Hello all.

This is one area in our rules and laws that is not as detailed as the others, and one that recent events show that need attention. So while we are moderator-"free" (because we WON'T let this turn to mud trowing) (actualy I was going to suggest this at the same time, the the mod situation would not have mattered with my posting of this topic) I'm requesting of anyone who cares about how this forum functions to give their idea of what overmoderationa is/how it can be defined, or whitin what parametres moderation should abstain, etc... All of course in the framework of our current rules.

Perhaps if we have a more clear understanding of this issue, when the trial month is over , we might have a better idea of how to impose moderation...

Thanks and best regards,

Thermopyles

Thanks Thermopyles. I think moderation/overmoderation is a very delicate topic. First of all, we don't have rules that cover all the possible cases. Second, there is always bias (either on the moderators site or the other members) due to the nature of this forum. A good moderator needs to be a good social analysist, i.e., read behind the lines and capture the true meaning of a message. It has been stated in this forum several times, the members of this forum doesn't need to love each other. As long as they behave, they are OK. In my opinion, the moderators should understand both sites and not be blind to their national feelings.

I will seperate the moderation issue to two subproblems: a- identifying in-appropriate messages, b- identifying in appropriate persons. In either case, I would think that more member input could be helpful. Unless somebody complained, the moderators shouldn't take an action. The complaints for the messages could be in the same thread where as the complaints for the members could be in the complaints forum. For the evaluation of a person's motives we could use a system based on angelican justice system, i.e., jurors from either side (randomly selected) make a decision whether a member should be warned.

Now back to the topic, what is overmoderation. In my opinion (as I stated), the place names shouldn't be an issue. If I see somebody refers to Izmir as Smyra, I would either think that that person is still living in the past and can not accept the realities or he forget the Turkish/International name for a city. It happens all the time to me when I want to refer Thessaloniki and it is really hard for me to find the international name for Selanik.

Similarly, erasing/modifying the messages is an issue we need to handle carefully. Most of us come from work (or read at work :)) to this forum not only because we want to learn more about defense issues, or to press each others nerves but we also want to relax. In that case, it is inevitable that the discussions will move to other directions. In my opinion that is ok. Look at the "Turks discovered America" thread. In my opinion, we should be able to joke on each other or on ourselves. Otherwise, why should I go and read some cold pages. I'm always pissed off when I see an edited message. Also, somebody spent time writing a message, just deleting that message without informing him first is unrespecteful to that person.

The only messages that require moderation that I can think of is the direct or indirect attacks towards one member or his nation. I don't think it is acceptable to say that you are a moron, or your nation loves the same sex relations, or your nation is barbarian without any culture. Some of our members are very good demagogues, they think they are clever to add some small remarks without nobody noticing. We have seen it before, we are seeing now. I think these are the issues that require the moderation (unless of course they are part of some clever jokes :))

Bottom line is, when I look at the message, when I replace Greece with Turkey or visa versa, if I'm offended, that message requires moderation.

Very well said, Salaxdin. Thanks for your contribution. C'mon gents, this is your forum, speak up or don't complain when there is something you don't like.

So true... you come back from work to see whats going on with the time you invested in something and it is gone, and you waisted your effort... It really sucks... Perhaps we'll look to put something to that effect in our "moderator action capacity" statement, or something...

So Saladin, you raise many good points, and It seems the most pressing of which is the deletion of posts. While we have explained the actions behind the incidents, and I hope we can let them pass and continue, I completely agree that posts should be deleted only as a last resort, and I think most if not all mods would agree. Perhaps we'll look to put something to that effect in our "moderator action capacity" statement, or something...

Very good discussion has opened Bros...
Thanks Thermo and Saladin...indeed good ideas have occured...

I will agree with saladin.. his post covers also the point i wanted to make with my last "uprise" in here against cameleons actions...

I will add only one thing more... personal insults should be moderated but for me personaly seeing somebody beeing worned or his posts erased because of bad language or extreme provocation is not the important issue..
What is important is the person that makes the insult to be able to appear and apologise publicly for his action.. only this takes the insult back and proves that he understood his mistake...

So moderation should actually suggest such behavious to members that "brake" the rules instead of trying to force the rule on them... if they don't understand they will be isolated sooner or later by the whole forum.. people in here can judge...