Moderation on diabetes.co.uk

[AndBreathe]

I'm unsure why you keep on about this forum being a business and owned by someone ? That should have nothing to do with how the place is moderated. In what areas do you feel a private or public forum should have different rules for moderation ? Should they both not just be fair and consistent ?

Whilst the ownership status should, theoretically, have no influence on how things happen or are run on a forum, in practical and accountability terms, that's just impractical. Somewhere along the line, this forum is owned and paid for by someone running a business, where that business funds the forum. If nothing else, the shareholders of that business (whether a single person or a public company) have a right to expect controls to be in place to protect their investment (share price - notional or otherwise). There are also issues to consider regarding legal issues matters - protecting privacy, having access to private data should a court of law require it and so on.

This isn't, to my knowledge, a completely philanthropic or altruistic venture, although, I could be wrong of course.

However the structure works, there will be imperfections and situations where things feel unfairly dealt with.

 

[Enclave]

The wife is on a totally unrelated site connected with art, and she moderates a few groups within them. As with this site they do need moderating ... She says its like editing ( she edits a few publications as well) if they are not moderated or edited the threads can become a jumble of nothingness ... To keep the play nice policy in place and to stop unrelated squabbles then moderating must take place.. Sometimes this can feel like we are loosing some freedom of speech .. But it has to be accepted to the wellbeing of the forums.
I guess if you want a group that not moderated then open a Facebook group .. Then sit back and watch it tumble into nothingness.
I don't like being moderated out of a forum posting ... And I do throw my teddy in the corner when it happens ... It would help for me if I knew how the moderators were selected

 

[jay hay-char]

Forum moderation is a blunt implement but I suppose it's the only implement available. I understand that sometimes moderators have to take actions that they then defend by saying "because I say so", because otherwise they'd spend their whole life arguing, but I've noticed an occasional tendency to shoot from the hip - that is, to make a public, all-embracing statement, perhaps about several posters, that is neither defensible nor accurate. Any attempts to dispute or query the statement are then met with an instruction to discuss by pm - in other words, whilst it's OK for a moderator to make and promulgate public snap judgements about what has been said, those who said it are labelled as malefactors of some kind and not allowed a right of reply.

That's life, I guess, and maybe that's how it has to be but it's put me off participating and will continue to do so, I'm afraid

 

[satindoll]

There are some posters who take great delight in prodding, goading, and being deliberately argumentative towards other posters, and I have seen the recipients of these taunts getting a whiplash from the mods whilst the perpetrator sneaks off to repeat the exercise on someone else, totally unfair, not good moderation......

 

[dannyw]

Whilst the ownership status should, theoretically, have no influence on how things happen or are run on a forum, in practical and accountability terms, that's just impractical. Somewhere along the line, this forum is owned and paid for by someone running a business, where that business funds the forum. If nothing else, the shareholders of that business (whether a single person or a public company) have a right to expect controls to be in place to protect their investment (share price - notional or otherwise). There are also issues to consider regarding legal issues matters - protecting privacy, having access to private data should a court of law require it and so on.

This isn't, to my knowledge, a completely philanthropic or altruistic venture, although, I could be wrong of course.

However the structure works, there will be imperfections and situations where things feel unfairly dealt with.

I agree with everything you say but I still don't understand why moderating a private or public forum should differ. The moderating team are voluntary, not shareowners and SHOULD be impartial and neutral. If they are not, they should be removed.

 

[zand]

Forum moderation is a blunt implement but I suppose it's the only implement available. I understand that sometimes moderators have to take actions that they then defend by saying "because I say so", because otherwise they'd spend their whole life arguing, but I've noticed an occasional tendency to shoot from the hip - that is, to make a public, all-embracing statement, perhaps about several posters, that is neither defensible nor accurate. Any attempts to dispute or query the statement are then met with an instruction to discuss by pm - in other words, whilst it's OK for a moderator to make and promulgate public snap judgements about what has been said, those who said it are labelled as malefactors of some kind and not allowed a right of reply.

That's life, I guess, and maybe that's how it has to be but it's put me off participating and will continue to do so, I'm afraid

You will still be on the footie thread I hope? There's an interesting match on Boxing Day

 

[SunnyExpat]

The wife is on a totally unrelated site connected with art, and she moderates a few groups within them. As with this site they do need moderating ... She says its like editing ( she edits a few publications as well) if they are not moderated or edited the threads can become a jumble of nothingness ... To keep the play nice policy in place and to stop unrelated squabbles then moderating must take place.. Sometimes this can feel like we are loosing some freedom of speech .. But it has to be accepted to the wellbeing of the forums.
I guess if you want a group that not moderated then open a Facebook group .. Then sit back and watch it tumble into nothingness.
I don't like being moderated out of a forum posting ... And I do throw my teddy in the corner when it happens ... It would help for me if I knew how the moderators were selected

Probably drew the short straw.

And then a sense of obligation, having helped create it, not to simply walk away and see then it tumble into the abyss?

 

[AndBreathe]

I agree with everything you say but I still don't understand why moderating a private or public forum should differ. The moderating team are voluntary, not shareowners and SHOULD be impartial and neutral. If they are not, they should be removed.

Anyone fulfilling an "office" - whether paid or otherwise accepts they are running to the owner/rule maker's rules, and as such is their agent. If Mods had a complete free rein, it could be veeeeeery interesting indeed - and not necessarily in a good (or bad) way!

 

[dannyw]

Anyone fulfilling an "office" - whether paid or otherwise accepts they are running to the owner/rule maker's rules, and as such is their agent. If Mods had a complete free rein, it could be veeeeeery interesting indeed - and not necessarily in a good (or bad) way!

Apologies, I'm still none the wiser. I agree any forum will have rules. My point was, why would they necessarily be difficult on a private forum ? If the mods are impartial, what's the difference ? The rules here are not linked in any way to advertising or business, they are the usual, bog standard rules found on many forums. If they are applied consistently, there shouldn't be any problems.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Apologies, I'm still none the wiser. I agree any forum will have rules. My point was, why would they necessarily be difficult on a private forum ? If the mods are impartial, what's the difference ? The rules here are not linked in any way to advertising or business, they are the usual, bog standard rules found on many forums. If they are applied consistently, there shouldn't be any problems.

As some posters have said on here, it does seem the rules are applied consistently, and the mods are impartial. It seems some others disagree.
Perhaps you need to suggest a route if you have a personal objection with a mods decision?

 

[AndBreathe]

Apologies, I'm still none the wiser. I agree any forum will have rules. My point was, why would they necessarily be difficult on a private forum ? If the mods are impartial, what's the difference ? The rules here are not linked in any way to advertising or business, they are the usual, bog standard rules found on many forums. If they are applied consistently, there shouldn't be any problems.

Impartiality is subjective - always - no matter how much we feel we can each be impartial, we will always have feeling capable of impinging on true impartiality. It's called being human.

I am sure though, we would all concede we have seen, from time to time, behaviour which is frankly partisan, and apparently illogical.

Put simply: If everyone was as perfect as me, life would be so much simpler.

Yes, that is my tongue making that bulge in my cheek.

 

[dannyw]

As some posters have said on here, it does seem the rules are applied consistently, and the mods are impartial. It seems some others disagree.
Perhaps you need to suggest a route if you have a personal objection with a mods decision?

I have already suggested various improvements. Hopefully they may be taken on board. Remember, if you're not moving forward, you're standing still

 

[AndBreathe]

As some posters have said on here, it does seem the rules are applied consistently, and the mods are impartial. It seems some others disagree.
Perhaps you need to suggest a route if you have a personal objection with a mods decision?

I would suggest that consistency is not consistent in this forum. I find myself able, often, to predict what will happen if a controversial thread is initiated, particularly by certain folks.

If there were true, complete, consistency (which is like rocking horse droppings), it would be easier to both control the opprobrium we might be in receipt of, but also for those who are clever, to manage any given outcome.

 

[dannyw]

Impartiality is subjective - always - no matter how much we feel we can each be impartial, we will always have feeling capable of impinging on true impartiality. It's called being human.

I am sure though, we would all concede we have seen, from time to time, behaviour which is frankly partisan, and apparently illogical.

Put simply: If everyone was as perfect as me, life would be so much simpler.

Yes, that is my tongue making that bulge in my cheek.

Yes, impartiality is very subjective, both on private AND public forums

 

[zand]

I would suggest that consistency is not consistent in this forum. I find myself able, often, to predict what will happen if a controversial thread is initiated, particularly by certain folks.

If there were true, complete, consistency (which is like rocking horse droppings), it would be easier to both control the opprobrium we might be in receipt of, but also for those who are clever, to manage any given outcome.

Jeez AB that's another new word you have taught me....opprobrium. I had to look it up.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I have already suggested various improvements. Hopefully they may be taken on board. Remember, if you're not moving forward, you're standing still

And, if you have it right, you choose to stand still, rather than move forward off the edge of the cliff, just for the sake of moving forward.
Or even choose to sit down, on a chair in the sun in my case.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Jeez AB that's another new word you have taught me....opprobrium. I had to look it up.

There is a dictionary.
(With a table with one short leg balanced on it now in my case
Next to my chair in the sun)

 

[dannyw]

And, if you have it right, you choose to stand still, rather than move forward off the edge of the cliff, just for the sake of moving forward.
Or even choose to sit down, on a chair in the sun in my case.

I've read this 3 times and still doesn't make sense but thanks anyway

 

[Kat100]

Forum moderation is a blunt implement but I suppose it's the only implement available. I understand that sometimes moderators have to take actions that they then defend by saying "because I say so", because otherwise they'd spend their whole life arguing, but I've noticed an occasional tendency to shoot from the hip - that is, to make a public, all-embracing statement, perhaps about several posters, that is neither defensible nor accurate. Any attempts to dispute or query the statement are then met with an instruction to discuss by pm - in other words, whilst it's OK for a moderator to make and promulgate public snap judgements about what has been said, those who said it are labelled as malefactors of some kind and not allowed a right of reply.

That's life, I guess, and maybe that's how it has to be but it's put me off participating and will continue to do so, I'm afraid

Hi @jay hay-char , that is a real shame .. But for reasons I stopped participating as much as I used to ..
Sadly I don't think you will be the only one feeling as you do ..

 

[SunnyExpat]

I've read this 3 times and still doesn't make sense but thanks anyway

It will one day then.