Suggestion for moderation

[Venturi Swirl]

You really don't know when to stop...do you?

No, I believe in the freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Human Rights Act.  Unless I am committing hate speech or libelling a perfectly innocent person I don't see why I should be made to shut up, though I suspect you are just about to stamp on my yuman rights and issue me with a humungous penalty.   

[Venturi Swirl]

It's coming.

When? Is 130 warnings the limit?  I think we need some clarity on this....

[G-Unit]

The problem is - inconsistency as witnessed by the recent debacle over the slurring (aka libelling) of a perfectly innocent man, with accusations that he was a hustler, a liar who made money out of selling lies to the tabloids.  You refused to condemn this, repeatedly.  Points were eventually awarded to the culprit, which were then removed on appeal - why?  If you can't explain this then you can't expect anyone to take the rules or the punishments seriously.  No doubt this home truth will win me another warning or even a ban, it's worth it to highlight the issue though IMO.

If I were you I would concentrate on my own behaviour, which doesn't seem to be very good.

[Venturi Swirl]

If I were you I would concentrate on my own behaviour, which doesn't seem to be very good.

As this thread and this part of the forum is about moderation I think concentrating on moderating decisions and how they are arrived at is perfectly on topic and relevant. 

[G-Unit]

Are there any Sceptics with this number of Warnings?  All as white as the driven snow are they?

I never have understood this penchant for awarding Warning Points when a Deletion is often quite enough.

Can't you, as a Senior Moderator, answer that question yourself? I think if you look you'll find sceptics with many more warnings than VS.

[G-Unit]

As this thread and this part of the forum is about moderation I think concentrating on moderating decisions and how they are arrived at is perfectly on topic and relevant.

Even if another member made a post which, in your opinion, broke forum rules, it can't be used as an excuse for you or anyone else to ignore forum rules. That, imo, is what you are proposing.

[John]

As this thread and this part of the forum is about moderation I think concentrating on moderating decisions and how they are arrived at is perfectly on topic and relevant.

Blatant disruption and criticism of this forum will always have consequences.

[Venturi Swirl]

Even if another member made a post which, in your opinion, broke forum rules, it can't be used as an excuse for you or anyone else to ignore forum rules. That, imo, is what you are proposing.

No it is not.  I am proposing simply that if we must have rules that punishments are not applied arbitrarily depending on forum allegiances but apply to all.  The post I am referring to is a perfect example of a Mod turning a blind eye to a clear forum infringement, and when a warning was eventually issued it was then (mystifyingly IMO) rescinded.  This indicates to me some confusion as to what the rules are and how they should be administered at mod level.  How on earth do you expect people to keep to forum rules when there is such a lack of clarity wrt to the most serious infringement of all (ie: libel (aka slurs))?     We have been told it is not acceptable to accuse another named person of lying or of committing serious crimes and yet there are so many examples of it throughout the forum that have gone unpunished and which have been allowed to remain on the forum it's baffling.  I read one yesterday on here which clearly accuses by name the brother of a murder victim of committing the crime.  It's been on the forum for years.  Is this permitted or not?

[Venturi Swirl]

Blatant disruption and criticism of this forum will always have consequences.

What am I disrupting exactly?  A thread entitled "suggestion for moderation" - I am suggesting clarity and consistency, is that so very trollish of me?

[Eleanor]

It's coming.

A way to go then.

[Eleanor]

Can't you, as a Senior Moderator, answer that question yourself? I think if you look you'll find sceptics with many more warnings than VS.

I am only interested in the apparent passion for awarding Warning Points when I so very rarely do so.  That to me is being a responsible Senior Moderator when a Deletion will suffice

We are here to keep this Board running smoothly and not to act like Dictators.  Something that took me some time to learn, although I hope that I never act with malice.

[Eleanor]

This Forum is yet again becoming a very unpleasant place to be and losing Posters regularly. 

Even I no longer know what is acceptable and what isn't,  so I always afford the benefit of the doubt.  Some others should do the same.  It is so often a matter of opinion anyway.

There is no autonomy given to Moderators, Senior or otherwise and John has to and does decide in the end.  I had hoped to make John's life a bit more easy, but that was a presumption on my part and I am no longer prepared to do this and then have my decisions over ruled.

I have been doing this "Job" for more than seven years and I have learned such a lot, mainly about myself.

Junior Moderators could do well to think on this and come back to me in five years time.

This Forum isn't a Democracy, but then neither is it a Dictatorship.

Lose it at your peril.

[John]

Anyone  posting on here who is Pro Luke and his innocence is told they are wrong no matter what. Others who believe him to be guilty can post anything they choose, however ridiculous and its accepted as a FACT. funny that...

That is simply not true jixy.  You have been a member here long enough to know that every viewpoint is welcome here. Could it be that the weight of opinion is not in Luke Mitchell's favour and that most people see his crime as being despicable?

I understand what it is like to be the underdog in any debate but you can be rest assured that you have my support in any case you wish to put forward.

[jixy]

That is simply not true jixy.  You have been a member here long enough to know that every viewpoint is welcome here. Could it be that the weight of opinion is not in Luke Mitchell's favour and that most people see his crime as being despicable?

I understand what it is like to be the underdog in any debate but you can be rest assured that you have my support in any case you wish to put forward.

Yes I have been on the forum a long time hence my post. Most new members are attacked and interrogated on joining. That hasn't changed over the years either

Things get personal very quickly but only in the direction of people who offer anything positive to the case

The threads go off topic to include many things that are personal long running issues with person responding and others not even being discussed.

I am reading many points on many different platforms to see a balanced view
I have also seem comments about posting on here which aren't favourable. This isn't just my opinion

Maybe with some new genuine members we all may learn something new about Lukes case and many others
 That remains to be seen

[Brietta]

Yes I have been on the forum a long time hence my post. Most new members are attacked and interrogated on joining. That hasn't changed over the years either

Things get personal very quickly but only in the direction of people who offer anything positive to the case

The threads go off topic to include many things that are personal long running issues with person responding and others not even being discussed.

I am reading many points on many different platforms to see a balanced view
I have also seem comments about posting on here which aren't favourable. This isn't just my opinion

Maybe with some new genuine members we all may learn something new about Lukes case and many others
 That remains to be seen

This post is Off Topic and would be better posted in the thread set aside to discuss such matters - http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6834.msg290845#msg290845 - or in a new one if you wish to open one.

Perhaps straying outwith forum protocols such as this and others might explain why your posts are subject to moderation.