Skip to Content

How to report a Moderation Notification?


Sometimes we may get a moderation notification of type

Your content "xyz" has been rejected by an SCN moderator and is no longer visible in the community. Please see the Rules of Engagement for more information on why content is rejected.

This is followed by a line with a reason.

For example today I've got the

Reason: Don't post just links. Don't answer FAQs. Report to moderator and abide by moderator instructions.

  • First I didn't post just a link, but a complete sentence answering the question including a link.
  • Second I've searched SCN myself for the question and wouldn't label it as a FAQ, maybe it's an AQ.
  • Third  neither posting links nor answering FAQs is described in the Rules of Engagement document.

Therefore I'm thinking, that some moderators have their own Rules of Engagement and don't know the real existing rules themselves.

But how to report those misguided moderators? For I can't see the name of the mod, I can't contact him directly. So I hope there is a way to stop those abnormal moderator activities. Otherwise it won't make sense, trying to help other SCN members.

Samples:

The reason codes can't be found in the Rules of Engagement document.

What can I do now?

Regards,

Klaus

MODNOT.JPG (42.4 kB)
Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

1 Answer

  • Best Answer
    Oct 21, 2015 at 12:40 PM

    The correct place for discussions concerning moderation is here. 


    There is no facility within the moderation tools to add a link to my profile so you know who you are dealing with. There are only 255 characters available to supply an information. To compensate for this, I monitor this part of the site, so I can respond to any requests for clarification - where the simple request or information isn't seen as sufficient.


    I rejected your post because the core content was a link - even if it was surrounded by some text. The question itself was, in my view, a FAQ. This is most often evidenced by the fact that the question garners answers comprising mainly links to found results. The logic is - if it can be answered with a link, then the OP could have found it. Even if it is an AQ not a FAQ.

    The Rules of Engagement are not definitive. They are basis for what is permissible. Moderation is not bound solely by the RoE, but is aimed at any activity which causes harm to the community as a whole. Therefore moderators may engage members through the moderation tools to correct what they perceive as harmful behaviour, even if it isn't explicit in the RoE. Moderation does not happen in vacuum, with each moderator operating autonomously (or megalomaniacally) within their own space. We have our own section where we (moderators and administrators) regularly discuss approaches to moderation.

    I have not just recently started rejecting posts that answer FAQs, really basic questions and/or comprise mainly links. I've been doing this since strict moderation was implemented some 8 or so years ago. I also will on occasion reject answers that are factually incorrect or misleading.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

    • It's not whitewash. Rather a reflection of the reality of moderation. I am a member of (and moderate) several forums. If you attempt to have a definitive list of rules, then there are some people (and no, I don't think you're one of them) who will try to sail as close to the wind as they can, and then whine and argue when their activites are curtailed. You also find you get into arguments over the interpretations of the rules.

      That is why in my considered opinion and experience, guidelines are more effective, with further guidance coming from the moderators. In the previous forum software we had sticky posts that could (and did!) contain this information. There are a few blogs, but the trouble is still that people have to find them. 😔 Maybe this situation will improve in future.

      Yes, there will always be incorrect mod decisions. Given the volumes and time constraints, this is inevitable.It's a judgement call. All we can do is offer avenues of appeal, and try to make them as obvious as possible. I occasionally get emails from the administrators asking my why I rejected specific posts. And occasionally posts get reinstated.

      I will say that a significant cause of the deficiencies in moderation are the tools we have to work with. It is a source of frustration for me and others. Hopefully this will be addressed soon.