A Request For More Transparency in Moderating

[Caleb Sykes]

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.

ChiefDelphi.com reserves the right to remove a post which does not relate to the topic being discussed in the forum. In addition, ChiefDelphi reserves the right to reorganize discussion forums in order to best serve the majority of our members. (ie: topics may, at a moderators discretion, be relocated to a more appropriate discussion forum, or deleted entirely). This also applies to any media uploaded via CD-Media, items in CD-Swap, or any other content on ChiefDelphi.com

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.

[JohnBoucher]

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.

[efoote868]

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.

[frcguy]

<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.

[indieFan]

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

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by indieFan

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

That's exactly what happened.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

That's exactly what happened.

Glad they reconsidered.

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by frcguy

Usually, I don't contribute to threads like this. I have agreed wholeheartedly with all of the moderator decisions.

However, something happened yesterday that upset me.

A thread (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...hreadid=150490) was created by an anonymous user to air their grievances about the FIRST in CA board. Although it may have not been the best way to deal with their problem, in my opinion it was done in a polite way without naming specific individuals or harassing anyone. The user chose to be anonymous to protect them from repercussions and action towards themselves and (presumably) their team. Several people posted advice to the user in that thread, including myself and others.

When I woke up this morning, the thread had vanished. At first, I thought it wasn't showing up for some reason, so I went back to the link to the thread that I had saved. Nothing.

My question: Why did a thread asking for guidance in a respectful way get removed, but inflammatory and rude posts by other anonymous accounts remain?

What you talkin' about Willis?

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by Tyler Olds

What you talkin' about Willis?

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.

[Michael Blake]

"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

[Insanity000]

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.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Insanity000

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.

The OP deleted his own thread, so no.

[Michael Corsetto]

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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

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

[Tyler Olds]

Originally Posted by Cory

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

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