Moderator actions, part 2

[cycle tramp]

Yes, quite certain.

Fair enough... let's test the model from your perspective. Can you give an example of a subject which may be mentioned by a new forum member, which may result in a pile in of responses?

[cycle tramp]

...if doesn't exist then we can use it to build a response so something will be present should a new member of the forum searches for it..

[Cowsham]

Yes, quite certain.

Fair enough... let's test the model from your perspective. Can you give an example of a subject which may be mentioned by a new forum member, which may result in a pile in of responses?

How would a new member suspect helmets are bad when they've been told all their lives helmets are good and then know to search for helmets safety etc?

It's very unlikely the moderators would want to put up some sticky about the issue -- I'll leave it up to your own wisdom to figure out why.

Yes I understand the argument now but I couldn't quite believe it when I first heard it. Now I know there are people who take that view and I am pro choice and wouldn't want it any other way but there needs to be a better way of informing the unsuspecting new poster at least about other members deep feelings about the issue before the next new member gets into an unnecessary heated argument and leaves.

[gaz]

It's very unlikely the moderators would want to put up some sticky about the issue -- I'll leave it up to your own wisdom to figure out why.

The current "sticky" has been in place a little over 14 years .

[Bonefishblues]

Yes, quite certain.

Fair enough... let's test the model from your perspective. Can you give an example of a subject which may be mentioned by a new forum member, which may result in a pile in of responses?

How would a new member suspect helmets are bad when they've been told all their lives helmets are good and then know to search for helmets safety etc?

It's very unlikely the moderators would want to put up some sticky about the issue -- I'll leave it up to your own wisdom to figure out why.

Yes I understand the argument now but I couldn't quite believe it when I first heard it. Now I know there are people who take that view and I am pro choice and wouldn't want it any other way but there needs to be a better way of informing the unsuspecting new poster at least about other members deep feelings about the issue before the next new member gets into an unnecessary heated argument and leaves.

Exactly this. And a couple of casual searches are not going to tell a new member what he/she was about to unleash, because:

We're tired of it, we've done the bun fight and we' like to get on with other stuff

[Cowsham]

It's very unlikely the moderators would want to put up some sticky about the issue -- I'll leave it up to your own wisdom to figure out why.

The current "sticky" has been in place a little over 14 years .

It doesn't address the issue correctly -- for starters it begins --
"If you are reading this then you've probably found the new child section for helmet campaigning topics."
--------------------------------------
It should read something like " if you are reading this you've probably found there are some members who have an issue with wearing helmets and this Sticky post will attempt to inform you of the reason why and to try to prevent any heated arguments before they begin."
"Please respect this view as some take it very seriously and can be offended when questioned about it."

Here is the explanation....... ( someone I'm sure knows all the blurb for the explanation of why some don't wear helmets -- I believe there are several points to cover. -- some links to studies etc but no links to existing forum arguments by way of explanation just the premise and some studies eg the newzealand one.)
............
....................
.....................


We at CTC support the choice not to wear helmets for cycling so please do not try to advise non helmet wearers to wear one likewise they will respect your decision to wear one.

----------------------

Something like this -- simple and to the point so that any non helmet wearer can give the link to this sticky and then not have to defend or explain their choice to a bewildered new member. If the new member still insists a non helmet member explain their choice then the non helmet member could report the post to a mod who can then ask the new member to read the sticky and abide by it or be removed from the forum. Likewise vice versa.
There's no need for this forum to be dominated by a 14+ year old argument. A complete waste of time.

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

I recently started a thread about some unpleasantness that had occurred:
viewtopic.php?t=162604

After several deletions I see that the whole thread has now been locked. I had deliberately not given my own views in order to allow some cooling off and so that I could hear from others. I would have referred to specific posts to explain my conclusions but there's not much point now.

1 A new poster made a series of posts on several subjects. Several of them contained views that traditionally provoke strong reactions, including views on cycle helmets and causes of collisions.

My conclusions:

1 We should try very hard not to hound out anyone else.

Here's some advice, if you new to the forum , don't do number 1. We're tired of it, we've done the bun fight and we' like to get on with other stuff. Entering a new forum, telling those of us who don't do dayglo or don't wear helmets that we're wrong is rude, and childish and shows a lack of understanding of the principles involved. Give us some credit that we are adults and have the capability of working out things like risk and equipment choices all by ourselves.

Generally if you don't, the other 1 may happen.

[Moderator note - post edited for breach of the Forum Guidelines - viewtopic.php?t=3661.]

What you wear on your bike is no concern of mine, wear whatever makes you happy. I don't wear dayglo either and nor did I suggest that anyone else should.

What you wear on your head is not my business either. Sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't. I support freedom of choice and have never suggested anyone should wear one. I commented on a thread asking for experiences where a helmet has helped save from injury. That's what I did, my experience applies to me - I wouldn't extrapolate from that a demand for everyone to don one. I would also strongly resist legislation that told me I should wear one on the road.

I commented on a thread about motorists receiving paltry sentences for bad driving. Perfectly valid thread with some awful examples of dangerous fools behind the wheel, but In that thread were a small number of ignorantly pious and clearly anti-car replies. I took them to task to remind them that there are a large number of idiot cyclists who cause accidents. I think the adage of people in glass houses applies.....

So there you have it. Nobody tried to hound me out IMO. I had some people disagree with me and that's fine, I'm a grown-up too and I'm not going to cry over nasty, hurty words on a forum.

[slowster]

I commented on a thread about motorists receiving paltry sentences for bad driving. Perfectly valid thread with some awful examples of dangerous fools behind the wheel, but In that thread were a small number of ignorantly pious and clearly anti-car replies. I took them to task to remind them that there are a large number of idiot cyclists who cause accidents. I think the adage of people in glass houses applies.....

The thread is 'A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle drivers when causing the deaths of other road users', not simply bad driving. You now refer to 'a small number of ignorantly pious and clearly anti-car replies', whereas your original posts described the whole thread as 'generally anti-car'.

Under the circumstances I have returned the stump thread to Campaigning & Public Policy, so that people can make their own judgement - viewtopic.php?t=162688.

[Tangled Metal]

I think suggestion 4 should not be for a separate ID for each moderator but one ID for all moderators so there is only one identity for moderation.

As part of that I think moderation needs moderation in an academic sense. Namely that principles that the moderators use is homnogenised as much as possible to try and ensure two mods tacking the same issue would result in the same action.

I do think moderation should be rules based with fewer opportunities for subjective judgement if that is possible. Ideally you would not know which moderator made the moderation decision.

I think openesss in moderation is a good thing. Principles of moderation or an idea as to how the moderators agree on the principles would be of interest to the regulars and probably new posters.

There are pile ons for certain. Political threads are as bad as the controversial cycling topics. I have expressed views how to help this but the regulars are against it so I do not see how it would be stopped. BTW when there is an echo chamber on a topic the majority sometimes do not realise they are in a pile on situation. For the recipient it can be pretty unpleasant. I would hope that everyone understands how bad it can become and would not want that.

One random thought. Is it at all possible to mark a thread as controversial and as a result all posts get a timned delay before becoming public. The idea would be to freeze the post screen to allow the poster to go away, cool down and reread it a little later to hopefully edit it to a more pleasant presentation of opinions. Probably not possible so perhaps it is up to us to do that ourselves.

[Jdsk]

...
My conclusions:

1 We should try very hard not to hound out anyone else.

2 The principles which determine whether threads should be split or merged or posters should be told not to use an existing thread should be made public.

3 It is extremely rude to post negative judgements about other posters' contribution to the forum. (Disagreement and correction are fine and contribute to healthy debate. Praise for contribution is excellent and improves the tone.)

4 Consideration should be given to moderators using separate IDs for moderation and for personal contributions. But of course that would be additional hassle for them.
...

I think suggestion 4 should not be for a separate ID for each moderator but one ID for all moderators so there is only one identity for moderation.

As part of that I think moderation needs moderation in an academic sense. Namely that principles that the moderators use is homnogenised as much as possible to try and ensure two mods tacking the same issue would result in the same action.

I do think moderation should be rules based with fewer opportunities for subjective judgement if that is possible. Ideally you would not know which moderator made the moderation decision.

I think openesss in moderation is a good thing. Principles of moderation or an idea as to how the moderators agree on the principles would be of interest to the regulars and probably new posters.
...

Yes, one shared identity for all moderation might work better.

Jonathan

[matt_twam_asi]

Yes, one shared identity for all moderation might work better.

AFAIK there is no way to do this on phpBB without moderators sharing a single account, and therefore a single password. This would almost entirely obfuscate which person is doing the moderation.

The current moderator accounts are OK, but flawed. Separate "moderator" and "user" accounts are better (and follow best practice for accounts with elevated privileges), but the suggestion has been deemed too difficult by the mods. I disagree, but it's their prerogative.

[Cowsham]

...
My conclusions:

1 We should try very hard not to hound out anyone else.

2 The principles which determine whether threads should be split or merged or posters should be told not to use an existing thread should be made public.

3 It is extremely rude to post negative judgements about other posters' contribution to the forum. (Disagreement and correction are fine and contribute to healthy debate. Praise for contribution is excellent and improves the tone.)

4 Consideration should be given to moderators using separate IDs for moderation and for personal contributions. But of course that would be additional hassle for them.
...

I think suggestion 4 should not be for a separate ID for each moderator but one ID for all moderators so there is only one identity for moderation.

As part of that I think moderation needs moderation in an academic sense. Namely that principles that the moderators use is homnogenised as much as possible to try and ensure two mods tacking the same issue would result in the same action.

I do think moderation should be rules based with fewer opportunities for subjective judgement if that is possible. Ideally you would not know which moderator made the moderation decision.

I think openesss in moderation is a good thing. Principles of moderation or an idea as to how the moderators agree on the principles would be of interest to the regulars and probably new posters.
...

Yes, one shared identity for all moderation might work better.

Jonathan

I disagree cos that would mean it's less transparent I'd prefer
"moderation should be rules based with fewer opportunities for subjective judgement if that is possible."

In fairness to the mods I'm happy with their strong stance against bad language and denigrating or vilifying comments. We ( well most of us ) are Human -- born to make mistakes ( I make plenty ).

[Tangled Metal]

If subjective decisions are somehow removed from moderation, by whatever method, then the moderation act would not identify the moderator anyway. What is the purpose of identifying the moderator anyway? Moderation is supposed to be unbiased and probably is in the most part, but identification of the moderator adds nothing to that.

What is wrong with one Moderator Id and password to be shared with the mod team. It could be changed when one mod leaves of course so there is no more risk to one account all mods use than having separate identifiable mod accounts.

IMHO identifiable mod accounts with separate personal accounts would have little benefit because the mod account and the personal account are linked by the person who have both. What is the point of a moderator posting an opinion on a contentious thread by their personal account then later on using their moderator account to moderate the thread they have been part of? If a mod is having a private spat with another private poster then moids the thread the separate mod account has no benefit surely? Can mods do that now? Mod threads they have been heavily involved in?

In some ways a single mod account can be viewed by the pure quality of the moderation it does. If in the same situataion the mod posts actively in a congtentious thread in their own account then use the joint account to mod the thread they were active in you would still be able to see if the moderation has bias I reckon even if you have no private name linked to the joint accouint. It is an idea.

I think the point at issue is the way an active poster has the abilithy to change the thread they have been actively part of as a mod. Perhaps there is a need for a degree of separation. Perhaps such cases the mods that have not been active in the thread moderates. However I do agree the mods mostly do a good job and a lot of this is really window dressing in the most part. I think the instance that triggered the first mod thread is a rare situation of contention to some. I just feel that we should not be able to identify mod action to a private poster via a joint mod account. There are some clever and observant people on here who could see differences in mod action and perhaps identify the mod in this case. There are even more who could see that there is bias in a mod action even if the mod is not identifiable to call it out. So IMHO is mod naming needed?

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

I commented on a thread about motorists receiving paltry sentences for bad driving. Perfectly valid thread with some awful examples of dangerous fools behind the wheel, but In that thread were a small number of ignorantly pious and clearly anti-car replies. I took them to task to remind them that there are a large number of idiot cyclists who cause accidents. I think the adage of people in glass houses applies.....

The thread is 'A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle drivers when causing the deaths of other road users', not simply bad driving. You now refer to 'a small number of ignorantly pious and clearly anti-car replies', whereas your original posts described the whole thread as 'generally anti-car'.

Under the circumstances I have returned the stump thread to Campaigning & Public Policy, so that people can make their own judgement - viewtopic.php?t=162688.

I've pretty much had enough of this now. Which hat are you wearing slowster, that of a moderator or a general forum member? I ask because you have previously abused your position by inviting a reply from me on a previous thread, and then wilfully deleting my answer, perhaps because you didn't like it.

I don't give two hoots for semantics, so don't deliberately misunderstand what I was trying to get across..... Yes, the thread you mention has many valid and tragic posts in it. At no point have I denigrated them. I responded, and said why right from the off, to a small number of idiotic and sanctimonious guff that helps nobody and, IMO, misrepresents us as cyclists.

Since you've re-published a thread that I had previously asked to be deleted (and kindly had been by your boss vorpal) and done so without any prior contact with me which is damned rude, I will now state publicly my response to your wheedling, pious, condescending and patronising suggestion that I read every single post in that thread and spare a thought for the victims and their families who were affected.... For starters, I HAD read every post in the thread and felt more than entitled to reply due to the experiences of my brother. He was returning to England by car following a cycling holiday in Italy. He was hit at high speed by a lorry not far from Lyon. He spent a while in ICU, followed by time on a normal ward both in France and back here. He lost the use of one hand, has a slight limp, has ongoing PTSD and is unable to ride a bike. We're sure the lorry driver was asleep at the wheel but because it could never be proven, he was found guilty of a far lesser offence and escaped a custodial sentence. My brother suffers the consequences of the accident every single day. On that basis I can assure you that I know very well some of the pain and mental anguish those families have gone through.

It is to your discredit that you ignored the DM, didn't even acknowledge it, and instead carried on derailing a thread and baiting me in public. Well I have finally risen to the bait slowster, I'm here. What are you going to do now?

To the rest of the forum, I'd like to clarify one last time why I made the suggestions I did on the thread named by slowster. Firstly, I have complete empathy for those directly affected by bad driving and am appalled by some decisions by the CPS and judiciary. Secondly, we have a great wave of bicycle legislation heading our way sometime soon and I'm very concerned that it could curtail the freedoms we enjoy forever. I mention that and it's relevant because I believe we should also be holding our own to account as well as motorists. Some of the replies to the thread are sanctimonious and clearly anti-car in general. That's an issue because most of the people looking at this forum are guests. You don't know who they are, but I'm sure some will be anti-cyclists. Some may be advisors involved in the legislation process, who knows? But what I do know is that if we (and I realise that's a horrible generalisation) come across and entitled and holier-than-thou it'll do us no good at all. We must be seen to be holding dangerous cyclists to account as well as motorists. That is all my suggestion was trying to do. slowster in particular seemed to think I was somehow attacking the thread, seeking to derail it and being disrespectful to the victims and families. That was never the case though and the whole ridiculous saga has become something it was never meant to be. It has also completely changed my view of what C-UK is all about.

slowster took it upon himself/herself to edit a reply I posted to cycle tramp earlier today. I took exception to the assumptions made by cycle tramp who suggested that shortly after joining this forum, I had started telling people to wear dayglo and cycle helmets. Total fantasy on their part and my original reply had a medium vein of sarcasm running though it. I'm all for brisk debate as long as it remains factually correct but if someone is rude or misrepresents me, then I have every right to correct them. For the sake of completeness, I wouldn't be seen dead in dayglo.

This is all rather verbose and waffly, but I'm just home from the rugby club and have had a few beers. If any of you want to debate this further (but believe me, I'm heartily bored of it now) then DM me.

And yes, I do feel as if I'm being 'piled on' a little now.

[Carlton green]

This is all rather verbose and waffly, but I'm just home from the rugby club and have had a few beers. If any of you want to debate this further (but believe me, I'm heartily bored of it now) then DM me.

And yes, I do feel as if I'm being 'piled on' a little now.

It’s rarely a good idea to post after having a few beers.

I’ve not followed the thread but if you’re expecting perfect objectivity on this forum then you’ll be disappointed - doubtless many other forums are similarly imperfect. The moderation team here is (in my experience of them) broadly impartial but they’re volunteers and don’t expect them to be perfect. Like much else that life offers it’s a case of making the best of things and remembering to be realistic in your expectations.

Sometimes people are piled on and either are or feel mistreated. That’s life and the best thing to do is shrug it off and walk away - well, that’s what I’ve found to be the case.