Rules for reporting posts - please advise

Options
1Athena1
1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696

Dear Moderators: I have not been posting much here lately so forgive me if I missed a big announcement/change.

I am confused about the post reporting rules. I knew what they were before I started the "cyberbullied" thread on the fundraising forum.

Then, a few months ago, Melissa announced some changes whereby:

--Newbies did not have posting restrictions

--If you reported a post, your name appeared (albeit as "edited by") as a reporter so there was some transparency.

Is that still the case? I am seeing some posts reported and deleted that did not warrant such action. Are we going back to the day where you can delete just because you don't "like"?

I think it was a bit awkward to have a post appear as "edited by" when a person reported, but it was effective. Another weakness of that system was that only one person's name appeared at a time. It was far from perfect. Still, I, for one, vote to have it back until BCO can gather the funds to do what is likely more expensive and get a system that has a "reported by" sign with everyone's names (unless it is for spam reasons). People were exposed for better and worse, we all figured out what "edited by" meant or we could explain it to anyone who had questions and the level of hypocrisy did go down.

And BLUE - yes, I am being chased by a PINK lobster - run, my friend....

I also vote of restrictions on posting for newbies (which include spammers) and re-initiated deletees who were deleted for good reason. :-)

So, moderators, please advise: What are the current rules regarding reporting posts?

«13456

Comments

  • Alpal
    Alpal Member Posts: 1,785
    edited May 2011

    It's a secret and if they tell you they'll have to kill you. LOL Seriously, on May 6th I pmailed the mods asking if the rules had changed again. The reply was that it will not show up as edited unless you edit your own post. Then I asked why in the world it had been changed back. Still waiting for an answer to that. It was obviously very effective when people knew their name would be revealed, so I can't imagine why we've reverted to the old "just report the post". I think you still have to choose whether you're reporting because it's spam or because it breaks rules. The author of the post still receives an email when someone reports their post, but the reporter is not named. Hope you get an answer.  

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2011

    My guess is that everything changed yesterday after that massive flameout on the alternative meds board.  All reference to that posting has been obliterated including anything that would have come up in a search.  In other words, anyone that participated in the flameout will not see a reference or link to the post when they do a search on their user name (or any other username that participated in the flameout).

  • TonLee
    TonLee Member Posts: 2,626
    edited May 2011

    Personally I don't understand the whole deleting a thread/reporting mentality (other than spammers). 

    1.  We're all adults and yes, even adults fight and squabble.

    2.  Once an article/reply is typed up, it is out there cached, in the ether, FOREVER...no matter if it is "deleted."  All one has to do is type up the article title, click on 'cache' and it's all there for God and everyone to see....

    Actually, I stand corrected.  I just did a little googling and found out WHY it is necessary to monitor/babysit the boards...

    WHOA.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/special_reports&id=6783653

  • o2bhealthy
    o2bhealthy Member Posts: 2,101
    edited May 2011

    oh crap! I missed the flame out????

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2011

    I guess that there could be another way to look at the flameout.  It was extremely taunting and abusive and could be viewed as a very bad reflection on BCO.  Also, it's my understanding that the the owner is an Onc with a book on alternative therapies/healthy life styles.  If she saw that thread yesterday, she must have been mortified and tearing her hair out.

    Edited to remind that the flameout was actually in the Alternative Meds board - a potentially embarassing spot, I think, for vicious attacks when the owner has a book out on alternative meds.

  • Just_V
    Just_V Member Posts: 841
    edited May 2011

    o2bhealthy - from what i saw, it had a lot of confusing ranting - you will do fine with having missed it - i got lost reading it.

  • Bren-2007
    Bren-2007 Member Posts: 6,241
    edited May 2011

    I wondered where that silly topic went.  Guess the mods deleted the whole thing.  It was annoying and entertaining at the same time.

    We have a very good thread on here called Cyberbulling which talks about the subject at length.

    Bren

  • AnnNYC
    AnnNYC Member Posts: 4,484
    edited May 2011

    nurse-ann, it didn't change yesterday -- the "edited by" to show reported a post was very short-lived, and disappeared about 2 weeks after it was initiated.

    I would like to see a spelling-out of the rules -- they say, "no hateful or abusive language."  I think that covers a lot of territory, but I think when a poster calls another out by name and says "I call bull$h!+" on that person's own, completely ordinary, description of their own experience -- that's abusive in my book.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited May 2011

    AnnNYC:

    I googled "ABUSIVE POSTS" yesterday and the BCO thread we are discussing came up.  When one tried to link to it, you were linked to BCO but the page was not longer there.  If this thread was out on the Internet in all it's glory for any length of time (for all the world to see), I think that you will see very definitive rules emerge.

  • Alpal
    Alpal Member Posts: 1,785
    edited May 2011

    Just checking to see if Athena has received a reply from the mods. Nope - guess it really is a secret.

  • otter
    otter Member Posts: 6,099
    edited May 2011

    Ann, you can still find the beginning and end of the "ABUSIVE POSTS" thread on the internet for all the world to see.  Google "ABUSIVE POSTS" and click on the "Cached" link -- it will take you to a real-as-life BCO page that shows the opening post as well as the very last one.  Everything in between is gone, and that's where all the fur was flying.

    otter

  • River_Rat
    River_Rat Member Posts: 1,724
    edited May 2011

    You can find the whole thing by using advanced search at Google and putting "Abusive posts" and page 1 as search terms and using http:// community.breastcancer.org site in the field for site to search.  Then do the same search and change page 1 to page 2, then 3, then 4.

    Edited to add that you have to click on the Cached link, not the regular. 

  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited May 2011

    It looks, from a poster's perch, as though moderation reforms were started, things got moving and then suddenly everything stopped.The sort of thing you expect when a company changes its priorities and diverts funds from one thing to another.

    I remember we actually started a fund for moderation reforms, so how is that money now being used, I wonder? If you go to the cyberbullies' thread you will see a message from Melissa saying that due to the funds some changes were made. What has happened?

    Perhaps there has just been a changing of the guard and of moderation policies. But if so, I urge the new folks helping us out to read the Cyberbullies' thread ("I've donated to BCO in honor of...")and some others to get a sense of the questions the posters have - and the long, histories. Go to the "I say yes...." thread ("Growing Our Friendships...") - the first 100 pages are revelaing too.

  • crazy4carrots
    crazy4carrots Member Posts: 5,324
    edited May 2011

    Athena, you asked, in your OP, a question that we are all wondering about.

    I'm really, really disappointed that you still have not had an answer.  As Alpal says, I guess it really is a secret.....Frown

  • Alpal
    Alpal Member Posts: 1,785
    edited May 2011

    24 hours later and still a secret. Strange ...

  • BarbaraA
    BarbaraA Member Posts: 7,378
    edited May 2011

    Yes I agree. Very strange.

  • Moderators
    Moderators Member Posts: 25,912
    edited May 2011

    1Athena1, and others, you're correct in noting in this thread that there are no longer restrictions on newbies posting. We have adopted other behind-the-scenes means to help curb the spammers who initially prompted that move. Also, you correctly pointed out that for a short time it was possible for a reader to tell who reported a post, and that is also no longer the case.

    However, the "rules for reporting posts" have not changed. If something is spam, or if it is in violation of the Breastcancer.org rules, please do report it. Whether there is one report or a dozen, whether the reporters or posters are brand new or have thousands of posts, no one member can have another's post permanently removed unless it breaks a rule.

    Even if there is the volume of reports to have a post temporarily removed by the Community, a moderator reviews every removal to confirm or reject it.

    The short answer is always that if you think something breaks the rules, report it.

    Judith and the BCO team

  • rosemary-b
    rosemary-b Member Posts: 2,006
    edited May 2011

    I am glad that reported posts will be reviewed for rules violations. That should curtail the bullying by deletion that IMO went on at BCO. This is a valuable resource for me and I know it is for others.

    I think it is helpful to remember that each one of us is, was or may be in the future angry about being diagnosed with breast cancer and we need to cut each other some slack.

    If someone comes across as gruff when they disagree with you maybe they are just having a bad day and if someone always gets on your nerves, you don't need to get in a back and forth with them. Just put them on Ignore.

    Now back down off the soap box. Thank you moderators for explaining the new rules..

  • Bren-2007
    Bren-2007 Member Posts: 6,241
    edited May 2011

    Thanks Judith for getting back to us.

    I agree Rosemary .. I think sometimes a person is just having a bad day and comes across as crabby.  Some people, though, are just crabby human beings.

    Bren

  • thenewme
    thenewme Member Posts: 1,611
    edited May 2011

    Thanks, Moderators, for trying to keep up with this!  I personally think the post reporting function here has way too much potential for abuse.  Other than blatant spam posts, I honestly think most posts should remain as is.  Sure, we all get crabby from time to time or dare to disagree with something, but those posts are as much a part of our discussions as the "good" posts.  Anyone can do a search on my user name and see what I'm all about, and I'm good with that.  It's confusing, I think, to do a search on someone and find just a bunch of deleted posts rather than, for example, searching for someone and finding that all of their posts are inflammatory and accusatory.  Except for rare instances, I think posts should be left intact; they speak volumes.

    I would like to have some clarification from the mods, however, about whether it's against the rules of BCO to have multiple user names.  For the record, despite accusations, I only have one - thenewme - and can't see any reason to have or use more than one, unless akin to inventing imaginary friends to agree with me or bolster my internet presence.  Bah. 

  • Alpal
    Alpal Member Posts: 1,785
    edited May 2011

    Judith - thank you.

  • BarbaraA
    BarbaraA Member Posts: 7,378
    edited May 2011

    Thank you, Judith.

  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited June 2011

    Thanks Judith - from what I read, you are adopting moderation in its truest form and I am sure many of us are grateful. It can't be easy to go through all reported posts to confirm the validity, but it is the thright thing to do. Also great to head off spammers at the pass.

  • apple
    apple Member Posts: 7,799
    edited June 2011

    lot of people seem to have alternate names.  it cracks me up sometimes when someone with 28 posts and no profile expresses strong opinions. ..

    like who do they think they are kidding?

  • BarbaraA
    BarbaraA Member Posts: 7,378
    edited June 2011

    Judith, in my opinion, when the deleters names were visible, the problem went away. We again seem to have a rash of deletions (it is Friday and it is a full moon) and I think the weekend could be pretty ugly. Just sayin'.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2011

    If you're looking for a "rash of deletions" go check out the thread "Update".  That was a sorry spectacle to watch!  I was most amused by the people claiming that they were going to block the posters responses and then came back on later to report them.

     P.S. that was not a Friday or a full moon.

  • AnnNYC
    AnnNYC Member Posts: 4,484
    edited June 2011

    nurse-ann, in that thread the eventually-deleted posts got uglier and uglier as time went on.  They truly were harassing and defamatory.  So it's conceivable that after 24 or 48 hours, people changed their minds due to the escalating ugliness of those posts.  You'll note that most of the deleted comments have not been restored by the Moderators, and I know the Mods were reviewing that thread carefully, so comments not restored must have, in the judgment of the Moderators, been deserving of deletion.

    I myself reported only one comment in that thread.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2011

    AnnNYC:

    That may be correct but it's also correct that people on these boards run in packs.  I watch these flame outs frequently and they are very predicable.  The crap doesn't begin to hit the fan until certain people show up.  However, you always know the end is near when they whip out the word "troll" and everyone piles on.  Just the use of the work troll seems to really bring out the alpha females - I don't know what it is!

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited June 2011

    Nothinghaschanged:

    I totally agree.

  • otter
    otter Member Posts: 6,099
    edited June 2011

    I reported two of the posts on the "Update" thread.  There were many others written by that same person that I found offensive, but those did not contain obvious violations of the "Community Rules of Conduct" as I understand them. The two posts I did report both contained words and/or phrases that I considered defamatory.  I copied and saved the relevant phrases, in case someone needs to see them.

    Two of the BCO "Rules of Conduct" specifically prohibit defamatory language: 

    "2. You agree not to defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights of others.
    ….
    "5. You agree not to submit content that contains material that is inappropriate, unlawful, threatening, abusive, hateful, profane, defamatory, infringing, obscene, pornographic, or indecent."

    It could be argued that some of the posts in the "Update" thread were "abusive" and/or "hateful".  It also appeared to me that the unrelenting rebuttals by the offending member constituted harassment of the O.P.  But, the rule that was most clearly violated (IMHO) was the one against defaming others.  Here's a useful definition of the word "defame" from http://www.yourdictionary.com/defame :

    "de·fame (dē fām′, di-)  transitive verb defamed -·famed′, defaming -·fam′·ing
       1. to attack or injure the reputation or honor of by false and malicious statements; malign, slander, or libel"

    In retrospect, the two posts I reported on the "Update" thread weren't as egregious as comments posted yesterday and today by another BCO member on a couple of other threads.  It's Friday, though, so misbehavior is not surprising.

    otter

Categories