[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

  I was hoping for a broader discussion but I have to assume people are not interested and as I say that's fair enough, that's democracy.  

Its early days – give it time.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

The issues you raise in your first post have been addressed, with no need to change the rules.  Hence the setting up of this thread.However, please note that the rules as they stand will apply to this thread.

Your first and last sentences cannot both be true. If the issues have been addressed then rules as they stand should not be applied. We are either free to discuss moderation decision or we are not.You are attempting to dance around me but I would rather have straight answers

No you or any user cannot ignore the rules being applied to this particular thread.  Glad to say this will not be the case for the rules are there for all forums and threads.  The rules have not been changed therefore there are no distinctions between the first and last sentences in my response.If you have a complaint to make on this please PM me and I'll send it on to the I.C.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

I appreciate your reply Mod1 but not sure what you mean.  Suggestions are usually met with 'that's not a good idea because…' or 'that would work because……'.  and not a single enigmatic remark I suppose I should assume my suggestions are not worthy of comment which is fair enough but I would be interested to know the arguments against. Perhaps people have more important things to do, but as the Party grows the issues I raise will be raised again and  eventually have to be addressed.

The issues you raise in your first post have been addressed, with no need to change the rules.  Hence the setting up of this thread.However, please note that the rules as they stand will apply to this thread.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

And the point of making moderation suggestions is?  

I thought that was made plain in your first post?

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Thanks for getting back moderator 1, very much appreciated.I'm not trying to tie down moderators, I just think once a moderator has made a decision regarding what constitutes a breach of forum rules, certain standard procedures could be adopted for most "punishments". Serious consideration in the form of indefinite suspensions or total forum bans, being left for the most serious breaches of abuse or legally suspect posting, spamming etc.I've already said that a standard procedure might make it easier for mods' and should help reduce accusations of bias, and anything to make a moderators job more tolerable can only be a good thing, surely.What thread should be used for any further suggestions regarding moderation? 

If you or anybody else have any suggestions just stick up a thread here titled 'Moderation suggestions'

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Thanks once more for replying Mod 1, much appreciated. I'm not having a go at your moderation, just pointing out a potential flaw or two in the system, or to put it more accurately, lack of a standard procedure. You say that a standard procedure will be put in place, if and when other volunteers come forward to lend a hand. That sounds great, if a little lacking in foresight given the lessons of the past, except the actual guidelines refer to "moderators", the plural not singular. That to me suggests the guidelines were intended to cover all moderators, whether operating singularly on Party sites or in a team.  The three strikes and your on indefinite suspension system, is in use on this forum. I would be interested to know what the other Party sites are using, if anyone knows?

Sorry for the delay in replying. Good point regarding a 'common' standard procedure is not being applied to all Party sites.  I'll put that suggestion to the I.C. a.s.a.p. or any further suggestions which will make the moderator(s) approach more uniform in application.

[moderator1]

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.

[moderator1]

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. The  above rule covers this issue.  'Forum description ' means the separate forums, I.e. General, Technical, etc.

[moderator1]

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.

[moderator1]

A standard procedure of coordination regarding uniformed moderation will of course be put in place if and when further members step forward and give a hand here.  Until that happens I have to work with what is available regarding breaches of the rules and how they are enforced.  

[moderator1]

That link don't seem to work.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Ok, so what is deemed "appropriate and acceptable"?Exactly how do moderators decide on what is acceptable, when it comes to suspension times, of different posting violations. Being "off topic" is a very mild violation, verbal abuse is more serious and then worse still there are threats. Then there are what could be described as inbetween violations such as low level "trolling". Then what about repeat offenders of "off topic" or low level "trolling". Do repeat offenders receive escalating suspension times?If I were a moderator I would be extremely uncomfortable with the idea that length of suspensions were left up to my discretion, without any guidelines.Take a hypothetical case of a forum member being suspended previously for derailing a thread with "off topic" posting, not quite sure how one person derails a thread with "off topic" posting, but for the sake of argument lets say they can. They serve their time, whatever is deemed appropriate. They come back and start once more to single handedly derail threads. They just wont shut up and no matter how much other members argue with them and tell them to go away, they continue. A number of members complain, some even call for the offender to be banned altogether. So faced with the single handed thread derailer up to their old tricks, the moderator has to suspend them again.Now, what length of suspension is appropriate for a single handed, serial, thread derailer? Does a moderator take into consideration the personal views of some forum members, in determining the length of suspension? What about other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, how many previous suspensions etc? Without guidelines to work within, sentencing becomes an ad hoc affair, or in other words "appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances". But as we all know, what is "appropriate and acceptable" to some is not to others. Hence the need for agreed guidelines.

There are agreed guidelines for moderation and suspensions.  Unfortunately, due to them being in PDF I'm unable to post them here.  For a copy of these guidelines please contact Admin.  When applying a warning or suspension, to any user, I do not take into consideration the personal views of any forum member. On the other hand if the I.C. or the EC where of the opinion that my actions were unacceptable and inappropriate in a particular instance I would of course take that on board.  But so far I've had no complaints from either. However, when applying the rules I do consider other offences, how many times they were warned over what length of time, and how many previous suspensions etc.  If I failed to do this I would not be moderating in an acceptable and approriate manner. Nonetheless, whatever rules and guidelines are drawn up there will always be some who would never find them "appropriate and acceptable".

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Weirdly I was not aware of Vin's indefinite suspension when I set this thread up. It was intended with reference to LBirds recent suspension as a result of his spat with Vin.However the original question about indefinite suspensions, how long they last and how that is determined, still stands. There must be some structure that is used to determine the length of a suspension? It can't be an arbitrary process, surely?

Each suspension is determined on what is appropriate and acceptable under the given circumstances.  All posters who are supended are notified by email of their suspension and the process, if they are unaware of it, for lodging a complaint against the suspension.

[moderator1]

Reminder:  2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.

[moderator1]

Reminder:  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.

[Author]

Posts