Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules

September 2021 Forums Website / Technical Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81676
    Anonymous
    Inactive

     

     

    Where have the forum rules come from?

    Are they internal/external to the democratic processes of the party. ?

     

     

    Admin wrote:

    "Moderating:
    The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list."

    using what criteria?

     


    Admin wrote:

    "The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour."  

    Who decides/defines 'unacceptable behaviour'

    Who is Moses?  And where did he get his commandments?

    Who moderates the moderator?

     

    I believe members of the forum who are also members of the party should decide the rules. Please take part/suggest/vote/

    #90957
    admin
    Keymaster

    Comrade,These rules were decided at the EC meeting of November 2011.All moderation is done within the context of the rules and all moderation decisions are open to appeal.

    #90958
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list.The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour. " I am unable to locate these in the Nov 11 EC Minutes Rules:1. Please send messages in plain text format (not html).2. Resist forwarding messages.3. Keep signatures to a maximum 4-5 lines.4. Do not attempt to send attachments to the list. Attachments areautomatically stripped from messages.5. No messages which simply advertise other organizations and do nototherwise contribute to the discussion.6. Message limit per subscriber is 3 per 24 hours. Of course asubscriber can combine a number of messages in one post.7. DO NOT cross-post to this forum.8. Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated.9. Please keep your posts trimmed so not to include unnecessary text.10.Personal messages should be sent by personal email, not to the forum.

    #90959
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant
    TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:
    Rules:2. Resist forwarding messages.3. Keep signatures to a maximum 4-5 lines.7. DO NOT cross-post to this forum.8. Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated.9. Please keep your posts trimmed so not to include unnecessary text.10.Personal messages should be sent by personal email, not to the forum.new rule. to keep discussion on topic

    If you look at the resolution that adopted the rules, only the above were actually mandated by the EC: "*Motion 7* – Poynton and Browne moved that all the above existing rules, except rules 1, 4, 5 and 6, and a new rule to keep discussion on topic, be adopted for the new forum. Carried (9 for, 0 against)"Rule 8 (as was) implicitly recognises the need for a moderator (though, maybe, going by the wording, it should be known as the Intolerator).  There has to be someone doing the tolerating.  Likewise, the new rule requires someone/thing to police the topics.  You cannot will the ends unless you will the means.If you want this changed, write to your branch (or any branch), and propose an item for conference, or a motion to the EC).  However, I'd say those rules are hardly controversial, IMNSHO.

    #90960
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Comrade, perhaps you would have a change of opinion if YOU were suspended for nothing. Banning someone from a forum should be a last resort. Are you suggesting that the moderator should have the right to ban someone who offers an opinion he disagrees with? The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension. It is left to the mederator's whim. If you believe I wass rightly suspended. Perhaps you could explain. No one else has botheredIf I am banned again are you suggesting I wait until a conference decision. It is anti-socialist and anti democratic to ban a member from the forum with explaing why I am still waiting to be shown where I abused members 3 times!If you cannot show me then I suggest you are not qualified to criticise my argument.. 

    #90961
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:
    Comrade, perhaps you would have a change of opinion if YOU were suspended for nothing. Banning someone from a forum should be a last resort. Are you suggesting that the moderator should have the right to ban someone who offers an opinion he disagrees with? The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension. It is left to the mederator's whim. 

    You were informed on November 13th that the Internet Department and the EC are looking into your complaint.  If you are not satisfied with the outcome you are at liberty to pursue the matter at Conference via a branch of your choice.You are again reminded that these lists are not the place to question the integrity of other members; the correct complaints procedure having been outlined to you on several occasions.

    #90983
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant
    Quote:
    The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension.

    Yes, they do: there are seven rules members have to abide by, and breaking them is grounds for moderator action to prevent further breeches.  If you post a long signature, forget to trim, cross post, abuse, flame, send personal messages or keep going off topic, you break the rules.

    Quote:
    Comrade, perhaps you would have a change of opinion if YOU were suspended for nothing. Banning someone from a forum should be a last resort. Are you suggesting that the moderator should have the right to ban someone who offers an opinion he disagrees with? The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension. It is left to the mederator's whim. If you believe I wass rightly suspended. Perhaps you could explain. No one else has bothered

    I've no idea if you were 'rightly' suspended.  I'm not the moderator, and I haven't been following your case.  What I support is the concept of the moderator, and that the moderator is answerable to the party not to the participants of the forum. I doubt I would change my mind, I've been 'unfairly' shut up by a meeting chair before now, and recognise their job is to keep order and keep discussion flowing.  Them's the breaks. 

    #90984
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
     I doubt I would change my mind, I've been 'unfairly' shut up by a meeting chair before now, and recognise their job is to keep order and keep discussion flowing.  Them's the breaks. 

     A forum is not comparable to a public meeting. A chairperson ensures that only one person is speaking at any one time. In a forum many people may speak at once and the ‘listener’ can read all contributions one at a time. No need for anyone to wait in a queue or for the chairperson to shut anyone up. ANYONE can contribute: You either read or ignore.A fantastic development for the socialist movement, don’t you think?Let’s not spoil itThe ONLY reason I can think of for a moderator to shut a comrade up is if the member threatens or abuses another member and refuses to stop. I have never done this. I have been threatened and abused myself by a member and when I pointed this out, I was suspended. This is why I am not very happy. I am owed an apology and an explanation. There needs to be an open free discussion on the role and behaviour of ‘moderators’.For example, unlike a chairperson they are not elected at every ‘meeting’How would you like it if a chairperson at a socialist meeting told you to shut up at future meetings until you have taken the matter  to your branch and the Annual Conference? I think you would probably leave the party.

    #90978
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant
    TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:
    A forum is not comparable to a public meeting. A chairperson ensures that only one person is speaking at any one time. In a forum many people may speak at once and the ‘listener’ can read all contributions one at a time. No need for anyone to wait in a queue or for the chairperson to shut anyone up. ANYONE can contribute: You either read or ignore.

    Indeed, but we have seen that unconstrained posters can drown other contributions out, and "suck the air from the room" typically by making any topic about them rather than the subject at hand.  Some effort is needed to make sure that people stick to the topic of debate and behave in an appropriate manner.

    Quote:
    The ONLY reason I can think of for a moderator to shut a comrade up is if the member threatens or abuses another member and refuses to stop. I have never done this. I have been threatened and abused myself by a member and when I pointed this out, I was suspended. This is why I am not very happy. I am owed an apology and an explanation.

    That is one of the reasons, but, as we saw today, a SPAMBOT broke through and sent a lot of garbage to the General forum, which the Moderator had to nuke.  Or should we give SPAMBOTs the vote?  I don't think we need to wait for a threat, neither.  I expect Moderators to break fights up.

    Quote:
    There needs to be an open free discussion on the role and behaviour of ‘moderators’.

    We're having it, now.

    Quote:
    For example, unlike a chairperson they are not elected at every ‘meeting’

    Neither are chairs at public meetings elected by the meeting, they are normally elected by the branch at the previous business meeting.  Like public meetings, the members of the public do not have a voting say in how our meetings are run.

    Quote:
    How would you like it if a chairperson at a socialist meeting told you to shut up at future meetings until you have taken the matter  to your branch and the Annual Conference? I think you would probably leave the party.

    I'd raise the matter at my branch.  Luckily, this has never happened to anyone, including you.  At branch, I could be asked to leave the room if I was disrupting the meeting.  If I carried on, I, like any member who persistently disrupted meetings could expect  to be expelled from the party.

    #90979
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    You are obviously not taking me seriously."Or should we give SPAMBOTs the vote?  I don't think we need to wait for a threat, neither.  I expect Moderators to break fights up." I am not SPAMBOT!I have not disrupted any meetings.I am a member of this party You must not have read this:"I have never done this. I have been threatened and abused myself by a member and when I pointed this out, I was suspended. This is why I am not very happy. I am owed an apology and an explanation"  I am sure you will be warned by the moderator for this, in order to avoid it developing further. As you say :'I expect Moderators to break fights up.' I will do the right thing and bite my lip.

    #90980
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant

    I haven't called you a SPAMBOT or said you were disrupting meetings, in fact, I am not discussing you at all.  I said as much right at the top.  I am talking about moderators and the need for moderators.  I am discussing how, substantially, the way we moderate this forum is how we moderate our public physical meetings.

    #90981
    Anonymous
    Inactive

     I apologise if I have misinterpreted you.I have no problem with moderation. Indeed, I called for moderation when I and two other members were being attacked, but I was suspended for that. Perhaps we can go back to my original disagreement with the forum rules: Admin wrote:"Moderating:The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list."using what criteria? Admin wrote:"The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour."  Who decides/defines 'unacceptable behaviour' Who moderates the moderator?

    #90982
    Young Master Smeet
    Participant
    TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:
    Admin wrote:"Moderating:The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list."1)using what criteria?Admin wrote:"The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour."  2) Who decides/defines 'unacceptable behaviour'3) Who moderates the moderator?

    1) The criteria of the forum rules.2) The moderators decide what is unacceptable behaviour, based on the agreed forum rules.3) The Internet Dept, then the EC, then Branches/Membership at large.

    #90965
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Let me give you an example,member 'a' is suspended after 1 warning. Member 'b' is not suspended after 3 warnings. The moderator is applying the rules – he can suspend or he need not suspend.Another example.member 'a' uses 'abusive language' on 10 posts and is not warned. member 'b' uses abusive language on 1 post and receives warning. He complains that this is unfair and he is suspended for doubting the intergrity of the moderator.The suspension has happened. member 'b' cannot appeal to Conference retrospectively. The rules need to be specific and fair. Not general as they can and have been abused.

    #90966
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    Young Master Smeet wrote:
    I've no idea if you were 'rightly' suspended.  I'm not the moderator, and I haven't been following your case.

    I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.