Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s

Featured Posts

"Likes to call himself" seems fair to me because it's clearly true. I suppose it grates a little bit because even though it is factually correct, the forum is actually all the contributors including you and me. Dan doesn't own you or me, Dan just owns the hardware and domain name which, without the likes of us, would be just so much junk. Ultimately you are right Dan can do as he wishes with "his property" including closing it down, selling it etc (is it worth anything?) however a pragmatic person might realise that its success depends on the goodwill of the contributors and thus it might be politic not to ram down their throats that it's "my forum". Other forums I frequent don't have someone who's avatar is "site owner" or suchlike. I don't even know who does own them since it's not relevant to a well run forum.

 

I wouldn't say I have a sense of ownership but I do have a sense of belonging, although it is being sorely tried at the moment!

 

Not exactly what I was going to say, but not far off.

 

I look at the most active members on this forum and think about the amount of time and trouble and mental energy that must have gone into many of the contributions, it's hardly surprising folk are reacting the way they are. CWDF's position as the Go To forum for all things canal related is a credit to the members, it isn't a product of some great entrepreneur visionary, it's happy accident that Daniel owns it, and he should be humble enough to realise it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan you and the mods only have to say yes or no to a question.Did one or other of the mods or admin have a private conversation with certain forum members about other posters on the site regarding their behaviour their warnings etc and what to do with them.All the rest is waffle .I think that's what people want answering.If the threats to site staff were as bad as you say then you as owner should have sorted it down the legal route

The police have been investigating for some time. They are taking it seriously. I suggest that some people need to get off their high horses and read up on cyberstalking and hate crimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police have been investigating for some time. They are taking it seriously. I suggest that some people need to get off their high horses and read up on cyberstalking and hate crimes.

But, without in any way wanting to make any excuse for it, if the forum were run in a more transparent way it would create less anger and resentment amongst some members and thus reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

 

It's a bit like locking your front door when you're out, in an ideal world you shouldn't have to, but in this world you'd be foolish not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Likes to call himself" seems fair to me because it's clearly true. I suppose it grates a little bit because even though it is factually correct, the forum is actually all the contributors including you and me. Dan doesn't own you or me, Dan just owns the hardware and domain name which, without the likes of us, would be just so much junk. Ultimately you are right Dan can do as he wishes with "his property" including closing it down, selling it etc (is it worth anything?) however a pragmatic person might realise that its success depends on the goodwill of the contributors and thus it might be politic not to ram down their throats that it's "my forum". Other forums I frequent don't have someone who's avatar is "site owner" or suchlike. I don't even know who does own them since it's not relevant to a well run forum.

 

I wouldn't say I have a sense of ownership but I do have a sense of belonging, although it is being sorely tried at the moment!

I suspect it's worth a fair bit. If Daniel sold it to a buyer who stuck adverts up it could earn a decent revenue. It gets a lot of hits and there are many businesses, both canal related and otherwise who would like to benefit from those viewers. It is very much to Daniel's credit that he hasn't gone down that route. CWDF is therefore unsullied by the bias which comes from advertising/promoting businesses and products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it's a big database and some would love it for that reason. I also think it's important that it remains neutral. If it doesnt, you're assuming that everyone holds the same view as you, with the database as big as it is, would that be the case?

Certainly most similar forum type sites that I'm aware of have a line of ads down the sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it's a big database and some would love it for that reason. I also think it's important that it remains neutral. If it doesnt, you're assuming that everyone holds the same view as you, with the database as big as it is, would that be the case?

I for one would not permit any data that I have given the site in confidence to be shared with any outside party, whoever the owner is.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police have been investigating for some time. They are taking it seriously. I suggest that some people need to get off their high horses and read up on cyberstalking and hate crimes.

If that is the case then anonymous moderators seems like a "no brainer" to me.

 

Having 'known' moderators (I don't know any of them but apparently they are known to some people) is a bit like boaters being mooring wardens. Personal friendships and vendettas will always get in the way.

 

I can't see how that can work on a forum of this size. Too much agro.

 

I have been on and off a non silent member of the forums for 10 years, posting all sorts of general boating related crap. A few months ago I received 2 warning points for engaging in a sex toy joke with another -long standing member-

 

This would have come across better if it had been from a robot than a named moderator ;)

 

2p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case then anonymous moderators seems like a "no brainer" to me.

 

Yes there are reasonable arguments you can make for mods to be anonymous and when I was a mod on a model railway forum that is how it was done.

 

I wouldn't say that way is perfect either and can bring its own issues and so you could equally make an argument for why it is best they are named and known in the forum community. But if issues have boiled over into abuse that is of interest to the law and the police then this is totally unacceptable and cannot be tolerated no matter how much anyone disagrees with a mods actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as I can make out, the alleged conversation took place as a private Facebook chat. To my mind, the important thing is what happened as a result.

 

Many things are said in conversation that are not meant to be taken seriously. I have had conversations wth other members about members of this (and another laugh.png ) forum, and suggestions have been made that someone or another should be banned. However, obviously, there was no action as a result, as none of us were in a position to take any, and wouldn't have even if we were!

 

Could the "conversation" have been a bit like Henry II's "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" ninja.gif ?

of course they do BUT these conversations were by a mod who has no right to be discussing forum business outside of the admin team and with non admin people.Its a breach of trust and if the mods in question needed advice they should have kept it between themselves instead of inviting non admin people to advise them.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police have been investigating for some time. They are taking it seriously. I suggest that some people need to get off their high horses and read up on cyberstalking and hate crime

It just makes it look like all the banned members are being investigated by the police for crimes against mods.wink.png Which I am guessing isnt the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read it like that from what Lady M said at all.

No but I bet people are thinking which banned members are being investigated by the police for cyber stalking.It obviously would be a banned member as they wouldnt be allowed to post on here if they stalked or made threats to a mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but I bet people are thinking which banned members are being investigated by the police for cyber stalking.It obviously would be a banned member as they wouldnt be allowed to post on here if they stalked or made threats to a mod.

Not necessarily. They could still be members on here but not reveal it - that is the point of being an anonymous stalker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.