19-07-2013, 11:25 AM
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Well I disagree that the forum is over-moderated Andy Muir.
But I would support a motion to the AGM that establishes - in a more official sense - guidelines for forum moderators to follow. It would give all concerned (users and mods) a greater idea of what CS wants the forum to be used for. As I've previously said, I don't want to direct policy on here, and will happily comply with any changes agreed at the AGM.
New rules are not needed IMO Andrew - following the existing guidelines would suffice. Rule no 1 says No personal attacks or inflammatory behaviour. Personal attacks on CS critics have been allowed to remain, whereas often legit criticism of CS is often quickly scythed as if it were oh so shocking. ‘Moderation’ should not be used to spare potential blushes. Officials will be criticized – or rather their decisions will be, that’s part of openness.
I did agree with yesterday’s deletions though as the discussion had become excessively hot in relation to the original topic.
I am not in any camp - I was unable to form a truly well-informed view of 'the incident' and fallout but I saw the accusations put to the Council meeting here before they were removed. Ironically, this secrecy meant that only the ‘other side’ was seen. Even then it seemed the criticism of CS was being cranked up to the hilt. But members were unable to comment on it. The secrecy gave it a measure of protection it may not have merited. This is how ‘Nothing-gates’ happen.
I think the membership would be a stabilizing force if treated with respect. Criticism just needs to be taken in a more relaxed way.