AGM proposal on noticeboard postings

[Phil Thomas]

(a) Do not say one thing in private and another thing in public.
(b) Do not make malicious attacks upon me on the notice board using material that would be laughed out of any (thankfully ) hypothetical court case.
© Do not publish statements you know to be false on the notice board.
(d) Do follow the constitution of CS - don't make up what you would like to read there.

Simples

[Mike Scott]

Derek

There have been inconsistencies with approach as well with personal attacks being allowed in certain cases but deleted in others.

However I'm not sure what an AGM proposal would do. We do need moderation and can't allow a free-for-all. We still rely on the moderators to apply their personal judgement. I have disagreed with much of that recently but it's a subjective issue.

Good summary. It is an impossible job to do in a way that everyone is in agreement with.

[Andrew McHarg]

There have been inconsistencies...

I accept that this is probably true. It's certainly not deliberate though, as some people seem to suggest.

[amuir]

It seems people are generally happy with the postings situation then so no problems there. I withdraw my comments about asking Andrew McHarg to resign. Please delete that post.

It seems unlikely that the full unedited minutes of the recent council meeting will be distributed to members. People will now just trust the directors to get on with their jobs then.

[Mike Scott]

Not sure is this is possible but how about enabling 'Like' / 'Hate' options that each forum member can apply once to each thread. If a particular thread is getting a bit OTT and gets a certain number of 'Hate' votes it gets automatically blocked for later review by Andrew et al.

Would not suggest that such a system wholly replaces active intervention from the the censors but it might make it easier for them to judge the impact of a particular thread.

[Derek Howie]

It seems people are generally happy with the postings situation

I wouldn't say that everyone is happy and it's certainly an item worthy of debate at the AGM, even if there is not a formal motion. I would suggest you do raise it as an item for discussion.

[Derek Howie]

There have been inconsistencies...

I accept that this is probably true. It's certainly not deliberate though, as some people seem to suggest.

Not sure that the evidence backs that up. Posts critical of certain people are consistently deleted whereas posts critical of others are allowed to stand.

[Andrew McHarg]

There have been inconsistencies...

I accept that this is probably true. It's certainly not deliberate though, as some people seem to suggest.

Not sure that the evidence backs that up. Posts critical of certain people are consistently deleted whereas posts critical of others are allowed to stand.

Perhaps you can email me who you think is being unfairly treated (or which posts critical of certain people are allowed to stand)? I mean, I don't actually know what or who you're talking about, which is evidence that I'm trying to moderate fairly. ;| The only reason that I think it's probably true that there have been inconsistencies is because a) none of the moderators are perfect, and b) moderating is difficult.

[Derek Howie]

Perhaps you can email me who you think is being unfairly treated (or which posts critical of certain people are allowed to stand)? I mean, I don't actually know what or who you're talking about, which is evidence that I'm trying to moderate fairly. ;| The only reason that I think it's probably true that there have been inconsistencies is because a) none of the moderators are perfect, and b) moderating is difficult.

I emailed an example to you last week and you ignored it.

[Andrew McHarg]

I didn't ignore any of your emails? =o