vpFREE2 Forums

Volunteer Moderator Full Moderation SOP

In a message dated 2/18/2003 1:45:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
vpfreevp@yahoo.com writes:

We're going to a fully moderated status soon, to keep messages
on topic, and to ensure that all posts adhere to vpFREE Rules,
Policies, and Posting Guidelines. Moderation isn't intended to
stifle differing opinions, but rather to foster civility in a
non-disruptive environment.

Public or private feedback is invited on this first draft of the
guidelines that VM's will be using.

This is a huge error.

The original stated purpose for the formation of this group was to provide an
alternative to the oversight provided by Skip on his board. That was the
"free" in "VPFree." But even Skip doesn't censor posts prior to their being
posted. He will squash a thread he deems inappropriate AFTER the thread gets
going and will, on occasion, put a disruptive member on moderated status for
a while (or at least, Ahem, so I am told).

This change reminds me of Coke casually mentioning some years ago that they
were reformulating their product so that it would henceforth taste like
Pepsi. For those who don't remember this incident, the uproar that followed
resulted in an astonishingly prompt reversal of that ridiculous decision (who
needed TWO Pepsi's?)

Censorship sucks. Period. Adults shouldn't need to be protected from the
words of others. Enforce the rules/guidelines that exist. If there are
repeated violations then throw the guilty parties into moderated status or
off the board entirely (Yeah, I know).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is well-stated and I agree. But I sense he's made up his mind.

gj

···

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 chiefvrwc2@aol.com wrote:

This is a huge error.

The original stated purpose for the formation of this group was to provide an
alternative to the oversight provided by Skip on his board. That was the
"free" in "VPFree." But even Skip doesn't censor posts prior to their being
posted. He will squash a thread he deems inappropriate AFTER the thread gets
going and will, on occasion, put a disruptive member on moderated status for
a while (or at least, Ahem, so I am told).

This change reminds me of Coke casually mentioning some years ago that they
were reformulating their product so that it would henceforth taste like
Pepsi. For those who don't remember this incident, the uproar that followed
resulted in an astonishingly prompt reversal of that ridiculous decision (who
needed TWO Pepsi's?)

Censorship sucks. Period. Adults shouldn't need to be protected from the
words of others. Enforce the rules/guidelines that exist. If there are
repeated violations then throw the guilty parties into moderated status or
off the board entirely (Yeah, I know).

I concur, another vote for non moderation unless individually it's needed. I think with the demise of the recent bad batch of posts, things are more than in line. Why create more work, volunteers or not.

To take a quote from Blazing Saddles.. " We don't need no stinkin' badges... [moderation]"

ADR

···

At 09:23 PM 2/19/03, you wrote:

Censorship sucks. Period. Adults shouldn't need to be protected from the
words of others. Enforce the rules/guidelines that exist. If there are
repeated violations then throw the guilty parties into moderated status or
off the board entirely (Yeah, I know).