Technical arguments.

[Merlin]

I think this is a very reasonable approach.

 

There must be any number of members who, like me, are professional technical people. Their knowledge would benifit us all, but we are reluctant to post our ideas because we do not wish to open ourselves up to argument and personal insults.

 

I heartily agree debate is healthy, but when it turns “nasty” it does not help anyone.

[DHutch]

If got to get this work done before eight, so ive only skim-read allans (2 L's) post, and will have to reread it later.

 

However, just breifly another problem that can occur is, if a "offence/personal" post is not noticed till sometime after it was made, it can quite often become the case the removing it entirely, espcailly if its a larger post containing much other content, can mean the follwing thread/posts relating to it no longer stand up on there own. So in the case, removing only part of the post can be the best caurse of action.

 

It is also as alan (one L) mentioned, when cases are boarderline, it does give the sitecrew a hard choice, and one that can never satisfy everyone.

 

Even within my own mind i often have trouble deceding the best cause of action.

- On one site of the coin, as a member of many other forums, i sometime find "over moderation" intensly annoying, for intance, where a great deal of good information has been removed, solely becuase the post comtained a half sensored swareword (to sercomvent the strict sware list).

- But on the other hand, i can see that sometimes the "hardline" is the only way to deal with some persisting problems or members.

 

 

Daniel

[alan_fincher]

However, just breifly another problem that can occur is, if a "offence/personal" post is not noticed till sometime after it was made, it can quite often become the case the removing it entirely, espcailly if its a larger post containing much other content, can mean the follwing thread/posts relating to it no longer stand up on there own. So in the case, removing only part of the post can be the best caurse of action.

I can see where you are coming from Dan, but I think Allan's idea of removing the WHOLE of any post that breaks the rules is much easier to administer, and doesn't leave the mods open to arguments about which bit should go, and which bits should stay. The more selectiuve you allow the mods to be, the more likely people are to cry "foul".

 

In my view, it's just bad luck if removal of the whole post results in the overall thread becoming less useful or coherent.

 

If people think what they have to say is important, all they need to do is to not mix any "offensive, personally insulting, or threatening language" in with the useful stuff.

 

Easy really!

 

Alan

[NB Alnwick]

I can see where you are coming from Dan, but I think Allan's idea of removing the WHOLE of any post that breaks the rules is much easier to administer, and doesn't leave the mods open to arguments about which bit should go, and which bits should stay. The more selectiuve you allow the mods to be, the more likely people are to cry "foul".

 

In my view, it's just bad luck if removal of the whole post results in the overall thread becoming less useful or coherent.

 

If people think what they have to say is important, all they need to do is to not mix any "offensive, personally insulting, or threatening language" in with the useful stuff.

 

Easy really!

 

Alan

 

If we could just stick to common decency and good manners this conversation would not be necessary.

I say that the moderators should not remove posts or any part of the posts but I am all for the principle of giving warnings for bad language or personal insults on the basis of three warnings and your out.

 

And if the posts are left as they are, we can all see what they were outed for!

[DHutch]

If we could just stick to common decency and good manners this conversation would not be necessary.

Very true indeed, unfortuantly there does recently seam to be an increase in the small number who seam not to be able to manage this.

 

...I am all for the principle of giving warnings for bad language or personal insults on the basis of three warnings and your out.

That is also a very relevent point.

- The forum does indeed contain a "warn" feature, which could be setup just like you suggest. And i think that is becoming a ever increasingly attractive option.

- TSR, another (very large) forum i post on uses the feature extreamly affectively. They have a "10 warns and your out" system, which certain offecnces being worth a diffrent number of strikes.

 

However, i still feel it should only be used in addtion to removal of foul comments/posts, rather than a stright replacement.

 

 

You are also corrent, i must go to bed now. This will be last post of the night.

 

 

 

Daniel

[ChrisPy]

FAIR

[Carrie]

Gentlemen. May I add a word here?

The 'technical' slanging matches/arguments/differences in opinion can sometimes be alienating - not simply because they start to exclude anyone who feels tentative about their own subject knowledge, but because they are macho. I don't see female members getting involved and I don't believe that is because they have no subject knowledge or experience of what is being discussed. This is exactly the reason, in my opinion, that male posters greatly outnumber females on this forum.

I enjoy different ideas, but when it turns into a 'mine is bigger than yours' conflict, I switch off and learn nowt.

 

I personally don't want to have a panel of experts and I understand this was a jokey proposal, but I have a feeling this panel would be wholly male. I would welcome a more respectful attitude to ideas, sugestions and comments and that in no way limits dissent.

[Moley]

The 'technical' slanging matches/arguments/differences in opinion can sometimes be alienating

Agreed. The question has usually been answered and I have gained any information I may need usually on page 1, then I tend to stop reading them and ignore any new posts. However, they can be fun to re-visit after they've been closed by a moderator. They think they are being so clever, and go banging on backwards and forwards, and it's macho but childish, and they do nothing to gain respect, and you end up pitying them. I like watching people, it can be very funny.

 

I don't see female members getting involved and I don't believe that is because they have no subject knowledge or experience of what is being discussed.

I think they've simply got more sense, can tut and shrug and realise that boys will be boys, shake their heads and go away and leave them to get on with it.

[Grasshopper]

For what it is worth, the propsal seems fair to me. Even generous given that you are proposing to allow 3 violations before banning.

 

One thing that has proved useful on forums where I mod is for the moderators & admin to have a hidden area of the board where they can discuss such matters without general input. This allows them to agree an approach to a specific thread with their peers without everyone being privy to the discussion. It also gives an area that posts can be moved to quickly whilst discussed.

 

Of course you may already have such an area because obviously I wouldn't know..........

[ChrisPy]

I don't see female members getting involved and I don't believe that is because they have no subject knowledge or experience of what is being discussed.

it's all about testosterone, innit ?

[alan_fincher]

Gentlemen. May I add a word here?

Of course!

 

The 'technical' slanging matches/arguments/differences in opinion can sometimes be alienating - not simply because they start to exclude anyone who feels tentative about their own subject knowledge, but because they are macho. I don't see female members getting involved and I don't believe that is because they have no subject knowledge or experience of what is being discussed. This is exactly the reason, in my opinion, that male posters greatly outnumber females on this forum.

Sorry, Carrie. I don't think I agree. Male forum numbers have, for whatever reason, always greatly exceeded female since I joined, and whilst there has been occasional "overly robust" postings in the past, I think that what has regrettably happened lately is on the whole a quite recent thing.

 

Please trust me, I'm completely for treating the sexes with equal fairness. However, I believe if you look at what actually happens in the real world, then engines, gearboxes, electrics, batteries, plumbing, heating systems, etc. tend to be installed, maintained and repaired by men, rather than by women, on the vast majority of occasions.

 

Clearly there are totally able women like yourself, Jill, Bones, etc. who are 100% confident and competent to dip into these normally male dominated areas. However, for whatever the reason, in my experience it's far more likely that on boats having both males and females, that these are male dominated activities. (Note: I'm not saying it SHOULD be so, just that that seems to be fact).

 

I think you are suggesting that the poor behaviours puts women of posting ? I'm sure it does, although I've found many of you more than able to give as good as you get, and would no more dream of picking a fight with you than many of the men.

 

But actually I think what 'Merlin' said is correct. The behaviour puts lots of people off posting, who would like to contribute, and who have good input to make, regardless of sex.

 

I enjoy different ideas, but when it turns into a 'mine is bigger than yours' conflict, I switch off and learn nowt.

I'm sure that's probably true for 95% or more of active forum members.

 

As I admitted somewhere earlier, I can recognise that I have allowed myself to carry on in debates which, although interesting to some, have ceased to help the original questioner. I probably knew at the time I shouldn't, even if I ultimately managed to satisfy myself what the actual answers were.

 

I personally don't want to have a panel of experts and I understand this was a jokey proposal, but I have a feeling this panel would be wholly male.

I'm expecting someone to pop up and say this is wrong, because knitting experts would not be excluded

 

My God, that was brave! I hope you have followed my posts long enough to know that this doesn't represent MY view!

 

I would welcome a more respectful attitude to ideas, suggestions and comments and that in no way limits dissent.

Absolutely!

 

But, to Answer Allan's question, what would YOU want done when someone does resort to offensive, personally insulting, or threatening language?

 

Are you for or against censorship of something YOU personally would fit into one of those categories ? What would YOU do, (if anything), to discourage the perpetrator(s), please ?

 

EDIT to try and sort out some text size / font / formatting issues....

Edited January 13, 2007 by alan_fincher

[NB Alnwick]

Maybe its because we all have learned that its better not to argue with a woman!

In the long run, you can't win . . .

[Guest]

Maybe its because we all have learned that its better not to argue with a woman!

In the long run, you can't win . . .

Dodgy ground!!!

 

Agreed. The question has usually been answered and I have gained any information I may need usually on page 1, then I tend to stop reading them and ignore any new posts. However, they can be fun to re-visit after they've been closed by a moderator. They think they are being so clever, and go banging on backwards and forwards, and it's macho but childish, and they do nothing to gain respect, and you end up pitying them. I like watching people, it can be very funny.I think they've simply got more sense, can tut and shrug and realise that boys will be boys, shake their heads and go away and leave them to get on with it.

Mostly agree especially the highlighted bit. Flamers are the funniest, so damned obvious that it is laughable!

Edited January 13, 2007 by Guest

[blackrose]

FAIR

 

I guess the only thing that could make your proposal hard to police, is that it puts a lot of onus on the moderators to decide what is "offensive, personally insulting, or threatening".

 

True, but moderators would have to use their discretion. I would ask that the 3 strikes & out policy extends to people who post simply to get other member's backs up (i.e. to cause offence), without a hint of humour in their controversial remarks. Although the moderators do a good job for which they get little credit, I think there has been some deference to certain long standing members in such matters.

 

 

Gentlemen. May I add a word here?

The 'technical' slanging matches/arguments/differences in opinion can sometimes be alienating - not simply because they start to exclude anyone who feels tentative about their own subject knowledge, but because they are macho. I don't see female members getting involved and I don't believe that is because they have no subject knowledge or experience of what is being discussed. This is exactly the reason, in my opinion, that male posters greatly outnumber females on this forum.

I enjoy different ideas, but when it turns into a 'mine is bigger than yours' conflict, I switch off and learn nowt.

 

I disagree - men do not have a monopoly on aggressive discourse and argument! I have been on other non-technical forums where women are in the majority and the slanging matches that I have seen erupt and insults exchanged make our spats seem very mild in comparison.

Edited January 13, 2007 by blackrose

[NB Alnwick]

As I said earlier:

If we could just stick to common decency and good manners this conversation would not be necessary.

 

I say that the moderators should not remove posts or any part of the posts but I am all for the principle of giving warnings for bad language or personal insults on the basis of three warnings and your out.

Surely we have now talked this to death? Can we please now ask the moderators to introduce a policy, tell us what it is, and let us get on with talking about nice boaty things.

 

Again I would prefer not to see posts removed - that way we can all see for ourselves why someone has been given the 'red card' and although this must not take anything away from the moderator's decision (which we must accept as final) it does give reasonable transparancy.

[blackrose]

it's all about testosterone, innit ?

 

I'm not sure - there's plenty of estrogen in the water!

[magnetman]

I'm not sure - there's plenty of estrogen in the water!

 

Is that what's wrong with the ducks?

[carlt]

I agree that posts should probably not be entirely removed, just the profanities deleted. I would rather take advice from a non-abusive amateur with a wealth of experience, than someone who feels they can insult someone because they managed to stay awake for three years to get a degree. If we don't see who the idiots are then we don't get the choice of who to ignore.

 

I'm not sure - there's plenty of estrogen in the water!

 

Actually my dear, I think you'll find it's spelt oestrogen. Is that enough smileys to show I was joking?

[Carrie]

I personally hate imposed censorship but as an anarchist, think self-censorship should be encouraged if others are likely to feel hurt, walked over or insulted. I guess that's just empathy.

I don't recall saying that men have a monopoly on aggression! I don't like sites where women or men are aggressive or trying to force their views in an unfriendly fashion. I get as het up as the next person over issues that make me wild, but I hope I'm not aggressive. Alan, you asked me what I would like to see happen I think? If people are using this forum for personal battles, they could be reminded (gently, darling!) that it is alienating.

 

And this wouldn't be a proper Carrie posting if I didn't mention that the quantity of oestrogen in some rivers - particularly downstream of sewage plants - that are making fish change sex.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/4989066.stm

Of course, the usual reassurances that this has no effect on humans bla bla bla, have been given.

[ChrisPy]

making fish change sex.

 

what do they get in exchange?

[Janet S]

Is that what's wrong with the ducks?

Eh? what's up with the ducks?

 

I don't like sites where women or men are aggressive or trying to force their views in an unfriendly fashion.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Janet

 

However, it was quite funny reading the thread in question, imagining all those guys pounding away at their keyboards in frustration. Methinks some of us need to lighten up a bit!

[magnetman]

Eh? what's up with the ducks?

 

I was thinking they might be changing sex but according to Wikipedia 19% of mallards are homosexual so it's alright, nothing to do with hormones in the water.

[Janet S]

19% of mallards are homosexual

 

...and most of them were on the Staffs and Worcs last May! I thought I was seeing things, and they were just having a party...

 

Must be the gay duck capital of Britain!

 

Janet

[carlt]

...and most of them were on the Staffs and Worcs last May! I thought I was seeing things, and they were just having a party...

 

Must be the gay duck capital of Britain!

 

Janet

When I was moored near newbold, many years ago, there was a moorhen and a tiny chick. I don't know what happened to the other parent. One day I was walking to work and the chick (still only a full stop) was on it's own swimming around chip chipping excitedly. A few yards on and I found the mangled carcass of the parent. It didn't look good for the chick but what can you do?

After a hard days grafting I was walking back up the towpath and saw a mallard drake quacking away and the moorhen chick following him. The chick reached maturity and, I assume, they went their seperate ways. So, when fowl pulling season comes around, and your mother figure was a male of a completely separate species, I wonder where your preferences lie?

Edited January 13, 2007 by carlt

[blackrose]

Actually my dear, I think you'll find it's spelt oestrogen.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen

 

 

I personally hate imposed censorship but as an anarchist, think self-censorship should be encouraged if others are likely to feel hurt, walked over or insulted. I guess that's just empathy.

I don't recall saying that men have a monopoly on aggression! I don't like sites where women or men are aggressive or trying to force their views in an unfriendly fashion. I get as het up as the next person over issues that make me wild, but I hope I'm not aggressive. Alan, you asked me what I would like to see happen I think? If people are using this forum for personal battles, they could be reminded (gently, darling!) that it is alienating.

 

I agree entirely Carrie, I wasn't attributing my monopoly comment to you, that was my opinion & I was just trying to say that agressive communication isn't only the preserve of men. Although of course there are physiological and psychological differences between men & women, I just think there's too much gender stereotyping these days - and it works both ways. I can listen, multi-task & don't have a problem asking directions when I'm lost. By the same token I'm sure you aren't completely irrational and can back into a parking space perfectly well.

 

Oh dear have I gone

Edited January 13, 2007 by blackrose