Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote: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?
BillYou are an unpaid regulator who is trying despite the difficulties to be Mr Nice Guy. I suggested a much nicer way of going about your business which in the short and long-term will cut down on the time spent trying to please everyone. All it takes is a locked door with a great big glass panel so everybody can see what you and the disrupter is up to. There is only one rule to observe: You start talking with them and not at them! Why not give it a try and let me know what you think. That is if you think you are upto it. If you are not upto it leave well alone because you may not like how the changes such an experience will affect your attitude to human relationships.
YMSThe answer to your role play question is simple.I wouldn't have them in a mod' queue for starters. But a week is probably more than enough to cool down most situations, if handled well.What is wrong with warnings and if needed a suspension. If it happens again, the same etc etc. If piss poor behaviour is not shown up for what it is, instead of censoring it then it will prob' continue indefinitely. At some time you gotta get to the cause of the problem.And by the way, I have seen a lot of what I see as sophisticated trolling and flaming going on recently, with tag team style little comments aimed at sparking reactions.
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?
While we seem to be on the subject of role playing. Here's one.You're walking down the street and you turn a corner, only to be confronted by a scene of two people involved in a physical altercation. One of them has the other on the floor and is raining down blows.Do you :a) Ignore the situation and walk away, telling yourself that a police officer will come along sooner or later?b) Take a deep breath and attempt to stop the situation, knowing full well you could get hurt?c) Call the police? Then…..a or b?Not everyone reacts to such situations the same. Some may walk away telling themselves it will be ok, some will attempt to break up the situation. In the absence of a police officer the outcome may depend on what course you take.What you don't expect, is to intervene and find yourself in a police cell. Your good will seeing you on the wrong side of the law. That is exactly what happened originally, and it has led to here. Some do not want to look at it, but sometimes in order to fix a problem you have to look at the cause.
If you don't post or respond to flames the matter doesn't arise.
This crap has spread to the WSF. I was not allowed to say. 'cde Colborne please reconsider your resignation'. Can't talk abpout such a subject on a socialist forumEven tho' http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/26446 More piss poor moderation
Hi MattUnfortunately we are social creatures that often can not help coming to the assistance of others, when we think an injustice is taking place.
Matt wrote:If you don't post or respond to flames the matter doesn't arise.But users are being encouraged to apply an element of self-regulation, are they not? So by your reckoning by not directly responding and pointing out an infringement has occurred does this count as self-regulation? Because the logic of your response is that all such infringements should be left to the moderators by resorting to the report button.I know Matt it's a tricky one and you don't have to respond. Cos if you do I may well be accused of flaming. Lol.
Brian:But users are being encouraged to apply an element of self-regulation, are they not?Matt:I call it self-discipline.B:Because the logic of your response is that all such infringements should be left to the moderatorsM:#Quite so. Nothing wrong with that. The original offences are then isolated and highlighted.#B:by resorting to the report button.M:Hardly necessary, (If # above is noted) once the mod is allowed to do the job. Persistant use of this button is harrassment. The site is still being built up by Darren and he has to come into this. He put up the moderation queue as a possible solution to people feeling aggrieved about being banned (it wasn't taken into account members would behave like big weans even as we were trying to assess the first complaint, when we eventually got it) and then has to answer to queens counsel style Robert Jay grillings 'how long', 'how many warnings'.We are just volunteers.I wouldn't dish out any warnings, you are all big boys and girls. I might just volunteer for the job now we have a moderation mechanism. The department has good back-up and a trained conciliater amongst them, but without good will from posters, allied to self discipline, then nothing can be done other than what has been already been done. The department does learn, continues to learn and we even give each other robust interrogation, minus Robert Jay, when occasional stuff happens.
Matt wrote:Brian:But users are being encouraged to apply an element of self-regulation, are they not?Matt:I call it self-discipline.B:Because the logic of your response is that all such infringements should be left to the moderatorsM:#Quite so. Nothing wrong with that. The original offences are then isolated and highlighted.#B:by resorting to the report button.M:Hardly necessary, (If # above is noted) once the mod is allowed to do the job. Persistant use of this button is harrassment. The site is still being built up by Darren and he has to come into this. He put up the moderation queue as a possible solution to people feeling aggrieved about being banned (it wasn't taken into account members would behave like big weans even as we were trying to assess the first complaint, when we eventually got it) and then has to answer to queens counsel style Robert Jay grillings 'how long', 'how many warnings'.We are just volunteers.I wouldn't dish out any warnings, you are all big boys and girls. I might just volunteer for the job now we have a moderation mechanism. The department has good back-up and a trained conciliater amongst them, but without good will from posters, allied to self discipline, then nothing can be done other than what has been already been done. The department does learn, continues to learn and we even give each other robust interrogation, minus Robert Jay, when occasional stuff happens.MattCan we stop quibbling about terms and just agree that self-regulation and self-discipline are welcome bedmates? Like I've previously stated the introduction of the moderation queue caused more problems than it was worth because it was simply closing the stable door after the horse had bolted! Now the Internet Dept. are stuck with the consequences of that rash move.We are all on a learning curve and I must say its been very enjoyable and very interesting from my end even to the extent of writing up a 7+ (i've not quite finished as yet) page report on this dismal affair. I do hope the considerable length of the report does not put anybody off from joining us both on this wonderful learning curve and the end result proves to be a positive outcome for the introduction of a basic framework for a 'socialist netiquette' . Because has we both know its long overdue, for this particular discussion must have been going on for at least 3 years to my reckoning.Anyways, if you ever come across that guy Robert Jay just give him a stare that will make him shite in his apologetic capitalist trewsers. But whatever you do don't mention the report button because that will most certainly put the cat amongs the pigeons, cos it was his work that contributed to the development of a complaints procedure which was grabbed with both hands by capitalism. And what a pain that is! Lol.
It's not as if we've not been here before as this extract from the Proceedings of Annual Conference 2008 shows. What did Marx say about when history repeats itself?
Quote:MOTION 9 [Vote 13]: (EARB) "This conference rules that Spintcom and Spopen should not be moderated".Stevens (EARB) on opening referred the meeting to their statement. She had been impressed by democracy in the Party. Moderation appears to go against this. There is a culture in the Party which ignores disputes.Donnelly (Glasgow) Non moderation a disaster, it is not like a letter. I've been moderated, essential, too easy to press SEND button, ends up like school kids bickering. The idea is that we can communicate with workers throughout the world. We have lost speaking opportunities, outdoor meetings. We lack a real activity; we are turning in on ourselves. If we could get together there would be no time to bicker. The moderators are doing a difficult job, though we don't go in for praising members in the Party these two should be.Foster (WMRB) he agreed with moderation but suggested a trial period of non-moderation, to see if it works.Morris (Manchester) is appalled at the abuse, especially over petty things, if she had been a new member she would have resigned. If in dispute ring up and talk privately. On the Internet we look stupid.Shannon (Lancaster) his branch astounded at this view, patently not true that we have grown up, that's why we have Chairs, not amazing that it's happening on e-mail. This is passive/aggressive behaviour, blood crazed imbeciles. This is not about openness, this is about licence. Democracy doesn't mean no rules. Maybe we should have a late night breathalyser test.Chesham (Central London) On e-mail there is no comparison between a Chair and moderation, they offend first. Moderation is inconsistent, outrageous things said but not moderated, other mild ones get moderated. We are looking for a future society without moderation. Abused members have no redress, its still happening. Doesn'tsubscribe to moderation as present set up, they should be accountable.Carr (SWRB) if it's not working properly, then tighten up.Hart (South London) branch also opposed. The Charter should be adhered to.Johnson (Swansea) Swansea are also opposed. There should be more strictness. Since the EC reminded the Moderators, things have been better. The more we fight among ourselves the less we are focussing on outside activity. If not moderated we will be said to be a crowd of undisciplined hooligans.Stair (Non Delegate) There are two reasons for this on the agenda. One, personal abuse and two lets listen to what people have to say,. The attitude lets sweep everything under the carpet, lets not get to the route of the problem and deal with it. Sees personal abuse as being action detrimental.Buick (West London) This idea is bonkers, a recipe for Anarchism. If we experiment into non moderation, public face would make us look stupid, one member has unsubscribed another is in limbo. We could see other ways to moderate, e.g. anyone who sends a message could get an answer "Do you really want to send this?" Quoted Conference Standing Orders 15 and 14.Stevens (EARB) winding up asked what does Comrade Buick have to hide.VOTE: FOR 21. AGAINST 81. NOT CARRIED.The problem at the moment is about discrimination and bias but if we are not allowed to talk about it we you will not solve the problem. For example Participants: Matt and TheOldGreyWhistle TheOldGreyWhistle03/02/2013 – 10:47am Hello Matt as a member of the Int Dept – Why is the discussion on Freedom Press Firebombed on spintcom being allowed to continue without moderation? I have been warned on many occasions that this is a business mailing list and yet here are members trying to test support to offer finance to another organisation. vin marattyDelete message Matt03/02/2013 – 2:39pmIt may well be a part of business or potential business.5 comrades seem to think so.I have no idea until I see the EC minutes.Delete messageBlock author TheOldGreyWhistle03/02/2013 – 3:31pmMattthe Int Dept twist things anyway you wish. It is legiimate party business and not a waste of volunteers time to discuss giving money to an outside organisation but it is not legitimate business and a waste of volunteers time to discuss censorship, moderation and why members are leaving the party. The party's resources and forums belong to Cde Colborne and myself as much as they do to wriggerley, Shannon or Buikvin marattyDelete message Matt03/02/2013 – 3:39pmIf you have a complaint about spintcom or spopen moderation bring it up by addressing it to,spgb.moderators@worldsocialism.org There is no abuse here. But the opinion is being censored. TOGW
ALB wrote:It's not as if we've not been here before as this extract from the Proceedings of Annual Conference 2008 shows. What did Marx say about when history repeats itself?Quote:MOTION 9 [Vote 13]: (EARB) "This conference rules that Spintcom and Spopen should not be moderated".Buick (West London) This idea is bonkers, a recipe for Anarchism. If we experiment into non moderation, public face would make us look stupid, one member has unsubscribed another is in limbo.We currently have moderation and the situation is every bit as bad, possibly worse, than if we hadn't. Anyway, I'm all in favour of anarchism but possibly not quite the same variety you had in mind.
ALB wrote:It's not as if we've not been here before as this extract from the Proceedings of Annual Conference 2008 shows. What did Marx say about when history repeats itself?Quote:MOTION 9 [Vote 13]: (EARB) "This conference rules that Spintcom and Spopen should not be moderated".Johnson (Swansea) Swansea are also opposed. There should be more strictness. Since the EC reminded the Moderators, things have been better. The more we fight among ourselves the less we are focussing on outside activity. If not moderated we will be said to be a crowd of undisciplined hooligans.Stair (Non Delegate) There are two reasons for this on the agenda. One, personal abuse and two lets listen to what people have to say,. The attitude lets sweep everything under the carpet, lets not get to the route of the problem and deal with it. Sees personal abuse as being action detrimental.Buick (West London) This idea is bonkers, a recipe for Anarchism. If we experiment into non moderation, public face would make us look stupid, one member has unsubscribed another is in limbo. We could see other ways to moderate, e.g. anyone who sends a message could get an answer "Do you really want to send this?" Quoted Conference Standing Orders 15 and 14.Stevens (EARB) winding up asked what does Comrade Buick have to hide.VOTE: FOR 21. AGAINST 81. NOT CARRIED.I remember that particular Conference well and I still stand by those words which by the way stimulated me to write up this report for Swansea Branch. The truth is this is not history repeating itself, far from it. In fact its an extension of the problems of moderation we then had with spintcom and spopen. And if I remember correctly even then it was concluded that if we failed to sort out the problem of moderation on such a low level of traffic things did not look pretty for the party in the future when we introduced a website with a forum functionality.Nearly five years on and we eventually decided to dip our foot in water after the WSM Forum run out of steam. That move was a bit hasty imo. For we are now confronted with much the same problems we had in 2008 but on a much different level and scale for with the party forum we are much more open to public scrutiny and hopefully to participation.Nevertheless, despite the present acrimony, I'm confident a solution will be arrived at much sooner than we think.
SocialistPunk wrote:While we seem to be on the subject of role playing. Here's one.You're walking down the street and you turn a corner, only to be confronted by a scene of two people involved in a physical altercation. One of them has the other on the floor and is raining down blows.Do you :a) Ignore the situation and walk away, telling yourself that a police officer will come along sooner or later?b) Take a deep breath and attempt to stop the situation, knowing full well you could get hurt?c) Call the police? Then…..a or b?Not everyone reacts to such situations the same. Some may walk away telling themselves it will be ok, some will attempt to break up the situation. In the absence of a police officer the outcome may depend on what course you take.What you don't expect, is to intervene and find yourself in a police cell. Your good will seeing you on the wrong side of the law. That is exactly what happened originally, and it has led to here. Some do not want to look at it, but sometimes in order to fix a problem you have to look at the cause.Actually I think if you intervene and call your friends in to help the person who instigated the fight and then attack the police I think that you're probably looking at 3-5 first offense as the police will treat it as a gang related incident.As a side note where do party members stand on one member accusing another of a serious offense.For instance lets say member A accuses member B of being a pedophile or a rapist or an undercover cop.What should happen in an instance like that?What should happen if one forum member says to another forum member that they'd like to smash their teeth in?Shall I tell you what happened in these cases. Nothing, at least not to the perpetrators. It's the victim who gets blamed, it's the victim who gets called things like ignorant hooligan, it's the victim who is accused of action detrimental to the party for destroying the (non-existent) north east branch, it's the victim who is blamed as the cause of the trouble by the internet department and it is the victim who is blamed by the EC. It's the victim who nobody listens to and it's the victim who's not received one friendly word of support from anyone.That my comrades is the reality of events
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.