moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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. 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
A general word of caution when replying to a mailshot from 38 Degrees.1. Do not CC your response, or you will likely get deleted from further mailshots. Instead use the BCC facility by typing your own email address in the address box and copy and paste the addresses to BCC.2. If you are thinking of using the emails as a mailing list please take note of this advice from their website:https://s3.amazonaws.com/38degrees.3cdn.net/fa05f477bdb57f7b98_iim6bhh77.pdfRespect the data protection act and other privacy protections – don’t, for example, assume if a voter emails you to ask a question about your policy on a specific issue, it means they wish to be added to your mailing list. What this will mean in practice is that all future emails after the election include an unsubscibe option:If you wish to unsuscribe from this mailing list please email gravediggers@talktalk.net
steve colborn wrote:Over the last few weeks, I have refrained from commenting/posting on this Forum. During this time, it has become blatantly obvious that there is a disparity of outcomes with regard to Modersation decisions of different individuals.I would suggest, that the most pressing need, in the sphere of Moderation, is to have "consistency" of Moderation across the spectrum and across all interactions with each and every member. This, is patently not happening.Some poster's are given a "mild" rebuke, whilst others are given "full blown" warnings for, as far as I can see, are the same indiscretions.This, to my mind, is a recipe not only for further discord but for resentments building up, by and within individuals and to those individuals infringing further, out of a sense of unfairness and injustice and not always deliberately either.So to stress once again, Moderation starts from first cause, treat everyone the same and do not "target" on the one hand, nor mollycoddle on the other.These actions may not be done deliberately but as human beings, we are not always aware of the reasons we take cetain action. So a second suggestion for Moderation. Take a step back and consider if the intended Moderation decision, is being taken in a neutral and totally impartial way!!!If you could PM your evidence for the alleged lack of "consistency" I'll ensure its discussed by the I.C. and inform you of the outcome.
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.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
SocialistPunk wrote:I was of the impression that this thread was about the mechanics of the moderation structure. How it could be improved, adapted etc. Not about complaints as to how the moderation on particular threads is being interpreted and implemented.It is about the mechanics of the moderation structure. However as my response and past posts have indicated re: using the complaints procedure for any changes in the moderation guidelines to come about, the suggestions have to go to the I.C. for further discussion. Also, posters are not in a position to formulate any 'Moderation suggestions' unless they are aware of how I interpreted the rules for a given situation.
The thread was being highjacked by the 'ideological argument' once again. Which is why I decided to issue second warnings. Although this argument originated on the 'Science and Communist' thread its being taken up on all other threads used by LBird. I agree its a valid argument worthy of some discussion on all threads, and serves the useful purpose of reminding socialists that the ideology of science is not fixed. However once this argument has been raised its unwise to allow it to dominate the conversation or the OP over the main discussion.In practice this means I will allow the ideological argument some space on all threads. Firstly because its a useful reminder that we need to be discerning in our approach when tackling objections to the socialist case. And secondly, because I have to ensure the flow of the thread continues I will ignore a first mention of this argument. And obviously I will allow a rebutal of the ideological argument to be posted on all threads on which it appears. What this means in essence is I will not allow this argument to dominate threads whilst the Science and Communist thread is still live on the forum. There is nothing stopping either of you using the Science and Communist thread to discuss the relevance of ideology in relation to hunters and gatherers and violence on that thread. If either of you wish to lodge an official complaint on my moderation please be my guests and take it up with the I.C. I will gladly forward it onto them.
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.
Vin wrote:Vin wrote:Why has rule 14 and 15 been ignored on this thread? Other users have been suspended for breaking these rules and a lot of fuss about whether or not they should be allowed in the partyIs it now OK to question Mod decisions on thread and off topic? At the same time I am being warned for questioning Mod decisions on a thread I specifically set up for that purpose? Is it not time for some uniformity? I have made suggestions that could solve this problem but for some reason they are ignored.Second warning: 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.This a joke right? Everyone can discuss moderation but me? I will now receive my third warning and suspension for doing what others are doing. Proof positive that I am not paranoid and that the IC and mod are openly and arrogantly using the power of censorship. No I wont.
Final warning: 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.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
Dave B wrote:I appreciate that moderators job is thankless but I also think the thread had not quite got out of control enough to elicit formal warnings; just a lets not piss around too much guys would have been enough or a moved to a completely thread derailed thread option.I posted a reminder in #78. To continually post reminders on the same breach of a rule would be detrimental to my task to keep the flow of discussion continuing. One reminder when a specific rule is being breached should suffice. If after the reminder the same rule is being breached and its obviously disrupting the flow of the discussion then I automatically issue a warning. After receiving three warnings for a breach of the rules the user is suspended usually for an indefinite period.All users are advised to read the rules before they start posting here. It not only makes moderation easier but should also ensure all users understand that a suspension is only used when particular posts are unacceptable and inappropriate to the main body of discussion on a specific thread.
pgb wrote:Robbo says: ….I'm a little surprised that the Moderator has taken such a strict line on what is, or is not, off topic. It is relevant to the topic because the whole point of the topic is to discuss what gives rise to war.Hear, Hear! Perhaps the Moderator could tell us why?Sure no problem. The OP of this thread clearly indicated it wished to discuss the latest "evidence" on the subject matter. As materialists we are here to discuss this evidence, unfortunately a number of posts and users illustrated they were not interested in discussing the evidence but their opinions and subsequently the thread made a big drift off the subject matter.Like robbo is stressing the data and definitions are suspect to cherry picking so it now up to us to forumulate a socialist response to this. And it seems that LBird is also having a go on their definition of violence, so good for him for its all part of the discussion.I would have taken action on the drift towards off-topic posts earlier if I wasn't so tired to go back through the thread to confirm I had already issued a reminder. By the time I had to check this out later in the day, the damage had already been done with further off-topic posts appearing. Hence, the strict line of action I took.I do allow some posts to get through which are off-topic for the moderator guidlelines do stipulate: "Socialist discussions are wide ranging. ‘Off-topic’ is not rigidly interpreted, and moderators allow some side discussions that are clearly related to the main discussion and only intervene if they begin to lead the thread entirely away from its given topic."In other words its not my job to curtail discussion but to encourage it and to ensure the flow of the discussion continues, albeit on-topic. I can't stress enough that this "evidence" goes to the heart of the case for socialism and it will only be kicked out of touch by us thoroughly examining it to clearly identify its fault lines.
Unfortunately, due to the many posts which are off-topic I've had issue several warnings. The topic is very important to the case for socialism so please keep the discussion within the parameters of the thread title.
Reminder: 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.
SocialistPunk wrote:Of course everyone, won't agree with every decision, (how is it even possible) but it could be a whole lot worse.I've done my best to point out the democratic method and the decision making process can be a double edged sword and this will still pertain in a DPD ( nudge to LBird). OK I went off the rails a bit here and on the Moderation Suggestions thread but it was purely to draw the users attention to my side of the story.I have to stick by the rules and the moderation guidlelines stipulate not for me to pre-judge or to take punitive action. With this in mind I'm not inclined to any knee-jerk reactions and some decisions I've made might take 2 to 3 days to reach a balanced outcome so its acceptable and appropriate to a majority of the users. And I'm fully aware that this lack of rush on my part really gets up some users noses. And I apologies for that, but that is the way I am.However, when all is said and done, the fact of the matter is that without the cooperation, positive feedback and the dissent from all of the users it would be impossible for me to do the job of moderating to the best of my ability.
SocialistPunk wrote:Something tells me that YMS is done with discussion on this issue. So I guess ALB could have his way, ensuring no further discussion can be had on this thread.If this thread were to be locked as per ALBs instruction, would it be intentional or unintentional censorship?Ha, ha. Good point. And yes it would be intentional censorship. If that is, I looked on ALB's suggestion as a an "instruction" rather than a friendly prod, which it wasn't. So from my end its a thumbs down for ALB for the only instructions I'll take on board here are those from the I.C. or the EC.Good grief I've just realised I've gone and committed an unintentional censorship by denying a No, no platform to ALB! Or have I?But seriously, the only reason I can figure out for locking threads is when they become a year old. If a massive disruption was to break out here all I have to do is use the rules wisely. So this thread still remains open for those who are inclined to have a pop at such a touchy subject.
duncan lucas wrote:I tried posting on your blog about conspiracy theories but was blocked ,anybody willing to debate it ??You'll only find out the answer to that question by starting a new thread on the General Discussion forum. Go to the menu on the right and click on Create Content and click the appropriate box with the drop down menu.
