Thanks, Scott. Me too. If not, I'll assume that the lack of response means agreement.

Question seeing a number of moderators are posting here.

Is there a "preferred" policy for Moderating a Flyertalker's post.

I doubt anyone would have a problem with a highly offensive post being totally deleted.

What about the case of where a post might be deemed not in keeping with thread topic etc.

Is the preffered policy:

(A) To delete that post entirely leaving no trace whatever of it or poster.

(B) For Moderator to edit out part/all of post and leaving their "fingerprint" on the post, i.e. leaving it showing original poster and date and time etc.

(c) No policy guideline exists in this area.

Excellent question, there DOES seem to be some differing tactics on these matters...

I don't think it's possible to apply a rigid standard. If there were, you could conceivably write software that could decide what to do with a post (or hire some folks who work for HMO's deciding whether they'll allow your doctor to prescribe what he/she thinks you need, but I digress....)

Part of what Randy wants us to do is use our judgment, not simply apply a strict set of criteria. This means that sometimes moderators would have taken different actions in different situations. But I believe most of those are borderline ones.

I tend to (in this order) a) ask people to edit their own posts; b) )But when time doesn't allow or the example is egregious, I'll edit it out and leave a "fingerprint." c) Delete entirely in very urgent situations or where, e.g., a & b have been repeatedly tried and they haven't worked to stop a pattern of posting

Again, all of this is not just science, but art: The response one might give to a brand new FT'er who makes a rookie mistake is different from that given to a long-timer perhaps, etc., etc.

Guidelines have been published for moderator use on editing or deleting posts.

For the few times I've had to intervene on a post, I'd say I used "B" 95% of the time, unless the post was made by someone who was obviously using a duplicate ID (which happneded on the "old" OMNI quite often). I'd then totally delete the post.

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 09-19-2003).]

I wonder if Randy would mind if they might be posted here?

I have actually seen very few examples where "B" has been used, hence my question. I personally would feel that option is fair and transparent - except as noted in clear cases of outright over the top language used etc.

A very recent thread (not involving any Mod. posting on this thread I should point out) had a lot of "A" occurring where the judgement calls were arguably very questionable and biased IMHO. And had the end effect of worsening the mess, not solving the problem. Which is surely the supposed benefit on Moderation?

Further to my thinking on option "B" being preferable in almost ALL cases.

It seems to be me where in Forums with multiple Moderators (i.e. most) this is FAIREST to all those concerned.

Not all Moderators have the same judgement. If "B" was used in nearly all cases except for profanity etc, all users of a Forum could see WHICH moderator was at work.

I think that an excellant consenus is being either developed or made understood here. I would like to thank all participants in this courteous discourse. How can we get more FTers to participate in this thread? I don't think that many FTers regularily read or post to Randy Petersen Forum? Thanks again for those that are involved.

------------------
dallasflyer

oz, IMHO, "B" is the best route to follow except in the case of a profanity being used. As a moderator, I totally disagree with the use of "A" for normal moderation practices, especially when it comes down to keeping a thread on topic.

When a topic is totally off topic for that board, I am in favor of locking and moving it to its correct home with a explanation of my actions. Unfortunately, there are several people on the DL board that are opposed to moving off topic posts that do not relate to DL to a more appropriate home. They challenge the moderators on that issue on a regular basis.

As a sidebar, one of the largest challenges that the moderators have to face on a regular basis is the presence of trolls on the boards. They intentionally post with a mission to incite flame wars and offer nothing that can be construed as a positive contribution to FT. Unfortunately, they usually manage to stay on the correct side of the TOS, and we have our hands tied as a result.

Let's be honest. While there have been "socks" who have popped up now and then making trollish posts, many of these so-called "trolls" are not new members, but rather long-time members who, due to post count or familiarity with moderators, seem to have a license to engage in this type of post activity when it suits them.

Also, others can be encouraged to "pile on".

That said, I haven't noticed that things are any worse or better than any other time, but it is indeed there.

I don't agree here, a high post count or familiarity with moderators has never been a license to break rules of the TOS. Many people still think that "common trolling" is prohibited by the TOS, sadly it isn't.

I suppose you may be right. What do you mean by the second part of your post, "common trolling is not prohibited by the TOS"? Can you give an example of "common trolling"? I don't quite understand that term. Thanks.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ScottC:
I don't agree here, a high post count or familiarity with moderators has never been a license to break rules of the TOS. [QUOTE]

I disagree.

Whether it is because post count equals revenue, or moderators are afraid to take action against such members, I have seen that SOME members with a high post count are given HUGE amounts of latitude with the TOS.

I suppose this could be another thread, and I don't mean to hijack it, but I've always been curious about this (and here I demonstrate my ignorance):

Exactly HOW do post counts equal revenue in the financial scheme of things? I just don't get the connect between posting and generating revenue? If that were true, then why wouldn't Randy simply have a bunch of bots post every 60 seconds to OMNI or whatever? Can someone help me understand that?

While I am not regularly vociferous in my criticisms of moderation in the Delta forum, I want to point out the following examples as of late, as I look at page one of the Delta forum:

This thread is definitely off-topic for the Delta forum, but nobody seems to mind. It is the only off-topic thread currently active in the Delta forum, but Delta FlyerTalkers seems to be enjoying it. The moderators even contributed to that thread.

This thread was locked by gleff — and rightfully so. Nobody complained about this thread being locked — at least, to my knowledge.

Other threads that were either off-topic or contained heated debate eventually died of their own volition. Once in a while, they may be brought back to life, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

What I am trying to say is that the regulars of the Delta forum have often expressed how they feel about moderation through advice and opinions, as well as heated debate — and these moderators listened by adjusting their methods of moderation.

In light of the way the Delta forum has been moderated as of recently, it should be regarded as a prime textbook (web site?) example of how a forum should be moderated.

I would like to express my thanks and congratulations to Rssrsvp, obscure2k, gleff and bdschobel (in no particular order), the four moderators of the Delta forum, for an excellent job in moderating that forum. I have never been a moderator, so I am not sure as to the travails of that voluntary position. It must be a thankless job — but not at this moment. Thank you for listening, Delta forum moderators, and please keep up the good work.