Are we all sheep?

[carlt]

I think we should probably take a step back and ask what it is we are trying to achieve here.

 

That'll be a "No!" then...

[Geo]

It would also be appreciated if those of us accused of partaking in "the meeting" would be believed when we say we had nothing to do with any sort of list.

It cuts both ways

 

Who so accused you?

 

Seem to remember you said something about being at the or a meeting, not sure end of a chilly day perhaps a chance to enlighten

[peterboat]

I think we should probably take a step back and ask what it is we are trying to achieve here.

 

If it is to have a slanging match with accusations (true or not), insults (offensive or not) and leading to an acrimonious parting of ways then job done, goals achieved so we can draw a line and slope off or stay depending on our allegiances.

 

If, however, it is to see if we can get back the free flowing, interesting, broad interest discussion forum once was then perhaps it's time to stop the bickering.

 

Personally I couldn't care a jot who spoke to who, what was said and who it was said about.

 

Whatever happened it produced a forum with draconian rules and a moderating team who, frankly, are not up to the job of enforcing those rules.

 

So how do we rewind back from JC2, through the period of hate filled hyperbole and back to the forum CWDF once was?

 

I guess, if I ask the question then I should put up my thoughts and suggestions.

 

First of all I would reinstate the old rules, allow discussion on any subject and enforce those old rules using common sense and diplomacy.

 

Secondly I would sack all the mods with the exception of Lady M, Theo and FTS because of their experience and Patrick because he is a reasonable chap and is too new for me to form an opinion about his mod skills.

 

The other three I am sorry but you may be lovely people but you are not good moderators (perhaps being too lovely is the problem).

 

Folk who can't see the difference between robust debate and the polarised hyperbole we started to see are in no position to moderate a discussion forum.

 

There is a huge difference between, say, myself and Dave Mayall knocking intellectual lumps out of each other and what degenerated into, say, Kippers and Lefties hurling profane abuse at each other.

 

That new mods don't seem to recognise that.

Virtual greenie sir on the nail

[tree monkey]

 

The extract from the Fb page discussions would suggest otherwise.

Can you categorically deny that that question was posed, and that you were not there during that exchange ?

 

If you were not party to the discussion, how do you know what was discussed ?

 

That being the case, and assuming you are a 'man of your word' then you can obviously be excluded from the suggestion that you were involved.

Ive got nothing to hide, as I have already explained a mod wanted some support and a general chat, it would be difficult to talk about the forum without talking about the people on it, it was a pub chat offering support to a friend

 

As an aside

I said it at the time on the forum I was fed up of 2 of the members constantly baiting (at least in my opinion) the forum.

Thats all I wanted, whats happened since has been a combination of farce, sillyness and on occasion nastiness.

I even thought setting up thunderboat was a resonable thing to do (not ideal) but that has shown its self unable to avoid the personal digs at members over here, only a select few I know but its fed a paranoia about stuff that doesn't really exist

[peterboat]

It seems somewhat amazing that the only 'complainers' to this thread seem to be those named as being at the 'meeting'

 

As an extract of the Fb page in question - can any of those in attendance either confirm or deny this ?

 

"xxxx xxxxxxx (members* name deleted to prevent further embarrassment)

How about we try to persuade Daniel to agree to a free vote where we each pick the (say) 5 people we want to see permanently excluded? Then permanently remove the overall "winners" of that poll?"

 

* is a 'member' not a 'mod' or part of the 'admin team'

 

 

Oops

[Phil Ambrose]

I'm beginning to understand why crossforum posting is frowned on. Edited highlights quoted by troublemakers out of context. It's what used to be called netiquette or something. What's written on one forum should stsay there - pointless getting upsst or trying to arge with people who aren't there (even if they're only pretending not to be there).

It would seem "troublemakers" abound in both places or are you suggesting they only exist elsewhere and not here.

Phil

[Mac of Cygnet]

This thread is extraordinary. It demonstrates how quickly CWDF degenerates into a petty social experiment when the mod team steps back, revealing a barrage of personal insults and a lack of self control - not to mention citing derogatory bile from a third party site (or at least the existence of said bile), ensuring members can't even ignore the harassment there by simply avoiding that site. And all this is in the unconvincing name of collating some ideas of how to moderate CWDF in the future? Really? There's nothing constructive in allowing 30+ pages of goading, finger-pointing, name-calling, and paranoid conspiracy theories fuelled, one assumes, to increase a sense self-importance and division because goodness knows what else it serves. It's doing nothing to help Dan, except to reinforce how much moderation is desperately needed in this Grange Hill playground.

 

This is a website for talking about pootanks, moorhens and boat paint, for Christ's sake. Context!

Well I've not really felt inclined to contribute to all this, although like others I've followed it and its effects with some fascination, but I must say that I disagree with virtually every word of this.

 

This thread has demonstrated exactly the opposite of what you say, being a return to the robust debate of the CWDF I joined 8 years ago, and which I was beginning to think had been lost for ever.

 

If your last sentence was serious (surely it wasn't!), then I wouldn't have stayed very long, I can tell you.

 

Only the abstruse Facebook references unsettle me - there seems to be a parallel CWDF world there which like many others I will never see.

[churchward]

I think we should probably take a step back and ask what it is we are trying to achieve here.

 

If it is to have a slanging match with accusations (true or not), insults (offensive or not) and leading to an acrimonious parting of ways then job done, goals achieved so we can draw a line and slope off or stay depending on our allegiances.

 

If, however, it is to see if we can get back the free flowing, interesting, broad interest discussion forum once was then perhaps it's time to stop the bickering.

 

Personally I couldn't care a jot who spoke to who, what was said and who it was said about.

 

Whatever happened it produced a forum with draconian rules and a moderating team who, frankly, are not up to the job of enforcing those rules.

 

So how do we rewind back from JC2, through the period of hate filled hyperbole and back to the forum CWDF once was?

 

I guess, if I ask the question then I should put up my thoughts and suggestions.

 

First of all I would reinstate the old rules, allow discussion on any subject and enforce those old rules using common sense and diplomacy.

 

Secondly I would sack all the mods with the exception of Lady M, Theo and FTS because of their experience and Patrick because he is a reasonable chap and is too new for me to form an opinion about his mod skills.

 

The other three I am sorry but you may be lovely people but you are not good moderators (perhaps being too lovely is the problem).

 

Folk who can't see the difference between robust debate and the polarised hyperbole we started to see are in no position to moderate a discussion forum.

 

There is a huge difference between, say, myself and Dave Mayall knocking intellectual lumps out of each other and what degenerated into, say, Kippers and Lefties hurling profane abuse at each other.

 

That new mods don't seem to recognise that.

I broadly agree with your thoughts but I would not pull the trigger straight away on the mod team.

 

Also I would like to see some form of democracy over these issues. Any proposals for change could be voted on in managed polls with at least the option to stay as things are (not that I want that to happen) I don't think any reform process should be wholly driven by those (few?) who can shout louder or able to express themselves succinctly or clearly. The best outcome will be a set of proposals that as much as possible the majority agree with and the "silent majority" drawn into the polls.

 

If it can be done it would be good to have the polls set up so they can't be replied to just voted on and any debate on the plebiscites (for want of a better term) in separate threads.

[nicknorman]

I even thought setting up thunderboat was a resonable thing to do (not ideal) but that has shown its self unable to avoid the personal digs at members over here, only a select few I know but its fed a paranoia about stuff that doesn't really exist

When you have been expunged from a forum seemingly at the whim of a mod conspiracy by means of misuse of power because your face didn't fit, I'm sure isn't a nice feeling and a desire for some revenge is surely pretty much inevitable, with TB giving that platform. Yes there is some nastiness relating to a few other (non-mod) CWDFers and I think that is wrong but ultimately it just shows the perpetrators up in a bad light. But that is only a tiny bit of TB.

 

As a matter of interest when I first had a look at TB I found some slurs about me, so I joined up and robustly despatched them by giving as good as I got. Seemed to work!

 

And let us remember that some CWDF members were being referred to by a mod as "slime on a stick", I was a "monster" so please don't come all holy fluffy bunny about TB!

Edited October 18, 2016 by nicknorman

[RLWP]

you were still part of the conversation on the 13th march when the list was talked about.

 

Actually, I wasn't. I was invited in on the 16th

 

Richard

[carlt]

I broadly agree with your thoughts but I would not pull the trigger straight away on the mod team.

 

I'm not sure I agree with all of my thoughts (especially the really weird stuff) but I was just trying to get the thread back on the track Matty set off on.

[peterboat]

When you have been expunged from a forum seemingly at the whim of a mod conspiracy by means of misuse of power because your face didn't fit, I'm sure isn't a nice feeling and a desire for some revenge is surely pretty much inevitable, with TB giving that platform. Yes there is some nastiness relating to a few other (non-mod) CWDFers and I think that is wrong but ultimately it just shows the perpetrators up in a bad light. But that is only a tiny bit of TB.

 

As a matter of interest when I first had a look at TB I found some slurs about me, so I joined up and robustly despatched them by giving as good as I got. Seemed to work!

 

And let us remember that some CWDF members were being referred to by a mod as "slime on a stick", I was a "monster" so please don't come all holy fluffy bunny about TB!

You like everybody on Thunderboat fight your corner but on the whole I do not believe that anyone on Thunderboat deliberately goes out to insult anyone else on there. Yes their is some name calling but most of it is good humored which as I have said before is something that is missing from this forum. I do both forums and enjoy both but just because I can say what I want on the other doesnt mean that I do just the same as yourself

[billS]

This thread is extraordinary. It demonstrates how quickly CWDF degenerates into a petty social experiment when the mod team steps back, revealing a barrage of personal insults and a lack of self control

 

A contrasting social experiment has been Thunderboat, where some of the initial subjects and posts were pretty unsavoury as some revelled in the new anarchy. It has been interesting to see it develop to a level where (with one or two notable exceptions) contentious subjects are discussed with much less personal insult and animosity that was to be found here in the worst days before the under-moderation was replaced by over-moderation.

 

A recent example is a Brexit thread where one of the protagonists is (almost certainly) a previous member whose serial aliases tended to last for fairly short periods before being banned because he (or sometimes she) kept revealing himself by an inability to make his often excellent and educational points without subjecting anyone who disagreed with him to a tirade of invective. He carried on the same tactic on the other forum, but that personal insults died away as posters continued to raise counter arguments without descending to a similar level of vituperation. The argument continues, and the quality of the debate on both sides is good.

 

Funny that - isn't it?

[churchward]

 

I'm not sure I agree with all of my thoughts (especially the really weird stuff) but I was just trying to get the thread back on the track Matty set off on.

Yep good attempt and tried to add my twopenneth.

Edited October 18, 2016 by churchward

[tomsk]

My spies suggest otherwise, Nick

 

Richard

 

I'm afraid I am just not that clever.

 

And I'm not going, I don't like the way my friends are treated over there

 

Richard

 

And some don't like how PEOPLE are seemingly occasionally treated here Richard. You give the impression of being intelligent, knowlegable and humourous, if Dan wants to make it an invite only club for his pals that's great, Dan should be stating that, close it down and issue invites for the chosen few to discuss Dog only knows what amongst themselves in a frenzy of mutual backslapping for about 2 weeks until everyone gets bored witless and goes boating.

 

The real issue here at the moment is that many people who have been members for many years now do not have an earthly clue as to what is going on, talk of hit-lists and many 'dissapeared' with apparently no reason given. Politricks and Thunderboat are seemingly back on the menu now, but are they? No meaningful input from any of the Moderation Team clarifying anything leaving the whole thing up in the air with no one knowing where the hammer will fall next.... Am I going to be banned for this post? I don't know? Does anyone know?

[gazza]

And some don't like how PEOPLE are seemingly occasionally treated here Richard. You give the impression of being intelligent, knowlegable and humourous, if Dan wants to make it an invite only club for his pals that's great, Dan should be stating that, close it down and issue invites for the chosen few to discuss Dog only knows what amongst themselves in a frenzy of mutual backslapping for about 2 weeks until everyone gets bored witless and goes boating.

 

The real issue here at the moment is that many people who have been members for many years now do not have an earthly clue as to what is going on, talk of hit-lists and many 'dissapeared' with apparently no reason given. Politricks and Thunderboat are seemingly back on the menu now, but are they? No meaningful input from any of the Moderation Team clarifying anything leaving the whole thing up in the air with no one knowing where the hammer will fall next.... Am I going to be banned for this post? I don't know? Does anyone know?

I've been very careful to keep within the bounds of the rules as set out.

I have not linked, nor copied any text from the place that shall not be named (which isn't stated in said rules...) Nor have I done any of the following.

 

You will not use CWDF to post or reference to any material anywhere on the site, or send any message, or make a series of posts or messages which cumulatively are; knowingly false and/or defamatory, aimed to deceive or ridicule, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, disruptive, intimidating, threatening, inflammatory, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, bullying or invasive of a person's privacy.

 

Personal attacks on any person by name-calling, ridicule, obscene or vulgar language are not permitted.

 

Disruptive posting such as seeks to test the limits, or otherwise push the boundaries of these rules and guidelines is not permitted.

 

Attacking or harassing another person through the posting of off-site links is not permitted.

 

Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited. In addition, content containing a religious theme, or content that makes commentary on religious issues, is not permitted.

 

Postings about waterway legislation, regulations, management, navigation, moorings, maintenance, and finance are permitted.

 

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.

 

A good proportion of regular contributors who seek to rubbish or vilify the place that shall not be named and those that use it have.

 

Where the hammer next falls will be interesting indeed.

[smileypete]

Just popped in with a suggestion...

 

Don't know what Dan has in mind to respond to all this, but it might clear the air nicely to pass the running of the forum onto someone like Nick Norman (any other suggestions?), who could act mainly as a chairperson and then appoint 4-6 reasonably even minded helpers to assist guiding the direction of the forum eg via public debate (and share any blame - haha!).

Edited October 18, 2016 by smileypete

[Neil2]

This thread is extraordinary. It demonstrates how quickly CWDF degenerates into a petty social experiment when the mod team steps back, revealing a barrage of personal insults and a lack of self control - not to mention citing derogatory bile from a third party site (or at least the existence of said bile), ensuring members can't even ignore the harassment there by simply avoiding that site. And all this is in the unconvincing name of collating some ideas of how to moderate CWDF in the future? Really? There's nothing constructive in allowing 30+ pages of goading, finger-pointing, name-calling, and paranoid conspiracy theories fuelled, one assumes, to increase a sense self-importance and division because goodness knows what else it serves. It's doing nothing to help Dan, except to reinforce how much moderation is desperately needed in this Grange Hill playground.

 

This is a website for talking about pootanks, moorhens and boat paint, for Christ's sake. Context!

 

That's one way of looking at it, I'm with those who take a different view. I think so far it's been very lively, frank, informative, interesting, generally civil, and especially if you read it in parallel with the "sister" thread over on Thunderboat, highly entertaining.

[GoodGurl]

 

Actually, I wasn't. I was invited in on the 16th

 

Richard

couldn't you see the whole conversation then? if not i apologize.

[nicknorman]

Just popped in with a suggestion...

 

Don't know what Dan has in mind to respond to all this, but it might clear the air nicely to pass the running of the forum onto someone like Nick Norman (any other suggestions?), who could act mainly as a chairperson and then appoint 4-6 reasonably even minded helpers to assist guiding the direction of the forum eg via public debate (and share any blame - haha!).

Haha don't think that would go down too well (the NN bit I mean)!

[Guest]

Haha don't think that would go down too well (the NN bit I mean)!

He changed it from PaulC for some reason.

[smileypete]

Haha don't think that would go down too well (the NN bit I mean)!

 

Don't be modest! Any other suggestions?

 

Or maybe Dan would consider having a few others on board with guiding the direction of the forum, would you be interested in that?

Edited October 18, 2016 by smileypete

[Cheshire cat]

If change of Ownership was to take place NN wouldn't be a bad choice.

[Charles]

Delta 9

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Don't be modest! Any other suggestions?

 

I would suggest Graham Davis.