I'm creating this thread as a spinoff of the http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/feedback/414020-sb-report-card-part-2-a.html thread so as to not derail it.
Before we go any further on this discussion, I'd like to point out a few things.
1. I'm posting this based on my own personal curiosity after reading some of the responses there. I'm also asking this question in general, and not related to a specific staff member or incident.
2. This is not being done as a staff request, or under the premise of changing the way anything is done. Of course, if there is an overwhelming consensus we will take it into consideration, but that's not the intent here.
3. Users make somewhere around 1500 posts per day. Moderators are volunteers here, with many other daily commitments. While we enjoy being here, it's near impossible to monitor every thread and every post made on a daily basis.
4. The overwhelming majority of moderator actions come as a result from reported posts by other users. If a thread has been reported and become volatile, we may keep an eye on it, but we don't just go looking for things to moderate because we're bored. The same goes for users. If we have repeated contact with a user, it's because that user is continuing to be involved in some sort of an issue, not because we've just decided to pick on them.
5. We'd much rather spend our time interacting with other members and participating in threads in a positive way.
. Finally, the main thing that prompted me to post this thread is the following comment:
Moderators walk a very fine line in this regard. We will remove information that is in blatant disregard to established guidelines followed by major certifying agencies which is brought to our attention. Many lesser points are often left to the users to counter. Part of the reason is stated in my list above - we can't be everywhere at once. A second part is that if we attempt to regulate every questionable comment, then people will feel stifled and it opens up liability if we miss something.
Hopefully this gives a bit of insight into some of the how and why's of moderation and I'm looking forward to the feedback on the poll. Also, please include explanations of your answer to help us have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.
Before we go any further on this discussion, I'd like to point out a few things.
1. I'm posting this based on my own personal curiosity after reading some of the responses there. I'm also asking this question in general, and not related to a specific staff member or incident.
2. This is not being done as a staff request, or under the premise of changing the way anything is done. Of course, if there is an overwhelming consensus we will take it into consideration, but that's not the intent here.
3. Users make somewhere around 1500 posts per day. Moderators are volunteers here, with many other daily commitments. While we enjoy being here, it's near impossible to monitor every thread and every post made on a daily basis.
4. The overwhelming majority of moderator actions come as a result from reported posts by other users. If a thread has been reported and become volatile, we may keep an eye on it, but we don't just go looking for things to moderate because we're bored. The same goes for users. If we have repeated contact with a user, it's because that user is continuing to be involved in some sort of an issue, not because we've just decided to pick on them.
5. We'd much rather spend our time interacting with other members and participating in threads in a positive way.
. Finally, the main thing that prompted me to post this thread is the following comment:
Mostly I ignore stupid responses but would like to see the MODs take care of some of the really stupid tread openers. I have nothing specific in mind but sometimes feel like answering, something like: Of course you are going to get wet if you go scuba diving in a wet suit... I post a lot less than I used to because of the inane questions and stupid answers, I can't correct it and won't try, but there are a lot of half truths and bogus answers floating around here on the board.
Moderators walk a very fine line in this regard. We will remove information that is in blatant disregard to established guidelines followed by major certifying agencies which is brought to our attention. Many lesser points are often left to the users to counter. Part of the reason is stated in my list above - we can't be everywhere at once. A second part is that if we attempt to regulate every questionable comment, then people will feel stifled and it opens up liability if we miss something.
Hopefully this gives a bit of insight into some of the how and why's of moderation and I'm looking forward to the feedback on the poll. Also, please include explanations of your answer to help us have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.