Censorship, pre-moderation and forum rules, a few thoughts. Discuss!

[Bottlebank]

As another UK Caving regular poster is bitten by the pre-moderation bug I was pondering a few things.

Is pre-moderation right? We've been told UK Caving does not practice censorship but surely pre-moderation involves the forum owners or mods reading posts before they become visible. Someone deciding what we are or are not grown up enough to read? This seems to be censorship?

If a post is deemed unsuitable should other posters in the topic be made aware - i.e. should a message be inserted at the point in the thread stating something along the lines of "Premoderated post by .... was not approved"? If not then I think we have to accept this is also censorship.

In the same vein are we entitled to know someone has been put on pre-moderated status and are the site owners and mods able to edit pre-moderated posts before approval - if so are we entitled to know this has been done.

I can understand a ban, whether temporary or permanent. But pre-moderation seems a grey area.

Perhaps we need some clarification of the forum rules? Several of us have been accused, both publicly and privately of "negativity" or a "negative attitude". This negativity seems to include such horrific offences as disagreeing with the forum owners on a tag line, for example. The forum rules seem pretty clear - they are listed here - http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1872.0

Negativity is not mentioned in the rules, nor is disagreeing with another forum user on any particular subject.  I can't help feeling in either private messages or public posts there this is no place for moderators to use a phrase such as "in general your attitude is negative", this is not a primary school classroom. My own view, which may be wrong, is that when a moderator or the owners of this forum post in a topic they do so as just another user and (as the mods have generally done in the past) they should try to separate the two roles.

In fact the rules seem pretty sensible, but for them to work both users, mods and site owners need to be playing by the same set, which is difficult when they appear to change because someone is annoyed or offended and it's often starting to feel as though discussion or debate isn't welcome here?

Much of these changes seem to based on the rather odd premise that a forum where everyone agrees with each other and plays nicely all the time will be a successful forum whereas in reality it may simply become sterile.

As I said I was pondering a few thoughts, and I'd be interested to know what other people think?

And lastly, can't help feeling this arguably negative post may incur the wrath of someone and I too may receive a ban or pre-moderated status. I hope not but if I do it's been nice chatting and debating with you and of course I'll have the satisfaction of having proved several of my own points!

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would like to think I can say here more or less what I would come naturally in a face to face social public environment. I don't seem to incur the wrath of a great many people in the real world, so why should it be any different here?

 

[pwhole]

I guess it depends what's been written and where - without knowing the background it's hard to make a judgment. As a moderator on a club forum myself, I'm technically meant to step in if the guidelines have been breached, but it never happens in reality, and only once have I ever deleted a post, due to its 'general offensiveness' to everybody. I wouldn't delete posts merely for folks disagreeing, as I thought that was the point of forums (fora?). Or at least to provide the opportunity to agree or disagree is. I certainly don't want a Happy Valley forum where everyone merely applauds each other for simply existing.

I would imagine that regular posts from a 'troll' might incur 'pre-mod' status as an initial warning before banning, but that description would imply deliberate shit-stirring as a rule in all topics, or focusing on particular individuals relentlessly, as opposed to merely disagreeing with a particular poster's point of view. People who also know each other in 'real life' may help or hinder the progress of a forum, depending on whether they get on (or not) in 'real life'. Is that an issue in this case, as reading between the lines, it seems that way?

 

[graham]

I have had posts edited without my consent, I have been banned and I have been pre-moderated. 

 

[Badlad]

Unfortunately the attitudes and posts of a few put off the many from engaging with the forum.  Therefore we try to act on behalf of the silent majority of users who want the forum to be a pleasant experience as we would like more cavers to engage with the forum rather than less.

Since we took over the forum a year ago only a couple of users have been placed on moderated status including one this morning.  This means one of the team of six moderators have to approve future posts before it appears on the forum.  Moderation will last until the team decide to remove it.  At present we only have the one forum member on moderation status.

The forum rules remain as they were when we took over which are not ideal but are adequate.  They will be reviewed eventually.  In the meantime take a look at the forum rules for UKclimbing;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.html

This is an incredibly popular site but the rules are far stricter than on here. 

Being rude and grumpy, and having a go all the time will be tolerated to a certain extent but UKcaving would like to position itself very firmly on the happy side of the island.

 

[peterk]

Tim
You've included a full stop in the Ukclimbing link
It should be http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.html

 

[Over the Hill]

Could not possibly comment! 

 

[JasonC]

I have had posts edited without my consent, I have been banned and I have been pre-moderated. 

- and ?
Are you saying undue censorship was applied, you were treated unfairly or disproportionately, or perhaps in hindsight that you had overstepped the mark ? (for the avoidance of doubt, the last alternative was a small joke).

I'm not now speaking about you, Graham, or any other individual, but I would have thought sanctions would not be applied to anyone stating an opinion, even vehemently, as long it wasn't done particularly offensively.
What can be very boring to read is slanging matches between individuals where contrary views are stated and re-stated over and over, along with derogatory ad-hominem attacks.

 

[Filter]

While I do agree that repeat offenders should be sanctioned if they are negatively impacting the willingness of others to join/interact with the forum, a no-strikes rule seems a bit harsh. At the very least, a warning should be given before bans get thrown around.

 

[Roger W]

Bubba posted back in March 2006,

"If you act like an idiot, we will ban you. We may warn you first, depending on how much of an idiot you have been."

I'm assuming that in most cases, warnings are issued first before bans follow.  But I can (just about) imagine it possible for someone to post something so offensive and out of order that an immediate ban would be called for.

See what Bubba said at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1872.0

 

[droid]

If 'the majority' is silent, how do you know what they think?

 

[graham]

I have had posts edited without my consent, I have been banned and I have been pre-moderated. 

- and ?
Are you saying undue censorship was applied, you were treated unfairly or disproportionately, or perhaps in hindsight that you had overstepped the mark ? (for the avoidance of doubt, the last alternative was a small joke).

I'm not now speaking about you, Graham, or any other individual, but I would have thought sanctions would not be applied to anyone stating an opinion, even vehemently, as long it wasn't done particularly offensively.
What can be very boring to read is slanging matches between individuals where contrary views are stated and re-stated over and over, along with derogatory ad-hominem attacks.

Jason, it's not my board and I cheerfully (  8) )accept either banning or pre-moderation as I have no right to be heard here. However, the ban arose out of my posts - and those of others - being edited without consent. That is, indeed, undue censorship, it is putting in my mouth things which I did not say, which can lead to all sorts of consequences. That was wrong. I do hope that the owners have learnt from their actions over the past year and accept that some of their actions were as out of order as those of the posters they acted on.

 

[Peter Burgess]

A good observation, Droid. It's a risky thing to assume you know what other people are thinking. Treat people who do so with extreme caution!

 

[cap n chris]

Is pre-moderation right?

Is pre-moderation wrong?

 

[graham]

Is pre-moderation right?

Is pre-moderation wrong?

It creates a problem for the person being pre-moderated in that it makes it very hard for them to take part in relatively fast moving discussions, as their contribution, appearing so much later than when it was made, will be lost to those continuing the discussion who will then be on to the next page. If there was a permanent mod presence to act promptly on pre-moderated posts, which will never happen on a volunteer modded board then this would not be an issue.

 

[droid]

Pre-moderation for percieved 'negativity' is wrong: it's a subjective judgement.

If discussions get 'heated' and that offends the sensibilities of this mythical 'silent majority' then the simple solution is to have a dedicated section for such discussions, so that those of a delicate disposition can avoid them.

 

[paul]

Is pre-moderation right?

Is pre-moderation wrong?

It creates a problem for the person being pre-moderated in that it makes it very hard for them to take part in relatively fast moving discussions, as their contribution, appearing so much later than when it was made, will be lost to those continuing the discussion who will then be on to the next page. If there was a permanent mod presence to act promptly on pre-moderated posts, which will never happen on a volunteer modded board then this would not be an issue.

Of course you can avoid such problems by not doing something which leads to being placed on pre-moderated status...

 

[Badlad]

I have had posts edited without my consent, I have been banned and I have been pre-moderated. 

- and ?
Are you saying undue censorship was applied, you were treated unfairly or disproportionately, or perhaps in hindsight that you had overstepped the mark ? (for the avoidance of doubt, the last alternative was a small joke).

I'm not now speaking about you, Graham, or any other individual, but I would have thought sanctions would not be applied to anyone stating an opinion, even vehemently, as long it wasn't done particularly offensively.
What can be very boring to read is slanging matches between individuals where contrary views are stated and re-stated over and over, along with derogatory ad-hominem attacks.

Jason, it's not my board and I cheerfully (  8) )accept either banning or pre-moderation as I have no right to be heard here. However, the ban arose out of my posts - and those of others - being edited without consent. That is, indeed, undue censorship, it is putting in my mouth things which I did not say, which can lead to all sorts of consequences. That was wrong. I do hope that the owners have learnt from their actions over the past year and accept that some of their actions were as out of order as those of the posters they acted on.

Lets just be clear.  You were banned for two weeks because you sent messages telling the owners of this forum that they could F off.  Prior to that, one very derogatory comment you made about someone was deleted from one of your posts.  You insisted that this was censorship but we beg to differ.  What we learnt is that if you make the same comments again on this forum we will take the same action - but probably much quicker.

 

[Laurie]

This doesn't seem to have provoked any response from the 'silent majority', so maybe they don't care.

.....or would it be that, if they responded, they'd cease to be the 'silent majority' and become a 'vocal minority'?

 

[Pegasus]

This doesn't seem to have provoked any response from the 'silent majority', so maybe they don't care.

I have spoken with many cavers who lurk on UKC but don't/rarely post - the silent majority if you will.  Sadly I believe some refrain from posting and engaging, not necessarily because they don't care, but out of concern of being 'jumped on' (for want of a better phrase) by the usual suspects. 

Tim and I don't have a hidden agenda.  As cavers ourselves, we bought UKC to help run it for the wider caving community.  We're trying to promote cave conservation, offer prizes, encourage younger cavers and generally promote our sport.  Yet, time and again debates continue about how the forum itself is run - the dislike coming from some quarters of us owning UKC is palpable and at times I wonder why we bother.

Next time anyone is thinking of starting another thread along these lines, I would ask you to consider how it looks to the silent majority.  Is it encouraging them to engage and post?? Would more posts about caving, trips reports, questions/answer about caving, debate on caving subjects etc be of more interest to cavers visiting a caving forum - or would they like to hear more criticism of how the forum is run I wonder??

Cue more outrage, sigh...