Indefinite Suspensions

[SocialistPunk]

Seeing as another "indefinite suspension" has been dished out on the forum, I was hoping that Moderator 1 or anyone from the Internet Department/Committee, would be willing or able to explain just how long an "indefinite suspension" lasts?

Is the first "indefinite suspension" a certain length of time, the second longer and so on? 

Thanks.

[SocialistPunk]

Weirdly I was not aware of Vin's indefinite suspension when I set this thread up. It was intended with reference to LBirds recent suspension as a result of his spat with Vin.However the original question about indefinite suspensions, how long they last and how that is determined, still stands. There must be some structure that is used to determine the length of a suspension? It can't be an arbitrary process, surely?

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Weirdly I was not aware of Vin's indefinite suspension when I set this thread up. It was intended with reference to LBirds recent suspension as a result of his spat with Vin.However the original question about indefinite suspensions, how long they last and how that is determined, still stands. There must be some structure that is used to determine the length of a suspension? It can't be an arbitrary process, surely?

Each suspension is determined on what is appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances.  All posters who are supended are notified by email of their suspension and the process, if they are unaware of it, for lodging a complaint against the suspension.

[SocialistPunk]

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Weirdly I was not aware of Vin's indefinite suspension when I set this thread up. It was intended with reference to LBirds recent suspension as a result of his spat with Vin.However the original question about indefinite suspensions, how long they last and how that is determined, still stands. There must be some structure that is used to determine the length of a suspension? It can't be an arbitrary process, surely?

Each suspension is determined on what is appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances.  All posters who are supended are notified by email of their suspension and the process, if they are unaware of it, for lodging a complaint against the suspension.

Arbitrary it is then.

[SocialistPunk]

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Weirdly I was not aware of Vin's indefinite suspension when I set this thread up. It was intended with reference to LBirds recent suspension as a result of his spat with Vin.However the original question about indefinite suspensions, how long they last and how that is determined, still stands. There must be some structure that is used to determine the length of a suspension? It can't be an arbitrary process, surely?

Each suspension is determined on what is appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances.  All posters who are supended are notified by email of their suspension and the process, if they are unaware of it, for lodging a complaint against the suspension.

Ok, so what is deemed "appropriate and acceptable"?Exactly how do moderators decide on what is acceptable, when it comes to suspension times, of different posting violations. Being "off topic" is a very mild violation, verbal abuse is more serious and then worse still there are threats. Then there are what could be described as inbetween violations such as low level "trolling". Then what about repeat offenders of "off topic" or low level "trolling". Do repeat offenders receive escalating suspension times?If I were a moderator I would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that length of suspensions were left up to my discretion, without any guidelines.Take a hypothetical case of a forum member being suspended previously for derailing a thread with "off topic" posting, not quite sure how one person derails a thread with "off topic" posting, but for the sake of argument lets say they can. They serve their time, whatever is deemed appropriate. They come back and start once more to single handedly derail threads. They just wont shut up and no matter how much other members argue with them and tell them to go away, they continue. A number of members complain, some even call for the offender to be banned altogether. So faced with the single handed thread derailer up to their old tricks, the moderator has to suspend them again.Now, what length of suspension is appropriate for a single handed, serial, thread derailer? Does a moderator take into consideration the personal views of some forum members, in determining the length of suspension? What about other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, how many previous suspensions etc? Without guidelines to work within, sentencing becomes an ad hoc affair, or in other words "appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances". But as we all know, what is "appropriate and acceptable" to some is not to others. Hence the need for agreed guidelines.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Ok, so what is deemed "appropriate and acceptable"?Exactly how do moderators decide on what is acceptable, when it comes to suspension times, of different posting violations. Being "off topic" is a very mild violation, verbal abuse is more serious and then worse still there are threats. Then there are what could be described as inbetween violations such as low level "trolling". Then what about repeat offenders of "off topic" or low level "trolling". Do repeat offenders receive escalating suspension times?If I were a moderator I would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that length of suspensions were left up to my discretion, without any guidelines.Take a hypothetical case of a forum member being suspended previously for derailing a thread with "off topic" posting, not quite sure how one person derails a thread with "off topic" posting, but for the sake of argument lets say they can. They serve their time, whatever is deemed appropriate. They come back and start once more to single handedly derail threads. They just wont shut up and no matter how much other members argue with them and tell them to go away, they continue. A number of members complain, some even call for the offender to be banned altogether. So faced with the single handed thread derailer up to their old tricks, the moderator has to suspend them again.Now, what length of suspension is appropriate for a single handed, serial, thread derailer? Does a moderator take into consideration the personal views of some forum members, in determining the length of suspension? What about other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, how many previous suspensions etc? Without guidelines to work within, sentencing becomes an ad hoc affair, or in other words "appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances". But as we all know, what is "appropriate and acceptable" to some is not to others. Hence the need for agreed guidelines.

There are agreed guidelines for moderation and suspensions.  Unfortunately, due to them being in PDF I'm unable to post them here.  For a copy of these guidelines please contact Admin.  When applying a warning or suspension, to any user, I do not take into consideration the personal views of any forum member. On the other hand if the I.C. or the EC where of the opinion that my actions were unacceptable and inappropriate in a particular instance I would of course take that on board.  But so far I've had no complaints from either. However, when applying the rules I do consider other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, and how many previous suspensions etc.  If I failed to do this I would not be moderating in an acceptable and approriate manner. Nonetheless, whatever rules and guidelines are drawn up there will always be some who would never find them "appropriate and acceptable".

[PJShannon]

moderator1 wrote:

There are agreed guidelines for moderation and suspensions.  Unfortunately, due to them being in PDF I'm unable to post them here.  For a copy of these guidelines please contact Admin.

They can be viewed here:https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=en

[moderator1]

That link don't seem to work.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

… whatever rules and guidelines are drawn up there will always be some who would never find them "appropriate and acceptable".

 That is good, I don't find the rules of the wages system  "appropriate and acceptable". It is what motivates us to change things  

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

However, when applying the rules I do consider other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, and how many previous suspensions etc.  

 Why should bad moderation be held against a user? Excessive suspensions might not be the user's fault. As far as forum rules are concerned perhaps they need changing via the democratic process  Discipline   "the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.We should not get carried away with this definition

[PJShannon]

moderator1 wrote:

That link don't seem to work.

That's because our secure connection has to be self certified. Choose "trust this certificate" or you can access the link unsecured here:http://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=en

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks for getting back to me Mod' 1.I'm glad there are some guidelines for moderators, and I've used the link provided by Admin, #11 (thanks Admin), to read through them. I was a bit surprised to find that they are particularly vague when it comes to any system of dealing with rule enforcement.I understand the role of the moderator is to interpret whether or not forum rules have been broken, but I had thought some sort of system regarding warnings and suspensions would have been put in place, a standard procedure, for all moderators to follow with regards warnings and suspensions.Without a standard procedure for warnings and suspensions it is conceivable two moderators could adopt different practices regarding moderation. For example one moderator may issue more reminders before launching into warnings, while another may go straight into warnings. Then there is the issue of how many warnings and length of suspensions for similar breaches that again could differ between moderators. Imagine the potential for a messy situation whereby two moderators with different systems working different shifts, come into contact with the same offender. Does the second moderator continue with the first moderators system or use their own? With no standard procedure there is no consistency and it should be obvious to most that in the absence of consistency there is potential for confusion, misunderstandings and problems. When it comes to interpreting what is or isn't a rule breach is of course up to the individual moderator/s. Of course some will disagree with moderator interpretations of what constitutes a rule breach, that is inevitable. However with no standard procedure in place for dealing with rule breaches, moderators are left further open for potential accusations of bias. In my opinion that is something that could and should be reduced wherever possible. I might have missed something, but in the link to the guidelines for moderators, provided by Admin, I found no reference to any standard procedure. There is also the possibility that I'm talking a load of bollocks. If I am I would appreciate a heads up. 

[moderator1]

A standard procedure of coordination regarding uniformed moderation will of course be put in place if and when further members step forward and give a hand here.  Until that happens I have to work with what is available regarding breaches of the rules and how they are enforced.  

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks once more for replying Mod 1, much appreciated. I'm not having a go at your moderation, just pointing out a potential flaw or two in the system, or to put it more accurately, lack of a standard procedure. You say that a standard procedure will be put in place, if and when other volunteers come forward to lend a hand. That sounds great, if a little lacking in foresight given the lessons of the past, except the actual guidelines refer to "moderators", the plural not singular. That to me suggests the guidelines were intended to cover all moderators, whether operating singularly on Party sites or in a team.  The three strikes and your on indefinite suspension system, is in use on this forum. I would be interested to know what the other Party sites are using, if anyone knows?

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Thanks once more for replying Mod 1, much appreciated. I'm not having a go at your moderation, just pointing out a potential flaw or two in the system, or to put it more accurately, lack of a standard procedure. You say that a standard procedure will be put in place, if and when other volunteers come forward to lend a hand. That sounds great, if a little lacking in foresight given the lessons of the past, except the actual guidelines refer to "moderators", the plural not singular. That to me suggests the guidelines were intended to cover all moderators, whether operating singularly on Party sites or in a team.  The three strikes and your on indefinite suspension system, is in use on this forum. I would be interested to know what the other Party sites are using, if anyone knows?

Sorry for the delay in replying. Good point regarding a 'common' standard procedure is not being applied to all Party sites.  I'll put that suggestion to the I.C. a.s.a.p. or any further suggestions which will make the moderator(s) approach more uniform in application.

[Author]

Posts