Who moderates the moderators?
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Has there ever been an open discussion in the WSM about the role of 'moderators or have we blindly accepted the definition of a moderator supplied by the Orwelian organisation 'Yahoo'?
I ask because Cde Colborn has been ‘moderated’ on the SpOpen forum for this comment:
“Indeed there is Simon and it's called CAPITALISM. You know the story, treat us
like mushrooms, keep us in the dark and feed us BULLSHIT!
Paddy's idea is, from my prospective, very innovative indeed. We need more of
this.”I myself was gagged when I tried to ask why!!?
I have heard worse language in a Catholic church
How can you deny a forum member from asky 'why?'
These are socialist forums and we should not be applying capitalist forum rules. Leave that to the fascists at Yahoo. I don’t want my comments looked at by the ‘moderator’ before being allowed to speak.
I believe 'moderation' is being misused.It is not being used to prevent abuse, It is being used to stifle discussion and delete 'awkward' questions the moderator does not want to answer or the Party does not want public.
Why am I not allowed to speak on my party's forum. Even if I write to the EC about it in December my complaint will be passed around and in the meantime 'moderators' rule
Comrade,The moderator of a web forum / mailing list performs the same function as the chair in a physical meeting and as such is subject to the same rules of recall.In this case you are wrong concerning your perceived reasons causing the mentioned member to be put on moderation.You have been informed today via that the internet department and the EC are looking into a complaint put forward on your behalf.I would also remind you that these lists and forums are not the place to question the integrity of other members, the correct complaints procedure has been outlined to you on several occasions.
I disagree that the moderator is the same as a chairperson. Forums are nothing like meeting as you yourself pointed out in the past. If I believe a member is acting in an undemocratic manner it is my responsibility as a socialist to question it. Darren on spopen attacked cde Colborn's integrity by claiming he abused comrades. I merely ask for evidence where he abused cdes. I have been accused of the same thing in the past and I will ask again – Where have I used abuse against cdes. My integrity was being attacked but you never spoke out about it. Why not?
DJP wrote:I would also remind you that these lists and forums are not the place to question the integrity of other members, the correct complaints procedure has been outlined to you on several occasions.Am I to take that as a threat that if I continue to say things you don't like you will use your power to silence me?
Comrade you can say what you like even if I don't like it. Just don't criticize the integrity of other members on the list, hardly an unreasonable request.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I disagree that the moderator is the same as a chairperson. Forums are nothing like meeting as you yourself pointed out in the past. If I believe a member is acting in an undemocratic manner it is my responsibility as a socialist to question it.Quite true, there is an important distinction to be made here. A chairperson at a meeting is often elected by those present and can be removed in much the same way. It has been a long-standing gripe of mine that those who moderate party forums (with the comparatively recent exception of the WSM 'yahoo' forum) are neither elected nor appointed. OK, there is a process of redress available for those who feel they have been treated unfairly which tends to be rather cumbersome and convoluted; a more efficient method of "moderating the moderators" might be to require them to be directly accountable to, and recallable by, the Executive Committee.
gnome wrote:It has been a long-standing gripe of mine that those who moderate party forums (with the comparatively recent exception of the WSM 'yahoo' forum) are neither elected nor appointed. OK, there is a process of redress available for those who feel they have been treated unfairly which tends to be rather cumbersome and convoluted; a more efficient method of "moderating the moderators" might be to require them to be directly accountable to, and recallable by, the Executive Committee.Why not raise it at ADM if you feel strongly about it?I'd sooner NOT be moderating but alas it does occaisonally seem to be necessary.
DJP wrote:gnome wrote:It has been a long-standing gripe of mine that those who moderate party forums (with the comparatively recent exception of the WSM 'yahoo' forum) are neither elected nor appointed. OK, there is a process of redress available for those who feel they have been treated unfairly which tends to be rather cumbersome and convoluted; a more efficient method of "moderating the moderators" might be to require them to be directly accountable to, and recallable by, the Executive Committee.Why not raise it at ADM if you feel strongly about it?I'd sooner NOT be moderating but alas it does occaisonally seem to be necessary.
Don't get me wrong DJP; I'm not questioning the integrity of any particular member, least of all yours. However, it is important for anyone performing a task on behalf of the party, particularly the onerous one of moderator, to be democratically accountable in the fullest sense and that cannot be satisfactorily achieved by someone, including myself, merely 'assuming' a role.
DJP wrote:Comrade you can say what you like even if I don't like it. Just don't criticize the integrity of other members on the list, hardly an unreasonable request.I am afraid that is an unreasonable request.My own integrity has been questioned and not commented on. "Maratty abused other forum member 3 times despite warnings" – UNTRUE"Maratty referred to members of the party as police infiltrators" – UNTRUE"Maratty is the cause of this Forums problems – UNTRUE"it is because of Maratty we may lose the forum" – UNTRUE"Maratty and the north east mafia" – Give me a break!"Maratty is wasting volunteers time" – Does anyone believe that I get paid forall the graft I have put into the party? integrity:"adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty." I reserve the right to question the integrity of party officers and members in a powerful position, if I feel the need. I dread to think of a party in which its members can't question if a party officer is being honest!
Clearly there is confusion here. I, myself, do not know why I have been moderated on the spopen site! Is it for abusing a member, capitalisation, or questioning a fellow members integrity. From my perspective, only one of these could possibly apply to me, the issue of capitalisation and as I have explained, I was not aware capitalisation was seen as shouting according to internet etiquette.I have also told the person who moderated me that I feel my moderation had something to do with the fall-out from events in October. With a little bit of tact, diplomacy and empathy my moderation on spopen would have been unnecessary.Finally, thank you for the support I have received from various comrades.
Vin wrote : Who moderates the moderators?Has there ever been an open discussion in the WSM about the role of 'moderators or have we blindly accepted the definition of a moderator supplied by the Orwelian organisation 'Yahoo'?
I think Vin raises a valid point here. Here is a link to my wordpress site regarding my experiences with the US based Marxmail list. Moderation is generally an inherently autocratic process. This could be easily remedied by the institution of appropriate socialist democratic structures and procedures on sites http://spmay.wordpress.com/farewell-to-marxmail/ please feel free to circulate this document (including to Marxmail where I am unsubbed) or any other document on my two wordpress sites to other socialist sites. http://shaunpmay.wordpress.comhttp://spmay.wordpress.com Shaun
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.