Another one bites the dust.

[Podge]

Any chance of seeing spaceships back soon?

I know we don't see eye to eye but who am I going to torment?

 

[matt seymour]

I gave up on this forum when they banned discussions on religion.

I nip back in here today for the first time in a couple of months only to find that three members have been banned during that time.

How very unsurprising and a perfect reminder of why it is I don't bother with this place anymore.

 

[Tin]

It's the inconsistency that's the issue - As an "outsider" I see one long term member banned for (IMO) speaking his mind for 6 months, and another for 2 weeks.
Steve

That is the whole problem here, as it is only the member themselves and the mod/admin team who know what is going on behind the scenes, It is impossible for any other member who is OUTSIDE that process to do anything else except base their opinions on assumptions.

It was my suggestion back in June last year to have reduced bans for long standing members rather than 6 month bans, this we have trialled with some members (not successfully I have to say as most of the members who have received temp bans have since gone on to receive full 6 month bans).

For what it is worth, as a team we do not hand out bans without a lot of thought and deliberation and we are always trying to improve the system.

Frustratingly, I'm gagged by the rule of not discussing specifics but you can be assured that if you see a long standing, good contributing member banned, it is safe to say that we've not done so lightly nor without a fair amount of deliberation.

Does it need a revamp? - absolutely
Are we trying to sort it out? - absolutely

Hopefully this is an area that we can quickly roll out and improve and the rules updated to reflect this.

 

[Beachcomber]

It is impossible for any other member who is OUTSIDE that process to do anything else except base their opinions on assumptions.

It was my suggestion back in June last year to have reduced bans for long standing members rather than 6 month bans, this we have trialled with some members (not successfully I have to say as most of the members who have received temp bans have since gone on to receive full 6 month bans).

For what it is worth, as a team we do not hand out bans without a lot of thought and deliberation and we are always trying to improve the system.

It is examples like this that highlight why moderation on the forum has got into such a mess.

Why should longer standing members have more leniency and be able to bend the rules?

If you allow a multi-tiered rule system this will only ever lead to confusion and exploitation. So someone may have a post count in the thousands - does that give them licence to offend or abuse? Shouldn't all members be valued?

What next? A level of paid membership with a 'get off a ban free' card?

Back-bone is what is needed - a simplification of the rules and a proper implementation, not this wishy-washy limp wristed 'oh I'd hate to see them go, lets look the other way just this once' approach - we've all seen where that gets us.

We need to know how many points mean a ban and what point value an infraction has - a SET point value, not a make it up as you go along system.

Then all you need is:

Warning
Infraction
3 Infractions = ban

A 6 month ban is ridiculous - 1 month is more than enough time for someone to cool their heels.

If they come back and carry on breaking the rules, they get more infractions then a 2 month ban.

If after that they carry on, then it will be clear that no matter how long they have been a member, no matter how helpful they may have been, they are determined to be disruptive and should receive a permenant ban with a banning of their ip address to avoid them signing up under another name.

Now how hard is that?
Simple rules implemented with some backbone.
No need for deliberation, hand wringing or think-tanks - just plain, simple arithmetic - how many points accrued in infractions? Does it equal a ban? It can't really be easier.

Through fear of losing members, the forum are shedding them by the dozen through the actions taken in recent months.

Does it need a revamp? - absolutely
Are we trying to sort it out? - absolutely

Does the process need to involve the membership and take their thoughts and feelings into account - Absolutely.

 

[kulture]

All interesting points. You seem to be arguing for an inflexible, 3 strikes and you are out approach, with a fixed, short, ban.

I can see the merits in that. I don't necessarily agree with it. I would much rather a more flexible system where the context and content of the posts involved is reviewed, with the member involved too.

The first step however should be to agree what is the desired outcome. What are the rules meant to achieve. Should the forum be a community with banter and arguments but within limits? Should the forum be strictly professional and businesslike with no room for fun? Should there be no limits, or should any limits be set high or low?

 

[Beachcomber]

All interesting points. You seem to be arguing for an inflexible, 3 strikes and you are out approach, with a fixed, short, ban.

I can see the merits in that. I don't necessarily agree with it. I would much rather a more flexible system where the context and content of the posts involved is reviewed, with the member involved too.

This is where the warning side of it comes in - befroe you start on teh infraction process, a warning is issued so a member knows that they have to reign it in. If there is a debate to be had regarding the validity of the warning, that can happen at that time - but once you start down the infraction route it HAS to be rigid or will only encourage abuse, protracted arguments and inequality (and a whole lot more hassle for the mods)

Mods shouldn't have to get involved in arguments where a member has received a strike for something that another member got away with the previous week - that cannot be defended and will only cause disruption and frustration for all.

The first step however should be to agree what is the desired outcome. What are the rules meant to achieve. Should the forum be a community with banter and arguments but within limits? Should the forum be strictly professional and businesslike with no room for fun? Should there be no limits, or should any limits be set high or low?

Again, this is quite simple.
A healthy, vibrant forum where the relevant topics are discussed in the relevant sections of the forum and a 'Time Out' section where any topic is up for discussion so long as conducted without personal insults, name calling or threats.

I honestly think this will do far, far more for member retention than the make it up as you go / bend the rules for some / ban any topic that may elicit a heated debate approach that has caused such damage in recent months.

 

[kulture]

The problem with this approach is that no two posts are identical. So it is impossible to say that member A got a infraction for doing something whilst member B only got a warning for the same offence. Whilst it may technically be the same offence the differences may be significant. The context may be relevant. Likewise the posting history of member A may be different from member B and member A may have a history of close to the line posts.

The problem is further complicated because all this is done in private and other members are not told the full details behind either action. Leaving the members no idea as to why member A has been treated differently to member B. It is this suspicion and distrust that is so corrosive.

 

[trebor8]

That is the whole problem here, as it is only the member themselves and the mod/admin team who know what is going on behind the scenes, It is impossible for any other member who is OUTSIDE that process to do anything else except base their opinions on assumptions.
.

and who's fault is that though?

You're are very much putting this as a Us and Them

This might be the virtual world but it does have parallels with the real world. This forum is like living in a vibrant neighbourhood, were all the neighbours talk to each other, we're a bit nosy, a bit curious a bit argumentative, things were said in haste but things move on.
If a prominent neighbour disappears, we naturally want to know why. We start getting suspicion, rumours, innuendos abound. We start losing a bit of respect for those who're policing it and resentment kicks in. We hear of bans and gagging. This once great and vibrant neighbourhood has gone quiet and stale. The kids don't play out in the street no more, neighbours don't come out and talk, instead they just peer out of the curtains every now and again.
Alot of characters use to live in this neighbourhood but now have sadly gone. These characters had something real to say, something to debate, something to think about, something to laugh at, most importantly something to share
It seems the powers that be, want to build a wall around this neighbourhood, put up the warning signs. Keep this orderly and manageable.

Get the picture!


'as a team we do not hand out bans without a lot of thought and deliberation'

God who only knows what your thoughts and deliberations are. It's clear most MODs never really integrate in this part of the neighbourhood, probably feel the need to keep their distance? and thus have totally underestimated the strength of feeling towards these actions

 

[kulture]

This is the core of the problem. Because we cannot discuss individual cases. Because we have to preserve the privacy of member A or member B and cannot detail their background of naughty posts or previous discussions or previous agreements or indeed any relevant matter, we cannot properly defend actions. Then because we are hamstrung in this way it becomes difficult to contribute to any discussion.

 

[Cylon]

This problem is indicative of any forum and not unique to this one.

Its no suprise when a thread like this appears that a group of moderators will join it as this thread and posters in it will probably be discussed in a more private area of this forum.

I don't really care how the decision was made and certainly don't need to read the usual rhetoric about there being two sides to every story, we can't discuss it, forums rules, oh boo hoo it was a tough decision etc. Especially as there where a few of us who saw things unfold and can form an informed albeit slightly biast opinion on the matter.

That said I have only the highest respect for moderators/forum security guards who give up their free time to watch over us and protect us from spam, remove trolling posts etc.

In any virtual society where there is moderation without explanation there will be requests for clarity and its nice to see there's enough freedom of speech left here for this topic to be discussed.

Every forum needs its characters and regulars especially those who cause a little excitement by some straight talking or the odd heated exchange as some threads require advice to be given in a 'smack in the face' type way rather than being 'licked on by kittens'.

Banning certain topics on this forum may in the long run not be in its best interest as I believe that restricting topics of interest will lose you some regular posters and also lose you new posters who may have in the past stuck around on a forum with an area to discuss the more sensitive and controversial issues.

 

[kulture]

It would be nice if we could come up with an acceptable solution. Rather than go around in circles, because I suspect that we all want this forum to succeed and remain interesting.

Anyway, I am off to the real world to visit a friend in hospital.

 

[Beachcomber]

The problem with this approach is that no two posts are identical..........

And this is the crux of the problem - overcomplication.

But to cover your points:

So it is impossible to say that member A got a infraction for doing something whilst member B only got a warning for the same offence. Whilst it may technically be the same offence the differences may be significant.

When is the context ok for someone to call someone names?
When is the context ok for someone to flame?
When is the context ok for someone to post offensive comments?

It really isn't complicated unless you make it complicated.

The context may be relevant. Likewise the posting history of member A may be different from member B and member A may have a history of close to the line posts.

History is irrelevant - unless long term members / high rate posters can enjoy a more casual application of the rules?

As has been mentioned - unless it is one rule for all, we end up in a mess like the current situation. Set rules implemented with backbone is all that is needed.

In your example, if a poster has had repeated warnings / infractions then they will be banned under the 3 strikes rules.

If a poster has previously been 100% well behaved and has had a sudden outburst, the warning will handle it.

Again, there really shouldn't be any confusion?

The problem is further complicated because all this is done in private and other members are not told the full details behind either action. Leaving the members no idea as to why member A has been treated differently to member B. It is this suspicion and distrust that is so corrosive.

If the rules were clear and implemented properly there would not be any confusion or distrust.

All the time desicions are overcomplicated by taking into account history, post rate, previous record, wind direction, phase of the moon etc, etc we will have problems.

 

[kulture]

Indeed, and if incorrect posts were as simple to identify as you imply then life would be easy, and rules could be applied equally as you say.

The problems always arise when posts are not blatant insults and name calling, but can still be personal attacks rather than attacking the argument. Further would you consider the same post differently if no-one reported it, to one that has been reported. What about one reported by the 'victim' where the victim has said worse in reply. Do you punish both?

I wish it was as simple and as uncomplicated as you suggest. Then moderation could be faultless.

 

[Beachcomber]

when posts are not blatant insults and name calling, but can still be personal attacks rather than attacking the argument.

Personal attack of any kind as opposed to attacking a point of view / statement would be against the rules. All that would be required would be reading the thread to get the context of the post. From that teh intent would become clear.

Further would you consider the same post differently if no-one reported it, to one that has been reported.

No.
Breaking the rules is breaking the rules - whether it is picked up or not.
Speeding doesn't only become illegal if you are caught.

What about one reported by the 'victim' where the victim has said worse in reply. Do you punish both?

Yes.
You investigate the report - if, during that investigation further offences are uncovered appropriate action is taken.
Why should reporting someone make you immune from application of the rules?

I wish it was as simple and as uncomplicated as you suggest. Then moderation could be faultless.

It can never be faultless, but as I keep saying, it just needs clear rules implemented with backbone.

The examples given above are very straightforward - in circumstances where the situation is more complex it can be refered for a second opinion to another mod if in doubt.

This reminds me of the big enders and little enders in Gullivers Travels - a simple situation being turned into a complex problem through over-analysis.

 

[Matt1959]

I spend alot of time looking around forums and one thing that is obvious is that the best forums IMO are the ones that are moderated with an iron fist. BUT and its a huge but, this only works if the forum posts and subject matter are consistently good quality and therein lies the problem for here, becuase with the best will in the world this forum is not populated in the main by serious good size business owners - yes theres obviously a few but they are far outnumbered by the ones that are not. As a result, the forum content is not as serious and strong as it could be and it then becomes more difficult to moderate as a result...

 

[Beachcomber]

I spend alot of time looking around forums and one thing that is obvious is that the best forums IMO are the ones that are moderated with an iron fist. BUT and its a huge but, this only works if the forum posts and subject matter are consistently good quality and therein lies the problem for here, becuase with the best will in the world this forum is not populated in the main by serious good size business owners - yes theres obviously a few but they are far outnumbered by the ones that are not. As a result, the forum content is not as serious and strong as it could be and it then becomes more difficult to moderate as a result...

Sorry, but I can't agree with that.

Subject matter has little bearing on whether a member is posting within the rules.

Sure - if someone starts a thread about something offensive or sticks 47 threads about their kitten in the accounting section you may need to have a word, but quality is a very subjective thing. Just because a topic doesn't interest you does not make it irrelevant for the site as a whole.

So long as a discussion is carried out without mud-slinging, insults and threats then it's subject should not be of any concern.

Mods are not content editors.
It is the freedom to discuss any topic (within the bounds of decency) which make for a vibrant, flourishing forum, not the opposite.

 

[maxine]

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

Sorry to say this but there are clear cut instances where members overstep the mark ie; with blatant rude and personal attacks and when that happens a strike is given. It doesn't matter what size business or how fabulous a business person or business advice it's just downright unpleasant behaviour and will eventually result in a ban in line with the strike points system.

The only time this has been a little complicated and time consuming is where tensions run across different threads or where there is a build up of alleged goading/baiting/flaming/trolling and then it's a matter of reading back through a lot of comments and seeking input from other mods or admin. nobody is over complicating things but just trying to be thorough and fair.

I get fed up with hearing "ah but real business people call a spade a spade" as a defence as this is not what we are talking about in a lot of instances but rather downright unacceptable behaviour for the community. I would challenge this view anyway as most real business people are able to gauge where the line is and make a conscious decision on their actions having consequences!

Sometimes other members will see remarks and comments on threads but other times they are removed quite quickly.

Since it's not appropriate to then talk openly on the forum about the details of infractions when the banned member isn't around to comment then it calls for an element of trust in the mod and admin team.

There's been some great members over the years who have been banned but quite frankly most of them have deserved it!

Yes it's a shame to see some of them go but people come and go and what's important is that UKBF is an attractive place to hang out for all existing members and new members.

For what it's worth I think it's a shame the God thread went but I don't think that's an excuse to keep slagging off the mods unnecessarily.

 

[Tin]

It is examples like this that highlight why moderation on the forum has got into such a mess.

Why should longer standing members have more leniency and be able to bend the rules?

I didn't say that they bend the rules but this thread clearly shows the need to find a more flexible balance to the rules

If you allow a multi-tiered rule system this will only ever lead to confusion and exploitation. So someone may have a post count in the thousands - does that give them licence to offend or abuse? Shouldn't all members be valued?

I wasn't suggesting for one minute that we have a multi tiered rule system, however I believe a greater flexiblity of the rules depending on the calibre of the member is justified, again this thread indicates that it is needed. On the other hand no member should be allowed to offend or abuse another member. And therein lies the rub, everyone has their own threshold of what is abusive/offensive and what we need to do is nail it so that we can police the rules more consistently and everyone is happier.

Back-bone is what is needed - a simplification of the rules and a proper implementation, not this wishy-washy limp wristed 'oh I'd hate to see them go, lets look the other way just this once' approach - we've all seen where that gets us.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread all because a member has been banned. I don't think wishy-washy limp wristedness even comes into it and it is precisely because we didn't look the other way for a popular member that you started this thread. :|

We need to know how many points mean a ban and what point value an infraction has - a SET point value, not a make it up as you go along system.


Then all you need is:

Warning
Infraction
3 Infractions = ban

That is exactly what is in place at the moment, first offence is a warning followed by infractions, accumulate 3 and you're out for 6 months. Now the very reason that I suggested (and we've been unoffically trialling) a shorter ban term is because a 6 month ban is soooo long, especially for normally good contributing members.

At the moment each strike/infraction is worth 100 points and they last for 6 months, so it is possible to have expired infractions on you account as well as live infractions and it is only the live ones that can ban you.

Simple rules implemented with some backbone.
No need for deliberation, hand wringing or think-tanks - just plain, simple arithmetic - how many points accrued in infractions? Does it equal a ban? It can't really be easier.

If only it were that simple then we wouldn't have threads like this popping up all the time.:|

Does the process need to involve the membership and take their thoughts and feelings into account - Absolutely.

Absolutely agree, however firstly I feel that the bare bones needs to be debated by Sift and the mods. (Obviously I'm speaking for myself here and not with a mod hat on)

 

[Matt1959]

beachcomber...
well I'm happy to disagree but what I've said is what I've found. Actually the type of forums I've described become self moderating as those that post dubious stuff stand out very quickly and are soon made to feel unwelcome - in fact they would take one look at the forum content and think uh oh not for me....

Back to UKBF, here anything goes and its all things to all men hence we get such a massive variety of posters and subject matter and as a result its very difficult (I'm guessing) to have a consistent approach to moderating it.

I suppose the answer might be to call an ammensty, get all the banned members back in and adjust the moderating approach. My guess would be that within 3 months, most of em will be banned again I mean, how many times did saxondale return? would Ling do anything other than push the boundrays to breaking point? Its a great shame not to see these spirited posters but this forum aint the right place for them IMO

 

[Beachcomber]

I didn't say that they bend the rules but this thread clearly shows the need to find a more flexible balance to the rules

Quite the opposite - this thread clearly demonstrates the need for consistency and simplicity - not flexibility, as this is where you get inconsistency.

I believe a greater flexiblity of the rules depending on the calibre of the member is justified....

Why?
If I post 10 helpful posts does that earn me one offensive post?
If I help a member out can I then get away with slagging off another?

No, of course not. If you allow a members with high post counts to get away with more than new members then you will have a multi-tiered system. Who determines the 'value' of a member? Will you take a measurement by their post count / thanks score?

It really does not have to be complicated.

On the other hand no member should be allowed to offend or abuse another member. And therein lies the rub.......

Only if you stick with a multi-tiered, flexable and inconsistent moderation policy.

....everyone has their own threshold of what is abusive/offensive and what we need to do is nail it so that we can police the rules more consistently and everyone is happier.

The post has to be looked at in the context of the thread. If it is offensive appropriate action is taken. If it is not clear whether it is offensive or not, it can be refered to another mod for a second opinion. If they can't agree it can be passed to admin for a final desicion.

It really can be that simple.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread all because a member has been banned. I don't think wishy-washy limp wristedness even comes into it and it is precisely because we didn't look the other way for a popular member that you started this thread. :|

Oh please, that is a little bit of a low blow.
At no point have I said no-one should ever be banned, and it is clear that the original theme of the thread has moved on to take on the wider issues within the forum.

For the record, the member refered to in the op was banned because of an infraction that should never have been issuedand had not actually accrued the required number of points to warrant a ban. But because personal feelings were allowed to override policy he was banned.

If there was a consistent approach to moderation this thread would not exist.

That is exactly what is in place at the moment, first offence is a warning followed by infractions, accumulate 3 and you're out for 6 months.

All we need is for it to be impemented consistently.

Now the very reason that I suggested (and we've been unoffically trialling) a shorter ban term is because a 6 month ban is soooo long, especially for normally good contributing members.

Excellent.

If only it were that simple then we wouldn't have threads like this popping up all the time.:|

NO!
It is that simple - it just needs to be implemented properly!!!

How many times do I have to say it - simple rules, implemented with backbone. No 'oh well he's been here for years we'll let him off' or 'ah, but he did help so and so out with a problem they were having so perhaps we'll let this one slide'

This kind of 'flexibility' is why we are here. It IS that easy, it CAN be implemented properly and is done so on many other forums.

Why is there this pathalogical need to make somethign so much more complicated than it needs to be - the only result of that approach is the current situation we are all in.

Absolutely agree, however firstly I feel that the bare bones needs to be debated by Sift and the mods. (Obviously I'm speaking for myself here and not with a mod hat on)

Great - I'll look forward to it!

Back to UKBF, here anything goes and its all things to all men hence we get such a massive variety of posters and subject matter and as a result its very difficult (I'm guessing) to have a consistent approach to moderating it.

Subject matter has nothing to do with moderation - so long as the subject is within the realms of decency / legality etc.

Whether you are posting about your new office, utility supplier, fleet hire or new puppy - they all fall under the same rules and can be moderated in the same way.

Sure - some subjects can get heated - thats what makes them interesting - but it is very easy to differentiate between a post stating 'you are a total idiot and should be shot on sight' from one stating 'that opinion is totally idiotic and here's why......'

I suppose the answer might be to call an ammensty, get all the banned members back in and adjust the moderating approach. My guess would be that within 3 months, most of em will be banned again I mean, how many times did saxondale return? would Ling do anything other than push the boundrays to breaking point? Its a great shame not to see these spirited posters but this forum aint the right place for them IMO

That would be fun - to see the likes of Saxondale, Dances with Poodles, DCE, and that fella who was always trying to shift cheap adobe's. It would certainly liven things up for a while - and you are right, proper moderation would weed out those who are determined to cause problems if the moderation is implemented consistently.

We also need to reverse the banning of certain topics.

 

[Posilan]

I think this thread speaks volumes about the current situation (unless by the time you read this it's been removed):

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=285628

Steve

 

[Tin]

Oh please, that is a little bit of a low blow.
At no point have I said no-one should ever be banned, and it is clear that the original theme of the thread has moved on to take on the wider issues within the forum.

For the record, the member refered to in the op was banned because of an infraction that should never have been issued

I take issue with two things here, the first proves my point that it is not as simple as you would like us to think in that you and a few other members feel that an infraction should not have been issued for the post concerned where I know that there were an equal number of folk who thought that there should have been an infraction issued. And that is exactly the problem, unless we can come up with a set of guidelines that everyone agrees is fair to all this thread and any hope of a satisfactory outcome is doomed.

and had not actually accrued the required number of points to warrant a ban. But because personal feelings were allowed to override policy he was banned.

The second issue is that you've made a statement here as though it was fact and I'd be really interested in knowing where you got your facts from to back up such a statement?
To quote you from a previous thread "Dealing in facts always presents less problems" and "The thing about opinions is that they hold far more weight if there is sound reasoning and facts behind it". Now either you've got some facts that we as mods are not aware of or you are stating your opinion based on nothing more than your assumption. Which is it?

If it is not clear whether it is offensive or not, it can be refered to another mod for a second opinion. If they can't agree it can be passed to admin for a final desicion.

This is exactly what we do now, I'm not sure why you should think any differently, and one of the main reasons (in my opinion the most important) in having such a large (12) influx of new mods across a wide diversity of industries.

Whenever we hit a grey area and before any action is taken it is referred to any other mods that are around and then esculated to the Community Manager.

For what it is worth, personal feelings are not allowed to enter into a moderation situation. If a mod feels compromised then they simply pass it on to someone else. There are plenty of moderation decisions that I've not agreed with but have stepped aside because my opinions and feelings cannot (and indeed would not be allowed to) enter into the equation.

 

[Faevilangel]

The post has to be looked at in the context of the thread. If it is offensive appropriate action is taken. If it is not clear whether it is offensive or not, it can be refered to another mod for a second opinion. If they can't agree it can be passed to admin for a final desicion.

This already happens, the mods ask each other for their opinions, and then pass onto Henry if the situation warrants another opinion.

For the record, the member refered to in the op was banned because of an infraction that should never have been issuedand had not actually accrued the required number of points to warrant a ban. But because personal feelings were allowed to override policy he was banned.

To be straight here, there was no personal feelings involved in X members banning as it was debated amongst the moderation team and the final decision was made based on this debate.

How many times do I have to say it - simple rules, implemented with backbone. No 'oh well he's been here for years we'll let him off' or 'ah, but he did help so and so out with a problem they were having so perhaps we'll let this one slide'

This kind of 'flexibility' is why we are here. It IS that easy, it CAN be implemented properly and is done so on many other forums.

We have done this with long standing members (hence this post) but now you're saying we're doing it wrong? IMHO we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

We also need to reverse the banning of certain topics.

There is only one subject matter which is banned, and that was because the minority of members used the threads as a reason to launch attacks on other members because of their opinions or views.

If members could just argue the topic and not launch personal attacks, then the topic would still be allowed to be discussed, but opinions and views range widely in certain topics so I can't see the topic being allowed back in the near future.

 

[simon field]

There is only one subject matter which is banned, and that was because the minority of members used the threads as a reason to launch attacks on ......

There's two subjects. One is religion, and one is race. We're not allowed to discuss race either. Not in a business context, a current affairs context, a legal context, nothing.

Hope there's not another 9/11.

By the way, the only antagonist on the K.T.M.O.G thread is now banned, surely that's widely known?

Edit: Welcome back Earl

 

[Posilan]

For the record, the member refered to in the op was banned because of an infraction that should never have been issuedand had not actually accrued the required number of points to warrant a ban.

It seems none of the mods posting a reply here have picked up on this rather important fact?

Could one of the mods clarity how this happened given that 300 points should have been needed and what OWG said about the ban expiring as soon as the oldest infraction expiring yet he was given a 6 month ban?

Thanks,

Steve

 

[Tin]

It seems none of the mods posting a reply here have picked up on this rather important fact?

Fact???

Also I think you'll find that two mods have addressed this statement. See above.

Could one of the mods clarity how this happened given that 300 points should have been needed and what OWG said about the ban expiring as soon as the oldest infraction expiring yet he was given a 6 month ban?

Thanks,

Steve

Afraid not as we are not at liberty to discuss other member's moderation. I wish we were as it would make our lives so much easier. Not that I think it would make an iota of difference as members and ex members seem intent on making up their own version of events to suit themselves and would not welcome any kind of clarity on the way things really are.

 

[Posilan]

Fact???

Well, I've no reason to think Beechcomber is telling lies - are you saying he is?

Also I think you'll find that two mods have addressed this statement. See above.

Sorry, I can't see that? I can see your post where you said:

The second issue is that you've made a statement here as though it was fact and I'd be really interested in knowing where you got your facts from to back up such a statement?

But nobody has addressed the (alleged) fact?

Steve

 

[Beachcomber]

I take issue with two things here, the first proves my point that it is not as simple as you would like us to think in that you and a few other members feel that an infraction should not have been issued for the post concerned where I know that there were an equal number of folk who thought that there should have been an infraction issued. And that is exactly the problem, unless we can come up with a set of guidelines that everyone agrees is fair to all this thread and any hope of a satisfactory outcome is doomed.

Again, the problem is consistency.
Individual actions will be open to criticism so long as there remains this current inconsistent approach.

The second issue is that you've made a statement here as though it was fact and I'd be really interested in knowing where you got your facts from to back up such a statement?
To quote you from a previous thread "Dealing in facts always presents less problems" and "The thing about opinions is that they hold far more weight if there is sound reasoning and facts behind it". Now either you've got some facts that we as mods are not aware of or you are stating your opinion based on nothing more than your assumption. Which is it?

I was going on information received via email from someone who is supposed to be 'in the know' Maybe their info was wrong, maybe I should have used the perennial 'allegedly' to proceed my comments.

This is exactly what we do now, I'm not sure why you should think any differently, and one of the main reasons (in my opinion the most important) in having such a large (12) influx of new mods across a wide diversity of industries.

Then why is there this massive ambiguity and indesicion you have alluded to?

This already happens, the mods ask each other for their opinions, and then pass onto Henry if the situation warrants another opinion.

So it seems, but it isn't working - that has been admitted by mods /admin themselves.

So how about we focus on the solution rather than re-hashing the problems ad infinitum?

IMHO we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

All the time there is inconsistency then yes, I'm afraid you will be.

There is only one subject matter which is banned, and that was because the minority of members used the threads as a reason to launch attacks on other members because of their opinions or views.

So rather than warn, issue infractions and ban this troublesome minority, the majority were made to suffer and the most popular and longest running threads on the entire forum was consigned to the bin?

This is the prime example of the very problems we are discussing!

If members could just argue the topic and not launch personal attacks, then the topic would still be allowed to be discussed, but opinions and views range widely in certain topics so I can't see the topic being allowed back in the near future.

Why?
Offenders get warned, get infractions and get banned - come on, how hard is it!


It is getting quite comedic how many times I am having to repeat myself in this thread. I don't claim to be a moderation expert but I do feel I am good at cutting through the carp and getting to the root of the problem rather than trying to overcomplicate it.

Odd that I'm close to the only one offering solutions and so many seem determined to just regurgitate problems.

 

[maxine]

As Tin says we are not allowed to discuss specific details which includes infraction points.

A ban rarely happens unless someone either a) goes over infraction points or b) is an extreme spammer when there is a different process for immediate bans

I appreciate it's difficult for members to understand but that's because nobody talks about infraction points and zero points warnings as they are being clocked up and just see the result of a strike that ends up in a ban... This is why it can appear that people's accounts are mysteriously banned in the night when actually there's no mystery for the most part.

I remember being really peed off when some members got banned that I got along well with quite a while ago and felt it unjust yet the moderator access showed a completely different story when I became a mod.

Unless you are quick enough to see all comments on threads as they are live it can be difficult to appreciate what has caused infractions and ultimately bans and with more mods posts are defo being actioned quicker

But I'm not actually sure what this thread is about anymore. As was stated at the beginning yes it's a shame but what do members want now? What's the actual grievance here?

 

[Tin]

Well, I've no reason to think Beechcomber is telling lies - are you saying he is?

No, I'm not but he stated something earlier as fact and I'm waiting to read the facts behind his statement. For the record it was post 60 and the exact quote is below:

For the record, the member refered to in the op was banned because of an infraction that should never have been issuedand had not actually accrued the required number of points to warrant a ban. But because personal feelings were allowed to override policy he was banned.

I think it would be beneficial to ensure that any argument is based solely on facts so I shall await Beachy response.

 

[maxine]

Ok so are we saying we want KTMOG thread back if we promise to moderate without exception?

 

[simon field]

Ok so are we saying we want KTMOG thread back if we promise to moderate without exception?

Just the opportunity to have open discussion would be nice Maxine, whether its that actual thread or not is immaterial IMO.

It's the banning of discussions on race that does me, I mean you're always going to get people with bigoted views and some of them are going to be business-people and join forums. By censoring this topic, the bigoted few have ineffect, won here on UKBF, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Tin]

Again, the problem is consistency.
Individual actions will be open to criticism so long as there remains this current inconsistent approach.

And, what inconsistent approach was that then?

I was going on information received via email from someone who is supposed to be 'in the know' Maybe their info was wrong, maybe I should have used the perennial 'allegedly' to proceed my comments.

But you stated it as fact. Now you're saying you should have used the word "allegedly"!

Then why is there this massive ambiguity and indesicion you have alluded to?

I'm not aware of any massive ambiguity that I may have alluded to. I've said there are grey areas that clearly need to be addressed but that could be said of any situation. At least we're willing to discuss and perhaps improve on the systems that are in place. I don't for one minute think that the moderation policies that are in place are fundamentally wrong, I just think there is always room for improvement.

Odd that I'm close to the only one offering solutions and so many seem determined to just regurgitate problems.

Oh I don't know, I can see at least 2 Sift admins and at least 5 mods all more than willing to discuss this and try to find an outcome that suits both sides.

Have you or any members been gagged in any way on this topic, has this thread been removed or censored. NO! That doesn't seem like you are the only one here trying to solve any issues. Will these solutions be what you are looking for, well I doubt it but you really can't knock Sift or the mods from at least trying.

 

[Beachcomber]

Ok so are we saying we want KTMOG thread back if we promise to moderate without exception?

I would like that personally - and would liek to see it moderated as has been suggested, no differrent from any other thread.

Again, topic is irrelevant - if someone is being offensive while discussing god or cardboard boxes shouldn't really make any difference.

And, what inconsistent approach was that then?

The approach that offers leniancy to long serving members etc. It's all been covered many, many times.

But you stated it as fact. Now you're saying you should have used the word "allegedly"!

Yes, is there anything wrong with that?
I was going on information from a trusted source which after readong your comment led me to consider the possibility that it may not be 100% accurate or offer the full picture so I said maybe I should have considered using such information in a more cautious way.

I am always open to admitting if I have posted something out of turn, if I get something wrong I freely admit it - as I have here by saying that perhaps I should have said 'allegedly' so as to remove the implication of it being a known fact.

Now theres 2 paragraphs that shouldn't have needed to be written - lets not get into semantic nit-picking.

I'm not aware of any massive ambiguity that I may have alluded to. I've said there are grey areas that clearly need to be addressed but that could be said of any situation.

Please re-read this quote.

No-one has said there are 'massive' ambiguities and I'm afraid this looks like you are trying to mis-represent my argument, but by your own admission there are 'grey areas'. It is precisely these 'grey areas' we are trying to resolve.

At least we're willing to discuss and perhaps improve on the systems that are in place. I don't for one minute think that the moderation policies that are in place are fundamentally wrong, I just think there is always room for improvement.

Of course there is a willingness to discuss and improve - what forum would ever ignore problems? I agree that the moderation policies as outlines in recent threads are fundementally good - but it's these 'grey areas' and the implementation of the rules that need correcting.

No-one has said the entire rule book needs to be thrown out of the window.

Oh I don't know, I can see at least 2 Sift admins and at least 5 mods all more than willing to discuss this and try to find an outcome that suits both sides.

Great!
Thats good - shame it had to take several weeks and various threads to get this far.

But now we are here all wanting the same thing I expect this thread can take a definite turn for the positive and some real progress can be made.

Have you or any members been gagged in any way on this topic, has this thread been removed or censored. NO! That doesn't seem like you are the only one here trying to solve any issues. Will these solutions be what you are looking for, well I doubt it but you really you can't knock Sift or the mods from at least trying.

Ah, just as things were looking positive eh.
OK, here it is.

No, the thread has not been removed - is this because the mods want to sort things out or that it would have been seen as further compounding the current problems I don't know.

Also, I really don't think not censoring / removing posts should be construed as trying to resolve problems!

I am curious to know why you feel confident to assume that any solution will not be what I am looking for? I'm sorry but this is nothing less than antagonistic. It offers nothing constructive, nothing positive and only leads me to believe that these comments, along with previous ones, are more concerend with picking apart my arguments and belittleing my opinions than making progress.

In hindsight, would you consider these comments helpful, constructive and professional or potentially niggling if not intentionally flaming?

I am trying to keep this positive, but comments such as these cannot be left unchallenged any longer.

How about we both choose our words with a little more care in order to avoid any future misunderstandings?

 

[Posilan]

Hi Maxine,

]Unless you are quick enough to see all comments on threads as they are live it can be difficult to appreciate what has caused infractions[/B] and ultimately bans and with more mods posts are defo being actioned quicker

Not necessarily - original, untouched posts also get emailed to people subscribing to threads - so in the case of the member being discussed in the OP, I do know exactly which post it was. Yes, it was harsh, but given it was simply criticism and not deliberate trolling, I was very surprised to see it lead ultimately to his ban.

The banning of subject matter has also been badly handled. As a business community we are banned from mentioning religion or race when the UK is one of the most multicultural countries in the world.

After nearly a week discussing this thread, it's clear that it's achieving nothing so I'm going to bow out at this point.

Just one last comment - It's worse to find out you have customers leave that don't complain about poor service. Silent customers will just leave and go elsewhere. At least if they do complain, they feel passionate enough about the issue to bring it up and you had a chance to do something about it.

Steve

 

[Steve Sellers]

You know what, someone says something rude to someone and you guys refer to it as a "personal attack". It's over the top to say the least. This is an internet forum, not the streets of Baghdad.

Honestly, why all the drama. Why ban someone for being rude to another at all. It's real life for heavens sake. Short of out and out abuse or threats then why ban people at all. It's all a bit power trippy for my liking.

 

[kulture]

You know what, someone says something rude to someone and you guys refer to it as a "personal attack". It's over the top to say the least. This is an internet forum, not the streets of Baghdad.

Honestly, why all the drama. Why ban someone for being rude to another at all. It's real life for heavens sake. Short of out and out abuse or threats then why ban people at all. It's all a bit power trippy for my liking.

Interesting point. Currently it is against the rules to be rude, and so it is thus is a warning or infraction. It is a professional business forum, thus professional politeness is desired.

 

[Faevilangel]

You know what, someone says something rude to someone and you guys refer to it as a "personal attack". It's over the top to say the least. This is an internet forum, not the streets of Baghdad.

Honestly, why all the drama. Why ban someone for being rude to another at all. It's real life for heavens sake. Short of out and out abuse or threats then why ban people at all. It's all a bit power trippy for my liking.

Members have the right not to be abused because someone wants to have the moral highground. If members want to abuse people then they can do it to their faces rather than via an anonymous forum.

It's not like it's an unusual rule, it's on almost every forum or message board.

I wouldn't expect a random stranger in the street to throw obscenities at me so why should I get it on a forum.

If members have to abuse others to make themselves seem important then they need a long, hard look at themselves.

Sent from my HTC One SV using UK Business Forums

 

[Steve Sellers]

Interesting point. Currently it is against the rules to be rude, and so it is thus is a warning or infraction. It is a professional business forum, thus professional politeness is desired.

Desired, but in professional boardrooms, businesses people are far ruder and nastier than on here. I think back to some of the bosses I have had, they would be banned on an instant in here - let along mentioning colleagues, clients, etc etc.

Members have the right not to be abused because someone wants to have the moral highground. If members want to abuse people then they can do it to their faces rather than via an anonymous forum.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Nobody on this thread has said that somebody has the right to abuse? Seriously, if someone being a bit rude in a message is judged as abuse then I would respectfully submit good Sir that an internet forum is not the correct place for that person. Referring to rude posts as abuse is totally OTT. I am sorry but it really is, its making a mountain out of a molehill. Abuse is shouting and screaming at someone, punching them, raping them. How does saying someone is useless even compare? Why can't these silly words be dropped. I know why they are used too. It makes it easier to wield power and ban someone if what they say can be categorised as "abuse" or a "personal attack". Seriously, why are people so soft?

I wouldn't expect a random stranger in the street to throw obscenities at me so why should I get it on a forum.

Again, why are you using totally over the top analogies? Nobody has said you should be allowed to do that. Did the offending post that prompted this thread contain any obscenities at all.......no is the answer. So why use the unhelpful analogy?

If members have to abuse others to make themselves seem important then they need a long, hard look at themselves.

I could have a field day with a sarcastic comment here, but I will refrain.

 

[kulture]

Beach, personally I consider your comments constructive. I don't happen to agree with them completely. I understand where you are coming from. All I can repeat is that it is not as straight forward and simple as you say. It would be nice if it was. There will always be some posts that need discussion, and there will always be some people who think that a specific post does not merit an infraction that leads to a ban. Quite frankly I think it is healthy that this is so.

As to where do we go from here, what do you suggest? Are you suggesting (and I am trying not to put words in your mouth) that
1 mods should try to be consistent.
2 Moderation should not be lenient but strictly enforce the rules
3 Bans should be shorter
4 There should be no banned topics (other than illegal ones)