Portobello Online and the Community Council

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Sep 2006, 20:07

From the minutes of the PCC August meeting:

[quote]240.8h Portobello Online: Maria Devoy reported that there had not been a meeting of the sub-group despite her best efforts to organise a meeting during July and August. However, the three moderators/administrators had met to deal with complaints made by four people. It was agreed that members of the sub-group would meet following the CC meeting and agree a date promptly.

Maria told the meeting that only 4 people out of a total of over 550 registered users had complained. In dealing with these complaints: one had been upheld; an informal request to remove a group of postings was agreed in acknowledgment of the effect on the complainant at being the focus of them; another thread had posts edited to protect the privacy of a group of residents and the fourth was denied. Maria had received phone calls from two of the complainants, which is not part of the agreed complaints procedure.

A general discussion on the contributions to Portobello Online took place. A member of the public and some CC members said they had concerns about the disrespect and personal insults shown to individuals, and the tone and content of some contributors who remained anonymous. Their opinion was that these contributions do not reflect our community and could affect the reputation of Portobello. John Stewart suggested the removal of all posts subject to a complaint until it was resolved. It was also suggested that no anonymous postings be allowed, and that a more formal discussion site be separated from the â€œchat roomâ€

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 17 Sep 2006, 01:07

Role of moderator definitely a difficult one and well done to POL moderators.

Just don't understand why forum has to get vicious. Yes, in life we dislike people. POL is only a forum for ideas and discussions - yes, sometimes heated.

Big fall outs/hating people - its a shame

for the forum is great for the community.

I am not anonymous on this site - I use my real name and my photo is also posted - ooooohh

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Sep 2006, 11:08

It seems that some of the PCC don't have a any great knowledge or experience of forums which makes it difficult for them to 'judge' our one?

But then some on the PCC seemed to think that PHS should remain as they had 'fond memories' of their time there!!

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 18 Sep 2006, 21:05

I also agree that the moderators have a difficult task.

Did they choose to be moderators or was it thrust upon them

I cannot recall from the very early meetings whether or not they were coerced.

If someone has been complained about, should the online community have a vote to see whether or not they agree with the moderators, or would that be too difficult to manage

Back to the old democracy thing again

Post by **wangi** » 18 Sep 2006, 22:27

I struggle to actually see the point in POL being associated with the community council... What is the point?

Scorpion · Post by **Scorpion** » 18 Sep 2006, 23:28

I would just like to offer my support to whatever decisions the moderators of this forum take. I am sure that they will take an objective view of the matters concerned. I have been very impressed with the way the forum is run. However, I'm afraid that there will always be some members who are not as flexible with their opinions as others. Hopefully any disputes that there are will be resolved amicably.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 19 Sep 2006, 21:25

wangi wrote:I struggle to actually see the point in POL being associated with the community council... What is the point?

As our young Doris said shortly after she had perambulated on the prom with her usual posse of proles, taxing terrified timeworn tweenies and apparently being harrassed by the local Peelers, brought home, spanked and put straight to bed;

"It's safety in numbers dadio, safety in numbers"

I of course thought that POL has its own identity and needn't have to seek credence by attaching its self to such a group, whether or not it has members common to both POL and the CC.

"The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticismâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Sep 2006, 22:58

I might be completely wrong - but didn't POL come from the CC?

As far as I (think I) know - Bob was involved with the CC and took the idea to them - hence the existence of the shadowy senate oversight committee etc

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 20 Sep 2006, 08:08

dadaist wrote:I might be completely wrong - but didn't POL come from the CC?

As far as I (think I) know - Bob was involved with the CC and took the idea to them - hence the existence of the shadowy senate oversight committee etc

The ministry of.......... <img src="http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Orwell.jpg">

"A revolution, in politics, is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment. The substitution of the rule of an administration for that of a ministry, whereby the welfare and happiness of the people were advanced a full half-inch.â€

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 10:35

Sandra wrote:Role of moderator definitely a difficult one and well done to POL moderators.

Dave Connelly wrote:I also agree that the moderators have a difficult task.

So there is agreement that the task is difficult but Dave do you agree that our moderators do a good job?

(I think they do a difficiult job well)

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 Sep 2006, 10:45

wangi wrote:I struggle to actually see the point in POL being associated with the community council... What is the point?

doesn't some of the site funding come from them??

I too am a bit mystified about the connection between POL and the CC. They also seem to be keen to exercise some influence or control over the forum (and I get the feeling that some members of the CC would rather the POL forum didn't exist.)

With regard to the complaints made against specific posters, can we see what the charges are and perhaps get some idea from the moderators about their thinking in making their decisions with regard to these complaints?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 10:49

ali wrote:
wangi wrote:I struggle to actually see the point in POL being associated with the community council... What is the point?
doesn't some of the site funding come from them??

Think they gave Â£50 3 years ago. Which has to be the best value ever.

Bob is knocking his pan in trying to get 20 odd years of the Porty Reporter digitised and that's only one community benefit.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 10:55

Ah - I was confused by your questioning of Dave there - I didn't know you were talking about the other stuff that Bob & Marya do for POL!

Yes - when you add in everything else (I didn't even know about the digitising stuff) they are doing a brilliant job for the community without a doubt and are to be applauded.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 11:11

You shoudn't be confused by my questioning of Dave, I'm interested to know if he thinks the forum is well-moderated? To say "I agree that the moderators have a difficult task" and just leave it at that could be construed as a back-handed compliment. It would be helpful to know what Dave actually thinks about the standard of moderating here on POL?

edit corrected quote

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 11:32

ali wrote:
I too am a bit mystified about the connection between POL and the CC. They also seem to be keen to exercise some influence or control over the forum

I'm not sure that's true given that the sub-committee only met for the first time in 4 years the other evening but I guess we will find out once we get an update.

ali wrote: (and I get the feeling that some members of the CC would rather the POL forum didn't exist.)

I think your feeling is bang-on and I don't think it applies solely to members of PCC. I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding or ignorance about how a forum works and rather than take the trouble to learn; instant judgments are made, frequently on hearsay.

Ali, you are an experienced forum user, not just here on POL but on a few others (i guess). Are you happy with the standard of moderation here?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 11:38

Porty wrote:You shoudn't be confused by my questioning of Dave, I'm interested to know if he thinks the forum is well-moderated? To say "I agree that the moderators have a difficult task" and just leave it at that could be construed as a back-handed compliment. It would be helpful to know what Dave actually thinks about the standard of moderating here on POL?

edit corrected quote

Helpful to what?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 11:46

dadaist wrote:Helpful to what?

My understanding of what Dave thinks of the moderation here on POL. Its not clear to me.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 11:59

Porty wrote:
dadaist wrote:Helpful to what?
My understanding of what Dave thinks of the moderation here on POL. Its not clear to me.

Why him?

If you wanted to ask everyone and conduct a poll, I'd understand.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 13:16

dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:
dadaist wrote:Helpful to what?
My understanding of what Dave thinks of the moderation here on POL. Its not clear to me.
Why him?

May I refer you to my third post on this thread which on my PC was made at 11:11am.

dadaist wrote: If you wanted to ask everyone and conduct a poll, I'd understand.

A poll wouldn't tell me what Dave thinks, which is my desire. I hope you understand.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:11

It looks to me like he has already posted what he thinks, or what he has chosen to tell us about what he thinks.

You're not just asking what he thinks, you're asking him if he agrees that the mods do a "good" job. That's a rather uncomfortably narrow choice.

Irrespective of who the mods are and what we think of them, I think the one thing we're united on as users is that it's ridiculous to suggest shutting the place down.

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:21

Porty wrote:
ali wrote:
I too am a bit mystified about the connection between POL and the CC. They also seem to be keen to exercise some influence or control over the forum
I'm not sure that's true given that the sub-committee only met for the first time in 4 years the other evening but I guess we will find out once we get an update.

ali wrote: (and I get the feeling that some members of the CC would rather the POL forum didn't exist.)
I think your feeling is bang-on and I don't think it applies solely to members of PCC. I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding or ignorance about how a forum works and rather than take the trouble to learn; instant judgments are made, frequently on hearsay.

Ali, you are an experienced forum user, not just here on POL but on a few others (i guess). Are you happy with the standard of moderation here?

I am very happy with the standard and quality of the moderation here.

I am however concerned that people with no experience of forums or people with an agenda might attempt to apply pressure from outside in order to clamp down on issues which may not assist their own agenda or fit with their particular view.

I was particularly concerned about remarks in the CC minutes about anonymity and personal attacks, which is why I think that complaints or certainly the ajudication and verdict with regard to complaints should be made available to the public through the forum in some way.

With regard to the CC and POL , can somebody explain if the CC has "ownership" of POL in some way? Why is there a sub-committee? What exactly is the sub-committee's remit?

ali · Post by **ali** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:23

dadaist wrote: Irrespective of who the mods are and what we think of them, I think the one thing we're united on as users is that it's ridiculous to suggest shutting the place down.

sorry, did I miss something??? Who suggested shutting the place down????

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:30

I was sure it was on this thread but I can't find it any more - something about calls to shut us down, something about non-forum users?

I'm sure I'm not confused???

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:34

As has already been posted, a meeting of the Portobello Online CC sub-committee took place recently. A report from that meeting will be given to the CC meeting on Monday night and then it will be in the public domain. It would not be appropriate to discuss the content of this report until then.

I can assure you that Portobello Online will not be closing down now or anytime soon.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Sep 2006, 14:44

Thank goodness for that.

Even the US Imperialists in all of their conquests in the middle east - for all of the bloodshed - didn't actually set out to remove the countries they didn't like from the atlas. Sure, they wanted regime change, but not even hawks in the administration talked of wiping them off the map.

If POL has been "poisoning the community" then I must account for a significant tonnage of our stockpile of toxins.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2006, 15:44

ali wrote:I am however concerned that people with no experience of forums or people with an agenda might attempt to apply pressure from outside in order to clamp down on issues which may not assist their own agenda or fit with their particular view.

Beautifully put.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 21 Sep 2006, 22:59

ali wrote:
wangi wrote:I struggle to actually see the point in POL being associated with the community council... What is the point?
doesn't some of the site funding come from them??

I too am a bit mystified about the connection between POL and the CC. They also seem to be keen to exercise some influence or control over the forum (and I get the feeling that some members of the CC would rather the POL forum didn't exist.)

With regard to the complaints made against specific posters, can we see what the charges are and perhaps get some idea from the moderators about their thinking in making their decisions with regard to these complaints?

I'd be quite happy contributing to POL forum funds and release CC of the task

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Sep 2006, 23:06

Thank you Sandra. Your first direct debit payment is due.............

Truth is, as Porty posted earlier, we have had a total of Â£50 from the CC in the last 4 years.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 24 Sep 2006, 19:51

ali wrote:[
I was particularly concerned about remarks in the CC minutes about anonymity

Ah well, Ali, that is interesting, isn't it - as I understand it the prime example of this shocking use of anonymous usernames centred on...Bellybabe. Of course, I take that particular part of the CC minutes absolutely seriously. From now on I intend to be known by my real name.

Agnes Blodwyn Snotwangle at your service.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Sep 2006, 20:00

Bellybabe wrote:Agnes Blodwyn Snotwangle at your service.

Ah, that explains why you don't use your real name. Whereas, I feel I should now use my full name:

Bob 'Community Poisoner' Jefferson

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Sep 2006, 14:15

Bob Jefferson wrote:As has already been posted, a meeting of the Portobello Online CC sub-committee took place recently. A report from that meeting will be given to the CC meeting on Monday night and then it will be in the public domain. It would not be appropriate to discuss the content of this report until then.

I can assure you that Portobello Online will not be closing down now or anytime soon.

What bit of the public domain is it in? Cannae find it.

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Sep 2006, 16:08

Bob Jefferson wrote:Thank you Sandra. Your first direct debit payment is due.............

Truth is, as Porty posted earlier, we have had a total of Â£50 from the CC in the last 4 years.

So why do you feel that you have to "report" to them at their meetings and why are we one of their sub-committees?

What does POL get out of it??

....and why do they think that we should modify our online behaviour according to their directions??.

(and can you point us towards those pesky elusive minutes??)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Sep 2006, 18:12

As requested here is the report of the sub-committe meeting, which I delivered to the CC Meeting 25 Sept.

Notes on a meeting of the Portobello Community Council sub-committee for the Portobello Online community website. Monday 18th September, 2006.

Present: Maria Devoy, Paula Williams, Bob Jefferson, John Stewart, Brenda Molony, Maureen Child, Lawrence Marshall.
(Apologies from Nick Stroud).

The meeting had been arranged "to try and resolve outstanding complaints through the complaints procedure. This group was also invited to consider any additional measures that could improve the forum". (From Minutes of CC meeting of 29th August).

1) The moderators reported that, as far as they were aware, all outstanding complaints had been resolved.

2) It was agreed to set up an email group for sub-committee members so that complaints that were not resolved at administrator level could be considered and resolved without undue delay, ideally within one week. Decisions taken at this level would be final and no further correspondence would be entered into.

3) The Posting Guidelines and Complaints Procedure would stress that any complaints should be in writing (by email) and not by telephone or personal contact with the moderators, administrators or sub-committee members.

4) Forum users would be asked not to be so combative in their responses to others, and to avoid remarks of a personal nature.

5) The moderators will not tolerate online personal feuds or attacks and will take any steps they consider necessary to prevent this from happening.

6) The moderators undertake to enforce the Posting Guidelines fairly and to the best of their ability and welcome the support of the Community Council in this difficult task.

7) Both Maria and Bob had been subjected to personal attacks by visitors at recent CC meetings, and it was agreed that greater effort should be made to prevent this.

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Sep 2006, 19:42

Marya wrote:As requested here is the report of the sub-committe meeting, which I delivered to the CC Meeting 25 Sept.

Notes on a meeting of the Portobello Community Council sub-committee for the Portobello Online community website. Monday 18th September, 2006.

Present: Maria Devoy, Paula Williams, Bob Jefferson, John Stewart, Brenda Molony, Maureen Child, Lawrence Marshall.
(Apologies from Nick Stroud).

The meeting had been arranged "to try and resolve outstanding complaints through the complaints procedure. This group was also invited to consider any additional measures that could improve the forum". (From Minutes of CC meeting of 29th August).

1) The moderators reported that, as far as they were aware, all outstanding complaints had been resolved.

2) It was agreed to set up an email group for sub-committee members so that complaints that were not resolved at administrator level could be considered and resolved without undue delay, ideally within one week. Decisions taken at this level would be final and no further correspondence would be entered into.

3) The Posting Guidelines and Complaints Procedure would stress that any complaints should be in writing (by email) and not by telephone or personal contact with the moderators, administrators or sub-committee members.

4) Forum users would be asked not to be so combative in their responses to others, and to avoid remarks of a personal nature.

5) The moderators will not tolerate online personal feuds or attacks and will take any steps they consider necessary to prevent this from happening.

6) The moderators undertake to enforce the Posting Guidelines fairly and to the best of their ability and welcome the support of the Community Council in this difficult task.

7) Both Maria and Bob had been subjected to personal attacks by visitors at recent CC meetings, and it was agreed that greater effort should be made to prevent this.

Would anyone like to comment on Item 7?

I had heard that one of the vicious personal attacks had been been eh, driven straight back down the wicket......................(*ahem*)..... as it were............. and that the fast bowler had been injured by their own delivery...... (*cough*)...... sort of.

could be just a load of tittle-tattle of course.

and while we're on the subject of personal attacks perhaps members and "visitors" to the Community council should be asked by the Chairperson to apply points 4 and 5 above to their own conduct at their meetings.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 27 Sep 2006, 23:11

Bob Jefferson wrote:Thank you Sandra. Your first direct debit payment is due.............

Truth is, as Porty posted earlier, we have had a total of Â£50 from the CC in the last 4 years.

Don't mind chipping in

Why should the CC have a say in how the forum is run? I am perfectly happy that they are involved in the community page. Its definitely a case of "too many chief's". If the worse comes to the worst we can always set up another forum.