Are we all sheep?

[nicknorman]

I do find this hard to believe.

Unfortunately it is true. Absolutely disgusting and I hope the perpetrators are prosecuted.

Looking through Daniels post there's a section buried in the middle that is most concerning . This relates to activity outside of the site such as personal abuse being directed at site staff.

Stalking on line and in person , abusive threatening phone calls , invasions of privacy , malicious acts . Everything else is just stuff but that list is capable of real world harm to a real live person.

I didn't pick up on this because I knew it already, and yes that is completely unacceptable.

[Albion]

I was not able to keep pace with this thread over the weekend so applogies for the delay in replying, however I would like to clarify a few things as we go along.

 

Firstly; the site is administrated myself, but is run by the whole of the staff team, and all major policy and moderator decision making is openly discussed with the whole team. This includes new moderator selection, and changes to the site rules, or changes to the interpretation of the rules, the site has several thousand active members. Anyone suggesting it is run as a vanity project is very much misguided.

Thousand active members........might be a bit of an exaggeration. Enrolled members maybe, but active?

 

Secondly; a lot has been made of the list which was mentioned by Paul in post, however while various options where discussed which included a list of trouble members as a suggestion they be placed on moderator approvel, no action has been take against members of this site for their posts on Thunderboat, and no blanket bans have occurred.

If some of the recipients of mod bans are to be believed, and there are very marked similarities in their independent stories, then I find that hard to believe. Indeed some of the info from within seems to confirm their stories rather than refute them.

There is a fine line between being too slow of the mark and being overly presumptuous, we do the best we can to right by the members and I stand by the actions taken, which where both fair and reasonable.

Normal service will continue as before despite this thread? Threads locked for mod review which are never referred to again, reopened again with mod comment or even removed with an explanation of the reason?

 

Thirdly; while here may be areas we can improve on explaning certain moderator actions, however this is not always practicable and it will always be the case that much of reasons for moderator action will never be seen my many members. That's almost the point at times.

Whilst you may, for obvious reasons, not be able to make actions against an individual public, such as publishing PMs to him or her you can surely explain the majority of mod decisions on locking thread, deleting entries and pruning language.

 

Its also important that members are aware that what they here from others may not be the full story. In addition to onsite activity they may not be aware of, we have also had significant cases of personal abuse being directed at the site staff, deliberate invasions of the privacy including threatening and abusive phone calls, stalking online and in person, and other malicious acts.

Nobody condones personal abuse and the perpetrators deserve some form of sanction. Outright instant bans might be a bit draconian but you have a warning system that can be used on the run up to a ban in the case of persistent offenders.

 

If anyone has any specific questions, or wishes to raise a formal complaint as to how the site is run they can do so by contacting me via PM or emailing sitehost@canalworld.net else I will endeavour to follow this thread as best I can.

 

As always we will continue to constantly evolve the running of the site. I would like to move to a slightly more flexable moderation feel, and take onboard the comments about the tone used in some areas. I am also aware that there is a thread running in breach of the 'no poltics or religion' rule which was introduced ealier this year and a review if ongoing on this.

 

 

Thanks

 

Daniel

Sounds like very little will actually change Dan. It still lacks a firm commitment to significant transparency improvement and there seems to be a denial of any 'black list' despite stated independent evidence from multiple sources. Hope I'm wrong but I cannot detect significant prospects of change from what you have written.

Roger

Edited October 19, 2016 by Albion

[MtB]

Sounds like very little will actually change Dan. It still lacks a firm commitment to significant transparency improvement and there seems to be a denial of any 'black list' despite stated independent evidence from multiple sources. Hope I'm wrong but I cannot detect significant prospects of change from what you have written.

Roger

 

Looks that way to me too, but I think the forum will limp along as it is more or less indefinitely.

 

Most forums I use have long threads of extreme dissatisfaction with the state of the modding. Its normal!

[boathunter]

I was not able to keep pace with this thread over the weekend so applogies for the delay in replying...

 

 

 

...I will endeavour to follow this thread as best I can.

 

 

Long weekend? This comes across as rather pompous to me. I think it might help your cause if you showed a bit more interest TBH. Edited October 19, 2016 by boathunter

[NoFixedAbode]

OK, I am one of the silent majority who is being spoken for by everybody, so against my own better judgement I have decided to speak for myself.

 

I have been a member of this CWDF for approximately ten years (not exactly sure, but around that) in that time it would be an exageration to say that I have read it every day but nearly every day is fair.

 

In general I would agree that it is Daniels forum and he can implement any rules he likes but (in my opinion) if he wishes it to survive and prosper he needs to listen to what is being said. He has a rule that says people cannot come on his forum and use derogetary terms about others (ok paraphrased but thats what it means), but it is now apparently ok for him, his mods and one or two of the forums untouchable members to get together on facebook to slag of anybody one of the new mods dislikes. this would be bad form in a pub, but to do it online where there is a record of what has been said is not only disrespectfull to the forum membership as a whole it is monumentally stupid. and for the people concerned to now try to claim that it didn't happen or they had no part in it is in my opinion 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' at least two of the attendees showed some integrity and quit the site crew as a result of this meeting and they have my admiration, in my opinion this is the sort of person we want running this site.

 

As I have spent a lot of time reading this forum I decided it was only right that I should contribute towards its upkeep (only a small but regular amount) as a direct result of the revelations in this thread this has now been cancelled, I will watch with interest if this forum improves towards its former self I shall reinstate this donation.

 

Finally as one of the silent majority I object to the likes of Arthur marshall and Graham Davies claiming my support.

 

I find myself in complete agreement with matty 40's the originator of this thread.

 

Cheers, Mark.

[Mike Todd]

 

I was not able to keep pace with this thread over the weekend so applogies for the delay in replying, however I would like to clarify a few things as we go along.

 

I appreciate that it is a long thread and that it has been fast moving at time. However you do not seem to have got the basic point the members are very very unhappy.

 

Firstly; the site is administrated myself, but is run by the whole of the staff team, and all major policy and moderator decision making is openly discussed with the whole team. This includes new moderator selection, and changes to the site rules, or changes to the interpretation of the rules, the site has several thousand active members. Anyone suggesting it is run as a vanity project is very much misguided.

 

I am sorry but what is the meaning of several thousand active members? How many and what defines an active member?

Yestersday, extrapolating from the site top posters list, there were 808 posts, of those 345 posts were made by 20 members, 42.7% of the posts. Now how many other members actually posted actually posted, taking an educated guess probably a 100. Please could you define what is meant by several thousand active members?

 

Secondly; a lot has been made of the list which was mentioned by Paul in post, however while various options where discussed which included a list of trouble members as a suggestion they be placed on moderator approvel, no action has been take against members of this site for their posts on Thunderboat, and no blanket bans have occurred.

There is a fine line between being too slow of the mark and being overly presumptuous, we do the best we can to right by the members and I stand by the actions taken, which where both fair and reasonable.

 

Thank you for confirmation of the list, exactly who were these discussions with?

Could you please tell us how many members were banned during the two months previous to the startup of Thunderboat and the month after?

 

Thirdly; while here may be areas we can improve on explaning certain moderator actions, however this is not always practicable and it will always be the case that much of reasons for moderator action will never be seen my many members. That's almost the point at times.

 

If you want people to learn from their errors then they need to know what those errors are. Thus if you moderate a post or thread in my opinion the people concerned have to be told what was perceived to be wrong and why.

 

Particularly the legal threads, Legally in my opinion there was no reason to close them, they did not break the statute and any queries should have as required by the regulations been referred to the poster. So why were they closed and posts deleted?

 

Its also important that members are aware that what they here from others may not be the full story. In addition to onsite activity they may not be aware of, we have also had significant cases of personal abuse being directed at the site staff, deliberate invasions of the privacy including threatening and abusive phone calls, stalking online and in person, and other malicious acts.

 

May I suggest that it is good practice that the moderators are anonymous and do not use their Mod ID to post using their personal ID. That nips in the bud the problems of harassment etc and protects the staff.

 

If anyone has any specific questions, or wishes to raise a formal complaint as to how the site is run they can do so by contacting me via PM or emailing sitehost@canalworld.net else I will endeavour to follow this thread as best I can.

 

I think you have a formal complaint in this thread, regrettably maybe it needs addressing.

 

As always we will continue to constantly evolve the running of the site. I would like to move to a slightly more flexable moderation feel, and take onboard the comments about the tone used in some areas. I am also aware that there is a thread running in breach of the 'no poltics or religion' rule which was introduced ealier this year and a review if ongoing on this.

 

 

Thanks

 

Daniel

 

As has been written elsewhere Daniel your post say business as usual. If the forum has become a heavy load which together with your new job etc, maybe it would be better to allow others to take over and take the load.

 

Whilst I am not immune to the feelings that you express strongly, we do have to remember that this is not a Public service, publicly owned, nor even a club owned by its members. It is a private operation and however much we feel attached to the forum and value its service, we should not assume that we can attack as if it were provided by an elected government answerable to all and sundry. It seems to me that a slightly more collaborative engagement with the site owner and staff might be more appropriate . . .

[Graham Davis]

Finally as one of the silent majority I object to the likes of Arthur marshall and Graham Davies claiming my support.

 

I don't think I have ever asked anyone for support on here.

And you also can't spell my name correctly!

[carlt]

I don't think I have ever asked anyone for support on here.

And you also can't spell my name correctly!

I believe you have claimed the support of the "majority"

 

Now thankfully the majority have been given precedence by Daniel.

[Dave_P]

I do hope that, in six months time, we will be able to look back on this thread (which by then will be known as 'the incident' or 'the episode') and see it as a minor blip after which a slight tweak was made to forum rules and everything slowly got back to normal.

 

It seems to me that getting the modding right on this forum involves walking a tightrope which is one molecule wide. Not the easiest thing to do and I for one am very grateful to Daniel and all the mods and admins for giving up their time to do it, despite getting berated for their efforts on here. On one hand, it's great that people value this forum so much that they get so worked up about it but we all have to remember that it's Daniel's forum.

 

I will be sad if certain members don't return though, especially Nigel and Tony (even though he drives me mad!).

[waterdog]

OK, I am one of the silent majority who is being spoken for by everybody, so against my own better judgement I have decided to speak for myself.

 

I have been a member of this CWDF for approximately ten years (not exactly sure, but around that) in that time it would be an exageration to say that I have read it every day but nearly every day is fair.

 

In general I would agree that it is Daniels forum and he can implement any rules he likes but (in my opinion) if he wishes it to survive and prosper he needs to listen to what is being said. He has a rule that says people cannot come on his forum and use derogetary terms about others (ok paraphrased but thats what it means), but it is now apparently ok for him, his mods and one or two of the forums untouchable members to get together on facebook to slag of anybody one of the new mods dislikes. this would be bad form in a pub, but to do it online where there is a record of what has been said is not only disrespectfull to the forum membership as a whole it is monumentally stupid. and for the people concerned to now try to claim that it didn't happen or they had no part in it is in my opinion 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' at least two of the attendees showed some integrity and quit the site crew as a result of this meeting and they have my admiration, in my opinion this is the sort of person we want running this site.

 

As I have spent a lot of time reading this forum I decided it was only right that I should contribute towards its upkeep (only a small but regular amount) as a direct result of the revelations in this thread this has now been cancelled, I will watch with interest if this forum improves towards its former self I shall reinstate this donation.

 

Finally as one of the silent majority I object to the likes of Arthur marshall and Graham Davies claiming my support.

 

I find myself in complete agreement with matty 40's the originator of this thread.

 

Cheers, Mark.

 

 

Completely agree. Have a Greenie from another 10+ year member of the silent majority.

[nicknorman]

Well anyway it certainly seems to be business as usual with a new thread locked this morning with "locked pending moderator review" so no doubt that's the last we'll hear of it.

[carlt]

Well anyway it certainly seems to be business as usual with a new thread locked this morning with "locked pending moderator review" so no doubt that's the last we'll hear of it.

I suspect CWDF's role has agitator has gone for good which is a great shame as it was a great campaigning platform when it wanted to be.

[Athy]

Well anyway it certainly seems to be business as usual with a new thread locked this morning with "locked pending moderator review" so no doubt that's the last we'll hear of it.

Wasn't that because its subject matter was already under discussion on an existing thread?

[Barry]

Whilst I am not immune to the feelings that you express strongly, we do have to remember that this is not a Public service, publicly owned, nor even a club owned by its members. It is a private operation and however much we feel attached to the forum and value its service, we should not assume that we can attack as if it were provided by an elected government answerable to all and sundry. It seems to me that a slightly more collaborative engagement with the site owner and staff might be more appropriate . . .

 

 

I do hope that, in six months time, we will be able to look back on this thread (which by then will be known as 'the incident' or 'the episode') and see it as a minor blip after which a slight tweak was made to forum rules and everything slowly got back to normal.

 

It seems to me that getting the modding right on this forum involves walking a tightrope which is one molecule wide. Not the easiest thing to do and I for one am very grateful to Daniel and all the mods and admins for giving up their time to do it, despite getting berated for their efforts on here. On one hand, it's great that people value this forum so much that they get so worked up about it but we all have to remember that it's Daniel's forum.

 

I will be sad if certain members don't return though, especially Nigel and Tony (even though he drives me mad!).

 

Hear hear gentlemen!

[nicknorman]

Wasn't that because its subject matter was already under discussion on an existing thread?

Except that it wasn't under discussion.

I suspect CWDF's role has agitator has gone for good which is a great shame as it was a great campaigning platform when it wanted to be.

Yes, it's a pretty sad day when stuff published in a mainstream leisure magazine can't be discussed on here due to being "too contentious".

[carlt]

but we all have to remember that it's Daniel's forum.

Which is exactly why complaints, comments and suggestions are aimed at Daniel.

 

Choosing to provide a service does not make you immune from criticism and suggestions it merely gives you the right to ignore them.

[nicknorman]

Which is exactly why complaints, comments and suggestions are aimed at Daniel.Choosing to provide a service does not make you immune from criticism and suggestions it merely gives you the right to ignore them.

And let's remember that whilst Daniel likes to call himself "site owner" it has, at least until recently, been paid for by the members and run by volunteers.

[romarni123]

Dan you and the mods only have to say yes or no to a question.Did one or other of the mods or admin have a private conversation with certain forum members about other posters on the site regarding their behaviour their warnings etc and what to do with them.All the rest is waffle .I think that's what people want answering.If the threats to site staff were as bad as you say then you as owner should have sorted it down the legal route

[Graham Davis]

I believe you have claimed the support of the "majority"

 

 

Snipe away, but that does not mean I have asked others to join, just what I do.

[carlt]

Snipe away, but that does not mean I have asked others to join, just what I do.

No sniping at all.

 

How can just quoting your posts be sniping?

 

I have not attacked you or said anything derogatory.

 

I merely disputed your claim and provided supporting evidence.

[Mike Todd]

Well anyway it certainly seems to be business as usual with a new thread locked this morning with "locked pending moderator review" so no doubt that's the last we'll hear of it.

Having seen that thread open and not immediately attract irresponsible replies, I took some not inconsiderable time to pen a post that set out the history of this matter and why the case is important to all users of the canal systems, not just the usual suspects. Perhaps I was naive to assume that there is a genuine desire to debate key matters objectively. However, as soon as I pressed Post I discovered that it was not permitted - I am mildly miffed and using/losing my time in this manner. I shall keep my contribution until such time as it can be used. I remain an optimist.

[Iain_S]

Dan you and the mods only have to say yes or no to a question.Did one or other of the mods or admin have a private conversation with certain forum members about other posters on the site regarding their behaviour their warnings etc and what to do with them.All the rest is waffle .I think that's what people want answering.If the threats to site staff were as bad as you say then you as owner should have sorted it down the legal route

 

As far as I can make out, the alleged conversation took place as a private Facebook chat. To my mind, the important thing is what happened as a result.

 

Many things are said in conversation that are not meant to be taken seriously. I have had conversations wth other members about members of this (and another ) forum, and suggestions have been made that someone or another should be banned. However, obviously, there was no action as a result, as none of us were in a position to take any, and wouldn't have even if we were!

 

Could the "conversation" have been a bit like Henry II's "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" ?

[Barry]

And let's remember that whilst Daniel likes to call himself "site owner" it has, at least until recently, been paid for by the members and run by volunteers.

 

Dan calls himself the site owner because he is the site owner. "Likes to call himself" is a belittlement of his position and of him as a person.

 

Any payments by members are given voluntarily to assist him in his costs. Those payments give the members no rights of ownership in the way you seem to imply.

 

Volunteers assist Dan with the running of the site out of the goodness of their hearts - Though it gives them a responsibility it gives neither them nor the membership any rights of ownership.

 

 

You obviously do have a sense of ownership Nick, and are fighting for it but in my opinion it is misplaced

[MtB]

Well anyway it certainly seems to be business as usual with a new thread locked this morning with "locked pending moderator review" so no doubt that's the last we'll hear of it.

 

 

Which I think is actually quite insulting, given there is no intention to review it.

Why not treat us as adults and tell us the truth by saying "thread locked"?

Better to give no reason than to make up a false one.

[nicknorman]

Dan calls himself the site owner because he is the site owner. "Likes to call himself" is a belittlement of his position and of him as a person.

 

Any payments by members are given voluntarily to assist him in his costs. Those payments give the members no rights of ownership in the way you seem to imply.

 

Volunteers assist Dan with the running of the site out of the goodness of their hearts - Though it gives them a responsibility it gives neither them nor the membership any rights of ownership.

 

You obviously do have a sense of ownership Nick, and are fighting for it but in my opinion it is misplaced

"Likes to call himself" seems fair to me because it's clearly true. I suppose it grates a little bit because even though it is factually correct, the forum is actually all the contributors including you and me. Dan doesn't own you or me, Dan just owns the hardware and domain name which, without the likes of us, would be just so much junk. Ultimately you are right Dan can do as he wishes with "his property" including closing it down, selling it etc (is it worth anything?) however a pragmatic person might realise that its success depends on the goodwill of the contributors and thus it might be politic not to ram down their throats that it's "my forum". Other forums I frequent don't have someone who's avatar is "site owner" or suchlike. I don't even know who does own them since it's not relevant to a well run forum.

 

I wouldn't say I have a sense of ownership but I do have a sense of belonging, although it is being sorely tried at the moment!