Leaderboard

Define "works". Having been shown some of the personal attacks and general other demeaning of members of this forum on TB, (including of course our moderators and our site owner), it is not somewhere I would ever want to give any bandwidth to. The mere fact that some people seem to be wallowing in the damage they have caused, (and in some cases are continuing to cause), on CWDF can only enhance my negative view on at least some of the more "hard core" members of TB. I'm really not interested in hearing it has in many ways got better, and may now have picked up a lot of far less obnoxious posters. The nature of its "birth", and the extreme nastiness that followed is enough that I want nothing to do with it, and I personally have interest in investigating how much "less bad" it may have become.

Well, let me be the one to break the awkward silence! So, after days of nothing, and repeated calls from others to "wait", because Daniel has other things on and will come up with a way forward, the statement that has been awaited with such expectation is with us, and I cannot say that I am overwhelmed, or that I am filled with any sense of "well that was worth waiting for". If I may précis what Dan has told us; There may have been some "less than ideal" moderating.But that is nobody's fault, just "various factors". Moderators will be recruited to replace those who have leftPerhaps the odd extra, but no big change We are going to pretend that this is just normal "churn" There may be some small changesBut you probably won't notice them, because they are so small No acknowledgement that there is a need for a change of direction Some members have leftBut that is just what happens, and it isn't a problem. He has a busy life, and others would have trouble fitting it in to their lives, so we shouldn't criticise. Sorry to be blunt here, but you are in serious denial about the extent to which you and the team got it wrong. That isn't intended as a harsh criticism. It isn't to say that you or the mods are bad people, but it does recognise that you are all doing this in your spare time, and that you aren't trained for the job. I feel sure that you and the mods are trying your best, despite being faced with events that you were ill prepared to deal with. You (collectively) got it wrong. That isn't a huge deal. You can say "we are amateurs, and we got it wrong, we have learned from it, and we are going to apply what we have learned", and people will accept that. However, if there is a sense of denial, and an unwillingness to learn then the fact that the moderators are nice people doing this out of the goodness of their hearts cannot protect them from criticism. "I am a volunteer" must never be a "get out of jail card" that means that the skill with which a job is done cannot be questions (vide the volunteer who nearly sank Alan's boat). So, where next? As I have been critical (but constructive I hope), let me put my cards on the table. I have (several days ago) sent Dan a message offering my services as a mod. Not in the expectation that he will accept, because I suspect that I am too independent minded, and that Dan would have concerns that I would push hard for reforms that he may not want. Whilst I don't expect to be accepted, I haven't offered as a gesture in the hope of rejection, to bolster my ability to criticise. If Dan decides to take a bold step and takes me on, I will most certainly do the job to the best of my ability, and will fully expect to be held to account just as I hold others to account. Whether Dan does take the bold move of appointing me or not, I do hope that he will make some bold moves in appointing mods. I feel that there is a need to move away from just appointing people who are undoubtedly nice people to also appoint people who are more robust (without being offensive). At the risk of being told to get a room, I do hope that Carl is appointed, he would be great for the forum

Thunderboat is 100% not somewhere I'd want to post, but it's very good that it exists. Look at the number of railway forums out there, the number of cycling forums, the number of walking forums, you name it. People find a forum where the subject matter and moderation policy are to their own taste. But in recent years there's only been one significant canal forum: this one. Just Canals has been moribund for a long time, there's a handful of more-or-less active Facebook groups, and that's it. Thunderboat is the first for years that has got any form of traction. Expecting CWDF to do it all isn't realistic. The canals are big enough to support more than one forum; and there's no single objectively perfect way of moderating a forum which will appeal to everyone. I'm sure if carlt's suggestions were to be followed then the forum would be perfect... for carlt; if mayalld's suggestions were to be followed then the forum would be perfect for mayalld; and so on. It's not that they're bad suggestions - some of them are very good, and they're clearly heartfelt - but they're not a single correct answer with which everyone is happy. CWDF, and the general "canal internet", would be a better place if more people were to do a Thunderboat and go and start their own forum, rather than perpetually shouting at Dan to start running his forum in the way they want.

OK Alan, from that I take it you felt justified in participating in THAT conversation because it was for the good of the forum? What a shame your moral compass had lost its bearing then.

Edited to add Three paragraphs removed due to an error of mistaken identity There is no relationship between the attractiveness of a forum and the number of rules. There is a relationship between the attractiveness of a forum and the way the rules are applied. Take Justcanals, for instance. The moderation is applied there in such a way that people don't use it.* I know of another forum based in USA where the moderation is combination of the light touch and transparency, as espoused by Carlt particularly, and strict sanctions for severe rule breaking. That forum is enormous and very popular and active I know of another forum that does not use light touch and transparency. rule breaks are simply removed and any criticism of moderators results in instant ban. It is also a huge forum and very active. But I suspect there are so many people on it and the moderation is so quick that the strict moderation goes unremarked. * Now I know that people will leap on that statement and claim that is exactly where CWDF is going - but I don't believe that. One of the major problems this forum has now is that there were mistakes made earlier this year. Though I do believe that the people who were got rid initially are better off out of here simply because they refused, and still refuse, to accept that they had the right to express themselves in any way they liked on CWDF and should be allowed to fight between themselves all over the forum - thus turning the atmosphere on CWDF to extremely unpleasant if not toxic. Arbitrary, high handed, and emotion based moderation is very poor and not good for the forum but I do have sympathy for the reasons behind it when it happened here. Nicknorman is fond of using the phrase "being able to use the forum like an adult". I have a great deal of sympathy for a lot of what Nick said but this is where I fundamentally disagree with him. Using this forum like "an adult" does not, for me, mean that people should simply "grow a pair", "man up", and "if you might not like it don't read it", are acceptable. That point of view is just another way of saying "I'll post how I like and you can like it or lump it", For me using the forum like an adult means that you behave in the way the rules and guidelines ask for i.e. that you do behave in a reasonable way, with courtesy and respect, and having consideration for those who might look at the discussion, though might not contribute to it. Needing to justify yourself by insisting that people should "grow a pair" etc is the right way is a good indicator that you want to ignore the forum rules and be self indulgent. In that case thunderboat is exactly the right place for them. My belief is that this forum can get back to where it was but things change. The internet changes things including the way people express themselves on a screen. The rules and guidelines need to reflect this, in my opinion. They don't at the moment

Right. So do as I say not as i do? To me, anyone who was involved in the unsavory behind the scenes shenanigans that members of this forum participated in hadn't ought to pass comment. Look on the bright side, at least you can see what people think over there, nothing is hidden in Private Messages or Facebook Chat - whether you like whats said is a different matter, that, and the fact you do have the right to reply should you choose to do so.

Gazza what do actually KNOW about that conversation? I'm talking about the facts - not about speculation you have heard, nor half truths you have been fed. I was also part of that conversation so what I tell you now are facts. There was a FB conversation at the end of March but it was not an open FB one -. It was a closed conversation using FB messenger. The only CWDF mod involved in that conversation at the time is now an active member of thunderboat. That mod was invited into the conversation later on. So when the conversation began it was merely a discussion between friends about the major problems CWDF was facing, the toxic atmosphere that was being generated, and what could be done about it. When the conversation ended there was still only one CWDF mod involved in it. That conversation ceased to be private when one person began to talk about on thunderboat. Accusations of Alan Fincher losing his moral compass are inaccurate if not baseless. Indeed it could fairly be said that they would be better directed elsewhere

Alan, are you sure taking the moral high ground on this is wise?

Daniel, As someone who has owned and run a forum for several years that was over twice the size of this one may I make the following comments? A moderator team of 6-8 I feel is a lot too small. It requires each moderator to be on duty every day to get full coverage and does not allow for absences because people work, have families, have boats to run etc. I think the maximum time the site should be asking moderators to work is two hours a day and that during that time they moderate and do not engage in personal posting. Ideally there needs to be two moderators on duty at any one time to back up each other in making the tricky decisions. Working on the basis that each moderator sensibly in the long term will give say four shifts a week, they do have a life, and the forum ideally needs to be covered from 10am to midnight. That is seven two hour shifts or at two moderators a shift 14 moderators. Then add for times when people are away holidays, illness, family problems etc I feel that adding another four moderators would not be unreasonable. Thus a total of 18 moderators. Moderators who have to work too long and too often quickly get burnt out, become stressed make wrong decisions, and the end result is the situation that has happened on this site previously and is happening now, uproar from the users about poor and unfair moderation. This is caused by stressed burnt out moderators who are terse with users and chasing to catch up with their tails and they never do catch up and go off shift feeling dissatisfied and unhappy. I would suggest that unless the moderator team is of the order very close to 18, then within a short time this forum will be back to where it is with uproar from the users over poor and unfair moderating with stressed and unhappy moderators seeing problems, disruptive posters etc around every corner. All the present effort will be wasted. I suggest the site needs to be looking for a total of 18 moderators, that is ignoring the existing admin and technical staff. Please do not take offence this is offered as an attempt to secure the long term future of this forum.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "self moderation". For many years CWDF ran really well by being lightly moderated by a few mods even though it was far busier than now. There were the odd idiots that came and went but it absorbed them (or spat them out) and they didn't last. For a brief period the forum deteriorated largely because of some extreme opinions about a confluence of world and national events. If you looked around the media at that time they were all at it but with one difference...Forums have a right of reply and provide a platform for folk to express their opinion, however extreme. For one reason or another this period of madness was badly dealt with and the result was an overreaction and a swing from one extreme to the other. Now things have settled down I think the forum can bear a return to its state before it all kicked off.

As you are well aware I can only go on what others that where involved have said, along with copy and paste and screenshots of the various discussions about people you and others felt the need to talk about 'for the good of the forum' something which it turned out to be about as far from as you could get. I draw my conclusions from what is available. That you don't agree with my thoughts is totally irrelevant - I feel Alan is totally wrong to take the stance he has, he's a big lad and can answer for himself without the CWDF lynch mob sharpening their pitchforks. The word all of you involved in this sorry mess are looking for is SORRY. You reap what you sow I'm afraid.

Well from experience I have seen it work. It worked for many years on this site, for example...It breaking down only when a confluence of exceptional events led to some controversial discussions and some deliberate (and so far successful) attempts to sabotage the site. Besides, if Daniel can't recruit 18 suitable moderators then it will have to work or the forum will die. There shouldn't actually be that many problems if folk are shown respect, treated like grown ups and allowed to self moderate.

Am I the only person who has noticed a slow but perceptible change in the forum? As far as I can see apart from a number of members who keep harping on about wanting announcements and massive change NOW, the forum is ticking along nicely. As more time goes by I suspect things will have changed and you won't really have noticed because you are too busy demanding change. I am firmly on the side of give the staff a break and see how things develop. Then if you feel it necessary either ask for change or leave. Members of all forums come and go. Many go and then come back. I have seen this on another site I frequent (probably more than I do this) a member said word to the effect "I have come to a cross roads I need a break this site has to be part of it. Goodbye." Not a flounce but a reasoned and explained final posting. A month later he was back. It is the nature of forums some people won't like how things are going they will do one of three things. Stick with it and see if things improve. Leave and keep popping back to see if the site now suits them. Or just plain leave and never look back. With regard to loss of expertise I can't believe that CWDF had a monopoly of all the knowledgeable people on the cut or that some who are knowledgeable haven't yet heard of CWDF.

Give the man a break! This is coming across like Dan can't do anything right in the eyes of some forum members. That's not exactly supportive. And neither is it going to help make happen what they want to happen - all it does is contribute towards making the place somewhere nobody will want to be a member of nor to moderate as it just churns out more ill feeling. It also adds to the barrage of examples that some members, despite protesting that the forum would be better off if it was less heavily moderated, don't have the self-control or diplomacy to be able to let that happen. Please can we try and show some support to Dan and the team instead? You never know, you might find positive things happen when they're not having to deal with constant and repetitive criticism. (Quick reminder: you do know they do this in their spare time around full time jobs, home commitments, partners, families, hobbies, friends and the like? This isn't a scheduled job with deadlines that puts food on the table. It's just a free to use website about canals run by well meaning, generous people)

So after buying my boat in Ely under a couple of years ago and eventually (salters lode lock refit stoppage) getting it off the rivers to my place of work Leighton Buzzard, I have mostly spent my time constantly cruising between bridge 115 and 115A. Recently there was an opportunity (a couple I know at work were taking their holiday on a boat) to get the boat moved up to the Peaks where I could take me grandad out on it before he pops his clogs. A bad morning. Favorite cup recovery mission. Getting it back has been a mission at weekends, but enjoyable. Have done my first narrow locks ever, so much easier than doubles on the GU and everything on the Nene/ML/Ouse. I'm pretty much always single handed so the narrow locks make life much faster. Have streamlined my lock descending beautifully; jumping up from the boat's deck rail and pull myself up the handy foot bridge, as the boat glides out I'm running about dropping paddles and shutting gates, then leap back aboard and get on my way! Experienced my first Vollocky ever going down the Fradely Junction, was a pleasure to have a hand, though rather exciting as I was still following the back of the boat in with the closing gate when the bloke wound the paddle fully open! Think they are supposed to wait for my signal to start raising, but no harm done, i quickly jumped aboard and got the boat clear of the sill pronto. Top of Stoke was lovely with the old pottery industry, and super deep water near that old B. Port, felt like being on the rivers again zipping along. Coventry Canal has been nice, lovely colours. I'm amazed how many places have 48 hours moorings on them, sure if you were familiar with the area you'd learn to work around them, but it really does seem to be in a lot of locations, the Macc especially I thought. Only been yelled at once to slow down, a couple were quite upset. I don't think they were familiar with the practice of holding the centre of the muddy puddle and then dancing past one-another. Seemed to be very panicky as we approached one-another to pass and then start getting vocal about slowing down. I obliged with a burst of hard reverse and just smiled politely at their disgruntled looks. Perhaps new to sailing / boating, or stay moored up in a marina a lot of the time. Used the weed hatch for the first time, convinced I has something significant wrapped up as I was making little progress for how hard the engine was working, leaves everywhere!!! Bursts of reverse required in autumn I realised. Anyhow, some pictures from along the way

Your boat was fitted with three batteries originally. The shelf above them is there to stop you from dropping a spanner on them and shocking yourself or make everything go crackle. The fourth battery has been installed by an idiot. There doesnt seem to anything to stop it moving around, maybe falling over, if you crash into something and you can drop a spanner on it. That is not an alternator, the alternator will be bolted onto the engine and will have a belt around its pulley driven by a pulley on the engine. Its what charges your batteries. Personally i would not believe any if the readings coming from that battery monitor from Bluesea Systems, its ancient, it was installed when the boat had three batteries, who knows if its wired up correctly. The photo doesnt show the other thingy so i dont know what it is. The installation isnt a disaster but it could do with a check from a sparky who specialises in boats. I would be surprised if Richard Fee gave that fourth battery a clean bill of health so it may have been added after the 2013 BSS exam. If you run your engine for less than about four hours a day or have a battery charger connected to shore power its going to be difficult to keep the batteries in a good state of charge even if they are in good health. Some people will recommend various kinds of battery monitors and other gizmos and some dont bother with any monitoring other than observing that the batteries must be flat cos the lights have gone out, or their observations relating to engine running and the state of electrical appliances enable them to judge the state if their batteries. You have a boat thats past the first flush of youth, you have to exoect that some things will need to be updated or changed but before making any changes you need to find out what capacity you gave in your battery back and what your usage is, then make changes that allow you to produce enough leccy to meet your demands. Getting some solar will help but its not a complete answer until the rest of the system is working correctly. The water could be coming from the weed hatch, it might need a new gasket/seal, or it might just be condensation, as someone else mentioned someone could help you check the weed hatch seal. If you are enthusiastic with the throttle the weed hatch can sometimes leak a bit. Little by little you will get these things sorted out as and when you have the cash, even a new boat can have problems that need fettling. We had our new boat, see picture above, delivered and went out on a maiden cruise with our co-owners, on the oceam, without an anchor and the gasket on the petrol filter failed after five minutes. The engine stopped an when i looked in the bilge we had a litre of petrol sloshing about, i put my cigarettes away and we called the harbour for a tow back while we drifted slowly towards the cliffs. In my opinion the Leeds and Liverpool is one of the best canals, certainly beats Brum. Stick around for a while and if you fancy a change, move on.

Lots been going on! Will endeavour to get some more pics this week but we are reaching completion of the interior! Exterior stuff will now wait until next year as it's too cold

We are never going to agree on the importance of what happened on FB but you know what I agree completely with your last point. This place needs to move on, in my opinion following carls suggestions with a few more mods qith a lighter touch, not a job I could ever do tbh. Thunderboat exists and hopefully we can coexist each serving different purposes

Ok, I have seen a complete FB conversation from March in the last week, I had someone let me use their login to view(which is another reason why I will not use facebook, some of the stuff i saw in 2 hours was nil poi). I was pretty shocked at the way the conversation went, and how the moderators on cwdf were NOT doing the job they should have been doing at the time for whatever reason. I got pretty peeved at CWDF at the time as there was so much shit going on, but I just didnt bother going where the shit was. However, the upshot was a sterile forum because the (unofficial FB)committee of FB decreed what CWDF should be, along with a few new moderators. I am not saying the new moderators all got it wrong, far from it, some of them have tried their best to revert the forum back to pre-brexit status. However, some of the new mods got it badly wrong, and some of the previous mods cannot escape censure - don't care -GoodGirl and DEANs - although Dean started to see the light before his change in circumstances stopped his modding. Hope this helps

Why on earth should the people who were a group of personal friends, having a private conversation, apologise? What gives you the right to take the moral high ground given the nature of the personal attacks that have happened and are still happening on thunderboat? My conscience is clear Thanks Cheshire Cat. I wondered if there was. I can't comment on comment on the other one because I wasn't involved in it - or if I was I don't remember

If I were on record anywhere as saying anything even one tenth as unpleasant about anybody else as what I have been shown regularly trotted out on TB about members, moderators and the owner here, yes, then I might see some hypocrisy. I think you will struggle to find me doing that anywhere, (publicly or in anything "private" that someone may have chosen to disclose), and until you do, no, I don't see any hypocrisy in my actions. At no point have I said that TB should not exist, or that people who are attracted to it should not join it. But parts of it are sufficiently grubby and nasty, that if it ever came close to be being that bad on here, I would sign off from CWDF as well. It's not how I ever want to spend my time, even if some seem to extract pleasure from it.

No, that was STEPHENSON's mode of, er, locomotion.

Today most canal boats use two battery banks. If you are going to wire them for best practice that means two master switches. One in the engine battery positive and one in the domestic battery positive. I am sure that you know the reason why master switches ideally should be in the positives. The items listed in the latest BSS 3.6.2 are allowed to bypass the master switch as long as they are adequately fused. The BSS do not envisage that these will ever be turned off. If the boater felt the need to isolate them then they would disconnect a battery lead. The major arguments against putting the alternator output through the master switch are: 1. Each connection and the switch WILL introduce a little more voltdrop but with a decent installation and a quality switch this is unlikely to cause a practical charging problem (unlike if a cheap plastic key type master switch is used). 2. If the master switch is turned off with the alternator energised and running it might produce a voltage surge that could damage the alternator electronics. However the same would happen if a fuse blew. Whatever any posters on here may think, including myself, the arbiter in all this is the BSS. This is why I advised the OP to contact them himself. Not so long ago we had BSS examiners contributing but if they do not contacting the BSS is the only way to get a definitive answer. Neither you or I can overrule the BSS whatever we think about their requirements. The likelihood of the scenario you mention actually causing any damage is very slight indeed but as I do not understand your third paragraph I can not comment further.

Yes, its easy to miss things, and to misuse the quote system too (especially since you can type into the box and subtly, or not so subtly, change the words!)

This is exactly how I feel. TB started out as a place for disgruntled CWDF members to bitch about this forum, some of it's members and most of its site crew, simply because Daniel refused to allow them to continue to be offensive on here. As I understand it, Daniel would have been happy to work alongside the new forum but was unable to because of the vitriol which was directed at him (and still is, to some extent).

For the record from what I have seen much of what it is claimed has taken place in private messages didn't actually start out in private at all, of course. There was originally completely open thread on the Facebook CWDF page, (started by me, from memory), where some fairly frank views got expressed, in the light of what was happening on the forum at the time. Much of what has been quoted quoted has been taken directly from there, of course. However far from being a cosy chat between a few members of some exclusive club, if you go and look, (and of course it is all there still fully readable), literally dozens of current CWDF members took part in that open conversation. Absolutely anybody who wanted the "right of reply" could have exercised that right by joining the group, (much like you could get the same by joining TB). Having checked as far as I can, I can find no record that I have ever said privately anything that much deviates from what I said openly, (though it was months ago, and it is impossible to check every detail). It seems convenient for some people to claim much happened as a result of ordinary members doing things in private, but the reality is that most of it had already been discussed completely publicly, and anybody could have joined those discussions.

The answer is to do what the BSS require and for many years that has been to put the alternator through the isolator. Alternators are not specifically listed in 3.6.2 of the BSS document but it does list "battery chargers". I accept that you could construe "battery chargers" to include alternators but I suspect that is not what the BSS require. Suitable battery chargers can be left running 24/7 so would need to bypass the master switch if the owner turned the switch off when not on the boat. Alternators by their design can only be charging when the engine is running so I suspect they is not included. In the past some/many BSS examiners have either turned a blind eye to alternators bypassing the master switch or have not inspected closely enough to find out. My advice is not to take what you get told here as gospel UNLESS it is posted by more than one BSS examiner. Email or phone the BSS office and get the definitive answer. If you email you will get a written reply that might save problems at a future BSS examination. . PS - BSS 3.6.2 does NOT say "CHARGING SOURCE" it says "BATTERY CHARGER". That slight difference introduces ambiguity, especially in light of years of assertions from the BSS that alternators must go through the master switch.

Ideally yes but in the past Daniel has been struggling to get the full compliment of 6-8 moderators. If the forum is largely self-moderated with mods relying on the report system to catch up on any problems, I see no reason why there has to be a constant mod presence. People are aware of how the forum degenerated in the Spring and I don't think anyone wants that to happen again, nor do they want moderation with an iron fist as that has harmed the forum even more.

People will advise you that both ways are best, but the Boat safety Scheme (BSS) has a bit to say about what should and shouldn't run via an isolation switch and depending on how you interpret that depends if you can do what you want to. Mine are connected via the isolation switches so that switching them off everything except the bilge pump and solar panels are disconnected.

A lot depends how you interpreter the BSS requirements on isolation

I have just found the following gauge details on a Post-It note stuffed behind my sofa: 06 September 1916 - GJ11899 - LANGLEY for T.W. Toovey Ltd. - forecabin - length = 71'9'' - beam = 11'10'' - draught light = 12.37'' - draught laden = 50.73'' @ 60tons. LANGLEY was a new boat built by Bushell Brothers., Tring and was sold in 1936 to Thomas Clayton (Paddington) Ltd. who renamed it GEORGE. 21 July 1920 - GJ12028 - BETTY for T.W. Toovey Ltd., Kings Langley - forecabin - length = 71'1½'' - beam = 11'8½'' - stowage length = 49'11'' - draught light = 13.25'' - draught laden = 51.05'' @ 58tons. BETTY was a second hand boat acquired from J. Landon and Company, Aylesbury. 08 November 1923 - GJ12106 - GOLDEN SPRAY for T.W. Toovey Ltd., - forecabin - length = 72'0'' - beam = 12'0¾'' - stowage length = 50'5'' - draught light = 13.5'' - draught laden = 50.78'' @ 60tons. GOLDEN SPRAY was a new boat built by Bushell Brothers., Tring and was sold in 1936 to Thomas Clayton (Paddington) Ltd. who renamed it LEONARD. It is surprising what can be found littering the house

fair enough. Plenty of the moaning posts haven't been constructive, or more to the point, they were constructive the first time round, but ceased to be constructive after endless repetition.

^^^^^^^^^ Exactly this i actually think Dan and the team (existing or new) have a lot to pull off if things are going to get better, but i fail to see what is achieved by lambasting everything he says or does. He has made it clear that he is trying to stay on top of things whilst flying elsewhere on business. i seriously wonder if any of us who had that kind of day job in the past would have fared any better. Also those who have questioned the choice of the moderators who got added earlier in the year seem to have seriously forgotten the unpleasant state of the forum at the time. Yes there is plenty that needs answering about recent months, but we should not forget the background to those recent months. To blame the appointment of recent mods for the departure of longer standing one seems perverse in the extreme, particularly as at least one has explained their departure, which seems to be because of behaviour of other ordinary members, not other moderators.

Totally agree - If Dan were to say : "As forum owner I am happy with the way the forum is run and we will not be making any changes", or, "I accept that Forums evolve and we need to make changes to meet todays 'needs' and that will happen progressively ........" Then those that wish to 'move on' can do so, and those that want to 'stay' can do so. It won't just be a case of 'lets wait just another week to see if anything happens' Its not difficult.

...make sure your criticism is constructive, clear and within the forum rules.

Dilham canal

Oh come on guys! This is clearly a change, even if it doesn't go explicitly (or otherwise) into detail or describe a new beginning. What have we got to lose by giving Dan the benefit of the doubt and our support? If he gets that, the result could be a good one. If he doesn't, all we have is a continuing feud and a declining forum. If it doesn't improve, let's make sure it's not for the lack of the members' best efforts.