Locked posts, what's going on.

[JohnW2]

Spot on

Quite so (you wrote it first - so I claim no credit!) - and whether one is talking about crime, functioning of a forum, illness, faulty vehicles etc. etc., it's just a particular case of it being better to prevent/avoid there being problems in the first place than to introduce procedures/processes/whatever (often complex and costly in many senses) for dealing with the problems after have have been allowed to arise.

It made more sense to eradicate smallpox than it would have done to allow it to remain rampant but devote the same resources to developing effectice treatments - no one wanted to develop the disease, even if an effective 'cure' could have been developed!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I have no knowledge of how moderating works but there are clear signs on this site of personal reasons for a moderator's actions.
Such as - adding a post to closed threads, i.e. having an untouchable last word;
deleting posts and threads where no abuse or legal threat to the sight has occurred, i.e. apparently for no valid reason;
deleting posts and threads which disagree with that moderators opinion, etc.

Is it normal for people to be moderators when they are also one of the most prolific posters?

Perhaps moderating a thread to which one has also had considerable input should be banned.
obviously, for this, some identification would be necessary but that does not seem to be a problem elsewhere.

I suspect it is just one moderator (I don't know how many there are) causing the problem - but then if he is more than a moderator, what can be done? Just have to put up with it or leave?

 

[JohnW2]

I have no knowledge of how moderating works but there are clear signs on this site of personal reasons for a moderator's actions. ... Such as - adding a post to closed threads, i.e. having an untouchable last word; ... deleting posts and threads where no abuse or legal threat to the sight has occurred, i.e. apparently for no valid reason; ... deleting posts and threads which disagree with that moderators opinion, etc.

There certainly seem to be some rather odd moderation actions in recent times, but I think it's quite a jump from that to believing that this is necessarily due to any particularly sinister "personal reasons". Moderators are human beings and, as with many of the discussions here, their actions are often/usually dependent upon their interpretation of a set of rules - and with very vague rules relating to such things as 'abuse' and 'unhelpful posts' etc., the scope for variation individual views/interpretations is enormous. For example, some of the threads in which I have been participating which have been 'unexpectedly locked' have been ones which have been several pages into very-off-topic discussions - which could easily be said to be be contrary to forum rules.

Is it normal for people to be moderators when they are also one of the most prolific posters?

I do know of at least a couple of exceptions, but I would say that for moderators to be amongst the most prolific posters is almost the rule, rather than an exception. Indeed, it is (for fairly obvious reasons) people who are 'prolific posters' (hence people who spend a lot of time looking at the forum) who are most often invited to take on a moderator (or whatever) role.

Perhaps moderating a thread to which one has also had considerable input should be banned. obviously, for this, some identification would be necessary but that does not seem to be a problem elsewhere.

That's an interesting suggestion. This site is, at least in my experience, pretty unusual in not identifying moderators/administrators/managers/whatever. However, despite suggestions about what may have been happening here, it's extremely unusual for there to be any suggestion that 'moderator action' has resulted from a moderator's personal interests/views in the thread concerned (or personal view about members involved), so I'm not sure that there is really any significant issue. If there were ever any such suggestions, a member feeling aggrieved would presumably appeal to 'the boss' of the forum or site (access to whom, even if they remain anonymous, is virtually always available) - and if they are not happy with the boss's response, then it's probably time for them to find an alternative platform for their forum activities.

As I've been implying in recent posts, we are talking about a 'private' situation, with it's own set of rules (which members have 'accepted'), so the usual "the management reserves the right to deny entry" (or to "eject") and "the management's decisions are final" etc. apply just as much as they would in the case of a club, bar, football ground or whatever. Have you ever read the T&C which you probably 'accepted' when you signed up to DIYnot?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Well before internet was common place I used packet radio, of course I needed an amateur radio licence to do this, but people can claim to have a licence when they have not, so the people who ran the bulletin boards we called them Sysops or system operators were legally obliged to monitor traffic and reject anything they felt may have jeopardised their licence.

There was in real terms no way they could read every post, so they would monitor a new poster carefully, if no problems then they would just look at random samples, plus a banded word list. However it was hard for them, they wanted to simply pass on the messages, and with no or little delay, at that time hard drives were small, hanging on to a massage needed hard drive size to be increased, often the banded word list would not delete the message, but simply hold it until the sysop could read it.

DIY Doctor still does not allow posts to appear until they have viewed them, it is a real pain, as you can get many people answering a message but you as a user don't know what others have said, and there is a long delay before the poster gets an answer.

Screwfix is the other way, there seems to be very little they do other than remove adverts. However they don't seem to have a problem poster, and in real terms we only have two people who cause problems.

The problem is the desire to get last word can mean threads go daft, I saw it with the Screwfix forum with the post about kWh having nothing to do with hours, yes I started it. However never seen people get so upset. It was intended to be light hearted, however it does point out those who will learn and except they have made an error and those completely fixed in their view and unwilling to learn.

Although the second in watts cancels out the hour in kWh there is clearly a connection with time. In the same way light years may be a distance but we can still see the connection with speed of light and years. However the arguments really got daft. As said Screwfix rarely locks a post. I think they simply remove the thread, which is likely better, as if the last word is wrong, no one can correct it.

Ultimate handyman sysops delete stuff and put a message to say deleted by modulator and which modulated has deleted it. The thread is rarely locked. There is one called "DIY electrical work and the law" by "[URL='http://www.ultimatehandyman.co.uk/forum1/member577.html?sid=86eefad7b470b46945ce676a7ef30428']ban-all-sheds" [/URL]which is now well out of date "Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:50 pm" which it would be really handy to be able to add to it to say how law has changed, but it is locked last visit by poster was Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:08 pm and it seems he has been banned. So who ever he was he can't change it either. Not really a good idea.

So all in all likely the way this forum is run is on of the best. And I think in general the moderators do a good job. The problem seems to be just two posters. One was OK we could live with it, but two is a real problem, as to how to deal with naughty boys I really don't know. With amateur radio we were told simple switch off your radio, do not reply, if the guy has no one to upset he will go away, we called then IQ0's and yes it worked, but can't really do that here.

 

[mikeyd]

Someone wrote:

"Bizarrely i just had a notification from a moderator suggesting that they are in a hopeless position and that their only role is deleting stuff after it was posted!"

As a lurker of some time, who no longer even tries to offer advice, (fear of facing the wrath of the resident almighty keyboard warrior), I am of the conclusion that there is only one Mod for the whole site. And he/she does a good job to the best of their abilities.

 

[JohnW2]

As a lurker of some time, who no longer even tries to offer advice, (fear of facing the wrath of the resident almighty keyboard warrior), I am of the conclusion that there is only one Mod for the whole site.

I know that not to be true, but ...

And he/she does a good job to the best of their abilities.

Particularly given that I know, from lots of experience of old, how thankless the task can be, I would agree that, in general, the mods on this site do a pretty good job, particularly given the limited 'power' they seemingly have. My understanding is that things which I often suggest/hint are probably 'less than ideal' actions, or 'too little, too late', are probably often the result of the limited powers that the mods have been given, rather than their failure do do 'what they would like to do'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I wil say that this board does seem far more tolerant than some others. I was on another board and got banned - permanently, no warning - for posting something that didn't agree with the dogma of the site owner. IIRC it was for suggesting that nuclear had to have a place in our electricity supply if we want to keep the lights on. And yes, the site was very very biased - effectively a closed shop of people agreeing with the owner/admin (and his rather "rose tinted" views on renewables) as anyone else got banned.

 

[ericmark]

I got banned from DIYdoctor, tried to tell some one how to work out wires in a ceiling rose without a meter, some one else complained to admin who then banned me. Two years latter I re-registered with same user name, and have been open about being banned before, but they have not kicked me off again, however when people now ask how to work out wires, I actually reply that I was banned from site for telling people how.

There are some things to be frank you know how to do which you should not publish on an open forum, how to cure an oven from tripping RCD for example, sure every electrician knows how, but I would hope non would actually say how on a forum.

 

[SimonH2]

Ah, a bit like how I repaired our tumble drier after we moved - and water had got onto the heater element insulators

 

[JohnW2]

I wil say that this board does seem far more tolerant than some others. I was on another board and got banned - permanently, no warning - for posting something that didn't agree with the dogma of the site owner. ... And yes, the site was very very biased - effectively a closed shop of people agreeing with the owner/admin (and his rather "rose tinted" views on renewables) as anyone else got banned.

Yes, albeit in relation to totally different subject fields, I have been permanently banned from a good few places over the years for daring to express opinions/views which were contrary to ones which the owner/admin wanted to be seen on his/her site/board/group/forum/whatever.

As I've written a good few times recently, in relation not only to 30 years ago (when I was much more 'involved') but also to today, I don't think that many places will tolerate for very long (if at all) someone who repeatedly challenges or criticises 'in public' (i.e. in posts) the actions or policies of the mods/managers/admin/whatever of the place in question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think that many places will tolerate for very long (if at all) someone who repeatedly challenges or criticises 'in public' (i.e. in posts) the actions or policies of the mods/managers/admin/whatever of the place in question.

That might be the case but if the critcism is justified and the actions are inconsistent then it is not a satisfactory situation.

As for policies, I suppose the owner can impose whichever he wants.
The policies, though, should be apparent but I would think such a forum would not be worth joining.

 

[JohnW2]

That might be the case but if the critcism is justified and the actions are inconsistent then it is not a satisfactory situation.

You, as others, continue to talk as if we were discussing the manner in which people are treated by the State, or some government agency, in some 'non-transparent' fashion, with suppression of their rights to seek remedies for injustices they felt that had been subjected to.

In fact, as I keep saying, we are merely talking about a 'private club', which people choose to join, and inso joining freely accept the rules, terms and conditions of membership. Do I take it that at some point on the past you indicated, without complaint, your acceptance of T&C which (at least now) included things like (with MY emboldening) ....

..... You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content ...... All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members. .... We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time. .... These terms may be changed at any time without notice.
If you do not agree with these terms, please do not register or use this Service.

Were you also aaware when you accepted that the rules you were accepting included (with DIYnot's emboldening)...

1d) Any comments concerning forum administration should be addressed to [email protected] and not raised within posts.

There is also an aspect which (in comparison with 'clubs' in general) is pretty unique to this sort of situation, because the primary purpose of providing membership of DIYnot is to provide the very communications which some people try to use to launch criticisms (or even 'attacks') on the provider of that facility. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect someone who is providing, free of charge, a communications facility, to continue to provide that facility to someone who starts using it as a means of publicly criticising/whatever the provider of that facility?!

In other words, I don't think that (in relation to 'a private club') the issue is whether criticisms are justified or whether they relate to 'inconsistent actions' but, rather, is about whether or not is reasonable for the provider of a communication service to be expected to continue provide that means of communication if/when it is being used as a means of publicising criticism (be it justified or not) about the provider, particularly when one of the rules accepted by the member explicitly forbids that use of the service.

What do you think would happen to a 'newspaper columnist' who started using their column as a means of publicly criticising the newspaper and/or its management (and somehow got their copy past the editors)? Regardless of the justifiability (or not) of their criticisms, do you think they would be allowed to continue using the newspaper as a means of communicating them to the newspaper's readers?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

It does not have to be a forum, I had a good friend who was into natural forest practice, he criticised the use of wood burners quite correctly, however had three of his own, non of which ran efficiently, and I really upset him by pointing it out.

It was wrong of me, I should have not have said anything, I was taught if you can't say something good then say nothing, and I broke the rule.

I know we should not comment on the way DIYnot admin acts, however to me we are not really talking about DIY admin, but about two people who on their own can be tolerated, and do give some good advice, but will not tolerate each other, and so on a regular basis, cause threads to be locked.

 

[bernardgreen]

I was taught if you can't say something good then say nothing

That rule has to be broken if saying nothing about a bad situation allows avoidable harm to come to someone or something.

 

[ericmark]

That rule has to be broken if saying nothing about a bad situation allows avoidable harm to come to someone or something.

Agreed however if I was to say light bulbs done give out light, but suck in the dark, and I can show this is the case as when a candle goes out you can see the dark stuck to wick, and with light bulbs when they fail we can see they are black inside where they are now completely full of dark.

You can either say I am wrong, or you can simply give a better explanation and describe how you know light bulbs give out light and are not dark suckers. You don't have to actually say I am wrong, you can simply put forwards a more convincing argument. So please try it, explain why you think light bulbs give out light and don't such in dark. That is without saying I am wrong. Which of course I know I am.