Moderator Protocols When Deleting, Editing, or Locking Posts or Topics

Are there protocols that moderators are expected to take when exercising their powers? Its been a while and I may be mistaken but I thought that I read a while back that rules are supposed to have been broken before mods are to delete, edit, or lock posts and or topics and that the procedure is for the mod to open a discussion and offer an explanation when such actions are taken.

I PMd a mod and requested an explanation when a recent topic was locked and without making any direct quotes, the mod in question essentially told me that s/he did not feel like explaining anything to me and that s/he is not accountable to the general membership here, but only to the Council.

I obviously dont have the power to set new or to change existing policy and so if this is the standard that leadership is held to and the sentiment that is prevalent then of course there is nothing that I can do about it. Its your world, i just happen to be in it. I was however under the impression that we had evolved beyond the level of moderators utilizing their capabilities as a result of their fleeting personal moods or resentments and that they are to adbere to a general, previously determined protocol. Could someone please clarify if there are procedures associated with the exercising of moderation powers or if mods just get to do what they want because they feel like it? If there are no protocols, why not? Am i the only one who thinks that there ought to be? If there are protocols, could someone please explain what they are? I just want to know what to expect in the future. Thank you.

As always, you messaged me before I had a chance to PM you.

I gave you the explanation in the thread as to why I locked it. Appeals must be made by PM not debated in forum.

And I was correct when I PM'd you, being Head Moderator I am held accountable by the Council, only they have the power to overturn my decisions.
Otherwise I make decisions based upon the guidelines of moderation and my judgement where applicable. And, as I said by PM, if you wish to appeal my decision I will let Council know.

Im not angry. I am going to be direct but this is not hostility or disrespect.

Edan wrote:
As always, you messaged me before I had a chance to PM you.

I dont understand why the order of who sent the first PM is relevant. Yes, as soon as I saw that the topic was locked I PMd you to ask you why. If you were already in the process of writing an explanation then it seems to me that you could still have done given it, even though my PM got to you before yours got to me.

I gave you the explanation in the thread as to why I locked it.

Respectfully, I have to disagree. No explanation at all was given as to why the thread was closed. You simply stated that you were locking it and that it could be appealed via PM.

Appeals must be made by PM not debated in forum.

I tried PMs and I was dismissed. Ive neither made an appeal nor initiated a debate. The PM I sent merely asked why the thread was locked: what you were hoping to prevent or accomplish given that the issue had already been handled and the discussion was already over. It seemed an arbitrary and unnecessary exercise of control and censorship and I inquired as to the rationale behind it. This topic was created as a request for clarification of moderator protocols.

And I was correct when I PM'd you, being Head Moderator I am held accountable by the Council, only they have the power to overturn my decisions.

When I spoke of accountability I was not talking about who has the power to overule who. I was talking about the fact that while people in positions of leadership may not be strictly obligated to do so, it is in the best interests of social cohesion for leaders to be forthright and transparent about why they exercize their powers over other members of their communities.

I have no doubt that the Council is going to support you in this situation and I dont resent that. However my words may come across, I have a lot of respect for you and your commitment to the Temple and for all the work that you have put in around here. But yea, i get seriously annoyed with arbitrary censorsbip and control, especially when its directed at my posts or topics. Maybe I am incorrect but in my opinion, a logical explanation for such actions is a reasonable expectation.

Otherwise I make decisions based upon the guidelines of moderation and my judgement where applicable. And, as I said by PM, if you wish to appeal my decision I will let Council know.

Im not interested in appealing the decision, i only wanted to know why the decision was made in the first place.

Can you (or anyone) please direct me to or refresh me on these "guidelines of moderation"? And do these guidines have a clause about engaging in dialogue with the person who is being moderated? If they do then can we please remember so in the future and if they dont, can someone explain why not?

No explanation at all was given as to why the thread was closed. You simply stated that you were locking it and that it could be appealed via PM.

You misunderstand... my comment about appeals by PM was my explanation... your second thread was about why your initial thread was locked. That is for PM appeals, not for the forum.

I'm not going to respond point on point to your post. The forum is not the place to debate moderation decisions, as I have said before, if you wish to appeal my decision, take it up with a Councillor, that is the process open to you. I locked the second thread, and you messaged me before I could contact you about it.

The moderation guidelines are viewable by all here: https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/114-Announcements/124366-new-moderation-guidelines

You have a council secretary you can pm to complain about stuff if you want to make it formal.

Again, I wasnt making an appeal. But fine, no public discussion is allowed on moderator decisions. Best to keep it all under the table ;-]

ren: i may push a discussion in the open but i dont usually go runnnng to tattle to the principle just because im not getting my way. Even if i were that type I dont think it would make any difference, anyway.

I dont see that this discussion is not going anywhere further than this pont. Feel fre to reply if you feel like it, I think i wont waste any more of my own time here.

Allow me to clarify, your original post is correct, there is a procedure, that procedure is 'if you have a problem with the actions of any officer of totjo, notify the council secretary, who will inform the council, which will look into it.

The council doesn't like to micromanage people, so we don't do it unless we're asked to, which is what you're going to have to do if you feel you were unfairly targeted.

You have a system where you can complain about the cops to people who are a: more powerful than the cops and b: not cops. I think that's a pretty good protocol.