Moderation of 'New Schools' thread

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 06 May 2006, 09:05

OK, I've just managed an hour here to catch up - as Marya said, we do happen to have lives of our own and pretty busy ones at that. I'm sorry I can't devote 24 hours a day to administrating and moderating POL but my family and my other commitments selfishly get in the way.

Dadaist, your hypocrisy astounds me. Not least in your hounding of Stephen over his repeated questioning - a tactic you have often used. Stephen - please give it a rest as I believe you've already been asked. if you haven't already been asked, I'm asking you to now. Also, Dadaist, you say that i seem to have disappeared and yet you've repeatedly mentioned Bob's post asking us to treat each other wiht respect etc and have completely ignored that bob's post was in fact backing up the post I had just made in the subject. I certainly have disappeared, it seems, when my posts are ignored and you only listen to Bob, even when he's simply reiterating what i have said.

Also, since you have agreed over and over again with bob's post asking for repsect, i'm not sure where calling Marya's post "Marya's whine" quite fits with that. It was a personal attack. That is against posting guidelines.

People may feel that the moderating here is not consistent - that suits the argument of some people. I moderate frequently but quietly. I believe on the whole it is better to deal with matters privately off-forum where possible and there are people here who have definitely been moderated by me, and have been angry about it; they are people in favour of the new schools proposal. I frequently moderate posts that are clearly in breach of posting guidelines. As things get more and more nasty around here, I will moderate more and more - I repeat my earlier request (do i need to log in as Bob for it to be noticed?) that all members abide by posting guidelines.

The PCATS campaign is indeed relevant here, as nobody did complain about our moderating when we perceived to be partisan in that case. Because it was what the more vocal members of the forum all seemed to agree with, it was acceptable for us to exress our views. To say that the whole community was against the superstore is nonsense; feel free to read through the thread to see the posts from people who disagreed with that particular stance. Interestingly, none of them felt the admin team's ability to moderate was jeopardised by the partisan position of our opinions. Fascinating how it only becomes a problem when it goes against what more vocal members want. Seems to me there's a double standard going on and it's not coming from us.

I don't see any problem in how these forums are being moderated; i see no evidence of bias. We have expressed over and over again that any complaints made to the mods will be taken seriously. Instead of complaining to the mods however it seems people would rather sit around comaplaining about us not doing anything about things nobody's actually complained about.

We work hard - harder than most people realise. We give up a ridiculous amount of time to this, for nothing, and a lot of earache. We are not politicians who go into their jobs expecting to get criticised all the time. We do our best. If you don't like what we're doing you can always leave.

Paula

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 09:21

since you have agreed over and over again with bob's post asking for repsect

Absolutely. But when Bob breaks his own rules and allows others to do so, it's fair to assume that the rule has been suspended.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 09:26

Interestingly, none of them felt the admin team's ability to moderate was jeopardised by the partisan position of our opinions.

Sure - but during the PCATS time the members of the admin team didn't fire opening shots like forcing entire streets to accept a position or "accept the label of nimbyism".

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 09:28

Dadaist, your hypocrisy astounds me.

That's a personal attack. I've chosen not to complain though!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 09:31

ali wrote:

I thought that was all you were going to say about this - what are you going to do now - communicate using only pictures?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 10:15

you can always leave

First time I've seen that said in public. Who is "you" ? English can be confusing sometimes - if you want me to leave you only have to ask.

It's not surprising though - having been at a mods meeting I know that this isn't the first time you've wanted shot of one of your top 10 posters.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 May 2006, 10:28

Dadaist wrote:
Interestingly, none of them felt the admin team's ability to moderate was jeopardised by the partisan position of our opinions.
Sure - but during the PCATS time the members of the admin team didn't fire opening shots like forcing entire streets to accept a position or "accept the label of nimbyism".

Is this really the best example you can find of me not adhering to posting guidelines? For the record, way back on page 38, I said this:

It does seem that a large number of residents of Park Avenue and its environs are against the proposal, though by no means all, while agreeing that PHS needs to be replaced. If it can be demonstrated, and it can, that the Council's proposal represents the only opportunity to replace the school then they must back the proposal or accept the label of nimbyism.

What I was attempting to demonstrate is that it is inconsistent to accept that new schools are required while simultaneously rejecting the only means of acheving this objective.

While I'm here I'll deal with the other matter you have been hounding me over. Gemini kicked this one off:

We have also heard 'a rumour' that Jessfield Bowling Club is to be re-located to a better location - Where? and that talks are underway to build yet even more flats. Where does it end?

Complete nonsense of course but I was foolish enough to rise to the bait.

As did Tom Nimmo:

Gemini mentioned a 'rumour' that Jessfield bowling club is next on the council's list of 'green space = cash' sites and I would love to know where this rumour came from. Gemini has me at a disadvantage as she/he knows that I cycle to work yet I have no idea who Gemini really is. Anyway, for me, Jessfield bowling club is my nearest green space and I long ago decided that if it were to be built upon it would be my cue to sell up and leave Porty for good.

To which I responded:

Jessfield Bowling Club has a 100 year lease and I'll defend that green space with my life.

Although by next day I wasn't feeling quite so brave:

Well maybe not my life.

And a day or so later I explained my feelings on the issue:

Epykat wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote: Jessfield Bowling Club has a 100 year lease and I'll defend that green space with my life.
Why?

Quite simply because I'm not prepared to give up green space unless there is a very good reason for it, like a new school that won't fit anywhere else for example. If the Council simply wanted to build housing on the Golf Course then I don't think anyone would accept that.

Anything else?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 10:40

I don't think so - not at the moment anyway.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 06 May 2006, 18:37

Stephen McIntyre wrote:The golfer was a pre-meditated, vicious, cruel but anonymous attack on Bob.

I agree this was a distasteful thing to do. Thegolfer is obviously one sad person.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 06 May 2006, 18:41

Dadaist wrote:(----------------------------------------------------------------
"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 think you'd be first!!

This is my first viewing of this thread, I've kind of given up on school thread

(tho probably cos it doesn't mean too much to me as I don't have children). But this thread has been an interesting read.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 06 May 2006, 19:10

Excellent Sandra - It's the best soap opera going!

Some of us are on the fringes though - a bit like football casuals in that we will have no influence on the final result, are frowned upon by players and fans alike, ostensibly support PFANS Athletic or PPAG Utd and have more interest in fighting with our opposite numbers than the match.

Local politics is not a beautiful game!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 May 2006, 22:02

The POL Mod team are excellent although I don't always agree with the decisions. There has been problems in the past, especially when Bob had to do it all himself. He was under great pressure much of which was self-created. Look at how he managed it. He recruited Paula and Marya two intelligent, fair and reasonable people.

People have perhaps overlooked the other moderator choice that was made: when I was on holiday I returned to find that Dada had been promoted. Think about that for a moment. Did they think he was a yes man that could be made to toe the party line? I really don't think so. The fact that they even considered recruiting such a strong-minded and opinionated person is a testament to their impartiality. Ok it did not work out but even his removal, a very awkward situation, was handled with diplomacy and in a respectful manner.
The mods all have young families and its not surprsing that they support new schools. I have yet to see an example where they have favoured the pro brigade the moderation has been totally unbiased.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 May 2006, 22:27

Well said. I always feel humble for a few days when the mods have spoken and am waiting for my current fugue (is that how you spell it?) to lift.

btw it's a little-known bit of POL history that they asked you once - spill the beans dude!

I wonder if there will be any new mods in the future or if we will always have our Troika. I'm just wondering who I'll get a ticking-off off of next cos it's a racing certainty!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 12:20

bellbabe wrote:Dadaist, your hypocrisy astounds me. Not least in your hounding of Stephen over his repeated questioning - a tactic you have often used. Stephen - please give it a rest as I believe you've already been asked. if you haven't already been asked, I'm asking you to now.

Stephen - for your information.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 12:24

I think its fair enougfh to ask Dave or indeed anyone else from the PPAG posse, if they believe the statement has integrity? (How many asking opportunities do I have left before you start pickimg on me?)

Stephen - only the mods can answer that question.

I'm unsure what "give it a rest" means in practise - whether this is a zero tolerance approach (ie only ask questions once), a relaxed approach (it's ok to re-word or rephrase old questions or repeat them a couple of times) or a liberal approach (repeat ad nauseum until someone maybe complains or something)

Mods - can you clarify for me and Stephen how many asking opportunities he has before he has to "give it a rest" ?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 12:26

Dadaist wrote:
I think its fair enougfh to ask Dave or indeed anyone else from the PPAG posse, if they believe the statement has integrity? (How many asking opportunities do I have left before you start pickimg on me?)
Stephen - only the mods can answer that question.

How's that then? Do the mods tell you when to start picking on me?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 12:33

Dadaist. I asked the "connelly" questin twice already, once to Dave and once to "Anyone". You appear to be suggesting that the same question twice to two or more "seperate" people is too much. I disagree but in the interests of peace. I promise I won't ask it again even although I'm not really expecting an answer

What I will say is if we can't ask people to qualify, confirm, assocaite or substantiate then we create an environment where people can just say any old thing regardless of how much integrity it has.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 12:34

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
I think its fair enougfh to ask Dave or indeed anyone else from the PPAG posse, if they believe the statement has integrity? (How many asking opportunities do I have left before you start pickimg on me?)
Stephen - only the mods can answer that question.

How's that then? Do the mods tell you when to start picking on me?

Now that Bellybabe has stepped in and told you to "give it a rest", it's not me picking on you that you should be worrying about!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 May 2006, 12:36

I'm not worried about either or all. Mods can we please move the last 4 or 5 posts relating to multiple questioning over to the mods thread?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 12:41

Mods - can I put in a "blank cheque" complaint such that if Stephen McIntyre re-asks his current "integrity" question, this triggers an automatic complaint from me, with specific reference to Bellybabe's request that he "give it a rest" when it comes to repeated questioning?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 12:48

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Dadaist. I asked the "connelly" questin twice already, once to Dave and once to "Anyone". You appear to be suggesting that the same question twice to two or more "seperate" people is too much. I disagree but in the interests of peace. I promise I won't ask it again even although I'm not really expecting an answer

What I will say is if we can't ask people to qualify, confirm, assocaite or substantiate then we create an environment where people can just say any old thing regardless of how much integrity it has.

Bellybabe's request did not have a limit of time or specificity (is that even a word?) of question. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree - or whether you're doing it off your own back, in the interests of peace or because you had decaf this morning!

What I will say is that if we repeatedly ask people the same question we create an environment like this :

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2006, 17:38

Dadaist wrote:
What I will say is that if we repeatedly ask people the same question we create an environment like this :

And I will say that if we keep posting pictures of the spanish inquistion we are in danger of turning the place into a circus. Do you have any helpful images for a poor chap that just wants a straight answer to a straight question?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 17:53

If only it were just "a" straight question!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 May 2006, 17:58

Whats not straight about the "portobello" question?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 18:08

Porty wrote:Whats not straight about the "portobello" question?

I think it's your methods in trying to get your straight answers that have caused Bellybabe to ask you to "give it a rest".

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 May 2006, 18:10

Dadaist wrote:If only it were just "a" straight question!

I think you missed the quotes round the "a" when you read this - I was pointing out that it was asked more than once.

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 08 May 2006, 21:48

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 08 May 2006, 22:06

foxy wrote:

They love each other really!!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 May 2006, 22:14

Dadaist wrote:Mods - can I put in a "blank cheque" complaint such that if Stephen McIntyre re-asks his current "integrity" question, this triggers an automatic complaint from me, with specific reference to Bellybabe's request that he "give it a rest" when it comes to repeated questioning?

Good. Now I know I can keep placing all my un-substantiated claims in the public domain and I only have to worry about evading a few questions from Porty before I get away with it.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 06:48

PoP

Go right ahead - you wouldn't be the first person from either side of the argument to evade questions or make unsubstantiated claims.

I have already made a suggestion regarding unanswered questions - that they be listed on their own thread rather than constantly repeated.

Substantiation of claims would be an interesting topic to get into. I'm not sure who carries the burden of proof or exactly how to go about finding out whether something is true or not - but I do agree with Porty that it would be preferable to stop debates turning into circuses, which is why I am unsure if repeated questioning (or using ones signature as a taunt) is necessary.

Maybe unsubstantiated claims should be listed along with unanswered questions, in order to give a fair leeway of convenience in substantiation and answering from both sides, and avoid the necessity of your pal's recent tactics?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 May 2006, 09:06

Dadaist wrote:......Go right ahead - you wouldn't be the first person from either side of the argument to evade questions or make unsubstantiated claims......

I am not going to ask you to substantiate that statement!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 09:14

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:......Go right ahead - you wouldn't be the first person from either side of the argument to evade questions or make unsubstantiated claims......
I am not going to ask you to substantiate that statement!

I'm sure that you know me well enough to know that I know you and your pal well enough to have examples already at hand before even making such a statement.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 13:14

Dada who doesn't like people asking questions on a public forum

Repeatedly.

I don't like people asking the same question again and again.

For you to say I don't like people asking questions is a deliberate lie on your part.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 May 2006, 13:21

Ali wrote:please also note this is all I am going to say about this