Power to lock threads to be given to Forum Gurus/ Senior members

[abousetta]

Another interesting back and forth has been going on regarding the interpretation of the forum rules regarding the definition of senior members and rule #7 in this thread. I suggest that all forum gurus, in addition to moderators, should have the ability to lock a thread until the OP can respond to requests for changes (e.g. use code tags, change title, etc.). That way there won't be a chance for other posters to misunderstand if the OP is asked a question and whether or not they have responded accordingly. Obviously we don't have enough active moderators online all the time to accomplish this task and that's why I am requesting that this power be shared at least for the time-being or completely remove rule #7 from the forum rules.

[romperstomper]

How is the OP going to edit his thread?
(bad idea in my opinion, for what that's worth)

[Mordred]

Your opinions are no longer valid here RS! JK.

[abousetta]

We need some sort of solution either (1) abolish rule #7, (2) clarify that only requests from moderators need to be heeded, or (3) spread the power so we don't end up alienating posters who are trying to help.

[Paul]

Abousetta,

I appreciate your input, but I don't believe any of those options will occur. Perhaps we simply change rule 7 to state "Admins, Moderators or other Forum Members" rather than "Senior" members, since ultimately we would like all members to join us in maintaining a structured, searchable and community-influenced forum.

As you know, we don't actually close ("lock") threads upon posting a change request, otherwise the user couldn't update the thread as RS noted. This is one of the reasons rule 7 exists, so that we don't simply ignore all of the other rules. If we warned users about rule infractions, but then had no way to prevent (figuratively) other members from just throwing out answers, those new users would likely continue to post as they pleased and our forum would definitely suffer for it.

There has been very little talk about adding new moderators, to be honest. Hopefully that changes, as the few of us that remain cannot be here 24/7, although we do our best to be available and appreciate all of the support our members have provided these past several weeks. I'm also glad to see that several former moderators have continued to support the forum members with their time and expertise.

While I can only speak for myself, I try to be as fair and lenient as possible - especially toward new members. As members gain tenure it's obviously expected (hoped) that they promote and abide by the rules.

Finally, as moderators, it is also our responsibility to treat all members fairly and equally. Like the thread mentioned in your first post, I have seen instances where I thought the moderation was either unnecessary or oddly applied. Sometimes I've PM'd the other moderator (or posted in our private forum) asking about it, other times I have not. In this case I did not step in as Arlu was handling the thread.

Thanks, and enjoy the rest of your weekend everyone.

[abousetta]

Hi Paul,

I have no desire to "lock" anything, but we do have a problem with the interpretation and implementation of rule #7. I personally think we just limit it's jurisdiction to "Admins and Moderators" since in theory they should be running the show. If this was a sporting match, I wouldn't expect players to penalized because other players noticed a broken rule unless a referee aqreed and interveened. Same thing here, if I saw a broken rule (e.g. no code tags) and another much more expereinced memeber (e.g. RS, shg, etc.) decided to go ahead anyways and provide the OP with a response, who am I to say that they can't/shouldn't. How do we define seniority? The Moderators have a different responsibility in that part of the Admin/Mods role is to enforce rules. I just don't want to be caught in the middle as what happened with the thread that I cited above.

Happy weekend everyone.

[Pepe Le Mokko]

All of which doesn't change the fact that I received an unjustified warning. But then again, English not being my mother tongue, perhaps I did not understand all of the subtilties of the " requests",etc..

[Russell Dawson]

I agree with Paul when he states, “I try to be as fair and lenient as possible - especially toward new members”. That is the right approach.

I see too many occasions where a new member has been censured for a bad title whereas a more gentle approach is more appropriate. It is sometimes embarrassing to read. The newbys obviously have much less experience and don’t know how to ask the question sometimes never mind dream up a title that satisfies the rules. They don’t necessarily know which formula they are enquiring about. They don’t appreciate that a good title will help everybody in the future when searching for solutions. Perhaps that could be made clear in the rules as it’s not stated at the moment.

I’d say that it was just as important for threads to be marked as “Solved” where appropriate by the OP and infractions administered for failing to do that. Oh yes, and for failing to give me reps!

I too acquired an infraction when I was totally innocent when the moderator had failed to appreciate the correct chronology. I had to go to another moderator to have that reversed as the original one had failed to clear their full inbox and was not responsive to my requests.

I know that I’m new to this forum and some may say that I am too inexperienced to pass my opinions in this way but it’s not an Excel thing. It’s about being fair and treating everybody equally and also hopefully have moderators using the same even handed approach. I do therefore qualify from this viewpoint – age and experience.

I’m not trying to be controversial or point the finger of blame but if Paul has found it necessary in the past to PM the other moderator to question infractions then there is clearly work to be done to get everyone working from the same “spreadsheet”.

Do I qualify as a senior member because I am old?

[zbor]

Once I suggest that new members (below 10 posts) when posting their first(s) questions moderators need to approve them to appear.
That way:
- Names would always be propper (since they'll be warned and after changing title approved)
- all spam will be avoided (at least spammers would need to open several excel questions to do that )

probably answer will come a little bit slower but I think not much slower (as long as there enough moderators).

[abousetta]

I'm wondering who is 'running the show' these days??? Roy's account that he a 'Retired Admin', and there are only a small handfull of moderators still active. So who is responsible for enforcing the 'rules'. Should we just forget about them and go ahead with business as usual???

[Mordred]

@abousetta, I wouldn't forget them as Pepe was given a warning for answering a thread (you know the one) so while it may be random (the moderating) you should still be on guard.

[Mordred]

Once I suggest that new members (below 10 posts) when posting their first(s) questions moderators need to approve them to appear.
That way:
- Names would always be propper (since they'll be warned and after changing title approved)
- all spam will be avoided (at least spammers would need to open several excel questions to do that )

probably answer will come a little bit slower but I think not much slower (as long as there enough moderators).

I disagree and have been at the whim of this idea in a Java forum. It took almost 2 weeks just to have the question approved. You would need a lot of moderators on a site such as this to actually successfully take this approach.

[abousetta]

Personally, I am going to stop asking people to update title/ use code tags/ mark threads as solved, etc. It seems to me that maybe 'helpful' members are causing more damage than helping because it is allowing the admin to just keep the status quo and not assign new moderators to the forum since we the 'senior members' are picking up the slack.

[arlu1201]

Abousetta,

We are not stopping you from giving a gentle nudge to the erring members, as long as no answers are provided when a mod/forum guru or any other person has asked for a thread title change / forum tags, etc. We do not want the new members to think that they can simply get away with a bad title or any other error and still get answers to their questions. They agreed to comply with the forum rules, though i know that everyone just clicks on that checkbox without actually reading it. We must have done it ourselves at sometime on some site.

Also, we will soon have new mods for this forum. We need more considering our ever growing questions and number of users. The mods collectively will decide and it will happen very soon.

[abousetta]

Well, when "we the mods" decide... "you the mods" can nudge OPs all you want. I don't come to the sandbox to play referee. I come to have fun and this task of having to battle with other members over 'nudges' is not worth it. Also Arlette, no offense, but have the admin/ mods discussed this and therefore you are speaking on their behalf or as the most recent person to crowned 'moderator', you feel that you have a duty/right to defend the rules by which this land is governed?

[arlu1201]

I am just voicing out my views. Leaving my mod status aside, as a general user, i do not like it when i see confrontations on the forum, when all of us are here to help each other. But sometimes these "nudges" just go the wrong way or get misunderstood. We can all try to make this place a better place for everyone, without stepping on each one's toes.

[abousetta]

I see all of other forums that are very successful with minimal rules/ regulations. I can go either way (when it comes to forum rules just so we are clear). I like that EF has special subforum even though sometimes people don't post in the right subfoum (probably out of ignorance rather than intentionally). For example, I like to run through the threads in the programming subforum to look at solutions that I can learn from. So I personally like a nice, neat, organized forum. At the same time, my title is not abousetta "The Enforcer" (which would cool by the way). I'm sure that the forum is successful, and generating a good profit, therefore, even if the admin has to hire screeners as opposed to volunteer Mods, they should. That is of course, if they want to implement the rules. But you can't have it both ways. That's double-standards (unless you live in America, in which case, it's the Law ).

[ron2k_1]

I've been reprimanded before for ignoring shg's request to change the title of a thread in which I offered help. My bad I should have read all posts after the OP's first post.... Since then, I've been taking the thread titles seriously, and I (as I've seen other non-mod members) have either discretely reported the post to the moderator or tell the OP that there is a solution for their issue but they need to adhere to the rules. PERIOD. I believe that this rule (thread title) is one of the most important when requesting help. I don't see why others cannot render a hand to the mods as well (You are not assisting the OP, but you may very well will be assisting hundreds of others that may have the same issue and they need to search using searchable strings).

Now, that being said. I think the rule of cross posting doesn't make much sense to me. I, for one, if I have a solution to offer don't really mind the poster asks for help in other forums. But that's just me...

[Mordred]

(probably out of ignorance rather than intentionally)

According to my wife, there is no difference and both are just as bad as the other.

[zbor]

Now, that being said. I think the rule of cross posting doesn't make much sense to me. I, for one, if I have a solution to offer don't really mind the poster asks for help in other forums. But that's just me...

Cross-posting is not about asking same question on other forums. But why would you spend half hour for solving problem that is already answered? (Which you don't know)

[Mordred]

Cross-posting is not about asking same question on other forums. But why would you spend half hour for solving problem that is already answered? (Which you don't know)

That's assuming that helpers follow the links to other sites to see if they are indeed solved. I don't.

[zbor]

Thats up to you. You can also skip answers in current thread and check if there is an answer .
But user has make his part and did everything on his side to make us easier.

[npamcpp]

Cross-posting is not about asking same question on other forums.

But it is .... ! zbor, what do you think cross-posting is?

Here is Ken Puls' priceless message to cross posters: http://www.excelguru.ca/content.php?184

[zbor]

It's about notifying that you posted same question on other forums.

[npamcpp]

No. Cross-posting _is_ posting the same question in more than one forum. Including links to all those posts is the correct and polite way to cross-post.

[zbor]

... and we talke here about the rule of cross-posting

[npamcpp]

I think we have a comms snafu.

[Pepe Le Mokko]

I think we have a comms snafu.

Could you please translate to plain English?

[Paul]

To quote Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here.. is a failure to communicate."

Cross-posting is when you post the same question on multiple forums on the internet, regardless of whether or not you provide links to each of them.

(Duplicate posting is when you post the same question in multiple sub-forums within the same forum. Here at ExcelForum.com, we do not allow this.)

While we highly discourage cross-posting, it is allowed as long as you provide links to the other sites so our volunteers can check them to see if the question has already been answered. (Or avoid them entirely as the case may be.) I, like most people, understand that when you have a problem that needs fixing - get the most eyes looking for a solution. However, it is common courtesy to notify everyone when you do that, and also when you have received a solution.

Always better to be safe than to start being ignored by those with the answers.

[Pepe Le Mokko]

A message to forum cross-posters

[npamcpp]

Pepe, that's exactly the same page I linked to in comment #23. Good to see we agree on the general framework.

Sorry for the "comms snafu"

comms = communications

snafu = "situation normal, all f*cked up", a term used in the military to describe something gone wrong

[Pepe Le Mokko]

Ooops, sorry about the duplicate link - And Thx for the explanation

[royUK]

abousetta, you have never been asked to nudge anyone! The Rule # 7 was originally changed to include senior members because their help was being ignored.

Scrap the rules 7 I am sure you would see the forum decline - I personally will not answer questions if the OP cannot be bothered to use a sensible thread title & not use abbreviations in them, etc, cross post etc.

I think it is in the community spirit for older members to guide newer ones.

[abousetta]

Roy for context go to the link posted in reply #7 by Pepe. Do you think he should have received a warning for failing to await the OP's response to the 'nudge'? This is the grey area that needs to be clarified. Many of my posts have been to OP to follow the forum rules (e.g. use code tags, change the title, mark thread as solved) because I was trying to be helpful. But if in the end, this help can be used by overzealous moderators to penalize other people who are trying to help then I will sit on the sidelines of this until the rules are clear. If the OP doesn't respond, and attempts to post new threads/ posts, I have no problem seeing them penalized. In the end, why is transparancy and a clear set of rules such a jagged pill to swallow. Does the admin/ mods want grey areas so they can do as they please (this is retorical question... I hope)? Since taking up my stance, I have turned a blind eye to a couple of dozen rule violations including in threads in which I was responding as long as no other forum member asked the OP to make any changes. In the rare case that the OP was asked to change their title, I politely informed the OP that even though I did have a solution to their problem I could not post it in accordance to the forum rules. Until the rules changes and become more clear and straightforward that will be my stance (and I believe the stance of many others) on this forum. The ball is now in the hands of the rule-makes. if they want our help in keeping a well-run, organized forum, then at least give us something in return (a descent set of rules to follow).

[Paul]

I feel it is safe to say that the warning was justified. I've read rule 7 a number of times, and I don't see how it can be misconstrued in this case. Pepe's post came 47 minutes after JeffreyBrown's request.

7. Don't ignore requests by Administrators, Moderators, or senior members of the forum. If you are unclear about their request or instructions, then send a private message to them asking for help. Do not post a reply in a thread where such a request (e.g., title change, code tags) is pending.

The rules apply to everyone, from the newest member to the oldest Moderator. If the only sticking point is the definition of "senior member", do we truly need to make it more difficult by specifying a post count or member tenure? So you would have to "obey" someone with, for example, 502 posts or 1 year and 2 days of tenure, but not someone with 498 posts or 362 days? That seems silly.

Please note that of the 276,000* members in the forum's history, only about 150 have more than 500 posts. Ninety have more than 1000, only fifty have 2000 or more, and there are 11 with 10,000+. Knowing that, JeffreyBrown is easily a "senior" member. Anyone with that many posts is sure to know the rules and be able to help newer users understand them.

I'd even suggest that the word "senior" be removed from rule 7 at this point. If ANY other member suggests to an OP that they update the thread due to a rules violation, it should be done before another user chooses to disregard the rules and answer. By disregarding the rules and posting a solution to a thread that clearly needs revising - even if no request has been made - you're not helping the OP understand the community aspect of this forum. Yes, you may not get the rep points and all the glory by answering first, and the OP may have to wait a little longer to get their answer, but in the long run everyone will benefit from a more structured and organized forum.


* - Yes, I know, that 276,000 includes spiders, bots, etc. 150 out of 100,000 would still be quite a group to belong to.

[abousetta]

Paul, I agree with you 100% and in my eyes Jeff will always be senior to me even if my post count one day surpasses his. I would like to see the word 'senior' removed as you suggested and make it open for anyone to point out rule violations. That is only fair and I don't see why anyone would object to this policy. I hope that this will be implemented by the admins/moderators.

[royUK]

When the rules were written it was an attempt to make the forum a more usable resource. In Excel we have extremes in Forums - one major forum has little or no moderating, I very rarely post there. Then there is the one that enforced it's rules too rigorously, ending it's prime position in Excel help forums. We tried for a happy medium & in our spare, unpaid time. Nit picking over the word "Senior", seems irrelevant to me. It's in everyone's interests to help keep forums in good order. If anyone had experienced moderating a busy forum then they would understand why sometimes rebukes can seem a little sharp. So many people post happily away without reading the rules it becomes a tedious job pointing it out, then there is always some idiot that decides to have a rant & send abusive PMs.

Whichever, Excel Forum I visit I try to respect their rules & point out any posts that contravene them. There's another down point though - I received a PM from one moderator at another forum once informing me that as I wasn't a moderator there it was not up to me to report posts - I think this was a cross post. I don't go there often now!

Edit: the warning was justified even though I know who Pepe is!

Edit2: There is no way that any non moderator should be allowed to lock posts and generally mods here very rarely locked posts. I usually only locked old posts that have been targeted by spammers

[Pepe Le Mokko]

If the only sticking point is the definition of "senior member", do we truly need to make it more difficult by specifying a post count or member tenure? So you would have to "obey" someone with, for example, 502 posts or 1 year and 2 days of tenure, but not someone with 498 posts or 362 days?

So in essence you are saying that if a rule is imprecise, one should make an educated guess at what the rule's creator had in mind but did not deem necessary to precise?

And if one guesses wrong ( on what grounds?), one should be blamed ?

The day my plane's flight manual tells me " this plane will stall if you don't fly fast enough" without telling me what that speed is, you can bet I'll stay at the bar as long as I don't have a precise figure.

As for the number of posts being a reference for one being a "senior member" ( no offense meant Jeffrey), that is a rather funny way of looking at things.

[Paul]

So then, Pepe, you'll agree that the word "senior" should be removed from the rule, and that a request from ANY member to adhere to the rules should be regarded just as if it came from a Moderator? After all, the number of posts you have, or the time spent as a member don't dictate your knowledge of the rules and your understanding of how they keep the forum running smoothly, right?

There are many rules and laws in the world that are not precise, specifically for the fact that to do so would make them unintelligible with all of the minutia. We want to have rules, as Roy said, to keep our forum as user-friendly as possible - whether that be for reading, writing or searching posts.

Based on your example, is there a law book somewhere that contains a list of every plane/jet ever made along with the minimum air speed required to prevent stalling, as well as who can tell you that your air speed is too low and the punishment for not adhering to that law if that person has more flight hours than you? My guess, not being in aviation, is that such a law doesn't exist. There are likely a number of laws that require the pilot to *know* the technical specifications of the plane s/he is flying and to adhere to the plane's manual, but none that say you don't have to listen to a request from a pilot fresh out of flight training who may actually know better than you.

I don't think further discussion on the topic is going to get us anywhere, so I'll propose what I've discussed to the other Moderators and we'll note it here if a change is made (or a decision not to change is agreed upon).

Thanks.

[abousetta]

***Edited to be more on topic***

I still don't see the resistance for removing the word "senior". Until the rules are ammended to take account of the wishes/ desires of regular members and there is no requirement for regular members to intervene and highlight any broken rules by posters, I will leave this responsibilty on the square shoulders of the owner/admin/moderators. If the rules are amended, then after studying them, I will either abide by them or find another forum to contribute to. Until then there seems to be no reason to discuss or any other issues regarding forum improvements in an open thread.