When is a moderator's post an instruction ?

Liam Byrne

Should moderators be required to clarify what is a personal opinion/posting and what is an actual moderation instruction ?

A post by one of the Politics moderators saying "Don't accuse people of lying without proof" is a perfectly valid opinion / approach to life, and because I replied (by saying well yes, there is some level of "proof") I got a warning and - what's worse - was accused of questioning the moderation in-thread, which is ridiculous!!!!

1) There is "proof", in that the person in question has told 3 different stories, so two of them can't be true; therefore, the moderation [now that I actually know that it was moderation] was dubious to say the least.

2) At the time of posting, however, I was NOT questioning any moderation, merely replying to a comment that was not in any way identified as an moderation instruction......moderators often comment within threads, don't they ?

Sherifu

Link?

GuanYin

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Should moderators be required to clarify what is a personal opinion/posting and what is an actual moderation instruction ?

A post by one of the Politics moderators saying "Don't accuse people of lying without proof" is a perfectly valid opinion / approach to life, and because I replied (by saying well yes, there is some level of "proof") I got a warning and - what's worse - was accused of questioning the moderation in-thread, which is ridiculous!!!!

1) There is "proof", in that the person in question has told 3 different stories, so two of them can't be true; therefore, the moderation [now that I actually know that it was moderation] was dubious to say the least.

2) At the time of posting, however, I was NOT questioning any moderation, merely replying to a comment that was not in any way identified as an moderation instruction......moderators often comment within threads, don't they ?

Two accusations of lying were made in the thread. I edited these and posted in thread reminding people about the rules on accusations of lying.

You reponded to my post opening a discussion on the issue, I gave you and infraction warning.

Apart from the fact I'm a moderator in the forum and as a regular poster in threads of that nature, you will know that I rarely enter into discussion on the topic, there were also edited posts.

As my post also made no direct reference to other posts via quotation, I feel it odd that you'd think I was changing the topic of the conversation with such a general comment.

In the end, the mistake was yours. You know the rules well enough. In the current climate, I'm not willing to take chances.

AlmightyCushion

I think that is pretty clear as a moderator instruction. Generally when a mod tells you to do anything in relation to boards, it is a moderator instruction.

Gandalf23

Please post a link to the thread in question.

GuanYin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Please post a link to the thread in question.

The post is now deleted (by the user) after I edited the discussion of my moderation..

However, here is my warning.

Liam Byrne

Yes, I deleted the post, as it made no sense following the edit.

My issue with this is the blatant assumption that it was "discussion of moderation" (as repeated above, with the mod saying "I edited the discussion of my moderation", rather than "I removed the section that I thought was....", or "I edited the sentence in question").

The [moderator's] post (which I genunely didn't recognise or take as such, and hence the query here - when is a mod post a part of the discussion rather than an instruction) said people shouldn't post without proof, and the gist of my reply was that, as Bertie has given 3 seperate and differing accounts of the issue, 2 of them must therefore be untrue....

Simple as that; it's a misunderstanding on both fronts, and fair enough on that, but I wouldn't mind knowing for future reference what the story is, plus the fact that my post was edited and therefore irrelevant as a result was a little heavy-handed.

If I had been querying the moderation, fair enough; but as a reply to a post that "people shouldn't post without proof", saying that there was some level of proof by way of 3 different explanations (two of which can't therefore be true), it was [I thought] part of the discussion and therefore relevant.

Tigger

"Lets not make accusations of lying without proof."

seems to me that that says: let us not make allegations of lying without proof

as opposed to: don't make allegations without sufficient evidence to back them up as this is against the forum rules

did you know it was a mod talking to you?

Liam Byrne

rbd wrote: »

did you know it was a mod talking to you?

At the time, no, I didn't make the connection that it was a mod.

And even allowing for cases where I (or others) do, that's what I'm asking here - when is a mod expressing an opinion, or when is it an instruction, since the reason given for me being warned was "discussing moderation", which I wasn't [or at the very least didn't realise that I was].

So, as per this thread title, should moderation instructions be labelled separately, so that we know when we can (and can't) reply ?

Even allowing for all that, if ye step back for a sec and accept that I didn't intend to discuss moderation, my post was basically offering the opinion that there is "proof" -

don't make allegations without sufficient evidence to back them up as this is against the forum rules

Rightly so, and fine by me....so if 3 different stories were offered, two of them cannot be true, ergo - two are untruths and therefore I would stand over someone's right to call them "lies". NOW we're "discussing moderation", since that post was edited and a warning issued. But at the time I was replying to a post within the thread which happened to be from a mod and could have been viewed as an opinion.

Look, it's not something I'm gonna lose sleep over but firstly I did not intend to discuss moderation inline (or indeed, here) but (secondly) it's a very thin line when the "request" said "without proof" and the "proof" is there in the fact that one guy told 3 different stories.....

So what I'm saying is this:
1) If I'd realised it was moderation, then I'd probably have queried the definition of "proof" through the appropriate channels
2) The "reason" given for the editing and warning was incorrect

And I'm asking if mods should be clearer when posting as to what is a valid post (as the mod's observation in this case was, since it should apply to every discussion) and what is an "instruction".

bonkey

AlmightyCushion wrote:

Generally when a mod tells you to do anything in relation to boards, it is a moderator instruction.

I would be more inclined to say that when a mod tells/encourages you to do something in relation to a board they are moderating, in that board or via PM, then you take it as a moderator instruction.

If a mod of (say) politics starts telling people in some other forum what to do, they should be rightly ignored, if not reported.

As to the specific case in question.....

Liam Byrne wrote:

So what I'm saying is this:
1) If I'd realised it was moderation, then I'd probably have queried the definition of "proof" through the appropriate channels

In response, I would have said that if you even have the slightest suspicion that it might be moderation, the first thing you should do is go read the charter for the forum in question. In this case, it would have made it abundantly clear, as the mods post is almost a verbatim copy of one of teh entries in the charter.

but (secondly) it's a very thin line when the "request" said "without proof" and the "proof" is there in the fact that one guy told 3 different stories.....

You don't help your case by putting the word proof in quotes...because its almost an implicit admission that its not proof, but only something close to it.

As it is, I would again point you at the wording of the Politics charter for clarification. They make it clear that you have to be able show that the intention of the person was to knowingly deceive people. While you can make the case that at most two of the three stories have to be untrue or inaccurate to some degree or another, it is a seperate question entirely to show that it was done deliberately and with the intention to deceive people into believing a falsehood.

For the record, in case anyone doesn't notice...no, I am not a moderator of the Politics forum, and my comments should not be taken as being representative of their current position. I was, however, a mod of the Politics forum when the charter was first written, and from what I can see its enforcement today is in line with how it was intended back then.

Liam Byrne

All fair points, guys.....particularly if you factor in bonkey's comment on the "intent/knowingly"; it's a tough one, though - you can (and should) have benefit-of-the-doubt on maybe two conflicting accounts, having 3 conflicting accounts and a 4th conflicting account from a secretary, that is pretty much out the window.

I mean, 4 conflicting accounts in total would be plenty of reason for a jury to convict someone....they'd view it as proof.

Anyways, that's all separate to the precise query - but for the record, the only reason that I put the word proof in quotes is because that was the word being contested, not because I wouldn't view it as such; I'm putting it in bold now so that the same thing isn't implied!!!

Like I said, if it had been clear that the post was an actual instruction, we wouldn't be having this discussion.....just thought that it might be worth considering some explicit way to make it perfectly clear what was a "post by a mod" and what was a "moderation instruction"......

e.g. if your dad happened to be a Garda and he said "don't drive over the speed limit", would he be giving fatherly advice ? when you got home, would you expect a fatherly bollicking or a speeding ticket ?

GuanYin

I think its a fairly safe bet that if a forum moderator, posts in the forum they moderate, issuing an instruction, that instruction is moderation.

Liam Byrne

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I think its a fairly safe bet that if a forum moderator, posts in the forum they moderate, issuing an instruction, that instruction is moderation.

With all due respects (and without being argumentative), as the mod in question I am already aware - now - that you intended your post to be an instruction and I also know the way that you perceived my reply.

I misinterpreted your post and as a result you misinterpreted mine. That's not in question.

So the whole idea of posting here was to get third-party views and to see whether something more should be done to make sure that it's clearer in the future.

If the majority of neutral observers view it as "be more careful and if it's a mod that's posted then assume that it should be interpreted as an instruction before replying" - as one or two neutral people have already said above, then fine.

If there's something more that can or should be done to avoid confusion in the future, then great.

AlmightyCushion

bonkey wrote: »

I would be more inclined to say that when a mod tells/encourages you to do something in relation to a board they are moderating, in that board or via PM, then you take it as a moderator instruction.

You're right, that would be a better way to look at it.

Overheal

To be honest PSI I've been posting in politics (election 2008) on and off and it just never struck me you were a mod from your posts.

It might just be a simple misunderstanding here: to assume you were just one of the guys. Its like having drinks with your friend who is a Gard and then suddenly having him cuff you.

99% of the time when I have seen a mod Moderate a person it has always been in the context such as:

Moderator wrote:

Overheal - please stay on topic.

Instruction is very rarely left openly on the floor unless addressed to all posters:

Moderator wrote:

If I see anyone else making racist remarks in this thread it is going to be locked.

To be fair PSI your post sounds more akin to an off the cuff remark such as "Now ladies, put away the purses." which to me, hardly construes a formal Warning.

Liam Byrne

OK - I'll take all the above on board.

The replies seem to be mostly from mods, but I've got to say thanks to Overheal for being a third-party that could view it exactly as I did; that said, the general opinion seems to be that no explicit identification of "mod instructions" is required and that posters should assume and basically not get into a discussion with someone who's a mod in order to be safe.

If so, fair enough. Again, this ain't life-or-death, so we'll leave it at that, and apologies for the completely inadvertent "reply to mod instruction" that apparently came across as "discussing moderation".

I'll double check the left-hand box of all posts that I'm replying to in the future to make sure that the current board isn't listed in the "Mod:" section of it.

I'm not unreasonable; I've modded other forums and I know that it's a thankless job at times.

I would appreciate an acknowledgement that it wasn't intended from my part, plus that it was a little heavy-handed that I was viewed as "guilty until explained as innocent", but with the news about politics.ie I can understand that the subject is a nervy one.

GuanYin

Overheal wrote: »

To be honest PSI I've been posting in politics (election 2008) on and off and it just never struck me you were a mod from your posts.

I wasn't mod there during the elections.

It might just be a simple misunderstanding here: to assume you were just one of the guys. Its like having drinks with your friend who is a Gard and then suddenly having him cuff you.

I don't often get described as friendly. Thanks

WhiteWashMan

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I think its a fairly safe bet that if a forum moderator, posts in the forum they moderate, issuing an instruction, that instruction is moderation.

although, to be fair, what you said sounds like discussion, not moderator intructions.
i can understand why the OP took what you said in a different way to what you meant.

its much easier to be a mod or a user in a discussion, but not both. you need to make the distinction between the two a lot more pronounced.

GuanYin

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

although, to be fair, what you said sounds like discussion, not moderator intructions.
i can understand why the OP took what you said in a different way to what you meant.

its much easier to be a mod or a user in a discussion, but not both. you need to make the distinction between the two a lot more pronounced.

Meh. They don't have that problem in soccer or paranormal for that matter

I fail to see where the discussion would arise from in the context of the thread, especially seeing as it would have veered the thread off topic. In addition, I'm a forum moderator, the poster knew I was a forum moderator and I posted (in admittedly casual fashion) an almost direct quote from the charter.

I don't normally get involved in discussion on Irish politics, bar to moderate. I think the Politics posters in general acknowledge that I'm more knowledgable about international politics (not having lived in Ireland). However, you may be right that I need to be as stern in politics as I am in other fora, I had rather foolishly assumed that people there didn't need the blunt object approach that I must employ elsewhere. In any case, the poster knew I was a mod there because I'd infracted him before and PMs were sent.

WhiteWashMan

they do.

PHB

Aside from this petty jibes at each other, I was thinking this is a perfect opportunity to make the suggestion I've been wanting to make for ages.

When a mod is posting, they have a mod mode option, and when they tick it, everything they type is in like 50 font and flashes purple green and orange. That's clear up these problems right quick. Get on it Cult!

Liam Byrne

PSI wrote:

In any case, the poster knew I was a mod there because I'd infracted him before and PMs were sent.

I had let this whole subject go as a double misunderstanding, but just how is the above relevant to the thread ?

Firstly, I do not check all previous PMs or warnings or usernames before replying to check whether someone is a mod - does anyone ?

I also can't believe that a mod who's so used to keeping threads on-track actually posted that ?? Maybe you're trying to introduce the previous indiscretion as a "look guys, he was guilty of something before, so don't believe him ?" Because it definitely isn't relevant to this discussion.....whether or not I knew you were a mod is completely irrelevant; if it were relevant it would have been my own stupidity that caused this, because politics is actually listed under your "Mod:" list if I had looked closely enough...

But that it is irrelevant and off-topic in THIS discussion, for the simple reason that even if I did consciously spot that you happened to be a mod the issue is that I did not know / realise it was an instruction. Just how much more clear do I have to be on that ???? I think it's about the 5th time I've had to say it if you include the PMs about the warning!!!

<i>As an aside, it's actually extremely ironic that I have to say the same thing 5 times in order to be believed, while the post in question related to the mod's view on how someone who's told 3 different stories should not be called a liar......</i>

Look, for once and for all, there were 2 misunderstandings - this isn't a slagging match or petty jibes or a witch-hunt or whinge-fest or any such thing.....modding ain't easy - often thankless - and I'm not out to cause tension.

At least WhiteWashMan said that other forums occasionally have that problem, and PHB said that he/she had wanted to suggest it for a while; I'm not suggesting big annoying fonts or stuff, but maybe an icon or a coloured background to point out that something posted should should be taken as an instruction.

Or maybe prefix it with something specific so that people know - the examples that Overheal posted are obvious, and I'm just suggesting maybe there should be some format or keywords to highlight when it's an opinion and when it's an instruction that's likely to get you into trouble.

Plus, it works both ways, doesn't it ?

- earlier example, kid doesn't get arrested by the cop-dad, but also
- dad clipping kid around the ear doesn't get fired for police brutality

kaimera

When a mod is posting, they have a mod mode option, and when they tick it, everything they type is in like 50 font and flashes purple green and orange

Even in theory that won't work. Anything that flashes purple green & orange will be immediately ignored

bonkey

Plus, it works both ways, doesn't it ?
- earlier example, kid doesn't get arrested by the cop-dad, but also
- dad clipping kid around the ear doesn't get fired for police brutality

I would have said that either which way, the kid should not have ignored what his father told him. He was told to do something by someone in authority. He made the conscious decision not to interpret something as an instruction from someone in a position of authority.

If it was his mate rather than his dad who was a cop, then he'd have the choice of deciding whether it was a recommendation from a mate, or an instruction from someone in authority. Personally, I would still say its his own lookout if he chooses not to clarify that before deciding how to act.

Liam Byrne

OK, the cop/dad thing was a bad example because both would have been authority figures...maybe a mate who was a cop, or maybe even someone who'd just seen him in the pub ?

Also, the example was bad because in it, the action involved was wrong either way....in this scenario, the action was only wrong if it was a mod instruction (which I'm not disputing - now) but it wasn't clear that it was one.

bonkey wrote:

its his own lookout if he chooses not to clarify that before deciding how to act

For the final time, if I'd known it was a mod instruction, I'd have followed it; if I'd thought clarification was required, I'd have looked for clarification. I didn't even see a "choice" in the scenario.

I replied to what I thought was a standard posting. Period.

Look, this is going on far too long......let's leave it. I suggested that maybe measures should be taken to ensure that it's clear what's a mod instruction and what's a standard opinion/posting. Some people have agreed, and have said that this scenario was unclear; others have said it would have been more "careful" to assume (implying, therefore, that it wasn't clear and that an assumption/interpretation was required), while others have said it was pretty obvious.

What I don't like is the assumption that I did know, or that "knowing the person was a mod" made a difference, or the assumption that I chose to ignore something that was clear.

So thanks to all who have posted unbiased opinions that didn't include those assumptions of guilt or underhandedness. That includes those who disagree with my observation that instructions should be made clearer; differences of opinion are fine by me.....it's the assumption of guilt that I somehow "chose" to "ignore" something "clear" that is what I have a problem with, as from my standpoint neither of those 3 applied.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Christ it's only an infraction.

norrie rugger

Maliah Large Pumpkin wrote: »

Christ it's only an infraction.

Infractions are a stepping stone to a ban.
the principle of the argument is valid IMHO. It can be difficult, at times, to know when the Mod is "just" a poster or the Mod.

Even if they posted "This is a moderation instruction"...

Overheal

Meh. I stand by what ive already said on the issue but seriously it is just an infraction which amounts to an Official slap on the wrist.

norrie rugger wrote: »

Even if they posted "This is a moderation instruction"...

re-read my page 1 post.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For the final time, if I'd known it was a mod instruction, I'd have followed it; if I'd thought clarification was required, I'd have looked for clarification. I didn't even see a "choice" in the scenario.

Just as a matter of interest...

Had that comment not been from a moderator...would you ("you, the reader", not necessarily "you, Liam Byrne")have seen it as appropriate and acceptable for the thread? Do you see no problem with non-moderators making suggestions as to what other people should and shouldn't be posting?

Esel

My 2c worth: The OP has been eminently reasonable in this thread. He obviously made a mistake, is aware of it, and wonders is there any way to avoid this scenario arising for other people.

ozt9vdujny3srf

norrie rugger wrote: »

Infractions are a stepping stone to a ban.
the principle of the argument is valid IMHO. It can be difficult, at times, to know when the Mod is "just" a poster or the Mod.

Even if they posted "This is a moderation instruction"...

But it isn't a ban. The whole point of infractions is to have a warning. All the OP had to do, if he had a grievance with the infraction, was to PM the mod about the misunderstanding and leave it that.

If he were to subsequently get banned, with that infraction as backup, then he can come to feedback.