Re: I guess it just depends who you are...

* James Kanze:


Yes, there was a period, a month or two after new moderators were added
aug/sep last year, with too many mod comments and too many rejections.
Actually so far too many mod comments, about things that mod comments
weren't necessary for, that they generated policy debate in the group.
The new moderators had their rough edges polished off ;-), and as a
result we discovered that the written moderation guidelines could do
with an update reflecting actual policy; that's yet to be done.

Regarding mod comments.

I think you have a point regarding how perceptible moderation should be,
but at the same time I don't think moderation should be invisible in the
posted articles. For example, I think it's better to inform up front
that a thread has deviated into complete off-topicality than to just
silently starting rejecting articles in that thread, or let it go on.
That said, I've not yet seen a rejection with [thread killed] rejection
cause, so apparently the effective policy is good enough to avoid that.

Another category of mod comments is about why an article is considered
on topic, or what aspect of an article is on topic. For example, buried
in article that at first sight might seem to be about how to use library
Xyz on platform Abc, there might be a general C++ question; it might be
that the article is really about a general C++ question. Then I think a
mod comment is appropriate to make it less likely that the thread goes
on to discuss only how to use library Xyz on platform Abc, or about why
or why not the original article is on-topic or off-topic.

Most often this has apparently worked, but in a few cases it has not.
When or if it works we don't know that it works, but when it fails, the
nature of off-topicality is that it's something people care about
(otherwise it wouldn't be discussed), and so leads to long threads. As
concrete (in my view) mod comment failure examples, we had a very long
thread about the D language, and one about multi-threading applications.

On the other hand, two kinds of mod comment discussed in the written
moderation guidelines are in my view generally inappropriate (this is
part of why the written guidelines should IMHO be updated). First, the
one where the moderator squelches further discussion by referring to the
FAQ; happily it hasn't been used, at least not that way. Second, the
one where the moderator provides an authoritative, purely factual
reference, thereby also squelching further discussion. This one should
in my view in general not be used, either, but initially the new
moderators used it, and that was a main cause for the debate then. Are
you happy with the resulting effective policy in that regard?

Except for that two-month (?) period mentioned above with far too many
mod comments, is it fair to say that the disagreement/disappointment is
over how to handle off-topicality and potential very probable
off-topicality, and if so (and if not! :-) ), what do you suggest?

Regarding rejections.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nit-picking" rejections, but as far as I
can see the contested rejections, so far, fall roughly in two groups:

   * Missing context, e.g. no quote or no attribution.
     The clc++m moderators have agreed to disagree over this (unwritten)
     rejection cause, but still there's room for further disagreement
     about agreeing or disagreeing over its concrete applications.

   * Personal attacks (ad hominem) by implication.
     E.g., hypothetical example, instead of "you're an idiot" writing
     "idiots often hold similar points of view", only typically a bit
     more subtle -- otherwise there wouldn't be disagreement.

As I see it the first category isn't really a problem, because it's so
easy for the poster to add a quote or attribution or other context and
repost, without changing in any way whatever the article is meant to
express, and thereby improving or keeping the overall quality of the group.

The second category is in my view more problematic, and I think that's
why we have the policy of when in doubt, accept, except for flames or
flame-bait, where when in doubt, reject.

Is this a fair summary of what you mean by "nit-picking", and if so (and
if not! :-)), what do you suggest?

Regarding the "etc.".

?


I don't like it, either, as a matter of principle (except for the
problem of a generally extremely dull and uninteresting world, one would
wish that all people were always rational with the highest ethics and
morals, just perfect beings...). But I think it's OK as long as there
is a non-moderated well known and useful alternative for the case where
the moderator(s) abuse their position, or where that appears to the
poster to be the case. The original theme for this thread is an
example, although for another moderated group than we're discussing now.

Cheers,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?