Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote: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.
Hi BrianSorry for the delay in replying.That about sums it up. Current moderation clearly is not working. The moderation queue and post deletion seem to be creating more problems than they solve. I am also aware that the current system has no concern for communication that seeks conflict resolution, despite Admins' claim that the current system is "a human approach".For me communication, conflict resolution would be the key element. I also imagine if some form of training could be made available it may help to reduce the incidence of moderators inadvertently inflaming situations.I am a little unsure about your locked thread suggestion. Would it see an offender unable to contribute at all, on the forum?At the end of the day the EC has a number of suggestions to work with and I am sure they have some of their own. So there should be no excuses for not replacing the current mess with a more equitable, open and accountable system of forum moderation.
SocialistPunk wrote:Brian wrote: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.Hi BrianSorry for the delay in replying.That about sums it up. Current moderation clearly is not working. The moderation queue and post deletion seem to be creating more problems than they solve. I am also aware that the current system has no concern for communication that seeks conflict resolution, despite Admins' claim that the current system is "a human approach".For me communication, conflict resolution would be the key element. I also imagine if some form of training could be made available it may help to reduce the incidence of moderators inadvertently inflaming situations.I am a little unsure about your locked thread suggestion. Would it see an offender unable to contribute at all, on the forum?At the end of the day the EC has a number of suggestions to work with and I am sure they have some of their own. So there should be no excuses for not replacing the current mess with a more equitable, open and accountable system of forum moderation.
Hi Stephen,The locked thread changes nothing in regards to the present moderation procedure other than all communications are transparent and open to scrutiny.I hope that the EC reflect on the facts that this subject has generated 3 separate threads on this forum and one on Spintcom, resulting in hundreds of posts and thousands of views. These facts speak for themselves and is a strong indication that this is not the time for them to drag their feet by requesting further reports; etc. The EC need to take some positive action to resolve the problems and issues we have discussed here for several months. Which I'm sure has left many of us physically and mentally exhausted to such an extent that we desperately need 'that breath of fresh air' which accompanies the indication of a positive change in the right direction.
Amen to that Brian.I am not even a party member and I have spent more time on this matter than I care to admit. This moderation problem has been the cause of two members handing in their form F and has turned off several sympathisers, perhaps more, myself being one of them with an on forum trashing of respect and trust being the final nail in the coffin.So I hope the EC do not drag their feet. It is an opportunity for the party, and I hope it isn't wasted.All the best.Stephen
SocialistPunk wrote:So I hope the EC do not drag their feet. It is an opportunity for the party, and I hope it isn't wasted.It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster branch.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:So I hope the EC do not drag their feet. It is an opportunity for the party, and I hope it isn't wasted.It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster branch.
Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference.
Is it now OK to discuss 'internal party business' such as conference resolutions on this forum?. I have always been in favour of this and I certainly would not refer to it as 'disruption'.We may actually be seen as an open democratic organisation with nothing to hide.
Is it now OK to discuss 'internal party business' such as conference resolutions on this forum?. I have always been in favour of this and I certainly would not refer to it as 'disruption'.We may actually be seen as an open democratic organisation with nothing to hide.
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch.Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference.
You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:gnome wrote:It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch.Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference.
You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."
Great news. I'm sure all present will have a robust and vigorous discussion on this topic, with the clear intention of ensuring improvements are put in place to attract non-party and party members to the forum.Tis a pity its not going out on Skype or TS 3.
Or 'disruptive behaviour' ?
Sat, 02/03/2013 – 2:53pm#150gnome Brian wrote: gnome wrote: It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch. Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference. You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer." Does this mean fair, equitable and unbiased moderation? or did you not ask Lancaster Br whether this was their intention! If this is not the case and members of Forums are to be banned far quicker and for longer, then this will change nothing but make the moderation and by definition and abstraction, the moderators, even more Draconian and lead to even "more serious" claims of censorship!Steve.
There is a little matter of members of the Lancashire Branch coming on this forum, (as it affects all who use it, non party members also) to explain their position. Hopefully they won't just limit the discussion on SPintcom. Open democracy is the name of the game, is it not?
Hopefully, it will not remain undiscussed until conference time because, as SP states, this issue affects non-members as much as members! So a little discussion on this Forum would be helpful to all "concerned"! Steve.
Absolutely!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.