new topic

[mrb]

instead of shutting out discussion from people interested in the topic, why not penalize offenders.I think the fact that many important horological items exist which should be made available for the sake of the historical record is an extremely important subject!

[Jon Hanson]

MRB,

These committees of one are in complete control and it has and is happening on other topics.

"Swept under the rug" topics need, I guess, to be discussed on web horology for open discussion and education.

The "switching" topic with over 45000 views was deleted--this was the most read and important topic ever started on the PW section of the MB!

[Tom McIntyre]

I am afraid we will have to disagree on what this message board is for. It is set up to discuss the history and science of horology. That includes the manufacturing and commerical history as well as discussions on preservation and restoration of artifacts relating to the subject.

When we start discussing who are the bad guys and the good guys and which organization and individuals got it right or wrong, we have left the bounds for which the board was set up.

We will always have disagreements about the proper boundaries between preservation and restoration. All that is really needed are some statements of position and calm reasoning behind those positions. Hundreds of posts from the same source on the topic are not needed and are counter productive in my opinion.

The NAWCC is interested in exploring new products and services it can offer to members and the public. I think these forums are an appropriate place for those discussions, but we seem to continually drift into statements of outrage about past sins and crimes against horology. I don't see how those statements move the process of validating new product concepts forward.

[Jon Hanson]

WRONG. If topics are not revisited, then the info is lost or forgotten. Ethics, restoration, preservation is an on going topic.....FOREVER!

Question: who moderates the moderators????

[mrb]

Thank you for taking the time to run the board. It is greatly appreciated!

[Tom McIntyre]

If a topic is not the top thread on the board, it has not necessarily been lost. This forum has topics that are 4 years old on the 7th page of its history.

Threads are lost when the participants lose their perspective and violate the rules that Jeff has set up. Under those circumstances it may become the case that the general thread of discussion cannot be maintainted with a reasonable amount of editing effort and the entire thread gets quarantined. The loss of visibility is the fault of the participants.

If the general consensus of the Pocket Watch forum is that we want a clear statement of the issues surrounding preservation and restoration including fakes and forgeries to be a sticky topic, we can do that.

On the other hand, if the discussion becomes a general downer that turns off people who might be interested in watches, then I would not favor increasing its visibility.

As for the chain of authority of moderators and administrators, Jeff appoints and controls the moderators and Jeff is appointed by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is elected by the members of the NAWCC.

A couple of the moderators happen to be board members, but when they are acting here, they are answerable to Jeff.

[Jon Hanson]

WRONG AGAIN! Topics very old are easily forgotten and ocasionally even more difficult to find, esp by newbies.

I repeat: new readers and members might like or need to be informed on certain issues, issues facing collectors on a daily basis. What better way than to add new or additional information, ideas on topics such as "Parting out, Switching, restoration horrors?" Of course, the minority report is seldom allowed to be discussed within our ranks even though the minority power base rules. However, since the "switching" topic was illegally removed without merrit, the point is probably moot because there is no effort to restore it.

[Ray Fanchamps]

"Threads are lost when the participants lose their perspective and violate the rules that Jeff has set up. Under those circumstances it may become the case that the general thread of discussion cannot be maintainted with a reasonable amount of editing effort and the entire thread gets quarantined. The loss of visibility is the fault of the participants."

If you believe that is a sufficient and appropriate cause and effect explanation the board will continue with the rare but problematic flare-ups regarding rules and rule enforcement.
The Admin / Moderator rules should be just as clear and available as user rules. Any system that paints with such broad strokes is misguided and dismissive of the positive participation of fellow thread contributors. Further, a system that continues to blame the user fails to address the role of the admin/moderators in these flare-ups.
This is a great resource and overall works very well. I personally am not going to worry about a vocal minority complaining about another equally vocal minority. All of us are able to see by their actions the value they do or do not bring to the board.
I would however suggest some focus on making visible the admin/moderator and rules enforcement process.

[Tom McIntyre]

Ray,

The current moderation rules require us to post a notice to the admin when a thread needs intervention. This preserves a copy of the thread. The mocderator can then edit the thread if that is necessary or can lock it if there is a firestorm under way that needs to be slowed down.

If there is disagreement about the problem with the thread, it is taken before the review committee where it will be resolved with input from all the involved parties.

If the message board were only populated with old timers I would agree that we could let the screamers yell themselves hoarse and not worry about it. That is historically how it has been handled on the Internet by ignoring the bad actors.

However, we have a lot of new members of the general public who visit here and the board represents the NAWCC to those seeking information. The presence of long harangues and interminable exchanges is a real turn-off for such people. It is also very difficult to find volunteers who are willing to work in this environment.

Most participants in our threads are thoughtful and considerate. All of our participants exhibit that behavior most of the time. I would hope that those who cannot always be thoughtful and considerate would understand when their occasional excesses are corrected.

[Mike Miller]

The rules seem to say that if someone submits a complaint, the review process kicks in. This doesn't seem unreasonable. However, this puts the moderators in a continually difficult position...

If anyone out of the blue objects to something, and voices concern, the moderators need to step in. What continually happens under this model is that someone has a gripe with someone else and they take it out by alerting Admin.

This happens over and over. I think Ray is right. Moderators need to have some standardized guidelines (available for all to see) as to when an action kicks in. This helps alleviate the perception that moderators are out to get someone, or are favoring one over another. This seem to happen a lot.

Will this solve every argument? No, but it does level the playing field.

As far as the idea that "people will be turned off by arguments." I'm not so sure that is necessarily true. Just look at the ratings of reality TV (American Chopper, Survivor, etc). If nothing else, there is entertainment value :biggrin:

[Jeff Hess]

Un-acceptable:

Gosh. Jeff, that was an unfortunate pair of examples!

:smile: :wink:

[Ray Fanchamps]

Tom, with respect,you did not address the issues I raised. In fact you added to my perception that changes have not truly identified the problems with this resource. I know you and many other could make a list of the problems. I am equally certain that the list would really be a list of symptoms. With such a focus you work to make the "problem" (really a symptom) go away but they (as symptoms do) pop up again in some other form and the true problem remains. Think about it. Given all the deletions and locked threads do you think the problem has been resolved? Clearly not but along the way the positive efforts of many members is "lost" to satisfy "someone's" idea of who we are. That's a poor system.

[Mike Kearney]

If everyone who used the message board behaved in a thoughtful and considerate manner, there would be no need for moderators. But that's too much to expect. So we have moderators.

With the creation of moderators, there comes the possibility that users will be treated unfairly by moderators. That's something the administrator and the review committee needs to watch, because the moderators should be at least as thoughtful and considerate as anyone else. That's because bad moderators can chase off good users as easily as anyone can. Probably more easily. Unfortunately, perfect moderators are too much to expect as well, even if they are trying to do the right thing. Especially as the rules evolve and change.

Edited posts and locked threads are about the only tools, after polite warnings, that moderators have in order to do their jobs. They shouldn't be used lightly, but sometimes they're needed.

However, when individuals who cannot always be thoughtful and considerate refuse to understand when their occasional excesses are corrected, and go on the offensive claiming that moderators are simply out to get them, I think we are very close to where the problem lies.

Regards,
Mike

[Jeff Hess]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Edited posts and locked threads are about the only tools, after polite warnings, that moderators have in order to do their jobs. They shouldn't be used lightly, but sometimes they're needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Mike,

you well thought out note was a good one.

however, I would submit that "editing posts" must be done with extreme caution and only in extreme cases.

We need to keep the "green board" robust. Some boards have been almost totally silenced to the point of inactivity because of "over-editng" and "over deleting". This is a dangerous precedent.

[Tom McIntyre]

This is going to get confusing with two Jeff H's from Florida. I think we may have a handle on the overzealous editing problem with Jeff Hamilton's rule that any thread that is about to be moderated first be "noticed" to the admin. That preserves a snapshot of the thread and avoids some of the problems that have been discussed concerning other message boards.

Of course, we have to trust that Jeff Hamilton is an honest broker. :wink: I hope we all believe that, as I do.

For what it is worth, I believe it about myself also. :biggrin:

[Jeff Hess]

As a long time moderator, I have always been nindful of of just why many moderators, almost worldwide, are not highly thought of.

And the reason is simply overediting and overdeleting.

I rarely delete or edit a post. Other than when some interloper from a foreign land trying to promote his website, I have deleted one post and edited maybe 5 posts in my over two yers as moderator.

One, when persoanlly attacked, I let the offending post stay only to have the offending poster tell me privately that he felt embarrassed that I had left it up! He was sure I would just delete it!

Again, we have to let speech flow freely and NOT get too heavy handed. This has caused massive prblems on other watch boards as Tom has noted. I like Mr. Hamiltons snapshot plan. So much has been lost on this board and others due to political and/or shady manipulation and I trust Mr/ Hamilton to keep things totally above board.

[Mike Kearney]

I also agree with Jeff Hamilton's snapshot plan. It protects the poster and it protects the moderator.

I have a comment and question, though. When a moderator edits a post, the system puts a notification of that in the post as evidence. If the moderator does his job and reports the post before editing, the original thread will be saved, and the administrator and review board committee will be able to do their job. There's no debate about whether the post was edited and what the original content was.

How about if a moderator deletes a post? Is there evidence left of that? It would certainly help if there was.

Regards,
Mike

[Mike Kearney]

I guess the situations I was concerned about are if a user feels a moderator is just deleting posts without following the procedure, the user has no proof the post was ever there. Or the flip side, a moderator, accused of deleting posts, who has no evidence to suggest he didn't.

But I'm happy with any improvement and I think Jeff's plan is a good one.

Regards,
Mike

[kirklox]

There is always evidence if a Moderator Edits or Deletes a post, the only problem is What was Edited or Deleted is lost. That is why it is so critical to Copy the Original Post. That leaves only one critical area and that is Members Editing their own posts prior to any action. dI have seen members Edit and Delete posts without many realizing it was there and being answered. The only way that can be stopped is if we teach the members to start using the Quote features. You answer a post, quote the entire post you are answering.

I would like to see that words such as "crybabies, whiners, malcontents, renegades, etal" be frowned on. In many circles this would be considered Troll Hunting.