Are we all sheep?

[tree monkey]

 

There is the option to invite back some of the old Mods to help train any new ones. Hopefully under a new system they would be willing to help.

 

 

I thank you but I am not sure that you have the knowledge that RWLP has. Again thank you for the offer.

Its an absolute pleasure, Richard is a fine chap to ask about oily things, any time you want tree advice though

Does it matter?

 

If I stay here then I will be rubbing pixels with people who may or may not have had a conversation on Facebook with friends.

 

The people at the heart of this conspiracy (real or not) are not monsters and neither are those who have left.

 

People talk about stuff on Facebook, people talk about stuff on Thunderboat, people are talking about stuff by PM or in the pub.

 

It happens so let it go and let's talk about new stuff here.

Hear hear

[Athy]

 

.

 

I thank you but I am not sure that you have the knowledge that RWLP has.

Aye, he doubtless knows that surprisingly few people can spell his forum name, for example.

[cuthound]

Does it matter?

 

If I stay here then I will be rubbing pixels with people who may or may not have had a conversation on Facebook with friends.

 

The people at the heart of this conspiracy (real or not) are not monsters and neither are those who have left.

 

People talk about stuff on Facebook, people talk about stuff on Thunderboat, people are talking about stuff by PM or in the pub.

 

It happens so let it go and let's talk about new stuff here.

Very true.

 

Let's put it behind us and move forward to a new and improved CWDF with light and consistent moderation.

[BlueStringPudding]

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!

[Geo]

Does it matter?

 

If I stay here then I will be rubbing pixels with people who may or may not have had a conversation on Facebook with friends.

 

The people at the heart of this conspiracy (real or not) are not monsters and neither are those who have left.

 

People talk about stuff on Facebook, people talk about stuff on Thunderboat, people are talking about stuff by PM or in the pub.

 

It happens so let it go and let's talk about new stuff here.

 

A lot of people have been hurt, as part of the process you suggest a way has to be found to heal them,

[Guest]

Which would lose the experienced mods and leave us with a whole new group of inexperienced mods who have it would seem caused this whole upheaval in the first instance.

 

I'm not so sure that is the way forward.

Fair point; better the devil you know (sorry mods )

[tree monkey]

 

A lot of people have been hurt, as part of the process you suggest a way has to be found to heal them,

For once I might actually agree with you

[Guest]

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!

Greenie for that.

[Athy]

Greenie for that.

Yes, I like a humorous post too.

(Oh, was it serious?)

[BlueStringPudding]

[Deleted duplicate post caused by iffy interWeb connection]

Edited October 18, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[Athy]

Yes, I think you said so before. I do find your stance rather negative.

[Alan de Enfield]

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'

[billS]

BSP - could you perhaps list some of the alleged personal insults posted in this thread so I can check if my definition of a personal insult agrees with yours? I can't see anything too untowards in a quick perusal (well perhaps NC and Tree monkey are getting a bit close), but you clearly have.

[romarni123]

I guess the question to be asked is did the mods /admin discuss other forum members with non admins/mods.If so its not a good way to run a site.If there are or were problems with the postings then the mods /admins should have discussed it among themselves and not had any other forum member putting in their oar in.And even if it was a friend wanting advice about the site it still should not of happened.

[Barry]

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'

 

 

 

If * is not a mod or part of the admin team why is the question relevent?

 

Alan what exactly are you trying to achieve?

[nicknorman]

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!

I'm guessing would be an easy thing to say when you have been part of the gang of "them" deciding which ones of "us" to expunge. Slightly harder if you were on the "us" side.

[tree monkey]

BSP - could you perhaps list some of the alleged personal insults posted in this thread so I can check if my definition of a personal insult agrees with yours? I can't see anything too untowards in a quick perusal (well perhaps NC and Tree monkey are getting a bit close), but you clearly have.

To be fair Bill I was being accused of being involved in a meeting to draw up a list of members to ban permanently because I didnt like them.

This is so far from the truth, its dropped over the horizon and is catching some sun in Australia

[andyberg]

For those on here that deny the existence of a 'hit list', can you please explain how an awful lot of Thunderboat members got banned from CWDF all on the same day, months after many had last posted there?

 

Astonishing coincidence doncha think?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

If * is not a mod or part of the admin team why is the question relevent?

 

Alan what exactly are you trying to achieve?

 

Purely an admittance that their have been underhand 'goings on' affecting members rights and their ability to post, by both, moderators who should not be empowered to do so (personal vendettas) and by 'ordinary members' who have no right to be involved in the running of the forum or administration thereof.

 

An acceptance of wrong doings by those involved would go along way towards starting to restore some trust, but it will take a long time to rebuild the credibility of those involved.

But, it is a barrier that needs to be broken thru' before the forum can be re-built.

[tree monkey]

 

Purely an admittance that their have been underhand 'goings on' affecting members rights and their ability to post, by both, moderators who should not be empowered to do so (personal vendettas) and by 'ordinary members' who have no right to be involved in the running of the forum or administration thereof.

 

An acceptance of wrong doings by those involved would go along way towards starting to restore some trust, but it will take a long time to rebuild the credibility of those involved.

But, it is a barrier that needs to be broken thru' before the forum can be re-built.

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

[peterboat]

As apposed to Peterboat who is simply airing stupid ideas on here aimed at stirring the proverbial and then heading back across to Thunderboat to laugh at what he's done?

 

Also adds a lot to the conversation do you think?

If you go across to the otherside you will see that I have not said a thing and very rarely do. unlike you I was trying to bring a bit of fun to the forum which recently it has been sadly lacking in.

[GoodGurl]

Just let me say i only posted that list of potential troublemakers on thunderboat to prove Paulc wasn't lying after he had posted here.

I have not mentioned anyones name who was in that conversation, you all did that yourselves.

So, this list that was compiled in a Facebook conversation after I had left it...

 

Richard

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

 

To be fair Bill I was being accused of being involved in a meeting to draw up a list of members to ban permanently because I didnt like them.
This is so far from the truth, its dropped over the horizon and is catching some sun in Australia

who accused you? in fact who named you as part of that conversation?

[nicknorman]

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

Perhaps you should try to reconcile the different recollection of events with Goodgurl's version. In the mean time we have to decide whether to believe you and Richard, or GG.

[Alan de Enfield]

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

 

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.

[tree monkey]

Perhaps you should try to reconcile the different recollection of events with Goodgurl's version. In the mean time we have to decide whether to believe you and Richard, or GG.

Yup your right nick we do dont we