Forum Moderation

June 2024 Forums Website / Technical Forum Moderation

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 119 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #91597
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Who the dickens is this KLOE and when can I get to meet her?   

    #91598
    Brian
    Participant
    gnome 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.

    #91599
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Brian 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=Kloe

    #91600
    Brian
    Participant

    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.  

    #91601
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yellow card to gnome for off-topic comments in posts #31 & #33.This thread is on the subject of Forum Moderation.

    #91602
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Fair cop, Moderator1        You're absolutely right of course and I accept your decision unequivocally.    

    #91604
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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?

    #91605
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    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.

    #91603
    Anonymous
    Inactive

     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 footballTOGW

    #91606
    Brian
    Participant
    SocialistPunk 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.

    #91607
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    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

    #91608
    Brian
    Participant
    TheOldGreyWhistle 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.

    #91609
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    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

    #91610
    Brian
    Participant
    TheOldGreyWhistle 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!

    #91611
    Anonymous
    Inactive

     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?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 119 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.