# General > General >  Suspended?

## bekisman

Been looking for Fred and see he's suspended!..

I belong to a couple of forums and if any member is suspended or banned etc it spells out the reasons; (I won't give the site) but examples:
"[name] permanently banned for long homophobic rant."
"[name] has been suspended for one day for posting Copyrighted materials"
"[name] has been banned for life for making threats"
"[name] has been suspended for a week for bad language"

The Moderators are also named, I'm not sure, but not too long ago weren't 'our' moderators named also? I'm not stirring things just be nice to see reasons?

Be interested in hearing other members views here, or PM

----------


## Big hughie

I think thats why  Peter MacDonald  and one or two more have jacked the forum in cos no reasons were given for pulling  posts and suspensions

----------


## _Ju_

Moderator should not be named. It causes personal conflicts and deprives them of a normal participation in a board that they like ( or else they would not be consitent usesers that get nominated to moderate).

As for spelling out the reason for a ban, this is a small board and those that live in Caithness live in a small community, so I don't think they would like the information published, nor does it really serve any purpose except to satisfy the curiosity of those so inclined. If a person has some kind of punishment meted out, they know the reason for it and the owner of the board knows the reason and those are the two parties envolved. Not the general public.

----------


## starry

I understand what you are saying but I do think if a thread is pulled then an explanation should be given.

----------


## Buttercup

> Moderator should not be named. It causes personal conflicts and deprives them of a normal participation in a board that they like ( or else they would not be consitent usesers that get nominated to moderate).
> 
> As for spelling out the reason for a ban, this is a small board and those that live in Caithness live in a small community, so I don't think they would like the information published, nor does it really serve any purpose except to satisfy the curiosity of those so inclined. If a person has some kind of punishment meted out, they know the reason for it and the owner of the board knows the reason and those are the two parties envolved. Not the general public.


But surely if a thread has been removed that you have posted on, you are involved, aren't you?  :: 
(As for bans/suspensions that is none of my business and should only concern the individual)

----------


## Big hughie

Dear Ju  surely if a post only is pulled then the mods could say why?? A suspension is a different thing

----------


## Kenn

I am in full agrement with Ju , Caithness is a small community and there fore it could be very embarassing and other things too if the reasons were made public.
It would be an idea though that if a thread is pulled a small explanation could be given, it does n't have to be explicit but just a word to say that it had caused offence, the language used was not satisfactory or that it impinged on privacy no names need be mentioned.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

I'm a great believer that moderators should be named. Otherwise it leads to the perhaps unfounded suspicion that you posts are being pulled because you have offended a friend of a friend of a moderator.

Judges in any sphere of human life do not hide behind anonymity, why should forums be any different?

For the record this is the only forum I use that does not name mods, and does not give explanations for any moderation actions. I feel it actually detracts from the honesty of the forum.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

Also how do we know that the opinions being expressed on this thread are not being expressed by moderators, possibly with a vested interest in remaining anonymous?

----------


## Angela

> It would be an idea though that if a thread is pulled a small explanation could be given, it does n't have to be explicit but just a word to say that it had caused offence, the language used was not satisfactory or that it impinged on privacy no names need be mentioned.


I agree, in much the same way that we usually get an short explanation when a thread is locked. Then we wouldn't be left wondering where -and why -a thread has gone... ::

----------


## Boozeburglar

I don't think it is a great idea to announce why someone is suspended, as it would result in a lot of queries with the mods - very time consuming. At the end of the day, a forum is really someone's backyard and you don't have an automatic right to dwell therein, and the host does not need to justify asking you to leave.

As far as mods being unnamed, I believe there was a case of something spilling over into the real world, nuff said.

Caithness is truly a small place.

----------


## Anne x

> I agree, in much the same way that we usually get an short explanation when a thread is locked. Then we wouldn't be left wondering where -and why -a thread has gone...


 
I agree with Angela and Lizz all very odd I actually liked seeing the mods names listed people you could Identify with now its like the secret seven 
or eight or nine !!!!

----------


## rfr10

The reason a user has been banned/ suspended, posts removed, etc.. is the business of that user only and no one else. Only the user who has caused the problem should be told why. It shouldn't be made public if that's what you're saying. Anyway, common sense should tell most people why a user is suspended, etc..

----------


## wifie

A brief explanation of why threads are pulled would be good - there does not have to be naming of names.

----------


## northener

> As far as mods being unnamed, I believe there was a case of something spilling over into the real world, nuff said.
> 
> Caithness is truly a small place.


Good point.

----------


## golach

> I am in full agrement with Ju , Caithness is a small community and there fore it could be very embarassing and other things too if the reasons were made public.
> It would be an idea though that if a thread is pulled a small explanation could be given, it does n't have to be explicit but just a word to say that it had caused offence, the language used was not satisfactory or that it impinged on privacy no names need be mentioned.


Got to agree with you Lizz, in the past we have had all this thrashed out, and IMO its only going over old ground.
I do not care who is a moderator or not, they are doing a job where they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont.
About a year ago we had a mass exodus of .orgers because they did not like the way things were being run, and guess what most are back and still happily posting on the .Org.

----------


## connieb19

> As far as mods being unnamed, I believe there was a case of something spilling over into the real world, nuff said


They didn't have a problem publicly naming people who shared a pc though. Something whch could have possibly caused issues to spill into the real world in the same way.  ::

----------


## Ricco

I like the org because it IS different, because it does not conform to all the 'other' forums that allow this and permit that.  If these other forums are so wonderful then why do we persist in staying with the org?  I think that it is because we like it exactly the way it is.  If the council decide to remove someone's sign from a signpost or fence do they stick up a notice or have a public meeting to explain why?  No, things are laid out quite clearly in the rules.  Do they name the councillor that had the sign removed?  No, why should they?

Sorry, peeps - I and many other orgers like the Caithness org just the way it is.  We don't want to become like any other org, ta.

----------


## golach

> Sorry, peeps - I and many other orgers like the Caithness org just the way it is. We don't want to become like any other org, ta.


Hear Hear Ricco......................

----------


## starry

There is obviously history here that I am not aware off.

I have no agenda, no friendships to keep or worry about and don't have a clue who or where any off you are.
But I do feel that if someone has decided that a thread is unsuitable for a public message board then common sense states they should let people know why.
If people don't know what has offended then they are quite likely to post similar again.
Resulting in more deleted threads and more confused and angry posters.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> I like the org because it IS different, because it does not conform to all the 'other' forums that allow this and permit that.  If these other forums are so wonderful then why do we persist in staying with the org?


The org is different, it has as it's prime focus life in and around Caithness. No other forum that I know does that. I would be very much happier if many of the small things that apply on here were different. They're not so I post anyway.

I often think about setting up an alternative caithness forum, without the petty restrictions which exist here. But having said that Caithness is a small community and I think that it would be a shame to split the audience. Who knows one day I may do it...

----------


## Angela

> in the past we have had all this thrashed out, and IMO its only going over old ground.
> 
> About a year ago we had a mass exodus of .orgers because they did not like the way things were being run, and guess what most are back and still happily posting on the .Org.


I think that was before my time, golach. There are lots of new Orgers now who _haven't_ been over this ground before.

I certainly don't believe that the reasons why people are suspended or banned should be made public. However I do feel just a bit uncomfortable now that I have no idea who the Mods are....one day their names just disappeared, with no explanation at all.

I would like to see a short explanation for the removal of threads, if only so we don't keep on having more and more new threads about the removal of threads!!  ::  ::

----------


## Rheghead

I seem to remember a post made by a mod to the effect that criticism about mods was tantamount to trolling and break of the rules.

----------


## changilass

I don't understand why not knowing who the mods are should worry anyone.  If you are following the rules then there is nothing to worry about.

A number of other boards I am a member of have global mods or mods using a different log in, so it is really the same thing.

The mods have given explanations of threads closing before and folks have just questioned the reasons given, this may be part of the reason that it is not always fully explained.

As has been said already, it is no ones business but the suspended person and the site owners as to why someone is suspended.

Also as has been said before, Caithness is a small community and mods have been targeted in the past both on the boards and in real life.

----------


## scorrie

> Anyway, common sense should tell most people why a user is suspended, etc..


OK Sherlock, why WAS fred suspended then?

----------


## scorrie

> I think that was before my time, golach. There are lots of new Orgers now who _haven't_ been over this ground before.


True, what is old hat for some, is news to others. Perhaps a new stipulation in the rules should be that new users MUST read every previous post in order to get up to speed  :Wink:

----------


## johno

> A brief explanation of why threads are pulled would be good - there does not have to be naming of names.


if you get suspensions, threads pulled, infractions, barred or banned you have no say , no appeal your done and thats that, like it or lump it
your done, end of story, dont even bother to try and complain or talk about it.
your done, end of story.

----------


## Anne x

> I think that was before my time, golach. There are lots of new Orgers now who _haven't_ been over this ground before.
> 
> I certainly don't believe that the reasons why people are suspended or banned should be made public. However I do feel just a bit uncomfortable now that I have no idea who the Mods are....one day their names just disappeared, with no explanation at all.
> 
> I would like to see a short explanation for the removal of threads, if only so we don't keep on having more and more new threads about the removal of threads!!


I agree  !!! Angela we all cannot be oldies or maybe we are and dont really know the old rules !!! but not in Org terms think we are young ,  I find it all a bit spooky before we could all Identify with the names and refer to them or PM them as to who we as individuals would  Identify with !!! now they are just nameless cyberspace mods having said that if you conduct yourself properly on a forum it doesnt really matter who they are does it ?

----------


## lazytown

Most of the other boards that I frequent the mods edit the post of the offending user and possible give warnings/suspensions too.

Rather than removing the complete thread, they could simple edit the offending users post saying it was a breech of the rules because of racism/personal attack/swearing/spamming etc.

I know that if I had started a new thread about something I was serious about and because of another user, my thread was removed then I would be upset about this. 

As I said above rather than removing the thread edit the offending post and then deal with the user in private.

Personally I don't care who the mods are aslong as they are doing thier jobs openly and honestly.

----------


## Metalattakk

> ... having said that if you conduct yourself properly on a forum it doesnt really matter who they are does it ?


Yes, I believe it does. Plenty of people posted legitimate, thought-provoking and interesting observations on connieb's 'false teeth' thread. None of them broke any rules, so why are their contributions deleted without any form of explanation?

People are alluding to the recent 'spilling over into the real world' occurrence which saw Colin Manson resign. I can only put two and two together and surmise that this was an after-effect of the Kevin McLeod thread, which if it had been moderated properly in the first place, would have been closed long before any real life incident could have occurred. 

So, we have two problems here:

1) A lack of transparency by the mods.

No one knows why threads are closed, who closed them or why posts are removed. This is utterly wrong. A simple post by the mod concerned, to explain why the thread was closed, is but a common courtesy to the users of this forum. Names need not be mentioned, only the rules that were broken. Of course, if no rules were broken then the thread is allowed to stay. It's not rocket science.

2) Moderation standards.

I believe it may be true that many of the moderating team on .Org aren't capable of carrying out the duties they are asked to fulfil. I base this on the Kevin McLeod thread more than anything, I admit (along with various minor instances I have noticed recently, including an alarming amount of dubious language used). Quite why that thread was allowed to descend to the depths it eventually did, I have no idea. Could they not see the inevitable outcome? Nip it in the bud, and none of this would have happened. A lesson to learn, perhaps?

I simply cannot understand why transparency is not employed here on caithness.org. Moderators should be named, and they should close any threads or delete any posts (with explanations) that break the rules. End of story.

----------


## Ricco

> No one knows why threads are closed, who closed them or why posts are removed. This is utterly wrong. A simple post by the mod concerned, to explain why the thread was closed, is but a common courtesy to the users of this forum.


The thread belongs to the originator, and I understand that that person is usually told why the thread has been removed; it is not really the business of the rest of us. I agree that is some cases it might be nice to know but then there will inevitably be a long hue and cry by some anyway.  :Wink: 




> 2) Moderation standards.
> 
> I believe it may be true that many of the moderating team on .Org aren't capable of carrying out the duties they are asked to fulfil. I base this on the Kevin McLeod thread more than anything, I admit (along with various minor instances I have noticed recently, including an alarming amount of dubious language used). Quite why that thread was allowed to descend to the depths it eventually did, I have no idea. Could they not see the inevitable outcome? Nip it in the bud, and none of this would have happened. A lesson to learn, perhaps?
> 
> I simply cannot understand why transparency is not employed here on caithness.org. Moderators should be named, and they should close any threads or delete any posts (with explanations) that break the rules. End of story.


Most of us think that the mods do an astounding job (voluntarily, remember) and they are not hidden from us. You can see any mod that is logged on. Indeed, you may have chatted to some of them in the Chat Room. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to compile a list of the mods over a short period of time should you wish to have one 'tacked on the side of your monitor. However, I trust you don't mean giving out their real names - that I would not condone!

----------


## johno

> Got to agree with you Lizzy, in the past we have had all this thrashed out, and IMO its only going over old ground.
> I do not care who is a moderator or not, they are doing a job where they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont.
> About a year ago we had a mass exodus of .orgers because they did not like the way things were being run, and guess what most are back and still happily posting on the .Org.


Sorry Golach, most of them are still away, and a lot of big inputers & humorous they were to. if you pm me i will tell you where they are as im not allowed to mention the site here on the org,   More restrictions.   ::

----------


## golach

> Sorry Golach, most of them are still away, and a lot of big inputers & humorous they were to. if you pm me i will tell you where they are as im not allowed to mention the site here on the org, More restrictions.


And long may they stay away as far as I am concerned, what do I care about the sites you visit, I have the proud distinction of being voted the most hated .Orger on your site.  ::

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> Most of us think that the mods do an astounding job (voluntarily, remember) and they are not hidden from us. You can see any mod that is logged on.


How exactly can you see any mod that is logged on?

And how do you know what they moderate?

----------


## Bobinovich

Firstly I have no problem in admitting to be a Mod, however there are couple of reasons why the Mods names were removed from view.  Firstly, remembering that we are all volunteers who also come onto the Org to read and post in our own right (as we have done for years), we found that when we were logging in we were being inundated with PMs querying this and that, instead of using the appropriate Report Post facility.  By the time we had worked our way through these PMs our own Org experience was being diluted and we were rapidly loosing interest.  By removing the names from view we no longer have this problem - people are reporting posts in the correct manner where they can be shared amongst, and actioned by, all the Mods, and queries not relating to a particular post are being sent via PM or e-mail to Admin.  Some of these still filter back down to the Mods for actioning, but many are handled for us.

The second reason was after the Colin Manson affair Admin did not want the Mods similarly becoming the target of real world attacks, so the options were discussed and this appeared to be the answer both problems.

With regards to the False Teeth thread, the reason for this being pulled has been queried and were awaiting more information.  ConnieB19 was notified of this shortly after it happened, as was Thumper who queried why their rep disappeared (a fact I wasn't aware of when a thread is removed).

MetalAttakk - You say that the Kevin Macleod thread should have been nipped in the bud, well it does depend whether there are any Mods online, and also if any of them are reading the thread at the time.  Contrary to popular belief we are not omnipresent!  Plus locking or removing a thread can often cause bad feelings with others who want to have their say but then can't.  As someone has said - we're damned if we do, damned if we don't!

Another situation has arisen when the original poster closes or deletes a thread - we have been queried why we did it when it's not always us!  In situations like this are you insisting that the OP leaves a message explaining their actions?

It was only very recently that we were given the facility to edit posts, its not something I like to do as I personally prefer contacting the OP if they're still online, giving them the chance to change it themselves.  However, at the end of the day, if a poster is not staying within the rules then the warning/infraction system is there to remind them.

As for suspensions, whether temporary or permanent, it is not done on a whim - it may be as a result of a string of offences, an attack on Admin, or any number of reasons.  Those reasons however are between the Admin and the user and that is that.

Admin have already stated that, were it not for the appointment of Mods, the forums would have to be shut down as they do not have time to handle everything themselves.  If the recent shut-down of the Org for a few days showed us anything it was that the vast majority enjoy the forums and were totally lost without them.

Hopefully this will answer some of your queries.  While I'm not going to discuss any individual situations, and do not want to be inundated with PMs on the matter, I am willing to reply to further enquiries posted here if it'll help.

----------


## Metalattakk

> MetalAttakk - You say that the Kevin Macleod thread should have been nipped in the bud, well it does depend whether there are any Mods online, and also if any of them are reading the thread at the time. Contrary to popular belief we are not omnipresent! Plus locking or removing a thread can often cause bad feelings with others who want to have their say but then can't. As someone has said - we're damned if we do, damned if we don't!


Yes, but that thread carried on for about a week! Were there seriously no moderators online or reading that thread in all that time?

Plus, if a thread is locked and a proper explanation of the reasons for locking it is given to all, then surely the vast majority of ill-feeling will be dissipated accordingly? Of course people will still be upset, but at least they'll be able to reason with the decision made, and have a chance to accept it. As it is now, there is no such chance.

Moderators also should be known to the members of the board. It removes straight away any hint of duplicity, dishonesty and rumours of internal corruption. In one fell swoop.

For instance: How do we know that these 'disappeared' threads have not been removed at the whim of a moderator with an agenda to push, or a grudge against a fellow user? The whole issue of invisible moderators throws up so, so many opportunities for people to simply see things that aren't there, yet as they're kept in the darkness, who can blame them?

I for one, cannot forget the 'Miserable User' debacle so easily or quickly. Transparency is the only feasible option.

----------


## Bobinovich

I cannot speak for the other Mods but I've never really gone into the Kevin Macleod case so gave the thread a detour, as I have done with numerous others.  Are we expected to read thoroughly every thread without regard for our own particular interests?

We've locked threads before and frequently someone, who didn't have their say or who had more to say, has gone off and started another on the same subject!  I agree in principle that where a thread has been locked by a Mod or Admin (not by the OP - that's up to them) then a brief reason could be left, however on many threads the reason for locking will be fairly obvious.  This is one point I will raise in the Mods forum.

Moderators are voluntary and the vast majority of Orgers are local.  Even as an incomer I've been stopped numerous times on the street and an Org related subject bought up.  Is it not fair to give the Mods some protection from this or worse?  The idea of using a separate nondescript Mod name was mooted but decided against as that would mean logging out, logging in under alternate name, performing the Mod task, then jumping back into our main Org persona.

Mods were initially choosen by Admin and then the new Mods asked to recommend others - some have since left and only a handful remain.  As Admin own and run this board it is right that they should choose people who they feel are worthy and capable of the job.  Also if Admin felt that a Mod was not doing their job right I would imagine they would soon let them know.

All operations carried out by Mods have, to my knowledge, been reported on by the Mod in question in the Mods forum and have, either before or after the fact, been discussed amongst the Mods & Admin.  Some Mod actions have been reversed after such discussions showing we don't always get it right, however we don't feel victimised by the other Mods if this happens - everyone can err sometimes.

----------


## Metalattakk

> I cannot speak for the other Mods but I've never really gone into the Kevin Macleod case so gave the thread a detour, as I have done with numerous others.  Are we expected to read thoroughly every thread without regard for our own particular interests?


Yes! I'd expect the moderators to moderate the whole board, not just the threads or posts that interest them!




> We've locked threads before and frequently someone, who didn't have their say or who had more to say, has gone off and started another on the same subject!  I agree in principle that where a thread has been locked by a Mod or Admin (not by the OP - that's up to them) then a brief reason could be left, however on many threads the reason for locking will be fairly obvious.  This is one point I will raise in the Mods forum.


Keep in mind that a locked thread is different from a deleted thread. It would also be beneficial (more so, I would suggest) if a reason for a thread deletion was posted too. As I said, as long as the reason is valid, there should be no real recriminations.




> Moderators are voluntary and the vast majority of Orgers are local.  Even as an incomer I've been stopped numerous times on the street and an Org related subject bought up.  Is it not fair to give the Mods some protection from this or worse?  The idea of using a separate nondescript Mod name was mooted but decided against as that would mean logging out, logging in under alternate name, performing the Mod task, then jumping back into our main Org persona.


It may be that going through the tedious nightmare of logging out and back in to accounts is the only way to protect the desire to be both an .Orger and a Moderator at the same time. In any case, the two statuses (statii?  :Grin: ) should be separate, in my opinion.




> Mods were initially choosen by Admin and then the new Mods asked to recommend others - some have since left and only a handful remain.  As Admin own and run this board it is right that they should choose people who they feel are worthy and capable of the job.  Also if Admin felt that a Mod was not doing their job right I would imagine they would soon let them know.


As was shown in the Miserable Users debacle, this is not strictly true.




> All operations carried out by Mods have, to my knowledge, been reported on by the Mod in question in the Mods forum and have, either before or after the fact, been discussed amongst the Mods & Admin.  Some Mod actions have been reversed after such discussions showing we don't always get it right, however we don't feel victimised by the other Mods if this happens - everyone can err sometimes.


I agree, people make mistakes, it's only natural. However, if I make a mistake, there is no possible chance for me to atone, as no correspondence is entered into by the Moderators. PMs go unanswered, there is no appeal process in place, and this again only alienates the user.

Again, I call for transparency.

(And a word of thanks to you too, for your input to this issue.)

----------


## Oddquine

> Yes, but that thread carried on for about a week! Were there seriously no moderators online or reading that thread in all that time?


And were there seriously no members, like yourself, who (I assume from your post) objected to the thread  and used the report function to bring the thread to the attention of the moderators?  That is what the report button is for, after all...........an acknowledgement that moderatorshave lives and can't be on here 24/7.




> Plus, if a thread is locked and a proper explanation of the reasons for locking it is given to all, then surely the vast majority of ill-feeling will be dissipated accordingly? Of course people will still be upset, but at least they'll be able to reason with the decision made, and have a chance to accept it. As it is now, there is no such chance.


I  agree with that.....it is only courtesy. 




> Moderators also should be known to the members of the board. It removes straight away any hint of duplicity, dishonesty and rumours of internal corruption. In one fell swoop.


And what did we have last year when the moderators were known, Metalattakk, but accusations of duplicity, dishonesty and rumours of internal corruption.

----------


## Metalattakk

> And what did we have last year when the moderators were known, Metalattakk, but accusations of duplicity, dishonesty and rumours of internal corruption.


Are you entirely sure that they were only 'rumours'? I seem to remember quite a  lot of fall-out after the infamous M.U. debacle. Those rumours were proven true.

----------


## Oddquine

One instance in however many years this forum has been going, Metalattakk............. and the difference having no named moderators in that situation would have made is what?

----------


## canuck

> Are you entirely sure that they were only 'rumours'? I seem to remember quite a  lot of fall-out after the infamous M.U. debacle. Those rumours were proven true.


So a users committee was formed, duly elected in a fascinating internet vote.  (Well rich thought it was fascinating.)  The Committee posted everything it discussed and to my recollection found nothing outlandish going on.   The Committee suggested some streamlining to the then existing policies.  A bit of tweaking happened, giving the mods the option of warnings before suspensions.    It was my understanding that the mods were found to be doing a fine job. 


On a practical side of things, if members are suspended they still have PM capacity and when people have gone into org jail and I wanted to know 'what happened' I would PM them and ask.

----------


## Metalattakk

> One instance in however many years this forum has been going, Metalattakk............. and the difference having no named moderators in that situation would have made is what?


I don't want to side-track this issue. We are not holding last year's events up for scrutiny now, they are only used as an example today.

I am calling for transparency, for the very reasons I have stated previously. I firmly believe that having named moderators is essential for trust issues and for creating simple avenues of communication.

----------


## canuck

> I am calling for transparency, for the very reasons I have stated previously. I firmly believe that having named moderators is essential for trust issues and for creating simple avenues of communication.


And that works when the trust is offered both ways.  I don't know why the moderators are not listed, but I suspect that it might have to do with some verbal abuse being slung their way.   I don't know, I am only guessing, but from the tone of some posts I would not be surprised it that was happening.

----------


## Metalattakk

> So a users committee was formed, duly elected in a fascinating internet vote.  (Well rich thought it was fascinating.)  The Committee posted everything it discussed and to my recollection found nothing outlandish going on.   The Committee suggested some streamlining to the then existing policies.  A bit of tweaking happened, giving the mods the option of warnings before suspensions.    It was my understanding that the mods were found to be doing a fine job. 
> 
> 
> On a practical side of things, if members are suspended they still have PM capacity and when people have gone into org jail and I wanted to know 'what happened' I would PM them and ask.


The Committee was not created to investigate what went on, it was created to thrash out a reformation of the moderating rules. On another day, I'd like to know what was decided. I seem to remember that not a lot was happening quickly. But as I said, that's for another day.

----------


## canuck

> The Committee was not created to investigate what went on, it was created to thrash out a reformation of the moderating rules.


Right on, but if they had found a problem I am sure that they would have reported it to all who took the time to read the summaries of their proceedings.

----------


## Metalattakk

> And that works when the trust is offered both ways.  I don't know why the moderators are not listed, but I suspect that it might have to do with some verbal abuse being slung their way.   I don't know, I am only guessing, but from the tone of some posts I would not be surprised it that was happening.


I think you may be right. But then with appropriate moderation, any instances of 'verbal abuse' could have been considerably minimised.

One problem, as many have stated, is down to the localisation of the moderators - they all live here, and they are mostly fairly well-known in the community. That's why a firm, fair, open and transparent moderating style has to, simply has to, be employed.

----------


## Torvaig

Being named as a mod leaves them open to abuse via pm.....

----------


## Metalattakk

Only the once. After that, the abuser is banned. Problem solved.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> Being named as a mod leaves them open to abuse via pm.....


Well that one is pretty simple to fix.

Same a a football ref. What he or she says goes.

Any dissent and show 'em the red card.

Mods decisions are final, any attempt to argue with them should be dealt with very firmly.

It is no justification for not naming them!

----------


## changilass

I totally understand the need to have mods not named.

I was a mod for a while, I also do fostering, due to something that happened on the boards someone reported me to social services, luckily it was investigated and proven to be nonsense.  However following that incident and some other comments posted on the boards I stood down as a moderator.  Caithness is too close a community, and folks too well known.

It is easy to say that if a mod is verbally abused on the org to simply deal with that user, but some folks will simply not let things go and want to carry it over to real life.


With regard to the fact that all posts should be read by mods, that was happening when there was enough mods to do it, due to various reasons a few mods stepped down, therefore there isnt as many man hours available as previously, but as has already been said, there is the report post button to be used by any member, so all members are as liable for what goes on or doesnt.

----------


## badger

changilass is absolutely right. Revealing the identities of Mods. is going to lay them open to abuse in the real world and who would want then to do the job? It's obviously pretty hard to get people to do it anyway. 

Also agree that they can't be expected to read every post on every thread - it's up to us to report posts we feel unacceptable, then up to them to decide what action to take. 

One thing I would find helpful is an explanation of how all this works, as I recently bothered Bobinovich with a PM asking a question on this (sorry, didn't occur to me you might be inundated with PMs). For instance, if a few posts from one member give offence so you want to report (and I've never done this btw) - does the whole thread have to be removed or just those posts so leaving holes or what? How do the Mods decide on action - online chat maybe? The rules for posting are there but not the mechanics of how these things work - at least I don't think so. I can imagine it must be incredibly time consuming and I really don't think they should be criticised.

----------


## _Ju_

And who would want to do the job (of a mod), considering how quickly any kind of intervention deteriorates into a slinging match, and a personal one at that, that apparently can affect your "real" life?

After reading this thread I feel even more strongly that mods do not need to be identified, especially since decisions ultimately do not reside with them but with the owners of this board. 

Nor does anyone except the interveniants need to know why someone was invited to leave- most would want some privacy in this matter. That person can decide to share this information if he/she wishes to do so.

----------


## canuck

Two orgers came to be my absolute bestest org friends as a result of bans.   So I do have a positive thought about the process.  I doubt that they will ever feel good about it, but I will because of the wonderful friendships that have grown from the conversations that emerged as a result of their being off the org.

----------


## golach

> One problem, as many have stated, is down to the localisation of the moderators - they all live here, and they are mostly fairly well-known in the community. That's why a firm, fair, open and transparent moderating style has to, simply has to, be employed.


Oh "the Moderators all live here"...........................Where is here?.........."well known in the community"........what community?
Is this another rumour that you are starting?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Oh "the Moderators all live here"...........................Where is here?.........."well known in the community"........what community?
> Is this another rumour that you are starting?


OK, change my statement to "nearly all of them live here, in Caithness" if you must. Jings... ::

----------


## bekisman

I was suspended as I reproduced a mod's pm in which he had insulted me. I have in addition received infraction points for something others are amazed at. I have contacted the persons concerned; no reply. what do I do?

----------


## connieb19

> With regards to the False Teeth thread, the reason for this being pulled has been queried and were awaiting more information. ConnieB19 was notified of this shortly after it happened, as was Thumper who queried why their rep disappeared (a fact I wasn't aware of when a thread is removed).


To make things a bit more clear about this. I wasn't automatically notified. I was sent a pm after I had asked on Thumpers thread(about her missing rep) why my post was removed. As far as I am concerned if I hadn't queried it I would never know why it was removed. As it happens I still have no idea why my thread was removed but I certainly wasn't notified of anything shortly after it was removed. 
In fact I found it a bit odd that after not posting for some time, I posted a bit more than usual over New Year only to find myself having problems trying to access the forum and did wonder if the miserable user plug in was in use again or if it was just a coincidence?

----------


## Bobinovich

> Well that one is pretty simple to fix.
> Same as a football ref. What he or she says goes.
> Any dissent and show 'em the red card.
> Mods decisions are final, any attempt to argue with them should be dealt with very firmly.
> It is no justification for not naming them!


Sorry NitN - Mods were previously named and yet some people still insisted on querying the decisions - some even started threads about the decisions and wondered why they were pulled and the poster given yet another infraction. So naming the Mods really doesn't help.




> One thing I would find helpful is an explanation of how all this works.... For instance, if a few posts from one member give offence so you want to report (and I've never done this btw) - does the whole thread have to be removed or just those posts so leaving holes or what? How do the Mods decide on action - online chat maybe? The rules for posting are there but not the mechanics of how these things work - at least I don't think so. I can imagine it must be incredibly time consuming and I really don't think they should be criticised.


I've offered to do something along these lines and will get round to it in due course - it'll probably be posted within the Forum Rules section. However I will say as an aside that many of the reasons for warnings and infractions are already listed in the forum rules yet some people still (sometimes repeatedly) manage to break them.




> To make things a bit more clear about this. I wasn't automatically notified. I was sent a pm after I had asked on Thumpers thread(about her missing rep) why my post was removed. As far as I am concerned if I hadn't queried it I would never know why it was removed. As it happens I still have no idea why my thread was removed but I certainly wasn't notified of anything shortly after it was removed.


Actually I was as surprised about the disappearing rep as Thumper and the others were, and it wasn't until Connieb19 pointed out that the False Teeth thread was gone that things fell into place. It was at this point I queried it in the Mods forum and sent posts to this effect to both the above.

----------


## Bobinovich

> OK, change my statement to "nearly all of them live here, in Caithness" if you must. Jings...


Actually it's almost 50 - 50, not that it really makes a difference  :Grin:

----------


## Anne x

Bobinovich 

dont you think your last statement in the closed thread was a bit 
Well I am Me !!!  and lump it Mods have the last "Say "instead of transparency use another word

----------


## changilass

Knowing Bob I would imagine that it was a tongue in cheek reply to metal's 'how dare you' quip.

Why does everything have to be taken the wrong way. 

When there are 2 ways of taking it, why not go for the right way for a change.

----------


## Kenn

Sensible words from changilass, I was thinking of posting "YAWN HER WE GO AGAIN," but refrained.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Knowing Bob I would imagine that it was a tongue in cheek reply to metal's 'how dare you' quip.


Aye, that's the way I took it.

Now, move along please, folks. Nothing to see here.  :Wink:

----------


## webmannie

And i laughed at the modbobinovich post as well, good job bob keep it up!

----------


## Anne x

> Knowing Bob I would imagine that it was a tongue in cheek reply to metal's 'how dare you' quip.
> 
> Why does everything have to be taken the wrong way. 
> 
> When there are 2 ways of taking it, why not go for the right way for a change.


Changi I didnt take it the wrong way but reading all the posts today be it right or wrong a lot of members have no past on the org ie years of posting or experience or whatever went on in the past who cares to the new members its the org forum simple !!! 
yes lizz it is a big yawn !!!

----------


## Jeid

Och... here we go again... Everyone else knows how to do it better. What rubbish. It's simple, you read the rules, you accepted the conditions, stop moaning and get on with it. There's more to life. If you're really that bothered about Fred, ask him when he comes back. The mods/admin/people who run this site have had enough grief in the past. I don't see why anyone thinks they have the right to know why someone has been banned.

"but they do it on another forum"

Big deal...

----------


## Metalattakk

You're right Jeid.

Of course the reason for suspension or the dishing out of an infraction should remain solely between the user concerned and the moderator concerned. I don't think that has been even up for discussion.

What is up for discussion is the lack of transparency (god, there I go again... :: ) when threads are deleted or closed, and the fact that none of the moderators are known to the general users of the board. Well, except for the extremely brave ModBobinovich, of course.  :Grin:

----------


## JAWS

> OK, change my statement to "nearly all of them live here, in Caithness" if you must. Jings...


I'm a little confused, (not an unusuall state for me to be in) but if you are so certain that "nearly all" of the Mods live here in Caithness then how would you know that without already knowing who they were? (I am, of course, excluding the obvious assumption that it would be because this is *Caithness*.org) 

What benefit, or indeed difference, would it make to anything for people to be fully aware of who the Mods are?

----------


## Jeid

> You're right Jeid.
> 
> Of course the reason for suspension or the dishing out of an infraction should remain solely between the user concerned and the moderator concerned. I don't think that has been even up for discussion.
> 
> What is up for discussion is the lack of transparency (god, there I go again...) when threads are deleted or closed, and the fact that none of the moderators are known to the general users of the board. Well, except for the extremely brave ModBobinovich, of course.


And you can hardly blame them.. especially with the lynching squad that were around these parts last year. Tbh... people are best not knowing who mods are. This way, the mods are free to post like everyone else without them being looked upon as "those people who can suspend you". Anon mods are best I think. They can take a lot of flack. I'm sure some of them are big enough, stupid enough and ugly enough( :: ) to take it, but why bother. They're just normal orgers like everyone else around here.

If threads are deleted or closed, then that's also up to the mods/admin etc. I don't recall it saying in the t&c's that we have the right to know why a thread is closed... do you? Probably not... in fact, I bet a very few of you did read the t&c's of the site and just clicked yes. I read them when I was a mod(no, I'm not a mod anymore) and the things that most people complain about are spelled out in there.

----------


## Metalattakk

> I'm a little confused, (not an unusuall state for me to be in) but if you are so certain that "nearly all" of the Mods live here in Caithness then how would you know that without already knowing who they were? (I am, of course, excluding the obvious assumption that it would be because this is *Caithness*.org) 
> 
> What benefit, or indeed difference, would it make to anything for people to be fully aware of who the Mods are?


I'm not advocating the publishing of full contact details. I don't want to know where the moderators live, or their 'phone numbers. All I want is a wee 'Moderator' tag under their username, like in the 'old days'.

Of course, that leads to the obvious problems highlighted by Jeid - many of the 'local' moderators are known as such in the community, thus leaving them open for abuse (in extreme circumstances).

I am convinced that firm, fair, even-handed and sensible moderation of the threads on the .org would nullify to a large extent any possible chance of known moderators suffering abuse in the streets. Of course, if the moderators don't possess the skills required, then again that would lead to obvious problems.


Jeid - The events of last year are a different kettle of fish altogether, and have no real bearing in this discussion. Anyway, that's a wound I don't think needs opening again.

----------


## scotsboy

If you dont like the rules dont play the game. 


So what is the situation with fred? Is he gone sine die? Or will he be back? Would hate to think that we were not able to accomodate all points of view on the org.

----------


## canuck

> I am convinced that firm, fair, even-handed and sensible moderation of the threads on the .org would nullify to a large extent any possible chance of known moderators suffering abuse in the streets. Of course, if the moderators don't possess the skills required, then again that would lead to obvious problems.


I believe that we do have skilled moderators.

The firm, fair, even-handed and sensible moderation needs to be balanced and preceded by firm, fair, even-handed and sensible posting.

After reading changilass's story I would oppose any kind of identification of the moderators.  The fact that the moderators do need to be protected speaks to the issue of sensible posters.   I realize that sensible posts and sensible posters are separate concepts, but they are pretty close together in my mind.

----------


## karia

I see Johno has joined the ranks of the 'suspended'.

I also notice that when someone is suspended all their contact details disappear (not simply the function to pm them but any private e-mail address they may have provided.) 

No-one can then seek out their side of the story.


These are merely my observations...I am in no way attempting to evaluate them! :Smile:

----------


## Metalattakk

> If you dont like the rules dont play the game. 
> 
> 
> So what is the situation with fred? Is he gone sine die? Or will he be back? Would hate to think that we were not able to accomodate all points of view on the org.


Do you really think fred has been suspended because of his views? Really? I'd find that hard to believe.

This raises another point - if someone is suspended, can there be a notification on their profile page to say when the suspension ends? What harm would that do?

----------


## scotsboy

I dont know why fred was suspended.

----------


## golach

> I'm not advocating the publishing of full contact details. I don't want to know where the moderators live, or their 'phone numbers. All I want is a wee 'Moderator' tag under their username, like in the 'old days'.
> I am convinced that firm, fair, even-handed and sensible moderation of the threads on the .org would nullify to a large extent any possible chance of known moderators suffering abuse in the streets. Of course, if the moderators don't possess the skills required, then again that would lead to obvious problems.


Going back to the days when all the Moderators had wee tag to identify them, that made life very difficult for a Moderator to express an opinion, any opinion if fact. If they did they were invariably howled down by the masses, that because the poster was a moderator they were getting privileged treatment from the Admin, I know, I was a moderator and had this accusation thrown at me more than once. I am sure that is why some of the ex moderators resigned.
IMO, the present moderation is sensible, firm, fair and even handed, The Org is not a democracy and is not run as committee, why should it be?
If Orgers cannot abide by the rules set down, then I suggest they leave.

----------


## Torvaig

Much more harrassment of our mods and we may be totally bereft of them soon! :Wink:  

In reality, if we didn't have our mods we would probably have many members leaving us if the boards were allowed to descend in to anarchy, which would be very sad. Although I love the org and have made many friends here, the members forum is not the be all and end all (yes, yes, I know some of you will disagree!) of life as we know it. 

However, the org, _as a whole_, plays a very important part in Caithness life as it provides a lot of information, free services etc., etc., and if it takes a few folks to give up their _valuable time and effort_ to look after the forum to make sure it is representative of the wide spectrum of personalities, then so be it.

Mods, I salute you....... ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> Going back to the days when all the Moderators had wee tag to identify them, that made life very difficult for a Moderator to express an opinion, any opinion if fact. If they did they were invariably howled down by the masses, that because the poster was a moderator they were getting privileged treatment from the Admin, I know, I was a moderator and had this accusation thrown at me more than once. I am sure that is why some of the ex moderators resigned.


And there we have another problem: Moderators want to be Orgers too. I'm not sure that can be possible.




> IMO, the present moderation is sensible, firm, fair and even handed, The Org is not a democracy and is not run as committee, why should it be?
> If Orgers cannot abide by the rules set down, then I suggest they leave.


How do you know it is sensible, firm, fair and even handed? You haven't read some of the stuff that I've had sent to me recently.  :Wink: 

Saying that 'if Orgers can't abide by the rules they should leave' is a very, very short-sighted outlook. Change can be a good thing, and standing still gets you nowhere at all. All I want is for the users of the .Org to be happy with the forum.

----------


## Saveman

Wasn't Fred suspension to do with a FBI/White House consipiracy cover-up??

Those feds have been trying to silence Fred and his like for a long time. It's the feds against the Freds.

The truth is out there.

----------


## golach

> And there we have another problem: Moderators want to be Orgers too. I'm not sure that can be possible.
>  All I want is for the users of the .Org to be happy with the forum.


Why should Moderators not be Orgers?
And thank you if you want the Org  and users of it to be happy with the forum, I know I am, and I am sure that many many other are too.

----------


## Thumper

I think the mods do a very good job,and its not even a paid job!Without the mods this whole board would desend into bedlam in 2 minutes!I personally wouldnt want their job for love nor money,I cant imagine how they cope with it at times!Its about time we all think how lucky we are to have a great place like this to come to,and stop moaning about it,for those that would like to see the Mods,what about a button that would just say contact Moderator?(as well as or instead of the alert button)That way if anybody felt the need to contact them,they would just have to use that,they wouldnt know who they were addressing and that way the Mods privacy remains intact too.Lets all just say thank you for the great job they are doing,and rememeber back a couple of months ago when the general forum had to be closed.....most of us missed it badly!x

----------


## Jeid

It seems like Metalattakk is the only one pushing the matter now...

----------


## Bobinovich

> And there we have another problem: Moderators want to be Orgers too. I'm not sure that can be possible.


I can guarantee you that if Moderators were told they could not interact as Orgers then there would be a mass resignation of Mods immediately.  Don't forget we are Orgers first, Mods second and if push came to shove I know I'd drop the latter quicker than a hot coal.

If that were to happen then Admin have already indicated they could not handle it alone and the forums would be shut down.  Would that be acceptable?




> All I want is for the users of the .Org to be happy with the forum.


But the vast majority (and I mean vast) are quite happy with things as they are.  It's really a very small group who want to see any change, let alone the kind of changes you are on about.  Are you saying that the minority should dictate Ts & Cs to the majority? on a privately run forum?

----------


## bekisman

Golach.. _"IMO, the present moderation is sensible, firm, fair and even handed, The Org is not a democracy and is not run as committee, why should it be? If Orgers cannot abide by the rules set down, then I suggest they leave."_

Is that your opinion of my own experience? (what rules?) and should I leave?

All the best

----------


## Metalattakk

> Why should Moderators not be Orgers?
> And thank you if you want the Org  and users of it to be happy with the forum, I know I am, and I am sure that many many other are too.


I never ever said moderators shouldn't be orgers! Please read what you see!

I only said that I didn't think it was possible for the two to combine.

----------


## Camel Spider

> Wasn't Fred suspension to do with a FBI/White House consipiracy cover-up??
> 
> Those feds have been trying to silence Fred and his like for a long time. It's the feds against the Freds.
> 
> The truth is out there.


In order :

No.

 :: 

 ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> I can guarantee you that if Moderators were told they could not interact as Orgers then there would be a mass resignation of Mods immediately.  Don't forget we are Orgers first, Mods second and if push came to shove I know I'd drop the latter quicker than a hot coal.
> 
> If that were to happen then Admin have already indicated they could not handle it alone and the forums would be shut down.  Would that be acceptable?


No, of course not.




> But the vast majority (and I mean vast) are quite happy with things as they are.  It's really a very small group who want to see any change, let alone the kind of changes you are on about.


 I'm not sure about the vast majority, and neither are you.  :Wink:  It may be a small group who want things changed, but there is much more support out there for change than you may think.




> Are you saying that the minority should dictate Ts & Cs to the majority? on a privately run forum?


The minority already do.

----------


## golach

> I never ever said moderators shouldn't be orgers! Please read what you see!
> 
> I only said that I didn't think it was possible for the two to combine.


I am asking, Why should Moderators not be Orgers? No where did I say you said that, but the way you posted inferred that was your opinion

----------


## Metalattakk

It is my opinion that I don't think the two positions can co-exist without one impinging on the credibility of the other.

----------


## golach

> (what rules?) and should I leave?
> All the best


these rules, the ones you signed up to, if you want to leave that is your decision and prerogative, I have no say in the matter

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=125685#post125685

----------


## Saveman

Just make metalattakk a mod....that'll shut him up....   :Wink: 

EDIT-(Please note winky/smilie. This indicates that the views expressed before the winky/smilie are most likely light-hearted and even downright silly. Perhaps even designed to amuse, or diffuse tension.)

----------


## laguna2

I just wonder how those who put a lot of work into running this board feel when they see all this sniping and back stabbing!

The Org is a place to come to express opinions, have a laugh, chat to to other people and enjoy yourself.

There have to be rules and regulations laid down or, as someone has already said, it would be bedlam.  If some people find it difficult to follow these rules and regulations - then I am sure that they can find another forum to suit or, if they really want, they could set up their own forum and run it as they wish.

Can't we all just get along - avoid those you don't like, express opinions without making them personal attacks and generally let everyone enjoy the org?

----------


## Jeid

> Just make metalattakk a mod....that'll shut him up....


 Great idea!!

----------


## Metalattakk

> Just make metalattakk a mod....that'll shut him up....  
> 
> EDIT-(Please note winky/smilie. This indicates that the views expressed before the winky/smilie are most likely light-hearted and even downright silly. Perhaps even designed to amuse, or diffuse tension.)


Hehe, you're lucky I saw that smiley.  :Grin: 

*deletes lengthy, and most likely futile, response*

----------


## Jeid

> It is my opinion that I don't think the two positions can co-exist without one impinging on the credibility of the other.


Just as well Bill and Niall don't run the Org based on your opinion then? Just because you don't think the two positions can co-exist, it must stop.

Come on then clever clogs... what's the alternative? No mods? Only mods? Mods can be mods but can't post? If you couldn't post, why would you bother visiting the forum? Seems like a waste of time.

----------


## bekisman

Hi Golach - seeing you pointed me towards the rules, maybe you can help in pointing out why this post below resulted in my getting three infraction points?

http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=315354
Bluetongue virus in Scotland
Movement restrictions have been imposed on the farm near Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Galloway..
One of 35 cattle imported from a farm in Bremen tested positive for the virus following routine post-import testing undertaken by the Animal Health Agency..
The infected animal will be culled to minimise the risk of disease spreading.. A one-off isolated case? 

I presumed I was following the rules - I have no desire to leave the Org, I find it interesting and I post things that usually have a bearing on Caithness or Scotland..

----------


## Metalattakk

> Just as well Bill and Niall don't run the Org based on your opinion then? Just because you don't think the two positions can co-exist, it must stop.


I never said it must stop. Too many assumptions are being made.




> Come on then clever clogs... what's the alternative? No mods? Only mods? Mods can be mods but can't post? If you couldn't post, why would you bother visiting the forum? Seems like a waste of time.


Just a quick thought on this:
A moderation style which allows moderators to post freely, yet takes into account that there must be some distance kept between user and moderator, might work. It does elsewhere, in many cases.

----------


## golach

> Hi Golach - seeing you pointed me towards the rules, maybe you can help in pointing out why this post below resulted in my getting three infraction points?
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=315354
> Bluetongue virus in Scotland
> Movement restrictions have been imposed on the farm near Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Galloway..
> One of 35 cattle imported from a farm in Bremen tested positive for the virus following routine post-import testing undertaken by the Animal Health Agency..
> The infected animal will be culled to minimise the risk of disease spreading.. A one-off isolated case? 
> 
> I presumed I was following the rules - I have no desire to leave the Org, I find it interesting and I post things that usually have a bearing on Caithness or Scotland..


I am no longer a Moderator, and have not been for some time now, so I cannot comment in any way. May I suggest you take that up with the present Admin.

----------


## changilass

Bekisman - you should see a reason next to your infraction points that will give you an idea as to why.

----------


## bekisman

Golach; _"I am no longer a Moderator, and have not been for some time now, so I cannot comment in any way. May I suggest you take that up with the present Admin."_

Would really love to do so, I did, but 'fraid didn't get a reply

Changilass: _"Bekisman - you should see a reason next to your infraction points that will give you an idea as to why."_ 

It did; 'trolling' (can't find how posting did this?)

----------


## canuck

> Hi Golach - seeing you pointed me towards the rules, maybe you can help in pointing out why this post below resulted in my getting three infraction points?
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=315354
> Bluetongue virus in Scotland
> Movement restrictions have been imposed on the farm near Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Galloway..
> One of 35 cattle imported from a farm in Bremen tested positive for the virus following routine post-import testing undertaken by the Animal Health Agency..
> The infected animal will be culled to minimise the risk of disease spreading.. A one-off isolated case? 
> 
> I presumed I was following the rules - I have no desire to leave the Org, I find it interesting and I post things that usually have a bearing on Caithness or Scotland..


I am assuming that whatever caused the infraction points was removed from the thread at the time.

So, if this bit of blue type is still available on the board then it cannot be the bit that caused the problem that led to the issuing of infraction points.

----------


## Jeid

> Just a quick thought on this:
> A moderation style which allows moderators to post freely, yet takes into account that there must be some distance kept between user and moderator, might work. It does elsewhere, in many cases.


Moderators post freely here and there's none of that "distance between user and moderator" hoo-haa going on either, simply because nobody knows who the mods are.

Really, you're flogging a dead horse. The system works, the majority of the users on here seem happy... you're the only one that seems to be pushing the case.

----------


## bekisman

Canuck: _"I am assuming that whatever caused the infraction points was removed from the thread at the time. 
So, if this bit of blue type is still available on the board then it cannot be the bit that caused the problem that led to the issuing of infraction points."_

Hi Canuck, fraid it's correct what you see is exactly what I wrote.. nothing added, nothing taken away (hence my confusion)

----------


## octane

Ive seen hundreds of these threads over the years on so many forums, and i just have to laugh at them now as its the same tit for tat going no-where discussions. It ends up causing more trouble than what its worth and divides members apart with fall outs and lack of respect for each other as well as Admin whom devote a lot of there free time into keeping the site respectable

In my experience if theres problems on the forums or if admin have made a decision then the relevant people will be notified and can be discussed internally without the need for open discussions because its really no-one elses business at the end of the day.

Ive had a couple of infactions against me on here which i discussed with admin privately and were sorted out without the need for it spilling onto the forums whether i agreed to the outcome or not. You just move on and deal with it and its all forgotten about, dont let it get you down.

Ill openly disclose im a moderator on many forums but not saying where  :: 
but my user name and all the other mods have there names in a different font so people can see the currently active user lists and can distinguish who's admin so if they have any problems then they can quickly see who's available and discuss whatever. Common sense takes place and we only come into play if rules are broken, or if threads start to get out of hand or it starts getting personal then we will step in again and act accordingly.

On here admins idents are kept private, its something thats needs respect and i for one dont believe this promotes abuse of the position so that they can do as they want. In this day and age its probally more of a good thing because users can let decisions get to there head and end up taking it so seriously that they turn up at someones door if they found out there real identity.


Anyway this post doesnt just apply to this thread its more for a little reference

----------


## _Ju_

> And there we have another problem: Moderators want to be Orgers too. I'm not sure that can be possible.


I had to re-read this, to make sure I had not misunderstood. So, are you suggesting that a stranger in cyber-space be called in to moderate the org??? And in exchange for what? The priveledge of reading our delightful prose????? Or that once you gained the confidence of the owners of the site, due to your behaviour and love of the org, to be invited to become a mod, you precind what you enjoy doing to exclusively carry out the chore of moderation (yes, because once a person has any kind of regulatory duties, they are no longer allowed to be oppinionated)?????? 

The mistake is in the sequencing of your words. Moderators do not "want" to be orgers "as well". It should be "Orgers might be made Mods". Or Mods are Orgers who due to their reputation with the owners of this site, and because they like the org in it's current molds and want to play a part in keeping it this way, often to their personal detriment.

If the mods are anonymous guess what happens: they can be jus plain ole orgers.

----------


## nanoo

> I see Johno has joined the ranks of the 'suspended'.
> 
> I also notice that when someone is suspended all their contact details disappear (not simply the function to pm them but any private e-mail address they may have provided.) 
> 
> No-one can then seek out their side of the story.
> 
> 
> These are merely my observations...I am in no way attempting to evaluate them!


*Hi Karia, yes won't it be that bit duller without Johnos jokes for a while, i know a lot of orgers will miss this. Get back on line soon Johno we're missing you already.*

----------


## canuck

Humanity is wonderful, but humans are fragile.   Our life experiences sometimes imprint onto our individual selves unpleasant memories.  Org posts which for most of the readers go in one ear and out the other cause serious internal reactions for others.  

Sometimes people post in all innocense and have a reaction that they just did not expect.   I learned this the hard way about 2 years ago in an incident long forgotten by all but me and perhaps the person who reacted.   Fortunately there was a system in place to address it.  It was before the time of moderators, although their presence likely would not have made an impact on the situation.   One huge public apology on my part took the energy out of it though.

The point is that we are in a unique environment here on the internet.   On the Org, we have often discussed the factors that affect communication and so easily lead to misunderstandings.

Mods of any kind, but especially internet mods, are often dealing without all the information which they need to make a good decision in some cases of complaint.  And maybe sometimes they do get it wrong.   (I cannot believe that I typed that.)   But I suspect that it is rare.   Fortunately we have the options to discuss a case if we think that there has been a misunderstanding.

Yet, the moderators do volunteer their time and we must respect them for it.   Frivilous complaints and anxieties are not helpful.  Orgers get bored reading them and I would suspect that moderators tire of having to deal with them.

I am not an innocent in the pushing of the boundaries on the org.   I accept that I have added to the admins woes.   For that I am sorry.   Still, we have had some good times and I hope for many such days in the future.

----------


## bekisman

Thanks to all the Orgers who have been in contact with their advice and guidance, I've made the first move - will see what happens..

----------


## Metalattakk

> Really, you're flogging a dead horse. The system works, the majority of the users on here seem happy... you're the only one that seems to be pushing the case.


Tell that to bekisman, connieb19 or Thumper. There's three people who would disagree with your blasé statement that 'the system works'. In their cases, it didn't.

Seriously, this thread has been dragged far from it's original intention. I implore people to go back and read the first two or three pages again.

R.E.: Why can't reasons for post or thread deletions be given?

----------


## Jeid

Because they don't have to.

How many people are registered here? 3 disagree... oh noes!

----------


## Metalattakk

Poor show Jeid. Who cares if you don't care about the users, or how they feel that they've been mistreated?

That's three users who have the guts to ask questions when they feel they've been mistreated. Who knows how many more just sit back and say nothing, through fear of recriminations.

"Because they don't have to."?

It's not about 'having to', it's about common courtesy to the users of the board.



_Oh noes U R being killed now. Killed to deth!!!!1!1!oneoneoneeleven!! Oh noes! U R ded now. 
_

----------


## webmannie

There is still a 'bad taste' in my mouth from the previous 'shenanigans'. So you can add my name to the list of those that disagree Metalattakk.

I'm a believer in 'name and shame' and giving reasons why they are suspended. I've seen threads closed where my valid postings disappeared from the face of the earth, i was quite annoyed that the actions of another caused the whole thread to disappear. I believe that on the admin side of the board there is an option to delete a thread or a posting, who actually does the deletion the mod or admin?

----------


## connieb19

> Because they don't have to.
> 
> How many people are registered here? 3 disagree... oh noes!


You can multiply that by at least ten.  ::  I'm actually surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has. Usually people who speak up are banned, the threads removed and Hey presto it looks like everyones hunky dorey.

----------


## Thumper

Actually I am more than happy with the system, I only asked about my rep being removed because I didnt know that could happen,probably if I had read the rules properly I would have known about it and wouldnt have asked,believe me I wish i hadnt asked now,it was meant as a bit of fun,but turned into a big can of worms,spilling out everywhere!x

----------


## golach

> Because they don't have to.
> 
> How many people are registered here? 3 disagree... oh noes!


3 out of a currently active 1334 members, there are always those who will never agree with the majority, maybe they should form their own web site where there are no rules and no moderators, maybe they have done that already, and are in here trying to disrupt the Org.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Actually I am more than happy with the system, I only asked about my rep being removed because I didnt know that could happen,probably if I had read the rules properly I would have known about it and wouldnt have asked,believe me I wish i hadnt asked now,it was meant as a bit of fun,but turned into a big can of worms,spilling out everywhere!x


Then you have my apologies for using your name in error, Thumper. Sorry.




> 3 out of a currently active 1334 members, there are always those who will never agree with the majority, maybe they should form their own web site where there are no rules and no moderators, maybe they have done that already, and are in here trying to disrupt the Org.


Right, please tell me what is so disruptive about wanting mods to post a reason for a thread closure? And where on earth have I advocated a desire for 'no rules' or 'no moderators'?

----------


## Bobinovich

> I'm a believer in 'name and shame' and giving reasons why they are suspended. I've seen threads closed where my valid postings disappeared from the face of the earth, i was quite annoyed that the actions of another caused the whole thread to disappear. I believe that on the admin side of the board there is an option to delete a thread or a posting, who actually does the deletion the mod or admin?


Well the first part has already been answered - reasons for suspension are between the User and Admin and no-one else has any right to know other than that. This community really is too small to be virtually tarring and feathering users simply because they've broken the rules - it'd be like reading the court pages of 'e Groat!

If a post disappears from a thread it's usually because it's unsuitable or breaks forum rules and the poster generally receives a warning or infraction. If others quote (or refer to something from) said unsuitable post then they are usually pulled too for continuity. Are you suggesting that every one of those posters needs a PM saying why too? How much of our free time do you expect us to give?

In answer to your last query both Mods and Admin have the capability to delete posts and threads, however any contentious posts or threads are generally moved to the Mods forum so that we can discuss them and refer to them when issuing warnings or infractions. This way our actions can be seen by the other Mods & Admin thus ensuring we operate within our own guidelines. If after discussion the other Mods/Admin feel our actions are OTT then alternative action is taken which can include reinstatement of post(s), reversal of warnings/infractions, etc.  Strangely enough no Mod or Admin has ever thrown their toys out of the pram because something they've done has been over-ruled...




> Why can't reasons for post or thread deletions be given?


Well some of this is answered in my 2nd para above, however where do you suggest we do this? Do we insert a post where the deleted one was saying "Post deleted due to unsuitable language", etc, or leave the thread title up but with a single post saying "Thread deleted due to threatened Legal Action", etc.? If so exactly what purpose would that serve? Users would be reading the thread and come across a post saying "Post deleted..." and then move on, or read that the thread was deleted and move on. Other than cause the forums to be littered with nice informative posts to cater for the minority who insist on seeing what's going on, I ask again what purpose would it actually serve?




> I'm actually surprised this thread has lasted as long as it has. Usually people who speak up are banned, the threads removed and Hey presto it looks like everyones hunky dorey.


This thread has continued because I was happy to come on here in my official capacity and try and answer some of the queries. Otherwise you are right it probably would have been pulled as it really adds nothing to the forum other than to push Admin that wee bit closer to shutting them down.


Contrary to popular belief we are simply trying to do a job in order to keep the forums open. I really don't want to loose them - I've made a lot of friends thanks to them.

We do appear to be going round in circles with many of the comments so the thread has probably run its course and should be closed shortly, however I will leave it open for a while yet to allow any final comments - wouldn't want to be accused of being unfair  :Grin: . Once it's locked I do not expect to see another thread being opened to continue the arguments - it will be pulled as there has been plenty of opportunity for those with queries to have them answered. In the meantime I will be getting on with typing out, in the interest of transparency, an informative guide to this forums moderation policy.

By the way, the aforementioned idea of having a "Post Query to Mods" is a good one which I will enquire about, in the meantime I am willing to be a point of contact for the Mods (not Admin - please continue to address login or other problems to them), any queries will be posted in the Mods forum for discussion and answering by PM. PLEASE NOTE: If the query relates to a particular post then use the correct notification method, i.e. the red triangle with the black exclamation mark next to said post. If it relates to a whole thread then simply report the first post along with your message.

----------


## The Angel Of Death

> I'm a believer in 'name and shame' and giving reasons why they are suspended.


Exactly what should be in place in my opinion at least it shows what has happened and if nothing else gives an indication to others what not to do and will (hopefully) act as a deterand if nowt else

Another forum i am on will close a thread and does give an explanation as to why its been closed and also delete / edit the offending post i just think thats more useful rather than just deleting a thread because of the action of one (sometimes more) person and keeps the thread alive and above anything else its more of a courtesy (or even more friendly) to let you know rather than its gone tough deal with it etc

Just my opinion thats all

----------


## Metalattakk

> Well some of this is answered in my 2nd para above, however where do you suggest we do this? Do we insert a post where the deleted one was saying "Post deleted due to unsuitable language", etc, or leave the thread title up but with a single post saying "Thread deleted due to threatened Legal Action", etc.? If so exactly what purpose would that serve? Users would be reading the thread and come across a post saying "Post deleted..." and then move on, or read that the thread was deleted and move on. Other than cause the forums to be littered with nice informative posts to cater for the minority who insist on seeing what's going on, I ask again what purpose would it actually serve?


Yes, remove or edit the post, post title, and poster's name in question and leave a reason (such as you have indicated) in its place. This, as you say, causes no disruption to the thread, but lets people who are following the thread know why it was removed. It won't, as you suggest, 'cause the forums to be littered with nice informative posts', unless the vast majority of posts break the rules.

I ask you: What are your reasons for _not_ employing this system?

----------


## Ash

myself and my partner have received warnings over things that are extremely silly, in my opinion it feels like the mods stick up for the people they know and like, my OH received a warning about a thread he went to edit his comment but he couldnt as thread was closed but still received an infraction or whatever its called, his post was something he would write to anyone but because he didnt know the persons sitiuation he was given a warning.....

----------


## connieb19

> 3 out of a currently active 1334 members, there are always those who will never agree with the majority, maybe they should form their own web site where there are no rules and no moderators, maybe they have done that already, and are in here trying to disrupt the Org.


Why is trying to find out why your thread is removed trying to disrupt the org? I'd say it's the trigger happy mod who is deleting threads with apparently no reason that is trying to disrupt things. 
Why do you say MAYBE people have formed another website when you know damn well they have. The other forum has no connection to Caithness .Org.  You were quick enough to reveal what my user name was on the other forum is though. Or do you only have selective memory?

----------


## bekisman

Golach: _"3 out of a currently active 1334 members, there are always those who will never agree with the majority, maybe they should form their own web site where there are no rules and no moderators, maybe they have done that already, and are in here trying to disrupt the Org"_

Your flippant; _'maybe they should form their own web site where there are no rules and no moderators'_ is not justified, neither is the statement '_trying to disrupt the Org' -_ it would appear that if one has a valid point, forget it and just keep quiet. 
You, yourself are fully aware of my own 'concerns'. A present mod has already stated "You appear to have been having a rough time of it!" .. Reading this thread it seems there are others who have like myself very valid points,
my own point within this thread is that I did follow the rules.. 

This thread has attracted a huge number; near 4,000 views, does that not mean anything to you? - with a relatively small number of souls being prepared to put their head above the parapet.  

I recently formed and ran - single-handed - a very successful web-based organisation (Admin chief and certain mods know of this) with 3,000 members, dealing with the Police, missing persons, potential suicides, I mention this purely to show I therefore know what work is involved in controlling any organisation, and like the mods here, it was voluntary, I no longer do it; too old, grand-father of eight.. etc 
Now I am perfectly happy to post and answer threads on this website that is in my county; Caithness.org is a fantastic site, enjoyed by a multitude of surfers throughout the world, Bill and Niall have the right to be very proud of their achievement the General Forum is also a great place for discussion and light-hearted banter, a place like-minded (well not always!) folk from around the world can input their tupence worth. 

However I am not one to harbour grudges, life goes on, my three infraction points will expire 28th March, I will just accept these warnings, suspensions and infraction points. 

I will just have to moderate my postings.. somehow. 

keep smiling!

----------


## connieb19

Something does not add up here. On one hand  the mods need anonymity just incase things spill over into the real world but on the other hand everybody(except 3) is happy with the way things are are and there is never any problems.  ::

----------


## connieb19

However I am not one to harbour grudges, life goes on, my three infraction points will expire 28th March, I will just accept these warnings, suspensions and infraction points. 

I will just have to moderate my postings.. somehow. 

 Well said Bekisman. My problem is though that after I don't know how many attempts at finding out, I still have no idea why my thread was removed. If I don't know what it was that I did to break the rules then I have no possible way of knowing what it is about my posts that need moderating in the future. All I want to know is where I went wrong. It's no too much to ask surely.

----------


## Oddquine

> Well some of this is answered in my 2nd para above, however where do you suggest we do this? Do we insert a post where the deleted one was saying "Post deleted due to unsuitable language", etc, or leave the thread title up but with a single post saying "Thread deleted due to threatened Legal Action", etc.? If so exactly what purpose would that serve? Users would be reading the thread and come across a post saying "Post deleted..." and then move on, or read that the thread was deleted and move on. Other than cause the forums to be littered with nice informative posts to cater for the minority who insist on seeing what's going on, I ask again what purpose would it actually serve?


It would stop threads like this............and that would be no bad thing, imo.

Seems to me that the extra bit of bother to admin/mods is a small price to pay for peace.....and is polite, into the bargain. 




> This thread has continued because I was happy to come on here in my official capacity and try and answer some of the queries. Otherwise you are right it probably would have been pulled as it really adds nothing to the forum other than to push Admin that wee bit closer to shutting them down.


Do you mean all the forums, Bobinovich? Because if so, it seems to me a draconian response to an easily remedied problem.

----------


## The Angel Of Death

> My problem is though that after I don't know how many attempts at finding out, I still have no idea why my thread was removed. If I don't know what it was that I did to break the rules then I have no possible way of knowing what it is about my posts that need moderating in the future. All I want to know is where I went wrong. It's no too much to ask surely.


And thats why simply locking the thread and deleting all or the offending post and simply edit the post to say why it was removed would sort this one out straight away 

I wouldnt imagine it would take that much to do so a few mins tops maybe ???

----------


## starry

> And thats why simply locking the thread and deleting all or the offending post and simply edit the post to say why it was removed would sort this one out straight away 
> 
> I wouldnt imagine it would take that much to do so a few mins tops maybe ???


 
That is what I think as well, it would take minutes to explain why. Like I said pages ago, if folk don't know what they have done wrong how can they ensure they won't do it again  ::

----------


## cullbucket

> Contrary to popular belief we are simply trying to do a job in order to keep the forums open. I really don't want to *loose* them - I've made a lot of friends thanks to them.


Oh no not you as well....... (my bold in quote above)
(See loose for lose thread)
So it is prevalent in the UK too!!!!

----------


## Bobinovich

Aaaarggggghhh - I'm sorry! I'm usually so careful too - much to my OH's annoyance sometimes.

I'll try and do better LOL!

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

For any weekend/irregular visitors to this forum we are leaving this thread open for a few more days to allow new queries to be aired regarding the Caithness.org Moderation policy.  If this is a subject you feel strongly about then please take the time to read through all the posts to ensure that you are not covering old ground.  To posters who have already had their say, unless you have a previously unaired query, please allow the rest of the membership to have theirs.  I will try and answer as many queries as possible, however, as mentioned previously, I will not enter into discussion, either on the board or via PM, on any individual situations.

At the end of this process, the ideas and queries will be taken and a comprehensive moderation policy document produced and posted.  Hopefully this will improve the way Moderators respond to posts which contravene the Forum Rules, and also end speculation about how and why Moderators carry out their functions.

----------


## maidencaithness

I use/have used many other forums and this is the only one in which I have to think before typing in case I slip in a "bad" word or be too contraversial and generally post less than I might do.  Removing threads can be a necessity but should always be explained and done for the right reasons.

The other forums also have younger persons on them and are run/moderated by unpaid persons but they take a more laid back approach to moderating.  Would reckon every child by time reaches 12 knows more swear words than their parents!  And sometimes the odd mild four letter word is needed.

Plus receiving 5 infraction points (or whatever they are) that will never expire for failing to change my email addie (changed ISP about a week before my birthday) seemed very 1984 to me.  Maybe all us proles we should all move to Oceania unless this is it!

----------


## Yoda the flump

As to naming who the Mods are some of them make it too easy to identify.  

They seem to have very large egos!

----------


## Punk_Bassist

In total agreement with Starry,let people defend there rights.I take it this how we are missing the favourite Johno.

----------


## Billy Boy

[quote=Bobinovich;320716]Firstly I have no problem in admitting to be a Mod, however there are couple of reasons why the Mods names were removed from view. Firstly, remembering that we are all volunteers who also come onto the Org to read and post in our own right (as we have done for years), we found that when we were logging in we were being inundated with PMs querying this and that, instead of using the appropriate Report Post facility. By the time we had worked our way through these PMs our own Org experience was being diluted and we were rapidly loosing interest. By removing the names from view we no longer have this problem -


If they do not wish to be named why then do some still use the privillage of having custom made status's under their avatar's, ( as has been pointed out in the testing ground ) making it plainly obvious that they are moderators ::  to name but a few there is yourself technorger, also get.organised, Orgonaut, Wonky Orger.

----------


## hotrod4

In my humbel opinion Mods are needed,BUT as stated by numerous people on here explanations need to be given when threads pulled,posts removed etc as we are a democracy arent we?

In a democratic society explanations are given to explain decisions which affect us all. surely a few seconds can be spared to explain why posts have been removed etc?
Without rules there is chaos and anarchy but if a society doesnt "trust" the people there supposed to represent with information then a cliche is formed with only those "trusted" with info who have the power.

Simply put why cant explanations be given? it would stop all the paranoia and accusations wouldnt it? and allow us all on  t'org to get on with having some fun and posting safe in the knowledge that the mods are there and will inform and entertain us!!!!!  :Wink:

----------


## Bobinovich

Thank you all for your comments.  As previously mentioned the moderation policy will shortly be typed up and posted which should make it clearer how the Mods operate.  A clarification of some of the Forum Rules will probably be required, such as newer definitions which, until now, have been lumped under the Trolling heading, this in turn means that the reasons for warnings or infractions should be clearer too.

Probably the main point raised is the lack of feedback when a post or thread is removed.  With this in mind we are going to implement leaving notes where posts or threads are removed.  Please bear with us on this - it may take us a few minutes to get a note in place, especially as it's not something we've done before.

Other ideas raised in this thread will be discussed and may become integrated into the Mods policy over time.

Although I've closed this thread, I remain available if members require a point of contact for any non-post related queries.  For bringing posts to our attention please continue to use the Report Post facility (red triangle with black exclamation mark), and for any password/account enquiries please continue to contact Admin - they are busy but I'm sure will endeavour to try and resolve your enquiries.

Thanks again

----------

