Hey,

Just wondering what procedures are in place to producetect forum goers from overzealous moderation.

Examples:

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1775372.htm#1775372
In this example, I gave a story, and then asked for opinions on points. Many people raised good points, a few made petty swipes at my co-workers friend or AOs, however, as a whole it seemed to be fine.

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11371904.htm

I was asking for clarification about the above thread, and while I got it, I was left with absolutely no time to respond to the assertion that I was complaining.

The case doesn't even involve me at all. As I mentioned previously, I was asking for opinions regarding both the conduct of the AOs, the law, and also the fact that the matter was taken straight to court.

While in a forum environment, cases where people pointlessly complain are probably rife, I would hope in the rare instances of someone trying to drive productive discussion involving law/conduct would not be aggressively shut out.

Also, with moderators able to warn certain users about their conduct, I question that rationale of blocking out an entire thread in order to silence a few who may make things "nasty".

what procedures are in place to produce forum goers

Have your parents ever told you about the birds and bees?

what procedures are in place to produce forum goers

Have your parents ever told you about the birds and bees?

Lol, or even protect forum goers?

The thing is a simple question or questions like that can rapidly turn into an all out flame war sometimes. So the mods are better to shut it down really if they think it might  escalate into something. I like to see discussion on things as long as all keep to the subject and even a bit of conjecture if it is necessary in the post's.

However having been hauled up by the Police at Adelaide  Railway Station because their drug sniffer dog took a liking to me or something. I simply co-operated with them and let them search my bag and turned out my pockets  and was was on my way again with only minimal loss of time all of 5 minutes actually. They found nothing at all in my bag or pockets and the closest I get to someone doing drugs is a friend who smokes a bong. I have never touched drugs at all that I know of. 

So the best idea is just co-operate with who ever and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. I don't blame the police they were just doing their job.

 

Here in Adelaide there are a few what we call PSA's that are on power trips however most that I know are usually nice and ask politely when they do need to see some ID or something. I have never had any major problems with PSA's here, but others that try to flount the rules and regulations etc would tell you wild tales that would turn your hair grey. When in actual fact it is them trying to rort the system that is the problem.

 

So I dont really think it is over zealous moderation just the fact that some one starts something and lets nip it in the bud before it turns nasty or something. You can see this in post sometimes without really looking for it. I know I am a admin of my own site and there are a lot of people that will read into your post more than what you intended and so they start to stir up a bit. I dont mind a bit of a stir like Dr Waddles stir, but when it starts to get a bit uppy then it can get worse very quickly. Before long you have to shut it down and sort it out.

The thing is a simple question or questions like that can rapidly turn into an all out flame war sometimes. So the mods are better to shut it down really if they think it might escalate into something. I like to see discussion on things as long as all keep to the subject and even a bit of conjecture if it is necessary in the post's.

It just felt premature. I mean, you have the ability to warn individuals. If you want the most sanatised forum, you disallow posting altogether. I believe more scope should have been afforded to allow the conversation to evolve (or devolve).

In any case, the thread in question has been unlocked, so hopefully the dialogue can continue.

And locked again.

Pitiful.

Where did you think the thread was going to go, exactly?

I know where it was going, and I don't think you were going to like it.

Where did you think the thread was going to go, exactly?

I know where it was going, and I don't think you were going to like it.

I think I was going to get a few examples, a few interesting and thought provoking responses. Probably also a few people flaming, and being douches. And then followed by responsible moderators warning the offending parties.

I take it that's not really what happens around here?

No, you thought you were going to get a bunch of people agreeing with you and weren't going to be happy unless you did.

What you were about to get was a bunch of people telling you what they think of you, which was not likely to please you in the least. If you don't like it, write a letter to the appropriate authority.

No, you thought you were going to get a bunch of people agreeing with you and weren't going to be happy unless you did.

What you were about to get was a bunch of people telling you what they think of you, which was not likely to please you in the least. If you don't like it, write a letter to the appropriate authority.

I applaud you for not locking this thread.

I have no problem with being proven wrong. In fact, I either want to be proven right or wrong, it's the middle ground which concerns me.

Apparently my opinion is wrong on several points, and I am quite keen to see where in legislation this occurs.

If people want to start telling me what they think of me (I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with me - I'm only asking questions - I'm not the one that "broke the law") then I trust that any appropriate action will be taken against them, and those involved in a rational discussion can continue.

You'll find that when it's one or two people having a crack at you the moderator will deal with them.  If it's more people than that they start to look at you as the source of the issue instead.

It's a simple thing - you're telling us a heresay story twice removed, the facts can't be verified, and you're asking for advice on the legislation with the clear assumption (and statement) that the officer had committed an act of wrongdoing.  That type of attitude doesn't fly 'round these parts.

Ultimately nobody here was going to be able to give you a legal opinion, but plenty were willing to provide a personal opinion.

Ultimately, if you don't like the way the forum is run, you don't have to stay; and in which case, could you close the door behind you when you leave, thanks.

It's a simple thing - you're telling us a heresay story twice removed, the facts can't be verified, and you're asking for advice on the legislation with the clear assumption (and statement) that the officer had committed an act of wrongdoing. That type of attitude doesn't fly 'round these parts.

Ultimately nobody here was going to be able to give you a legal opinion, but plenty were willing to provide a personal opinion.

While you may want to focus on one element, that being the conduct of the AO (given my account is accurate), I also asked about matters involving the revalidation of tickets, and the powers of AOs to force people to follow the law.

In another thread I was in, people were able to provide links to legislation. Either things have changed dramatically here in 6 months, of you underestimate the capacity of posters here.

Ultimately, if you don't like the way the forum is run, you don't have to stay; and in which case, could you close the door behind you when you leave, thanks.

Yep. This is not horrible advice.

I get the impression that you have an overly emotional attachment to this issue.

For me, I see something not too dissimilar to a random breath test where the officer requests your licence and holds it until such time as you are shown to be all clear. Sure, you may feel affronted or offended by the potentially "accusatory" nature of such an interruption to your business, particularly if you are the sort of person who would never indulge in such a practice, but taking it out on the officer concerned when this is an expected job requirement and they are conferred legal authority to do so is a somewhat foolhardy exercise.

Regardless of your *opinion* regarding AO's and their methodology, if you have a disagreement with the basis or execution of the law, then there are appropriate means by which you can seek review or redress, and in my "opinion" your appeal for sympathy is not likely to receive much favour in these forums.

Being as I was sadly denied a right of reply with the unfortunate circumstance of having a thread locked after you accused me of trolling, Greg, I'll say my piece here.

I like the moderation here. And if I am indeed trolling, shouldn't I be the one complaining in more than one thread about over zealous moderation?

But I'm not complaining. And yet you are. About over zealous modding. Maybe that applies to the concept of trolling too? Think about that.

To be honest, all I see is a person who has trouble with any form of authority.  He's incensed about AO's in an incident that didn't involve him, and he is incensed here that somebody would lock "his" thread.  Sure, there's no forums I'm aware of on the internet where creating a thread after a lock asking "what happened to my thread" is good form, and of course, certainly we don't condone it here, but I'm equally sure that Gregory is here to liberate us all from our censorial overlords.  Now quit disagreeing with him and praise your savior.

I'm sure he will next show up on a web forum that discusses web forums to complain about the moderators here and claim that they also overstepped their authority.

I'm sure he will next show up on a web forum that discusses web forums to complain about the moderators here and claim that they also overstepped their authority.

But you have a valid point - You have not overstepped any boundary (Where faint (Or is that feint) or not). 

To be honest, all I see is a person who has trouble with any form of authority. He's incensed about AO's in an incident that didn't involve him, and he is incensed here that somebody would lock "his" thread. Sure, there's no forums I'm aware of on the internet where creating a thread after a lock asking "what happened to my thread" is good form, and of course, certainly we don't condone it here, but I'm equally sure that Gregory is here to liberate us all from our censorial overlords. Now quit disagreeing with him and praise your savior.

I'm sure he will next show up on a web forum that discusses web forums to complain about the moderators here and claim that they also overstepped their authority.

I'll go further: I'm calling bulls**t on it happening to a colleague's daughter.  

I'm willing to bet a small amount of Monopoly money (in fact, a tidy sum I recently won coming 2nd prize in a beauty contest) that it was the poster wot got pulled up by AO's.

Who/ or what are AO'S - Are they the same as Transit Police?

Kind Regards

Who/ or what are AO'S - Are they the same as Transit Police?

Kind Regards

Similar. It's short for Authorised Officer.
They seem to engender the same amount of mindless abuse from people in Victoria that Transit Police get in NSW.

Ah o.k Thanks  - They are probably called different names elsewhere too

Not overly emotionally invested. Just a slow day at work.

It certainly didn't happen to me. I am aware of how fickle AOs and the DoT can be, so I certainly don't try and press the boundaries.

It's disheartening to see what started off as a clear and concise discussion, eventually fell into attacks against me, ironically, by the same people that said "We locked your thread to prevent personal attacks against you."

It's reasonably evident that this isn't a good place to have anything resembling a dicussion. By the way, most forums when getting you thread locked, have some sort of mechanism on which you determine why. There were actually clear warnings from other posters that I would be met with this type of reaction, of course, I wouldn't expect as much from moderators. I can put up with ad hominem attacks from regular posters, it's just hard to have anything like proper dialog when your threads keep getting locked.

In any case, this forum is a mixture of good people and bad.

I recommend a warning:

Any suggestion that AOs act unlawfully in a certain case will be met with stern rebuke. Of course, threads will get locked, for no reason, and should you make enquiries about it, expect to get attacked (from moderators, no less).

I am sure you'll all be relieved, this is the last you'll hear of me.

And just which Moderator are you accusing of "Attacking" you - Because I can't see it from my end?

Kind Regards

To be honest, all I see is a person who has trouble with any form of authority.  He's incensed about AO's in an incident that didn't involve him, and he is incensed here that somebody would lock "his" thread.  Sure, there's no forums I'm aware of on the internet where creating a thread after a lock asking "what happened to my thread" is good form, and of course, certainly we don't condone it here, but I'm equally sure that Gregory is here to liberate us all from our censorial overlords.  Now quit disagreeing with him and praise your savior.

I'm sure he will next show up on a web forum that discusses web forums to complain about the moderators here and claim that they also overstepped their authority.

Pretty much sums it up from how I read it too