Tommo,
Thanks for providing Ian with a means of communicating to the forum. I think the level of ban/supension applied prevents him from accessing the site (from his own PC).

To all members,
The issue has become complex and I have not had the support from the other admin person, Michael, this week, I don't know where he is currently, so the decision to suspend Ian was my own, and was made mainly to restore order to the forum. Having someone ranting at a moderator is not what members on this forum want, I am sure. Moderators can be challenged but as a long-term moderator over many years I have learned to diffuse some situations quickly and work them out later. This was an example, in my opinion, and when a poster says 'ban me if you want' then I usually do.

In an effort to explain why Ian was suspended I offer the following:

1. Over recent days I had at least four complaints from members. Issues included extreme political content, sexual content and attacks against other posters.

2. I won't discuss the 'attacks against other posters'. Please accept that any discussions on those postings will just cause further disruption to the forum. I could contact Ian about those separately but the persons feeling intimidated felt uncomfortable challenging Ian so I don't want to make those situations worse. In response then I will bring each matter to Ian's attention and tell him that the offending messages will be edited.

3. The postings containing sexual content, that were found offensive, have been removed so that matter is ended.

4. The concerns about extreme political content were two.

4.1 The main concern of the complainants is that on a forum discussing Radio 3 and 'classical music' it does seem to be unnecessary to be expressing extreme political opinion repeatedly denouncing other extreme political opinion. There are other forums for such discussion.

4.2 The second concern was for the safety and security of the forum. Reference to, and quotes from, extreme publications exposes the forum to supporters and opponents of those extreme opinions.

As a member of this forum I agreed with all the concerns listed above and, as moderator, I tried to explain all of them to Ian privately but he went public with some of his responses and was disrespectful, to the forum and the moderator, so I took the decision to suspend Ian at that point.

This forum was set up with the minimum of rules (see Announcements Section). It is a music forum with community sections. It is not a political forum. Obviously some political issues relating to music can be discussed but if the moderators feel that the forum is being used for a political purpose, spreading extremist literature, quoting opposing extremist statements, then action will be taken.

Up until now the moderation here has been very low, and has been handled by Michael and John W. Michael appears to be AWOL so I have taken actions based on the those complaints that I have agreed with.

Ian's suspension was set at 10 days. In reality it can be more or less than 10 days depending on how Ian responds to this moderator statement (Tommo, can you please forward it in case my e-mail to Ian fails).

I intend to discuss forum rules with all members by initiating a thread, and we'll see how simple or how complicated our rules need to be.


John Wright

Reply #30 forwarded.

Tommo

This whole episode has brought some thoughts to mind about the rules and operation of this thread.  My thoughts are not intended to be a criticism of anyone, so please don't take them as such.

We have 4 Simple Rules.  http://r3ok.myforum365.com/index.php?topic=106.0  The last 2 of these do describe what happens if you break the rule.  The first two do not.  Perhaps we need to clear up that omission?

[I think there are also a few usability rules that have arisen elsewhere - e.g. if you start a post, you cannot remove it. But you can edit your post to hold zero text.  (Not really a rule - just an explanation of how this thing works)]

The other thoughts I have had are really for discussion…..

We have 4 rules for posters, but no rules or guidelines for Moderators.  (John, I think you were faced with a very difficult decision recently, and I don't know what was the right thing to do.  I feel it is an injustice to suspend a poster when he has not broken one of the specific rules of the forum, but I can see from your reply #30 why you did so.)  Having guidelines or rules for how moderation is done would help posters know where the limits are, and would possibly help moderators make decisions.

Suspension seems like a very black and white outcome (you are either suspended or not) for a transgression that was in a grey area (who si right, teh complainant or the poster?).  What if a poster does not directly contravene a board rule, but merely ticks people off a lot?  Will we just make a lot more rules based on a democratic survey of what frustrates people about board users?

I am all for a very free board with few rules.  I think we have a wonderful selection of people here with wide ranging expertise, and I would like people to have the scope to explore lots of areas.  I will spend some time thinking about what principles lay behind my desire for a free board, but I suspect it is to do with a desire to have contributors from diverse backgrounds.  If we are not to have rules, I wonder what rights we would like on this board, and what responsibilities come with those rights.

If we do agree on rights and responsibilities for board members, we don’t need rules to back up each and everyone of those rights – we should just act by that ‘charter’ as it were.

So perhaps a right would be:

I have the right to publish my opinion.

And a responsibility that would go with that would be:

I will respect that others wish to publish their opinion, and not discourage them from doing so.  If I do so wilfully or inadvertently, I will remedy the situation.

Or 'I have the right to be treated as another human being with a valid opinion', matched by the responsibility of 'I will treat others courteously, even if I do not agree with their opinion'.

Tricky to get the wording right, but you can see where I am going, I hope.

Sorry that's not very well formed as an idea yet, but I wouldn't want us to get all bogged down in rules when some principles of how to interact are all that are needed.

I do think we need the existing rules for specific instances of anti-social board behaviour - and where a rule exists it should be tight (like having a penalty for transgression.)

Thanks

Tommo