[important] New Moderation Rules!! - PLEASE READ

[Soultrader 12]

Anyone familiar with disemvoweling?

 

"In the fields of Internet discussion and forum moderation, disemvoweling is a technique used to censor unwanted postings such as spam, internet trolling, rudeness or criticism and yet maintain some transparency, both of the act and the underlying word. Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) appears to model the word "disemboweling" and involves removing vowels from questionable text, either as a form of self-censorship or as a technique used by forum moderators and newsgroup operators. The net effect of disemvoweling text is illegibility or legibility only through significant cognitive effort; thus the technique helps to suppress unwanted comments."

 

The next post by me will be the same quoted text above but disemvoweled. What are your thoughts on this?

[Soultrader 12]

In the fields of Internet discussion and forum moderation, disemvoweling is a technique used to censor unwanted postings such as spam, internet trolling, rudeness or criticism and yet maintain some transparency, both of the act and the underlying word. Disemvoweling (also spelled disemvowelling) appears to model the word "disemboweling" and involves removing vowels from questionable text, either as a form of self-censorship or as a technique used by forum moderators and newsgroup operators. The net effect of disemvoweling text is illegibility or legibility only through significant cognitive effort; thus the technique helps to suppress unwanted comments.

[DbPhoenix 42]

I like this idea alot. Very interesting and have I already have some ideas I could implement through this. Thanks Agekay.

 

There may be ways to make this work, but other sites have had problems. The thumbsup/down idea, for example, sounds great, but doesn't always work out as expected in practice. If those who are giving the thumbs down are able to do so anonymously, then the thumbs down are frequently given for reasons that have nothing to do with the post. If those who are giving the thumbs down are required to declare themselves, as they do now when thanking someone for a post, then a lot of revenge activity can take place, and the whole system of rating posts becomes a parody of itself.

 

Others' experiences may of course vary, and someone else may have found a way around these difficulties.

 

Appreciate the comments. Lately theres been an increase in concerns and voices raised regarding certain posts. (they have been moderated already) I will not go into specifics but one member has left TL due to former ET members bashing him in various posts. Also instances where personal matters were brought into the threads causing topics to become off-topic. Although this is probably routine amongst many other sites, the increase in this activity alerted me.

 

When you say "increase", do you mean that a dozen people are involved? Six? Two? Will the number of people who are unhappy with the current moderation design be greater or less than those who may be unhappy with a change in the design? Is the moderation design at fault? There's always the possibility that the moderation design is just fine as is.

 

The member who left gave as good as he got, and it's unlikely that the tactics employed by ET members on a daytrip will be much affected by whatever we do. It seems to me that nearly all TL members understand that arguing on a public board is generally pointless, and when challenged, they most often retire, preferring to focus on something more important. But not all sites are like this, and those who seek out confrontation will eventually find it. So perhaps the question becomes whether to do something about the site or to do something about the person who is perpetually itching for a fight (remember "sf"?). Is the site in fact being assaulted? If so, what is the simplest solution? If not.....

[Tams 20]

Moderators' purpose is to guide and maintain a forum's culture.

 

Moderation is not needed, if you believe in Existentialism:

i.e. ...this forum can begin with a sense of disorientation and confusion,

and that somehow, in the midst of an apparently meaningless and absurd world,

through democracy, will develop a meaningful purpose.

[Soultrader 12]

When you say "increase", do you mean that a dozen people are involved? Six? Two? Will the number of people who are unhappy with the current moderation design be greater or less than those who may be unhappy with a change in the design? Is the moderation design at fault? There's always the possibility that the moderation design is just fine as is.

 

The member who left gave as good as he got, and it's unlikely that the tactics employed by ET members on a daytrip will be much affected by whatever we do. It seems to me that nearly all TL members understand that arguing on a public board is generally pointless, and when challenged, they most often retire, preferring to focus on something more important. But not all sites are like this, and those who seek out confrontation will eventually find it. So perhaps the question becomes whether to do something about the site or to do something about the person who is perpetually itching for a fight (remember "sf"?). Is the site in fact being assaulted? If so, what is the simplest solution? If not.....

 

Thanks again for the input Db. Definitely something I will need to consider.. I guess I am being too optimistic in finding the holy grail of moderation. :doh:

 

The increase in support emails and pm regarding quality of the boards had me extremely concerned. I would say recent emails and pm count has risen over 200%. Either more problems exists or active member count has increased, hence the increase in emails/pms.

 

Again, let me put some thought into this matter... preferably over the weekend and then start discussing some ideas and implementations that could work with my developers. I think one of the biggest improvements I need to make is better communication with the mods and the format of moderation that should be accepted on TL. So far its kind of been.. "ill leave it up to you to decide".

[BlowFish 10]

I am not sure I can contribute much beyond the thoughtful posts already. Interesting how fast things can move here when something important is on the table. having said that I guess I should say something precisely because it is important.

 

I think we have a pretty damn good community here and considering how it's grown recently it's worth saying things are fundamentally OK. The current moderators are doing a fine job. (though sadly, there are a couple of old faces that haven't been here much recently). I have to say I had concerns that TL might become a victim of its own success, and that some of the flotsam and jetsam would wash up here. Doesn't seem to be the case.

 

I think most (maybe all) user based tools are likely to be divisive. For example I can imagine the brief spat in the VSA thread (that gave rise to the 'crock' thread) would have been much worse if the rival factions had censor buttons. Give a crowd pitchforks and they are going to go looking for witches. That was a good example, a couple of pages of broadly speaking mature discussion, and then done. Drama was minimal.

 

In short continue to appoint mature responsible moderators. Make it clear what there role is. Continue to listen to your members. I understand your concern, it is valid as the community grows. Despite racking my brains I can't really imagine a way to make things much better. (yet). I told you I had little to add.

[Soultrader 12]

In short continue to appoint mature responsible moderators. Make it clear what there role is. Continue to listen to your members. I understand your concern, it is valid as the community grows. Despite racking my brains I can't really imagine a way to make things much better. (yet). I told you I had little to add.

 

Thank you very much for your feedback BlowFish. The above comment was mentioned by a few others as well and it is definitely worth a try initially as it does not change the current moderation format at all.

 

I think the biggest factor that has shaped TL was to focus on quality instead of quantity. TL is rather on the low end when it comes to # of posts and threads... but the quality of information is top notch imo.

 

Ive always sought out for feedback when applying new things on TL, I believe my decision making should be kept to a minimum and member opinions considered a priority.

 

I appreciate the feedbacks. I am going to let this thread run a little more to seek additional feedback from members until I can make up my mind to see what is the most suitable for this community. Also, regarding moderation rules and guidelines I will begin work on this tomorrow. This way things can be more structured and easier for both mods and members to understand the procedures. I will also resort to posting reasons behind every moderation or deletion. Thanks.

[DbPhoenix 42]

Thanks again for the input Db. Definitely something I will need to consider.. I guess I am being too optimistic in finding the holy grail of moderation. :doh:

 

The increase in support emails and pm regarding quality of the boards had me extremely concerned. I would say recent emails and pm count has risen over 200%. Either more problems exists or active member count has increased, hence the increase in emails/pms.

 

Again, let me put some thought into this matter... preferably over the weekend and then start discussing some ideas and implementations that could work with my developers. I think one of the biggest improvements I need to make is better communication with the mods and the format of moderation that should be accepted on TL. So far its kind of been.. "ill leave it up to you to decide".

 

I don't want to appear to be a wet blanket. Nothing is so wonderful that it can't be improved upon, if for no other reason than that the world turns and changing conditions sometimes demand accommodation.

 

However, change can often bring about unintended consequences, and one can find oneself in an even worse pickle than if he had done nothing at all. Allowing -- or even expecting -- members to rate each other both positively and negatively is one such change. You've explained, both publicly and via PM, the kind of site you want and the kind of behavior you expect: be respectful of each other and disagree without going on the attack. This really ought to be enough, even with regard to suspected spammers (in other words, don't immediately assume heresy and disembowel everyone who has ever been to a pay site or used a pay service or for-fee software and has anything good to say about it). Trying to codify what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior leads to the kinds of problems that the US Legislature is grappling with as we speak.

 

One site that has been around for a very long time has very little moderation because very little moderation is necessary. People don't go there to fight; they go there to discuss stocks and investing (maybe traders are a fundamentally pricklier lot than investors). Another has virtually no moderation because nobody really gives a damn. Moderators in fact engage in the same kinds of behavior that they're supposed to moderate. Those who visit the site without being fully armed do so at their peril. Yet another has a complex set of rules for behavior that look just great on paper, but nobody adheres to them because it's just too complicated. Getting the site owner or any of the moderators to act is not unlike getting the US to reduce carbon emissions. Complaints about posts often took days to be addressed, in which time a little problem became a multi-page flamefest. And even then, the "solution" was generally little more than a plug of tissue paper in the dike. It took three years to ban a particularly divisive member simply because nobody wanted to assume the responsibility.

 

Tread carefully, then, when considering change. Consider whether the difficulties you see may be temporary. Consider that they may be situational (when people aren't doing well with their investments or trading, they tend to become angry, and that anger is easily vented online; this anger, however, has everything to do with the individual and nothing at all to do with how a given site is administered). The "SPM Method" thread, for example, was not a difficult puzzle since several members asked that it be closed and most of the participants were from another site. Unfortunately, resentments aren't so easily capped and can easily spill over into other threads. The question, however, again, is whether this necessitates a remodeling of the site.

 

Sorry to go on so long, but I've been online since 1994 and I've seen a lot of sites come and go. I've also seen a large variety of rule structures, and the more detailed structures are not successful unless one has the "right" constituency. And if one has the right constituency, the detailed structures aren't necessary.

[Eiger 10]

Providing a set of guidelines for moderators will be very helpful, I think. Since there are no guidelines at the present, the clarity will be a net plus and is change in a positive direction.

 

You might consider publishing a draft of the guidelines before they become final. Invite the forum users to review and comment on the proposed guidelines for a period of time before they take effect. There would be several benefits: It is certainly one way to keep the process democratic, which several folks have mentioned as highly desirable. It is also a way to generate other valuable ideas. People tend to respond productively when specifics are put before them for consideration. I think, too, that it is also a way to foster a level of consensus about moderators and moderation -- what it is and what it isn't -- across the TL community. People will have input, which makes them a part of the process and helps them to take 'ownership' of the results. Also, the more aware and more clear group members are about their norms and practicies, the more they tend to respect them. This is especially true for those that they help develop.

 

I believe also, that this would be consistent with the spirit of TL and the goal of a user-oriented community with priority to user opinions that you are striving for.

 

Eiger

Edited April 8, 2009 by Eiger

[euclid 10]

I think the membership can successfully be given a role in moderating the board. Here's my idea.

 

First you need a few very clear rules about what is not allowed.

 

Then you need a report post button that appears on all unmoderated posts. Any member should be able to report a post and select which rule it breaks in their view.

 

Reported posts are approved, moved or deleted by an official moderator as necessary in accordance with the published rules.

 

Once a post has been approved by a moderator or if it was not reported by any members for a period of time, it is marked as moderated and no longer has a report post button.

 

Each member has a moderation score. If they report a post that subsequently requires no action by the moderator, their score goes down a lot. If they correctly report a post, it goes up a bit. I think it would work best if the actual scores were not known by the members. Abusers of the report post button will end up with negative scores and their reports can be ignored.

 

After the system has been running for a while, if it works, you will be able to automatically hide posts with a certain weight of reports while they await official moderation. Then if you find that all the hidden posts end up being deleted, you could make that automatic (subject to appeal). It can be gradually extended.

 

If it doesn't work, well at least you've got a report post button.

[DbPhoenix 42]

I think the membership can successfully be given a role in moderating the board. Here's my idea.

 

First you need a few very clear rules about what is not allowed.

 

Then you need a report post button that appears on all unmoderated posts. Any member should be able to report a post and select which rule it breaks in their view.

 

Reported posts are approved, moved or deleted by an official moderator as necessary in accordance with the published rules.

 

Once a post has been approved by a moderator or if it was not reported by any members for a period of time, it is marked as moderated and no longer has a report post button.

 

Each member has a moderation score. If they report a post that subsequently requires no action by the moderator, their score goes down a lot. If they correctly report a post, it goes up a bit. I think it would work best if the actual scores were not known by the members. Abusers of the report post button will end up with negative scores and their reports can be ignored.

 

After the system has been running for a while, if it works, you will be able to automatically hide posts with a certain weight of reports while they await official moderation. Then if you find that all the hidden posts end up being deleted, you could make that automatic (subject to appeal). It can be gradually extended.

 

If it doesn't work, well at least you've got a report post button.

 

Clever. Have you seen this in use anywhere?

[Eiger 10]

I think the membership can successfully be given a role in moderating the board. Here's my idea.

 

First you need a few very clear rules about what is not allowed.

 

Then you need a report post button that appears on all unmoderated posts. Any member should be able to report a post and select which rule it breaks in their view.

 

Reported posts are approved, moved or deleted by an official moderator as necessary in accordance with the published rules.

 

Once a post has been approved by a moderator or if it was not reported by any members for a period of time, it is marked as moderated and no longer has a report post button.

 

Each member has a moderation score. If they report a post that subsequently requires no action by the moderator, their score goes down a lot. If they correctly report a post, it goes up a bit. I think it would work best if the actual scores were not known by the members. Abusers of the report post button will end up with negative scores and their reports can be ignored.

 

After the system has been running for a while, if it works, you will be able to automatically hide posts with a certain weight of reports while they await official moderation. Then if you find that all the hidden posts end up being deleted, you could make that automatic (subject to appeal). It can be gradually extended.

 

If it doesn't work, well at least you've got a report post button.

 

I think this idea has legs and would be worth trying.

[atto 20]

Thirding, I like it as well.

[DbPhoenix 42]

Thirding, I like it as well.

 

I wonder, tho, how much programming it would take.

 

I'd also like to see a change in how reports are posted and distributed. Something more immediate. Perhaps even public.

[Eiger 10]

........................................................................

Edited April 9, 2009 by Eiger

[brownsfan019 17]

Some neat ideas but I'll be the first to say that if there's a maze of complex mathematical functions to see if you qualify to be here, I'll be the first out the door; which I know will disappoint a few around here.

 

The bare bones question at debate is how much 'free speech' we want to see around here. You have a site like ET where anything goes and while I know some here don't like that site, there are some great threads there and posters - incl some posters that have come here, seen what it's like and left.

 

In the end if there's a user guide that is 10 pages long w/ flow charts on what qualifies as a good post and/or good user, that's a complete instant turn off for me.

 

The quick fix is to use the block user function. That provides an immediate fix that is available in the programming already. James obviously put it there for a reason.

[Soultrader 12]

Thank you all for the great inputs. I am delighted to see the number of responses and I truly appreciate the support!

 

 

Providing a set of guidelines for moderators will be very helpful, I think. Since there are no guidelines at the present, the clarity will be a net plus and is change in a positive direction.

 

 

You might consider publishing a draft of the guidelines before they become final. Invite the forum users to review and comment on the proposed guidelines for a period of time before they take effect. There would be several benefits: It is certainly one way to keep the process democratic, which several folks have mentioned as highly desirable. It is also a way to generate other valuable ideas. People tend to respond productively when specifics are put before them for consideration. I think, too, that it is also a way to foster a level of consensus about moderators and moderation -- what it is and what it isn't -- across the TL community. People will have input, which makes them a part of the process and helps them to take 'ownership' of the results. Also, the more aware and more clear group members are about their norms and practicies, the more they tend to respect them. This is especially true for those that they help develop.

 

I believe also, that this would be consistent with the spirit of TL and the goal of a user-oriented community with priority to user opinions that you are striving for.

 

Eiger

 

Hi Eiger, thank you for the input. Yes, I was thinking the same thing to have a draft ready and then have the members review and improve the draft before finalizing it. I will try to think of ways to make this as interactive as possible and to obtain as much feedback as well.

 

I think the membership can successfully be given a role in moderating the board. Here's my idea.

 

First you need a few very clear rules about what is not allowed.

 

Then you need a report post button that appears on all unmoderated posts. Any member should be able to report a post and select which rule it breaks in their view.

 

Reported posts are approved, moved or deleted by an official moderator as necessary in accordance with the published rules.

 

Once a post has been approved by a moderator or if it was not reported by any members for a period of time, it is marked as moderated and no longer has a report post button.

 

Each member has a moderation score. If they report a post that subsequently requires no action by the moderator, their score goes down a lot. If they correctly report a post, it goes up a bit. I think it would work best if the actual scores were not known by the members. Abusers of the report post button will end up with negative scores and their reports can be ignored.

 

After the system has been running for a while, if it works, you will be able to automatically hide posts with a certain weight of reports while they await official moderation. Then if you find that all the hidden posts end up being deleted, you could make that automatic (subject to appeal). It can be gradually extended.

 

If it doesn't work, well at least you've got a report post button.

 

euclid, thank you for the feedback. I like this idea alot. I think it is worth a try, including a set of moderation guidelines layed out clearly. Let me discuss this with my developer.

 

I wonder, tho, how much programming it would take.

 

I'd also like to see a change in how reports are posted and distributed. Something more immediate. Perhaps even public.

 

I dont think it would take too long.... maybe 10 days max. Ill get an ETA from my developer on this. Thanks.

[VolumeJedi 10]

B.F.,

 

As I have tried to place DbPheonix on ignore more than once, I know you can not do so to a moderator. That is the first thing that should be changed.

[Soultrader 12]

B.F.,

 

As I have tried to place DbPheonix on ignore more than once, I know you can not do so to a moderator. That is the first thing that should be changed.

 

Unlikely as ignoring a moderator will cease the purpose of any type of moderation system.

[Soultrader 12]

Based on euclids idea, I have submitted the following draft to my developer. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

[BlowFish 10]

Euclids idea could work, having said that I can see ways of 'gaming' it. I think if you demonstrate that you are unable to use the moderate button responsibly (like consistently using it for differences of opinion rather than breeches of policy) You should loose your 'moderation' rights.

 

This system still relies on the maturity and 'community mindedness' of the members but then so does the current one.

 

Do we really need it? I guess it might make the real moderators job easier which is a plus. I can't see how it will make much improvement to the quality of the forum (which I think most would agree is pretty good). It wont improve the signal to noise ratio. (unless posting inane posts is against the posting guidelines). Does any one really mind the odd bit of drama? (not that there is much).

 

I think the policy document is the first step. That in itself might be a challenge. For example offsite links. It requires judgement as to what is useful and what is not. Many respected posters here provide links sometimes to commercial sites. Commercial sites often have valuable information, many times free. How do you turn that into acceptable use? Of course what what I think might be useful is likely very different to what someone else might find useful. Even highly respected contributors passion for a certain approach could almost be called an 'agenda'.

 

I dunno I am just not too sure about any of this. However you do require a policy to judge effect ways of enforcing it. It is a testament to the people who post here that most know and broadly agree what is acceptable and what is not.

[Soultrader 12]

Okay here is what I created briefly... would like to share just to hear any thoughts before editing and revising.

 

Unacceptable Posts

 

The following posts are not accepted on Traders Laboratory forums.

 

1. Spam – Traders Laboratory maintains an aggressive no-spam policy. Spam posts will be deleted and the user account banned without warning. Spam includes repeated commercial advertising as well as silent spamming methods. Silent spamming methods include advertising via pm, posting links for commercial interest, embedding affiliate links in posts, etc…

 

2. Personal offences - Traders Laboratory is a diverse forum with forum members gathering from all over the world. Any sign of personal bashing based on age, sex, race, location, language, culture, values, etc… will be deleted upon notice.

 

3. Clashes and conflicts – Traders Laboratory is a place for cooperation. Any posts that are aimed to create hostility, flame, and clashes will be moderated upon notice. We take strict measures to enforce respect for one another.

 

4. Your privacy and security – As Traders Laboratory is a public forum, we do not allow members to publish personal contact information on the forums: phone numbers, emails, address, etc… Personal contact info can be collected by robots crawling through sites and then sold to spammers by various organizations. Please protect your privacy.

 

Moderation Guidelines

 

Our moderation guidelines are aimed to help members and moderators understand the procedure of Traders Laboratory’s moderation system.

 

1. Any post that fits into any of the 4 categories listed under “Unacceptable posts” can be reported using the report post feature available inside of each post.

2. Reported posts are notified to moderators and admins via email. Upon notice, the admin or appropriate mod will investigate the issue.

3. If a post is deemed inappropriate, the mod or admin has the right to edit or remove the post. All moderators are requested to include a reason for each moderated post.

4. Moderated posts are soft deleted (temporary deletion) until the issue is resolved in which the admin will hard delete the post. Spam posts are hard deleted immediately.

5. Members can submit an appeal for a moderated post. This appeal will be reviewed by the moderation team and the admin in a timely manner.

 

 

Still under construction... would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

[DbPhoenix 42]

Okay here is what I created briefly... would like to share just to hear any thoughts before editing and revising.

 

Unacceptable Posts

 

You've made your position clear on these posts in one way or another here and there over time, but having it all in one place, short, sweet, and to the point, is a plus, key word perhaps being "short".

 

Moderation Guidelines

 

Our moderation guidelines are aimed to help members and moderators understand the procedure of Traders Laboratory’s moderation system.

 

2.Reported posts are notified to moderators and admins via email. Upon notice, the admin or appropriate mod will investigate the issue.

 

As I've said, I'd like to see the posts reported in some way other than email, perhaps as a post in a thread dedicated to that purpose (such as that proposed for posts under moderation), for two reasons: (1) the person reporting the post knows that his report actually went somewhere to somebody and wasn't a waste of time like those little comment cards one fills out in hotels and (2) any mod or admin who's logged in will see the report immediately, not a day or several days later.

 

On a sidenote, about the icon. Why "S"? I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it's not obvious. Without making the frame too busy, why not make use of the icons that are already available to us, such as :spam: or or :evil tongue:? Or you could create an icon of villagers with pitchforks and torches. But the idea is to make it clear just what the button is and what it's for without explaining anything. A simple "Report Post" might be all that's needed (I'm sure you've noticed the extraordinary amount of clutter surrounding posts on some sites). The object is to let members know that they have options. More than once I've read complaints in threads along the lines of "why doesn't a moderator do something about this?", the answer being that nobody ever notified a moderator that there was a problem. Whatever notification system we come up with, then, needs first to be quick and easy-to-understand.

[DbPhoenix 42]

Or you could create an icon of villagers with pitchforks and torches.

 

Here ya go..........

 

 

 

[Eiger 10]

Based on euclids idea, I have submitted the following draft to my developer. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

 

This is clear and transparent. It seems quite workable.