Also, (for Robert & Mark) to implement my solution, I think all it would take is adding:

.rankModerator {display:none;}

to the end of layout_sa3.css :)

Luke,

No, my comments are not directed at you personally; I am wanting to argue for a principle to apply to all moderators.

I think your suggestion that the title moderator not be used when you are contributing rather than moderating has merit. 

However, Gordon’s comment from earlier is, in my view, the substantive issue:

But speaking as a Sydney Anglican whose church helps fund the diocese and distributes and promotes Southern Cross and all its incarnations, including this website and including this very forum, I suppose we are entitled to ask the question as to why you would fund something that is not supporting the mission?

At times, some of the forum discussions have become ungodly, causing hurt and bewilderment among many people.  Further, the mission and teaching of our diocesan leaders has sometimes come under strong criticism.  One expects that from forums other than our own; but I have a problem when it is our own diocesan website where such criticisms are found. 

That is why I should like to see the role of the moderator revisited.

Hi Philip, just quickly..

At times, some of the forum discussions have become ungodly, causing hurt and bewilderment among many people.  Further, the mission and teaching of our diocesan leaders has sometimes come under strong criticism.  One expects that from forums other than our own; but I have a problem when it is our own diocesan website where such criticisms are found. 

That is why I should like to see the role of the moderator revisited.

I think this gets closer to the issue: “but I have a problem when it is our own diocesan website where such criticisms are found”. This is a separate issue from moderation and moderators in their current roles, and is more to do with whether anyone can post such criticisms on this forum at all (and whether moderators should act to enforce a pro-diocesan view).

I think it would be a very sad day indeed when this was no longer possible, and I think it is of great merit to the diocese that on the community web site (as opposed to say http://sds.asn.au/ ), the community is allowed to express their views in whatever form they take. It allows for robust discussion of such criticisms (of which there’s certainly no shortage here!) and they can freely be discussed, dismissed, challenged or refuted, as is, I would suggest, pretty much always the case.

As I said earlier, when we’re no longer engaging with criticism, then we can only become weaker and duller for it, without being able to sharpen our minds against other views.

From the very inception of these forums there has been some sensitivity about criticism of the diocese (if anyone remembers the cathedral issues at the very beginning) but these forums have, over the years, remained a free, open place for debate and discussion on a variety of differing views, some positive, some critical, and I think we’ve all benefited from the free exchange of ideas (positive or critical) over that time, and like I say, I personally would be very sad if that ever changed, given how much I have personally gotten out of the discussions and debates (and rebukes!).

Freedom is a fine word, and I expect to see more of it in these discussions, but let’s at least acknowledge its mythical character.

Not just in an abstract, philosophical sense; but in quite a useful and daily practical sense that even we moderators are forced to recognize from time to time.

In fact, some of us would even say that it is a good restriction on our freedom, which ought to be acknowledged not through gritted teeth, but with a real sense of gratitude that we can get on with proper discussion.

And actually, my impression from at least some of the feedback on this thread is that people wish these restrictions would be enforced more rigorously by those who have the power to do so (which, as has also been made clear, is not the moderators—not a complaint, by the way!).

Given this, can I ask a more realistic question?

Given that we all accept restrictions and limitations on what we post, what should our discussions look like?

So, for example, various criticisms have been raised of churches that some of us attend on this thread. Some of the ministers of the churches concerned would first have learned about those criticisms when they read them on these forums, or had them pointed out by people who read these forums. Anyone who has done a bit of homework can find out which churches and ministers are being criticized.

If I was one of the ministers concerned, I would be pretty darn disappointed to read those criticisms here, on a website being sponsored by the diocese, especially if the person was a moderator, and especially if I hadn’t had a chance to respond to them before seeing them posted.

Currently many people are surprised and dismayed by the fact that on occasions those with the title ‘moderator’ are openly critical of diocesan teaching and the mission. I’m not talking about constructive criticism of various strategies etc, but forthright criticism of the teaching and mission strategy of the diocese.

This is one of the scariest things I’ve read on these forums, and I’ve read the Israel thread.

lol @ Ben

Gordon Cheng - 27 May 2008 08:21 PM

And actually, my impression from at least some of the feedback on this thread is that people wish these restrictions would be enforced more rigorously by those who have the power to do so (which, as has also been made clear, is not the moderators—not a complaint, by the way!).

Given this, can I ask a more realistic question?

Given that we all accept restrictions and limitations on what we post, what should our discussions look like?

So, for example, various criticisms have been raised of churches that some of us attend on this thread. Some of the ministers of the churches concerned would first have learned about those criticisms when they read them on these forums, or had them pointed out by people who read these forums. Anyone who has done a bit of homework can find out which churches and ministers are being criticized.

If I was one of the ministers concerned, I would be pretty darn disappointed to read those criticisms here, on a website being sponsored by the diocese, especially if the person was a moderator, and especially if I hadn’t had a chance to respond to them before seeing them posted.

Well, I’m glad we can drop the pretense that this was about a general topic, and, just like last time, acknowledge that this is in fact about me.

I’m being criticized for both being too general (Craig S, repeatedly) and Gordon for being too specific, so perhaps you two can work out which it is, and I’ll remain content that I have not targeted anyone in particular in that thread, though feel free to point out where I have and I’ll happily correct. I’m also not sure if the feeling would be one of disappointment or support given the strong response to my comments!

If you have a problem with me being a moderator and being critical, then at least man up and say it. If you have a problem with a particular post and think I’ve breached the posting policy, use the report function. But don’t hide behind these “general” discussions about moderation when you in fact just have me in mind.

Gordon I also find it quite strange that you would be so concerned about these ministers when you were quite happy to repeatedly slam, by inference or otherwise, evangelical bishops all over the world who, sadly, also did not have a chance to respond before your remarks were posted. I sense a double standard.

Anyway, let me reiterate my strong belief that moderators should not be the thought police, they should not be asked nor required to enforce a particular view or agenda, and they should focus (in their role as moderator) on behavior and the janitorial duties that moderation entails.

The community is quite adept at responding to criticism in detail, at length (which is a good thing!), and it is quite reasonable to have a place for open discussion where differing, even dissenting views can be expressed, and challenged, refuted, corrected, etc in due course. It’s healthy.

Hi Luke,

I’m intrigued by your use of the term ‘community’.

What do you mean by it?

I’m very sanguine about the capacity of this kind of discussion forum to build healthy relationships.

This is really meant to start the discussion. The real question is, to what extent do we want the forums (and with it, the moderators) to be supporters of the diocesan mission? And, what should this look like?

I think 1 Timothy 3:8-13 applies.

I never cease to be amazed by this forum. GHesh what’s next burning heretics at the stake?

Do so many of you think that it is appropriate that to be a moderator one should have to unquestionably support every single detail of the way in which the clergy or leadership of the Sydney diocese attempts to carry out the mission?

THat doesn’t sound like supporting the mission but pure and simple propaganda to me.

Employees of Anglican Media are required to not publicly criticise approved policies of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney. This would include the Mission.

(This is not the same thing as censoring discussion around implemetation of said policies.)

Why would it be problematic if volunteers working on behalf of AMS were so required as well?

Is that a recent thing Jeremy, or for journo’s only? I didn’t hear that in my 5.5yrs with AMS, and it was never a condition of my employment.

I personally don’t think that a person’s volunteer work in the janitorial and behaviour-watch roles of moderator should impinge on their freedoms within the Posting Policy that other members have. If it is a problem that the label “Moderator” appears next to their posts, then remove the label - it’s one line of code that can be added to one file that I mentioned at the top of this page :)

It has always been so. Indeed it was stated in the editorial guidelines I was given way back in 1995 when I first worked as a journalist on Southern Cross.

I should be clear that:

1. ‘guidelines’ for publishing comment is not the same thing as an oath of allegiance :)

2. When those guidelines were written they had not envisioned the future of the internet.

Jeremy what is the definition of “approved policies”?

I mean resolutions or ordinances passed by Synod.

Why would it be problematic if volunteers working on behalf of AMS were so required as well?

I guess it could be problematical in the same way that it is seen as problematical if ABC journos were forbidden to publicly criticise the government.