I have listed the principal suggestions I could see in the thread 'Suggestions for OLO', purely for the convenience of readers and contributors to this thread so that they will not have to constantly keep reviewing that thread to see if ideas have already been suggested.

In order of suggestion, to post 108:

Comment deletion explanations

Make automatic email notifications a default choice

A poll re holding an OLO Christmas party

Publication of protocols re banning

A time-limited facility for making correcting edits to posts

Mandatory posting of occupational and/or qualificational status in signature block

Provision for posting an optional bio on user page

A 'sin bin' or 'gaol' for deleted comments

Facility to set personal display preferences in user profile

Notification of newly added comments on post preview page

A link-to-last-post facility in email alerts

Replace 'iParliament' button with direct link to General Discussion index

Text or background colour identifying still editable posts

Rejection of apparently duplicate General Discussion topics

A discussion index list ordered by recency of posting activity (a 'bump' facility)

A 'take me to the last post' facility

Name of topic being posted to displaying at TOP of 'Write new post' (preview) page

List of OLO posters in order of number of posts made

A 'lurkometer' showing number of viewers online

A private messaging facility

Correction facility for topic title spelling errors

A page page

A user status indicator - suspended, departed, on holiday etc

A user settable option for 'page at a time' or 'all pages' display of a topic thread

Photos or illustrations within articles

Online submission of articles

An article author PM contact facility

Explanation for apparent timestamp anomalies

Permissibility of a second alias for article contributors

Greater colour, font, text size, italic, bold, emoticon and image posting options

Fix the article index bug

Display of a 'hard' intra-thread post number on each post

Strike-through display of post edits, with edits in distinct colour

Public disclosure of all requests for post deletion

Advanced search facility

A post deletion OLO user 'jury'

A Gepopo (a secret post police)

Forrest

Public disclosure of all requests for post deletion
I think that is the most important of all you listed .

PALEIF, there are two main types of posts I recall recommending for deletion.
1/ Stuff that looks like spam. A post with with no connection to the thread and a link to an advertising site being typical. Happy to have those acknowledged.
2/ Posts which appear to be inciting violence or making physical threats against someone. Frankly given that the poster has already indicated a disposition to violence I'd rather not advertise the fact that I brought the post to the site administrators attention.

A decision to delete and or suspend is the administrators decision, the focus on who brought the issue to the administrators attention is irrelevant unless it's part of a pattern of dodgy complaints against another poster. It's hard to think of any good reason why a legitimate RFD should be made public. It seems quite likely to cause vendeta's against those who've rightfully drawn posts to the administrators attention by those who've already shown disresepect for site rules and decent behaviour. Perhaps there might be more reason for outing posters running a campaign of unjustified RFD's against another poster.

R0bert

Robert
I take your points but there are many positions to be considered and each poster is different.

Take pale for example. We are 'absolutley certain' some people only joined olo to defame and troll us hiding behind false names.

Make no mistake Robert there is a cold war going on in Australia between some extremists animal libbers and any main stream groups.

RSPCA have said for years that the biggest thing that holds back animal welfare in this country is the inta fighting between groups and we will work with everybody but they must act within the law.

We have been attacked on OLO by these extremists

abusive emails to our office of the same nature. Once the same person wrote 82 emails of abuse to one of our RSPCA CEOs in two hours..

Because we work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD (but not only that) its surely understanable that we would ask OLO to remove such comments as those below. I will just give you a couple for examples= I will not add the posters name.=

1 "PALE has abandoned all but one thread now in its attempts to avoid answering my questions. What sort of "organization" is PALE? Not one to do with animal welfare, honesty, accountability and transparency, obviously."

2
Pale support FGM

I feel Robert there was good grounds to ask for those two posts to be removed-( Which are still up on the world net)

No I would be much happier if there was a pannel of respected posters making that descion and not just one person.
Maybe several of the people making comments could put their hands up and ask if we could have a pannel. It might also save OLO staff a lot of time.
Just a thought. Would you consider such a position- just asking

Regards

PALEIF, I'd not have any great opposition to a panel as long as they were not too close to the the action. I think that there are a number of posters we each would not like to be reviewing complaints about our own posts. I suspect that it would slow the removal of serious breaches and at the end of it editorial responsibility remains with the sites editors.

I happen to think they do a very good job of keeping bias out of editorial decisions, I've seen some fairly nasty claims about Graham stay up on the site and the fact that they exercise such restraint in my view is a rare and precious thing.

We've been over this before but we do take a different approach to some of these issues. I think the main harm done to posters reputations is by their own actions not by what others say about them especially where the opportunity exists to rebutt false claims. Someone (Veronika I think) made the point recently that name calling says a lot about the person doing the name calling. For the record I don't recall ever asking for a post to be removed which was directed at myself, rather if it concerned me sufficiently I've taken care to rebutt the claims.

In regard to those attacking without cause I mentioned earlier that outing someone with a pattern of making unfounded complaints against another poster could make sense. I've not spent much time thinking about that so I might be missing something. At a guess the editors would soon get very tired of someone using the RFD button against another poster on a regular basis.

We've spent far to much time in the past discussing the merits or otherwise of being publically identifable on OLO, we have different needs in this, different histories, different circumstances and have made different choices. I doubt that we would help each other or stay in Graham's good books if we revisit that subject yet again.

Cheers
R0bert

What sort of "organization" is PALE?

"Not one to do with animal welfare, honesty, accountability and transparency, obviously."

"Pale supports FGM"

Robert look at those comments again and pls remember they are only two of dozens of comments. By law they ARE classed as defamation.

Ask yourself if anybody should be allowed to operate outside of the law.?

Now to take it further is very costly. So of course one would hope to rely on the good common sense of the editor or staff.

We have others to consider that we work in conjunction with. - Such as RSPCA QLD

It is possible when you give the power to any one person that rightly or wrongly that person uses their own reasons to allow posters to stick it up somebody they do not like. I am left in absolutly no doubt that our editor personally does not like me and we have had quite a few personal words on the phone I can assure you.

After all we are all only people and nobody is perfect.

A panel couldn’t slow things up anymore than it is now considering these comments have been up for months now.

Also didn’t I read in the rules it was against policy to use olo to flame and troll people or organizations.

I might add I have seen comment taken down for far less than these and we have been subject to those ourselves.

I really would prefer if I have to request something to be taken off it was posted for all to see alone with the reason I am requesting it taken down.
I think that is a far more honest and open way to operate. Not only for OLO but for life in general.

People who post in false names attacking an organization be it ours or others are free to misuse OLO and that is what they are doing.

Anyway thanks for your thoughts on my suggestions.