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.

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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

That’s exactly what happened.

Glad they reconsidered.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.hipchat.com/451143/4182312/TMc1GCejSkJpTaS/upload.png

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.

“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 :wink:

–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

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.

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.

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

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.