Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s

Featured Posts

Looks like they are going with the 'anonymous moderator' idea suggested earlier in the thread. Another forum I am on uses this for potentially 'unpopular' moderation decisions such as thread removals etc.

So there is a very real danger that the current "Moderators" will carry on the same, emboldened by their new found anomymity.

One of the many things that this thread has highlighted (and other previous threads such as MooninPapas one) is the need for checks and balances to be in place, not only for the members but also the moderators.

 

Quote from www.acton.org :-

It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Please do not misunderstand me. These persons who are corrupted by the process of ruling over their fellow men are not innately evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the Theresa May thread has closed.

 

Can we assume that the ridiculous "no religion or politics" rule will stay?

 

If a decision is pending how long does it take to make?

 

Either you are going to censor grown adults as kiddies or not.

 

As grown ups we should be trusted to discuss anything in the virtual pub as long as it is not illegal, offensive or profane.

 

Some folk don't like politics or religion and others dislike the inane humour of the Friday thread and other amateur attempts at comedy totally unconnected with waterways matters but there is bandwidth available for all and it is perfectly possible to do what I do with the unstable bar thread (on both websites) DON'T CLICK ON IT!

Edited by carlt
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will certainly look again into the details of what is sent out when members are banned, incase we have overlooked something, and or see if we can improve things.

 

Thanks

 

 

Daniel

So you day this and then lock the Teresa May thread.

It's clear as mud.

Really not sure that anything has been taken on board at all.

Kathy and I took a look at Thunderboat, I was amazed at how many have jumped ship from here, and no, not all because they were banned.

The Graham incorrectly labelled by GG is an active long standing member over there and used to be Grahame m over here.

 

It is unfortunate that no direction is being given here, the forum is poorer for it. It is like watching the demise of Rome ( so the old timers tell me☺).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathy and I took a look at Thunderboat, I was amazed at how many have jumped ship from here, and no, not all because they were banned.

There are folk there (like me) who have never had so much as a warning and the issue of whether we will be treated like adults here is fundamental to whether I stay here or not.

 

If consistency is required then either close down the Virtual Pub completely or open it up to all subjects non-waterways related.

 

It is insulting to let it stand in its present, patronising form.

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The description " Discussion of non-canal related topics..." is an insulting joke and "...that we grown up moderators feel that infants like you should be allowed to talk about." should be tacked on to the end.

 

I am fairly sure that the younger Daniel, with his forthright, independent debating style would not have joined a forum like this one is now.

 

I know I wouldn't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is possible that banned members also had PMs sent to them, replicating what was written in the report, that there where not then able to access. If the had email notifications of the PMs, they would be able to read these in their inbox, however all banned members will be able to see the reasons given for their ban, and will be able to contact myself if they wish to.

 

Daniel

 

 

I've just sent you a PM since I wasn't going to put it in open forum, but since the point remains live I'll change my mind. This is the only information one ex-member received:

 

"xxxxx,

 

You have been given a warning by ##########

 

Reason: Other

<div class='callout'>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a review by the moderation team of the content you have posted, this account is now suspended."

 

I'm assured there was no other link or information.The member hadn't posted anything for a while, I think months. I think most people reading the "reason" would be none the wiser, except for the subtext of "your face doesn't fit".

 

May I suggest that once people meet a message like the one quoted by Nick they will go no further.

Surely a fully detailed message should be specifically sent to the person's personal email account by whoever activates a ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are folk there (like me) who have never had so much as a warning and the issue of whether we will be treated like adults here is fundamental to whether I stay here or not.

 

If consistency is required then either close down the Virtual Pub completely or open it up to all subjects non-waterways related.

 

It is insulting to let it stand in its present, patronising form.

The problem was, the discussion on politics and religion kept moving out of the virtual pub. It led to disagreements which cropped up elsewhere.

 

Person A would have an argument with Person B in the pub, and then Person B would make a snide comment to A in another thread elsewhere, and it all got very out of hand. It was, at the time, leading to the most work for the moderation team, so it was temporarily banned.

 

We are discussing now whether we can reinstate it. Richard's thread went well, so that's a pretty strong argument why we could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan's test (account) example illustrates how it works and the message generated and sent by email, however it requires 1) that the moderator ticks the box to send the email (there is the option to not tick the box); and 2) that the text they enter is meaningful (I believe a meaningless example was posted). Also it relies on the email address associated with an account still being in use and regularly checked, not going into spam, etc.

 

 

I would suggest that it should not be an option but automatic an email was sent and the return email address should be either Danial's or the Mod email address, not a no reply email address. That way if the person want to raise a query there is a route open and they have the information.

 

I would assume the majority of posters have the site domain as a safe site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you day this and then lock the Teresa May thread.

It's clear as mud.

Really not sure that anything has been taken on board at all.

Kathy and I took a look at Thunderboat, I was amazed at how many have jumped ship from here, and no, not all because they were banned.

The Graham incorrectly labelled by GG is an active long standing member over there and used to be Grahame m over here.

 

It is unfortunate that no direction is being given here, the forum is poorer for it. It is like watching the demise of Rome ( so the old timers tell me☺).

 

I agree - I can't make any sense of Daniel's closing comment on the thread at all.

 

And for good measure if you are going to attempt to ban political discussion you will first have to clearly define what you mean by "politics" and "political".

 

Sorry, I'm forgetting the staff have the right to make it up as they go along.

Edited by Neil2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was, the discussion on politics and religion kept moving out of the virtual pub. It led to disagreements which cropped up elsewhere.

 

Person A would have an argument with Person B in the pub, and then Person B would make a snide comment to A in another thread elsewhere, and it all got very out of hand. It was, at the time, leading to the most work for the moderation team, so it was temporarily banned.

 

We are discussing now whether we can reinstate it. Richard's thread went well, so that's a pretty strong argument why we could.

So why didn't comedy get banned in the VP when threads like the "Friday Joke" one got out of control with people deliberately testing the moderators with racist and sexist "humour" again spilling out of the VP?

 

It can happen with any subject (Galvanic Isolators anyone?) so to be consistent you have to ban everything or trust your adult members to self-moderate to an extent and for the moderators to also act sensibly.

 

When you have a moderator using his position to stroke his ego and flex his muscle, acting in an unreasonable and bullying manner by PM that is just as reprehensible as any of the banned political contributors managed, then you have a big problem.

 

As for the religion no recent thread comes close to the infamous "Pagans Afloat" thread of 2007 for sheer entertainment, blasphemy and religious outrage (where Anthony and Halo/Minerva threw their toys and icons out of the pram) yet the forum survived, I got no warnings nor was I struck by lightning for my heresy.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if I do or not. What does it mean?

 

Not a computer expert so the term may not be quite right. I understand that a domain or an email address can be designated as safe thus mail from that site does not go into the Junk. I believe if you click not junk about an email it becomes a safe site. But I am sure the computer gurus can explain better than I and correct what I have said if wrong :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not a computer expert so the term may not be quite right. I understand that a domain or an email address can be designated as safe thus mail from that site does not go into the Junk. I believe if you click not junk about an email it becomes a safe site. But I am sure the computer gurus can explain better than I and correct what I have said if wrong smile.png

I hope so, as I am none the wiser - but I appreciate your attempt to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the Theresa May thread has closed.

 

Can we assume that the ridiculous "no religion or politics" rule will stay?

 

If a decision is pending how long does it take to make?

 

Either you are going to censor grown adults as kiddies or not.

 

As grown ups we should be trusted to discuss anything in the virtual pub as long as it is not illegal, offensive or profane.

 

Some folk don't like politics or religion and others dislike the inane humour of the Friday thread and other amateur attempts at comedy totally unconnected with waterways matters but there is bandwidth available for all and it is perfectly possible to do what I do with the unstable bar thread (on both websites) DON'T CLICK ON IT!

 

Sorry, but why shouldn't there be a "no politics, no religion" rule? There are several Forums, from motoring to railways, I am a member of where that rule applies and it doesn't cause a problem to the members. Generally, as has been proven here, these subjects only cause friction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, but why shouldn't there be a "no politics, no religion" rule?

 

No reason whatsoever.

 

I am exercising my right to disagree with it and point out that, apart from a very brief period of time, this was a fantastic place to discuss all things with intelligent grown ups.

 

What other forums do or don't do is irrelevant to me because I am not a member of them.

 

I could just as easily say "There are several Forums, from motoring to railways, I am a member of where that politics and religion are discussed and it doesn't cause a problem to the members." but what would be the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following on going review, this thread will remain locked, but has been restored to public view.

 

A continuation thread can be found here; http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=88020

 

Thank you for you patience in allowing us to carry out this review, and for you understanding going forwards.

 

 

Daniel

Site owner

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.