forum
type all threads links
  rss feed

Moderation policy proposal
Thread started on 4/3/2007 16:52 Private

david

david

website

I am aware we need a moderation policy for this forum and the rest of the website. Is this one satisfactory, do you think? It is based on that at realclimate .

updated 22/1/2008 (main changes in bold)

  1. Only posts/comments that relate to carbon rationing or CRAGs activities will be accepted. Any posts/comments that contain links to inappropriate or irrelevant sites may be deleted.
  2. Technical information is welcome, and may include relevant commercial information, so as long as it does not unduly promote one product or service. Users of the site are reminded that most readers will not have an engineering or scientific background, and information should be presented in a widely accessible fashion.
  3. No flames, profanity, ad hominen comments, you said/he said type arguments, or excessive use of capitalised text (“shouting”) are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise seek to personalize matters under discussion.
  4. We reserve the right to make spelling corrections, correct text format problems and retag or relocate posts where appropriate.
  5. You do retain copyright to posts/comments you write, but must agree to release this material under this open creative commons license. Any posts/comments which explicitly assert otherwise will be deleted.
  1. Repeat offenders of our moderation policy (in particular, individuals demonstrating a pattern of “trolling”) may be barred from future access to the website.

NB. Only clear and blatant breaches of these rules will result in immediate removal. Any moderation will be accompanied by an email outlining the reasons. You can subsequently decide to change the post, or dispute the moderation by referring it to all admins for discussion.

‹ CRAGs in Australia and New Zealand Welcome & intro to the Forum: proposal ›
» login to post comments

what's trolling?

written on 4/3/2007 18:35

andy_ross

andy_ross

Thanks for this, David. All looks sensible. But what’s trolling? Does it involve hiding under bridges?

 
» login to post comments

Stirring the pot

written on 4/3/2007 19:52

david

david

! It’s a techie/internet term for someone who posts on a forum simply to cause trouble. The wikipedia entry has a lot more information. Flaming is similar.

 
» login to post comments

posting rules

written on 4/3/2007 21:33

john ackers

john ackers

Not sure we are talking about moderation policy, prefer posting rules.

suggest for 4. We may correct spelling and formatting errors.

example email for rejected post.

Hi flipside

You post at xxx breaks our posting rules at yyy and has been unpublished. Let me know if you think this is unfair.

Derek or David or whoever.

 
» login to post comments

Sounds good. In terms of

written on 6/3/2007 11:43

Guy S

Guy S

Sounds good. In terms of relevant content, I don’t think we’ve had a problem so far. If occasionally people flag up events / news that isn’t 100% carbon rationing related but is still interesting and climate-related, I don’t see why we should be too Inquisitorial. May be something to review only if forum participation increases greatly with new groups etc.

Can / will moderators re-tag and relocate posts? I think this would be fair enough, especially if a post would be better under a Group’s page rather than the general Forum. But not something a new poster will know, so fair enough to get the administrator to do it sometimes.

David – re the Wiki – yes some more explanation would be good, and a started document if there isn’t one already. But also I think we could be bolder in producing some definite non-wiki pages for the website – like collating non-controversial data from the debates we’ve already had. This need not be done by committee if it’s already been discussed. I’m thinking at present of a summary page of info on a) Food miles (with links to external studies), b) the car fuel consumption / mileage debate. None of this need be prescriptive, nor gloss over the ambiguity of the data, but it could usefully clarify on what we’ve already looked at. I also think it will get done quicker if a single person just compiles the existing debates (and am prepared to do this at some point soon). What do others think?

 
» login to post comments

Tagging, and writing stuff

written on 8/3/2007 22:25

david

david

Good point on tagging. I agree and hadn’t thought of it. I also agree that there’s no need to be too over-zealous (as I learnt above!)

I split off the writing discussion to a new thread: Writing for crags

 
» login to post comments

Unfair Removal

written on 6/3/2007 15:04

flipside

I have just emailed the site protesting about the sly removal of my posting. I think it would have been a bit less underhanded if you had contacted me directly as you are able to do. I then would have been able to explain to you a bit more about what we are doing at Flipside Vision. We are fellow travellers, with a large amount of unsold calendars which we are DONATING as a climate campaigning aid to just about any group that is interested. I hardly see this as rank commercialism, quite the opposite. And we are preventing a large amount of calendars being recycled as scrap paper. Please do me the favour of viewing our site www.flipsidevision.com to see what our aims are before you slap us in the face with a wet fish. Many other organisations from schools to climate campaigning organisations have taken up our offer and hundreds of calendars have been sent out already. No complaints from anyone.

Diana Korchien, Flipside Vision

 
» login to post comments

Diana, thanks for explaining

written on 6/3/2007 17:37

john ackers

john ackers

Diana, thanks for explaining what you are up to. I have restored your original post. David or I should have emailed you about your original post and that task fell in the crack, I am sorry.

 
» login to post comments

Updates

written on 17/3/2007 17:25

david

david

I have updated the “posting rules” to reflect comments so far. Added:

  • retagging + relocation;
  • called “posting rules”;
  • note on procedure

Any further changes necessary?

 
» login to post comments

moderation (posting) rules

written on 20/3/2007 11:47

john ackers

john ackers

David, this great. Please go with them.

 
» login to post comments

Uploaded

written on 23/3/2007 20:53

david

david

Uploaded at Posting rules, and added note to footer. Please continue the discussion here if anyone has further suggestions.

 
» login to post comments

commercial products

written on 28/9/2007 22:09

John Cossham

John Cossham

copied from: new website available for testing comments please

I have now read these and more or less understand them. Thank you for drawing these rules to my (our)attention and I hope that all CRAGgers will abide with them as it makes for a better user-experience.

I only have one comment about these rules, which was the point about named products, which I think should be allowed IF RELAVENT to the discussion. For instance, I have made comments about my British-built smokefree woodstoves, and to help others find these stoves so they could perhaps purchase one to enable them to heat their homes with renewables, I named the company which built them. I do know info about other makes of stove, and in future might want to discuss them on the CRAG discussion pages. Would this be so wrong?

I’d be interested in your thoughts on this, anybody?

yours, John Cossham

 
» login to post comments

relevance and balance

written on 30/9/2007 21:04

david

david

John, I agree with your suggestion on relevant commercial products. It’s a problem with the document as it stands, especially if we want to support companies providing renewable technologies, or point people to suppliers.

However, I think there needs also to be some balance ie. we shouldn’t promote one company above others providing similar services. Of course, that could happen by omission, but I think we should have that in principle at least – as well as being relevant, as you mention.

 
» login to post comments

Commercial and shouting changes

written on 22/1/2008 11:24

david

david

I’ve made some changes to the text above:

  • Commercial products, as per comments above
  • “Shouting” using capital letters (eg I REALLY DISAGREE!), raises the ante in discussions and I think it should be steered clear of.

If no-one objects, I’ll commit these to the main posting rules.

 
» login to post comments

Commercial Products

written on 22/1/2008 21:24

John Cossham

John Cossham

I think that we should be able to discuss commercial products as we all use them (I’m assuming) and if someone wanted to discuss the merits of different power consumption measuring devices, or which logburner works best, or whether to promote the Prius or a Gee Whizz… then we should be able to do it. As long as it is relavent to cutting our carbs!
If there are objections to this, could we have a wiki page for talking about specific products?
John Cossham
I have just read the comment above this and I think I have probably just re-iterated my original view, sorry. I also think that my original view seems to be agreed with… so sorry for being daft!

 
» login to post comments