Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Hi AdminI was wondering about moderation warnings on this site. Would you be able to inform the forum as to how long a warning stays active?Thanks.
It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offenses may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behavior.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.
Well that seems to have answered part of the question which leads me to ask: How many posts does it take to demonstrate a change in posting behavour? 2,3,4,5,6, or even more? Or does it vary depending on the user under moderation?
As the only person on moderation perhaps I can help here. I have made a number of posts which have been rejected. All were on topic, non abusive and did not attack a members integrity. So what criterion is being used. By the way I cannot see a single problem with this post, if anyone else can then please point it out and let me know thanksTOGW
Brian wrote:DJP wrote:It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offenses may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behavior.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.Well that seems to have answered part of the question which leads me to ask: How many posts does it take to demonstrate a change in posting behavour? 2,3,4,5,6, or even more? Or does it vary depending on the user under moderation?
How long is a piece of string? Your questions would be better addressed to the misbehavers surely.
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:DJP wrote:It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offenses may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behavior.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.Well that seems to have answered part of the question which leads me to ask: How many posts does it take to demonstrate a change in posting behavour? 2,3,4,5,6, or even more? Or does it vary depending on the user under moderation?
How long is a piece of string? Your questions would be better addressed to the misbehavers surely.
OK let me reform the question. In order to lift moderation queues does the user have to demonstrate there's a change in posting behaviour with 2 posts in succession, or 3 posts in succession, or 4 posts in succession, etc, etc? Is there a common criteria applied to all users? If not what are the reasons for this?
Gnome,You and admin have decided Cde Colborn and myself have 'misbehaved'. We are on moderation or suspension and cannot point out where you are wrong. Can you explain why this comment is 'misbehaving'? Can you show me a comment I have made since being on moderation as 'misbehaving'You have stated in the past that the party will have to put itself before the interests of 'a few disaffected and dissatisfied members'.You and others who control this forum have obviously made an undemocratic decision to do this. You continue to do and say whatever you wish on this and other party forums without any comback. Admin has removed evidence and silenced members. The membership will find out. TOGW
The following exert comes from the last paragraph of the Int Dept report into OGW's second suspension. "Note: On the internal Party forums hosted by Yahoo, there is a facility for moderators to place users' posts in a queue for moderator attention. This is used when someone has been deemed to be abusive. It means that for a short time, when the moderated user posts a new message, it goes first of all to the moderator, rather than the forum. This allows the forum to remain clear of escalating problems, like slanging matches, etc. It also allows the moderator to discuss off-line with the user the reasons for the moderator's action. Such a system is not yet in place on the website forum, but is being developed for use as soon as possible. While it may not prevent problems arising in the future, it will at least build in a safety valve." And this from from the first post on this thread.
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. This would provide an alternative option to suspension for moderators.Yet a member has recently been suspended. A relevant question to ask is, will the recently suspended member be placed in a mod' queue after he has served his suspension, as happened to OGW?
SocialistPunk wrote:The following exert comes from the last paragraph of the Int Dept report into OGW's second suspension. "Note: On the internal Party forums hosted by Yahoo, there is a facility for moderators to place users' posts in a queue for moderator attention. This is used when someone has been deemed to be abusive. It means that for a short time, when the moderated user posts a new message, it goes first of all to the moderator, rather than the forum. This allows the forum to remain clear of escalating problems, like slanging matches, etc. It also allows the moderator to discuss off-line with the user the reasons for the moderator's action. Such a system is not yet in place on the website forum, but is being developed for use as soon as possible. While it may not prevent problems arising in the future, it will at least build in a safety valve." And this from from the first post on this thread.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. This would provide an alternative option to suspension for moderators.Yet a member has recently been suspended. A relevant question to ask is, will the recently suspended member be placed in a mod' queue after he has served his suspension, as happened to OGW?
To assume that the introduction of a moderation queue "will at least build in a safety valve" is missing the point entirely. A safety valve needs to be introduced before a moderation queue is even under consideration. Clearly, the introduction of a moderation queue is to admit the damage has already been done and to assume it will act like a safety valve is like closing the door after the horse has bolted! In fact like events happening here are proving the introduction of a moderation queue is not providing a positive solution but actually becoming a distraction from the main issue of placing moderation under scrutiny from the word go! So we can democratically establish what works and what don't work in line with our democratic decision making process and DPD can we stay focused on suggesting improvements and not on moderation procedures which have already proven to be faulty and wanting.I'm all for a "safety valve" being introduced, but right at the start of an infringement being notified to a moderator. And lets be clear the safety valve should also be an invite to conflict resolution rather than posing as a continual threat of further regulation and sanctions which is exactly the purpose of a moderation queue.And Yahoo ffs they are nothing but a bunch of profiteering fascists bastards. Indeed, if we adopted their type of software the disputes would still take place behind closed doors and not be open to public scrutiny. In fact we already have the means of openly conducting a dispute on the forum by using a locked thread exclusive to the moderator and user.Think on it, all party disputes are open to public scrutiny, but resolved by the party membership with documentation. Why should the moderation procedure on this forum be any different?
Well said, Brian. We certainly don't want a Yahoo type forum. We are a unique democratic organisation and our forum rules – when matured – will be unique in that sense.TOGW
OK, let's try a little roleplay:
A wrote:: I'm a pacifist.B wrote:Pacifists are no better than fascists.A wrote:Are you calling me a Nazi?B wrote:If the cap fits…A wrote:Arsehole.Moderator wrote:Knock it off, the pair of you: this is a warning.B wrote:Why are you warning me, you fascist, A abused me.A wrote:Coz you're an arsehole.Moderator wrote:Right, you're both on moderation.OK, a little vignette. How long would each stay on Moderation? As long as it takes, is the short answer. Suppose A's next post is on the same thread
A wrote:I am a pacifist, but I am also an anarchist, I believe in standing up to the friends of power, who would use the fascist bogey to pursue their own authoritarian ends.Such a post might get through, it's not in violation of the forum rules, but, in the Mod's opinion it is carrying on the dispute, and A is showing no sign of letting it go. B posts on a different thread entirely, but snarks the Mod. B, though, has form and has been under moderation on several occasions.In my opinion both would stay under moderation until it was clear the heat had died down, and both had shown that they were not itching to get back at each other's throats…
Young Master Smeet wrote:OK, let's try a little roleplay:A wrote:: I'm a pacifist.B wrote:Pacifists are no better than fascists.A wrote:Are you calling me a Nazi?B wrote:If the cap fits…A wrote:Arsehole.Moderator wrote:Knock it off, the pair of you: this is a warning.B wrote:Why are you warning me, you fascist, A abused me.A wrote:Coz you're an arsehole.Moderator wrote:Right, you're both on moderation.OK, a little vignette. How long would each stay on Moderation? As long as it takes, is the short answer. Suppose A's next post is on the same thread
A wrote:I am a pacifist, but I am also an anarchist, I believe in standing up to the friends of power, who would use the fascist bogey to pursue their own authoritarian ends.Such a post might get through, it's not in violation of the forum rules, but, in the Mod's opinion it is carrying on the dispute, and A is showing no sign of letting it go. B posts on a different thread entirely, but snarks the Mod. B, though, has form and has been under moderation on several occaisions.In my opinion both would stay under moderation until it was clear the heat had died down, and both had shown that they were not itching to get back at each other's throats…
I have to admit that your "little vignette" is a short sharp shock and to the point but it fails miserably in bringing the conflict to a peaceful conclusion because your intervention was based on regulating sanctions and punishment and not on conflict resolution. It may well appear that you have archieved a positive result but when you start scratching the surface all you are left with are the bare bones that there's a continuing risk of much the same situation rearing its ugly head in the near future.On the other you could have nipped the whole affair in the bud right at the beginning by pointing out to both of them that if they continued their anti-social behaviour their conduct whilst on moderation would be open to public scrutiny on a locked thread. In 'plain english' its called shaming but for those of us who daily deal with such childlike behaviour it's called 'best practice' because it works in the majority of cases.Take care and have a good day.
I was, necessarilly, abbreviating a much longer process: however, I believe what is depicted is not punishment, but an enforced time-out. It was specifically to address the point of how long people stay on moderation. The answer being, as long as needful. I'm sure a moderator would take public apologies when heads have cooled into account. I have to ask, though, how much time we're expecting moderators to put in?
YMSThat is not really the problem. What is the solution to the following scenario?: Participants A, B, C , D and E A wrote“Something needs doing in the party, we are doing something wrong” B wrote“A ,Why don’t you back up your bullshit or take your crap elsewhere” A wrote“I am trying to make the party appeal to workers” B wrote“ Sounds like incessant whinging to me, dare you bring your views down to London” C wrote“Where is admin? This is abusive and threatening “ B wrote“Cry me a fucking river pal you lot love to dish it out but you run away crying anytime anyone gives it back.” C wrote“Why is admin not doing anything about this?” Admin issues a general warning to B and 'others' C wrote“which others?, There is only one using abuse and threats here” C is suspended. and upon his return C tries to point out the imbalance . E writes“we only need to be nice to each other. Stop being childish C and D” C writes. "You don't understand.the situation" C is suspended D wrote“What is going on B was to blame, not c”D is suspendedThe logic being used here is that C and D are a participants in the dispute. The solution was a swift response to B
So, what was wrong with my last two posts?
Brian, it seems my last 2 posts failed the 'moderation' test. 11.37am 1/2/13 YMSThat is not really the problem. What is the solution to the following scenario?: Participants A, B, C , D and E A wrote“Something needs doing in the party, we are doing something wrong” B wrote“A ,Why don’t you back up your bullshit or take your crap elsewhere” A wrote“I am trying to make the party appeal to workers” B wrote“ Sounds like incessant whinging to me, dare you bring your views down to London” C wrote“Where is admin? This is abusive and threatening “ B wrote“Cry me a fucking river pal you lot love to dish it out but you run away crying anytime anyone gives it back.” C wrote“Why is admin not doing anything about this?” Admin issues a general warning to B and 'others' C wrote“which others?, There is only one using abuse and threats here” C is suspended. and upon his return C tries to point out the imbalance. E wrote“we only need to be nice to each other. Stop being childish C” C wrote. "You don't understand.the situation. This is what happened" C is suspended D wrote“What is going on, B was to blame, not c”D is suspended The logic being used here is that C and D are a participants in the dispute. The solution was a swift response to B Second PostIn reply to YMS. Who has Insinuated that I am at the moment moderated because I continue with abuse.I have been on moderation for some time and had many posts rejected. Yet admin cannot supply me with ONE abusive or offtopic post! What sort of moderation is going on now?
A 'glass panel' at the moment would embarrass the moderators!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.