moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Of course, I take your point Mod. I get carried away, too. I will in future think before I criticise and I will attempt to be more constructive.
Which is the advice I gave some months ago. See post #20 11/02/15"Anyways basically the rules are there so the flow of the thread is not disrupted. Figure it out for yourself why it gets disrupted, but my advice is that before you click the save box read your message and ask yourself how will other posters react to how I've expressed this particular message? Don't do it once but several times and if any doubt is raised delete. You would be suprised how many messages I deliberately delete during the week."And yes if you must know I'm still deliberately deleting messages – especially when it comes to responding to this thread in particular!
Vin wrote:The thread below shows two users continuing to post after 3 warnings. Unless I am missing something, this indicates that the warnings were given retrospectively so the users had no opportunity to heed the warnings. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=22 This particular post is a classical example of a heads I win tails you lose situation. Ask yourself what would you do in such a situation?1. Ignore the previous off-topic discussion and only deal with the latest breach of the rules?2. Stick with procedure and good practice and deal with each breach of the rules as and when they occur?3. Acknowledge there is always the possibility that whatever action you take there is going to some myopic user who are incapable of thinking it out for themselves.4. Stay on watch 24/7?5. Delete all posts which breached the rules after the suspension, thus distrupting the flow of the thread?6. Be thankful you have a thick skin?7. Acknowledge that some users deliberately try to score points whatever action is taken?May I remind users that 'good practice' involves following 2.,3.,6., and 7. . The joys of moderating are so interesting I sometimes wonder why members are not flocking to join me!
Vin wrote:Call it what you like, I was suspended for asking 'what have I done wrong?' simples.If that is a rule then it should be abolishedYes you are correct you were suspended for asking on the forum 'what have I done wrong' when Rule 15. clearly stipulates to use the PM function for such queries. If in your opinion this rule should be abolished what would you suggest we replace it with?
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:If on the other hand you are of the opinion that this is not the case in all instances please forward the evidence by PM and I'll ensure its discussed by the I.C. for action, or noted.There is load of evidence. Don't wish to waste my time collecting information to be ignored and/or have the piss took, but I will not stand by and allow misrepresentation.
If you are unwilling to present any evidence, or either make a complaint, I have to assume that the allegations are baseless and without any foundation whatsoever. If you persist in making further allegations of this nature in the future I will have to seriously consider making a complaint of your behaviour to the I.C.
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:No user is suspended for a "petty reason", indeed every warning and a suspension is only ever issued after I've deliberated on the actual breach of guidelines and rules. Which in practice means no breach of the rules is considered to be a "petty reason".I was suspended for asking 'what did I do wrong' twice. No other forum whould suspend for such appalling and shocking behaviour
Correct me if I'm wrong but you were suspended under Rule 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Although you have been advised to make a complaint you have repeatedly failed to make any complaint on your suspensions.
Vin wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Also who knows, naming (and shaming) may even helpHe is a naughty bo because he has been suspended 40 times doesn't wash with me and the shame is on the members who swallow such bullshit.I'm afraid the shame is also on moderation for suspending party members for petty reasons, while allowing them to be attacked freely and lied about freely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plZRe1kPWZw
No user is suspended for a "petty reason", indeed every warning and a suspension is only ever issued after I've deliberated on the actual breach of guidelines and rules. Which in practice means no breach of the rules is considered to be a "petty reason". This deliberation takes into account that lies are par for the course and part of the cut and thrust of the discussion. And its up to the individual poster to remedy the situation. I will, however and have only taken action in such cases where they are or clearly consititute a repeated "attack" and a breach of Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.If on the other hand you are of the opinion that this is not the case in all instances please forward the evidence by PM and I'll ensure its discussed by the I.C. for action, or noted.
moderator1 wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the problem may be that warnings are buried down th thread and not seen: you may recall our correspondence when I received what, appeared to me at least, two warnings in the same thread overnight.Good point. In future I'll quote the post so the warning is brought upto date. Ideally, a warning should generate an automatic email to the user notifiying them that a warning has been issued. I'll contact Admin to ask if this is possible.
After consulting with Admin we decided that in line with good practice in future each warning quotes the offending post and the poster informed by email. Please note after issuing a suspension the user is notified by email.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the problem may be that warnings are buried down th thread and not seen: you may recall our correspondence when I received what, appeared to me at least, two warnings in the same thread overnight.Good point. In future I'll quote the post so the warning is brought upto date. Ideally, a warning should generate an automatic email to the user notifiying them that a warning has been issued. I'll contact Admin to ask if this is possible.
Vin wrote:As I tried to say somewhere above "Three warnings given retrospectively and a suspension all at once doesn't give the user time to get the message" Perhaps the user should not receive a second warning until he has ignored the first.A user only ever receives a second warning when they have ignored the first.
ALB wrote:More generally, I think we need a lighter rather than a heavier touch, allowing threads to wander a bit off the topic. Srill, I'm not volunteeering !Would appreciate a clarification here, not that I'm in favour of it. It may have passed your notice but quite a few threads are allowed a large degree of off-topic discussion. If we were to relax the moderation even further the danger is that this forum would soon change to the chaos experienced on facebook.
Reminder: 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
stuartw2112 wrote:I've been banned with no warning for nothing – the moderators need reining in or sacking. All discussion spins away from the point – it's the nature of it.Untrue. You ignored the reminder I posted and then also ignored the two warnings I issued. On the 3rd warning its standard practice to issue a suspension for an indefinite period. I also note that although I notified you that you are entitled to make a complaint you never made one.Its standard practice to issue warnings and suspensions which are acceptable and appropriate to the circumstances. In line with this practice your suspension was for only three days.However, your present suspension, given the number of occasions you've breached the rules on this thread, warrants a lot longer period of suspension.
Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.It would be appreciated if someone could start a thread on the MFP. I expect Nick Tapping to join us shortly.
alanjjohnstone wrote:ALB, Have we ever been in touch with this person and this organisation?I gather that they may well be more influenced by TZM than ourselves but should we not be making comradely approaches towards them.It is a pity that much of the propaganda is duplicated effort.We are in contact with the MFP through the TZM facebook group. Their founder Nick Tapping (aka Auntie Abolisher) was a well known poster on the WSM Forum. They are critics of TZM and admit they have been mainly influenced by us.
