Should Moderators take part in debates?
- This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
moderator1 wrote:ALB wrote:moderator1 wrote:Under…
Am I breaking the rules if I suggest that it is unwise of you to intervene in a debate under that name to express a point of view?It means that you cannot later intervene as moderator should this be necessary. Haven't you another hat to wear to take part in debates?
No you are not breaking the rules, but you should have PMed me. There are now 3 moderators so if any problems pop up on this thread the other's can deal with it.
Even Moderator1's reply here suggests that he is replying as moderator as the rules say that if you've a beef with the moderator you should pm him, which you don't have to do with other forum members.
I hate this sort of discussion but I think moderators should only intervene to moderate, not to take part in the debate. If they want to do that they should put on another hat.
Seeing as you mention it. No they should not be entering into discussions with the moderator hat on. The guidelines advise against this. If moderators want to discuss they can log in with their personal account and do it that way.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Yeah….i think a certain Vin would agree it is about time to ban Mod1 from postingNot only that but we need to address the entire issue of the moderator function. Last night there was a concerted and multiple spam attack on the forum which amounted to well in excess of 100 separate posts over numerous threads. When, after about half an hour, the matter hadn't been addressed I contacted the three moderators and the Internet Committee. I received this response:
Moderator1 wrote:I'm taking a well earned break at the mo. Found the spam about 30 minutes ago and Mod2&3 have been PM'ed that if they need for some practice on removing spam please feel free to so.Moderator2 was also in bed at the time but Moderator3, despite suffering with a serious medical condition, came online and eventually most of the spam was finally deleted some four hours after the onset of the attack. An example of the spam still remains in the rubbish bin.
gnome wrote:Not only that but we need to address the entire issue of the moderator function. Last night there was a concerted and multiple spam attack on the forum which amounted to well in excess of 100 separate posts over numerous threads. When, after about half an hour, the matter hadn't been addressed I contacted the three moderators and the Internet Committee. I received this response:Moderator1 wrote:I'm taking a well earned break at the mo. Found the spam about 30 minutes ago and Mod2&3 have been PM'ed that if they need for some practice on removing spam please feel free to so.Moderator2 was also in bed at the time but Moderator3, despite suffering with a serious medical condition, came online and eventually most of the spam was finally deleted some four hours after the onset of the attack. An example of the spam still remains in the rubbish bin.
The question is, how reasonable is it to expect volunteers to be on call 24/7?I've added some extra steps to the security processes so hopefully no further spambots will get through.
DJP wrote:The question is, how reasonable is it to expect volunteers to be on call 24/7?Nobody's expecting them to be but is anyone seriously suggesting that three adults can't work out a shift pattern whereby at least one of them is guaranteed to be awake at any given time?
gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Yeah….i think a certain Vin would agree it is about time to ban Mod1 from postingNot only that but we need to address the entire issue of the moderator function. Last night there was a concerted and multiple spam attack on the forum which amounted to well in excess of 100 separate posts over numerous threads. When, after about half an hour, the matter hadn't been addressed I contacted the three moderators and the Internet Committee. I received this response:
Moderator1 wrote:I'm taking a well earned break at the mo. Found the spam about 30 minutes ago and Mod2&3 have been PM'ed that if they need for some practice on removing spam please feel free to so.Moderator2 was also in bed at the time but Moderator3, despite suffering with a serious medical condition, came online and eventually most of the spam was finally deleted some four hours after the onset of the attack. An example of the spam still remains in the rubbish bin.
Excuse me but the truth of the matter is once I realised how serious the spambot attack was I immediately contacted mod3 and we both set to work clearing and controlling the attack. As for the examples in the Rubbish bin they are there for a good reason for Admin finds it helpful for tracking purposes when there's a several examples near to hand.Once the tracking is completed they will be blocked and deleted.
gnome wrote:DJP wrote:The question is, how reasonable is it to expect volunteers to be on call 24/7?Nobody's expecting them to be but is anyone seriously suggesting that three adults can't work out a shift pattern whereby at least one of them is guaranteed to be awake at any given time?
At least one of the moderators are awake at any given time and covering the forum as and when they can..
The situation was eventually dealt with and although some may have been inconvenienced, it wasn't a crisis as if we had been infected by a virus or whatever. A week or so ago a similar (albeit less numerous, perhaps a dozen or so posts) spam attack was dealt with but for many on this list i doubt they were aware of it.Are you seriously suggesting that we impose a compulsory watch system upon the moderators where even when we are on-line engaged in other party activity we are obliged to continuously monitor the list?For all the occasions that we suffer a spam attack, i think we are well-capable of tackling them…but perhaps not as speedily as some would have it.
DJP wrote:I've added some extra steps to the security processes so hopefully no further spambots will get through.Well clearly those measures haven't been effective since there's yet more spam in the General Discussion sub-forum.
gnome wrote:DJP wrote:The question is, how reasonable is it to expect volunteers to be on call 24/7?Nobody's expecting them to be but is anyone seriously suggesting that three adults can't work out a shift pattern whereby at least one of them is guaranteed to be awake at any given time?
What a strange suggestion. There is no need for the forum to be continually monitored in real time. This is a web forum with very little traffic, not a trench on the Aragon front.
DJP wrote:What a strange suggestion. There is no need for the forum to be continually monitored in real time. This is a web forum with very little traffic, not a trench on the Aragon front.Anyone with spare time to sit at a computer, would be well placed to go onto other websites and lists, correcting misapprehensions about what socialism actually is, using our terrific resources, or the blogs' (SOYMB, Socialist Courier, Socialist Banner.) resources to keep their arguments succint and linking back onto our site, or the blog you use, under your signature, nom de plume or user name. Trying to avoid spamming etc.Well that is what I do on a night-shift, back shift, routine from my own trench.I only come onto here couple of times in a day, apart from doing a search as above.Over the top comrades.
Posts #4 to #12 have been moved to the "Moderators Suggestions" thread, which can be found in the Website/Technical section of the forum.
Who are the three moderators. Are they on the IC and do they agree with the Vin's (SPGB member) permament ban from party forums, lists ?
lindanesocialist wrote:Who are the three moderators. Are they on the IC and do they agree with the Vin's (SPGB member) permament ban from party forums, lists ?Stephen Davison, Brian Johnson (myself) and Alan Johnstone are the three moderators and yes we are all on the IC as per terms of reference. As for Vin's permanent ban I know I'm in favour of it and so it seems are the EC according to the last minutes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.