Unreserved Apology To GoodGurl

[Murflynn]

Do we really have so many Yorkshiremen on CWDF?

Oi !!

Edited October 25, 2016 by Murflynn

[j04n]

 

 

And by extension, Alan's obvious willingness to admit when he's wrong (not the first time he's done so on here IIRC) and apologise unreservedly adds considerable weight and credibility to the other stuff he says on here, if/when he stands by what he says if/when challenged.

 

Greenie from me too.

So he's not learning then?! ......... sorry Alan ........ I dont even know you.

[alan_fincher]

I don't think it is appropriate for me to enter a long debate on this - I have made a genuine mistake, and hence what I believed had been going on had not. I have apologised for the serious mistake I made. I have had a full discussion with GoodGurl about this, but I am happy to add a public apology that her real name was briefly on here. This is because I wrongly thought the private conversation that contained it had already been made public, and discussion of that conversation made no sense if you didn't associate a forum name with a real name. Of course I had my facts wrong, and it should never have appeared, but then, of course, none of what I said should ever have appeared.

 

Of course an offshoot of this is that where I replied elsewhere to Roger (Albion) that the statement he referred to was from the same private conversation, I was wrong, although I genuinely believed that when I made that reply. I'm fully committed to something else today, but if I can, I will try to go back and add amendments to my replies in that thread to indicate I actually had things wrong.

[dogless]

And by extension, Alan's obvious willingness to admit when he's wrong (not the first time he's done so on here IIRC) and apologise unreservedly adds considerable weight and credibility to the other stuff he says on here, if/when he stands by what he says if/when challenged.

 

Greenie from me too.

 

I suggest, that the point is Mr Fincher was wrong, he states by accident.

 

Good Gurl was not.

 

Good Gurl, yourself and the others I mentioned deserve all the greenies and gratitude, in my opinion.

 

Rog

[MtB]

PS And some of us are still waiting for an announcement from the owner of the way forward.

 

 

I think it was generally agreed that a week to a fortnight was a reasonable timescale for The Team to have had an opportunity to get together and come to a conclusion about the way forward, given that fast management decision tend not to be good management decisions.

 

But getting right back on topic, my term "a conclusion about the way forward" is woolly at best. What exactly are we hoping the management team will announce, in detail, when they eventually come to a conclusion? Carl's proposal for a new separately moderated CA section seems a good idea but still a sideshow.

 

I'd like to see a team of say 10 or 12 anonymous mods appointed, with each identified by a number. I'd like to see a separate board for discussing modding policy and questioning of individual decisions in public banned. I'd like to see a credible explanation of how a dozen or so members came to be banned in a few days even though not all had recently been active on the boards. And finally I'd like an end to statements declaring openness and accountability when it is obvious there is very little of that in management of this site. That would at least be honest.

 

 

Edit to add:

 

Oops thought I was posting in the other thread. I'll leave it here for now but will delete if Alan wishes.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Athy]

 

 

 

I'd like to see a team of say 10 or 12 anonymous mods appointed, with each identified by a number..

This recalls that old T.V. drama series 'The Prisoner'. "I am not a number, I am a moderator".

 

But the idea has legs.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Athy

[Alan de Enfield]

"The man that never made a mistake never made anything"

 

It looks as if I am in the minority, but whilst it is commendable that AF has made the apology, it is only 'right' that he has done so, why should anyone get all of those 'greenies' for correcting an error.

 

It reminds me of the 'old days' when as a company Director I fought long and hard against paying staff a 'bonus' for doing what they should do & 'clocking in on time' and not actually penalised for late arrival until they were a half-hour late 'clocking in'. I was also in the minority at that time.

 

I suppose what has come out of it was that at least AF has admitted that there was a 'closed facebook' discussion (where he thought the quote had come from) where the subject of banning members was discussed.

 

In conclusion - AF - you have acted honourably (as would be expected of you), but no 'greeny' from me.

[nicknorman]

I don't think it is appropriate for me to enter a long debate on this - I have made a genuine mistake, and hence what I believed had been going on had not. I have apologised for the serious mistake I made. I have had a full discussion with GoodGurl about this, but I am happy to add a public apology that her real name was briefly on here. This is because I wrongly thought the private conversation that contained it had already been made public, and discussion of that conversation made no sense if you didn't associate a forum name with a real name. Of course I had my facts wrong, and it should never have appeared, but then, of course, none of what I said should ever have appeared.

 

Of course an offshoot of this is that where I replied elsewhere to Roger (Albion) that the statement he referred to was from the same private conversation, I was wrong, although I genuinely believed that when I made that reply. I'm fully committed to something else today, but if I can, I will try to go back and add amendments to my replies in that thread to indicate I actually had things wrong.

 

Just so you know, you can only edit posts made within the last 2 days, after that there is no edit button.

 

 

Well that is, unless members of the secret squirrel club have special powers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITS A JOKE!

[WotEver]

And of course the apology and the flurry of greenies that followed it have neatly sidetracked the fact that not only was there a private group discussion but there was also an open group discussion. In at least one of those discussions a member was described as 'slime on a stick' if memory serves correctly.

 

Alan's apology is only for accusing GG, he's not apologised for either of the two 'meetings'.

[gazza]

And of course the apology and the flurry of greenies that followed it have neatly sidetracked the fact that not only was there a private group discussion but there was also an open group discussion. In at least one of those discussions a member was described as 'slime on a stick' if memory serves correctly.

 

Alan's apology is only for accusing GG, he's not apologised for either of the two 'meetings'.

Indeedy!

Walter Scott would be proud.

 

Oh! what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

[Tuscan]

And of course the apology and the flurry of greenies that followed it have neatly sidetracked the fact that not only was there a private group discussion but there was also an open group discussion. In at least one of those discussions a member was described as 'slime on a stick' if memory serves correctly.

Alan's apology is only for accusing GG, he's not apologised for either of the two 'meetings'.

I don't see why Alan should apologise for any private conversations I'm sure many of us are more forthright in private than we are in public. It's when the private spills over to the public you have a problem hence I assume the apology. Presumably if he and others in his group identified those they wanted banned then they must now be happy that this has come to pass and think the forum is now a better place for it. I'm not sure I do even though I can still recall the high level of personal bickering at that time.

[Machpoint005]

I doubt there is even one of us who has never said, or written, something, then had an "oh s***" moment later.

Edited October 25, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[baz gimson]

B

Edited October 25, 2016 by baz gimson

[gazza]

Walter Scott nah mate.......

Alexander Pope The Rape of the Lock

Cool reply, made me go off a googling.

 

Comprehensive education aint what it could have been

[WotEver]

I don't see why Alan should apologise for any private conversations I'm sure many of us are more forthright in private than we are in public. It's when the private spills over to the public you have a problem hence I assume the apology. Presumably if he and others in his group identified those they wanted banned then they must now be happy that this has come to pass and think the forum is now a better place for it. I'm not sure I do even though I can still recall the high level of personal bickering at that time.

My point was that several of us were concerned at who was present in either of the 'meetings', what was said at these 'meetings', and what correlation there might be between these 'meetings' and the subsequent mass-exodus of 'troublemakers', some of whom hadn't posted for some period prior to their ban.

 

All of the above appears to have been forgotten amid the mass congratulations and back slapping offered to Alan for apologising to GG.

[Trillian]

My point was that several of us were concerned at who was present in either of the 'meetings', what was said at these 'meetings', and what correlation there might be between these 'meetings' and the subsequent mass-exodus of 'troublemakers', some of whom hadn't posted for some period prior to their ban.

 

All of the above appears to have been forgotten amid the mass congratulations and back slapping offered to Alan for apologising to GG.

I am not sure that anything has been forgotten, the greenies are for someone being man enough to say he was wrong. Very few people have the guts to do that nowadays and it should be recognised when someone does. The questions still stand and need to be answered in my opinion.

[Athy]

 

All of the above appears to have been forgotten amid the mass congratulations and back slapping offered to Alan for apologising to GG.

Not everyone finds it easy to make a public apology. Do you?

[j04n]

So out of the 1612 greenies how many are actually for public personal character assassination followed by a swift apology? ........ I'm seeing a short cut to catapult myself up the pecking order hear!!

[billS]

So out of the 1612 greenies how many are actually for public personal character assassination followed by a swift apology? ........ I'm seeing a short cut to catapult myself up the pecking order hear!!

 

Hear hear! Here have one here from me.

 

Apology coming up soon...

Edited October 25, 2016 by billS

[j04n]

 

Hear, Hear. Here have one here from me.

lol! why thank you kind sir! right back at you!

Edited October 25, 2016 by j04n

[WotEver]

Not everyone finds it easy to make a public apology. Do you?

Absolutely, should I have done anything which required one.

 

I did so not so long ago on a different forum where I had made a similar mistake to Alan and accused someone of something they hadn't done. I neither received nor expected any congratulations; I had made a mistake for which I apologised. That was the end of it.

[Phil.]

Ah, Alan, you lovely man.

 

Seconded.

The wider forum membership will realise Alan was trying to do his best for the forum.

Edited

 

Yes Sorry got carried away

Well yes, let's not get too carried away shall we. AF made an apology to GG for something he wrote or said about her that was wrong. That deserves credit. He has not apologised for the sneaky behaviour regarding others by having these meeting or discussions and it is still to be determined which if any mods or admin were involved or influenced to take decisions based on this behaviour. As GG has already indicated it would probably be better for mods not to engage in back slapping one particular forum view point.

[alan_fincher]

I suppose what has come out of it was that at least AF has admitted that there was a 'closed facebook' discussion (where he thought the quote had come from) where the subject of banning members was discussed.

 

No,

 

The actual discussion in that private Facebook conversation was about whether it might be appropriate to put a number of the members who at the time were producing the most complaint into a situation where their posts needed moderator approval before being seen by the overall membership. At no point did that progress into any proposal to be put to Dan that those members should simply be removed.

 

I do not believe that discussion produced any agreed list of who the "mod queue" action might be applied to, nor do I think there was very close alignment between the names discussed there, and those members Nick Norman has listed as being banned in July. I don't believe several of Nick's names were ever mentioned in the conversation, so if there was a "ban list" that is not where it was drawn up.

 

However this would be better moved to the appropriate thread, as it is a quite separate issue from my wrong treatment of GoodGurl, and my subsequent apology.

[Hawkmoth]

"The man that never made a mistake never made anything"

 

It looks as if I am in the minority, but whilst it is commendable that AF has made the apology, it is only 'right' that he has done so, why should anyone get all of those 'greenies' for correcting an error.

 

It reminds me of the 'old days' when as a company Director I fought long and hard against paying staff a 'bonus' for doing what they should do & 'clocking in on time' and not actually penalised for late arrival until they were a half-hour late 'clocking in'. I was also in the minority at that time.

 

I suppose what has come out of it was that at least AF has admitted that there was a 'closed facebook' discussion (where he thought the quote had come from) where the subject of banning members was discussed.

 

In conclusion - AF - you have acted honourably (as would be expected of you), but no 'greeny' from me.

Greenie there Alan.

Bob

[Horace42]

I doubt there is even one of us who has never said, or written, something, then had an "oh s***" moment later.

I cant't help agreeing! I have had a couple of these moments.

My own fault for clumsiness. One of my ways to approach a problem is to DRAFT a reply to an email and say exactly what I think - highly subjective and no holds barred to get it off my chest - then SAVE it to the DRAFT folder.

Then return after I have calmed down and then rewrite it with objective words of tact and diplomacy - then send it.

Those of you one step ahead of me, have already guessed where things can go wrong here - by clicking on the 'Send' button at the offensive draft stage, instead of the 'Save' button. - Whoops!