Guidelines refreshed

[№3344]

<quote user="armored">
Agree with the editing post part, obviously the moderator will need to provide a time stamp on the original post stating that they edited it.

I don't agree with the power to Ban users I think it's to much power:) I have seen it happen on occasions that moderators and regular users such as myself suspect people of having multiple accounts when in reality we didn't have solid evidence. Only people who have access to IP information ect should have that kind of power. This is going a bit off-topic and probably merits a separate thread, but IF such power was to be granted a lot of safeguards need to be put in place to prevent abuse or moderators banning people for frivolous reasons such as their feelings getting hurt in a discussion.

No offence but I think we already have some over zealous moderation and numerous posts get hidden that shouldn't be hidden. because of literal application of the guidelines as mentioned above or just super strict moderation. Imagine the power to ban was granted!??
[/quote]

Hey, what about strict rules for mods? They'll have to follow them.

[№3344]

The main reason why I strongly propose to give mods powers to ban users because:

I am tired of numerous reportings spam bots via contact form just like mods tired of it too. This is the best way to prevent major spam and vandalism on the spot. To stop EXPLICIT spam attempts on this forum.

To avoid possible problems - we should have guidelines that will clearly control moderators in their doings.

[MyWOT-Team]

This is a complex topic to resolve. Please bear with us while we have a discussion with our moderators on this and find a solution that is satisfactory to everyone. In the meantime please continue posting as you have until now. Thanks.

[Guest]

IMO, it could be useful to display in the forum who are mods, because I am not sure that everyone think to check in the [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Forum_Moderator t=_self]wiki page[/url]. Also, mods need to let their board opened because this is important that they can be contacted for questions which can't be done publicly.

Still in my opinion, ban is maybe too much. The WOT support answers quickly to messages, so this is not critical. Also, I guess it will need time to bring this functionality and it might not be a priority.

I think live links could be allowed to some sites related to security or which bring information (example: wikipedia). It sounds really strange that WOT works with [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Trusted_Sources t=_self]trusted sources[/url] which can't be used in live links. It is the same for [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Online_tools t=_self]suggested tools[/url]

I also think that mods have the ability to detect when links should be disabled. When it concerns a site evaluation, no live links to the site should be accepted (excepted in the OP) even if it has a dark red or dark green rating because it is important to be fair with every site owners.

[Guest]

<quote user="matiks">
IMO, it could be useful to display in the forum who are mods, because I am not sure that everyone think to check in the [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Forum_Moderator t=_self]wiki page[/url]. Also, mods need to let their board opened because this is important that they can be contacted for questions which can't be done publicly.

Still in my opinion, ban is maybe too much. The WOT support answers quickly to messages, so this is not critical. Also, I guess it will need time to bring this functionality and it might not be a priority.

I think live links could be allowed to some sites related to security or which bring information (example: wikipedia). It sounds really strange that WOT works with [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Trusted_Sources t=_self]trusted sources[/url] which can't be used in live links. It is the same for [url=https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Online_tools t=_self]suggested tools[/url]

I also think that mods have the ability to detect when links should be disabled. When it concerns a site evaluation, no live links to the site should be accepted (excepted in the OP) even if it has a dark red or dark green rating because it is important to be fair with every site owners.
[/quote]
I agree!

[Guest]

<quote user="matiks">
Still in my opinion, ban is maybe too much. The WOT support answers quickly to messages, so this is not critical. Also, I guess it will need time to bring this functionality and it might not be a priority.[/quote]

Totally disagree.
They usually answer within 2-3 days, so scorecard spammer (forum bot) can send very many messages until they ban him.
I remember one gentleman who had sent 500 spam messages before they banned him.
A simple (but not the best) solution is to give to mods the ability to temporarily ban and hide scorecard comments.

[Guest]

<quote user="bасилий">
Totally disagree.
They usually answer within 2-3 days, so scorecard spammer (forum bot) can send very many messages until they ban him.
I remember one gentleman who had sent 500 spam messages before they banned him.
A simple (but not the best) solution is to give to mods the ability to temporarily ban and hide scorecard comments.
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but what I understood from Matiks post is the banning of any member and not just spammers like the "gentleman" that obviously, should have been banned without much delay

So far the moderators are doing an incredible job and I was under the assumption that, they could "hide" posts

You bring an interesting point, someone should have the power or ability to ban individuals, like the ones that you mentioned, but under what circumstances?
People make honest mistakes, while others do pretend not to know :/

How many warnings before a user is banned?

What about the owners that bring their sites or they come over to defend their position about their sites?
Situations like these can become the WOT Achilles's heel, our ratings are our own and are based in opinions plus trusted sources, if we can ban so easily a user without the approval of administration, we run the risk of having to face a harder sue, as the banned owner can simply said that, he or she never had an opportunity to defend or redress, the site's reputation because his or her right to freedom of speech, was violated
This would not be that easy to defeat in a court of law, leaving WOT and its members in jeopardy and this is what I understood from Matiks
Not to put words in his mouth, but the fact is that caution should be priority one, in order to avoid a dangerous situation
My opinion, I hope it helps

[Самаритянин]

Модераторам не только права на baned нужно дать а еще бы видеть ip посетителя. иногда это очень нужно что бы понять не fake ли это.

[destinationtruth]

I feel that allowing a moderator to ban a member would elevate them to administrative status. This indeed would put them in more of a position to be in a legally liable status.

I would propose that they would be allowed to "temporarily suspend" a user and leave the final determination after investigation to the WoT Administration. The status "Suspended" should be placed on their profile instead of "Banned." Such suspension should have a time limit e.g. 7 days, with automatic reinstatement if Admin has not responded / made a determination.

I would like to see how the moderators here feel about the possibility of having the ability to ban.

[destinationtruth]

<quote user="netxack">
Модераторам не только права на baned нужно дать а еще бы видеть ip посетителя. иногда это очень нужно что бы понять не fake ли это.
[/quote]

and you think they should spend their free time doing admins job without compensation? That should be considered employment.