Moderation policy

[Poulp']

What is The Org's policy on moderation?

Let me use a concrete example: a poster posted a message advocating piracy.
Do you moderators:

a/ wipe the post out of existence.

b/ delete the harmful parts. Warn the offender, publicly, in his post, and through a PM, but leave his post where it was - most probably with a line or two of **********.

Witnessing case a/ at TWC left me a bit sad about this place.
Sad but absolutely not disappointed, that would mean I had any sort of expectation to begin with.
Now, The Org is a warm place (I'm thinking of you EB guys) and I must confess I'm expecting something else from this place and its people.

This leads me to ask three precise questions:

Is there a commun, standardized policy for moderation on the forum?
Or are the moderators free to enforce the ToU as they see fit?
Do you know the line between censorship and moderation?

Please don't brush the question aside, saying it's no big deal. It is.
It's the kind of right so easy to lose on the internet, with no "who checks the checkers?" and which requires Albert Rosenfield's strength to enforce everyday.

Since I'm primarilly addressing moderators, please abstain from "yeah, it's cool" "it's the Internet..." posts.
I know the Internet, and that every under 12 girl on a chat is actually a FBI agent. I know all that.
But there are three questions I wish I knew the answers.

At the very least, I hope I raise a little awareness.

Fun fact, when I used to moderate, I was nicknamed "**** Ze Boot" because I used to perma-ban second time offenders, while I was a friendly case b/ with first timers.
**** being my real name, please understand I'm leaving it out.

[TinCow]

The answers to your questions are in the Org Rules, as shown in the FAQ:

Forum Rules

...

The Staff have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is warranted. This is a manual process, however, so please realise that we may not be able to remove messages immediately. The Staff also have the ability to edit messages by users. When this is deemed necessary, the Staff will make every effort to highlight any edit, as this avoids misunderstandings as to the author of any given text. However, if the content of a post or topic is determined to be predominantly objectionable, it will be deleted instead.

So, the short answer to the questions is that Moderators are free to edit or delete content as they see fit to enforce the rules. Thus, the answers to questions 1 and 2 are both yes. On a practical basis, wholesale deletion is almost never required, and I cannot remember the last time a post was simply deleted, unless it was a post by a spambot. In addition, no post is ever really 'deleted', they all remain in the database and can be easily recovered if such an action is felt necessary.

As far as your third question, that's a matter of personal opinion. One man's moderation is another man's censorship. See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

[edit]That reminds me, about time we had a copy of the FAQ in the Watchtower.

[econ21]

Let me use a concrete example: a poster posted a message advocating piracy.
Do you moderators:

a/ wipe the post out of existence.

b/ delete the harmful parts. Warn the offender, publicly, in his post, and through a PM, but leave his post where it was - most probably with a line or two of **********.

TC's explained the principles. On your specific example, I think most moderators here would do (b). Typically warnings are private, not public. But when someone advocates piracy, it's common for the moderator to say something in the thread, to stop the flood gates opening.

[Poulp']

I think most moderators here would do (b). Typically warnings are private, not public. But when someone advocates piracy, it's common for the moderator to say something in the thread, to stop the flood gates opening.

Sorry, it seems I didn't paraphrase enough.

My pratice was to edit the post:
" ***********************
adm: edited for violationg ToU..."

and PM him:
"you've violated rule X and Z in your post (insert quote).
Please read the ToU again..."

I'll grant you that pre made message and copy paste saved me time.

Does this forum have a... 'always-show-post' (?) feature? Ie, a post appearing after the first post on first page and at the top of every page after, mine were usually saying "From this point on, any post remotedly looking as flame or flood shall be dealt with accordingly. Please keep it civil."

On a practical basis, wholesale deletion is almost never required, and I cannot remember the last time a post was simply deleted, unless it was a post by a spambot. In addition, no post is ever really 'deleted', they all remain in the database and can be easily recovered if such an action is felt necessary.

Your answer is unsurprising for the first part (absent from my excerpt) and a tiny bit reassuring in the second part. It all boils down to everybody -posters and mods- doing their part, but please understand that case b/ is faster and easier but not stronger.

I like to maintain the stream of information and wiping a post feels like you're watching a videotape and suddenly, there's 30 seconds of commercials your little sister recorded on it. My example is old, but I hope you're getting it.


With all that said, thanks for your reading and your replies.

[TinCow]

Does this forum have a... 'always-show-post' (?) feature? Ie, a post appearing after the first post on first page and at the top of every page after, mine were usually saying "From this point on, any post remotedly looking as flame or flood shall be dealt with accordingly. Please keep it civil."

No, we do not have a feature like that. However, we do have a large number of very mature and objective Moderators who tend to handle things better than any other forum I've ever seen. The Org's reputation for being a "warm place" is in large part due to their work.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bear in mind that the Backroom is slightly different, in that posts are deleted a bit more often than in other forums due to the risk of wildfires. When tempers are fraying, sometimes it proves useful to clear out the source of the outbreak before even more members read it and fly off the handle.

[Ludens]

Well, I do delete posts that violate the rules, but only if they add nothing to the discussion. Otherwise I will simply edit the offending bits and leave the rest up. Is that what you are objecting to?

I am also not sure what you mean with "censorship". Technically speaking, deleting any message, whether about moderation policy or about viagra, is censorship.