Retrospective warnings
- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Mod: re: the Corbyn thread, you seem to have gone through, some time after posters had left messages, and issued warnings, so one poster has been moderated for getting three warnings, basically because they went off topic three times. but the fact is, they only received, effectively one warning, the rest were delivered at the same time. The point of the warning system is to allow people to alter their own behaviour. So far as I can see, there was only one offence, going off topic on one thread. Shirley, the fact that there were three posts involved is an elephant.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Mod: re: the Corbyn thread, you seem to have gone through, some time after posters had left messages, and issued warnings, so one poster has been moderated for getting three warnings, basically because they went off topic three times. but the fact is, they only received, effectively one warning, the rest were delivered at the same time. The point of the warning system is to allow people to alter their own behaviour. So far as I can see, there was only one offence, going off topic on one thread. Shirley, the fact that thee were three posts involved is an elephant.AgreeA point I made over and over. What is the point of a warning if there is no time to heed it
I agree with Vin.I think the moderator should have also taken into account that it was a brief light-hearted exchange, and that it really wasn't some sort of malicious or mischievous attempt to derail a thread.
Can I just make it clear, for the record, that this post/thread is not about the specific incident, but about the policy of retrospective warnings, and how ineffectual it is.
Ah, timely evidence:Warning 1 (04:48)Warning 2 (04:50)I can't see how any forum member can react to any such warnings?
I have to follow the guidelines and rules which stipulates issuing a warning once a breach has occurred. The adoption of issuing a reminder was agreed upon to get over the old problem of seemingly issuing warnings retrospectively. If I were to agree to your suggestion I would in effect be issuing two reminders. When one should suffice.The banter was going OTT with Stuart noticably pushing it in that direction. I also took into consideration that this was a repeat performance of his previous suspension only this time it was not abusive or anti-social.Nevertheless because its only a minor infingement he will get off very lightly and have his suspension lifted on Friday.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Can I just make it clear, for the record, that this post/thread is not about the specific incident, but about the policy of retrospective warnings, and how ineffectual it is.I hasten to disagree, because if this specific incident had not occurred you would not be whinging now. As for warnings, retrospective or otherwise, are very effectual by drawing attention of the users that they need to acquaint themselves with the rules more often.If anyone feels strongly on this feel free to use the complaint procedure. All you have to do is PM me.
warningˈwɔːnɪŋ/noun a statement or event that warns of something or that serves as a cautionary example."police issued a warning about fake £20 notes"synonyms:example, deterrent, lesson, caution, exemplar, message, moral More cautionary advice."a word of warning—don't park illegally"synonyms:caution, piece of advice, notification, information; More advance notice of something."she had only had four days' warning before leaving Berlin"synonyms:notice, advance notice, a word of warning, forewarning, alert; More Issuing 3 warnings before a user has a chance to correct behaviour is punitive and ineffectual.It is not for example an advance notice of suspension The user has no opportunity to alter bahaviour
Just for clarification; How are posts 128 and 131 off topic?They are about Corbyn.
Retrospective warnings do seem to be ineffectual at moderating behaviour, as a ban can ensue before a person has an opportunity to react to any potentially modifying reminders or warnings.However the rules for forum conduct are clearly available and all users are reminded to acquaint themselves with them.It's easy to criticise, but unless there are any alternatives offered….?One obvious answer is for more Party members to volunteer as moderators, that way the issue of retrospective moderation could be limited as much as possible.
I have noticed that despite this thread being about retrospective warnings and not specific cases, no attention was brought to Vin and LBirds retrospective warnings, leading to LBirds suspension back on page 10 of the Corbyn thread.Weird.
SP, unless I am missing something obvious, there is nothing in the rules forcing a mod to give 3 warnings and suspension before a user has had the opportunity to alter behaviour. Also there is no definition of 'off topic'How does a user know they are off topic? Example abover, where ALB actually mentions Corbyn in his posts.
Hi Vin,You are correct, there is no specific place in the guidelines that state a reminder and three warnings will be issued. Can't recall what it says in the moderators guide (I can't recall the thread where it was posted by DJP).However I do recall a couple of years back that a long discussion was had on this forum regarding moderation, I think it was titled Moderation Suggestions. During the discussions I think the consensus was that a three strikes and you're out moderation approach was the least objectionable. I assume this was taken on board by the Internet Committee.I've always argued that "off topic" is a minor, highly subjective, "crime". One persons "off topic" is another's harmless banter.But I am correct when I say more moderators would reduce the occurrence of retrospective moderation.
SocialistPunk wrote:But I am correct when I say more moderators would reduce the occurrence of retrospective moderation.SP, You are right, of course.Mod cannot 'police' 24/7. So when he finds the time to do moderation he finds that users have 'offended' and some have offended at least three times. He applies the rules and issues the warnings and suspensions.More mods would help but mod1 could interpret the rules differently – given these unfortunate circumstances.
moderator1 wrote:I hasten to disagree, because if this specific incident had not occurred you would not be whinging now. As for warnings, retrospective or otherwise, are very effectual by drawing attention of the users that they need to acquaint themselves with the rules more often.If anyone feels strongly on this feel free to use the complaint procedure. All you have to do is PM me.1: I have raised this matter before privately2:I'm not whinging, I was not involved nor the recipient of any warnings, nor am I asking to overturn any warnings, I am discussing a general procedure.3: I'd suggest a better rule of thumb should be that a user at least has a chance to post again before any further warnings are issued, or at least for 24 hours to elapse between warnings (depending on circumstances and the precise nature of the disruption, I'm fine with banning blatantly severely disruptive users with no warnings), but if you're going to have a warning system, dishing out three in five minutes and then issuing a ban simply makes you look foolish.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.