Moderating

[MtB]

23 minutes ago, Athy said:

Sum of the best true werds are spoked in jest.

 

There. I've correctified your post for you, into how what I think it ought to of bin.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

Your so kind

Nice one from our simian friend.

In the immortal words of The Shangri-La's:

"You get the picture?"

- "Yes, we see".

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

There. I've correctified your post for you, into how what I think it ought to of bin.

I should dam well think sow to.

[tree monkey]

Just now, Athy said:

Nice one from our simian friend.

In the immortal words of The Shangri-La's:

"You get the picture?"

- "Yes, we see".

All in jest

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

You're so kind

There, I feel so much better now!

[tree monkey]

18 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

There, I feel so much better now!

Sorry all, my spelling ineptitude knows few bounds

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

Sorry all, my spelling ineptitude knows few bounds

That's not right, you are supposed to be outraged!

[tree monkey]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

That's not right, you are supposed to be outraged!

Oh sorry, hang on

 

 

Cough.

 

Look you, just STOP editing my posts, I am so OUTRAGED

 

Is that ok?

[system 4-50]

If, in the unlikely event that you felt somebody was contributing either nothing useful to debates, or alternatively more than your brain could cope with, you could put that member on your ignore list. But not if they are a Mod.

[mross]

If you choose to ignore one member, what happens when a decent, ordinary person quotes the offending member?  Will you see the quote?

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, mross said:

If you choose to ignore one member, what happens when a decent, ordinary person quotes the offending member?  Will you see the quote?

Yes.

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

That's not right, you are supposed to be outraged!

I wonder if anyone has ever been inraged (as opposed to enraged)?  

[tree monkey]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I wonder if anyone has ever been inraged (as opposed to enraged)?  

Once, it was worth it briefly but required some surgery to remove

[cuthound]

Just now, tree monkey said:

Once, it was worth it briefly but required some surgery to remove

[nicknorman]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Oh sorry, hang on

 

 

Cough.

 

Look you, just STOP editing my posts, I am so OUTRAGED

 

Is that ok?

Better!

[Mac of Cygnet]

Where's the 'off topic' emoji gone?  But not really off topic, as it's about moderators.  Why is Mr Arhy the only mod who can receive (and I think give) greenies?  Is he some sort of hybrid?

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Where's the 'off topic' emoji gone?  But not really off topic, as it's about moderators.  Why is Mr Arhy the only mod who can receive (and I think give) greenies?  Is he some sort of hybrid?

He can't. Well not from my login anyway.

 

But that's not to say he isn't a hybrid.

Edited May 19, 2017 by nicknorman

[rusty69]

8 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Where's the 'off topic' emoji gone?  But not really off topic, as it's about moderators.  Why is Mr Arhy the only mod who can receive (and I think give) greenies?  Is he some sort of hybrid?

Not sure he can receive, but can give!

Ooo  err matron 

Edited May 19, 2017 by rusty69

[Mac of Cygnet]

13 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

He can't. Well not from my login anyway.

 

But that's not to say he isn't a hybrid.

Ah, I see his green arrow has now disappeared.  It was there until recently.  But I think he still gives them.

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Ah, I see his green arrow has now disappeared.  It was there until recently.  But I think he still gives them.

So you're saying he can give it, but can't take it. We have a name for that...

 

edit: oh poo, beaten by rusty!

Edited May 19, 2017 by nicknorman

[DHutch]

On 16/05/2017 at 13:03, DHutch said:

.....while there may at times be a place for controlled moderator input where a post is for instance particularly poorly formatted, leading to a significant lack of clarity in the thread, moderator input to correct a post should in the main be avoided. Certainly I would not expect a moderator to be editing another members post to correct the grammar.

20 hours ago, Starcoaster said:

I would welcome a definitive statement from Daniel regarding protocol for a moderator to edit the spelling and grammar within other people's posts please.

I can fairly say that if someone was ever rude enough to do that to me I would throw a pretty epic flounce. 

To expand on my previous comments on this:

• A moderators primary duty is to implement the policing of the site rules and guideline, and it is expected the vast majority of their work will be in that role. Much of which will be reactionary based on user reports.
• No moderator should edit a post to correct the spelling, grammar, or punctuation of that post. Moderators must not at any point edit a post in a way which changes its meaning or intention.
• Where content is in breach of the site rules, typically a post should be removed in its entirety, exceptions to this being where the majority of a post is sound and only a small and discrete section of the post is in breach while the remainder is of valuable contribution to the thread.  
• Any time content is removed, the member should be contacted and supplied with a copy of the removed content as well as an explanation of why the content was removed. Typically this should be done via the 'warnings' system, either with warning points allocated, or as a zero-points 'verbal' warning. Verbal warnings may also at times be issues via PM, at the moderators discretion. 
• In addition to this moderators my perform 'caretaking' operations such as merging or hiding duplicated posts, splitting topics, or moving topics to the correct forum area.
• In extreme cases where particularly and clearly unintentionally poor formatting leads to a post being significantly hard to read, the formatting may be corrected. Where topic titles exclude the topic in the descriptions, it may be added in addition to the given title.
• Any time a post is edited under a caretaking operation, a comment should be left in the 'edited by' box detailing the reason, or a post should me made in the thread to detail that is has been split/merged/moved.

 

15 hours ago, Athy said:

There are times when correcting a typo does no harm: for instance, recently someone wrote about a "bulge pump". Now, I do quite like the idea of a bulge pump...but changing the "u" to an "I" ...   ....does no harm whatsoever. (I did not change it, incidentally!)

While I can see and understand the angle you are coming at, I disagree that it is the role of a moderator to correct spellings or typos within a users post.

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

If deleting, a PM containing a copy of the deleted text is good form, as it gives the member the opportunity to re-draft their text in a compliant manner and re-post. 

As above, is content is removed, members should always be informed and this should include a copy of the removed content.

 

If the above has not been clear to the moderation team, and if this has led to posts being moderated in a way members are not happy with due to incomplete direction from me as site owner then I apologise for that and will circulate the above to the site staff and revise the moderator guidelines to add appropriate clarity where it is required.

 

Daniel

[Starcoaster]

Thank you Daniel.

[nicknorman]

Recently someone used the f-word (ending -ed) not in a particularly offensive way, but I appreciate that it shouldn't really be used. I quoted that post in reply as it was a dialogue between me and him. Well not too surprisingly said word f***ed got change to "in trouble" both in his post and where I'd quoted it. Fine, except that there was no sign that the posts had been edited. In the "good old days" there would be an "edited by xxx (mod) to remove swearing" or the like.

Has there been a deliberate policy change to have mods edit posts "silently"? Or is it an unintended "feature" of the new forum software? I have to say I don't particularly like the idea that someone else can edit my posts without there being any visible trace. It will look as though I've said something when in fact I haven't. And of course in this specific case, my post, with the quoted word removed, now looks slightly odd because I made a joking reference to said word which is now totally out of context.

[DHutch]

Edited posts should appear with the edited by line as before, and where practical the member in question should be contacted. Alternatively a comment can be made within the thread.

If this is now the case I or @RichM will look into it.

 

Daniel 

[nicknorman]

8 hours ago, DHutch said:

Edited posts should appear with the edited by line as before, and where practical the member in question should be contacted. Alternatively a comment can be made within the thread.

If this is now the case I or @RichM will look into it.

 

Daniel 

This is the relevant post that was "silently" edited, along with the quote in my following post.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by nicknorman

[GUMPY]

On another forum which Nick and I frequent that runs the same software as CWDF swear words are automatically replaced with **** thus removing the need of any editing of posts by Mods.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Loddon