NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[LoneWolf]

 

 

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'.

 

Change from when? When we had Current Affairs? from before then? from when Politics was banned (but the owner could have a political avatar)?

I was happy with the CA section

 

I dont think the forum was 'dominated' by religious & political threads - Firstly they usually had obvious titles or were in CA section so could be easily ignored and secondly most of the contention seems to have been about immigration not 'politics'. Mirroring whe whole brexit thing going on IRL

The problem wasn't 'politics' it was individuals bringing up immigration whenever they could and continuing disagreements from those threads elsewhere and making things personal. This forum has always had it's share of f**kwittery - posts that are unhelpful/excessively rude/belittling where the poster appears to be trying to score some sort of cheap point for their own self validation

 

No, i dont think we should have a no politics rule that is a 'backstop' as you suggest. For the reasons already given by Alan & MJG.

In your analogy the landlord could just tell the tenant to get rid of the cat despite the cat not changing its good behavior and it not being a problem before just because the landlord has taken against the tenant for some unrelated reason.

It would be better for them to have an agreement that the cat is OK unless it starts destroying the place - then both are clear on the situation

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Change from when? When we had Current Affairs? from before then? from when Politics was banned (but the owner could have a political avatar)?

I was happy with the CA section

 

I dont think the forum was 'dominated' by religious & political threads - Firstly they usually had obvious titles or were in CA section so could be easily ignored and secondly most of the contention seems to have been about immigration not 'politics'. Mirroring whe whole brexit thing going on IRL

The problem wasn't 'politics' it was individuals bringing up immigration whenever they could and continuing disagreements from those threads elsewhere and making things personal. This forum has always had it's share of f**kwittery - posts that are unhelpful/excessively rude/belittling where the poster appears to be trying to score some sort of cheap point for their own self validation

 

No, i dont think we should have a no politics rule that is a 'backstop' as you suggest. For the reasons already given by Alan & MJG.

In your analogy the landlord could just tell the tenant to get rid of the cat despite the cat not changing its good behavior and it not being a problem before just because the landlord has taken against the tenant for some unrelated reason.

It would be better for them to have an agreement that the cat is OK unless it starts destroying the place - then both are clear on the situation

 

Much as I don't always agree with you, this time I do.

 

It is much like the CC & movement rules of the past, the were not enforced, now they are, & nobody knows 'where they are' or what the boundaries are.

 

If you have rule then it should be strictly enforced - having the rule that 'disruptive, unpleasant, bullying, etc etc' will not be tolerated' must surely apply to any thread - or is it OK if it is in a boating thread ?

 

If Political threads are to be not allowed - are the Moderators above the rules ?

 

Moderation has in the recent past been 'laughable' when the reason given has been "it might have gone on to become offensive".

I am sure the Police would struggle to maintain any credibility if they pulled in every motorist for doing 69 mph on the motorway because "they might exceed 70 mph in the future"

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

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'.

 

Green thingy to you Mr MtB - well said and clear concise example given. I wholeheartedly Agree

[tomsk]

Green thingy to you Mr MtB - well said and clear concise example given. I wholeheartedly Agree

I wholeheartedly disagree. Rools is Rools, if you must have them then they must be applied consistently. In that way a fair and even-handed approach is developed. You cannot apply rools on an ad hoc basis. That is plain silly.

[David Schweizer]

You can tell its raining - a lot of grumpy people on here today.

 

I'll get my (rain)coat

[LoneWolf]

You can tell its raining - a lot of grumpy people on here today.

 

I'll get my (rain)coat

 

i'm not grumpy and no one else seems to be either from my POV but thanks for providing an example of mild idiocy

Edited September 4, 2016 by bag 'o' bones

[Murflynn]

 

 

 

Moderation has in the recent past been 'laughable' when the reason given has been "it might have gone on to become offensive".

I am sure the Police would struggle to maintain any credibility if they pulled in every motorist for doing 69 mph on the motorway because "they might exceed 70 mph in the future"

my recent post in this thread was pulled by she who won't be named because she considered it was an attempt to provoke discussion about a verboten topic, whereas it was pretty obvious it was posted in humour.

 

it gets very sterile here from time to time.

[billS]

my recent post in this thread was pulled by she who won't be named because she considered it was an attempt to provoke discussion about a verboten topic, whereas it was pretty obvious it was posted in humour.

 

it gets very sterile here from time to time.

And inconsistent. I had a post on Santa's transport system pulled this morning, whilst yours has been allowed to remain.

 

E&A. Sorry. It is Alan de Enfield's post - not yours.

Edited September 3, 2016 by billS

[Guest]

You can tell its raining - a lot of grumpy people on here today.

 

I'll get my (rain)coat

28 degrees and dry here in Sorico Italy. Has been much the same for the last two weeks...

[Ray T]

You can tell its raining - a lot of grumpy people on here today.

 

I'll get my (rain)coat

 

I was fettling in the boats bathroom today. Just me and the dog on board - I missed all this - bliss.

[Murflynn]

 

I was fettling in the boats bathroom today. Just me and the dog ...................

......... too much information ...............

[twbm]

The Brexit thread is in my opinion the height of hypocrisy. The forum managers should be above reproach behave in a manner that and equals or exceeds their expectations of others. To say it's not a political thread is cobblers - it's the equivalent of Traffic Cops going home from work at 90mph.

[Murflynn]

the mods are a special breed.

 

normal rules do not apply.

 

they deserve some privileges for undertaking their thankless task, after all.

[Phil Ambrose]

And inconsistent. I had a post on Santa's transport system pulled this morning, whilst yours has been allowed to remain.

 

E&A. Sorry. It is Alan de Enfield's post - not yours.

Missed that, did you name the reindeer?or something more sinister. Despite the new rules and regs it's really hard to post feeling comfortable that what you post in all innocence will be acceptable.

Phil

[patty-ann]

Brexit gone...sigh...noting really to say. It didn't seem to have gone down mud slinging router at all.

Ah well.

[MtB]

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

[GoodGurl]

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

yes, you can't have one rule for mods and another rule for members.

[tomsk]

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

Yes Mike. Some consistency has been achieved. The brexit thread was an anomalous nonsense.

[MtB]

yes, you can't have one rule for mods and another rule for members.

 

 

Odd. I didn't see many mods debating in there. Mostly members.

[GoodGurl]

 

 

Odd. I didn't see many mods debating in there. Mostly members.

who mentioned debating? the thread itself was against the forum rules.

[tomsk]

Odd. I didn't see many mods debating in there. Mostly members.

What has that got to do with the FACT it was a political thread on a board that has banned political threads?

[Alan de Enfield]

Common sense reigns at last - Just need to get all of the mods 'singing of the same hymn sheet' now and the couple of 'rouges' back into line.

[billS]

Missed that, did you name the reindeer?

Phil

Of course not. I was trying to remain within the forum rules - even the unwritten ones.

 

But then again Santa is a corruption of a religious figure, so perhaps that's where I transgressed.(But then so did Alan).

[Phil Ambrose]

Of course not. I was trying to remain within the forum rules - even the unwritten ones.

 

But then again Santa is a corruption of a religious figure, so perhaps that's where I transgressed.(But then so did Alan).

Good grief!!

Phil

[Jerra]

But then again Santa is a corruption of a religious figure, so perhaps that's where I transgressed.(But then so did Alan).

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)