+- Forums (http://www.cfps.org.uk/forum)
+-- Forum: CfPS (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Discussion (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Forum terms of use (/showthread.php?tid=789)
RE: Forum terms of use - Earl Piggott-Smith - 08-09-2011 01:16 PM
has there been a issue with a misuse of the discussion forum in the past ? If, so how was it dealt with?
RE: Forum terms of use - Ed Hammond - 08-09-2011 02:22 PM
In general no, everyone has rubbed along extremely smoothly, but there have been a couple of instances where disagreements have got a little heated (for example, there was an instance where a councillor, posting on the boards, got frustrating that no-one here was prepared to make detailed comments about how his authority approached a particular governance issue) or where ill-advised use of language has got people into trouble (thinking of a recent example of which you will all be aware).
It's also to highlight to users in an easily accessible place that (as you will all be aware, but as also deserves repetition) this is a publicly-viewable forum, but is predominantly for the use of professionals for professional networking. For example, there've been a couple of instances where members of the public have posted, thinking the forum is something that it isn't.
The purpose is not so much to produce a detailed list of dos and don'ts, or to try to manage discussion and debate, but to put some rules of engagement down in writing to which we can direct ourselves should, in the future, any problems crop up.
RE: Forum terms of use - Earl Piggott-Smith - 16-09-2011 10:09 AM
Ehammond Wrote:In general no, everyone has rubbed along extremely smoothly, but there have been a couple of instances where disagreements have got a little heated (for example, there was an instance where a councillor, posting on the boards, got frustrating that no-one here was prepared to make detailed comments about how his authority approached a particular governance issue) or where ill-advised use of language has got people into trouble (thinking of a recent example of which you will all be aware).
It's also to highlight to users in an easily accessible place that (as you will all be aware, but as also deserves repetition) this is a publicly-viewable forum, but is predominantly for the use of professionals for professional networking. For example, there've been a couple of instances where members of the public have posted, thinking the forum is something that it isn't.
The purpose is not so much to produce a detailed list of dos and don'ts, or to try to manage discussion and debate, but to put some rules of engagement down in writing to which we can direct ourselves should, in the future, any problems crop up.
Hi Ed, I think a short introduction at the start of the forum discussion to cover point that it is mainly for use for professionals working in scrutiny or related fields , with perhaps a link to general gudiance to people about how best to use the site would be useful. Its important not to make it an issue if the site is being well used by teh vast majority as intended.
RE: Forum terms of use - James McLaughlin - 16-09-2011 04:10 PM
Ed,
You could do worse than follow something similar to that used by ADSO:
Please remember that when making posts to the message board, information shared should be constructive and factually sound. When creating new threads, please check there is not a similar discussion ongoing which you could feed into. Please share ideas and thoughts in a professional manner. Any inappropriate postings will be removed by a moderator and the quality of responses will be monitored in the best interests of all members.
RE: Forum terms of use - Suzanne O'Leary - 27-09-2011 12:09 PM
And something about the forum containing individuals' own views, not necessarily those of their authority.
RE: Forum terms of use - Laura Latham - 28-09-2011 10:59 AM
As I was the author of the ADSO text James has referred you (!) to I would say it works brilliantly for the ADSO Forum.
Behind the scenes we also have a web moderation rota and allocate 2 people responsibility each week to keep an eye on the comments, stimulate debate on threads where the discussion takes time to get going and who can edit out / correct factually incorrect postings.
Thanks