[Followup-To set to mozilla.governance; please respect it.]
Summary:
This is the start of a discussion as to when, if ever, it is appropriate to cancel messages in the support groups (mozilla.support.*). (We are not currently envisaging cancelling non-spam messages anywhere else.) We may write a formal policy on the matter.
Background:
A week or two ago, Chris Ilias approached me to ask whether he might be permitted to cancel off-topic posts/threads in the support newsgroups.
When we created the new newsgroups, we adopted a "wait and see" policy to see if any sort of moderation or control was needed. Happily, in the development groups at least, this has not proved necessary.
However, as one of the people who looks after the support groups and spends time answering questions, Chris feels that the same is not true there. He has made several requests over a period of months to be allowed to deal with the problem of particular prolific participants posting pages of irrelevant chit-chat, even when requested not to. He feels this makes the groups less useful for their intended purpose, because users are put off and question-answerers are discouraged from wading through it all.
So, after discussion with Dave Miller, Dave gave him access to the Giganews management console, and I sent him this:
"Chris,
If you take appropriate account of the "respected project contributor" status of anyone involved, if you warn first (now that you have something to back it up with) and cancel second, if you escalate the amount of cancels gently as long as people don't learn their lesson, then you may use this power for removing messages which are offtopic, on the grounds that the more noise there is in the support newsgroups, the less useful they are for support."
Chris's first use of this power has caused something of a stir (perhaps unsurprisingly) and accusations of "censorship". Following a thread in mozilla.general, Deb Richardson has suggested that we have a formal policy for this. This message is to start a thread to determine what it might be.
Question 0 is whether it's ever appropriate to cancel messages. I believe it is; censorship is when you are prevented from saying a particular thing entirely (or perhaps, when you are prevented totally from reaching a significant audience, like the banning of the publication of a book). Given that this is the Internet, and we have blogs, websites and mozilla.general, I don't think that removing off-topic threads from a support newsgroup counts as censoring the posters.
Question 1 is whether we need a formal policy at all. We don't have a formal policy for what code is included and removed; it's up to the discretion of the module owner and reviewer. Can we leave it up to the discretion of those doing the hard work answering questions in the support groups?
If we feel we do need a formal policy, then whatever policy we have has to leave room for discretion. The ultimate aim is to keep the newsgroups useful. In the case of support groups, it means that, for example:
- people who subscribe to the mailing list to ask a question should not have their inboxes filled up with irrelevancies while they wait for an answer
- people who read the newsgroups to answer user questions should not have to analyse extra material when looking for questions to answer
- searching the archives should return only on-topic results
A formal definition of what is off-topic and what is not might hinder, rather than help, the achieving of those aims.
One last point: the newsgroup mozilla.general was specifically created to allow off-topic discussion among Mozilla community participants. Let it not be said that we don't provide a forum for such discussions.
Gervase Markham wrote: > Question 1 is whether we need a formal policy at all. We don't have a > formal policy for what code is included and removed; it's up to the > discretion of the module owner and reviewer. Can we leave it up to the > discretion of those doing the hard work answering questions in the > support groups?
Yes, local policy seems uncontroversial, but global policy would seem excessive.
> A formal definition of what is off-topic and what is not might hinder, > rather than help, the achieving of those aims.
Agreed.
> One last point: the newsgroup mozilla.general was specifically created > to allow off-topic discussion among Mozilla community participants. Let > it not be said that we don't provide a forum for such discussions.
Right. I would have added to Dave Miller's directive that "please also advise which group you think is a better place for the cancelled/warned message." But maybe that is obvious?
> Question 0 is whether it's ever appropriate to cancel messages. I > believe it is;
I agree. And I think we also should allow removing double/triple/multi-posts, as we have e.g. in the SeaMonkey support newsgroup atm, where one user posted 5 or 6 top-level messages with almost identical text asking the same question. Such multi-posts should be reduced to one ideally.
I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last resort, and not something that can be done lightly or without sufficient process and definition.
Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and definitions, not done via judgement call on the part of an individual moderator. Once removed, messages are gone, as far as I know, and potential disputes are difficult to resolve after the fact due to the lack of messages in question. As I understand it, messages cannot be restored should removal be shown to be premature or against policy, etc. If my understanding here is incorrect, please let me know :)
What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning going to include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions should be taken? Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a discussion is actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be posted to the group explaining that a message/thread has been removed and why? What will the content of those messages include?
What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what is/isn't appropriate for each newsgroup? Will users be able to read and understand the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe rules should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
What procedure will there be for lodging complaints about moderation practices? Do users whose messages are removed have any way to make a formal request for review? Is there any way they can get their messages restored? If a formal complaint is lodged, what's the procedure for dealing with and resolving that complaint? If the user is found to be in the right, how will this be handled? Every message removal risks damaging a user's reputation, so there should be some process in place for fixing that if the removal was incorrect or premature.
I really don't think this sort of thing can be taken lightly as it is a major change to Mozilla's newsgroup policies as I understand them. I acknowledge that there may be a place for removing messages, I'm just concerned that we do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons. To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and publish the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
Deb Richardson wrote: > I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last > resort, > and not something that can be done lightly or without sufficient process > and > definition.
> Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and definitions, > not > done via judgement call on the part of an individual moderator. Once > removed, messages are gone, as far as I know, and potential disputes are > difficult to resolve after the fact due to the lack of messages in > question. As I understand it, messages cannot be restored should > removal be > shown to be premature or against policy, etc. If my understanding here is > incorrect, please let me know :)
> What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many > warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning going to > include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions should be taken? > Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a discussion is > actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be posted to the > group explaining that a message/thread has been removed and why? What will > the content of those messages include?
> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what is/isn't > appropriate for each newsgroup? Will users be able to read and understand > the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be > made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe rules > should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
> What procedure will there be for lodging complaints about moderation > practices? Do users whose messages are removed have any way to make a > formal request for review? Is there any way they can get their messages > restored? If a formal complaint is lodged, what's the procedure for > dealing > with and resolving that complaint? If the user is found to be in the > right, > how will this be handled? Every message removal risks damaging a user's > reputation, so there should be some process in place for fixing that if the > removal was incorrect or premature.
> I really don't think this sort of thing can be taken lightly as it is a > major change to Mozilla's newsgroup policies as I understand them. I > acknowledge that there may be a place for removing messages, I'm just > concerned that we do the right thing, in the right way, for the right > reasons. To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and > publish the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
> ~ deb
I would have to agree with deb, and add the following:
on what grounds does a message get deleted and who all is contacted for removal? By this, I'm assuming from the latest round of deletions it was because of the bad language. For example, person A asks a question. Person B replies with good info but calls Person A an F-head for thinking that. Person C replies to Person B and comments on his reply only, not about the F-head part, but he doesn't snip out the F-head part. Person D replies under Person C and he too doesn't snip. So, according to the "now unwritten policy" regarding profanity, Person B, C and Ds postings will all be removed. Will they also be contacted and explained why their postings were removed? This leads me to the other deletions . . .
. . . which happened in December 2006 and January 2007. An individual was causing problems in the support groups. Someone classified him as a Nasty Troll. And ALL his messages were removed including those who posted under him. However, at times he asked a good question, and people replied with good intentions and *helpful responses*. Yet, the entire thread was removed. No explanation was given. I was one of those helpful posters, and nobody contacted me regarding the removal of my posting. The only way I found out was a "Mozilla Champion" mentioned that his postings were being removed from the server. So, this is "wibble" removal at its fullest.
On 2007-02-27, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote:
> I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last resort, > and not something that can be done lightly or without sufficient process and > definition.
> Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and definitions, not > done via judgement call on the part of an individual moderator.
Unless you can write some code which understands the policies and the newsgroup posts well enough to make the decision, it's always going to be a judgement call. You can write more documentation about the judgement call, and you can involve more people in discussing each judgement call, but it's still going to be a judgement and I imagine many of the judgements will be controversial.
> What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many > warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning going to > include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions should be taken? > Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a discussion is > actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be posted to the > group explaining that a message/thread has been removed and why? What will > the content of those messages include?
There's no guarantee you can contact a poster outside of the group, so much of that communication and warning, all of which will be off-topic, will have to be done in the group. That is likely to cause large amounts of further off-topic meta discussion about the group and the implementation of the rules.
> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what is/isn't > appropriate for each newsgroup?
Whatever the definition is, there are still going to be grey areas, and some people will work out where they are and try and push the limits. If you want to reduce the amount of judgement required, then you're going to have to make the rules and definitions more detailed each time someone finds a grey area. You'll probably have to set up a whole new documentation system just to store the rules :)
> Will users be able to read and understand > the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be > made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe rules > should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
As far as I know, there is no way of implementing that for a newsgroup - you can make rules available to those that look for them, but it's always going to be possible for people to post stuff without reading anything.
> To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and > publish the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
I don't think it's practical to do that, or to enforce whatever you might come up with.
Cancelling posts works fine for removing spam. Using cancelling to try and moderate off-topic discussion is, I think, always going to be a crude and awkward method of doing moderation. Usually moderation of newsgroups is done by reviewing posts before they are made available on the server. Also, decent newsreaders have a way for the user to ignore threads or posters they don't want to see (so everyone is their own moderator, in a way, which of course relies on readers having some understanding of how newsgroups work).
If they don't exist already, then having some guidelines about how to post and appropriate topics and stuff is good. If people unknowingly break the guidelines, then certainly that can be gently pointed out.
But if you don't like it being an individual moderator making judgement calls and nuking chunks of posts and followups from the group, then I think it's probably better to not to do any removal (aside from stuff that's clearly spam), rather than turning the moderation of a newsgroup into something which will occupy the time of a whole bunch of people in writing policies and procedures and trying to implement them on a system which isn't designed for moderation of that kind.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:12:01 -0600, Michael Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-02-27, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote: >> I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last >> resort, and not something that can be done lightly or without >> sufficient process and definition.
>> Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and >> definitions, not done via judgement call on the part of an individual >> moderator.
> Unless you can write some code which understands the policies and the > newsgroup posts well enough to make the decision, it's always going to > be a judgement call. You can write more documentation about the > judgement call, and you can involve more people in discussing each > judgement call, but it's still going to be a judgement and I imagine > many of the judgements will be controversial.
>> What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many >> warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning >> going to include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions >> should be taken? Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a >> discussion is actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be >> posted to the group explaining that a message/thread has been removed >> and why? What will the content of those messages include?
> There's no guarantee you can contact a poster outside of the group, so > much of that communication and warning, all of which will be off-topic, > will have to be done in the group. That is likely to cause large > amounts of further off-topic meta discussion about the group and the > implementation of the rules.
>> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what >> is/isn't appropriate for each newsgroup?
> Whatever the definition is, there are still going to be grey areas, and > some people will work out where they are and try and push the limits. If > you want to reduce the amount of judgement required, then you're going > to have to make the rules and definitions more detailed each time > someone finds a grey area. You'll probably have to set up a whole new > documentation system just to store the rules :)
>> Will users be able to read and understand >> the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they >> be made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe >> rules should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
> As far as I know, there is no way of implementing that for a newsgroup - > you can make rules available to those that look for them, but it's > always going to be possible for people to post stuff without reading > anything.
>> To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and publish >> the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
> I don't think it's practical to do that, or to enforce whatever you > might come up with.
> Cancelling posts works fine for removing spam. Using cancelling to try > and moderate off-topic discussion is, I think, always going to be a > crude and awkward method of doing moderation. Usually moderation of > newsgroups is done by reviewing posts before they are made available on > the server. Also, decent newsreaders have a way for the user to ignore > threads or posters they don't want to see (so everyone is their own > moderator, in a way, which of course relies on readers having some > understanding of how newsgroups work).
> If they don't exist already, then having some guidelines about how to > post and appropriate topics and stuff is good. If people unknowingly > break the guidelines, then certainly that can be gently pointed out.
> But if you don't like it being an individual moderator making judgement > calls and nuking chunks of posts and followups from the group, then I > think it's probably better to not to do any removal (aside from stuff > that's clearly spam), rather than turning the moderation of a newsgroup > into something which will occupy the time of a whole bunch of people in > writing policies and procedures and trying to implement them on a system > which isn't designed for moderation of that kind.
I think you have summed up my feelings pretty well. IMNSHO, if control of the postings is desired, then make the change to moderated groups. Otherwise retro-moderation is going to create more problems than it cures.
-- Frank Tabor Knock, knock! Who's there? Sam and Janet. Sam and Janet who? Sam and Janet Evening...
Gervase Markham wrote: > Question 0 is whether it's ever appropriate to cancel messages. I > believe it is; censorship is when you are prevented from saying a > particular thing entirely (or perhaps, when you are prevented totally > from reaching a significant audience, like the banning of the > publication of a book). Given that this is the Internet, and we have > blogs, websites and mozilla.general, I don't think that removing > off-topic threads from a support newsgroup counts as censoring the posters.
> Question 1 is whether we need a formal policy at all. We don't have a > formal policy for what code is included and removed; it's up to the > discretion of the module owner and reviewer. Can we leave it up to the > discretion of those doing the hard work answering questions in the > support groups?
I don't think you can frame this issue using the "code" analogy. The people who can contribute to the "code" is very small wrt to the entire community and their main focus is new feature design, not support. Many support threads tend to eventually filter down to offering opinions where responders end up including anecdotal experiences in order to buttress their position. This type of free exchange lends itself to tangential, unrelated discussions at times. The development groups are more tunnel-vision oriented.
> If we feel we do need a formal policy, then whatever policy we have has > to leave room for discretion. The ultimate aim is to keep the newsgroups > useful. In the case of support groups, it means that, for example:
Agreed
> - people who subscribe to the mailing list to ask a question should not > have their inboxes filled up with irrelevancies while they wait for an > answer
Partially agree. If the policy had a rule that all off-topic threads not prefaced with and OT identifier ([OT], OT:, whatever) are open to cancellation after the nth response then filters could be set to ignore all such tagged threads. Sender plonking is also available.
> - people who read the newsgroups to answer user questions should not > have to analyse extra material when looking for questions to answer
I think that allowing some of this "chatter" also makes the newsgroups more approachable. In fact, I'd say that some responses that are very much on-topic but come off as condescending can be just as detrimental to newsgroup approachability.
> - searching the archives should return only on-topic results
Yes, but this goal has to be measured against the possibility that those who provide valuable answers may decide to leave if the cancellation process is too regimented.
> A formal definition of what is off-topic and what is not might hinder, > rather than help, the achieving of those aims.
Agreed, it's better to leave it a little fuzzy and malleable but some guidelines would be helpful; especially as it relates to the tolerance levels, e.q., 3 nest/NO-Quibble rule, 2 warning and out rule, &c.
> One last point: the newsgroup mozilla.general was specifically created > to allow off-topic discussion among Mozilla community participants. Let > it not be said that we don't provide a forum for such discussions.
Most OT discussions are not planned nor do they the people participating in them care to go to and OT newsgroup to chit-chat. Creating an OT newsgroup is susceptible to "leading a horse to water..." disappointment.
> was because of the bad language. For example, person A asks a question. > Person B replies with good info but calls Person A an F-head for > thinking that. Person C replies to Person B and comments on his reply > only, not about the F-head part, but he doesn't snip out the F-head
He should have snipped it out.
> part. Person D replies under Person C and he too doesn't snip. So,
He should have also snipped it out.
In general (and I'd submit your post and my post as Exhibit A and B, here), you should only quote the part of the message you're replying to. In some cases, Person D is actually replying to A, but picks C's post to reply to instead and so gets all the irrelevant cruft along for the ride. If someone wants to reply to the content of A's post, they should reply to A's post, not C's.
Andrew Schultz wrote: > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote: >> was because of the bad language. For example, person A asks a >> question. Person B replies with good info but calls Person A an >> F-head for thinking that. Person C replies to Person B and comments >> on his reply only, not about the F-head part, but he doesn't snip out >> the F-head
> He should have snipped it out.
in theory thats the way its supposed to happen.
>> part. Person D replies under Person C and he too doesn't snip. So,
> He should have also snipped it out.
again in theory thats what supposed to happen, but it doesn't always.
My example was based on your recent deleted messages. You said something, someone replied but didn't snip. Someone replied after that and didn't snip all the other previous stuff. Now, all those messages were removed.
that's the problem. Not every poster is aware of the so-called etiquette, especially the new posters. Those that have been around the block know about them, but even some of those people ignore them.
> My example was based on your recent deleted messages. You said > something, someone replied but didn't snip. Someone replied after that > and didn't snip all the other previous stuff. Now, all those messages > were removed.
Yes. And I should add that I'm not saying that they should (or shouldn't) be removed. I'm saying that I'm going to have a lot of trouble feeling any sympathy. If a post is 95% quote and 5% reply that isn't really responding to anything specifically from the quote, then I would consider that post 95% spam.
> Unless you can write some code which understands the policies and the > newsgroup posts well enough to make the decision, it's always going to be > a judgement call.
True, but you can have a judgement call that is informed by written, agreed upon, and published policies/guidelines, or you can have a judgement call that is seemingly arbitrary. I'm saying that the former is preferable to the latter.
> but it's still going to be a judgement and I imagine many of the > judgements will be controversial.
Less controversial if the policy the call is based upon is readily available to everyone involved in the dispute.
> There's no guarantee you can contact a poster outside of the group, so > much of that communication and warning, all of which will be off-topic, > will have to be done in the group.
I think this could easily be accounted for in the policy. Most people do use a recognizable-if-slightly-munged address when dealing with these groups. In the edge cases where someone cannot be contacted outside of the group, something could be included as part of the policy to deal with this, such as "three attempts at contact is considered sufficient effort on the moderator's part".
> > What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what > is/isn't > > appropriate for each newsgroup?
> Whatever the definition is, there are still going to be grey areas, and > some people will work out where they are and try and push the limits.
Again, this can be accounted for in the policy itself. Having the majority of cases accounted for in the policy and having to work out the edge cases on a case-by-case basis is preferable to just making it up as you go. And yes, when those edge cases come up, the final decisions should be recorded as part of the policy. I don't think this is unreasonable.
> Will users be able to read and understand > > the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be > > made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe > rules > > should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
> As far as I know, there is no way of implementing that for a newsgroup - > you can make rules available to those that look for them, but it's always > going to be possible for people to post stuff without reading anything.
Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse for breaking them. Having written rules gives moderators something to point at when asking people to behave. Without written rules moderators have little ground upon which to stand. First warnings should always include a clear pointer at the stated policies/rules.
But if you don't like it being an individual moderator making judgement
> calls and nuking chunks of posts and followups from the group, then I > think it's probably better to not to do any removal (aside from stuff > that's clearly spam), rather than turning the moderation of a newsgroup > into something which will occupy the time of a whole bunch of people in > writing policies and procedures and trying to implement them on a system > which isn't designed for moderation of that kind.
Perhaps I stated my original point poorly. I simply want there to be a stated and agreed upon policy before anyone starts nuking anything. As it stands, messages have been removed without any such policy or set of guidelines in place, and I think that's a mistake.
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:12:01 -0600, Michael Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2007-02-27, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote: >>> I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last >>> resort, and not something that can be done lightly or without >>> sufficient process and definition.
>>> Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and >>> definitions, not done via judgement call on the part of an individual >>> moderator.
>> Unless you can write some code which understands the policies and the >> newsgroup posts well enough to make the decision, it's always going to >> be a judgement call. You can write more documentation about the >> judgement call, and you can involve more people in discussing each >> judgement call, but it's still going to be a judgement and I imagine >> many of the judgements will be controversial.
>>> What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many >>> warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning >>> going to include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions >>> should be taken? Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a >>> discussion is actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be >>> posted to the group explaining that a message/thread has been removed >>> and why? What will the content of those messages include?
>> There's no guarantee you can contact a poster outside of the group, so >> much of that communication and warning, all of which will be off-topic, >> will have to be done in the group. That is likely to cause large >> amounts of further off-topic meta discussion about the group and the >> implementation of the rules.
>>> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what >>> is/isn't appropriate for each newsgroup?
>> Whatever the definition is, there are still going to be grey areas, and >> some people will work out where they are and try and push the limits. If >> you want to reduce the amount of judgement required, then you're going >> to have to make the rules and definitions more detailed each time >> someone finds a grey area. You'll probably have to set up a whole new >> documentation system just to store the rules :)
>>> Will users be able to read and understand >>> the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they >>> be made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe >>> rules should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
>> As far as I know, there is no way of implementing that for a newsgroup - >> you can make rules available to those that look for them, but it's >> always going to be possible for people to post stuff without reading >> anything.
>>> To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and publish >>> the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
>> I don't think it's practical to do that, or to enforce whatever you >> might come up with.
>> Cancelling posts works fine for removing spam. Using cancelling to try >> and moderate off-topic discussion is, I think, always going to be a >> crude and awkward method of doing moderation. Usually moderation of >> newsgroups is done by reviewing posts before they are made available on >> the server. Also, decent newsreaders have a way for the user to ignore >> threads or posters they don't want to see (so everyone is their own >> moderator, in a way, which of course relies on readers having some >> understanding of how newsgroups work).
>> If they don't exist already, then having some guidelines about how to >> post and appropriate topics and stuff is good. If people unknowingly >> break the guidelines, then certainly that can be gently pointed out.
>> But if you don't like it being an individual moderator making judgement >> calls and nuking chunks of posts and followups from the group, then I >> think it's probably better to not to do any removal (aside from stuff >> that's clearly spam), rather than turning the moderation of a newsgroup >> into something which will occupy the time of a whole bunch of people in >> writing policies and procedures and trying to implement them on a system >> which isn't designed for moderation of that kind.
> I think you have summed up my feelings pretty well. IMNSHO, if control > of the postings is desired, then make the change to moderated groups. > Otherwise retro-moderation is going to create more problems than it cures.
Frank, you remember how we handled it on secnews. One user in 11 years of secnews was "officially (by Netscape)" banned and posts cancelled. Another user, not officially banned had posts removed only after we discussed the issue in length. And then along came ChrisI who requested that we give him the authority to take the matter of warnings and subsequent cancels into his own hands and proceed as he saw fit. He took the issue under control (his) and shortly afterwards was when the melee broke out. I see the same thing happening here. BTW, this is not a slam against Chris (doing a good job), just some insight as to what "is" and "may" be happening all over again.
My suggestion, based on experience, is to moderate the dev groups and establish protocol in the .support.xx groups based on written guidelines after which offenders are private emailed and asked to please follow posting protocols with cancellations and/or banning as a very last resort.
> My suggestion, based on experience, is to moderate the dev groups and > establish protocol in the .support.xx groups based on written guidelines > after which offenders are private emailed and asked to please follow > posting protocols with cancellations and/or banning as a very last resort.
Of course, whoever takes responsibility to police these groups will have to be conscious of the posters who use invalid from-addresses such as "nob...@example.com" (which not even a human can resolve) or, yes, J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com (which a human can resolve, but not by using merely "Reply to Sender"). In the former case, no private-email warning is possible. The answer _might_ be to immediately escalate to canceling, or it might be to issue the warning publicly, but IMHO how to address that kind of posts will need to be thought of in advance.
Best regards, Tony. -- Speak roughly to your little VAX, And boot it when it crashes; It knows that one cannot relax Because the paging thrashes!
Wow! Wow! Wow!
I speak severely to my VAX, And boot it when it crashes; In spite of all my favorite hacks My jobs it always thrashes!
> Jay Garcia wrote: > [...] >> My suggestion, based on experience, is to moderate the dev groups and >> establish protocol in the .support.xx groups based on written guidelines >> after which offenders are private emailed and asked to please follow >> posting protocols with cancellations and/or banning as a very last resort.
> Of course, whoever takes responsibility to police these groups will have to be > conscious of the posters who use invalid from-addresses such as > "nob...@example.com" (which not even a human can resolve) or, yes, > J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com (which a human can resolve, but not by using merely > "Reply to Sender"). In the former case, no private-email warning is possible. > The answer _might_ be to immediately escalate to canceling, or it might be to > issue the warning publicly, but IMHO how to address that kind of posts will > need to be thought of in advance.
> Best regards, > Tony.
Right, forgot about the munges, never had that problem on spam-free secnews .. :-(
> I feel very strongly that message removal should be an absolute last > resort, > and not something that can be done lightly or without sufficient process > and > definition.
> Removal of messages should be subject to clear policies and definitions, > not > done via judgement call on the part of an individual moderator. Once > removed, messages are gone, as far as I know, and potential disputes are > difficult to resolve after the fact due to the lack of messages in > question. As I understand it, messages cannot be restored should > removal be > shown to be premature or against policy, etc. If my understanding here is > incorrect, please let me know :)
> What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many > warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning going to > include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions should be taken? > Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a discussion is > actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be posted to the > group explaining that a message/thread has been removed and why? What will > the content of those messages include?
> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what is/isn't > appropriate for each newsgroup? Will users be able to read and understand > the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be > made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe rules > should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
> What procedure will there be for lodging complaints about moderation > practices? Do users whose messages are removed have any way to make a > formal request for review? Is there any way they can get their messages > restored? If a formal complaint is lodged, what's the procedure for > dealing > with and resolving that complaint? If the user is found to be in the > right, > how will this be handled? Every message removal risks damaging a user's > reputation, so there should be some process in place for fixing that if the > removal was incorrect or premature.
> I really don't think this sort of thing can be taken lightly as it is a > major change to Mozilla's newsgroup policies as I understand them. I > acknowledge that there may be a place for removing messages, I'm just > concerned that we do the right thing, in the right way, for the right > reasons. To this end, I think we need to formally define, review, and > publish the policies, rules, and procedures involved before enforcing them.
I know you mean well, when you say that you want to do this right, however: I implore anyone who wishes to form an opinion on this, to subscribe to mozilla.support.firefox and mozilla.support.thunderbird, and read every message in the past two weeks. When it comes to decisions regarding Mozilla newsgroup policy, my biggest problem is that no-one at Mozilla reads the support newsgroups. Policies are then created based on what happens in the developer newsgroups, then applied to the support newsgroups. As I've said before, the support newsgroups are an entirely different animal.
People in the support newsgroups generally know what is and what isn't off-topic. They have been told many times, over the past year, to take OT discussions to mozilla.general or private email. The problem is that they don't care. There are those that couldn't care less about reputation. They couldn't care less about the complaints of others. They do whatever they want, so long as there are no consequences.
To answer your questions...
What constitutes OT: As I told Terry in mozilla.general (based on discussions in the support newsgroups in the last few days), <QUOTE> If you have to ask yourself whether or not your post is inappropriate, ask yourself if the intent of your post is to help people in their use of the product the newsgroup is for. There are cases, where people talk about how to fight spam, how to stop pop-ups, the eccentricities of certain OSes, comparing Thunderbird to Outlook, comparing mail services, methods of internet parental control, and they all directly help in the use of Firefox/Thunderbird. Whereas discussions like how far you have to drive tomorrow, and how to deal with a flu, have nothing to do with the use of Firefox/Thunderbird, and should be considered off-topic.
If you're still in doubt, set the follow-up to mozilla.general; and that will prevent me from removing the message. (and honour the follow-ups :-) ) </QUOTE>
*If there's an OT discussion*, where the notice goes depends on who the people in the discussion are. If the OT posters don't have a habit of going OT a lot, a message is sent to the thread, saying something like "This thread has gone too far off-topic, and does not belong in the support newsgroup. Please take this to either private email, somewhere where it is on-topic, or the mozilla.general newsgroup. [Follow-up set to mozilla.general]"
If the OT posters do have a habit of going OT a lot, then a private messages is sent. Here's one I sent to a poster named Ed on Friday (his message was not removed): <QUOTE> Ed, please be sure to take OT discussion to either private email, the mozilla.general newsgroup, or any place where it is not considered off-topic.
The Mozilla Foundation has recently sanctioned the removal of OT posts; so in the future, if you post a message to either mozilla.support.firefox, or mozilla.support.thunderbird, without taking it some place proper (like setting the follow-up to mozilla.general or poster), then be warned that such a message may be removed. </QUOTE>
If I can't contact the poster privately, the message is sent to the newsgroup, with a follow-up set to poster, and a note saying that if he/she wishes to reply, he'll need to include a valid return address, if he wants me to be able to reply back.
*If that poster goes OT again*, the action I take depends on how they reacted to the previous warning. Sometimes a person may say "Screw you. I'll post what I want." I'll try to engage a discussion with the individual about why his/her posts should be taken elsewhere; but I don't see what good a second or third warning will do. Let's say the "screw you" OT poster is the one posting OT messages again. /That's/ when I remove his/her post.
On the other hand, there are people that rarely ever go off-topic; and if they go off-topic only twice in a very long timespan, they're going to be given leniency. Another reminder should do.
There is also a third set of people, that apologize for not taking OT discussion somewhere else, but make no effort to control themselves in the future. If that poster, can't control his/her actions, there's no point in another warning. Message removal is the next step. Implementing this policy is mainly a way of dealing with those who make no effort to take OT discussion elsewhere.
*Will they be notified, when I remove it*: I'll do it privately. Doing it in public, not only creates more noise, it usually isn't needed. Most people don't notice when a post has been deleted. It takes specific circumstances. I would have to remove the message in between the time the headers are downloaded, and the time the newsreader tries to retrieve the post.
In conclusion, removing posts may seem a little drastic to some people in here; but for the past fourteen months, people in the support newsgroups have been told to take the OT discussions to mozilla.general, and they have ignored that request.
I suppose I could try summarizing the intent into something more clear, to publish on www.mozilla.org. If anyone wants to help, I'd appreciate it. -- Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca> List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird mozilla.test.multimedia moderator (Please do not email me tech support questions)
On 27/02/2007 1:43 PM, _Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo_ spoke thusly:
> on what grounds does a message get deleted and who all is contacted for > removal? By this, I'm assuming from the latest round of deletions it > was because of the bad language.
You've read the "censorship" thread in mozilla.general, correct? I assume you have, because you've posted to that thread. In that thread, I've stated three different times, in three different posts[1][2][3], that message removal is about OT content, not profanity. In fact, you even replied to the third message.
> . . . which happened in December 2006 and January 2007. An individual > was causing problems in the support groups. Someone classified him as a > Nasty Troll. And ALL his messages were removed including those who > posted under him. However, at times he asked a good question, and people > replied with good intentions and *helpful responses*. Yet, the entire > thread was removed. No explanation was given. I was one of those > helpful posters, and nobody contacted me regarding the removal of my > posting. The only way I found out was a "Mozilla Champion" mentioned > that his postings were being removed from the server. So, this is > "wibble" removal at its fullest.
This policy change happened a little over a week ago, not December or January. The poster you are referring to is "Garth" [4]. The removal of his posts, has nothing to do with this policy. I did send you an email on the 13th of January, explaining that his posts were being removed.
On 2007-02-28, Deb Richardson <d...@dria.org> wrote:
>> Unless you can write some code which understands the policies and the >> newsgroup posts well enough to make the decision, it's always going to be >> a judgement call.
> True, but you can have a judgement call that is informed by written, agreed > upon, and published policies/guidelines, or you can have a judgement call > that is seemingly arbitrary. I'm saying that the former is preferable to > the latter.
Certainly.
>> There's no guarantee you can contact a poster outside of the group, so >> much of that communication and warning, all of which will be off-topic, >> will have to be done in the group.
> I think this could easily be accounted for in the policy. Most people do > use a recognizable-if-slightly-munged address when dealing with these > groups. In the edge cases where someone cannot be contacted outside of the > group,
But the problem, AIUI, isn't with most people. It's with a few people that are awkward - if they want to be awkward and they see it's more awkward, they can change their posting address.
>> Whatever the definition is, there are still going to be grey areas, and >> some people will work out where they are and try and push the limits.
> Again, this can be accounted for in the policy itself. Having the majority > of cases accounted for in the policy and having to work out the edge cases > on a case-by-case basis is preferable to just making it up as you go. And > yes, when those edge cases come up, the final decisions should be recorded > as part of the policy. I don't think this is unreasonable.
I don't think it's unreasonable, but I think it may be hard to do in practice. If someone is deliberately being awkward, they can come up with a new edge case every day, and the policy will be a constant topic of discussion, and constantly needing to be revised and added to.
> Perhaps I stated my original point poorly. I simply want there to be a > stated and agreed upon policy before anyone starts nuking anything. As it > stands, messages have been removed without any such policy or set of > guidelines in place, and I think that's a mistake.
I wasn't intending to disagree with that. I'm just saying I'm not sure a policy that doesn't involve a lot of judgement is workable. What's needed is someone that can implement a basic policy in a way which won't cause much disagreement with the implementation.
>>> But if you don't like it being an individual moderator making >>> judgement calls and nuking chunks of posts and followups from the >>> group, then I think it's probably better to not to do any removal >>> (aside from stuff that's clearly spam), rather than turning the >>> moderation of a newsgroup into something which will occupy the time of >>> a whole bunch of people in writing policies and procedures and trying >>> to implement them on a system which isn't designed for moderation of >>> that kind.
>> I think you have summed up my feelings pretty well. IMNSHO, if control >> of the postings is desired, then make the change to moderated groups. >> Otherwise retro-moderation is going to create more problems than it >> cures.
> Frank, you remember how we handled it on secnews. One user in 11 years > of secnews was "officially (by Netscape)" banned and posts cancelled. > Another user, not officially banned had posts removed only after we > discussed the issue in length. And then along came ChrisI who requested > that we give him the authority to take the matter of warnings and > subsequent cancels into his own hands and proceed as he saw fit. He took > the issue under control (his) and shortly afterwards was when the melee > broke out. I see the same thing happening here. BTW, this is not a slam > against Chris (doing a good job), just some insight as to what "is" and > "may" be happening all over again.
> My suggestion, based on experience, is to moderate the dev groups and > establish protocol in the .support.xx groups based on written guidelines > after which offenders are private emailed and asked to please follow > posting protocols with cancellations and/or banning as a very last > resort.
Fortunately, I wasn't around by then. I think I'm also beginning to see why I started losing interest in participation on secnews.
-- Frank Tabor It usually takes more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech. -- Mark Twain
Chris Ilias wrote: > I know you mean well, when you say that you want to do this right, however: > I implore anyone who wishes to form an opinion on this, to subscribe to > mozilla.support.firefox and mozilla.support.thunderbird, and read every > message in the past two weeks.
In order to have some light rather than heat, I downloaded the last 5000 messages in mozilla.support.firefox and mozilla.support.thunderbird. The Firefox newsgroup runs at 100 messages a day; the Thunderbird newsgroup at 80. So these are high volume groups.
I assume that the vast majority of non-accidental off-topicness comes from newsgroup regulars, i.e. those who post reasonably frequently.
I made a list of anyone who posted more than about 50 messages. I worked out a "on-topic percentage" for each poster over 100 messages, by random sampling, plus people who are participating in this thread. There is some play in the figures because it's not always possible to tell with certainty if there's little context, but it should be good enough for a "finger in the air". I then used that to calculate an approximate number of off-topic messages posted in the time-frame (60 days for Thunderbird, 50 days for Firefox).
The results are as follows:
Firefox ------- -Name- Msgs On-T (Stats) Off-T Nir: 476 100% (37/37) 0 Brian Heinrich: 353 63% (17/27) 130 David McRitchie: 231 95% (16/17) 12 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo: 205 83% (24/29) 35 Chris Ilias: 178 100% (27/27) 0 squaredancer: 166 44% (11/25) 93 Ron Hunter: 160 62% (15/25) 60 Ed Mullen: 131 60% (12/20) 52 Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.: 119 44% ( 8/18) 66 Irwin Greenwald: 88 Tony Mechelynck: 80 Ron K: 62 Jeff: 59 Moz Champion (Dan): 58 Leonidas Jones: 57 Jay Garcia: 56 30% ( 6/20) 39 Herb: 50
Thunderbird ----------- -Name- Msgs On-T (Stats) Off-T Brian Heinrich: 451 Nir: 442 Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo: 190 squaredancer: 170 Moz Champion (Dan): 160 79% (19/24) 34 Ron Hunter: 116 Tony Mechelynck: 106 94% ( 1/16) 6 Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.: 102 Chris Ilias: 97 Jay Garcia: 88 Pete Holsberg: 77 Andrew de Farla: 75 Ron K.: 63 Frank Tabor: 62 64% ( 9/14) 22 Terry: 57 Leonidas Jones: 52 Irwin Greenwald: 51 Herb: 50
It seems to me that most posters fall into one of two categories - the "more than nine-tenths on-topic" camp, and the "less than two thirds on-topic" camp (with M.C. Dan, who gets into arguments about posting style, and Peter P. being in the middle). But when you consider the volume, a couple of people rise to the top as the off-topic kings.
Deb Richardson wrote: > What's the procedure that will lead up to message removal? How many > warnings will users be given? What is the content of that warning going to > include? Will they be told where "off topic" discussions should be taken? > Will they be given an opportunity to explain how/why a discussion is > actually on topic before it is removed? Will messages be posted to the > group explaining that a message/thread has been removed and why? What will > the content of those messages include?
The danger of this is that you end up with more messages in the group than you removed!
It seems to me that the envisaged use is something like as follows:
- Email to a particular person: "A lot of your posts are off-topic (here are examples); please try and stay on-topic" - If no change, a further email "If you don't stay on-topic, I will start removing your off-topic posts without warning" - If no change, then the threat is carried out (perhaps with a single message at the start of any period of removals, explaining what is happening)
If email isn't available because they've obfuscated their address, then you'd have to post the "emails" to the group instead.
> What's the stated and explicit definition of "off topic" or what is/isn't > appropriate for each newsgroup? Will users be able to read and understand > the rules that apply to a group before using that group, or will they be > made aware of rules only after an infraction? Obviously, I believe rules > should be written and communicated prior to enforcement.
I think that, in the cases, in question, it's obvious enough from the newsgroup name what the groups are for - support of Firefox and Thunderbird. So they are not about, for example, personally abusing other group members, reminiscing about the time of Netscape 1, or complaining about how stupid Mozilla developers are.
> What procedure will there be for lodging complaints about moderation > practices?
The same procedures that we have for complaining about anyone else in a position of authority in the Mozilla project :-)
> Every message removal risks damaging a user's > reputation, so there should be some process in place for fixing that if the > removal was incorrect or premature.
What sort of content are you imagining these messages having? I'm thinking about the following examples from my recent trawl:
Sailfish wrote: > I don't think you can frame this issue using the "code" analogy. The > people who can contribute to the "code" is very small wrt to the entire > community and their main focus is new feature design, not support. Many > support threads tend to eventually filter down to offering opinions > where responders end up including anecdotal experiences in order to > buttress their position. This type of free exchange lends itself to > tangential, unrelated discussions at times.
Well, don't let it. It's not that hard.
> Partially agree. If the policy had a rule that all off-topic threads not > prefaced with and OT identifier ([OT], OT:, whatever) are open to > cancellation after the nth response then filters could be set to ignore > all such tagged threads. Sender plonking is also available.
...to those who know how to use it. But if a newbie manages to work out how to subscribe to the newsgroup to ask a question, they should not have their inbox filled with reminiscences about Netscape 1 or personal abuse of other participants. And they have no clue what [OT] means.
>> One last point: the newsgroup mozilla.general was specifically created >> to allow off-topic discussion among Mozilla community participants. >> Let it not be said that we don't provide a forum for such discussions.
> Most OT discussions are not planned nor do they the people participating > in them care to go to and OT newsgroup to chit-chat.
Then they are subject to having their messages cancelled :-)
Most parking on double yellow lines is not planned, and the people who park there clearly don't want to go to an official car park. That doesn't stop them getting traffic tickets.
Gervase Markham wrote: > Chris Ilias wrote: >> I know you mean well, when you say that you want to do this right, >> however: >> I implore anyone who wishes to form an opinion on this, to subscribe >> to mozilla.support.firefox and mozilla.support.thunderbird, and read >> every message in the past two weeks.
> In order to have some light rather than heat, I downloaded the last 5000 > messages in mozilla.support.firefox and mozilla.support.thunderbird. The > Firefox newsgroup runs at 100 messages a day; the Thunderbird newsgroup > at 80. So these are high volume groups.
> I assume that the vast majority of non-accidental off-topicness comes > from newsgroup regulars, i.e. those who post reasonably frequently.
> I made a list of anyone who posted more than about 50 messages. I worked > out a "on-topic percentage" for each poster over 100 messages, by random > sampling, plus people who are participating in this thread. There is > some play in the figures because it's not always possible to tell with > certainty if there's little context, but it should be good enough for a > "finger in the air". I then used that to calculate an approximate number > of off-topic messages posted in the time-frame (60 days for Thunderbird, > 50 days for Firefox).
> Thunderbird > ----------- > -Name- Msgs On-T (Stats) Off-T > Brian Heinrich: 451 > Nir: 442 > Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo: 190 > squaredancer: 170 > Moz Champion (Dan): 160 79% (19/24) 34 > Ron Hunter: 116 > Tony Mechelynck: 106 94% ( 1/16) 6 > Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.: 102 > Chris Ilias: 97 > Jay Garcia: 88 > Pete Holsberg: 77 > Andrew de Farla: 75 > Ron K.: 63 > Frank Tabor: 62 64% ( 9/14) 22 > Terry: 57 > Leonidas Jones: 52 > Irwin Greenwald: 51 > Herb: 50
> It seems to me that most posters fall into one of two categories - the > "more than nine-tenths on-topic" camp, and the "less than two thirds > on-topic" camp (with M.C. Dan, who gets into arguments about posting > style, and Peter P. being in the middle). But when you consider the > volume, a couple of people rise to the top as the off-topic kings.
That is illuminating. Is there any way you can put an additional filter on the above which records the percentages based on off-topic (OT) threads only, i.e., if someone posted several OT messages in a single thread then that would only count as 1 OT thread by that individual (just with the samples above)? If it wouldn't be too much effort, it would be a more complete picture to see the percentage of OT threads-to-total this represents.
I stuck the above numbers in a spread sheet and came up with:
Fx
Totals: Msgs Off-T OT% 2529 487 19.26%
TB
Totals: Msgs Off-T OT% 2409 62 2.57%
Offhand, it looks like the TB newsgroup OT post are in the noise level and Fx may need some individual managing but not necessarily a need to implement OT-cancelling?
|
