Moderation Suggestions

[lindanesocialist]

mcolome1 wrote:

I did not know that he had said that the members of the Socialsit Party are fascists. I do not agree with that expression. 

Nor does Vin and myself.  it is regrettable. But as I say the suspension and the EC instruction to the IC and ADM recommendation is not about open criticism of the Party. The matter is being raised to cloud the issue. I would not and could not accuse a member of being 'deceitful'  and 'talking bilge'  I would consider such comments come under ;abuse' 

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

I did not know that he had said that the members of the Socialist Party are fascists. I do not agree with that expression. 

Nor does Vin and myself.  it is regrettable. But as I say the suspension and the EC instruction to the IC and ADM recommendation is not about open criticism of the Party. The matter is being raised to cloud the issue. I would not and could not accuse a member of being 'deceitful'  and 'talking bilge'  I would consider such comments come under ;abuse' 

But that expression was posted by Vin in the internet. I do not think that we have fascists in the Socialist Party. We do not support ultra-nationalism and the dictatorship of one party, and we are not homophobes either

[robbo203]

Once again –  why don't all sides in this debate CALM DOWN, take in a deep breath and patiently  let the procedure for Vin to be reinstated kick in without all this totally unnecessary turmoil?   Linda you really really do not help matters by making those provocative and unfair comments you have made. You should chill out.  So should you, Matt,  It ain't gonna help saying the things you say…. I know this will probably sound presumptuous coming from a non-member – and if so I apologise to any members if they are offended –  but why doesn't EVERYONE involved in this endless squabbling  take a break from it.  Lets take some of the heat out of the situation which causes people to say things they later regret. The Mods have a hard and thankless and vital job to do but I do believe they need to sit down and look at the rules of this forum again. I believe these need to be somewhat modified and made more flexible in a way that will prevent a recurrence of this sort of event. As they stand the rules tend to increase the likelihood of a run-in with the Mods .  Its no reflection on the Mods themselves who are diligently applying the rules.  The problem lies with the rules which need to be looked at again. We need to adapt the rules to the people not the people to the rules  And we can all help as participants on this forum by offering suggestions as to how this can be done.But we can also all help by taking to heart the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga and by all being, myself included as I am far from blameless, more disciplined and circumspect about how we interact with each other.   Robust and even heated debate is fine – after all its makes for a stimulating forum – but sometimes there is a line which is better not crossed

[lindanesocialist]

Bringing up arguments from the past can be taken out of context. It is also destructive and Vin cannot give you his side of the story because I would certainly be suspended under the existing moderation so I will join a few other comrades and leave the forum as  one  said: until such time as suitable personnel changes have been made to the Internet Committee and those 'entrusted' with 'laying down the law'.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Once again –  why don't all sides in this debate CALM DOWN, take in a deep breath and patiently  let the procedure for Vin to be reinstated kick in without all this totally unnecessary turmoil?   Linda you really really do not help matters by making those provocative and unfair comments you have made. You should chill out.  So should you, Matt,  It ain't gonna help saying the things you say…. I know this will probably sound presumptuous coming from a non-member – and if so I apologise to any members if they are offended –  but why doesn't EVERYONE involved in this endless squabbling  take a break from it.  Lets take some of the heat out of the situation which causes people to say things they later regret. The Mods have a hard and thankless and vital job to do but I do believe they need to sit down and look at the rules of this forum again. I believe these need to be somewhat modified and made more flexible in a way that will prevent a recurrence of this sort of event. As they stand the rules tend to increase the likelihood of a run-in with the Mods .  Its no reflection on the Mods themselves who are diligently applying the rules.  The problem lies with the rules which need to be looked at again. We need to adapt the rules to the people not the people to the rules  And we can all help as participants on this forum by offering suggestions as to how this can be done.But we can also all help by taking to heart the lessons to be learnt from this whole sorry saga and by all being, myself included as I am far from blameless, more disciplined and circumspect about how we interact with each other.   Robust and even heated debate is fine – after all its makes for a stimulating forum – but sometimes there is a line which is better not crossed

I do second your opinions,  I do not want to argue anymore on this subject because,  I might be mistaken in either side.I do not know the whole story, the only thing that I know is,  that it  looks pretty bad in front of the eyes of newcomers to this forum, or to the socialist party.This will not frustate me because I have seen too many cockfight tike this before, but new people will not understand it

[Anonymous]

I think the Socialist Party or the moderators of this forum should give to Vin the opportunity to  present his own side of the story.This forum has too many bureaucratic rules, and it is not a very flexible forum.Frankly, I feel that I have more freedom at the WSM forum than in this one.  Like Robbo said. We should adapts rules to the peoples.Simple rules make things easier

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

I think the Socialist Party or the moderators of this forum should give to Vin the opportunity to  present his own side of the story.This forum has too many bureaucratic rules, and it is not a very flexible forum.Frankly, I feel that I have more freedom at the WSM forum than in this one.  Like Robbo said. We should adapts rules to the peoples.Simple rules make things easier

Vin has been requested on several occasions "to present his side of the story".  He has however disinclined "to present his side of the story" because that would involve producing evidence which confirms "his side of the story".  Therefore, it must be assumed his repeated assertions, allegations and accusations have no foundation or justification.Whether or not the forum "has too many bureaucratic rules" is a matter of opinion.  Nevertheless, all the rules of the forum can be changed or abandoned if the party membership so wish.  However, those who support amending the rules have failed to produce any alternatives.  Until they do everything stays the same.In regards to the opinionated accusation that the forum "is not very flexible" I beg to differ.  In the last three years, mainly due to the introduction of this particular thread and others like it, a more flexible approach to moderation has taken place.  For instance, previously only warnings and indefinite suspensions were issued.  Now with a transparent process of moderation in place there's a step by step approach for applying the rules.Firstly, when the rules are being continually breached the mods do not issue a warning but a 'Reminder' quoting the rule breached. Warnings now only get issued when: 1. The reminder is ignored; 2. Or when user has breached the same rule on a previous occasion. Secondly, we now have 1st, 2nd and a 3rd final warning with a suspension only being issued after the 3rd and final warning has been breached.  Thirdly, when posters have deliberately gone Off-topic rather than issue a warning the moderators have removed the posts to another thread. Fourthly, besides a issuing a reminder we also PM users requesting them to desist from breaching the rules. Finally, we are now withdrawing warnings when its felt they were inapproapriate and unacceptable to best practice. In effect, the rules are being adapted to the users either directly or indirectly.The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.

 Thats good to hear.  Personally I think the off-topic rule should be scrapped and debates should be allowed to develop organically,  Individuals are  always at liberty to start new threads if they want to steer the conversation closer to what interests them,  This will help to significantly  reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will  find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.

 Thats good to hear.  Personally I think the off-topic rule should be scrapped and debates should be allowed to develop organically,  Individuals are  always at liberty to start new threads if they want to steer the conversation closer to what interests them,  This will help to significantly  reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will  find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent

Hmm.  Massive claim to make imo.  "This will help to signicicantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

 Hmm.  Massive claim to make imo.  "This will help to significantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?

 Well yes I have been active in fora where the off topic rule is not enforced.  The  tendency is for members to stick to the topic themselves in most cases even if they sometimes wander off topic.  My point is that it does not really matter if they wander off topic.  People who feel disgruntled about it being off topic will often start up threads to steer the conversation in the direction they want, I think this is worth considering Mod1 for 2 reasons1) some of the most interesting and significant debates are those that tend to veer off topic.  Sometimes debates should not be straitjacketed by some artificially imposed limits2) It significantly reduces the scope for tensions to arise between members and moderators over moderator decisions, and allows Mods to focus on the things that really matter such as trolling and flaming which spoil the atmosphere of the forum and generally reduces the workload of the mods themselves I thinks this suggeston is worth considering , guys, even if only for a while as an experiment to see what happens….

[DJP]

FWIW see number 11 here:https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?sid=4841&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=en

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

FWIW see number 11 here:https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?sid=4841&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=en

 Thats interesting DJP.  I think guideline No.11 needs to be scrapped for starters, thereby reducing the scope for conflict between Mods and users.  It really doesn't matter if the discussion drifts off topic and I cant imagine why people make such a fuss about it.  This is an unnecessary rule

[Young Master Smeet]

If a conversation drifts that's one thing, but if someone starts totally off-topic posts, and essentially derail the discusion, that does get in the way of free debate, it's very easy for two people havng a ding-dong to kill a conversation.  Rule 11 is the best rule there, and shouldn't need conflict, just an occasional nag from the mods.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If a conversation drifts that's one thing, but if someone starts totally off-topic posts, and essentially derail the discusion, that does get in the way of free debate, it's very easy for two people havng a ding-dong to kill a conversation.  Rule 11 is the best rule there, and shouldn't need conflict, just an occasional nag from the mods.

You can have a ding dong and kill a conversation while remaining completely on topic. If people are unhappy with the way the thread is going then its simple – you just start up a new thread. Rule 11 is unnecessary and piles more work on to the workload of our hard pressed Mods as well as needlessly bringing them into conflict with users

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Hmm.  Massive claim to make imo.  "This will help to significantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?

 Well yes I have been active in fora where the off topic rule is not enforced.  The  tendency is for members to stick to the topic themselves in most cases even if they sometimes wander off topic.  My point is that it does not really matter if they wander off topic.  People who feel disgruntled about it being off topic will often start up threads to steer the conversation in the direction they want, I think this is worth considering Mod1 for 2 reasons1) some of the most interesting and significant debates are those that tend to veer off topic.  Sometimes debates should not be straitjacketed by some artificially imposed limits2) It significantly reduces the scope for tensions to arise between members and moderators over moderator decisions, and allows Mods to focus on the things that really matter such as trolling and flaming which spoil the atmosphere of the forum and generally reduces the workload of the mods themselves I thinks this suggeston is worth considering , guys, even if only for a while as an experiment to see what happens….

Thanks for that but this "evidence" relates 'to fora which are not enforcing the Off-topic rule.  Your original suggestion was to abolish the Off-topic rule.  As for your claim ".. … that it does not really matter if they wander off-topic".  I strongly disagree.For instance, this very conversation originated on the 'Moderation warning' thread which you started.  Although I issued a reminder it was Off-topic this was ignored and I had to issue warnings to stop the conversation derailing the thread until I had the opportunity to remove all the Off-topic posts to this thread.Now just imagine it I had ignored the Off-topic rule and just let this particular conversation continue on the 'Moderation warning' thread?  The thread title would be directing users to a conversation on warnings yet they would be reading a conversation on abolishing the Off-topic rule which was clearly Off-topic.It may have passed your notice but rather than rigidly enforce the rules the moderators approach is to apply the rules.  In regards to Off-topic discussions this entails:1. Initially allow Off-topic discussion to continue if it is not a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.2. Deliberate attempts to derail the topic are removed either to a) A proper thread title. b) The Off-topic section. c) Or the user is requested by PM to start a new thread. 3. If after taking this action there are still deliberate attempts to derail the topic we issue a warning.4.  If the conversation is not a deliberate attempt to derail the topic e.g. your original posting on the 'Moderators warning' thread; we'll remove the postings to a proper thread title.In effect this approach of applying the rules means deliberate Off-topic posts are only issued warnings as a last resort.  And this is entirely in line with the fora which you suggest is "evidence" for not applying the Off-topic rule.

[Author]

Posts