On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:56:39 +0000, The Todal wrote:

> I hesitate to criticise the moderators of another group. But I suppose
> this is a forum where experience ought to be shared.

As a new member of a new moderation panel, I'm definitely prepared to 
listen to the voice of experience.

> Some of the difficulties we have had to consider in ULM are:
> 
> b) how uniform the decisions should be. I am strongly in favour of
> uniformity - whether your post is accepted ought never to depend on
> whether you get the strict moderator or the lax moderator. And in
> general the approach that works best is a permissive approach, which
> brings me to

It is (obviously) desirable that there should be a consistent moderation 
policy, and that moderators should base their decisions not on their own 
reaction so much as their perception of what the considered judgement of 
the whole panel would be; however, that sort of consensus takes a while 
to develop, and, while it's developing, there will inevitably be some 
inconsistent decisions.

> c) whether posts should be rejected because the moderator strongly
> disagrees with the content. Surely they should not be rejected on those
> grounds, even if there are factual errors or mistakes about
> laws/regulations.

Strongly agree. This should never happen. A moderator should not allow 
personal feelings about a post, its content or its poster affect the 
judgement of whether it should be passed or rejected.
 
> d) whether troublesome posters should be treated more strictly than
> others. Surely they should not be. Troublesome is a very subjective
> concept anyway.

Strongly disagree, on both counts. Our remit is specifically and 
explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of 
interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to 
exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.

I should say clearly that I take a harder line than many of my fellow 
moderators here; after all, all men have their faults, and mine is being 
wicked. But I see no reason not to blacklist certain troublemakers now - 
initially for short periods - to pull them up sharp and let them know 
that if they can't amend their ways they will be permanently excluded.

Furthermore, there is nothing subjective about counting the ratio of 
passed to rejected posts a contributor has clocked up, nor counting the 
number of 'appeals' made here of elsewhere. 

> I should perhaps mention that one ULM moderator, a very good one,
> resigned on the grounds that moderators were apparently rejecting posts
> (rightly) from one provocative poster, but taunting him in postings in
> the unmoderated group.  This is a tricky area. Maybe moderators ought to
> be whiter than white.  I am not yet persuaded. I do think however that
> moderators would be wrong to pursue a feud against a poster (eg
> constantly following up that person's posts with a belittling comment)
> whether inside or outside the moderated group.

Agree; a moderator absolutely should not moderate the posts of someone 
with whom he is carrying on any sort of on-going feud.

> e) to what extent moderators should be ready and willing to explain
> their decisions and justify their actions. One of our moderators took
> the view that you should never apologise and never explain. I think that
> is the wrong approach. 

Judith has taken to posting in her signature the following quote which 
she attributes to me:

"It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final."

When she first used it it was a very slight misquote; but since I 
entirely agree with the sentiment I have adopted it. People whose posts 
are rejected fall into two groups: those who appreciate that this is only 
Usenet after all, and that no single post is of such deathless prose as 
to be worth making a song and dance about; and those who will never be 
satisfied with any explanation but will continue a tendentious argument 
ad nauseam.

The first group don't need an explanation and the second won't accept one 
(or believe one if given) so explanations just erode the signal to noise 
ratio and have no benefit.

> Still, others may disagree and sometimes I am persuaded to change my
> mind.

<aol/>

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.