Join for free
Page 12 of 12 « First < 2 10 11 12
Honey's Avatar
Honey
Chatterbox
Honey is offline
Lancashire
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,867
Honey is female  Honey has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:22 PM
111

Re: Our stance on moderation

yep, I think you do Meg, perhaps some rules are ready for a change
Meg's Avatar
Meg
Supervisor
Meg is offline
Worcestershire
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 42,850
Meg is female  Meg has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:29 PM
112

Re: Our stance on moderation

Originally Posted by lilac ->
I think that your long term posters think they can say what they want..and then are surprised when people bite back..
...there is biting back politely and there is being downright rude .
lilac
Senior Member
lilac is offline
West yorks uk
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,177
lilac is female  lilac has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:34 PM
113

Re: Our stance on moderation

Ok..found a thread..hoping my house would fall over a cliff..we'll get rid of her soon...she is a liar...

Is that rude..or biting back politely?
Meg's Avatar
Meg
Supervisor
Meg is offline
Worcestershire
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 42,850
Meg is female  Meg has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:37 PM
114

Re: Our stance on moderation

Originally Posted by lilac ->
Ok..found a thread..hoping my house would fall over a cliff..we'll get rid of her soon...she is a liar...

Is that rude..or biting back politely?
I agree that is also rude and there is no justification for it from anybody as I have already stated here..

http://www.over50sforum.com/showthre...667#post512667

.
mesco m's Avatar
mesco m
Senior Member
mesco m is offline
manchester
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,277
mesco m is female  mesco m has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:37 PM
115

Re: Our stance on moderation

Reap what you sow.
Honey's Avatar
Honey
Chatterbox
Honey is offline
Lancashire
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,867
Honey is female  Honey has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:41 PM
116

Re: Our stance on moderation

tsk lilac! if we went back through your posts I bet we'd find far more of them were rude rather than biting back and then that wouldn't be done politely as you really don't give a toss about anyone else or their feelings
lilac
Senior Member
lilac is offline
West yorks uk
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,177
lilac is female  lilac has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:45 PM
117

Re: Our stance on moderation

Maybe I do..but can't be doing with hypocrites..I have noticed there is a ''cliche'' here..I was told the second day I posted...It is true..don't rock the boat!!
Honey's Avatar
Honey
Chatterbox
Honey is offline
Lancashire
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 7,867
Honey is female  Honey has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:47 PM
118

Re: Our stance on moderation

well I'm not in a clique, I speak as I find
lilac
Senior Member
lilac is offline
West yorks uk
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,177
lilac is female  lilac has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:50 PM
119

Re: Our stance on moderation

I have my opinions..it is ''free speech'' apparently not available on this forum..
Azz's Avatar
Azz
Admin
Azz is offline
South Wales, UK
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,027
Azz is male  Azz has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
02-08-2014, 04:50 PM
120

Re: Our stance on moderation

On the racism and homophobia complaints, there are two points I want to cover here.

Point 1. We cannot please everyone.

It's an age-old dilemma when it comes to freedom of speech. On forums - as in daily life - we are always going to brush up against people with distasteful views, people who spout ignorance, people who seem driven by a need to divide, people who manage to offend, if not unknowingly, then at least through a casual carelessness in their choice of words. It's sad, but people such as this - and posts such as theirs - will always crop up on forums. So how should we deal with them?

Broadly speaking there are two options.

1) There is the option of censorship. On forums, this can involve any of the following: editing posts, deleting posts, private and sometimes public reprimanding, account suspension and banning. This is what you might call the authoritarian end of the spectrum. What's to like about it? It deals with trouble quickly and efficiently and is the easiest way to maintain a sense of order on a forum. It comes at a cost though, which is that the distasteful view doesn't get aired and thus doesn't get challenged. Very little is learned. In such scenarios, the offending posters have a tendency to reassure themselves with convenient fictions. So rather than leaving with an understanding that their words really were objectionable or their reasoning really was poor, they leave with a misguided sense that they were merely the victims - of political correctness, of the oversensitive, etc. The censorship ends up making it more difficult for them to understand why their words were wrong.

2) Then there is the libertarian approach which is to, where possible, leave objectionable posts up. The advantage of doing this is that it allows ignorance and hate to be directly challenged, dissected and condemned by other members. It provides the best opportunity to educate the original poster if you can defeat them with reason and good argument. And it prevents that frustrating situation where the offender ends up assuming the role of persecuted victim. This more liberal approach tends to be favoured by members who feel, quite understandably, that grown-ups shouldn't have to have their words policed in this way. In fact on this very thread, some longstanding members of Over50s have aired this sentiment. But as we have seen, it comes at its own cost: a greater likelihood of flash points of offence and anger, a less stable and less welcoming environment for newcomers and existing members alike, and occasionally the loss of some well-loved members.

There are pros and cons to both approaches and this thread is a perfect example of potentially being damned by one set of members if we do and damned by a different set of members if we don't. We have well-respected members sitting on both sides of this fence and I want to say that I recognise that.

I have to say that, instinctively and in general, I prefer the libertarian approach - avoiding deleting posts as much as possible - if only because it prevents them playing the "PC gone mad" card! But I completely accept that there are always exceptions. We have experimented with different approaches over the years but we try to be consistent with whatever approach we are taking. But we don't always get it right. Which leads me on to my second point.


Point 2: We are not perfect.

In an ideal world we would be monitoring the site 24/7 and making decisions that are consistent and even-handed with past decisions. Unfortunately we just don't have the resources to do that, despite stellar work from our mods. (And by the way, the next time you think about criticising a mod, just stop and think what a thankless task it actually is. As Meg and Plantman have pointed out, it's not easy and much of the work goes on beyond the scenes without members even being made aware of it.) We act as quickly as we can but sometimes we are in discussions behind the scenes trying to resolve matters or get more information, and things take longer than we would like.

In the past, we have gone out of our way to avoid removing objectionable comments and instead tried to spend a considerable amount of time getting involved with the debate to demonstrate why we feel what they said is unacceptable. But this isn't always possible.

In this instance, with Lilac's post, on reflection I think I got it wrong. With no opportunity to enter the debate myself this time around, and with one mod down, I should have acted on certain remarks instead of leaving them long enough to cause offence to some of our more valued and considerate members.

Lilac's objectionable comments have been removed and I want to make it absolutely clear that on this forum we do not in any way condone racism or homophobia. In this instance, the lack of action was certainly no endorsement of either. I would like to apologise to members who felt they had to leave because of this - and to those members, I hope you will change your mind and return soon.

To other valued members - Bruce, Audrey, etc - who may be concerned about this leading to greater censorship, I would like to assure you that we are not about to switch to heavy-handed moderation. We will continue to try and tread a middle ground between freedom of speech and moderation, and while we may not always get it right, we will keep trying to do our best.

I have some other things to run by everyone which I will be doing in a separate thread shortly. For now though I would like to say thank you to all members for your understanding and a special thank you to Meg this week for, frankly, putting up with more rubbish than she ever deserves.
 
Page 12 of 12 « First < 2 10 11 12

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.