Real, if not useful suggestions.
Ivanhoe started a very important thread. It is not my intention to hijack his good work, for which he deserves much thanks, but to repair our course of thought and begin a discussion of real actions. These are specific suggestions, unrelated to personal complaints, intended to assist the MS Administration in understanding our needs from them and the Moderators. If this seems pompous, I apologize in advance. Its only meant to be helpful.
In the recent turmoil that erupted here, there are several issues evident. Abuse of trust, expressions of hostility, multiple screen names, manipulative self-editing and simple misunderstanding.
The main question which has come out of discussing these issues has been: What is the role of the Moderators in controlling these factors?
For this to remain a viable forum for the exchange of thought and helpful observations that role must necessarily be limited. They can be relieved of some of their responsibility by the inclusion of a must check to proceed disclaimer before posting privileges are allowed. It should include specific language concerning what the Moderators will and will not do to settle disagreements. It should spell out unacceptable behavior and the steps that will be taken to correct that behavior. And it should recommend a set of rules for self protection against lurking abusers.
The Moderators should be endowed with absolute temporary editing power, with mandatory review by committee. The edited individual must be immediately notified of the editors rational, given recourse to private rebuttal, and the editors record of editing should be under frequent review by his peers and open to discussion with Administration by concerned members.
Self-editing should be subject to authorization. The intent of the edit and its affect on subsequent posts should be taken into consideration.
Private Messages should be viewable by Administrators upon request from the recipient.
In any dispute that erupts before the Moderators can gain control, their intercession should be guided by concepts of justice rather than peace. Members will perceive safety in righteous action rather than in dead calm. Misunderstandings can be reasonably moderated among caring people, but abuse must be met head on with solid action. That is, after all, what we are about.
These suggestions are just an outline of my own thought in this matter. There is no demand or expectation intended. We need help, and this is how I feel about the help we need.
Aden
In the recent turmoil that erupted here, there are several issues evident. Abuse of trust, expressions of hostility, multiple screen names, manipulative self-editing and simple misunderstanding.
The main question which has come out of discussing these issues has been: What is the role of the Moderators in controlling these factors?
For this to remain a viable forum for the exchange of thought and helpful observations that role must necessarily be limited. They can be relieved of some of their responsibility by the inclusion of a must check to proceed disclaimer before posting privileges are allowed. It should include specific language concerning what the Moderators will and will not do to settle disagreements. It should spell out unacceptable behavior and the steps that will be taken to correct that behavior. And it should recommend a set of rules for self protection against lurking abusers.
The Moderators should be endowed with absolute temporary editing power, with mandatory review by committee. The edited individual must be immediately notified of the editors rational, given recourse to private rebuttal, and the editors record of editing should be under frequent review by his peers and open to discussion with Administration by concerned members.
Self-editing should be subject to authorization. The intent of the edit and its affect on subsequent posts should be taken into consideration.
Private Messages should be viewable by Administrators upon request from the recipient.
In any dispute that erupts before the Moderators can gain control, their intercession should be guided by concepts of justice rather than peace. Members will perceive safety in righteous action rather than in dead calm. Misunderstandings can be reasonably moderated among caring people, but abuse must be met head on with solid action. That is, after all, what we are about.
These suggestions are just an outline of my own thought in this matter. There is no demand or expectation intended. We need help, and this is how I feel about the help we need.
Aden