Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Totally agree SP! Think before one leaps has to be the motto. Or more to the point, engage brain before issuing "edicts".
Hi Admin,Could you help clarify something that I have read on another forum regarding a member of this forum being suspended from this forum indefinitely?I would very much appreciate a reply to this question.I am sure others who are reading this would like an answer as well, because if it is correct it affects us all.Thank you for your time.
I can confirm that no-one has been suspended indefinitely. A full report will be issued from the internet department in due time.
Hi AdminI am looking for clarification regarding the below post from yourself on Dec 11th.
Admin wrote:ADMIN NOTE: TheOldGreyWhistle has been banned for continual offtopic comments and flaming. See Post #60 above.The member in question, The Old Grey Whistle, as far as I am aware still has not been allowed back on this forum.Is the ban mentioned above permanent?
In case any one is interested OGW has been on suspension for 12 days so far.I was under the impression the usual was 7 days.I am interested in what is going on.An explanation would be appreciated from Admin?
OGW now has posting rights restored on the understanding that use of the forum implies acceptance of the rules.
Thanks for letting us know. Much appreciated.I would be interested to know if there are any rules regarding length of suspensions etc. I am sure I was not alone in thinking the usual length for suspension was seven days, yet we saw a member suspended for longer?
It seems 'rules' and 'moderation' have been replaced by whim. I was suspended indefinitely by admin because of post #60 in the thread Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules but when I appealed to the Internet department it took two weeks for them to build a case to justify the censorship and post #60 was not used as justification! Why? Because there was nothing wrong with it! If the party wishes to censor some members, then the reason for censorship should be clearly stated and justified at the time of the suspension.
That isn't going to happen OGW.The worrying trend seems to be, to pretend that censorship is not censorship. So there becomes no need to give a reason for something that is not being done. Perfectly logical, wouldn't everyone agree?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I was suspended indefinitely by admin because of post #60 in the thread Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules but when I appealed to the Internet department it took two weeks for them to build a case to justify the censorship and post #60 was not used as justification! Why? Because there was nothing wrong with it!Hi there,There's been a mix-up of post numbers here. Admin also sees unpublished posts, which in this case means that what we see as post number #59 he actually sees as post #60…As for the report, please remember that it was not only concerned with your appeal, but it began a few days prior to that in response to an email complaint you sent on 10th December. In other words, the scope of the report grew…It's certainly unfortunate that these things take time – none of us are full-time workers for the Party. And producing a report by committee is also time-consuming – not all members are online each day, so sometimes there is a delay waiting for someone to finish their work commitments etc. That may, of course, point to a problem in the procedures in place.Also, the suspension was not indefinite, hence your post on here today
pfbcarlisle wrote:Hi there,There's been a mix-up of post numbers here. Admin also sees unpublished posts, which in this case means that what we see as post number #59 he actually sees as post #60… Also, the suspension was not indefinite, hence your post on here todaynevertheless post #59 is no worse than post #58. Action on post #58 showing fairness, may have prevented post #59. "ADMIN NOTE: TheOldGreyWhistle has been banned for continual offtopic comments and flaming. See Post #60 above." no time indicated. One can only assume this means indefinate. The Internet Department altered its position after I argued my case and I was allowed back on the forum after 12 days. It is time to admit errors, improve the administration of the forum and move on.
pfbcarlisle wrote:It's certainly unfortunate that these things take time – none of us are full-time workers for the Party. And producing a report by committee is also time-consuming – not all members are online each day, so sometimes there is a delay waiting for someone to finish their work commitments etc. That may, of course, point to a problem in the procedures in place.I know I speak for a large number of comrades who are greatly appreciative of the tremendous amount of work that you, Rob, and the other members of the Internet Department; Darren P, Mark, Matt, Rob S and Tristan, do for the party and hopefully will continue to do into 2013 and beyond.
Yes, well done comrades and not forgetting other comrades for example in Glasgow, Manchester and the North East of England to name but a few who have put in a tremendous amount of work for socialism. And of course past members of the party who left for various reasons
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.