Moderation Suggestions

[moderator1]

This is a reply to a post on the 'No, No Platform' thread.Vin wrote:  moderator1 wrote: I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.    I have emails from the IC that states 'the IC has decided….'If you don't hold meetings how do you decide when to allow a suspended  user back on the forum for example?An exchange of emails within a discrete group of individuals resulting in a decision that affects others is  a secret meeting? Don't try and pull the wool over my eys, I am too long in the tooth for that.  We don't hold meetings in the sense that a meeting is called and an agenda set, chair appointed, etc.  When a user is suspended they are informed by me how long their suspension will last.  In most cases this is my decision to call.  If however,  I'm uncertain on how long the suspension should last I'll consult with the I.C. and the user is informed of the decision reached.How is this decision making process discrete or secret when the party concerned is informed of the decision reached?If however you favour an open meeting to discuss such issues be arranged here on the forum I advise you to take it up with the I.C. to find out if such a proposal is practical.  If it is a practical suggestion then take it up with your Branch and if they agree contact the EC with your proposal.Its no big deal from my side.  But like I said most decisions regarding suspensions rest with me.  And all decisions on suspensions that I make have gone through the process of a reminder being posted and 3 warnings issued.  There is nothing discrete or secret about that process.You may very well have a case for open and transparent meetings when a complaint is discussed by the I.C. but even that process is fully recorded and the files kept on record for those who wish to view them or to pass onto the EC if the complainant is making an appeal.But this is all old ground we are covering here which you are very familiar with.  And the present decision making process will only change if and when there are 2 or more moderators here instead of one.  

[robbo203]

Sorry  but I am coming around to thinking that the moderation on the "hunter violence" thread is getting beyond reasonable and verging on the absurd. Its stifling rather than encouraging debate You really need to reconsider , redefine and relax  what you mean by "off topic". As things stand you are applying a far too strict and literal interpretation of the term in my opinion and, I think, in the opinion of other contributors on this forum. It discourages people from contributing and more importantly impedes the whole process of lateral thinking and applying any conclusions reached beyond the immediate subject area you deem to be relevant Thats not good.  Please rethink your approach and abandon this habit of issuing warnings on the  pretext that the contributor may have gone slightly off topic

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry  but I am coming around to thinking that the moderation on the "hunter violence" thread is getting beyond reasonable and verging on the absurd. Its stifling rather than encouraging debate

I'd like to add my support to what robbo has said about the strictness of the moderation.On the 'hunter gatherer violence' thread, although robbo and I are having a dispute about methodology, I think that it's still within the bounds of the thread, especially since we've been using links and quotes from those links from academic anthropologists, as the background to our dispute. This is, I think, entirely on-topic.Even the tone of our debate hasn't really been too rude – not by my brutal standards, anyway!

[moderator1]

The thread was being highjacked by the 'ideological argument' once again. Which is why I decided to issue second warnings. Although this argument originated on the 'Science and Communist' thread its being taken up on all other threads used by LBird.  I agree its a valid argument worthy of some discussion on all threads, and serves the useful purpose of reminding socialists that the ideology of science is not fixed.  However once this argument has been raised its unwise to allow it to dominate the conversation or the OP over the main discussion.In practice this means I will allow the ideological argument some space on all threads. Firstly because its a useful reminder that we need to be discerning in our approach when tackling objections to the socialist case. And secondly, because I have to ensure the flow of the thread continues I will ignore a first mention of this argument. And obviously I will allow a rebutal of the ideological argument to be posted on all threads on which it appears. What this means in essence is I will not allow this argument to dominate threads whilst the Science and Communist thread is still live on the forum.  There is nothing stopping either of you using the Science and Communist thread to discuss the relevance of ideology in relation to hunters and gatherers and violence on that thread. If either of you wish to lodge an official complaint on my moderation please be my guests and take it up with the I.C.  I will gladly forward it onto them.

[SocialistPunk]

I was of the impression that this thread was about the mechanics of the moderation structure. How it could be improved, adapted etc.  Not about complaints as to how the moderation on particular threads is being interpreted and implemented.   

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I was of the impression that this thread was about the mechanics of the moderation structure. How it could be improved, adapted etc.  Not about complaints as to how the moderation on particular threads is being interpreted and implemented.   

It is about the mechanics of the moderation structure.  However as my response and past posts have indicated re: using the complaints procedure for any changes in the moderation guidelines to come about, the suggestions have to go to the I.C. for further discussion.  Also, posters are not in a position to formulate any 'Moderation suggestions' unless they are aware of how I interpreted the rules for a given situation.

[steve colborn]

Over the last few weeks, I have refrained from commenting/posting on this Forum. During this time, it has become blatantly obvious that there is a disparity of outcomes with regard to Modersation decisions of different individuals.I would suggest, that the most pressing need, in the sphere of Moderation, is to have "consistency" of Moderation across the spectrum and across all interactions with each and every member. This, is patently not happening.Some poster's are given a "mild" rebuke, whilst others are given "full blown" warnings for, as far as I can see, are the same indiscretions.This, to my mind, is a recipe not only for further discord but for resentments building up, by and within individuals and to those individuals infringing further, out of a sense of unfairness and injustice and not always deliberately either.So to stress once again, Moderation starts from first cause, treat everyone the same and do not "target" on the one hand, nor mollycoddle on the other.These actions may not be done deliberately but as human beings, we are not always aware of the reasons we take cetain action. So a second suggestion for Moderation. Take a step back and consider if the intended Moderation decision, is being taken in a neutral and totally impartial way!!!

[moderator1]

steve colborn wrote:

Over the last few weeks, I have refrained from commenting/posting on this Forum. During this time, it has become blatantly obvious that there is a disparity of outcomes with regard to Modersation decisions of different individuals.I would suggest, that the most pressing need, in the sphere of Moderation, is to have "consistency" of Moderation across the spectrum and across all interactions with each and every member. This, is patently not happening.Some poster's are given a "mild" rebuke, whilst others are given "full blown" warnings for, as far as I can see, are the same indiscretions.This, to my mind, is a recipe not only for further discord but for resentments building up, by and within individuals and to those individuals infringing further, out of a sense of unfairness and injustice and not always deliberately either.So to stress once again, Moderation starts from first cause, treat everyone the same and do not "target" on the one hand, nor mollycoddle on the other.These actions may not be done deliberately but as human beings, we are not always aware of the reasons we take cetain action. So a second suggestion for Moderation. Take a step back and consider if the intended Moderation decision, is being taken in a neutral and totally impartial way!!!

If you could PM your evidence for the  alleged lack of "consistency" I'll ensure its discussed by the I.C. and inform you of the outcome.

[northern light]

Recently a Forum member received a suspension and I noticed that there was a 73 day time lapse between his 1st. and 3rd. warning. It might help some of our more "passionate" Forum members avoid a suspension, if it was noted in the rules, how long a warning remains live.

[moderator1]

northern light wrote:

Recently a Forum member received a suspension and I noticed that there was a 73 day time lapse between his 1st. and 3rd. warning. It might help some of our more "passionate" Forum members avoid a suspension, if it was noted in the rules, how long a warning remains live.

Noted and passed onto the I.C. for discussion.

[Anonymous]

While the IC discuss Norther Light's suggestion – a discussion of which the rest of the party will remain ignorant of – perhaps the committee can consider my earlier suggestions.Will the meeting be minuted and can other party members be present during the deliberations. If not then why not.  

Vin wrote:

At the moment the moderator and Internet Committee carry out their deliberations behind closed doors. 'We have received your complaint or appeal, we will get back to you'.  Such deliberations should be held in public on a designated area of the forum, thus bringing our forum in line with our proclamations.  "We are a completely open and leaderless organisation. All our meetings are open to everyone without exception. "Suggested  rule changes.  Changes are in bold. 16. The moderators will discuss and deliberate on moderation decisions openly and transparently in the moderation section of the forum.Then the forum will be as open as the rest of the party.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

While the IC discuss Norther Light's suggestion – a discussion of which the rest of the party will remain ignorant of – perhaps the committee can consider my earlier suggestions.Will the meeting be minuted and can other party members be present during the deliberations. If not then why not.  

Vin wrote:

At the moment the moderator and Internet Committee carry out their deliberations behind closed doors. 'We have received your complaint or appeal, we will get back to you'.  Such deliberations should be held in public on a designated area of the forum, thus bringing our forum in line with our proclamations.  "We are a completely open and leaderless organisation. All our meetings are open to everyone without exception. "Suggested  rule changes.  Changes are in bold. 16. The moderators will discuss and deliberate on moderation decisions openly and transparently in the moderation section of the forum.Then the forum will be as open as the rest of the party.

 You are well aware of the procedure for enacting your above suggestion – put it through your Branch – I'm easy.In the meantime I can only do the next best thing:Hi Brian, Two months does seem a long time for warnings to be counted for. But personally I don't think we need to formalise this too much, as every situation is different. As far as I'm concerned it's your call…On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Brian Johnson <gravediggers@talktalk.net> wrote:Hi,The following message has been posted on the Moderation suggestions thread on the forum: Recently a Forum member received a suspension and I noticed that there was a 73 day time lapse between his 1st. and 3rd. warning. It might help some of our more "passionate" Forum members avoid a suspension, if it was noted in the rules, how long a warning remains live.I would appreciate some discussion and feedback on this suggestion.  If implemented it would make life easier for the flow of the discussion to continue and instead of issuing a final warning – after say 60 days has lapsed since the 2nd warning – I would just issue a further reminder quoting the rule which has been breached.   YFPSABrian

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

you are well aware of the procedure for enacting your above suggestion – put it through your Branch – I'm easy.

So have you put it to the Internet Commiittee? How did they respond? We can only assume that the committee is opposed to the suggestion.And frankly the old 'Take it it up with your branch' is insulting and dismissive and downright plain arrogant.Why should I have to go to conference to have meetings open and minuted?

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

you are well aware of the procedure for enacting your above suggestion – put it through your Branch – I'm easy.

So have you put it to the Internet Commiittee? How did they respond? We can only assume that the committee is opposed to the suggestion.And frankly the old 'Take it it up with your branch' is insulting and dismissive and downright plain arrogant.Why should I have to go to conference to have meetings open and minuted?

It seems you are unaware of party procedures in relation to the committees of the EC.  To explain:  1.  The I.C.. is a committee of the EC.  2. The Rules and Guidelines of this forum come under the administration of the EC.  3. They are not altered, or amended by the I.C. but by the EC.  4. Any suggestions for a change in Rules and Guidelines must come from a Branch for the attention of the EC.This is the democratic procedure for the day-to-day administration of the party.  In practice it means individual suggestions on a change in the Rules and Guidelines carry little weight.  Such suggestions need to be discussed at a Branch level and voted on before it will be considered by the EC.

[steve colborn]

 1.  The I.C.. is a committee of the EC. Surely, all committees are committees of the Party! The EC being, for want of a better word, the "Central" committe, who collate all of the activity of  the others.

[Author]

Posts