Moderation Suggestions

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

TimSome time ago I expressed concern to moderation that 'bob andrews' was a 'sock puppet' account set up to provoke me and requested that admin use the same expertise on him that they used to discover my alleged 'sockpuppet' account. I was assured that this had been checked.  Mod2 resigned when I accused moderation of bullshitting. Lo and behold! But now mod1 informs me that he neither knows nor cares who 'bob andrews' is. Haddyway n shite man

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account but like many other users here he may well be using a pseudonym for whatever reason.  So far has I'm concerned he's just another user and his real identity is immaterial to my moderation role. 

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

No I can not publish his IP address.  That information is with Admin just contact them.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

No I can not publish his IP address.  That information is with Admin just contact them.

But you published MY IP address. Why publish mine and not 'bob andrews'?So you were not really sure when you said you knew 'bob andrews' was NOT a sock puppet account? It may be and it may not be. 

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

No I can not publish his IP address.  That information is with Admin just contact them.

But you published MY IP address. Why publish mine and not 'bob andrews'?So you were not really sure when you said you knew 'bob andrews' was NOT a sock puppet account? It may be and it may not be. 

Because you used a sock puppet account and Bob Andrews account is not a sock puppet.  And therefore he is not breaking the rules, but you did.  

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account and Bob Andrews account is not a sock puppet.  And therefore he is not breaking the rules, but you did.  

I am not asking if I broke the rules in the past.You are not answering the question. Does the IP address of 'Bob Andrews' match the IP address of any other user?If you have not checked this, then how can you say he is not a 'sock puppet' account? By your own admission you don't know nor care who he is.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account 

 That is a lie. I have never held more than one account. Move on. 

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account and Bob Andrews account is not a sock puppet.  And therefore he is not breaking the rules, but you did.  

I am not asking if I broke the rules in the past.You are not answering the question. Does the IP address of 'Bob Andrews' match the IP address of any other user?If you have not checked this, then how can you say he is not a 'sock puppet' account? By your own admission you don't know nor care who he is.

According to Admin the IP address of Bob Andrews does not match the IP address of another user.  Therefore, its not a sock puppet account.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account 

 That is a lie. I have never held more than one account. Move on. 

That is not a lie.  And I intend to move on by not replying to any more of your questions.  You know the process for making an official complaint.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

 According to Admin the IP address of Bob Andrews does not match the IP address of another user.  Therefore, its not a sock puppet account.

but you don't know who is behind the abusive pseudonym and you don't care as long as it is only me he is trolling.?  

[Anonymous]

For clarity: The account 'Vin' had been blocked by you for 10 months and was un usable. Mods said that there was no intention on their part to unblock my account. The membership via ADM overturned that decion and told the Mods to lift the ban. Mods ignored the democratic wishes of the members , so  I  therefore set up an account with a pseudonym – just like 'bob' and many others – and and the mods responded by blocking that account and reveal my pseudonym for all to see. Leaving all other psedonyms intact. Very fair and objective moderation, I think not. Stop repeating your lie and apologise.  THEN MOVE ON

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 According to Admin the IP address of Bob Andrews does not match the IP address of another user.  Therefore, its not a sock puppet account.

but you don't know who is behind the abusive pseudonym and you don't care as long as it is only me he is trolling.?

Can we please call a halt to this lunacy at least publically and especially during the middle of an election campaign when over 150,000 invitations to visit our sites are about to go out.

[Anonymous]

May I ask MOD1 why he has blocked me? How am I to ask questions about moderation without breaching the Rules 14 and 15 ?    

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

May I ask MOD1 why he has blocked me? How am I to ask questions about moderation without breaching the Rules 14 and 15 ?

You were blocked on the PM function.  I have now unblocked that function.

[twc]

Suspension of Marcos:Re: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-automation?page=28#comment-43036 …

moderator1 wrote:

First warning: 1.  The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.2nd warning: 15.  Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.3rd and final warning: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.This warning will stay in place for the next 30 days.  I this [sic] breaches the rules within this period he'll be immediately suspended.3rd [sic] and final warning: 15.  Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

This has been tactlessly handled.The author of the topic initiated the alleged “derail” — as in, MBellamare:“I see the advent of return to the dark ages… I call this the rise of  micro-fascism…”Marcos can’t possibly “derail” a thread by responding to a claim made by the original author.Moderators might reconsider turning first warnings into recommendations, e.g.,“Your post on XXX is off-topic.  To continue posting on XXX, please do so in a more-appropriate thread or start a new thread on XXX”.Most self-respecting writers would be tempted to defend themselves, as Marcos did, in the open, and to resist the ignominy of having to defend themselves in private against unexpected charges laid against themselves in public!Marcos has “derailed” nothing.  He believes himself innocent of implied intent.  As a result he has compounded his “offence” by openly defending his integrity.Marcos has taken his stance in the very same public arena in which his integrity was unfathomably impugned — in the open forum.  Why should he grovel to private appeal and await private judgement?Serial derailment is one thing, but unintended derailment is quite another.Moderation is difficult, but something is wrong with its current implementation.

[Author]

Posts