Level of Moderation Required at ASF

[greggy]

Nice to know you agree with me that most times they get it right.

I guess your opinion of whom the best moderator is depends on whom you are. MB doesn't agree with you. So far I have had good experiences with moderators and think they do a good job, as without this website would be full of junk, eg I think Kennas did a good job on the DYL thread today.

Unfortunately I missed the Paris Hilton stuff!!!

Thanks mate. His charting skills are also pretty good along with those of SevenFX.

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: ABC is Political

There has been an increasing viciousness recently in some 'discussions' where there is little evidence of genuine exchange of views, and rather a petty, nit picking, point-scoring display of quasi solipsistic sophistry.

I may be wrong and this might be the stuff of successful forums, but personally I find it nasty and counter-productive. It's the reason several good people no longer post here, people who used to make thoughtful and genuine contributions.

Julia, you are correct and in my opinion things always start to go wrong when the discussion drifts from the topic at hand to those having the discussion. Someone will make an insulting remark about someone else, put words in someone else's mouth or otherwise make an unjustified personal attack on another participant in the discussion and from that point forward the chances of a constructive, useful debate occurring become virtually nil.

I would like to point out to everyone that it is possible to disagree and exchange ideas without insulting or making personal attacks on others. There is no good or justifiable reason to attack others personally because of their opinions. If you take issue with someone else's opinion then critique their opinion, not them personally. Good discussion and debate do not require insults.

To keep threads on topic, please report posts that start to make things personal because without fail that is when threads start to go wrong, and that is when action needs to be taken.

Although this post is in response to a point Julia made, it is addressed to everyone equally. Please avoid making things personal and you will find that the level of debate will rise and the discussion will be far more constructive and enjoyable for all.

 

[Country Lad]

Re: ABC is Political

Someone will make an insulting remark about someone else, put words in someone else's mouth or otherwise make an unjustified personal attack on another participant in the discussion and from that point forward the chances of a constructive, useful debate occurring become virtually nil.

Quite frankly Joe, the problem on this forum is that the abuse, denigration and the obviously intended bad language is allowed here. Having moderated a number of forums, I am surprised at the apparent intent by the moderators here to allow people to carry on in a way which is simply not acceptable anywhere else.

You may say all the right words about insults, personal attacks and abuse you like but without follow up sanctions they will continue regardless of what you say.

I have not seen such lax moderation where all this carry on is allowed on any forums I have visited. Professional this one is not.

Country Lad

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: ABC is Political

You may say all the right words about insults, personal attacks and abuse you like but without follow up sanctions they will continue regardless of what you say.

I have not seen such lax moderation where all this carry on is allowed on any forums I have visited. Professional this one is not.

Country Lad, most of these insults and personal attacks occur almost exclusively in political threads, which I do not follow and nor do most of the moderators. We rely on ASF members to report posts that cross the line into insults and personal attacks and in most cases this just doesn't happen. We only know that there is a problem if we are notified about it.

I make regular reminders about reporting posts so that everyone is aware that a process exists for posts to be reviewed and disciplinary action taken if necessary. However, posts need to be reported for action to be taken. The moderators and I do not see all of the posts on ASF, and outside of political threads, there really is not too much in the way of abuse and insults being thrown around.

 

[Miss Hale]

Re: ABC is Political

Quite frankly Joe, the problem on this forum is that the abuse, denigration and the obviously intended bad language is allowed here. Having moderated a number of forums, I am surprised at the apparent intent by the moderators here to allow people to carry on in a way which is simply not acceptable anywhere else.

You may say all the right words about insults, personal attacks and abuse you like but without follow up sanctions they will continue regardless of what you say.

I have not seen such lax moderation where all this carry on is allowed on any forums I have visited. Professional this one is not.

Country Lad

Don't visit any sports related forums then, they are 10 times worse

In general this forum is not too bad, there are just a few posters that go too far and resort to personal insults. The tactic I employ is to not bite, it usually stops people in their tracks.

 

[MrBurns]

Re: ABC is Political

Quite frankly Joe, the problem on this forum is that the abuse, denigration and the obviously intended bad language is allowed here. Having moderated a number of forums, I am surprised at the apparent intent by the moderators here to allow people to carry on in a way which is simply not acceptable anywhere else.

You may say all the right words about insults, personal attacks and abuse you like but without follow up sanctions they will continue regardless of what you say.

I have not seen such lax moderation where all this carry on is allowed on any forums I have visited. Professional this one is not.

Country Lad

I've been on a number of forums and the moderation here is tighter than any of them

 

[wayneL]

Re: ABC is Political

Don't visit any sports related forums then, they are 10 times worse

You can say that again. The conflagrations on the fora in the sport that I'm involved in are legendary...

... olympic sport, subjectively judged, mostly women, animals involved, + megalithic egos = enough fissionable material to form a critical mass... fire in a single neutron and minimum result is a 10 megaton explosion.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: ABC is Political

I've been on a number of forums and the moderation here is tighter than any of them

I haven't been a member of many forums, but I must say, I was slapped down when I stood up for nunthewiser.

It wasn't by the moderators as much as by fellow members. After digesting the rebuffs, I realised the forum self regulated the outrageous posters.

Since then I've had several differences of opinion with various posters and in a lot of instances have found that their opinion is more valid and accurate than mine.

I think this is a problem with forums generally.

There are people who want to push their opinion, right or wrong and won't listen to reason.
Then there are people, who want to test their beliefs and have them challenged, by people with similar interests.

I think ASF is a reasonably balanced forum and was a bit confused by 'countrylad's' comments.
To me they seemed a bit mischeivious for a laid back guy.
Also if he is a moderator on other forums, please tell me which ones, so I can avoid them.

 

[Some Dude]

It wasn't by the moderators as much as by fellow members. After digesting the rebuffs, I realised the forum self regulated the outrageous posters.

The problem that can emerge there is that it can then become a popularity contest. An example where the popularity mindset is demonstrated when it comes to potentially off topic posts. I would ask that people set aside whether they agree with the argument content, this is not a rerun of the argument. Excerpts from within the thread and posts, not full sequence of thread or post content so read the thread for full context.

basilio: Jonathan Dyles hoax with Whitehaven Coal raises the question of how far should citizens go in challenging what they see as corrupt or illegal behaviors particularly by business interests. The Yes men are 2 activists who have created a series of hoaxes to highlight particular issues. In 2009 they created a Press Conferance as representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce and announced a reversal of the Chambers position on Climate Change. (interestingly enough 2 weeks after the hoax the Chamber actually did reverse its position...) In 2004 the impersonated a spokesman from DOW chemicals to take full responsibility for the Biphol chemical disaster. They fooled the BBC into running that interview. What do you think of their actions ? Check out the you tube clips.

Calliope: Jonathan Moylan, whom basilio (for reasons known only to him) has alternately rechristened Doyle, Doyles and Dyles has been elevated to hero status by your party for his gallant efforts to reduce the heat wave and bushfires by harassing coal producers and their shareholders.

basilio: The topic is not specifically about Jonathan Moylan. It is the question of how activists can effectively highlight corrupt or antisocial business practices.

white_goodman: love to see that coksmoker go to jail

basilio: Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?

Julia: You want to judge what may be posted now? Perhaps set out some guidelines so that we do not OFFEND you, something that will apparently become an offence if Roxon's legislation to that effect is passed. The translation will be: No one with any views right of centre may say anything against anyone with views left of centre because it will ipso facto cause offence.

basilio: Nuh !! Just trying to get the discussion back to the topic Julia. I specifically introduced a quite different range of material for comment and discussion. Yours was the third successive comment that decided having a free kick at Jonathan was easier thinking about the bigger picture. And I was a bit surprised that it came from you. Any other thoughts on the Yes Men ?

Garpal Gumnut: His actions though have caused many ordinary people to suffer. So it is valid to discuss him given the context of your original post.

Calliope: You can't deny that it was the "heroic" actions of Moylan (Dyles?) that inspired you to start the thread. You can't complain that posters have taken you up on the absurdity of your Green movement installing this nasty piece of work into their hall of fame. He has also given you and other radical posters a lift in wavering spirits.

Julia: Basilio, you may take pixel's remarks as speaking for me also. Imo he should be up for a considerably greater 'kicking' than the few words that have been thus far offered on this forum.

cynic: The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.

Some Dude: And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW.

Julia: Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
Take that argument to one of the existing threads.

Garpal Gumnut: +1

Calliope: +2. There is even one that caters for those suffering GW hysteria.

cynic: +3 ... After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.

Calliope: Keep up the good work cynic.

pixel: +1

Disagreeing with the majority mindset here can be a significant challenge. I applaud Joe Blow for both the platform and the level of moderation and don't think that it should be changed. But I do ask people to ponder the situation for the person with the differing mindset when applying self regulation process.

 

[sptrawler]

The problem that can emerge there is that it can then become a popularity contest. An example where the popularity mindset is demonstrated when it comes to potentially off topic posts. I would ask that people set aside whether they agree with the argument content, this is not a rerun of the argument. Excerpts from within the thread and posts, not full sequence of thread or post content so read the thread for full context.

Disagreeing with the majority mindset here can be a significant challenge. I applaud Joe Blow for both the platform and the level of moderation and don't think that it should be changed. But I do ask people to ponder the situation for the person with the differing mindset when applying self regulation process.

I hear what you are saying and there will be issues that the majority dissagree with.
However, as your post shows, there isn't a lot of spite in the posts. Just robust arguement and point scoring.IMO

 

[moXJO]

Joe you are doing fine. I like my forums like I like my government, the less intervention the better.
Posters are grown ass adults and should be able to self moderate without forum boss telling them what is appropriate.
At the same time, some of you are good comedy value when you blow up at each other.

 

[tech/a]

Joe you are doing fine. I like my forums like I like my government, the less intervention the better.
Posters are grown ass adults and should be able to self moderate without forum boss telling them what is appropriate.
At the same time, some of you are good comedy value when you blow up at each other.

Pretty simple I think
If its related to the thread fine.
If it gets personal then it has no place.

 

[Some Dude]

I hear what you are saying and there will be issues that the majority dissagree with.
However, as your post shows, there isn't a lot of spite in the posts. Just robust arguement and point scoring.IMO

I left out the insults for which there were plenty and a number of people in my excerpts encouraging the main person doing it but that wasn't what I was highlighting. I'm big and ugly enough to look after myself so my point wasn't about that aspect of the thread. The (hopefully) neutral point I was wishing to demonstrate was on the issue of perception affecting how people will view something as innocuous as being on or off topic which makes self regulation a tricky beast even before you get to perceptions of other people or a topic.

 

[Logique]

Re: ABC is Political

I haven't been a member of many forums, but I must say, I was slapped down when I stood up for nunthewiser....

Now there was poster! Outrageous, at times highly amusing, but in the end went too far, and was collared. Fair enough.

I think Joe gets it right on the moderation, and there's a lot of self-regulation by the posters.

 

[Bintang]

Re: Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Just for the record, pixel is not the moderator of the debate. He is a moderator of the forum.

On re-reading my posts, I do find one statement where I slipped up. The reference to whinges about freedom of speech could have been worded and targeted better. I apologise, especially to you, bintang, if it caused offense.

I have spent the last 2 days mulling over your respective responses trying to decide whether I will continue posting on this forum.

To do so requires quite some time and energy and if the only people who join in the discussion are more interested in stroking their egos than conducting intelligent debate then for sure I am wasting my time. Unfortunately, to discontinue completely is playing right into the hands of the politically correct, apologists for Islam who want to silence people like me.

So I am faced with a dilemma, which I have not yet resolved and I will therefore mull it over for a few more days. For the time-being I just have the following additional comments:

I would be very surprised if anyone using this forum was aware of the distinction that Joe has made between the ‘moderator of the forum’ and a ‘moderator who is expected to be objective’.
The way pixel has thrown his ‘weight around’ during the discussion we have just had certainly gave the impression he was acting for authoritative reasons rather than merely expressing his personal opinions. I believe I am not the only person who thought this. (And btw pixel, thank you for the apology because your choice of words regarding the freedom of speech thread was unpleasant and unnecessary).

I think for a subject as contentious (but also as important) as the one we have been discussing in this thread, there should be a moderator of the discussion whose job is to maintain order and civility among the participants but to also be impartial – much like the speakers of our houses of parliament.

I would like this forum to be a lively place of discussion where we can debate with open minds and freedom of speech while remaining good mannered and respectful to one another. If one side of the debate is silenced by actual or apparent bias it will just end up being a dull, boring and useless talk-fest for one small clique.

Finally, please ask yourself what could be the possible motive for people to speak out openly and vociferously against Islam when they do so at great risk to their personal lives and when their detractors do not face the same risk.

 

[SirRumpole]

Re: Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

Unfortunately, to discontinue completely is playing right into the hands of the politically correct, apologists for Islam who want to silence people like me.

Now the paranoia starts.

Is there anything that you have posted here (providing that it complies with the rules of the forum) that has been deleted or amended in any way ?

Just because people have a variety of opinions and disagree with you DOES NOT mean that they want to silence you, they are just utilising THEIR right to oppose what you have said.

You see this countless times on forums. People get really narked when others disagree and they cry censorship.

It's really disappointing, because in other respects you make some good points.

 

[Bintang]

Re: Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

If I had a choice, I'd lock this thread because nothing new is likely to be added. But that would only give more ammunition to additional repetitive whinges in the "no more freedom of speech" thread.

Now the paranoia starts.

Is there anything that you have posted here (providing that it complies with the rules of the forum) that has been deleted or amended in any way ?

Just because people have a variety of opinions and disagree with you DOES NOT mean that they want to silence you, they are just utilising THEIR right to oppose what you have said.

You see this countless times on forums. People get really narked when others disagree and they cry censorship.

It's really disappointing, because in other respects you make some good points.

It is not paranoia at all. Pixel clearly stated a desire to lock the thread. To me that means shut-down debate.

PS: And when have I ever complained about anyone disagreeing with me? What we actually had here was a case of someone getting narked when others disagree and threatening censorship.

 

[Joe Blow]

There has been some discussion about moderation in one of the threads in the General Chat forum, so I thought I'd resurrect this thread to add some thoughts and clarify some issues.

Moderators are ASF members who have the power to enforce the forum rules. They are volunteers and are required to abide by the same rules as anyone else. They are not required to be objective in the sense that they are not allowed to have opinions. Like others they enjoy participating in discussions and debating issues. All I ask is that they abide by the forum rules, lead by example, and never post anything that they themselves would moderate.

Moderators have the power to close threads if they feel that a thread has run its course or has degenerated to the point where the chance of any further meaningful debate or discussion is unlikely. They also have to power to remove posts and issue warnings and infractions. If a moderator is too involved in a thread to the point they feel that they are unable to moderate objectively then they are to refer the issue to me.

My philosophy on forum moderation is simple: Never moderate on the basis of opinions, only behaviour. The only exception to this is when someone steps over the line and is openly promoting hatred of others on the basis of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion or politics. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between criticism and promoting hatred. For example, criticism of Islam is one thing, promoting hatred of muslims is something else altogether.

In the end, all moderation is a judgement call. Every moderator is different and in the same situation one might act while another might not. I guess it's sort of like a line ball in tennis. One umpire might call it out while another might call it in. But in the end, the umpire has the final word. If someone would like to approach me via PM about a particular situation for clarification or a second opinion they are welcome to. All I ask is that they take a little time to reflect on the situation first. Sometimes a decision that may not seem fair immediately may appear more reasonable once some time has passed and everyone has calmed down.

Anyway, I hope that has answered some questions and clarified the issue a little. Sometimes I forget that there are many who are new to forums, and may not quite understand how everything works.

 

[Julia]

Re: Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

It is not paranoia at all. Pixel clearly stated a desire to lock the thread. To me that means shut-down debate.

Bintang, I hope you'll not decide to cease posting. Your comments have sparked interesting and healthy debate and it would be a shame for that not to continue.

But when you say above that pixel 'clearly stated a desire to 'lock the thread", he didn't actually do that, ie close down the thread, something I expect it would be within his authority as moderator to do. I read it as an expression of his own personal feeling, his genuine unhappiness at some of the direction some of the posts were taking.

It's an emotive subject, as we see all across social media. I expect we will all see it somewhat differently.

I do take your point about withdrawing from discussion being an indication of submission to political correctness.
I don't know how we get round this. It is what it is. I find that I contribute less to such subjects these days as I just don't want all the aggression and spit back that inevitably follows an opinion that doesn't fit with the majority consensus. That, in itself, is somewhat of an admission of defeat, I expect.

PS, written before reading Joe's post above.

 

[Bintang]

Re: Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

But when you say above that pixel 'clearly stated a desire to 'lock the thread", he didn't actually do that, ie close down the thread, something I expect it would be within his authority as moderator to do. I read it as an expression of his own personal feeling, his genuine unhappiness at some of the direction some of the posts were taking.

Julia,
Although pixel did not close down the thread I took his statement to be a serious threat because he had already made it fairly clear on which side of the debate his opinions lay.

The topic “Islam: Is it Inherently Evil?” is of course a particularly contentious one and actually I am surprised there have not been worse ’clashes’ than we have had.

Furthermore, I understand the limits and difficulties imposed on Moderators but the point I am trying to get across is that with such a very contentious topic the Moderator should try to take some extra care.

If pixel had simply threatened to shut me down personally I would have taken it on the chin. After all I told him that if he did not like my criticism he could ask Joe to terminate my membership.

I was expressing a strong objection to the threat of an entire debate being closed down just because one person who had the power to do so did not like some of the opinions being expressed.

If the ‘air is now clear’ on this I will go back to posting.