NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[Guest]

So challenge it in an intelligent and worthy way. Just saying "you're a racist" is neither.

It's about stereotyping and generalisations, that is the point. That was what was being challenged at the time.

 

Making a statement like 'all male nurses are gay' hardly needs an 'intelligent or worthy' challenge because it just isn't true. It's utter rubbish, plain and simple.

 

The same as some of the trumpisms we used to get on here about 'closing borders' because of the religious beliefs of people who want to come here.

 

Ed. anyway we are straying dangerously close to forbidden territory and I am on grandpa duties in the morning so time for bed...

Edited September 8, 2016 by MJG

[alan_fincher]

Some posters who engaged in personal abuse were banned. Some remain. The latter group of course mostly being those whose views aligned with the establishment.

 

I'm far from convinced it is anything like this simple.

 

I have no idea just how many may have received a permanent ban, or exactly what they did to provoke it, but clearly there must be questions of degree of overstepping the mark, and it is obvious that some people deliberately pushed things further and further just because they could, and then cried "foul" when the moderators hands were forced.

 

Isn't the reality that a lot of people who no longer post have not actually been banned, but have simply got bored from doing so after they were not egging on, or being egged on by some of those who have? How many people have actually been actively removed rather than just choosing to remove themselves?

 

I assume that you would probably class me as "one of those who aligns with the establishment", but I can assure that it is just not that simple. I am actually well aware that some of what I post about how I think the forum should be run is regarded by some of the current moderation team as an implied criticism of them, when the reality is that they are actually doing a highly thankless role in a totally voluntary capacity, and are often thinly enough spread that trying to be totally consistent over every possible transgression of the rules is nigh impossible.

 

Do you genuinely see this as black and white "aligns with the establishment"? Isn't the reality that as different individuals we all have differing opinions, and in fact that most of us are at some shade of grey between one extremity of views or the other?

[nicknorman]

I'm far from convinced it is anything like this simple.

 

I have no idea just how many may have received a permanent ban, or exactly what they did to provoke it, but clearly there must be questions of degree of overstepping the mark, and it is obvious that some people deliberately pushed things further and further just because they could, and then cried "foul" when the moderators hands were forced.

 

Isn't the reality that a lot of people who no longer post have not actually been banned, but have simply got bored from doing so after they were not egging on, or being egged on by some of those who have? How many people have actually been actively removed rather than just choosing to remove themselves?

 

I assume that you would probably class me as "one of those who aligns with the establishment", but I can assure that it is just not that simple. I am actually well aware that some of what I post about how I think the forum should be run is regarded by some of the current moderation team as an implied criticism of them, when the reality is that they are actually doing a highly thankless role in a totally voluntary capacity, and are often thinly enough spread that trying to be totally consistent over every possible transgression of the rules is nigh impossible.

 

Do you genuinely see this as black and white "aligns with the establishment"? Isn't the reality that as different individuals we all have differing opinions, and in fact that most of us are at some shade of grey between one extremity of views or the other?

No of course it isn't black and white, that's why I said "mostly" not "all". Nothing is black and white in the machinations of the forum but those given the boot were "mostly" those whose views were unconventional to the well educated middle class majority.

 

As an example there was the one who was complaining about the lot of Calais lorry drivers. He was branded a racist and no-one wanted to engage with his point (which IMO was perfectly valid if a little one-sided), rather there were just chants of "racist" from the baying mob. This caused his to become more extreme and escalate his argument into abuse. That is what happens when someone putting forward an unpopular argument is just met by name calling and abuse, which is what calling someone a racist is. Lots of others like that who started out quite well behaved but were marginalised, radicalised and turned into extremists by the wall of contempt and abuse they met simply for have a different and un-PC take on something.

 

And I would lay the blame for all that on those who mostly remain on here.

Edited September 9, 2016 by nicknorman

[Higgs]

 

 

 

Do you genuinely see this as black and white "aligns with the establishment"? Isn't the reality that as different individuals we all have differing opinions, and in fact that most of us are at some shade of grey between one extremity of views or the other?

 

 

We were all once individuals, but no longer. CWDF does not reflect anything but guarded conversation based around one main subject. It is a canal forum, but it does not reflect a world.

[Phil.]

No of course it isn't black and white, that's why I said "mostly" not "all". Nothing is black and white in the machinations of the forum but those given the boot were "mostly" those whose views were unconventional to the well educated middle class majority.

As an example there was the one who was complaining about the lot of Calais lorry drivers. He was branded a racist and no-one wanted to engage with his point (which IMO was perfectly valid if a little one-sided), rather there were just chants of "racist" from the baying mob. This caused his to become more extreme and escalate his argument into abuse. That is what happens when someone putting forward an unpopular argument is just met by name calling and abuse, which is what calling someone a racist is. Lots of others like that who started out quite well behaved but were marginalised, radicalised and turned into extremists by the wall of contempt and abuse they met simply for have a different and un-PC take on something.

And I would lay the blame for all that on those who mostly remain on here.

And if I could just add, it seems given the latest news reports of activity in Calais, much of what the lorry driver was saying about the behaviour of SOME of the jungle inhabitants appears to be correct.

[MtB]

No of course it isn't black and white, that's why I said "mostly" not "all". Nothing is black and white in the machinations of the forum but those given the boot were "mostly" those whose views were unconventional to the well educated middle class majority.

 

As an example there was the one who was complaining about the lot of Calais lorry drivers. He was branded a racist and no-one wanted to engage with his point (which IMO was perfectly valid if a little one-sided), rather there were just chants of "racist" from the baying mob. This caused his to become more extreme and escalate his argument into abuse. That is what happens when someone putting forward an unpopular argument is just met by name calling and abuse, which is what calling someone a racist is. Lots of others like that who started out quite well behaved but were marginalised, radicalised and turned into extremists by the wall of contempt and abuse they met simply for have a different and un-PC take on something.

 

And I would lay the blame for all that on those who mostly remain on here.

 

 

And a canal forum is so totally not the place to be discussing such subjects.

[mayalld]

No of course it isn't black and white, that's why I said "mostly" not "all". Nothing is black and white in the machinations of the forum but those given the boot were "mostly" those whose views were unconventional to the well educated middle class majority.

 

As an example there was the one who was complaining about the lot of Calais lorry drivers. He was branded a racist and no-one wanted to engage with his point (which IMO was perfectly valid if a little one-sided), rather there were just chants of "racist" from the baying mob. This caused his to become more extreme and escalate his argument into abuse. That is what happens when someone putting forward an unpopular argument is just met by name calling and abuse, which is what calling someone a racist is. Lots of others like that who started out quite well behaved but were marginalised, radicalised and turned into extremists by the wall of contempt and abuse they met simply for have a different and un-PC take on something.

 

And I would lay the blame for all that on those who mostly remain on here.

 

I would agree with that, but I don't think that CWDF is unique here.

 

Rather it reflects a very worrying groupthink mentality that increasingly pervades society.

 

Not only has the mainstream view on certain things changed over time, but there has been an increasing tendency to a position where as that mainstream view shifts what was formerly the mainstream view is subject to a ban either legislative or by mob rule who will allow no dissent from the new orthodoxy.

 

Now, as an educated, middle class, chap, I'm actually pretty happy with what the new orthodoxy is. It fits my own world view.

 

When I was at primary school, casual racism ("just nipping to the paki shop" and "having a chinky for tea") was prevalent, even in middle class households. Derogatory language around Homosexuality was the norm (I refuse to use the word homophobia. I have a Latin O-level, and know the word is WRONG).

 

Time has moved on, and such attitudes are no longer as prevalent, which is to be applauded. But they haven't gone. Frankly, pushing them underground isn't going to help. Rather it will entrench such views in those who express them.

 

People MUST express difficult views, so that others can argue against them. If those views are driven underground, the opportunity to argue the issues is gone.

 

Likewise, we see bad things happen in the world, and demands for independent enquiries. Enquiries are set up, and over time, pressure is applied that the enquiry staff must be the "right" people who are on the side of those who wanted an "independent" enquiry. Is that independent at all?

 

Enquiries then report, and either the mob dislikes the outcome and demand a re-match, or they like the outcome, and demand that the outcome be universally accepted as "THE TRUTH", immune for any gainsaying.

 

None of that changes the fact that this is a boating forum, and needs to be mainly about boating. What it should never be is a club that only accommodates "the right sort"

[Ray T]

No of course it isn't black and white, that's why I said "mostly" not "all". Nothing is black and white in the machinations of the forum but those given the boot were "mostly" those whose views were unconventional to the well educated middle class majority.

 

As an example there was the one who was complaining about the lot of Calais lorry drivers. He was branded a racist and no-one wanted to engage with his point (which IMO was perfectly valid if a little one-sided), rather there were just chants of "racist" from the baying mob. This caused his to become more extreme and escalate his argument into abuse. That is what happens when someone putting forward an unpopular argument is just met by name calling and abuse, which is what calling someone a racist is. Lots of others like that who started out quite well behaved but were marginalised, radicalised and turned into extremists by the wall of contempt and abuse they met simply for have a different and un-PC take on something.

 

And I would lay the blame for all that on those who mostly remain on here.

 

Nick, you seem to forget that some of those now not here were wind up merchants, one in particular who would post provactive news items then sit back and watch the fireworks. There were at least two I could name who took great delight in insulting others for the apparent fun of it. I was the brunt of this twice when I posted perfectly straight forward informative, factually correct posts, to be told I was "talking waffle" and "You don't know what you are on about." The phrases have been "watered down."

 

One of those has posted elsewhere "Ray T shouldn't be allowed out without nappies on."

 

I don't subscribe to a canal forum to be made fun of or insulted. thank you very much.

 

One great bonus to me is that some of the older members I respect, are returning, these folks have a lot of experience and knowledge they are willing to pass on.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Ray T

[nicknorman]

And a canal forum is so totally not the place to be discussing such subjects.

However if it was in a seperate section, what is the problem? If you don't want to discuss such things just avoid that section of the forum. I don't particularly want to discuss such things either - it is usually pointless since the quality of debate results in no change of opinion. So I am not commenting on the demise of the CA section, I am only commenting on the demise of certain members on the grounds of their views.

I would agree with that, but I don't think that CWDF is unique here.

 

Rather it reflects a very worrying groupthink mentality that increasingly pervades society.

 

Not only has the mainstream view on certain things changed over time, but there has been an increasing tendency to a position where as that mainstream view shifts what was formerly the mainstream view is subject to a ban either legislative or by mob rule who will allow no dissent from the new orthodoxy.

 

Now, as an educated, middle class, chap, I'm actually pretty happy with what the new orthodoxy is. It fits my own world view.

 

When I was at primary school, casual racism ("just nipping to the paki shop" and "having a chinky for tea") was prevalent, even in middle class households. Derogatory language around Homosexuality was the norm (I refuse to use the word homophobia. I have a Latin O-level, and know the word is WRONG).

 

Time has moved on, and such attitudes are no longer as prevalent, which is to be applauded. But they haven't gone. Frankly, pushing them underground isn't going to help. Rather it will entrench such views in those who express them.

 

People MUST express difficult views, so that others can argue against them. If those views are driven underground, the opportunity to argue the issues is gone.

 

Likewise, we see bad things happen in the world, and demands for independent enquiries. Enquiries are set up, and over time, pressure is applied that the enquiry staff must be the "right" people who are on the side of those who wanted an "independent" enquiry. Is that independent at all?

 

Enquiries then report, and either the mob dislikes the outcome and demand a re-match, or they like the outcome, and demand that the outcome be universally accepted as "THE TRUTH", immune for any gainsaying.

 

None of that changes the fact that this is a boating forum, and needs to be mainly about boating. What it should never be is a club that only accommodates "the right sort"

Exactly so. It is just a shame that it seems that only you and I can see it.

[Tuscan]

I would agree with that, but I don't think that CWDF is unique here.

 

Rather it reflects a very worrying groupthink mentality that increasingly pervades society.

 

Not only has the mainstream view on certain things changed over time, but there has been an increasing tendency to a position where as that mainstream view shifts what was formerly the mainstream view is subject to a ban either legislative or by mob rule who will allow no dissent from the new orthodoxy.

 

Now, as an educated, middle class, chap, I'm actually pretty happy with what the new orthodoxy is. It fits my own world view.

 

When I was at primary school, casual racism ("just nipping to the paki shop" and "having a chinky for tea") was prevalent, even in middle class households. Derogatory language around Homosexuality was the norm (I refuse to use the word homophobia. I have a Latin O-level, and know the word is WRONG).

 

Time has moved on, and such attitudes are no longer as prevalent, which is to be applauded. But they haven't gone. Frankly, pushing them underground isn't going to help. Rather it will entrench such views in those who express them.

 

People MUST express difficult views, so that others can argue against them. If those views are driven underground, the opportunity to argue the issues is gone.

 

Likewise, we see bad things happen in the world, and demands for independent enquiries. Enquiries are set up, and over time, pressure is applied that the enquiry staff must be the "right" people who are on the side of those who wanted an "independent" enquiry. Is that independent at all?

 

Enquiries then report, and either the mob dislikes the outcome and demand a re-match, or they like the outcome, and demand that the outcome be universally accepted as "THE TRUTH", immune for any gainsaying.

 

None of that changes the fact that this is a boating forum, and needs to be mainly about boating. What it should never be is a club that only accommodates "the right sort"

Good points well made

[Guest]

Exactly so. It is just a shame that it seems that only you and I can see it.

 

I would say it's more like some people can see the point you are making but rather simply don't agree with it.

Edited September 9, 2016 by MJG

[MtB]

However if it was in a seperate section, what is the problem? If you don't want to discuss such things just avoid that section of the forum. I don't particularly want to discuss such things either - it is usually pointless since the quality of debate results in no change of opinion. So I am not commenting on the demise of the CA section, I am only commenting on the demise of certain members on the grounds of their views.

 

Exactly so. It is just a shame that it seems that only you and I can see it.

 

 

You keep asserting this but do you have any proper evidence?

 

My perception is their demise was due to their contempt for the posting guidelines, and their persistent breaching of them.

[nicknorman]

Nick, you seem to forget that some of those now not here were wind up merchants, one in particular who would post provactive news items then sit back and watch the fireworks. There were at least two I could name who took great delight in insulting others for the apparent fun of it. I was the brunt of this twice when I posted perfectly straight forward informative, factually correct posts, to be told I was "talking waffle" and "You don't know what you are on about." The phrases have been "watered down."

 

One of those has posted elsewhere "Ray T shouldn't be allowed out without nappies on."

 

I don't subscribe to a canal forum to be made fun of or insulted. thank you very much.

 

One great bonus to me is that some of the older members I respect, are returning, these folks have a lot of experience and knowledge they are willing to pass on.

Yes there was one who would post news items regularly. I wouldn't say it was provocative, it was merely something to be discussed. Personally I found most of the subjects rather tedious and tended to avoid them, but I wouldn't have forced others to follow my preference.

 

As for posting insults these should not be tolerated but my primary and key point is that there must be a differentiation between someone whom makes insulting posts (insulting the person, and not the argument) vs someone who has views that are not aligned with the middle class well educated norm.

[Guest]

 

 

You keep asserting this but do you have any proper evidence?

 

My perception is their demise was due to their contempt for the posting guidelines, and their persistent breaching of them.

 

Not in all cases I don't think, but some certainly knew that if they pushed things, made certain comments it would highly likely result in a ban under the new 'regime' then a ban would be the result, they pushed things, they got banned.

 

The problem with 'proving' things either way of course is the offending posts are often no longer visible so it's not really possible to produce any proper evidence.

[nicknorman]

I would say it's more like some people can see the point you are making but rather simply don't agree with it.

I mean see the truth of it, not see the point but disagree.

[MtB]

 

Not in all cases I don't think, but some certainly knew that if they pushed things, made certain comments it would highly likely result in a ban under the new 'regime' then a ban would be the result, they pushed things, they got banned.

 

The problem with 'proving' things either way of course is the offending posts are often no longer visible so it's not really possible to produce any proper evidence.

 

 

But Nick asserts that rule-compliantly expressed views running counter to the groupspeak have resulted in bans. Have these posts been removed too?

Or put another way, which are the posters who didn't have a reputation for breaching the posting rules yet were banned?

[billS]

 

 

Or put another way, which are the posters who didn't have a reputation for breaching the posting rules yet were banned?

 

Loafer comes to mind.

[Ray T]

 

 

But Nick asserts that rule-compliantly expressed views running counter to the groupspeak have resulted in bans. Have these posts been removed too?

Or put another way, which are the posters who didn't have a reputation for breaching the posting rules yet were banned?

 

How many of those hurled insults from beyond the Styx though?

 

In Greek mythology, Styx (/stɪks/; Ancient Greek: Στύξ [stýkʰs]) is a river that forms the boundary between Earth and the Underworld

[Mac of Cygnet]

However if it was in a seperate section, what is the problem? If you don't want to discuss such things just avoid that section of the forum. I don't particularly want to discuss such things either - it is usually pointless since the quality of debate results in no change of opinion. So I am not commenting on the demise of the CA section, I am only commenting on the demise of certain members on the grounds of their views.

 

Exactly so. It is just a shame that it seems that only you and I can see it.

 

Don't assume that. I agree with your and Dave's posts and arguments. The effect of the new rules and guidelines has been to stifle honest differences of opinion on subjects that sometime just can't and shouldn't be avoided, even on a forums devoted mainly to quite different subjects. It would be very boring if when boaters meet they only talk about boat related topics - indeed it sometimes IS vvery boring, which is why I sometimes avoid other boaters.

[nicknorman]

But Nick asserts that rule-compliantly expressed views running counter to the groupspeak have resulted in bans. Have these posts been removed too?Or put another way, which are the posters who didn't have a reputation for breaching the posting rules yet were banned?

Well there are a lot of posts on here, many deleted or hidden and so it would be impossible to be categoric. But anyway the point is not that they did or did not breach some forum rule (and at the time, unwritten rules) since I'm sure they did, as did many other posters in the heat of battle. The point is that it is notable that whilst both sides breached the forum rules by, amongst other things, making personal attacks, those remaining on here had conformist views whilst those who didn't are expunged.

[Guest]

I mean see the truth of it, not see the point but disagree.

 

But that is only truth as you see it.

 

It would have been easy for me as an example to have been banned from here and assuming you see me as holding 'conformist' PC views how would that have blown your 'theory', which is all it is really, out of the water?

 

Some of us could see which direction the moderation was taking and backed off from pushing things, others didn't and the consequences for them were that they were banned.

 

I do know a couple at least claim they didn't do anything other than what anybody else did and were banned instantly without recourse to the escalating warning system but we only have their word for that at the end of the day.

[alan_fincher]

The point is that it is notable that whilst both sides breached the forum rules by, amongst other things, making personal attacks, those remaining on here had conformist views whilst those who didn't are expunged.

 

I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me you are suggesting that a large number of the people you seem to think have managed to influence the way that the forum is currently being run and moderated were themselves regularly breaching the rules, whether actually yet formally recorded, or not.

 

Specifically you seem to think that many of those people were regularly resorting to personal attacks.

 

I'm obviously not going to ask you to name names for those you feel that this applies to, but I have to say it is not my memory of the situation.

 

I'm wondering if some of this is about use of language, possibly? I feel it was completely reasonable to say that some of the posts that were being made were racist, for example. I think that is reasonable, because most people have a fairly good idea of what they believe racism is, (although I fully accept it will not be the same definition for everybody, which seems to be part of the problem).

 

To be clear if some of us have said that a particular post is racist, (which, incidentally, I actually see as being subtly different from saying that the poster is racist), then are you suggesting that saying a post is racist without going into the full detail of why we consider it so is actually a personal attack on the person who posted it? If so, I'm struggling with that argument.

 

On the point about "expunged", this has more to do with whether people wanted to keep testing the limits to the point that they were "expunged", than which side of the argument they sat on. I find it hard to imagine that if anybody who you seem to call "conformist" had carried on pushing the boundaries against any warnings not to do so, that they would not also have been "expunged". Perhaps the clue is in "conformist" - if they are told to stop doing something, and the reasons for being asked seem reasonable, they are just more likely to "conform"?

Some of us could see which direction the moderation was taking and backed off from pushing things, others didn't and the consequences for them were that they were banned.

 

^^^^^^

 

Yes, this.

[nicknorman]

Specifically you seem to think that many of those people were regularly resorting to personal attacks.

 

I'm obviously not going to ask you to name names for those you feel that this applies to, but I have to say it is not my memory of the situation.

 

I'm wondering if some of this is about use of language, possibly? I feel it was completely reasonable to say that some of the posts that were being made were racist, for example. I think that is reasonable, because most people have a fairly good idea of what they believe racism is, (although I fully accept it will not be the same definition for everybody, which seems to be part of the problem).

 

To be clear if some of us have said that a particular post is racist, (which, incidentally, I actually see as being subtly different from saying that the poster is racist), then are you suggesting that saying a post is racist without going into the full detail of why we consider it so is actually a personal attack on the person who posted it? If so, I'm struggling with that argument.

I'm guessing you didn't read my earlier posts so I suppose I'll have to repeat. Again. There is nothing illegal about being racist in fact it is a natural human state and thus very common in the world. Of course it is not so common in your well educated middle class bubble.

 

So dismissing someone's argument by saying "you're a racist" is just the same as dismissing someone's argument by saying "you're an idiot", "you're talking rubbish" or any other term of abuse (most of which in the current pathetically puritanical regime will get you a warning). It is a way to dismiss an argument by denigrating the person, not the topic. A lazy way to avoid engaging in the actual argument. And a very over used term such that for example, according to some anybody who wants to restrict immigration into the UK - not have fully open borders - is a racist.

 

That you think the term is an acceptable response to a view that is not aligned with your own firmly demonstrates that you are part of the problem.

[wrigglefingers]

Locked pending moderator review. This thread has gone well beyond discussing the Forum Rules and Guidelines. Do not reopen the debate or sanctions will be taken. The thread may be reopened after moderator consideration.