NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[tomsk]

Dan owns the site. his decision. not up for discussion. period.

And I absolutely and resolutely agree with that, without question.

 

I have been here a long time, and though I have had a few outbursts I would never say anything overtly critical of cwdf unless I felt it needed saying.

[billS]

My own feeling is that we are in "The operation was successful but the patient died" territory. A chainsaw has been used instead of a scalpel. The belated action which was taken to curb some of the unseemly behaviour has been successful in getting rid of that, but was too draconian and the forum has been left a much less interesting and sterile place as a result.

Edited September 4, 2016 by billS

[Bettie Boo]

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.....

 

Not speaking out of turn at all, just sharing your views on a discussion thread

 

I realize the examples I gave weren't like for like, just saying that some rules can be bent or laxed without causing any damage to the end result

 

 

Dan owns the site. his decision. not up for discussion. period.

 

Yes Dan owns the site and the decisions he makes on how to run it are his.

 

However, saying it's not up for discussion? Where does that fit into the list of things we aren't allowed to voice an opinion on?

Edited September 4, 2016 by Bettie Boo

[Mac of Cygnet]

Dan owns the site. his decision. not up for discussion. period.

 

I disagree strongly with this. CWDF is the sum of its members, and wouldn't be anything without the range of characters taking part, opinions expressed and expertise available. All this should not reside in or be dictated by one person, whether he 'owns' the site or not. I agree that it wasn't good when it was like Syria, but it's a bit like North Korea now.

 

Oh dear, am I pushing the boundaries actually mentioning foreign countries?

[Jerra]

My own feeling is that we are in "The operation was successful but the patient died" territory. A chainsaw has been used instead of a scalpel. The belated action which was taken to curb some of the unseemly behaviour has been successful in getting rid of that, but was too draconian and the forum has been left a much less interesting and sterile place as a result.

I would personally agree. As I have said many times deal with the offenders not the general mass of members. Seems the fairest way to me. Currently evry time I say something vaguely contentious I expect to be in trouble.

[tomsk]

Not speaking out of turn at all, just sharing your views on a discussion thread

 

I realize the examples I gave weren't like for like, just saying that some rules can be bent or laxed without causing any damage to the end result

I think we are making the same point but from different angles. Some rools can be bent, worked round or simply ignored, usually small, insignificant rools, giving an unauthorised break and leftover bacon roll to a poorly paid shift worker for instance.

 

Publishing a new set of rools whilst having a thread almost diametrically opposite to those rools on the first page of 'find new content' cannot be sending out the right message. I've said my bit and will now withdraw

Edited September 4, 2016 by tomsk

[twbm]

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

 

Given that promting political debate seems to have been barred unless you were one of the chosen few, yes. The rules are now being applied 'without fear or favour'.

Edited September 4, 2016 by twbm

[Phil Ambrose]

 

Given that promting political debate seems to have been barred unless you were one of the chosen few, yes. The rules are now being applied 'without fear or favour'.

But are they ? even in this thread posts have disappeared with no explanation.

Phil

[Murflynn]

 

I disagree strongly with this. CWDF is the sum of its members, and wouldn't be anything without the range of characters taking part, opinions expressed and expertise available. All this should not reside in or be dictated by one person, whether he 'owns' the site or not. I agree that it wasn't good when it was like Syria, but it's a bit like North Korea now.

 

Oh dear, am I pushing the boundaries actually mentioning foreign countries?

I don't disagree with your view of the consequences but I stand by my point.

 

Nothing stopping any of us setting up and owning a forum a bit like CWDF used to be like.

 

Apart from financial contributors among the members it isn't even relevant to say - yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

[Jerra]

But are they ? even in this thread posts have disappeared with no explanation.

Phil

Presumably the posters have had an explanation. Having said that unless they disappeared so fast I never saw them I have seen nothing that I would have considered against the rules.

[Murflynn]

My own feeling is that we are in "The operation was successful but the patient died" territory. A chainsaw has been used instead of a scalpel. The belated action which was taken to curb some of the unseemly behaviour has been successful in getting rid of that, but was too draconian and the forum has been left a much less interesting and sterile place as a result.

it happened - live with it.

 

I am not of the fluffy bunny persuasion. I used to enjoy some of the polemic and occasionally I still push the boundaries. It's as sterile as we want to make it.

[cuthound]

Good grief, we or at least I shall be posting on tenterhooks.

Phil

Why, are you an expert on tenterhooks then Phil?

[tree monkey]

Why, are you an expert on tenterhooks then Phil?

They were used to hang felt on an A frame to allow it to dry

[cuthound]

Hanging felt from?

 

Reminds me of a Saturday job I had in a department store when I was at school. One day a lady came in and asked where she could get felt. I blushed and handed her enquiry to a passing colleage.

[tree monkey]

Hanging felt from?

 

Reminds me of a Saturday job I had in a department store when I was at school. One day a lady came in and asked where she could get felt. I blushed and handed her enquiry to a passing colleage.

An A frame

 

Imagine an old framed tent

[Phil Ambrose]

Presumably the posters have had an explanation. Having said that unless they disappeared so fast I never saw them I have seen nothing that I would have considered against the rules.

Best have a word with billS, he was posting a reply when it went.

Phil

Why, are you an expert on tenterhooks then Phil?

Depends if I know more than you, whichever way it goes one of us would be an expert (maybe) ?

Phil

[Theo]

 

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?

Top quality post, that, Alan.

 

I believe that, as mods, we are in a position where we have given up some of our freedom to say what we like, in order strictly to keep to FR&G. If we can't do that, how can we expect members to follow them?

 

The ban on politics is a really hard one to moderate. The trouble is that nearly every social decision could be seen to have a political dimension. For example, there is a social norm to be kind to animals. If we are discussing the fact that someone I saw kicked the cat and have a rant about it, is that political? I am sure that you could think up some better examples but I hope that you get my drift. What I am saying is that every mod has his or her own appreciation of what is political and what isn't.

 

The volume of traffic is such that one would need to be really dedicated to read every suspect topic. I know that I don't and I rely heavily on the reporting system. If I were the only moderator this would lead to great inconsistency because I would act almost exclusively on those topics that had been reported. This could lead to bad behaviour going on for some time before anything was done about it.

 

I contribute to the administration of the forum because I think that it is a really worthwhile thing that we have going here. It has saved me a great deal of cash in the last few months. For this I am willing to make sure that I am rather more guarded in my response to some posts.

 

Nick

[Jerra]

The ban on politics is a really hard one to moderate.

I have been hinting at this since the ban was suggested. It was obvious to me (with no moderating experience) that separating the sheep from the goats was going to be a problem.

 

It would have been much simpler to have banned those who couldn't behave themselves and far less head scratching and work for the mods.

 

But what is done is done and the mods (and us) will have to live with it.

[zigspider]

I have been hinting at this since the ban was suggested. It was obvious to me (with no moderating experience) that separating the sheep from the goats was going to be a problem.

 

It would have been much simpler to have banned those who couldn't behave themselves and far less head scratching and work for the mods.

 

But what is done is done and the mods (and us) will have to live with it.

Surely now with most, if not all, of the posters responsible for the ban having moved on, there should be a reason to look into this issue again, allowing discussion, but with the threat of removing/banning any member who abuses the situation being an optimum solution, as has been mentioned before. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't solve anything..

As someone said before, practically any discussion will involve politics at some point.

[Ray T]

Surely now with most, if not all, of the posters responsible for the ban having moved on, there should be a reason to look into this issue again, allowing discussion, but with the threat of removing/banning any member who abuses the situation being an optimum solution, as has been mentioned before. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't solve anything..

As someone said before, practically any discussion will involve politics at some point.

 

One issue I see here, how do you draw the line between "banter" and "insults" when the argument gets heated?

 

If you start adding rules what is a joke and what is insulting the forum gets even more micro managed and the poor Mods have even more work.

 

When people objected to some of the behaviours in the past they were shouted down and accused of being "over sensitive" and the boring quotes "If you don't like it don't read it" or "There is an off button you know" were trotted out. Why should the forum be dragged down to the lowest common denominator by a few?

 

As we are all different what I see as a "jocular" comment others may see it as aggressive / rude behaviour - who decides?

Edited September 8, 2016 by Ray T

[mayalld]

Dan owns the site. his decision. not up for discussion. period.

 

What an utterly dismal view of the world.

 

Certainly Dan has the final say, and it is his decision, but I must have missed the memo that said we can't even DISCUSS what decision we would like him to take.

[nicknorman]

The previous tears were mostly down to a small but vociferous group who couldn't tolerate any views outside of their very limited PC-wrapped bubble. These people are still here, it was those who dared to hold different opinions that were ousted and so I can see no reason why history wouldn't repeat itself if CA was reinstated since the fundamental problem of intolerance hasn't been addressed.

Edited September 8, 2016 by nicknorman

[Jerra]

The previous tears were mostly down to a small but vociferous group who couldn't tolerate any views outside of their very limited PC-wrapped bubble. These people are still here, it was those who dared to hold different opinions that were ousted and so I can see no reason why history wouldn't repeat itself if CA was reinstated since the fundamental problem of intolerance hasn't been addressed.

All very true. I always have the feeling that the forum is being run the way it is because of the minority. In effect the minority have dictated how many and what rules will be in place. To me that is base over apex the majority should set the standard and those who break that standard dealt with by permanent bans if necessary.

 

Much less work for the mods and it might be possible to discuss anything of interest without the minority causing wholesale censorship,as is currently the case.

[alan_fincher]

If this forum is so ruined by the direction it has been allowed to be taken by some "chosen few", I really struggle to understand why those who have signed up to a new much more unmoderated alternative don't just fully transfer their allegiances to that, and stop wasting their time on here.

I conclude that either the alternative approach does not actually work all that well, or that simply they just enjoy complaining.

So somehow CWDF seems to still provide something they are looking for, or why are they still around on here?

[Jerra]

If this forum is so ruined by the direction it has been allowed to be taken by some "chosen few", I really struggle to understand why those who have signed up to a new much more unmoderated alternative don't just fully transfer their allegiances to that, and stop wasting their time on here.

I conclude that either the alternative approach does not actually work all that well, or that simply they just enjoy complaining.

So somehow CWDF seems to still provide something they are looking for, or why are they still around on here?

I don't think the "place with no name" was ever intended to be a replacement for CWDF only a place where those who wished to discuss certain topics in a certain way could go to do that. At least that is how I read the posts around the start of "the other place".

 

I also hadn't noticed anyone had said that CWDF had been ruined.