Are we all sheep?

[Geo]

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.

 

 

Could you perhaps give us some numbers, say how many were banned in shall we say that batch?

How many had just been on Modqueue?

How many were still within a Modqueue sentence when banned?

Finally how many were banned while on Mod queue whose posts had been posted unaltered?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Geo

[magnetman]

 

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.

No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say Thunderboat

[billS]

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

 

Does that mean something in English, or are we back taking a pop at the welch? Are there sheep in the field? I can understand how a species with forward short legs could be convenient in some situations

Edited October 17, 2016 by billS

[MtB]

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.

 

James, although I agree with the policy of not discussing individual bannings in public, is this last paragraph of your really correct?

 

I ask because like Nick, I was horrified to see Loafer banned. I really cannot imagine him having the history of temporary bannings, warning points and being on mod-queue you say preceded all bannings.

 

Can you look into this please? Not because I want answers on here but because I think it will illustrate you are misinformed.

 

Many thanks.

[Captain Pegg]

A specious argument, beneath you Nick.

 

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

Absolutely. I can buy the logic peddled by Nick and a few others of not taking umbrage and getting worked up out about what is perceived to be rude or insulting; it's far better to challenge those comments or set a better example in responding (funny how people calm down once they realise there isn't an argument to be had). But that response is defending the right to be offensive.

 

I agree with Mr Vectis too. Sheep and Welsh jokes are right up there with calling people that wear specs "four eyes".

 

And yes I am partly Welsh and severely myopic.

 

JP

Edited October 17, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[magnetman]

 

James, although I agree with the policy of not discussing individual bannings in public, is this last paragraph of your really correct?

 

I ask because like Nick, I was horrified to see Loafer banned. I really cannot imagine him having the history of temporary bannings, warning points and being on mod-queue you say preceded all bannings.

 

Can you look into this please? Not because I want answers on here but because I think it will illustrate you are misinformed.

 

Many thanks.

I was surprised to see JohnV banned he never seemed any trouble.

 

I think it was probably to do with certain people being obnoxiously rude about certain people on this forum, including some moderators.

 

Are we all adults here

[MtB]

I was surprised to see JohnV banned he never seemed any trouble.

 

I think it was probably to do with certain people being obnoxiously rude about certain people on this forum, including some moderators.

 

Are we all adults here

 

 

Yes JohnV is another case of the same, although he was capable of a 'combative' style of posting unlike Loafer.

 

I have to say, when the two mods we are discussing were appointed my instant reaction was 'WTF?'. They struck me as spectacularly unsuitable for the roles and I could see no rationale to their appointment.

 

I for one would be most interested to hear the story behind how on earth they came to be appointed. I think this might explain a lot.

[nicknorman]

And yes I am partly Welsh

JP

Which part?

 

But teasing aside you are doing a typical forum thing of misreading and then complaining about what a poster didn't say.

 

The accusation was that it was boring.

 

My repost was well don't read it then. We weren't talking about posting offensive material, we were talking about posting boring material.

Edited October 17, 2016 by nicknorman

[Guest]

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

 

Something just doesn't stack up here at all.

 

Some posters there are very clear that they had no inkling at all a ban was forthcoming. Some I think were half expecting it and were not surprised and probably deliberately pushed things until they were actually banned, OK fair play. Instantly banning people for anything other than a single very serious breach of the rules makes a mockery of the forum warn system which is supposed to deal with things on an escalating basis.

 

There is a 'rabbit away' for sure, and I have a very strong feeling we are never going to get to the bottom of it.

[carlt]

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

I do think that you have been given the shitty end of the stick here, as chief apologist for other folks' actions but please don't insult our intelligence by making out all is well in the CW world.

 

Something has gone pear shaped in the moderation of the forum so stop making excuses and tell us what is going to happen, not what has happened.

 

You have, in my opinion, always tried to be a fair MOD who isn't afraid to engage in a bit of robust discussion yourself.

 

I think it's very unfair to leave it to you to clean up the mess.

Edited October 17, 2016 by carlt

[Victor Vectis]

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.

Without reference as to where this information has come from, Nick, it is merely ancedotal.

[nicknorman]

Without reference as to where this information has come from, Nick, it is merely ancedotal.

Feel free to remain an apologist for the inappropriate actions of the modding team if you wish. The information is readily available on the other forum.

[Guest]

Without reference as to where this information has come from, Nick, it is merely ancedotal.

It carries the same weight as anything PaulC or FTS have posted.

[dogless]

Everything remains anecdotal here until Daniel or the Mod's front up.

 

It's beyond the time for a Management statement, at least of where they are now going, if they cannot be honest about the past.

 

Rog

[Athy]

 

It's beyond the time for a Management statement.

 

 

Management? Lest we forget, this is not some high-powered business - it is a group of people united by their love of boats and inland waterways. Mr. X may disagree with Mr. Y, but that doesn't mean that one has a greater enthusiasm for canals than the other.

[Arthur Marshall]

Feel free to remain an apologist for the inappropriate actions of the modding team if you wish. The information is readily available on the other forum.

The trouble is the other forum seems to be fairly heavy in its biases, and the fact that something's written on it makes it no more likely to be true than anything else on the net. Must admit I prefer the generally more peaceful attitudes on here, while enjoying hte odd spat and accepting that some contributors have chips on their shoulders (whether justified or not) about certain matters. The chips are fairly obvious to spot and can be discounted if their argument is worth considering.

I presume it's quite possible that several of the people here being thought of as banned have just wandered off and joined a more congenial community where, to be honest, it seems they can be more self-indulgent in expression and have their prejudices reinforced by largely associating only with the like-minded.

In reality, it makes little difference. Their thoughts and discussions are still available to us at the click of a key. Things change.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[dogless]

Management? Lest we forget, this is not some high-powered business - it is a group of people united by their love of boats and inland waterways. Mr. X may disagree with Mr. Y, but that doesn't mean that one has a greater enthusiasm for canals than the other.

Have you not been following this thread.

 

If there's no management how have long standing members been banned, and by whom ?

 

Rog

[Geo]

Without reference as to where this information has come from, Nick, it is merely ancedotal.

 

I suspect that if allowed those people or some at least would post that information directly here. However they are not permitted so to do and have thus posted it on another forum which is publicly available. I am sure if it is allowed someone could post a link.

[MtB]

Have you not been following this thread.

 

 

 

Once a thread gets this long the comments like this begin.

 

People who have not been following it begin to chip in without knowing what has and hasn't already been discussed in depth and the thread falls apart. When challenged they say "surely you don't expect me to read through 30 pages of history before joining in?", which is a fair point.

[Athy]

Have you not been following this thread.

 

 

Yes, I have read it all with interest.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Once a thread gets this long the comments like this begin.

 

People who have not been following it begin to chip in without knowing what has and hasn't already been discussed in depth and the thread falls apart. When challenged they say "surely you don't expect me to read through 30 pages of history before joining in?", which is a fair point.

 

I don't agree it is a 'fair point'.

 

If you wanted to pass comment on (say) a book, you wouldn't do it by just reading the last page. (or maybe you would)

[dogless]

Once a thread gets this long the comments like this begin.

 

People who have not been following it begin to chip in without knowing what has and hasn't already been discussed in depth and the thread falls apart. When challenged they say "surely you don't expect me to read through 30 pages of history before joining in?", which is a fair point.

Fair point.

 

As it happens Mr Athy is correct in that this should be a shared space for boating enthusiasts to discuss whatever they choose.

 

I was merely trying to enforce that this thread is about the breakdown of that process.

 

It's not important in the whole scheme of things, but I remain annoyed by the situation.

 

Rog

Edited October 17, 2016 by dogless

[nicknorman]

and the fact that something's written on it makes it no more likely to be true than anything else on the net.

True, however when you get basically the same story from several different people it tends to carry more weight.

[Phil Ambrose]

Without reference as to where this information has come from, Nick, it is merely ancedotal.

OK, hows this, I find myself one warning point away from being banned simply for posting two humerous replies to other posters, one of whom has been banned, if I recall correctly one occasion I used the term " having a thundering good time " and another occasion I responded to a post by John V which he had written in German, my response was also in German and included the words " Donner und Blitzen " so anecdotal or not, you decide.

Phil

Edited October 17, 2016 by Phil Ambrose

[Athy]

Fair point.

 

As it happens Mr Athy is correct in that this should be a shared space for boating enthusiasts to discuss whatever they choose.

 

I was merely trying to enforce that this thread is about the breakdown of that process.

 

It's not important in the whole scheme of things, but I remain annoyed by the situation.

 

Rog

Yes indeed. To explain my stance a little more clearly, the use of the term "management" suggests an "us and them" situation. Our moderators are not "them" - they are appointed from the ranks of "us".