Rule 23

[Mr Whippy]

Plenty of us have enjoyed this and many other forums for decades and yet it feels like we’re falling foul.

It’d be very helpful to balance ‘rule 23’ with a provision of more information at the time of moderation.


I’ve been on n PH for 20 years and said all kinds of things but feel like I’m skirting on the edges more these days.

I know this is because of the creep of moderating any speech that might be “problematic” for myriad reasons, even if it could be argued it was exercising free speech.


Given this disparity between free speech and PH forum safe speech, I think it’d be valuable to share the reasoning of the enforcement of a rule, rather than just the rule itself.


Ie, this topic is likely to be closed under rule 23, despite it being broad feedback about all moderation being vague and unhelpful to users, rather than rule 23 which is about specific cases.


I’m all for moderation, but done badly as I feel it is now, isn’t winning users to your cause.

Help us out a bit and I’ll try my best to help you out.

But if I genuinely don’t get what I’ve said that falls foul of your rules, then it only damages the forums appeal.

Kind regards

[Heartworm]

A private entity, such as pistonheads, has no obligation to allow free peach.

[DanL]

This rule?

23. Abuse towards our moderators will not be tolerated and will result in your account being suspended or banned. You cannot contact moderators directly. Do not start a Website Feedback thread about specific moderation cases, these will be deleted. If you have a complaint or issue with the moderation of the forums, please consult our forum FAQs and site Terms and Conditions.

When would you abuse the mods (or anyone) and why? Or is it that website feedback to ask why a thread was closed is something you’d want to make use of?

The rule itself seems quite straightforward - there’s no right of appeal / question in the website feedback section.

[eldar]

DanL said:

This rule?

23. Abuse towards our moderators will not be tolerated and will result in your account being suspended or banned. You cannot contact moderators directly. Do not start a Website Feedback thread about specific moderation cases, these will be deleted. If you have a complaint or issue with the moderation of the forums, please consult our forum FAQs and site Terms and Conditions.

When would you abuse the mods (or anyone) and why? Or is it that website feedback to ask why a thread was closed is something you’d want to make use of?

The rule itself seems quite straightforward - there’s no right of appeal / question in the website feedback section.

How do you know who is/isn't a moderator? Does the rule apply if the moderator is posting as a participant rather than as a mod?

[TownIdiot]

I'd have thought he's asking about the later part of the rule - asking questions about moderation decisions .

I don't think anyone would expect to get away with abusing another member, let alone a mod

[DanL]

eldar said:

How do you know who is/isn't a moderator? Does the rule apply if the moderator is posting as a participant rather than as a mod?

So simply don’t abuse anyone.

[Louis Balfour]

Heartworm said:

A private entity, such as pistonheads, has no obligation to allow free peach.

What about nectarine? Any obligation there?

The OP has a point though. PH has changed massively since I joined. If you don't want to be banned you have to be bland.

It's not Rule 23 though, it's just how the place has become. There is a great deal of intolerance now.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Monday 21st October 08:02

[eldar]

DanL said:

eldar said:

How do you know who is/isn't a moderator? Does the rule apply if the moderator is posting as a participant rather than as a mod?

So simply don’t abuse anyone.

Then why have a specific rule for moderators? Isn't don't abuse anyone covered by existing rules.

[DanL]

eldar said:

DanL said:

eldar said:

How do you know who is/isn't a moderator? Does the rule apply if the moderator is posting as a participant rather than as a mod?

So simply don’t abuse anyone.

Then why have a specific rule for moderators? Isn't don't abuse anyone covered by existing rules.

What’s your point, sorry - I’m not grasping it. Is it that the problem with this rule is that someone might want to abuse someone and can’t in case they’re a mod, or that there’s some slightly clumsy wording as it starts out by duplicating something covered elsewhere?

Either way, it’s easy to avoid falling foul of that part of the rule by not abusing anyone.

It’s clear that the rule, when read as a whole, is designed to stop the mods taking any crap from members and to give an easy out of a ban (with a handy rule to point to) if they do.

I’m sure most members on here are entirely reasonable. I’m equally sure there are one or two fruit loops who will try and chase things through obsessively in the real world - we’ve certainly had tales in the forums of members who have been stalked and otherwise harassed at work based on what they’ve posed here.

[DanL]

Louis Balfour said:

What about nectarine? Any obligation there?

The OP has a point though. PH has changed massively since I joined. If you don't want to be banned you have to be bland.

It's not Rule 23 though, it's just how the place has become. There is a great deal of intolerance now.

Edited by Louis Balfour on Monday 21st October 08:02

I’ve been here aaaaages. I’d say it’s not a PH thing specifically, it’s how society has changed in the last 20+ years.

That said, I can remember a few members splitting off and setting up another forum (chew the fat, if memory serves) probably around 20 years ago because they weren’t happy with the moderation. It’s always been a complaint that you can’t say anything here anymore.

[milesgiles]

The problem here is the same as any other form I know.. snowflakes keep reporting people

[eldar]

DanL said:

eldar said:

DanL said:

eldar said:

How do you know who is/isn't a moderator? Does the rule apply if the moderator is posting as a participant rather than as a mod?

So simply don’t abuse anyone.

Then why have a specific rule for moderators? Isn't don't abuse anyone covered by existing rules.

What’s your point, sorry - I’m not grasping it. Is it that the problem with this rule is that someone might want to abuse someone and can’t in case they’re a mod, or that there’s some slightly clumsy wording as it starts out by duplicating something covered elsewhere?

Either way, it’s easy to avoid falling foul of that part of the rule by not abusing anyone.

It’s clear that the rule, when read as a whole, is designed to stop the mods taking any crap from members and to give an easy out of a ban (with a handy rule to point to) if they do.

I’m sure most members on here are entirely reasonable. I’m equally sure there are one or two fruit loops who will try and chase things through obsessively in the real world - we’ve certainly had tales in the forums of members who have been stalked and otherwise harassed at work based on what they’ve posed here.

My query is how do you identify a mod, and does R23 apply, rather than normal rules, when the mod off duty.

Slightly clumsy wording, really, no other issue.

[vaud]

eldar said:

My query is how do you identify a mod, and does R23 apply, rather than normal rules, when the mod off duty.

Slightly clumsy wording, really, no other issue.

I have always thought that mods should have 2 accounts. One as a mod (and clearly shown as a mod) and one private (from which they can’t moderate). Just my 2p.

[DanL]

eldar said:

My query is how do you identify a mod, and does R23 apply, rather than normal rules, when the mod off duty.

Slightly clumsy wording, really, no other issue.

Ah, I get ya. I’d have thought the outcome is the same either way, so I’m not sure it really matters. Feels like the rule is built to cover everything in one place though, to save saying you’re in breach of rules x and y, and as a result have been suspended.

Not sure why I’m so interested in this, I’m not a mod. Just thinking it all seems reasonably straightforward to me, and I suppose I’m asking to see if I’ve missed something.

[eldar]

DanL said:

eldar said:

My query is how do you identify a mod, and does R23 apply, rather than normal rules, when the mod off duty.

Slightly clumsy wording, really, no other issue.

Ah, I get ya. I’d have thought the outcome is the same either way, so I’m not sure it really matters. Feels like the rule is built to cover everything in one place though, to save saying you’re in breach of rules x and y, and as a result have been suspended.

Not sure why I’m so interested in this, I’m not a mod. Just thinking it all seems reasonably straightforward to me, and I suppose I’m asking to see if I’ve missed something.

No problem I remember some time ago one of the now departed mods somewhat abused their powers, and wondered if that rule was a result of that. There were calls for mods to be more readily identifiable, but that seems not to have happened.

No problem for me.

[Ben Lowden]

While a blanket rule not to be abusive to anyone should cover all bases, we do feel the need to have a separate rule to be kind to moderators as well. The majority of our moderation is done by volunteers - it's a thankless task and the forums wouldn't exist without them. Therefore we quite rightly want to ensure that they're treated with respect.

We have 6,000+ posts a day and due to the number of reports and level of moderation involved, it's simply not feasible to explain to everyone why their post has been removed. We do notify you of the reason broadly but I'm afraid we don't have capacity to do any more than that.

It is worth noting that you won't always get a notification if for example, your post has been deleted because you've quoted another post that broke the rules, or if multiple posts are removed for a single rule breach.

We have internal moderation rules that are followed and for minor breaches you'll get a warning before suspensions/bans are imposed. It's only for repeat breaches and abuse that heavier moderation is applied, which anyone should be able to avoid by being nice to one another.

Certainly moderation has changed here over the last 20 years as the world has and what might have been acceptable a few years ago isn't anymore. We fully appreciate this won't please everyone but we do feel that the forums are now a better place to be than they've ever been, so thank you for your continued contribution.

[ferret50]

vaud said:

eldar said:

My query is how do you identify a mod, and does R23 apply, rather than normal rules, when the mod off duty.

Slightly clumsy wording, really, no other issue.

I have always thought that mods should have 2 accounts. One as a mod (and clearly shown as a mod) and one private (from which they can’t moderate). Just my 2p.

But that would break the 'no multiple accounts' rule and mean that the mods would be banned!



But yes, we really should be able to identify the mods, perhaps by a crown on their username or similar, then when they are spotted posting we can assume that a warning is being issued.

I agree that being a mod is a thankless task, I was daft enough to take the post on some years back on a marque specialist forum and won the annual award for being the most irritating mod two Chimbo's running!

[vaud]

ferret50 said:

But that would break the 'no multiple accounts' rule and mean that the mods would be banned!

FYI - You are allowed a temporary second account if you want to post on a sensitive topic that you don't want attached to your main user name, but you need to ask first and it is temporary. I've done this a couple of times as some PHers know me in the strange and distant real world.

[ferret50]

vaud said:

ferret50 said:

But that would break the 'no multiple accounts' rule and mean that the mods would be banned!

FYI - You are allowed a temporary second account if you want to post on a sensitive topic that you don't want attached to your main user name, but you need to ask first and it is temporary. I've done this a couple of times as some PHers know me in the strange and distant real world.

Ummmm,so you are suggesting that this 'temporary' thing should be extended to mods and made permanent?

Cannot see that working, can you?



Best thing would be adding a 'mod' label when they post, of some sort.

[Ben Lowden]

ferret50 said:

Ummmm,so you are suggesting that this 'temporary' thing should be extended to mods and made permanent?

Cannot see that working, can you?



Best thing would be adding a 'mod' label when they post, of some sort.

Mods already have the ability to do this with a 'PH Team' label like on my post above. But equally they are still members of the community and like to post on threads and not be seen as a mod all of the time, so they have the ability to toggle this on and off.