Read the rules

[mayalld]

8 minutes ago, Athy said:

Well, this one won't - and he is not keen on your use of "pretend".. If I say that I don't see most of this thread as open criticism of moderating decisions, then that is exactly what I mean. May we be clear on that point, please?

To be clear....

 

I think that you are trying to square the circle here.

 

A set of rules has been imposed. Those rules were largely written as a knee-jerk reaction to past events, when a rash of frankly ludicrous moderating decisions were made (does that count as criticism of a moderating decision if the people criticised are no longer mods I wonder), and they were subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. Rather than address the fact that everything was going to hell in a handcart as a result of the wrong people making the wrong decisions, draconian rules were introduced to treat everybody like children to be told to sit in the corner quietly.

 

You, quite rightly in my view, would not wish to be seen to silence those who would take issue with moderating decisions in a reasonable manner and tone. You clearly recall that the clampdown using those rules didn't do any good.

 

So, you choose not to do anything about blatant infringements where people are criticising, but are doing so reasonably, and without rancour.

 

That is not, of itself, a bad thing. The rule that you choose to apply is considerably better than the rule that Dan says you should apply, but it leaves you with a problem!

 

You must either denounce the rule as silly, and say that you are happy to be criticised, and will allow it, or you must find some formula, some veneer that you can put on things to define certain forms of criticism as not criticism.

 

It would be better all round if such dextrous manipulation of meaning were not required.

[Sea Dog]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

You must either denounce the rule as silly, and say that you are happy to be criticised, and will allow it, or you must find some formula, some veneer that you can put on things to define certain forms of criticism as not criticism.

Or he could just carry on being a sensible bloke doing his level best.

 

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Are you entitled to your own definition of the word "criticism"? Because the dull old standard English definition seems to fit what's going on here pretty well.

The one which says that it's about something's merits and faults - in other words, reasonable discussion - certainly.

Criticism, you see, need not be negative. I do some work as a music critic. I "criticise" five or six albums per month. That doesn't men that I tear the blooming things to pieces.

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, Sea Dog said:

Or he could just carry on being a sensible bloke doing his level best.

 

Have I at any point suggested that he isn't both of those things?

 

He is sensible, the rules that he is supposed to enforce are not.

 

The blind eye that is being turned by not seeing the criticism that pretty much everybody else can see may well be sensible pragmatic solution. Fixing the rules would be better.

[mayalld]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

The one which says that it's about something's merits and faults - in other words, reasonable discussion - certainly.

Criticism, you see, need not be negative. I do some work as a music critic. I "criticise" five or six albums per month. That doesn't men that I tear the blooming things to pieces.

Criticism can indeed involve reasonable discussion, and could include favourable and non-favourable comments.

 

However, the rules of the forum, as promulgated, forbid criticism of a moderation decision.

 

That means that any discussion, however reasonable, and even if it involves saying that you made a good moderation decision, is against the rules

 

That is a bad rule

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Athy said:

The one which says that it's about something's merits and faults - in other words, reasonable discussion - certainly.

Criticism, you see, need not be negative. I do some work as a music critic. I "criticise" five or six albums per month. That doesn't men that I tear the blooming things to pieces.

Not wishing to criticise your post, but, the Dictionary definition may be slightly at odds …………….

 

criticize

/ˈkrɪtɪsʌɪz/

verb

verb: criticise

1.  

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Have I at any point suggested that he isn't both of those things?

 

He is sensible, the rules that he is supposed to enforce are not.

 

The blind eye that is being turned by not seeing the criticism that pretty much everybody else can see may well be sensible pragmatic solution. Fixing the rules would be better.

I have checked the FR&Gs, and I am reminded that "Threads openly criticising moderating decisions will not be tolerated".

 

So, two points:

- The rule obviously applies to threads whose primary purpose that is, and not to individual comments.

- "Criticisms", in the sense in which it appears in the FR&Gs, I take as meaning "hostile criticism". So, for example, "Don't you think you could have approached this matter in a different way, for example like this?" is O.K., whereas "What the **** do you mean by doing that, you ******* ****" would, to me, not be acceptable, especially as it contains no question mark.

 

Surely, a reasonable approach to discussion by all concerned can be only a good thing?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Not wishing to criticise your post, but, the Dictionary definition may be slightly at odds …………….

 

criticize

/ˈkrɪtɪsʌɪz/

verb

verb: criticise

1.  

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way

Yes. It can't bloody spell, for a start.

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Have I at any point suggested that he isn't both of those things?

 

He is sensible, the rules that he is supposed to enforce are not.

 

The blind eye that is being turned by not seeing the criticism that pretty much everybody else can see may well be sensible pragmatic solution. Fixing the rules would be better.

I think the intent of the rule is to avoid criticising specific mod actions such as " I got a warning point, it was so unfair because... and that mod is a ..." and generally getting into arguments with a mod who has done something to oneself. Which is not too unreasonable.

 

What I don't think was the intention of the rule is to disallow discussing general issues about how the site might best be moderated, or even perhaps how things in general are going wrong. In other words, avoid making it personal.

Edited November 27, 2018 by nicknorman

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

I have checked the FR&Gs, and I am reminded that "Threads openly criticising moderating decisions will not be tolerated".

 

 

So.... critisising a modding decision in an oblique and roundabout way id fine then? 

 

Like the decision to award a Warning Point to a poster for starting a political thread when starting such threads was common practise? 

[mayalld]

Just now, nicknorman said:

I think the intent of the rule is to avoid criticising specific mod actions such as " I got a warning point, it was so unfair because... and that mod is a ..." and generally getting into arguments with a mod who has done something to oneself. Which is not too unreasonable.

 

What I don't think was the intention of the rule is to discuss general issues about how the site might best be moderated, or even perhaps how things in general are going wrong.

The rule mentions only moderating decisions, so does allow for abstract discussion such as that (and this).

 

The point that I make is that whatever its intent, it is so poorly worded (because it was written in haste to shut down discussion of seriously crap moderating) that today's mods are having to find creative interpretations of the text and linguistic gymnastics to narrow the scope of what is covered by the rule if they are to avoid the despotic behaviour of their predecessors.

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I think the intent of the rule is to avoid criticising specific mod actions such as " I got a warning point, it was so unfair because... and that mod is a ..." and generally getting into arguments with a mod who has done something to oneself. Which is not too unreasonable.

 

What I don't think was the intention of the rule is to discuss general issues about how the site might best be moderated, or even perhaps how things in general are going wrong.

Indeed

 

Certainly in this, and in other walks of life where I make judgments, I tend to ask what the rules are for. "The spirit of the law"** rather than the letter - trouble is of course that this means making a judgement call, and when one does that, someone, but not everyone, is likely to disagree.

 

** I don't apply this to speed limits, that's just asking for trouble!

 

I can point at Judicial Reviews where the courts have said "We can not say they (usually the local planning authority) were wrong", meaning it was a judgement call that the authority were entitled to make, and whilst other interpretations are possible the one applied was "not unreasonable".

[WotEver]

41 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Is that the famous, and probably the ONLY occurrence where the other site was moderated?

I honestly don’t know, sorry. There were an awful lot of bad words used though...

[Sea Dog]

49 minutes ago, mayalld said:

 Have I at any point suggested that he isn't both of those things?

I made no accusation, I simply quoted you stating that he must make a choice of "either/or" 2 rather negative choices.  I thought that rather prescriptive and offered a more moderate additional choice which is possibly better fit.  The above sounds like we agree.  

 

[Arthur Marshall]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Not wishing to criticise your post, but, the Dictionary definition may be slightly at odds …………….

 

criticize

/ˈkrɪtɪsʌɪz/

verb

verb: criticise

1.  

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way

criticize

/ˈkrɪtɪsʌɪz/

verb

verb: criticise

1. 1.

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.
2. 2.

   form and express a judgement of (a literary or artistic work).

    

   Always best not just to lob out the definition that doesn't support your argument and hope no-one notices or wonders about it and looks it up.

   The usual meaning of criticise, when in a discussion rather than a shouting match, is the second one.  You look at something,  decide its merits, express your opinion and the discussion carries on.  Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

[mayalld]

7 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

I made no accusation, I simply quoted you stating that he must make a choice of "either/or" 2 rather negative choices.  I thought that rather prescriptive and offered a more moderate additional choice which is possibly better fit.  The above sounds like we agree.  

 

We probably do.

 

The point is that in order to be sensible in applying the rule, he must actually do one of those two things. You can call it just being sensible, but if you deconstruct it to see how he has arrived at the point of taking no action on an apparently blatant breach of the rules, it is clear that this has been by redefining what criticism is, such that some criticism doesn't count.

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, mayalld said:

We probably do.

 

The point is that in order to be sensible in applying the rule, he must actually do one of those two things. You can call it just being sensible, but if you deconstruct it to see how he has arrived at the point of taking no action on an apparently blatant breach of the rules, it is clear that this has been by redefining what criticism is, such that some criticism doesn't count.

Not "redefining", rather "assessing according to the circumstances", perhaps. In some circumstances, what was laid down as a rule may be interpreted as a guideline.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

criticize

/ˈkrɪtɪsʌɪz/

verb

verb: criticise

1. 1.

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.
2. 2.

   form and express a judgement of (a literary or artistic work).

    

   Always best not just to lob out the definition that doesn't support your argument and hope no-one notices or wonders about it and looks it up.

   The usual meaning of criticise, when in a discussion rather than a shouting match, is the second one.  You look at something,  decide its merits, express your opinion and the discussion carries on.  Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

If you do your research then you will find that they list the 'primary' description 1st and the secondary or 'minor' usage 2nd,

 

Are you therefore suggesting that the moderators decisions being discussed are "literary or artistic works" 

Just now, Athy said:

Not "redefining", rather "assessing according to the circumstances", perhaps. In some circumstances, what was laid down as a rule may be interpreted as a guideline.

 

Black pearl ?

[Machpoint005]

We can all accept things the way they are, complete with any real or perceived faults, or we can tek us bat 'ome.

Free choice open to all.

[Athy]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

If you do your research then you will find that they list the 'primary' description 1st and the secondary or 'minor' usage 2nd,

 

Are you therefore suggesting that the moderators decisions being discussed are "literary or artistic works" 

The brackets indicate a non-exclusive example of the word's use.

No matter in which order they are stacked, multiple definitions in a dictionary are still definitions.

2 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

We can all accept things the way they are, complete with any real or perceived faults, or we can tek us bat 'ome.

 

You've just whisked me back many years to the Sheffield of my boyhood - where "us" was used as a possessive pronoun meaning "our". I didn't realise that it was also used thus in Manchester, but then I have set foot in that city only twice in my life (once to change trains and once to buy a diesel engine, as one does).

[Machpoint005]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

You've just whisked me back many years to the Sheffield of my boyhood - where "us" was used as a possessive pronoun meaning "our". I didn't realise that it was also used thus in Manchester, but then I have set foot in that city only twice in my life (once to change trains and once to buy a diesel engine, as one does).

 

My use of the word in that context can be traced back to either of my Grandads - in Halifax or Barnsley, tek yer pick! 

[magpie patrick]

3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

We can all accept things the way they are, complete with any real or perceived faults, or we can tek us bat 'ome.

Free choice open to all.

Indeed (again...)

The George and the Archangel can be seen from the Market Place in Frome, each with their own clientele, some, such as me, will drink in either, however they are very different.

 

It would be odd, and counterproductive, if the customers of the George were to demand the Archangel change to serving 6X and pie and chips, or those of the Archangel demand Prosecco and canapes at the George - and if neither suits you, other pubs are available

 

So it is with Forums (or Fora)

[Athy]

Just now, Machpoint005 said:

 

My use of the word in that context can be traced back to either of my Grandads - in Halifax or Barnsley, tek yer pick! 

Ah,, t'correct side o' t'Pennines, that explains it.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

The brackets indicate a non-exclusive example of the word's use.

No matter in which order they are stacked, multiple definitions in a dictionary are still definitions.

If we accept that the definition to 'form and express a judgement' is valid in this instance, then this is exactly what has happened, is still happening and has resulted in 'bannings'.

 

The new rules therefore state that you must not 'form and express a judgement'.

[Machpoint005]

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Ah,, t'correct side o' t'Pennines, that explains it.

The Memsahib would agree (Bradford, and not the Manchester suburb).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Machpoint005

[Athy]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If we accept that the definition to 'form and express a judgement' is valid in this instance, then this is exactly what has happened, is still happening and has resulted in 'bannings'.

 

The new rules therefore state that you must not 'form and express a judgement'.

I'm afraid you've lost me now.

The only bannings of which I can think in our recent history were those of a few overseas "spammers" and one person who was found to be two people, if you get my drift.. None of these was related to expressing judgements.