Edited Posts

It is up to the mods, as they see fit. No different than a cop that chooses to issue the ticket as per the infraction or to reduce the ticket on the spot or to simply issue a warning. Context / background will yield the result.

If the mod feels, in their opinion, that amending the post serves its purpose, they would do so. However, in other situations, deleting the post in its whole, may serve several purposes. Sometimes removing the post, despite parts of it perhaps being "ok", serves to make a point to a poster or nuances within a thread.

However, when editing or removing a post, a reason should always be left. That being said, the decision to edit vs. remove is up to the mod.

The only standard is that we generally leave a reason when possible. Sometimes this isn't possible due to technical issues - editing on mobile for example can be challenging and we're sometimes forced to do so when dealing with a spammer in hot deals or another urgent situation. Every report is different and requires subjective judgement. Sometimes a post or thread needs to be edited, sometimes it needs to be deleted and sometimes neither. Every situation is different and involves posters with different histories. Sometimes two moderators might have a different take on similar situations but generally speaking I think we strike a pretty good balance. The ownership here is very permissive and all of our actions are fully accountable as well.

I guess my complaint is the inconsistency.
Some mods only say "Please read the RFD rules and if this doesn't answer your questions, please contact an administrator for assistance.". Not knowing what rule is broken or what opinion is breached.
Others give a reason.

You can message the moderator in question and politely inquire or escalate to an admin if necessary. I can only speak for myself but if people are polite when they reach out then I have no issues responding with my thoughts, time permitting.

Redmask wrote: ↑ You can message the moderator in question and politely inquire or escalate to an admin if necessary. I can only speak for myself but if people are polite when they reach out then I have no issues responding with my thoughts, time permitting.

Funny, that is what one moderator says all the time.....and then gets upset when questioned again because of no response.
Again, consistency is lacking. If posters have rules to abide with, so should the staff.

Pete_Coach wrote: ↑ Funny, that is what one moderator says all the time.....and then gets upset when questioned again because of no response.
Again, consistency is lacking. If posters have rules to abide with, so should the staff.

Members can also follow our rules so that moderation isn't required. It's a two way street. We typically only see those who have been moderated complaining about our moderation process.

I do agree though. Referring someone to read the rules (without further context) is not much use. Some extensions on the moderation / auto messaging system may be useful so that if moderation occurs, additional detail can be included as a part of the PM that typically gets sent to the user. If I'm going to moderate someone's post and it isn't glaringly obvious as to why I'm doing so, I would typically ensure that the reason is shared with the user. If they are still unclear, I am happy to clarify. If they are unhappy with my decision, then I would refer them to @TomRFD for additional review.

WorldIRC wrote: ↑ Members can also follow our rules so that moderation isn't required. It's a two way street. We typically only see those who have been moderated complaining about our moderation process.

I do agree though. Referring someone to read the rules (without further context) is not much use. Some extensions on the moderation / auto messaging system may be useful so that if moderation occurs, additional detail can be included as a part of the PM that typically gets sent to the user. If I'm going to moderate someone's post and it isn't glaringly obvious as to why I'm doing so, I would typically ensure that the reason is shared with the user. If they are still unclear, I am happy to clarify. If they are unhappy with my decision, then I would refer them to @TomRFD for additional review.

100% correct. Members should follow the rules.
Thing is, when edited or deleted if we were informed what rule was broken, it would be helpful for the future. And when asked, get nothing or to get a response saying "Please read the RFD rules and if this doesn't answer your questions, please contact an administrator for assistance." is of no help.
I appreciate your effort and thank you for that. Unfortunately, you are only one and there are some that are completely opposite. My way, my opinion and that is it. I have complained.

Pete_Coach wrote: ↑ 100% correct. Members should follow the rules.
Thing is, when edited or deleted if we were informed what rule was broken, it would be helpful for the future. And when asked, get nothing or to get a response saying "Please read the RFD rules and if this doesn't answer your questions, please contact an administrator for assistance." is of no help.
I appreciate your effort and thank you for that. Unfortunately, you are only one and there are some that are completely opposite. My way, my opinion and that is it. I have complained.

I agree and this is something @TomRFD may wish to further look into, either in terms of technology or process.

When editing a post, we can leave a reason. If you look at your post (the one I am quoting), you'll see I was able to leave a reason. However, when we do it this way, it is visible for all to see. Sometimes the edit is a bit more sensitive. Maybe @TomRFD can look for a way to communicate the reason through PM only and not within the post itself.

When deleting a post, we also have a box to fill in a reason. However, I am not sure if this reason is communicated to the user or not. @TomRFD can you confirm?

When issuing a warning or infraction, we have a specific reason box that is then shared with the user.

I think with the existing technology and ensuring mods are filling out the reason boxes (with an actual reason), it should be quite simple to advise a poster why their post was edited, removed, or an infraction / warning issued.

WorldIRC wrote: ↑ I agree and this is something @TomRFD may wish to further look into, either in terms of technology or process.

When editing a post, we can leave a reason. If you look at your post (the one I am quoting), you'll see I was able to leave a reason. However, when we do it this way, it is visible for all to see. Sometimes the edit is a bit more sensitive. Maybe @TomRFD can look for a way to communicate the reason through PM only and not within the post itself.

When deleting a post, we also have a box to fill in a reason. However, I am not sure if this reason is communicated to the user or not. @TomRFD can you confirm?

When issuing a warning or infraction, we have a specific reason box that is then shared with the user.

I think with the existing technology and ensuring mods are filling out the reason boxes, it should be quite simple to advise a poster why their post was edited, removed, or an infraction / warning issued.

Got your test edit .
Exactly what a certain mod always sends.....no more, just that and when asked, get told to talk to Tom LOL

WorldIRC wrote: ↑ When editing a post, we can leave a reason. If you look at your post (the one I am quoting), you'll see I was able to leave a reason. However, when we do it this way, it is visible for all to see. Sometimes the edit is a bit more sensitive. Maybe @TomRFD can look for a way to communicate the reason through PM only and not within the post itself.

When deleting a post, we also have a box to fill in a reason. However, I am not sure if this reason is communicated to the user or not. @TomRFD can you confirm?

If an edit happens to require more discretion and shouldn't be publicly visible, the moderator can always send a separate private message. I don't think this is too often the case though and the reason box is usually filled out.

When a post is deleted the reason is always included in the automated PM. Just from deleting posts myself and seeing the replies I get back, maybe we could increase the size or bold the reason line as sometimes users do respond back as if they don't know why the action was taken.

Pete_Coach wrote: ↑ Got your test edit .
Exactly what a certain mod always sends.....no more, just that and when asked, get told to talk to Tom LOL

If a moderators action was unclear and they are politely asked why it was done, they'll reply back most of the time. Often it's sent with aggression, sometimes even including attacks or profanity, and in those cases I don't blame them for not replying.

The line to contact me was added in because at the end of the day, that's always another option in addition to replying back to the moderator generated auto PM.

TomRFD wrote: ↑ If an edit happens to require more discretion and shouldn't be publicly visible, the moderator can always send a separate private message. I don't think this is too often the case though and the reason box is usually filled out.

When a post is deleted the reason is always included in the automated PM. Just from deleting posts myself and seeing the replies I get back, maybe we could increase the size or bold the reason line as sometimes users do respond back as if they don't know why the action was taken.


If a moderators action was unclear and they are politely asked why it was done, they'll reply back most of the time. Often it's sent with aggression, sometimes even including attacks or profanity, and in those cases I don't blame them for not replying.

The line to contact me was added in because at the end of the day, that's always another option in addition to replying back to the moderator generated auto PM.

I get what you are saying.
All I am trying to convey is that some mods do not say any more than the automated response and when questioned, give the automated answer. No standard, just the discretion of the individual mod.
Your position is to stand by the mods and I get that too

Pete_Coach wrote: ↑ Why is it that some moderators will edit posts and other just delete entire posts. Is there no standard?
While there may be situations where intervention is called for for certain phrases or sentences, it may not require the entire post to be deleted. I have seen some posts that have been annotated as edited and then there are some that have disappeared completely and there was useful and relevant information within them and the responses to them have also disappeared as a result of the deletion.
An arbiter should be more of a diplomat as opposed to a censor. Is there a standard or is it up to each to decide as they see fit?

have no idea why are you complaining. You and almost everyone knows there is no solution/use. It is what they rule. Comparison to cops is far fetched as we can get justice in courts systems if we peruse. Here it is one person decides.
The best mod I have seen was named Titan or something. very reasonable and willing to listen. and give reasons. rest Dont question the autorita.

jackrabbit000 wrote: ↑ They should really get rid of this. Sometimes you can't even fix a typo without this showing up.

Last edited by xxxxxxxxx on May 19th, 2020 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think there's a time limit before that shows up....or as soon as others have viewed the thread.

jackrabbit000 wrote: ↑ There is no time limit. I noticed that it shows up as soon as someone uploads a post under yours.

What's wrong with showing a post has been edited?

WorldIRC wrote: ↑ It is up to the mods, as they see fit. No different than a cop that chooses to issue the ticket as per the infraction or to reduce the ticket on the spot or to simply issue a warning. Context / background will yield the result.

If the mod feels, in their opinion, that amending the post serves its purpose, they would do so. However, in other situations, deleting the post in its whole, may serve several purposes. Sometimes removing the post, despite parts of it perhaps being "ok", serves to make a point to a poster or nuances within a thread.

However, when editing or removing a post, a reason should always be left. That being said, the decision to edit vs. remove is up to the mod.

In the context of current events, worth mentioning that not everyone has the same level of trust when it comes to cops, and for all sorts of varying reasons.
In fact - the essence of the current global problem is that cops are not always "serving the public interest", and are very much prone for pursuing their own distorted vendettas and agendas.
In a nutshell, those who have it the worst under an unfair system are demanding better accountability and higher standards of checks and balances.

For the most part, I choose to optimistically believe that mods here are acting in good faith.

With that said, I also believe it would better serve the community if more emphasis was placed on developing stronger checks and balances, and more consistency across the board.
On many occasions, I've found myself scratching my head (with regards to deletes and edits).
While I agree in spirit with the protection of whistle blowers (not revealing who flagged a mod), I think it is really problematic that users can't distinguish between when one of their peers called for help, and when a mod is intervening on their own volition.
This lack of transparency erodes trust.
There certainly are situations where mods stepping in on their own is critical, but there are loads of grey-moderate areas where the offense is minor, and the mod appears to be flexing muscle against his regular perps, while ignoring transgressions of "buddies".

I can't prove or disprove, but my feeling is that the most active mods are all nuclear family prioritizing white dudes.
It's not so much that I see this all the time - it's more that I never see any of them advocating for anything outside of such normative constructs.
Before I get pounced, let me state that I am well aware this suspicion is not evidence based, as I am not aware of the actual race or gender of many of the mods here.
I do, however, wonder if they would reconsider some of their stances if they had to face tougher scrutiny from someone on the team whose values and experiences differed significantly from theirs.
For the record - I'd love to be totally wrong with my suspicions.

shikotee wrote: ↑

I can't prove or disprove, but my feeling is that the most active mods are all nuclear family prioritizing white dudes.

You think RFD company has racism issue? That sounds serious accusation

smartie wrote: ↑ You think RFD company has racism issue? That sounds serious accusation

I would not state it as such, as I really don't think it is that simple, or intentional.
It's really more of a feel that RFD volunteer base *possibly* lacks what I would consider diverse representation.

To say moderation is inconsistent is an understatement at best, particularly for those who don't break the rules but have their posts deleted because they quoted the offending post or when nobody violated the rules but the mod is on a power trip.

Definitely some mods are better than others on here but I agree with @callernamet no point in complaining, they don't care especially when they're using the police analogy as justification...hilarious comparison given the current situation

TomRFD wrote: ↑When a post is deleted the reason is always included in the automated PM. Just from deleting posts myself and seeing the replies I get back, maybe we could increase the size or bold the reason line as sometimes users do respond back as if they don't know why the action was taken.

I get that sometimes it makes sense to delete a post in its entirety rather than to edit out the offending part(s). But it usually makes no sense to delete it without a trace. Doing that can create confusion to others who are trying to follow the thread and who never saw the offending post(s).

Instead you should consider doing an edit by replacing the post contents with something like "Post deleted due to violation of forum rules." That makes it clear to all readers who are having trouble following the conversation why that's so.

If a moderators action was unclear and they are politely asked why it was done, they'll reply back most of the time. Often it's sent with aggression, sometimes even including attacks or profanity, and in those cases I don't blame them for not replying.

I fully agree that disrespectful, let alone aggressive or profane, messages should either be ignored or result in sanctions.

I assume that it's the intention of RFD moderators to promote respectful discussion. Let's assume also that in the vast majority of situations (a) a poster didn't violate the rules intentionally and (b) now that they've been told that they did, they're receptive to changing their ways for the better. It seems to me that instead of or in addition to the usual boilerplate, "Please read the RFD rules and if this doesn't answer your questions, please contact an administrator for assistance." there should always be a specific reason given. Even better, include a snippet of the offending text so that it's crystal clear what rule was broken.

I appreciate that these suggestions may add a bit more work for moderators. But surely that's worth it if it helps to make RFD a better experience for everyone.