Moderation Suggestions

February 2024 Forums Website / Technical Moderation Suggestions

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 294 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #108727
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Matt wrote:
    There is absolutely no need to personalise this.

    Absolutely. The troll is personalising it.  He or she contributes nothing else to the party or this forum. Remove him/her. He/she is a stereotypical troll.   

    #108728
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Matt wrote:
    but technology will not resolve the problems of lack of self discipline.

    This is personalising the problem as you are clearly referring to my response to the troll. The blame is squarley on my shoulders, not the trolls.I don't think Drupal prevents the removal of trolls. That is the problem. NOT members of the party 

    #108729
    Bijou Drains
    Participant
    Matt wrote:
    There is absolutely no need to personalise this.

    These are nice sentiments, however the difficulty is that trolls like Bob Andrews and l Bird, continually personalise things. How can someone not take a personal attack (such as Vin has been subjected to by Bob Andrews) as not being pesonal?

    #108730
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Quote:
    The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current modertation guidance is not fit for purpose.

    I dispute that contention about the guidance. One can always find fault with a moderator's decision, but not him personally. He is only a volunteer and should be helped.Occasionally I have had an issue with some decisions. But no-one would know that, as I deal with it in the appropriate manner. I have to accept the moderator's like the referee's decision is final. I could appeal to the internet committee if I am seriously concerned, but this has not been necessary as it is often a matter of interpretation and I can be wrong headed.

    Quote:
    There should be some mechanism whereby if a poster has made a posting which is so far beyond the pale, then the poster would be subject to immediate suspension. To give an extreme example, if a poster made postings in support if ISIL, would we seriously have to wait for three occurances to remove them from our discussion board?

    I don't think extreme exceptions make for good general rules.It depends on the argument surely? We have a tradition of debating with  opponents of socialism.We had some instances of spamming behaviour, which have been dealt with by suspension.We haven't had too many instances of trolling behaviour. One, perhaps. But those have been dealt with, once again, by  Immediate indefinite,suspension.

    #108731
    moderator1
    Participant
    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
    Matt wrote:
    Yes but the WSM_Forum is an email list and functions differently. We can put people on moderation, where their posts are screened for a period in the email lists.You are not allowed to post nor respond to hostile criticism. (You will be moderated)You are not allowed to criticise moderating decision either. (You will be moderated)Most of the members are inactive on the WSM_forum now.We can't do that moderation as in screening posts on the web forum.So the moderator has to abide by the rules of the web forum and issue warnings before suspension.The moderator should be left to deal with troublemakers and party members should resist responding to them in a similar vein.It is a simple matter to help the moderator and flag an offensive post and let the moderator deal with it, rather than attacking him and insisting he removes posters from the website.He can not do that. He can only suspend them, after warnings, as he does.Party members should and must, exercise self discipline.This would assist the moderator greatly.

    The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current modertation guidance is not fit for purpose. There should be some mechanism whereby if a poster has made a posting which is so far beyond the pale, then the poster would be subject to immediate suspension. To give an extreme example, if a poster made postings insupport if ISIL, would we seeriously have to wait for three occurances to remove them from our discussion board?

    The current guidance and rules are fit for purpose for dealing with spammers and trolls.  For instance spammers get short shrift and are suspended immediately and reported to anti-spam.  With trolls they are given every opportunity to change their behaviour when I initially issue a reminder.  If that don't work then they get a warning. Bob Andrews is on his 2nd warning. LBird is currently on his 5th suspension and will face the maximum of 60 days suspension.The problem is other users feed the trolls and instead of letting me deal with such issues under the guidelines and rules assume I'm unwilling to deal with the issue and providing trolls with preferential treatment.  When the fact of the matter is I have to follow our democratic procedures and protocols – agreed on here after a long discussion – and the guidelines and rules agreed on by the EC.Nevertheless, because this is an open platform – which Conference agreed on – you have to acknowledge that spammers and trolls are par for the course.  

    #108732
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I was not referring to the instance of Vin and the other poster, but to his comments about him having a history which prejudices my self and mod. against him.I did not have him in mind when I posted, but was making general points about reacting to postings and specifically using the appropriate tools to alert the moderator.I am not engaging in individual discussions but a general one.

    #108733
    Bijou Drains
    Participant
    Matt wrote:
    Quote:
    The problem is, and this is no fault of Brian's, that the current moderation guidance is not fit for purpose.

    I dispute that contention about the guidance. One can always find fault with a moderator's decision, but not him personally. He is only a volunteer and should be helped.

    And if you read what I have written, not what you think I have written, that is precicely what I have said. In my view the guidelines are not fit for purpose.I stated that this is not Brian's fault, but I think there should be a facility for the moderator to suspend a poster (not the post) in the event of extreme behaviour like that demonstrated by Bob Andrews.Yes we have a long history of engaging in debate with a variety of different people with a variety of different views. However Knob Andrex is not debating or constructing argument, his purpose is clearly to insult and denigrate, his intention is to be some sort of parody of Jeremy Clarkson.His latest post is an insult to all female members of the party, past and present. In a meeting anyone who was there to just hurl insults would be asked to leave and if they didn't they would be thrown out for disrupting the meeting. I suggest that the moderator be given the power to throw this clown out of the meeting (figuratively).

    #108734
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    moderator1 wrote:
    The current guidance and rules are fit for purpose for dealing with spammers and trolls.  For instance spammers get short shrift and are suspended immediately and reported to anti-spam.  With trolls they are given every opportunity to change their behaviour when I initially issue a reminder.  If that don't work then they get a warning. Bob Andrews is on his 2nd warning. LBird is currently on his 5th suspension and will face the maximum of 60 days suspension.The problem is other users feed the trolls and instead of letting me deal with such issues under the guidelines and rules assume I'm unwilling to deal with the issue and providing trolls with preferential treatment.  When the fact of the matter is I have to follow our democratic procedures and protocols – agreed on here after a long discussion – and the guidelines and rules agreed on by the EC.Nevertheless, because this is an open platform – which Conference agreed on – you have to acknowledge that spammers and trolls are par for the course.  

    Nowhere has anyone agreed to accept trolls. No other forum would acept trolls. We shouldnt have to deal with trolls. Show me where members agreed on this?? 

    #108735
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Tim Kilgallon wrote:
    However Knob Andrex is not debating or constructing argument, his purpose is clearly to insult and denigrate, his intention is to be some sort of parody of Jeremy Clarkson.His latest post is an insult to all female members of the party, past and present. In a meeting anyone who was there to just hurl insults would be asked to leave and if they didn't they would be thrown out for disrupting the meeting. I suggest that the moderator be given the power to throw this clown out of the meeting (figuratively).

    He  appeared when mod's hand was forced to allow me back on the forum and his sole purpose has been to provoke me. It is difficult to take this discussion seriously.This is not one member being abusive to another. He is a TROLL and serves no purpose but to Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional …Remove him.

    #108736
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Bob Andrews wrote:
    My attitude to women is disgusting, not discusting. And I never abuse anyone – you dildo.
    #108737
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    BobAndrews wrote:
     Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit.   You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead.  No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known.  I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited The power of social media…yep.

    Is this acceptable moderation? The Troll received no warning. There are more. And I will be posting them here.   

    #108738
    moderator1
    Participant
    Vin wrote:
    BobAndrews wrote:
     Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit.   You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead.  No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known.  I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited The power of social media…yep.

    Is this acceptable moderation? The Troll received no warning. There are more. And I will be posting them here.   

    I posted a reminder straight after that post.  Which is in line with the protocol and procedure you and others agreed to.

    #108739
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    moderator1 wrote:
    Vin wrote:
    BobAndrews wrote:
     Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit.   You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead.  No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known.  I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited The power of social media…yep.

    Is this acceptable moderation? The Troll received no warning. There are more. And I will be posting them here.   

    I posted a reminder straight after that post.  Which is in line with the protocol and procedure you and others agreed to.

    It is noted that you were aware of this abuse and did not issue a warning for such a serious breach. 

    #108740
    moderator1
    Participant
    Vin wrote:
    moderator1 wrote:
    Vin wrote:
    BobAndrews wrote:
     Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit.   You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead.  No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known.  I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited The power of social media…yep.

    Is this acceptable moderation? The Troll received no warning. There are more. And I will be posting them here.   

    I posted a reminder straight after that post.  Which is in line with the protocol and procedure you and others agreed to.

    It is noted that you were aware of this abuse and did not issue a warning for such a serious breach. 

    I only issue a warning after I've issued a reminder which you and others here agreed upon to be the protocol and procedure.  These changes came about because everybody, including myself, were uncomfortable with the hard moderating of issuing warnings and suspensions willy nilly.Why am I repeating all this when you are well aware of what's in place?  This is trolling.

    #108741
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    moderator1 wrote:
    I only issue a warning after I've issued a reminder which you and others here agreed upon to be the protocol and procedure.  These changes came about because everybody, including myself, were uncomfortable with the hard moderating of issuing warnings and suspensions willy nilly.Why am I repeating all this when you are well aware of what's in place?  This is trolling.

    Just to confirm . An aggressive hurtfull obscene accusations against a member by another member of the forum would only result in a general reminder to all users?Are we to take this comment serious?  

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 294 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.