Jump to content

NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines


Canal World

Featured Posts

The Brexit thread has now been locked as a result of complaints on this thread. All political debate has now been extinguished. Happy now?

Can you not see just how illogical it was to allow it to remain?

 

So whilst I wouldn't describe me as being 'happy' at least common sense has prevailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not see just how illogical it was to allow it to remain?

 

So whilst I wouldn't describe me as being 'happy' at least common sense has prevailed.

 

 

Of course I can, but my point was well balanced adults are able to tolerate occasional inconsistencies in life especially when a benefit accrues.

I find it logically inconsistent that lots of people opposed the politics ban yet when the rule was introduced and one exception is granted, they proceed to oppose the exception!

 

 

 

(Spell checker edit.)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Of course I can, but my point was well balanced adults are able to tolerate occasional inconsistencies in life especially when a benefit accrues.

 

Thats wot I think as well..there are inconsistencies in life..its all part of the rocky roller coaster landscape we all travel....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it logically inconsistent that lots of people opposed the politics ban yet when the rule was introduced and one exception is granted, they proceed to oppose the exception!

 

As I find it odd that I felt sure you were one of those who had repeatedly said it is a canal forum, and you don't come on it for religion or politics.

 

If that is your stance, I really can't see why you are supporting the existence of a thread that was created after it said those things would be disallowed, and which therefore openly breaks the rules that have now finally been published.

 

To me this is not about do I want politics and religion to be banned or not, it is about being clear to those who want to know what is allowed and what is not. Don't forget new members are joining all the time, who will know little of how we come to be where we are, and who can't reasonably be expected to understand why the rules disallow something but there is a long running thread that contains little else.

 

For the record I was always in two minds about whether this ban was sensible or desirable, but the site owner and the moderating team decided it was necessary to deal with the situation we were by then at. Once that decision was taken, it needed to be formally in the site rules and guidelines, (which, of course, it finally now is), and then seen to be applied consistently. I realise I may be at odds with moderators who decided both to start and contribute to that thread, but I could never see how its existence could be justified.

 

If you allow the creation of threads that break forum rules with "a bit of flexibility", then who decides where it stops. If I create one where I decide to be mildly rude and unpleasant about a forum member, for example, is that OK if they don't actively complain.

 

The biggest criticism about new moderating policy, (and indeed some of the newer mods), to me seems to be lack of consistency. If you allow individual mods great flexibility to ignore breaches of the published rules, what chance do you have of any consistency at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, life is inconsistent. The only way of achieving the perfect consistency you, MJG et al seem to require is to drop all moderation. And we know where that leads, don't we?

 

I give up!

 

So a better way of getting consistency is to create a very clear rule, and then openly do something that is at complete variance with that rule?

 

On this we will have to agree to differ, Mike!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A series of traffic 'cops' are sat alongside the A55 the A55 North Wales coast road - a lovely dual carriageway.

 

A car doing 80mph comes whizzing past the 1st parked Police car - as the shift is due to change in a short time, the Policeman says to his mate " if we pull him in its going to cause all sorts of paperwork and we will be late clocking off - let him carry on"

 

A few miles further on, another car doing the same speed, passes the 2nd Police car, the two Policeman are new to role and decide that to make a good impression to their bosses and increase their 'arrest rate' they will pull him in.

They 'pull him in' and do the necessary. The driver then leaves thinking ' xxxxxxxx policemen' and during his frustration his speed slowly creeps up again until he is again 'pushing the limits'

 

A few miles further on, another car is doing the same speed (80mph), passes the 3rd Police car, Policeman turns to his mate "lets pull him in, he was over the speed limit, but maybe a talking to and a warning will give him a 'fright' and he'll see sense"

 

Three different ways of handling the same offence - surely if you are the one 'charged' whilst others get way with exactly the same, you fail to see the logic of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this reminds me of the apocryphal tale about the motorist stopped for speeding complaining that all the other cars were going at the same speed as him and it was all so unfair.

 

The copper asked him "do you ever go fishing mate?". The motorist says "yes, but what does that have do do with this?"

 

The copper says "did you expect catch ALL of 'em?"

 

 

 

Achieving 100% fairness and consistency in life is an impossible goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The copper asked him "do you ever go fishing mate?". The motorist says "yes, but what does that have do do with this?"

 

The copper says "did you expect catch ALL of 'em?"

 

 

 

Achieving 100% fairness and consistency in life is an impossible goal.

 

But to fish, and then knowingly lift your hook out of the water just as the fish approaches means you are never going to catch that one.

 

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this reminds me of the apocryphal tale about the motorist stopped for speeding complaining that all the other cars were going at the same speed as him and it was all so unfair.

 

The copper asked him "do you ever go fishing mate?". The motorist says "yes, but what does that have do do with this?"

 

The copper says "did you expect catch ALL of 'em?"

 

 

 

Achieving 100% fairness and consistency in life is an impossible goal.

This is patent nonsense. A truism that does nothing but excuse a lazy approach by shrugging its shoulders and muttering about the impossibility of the task.

 

What is required is clear rools enforced in a straightforward and transparent fashion. Not rools applied according to whether the poster is currently in or out of favour with the moderating team/incessant posters or indeed a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why politics was banned (although I didn't agree with it), but why religion? I know it is traditionally said that these two subjects shouldn't be discussed in pubs, but can anyone remember religious discussions or references leading to anything untoward here?

 

Or is it the 'Charlie Hebdo' effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why politics was banned (although I didn't agree with it), but why religion? I know it is traditionally said that these two subjects shouldn't be discussed in pubs, but can anyone remember religious discussions or references leading to anything untoward here?

 

Or is it the 'Charlie Hebdo' effect?

 

Without an 'answer from management' I would speculate that Current Affairs / Politics / Religion are all mixed up in peoples minds (ISIS,Terrorists, Muslims, Foreigners', Immigrants, taking 'our jobs', are all intertwined) and the boundaries between each are difficult to define. A thread about one will inevitably involve the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Without an 'answer from management' I would speculate that Current Affairs / Politics / Religion are all mixed up in peoples minds (ISIS,Terrorists, Muslims, Foreigners', Immigrants, taking 'our jobs', are all intertwined) and the boundaries between each are difficult to define. A thread about one will inevitably involve the other.

I would agree but IMO this increases the load on the moderators having to consider (discuss?) individual posts that crop up in threads. Had the "problem" posters who couldn't "be nice" to each other been dealt with the subject need not have been banned. Then it would only have been a decision as whether the post was abusive etc.

 

Now every single post has to be considered for:

 

Flaming

Advertising

Copyright

Defamation

Ridicule

Abuse

Vulgarity

Harassment

Intimidation

Threats

Obscenity

Profanity

Bullying

Testing/pushing the boundaries

 

As if all that wasn't enough to keep a mod busy they now have to consider

Politics in all its many varieties and connotations

ALL religions including very minor ones such as being a Druid

Current affairs and if they have even the vaguest connection to waterways.

 

Personally I would have thought dealing with the offending members would have been easier.

 

If I were a mod (perish the thought) I would need a checklist if I was going to be fair and consistent. It would mean I might be able to moderate a thread a day.

 

The mods do genuinely have my sympathy.

 

EDIT: To add there are probably a number of other things that should be in the list which I haven't thought of.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan, life is inconsistent. The only way of achieving the perfect consistency you, MJG et al seem to require is to drop all moderation. And we know where that leads, don't we?

Yes life is inconsistent but there are elements of it that are not.

 

Eg we are currently on a site and one of the rules is "keep your dog on a lead". The rules is adhered to. The person that manages the site keeps their dog on a lead too as to not so would give out a very bad message. The rule isn't "keep your dog on a lead unless you want to be inconsistent'.

 

There are hundreds of examples in life from club to society membership where rules apply. If you don't to adhere to them you just don't join or visit thar particular club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Brexit thread has now been locked as a result of complaints on this thread. All political debate has now been extinguished. Happy now?

You could always start your own forum.....now where have i heard that before? oh yes, from you, many times

 

Oh God (Hell cant' use that either its religious) Damn we aren't heading for the PC Happy Holidays instead of Yule Tide (I don't think Yule is religiously based)

 

Heathen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I still agree with MtB view. We all have rules in our day to day lives, whether it be driving, work, sport or other leisure activities. Can I honestly say that I follow all of them all of the time? Of course not, I'm human. For one, sometimes I forget, I sometimes forget a rule and break it, and other times I choose to "bend" a rule I find has no real purpose.

 

For example:

 

4 managers all run catering units on one large site, the break rule for staff is, 4 hour shift = no break, 6 hr shift = 20 min break & 8 hr + shift = 1/2 hr break.

 

The casual staff didn't have a home location and worked for all 4 of us depending on who had what events on at the time. When they worked for me I'd give them a choice of either having a 20 min break or 2 x 10 breaks and the same with the 1/2 hr breaks; naturally the smokers would chose to have the 2 shorter breaks so they could get in a couple of cigs throughout their day - yes I relaxed "the rule" but it did no one any harm and the staff always seemed just that little bit happier when working in my areas.

 

Also the staff who only worked a 4 hour shift weren't entitled to anything to eat, if we had bacon or sausages left at the end of breakfast the Chef and I would put it to the side so they could have a butty at the end of their shift, it would only have been thrown away anyway - again breaking the "rule", but I felt human decency and common sense prevailed.

 

On the same hand I wouldn't break the 8 - 8 rule for running a engine or genny - that rule makes sense to me and could disrupt someone else. Again, common sense prevails

 

So yes, some rules are important and should be followed, others are in place to make somebody elses life easier to the detriment of others

 

As with a lot of other folk, I agree something needed to be done, but I think what has happened is far beyond "overkill"wacko.png

 

BTW - I liked it when the MOD's used to contribute to the threads with their incite, not as MOD's but as fellow boaters, the only ones I see still doing that are Fade to Scarlet, Lady Muck & Theo, maybe I'm just not reading the right threads?

 

 

 

ETA - I forgot Theo blush.png

Edited by Bettie Boo
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I still agree with MtB view. We all have rules in our day to day lives, whether it be driving, work, sport or other leisure activities. Can I honestly say that I follow all of them all of the time? Of course not, I'm human. For one, sometimes I forget, I sometimes forget a rule and break it, and other times I choose to "bend" a rule I find has no real purpose.

 

For example:

 

4 managers all run catering units on one large site, the break rule for staff is, 4 hour shift = no break, 6 hr shift = 20 min break & 8 hr + shift = 1/2 hr break.

 

The casual staff didn't have a home location and worked for all 4 of us depending on who had what events on at the time. When they worked for me I'd give them a choice of either having a 20 min break or 2 x 10 breaks and the same with the 1/2 hr breaks; naturally the smokers would chose to have the 2 shorter breaks so they could get in a couple of cigs throughout their day - yes I relaxed "the rule" but it did no one any harm and the staff always seemed just that little bit happier when working in my areas.

 

Also the staff who only worked a 4 hour shift weren't entitled to anything to eat, if we had bacon or sausages left at the end of breakfast the Chef and I would put it to the side so they could have a butty at the end of their shift, it would only have been thrown away anyway - again breaking the "rule", but I felt human decency and common sense prevailed.

 

On the same hand I wouldn't break the 8 - 8 rule for running a engine or genny - that rule makes sense to me and could disrupt someone else. Again, common sense prevails

 

So yes, some rules are important and should be followed, others are in place to make somebody elses life easier to the detriment of others

 

As with a lot of other folk, I agree something needed to be done, but I think what has happened is far beyond "overkill":wacko:

 

BTW - I liked it when the MOD's used to contribute to the threads with their incite, not as MOD's but as fellow boaters, the only ones I see still doing that are Fade to Scarlet, Lady Muck & Theo, maybe I'm just not reading the right threads?

 

 

 

ETA - I forgot Theo :blush:

I hope I'm not talking out of turn here but the situation you describe is not comparable. You are presumably managing your staff to maintain operational effectiveness and team morale. The food consumed would be written off and so long as the work IS covered no one much cares. It's at no cost to the business,no one mentions it and everyone's happy.

 

It is quite another matter to introduce hard and fast rools involving issuing warnings and suchlike whilst running a thread completely at odds with it's published rools, especially one instigated by a moderator. I'm sorry but there it is.....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.