Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Are CA regionals planned independently by separate committees, or is there some kind of coordination?

I imagine that, absent a CA-based coordinating body, planning would take place at the HQ level; specifically, among several Regional Directors. Is that correct?

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

I am not aware of any direct coordination between the various committees in CA. That being said, the RDs are fairly active, covering 3-4 regionals per 2 RDs (give-or-take a regional or so).

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

ok I was originally not going to say anything but I am going to.

A month or so ago a moderator removed a perfectly productive post in a controversial thread. The opinion in that post happened to be the exact opposite of the moderator. The post was reinstated after people asked for but the premise was still there.

Obviously moderators are going to have opinions on topics that they can post about. But, when it comes to moderating their opinion should be left out of it. By removing that post there was clear censorship something that really bothers me.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Moderating is about making an informed decision. If moderators make a decision, it's often because of information that you may not have, or with a bigger idea in mind that you may not see right away. Back in my day I used to moderate town hall meetings back when people actually met at town hall for those, and sometimes I would have to stop legitimate discussions from going on just because I knew they would devolve into something that would get us nowhere and start getting us off track. Put some trust into the people who are chosen to moderate these forums.

I do agree, though, that you make a fine point about how personal opinions should not be part of making decisions on the macro scale. This applies anywhere, from forum moderation, to general leadership, and even subdivision names.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Each regional has it's own planning committee and every event works with an RD (sometimes 2) to make the event happen.
Usually that same RD attends the event and helps run the show as well.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

That information isn't right.

There is a Non-Profit registered, named FIRST California Robotics, that was announced by one of the RDs at the San Jose kickoff in 2016. To my knowledge, it was formed in late 2015. I know they filed for 501c3, and I believe they have received it. The CIN is C3836142. I don't know anything concrete about their board.

But FIRST California Robotics doesn't have any explicit authority, in terms of running regional events. This is still done by local planning committees, and the appropriate Regional Directors, employed by FIRST. You will notice that donations on the cafirst.org website go to FIRST California Robotics. Also, anyone who read the program books from SVR carefully may have noticed that FIRST California Robotics was a "Friends of the Future" level sponsor of the event.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

The posts were removed because they didn't represent a useful contribution to a thread about a specific event and, instead, spoke to a different topic altogether. You voiced your disagreement with the action at that time, through several channels (and served me with a threat and ultimatum), and the others moderators elected to handle it differently than I did. I recognize that we're a team and that they saw a better course of action available and took it.

Part of our role as moderators is to encourage people to contribute to the site in meaningful, helpful ways by keeping discussion relevant, civil and interesting. We are also responsible for keeping discussion respectful -- and that includes watching for and addressing unprofessional, hateful speech.

We're doing the best we can. I'm sorry that you don't feel that this situation was resolved to your standards and that you continue to raise your concern again and again. What more can we do to satisfy you?

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Mike... here you go on info for that FIRST California Robotics nonprofit...

https://lendindex.com/companies/firs...us_ca/C3836142

There isn't a 990 IRS filing yet with Guidestar.org since the nonprofit was just activated Fall 2015.

--Michael

"Retired Insurance Guy"

Link to me on this new fangled-thingy called The Linkedin and help make me popular or at least appear to be...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/wmichael...ve_tab_profile

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Madison,
Why make this personal. I on purpose did not mention a name or a gender because I wanted to stay professional. That threat and ultimatum I gave you was simply please PM me back by the next day or I am just going to post the censorship concern publicly. I did that because I was convinced I was going to get ignored. I was angry and I agree that was not the best course of action but, Id rather not over blow what it really was. If you want to continue a more personal discussion can we bring this back to PM's?

I agree with all of this. However, what you are saying does not apply to the post you temporarily censored.
Here is the post that was temporarily removed - https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...1&postcount=11

It is extremely respectful, has real experience in it and raises a perfectly legit point albeit opposing your personal views. It became completely relevant to the thread once it was split to become Discussion on All-Girls events yet was deleted until the OP asked for it back publicly. There is nothing unprofessional, hateful, disrespectful or off topic about it. That is the reason it infuriated me so much. A discussion with one opinion is no fun.

I understand your job is difficult and you are a human so rash decisions can be made. I’m sorry for how I acted.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Actually seems like you are the one who is making things personal here. I thought Madison replied in a very respectful way and took responsibility. Not everyone is sensitive to need anonymity to state their opinions, especially when they are confident in their actions. She didn't link to the post (like you did) and simply took ownership over the actions and justifying the moderating team.

You are the one who brought it up, and are apparently sending "ultimatums" to her via PM?? Angry ultimatums sound pretty "personal" to me. And you gave her a one day timeline to reply? People have things to do and don't check Chief Delphi every day. That whole situation seems on a whole rather aggressive to someone who is rather well respected in the community for creating meaningful and constructive discussions.


Unfortunately at that time is was part of another thread (being 234's off season event) So pretty disrespectful/off topic for people to be spamming their all girls thread with legitimacy of girl event messages. It was only split off after, so in my mind that was a perfectly justifiable post to remove from the original thread.




As per the Re: IndyRAGE - All-Girls Comp+ - October 1 line you can obviously see what the original thread was.

With this being said i'm extremely irked by the traction that this "moderator censorship" movement has gained. Just seems like a large sum of individuals are those that are looking to gain some repute within the community trying to gain repute from thin air. The moderation team is doing a fabulous job. They have done so for a long time now.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Thanks to both of you for the information!

Learning more every day!

-Mike

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Disrespectful/off-topic posts should not be removed. First off, hardly anything is on topic on CD (e.g. the posts in this thread about FIRST California). And "disrespectful" is a really low bar for removal.