Forum post vetting requirement Thread poster: QUOI
|
|---|
QUOI 
Chinese to English
+ ...
"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 ... See more "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? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Parrot
Spain
Local time: 23:03
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.
| | | | chance (X)
French to Chinese
+ ...
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."
| | | | QUOI
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 ... See more 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. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| 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
| | | | | 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... See more 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] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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
| | | | QUOI
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 th... See more 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] ▲ Collapse
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Forum post vetting requirement | 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
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
