Jump to content

Moderator Power Abuse


Recommended Posts

Do moderators <em>own</em> the forum and can decide who they want to

hear-- or what-- and to block those they don't like? Or is this, as I

would consider it crossing the line from moderation to censorship and,

as such, a clear abuse of power. What mechanisms have, then, been

installed to address such abuse of power by a moderator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moderators don't "own" the forums, although they put an enormous amount of work into making them successful.

 

Generally each forum has several moderators, each of whom has wide latitude to enforce the photo.net Terms of Use in the forum. Beyond this, the moderators are responsible for determining what is on-topic in a particular forum. Some of the moderators are more strict than others about deleting off-topic posts or posts already covered in the archives, and in interpreting the photo.net Terms of Use.

 

Since some of the moderators have been doing this difficult task for a long time, and are often the people who initiated the forums, they tend to put the stamp of their personalities on the forum(s) they moderate, and some of the forums are closely associated in participants' minds with a moderator or group of moderators.

 

If you have evidence of moderator abuse, you should forward it to me, the photo.net Editor-in-Chief. But I should say that it would have to be very convincing. We are very much indebted to the moderators, who put in enormous effort as volunteers. So even if there were a case where a moderator had made a questionable decision, we would tend to put it down to him having a bad day.

 

Only if there were a strong and repeated pattern would we do something about it. We don't have any moderators with anything like a pattern of bad decisions; on the contrary we are very happy with our current cadre of moderators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Do moderators own the forum and can decide who they want to hear-- or what</i><p>

 

As a moderator on several forums, there are several answers to this. The "what" depends on the forum. On the People Photography forum, I move questions that are too general to be considered "people" questions, such as "How do I connect this flash to that camera?" to the general forum. I do moderate in this way to keep it on topic. The "who" depends on people's behavior. I've only banned one user, and that was for abusive comments, and it was temporary although he decided to leave photo.net permanently.<p>

 

There have been plenty of comments I disagree with or that are just plain wrong, but I don't delete those.<p>

 

I spend more time on fixing bad html than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"<cite>I have been temporarily banned from photo.net (twice). I'd say if you push your limits they cut you off.</cite>"

<P>

And what are those "<cite>limits</cite>"?

<P>

"<cite>Sounds sensible to me.</cite>".

<P>

Curtailing expression of opinion and free speech is perhaps <em>Zeitgeist</em> alongside express "<cite>justice</cite>" in the form of military tribunals but it does not sound sensible to me to accept.. I don't accept it in daily political life and I see no need or want to accept it in the pursuit of some of my hobbies. I only bow before G-d and not before any man, flag or nation (or maker of little cameras as the said moderator would fancy)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the Photo message boards is to discuss photographic issues; and not politics, abortion, religion, racial issues, global warming, global cooling, etc etc. This board is a very good board; the very little pruning to threads I have ever seen was always done very well. What Moderator "power abuse" has ever happened? I sure have never seen any. This is a private board; we are guests here; they make the rules; learn to play the game by the rules and you will not have problems. <BR><BR>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"<cite>The purpose of the Photo message boards is to discuss photographic issues; and not politics, abortion, religion,...</cite>"

<P>

The issue HERE in this thread is a question of policy.

<P>

"<cite>the very little pruning to threads I have ever seen was always done very well.</cite>"

<P>

What you <strong>see</strong>. Perhaps you don't visit this particular rather specialized and small forum--- its new to photo.net and was imported over from Greenspun.org a few months ago.

<P>

"<cite>What Moderator "power abuse" has ever happened? I sure have never seen any. </cite>"

<P>

Again "<cite>seen</cite>". If a moderator is using their power, as in this case, to dominate and control the flow of information how can you "<cite>see</cite>" it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can only logically say somehting HAS happened if you've witnessed it. You can not say something has not happened, unless you are omniscient. ;) So... as to abuse... I'll agree this is a private board and we are guests, but that shouldn't stop us from asking questions as to what the limits are or should be. Actually... we aren't really guests, we're members of a community, and as such, can if we choose try and influence the way the community is run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, even new moderators can do exactly what they want -- to whomever they want, with no recourse for the member involved. At least, that was my experience after getting no response from a letter to Brian, last week. Doug Thacker banned me from 'his Nikon forum' (his words) after my first post in it. His reasons were that I was being disruptive by referring someone to the Nikonians N80 forum, to get some added advice from actual N80 owners. When questioned on his motives by another member, he told him I had a history of being 'disruptive', and deserved it. I asked Brian to go to my workspace and review all my posts, but got no response.

 

In the time I've been here, I've only referred to Nikonians twice (their website is one reccommended by this very site), and kept to the subject otherwise. I did, however, by reviewing those posts, noticed several personal attacks from Doug -- and not one single response from me! I guess he was just waiting for his chance, and found it on my very first post to 'his' forum.

 

If anyone can find a pattern, or even a single instance, of abuse or disruptive behavior in my posts, maybe he would have a point. But it is just the opposite (look for yourselves).

 

Being 'not allowed' to post to that forum is obviously something I can live with, but this is addressing a bigger point -- no one else even knew about it! Even after sending two e-mails to Brian, I got no response at all. This whole thing is about a personal dislike Doug has for me, for whatever reason, and just got swept under the rug. I wouldn't even be bringing it up now, except that a lot of the guys above seem to think everyone is treated fairly (just check my posts to see my point).

 

So guys, just because you don't see any instances of unfair treatment, doesn't mean it's not there, maybe it's just under the rug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nace, you neglected to mention that Doug banned you only for a very short period of time because he felt that you were disrupting the new forum by trying to divert people to the other forum, and that he sent you emails saying that you were welcome in the Nikon forum as long you were going to be constructive. You also didn't mention that you have since been posting in the Nikon forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher Keller "<cite>we aren't really guests, we're members of a community, and as such, can if we choose try and influence the way the community is run.</cite>"

<P>

It really depends upon what <em>kind of</em> <U>community</U> it is or is desired for it to be. <STRONG>AND</STRONG> that is really the question..

<P>

Its matters like this that have the potential to divide community if forced exil brings others to migrate and take with them future content... leaving.. as in this case..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian - Thanks for the reply, but you've been misled. The last time I tried to post to that forum, the banned message that came up instead said until 2004. The other posting (one) you refer to, surprised me when I saw it in the Nikon forum, since it started out in the non-archived forum (where I posted an answer), and had then been moved to the Nikon forum. When I saw it there, I thought I'd been granted a reprieve, and tried to post -- and was still off till 2004. I don't know who you got that info from, or who moved the thread, but I've a good idea.

 

If you see any posting in that forum by me, previous to this date, it would have had to have been moved the same way. If there is any question as to the content of Doug or my e-mails on this matter, I'll be glad to send you the file (I saved them all). I really dought, however, that it's worth all this trouble and space. I just think you've been given a self-serving account of this by Doug.

 

You didn't say whether you'd been allowed to see my original posting which caused all this, or checked my posting history to check out my side.

 

My apologies to Edward for stealing his thread -- that wasn't my intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edward; One sports web board I comment on requires the moderator to approve each and every post! This adds a huge delay; sometimes 1 or 2 days if the moderator is on vacation.<BR><BR> The subject of "power abuse by moderators" seems really a very bizarre subject; for it has nothing to do with Photography. It has to do with keeping order to a very fast paced message board. Some other message boards I have visted & used do block "troublemakers" ; it is a good thing. A disagreement on a subject matter can be made in good taste. This is the hallmark of good educated writing. When the dissagreements get out of hand; the situation gets ugly. In newspapers and magazines; there are standands for style; and disallowed words; and rules. Any pruning by the moderators here is probably not abuse; but the result of them doing their job very well. <BR><BR>Rules are good! <br>Here is an example of what is OK and NOT OK:<BR><BR>OK: My test on a Schneider Componon 135mm F5.6 showed its best resolution when used at 1:10 is at F16.<BR><BR>NOT OK : Minoxes are toys; and used by morons only.<BR><BR>In the first OK example; you may disagree; but not feel personally attacked. In the second example; If you are a Minox user; you will feel personally attacked; this adds nothing to the thread. A person later reviewing the thread will think I am nutty for making such a stupid statement. It adds nothing to the knowledge of photography; but makes a reader think that the author of the thread has personal problems or something. <BR><BR>In other non photographic message boards many time the moderators get many emails asking for a thread to be deleted; or a certain person banned from the message board. The banned persons usually popup again with the same old tricks; using all capitals; sending spam and viruses to members; using every 4 word a swear word. After awhile one gets tired of this cowdung childish behavior; and I really thank the moderators for using their power to remove the daily dung.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"<cite>Edward; One sports web board I comment on requires the moderator to

approve each and every post!</cite>"

 

<P>

 

As you might know (reading between the words) I ran a cycling message board for

several years and was involved in several scientific cycling lists. The

scientific lists did have moderation BUT my board I let run free for all.. The

scientific lists did not survive the timeplan of the moderation. What you may not know is that we also host many dozens of mailinglists and forums for various political and youth projects funded by several German and European Union government agencies.

 

<P>

 

"<cite>The subject of "power abuse by moderators" seems really a very bizarre

subject; for it has nothing to do with Photography. It has to do with keeping

order to a very fast paced message board.</cite>"

 

<P>

 

A contribution in this "forum" on photography would be <em>bizarre</em> and out

of place. This forum is NOT for talking about photography but about the

"<cite>Drum-Hereum</cite>" of which I feel the subjects I bring up here are not

just appropriate, but I'd argue significant.

 

<P>

 

"<cite>Some other message boards I have visted & used do block "troublemakers" ;</cite>"

 

<P>

 

Now is the question: "What is a troublemaker?" The issue is a fine line and

run into quite dangerous waters chartered by anti-liberalism.

<P>

If a troublemaker is one that stands behind his words then call me a troublemaker..

Heck the U.N. calls me a racist so call me a "<cite>Racist Troublemaker</cite>" and

and add some more predicates like Jew, Socialist, Liberal, Traditionalist or whatever..

 

<P>

 

"<cite>Any pruning by the moderators here is probably not abuse; but the result

of them doing their job very well. </cite>"

 

<P>

 

I'm NOT talking and have NOT in a single instance talked about pruning---

although I do oppose it on grounds of intellectual property--- but about

squashing and silencing any or all that don't jive with a particular moderator.

<P>

 

"<cite>Rules are good!</cite>"

 

<P>

 

Not all Rules are good. While the rules set forth in <em>Halachot</em> are

divine not all rules set my man are. Or will you argue that the Nuremberg race

laws, the so-called statues governing "<cite>Separate but Equal</cite>", Taliban

rules governing conduct, military tribunals in the US for civilians etc. are all good?

 

<P>

 

"<cite> Here is an example of what is OK and NOT OK:<BR>

<B>OK:</B> My test on a Schneider Componon 135mm F5.6 showed its best resolution

when used at 1:10 is at F16. <BR>

<B>NOT OK</B> : Minoxes are toys; and used by morons only.</cite>"

<P>

 

As a MINOX enthusiast and one closely associated with some of the new developments

(e.g. <A HREF="http://www.8x11film.com">8x11film.com</A> is run by a friend and we even host the Web site, he btw. too had his contributions removed and his account deleted, as have some others I know, for their unwillingness to remain silent on this reign of censorship) I would NOT made the second statement BUT I could entirely

understand it!

<P>

I'm constantly surprized by the number of people I've met with MINOX cameras in

their <cite>Sin Closet</cite>, purchased with high expectations that met with deep

disappointment and exile into the deep of some drawer.

eBay is filled with mint accessories and cameras that are a testament not to the

use but the lack of utility found by many. I'm going off on a tangent but the moral

is that a statement you consider BAD can in fact be good.. Keep in mind that people

bought this cameras and they were disappointed, felt like saps sucked into buying

a cute but hardly functional toy.. That's were some of these new developments like

Copex/SPUR Nanospeed, Delta-100/SPUR HRX and new tanks and processors come into the

picture. I can show you loads of people that found their MINOX cameras worthless for

even 5x7" prints BUT now I can show you amazing prints that are 16x20" (!!).

<P>

But lets turn the story around.. The moderator in question is <strong>well known</cite> as a troll of Usenet and even photo.net for outlandish claims that he could not support. He has been outcast from many forums for his unrestrained enthusiasm and for flooding the message gates with single thoughts fragmented among dozens of messages. Or have I gotten it all wrong and the whole point of the MINOX forum on this site is to contain our little moderator from spreading his damage elsewhere?

<P>

Edward "<cite>Banned untill the end of 2003 from the MINOX Forum</cite>" Zimmermann

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...