Should the Forum have a 'highway code' for the better conduct of Forum buisness ?
Introduction
The use of the word 'censorship' is a highly emotive one in any 'free' Society. We all value 'free speech' and will defend our right to exrcise it.
However I think 'censorship' is the wrong word to use to describe how a forum should be kept in good order.
Everything that has been written about internet forums all say the same thing, that a policy of unbridled 'free-for-all-and-anything-goes' sounds hugely attractive but is a recipe for disaster. Such liberty in any forum is open to abuse, & regrettably that has happened in this Forum.
This Forum badly needs its own 'highway code' that members accept and by which they agree to abide.
Members need to agree how breaches of the 'highway code' should be managed. The best means of doing this in this forum is for there to be a small group of moderators approved by the members to have oversight of this task.
Moderation would be governed by a protocol acceptable to the membership.
This Forum has aims, objectives and a Mission. Our 'highway code' starts with the statement: Members are expected to make contributions in conformity with the Forum's aims, objectives & Mission (ie: 'drive on the left side of the road' !)
Forum etiquette
I suggest that this Forum's ' 'Highway Code' should be as follows:
(1) Posts should be made in line with the Forum's aims, objectives & mission
(2) comments to a post should be in response to the Post by addressing the issues therein
(3) comments under a Post that are not about or related to the Post are not acceptable (it's so, so easy to get off track from the subject of the original Post!)
'(4) trolling' is not allowed (see definition below)
(5) 'flaming' is not allowed (see definition below)
(6) the use of vulgar/obscene/offensive/racist or insulting language is not allowed
(7) statements that are considered libelous are not allowed
Definitions of 'trolling' & 'flaming'
-
A 'troll' is invariably someone with 'a chip on their shoulder' or with 'an axe to grind' who uses a forum for their own agenda. 'Trolls' are a disruptive & divisive influence in any forum;
-
'trolls' seduce forum members into responding angrily to their contributions by using subtle, but controversial language;
-
'trolls' will often divert a discussion off track in order to impose their own separate agenda;
-
'trolls' are often 'outsiders' who enter a forum to disrupt its mission & cause chaos & division
-
To 'flame' another forum member is to attack them or their ideas in a hostile and rantish fashion. 'Trolls' use 'flaming' as their primary weapon
Role of moderators
Essentially moderators oversee a forum:
(1) to see that forum etiquette is observed
(2) to deal with incidents of 'trolling' & 'flaming'
(3) to take action on breaches of forum etiquette in accord with a protocol agreed by the members
(4) to receive & act on complaints made by one member in repect of another member's post/behaviour in accord with the protocol
Conclusion
If the vote on this Poll shows a majority in favour of a new 'highway code' for the better conduct of the business of the Forum, then I am sure ng will be pleased to accept nominations from members willing to be moderators.
This will relieve ng of the onerous task of being sole 'watchman'. He has enough on his plate being the Manager & Administrator of 2 - & shortly 3 - forums without having to 'moderate' as well.
After election I suggest that the moderators & ng then draft a protocol that members can vote on which will aim at balancing the importance of 'free speech' against the need to maintain forum etiquette where this is being seriously compromised.
Honestly LJ I don't think it would achieve anything. My recent post on the topic was in direct response to a thread elsewhere. The "offenders" are almost invariably a limited few (we probably know who they are already) and once "trouble" breaks out people are usually in a frame of mind such that they wouldn't go and check the "Code of Conduct" let alone abide by it. "Be nice" is really all that needs to be said - does it even need to be said?
Forums with with teenagers in them are a different matter. Here we only have a few that act like teenagers from time to time!
And to be honest... there's a value in "bad" posts... it helps us all understand better who to trust and who not to trust, who has a hidden agenda and who doesn't.
There is much evidence that members feel the need for a 'highway code' for the Forum. & I am pleased that ng has elsewhere now put together the basis of a 'highway code' for the better conduct of the way in which members particuipate in it.
As I have stated before I entirely support the ideal that a forum should be self moderating, but this can only happen when everyone abides by the terms of the 'highway code' to which they subscribe.
I hope that ng will now put in one place his code of conduct, preferably with a link to it on the top navigation bar of the Forum. Personally I would have liked to have seen members having input into the drafting of a code, and ideally to have had some say in overseeing it by electing a small number of moderators for that purpose.
It is, of course, up to ng as manager & administrator of the Forum whether he invites members to agree to its terms, otherwise I suggest that abiding by the 'highway code' may be considered as permissive & not mandatory. The alternative would be for the code to have a concluding paragraph that states that participation in the business of the Forum is conditional on the terms of the code being accepted.
Please accept these comments and the poll (& my previous comments below) as being exactly as I intended, namely a constructive, positive and helpful contribution to facilitate the better conduct of Forum business.
Lucky Jim - Ok, but it's weird that when one clicks on the "chat forums" on your website one has the option to go either to whenbankscrash.com (which nobody uses) or to go the manxforum.com websites (which you caution against as it is full of not very nice people).
Why is there not a third option to link to this website (which is used by many and is, of course, full of exceptionally nice people)? :)
To clarify on what is publicly visible: among other things, all blog posts and many forum topics (but not their comments). This visibility might change in the future. The site is primarily intended for depositors, and in principle all friendly parties are welcome to use it, but that starts to get rather difficult to define let alone control.
You can always check on what's publicly visible by logging out.
Hi manx-person,
I have reworded the sentence to which you refer. Do please e-mail me the other points with which you take issue & I will be pleased to correct any inaccuracies. Many thanks ( :
Hi Chris Watson
To answer your query, the alternative site has members from the DAG website. It is a public site with a link to the DAG Public website which, as you say, has a link to the Chat Forum. However the Chat Forum is for bona fide members of the DAG, & public access to content thereon is resticted.
But the thing is
(1) Isn't the details of the website and its objectives in the post above spam?
(2) You site misinforms and reports inaccurately for example:
Compensation in a nutshell :Depositors are now officially subject to the IoM government's statutory Depositors' Compensation Scheme (DCS)
This is wrong, they are not "subject to" - It should read something like Eligible depositors are able to make a claim on the IOMG DCS.
I think before interfering and spamming other sites, you should put your own house (site) in order.
The above is just one example of inaccuracy, the (your) site is littered with them
I've just remembered a little ditty that might be sufficient in isolation as a code of conduct:
Be a thermostat, not a thermometer
We have some excellent thermostats on the site, but rather too many thermometers, and one of them exploded recently.
Hi Lucky Jim,
Out of interest, on "your" website when you click on the button that says "chat forums", why is there no link to this one?
I know you can get to this chat forum via different routes from your website, but wouldn't it be simpler to just add a link when you click the "chat forums" button?
Hope this feedback from a depositor is useful for you.
Hi manx-person www.kaupthingiom-dag.co.uk is an alternative public site set up because a large number of members who voted on the related Poll felt there was a need for it. It is a site designed to be more 'visually' appealing to the public as well as one for the benefit of members who find the Chat Forum very difficult to navigate to get what they are looking for.
Like the DAG's official public site the alternative site is not interactive so it doesn't have the issues that arise on the interactive Chat Forum, & there are a number that are currently of great concern to many members. A pretty serious 'flame war' was started in this Forum over the CC issue which I am told has been broadcasted loudly in another forum as evidence that the DAG is in disarray & falling apart. Bad news.
As webmaster I am keen that the site should continue to be of real benefit to members so I am open to any suggestions that will enhance its stated objectives., namely:
to offer depositors an easy to navigate website that gives them the essential facts along with up-to-date progress reports on efforts to recover all of their money;
to offer the public the facts of the demise of the Kaupthing IoM bank, and the depositors' just claim for a return of their money that was put in the trust of a solvent, triple-A credit rated bank.
What I have proposed in this Poll is not new. It has been adopted by other forums with such success that they have become self-moderating as members follow the code of conduct that they themselves have drawn up. Free speech is exercised freely without bickering, backbiting, snide comments, insults, mudslinging, foul language & libellous remarks. In netiquette parlance that is what is called 'flaming'.
'Trolls' are 'flamers' but I accept that not all 'flamers' are 'trolls'! Best then not to 'flame' & look like a ''troll'! ( :
A 'troll' is invariably someone with 'a chip on their shoulder' or with 'an axe to grind' who uses a forum for their own agenda.
Agreed. But in practice it's near impossible to define properly and so identify unacceptable behaviour based on such definitions. Here are some examples of practices which could be considered to indicate that a person had a hidden agenda, yet we know from experience that such a conclusion would not be correct:
• creating new polls for topics that have already been discussed and voted on
• blatant and repeated adverts for other web-sites
• creating polls where the wording of the choices is deliberately chosen in order to try to force a desired result
It's clearly possible for undesirable behaviour to be accidental, or motivated by false beliefs that a person is not even aware that they have. So, I suggest that we all check our shoulders regularly and suitably dispose of any foreign matter along with our non-functional wood chopping equipment. Getting it all out into the open is what's important. There, I've done mine!
Given that LJ has a "free site" that he presides over perhaps he could advise if he has implemented such a policy on that site, and also whether this policy extends to its editorial content?
I fully agree with you manx-person. To date, this site has been well moderated with out a written law of protocol.
Where moderation has been required, it has been applied appropriately.
Those who are administrating this site have been doing a good job and no doubt their time would be better spent on focusing on the 100% return strategy.
If its not broke don't fix it.
This isn't a Local Government Committee.
I remember a case study on British Telecom.dress code I studied.
http://www.johnkay.com/in_action/70
I think that the moderation has been appropriate and proportionate. When I have had "issues" that needed to be resolved I found ng to be very prompt in dealing with them, and impartial.
I personally don't think there is need for any unnecessary bureaucracy..
What is the significance for us of the news in the last 24 hours that Icelandic government is recapitalising the banks, with deals done with creditors of the old ones? Does this mean we will be seeing some return under the PG?
Please focus on practical proposals. Certainly a "code of conduct" is a valid concept, but I would hope that it is implicit, and certainly needs to be short. Here's my suggestion
Unfortunately, only the first point is a simple definition, the rest need to be interpreted, so ultimately there will always be one or more "judges" involved. If a team, how will they communicate among themselves? How will we know that they don't have ulterior motives? I'd personally want to feel I could totally trust the person/people who are doing the moderating. And that of course, is why I am comfortable with the current system, because I trust me to do the job well. I appreciate that it's my responsibility to convince others of that.
As a further suggestion create a project group to draw up a "code of conduct", put the result to a vote, and I will gladly abide by it.
ng has stated here: "Another issue is who should decide what is and isn't allowed? Right now that decision comes down to me, though of course I welcome input from others. I would also welcome any practical proposals as to how control might be improved."
This Poll has been posted as a practical & workable solution in response to his invitation. It would empower members to consider & vote on a protocol and to chose who amongst them should be trusted with upholding the 'highway code'.
It is NOT an attempt to censor anything but to provide modertion if the protocol agreed by members says it is inadmissible (eg: the editing of a libellous statement)