6 Music Feedback permalink
Hidden
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 181
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Monday, 11th August 2008
There is a list of BBC service suppliers here.
www.bbc.co.uk/supply...
Can't imagine how to find the appropriate company. -
Message 182
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Am I right in thinking that a link to a legitimate BBC web page has just been removed?
-
Message 183
Posted by Perishermaisie (U12669563) on Monday, 11th August 2008
OOH. I just sent my complaint in about LOTP bashing on this morning's show.
-
Message 184
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Is it any wonder some of us are getting just a little paranoid here?
-
Message 185
Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Monday, 11th August 2008
We don't allow the details of the moderation company to be posted on the board. I'm sure you're all very pleasant people, but many of the people we deal with really aren't. Really, really aren't. And although both the BBC and the moderation company do all we can to protect employees, we aren't going to increase the risk to them by allowing users to post details of the moderation company and location.
Obviously, if you could find out who the moderation company is, and if you don't care about the moderators' physical well-being at all then you can post it elsewhere on the internet and we won't be able to do anything about it. But I would ask you not to, and we're certainly not going to make it easier for you.
In order to lessen your desire to see the mods come to physical harm, I should point out that the mods aren't responsible for banning members, replying to emails, failing nicknames or dictating policy (they are contracted to pass, fail or refer posts to a given set of BBC rules). This is all done by hosts or the Central Communities Team who work on moderation issues across all the boards and communities.
Also the mods can't victimise you or single you out for special treatment, because they don't see who's posting the message.
Paul - BBC Central Communities Team -
Message 186
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Hi Paul
I think the point here is that you are an supposedly accountable organisation. The link in the post modded above wasn't to the moderation company - it was to a BBC webpage listing contracted suppliers. Unless that page is password protected (ie for internal intranet use only) I assume there is no reason that that link should not be available to the licencepayers ie us and that it would be covered under the Freedom of Information act.
To be honest, I'm sure I don't really care who the moderating company actually is, anymore than who supplies your lightbulbs. We just want to prove to ourselves that for a public body, not a commercial organisation, you are open and fair with you dealings with external companies. Removing links to legitimate BBC pages really sends out the wrong message to the majority of posters.
-
Message 187
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 188
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 189
Posted by Perishermaisie (U12669563) on Monday, 11th August 2008
I think perhaps it is now the Mods themselves and the frankly Orwellian sounding community team who are now paranoid. Physical harm to the Mods????? Come on....
-
Message 190
Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Hi CCT
I am well aware of your concerns and a little disappointed that you think my agenda is to put anyone in harms way. I'm quite happy for the details of the company concerned to be sent to me directly. I'm not planning to splash it all over the internet and my reasons for wanting the details are not based around the recent rash of bannings. If what you say is true, I wouldn’t want to feel responsible for anyone being harmed as a result of my actions.
I know there are strong feelings about the moderation policies of the BBC across the boards, not just on those concerned with 6Music. I understand that some of the topics involved could provoke unpleasant behaviour and I hope that we on these boards are not seen in the same light. We are admittedly vocal, but not violent or vindictive towards someone who is just doing their job.
I do however have legitimate reasons for wanting the details and would still like them.
-
Message 191
Posted by paddymcc (U10061454) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Paul,
Thanks for posting.
If moderators can't see who posted a message, are they viewed entirely in isolation, both from other posts and from the radio show under discussion?
Thanks -
Message 192
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Monday, 11th August 2008
So now I am on pre-mod for posting a link to a BBC web-page.
I did not do this out of malicious intent - merely to demonstrate the truly ludicrous position into which you have got yourselves. I was going to explain this – but I haven’t got the heart just now.
I’m not sure who is being invoked most now, Franz Kafka or Frank Spencer.
-
Message 193
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean everybody's not out to get you.
Perhaps if I suggest people type BBC and supplier into google I'll be pre-modded as well!
-
Message 194
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Hi Paul,
I’ve just re-read your message. Did you mean to personally insult me?
vis. “...if you don't care about the moderators' physical well-being at all”. What on earth gives you the right to make that assertion? What do you know about me? As it happens, my work involves DIRECTLY preventing harm coming to people.
And:
“In order to lessen your desire to see the mods come to physical harm...” On what do base my supposed desire?
You have my email address.
John
-
Message 195
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
To be honest, I'm not even sure that the moderators are actually based in this country - so I'm sure they're personally safe from our marauding vengeance. I've learnt this week not to used a certain Man's name because they can't differentiate between that and a nickname for something else, not to name a certain northern town, and a whole raft of coloquial expressions that seem to fall on deaf ears.
Also, not to mention a certain agency and not to post links to other BBC pages if they're not quite what the CCT team wants us to see, irrespective of the BBC Charter and Freedom of Information act. -
Message 196
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
To be honest, I am not a number (how appropriate), I'm inclined to post a message consisting of a couple hundred links, all to BBC web pages, just so the CCT can decide which ones in their judgement I, and the rest of the posters here, can decree which ones they feel we should be allowed to view.
Let's try an external link
en.wikipedia.org/wik... -
Message 197
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
And all this stemming from the fact that BBC is employing one single person who clearly can't do the job properly he is contracted to do, mid morning on 6Music.
-
Message 198
Posted by 365_degrees (U11134593) on Monday, 11th August 2008
From the BBCs own 'Freedom of Information' page:-
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] -
Message 199
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
See, that's all we wanted to know.
Mod that and they'll be some serious implications under the Freedom of Information act... -
Message 200
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 201
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Cheers loudGeoffW. The reason I chose this handle is because, in the dim and distant past, my old message board name (which was vaguely suggestive of the inabilities of the employee to whom you refer) was deemed inappropriate and replaced by a U number after a fortnight of being allowed. Personally I think the clampdown can be dated back to around that time.
By the way, love the line in that link –
“[Kafkaesque]’s meaning has transcended the literary realm to apply to real-life occurrences and situations that are incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical.”
How very, very apt.
-
Message 202
Posted by AlecMac (U2367670) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Wow! That FOI response was depressing. Claiming that posts on the message boards are part of the 'journalistic output' of the BBC and therefore exempt....bah!
Contempt for openness and honesty that no longer comes as a surprise. -
Message 203
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Hi CCT
Can I take it that since we now have it in black and white from the FOI Policy & Compliance department as to the name of the supplier, you will be reinstating I Am Not A Number's post 181 and removing his pre-mod status with immediate effect.
Why on earth we had to go through these twists and turns just to establish a point about openess and fairness on these boards really eludes me. This is the precise reason other posters have become exasperated by the handling of these issues and been banned for what the rest of us here would consider minor infractions. -
Message 204
Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Bloomin' 'eck, just been out to see a gig (sorry Lesley yes I am in my 40's so is that allowed?) and come back to huge revelations.
I actually find it all a bit of a shame the way this has been handled. If the CCT had genuine concerns about releasing the name of the outsourced moderators, they could have supplied it to me on first asking with a request that I keep it to myself, which I would have complied with.
Instead they made assumptions about my motives and now the name IS plastered all over the various Facebook groups, which I understood was what they wanted to avoid. What a mess!
I am not a number etc - Just to add my paranoia to the gathering pile, I assumed the comments from the CCT about 'putting people at risk' were directed at me as I was making the initial request for the information. Unless it was something in you posted link, but as that’s been removed I can't see. -
Message 205
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
They've just removed the link to the Freedom of Information letter - in what parallel world are these people working!
-
Message 206
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
I can hear the jackboots now. Just to summarise these evenings events, two links, both to legitimate BBC webpages, have now been to removed by person or persons unknown just to prove they have more power than us. One of these pages was a response from the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION department (I'll put that in big letters so it can be understood). This information is the PUBLIC DOMAIN (big letters again).
-
Message 207
Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Monday, 11th August 2008
paddy - From what has been explained to me by someone who knows, YES the posts are only seen IN ISOLATION so are not judged against the context of the post to which they may have replied. This may explain the reactions to the diminutive of Richard that I and a few others were having a bit of harmless fun with, all entirely within the house rules, and in my case in response to a provocative post from the person with the offending name. Seen in isolation I assume that my post was seen as provocative and removed. If this could have been discussed sensibly with the moderator at the time, we could have sorted it all. Ultimately though moderating posts in isolation is just plain daft!
Secondly I would also like to know if the moderators are based in the UK and if those doing the moderation have English as a first language.
Thirdly I do actually now support the mods in their removal of posts concerning the 'you know who' agency. This is done to prevent any claims for libel and subsequent suits against the BBC AND the person that posted it. I know this sounds like BBC hokum but its not. There was a case recently where the Scientologists sued someone for denigrating their 'religion' on a web site. They do have a point on this one, and for that reason I've stopped mentioning them.
The stupid thing is that I didn't understand the implications of posting stuff about that agency until it was explained to me 'off the record' by someone. Why couldn't the CCT have simply explained why these posts were being repeatedly removed, along with the potential implications for the poster? I'm sure we would all then have seen their point?
That's a question I'd certainly like answered by the CCT. You want us to see you and the moderators as humans doing their job, which of course you are, and yet you don’t appear to regard us as individuals frustrated by actions that we may not understand at the time. Are we not worth the same trouble and consideration? -
Message 208
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Well - I last posted over an hour ago, with no sign of it appearing. How does this work? Is this in a pre-mod queue now?
Paul - I understand if you were angry when you wrote those things. For all I know, someone dear to you was in some way harmed in a moderation-related fracas. But given subsequent comments, do you think you went a little over-the-top now?
John -
Message 209
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
For the CCT - here's a list of other suppliers to the BBC you may be interested in, all freely available:
Empire Direct, Jessops, onecall, Exclaim, GTMS, Morgan Signs, Positive Images, Riot of Colour, The Creative Place and UVI, Lex Vehice Leasing, Capita, Arena Aviation, Johnson Controls, 4a, Ad-Esse, Aim Academy, Ashridge, Aspire Europe Ltd, BPP Accountancy Courses, BPP Glasgow BPP Legal Courses, BPP London, BPP Manchester, Career Counselling Services, CCC Inspirations, Clearwater Advisors Ltd, Common Purpose UK, Communication Skill Europe Ltd, Conscious Development Ltd, Creative People, Dancehammer Group Ltd, Emerge Development Consultancy, Frost & Sullivan Ltd, FTC Kaplan Ltd, Future Pace Consulting, GBS Corporate Training Plc, Hartley Brewer, Hemsley Fraser Training Grp.Ltd, Impact Innovation Ltd, Industry Approved Ltd, Insight Learning & Development Ltd, International House, Involve, Leslie Associates, Line Communications Group, Link Associates International, Link Fortune, Liz Kingsnorth Associates Ltd, Maximum Performance, Moose Associates, National School Of Government, Newways 90 Human Resources, OPP Ltd, People Developments, Performance Consultants Ltd, Phoenix Consultancy, Pinsent Masons, Priority Management London, Pyramid Training (UK) Ltd, Quorum, React Acting for Business, Recruit to Retain Ltd, Reed Training, Richard Phillips Ltd, Roffey Park Institute, Run Ragged, Scotwork Negotiating Skills, Second Opinion Consultancy Services, Sheppard Moscow, Simplexity, SOAS, Society for Editors & Proof Readers, Stuart Wickes & Associates, Technology House (Tee Valley) Ltd, The Brightwell Partnership, The Change Agency, The Communicaid Group, The Keil Centre, The McLane Group, The Mind Gym, The Publishing Training Centre Foundation, The Script Factory, The Spontaneity Shop, Training Paths, Training Services Wales, Welsh Language Teaching Centre, Wizoz and WWP Training Ltd etc etc
I could go on, but maybe I'm not allowed to see these either..... -
Message 210
Posted by 365_degrees (U11134593) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Mozo - I was in two minds about posting the FoI link but , as the company mentioned in it actually list the BBC as one of their clients on their homepage , didn't think it was info at an Official Secrets level to be honest.
But as loudGeoff has pointed out , it's been hidden now - so much for freedom of information. -
Message 211
Posted by Mozo (U10059077) on Monday, 11th August 2008
loudGeoffW
I saw that post had been removed.
My reaction is sadness and exasperation for both sides. Talk about putting their head on the block. Does no one in the moderation team consider the consequences of doing something like that? -
Message 212
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Does anyone there at CCT read the freedom of information act? Heard about it in the pub?
-
Message 213
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 214
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 215
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Since my post last night listing information readily publicised on the BBC website has been removed, I have some questions for the CCT
1. Can you please post a list of any areas of the BBC website we cannot link to, let alone mention?
2. Am I allowed to post a link to the Freedom of Information pages here (irony intended)?
3. Since the BBC suppliers list is readily available on the BBC website, why am I not allowed to quote it?
4. Does the work of the CCT fall outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and if so, what paragraph?
5. If the BBC, and by implication the CCT, is not exempt from the FOI act, can I request the information regarding the third party moderator is released. Since an adjudication by the BBC Freedom of Information compliance department has already taken place in 2006 (a link to this was removed last night for unexplained reasons) revealing this information, it should not take too long for you to make this available. Remember the act makes no requirement on how this request is received, and since the information is now in the public domain, I see no reason why this should be made public here. Remember the company itself is quite happy to publicise its links to the BBC on its homepage.....
Finally,
Much has been made recently of the banning of certain BBC sites by Chinese authorities anxious to restrict protest during the Olympics. Can I take it the same mantra is now in force on these pages?
I await your response -
Message 216
Posted by paddymcc (U10061454) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
I always thought that though there was a lack of transparency about moderation, a lot of what was said about moderation and the moderators amounted to paranoid conspiracy theories. Now I'm not so sure. Well done, CCT - you've convinced another poster that there's something sinister about how these boards are moderated.
-
Message 217
Posted by paddymcc (U10061454) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Put a "While" at the start of that last post...
-
Message 218
Posted by I am not an organiser etc (U11351618) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Paul,
To be honest, it’s quite uncomfortable having your every word crawled over for evidence of malicious intent, with only 50% chance of having your post ‘published’ - especially when the object of our ire can threaten or demean people (or break stringent broadcasting regulations) without sanction of any kind. Doubly so when there is no right to redress and complaints are ignored.
So I can’t be bothered any longer. See you as far as this thread is concerned. Shame on you – but you’ve won. All the best.
John
-
Message 219
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Blimey 181's back - some progress.
Thank you. -
Message 220
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
A whole load of posts are reappearing!
-
Message 221
Posted by paddymcc (U10061454) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Can we ask what prompted the change of heart?
-
Message 222
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
By the way ignore the message about me being pre-modded (when it appears) - I've been taken off it again for some reason. Curiouser and curiouser...
-
Message 223
Posted by LoudGeoffW (U11943874) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
I think I'll take my leave of this forum now - I'm all worn out...
-
Message 224
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
-
Message 225
Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Hi perishermaisie and I am not a number - I wish it was paranoia, and I wished I had the sunny view of the internet you do. However, if you saw the sort of material that I have to deal with I suspect you'd feel differently. You should remember that people do sometimes get prosecuted as a result of their actions on the boards and when people like this make threats we have to take them seriously. Regardless, moderators and other staff deserve to be able to do their jobs without feeling threatened, I've seen some appalling harassment of hosts and threats to the mods and it's not acceptable. So we reserve the right to remove posts naming the company.
However, when I said "In order to lessen your desire to see the mods come to physical harm" it was meant in a tongue in cheek way that clearly didn't come across, so apologies.
Mozo, I'm not sure what complaint you have that you feel can only be resolved by direct contact with the moderation company, but if you email at the address that you have for the CCT I will be happy to tell you who they are, as well as attempt to address your concerns if I can. And in my last email to you I sent you the link to www.bbc.co.uk/complaints if it was me that you wanted to complain about
Hi Paddy (and Mozo) - Mozo has more or less explained the process - the posts are viewed in isolation from the thread and the mods pick up posts from across all the boards and blogs etc, and anyone of a group of mods working at the time will pick it up. They will see the thread title and which board it's from. At first sight it seems a bit mad to moderate them like this, but it's a necessity from a cost point of view, but is also a defence against accusations of bias etc - we get a lot of complaints along the lines of: 'my posts are being removed because the moderator is persecuting me because he hates me beacause I am of a particular religious persuasion /sexuality /race etc'. Which can't happen under the system we have.
And links to PDFs can't be posted on the boards as they initiate a download - it's a bit of a mad rule and we'd like to change it, but at the moment we have to fail them for the four people who don't have pdf readers set up on their browsers...
I'll have a look through the rest of the thread now to catch up what I've missed and look at your other queries. -
Message 226
Posted by paddymcc (U10061454) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Thanks CCT - presumably Paul
Can I just say that it's good to see some engagement from the hosts and the CCT here - until recently that was a very rare occurrence indeed. -
Message 227
Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Paddy - some posts had been temporarily hidden as they had been referred for me to review - I've put them up if they didn't break the rules. So it wasn't a change of heart, it was just awaiting a decision.
You do get an email if your post is removed from this board. -
Message 228
Posted by AlecMac (U2367670) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
"And links to PDFs can't be posted on the boards as they initiate a download - it's a bit of a mad rule and we'd like to change it, but at the moment we have to fail them for the four people who don't have pdf readers set up on their browsers..."
Eh?
Sooooo if I complain that my PC doesn't have the right software to play I-player files will the BBC pull the whole system for everybody else.
I've worked for large companies in the past and understand the 'turning the oil tanker effect', but I've never come across such an arrogant customer disorientated organisation before. It must drive the good souls amongst you to distraction...and us as well by the way.
-
Message 229
Posted by doctorbeat (U12048169) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Some fair points there CCT. But while I think you are entirely correct to highlight the dangers of messageboards being abused, and the problems of harassment etc, was it right to use the 'tongue in cheek' remark you used earlier re: 'physical harm'? Obviously I'm not saying that consituted harassment, but it seemed to be rather flippant, and, moreover, open to misinterpretation and possible offence.
Which is what moderators should be looking out for? -
Message 230
Posted by Central Communities Team (U1097995) on Tuesday, 12th August 2008
Hi Paddy - thanks (and yes it is me, there's only two of us anyway at the moment, but they didn't want to change the name to the Central Communities Duo
)
Strictly speaking, our job doesn't include posting to the boards but I suggested to Jane that it would be easier if I came and answered a couple of queries about moderation directly.
Cheers
Paul
About this Board
Talk about Gideon's show and Freak Zone on the 6 Music Message boards.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Mon-Fri 0900-0000 Weekends 1000-0000
This messageboard is reactively moderated.
Find out more about this board's House Rules
Search this Board
Recent Discussions
BBC iD
BBC iDbbc.co.uk navigation
BBC links
BBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.