Reformation and then Amnesty

[Owens88]

Eeek I see the banning dispute has even slipped into the 'lighter side' forum as well.

 

I suggest that we re-form the forum with themed areas each with different tones of moderation, perhaps even each with a lead moderator.

The tones and levels of moderation  could be akin to TV

*Des OConnor (daytime),  Paul O Grady/Lily Savage (teatime), Graham Norton (later), Dimbleby (Question Time),  and even that 'obnoxious ex-academic historian now making a living by being a bombastic self opinionated pedant' whose name I cannot recall.

or like the variations in a Bar

*The snug with Ena and her mates.  The Restaurant with a focus on the menu. The Lounge Bar for all comers - strangers and locals

....and the Public Bar with exchanges which are a bit more 'robust' but all in there exit without rancour.

 

Still excluding slander and racism etc. Still with France as a root theme..

 

THEN we have an amnesty. For everybody. Bury the history and start afresh.

 

 

 

 

 

[Will]

"The tones and levels of modaration  could be akin to TV"

So who could we have in the Jerry Springer role? [:-))]

[Tresco]

Firstly, I would say Amnesty first, then Reformation [:)]

John, some of your ideas make a certain amount of sense, but I think neither the software, or the moderators (by number, not quality[;-)] ) are up to them.

In the end it has to do with self moderation. For instance, yeaterday someone posted a question about an allergic response to a sting.

Now, several people, including me, described similar experiences which may or may not have been the same culprit. The OP seemed happy.

Tonight, one of the ealier posters in that thread,  Croixblanches, posted a very lighthearted response about the 'pop star' Sting, who s/he is apparently 'allergic' to. Croixblanches indicated s/he had been itching (no pun intended) to say what they said, but had waited until a few sensible, serious answers had been posted.

Well, I thought that was a perfectly placed and balanced joke, but there is no way that level of judgement can be written into the rules and regs.

That is my first thought; I may return with more, but I think that flipping Saligo Bay found my one and only wit lying near her plastic roses, and nabbed it. She's really not that bright you know [6]

EDIT: The thread is here http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/669164/ShowPost.aspx

[Quillan]

You asked for a reply to this in another thread. I didn't notice this thread before and myfellow moderators thought it was just some fun so anyway here goes.:

I can only give my personal opinion because it’s Archant (Forum Admin) who should answer your question.

When people first volunteered or were asked to be moderators those people then discussed how best to carry out the function. My suggestion was to do almost exactly that i.e. have one moderator per section and in particular the section they were most likely to read and had an interest in. I didn’t get my way, it was explained to me why this would not work, basically there would be to many moderators. You would need one per section which would have meant about 40 odd moderators (there were less sections and sub sections than there are now) full time plus say 5 extra to stand in when required for people off sick, holiday etc. They would also have to be on the forum all day and night.

Now the truth is most if not all the moderators have jobs so they can’t be here all the time. People who have been deemed suitable candidates by Archant have refused mainly on the basis they can do without the grief or just don’t have the time.  So after some thought it was decided to use the Report button which in a way makes the forum self regulating.

Personally I was a bit upset at the idea as I had Corsica and TOM DOMS marked out for myself.

Most of the reports we have are to do with advertising which can be dealt with straight away. Other issues can become quite long winded and take up a lot of time in research (Searcher30 is a good example, visiting two other forums and checking allegations, email exchanges etc and then waiting for a response from the member). As we (the moderators) have said many times we are told by Archant that there is a Code of Conduct that they have imposed on the forum, we are told to ensure that the code is not broken, we have also been told that the rules have changed from three strikes to one (“If users are found to be breaching these guidelines once they have joined, they will be issued with one warning or banned immediately depending on the severity of their breach.” http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/465569/ShowPost.aspx). The moderators are very concerned about the instant ban bit because they could be seen to abuse their powers so we will only issue instant bans to people who have been banned and try and come back. All other instant bans will have to be done by Archant.

In another part of the forum somebody questioned our voting for a ban. With no Forum Admin about we have to have a 100% yes vote for a ban. In the case of allowing a moderator to vote if a complaint is made against him/her does two things yet it achieves nothing. It allows all to have a vote thus the grieved moderator feels they have some input but they don’t really because the other moderators can only deal with the facts as seen in the forum (the grieved moderator cannot lobby for support). The fact that it needs only one person to vote against the ban means that actually the aggrieved moderators vote is of no value. That is assuming the moderator has voted yes. But there is another side to this in that the moderator can watch the matter being resolved and may decide that he/she was wrong. They also can vote No so could change their mind and stop a person being banned in the event all the other moderators vote Yes. OK admittedly it would be quite rare but it does allow a window for a moderator to change their mind. At the end of the day though it does not really matter as Archant, the forums owners, can just come in and remove of place a ban as they see fit thus overriding the moderators.

I have long argued that how the moderators moderate should be published in open forum and I can assure you all that I would 100% back any calls by the members to have this put up for public viewing. My argument is that the moderators do have rules imposed on them by Archant to which they must abide but if the forum can’t see them they will not believe they exist so it would do the moderators a great favour to have them made public. It also helps remind the moderators of what exactly they should be doing.

Hope this helps answer some of your question and a few more besides.

 

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Quillan"]

You would need one per section which would have meant about 40 odd moderators...

[/quote]

 

Why odd? Why not normal, everyday moderators...? Are you casting nasturtiums (had to look up the spelling) at the general membership as requiring odd moderators... yes, Moderator Quillan, you've raised more questions in my mind than you've answered...

 

[:-))]

my signature is my woot

[Owens88]

Tresco said

John, some of your ideas make a certain amount of sense, but I think neither the software, or the moderators (by number, not quality are up to them.

The only demand on the software might be something to indicate what 'tone' is expected. What room or channel we are in ?

The self moderation principle is fine, except it isn't working.  I understand your example and have done the same myself. But look at what is actually happening in this forum. Serious headings spiralling off into 'back of the bike sheds' type conversation (and not just a witty insert), philosophical/beligerent debates appearing even in 'lighter side'...

I know of another forum where a moderator cut off a diversion (mine) and placed it into another thread. Fair game and better for all I thought.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="catalpa"][quote user="Quillan"]

You would need one per section which would have meant about 40 odd moderators...

[/quote]

 

Why odd? Why not normal, everyday moderators...? Are you casting nasturtiums (had to look up the spelling) at the general membership as requiring odd moderators... yes, Moderator Quillan, you've raised more questions in my mind than you've answered...

[:-))]

my signature is my woot

[/quote]

Well I have been called lots of things in the forum recently so adding a 'odd' to the pile is rather trivial really.[;-)]

I am glad I have started you raising questions in your own mind, this was rather the intention. I shall now wait till somebody comes along and tells you to 'what out' as 'I am trying to entrap and ban you'. [:D] Well actually I'm off to clear the table, walk the dog, go shopping and mow the lawn so I'm only joking.

PS I like the smell of nasturtiums (see its easy when somebody has done the spell checking for you, you just cut and paste) it's very distinct so I have cast a few in my time but then we are getting off topic a bit, or are we?

 

[Owens88]

quillan wrote

My suggestion was to do almost exactly that i.e. have one moderator per section and in particular the section they were most likely to read and had an interest in.

Hi

 

Sorry but that is NOT what I was suggesting.

My attempts at humour may have diffused my point so I will repeat it.

I think that there could be different areas (rooms/channel/forum groups) that have different expectations. Some with a really 'light touch' of moderation and others more strict. You only have to read the debate which appears all over the place on this forum to see what different opinions exist.

For instance, a 'stick to the point ruling' might apply in some specialist areas. Others might have a 'go for the ball not the player' ruling , which would censor a lot of the most acrimonious elements in recent weeks, yet others could be '5 rounds and queensbury rules apply, but leave as friends'.

I don't believe that is a major net increase in mods time.

I wasn't suggesting one mod per channel. I was suggesting that each channel may have a 'lead' moderator' but not that each mod could only work in one.

ACTUALLY I doubt whether a mod should police their own specialist patch of contributions (to paraphrase you). I think it confuses the roles - either you are the most expert/enthusiast/activist or the more detached moderator.

 

Regards

 

John

[Quillan]

[quote user="Owens88"]

The self moderation principle is fine, except it isn't working.  I understand your example and have done the same myself. But look at what is actually happening in this forum. Serious headings spiralling off into 'back of the bike sheds' type conversation (and not just a witty insert), philosophical/beligerent debates appearing even in 'lighter side'...

I know of another forum where a moderator cut off a diversion (mine) and placed it into another thread. Fair game and better for all I thought.

[/quote]

We were rather hoping, because of the increase in posts (about 800 odd yesterday but as you have to count by hand it's really a guestimate and if anything on the low side) that the reports would deal with much of the illegal  advertising which it does but we also pick up other stuff although most is being dealt with. I hope people don’t get fed up with us PMing them back saying thanks but we know and are dealing (well more polite than that obviously). It gives us the opportunity to look around for more serious infringements of the Code of Conduct. Unfortunately at this particular moment in time other issues are taking up much of our time.

We have been experimenting with splitting and joining posts but to be honest this is not the most user friendly bit of software I have ever come across. The problem arises from the nature of the way posts are attached to other posts and not always the one directly above it. So when you split something you often find posts move which shouldn’t. Bit like deleting a post really you can delete one and virtually a whole thread disappears. This is actually why we don’t do the old deletion and put a post in it’s place saying that a post or posts have been deleted like we used to. We are required to keep the deleted post, there is loads of hidden information that’s created just like the header in an email and we have to keep it otherwise we would just edit the original post. This is a function the moderators really miss (as is a spell checker).

So much of what we do is limited by the software which has also effectively changed the way we have to moderate. Moderating is a bit like running a B&B, give them a bed and a bit of bread and jam in the morning, it’s money for old robe, it’s so easy and simple, oh yeh, I don’t think so. I can remember once telling Miki I was going to give up moderating and it was him that told me to ‘stick with it and not give in’. Ah happy days, all a bit sad really.

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Owens88"]

quillan wrote

My suggestion was to do almost exactly that i.e. have one moderator per section and in particular the section they were most likely to read and had an interest in.

Hi

 

Sorry but that is NOT what I was suggesting.

SNIP

[/quote]

There is another reason for the report button. Why don't you report your own post, I think you can do this, our screens look a little different to yours and button appears on mine. The idea is that you can then put in the comment bit that you would like Archant to consider this. This then puts it in the moderators forum and forces Archant to look. The moderators will also get the oppertunity to give their thoughts, you might be supprised. It may take a bit of time for an answer to come back but you will get a receipt and you will get a answer sometime.

Added.: I ment to say sorry for misunderstanding your previous post.

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Quillan"]

I am glad I have started you raising questions in your own mind, this was rather the intention. [/quote]

Nooooooooo! Sorry - I was just being silly and picked on one word in your post. You see I haven't got my nix in a twist about this whole ban / mods / forum issue - it is just not that important in my greater scheme of things. Having said that.

What I think is being forgotten:

Archant is a business. It's lovely that they operate this forum but as a user I can't subscribe to the "we members have rights" school of thought. We use it free of charge and get out of it whatever each of us is looking for - practical info, debate, virtual or actual friendships, whatever. We do not have the right to demand certain policies; we do not have the right to no / some / lots of censorship (or editing), we don't have the right to demand that it is available to us 24/7... we certainly do not have the right to demand that the moderation is open and visible to all. We do have the right to bog off elsewhere if we don't like the way the forum is run.

As to whether the reporting facility of the software is made available to moderators (taking a comment from elsewhere) that is simply not appropriate. Running reports on forum usage is relevant to Archant's business units and no one else. I think as users of a free resource we are really losing the plot if we start believing we have the right to make these demands.

I've made real friends through this forum, I've got a lot of info through the forum and I occasionally try and give something back. But in my view, strident debates such as we're seeing at the moment benefits no one.

[Owens88]

[quote user="catalpa"]

We do not have the right to demand certain policies; we do not have the right to no / some / lots of censorship (or editing), [/quote]

Hi

Just for the record. I agree with your posting and that the forum is a great free to use service. My suggestions were not intended as demands. I was merely trying to help get out of the current morass and avoid getting in it again in future.

John

[Owens88]

[quote user="Quillan"]There is another reason for the report button. Why don't you report your own post, [/quote]

OK as long as it doesn't come across as being too self important. I was trying to suggest ways forward and I am sure there are many others.

p.s. thanks for the patient explanation regarding the problems imposed by the software. I understand.