Sometimes in the occasionally heated environment of opinion exchange there arise misunderstandings, and even misrepresentations, as to what may have been said by posters elsewhere in the Forum.

Certain forum software may be able to reduce scope for such miscommunication to occur.

A coloured background to intra-Forum quotes was first suggested in Fractelle's Technical Support thread "THE 'What we have here is a failure to communicate' POLL", here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#42887 . It was endorsed by her in the immediately following post.

One of the features associated with such background-shaded quotes was not expressly mentioned in that thread: that feature being that a reference to the post from which the quote is taken (by the selection of text and clicking on the 'quote' button in fora so equipped) is embedded in the quote as it appears in the post using it. The significance of this feature is that it removes all possibility of accidental or deliberate misquotation. If an intra-forum quote is colour backgrounded, it is authentic.

Likewise, if a post has been taken down by a moderator, it is not present and able to be quoted from in this authenticated manner. Any residual backgrounded quote from a post no longer up on the forum is likewise evidence that at the time that quote was made, the original quote WAS there to be seen. The possibilities for misunderstandings or misrepresentation are minimized.

A closely related forum feature also mentioned in rstuart's earlier TS thread was that of the site software providing for 'hard' post numbering within threads, such that a witness will be left as to the removal of posts other than those of orphan responses to content no longer viewable.

An example of such forum features in operation can be seen on the Ubuntu Linux Forums, here: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48 . Click long threads to see.

As a believer that courteous discussion enhances the quality of debate, I see such forum features as being assistive to achieving such outcome.

Costs involved?

What do users think?

I agree totally. We need this feature desperately here, in order to prevent people manually typing inaccurate and/or altered quotes in an effort to pretend that someone said something they did not.

Id also like to see a Gender Box.
For many months I responded to CJ Morgan thinking CJ was a woman.
Having (somewhere) made a decision that he was female, I saw nothing in his writing to suggest he was a man.

I'd suggest that a better policy would be to make posts indelible. I've never felt the need to deelete a post, although my recent experience on other threads would indicate that some of the less honest among us might see it as desirable.

Making the posts indelible would also save the moderators some work and if those who are prone to tell lies are prevented from posting them because they're fearful of being caught out, so much the better.

SallyG:"We need this feature desperately here"

What we really need is an emd to your dishonesty. Making the posts indelible would achieve that.

Gibo: << For many months I responded to CJ Morgan thinking CJ was a woman.
Having (somewhere) made a decision that he was female, I saw nothing in his writing to suggest he was a man. >>

Truly weird. One wonders why Gibo needs to know the gender of OLO correspondents in the first place, and also how he might address men and women differently in a forum such as this.

I'm quite pleased that my writing is apparently gender-neutral - it's supposed to be.

Besides which, Gibo may be shocked to learn that people aren't always honest about their personal details in online forums. Imagine his sheer confusion if someone was to tick the wrong gender box deliberately. Sweet heaven forfend!

And what about trannies? We have at least one person of that disposition posting occasionally to OLO.

When I first submitted this topic GrahamY required that I rework it somewhat. Graham advised, in his initial rejection email requesting the reworking, that OLO is looking at a rebuild sometime.

So despite what some may feel to be a lack of feedback or interest in suggestions in various technical support threads in recent months, OLO is in fact interested in some of the ideas presented.

Now is the time, for those who are interested in how this forum works, and how it can perhaps better be made to work, to put their ideas, and/or their opinions as to how they see the ideas and suggestions of others, working out in practise.

Regarding Antiseptic's suggestion of indelibility of posts, it may be that OLO could not embrace that feature for reasons related to the avoidance of publication of actionable material. For OLO to be seen to do nothing in circumstances where a poster may be libelling someone may expose it to liability for damages in any subsequent legal action. Indelibility may also, in effect, make the enforcement of any Forum rules in relation to posting a nullity.

The suggestion that 'hard' (ie. unalterable) post numbering within a thread be adopted is perhaps a compromise between the two competing requirements of all posters being 'on record', and the maintaining of effective editorial control over the Forum. The hard numbered blank where a post once was would alert viewers to the fact something had had to be removed.

Which brings us to the issue, raised by inference in Antiseptic's post, of the prospect of deletion of a post by a USER, as distinct from that of a deletion by a Forum moderator. I am of the understanding that there has never been any way that a user could ever, unilaterally, have deleted a post in this Forum. Can anyone supply a definitive answer to this question?

CJM and Gibo,

A gender box may be for nothing more than enabling the correct use of the possessive case. Having to use 'he/she' or 's/he' I find cluncky. User optional?

Forrest

Thanks for re-invigorating this topic.

I fully agree with the proposal for 'hard numbering' of posts, just recently I returned to a discussion thread where a post had been removed, which I did not realise until reading subsequent posts. Made for some confusion and also a feeling of unease - big brother style censorship and manipulation.

In fact I don't see the need for deletion of posts at all, I would rather see the offender suspended for a time, to be determined by number of complaints and the nature of the post. However, as noted, there is the issue of liability on the part of OLO, would suspension be considered sufficient mitigation?

As for deletion of a post by a user, unless there is among our number a most savvy hacker, I very much doubt this is possible. Deletions are the province of the moderators.

I really don't see the point of gender specificity - that Gibo needs to respond to posters based on gender rather than the content and quality of the post is a personal problem for Gibo.

Forrest, you seem to be misunderstanding me. It is obviously possible for a user to request the deletion of a post by a moderator, as this occurred recently. If the policy of moderators is to accede to all such requests, then it is equivalent to giving users a "button to push". I don't see that as desirable in most circumstances. I can, however, envisage circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a moderator to emend a post that falls outside the bounds of forum policies, r if a user provides good reasons. In that situation, I'd be in favour of a requirement to note that the editing has occurred, along with a declaration of which policy has been offended.

The Whirlpool broadband forums are a very active site indeed, with quite stringent rules for moderation. They have what they call a "herring" system, whereby anyone is free to mark a post "fishy", along with a reason. A moderator then investigates and determines if rukes have been broken. the original poster has the right to argue the contrary case, but the mod's decision is final. I note that Simon Hackett of whirlpool is a member here; perhaps he may be able to assist Graham in implementing such a system.

Antiseptic's personal abuse via false allegation continues, even on this topic. I didn't mention him in my post. I was attempting to keep his personal issues out of this. AGAIN, he personally attacks. So....I'll respond in kind.

It's VITAL that a system be put in place that prevents people like antiseptic from "manually" typing in quotes that are purposefully altered, in order to give the impression that the original poster said something he didn't. The original suggestion of having a shaded quote background would prevent antiseptic, and other people, from manipulating quotes.

SallyG:"Antiseptic's personal abuse via false allegation continues"

Well, stop making the false allegations. Your friend JW got caught out trying to cover up the fact that she lied about her gender for some stupid reason and you've been spouting the lie ever since. She, of course, has disappeared. I did not manually type the quote from JW, I copy/pasted it and after I posted it, JW asked GrahamY to delete it. It's a very simple thing to understand. Indelibility of posts would make the explanation unnecessary and JW's reputation would be no worse off.

It's funny watching you argue for traceability. Something like watching a banker arguing for personal responsibility...

A definite no to the gender box.

Having been on the receiving end of patronizing comments that I know would have been phrased differently if directed at a male poster, I understand clearly why some females might, in the interests of wanting to participate on a level playing field, wish their gender to remain unknown.

In my first post on this topic I made no mention of antiseptic.

He then **chose** to engage in personal abuse and personal attack.

As usual, when someone replies to his abuse, he just continues on forever, never giving up, especially if the person he's abusing is a woman.

Therefore out of respect for this topic, which NOT about antiseptic's abuse and personal problems, I'll reply no more to his attacks and abuse on this topic, in an effort to enable people to focus on the subject matter.

I agree with CJ, Bronwyn and anyone else who supports gender neutral posting. Research has shown that writings by females are given less credibility. When the same writings are shown with male authorship the responses are more positive and respectful.

I also support numbered and largely indelible posts.

I don't support moderator intervention except for extreme events, nor do I support a whole bag full of posting rules. What I have seen on forums that institute such rules, is that they become a means by which one poster can harrass another by lodging complaints that, by strict adherence or personal interpretation of rules (like - "post is off topic") causes the other to be suspended.

I would much rather be responsible for what I post and front up to whatever happens in the forum.

Pynchme.
I dont think women have less credibity than men?

Only by some men is that thought.
"Biff" comes to mind.

Id look to a Miranda Devine than most of the men writers. I know shes going to be fair...and not loutish and destructive to democracy like Peter Fitzsimons.

Most women seem brighter than men...and Id rather work with them than men.

Men tend to fill the day in with macho machinations and porn talk.

So often here Ive not known whom I was speaking to thats all.

The forum remember is privately owned.
Forrest has interesting views and I will watch with interest.
Having been at fault more than once I think we will battle to change human nature.
We sometimes get involved in verbal tennis even if we know it is wrong.
Some way of reminding those who get stuck in that grove must exist.
How could we say, as I think, Sally G you posted your first post here to get under antiseptics skin?
Or is it worth the trouble antiseptic?
I am unsure about posts by females being given less credit, just maybe the chip on the shoulder of some has become a log?
Some, much ,more than one, of our females are in our top ten posters lists.
Some clearly are at the bottom.

Nice to read your position on that Gibo and g'day - nice to meetcha.

Perhaps you are one of the more progessive males, nevertheless, research has shown what I'm saying to be so. There is also a long history of women writing under pseudonyms or supplying their writing to male 'fronts' just to get their stuff into print and taken seriously.

I wish it weren't so, and things are probably changing, but until things have certainly changed so that writing by females is given fair consideration, gender neutrality appeals to me. I like it when we don't know whether a woman or a man writes something :

I agree with Forrest.

I would like to see a coloured background for inter Forum
quotes. If the software would allow it.

I'd also like to see a bit more control from
the Forum Administrator regarding the language
used on some posts. This Forum is supposed to
be about discussions, not personal
attacks. A few posters often go beyond
acceptable debating or discussion techniques, by
stooping to foul language and personal insults.

They should receive a message that this is
not acceptable.

Thanks Pynchme.
The Bible tells me that theres "neither male nor female in Christ Jesus"...making the gals the same as the guys in The Lords Sight.
God Created both and both have a function in a relationship.

Actually if we look at it...women get a good deal in committed Christianity.

No walking three steps behind or having to cover-up the head etc.

Shivers...my wife even gets the car:)

When accessing comments or being returned to comments after making one it would be good to be returned to the last page rather than the first one. Posters are generally aware of earlier comments and have to switch from the beginning to the area they are interested in.

When told one has to wait before commenting again it would be good to be told exactly when one could comment again. It would probably be simple to program. All that is necessary is to post the time of the commentator's penultimate post.

It would be better for the box asking for an email notification to appear above the box for adding a comment. In that way it would be less likely to be missed.

I like the idea of authentic quotes (the only issue might be when the quote is very long and you want to delete some irrelevant words by using the conventional signifier... Would it still work?)

I don't like the idea of a gender signal at all. As one who frequently gets her sex mistaken (my father's to blame for giving me a gender neutral nickname) I wonder if I'm supposed to be gratified for occasionally being mistaken for a man. Personally I'd rather respondents focus on my ideas than the type of body I was born with.

If we agreed to a gender marker would we also be justified in calling for an age marker, a race marker, a country of origin marker and a geographic marker? No, no, no! Let's concentrate on the quality of people's ideas.

I'm adding my vote to those not wanting a forced gender marker. Perhaps the ability to add optional info to user profiles might suit some.

I've seen people post email addresses before (and even seen phone numbers). Some might want to make a bit more info about themselves known, others will keep it at a gender neutral alias only. Those who insist on having details which would allow them to track down others without a valid legal case to do so could move onto another forum which exposes peoples real names and which has the same or better range of views and discussion (good luck finding it).

I've found the lack of verification of a the content of a deleted post to be frustrating but I can understand that setting a precident regarding the content of deleted posts could open up a whole other mess. I think I've seen a comment by Graham in the past that they used to note deleted posts in the thread but that became an unwanted admin overhead.

Some posts clearly are better off the site, I don't want advertising left across threads and occasionally someone will post a threat of or incitment to violence against others.

I think it's valid that if someone posts personal info that they later regret putting in the public domain that it be removed but I don't know how then conflicting claims should be addressed. Most will have seen the dispute between JW, Antiseptic and SallyG.

If the post Antiseptic quoted is accurate then removal of the post should not leave Antiseptic free to be called a liar, firstly for inventing the post then after it was shown the post existed for supposedly altering the wording. If the quote was a fabrication then that should be shown to be the case. Someone is lying to other contributers and the content of the deleted post can easily clear up who that is.

How do you remove posts, avoid being drawn into discussions regarding the content of the deleted post and still keep the site fair?

R0bert

david f

"When accessing comments or being returned to comments after making one it would be good to be returned to the last page rather than the first one."

I agree. I've often thought this frustrating. It probably doesn't bother people with fast download capacity, but I'm afraid I'm not in that category!

Absolutely no gender box. I thought we'd got past the idea of judging a comment by the gender of the commentor.

Personally, I find the idea of deleting a comment creepy. If it is deemed necessary by the moderator, it should be noted that 'abc's comment was removed because of... It is just too confusing to leave 'gaps' without any explanation.

To remove comments at the request of the poster is really unacceptable. Commenting via the internet is very much like speaking. Once said cannot be unsaid.

Anansi wrote:
"To remove comments at the request of the poster is really unacceptable. Commenting via the internet is very much like speaking. Once said cannot be unsaid."

No, commenting via the internet is not like speaking, you cannot preview and edit speech as you can comment on this forum.

While I do not favour users being able to request the deletion of just any comment, I would make an exception in the case of a user wanting to delete his/her own comment. Sometimes one finds an error or ambiguity in a comment after it has been posted that one failed to notice on the preview. In this case the moderator could delete the text and leave a message such as "Comment deleted at author's request."

While re reading the thread I find my first post here is not how I truly feel.
I have complained about posts, not sure if I asked for them to be removed.
While I stand by my comments in that first post I have been reminded by some good posts we gain nothing by being a crows council.
Informing on posters or even trying to control them, that is a moderators job.
And gender? only Gibo spoke of it if people do not want to let us know who they are its ok with me, I have been called female and assure you I am not.
Some will be combative others seemingly a long way from our thoughts but we are unlikely to change that.
The miss understandings are often intentional, a tactic to upset, we can never change that.

Quite simply have two sides to the forum-

One for posters who prefer only to exchange with people who are prepaired to identify themselves and own their words- One for people who want to muck about.

I also feel people should pay something towards olos upkeep.

If OLO didnt have the advertsing you couldnt use it.
So its not really fair to complain about it.

How else does GY make a living.

Wendy (PALEIF): "
One for posters who prefer only to exchange with people who are prepaired to identify themselves and own their words- One for people who want to muck about."

Given the litigious nature of some, the vindictiveness of others, I will continue to post under a pseudonym - your judgement of people who do so is arrogant and unnecessary, as many wonderful informative posts are made by anonymous contributors.

As for a fee, I and no doubt many others have made a donation however, if Graham started charging fees, I would go elsewhere. OLO is not that edifying that I would pay to be abused as I have been on some discussion threads.

Davidf, Spikey, Bronwyn and Anansi have summed up my views on this topic, without getting personal or judgemental.

I gave my name to OLO to pass on to a poster so we could communicate directly. They did so, and we exchanged views. If the other person does not choose to respond that is their right. With that as an option I feel it is unnecessary for any further identification of a poster to be made.

Although most posters are polite some attack other posters personally. Any views, even those deeply held are fair game for those who disagree. However, direct attacks on the person or derogatory remarks against them for holding those views should be out. Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line. However, there is a line. We can ask whether a reasonable person would be hurt by our post. We still have to make a subjective judgement on what is reasonable.

Suggestions others have made:

A coloured background to intra-Forum quotes:
Fantastic idea, go for it.

Gender box
No need. I wouldn’t use the option if available. Bronwyn and Pynchme are correct about the level playing field. In cyberspace we should all be cybersex.

'Hard numbering' of posts
Good idea.

To be returned to the last page rather than the first one
Agree, it’s a nuisance to be returned to the first page.

Profile,
RObert suggested “Some might want to make a bit more info about themselves known,”
Altthough I’d like to remain as private as possible myself, I’d love to be able to sus out others and their pictures, too :)
Not that I’m curious…

Deletion of comments
I’d like to leave everything that has been said.
In the past I made some angry remarks that I later regretted, but I have to live with that. It teaches people to think before they post. I learned to stop shouting because I didn’t like my own posts after re-reading them. They sounded more angry than I meant it to sound. I’d like to take responsibility for how I express myself and learn from mistakes, rather than having a daddy figure who makes it right again and deletes what you don’t like.
Perhaps an exception could be when people accidentally have posted something on the wrong thread and they could ask for it to be moved to the correct one.

Identify yourself?
If I had to post using my real name I wouldn’t post at all. I want to keep my privacy. The world is full of idiots and given some women are being stalked by their ex partners it would put them and their children in danger.
Some people, like myself, also want to protect their business or company by being unrelated to it.
GY could have our identities, I have no problem with him knowing private details as long as they remain confident.

A few of my own suggestions:

I’d like to suggest an edit button
To enable posters to have access to their own posts for editing purposes, just for the first 5-10 minutes after posting.
It has happened to me a few times that I realized I made a mistake or forgot to add a link the very moment I clicked the Submit button, and I’ve also accidentally submitted a post when I meant to preview it.
Once, I posted on the wrong thread.
I know that this feature is possible because I’ve seen it elsewhere.

I’d also like to suggest short url links
Another thing I’d like and have suggested to GYoung is that I’d like something done about the really long URL links that people are posting and that run completely off the page, sometimes the screen.
In the past I’ve been using tinyurl but can’t be bothered anymore- a adsl thingiemebob that would make it possible to automatically shorten the links e.g. “Click here” instead of showing the whole link would be appreciated.

I’d like to suggest a “Hot topic” or “Recently commented on” kind of feature.
Every time someone posts on a thread, this thread automatically moves to the top of this list.
Therefore, posters can keep a better eye on the posts that are most discussed, and even threads from say, a year or more ago could move to the top. This would reduce the need for many different threads on the same topic.

Thanks for this thread, Forrest Gumpp.

Celivia, very well said. Please excuse me if I've misunderstood you but you do know that you can sort by most recent post I hope. Click on the "Last Post" heading to reorganise the sort. The painful bit is that preferences like that don't stick. They don't stay between sessions or during longer periods of inactivity.

If enhancements are done some options to configure preferences in our profiles would be great. I'd also like the option to limit the number of Articles listed in the Articles window sorted by last post and showing all discussions. What I'd be trying to do is see all discussions posted to within a period (the last 2 days or so).

R0bert

RObert, you got what I meant and I never realised that I could sort by most recent post. Must've been blind!
I'd like to see this option stick as well.

So I agree that it would be great if we could personally configure some of these options. I wouldn't need the categories, just one list of most active threads moving to the top as soon as someone commented there.

"I'd also like the option to limit the number of Articles listed in the Articles window sorted by last post and showing all discussions. What I'd be trying to do is see all discussions posted to within a period (the last 2 days or so)."
Would be great, I second that.

Forrest Gumpp,
I also want to suggest to pretty please limit the email alerts: one email alert is sufficient per thread until I visit that thread I subscribed to.
If I haven't opened that email alert, don't send me more of the same.
It's annoying to have all these email alerts piling up especially if one is interested in following several popular threads.

Spikey raises an interesting point in emphasising the value of a coloured background effectively authenticating a quote.

In making earlier reference to the Ubuntu Linux Forums, I had indicated that I thought that this was exactly what the vBulletin software used for those fora provided. Not quite exactly so, it seems.

In the vBulletin software you can in fact edit the content of a quote, both in an honest fashion - deleting unwanted content and using the conventional indicators such as '....', '[for sense]', etc, - and dishonestly, by editing the text to say something different to the original. However, there exists a convenient means of checking a quote.

With every colour-backgrounded quote there is an iconic link to the post from which the quote has been made. A user can only initiate the colour-backgrounded quoting feature by actually visiting that post to use the 'quote' button contained therein, such button only being available, incidentally, whilst the quoting user is logged-in.

So, in vBulletin forum software at least, colour-backgrounding is merely a convenient indicator of the quote being intra-forum in origin, but for authentication a user must use the iconic link (which opens the source post in another tab, at least in Firefox) and then compare quote with original post.

I suspect, however, it would not be difficult, from a software engineering point of view, to design a quoting feature that permitted selection of text only, refusing to supply the colour background if any character is added, omitted, or changed. In a discussion forum like OLO. as distinct from a technical forum like the UF, such a feature may be of more importance.

When I received, in answer to a query on the UF as to how to use the quote feature in an opening post, an illustrative quote with the content "spurious quote" the feature became a worry! See that exchange here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=944720 . That was when I found I could alter content of a quote.

I only ever saw a gender marker as an option to the user, like email notification.

Gang,
I believe that a few well placed 'patches' would resolve some of the issues mentioned.

One patch could add a 'comment' facility to the bottom of each post which would identify the post being commented on by indentation. This would allow others to run sub threads.
e.g. primary article
Response by A commenting on article
Response to A by B
Response by C commenting on primary article.
Response to C by D
Response to C by A
Response to A by C etc

In this way if E decides to respond individual posts and F can ignore all the side threads and simply read the responses to the primary article without wading through the side comments. Which I find extremely frustrating. I often would like to respond to say to A‘s response but because there are many ‘irrelevant’ responses in the way the debate has wandered to another point, A has given up and gone away.

This system is used by ABC’s “Unleashed” site. (code cutting and testing should be relatively simple.)

I would also suggest that a ’blind’ message be added (this would be a module and may require version treatment. {associated costs-yuk})
A site whereby posters can leave personal messages for other posters without direct contact accessed by existing password. Messages can be flagged for editorial attention to stop personal abuse. This is a system used by Oped in the US.

Gender id …unnecessary. It is the important both genders ARE EQUAL.

Editing of existing posts would mean quite a bit code rewriting (YUK cost!) and later proof issues difficult.

I believe text of removed post replaced with ‘Violation warning unacceptable language ‘Violation warning unacceptable comment’ against the posters name.
And ‘Poster removed - rule violation’. This would send real warnings to posters that editorial control is strict. This process is widely used on sites in the US and does act as an effective deterrent. In this way rebirthing of posters know others would see signature traits and alert editor if the poster errs again.

Examinator

"And ‘Poster removed - rule violation’. This would send real warnings to posters that editorial control is strict. "

So then we would know if someone is absent because of suspension not because they've gone to Bali for a week.

I like that.

david f raised, obliquely, a feature on some fora known as 'private messaging'. This is a means whereby members of the same forum can discuss a subject that may have arisen in a thread, but of which the further pursuit might risk hijacking the thread from its proper topic, or at least be distractingly off-topic.

Perhaps private messaging is a feature OLO could provide in any software revision of the Forum.

In the interim, or should OLO decide against private messaging, there exists a workaround. The OLO Forum members who wish to pursue a particular discussion privately simply each register in another forum that does have private messaging facilities having similar privacy security to that of OLO. All that needs to be done to enable this workaround, beyond joint registration on the other forum, is for both parties to each reveal their userID on the other forum in a post on OLO, open another tab in Firefox, bring up the other forum and log in, then click on whatever button it is that gives the option of sending a private message to 'userID', the other party to the discussion.

Needless to say both parties are required to observe the other forum's rules with respect to the nature of the private messaging content. Inappropriate or abusive content, if complained of to the moderators of the other forum by either party, can result in the offending user being warned, or if necessary, suspended. Confidentiality as to real identity is preserved for those who chose not to reveal such.

This is exactly the course I suggested to Fractelle, when and if she decides to migrate operating systems from Windows ME to Ubuntu Linux. Such practical suggestions, or questions as to hardware, as may be required can then be passed along without the restrictions of a word limit or diversion of an OLO thread. Because any such private discussion would revolve around Linux issues, I suggested the Ubuntu Forums, as these forums have the private messaging feature.

Its up to both users whether they think confidentiality is secure on the other forum.

Forrest Gumpp has a good idea about private messaging. That way, two people like SallyG and antiseptic/austin powerless, could swap their juvenile allegations about each other in private without putting it on public display. Another example is how antiseptic/austin powerless accused a poster called JW of being a CSA employee who was here under false pretenses, and he named the employee. If he was forced to back up his claims in private messaging with Graham, then that type of attempted slander could easily be put in it's place. But it would require Graham's, or a moderator's involvement.

Samsung I question why you posted that?
Graham knows well what we post here as you are aware.
But would he with private messaging?
I have used them in another forum and doubt moderators read them hence the name.
As a combatant in that thread, as a witness to the truth of at least one statement you describe by antiseptic, I think the post is an attempt at having the last word.
I do honestly wonder if we can ever totally take the heat out of some debates.
Yes better to ignore them but some things are said only to provoke.
Private messaging has a use but I do not think without the spotlight of a posted thread insults would be one of them.

You are quite right Belly, about private messaging. There would be absolutely no point in anytwo using PMing for personal attacks. It would only take one party to complain to the moderator(s) of the other forum, and one (or both) might well be banned.

You're also right that unless there is a complaint by one of the two who are party to PMing, moderators on the other forum would not be the slightest bit interested in the conversation. It is not PUBLIC. Only the two parties to it can access the messages and responses, except, when alerted to a problem, the forum moderator(s).

What it may permit is discussion between parties, by mutual consent, of matters that might, if public, be considered borderline with respect to forum rules or legal actionability.

Its main value would lie in allowing a discussion in depth without a word limit on a topic of interest to any two Forum members who do not wish to derail a thread or hijack a discussion. It would only occur if there was mutual interest in the PM.

Private messaging, or even email messaging, from a forum owner or moderator, IS useful. If slander has been committed by a forum member, then in order to protect the site, it would be necessary for the owner to establish whether, or not, slander has in fact been committed. Antiseptic/austin powerless made claims of dishonesty directly against a specific CSA employee, and said that the employee posted here under false pretenses: This site allowed it's publication.

"IF" all the claims are not truthful, then this site may be at risk of legal action. "IF" all the claims are truthful, then it is surely the site's obligation to establish this fact, and thus allow the continuation of the allegations and the history of the allegations. There's only one way for the truth of the matter to be known. The site should contact all the people involved, including the CSA , and it's employee.

Belly, stop trying to play personal politics about this CSA matter: You don't like me...so get over it! Every time this subject is mentioned, on any thread, you immediately chime in, and proceed to defend the person who I clearly think has slandered a CSA employee. Do you believe slander is good? If someone thinks slander has been committed, then that person has every right to bring it to attention.

In my opinion, the CSA employee needs to be contacted by the site.

The Private Messaging option could be enabled or disabled by every individual OLO member.
Members who don't like the idea of PMs won't have to choose that option.

For the people who do want to use PM, there should be an option to block certain people from sending them PMs.

What about a chat window?
I'm not sure if I'd want that myself but the word popped into my head while writing this post.
What do others think? Would you want to use it. I don't have much experience with group chats.
I suppose it can be a lot of fun, but also a total disaster.

Hmm...

Well, to be honest I'm reasonably satisfied with the way things are, save for the quality of posts by some commenters, though the site can hardly be blamed for that.

Gender box seems like a pretty pointless idea to me. The point is the ideas. Of course we don't know about people commenting, that's kind of the idea - this means we have to make arguments based on their merit. Gender, age, religion - the less we know about people, the more we have to treat em equally.

Which leads to my next point, which is that I disagree with PALE's notion that people should ID themselves to make their points more valid.

So what? Just because some partisan kook with nothing to lose identifies himself, his view is more valid than someone who remains anonymous for good reason? Given the nature of some commenters, I think remaining anonymous is the sensible course of action for most people with careers.

I'm pretty opposed to censorship, but I think given that some threads get quite hostile, this shows that a light touch is used. We might not like it, but sometimes censorship is necessary due to legal requirements and issues such as defamation or court proceedings, not to mention privacy.

Samsung while I question some of your recent actions you are wrong I do not dislike you.
Having read a post you say never existed I reported it, re read your Friends whole post history and tell me it was not warlike quite often.
PM yes you can lock posters out, but they work well.
Posters can swap e mail addresses and get to know one another.
They can talk about posters who have a history of making trouble even warn new chums.
I disagree with most things PALE says.
But after being taunted, told I was a coward, I put my full name into a post.
How hard is it to track a bloke who has a lifetime nick name of Belly if you know his first name?
Trouble came soon after in my workplace and here, lies and insults used in real life by another union came to OLO.
Just in the last week a poster threw my full name at me as a weapon in an OLO post.
I proudly am who I am but do not fall for it.
Consider this those asking for full disclosure have been asked very many times to answer just who are they?

Dear Forrest Gumpp,

At the conclusion of this thread will you summarise the recommendations in a form that will make it easy for OLO to implement them if they choose to do so?

phillips:"In my opinion, the CSA employee needs to be contacted by the site."

The CSA employee in question hasn't shown her face here since she was clearly shown to be a liar by her own statements, just as she was shown to be incompetent at her job by her own actions. Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.

BTW, the CSA employee in question is the only one who could know I'm speaking of her, since I never mentioned a surname. I guess guilty consciences trouble the most strident ideologues occasionally, eh, especially after they fail dismally in their attempts to cover up evidence of their dishonesty.

Anansi spoke of removal of comments leaving confusing gaps in threads. Not in all cases does this occur, it would seem.

I think an example may exist (if that is the right word) in the comments thread to the article "The SIEVX: conspiracy or tragedy?", see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7899&page=0 .

A day or two ago I noticed that that topic had changed its position relative to other topics in the index as displayed in order of recency of posting, but while still showing 69 comments having been made.

A visit to the thread revealed an additional post had been made by userID 'franklin', a post I was sure had not been there previously when the comments total had been showing 69. Just out of curiosity I would like to know which post was removed. It is not obvious from the context that a post has been removed. A couple of posts I thought might have attracted moderator intervention were still present. If there was 'hard numbering' of posts in a thread I would at least know where the now removed post had stood, and knowing that, my mind might be jogged to recall it if I had previously paid any attention to it.

Or can the comment counter be tweaked?

Anyone know where the post-removal hole was in the old SIEV?

In partial and tangential support of Antiseptic's preference for post indelibility, perhaps its time for legislation insulating online fora from legal liability relating to comments made therein by third parties? The issue would still remain as to in what circumstances, and in accord with what protocols, poster-identifying information could be demanded of the Forum administration in connection with any legal action being taken against a poster over comments.

My imagination leaps to really, really tough requirements (including large forfeitable cash deposits) being placed upon any entity initiating action for damages, as a deterrent to the mounting of legal actions as merely a means to the discovery of the true identity of any poster. And automatic disbarrment of vexatious advocates.

Forrest Gump:"legislation insulating online fora from legal liability relating to comments made therein by third parties?"

Have there been any successful prosecutions of forum administrators over comments placed on their sites?

I've seen a couple of examples of sites removing posts for claimed legal reasons, and I've also seen examples of sites making the legal threats public and refusing to remove posts. I've not yet seen a threatened litigation carried through.

I do like your idea of a bond or other such substantive proof of genuine intent being required of potentially vexatious litigants. The last thing we need is an expansion of the "SLAP" litigation beloved of many large organisations seeking to quell dissenters.

Already on this site, one small but very vocal group has threatened me with defamation for pointing out possible malfeasance in their operation, based entirely on their own claims and statements here. I invited them to proceed, but despite much sound and fury, their claim signified nothing. It did waste a considerable amount of my time and may have cost me for legal advice if I had been concerned that I had any sort of case to answer. They also dragged the forum administration into the mess, to no good purpose. I feel sure that lodgement of a bond would have stopped all that.

Belly, thanks for your support on the topic of the infamous deleted post. Some people seem to go for the cover up as a matter of course. The theory is "burn the evidence and deny, deny, deny".

It is interesting that those that hint at (threats of) legal action on this Forum are usually those that speak the loudest for freedom of speech, particularly against minority groups in our own country.

Forest I think Graham has answered the question briefly in the past regarding identifying posters.

My impression is that it would take a court order, eg the litigant would have to establish to the courts that there may be a case to answer. Not really suitable for those who know that they don't have a case but rely on the threat of action to silence others.

From my limited reading on the topic an administrators liability is impacted by their editorial approach. If on most issues the administrators maintain a light touch then they are less at risk than those who routinely use editorial power but who also fail to act in a particular case.

In my view threats of legal action which are not clearly justified and/or followed through with should lead to cancelling of access to the site. Such threats are designed to intimidate other users and in some cases are probably all to successfull. I don't know if doing so would breach any laws though. Such a policy could be a minefield in itself.

Some of the forum's User Conduct prohibitions may be relevant
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal
"You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which:

- violates or infringes the rights of others (including their privacy and publicity rights).
- is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person.
- encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law.
- restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site.
- affects the functionality or operation of this site or its servers or the functionality or operation of any users' computer systems (for example, by transmitting a computer virus or other harmful component, whether or not knowingly).
- breaches any standards, content requirements or codes promulgated by any relevant authority, including authorities which require us to take remedial action under any applicable industry code. "

R0bert