Moderation Suggestions
- This topic has 293 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote: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.
Really.. I didn't know that. What a waste of a post.
moderator1 wrote: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.
Notice – Not the branchBesides I can't see why the IC cant offer an opinion on this sugestion. Perhaps there is something obviously unworkable about it? If I take it to the regional branch meeting in a couple of months, two months after that the EC will ask for comments from the IC, two months later the IC will reply………………… On major matters this is bad enough but where is the opposition to holding meetings open to members' scrutiny?Perhaps the EC and IC will eventually vote against openess. I don't know.I think the IC is obviously opposed to openess and will need to have its hand forced by the Party I really can't be bothered with petty vindictiveness and old grudges. I think I will leave it for now.
I have noticed that the user stewart has been suspended after three warnings. He had no opportunity to respond to the first warning as all three came at once. All warnings – all three – were issued together. Hardly positive moderation. At least give someone the opportunity to alter behaviour.
There are certainly far worst offenders who appear to get away without any warnings whatever. I notice, for example, that many posts in the 'Brand' thread have been flagged (rightly so in my estimation) due, I presume, to them being completely off-topic. If we are to have a system of moderation at least ensure that the rules are applied consistently.I would also suggest the introduction of a limit to the number of posts an individual can make in any 24 hours. The absurd regularity with which some posters feel compelled to comment on every conceivable subject has reached the stage where I no longer bother to read what they have to say. Invariably these individuals tend to post at interminable length which is mind-numbingly boring to the point of being soporific.
gnome wrote:I would also suggest the introduction of a limit to the number of posts an individual can make in any 24 hours.Don't agree with that. That would rule out the cut and thrust of short quickfire responses. More generally, I think we need a lighter rather than a heavier touch, allowing threads to wander a bit off the topic. Srill, I'm not volunteeering !
ALB wrote:More generally, I think we need a lighter rather than a heavier touch, allowing threads to wander a bit off the topic. Srill, I'm not volunteeering !Would appreciate a clarification here, not that I'm in favour of it. It may have passed your notice but quite a few threads are allowed a large degree of off-topic discussion. If we were to relax the moderation even further the danger is that this forum would soon change to the chaos experienced on facebook.
As I tried to say somewhere above "Three warnings given retrospectively and a suspension all at once doesn't give the user time to get the message" Perhaps the user should not receive a second warning until he has ignored the first.
I'm not in favour of repeating the amount of effort that went into composing the moderation guidlines a couple of years back, but this is what they say that is relevant to the cases in hand…
Quote:2. Unless there is clear reason not to, moderators assume good faith on the part of contributors to the forums. That is, they assume that a contributor who has broken the forum rules has forgotten or misunderstood them. They allow contributors an opportunity to correct their behaviour before sanctions are applied. The action they take at this stage could be anywhere from a friendly explanation to a stern warning, posted publically or sent privately, as the situation merits. Posters who claim they were provoked need to be made to understand that provocation is not an excuse for breaking the rules. The appropriate response to provocation is to contact the moderator.11. Socialist discussions are wide ranging. ‘Off-topic’ is not rigidly interpreted, and moderators allow some side discussions that are clearly related to the main discussion and only intervene if they begin to lead the thread entirely away from its given topic.https://faq.worldsocialism.org/index.php?sid=420&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=5&id=11&artlang=enPersonally I think that moderation may have been a bit over zealous in some cases, but appreciate that the situation is one of damed if you do dammed if you don't. I certainly don't envy the task…
Vin wrote:As I tried to say somewhere above "Three warnings given retrospectively and a suspension all at once doesn't give the user time to get the message" Perhaps the user should not receive a second warning until he has ignored the first.A user only ever receives a second warning when they have ignored the first.
I think the problem may be that warnings are buried down th thread and not seen: you may recall our correspondence when I received what, appeared to me at least, two warnings in the same thread overnight.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the problem may be that warnings are buried down th thread and not seen: you may recall our correspondence when I received what, appeared to me at least, two warnings in the same thread overnight.Good point. In future I'll quote the post so the warning is brought upto date. Ideally, a warning should generate an automatic email to the user notifiying them that a warning has been issued. I'll contact Admin to ask if this is possible.
moderator1 wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the problem may be that warnings are buried down th thread and not seen: you may recall our correspondence when I received what, appeared to me at least, two warnings in the same thread overnight.Good point. In future I'll quote the post so the warning is brought upto date. Ideally, a warning should generate an automatic email to the user notifiying them that a warning has been issued. I'll contact Admin to ask if this is possible.
After consulting with Admin we decided that in line with good practice in future each warning quotes the offending post and the poster informed by email. Please note after issuing a suspension the user is notified by email.
I have suggested that one weakness i have experienced is that there is no visible list of those sitting in the "sin-bin" of a suspension. People should be aware of the reason that requests and exchanges on various threads are being involuntarily ignored.Also who knows, naming (and shaming) may even help
In response to Gnome can i suggest this sort of scenario arising. Chairman of a meeting: "You at the front, you are asking too many questions and making too many points.I know everybody else is getting to say their piece and you aren't stopping them in anyway from expressing themselves and we have plenty of time to discuss and debate but i'm ruling that you are too mouthy, being too lippy…so shut up.Stay quiet from now on regardless of any subsequent topic that crops up or any other future remark made by another, otherwise i will expel you from the meeting. I'm the chairman and i can do this." and then brings down his hammer on the gavel. Anyways, we witnessed the 3-message rule on the previous forum and saw its ineffectiveness at being put into practice. Why repeat mistakes?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Also who knows, naming (and shaming) may even helpHe is a naughty bo because he has been suspended 40 times doesn't wash with me and the shame is on the members who swallow such bullshit.I'm afraid the shame is also on moderation for suspending party members for petty reasons, while allowing them to be attacked freely and lied about freely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
Vin wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Also who knows, naming (and shaming) may even helpHe is a naughty bo because he has been suspended 40 times doesn't wash with me and the shame is on the members who swallow such bullshit.I'm afraid the shame is also on moderation for suspending party members for petty reasons, while allowing them to be attacked freely and lied about freely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
No user is suspended for a "petty reason", indeed every warning and a suspension is only ever issued after I've deliberated on the actual breach of guidelines and rules. Which in practice means no breach of the rules is considered to be a "petty reason". This deliberation takes into account that lies are par for the course and part of the cut and thrust of the discussion. And its up to the individual poster to remedy the situation. I will, however and have only taken action in such cases where they are or clearly consititute a repeated "attack" and a breach of Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.If on the other hand you are of the opinion that this is not the case in all instances please forward the evidence by PM and I'll ensure its discussed by the I.C. for action, or noted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.