Are we all sheep?

[nicknorman]

Fair enough....

 

I can only assume you wanted a heated screaming match when you wrote....

 

 

No. I was extremely frustrated by that poster's behaviour (as were many others) and it wore me down until I cracked. My fault, and I got ticked off by Dan for it which was fair enough. I am not perfect, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to be nor encourage others likewise. Edited October 13, 2016 by nicknorman

[carlt]

I am not perfect, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to be nor encourage others likewise.

 

and yet I again say that declaring someone's post nonsense (or tosh, as I have used in this thread) is attacking the point, not the person and is perfectly valid if backed up with a reasoned argument.

 

It adds nothing to the discussion admittedly but, to all but the most sensitive fragile souls, it takes nothing away either.

Edited October 13, 2016 by carlt

[churchward]

 

Absolutely!! Bang on.

 

Its like people who claim they don't 'rubber' neck at a motorway crash but actually they can't resist slowing down to have a gawp!!

I agree and romarni123's point of the same nature on forum arguments it does attract people to check it out for whatever reason. But I do not think that makes it desirable to have lots of arguments all the time to attract people to the forum. It doesn't sound a great strategy.

 

People used to love to go to public executions too for probably much the same underlying reasons but I don't think that is an argument for bringing it back.

[Guest]

I agree and romarni123's point of the same nature on forum arguments it does attract people to check it out for whatever reason. But I do not think that makes it desirable to have lots of arguments all the time to attract people to the forum. It doesn't sound a great strategy.

 

People used to love to go to public executions too for probably much the same underlying reasons but I don't think that is an argument for bringing it back.

To be cIear I wasn't endorsing it as something that should be brought back, I was endorsing it as an accurate observation about the hypocrisy of some.

[nicknorman]

and yet I again say that declaring someone's post nonsense (or tosh, as I have used in this thread) is attacking the point, not the person and is perfectly valid if backed up with a reasoned argument.

 

It adds nothing to the discussion admittedly but, to all but the most sensitive fragile souls, it takes nothing away either.

It depends on the exact wording but yes it can be attacking the post not the person (unlike calling someone "stupid") however it is an unintelligent attack whose only point, other than expressing extreme frustration, is to antagonise and escalate. Which in fluffybunnyworld is frowned upon. And anyway it tends to cause the argument to be, if not lost, then suspended, since the person on the receiving end is likely to react in similar terms and a bickerfest starts. This is why it is used by people who realise they are losing the argument and want to smoke screen. It is a transparent device that causes everyone else (with any intelligence) to lose respect for the perpetrator, especially if it is used frequently.

[churchward]

To be cIear I wasn't endorsing it as something that should be brought back, I was endorsing it as an accurate observation about the hypocrisy of some.

Indeed there is an element of schadenfreude in all of us to a greater or lesser extent.

[DHutch]

I think it's about time the Mod's took a step back and let the "report" feature do the work for them, this will cut down on the amount of work they have (if any) and also show them what the member's actually want from this site.

 

Unfortunately it will do nothing of the sort - it will only show what the more sensitive souls and those who have a particular agenda want. I, for example, have only ever reported obvious spam, as I think modding should be very hands off, so my opinions will not be reflected at all.

 

Goodgirl, you of all people will know that the majority of moderator action is the result of content being reported.

 

Obviously not all reports result in moderated content, the staff review each report and action it as appropriate. Staff are also member and spend time on the forum, so between them have a reasonably idea of what is going on and can act on things which have not been reported as well, including house keeping of duplicate threads and the like, but typically most things are reported by members anyway.

 

 

Daniel

[tillergirl]

I rarely come in here these days but am pleased I did today. I agree with everything Matty said and greenie awarded accordingly. I've been a member 10 years now and i have met a lot of my new friends through this forum and recognise a lot of people on the cut through their boat names. I don't necessarily know a lot about much but i used to like contributing to a post if I thought I could. I mostly don't anymore for fear of being lambasted (is that a word?). But what I do do is ignore posts that seem to be ego-fuelled, I'm a grown up so I can do that. I cant be bothered with a "pistols at dawn" attitude. I shall watch the forum with interest and see how things develop.

Edited October 13, 2016 by tillergirl

[DHutch]

Re "report backs" from Mods:

 

I've looked through the 10 or so Forums I use, and only this and RailUK provide Mod feed back to someone who reports something or if a post is deleted for some reason, and that is only done by PM. And the moderating on RailUK is far stricter than on here! None of the motoring forums provide any feed back.

 

Its interesting to get this sort of information.

 

I use and have used various other forums over the year, car and kit car forums, owners club forums, various technical/computer/engineering forums and it does vary.

 

Most of the time you bearly notice the moderating until you are visiting frequently, a passing use of the site wont pick it up, but certainly the larger forums such as the student room forums certainly will certainly lop content and ban members quickly and will little explanation or change to redeem yourself, everything is very much on their terms. They are too big to have a single 'core' membership, although areas have core members.

Car forums vary in size and style, but for instance the Westfield owners forum (which incidentally also runs IPB software) is a very similar size/dynamic and feel to this one. There about the same size and also have a core membership, and less frequent members. The club runs a sprint series which creates an amount of 'those who are in the sprint series, and those who are not' but the forum is also a key part of the club, and the sprint members do at least meet up every fourth weekend in their cars, which regulates whats put on the forum a little. You also have to pay to use it £30/year or £10 for a 60 day trail, if nothing else that reduces sock puppet accounts I guess!

 

 

 

Daniel

[Captain Pegg]

Jon

Firstly I should explain that I'm well aware of the perils of online bullying etc, it can be horrendous especially for young people lacking self confidence. So my point about it "just being a virtual world" needs more explanation. If someone on here feels they are being bullied or upset then they should of course contact the mods who should sort it out. However if 2 robust people want have a bit of robust discussion, I don't think bystanders are likely to be damaged and ultimately if they don't like it, they should read something else. That said I am also against pointless tit for tat arguing that goes on and on, especially when it becomes personal, simply because it is boring and distracting for everyone else. My point was more about the urgency of it all - we hear the mods bemoan that it was half past midnight and they had 1 bar of signal on their phone whilst waiting at a rainy bus stop, having to deal with a crisis. When the reality is that such things don't have to be dealt with on a minute by minute lifesaving basis. It can wait until morning / a more convenient time and no-one is going to die - allowing more time for rational thought as opposed to knee jerk.

I totally agree with you about posts starting (or containing) "that's utter nonsense" etc but unfortunately that is one area that seems to be allowed, it happens quite often. If you can't think of a cogent argument to make your point, better not to post at all!

Finally I'm not clear about your specific reference to my behaviour, I can't recall any reactions to threads about government - are you sure it was me, and if so please give me more of a clue! I reacted to a post from PB suggesting that it might be a bit hypocritical, I got back one of those "you are an idiot" posts which remains standing despite me reporting it as a personal attack. I then did try to find out more about the poster, but that was because I was wondering if I had got it wrong and it was a case of mistaken identity - surely nothing too sinister in that?

Good riposte Nick. Have given it a green thing.

 

Strong argument is good and is certainly more effective with good language. Wanting to see good language is nothing to do with being all fluffy bunny in my book. I know you like the cut and thrust of the debate and there is nothing wrong with that. The example I was referring to was indeed the posts earlier in the thread where I thought that in order to get a bit of that cut and thrust you ended up getting a bit too wound up by some posts that I thought were barely coherent. I couldn't really understand the point that was trying to be made and thought they were best left alone by someone of your obvious intelligence and self-confidence in spite of what I agree was a bit of unnecessary provocation. I guess one persons strong argument is another persons spat. We are at least agreed on the need for some better content to get stuck into.

 

Jon

Edited October 13, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[Dyertribe]

 

 

I know some find being told by the Mods that "wrists will be smacked" and find it patronising.

I have only had one thread that I initiated removed. Communications around that were poor and I stated the same on another thread regarding the moderation of the site. I received PMs from mods who investigated my complaint and mostly I was more than happy with the explanations and apologies.......... the exception was the mod that had caused my complaint who's attitude came across as I messed up, no one died, so what?

Sorry would have been appropriate, especially as his fellow mods, not directly involved, had apologised.
It has coloured my view of this mod ever since.

[Dyertribe]

Too late. I already have the job.

I rest my case.

[nicknorman]

I rest my case.

Certainly I think it was a mistake to select mods whose personalities weren't really known to the forum since they barely if ever participated. It does beg the question how these mods were selected, are they Dan's personal friends?

[Jerra]

Certainly I think it was a mistake to select mods whose personalities weren't really known to the forum since they barely if ever participated. It does beg the question how these mods were selected, are they Dan's personal friends?

I thought all mods had personally volunteered.

[nicknorman]

I thought all mods had personally volunteered.

Maybe, don't know, but we do know that some folk volunteered but weren't selected, so there must have been a selection process of some sort. Since some of the new mods had, as I said, no real previous presence on the forum, again it begs the question about how or why they were selected.

[GoodGurl]

i dont remember it being advertised?

this is the first we knew about it http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83458

[DHutch]

Moderators are volunteers, who respond to requests for help with a short CV, and are then reviewed and selected by myself the existing staff.

 

Obviously not all applicants are successful for various reasons, if only because we are typically fortunate to have more applicants the vacancies.

 

The recent new staff additions where selected a combination of applicants from the last request for volunteers, and those who volunteered on spec or where approached, as it was felt my the staff and myself this was the best option at the time.

 

 

Hopefully that makes sense and passes as reasonable?

 

 

Some of the staff are personal friends of mine, however they are in the minority and this is certainly not a method of selection.

 

 

 

Daniel

[nicknorman]

Moderators are volunteers, who respond to requests for help with a short CV, and are then reviewed and selected by myself the existing staff.

 

Obviously not all applicants are successful for various reasons, if only because we are typically fortunate to have more applicants the vacancies.

 

The recent new staff additions where selected a combination of applicants from the last request for volunteers, and those who volunteered on spec, as it was felt my the staff and myself this was the best option at the time.

 

Hopefully that makes sense and passes as reasonable?

 

Some of the staff are personal friends of mine, however they are in the minority and this is certainly not a method of selection.

 

Daniel

Thanks Dan. Can you see that it is easier to respect and therefore accept the decisions of mods who have "served their time" on the forum by being regular contributors, vs those who are virtually unknown to the forum and have never participated in the routine cut and thrust of the forum?

 

And I suggest, this is not without good underlying reason since those with practical experience of the forum are more likely to make decisions in tune with the general ethos of the forum.

 

Perhaps this could be born in mind next time!

[DHutch]

Thanks Dan. Can you see that it is easier to respect and therefore accept the decisions of mods who have "served their time" on the forum by being regular contributors, vs those who are virtually unknown to the forum and have never participated in the routine cut and thrust of the forum?

 

And I suggest, this is not without good underlying reason since those with practical experience of the forum are more likely to make decisions in tune with the general ethos of the forum.

 

Perhaps this could be born in mind next time!

 

Very much so, however you also have to weigh up other considerations, including who came forward!

 

That said, currently all staff have been a member of the site for a minimum of 7 years, have well of 1000 posts, and have all be online at some point within the last three hours. On average a moderator currently has nearly 4000 posts and nine years of being a member.

 

I dont think that a bad footing.

 

 

Daniel

[nicknorman]

Very much so, however you also have to weigh up other considerations, including who came forward!

 

That said, currently all staff have been a member of the site for a minimum of 7 years, have well of 1000 posts, and have all be online at some point within the last three hours. On average a moderator currently has nearly 4000 posts and nine years of being a member.

 

I dont think that a bad footing.

 

 

Daniel

Certainly the new ones have all been on line plenty since they've become mods, however I'm less sure about their posting patters prior to that. But then again perhaps it was just that some frequented threads that I didn't. I certainly had no idea "who they were".

[Iain_S]

Thanks Dan. Can you see that it is easier to respect and therefore accept the decisions of mods who have "served their time" on the forum by being regular contributors, vs those who are virtually unknown to the forum and have never participated in the routine cut and thrust of the forum?

And I suggest, this is not without good underlying reason since those with practical experience of the forum are more likely to make decisions in tune with the general ethos of the forum.

Perhaps this could be born in mind next time!

That you volunteering, Nick?

[billS]

I'm kind of dubious about any mod who volunteers.to be one.

 

They should be proposed, elected and dragged reluctantly to their post as the speaker is dragged reluctantly to the woolsack.

 

Someone who volunteers to be a mod has something missing in their life (in my opinion of course).

Edited October 13, 2016 by billS

[nicknorman]

That you volunteering, Nick?

No. I'd only volunteer if the job description matched what I thought it should be, that's not the case at the moment. Anyway it is far easier to snipe from the sidelines than to actually do the job.

 

I'm retired, I'm not looking for another job. Last week I did 21 hours in my glider, several flights to 15-20,000' including a flight to Skye and back, I'm knackered! This week on the boat. Retired life is too busy!

Edited October 13, 2016 by nicknorman

[FadeToScarlet]

Someone who volunteers to be a mod has something missing in their life (in my opinion of course).

You've made me think now, what am I missing.....

[MtB]

 

Absolutely!! Bang on.

 

Its like people who claim they don't 'rubber' neck at a motorway crash but actually they can't resist slowing down to have a gawp!!

 

 

Dunno about you but when I see a load of blue flashing lights ahead of me on a road (motorway or not) I instinctively lift my foot off the throttle.

 

I'm not doing it to 'rubberneck', I'm doing it because it's sensible defensive driving.

I'm sure the emergency services people would prefer me to pass at 50 than 75mph.