Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
bagpuss

Changes in Moderator Visibility

Last week a discussion was started about moderators on the site and moderator visibility. This led to a poll which has resulted in some changes.

You will notice that all moderators now have "Downsizer moderator" written above their avatar picture. Listing names at the top of each forum section is technically more difficult but is being investigated at the moment by Jema/Barefoot Andrew.

We have updated our Site Organization thread to hopefully better explain the moderator's roles

We have new discussion guidelines here. If anything is unclear please ask for clarification.

All the moderators will also try their best to make sure any moderator action both in the forum and by pm is obviously marked as such.

Thanks for all your suggestions. Hopefully we can move forward and make Downsizer an even more useful resource and community.
Brownbear

Re: Changes in Moderator Visibility

bagpuss wrote:

We have new discussion guidelines here. If anything is unclear please ask for clarification.


I should like to request clarification on a point or two, without in any way challenging the right of the management to promulgate what regulations it sees fit.

Quote:
1. Complaint from another member
The person whom the complaint was lodged against is warned and asked to moderate their behaviour.


Has a stage been missed here?

Quote:
PMs are private communications and should never be repeated in the open forum without permission from both parties. Contravention of this will result in an immediate ban.


Im not sure on what this is based. Standard practice and legal precident suggest that any missive becomes the property of the recipient, who may do anything with it they please, including publication, unless a prior undertaking has been given not to reveal the contents, or such revelation is forbidden by statute.

If a confidentiality agreement has been added to the terms and conditions of membership, will we be required to re-register, or will continued participation be dependent upon accepting this condition, and continued participation be taken as agreement to it? If the latter is the case, I would respectfully suggest that the management consider a mass email of members pointing out this new condition.

Finally, are we to take it that this new condition is not to be applied retrospectively?
jema

Private has always meant Private, it says Private!

People should not really need that clarified.
Brownbear

jema wrote:
Private has always meant Private, it says Private!

People should not really need that clarified.


I thought that just meant not visible on the forum. I wasn't aware, ever, that referring to the contents of a PM was a banning offence.
Snowball

On point one, I assume the word "valid" was left out. Easily fixed.
Point two seems fairly straight forward to me, but it depends how you are looking at things. If you start from the standpoint that the mods are being high and mighty and will ban people at a whim, then there is a problem with the wording. However, if you are starting from the assumption that mods are not going to ban someone because they refer to a joke or some such that was first sent in a pm, then it should be taken as a genuine attempt to make the site run more smoothly.
None of the mods are layers, I don't think, neither should they need to be. I assume the point about quoting pm's is to stop a private discussion between a mod and a meber becoming a public sppat. I would have thought that this is a good thing.
If you are trying to help Bro0wnbear, please don't go so over the top with nonsense about re registering etc.
The guidelines were updated because people demanded more specifics. I have always argued that this is a mistake, because you will always have omissions, or, you need something of the complexity of a legal document to cover all possibilities.
This is just a forum, it means a lot more than that to a lot of people, but it is just a forum run by people trying to please all of the people all of the time. Sadly, they never will, so lets try taking things in the spirit of which they are meant for a little while.
Snowball

By the way, I am not a mod.
cab

Snowball wrote:

None of the mods are layers, I don't think, neither should they need to be. I assume the point about quoting pm's is to stop a private discussion between a mod and a meber becoming a public sppat. I would have thought that this is a good thing.


On the face of it, I'd agree. But I'm of the opinion that there needs to be just a tiny bit of clarification here; does it mean that if you post with text copied from such a PM you're going to get banned, or does it mean that if in a post you reveal the gist of such a discussion you'll get banned?

I wouldn't consider posting the text of such a PM publically. I think its against the spirit of what such a communication is about. But I do agree with Brownbear that changing the rule such that to do so is a banning offense changes the relationship of Downsizer with its members, and that the rule therefore needs to be stated ever so slightly more clearly.
bagpuss

Snowball wrote:
On point one, I assume the word "valid" was left out. Easily fixed.
Point two seems fairly straight forward to me, but it depends how you are looking at things. If you start from the standpoint that the mods are being high and mighty and will ban people at a whim, then there is a problem with the wording. However, if you are starting from the assumption that mods are not going to ban someone because they refer to a joke or some such that was first sent in a pm, then it should be taken as a genuine attempt to make the site run more smoothly.
None of the mods are layers, I don't think, neither should they need to be. I assume the point about quoting pm's is to stop a private discussion between a mod and a meber becoming a public sppat. I would have thought that this is a good thing.
If you are trying to help Bro0wnbear, please don't go so over the top with nonsense about re registering etc.
The guidelines were updated because people demanded more specifics. I have always argued that this is a mistake, because you will always have omissions, or, you need something of the complexity of a legal document to cover all possibilities.
This is just a forum, it means a lot more than that to a lot of people, but it is just a forum run by people trying to please all of the people all of the time. Sadly, they never will, so lets try taking things in the spirit of which they are meant for a little while.


Yep, we need to clarify that the complaint is if the mods feel the complaint has merit, for example Sean complaining that Jamanda has asked him to do the hoovering probably wouldn't result in any action on behalf of the the mods

On the pm front again this has to be taken with a modicum of sense. It doesn't mean you aren't allow to share any information that you are provided in pm, as Snowball has rightly pointed out if you were told a joke by pm it would be unlikely that you shouldn't repeat it openly

What it does mean is you need to consider is repeating a pm verbatim in the forum is the correct thing to do and generally the answer to that will be no. On the whole people communicate by pm something that either they don't want on the public forum or something they don't feel will be interesting to everyone on the public forum and on the whole both situations mean that these things aren't for repeating

edit:I have altered the complaint section, please say if its still unclear

We are discussing how best to clarify the pm guidelines
cab

bagpuss wrote:

On the pm front again this has to be taken with a modicum of sense. It doesn't mean you aren't allow to share any information that you are provided in pm, as Snowball has rightly pointed out if you were told a joke by pm it would be unlikely that you shouldn't repeat it openly

What it does mean is you need to consider is repeating a pm verbatim in the forum is the correct thing to do and generally the answer to that will be no. On the whole people communicate by pm something that either they don't want on the public forum or something they don't feel will be interesting to everyone on the public forum and on the whole both situations mean that these things aren't for repeating


So clarify the rule change along those lines then; it answers Brownbear quite well I think. Careful, though, because with that clarification, the outright ban statement doesn't add up. What you're saying is that if someone posts the contents of a PM then the moderator team may view that as grounds for a ban, which is more reasonable. That would silence the cynic in me, which is yelling out that best way to stop someone saying something with the guideline as written is to PM it to them Laughing
bagpuss

Some changes have been made which hopefully make these things clearer
Brownbear

Please don't involve me in any more discussion. I was just suggesting a mass email saying, 'members are reminded (or whatever) that PMs between moderators and members are confidential and not to be repeated in open forum. When I referred to reregistering it was in the sense that as people weren't going to do that, something else could be done of equal force and effect.

It wasn't a criticism and was only intended to help. I apologise sincerely if it was taken as an objection or stirring; it was emphatically not intended that way. It it was taken that way then I expressed myself badly.
Snowball

I suggest a therapeutic group hug. Smile
Mr O

Snowball wrote:
None of the mods are layers, I don't think,

Well it is winter and they are probably moulting Laughing
nettie

Thank you mods.
OP

nettie wrote:
Thank you mods.

Yes.
Midland Spinner

Yes, thanks Mods
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home