Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Despite Lincolns' support for slavery he was forced into emancipation due to the amount of casualties on the union side.
steve colborn wrote:Brian, is there something wrong with the forum connection? I ask because a post from OGW does'nt seem to be appearing! Steve.I have no idea why OGW posts are not appearing. With a post from him appearing yeseterday I thought he's no longer under moderation. But if he's still under moderation unfortunately he's back in the queue.This is a problem I highlighted previously in that we have no idea on how long moderation can last and on what basis/criteria is it lifted.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?There is no easy answer to that, however the practice of moderation on all party forums is most certainly going to impact on how the workers are going to achieve socialism. For at the heart of the whole question of moderation on the internet is how we as a party impliment our understanding of Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) when using this medium for discussion of the socialist case. And with internet communication becoming increasingly the main means of communication for the global working class the urgency is to get DPD right first time on this meduim.The whole question of internet moderation is an ongoing debate not just within the party but also within the global internet community. And its become pretty obvious that our own particular form of moderation on this forum is found to be wanting in respect of applying its own guidelines and rules in an open and fair manner.There are 2 issues which need to be resolved so this forum is working towards the implimentation of 'best practice' and until these issues are resolved this forum will continue to bump along in an ad hoc manner regardless of the volume of traffic it experiences. Issue 1. is that currently its apparent there are insufficient trained moderators to deal with a relatively low level of traffic. Hopefully, the Internet Dept. is already in the process of creating a training program for moderators which itself should be ongoing and under constant review and re-assessment. Nevertheless, the Internet Dept. like most departments and committees are still faced with the problem of attracting members to become involved with its activities. And with the party membership so low and also with the majority of members not internet savvy the department consequently faces an up hill task that is never ever going to be resolved under the present circumstances of strictly observing party protocol where only party members can join a department or committee. Simply to open the membership of departments and committees to all and sundry would cause more problems that its worth under the present party rules. However if this forum was a stand alone organisation whose only connection to the party was through supporting the DoP then the issue of attracting people to the role of moderation becomes much more viable. With such a radical change of mindset unlikely to be implimented in the near future we are stuck with improving issue number 2.I'll deal with issue 2. later in the meantime any feedback on the above would be appreciated.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Brian Moderation is required for a number of reasons. For example to prevent abuse and deliberate disruption of the forumHowever, It doesn't matter how many positives and negatives we come up with, 1. 'moderation queue' means ONE member deciding what another member is allowed to say and what he is allowed not to say. I am not talking about abusive posts or deliberate and malicious disruption. What if a moderated member has many on topic and non abusive posts rejected? How do we prevent moderators abusing their position in such a way?2. As for off topic posts. What if some members are singled out for warnings and suspensions, leading to bad feeling. How do you legistlate for that?VinWhen we fail to draw up the positive and negatives we are doing ourselves a disservice as socialists and paying lip service to our policy on freedom of expression. Once we have have completed such lists then we are in a position to identfy KLOE and proceed from there by recommending changes to the guidelines and rules and also suggest a code of conduct, standards; etc which is more appropriate to this medium. For instance:1. The outcome of the moderation queue is not currently being decided by one moderator. What should happen – and which I hope is happening here – is that that the moderator assigned to the dispute in question goes through the posts and if the posts are of a *mixed* nature they are sorted into breach and non-breach. These are then passed onto another moderator with recommendations. When no decision is reached a third moderator is called in to help to decide the issue.This process only works fine when a brake is applied to the number of posts a user can send either daily or weekly. The brake serves a dual purpose by allowing the user and moderator to reflect on the content of the post and ensures the moderated posts are dealt with swiftly and effeciently.When the moderation queue has no brake this provides the opportunity for the user to swamp or bombard the moderator with numerous posts of a confusing nature. Consequently the frustration and impatience builds up and the queue can get even longer creating the impression that the queue is turning into a form of suspension. Imo the moderation queue should only come into operation during extenuating circumstances i.e. when there are insufficient moderators available to deal with the posts. Other than that a queue is a pointless exercise in control freakery. And such a situation should never be allowed to arise here but also would never arise if a brake is applied to all moderated posts as a matter of policy. For instance, if a brake of 1 or 2 posts per day was applied those posts could be turned around within 24 hours no problem!However, this still leaves us with the problem of the length of moderation. Is moderation set over the number of posts within a specific time period or is it set on the number of posts? I just don't know but will seek clarification on this point and also ask admin if all moderators follow a standard procedure. Again imo if there are three moderated posts in succession which are of a non-breach nature moderation should be lifted immediately as a matter of policy. On the other hand if there are three moderated posts in succession which are clear breaches a suspension should be applied lasting no more than 7 days as a matter of policy.2. If any user is singled out for warnings and suspensions there is usually a pattern to such behaviour by the moderator involved. Such an allegation of discrimination needs to be investigated thoroughly by the Internet Dept. and assessed for its truthfulness.Hope this helps.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi BrianWith all due respect, your reference to #37 on "Moderation and Technical Issues" only came about as a result of an enquiry from myself as to the confusion of the Int Dept's first two reports regarding OGW's case. If I had not brought the question to public attention, I am quite sure it would not have seen the light of day on this forumWhat I refer to would be a specific policy of acknowledging any overturning or retrospective rescindment of warnings, suspensions etc on the forum that the event took place.It is simply a matter of full openness and fairness for all.This could be implemented as part of what is known as diplomatic protocol. As the issue of moderating any forum is very much about diplomacy, I think such an open two way system of diplomacy, could go a long way as part of a comprehensive set of community guidelines that help forum users as well as moderators to avoid situations such as this from escalating in the future.I totally agree that all errors are acknowledged as part of policy and also those specific acknowledgements should be posted a.s.a.p. so the dispute in question does not escalate.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Do we really believe that a party member should be suspended for 3 off topic comments? Or does the party need to make a direction to the ID via the EC?Presently its immaterial on whether or not a user is a party member or a non-party member if they post 3 off topic comments they are suspended. However, like I have suggested previously in this thread (see post #51) any post which is off topic and *reported* to the moderators should not be automatically followed with a warning but rather by a friendly comment drawing *attention* to the breach.Obviously, if the off topic comments appear on any thread used by that particular user and they are *reported* to the moderator then a warning of possible moderation should then automatically follow. If this behaviour still continues then the user should be placed under moderation. If the user continues to post off topic whilst under moderation they should be suspended. However, *all* suspensions need to be posted on the thread(s) concerned with the reasons given.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Brian It has been suggested to me that a moderator is like the editor of the Socialist Standard and a chairperson at a public meeting. I find such suggestions to be ludicrous and in need of logical discussion and dismissal.VinIf we were to follow your last sentence through to its logical conclusion there would be no further discussion on this very important subject! Can we please stay focused on the subject of this thread and not throw the baby out with the bath water?Whilst the role of moderator will in the nature of best practice utilize some of the codes of conduct from the editorial of the Socialist Standard and chairperson the nature of this medium will eventually demand and determine its own particular code of conduct. How that code of conduct is shaped depends on people like yourself creating a list of negatives and positives. If you were to trawl through this thread you will notice SP, SC and myself have created such lists it would be appreciated if you could do the same. If for some reason you are unable to post here you can still PM it to me.
SocialistPunk wrote:I was wondering about whether or not it would be a good idea to have an open acknowledgement whenever a forum member has a moderation decision overturned?After all, it is very obvious to the whole forum whenever a member is warned, censored, suspended or put on probation in the form of a mod' queue. So if they are found "innocent" of any "wrongdoing" it would seem only fair that any retraction is done so openly.Doing so could avoid any ill feeling from developing, and help promote an atmosphere of open fairness, where mistakes are acknowledged and accepted by all.Who knows?This has actually occurred on the thread 'Moderation and Technical issues'. See post 37 there from pbfcarlisle. Unfortunately it failed to stop any ill feeling from developing.
Some very interesting comments her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o-brqskIoBw which should be a valid contribution to this discussion.
This is certainly something to bear in mind in reference to the consistency of moderation. To me off topic postings should only require the lightest of attention. For instance Matt the moderator on spintcom has indicated he does allow off topic comments through on a once only basis but where posters continue to be off topic he then draws attention to the breach and expects users to stay on topic. However spintcom is usually low in the number of postings and requires relatively less moderation than this forum. So when you take the number of postings here and also the low number of moderators to deal with incidents it could well have, albeit on occasion, an adverse impact on the overall consistency of moderation. I imagine that usually off topic postings are only looked at by the moderators once they are reported and how they react would depend how much off topic the particular posting is and the context e.g. is it encouraging other users to respond to the off topic comment, or on the other hand the poster acknowledging the comment is off topic and then reverting to topic. On the way off topics posts have been handled here there seems to be very little consistency in how they are dealt with. Some have been totally ignored, others have been handled lightly and others handled heavily. This uneven approach then has provided ammunition for them users who are in dispute with being under moderation and consequently placed moderation itself under scrutiny.
steve colborn wrote:Brian, you say Vin is stuck in a moderation queue? Are you aware Vin has not been apprised that this type of moderation has been applied to him? Vin has served his suspension, so to me, this is nothing more nor less than the individual censorship of a party member. Where have these people recieved this "power". Nothing about this type of high handed moderation has been discussed, or passed by the EC! Now do you see what I have been on about?Steve.Vin is very much aware of what is occurring. I'm presuming the time which it is taking to clear Vins' posts is not deliberate on the moderators part but down to either: 1.The lack of availability of a moderator. Or. 2. Mismanagement.I'm awaiting a response from admin regarding this. I can assure you this is being noted for further discussion when we get together to finalise our findings.
His posts are being moderated and stuck in the queue awaiting a moderators attention. Such instances will be noted for attention once we get round to the aim of this thread.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Thank you Brian but you have not answered any of my questions. But at least your interested. Some members seem to think that the workers are more interested in reification than free speech and democracy on a 'socialist' forum TOGWAgreed I did not 'directly' answer any of your questions and the reason is because they implied I take sides on the individual arguments arising from this dispute. My personal approach is to initially look at the environmental background, then help to draw up a KLOE which enables us to identify why the breakdown in communications has occurred. From there you can then modify the guidelines and rules so they are more appropriate and acceptable to all concerned.Obviously, the present code of conduct and the guidelines and rules are not appropriate or acceptable when it comes to resolving disputes over freedom of expression. Which in effect means they are perceived to be, or are undemocratic. With this being the case its up to non-members and party members alike to draw the attention of the Internet Dept. on a possible alternative code of conduct and g&r.By all accounts this thread is already having an effect with the Internet Dept. in that they have decided that the moderators *must* be members of the department. And have brought this decision into immediate compliance by suspending the account of moderator1.By the way I'm also interested in the subject of reification. Especially when its applied to the subject of democracy and freedom of expression!
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:BrianCould I ask you if you believe unbalanced moderation has anything to do with recent problems?Or do you believe moderation has been fair?If you believe the latter then what do you believe is the cause of recent problems. We cannot propose a solution if we do not know the cause. TOGWPresently I'm looking at the general environment – and not individuals – which so far is indicating that the party needs to get to grips with this new form of govenance so it reflects and also reinforces our commitment to freedom of expression. This forum is experiencing teething problems with moderation which is putting our commitment to democracy under the spotlight. Hopefully, the discussion on this thread will result in a positive outcome by scrutinizing the environment rather than individuals.From my own experience new forums never think sufficiently on the problems and issues of moderation.
SocialistPunk wrote:Back on to the subject at hand.As well as being in favour of a clear warning system of moderation, I am also in favour of it being what you could call "moderation light". I thought we had it before this mess. Admin was low key, a gentle word of caution here and there. Absolutely spot on.No need for an approach that seeks out every misdemeanor, to purge them from view.Good point which needs to be considered when the code of conduct, standards and procedures comes under scrutiny.
