PDA

View Full Version : The Lebanon and Galloway threads



23meg
August 13th, 2006, 04:40 AM
I started a thread on George Galloway's views on the war in Lebanon (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=235203), stating clearly in my initial post that I wanted to keep it separate from any debate on the war itself. The thread, as I understand, was merged with a "similar" thread on the war itself (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=233607), and then jailed, and then after fluffnik's objection (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=235142), separated again. The thread on the war itself is now mistakenly titled "Galloway thread" and is still jailed.

What went wrong here in my view:

- The moderator merged the two threads without even reading the first posts, obviously, since I as the original poster wanted to keep the issues separate and declared this in the first post.

- There wasn't any real "heat" in the thread and the moderator's reason for jailing the thread wasn't really justified. No personal attacks, no rudeness, just one expressing their view a bit too blatantly and another one responding to them with irony. A warning at most would have sufficed, which brings us to...

- The moderator jailed the thread without giving a warning first. The usual procedure in the forums so far has been to warn the parties involved in the situation, and if the situation continues, locking the thread. Here there wasn't any violation of Backyard rules if you ask me, and even if there were, there had to be a warning first. Jailing, in any case, looks like overkill to me when there's the option of locking. I'd like to know if there are certain situations or areas (such as the Backyard?) where jailing is preferred over locking.

All leads me to think that new staff should be acquainted better with moderation procedures in order not to hamper the quality of moderation on the forums.

Regards

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2006, 04:56 AM
Opps I renamed the jailed thread so I could come back to it when I was reviewing the whole thing. I forgot to rename back after I split the thread and sent the Galloway posts back to the backyard.I apologize for that and I have renamed the jailed thread back to its original title.

I agree a warning should have been posted.The staff are still getting into the new habits.

Jailing would occur in some circumstances if the posts were so bad that they really should be removed from eye.It is a fine line we walk with these calls.I make mistakes and so can other staff.But if issues are raised in the resolution centre as fluffnik did they can be resolved.

The Moderator made the call at the time as was probably here alone so couldnt consult.Its not an easy task but they do a great job under sometimes trying circumstances.

23meg
August 13th, 2006, 09:16 AM
I have renamed the jailed thread back to its original title.Are you sure that thread deserves jailing? Maybe the blatant poster can be warned, or the post in question (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1370400&postcount=13) can be removed, but I don't think locking / jailing is justified.


Jailing would occur in some circumstances if the posts were so bad that they really should be removed from eye.It is a fine line we walk with these calls.I make mistakes and so can other staff.But if issues are raised in the resolution centre as fluffnik did they can be resolved.I see; I believe neither thread here deserves jailing and I hope you review the situation once more.


I agree a warning should have been posted.Jailing the thread without giving a warning, if you ask me, made it look like the moderator took the action based on their own opinion or bias about the issue at hand, especially when there was little to be moderated if at all. Even though this probably wasn't the case, (mis)interventions to sensitive issues such as those discussed in the Backyard section can easily be misunderstood by posters and give rise to unnecessary debate. Just a reminder.


The Moderator made the call at the time as was probably here alone so couldnt consult.Its not an easy task but they do a great job under sometimes trying circumstances.
I agree; I just think new staff should be acquainted with the procedures quicker and better. I haven't seen experienced moderators make such mistakes.

I'd also like to learn what the issue (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1373842&postcount=23) that led you to locking the thread again is.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2006, 09:23 AM
I have locked the Galloway thread whilst I investigate an issue related to it which I am not prepared to reveal here at this stage.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2006, 09:28 AM
A

Jailing the thread without giving a warning, if you ask me, made it look like the moderator took the action based on their own opinion or bias about the issue at hand, especially when there was little to be moderated if at all. Even though this probably wasn't the case, (mis)interventions to sensitive issues such as those discussed in the Backyard section can easily be misunderstood by posters and give rise to unnecessary debate. Just a reminder.


.

Whilst I have asked staff to post a reason where possible or warn where appropriate the published rules for the Backyard allows a staff member to jail a thread at their discretion.

" 5. In the event a *Moderator* or *Administrator* does find any violation of the #1 rule in this forum they have the option at their sole descretion to:
a. Remove the post and send it to the jail.
b. Lock the thread.
c. Ban the user.
d. Give the user an infraction point.
e. Do any of the above."

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2006, 09:31 AM
[quote=23meg;
. I haven't seen experienced moderators make such mistakes.

[/quote]

I have , me . I have made that mistake , after all we are human

23meg
August 13th, 2006, 09:31 AM
That's interesting; it looks like 100% civil and respectful discussion to me. I expect that you'll reveal the reason at a suitable time and unlock the thread as soon as possible.

I'm also still expecting a resolution for the other thread as well. The Lebanon war is a recent event that's fit for discussion as long as the rules are adhered to, and I think they were.

23meg
August 13th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Whilst I have asked staff to post a reason where possible or warn where appropriate the published rules for the Backyard allows a staff member to jail a thread at their discretion.I'm aware of that but I think the moderator took the wrong action in this particular case (there's no violation of rule #1 in sight as far as I can see) and I just wanted use this case as an example to state that there can be more complicated misunderstandings when the subject matter is sensitive.

I have , me . I have made that mistake , after all we are humanIt's perfectly possible. It's just that I've come across more moderation mishaps at periods when staff changes were plentiful.

KiwiNZ
August 13th, 2006, 09:50 AM
The decision to put the Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=233607) thread in the Jail I support. There is a reason posted and the thread was headed in the only direction it could especially with the tone of some posts.

23meg
August 19th, 2006, 04:39 AM
The decision to put the Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah thread in the Jail I support. There is a reason posted and the thread was headed in the only direction it could especially with the tone of some posts.There has been a slightly "hot" tone in only two posts: this (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1370400&postcount=13) and this (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1370468&postcount=14) and I think it doesn't justify the reason given: "this thread is becoming more and more petty". It's your decision that counts in the end but I'd just like to clearly state my position: I conclude from your response, especially this part
the thread was headed in the only direction it could that it's not going to be possible to discuss this issue in these forums at all.

I also noticed that the Galloway thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=235203) is still locked after one week. I'd like to learn the issue you're investigating if possible.

23meg
August 19th, 2006, 07:19 AM
that it's not going to be possible to discuss this issue in these forums at all.Just to clarify, since posts can't be edited in this section: by "this issue" I meant the war in Lebanon. Should have said "this subject".

KiwiNZ
August 21st, 2006, 06:02 AM
After careful consideration and taking advice from several sources.A number of posts are considered anti-semitic in nature and as such are against the rules for the Backyard.

" 1. *ALL* posts and replies must be polite and courteous. You are not free to degrade, demean, humiliate, troll and attack other forum members, ethic groups or political groups."

Therefore these threads should remain in the jail.

23meg
August 23rd, 2006, 08:08 AM
Can you tell me which posts in these threads are anti-semitic, along with your definition of anti-semitism if needed? Here's the Wikipedia definition of it:

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. The highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's Nazism was the most extreme example of this phenomenon, leading to a genocide of the European Jewry.

KiwiNZ
August 23rd, 2006, 09:59 AM
You may find this of use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism

23meg
August 23rd, 2006, 10:43 AM
Once again, if this is the definition you're basing your decision upon, which parts of which posts have a "new anti-semitic" character?

Critique of foreign policies of any state should be allowed in the Backyard as long as they don't violate the rules of the section, and I don't understand why Israel should be an exception, especially given the very civil discussion we've had. Elsewhere, Israel is often granted an artificial immunity to any critique by labeling the source of the critique as "anti-semite", especially with ambiguous definitions such as "new anti-semitism".

I'd be very disappointed to see a similar attitude in these forums.

KiwiNZ
August 23rd, 2006, 11:02 AM
The link I gave provides an extended definition of Anti-semtitism.

Rule 1 for the Backyard states ...

" 1. *ALL* posts and replies must be polite and courteous. You are not free to degrade, demean, humiliate, troll and attack other forum members, ethic groups or political groups."

The rules for the backyard also provide...

" 5. In the event a *Moderator* or *Administrator* does find any violation of the #1 rule in this forum they have the option at their sole descretion to:
a. Remove the post and send it to the jail.
b. Lock the thread.
c. Ban the user.
d. Give the user an infraction point.
e. Do any of the above."

After careful consideration it was determined that posts in the threads concerned are in breach of rule 1.

Also staff have have not acted utra vires the options available by placing the threads concerned in the jail.

23meg
September 15th, 2006, 11:56 PM
The link I gave provides an extended definition of Anti-semtitism.I'll request, for the third time, that you point to the posts which qualify as anti-semite by that definition.

After careful consideration it was determined that posts in the threads concerned are in breach of rule 1.Again, which posts? If they're the ones I pointed to earlier, I believe they deserved a mild warning at most. I've been on these forums for a long time and I know how that kind of slight harshness is treated: a warning is given, at most. Why such an event becomes a reason to jail a thread without a warning when the subject matter is Israel is beyond me.

Also staff have have not acted utra vires the options available by placing the threads concerned in the jail.But they've acted against the general principle: give a warning first, then lock the thread or jail it.

KiwiNZ
September 16th, 2006, 02:18 AM
This has been explained on more than one occasion and given quite extensive explanation.

With reference to "But they've acted against the general principle: give a warning first, then lock the thread or jail it."

I refer you to the following...

" 5. In the event a *Moderator* or *Administrator* does find any violation of the #1 rule in this forum they have the option at their sole descretion to:
a. Remove the post and send it to the jail.
b. Lock the thread.
c. Ban the user.
d. Give the user an infraction point.
e. Do any of the above."

The action of staff was in line with the above,especially "hey have the option at their sole descretion ..."