Why I Think Explanations Should Be GIven for Deleted Threads
 

Well, as I understand it, KillarneyRose asked in my other thread something along these lines:
Since that thread got deleted before I had a chance to see the question and answer, here is why I think the mods owe an explanation.

The mod needs to be able to explain why such a thread will not be tolerated. "Hints" don't cut it. How did the Shame thread violate the rules of this forum? Deletions without explanations suggest that the rules are whatever a mod wants to them to be. Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but we would say that appears to arbitrary and capricious. If a mod can't articulate why a post or thread violates the rules of this forum, then the post or thread shouldn't be deleted, and GCers have no basis for guaging what is or isn't allowed in the future. (And FWIW, I would always vote for the threads being locked over threads being deleted.)

As others have said, sometimes it's abundantly clear why a post or thread is deleted. But it wasn't at all clear in the Shame thread. As far as I could tell, the only thing happening there was questioning the actions of some mods. The only hint I got from the deletion of that thread was "Questioning the mods will not be tolerated." I can't find that in the rules of this forum anywhere.

As I said, other forums I participate in not only have the mods provide explanations but warnings as well -- "X violates the rules of this forum. If you continue to do x, action will be taken." I think that's a good thing, both for purposes of clarity of what is and isn't tolerated and for the purposes of encouraging even-handed application of the rules. And it's in the best interests of the mods -- it helps avoids even the appearance of arbitrariness.

The way it's been going here the lately makes it appear that some mods are making it up as they go along and are making decisions based not on actual violations of the forum rules but on on a more personal, "I don't like what you said" basis. Note carefully: I said "appear." I'm not saying mods are doing that; I'm saying that's what it can look like to the rest of us.

Simply put, it comes across less as moderating and more as power-tripping. In my opinion, the mods do themselves no favors by not giving explanations.

That's a great idea! I agree.

*fixed

Amen.

*praying this thread won't also be deleted*

Very diplomatically put, MC.

I hope the same, but assume this thread will face the same fate as the previous threads which questioned the actions of a mod.

Likewise, I think that if the mods can't get with the program (and I think the program GCers are looking for involves transparency and also fair and consistent moderating), perhaps those mods should mod elsewhere. But that's just my opinion, which I assume will be deleted.

I'm disappointed in the GC moderators' recent actions.

Having recently been "excommunicated" for disagreeing with someone in a "position of power", I can attest to the fact that it comes roaring back in a very negative fashion on the person(s) who "punishes" another for not "toeing the party line" (or for whatever reason). It really does. And it's not pretty.

It is a simple matter to speak directly to the offending poster, publicly or privately. It is also a matter of respect. And when someone says something that you don't "like", there are many ways to respond. My personal favorite: rise above it.

One final comment: I live my life by Andrew Jackson's quote: sometimes one man with courage is a majority. It's been the motivating factor in my life. We all make mistakes. It's how we handle those mistakes when others make them that defines our characters. Forgiveness works wonders. So does lovingkindness.

This entire firestorm is unnecessary. And it's not going away any time soon; we are not sheeple. GC moderators, you can do better. Please do.

Mods should be in the business of basically calling balls and strikes. I tend to split/lock threads which have strayed from the original topic. The only thing I delete is spam or petty squabbles which have turned personal.

I do think it's fair to question these seemingly random thread deletions. I do think an explanation is probably owed as moderators should be trying to achieve an understanding between the non-mods as to where the line is. Arbitrariness and aloofness (I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of that) does not achieve that end.

That's an awesome quote - I've never heard it before! Thanks for sharing it.

I've been a very infrequent poster as of late (waves!) so I will not comment much. I'll only wonder aloud if this is the "shot heard around the world" at Lexington, or the harshly quashed Whiskey Rebellion.

I agree with everything stated here.

If you're doing a good and fair job moderating, then being transparent with your actions shouldn't be threatening.

And it seems to me that when you do "pruning" in the Risk Management forum, you do usually post a quick post explaining why.
Thanks for that!

Man, I wish people posted in my forum so I could do moderator-y things.

What's your opinion of the likelihood that we'll receive such an explanation, Kevin?

I think we'll never know. Well, actually, I think we already know. It'd just be nice for the mod to acknowledge that she took things personally and retaliated via the power associated with her responsibilities. Her silence on the matter speaks louder than any BS answer she'd provide, anyway.

I'll post something offensive in your forum if you do in mine, deal?

Considering other moms don't have the privilege of closing threads that get slightly derailed, it does seem pretty unfair. Unless we're now deciding to take the kid glove approach to moms of PNMs here and close/move/delete all their threads in which they stick their foots in their mouths, as well.

Which, whatever. There are other forums to read on GC.

With each moderator and the situation, the phrase YMMV applies.

Moderators also have the power to undelete things. We can even see the threads and posts users type, think better of saying, then delete.

That's one reason I'm happy to moderate all of the places I moderate alone--no one (but the supermods) there to second-guess my decisions.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying anything was done inappropriately on KR's part. Moderating a 'General Chat Topic' forum is probably a lot different from modding Sigma Nu and RM. Lots more playground monitor type business over here.

I have no problem with a short explanation as to why a thread is locked or deleted. In fact, I would encourage it. Seems it would save lots of posts about "where did so-and-so post go and why."
Just my purely unsolicited opinion.

Thank you, MysticCat, for your opinion. People, THIS how you do it if you want a thread to stay open. Civil, reasonable, no personal attacks, no sock puppetry.

In other words, do not post here after hitting the crackpipe and maybe, just maybe, progress can be made.

KTHXBYE

Bet, so now that we've all come to an agreement, can we get the keys to Free DrPhil?


http://theindustrycosign.files.wordp...D400%26h%3D308

One more reply then I promise I'll duck out of this thread and let you all play. :)

Iota Man, a poster isn't generally banned until a consensus is reached that he or she has, basically, turned the bend to crazytown. If that poster wants to come back and conducts himself/herself in a civil and reasonable manner and abstains from personal attacks, he or she is welcome to rejoin. As far as I know the IP address hasn't been flagged.

Quoting for emphasis.

THIS is what causes the whole uproar to begin with. I know at this point we're never going to get an explanation as to why Tallulas thread was locked and why the Wall of Shame was closed, but a simple explanation as to how those posts violated GC rules would have been helpful because if people continued to carry on there would at least be basis for all the deletions/locking.

Sometimes you don't need an explanation. The poster(s) in question knew exactly what they were doing and had to understand that they were targeting a certain moderator. These poster(s) have repeatedly ignored mods even when there has been an explanation given.

In some cases, no explanation will be given when a thread is started which, for example, contains personal information about a PNM in it. That thread will disappear and often, so will the posters. No explanation needs to be given.

Sure, if it's just a simple mistake, yes, an explanation should be given. If anyone thinks these threads were just simple mistakes, then you really don't know what you're talking about and no, no explanation has to be given.

Agree to disagree.

Tallulas' thread was locked because carnation didn't like being called out on having her daughter's invite round groups picked before rush even started. There are certain groups that carnation has deemed below her family's worth. And, just for clarity, this isn't an attack on carnation. If that's how she wants to run her family, she has every right to do so. Certain people just wish she didn't try to pretend otherwise.

I agree.

So then, what was objectionable about the oroginal Wall of Shame thread?

Going back to the initial Wall of Shame thread (which of course we can't refer to to see if it denigrated in the last 10 minutes of its life or if there was some other obvious reason because it's been deleted), the only obvious reason for its deletion that I could see was that some posts in that thread criticized (again, tamely by GC standards) one moderator for locking her own thread when people questioned something she said in that thread. The only reasonable explanation for that mod's actions, to me at least, was that she want her earlier comment questioned or criticized. I think that a mod's actions in those circumstances is fair game for comment.

The only reasonable explanation I can see for why the original Wall of Shame thread (and maybe first or second repeats) was banned was that a mod was being criticized. I think that's fair game for comment.

I know that DrPhil made quite a few people angry, you included. To my mind, that's neither here nor there. The crux of this to me is that all of this could have been avoided if there had not been the appearance of heavy-handed modding to start with.

I should say that I think there absolutely are times when immediate deletions or immediate banning, without warnings or explanations, are justified. Times when someone posts ritual secrets would be an obvious example.

But many times it really isn't clear at all to anyone except the mods in question, or those involved in mods' discussions, why certain action are being taken. In those instances, a quick "thread deleted/locked because __" or "poster banned because __" goes a long way to protecting moderators from the perception of arbitrariness (or favoritism) and informs everyone else where the boundaries are. As I keep saying, as a general rule transparency is in everyone's interest, including the moderators.

And FWIW, I have no clue why Greek_or_Geek was banned. That one wasn't obvious at all, at least not to me.

Yes.

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

And this is why it doesn't pay to over-think things read on a message board. I thought that she had chosen names for when the PNM got to four-party day and was just going to start the thread there. Other posted have started after day 1, to avoid a long list of "I met this chapter for five minutes, they were nice, etc..." and wait until the parties were longer and there was more of substance to say.

I am interested in hearing how Tallulahs Rcuitment goes!!!

Posters often skip the first day to conceal the number of groups at their school, and thereby maintain more anonymity.

Tallulah's thread was locked because of same-old same-old and AlphaFrog, you claimed to understand why I arranged it as I did. Instead, you're trying to start another pile-on and as you see, lovespink has readily accepted your word as the truth.

I am sick of the lies that have been spouted out over the last TEN years. Were any of you aware that some GCers went to my daughter's school in 2002 and physically tried to interfere in her rush? Were any of you aware that one of the same people went to another GCer's campus (no relation to me) and destroyed her rush? And that that person interfered in a third GCer's rush from home?

When I started Tallulah's thread, I tried to figure a way that I could have a theme and name the 4 groups she'll hopefully be returning to for first invitationals. We do hope she'll have 4 but she may not get 4. I am certainly not saying how many groups are at her school. But--people want to drink the "haterade", as they used to say, and believe that 4 groups were pre-selected as favorites.

Some of you are happily accepting what some push as the truth--that my family and I reject certain sororities as being below us. I would like you to prove that. Some of the people who are touting that as the truth weren't even on GC in 2002, they just believe what someone has told them was true. And it isn't. I have several friends on GC who are members of that group and they know that we respect that sorority.

Let me remind you all that personal attacks are a violation of the TOS. They can get deleted, they can get you banned. Remember that.

The fact is that there is a very reasonable explanation. It's also a fact that the explanation is none of anyone's business. Not all situations merit a play-by-play of the mod's decisionmaking. For what it's worth, you've seen how I moderate my forum, I wouldn't have handled this issue any differently than carnation. That's all you're going to get on this issue. I support what she did 100%.

You say comment, I say harassment and bullying. Some of us have a much thicker skin than others and some mods have become targets outside of GC as a result of their actions on GC. You're a very reasonable even-tempered person, so it might not occur to you that moderators have been attacked outside of GC in the past by some very unreasonable and ill-tempered people and that a modicum of caution is quite reasonable even though it might seem unreasonable to you. Context is very important and you cannot just assume you have all of that context and it is not reasonable to assume you are entitled to an explanation. That may or may not be the case here, I'm just illustrating my point.

I agree. In recent months, I can't say I have much nice to say about DSTChaos. I wouldn't let that enter into my decisions moderating her posts though.

That's a good example. There are others possibilities. The reason for the locks/deletions were very obvious, or should have been obvious to the original poster. Her actions in the end were her own. I'm sure if she wants to come back and behave like a decent human being, we can get along just fine. Otherwise, she can own her epic flounce and stay gone. I don't really care what happens.

I completely agree with you that what you prescribe is a good general rule. There are exceptions.

I have no insight there whatsoever. All I can say is that sometimes (as with Chaos), a sock puppet/poster will post something like one of your above-proposed verboten subjects. They will be banned and the post deleted without comment. We used to have some real problems in the moderating community here--problems which transcended GC and resulted in calls to various HQs and other such very personal harassment. That has stopped completely. I trust every single one of our moderators to exercise sound judgment and discretion and I think they did so here.

I really don't see the harm in keeping a list of banned posters unless that list is kept for the purpose of harassing moderators. Then it'll be deleted post haste. It would be awfully naive to think that the posting of that thread was unrelated to the goings on in the recruitment forum.

Calm down, carnation, "very interesting, thanks for the info" does not imply that I am accepting AlphaFrogs explanation as the be all end all truth. FWIW, you've always come off as unbiased to me. Other GCers may have different opinions, but that's their business. I tend to form mine on my own personal interactions.

Now, if we had a little more warnings like the one right here, this may have not have escalated like it has!

(not that I like to see that directed at a poster I like, but this is the kind of things that mods need to be doing before we start seeing mass deletions/locking)

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt about your explanation of only listing four groups. Then you locked the thread, which made it pretty clear that you were backpeddling.

Once again, this isn't a personal attack. If you feel there are groups that are below your family, then it's fine. We're not blind enough to think the whole world can hold hands and sing kumbaya. Yes, GCers did get involved in one of your daughter's rushes, and many people here know why. It was an unfortunate circumstance.

Obviously, the thread was locked because someone decided to start nastiness with a snide remark. And it wasn't only a snide remark; she hoped to start the ten-year-old fight again.

Although she's not quite my age, she's far too old to start crap.

I'm not backpedaling and I love the names of my 4 groups.

Oooooooohhhhhh please. If we closed every rush thread at the first snarky remark that forum would be nothing but a graveyard of locked threads.

And if we want to discuss personal attacks and acting like a ten year old, I'll bring you a mirror.

Fine. Make sure you look in it first.

Flagging an IP address doesn't make sense, because IP addresses change all the time. So y'all (as moderators) come to an agreement that somebody has crossed the line? Do y'all ever send warnings to the user? Did y'all send one to DrPhil, because y'all didn't send me shit before coming to agreement to ban me.

With the explanation part of the discussion. I don't think a mod should have to give an explanation of why a thread was deleted because that just opens up room for more debate. Close the shit and be done with it, but at the same time don't sit up here and ban a mofo without giving that username a warning via PM.

Wow. Totally didn't see that one coming. Good show, old bird.

Clear to whom? I would say that Carnation has the most Panhellenically-minded family of anyone on this forum.

I personally saw the locking as "I've got the groundwork for the story started & I don't want to hear a bunch of shizz from people until I can tell the whole story after the fact".

She explained her reasoning for listing 4 groups...why can't anyone take that at face value?

You might have deserved a warning, but DrPhil didn't need one.

Clear to those of us who know what some of us know.

And she knows better than to start a rush thread that early if she doesn't want chitchat in it. She's not new.

Maybe she went too far, maybe she didn't. Neiter you or I know all the facts. If she didn't get a warning, she should have, whether you feel she needed one or not.