Skip to Content

Selective use of forum rules

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
gnome
gnome's picture
Online
Joined: 14/10/2011

How is it that some users are permitted to 'cross-post' on multiple threads, thereby infringing a forum rule, without receiving any apparent warning or sanction?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/reforming-ca...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/participator...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/imagine-you-...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/intern...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/spgb-website-...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-wi...

Forum Rule 6 wrote:
Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’)

Vin (not verified)

May I request clarification?

Is there a new rule in force? 

Two second warnings in place

10.51

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/myth-overcro...

and 1.12

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/statisation-...

 

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Vin wrote:

May I request clarification?

Is there a new rule in force? 

Two second warnings in place

10.51

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/myth-overcro...

and 1.12

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/statisation-...

 

Thanks fo0r that.

Vin (not verified)

I see third waning has been issued. So it is 4 warnings before suspension?

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Vin wrote:

I see third waning has been issued. So it is 4 warnings before suspension?

No its 3 warnings, then a 30 day cooling off period.  If the rules are breached during this 30 day period then its an automatic suspension.  But surely you already knew this seeing you was party to bringing it into operation?

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'

Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?

Am I alone in believing this?

Is a suspension warranted?

in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread

 

How mod rules can be used

 "Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 

14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

Let's have a look at this in a little more detail

"Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not the contributors" - At no point has Vin questioned this or tried to take responsibility for moderation, he has merely pointed out inconsistencies. This is not in breach of the rule.

"if you believe that a post or a private message violates a rule, report it to a moderator" - Vin has clearly stated in previous posts that he has PM'd the moderator with regard to what he believes are violation of the rules. The rule does not state that discussion of possible breaches should not/cannot be discussed on the message board. Again this is not a breach of the rule.

"Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violation of the rules" - I have not seen any point in any post where Vin has chastised others for their perceived violations of the rules. He may have criticised, he may have pointed out inconsistencies, he may have questioned modertaion decisions, but he has not "chastised" anyone. He has not breached any rule.

So just to be clear, I am neither Vin is not in breach of rule 14

what then about rule 15

15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal. 

Queries about PARTICULAR moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderator by Private Message - Again Vin has made it clear that he has sent such messages to the Moderator. At no point does the rule state that discussion about moderation decisions cannot be discussed on the forum. - No breach of rule

Do not post such messages to the forum. - Again Vin has not posted these messages, he has referred to the messages, but he has not posted the messages. Ther is nothing int he rues that states that messages cannot be referred to.

You must continue to abide by the moderators' decision pending the outcome of your appeal - Again at no point has Vin failed to abide by a moderation decision. He has questioned decisions, it's diffiuclt to say how any member could not abide by the ruling, could they insist that they have not been warned, or not been suspended? Not only that as Vin has not appealed against a decision, this part of the rule does not apply.

The rules are, in my view, currently being interpreted as stating that questining moderation decisions is a breach of the rules, I believe this to be an incorrect interpretation. Not only that, I believe that such an interpretation is undemocratic and also completely at odds with the historical practices of the SPGB.


Vin (not verified)

moderator1 wrote:

  But surely you already knew this seeing you was party to bringing it into operation?

Just to clarify: NO I have had nohing to do with the formation of Forum Rules.

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

  But surely you already knew this seeing you was party to bringing it into operation?

Just to clarify: NO I have had nohing to do with the formation of Forum Rules.

This is not to do with the rules but the procedures.

Vin (not verified)

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

  But surely you already knew this seeing you was party to bringing it into operation?

Just to clarify: NO I have had nohing to do with the formation of Forum Rules.

This is not to do with the rules but the procedures.

I did not take part in producing procedures.

Vin (not verified)

Bijou Drains wrote:

 such an interpretation is undemocratic and also completely at odds with the historical practices of the SPGB.

Probably my exact words at the time. To issue a warning to someone making a criticism and effectively preventing further criticism is not democracy and is an embarrasment to the SPGB. It needs to be resolved.

Login or register to post comments