Responsible or Irresponsible Tier 3 Cruising?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

And your opinion on MTB?

 

Well I dont particularly have one.

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I think they should get a room ... 

 

 

I'd rather not thanks.

[PD1964]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Well I dont particularly have one.

That’s a shame as it looks like he had an opinion of you.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

That’s a shame as it looks like he had an opinion of you.

 

Yup. People do.

[junior]

This thread should be closed. It's horrendous. 

[LadyG]

29 minutes ago, junior said:

This thread should be closed. It's horrendous. 

I agree.

Reported the thread.

There has been complaints from Foxes to admin, but mods suggested they join the forum, well that is like suggesting its a good idea to enter a bear pit.

Edited January 30, 2021 by LadyG

[Athy]

38 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I agree.

Reported the thread.

There has been complaints from Foxes to admin, but mods suggested they join the forum, well that is like suggesting its a good idea to enter a bear pit.

No, it is nothing like that. Many times on CWDF, when stories about particular boatbuilders, marinas, incidents and the like have been discussed, members have said that it would be good to hear the person in question's side of the story, as that would give us a more balanced view of the subject. It is exactly the same in this case. Surely it would be enlightening to hear an account of the Foxes' recent adventures from Colin's perspective?

 

This has been a very popular thread, as the fact that it has now passed thirty pages shows, and I suspect that if it closed it would be against the wishes of the majority of participants.

   

[junior]

For me, it's bullying.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

No, it is nothing like that. Many times on CWDF, when stories about particular boatbuilders, marinas, incidents and the like have been discussed, members have said that it would be good to hear the person in question's side of the story, as that would give us a more balanced view of the subject. It is exactly the same in this case. Surely it would be enlightening to hear an account of the Foxes' recent adventures from Colin's perspective?

 

This has been a very popular thread, as the fact that it has now passed thirty pages shows, and I suspect that if it closed it would be against the wishes of the majority of participants.

   

In this instance I think your judgement is flawed. Firstly, look at the reaction to my first post in this thread.

Secondly, if the forum ethos is that it is perfectly OK to repeatedly personally attack two named boaters who are not members of the forum, who are just going about their lives and work, on specious grounds with the only remedy being for them to come on here and attempt to justify their lives to a baying irrational mob, then it is a sorry day for this forum.

 

You were a teacher. Did you ever deal with bullies at school, or did you just tell the victims to man up and argue their case?

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, junior said:

For me, it's bullying.

Not if they don't bother to read it, and why should they? It's not exactly full of inspired criticism.

They'll do what they think is within the rules and it's then up to CRT or the police to comment if they feel so inclined. No-one cares what we think, or at least they shouldn't.

Real bullyiing is physical or psychological, in person. Feeling bullied by something with an off switch is just silly.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

You were a teacher. Did you ever deal with bullies at school, or did you just tell the victims to man up and argue their case?

 

 

Good analogy, but, as both the bulied and the bully were both in the 'same playground' the bullied could take a stand and even 'thump' the bullies.

Bullies will rarely 'stand up' to any response from the 'bullied' and are usually just "cowards with mates"

[nicknorman]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Not if they don't bother to read it, and why should they? It's not exactly full of inspired criticism.

They'll do what they think is within the rules and it's then up to CRT or the police to comment if they feel so inclined. No-one cares what we think, or at least they shouldn't.

Real bullyiing is physical or psychological, in person. Feeling bullied by something with an off switch is just silly.

If you really think internet bullying doesn’t exist or is silly, you are incredibly naive and ill-informed. Do you ever look at the news? Do a bit of research please, try starting here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by nicknorman

[tree monkey]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Good analogy, but, as both the bulied and the bully were both in the 'same playground' the bullied could take a stand and even 'thump' the bullies.

Bullies will rarely 'stand up' to any response from the 'bullied' and are usually just "cowards with mates"

Although the difference here is the ability to hide behind a keyboard and it's a lot easier to get snarky in absence than in person

[Athy]

26 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

In this instance I think your judgement is flawed. Firstly, look at the reaction to my first post in this thread.

Secondly, if the forum ethos is that it is perfectly OK to repeatedly personally attack two named boaters who are not members of the forum, who are just going about their lives and work, on specious grounds with the only remedy being for them to come on here and attempt to justify their lives to a baying irrational mob, then it is a sorry day for this forum.

 

 

Eloquently put, as can usually be expected from you. But you present only one side of the comments  Numerous posts have been in support of the Foxes' actions. hence we have had discussion amongst members with varying points of view, which is surely why we're here.

   Equally, it is surely proper and courteous to invite the Foxes to take part in the discussion; is it not fair to suggest that the subject of a discussion takes part in it? I'm not sure, though, about your use of "attempt to justify", which implies that the Foxes' position is untenable. I don't think it is, so perhaps "justify" rather than "attempt to...." would be more apt. As for a "baying irrational mob", it's an eloquent phrase, but some way removed from the reality of this thread. As far as I can see, the most irrational posts have been exchanges between members commenting on each other's points of view, not on the Foxes themselves or their actions.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Athy

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Although the difference here is the ability to hide behind a keyboard and it's a lot easier to get snarky in absence than in person

 

 

But, I'd have thought that if the Foxes actually came on and explained that they had the OK to move etc etc, many would say that's OK then - we didn't know,

[nicknorman]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But, I'd have thought that if the Foxes actually came on and explained that they had the OK to move etc etc, many would say that's OK then - we didn't know,

That may be true, but in a non-Stasi-dominated state, should people going about their lives have to justify their actions to random curtain twitchers? It’s all rather unpleasant gutter-press type stuff.

[tree monkey]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

But, I'd have thought that if the Foxes actually came on and explained that they had the OK to move etc etc, many would say that's OK then - we didn't know,

I sort of agree with you but,

 

They are under no obligation to do that,

 

The forum has a history of being fairly robust in response to all sorts of things, why would they bother facing that.

 

The forum can and often is an interesting and informative place with many people offering help freely, on the other side it can be seen as bullying, certainly if you are trying to step into an already established post to try to defend oneself it would be an uphill and probably unpleasant experience.

 

Personally if I was Foxes I would steer clear

 

 

[restlessnomad]

I think I would agree with @Athy, CWDF has not closed threads against marinas whose business get much more affected by what is written here. On other hand foxes dont lose anything much, one might argue that they gain a few more click of people who never heard about them.

Also its not one sided, there are enough members arguing in support of their action. Bad/Good things said about all sorts of people in public eye (businessmen, politician, actors etc), comes with territory.

Am sure if any post says anything illegal or violates forum rule, it will be moderated. This thread will die a natural death once something better comes up.

Edited January 30, 2021 by restlessnomad

[nicknorman]

11 minutes ago, Athy said:

Eloquently put, as can usually be expected from you. But you present only one side of the comments  Numerous posts have been in support of the Foxes' actions. hence we have had discussion amongst members with varying points of view, which is surely why we're here.

   Equally, it is surely proper and courteous to invite the Foxes to take part in the discussion; is it not fair to suggest that the subject of a discussion takes part in it? I'm not sure, though, about your use of "attempt to justify", which implies that the Foxes' position is untenable. I don't think it is, so perhaps "justify" rather than "attempt to...." would be more apt. As for a "baying irrational mob", it's an eloquent phrase, but some way removed from the reality of this thread. As far as I can see, the most irrational posts have been exchanges between members commenting on each other's points of view, not on the Foxes themselves or their actions.

There may have been both sides put, but the whole subject is rather unpleasant, requiring two non-members to justify their actions. And I said “attempt to justify” because no doubt some on here will be unconvinced by any attempt to justify.

 

It’s just all rather “Daily Mail” and I thought the forum was better than that.

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

That may be true, but in a non-Stasi-dominated state, should people going about their lives have to justify their actions to random curtain twitchers? 

They shouldn't have to, but they should have the opportunity to do so.

1 minute ago, restlessnomad said:

 

Am sure if any post says anything illegal or violates forum rule, it will be moderated. 

When I opened the topic this morning I found that one of my colleagues had indeed done some pruning.

[Chris Lowe]

2 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

The forum can and often is an interesting and informative place with many people offering help freely, on the other side it can be seen as bullying, certainly if you are trying to step into an already established post to try to defend oneself it would be an uphill and probably unpleasant experience.

 

Nothing to stop them making their point in a new thread though.

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

 

Am sure if any post says anything illegal or violates forum rule, it will be moderated. 

From the forum rules:

 

You will not use CWDF to post or reference to any material anywhere on the site that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, aimed to deceive or ridicule, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, disruptive, intimidating, threatening, inflammatory, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, bullying or invasive of a person's privacy

 

From that lot I think we could pick out defamatory, harassing, bullying, and maybe even stretch to invasive of a person’s privacy and hateful.

[Chagall]

It is also very easy to perceive ‘bullying’ when written comments are taken in the way a poster wishes to read them. This aspect is a huge problem with social media, its ambiguity. Words spoken in real time carry totally different meanings. On forums you cannot see the inflection in the eyes or the ghost of a smile on the lips, and the gesture of a hand movement. You cannot see the interaction between the middle aged guy sat on his stool at the corner of the bar as he again raises aloft his still half empty pint glass, nods his head in agreement and slaps the bar top to emphasise. 

 

Words that can be taken in two or three different ways are most often attached to a memory of historical references. It might actually have no bearing on the current conversation at all but if negative feelings have been stirred then whatever words have been written will invariably be taken how they wish to ‘hear’ it. 

 

Its one of the reasons why posters often have to explain what they actually meant especially when other posts (or deletion of posts) interrupt the flow. This again increases the likelihood of taking offence, and so resentment builds and imagination fuels. 

 

[restlessnomad]

5 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

From the forum rules:

 

You will not use CWDF to post or reference to any material anywhere on the site that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, aimed to deceive or ridicule, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, disruptive, intimidating, threatening, inflammatory, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, bullying or invasive of a person's privacy

 

From that lot I think we could pick out defamatory, harassing, bullying, and maybe even stretch to invasive of a person’s privacy and hateful.

please report those posts and get them moderated. I have not done any of those so I would expect my posts to stay.

Closing the thread will be overstepping moderator's remit.

This thread looks like daily mail comment section because people make it so. But we have seen similar spat in brexit threads, so am not surprised.

I agree that this thread has run it's course... 

Edited January 30, 2021 by restlessnomad

[Chagall]

10 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

 

I agree that this thread has run it's course... 

It has not "run it's course..."  people are still talking (writing!) and until the mods agree then threads should not be closed just because two or three think it should. 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by Chagall
ambiguity!

[tree monkey]

16 minutes ago, buccaneer66 said:

 

Nothing to stop them making their point in a new thread though.

All that would happen is people would continue the same on the new thread