- Messages
- 11,582
- Type of diabetes
- I reversed my Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
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 ?
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.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.
You will still be on the footie thread I hope? There's an interesting match on Boxing DayForum 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
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
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.
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.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.
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.
I have already suggested various improvements. Hopefully they may be taken on board. Remember, if you're not moving forward, you're standing stillAs 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?
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?
Yes, impartiality is very subjective, both on private AND public forumsImpartiality 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.
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.
I have already suggested various improvements. Hopefully they may be taken on board. Remember, if you're not moving forward, you're standing still
Jeez AB that's another new word you have taught me....opprobrium. I had to look it up.
I've read this 3 times and still doesn't make sense but thanks anywayAnd, 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.
Hi @jay hay-char , that is a real shame .. But for reasons I stopped participating as much as I used to ..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
I've read this 3 times and still doesn't make sense but thanks anyway
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?