Please tell me how to get a moderator to squash abusive users!

On 2002-03-25 20:42, MatsWiman wrote:

Dear Hussein,



We\'ve had a few cases like that in my SC\'s and at time I have responded (not as a moderator, but as a participator):

\"This is a job. Post it as such\" but I never squashed/killed it. If someone wants to have go at it, why should I be disturbed? This is a help page where we all learn and help.

So let it be!



For offensive questions, see my \'black curtain\' suggestion above



Best regards





I\'m just quoting from the KudoZ rules of etiquette which Henry put up (and which, I believe, work well):

\"The KudoZ system is to be used for terms help only. Making announcements, or otherwise misusing the KudoZ platform, is prohibited.\"



\"It is also not appropriate to comment on an asker\'s decision to post a certain question; policing the site is an optional role of moderators, not of regular members.\"



If you believe these rules should be changed, let\'s discuss - I believe they\'re ok, but then all moderators should adhere to them.



Kind regards, Ralf







▲ Collapse

On 2002-03-25 18:21, GoodWords wrote:

A hypothetical case:

Translator #1 posts 15 consecutive queries (words and phrases totalling 60 words). They were taken from a 5000 word text which she has spent the last 3 days working on. These queries represent the only doubts she had in the whole text.



\"Translator\" #2 posts 15 consecutive queries, consisting of phrases and sentences totalling 60 words. Put them together, and you have the complete text.



Are these 2 persons equally \"guilty\" of abuse? I don\'t think so. It\'s not the volume of queries, it\'s the density. If you can reconstruct the entire text on the basis of the queries, then it\'s someone using KudoZ to get a free translation. (But even then, do we cut them some slack if they\'re in love?)





[LOL] I regularly answer questions in the Eng>Heb subcommunity, where the asker feels they need a tattoo to prove to their loved one they really care. I can\'t see the point and I dislike tattoos, but they are fair questions and I answer them. But if their content is offensive, I have no compunction about squashing them and the same goes for anything similar.



You rule of thumb above is excellent. I think (as Ralf said) that it\'s pretty easy to see whether it\'s a genuine professional who is posting residual questions from a big job (which I have done once or twice myself), or someone posting the whole job in chunks: the tell-tale sign for the latter is the posting of paragraphs or a couple of sentences at a time.



Mats\' assertion that very little flooding occurs is simply counterfactual.



_________________



[ This Message was edited by: on 2002-03-26 17:49 ] ▲ Collapse

On 2002-03-25 20:42, MatsWiman wrote:

Dear Hussein,

We\'ve had a few cases like that in my SC\'s and at time I have responded (not as a moderator, but as a participator):

\"This is a job. Post it as such\" but I never squashed/killed it. If someone wants to have go at it, why should I be disturbed? This is a help page where we all learn and help.

So let it be!

For offensive questions, see my \'black curtain\' suggestion above

Best regards





Mats\' title for this posting was

\"If you feel it\'s abuse you\'re allowed to react but not to squash (to kill)\"



In fact, those who are authorised to squash are allowed to squash, by definition. That\'s what the words mean.




[addsig] ▲ Collapse

On 2002-03-26 00:50, kadamczyk wrote:

I think you should see this site as a resource and a place for helping colleagues. If you don\'t want to help someone because you don\'t agree with their methods, don\'t! But you have no business questioning a colleague\'s professionalism based on your opinion.



From what I have seen, Marcus is very helpful to others. I think it is disrespectful of you to post such comments.



I certainly hope Henry does not implement new rules based on your opinions!



Karin Adamczyk





Karin, I obviously “see this site as a resource and a place for helping colleagues”! Have I said any of the contrary? I signed up two months ago and since then I’ve spent an average of 4 hours a day helping others, reading and posting issues in this forum, etc. You have NOT read the three pages of answers (including an apology I wrote ages ago) posted to this issue. We are NOT discussing here Marcus\' professionalism. Nor Mats\' or anybody else!!! That was far from my intention, I just made ironic remarks to their not less controversial postings!

But that\'s completely out of the issue. What we want to establish here is:



1. Are new KudoZ rules needed, and which?

2. Should we have a limit in the number of questions per individual? I\'m sorry some of you guys work like that. I believe most people consider an abuse to post 15 questions in half an hour, so (if you have some respect towards your colleagues) you might have to get used in the future to distribute your set of questions along a wider time span OR, A MUCH BETTER OPTION:

3. We might have to give some kind of privilege to KudoZ members as opposed to \"outsiders\" or anonymous askers. I\'m not a Platinum member but I wouldn\'t mind Platinums were given the right to ask as many questions as they want. You want something in return for what you pay and that would be a wonderful deterrent for abusers.

4. Criteria to select a moderator: could a moderator be democratically voted out if the majority of the members of that language pair disagree with their methods or the moderator systematically ignores requests for squashing?

5. Why should we leave squashing in the hands of one single moderator if the moderator is not alert 24 hours a day? Could we have a pre-squashing facility based on a number of votes from KudoZ members (Platinum members, members with more than 1000 KudoZ Points or elected members for that purpose)?

6. New criteria for squashing or pre-squashing questions: for instance, more than ten members agree that it\'s abusive, asker is known to have been abusive in the past, asker is not a “renowned” member of KudoZ and s/he’s posting more than 20 “suspicious” questions in a row...

7. Should we require that the asker always provides an e-mail address or at least that the moderator or “vice-moderators” can see it to warn the asker of an abusive practice before the others begin to be rude in their agreements or disagreements?



Karin, you said: \"I certainly hope Henry does not implement new rules based on your opinions!\", but it is NOT just my opinion that new KudoZ rules should be implemented. Read all comments before you rush into a conclusion.

One thing is clear here, and think about this before you begin attacking my point (2): If I had worked side by side with Marcus in KudoZ every day and I knew that he\'s an active and helpful member of this site, do you think I\'d squash any of his questions if I considered them reasonable? I think we all know the kind of abuser we are talking about: they tend to be non-members or have an empty profile!



To everybody: let\'s not turn the forum into a battlefield! Do not point at specific individuals and please get to the point.



Thanks!

▲ Collapse

On 2002-03-26 17:25, marcushm wrote:



Karin was simply voicing the opinion of most \'senior\' members who have been members since the inception of this site...



If somebody answers, then don\'t huff and puff, screaming foul...



Now who has offended you so much that you want him/her voted out? I\'m telling you now, this is a lost cause. I\'m fiercely loyal to my fellow mods because I know the good work they do...



All too often, over-zealous members jump to conclusions, rant and holler, shout \'abuse, abuse\'...



If you object to the ways this need is expressed, then you really have no business answering questions...



And, truthfully, many who have been here for years, and not months like you, get impatient with newbies who come blazing in with *brilliant ideas* when it\'s really obvious that these ideas have been hashed and rehashed before...



This issue about Kudoz abuse is as old as dinosaurs. It\'s time to settle down and bury this fossil. If you choose to be a paleontologist and dig up old bones, then don\'t be surprised if you encounter Jurassic opposition...







In other words: stop bothering us, we\'ve been here longer than you and therefore what we think and do must be sensible and right. If we haven\'t managed to resolve a recurring, thorny issue, obviously the problem lies not in us but in the issue; let\'s define a difficult issue as a non-issue and bury it under the carpet. If you have a problem with this, well ... tough.



PS. What about a moderator I have been emailing on and off for several months with various issues (including those Kudoz questions that come under this moderator\'s remit), and he has not once so much as acknowledged my emails? Henry has never replied to my messages about this problem. Would you be fiercely loyal to this moderator regardless of his behaviour? I guess you would - he is a senior (read: important) person. But in this supposedly meritocratic forum, I would vote him out like a shot: professionalism should take precedence over moribund tradition.
[addsig] ▲ Collapse

On 2002-03-26 17:25, marcushm wrote:

Too keep this discussion on track, I\'ll comment only on your valuable suggestions. Karin was simply voicing the opinion of most \'senior\' members who have been members since the inception of this site.







Just remember one thing: you don\'t agree with the method? Go do something else! You feel you\'re being taken advantage of? Go do something else!



If somebody answers, then don\'t huff and puff, screaming foul. Respect the fact that people will define abuse differently from you.









I will never squash questions posted by somebody, member or not, who others may think have posted *too many* questions. Most moderators would tend to think the same way (especially in the Fr/De/Ru/It>En SCs). Find out what your EsEn mod thinks.





The moderator is perfectly suitable for this role. All too often, over-zealous members jump to conclusions, rant and holler, shout \'abuse, abuse\', and it turns out that there\'s a simple answer. Why is it difficult to give everybody the benefit of the doubt before ranting and raving? Just go to old forum messages and read the countless posts on this subject. It mostly fizzles out and everyone forgets after several days. It\'s so easy to just let it be.



7. Should we require that the asker always provides an e-mail address or at least that the moderator or “vice-moderators” can see it to warn the asker of an abusive practice before the others begin to be rude in their agreements or disagreements?









A \'disagree\' accompanied with a snide remark in the comment box will only precipitate other snide remarks or snowball into open warfare. Now, who benefits from that?



Answering the damn question is so much easier!



And, truthfully, many who have been here for years, and not months like you, get impatient with newbies who come blazing in with *brilliant ideas* when it\'s really obvious that these ideas have been hashed and rehashed before. Simply read old forum messages.



This issue about Kudoz abuse is as old as dinosaurs. It\'s time to settle down and bury this fossil. If you choose to be a paleontologist and dig up old bones, then don\'t be surprised if you encounter Jurassic opposition.



Nonetheless, do not think that your suggestions are being ignored. Henry has said that his priority lies in providing fast, efficient service to members. That means, accesibility, programming, etc. Improvements are being made all the time. Patience is the order of the day.



Marcus



ps: como te llamas?











Without in the least bit attempting to disparage your worthy input, Marcus, and at the expense of not precipitating another string of verbosity, I will keep my remarks to a minimum.



First of all, you comment, somewhat sanctimoniously, that Karin is only voicing the opinion of most senior members who have been members of this site since its inception three years ago. I find that very interesting, given that fact that out of more than 30 answers to Cidcampeador\'s politely-worded QUESTION, only one of them has rallied behind your comments. On the other hand, various others, including myself, have been somewhat surprised at the no-less-than acrid remarks that have been peppered at Cid by your person. Look back in this thread, one contributor even remarked that what you wrote was \'incredibly rude.\' Enough on that, let the facts speak for themselves.



What I marvel at is your propensity to insinuate that we \'newbies\' are coming blazing in with our new ideas, while you \'seniors\' have hashed these things out once and for all.



Let\'s get a couple of things straight first. In my book, offensive language coming from a tadpole or a tyrannosaurous is the same - offensive language. (Tyrannosaurous - a large carnivorous dinosaur with small limbs and a large head) Perhaps your reference to \'Jurassic opposition\' warrants some truth??



You appear to consider it horribly rude, unthinkable, and even unallowable that a fellow paying member posts a polite remark in a \'disagree\' stating that the questions are becoming more than the occasional. On the other hand, you do not find it rude at all to answer another ProZ members legitimate, politely-worded question with an epithet of cyber-screaming at its worst. \'You can go skip rope, holler till you\'re blue, you can go can it.\' etc., etc.



Do yourself a favor and read the original question innocently posed by Cidcampeador. (By the way, I\'m not her lawyer, I\'ve never met her! But I do respect her work and input in Kudoz.) Then read your two replies to her. In this last reply you wrote, you over-used the words \'rant, holler, yell, rave, scream\' to the nth degree. Is this the way YOU react to things that don\'t exactly suit your whims? You wrote that a [\'disagree\' accompanied with a snide remark will only prompt other snide remarks that will snowball into open warfare.] Don\'t you think that by posting such nasty comments in a forum you are contributing with ammunition to spare in such a warfare. Where is the spirit of camaraderie, of answering one another\'s questions courteously, EVEN IF they have been asked (and unanswered productively, obviously), before???



You breathe out threatenings of Jurassic opposition. That makes me wonder if you realize that perhaps the dinosaurs aren\'t still alive here. Don\'t forget, you can only find bones of them these days, and they are your so-called paleontologists who find them. Perhaps we newbies may be threatening what was once a dinosaur-dominated domain?



Please, let\'s keep this from snowballing ourselves, OK. I simply had to answer what I felt was completely unfair and intolerable treatment of my colleague. She\'s quite capable of that herself, I know that, but we all need someone else to rally behind us once in a while. Have a nice day. ▲ Collapse