NOTICE: Stricter moderation

[preV2tradcath]

Bear in mind that no one can claim that the moderation is biased or one-sided. After all, not all action is public information. No poster has knowledge of prviate message sent back and forth from moderator to user, of user to user. These too can result in bans and suspensions. Furthermore, I have noticed a few years back some of the bans have come from nothing posted, but rather when banned poster create a new log on to get around the ban. It was a rarity to have this insight but once this was made public to quash complaints about biased moderation. This may never appear as anything said publically.

The “bias” that is given is ususally totally public in the form of rules and banned topics.

Great points. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[reggieM]

I agree but if you don’t know exactly what you have done and they won’t tell you, how can you reasonably be expected to correct your behavior?

Self-examination.

 

[Cat]

Self-examination.

Sometimes it’s difficult to recognize something that you are doing wrong or some unwise behavior or habit in yourself.

It is especially difficult in an online community. Take the issue of sarcasm. In “real life,” some people talk sarcastically all the time. But they don’t offend anyone because their facial expressions, voice tone, body language, and the setting makes it obvious that the comment is sarcastic.

However, online, it is much harder to communicate sarcasm. Some people seem to think that by using those smilie faces, they can say anything and people will “get it.”

Well, often I don’t get it.

Also, many people just don’t write well and their intention does not come across succinctly online. I have problems with verbosity because I type fast and can spew a whole lot of words out in a few minutes online. But then people get confused or lost and don’t understand what I’m saying. In real life, though, I wouldn’t do this, because people would give me non-verbal cues that it’s their turn to speak now and that I need to be quiet and listen.

FInally, people have different definitions. E.g., some people think they are demonstrating Christian charity to post something that is true, but not necessarily kind. E.g., they will call someone a “heretic.” The person so-named is understandably upset and hurt, and the moderators pm the poster and warn them not to call someone a heretic. But then the poster says, “But I was just showing Christian charity! It’s not charitable to let someone continue believing in wrong teachings!”

Again, this problem probably wouldn’t happen in real life, as you probably wouldn’t call a person a heretic, and if you did, your kind voice, tear-filled eyes, and out-held helping hand would demonstrate that you mean your admonition in a charitable way.

It’s amazing how we can really mess up online. Has someone created an “Examination of Conscience” for the online world yet?

So I think it’s very appropriate for moderators to send PMs and tell people that they have done something wrong or inappropriate for an online forum. I agree that the moderators need to be as specific as possible.

 

[reggieM]

So I think it’s very appropriate for moderators to send PMs and tell people that they have done something wrong or inappropriate for an online forum.

I agree. But sometimes it should be obvious to whoever was engaged in the discussion that the tone crossed the line.

 

[ethelzguy]

I agree. But sometimes it should be obvious to whoever was engaged in the discussion that the tone crossed the line.

Well put. Speaking from personal experience… …any warnings or infractions I’ve received have come as little surprise.

And, while it may seem that some are getting away scot-free, the truth is, we really don’t know, do we? Unless, someone gets the “blue letters of death”…not to be confused with the “blue screen of death”, well known to Windows users.