Moderator policies

[Guest]

So is it the policy of railroad.net to permit moderators to change the meaning of users' posts without notification to the user and without adding an "edited by moderator" tag?

[DutchRailnut]

only certain moderators Bob, they claim to know what author means.

[efin98]

Did the post(s) violate that forum's rules? Did it contain a link that expanded the window beyond acceptable limits? And was the information removed relevant to the thread? If the answer is no to any of the preceeding questions then there isn't really any reason why the moderator should have changed the post(s). It's his/her choice and right to do that in their forum, whether posters like it or not.

[Otto Vondrak]

Let's pretend that I came into the middle of this conversation and not quite sure what you're talking about. Bob, can you please explain the situation to us?

[Mike Roque]

So is it the policy of railroad.net to permit moderators to change the meaning of users' posts without notification to the user and without adding an "edited by moderator" tag?

The general rule of thumb is to either advise the poster for an edit or kill the post. Editing isn't really fair...there's no indication that the moderator has done it, so it can have the appearance of putting words in the mouth of the poster.

[Guest]

I posted a sentence beginning with, "The average railfan would pee in his pants if...", and it was changed to, "The average railfan would be elated if..." The problems regarding the moderator's action are:

1. I don't see any problem with the original statement (but I realize the moderator may feel otherwise or perhaps the statement hit too close to home).
2. The first statement has some connotations regarding the person's maturity/behavior/etc which are absent in the second statement, therefore the meaning has been changed.
3. The moderator did not make any indication that he edited my post, so people would think I wrote the edited sentence, when I didn't.
4. The moderator didn't notify me that the post was edited.

I suggest that you review your policies and ensure they are understood by your moderators. You might also reconsider your method for selecting moderators. Other successful sites don't accept volunteers; potential moderators are asked if they're interested. My opinion is that results in a better forum.

[Irish Chieftain]

Hello...

Relating to the policy mentioned by Mike, is this covered in the website user agreement? I found a few conflicting tenets there:

In connection with your use of the Site, you agree you will not:
Delete or revise any Material posted by any other person or entity

So would this nullify the responsibility of the moderator to make judgment calls regarding edits and deletions? In light of this, of course:

Railroad.net is a public community. As such, members may encounter objectionable opinions and/or links to objectionable content. We take steps to limit the possibility for abuse, but we cannot be liable for the opinions expressed by our members. Use this web site at your own risk. If you have concerns about abuse, please contact us immediately.

and:

In connection with your use of the Site, you agree you will not:
Transmit any message, information, data, text, software or images, or other content ("Material") that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, or otherwise objectionable that may invade another's right of privacy or publicity

It's about four centuries since the KJV Bible was first published, and words like "piss" that appeared in 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 have passed into the objectionable category for many. Merely a judgment call on my part—in which case Mike and crew will have to better define bounds, if they have the time.

PS. In the past, I was asked if I were interested in moderating the forums I currently handle, save one.

[Otto Vondrak]

In my opinion, the moderator should NOT have changed your words. That is not what the tools are there for. However, do be aware that this site has a "filter" applied to it. If you try to post certain naughty words, they get filtered out. We had one young man test the filter over and over again last summer. I accidentally added "ass" to the filter and nearly corrupted every post about MASSachusetts. Fortunately, the filter is reversible.

-otto-

[Robert Paniagua]

I'm on the other end of this. As a moderator, I sometimes modify posts for better clarity including correct spelling and grammar and innapropiate, offensive words.

[AmtrakFan]

Mr. P,
I have to agree with you here with the clarity sometimes I don't get what I'm talking about.

[Otto Vondrak]

Don't fix people's posts. If they post something inappropriate, then delete the post. I think we know what "inappropriate" means, right??

-otto-

[Nelson Bay]

Mr. P,
I have to agree with you here with the clarity sometimes I don't get what I'm talking about.

I agree also. I don't understand what most 15 yearold folks are trying to say. Even if they have jobs.

[Guest]

You guys can run your site anyway you want. But in my opinion, editing should only be done to remove things like personal information, e.g., if someone posts a phone number (and even then it should be changed to all X's, and there should be a note that it was edited by the moderator).

If someone is unable to spell properly or express themselves clearly, that should not be changed, as the spelling/grammar is a reflection on that person's abilities and such things can be important to the readers of the posts. Besides, you probably have something better to do with your time than correct other peoples' mistakes.

If a post does have something objectionable, it shouldn't be edited -- it should be deleted. The key is what is and what isn't objectionable. In my opinion, my post was not objectionable. If my choice of words was a poor reflection on me, well that's my problem (not the moderator's) and readers can draw their own conclusions.

Bottom line is that I think the moderators should not be editing for content/clarity/spelling, except for posting of personal information. Anything which does not meet the forum rules should simply be deleted. And it's the responsibility of the people running the site to ensure that such procedures are clearly communicated to the moderators.

[Guest]

In my opinion, the moderator should NOT have changed your words. That is not what the tools are there for. However, do be aware that this site has a "filter" applied to it. If you try to post certain naughty words, they get filtered out. We had one young man test the filter over and over again last summer. I accidentally added "ass" to the filter and nearly corrupted every post about MASSachusetts. Fortunately, the filter is reversible.

-otto-

Excuse me, but this is done on a regular basis on the Amtrak forum. A forum in which you yourself co-moderate Mr. Vondrak.

[F3A]

Sorry, the above post belonged to me.

Anyway, as I was saying, Mr. Vondrak, the policy of editing posts has long been done on the Amtrak Forum, a fourm in which you yourself co-moderate.

Surely you were aware that this practice was being done did you not?