trial by moderators, banning and special moderation features

[MichaelW]

I posted the following thought here

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277200#post277200


OK, here's a better answer. How about trial by moderators for all banning or "special moderation features" on individuals ability to post. Such as the requirement placed on an individual for each of his posts to be reviewed by Barry before its published. I'm told this special feature is already being done by Barry.

I know this is Barry's forum, but Barry, you could insulate yourself from criticisms by letting a group of people make those decisions. Give say a week for the moderators to comment and vote, but go ahead and implement temporary measures if needed. It wouldn't have to be overly involved. Just PM a link to the controversial thread/posts and give up or down vote. Majority vote of voting moderators, no quorum issues.


comments?

[Sundance]

Deleted after further review........... Best to leave things alone as usual

[Dave W]

>Barry takes too much heat for decisions made . . .

Barry is "a big boy" and so far, has "performed" well.

Question - If a "moderator" needs to be banned,
how do I cast a vote? :) :)

[Sundance]

Deleted after further review. And why not........ the NFL does it all the time. :-)

[Barry]

If a "moderator" needs to be banned,
how do I cast a vote? :) :)

I would hope that you would let me know of any reasons you feel a moderator (including myself) has been inappropriate or needs banning. I routinely ask for other moderators opinions when there is some conflict and I have told them not to hold back with me. I still expect people to be civil towards moderators in private. Some who are currently banned thought they could unload with profanity and abusive language in private. I was raised with the knowledge that you see the true character of a person by how they behave in private. ;)

- Barry

[MichaelW]

Well, Barry (and Bruce) I thought I would approach the idea, which is all it is, in the public realm with the example being necessary for the need. One thing I've always liked about beesource is that there is a level of "public community moderation", for lack of a better term, and that even when I was a newer participant, I felt like I could express my opinion in what was going on, if people where out of line, information was inaccurate, etc. Its more of a Wikipedia type thing, where with so many participants, things level out fairly well (ideally anyway). So I thought I would put this out for the masses as well, get some input, as Bruce and Dave W did and so on. But if you think thats a bad idea Barry, thats fine. I actually thought it would be in your best interest Barry, and I explain later in a PM.

[Keith Benson]

I think the present system works well. If something is inappropriate it gets attention in a timely manner, but the system is not overarching as to bog down or delay a discussion. Whenever there has been a "problem" regarding a moderation decision it has certainly been discussed with plenty of opportunity for a dissenting voice. I think Barry and his crew are doing a fine job. Carry on gentlemen!

Keith

[Dan Williamson]

As far as I'm concerned... the system works.

This is Barry's site. He can do with it as he wishes. There are really 3 options:

1) You can like it and stay.
2) You can not like it and stay.
3) Or you can leave (voluntarily or involuntarily)

Abide by the rules and you'll have no problems.

You don't like the way Barry/moderators manage the site don't contribute financially or with your opinions/comments.

I don't see what the problem is. Keep your emotions in check, agree to disagree sometimes, be honest, if you make a mistake own up to it!

Common decency folks. Its not that difficult.

[Sundance]

Dan says:

"Keep your emotions in check, agree to disagree sometimes, be honest, if you make a mistake own up to it!"

Well said, short, sweet and to the point. All to often (especially early on) I stumbled a lot with keeping emotions in check and agreeing to disagree.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

You know what really bugs me? To find a really hotly disputed topic AFTER it's been edited or deleted. :(

After further review,.... that's what I get for being off line on weekends. :rolleyes:

[Sundance]

LOL that happens to me a bunch BB. Especially this last summer being away. Still not sure what happened to Bob (heck both Bob's for that matter).

[MichaelW]

Still not sure what happened to Bob (heck both Bob's for that matter).

Thats part of the point. More sunshine/openness, more understanding on what happened and didn't happen.

As to it being Barry's site, yes it is, but the users are the ones that submit the content and make it what it is. Keep that in mind.

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Thats part of the point. More sunshine/openness, more understanding on what happened and didn't happen.

As to it being Barry's site, yes it is, but the users are the ones that submit the content and make it what it is. Keep that in mind.


You are missing the point. Breaking the rules of the list creates dirty laundry, airing it out in the openness and sunshine is just compounding an embarrassing situation. It doesn't need to be aired out for all to see.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Without Barry's site there is nowhere for your content, and this site does not have to have every one's content to be what it is.

[MichaelW]

Well in this context, I meant say 10 or so moderators (as stated in the original post using PM feature) instead of up to 3 to give "sunshine".

But I suppose sunshine/openness wasn't the best words to use.

I don't really know what the big hubbub is about, but feel free to keep critiquing the idea.

[BjornBee]

Define private?

I was once under the impression that PM's were private. I once was smacked on the wrist for just mentioning a comment made on a PM. And I have been called names and had profanity thrown my way on beesource Pm's. I never said anything because I thought these conversations were private and that if one did not want further Pm's from an individual, you could just block their Pm's. Which I did. (I liked the old format of blocking Pm's prior to the new beesource format.)

With that said, I take many discussions, off the beesource PM, and use other forms of exchange. Not because of abuse or profanity. But due to privacy issues. PM's, as one can read on this thread are not private. Some discussions are based on management, private information, and discussions that are for exchange between the two parties sending emails. If you don't want something read by more than who you are sending it to, don't use PM's. Just good advice.

I think thats where some got into trouble. They thought PM's were private, but they are not.

[Barry]

The only true way to be 100% private in your conversation is to talk face to face. Every other means of communication relies on some mechanism that has the ability for someone to listen in. Emails still have to go through several servers where tech's could easily read if they wanted to. Same with PM's. They're generated and processed by the board software and I'm sure there is a way to "look in" to some degree, but neither do I know how nor do I want to know how. They're private and they'll stay that way.

That said, do whatever makes you feel good! :)
Define private.

- Barry

[BjornBee]

Yes, Barry. That's true. But they (other people who could access a server) are not in the same business, not on a personal level of daily chat, and are not involved with the inner details of the business, etc.

I could care less if some geek looking at a message thats not a beekeeper, See's who I get a particular product from, or some recipe, some negative comment about another, or any number of other comments that may be a bit more "truth" that I care to allow someone or "anyone" on beesource to read.

I may not openly make the same comment on the forum about a person, breeder or business, that I may make in private between two people.

Big difference between knowing others can read your comments on beesource PM's, and equating that to some unknown person outside the bee community sitting on a computer half way around the world, who will not be effected, swayed, influenced, or biased, based on those comments.

[Barry]

Big difference between knowing others can read your comments on beesource PM's,

Please explain who these others are.

[BjornBee]

I would hope that you would let me know of any reasons you feel a moderator (including myself) has been inappropriate or needs banning. I routinely ask for other moderators opinions when there is some conflict and I have told them not to hold back with me. I still expect people to be civil towards moderators in private. Some who are currently banned thought they could unload with profanity and abusive language in private. I was raised with the knowledge that you see the true character of a person by how they behave in private. ;)

- Barry

For starters, lets look at this comment. It suggests that you read them, you ask for others opinions on the matter, which I could only assume that good judgement could only be given if the messages were being read.

I'm not suggesting anything wrong Barry. All I'm mentioning, is that everyone needs to be aware that Pm's are monitored, and go beyond what some may feel is a private message between two people and not seen by third parties. Pm's are not exclusive exchanges between two people, regardless of the improper use of the word "private".

[Barry]

For starters, lets look at this comment. It suggests that you read them,

It suggests no such thing! You're the one trying to tie PM's with my use of the word "private." Wrong to do that.

you ask for others opinions on the matter, which I could only assume that good judgement could only be given if the messages were being read.

You know what they say about assuming! You're flat wrong on this.

I'm not suggesting anything wrong Barry.

Suggesting that PM's are being read by someone other than the recipient is wrong. You're spreading uninformed information.

All I'm mentioning, is that everyone needs to be aware that Pm's are monitored,

No they're not!!

and go beyond what some may feel is a private message between two people and not seen by third parties. Pm's are not exclusive exchanges between two people, regardless of the improper use of the word "private".

I already stated above the level of security PM's are. No different than emails. It would help a lot if you would ask for clarification first before saying things that are false.

- Barry

[BjornBee]

Barry, The above quote from you was a paragraph, containing sentences, all adding to a thought process as a whole. In that same paragraph, you mention some getting in trouble for thinking that they could make comments on Pm's, which I thought you would need to read to make a "banning" decision. In that same paragraph, you comment about asking others for advise in such matters. I took it for how I read it.

Perhaps a clarification as to the one you just made was needed. So Pm's are never read by anyone other than the two parties exchanging Pm's. See, I learned something today. I have not honestly read the user agreement lately. Maybe a comment in there would be nice, and could always be used as stated proof that this is more than a discussion topic, and perhaps policy instead. Then even asking for clarification would not be needed for such details.


My Bad. Sorry.

At least for the record, thats clear it for any future dealings.

[Barry]

Barry, The above quote from you was a paragraph, containing sentences, all adding to a thought process as a whole. In that same paragraph, you mention some getting in trouble for thinking that they could make comments on Pm's, which I thought you would need to read to make a "banning" decision. In that same paragraph, you comment about asking others for advise in such matters. I took it for how I read it.

You better reread it, cause nowhere did I say anything about PM's.

- Barry

[BjornBee]

Barry, your right! I assumed once again that you mentioning "in private' was through PM's. But I would like to know why you banned someone from sending emails outside beesource forum and Pm's. Or is there some other method that I missed? So how did this work? Someone sent a nasty email through normal internet email outside beesource, and that was reported to you and you banned them? Wow! (Of course I suppose they were emails directly to you via beesource links) But I also think that could of been dealt with, realizing that although upset, the member at least sent it to you directly and good judgement was used in keeping it off the forums, etc.

And although you have clearly indicated that not just Pm's, but emails are not really private, when considering the workings of the internet, its nice to know that you have stated that PM's are not beyond the eyes of the two parties involved with respect to anyone on beesource.

This will be my last post on this thread. Its about all played out.... ;) Thanks Barry.

[Barry]

But I would like to know why you banned someone from sending emails outside beesource forum and Pm's. Or is there some other method that I missed? So how did this work? Someone sent a nasty email through normal internet email outside beesource, and that was reported to you and you banned them? Wow!

Bjorn -

The method a member uses to contact a moderator is insignificant. I and other moderators have received both PM's and emails from members. The point is, if a member uses either one and contacts a moderator about issues of moderation, it is being done under the umbrella of Beesource business. I expect moderators to be civil in their dealings with members and the same goes for members communicating with moderators about these issues, even in "private." If either want to trash talk each other on their own about non Beesource stuff, have at it.

Some have been contacted by a moderator over a posting issue/violation only to have the member come back with an email or PM containing all sorts of vile language directed towards the moderator. This has and will result in a ban. Often times in this situation the email or PM gets sent to several moderators for input.

There is no intent to infer that any of this reaches beyond the business of Beesource. I hope this clears things up.

And although you have clearly indicated that not just Pm's, but emails are not really private, when considering the workings of the internet, its nice to know that you have stated that PM's are not beyond the eyes of the two parties involved with respect to anyone on beesource.

and I aim to keep it that way.

- Barry

[ScadsOBees]

I don't see why anybody would complain...it's still Barry's site, owned and operated, and as much as we are part of it, if he wants to turn off his computer, then we don't have beesource.

If you raise a ruckus in a restaurant they can ban you. I don't see this as much different. If you want to eat in a restaurant, you follow their rules, and if you want to enjoy beesource and the fellowship here, follow Barry's rules. If you don't like the rules and want to argue about them...they are clearly posted...

Personally, I admire your patience, Barry...I'd have turned that computer off already.:eek:

Thanks, Barry!!!

Rick

[BULLSEYE BILL]

How is it that people on my IGNORE list can still send me PM's?

[MichaelW]

"I don't see why anybody would complain..."

Am I complaining? When Barry said I could be a moderator and help with Alternative Pollinators part, I figured that I don't know, maybe moderation would include discussions and input on how moderation is to be handled. I feel confident that Barry is reasonable and professional enough that if I make suggestions that would SLIGHTLY alter the way he operates that he's not going to shut down the entire beesource site in retaliation and frustration for a few sentences that contain a few thoughts on how one might moderate.

There is no "moderator handbook" that says either "Make suggestions as you see fit." or "Keep your mouth shut and only scan posts for profanity.", etc. So I guess I'm going out on a limb here, by doing something CRAZY and giving constructive input without any instruction to do so, whatsoever!!!

[sqkcrk]

How is it that people on my IGNORE list can still send me PM's?

How many people do you have on your ignore list? Or should I send this question by PM?

[Joel]

I don't see much fault with the current system. I've been "reprimanded" a couple of times. Shared some spirited e-mails with moderators, and am still here as are they. I've complained to Barry when I thought something wasn't fair and though he gave it appropriate attention.

It's good Michael raises the question, it makes us all examine the system we use.

Of course now I'm worried Im on Bullseye's ignore list! I don't have anyone on my list yet. I need to find someone to ignore!

[Barry]

How is it that people on my IGNORE list can still send me PM's?

Anyone else having this problem?

- Barry

[Barry]

One thing I've always liked about beesource is that there is a level of "public community moderation", for lack of a better term, and that even when I was a newer participant, I felt like I could express my opinion in what was going on, if people where out of line, information was inaccurate, etc.

Hi Michael -

I have always been OK with this type of public expression. . . to a point.

Its more of a Wikipedia type thing, where with so many participants, things level out fairly well (ideally anyway). So I thought I would put this out for the masses as well, get some input, as Bruce and Dave W did and so on. But if you think thats a bad idea Barry, thats fine. I actually thought it would be in your best interest Barry, and I explain later in a PM.I think BB explained it best regarding this time in particular:

"Breaking the rules of the list creates dirty laundry, airing it out in the openness and sunshine is just compounding an embarrassing situation. It doesn't need to be aired out for all to see."

Had you just brought up the ideas you had about moderating, I would welcome that, and still do. But using a specific episode and giving selective information about it to build from, I felt that is what shouldn't have been discussed in public, but kept in private.

Having received a couple PM's from you, I understand what you're getting at and will be replying to them tonight. I welcome a moderation structure that creates the most fairness all the way around. Look forward to talking more about this with you and others.

- Barry

[BULLSEYE BILL]

How many people do you have on your ignore list? Or should I send this question by PM?

Just three. But there is room for more. ;)

[MichaelW]

Oh, me too, me too, can I be on your ignore list too! :)

[BULLSEYE BILL]

Oh, me too, me too, can I be on your ignore list too! :)

No, I want to keep tabs on you and those goats. ;) I'm still trying to figure out what this animal husbandry thing is. :rolleyes:

[sqkcrk]

Just three. But there is room for more. ;)

I'll PM you my reply. :)

[BULLSEYE BILL]

I'll PM you my reply. :)

I'll be looking forward to not seeing it. ;)

[Barry]

OK, here's a better answer. How about trial by moderators for all banning or "special moderation features" on individuals ability to post. Such as the requirement placed on an individual for each of his posts to be reviewed by Barry before its published. I'm told this special feature is already being done by Barry.

I know this is Barry's forum, but Barry, you could insulate yourself from criticisms by letting a group of people make those decisions. Give say a week for the moderators to comment and vote, but go ahead and implement temporary measures if needed. It wouldn't have to be overly involved. Just PM a link to the controversial thread/posts and give up or down vote. Majority vote of voting moderators, no quorum issues.

I was reading some old threads and came across this one. Since it is about 2 years old, I just want to say that the suggestion Michael made has actually been implemented. The moderators now have their own forum where we can openly discuss any moderation issue. This allows the input of 20 members (moderators). I have really appreciated having the input from these members as it provides even more balance.