infractions and lock the thread when everyone was just having a good time. They'd also merge together every topic that had a similar sounding title, even if the content of the thread was actually quite different, creating giant, nightmarish, disjointed threads that made no sense to read at all.

So, I think having actively involved mentors is a much better method of forum moderation.

[ZapperZ]

Well, there seems to be a lot of support coming out of the woodwork here...

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.

I define PF as being the physics, astro, math, engineering, and Other Sciences forums. These are what define PF and covers the majority of this forum. The others are not central to the identity of PF. What goes on in the Politics sub forum, for example, should not dictate the entire running of this forum.

So, do you see a systemic problem with the running of the physics subforums, for example? Were you ever given an infraction for disagreeing with a Mentor who happened to also participated in that thread? Were you then denied any recourse to challenge that action?

Zz.

[russ_watters]

Actually, I don't see it. I see particular issues surrounding discussion not related to the physics subforums, and I see only one "supporter" who would likely have issues with the physics subforums, but this supporter himself has a dubious record.
Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

[DaveC426913]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.
Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a goverment are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

[ZapperZ]

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

Why do you group and then dismiss them as members that have gone afoul of the system? Do you not accept that they are part of the system as much as supporters?

Even dissenters of a goverment are still citizens. You can't dismiss them as unimportant constituents simply because they protest the government.

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

Zz.

[DaveC426913]

I don't dismiss them. However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system. That is what I am concerned with when I asked for such evidence. Problems with, say the S&D forum, is not a valid reflection on ALL of PF, especially when such a forum is a minuscule aspect of PF. You are using the blemishes on the end of a horse's tail to characterize the whole horse.



I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

You still did not answer my question regarding the moderation on the majority of the major forums in PF.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

So yes, to use your word, I guess I am saying it is systemic.

("Systemic" does not imply it happens frequently, or everywhere, right? Just that it is not limited to a specific area. Just making sure we're on the same wavelength).

[ZapperZ]

I am not "characterizing" anything. My suggestion is sub-forum-independent.

It is simply a general observation that there is a small hole in the system that has the potential for abuse - in any sub-forum.

What are you saying? We don't make improvements unless they have global consequences?

Actually, yes.

A specific incident doesn't always mean that there is a "hole" in the system. If something occurs infrequently, and occurs in an obscure part of the forum, then I don't see a need to revamp the whole system. That's like saying that just because some people in the National Science Foundation were caught surfing for porn on their work computers, that the whole America Competes Act that want to increase funding for the Sciences should be strike down. Oh wait, that actually is happening (http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/the-republican-assault-on-scienc.html), and it is as ridiculous!

What should have been done instead is to address THAT particular incident or problem that you had. We learn lessons from many different incidents on how to do things better, or what not to do, both on the mentors side and, hopefully, from the members side. This requires no revamping on how we do our moderation and monitoring of the forum.

I have not given specific examples of where the problem has occurred. This is deliberate, because
1] The details of the actual incidents are not at-issue.
2] I am not the only one who has this concern. And I do not know (or care) where these other incidents have occurred.

But you should! Where it occurs and by whom makes a lot of difference, because that completes the whole story. Partial data is bad data. We have seen pseudoscience tries to get away with arguing for legitimacy for something using partial data. As someone who is interested in science, I am surprised by your lack of quality control on what you use to back your claim.

Zz.

[Count Iblis]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

[cristo]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

[Count Iblis]

Nonsense. As I said to your post before, your case has been discussed by everyone on the staff.

Such "discussions by everyone on the staff" are perhaps an important part of the problem, I can't be sure about that, though. Anyway, I'll explain my point in detail in another thread, otherwise Dave's more general point about third party moderation would get lost here.

[ZapperZ]

Actually, not only is there a systemic issue with the physics subforums, but this is having some real impact on discussions. So, it is not just limited to hurting the feelings of someone when giving infractions.

Of course, I have to give evidence of my claim. I think it is best to do this in a new thread when I have more time later today.

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

[Count Iblis]

In your case, the problem is that we were TOO LENIENT in taking appropriate actions. To me, that was a systemic problem that I had to bring out with the rest of the Mentors.

Zz.

Thanks, I'll take this new data point about Mentor discussions into account in the new thread.

[jostpuur]

You say there is more than one moderator involved in the adjudication process (say the Moderator involved in the thread itself is ModA and, when a dispute come ups, then ModB and modC get involved in the decision process about adjudicating it).

Why must modA be the one to take the punitive action on the member in the thread? Why is it not modB or modC, both of which know as much as modA, but neither of which are interested parties on the discussion under dispute?


If ModA makes a moderation decision partially for emotional reasons, there is a chance that ModB and ModC will think that "well that infraction wasn't really worth punishment, but the punishment isn't worth canceling either."

If ModB and ModC were given the responsibility to carry out the moderation decisions, they might be a chance that they disagree with ModA and say "mr A, that's not really a infraction yet".

Hence, if it is in moderators interest to use moderation power to enforce their own opinions, it will be beneficial to not require third party intervention.

Wasn't this question nearly rhetorical? I'm sure everybody here understands the real answer.

However, they are not sufficient evidence of a systemic problem with the moderation system.

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

Not that that would be my business now... I'm not very active in politics, philosophy or in skepticism nowadays at least... but I guess it doesn't hurt if the possibility gets mentioned. Perhaps some guys get interested in the possibility later if they spend time on it.

[jostpuur]

Count Iblis, I recommend that you try to record yourself your experiences in the internet.

Some years ago I thought that I had met so dumb people on the internet, that I should start saving these discussions on my hard drive so that they would bring entertainment to me later on.

However, when I read these saved discussions years after they had been saved, and when I had almost already forgotten them, I noticed that a guy with a username "jostpuur" was writing pretty dumb comments. I then destroyed these recordings from my hard drive so that they would not further embarrass me due to some accidental leak.

You see, recording internet experiences is "win guaranteed"-stuff! If your opponents were dumb, the recordings will bring you entertainment later on. If instead you where the dumb one, then seeing the recordings later on will make you wiser! Either way, you will benefit! :wink:

[DanP]

I *really* don't understand why you guys bother with this.

If you value the place so much that you cant live without it, obey the rules, good or bad. Look, it's their board, akin to their house. When you visit you obey the rules of the home master.

If you don't care and you want to have fun on internet, make some friends, have a good laugh, do whatever you want, and screw infractions. You get banned, you move along.


In either case, dont expect perfect moderation and perfectly unbiased moderators. Or that the quality of moderation be the same for all of them. Such things do not exist, humans are simply not capable of being unbiased.

Less complains and more fun.

[Borek]

Nor do I. Much of the dissent comes from people who have run afoul of the system. It is unsurprising and not particularly illuminating that those who run afoul of the system are unhappy with the system. I suspect you'd find the same phenomena in a prison.

Well, three members on page one of the thread.

I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't be counted like that.

I am not _unhappy_ with the system. I supported your idea as it looks good, but after learning that all infractions are listed as a forum posts in the inner-inner-circle, which makes the moderating process transparent to all Mentors, I think that's an alternate mechanism that serves similar purpose. It makes it difficult to abuse the power.

[NeoDevin]

When a person gets banned in politics, philosophy or in skepticism subforum, the person gets banned from math and physics subforums too. It makes no sense to ignore problems in some subforums on the basis that those problems are not present everywhere.

Btw, I guess there are no technical obstacles related to bans for specific subforums?

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.

[Evo]

This might be something to consider. Since most of the problems originate in the PF Lounge, bans from particular subfora instead of global bans might solve some of the problem.We very rarely have anyone banned solely for actions in the Lounge. And the ones that have been banned there rarely contribute to the science forums. No one has been permanently banned for getting out of line in the Lounge at all this year. People that have been banned were banned for infractions they received in multiple forums, were outright crackpots, spammers, or sockpuppets of banned members. See, it's that perception thing again. You see someone arguing, then you see a line through their name and the assumption is that's why they were banned. Some of those people have 3 or more pages of infractions from all over the forum before finally getting banned.

[rewebster]

I've seen a couple mentors abuse their 'power' more than once, and often its the same couple of mentors. Of course, some like 'power' more than others and they appear to step over the line of being 'mentor', to me, because they 'think' they're right; and, because they were given the power of a mentor, and they use it.

Most mentors, I believe, are here doing what they're doing and doing it almost always in a good way.

This forum isn't perfect.

I've seen other mentors defend other mentors, the way some members defend other members, and some members defend mentors---even when I don't see a clear logically reason.

It's too bad that the 'discussion' of the infraction (in the mentors' subforum) isn't open more to that member in some way, because it may often be avoided.

I think that some mentors need counseling more than some others. And, just because some people are called 'mentors' doesn't make their opinion correct, or that they are doing the right thing.

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

I'll tell you what, I'm going to do it if I see a problem with them from now on, even if I'm not involved with the discussion, and I think other members should too--that may make the other mentors more aware of problems.

[Evo]

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors? Members report mentors all of the time, and we do discuss it.

[lisab]

I've seen a couple mentors abuse their 'power' more than once, and often its the same couple of mentors. Of course, some like 'power' more than others and they appear to step over the line of being 'mentor', to me, because they 'think' they're right; and, because they were given the power of a mentor, and they use it.

Most mentors, I believe, are here doing what they're doing and doing it almost always in a good way.

This forum isn't perfect.

I've seen other mentors defend other mentors, the way some members defend other members, and some members defend mentors---even when I don't see a clear logically reason.

It's too bad that the 'discussion' of the infraction (in the mentors' subforum) isn't open more to that member in some way, because it may often be avoided.

I think that some mentors need counseling more than some others. And, just because some people are called 'mentors' doesn't make their opinion correct, or that they are doing the right thing.

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

I'll tell you what, I'm going to do it if I see a problem with them from now on, even if I'm not involved with the discussion, and I think other members should too--that may make the other mentors more aware of problems.

An excellent idea!

Based on the give-and-take in this thread, I think members and mentors don't always interpret interactions the same way. Maybe the best way to address this is for the committed members to be more active giving feedback, using the report key.

[Borek]

Maybe the best way to address this is for the committed members to be more active giving feedback, using the report key.

Who will be the first to risk? :rofl:

[lisab]

Who will be the first to risk? :rofl:

I nominate you! :tongue2:

[rewebster]

I nominate you! :tongue2:

I double nominate you!




(maybe if the 'report' button was just renamed to 'evaluate, please' button)-


--I like the way microsoft has a '?' next to some things---maybe one of those could be put next to the 'report' button with a description of its purpose which would include being able to report a bad/over the top post even by a mentor.

[russ_watters]

We've had issues with people not understanding the functioning of the report button in the past and have revised the description in the terms of use at least once inan attept to ensure people aren't shy about reporting posts.

[NeoDevin]

I've reported posts by mentors lots of times.

[Redbelly98]

We've had issues with people not understanding the functioning of the report button in the past and have revised the description in the terms of use at least once inan attept to ensure people aren't shy about reporting posts.
What some members may be unaware of is that, when you go to report a post, you may ignore the message that says:
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) and unappropriated posts.
That message is a built-in feature of the forum, Greg does not have the ability to change it unfortunately. Feel free to report any post where you think there might be some issue. Whether or not we decide to take action, it will at least be brought to our attention.

[rewebster]

What some members may be unaware of is that, when you go to report a post, you may ignore the message that says:
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) and unappropriated posts.


ignore because 'unappropriated' is not the right word?

[Evo]

ignore because 'unappropriated' is not the right word?Believe me, we've brought that up before.

[rewebster]

Believe me, we've brought that up before.

how do I know that's not one of the two times you (as a woman) are not telling the truth /day?

[phizo]

I have just posted in here to raise an isue regarding a locked thread and that thread was locked too.

Who is this Greg I can appeal too?

[Evo]

I have just posted in here to raise an isue regarding a locked thread and that thread was locked too.

Who is this Greg I can appeal too?Greg is unreachable. I PM'd you. The thread will remain locked. I suggest that you read the message I sent you.

[phizo]

Greg is unreachable. I PM'd you. The thread will remain locked. I suggest that you read the message I sent you.

This one?

"Right now all of your posts have come under scrutiny and you are being discussed. I suggest that you cut out the nonsense if you wish to continue to be allowed to post here. This is a serious forum."

Firstly I welcome any scrutiny of my posts because I don't see anything wrong with them.
As I don't believe I have posted any nonsense, I will look for another forum.

[rhody]

I want to make a single observation about a new member's first post that I witnessed. After reading it without going into details I knew they were trying to sell half baked ideas, not listen to reason. They had all the classic signs of a crackpot. I instinctively knew that that member's first post would be their last. I even e-mailed a couple of friend's jokingly about it.

Sadly, I was correct. On the bright side, if everyone with an agenda without basing their posts on real science, PF would become a wasteland in a hurry.

I am grateful we have the mentor's we do here. No one is perfect, and the honest discussion by mentors about peer mentors behavior in this thread proves it. That being said, I want to end on a positive note, keep up the good work, at times it goes unnoticed, however, I for one appreciate it.

Rhody... :wink:

[Moonbear]

Do you think members report or have the idea that they can report mentors?

Just so you have fair warning...doing something like that is a good way to get nominated to be a mentor. :biggrin: (Well, as long as it's done respectfully, anyway.)

And, actually, it has happened that members report a mentor when a mentor has themselves crossed the line. And, I do recall times when the mentor's posts were the ones deleted as being the ones that were problematic. That's also why there isn't just one or two mentors, but a whole group of them with different personalities and perspectives and areas of expertise to provide some internal checks and balances. There are times when moderation decisions have practically turned into a bar brawl in the mentor's forum. :biggrin: Members have had infractions reversed. Again, if they respectfully dispute it, the mentors do listen.

[DaveC426913]

OK, I'm satisfied that this issue has been given due analysis.

I can't expect that every single time a user (even me) gets on the wrong side of an infraction that the system will be overhauled.

The system is working extremely well, no one can argue that.

Carry on.

[Count Iblis]

OK, I'm satisfied that this issue has been given due analysis.

I can't expect that every single time a user (even me) gets on the wrong side of an infraction that the system will be overhauled.

The system is working extremely well, no one can argue that.

Carry on.

It works extremely well as far as dealing with the crackpot problem. Because most other forums fail in this regard, this makes PF stand out as almost unique.

However, the methods used to achieve this have side effects and addressing those side effects is not appreciated. And that reminds me of private discussions I had with a friend in East Germany in 1981: "The system is working well, we don't have poverty here, there are no homeless people freezing to death in winter on the streets. And yes, we do have a handful of dissidents in jail, no system can be perfect in all regards...."

[ZapperZ]

It works extremely well as far as dealing with the crackpot problem. Because most other forums fail in this regard, this makes PF stand out as almost unique.

However, the methods used to achieve this have side effects and addressing those side effects is not appreciated. And that reminds me of private discussions I had with a friend in East Germany in 1981: "The system is working well, we don't have poverty here, there are no homeless people freezing to death in winter on the streets. And yes, we do have a handful of dissidents in jail, no system can be perfect in all regards...."

Except that people in the old East Germany can't leave to choose another place to live in. As far as I can tell, no one is stopping you from walking out the door.

Zz.

[DanP]

Except that people in the old East Germany can't leave to choose another place to live in. As far as I can tell, no one is stopping you from walking out the door.

Zz.

Oh, they could choose to leave to another place to live in. There is always choice. Only that they shoot dead the ones who tried to leave.

[DaveC426913]

Oh, they could choose to leave to another place to live in. There is always choice. Only that they shoot dead the ones who tried to leave.

...which is, obviously, where the analogy falls apart. (Unless you think the PF Mods are particularly vindictive. :uhh:)

No need to follow the analogy beyond its usefulness.

[cesiumfrog]

Typically, moderators will only act in clear-cut cases if they have a conflict of interest and will otherwise bring the issue up for discussion first.Dave, your OP is something the staff has talked about in the past and take efforts in doing.This post is not a criticism of PF or the moderators.To elaborate on this. It is a rule we follow that before we "intentionally" edit a post, we put a copy of the original post in the mentor's forum first.Do you think this is a systemic problem in PF? In other words, is this a common occurrence

I think maybe the disconnect between members and mentors is that many netizens would want to distinguish between having "justice" be done, and having it seen to be done. (If these cases and potentially perceived biases are murky enough to be discussed in secrecy among mentors already, I can't see why the final action should need be performed by the same one personally involved in the thread.)

The issue in the OP certainly does remain a very common occurrence (exempli (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=410406) gratia (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=410395)).

A related question: is there any way for members to always be automatically notified if someone else edits any of the posts they authored, and be privately posted a copy from before the edit? (And to at least be notified if a thread in which you partook is altered?) For me, much of the value of PF (specifically rather than a new forum) is the ability to find and return to where I've figured something out here in the past, and quickly remind myself by my own words (or by whoever's words I found most useful originally). I guess it's like facebook: our own contributions continually increase its value to us, then people get up in arms when they realise they've let themselves become dependent on the vagaries of a third party. And next thing you know, diaspora project is something people would blindly pay practically anyone to try to develop.. :wink:

[Evo]

A related question: is there any way for members to always be automatically notified if someone else edits any of the posts they authored, and be privately posted a copy from before the edit? For me, much of the value of PF (specifically rather than a new forum) is the ability to return to where I've figured something out here in the past, and quickly remind myself by my own words.Yes, if your post had to be edited, we copy it before it's edited and you can request a copy. Same thing if it was deleted. I've pm'd people copies of both.

[russ_watters]

...but it would be nice if it was automatic because we occasionally lose posts accidentally.

[Evo]

...but it would be nice if it was automatic because we occasionally lose posts accidentally.Especially when you hit the edit button by mistake. I accidently edited one of Zoob's posts today.

[GeorginaS]

I think maybe the disconnect between members and mentors is that many netizens would want to distinguish between having "justice" be done, and having it seen to be done. (If these cases and potentially perceived biases are murky enough to be discussed in secrecy among mentors already, I can't see why the final action should need be performed by the same one personally involved in the thread.)



I agree with the idea that there's a disconnect between seeing what happens when there's an obvious disagreement that's not an issue of crackpottery or disrespect or what-have-you between a mentor and a member and simply an issue of opinion differences. Then stuff disappears and likely discussion goes to PM, and we're left not knowing what happened. That can cause subsequent leeriness when dealing with a particular mentor, because you don't know where you're going to stand. It's potentially a really uncomfortable position to be in.

At the same time, I entirely understand not having arguments in public about board rules and policy and infraction consequences. I don't tolerate it on a board I run either. Still. There's got to be some middle ground, I would hope.

[NeoDevin]

Especially when you hit the edit button by mistake. I accidently edited one of Zoob's posts today.

Maybe some sort of popup confirmation for the mentors "Are you sure you want to edit SoAndSo's post?", when they click edit?

[Evo]

Maybe some sort of popup confirmation for the mentors "Are you sure you want to edit SoAndSo's post?", when they click edit?That would be wonderful.

[Borg]

I read a few pages of this thread and it really enlightened me about the moderation process. Like others, I did not realize that there was even a moderators forum where each infraction is discussed. More proof of the quality of Physics Forums IMHO.
http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/love/love0029.gif

I haven't read everything in this thread so I don't know if this has been suggested. Maybe a statement along the lines of "The mentors have decided..." would show that the decision wasn't made by one person without going into great detail about the process.

[cesiumfrog]

[popup edit confirmation for the mentors] would be wonderful.
If the admin isn't able to edit the text string associated with reporting posts, an entire new feature mightn't be likely. But when members edit their own posts, it is only then that they are supplied text edit box, and they already must afterward confirm to submit and otherwise may cancel. Oh, is the problem for moderators failing to notice that the post they think they are writing a reply to is not wrapped in QUOTE tags (and that the original copy only goes to private forums if the moderator chose deliberately to copy it there manually)?

[Evo]

If the admin isn't able to edit the text string associated with reporting posts, an entire new feature mightn't be likely. But when members edit their own posts, it is only then that they are supplied text edit box, and they already must afterward confirm to submit and otherwise may cancel. Oh, is the problem for moderators failing to notice that the post they think they are writing a reply to is not wrapped in QUOTE tags (and that the original copy only goes to private forums if the moderator chose deliberately to copy it there manually)?The mentors have a different view, we also have different buttons. You'd be surprised how easy it is to accidently edit.