Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote: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?
I wasn't trying to be analogical, more just trying to work out the boundries of what we mean by censorship. I find the use of the term in the context of an internet forum to be hyperbolic which for me detracts from the merit your argument may have. Anyway no offence intended, it was just something that popped into my head, a trivial comment.
As everybody seems to be agreed, let's do it, i.e. revert to the original position on this forum where the only sanction was suspension. I'm sure the moderators too would be relieved if they didn't have to monitor the posts of anyone on moderation.
Afraid from where I stand, you are not talking about the whole problem Adam! I've been consistent all the way. I would like to see inconsistent, unfair, biased and immoderate moderation dealt with as well as moderation queues etc. Something that seems to be being lost and overlooked. Steve.
Make up your mind, Steve. What do you want: a practical solution to the problems that have arisen or the moderator's head on a plate?
ALB wrote:As everybody seems to be agreed, let's do it, i.e. revert to the original position on this forum where the only sanction was suspension. I'm sure the moderators too would be relieved if they didn't have to monitor the posts of anyone on moderation.Hey hang about its not about using moderation, but the use of moderation queues which is under examination. Even if the forum were to revert back to just applying suspensions it would just be reverting back to the same old problems where the degree of severity of infringements was immaterial because one size fitted all infringements. Such harsh methods of sanctions just drove people away from the discussion.Obviously, you could apply 2, 3, 4, etc, days of suspensions to reflect the severity but once the user returns to the forum very little if anything is learned from the experience. And it would possibly still drive people away. Whereas with moderation the user can if they so wish place themselves on a daily learning curve to reach an understanding on what standard of behaviour is expected of them.What really needs to be considered is how long the moderation can last, because even if the moderation queue is no longer used there is still the possibility of moderation carrying on for months rather than a couple of weeks. A possible solution is to allow the infringer only 3 postings to get into line and when the final posting fails to achieve this an automatic suspension follows. Which obviously would then reflect the severity of the infringement with a 2, 3, 4, etc days of suspension being applied.We really need to devise a methodology which attracts people to the forum by allowing them every opportunity to get to grips with the implications of 'socialist netequitte'.
Methodology, smetholodology. Don't complicate things. We don't need a complete scale of infringements and sanctions. It's simple. If you call someone a "fucking arsehole" twice, you're sent to the sin bin for a couple of days.
Bloody hell, I seem to be missing all the action. I'm away for a few hours and the suggestions are coming thick and fast. I am pleased to be reading this stuff though. Seems like the penny has dropped.Brians' suggestions are going to be put before the EC on Saturday and now Ed has come up trumps.I'm gonna add my ideas in here as well. I see mine as a mix of Brians' and Eds'. Here we go.The way I see it we should be aiming to create a socialist space here on the net. A place where enquiring minds of all varieties are welcomed. A space of learning. Not a place that turns people away, not just from the forum but from the party as well. Unfortunately this is what has taken place. We don't want a repeat.Hopefuly these suggestions should go some way to guiding members and moderators and so allow the protection of both while maintaining maximum freedom to contribut to the forum.For starters. No moderation queues or retrospective post deletion. Obviously, any spam that gets through or legally problematic stuff gets nuked. But genuine contributions stay. Off topic and a little heat need not be a problem. It happens all the time on this forum and only occasionally becomes an issue. To go around removing off topic and inflammatory remarks from the forum will leave the site looking like a declassified government document.So as most will by now know I am in favour of a warning and suspension system. Where I advocate time lengths, I will refrain from suggesting the actual lengths. I will leave that to the EC and Int Dept to decide. But before I start fully I must emphasize that I advocate communication as the overriding principle at work. Without effective communication conflicts will never be resolved. We should be aware that Socialism relies on communication and co-operation. We should never forget this.1) An initial non warning intervention by a moderator to call for calm. The opportunity should be taken for the moderator to asses the situation.2) If situation persists a 1st warning is issued to any offenders.3) Further breaches result in a 2nd warning.4) The next intervention becomes a suspension of set length.5) All reasons for warnings and suspensions are given openly with references to offences. As well as reference to penalties for further breaches. Events need to be recorded by moderator, for future reference as it will help in the delivery of consistent moderation and information being made available quickly in case of appeal.6) Moderators need to seek to engage in dialog with any involved parties at all stages, in an attempt to find resolution before further escalation. This could be done via private message or specific thread. 7) Warnings and suspensions should have a set length of time before they "expire". No making up different lengths for different people. This should reduce the likely hood of accusations of bias.
If a member returning from suspension acts up, the process starts again. A situ whereby it becomes evident a forum member intends only to deliberately disrupt for the sake of it may arise. Leading to the next point.9) A set number of suspensions are allowed (e.g. no less than 3). If a repeat offender emerges and reaches the alloted amount of suspensions, then a moderator may ask the Int Dept for permission to close the offenders forum account.10) The repeat offender has the right of appeal to the EC. If they wish to return to the forum then they are free to submit reasons they wish to do so as well as any supporting evidence if necessary to explain their position, as to reasons why they were unable to accept forum rules and etiquette. It is a little like an ex member rejoining. If they have had issues over disagreement with the party, they are required to explain why they wish to return and show the same disagreement no longer stands.11) If the ultimate sanction of account closure is to be used, then suspensions need to have an in built term of expiry. No dragging up a suspension from a year ago to stack up with any newer suspensions to be used to warrant account closure. The ultimate sanction needs to be used only against deliberate repeat offenders who demonstrate only a desire for disruption.ALB wrote:Methodology, smetholodology. Don't complicate things. We don't need a complete scale of infringements and sanctions. It's simple. If you call someone a "fucking arsehole" twice, you're sent to the sin bin for a couple of days.And after coming out of the sin bin and they call some one else a "fucking arsehole" making it 3 "fucking arseholes" all told does that mean they get 3 days in the sin bin? Lol. A methodology can be simple or complex and I've made it plain in my reply to Matt I go for the simple one which provides for conflict resolution and is sufficiently flexible to fit the circumstances. Where a suspension is only used when an infringement is severe or a user is continually exhibiting anti-social behaviour. But if – like you seem to be suggesting – only a system of suspensions were used wont this go against the Conference resolution? Just suspending people is not exactly moderation is it?
SocialistPunk wrote:For starters. No moderation queues or retrospective post deletion. Obviously, any spam that gets through or legally problematic stuff gets nuked. But genuine contributions stay. Off topic and a little heat need not be a problem. It happens all the time on this forum and only occasionally becomes an issue. To go around removing off topic and inflammatory remarks from the forum will leave the site looking like a declassified government document.So as most will by now know I am in favour of a warning and suspension system. Where I advocate time lengths, I will refrain from suggesting the actual lengths. I will leave that to the EC and Int Dept to decide. But before I start fully I must emphasize that I advocate communication as the overriding principle at work. Without effective communication conflicts will never be resolved. We should be aware that Socialism relies on communication and co-operation. We should never forget this.1) An initial non warning intervention by a moderator to call for calm. The opportunity should be taken for the moderator to asses the situation.2) If situation persists a 1st warning is issued to any offenders.3) Further breaches result in a 2nd warning.4) The next intervention becomes a suspension of set length.5) All reasons for warnings and suspensions are given openly with references to offences. As well as reference to penalties for further breaches. Events need to be recorded by moderator, for future reference as it will help in the delivery of consistent moderation and information being made available quickly in case of appeal.6) Moderators need to seek to engage in dialog with any involved parties at all stages, in an attempt to find resolution before further escalation. This could be done via private message or specific thread.So you see no need for moderation in its current form and therefore no need for a 'committed locked thread' either. Which on reflection simplifies my suggestions even further and it also retains conflict resolution with the moderators engaging in a dialog with the offender. I can go along with that although it means a programme of quality training being established. Which should not be a problem.
Make up your mind, Steve. What do you want: a practical solution to the problems that have arisen or the moderator's head on a plate?Thanks Adam, you've just proved a thought I had! Read the following, "Afraid from where I stand, you are not talking about the whole problem Adam! I've been consistent all the way. I would like to see inconsistent, unfair, biased and immoderate moderation dealt with as well as moderation queues etc. Something that seems to be being lost and overlooked." Does the above state I want anyones head on a plate? I've consistently stated what I would like to see. Yet you traduce me, why What kind of agenda are you running that you would "dare" accuse me of the above?Yes, I've had fall-outs with moderators, but to suggest this, I would previously thought beneath you!Retract it, it was, I thought, unworthy of you. Please tell me it is?Please retract this unworthy accusation Adam. Steve.
Glad to hear that, Steve. I gladly retract what I said. It was not meant to be taken literally. Let by-gones be by-gones is what I say, and let's start again.
steve colborn wrote:Afraid from where I stand, you are not talking about the whole problem Adam! I've been consistent all the way. I would like to see inconsistent, unfair, biased and immoderate moderation dealt with as well as moderation queues etc. Something that seems to be being lost and overlooked. Steve.This is worth repeating because it is being and has been ignored. It's as if it is unthinkable.I would add that it would clarify matters if members of the SPGB were allowed to wear only one hat on the forum.
If no one favoures mod queues then why…….(the rest of this sentence is not allowed)
Actually, as you know, this allegation is not being ignored. At your request, and on the basis of what you have been able to provide, it is being examined in another place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.