For quite some time I've been wondering whether a moderation panel might be a better alternative to me being the sole moderator of what is or isn't acceptable conduct on the site.

I'm wondering if a better way of doing this might be to select some members of the community to be co-moderators and to consult on these questions before determining what action to take.

Perhaps the moderation panel might even delegate power to its members to exercise moderation powers themselves in particular circumstances.

We'd need to have some rules in place, and I'm not looking to conduct an election for the panel. I think there are some posters who we could all agree stand out as rarely if ever getting involved in acrimonious arguments who would be good in the role.

Of course they'd have to agree too!

This is not a fully formulated view, but more than a thought bubble too.

Look forward to your thoughts.

A thought bubble like this should be made policy before any further discussion or investigation. It seems to be how policy is announced these days.

Or perhaps focus groups would have to be consulted before a working party could be formed to discuss strategies for establishing a taskforce that would go forward towards selecting a posters' deliberative assembly to lead a three-year enquiry into a suite of recommendations to be put before a subcommittee of senior OLO members

I think we can assign the role to r0bert, Foxy and examinator. They have been long time campaigners for the position of manners police.

Severin could of course put her money where her mouth is with regards to her constant allegations of bias in moderating the Forum, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quite so, lets get Runner, Stern and Al Gore on to that panel to fix things up quick-smart.

That'll see an end to Squeers, Severin, TBC and many others others... you too Belly.

The risk in using OLO is that we offend the sensibilities of The Big Blue Pencil In The Sky.

Maybe an 'appeal panel' of 12 peers would be enough?

Or just carry on knowing TBBPITS is always watching over us, knows what we write, and can see into the depths of the (stony/empty/hard) hearts of the worst offending of the recalcitrant posters.

Just like dealing with gods really, and good practice for life.

TBC

Too true

Houllie

I am never far from your thoughts am I?

I second Foxy and add Examinator.

I would say Foxy and Examinator too.

GY,

In order to give context to my views I restate my view.
As stated before, you as a moderator etc is infinitely better than most.

No one person is perfect and no one gets it right all the time nor should they be expected to.

Secondly, I don't make fusses over your ruling because
a. This is a discussion site. The country's policy isn't formed in the forums on OLO. At best it's a reasonable barometer of the range of opinions.

b. Contributing to OLO isn't part of my ego it is among other things entertaining and A source of mental stimulation for me and others.
What it is not is mandatory or the only option available.
Ultimately it's my choice to contribute or not.

Like any organisation there is an authority chain and one either accepts it's judgements or moves on. I choose the former. I simply accept your authority. When Or if I don't, I'm gone. All this negates, in my mind to make pointless ripples.

On your suggestion directly. The problem I see is perceptions of the appointees and their ability to maintain there online commenting as individuals. Add to that the perception of "politeness police" abusing their 'power' because they disagree (politically etc with the person being sanctioned.

I see issue of egos etc e.g "I'm more objective that XX" "they said this 12 months ago etc." or "they're a Lib/Labor".

For that reason I would suggest that the assistant moderators not be named. In truth it is the function (Competence) that is important not the personality.

I would also suggest that in the instance of a disputed judgement it should go to a majority vote of the committee, you having veto.

Part 1

Part 2
I do have to put my bit in that many topics in the general section (written by amateurs) do go too far with hurley burly and spoil conversations for others. Given the above context to me such angst is unnecessary and in many cases simply laziness or mischief both of which are fine untill they simply derail conversations...contrary to the site's goals .

Finally, I have no real problem beyond the latter.
I do believe that the committee it will free you of some of the issues they work on several other sites I write to.

In short I think the idea may help OLO.

Cheers Constable Examinator :-) (joke)

I think you have your answer all ready Graham.

Trying to get a panel which would not be a bunch of biased censors, in more than a few areas, would be very hard to do.

Although I have detected a certain "mother hen" tendency in action to protect the authors of articles from heavier criticism, I have not found any bias in its application.

I see nothing wrong in the present set up, & a host of difficulties in trying to make it fairer in perception, but not in fact.

Generally it those on the left who can't accept the umpires decision. Whether it be you Graham or a panel they can't accept authority because they believe that they are a god. Personally I like the way things are. It is not perfect but works pretty well.

Runner..did you tug your forelock, bow, scrape, geneflect, light a candle, sprinkle water and offer something up when you posted that, just to make sure you had complied with all possible, yet unknown, demands from The Authority Above?

I have to take issue with this line, "Generally it those on the left who can't accept the umpires decision" because I'm not sure what 'being on the left' means, what with Gillard being touted as a 'left wing' politician it seems to have lost all meaning when she is just as right wing as Abbott on most election issues, and certainly as unreliable as Rudd ever was when it comes to inventing 'new' policy at the drop of a hat, oops, sorry, focus group pencil.

What would be a perfect forum Runner?

One where everyone agreed with your handed down views and didn't have anything different to offer?

Why bother with a forum?

Why not just get your instructions for the day from a tweet service, and carry on 'irregardless' as the Great Stoneage Senator Barnaby Rubble says?

Accepting 'authority' eh? Is that what motivates your life?

Would you walk the minefields to clear the way for the SAS, just because you were told to?

Commit the war crimes that soldiers are wont to do, under orders, all the time?

I wonder if you can describe what 'authority' is, and where that differs to just 'behaving in a reasonable way'?

Perhaps a new thread there Runner?

That said, I'm pleased to see that we agree on there be little call for a disruption to the status quo, such as GY suggested.

Generally speaking what happens is that the mods mention their need for help and persons volunteer by contacting them direct. No publicity or debate, just pick whoever you see fit and with inevitable wastage withdraw rights and again appoint as you see fit (flick an email to the possible volunteer/s).

It is not something that should be up for a vote or attempted agreement/consensus because the buck always remains with GY et al. Enlightened dictatorship is appropriate, fair and the only realistic alternative.

It is a nice thought and consideration that a group might come up with agreed names, but this is not a cohesive or responsible group in any sense just a changing collection of anonymouses.

As for any new rules, the volunteer mods and the the current incumbents chat away together whenever they see a need and come up with something without reference to the wider group. It is inappropriate to debate new rules with the wider audience, however ideas on improvements to the site should always be welcome.

You already have clues as to a name or two, just go to them and they would be confidential if your judgement is good which should be the case. Consider ruling out all who have transgressed to date, for obvious reasons. No need to blood any particular number of mods first up, just get one or two and suck it and see. Don't rule out article contributors too for possible volunteers.

My 2c worth.

Dear Graham,

As you can see from the responses I don't think
that a Moderation panel is going to work - especially
if chosen from current contributors. There will be
resentment from certain quarters who are opposed to
any manner of advice from anybody that dares to
suggest on how they should be talking and behaving.

Personally, I don't believe in tanking people's
opinions, however I do believe that there should
be an "etiquette" in how we post. That's common
practice in other Forums. I think that part of the
problem with posting in cyberspace is that its
anonymous. I'm sure that many people who now feel
that they can use the Forum for their own "amusement"
sometimes at the expense of others,
feel they can do this
because they can hide behind the shield of anonymity.
They would perhaps behave differently if this was not
the case. Perhaps not.

I don't have a problem with the way things are at present.
Rules are currently in place to which we're supposed to
adhere. And, you Graham, I've always found to be fair
as a moderator. I think that the current problems that
may be happening at present is due to the fact that we
are dealing with highly emotive subjects - politics,
religion, and so on. People have strong opinions.
Anyway, as I said - I'd prefer to leave things as they are.

Before I forget, a panel is no better than an individual mod for making decisions and it would be expected that mods would chat together anyhow and present a united front. This isn't a court and we are not playing for sheep stations so why agonise over it?

That must be another 1c worth, sorry.

It's not possible to 'derail' conversations. Each poster has the choice whether or not to respond to another poster. The presence of irrelevant banter and off topic posts is easily eradicated by a wonderful invention called the scroll wheel.

Even without the use of this invention, the more compulsive posters also have the ability to select which aspects of a post to respond to (or not) and also the ability to converse with other posters on any level they choose.

Those that wish to police the forum and often accuse Graham of bias have I think been put in their place here quite nicely by Graham. The quickest way to silence the dissenters and accusers of bias is to invite them to have a go themselves. In essence, people love to have a whine, but ask them to contribute and they run a mile.

In short, the posting limits are more than adequate to protect the forum. The current moderation is working well, despite the protestations of those with a perplexity for attempting to control everything, and who are conditioned to assert quaint table manners as a measure of superiority.

Foxy,

You often talk about 'expense of others'. Obviously the price is well worth it when, well, my customers for example, always come back for more.

I'm not in favour of the idea if it's going to bring too much regulation to the forum. We're all grown-ups and in my experience so far we generally keep the tone at an acceptable level. The content should be unafraid! We've come through decades of PC. Of course where we need moderation, on legal and privacy issues perhaps, that's another matter, though I doubt Graham needs assistance with that. It might be a good idea to have a court of appeal? so that if GY is perceived to have made a biased call, it can be challenged---but wouldn't he have the final say anyway?
If it is decided to go ahead with the idea, I nominate the inimitable Forrest Gump and TBC for eloquence and wit; Foxy and Examinator for the maudlin middle ground (they make a lovely couple--though the former seems to be avoiding me and the latter accused me (unjustly) of "strident verbosity" :-( ; and for the conservatives, who better than Peter Hume and "man the bilges" Stern?
With such a court presiding, I might even escape the noose!

Dear Houellie,

You're not likely to be in a position
to have something worth saying unless
you stop treating OLO as a urinal here
for your own amusement.

Thanks for demonstrating my point Foxy.

Dear Houellie,

I know you're not an ignorant
heavy-handed creep.
You just play one on the internet.

Anyway, please wait -
I'll ignore you next!

I'm happy with the way things are. This forum seems to organize itself for the most part along reasonably civil lines. We forge alliances and often step in to do a bit of informal moderation among ourselves. Sometimes things get a little out of hand and that's when Graham steps in.
We are a collection of disembodied egos, intellects and emotions, all clamouring to make our point. I like the fact that we haven't got a panel of moderators breathing down our necks - it makes me more inclined to look at my posts with a critical eye in case I've over-stepped the mark.

GY

Where is the articulate, capable and courteous Susan Prior? Surely one of your staff would be a more objective moderator, than a regular contributor?

Well said Severin. Regular contributors are the last group of people who could be objective. The only OLO personality who seemed to have the respect of everyone was The Pied Piper.

Perhaps we need to go back to the idea of having a continuing
open thread, where forum rules can be clarified and sorted out.

I've been posting on OLO for a fair while now, but some things
are still not clear to me.

For instance, I have no problem or issue with using modern
anatomical and biological words to describe human sexual
parts. IMHO they are simply part of our everyday discussion
these days, be it on radio, TV or the internet.

It was pointed out to me that schoolkids read some of the OLO
posts, so that kind of language might not be suitable.

That really left me confused. I had assumed that we had
left the Victorian era behind us and that modern day parents
are not so inhibited, as to not call human sexual organs by
their appropriate name. What do they tell these kids?

It is a twinky? Is it an unmentionable? Surely we have
moved on to more modern times?

I'd really like to know the answers to these questions and
a thread to post these questions would be great

I rather like things the way they are, with Graham as the moderator.

Unless Graham could find someone who is not a regular contributer to OLO, I don't think many of the more 'out there' posters would deal with their fellow posters judging their posts.

On the other hand, if Graham feels he needs more support or help with decisions, then I guess it is up to him how he wants to run this forum.

I see the way forward as being quite simple:

Firstly, the rules have to be clear, and upheld as they are expressed.

Secondly, contributors to OLO should be encouraged to report anything that they feel infringes the rules.

Thirdly, the moderator alone (or any staff or volunteers that have his approval) makes the decision as to whether a reported post stays, gets edited or deleted, and whether a poster gets warned or suspended.

That’s basically it!

OLO doesn’t need a panel. It needs community policing!!

Users need to feel encouraged and empowered to make complaints or notes of concern.

Afterall, Graham cannot possibly peruse all posts each day. Neither could a panel of five or so people. Good policing of the site real does rely on readers being strongly urged to report infringements.

Yes he has encouraged people to do this, but I think that it needs to be boosted. A notice on the forum rules page and probably in various other prominent places that says something like this would help:

< The high quality of this forum is dependent on the assistance of users. Please read the forum rules and report all infringements to the moderator. >

Those who report infringements should be thanked with a personal email. Graham has done this each time that I have reported an infringement.

It is simply a matter of making people feel as though they belong to the OLO family and have a duty of care to uphold its high standard, not only way of what they write but by way of helping keep control over what others write, and will be thanked and supported for their efforts.

I am sure that many forumees would be willing to do their bit. Anyway, it would only take a small number of regulars. It wouldn’t take long for regular users to get the message that they can’t get away with infringements and new users would be smartly brought into line.

Once this is working well, the number of posts that Graham would have to check and pass judgement on would presumably be very small.

I am also happy to leave things as they are unless Graham is finding the task too time consuming among his other responsibilities and hence the reason for this request.

Everyone has biases and it is clear from the comments that the moderation aspect may descend into chaos :) with too many fingers in the pie.

We are all adults and most posts are not offensive and we are all aware of the rules when we participate on this discussion site.

I vote we leave Graham and/or SusanP to continue with this role - we may not always agree but this won't be any different if using a panel arrangement of mixed personalities and sensibilities.

With recycling being such an important component of sustainability* these days, including of course the sustainability of debate and discussion on OLO, I recycle this suggestion from yesteryear:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479#56848

And scrolling down just a little on that same thread to this post that completes the description of the proposal:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2479#56879




Yes, the GELATO!




As wih all totalitarian regimes, it is the secret police that wield the real power. Should I be invited to participate, I bags the chat room userID 'Heinrich'.





*Misquoting Hermann Goering: "Every time I hear the word 'sustainability' I reach for my revolver!"

Further to my first point: the rules have to be clear and upheld at face value….

I concur with Yabby that the rules are not always clear and as such posters can inadvertently infringe them.

Yabby copped a week’s suspension in the ‘Great Deletion’ on the ‘Racist government, racist opposition, racist debate’ thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10669

Others copped longer suspensions. I got 24 hours in the sin bin. None of us received warnings apparently.

Looking at Yabby’s user index, this was his first suspension. And it was my first. Both of us are old OLO contributors, having been here since November 2005 and having put up several thousand posts each without incident.

I found it most unfortunate indeed and quite offensive to have been suspended without a warning, after nearly five years without prior warning or suspension.

I don’t think that I had infringed the rules as I saw them applying. I was writing with humorous intent and within what appeared to be acceptable OLO culture.

I note that while 27 posts were deleted on this one thread, the ‘keep responses on topic’ rule was overlooked, with a number of posts remaining on that thread ( including 2 of mine! {:># ) that have nothing to do with the topic.

I’ll also note that StG on a different thread on 30/7 had a post deleted and was suspended for ‘arguing a moderation issue on the forum’. But there is no rule to say that posters can’t do this.

So it really is important that the rules be as clear as possible and that the policing regime aligns with the rules…..and that those who infringe the rules in a manner that could be inadvertent get treated gently.

Whether we have a panel or a single judge or two or three judges, each acting unilaterally or in consultation with each other, is I think not anywhere near as important as posters being able to quickly understand the rules and have confidence that the stated rules are what actually applies.

We all know that the pay and conditions are so good that Graham and his 'staff', whatever that means, should be selfish and keep all of the work to themselves. Of course he should be thankful to soldier on, that is a given.

However there remains the practical reality that managing a public site is enormously time consuming and much of it is administrative and secretarial in nature and just has to get done somehow, otherwise the dross builds and the wheels creak. Such work begs for the support of those superb people who are blessed with an eye for detail, are organised and methodical and know how to implement things through to completion.

Those of us who have honorary positions with charities and the like are only too aware how character building it is sacrifice our own family time and recreation to ensure that a community service continues to be provided. However we also know how relieving it can be to have someone step forward who is prepared to support and bring order through clear, orderly thinking and perseverance in ensuring compliance with rules.

I sense that if GY could get a lot of support from a reliable volunteer or two with the time and ability to keep a weather eye on threads. To ensure they are generally within the standards - on thread, in the right category, no silly stuff and so on - before things get too far off course. That is not heavy duty moderation as such and it would prevent the regular break-outs of bad behaviour that have occurred in the past.

While on that subject, there has been a break-out of quite decent behaviour on OLO in recent times which I attribute to an drop in name calling and nuisance behaviour (some just like to pick arguments). That lull is much appreciated by all and quite remarkable in the lead up to an election. Some support, not just goodwill, could see that continued.

No obviously that first sentence of my fourth para was scrambled - the benefits of multi-tasking and anyway, this isn't where I earn my daily bread.

Now that just brings home my point that if GY had some voluntary support, who knows, someone like me might even look forward to the introduction of a post-posting edit function to correct my errors, if I get around to that.

Ludwig... now I know you are officially a 'troublemaker' I'll read your posts more carefully.

Did you offend with a remark on 'Dear Tony of Townsville'?

Or something worse?

I nominate Foxy as the objective arbiter of free speech on this forum.

After all, as she clearly states:

<<Personally, I don't believe in tanking people's opinions>>
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:02:39 PM

Except, of course, when those opinions differ from her own:

<<Dear Proxy,
I want you to leave (this thread) please, as you
obviously are not capable of contributing.
And if you dare to bring up the subject
of "Free Speech,"…
"There is free speech and then there is hate inducing
vilification."
I've put up with you trying to derail my thread
through several posts - now BACK OFF YOU TROLL!

Go rant on your own thread - leave mine alone!

And Graham if you're reading any of this -
do something please - this guy's behaviour should
not be tolerated! He adds nothing to the discussion
except repeating the same old phrases with
malicious intent - its called "Spamming" and is
usually unacceptable on most reputable Forums.

I've had enough of it - he's a troll - plain and simple!
He does it to bait or provoke users into responding.
OK - I wasn't going to respond - I've ignored him
for as long as I could - but honestly, one can only
tolerate so much!>>
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 12 June 2010 6:58:48 PM

and again:

<< I will once again ask both Al and Proxy
to either contribute to the subject of
this thread if they wish to post, or
leave the thread. This thread is NOT
about Islam. It is about the positive
contributions of Australian Muslims.

If you continue with your off topic
rants then I shall have to recommend
your posts for deletion. Because you
are breaking the rules of this Forum.>>
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 June 2010 8:33:37 PM

Oh dear, will I be suspended for saying this?
I’ll have to watch and wait.

It looks like I'm going to continue to be the sole moderator of OLO. I was looking for some help because it takes an enormous amount of time when the odd flame war breaks out, and I suspect that they break out because they're not attended to early.

Some have complained about being suspended without warning. In the case that they allude to I deleted a huge number of posts, was only aware there was a problem half way through the war, and had to read everything to work out what was and wasn't acceptable.

I understand exactly how my parents felt when they said "I don't care who starts it you're all going to your rooms next time." It mightn't have been a threat in the finest traditions of justice, but when you don't have the time and resources for those, it works pretty well.

Someone else commented on a better tone on OLO recently. I like to think that summary judgements on a few recent cases may have had something to do with that. Some got light sentences, and some of the worst offenders got much harsher sentences and won't be back for a while.

I'm happy to be the moderator. It's sort of a requirement of running the site anyway. But I would like more active cooperation in policing it. Some seem to think it is unAustralian to notify me of a problem. I understand that snitching is not nice, but there is nothing wrong with taking ownership of the space and making sure others leave it as tidy as they found it.

I will rewrite the rules when I get a chance. The rule about not discussing moderation is unwritten, although commonsensical from the fact that generally discussing a specific moderation decision involves republishing material that was deemed worthy of deletion. So it can become a way of defeating the moderation.

"Thanks for letting me come out of my room, Daddy.
I promise to be a good boy...but she started it."
"No I didn't. You started it."
"Did not."
"Did too."
"Did not."
"DADDY!!"

Thanks Graham,

I've always liked the idea of people meeting to discuss the ways of the world - like the famous gatherings of Samuel Johnson and company - or the smokey cafés where the Impressionists and their ilk would congregate and discuss much more than painting.
OLO may not be that bohemian, but its reach is wide. It's a good place to learn and to share ideas.
It must be hard work to keep up with all of us, but for the most part the forum works well.

Hi Poirot,
one of my favourite reads was Boswell's "Life of Johnson", and one of my favourite essays, which captures the atmosphere you talk of perfectly, is Max Beerbohm's "A Clergyman". Maybe you can find it online? I think you'd love it!
Which gives me a good idea for a new thread..

Btw, are you still intending to do one on alienation?

I too think GY does a good job, all things considered :-)

No I do not like the idea let GY do it.
runner old son, if being totally against you makes me lefty so be it comrade.

Dear Proxy,

It's a shame that in giving my quotes on this
thread - you
did not give the ones of
yours that prompted my reaction. They were to
say the least, beyond reprehensible - and you
deserved the comments that you provoked after
several attempts on my part requesting that you
stop trying to derail the thread, which you
ignored.

However, as I stated to you many times in the past,
any criticism born of ignorance, or hatred is not
only ineffectual and a complete waste of time, it is
harmful and elicits equally pointless and damaging
responses

Dear Squeers,

I'll definitely look for Beerbohm's "A Clergyman". I've got Boswell's "Life of Johnson" but I haven't read it properly, although I've read a lot about his life. I will have to have a serious read as I've heard many people describe it as among their favourites.

Yes, I'd still like to start a thread about alienation in modern society - will give it some thought....

Dear Squeers,

I found "A Clergyman" - quite a poignant read. It captures the awe inspired by Johnson's gatherings and the power of his personality.

Don't know if you'd be interested, but I came across the sensational trial of the man who killed James Boswell's son (Sir Alexander Boswell) in a duel. His name was James Stuart of Dunearn. My great great great grandfather was his solicitor and was instrumental in Stuart learning the identity of Sir Alexander who had provoked and slandered him in a Glasgow newspaper. This led to the challenge of a duel in 1822.
My ancestor's name was William Spalding S.S.C. and he was a witness at the trial. If you google The Trial of James Stuart, you'll find it - it's quite a fascinating read.

Anyone read the latest Bryce Courtney?

I recommend the last few posts for deletion. They are clearly off topic.

In fact I also find these kind of grandiose delusions quite offensive to any right thinking posters.

Absolutely right, Houellie.
(What was I thinking?)
Point your offended sensibilities in the direction of the red cross (bottom left).

Harking back to GrahamY's Technical Support thread that announced the increase in posting limits on 24 February 2010, which viewers can see here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3478#82419 , an idea, in the light of the recent Great Deletion on the 'Racist you all to the bottom' (or whatever it was called) thread, has just popped into my head.



Poster Self-actuated Automated Moderation!



Given that "short, nasty, and brutish" posts are more often than not the sort that feature in abusive posting, I have a sense that some software could be designed such that if any poster fails to use up more than some given (tweakable?) proportion of the 350-words-per-post limit, then their remaining posting entitlement gets automatically curtailed to some (tweakable?) extent. Short, (likely abusive) posts would thus tend to reduce ongoing participation by that poster in any phlaigme that might be otherwise about to continue or spread.

The very necessity of having to compose a longer post in order to preserve one's maximum ongoing posting potential may well be enough of itself to calm the enraged beast within, to salve the offended dignity, to elicit a more moderate(d!) response.

A technological tour-de-force and auto-de-fe all in the one!



The building-in of a capacity to move off-topic posts to an area of the Forum reserved for thread-hijackers, an area perhaps analogous to the stocks of yesteryear, may also act as a deterrent to degradation of the quality of discussion on the Forum.

Dear Forrest,

I second your excellent suggestions.
If it could be done it would alleviate
many of the problems that Graham has
to currently face.

There would be no need for a Moderation panel.

Dear Houellebecq,
apologies for being off topic, and for dragging Poirot off topic.
Can only rejoice, however, that I don't fit your definition of "right thinking poster". Can you post an example of the proper form please?

I third Gump's excellent suggestion. More words and more substance called for in general.

I object to Gumps proposal... please add 341 words.

Some of the best and most telling humour is brief.

Which has me wondering where CJ Morgan is - one of the casualties of the great deletion?

And I still would like to know if Susan Prior still works for OLO. An OLO moderation panel is incomplete without her.

Hey Squeers,

I felt like Houellebecq caught us smoking behind the school shed...

I vote Houellie for moderator as he appears to have an extremely well developed sense of outrage regarding grandiose delusions.

Its great that people devote time and energy to such a site. Without moderation the place would be full of rubbish and personal insults. Perhaps there might be a way of temporarily promoting a regular decent poster to moderator for the week to give the regular moderators a break every so often. My opinion, is that if something is bad enough to be removed then an automatic 24hr ban should ensue (maybe an explanatory email stating why also). Personally, I'm sure I have made a few radical or marginally unacceptable posts and got away with it. Attack the idea not the person is usually a good rule of thumb, except for theological matters where the idea is usually the "person".

Hi, I agree that longer threads tend to be less abusive, but I don't like our chances of being able to come up with an algorithm that achieves what Forrest suggests, unfortunately. There does tend to be an ethos on this forum of longer threads.

Severin, Susan has never that I can recall moderated this forum. The division of labour is that she does the journal and I do the forum. She is on holidays at the moment so I am doing both. Fortunately she has left me well-supplied with articles.

CJ did score some time out as well.

Pat, I'm not sure who would regard being moderator as a "promotion". I feel a little like the little red hen. ;-) One thing that would be nice would be a button allowing the moderator to close a thread. I think this one has come to its conclusion, which is why we are now running a book club here.

Some others might be better closed because if left open they invite abuse.

Aha.. well there is a reform though from GY.

Closing debate down after a 'certain point'.

How about the originator of the thread is asked if they feel it has served its purpose, by GY, and if they agree, close it down?

That is a good idea TBC. Many a time we can see the originator of a topic willing the debate to end.

Graham, why don't you approach OLO members you feel have the right skills/approach and the time to assist you in moderation even if only for one/two days per week to alleviate your workload.

The helper/s could use the moniker 'Moderator1', 'Moderator2' etc or they may be willing to keep their user name for the purpose - I am not sure what would work best from your POV. Perhaps even one of your regular contributors might fit the bill.

So, a high level of moderation with a low workload for Graham is all very simple, is it not?

OLO has got a good bunch of regular 'community policing' posters who would cover just about all threads between them on a daily basis.

These posters would be strongly inclined to do their bit to uphold the high standard of OLO by hitting the red cross at the bottom of any suspect post, rather than to be reluctant to do so for the fear of being a ‘dobber’, or the preference of letting someone else do it, or holding the belief that if a post is illegal, someone else has probably already reported it. At any rate, their ‘dobbing’ activities will remain confidential and only known to Graham.

Isn’t it just a simple matter of promoting the fact that there is a little red cross at the base of every post and that every poster should use it if they feel that a post infringes the rules?

I wonder how many posters actually don’t even realise what that red cross is there for?

Graham’s workload might increase initially, but once the ‘culture’ of strong moderation, upheld by vigilant posters (or actually, just normal posters undertaking a normal duty of care), is established to the extent that just about everyone realises that if they muck up, they WILL be pinged for it, the workload will drop right off, with only the occasional newbie or old drongo putting up unacceptable posts.

A couple of other things need to go with it –

1. Well-defined rules and regulation that matches them.

2. A record of infringing posters and their warnings/suspensions kept by Graham so that harsher punishment can be meted out for further infringements and warnings rather than suspensions can be given to first-time offenders.

Graham, I've not been following this closely but just got back to a skim of most of what I've missed.

"was only aware there was a problem half way through the war,"

I know it can be used differently but a rename of the recommend for deletion button might help. I've used it a couple of times to draw your attention to a thread which I think you need to look at but where I don't think the particular post needs deletion.

I've never much liked using a button labeled as recommend for deletion for that purpose.

I don't know how pedantic others are about the label but it does leave me reluctant to use it for more general purposes.

R0bert

Hey r0bert I bet you have never walked across the road unless the little man is green.

On a serious note, why do we have these Ground Hog Day discussions about moderation, when I cant see anything that actually needs moderation.

Maybe I'm missing all the action? I'm generally a storm chaser, and I haven't seen any good ones lately (especially with my 2 favourite storms, aka Col and antiseptic, missing in action).

Perhaps the storms are on the religious threads, I do get bored with the religious stuff.

PS: I'd also just like to mention again, that Severin has been suspended, whereas I have not.

>>> I'd also just like to mention again, that Severin has been suspended, whereas I have not. <<<

Exactly. Speaks volumes about our OLO moderator.

:D

PS

There, there little Houllie, don't feel all alone

Col Rouge is Stern; Stern is Col Rouge.

Question:

Can Houllie go more than one day without mentioning me in at least one of his innumerable posts?

Holly not often but I suspect that you mostly cross when the little man is red because of the annoyance it causes to others.

R0bert

Where is CJ Morgan?

I miss reading his posts.

Pynchme see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3848#95170

R0bert

Thanks Robert, I had seen that one - but it's maybe a month since that suspension? Could a suspension be that long?

I hope CJ hasn't given up.

He's one of the best voices of sanity :(

I agree, pynchme! Shall we start up a chant? We want CJ...

I scored a month suspension a while back, but I can't imagine CJ being half as offensive as moi :-)
If you're out there CJ, we miss your withering wisdom. The forum needs you!

Agree - Pynchme and Squeers.

Come back C.J.

Oh dear, the CJ fan club has hijacked Graham's thread!!

<< Where is CJ Morgan? I miss reading his posts. >>

Pynchme, I'm enjoying his absence!!

Yeah ok, he does add a bit of spice to this forum. Presumably he'll be back soon. But in the meantime, I'll savour the higher level of sane and sensible correspondence on OLO ( :>)

Meanwhile, what about my suggestions for more effective moderation by way of 'community policing'?

Are you lot willing to hit the little red cross at the bottom of a post if you think that it infringes the rules? Or are you more inclined to let someone else do it, or to not be a 'dobber', even though your 'disgraceful' dobbing would forever remain anonymous to all except Graham?

Group chant! Good idea Squeers and Poirot!

(drowning out poor Ludwig)

We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!
We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ! We want CJ!

If chanting doesn't work we can try coercion ~
CJ - git ur ass back to OLO!

Ludwig

You're not still bearing a grudge from when CJ Morgan wouldn't meet up with you on your holidays are you?

CJ is among the most humorous and rational posters here and he only ever had a dig at you when your population concerns go over into justifying the way the government treated boat refugees (whose impact on population is negligible).

I do, however, hope you will be tuning into Dick Smith on the ABC tonight.

PS

Pynchme and Squeers - would love to say I agree with you, but you know, R0bert, he'll just claim I am cheering you on.

Haha Severin - I cheered extra loud on your behalf; pretty sure that you'd have joined our cheer squad but not seeing you about, I didn't want to presume.

Great to see you, as always -

pynch :)

CJ has been suspended for abuse, and if some of you want to get suspended for trying to argue moderation decisions on the thread I'm prepared to oblige you. So that's the end of that discussion. If you don't have anything sensible to say about the thread don't post.

Graham,

How long can a suspension be?

As long as it needs to be.

<< You're not still bearing a grudge from when CJ Morgan wouldn't meet up with you on your holidays are you? >>

Hahahaha! No Severin, I never held a grudge about that, despite silly Ceej accusing me of stalking him when I dared to suggest that we might meet up!!

And I’ve just about got over the grudge I’ve held against my old friend Fractelle when she suddenly turned very nasty towards poor old Luddie a couple of years back! ( :>/

Meanwhile, there have been no answers to the question posed in my last post. So I guess I’ll have to assume that people are indeed very reluctant to hit the little red cross…. which is something that I’m afraid I just don’t understand!

[Deleted for wanting to argue specific moderation decisions on the forum. Poster suspended.]

ROFL
This is the most entertaining thread on OLO at the moment.

Being new here I have to nominate myself as "in the running" for moderator.

My personal credentials are as impressive as they are moderate.

I quite often only eat half a meal in dispensation of my moderate ethos. When it comes to the glass half empty or half full question I believe it to be moderately filled. I do not believe in staying late at parties, when you start to get your groove on that is the time to up and leave. I prefer climes that range between 20 to 25 degrees. The engine sizes of my vehicles have been between 2 and 3 liter. I never wear black and I can't stand white. I prefer red heads. I believe nobody is really wrong, just ill informed.

As you can see I am moderate in thought word and deed so I would moderately moderate the moderating role while moderating the plebs goings on, and please consider that two wongs do not make a right and there is no moderate dose in regards to Strychnine.

Humbly yours...etc.