New System of Moderation - Monitors Wanted

[Sysop]

Greetings,

LEOAFFAIRS.COM is offering a new system of moderation and we need some volunteers. You might be surprised at how it works, so please read below.

The goal here is to have improper posts receive as little air time as possible. Volunteer moderators do a great job, but they cannot be on the system 24 hours day and there can be a time delay between when the violation is reported and the moderator takes action on it. That's where Monitors come into play. Monitors have the same power that a Moderator has except that their deletions are temporary. A Moderator simply checks up on the work that a Monitor does and makes the deletion permanent. Monitors can be appointed by an agency, there can be 10 or 20 of them and their identities do not have to be confidential like Moderators.

Here's how it works: Anyone within your agency becoming aware of a post that violates the Terms of Use can immediately contact a Monitor for quick deletion. Remember, Monitor identities are known to people within your agency as well as their contact info (i.e cell phone). No more having to send an email to a Moderator. I have personally spoken to your department's administration and they are on board with this concept and willing to try it out. Remember, deletions by a Monitor are only temporary...so if a Monitor starts deleting posts that don't violate the Terms of Use, the posts will be reinstated by the Moderator and we will replace the Monitor if it continues to be a problem. LEOAFFAIRS.COM retains control over every post that's deleted and maintains the integrity of the site. Neither Moderators or Monitors have access to IP addresses either, so the poster's anonymity remains protected. It's a Win/Win for everyone who wants to play by the rules.

We need volunteers for the Monitor positions and remember, your agency is on board with this. I have personally spoken with both Chief Thomas and Captain Haworth about this in case you want to verify. So the question is, who wants to make this Message Board better and do something about it? My contact info is below, thank you!

Chip DeBlock, System Operator and Operating Manager
(813) 760-2900
chip@leoaffairs.com

Mr. DeBlock,

The most recent events that have developed on your website have caused you and your staff to debate a new way to monitor posts. The resilience of several at this agency has caused some conflict with your legal staff as well as the administration of our agency. The fact that this active rebellion is now ongoing may have more to do with the relationship with our agency and your site than you think. Additionally, your efforts to unite our administration with this bulletin board may be even more counterproductive to the overall spirit of your website.

Our bulletin board has long be scrutinized and criticized as being “too admin friendly”. Based on the limited and slanted deletions selected of described unfavorable posts, it seems that our Moderator is embedded with our administration. To say that the current Moderator is anonymous is a fallacy. The previous moderator was so flamboyant and careless about his association with this website among the administration that eventually his identity was discovered by the rank and file and a switch was necessary. Now the current Moderator is also known to our administration and they work candidly to establish their own set of rules governing your website. It has also been said that discussions have occurred behind closed doors that the admin has worked feverishly to gain the IP addresses of those that post unfavorable discussions in hopes of bringing punishment to those that sound off. Whether this is accurate or not, no one knows. But the ever present fact that this discussion has been leaked down to the lower ranks is nonetheless apparent and should be concerning. One sergeant has gone to great lengths to inform and disseminate information that officer’s phones and personal laptops are subject to confiscation for the purposes of determining the sources of LEOAFFAIRS posters. This is obviously a direct contradiction to legislation preventing such a confiscation, but again, nevertheless the scare tactic is disseminated.

According to your mission statement, “LEOAFFAIRS.COM™ got its start as an Officer Rights website, but soon became aware of the need for LEOs to talk candidly about law enforcement related topics without the fear of repercussions. Thus, our Message Board area was born.” The active involvement of our administration concerning this message board directly refutes the purpose of that mission statement. According to your Terms of Use, you state, …. “Here's an opportunity to voice your opinion, ask questions, become more informed, make a stand or engage in a healthy debate.” As you know by your own IA experiences, the administration’s scare tactics, embedded involvement with the Moderator, and history of governing the information allowed for us to view, directly contradicts the purpose of this site.

The recent flare-up on this board has more to do with the incessant and obvious involvement by our administration to control what is portrayed on this board versus the reality of their own actions. Ever envious of other agency’s boards, our officers DO NOT have a voice here. They are controlled by the same bully mentality that our administration uses to prevent the public maladies of our police department. The majority’s perception of incompetence and negative favor in which our administration is viewed motivates posters like “Clint” to continue to expose those maladies.

The simple fact that you involved our administration, particularly Captain Haworth, only reinforces the frustrating dilemma that our officers face when utilizing this site. Do we really have a voice? Do we really have an opportunity to utilize this board to engage in a healthy debate, ask questions, or sound off without the fear of repercussions?”

The olive branch you’ve extended to our administration to make this site better only refutes and contradicts your own mission statement and purpose of this website. Please do not interpret this post as a message of resistance. It is simply to inform you, hopefully with some anonymity for fear of repercussions by Captain Haworth, that the perceptions of this website reflect our administration’s will to control our opportunity to voice our opinions while instilling the fear of repercussions.

[Mod 557]

D B Cooper,

First, thank you for posting a very well written posting of your concerns. You did not slam anyone and you articulated your point well without childish inuendo. Having said this, let me clarify a few of your very legitimate concerns. I do understand your concern that I may be associated, or even working with, the Administration. However, I assure you I have absolutely no association, or communication with the administration at PPPD. My identity is secret for much the same reasons as our posters' URL's are fiercly defended to remain secret. The ability to remain anonymous, is paramount to my effectiveness in moderating this board. This way the "Admin" cannot influence my job here in any way, shape, or form. Despite the perception of a few posters on this board, I only remove posts or threads that violate our Terms of Use. I will never remove a post or thread that, in this instance, do not slam an identifiable person. If a poster feels the need to "vent" about a situation, I welcome the postings! I feel they are needed! All I ask is to not put me in a position where I will have to remove a posting by naming or otherwise obviously identifying any specific persons in a "Slamming" posting. The Terms of Use are very clear on this subject and all who wish to post are required to abide by those terms. (One example to note, is "Clint Eastwood" posting a slam at me....it does not violate the Terms of Use, because I am not an identifiable person. Therefore; his posting was not removed despite a reporting of said post to me.) I am not biased in any way that would indicate I support the "Admin", but I took this position with the understanding I would perform the duties asked of me to assure all postings conform to the Terms of Use clearly outlined on this web site. All those who wish to post (or "vent") can rest assured your identity will remain anonymous and not be revealed to the "Admin". This, I can promise you. The incorporation of asking for the assistance in moderating this board was originated, not by the "Admin", but by our site creators in an effort to curb violation postings, as I am only one person, incapable of monitoring this board 24 hours a day. In conclusion, let me tell you all to continue to post your concerns, frustrations, etc, but please do not post comments that clearly violate the Terms of Use, and I promise those posts not violating the terms will not be deleted.

Thanks all,

Mod 557

MOD I am very impressed with you response to D.B., but some how find it to be unturthful and insincere. If you truly pride yourself on being fair on the boad then why is it often times than not certain post remain up for days when they to are so called slamming people, by name I might add. To say you are not known by our admin and that you have no contact with them is so obsurd. Any time a post is make towards a certain group it is immediately taken down. With this new implenmentation of monitors and ok'd by the Chief and Captin Haworth how can you honestly say they have no bearing on how you do your dutuies here. HORSE SH!T

If you don't like the Mod, report him to Leo Affairs.... If they choose to leave him/her in place then take your business elsewhere or just live with it. They don't have to do what you say. It's their site.

For the record, Mod I think you do a good job.

[Sysop]

Mr. DeBlock, ...

First, I must admit I love the name. Good choice.

Second, your post shows me that, for the most part, we feel the same way and you actually get it. Please allow me to clarify some key points and to alleviate your concerns.

Actually, the concept of Monitors came to me about a year ago when I was trying to figure out a better way of moderation. I'll never forget it. I was doing a 3.5 mile run and bothered because some improper posts get a bit of air time before they are deleted. Don't get me wrong, we've got what many consider one of the best systems of moderation in the country (just read The Washington Post article), but there's always room for improvement. The idea hit me, I got with Mod 1, we perfected it and then started making it available to agencies. So, the motivation for the concept is different than what you might think. I don't want this site to be like NYPDRANT where content is unbridled and trash. I do want to effect change though this website (which we have done) and that requires participation by the media. If the website contains trash, the media won't print it or reference it. In my opinion, that does us no good and I don't want to be associated with a site like that. After all, my name is attached to it. It's also true that we use 400 - 500 unpaid volunteer moderators who are not available 24 hours a day to review posts or to delete them. Thus, if you have a problem poster whose content is staying up 12 hours at a time before it's deleted, he'll simply keep posting it once or twice a day. That's the beauty of using Monitors, because they are always available for immediate removal of any improper posting. Even if you only have 1 Monitor, you might have 200 pairs of eyes watching the message board to let him know when a violation pops up (remember, everyone knows who the Monitors are). It will not be worth the author's time to keep posting trash that's immediately deleted. As for my efforts to unite your administration with this site being counterproductive to the spirit, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. I see no reason why the site can't work for everyone. Does the administration wish that a site like this didn't exist? I'm sure they do, but given the fact that we're here to stay, they'd be wise to use us as a resource when they can.

The notion of your message board being too admin friendly is new to me. The possibility of your existing Moderator (Mod 557) being embedded with your administration is simply non-existent. For starters, it's no secret that your staff would like to see the more timely deletion of improper posts. If Mod 557 was drinking the Kool-Aid he'd simply delete everything for them immediately and your staff would be fat and happy. Mod 1 has reviewed what your moderator has been deleting and we test moderators from time-to-time to make sure. In reference to his identity be known, that scenario is quite simple...our policy says that if a moderator's identity has been compromised, we have to let him go. This helps prevent moderators from using their position of authority for the wrong reasons and they all know that their position of moderator is dependent upon maintaining their anonymity. You know who he is? If you actually knew the identity of a moderator who was doing what you claim, half of what you wrote about here would no longer be an issue because he wouldn't exist anymore. As for anyone gaining IP addresses to identify a poster, there are only two (2) people who have access to them (me and Mod 1). Neither Moderators or Monitors have access to IP addresses, so that's not even a remote possibility. The only way your agency could obtain them is to issue a legal subpoena on a qualified investigation. To date, LEOAFFAIRS.COM has NEVER been forced to reveal an IP address in the 8 years we've been in existence. Yes, we've been known to fight a subpoena or two in court before and have always won (i.e. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office). There's not much I can do about the intimidation factor from people within your agency, but it sounds to me like you'd have a good legal case if some of those incidents actually happened.

Now, concerning your paragraph addressing the Monitor system refuting the purpose of our mission statement or contradicting the purpose of our site, that's rather easy to defend. 1) The Monitor system won't prevent LEOs from talking candidly about LEO topics. The same Terms of Use apply. If the Monitor has a problem with deleting justified content (and we will check all of it), they'll be fired and replaced. 2) Yes, I definitely know about IA experiences...I cannot do anything about scare tactics...embedded involvement with the Moderator? it sounds juicy, but I'm telling you it's no so...I'm not aware of a history of governing info allowed for you to view.

I'll try to wrap up my response to the last 3 paragraphs of your post here. I have no problem with users exposing injustices and problems within law enforcement. Heck, that's why I wanted to create this site and it's very important to me. I explained to your staff that such content would remain on the site unless it violated our Terms of Use. We have the ultimate control over what gets deleted and that will never change. Better yet, no one can screw the system up...remember, if a Monitor deletes stuff they shouldn't, we'll put it back online. Please don't misread why I approached Captain Haworth and eventually your Chief about this concept. I've been doing this for a very long time and believe me when I say it's a good idea. There's no reason why we have to have an adversarial relationship with an agency. Consider Sheriff David Gee with Hillsborough County SO for a minute. We fought him in court for a year, prevailed for the deputies and now have a wonderful relationship with him. When you get right down to it, the people who play by the rules should want the same thing. I can honestly tell you that the Monitor system is designed to enforce the same set of rules more efficiently. If it doesn't work, we'll stop using it. Imagine this site without all the trash talk and slams. It will add more credibility to the site, people will take us more seriously, the public will have a better opinion of the police/deputies, the media will be willing to put more of our content in print and we'll be more effective (change). After all, that's why I'm here. Tell you what, have your doubts? I don't blame you, but I do challenge you to test the waters with this new system and to give it a chance. Wait and see if it goes south first. We haven't given up any control, we're just getting some free assistance.

Thanks for the air time and taking the time write the original post. The points you brought up were excellent and hopefully a addressed them satisfactorily.

Chip DeBlock, Co-Founder and Operating Manager
LEOAFFAIRS.COM, Inc.
(813) 760-2900 C

MOD I am very impressed with you response to D.B., but some how find it to be unturthful and insincere. If you truly pride yourself on being fair on the boad then why is it often times than not certain post remain up for days when they to are so called slamming people, by name I might add. To say you are not known by our admin and that you have no contact with them is so obsurd. Any time a post is make towards a certain group it is immediately taken down. With this new implenmentation of monitors and ok'd by the Chief and Captin Haworth how can you honestly say they have no bearing on how you do your dutuies here. HORSE SH!T

<------Points and gasps!

Clint Eatswood is DB Cooper!! Scandalous!



psst, Clint Eatswood, your grammatical errors make me cringe.

Mr. DeBlock,

After reading many postings on LEO Affairs, would you say it promotes hatred between officers in the majority of postings?

What does doing a 3.5 mile run and thinking about how to improve LEO affairs have to do with the price of tea in China? I could think about it while taking a crap or doing dishes.