Moderation and forum charter

RobFowl

Hi all
There is an ongoing discussion among all the moderators on boards.
As a result of that Myself and Penguin66 have decided to try an make the moderation lighter and also actions more visible.

We also want a new forum charter and we want the posters here to design it.Please add suggestions for the new forum charter here.

Also from now on posters are allowed question mod actions in thread and we will try to offer a clear explanation of what we did and why.

Ps the only stipulation is that medical advice will not be allowed and that is non negotiable

Thank you all and we look forward to your suggestions and your new forum charter.

Rob

Black Swan

The mods and members of Health Sciences may collaborate to modify the charter to include in-thread discussion of moderation if they wish. But there are reasons not to allow discussion of mod actions in-thread that you may want to consider?

• The thread has a topic, and discussing moderation is a different topic, and may derail the thread.
• You may lose members that do not want to hear a mod and member haggle over moderation in-thread; and sometimes this haggling can go on for several posts.
• When I modded Politics, we did not allow discussion in-thread for the above reasons, but did create a separate thread whose topic was discussion of charter, rules, and moderation that we kept open for several years. This would be my recommendation.

Once again, it's the choice of mods and members in collaboration for Health Sciences forum, and I will support your decisions.

echo beach

Black Swan wrote: »

[*]The thread has a topic, and discussing moderation is a different topic, and may derail the thread.
[*]You may lose members that do not want to hear a mod and member haggle over moderation in-thread; and sometimes this haggling can go on for several posts.

I would agree with that. If people aren't happy with the moderation they can either accept it or take it up with the moderator. Once the haggling is done in public both parties want to save face and be shown to be right and viewpoints become entrenched. If it isn't a black and white decision the subtleties of the various shades of grey are seldom interesting to those who aren't involved.

Black Swan

echo beach wrote: »

Once the haggling is done in public both parties want to save face and be shown to be right and viewpoints become entrenched.

Good point echo beach. This is why the 1st stage in the Dispute Resolution forum flowchart is for the member and mod to exchange PM's with each other before going public with the dispute. Many times the dispute has been resolved by PMs. I've seen both members and mods say they screwed up, and apologise to each other by PM, with no loss of public face.

Kurtosis

Appreciate the comments, keep them coming. Will get back on them later on.

Just for reference, the previous charter is here.

Tree

On moderation, I think the mod should explain their actions (as most usually do) at the point of moderation, but that any debate should be taken elsewhere (pm's, dispute resolution, perhaps a dispute thread /in/ health sciences). Unexplained actions can be confusing, but a discussion of who's right can derail the whole thign and turn into a name calling exercise.

No medical advice and no recommending practitioners is grand, no objections to that. Though i'd probably rename the charter thread as "Forum charter. TLDR: no medical advice; no rec's; scientific evidence only", given how most ppl don't read the charter.

I think the previous policy of discussing CAM but using Actual Evidence is a good one. Though you'd nearly need a sticky at the top "What constitutes evidence?" Which probably would be a nice mix of how to critically read things and "quacks are not real doctors even if they graduated from medical college in the 70's". Oh, and a preference for linking to open access literature (at all levels, from pop sci to meta studies). Anecdata are not real data, etc.

Oh, and a slap across the wrist for calling other posters shills for big pharma etc. Take it to conspiracy theories lads.

I don't know if a charter needs a "things we'd like to encourage" section at the end. I'd like to see more discussion on practises and therapies, the structure of healthcare in Ireland, some more biomed science explained, and probably lots more I could think of after another coffee.

drkpower

The problem with this forum, and why its so quiet is that 'medical advice' is interpreted in a very broad way, in such a way as to shut down pretty much any discussion of medical scneraios/problems/issues. There is a distinction between medical advice and medical information. A lot of the time, posters want the latter, and want to discuss the latter, in a general sense, and there shouldnt be an issue with that. Hypothetical clinical scenarios should be capable of being discussed. Medical advice in the sense of tailored advice being given to a specific individual on foot of specific actual real life symptoms and signs is a different animal altogther, and should rightly remain off limits. The legal discussion forum has managed to straddle this particular issue relatively comfortably so maybe a leaf can be taken from their book.

The other thing is that people's experience of the health service (without naming names obviously) should be capable of being discussed in this forum. It already happens on AH and invariably turns into a sh!tstorm of uninformed nonsense. If those discussions happened here, they might be more informed and people (on both sides of the fence as it were) might learn something.

RobFowl

Thanks for all the replies so far.
We are going to start the new forum charter soon.

The old "mission statement" for want of a better term was

This Forum is for all who enjoy and/or are interested in Health Sciences. This title includes all aspects of scientific and associated social aspects to working within the Health Sciences field. This includes disciplines such as medicine, nursing, allied health therapy, dietetics, optometry as well as all other paramedical disciplines.

We are primarily a scientific forum but we also discuss associated issues which affect our professions such as medical and paramedical politics, sociology and employment.

We have a subforum here which is specifically tailored to health sciences education to discuss entry into health sciences courses as well as undergraduate and postgraduate studies for all our disciplines.

Should we keep that as it is or what changes would you suggest?

Rob

RobFowl

I'm going to suggest this which is largely the old one but with a few alterations.

This Forum is for all who enjoy and/or are interested in Health Sciences.
This includes all aspects of the Health Sciences field. This includes disciplines such as medicine, nursing, allied health therapy, dietetics, optometry as well as all other paramedical disciplines. Input from posters not a member of those fields though is both welcome and indeed encouraged.

We are primarily a scientific forum but we also discuss associated issues such as new developments and new, medical and paramedical politics, sociology and employment.

We have a subforum here which is specifically tailored to health sciences education to discuss entry into health sciences courses for all our disciplines.

Medical advice is not allowed but discussion of various treatments and inputs is again welcome as long as it it not asking for or affecting personal medical treatments.
In situations where there is a disagreement on what is asking for medical advice the moderators decision will be final.

Kurtosis

That looks good to me. I might suggest a few minor tweaks.

Are there any other disciplines to mention specifically? Biomedical science and pharmacy would be two off the top of my head. A census/poll of people who visit Health Sciences might be useful to get an idea of the forum's audience.

The third point could be amended to something like "We are primarily a scientific forum but we also discuss associated issues such as medical advances, developments in the health service, and medical and health politics, sociology and employment."

To differentiate between medical advice and medical information as drkpower mentioned, would an illustrative example in the charter help?

And as Tree suggested, to add something like "When debating an issue, please provide scientific evidence to back up any claims." with maybe a link to a source on "What constitutes evidence". Any suitable sources for a primer on this topic?

Gael23

drkpower wrote: »

The problem with this forum, and why its so quiet is that 'medical advice' is interpreted in a very broad way, in such a way as to shut down pretty much any discussion of medical scneraios/problems/issues. There is a distinction between medical advice and medical information. A lot of the time, posters want the latter, and want to discuss the latter, in a general sense, and there shouldnt be an issue with that. Hypothetical clinical scenarios should be capable of being discussed. Medical advice in the sense of tailored advice being given to a specific individual on foot of specific actual real life symptoms and signs is a different animal altogther, and should rightly remain off limits. The legal discussion forum has managed to straddle this particular issue relatively comfortably so maybe a leaf can be taken from their book.
.

This is my main issue. I can recall one occasion where I started a thread relating to a medication I was on, I cant remember what exactly. I stated that I had been to my GP and didnt even say what my illness was, just that I was experiencing a side effect and I wanted to know was that normal or should I be worried and go back to my GP. That to me is information sharing rather than medical advice.

RobFowl

Gael23 wrote: »

This is my main issue. I can recall one occasion where I started a thread relating to a medication I was on, I cant remember what exactly. I stated that I had been to my GP and didnt even say what my illness was, just that I was experiencing a side effect and I wanted to know was that normal or should I be worried and go back to my GP. That to me is information sharing rather than medical advice.

I can't recall that thread but take your point.
Perhaps in future if there is confusion or if mods feel the line between information sharing and medical advice has been crossed we could advise editing or changing the OP rather than closing it?
Rob

notsoyoungwan

Gael23 wrote: »

This is my main issue. I can recall one occasion where I started a thread relating to a medication I was on, I cant remember what exactly. I stated that I had been to my GP and didnt even say what my illness was, just that I was experiencing a side effect and I wanted to know was that normal or should I be worried and go back to my GP. That to me is information sharing rather than medical advice.

Surely though, this is a perfect example of why such threads shouldn't be allowed? You say you didn't even state what illness you had, as if that means the query was more innocuous. But I'd view it that in that case, it's simply impossible for anyone to give you an accurate and safe response to your query, given that they weren't in possession of all the information. What is a mildly irritating side-effect for one person with a particular medical history could be far more serious in someone with a different history.

I also disagree with the poster who said the line is managed well in the legal discussion forum. There are threads there all the time that are quite clearly real situations, not hypothetical, and they can often get lots of replies before being closed. Also, there are ones where the OP uses the word 'hypothetically' throughout the thread but follows it up with winking faces etc and it is so clearly a real life situation, despite their feeble attempts to disguise it.

I think a no tolerance policy is the only approach to have to requests for medical advice. The LTI forum already exists for people to discuss their experiences of particular illnesses. This forum is aimed at those working in and/or interested in health sciences, not for the general public to get their queries answered or avoid actually speaking to a pharmacist, nurse or doctor.

Kurtosis

Gael23 wrote: »

This is my main issue. I can recall one occasion where I started a thread relating to a medication I was on, I cant remember what exactly. I stated that I had been to my GP and didnt even say what my illness was, just that I was experiencing a side effect and I wanted to know was that normal or should I be worried and go back to my GP. That to me is information sharing rather than medical advice.

I can understand how this may have been locked Gael and it gets to the nub of medical advice versus information.

Asking if a medication causes a side effect or if a side effect is common with a medication I would see as medical information. This is based on factual scientific information that is available for all drugs.

Asking if a symptom you're having has been caused by a medication you're taking is no longer medical information. This requires interpretation of information about the drug as well as information about your own circumstances to deem whether it is likely to be causal. As it is open to interpretation and not factual, I think this would fall foul of the medical advice rule.

Similarly, asking if a side effect is normal or a reason to return to the doctor is a matter of opinion that, as the previous poster discussed, requires knowledge of your own circumstances to give guidance on. These latter two cases I feel are beyond the scope of what posters on boards are qualified or authorised to do.

Does that reasoning make sense? That is just my opinion so am more than happy to hear any counterpoints.

As Rob suggested, maybe giving posters leeway to amend their thread if it does cross the line would help to get the balance between medical advice and info and allow more discussion to happen?

Gremlinertia

Have to say it's an area i usually consult with the other mods in LTI as it seems a grey area to me at times.

Kurtosis

The new (nano) charter has been stickied at the top of the forum. Any further feedback or suggestions on the charter ore relating to the forum and moderation can be posted here.

RobFowl

I hope the new charter is easy to read and clear. We put a lot of thought into it and Penguin88 especially has i think drafted a clear and concise wording.
We hope that people now know what can and can't be posted here I hope to see a good amount of traffic and discussion.
Thanks to all the posters here for all the interesting discussion and information here to date.
Rob

Dingle_berry

penguin88 wrote: »

The new (nano) charter has been stickied at the top of the forum. Any further feedback or suggestions on the charter ore relating to the forum and moderation can be posted here.

Looks good to me.
I would also completely concur with the interpretation of medical information versus advice that you outlined above.

The suggestion of briefly explaining mod actions at point of action while discussion of moderation takes place elsewhere is the best option IMO.

There are plenty of other forum categories on boards for people to discuss their personal issues, conspiracy theories or to seek advice / recommendations. I would view this forum as a place to discuss the science / academia of the health sector and issues affecting those employed in it.