Forum Moderation
- This topic has 118 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Brian, is there something wrong with the forum connection? I ask because a post from OGW does'nt seem to be appearing! Steve.
steve colborn wrote:Brian, is there something wrong with the forum connection? I ask because a post from OGW does'nt seem to be appearing! Steve.I have no idea why OGW posts are not appearing. With a post from him appearing yeseterday I thought he's no longer under moderation. But if he's still under moderation unfortunately he's back in the queue.This is a problem I highlighted previously in that we have no idea on how long moderation can last and on what basis/criteria is it lifted.
My reply to Alan has not satisfied the moderator. Is this not further evidence against Alan's belief that forum moderation is Ok?
I have made posts along these lines but i can see no other term than censorship: My reply to Alan has not satisfied the moderator. Is this not further evidence against Alan's belief that forum moderation is Ok.
I think moderation should indicate when a post is unsuitable and give reasons why it has not appeared. I have had a number of posts rejected and I don't know why.
This not moderation. I don't know why he has sut me up again
In the true spirit of reconciliation and free open debate all my recent posts have been dumped by moderation
Brian, OGWs name has disappeared completely from the frontpiece of this thread, can you find out what is going on please, Steve.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed. I happen not to think so and I support the proposition that flexibility is required in the way a moderator conducts the task, not rigidity, and any attempt to impose strict rules will only result in future acrimony. The lover in me says it is always a matter of different strokes for different folks. I leave unbending laws and fixed penalties to bourgeois courts and the lynch mob to those who seize upon any fallibility in the moderator to prove a bias.Am i wrong in stating that the Internet Department and the EC have become embroiled in this debate. That other members have in the past contributed in support of the moderator and reproached the manner of critics have exercised themselves. Just who was it who charged other members of a geographic prejudice, which verges upon accusing them of racism? But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted.Alan,It appears you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you state, "It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed"; yet on the other you state, "… … … intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate and is to be regretted." You cant have it both ways, and to be fair with this typical contradiction you are endorsing what this thread is all about. In that the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Indeed, what I regret about this whole affair is that the moderators were very slow in reacting and when admin did eventually take action they put the wrong user under moderation! Then once they realized they had made a mistake it then took them several days to correct that mistake. By then the damage had already been done and further acrimony was stirred up both here and on spintcom. If that small episode alone does not say that the moderation on this forum is broken and flawed what will it take to convince you it is?Nobody on this thread is even discussing the need for "unbending laws" or even the need for strict regulation. In fact nobody is disagreeing with your suggestion for a 'light touch' to be adopted on the first intervention. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone currently on this thread would or could agree with your further suggestion for applying "different strokes for different folks" for that plainly won't work here for this is a public forum and not spintcom or spopen where a quick word to the known user is easily applicable.It would be appreciated if you could explain what you actually mean by "fixed penalites" and how you see it is in conflict with moderation procedure.Plainly, this being a public forum it requires a set of guidlines and rules which not only reflects our commitment to Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) and freedom of expression but also includes a procedual outcome which does its utmost to ensure that moderation is done evenly, openly and fairly. In a nutshell and also in plain english its commonly called 'best practice'. And yes I will be bringing this sorry mess to the attention of Swansea (which is the reason why I started this thread) and if they are unwilling to take up the baton then unfortunately this particular discussion is going to continue until another Branch states enough is enough. The party membership have to eventually acknowledge this sad state of affairs needs to be sorted.
steve colborn wrote:Brian, OGWs name has disappeared completely from the frontpiece of this thread, can you find out what is going on please, Steve.I have no idea what you mean by, "frontpiece of this thread". Please note that OGW has posted up a new thread under General Discussion which in my book don't make sense if he's still under moderation on this thread. I'll contact admin to try and find find out what's occurring.
Brian wrote:the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Brian, do you have any concrete evidence to back up this assertion? Unless you've managed to hack into the internet departments emails you cannot. I, and no doubt the other 5 members of the commitee, take strong offence at this comment.By "both sides of the debate" I believe Alan was referring to those who "contributed in support of the moderator" and the accusers. If any of the moderators have made contributions using "intemperate and inexcusable language" I would like to see them.PS. If people want to send private messages to each other please use the message feature and not a forum comment.
Participants: admin and Brian Brian27/01/2013 – 8:42pmCan you please tell me if OGW is still under moderation. I ask because on the one hand he's posted a new thread under General Discussion yet on the other hand his posts are not appearing on the Forum Moderation thread.Delete messageadmin27/01/2013 – 8:46pmNewI can confirm that OGW is still under moderation. Posts by him that are in line with the rules are being republished in due time.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Brain, do you have any concrete evidence to back up this assertion? Unless you've managed to hack into the internet departments emails you cannot. I, and no doubt the other 5 members of the commitee, take strong offence at this comment.By "both sides of the debate" I believe Alan was refering to those who "contributed in support of the moderator" and the accusers. If any of the moderators have made contributions using "intemperate and inexcusable language" I would like to see them.PS. If people want to send private messages to each other please use the message feature and not a forum comment.
No I've not managed to hack into the Internet Dept. emails nevertheless I thank you confirming that indeed the Internet Dept. do have concrete evidence of this assertion. That aside, for concrete evidence to back up this assertion may I refer you to the whole of this thread: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-and-website-technical-issues which for me and other users conclusively illustrates that the moderators have acted and reacted in an ad hoc manner.I never implied or inferred in my post that any of the moderators used "intemperate and inexcusable language. In fact I can't recall anyone here or elsewhere suggesting such a notion.And my apologies for the lapse in not replying to Steve by PM.
Reading this thread, is like trawling through treacle. Why has OGWs post still not been allowed. No prevarication, no bullshit! If he is still in a "moderation queue" why is this the case? How long does this retrogressive action continue for? Can you tell me how long, OGW will be under this, "moderation queue"?A cogent and sensible and moreover rational apply would be appreciated.Steve.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.