Forum Moderation
- This topic has 118 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not assuming any ideal world: Assume good faith resolves the fallibility issue nicely.I support the status quo.
I did not say your post was "assuming" an ideal world but "seeking" an ideal world. In the world of reality its not safe to assume and then draw a conclusion when your original assumption is based on an ideal.But it seems obvious you are of the opinion that the present status quo is ideal! Ho dear.
I'm not seeking an ideal, nor do I think the current set up is ideal, but it'll do.Assume good faith is the real world practice of wikipedia, the gold standard of interweb collaboration (nor is it an ideal, just a working presumption for interaction).
An ideal for a start, would be fairness and equity in moderation. This to my mind must be at the head of presentiments as to how best to run a forum. I once heard a saying that is applicable here, given the tone of the conversation; "Assumption is the mother of all cock-ups". Steve.
I have to agree that consistency if it means uniform is not the objective of a moderator. It will always be different strokes for different folks.The most common mistake is that people post on the wrong list, SPOPEN is for discussion and chit-chat , SPINTCOM is for administration. Occasionally there may be an overlapWhen i previously moderated i tried to make it simple for posters to understand and most people were accustomed to football and yellow and red cards. A quiet word in the ear either onlist or off list, first of all …a yellow as a warning, another yellow as final warning and then a red …Moderated posts has the disadvantage of time-lag and having to wait until the moderator is online is sometimes punishment enough. There was also full suspension, the length and duration varying according to my view of the offence and i often changed my mind and cut short a suspension. Of course, a referee will not punish every infringement because that would stop the free flow of the game, same with debate. I am also minded of a guy i knew at work who once said …when he got caught cheating with another man's wife, the husband was fully entitled to a free punch.Sometimes the advantage rule should be played.We see the injustice in the real world of the 3 strikes and automatic life sentence. We shouldn't attempt to replicate it in our decision making.Obviously not every case is identical, some are unintentional infractions, some are persistent needling type, some are simply on the spur of the moment reaction and immediately regretted.Another issue is that sometimes the moderator has to go beyond maintaining neutrality by offering added protection to some of us who may have mental health problems for instance and require the safety net of moderation when risking going over the edge.Language problems may also be a problem. The medium of the internet does not permit irony or sarcasm very easily and offence can be readily taken when it is not meant.The idiosyncrasy of the moderator cannot be avoided. The referee is often called to make a judgement call. At the moment, there is no linesmen or 4th official to consult. Appealing to the Internet Committee or EC may be an option but it is not going to allow immediate redress. Those who believe moderators are taking sides, have they thought about what sanctions are available against those moderators. Dismissing or resigning from the role?…i see no line of replacement moderators eager to take their place. Instead it simply re-produces another aggrieved individual.But the problem goes beyond moderation of the discussion lists when disputes escalate to bullying, physical threats, or questioning socialist credentials. We require a reconciliation and arbitration process for those who wish to accuse others and those members who have been accused to use. In previous occasions, conference was the judge, jury and executioner. In another case, an ad hoc sub-committee was set up to investigate and interview and come to a resolution. We require something easier to set into motion to be quicker to reach a satisfactory conclusion and close the matter.At the end of it all it is about trust in your comrades. If you cast aspersions upon your fellow members sincerity and motives and character as a socialist or a democrat then a moderator is not the person to appeal to for a decision.He can only stop it being done on the discussion lists, regardless of the rights or wrongs or the accuracy or the maliciousness of such claims and accusations.As i said we require some other mechanism for dealing with that which is not too complicated and can be viewed as transparent.
In case there is a misunderstanding , just in football the severity of an offence may deserve an immediate sending off without any warning. Same on the lists. Once more i leave it up to the moderator's discretion.
I see, from posts on this sight, that nothing will change. I make that assertion in all sincerity. Moderators will be allowed to, "use their judgement", and different rules for different people, for the same offence will continue.Consistency, in the way and for the reason I was using it does not mean uniformity, unless 2 people are treated differently fo the same, "offence". As for talking about, "Those who believe moderators are taking sides, have they thought about what sanctions are available against those moderators. Dismissing or resigning from the role?…i see no line of replacement moderators eager to take their place." So what are you saying, they have carte blanche to act in any way the please. I have, even if you have not, or will not admit it, seen the effect inconsistent moderation has had on this site. I have also been the "victim", using " previous, in making a pre-emptive moderation on myself, which was later overturned on appeal, on another site.Consistency on moderation, moderators rules and or guidelines to follow, would cut down on a lot of the disputes, in my view! Steve.
Alan, it would be very much appreciated if you could put posts 19&20 into list form. Imo your 3 card approach had some merit to it and could be considered for application here, after of course the 2 yellow cards are replaced with something more appropriate and acceptable and not so confusing.Thanks.
Why the insistence on a list, Brian? Just wondered.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Why the insistence on a list, Brian? Just wondered.Glad you asked. The purpose of the lists is so we can all move on and get this business sorted and behind us. By listing the positives and negatives we are then in a position to decide what is going to be the KLOE to conduct a review, assessment and audit. In short by listing you can start to identify the bottlenecks and the causes for distruption and inefficiency. It does not matter if the lists overlap in highlighting areas of concern for they may well indicate a KLOE.Once this whole process is completed then some recommendations and suggestions can be forwarded to the Internet Dept. for further discussion and hopefully implimentation.If we don't create more lists we are going to continue in the present rut of endless wordy discussion with no unified aim of correcting the faultline. In short I'm completely fed up with the talk and no postive activity to amend the present rules. Hope this helps.
I see. Smells like management-speak mumbo-jumbo from over here. The whole thing's completely bloody obvious to me. Two simple rules – be nice and stay on topic – will suffice. And then those two simple rules need to be enforced by well-briefed moderators. No need for lists. No need for any more discussion. I've offered some of my time for moderating, and I'm sure that at least a few others will do so if they are as bothered about this problem as they claim to be. For my part, like you, Brian, I'm by now heartily sick of this crap and have no more to say on the matter.
In fact KLOE is part and parcel of the scientific method. Sorry you've decided to leave the conversation. I myself would also help out on moderating but uyntil they clean up their act its a nono.
Jonathan, as Brian say's KLOE is part of the scientific agenda, not mumbo-jumbo. You say it is "bloody obvious" to you. However, Brian has at least tried for a "consensus! It may sound confrontatory but I would in no way agree to you being a "moderator". Quite plainly, I do not trust you. Take that anyway you want to. I have seen your posts and they are in no way, nor do they give any believable hope, that you can have the objectivity needed by a moderator."Be nice", that has not been bourne out by your posts. So you fail at the first hurdle! It sounds to me as if you think "it's your way or it's wrong. Sorry comrade, but i do not believe you.Consistency of moderation and moderators being trained in conflict resolution is, for me, the way forward.You may not like my conclusions, I don't care but that is the only way I see this mess being put to bed, for the good of our common aim, a better, more saner society.Steve.
It has been suggested earlier in this thread, but that is what this thread is about.I think a warning system is a preferable method of moderating rather than an ad hoc anything goes approach.I for one would like to know where I stand regarding what to expect should I breach any rules. It would also be helpful to the moderators and ensure track is kept of who said what and how many infringements have taken place etc.1) An initial call for calm for all parties involved2) A 1st warning is issued to any who have infringed the rules3) A 2nd warning given if further infringement of rules takes place4) If infringement continues a suspension of a set length of time is given5) All warnings need to be given openly with clear reference to infringement of rules6) Every warning should be accompanied with a clear explanation of what to expect next, ie another warning or suspension will follow further infringement7) Moderators need to keep a record of who is involved and what action has been taken, it allows no room for accusations of not paying attention etc8) Suspensions need to be of consistent length, no indefinite or tailored suspensions for perceived offences. Such judge, jury executioner style leaves room accusations of moral judgment and/or bias. I suggest the seven day suspension be sufficient to allow a person to cool off and enough time to contest decision9) Thought needs to be given as to whether an immediate suspension is warranted for threats or intimidationA few thoughts so far. I am considering the aspects of the appeals procedure. If or when I think of more I shall post them.
It appears with the posting above a KLOE is starting to take shape around the questions of maintaining consistency and the setting of standards. However, I suspect further contributions will be made to this thread which will be on matters other than consistency and standards, so its early days yet for any firm conclusions on KLOE.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.