NEW: Forum Rules & Guidelines

[The Bearwood Boster]

I agree with Jerra's post,some people like /are allowed to pop into both forums.

[mayalld]

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?

 

That implies that there are only two possible models. There aren't.

 

The model that a certain other forum uses is even worse, but that doesn't mean that the model used here is the best that it could be.

[alan_fincher]

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

 

Well many have of course said exactly this, if not specifically in this thread, then time and time again previously.

 

There were constant claims that the Forum was on its last legs, and unlikely to survive much longer. "Nobody goes there any more", etc, etc.

 

I have no idea how number of visitors or posting rates have changed since the changes that were made to remove certain topics, but the strong impression I have is that not only have neither fallen off very much, but also that people formely on here who had largely given up with CWDF have now started to appear back.

 

I think things are still far from perfect, and some of the recent moderation decisions have left me in almost total disbelief, if I'm honest, but I still think we are in a far better place than where we were.

 

It is not a case of "faux outrage" or a "few over-sensitive souls", IMO. The forum had become a place where openly racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views were being openly put about, and some of what people were meeting out on each other have no place anywhere, (except possibly at an EDL or BNP rally).

[nicknorman]

 

It is not a case of "faux outrage" or a "few over-sensitive souls", IMO. The forum had become a place where openly racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views were being openly put about

Exactly. Some canal people had views that you didn't agree with and you (amongst others) wanted to silence them because you couldn't tolerate the thought that some people might have different values etc from you. Despite the fact that large chunks of the population hold such views and it is only in your middle-class well-educated bubble that such views are rare. People are perfectly entitled to hold racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views and many do. By silencing those people Canal World Forum has become Canal-Subset-of-World-comprising-only-people-with-middle-class-well-educated-views-Forum. I didn't agree with many of the views expressed but <insert Voltaire's non-quote>. And where I didn't agree with some well churned foolish "daily mail" type rhetoric I just stopped reading and surprisingly I managed to escape without permanent bodily injury.

 

Whilst those expressing racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views might be seen as intolerant, those who refuse to allow any deviation from their own views because they are so confident of their righteousness, are equally intolerant.

Edited September 8, 2016 by nicknorman

[MtB]

Exactly. Some canal people had views that you didn't agree with and you (amongst others) wanted to silence them because you couldn't tolerate the thought that some people might have different values etc from you. Despite the fact that large chunks of the population hold such views and it is only in your middle-class well-educated bubble that such views are rare. People are perfectly entitled to hold racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views and many do. By silencing those people Canal World Forum has become Canal-Subset-of-World-comprising-only-people-with-middle-class-well-educated-views-Forum. I didn't agree with many of the views expressed but <insert Voltaire's non-quote>. And where I didn't agree with some well churned foolish "daily mail" type rhetoric I just stopped reading and surprisingly I managed to escape without permanent bodily injury.

 

Whilst those expressing racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views might be seen as intolerant, those who refuse to allow any deviation from their own views because they are so confident of their righteousness, are equally intolerant.

 

 

Set against that, this place was born forum for discussion of canal-related topics.

 

The experiment allowing off topic threads in a place called "The Virtual Pub" worked by and large, but discussion of politics lead to a great deal of bad feeling so the experiment was modified and the privilege of discussing politics in particular was withdrawn.

 

Not sure why religion was stopped though.

[Jerra]

 

 

Set against that, this place was born forum for discussion of canal-related topics.

 

The experiment allowing off topic threads in a place called "The Virtual Pub" worked by and large, but discussion of politics lead to a great deal of bad feeling so the experiment was modified and the privilege of discussing politics in particular was withdrawn.

 

Not sure why religion was stopped though.

I'm not sure I understand why either was stopped when it was obvious it would be easier for the mods to deal with (get rid if necessary) the disruptive members.

[nicknorman]

Set against that, this place was born forum for discussion of canal-related

...

but discussion of politics lead to a great deal of bad feeling so the experiment was modified and the privilege of discussing politics in particular was withdrawn.

It did. But the bad feeling was created by the people who could not tolerate some non-PC views and values, not by those who held those values. Nevertheless it was the latter group who were ousted.

 

TBH I don't particularly care whether CA section is reinstated or not, but I do care when the history of why it was dumped is re-written falsely by those remaining.

[tree monkey]

It did. But the bad feeling was created by the people who could not tolerate some non-PC views and values, not by those who held those values. Nevertheless it was the latter group who were ousted.

 

TBH I don't particularly care whether CA section is reinstated or not, but I do care when the history of why it was dumped is re-written falsely by those remaining.

Not how I remembered it at all, so whos verision is correct?

[Paul C]

 

 

Set against that, this place was born forum for discussion of canal-related topics.

 

The experiment allowing off topic threads in a place called "The Virtual Pub" worked by and large, but discussion of politics lead to a great deal of bad feeling so the experiment was modified and the privilege of discussing politics in particular was withdrawn.

 

Not sure why religion was stopped though.

 

The bad feeling was created due to a minority of members, compounded by the moderators of the time (except for GG) who basically "went on strike" and stopped checking the CA area, because they found it too much bother to do so. GG stood back for a week or so, then resigned, making the reasons very clear. Then Dan got in the current mods and the pendulum swung too far the other way. I accept that moderation is an imperfect task but many, many errors were made and allowed to continue for months unchecked.

[nicknorman]

Not how I remembered it at all, so whos verision is correct?

Mine of course, since I am the righteous one.

[tree monkey]

Mine of course, since I am the righteous one.

And I know my place....

[Guest]

It did. But the bad feeling was created by the people who could not tolerate some non-PC views and values, not by those who held those values..

What utter nonsense Nick.

 

The bad feeling was created by both sides of the debate.

 

To select one party to the debate as being responsible for creating the bad feeling is the product of a very poor recollection of what actually went on.

[MtB]

What utter nonsense Nick.

 

The bad feeling was created by both sides of the debate.

 

To select one party to the debate as being responsible for creating the bad feeling is the product of a very poor recollection of what actually went on.

 

 

I think Nick is trying to re-write history. Most if not all of the bad feeling was caused by posters getting personally abusive, not by posters holding opposing views.

 

I was constantly suggesting people "play the ball not the man", by which I meant address the argument rather than criticise the poster personally.

 

I've not found it necessary to say it for several months now, which is excellent.

[Bettie Boo]

 

I think things are still far from perfect, and some of the recent moderation decisions have left me in almost total disbelief, if I'm honest, but I still think we are in a far better place than where we were.

 

It is not a case of "faux outrage" or a "few over-sensitive souls", IMO. The forum had become a place where openly racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory views were being openly put about, and some of what people were meeting out on each other have no place anywhere, (except possibly at an EDL or BNP rally).

 

Careful Alan, you don't want anyone to think your instilling a political twist to a thread.

 

And to be fair, with the way all the parties are currently behaving, wouldn't your above example apply to any and all of them?

[nicknorman]

What utter nonsense Nick.

The bad feeling was created by both sides of the debate.

To select one party to the debate as being responsible for creating the bad feeling is the product of a very poor recollection of what actually went on.

I think Nick is trying to re-write history. Most if not all of the bad feeling was caused by posters getting personally abusive, not by posters holding opposing views.

 

I was constantly suggesting people "play the ball not the man", by which I meant address the argument rather than criticise the poster personally.

 

I've not found it necessary to say it for several months now, which is excellent.

Mike: yes that is true, presuming by "posters" you mean those on both sides of the argument. The pity of it is that those on one side of the argument were culled, those on the other remain. You have not had to say it for several months now simply because one side of the argument is gone. Do you consider that a good result?

 

Martin: as above but also as I recall it, the personal abuse was started by the "establishment" side. Yes, by the end game there was equal personal attacks and nastiness from both sides, but only one side started that behaviour.

Edited September 8, 2016 by nicknorman

[Guest]

Martin: as above but also as I recall it, the personal abuse was started by the "establishment" side. Yes, by the end game there was equal personal attacks and nastiness from both sides, but only one side started that behaviour.

Then my recollection is very different from yours Nick. People were challenged on their views and yes 'terms like 'racism' 'mysoginistic' were used.

 

Some views however were clearly racist and mysoginistic though and calling them out as such lead to comments such as you are 'mouth breathing idiot' .

 

Now in terms of personal attacks I think the latter fits the description better. The mistake made was it was not always totally clear that people's views were being called out as racist or mysoginistic and it came across as a description of the individual rather than how their opinions came across.

 

However describing somebody as a 'mouth breathing idiot' is clearly a very direct personal attack.

[nicknorman]

Then my recollection is very different from yours Nick. People were challenged on their views and yes 'terms like 'racism' 'mysoginistic' were used.

Some views however were clearly racist and mysoginistic though and calling them out as such lead to comments such as you are 'mouth breathing idiot' .

Now in terms of personal attacks I think the latter fits the description better. The mistake made was it was not always totally clear that people's views were being called out as racist or mysoginistic and it came across as a description of the individual rather than how their opinions came across.

However describing somebody as a 'mouth breathing idiot' is clearly a very direct personal attack.

I would say that calling someone a racist or mysogynistic is just as much a personal attack as calling someone a mouth breathing idiot. All these terms are just lazy ways of attacking someone's views without actually producing any rationale. Racism is not illegal and in fact is a completely natural state of humanity, being tribal and distrusting of strangers / those not like us has been bred into our genes by natural selection over millennia - it is only very recently that someone has decided that perhaps it is not the best way to approach other people but unfortunately those using the name calling are not intelligent or clear-thinking enough to see the big picture.

 

As to mysogynism I suspect that it is the norm when you look at the world's population as a whole. But of course it's not in a middle class well educated bubble that is CWDF. So in fact it is those people are the exceptions but again they are not intelligent enough to see that as path finders for new ideas like gender equality they need to educate, not insult, to get their views more widely accepted.

Edited September 8, 2016 by nicknorman

[Guest]

I would say that calling someone a racist or mysogynistic is just as much a personal attack as calling someone a mouth breathing idiot. All these terms are just lazy ways of attacking someone's views without actually producing any rationale..

The rationale for calling out somebodies views as 'racist' or 'mysoginistic" were produced multiple times and ad nauseum to the point of repetitive tedium.

 

Unfortunately the response was often simply 'you are just playing the racist card', errrr....yes if your views come across as racist then they come across as racist, simple.

[MtB]

Mike: yes that is true, presuming by "posters" you mean those on both sides of the argument. The pity of it is that those on one side of the argument were culled, those on the other remain. You have not had to say it for several months now simply because one side of the argument is gone. Do you consider that a good result?

 

Martin: as above but also as I recall it, the personal abuse was started by the "establishment" side. Yes, by the end game there was equal personal attacks and nastiness from both sides, but only one side started that behaviour.

 

 

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "the argument". There were hundreds IIRC. My observation is that most posters who routinely engaged in provocative personal abuse have been banned and those who stuck to arguing the issues remain, whichever 'side' they argued on.

 

 

.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[nicknorman]

The rationale for calling out somebodies views as 'racist' or 'mysoginistic" were produced multiple times and ad nauseum to the point of repetitive tedium.

Unfortunately the response was often simply 'you are just playing the racist card', errrr....yes if your views come across as racist then they come across as racist, simple.

I think you miss the point. Lots of people, almost certainly the majority in the world, are racist. So if you are trying to win an argument by calling someone a racist you might just as well call them out for being ginger or whatever. It is a lazy way to argue and only creates conflict, it doesn't win arguments. It is also a very over-used term of general abuse for anyone with different views on let's say immigration than oneself.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by "the argument". There were hundreds IIRC. My observation is that most posters who routinely engaged in provocative personal abuse have been banned and those who stuck to arguing the issues remain, whichever 'side' they argued on.

.

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.

[Greylady2]

It is what is.

 

Stay or leave, the forum became 85% argument's followed by personal insults a while back and i struggled with that aggression.

 

I am mod que now, not for being norty, my posts get lost before mod que approval and unanswered but its ok at least i am not banned and can ask for boaty help when needed.

 

What ever init lifes too short.

 

......

 

Moderator note

 

GreyLady also wanted to say this in a previous post, which I've added here....

 

"Racism is another way of discriminating against people and that's not right."

Edited September 9, 2016 by wrigglefingers
Request from GreyLady2

[Guest]

I think you miss the point. Lots of people, almost certainly the majority in the world, are racist. So if you are trying to win an argument by calling someone a racist you might just as well call them out for being ginger or whatever. It is a lazy way to argue and only creates conflict, it doesn't win arguments. It is also a very over-used term of general abuse for anyone with different views on let's say immigration than oneself.

 

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 don't miss the point.

 

Letting racism stand because it's extremely common is hardly an argument not to challenge it.

 

This is the fundamental issue here,

 

'Oh it's very common, let's not bother calling it out then......"

[nicknorman]

I don't miss the point.

Letting racism stand because it's extremely common is hardly an argument not to challenge it.

This is the fundamental issue here,

'Oh it's very common, let's not bother calling it out then......"

I didn't say any of that. You just made it up - that of course being a prime source of argument on here ie when someone puts words into someone else's mouth and then complains about what they (haven't) said.

 

My point was that if you counter someone's argument or view simply by saying "you're a racist", even if it is appropriate (which often, it isn't) then nothing is achieved except antagonism. It is no different to countering someone's argument by saying "you're a mouth breathing idiot". Both are lazy terms of abuse that don't help you change the other person's view - and that, surely, should be the point of debate.

[Guest]

I didn't say any of that. You just made it up - that of course being a prime source of argument on here ie when someone puts words into someone else's mouth and then complains about what they (haven't) said.

My point was that if you counter someone's argument or view simply by saying "you're a racist", even if it is appropriate (which often, it isn't) then nothing is achieved except antagonism. It is no different to countering someone's argument by saying "you're a mouth breathing idiot". Both are lazy terms of abuse that don't help you change the other person's view - and that, surely, should be the point of debate.

Well of course you didn't actuall say it, but whether you like it or not that is how it reads.

 

If you substitute the words words 'Gay man = Alan Carr type' in this post you can see how the sweeping generalisations being made about people of a particular religious belifs could indeed be described as unintelligent and worthy of challenge....

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=68595&page=8#entry1364249

[nicknorman]

Well of course you didn't actuall say it, but whether you like it or not that is how it reads.

If you substitute the words words 'Gay man = Alan Carr type' in this post you can see how the sweeping generalisations being made about people of a particular religious belifs could indeed be described as unintelligent and worthy of challenge....http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=68595&page=8#entry1364249

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