Why I Think Explanations Should Be GIven for Deleted Threads

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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 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%.

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.

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 know that DrPhil made quite a few people angry, you included. To my mind, that's neither here nor there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.