Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s

Featured Posts

You mean like you do. Presumably you have nothing to actually say, you just like following me around the forum sniping. Is that stalking?

No, but I heard (OK read) you the first time, no need for repeats.

 

Presumably you have nothing to actually say (Tut Nick, thats, a split infinitive)

 

Well yes, I do:

 

1) I'm happy the way this forum is run.

 

2) I disagree with your 'I can say anything I like and if you get upset then that's your problem' mind set.

 

3) I am not a conspiricacy theorist.

 

4) And,to CarlT, Wow, I never thought I would attract a stalker smile.png

Edited by Victor Vectis
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I am not immune to the feelings that you express strongly, we do have to remember that this is not a Public service, publicly owned, nor even a club owned by its members. It is a private operation and however much we feel attached to the forum and value its service, we should not assume that we can attack as if it were provided by an elected government answerable to all and sundry. It seems to me that a slightly more collaborative engagement with the site owner and staff might be more appropriate . . .

 

Your post is interesting and I am sorry that my post caused you concern. As I understand it when Jon started the site I believe that it was opened as a free, public access site, run for the benefit of anyone interested in boating, canals and campaigning about canals and rivers. It was passed to Daniel, as I am given to understand at no charge to continue that work of a free, public access site for the benefit of boating and the people interested in boating and canals.

 

You state it is a private operation, I would not agree with you, the hardware is funded by donations from members, "CWDF is funded solely by voluntary donations from its members.." According to that other thn any funds that Daniel donates as a member he does not fund the site. I hope there is a charity registration. Most important of all is the data posted by the members, it belongs to them, the copyright remains invested in them. "Please note that all content posted on this site is the © copyright of its respective owners, permission should be sought from the copyright owner before reproducing any material on this site." Thus the data remains the property of the copyright owners and cannot be sold or traded without the agreement of the copyright holder

 

So we have a public site funded by its members and populated with data by its members available for free public access without a need to register or to agree to any rules. The site can be searched and read without logging in. Public site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This says nothing at all, all you are doing is digging a deeper hole, i can understand that you won't give information out on a banned member but surely you can say why a thread was locked.

Doesn't matter, we really cannot say. If that means I have to take a load of flak for it then I'll take the flak, gladly, with bells on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but I heard (OK read) you the first time, no need for repeats.

I'm sure you did hear it first time. Unfortunately as evidenced by Dan's vaporous post this morning and LM's determination to make trivial matters into secrets in order to hold power, and not acknowledge that things have gone badly wrong in mod-world, shows the regime hasn't heard it yet, hence the need to repeat.

 

Perhaps you should bear in mind the purpose of this long thread and the massive number of greenies the OP got. The message is a popular one but if you don't want to hear it, STOP READING THE THREAD. Or by all means put up a counter argument. But don't just snipe at me repeatedly, it is against the forum rules.

Doesn't matter, we really cannot say. If that means I have to take a load of flak for it then I'll take the flak, gladly, with bells on.

As I said, this is exactly what is wrong with the way this forum is being run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, we really cannot say. If that means I have to take a load of flak for it then I'll take the flak, gladly, with bells on.

 

Lady Muck, respectfully, legal advice of the nature you are talking about is written to support decisions taken by the person paying for the advice and justifying those decisions. Advice is not confidential in this sort of case, solicitors and counsel are aware of the need for it to be read by others so they appreciate the situation. Regrettably I am wondering if there was any legal advice. I don't know but I am surprised that you keep saying legal advice was taken and refuse to publish it. What is the logical thing for me to think.

 

ETA Or have you never seen it only been told it exists?

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am trying to think of any reasons that could lead to an legal advice recommending the closure of those thread. I can't think of any.

 

Even more to the point: what prompted the notion, within whose timid breast, that there was anything necessitating the seeking of a “legal opinion”?

I parenthesise, because it seems as likely as not that some fellow bar-fly student’s take on the topic has been sought, rather than some professional written advice been sought and paid for.
It will not have been prompted by any official complaint – as LM has assured us [and one presumes, with some hopefulness, that she has included CaRT’s professional representatives when affirming that they have not approached the Forum] – so the whole ‘defamation’ issue will not have arisen [the appropriate legal response to which has not been implemented anyway].
So, assuming the best, on exactly what point of concern was professional advice sought? Perhaps – supposing that we are dealing here with a genuine application for professional expertise – the question itself could be revealed, even if the answer to that might be considered privileged?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter, we really cannot say. If that means I have to take a load of flak for it then I'll take the flak, gladly, with bells on.

 

The problem is its not just flak directed at (a) moderator(s), its a general erosion of the support that the website used to receive at large. Ange told me a while ago that this has a material impact on donations, and within this thread several others have indicated their regular donation will cease. More importantly, there are/were a number of members, I'm sure I don't need to name them, whose contributions were very valuable and these appear to be lost, or if not completely, now fragile.

 

There is an element of skill in being able to make public announcements which are timely, informative, compliant with whatever restrictions imposed elsewhere, yet are sufficiently detailed to please most of the people, most of the time. It seems the latest set of announcements/communications from mods (especially on locked threads) have not achieved this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bring back the red button. That would help with membership moderation.

Not really. It was just used as a petty and lazy way of disagreeing with someone's argument without articulating exactly why rather than moderate their posts.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ist.

 

4) And,to CarlT, Wow, I never thought I would attract a stalker smile.png

What on earth are you on about?

 

This is just the pathetic, meaningless attack that the forum doesn't need.

 

I have stalked nobody and I have responded to your posts courteously.

 

Can you back this accusation up with evidence as I believe it is just the nasty, pointless attacks that I don't particularly bother about but the new regime and yourself rails against.

 

Maybe you should report yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pretty fair with this and left it over 4 hours since replying, Daniel has looked but not responded 3 times in around 1hr 30 minutes.

 

I am posting this to share with those who have asked the same questions, I don't know if they have had a personal conversation, but I am unwilling to keep things off the topic Matty started.

 

I have no axe to grind, but do not wish to be accused of keeping others in the dark.

 

 

gazza, on 19 Oct 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

 

DHutch, on 19 Oct 2016 - 12:54 AM, said:

I was not able to keep pace with this thread over the weekend so applogies for the delay in replying, however I would like to clarify a few things as we go along.

 

Firstly; the site is administrated myself, but is run by the whole of the staff team, and all major policy and moderator decision making is openly discussed with the whole team. This includes new moderator selection, and changes to the site rules, or changes to the interpretation of the rules, the site has several thousand active members. Anyone suggesting it is run as a vanity project is very much misguided.

 

Recent posts by GoodGurl and PaulC suggest other non admin staff are also involved in this process, a claim that has not been denied.

 

Secondly; a lot has been made of the list which was mentioned by Paul in post, however while various options where discussed which included a list of trouble members as a suggestion they be placed on moderator approvel, no action has been take against members of this site for their posts on Thunderboat, and no blanket bans have occurred.

There is a fine line between being too slow of the mark and being overly presumptuous, we do the best we can to right by the members and I stand by the actions taken, which where both fair and reasonable.

 

It would appear those that have had action taken against them strongly deny this.

 

Thirdly; while here may be areas we can improve on explaning certain moderator actions, however this is not always practicable and it will always be the case that much of reasons for moderator action will never be seen my many members. That's almost the point at times.

 

However, the moderating action that has been visible is what led Matty to start this thread, none of the issues raised seem to have been considered.

 

Its also important that members are aware that what they here from others may not be the full story. In addition to onsite activity they may not be aware of, we have also had significant cases of personal abuse being directed at the site staff, deliberate invasions of the privacy including threatening and abusive phone calls, stalking online and in person, and other malicious acts.

 

 

Its important for the site staff to be aware that also applies to them. No one is seeking to excuse any personal abuse, the fact this has run so long is the forum as a whole has suffered due to what appears to be the desire to single out members for special treatment

 

If anyone has any specific questions, or wishes to raise a formal complaint as to how the site is run they can do so by contacting me via PM or emailing sitehost@canalworld.net else I will endeavour to follow this thread as best I can.

 

Your best policy would be to answer those questions openly in the forum, it would seem too much has gone on in a closed circle for your request to hold any validity.

 

As always we will continue to constantly evolve the running of the site. I would like to move to a slightly more flexable moderation feel, and take onboard the comments about the tone used in some areas. I am also aware that there is a thread running in breach of the 'no poltics or religion' rule which was introduced ealier this year and a review if ongoing on this.

 

Richards post on Theresa May along with all the posts mentioning the place that shall not be mentioned by numerous other members should have been zapped straight away, like so many that have gone before . While your current rules are in place they all should also be facing 'sanctions' for ignoring them.

My suggestion to you is delete the current rules or apply them with equal vigor to all members - no matter who they be.

 

Thanks

 

Daniel

 

 

Daniel,

 

We are not a lot further forward after 7 days of discussion on this subject.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

Gaz

 

I have not seen the suggestion the non Staff members have been involved in the discussion process, do you have a link to that content?

 

The majority of the discussions happen with the Report Centre or Staff forum area, which are only accessible by forum Staff. Member confidentiality is something which is stated clearly at the time of joining, and as far as I am aware the site staff like myself maintain a professional approach, if their is claims that this has been breached then that is a serious allegation and I am happy to look into that.

 

Those who have had action taken against them are free to say what they wish, and while I would not tar all with the same brush, there has certainly being cases where what is claimed in public does not match reality. Members and ex-members are welcome to contact me if they wish to raise a complaint about the reasons they where banned, however I am aware of most of members who have been banned, and the reasons they have been banned and stand by that.

 

What are the issues have been raise that have not been considered? I am happy to take these into consideration and reply.

 

Some members have singled themselves out for special treatment, on the back of their action on this forum and in PM messages, however I am not aware of any instances of personal attacks on members by staff. Again, if this has occurred it is a very serious allegation and investigate on a case by case basis any suggestion that this has occurred.

 

I am happy to an questions. Do you have unanswered questions?

 

I can see the view that the Theresa May thread should have been zapped, and to an extend I support consistency, however I also support an amount of flexibility and allowing members to work with the staff to challenge and hence site policy. I will not be drawn into a forum war, and antagonistic cross posting will not be tolerated. There is however no specific out right ban on mentioning ThunderBoat on this site.

 

Thanks

 

Daniel

 

 

 

gazza

Sent Today, 03:01 PM

Daniel,

 

I'm fairly busy at work at the moment, as such I do not have a great deal of time to commit to your message.

 

I will say I feel you would be better addressing my and other people's concerns openly in the forum.

I stated that in my post this morning and it's a viewpoint I will maintain.

 

No good will come of discussing this in private.

 

I hope you manage to get things in order for the good of the forum.

 

Best regards.

 

Gazza.

gazza

Sent Today, 03:08 PM

One last thing,

 

Would you do the courtesy of posting our exchange on Matty's thread?

I feel no need to keep it private and would prefer you to make it available for all to see.

 

If not, I'm perfectly happy to do it myself but do feel it would be better for you to take the lead on it.

 

Best regards.

 

Gazza.

gazza

Sent Today, 07:09 PM

I take it that is a no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to get into an argument about whether advice given to the site exists or not, or if its is deemed by whoever passes comment to be sufficient or not.

 

Rightly or wrongly, based on the content of the thread and advice given to myself and the site staff, we closed the thread. One of the key members who posted in the thread was also banned, for a combination of the content posted on the site, and private messages to the site staff. The reason given could have been clearer, and one thread was left 'indefinitely' "locked pending moderator discussion" which is in ideal, however the reasons for it being closed are in my mind reasonable and I stand by them.

 

There is no inherent issue with members talking about the removal of Lightship Planet by CRT, the appropriateness of that, and the implications going forward. However the forum is not an appropriate place for legal representatives of the ships owner to talk about the detail of the open case, and share information which does not otherwise appear to be in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan this reads as "nothing is wrong, business as usual" which most of us (well the ones participating in this thread anyway) are likely to see as in denial / head in sand. I don't see how this forum can return to being supported by its members, as opposed to at odds with it, without a major change in attitude which so far is missing. The mods in the thick of the list of undesirables (which included me) no longer have the respect of the membership and thus there will continue to be an antagonistic reaction to their input. The forum will never become a cohesive place where we are all on the same side, until that is changed and mods who are respected by the membership are in place.

If this is the case I apologise.

 

Clearly members are not happy with the way the site is being run, and I take on board that adjustment to moderator policy/style is required.

 

However I also am aware there is a lot of miss-information about, and wish to put some of the straight with suitable clarification as well.

 

Daniel,

 

Thank you for taking the time to post.

 

I can't help thinking though, instead of all the waffle your time would have been better spent explaining why the two legal threads have been locked.

 

A post saying the threads are permanently locked for reasons you cannot give is badly needed, if you can't re-open them.

 

Leaving threads locked 'pending discussion' indefinitely is frankly, insulting.

Mike, I agree that leaving thread locked 'pending discussion' indefinitely is not appropriate, and will look into why this is the case.

 

As said, we are currently talking about how additional transparency can be added in areas where may be suitable, and I hope this will take effect as a rolling improvement over the next week or so.

I do hope that, in six months time, we will be able to look back on this thread (which by then will be known as 'the incident' or 'the episode') and see it as a minor blip after which a slight tweak was made to forum rules and everything slowly got back to normal.

 

It seems to me that getting the modding right on this forum involves walking a tightrope which is one molecule wide. Not the easiest thing to do and I for one am very grateful to Daniel and all the mods and admins for giving up their time to do it, despite getting berated for their efforts on here....

Thank you for your support,

 

I dispute that suggestion that ‘the members are very very unhappy’ as I would say it is much fair to say that ‘some members are unhappy or have some concern’ I have had a number of PMs from members old and new supporting the running of the forum and thanking the staff team for their works. It’s not perfect, but to say its horrendous is unfair.

 

The majority of the discussions happen with the Report Centre or Staff forum area, which are only accessible by forum Staff. Member confidentiality is something which is stated clearly at the time of joining, and as far as I am aware the site staff like myself maintain a professional approach, if there is claims that this has been breached then that is a serious allegation and I am happy to look into that.

I wish that the attacks on our site staff where untrue, however sadly not everything on the internet stays on the internet, and some individuals have gone to significant lengths to attack moderators in ways why are wholly unreasonable.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Presumably you have nothing to actually say (Tut Nick, thats, a split infinitive)

 

 

Ah, so you really don't have anything to say except grammar policing! Anyway, split infinitives are considered ok in this day and age. You are so 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) And,to CarlT, Wow, I never thought I would attract a stalker smile.png

After one of the mods actually told us that the police have been involved because a moderator has been stalked you think it is acceptable to accuse a member of being a stalker in an open forum.

 

I have been nothing but courteous to you in all our exchanges and you lower yourself to such an offensive accusation.

 

This is forum behaviour at its worst and rank hypocrisy considering your supposed standpoint in this debate.

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to get into an argument about whether advice given to the site exists or not, or if its is deemed by whoever passes comment to be sufficient or not.

 

Rightly or wrongly, based on the content of the thread and advice given to myself and the site staff, we closed the thread. One of the key members who posted in the thread was also banned, for a combination of the content posted on the site, and private messages to the site staff. The reason given could have been clearer, and one thread was left 'indefinitely' "locked pending moderator discussion" which is in ideal, however the reasons for it being closed are in my mind reasonable and I stand by them.

I still can see no reason why the thinking behind closing the threads can't be revealed. It seems very patronising and as I said to you before, is the kind of behaviour that breeds conspiracy theories and destroys trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been pretty fair with this and left it over 4 hours since replying, Daniel has looked but not responded 3 times in around 1hr 30 minutes.

 

I am posting this to share with those who have asked the same questions, I don't know if they have had a personal conversation, but I am unwilling to keep things off the topic Matty started.

 

I have no axe to grind, but do not wish to be accused of keeping others in the dark.

 

Well as you want to do this in the open, here is a hypotheses for you as to how four hours might have elapsed.

 

- I message you and some other members during my half hour lunch break at work.

- You message me back, while I am at work, and I read it on my phone.

- Having left work, I go via Tesco to pick up some shopping for the week.

- Coming home to my internet being down again, so spend an hour on the phone to BT trying to resolving it.

- After making a post to reply to various other posts on this topic, I see you have jumped in both feet first.

 

Personally I think given you self profess to be too busy to spend time replying to my message, to then share it publicly is fairly shitty if I am honest.

 

 

Daniel

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still can see no reason why the thinking behind closing the threads can't be revealed. It seems very patronising and as I said to you before, is the kind of behaviour that breeds conspiracy theories and destroys trust.

 

Sometimes, its not appropriate to disclose the reason behind threads being closed.

 

In this instance I would agree that better reasons should have been given, and I have already said I see this as an area we can improve on.

 

What more do you want? Why do you keep repeating the same thing?

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? In the 4 hours since I replied to you I've worked my butt off, entertained a toddler, done the bath, book, bed routine, walked the dog and cooked dinner.

 

It's not a Willy waving competition.

 

You could have done if yourself or given me the courtesy of a reply one way or the other. Nothing you wrote to me should be kept from the rest of the CWDF membership should it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After one of the mods actually told us that the police have been involved because a moderator has been stalked you think it is acceptable to accuse a member of being a stalker in an open forum.

 

I have been nothing but courteous to you in all our exchanges and you lower yourself to such an offensive accusation.

 

This is forum behaviour at its worst and rank hypocrisy considering your supposed standpoint in this debate.

Forgive me Carlt but I think you have had a sense of humour failure.

 

Clock the smiley.

 

I meant no offence and if any has been taken I apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to end in tears....

I don't think it has to though.

 

As I said, it is not necessary to rake over the past, merely make assurances one way or the other.

 

I find it truly ironic, however, that those of us who want a change back to the old style of moderation have conducted ourselves courteously with the worst language used being "fluffy bunny" whereas those who want a strictly moderated, squeaky clean forum have been sneering, patronising and in some cases downright insulting.

 

Perhaps they need the over moderation because they don't trust themselves to behave in a reasonable manner.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) And,to CarlT, Wow, I never thought I would attract a stalker smile.png

I hope your comment is a misguided attempt at humour.

 

CarlT of course does not need me or anyone else to defend him but your comment seems wide of the mark to me and any comments on here from him have always been reasoned even if at times challenging but never personally insulting or malicious.

Edited by churchward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would anyone want to join (or stay with) CWF if the core can say and do what they like to you, but threaten to ban you if you try to argue back (or worse, send in the police).

 

I know people who were passionate about CWF and TBH I was for a short degree. I don't know what caused the change here but if it's political, for Gods sake man up Dan and do the right thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope your comment is a misguided attempt at humour.

 

CarlT of course does not need me or anyone else to defend him but your comment seems wide of the mark to me and any comments on here from him have always been reasoned even if at times challenging but never personally insulting or malicious.

Can I direct my learned friend to post #1070

 

ETA I'm guessing there have been references to stalking today. I've been out on our boat (HOORAY, a reference to boating) and haven't read through all recent posts.

If I've offended anyone I apologise. I was just flattered that someone remembered and quoted something I'd posted yonks ago.

Edited by Victor Vectis
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.