Making moderator actions more publicly visible

[kablam]

I believe that users should have the right to know what's going on behind the scenes in their community - or their admin at least given an option to let them know. Currently, when a moderator deletes a post or a topic in IPB, it just disappears without a trace and for the most part, users are oblivious.

1. I'd really love to see an ACP option that makes such moderator actions more visible to the public. For example, when a post is deleted, a message saying "This post has been deleted by a moderator. Reason: off topic" should replace the original post space - and maybe a link to PM the particular moderator could be included, in case the post author wants clarification or an appeal.

2. Same for deleting a topic. The public message option exists for when you move a topic ("Leave a link to the new topic in the source forum?") - it should be there for when you delete a topic. An ACP option to force both of these actions for all moderators would be good too.

3. With these practices in place, maybe topics/posts don't have to go to a Trash forum at all? Even if an admin doesn't have the "Show moderator actions to the public" option enabled in their ACP, the deleted topics/posts could still stay where they are - just not be visible to the public. And when deleted, there could be a moderator option to "restore/undelete". Much better than the process of merging/moving posts and threads out of the trash forum and back into the original forum.

Personally, I like having moderator actions more visible as I don't like my users being fearful of "Big Brother". The way things are done now are so covert and things can disappear without any trace. While desirable for some, I think it's more constructive to inform users when posts/threads are deleted - along with a reason why, so others can learn from their mistakes. Also, with their actions visible to the public, moderators would use much more caution and care.

We're halfway there with things like moved topic links and setting the "Allow user to remove 'Edited by' legend?" option to "no" - I'm just asking for the last few missing bits. :)


PS: I'm sure it's been brought up before, but while we're on the same topic:
4. A user should be able to see when their posts are under review in the same red/alternative CSS way that moderators do.

[TrixieTang]

I honestly couldn't stand something like this as a member, leaving messages saying topic deleted, post deleted... it can clutter forums and threads VERY fast... it's just not worth it...

This is best left as a mod, and I really never want something like this as a default feature.

[peter_anderson]

Yeah, best left as a mod.

Although, I do like the option that moderators can only 'soft-delete' incase a mod turns bad.

[Lindsey_]

This is best left as a mod, and I really never want something like this as a default feature.

Yeah, best left as a mod. :)

Although, I do like the option that moderators can only 'soft-delete' incase a mod turns bad.

Now, that should be built in. But only that option :P

[Mark H.]

Unless I've misunderstood the OP's point, "soft-delete" can be effectively accomplished by using the Trashcan, but then not allowing the Moderators to have access to the Trashcan itself.

[TrixieTang]

Yeah, best left as a mod.

Although, I do like the option that moderators can only 'soft-delete' incase a mod turns bad.

As RainbowViper said, that's basically what the trashcan is for, soft delete has advantages over the trashcan, mainly leaving posts where they were posted for future reference, but it has disadvantages, mainly cluttering threads and forums for mods and admins.

[Mark]

I agree with Jordan - if anyone has ever used the imdb forums they have this (where a deleted post was shows "This post has been deleted by the poster" or "a moderator"). It doesn't actually show as a normal post, just kind of a little bar letting users know there was a post there.

The usefulness of this is if you delete a post which someone has replied to directly, the thread makes no sense. For example:
Fred: What does everyone think about x?
George: I agree with Bob.
Makes no sense, however this, makes much more sense:
Fred: What does everyone think about x?
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
George: I agree with Bob.

[W13]

I agree with Jordan - if anyone has ever used the imdb forums they have this (where a deleted post was shows "This post has been deleted by the poster" or "a moderator"). It doesn't actually show as a normal post, just kind of a little bar letting users know there was a post there.

The usefulness of this is if you delete a post which someone has replied to directly, the thread makes no sense. For example:

[i]Fred: What does everyone think about x?

George: I agree with Bob.[/i]

Makes no sense, however this, makes much more sense:

[i]Fred: What does everyone think about x?

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

George: I agree with Bob.[/i]

Yeah, sure, but what if there's a spam attack, then you have:

Fred: What does everyone think about x?
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
-This post has been deleted by a moderator-
George: I agree with Bob.

[Mark]

Yeah, sure, but what if there's a spam attack, then you have:

[i]Fred: What does everyone think about x?

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

George: I agree with Bob.[/i]

Then you would choose the "hard delete" option or the system would say something like:
- 11 posts have been deleted by a moderator -

[TrixieTang]

I agree with Jordan - if anyone has ever used the imdb forums they have this (where a deleted post was shows "This post has been deleted by the poster" or "a moderator"). It doesn't actually show as a normal post, just kind of a little bar letting users know there was a post there.

The usefulness of this is if you delete a post which someone has replied to directly, the thread makes no sense. For example:

[i]Fred: What does everyone think about x?

George: I agree with Bob.[/i]

Makes no sense, however this, makes much more sense:

[i]Fred: What does everyone think about x?

-This post has been deleted by a moderator-

George: I agree with Bob.[/i]

What you're describing still leaves confusion, how do we know bob made the post? What was bob's opinion? It also leaves an annoying deleted message that I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks would look ugly.

Personally I think if you delete a post you should always be sure to delete replies to it as well to avoid confusion.

[Morrigan]

What you're describing still leaves confusion, how do we know bob made the post? What was bob's opinion? It also leaves an annoying deleted message that I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks would look ugly.

Personally I think if you delete a post you should always be sure to delete replies to it as well to avoid confusion.

I agree that it would be messy but also having it public like that could be degrading especially if it were a first offense on a rule or something.

Really I see the use of perhaps a "user cannot edit" option, then you could edit the post and delete the content and add, "Post Deleted by moderator". If you are so inclined for it. :)

[Guest]

We already have a "restrict editing after x minutes."

That, combined with the trashcan, works for me.

[kablam]

Really I see the use of perhaps a "user cannot edit" option, then you could edit the post and delete the content and add, "Post Deleted by moderator". If you are so inclined for it. :)

This is a good idea in general - a sort of way to lock a post from further editing. But using it for a system like this is just not efficient at all - plus it erases their original post completely. (Which reminds me: when you edit a post there's no history of the original - maybe IPB should keep logs of edited post versions that only moderators can see?)

I agree that it would be messy but also having it public like that could be degrading especially if it were a first offense on a rule or something.

Whereas if it wasn't public, and it was a newbie making a first offense, they might get confused when their post suddenly disappears without a trace. They might think it was a glitch, or their post didn't go through, and post their offensive reply again. I just think giving a moderator the OPTION to display a public message could nip so many issues in the bud before they happen.

Then you would choose the "hard delete" option or the system would say something like:

- 11 posts have been deleted by a moderator -

Obviously when you have a spam attack there should be a way to hard delete, like Mark is suggesting. Perhaps we should give my suggestion a new word altogether, like "hiding" posts or soft-delete. Then in the ACP options for each group there could be an option like "Can this group hide posts?" along with the original "Can this group delete posts?".


Clearly not everyone wants to make their moderation apparent and obvious and what I'm suggesting shouldn't become the default - merely an option. But a lot of the time when I delete a post, I want to tell the community why I'm deleting it and avoid being called a censorship obsessed jerk when users see posts suddenly disappear. Informing people that posts used to be here, but were deemed inappropriate for whatever reason, sets an example for other users and establishes a clear set of community standards. It's also just a more honest and direct way of moderating a community, which allows for problems and appeals to be much more easily approached and resolved (and in many cases, avoided). Also, other moderators/admins can more easily inspect what was deleted.

Check out how they do it unobtrusively on whirlpool.net.au:


On that site, the post author also sees a link to PM the individual moderator that deleted their post.

[Jυra]

I personally prefer to keep moderation personal and hidden. This prevents drama and making users feel hurt when people see their moderated content.

There use to be this one forum where the moderators would troll me, which lead me to be banned when I stood up for myself. Drama isn't fun for anyone.

[Morrigan]

This is a good idea in general - a sort of way to lock a post from further editing. But using it for a system like this is just not efficient at all - plus it erases their original post completely. (Which reminds me: when you edit a post there's no history of the original - maybe IPB should keep logs of edited post versions that only moderators can see?)

Though its not efficient it would get what you wanted done.

Whereas if it wasn't public, and it was a newbie making a first offense, they might get confused when their post suddenly disappears without a trace. They might think it was a glitch, or their post didn't go through, and post their offensive reply again. I just think giving a moderator the OPTION to display a public message could nip so many issues in the bud before they happen.

That is what the PM system is for. "I'm sorry, your post in "this thread" has been deleted because it did not follow "this" rule." No confusion no worry that it didn't go through.

Check out how they do it unobtrusively on whirlpool.net.au:

That may be a bit unobtrusive but still degrading. As the person above said, if you see stuff like that those members get trolled by mods and sometimes the other members will troll them and send them offensive PMs or emails (if available). Or, say someone read the original post and starts up a storm about it showing that? Though it could be nice you are still looking at it can open up a whole other can of worms.

[Mark]

Morrigan, several forums do this. Some (the one pointed out above) out do show the user, which I can see you might feel is degrading. But take a look at how imdb.com's forums (a HUGE forum) does it:

[TrixieTang]

Morrigan, several forums do this. Some (the one pointed out above) out do show the user, which I can see you might feel is degrading. But take a look at how imdb.com's forums (a HUGE forum) does it:

It doesn't say who made the post though, without that information it's just a way to cause confusion, with that information it's potentially degrading.

[backdream]

+10

I want to see something like that in topic:

moderator XXX set this topic important or top at XXXXXXXX

[Mark]

It doesn't say who made the post though, without that information it's just a way to cause confusion, with that information it's potentially degrading.

I guess there's no pleasing some people...

I suppose the point that is being made is SOME people (you might not be one of them) prefer these kind of things to be public, hence why some people make the warnings public, or close topics instead of deleting them, or leave the default "Banned" group as "Banned" (so you can see which members have been banned).
OTHER people, don't like this, and that is fair enough - however taking it back to what is actually being suggested, and not individuals administration styles; this:
- Post A
- Post C: Reply to Post B (which doesn't exist)
Is more confusing than this:
- Post A
- Small message mentioning deleted Post B
- Post C: Reply to Post B
Particularly if you delete all a member's posts, I have seen before a topic which was for about a page was a conversation between two members, when one of them requested all their posts be removed (I appreciate you might not comply with such a request, but many would) it just looked like one of the members had started talking to themselves.

[henke37]

I feel that this is a fundamental enough thing to do add in the main software. And it would be up to each forum admin to decide if to always use it, let the moderators opt in/out of it or not use it at all.