A recent post in ATMB related to moderator actions in polls in IMHO has been closed, but this issue has not been addressed. I am starting this thread to discuss this seperate issue on its own.
Under normal circumstances, a member or guest wanting to post in a thread is expected to read the entirety of that thread, including all moderator actions. Should they choose not to, they deserve the moderator warning that could result.
However, for a poll in IMHO, it is sometimes beneficial to vote and perhaps even post a response to the OP without reading others’ responses. As such, any moderator action posted after the OP will be unknown. The current rules conflict with this situation.
I propose that any time a moderator posts any action in a poll, they should also indicate that action by editing the OP. Something simple, such as “Mod Edit to add: blah blah, see post xx” in bold at the end of the OP would accomplish this.
For example:
A poll asks about favorite animals.
The discussion derails into an argument about sex with sheep.
A moderator notes that further discussion about sheep will result in a warning.
An anonymous poster replies, after only reading the OP, that they like sheep.
The Moderator issues the poster a warning for not following the moderation ruling.
Three more posters respond innocently about sheep.
Each receive moderator warnings, an the thread/poll is closed as a train-wreck.
Four unnecessary moderator warnings and a derailed thread could have been avoided if the moderator mentioned his/her actions in the OP.
Please discuss this idea. I am especially interested in hearing from the mod/admin staff regarding this, as the topic was ignored in the now closed ATMB thread.
Notes: This is not the place to discuss Avatars, or the specific moderator actions that led to this topic.
Also: This is not my idea, and I do not know who suggested it first. If someone wishes to search the wreckage for the poster who deserves credit, please do.
Yeah. The moderation around here had gotten really good, but now we seem to be back to the dumbassery-by-Mod of years past.
So, by way of protest against letting such stupidity stand unchallenged, I humbly request that my account of twelve years be terminated immediately by whichever [ poll options: cunts, cocksuckers, motherfuckers, litigants in the pending lawsuit ] have returned to such lapses in good judgement.
IMO, this is the meat of the matter, but you are incorrect to lump the two together.
Yes, many people prefer to vote in a poll without having read the full thread, intentionally wanting to vote by gut or instinct and without having been influenced. That is fine.
But no, it does not automatically follow that they have to then post their reasoning without having read the full thread. Why should a poll thread be different to any other type of thread in that regard? The only difference in a poll thread is that you can make a recorded vote, and I doubt anybody has ever been warned for that.
If mod actions in polls are to be affixed to the OP, then they need to be affixed to the OP of all threads.
This example falls into the broad category of thread hijacking, has nothing to do with it being a poll. There is already an etiquette standard and supporting rules against this.
As far as reading others comments concerning polls, people should be able to do that if they choose or vote without having done that if they choose.
What logical reason should there be to squelch any discussion about the poll subject, provided it directly concerns the poll?
How can anyone feel that this kind of tight-ass policy will improve thoughtful exchange on this message board? And why would an effort be made on part of staff to downplay relevant and thoughtful exchange?
Like I said before, I am not going to shell out any more 15 dollar payments in support of ridiculous power trips - and that’s what I think this boils down to.
Seriously? What’s wrong with you people? And this turd post, was posted in a previously closed thread and then - closed again. Way to reach your customers! Clearly you want to hear from them.
Hate to say it, but I told you - freaking Teflon. What bullshit.
It doesn’t seem desirable for mod actions to be implemented differently depending on what kind of thread is at hand. This is confusing at best.
And isn’t it a bad idea to edit thread moderation into the OP under any circumstances? Suppose I habitually read every post of every thread I post in before commenting. Suppose I see the poll thread, vote, and read everything that’s been posted to it to that point (and then perhaps make a comment). Much later, I come back to the board after a bunch more people have posted, something has gotten out of hand, and a mod has issued a general back-off direction. If that has been edited into the OP that I already read, and I reenter the thread with the “Go to first new post” button, I’ll be skipped over the edit, right? I’ll see the contentious new posts, but not the moderation.
One idea that was discussed in the now-closed thread was to edit the thread title to reference the mod note. This would solve that problem. I also assumed that the mod note would be added to the OP in addition to there being a post at the relevant point in the thread, but no-one’s actually said that.
If I might ask a question: Would this mean if there were more than one mode note they would all be included in the title? I don’t know if that’s really feasible.
I do believe the thread you are referring to isn’t the topic of this thread, though.
Also, as has already been noted, if someone reads the op before any mod notes are added and then posts, that person will assume that one reading is sufficient if she/he decides to post again in that thread. Posters would have to go back and re-read the OP before every posting to see if anything new were added to it, wouldn’t they?
If the notes are added to the OP, a [Mod Notes in OP] tag would suffice. To be honest, I think there will be so few occasions of poll threads needing multiple mod notes that taking each situation as it comes is reasonable.
I’m not suggesting that this should be done every time a mod issues a note, after all many of them are directed to a poster or posters who have been participating in the thread. It would only be needed in the case of a general direction, in a thread where some people are unlikely to read the whole thing, such as polls or massive multi-page threads.
I’m aware this would be a small amount of extra work for moderators, but I contend that it would be less work than issuing multiple warnings, and dealing with multiple threads discussing the fallout over the next week or more.
ETA
I envisaged the mod note being a post as usual in the thread, and as well as that being linked to in or copied into the OP.
Then we would run into the same problem as posting multiple mod notes in the OP-Posters would think, “It’s o.k., I already read the mod note so I’m covered.”
Not even just that, but a lot of problems seem to stem from mod notes in the middle of multipage threads.
We have plenty of long threads around here. Now, if I stumble across a thread asking for my opinion on, say, coffee I’ll probably just toss my opinion in at the end. If the thread is already 150 posts deep, I’m not going to read them all. The problem is, that maybe somewhere around posts 70-85 something happened and a mod stepped in, calmed everyone down and added a note that the OP is asking about coffee only and if anyone brings up energy drinks again, they’ll be warned…fair enough…but if the OP simply asked about your favorite coffee, are you really going to read all 150 posts? Probably not.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but I always feel bad when someone gets smacked with a warning for something a mod mentioned pages (and sometimes days) earlier when the poster clearly didn’t mean anything by it, clearly had nothing to do with the earlier derailment/fight and clearly didn’t see the mod warning, but so often it seems like the mod takes it like a personal slap in the face.
Maybe (did someone else say this) a note in the OP “See note in post #22”. Like I said, not everyone will read every post and I certainly don’t think they should be required to read every post to see if that thread has some special rules that apply to it (No speaking of energy drinks, Do not bring up ponies, This thread is about X do not accuse John of being a rapist, etc)…but I could see reading the OP being required and therefore that would be a good place for the mod to add a pointer to a rule or note that applies to that thread.
ETA, I see the problem with that now…notes being added to the OP after someone has already read it…can’t win them all. I suppose all you can hope for is that after your post, you will read all subsequent posts even if you haven’t read the ones prior to yours.
If this has morphed into a general discussion I’ll contribute a few cents worth.
Recently I contributed nothing worthwhile to a thread. I thought I was getting too close so I unsubscribed to the thread. A while later I went back to see what was happening and decided to reply to the thread.
In the interim a Mod has issued a caution. I wasn’t aware of it and posted. I got a warning.
To me that is fair enough.It is my responsibility to ensure I am up to date with the thread.
I hesitate to even mention this possible solution, but if Mods had identifying *avatars *one would notice their comments immediately when scanning any thread if they had avatars enabled.
