Moderation of 'New Schools' thread

[Dadaist]

...Dave, Epy, Gemini - I'm really sorry about the behaviour of PFANS on here -

Is that everyone from PFANS or just a couple?

I'm sorry to any well-behaved PFANS who have been cruelly tarred with the bad PFANS brush.

I would say that the main butt of my comments were the "odd couple" Bob and Porty. Seanie just copies sometimes but then it is a playground so it's to be expected!

[Pal of Porty]

.....although another solution would be to somehow have this forum moderated by people with non-partisan views on this debate - that way there could be no accusations of bias, and Bob and Marya would be free to say what they wanted - within forum rules of course.

Ah, so on every topic that proves 'popular' by say, running over 10 pages of posts, we could do a partisan test and select moderators for each thread!
Moderators should be moderating to the rules whatever the topic is and there is a system in place to complain if any of us thinks that they are not doing their job properly. If someone wants to accuse a moderator of bias then they should do so formally through the proper channels.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Sorry Stephen I was initially talking about the leaflet/letter which Pfans referred to as the view of ppag, as part of the Pfans group submission to the council yesterday, have a look at the website to see what I mean.

Erm, I'd rather look at the post to which I responded,

Just been onto the council folk again, They dont record the meetings, they do keep official minutes, which record and questions, motions etc but not exactly what the people actually said, so we will have to rely on listening and interpretation.
I will ask the folk from ppag to submit their sumations and will post them on the <a href="http://www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk">Porty Greenkeepers</a> site. as submissions from individuals.

You are asking folk from ppag to submit their summations as individuals. No mention of leaflets or letters.

John Couldn't make it and his submission was read out by Diana. She couldn't give replies to someone elses submission.

That's more or less what I acknowledged.

Is everything you post then a submission on behalf of Pfans?

I presume you overlooked my post of earlier today when i was asking you about potential collaboration between PFANS and PPAG? What's your views?

Do you think Pfans could do the same?

I can't speak for PFANS. Maybe Bob could approach PFANS and ask for a copy of Tom's statement and it could be posted here and in the archive. If PPAG did likewise it would at least give access to the whole community.

[Gemini]

.....although another solution would be to somehow have this forum moderated by people with non-partisan views on this debate - that way there could be no accusations of bias, and Bob and Marya would be free to say what they wanted - within forum rules of course.

Ah, so on every topic that proves 'popular' by say, running over 10 pages of posts, we could do a partisan test and select moderators for each thread!

Moderators should be moderating to the rules whatever the topic is and there is a system in place to complain if any of us thinks that they are not doing their job properly. If someone wants to accuse a moderator of bias then they should do so formally through the proper channels

.

So who moderates the Moderator's - themselves?

[Dadaist]

.....although another solution would be to somehow have this forum moderated by people with non-partisan views on this debate - that way there could be no accusations of bias, and Bob and Marya would be free to say what they wanted - within forum rules of course.

Ah, so on every topic that proves 'popular' by say, running over 10 pages of posts, we could do a partisan test and select moderators for each thread!
Moderators should be moderating to the rules whatever the topic is and there is a system in place to complain if any of us thinks that they are not doing their job properly. If someone wants to accuse a moderator of bias then they should do so formally through the proper channels.

That wasn't my point - I think Bob and Marya should be free of the obligations being put on them to moderate both sides of this debate so that they can concentrate their efforts on rubbishing PPAG.

[Pal of Porty]

So who moderates the Moderator's - themselves?

That reminds me - I have not read 'Animal Farm' for ages.

[Pal of Porty]

That wasn't my point - I think Bob and Marya should be free of the obligations being put on them to moderate both sides of this debate so that they can concentrate their efforts on rubbishing PPAG.

Well as long as their 'rubbishing' was in line with forum rules then I guess they would be free to do so.

[Dadaist]

That wasn't my point - I think Bob and Marya should be free of the obligations being put on them to moderate both sides of this debate so that they can concentrate their efforts on rubbishing PPAG.

Well as long as their 'rubbishing' was in line with forum rules then I guess they would be free to do so.

I'm just having trouble putting into a coherent whole the various things Bob has said, and wondering which hat he was wearing at the time.

When he says that residents of a street must follow his view or accept the label of nimbyism - that's Bob the PFAN.

When he says we must all treat each other with respect - that's Bob the mod.

So which Bob has repeatedly allowed McIntyre to bully other forum members with either multiply repeated questions, taunts in his signature and also allowed this latest "joke" ?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Sadly, mutiple questioning has become a neccesity. I can assure you I would much rather ask once.

[Bob Jefferson]

Before I address all the other points and accusations that have been made recently, I would like to make clear what should be obvious to everyone, namely that I do not represent PFANS, have never pretended to, and that the views I express are my own.

I think it is quite clear when I am speaking with my moderator's hat on, though I would be happy to log on as 'moderator' in such cases if that helps to avoid confusion.

[Dadaist]

Sadly, mutiple questioning has become a neccesity. I can assure you I would much rather ask once.

Bob confirmed that his request about treating each other with respect applied to you and your repeated questioning of Alison.

Are you saying that you intend ignoring this request in the future?

I think it would be a better interpretation of Bob's request that you give your next victim the leeway of convenience, or start a thread called "unanswered questions" in which everyone can post questions that they have asked which haven't been answered - and points raised which have been overlooked or ignored.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bob can we shift this to a Moderator discussion thread. I fear there is a witchhunt going on here and you are the witch. I'm just hoping there is no connection with "Thegolfer"

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree that this discussion is an unwelcome and unhelpful distraction on a very important thread and I'm trying to contact my fellow mods to get agreement on dealing with the matter. Bear with me.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Sadly, mutiple questioning has become a neccesity. I can assure you I would much rather ask once.

Bob confirmed that his request about treating each other with respect applied to you and your repeated questioning of Alison.

Did he?

[Dadaist]

Bob can we shift this to a Moderator discussion thread. I fear there is a witchhunt going on here and you are the witch. I'm just hoping there is no connection with "Thegolfer"

None at all. First I saw of it was when it got posted.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Bob can we shift this to a Moderator discussion thread. I fear there is a witchhunt going on here and you are the witch. I'm just hoping there is no connection with "Thegolfer"

None at all. First I saw of it was when it got posted.

There are more hunters than you, you shall no doubt be pleased to know.

[administrator]

Pal of Porty wrote:

That wasn't my point - I think Bob and Marya should be free of the obligations being put on them to moderate both sides of this debate so that they can concentrate their efforts on rubbishing PPAG.

Well as long as their 'rubbishing' was in line with forum rules then I guess they would be free to do so.

I'm just having trouble putting into a coherent whole the various things Bob has said, and wondering which hat he was wearing at the time.

When he says that residents of a street must follow his view or accept the label of nimbyism - that's Bob the PFAN.

When he says we must all treat each other with respect - that's Bob the mod.

So which Bob has repeatedly allowed McIntyre to bully other forum members with either multiply repeated questions, taunts in his signature and also allowed this latest "joke" ?

Can't you just ask him or if you want to complain something is a breach of rules e.g. the 'joke' then complain to the moderators then they will have to take a decision formally? This may shed more light on the situation for you.

[Dadaist]

Bob can we shift this to a Moderator discussion thread. I fear there is a witchhunt going on here and you are the witch. I'm just hoping there is no connection with "Thegolfer"

None at all. First I saw of it was when it got posted.

There are more hunters than you, you shall no doubt be pleased to know.

Yes. And some of them are bad people. And although I have a potty mouth, I wash my dirty laundry in public thankyou very much - and I certainly don't hide behind fake usernames when making this or that accusation.

[Dadaist]

Pal of Porty wrote:

Well as long as their 'rubbishing' was in line with forum rules then I guess they would be free to do so.

I'm just having trouble putting into a coherent whole the various things Bob has said, and wondering which hat he was wearing at the time.

When he says that residents of a street must follow his view or accept the label of nimbyism - that's Bob the PFAN.

When he says we must all treat each other with respect - that's Bob the mod.

So which Bob has repeatedly allowed McIntyre to bully other forum members with either multiply repeated questions, taunts in his signature and also allowed this latest "joke" ?

Can't you just ask him or if you want to complain something is a breach of rules e.g. the 'joke' then complain to the moderators then they will have to take a decision formally? This may shed more light on the situation for you.

That's probably what I *should* do. Thanks, I value your opinion and appreciate your feedback.

[Bob Jefferson]

Speaking as a moderator because I can't be bothered logging out and back in:

For the record, Stephen's 'joke' has been removed along with other comments relating to it. I have made a unilateral decision on this in the hope that my fellow mods will back me. Please bear in mind, however, that if you would like us to remove all sexual references then an awful lot is going to have to go, starting with a large part of the Jokes thread which we currently turn a blind eye to.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Yes. And some of them are bad people. And although I have a potty mouth, I wash my dirty laundry in public thankyou very much - and I certainly don't hide behind fake usernames when making this or that accusation.

In no way was I insinuating that you are the Golfer. The golfer was a pre-meditated, vicious, cruel but anonymous attack on Bob.

You are attacking Bob in public there is a huge difference.

Dada, you are long-time poster. For quite sometime during the PCATS debate, Bob was the only moderator and he supported PCATS. He was subsequently joined by Marya, BB then yourself, again all supporters of PCATS.

At the time were there complaints about "pro" moderation in favour of PCATS?

[Dadaist]

(Porty - I'll deal with your PCATS thing another time when I've had time to think it over - I'm not sure right now but off the top of my head I would say there was a big difference with the supermarket - we were all singing off the same song sheet and weren't split like we are now. But lets go over that another day - and you can keep asking me if you like!)

I'm very angry at "theGolfer" and am of the opinion that if they are an existing member who doesn't own up before they are discovered, they should be banned like we have done with our trolls in the past. Thankfully trolls are rare but I've had one on my back (Hiboz) and I know what it's like - it's not something I have ever got up to on the web even though I have the technical knowledge to create complete havoc.

On the subject of forum rules, I had a thought on the bus on the way home and would like to propose a new disciplinary measure to the mods. I don't do this lightly as I'd probably end up being subject to it myself but here goes :


----------------------------------------------------------------
"Suggested Forum Rule Addition"

Forum members who have been warned about their behaviour and persist with the same behaviour, or who have broken an existing rule, been edited or reprimanded and have gone on to break the same rule again should be banned from posting for 14 days.

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


At the moment, if this rule was put into place it would be a toss-up between whether it was me or Porty that got sent to the sin bin first! But not only would it give everyone else a breather, it would be pure torture to have to read POL and not be allowed to post ....

[Poppy]

it would be pure torture to have to read POL and not be allowed to post ....

That would learn the two of youse!!!

I second the proposal for a POL Naughty Step

[Bob Jefferson]

Poppy, I fear they would both treat it as a badge of honour and would compete to be the naughtiest.

[Poppy]

Poppy, I fear they would both treat it as a badge of honour and would compete to be the naughtiest.

Bob! How cynical of you!

[Bob Jefferson]

Nevertheless, I remain the eternal optimist and we will give Dada's suggestion serious consideration.

[Stephen McIntyre]

----------------------------------------------------------------
"Suggested Forum Rule Addition"

Forum members who have been warned about their behaviour and persist with the same behaviour, or who have broken an existing rule, been edited or reprimanded and have gone on to break the same rule again should be banned from posting for 14 days.

I would support that rule but I think 7 days is enough and I don't agree with "been edited", its too vague.

How would you deal with insinuations, like the ones I felt I was the target of on the schools thread?

And one final question about the golfer. Do you think the golfer needed a fair degree of computer knowledge to "mask" his or her identity or is it just a case of loggiing onto an IP that has not been used to post here before? The golfer was undoubtedly a cyncial ***t who joined a week before the despicable post.

[Stephen McIntyre]

BTW, I think the new schools thread has been monitored very well. With the exception of a couple of my posts which were suspended for further investigation and I heard no more about them.

The mods have had to deal with, the use of multiple identities, lies, wild unsubstantiated claims, insinuations, personal insults, aspiration casting, personal accusations amongst quite a few other things. And they do it for free. Well done.

[Porty]

Personally I feel i am more closely and heavily monitored than the average POL poster. I put this down to a perception that I am a confident and sometimes abrasive poster who can take the knocks. I get letters from young people almost daily encouraging me to carry on, even although I must be riven with hurt and self-doubt.

[Dadaist]

How would you deal with insinuations, like the ones I felt I was the target of on the schools thread?

Dunno actually. Today I felt it was insinuated that I was a golfer. Sorry - the golfer!

And one final question about the golfer. Do you think the golfer needed a fair degree of computer knowledge to "mask" his or her identity or is it just a case of loggiing onto an IP that has not been used to post here before? The golfer was undoubtedly a cyncial ***t who joined a week before the despicable post.

It depends, because you could do both - that is, mask your own (more difficult although only slightly) or just go somewhere you have never been before - although again to know that would work for sure would take deviousness and the confidence of experience.

The trolls and multi-identities I uncovered got caught out by posting from the same computer that had been used to log onto POL before as someone better known - Tigger Rules, Moi and Hiboz.

[ali]

(Porty - I'll deal with your PCATS thing another time when I've had time to think it over - I'm not sure right now but off the top of my head I would say there was a big difference with the supermarket - we were all singing off the same song sheet and weren't split like we are now. ................................................

this is re-writing history.......and not for the first time.

[Dadaist]

(Porty - I'll deal with your PCATS thing another time when I've had time to think it over - I'm not sure right now but off the top of my head I would say there was a big difference with the supermarket - we were all singing off the same song sheet and weren't split like we are now. ................................................

this is re-writing history.......and not for the first time.

ok, allow me to clarify.

Firstly though ali - are you accusing me of anything here? At worst, I have a poor memory or see things through rose-tinted glasses but I certainly hope you aren't saying that I'm deliberately twisting or distorting anything as precious as history.

During the PCATS campaign there was a sense of a community united against something - among the vocal that is. At worst, even if there was a silent majority they were just that.

What this meant was that nothing like what we've seen here even got off the ground - or at least I don't remember it happening - that is, a split community. On POL therefore the fact that the mods were this or that way inclined didn't affect anything because there was nobody vocal to be perceived to be not showing equal moderation to.

Now - if you do think I'm re-writing history, can you be specific as to where I have done so?

Also, can you explain the "not for the first time" bit?

[ali]

(Porty - I'll deal with your PCATS thing another time when I've had time to think it over - I'm not sure right now but off the top of my head I would say there was a big difference with the supermarket - we were all singing off the same song sheet and weren't split like we are now. ................................................

this is re-writing history.......and not for the first time.

ok, allow me to clarify.

Firstly though ali - are you accusing me of anything here? ................

....................................

Now - if you do think I'm re-writing history, can you be specific as to where I have done so?

Also, can you explain the "not for the first time" bit?

I make that 3 questions!!!!!! Outrageous!!!!!!!

(Sorry, but I think your response to Stephen/Porty's repeated questioning of others over on the schools thread is quite honestly ridiculous. All that these people have to do is attempt to answer the question. If they can't, then people can draw thier own conclusions.)

This is the second time I have posted on POL to correct the impression being given that the community was 100% opposed to the superstore. The other occasion was in response to a post by Bob but don't ask me where.

Yes, a minority of Porty residents and shopkeepers were able to run a well organised and vocal campaign which in the end prevailed but they were self selected and self-elected representatives of the community and they didn't speak for me or for a lot of other people. I will however concede that I was part of an even smaller minority

So, yes. I am accusing you of rewriting history as per the quote from you which I highlighted in bold above. (it does depend on your definition of "we" tho).

- and please also note this is all I am going to say about this - I sense you "girding your loins" as it were, ready for another of those "how many angels dancing on the head of this pin" debates you revel in. I've seen too many poor saps suckered in only to find themselves spat out at the other end days later and I for one haven't got the energy. I've had a hard week at work and I am not going to participate.

(edited to correct my, quite frankly, appalling grammar.)

[Poppy]

a hard week at work

Not that it stopped you looming over my stovies today!!!

[Dadaist]

this is re-writing history.......and not for the first time.

ok, allow me to clarify.

Firstly though ali - are you accusing me of anything here? ................

....................................

Now - if you do think I'm re-writing history, can you be specific as to where I have done so?

Also, can you explain the "not for the first time" bit?

I make that 3 questions!!!!!! Outrageous!!!!!!!

(Sorry, but I think your response to Stephen/Porty's repeated questioning of others over on the schools thread is quite honestly ridiculous. All that these people have to do is attempt to answer the question. If they can't, then people can draw thier own conclusions.)

This is the second time I have posted on POL to correct the impression being given that the community was 100% opposed to the superstore. The other occasion was in response to a post by Bob but don't ask me where.

Yes, a minority of Porty residents and shopkeepers were able to run a well organised and vocal campaign which in the end prevailed but they were self selected and self-elected representatives of the community and they didn't speak for me or for a lot of other people. I will however concede that I was part of an even smaller minority

So, yes. I am accusing you of rewriting history as per the quote from you which I highlighted in bold above. (it does depend on your definition of "we" tho).

- and please also note this is all I am going to say about this - I sense you "girding your loins" as it were, ready for another of those "how many angels dancing on the head of this pin" debates you revel in. I've seen too many poor saps suckered in only to find themselves spat out at the other end days later and I for one haven't got the energy. I've had a hard week at work and I am not going to participate.

(edited to correct my, quite frankly, appalling grammar.)

Shame that this is all you're going to say about this, that you're not even going to attempt to answer anything and so people are going to have to draw their own conclusions, because you're only right about the "we" bit - the rest is complete rubbish.