Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:To summarise what is suggested in the Swansea Branch report: Initial infringements be covered by an 'Attention Notice' being posted.Continual infingements be covered with a First, second and final warning being posted.Where infringements are clearly of a more severe nature this process can be by-passed either by issuing a notice of moderation, or a suspension.All moderation to be carried out under a committed locked thread.
Well you could have saved yourself a lot of time since what you are describing is the situation we have at present (minus moderation queues).FYI A 'locked thread' is a thread in which no-one can comment.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:To summarise what is suggested in the Swansea Branch report: Initial infringements be covered by an 'Attention Notice' being posted.Continual infingements be covered with a First, second and final warning being posted.Where infringements are clearly of a more severe nature this process can be by-passed either by issuing a notice of moderation, or a suspension.All moderation to be carried out under a committed locked thread.Well you could have saved yourself a lot of time since what you are describing is the situation we have at present (minus moderation queues).FYI A 'locked thread' is a thread in which no-one can comment.
Not quite. Previous to the Swansea Branch report an 'Attention Notice' was only used on one occasion. Since the report its been used twice! To my knowledge first, second and final warning(s) have never been used on this forum, neither has a committed locked thread. What has been used and which is proving to be detrimental to the discussion of the socialist case is a moderation queue – that's turning into a never ending squabble over what in actual fact constitutes an infringment!Its time a line was drawn to bring this bickering to an end so we can move on and start discussing improvements and efficiency without the bothersome distraction of a cumbersome moderation queue hovering in the background.There is no problem with a locked thread, all the key holder has to do is to unlock it to post the correspondence. Of course no-one can comment on a locked thread other than the user under moderation and the moderator. Which means in effect both are under scrutiny and subject to all the implications this carries with it.
Well all, come Saturday, or when at last my form F will be accepted or processed, mods will have one less "problematic poster" to deal with, as I will not be involved on the forums. Some may be breathing a sigh of relief, none more than me!Steve.
Hi MattGood to hear you are getting some success on the BBC and Guardian blog chat. Hope it continues.You said:
Matt wrote:The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?As for your words below:
Matt wrote:A queue forms when mods are busy elsewhere. Some mods work from their desks all the time, or are super efficient, so can speedily deal with stuff. Others like me, are away for varying lengths of time so the queue can build up. Others have slow connections and so on so can't just login and on when they like or have a busy caseload doing website stuff so have to ration out specific tasks.I think that pretty much demonstrates the flaw with moderation queues. The human element. It can see posts sit in a queue for hours.I do not know about you but I like to read what people have to say on any thread I choose to follow. In the past month or so I have seen posts by OGW appear as being the last one posted, only to find his post is not there to read. At times his post has appeared, hours later, other times never to appear at all. I find that very frustrating and insulting to be aware that I am not being allowed to read a post. I am interested in what others have to say. I may not like it, but I would like to be able to make my own mind up regarding the merits or faults of any contributions.How do you explain the often human failings that can lead to an error or inconsistency in vetting posts. A moderator may pass a comment one day and fail to pass a similar comment another day, leaving the moderated member with no idea as to what they are allowed to post or not.The supporters of censorship in the party seem to fail to take into account the main reason that censorship ever came into existence in the first place. It exists to control that which the audience can be exposed to, mainly out of fear it may spark an undesirable reaction. A reaction that historically has been seen as a threat to the religious or political elite of the time.I suspect censorship among the SPGB has more to do with reducing argumentative infection on its online sites.This then becomes a moral issue. Looks like the mods just don't trust us lot to behave ourselves!?
What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?
admin wrote:I also intend to add functionality which will make it possible for posts from certain users to go into a moderation queue before being published.As one of the two victims of the 'slow torcher' I would like to say that since returning from my suspension I have not been abusive to any one and yet I have had dozens of posts rejected. Does anyone really believe I am annoyed because admin will not let me post abusive comments?Some may have been repetitive because of the frustration at having good posts ignored and the refusal of admin to speak to me about them. The concept of a Moderation queue is open to abuse. The 'outside world' only sees what moderation wants them to see. Forum members have 'popped' in and negatively commented on me and admin has refused to publish my 'on topic' and non abusive response. This has been going on for some time and is unforgivable for one comrade to do such a thing to another.All the nonsence about abuse, spam etc is a whitewash. This has been a premeditated and planned attack on the free speech of *certain* membersI will not remain in a party with such 'moderation'. It is nothing but censorship.
I' ll answer you Adam about what I want! I want consistent, unbiased and fair moderation across the board, nothing more nothing less. For anyone who thinks that is what has been happening, a look at quite a few threads and posts over the last few months prove otherwise. If this still cannot be seen, a trip to the local branch of specsavers may help. Steve.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:All the nonsence about abuse, spam etc is a whitewash. This has been a premeditated and planned attack on the free speech of *certain* membersI will not remain in a party with such 'moderation'. It is nothing but censorship.What views do you think you have (or have tried to express) that the premeditated plan attackers want to suppress? Why are you worth censoring?
Young Master Smeet wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:All the nonsence about abuse, spam etc is a whitewash. This has been a premeditated and planned attack on the free speech of *certain* membersI will not remain in a party with such 'moderation'. It is nothing but censorship.What views do you think you have (or have tried to express) that the premeditated plan attackers want to suppress? Why are you worth censoring?
Why are you asking me? Surely the moderators know why they have 'moderated' me. Why don't you ask them?
If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?
ALB wrote:What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?After a couple ofd warnings sure you could start at 72 hours. If that doesn't work a week. If that doesn't work a fortnight, a month, 2 months, a quarter. In my personal opinion that's still better than moderation queues, especially for the length of time OGW has been in it. If you're suspended at least you're properly removed from the argument it gives time for the dust to settle and tempers to cool. If you're waiting for your posts to be checked every single time that's going to be more aggravating, for me at least. It also creates needless extra work and an extra reason to get pissed off with the moderators. I think for these reasons most forums I've ever been on don't use moderation queues.
Ed wrote:If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?I don't think that's a fair analogy. A discussion forum is not a publication. A better analogy would be If I chaired a public forum at the BBC with the SPGB, SWP, Conservative Party and the BNP but I did not let the SPGB speak because I opposed their opinion, would that be censorship?
Ed wrote:ALB wrote:What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?After a couple ofd warnings sure you could start at 72 hours. If that doesn't work a week. If that doesn't work a fortnight, a month, 2 months, a quarter. In my personal opinion that's still better than moderation queues, especially for the length of time OGW has been in it. If you're suspended at least you're properly removed from the argument it gives time for the dust to settle and tempers to cool. If you're waiting for your posts to be checked every single time that's going to be more aggravating, for me at least. It also creates needless extra work and an extra reason to get pissed off with the moderators. I think for these reasons most forums I've ever been on don't use moderation queues.
Thanks Ed, I could not have summarised the argument better myself.
Ed wrote:ALB wrote:What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?After a couple ofd warnings sure you could start at 72 hours. If that doesn't work a week. If that doesn't work a fortnight, a month, 2 months, a quarter. In my personal opinion that's still better than moderation queues, especially for the length of time OGW has been in it. If you're suspended at least you're properly removed from the argument it gives time for the dust to settle and tempers to cool. If you're waiting for your posts to be checked every single time that's going to be more aggravating, for me at least. It also creates needless extra work and an extra reason to get pissed off with the moderators. I think for these reasons most forums I've ever been on don't use moderation queues.
Well said!
Ed wrote:If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?Neither actually, imo more of a case of applying a certain standard. Which is the main reason its called just that: Socialist Standard.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.