Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:Gueses on the back of a Penny Black please. Closest answer wins!
The answer is pretty much summed up here:
ALB wrote:The trouble with continually harping on about moderation on a thread is that it creates the impression that this is really what someone wants to discuss and criticise rather than the subject of the thread. Personally I find this not just a diversion but irritating, not just here but on other forums too, and normally avoid getting involved in such discussions like the plague, so I don't know why I'm posting this.You can talk about moderation as much as you like in the correct place, but to continually do so across the whole forum is just anti-social.
Re the state of moderation Ed calls me a liar and I receive a final warning. History repeating itself? There has only been ONE personal attack on that thread. Ed wrote:This is completely non-factual, what will it take for you to stop spinning these lies? The only people harping on about moderation is the moderator and Ed
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Re the state of moderation Ed calls me a liar and I receive a final warning.The warning was issued to all posters on that thread. You where not specifically mentioned nor singled out in it..
admin wrote:TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Re the state of moderation Ed calls me a liar and I receive a final warning.The warning was issued to all posters on that thread. You where not specifically mentioned nor singled out in it..
If I am included in all posters then I am warned am I not? This final warning is aimed at me as well as 'Ed' telling me that if I respond once to being attacked by one of your members I will be suspended. If this was normal and fair moderation then the warning would have been directed at the person launching the attack and not to all members who are completely innocent of such an offence on the relevent thread.
I can see that there is no rational explanation for present moderation. It is ad hoc and chaotic. There was no need for ANY moderaation or threats of suspension apart from on attack by a member but that would have been water off a ducks back if the 3 non-members of the party were not constantly threatened with suspension for being a little off topic.It is clear that moderation is focused on a small group of non-party members. Why does he not just back off and concentrate on more serious matters like personal attacks.What has happened to the Swansea recommendations?
OGW wrote:If I am included in all posters then I am warned am I not? This final warning is aimed at me as well as 'Ed' telling me that if I respond once to being attacked by one of your members I will be suspended. If this was normal and fair moderation then the warning would have been directed at the person launching the attack and not to all members who are completely innocent of such an offence on the relevent thread.A lot of people have called for soft touch moderation. The first step of which must, Shirley, be general calls to knock it off, without naming names. If infractions continue, named informal warnings, followed by named final warnings, and then banning/moderations follow.The job of the moderator isn't judicial, it's not about who started it, but keeping the forums clear of noise (and the causes of noise).If individuals feel particularly aggrieved, they can report infractions to the moderator, and ask for specific restitution, but we have all been asked not to do this on list. Just as we have been asked to not make pointless posts of the 'I agree' type. All individuals have to do is keep to a few simple rules. Don't flame, don't respond to flames. f you are aggrieved, report via the button.
pontless posts? you mean like DJP sending a picture of a giant pipe? and this guy is admin, a moderator! just could'nt make it up.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A lot of people have called for soft touch moderation. The first step of which must, Shirley, be general calls to knock it off, without naming names. If infractions continue, named informal warnings, followed by named final warnings, and then banning/moderations follow.The job of the moderator isn't judicial, it's not about who started it, but keeping the forums clear of noise (and the causes of noise).If individuals feel particularly agreived, they can report infractions to the moderator, and ask for specific restiution, but we have all been asked not to fdo this on list. Just as we have been asked to not make pointless posts of the 'I agree' type. All individuals have to do is keep to a few simple rules. Don't flame, don't respond to flames. f you are aggreived, report via the button.YMSI have always advocated a set protocol regarding moderation that starts with a call for calm etc. Along with that contact with the parties involved. If that initial call for calm fails then warnings and if needed suspension for a set length of time.Not sure were you get the idea a lot advocate soft touch moderation? But we have the complete opposite right now. We have whole threads being locked down. The moderators threatens post deletion for breaches, then locks down the thread. What logic lies behind such behaviour and what authority?But to add insult to injury, Admin's alter ego joins in on the off topic, pointless contributions, yet gets infuriated when others fail to follow the rules. That I am afraid is hypocrisy in action. On the latest lock down a whole chunk of posts have been deleted, including Admin's alter ego contribution. How convenient.I posed the question to him, that if he could not follow the guidelines, how could others be held responsible for their breaches. No answer, just lock down and wholesale post deletion.Answer that YMS and Admin.I for one woud like access to my posts from the latest locked thread.
When closing the thread started by ex member Steve Colborn admin states:"This topic has been thoroughly derailed and has therefore been temporarily locked. All comments in breach of the rules have be removed."He removed a chunk of posts because they prove that it was admin and DJP(admin) who derailed it. One memeber.The other thread locked down was a thread started by ex member vin maratty. I would like a reason for both. Take a look at the party's forum spopen off topic, criticise each other and no moderation.I doubt we will receive answers to are questions as there are none.The party has made a big mistake and has fallen behind ONE comrade and the reason is fairly obvious.
Locking threads was another option that was mooted for a 'no attribution' moderation approach. No one is blamed, but the discussion is stopped to prevent tempers flaring. Let's get on with discussing socialism. the authority is the democratic authority of the EC asking the moderators to keep the forum rules.This is an informal list, where the admin is here to join in the discussion under their own name (and to be clear when they are speaking as admin and when not).Finally, that thread had been derailed before Admin's 'C'est n'est pa une pipe' joke, which was a comment on the one preceding it (and to be quite frank, was perfectly on topic IMNSHO, even if some people did not get it).
Young Master Smeet wrote:Locking threads was another option that was mooted for a 'no attribution' moderation approach. No one is blamed, but the discussion is stopped to prevent tempers flaring. the authority is the democratic authority of the EC asking the moderators to keep the forum rules.This is an informal list, where the admin is here to join in the discussion under their own name (and to be clear when they are speaking as admin and when not).Finally, that thread had been derailed before Admin's 'C'est n'est pa une pipe' joke, which was a comment on the one preceding it (and to be quite frank, was perfectly on topic IMNSHO, even if some people did not get it).Why do you continue weaving your lies? This is as far from the truth as you can get!Even if we accept what you say – which clearly I dont – then why is it only non-members, Steve Colborn, vin maratty and socialist punk who are threatened with suspension and have their threads locked down. The only thing I agree with is"Let's get on with discussing socialism."and stop all the over the top moderation against a handful of forum members. Stop the threats of suspension and stop locking our threads down.
1) The originator of a thread does not own the thread, it belongs to the board. Thuswise, it is not for the originator of the thread to declare what is on or off topic, but for the moderator.2) Closing threads does not reflect on the originator of the thread, but on the state of discussion, and the threat to good order on the forum.3) I too was given a final warning, when the moderator issued a general one, and I didn't even take part in the thread. You don't see me complaining.4) People who jump up and down everytime the moderator makes an intervention are more likely to attract their attention than those who duck and cover.2) All Yorkshiremen are liars, you must know that.
I can see why you stand for election. You talk like every politician I have ever known.Please answer the question!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.