Split Discussion: DIY Moderation

[BetaDust]

OK, I'm sorry for having done anything wrong. I need to take a permanent break from all these. This will be my last post in this thread or similar ones.

Please Don't, The_Radiation_Specialist. IMHO, you did great.

Why is a member quoting Rule 14 to another member, a rule 16 violation?

-- Dennis

Mod note: This and the following 4 posts have been split from this thread. — PetersCreek

[Noclevername]

Why is a member quoting Rule 14 to another member, a rule 16 violation?

-- Dennis

Only the mods can moderate. Trying to enforce rules on another poster the forum equivalent of vigilantism.

[Arneb]

Interesting question. I was once warned for having written "bad post reported" as a reply to a dismissive and impolite post. That seems to be a pretty clear case by rule 16. However, in some heated Moon HB discussion I remember JayUtah writing things like "ad hom noted, several times, and there wasn't a reaction. I think the difference here was the invocation opf the disciplinary system. It's a fine line, sometimes.

[BetaDust]

Only the mods can moderate. Trying to enforce rules on another poster the forum equivalent of vigilantism.

He did not try to enforce anything, He just explaint the forum rules. A nice thing to do.

-- Dennis

[Noclevername]

He did not try to enforce anything, He just explaint the forum rules. A nice thing to do.

-- Dennis

But still against Rule 16. "Do not talk about bad posts or anything else you consider to be inappropriate user behavior in the forum itself or suggest, speculate on, or threaten what the moderator response should be." The first rule of fight club...

[PetersCreek]

Please Don't, The_Radiation_Specialist. IMHO, you did great.

Why is a member quoting Rule 14 to another member, a rule 16 violation?

As mentioned, he didn't just quote it. He characterized another member's behavior as (nearly) violating the rule. Additionally, your "you did great" comment amounts to an in-thread dispute of moderation, which is also against the rule.

Interesting question. I was once warned for having written "bad post reported" as a reply to a dismissive and impolite post. That seems to be a pretty clear case by rule 16. However, in some heated Moon HB discussion I remember JayUtah writing things like "ad hom noted, several times, and there wasn't a reaction. I think the difference here was the invocation opf the disciplinary system. It's a fine line, sometimes.

The logical fallacy, Argumentum ad hominem, isn't necessarily an insulting or rude comment, so it isn't necessarily a violation of the rules. Likewise, pointing out that someone is employing a logical fallacy with the side remark of "[insert fallacy here] noted" also isn't necessarily violating the rules.

Here's my take on DIY moderation: a lot of folks have an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the rules and how they are applied. That's understandable. It's definitely a learning process for new moderators and even presents ongoing challenges to experienced mods as we apply the rules to situations that aren't so clear cut. However, we have the benefit of teamship and a wealth of historical information in the mod forums.

The last thing we need is the additional workload of moderating DIY moderation that may be factually incorrect, wrongly applied, poorly delivered, or poorly received.

[pzkpfw]

... I was once warned for having written "bad post reported" as a reply to a dismissive and impolite post. ...

I don't recall this particular case, so I'm not specifically talking about you; more just in general... one of the things that really gets my goat (as a moderator) is when a member reports a post, and also reacts to that post in thread.

Quite often, as well as action on the bad post, that does result in a warning about DIY moderation. If the member reported the bad post, by the act of reporting it they know the moderators need to handle it. By extension, reacting in-thread * is knowingly acting like a DIY moderator. In a way it can be worse than DIY moderation on its own; the difference between purposely breaking a rule and over-stepping a line in the heat of the moment.

(* depending on exactly what that reaction is, of course)

[Arneb]

That's probably why rule 16 exists in the first place. I had overlooked this particular point, so OK, warning (it was dealt by Henrik, so yes, it was a while ago; I suppose it would be a 1-pointer nowadays). "Bad post reported" was my way of saying, tersely, "OK, enough, I'm out of here. If you get in trouble for your answer, that was probably me".

[Moose]

There were a few issues. PetersCreek raised the really important one; it's especially problematic when we wind up having to enforce a rule on someone who'd been following incorrect advice. There was a case this month where this had occurred.

Another issue was that some few had been quoting rules at people (incorrectly) as a rhetorical device. As a bludgeon to try and get their way in an argument. This is a particularly troubling behavior. Speaking for myself, of course; I'm particularly offended by the notion that we're anybody's cat's paw. Thankfully, "acting out one's grudges via the reports mechanism" is far less of an issue than it was last year, where that problem was widespread.

A third issue is that meta-discussions (such as who broke which rule, or whether or not a certain rule applies at all) tend to derail/hijack threads from their intended purpose.

There are probably other issues in play that I'm forgetting, but my friday-night psyche is not up to much right now.

[Noclevername]

It's all too easy to derail without trying if you aren't thinking about it. You start by simply answering a question, someone replies or asks for clarification, and the next thing you know you're sucked into an OT conversation...

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

I think rule 16 is an important one that is often overlooked. Yes, leave the moderating to the mods and report it using the report button. Any other situation creates problems.