Do Mhks Read This Board?

[keyboarder]

(BTW, I think Stu Peters deserves much credit for appearing as he does, despite flack he sometimes takes ).

 

I disagree - the MF poster with the nic Stu Peters could be anyone for all we know and indeed might as well be. The points of view put forward by same should be taken on their own merit.

[Albert Tatlock]

(BTW, I think Stu Peters deserves much credit for appearing as he does, despite flack he sometimes takes ).

 

I disagree - the MF poster with the nic Stu Peters could be anyone for all we know and indeed might as well be. The points of view put forward by same should be taken on their own merit.

He must be psychic, a stalker and/or an expert in disguise then - he seems to know what Stu Peter's will put on his show in the future, looks and sounds like Stu Peter's when he turns up to various MF bashes and spin-off groups etc.

[keyboarder]

He must be psychic, a stalker and/or an expert in disguise then - he seems to know what Stu Peter's will put on his show in the future, looks and sounds like Stu Peter's when he turns up to various MF bashes and spin-off groups etc.

 

Right. And you are...............?

[Amadeus]

Right. And you are...............?

Albert Tatlock - can't you read?

[keyboarder]

Of course - in which case , I think Albert Tatlock deserves much credit for appearing as he does, despite flack he sometimes takes )

[Declan]

Does anyone know if any attention is paid to our postings beyond the Forum?

The Safer Island Driving Group, the latest steam packet petition, input to the electoral reform report, people putting themselves up for election, marriage (or at least several proposals ), and no doubt many other things have come about because of the forum. There is bound to be more to come in the future.

 

MHK's don't like it up em - but that is one of the facts they have to face up to as social networking sites such as this group people together, where once they sat grumbling themselves into an early heart attack alone at home, or gibbering to a drunken mate who agreed with them in the pub.

 

I know several MHKs read this. I know of several other key civil servants who keep an eye on it. I've seen that first hand. Good for those that do, they at least have a chance of staying ahead of the game.

 

 

Oh do shut up you sanctimonious prig.

[Skeddan]

Of course - in which case , I think Albert Tatlock deserves much credit for appearing as he does, despite flack he sometimes takes )

keyboarder, I don't know what point you are trying to make here - other than perhaps to be deliberately missing the point. Stu Peters has come in for criticism (e.g. over interview with David Howe) and at least appears and engages in some discussion in the forums - i.e. something like accountability which MHKs and Ministers are 'above'. AT is obviously a pseudonym - the person posting under the name of this fictional tv character is not appearing as himself answering criticisms of his professional or official conduct etc. which is fair enough, but is entirely different.

 

I'd like to see politicians answerable on forums in official capacity, but on second thoughts I'd think the forums would have to be heavily moderated to filter or cut out the garbage and silly nonsense that sometimes crops up.

[ans]

I'd like to see politicians answerable on forums in official capacity, but on second thoughts I'd think the forums would have to be heavily moderated to filter or cut out the garbage and silly nonsense that sometimes crops up.

 

We've tossed around a few ideas as to how we could do this but not really come up with anything that works properly. John Shimmin expressed an interest via email in taking part in a 'Live Chat' but again, it was impossible to idiotproof it.

 

I think we'd still like to do something, but it needs more thought.

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh do shut up you sanctimonious prig.

Nymphomaniac.

[Skeddan]

I'd like to see politicians answerable on forums in official capacity, but on second thoughts I'd think the forums would have to be heavily moderated to filter or cut out the garbage and silly nonsense that sometimes crops up.

 

We've tossed around a few ideas as to how we could do this but not really come up with anything that works properly. John Shimmin expressed an interest via email in taking part in a 'Live Chat' but again, it was impossible to idiotproof it.

 

I think we'd still like to do something, but it needs more thought.

IMO a good way to start would be introducing threads which are 'fenced' (in the way Tynwald is fenced). i.e. these are flagged as 'fenced' and participants are subject to much stricter ground rules on good behaviour and respecting the thread. People who abuse that have posts removed/filtered and offenders are warned and may lose privileges to participate and post in those threads. The higher standard is just that - e.g. some posts here would be abuse of the thread and unacceptable in a fenced thread, but are not 'abuse' as such in a non-fenced thread. The impression I get is most people are fairly responsible about compliance with rules which are enforced - e.g. respecting off limits topics such as those touched on earlier in this thread.

 

No doubt there will be issues and wrinkles to be ironed out, but it may prove to settle into sensible grown up discussions which are self-policed to be idiot-proof. I'd think some topics would benefit from this anyway (though by no means all), and once one got through the teething stage on this and it settles into a standard of grown up discussion in fenced threads, maybe could then look to a kind of MF 'Question Time' for politicians.

 

Having a quick working prototype one builds on is generally a better approach than trying to come up with the 'waterfall' 'lots of thought' solution. Try it and see.

[nipper]

This has been discussed on the forum at length. Read ans (moderator) post.

 

Incidentally, short concise posts on forums get read more. I wish more people trying to make a point would realise that.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'd like to see politicians answerable on forums in official capacity, but on second thoughts I'd think the forums would have to be heavily moderated to filter or cut out the garbage and silly nonsense that sometimes crops up.

 

We've tossed around a few ideas as to how we could do this but not really come up with anything that works properly. John Shimmin expressed an interest via email in taking part in a 'Live Chat' but again, it was impossible to idiotproof it.

 

I think we'd still like to do something, but it needs more thought.

IMO a good way to start would be introducing threads which are 'fenced' (in the way Tynwald is fenced). i.e. these are flagged as 'fenced' and participants are subject to much stricter ground rules on good behaviour and respecting the thread. People who abuse that have posts removed/filtered and offenders are warned and may lose privileges to participate and post in those threads. The higher standard is just that - e.g. some posts here would be abuse of the thread and unacceptable in a fenced thread, but are not 'abuse' as such in a non-fenced thread. The impression I get is most people are fairly responsible about compliance with rules which are enforced - e.g. respecting off limits topics such as those touched on earlier in this thread.

 

No doubt there will be issues and wrinkles to be ironed out, but it may prove to settle into sensible grown up discussions which are self-policed to be idiot-proof. I'd think some topics would benefit from this anyway (though by no means all), and once one got through the teething stage on this and it settles into a standard of grown up discussion in fenced threads, maybe could then look to a kind of MF 'Question Time' for politicians.

 

Having a quick working prototype one builds on is generally a better approach than trying to come up with the 'waterfall' 'lots of thought' solution. Try it and see.

Surely this just means tougher moderation? e.g. the filtering/vetting of posts in much the same way as done on, say, the adverts/classifieds section? - any sensible real time debate needs a chairman (e.g. BBC Question Time). Newspapers tend to get people to submit questions in advance, and get the interviewee to respond.

 

Personally, I think MF is closer to the newspaper model, so it might be better to submit questions in advance, first debating the wording of the question(s) in one thread the "question thread", with a couple of moderators agreeing the final question(s) and then inviting the interviewee to respond in a second "question(s)/formal reponse" thread - and this thread closed following the interviewees response. If people wish to debate the question/response they could then go back to the "question thread" to do so. If the interviewee wanted to respond to subsequent issues raised in the "question thread", he/she could then be allowed to summarise this response in the "question/formal reponse" thread (i.e. open only to the moderator and the interviewee). This approach would protect the interviewee, whilst giving everyone an opportunity to have a say about the question and the response. In these circumstances people have to realise that it can't be a 'free for all' - and sometimes you just have to accept what an interviewee has to say on a subject rather than try and convert him/her (though people would have an opportunity to question those views by phrasing the question correctly and subsequent debate in the "question thread").

[Mutley]

Its very easy to hide behind a user-name and disrupt a forum chat by trolling, swearing, libelous comments etc. Perhaps those who wanted to participate in such a chat did so by verifying their identity with the moderators/chairman beforehand, there is a chance of a reasonable discussion. They could continue to post under their existing user-name but with the knowledge that their comments could be attributed to them directly. Or maybe not...

[Skeddan]

nipper - I'm not sure if this is the thread you refer to, but the relevant one seemed to be 'Manx Forums Question Time, Let the people have a voice!

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...or%29&st=15

 

Most of that discussion was whether MHKs would participate or not. Little over how to moderate it and no discussion on 'fencing' as I see it. (Maybe that was discussed in another thread?)

 

Things have moved on since 2006, with US Presidential campaigners and QEII now using YouTube, FaceBook, MySpace etc.

 

There was one constructive suggestion which might be worth reviving - (made by you as it happens):

 

Perhaps the mods could create a Local Politics section, as did Manx.net forums. That would also assist people who are simply just not interested in politics.

 

AT - I don't disagree with what you suggest as an approach. However IMO the best way to make progress is incrementally - take a first step in having a subforum and 'fenced' threads. A Local Politics section would be a solid first step.

[Albert Tatlock]

AT - I don't disagree with what you suggest as an approach. However IMO the best way to make progress is incrementally - take a first step in having a subforum and 'fenced' threads. A Local Politics section would be a solid first step.

IMO this still wouldn't 'protect' interviewees - and so many would be loathed to contribute. It also more fundamentally makes it a 'real time' and potentially 'never ending' debate, when interviewees won't neccessarily have the time or inclination to join/take part in such a format.

 

I would still argue for the question thread and question/response thread approach - with the formal question and response fenced off in a separate section.

 

You simply won't get interviewees to take part otherwise IMO.