Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I've noticed that several posters have mentioned that they would like the forum to be completely self-regulated with no moderator intervention whatsoever! Whilst others have commented that self-discipline is the route to follow. Although I'm not in favour of *complete* self-regulation that particular train of thought does have some merit when its incorporated with self-discipline.However, its also noticable there's no mention of either of these concepts in the forum Guidelines and Rules. What is also lacking in the G&R is a Statement of Intent which could include these concepts besides mentioning that the purpose of the forum is to discuss the case for socialism. The presumption is that this is all self-evident which is true, but it only becomes self-evident when you are familiar with the case for socialism.
gnome wrote:Who the dickens is this KLOE and when can I get to meet her?Perhaps Cde Richard Field can fill you in on what KLOE is all about. Don't know about getting to meet KLOE. Depends on whether or not your Branch think it worth their while discussing the end result of this thread? Unfortunately, KLOE's are known to drag their feet on times? Nevertheless they can reveal some surprising results and outcomes in regards to the decision making process.
It appears with the posting above a KLOE is starting to take shape around the questions of maintaining consistency and the setting of standards. However, I suspect further contributions will be made to this thread which will be on matters other than consistency and standards, so its early days yet for any firm conclusions on KLOE.
In fact KLOE is part and parcel of the scientific method. Sorry you've decided to leave the conversation. I myself would also help out on moderating but uyntil they clean up their act its a nono.
OK here's a straight answer – get on the Forum Moderation thread and list the suggestions you mentioned above! Time to walk the talk IMO.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Why the insistence on a list, Brian? Just wondered.Glad you asked. The purpose of the lists is so we can all move on and get this business sorted and behind us. By listing the positives and negatives we are then in a position to decide what is going to be the KLOE to conduct a review, assessment and audit. In short by listing you can start to identify the bottlenecks and the causes for distruption and inefficiency. It does not matter if the lists overlap in highlighting areas of concern for they may well indicate a KLOE.Once this whole process is completed then some recommendations and suggestions can be forwarded to the Internet Dept. for further discussion and hopefully implimentation.If we don't create more lists we are going to continue in the present rut of endless wordy discussion with no unified aim of correcting the faultline. In short I'm completely fed up with the talk and no postive activity to amend the present rules. Hope this helps.
Alan, it would be very much appreciated if you could put posts 19&20 into list form. Imo your 3 card approach had some merit to it and could be considered for application here, after of course the 2 yellow cards are replaced with something more appropriate and acceptable and not so confusing.Thanks.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Of course, one of the problems with this particular medium is that it is sometimes impossible to grasp people's intentions. Capital letters might suggest shouting, for example, but a lot depends on context. Someone might just be trying to be funny when they hurl an accusation, or they might be behaving in a deliberately obnoxious fashion. It's hard to tell. It strikes me that there may be a case to be made for moderation taking the form of constructive editing. Along the lines of 'Hang on, this could be construed as being offensive and obnoxious – why don't you rephrase that?' Time consuming, I know, but given that what appears on these boards is a direct reflection on the movement I think it's worth considering.For example editing would also consist of this: Could you please reframe this post and place it on the thread dealing with Forum Moderation. Its an excellent point and most certainly worth considering on that particular thread.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not assuming any ideal world: Assume good faith resolves the fallibility issue nicely.I support the status quo.I did not say your post was "assuming" an ideal world but "seeking" an ideal world. In the world of reality its not safe to assume and then draw a conclusion when your original assumption is based on an ideal.But it seems obvious you are of the opinion that the present status quo is ideal! Ho dear.
The problem is YMS is that this post is seeking an ideal situation and it's not going to happen is it? Can we please deal with the reality that users and moderators are – like JC pointed out in a previous post – only humans. This circular argument is not going to get us anywhere.Could you please put your nose to the grindstone by posting your list. We need to 'list the arguments' and then proceed from there. I'm sure you are aware of the implications of KLOE and how necessary it is to ensure pro-effeciency prevails?
steve colborn wrote:Brian, What I have said is highly applicable in my considered judgement. Consistency of moderation and moreover, well trained moderators to implement the "rules". No ad hoc judgements, no individual preferences as to the merits or, demerits of indivual posts or, in fact the individuals that post. This would give a "baseline" within which all decisions could be judged. If a post is outside of these, "rules", then in should be moderated in the way "moderation rules" are laid down. No room for prevarication or whatever! Steve.I take it then Steve that the above is what you consider to be your 'list'? This being the case I'm sure you will allow me to lay it out in listed form:1. Consistency of moderation. [Which means there is a set standard and procedure to follow.]2. The training of moderators in understanding on how the rules are implemented. [This implies that suitable protocols, procedures and processes are in place.]3.No ad hoc judgements . [This would reinforce 1. besides ensuring a common enforcement policy is followed]4. No individual preferences to the merits or demerits of individual posts. [To ensure there's equality of treatment (all enforcement must have the approval of least 2 moderators?)]5. No preferences to individuals that post. [This would bolster 1. and 3.]6. When a post is [clearly?] outside of these "rules", then [they] should be moderated in the way "moderation rules" are laid down. [Obviously, my editing suggests i'm not happy with this, simply because "should" is exactly an invite and a reason for prevacation. Imo.]
I found this also very useful in explaining the background to the concept and reasons used it to counter the human nature arguements: http://www.internationalmarxisthumanist.org/articles/reification-a-myth-shock-or-what-gillian-rose-tells-us-about-sohn-rethel-adorno-and-ancient-greeceI still say Santa Claus is a classic example of the concept in practice.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think consistency is a relatively low priority. Each case will be unique in any case (and if the mods fail to act in one case it has no bearing over their actions in another).You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with that opening sentence because its directly implying that the opposite is the norm i.e. Inconsistency is a relatively high priority. Which is just asking for trouble for without standards there's lack of consistency, and without consistency its really difficult to conduct a review which can be quantified against performance and to also assess what requires improvements in reference to equality of treatment.Nevertheless, its noticable that none of the postings so far on this thread have attempted to make a list on what is wrong with the present code of conduct. Plenty of comments and judgements but alas no list!I'm beginning to wonder why not? Comrades, if we are serious about developing possible solutions on this issue we need to ensure we are all on the same page. And we can only do that by drawing up our own personal lists on how and why the code of conduct is in our view failing and proving to be detrimental to the decision making process of the party.So please stop beating about the bush with the 'shoulds' and 'oughts' and get on with it by walking the talk! Once we have assembled all the negatives and positives in list form then we are in a position to come up with possible solution. Until then we'll remain in the present dysfunctional position.
Santa Claus fits very nicely into the concept of reification. Lol. On the other hand you might find this essay handy: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.126.626%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=pHPrUM-OLqKw0AXRyYGYAw&usg=AFQjCNEAP2wGBkLqhijyXWOZZnoeVUgeOA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k
