Mobile menu

Forum post vetting requirement
Thread poster: QUOI

QUOI  Identity Verified

Chinese to English
+ ...
Mar 28, 2009

"Forum posts vetting requirement is not a punishment or an administrative action. It is rather a safeguard which staff may use to maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums."

I am rather puzzled by the above statement.

If a site user is being vetted as a result of breaching forum rules, it is quite clear that it's imposed as a penalty (or administrative action). Its objectives are (1) to withdraw from the user concerned full and unhindered freedom to participate in all forum activities to which he or she is entitled and (2) to protect other rule abiding users.

However, the above statement seems to indicate that one doesn't have to breach any forum rules to receive the same participatory restrictions.

In this sense, how is "vetting requirement" not functioning as a punishment? What's your reading on this?


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Parrot  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 09:03
Member (2002)
Spanish to English
+ ...
Vetting is a standard (default) procedure Mar 28, 2009

New registered users generally have to be vetted. Users whose identities are verified do not have to be vetted. Paying members identified through their credit cards do not have to be vetted. The principle is based on verified identity (the checkmark icon).

Some unidentified users register to post ads, for example. Under no circumstances are those vetted.


Direct link Reply with quote
 
xxxchance
French to Chinese
+ ...
Hi Parrot, Mar 28, 2009

How do you explain that a user whose identity is verified got this statement?

"Forum posts vetting requirement is not a punishment or an administrative action. It is rather a safeguard which staff may use to maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums."


Direct link Reply with quote
 

QUOI  Identity Verified

Chinese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Vetting paying members and verified users Mar 28, 2009

Hi Parrot,
Thank you for your explanation. I am however talking about vetting of paying members and verified users.

If a paying or verified user is told that his/her posts must be vetted, it can be assumed by people of ordinary minds (well, since admin decisions are not allowed to be discussed or even mentioned, most people will not know, but let's suppose they do) that this user must have breached certain rules which have led to the restriction being imposed. If one accepts that, then vetting is in nature a penalty.

There is another worrying aspect of the statement in my original post. It seems that any authorised person (ie site staff) at his or her total discretion can impose such restrictions on any paying or verified user as long as he/she thinks it is required to "maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums" even though the user has not breached any rules.

Do you think it is right and just to impose a penalty such as vetting without stating how long the penalty will be enforced? Do you think it is right and just to impose a penalty on paying or verified users for an unstated period of time and that the penalty can only be lifted at the total discretion of those who administer it?

I see danger in this process...



Parrot wrote:

New registered users generally have to be vetted. Users whose identities are verified do not have to be vetted. Paying members identified through their credit cards do not have to be vetted. The principle is based on verified identity (the checkmark icon).

Some unidentified users register to post ads, for example. Under no circumstances are those vetted.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Enrique Cavalitto
Local time: 05:03
SITE STAFF
This is a safeguard Mar 28, 2009

Ray_S wrote:

Thank you for your explanation. I am however talking about vetting of paying members and verified users.

If a paying or verified user is told that his/her posts must be vetted, it can be assumed by people of ordinary minds (well, since admin decisions are not allowed to be discussed or even mentioned, most people will not know, but let's suppose they do) that this user must have breached certain rules which have led to the restriction being imposed. If one accepts that, then vetting is in nature a penalty.

There is another worrying aspect of the statement in my original post. It seems that any authorised person (ie site staff) at his or her total discretion can impose such restrictions on any paying or verified user as long as he/she thinks it is required to "maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums" even though the user has not breached any rules.


You can find an answer to this in a dedicated FAQ:


    5 - Are forum postings vetted?

    Forum postings from members and users with verified identities appear immediately.* Postings from all others are checked before being made visible. Most postings are approved within 12 hours.

    * Access to networking features, which potentially affect other members, may be modified or revoked at the discretion of the ProZ.com team.


Ray_S wrote:

Do you think it is right and just to impose a penalty such as vetting without stating how long the penalty will be enforced? Do you think it is right and just to impose a penalty on paying or verified users for an unstated period of time and that the penalty can only be lifted at the total discretion of those who administer it?


This is not a "penalty" but a safeguard. Access to the forums is not blocked, but content is subject to a previous verification by moderators or staff members. This is not a new mechanism and it is part of the tools used to maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums.

Regards,
Enrique


Direct link Reply with quote
 

chica nueva
Local time: 21:03
Chinese to English
Vetting service over the weekend; non-verified non-members; Moderator discretion, overload Mar 29, 2009

Hello Enrique

1 For forums where Site Staff are Moderators, vetting is not available over the weekends, possibly? Can you confirm?

2 Non-verified non-members: I am this status by choice. To me, publishing on this site is like writing letters to the editor, with the Moderator having the discretion whether to publish or not, depending on whether or not the posts are constructive. I accept that, and have come to view it quite positively on the whole.

3 In my experience, it does seem to be up to the discretion of the Moderators how, how much and who they vet. There can be a considerable amount of variation depending on the circumstances.

4 This being the case, I wonder if there should be a Moderator panel for each forum to cope with any vetting overload. I am sure vetting can be quite onerous and time-consuming. Perhaps the forums are already operating in this way.

Lesley

[Edited at 2009-03-29 01:38 GMT]


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Enrique Cavalitto
Local time: 05:03
SITE STAFF
Confirmation Mar 29, 2009

lai an wrote:

1 For forums where Site Staff are Moderators, vetting is not available over the weekends, possibly? Can you confirm?


Please note that your post was approved during the weekend.

Regards,
Enrique


Direct link Reply with quote
 

QUOI  Identity Verified

Chinese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Thank you for your explanation Mar 29, 2009

Hi Enrique,

Thank you for pointing me the relevant FAQ.

I am in general more concerned with cases in which paying members or verified users who were not previously subjected to post vetting requirements are now being vetted.

I would appreciate it greatly if you could help me with these questions.

1. When a paying member or a verified user who was not previously subjected to post vetting requirement is now being vetted, who decides how long the vetting requirement is to be enforced?

2. Is it right and just to subject a paying member or a verified user to post vetting requirement without that person being told how long this vetting restriction will be enforced?

3. What avenues are available (besides lodging a support ticket) to and what are required for a vetted member to have the restriction lifted after a prolonged period of time ie 3 months?

4. Does Proz.com team have a uniform guideline on how to deal with these requests or is it a case of "no you are still not good enough and until such time when I decide to let you off the hook, you are still vetted"?

Regards
Ray


Enrique wrote:

You can find an answer to this in a dedicated FAQ:


    5 - Are forum postings vetted?

    Forum postings from members and users with verified identities appear immediately.* Postings from all others are checked before being made visible. Most postings are approved within 12 hours.

    * Access to networking features, which potentially affect other members, may be modified or revoked at the discretion of the ProZ.com team.



This is not a "penalty" but a safeguard. Access to the forums is not blocked, but content is subject to a previous verification by moderators or staff members. This is not a new mechanism and it is part of the tools used to maintain the productive atmosphere in the forums.

Regards,
Enrique




[Edited at 2009-03-29 07:51 GMT]


Direct link Reply with quote
 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:

Moderator(s) of this forum
Lucia Leszinsky[Call to this topic]

You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Forum post vetting requirement

Advanced search






Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

More info »
PerfectIt consistency checker
Faster Checking, Greater Accuracy

PerfectIt helps deliver error-free documents. It improves consistency, ensures quality and helps to enforce style guides. It’s a powerful tool for pro users, and comes with the assurance of a 30-day money back guarantee.

More info »



All of ProZ.com
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs