Question 3: Moderation fairness and Consistency

[B]Are our moderation standards fair and consistent? [/B]


  • Total voters
    26

barjon

Legendary member
Messages
10,752
Likes
1,863
Are our moderation standards fair and consistent?

To expand on this question, some members feel that our moderation lacks consistency and that some members are favoured over others.

As dbphoenix has pointed out there is a distinction between fair and consistent. Fairness is about whether our moderation standards are applied equally to everyone and consistency is about whether they are applied every time a similar infraction occurs. The poll allows multiple choice in order that you can answer each separately.


Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards or in relation to other questions. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though. Thanks.

jon
 
Do you really think the majority who find there is an overwhelming lack of fairness and consistency are likely to vote in a public poll?

Unhappy they may be - stupid they are not.
 
John ,

Seriously I don't see why you are taking a poll here . This is a private board owned by someone and someone will always have favourites over others - usually the greasers shall we say over the honest types.

My only problem is if there is a pretense that moderation is " fair and consistent " in the universal sense .

Far better and would gain much more respect if you came out and be truthfull and said " Look this is a personal fiefdom and will be moderated as such with favouritism et all " , and preferably name the favourites so everyone knows where they stand .
 
I see barjon has voted for 'reasonably fair'. No reason why the moderators shouldn't vote.

So can we get back all those who were banned by your inconsistent and unfair moderation so they can have their say too, or doesn't it quite work that way?
 
I for one am perfectly happy for my views to be public.
I can't imagine the mods are going to victimise someone for voting in a way they don't like. I really don't believe any of them are malicious.
FWIW, as can be seen by clicking on the number next to each option, in my personal opinion standards are "a little unfair" and "very inconsistent".
This is not a complicated issue. If someone is rude or aggressive - edit and warn.
If they do it again - edit and temporarily ban.
Three strikes and they are out.
"Rude and aggressive" to include deliberately provocative and disruptive.
And that applies to every single member, newbie or 1000 poster, regardless.
Richard
 
hmm, well with these things I dont like the little bit fair or very etc. either its fair or unfair or consistent or inconsistent. black and white. or shall we be a little grey ??

so taking that stance if you havent measured or moderated to a policy of fair continually then you have been unfair at times, how can it be any different? likewise consistent...

I cant tick unfair and inconsistent because you are bringing in shades of grey....

well i ticked very.. but can someone be a little bit dead?
 
MasoMinos said:
I see barjon has voted for 'reasonably fair'. No reason why the moderators shouldn't vote.

So can we get back all those who were banned by your inconsistent and unfair moderation so they can have their say too, or doesn't it quite work that way?

:) i voted because otherwise i can't see the results - but i'll knock my vote off from the final total if it bothers you

jon
 
fxmarkets said:
hmm, well with these things I dont like the little bit fair or very etc. either its fair or unfair or consistent or inconsistent. black and white. or shall we be a little grey ??

so taking that stance if you havent measured or moderated to a policy of fair continually then you have been unfair at times, how can it be any different? likewise consistent...

I cant tick unfair and inconsistent because you are bringing in shades of grey....

well i ticked very.. but can someone be a little bit dead?


sorry fx - i was trying to determine the degree of concern. maybe someone can't be a little bit dead but they can be a little bit ill or terminally ill.

jon
 
Thats ok jon, but I would be asking ourselves, are we fair and consistent. thats the only concern, but there might be a technical issue as to why consistency, and fairness is challenged, like no time to check all the posts, if you are unpaid I totally understand.... you have been more than fair with your time if thats the case.
 
You are not going to get fairness. That is a definite. To start with the notion is very subjective.

Many who thrive on boredom and tedium, don't like to see a few sparks flying. If you are a Moderator, likely as not, you going to give in when some little toady starts bleating about some big bad words he has run into. The Moderator will then expunge your post or posts. But these bleaters are the sort who sure as hell are not going to take a fortune out of the market if minor stuff like that affects their pea brains.

The other thing is that if the owners or the Moderators don't like your views and you express them too often they may well exclude you. Its not a question of fairness. They can do it if they want to because its their website .. simple as that.

My view is it is up to them what they do, fair or not.
 
fudgestain said:
The other thing is that if the owners or the Moderators don't like your views and you express them too often they may well exclude you. Its not a question of fairness. They can do it if they want to because its their website .. simple as that.

My view is it is up to them what they do, fair or not.


yes totally agree and if I was looking at it from a commercial viewpoint , then i'd suggest keep the moderation slackish. So they (members)spend more in the industry. tolerate the squabbling , but they will spend more. if they didnt squabble they wouldn't .

make sense... ?
 
barjon said:
:) i voted because otherwise i can't see the results - but i'll knock my vote off from the final total if it bothers you

jon
It doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it bother anyone else. As a member you have as much right as any to vote in this or any other poll.

My issue is that the 44K+ members of this site, including you and all the other moderators, are able to vote because we haven't fallen foul of any inconsistent or unfair moderation. What my previous post attempted to underline was the irony of those currently unable to vote precisely because of inconsistent or unfair moderation in the past.
 
I agree with Mr Charts.
I also agree with the suggestion that this is a board Sharky set up, and it's up to him what standards are set and how it's moderated. What I BELEIVE to be true is this -
Moderation is almost always applied with the best of intentions.

When people were being shot for daring to argue with Soc it didn't take much to apply the 'spin' required to see his detractors as being deliberately sabotaging a popular thread, while others saw it as a robust exchange of views where one side was unfairly shackled. I think it's fair to say Soc is the main (but far from the only) poster on here to polarise the membership to such an extent, hence he's the chap I've picked on here for my example.

It is not unreasonable (I suspect) if you are a mod to help to shut up those who seem to be arguing from the 'wrong side', I believe the mods should actually warn, then ban, those who get personal in their attacks and also those who 'wind up' the people concerned by adopting a patronising tone in their replies., Nobody on here knows who the heck anyone else is, for the most part - it is plain wrong for any member to adopt a supercilious or patronising tone when disagreeing with another. For all they know it's St Buffet 1st they're arguing with.

I voted for 'slightly unfair', I think I'd be inclined to go for 'inconsistent' too - but I think the mods and the management are genuinely trying to keep it all on track... just not actually managing to do so. I'll happily offer 10:1 that Sharky would much prefer we all got along though, the arguing isn't being deliberately inflamed by mod efforts. Damned if I'd want to waste hours of my life sorting the squabbles on here out!
Dave
 
MasoMinos said:
It doesn't bother me at all. Nor should it bother anyone else. As a member you have as much right as any to vote in this or any other poll.

My issue is that the 44K+ members of this site, including you and all the other moderators, are able to vote because we haven't fallen foul of any inconsistent or unfair moderation. What my previous post attempted to underline was the irony of those currently unable to vote precisely because of inconsistent or unfair moderation in the past.

Might you be able to give some examples of members who you feel might have been treated 'unfairly' in the past?
 
rossored said:
Might you be able to give some examples of members who you feel might have been treated 'unfairly' in the past?

Well , rossored if you are serious , then I can say there are many dubious counts of moderation going on .

Rules say no advertising if you are not a sponsor but I have seen some who do it and no one reprmands them , especially if they seem to go up against other " feared and honest " posters .

Some swear and get abusive and nothing happens to them , but the at the first hint of rudeness from those deemd " feared and honest " , the axe comes down on them .

Soon the board will have no original or independent thinkers but just a bunch of yes men agreeing about everything to the extent of being comical .

In my own case it was agreed that I would do an interview article for T2W , and yet it has been a more than a month since I emailed it in and nothing has come of it , not even a reply as to what is going on . Yet I have seen at least 3 new articles go up in that time , it seems that only those who do not threaten the ego of certain parties will be given the green light whereas others will be totally stiffled . Why not just tell me at the start and I would not have had to waste my time and effort in doing an article ? there may be a good explanation but it just seems that way to me .

In the long run , people aren't stupid and talks about an alternative board may soon be a reality.
 
MasoMinos said:
I can only comment on those posters who have indicated ongoing problems with moderation standards on this site. My own treatment when the sharky attempted to implicate me as another member based on data that was a bit of a stretch at best and quite laughable in all honesty. Everyone could see where he was trying to go with that one and I called him on it. When I asked him to substantiate his claim or retract it - nothing. Not a whimper. You see that as fair? And your recent actions on the threads which spawned these ones, pulling posts and banning members who you had a suspicion of being someone else. No proof. No data. Nothing. Guilty until proven innocent would be bad enough, but when you swing into action, they never get chance to prove their innocence - gone. These are not the actions of a site admin team who are comfortable with their role or their members.

That was the point of my post to which barjon and now you have responded - both seeming to have missed the point. The people you should really be asking about fairness and consistency are probably no longer around. Left either of their own accord or given a helping shove from the t2w 'team'.

I have attempted to post a much more detailed response to your comment twice this evening, but both times but my permissions were unaccountably withdrawn as I hit the submit key. This has happened a few times since I joined this site. I know you like to work with coincidences, perhaps you'd care to comment on that one?

In no particular order...

My point is that as the mods we don't feel that we have treated anyone unfairly - otherwise this whole debate wouldn't have come up, would it? And if we ask members who've already been 'treated unfairly' (in your opinion) it's hardly likely that we're going to agree on that now, is it? Otherwise they wouldn't have been banned etc in the first place.

As DaveJB has pointed out, if people are constantly difficult, disruptive, rude, aggressive etc then they will get warned. Normally, they'll get warned again, but not always (circumstances dictate from time to time). And then they get a short ban (3-7 days), which sometimes becomes a longer ban or a permanent ban, depending on the circumstances. Again, depending on circumstances this can be imposed immediately or after the initial ban has expired. Sometimes, those people then come back under another nick (which we almost always discover), and, depending on behaviour, they are permitted to stay- but not always; it depends on the circumstances (again).

As for Stockjunkie's comments regarding advertising, I am not aware of anyone who gets free advertising on the site. I'd be very keen to see it if we've missed removing any, because the guidelines are strict on that point and as far as I know are adhered to. Admiteddly, if you are sponsoring or paying for some features or creatives on the site there will be a little flexibility as you would expect if you have paid to advertise here, but by and large we try to keep the boards themselves free of advertising.

Regarding my 'recent action' banning people for suspecting them being someone else... how exactly would you know about that? It all took place before you joined. So, unless you joined and just happened to make that thread your first port of call (unlikely for anyone actually interested in trading), you've been here before - which also makes you a multi-nicker. Can you explain that for me? As for "no proof, no data" - where is it written that we have to provide proof to the membership of this? There wouldn't be much point in us being moderators if we had to ask everyone's opinion on a matter which the whole mod team agree on now, would there? Besides, the member involved in that fracas was quite clearly who I and many other members thought they were - no doubt whatsoever. If that individual actually made some effort to apologise for their actions their ban would be reconsidered, but that is most unlikely to happen.

As for your comments regarding a more detailed response - feel free. There is no way of moderating a post before it's been submitted for just one individual, so it must have been an error at your end, or a database error at this end which has since resolved itself/been resolved.

Lastly, as for "These are not the actions of a site admin team who are comfortable with their role or their members", I assure you, we are all quite comfortable in our roles and with the decisions we make. I still find it quite hard to understand how someone who has only been a member since November 21st is a) getting themselves involved in all this anyway b) is quite so vocal about it all and c) seems to knows a bit about what has gone on here before you joined - but I'm sure you have a good explanation for that.

EDIT: Stockjunkie - ref. your comments on the article. I'm sure it has been received etc but John (Rhody Trader) structures the release of articles according to a schedule. If it wasn't suitable he would normally have been in touch by now but I will direct his attention to this thread anyway.
 
My point is that as the mods we don't feel that we have treated anyone unfairly - otherwise this whole debate wouldn't have come up, would it? And if we ask members who've already been 'treated unfairly' (in your opinion) it's hardly likely that we're going to agree on that now, is it? Otherwise they wouldn't have been banned etc in the first place.
If you didn't feel you had treated anyone unfairly, why are you running these series of polls? The entire debate has come up precisely because a significant enough number of members have made it impossible for you to avoid dealing with the issues any longer - issues they clearly feel need to be dealt with. Your comment regarding members that have already been unfairly banned is a wonderful example of using the end to justify the means. I'll leave it without further comment for others to enjoy.

Regarding my 'recent action' banning people for suspecting them being someone else... how exactly would you know about that? It all took place before you joined. So, unless you joined and just happened to make that thread your first port of call (unlikely for anyone actually interested in trading), you've been here before - which also makes you a multi-nicker. Can you explain that for me? As for "no proof, no data" - where is it written that we have to provide proof to the membership of this? There
Your post justifying your actions is still there. That's how I and others who joined recently know about it. :rolleyes: Another shot at implicating me as a multi-nicker - is that really the only thing you worry about? There are so many other important issues, but you seem to focus on this one to exclusion.

As for providing proof. Not written anywhere as far as I can see. But would you vote for anyone who acted like you're acting?

Lastly, as for "These are not the actions of a site admin team who are comfortable with their role or their members", I assure you, we are all quite comfortable in our roles and with the decisions we make. I still find it quite hard to understand how someone who has only been a member since November 21st is a) getting themselves involved in all this anyway b) is quite so vocal about it all and c) seems to knows a bit about what has gone on here before you joined - but I'm sure you have a good explanation for that.
If you're all comfortable why are you asking our opinions on your performance? And as for my involvement, you're attempting to jump to another illogical conclusion. Or possibly trying to set up another banning scenario. I wonder how long it will be before I become the next member to be a previous member. :LOL:

Perhaps you could let me know when I am allowed to 'get involved' with these issues. In the interim, I'll just keep quiet and watch the unfolding. If that's OK with you?
 
I think it best that I withdraw from this debate, MasoMinos, as you quite clearly have some kind of issue with me - although quite why is beyond me...

I'll leave it to the rest of the mod team.
 
MasoMinos said:
......................If you didn't feel you had treated anyone unfairly, why are you running these series of polls? The entire debate has come up precisely because a significant enough number of members have made it impossible for you to avoid dealing with the issues any longer - issues they clearly feel need to be dealt with......................

Maso,

It's maybe worth repeating that we are running these polls because some members have questioned our moderating standards and we want to find out more about that and whether it is a widely held view. From my perspective, I think I have moderated reasonably fairly, but if members think differently then I am happy to listen to them and try to do better.

T2W is an inclusive community and consultation is part of that.

jon
 
So rossored thinks the mods are fair, 13 people disagree, and 43,961 people aren't interested.

If a mod believes that he/she is fair and consistent and so forth, the opinions of an extraordinarily miniscule number of people aren't likely to effect much change. Therefore, while I applaud jon's motives and effort, I can't help but wonder what is the point of all this?

If I may bring up the issue of clarity one last time, it is not possible to fairly and consistently apply an ill-defined rule, and discussions of whether to apply it "tighter" or more "loosely" are a wasted effort.

If the rules are clear and everyone understands them, then half this poll should be unnecessary. As to whether or not violators should be required to wear a pink W or scarlet B, I'll leave that up to the governors.
 
Top