Guidelines refreshed

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:37 pm

You bring an interesting point, someone should have the power or ability to ban individuals, like the ones that you mentioned, but under what circumstances?
Are there any detailed rules which our admins have to follow? No, there is the common sense and wisdom.
I think this function will not lead to conflicts because mods will remove only spam and profanities as admin deletes it now.
It will bring much more good than harm to anyone.

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:42 pm

<quote user="destinationtruth">
I would propose that they would be allowed to "temporarily suspend" a user and leave the final determination after investigation to the WoT Administration. The status "Suspended" should be placed on their profile instead of "Banned." Such suspension should have a time limit e.g. 7 days, with automatic reinstatement if Admin has not responded / made a determination.
[/quote]

Fully agree. This function will help to stop scorecard and forum spamming by bots and also can prevent intensive forum flood by some trolls like someone of our forum trolls who had posted the same abusive message 10 times in a row before admin banned him.

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:39 pm

Are there any detailed rules which our admins have to follow?
We don't even know who the administrators are, much less what guidelines they follow ......................... , Something I do remember clearly, was their silence or worse the vague answers when we were in trouble with certain "gentleman"that was blackmailing us and that, my friend,is not nice
most of the members were worried about the outcome, I won't deny that, I couldn't sleep and it took some friends to talk me into relaxing as no one, would be straightforward with information
No one should go through this ever!
You may want to believe it or not, but I have never being to a court of law in my life,{outside jury duty] not even for a traffic citation, so with all due respect, I much prefer Destinationtruth's ideas

MysteryFCM
Posts: 4912
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by MysteryFCM » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:01 pm

Stayed out of this thread for the most part but in my humble opinion;

1. Moderators should NOT be given the necessary permissions to be able to ban members.

This is the administrators job and should stay that way. Nothing to do with extra work/time, more to do with the fact it should not be a position for the moderators to be in (this would be both wide open to mis-use*/mistake, and leave such moderators open to legal action, appropriate or not).

2. Moderators should be allowed to edit posts.

However, there is one very important caveat - such edits MUST contain timestamps and the name of the moderator that made such an edit, along with a record of edits made.

* Before anyone misreads this and freaks out, moderators are simply human and like everyone else, make mistakes, deliberate or not, and for this reason alone, such facilities should not be available to them.

3. Hiding posts

Whilst we already have the ability to hide a post, I'm not aware of a facility for recording such, and this must be available if not already, to both see when, and importantly, which moderator, hid the post. Additionally such should allow for the recording of why a post was hidden.

NotBuyingIt
Posts: 6562
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:21 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by NotBuyingIt » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:15 pm

<quote user="mysteryfcm">
3. Hiding posts

Whilst we already have the ability to hide a post, I'm not aware of a facility for recording such, and this must be available if not already, to both see when, and importantly, which moderator, hid the post. Additionally such should allow for the recording of why a post was hidden.
[/quote]
Hi, Steven.

Usually when most of the moderators hide a post, they flag it and provide a reason for their action. The flag has an approximate timestamp (but it may not be a permanent record and may be altered by subsequent editing).


MysteryFCM
Posts: 4912
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by MysteryFCM » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:41 pm

<quote user="notbuyingit">
Hi, Steven.

Usually when most of the moderators hide a post, they flag it and provide a reason for their action. The flag has an approximate timestamp (but it may not be a permanent record and may be altered by subsequent editing).
[/quote]

Yep, was thinking more along the lines of a central record moderators/admins could go to, to see the records ;)

Apollo702
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:40 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Apollo702 » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:32 am

The power of the mods are about where they should be now. If we gave them powers such as banning users that could lead to catastrophe as dumb or biased moderators could damage the community.

Most of our moderators are doing a great job right now and there isn't a crying need for drastic changes.

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:03 am

<quote user="bасилий">
Totally disagree.
They usually answer within 2-3 days, so scorecard spammer (forum bot) can send very many messages until they ban him.
I remember one gentleman who had sent 500 spam messages before they banned him.
A simple (but not the best) solution is to give to mods the ability to temporarily ban and hide scorecard comments.
[/quote]


Maybe sometimes. For my experience, I only have to wait few hours. But I do agree with other members, it is an admin task. Also, moderators don't have the same tools to investigate, etc... Of course sometimes, it would be easy to ban a spammer but what about the ability to ban a user because the mod thinks he/she is cheating? How to report to other mods that the user was banned. etc. IMO, it will dig a ditch between mods and members.

Personally, I think that a hidden forum dedicated to mods would be useful for communication. Currently, if we want to broadcast a message, we have to copy/past to each board. This is not easy to have a discussion with all mods.

Guest

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:45 am

What to do with spammers who registered an account and sent only 2-3 spam message?
I don't have enough time and patience to collect them all (there are hundreds of them) and send to support@mywot.com, but if there is the power to delete messages, I will simply remove his comments without any problems.

NubskyNyb
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:23 pm

RE: Guidelines refreshed

Post by NubskyNyb » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:53 pm


Hello.I believe that the currently available powers enough for the moderators.

The right to ban users will lead to the deterioration of the situation on the forum. As there are moderators, who delete messages of users who have not insulted anyone, and wrote only on the merits of the evaluated website. Just today there were several such cases. The user wrote to the owner of the site that need to be corrected on the website, and the posts have been deleted.There were no insults, but only on the merits.

Now imagine a situation where a moderator will ban a user just because you don't agree with his opinion.

I believe that these rights should be for administrators only.

Sincerely yours, Vladimir !

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarianoLon and 4 guests
https://forum.mywot.com/general-discussion-f3/guidelines-refreshed-t63220-s60.html
forum.mywot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-50
53560
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:JNZ6C5QK657NTRIVWSQWG3I5TZDOO2J6
<urn:uuid:1fefad6f-f226-46ec-b43f-e34a0b06c70b>
2020-11-26T10:21:47Z
44.236.168.30
text/html
sha1:GCEXLS7NIDM3PTURFYPWSGWYDC4EPWFG
<urn:uuid:2360b803-0c98-4876-ac8e-c2c8696c475a>
https://forum.mywot.com/general-discussion-f3/guidelines-refreshed-t63220-s60.html
response
<urn:uuid:2983c399-5b39-4de0-a4a8-c01cac4f8f15>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-89.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/