Quality of CIPD online discussions

One of the things I like about "Communities" is the fact that the site is monitored with a light hand which does not interfere with discussions unless they become offensive or seriously stray from the general context of HR practice.

This obviously means, however, that the degree to which the site monitors can respond to threads on their own behalf, involving themselves in discussions etc. is limited, since they must, by definition, remain impartial and unbiased so far as possible.

Fortunately this does not apply to the rest of us, who can feel free to express their disquiet and disgust at members who chose to snipe at those who, in effect, are unable to reply in any but the most moderate terms: Including both less experienced contributors and the site monitors. 

This thread has been started by a new contributor, involved many others both regular and infrequent, and perhaps for those reasons (and its topic) should, of all threads, have been one in which unevidenced innuendo and carping criticism, levelled both at individuals and our organisation, was avoided. 

I profoundly disagree with some of your remarks in this thread Mark, and I further consider your manner of presenting them both offensive to those who, from their position, cannot adequately respond and well below the standard of professionalism I would expect of you from our previous exchanges; however I am pleased to do you the courtesy of inviting you to support your criticism of the site monitors and scathing sarcasm regarding suggestions made to improve responses to the site with any sort of tangible argument, evidence or alternative constructive suggestions to prove me wrong in my opinion.

At which point I will either sincerely apologise or be pleased to engage in a professional debate of the issues you have raised, or both.

Peter

One of the things I like about "Communities" is the fact that the site is monitored with a light hand which does not interfere with discussions unless they become offensive or seriously stray from the general context of HR practice.

This obviously means, however, that the degree to which the site monitors can respond to threads on their own behalf, involving themselves in discussions etc. is limited, since they must, by definition, remain impartial and unbiased so far as possible.

Fortunately this does not apply to the rest of us, who can feel free to express their disquiet and disgust at members who chose to snipe at those who, in effect, are unable to reply in any but the most moderate terms: Including both less experienced contributors and the site monitors. 

This thread has been started by a new contributor, involved many others both regular and infrequent, and perhaps for those reasons (and its topic) should, of all threads, have been one in which unevidenced innuendo and carping criticism, levelled both at individuals and our organisation, was avoided. 

I profoundly disagree with some of your remarks in this thread Mark, and I further consider your manner of presenting them both offensive to those who, from their position, cannot adequately respond and well below the standard of professionalism I would expect of you from our previous exchanges; however I am pleased to do you the courtesy of inviting you to support your criticism of the site monitors and scathing sarcasm regarding suggestions made to improve responses to the site with any sort of tangible argument, evidence or alternative constructive suggestions to prove me wrong in my opinion.

At which point I will either sincerely apologise or be pleased to engage in a professional debate of the issues you have raised, or both.

Peter