Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules
- This topic has 70 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Let me give you an example, member 'a' is suspended after 1 warning. Member 'b' is not suspended after 3 warnings. The moderator is applying the rules – he can suspend or he need not suspend. Another example. member 'a' uses 'abusive language' on 10 posts and is not warned. member 'b' uses abusive language on 1 post and receives warning. He complains that this is unfair and he is suspended for doubting the intergrity of the moderator. The suspension has happened. member 'b' cannot appeal to Conference retrospectively. The rules need to be specific and fair. Not general as they can and have been abused.
Those are not questions of rule, but of implementation. Sometimes a moderator gets it wrong, sometimes they get it right. With practice, they'll improve, and they'll learn. After all, a football referee makes similar judgement calls: sometimes a player can persistently trip or dive, and get away with it, sometimes a player will get caught first time. Different referees apply the same rules in subtly different ways. Despite the best will, and training, in the world, such things happen. There are appeal procedures, not least the court of public opinion, but the result of the match still stands, and that's all as can be done. You can't legislate these problems away, you just work round them.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.No ta, I'm sticking with general principles, other people are looking at the case, tens of person hours are already being spent on it, I don't need to add mine.
Young Master Smeet wrote:No ta, I'm sticking with general principles, other people are looking at the case, tens of person hours are already being spent on it, I don't need to add mine.I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?I suppose the time I have spent is not as important! I spend and have spent 100s of 'person hours' for the SPGB and socialism.You obviously believe that some 'person hours' are more important than others. Why do you think I am 'wasting' MY person hours' on this subject?Because an undemocratic and prejudicial party cannot be a vehicle for socialism. You are clearly prejudicial.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.DJP wrote: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.moderator1 wrote:You were informed on November 13th that the Internet Department and the EC are looking into your complaint. If you are not satisfied with the outcome you are at liberty to pursue the matter at Conference via a branch of your choice.You are again reminded that these lists are not the place to question the integrity of other members; the correct complaints procedure having been outlined to you on several occasions.I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. It has been stated ad nauseum (see the two immediate posts above for example) that the complaint by OGW is being investigated through the appropriate channels. I suspect that all this ridiculous charade is achieving is deterring members and others from visiting this forum and everyone who 'keeps the pot boiling' is contributing to the process and Admin needs to put a stop to it.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.DJP wrote: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.moderator1 wrote:You were informed on November 13th that the Internet Department and the EC are looking into your complaint. If you are not satisfied with the outcome you are at liberty to pursue the matter at Conference via a branch of your choice.You are again reminded that these lists are not the place to question the integrity of other members; the correct complaints procedure having been outlined to you on several occasions.I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. It has been stated ad nauseum (see the two immediate posts above for example) that the complaint by OGW is being investigated through the appropriate channels. I suspect that all this ridiculous charade is achieving is deterring members and others from visiting this forum and everyone who 'keeps the pot boiling' is contributing to the process and Admin needs to put a stop to it.
Admin? Please apply rules fairly. This is not a charade. My integrity?gnome's complaint should be made to the moderator. He doesnt HAVE to read my posts.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?I suppose the time I have spent is not as important! I spend and have spent 100s of 'person hours' for the SPGB and socialism.You obviously believe that some 'person hours' are more important than others. Why do you think I am 'wasting' MY person hours' on this subject?Because an undemocratic and prejudicial party cannot be a vehicle for socialism. You are clearly prejudicial.I'm actually being the opposite of prejudicial, I'm leaving the case to judgement, rather than sticking my oar in. I'm not discussing your case with you, as I've said several times, I'm talking in general about the principles of having a moderated forum.
gnome wrote:I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. I suspect that all this ridiculous charade…I think this proves my point. gnome receives no warning.Moderation is cleary bias.'person hours' are NOT being wasted.Informing the EC has not yet assisted this problem
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I think this proves my point.In fact all this proves is that I am not plugged into the internet or this forum 24/7.However as my attention was flagged. To review some recent postings, in post #18:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?in post #22:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Moderation is cleary bias.and in post #22
gnome wrote:I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. [..]I suspect that all this ridiculous charade…Do any of these comments break any of the rules? Rule 6 : "Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated." however in this case I don't think the rule has been broken, borderline at best, though post 18 would seem to be the worst offender.To continue the football analogy, I remind posters to "play the ball, not the person"
LOL. That is some contortion!
moderator1 wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Comrade, perhaps you would have a change of opinion if YOU were suspended for nothing. Banning someone from a forum should be a last resort. Are you suggesting that the moderator should have the right to ban someone who offers an opinion he disagrees with? The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension. It is left to the mederator's whim.You were informed on November 13th that the Internet Department and the EC are looking into your complaint. If you are not satisfied with the outcome you are at liberty to pursue the matter at Conference via a branch of your choice.You are again reminded that these lists are not the place to question the integrity of other members; the correct complaints procedure having been outlined to you on several occasions.
Tell me what is wrong with the OGW comment you quote? How does it question the integrity of members?
admin wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I think this proves my point.In fact all this proves is that I am not plugged into the internet or this forum 24/7.However as my attention was flagged. To review some recent postings, in post #18:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have obviously no sympathy from you. Your comment is laden with prejudice. Have you thought why? When you know nothing about the case! Why are you discussing with me when your mind is already made up? Are you trying to 'wind me up'?in post #22:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Moderation is cleary bias.and in post #22
gnome wrote:I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. [..]I suspect that all this ridiculous charade…Do any of these comments break any of the rules? Rule 6 : "Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated." however in this case I don't think the rule has been broken, borderline at best, though post 18 would seem to be the worst offender.To continue the football analogy, I remind posters to "play the ball, not the person"
I think this post needs to be considered by the IC as it is obvious which one is abusive and agressive. Post 22 also calls for a comrade to be silenced which to me flies in the face of everything I stand for and I hope the party
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I think this post needs to be considered by the IC as it is obvious which one is abusive and agressive. Post 22 also calls for a comrade to be silenced which to me flies in the face of everything I stand for and I hope the partyWhich is exactly what you did to me you hypocrite! All for saying the word shit. Pathetic
Ed,I did not want you silenced. I have always said moderation is required if members are threatening and abusive. I would not want you silenced for saying 'shite' and in fact I don't want gnome to be silenced. I was just making a point as I am always being warned myself. I just want the rules to be fair.
The correct procedure for making a complaint has been outlined many times. Twice previously in this thread. If anyone wants to query a moderation decision they are free to do so, but complaints will not be looked into until a formal complaint is received.
gnome wrote:I for one am frankly getting pissed off with the mindless repetition. It has been stated ad nauseum (see the two immediate posts above for example) that the complaint by OGW is being investigated through the appropriate channels. I suspect that all this ridiculous charade is achieving is deterring members and others from visiting this forum and everyone who 'keeps the pot boiling' is contributing to the process and Admin needs to put a stop to it.ed wrote:Which is exactly what you did to me you hypocrite! All for saying the word shit. PatheticWould I receive a warning if I said this to another member?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.