h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No such thing as mere. The is in the details. Some burger's got to work them out. Why me and not you?

Seriously, you *mind* in a way that someone who's not been through it won't mind.

Agreed. The current moderation system has very little to recommend itself.

That completely sucks about you and Airscotia. I am so glad we are out of here.

I don't know how long. All I got was "Once you can assure us that you won't post material like that again, we will look at lifting the pre-mod state."

I don't think Airscotia even got an e-mail.

I've been doing some research on moderation and the house rules and the moderation procedure affect more than just the site. A community site like this would need insurance against be sued for libel, and libel settlements are less if you can show that you removed the statement immediately. They really affect the amount of insurance that we pay.

If you happen to want to get insurance quotes for a site like h2g2 you happen to need to speak to an insurance broker, who will need to see the moderation procedure and the house rules.

From an insurance point of view then premiums are less if there is a procedure where all complained about posts are removed until reviewed by a moderator.

As for moderators we could pay an external company or we could do it ourselves, I don't think that we could afford to pay an external company. Which leaves doing it ourselves. I would suggest that we would have a bunch of volunteer moderators on a post mod system when a post is yiksed it goes to a moderator, who can then make up their mind, or discuss it.

Would we be happier if the volunteer moderators were using their own name or anon accounts. We're not going to get volunteers who aren't community members?

Incididdly, purplejenny posted something to the point here: F19585?thread=8029882&post=105917001#p105917001

That's interesting about the insurance, I hadn't thought about that. But I have to say, given the strong and forthright opinions posted on pretty well-established sites, I'm not sure how many ever get threatened with libel or defamation etc. As part of the BBC I can see the logic of having a blanket policy (ie only BBC staff get to be racist/bigoted/abusive), but as a small independent site with a smaller circulation than a local free newspaper is this really a worry?

Having said that, having frequently had posts temporarily hidden, this has never bothered me too much. Unless it's a fast-moving, passionate discussion where the post gets lost in the backlog before it's open to view again.

As to the mods, although the rest of us may think we *know" it's just you & Gnomon there should always be an element of doubt. Otherwise, modding decisions will be dragged up with you all over the board when you're trying to discuss the mating rituals of pre-1969 MG sports cars.

Ok, to summarise:

- We need a list of House Rules that are clear, and clear guidelines for the mods on actual moderation process.

- The site would be on reactive moderation - posts appear and stay until someone yikeses them (mod or researchers).

- Yikesed posts would disappear immediately, and then a moderator would decide to reinstate them or not. This system will decrease insurance premiums (compared to a system where the yikesed post stays visible until a mod looks at it, which is what we have now). This largely depends on how many mods we have relative to site activity. If the ratio is low then we may get away with the latter system

- Mods would be researchers, but would they use their own name or a second account for moderating?

It's not the MGs you have to worry about, swl, it's the Triumphs. If you ever saw a Stag thrusting forward on all cylindars and going after a Spitfire with her top down and her engine racing.....

Kea, I think that pretty much sums modding. From what purplejenny said, we'd be best off if researchers who modded were anonymous.

.... I wonder if we could arrange it so they volunteered to be on standby and recieved an sms if a post needed checking....?

Now.... Disciplinary procedures ... Swl, it's not modding as such you're annoyed about, is it? It's the way it's been escalated without rhyme and with little reason?

So say we have someone who is just impossible - what stages should there be between normal researcher and maximum ban, and what would push them from stage to stage?

I thought purplejenny got it pretty much spot on.


As to disciplinary procedures, wouldn't it be best to follow best practice in the workplace?

At the start of unacceptable behaviour, a quiet chat.

If it continues, an informal warning.

If it continues, a formal warning.

If it continues, pre-mod.

If it continues after pre-mod, banned sine die.

I feel that Moderators should come from the community and that
moderation should be done from a second account named "Moderator
{number}" where the h2g2c2 can connect the dots from the Moderator
account to the Volunteer doing the moderating.
This way the moderation is done anonymous but when there are
complaints the h2g2c2 can trace it.

! Martin
--- jus' puttin' a muddy boot in

This is something else that would be good to know from the beeb. How many yikesed posts do they get in a day/week off h2g2, how much do they spend on mods reading tricky threads etc.

In the past I would have suggested that we reinstate the lifetime ban proceedure. I'm not sure I can be bothered now with all the onsite process.

Re premod, maybe there needs to be a core group of mods who make those decisions. Should the community know who the mods are even if they don't know which mod is doing any particular modding?

I think we could have four levels:

- ordinary, run of the mill moddings (removal of posts that break the HR)

- warnings: multiple breaches that are taking up lots of mods' time; multiple complaints about one researcher; single instances of grossly overstepping a boundary

- premod

- banning procedure

I agree that all this should be done thoughtfully and with good communication with the researcher in question. Can we have an automated system for the first email, and then if people want to know more they can email back?

oops, slow (got distracted).

There's this info from Graham S who started his own forum and has community mods regarding numbers of yikes and so on. They have a good 1000 members. It will be interesting to compare any info from the beeb to the rate he is talking about.

http://groups.google.com/group/h2g2communityconsortium/browse_thread/thread/e3aeaa3837d4e93e/4f2689b21affede3?hl=en&

Iive just updated my PS to include a quotation concerning snowdrops - and it's disappeared for moderation!!!!

Has the World gone stark, staring mad!?

Also, because it's disappeared I can't make some other changes I was planning!!!

... and as I was about to put in a reference to the qouatation, I now have to hold on to the magazine, so that I remember it, until my Entry comes back.

This is inconvenient to say the least.

I aws editing a normal Entry yesterday and it did exactly the same thing. It came back in a few minutes. When I edited it again and again it didn't do it, so it wasn't me being on pre-mod, I think it was a glitch.

You may have to wait until the moderators start work on Monday though (If they don't work through the weekend, that is).

Ah yes. It's back again now

The vocabulary filter wouldn't let me post a pun yesterday. I could not figure out what word in the sentence was likely to "offend" anyone.

Some rather serious thoughts:

--When/if we take over the running of H2G2, are we starting at square one regarding researchers who have been banned? If not, do we set tasks for them to do so that they can demonstrate that they are worthy to rejoin us? Or do we continue their bans?

--How much expertise do we need in such matters as libel avoidance and vocabulary infractions? Or how about coprright infringements? These matters are complex enough that people make careers in them.