8468 Looking towards 2008

for once, it may be very hard for anyone to argue with you! well said Ronald, I think you've put the onus on us all to grow up and co-exist. Hope these new tools actually allow that to be achieved.

Thank you Ronald - A well thought out and fundamentally important article on the way forward for Italy Magazine Forums.

IMO the role of the Administrator should be the equivalent of perhaps an 'appeal judge'. The daily 'spats', disputes and general queries should be dealt with by a (fairly large) group of moderators who are both easily recognised and respected by the membership.

IF such a situation was to be found here on this site, then maybe those continuous jibes about the way the site is run or the lack of timely responses to membership dissatisfaction (mine included) may - if not disappear totally - be far less vociferous. And those elements who choose to belittle others in 'thier own back yard', do so in the knowledge that [I]most[/I] will be unable to resisit taking a peep at the insults they choose to aim at whoever is 'flavour of the day'. Picking on people is a question of fun for them - the fact that they are hurting people I'm sure is of [U]no[/U] interest to them at all. The more they can hurt - the better, it seems, they like and enjoy it!

This site and the Forums are a great font of information for many - whether they choose to stay or whether it is a visit for one question and then they're gone. But for those who do choose to stay and become part of the community it is not pleasant to wonder, every time you 'log on', if you are going to encounter, or be part of, an attack on your words, opinions or character.

Get some more good, respected moderators to add to those you have in place at the moment, and let the writing be 'writ large' for those who cannot find a way to be a part of this community [U]and[/U] be fair to others...

Italy Magazine is larger and more iportant than all of us - some would do well to remember that!

It seems clear to me that the current administration has accepted that it is flawed: that is a bold and courageous statement. The solution is obvious: change the adminstration. This is not meant in any way to be offensive: it is simply the answer to the problem.

[quote=Charles Phillips;79308]It seems clear to me that the current administration has accepted that it is flawed: that is a bold and courageous statement. The solution is obvious: change the adminstration. This is not meant in any way to be offensive: it is simply the answer to the problem.[/quote]

That is the general idea, however it cannot happen overnight .

As I said in my post over January there will be a gradual migration to a different setup and with the migration there will hopefully be a migration of moderating power as well.

I am saying hopefully because it depends on people in this community stepping up and offering to act as moderators. Until others step up I will try to do the least worst I can...

Another reason I think a completely clean slate is important is because acting as a moderator in an already bad situation is not exactly ideal. Why should someone step in to fix the mess someone else (i.e. me) has created. A partially fresh start would make things easier (partially fresh because the same people are still involved so past problems cannot be deleted as simply as a file from a hard disk).

Best,

Ronald

[quote=Carole B;79307] And those elements who choose to belittle others in 'thier own back yard', do so in the knowledge that [I]most[/I] will be unable to resisit taking a peep at the insults they choose to aim at whoever is 'flavour of the day'. Picking on people is a question of fun for them - the fact that they are hurting people I'm sure is of [U]no[/U] interest to them at all. The more they can hurt - the better, it seems, they like and enjoy it!
[/quote]

Carole, overall I agree with your post and I also find the above to be partially true. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is simply for fun and they don't care about hurting other people but it is certainly true that they have picked on others and belittled them. All the insults are there in 0's and 1's so it is pointless to deny them.

At the same time, and I am mentioning this so as to make more explicit the problems the current forums have, you should know that I have had two people reporting the quote above saying that it a) foments further dispute and b) it is NOT a positive way forward and it is simply you voicing your prejudice. So the statement should be removed and some sort of penalty applied to you as well.

They are right as well.

And therein lies a serious problem (well serious in the small world of these forums and in particular the small group of people that are avid followers of the various discussions about the forums).

How can we move forward? There are many "sides" to the argument. There are several people that have quarreled with each other and have insulted each other. I admit that a big part of it is my fault for not having stopped the quarrellings early enough or acted in an even-handed way, but having said that and having promised to look for people and methods that will be better suited to the task all of you need to decide whether you can co-exist within a community - after all I did not ask you to quarrel and insult each other.

Would you Carole be happy to have in the community the people that you consider as simply out to hurt other people if the moderators decided your opinion is wrong? Are they simply all out to hurt people? At the same time would the Sancho's, Aliena's, liketheroman's of this world be able to be in a community with the turtle's of this world and resist insulting her and others they don't agree with? Are moderators meant to spend their time dealing with daily spats or helping people better use and integrate in the community? Is the community just about the Carole's, Sancho's, Aliena's and the other 10 people that get involved in fights or is it about the many others of members that do actively participate but not in the fights and politics?

Should 1% of the community take up 90% of the community's resources in terms of policing and moderating or should that 1% just be asked to leave the community? Some may be prolific and knowledgeable but who knows, the next person registering may be just as prolific and knowledgeable and also be able to refrain from insulting others?

Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to start up another fight. I am simply trying to find what are the right questions we should be asking each other.

[quote=ronald]The most important change will be that the community will from the get-go manage itself. Members will be able to take a much more active role in managing the direction of the community as well as who and how one participates in the community - without depending solely on the whims of a single ill-suited forum administrator.[/quote]

[quote=ronald;79310]
I am saying hopefully because it depends on people in this community stepping up and offering to act as moderators. Until others step up I will try to do the least worst I can...
[/quote]

ah - I hadn't realised that the grand plan was based around more moderators. I think making that work here would be a minor miracle? my logic being:

1) the active members (those who post frequently and/or get involved in the disputes) seem to have become polarised to the extent that even if they have no 'allegiance' at all, both sides will view them as being in the other's camp purely by dint of their refusal to consistantly toe any one line. These people seem to me unlikely to be acceptable to either side as moderators. I'd add that I'm not personally aware of being on either side - but I'm beginning to realise that doesn't stop other people thinking I am. In other words if you care enough to want to express an opinion/get involved, you are probably usuitable to be a moderator in this environment.

2) the passive members (those who tend to follow the forums, post the odd question and/or answer, have a wee chat now and again, but avoid the disputes like the plague) are by definition not keen on - or have no time for - arguing the toss. I can't see them stepping up to the plate (& I have my doubts about how effectively they'd manage confrontation if they did).

unless the role of the moderator changes substantially I just don't see that as a solution. So, the sooner the proposed new role of the mod (& and the tools at their disposal for respolution of disputes) is clarified, the better.

[quote=Charles Phillips;79308]It seems clear to me that the current administration has accepted that it is flawed: that is a bold and courageous statement. The solution is obvious: change the adminstration. This is not meant in any way to be offensive: it is simply the answer to the problem.[/quote]

Agreed on the bold & courageous bit. But change of admin was already addressed & ruled out in Ronalds initial post:
[quote=Ronald]Of course an obvious answer is - get another admin
.....
Unfortunately that is not currently an option - resources are limited and I am the forum admin for the foreseeable future.[/quote]

it's too easy to forget that there is a real world beyond these virtual pages, where Ronald has a job & a salary, and is answerable to an employer.

I'm sorry - but why is getting a new administration not an option? If the chairman, or the shareholders get angsty enough, a golden handshake is given to the non-performing incumbent.

If we are talking about real-life this is the reality. I don't understand why in cyberspace the rules have changed. Enlighten me?

that mght be reality in the boardroom of a PLC, in respect of (say) an under-performing CFO or other critical role ... but here (correct me Ronald if i'm wrong) we have a forum administrator who's also the Italymag website administrator (and if it's like other companies I've seen, probably gets dumped on to fix the inhouse network, patch the exchange server etc. etc.).

The revenue associated directly with the forums will be small beer compared with the wider website & print revenues ... and the ongoing conflict here is if nothing else raising the page hitcount for advertising purposes. So, if I were the owner or a major shareholder I'd not be interested in removing a current forum admin when its only a small part of his role, but a part that requires tech skills which would need to be paid for if brought in separately.

Of course you are right that if every member of the forum started to complain loudly to the managing director about the forum admin, they'd eventually take a stance. However, sounds to me that this has already happened (the stance bit, not the complaining):

[quote=Ronald]A couple of months ago the issue was seriously discussed and at one point the overwhelming feeling in the magazine was that we should simply close the forums.[/quote]

the conflict and dissatisfaction has already been raised and discussed with his management and they'll close the forums down before spending money on additional personnel to run them.

Or to put it more succinctly ... our little forum isn't important eough in the wider scheme of things for them to throw any money at addressing the problem by paying for extra staff.

[quote=Charles Phillips;79315]I'm sorry - but why is getting a new administration not an option? If the chairman, or the shareholders get angsty enough, a golden handshake is given to the non-performing incumbent.

If we are talking about real-life this is the reality. I don't understand why in cyberspace the rules have changed. Enlighten me?[/quote]

Well for a start golden handshakes are expensive and don't always work. Trust me , I'm an employment lawyer!

And although the current admin may not be perfect I'm not sure merely putting in a new bod makes any difference.

I don't really know history and details. But it seems to me simple enough to set up rules the breaching of which carry sanctions. The banning of personal abuse in all its forms seems a good place to start. And arguing the toss in public about any sanctions applied to you should carry further sanctions. A private appeal system for those affected would seem a better way forward. But in the end the Admin's decision should be final. That's the way in the real world too. Sometimes it just doesn't seem fair but heyho, get over it, it's only a forum for goodness sake.

Like others I look forward to hearing details as to the planned changes

I agree with Annecs comments, and would be loath to see the forum go. In the 2 years of living in Italy it has been a huge help to me, as I am sure it has been to others. So the question is how do we make it work?, and the answer to that must come from the membership, there must be a willingness to abide by the rules, and an acceptance of the decisions of the Administration. Failure to do that would I think result in the closure of the forum.

So really its up to us all as a community to make 2008 a success, lets hope we can do that. We can if we try.
Angie

[quote=annec;79318]Well for a start golden handshakes are expensive and don't always work. Trust me , I'm an employment lawyer!

And although the current admin may not be perfect I'm not sure merely putting in a new bod makes any difference.

I don't really know history and details. But it seems to me simple enough to set up rules the breaching of which carry sanctions. The banning of personal abuse in all its forms seems a good place to start. And arguing the toss in public about any sanctions applied to you should carry further sanctions. A private appeal system for those affected would seem a better way forward. But in the end the Admin's decision should be final. That's the way in the real world too. Sometimes it just doesn't seem fair but heyho, get over it, it's only a forum for goodness sake.

Like others I look forward to hearing details as to the planned changes[/quote]

[COLOR=black]This is the point Annec you don't know the history which is why the rules that you suggest and are already in place don't work The judging of penalties are flawed and inconsistent due to pre-conceived ideas or misinformation received or ;ack of time to know what has been posted by the person who hands them out. Where do you draw the line about personal abuse, some are able to laugh at themselves whilst others aren't. Frequently I get the mickey taken out of my dyslexia but I don't start screaming at the top of my voice I join in and laugh about it. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]The recent thread locked was full of posts that continued to foment the dispute and if I remember rightly so did the last little fracas start in this way. What I'm saying, is it really possible for those with strong opinions to stop? Clearly not, which is why a judge is needed and then we are back into square one.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]The most recent penalties handed out are even more flawed then in the first place due to this thread breeching the forums own rules and the reasons given for the bans are completely subjective guesswork.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I whole heartedly agree with Ronald that for 1% of members to spoil it for all the remaining members is crazy but does it really have that much impact on them. I suggest that for most they don’t take any notice at all. They take or contribute to the forum and just stay clear of the few who clearly dislike each other. I would guess that the majority of complaints to IM come from the 1% that are locked in dispute. As for this constant reference to members being scared to post, again is it really that many, will it really affect the forum if they don’t. You will never please all the people all the time.[/COLOR]

A fresh start is needed but how I have no idea as this has been going on for well over two years. Other forums appear to chug along in there own sweet way inluding the ups and downs but maybe they don't have a magazine at stake.

Well Trulli, like you I've been a member of this forum for a long time, so I've seen most of what goes on. I just haven't participated in any behind the scenes shenanigans.

And that's my point (note to self, don't post at 2am -whittering factor greatly enhanced). In order to keep order and decide disputes, all the minute detail and "he said/she said" cannot be allowed to get in the way. If Ronald has had a problem that is it - namely he's behaved like a human being instead of the cold-hearted Judge that is actually what's needed.

I'm talking process here guys. An imperfect but only way to depersonalise disputes. Rules should be clear (and both my kids are dyslexic and would have quite a lot to say about having the mickey taken. I'm happy that the mocking of someone's disability should be a breach of the rules.), decisions should be clear and immediately promulgated, there should be a right of appeal to someone other than Ronald and basta.

And you're right Trulli, you'll never please all the people. But you should be trying for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. And if it's 1% who spoil it for the rest it's obvious what that means.

Moved to : Italiauncovered.co.uk

[COLOR=black]You see Annec this is the problem, you think one way I think another. My children are also dyslexic but they can laugh about it too because I believe they should get on with life and not use dyslexia to feel sorry for themselves. Anyway moving back to the point. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Again you are right about depersonalising disputes and what IS posted should be judged in the same way but its not. Again the recent bannings have absolutely nothing to do with what was posted on here. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Of course Ronald is human but he has admitted that he doesn't have the time or inclination to read every post and his opinion has already been coloured by the past. So if as in the recent thread for example some are penalised and others not then this is not depersonalising. It is an oversight or favouritism.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][quote]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But you should be trying for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. And if it's 1% who spoil it for the rest it's obvious what that means.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/quote]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So bearing this in mind will you and others stop having an opinion about other members opinions? Can you refrain from disagreeing with me in a post? I think not anymore than I can.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Trulli
I think what Annec was saying was that to end disputes the arbitrator has to depersonalise the situation, and then a decision is taken.It is much too difficult in many cases to stand back yourself when you feel your opinion is being questioned. We may have our own personal way in dealing with disabilities, but that is a private issue and whilst I appreciate your right to a stance and viewpoint not everyone is comfortable with that.

One of the things Ronald was keen to achieve was that if you had misgivings re rulings these should not be aired on the public forum. So I have a feeling this thread may be locked, which would be a shame as I had hoped we could all move foreward together in a positive way.
A

[quote]Trulli
I think what Annec was saying was that to end disputes the arbitrator has to depersonalise the situation, and then a decision is taken.[/quote]
Yes I agree.

The bottom line is what has and has not happened which is why we are here discussing this. How can the forum move on if the issues that cause the disbutes are not discussed because if you don't look at the roote of the problems how can the new system function. All that will happen is exactly the same as the past unless the rules are applied consitantly to all members.

If Ronald wanted private feed back then the thread would be closed.

[quote=ronald;79311] I am mentioning this so as to make more explicit the problems the current forums have, you should know that I have had two people reporting the quote [/quote]

Just a small note to say that you as I mentioned in a previous thread I discussed moderating publicly in order to make explicit some of the problems behind moderating.

Therefore, don't worry about this thread being locked because moderating decisions are being discussed. Let us just say that for the specific purposes of this thread it would be very difficult not to discuss moderating decisions because it would not be possible to discuss the future of the forums otherwise.

The real question is what style of forums do you want:

a. Where exchanges of insults are not tolerated and people are punished as a result

b. Where anything goes and no-one is banned no matter what

The problems I see with each option are as follows:

a. You need judges that all view to be fair. That is almost impossible. I think there is no one solution fits all. Some people just need a friendly PM to say - "that was a bit too much, will have to edit/remove the post" and there is no need to ban that person. After all we all get excited at times and it is normal that debates get heated. As long as we can cool it and not prolong the debate or keep attacking each other I don't see why people have to be banned. Others need a stronger hand, however. But if you apply the stonger hand then they will point to those who were treated more leniently and say that things are unfair. However, look at any legal system. The law defines ranges and gives judges options and not one penalty for each type of crime. So then the problem are the judges and how they judge things. But if you really think the judges are incapable to judge fairly and given that a community has to have judges because problems need to be resolved then you either decide to accept it or you move on. Again, please don't take this the wrong way. I am not talking about myself or suggesting that those who think I am not a good judge should leave. I think that any judge or judges would face this problem and that saying that the same penalty should be applied to everyone no matter what is as far as I can see it a simplification of a more complex issue and not the most efficient way to run a forum.

So inevitably the judge will influence the type of community that emerges based on their preferences. Just like a country's high court can steer a country to be more liberal or more conservative because of their own personal views a group of moderators can steer a forum to be more like to them - and those members that don't like how the moderators are have little options other than convincing the moderators to view things differently.

b. Not an option for a forum that falls under the umbrella of a company even if the forum is free for all. Perhaps an option for a personal forum.

[quote=trullomartinafranca;79324]The most recent penalties handed out are even more flawed then in the first place due to this thread breeching the forums own rules and the reasons given for the bans are completely subjective guesswork.[/quote]
The purpose of this thead isn't to discuss the recent events - as I see it, it was for Ronald to outline his thinking about how to move forward and seek feedback. I took it as an open invite for constructive discussion thereafter, and we can't really have that without also having some leeway to refer to recent events without reopening the inquests.

So, there has neccessarily been some references made (by Ronald) to the actions & events that brought us all here. Realistically, he couldn't have done so without referring to those actions & events, but it's clear to me that the references were there to provide clarity - and also to publically admit his real or perceived shortcomings. That is a very difficult thing for anyone to do, but I think he judged correctly that it was a prerequisite to any possible progress. I also feel that he has done, and will presumably continue to, grant some leeway to others to refer to the recent events as long as they are doing so with a clear and transparent intent to offer something positive and worthwhile rather than to question the process/decision/communication aspect in isolation.

Anyway, I do understand your point Trulli. I've looked today at the some of the IU stuff - it's got to the point now where you can't fully follow the argument here without seeing where some of Ronalds references have come from - and I can see that there is a real feeling that there still isn't a level playing field here despite Ronald's best attempts at humility.

If I may be so bold ... Ronald: having had the balls to open this up for proper adult debate, you've managed to pull in more mature and reasoned comment and feedback than I've seen for a while, some of it from the most unlikely quarters. The purely negative stuff appears to be restricted almost exclusively to some commentary at IU forum from LTR. He's clearly stated that he has no further interest in this forum, he hasn't in any case caused any trouble here since he left of his own accord, and he doesn't plan on coming back. The others are clearly willing (in fact desperate) to be involved in a debate, and most have realised you're attempting to facilitate that here and they would IMO bite your hand off for the opportunity to participate properly.

I think you need to try and grab that confounded bull by the horns and capitalise on the shift in mood while the going's good. What I mean by that is: we're discussing here the fundamentals of governance, and hopefully trying our best to leave our predjudices at the door whilst doing so. We can't realistically do this with any hope of success without including those with a vested interest as full participants.

Nielo, Sancho, Turtle, Torchiolan and the many incarnations of Aliena in particular are either banned or on moderation and therefore can't really participate. But some of them are the very people who will be most affected by any concensus reached here, and most likely/able to bring it all down later on if they aren't given an active voice now. Leaving them to post away on another forum as their means of communicating their views on this subject here is not only pointless, it just enncourages chinese whispers and will never let the forment dissipate no matter how mature and equitable the conclusion of this thread manages to be.

So, my suggestion is that Ronald removes [B]all[/B] current restrictions and reinstates [B]all[/B] banned accounts, at least until the conclusion of this debate. Perhaps those 'over the road' will then come clean on any remaining aliases which they obviously still maintain here, and retire them such that we all know who we're talking to in future.

I'd then suggest that either this (or some other specific circulo thread) be made the sole venue for ironing out - once and for all - the mechanics of how these personalities can co-exist. Make that the subject of a gentlemans agreement, i.e. do not let any animosity overflow from here into anywhere else on the site until the discusion here has run its course. Anyone found trying to 'take it outside' as it were would then be irevocably banned, by Ronald, with no need for debate & full buy in from all sides.

Out of that should come one of two conclusions - either direct public discussion will bring about sufficient rapprochement to make future self-moderation worth discussing, or it will confirm that hell will freeze over before that approach stands any chance of success.

If we can get to the former (even though it would be a messy & difficult journey and would doubtless involve raking over some rather hot coals) we'd then be ready to look at the future - but until we leave denial, pass through anger and move on through the rest of that seven stage thingumijig, any prospect of lasting progress is dead in the water anyway.

So basically, we need this turned into a mini jerry Springer episode where we can air our grievances, admit our failings and generally say directly (but politely) to each other what's bugging us. Ronald - I don't actually think that this post in general or the following in particular breaks any rules or would merit deletion ... but if you think it does, then the battle's already lost as far as I'm concerned.

So, I'll kick off.

TMF - great to see you voicing constructive thoughts here and taking time to be serious when its called for.

Nielo - I think I've got your back up of late. I concede I've misread your intent on a couple of occasions and I apologise again if I then stirred things up as a result. We need you to be part of this discussion and part of the forum ongoing.

Turtle - You've been left in a very difficult place at least partly because of your previous style/actions; you have the stamina and thick skin (publically anyway) to persevere. As you're clearly not going anywhere, it's time to engage about your motives and style on here so that you can avoid unneccessarily causing future conflict. I've been pretty hard on you at times in the past, but I've also seen the need to try and support you when you've has some pretty low blows dished out at you in public. Some small changes to your behaviour and style ,and learning "what not to say" may go a long way towards letting others co-exist peacefully with you & let bygones be bygones. I think you've gone a long way towards that already, it's just that a lot of people are not yet ready to judge you by your recent behaviour rather than their past experience.

Sancho - I'm quite embarrased for both of us that we ended up niggling at each other here, and that my niggling probably precipitated the current fallout. If you can focus your feelings of injustice and express them as we all know you are capable of, rather than let them take over your behaviour, I'd be very glad to bury any hatchet you (or anyone else) may think I have wth you. It would be excellent to have you back here and livening up discussion in your own inimitable style of old.

Torchiolan - you are basically now where I was about 6 months ago - trying to use logic, rhetoric and pursuasion on an audience who've unfortunately become immersed in intrigue, double dealing and conspiracy theories. It didn't work for me & (short of a miracle) it won't work for you - but a noble attempt. You have bee in your bonnet 'cos I'm not on pre-moderation, having done more or less the same as you did. I have some sympathy for you on that one - as I said (before it got deleted) I think the recent admin decisions were unfortunate (ok, I paraphrase somewhat here to avoid compounding the issue). I think Ronald gave me more leeway because he's seen me consistantly avoid getting too deeply embroiled in previous confrontations here, while still being an active participant and wlling to say it as I see it. So, maybe that bought me some slack, but it can't and shouldn't be seen in isolation. I certainly didn't challenge any decisions or demand explanations of them - I just mentioned them obliquely as context to the point I was trying to make in response/rebuttal of Gio's views of my actions in his initial post.

Anastasia - well this is a first, talking to you rather than one of your creations! You are clearly drawn to here like a moth to a flame. I won't try to psychoanalyse you too much - my meagre skills don't extend that far! if Ronald were to let you back on board and some of the rest of us here (like me) could see past the Anastasia bit and help bring your Gabbi/Scrapspal facets more to the fore, I reckon that'd be well worth the effort. You'd still have an outlet elsewhere for venting your spleen (and anyone obsessive enough to seek that out if this place were to settle down would only have themselves to blame). I don't believe that you keep rejoining just to cause trouble. You obviously have affection for the place and it provides somethng you want - a wide variety of people to interact with rather than the more like-minded group who live at IU.

Relaxed - hats (of whatever colour) off to you for keeping it all dignified. I wonder if you'd come back here even if the red carpet was rolled out? I reckon that would be the best way to up the standard of quality debate on our shitty chatroom :-)

CaroleB/Angie & Robert - try to resist the temptation to view chat from elsewhere ... if you know in advance that it'll be like seeing yourselves reflected in a fairground mirror.

Ronald - all the above depends on you 'opening the floodgates' and letting us have one last go at sorting out our differences ... but I just can't see any other way to do this than allow the boil to be well & trully lanced. Give it a try, you can always pull the plug if it goes pear shaped again, and at least your previous decisions would be vindicated if that happens. Would be great if you could quickly & publically post some feedback to the core idea I'm promoting here ... so that those with a vested interest know whether its a starter or not & can curb further comment until you have time to reinstate/reconfigure accounts?

Pigro - try to be less pompous, nerdy, pedantic, verbose and paranoid! hey, I'll even agree to stick to posts with a max word count in future if it'll help :-)

In response to Ronald's last post:

I always advise my clients that the outcome of their case will depend in part on who the judge is. That's life. And why its better to settle things rather than ask a third party to have to decide. The loser will [B]always [/B]consider herself hard done by.

Ronald,

I think that the problem with the system as I see it is that the Judge is the Prosecutor as well.

When this happens the Judge can develop a biased view.

Pigro - I think the idea is worth consideration and certainly in the "new" quarters of the italymag community the doors will be open for all as everyone will probably need to re-register. Again something I think is necessary to re-boot the process. This way who does not care can save the bother of registering and who wants to keep going can join in.

However, before letting everyone back in I would like to hear the opinions of the other moderators who were involved in the decisions. It would not be appropriate for me to just ignore them.

Quite happy, however, to get Nielo, Turtle and Torchiarolan off pre-moderation given that the decision to put them on pre-moderation was entirely mine and under the condition that they only participate on this thread on the subject of moderator decisions. Anything outside this thread will get deleted.

Now - while we are at it here is my problem with a few members that I find very hard to overcome.

Sancho and Anastasia/Aliena and several others have called me all sorts of nasty names that I don't think anyone deserves to hear and Sancho has gone as far as suggesting AND initiating a Google game whereby they search for my name, dig up what I have been doing in the past and have a laugh at that. I find that doubly unfair because I am debating under my real name, location, etc but have no idea who Sancho, Aliena or anyone of you really are (at times I have also debated whether all members are simply variations of Aliena which I am sure she will be thrilled to hear!).

Relaxed has told all her friends that I banned her under false pretenses and as proof send a PM that did not contain the phrase that got her banned. She never seems to have forwarded other people the PM with the phrase that did get her banned.

This makes it hard to want to be in any community with them but I guess that it is equally hard for them to be in any community for me if not harder...

[quote=ronald;79335]
Quite happy, however, to get Nielo, Turtle and Torchiarolan off pre-moderation given that the decision to put them on pre-moderation was entirely mine and under the condition that they only participate on these thread on the subject of moderator decisions. Anything outside this thread will get deleted.[/quote]
I think that means you'll remove the pre-mod, and they can discuss the mod decisions in this thread [I]but nowhere else[/I] ... [B][I]and they can also fully participate in all other normal stuff in all other threads?[/I][/B]. It just wasn't too clearly worded?

[quote=ronald;79335]
Now - while we are at it here is my problem with a few members that I find very hard to overcome.

Sancho and Anastasia/Aliena and several others have called me all sorts of nasty names that I don't think anyone deserves to hear and Sancho has gone as far as suggesting AND initiating a Google game whereby they search for my name, dig up what I have been doing in the past and have a laugh at that. I find that doubly unfair because I am debating under my real name, location, etc but have no idea who Sancho, Aliena or anyone of you really are (at times I have also debated whether all members are simply variations of Aliena which I am sure she will be thrilled to hear!).

Relaxed has told all her friends that I banned her under false pretenses and as proof send a PM that did not contain the phrase that got her banned. She never seems to have forwarded other people the PM with the phrase that did get her banned.

This makes it hard to want to be in any community with them but I guess that it is equally hard for them to be in any community for me if not harder...[/quote]

I'll not get involved in those specifics without something irrefutable as evidence (pointless anyway unless/until Sancho/Relaxed get allowed back in and then actively choose to return) but thanks for being up front about your side of the story. I still think that may be the route forward ("truth & reconcilaition commission" rings a bell).

More generally however - and a bit brutally I suppose - I don't think the issue is really whether [B]you [/B]want to be in a community with [B]them[/B]. The issue should be whether you can bring about a state of affairs whereby they can be participants in our community again (which you administer) without you having cause to sanction them in future, and without them retaining martyr/dissident status? i.e. you are primarily the admin here, and much as I'd personally like to see you able also to be a part of the community, that isn't a requirement and may be a neccessary sacrifice (at least short term) in order to assure the community as a whole can survive & prosper? My point remains that unless these strong characters can be accomodated within the community they will in all likelihood continue to try and destabilise it from afar. Unless we address that, where is there to go?

(edit) anyway, I'm starting to feel like I'm monopolising this discussion a bit. While we wait for a decision on un-banning hopefully those who've come off pre-mod may join in and give another perspective?

Pigro thanks for the clarification on Nielo, Turtle and Torchiarolan. Yes that is what I mean.
Will not answer on the rest to allow others to get a word in - just to say that you are essentially correct

Well I missed it all - but I would just say, from experience, being a moderator and / or administrator is a tough job (dirty job but someone has to do it). You get a lot of mud slung at you but very little thanks.

But I must also say - please don't scale down the discussions too much - we don't live in a sugary pink world, things go wrong everywhere and heated discussions are often the most interesting and the most useful.

However there is no need for personal insults and these should never be tolerated.

Firstly let me say, i see nothing fundamentally wrong with the admin on here,a little tweaking here and there would not go a miss though.

A lovely speech by ronnie, but i still have memories of the last time he made a similar speech too. So maybe its more a case of the users forgetting what has been said before, rather than ronnie coming clean,as he is mentioning the same problems that have come up before,over and over again.

[of corse the above statement could be taken the wrong way,which seems to be something that happens with a lot of posts on here]

So how do you resolve these issue? new admin? tougher moderation? clean slates,start again?

Alas i have no definative answer,what i would say is none of the above would be a guarantee that harmony would break out, people are just that even when they share alot in common there will still be a fair few difference on opinions.

This is made worse by the fact that one party may believe their post is non aggressive,or non demeaning whilst another party maywell feel that is not the case,and their response maywell leave no doubt as to what they mean.This sort of thing happens alot and whilst it seems easy to lay blame in truth that is not always the case.

Any forum is a mirror image of the people who use it, even if this was a christian forum that discussed only christian idealogies,there would still be room for all out arguments,so i cannot see how users of this forum can expect a forum not to get heated at times.

Maybe the rules are too black or white, on more than one ocassion you will find some members expecting the axe to fall on another member just for a minior infridgement!
Yet at the same time they would keep quiet, if a "friend" of theres was to be quilty of the same thing.

And yes i am a fine one to talk,but then i do realise and more importantly except that others too have a right to their opinions,as do i.

In truth i cannot think of any member past or present who in my opinion did not think brought some good to the forum.In the same breath cannot think of a regular member who i would have excluded definitively.

We need rules, i accept that, but more importantly we need members who can look past the name of a poster and make a judgement on what they have written there and then
Rather than using previous experience to cloud ones judgement.

"bannings"

I know this will not be popular,but i believe there is room for a better delievery of the banning punishments,and the scale of the ban too, its far too limited.

[COLOR=black]In principle everyone wants the same outcome but we are still stuck as to the answers of how a moderator judges what is acceptable and how to accommodate different personalities without triggering a complaint. [/COLOR]

[quote] Now - while we are at it here is my problem with a few members that I find very hard to overcome.

Sancho and Anastasia/Aliena and several others have called me all sorts of nasty names that I don't think anyone deserves to hear and Sancho has gone as far as suggesting AND initiating a Google game whereby they search for my name, dig up what I have been doing in the past and have a laugh at that. I find that doubly unfair because I am debating under my real name, location, etc but have no idea who Sancho, Aliena or anyone of you really are (at times I have also debated whether all members are simply variations of Aliena which I am sure she will be thrilled to hear!).

Relaxed has told all her friends that I banned her under false pretenses and as proof send a PM that did not contain the phrase that got her banned. She never seems to have forwarded other people the PM with the phrase that did get her banned.

This makes it hard to want to be in any community with them but I guess that it is equally hard for them to be in any community for me if not harder...
[/quote]

Understandable for anyone to be upset by any sort of verbal attack.
One has to remember what i said earlier,its never just a simple case of right V wrong,if only it was as simple as that.

But ronnie,from the same open forum where you mention these not so pleasent attacks on your person have also come more complementory remarks towards you too,and from the same sources, without me trying to be clever,you as a person should bare that in mind.

not always just black or white.

There are some who are not that openminded once their minds are made up.

Moved to : Italiauncovered.co.uk

Problem: Some of the mod team have leanings towards others due to the past. This may not be an unbiased decision and I hate to say this but if Aliena or Sancho (assuming they want to) are allowed to return [COLOR=black]will the slate be wiped clean, fresh start, forget the past? Is this really possible, we have been here before. Sorry don’t mean to sound negative but if its going to work then everyone has got to support it all the way irrespective of their own opinions about others. [/COLOR]

PS sorry forgot lax or anyone else if we really are going to start afresh

I believe that there is a way forward and that essentially it is extremely simple.

There are rules and procedures in place which ALL members agree to.

I have no objection to the rules or the procedures for enforcing them.

If I called someone a nasty name I would expect my post to be deleted or edited. In return I expect that if someone calls me a nasty name then their post should be edited or deleted.

The trouble is that a lot of the nastiness (from all sides) is contained in subtle innuendo only those with a clear understanding of the history here will pick up the barb in a seemingly innocent comment. I don’t think it is possible for any forum administration to deal with this effectively. In a way it is preferable to be open rather than conceal nastiness in posts or conduct campaigns in private via PMs

The only way for this forum to continue is for everyone to agree to forget the past and start a fresh. I don’t hold grudges and I believe I am capable of moving on. But it has to be everyone, including Ronald.

I would not want to come back to a forum where people are allowed to insult me and I am expected to take it on the chin but if I disagree with certain people I am branded a bully.

I would not want to be part of a forum where I read things and know that if I said exactly that Ronald would descend on me from a great height.

All I have ever asked for is fairness and openness.

All I ask for is people to be judged on their input not who they might be.

I would also like a forum where everyone is secure to post their opinions politely without fear or favour.

We still have a problem with judgments being handed out fairly. Ok, dare I suggest members from the oposing sides or even unbiased sides (who have little knowledge of the past) are voted in as moderators in these situations? Silly idea?

[QUOTE=Torchiarolan;79352]I, yet annec was still allowed to continue posting pearls like...
"And why its better to settle things rather than ask a third party to have to decide. The loser will always consider herself hard done by."
Now I am not sure I have her right sentiment on this but it seemed arrogant and high handed talk to me and suggested she considered herself to be in a "winners" enclosure... if I had felt it was addressed to me... guess what... I would have replied in kind.
QUOTE]

As I understood it, this thread is about a way forward, not about continuing earlier complaints. So I won't take up too much space other than to say that your interpretation is wrong Torch. I'm sorry you feel the way you do but if you had asked me for clarification I would have given it.

This is the 3rd time I have tried to respond to Pigros comments so have finally decided to try it as a word document.
I have to say that I disagree totally with his suggestion, this is not some commercial game show, or free for all, this is a forum, and I do not believe that the skills are present here to prevent it from becoming hurtful and damaging. As a counsellor and mediator in my previous life I do have a knowledge of what I am talking about and I think that the consequences and damage liability have not been considered..

As for banned members, I think they have clearly demonstrated that they are incapable of keeping to the rules and any inclusion in the debate for a better future would be ill advised.

I am also not happy with Pigros comments with regard to my viewing other forums, we usually tend to agree to disagree Pigro but perhaps this is a step too far, though perhaps I should view it as a kindly suggestion?.

A

Thats lightened things up a bit! :laughs::laughs::laughs:

ok, just a quick one from me to A&R re my comment about viewing other forums - that was a small part of a long post, perhaps I tried for too much shorthand .. I meant that I understand the pull of knowing that there are people possibly talking about one (or things/people which concern one) - once one knows that's going on, and one has the ability to anonymously access it, it's hard to avoid listening in from time to time - just human nature. But, if the people one is listening to are just saying stuff that one finds offensive or that one feels to be a distortion of the truth, then it isn't too healthy to keep listening passively as it can only breed resentment. Thats all I meant. No dig, no harm intended. Should have kept shtum on that front i guess - I raised it beause I also find myself drawn to look occasionally but it usually leaves me in disagreement, but with no desire to participate there - hence not worth it in general - though has been helpful to me today.

[COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Pigro, Well actually listening to both sides of a story is better than believing only one but of course it will depend on how it is interpreted. Why should you assume distortion pigro? Its ok I'm pulling your leg I know what you meant but it just goes to prove a word said can be taken to be offensive if one choses too. [/COLOR]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[quote=trullomartinafranca;79366]Why should you assume distortion pigro? Its ok I'm pulling your leg I know what you meant but it just goes to prove a word said can be taken to be offensive if one choses too.[/quote]
phew! [COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR]

Blimey Pigro I only looked at the other site a couple of times, honest!!!. I see now Torch is on an evangelical bent, so now God is in the equation, can we expect divine intervention?
A

Me - I was/am relatively happy with the way ronald et al 'managed' the forum [Although perhaps he/they could have intervened earlier in certain cases]

Most of the suggested 'reforms' seem fraught with potential problems.

I haven't really seen anything that merits adoption as a new methodology.

We should remember we chose to join the forums, 'warts and all' - so lets let ronald get on with it.

.

[COLOR=black]If only it was that simple! Latest example nielo welcomed back Sancho then the *****ing started. Then members get banned and put on moderation without being in line with the rules while others continue to *****. Stupid crazy and childish but it has become personal and people are being hurt by it all, including Ronald. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]I have said this before but if you look at other Italian forums they don't have this problem and in my opinion its because the administrator/owner started the forum up because they wanted to. They monitor it constantly because they are interested in looking after it. Any problems are resolved fairly and before it gets out of control. This can not be done unless every thread/post is followed. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]The difference with Ronald is this forum is a job, he is a technician and doesn't have the same attitude about this forum, not really his baby in the same way as it is for those that start up their own. I'm not saying he doesn't care but it is just part of his job not a main interest. For this reason decisions are made in a hap hazard way. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]Also consider that these issues have been going on for over two years and have become compounded. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]One thing I do know is this forum is the most comprehensive for gaining information so for it to go would be a tragedy.[/COLOR]

[quote=alan haynes;79382]
Most of the suggested 'reforms' seem fraught with potential problems.

I haven't really seen anything that merits adoption as a new methodology.

We should remember we chose to join the forums, 'warts and all' - so lets let ronald get on with it.
[/quote]

Aren't you missing the point here? Ronald instigated this thread in response to sustained criticism. He stated that the admin/moderation roles WILL change, and they will change to such an extent that we'll all have to re-register if we wish to continue participating after he rolls out the changes. He's in charge of the forums and if he says so, it WILL presumably happen. He's currently allowing feedback as to HOW (not IF) we think it should change.

Your view - basically "it's fine as it is" - therefore doesn't seem to be an option that Ronald is considering. We ARE going to be asked to "self-moderate" to a much greater degree in future (Ronalds words, not mine). So, this current discussion boils down to:

(a) what does "self-moderation" entail & what (if any) forum tools will be provided to support it.
(b) who would be willing/able to be the additional moderators Ronald wants
(c) is there anything we can do meantime to improve the chances of success.

I'd like to see Ronald put up at least a "straw man" a.s.a.p. and let everyone (including the banned) have a shot at it.

An update on the nature of the new forums and a couple of recommendations

The new forums/community we are designing will center around the people of the community much more than the current ones. The aim is to enable people to connect to each other via interests, location in italy, etc so as to interact outside of just the forums environment.

We would also like to encourage people to share photos and films and stories and be able to comment on those in a different format than what we can currently do on these forums. Something that would allow people more freedom than the schema of these forum categories and also allow people to clearly say "I own this story - it is not in the forums if you want to read it you can if you want to ignore it you can"

So it would be possible to be a very active member of the community without ever participating in forums through interaction with those people you have identified and linked up to in the community.

People will also be able to create private groups. So if there is a sub-group that is crazy about the book Under The Tuscan Sun they can create a private, invitation only group to discuss the issue rather than have to do it openly. Who hates the Tuscan Sun can equally create another group to discuss how bad that book is.

People will also be able to vote on content - and those votes will make content more or less prominent. So the most popular posts, forum discussions, etc should float to the front page while others will simply stay were they are.

Finally (and this is still very much a suggestion), I would like to create an open group where moderating decisions can be discussed and debated and any action can be voted on. This will be a place were people can voice their concerns publicly. These votes can act as an indication of how much people care about a particular decision and can assist in taking the final decision (which will not be purely vote driven). It will be your chance to say "I've made my argument to you publicly, I've pointed out where I think you are wrong so if you take an action that I consider unfair then it is a matter of public record". The rest of the community can then make a decision about whether the community is managed well enough or not and whether it is worth dedicating time and participating or not.

It will also be a way to contain discussions in a specific place - because it really hurts both the discussion and the forums when it spills out over threads that are completely irrelevant

Notice that I have not said anything on who will be taking the final decision. I would be more than happy if this was a team of moderators and I just need to implement it. However, that cannot always be done because you cannot demand of people to be debating the banning or not of a member on Christmas Day or on any other day. You can simply hope they will be willing to dedicate some time whenever they can. The continuity of the forum can only be the final responsibility of who administrates and owns the forum.

So that was the update - here is the recommendation. Take a break. New Year celebrations are coming up. Enjoy them, talk about what is going on in Italy but don't worry about the administration of the forums. Give all the people that are usually on these forums a chance to come back and have a say as well (especially with regards to letting everyone that was banned come back) and wait for an invitation to join the new forums and try them out. I should be sending invitations after the 15th of January until finally everyone is over there rather than over here.

There we will also be able to pick up the discussion.

I have read the varied comments in this thread from a somewhat detached viewpoint. There seems to be a great amount of confusion (both on the part of the hard-pressed administration, and of the other commentators) as to whether this 'forum' is a horse worth flogging.

The administration appears to see some virtue in encompassing the fashionable notion of the social networking site. I wonder whether this is a good idea. The presently described (or perceived) difficulties appear to come from a failed attempt to impose some authoritarian (even if undoubtedly well meaning) control over interpersonal relationships. Since my understanding of 'networking' sites is that their raison d'etre is to deal exclusively with interpersonal relationships (unmoderated), I am tempted to the opinion that any move in this direction is not a sensible way to address 'the problem' - if, indeed, a problem exists.

I, of necessity, depend for certain extremely topical informations on various internet forums. I know that often the information is provided by the sort of person I would really rather not encounter in real life. But if a troglodyte psycopath is the only person in cyberspace who will give me precise and accurate directions to something which it is imperative that I learn within eighteen seconds - then who am I to suggest he should be 'Sectioned'?

Needless to say, the forums which I describe are completely unmoderated, entirely effective as channels of communication, and, rather surprisingly to me, also develop ther own 'communities'. These social sub-sets communicate in the sort of 'code' which has been mentioned in this thread: I don't understand the code, I don't worry about it, I simply let it pass me by.

I have ramblingly described two sorts of internet 'venue' . They have different aims and ambitions, and I have no idea whether their administrations are delighted or disgusted.

I am simply posting this as food for thought. I'm only posing questions, not offering solutions.

interesting Charles. I hadn't thought of Ronalds proposals in those terms (as heading towards social networking) but I see what you mean now you point it out. I hope the common theme of Italy would differentiate the proposed new site from a standard myspace/facebook offering, but I really don't know (not being a user of any of them). For once, I think I may need to sit and listen to others views rather than firing off half baked opinions :-)

But as we're raising questions - you've piqued my interest as to the nature of your dependency (on the topical internet info). Sounds rather intriguing. Care to share?

If I was ItalyMag management I would view this forum in purely commercial terms. Is it good, bad or neutral for the magazine? Clearly there are legal issues (of defamation etc) and the question of whether the magazine wishes to be associated with (to use your words Charles)troglodyte psycopaths. So moderation is essential or the management will pull the plug.

So I'm interested to see how much like a "social networking" site the new forum will be. My guess is not at all - for the above reasons.

[quote=ronald;79389]
Give all the people that are usually on these forums a chance to come back and have a say as well (especially with regards to letting everyone that was banned come back) and wait for an invitation to join the new forums and try them out. I should be sending invitations after the 15th of January until finally everyone is over there rather than over here.

There we will also be able to pick up the discussion.[/quote]

I would like some clarification about this please.

As I read it the new forum would be open to invited members only, in the initial stages.

But we have not yet decided whether banned members will be allowed back on to this forum.

I am of the opinion that if there is to be a new beginning, and really substantial changes, then it would be fairest to allow everyone to take part in this consultation. If there are members who are not prepared to tolerate the ‘banned’ then it would be easier to decide on the invitations list for the new forums.

I am assuming that after a trial period with selected members the forums would become open to all, is this the case? Or would they remain open only to an invited selection?

I would also be grateful Ronald if you could tell us all what the selection procedure is to be and what criteria will be used when selecting who to invite.

An an answer to Charles and Pigro - Yes the website will probably resemble a social networking site. But not just in the Facebook sense.

ITALY has a very tight focus so the website will be tooled to support that foucs.

It will make it easier for people to discuss their particular area of Italy, create guides, etc about the various subjects that interest them and build and extend those guides without loosing the information in the forum structure of threads and replies does not always lend itself to.

This of it more along the lines of wikipedia/forums/social networking/private groups/chat with member profiles at the center.

So you would start life from your profile, see what topics you are interested in have been updated and then interact with the website in a variety of ways.

The benefits for a Charles-type member is that they will probably be able to get to the information without having to read any "ramblings" and without the loss of directions that threads take.

The benefits for who does like to change topic and have a more casual chat is that there will be places specifically designed for that. So we can say - look you cannot do this in place x,y and z but you go ahead and create a group all of your own (e.g. the Friday Joke Group). Make it private and invitation-only and who wants to join you can, but people will not need to complain about what you are writing.

There will of course be some restrictions. The usual no-no subjects will of course still be no-no (racism, violence, offending others etc).

You will also be able to look at other's profiles and try to find people who interest you and link up to them directly without having to have a public discussion in the forums. Currently you can do that via PM but the profiles are quite limited and the ways to search profiles is very limited.

So, for example, someone could join in and say "I just moved to Viterbo, kids in school, life is good - if anyone is moving to Viterbo let me know" and that would be the sum of their interaction with the website. Someone else comes along, reads the profile, gets in touch and perhaps something will be gained for both parties. Both never posted in the forums, don't know the esoterica of five years of forum battles and live happily ever after.

So overall it's a case of adding to what is here to include more people and make the things we are already trying to do on the forums easier to do by getting the right tools for the job in question.

An an answer to Nielo. Initally I will get in touch with a few people that will test the site while it is really at its raw stage. If during this time someone else is itching to have a go they will be able to get in touch with me and I will get them in.

Once the whole thing is "live" anyone will be able to register. After all, people may be banned here but they still register don't they :smile:. So it would be silly and naive to say who was banned should not come back.

I am hoping people that don't like me, think I do/will do a really bad job and/or don't like a lot of other people on this forums and/or already have a place of their own will have enough sense to say - why bother? If they do join and then just cause problems well at least the intention will be crystal clear and whatever moderating structure emerges will have to take care of that best they can.

As a side note let me point that that it would be possible to just make all members of this forum members of the new site - but I think the act of registering or at least saying - yes please I want to continue with an account on this new site - is important. People can register with a clear idea of what they are signing up to.

Hope this helps.

Thank you Ronald for a comprehensive outline of your ideas.

I asked what the selection criteria will be for inviting people from here onto the new site initially.

Obviously it would be pointless to invite a member who registered a year ago posted once and has never been seen again, on the other hand the more verbose amongst us (I do include myself in this category) are often also seen as the problem causers. You say “they will be able to get in touch with me and I will get them in”, does this mean there is in fact no selection, other than self selection, after the initial invitation stage and banned members will be welcome?

I would assume that all the moderators will be on the invitation list but who else? With a limited selection of members how will it test whether the new site actually works?

One other thing now occurs to me. I changed my name in a futile attempt to stop other members researching me in real life and I would be loath to publish personal details in any member profile. You just don't know who reads these things and whether you want them turning up at your door.

I am sorry if this sounds negative, I actually think the new direction is good but I do see some areas where it might cause problems and it is best to voice them now rather than later.

Nielo
I do understand what you are saying, it is not negative, the last thing I would want is for disanfranchised people arriving on my doorstep, too scarey, though our neighbours do monitor visiters so might be difficult to pass by my elderly friends. Who have been known to stop cars on the white road and ask them where they are going. Everyone around here is very nosey which is a blessing.

Suppose the cats and my dogs would always see them off ?
A