Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Moderators 'do not' have carte blanche anything.They operate without prejudice and come under the auspices of the internet department and ultimately the E.C. and the party as a whole.Most posters on moderation are conciliatory and resolve to correct any problems with their postings.Mod. decisionare not taken lightly, even occasionally in some instances, as the mods are concerned how the poster will perceive it,withsome consultation.You had a situation where posters were suspended and couldn't make any posts versus one where posters were able to post after postings were screened owing to some previous difficulties with their postings .This enabled them to post.This was despite of abuse hurled at the moderators in some instances.However,with that imperfect process it is possible for a mod to make a mistake and be challenged through the procedures set up.He/she is overseen by the department.As mod accepts whatever decision is taken by the department so also should the poster.This is perfectly proper.Posts don't sit in queues for hours generally.There may be rare exceptions to this for some of the reasons I have previously outlined.Posters wil just have to live with that.The trick is to not be in the situation of being moderated or suspended.To not make or respond to inflamatory postings.It is also disappointing but most unusual to see the same re-offending behaviour after someone's moderation has been lifted ,but it can and does happen.So this may indeed, quite rightly, have a bearing upon whether someone returning to a list or a forum is immediately placed on moderation.The responsibility of the mod is to the list or forum.If posters can't moderate their own behaviour,I rather doubt that they can't do it, it is more that they are unwilling to do so, then they 'will be' moderated.Mods. are not in the process for rewarding unruly behaviour by transforming this behaviour into a victimisation plea on the way to accepting a point of principle which changes moderation into censorship.You may enjoy a good punchup in the style of a bar room brawling type of forum,but others of a quieter disposition such as myself,are likely to find it most intimidating.
Hi MattSorry you feel that way, but the highlighted paragraph below spells out clearly the carte blanche moderation approach used on this forum. You never did answer my question about your mistaken claim a moderation queue was introduced on this forum as a replacement for suspensions. Such a system that sees different forum members being treated differently, for similar offences with moderators trying every tactic possible, except communication, to me is evidence of carte blanche moderation. I am very sorry if the facts don't seem to fit your view.Moderating: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.It would also appear that you do not take notice of what I have continually said on this issue. I am not in favour of a "good punchup" style forum. I am in favour of a form of moderation that has "social" ism at it's core. In other words communication, conflict resolution etc. This needs a bit of backup, in the form of some "time out" style measure. I advocate a set framework of warnings and suspensions, I always have done.The censorship issue has been throttled, happy slapped, with a "snuff" video being made available, to all bar room retailers soon, but if you like we could continue it on the relevant thread? If not I will point out one simple thing about censorship. It comes in many different forms.
Moderating: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.
This is subject to oversight by the procedures to which moderators and posters are expected to adhere.I've seen very little of the oversight of moderators that you allude to! What is it with those who choose to deny any culpability of moderators in "any" of the events that have occured. Do you really believe they are "lilly white". The only way to get a resolution to these events is for all, including moderators, to be brave enough to fess up. However, I see little likelyhood of this turn of events! Steve.
Oh dear. It looks as if the acrimony is going to continue whatever we do.The EC is trying to draw a line under the whole affair and let by-gones be by-gones (i.e, not to engage in recriminations as to who started it, who was to blame, etc) and start again, but nobody seems to be taking any notice.If people won't act reasonably or exercise self-restrain there's not much any rules or rule changes can do. But it's still not too late.
Adam, before you comment on any more of my posts, please read them first. In my post, no mention was made as to "who started it". No recriminatory accusation were made, I alluded to the fact that "all" sides were in some way complicit in the events.This is a valuable first step in gaining "closure" on this issue. I am only concerned, as a non-member, with this "open" forum and hope to see it used to spread the ideas of Socialism, moreover how and in what ways we envisage this new society growing and developing, not as a "blueprint" but using our knowledge of where we are, capitalism and by extrapolation, where we see ourselves as a class, going.So Adam, no more talk of people not acting reasonably, or with self-restraint, no more negativity! I may be a non-member now but I still advocate a rational, inclusive society, as an alternative to the insanity of Capitalism. Steve.
MattOn post #171 on this thread you said the following.
Matt wrote:To not make or respond to inflamatory postings.And:You may enjoy a good punchup in the style of a bar room brawling type of forum, but others of a quieter disposition such as myself, are likely to find it most intimidating.I see you are unable to stick to your own advice of not responding to posts. Though there was nothing remotely inflammatory with my post #169, you obviously saw fit to ignore the general point I was making and decided to take issue with me, suggesting that I enjoy and am in favour of a "punchup" style forum.May I suggest instead of making false claims for others, you check out what they have to say before throwing around accusations. (Perhaps you were inspired by another party member on the Censorship thread?) I suggest you check out post #136 on this thread. There you will find my suggestions for forum moderation. You will find the following extract.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hopefully these suggestions should go some way to guiding members and moderators and so allow the protection of both while maintaining maximum freedom to contribute to the forum.As for the following, post #172.
Matt wrote:This is subject to oversight by the procedures to which moderators and posters are expected to adhere.Could you please direct me to any where I could read the above mentioned procedures for moderators. Procedures I expect rule out any ad hoc moderation? Hopefully it may go some way to explaining your inability to answer a very simple question from post #118 about the following statement.
Matt wrote:The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.SocialistPunk wrote:That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?I have little acrimony to exorcise on this forum. I seek only explanations and answers to relevant questions, yet I receive mostly silence, distortion and stirring tactics from those who are unable to defend the status quo. So much for the power of socialist analytical ability to cut to the root of an issue. Seems it only works when the focus is on outsiders.
ALB wrote:Oh dear. It looks as if the acrimony is going to continue whatever we do.The EC is trying to draw a line under the whole affair and let by-gones be by-gones (i.e, not to engage in recriminations as to who started it, who was to blame, etc) and start again, but nobody seems to be taking any notice.If people won't act reasonably or exercise self-restrain there's not much any rules or rule changes can do. But it's still not too late.Alb, how can we be starting over again when I can't answer you?
How can we be starting over when I still can't reply to your post? The EC has said nothing as far as I can see. What sort of whitewash is this. The ID is to blame. Look at Matt's post! Is he starting over? We still receive the same shit thrown at us and you expect us not to respond?
I have left this thread idle in order to see if SP recieved his explanations and answers. It looks now, as if they will not be forthcoming, so the issue drags on, with no sign of closure! Steve.
I've seen very little of the oversight of moderators that you allude to!
You memory does not serve you well.You were a beneficiary of an overturned decision.The moderator was delighted withthe outcome in that instance even though it was the first in an unblemished moderator role.(coff)SocialistPunk wrote:I see you are unable to stick to your own advice of not responding to posts. Though there was nothing remotely inflammatory with my post #169, you obviously saw fit to ignore the general point I was making and decided to take issue with me, suggesting that I enjoy and am in favour of a "punchup" style forum.
Merely a jestful analogy. I didn't perceive your posting as a flame. A wee bit too much emotion showing here.
This is subject to oversight by the procedures to which moderators and posters are expected to adhere..The oversight I referred to, is the appeals procedure which subjects the mods to the internet department and EC.
SocialistPunk wrote:That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?
I think many if not more will be bored shitless. No I won't comment on the decision at all. I wouldn't dream of it, other than to say, it would have been made without prejudice, in the interests of the forum's users, subject to appeal to the internet dept. They would be put on moderation, rather than a queue, sorry, that was sloppy writing on my part. A queue as such doesn't exist until posts build up for reasons I specified elsewhere. However I also specified where such instances of immediate moderation may arise in another post.
SocialistPunk wrote:I have little acrimony to exorcise on this forum. I seek only explanations and answers to relevant questions, yet I receive mostly silence, distortion and stirring tactics from those who are unable to defend the status quo. So much for the power of socialist analytical ability to cut to the root of an issue. Seems it only works when the focus is on outsiders.
Ironic acrimonic contradiction. Could be a song. The Outsiders?This is all rather to much heat for me personally. I repeat that mods are subject to oversight by the department in the event of an appeal against their decision. Posters should use the relevant procedures and their appeal wil be given due consideration. I am more than happy to await any decisions and accept them as made without prejudice even if against any decisions I take. I would recommend this perspective be adopted by all posters. It certainly keeps me on an even emotional keel.It seems the moderators must have the last word even if it is untrue. Can't they heed the attempt of the EC to get us all to move on?
Firstly Matt, you say moderators are subject to oversight, then you explain what in actuality, is the case. Moderators are subject to oversight if a moderated person puts in an appeal. So no appeal= no oversight. In point of fact, if oversight existed, it would have to be a totally independent oversight committee.By the way Matt, what you term and claim to be, "jestful analogy", would get some of us in the doghouse, indeed it has done so in the past. See what we mean by biased and unfair moderation?A case of give a dog a bad name and pre-existent, preconceptions continue ad-infinitum, whether they are warranted, ( or as in this case) not. SocialistPunk wrote:That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?You say many if not more people will be bored shitless by this! I think the reason you give such an obtuse reply is because, in fact, you have realised the contradiction inherent in your claim and that it is illogical! Steve.
No contradiction whatsoever. I wont comment on the moderator decision. I thought I had indicated elsewhere but I can't find it, it must be in a draft somewhere, that it is perfectly proper that a mod. may place some posters on moderation immediately after suspension to ensure that no disruption of the forum re-occurs.This is not a punishment as any posts which adhere to the established practices are allowed to be posted. Preventing posting I should have thought would seem a punishment.I don't see any linkage with my jestful playfulness here. I am well known for bad jokes. It is not a question of bad naming dogs, but of dogs snapping at people previously. But I don't want the last word or anything of the kind. I will leave this forum and you can come in anytime.Hell no, to the suggested added oversight It isn't some court of law just a webforum. Unsuccessful appeals can go to the EC. The point is it has not ever been necessary before to go through any of this procedure stuff.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.