Are we all sheep?

[Guest]

Thanks Dan.

I hope all read this and take it to heart.

???

 

I don't read that in anyway the same way.

 

It reads to me as if Daniel is actually taking on board some of the comments the members have made, not that he his asking the membership to take anything on board (in that particular post at least)

Edited October 12, 2016 by MJG

[Jennifer McM]

"Keep it simple Sweethearts"!

 

Perhaps the forum rules are too complicated, leaving far too much open to misinterpretation?

 

Suggest having just one forum rule.

 

Eg. Keep postings respectful at all times.

[Graham Davis]

Then you have misread my meaning, Martin

[gazza]

???

 

I don't read that in anyway the same way.

 

It reads to me as if Daniel is actually taking on board some of the comments the members have made, not that he his asking the membership to take anything on board (in that particular post at least)

Same here.

 

I didn't think it could be interpreted any other way tbh.

[billS]

The verger in Dad's army comes to mind...

[Albion]

Same here.

 

I didn't think it could be interpreted any other way tbh.

Yes, I agree entirely with MJG and gazza. I can only read it one way and there is nothing to 'take to heart' IMO. It is a description of what has happened and not a lecture or request.

Roger

[Dave_P]

 

I do find this 'The Mods' thing annoying. 'The Mods' didn't do this, James did (Fade to Scarlet) because he was one of two moderators active at the time. All these 'Mods' are people. And precious few of them, these days, working in isolation and copping a lot of crap for it via private message and (can you believe) being telephoned at home after midnight.

 

They are not The Illuminati, they are actual human beings volunteering to do this - God knows why, I wouldn't do it

 

Richard

But i wasn't asking for the 'The Mods' to do anything. I would have been happier in this case if they'd done nothing. When you're busy, why make things harder for yourselves. I don't know about pm's I think I've only pm'ed a mod about a forum issue once or twice in 5 years. I do happen to agree with you about harassing mods and phoning them them in the middle of the night? What?? Of course that's not on.

I would first like echo that the comments made here are very welcome and that myself and the other staff are following topic, because as always we are keen to do the best we can by the members.

 

Yes we did move too slowly a few years ago when a small number members started causing some issues, yes in trying to 'cut out the bad' we did end up with a harder line approach which also lost some of the good, and yes in trying to then scale back the hard line approach we have perhaps become a little less formal which some have seen as patronising, and there is some variation in the moderation depending on which of the staff are available at the time. So its good to get the feedback and for us to be talking openly about it.

 

As said a few posts back, it is all about balance, and it is hard to identify at times who is causing the trouble and who is simply reacting to it. Forums are also surprising fluid things, and what worked for x-years can suddenly stop working, or need and extra of action for a certain issue, which then needs to be slotted in with everything else. Which is why there are ebbs and flows with all forum, and particularly with a site which is growing and changing.

 

It may be a case where the language could have been better, but naming an individual in the thread was not appropriate and was adjusted to remove the personal aspect and make it easier for people to find the thread.

 

 

Daniel

 

Virtual greenie. Thanks.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Dave_P

[Guest]

Then you have misread my meaning, Martin

 

The only alternative I can think of is that you hope the whole moderation team will take what Dan says 'to heart', but I don't think you meant that did you? or did you, in which case fair play.

[Graham Davis]

I meant that EVERYONE should take Dan's thoughts to heart, members and mods.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

That, though it is allowed by the rules of the forum, is wrong IMO.

 

If a post breaks the rules and is worthy of deletion, delete it - and explain why. But retaining the right to edit posts, while providing no explanation that the words then posted in someone's name aren't their own is a step too far.

One of the main criticisms levelled against the moderators is deleting something without comment or explanation. If a member has done something wrong, we don't publicly state what that was, because it would be bullying.

 

Had I simply deleted or locked this thread, there would've been an uproar.

 

So, in this instance, I subtly altered the title to allow discussion to continue, without being curtailed by my moderating.

This is an example of what happens. The mods do their moderating but don't explain what they've removed or why. So how are we supposed to avoid moderation next time?

So if you do something wrong, and I give you a warning point, you wouldn't mind my saying to everyone else "Dave broke this particular rule and has been warned"?

Just whats being talked about !

No.

 

I could have locked and hidden the thread. But I chose to instead alter the title so it could continue, without curbing discussion.

[Ray T]

One of the main criticisms levelled against the moderators is deleting something without comment or explanation. If a member has done something wrong, we don't publicly state what that was, because it would be bullying.

 

Had I simply deleted or locked this thread, there would've been an uproar.

 

So, in this instance, I subtly altered the title to allow discussion to continue, without being curtailed by my moderating.

 

So if you do something wrong, and I give you a warning point, you wouldn't mind my saying to everyone else "Dave broke this particular rule and has been warned"?

 

No.

 

I could have locked and hidden the thread. But I chose to instead alter the title so it could continue, without curbing discussion.

 

FTS I wish I could give you a green thing for this post. Sorry but will this do?

 

[magnetman]

Only thing I found odd was that the new title is nothing remotely similar to the original. Someone coming to the thread later in the day may have assumed Matty40s was suggesting everyone on the forum was "sheep like" which has quite a strong meaning in itself. This isn't what the original title looked like to me at all.

 

I know you can't use peoples names like that so I appreciate the mod edit but it just seemed odd.

 

No it's raining and I have just made a cup of tea..............would you like one ?

That would be lovely. Sorry for the late reply phone battery run out and was on train.

 

Typo edir

Edited October 12, 2016 by magnetman

[ditchcrawler]

Only thing I found odd was that the new title is nothing remotely similar to the original. Someone coming to the thread later in the day may have assumed Matty40s was suggesting everyone on the forum was "sheep like" which has quite a strong meaning in itself. This isn't what the original title looked like to me at all.

 

 

Quite.

If the mod had said I have changed the title to remove personal information or what ever it said, I don't know as I didn't see it would have made more sense, to me at least.

[nicknorman]

One of the main criticisms levelled against the moderators is deleting something without comment or explanation. If a member has done something wrong, we don't publicly state what that was, because it would be bullying.

Had I simply deleted or locked this thread, there would've been an uproar.

So, in this instance, I subtly altered the title to allow discussion to continue, without being curtailed by my moderating.

 

So if you do something wrong, and I give you a warning point, you wouldn't mind my saying to everyone else "Dave broke this particular rule and has been warned.

Cases of bad language etc are often dealt with by mod "edited to remove bad language" etc. Whether or not the poster got a "warn" or not is not relevant to the rest of us. So that's fine.

 

However this need for personal confidentiality is regularly dished out as an excuse for giving no reason why whole topics are hidden or locked. It is not a valid reason.

 

Personally I think there is a degree of control freakery and micro-management of this forum at times. It is just a forum! The sky isn't going to fall in if there are a few naughty words.

 

Threads should be locked or hidden only if there is external pressure e.g. a takedown notice or actual threat of legal action, with the reason being given. If the thread is getting a bit exuberant, well I'd say that's a good thing. The mods really shouldn't be worrying whether the children are getting too excited, they probably aren't going to wet their knickers! Of course if there is personal abuse, bullying etc then that should be dealt with on an individual basis. Simple!

Edited October 12, 2016 by nicknorman

[nicknorman]

Hey just had another idea, how about a thread rating scheme? Like films. Threads with a bit of swearing or lewd jokes could be X rated by the mods " enter at your peril" etc. Threads with heated argument could have a PG rating Those sensitive souls who found "watch with mother" somewhat stressful could then avoid them. etc.

[gazza]

Hey just had another idea, how about a thread rating scheme? Like films. Threads with a bit of swearing or lewd jokes could be X rated by the mods " enter at your peril" etc. Threads with heated argument could have a PG rating Those sensitive souls who found "watch with mother" somewhat stressful could then avoid them. etc.

Excellent idea!

 

[Guest]

I meant that EVERYONE should take Dan's thoughts to heart, members and mods.

 

But as I said.......

 

oh never mind

[tree monkey]

Hey just had another idea, how about a thread rating scheme? Like films. Threads with a bit of swearing or lewd jokes could be X rated by the mods " enter at your peril" etc. Threads with heated argument could have a PG rating Those sensitive souls who found "watch with mother" somewhat stressful could then avoid them. etc.

Im sure I remember a comment recently about escaping the madness

Edited October 12, 2016 by tree monkey

[carlt]

 

But as I said.......

 

oh never mind

Perhaps Graham was acknowledging that those of us who have been told to put up or shut up actually weren't wasting our time objecting to the direction the forum was taking and we should applaud his magnanimity.

[Cheshire cat]

Who would decide what category to put the threads in. Surely not more work for the mods?

 

I would like this forum to be a place for information AND adult debate. Sadly, some of the banned have resorted to activity that goes beyond what is acceptable.

 

While some of the banned did contribute positively to CWDF most of the time I too have looked in on the other site. Some of the participants over there have turned feral and to be frank are no great loss.

[cuthound]

Another forum I visit simply removes rude words and replaces them with this:

 

(Mod).

 

That way the post remains readable, but with anything offensive removed, and we all get to see who the perpetrators are

[magnetman]

Hey just had another idea, how about a thread rating scheme? Like films. Threads with a bit of swearing or lewd jokes could be X rated by the mods " enter at your peril" etc. Threads with heated argument could have a PG rating Those sensitive souls who found "watch with mother" somewhat stressful could then avoid them. etc.

In my opinion you are a <word removed>ing <word removed>er but that sounds sensible to me too.

 

Edit to reduce bs

Edited October 12, 2016 by magnetman

[Arthur Marshall]

The trouble with discussing actual legal cases or named individuals is that this can give rise to legal issues and I assume this is why a couple of threads have disappeared (I missed all the start of this kerfuffle by going boating). A volunteer run site can't afford that kind of thing so that has to be accepted. Entrenched views tend to lead to not a lot of enlightenment and also to the selection of information to provide, which can skew any discussion and raise tempers accordingly. Personally I can't see anything wrong with such threads being moderated out of existence.

The main value of the forum, I still reckon, is in the bits where the experts hang out where i've had much good advice regarding old Listers, electrics and many other things. The rest is entertainment...

[PaddingtonBear]

It is STILL a free country despite the best efforts of Mrs May and co so it is perfectly possible for those dissatisfied with the current arrangements to either go over to the dark side or start their own forum and they can take the barrack room lawyers with them! That is not what P*** would have said I know:)

[nicknorman]

It is STILL a free country despite the best efforts of Mrs May and co so it is perfectly possible for those dissatisfied with the current arrangements to either go over to the dark side or start their own forum and they can take the barrack room lawyers with them! That is not what P*** would have said I know:)

So when you and your kin were trying to change the forum into fluffy bunniesville that was OK but when folk are trying to change it back into something less kindergarteny that's not OK. Ah, it all makes sense now!