No.2 if your safety net for not having people discuss in public why they were moderated because of the chances that the moderation team will try to bring up past cases from many years ago as a way to embarrass and silence the member 'But look what member did 6 years ago, they did this and had to be moderated, they wrote this, can you not see how things have not changed' or words to hat effect.
You've got it backwards. We know it can be embarrassing to have your moderation history exposed in a public explanation of why you were moderated. We really, really don't like doing that - we strongly prefer to handle moderation privately for that very reason. We also feel that why a user was moderated is that user's business and no one else's.
The only reason we allow users to waive the right to privacy they have under the rules is that some users have felt quite strongly that they should be able to do so. This comes up when users get angry that they can't post about specific moderation in threads. Personally, I think waiving the right to private moderation discussions is a really bad idea. We don't like embarrassing people, but that's often what ends up happening when users waive their right to privacy.
I think it's because users just don't remember their own moderation histories. In my experience, users are often very surprised when we quote their histories to them when they ask why they for example received a suspension for a minor problem. In those cases, the user usually has already so many reminders that it was time to escalate.
First of all, every single one of the messages I have gotten from a moderator has closed immediately and there is no ability to respond. Offering in your response to use the contact form and read the FAQs is not a good out for you and the MR team, frankly its a bit condescending and completely invalidating.
I think there's something you're not aware of here. When users complain about moderation, that starts a review of that moderation. Administrators review the moderation. You can't have the same moderators who made the decision, review that decision. You need a new set of eyes.
In addition, users who complain about moderation sometimes bring up good points. Those lead to discussions among the staff. Sometimes they lead to the rules being changed or adjusted. If the complaint only exists in a PM discussion, those points get lost. When you reach out via the Contact Us form, everything is documented and it's transparent, because the whole staff can see and discuss.
So not being able to respond in exactly the way
you want to (by answering the moderation message) is neither condescending nor invalidating - it's the opposite. It makes sure that your complaints are given a serious and through handling and discussion. It's how we make sure that what you write is looked at throughly and taken seriously before you receive a response.
Surprising that on such a heavily commercialized forum like this, the mods are not compensated.
I see your point. On such a large site, it would make sense to compensate moderators. On the other hand, I much prefer this model. It means that I can donate the free time I have available and choose to give to the site, which I very much enjoy. For me, it's a way to give back to a site that has given me so much help. I also really enjoy the cooperation and good tone among the mods and admins, it's fun and I enjoy them as people as well.
If there were fulltime mods, I would expect them to be paid. But as it is, we give the time we have to give and no more. For me, it's perfect.
I beg to differ.
What is wrong with praise when something has been done well? Or, thanking someone?
Or, at the very least,recognising and acknowledging the work that has been done, because, I suspect that the time commitment may be considerable for those who do it.
Moreover, in the absence of payment (because one's time is always valuable, and that should be respected), it is all too easy to assume that because one is not paid, that, therefore, one's work - and moderating this sort of forum is work - is worth nothing.
In the past, I have disagreed (sometimes profoundly) with some of the stances taken by the owner of this forum, but, at the end of the day, it is a privately owned company, and the owner has a right to choose what forum rules exist, how they should be enforced, and how it should be moderated.
The fact that this sort of discussion is allowed to take place on the forum, is, in itself, to my mind, a positive development.
I agree - why shouldn't we be able to praise those around us who donate their time? I'm often grateful when I see what people do voluntarily around me in various contexts. They choose to do so, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it.
I agree but I understand their side, too.
While I appreciate the mod's work, I've noticed some of the most popular posts on this site get outright deleted. [...]
I just don't see the point in deleting posts that aren't against any rules and create engagement and responses. It seems counterintuitive to the reason of even having a forum. It seems as though if ANYONE reports a post of yours, it gets deleted.
A post is not moderated based on how popular it is, it's moderated on the basis of the rules. Posts are ONLY moderated if they break rules (or they are just removed without it counting against them if they are responses to posts that were deleted because those posts broke rules, and no longer make sense in context).
Many reports are rejected. Your post will never be deleted simply because another user reports it - there has to be a rules violation. For instance, we often see that users report posts where they just don't agree with the content or are irritated at the user. Those aren't reasons to moderate.
It is indeed very subjective and evidently has a hierarchy of offenses. I recall quite a while ago a difference of opinion here with someone that ended with the person being rather insulting. At the end of his insult, he used the word "capisce" (sometimes having other spellings). The person was foreign and the spelling was incorrect for both English and his native tongue. I merely said - if you are going to insult me at least spell it (capisce) correctly. I got cited for correcting someone's spelling and his insult went unnoticed by the moderator. I had a bit of a chuckle as did my friends and it remains an example that it is all very subjective even with the best of intentions.
There are tens of thousands of posts made daily. We can't see them all. If we don't see your post in our own browsing and if no one reports it, it doesn't get moderated, unfortunately. But that's not a reason to criticise moderation, in my opinion. That's a reason to be a team player and hit the report button if you see something you feel might be a violation. It's certainly not a reason to purposely break a rule.
It's a shame you chose to break the rules in that post.
