Are we all sheep?

[Victor Vectis]

Do you like sheep too?

I'm not Welsh but have a Welsh son in law.

 

Sheep references and the Welsh just arn't funny. They're boring.

[nicknorman]

I'm not Welsh but have a Welsh son in law.

 

Sheep references and the Welsh just arn't funny. They're boring.

Don't read them then,

[LoneWolf]

Well said Patty. it is the draconian banned-for-life that is destroying the forum. Week bans, month bans, yellow cards, red cards would far more effectively solve the problem without losing the expertise of Dunkley et al.

 

It doesn't really matter what system is in place if people get banned for things they post somewhere else.

[spadefoot]

No, it didn't.

Well that's cleared everything up nicely. Panic over.

[hounddog]

it would if they were persistent. What would be the point of engaging in an abusive argument if you had to repeatedly wait a week to ripost.

 

I am not convinced this has ever been tried as a serious and sustained policy.

[Athy]

In case anyone doesn't know the original title was

 

 

"Graham Davies, wales and sheep". As is obvious in the original post it was not a personal remark.

 

It was later edited to "are we all sheep?" by a moderator.

I should damn' well think so. The use of a lower-case "w" to begin a country's name is inexcusable.

[hounddog]

 

It doesn't really matter what system is in place if people get banned for things they post somewhere else.

true. That is completely out of order but PaulC has outed that purge. I think this forum should, privately, apologise individually to those affected and publicaly to all of us for this behaviour.

[MtB]

Don't read them then,

 

 

A specious argument, beneath you Nick.

 

How do we find out what they say unless we read them?

[magnetman]

Athy-

Kt wasn't copy and paste it was from memory. I may be slightly wrong but that's the jist of it. I think someone pasted on the face comparison website so a more accurate version may be available.

Edited October 17, 2016 by magnetman

[MtB]

I should damn' well think so. The use of a lower-case "w" to begin a country's name is inexcusable.

 

 

Shirley, its more likely Matty40s made a spelling mistake and meant 'whales'...

[nicknorman]

true. That is completely out of order but PaulC has outed that purge. I think this forum should, privately, apologise individually to those affected and publicaly to all of us for this behaviour.

It would be nice to think that will happen but not holding my breath. However the whole mod team has lost a lot of respect since they allowed it to happen (apart from MP who wasn't in post at the time) and they can no longer expect to be respected so rather than modding by concensus they can now only mod by brute force and conflict, which will not make for a happy forum. Why would anyone still want to be part of the mod team is beyond me.

[Athy]

No, it didn't.

Shurely shome mishtake here? "No it wouldn't" or "no it wasn't" perhaps?

In a rare moment of seriousness, I must add that I haven't noticed the forum being destroyed. I've caught up with it over the weekend after a week abroad (sans computer) and I have found just as much to read and enjoy as I did previously.

[Victor Vectis]

I should damn' well think so. The use of a lower-case "w" to begin a country's name is inexcusable.

 

< brings out the 'I am silently correcting your spelling and grammar' badge >

 

 

A specious argument, beneath you Nick.

 

How do we find out what they say unless we read them?

I was thinking that too but CBAed to reply.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

One of the new mods (can't remember which) drew up a list of people they wanted banned, based on their posts on the other forum. At that point I'd had enough and let Dan know quite clearly that I didn't want "Site Staff" underneath my name, even if I simply did the admin stuff. He prompted a discussion amongst the other mods and it went quiet for a bit, I left and a smooth handover was done. A couple of weeks later, the people on "the list" were dropping like flies. Once again Nick's got it spot on, despite not having access to any of the mods internal communications etc. I guess its not that hard to work out.

 

Come on Dan, sort it out - you know exactly what to do, you just need the guts to do it. If you delay much longer (some say its already too late) there won't be a forum worth saving.

Not entirely accurate. A few things changed after you left. I just looked back through my PMs and the post reports to see what was said at the time.

 

A list of people who had had the most moderation of their posts was drawn up; although many had gleefully posted on The Other Place saying things like, "I've been a naughty boy, posting this on CWDF, wonder how long this will last?" which is blatantly cross-forum trolling, that is not a reason to ban anyone.

 

Some people from that list of the most contentious posters were placed on mod queue, so their posts could be pre-moderated. No-one at that time was banned.

 

A month or so later, after Paul had left, and during which time a couple of members accumulated other sanctions such as temporary bans, this decision was reviewed.

 

Some people have, after long periods of time- years in most cases- of warning points, temporary bans, and mod-queue- not been able to conform to the forum rules and guidelines, and have been banned.

 

No one has been banned merely for posting on Thunderboat, but for their actions, on this site, over a very long period of time.

[nicknorman]

A specious argument, beneath you Nick.

 

How do we find out what they say unless we read them?

I find a lot of stuff on this forum boring, but I don't demand it is not posted. Yes one does end up reading a few words that are boring before deciding that it's boring and stopping reading but sorry, some elements of life are boring and not much to be done about it.

 

If CWDF's worst sin is that some of the posts are boring then it's not doing badly. If only!

[Athy]

Thanks, James, for that enlightening explanation. Virtual greeno!

[Albion]

This thread has been most enlightening. Personal vendettas carried out by a new mod because of what was posted on another forum. Not very edifying behaviour IMO and perhaps that mod might like to re-consider their position. Now though what is important is what is to be done. Way back I posted that we had had similar discussions before (although without the newly revealed inside knowledge of course) and yet we were still waiting for some action; nothing has changed. This thread has now run to 28 odd pages with deafening silence from the team. Surely this is enough feedback to allow a decision to have been made by now. Can we please have some feedback on what is happening and what is to happen?

Roger

Edited to add: Info now questioned by FTS in post 564.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Albion

[nicknorman]

Not entirely accurate. A few things changed after you left. I just looked back through my PMs and the post reports to see what was said at the time.

A list of people who had had the most moderation of their posts was drawn up; although many had gleefully posted on The Other Place saying things like, "I've been a naughty boy, posting this on CWDF, wonder how long this will last?" which is blatantly cross-forum trolling, that is not a reason to ban anyone.

Some people from that list of the most contentious posters were placed on mod queue, so their posts could be pre-moderated. No-one at that time was banned.

A month or so later, after Paul had left, and during which time a couple of members accumulated other sanctions such as temporary bans, this decision was reviewed.

Some people have, after long periods of time- years in most cases- of warning points, temporary bans, and mod-queue- not been able to conform to the forum rules and guidelines, and have been banned.

No one has been banned merely for posting on Thunderboat, but for their actions, on this site, over a very long period of time.

It's a pity this isn't true, or at least is a distortion. Some people who were banned had been on mod queue for months, never had a post stopped or altered, and yet were banned in the cull. Some people had stopped posting a while ago because they knew they were on the hate list and still got banned in the cull. It was a cull mostly born out of personal spite, and that is wrong.

[Athy]

This thread has now run to 28 odd pages with deafening silence from the team.

Not so - see post no. 564 for example. But in any case, I seem to recall that, quite early in the thread, a moderator stated that he and his colleagues intended to let it run and observe its progress. Observation is best done silently.

[dogless]

This thread has been most enlightening. Personal vendettas carried out by a new mod because of what was posted on another forum. Not very edifying behaviour IMO and perhaps that mod might like to re-consider their position. Now though what is important is what is to be done. Way back I posted that we had had similar discussions before (although without the newly revealed inside knowledge of course) and yet we were still waiting for some action; nothing has changed. This thread has now run to 28 odd pages with deafening silence from the team. Surely this is enough feedback to allow a decision to have been made by now. Can we please have some feedback on what is happening and what is to happen?

Roger

Edited to add: Info now questioned by FTS in post 564.

Spot on and greenied.

 

Rog

[Albion]

Not so - see post no. 564 for example. But in any case, I seem to recall that, quite early in the thread, a moderator stated that he and his colleagues intended to let it run and observe its progress. Observation is best done silently.

That response was solely to help the mod team's reputation. It has not addressed what is to be done. How many more pages than 28 odd do you want to wait? As I said before feedback has already occurred and nothing done. Is that to be the case this time when everyone has got fed up with pages and pages of similar feedback?

Roger

[LoneWolf]

It's a pity this isn't true, or at least is a distortion. Some people who were banned had been on mod queue for months, never had a post stopped or altered, and yet were banned in the cull. Some people had stopped posting a while ago because they knew they were on the hate list and still got banned in the cull. It was a cull mostly born out of personal spite, and that is wrong.

 

wrong AND hypocritical

 

..what's that noise? is it the sound of cancelled donations .....

[billS]

... posting on Thunderboat...

 

Irrespective of the merits of the rest of the post, it appears that mentioning the previously unmentionable is now permitted.

 

That's a start I suppose.

[Alan de Enfield]

It looks like Fade to Scarlet got the short straw and was sent out to placate the 'baying hordes'.

 

The silence surrounding both 'the team' and the 'fluffy bunnies' who supported the purges is deafening.

 

Irrespective of the merits of the rest of the post, it appears that mentioning the previously unmentionable is now permitted.

 

That's a start I suppose.

 

A bit like 'politics & Brexit', it is only in the preserve of the Mods - the 'members' have different rules applied to them.

[Athy]

It looks like Fade to Scarlet got the short straw and was sent out to placate the 'baying hordes'.

 

 

The equivalent, perhaps, of being sent to field at forward short leg?