Moderation and a re-look at our Community Guidelines

[TheV]

Oh, and I really feel that you should be able to "like this" your own posts...

 

I love my posts...

[Grebel]

I'm cool with beer and spirits and cigar smoke.

 

Just can't stand brawls and drunken dudes spitting in me face when I am out for a lekka chat.

 

In my many years on this planet, I have been in a few brawls and the only times I had the misfortune of being spat at was when said individual was provoked. Something to think about...

 

Sorry for snipping / editing your quoted post, but the bold highlight tool is not working for some reason.

 

1. Exactly, Admin has laid done the rules and someone needs to enforce them properly. I dont think the rules are that strict that people will not be able to carry on as before, but hopefuly when things hot up then the offensive stuff will be stopped.

 

2. That mature sword is multi edged, it also means that one expects mature hubbers to be able to settle issues in a mature manner.

 

3. If this is refering to the awesome thread issue a few days ago and dangles suspension then I think you dont understand the reason for the suspension, IMO the measures taken by the mods and admin were not because of the pictures but because of the behaviour that occured afterwards and which has apprently occured before (read admins post, 3rd para or see the qoute below:

"While neither member was free of guilt, the suspended member had already received a number of prior warnings for similar issues, hence the decision was taken by the moderation team (including myself) to suspend the member".

 

1. As long as this isn't a knee jerk reaction.

 

2. By obeying the rules and keeping private messages private?

 

3. It was. The net result IMO was a bit school boyish. That type of post had gone up many times before. The fact that it was being viewed in an open plan office shouldn't even have been brought up. How many porn sites do you visit in a day? I am guessing none due to their content. The same logic should apply to that thread. If there is any chance that it may offend, stay off it. Simple logic really if you think about it...

[RoboLuke]

Man I cant wait for the next person to call me fat and slow again!!! Im gonna hit that REPORT button like I go downhill.

[Agteros]

Man I cant wait for the next person to call me fat and slow again!!! Im gonna hit that REPORT button like I go downhill.

You mean to tell us you have the fast fat finger on the hub?

[Slowbee]

Just a suggestion while new and maybe old rules...... are implemented.

 

 

 

 

Moderators should have a limited tenure, something like six months, after which new moderators should be appointed by democratic vote. This will stop the establishment of "little kingdoms" and the brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy will be replaced with new, eager and willing people.

 

 

Moderators should continuously be rated and replaced. Some will will argue that they were voted in by Hubbers. That is true, but many Hubbers has never the chance to vote. Not many Hubbers has ever the chance to vote. Not democratic at all.

 

 

Moderators posts should also be moderated. They should also not be allowed to rally other members for support. This cannot be proven but it does happen.

 

 

The Hub belongs to Admin, not the moderators, they were democratically voted in by Hubbers to serve a purpose. They do their job, sometimes, but they should not become comfortable in their ivory towers and think they have the protection of the boss, and their clan, even if the err. I say again, they were voted in by Hubbers.

 

 

This voice of reason should be heard as it can damage the environment we call the Hub in the long run.

 

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on members or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to positioning and maintaining The Hub as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent and mature discussion of topics.

 

Your warning level is increased. The purpose of the 1st rule is to prevent such remarks.

[Agteros]

Just a suggestion while new and maybe old rules...... are implemented.

 

 

Moderators should have a limited tenure, something like six months, after which new moderators should be appointed by democratic vote. This will stop the establishment of "little kingdoms" and the brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy will be replaced with new, eager and willing people.

 

Moderators should continuously be rated and replaced. Some will will argue that they were voted in by Hubbers. That is true, but many Hubbers has never the chance to vote. Not many Hubbers has ever the chance to vote. Not democratic at all.

 

Moderators posts should also be moderated. They should also not be allowed to rally other members for support. This cannot be proven but it does happen.

 

The Hub belongs to Admin, not the moderators, they were democratically voted in by Hubbers to serve a purpose. They do their job, sometimes, but they should not become comfortable in their ivory towers and think they have the protection of the boss, and their clan, even if the err. I say again, they were voted in by Hubbers.

 

This voice of reason should be heard as it can damage the environment we call the Hub in the long run.

 

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on members or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to positioning and maintaining The Hub as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent and mature discussion of topics.

 

Your warning level is increased. The purpose of the 1st rule is to prevent such remarks.

 

Slowbee, I take it that you increased his warning level due to the statement he made above, and not about something unrelated to the post you quoted.

Please explain to the rest of us here in hubland the following:

1. What exactly in the quoted message warranted an 'increase in warning level';

2. the concept of 'warning level', and how high it goes (if any), also how it fits in with the 3 strikes and you are out concept as put down by Admin.

 

Eagerly awaiting a well reasoned and positive explanation.

 

Yours sincerely,

a concerned hubber

[Wayne Potgieter]

Slowbee, I take it that you increased his warning level due to the statement he made above, and not about something unrelated to the post you quoted.

Please explain to the rest of us here in hubland the following:

1. What exactly in the quoted message warranted an 'increase in warning level';

2. the concept of 'warning level', and how high it goes (if any), also how it fits in with the 3 strikes and you are out concept as put down by Admin.

 

Eagerly awaiting a well reasoned and positive explanation.

 

Yours sincerely,

a concerned hubber

 

Guessing it might be this

 

"This will stop the establishment of "little kingdoms" and the brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy will be replaced with new, eager and willing people"

[Matt]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

There have been a few comments about the "new" rules. Let me clear this up: the rules posted on page 1 are not new. We've always had a set of forum rules very much in-line with these. These are simply revised rules with a touch more explanation and emphasis on specific problem areas.

 

The purpose of posting these and the proposed 3-strike policy is to gain feedback (which we have) and provide transparency on the approach going forward.

 

Time-line on the 3 strike policy

This is a good suggestion and will be implemented.

 

All warnings / suspensions will have a 30 day life time.

This means that if the 2nd offence occurs within 30 days of receiving the 1st warning a 2 day suspension will apply.

A repeat offence in the 30 days following the 2 day suspension will result in a permanent ban.

 

(I'll amend my original post to include this.)

 

The intention is not to be petty or create a sterile environment. We've always had rules, but these have never been strictly or consistently enforced. One of the challenges has been not having a defined and transparent policy when it comes to warnings / suspensions / bannings.

Having this in place will allow us to be more decisive and consistent in the application of the rules.

 

If anyone has any more feedback or suggestions we welcome this.

 

Kind Regards,

Matt

[Niner]

Slowbee, I take it that you increased his warning level due to the statement he made above, and not about something unrelated to the post you quoted. Please explain to the rest of us here in hubland the following: 1. What exactly in the quoted message warranted an 'increase in warning level'; 2. the concept of 'warning level', and how high it goes (if any), also how it fits in with the 3 strikes and you are out concept as put down by Admin. Eagerly awaiting a well reasoned and positive explanation. Yours sincerely, a concerned hubber

 

I also fail to see what in eccentric1's justifies a "increased warning level" Slowbee seems to be taking this moderating thing to far.....

[Niner]

Guessing it might be this "This will stop the establishment of "little kingdoms" and the brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy will be replaced with new, eager and willing people"

 

Hmmm seems more like Slowbee has a bee in the bonnet.

[Agteros]

Guessing it might be this "This will stop the establishment of "little kingdoms" and the brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy will be replaced with new, eager and willing people"

 

"little kingdoms" - a well know phenomena where power due to a position goes to a person's head and uses it as if it is his/her own, forgetting that the responsibility that comes with power, should be used with GREAT restraint, understanding & compassion

"liberal" - free-for-all, and liberal over conservativeness? BALANCE is everything! Just as conservativeness is a swearword for the liberal, such is liberalness to the conservative. Everybody should be catered for

"fat" - reference to greed, and abuse of power to feed that greed (not money, nor food), but power-mongery

"lazy" - some mods might not (be able to) always perform their moderation duties

 

I fail to see how the above can be deemed an "attack", it merely expresses an opinion/concern and maybe in a harsh way yes, but still an opinion & concern

Edited April 2, 2012 by HEman

[NotSoBigBen]

With all due respect HEman I doubt fat and or lazy was used in the way you describe! And brainless is pretty clear ....

 

#eksemaarnet

[Wayne Potgieter]

Yeah, i am not taking sides here, but some of the language used in that post is rather harsh and attacking.

 

Exactly what the hub is trying to avoid it seems.

 

I agree, everyone is entitled to his opinion, and this being a public forum, you are also entitled to voice that opinion.

 

However, it does not give people the right to be rude or attacking.

 

I think the point of the rules system is to encourage a respectful way to voice your opinion without name calling and punch throwing.

 

Just my 2c.

[Agteros]

Admin:

 

Since what I'd like to address is here in the public space, please instruct your moderators, forum managers and other assistants to act with the necessary maturity and restraint NOT to rebuke members in public. We expect and demand this to/for our children as well as expect it from other people towards us, so surely the same should be expected here. None of them are semi, demi, or full-on gods that are not answerable to others.

 

Just as the post by E1 seemed to have left a sour taste in the mouth of SB, just as much the rebuke leaves in the mouths of others (well, at least one)

 

Further, if moderators edit a post, please set the forum software to indicate that the post was modified by a moderator, just as it does when a normal member edits his/her own post.

 

Thanks a stack!

[Agteros]

With all due respect HEman I doubt fat and or lazy was used in the way you describe! And brainless is pretty clear .... #eksemaarnet

maybe...

 

It does seem that I've missed 'brainless', however that would indicate not applying your mind fully to the problem at hand. (Do this at work, and you could get fired!)

Transparency & consistency normally greatly indicates against the perception of brainlessness. (I'm not saying that either happens/ed, #ekseookmaarnet)

[Matt]

Yeah, i am not taking sides here, but some of the language used in that post is rather harsh and attacking.

 

Exactly what the hub is trying to avoid it seems.

 

I agree, everyone is entitled to his opinion, and this being a public forum, you are also entitled to voice that opinion.

 

However, it does not give people the right to be rude or attacking.

 

I think the point of the rules system is to encourage a respectful way to voice your opinion without name calling and punch throwing.

 

Just my 2c.

 

Spot on.

 

To use the above case as an example (since it is being discussed openly)

 

eccentric1 had a valid point and expressed some concerns. As pointed out by HEman these should be seen as just concerns / opinion - I do agree at least in part.

However, the phrase "brainless, liberal, bigoted, fat and lazy" is a clearly attacking or at least blatantly rude statement. The same said to any Hubber would result in a warning. Debate, criticise and argue away (about us or anything), but don't be rude or attacking!