23 replies to this topic

[lightowl]

Censorship in moderation
http://www.imminst.o...o...ic=7243&hl=

Moderation by full membership [CIRA]
http://www.imminst.o...o...c=14590&hl=

The most important changes I think should be implemented
http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=154615


That's all I could find in a hurry, but I think it outlines quite extensively the suggestions. I may have changed my mind on some points or expanded my ideas on some others. I'm willing to answer any questions given the limited time I have available.

I hope some day all these points will be mute due to implementation in generally available forum software. My greatest hope is that Google or Facebook or some other major communication provider implements these features to make individual or group moderation acceptable. The only thing that tentatively legitimizes ImmInst current moderator groups is its appointment by members of elected leadership. That however does not fully address concerns about the lack of free speech on ImmInst. ( obviously )

Edited by cnorwood, 03 July 2008 - 03:52 PM.
changed title to indicate split from other thread

[Athanasios]

The only thing that tentatively legitimizes ImmInst current moderator groups is its appointment by members of elected leadership. That however does not fully address concerns about the lack of free speech on ImmInst. ( obviously )

Members and Registered users also have power here. They can trump a navigators decision by appealing to leadership and are encouraged to do so. If a member of leadership is PMed an issue such as this there is a review and the navigator's actions will be revoked if deemed unacceptable. There is a checks and balances here that requires member participation as well. I am talking to all in this thread here but quoted lightowl do to his appointment observation.

Edited by cnorwood, 02 July 2008 - 04:20 PM.

[lightowl]

They can trump a navigators decision by appealing to leadership and are encouraged to do so.

Thats a good thing, but only really effective if Members and Registered users can follow the actions of navigators. Is there any way to follow/monitor these actions?

Edited by lightowl, 02 July 2008 - 05:17 PM.

[Athanasios]

Thats a good thing, but only really effective if Members and Registered users can follow the actions of navigators. Is there any way to follow/monitor these actions?

This would be most relevant if the action involved your own personal posts, so yes, you would know of the action.

One problem with opening up Navigator logs is that there is a lot of personal information there that should not be public. If there is a way for NAVs to communicate privately about ongoing situations and a way around personal information being posted, I would be for this. I do not see how it would be feasible but maybe others can think of a way to do it. Moderation that had a base in personal information may look funny to those on the outside and would have to go through the current leadership review 'process' upon 'appeal'.

[Shannon Vyff]

I agree that the navigators need a private space to discuss, they will often ask questions of the rest of leadership to see if others support their actions. Also all the leadership can read the navigator blogs--any new action, shows up in the 'active topics' thread. It is great to point out that members can counter a navigators decision or action, and leadership is quite open. I think that if a person has the time to follow the navigators' actions--or wants to follow them all, maybe they would have the time to be a moderator of one of the forums and would like to be one of our volunteers .

[lightowl]

This would be most relevant if the action involved your own personal posts, so yes, you would know of the action.

Most relevant, true, but still relevant in other cases, if not for anything other than to satisfy memberships confidence in the moderators ability to fairly moderate discussions.

One problem with opening up Navigator logs is that there is a lot of personal information there that should not be public. If there is a way for NAVs to communicate privately about ongoing situations and a way around personal information being posted, I would be for this. I do not see how it would be feasible but maybe others can think of a way to do it.

What information is available in the log? Perhaps its just a matter of devising an SQL statement that does not include that information. Perhaps its not so clear cut?

I agree that the navigators need a private space to discuss, they will often ask questions of the rest of leadership to see if others support their actions.

I agree to an extent. I think it might be valuable to have members participate in such discussions, but if personal information is at root it might be difficult. Perhaps a case by case evaluation could be made?

I think that if a person has the time to follow the navigators' actions--or wants to follow them all, maybe they would have the time to be a moderator of one of the forums and would like to be one of our volunteers.

I would think there are layers of actions. Some of which are more relevant to possible excess censorship than others. I think some members would be very interested in what specific communication is not allowed on a case basis. Some couldn't care less. I'm sure the middle-ground is very dynamic. How many actions are we talking weekly (ballpark)?

Edited by lightowl, 02 July 2008 - 08:09 PM.

[Athanasios]

What information is available in the log? Perhaps its just a matter of devising an SQL statement that does not include that information. Perhaps its not so clear cut?

It varies a lot depending on the case. It can be personal background, PMs, IPs or addresses, etc. The only way I can think of at the moment is linking out to a closed forum when personal information is brought up but that still will interfere with the conversation in the non-closed forum (trying to talk around the confidential material). I would also be worried of people using the information discussed against the poster that is being moderated (a public airing of dirty laundry so to speak).

[lightowl]

It varies a lot depending on the case. It can be personal background, PMs, IPs or addresses, etc.

Just to clarify. I'm talking about moderation of specific posts and topics. Not about evaluation of a persons membership status. Moderation of specific posts or topics should not be about the person posting them. It should be about the content only, right?

I agree that membership evaluation should not be public unless the person being evaluated wants it to be public.

Edited by lightowl, 02 July 2008 - 09:14 PM.

[Athanasios]

Moderation of specific posts or topics should not be about the person posting them. It should be about the content only, right?

It depends on the infringement, past history of forum abuse, mental status and intentions of the poster, etc. Basically, we judge on content only unless there is other pertinent information as well, which is then discussed. When we have conflicts of interest we say so and let the other members of leadership decide a course of action. We try to provide leniency when we can, if it does not effect others adversely or disrupt the forum. PMs happen all the time, even on specific posts. This is required so we can review the situation and judge if a navigator is acting appropriately.

[lightowl]

It depends on the infringement, past history of forum abuse, mental status and intentions of the poster, etc.

OK, so lets say the only information that was published (to members only) was:

1. Moderators Name - ( hide if moderator wants to be anonymous )
2. Moderated Post New Content
3. Moderated Post Old Content
3. Moderated Post New Position
4. Moderated Post Old Position
5. Moderation Action - ( edit/delete/move/split )
6. Moderation Time/Date.

This would not reveal any personal information ( unless personal information is in the content, and that could/should be handled specially, perhaps by blanking out the specific information in the Old Content field ). Being able to see this kind of information would be immensely valuable in assuring to the membership that moderation is fair, and would also give members an opportunity to oppose any moderation by others that they do not approve of. I think this would go a long way in the ways of including members in the moderation process and make it more transparent. What do you guys think? Are there any apparent problems with that?

[Athanasios]

1. Moderators Name - ( hide if moderator wants to be anonymous )
2. Moderated Post New Content
3. Moderated Post Old Content
3. Moderated Post New Position
4. Moderated Post Old Position
5. Moderation Action - ( edit/delete/move/split )
6. Moderation Time/Date.

I would be willing to have a trial period for this. If reasoning is left out, there shouldnt be problems with private info. The only downside is the possibility of navigators and leadership spending too much time dealing with appeals because people cant see the reason for the moderation. I think we should be able to measure this work load with a trial period. I'll let other NAVs and members of leadership comment.

I am also going to separate this line of discussion with the free speech one after i get back from my final that starts in 30 mins.

[lightowl]

That's great cnorwood. Thank you so much. I hope the other navigators are as forthcoming and open minded about this as you are. Its always good to be able to compromise and to try things out to see if it works.

[Shannon Vyff]

I'd be concerned about the additional amount of time incurred by adding Cnorwood's list (as well as the reasoning that is left out) and would much prefer if a member is interested in navigation, the hows and the whys, then they could volunteer to be in leadership too. (Cnorwood hope your final went well!)

[Mind]

I agree with Shannon. The list will burden the Nav team too much.

My feeling is no reporting should be the default option - unless the report can be automated. Right now deleting posts is automated. Maybe we can open up the deleted posts archive (Can) to viewing by all. If a member has a question about a particular post then they can ask in the can and an asnwer can be given. If there is no complaint then no report - saving time for the Navs.

[lightowl]

It was always my intention that such an "actions report" should seamlessly integrate into the moderation process. It should not be a separate step for moderators to fill out. If there is already a log containing all actions, it should be possible to filter out the information outlined.

The most important aspect of the report is to give members insights into what has been deleted/edited at a glance.

Edited by lightowl, 03 July 2008 - 05:59 PM.

[lightowl]

... would much prefer if a member is interested in navigation, the hows and the whys, then they could volunteer to be in leadership too.

The idea is to give members access to the "what" so to speak. Basically if members don't know what has been moderated, they have little opportunity to oppose. Its difficult to oppose what you don't know about. This of course requires that it is seen as a good thing that members oppose what they conceived as excessive moderation. A point I think people approve of, due to indications that it is encouraged to make ones opinion known to moderators.

Edited by lightowl, 03 July 2008 - 06:09 PM.

[Athanasios]

It was always my intention that such an "actions report" should seamlessly integrate into the moderation process. It should not be a separate step for moderators to fill out. If there is already a log containing all actions, it should be possible to filter out the information outlined.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think this is possible because how much this type of information comes up. Not only would you have to filter out the private information but any conversation referring to it.

The most important aspect of the report is to give members insights into what has been deleted/edited at a glance.

Opening 'The Can' would allow for the viewing of what has been deleted. As for editing, look at the first post of this topic. Do you see at the bottom of the first post when/who/why?

[lightowl]

Not only would you have to filter out the private information but any conversation referring to it.

In special cases where private information is contained in the deleted post a special procedure would have to be made, that is true. Do you have any indication of how often such cases arise? I'm trying to get a feel for how much extra work handling such cases would generate.

Regarding what is possible with the current software solution, yes, I think some special modification are needed. I'm not sure how much, but I'm relatively sure its not extensive.

Do you see at the bottom of the first post when/who/why?

I see it, and its good information. What I think is needed in addition, is that information in a list form including the information that was potentially removed.

[lightowl]

The objections seem to be largely regarding time constraints and concerns about publishing private information. Is that an indication that if those problems are addressed, then people think its a good idea to make moderation actions ( including moderated material ) public / semi-public?

[lightowl]

An easy way, to suppress private information from a public moderator actions list, could be for the moderators to write fx: "removed due to private information infringement". Then the script generating the list would know, not to show, the information that has been deleted. It would know because the words "private information infringement" is in the edit cause. To make it easier for moderators, a TAG could be made that has the same effect. fx: "PII".

That way moderators would only have to add that TAG to their reason for moderating the post, and the original post would be off limits to the public. That doesn't seem like much extra work to solve that issue.

BTW sorry for the excessive posting. I'm just spitting it out as I go along.

Edited by lightowl, 03 July 2008 - 06:46 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

probably the best solution is to open up the trash can. That should let everyone see what has been deleted and by who without generating any extra work. We can make it not googlable by requiring a registration to view (until google bots register that is), and make it not show up on the active topics list (you'd have to go looking to see what was deleted, but the information would be open).

In cases where private/illegal information is posted we can send it to a leadership only trashcan. I nominate you, lightowl, to be in charge of over viewing the stuff in the leadership can.

This will have to be anterograde, as there is simply too much stuff to go through in the trash right now (ton of spam etc.).

[lightowl]

I apologize for the delay.

probably the best solution is to open up the trash can.

That would be a good first step, but not nearly enough in my opinion. I don't know the exact ratio, but I suspect the number of edits outweigh the number of deletes. ( disregarding obvious spam ) Also, the can does not reveal moves and splits.

In cases where private/illegal information is posted we can send it to a leadership only trashcan. I nominate you, lightowl, to be in charge of over viewing the stuff in the leadership can.

I think that solution would be acceptable in the short term. I accept your nomination to overview with whatever time I can spare.

This will have to be anterograde, as there is simply too much stuff to go through in the trash right now (ton of spam etc.).

Yes, also because personal information is probably already in the can.


On a side note, I might have a technical solution for automated spam, if automated spam is a problem at the moment. Do we have many bogus user registrations?

Edited by lightowl, 08 July 2008 - 01:27 PM.

[maestro949]

We can make it not googlable by requiring a registration to view (until google bots register that is)...

Once they register we can promote them to be navigators too.

[lightowl]

maestro949 do you have any constructive criticisms or remarks to the subject? Since you are a Moderator, and you are following the topic, you might have something to add. What do you think of the suggestions? ( I'm not trying to be confrontational. I honestly would like to know your opinion )

Edited by lightowl, 08 July 2008 - 06:18 PM.