Thoughts about the Rules

[PeterEmpowerEd]

I've made this public as an attempt to remind people to play by the rules.

What you have to remember is that the PT forums are free and independent.

Hi David,

I was going to ask you this as a PM but then it got too long and I thought, actually, I'd appreciate others' views as well as yours...

While some think we don't moderate enough for this reason [the negative rule] and a few think we moderate too much...

I've been thinking about this and watching what's been coming and going on the boards lately. (It still amazes me the activity and number of VIEWS on this thread. Who would have thought?) Note: this thread refers to http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...4427#post84427 (This post has been moved.)

Anyway, I'd like to ask the mods and other posters more experienced than me if you think there's a possibility the forum complaints system might be being abused by certain interests possibly with an agenda to suppress critical/revealing discussions about current happenings/business practices/promotions in 'the market'.

Cube explained:

Generally, the mods don't intervene unless there is a complaint ... We, the moderators, are getting hacked off at the number of posts that need to be reviewed (not all of them are moderated, but it still takes time), and are considering how best to manage our work load.

Get that? The workload is ballooning because of the increasing number of complaints sparking a need for reviews.
Marc (Donna's Marc) said pretty much the same thing to me, if I recall correctly, the day he confirmed I was 'nowhere near' being one of 'the ten'. (Imagine my relief). I discussed my view in the post quoted below.

Having never reported a post (still haven't) .... Some people, I've heard - I don't know who - almost "live" on that little triangle button ... wherever they are in the world at the time.

Update: I still have never reported a post.

At the risk of sounding paranoid or narcissistic, it occurs to me to wonder if there might be a manipulative campaign being waged to tie up, wear out and "hack off" our volunteer moderators (blessings be upon them) and the honorable owners of PropertyTalk by consistently complaining about some posters' posts.... artificially inflating the PT mods' workload and generally annoying them.

Could it be that certain forces are trying to undermine the intellectual freedom for debate and independence we all (well, most of us) love about PropertyTalk?

While reasonable people (such as non-complaining me, ahem) might practise a fairly laissez faire, 'live and let live' approach with respect to reporting posts, could it be a sad fact that other less upfront souls use 'the rules' to the detriment of open debate and freedom of comment? (Disappearing posts can be disconcerting.)

Are we letting the rules become an ass by allowing an exploitation of the letter of the law along these lines:
Noble PT moderator logs in for umpteenth time. "Oh, crumbs, another post has been reported as 'negative' (groan, another one) and, oh look, it's an unsigned/nom de plume post, ("that @#!%! *p---------y*!!) therefore the rules say we MUST pull it off the boards and circulate it to all the moderators for review ... (Rats, this is taking ages. I'd rather be sailing)."

And this Chinese water torture, complaint-after-complaint-after-complaint-after-complaint-after-complaint has an effect.
We've seen it shorten even the saint-like Marc's fuse.
A 'faceless few' who may (as some posters seem so ready to accuse others of) have sound business reasons for their behaviour, could be 'playing' the system..
These vigilantes clearly spend a LOT of time on our forum [whether they post or not] with, by the sounds of it, a hair trigger on the 'report this post' button.
All this activity wearies and exasperates our saintly moderators whose workload (as cube has indicated) is rising, because of the number of complaints.

My point is there are two ways to look at this issue:
(1) the posters (guess who?) are the problem -- pushing the boundaries being 'negative'*, abusive, aggressive or demeaning ... yea, even harrassing (cough, splutter) lately, I hear.
(2) the consistent complainants (go on, guess who again) are the problem -- posturing about 'defence of reputation' and 'negative attacks' and 'personal comments' -- basically being so litigious that they tie up the scarce time and energy resources of our brilliant (but only human) moderators.

Are we the victims of a nefarious campaign by rubbery characters with arguably no real commitment to the PT community (some may even have their own much-less-visited hub elsewhere) and whose only interest in 'the rules' is how they can exploit them to stifle... ? Well, you get the picture.

Worth considering?

Ha, having written this, I've just had a thought: Is there anywhere on PT we can see a table or running total of WHO's been complaining ABOUT WHO/WHAT?
Is that an idea worth considering? It could be very illuminating. Why not? Transparency is good.

Just a few thoughts. I'd be interested to hear what other PT'ers think.

Also, I hereby volunteer to be a moderator. (Is that allowed with only 76 posts? Do you have to be asked? Is there a secret handshake? Tatoo? Silly walk?)

Peter
* My views on the "negative" red herring are here: http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...0&postcount=10

[whitt]

Peter definitely a plausible posting you made.
I guess the mods would know who are the top reporters on Pt and if your theory holds some ground.

It would be a shame if it had some truth. However we have seen plenty of stranger things in this thread so can't rule it out yet.

Any of the Mods have a feeling on this?

[Monid]

I think it would be inappropriate for us to confirm or deny Peter's suggestion. Likewise making who was reporting what publicly available would discourage people from reporting posts, which we do not want to do.

Rest assured though that if any particular party reports a lot of posts and our opinion is that those posts or the majority of those posts are fine then we will become increasingly sceptical about the reports of that party, especially if there was a clear possibility for commercial bias. It would be a boy/girl/company that cried wolf scenario.

David Hunter
PT Mod

[BusyLizzy]

As a moderator, I have two problems with the recent spate of reported posts:

1. It detracts from the limited time that I have available each day to read the other posts on the forum. My time is spent reading the reported ones (that I don't necessarily want to read), sending PM's, and dealing with behind-the-scenes discussions on how to deal with these reported posts. I could ignore the reported posts (and sometimes I do) but that is ignoring my moderator responsibilities, and leaving the likes of Monid and Cube to deal with it all.

2. As someone recently stated, when someone continually reports posts, they are likely to become like the boy who cried wolf. Sooner or later , the post that IS worthy of reporting will be ignored.


To be honest, I am the sort of person that just wants everyone to play nicely in the sandpit. I'm all for people challenging others - but it should be done respectfully. I don't appreciate some posters harassing others.

Anyway, I'd like to ask the mods and other posters more experienced than me if you think there's a possibility the forum complaints system might be being abused by certain interests possibly with an agenda to suppress critical/revealing discussions about current happenings/business practices/promotions in 'the market'.

I don't know if I agree that the system is being abused. I think everyone has the right to complain and bring 'suspect' posts to the attention of the mods. My personal wish would be for those that continue to hound certain organisations or other posters, would instead contribute to the forums by sharing their wealth of experience in way that would be of benefit to everyone. For example, in stead of telling me what I SHOULDN'T do (eg attend seminars and courses), how about sharing with me what I COULD be doing to advancing my property investing activity, skills and knowledge, especially in today's market.


Buenas noches! (I've just come back from my first Spanish class!)

[Monid]

(b) Monid – didn’t want to comment.

Alright then I will bite... It is not that I don't want to comment, (anything but) it is simply I don't think it is appropriate for the moderators to reveal who has reported what and how often any person reports things. Doing this would undermine the point of the reporting posts, namely that the community is letting us know what bothers them, and what they think has broken the rules. If people knew that this was going to be publicly revealed they may not report posts simply because they didn't want to offend people, or have someone associate them with a particular viewpoint or whatever.

It is fair to say that this does leave the system open to cynical exploitation. However the safeguard is us moderators, who as I said above will be well aware if any party doth protest too much... and are well aware of commercial conflicts of interest that may mean their reports are insincere.

This may mean our patience gets worn thin, this is likely to cut both ways though, both in regards to those posters who consistently break certain rules and in regards to how seriously we take the complaints of frequent complainers.

My point is there are two ways to look at this issue:
(1) the posters (guess who?) are the problem -- pushing the boundaries being 'negative'*, abusive, aggressive or demeaning ... yea, even harrassing (cough, splutter) lately, I hear.
(2) the consistent complainants (go on, guess who again) are the problem -- posturing about 'defence of reputation' and 'negative attacks' and 'personal comments' -- basically being so litigious that they tie up the scarce time and energy resources of our brilliant (but only human) moderators.

There is a third way to look at it, perhaps both are the problem... At least on some occasions.

There are certainly some posters who consistently find it difficult to stay within the rules at least on certain topics.

Does this allow a technical exploitation of the rules to quash discussion? Yes it does, of course it does. Is this something that bothers us moderators? Yes of course it does, we find it particularly bothersome when we are forced to remove something that we think makes a valid point but breaks the rules because it is clearly negative, and it hasn't been signed.

There is an easy solution though, Cube has pointed it out here:

'Offenders' (you know who you are!) make the point that if they don't highlight some of the more controversial practices in our industry, then who will. PT has no problem with that, so long as the posts are signed.

In other words, just sign the post!

Cheers
David Hunter

[Marcus]

Independence is hard won and easily lost! Don't give up the good fight!

I must admit that my skin has become more thick over past few years (time fly’s!). Moderating here for me has been very much about protecting the right of the Property Investing community to speak out without being censored. Provided that discussion is carried out in a fair (for both parties, right of reply etc) controlled manner, we all stand to learn allot about ourselves and from each other.
While some may claim it is a failing of this site (scaring people away) to let controversial threads run their course, I would argue quite the opposite and say it is probably the most important facet of PT. The sheer number of views that this and other controversial threads have had I believe is testament to this.

We (Moderators) may not get it right 100% of the time but I can assure you all that we do our best to be fair and balanced (even though it may not always seem that way).
We at times have to wrap people on the knuckles for breaches when we may have agreed with the intent of the message concerned. Staying composed (despite frustration or being mobbed) and refusing to get 'personal' can make all the difference between moderation or no moderation.
I personally have been called all sorts of names (who hasn't at some stage?) and challenged on many occasions but I'm ok with this .

Anyway, I'd like to ask the mods and other posters more experienced than me if you think there's a possibility the forum complaints system might be being abused by certain interests possibly with an agenda to suppress critical/revealing discussions about current happenings/business practices/promotions in 'the market'

I would say yes by one or two only.
These are discussed and dealt with accordingly in the Mods forum. Time wasters, those complaining merely to avoid answering a question, bury embarrassing facts or similar, are treated as such. Those however that have reasonable grounds for complaint are very much appreciated as this actually reduces the number of threads we Moderators have to read. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we now rely on the help of our many readers to spot the increasing number of infringing posts (spam, advertising outside of Caveat Emptor, bomb threats etc.) . To follow each and every post appearing these days would be a full time job.

Also, I hereby volunteer to be a moderator. (Is that allowed with only 76 posts? Do you have to be asked? Is there a secret handshake? Tatoo? Silly walk?)

We are always keeping an eye out for those that may be gifted with the right silly walk. Seriously though, Moderating is not for everyone I can assure you. Priorities in life, added stresses, sticking to the systems we have in place (which can be tedious and time consuming with all the Private messaging, moving stuff around and discussion) and time constraints can and has seen the burden of Moderating being too much for some. There is no red carpet but in saying that, one does however get to help facilitate a great resource for those wanting to learn or contribute in helping others learn.

Cheers,
Marcus.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

I've had cause recently to think about an aspect of this old topic -- neatly defined by Marcus ...

While some may claim it is a failing of this site (scaring people away) to let controversial threads run their course, I would argue quite the opposite and say it is probably the most important facet of PT.

Moderating here for me has been very much about protecting the right of the Property Investing community to speak out without being censored.

Now this is NOT a sideways dig at the current batch of Mods over the recent "Purge", honestly ... I'm trying to work out how we can be fair to each other, even in the teeth of a storm of controversy.

I'm as guilty as the next poster of writing reactive sometimes toughly-worded comments in this forum... or of sometimes not giving other viewpoints the benefit of proper consideration before I try to shoot them down.

It may not look like it, but I do my best to hold my caustic 'tongue' in check, acknowledging Perry's point that a 'soft answer' might be a more effective communication strategy -- but I fail sometimes (often?) and let people have it with both barrels ... and of course, they respond in kind.

Tonight, in a blog post called 'Unintended consequences' I considered one of the not-so-obvious side effects of participation in controversial discussions.

I'm still working this out. Any thoughts?

[eri]

i'm with the 2 quotes you posted above

[SuperDad]

I'm as guilty as the next poster of writing reactive sometimes toughly-worded comments in this forum... or of sometimes not giving other viewpoints the benefit of proper consideration before I try to shoot them down. ...I'm still working this out. Any thoughts?

One thought I have, which may or may not be of help, is to pause before you hit the "submit post" button. This will allow you to reflect on whether your post is knee-jerk stuff, or you haven't taken the time to properly consider others' viewpoints.

That might cut down on the high number of posts you make, and which you susequently delete.

Paul.

[WBuffett]

I find if you pause, reflect, and change before submiting the post you find that you are not actually saying what you mean to say, rather a watered down version, for this reason I prefer to remain true to myself and post away without any of this newage reflection comtemplation nonsense, its fine for vegeterians and the like and all power to them, but its kindof fake.