- This topic has 118 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by Anonymous.
January 12, 2013 at 7:54 pm #91597AnonymousInactive
Who the dickens is this KLOE and when can I get to meet her?January 13, 2013 at 12:10 am #91598gnome wrote:Who the dickens is this KLOE and when can I get to meet her?
Perhaps Cde Richard Field can fill you in on what KLOE is all about. Don't know about getting to meet KLOE. Depends on whether or not your Branch think it worth their while discussing the end result of this thread? Unfortunately, KLOE's are known to drag their feet on times? Nevertheless they can reveal some surprising results and outcomes in regards to the decision making process.January 13, 2013 at 9:52 am #91599AnonymousInactiveBrian wrote:Perhaps Cde Richard Field can fill you in on what KLOE is all about.
No need; found this.. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=KloeJanuary 13, 2013 at 1:24 pm #91600
I've noticed that several posters have mentioned that they would like the forum to be completely self-regulated with no moderator intervention whatsoever! Whilst others have commented that self-discipline is the route to follow. Although I'm not in favour of *complete* self-regulation that particular train of thought does have some merit when its incorporated with self-discipline.However, its also noticable there's no mention of either of these concepts in the forum Guidelines and Rules. What is also lacking in the G&R is a Statement of Intent which could include these concepts besides mentioning that the purpose of the forum is to discuss the case for socialism. The presumption is that this is all self-evident which is true, but it only becomes self-evident when you are familiar with the case for socialism.January 13, 2013 at 9:53 pm #91601AnonymousInactive
Yellow card to gnome for off-topic comments in posts #31 & #33.This thread is on the subject of Forum Moderation.January 14, 2013 at 11:16 am #91602AnonymousInactive
Fair cop, Moderator1 You're absolutely right of course and I accept your decision unequivocally.January 14, 2013 at 5:05 pm #91604SocialistPunkParticipant
Hi Gnome or is it moderator 1.Not really sure which one of you is taking the water, with this humorous derailing of an important thread?January 14, 2013 at 6:23 pm #91605SocialistPunkParticipant
Back on to the subject at hand.As well as being in favour of a clear warning system of moderation, I am also in favour of it being what you could call "moderation light". I thought we had it before this mess. Admin was low key, a gentle word of caution here and there. Absolutely spot on.No need for an approach that seeks out every misdemeanor, to purge them from view.January 14, 2013 at 6:57 pm #91603AnonymousInactive
The forum rules could do with amendments but I think the main problem has been a complete lack of fairness and the Internet Department’s inability or reluctance to deal with that unfairness.Some members are allowed to attack other members without ‘moderation’ while others are ‘moderated’. Other members constantly 'snipe' threads with nothing substantial and are not moderated.How do you deal with that?One suggested solution has been that we should all be nice to each other! This is not a solution. Why bother changing the basic economic structure of society? We all just need to be nice to each other. Indeed why have delegates. If they are nice to us we will never, ever need to recall them. Simply being 'nice' is not a solution.All this talk of ‘spam’ etc. is a diversion. Everyone agrees moderation is a must on all forums and indeed it is the lack of moderation that has led to recent problems.Silly and irrelevant comments have not helped and tend to make the discussion on moderation appear as a ‘fight’ or as mentioned on spintcom an ‘exchange’. An outsider looking in could be forgiving for believing that such comments were a deliberate attempt to disrupt, provoke and divert. ( For eg see posts #31, #33, #35 and #36 which are three irrelevant posts from one member and no real conribution to the discussion). Of course, I do not believe that myself. May I emphasise that I do not doubt any member’s sincerity and integrity! I can see no solution at the moment.I am reminded of my austere childhood when only one boy in the street could afford a footballTOGWJanuary 14, 2013 at 7:12 pm #91606SocialistPunk wrote:Back on to the subject at hand.As well as being in favour of a clear warning system of moderation, I am also in favour of it being what you could call "moderation light". I thought we had it before this mess. Admin was low key, a gentle word of caution here and there. Absolutely spot on.No need for an approach that seeks out every misdemeanor, to purge them from view.
Good point which needs to be considered when the code of conduct, standards and procedures comes under scrutiny.January 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm #91607AnonymousInactive
BrianCould I ask you if you believe unbalanced moderation has anything to do with recent problems?Or do you believe moderation has been fair?If you believe the latter then what do you believe is the cause of recent problems. We cannot propose a solution if we do not know the cause. TOGWJanuary 14, 2013 at 9:39 pm #91608TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:BrianCould I ask you if you believe unbalanced moderation has anything to do with recent problems?Or do you believe moderation has been fair?If you believe the latter then what do you believe is the cause of recent problems. We cannot propose a solution if we do not know the cause. TOGW
Presently I'm looking at the general environment – and not individuals – which so far is indicating that the party needs to get to grips with this new form of govenance so it reflects and also reinforces our commitment to freedom of expression. This forum is experiencing teething problems with moderation which is putting our commitment to democracy under the spotlight. Hopefully, the discussion on this thread will result in a positive outcome by scrutinizing the environment rather than individuals.From my own experience new forums never think sufficiently on the problems and issues of moderation.January 14, 2013 at 9:46 pm #91609AnonymousInactive
Thank you Brian but you have not answered any of my questions. But at least your interested. Some members seem to think that the workers are more interested in reification than free speech and democracy on a 'socialist' forum TOGWJanuary 14, 2013 at 11:21 pm #91610TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Thank you Brian but you have not answered any of my questions. But at least your interested. Some members seem to think that the workers are more interested in reification than free speech and democracy on a 'socialist' forum TOGW
Agreed I did not 'directly' answer any of your questions and the reason is because they implied I take sides on the individual arguments arising from this dispute. My personal approach is to initially look at the environmental background, then help to draw up a KLOE which enables us to identify why the breakdown in communications has occurred. From there you can then modify the guidelines and rules so they are more appropriate and acceptable to all concerned.Obviously, the present code of conduct and the guidelines and rules are not appropriate or acceptable when it comes to resolving disputes over freedom of expression. Which in effect means they are perceived to be, or are undemocratic. With this being the case its up to non-members and party members alike to draw the attention of the Internet Dept. on a possible alternative code of conduct and g&r.By all accounts this thread is already having an effect with the Internet Dept. in that they have decided that the moderators *must* be members of the department. And have brought this decision into immediate compliance by suspending the account of moderator1.By the way I'm also interested in the subject of reification. Especially when its applied to the subject of democracy and freedom of expression!January 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm #91611AnonymousInactive
I was told by admin, matt and the ID (in my appeal) that I was wrong to believe that moderator1 had anything to do with warnings and suspensions. If that is so, could someone explain post #31, #33, #35 and #36 above in which a member ‘moderates’ himself? Or is this part of the farce that cde Colborn mentions in his resignation?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.