steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Has OGW been moderated on this site? I see his posts at, such and such a time but, no post! even 9 hours ago! Moderated or, in a moderation queue, which is it?Steve.
I certainly do feel unable to stay a member of the SPGB. On clearing my old yahoo e.mails, in preparation for cancelling my membership of all SPGB sites, I read every e.mail and the more I read, the more sure I was, that my decision was the correct one. Talk about frightening the life out of oneself. The mess and the problems were so blatant. The defence of the indefencesible doubly so. People who pride themselves on their logic, being so illogical? A farce I called it, a farce it remains. One sided all of it was, I thought I'd entered into the Politburo!Enjoy.Steve, sickened and saddened.
Have you seen my post on spintcom at 18.33 yesterday, on the "acceptable behaviour on this forum" thread"? If not, do so, if you have please take note! Steve.
Jonathan, as Brian say's KLOE is part of the scientific agenda, not mumbo-jumbo. You say it is "bloody obvious" to you. However, Brian has at least tried for a "consensus! It may sound confrontatory but I would in no way agree to you being a "moderator". Quite plainly, I do not trust you. Take that anyway you want to. I have seen your posts and they are in no way, nor do they give any believable hope, that you can have the objectivity needed by a moderator."Be nice", that has not been bourne out by your posts. So you fail at the first hurdle! It sounds to me as if you think "it's your way or it's wrong. Sorry comrade, but i do not believe you.Consistency of moderation and moderators being trained in conflict resolution is, for me, the way forward.You may not like my conclusions, I don't care but that is the only way I see this mess being put to bed, for the good of our common aim, a better, more saner society.Steve.
Not only politicians do not answer questions! That is if SP even meant politicians in his post, which, knowing him, never crossed his mind. If the discussion has degenerated to this level of, "percieved" insult, then, as you say, we have nothing to discuss here. Steve.
I see, from posts on this sight, that nothing will change. I make that assertion in all sincerity. Moderators will be allowed to, "use their judgement", and different rules for different people, for the same offence will continue.Consistency, in the way and for the reason I was using it does not mean uniformity, unless 2 people are treated differently fo the same, "offence". As for talking about, "Those who believe moderators are taking sides, have they thought about what sanctions are available against those moderators. Dismissing or resigning from the role?…i see no line of replacement moderators eager to take their place." So what are you saying, they have carte blanche to act in any way the please. I have, even if you have not, or will not admit it, seen the effect inconsistent moderation has had on this site. I have also been the "victim", using " previous, in making a pre-emptive moderation on myself, which was later overturned on appeal, on another site.Consistency on moderation, moderators rules and or guidelines to follow, would cut down on a lot of the disputes, in my view! Steve.
An ideal for a start, would be fairness and equity in moderation. This to my mind must be at the head of presentiments as to how best to run a forum. I once heard a saying that is applicable here, given the tone of the conversation; "Assumption is the mother of all cock-ups". Steve.
JC in post 70 you stated,"In the interests of good relations, SP, I'm going to ignore the personal attacks contained in your last post." I have read post 68 from SP that you refer to but, have failed to find the "personal attacks" you refer to!Could you elucidate on this please? Steve.
Brian, What I have said is highly applicable in my considered judgement. Consistency of moderation and moreover, well trained moderators to implement the "rules". No ad hoc judgements, no individual preferences as to the merits or, demerits of indivual posts or, in fact the individuals that post. This would give a "baseline" within which all decisions could be judged. If a post is outside of these, "rules", then in should be moderated in the way "moderation rules" are laid down. No room for prevarication or whatever! Steve.
Exactly as I suggested on the Forum Moderation thread. Consistency of moderation and moreover, well briefed, trained, moderators. Ideas, poopooed by YMS.A level playing field is all that people posting on the site require! Steve.
What is needed on the forum and from it's moderators is consistency. Some are called to account, for concrete and sometimes spurious reasons, while others are given carte blanche in their posts.Moderation rules would be a start, as would moderation training, conflict resolution, as mentioned, would be a good idea.As JC has mentioned above, we are human beings, individuals who have sensibilities and emotions. Who can blame another for blowing up, in the case of percieved, persistent unfairness and bias.If we had hard and fast rules on moderation the chances of the above happening would be minimal. steve.
If posts are being pre-vetted, pre-moderated or editted for content, then all who believe in free-speech and democracy should be very worried. This is nothing more than censorship of the worst kind. There are no hard and fast guidelines for moderators, so each moderator is free to "make it up" as they go along. This only leads to claims of bias, one rule for some one for another. Is it not about time "rules" of moderation were introduced? So just as there is a code for members of the forum to follow, there is the same for moderators!If the above, ie pre-vetting etc is going on, what criteria is being used?Steve.
Ok, thats put to bed for me. Sorry for harping on about. By the way, a good socialist new year to you and all socialists. Steve.
By the way Admin, "end of story" capitalised, is a "shouted" phrase. It is intimidatory and threatening in this context, doubly so when used by a moderator. Thats my last word on the subject. If the obvious truth cannot be seen and admitted to, then what is the point?Steve.
