Moderation of the Deep Seat thread

Dave Stevens

I can only see a couple of places where EKN could improve on the moderation, or at least the preception of moderation.

There will always be knuckleheads on forums, always. No way around it. The more popular the site, the more boneheads that think they are above the rules, or too cool to follow them. You've just scratched the tip of the iceberg. Wait until the site is more populated in the search engines.

You guys have done a fantasic job so far. The two things I think could use some improvement and change would be providing a posted policy, and not directly editing the user's posts. If a post does not conform, zap it in its entirety. With a clear, defined set of guidelines there is at least a fair perception that the moderaton is metted in a fair way. As the site grows, not everyone will know you like the regulars here now. They won't be familiar with your reputations. Some of these "new guys" will become regulars, like me. Going on repuation alone, won't be enough, you'll need to document your policies.

Another reason for wholesale post zapping, is your time. It's easier just to zap it, rather than try to judge the intent and edit it. Thread gets too harsh? Close it. Some people will alway find it easier to ask for forgiveness, rather than permission. By editing their posts, you put the burden on yourselves, and not on the poster. By zapping the posts, you put the burden on the poster to insure conformity to the rules. What incentive do they have, when they know you will pick out the "bad" parts? Do you really have th e time for that? Right now the community knows each other from racing, and from the previous forum. That will change as the site becomes more popular, and the trust and respect issue won't be engouh on its own to define the moderation.

I for one, would prefer my posts deleted, as opposed to editing by a moderator. For example, I'm developing some fairly strong opinions regarding a specific manufacturer. Under the current conditions, I'm not really sure if the site deems it appropriate for me to share those views, though I have yet to be moderated for them. My idea of what could be appropriate, and EKN's idea, I can assure you are two different things. that is where a set of guidelines come in, to help posters conform to the purpose of the site. An example from one of our sites can be found at http://www.live-audio.com/faq.html and http://www.live-audio.com/board_use_tips.html (those links are meant to be served in other pages on our site, so there is no navigation, etc, just raw text)

All in all, you've done a fine job. The time it takes you to craft a moderation policy now, will save you 100s of hours in the future either defending or debating your policies.

On an unrelated note, get a media kit online. The karting school I go to is interested in advertising, but can't get any info from you.....

Dave
shiny new kart guy in the back of the pack......

Jeff Franz · Joined: 16 Jul 2001 Posts: 524

quote:
Originally posted by Dave Stevens:
The time it takes you to craft a moderation policy now, will save you 100s of hours in the future either defending or debating your policies.

On an unrelated note, get a media kit online.

Dave,

On both those counts, you are absolutely correct. The first is a huge priority for me, and the second is paramount for Brian Stiver, EKN's advertising and business development guru (said karting school can reach him via our Contact page).

Deletion vs. editing is a tricky one. You raise some excellent points, yet I am confronted by a sample post in which there would be one sentence of off-topic, flaming wordage, while the other ten paragraphs are filled with valuable, constructive info.

The challenge is to either, wipe the one sentence out, or delete the whole thing and notify the poster to rewrite it without the offending words.

I think you've struck an accurate note, in regards to placing the burden upon the moderator versus the poster.

Thanks for your thoughts and for your kind words.

Jeff

Dave Stevens

quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Franz:

Deletion vs. editing is a tricky one. You raise some excellent points, yet I am confronted by a sample post in which there would be one sentence of off-topic, flaming wordage, while the other ten paragraphs are filled with valuable, constructive info.

That's an excellent point, as not all people stepping over the line, do so with intent, and many times, are making a useful contribution. I suppose I'm "old school" Internet, where it's not considered good form to edit others posts. I'd be curious to hear what others think about that.

I'd be of the mind to warn them in public, nothing like a little "spanking" to get them in line.

The downside is the 8 or 10 others that pile on and only add to the noise.

I'm confident you guys will do what you feel most appropriate for the community.

Dave

Erik Frank

This is most certainly not an easy issue....

I'm with Dave. I really don't like the idea of having my posts edited. It could destroy the intent of my post. When you start editing posts, where do you draw the line? Are you editing for content?, for grammar?, for spelling? for humor?, etc?

However, on the flip side, Pete Muller used to edit the content of classified ads submitted to TKWS. I know this, because ads I submitted would sometimes feel the swipe of his red pen! In this case, I think it made sense (but I bet its was very time consuming...given the amount of ad traffic) because it made all of the ads very consistent. They read well.

Deletion of objectionable posts (which is really just prevention or blocking) is probably a lot cleaner and easier. Trouble is, *you* get to determine what "objectionable" means. That can be a little tough.

However, this is your (EKN's) website, and these are your rules, so you certainly have the right to do whatever you see fit.

Charlie Tackett

I think you have to kind of play it by ear. Rarely do I delete the entire post. I may delete teh entier contents of a post if there is no material there which is a contribuatory content to the topic one way or the other, but is only a negattivistic slam. I also generaly try to do two thinks, well either one or the other or sometimes both. If I edit a post, I try to put in a brief comment as to why/what ( ex: edited for deleting profanities) and I also try to send the individual a pvt message regarding the editing or deleting.

Tom Stephens

Jeff, my .02,
1) with a post containing only flame, remove the post with a form response (to save you time) on the forum that the post has been removed for the following reason...
or...
2) remove offending post and send it back to originator with a form note (to save you time) saying something like please repost the good stuff

Tom Stephens www.kartfinder.com

Pete Muller

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Frank:

...However, on the flip side, Pete Muller used to edit the content of classified ads submitted to TKWS. I know this, because ads I submitted would sometimes feel the swipe of his red pen! In this case, I think it made sense (but I bet its was very time consuming...given the amount of ad traffic) because it made all of the ads very consistent.

Yes I did... and it was clearly spelled-out that I would do so.

As mentioned here by others: I believe it's good to have a clearly defined policy (which turns into a disclaimer should you decide to remove a post/topic for objectionable content).

Of course... even if your policy says something like: by clicking on the I agree button below, you agree that we have the right to remove any post for any reason... - you will still catch flak when you do so.

It's the nature of the beast.

PM

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Pete Muller ]