Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Discussing discussions

Formerly "Lemon Fool - Improve the Recipe" repurposed as Room 102 (see above).
XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Discussing discussions

#75365

Postby XFool » August 18th, 2017, 10:52 am

Whereas in general I think the Moderation on TLF is, IMO, proving more intelligible and effective than on TMF, I think a mistake has been made in the case of shutting down the discussion about the copywrite 'issue'.

Some may or may not have been getting aerated but for myself, and I am sure others, I was simple seeking clarification and understanding of the background in as much detail as possible. Surely that is a good thing? Also I was trying to make some possibly helpful suggestions. This now all seems impossible.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75367

Postby redsturgeon » August 18th, 2017, 11:00 am

Moderator Message:
Clarification is on its way very soon.

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75395

Postby mc2fool » August 18th, 2017, 12:12 pm

XFool wrote:Whereas in general I think the Moderation on TLF is, IMO, proving more intelligible and effective than on TMF, I think a mistake has been made in the case of shutting down the discussion about the copywrite 'issue'.

Some may or may not have been getting aerated but for myself, and I am sure others, I was simple seeking clarification and understanding of the background in as much detail as possible. Surely that is a good thing? Also I was trying to make some possibly helpful suggestions. This now all seems impossible.

Yes, and it's not only the copyright discussion that's been forcibly shut down recently. Others too where folks were also making constructive observations, and others where there's not been any obvious breach of the rules, but both just not going the way of the mod's opinions, have also been forcibly shut down.

There is apparently an implicit no meta-discussion or discussion of moderation except in the Biscuit Bar rule -- although there is no such rule specified in app.php/rules -- and I know that in phpBB mods can move posts to other forums, and I would suggest to mods that moving such posts to the Biscuit Bar really would be far preferable to just reaching for the delete/edit and lock functions.

Everyone knows that there has to be a level of moderation, and everyone also know that, inevitably, sometimes some folks will disagree with some decisions, but I would suggest that it is how that is handled that makes the difference. The recent tendency to forcibly shut down (lock out) discussion of such has already caused three or four regular posters to quit the site.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75401

Postby redsturgeon » August 18th, 2017, 12:24 pm

mc2fool wrote:
XFool wrote:Whereas in general I think the Moderation on TLF is, IMO, proving more intelligible and effective than on TMF, I think a mistake has been made in the case of shutting down the discussion about the copywrite 'issue'.

Some may or may not have been getting aerated but for myself, and I am sure others, I was simple seeking clarification and understanding of the background in as much detail as possible. Surely that is a good thing? Also I was trying to make some possibly helpful suggestions. This now all seems impossible.

Yes, and it's not only the copyright discussion that's been forcibly shut down recently. Others too where folks were also making constructive observations, and others where there's not been any obvious breach of the rules, but both just not going the way of the mod's opinions, have also been forcibly shut down.

There is apparently an implicit no meta-discussion or discussion of moderation except in the Biscuit Bar rule -- although there is no such rule specified in app.php/rules -- and I know that in phpBB mods can move posts to other forums, and I would suggest to mods that moving such posts to the Biscuit Bar really would be far preferable to just reaching for the delete/edit and lock functions.

Everyone knows that there has to be a level of moderation, and everyone also know that, inevitably, sometimes some folks will disagree with some decisions, but I would suggest that it is how that is handled that makes the difference. The recent tendency to forcibly shut down (lock out) discussion of such has already caused three or four regular posters to quit the site.


Moderator Message:
Thanks for the suggestion of moving posts but having been told more than once about not having meta discussion on the PD then the onus is on the poster to post on the correct board not on me as a moderator to move it.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75404

Postby redsturgeon » August 18th, 2017, 12:29 pm

Moderator Message:
Can I also point you to this message in case you have not seen it. viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75409

Postby dspp » August 18th, 2017, 12:42 pm

mc2, xfool, et al,

From time to time something crops up that gets us on the backfoot. Sometimes we need a bit of breathing space to figure out the right way forwards. Please bear with us when that happens. I hope in this particular instance we have found a suitable solution and have done so within a reasonable timescale.

My personal thanks to Stooz and Clariman for being patient whilst the various points of view were put forwards and explained. And then they have made what appears (from my perspective) to be a reasonable judgement call.

app.php/rules

Meta-discussions re moderation and similar matters must, by their very nature, be contained to a small place. Otherwise it becomes the bulletin board equivalent of Japanese knotweed. For TLF that place is the Biscuit Bar. Hopefully it won't be called for to be used in that way very often.

regards, dspp

mswjr
Lemon Slice
Posts: 701
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75414

Postby mswjr » August 18th, 2017, 12:53 pm

mc2fool wrote:
XFool wrote:Whereas in general I think the Moderation on TLF is, IMO, proving more intelligible and effective than on TMF, I think a mistake has been made in the case of shutting down the discussion about the copywrite 'issue'.

Some may or may not have been getting aerated but for myself, and I am sure others, I was simple seeking clarification and understanding of the background in as much detail as possible. Surely that is a good thing? Also I was trying to make some possibly helpful suggestions. This now all seems impossible.

Yes, and it's not only the copyright discussion that's been forcibly shut down recently. Others too where folks were also making constructive observations, and others where there's not been any obvious breach of the rules, but both just not going the way of the mod's opinions, have also been forcibly shut down.

There is apparently an implicit no meta-discussion or discussion of moderation except in the Biscuit Bar rule -- although there is no such rule specified in app.php/rules -- and I know that in phpBB mods can move posts to other forums, and I would suggest to mods that moving such posts to the Biscuit Bar really would be far preferable to just reaching for the delete/edit and lock functions.

Everyone knows that there has to be a level of moderation, and everyone also know that, inevitably, sometimes some folks will disagree with some decisions, but I would suggest that it is how that is handled that makes the difference. The recent tendency to forcibly shut down (lock out) discussion of such has already caused three or four regular posters to quit the site.


I agree with you.

I very much appreciate TLF, its founders, and the volunteers who keep it going, and I acknowledge it is considered ungracious to criticise volunteers.

However, the moderation going on within Polite Discussions has been rather singular. Another commentator (in another deleted post) called it 'aggressive', to which I would add 'inconsistent' and often 'partisan'.

Too often, comments are removed because a mod has taken it upon his/ her self to determine it could/ might/ maybe cause offence to someone or other, somewher or other, under some circumstance or other.
Why not just wait until someone actually does express concern? Why police so aggressively? A little too PC perhaps, or an indulgence of a particular point of view?

Or whole contributions are deleted because one element has been determined 'off topic' by a mod.

To what end is all this mod's angst being directed?
It can't be to protect TLF from 'association' with unpalatable opinions such as eg the Grenfell residents were 'murdered', or that the Manchester atrocity was somehow part of Mrs May's election playbook, because those assertions remained unchallenged by moderation. (Quite right too, odious though they are).
So what is it? Why were threads locked on 13th and 14th August, for instance? Why the hyper activity?

I understand I have crossed the Rubicon by criticising some mods, and would expect TLF to support them, but unless there is a recognisable level of consistency within moderation then that support is going to get harder and harder to provide, surely?
It would be a shame if that effort itself, a consequence of inconsistent moderation,then led to the PD board getting shut down.
Here's a suggestion. More subtle moderation and, dare I say it, rather more polite and respectful moderation, and I am quite sure most of the problems you percive you may have with PD will actually disappear.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75420

Postby dspp » August 18th, 2017, 1:10 pm

msj,

I don't Mod on PD so this is just my opinion.

Something came up re intellectual property. Rightly or wrongly TLF took the precautionary approach initially. That got some in a huff. To stop it blowing up further the mods inevitably have to lock down quite hard. It doesn't help when some of the folk that get in a huff are at the more - shall we say - obsessive / paranoid end of the spectrum. Whilst TLF was figuring it out some have thrown their toys out the pram. TLF has now figured it out. Various requests to relax for a while were ignored by some folk. Now TLF has an updated rule re intellectual property.

All along from where I sat no individual was targetted in any way by any mod. You say the moderation in PD was 'singular'. In my personal opinion the whole of PD is 'singular' and so moderation there is an aunt sally that some people will (and do) swing against continually. Including off-board via PMs and such like. The easiest thing in the world would be for Stooz and Clariman to just shut the PD side.

As they say "Just because I am paranoid does not mean they're not out to get me". In this instance paranoia re moderation directed against individuals would not be appropriate in my opinion. There are quite a lot of checks and balances built in informally behind the scenes between sufficient mods that no mod can act unreasonably for very long - and I've ever never even seen one try. Nevertheless sometimes stuff happens, and it is generally CU not conspiracy when it does. Let's move forwards graciously and keep on thanking them all for keeping the lights on and the wheels turning.

regards, dspp

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 8912
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 1309 times
Been thanked: 3667 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75422

Postby redsturgeon » August 18th, 2017, 1:15 pm

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Ralph Waldo Emerson.


Moderation by its very nature will never be totally consistent or totally unbiased, it may be an aim or an aspiration but we will always fall short. It was always the case that Polite Discussions on TLF was to be moderated more closely than other boards and this has proved to be the case.

In fact from the very beginning I was one of the voices arguing from the inside that we should include such a board...believe me it could so easily not happened.

I would suggest people who wish to use the board should look forwards rather than backwards. Things got messy over the last few days, the mess has been cleared, time to move on.

All are welcome as long as they abide by the rules. Moderators may not get it right all the time but this is not our full time job, we have other things to do and we try our best. We are volunteers who give our time freely to try to make this site accessible to all, a little consideration of that would not go amiss.

John

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75425

Postby Clariman » August 18th, 2017, 1:21 pm

redsturgeon wrote:In fact from the very beginning I was one of the voices arguing from the inside that we should include such a board...believe me it could so easily not happened.

This is completely true. When Stooz and I set up TLF, we did not want to create a board like the Land of Serious Topics (LoST), so having a Polite Discussions board was not on the top of our list. When we agreed to have one, we named it "Polite Discussions" and asked for attentive moderation for a reason. Naturally, that won't suit everyone but that's the way it is.

Clariman

PinkDalek
Lemon Half
Posts: 6139
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 1589 times
Been thanked: 1801 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75427

Postby PinkDalek » August 18th, 2017, 1:24 pm

dspp wrote:I don't Mod on PD so this is just my opinion. ...

The easiest thing in the world would be for Stooz and Clariman to just shut the PD side. ...

regards, dspp


Please, no, it might be an easy option but would not be Foolish.

I've said it before and have seen it happen here. Some of those who enjoy the cut and thrust of "Polite Discussions" merely move on to other boards and the Moderators will be even more busy than now.

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75429

Postby mc2fool » August 18th, 2017, 1:28 pm

redsturgeon wrote:Thanks for the suggestion of moving posts but having been told more than once about not having meta discussion on the PD then the onus is on the poster to post on the correct board not on me as a moderator to move it.

I was talking generally and without a reference to any specific cases (of which I suspect we'd be thinking of different ones anyway).

dspp wrote:From time to time something crops up that gets us on the backfoot.

My post was more general than just the copyright issue, being about the recent tendency to forcibly shut down some discussions (of which the copyright issue was just one).

Meta-discussions re moderation and similar matters must, by their very nature, be contained to a small place. Otherwise it becomes the bulletin board equivalent of Japanese knotweed. For TLF that place is the Biscuit Bar. Hopefully it won't be called for to be used in that way very often.

I don't disagree but, as I pointed out above, it appears to be one of those Lootman-styled "secret" rules in that it isn't specified in app.php/rules

(To be clear, I, along with I'm sure everyone else that came across from TMF, don't actually think it's a "secret" rule, 'cos it's part of the ex-TMF culture that we brought with us. What I am doing is dropping a hint that it really should be specified in app.php/rules. Easy to do and non-contentious, I'd think ... :D)

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75430

Postby Clariman » August 18th, 2017, 1:28 pm

Another important reason for PD being firmly moderated is that TLF has twice been threatened with having its ability to display Adverts, revoked. This has been due to the contents of user posts.

Up until recently, adverts were the only form of income that TLF had to pay for the resources it uses. Of course, we now have the option of voluntary donation, but this has not proved very popular with members with less than 1% having contributed so far. So advertising revenue remains important.

Clariman

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75438

Postby XFool » August 18th, 2017, 1:46 pm

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959

That seems more or less in line with what I have always assumed and done in practice.

The only likely exception being the Independent's apparent absolutist stance - as stated in their T&Cs. If we are allowed to discuss it.

That struck me as rather self defeating, frankly. They moved to online due to dwindling paper sales, but if one seriously attends to what they appear to be saying then the only completely safe option is for everyone online to IGNORE the Independent. No quotes, no extracts etc. In other words no referring to the Independent, no informal indirect advertising of the Independent, no drawing attention to the Independent!

What IS the 'business model'? If I had any shares in the Independent I'd sell them at this point.

My impression from other sites is they are really concerned legally with commercial sites using extracts and, if TLF is non commercial, used by private individuals for personal reasons, most agencies would not be too concerned as long as it is the usual "fair use" as outlined in the link. I don't know if TLM asking for donations makes it commercial.

The Independent (as others) has an email link listed in their T&Cs for requesting permission to quote extracts. So anybody could approach them over the matter if further clarification were needed.

Clariman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3268
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:17 am
Has thanked: 3077 times
Been thanked: 1557 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75441

Postby Clariman » August 18th, 2017, 1:58 pm

XFool wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959

That seems more or less in line with what I have always assumed and done in practice.

Excellent. Nothing to worry about then.

The only likely exception being the Independent's apparent absolutist stance - as stated in their T&Cs. If we are allowed to discuss it.


Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

The Independent (as others) has an email link listed in their T&Cs for requesting permission to quote extracts. So anybody could approach them over the matter if further clarification were needed.

Feel free, but be careful what you ask for as you never know the response you might get :D

Clariman

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75442

Postby dspp » August 18th, 2017, 2:02 pm

In the course of reviewing the Indie's Ts & Cs it turned out that others were making similar land grab Ts & Cs claims (i.e. no quotation allowed at all). I can't recall who as the individual entities are not that relevant. But there are quite a few.

In my opinion such claims are likely to become more aggressive, not less, and more common.

A reason many of these sites are saying this is so that they have a defence against Google etc who act as search engines and content aggregators / intermediaries / routers. Since launching search engines back way when (remember Lycos, AltaVista, etc) their defence has always been one of "fair use" / "fair dealing". Frankly they have been free riders on much of the existing content industry but have not wanted anyone to say so and to hold them to account. This has very clear US vs EU overtones, and US vs RoW overtones of course. It is also not just a commercial matter, as there are privacy rights aspects (right to be forgotten) and jurisdictional aspects.

Bottom lines matter. You can't sue someone for damages unless you can show you told them they were doing wrong, and told them to stop it. So first stop is to say "no". 100 x no. That is what the Indy etc are now doing. Whether it is legal or not for Indy etc to say no is slightly irrelevant. I happen to think that these land grab Ts & Cs are contrary to the law. I also don't understand how content generators are going to be viable in a world where barriers to generating content keep on reducing.

just my 2euc, regards, dspp

hamzahf
Lemon Slice
Posts: 252
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:48 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75444

Postby hamzahf » August 18th, 2017, 2:04 pm

Clariman wrote:Another important reason for PD being firmly moderated is that TLF has twice been threatened with having its ability to display Adverts, revoked. This has been due to the contents of user posts.


Such snippets deserve greater prominence, since I am sure most contributors would not wish that consequence.

I read your announcement about quoting 3rd party sites. That seems a clear statement, thank you, and I think linking to the government web page on exceptions was very helpful. Quoting from the Independent seems to remain a bit of a grey area (as far as the Independent is concerned), so I accept that I might help the moderators by treating that source a little differently to other ones I may quote from.

I don't feel recent discussions on this subject have been unhelpful, I have certainly been reminded about some aspects of copyright law that had a greater bearing on my day-to-day activities than they do now. Many thanks to Gengulphus for some very detailed posts on that subject.

Regards
Hamzah

hamzahf
Lemon Slice
Posts: 252
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:48 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75446

Postby hamzahf » August 18th, 2017, 2:11 pm

dspp wrote:In the course of reviewing the Indie's Ts & Cs it turned out that others were making similar land grab Ts & Cs claims (i.e. no quotation allowed at all). I can't recall who as the individual entities are not that relevant. But there are quite a few.


That too is an interesting observation and perhaps reinforces the need for contributors to ensure their quotes conform with the fair dealing exception under "Criticism, review and reporting current events" on the government website link.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Regards
Hamzah

mc2fool
Lemon Half
Posts: 7812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3017 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75457

Postby mc2fool » August 18th, 2017, 2:52 pm

Clariman wrote:Please re-read the announcement post here viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6959 , with specific reference to the first paragraph below the quoted text. That should make it perfectly clear.

Ok, so just to be perfectly clear, as I read that paragraph, along with the revised rule: if I want to post a short extract from the Independent and I decide ("it is the user's responsibility") that fair dealing overrides ("to comply with copyright law") the Indie's absolutist position for the extract I want to post, then I can do so without fear of any moderator action.

Yes?

mswjr
Lemon Slice
Posts: 701
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Discussing discussions

#75459

Postby mswjr » August 18th, 2017, 2:54 pm

redsturgeon wrote:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Ralph Waldo Emerson.[/quote



I take it he wasn't an airline pilot, then?

Anyway, and putting paranoia to one side, I contend that the moderation of PD is being made much more aggressive and interventionalist than it actually need be, irrespective of the 'Independent' issue.
The degree and inconsistency of moderation is your call of course, but it would be a shame if such over active tinkering led, step by step, to a conclusion that a demanding problem exists which can then ultimately only be dealt with by shutting down the forum.

It was interesting, and salutary, to read that advertising revenue has been compromised by comments made in PD. Of course I accept the truth of that statement, and acknowledge the point, but are you suggesting the threads of 13th and 14th August (as recent examples) were shut down for that reason? Or that any thread attempting to debate race, Trump or Brexit is similarly threatening revenue?
How threatening to revenue is it for, in one person's opinion, a comment to have moved sufficiently far off topic to be wiped in its entirety?

I'm sorry, but a lighter, and more consistent, touch will with some certainty lead to reduced mod workload; and trust more in your members not to put revenue at risk by explaining just what your advertisers object to.


Return to “Room 102 - Site Issues, Complaints & General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests