Forum Moderation
- This topic has 118 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Brian Moderation is required for a number of reasons. For example to prevent abuse and deliberate disruption of the forumHowever, It doesn't matter how many positives and negatives we come up with, 1. 'moderation queue' means ONE member deciding what another member is allowed to say and what he is allowed not to say. I am not talking about abusive posts or deliberate and malicious disruption. What if a moderated member has many on topic and non abusive posts rejected? How do we prevent moderators abusing their position in such a way?2. As for off topic posts. What if some members are singled out for warnings and suspensions, leading to bad feeling. How do you legistlate for that?
VinWhen we fail to draw up the positive and negatives we are doing ourselves a disservice as socialists and paying lip service to our policy on freedom of expression. Once we have have completed such lists then we are in a position to identfy KLOE and proceed from there by recommending changes to the guidelines and rules and also suggest a code of conduct, standards; etc which is more appropriate to this medium. For instance:1. The outcome of the moderation queue is not currently being decided by one moderator. What should happen – and which I hope is happening here – is that that the moderator assigned to the dispute in question goes through the posts and if the posts are of a *mixed* nature they are sorted into breach and non-breach. These are then passed onto another moderator with recommendations. When no decision is reached a third moderator is called in to help to decide the issue.This process only works fine when a brake is applied to the number of posts a user can send either daily or weekly. The brake serves a dual purpose by allowing the user and moderator to reflect on the content of the post and ensures the moderated posts are dealt with swiftly and effeciently.When the moderation queue has no brake this provides the opportunity for the user to swamp or bombard the moderator with numerous posts of a confusing nature. Consequently the frustration and impatience builds up and the queue can get even longer creating the impression that the queue is turning into a form of suspension. Imo the moderation queue should only come into operation during extenuating circumstances i.e. when there are insufficient moderators available to deal with the posts. Other than that a queue is a pointless exercise in control freakery. And such a situation should never be allowed to arise here but also would never arise if a brake is applied to all moderated posts as a matter of policy. For instance, if a brake of 1 or 2 posts per day was applied those posts could be turned around within 24 hours no problem!However, this still leaves us with the problem of the length of moderation. Is moderation set over the number of posts within a specific time period or is it set on the number of posts? I just don't know but will seek clarification on this point and also ask admin if all moderators follow a standard procedure. Again imo if there are three moderated posts in succession which are of a non-breach nature moderation should be lifted immediately as a matter of policy. On the other hand if there are three moderated posts in succession which are clear breaches a suspension should be applied lasting no more than 7 days as a matter of policy.2. If any user is singled out for warnings and suspensions there is usually a pattern to such behaviour by the moderator involved. Such an allegation of discrimination needs to be investigated thoroughly by the Internet Dept. and assessed for its truthfulness.Hope this helps.
Brian, there can be no excuses for the length of time a persons posts, (those in the moderation queue) are taking to clear, as, as far as I'm aware, there is only one person bein subjected to the "moderation queue at the moment. Therefore it should be easy, at this time, for posts to be dealt with quickly and a fast turnaround of these posts managed.One of the regulations that could be applied and a suggestion I should have mentioned earlier but will do so know, is that no moderator who has been in "contention" with a member of a forum, should be allowed to be involved in any decision re that member, at any stage in proceedings. If necessary, a moderator from a different forum, should be asked if he/she would be prepared to step in and officiate. I imagine this procedure would not happen many times and again, would prevent the possibility of accusations of "bias", or at least cut down on the chances of such an eventuality. But all of this can only be done through "trust". Trust that these procedures would be followed and that "involved moderators" would not make these decisions anyway but claim they had been made by others and that there was no collusion "between" moderators.Finally, and in direct relation to this last point but others as well, there should exist, an ability for independent "oversight" completely seperate from the internet department.Before I finish, I must draw attention to something mentioned by SP. Why are not more people contributing, to what is, after all, a very important issue? Is no one else concerned about an issue that could shape, at least in part, an important democratic process within the party and set standards for the future?This issue is at least as important as a book reading club! Steve.
A moderation queue may simply mean that the moderator is off-line. We can hardly expect a moderator to be on his computer 24/7.This delay maybe is an inconvenience to the person being moderated but personally I think it should be seen as an unavoidable consequence of breaking forum rules and further reason to abide by them.I am engaged in trying to amend the posting rules of the other forum. When a problem arose I first contacted the moderator off-list to explain my grievances and understand his position. He suggested a recourse was to email the Internet Dept and I then contacted the them who explained the recommended procedure, which is to present the changes on the forum for discussion and then later have a online poll to decide yeah or nay to my proposals.I think it is best to wait until the recent exchanges on moderation elsewhere have passed before I begin initiating the process on the other forum. The bitterness of the current moderation disagreement has not been helpful for what I think are necessary amendments to the rules on posting.Quite frankly, many members have tired of the moderation issue. That is why not many have been participating in the debate. Members understandably possess different ideas on priorities. It seems to me that they do NOT view recent disputes on moderation as fundamental to internal party democracy despite what other members may like to think.Again personally, I believe the fact that it has gone on for so long, taken up much of members time and involved party departments and the EC, demonstrates that we take democracy very seriously and every member is permitted free expression (within sensible acceptable limits). I think any reasonable outside third-party would concur with my view.Members have voted with their feet and departed the debate that some so earnestly wish to continue. Soon they will be addressing an empty house as members will no longer read the thread and delete from their inbox the thread's messages.You can only try to flog a dead horse for so long.
A lot of you are skirting around the problem and are too willing to believe the ‘moderator’ is ‘right’.Most members have adopted a lynch mob mentality. and refuse to accept that a moderator may for some reason become vindictive and bias and so we need procedures to deal with such a situation. I thought this thread may have been a little more objective but my concerns will not even reach the draft of KLOE. I am no longer interested in whether or not the forum is fair as I have left the party but I have expressed my opinion already
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote: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 footballTOGWAJ states, "Again personally, I believe the fact that it has gone on for so long, taken up much of members time and involved party departments and the EC, demonstrates that we take democracy very seriously and every member is permitted free expression (within sensible acceptable limits). I think any reasonable outside third-party would concur with my view." Who decides what are acceptible limits? At the moment, and this is the problem, it is individual moderators who do so, apparently not in a "joined up way", but in a piecemeal, ad-hoc, post by post manner! This is one reason we need strict rules for moderators as much as for those who post.AJ goes on to state, "Members have voted with their feet and departed the debate that some so earnestly wish to continue. Soon they will be addressing an empty house as members will no longer read the thread and delete from their inbox the thread's messages." No one I know that takes this issue seriously wants this debate to continue, and it is disingenuous to claim they do. Quite simply the situation has been pushed upon those who have been continually moderated. Sometimes in a biased way, ( as "others" have gotten away with exactly the same kind of posts). Sometimes moderated wrongly, as I have been. And inconsistently. Your post 67 has proved what SP has previously said, there are those who look upon this thread as one frequented and contributed to, by discontented, malcontents, which your post proves you also belong to this train of thought.By your post it is proved you believe there is nothing wrong! but that it is a minority of problematic posters who are the problem.That rules and regulations for moderators are needed is beyond refutation. Moderation that is, "made up as one goes along", is neither impartial nor unbiased, as has been proven, nor can it be proved to be so.A framework is needed, the sooner the better. Your post (67) has included no recommendations, positive or negative, towards the debate. It has been full of negative comments, indirectly of course, on members who are taking part in this thread, (most of whom have fallen foul of inappropriate moderation) and, by lack of others participation seem to be a clique. I'm not surprised that those who should have been moderated but, for one reason or another were not, are not participating, guilty consciences.By the way Alan, this, as I was informed, is shouting, " It seems to me that they do NOT view recent disputes on moderation as fundamental to internal party democracy despite what other members may like to think" Capitalising the word "not", was completely unnecessary. Notice no quiet whisper in, "your" shell-like!Steve.
By the way, I agree with OGW. I also could care less whether the forum is fair or not, as on 2nd Feb my Form F will be passed by the EC and I am sighing already. Steve.
I think the reason members are not taking part is because they cannot come up with an explanation for why only 3 members are warned and suspended for 'off-topic" comments, while other members go off-topic on a regular basis and make a joke about it.What about you Alan, have you got an explanation?
Whether some like it or not, whether some wish to admit it or not, this issue has shown that moderation on this site at least is flawed, broken.Unfortunately OGW and Admin have been victims of a flawed moderation system. When a system, such as the present moderation approach, fails it often allows the finger of blame to be pointed at individuals, depending on the view point. It is no different from the idea of blaming the failing of capitalism on individuals. Party politics is based on that. One side blames the other etc. The issue is not about individuals, no one person is to blame. It is the failure of a system.So do we ignore that fact? Turn it into a person problem? Simply blame the moderators, or censor a members posts to the point individuals get fed up and walk away, then turn around and say, " I told you it was their fault, everything will be fine now they are gone." Or do we find a way to fix a broken system? Make it workable, make it reflect socialist values, so that it is fit for the future?If you wish to hide from the situation in the hope it will go away, then fair enough, ignore it. But if you want to make it better then the only way is democratic discussion. Seek to find workable solutions.It is all about "interests". As socialists we try to show workers that capitalism does not work in their interests. Most of the time they don't want to know, can't see the problems we point out. It's too complicated, too many issues to wrap a tired brain around, it's not worth the effort. Soap operas are more interesting than politics etc. Politicians get paid to think about these things, they look after us, try their best in difficult circumstances. Why mess with the system? It might not be perfect but the alternative is too complicated?Is it in the interests of the WSM to fix a flawed, broken moderation system? If it is, then get stuck in and get it sorted out, the sooner ideas are presented and debated the sooner workable solutions emerge. Being fed up and tired with the issue is a pathetic excuse. "I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people".Where is the difference? Get involved and get it sorted!
My apologies for capitalising NOT. This was done for emphasis and not for shouting. On Spopen and Spintcom there is just capitalisation or using an *….* to denote special emphasis since bold or italic is not available for messages. It was a lapse. It was not meant to be malicious shouting but to stress a specific point.It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed. I happen not to think so and I support the proposition that flexibility is required in the way a moderator conducts the task, not rigidity, and any attempt to impose strict rules will only result in future acrimony. The lover in me says it is always a matter of different strokes for different folks. I leave unbending laws and fixed penalties to bourgeois courts and the lynch mob to those who seize upon any fallibility in the moderator to prove a bias."Who decides what are acceptible limits? At the moment, and this is the problem, it is individual moderators who do so"Am i wrong in stating that the Internet Department and the EC have become embroiled in this debate. That other members have in the past contributed in support of the moderator and reproached the manner of critics have exercised themselves. Just who was it who charged other members of a geographic prejudice, which verges upon accusing them of racism? But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted."no recommendations, positive or negative, towards the debate." I previously did offer what I saw as a constructive option which was rejected, if you recall. I still stand by that attempt at a solution. In my latest post I gave an example of my own particular approach to changing the rules of a forum."Being fed up and tired with the issue is a pathetic excuse."Hearing the same complaints over and over again and witnessing deliberate and purposeful attempts to de-rail other threads is indeed wearisome."I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people". Where is the difference? "If SP cannot distinguish between educating oneself with socialist knowledge and escapism that is a serious problem – for him.I personally believe the will of the majority of on-line party members has been expressed on this issue. Two members appear not to accept this and have chosen to resign rather than accept it. That is their choice although the full machinery of party democracy has not yet been exhausted. Those members not on computers have not been consulted. This can only be done by conference motion and the ensuing referendum. But if non-branch members cannot convince a particular branch to take up the issue, i can only view it as another piece of evidence that the current situation is the prevailing will of the party. Brian appears to be sympathetic to changing moderation procedure, perhaps by co-ordinating with him, Swansea branch may be persuaded to take up the baton on their behalf for moderation change. The issue can also be raised when the Internet Department make their report to conference.However, if those resigning members think the current disagreement on moderation is one of serious democratic principle and that the party is as such undemocratic and not a fit organisation to promote socialism – so be it. Personally, I think they are throwing the baby out with the bath-water.In one post, the question of trust was raised – I am reminded of the Israeli writer Amos Oz saying you don't actully need to love your neighbours but you do have to get along peacefully with them. You don't need to like your work colleagues but you do need to work alongside them. Within the SPGB you are not required to love, or even like, your fellow comrades but you are expected to co-operate with them in the struggle for socialism.Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?
" But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted." Good as far as it goes but to be fairer, one side of this, "inexcusable behaviour", rather than language, was treated far, far more leniently than the other. This, is the main reason, that there was so much acrimony on this site.You say you don't think that anything is broken? Is that not because the side you supported was the one not being immoderately moderated? Think it was!In your conclusion you talk of "trust"! No I do not trust that I will be fairly moderated by moderate, moderators. If you cannot see the implicit bias in the recent moderation, then that just proves the point."However, if those resigning members think the current disagreement on moderation is one of serious democratic principle and that the party is as such undemocratic and not a fit organisation to promote socialism – so be it. Personally, I think they are throwing the baby out with the bath-water."Interpreting again? It is not the Party I see as undemocratic, but immoderate, biased actions of certain, "moderators" that I find, not merely undemocratic but uncomradely, biased and problematic! They have used, "moderation" to exercise, "power and control", a turn of events I find alarming and repugnant. Done, because there is no code to follow for moderators, just their individual interpretations and opinions of events.There has been no evidence of "people skills" that are necessarily required by "moderators", merely the use of "dictat" and that is something I cannot countenance.If you, as I have said, find nothing wrong with the events that have transpired, then so be it. My commitment to Socialism is unswerving. It will merely be carried out, outside of "my" party and more then three decades of working for Socialism, the knowledge and experience gained during this time, from myself and others has been lost to "my" party.Hope you and others do as much over the next 30 years for the cause of Socialism, as we have over the preceeding 30.Steve.
Alan,your post proves our case!Alan says: "My apologies for capitalising NOT." Cde Colborne was put on moderation for using capitals – why were you not? Alan says:"I leave unbending laws and fixed penalties to bourgeois courts and the lynch mob to those who seize upon any fallibility in the moderator to prove a bias."and"Hearing the same complaints over and over again and witnessing deliberate and purposeful attempts to de-rail other threads is indeed wearisome."This is an unsupported accusation and a direct attack on members integrity. TOGW was suspended for this. Why were you not? "Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?"It appears to be in the eyes of the ID and admin. And by the way are you suggesting that because we are in a minority then we must be wrong? Strange coming from a member of a party with a few hundred members.
AlanYou apologise for capitalisation, and explain on SPintcom and SPopen that it is one of two methods of emphasising words. Now I recall a certain member being moderated on SPintcom for using capitals for emphasis. He was told he was shouting. I followed the events of that case and it looked like bias was being used, as that member had previous history on another party forum. I have no doubt the moderator thought he was trying to calm a situ' before it escalated, but it ended up creating one as personal judgement looked evident. Likewise the problem on this forum was created when a member was warned, despite not actually causing any problem.This is the the "different strokes for different folks" in action approach you so support. Perhaps your previous moderator experience sees you lean to on side.Of course moderation will require a level of interpretation. The problem at present is that an ad hoc approach, with escalating methods of moderation being used one after the other, warnings, suspensions, post deletions and finally mod' queue, looks over the top and vindictive. Especially when other forum members who chose to intervene, inflamed the situation at every stage yet faced no warnings or even a call to quit their interference.A set warning system like the one that has been suggested, sees a call for calm and then clear warnings. It would still require moderator interpretation, but within a framework that allows everyone to know where they stand.I am sorry you see no problem with the present approach, as that implies you see it as a personality issue. But your redirecting my general words back at me with a little personal twist proves further you see it that way and feel the need to attempt to hurt or humiliate me, (Of course there is nothing wrong with education, but idolatry of Marx will not sway the soap fans). I have no problem with that, I am guilty of it myself at times, we all are, including moderators. It proves that a system of moderation needs to be consistent in approach, in other words pick a method and stick with it. The skill of a moderator is in finding a way to avoid the situation from escalating, but when it goes beyond that, it is when a moderator has to be consistent with the administering of "punishment".One last point, perhaps the most important.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?This forum is the SPGB flagship site. It is the online home of the Socialist Standard. What sort of image is being presented to the public now? Messy moderation with inconsistent warnings, suspensions, deletion of posts and censoring members contributions! Those then become the standard socialist practice for the future online. Instead I advocate, no hiding away from awkward decisions, no censoring dissension among the ranks, debate the issue hear and now online. This is socialism in the spotlight, get it wrong now and you might as well turn the party into an online revolutionary reading group.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?There is no easy answer to that, however the practice of moderation on all party forums is most certainly going to impact on how the workers are going to achieve socialism. For at the heart of the whole question of moderation on the internet is how we as a party impliment our understanding of Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) when using this medium for discussion of the socialist case. And with internet communication becoming increasingly the main means of communication for the global working class the urgency is to get DPD right first time on this meduim.The whole question of internet moderation is an ongoing debate not just within the party but also within the global internet community. And its become pretty obvious that our own particular form of moderation on this forum is found to be wanting in respect of applying its own guidelines and rules in an open and fair manner.There are 2 issues which need to be resolved so this forum is working towards the implimentation of 'best practice' and until these issues are resolved this forum will continue to bump along in an ad hoc manner regardless of the volume of traffic it experiences. Issue 1. is that currently its apparent there are insufficient trained moderators to deal with a relatively low level of traffic. Hopefully, the Internet Dept. is already in the process of creating a training program for moderators which itself should be ongoing and under constant review and re-assessment. Nevertheless, the Internet Dept. like most departments and committees are still faced with the problem of attracting members to become involved with its activities. And with the party membership so low and also with the majority of members not internet savvy the department consequently faces an up hill task that is never ever going to be resolved under the present circumstances of strictly observing party protocol where only party members can join a department or committee. Simply to open the membership of departments and committees to all and sundry would cause more problems that its worth under the present party rules. However if this forum was a stand alone organisation whose only connection to the party was through supporting the DoP then the issue of attracting people to the role of moderation becomes much more viable. With such a radical change of mindset unlikely to be implimented in the near future we are stuck with improving issue number 2.I'll deal with issue 2. later in the meantime any feedback on the above would be appreciated.
Why has my reply to Alan not been allowed?
My reply to Alan has not satisfied the moderator. Is this not further evidence against Alan's belief that forum moderation is Ok.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.