Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:It's not as if we've not been here before as this extract from the Proceedings of Annual Conference 2008 shows. What did Marx say about when history repeats itself?Quote:MOTION 9 [Vote 13]: (EARB) "This conference rules that Spintcom and Spopen should not be moderated".Johnson (Swansea) Swansea are also opposed. There should be more strictness. Since the EC reminded the Moderators, things have been better. The more we fight among ourselves the less we are focussing on outside activity. If not moderated we will be said to be a crowd of undisciplined hooligans.Stair (Non Delegate) There are two reasons for this on the agenda. One, personal abuse and two lets listen to what people have to say,. The attitude lets sweep everything under the carpet, lets not get to the route of the problem and deal with it. Sees personal abuse as being action detrimental.Buick (West London) This idea is bonkers, a recipe for Anarchism. If we experiment into non moderation, public face would make us look stupid, one member has unsubscribed another is in limbo. We could see other ways to moderate, e.g. anyone who sends a message could get an answer "Do you really want to send this?" Quoted Conference Standing Orders 15 and 14.Stevens (EARB) winding up asked what does Comrade Buick have to hide.VOTE: FOR 21. AGAINST 81. NOT CARRIED.
I remember that particular Conference well and I still stand by those words which by the way stimulated me to write up this report for Swansea Branch. The truth is this is not history repeating itself, far from it. In fact its an extension of the problems of moderation we then had with spintcom and spopen. And if I remember correctly even then it was concluded that if we failed to sort out the problem of moderation on such a low level of traffic things did not look pretty for the party in the future when we introduced a website with a forum functionality.Nearly five years on and we eventually decided to dip our foot in water after the WSM Forum run out of steam. That move was a bit hasty imo. For we are now confronted with much the same problems we had in 2008 but on a much different level and scale for with the party forum we are much more open to public scrutiny and hopefully to participation.Nevertheless, despite the present acrimony, I'm confident a solution will be arrived at much sooner than we think.
Matt wrote:Brian:But users are being encouraged to apply an element of self-regulation, are they not?Matt:I call it self-discipline.B:Because the logic of your response is that all such infringements should be left to the moderatorsM:#Quite so. Nothing wrong with that. The original offences are then isolated and highlighted.#B:by resorting to the report button.M:Hardly necessary, (If # above is noted) once the mod is allowed to do the job. Persistant use of this button is harrassment. The site is still being built up by Darren and he has to come into this. He put up the moderation queue as a possible solution to people feeling aggrieved about being banned (it wasn't taken into account members would behave like big weans even as we were trying to assess the first complaint, when we eventually got it) and then has to answer to queens counsel style Robert Jay grillings 'how long', 'how many warnings'.We are just volunteers.I wouldn't dish out any warnings, you are all big boys and girls. I might just volunteer for the job now we have a moderation mechanism. The department has good back-up and a trained conciliater amongst them, but without good will from posters, allied to self discipline, then nothing can be done other than what has been already been done. The department does learn, continues to learn and we even give each other robust interrogation, minus Robert Jay, when occasional stuff happens.MattCan we stop quibbling about terms and just agree that self-regulation and self-discipline are welcome bedmates? Like I've previously stated the introduction of the moderation queue caused more problems than it was worth because it was simply closing the stable door after the horse had bolted! Now the Internet Dept. are stuck with the consequences of that rash move.We are all on a learning curve and I must say its been very enjoyable and very interesting from my end even to the extent of writing up a 7+ (i've not quite finished as yet) page report on this dismal affair. I do hope the considerable length of the report does not put anybody off from joining us both on this wonderful learning curve and the end result proves to be a positive outcome for the introduction of a basic framework for a 'socialist netiquette' . Because has we both know its long overdue, for this particular discussion must have been going on for at least 3 years to my reckoning.Anyways, if you ever come across that guy Robert Jay just give him a stare that will make him shite in his apologetic capitalist trewsers. But whatever you do don't mention the report button because that will most certainly put the cat amongs the pigeons, cos it was his work that contributed to the development of a complaints procedure which was grabbed with both hands by capitalism. And what a pain that is! Lol.
Matt wrote:If you don't post or respond to flames the matter doesn't arise.But users are being encouraged to apply an element of self-regulation, are they not? So by your reckoning by not directly responding and pointing out an infringement has occurred does this count as self-regulation? Because the logic of your response is that all such infringements should be left to the moderators by resorting to the report button.I know Matt it's a tricky one and you don't have to respond. Cos if you do I may well be accused of flaming. Lol.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I was, necessarilly, abbreviating a much longer process: however, I believe what is depicted is not punishment, but an enforced time-out. It was specifically to address the point of how long people stay on moderation. The answer being, as long as needful. I'm sure a moderator would take public apologies when heads have cooled into account. I have to ask, though, how much time we're expecting moderators to put in?BillYou are an unpaid regulator who is trying despite the difficulties to be Mr Nice Guy. I suggested a much nicer way of going about your business which in the short and long-term will cut down on the time spent trying to please everyone. All it takes is a locked door with a great big glass panel so everybody can see what you and the disrupter is up to. There is only one rule to observe: You start talking with them and not at them! Why not give it a try and let me know what you think. That is if you think you are upto it. If you are not upto it leave well alone because you may not like how the changes such an experience will affect your attitude to human relationships.
Young Master Smeet wrote:OK, let's try a little roleplay:A wrote:: I'm a pacifist.B wrote:Pacifists are no better than fascists.A wrote:Are you calling me a Nazi?B wrote:If the cap fits…A wrote:Arsehole.Moderator wrote:Knock it off, the pair of you: this is a warning.B wrote:Why are you warning me, you fascist, A abused me.A wrote:Coz you're an arsehole.Moderator wrote:Right, you're both on moderation.OK, a little vignette. How long would each stay on Moderation? As long as it takes, is the short answer. Suppose A's next post is on the same thread
A wrote:I am a pacifist, but I am also an anarchist, I believe in standing up to the friends of power, who would use the fascist bogey to pursue their own authoritarian ends.Such a post might get through, it's not in violation of the forum rules, but, in the Mod's opinion it is carrying on the dispute, and A is showing no sign of letting it go. B posts on a different thread entirely, but snarks the Mod. B, though, has form and has been under moderation on several occaisions.In my opinion both would stay under moderation until it was clear the heat had died down, and both had shown that they were not itching to get back at each other's throats…
I have to admit that your "little vignette" is a short sharp shock and to the point but it fails miserably in bringing the conflict to a peaceful conclusion because your intervention was based on regulating sanctions and punishment and not on conflict resolution. It may well appear that you have archieved a positive result but when you start scratching the surface all you are left with are the bare bones that there's a continuing risk of much the same situation rearing its ugly head in the near future.On the other you could have nipped the whole affair in the bud right at the beginning by pointing out to both of them that if they continued their anti-social behaviour their conduct whilst on moderation would be open to public scrutiny on a locked thread. In 'plain english' its called shaming but for those of us who daily deal with such childlike behaviour it's called 'best practice' because it works in the majority of cases.Take care and have a good day.
SocialistPunk wrote:The following exert comes from the last paragraph of the Int Dept report into OGW's second suspension. "Note: On the internal Party forums hosted by Yahoo, there is a facility for moderators to place users' posts in a queue for moderator attention. This is used when someone has been deemed to be abusive. It means that for a short time, when the moderated user posts a new message, it goes first of all to the moderator, rather than the forum. This allows the forum to remain clear of escalating problems, like slanging matches, etc. It also allows the moderator to discuss off-line with the user the reasons for the moderator's action. Such a system is not yet in place on the website forum, but is being developed for use as soon as possible. While it may not prevent problems arising in the future, it will at least build in a safety valve." And this from from the first post on this thread.Admin wrote:I also intend to add functionality which will make it possible for posts from certain users to go into a moderation queue before being published. This would provide an alternative option to suspension for moderators.Yet a member has recently been suspended. A relevant question to ask is, will the recently suspended member be placed in a mod' queue after he has served his suspension, as happened to OGW?
To assume that the introduction of a moderation queue "will at least build in a safety valve" is missing the point entirely. A safety valve needs to be introduced before a moderation queue is even under consideration. Clearly, the introduction of a moderation queue is to admit the damage has already been done and to assume it will act like a safety valve is like closing the door after the horse has bolted! In fact like events happening here are proving the introduction of a moderation queue is not providing a positive solution but actually becoming a distraction from the main issue of placing moderation under scrutiny from the word go! So we can democratically establish what works and what don't work in line with our democratic decision making process and DPD can we stay focused on suggesting improvements and not on moderation procedures which have already proven to be faulty and wanting.I'm all for a "safety valve" being introduced, but right at the start of an infringement being notified to a moderator. And lets be clear the safety valve should also be an invite to conflict resolution rather than posing as a continual threat of further regulation and sanctions which is exactly the purpose of a moderation queue.And Yahoo ffs they are nothing but a bunch of profiteering fascists bastards. Indeed, if we adopted their type of software the disputes would still take place behind closed doors and not be open to public scrutiny. In fact we already have the means of openly conducting a dispute on the forum by using a locked thread exclusive to the moderator and user.Think on it, all party disputes are open to public scrutiny, but resolved by the party membership with documentation. Why should the moderation procedure on this forum be any different?
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:DJP wrote:It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offenses may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behavior.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.Well that seems to have answered part of the question which leads me to ask: How many posts does it take to demonstrate a change in posting behavour? 2,3,4,5,6, or even more? Or does it vary depending on the user under moderation?
How long is a piece of string? Your questions would be better addressed to the misbehavers surely.
OK let me reform the question. In order to lift moderation queues does the user have to demonstrate there's a change in posting behaviour with 2 posts in succession, or 3 posts in succession, or 4 posts in succession, etc, etc? Is there a common criteria applied to all users? If not what are the reasons for this?
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Hi AdminI was wondering about moderation warnings on this site. Would you be able to inform the forum as to how long a warning stays active?Thanks.It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offenses may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behavior.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.
Well that seems to have answered part of the question which leads me to ask: How many posts does it take to demonstrate a change in posting behavour? 2,3,4,5,6, or even more? Or does it vary depending on the user under moderation?
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi AdminI was wondering about moderation warnings on this site. Would you be able to inform the forum as to how long a warning stays active?Thanks.You are not the only one who has asked admin for an answer to this particular question. Although several days have passed since I sent the PM I'm still waiting for a response.
Alan,Firstly, regarding the Internet Dept. providing moderation training I see few problems there. For a start your good self, Matt and Tristam have quite a bit of experience in the field of moderation. Then there's Paddy, Frazer, Mike and Neil who have experience and skills in conflict resolution/nonverbal communication/mediation. OK its a scratch team but at least its a start in making a positive contribution towards establishing a code of conduct which is applicable and acceptable to this form of medium and also to our commitment to DPD.Secondly, in my reference to a change of party rule: I was only pointing out that as an option and the implications involved if the Internet Dept. decided it necessary to open up the status of moderation to non-party members. Please note I concluded this was unlikely, therefore the only course of action is an improvement of standards within the Internet Dept.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Brain, do you have any concrete evidence to back up this assertion? Unless you've managed to hack into the internet departments emails you cannot. I, and no doubt the other 5 members of the commitee, take strong offence at this comment.By "both sides of the debate" I believe Alan was refering to those who "contributed in support of the moderator" and the accusers. If any of the moderators have made contributions using "intemperate and inexcusable language" I would like to see them.PS. If people want to send private messages to each other please use the message feature and not a forum comment.
No I've not managed to hack into the Internet Dept. emails nevertheless I thank you confirming that indeed the Internet Dept. do have concrete evidence of this assertion. That aside, for concrete evidence to back up this assertion may I refer you to the whole of this thread: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-and-website-technical-issues which for me and other users conclusively illustrates that the moderators have acted and reacted in an ad hoc manner.I never implied or inferred in my post that any of the moderators used "intemperate and inexcusable language. In fact I can't recall anyone here or elsewhere suggesting such a notion.And my apologies for the lapse in not replying to Steve by PM.
Participants: admin and Brian Brian27/01/2013 – 8:42pmCan you please tell me if OGW is still under moderation. I ask because on the one hand he's posted a new thread under General Discussion yet on the other hand his posts are not appearing on the Forum Moderation thread.Delete messageadmin27/01/2013 – 8:46pmNewI can confirm that OGW is still under moderation. Posts by him that are in line with the rules are being republished in due time.
steve colborn wrote:Brian, OGWs name has disappeared completely from the frontpiece of this thread, can you find out what is going on please, Steve.I have no idea what you mean by, "frontpiece of this thread". Please note that OGW has posted up a new thread under General Discussion which in my book don't make sense if he's still under moderation on this thread. I'll contact admin to try and find find out what's occurring.
I like it for its clarity and focus on the system. Also such a short sharp message provides plenty of scope for the use of illustrations. Just hope the Election Dept. will consider using it at the next election it contests either as a pre-election leaflet or as the manifesto.
alanjjohnstone wrote:It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed. I happen not to think so and I support the proposition that flexibility is required in the way a moderator conducts the task, not rigidity, and any attempt to impose strict rules will only result in future acrimony. The lover in me says it is always a matter of different strokes for different folks. I leave unbending laws and fixed penalties to bourgeois courts and the lynch mob to those who seize upon any fallibility in the moderator to prove a bias.Am i wrong in stating that the Internet Department and the EC have become embroiled in this debate. That other members have in the past contributed in support of the moderator and reproached the manner of critics have exercised themselves. Just who was it who charged other members of a geographic prejudice, which verges upon accusing them of racism? But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted.Alan,It appears you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you state, "It is a matter of opinion that the moderation procedure is broken and flawed"; yet on the other you state, "… … … intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate and is to be regretted." You cant have it both ways, and to be fair with this typical contradiction you are endorsing what this thread is all about. In that the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Indeed, what I regret about this whole affair is that the moderators were very slow in reacting and when admin did eventually take action they put the wrong user under moderation! Then once they realized they had made a mistake it then took them several days to correct that mistake. By then the damage had already been done and further acrimony was stirred up both here and on spintcom. If that small episode alone does not say that the moderation on this forum is broken and flawed what will it take to convince you it is?Nobody on this thread is even discussing the need for "unbending laws" or even the need for strict regulation. In fact nobody is disagreeing with your suggestion for a 'light touch' to be adopted on the first intervention. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone currently on this thread would or could agree with your further suggestion for applying "different strokes for different folks" for that plainly won't work here for this is a public forum and not spintcom or spopen where a quick word to the known user is easily applicable.It would be appreciated if you could explain what you actually mean by "fixed penalites" and how you see it is in conflict with moderation procedure.Plainly, this being a public forum it requires a set of guidlines and rules which not only reflects our commitment to Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) and freedom of expression but also includes a procedual outcome which does its utmost to ensure that moderation is done evenly, openly and fairly. In a nutshell and also in plain english its commonly called 'best practice'. And yes I will be bringing this sorry mess to the attention of Swansea (which is the reason why I started this thread) and if they are unwilling to take up the baton then unfortunately this particular discussion is going to continue until another Branch states enough is enough. The party membership have to eventually acknowledge this sad state of affairs needs to be sorted.
