NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[Texasboater]

I would like to see the thread kept open at least until article 50 is instigated,

[LoneWolf]

Is that a question or statement, Wolfie? Either way, it's a blinkin' good one to which I don't know the answer. Will find out tomorrow for you. Probably too tired now ...

 

It was a statement written so it could be taken as a question. It would be nice to have an answer but i'm not really bothered if i get one

 

"It is not permitted to engage in inter-site ‘flaming’ whereby disruptive content from elsewhere other than CWDF is discussed in relation to member activities on CWDF."

 

My question isn't about discussing or posting content from the other place, it's about mentioning it.

 

so for example someone posts something too political, perhaps because they dont bother to read the tedious rules and expect them to be sensible. Is it ok to say, no politics here but if you want to discuss politics with boaters you can go to the place we may not be able to mention but we can name the place

[Woodsy]

Interesting definitions for 'disruptive'

Could it be that any ground breaking, innovative or new threads / posts are also possibly 'disruptive' and therefore should be banned under the rules?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Woodsy

[Phil Ambrose]

 

It was a statement written so it could be taken as a question. It would be nice to have an answer but i'm not really bothered if i get one

 

 

My question isn't about discussing or posting content from the other place, it's about mentioning it.

 

so for example someone posts something too political, perhaps because they dont bother to read the tedious rules and expect them to be sensible. Is it ok to say, no politics here but if you want to discuss politics with boaters you can go to the place we may not be able to mention but we can name the place

I suspect that it's not allowed because I got a warning point for including a German expletive in my reply to a post in German, my reply was also in German and my crime was that if you translated the post into English part of the expletive was part of the name of the unmentionable forum.

Phil

[Alan de Enfield]

There was a question (just after Phils post #54) asked here a minute ago, told I 'don't have permission to reply' and then rebooted and it has been deleted

 

Are we having 'cull' again ?

[Guest User]

No culls, but the OP did ask that the contributions be constructive please.

 

LC

[Alan de Enfield]

No culls, but the OP did ask that the contributions be constructive please.

 

LC

 

Would it not be more 'polite' to amend the text to read something like :

 

"Deleted as off-topic!

 

Rather than delete the whole post - at least others can see why, and understand that 'enforcement' is active.

[LoneWolf]

No culls, but the OP did ask that the contributions be constructive please.

 

LC

 

but the OP appears to be an anonymous sockpuppet which is also forbidden

[wrigglefingers]

Not a sock puppet but the moderating team. Therefore not forbidden.

Edited September 3, 2016 by wrigglefingers
For sense....

[MtB]

Not forbidden nor a sock puppet but the moderating team.

 

Is this the first step in making moderation anonymous? About time too!

 

Even though I have grave doubts about the judgement of two of our mods, I think this is the way forward for modding here in principle.

 

but the OP appears to be an anonymous sockpuppet which is also forbidden

 

 

There is a difference. There is no intention to mislead (as there is with a sock puppet).

 

The OP is clearly posting with no intention to mislead, and has, I would imagine, the approval of the mod team!

[Bettie Boo]

I suspect that it's not allowed because I got a warning point for including a German expletive in my reply to a post in German, my reply was also in German and my crime was that if you translated the post into English part of the expletive was part of the name of the unmentionable forum.

Phil

 

Doomcough? (sp?)

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Doomcough? (sp?)

 

No - think "Santa's reindeer"

[LoneWolf]

 

Is this the first step in making moderation anonymous? About time too!

 

Even though I have grave doubts about the judgement of two of our mods, I think this is the way forward for modding here in principle.

 

 

There is a difference. There is no intention to mislead (as there is with a sock puppet).

 

The OP is clearly posting with no intention to mislead, and has, I would imagine, the approval of the mod team!

 

Well it allows some mods to avoid individual responsibility for poor decisions - not all mod decisions are made by consensus as they often claim here.

We will still get the same inconsistent moderation but we wont be able to shrug our shoulders and think oh well thats just xxx who is a rubbish mod.

It's also inconsistent with "The moderation team aim to remain as transparent as possible "

 

 

I'm also a bit confused about the definition of politics - if a brexit thread was never intended to be a political thread as Wiggle says then what counts as politics and what doesn't?

For example, i used to enjoy the discussions about gay rights on here - the discussion was often lively with differing viewpoints which one wouldnt get on a gay forum - now to me that is a political subject so i would assume it's banned but if a brexit thread wasn't intended to be political then perhaps a gay rights discussion wouldnt be considered political either.

 

Unfortunately, we cant find out by posting because "posting such as seeks to test the limits, or otherwise push the boundaries of these rules and guidelines is not permitted."

 

now who said "The Personal is Political"?....

[MtB]

 

Well it allows some mods to avoid individual responsibility for poor decisions - not all mod decisions are made by consensus as they often claim here.

We will still get the same inconsistent moderation but we wont be able to shrug our shoulders and think oh well thats just xxx who is a rubbish mod.

It's also inconsistent with "The moderation team aim to remain as transparent as possible "

 

 

I'm also a bit confused about the definition of politics - if a brexit thread was never intended to be a political thread as Wiggle says then what counts as politics and what doesn't?

For example, i used to enjoy the discussions about gay rights on here - the discussion was often lively with differing viewpoints which one wouldnt get on a gay forum - now to me that is a political subject so i would assume it's banned but if a brexit thread wasn't intended to be political then perhaps a gay rights discussion wouldnt be considered political either.

 

Unfortunately, we cant find out by posting because "posting such as seeks to test the limits, or otherwise push the boundaries of these rules and guidelines is not permitted."

 

now who said "The Personal is Political"?....

 

 

Do you agree a change was necessary or did you like the forum when discussion was dominated by threads on politics and religion filled with posters baiting each other and bad feeling?

 

My personal view is the new set of rules is about right, but rather than them needing to be ruthlessly enforced they should be retained as a backstop should things get out of hand. A bit like the landlord who has a 'no pets' clause in his tenancy agreements but he turns a blind eye to the tenant with a cat. While the cat is no trouble there is no point in making an issue of it and probably losing a tenant, but if the cat starts pissing everywhere or clawing up the carpets, the contract term is there to be enforced.

 

The Brexit thread is tolerated because it is generally civilised. This is how modding should be conducted. Threads on the gay issues you cite should be tolerated, along with humour religion and politics. But should such a thread get out of hand the 'no politics or religion' rule is there and available to be wheeled out and used.

 

This is where modding here has gone wrong in my opinion. The rules should be invoked if and when disruption breaks out or threatens to break out, not rigidly and unthinkingly all the time, 'just in case'.

[patty-ann]

I think 'Brexit' is causing no harm remaining..its boring at times but its serving a purpose and I think will die natural death or go into hibernation to be resurrected as and when circumstances dictate..its not causing anyone to rant n rave..I am learning bits from it but don't often post. There is no need to cull something thats not doing any harm.

[MtB]

I think 'Brexit' is causing no harm remaining..its boring at times but its serving a purpose and I think will die natural death or go into hibernation to be resurrected as and when circumstances dictate..its not causing anyone to rant n rave..I am learning bits from it but don't often post. There is no need to cull something thats not doing any harm.

 

 

Exactly. And this it the problem a lot us have with the current modding. Stuff that is doing no harm is being deleted.

[Guest]

I think 'Brexit' is causing no harm remaining..its boring at times but its serving a purpose and I think will die natural death or go into hibernation to be resurrected as and when circumstances dictate..its not causing anyone to rant n rave..I am learning bits from it but don't often post. There is no need to cull something thats not doing any harm.

Of course it's doing no harm. However that was not the point I was making earlier.

 

You either have a rule or you do not. The issue is one of inconcistency.

[MtB]

Of course it's doing no harm. However that was not the point I was making earlier.

 

You either have a rule or you do not. The issue is one of inconcistency.

 

 

I can cope with some inconsistency in modding if good judgement is being exercised.

 

In fact I'd prefer it to the rules being rigidly and unthinkingly enforced regardless of the result.

[billS]

It' just as well that John Knox isn't a member of this forum.

[Guest]

 

 

I can cope with some inconsistency in modding if good judgement is being exercised.

 

In fact I'd prefer it to the rules being rigidly and unthinkingly enforced regardless of the result.

Which only leads to people thinking they may be ok posting something that they think will ok but it transpires subsequently that in fact it wasnt. And thus they cop for a warning.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Doomcough? (sp?)

 

'Dummkopf' translates as 'fool' and it wasn't that word.

[Phil Ambrose]

 

No - think "Santa's reindeer"

Or a noisy weather related event,

Phil

[Alan de Enfield]

Or a noisy weather related event,

Phil

 

Or - From Wikipedia :

 

The XXXXXXXX River is a river on the eastern Oregon high desert which drains a relatively arid basin, the southern portion of Harney Basin, from roughly 20 to 80 miles (30 to 130 km) south-southeast of Burns including Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Though much of its course is marsh, it offers scenic glaciated canyons, unique ecosystems, and exceptional wild trout fisheries. Named by soldiers of German origin, the XXXXXXXX River translates as "XXXXXXXX".^[ The name brings to mind two of Santa Claus's reindeer but the river is named for a XXXXXXXX the soldiers experienced as they crossed the river; dry lightning is an almost daily occurrence in the region during certain times of the year.

[alan_fincher]

The Brexit thread is tolerated because it is generally civilised. This is how modding should be conducted. Threads on the gay issues you cite should be tolerated, along with humour religion and politics. But should such a thread get out of hand the 'no politics or religion' rule is there and available to be wheeled out and used.

 

This is where modding here has gone wrong in my opinion. The rules should be invoked if and when disruption breaks out or threatens to break out, not rigidly and unthinkingly all the time, 'just in case'.

 

 

I think 'Brexit' is causing no harm remaining..its boring at times but its serving a purpose and I think will die natural death or go into hibernation to be resurrected as and when circumstances dictate..its not causing anyone to rant n rave..I am learning bits from it but don't often post. There is no need to cull something thats not doing any harm.

 

 

Exactly. And this it the problem a lot us have with the current modding. Stuff that is doing no harm is being deleted.

 

 

I simply don't understand the logic here.

 

It seems bonkers to me to suggest that you have a rule that says "no religion or politics", but that people could start threads on these topics, and unless they go awry, they are then tolerated, and mods only get involved if it gets unpleasant.

 

That mods will get involved if it gets unpleasant applies to all the topics that are allowed by the rules, so if you were to follow the above logic I see no difference between the "allowed" and "non allowed" topics, and hence absolutely point in having introduced a "no politics or religion" rule.

 

Creating and continuing to permit the Brexit thread to me completely muddies the waters around the new rules, which, if you are to have them at all, should in my view clear and unambiguous, and not totally disregarded for one particular thread, (whether that thread remains largely good natured or not).

 

As Lone Wolf points out, you are specifically now forbidden tentatively post stuff to see what does end up getting allowed, and what does not. If we are to have this detailed set of rules, that forbids certain things, if a thread is very obviously about one of those certain things, with no ambiguity, then I still feel that thread should not be there.

[Guest]

/\

 

This