A bit aggressive with the Moderating

[DSYoungEsq]

Recently, both before and after I reactivated the account, I’ve noticed that some Moderators are taking a very aggressive stance about closing threads. As an example, I notice that a thread asking about issuance of arrest warrants was closed before any response could be made, ostensibly because it was asking for specific legal advice. Now, while it was asking a legal question (and may be an attempt to get legal advice in the disguise of talking about a “friend,” the question certainly isn’t asking for a specific assertion of law addressing that one instance. I, as an attorney, would be comfortable offering up a generalized statement on arrest warrants.

This isn’t the only thread that’s been handled aggressively. Indeed, the same Moderator has closed an re-opened more than one thread recently, and he’s not the only one to have done so, IIRC.

Is the Board in such precarious position that Moderators and such have to take an aggressive stance on what gets posted, and how? Tackling the sock puppets and the trolls I understand; snuffing out anything that smells of certain taints (off topic for the forum, asking for legal advice, etc.) seems to me to be simply moderating to moderate, that is, to justify an existence, which, given the nature of this board, hardly seems necessary.

[aldiboronti]

It does seem a little over-moderated around here of late. Whether the word has come down from on high to run a tighter ship, or whether it’s simply new mods flexing their muscles, I have no idea.

Time will tell. (Moderation in all things, but not too much.)

[Patty_O_Furniture]

@DSYoungEsq

I notice that a thread asking about issuance of arrest warrants was closed … ostensibly because it was asking for specific legal advice.

Is asking for legal advice now forbidden? I thought that was limited to medical advice. I read Ed’s Registration agreement 3-30-2005 w/revised privacy policy and Arnold’s FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB and the only thing I can find is this:

Users should be particularly wary of medical, legal or other professional advice posted on the message board and recognize that it is no substitute for in-person consultation with a competent professional.

In fact that seems to say that asking for medical and legal advice is OK, but just be wary of whatever advice is given in response.

[Frank]

@aldiboronti

It does seem a little over-moderated around here of late. Whether the word has come down from on high to run a tighter ship, or whether it’s simply new mods flexing their muscles, I have no idea.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but certainly, I’m still finding my way.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Patty O'Furniture

Is asking for legal advice now forbidden? I thought that was limited to medical advice. I read Ed’s Registration agreement 3-30-2005 w/revised privacy policy and Arnold’s FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB and the only thing I can find is this:

In fact that seems to say that asking for medical and legal advice is OK, but just be wary of whatever advice is given in response.

Recently, some Moderators have been closing threads on the basis they are asking for specific legal advice, presumably with the worry that the Chicago Reader could somehow be held liable for any poor advice given and taken. Pretty far-fetched in my book.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Well, it’s all pretty murky. The thing that’s NOT murky is that there’s a serious danger in someone (lawyer, doctor, etc) making a general statement, which a poster applies to their own specific situation… and the general situation doesn’t apply in their case.

Now, on the one hand, we’re not here to prevent people from the consequences of their own stupidity. If someone wants to take a general statement like, “Aspirin is good for headaches” and so takes aspirin and doesn’t go for an MRI to find the tumor… well, there’s not much we can do about it.

But, on t’other hand, we’ve had people who are NOT doctors or lawyers, offering up their opinions and advice and suggestions. To say nothing of practical jokers who think it’s funny to suggest drinking Lysol as a cure for the common cold. So, no, we’re not particularly worried about the READER being sued, but we do feel that there are some topics where discussion is just going to lead to bad results… and the best advice that someone can get is to seek out professional help.

We don’t close all such discussions, it depends on the specifics. If someone is indeed asking a general question about the detection of brain tumors, that’s fine, we’d let it go ahead. But if someone asks, “What are these funny red spots on my groin?” we tend to say “Seek a doctor!” and close it.

The same applies to most professional situations where practitioners are licensed (law, medicine, etc.) Granted, if someone asks about auto repair and gets told to put sugar in the gas tank and is stupid enough to do it…well, there ya go. When there are rules against “unlicensed practice of …,” we get a bit more skitterish.

On the general question, is there more moderating now? The answer is certainly yes. We’d hit a point when several of our moderators had effectively retired and were doing very little monitoring, and we’ve replaced and added some wonderful new folk (and some twee new folk), and so we’ve got more moderators paying more attention.

And, yeah, that will mean that there are some reversals from time to time, as these young’uns get their learnin’. Generally, if a moderator makes a decision, it can be reversed upon re-think.

[ouryL]

Yes, the moderators are overly aggressive. I can’t think of the number of threads closed before I can give my irrevelant snarky responses!! :mad:

[samclem]

@aldiboronti

It does seem a little over-moderated around here of late. Whether the word has come down from on high to run a tighter ship, or whether it’s simply new mods flexing their muscles, I have no idea.

Perhaps, as Dex said, things were a bit undermoderated recently.

There has been absolutely NO direction from above to make us grind you under the heels of our jackboots any harder than we do. The Powers-that-be are pretty good about letting us do our own thing. I’m of the opinion things will even out here pretty soon as new mods feel their way around(and I include myself in that group).

[Good_Egg]

It seems they just don’t want to get in legal trouble (I cannot blame them) and or get posters taking bad advice. I don’t see it as over moderating.
(samclem, please send it in 10’s, thanks)

[DSYoungEsq]

@Good Egg

It seems they just don’t want to get in legal trouble (I cannot blame them) and or get posters taking bad advice. I don’t see it as over moderating.
(samclem, please send it in 10’s, thanks)

If the issue were potential legal troubles for the site’s host, I’d understand it; but samclem and C K Dexter Haven seem to rule that out, understandably in my opinion. This leaves us with the proposition that the Moderators are censoring the input on the theory that they are best able to save stupid people from themselves.

I dislike censorship in most of its forms. A free marketplace of ideas is a much better approach to most anything; the Web was, to some extent, founded upon the concept. While it can be a pain at times, I’d much rather, for example, have Wikipedia editable by anyone than have Wikipedia’s commentary restricted to some chosen few. In the same way, good advice, bad advice, plain stinking rotten advice, bring it on! Let the asker see all choices, and decide for him/herself what to believe.

I know that the Moderators aren’t intentionally running around thinking, “How can I censor someone today?” And I do appreciate the tasks they accomplish. I’d simply ask the Board’s administration as a whole, top down, to rethink the concept that some questions should not be answered, based upon some rationale of je ne sais quoi, but I’ll know it when I see it. After all, if it appears that something is getting out of hand, a Moderator can always step in and deal with it then.

Not that I’m as emotionally invested in this as, oh, say, deciding whether to order a shipment of Scotchmallow™ or Rum Nougat candies from See’s Candies, but if no one ever spoke up about anything, who’d know?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@DSYoungEsq

I know that the Moderators aren’t intentionally running around thinking, “How can I censor someone today?” And I do appreciate the tasks they accomplish. I’d simply ask the Board’s administration as a whole, top down, to rethink the concept that some questions should not be answered, based upon some rationale of je ne sais quoi, but I’ll know it when I see it. After all, if it appears that something is getting out of hand, a Moderator can always step in and deal with it then.

The problem with a diverse board such as this is that you never get any two people with the same opinion on how to deal with a situation.

I think you’re wrong. Censorship is not an issue here. Common sense is.

The Boards have been undermoderated for way too long, IMO, and they are still nowhere near any standard of moderation I would set for them. Waiting for things to get out of hand before mods step in is simply a recipe for the destruction of the Board.

There can be no rule other than I’ll know it when I see it. Mods will reopen threads if successfully challenged. I like that system better than your alternative of chaos.

[lorinada]

Asking what the law states and aksing for legal advice are two different things, and threads are getting closed when the only thing asked is what the law states.

Here’s the difference:

1. In Texas, how soon after default on rent can a landlord evict me?

2. I live in Texas. My rent was due three days ago and now my landlord has put an eviction notice on my door. What should I do now?

Only the second one is asking for legal advice , but on the SDMB both threads would be closed.

That’s overmoderation, IMHO.

However, IMHO, even the second one has its place on the board, because these answers would be valid and helpful yet would still not be rendering legal advice:

1. Go to your public library and see if they have any NoLo books that will tell you step by step what you should, can, and cannot do.

2. Call your local Legal Aid office and see if they can get you an appointment.

3. See if there’s a Tenant’s Union in your area. They offer excellent free advice to anyone, and for a small membership fee can even offer you a consultation with an attorney conversant in Tenant-Landlord matters.

IMHO, as long as these threads are moderated individually and only to avoid the actual “legal advice” they should be allowed.

But then, this is not my message board. TPTB can do anything they want. IHMO.

[fluiddruid]

@lorinada

Here’s the difference:

1. In Texas, how soon after default on rent can a landlord evict me?

2. I live in Texas. My rent was due three days ago and now my landlord has put an eviction notice on my door. What should I do now?

Only the second one is asking for legal advice , but on the SDMB both threads would be closed.

My interpretation of the rules would be that the second would be a clear violation but the first one, being a general question, is allowed. There’s no hard and fast rule – if you’re in doubt, ask before posting and we’ll be happy to kick it around and make sure we’re all OK with it.

Legal questions are tricky. It’s not even just a matter of being successfully sued; we don’t want to create high-maintenance problems even if they don’t come to legal action. I, for one, want to make sure this place sticks around and even the threat of legal action or a potential liability could jeopardize that. There’s no exact science to moderation, and we’ve got several new moderators right now, but we can keep discussing the issues to try to work out the best possible scenario.

It’s fine to fight ignorance and ask questions about the law. There’s a difference between “tell me about the science behind chemotherapy” and “I have cancer, should I get chemotherapy now or try a different treatment?” The same thing applies to law threads.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Exapno Mapcase

The problem with a diverse board such as this is that you never get any two people with the same opinion on how to deal with a situation.

I think you’re wrong. Censorship is not an issue here. Common sense is.

The Boards have been undermoderated for way too long, IMO, and they are still nowhere near any standard of moderation I would set for them. Waiting for things to get out of hand before mods step in is simply a recipe for the destruction of the Board.

There can be no rule other than I’ll know it when I see it. Mods will reopen threads if successfully challenged. I like that system better than your alternative of chaos.

Um, that’s overstating the case, don’t you think? **In the next post after yours, lorinada states the case quite adequately. I don’t think it would create chaos to allow a thread on “what’s the law on this?” or “is my friend right about this?” In my OP, I noted that more than once threads were closed only to re-open; if that’s happening, it is indicative that a trigger is being pulled more quickly than it should. Doesn’t follow that chaos is the only alternative. :dubious:

[Gfactor]

@DSYoungEsq

Um, that’s overstating the case, don’t you think? **In the next post after yours, lorinada states the case quite adequately. I don’t think it would create chaos to allow a thread on “what’s the law on this?” or “is my friend right about this?” In my OP, I noted that more than once threads were closed only to re-open; if that’s happening, it is indicative that a trigger is being pulled more quickly than it should. Doesn’t follow that chaos is the only alternative. :dubious:

Right. I guess I don’t worry so much when I see the threads being re-opened. It kind of shows that there is at least some form of appeal available. Maybe it is better to be safe than sorry. But I’ve noticed the same things that you have, and my gut reaction is the same.

I am judging a moot court competition on Tuesday. The case involves complex criminal procedure issues and I would have liked to kick it around with some crim pro savvy Dopers, especially because I only received the materials last Tuesday, and have had a busy week. I chose not to, in part, because of this phenomenon.

[samclem]

@Gfactor

.

I am judging a moot court competition on Tuesday. The case involves complex criminal procedure issues and I would have liked to kick it around with some crim pro savvy Dopers, especially because I only received the materials last Tuesday, and have had a busy week. I chose not to, in part, because of this phenomenon.

How would a totally hypothetical legal discussion be equated to a real-lif doper asking a legal question about something in their life?

Ask away. If you had a qualm about this, you could always email a mod.

[Gfactor]

@samclem

How would a totally hypothetical legal discussion be equated to a real-lif doper asking a legal question about something in their life?

Ask away. If you had a qualm about this, you could always email a mod.

Thanks for the reassurance. I guess I was responding more to the possible need to email a mod about something that, as we agree, is so clear. If I hadn’t I’d risk closure, followed by email, followed by reopening. If I had, I’d have to wait for a response. If I had more time, I would have done this. But in this case I didn’t. So I didn’t bother to post it.

If I get a chance later tonight, I will post it.

As I indicated, the aggressive moderating was only part of the reason anyway. An equal part was the badly written “bench memo” that I got from the person running the moot court program at my alma mater. It took me hours of wading through the bad prose just to get to the point where I understood the basic issues. Obviously, that is the fault of other kids.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

@lorinda

Here’s the difference:

1. In Texas, how soon after default on rent can a landlord evict me?
2. I live in Texas. My rent was due three days ago and now my landlord has put an eviction notice on my door. What should I do now?

With due respect, I don’t think that’s the difference at all. The one that’s different woulde be:
3) In Texas, what is the time normally allowed between default on rent and eviction?

As soon as “me” or “I” appear, we get uneasy.
And, agreed, the correct answer to the first two would be some form of “Individual circumstances can vary considerably, you should discuss your situation with a knowledgable lawyer. If you can’t afford a lawyer, check with legal aid in your area.”

Medical works pretty much the same way:
a) What are these red spots on my groin? would get a similar “see a doctor” comment.
b) Generally speaking, what are the symptoms of bubonic plague? would be OK.

Gfactor, you might mention in your post that you have moderator OK to go ahead. When in doubt, please, just ask. We don’t want to censor discussion, we’re happy with free and open discussion on almost any topic. But we do not want people offering professional advice unless they’re licensed, and we have no way of checking whether someone is licensed. That’s been the ruling passed down to Mods from on high.

[DSYoungEsq]

@C K Dexter Haven

That’s been the ruling passed down to Mods from on high.

This should have been said in response to my original post, don’t you think?

I still question the need for that, but at least, to the extent it is a directive, and not an option, to the extent it’s not in the control of the Board’s administration, one supposes one will have to live with it. :eek:

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@DSYoungEsq

Um, that’s overstating the case, don’t you think? **In the next post after yours, lorinada states the case quite adequately. I don’t think it would create chaos to allow a thread on “what’s the law on this?” or “is my friend right about this?” In my OP, I noted that more than once threads were closed only to re-open; if that’s happening, it is indicative that a trigger is being pulled more quickly than it should. Doesn’t follow that chaos is the only alternative. :dubious:

Chaos is not the only alternative; it just happens to be the most likely alternative given your preferences. I see a perfectly useful distinction between the questions that all the mods say would be allowed and those that would not; you claim not to. I see some threads being reopened as an appropriate measure after reasonable discussion; you see any measures taken as triggers being pulled too quickly. You question the need for the directive; I don’t.

We disagree on these issues. That’s life in these SDMBs, so to speak.