A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

I would like to request that moderators, when modifying threads, closing threads, or splitting threads, clearly explain why they undertook the actions they did (except the spam threads, just get rid of those as soon as possible). I respect the moderators' right to do what they will to better serve the majority of members, as this right is clearly specified in the forum rules, quoted below.

However, I do take issue with major actions being taken without explanation. Even if the moderators have no malicious intent when performing a controversial action, a lack of transparency can easily make some feel that they are being shunned solely because they hold an unpopular opinion. Additionally, more transparancy will help everyone to better understand what actions are prohibited so that all threads will better meet the forum guidelines. Remember how frustrating it was to try to interpret actions HQ undertook in the era before Good Guy Frank helped to clear the smoke for us? I don't want CD to become anything like that.

I don't envy the moderators' job, and I appreciate everything they do. I have strong faith that they all have FIRST's best interest at heart, but they need to realize that performing controversial actions without explanation will eventually call the integrity of this site into question.

I am not sure if this is possible or not, but it would also be nice for moderators to explain that they split off a thread at the very start of the new thread, with a link to the thread that the discussion was started in. Occasionally I have seen Original Posts which seem to make no sense without context, and I only find out 20 posts later that the Original Post was actually a response to something on another thread.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

We hear your concerns. Moderation decisions are discussed internally and are not taken lightly. The mods police themselves to make sure the process is fair and evenhanded.

The request is fair and I hope you will see a change.

The moderation may seem to be tighter than what is necessary, but please understand the community serves a wide age range. We try and do the best for the entire community.

Please reach out to any mod or Brandon with questions when they come up.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

I'll second the request when splitting threads... A moderator's note on the original post in the new thread, that it was split from a different discussion would help a ton.

I certainly view an original post in a brand new thread differently than an off-topic post in an ongoing discussion, which is how several of these controversial threads have started (and as far as I can tell, hurting the OP). I'm guessing other users are the same way, skimming and ignoring a lot of controversial off topic stuff but when it is the topic, letting the OP have it.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

<deleted>

Sorry everyone, my bad for assuming the worst. I am happy to hear that it was not a moderator's decision to remove the post. With all the craziness around here the last little bit I just wasn't sure.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

It is possible that the original poster requested that it be removed after reconsidering.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

That's exactly what happened.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Glad they reconsidered.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

What you talkin' about Willis?

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Sorry, I can't see that so I assumed it was removed. Like I said earlier, it's on me for assuming something. Unfortunately, I was fired up and my judgment was clouded due to the topic being something that I care about. Next time I will think more before I post.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

"Issues with the FIRST California Board"

Oh yeah... you can't go there on CD... heck the OP should've PM'd me first, I would've saved him/her/undesignated some heartache and trouble.

Dang, I'm _still_ pulling shrapnel out of my ample buttocks... and it _ain't_ pretty!

LOL ;-)

--Michael Blake

"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
 

Any chance the issues with CA board thread can be reinstated? I am not apart of CA but I believe this is an important issue that affects the entire FIRST community and is something that should be discussed and to also give the CA board a chance to explain themselves.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

The OP deleted his own thread, so no.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

I think it is important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no "CA Board".

I cannot find a "California FIRST" registered non-profit. Maybe someone else can. There is no info regarding one on the CA FIRST website.

We have RD's in California, but they are employed by US FIRST in NH.

If my information is not right, someone please educate me.

Thanks,

-Mike

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

You are correct. We (254) were unclear on who the poster was trying to contact given that fact.

Re: A Request For More Transparency in Moderating
 

Perhaps they are under the hopeful dillusion that CA FIRST has incorporated and districts exist.

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.