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?