Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
REJECTED POST! SocialistPunk wrote:Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?Gnome wrote:It doesn't. TOGW wrote:It does.I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:This issue has been dealt with extensively on numerous threads over the past four months. It's all played out. Finished, finito, fertig, fini. TOGW wrote:It is not finished. I have legitimate non abusive and on topic posts removed. Gnome wrote:You could be helping us in the struggle TOGW wrote:He is.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Moderators are not baby sitters, probation officers, prison wardens, or even behavioural scientists who are caught in a time warp of administering continual reinforcement. Like Skinner highlights "continual reinforcement is counter productive" because it becomes accepted as the norm and therefore fails to stimulate the recipient into changing their pattern of behaviour.Yes you're right about moderators not being baby sitters but you've fudged on your Skinner. A suspension could also be seen as a kind of 'negative-reinforcement'.As it stands on-topic comments are reinforced as they are allowed through the queue. Off-topic comments receive no response, they are not reinforced, so in theory the behaviour should become extinct.But as both positive and negative reinforcement is also taking place outside of the forum it is of course more complicated than that.
I agree a suspension can be seen as a positive and a negative reinforcement and I would argue it depends on the context on how a negative is turned into a positive and whether or not the moderator has the time and patience to continually issue rewards or sanctions. You have a choice to say: Enough is enough; or I've stuck you on the moderation queue whether you like it or not. The first choice is saying come back when you are in better frame of mind. Whilst the second is saying the sanction will continue for ever and a day.Moderation is only a temporary measure whereas a moderation queue can become permanent if the moderator deems it to be necessary.
That's all very well but what about the removal of non abusive and on topic posts by the dozen. Is this censorship. Or are we going to avoid a discussion on that issue?
Spintcom at the moment is using moderation. I am not in a moderation queue on this forum, I am being censored; my opinion is being removed. Admin may not like what I say but I am non abusive and on topic.
The same discussion seems to be going on in two places. Here and in this place:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/does-use-censorship-have-place-among-struggle-towards-socialism-andor-withi?page=9Shouldn't they both go on here so that there's no duplication?
"We've got a very general set of guidelines which we try to apply in as fair and sensible a manner as possible to specific situations. Whist trying to be as consistent as possible, " That's fine but what happens when the Moderators very actions are in and of themselves problematic? When these general guidelines are, "not" applied, "fairly and sensibly"!. Unless there is a claim that that this does not, nor cannot happen.But as everyone has seen, unless they were, or are, wearing blinkers, immoderate and biased moderation "has" occured. This very moderation has, in itself, caused many of the problems it is claimed it is set up to deal with. A bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before anyone puts forward the claim that this trouble was itself caused by a few recalcitrant and self-obsessed individuals, look at the threads in which these events occured, they prove beyond possibility of refutation that this is not the case.There has to be and moreover, needs to be, acceptance on, "both sides", that there has been problems and these problems "have, been caused by, 'both' sides". Until this happens, nothing will change and change there definitely needs to be.Steve.
Why have my posts not appeared if it is not censorship. I have poste half a dozen on topic and non abusive posts.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Moderators are not baby sitters, probation officers, prison wardens, or even behavioural scientists who are caught in a time warp of administering continual reinforcement. Like Skinner highlights "continual reinforcement is counter productive" because it becomes accepted as the norm and therefore fails to stimulate the recipient into changing their pattern of behaviour.Yes you're right about moderators not being baby sitters …… …..
If you don't see the role of moderating as 'baby sitting' how come the sanction of a moderation queue is still being applied? I'm not complaining just highlighting the fact that obviously in this case the moderation queue is not producing the desired result, is it?
The job of the moderator is not to micro-manage posts or to give a running commentary on what is or is not acceptable about each individual post. The job of the moderator is to contain disturbances so that the forum can be a pleasant and useful place for all of it's users. This is the reason that such things as the pre-vetting of certain posts or the deletion of abusive messages happen.It is the responsibility of forum users themselves to ensure that they stay within the rules.
DJP wrote:The job of the moderator is not to micro-manage posts or to give a running commentary on what is or is not acceptable about each individual post. The job of the moderator is to contain disturbances so that the forum can be a pleasant and useful place for all of it's users. This is the reason that such things as the pre-vetting of certain posts or the deletion of abusive messages happen.It is the responsibility of forum users themselves to ensure that they stay within the rules.Nobody is in disagreement that this is the role of moderation. What is under the spotlight is the effectiveness of a moderation queue when its compared to straight forward moderation. A queue by definition is placing a deliberate brake on the process whilst moderation ensures the flow continues with the minimum of disruption. In short, a queue minimises effeciency whilst moderation maximises it by ensuring any disturbances are contained within agreed parameters.A queue should only come into operation when the human resources are under pressure and not be used to apply further sanctions by deliberately keeping the poster on hold, for ever and a day. Moderation is not about a battle of the wills, is it?
As someone who has been warned and suspended (not just on this forum) here's my input on forum moderation. A warning is not a big deal. If you abide by the warning and don't persist then the warning will be completely forgotten about by everyone. I'm sure the moderators don't have a little black book where they record every warning they give out. It's intended purpose is to get the recipient to leave whatever altercation they are involved in alone. It only exists in the moment it's been given.For this reason I literally could not care less about getting a warning. Even though the warning I received on this forum is in my opinion unjustified, I actually have no idea what it's for. But at the end of the day, who cares? As I said it's a couple of meaningless bytes on a computer screen.A suspension for a week if you do not abide by the warning (usually warnings) already given. When I was suspended I pretty much expected it. I'd been warned not to continue posting and I did. In other words I knew the effect but still applied the cause. But still who cares really, it's hardly the end of the world, you'll be back in a week.Moderation queues is something I'm completely against. As I said to socialist punk the other day it must be like a slow torture. Very frustrating I imagine and only likely to get people's blood pressure up more than it already is. I think this tactic should be scrapped.Deleting posts or editing posts should only be done in extreme cases. It should never be done for "bad or "strong" language. There is however, two types of deleting, a hard delete where a post is permanently deleted from the forum never to be seen again and the second is a trashed post where a post is moved to the rubbish bin. In this second case it can be seen by anyone who wants to reference it. Removed from the thread but not censored. Trashing is the only type of deleting that should ever happen except for in extreme cases or when dealing with spam bots.The EC should not be involved in resolving disputes involving the internet forum. Firstly because that makes something which means nothing into something that does mean something. Secondly and probably more importantly it undermines the authority of the forum moderators. If we can bring any trivial disagreement to the EC the forum moderators are powerless to do there job. The EC end up being the final word on all issues, in this case they may as well moderate the forums directly as the moderators. This stops them from doing the things they should be doing. For example at the last EC meeting issues of the moment like the fire bombing of Freedom bookshop were not raised because they were too busy dealing with forum issues. We have forum moderators to do a job, moderate the forums, let them do it and accept their word as being final on forum issues even if you disagree with their decision. Give them your consent to do the job they've been assigned. What if a moderator is perceived to be doing a bad job? Pass a motion in your branch to have them removed from the position.The future, as I've said should not include moderation queues. The EC should refuse to deal with issues directly relating to forum moderation. The EC's only role should be when a motion comes from a branch asking for the removal of a moderator. Finally the role of moderator should be a directly electable position so if you dislike a moderator you can use your democratic rights to remove them or accept the democratic decision of the party or don't.
Regarding moderation queues.What is the purpose of a moderation queue?I expect it is supposed to encourage the poster to bring their posting behaviour inline with forum rules. That suggests if off topic and abusive posts are submitted then they will not see the light of day. Seems straight forward enough.However I have noticed a problem with this seemingly noble use of censorship. I have received via the reply function, posts from OGW that have been disallowed. What did I find, you may ask? Surely an abusive litany, maybe gross off topic even? Well, actually none of those. The contributions I found myself reading could have been submitted by myself or any other forum user, without even raising the moderators eyebrow.Then I was further confused to see similar comments being allowed a day or so later. Weird!So it would seem that when in a moderation queue the standard you are expected to rise to is way over and above a normal level of acceptable contribution. So much so it becomes absurd, expecting a person in moderation to be super squeaky 110% "acceptable" at all times.Some questions then are, do we have one standard for those who are moderated and another for everyone else?Is it fine that the "acceptable" standard of behaviour varies from time to time, with the whim of a moderator?Does the practice of moderation queues expose a flaw in human judgment that sees a person in, as Ed perfectly frames it "a slow torture".Combine these issues with the fact there is no thought out exit strategy the moderators are using, and we are left with a scenario where a person may find themselves in mod queue limbo indefinitely.Pure "slow torture".
Ed wrote:"Moderation queues is something I'm completely against. As I said to socialist punk the other day it must be like a slow torture. Very frustrating I imagine and only likely to get people's blood pressure up more than it already is. I think this tactic should be scrapped".It is hardly anything of the kind. A queue forms when mods are busy elsewhere. Some mods work from their desks all the time, or are super efficient, so can speedily deal with stuff. Others like me, are away for varying lengths of time so the queue can build up. Others have slow connections and so on so can't just login and on when they like or have a busy caseload doing website stuff so have to ration out specific tasks. It is not a big deal to modify one's behaviour in keeping with whatever list or forum you are in. I do it all the time on the BBC or the Guardian or individual blogs etc. and as a consequence have increased my acceptance posting rates; in fact many of my posts now go through immediately. The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.Mods don't want to deny anyone posting. It is not a perfect solution and never will be, but with good will it is no problem whatsoever for the majority of posters who follow procedures when agrieved and accept outcomes of appeals etc..
Matt wrote:Mods don't want to deny anyone posting.Surely a generalisation!
Matt wrote:but with good will it is no problemGood will on ALL sides?
Matt wrote:Ed wrote:"Moderation queues is something I'm completely against. As I said to socialist punk the other day it must be like a slow torture. Very frustrating I imagine and only likely to get people's blood pressure up more than it already is. I think this tactic should be scrapped".It is hardly anything of the kind. A queue forms when mods are busy elsewhere. Some mods work from their desks all the time, or are super efficient, so can speedily deal with stuff. Others like me, are away for varying lengths of time so the queue can build up. Others have slow connections and so on so can't just login and on when they like or have a busy caseload doing website stuff so have to ration out specific tasks. It is not a big deal to modify one's behaviour in keeping with whatever list or forum you are in. I do it all the time on the BBC or the Guardian or individual blogs etc. and as a consequence have increased my acceptance posting rates; in fact many of my posts now go through immediately. The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.Mods don't want to deny anyone posting. It is not a perfect solution and never will be, but with good will it is no problem whatsoever for the majority of posters who follow procedures when agrieved and accept outcomes of appeals etc..
Matt we are all aware how difficult moderation can be but Ed was describing the effect a moderation queue has on the user, whilst you are describing some of the difficulties which can arise for individual moderators. Which plainly is not quite the same subject imo. However let's be honest the difficulties you describe are mostly associated with the teething problems we are getting pretty well familiar with and it can be expected these will be ironed out in the near future.Suspension is of course a 'big deal' and rightly so but the creation of a moderation queue has for some turned out to be an even 'bigger deal' in respect of resolving the issues and problems of anti-social behaviour in a reasonable manner.To summarise what is suggested in the Swansea Branch report:Initial infringements be covered by an 'Attention Notice' being posted.Continual infingements be covered with a First, second and final warning being posted.Where infringements are clearly of a more severe nature this process can be by-passed either by issuing a notice of moderation, or a suspension.All moderation to be carried out under a committed locked thread.Clearly a simple process which is transparent and designed for conflict resolution rather than prolonging the tiresome procedure of regulation which by definition includes the introduction of a moderation queue.Need I say more?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.