Unreserved Apology To GoodGurl

[dogless]

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.

I see nothing to disagree with in the above, but have to say this is my sole experience of any forum, so I have no realistic frame of reference.

 

I have been looking at Thunderboat recently to remind myself of the banished and self-excluded from here. I have to say the place is unrecognisable to the 'western saloon' it was on my first visit. Delta9 and the members should be congratulated for proving self moderation can work.

 

Perhaps this place can get back to that situation in a couple of weeks.

 

Rog

 

PS I meant also to say that 17 greenies for making a huge error and then apologising is ridiculous.

Edited October 25, 2016 by dogless

[Chertsey]

"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.

Perhaps the greenies are not for doing it, but for doing it so well.

[Barry]

Perhaps the greenies are not for doing it, but for doing it so well.

 

Now THAT is worth a greenie!

[j04n]

Perhaps the greenies are not for doing it, but for doing it so well.

It would appear he has had plenty of practice by all accounts! ........ eeeee sorry. i'm coming off this thread ........ I'm only here(not hear!) for the boating advise!

[Tam & Di]

 

PS I meant also to say that 17 greenies for making a huge error and then apologising is ridiculous.

 

And I suspect that Alan is rather embarrassed by them, whatever their justification.

[MtB]

It would appear he has had plenty of practice by all accounts! ........ eeeee sorry. i'm coming off this thread ........ I'm only here(not hear!) for the boating advise!

 

 

I'm not sure where you get that idea from but if you can't be courteous towards a well respected member here, you're probably right you should stop posting on this thread.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

... At no point did that progress into any proposal to be put to Dan that those members should simply be removed...

 

 

 

Was it not your own suggestion that you should ask Dan for a 'free vote to ban the members' whose names you (as a group) drew up ?

[tree monkey]

Was it not your own suggestion that you should ask Dan for a 'free vote to ban the members' whose names you (as a group) drew up ?

Is it nor possible to just shelve this, it's no achieving anything, there is so much misinformation and speculation at the moment that if the Dalai Lama appeared and gave an honest breakdown of the facts, some would still pick holes

[Alan de Enfield]

Is it nor possible to just shelve this, it's no achieving anything, there is so much misinformation and speculation at the moment that if the Dalai Lama appeared and gave an honest breakdown of the facts, some would still pick holes

 

It is not a case of 'just shelve it', when someone says

 

"At no point did that progress into any proposal to be put to Dan that those members should simply be removed"

 

Yet there is written evidence that it was said From Facebook (and elsewhere)

 

"Alan Fincher

How about we try to persuade Daniel to agree to a free vote where we each pick the (say) 5 people we want to see permanently excluded"

 

Do we just say lets just ignore whatever is said by him as he has no credibility left, or is it not better to clear the decks, admit to the mistakes and start to rebuild trust.

I would hope that the other members of the 'discussion' may be so inclined.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[tree monkey]

It is not a case of 'just shelve it', when someone says

 

"At no point did that progress into any proposal to be put to Dan that those members should simply be removed"

 

Yet there is written evidence that it was said.

 

Do we just say lets just ignore whatever is said by him as he has no credibility left, or is it not better to clear the decks, admit to the mistakes and start to rebuild trust.

I would hope that the other members of the 'discussion' may be so inclined.

 

 

I have said before, I was part of this group and I have said before the chat was created to help support a friend who became a mod, as a sounding board, no more no less, think of a chat in the pub, at no point was Dan/lady Muck or the rest of the mods aware and no one presented a hit list to Dan, as far as I am aware.

 

In all honesty we also spoke about tiling a kitchen, and the best sort of grease to use on a cybermans joints and much other silliness.

 

The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion but as I've said much of this before and no one wanted to believe me and seemed to be happier to run with conspiracy theories I gave up.

[Alan de Enfield]

Many people know you were in the 'discussion', and the remaining 'attendees' are also obviously known by their input into the discussion.

 

I'm not sure that :

"How about we try to persuade Daniel to agree to a free vote where we each pick the (say) 5 people we want to see permanently excluded"

generating a hit-list is actually going to be "helping a new mod", to carry out their impartial functionality ?

 

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[j04n]

 

 

I'm not sure where you get that idea from but if you can't be courteous towards a well respected member here, you're probably right you should stop posting on this thread.

You did, post 24. I've highlighted it once so I'll not bother again. My jibes, and thats all they are, havent been directed at said respected member in the main. But the PC supporters which you are obviously one of.

[tree monkey]

Many people know you were in the 'discussion', and the remaining 'attendees' are also obviously known by their input into the discussion.

 

I'm not sure that :

"How about we try to persuade Daniel to agree to a free vote where we each pick the (say) 5 people we want to see permanently excluded"[/size]

generating a hit-list is actually going to be [/size] "helping a new mod", to carry out their impartial functionality ?

 

I did say think pub conversation.

plus as I said nothing was passed to Dan about any lists as far as I am aware, what has been leaked has been selective but as I did say previously nothing I can say will change entrenched views.so can we move on?

 

Oh and I think goose grease was decided as the best lubricant for a cybermans joints

Edited October 25, 2016 by tree monkey

[smileypete]

I think it was a very poor show to put GoodGurls name in the public domain, even if it's tucked away elsewhere on the web.

 

As we've heard recently, some have dangerous ex partners who they don't wish to find them.

 

If Alan had put Wrigglefingers or Lady Cassandras real names in the public domain, I'm sure the reactions on this topic would have been quite different (and quite likely the reaction of the moderators would have been more severe), so it seems there's some double standards going on.

Edited October 25, 2016 by smileypete

[haggis]

 

If Alan had put Wrigglefingers or Lady Cassandras real names in the public domain, I'm sure the reactions on this topic would have been quite different (and quite likely the reaction of the moderators would have been more severe), so it seems there's some double standards going on.

Why would mentioning these names result in a more severe reaction? I am obviously missing something here :-)

 

haggis

[smileypete]

Why would mentioning these names result in a more severe reaction? I am obviously missing something here :-)

 

haggis

 

Well, people have been banned for far less...

 

OK they may have been perceived to be a serial PITA at times but they at least they didn't 'dox*' a female forum member.

 

(*google)

Edited October 25, 2016 by smileypete

[Athy]

Well, Wriggly recently wrote me a P.M. and signed it with her (I assume) real name, so it can't be that much of a secret, surely?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Well, people have been banned for far less...

 

OK they may have been perceived to be a serial PITA at times but they at least they didn't 'dox*' a female forum member.

 

(*google)

 

Correct - it is a 'banning offence' (unless you are in the 'Secret Squirrel Club')

 

From the 'rules of the forum' :

 

You will not use CWDF to post or reference to any material anywhere on the site............(snip) ....................... or invasive of a person's privacy.

[smileypete]

Well, Wriggly recently wrote me a P.M. and signed it with her (I assume) real name, so it can't be that much of a secret, surely?

 

Would she or Lady Cassandra be happy if you posted their real names here in an open forum?

 

Not everyone wants their real name to be kept private, but do you need to respect the wishes of those that do (sometimes for very good reasons, as explained above)

 

ETA: Good to see some sort of apology, but certain influential individuals here are being as stingy with the truth as possible.

Edited October 25, 2016 by smileypete

[tree monkey]

 

Correct - it is a 'banning offence' (unless you are in the 'Secret Squirrel Club')

 

From the 'rules of the forum' :

 

You will not use CWDF to post or reference to any material anywhere on the site............(snip) ....................... or invasive of a person's privacy.

Just like to point out

 

There isn't a secret squirrel club of any sort

 

Now thats clear can we move on?

[Athy]

 

Would she or Lady Cassandra be happy if you posted their real names here in an open forum?

 

Not everyone wants their real name to be kept private, but do you need to respect the wishes of those that do (sometimes for very good reasons, as explained above)

Yes, there are indeed circumstances when that is prudent, I realise.

 

I actually committed such a blunder a couple of years ago on here, referring to a person whom I had met in person by her real, rather than forum, name. I was quickly castigated and have behaved quite impeccably ever since, at least in that respect. I have to say that on the only other forum which I regularly take part in (a musical one), it is quite normal for members to address each other by their real name (even though many have fanciful posting names), which is why I thought nothing of doing so on here.

Just like to point out

 

There isn't a secret squirrel club of any sort

 

So you went and chopped all their bloomin' trees down, huh?

[tree monkey]

Yes, there are indeed circumstances when that is prudent, I realise.

 

I actually committed such a blunder a couple of years ago on here, referring to a person whom I had met in person by her real, rather than forum, name. I was quickly castigated and have behaved quite impeccably ever since, at least in that respect. I have to say that on the only other forum which I regularly take part in (a musical one), it is quite normal for members to address each other by their real name (even though many have fanciful posting names), which is why I thought nothing of doing so on here.

 

So you went and chopped all their bloomin' trees down, huh?

Absolutely squirrels, tree rats thats all they are

[FadeToScarlet]

Unfortunately you're speculating from the outside, from a position of no knowledge. Obviously I can't and won't say exactly what moderator action has been taken, bit I can say that we're treating this seriously, and that no-one gets special treatment.

[smileypete]

Just like to point out

 

There isn't a secret squirrel club of any sort

 

Now thats clear can we move on?

 

The ones outside the site team I think of as 'the apologists' aka sheep.

 

It seems they take this position purely because they don't like the 'other side' as it were, and don't want to actively debate with them.

Edited October 25, 2016 by smileypete

[tree monkey]

 

The ones outside the site team I think of as 'the apologists' aka sheep.

 

It seems they take this position purely because they don't like the 'other side' as it were, and don't want to actively debate with them.

Which sort of confirms my original point to Mr Enfield, however much I deny the existence of any sort of club or clique no one will belive me

 

Aparantly the moon landings were faked you know?