# Is this site over-moderated?



## Hulalessar

I know that most of the forums are for people to ask specific questions on points of grammar, vocabulary etc and that they need to be kept on track. However, I do feel that the discussions in the more general forums are sometimes stifled. I think it is in the nature of a discussion on etymology, for example, that it will wander a bit and if the purpose of the general forums is to discuss as well as inform I do not see that as a  bad thing. I sometimes feel like we are treated like pupils who must be got through an exam, rather than educated.


----------



## blue_jewel

I also observed the same way. A beginner like me would rather just read than post a topic for fear that i might not be able to make it to their rules and standards in posting. I once posted and it was deleted right away. Of course as a newbie we wanted to be belong or join in any discussion without being brushed-off immediately due to our slight mistakes and lacking of full knowledge (just yet) with the rules and regulations here. I think a little consideration wont hurt.


----------



## danielfranco

Gee... At least this is not one of those sites that all comments are moderated BEFORE they are published.
Now, that would be an overmoderated forum, I think. This is just... hmmm... strict, I guess. 

Oh. 

Wait, we do have some of that in these forums. I think the Resources forum is pre-moderated.

Ah, well, as long as English/Spanish (in all its colors and flavors) doesn't become one of those, I'm okay with fifty-something rules and twenty-something mods.

D


----------



## Fernita

I think that having rules and mods makes the difference. I wouldn't say it's over-moderated though.

If you just follow the rules, you shouldn't feel treated as pupils. The fact is that some people prefer not to read them and that's why some posts are deleted. As simple as that.

I happened to visit other forums and to be honest, most of them are just like chatting on the msn and more than often the original question is forgotten. This is not the aim of WR.

Anyway, I agree on the fact that the mods should be a bit tolerant with newbies. Generally, they send them PMs to guide them.

Hope you will have no more problems from now onwards.
Good luck and welcome!!!!


----------



## Flaminius

Hello,

What I say here is general impressions I have had while moderating a few subfora in WR. Questions about specific moderations should be kept in private in keeping with the forum rules.

Now, I realise that many good thread topics in the fora do not yield black-and-white answers.  Selecting the best word in a given phrase?  The correct/best answer depends a lot on how to understand the context and where you want to drive the conversation.  Explaining why one form is grammatical and another (very similar one) is blatantly unacceptable?  A lot of great discussion I have participated in could not been addressed by shoving grammar books down the throat or analysing the cultural expectations of a given speech community.  Etymology of a word as it travels from one language to anther?  Well, you should be ready for cultural, historical and religious accounts involved.  We are all aware that sometimes we can just gauge a weight of opinion instead of finding a stone-carved "correct" answer.

Despite all this, we are a language forum.  This is neither a venue for cultural, historical religious discussions, nor a chatboard about 10 000 other serious and casual topics.  Comments that throw the thread off the thread topic are summarily removed from the thread.

Oftentimes, a thread with many readerships and participants turn out to contain more than one good topic.  All except for the original one (or the one which is the product of deepening the original) are off-topic in the thread.  If they are good language topics, I am always happy to branch them as new threads.  New threads will be linked to the parent thread by a hyperlink.  If I see a promising new topic emerging in an existing thread but am not sure what exactly the interest of a poster, I might ask him via PM to edit the post and/or open a new thread for the new question.

I'd like to remind you that thread branching is NOT a prerogative of moderators.  If you yourself feel that you are touching upon a different topic, please feel free to create a new thread and link it to the old one.  E.g., "I am basing my argument that XYZ is ABC on the assumption that 123 is 987.  I want to check if my assumption holds true, so I've opened a thread here.  Let's discuss it there."

 I have heard from a few posters telling that they are afraid to open a thread for each questions they want to ask because that would make them look hyper-active.  Unless your threads deprive other threads of front page visibility, this is not the case at all.  We think two lean, clearly defined threads are better than one big, unfocused thread.

Unfortunately, I have had to delete a lot of off-topic comments because they are not contributory to the purpose of the WR fora.  When posts and threads are deleted, posters are requested to refrain from chatting, refer to an existing thread about the same topic, or observe a specific article in the forum rules.

We have many rules.  Some are good manners on the 'Net and some need more conscious effort at observance.  Everyone takes some time to master them all (I did too) but everyone eventually _does_.  Moderators may delete or edit comments to maintain the fora in keeping with the rules and remind posters of the rules.  Moderation is just that, never to be taken as an unwelcoming gesture.


----------



## avok

Hulalessar and blue jewel, don't worry, you'll get used to it. 

PS: I am not being sarcastic or anything, just share my own experience.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

A useful hint:
Read carefully the WRF guidelines as well as the specific rules of the forum you're posting in: you'll see that what's allowed and what's not is made really clear.
Once you follow the rules, your posts will hardly need to be moderated.


----------



## TrentinaNE

blue_jewel said:


> A beginner like me would rather just read than post a topic for fear that i might not be able to make it to their rules and standards in posting.


A hint: whenever you venture into a new online community, it's a good practice to *just read* for a few days, so that you get the feel of how the rules are enforced and how people generally interact with one another.  


> I once posted and it was deleted right away.


And the moderator no doubt left a message as to why your post was deleted. If s/he didn't, then you should write to ask why -- you're entitled to know. 

As a former moderator, now returned to "civilian" status, I appreciate the level of moderation at this site more than ever. 

Elisabetta


----------



## blue_jewel

Having been posted my comment here doesn't mean I feel that I'm unwelcome same as I'll be banned for thinking it out loud here. That's just what I observe as a newbie which I know in time will change. To those who are kind enough to explain the rules, thank you. I just simply love WR forum that's why I can't help to participate in the discussions right away instead of reading/learning all the rules at first hand. 


Thanks guys


----------



## Broccolicious

I appreciate the moderation all the more when I'm using old thread to supplement the dictionary - I wouldn't want to wade through pages and pages of chat in the hope of finding a gem of additional information!

It would be interesting to know more about the Mods, though - are they volunteers or paid? What's the mix of mother tongues, ages and geographical distribution? And so on.


----------



## ascension

Sometimes I wish I could chat more, but I really appreciate the seriousness of the forum since I'm here to learn. Maybe this will help with your questions Broccolicous:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showgroups.php


----------



## Paulfromitaly

_Who are the moderators?_
They are ordinary members (or “foreros”, in forum slang)  who have been invited by the administrative team to take on a temporary  assignment. They are unpaid volunteers who help maintain order in the forums, in  addition to participating in the forums as regular members. 

As of the forum’s third anniversary, in mid-2007, there  were around 50 moderators. At the bottom of each forum is a list of members who  moderate that forum. A complete list of moderators is available on the Forum  Leaders page, which can be accessed via the  View Forum Leaders at the bottom of the main  page of the forum.

_How are moderators chosen?_
When there are openings on the administrative team, current  moderators suggest and discuss candidates. The WR administrator makes the final  decision, considering these requirements:
- Very active in the forums, available and willing;
- Highly capable in the languages of the forums they are to  moderate;
- Easy to work with and very helpful, especially with  beginners;
- Collaborative with both moderator staff and fellow  members;
- Serious, trustworthy and obviously dedicated to the  WordReference Mission.

_Where can moderators moderate?_
Each moderator is responsible for one or two forums or  subforums. All moderators have the ability to moderate in any forum, but they  generally moderate only in their assigned forums.

_Why do moderators have different titles than other  members?_
Each moderator is free to choose his or her own title. 

_What do moderators do?_
Moderators keep the forum clean, organized and running  smoothly. Their duties include:
- Reading threads to ensure that posts are cordial,  collegial, on-topic and not chatty, and that they follow rules of punctuation  and capitalization;
- Merging or deleting duplicate posts and threads;
- Responding to report-a-post messages from members;
- Moving misplaced threads to the appropriate forum;
- Closing or removing threads that are outside the scope of  a forum;
- Changing thread titles for clarity;
- Deleting advertising and “spam” posts;
- Editing posts as necessary, to fulfill the mission of the forums;
- Banning members, when necessary;
- Asking posters for context and complete sentences;
- Sending private messages to members;
- Answering threads like any other member.

_How can the WRF community help the moderator team?_
All members are encouraged to direct moderators to any post  or thread that needs attention. Just click on the red triangle in the upper  right-hand corner of the post you wish to report. 

_Do moderators work as a team?_
The moderators collaborate as much as possible. Because  moderators are in different time zones and have responsibility for different  forums, they tend to work independently. Each forum has its own customs and  practices, so moderator actions may vary from one forum to the next.

_Can moderators be disciplined just like other members?  By whom?_
Moderators must abide by the rules, just like other  members. Their posts can be reported by members and are subject to moderation by  other moderators. If disciplinary action is warranted, it is carried out by the  administrator.

_What do I do if I disagree with a moderator action?_
Discussions about moderator or administrator  actions are welcome via email or private message, but should not be discussed in  the public forums. This is out of respect for the members and moderators  involved. 
If you don’t understand or agree with a moderator’s  actions, send a private message to that moderator or another moderator that you  trust. Your complaints and suggestions are welcome and will help us improve the  WR forums.

_How do I contact a moderator?_
At the bottom of each forum is a list of members who  moderate that forum. Their names are also listed on the  Forum Leaders page, accessible at the bottom of  the forum’s main page. To contact a moderator, click on his/her username or  avatar to send a private message.


----------



## EmilyD

No.

Sincerely,

Nomi


----------



## SaritaSarang

Hulalessar said:


> I know that most of the forums are for people to ask specific questions on points of grammar, vocabulary etc and that they need to be kept on track. However, I do feel that the discussions in the more general forums are sometimes stifled. I think it is in the nature of a discussion on etymology, for example, that it will wander a bit and if the purpose of the general forums is to discuss as well as inform I do not see that as a  bad thing. I sometimes feel like we are treated like pupils who must be got through an exam, rather than educated.




I agree.


----------



## cubaMania

*Is this site over-moderated?*

No.  In my opinion it is the excellent moderation that has made this site so very useful and interesting.  Really, there are a ton of different sites out there where one can freely discuss every subject under the sun, but there is only ONE forum that succeeds like WR in providing such a great language-learning experience, and it is the moderation that makes that happen.


----------



## RIU

Paulfromitaly said:


> _Who are the moderators?_
> 
> .../...
> 
> message.


 
Gracias Paul, nunca me habia atrevido a preguntarlo.


...

Exacto, satisfaga o no la consulta a tus necesidades, es rápido y conciso.


----------



## Tagarela

Hello,

Well, once I entered here I've read the rules. And, yes, I do think it is over-moderated sometimes. I have never done something non-sense, and sometimes it is too easy to delete a message and say "read the rules". 
In a certain situation, for example, I had a message deleted - the usual argument _personal opinion_ (whatever it means) and then I argued privately with the moderator saying that it was an answer asking for a _personal suggestion_ and then she agreed that I was right and then erased the other message - and not only, closed the whole thread, since, for me, it was almost only _personal opinion. _

Once I also read that somethings are not discussed here because we can do it in many other websites etc - but, if this is so, why manytimes, when someone asks something one just reply with a Wikipedia's link. And then, following it, every thread asking for a word in every language should be forbidden, since we can easily find the word in the other language at Wikipedia, you type it in your language and then change to another - okay, not in all, but in many. 

I agree that it should not be a completly open forum, but sometimes we have some odd events here. 

Good bye.:


----------



## EmilyD

I felt enormous guilt when I answered slightly aged threads ( Cultural Discussions ) and led them into disappearance, because the Guidelines have changed.

Had I not commented, those threads would be undisturbed-- 

My first attempt at a Cultural Discussion thread was removed, and I felt sad and misunderstood at that time.

My conclusion remains that this site is moderated in the way that serves the needs of the masses.

We are all human and vulnerable.  A mixed blessing.

_Nomi_


----------



## TrentinaNE

Tagarela said:


> And then, following it, every thread asking for a word in every language should be forbidden, since we can easily find the word in the other language at Wikipedia, you type it in your language and then change to another - okay, not in all, but in many.


And, in fact, threads that simply ask, e.g., "How do I say _cat_ in language X?" are routinely closed/deleted because they violate Rule #1:


> Look for the answer first.
> Check the WordReference dictionaries if available (and scroll down for a list of related threads)
> or use the forum's search function.


The forums are an adjunct to the WR dictionary, not the other way around. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Broccolicious

EmilyD said:


> We are all human and vulnerable. A mixed blessing.


 
Maybe that's the point: we're all giving personal opinions on something very personal to each of us - our languages. So naturally we feel rejected when we're Modded, even though we know it's for the good of the masses, as you say!

As a relatively new member of the Forums, I'm constantly amazed that such a rich resource is free - you won't read any complaints from me about it!

B


----------



## dmcc

I have been a member here for a while and have only started posting very recently.  I don' think they are over-moderated at all.  If you read the guidelines before posting then it's pretty clear what the dos and don'ts are.  Also the lack of superfluous chat on threads means it's quick and easy to get to the important information.  Last but not least, as Brocc says above - it's a free resource for us all, and incredibly well maintained!


----------



## Grefsen

Thank you *Hulalessar *for starting this very interesting and informative thread.  



blue_jewel said:


> I also observed the same way. A beginner like me would rather just read than post a topic for fear that i might not be able to make it to their rules and standards in posting. I once posted and it was deleted right away. Of course as a newbie we wanted to be belong or join in any discussion without being brushed-off immediately due to our slight mistakes and lacking of full knowledge (just yet) with the rules and regulations here. I think a little consideration wont hurt.



I completely agree with most of your comments *blue_jewel*.  When I first joined this site I was very excited and bubbling with enthusiasm. However, after I discovered that one of my first posts had been deleted, I felt like my enthusiasm had been doused by a bucket of ice water.  

Since I actually did take the time to read the posting guidelines before attempting to post here at WordReference (WR), it really upset me to find that something I had taken the time to carefully write had ended up disappearing without a trace.   

I sent a PM to the moderator who deleted my post and she was nice enough to give me a full explanation of the reason why it was deleted. However, it still bothered me for awhile afterwards since I had such good intentions with my post and it seemed like it was such a minor violation of "the rules."  

Sadly I have seen a number of other cases where  newcomers to WR have had one or more of their first posts deleted and they didn't give WR a second chance like I did.  Unfortunately some of  these newcomers, including one I had some PM contact with, simply decided not to post here again.  

I wonder if it would be possible for the WR moderators to consider having a "grace period" for newcomers during perhaps their first 5 to 10 posts?   During this time, moderators would either only delete posts that are very clear violations of the rules such as advertising and “spam” posts OR  be sure at the very least to send a PM to the newcomer letting them know the specific reason(s) why it was necessary to delete or edit one of their first posts.

I don't want to leave the wrong impression here, so I want to make it very clear that I realize how difficult it must be at times to moderate the number of posts that are made at WR.  For the most part I think that the WR moderators are doing a great job and I really appreciate their efforts.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Grefsen said:


> I wonder if it would be possible for the WR moderators to consider having a "grace period" for newcomers during perhaps their first 5 to 10 posts?



Newbies actually have what you call a "grace period" : we do take into account the fact the poster is a new member, however it doesn't mean they can breach the rules, especially the most important ones.


----------



## alexacohen

_Is this site over-moderated?

_No.

The bigger the forums are the more morerators are needed. That is, if we don't want this place to become a chat-fighting room full of people writing without paying the least attention to grammar and orthography rules. 

There are plenty of forums to do that. I, for one, prefer this site as it is - with moderators and rules - even if my posts get deleted all over the place.


----------



## CarolMamkny

alexacohen said:


> _Is this site over-moderated?_
> 
> *No.*
> 
> The bigger the forums are the more morerators are needed. That is, if we don't want this place to become a chat-fighting room full of people writing without paying the least attention to grammar and ortography rules.
> 
> There are plenty of forums to do that. I, for one, prefer this site as it is - with moderators and rules - *even if my posts get deleted all over the place*.


 
Amen to that!


----------



## Grefsen

Paulfromitaly said:


> Newbies actually have what you call a "grace period" : we do take into account the fact the poster is a new member, however it doesn't mean they can breach the rules, especially the most important ones.



Thanks/*grazie* for your reply *Paul*.    

I'm very happy to see that there is a "grace period" for "newbies" and that moderators do "take into account the fact the poster is a new member." Is this a relatively new policy or something that has been in place now for awhile?

I'd also be interested to know what you and some of the other moderators think about the  suggestion I made in my previous post of sending "a PM to the newcomer letting them know the specific reason(s) why it was necessary to delete or edit one of their first posts."


----------



## elroy

Grefsen said:


> I'd also be interested to know what you and some of the other moderators think about the suggestion I made in my previous post of sending "a PM to the newcomer letting them know the specific reason(s) why it was necessary to delete or edit one of their first posts."


 This is standard practice, Grefsen.  Generally, we either send a PM or indicate the reason publicly.


----------



## Etcetera

alexacohen said:


> _Is this site over-moderated?
> 
> _No.
> 
> The bigger the forums are the more morerators are needed. That is, if we don't want this place to become a chat-fighting room full of people writing without paying the least attention to grammar and orthography rules.
> 
> There are plenty of forums to do that. I, for one, prefer this site as it is - with moderators and rules - even if my posts get deleted all over the place.


I agree with you, Alexa. 

I don't think the rules are too strict. They're just as strict as they should be. 

I've never felt offended or something like that when my posts were deleted (it happened some five or six times) because I saw that it was done in accordance with the rules.


----------



## Outsider

I've been a member of the WR forums for several years now. When I got here, it was a friendlier, more chatty place. I understand that times change, and that the people who run the forum would rather host more focused discussions on language, but it can be difficult to adjust when you were used to something else. I think the Cultural Discussions forum, especially, has lost some of its charm, although it's true that many of the topics that stopped being allowed were contentious, and can be debated elsewhere.


----------



## fenixpollo

Grefsen said:


> ... it really upset me to find that something I had taken the time to carefully write had ended up disappearing without a trace.


 I agree that this would be maddening. Standard practice among the mods is to send a private message to every user who has a thread deleted (unless it's a duplicate thread). It's not standard practice to do this with every post that's deleted. One reason is that deleted posts are easier to find than deleted threads -- deleted threads aren't searchable. But if I look at my subscribed threads and I realize that there's one missing -- "Hey!", I say to myself, "Where's that one thread I just posted in yesterday?" -- then I can search the forum for it, find my deleted post and see who deleted it and why. If I disagree with the deletion, I can PM the moderator, make my case and find out more information. 





Grefsen said:


> I'd also be interested to know what you and some of the other moderators think about the suggestion I made in my previous post of sending "a PM to the newcomer letting them know the specific reason(s) why it was necessary to delete or edit one of their first posts."


 If it's their first post, a PM will definitely be sent. After that, it depends on the situation....





Grefsen said:


> I'm very happy to see that there is a "grace period" for "newbies" and that moderators do "take into account the fact the poster is a new member." Is this a relatively new policy or something that has been in place now for awhile?


 There isn't a "policy" that I am aware of. However, speaking for the Spanish-English moderators, we generally enforce the same rules for new members as for not-so-new members. Newbies are not exempt from any rules. 

However, we might enforce the rules in a different way for new members than for senior members. For example, this week, I found a thread where two people used chatspeak: a member with 3 posts and a senior member. I edited the post of the new person, explaining what I had done and why. I deleted the post of the senior member, with one simple explanation: "chatspeak". Again this morning, I had to edit two posts of people who were typing in all-capital letters... one was a newbie with 1 post, and the other was one of my fellow moderators. They received the same treatment (editing) but in the reason for editing field, I told the newbie why it's not OK to use all-caps; the moderator should already know, so I didn't explain.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

I am also new two these forums, and my experiences are varied. Of course I didn't read the rules before posting my first message (I wonder if there is someone who does), so less than 24 hours after subscribing, a message of mine was pruned. I was nicely and politely told the reason (completely off topic comment) by the person who rightly censored it. And I received two ever nicer explanatory PMs when I posted another message to apologize -knowing it was going to be almost immediately deleted, as it indeed and justly was...

On the other hand, less than 24 hours since subscribing, and in another thread where they were discussing how to give a certain instruction, I noticed that the sentence in question contained the equivalent of "...place the tip of the pencil..." (I'm changing some words because I don't want to make this a personal matter), which I thought should say "...place the tip of _your_ pencil...". And so I posted a very brief message with this question:

"..._your_ pencil"?

which I thought was clear enough, as the expression was in the title of the thread and also in almost every message. To my surprise, several days later I noticed that my message had been eliminated because "it doesn't answer the question". A PM to the mod questioning this was answered saying that he had really deleted it because he didn't understand it and thought my remark made no sense. However, a second PM with the same explanation I have just given did not receive any answer, and did not get my message restored. I found this very unfair, but had to accept it.

Another related matter. My experience tells me that, contrary to what has been said here, there are just too many messages asking "How do you say XXX YYYY in (the language in question)", which are not only allowed to stay, but also receive many direct answers. When "XXX YYYY" is just a simple word or expression easily found in dictionaries, and if I am the first one answering, I give a link to the relevant word in a suitable dictionary. This is my polite way of saying "you should have consulted a dictionary before posting", but normally it's wasting my time.

On a similar vein, I also find many messages with a long text in one language, and simply asking (how would you say this in English or whatever)/(please correct any errors). In such cases, if I am the first, I ask the writer to (post her/his try)/(post the original.  Not that there are many cases where this results in the desired result.

I have written too much for one message, but I was leaving out my two really important points:

1. These forums are great.

2. Mods are human beings, with the same right to make mistakes we all have. Being such a large number of widely different individuals, it's difficult for them to apply exactly the same criteria, and so my two initial stories are things to be expected.


----------



## Hulalessar

Thank you for the responses, which are mixed and some of which reflect my own feelings.

I post regularly on about ten forums covering a range of subjects and none of the others (one being a forum very similar to this but only covering the English language) are anywhere near as heavily moderated as this.

As I suggested in my first post, I can see the need to keep a tight rein on threads in the forums dealing with narrow points about vocabulary and grammar. As one poster pointed out, when he is searching a point and finds a relevant thread he wants to find the answer without having to wade through a lot of dross.

However, in more general forums, and I am particularly thinking of *Etymology and History of Languages* , I feel a more relaxed approach is appropriate. I personally feel that an interesting thread should be like a good conversation and gently wander, allowing the odd aside, personal observation and witticism. Obviously it should not wander too far and I acknowledge that moderators will often take out a chunk and start a new thread with it. What I think the moderators are doing is homing in on the precise wording of the first post. A classic case was the thread "Why do languages change?" Posters started to get on to "how" and a moderator popped up with his yellow card. It seems to me that in the case of language change it is difficult to talk about the "why" without getting on to the "how".

When one has taken time and trouble to compose a contribution it is disheartening to see it deleted as "off topic". It is worse when someone goes off topic and several people have commented on what he has said and the moderator, arriving a little late, deletes the whole lot. I have certainly been discouraged from posting.

All I ask is that the moderators curb their enthusiasm and strike a balance between a rigid enforcement of the rules and a free for all.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Oldy Nuts said:


> I am also new two these forums, and my experiences are varied. Of course I didn't read the rules before posting my first message (I wonder if there is someone who does)



Let me kindly remind everybody that during the registration process every user is asked to read the WRF guidelines and accept them as a _"conditio sine qua non" _in order to become a WRF member.
Moderators cannot be blamed if new members didn't read them but simply ticked the little box 
Moreover, there's a "Read before posting" sticky in most of the forums: again, we cannot be blamed if foreros didn't read that sticky either.


----------



## Grefsen

fenixpollo said:


> I agree that this would be maddening. Standard practice among the mods is to send a private message to every user who has a thread deleted (unless it's a duplicate thread). It's not standard practice to do this with every post that's deleted. One reason is that deleted posts are easier to find than deleted threads -- deleted threads aren't searchable. But if I look at my subscribed threads and I realize that there's one missing -- "Hey!", I say to myself, "Where's that one thread I just posted in yesterday?" -- then I can search the forum for it, find my deleted post and see who deleted it and why. If I disagree with the deletion, I can PM the moderator, make my case and find out more information.  If it's their first post, a PM will definitely be sent. After that, it depends on the situation....



Thank you so much for your very thoughtful reply *fenixpollo. **  *

Right now I'm extremely busy with work and am also in the process of firming up the details of my trip to Europe next month so I'm a little short on time.  However, I really wanted to be sure to let you know how much I appreciate the fact that you made the effort to address my main concerns in such a considerate manner.  *Gracias!!*


----------



## SleepingLeopard

To answer the original question: No, I definitely do not think this site is over-moderated.

Stepping back to look at the big picture, the WR forums are an incredible database of information that I don't think exists anywhere else. The people who post in threads and the people who read them during the day or two in which they are active are only a small percentage of the people who will eventually read the threads after finding them in a search weeks, months, or years later.

I do occasionally ask questions in the forums about things that I don't find in the dictionary, and have always received quick, helpful, and polite replies. But for every question I've asked, there are hundreds more that I _haven't needed to ask_ because I found the answers I needed by searching through past threads. I really appreciate the threads being kept "clean" (meaningful thread titles, merging threads on the same topic, eliminating irrelevant material and chit-chat). I would quickly become frustrated with searching the forums if the thread titles weren't descriptive or if I had to wade through 100 threads on the same topic to find the information I need.

Another reason I really appreciate these rules are that I often read through lots of threads that are written in languages that are foreign to me. I can read several foreign languages fairly well, but it always takes more effort for me than reading something written in my native English. So I really appreciate not having to struggle through irrelevant messages and chat. It's also much easier for me to follow one, long conversation rather than a dozen short ones without as much context to help me understand phrasing that is unfamiliar to me.

Please keep in mind that the threads are not only for the original posters, but for many other people that will use this resource for years to come.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

SleepingLeopard said:


> Please keep in mind that the threads are not only for the original posters, but for many other people that will use this resource for years to come.



Very good point: that's why we insist so much on asking the posters to choose meaningful titles, provide context and pose questions in the clearest way possible.


----------



## ILT

SleepingLeopard said:


> I can read several foreign languages fairly well, but it always takes more effort for me than reading something written in my native English.


This is exactly why I liked this place when I first found it, that it makes it easier for me to read in other languages because of the lack of sms style typing, which I can barely understand in my own language. I know we sometimes are very strict with Rule 22, but the truth is, without it I wouldn't understand half of the posts.


----------



## SaritaSarang

Though it is sometimes over-moderated, I will say that I like that this site
isn't like so many others where everyone has a million pictures and big text
in their posts where you can barley read any of it. I come here looking for help
and I almost always find it quickly and without any headaches. Thanks to the 
moderators for that


----------



## Etcetera

Outsider said:


> I think the Cultural Discussions forum, especially, has lost some of its charm, although it's true that many of the topics that stopped being allowed were contentious, and can be debated elsewhere.


I'm of the same mind, Outsider. 

It's really sad, indeed, but on the other hand, no one forbids us to talk to each other via PM, e-mail, Skype or anything. What I find _really_ great about WR is that here you won't find whole pages of messages like "You're kidding!" - "Am I really?" - "Yes you do!".


----------



## Broccolicious

Revontuli, I guess that's because the Mods are all human, so sometimes they interpret the rules differently, or even (dare I say it?!) make mistakes.

Over the last few days, I have been disappointed and occasionally astonished by the tone of some posts. Is it appropriate to report this kind of thing? 'I think this person is being rude' or 'This sounds like bullying'? It feels like telling tales, but at the same time, rude or aggressive posts could discourage some people from asking questions or venturing opinions.


----------



## SleepingLeopard

Broccolicious said:


> Over the last few days, I have been disappointed and occasionally astonished by the tone of some posts. Is it appropriate to report this kind of thing? 'I think this person is being rude' or 'This sounds like bullying'? It feels like telling tales, but at the same time, rude or aggressive posts could discourage some people from asking questions or venturing opinions.


 
I don't think it's innapropriate to report these posts, especially if someone is making a habit of being rude and discouraging honest questions.

One of the first rules of the forums is "Be polite" and "Be helpful, not hurtful".


----------



## TrentinaNE

Broccolicious said:


> Over the last few days, I have been disappointed and occasionally astonished by the tone of some posts. Is it appropriate to report this kind of thing?


As I former moderator, I think it's helpful to have these kinds of reports to understand on how posts' tones are perceived by others.

Elisabetta


----------



## panjandrum

Broccolicious said:


> Revontuli, I guess that's because the Mods are all human, so sometimes they interpret the rules differently, or even (dare I say it?!) make mistakes.
> 
> Over the last few days, I have been disappointed and occasionally astonished by the tone of some posts. Is it appropriate to report this kind of thing? 'I think this person is being rude' or 'This sounds like bullying'? It feels like telling tales, but at the same time, rude or aggressive posts could discourage some people from asking questions or venturing opinions.


As a current moderator, I very much welcome reports like this.

Is this person being rude, I wonder.  Is this post inappropriate?  Should I do something about it?  Am I being over-sensitive?

It helps a great deal to know what other people think.  If you see a post that seems to you to be "wrong" for WordReference, please tell us about it either by using report-a-post or by PM. 

If you end up reporting more than moderators feel is necessary, we will tell you about it.  

p


----------



## Revontuli

> Over the last few days, I have been disappointed and occasionally astonished by the tone of some posts. Is it appropriate to report this kind of thing? 'I think this person is being rude' or 'This sounds like bullying'? It feels like telling tales, but at the same time, rude or aggressive posts could discourage some people from asking questions or venturing opinions


 
You are right about this Broccolicious. I agree with that too. Such posts of course should be deleted or the members should be warned immediately. But what happened to me is more different... Some of my posts were deleted for some reason but I saw that there are other posts which break the rule same as mine but they weren't deleted...(by the way my posts didn't include inappropirate comments,I wouldn't want anyone to think like that..=) 
I always ask moderators why my post has been deleted and after getting an explanation,I am more careful next time.It felt like the rules don't work for everyone but only for some...But I guess, being more careful,there won't be any problem again.

It doesn't matter,WRF is wonderful anyway=)


----------



## ewie

In general, no, it's not over-moderated.  But ...



Hulalessar said:


> in more general forums, and I am particularly thinking of *Etymology and History of Languages* , I feel a more relaxed approach is appropriate


I agree with Hulalessar here, and in Cultural Discussions too ... you know, _Cultural *Discussions*_: the clue's in the name.  I've seen posts deleted in the CD forum with reasons such as _This is personal habits, not culture_ AND _Please don't talk generalities_.  Unfortunately, culture _is_ personal: it's what happens to _you_ in your country of origin, how _you_ perceive what happens all around you every day: concrete personal examples are inevitable and, I feel, desirable.  Then if enough people from a given location post in the thread, it is up to _you_ to infer generalities.
I find myself spending far _longer_ composing posts in the CD forum ... in fear of being deleted.


----------



## Flaminius

Hulalessar said:


> in more general forums, and I am particularly thinking of *Etymology and History of Languages* , I feel a more relaxed approach is appropriate



I am one of the moderators who set up the purposes and the scope the EHL.  It was obvious that the forum has a risk of becoming a chat-land due to its very broad topic range.  Many EHL discussions are about general topics with a broad scope.  This scope, however, is not as broad as to allow comments that go beyond the framework which is quite wide already.  We decided EHL is no different from other fora in the treatment of off-topic comments.  Each post in an EHL thread should be about the thread topic as well as a continuation of previous comments.

Regarding maintenance in the forum, based on my personal experience, I would be quite surprised if a comment deletion were not followed up by a PM from the moderator in charge.  PMs, being private message, is not visible for anyone but the recipient, who in all likelihood is the author of the deleted message.


----------



## Palestina Libre

Every step we give is moderated here and outside here.
Big Brother is watching us all.
It is a free resource and we "work" for free also.
The forum is one of my sodoku.

Larga Vida al Barón.


----------



## cuchuflete

According to some of the Report-a-post messages that are sent to the moderators, these forums are _under_-moderated!  Because moderators often send a PM to newer members asking for collaboration, rather than very strictly enforcing all the rules and deleting posts that break them, quite a lot of transgressions remain visible.  Some members report these, and at times they do so with great indignation.  

I patiently await the C&S thread that will demand that the mods get up off their backsides and start to consistently and forcefully impose the statutes.   In fact we have had such threads, but so far they have been limited to cries for context.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Hulalessar said:


> However, I do feel that the discussions in the more general forums are sometimes stifled. I think it is in the nature of a discussion on etymology, for example, that it will wander a bit and if the purpose of the general forums is to discuss as well as inform I do not see that as a  bad thing.



I plead guilty: one thread, one topic. Also in EHL.
The reasons have been explained by Flaminius in a previous post.

But, I also admit that it is not always easy and that I am only human indeed. Furthermore, I always *try* to send a pm to explain why, though I *do admit* that I sometimes fail to do so and that I in stead rely on the short comments under the deleted posts. I'm sorry, but there is not much place (and not always time) to post an elaborate justification on why message x or y got deleted (see below).

I can imagine that the deletion of a post sometimes may lead to a kind of frustration and disappointment. In a rare case even anger. In the first cases, a pm might help, in the case of feeling anger, counting to 10 and a pm might help too.

On the other hand, an off topic post doesn't mean that the post (or the off topic comment) is uninteresting. It can be the starting point of a new, split off thread which can be linked to the 'mother thread'. 

Sometimes an off topic post is moved to a new thread by the moderator, lately people are more and more invited in EHL to start a new one themselves (as stated in the EHL rules and as (sometimes) announced on the public board), so they have more control about their initial post/remark/query which (hopefully) can start yet another interesting and related (yet distinct) thread.



> I personally feel that an interesting thread should be like a good conversation and gently wander, allowing the odd aside, personal observation and witticism. Obviously it should not wander too far and I acknowledge that moderators will often take out a chunk and start a new thread with it. What I think the moderators are doing is homing in on the precise wording of the first post.


"Odd asides, personal observations and witticisms" are welcome, as long as they are inbedded in a productive reply which helps us to advance our understanding of the (original) problem/thread discussed.



> A classic case was the thread "Why do languages change?" Posters started to get on to "how" and a moderator popped up with his yellow card. It seems to me that in the case of language change it is difficult to talk about the "why" without getting on to the "how".


For quite obvious reasons I am not going to comment upon individual cases or a 6 months old thread here. As a moderator, the general WR rules also apply to me:


> 45. Discussions about moderator or administrator actions *[...] *should *not be discussed in public forums*. This is out of _respect_ for the members and moderators involved.


However, the line I skipped from the quote above, equally applies:


> Discussions about moderator or administrator actions  *are welcome in email or Private Messages*


Needless to say, but this can be any moderator. May I also add that the first pm to convince a moderator to 'undelete' a post has been sent a long long time ago. I mean, it wouldn't be the first time that a convincing pm results into the 'undeletion' of a post.

Anyway, thanks for bringing on the subject. In case you need more information (and/or opinions, justifications) for _deleted posts_ or _specific cases_, don't hesitate to _reply_ to me or contact me personally or any other moderator.

Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator EHL


----------



## Hulalessar

I wish to make it clear that the owners of the site have every right to moderate it as they see fit. If they wish to preserve a serious, rather than chat-like tone that is fine by me. Further, I am not suggesting (and for the record I do not think that anyone was suggesting I was suggesting) that there is any kind of censorship going on. Even so, the rule that moderators' individual decisions cannot be openly discussed does seem to veer towards a "we never make mistakes" stance, though I suppose we do not want threads taken up with discussions about moderators' decisions.

The internet is a great resource. Two of its salient features are its accessibilty and the opportunity for those who have access to contribute. Sometimes those who run forums are apt to forget that those who contribute (whether by asking questions or answering them) are as important to forums as those who generously give of their time (and sometimes money) to set up and run them - without the contributors there would be no forums.

There is a distinction between authoritative and authoritarian. I have no problem with the former, but the latter is against the ethos of the internet. The actions of the moderators can come across as authoritarian. If they exercise their power without due consideration or apparently peremptorily, it emphasises the fact that they have complete control over what is allowed.

I do not want to get this out of proportion. The very fact that this discussion is taking place in an open forum is a sign that there is nothing to get too worked up about. I am only talking about a mild tendency, though a highly annoying one. What every moderator needs to ask himself before deleting a post is: "If I delete this post will I come across as a control freak?"


----------



## blue_jewel

Hulalessar said:


> The internet is a great resource. Two of its salient features are its accessibilty and the opportunity for those who have access to contribute. Sometimes those who run forums are apt to forget that those who contribute (whether by asking questions or answering them) are as important to forums as those who generously give of their time (and sometimes money) to set up and run them - without the contributors there would be no forums.
> 
> There is a distinction between authoritative and authoritarian. I have no problem with the former, but the latter is against the ethos of the internet. The actions of the moderators can come across as authoritarian. If they exercise their power without due consideration or apparently peremptorily, it emphasises the fact that they have complete control over what is allowed.


 
I coudn't agree more.


----------



## Silver Sapphire

I agree too.

It seems to me that some people believe Hulalessar meant to say "let's not have any rules/mods". With all due respect, that's not the way I see it.


----------



## Outsider

Certainly not! I've been a member of unmoderated forums elsewhere. What a nightmare! 
A forum such as this simply would not be able to function without moderators.


----------



## Silver Sapphire

Of course not.

By the way, I meant to say I disagree with the people I mentioned.


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Yes, this site is way over-moderated, plain & simple.


----------



## Etcetera

VivaReggaeton88 said:


> Yes, this site is way over-moderated, plain & simple.


I believe you have your reasons to say so. What are they?


----------



## danielfranco

Well, let me tell you an anecdote, guys.
I've belonged to a forum where you are REQUIRED to insult or attack your fellow forum members, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN TO DO, instead of all that pretense and veiled insults that often pass for "debate" (yea, even unto this forums).
I suppose it depends on the character of the members, because in that other forum I mention, there hardly were any confrontations at all, since nobody was all pent-up and frustrated... And also it was plain to see that you'd get it as good as you gave, so THAT seemed to keep people in check.

For a serious and learned site like this one (no pretense, no bull, I mean it), it simply wouldn't work and would diminish the value of the site for everyone.

Strict, yes. Overmoderated, no. As a matter of fact: Why are you Mods not patrolling out there right now, instead of reading this silly post?
I demand that you do your jobs!!!

(Sorry, Mr. Cuchu, couldn't help myself)

Okay, just kidding. The mods are doing all they can to balance a pleasant experience and an orderly one for all of us.

There, I've said it: Thanks.
D


----------



## JB

danielfranco said:


> Okay, just kidding. The mods are doing all they can to balance a pleasant experience and an orderly one for all of us.
> There, I've said it: Thanks.
> D



Thank you.  It may be worth reminding everyone that this is a "labor of love", well usually, for us Mods.  Nobody gets paid.  I know of one Mod that just retired, but I think all the rest have jobs, families, meals to cook, toilets to clean, spouses to please, bosses to appease, etc.  And for those who don't like the presence of rules, they could use WR for their serious research, and other, less formal, forums on the web for their chatting needs.

If anything, I think we are *under*moderated.  If we had another hundred Mods in Spanish-English (I can't speak for the other languages), then we could check every thread and post as soon as it appears, 24-7, delete and ban SPAMmers instantly, ask for context 2 seconds after a new thread appears, move threads from the wrong forum to the right one before a single post is added, etc.  Unfortunately (or fortunately for those who think we are over-moderated) this is not likely to happen.  

So as DFranco says, we do our best.


----------



## Grefsen

EmilyD said:


> I felt enormous guilt when I answered slightly aged threads ( Cultural Discussions ) and led them into disappearance, because the Guidelines have changed.
> 
> Had I not commented, those threads would be undisturbed--



I had an experiences quite similar to yours *EmilyD*.  One of the "aged threads" in the Cultural Discussions (CD) forum that I replied to last year was "closed" almost immediately after I had "revived" the thread. I just did a search to see if I could even find the thread and apparently it no longer exists. 



EmilyD said:


> My first attempt at a Cultural Discussion thread was removed, and I felt sad and misunderstood at that time.



Unfortunately the same thing happened to me as well.  I have to say that the moderator who deleted my thread was nice enough to explain the reason why it had been deleted and I did appreciate that.  However, in the end I felt frustrated to have wasted so much time and energy writing the thread and the PMs and as a result of this I haven't made another attempt at starting a thread in the CD  forum since then.

The CD Forum had actually been one of my favorite forums when I first joined this site.  I've always enjoyed connecting with people from different cultures and initially I felt that there would be the potential to do this in a meaningful way in this forum.  However, A quick search revealed that I have only "successfully" posted to the CD forum twice in the past year. Now I rarely ever even bother to look at the CD forum when I come here since I don't feel that it is worth the time and effort to post there anymore.  



Outsider said:


> I've been a member of the WR forums for several years now. When I got here, it was a friendlier, more chatty place. I understand that times change, and that the people who run the forum would rather host more focused discussions on language, but it can be difficult to adjust when you were used to something else. I think the Cultural Discussions forum, especially, has lost some of its charm, although it's true that many of the topics that stopped being allowed were contentious, and can be debated elsewhere.



I strongly agree with most of what you have written *Outsider.  *It can be extremely frustrating "to adjust when you were used to something else."  I also think that your comment about the Cultural Discussions forum having "lost some of its charm" is right on the mark.


----------



## danielfranco

Although, I gotta tell you, guys, that the Cultural forum had it's charm, and then some, back when it was usual to see several members gang up on anyone who over-generalized or misrepresented something or somebody in a thread, especially if the offender was from the U. S. of A.
I enjoyed witnessing the public flagellation, the bullying and the desperate defense attempts, but mostly because I'm a cheeky bastard.

But, was it conducive towards a more orderly and serious learning experience? Nope. I guess you can't always get what you want, and the compromise for getting the Cultura under control is a tighter moderation.

However, I repeat, this site is not over-moderated, in my humble and cheeky opinion.
D


----------



## Grefsen

Etcetera said:


> I believe you have your reasons to say so. What are they?



I agree with you *Etcetera.*  I don't think it is especially helpful to answer the question* "Is this site over-moderated?*" without stating what some of your reasons are.  

It has occured to me too that it might be useful if we indicate what the level of activity is in the forums that we usually frequent so we don't end up comparing "apples to oranges" with our comments. Also so that some of individual language forums aren't unfairly singled out for criticism, one suggestion might be to categorize the activity level of forums with fewer than 10,000 posts as being *LOW*, 10,000 to 99,999 posts as being *MEDIUM *and forums with over 100,000 posts as being *HIGH.

*Since I just realized that I have spent most of my lunch hour posting here today   ,  I'll have to come back again at a later time if I'm going to answer the question posed in the thread for these three different levels of forum activity.    I most definitely don't want to be guilty myself of only giving a quick response without stating what some of my reasons are.


----------



## coppergirl

My response: "Is this a trick question"? 

Well . . . let's put it this way. If I say "Yes, I think it is over-moderated" and then get a lot of people and mods saying "How could you suggest this? What a terrible thing to say! Take that back at once!"

Then we will know if it is overmoderated or not, won't we? 

If I say "Yes, I think it is somewhat over-moderated" and everyone says "I'm glad you shared that, coppergirl"

Then we will know it is not over-moderated. 

PS If this post gets deleted, well, then we know it is over-moderated!


----------



## ireney

coppergirl said:


> My response: "Is this a trick question"?
> 
> Well . . . let's put it this way. If I say "Yes, I think it is over-moderated" and then get a lot of people and mods saying "How could you suggest this? What a terrible thing to say! Take that back at once!"
> 
> Then we will know if it is overmoderated or not, won't we?
> 
> If I say "Yes, I think it is somewhat over-moderated" and everyone says "I'm glad you shared that, coppergirl"
> 
> Then we will know it is not over-moderated.
> 
> PS If this post gets deleted, well, then we know it is over-moderated!



Is this a trick answer?
If someone says that it isn't then he/she is either bullied or in cahoots with the sinister moderator team. No chance that he or she really thinks it isn't.

If someone says it is then he/she isn't

And by the way, posts are deleted or edited when they break the rules so it's safe to say that everyone knows such a message such are yours wouldn't be deleted by anyone since it doesn't.


----------



## coppergirl

ireney said:


> Is this a trick answer?
> If someone says that it isn't then he/she is either bullied or in cahoots with the sinister moderator team. No chance that he or she really thinks it isn't.
> 
> If someone says it is then he/she isn't
> 
> And by the way, posts are deleted or edited when they break the rules so it's safe to say that everyone knows such a message such are yours wouldn't be deleted by anyone since it doesn't.


 
Maybe we just need more mods like you! 

And maybe it isn't a question of over-moderating or under-moderating, but of how skillfully it is moderated.  In other words, it is not the quantity but the quality that might be what people could be thinking about more for this discussion.

Just another thought.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Hulalessar said:


> Even so, the rule that moderators' individual decisions cannot be openly discussed does seem to veer towards a "we never make mistakes" stance, though I suppose we do not want threads taken up with discussions about moderators' decisions.



I don't see it that way. To me, it's more of a "follow the hierarchy" stance. If you have a question about a moderator's actions, take it up with that mod (perhaps there is some perceived "wall" that makes some people reluctant to do this - there's really no reason to feel that way, though). If you feel you're being unfairly treated, go to another of the forum's mods (or just another mod, if there is only one in the forum) and tell them about it. 

It's also a matter of efficiency. If I delete a post by mistake and am approached by a (rightly) indignated forum member, I can easily find the relevant post, see that I've made a mistake, apologize and undelete the post. If, on the other side, the forum member takes me to task in a thread in this forum, perhaps being intentionally vague, it obviously makes things much more time-demanding and, well, dramatic.


----------



## ireney

Please keep in mind also that to discuss publicly why for instance, a post was deleted, means that we also must publicly describe what that member did wrong. If you think that a note saying i.e. "off topic" is bad, imagine explaining it in depth. The same goes for all other moderating actions. 
To me that is the most important reason why we shouldn't discuss specific actions of the moderators.


----------



## coppergirl

Actually, to put another spin on this, and throw out a few more ideas, here's another way to think about it.

It is definitely better to have a moderated forum than not. However, as a member, I tend to feel safe and happy knowing that if someone in the forum starts sending me porn, spam or something through the PMs a mod can be alerted and that person might be banned. This sort of thing is also illegal in most countries, so the fact that someone could be banned from doing this in this forum give people a feeling of security and makes it a worthwhile forum to join.  

Forums also need a few rules about appropriate posting and how best to ask questions. This is also expected and reassuring.  

Where it starts to get a little tricky is when it comes to how the rules are made up. Most of the people making them will be on a mod-type council or something presumably. I mean, as far as I am aware, there is a sort of executive group who decides what officially becomes a rule or not. This is also fine, except that it is worth remembering that the type of person who will fill this role would usually be civic-minded, high-minded and idealistic, dutiful, assertive and authoratative. Also, fine with me. But this person might not be necessarily representative of the general users---that is where it is not so fine with me. 

IN other words, these people will form a relatively small percentage of the forum. The other 80 - 90% will be moderate users, sometimes just in need of a few questions answered, and they will be happy to go along with the rules generally provided that they get their questions answered and can happily answer some in return. These people often are not the type of people to actively use their voice, because maybe they have other commitments or are busy at home or work, or they are not the "scout leader" or "teacher" type of person who particularly fancies being in the role of moderator or policeman etc.

Still, not a problem. Except when it comes to how rules are decided. In C&S, there was talk of banning people who repeatedly use insufficient context in the context thread. Then someone pointed out that the real problem was all the well-meaning foreros who intervene and respond to a context thread, rather than pressing their little red buttons. Then there was talk of a new rule being made about context and so on and so on. This is only meant as an example, but if you look carefully at it, the people who are getting fairly emotional about the rules and the issues are the mods and senior foreros. They are the same people who are talking about making new rules, and maybe we are about a hair's breadth away from having a new rule about any forero who attempts to answer a thread with insufficient context, if done enough times, may end up getting warned, banned etc .. . . who knows? 

The point is not what is going on in that thread, but just to illustrate that the momentum for all this rule-making is actually coming from a proportionately small number of admittedly heavy users and mods, and that it is not necessarily representative of most of the users.  

So if someone asks, "Do you think the forum is over-moderated?" then my answer is "Yes". If someone says "Why?" then the answer is "Because it feels like there are an awful lot of rules to steer clear of, and a lot of people talking about new ways to ban people for all sorts of things."

And if someone asks "Do you have a better idea?"  , then my answer would be "Well, something more representational, like a random survey sent out to foreros at random, or something which has been brought to the attention of all types of foreros would avoid the sampling response bias that you will get if you post a thread in C & S"

Just a few more ideas.


----------



## Nunty

Ah, well here is a point you may have overlooked, coppergirl. WordReference is not democratic, nor is it meant to be, nor does it pretend to be. It is a commercial site of which we users get free benefit. Quite a lot of benefit, in my opinion, and very little is asked of us in return: adhering to behavioral norms (or "obeying rules", if you prefer).


----------



## coppergirl

Nun-Translator said:


> Ah, well here is a point you may have overlooked, coppergirl. WordReference is not democratic, nor is it meant to be, nor does it pretend to be. It is a commercial site of which we users get free benefit. Quite a lot of benefit, in my opinion, and very little is asked of us in return: adhering to behavioral norms (or "obeying rules", if you prefer).


 
Exactly, nun! It IS a commercial site and commercial sites have to be even MORE careful about market dynamics. In marketing terms, this means paying attention to what users want, and what subgroups of users they are actually catering to. 

I totally agree with you on that one! 

That is why I think that, in most commercial situations, a bit of market research as to who exactly is using the site and why, and what they want from it would be in the interests of this website more than anything else. 

As for things being not a democracy . . . well. . . democracy is only marginally preferable to other forms of government in my opinion. I was always in favour of a meritocracy myself. 

All the same, democracy does have one thing going for it---if commercial site managers pay close attention to the feelings of the market they are targetting (which, I imagine, must really be the whole point of having a C & S opinion forum in the first place), then this will ensure they don't misunderstand their market and its needs, or mistake a small-but-powerful subgroup of users for the majority.


----------



## coppergirl

But you were doing so well! Don't withdraw . . . I mean . . I am actually not against you or anyone else here.  

I just thought that when they opened this thread, they wanted opinions. This is just another opinion. I don't think it is the ONLY opinion. It is just mine and probably is shared by a few others who are in the majority of users---the less-frequent-but-also-core users. 

I don't think it's necessary to take offense where none is meant. And by my suggesting something constructive, I don't quite understand how you could have intepreted it as some sort of criticism of you or your own ideas.   It certainly was not meant against you personally in any way.

And of course users are the target market, since whoever set this up must have meant it for someone, whether they are paying customers or not. Naturally, it will attract lots of different types of users, so whomever set it up (and whomever set up the C&S forum) must presumably be interested in the opinions of the users, or they would not have asked for them.

All I'm pointing out is that there are many different types of users here, and not all of them are as vocal as others. That doesn't mean they should be overlooked, though, in terms of working out what they want from the forum, and one way to get at this broader group of people and their opinions might be through another, more random vehicle. 

This is a reasonable argument, and not an emotional one, isn't it?


----------



## TrentinaNE

From my observations, a vast majority of the "complaints" about the level of moderation stem from the "squishier" forums:  Cultural Discussions and Etymology.  A relative handful of forer@s frequent those two venues, so their views aren't necessarily representative.    For (some of) the rest of us, WRF would be just fine and dandy without either of those sub-forums.  

Elisabetta


----------



## coppergirl

TrentinaNE said:


> From my observations, a vast majority of the "complaints" about the level of moderation stem from the "squishier" forums: Cultural Discussions and Etymology. A relative handful of forer@s frequent those two venues, so their views aren't necessarily representative.  For (some of) the rest of us, WRF would be just fine and dandy without either of those sub-forums.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
So, if I understand this correctly, you think the best thing to do in this situation is to do away with Cultural Discussions and Etymology? 

I agree with you completely that certain forums (like this one, in fact) will not necessarily attract a random sample of users. Certain types of people will be more likely to frequent certain forums. That is why to get a really broad view of user preferences, threads like this are only partially useful.

Also, if people are mostly feeling worked up about Cultural Discussions and Etymology moderators, is doing away with those forums really the best way to solve the problem of how to handle the potential danger of heavy-handed moderation? Or, at least, the *perception* of heavy-handed moderation?

Does anyone else think there is a certain . . irony . . . in this solution?


----------



## panjandrum

coppergirl said:


> [...]
> I just thought that when they opened this thread, they wanted opinions. [...]


To be clear, "they" did not open this thread.
It was opened by Hulalessar.





coppergirl said:


> So, if I understand this correctly, you think the best thing to do in this situation is to do away with Cultural Discussions and Etymology?
> [...]


_Non sequitur.
_There are very many members who do not venture into either of those two forums. For them, the existence of those forums is a matter of little consequence.

As a snapshot, just now there are 8267 people looking at the forums.
57 at CD, 11 at Etymology.


It is sometimes useful to put things in perspective.


----------



## TrentinaNE

I was simply making an observation that the sub-forums that seem to generate the most difficulties from a moderating standpoint (for moderators and non-moderating forer@s alike) are the ones that (in my opinion) are least integral to the WR forums' purpose and usefulness. I don't necessarily advocate doing away with them. I'm just offering another perspective: those of us who don't visit those two sub-forums (and there are lots of us) might view the "appropriate level of moderation" through a different lens. 

Elisabetta


----------



## coppergirl

TrentinaNE said:


> I was simply making an observation that the sub-forums that seem to generate the most difficulties from a moderating standpoint (for moderators and non-moderating forer@s alike) are the ones that (in my opinion) are least integral to the WR forums' purpose and usefulness. I don't necessarily advocate doing away with them. I'm just offering another perspective: those of us who don't visit those two sub-forums (and there are lots of us) might view the "appropriate level of moderation" through a different lens.
> 
> Elisabetta


 
Fair point, Elisabetta.  From a moderating point of view, it might make sense to consider whether they are useful.  On the other hand, sometimes Cultural Discussions naturally come out of language-related threads and so add an additional dimension to what's going on in the respective fora.

Also, again, from a moderator point of view is one point of view.  From a senior forero point of view is another.  From an "average" user point of view is a third.  The views that tend to get heard when the rules are being made up (and those are really what the mods are there to gently guide people to follow) tend to be those of the mods and heavy users (also known as very senior foreros).  

I can't think too many mods themselves will say "I think the WRF is over-moderated", so I suppose really we should be thinking about who might think that it is and why, and weigh those opinions against those of the mods and/or foreros who feel the opposite.  The only real way to do this is to find out how many are out there who feel what.  Otherwise, the system of giving opinions loses weight.  

What I mean is, in a thread like this, you might get a lot of posts from the same people saying the same thing and, the way it comes across in the threads sometimes, the more someone shouts it, the more the thread feels like everyone thinks it.  

In fact, one opinion enthusiastically and frequently expressed is not the same thing as a concensus.  I know this is not a democracy or anything, but at the same time, to find out what the majority of users think (the ones who are not posting in this thread for example) discussion threads are not necessarily going to get to the heart of that issue, and so the question is partly whether decisions on rules/moderation should be taken on the basis of a vocal minority.

For example, a few people at the beginning of this thread used words like "I was going to post X but I was afraid that it might be deleted if I . . . "  and "I wanted to contribute, but . . . "  and some said they felt like pupils rather than equals (excuse paraphrasing for all those at the beginning whose posts I just paraphrased).

If this is how people feel, well . . . maybe that needs thinking about.  

That's all from me (and you can hold me to it! )


----------



## Grefsen

coppergirl said:


> Actually, to put another spin on this, and throw out a few more ideas, here's another way to think about it.


Thank you for your very valuable and thought provoking contributions to this discussion *coppergirl. *



coppergirl said:


> It is definitely better to have a moderated forum than not.





coppergirl said:


> Forums also need a few rules about appropriate posting and how best to ask questions. This is also expected and reassuring.



I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of forer@s would agree that some level of moderation of the WR forums is necessary and that "rules about appropriate posting" are also needed.  However, I am concerned about the way that some of the rules are interpreted and enforced in the forums that typically have the least amount of activity.

The rules that I have had the biggest challenge with are the ones that pertain to “chatting” and “staying on topic.”   I understand why it is necessary to more strictly enforce these rules in forums that have over 400,000 posts, but I’m concerned about the possibility that some of the smaller forums might get moderated out of existence.


----------



## ireney

coppergirl said:


> Still, not a problem. Except when it comes to how rules are decided. In C&S, there was talk of banning people who repeatedly use insufficient context in the context thread.




In defence of the person who suggested it I quote his post (my italics). I further defence of him, you have to read some of his other posts  We are a community of people and different people have different styles of expressing themselves. It is wrong misquoting them and misrepresenting them and the meaning of their posts.



danielfranco said:


> I think that chronic no-contexters should be banned.
> 
> _And also banning-mongers..._
> D


----------



## fenixpollo

coppergirl said:


> I can't think too many mods themselves will say "I think the WRF is over-moderated", so I suppose really we should be thinking about who might think that it is and why, and weigh those opinions against those of the mods and/or foreros who feel the opposite. The only real way to do this is to find out how many are out there who feel what. Otherwise, the system of giving opinions loses weight.
> 
> In fact, one opinion enthusiastically and frequently expressed is not the same thing as a concensus. I know this is not a democracy or anything, but at the same time, to find out what the majority of users think (the ones who are not posting in this thread for example) discussion threads are not necessarily going to get to the heart of that issue, and so the question is partly *whether decisions on rules/moderation should be taken on the basis of a vocal minority*.


 So, what you're saying is that the people who are enforcing the rules (the moderators) should decide how to enforce the rules not based on their own judgement, but based on an opinion poll of the rest of the foreros, who are not enforcing the rules but who are forced to follow the rules. Do I understand you correctly?


----------



## Grefsen

Etcetera said:


> What I find _really_ great about WR is that here you won't find whole pages of messages like "You're kidding!" - "Am I really?" - "Yes you do!".



 I completely agree with you *Etcetera*.  An exchange of this nature is clearly the sort of “chatting” that is inappropriate in all of the WR forums.  

At the same time it is also important to make a distinction between “chatting” and a brief friendly exchange that might take place between someone who is new to this site and a more experienced forer@.

Rule #2 states “Be polite. The use of "hello", “hi” and "thank you" is always welcome.” I would also love to see WR adopt a Rule #2.5 that says “Be especially polite and friendly to newcomers.”  

We only have one opportunity to make a positive first impression on someone who is new to this site. I think it is very important for us to be as friendly and welcoming to newcomers as we possibly can, especially those posting in the WR forums that have lowest amount of activity.


----------



## DiabloScott

I think the posting rules are good.  I also think the moderators are sometimes a little overly aggessive in the enforcement of those rules.  Certainly we don't want chatting but a little topic drift is to be expected and is sometimes valuable.

Thank you Moderators!


----------



## elroy

I think several inaccurate assumptions are being made in this thread. I'd like to point them out and address them:

1. _that this thread is somehow related to the process of introducing rules_
It is not. As the title of the thread indicates, its purpose is to invite opinions about the moderation on this site. Moderators and non-moderators alike have been contributing their viewpoints and listening to others. As a moderator, I have been carefully following the thread, as it is always helpful to get feedback about how I/we moderate. Contrary to what some people seem to think, we are open to change and constructive criticism. 

2. _that rules are introduced based on the opinions of a "vocal minority"_
Rest assured that we do not introduce new rules overnight. In general, the process is extremely complicated and multi-faceted. We literally spend weeks sometimes discussing whether we should introduce a new rule or amend an existing one. In doing so, we do our best to analyze every angle of the issue we are dealing with, which means that we take into account newbies, experienced members, and everyone in between. Furthermore, we do not normally make any decisions related to rules by consulting or polling forum members. Rather, we discuss things amongst ourselves based on our collective experiences, both as regular members and as moderators. For those who consider this methodology unfair, please bear in mind that moderators are not chosen haphazardly, but recruited based on a demonstrated interest in maintaining and upholding the philosophy of WRF and furthering its goals. This means that moderators are in an optimal position to be the decisionmakers and major actors in the rulemaking process.

3. _that the forums' target group is its members, from a business/marketing point of view_
If we're going to talk business, the forums' primary target group is not registered members, but visitors who find the forums through the dictionaries and use the forums as a tool to help them (better) understand the meaning of a word, expression, or turn of phrase. These people may never post a word in the forums, yet they are the people this forum is trying to attract, from a marketing point of view. That is why it is of crucial importance for us as moderators to do the best we can to maximize the utility of these forums as a supplement to the dictionaries. Our primary purpose is not to ensure that every newbie is happy, which of course does not mean that we want them to feel unwelcome or offended. We need to make sure that they comply with the rules, while at the same time treating them politely, respectfully, and professionally. Day in and day out, we strive to strike that balance between strict enforcement of the rules and politeness towards those who break them, for the purpose of keeping the forums both professional and friendly.

I hope that helps shed light on the way we see and do things.


----------



## coppergirl

fenixpollo said:


> So, what you're saying is that the people who are enforcing the rules (the moderators) should decide how to enforce the rules not based on their own judgement, but based on an opinion poll of the rest of the foreros, who are not enforcing the rules but who are forced to follow the rules. Do I understand you correctly?


 
Well, not QUITE, fenixpollo.  What I'm saying is not that the moderators need to think of the majority feeling as to how they deal with each and every new member, post or whatever.  I mean, that is why they got appointed mods in the first place---because someone thought that they showed good judgement in the forum and would presumably handle things in a sensible and balanced way.

More like, I think that it would be an idea if those in charge (I suppose the mods and the administrator) were at least aware of the fact that the type of person who will most likely be selected to be a mod (or who would be inclined to accept that job) will likely not represent a random sample of foreros.  If the mods/administrators are the people discussing and agreeing about how to make the rules, (based on threads like this, for example), there is a danger that the concensus from the thread, or the thread opinion might be mistaken for the more general opinions of the broader spectrum of foreros.  

I am not suggesting that mods should consult every other forero as regards how to moderate, so much as that there may well be other views as to the overall atmosphere of the forum and what other members might like to see changed, but that these members may be disinclined to air their views assertively (because not every member is as assertive as those who are happy to state their views publically in this type of thread).  

All I'm really saying is that, unless a more random vehicle is found to provide management/mods with information as to what people want, how much they use the forums, what, if anything, they might like to see changed etc, there  will naturally be a mod/heavy user/assertive person type bias generated from this type of thread and that this might mislead those in charge into thinking that *most* members or many members feel a certain way when, perhaps, this is not really the case.

Again, I'm not talking about SPECIFIC mod actions here, but more the overall picture of "how comfortable people feel in the forum" and "Forum has relaxed and fun atmosphere" and "I feel I can say (within reason) what I want to say without being jumped on by either other members or mods with negative comments/criticisms" etc etc etc.

It is not a question of SPECIFIC mod actions, but more like the overall tone of the forums.  Again, if someone is doing something really awful, it is GREAT to have mods to protect us.  If no one is doing anything really illegal or dangerous, or hurting anyone, then I think in those cases we need a lot less protection.  

Again, I'm only one person with one (admittedly long-winded) opinion.  It would be good to wait and see what everyone else thinks, and it would be even better to find a way to contact those who don't tend to spend time in threads like this to see if, maybe with a quick random questionnaire or something, we might learn even more about what kind of forum others would like to see develop.


----------



## coppergirl

*Hi Elroy!*

*Yeah, this helps clarify a lot of things.  *



elroy said:


> I think several inaccurate assumptions are being made in this thread. I'd like to point them out and address them:
> 
> 1. _that this thread is somehow related to the process of introducing rules_
> It is not. As the title of the thread indicates, its purpose is to invite opinions about the moderation on this site.   *Well, since the mods make the rules, I just thought that maybe some people might actually think of that as part of a mod's duties, and to that degree they might be thinking specifically about not only the active moderation in the forums, but more generally about the number of rules and overall atmosphere  etc.   I think maybe I just interpreted "moderation" in a broader sense than you did here, in which case I hope that wasn't a problem in the thread.*
> 
> 2. _that rules are introduced based on the opinions of a "vocal minority"_
> 
> Rest assured that we do not introduce new rules overnight. *This is very good to hear.  *
> 
> 3. _that the forums' target group is its members, from a business/marketing point of view_
> 
> If we're going to talk business, the forums' primary target group is not registered members, but visitors who find the forums through the dictionaries and use the forums as a tool to help them (better) understand the meaning of a word, expression, or turn of phrase. I hope that helps shed light on the way we see and do things.
> *Yeah, it does.  Thanks!   All the same, in that case, these threads are sort of superfluous, since then it doesn't really matter whether registered members feel that the forums are over (or under) moderated, does it?*


----------



## JamesM

coppergirl said:


> Again, I'm not talking about SPECIFIC mod actions here, but more the overall picture of "how comfortable people feel in the forum" and "Forum has relaxed and fun atmosphere"


 
There might be a misunderstanding here of the proposed purpose of this particular website. If you look at the mission statement (in Rules/FAQ) you'll see:

I. WordReference.com provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics. 

II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone. 

III. We welcome members who share our goals and philosophy, and agree to act in accord with the rules and guidelines of the Forums.


I certainly enjoy the friendliness of so many of the members here, but "fun" and "relaxed" are really not synonymous with "serious" and "academic." In other words, this is not a chatboard or a meeting place, at least not according to the mission statement. I know that this is quite different from most sites and that it can be very jarring for people who come to this site with an expectation that it will operate much like other sites they visit. 

I am not saying that there should be no fun and no relaxed conversation; we have quite a bit of both in the English Only forum, I think. When I realized that WRF is a language _resource, _though, and that it serves as an adjunct to, and expansion on, the dictionary here, it really changed my perspective on the function and purpose of the forums. The reason that titles must be specific became much clearer. The reason that each question must have its own thread made more sense. The insistence on Standard English, including capitalization and punctuation, took on a new importance.

We hear from many people who use this as a resource and rarely post, if ever. It has quite a following for that very reason. Remolding it as a fun online meeting place would necessarily reduce some of its strength as a resource. 

The overriding purpose here, as I understand it, is to provide a place for discussion and expansion on the meaning of words and phrases in the various languages in such a way that future visitors to the site can easily research the meaning of those words and phrases by using the dictionary and clicking on related threads. As we build that repository of information we can also have fun and enjoy our interaction to the extent that it fits within the mission of the site. 

That's only _my_ understanding of the big picture, developed over the short time I've been a moderator and participant here. I am not speaking "officially" as a moderator, nor am I speaking for anyone other than myself.


----------



## elroy

*



All the same, in that case, these threads are sort of superfluous, since then it doesn't really matter whether registered members feel that the forums are over (or under) moderated, does it?

Click to expand...

 *Of course it does.  We do care what you all think!


----------



## fenixpollo

JamesM said:
			
		

> I certainly enjoy the friendliness of so many of the members here, but "fun" and "relaxed" are really not synonymous with "serious" and "academic."


 But keep in mind that about half the people in the forum (if you believe the research on communication and personality type) would prefer to contribute in an atmosphere that was more friendly than academic, more fun than serious. The bias of the administrator and many of the mods in favor of sober, serious, unsilly, nonchatty, fluffless, task-focused transactions is not shared by all of the members. 

Of course, the forum's mission is to be serious, but we cannot dismiss the needs of our contributors out of hand. Many of them would thrive in an environment that was a little more "fun" and free, and we need to be aware that our actions as moderators help to determine that environment. In addition, I think all the mods would agree that we want to hold people accountable to the mission of the forum, but without becoming overzealous and developing a confrontational authoritarianism that can be detrimental to that environment. 

While "fun and friendly" may not by synonymous with "serious and academic", neither are they mutually exclusive concepts. Both can coexist in the forum... they have since the beginning, and they must continue to do so. 





coppergirl said:


> I am not suggesting that mods should consult every other forero as regards how to moderate, so much as that there may well be other views as to the overall atmosphere of the forum and what other members might like to see changed, but that these members may be disinclined to air their views assertively (because not every member is as assertive as those who are happy to state their views publically in this type of thread).


 I agree that some people (especially the 50% of us who are less assertive) might be disinclined to participate because the site is more heavily moderated than others. However, if they don't voice their dissent, then they are giving their assent to the wishes the powers that be. If they don't speak up, then they can't complain when things don't turn out the way they wanted. 





			
				coppergirl said:
			
		

> All the same, in that case, these threads are sort of superfluous, since then it doesn't really matter whether registered members feel that the forums are over (or under) moderated, does it?


 Yes, it matters a great deal what the members feel. The site survives because of the talent, knowledge, dedication and spirit of service that the members have; and if the forum's policies, rules or enforcement techniques are driving away those talented people, then that is a negative impact we should care deeply about. 

Your idea of a survey is a good one, in my opinion, but executing on that idea is not on the horizon. The only way that we can get feedback, then, is through threads like this one. The mods need frequent, objective feedback about our performance. Please continue to give it.


----------



## coppergirl

Thanks, fenixpollo and Elroy for what you both said about caring about what we think! 

It is great to hear that feedback is not unwelcome. 

Also, I appreciate that a survey type vehicle is not necessarily on the cards at the moment, and that's also completely understandable. It was only a suggestion and, of course, if it is not practical at this time, fair enough. 

One thing I would like to see, though, is a few more of the less assertive users posting in threads like this one. For example, another member sent me a PM about this thread saying that he would have posted in it, and actually also felt similarly to some of the things I and others were saying about feeling a bit over-moderated sometimes, but that he didn't want to because he didn't feel his English was up to the task and that, while he could express himself in English, he didn't feel his English was up to discussion/debating standards.

This is one reason that I believe there may be many other members out there who share some of these views, or perhaps who have other views to offer, but who would not feel as comfortable participating in a thread discussion, but who might be more inclined to answer a brief survey about their usage, the environment, level of moderation etc.

Just a thought. All the same, I also do apologize if my own interpretation of the scope of the threads is on the broad side.  I tend to think broadly and allow for a lot of possibilities in my head when it comes to what is meant by words like "moderation" and so, I answered thinking of the complete scope of mod duties (including rule making and banning, as well as moderating the fora on a daily basis), so I hope that was ok. 

Thanks again for listening, and thanks to those who started this thread, since I think this is definitely a worthwhile issue for discussion.

All the best

coppergirl


----------



## danielfranco

Well, this is an international forum, so anyone who feels like piping up with their opinion about the matter in their own language, should.
There's always babelfish for those of us who are not polyglots.
So, here it goes, "*broadening*" (  ) this discussion to our Spanish-speaking friends:

Amigos:
El que opine que este foro sufre de un exceso de moderación (o que no hay suficiente desMODre), ¡por favor levante la mano!

D


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally posted by *Fenixpollo*
> Yes, it matters a great deal what the members feel. The site survives because of the talent, knowledge, dedication and spirit of service that the members have; and if the forum's policies, rules or enforcement techniques are driving away those talented people, then that is a negative impact we should care deeply about.





> Originally posted by *mkellogg*
> I have very little new to say, and what I have said seems to be ignored. You will probably see a few more changes today, but the forums are going to stay more or less as they are for a while. I suggest getting used to it.





> Originally Posted by *mkellogg*
> I also want to add one more note. I have seen quite a few references to democracy in the forums here. I just want to politely remind everyone that WordReference is a business, not a democracy.





Paulfromitaly said:


> I beg your pardon?
> What I can see is only a dozen of people who keep complaining about the changes without even taking the time to get used to them or test them, the same people who have already been complaining about the most various and petty matters.


----------



## Nanon

coppergirl said:


> And of course users are the target market, since whoever set this up must have meant it for someone, whether they are paying customers or not.





elroy said:


> If we're going to talk business, the forums' primary target group is not registered members, but visitors who find the forums through the dictionaries and use the forums as a tool to help them (better) understand the meaning of a word, expression, or turn of phrase. These people may never post a word in the forums, yet they are the people this forum is trying to attract, from a marketing point of view. That is why it is of crucial importance for us as moderators to do the best we can to maximize the utility of these forums as a supplement to the dictionaries.



I think some users and visitors may not perceive the _business _nature of this forum just because it is _free_... However, at the end of the day, I don't just enjoy the forum, I use it as a working tool that makes me more efficient and more accurate. Who gets the final benefit? People who pay me . But the "use value" (a term economists coined to define "pleasure") I get from WR is mine only .



Nun-Translator said:


> WordReference is not democratic, nor is it meant to be, nor does it pretend to be. It is a commercial site of which we users get free benefit. Quite a lot of benefit, in my opinion, and very little is asked of us in return: adhering to behavioral norms (or "obeying rules", if you prefer).



Frankly, I don't think there are too many norms or rules to obey. If we think about WR forums as a tool, we do need a few rules to keep them useful and accurate. This includes moderation but also self-discipline. Searching, providing context, providing sources, double-checking and giving some hints to learners about regional variants, register...: is that too much? I don't think so.

Speaking about myself, I get more, much more than I give. This is hard to quantify because I often search in sub-forums where I don't actually post. Quite many people can answer in, or for, English and Spanish, so feel I am not as needed in those sections (although I learn a lot from there) than with my other language pairs. 
Needless to say, I also learn a lot from other sections too .

So, to make a long story short: *keep it going!!!* Moderated as it is.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

The gist of my deleted messages was:

These forums are not _usually_ over-moderated. However, taking into account the number of moderators, and their different viewpoints (they are spread all over the world), and even their mood at the moment, _ocassional_ over-moderation is unavoidable and to be expected. And I find it difficult to give reasons without giving specific examples, duly protected to prevent connecting them to the persons and threads involved. However, if rule 45 is so strict as to forbid even this possiblity, we must accept it.

My other point is that this is a very small price to pay for the enormous benefits one gets from these forums.


----------



## sokol

Personally I sometimes enjoy an academic atmosphere because it makes it possible at all to discuss some _sensible _subjects.

But I also enjoy sometimes a more "friendly" than "academic" thread, and this also is possible here if it doesn't become really chatty - but not in each sub-forum. The English only forum is an excellent example for the former (as already mentioned by JamesM), while other forums are moderated more strictly: this I think is not due to moderation (or at least, not primarily) but to the users frequenting these sub-forums.

The atmosphere in some sub-forums is much more cordial than in other ones where cultures _really _clash ... (even I use a different style in different forums, or at least I _think _I do; I am much more careful in the German forum i. e. thinking twice before posting because German and Austrian mentality clash there ... ): if users keep enough self-discipline then no strict moderation is necessary and more-friendly-and-less-academic threads become possible, that's basically how I see this.


----------



## Descarreaux

I think the forum should introduce an appeal process for what could seems to be over moderation.


----------



## Nunty

Descarreaux said:


> I think the forum should introduce an appeal process for what could seems to be over moderation.



Any time someone feels that a post has been deleted or edited unjustly, or a thread closed without a good reason, they are welcome to contact the moderator who took the action or another moderator they like and explain their point of view.

Sometimes we change our minds and undo an action.

Sometimes the person who is upset discovers that they had not read or understood the site rules and forum guidelines.

The inquiries must be done by private message to avoid embarrassing anyone.


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Nunty said:


> Any time someone feels that a post has been deleted or edited unjustly, or a thread closed without a good reason, they are welcome to contact the moderator who took the action or another moderator they like and explain their point of view.
> 
> Sometimes we change our minds and undo an action.
> 
> Sometimes the person who is upset discovers that they had not read or understood the site rules and forum guidelines.
> 
> The inquiries must be done by private message to avoid embarrassing anyone.



I have done that and most of my private messages go unanswered; I'm sure that I'm not the only one.


----------



## Revontuli

Strange, most of my messages have been answered very quickly. But they sometimes might not notice, I don't think it's anything intentional.


----------



## timpeac

VivaReggaeton88 said:


> I have done that and most of my private messages go unanswered; I'm sure that I'm not the only one.


That's odd - I've never heard someone complain about that before. Please resubmit your PMs to another moderator of the forum the question is related to. If you still don't receive an answer please forward the PM to me and I will ensure you get an answer.


----------



## wy8928

"I know that most of the forums are for people to ask specific questions on points of grammar, vocabulary etc and that they need to be kept on track. However, I do feel that the discussions in the more general forums are sometimes stifled. I think it is in the nature of a discussion on etymology, for example, that it will wander a bit and if the purpose of the general forums is to discuss as well as inform I do not see that as a bad thing. I sometimes feel like we are treated like pupils who must be got through an exam, rather than educated."

I understand why you would feel that way. I felt the same way. Then I realized that it's probably due to the nature of rules and one's desire to be less constrained. In general, I feel the moderators do an excellent job of remembering that they are our peers, albeit peers with power in the context of this forum. Consequently, they have a responsibility to maintain open channels with the users. With our input they should reflect and use their best judgement with proportion to run this thing smoothly. They seem to follow this democratic idea somewhat. For example, the cultural forum limit of 30 messages before posting has someones logic behind it, and it's not necessarily the best one. But, we have recourse to the moderators and can put in our two cents or stay quiet. Either way, the value of these forums makes having some freedoms limited a relatively small price to pay compared to starting one's own forums from scratch. Cheers.


----------



## trench feature

If I understand correctly, sometimes posts are deleted by moderators with the explanation that the purpose/mission of this site is to compile a dictionary and that certain  responses do not meet that goal.  I cannot understand how discussions of grammatical concepts are intended to be part of a dictionary and although I feel that translations from one language to another often provide adequate (even excellent) examples of entries I might expect to see in a dictionary, I do not feel that this site should be considered a reliable substitute for a dictionary or that moderators should delete posts based on this reasoning.


----------



## wy8928

My understanding is that the forums aren't intended to be a dictionary. Instead they're a peer moderated forum adjunt on usage to the main dictionary section of wordreference. Defintely, the clarification on usage from natives is a big help to whatever one uses as a dictionary. It's likely that natives would be a good place to start on filtering usage queries and responses. Cheers


----------



## trench feature

I understand and agree with you, but I believe that I have seen this reasoning used by at least one moderator to delete posts.


----------



## timpeac

The aim of the forums is, in essence, language discussion as laid out in the mission statement. A post in the forum not being of direct benefit to the dictionary is not reason in itself for the post to be deleted - although other issues might be if it breaks one of the rules or guidelines.


----------



## Grammar Fan

As a new member, I have already had one post deleted because of, in my humble opinion, an overly strict interpretation of the rules.  Nevertheless, I realize that I am a guest.  So if I wish to continue posting, I have no choice but to accept the moderators' decisions.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

When I first came to these forums, I had been for several years an active participant in another forum where respectful interchanges among posters were more than tolerated. It took me some time, and some deleted posts, to get used to this new environment. And through time, I have had a few other posts deleted or questioned for violating one or more of the rules.


However, I cannot agree with Grammar Fan. First, considering the enormous number of moderators, and their widely varied backgrounds and even nationalities, it is natural to expect that not all the moderators apply and/or interpret the rules in exactly the same way. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

And second, and most important. It is simply not true that if one wishes to continue posting, one has no choice but to accept the moderator's decisions. My own experience has been that, every time I have been affected by a moderator's decision with which I disagree, I have been able to discuss the matter in a civilized way with that moderator through personal messages. Most of the times, we have ended with a full agreement, and in very friendly terms. Sometimes I have been proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt. Sometimes I have not been fully convinced by the arguments of the moderator, but have come to understand and accept the decision I initially objected. And sometimes I have convinced the moderator that I was right, and my deleted message has been restored. And, without any exception, all of these private discussion have been carried in a friendly atmosphere of mutual respect.

So my advice to Grammar Fan, and to anyone feeling the same way, is to make full use of private messages to communicate with any moderator with whose criterion you disagree. If you do, you may end feeling towards these forums like I do: they may be over _regulated_, but they are not over _moderated_. And, had I come to think that _the rules_ are so strict as to discourage me from participating, I would have certainly stopped participating in them. I think that they _are_ strict, but make for a very fluid working of the forums, which are an excellent channel for what we come here: to help each other with our difficulties in foreign languages. And even in our own languages.

The above does not prevent me from feeling that I wish we were given more opportunities for public personal interchanges with those regular participants we meet frequently. But this is not permitted by _the rules_, so one has to take or leave it. I have chosen to take it.


----------



## Hulalessar

Having thought about this further, I think perhaps my criticism is that this site is a little _too _utilitarian. It is possible that I am biased because of the way I was educated.  When I think back, the more interesting and valuable lessons were those leavened with a little humour and deviation.

If a thread poses a specific question, the question is answered and then someone chips in with an observation that does not strictly add to the answer it will be deleted. Now I accept that some discipline is needed and that threads ought to be kept on track. However, if the observation is of interest or informative leaving it there does not detract from the usefulness of the post that answered the question, and deleting the observation only serves to deprive other posters of a snippet of information or witticism that may make their day.


----------



## JamesM

I can certainly understand and sympathize with your position, Hulalessar. At the same time, it's not easy to determine what is of interest and also does not detract from the usefulness of the thread.

I can't speak for any other forums, but in English Only we have had such side notes and observations stretch on at times for paragraphs. The difference between "related" and "tangential" can be difficult to discern, and what starts as an aside or a witticism can quickly turn into a scrambled mess.

Consider the following invented thread:

Adam: Do people actually say "it's raining cats and dogs?" What does it mean?
Betty: Yes, it's common here in the U.S. It means that it is raining heavily.
Cesar: Why "cats and dogs"?
Betty: I don't know the history of it.
Dolph: I wonder why we don't say "it's raining kittens and puppies" when it's raining lightly. 
Ellen: Don't even say that! I love kittens. Just the thought of kittens falling from the sky makes me sick.
Richard: I had a kitten who got caught in the rain and died from pneumonia. I wish people wouldn't say "raining cats and dogs."
Frank: Well, a young "pup" like you might not know it, Dolph, but "having kittens" means that someone is frantic or very upset. "Raining kittens" might be too close to "having kittens".
Gina: I'm 23 and I say "having kittens." It doesn't have anything to do with age.
Harold: The saying "raining cats and dogs" came from 16th century England when dogs and cats used to sleep on the roof. When it rained heavily the cats and dogs would leap from the rooftops, so people said, "It's raining cats and dogs."
Inez: That's just a legend, as far as I know. There is no documentation of that being the source of the phrase. Can you give us a reference?


Now, imagine that you are a volunteer moderator, as we all are, and you have limited time to respond to complaints, catch up on moderator announcements and enjoy a little participation in the forum. Someone has reported Ellen's post in this thread. You read the thread (which may actually go on for a page or two like this) and try to untangle it. 

There is a cute observation from Dolph that might make some people smile, some valuable but misplaced information on "having kittens", some personal observations, all stemming from Dolph's cute observation, and then some speculation on the history of the phrase in the original post. 

The information about "having kittens" could be useful, but no one will find it who is looking for it since the thread title is "raining cats and dogs". You can split it out but it doesn't stand well on its own. 

If you delete everything other than Dolph's post that is not directly related to the original question you will probably receive complaints from Ellen, Richard, Frank and/or Gina. They will want to know why Dolph's comment was left but theirs were deleted.

If you delete Dolph's post he will probably complain that it was related, in a way, that you have no sense of humor and that the board is too dry. If you leave it all in you will receive complaints from language learners and translators who are wading through all sorts of unrelated comments in a search for the history and meaning of "raining cats and dogs". In the end, it comes down to a judgment call.



> ...if the observation is of interest or informative leaving it there does not detract from the usefulness of the post that answered the question...


 
If this were clear-cut and simple, I'm sure we would all be in complete agreement about which posts should be deleted and which ones shouldn't be. 

As always, if there is a particular action that a moderator has taken with which someone disagrees, the person concerned can contact any other moderator on that forum and ask him or her to review the action. Discussion of specific actions is not allowed on the public forums but anyone is welcome to bring up a concern or complaint through Report-A-Post or private messaging.


----------



## Veentea

JamesM, thank you for taking the time to post this very helpful explanation.  Perhaps it could be copied into the newcomer's rules.  (It is isn't already is it?  )

I have been following this thread, though I haven't posted my opinion.  I don't think the board is over-moderated.  I can just imagine the mayhem if you tried to please everyone.



Oldy Nuts said:


> So my advice to Grammar Fan, and to anyone feeling the same way, is to make full use of private messages to communicate with any moderator with whose criterion you disagree. If you do, you may end feeling towards these forums like I do: they may be over _regulated_, but they are not over _moderated_. And, had I come to think that _the rules_ are so strict as to discourage me from participating, I would have certainly stopped participating in them. I think that they _are_ strict, but make for a very fluid working of the forums, which are an excellent channel for what we come here: to help each other with our difficulties in foreign languages. And even in our own languages.



Great advice and excellent distinction.  Perhaps Oldy Nut's post would also be a helpful post for newcomers to read, maybe the whole thread???  I've learned a lot.


----------



## Grammar Fan

I have been a member for one month. Regarding the topic of moderation: (1) Whenever I post, I always imagine a moderator standing at my side, (2) I assume that most mods are mature adults who are doing their jobs in a highly professional manner but that a few relish their power a bit too much, and (3) I would never communicate with a moderator because (a) my posts are not that earthshattering and (b) it is demeaning to beg someone to change his/her mind.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

But it is perfectly legitimate to ask for clarifications, and there is nothing degrading in doing so; see my previous post.


----------



## Grammar Fan

Oldy Nuts said:


> But it is perfectly legitimate to ask for clarifications, and there is nothing degrading in doing so; see my previous post.


 I thank the senior member for replying to my comment on the topic of moderation. I think the senior member will agree with me, however, that each human being has his/her own interpretation of what is demeaning. I dare not say more because I fear "going off topic."


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Grammar Fan said:


> I thank the senior member for replying to my comment on the topic of moderation. I think the senior member will agree with me, however, that each human being has his/her own interpretation of what is demeaning. I dare not say more because I fear "going off topic."



No, I quite agree that it is completely demeaning to _beg_ someone to change his/her mind. I am however talking of a completely different thing: _asking_ someone for explanations/clarifications. Most differences between individuals can be settled through civilized interchanges; i.e., conversations.

I do hope the _member_ can see that this _senior_ (_old_, see my screen name) _member_ isn't completely wrong. And I also hope that he _has_ read my previous message.


----------



## Grammar Fan

Oldy Nuts said:


> No, I quite agree that it is completely demeaning to _beg_ someone to change his/her mind. I am however talking of a completely different thing: _asking_ someone for explanations/clarifications. Most differences between individuals can be settled through civilized interchanges; i.e., conversations.
> 
> I do hope the _member_ can see that this _senior_ (_old_, see my screen name) _member_ isn't completely wrong. And I also hope that he _has_ read my previous message.


 Thank you for your note: Staying strictly on the topic , I (1) certainly do not think the mature member is completely wrong, and (2) certainly  have read every word of your previous note. Thank you.


----------



## marget

I do not feel that this site is over-moderated.  I certainly appreciate the moderators' sense of responsibility.  As JamesM pointed out, they are volunteers, as are the rest of us who willingly offer our opinions and expertise to contribute to the site when we have a spare moment as well.  

I also would  encourage members to communicate with moderators if they choose to contest a deletion.  That's the best way for all of us to understand how we can continue to participate meaningfully and share our wealth of knowledge with our fellow members and dedicated moderators.  We're all in this together.


----------



## Grammar Fan

marget said:


> I do not feel that this site is over-moderated. I certainly appreciate the moderators' sense of responsibility. As JamesM pointed out, they are volunteers, as are the rest of us who willingly offer our opinions and expertise to contribute to the site when we have a spare moment as well.
> 
> I also would encourage members to communicate with moderators if they choose to contest a deletion. That's the best way for all of us to understand how we can continue to participate meaningfully and share our wealth of knowledge with our fellow members and dedicated moderators. We're all in this together.


 Thank you so much.  I really appreciated your last sentence. It helped to dispel the us (posters) vs. them (mods) mentality that I may have incorrectly sensed.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

I am glad that someone finally managed to convince you that what you were sensing was incorrect. I tried to explain the same in my message #104 above but, as usual, I forgot that one page of text is useless if one sentence is all that it takes.


----------



## Grammar Fan

Oldy Nuts said:


> I am glad that someone finally managed to convince you that what you were sensing was incorrect. I tried to explain the same in my message #104 above but, as usual, I forgot that one page of text is useless if one sentence is all that it takes.


 Thank you, Oldy Nuts, for your kind note.  As you say, brevity has a particular impact.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

I have just been part of a case that shows perhaps over regulation, but not over moderation in these forums. There was a question about the translation of a sentence to warn the caller that one was driving a car while answering a mobile/cellular phone. The thread was soon full of messages with questions about what the trafic regulations say in each country, advises and warnings about what should or should not be done with phone calls while driving, and the like. Until a moderator deleted all the many messages not directly related with the original question, and left us a polite message reminding us what the rules say about keeping on topic and asking us not to post any more unrelated questions.

Naturally, this may have left several of the posters of off topic mesages with a feeling that the moderator had been somewhat abusive. As one of those guilty of helping to deviate the topic of the thread, I did not. I knew, when I posted, what I was doing, as I knew that my posts could be deleted because they were off topic. Such are the rules, and the moderator did nothing but very justly apply them.

The fact that the thread was very informative and highly interesting before the pruning does not change the rules, nor does it make the moderator abusive. The deleted messages were clearly beyond the scope and purpose of this particular forum, period. As I said before, one is free to take or leave it, but one cannot blame the moderators for applying the rules.


----------



## Grammar Fan

Dear Oldy Nuts: Very interesting.  I once answered a question.  The poster sent me a thank-you message.  I acknowledged his thank-you note and added that he had made a slight spelling error.  The mod immediately deleted my acknowledgment note because I had had the temerity to mention the spelling error.  I no longer answer any questions.  I do enjoy reading the posts of others, and I occasionally TRY to post a question. As you said, we can take it or leave it.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Grammar Fan said:


> Dear Oldy Nuts: Very interesting.  I once answered a question.  The poster sent me a thank-you message.  I acknowledged his thank-you note and added that he had made a slight spelling error.  The mod immediately deleted my acknowledgment note because I had had the temerity to mention the spelling error.  I no longer answer any questions.  I do enjoy reading the posts of others, and I occasionally TRY to post a question. As you said, we can take it or leave it.



Hello Grammar Fan.

I am sure that there must have been a gross misunderstanding somewhere along the line in the episode you describe. I must have corrected hundreds of spelling errors, and must have seen many more hundreds corrected by other participants, and I have never had a message deleted, or seen one deleted, just for doing so. That is why I have stressed so much the importance of communicating by private messages with the moderators if you find anything you don't like  or you don't understand in what they do.

Moderators are after all human and can make mistakes, same as you and I, and an honest conversation is the way to solve any doubts on either part. Stopping posting does not solve anything, and in this case it is evident that the episode has left you hurt. I would be willing to bet that this could have been avoided if you had asked for an extended explanation of the reasons for the deletion of your post. But then, all I can do about this is to give you the opinion of someone who has lived through similar experiences, and has survived. What you do, or don't do, is only up to you to decide.


----------



## Ynez

Oldy Nuts said:


> I would be willing to bet that this could have been avoided if you had asked for an extended explanation of the reasons for the deletion of your post.



I wouldn't. 

Anyhow, I think the final point here is that Mods do not have a salary, so no much must be expected from them. If they do it good, great. If they don't, we can take it or leave it, but there is no more that can be done.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> Anyhow, I think the final point here is that Mods do not have a salary, so no much must be expected from them. If they do it good, great. If they don't, we can take it or leave it, but there is no more that can be done.



Hello Ynez

Fortunatelly for me, my own experience does not agree with your pesimism. And I don't agree that we cannot expect much of Mods that do not have a salary.

I don't know the inner works in these forums, but I would be very surprised if volunteering to be moderator was enough to became one. And I would be even more surprised if any moderator could possibly survive repeated complaints from participants. That's why I expect much of them, although they are not paid for their work. And that's why I have communicated with each moderator with whom I have disagreed. I am glad to say that I haven't been disappointed so far.


----------



## Ynez

Very good, Oldy Nuts. I already knew your opinion. I am very glad for you.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Ynez said:


> Anyhow, I think the final point here is that Mods do not have a salary, so no much must be expected from them.



Oh, goody!

Let´s hope no voluntary worker for Greenpeace or Médecins Sans Frontières reads this...


----------



## marget

Valeria Mesalina said:


> Oh, goody!
> 
> Let´s hope no voluntary worker for Greenpeace or Médecins Sans Frontières reads this...


 
Moderators just play a different role from other members. They provide their services voluntarily, as do all the other members of this forum. In my opinion, there is no difference whatsoever in the value of our contributions as compared to those of the moderators. Members of groups such as Greenpeace and Médecins Sans Frontières choose their involvement for the same reasons we do here.  I wouldn't be surprised to find that many people work harder when driven by passion.  I appreciate the dedication of our moderators and I do not hold them to any higher expectations in their role than I hold myself or any member of a volunteer organization. I feel that we all give our personal best all the time and I think that everyone benefits from it.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Ok, my rather ironic comment was not meant to be a criticism of either the mods or the foreros who contribute to create the fora.

Working for free does not mean your work has no value or that you do it carelessly. And that was what Ynez was implying, unless I´m mistaken.

Anyway, those who think the site is over moderated should try to post in some translation forums where each post you write has to be approved by the moderators _before _
it is published.


----------



## trench feature

Valeria Mesalina said:


> Ok, my rather ironic comment was not meant to be a criticism of either the mods or the foreros who contribute to create the fora.
> 
> Working for free does not mean your work has no value or that you do it carelessly. And that was what Ynez was implying, unless I´m mistaken.
> 
> Anyway, those who think the site is over moderated should try to post in some translation forums where each post you write has to be approved by the moderators _before _
> it is published.


 
The type of moderators' involvement to which you refer might satisfy the needs of some of our members.  In that case, there would be no such thing as deleted posts, I suppose.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

trench feature said:


> The type of moderators' involvement to which you refer might satisfy the needs of some of our members.  In that case, there would be no such thing as deleted posts, I suppose.



No, there weren´t. But sometimes you found some post or other posted under your nick that had been so heavily edited that you could not even recognize a single word of yours. Now that´s heavily moderated.

No one likes to be deleted, and I don´t like it. But I know very well when I´m off topic and I accept the rules; after all, I had to accept them when I registered, so there´s no point in complaining.


----------



## TrentinaNE

> I accept the rules; after all, *I had to accept them when I registered*, so there´s no point in complaining.


If everyone would just internalize this message, I doubt there would be a need for this thread. 

Elisabetta


----------



## Veentea

If this site was over-moderated there wouldn't be so many answers to posts that don't give context.  Unless I'm misunderstanding how much is sufficient context.

Rule number 3 says that the post must 
_Provide complete sentences *and* background information every time you ask  a question.  _​Emphasis added by me.  Also, when you post using the advanced post section, there is the reminder:
_Do not reply to threads with no context. Report them   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 and other rule violations to moderators. _​ I'm sure without looking that I've broken this rule.  And just scanning posts out there now, if I reported every post I saw with the complete sentence but without the background info, I'd be up all night.

So, one more reason why I don't think the site is over-moderated.  

By the way, would it have been more appropriate to make this a new post with the title:  "How much context is enough?"   Or am I breaking another rule about changing the subject by asking this question in the first place. 

Hmmm. On second thought...

All this second guessing about my post before I click submit makes me think that if there is a problem, though I'm not convinced that there is, it is with the *rules*, not the *moderation*...


----------



## for learning

Hello forummates, moderators and foreros!

After having read many of the posts of this thread(all of them would have been too heavy a task), I could speak out for many opinions expressed on them. I think many of us, if not all, agree that W.R is unique, and that to a great extent this is due to the rules which run it.
What do I think I can add to all of this?. Little. Just what someone said in one of the former posts(I don`t get to find him now, sorry): A bit of humour could play an important role in the forums. This is a reponsability of all of us, it would be too simple and easy just to ask for that; but it is also true that sometimes there is a lack of humor, mainly among us, the foreros(me too), when posting. . I don`t really know which is the reason( and it is just my appreciation), but at least to me always a bit of sense of humor is welcome( I talk about humor not about chatting).
As I have just said, I think that is our responsability.

Thank you for allowing me to take part in W.R. Best regards. Sorry about my english.. Have a nice day!


----------



## Ynez

I have got an idea!

Members could choose to be released from one particular moderator every 1000 posts.

...or every 5000 posts.

There are still dozens of them to correct the misuses.



Is this humorous, for learning?


----------



## timpeac

Ynez said:


> I have got an idea!
> 
> Members could choose to be released from one particular moderator every 1000 posts.
> 
> ...or every 5000 posts.
> 
> There are still dozens of them to correct the misuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this humorous, for learning?


Only if we're allowed to be released from certain members every so many posts!

Joking apart - you always have the right to appeal against the decision of any moderator to any moderator (usually of the same forum but not necessarily if you don't trust any of them) of your choice.


----------



## Ynez

Do you enjoy those discussions, timpeac? I mean, if a member sends you a message telling you that X mod has done that and that he doesn't agree, etc. It truly looks like fun.


----------



## timpeac

Ynez said:


> Do you enjoy those discussions, timpeac? I mean, if a member sends you a message telling you that X mod has done that and you don't agree, etc. It truly looks like fun.


No. It's horrible.


----------



## Mate

Ynez said:


> Do you enjoy those discussions, timpeac? I mean, if a member sends you a message telling you that X mod has done that and that he doesn't agree, etc. It truly looks like fun.


It happens once in a blue moon, Ynez, and we take it very seriously. Not funny at all.


----------



## Ynez

I am talking very seriously, Mateamargo. I hope you can understand that.


----------



## Mate

No, Ynez, I'm afraid I don't quite get it. 

Why are you telling Tim --or any other mod, for that matter-- "It truly looks like fun" followed by a funny smiley and a couple of posts later you claim to be talking very seriously. 

There must be something I'm missing. Perhaps it's my sense of humour.


----------



## Ynez

Mateamargo said:


> No, Ynez, I'm afraid *I don't quite get it*.
> 
> Why are you telling Tim --or any other mod, for that matter-- "It truly looks like fun" followed by a funny smiley and a couple of posts later you claim to be talking very seriously.
> 
> There must be *something I'm missing*. Perhaps it's my sense of humour.



It always happens the same, Mateamargo. And it is years now since this started.


----------



## for learning

Hi again!
The matter is that this thread is so long that I can`t find the post I was referring to; I don`t even know now if it was in this thread where I located it. It is a pity because I can not express exactly what was said.
But what I meant to say is that after reading all those opinions, that was the one which surprised me more, in part due to my agreement.
He/she said the he/she thought that humour is or could be important, relatively must be said, in the forums, as far as it could help learning.
This is because he/she considered(it is what I understood)that humor when accompanying study help the latter. It is a psychological subject, I Know.
I am not intending to change the mood of anyone. Surely it would be an imposible goal. 
But, in my very short experience with W.R and after reading this thread two ideas have come to my mind:
a)W.R is unique and to a great extent because of the rules.
b)Couln`t it be that these same rules, or some of them determine the way the foreros express when posting?. Sure it could. But it is always for the very best?.Or , what I see as a lack of humor(I repeat, sometimes) is due to other reasons?.
It just has ocurred to me another idea:
c)Maybe there is not such an occasional lack of humor. (Even so it is questionable if there could be more..).
Well, I am afraid I am becoming a bit philoshopic and even deviating from the topic; sorry about it.
Thank you so much once more for allowing me to take part in W.R. Best regards. Saludos.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

for learning said:


> But, in my very short experience with W.R and after reading this thread two ideas have come to my mind:
> a)W.R is unique and to a great extent because of the rules.
> b)Couln`t it be that these same rules, or some of them determine the way the foreros express when posting?. Sure it could. But it is always for the very best?.Or , what I see as a lack of humor(I repeat, sometimes) is due to other reasons?.



What you see may not be everything.

Don´t be so sure the forums are devoid of humour.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez said:


> It always happens the same, Mateamargo. And it is years now since this started.



Ynez, it saddens me that we disgree so much in this. You must have had bitter experiences with some moderators; my own experience, as I know that you know because I have repeated this several times in this thread, is quite the opposite. Can this be just my good luck and your bad luck?


----------



## Ynez

Oldy Nuts said:


> Ynez, it saddens me that we disgree so much in this. You must have had bitter experiences with some moderators; my own experience, as I know that you know because I have repeated this several times in this thread, is quite the opposite. Can this be just my good luck and your bad luck?



It is sad.

It is difficult to explain this without giving particular examples, but I will try a bit.

To start with, I am not in the group who make astonishing comments, but in the group who reply to astonishing comments. For instance, someone says "In my country we all say that _X population_ are dirty people" and I cannot say "That is not true". My comment will get deleted and the first one will remain there, even if I ask the moderator to remove that disgusting false idea about what is said of X population in my country. I think that if an _X person_ gets to read this he/she might believe it and it is something that hurts unnecessarily, especially when it is not true. And it is off-topic. To see this happening is incredible and hurtful for me. 

Also from my point of view, I consider that if someone calls me vulgar because I use a word, I should be able to call them vulgar back, just because they are saying what they are saying. It is very vulgar to say that someone is vulgar. This is to show you how my mind works. And the problem is that to some it looks fashionable to use the _vulgar_ word. If you let this happen answered often, many people start saying "oh, how vulgar that is", just to look especial and be seen in a higher category of human beings.

If someone backs up his/her ideas with "That is what my books say and I am a school headmaster", I should be able to say "That is false" or "I don't believe it". Why should I believe it? I don't think this forum can really prove if we are a strip-teaser or the president of a government. That person can always cite those books (which I can try to check), but meanwhile I don't have to believe it and I think I should be free to express it.

There are some things I can't say because it would be too clear to see what I am referring to, but I can tell you something: moderators sometimes don't understand what is going on. So you are left there seeing what is happening and not being able to speak.

A moderator should realize that if a message was there for two days and other moderators didn't find it faulty, it is probably not that faulty. If he edits it after two days, the author will not be able to decide if those words express what he/she wanted to say. It is a lack of respect.

If you ask if someone would invite you to taste _jamón_ in Spain, I find it only cordial and amiable to say "Yes!" I can't see how my post is off-topic and yours is not.

I know, it has no importance. Being a moderator must be difficult, and if they were to be really coherent they would have to delete too many posts. But then we are human, and when we have been edited for reasons we cannot understand, it builds up and it becomes irrational. We just can't bear it any more, even when that person is right.

I have been edited in General Vocabulary (here only for chatting, my fault, becoming more and more of a chatter; should stop it), Grammar, English Only, Sólo Español, Specialized Terminology. There must be about 40 moderators in all those sections, so I don't think that begging to be released from 1 moderator per 1000 posts or 5000 posts is something so illogical or unfair. 

As I said before, I have to accept that it has become something personal and irrational, but it is the truth.

It seems clear that you are different, Oldy Nuts, maybe you are a better person than me. It is normal if there is a clash of characters here, and some of us don't understand each other. This is easy to deal with among members, but it is not easy to do with moderators.


----------



## Nunty

When this thread started over a year and a half ago,  I wasn't a moderator. I just went back and read the whole thread and I find that I still stand behind the comments I made back then.

Here are few observations:
* Most posts are not deleted.
* Most posts are not edited.
* When posts are edited or deleted the moderator leaves a note explaining why or sends a PM. If we forget, our name still appears as a link that will take you to the User Profile, from where it is easy to send a PM asking what happened.

There is always recourse. If someone feels like a mod is picking on them, they can write to that mod to ask to discuss any personal issues or they can write to another mod from the same forum or a mod from elsewhere in the site with whom they feel more comfortable.

Ynez, it does sound like there is something specific on your mind. Since the public forums isn't the appropriate place to discuss specific moderator actions, may I suggest that you take it up with someone by PM? 

Let's leave this thread for a general discussion of the forum moderation.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez, I insist that one is not a mere helpless spectator of what moderators do. Have you ever contacted any of the mods who didn't understand/interpret you?


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Ynez said:


> For instance, someone says "In my country we all say that _X population_ are dirty people" and I cannot say "That is not true". My comment will get deleted and the first one will remain there, even if I ask the moderator to remove that disgusting false idea about what is said of X population in my country.



The trouble is, Ynez, that you cannot say "this is a lie" or "you are a liar". You cannot say it for the simple reason that you don´t know personally each and every one of the inhabitants of your country, and maybe_ en un lugar de la Mancha de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme_, a place in your own country, X group of people are called dirty. And remember that if you do not like to be called a liar, neither do the rest of the foreros.



> Also from my point of view, I consider that if someone calls me vulgar because I use a word, I should be able to call them vulgar back, just because they are saying what they are saying.


If someone calls you vulgar, just click on the "report a post" triangle.



> If someone backs up his/her ideas with "That is what my books say and I am a school headmaster", I should be able to say "That is false" or "I don't believe it". Why should I believe it?


See answer number one. You may or may not believe it; but until you can PROVE it is a false assumption you´d better shut up. It is true that none of us can prove who we are, and neither do you. And a strip teaser may be a very cultured man. It´s our knowledge what matters, not what we have to do to earn a living.



> There are some things I can't say because it would be too clear to see what I am referring to, but I can tell you something: moderators sometimes don't understand what is going on. So you are left there seeing what is happening and not being able to speak.


You are able to speak to any moderator of your choosing; that´s what PMs are for. You can, also, report a post or a whole thread and explain what´s going on according to you.



> A moderator should realize that if a message was there for two days and other moderators didn't find it faulty, it is probably not that faulty. If he edits it after two days, the author will not be able to decide if those words express what he/she wanted to say. It is a lack of respect.


Moderators are human beings and therefore not omnipresent. So maybe the post was not seen for two days. You have no way of knowing. Besides, you can always contact the moderator who deleted your post (or any other) to know the reason why it was deleted. If it was a wrong decision (moderators are human, after all) your post will be reinstated.  



> If you ask if someone would invite you to taste _jamón_ in Spain, I find it only cordial and amiable to say "Yes!" I can't see how my post is off-topic and yours is not.


Usually all chatty post are deleted whole. At least that´s what I have seen.



> But then we are human, and when we have been edited for reasons we cannot understand, it builds up and it becomes irrational. We just can't bear it any more, even when that person is right.


I have been deleted, edited out, reprimanded, corrected in fiery red, Pm´d, notified by a bunch of moderators. Sometimes I have discussed my posts with them. Sometimes my posts were reinstated. Sometimes they were not. I have been deleted so many times that my post count would double up if all my posts were reinstated. I have never found it irrational. I´m talking with a fellow human being; this fellow human being doesn´t have to see things the way I do.



> I have been edited in General Vocabulary (here only for chatting, my fault, becoming more and more of a chatter; should stop it), Grammar, English Only, Sólo Español, Specialized Terminology.


I have been edited and deleted in Vocabulary general, English Only, Grammar, Sólo Español, Culture, Comments & Suggestions,  Congrats, Francés/Español, Latin and Hebrew and possibly more. 



> As I said before, I have to accept that it has become something personal and irrational, but it is the truth.
> 
> It is normal if there is a clash of characters here, and some of us don't understand each other. This is easy to deal with among members, but it is not easy to do with moderators.


I am truly sorry you feel so bad; but as you say, it is personal. And I personally have never felt any moderators had a grudge against me, and I have clashed, discussed and been reprimanded by more than one.

So, if you feel that bad, you´d better speak with one of them. As you say, there are over 40. There must be someone you trust.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Valeria Mesalina said:


> I have been edited and deleted in Vocabulary general, English Only, Grammar, Sólo Español, Culture, Commets & Suggestions, Congrats, Francés/Español, Latin and Hebrew and possibly more.
> 
> I am truly sorry you feel so bad; but as you say, it is personal. And I personally have never felt any moderators had a grudge against me, and I have clashed, discussed and been reprimanded by more than one.



Valeria says it all.  Anybody here who says anything worth saying (and she invariably does, which is why I look forward to her posts) will, sooner or later, find themselves moderated.  This includes the moderators themselves.  

Every mod worth his or her salt has also had to eat a slice of humble pie and reinstate a too-hastily deleted or edited post.  This is why I wait nowadays until I've had my coffee before making any heavy moderating decisions.


----------



## Ynez

The point is that I am not very much moderated, because I try my best to behave.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ynez said:


> The point is that I am not very much moderated, because I try my best to behave.


  I need to learn from you, Ynez.  I too try my best to behave, yet many of my posts get deleted.


----------



## Ynez

I don't go off-topic, cuchuflete, but I can read a lot of off-topic going around and it does not get deleted. I usually concentrate on the language conversations. 

I don't think this is something to be talked in private, but here. There might be some others in my position, and I don't think any moderator in particular would be interested in hearing my stories. Here people are free to read and reply.

I also would like to know if it is asking too much to be released from one moderator per X number of posts.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

cuchuflete said:


> I need to learn from you, Ynez.  I too try my best to behave, yet many of my posts get deleted.



The crucial point is: were they deleted justly or unjustly? And, in any case you thought your post was deleted unjustly, did you contact the moderator who deleted your post, or any other moderator, to clarify the matter? I have, in every instance, and I have never been disappointed. So far.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ynez said:


> I don't go off-topic, cuchuflete, but I can read a lot of off-topic going around and it does not get deleted. I usually concentrate on the language conversations.
> 
> I don't think this is something to be talked in private, but here. There might be some others in my position, and I don't think any moderator in particular would be interested in hearing my stories. Here people are free to read and reply.
> 
> I also would like to know if it is asking too much to be released from one moderator per X number of posts.



I beg to differ. The post quoted above, and my post before it, and yours before that, are all far from the topic of this thread.  Asking to be "released from one moderator" has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is, and I quote, "Is this _*site*_ over-moderated?"

This thread is supposed to be discussing the moderation, including the possible over-moderation, of the forums.  It is not about the personal anecdotes of any single member.  It is certainly the wrong thread in which to request special treatment.

Your proposition now has a thread of its own:  http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1684136


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez said:


> I don't go off-topic, cuchuflete, but I can read a lot of off-topic going around and it does not get deleted. I usually concentrate on the language conversations.
> 
> I don't think this is something to be talked in private, but here. There might be some others in my position, and I don't think any moderator in particular would be interested in hearing my stories. Here people are free to read and reply.
> 
> I also would like to know if it is asking too much to be released from one moderator per X number of posts.



Ynez, I usually know very well when I am posting an off topic comment, comments that are not allowed by the rules, and so I cannot complain if any of my off topic comments gets deleted. Some of them are not deleted, and I don't complain about that either. This is not a regiment, and you cannot expect all moderators behaving themselves exactly alike all the time.

Moderators are also human beings like you and me, and therefore prone to err. In my experience, they are also human beings who can take it if proven wrong. In my opinion, this is best done privately; that's what PMs are for.


----------



## Ynez

That is your opinion, Oldy Nuts, but it is not mine.


----------



## danielfranco

I think that I must insist that it takes some patience and goodwill not only to accept that your posts will be moderated at some point in time, but also to learn that there are ways to express oneself that are beyond reproach, at least within the context of the forum rules.

If one can avoid personal remarks and generalizations, it is possible to say things that are even objectionable. It is even possible to skate the edge of the personal anecdote without falling pray to the moderating ire. But a lot of self-editing is needed to reach that style, and I understand many might resent such censorship, even if self-imposed.

I insist: I will only consider these forums to be over-moderated when we have to submit our posts and they have to be accepted before even being posted. Otherwise, it's just the ground-rules…


----------



## Ynez

danielfranco said:


> Otherwise, it's just the ground-rules…



But it is not the rules, danielfranco. It is beyond the rules.



daniel, why don't you give your opinion in the other thread that was created?


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Oldy Nuts said:


> Ynez, I usually know very well when I am posting an off topic comment, comments that are not allowed by the rules, and so I cannot complain if any of my off topic comments gets deleted. Some of them are not deleted, and I don't complain about that either.



My sentiments exactly, Oldy Nuts.



> In my experience, they are also human beings who can take it if proven wrong. In my opinion, this is best done privately; that's what PMs are for.


Absolutely.

*Danielfranco!!*

What would we do without you wandering off-topically off-topic?


----------



## danielfranco

Well, let's agree to disagree:

I consider part of the ground-rules that the moderators will do and undo according to whim, sometimes, just because they exist. If there weren't any moderators, it just wouldn't happen.

And then hope that it happens only when I'm not posting.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez said:


> That is your opinion, Oldy Nuts, but it is not mine.



No, Ynez, it's not my opinion but my experience. So, may I ask you again: have you contacted directly any moderator when you have felt that any post of yours has been unjustly censored or deleted?


----------



## Ynez

I already said I did, Oldy Nuts. I did it twice. 


Oldy Nuts, it is clear for me to see that your style and approach is different from mine, so you don't have my problem; but I have it and I am trying my best to solve it. I might be wrong, but this is all I can do.


----------



## Oldy Nuts

Ynez said:


> I already said I did, Oldy Nuts. I did it twice.
> 
> 
> Oldy Nuts, it is clear for me to see that your style and approach is different from mine, so you don't have my problem; but I have it and I am trying my best to solve it. I might be wrong, but this is all I can do.



Ynez, we usually agree on matters directly related with language questions, so it's sad for me to see that we cannot seem to come to an agreement here.

Please note that I have never questioned your right to voice here what you think about moderation in these forums, and that I do appreciate that you have respected the rule not to air specific moderation question in public -a rule that I also respect in spite of not fully agreeing with it. Unfortunately, I notice I am repeating things I have already posted in this thread, which may mean I have run out of arguments.

As an old man, all I can say now is that there comes a time when one learns to live life as it is, and not as one would like it to be. It took me some time to accept the rules of these forums, but I have been a happier man since I did. Which does in no way mean that I fully agree with all of them. However, what I gain from participating in these forums greatly outweights my disagreement with some of their features.

So, although I keep on trying to tread all those mills, I sleep happily at night in spite of their breaking my spears most of the time. Rocinante is not so happy, though, but that's beyond my control. On second thoughts, perhaps it's time for me to leave the poor old beast alone?

Affectionately,

Oldy.


----------

