Interests of transparency.

[SJ]

People on the boards occasionally break the rules. That's a given.

Members occasionally get banned or reprimanded.

But we as members really don't see any transparency in the banning/moderation process.

I would like to suggest that in the interest of showing that all members are treated fairly that any reprimanded or banned member is named and if relevant the length of ban announced.  A brief reason for the ban or reprimand and how that relates to the Terms and Conditions of the Forum would also probably help assist transparency.

This would allow the membership of the forum to be able to see that everyone is treated equally within the terms and conditions.  It would also name and shame the offening member and hopefully lead to their improving of their self-moderation skills.

I would suggest a locked Sticky thread within the feedback board would be the place for it, with any offences listed for a set period of say 3 to 6 months.

I have moderated many forums myself over the last 10 years and have found this kind of system to be useful, especially in curbing the excesses of repeat offenders.

Questions:

Do the members have a right to see transparency in the banning/modding process?

Can they not accept that PHO has rules and regs and they should try and stay within them, for the good of the site?

Would naming/shaming not become a badge of courage to some repeat offenders, rather like an ASBO?

Would this 'transparency' not just create further problems? Everyone has an opinion and likes to voice it...particularly if it involves someone they like/dislike...

Those banned are 99.9% from the P forums and always for spamming/advertising. Very few people get banned for any length of time from the Chit Chat board. The bans were brought in, if I remember rightly, in a bid to curtail some members' downright unfriendly behaviour...personally, I don't like them and have never banned anyone from CC. Yes, ban spammers, but I like to think PHO members can get their act together and sort themsleves out but...

...I have no idea why, but over the last year we have seen a shift in the behaviour in CC. Sometimes, it resembles a school playground...and that is unfair on children because PHO members are adults and they really ought to have grown out of their childish tantrums and insults by now.

I do not like to treat people here like children, even when they act like them...and what you suggest just smacks of this?

Ultimately, it is Michael's decision that counts...

[Aginoth]

OK I started this so I guess I should give my opinion. Apologies for poor typing I have one arm trapped under a sleeping baby

Questions:

Do the members have a right to see transparency in the banning/modding process?

I wouldn't go so far as to say they have a right, but from my experience as a mod elsewhere this additional transparency can highlightthe background tasks of the mods and garner them respect foe fairness demonstrated.

Can they not accept that PHO has rules and regs and they should try and stay within them, for the good of the site?

Yes most can, but I feel, and apparently so do others as shown by the discussion, that this would be an added deterrent to poor behaviour

Would naming/shaming not become a badge of courage to some repeat offenders, rather like an ASBO?

I think this is unlikey except in the case of extreme trolls, who would probably deserve a life ban anyway should they treat this as a badge of honour.

Would this 'transparency' not just create further problems? Everyone has an opinion and likes to voice it...particularly if it involves someone they like/dislike...

It may / it may not, unfortunately there is no way to tell unless it is implemented anf trialed. but by keeping the banned thread locked and not allowing on forum discussion of bans this can be avoided in my experience.  If anything it flushes out the more undesirable posters and as a consequence allows the mods better control as they know who to watch.

Those banned are 99.9% from the P forums and always for spamming/advertising. Very few people get banned for any length of time from the Chit Chat board. The bans were brought in, if I remember rightly, in a bid to curtail some members' downright unfriendly behaviour...personally, I don't like them and have never banned anyone from CC. Yes, ban spammers, but I like to think PHO members can get their act together and sort themsleves out but...

Fair enough, but it would be very little work to seperate the lists those banned for Spam and Ads, and those banned for behaviour,

...I have no idea why, but over the last year we have seen a shift in the behaviour in CC. Sometimes, it resembles a school playground...and that is unfair on children because PHO members are adults and they really ought to have grown out of their childish tantrums and insults by now.

Over the last 6 years that I have been a member, there have been dozens of phases of this.  I actually think that the standard of debate on te CC board in recent months has improved; even alongside the playground spats...also there seems to have been a signifcant reduction in pointless joke posts.

I do not like to treat people here like children, even when they act like them...and what you suggest just smacks of this?

I see this as the opposite, that this proposal shows the mods treating the members as adults in that they will see there are consequences for their online actions

Ultimately, it is Michael's decision that counts...

As has been stated Michael is busy and has occasionally taken some time to respond to PMs, and apprently sometime no reply at all.  Not having a go at Michael mind, managing a forum is a thankless task at times, but this does undermine thr respect for the Mods and admin of the forum from some members.  In increasing transparency there is an opportunity to communicate slearly with the members and so increase the respect for the already respected mods.

[SJ]

Ta muchly for the coherent and in-depth reply to my comments.

I do not, in theory, disagree with your idea. In practice, I think the mods may feel it is an added 'pressure'. The onus ought not to be placed on a few people who give up their time to try and run PHO for the benefit of others, but on those who enjoy a free forum, which was set up with the express intention of adding to their quality of life living with a sh it disease like P and PA. The onus ought to be with the membership. As you say, running it is generally a thankless task...there is just something that smacks of 'head teacher is telling you off, you naughty children' about it.

I think perhaps, it is the fact that we as a an adult group should be able to think and post in a mature way. I am disappointed that this discussion has to take place...I am disappointed that a few affect the majority.

Do not think the mods et al are not considering your points...but appreciate we do not often get to speak (like once a year max!) and it is normal for such discussions to take place via email...this means it can take time.

SJ

[Aginoth]

No probs SJ.  quite pleased with the way this is being discussed

and this is the only way we realistically get to share our thoughts with the mods.

I have made it known in the past that I have the time and experience to be a mod if additional assistance is required.  as I am retired I tend to be on a lot of the time and not have it interfere with work.

[Luvvi]

Personally I am not really that interested in who is banned, the duration of the ban or the reason for it.  I hardly notice who is "missing in action" anyway 

But I have been interested in the responses so far Dave............it didn't take long for the bickering to start!

[Scratchibum]

Make them all wear orange jumpsuits!!

[Midge]

Make them all wear orange jumpsuits!!

~smacks Scratchy over head with large, heavy, blunt object~