Are we all sheep?

[Theo]

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?

 

Perhaps this has already been answered. FTS PM'ed the site staff and Matty to explain that the naming of names was inappropriate but that the thread is valued and useful. Does everyone need to know? The moderation is often invisible to those who have not remembered the moderated content exactly. It was explained to Matty, would you not think that that would be sufficient.

 

I will apologise for closely approaching the discussion of moderating decisions on the open forum but I felt that the reasoning ought to be explained.

 

Nick

[Phil Ambrose]

Yes! But what's a warning point?

You can have one of mine if you like.

Phil

[Dave_P]

 

Perhaps this has already been answered. FTS PM'ed the site staff and Matty to explain that the naming of names was inappropriate but that the thread is valued and useful. Does everyone need to know? The moderation is often invisible to those who have not remembered the moderated content exactly. It was explained to Matty, would you not think that that would be sufficient.

 

I will apologise for closely approaching the discussion of moderating decisions on the open forum but I felt that the reasoning ought to be explained.

 

Nick

I used it as an example because it related to this thread. There are many other examples of threads which are bubbling long nicely and then, seemingly without warning, it's locked with a cryptic 'explanation'. From the point of view of a person who has contributed to said thread, it feels like 'big brother' or 'nanny' has reached down their protective hand to save us from ourselves. It feels frustrating and patronising, even if it isn't intended to be.

 

p.s FTS is a common internet acronym. Be careful using it. It means fxxx txxx sxxx. Just sayin!

You can have one of mine if you like.

Phil

Thanks but I still don't know what it is. I'm guessing it's like an asbo? But what does it actually do?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTS

 

can I get a warning point now please?

Edited October 12, 2016 by Dave_P

[FadeToScarlet]

What an appropriate abbreviation!

[Jrtm]

Hobnobs for me, the holes in doughnuts give me wind.

You cant have a hobnob you cant leave the bloody things in ya tea. It'll bloody drink ya brue for ya. And a rich tea well they are just feeble.

Edited October 12, 2016 by billybobbooth

[DHutch]

I recognise and agree broadly with the OP but I don't think the forum (any forum) is all about the moderation style. It is an easy thing to hang a problem on though.

 

A forum or rather its threads are a transient thing today's hot topic is tomorrows virtual chip wrapper that kind of goes for the contributors too. A forum will always have people leave and some join-in. In fact I think this is a good thing a forum with only posts from the comfortable few (or even many) core people is a forum in decline and stale.

 

The number of times the moderators intervene is very few although I agree when it does happen it can have a big effect on the feel of the forum for those involved and it is a balance that is difficult to manage well all the time. There is no doubt there is good moderation and there is poor moderation to be found. However, given the low level of intervention the daily atmosphere is governed by a large degree by the quality of threads and posts we all make.

 

I do think thing shave been tightened to a degree that has probably taken some of the freedom and spontaneity away. But a vibrant forum should not all be about the controversial posts and the bitchy argumentative exchanges sometimes more about proving a point rather than discussing a topic.

 

I do not wish to go back to some of the offensive and aggressive arguments and even now I think we could all be more welcoming and understanding of people who are new. I think I saw a post saying that this forum used to be inclusive to all. To be honest I doubt that has ever been true although I do think it has been more so in the past. Try being a shiney boat owner who's wife never drives the boat and is a member of the IWA and is enthusiastic and C&RT's management and see how welcoming this forum will be to you amongst some circles. Often newbie posts follow a familiar pattern some agreement then some questions from the membership then someone seemingly to be different changes the comments to an opposing view and somehow the newbie is now the villain of the patch with other sjoining the band wagon.

 

Some rambling thoughts perhaps and I would summarise by saying that I think a little more relaxed environment would be good and a little more leeway on subject matter but I really do not want to see a return to what we have had in the recent past. Love to see CarlT more active by the way. If the relaxation and leeway is only for those who wish to aggressively argue, point score and make thinly veiled personal comments ( then claim foul when challenged) then no thanks.

 

Its good to get the comments out in the open and debate and good that the forum management is allowing this thread to run.

 

Very fair post I feel.

 

 

Daniel

[churchward]

]

That's your first post? I am guessing you are someone with a new additional userid.

 

Welcome to the forum though.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Lady Muck

[matty40s]

 

Very fair post I feel.

 

 

Daniel

I actually thought he was pissed Dan, hence the rambling excuse. look a bit closer.

 

 

I have to say I am really gobsmacked, warmed to the core and happy about the direction this thread has taken.

I was PM'd early this morning by one of the mods who is a good friend via CWDF and changed what I could, although I thought it was none abusive and relevant, unfortunately, I could not amend the thread title, something which FTS did later.

The victim of my original point has outed himself anyway in his blind sheepness.

I only want the forum to regain some of its original fun and spark, which seems to have happened in this thread already, I would swap every greeny for a vibrant and wonderful community which supports, manages and mods itself as it used to , helps people get on board and live whatever life they want on our waterways without the kind of petty and sometimes nasty posts that can sometimes happen.

[billS]

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:)

 

It's great to see that political comment is now tolerated on the forum again.

 

Little steps and all that.

[churchward]

I actually thought he was pissed Dan, hence the rambling excuse. look a bit closer.

 

 

No I was not "pissed" I have not had any alcohol at all thanks.

 

And that to try and make a serious point it is often the trouble that someone's throw away remark is offensive to someone else. I was just putting down some thoughts to what in the main has been a constructive thread. I am not expecting people to agree with me but it is what I think all the same.

[Graham Davis]

Calling him Dan makes you come across a spotty, glass wearing ginger hair train anorak, I think your find he prefers to be called Daniel.

 

Darren

 

Really Darren?

 

Actually I'm a ex-blonde greying glasses wearing ex-signalman, with no acne.

As the teacher would say "Need to try harder"!!

[dmr]

As we travel about on our wonderful waterways we meet a fair few larger than life characters, individuals who sometimes have strong views that they might express strongly. This is what its all about and one of the reasons we are here. For me these are often the "real" boaters. There are also lots of very "bland" people on the cut who don't really have much interest in the character and history of the place. CWDF should be a place for all of these people and so should generally accept the views of the more outspoken individuals as they are an important part of the canal community.

I find a rough pub with a couple of drunks and a bit of swearing (and a bit of live music) rather more interesting than a gastro pub with a tablecloth on every table. CWDF is rapidly becoming the the latter.

 

And how on earth can we discuss the future of our waterways without talking politics?

 

..............Dave

[matty40s]

No I was not "pissed" I have not had any alcohol at all thanks.

 

And that to try and make a serious point it is often the trouble that someone's throw away remark is offensive to someone else. I was just putting down some thoughts to what in the main has been a constructive thread. I am not expecting people to agree with me but it is what I think all the same.

then I apologise profusely, however the spelling and grammar led me to believe otherwise and you seemed to not really go anywhere..

[Laurie Booth]

As we travel about on our wonderful waterways we meet a fair few larger than life characters, individuals who sometimes have strong views that they might express strongly. This is what its all about and one of the reasons we are here. For me these are often the "real" boaters. There are also lots of very "bland" people on the cut who don't really have much interest in the character and history of the place. CWDF should be a place for all of these people and so should generally accept the views of the more outspoken individuals as they are an important part of the canal community.

I find a rough pub with a couple of drunks and a bit of swearing (and a bit of live music) rather more interesting than a gastro pub with a tablecloth on every table. CWDF is rapidly becoming the the latter.

 

And how on earth can we discuss the future of our waterways without talking politics?

 

..............Dave

Green thingy sent

[matty40s]

As we travel about on our wonderful waterways we meet a fair few larger than life characters, individuals who sometimes have strong views that they might express strongly. This is what its all about and one of the reasons we are here. For me these are often the "real" boaters. There are also lots of very "bland" people on the cut who don't really have much interest in the character and history of the place. CWDF should be a place for all of these people and so should generally accept the views of the more outspoken individuals as they are an important part of the canal community.

I find a rough pub with a couple of drunks and a bit of swearing (and a bit of live music) rather more interesting than a gastro pub with a tablecloth on every table. CWDF is rapidly becoming the the latter.

 

And how on earth can we discuss the future of our waterways without talking politics?

 

..............Dave

greenie from me too, gotta offload some!!

[churchward]

then I apologise profusely, however the spelling and grammar led me to believe otherwise and you seemed to not really go anywhere..

Apology accepted. It is best not to draw conclusions from how a post is written.

 

I was trying to make a point but also describe what I thought about the state of play. The main points were (for clarity)

 

1. its easy to blame moderation when it is all of us who post and respond to posts, threads etc. So we all have a collective responsibility for what atmosphere is set each day. If we want self moderation that must be recognised.

2. Forums are transient things and change over time some will like it, some will not.

3. Change is good, new people joining are good and probably essential.

4. It would be better here if things were less tightly managed and some more leeway was given on subject matter.

5. That leeway and more informal environment should not be an excuse for the spiteful excesses we sometimes see here by contributors (not mods)

Edited October 12, 2016 by churchward

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I just love these navel-gazing threads but still wait for someone to come out and say 'I love ewe'.

[The Lockie]

Mods here have stated that explaining why a thread is locked or deleted is viewed as bullying. Sorry but that is absolute tosh!! If there is a need to lock or delete, it is due to a breach of the rules thats all you need to explain. ie which bit of the site t&c have been transgressed. I appreciate that the mods have a thankless task,however that does not place them above constructive criticism, a canal forum where political correctness has gone too far is,in my opinion, doomed to fail.

None of us want that to happen . my particular gripe?? Thread locked with no explanation.. An example a poster i think yesterday posted her reasons for no longer wishing to contribute. The thread was locked without a single reply!! Perhaps there were replies but they had been modereated ot deleted. But without an explanation it appears as a dictatorial and heavy handed approach.

[bag 'o' bones]

Apology accepted. It is best not to draw conclusions from how a post is written.

 

I was trying to make a point but also describe what I thought about the state of play. The main points were (for clarity)

 

1. its easy to blame moderation when it is all of us who post and respond to posts, threads etc. So we all have a collective responsibility for what atmosphere is set each day. If we want self moderation that must be recognised.

2. Forums are transient things and change over time some will like it, some will not.

3. Change is good, new people joining are good and probably essential.

4. It would be better here if things were less tightly managed and some more leeway was given on subject matter.

5. That leeway and more informal environment should not be an excuse for the spiteful excesses we sometimes see here by contributors (not mods)

It appears (before I was a mod) the above was tried but proved unworkable.

 

(Taking mod hat off) it would be great if things could be less tightly managed.

(mod hat back on) there are those waiting in the wings for the smallest opportunity to cause trouble. In fact I would even suggest (for some) its become a sport.

From a personal perspective it seems only a very small proportion of contributors who have a problem with the site and some of them - the sheep perhaps - don't even realise they are being played by a few nefarious individuals who are using the site to legitimise and support their own personal agendas.

 

Not to worry, life goes on.

[churchward]

It appears (before I was a mod) the above was tried but proved unworkable.

 

(Taking mod hat off) it would be great if things could be less tightly managed.

(mod hat back on) there are those waiting in the wings for the smallest opportunity to cause trouble. In fact I would even suggest (for some) its become a sport.

From a personal perspective it seems only a very small proportion of contributors who have a problem with the site and some of them - the sheep perhaps - don't even realise they are being played by a few nefarious individuals who are using the site to legitimise and support their own personal agendas.

 

Not to worry, life goes on.

I agree it is as I said in my original post understood by Dan but not others was that it is a matter of balance. What we may be seeing is a swing from one state to another and we have swung a little too far. I do think managing a forum like this is a difficult thing to do well all of the time and is something like a tightrope walk on the thinnest of wire.

 

As you say life does indeed go on and whatever happens on the forum some will like it some will not.

[frahkn]

 

From a personal perspective it seems only a very small proportion of contributors who have a problem with the site and some of them - the sheep perhaps - don't even realise they are being played by a few nefarious individuals who are using the site to legitimise and support their own personal agendas.

 

Not to worry, life goes on.

I don't "have a problem" with the forum but that doesn't mean that I am not aware of the fact that it is now a poorer environment than it was when I joined in 2007. (In my opinion, obviously).

 

Perhaps I have been sheltered by rapid moderation but I am really unaware of these "nefarious individuals". There is some drivel posted from time to time but it hasn't taken too much effort to learn which threads I may as well ignore. Not because I am in danger of being offended but because of the much more serious risk of boredom.

 

For balance, I should admit that there are threads which seem to contain well argued contributions but which just do not interest me e.g. CC stuff.

[Mutts]

 

Really Darren?

 

Actually I'm a ex-blonde greying glasses wearing ex-signalman, with no acne.

As the teacher would say "Need to try harder"!!

Fire engine blonde?

[PaddingtonBear]

It's great to see that political comment is now tolerated on the forum again.

 

Little steps and all that.

That was my intention, I to am glad.

[nicknorman]

From a personal perspective it seems only a very small proportion of contributors who have a problem with the site and some of them - the sheep perhaps - don't even realise they are being played by a few nefarious individuals who are using the site to legitimise and support their own personal agendas.

 

 

No I think if you look at the number of greenies awarded to Matty's opening post, it is quite a large proportion of people who actually post. Of course, it's a very small proportion of the overall membership most of whom are dormant or at least virtually never post. CWDF is of course primarily a spectator sport but if those who actually provide the entertainment become disenchanted then no more forum.

 

Anyway your post reads as though somehow the majority need protecting from the "nefarious individuals" as if, were it not for the heroic mods, they would be round to our houses / boats to burgle and assault, eat our children etc. Sorry but this is just a virtual place, no actual humans were harmed in its ongoing creation and I think some mods forget this. Don't big it up beyond what it is!

 

Finally I'm not sure that "have a problem with" is particularly helpful phrase. We had something good, it is being destroyed due to poor judgement, we'd like it back please.

[carlt]

It appears (before I was a mod) the above was tried but proved unworkable.

What tosh!

This forum worked for years with light touch moderating.

 

For a brief time the forum was invaded by folk with extreme views who weren't interested in discussion, just spouting their rubbish and insulting anyone who begged to differ.

They could have been dealt with individually but, instead, a system was introduced which damaged the forum as a whole.

 

(mod hat back on) there are those waiting in the wings for the smallest opportunity to cause trouble. In fact I would even suggest (for some) its become a sport.

....some of them - the sheep perhaps - don't even realise they are being played by a few nefarious individuals who are using the site to legitimise and support their own personal agendas.

This is pure paranoia.

 

If you really believe that then perhaps it is time to put on your tinfoil hat and leave the internet alone.

 

Trolls are easily dealt with by banning from the forum or, if the forum appears to tolerate them, using your "ignore" function.

It is not necessary to turn CWDF into Just Canals because a few folk can't behave.