Inconsistency In Moderation

[Alan de Enfield]

Whilst there is no mention in the Rules, Dan has, on a number of occasions stated that whilst discussion of individual moderator decisions is to be made in private, discussions of the overall policy is fine in 'open forum'.

 

I am not sure how 'Overall policy' can be discussed without citing examples to support the comments but lets try :

 

In May 2015 I started a thread "Boater sues C&RT", this ran quietly, and amassing a huge amount of useful information for 15 months until it was closed on the 8th October for 'Moderator Discussion", with the added 'rider' of :

 

"If you re-open another thread discussing this, you will be suspended and with it, your ability to use the messaging system"

 

"Bettie" opened another thread to discuss this (date unknown as it has been deleted). "Bettie" is no longer with us.

 

On the 19th October a new thread was started "CRT being sued in the High Court" which is exactly the same subject as the 'closed' thread - it has been allowed to 'run'.

 

I asked the Mods (25th Oct, via the report button) if they would consider re-opening the original thread- the reply has been posted on open-forum by Dan suggesting that we use the 'new' thread to discuss the situation.

 

Following ongoing discussion and significant review, this thread is going to remain closed.

Myself and the site staff do not wish to prevent members talking about current activity between waterways organisations such as CRT and canal users, however I also do not feel it is appropriate for members to use the forum as a platform for campaigns against such organisations. Members need to consider what they are posting and effect of doing so. We have not been contact directly by CRT or Shoosmiths. There is not a ban on discussing issues relating to CRT enforcement.


Provocative and inflammatory posts will not be tolerated, as per the site rules.

A thread on this topic exists here; http://www.canalworl...showtopic=87971

 

Having now cited examples to support my claim that moderation is inconsistent I would make two suggestions :

 

1) Before closing threads try removing any 'offending' posts stating the reason why they have been removed (this happens in some threads but not others)

2) The moderation, owner and admin staff all start to 'sing off the same hymn sheet'.

 

We are potentially losing a huge amount of technical & legal resources by locking threads - once they have been locked they just disappear into obscurity, any chance to save it must be worth trying.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

Just to make one thing clear (since whilst I support the thrust of your argument I don't want to mislead) as far as I know Bettie is no longer here simply because she chose to leave as a result of the mod interaction she received after her thread, not because she was banned. Anyway, she has gone to a better place. (No, not heaven!). But of course should mods routinely be issuing threats on public forum? And should they then not action those threats, making them hollow threats? I'd say no, but it is all part of the sickness currently infecting CWDF.

[pophops]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

I've very nearly had enough of this forum.

[Athy]

Greeno for that. I am not at all sure that yet another thread about moderators and their mysterious ways is what CWDF needs at the moment.

[Paul C]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

 

 

Isn't that the point though? There was a reasonable discussion about a BOATING related matter which was locked.

[carlt]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

I've very nearly had enough of this forum.

Whist I agree with Athy that yet another thread about the problems with moderation is not necessary the thread's contents are clearly displayed in the title so anybody not interested in the subject matter need not have clicked on it.

 

Plenty of boating threads are open and active so this one doesn't need to deter you surely?

[Alan de Enfield]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

I've very nearly had enough of this forum.

 

This is posted in the "Administration - Feedback" section (as requested by the site Owner).

You do not have to enter / read that section if you do not wish to be involved in the feedback.

 

The title is clear - there is no 'sucking you in' with a misleading title.

 

If you are not happy with it there are a few other threads that you can read.

[MtB]

And STILL no reason has been given for the locking of that particular thread, which is what Bettie's deleted thread asked for.

 

There has now been dark mumbling appended to the thread by Dan implying the thread was being used as a platform for campaigns against CRT, but that's about it as far as I can see.

 

I remember back in the day when Dan used to make clear and refreshingly open and direct modding statements. Nowadays the stuff he writes reads just like meaningless corporate waffle and mumbo jumbo. I wonder if this is learned from the manner in which his employer operates.

[mayalld]

Greeno for that. I am not at all sure that yet another thread about moderators and their mysterious ways is what CWDF needs at the moment.

 

Actually, whilst it is very tiresome that we need all these threads to discuss the way the forum is run, I do think that we need them.

 

It would be lovely to just go off and talk about boating whilst the inner workings of the site just happen, but the simple fact is that the inner workings appear to be hugely dysfunctional, to the extent that some people can't be bothered any longer.

 

Yes, we can carry on talking about canals and boats, and stick fingers in our ears and go "lalalalalala" when people discuss how the forum runs, but that will not fix it.

[smileypete]

And STILL no reason has been given for the locking of that particular thread, which is what Bettie's deleted thread asked for.

 

There has now been dark mumbling appended to the thread by Dan implying the thread was being used as a platform for campaigns against CRT, but that's about it as far as I can see.

 

I remember back in the day when Dan used to make clear and refreshingly open and direct modding statements. Nowadays the stuff he writes reads just like meaningless corporate waffle and mumbo jumbo. I wonder if this is learned from the manner in which his employer operates.

 

It's a bit nebulous that one!

 

People's boats/homes are being threatened by CRT action, what else do you expect them to do?

 

Sorry it's broken record time again, but where does that break FR&G?

[alan_fincher]

Alan, your initial posting is not exactly accurate.

 

You say that a certain member is "no longer with us", but if you choose to check their profile they are still a member, and actually show as last active today, within the last few hours.

 

I think your post could be read by many as saying they are another one deleted for what they have posted - they are not, of course, they have just chosen to stop posting at the moment.

[nicknorman]

Alan, your initial posting is not exactly accurate.

 

You say that a certain member is "no longer with us", but if you choose to check their profile they are still a member, and actually show as last active today, within the last few hours.

 

I think your post could be read by many as saying they are another one deleted for what they have posted - they are not, of course, they have just chosen to stop posting at the moment.

Which is what the second post in the thread clarified!

[Oldbugger]

I've been a long-term lurker from about 8 years ago but couldn't remember my old forum name. I too don't really post here any more because the 'life' seems to have gone from here. I was a member long before Gibbo 'retired', just to put a date on it.

 

Just sayin'.

[DHutch]

For clarification, the member 'Bettie Boo' has not been banned, nor has any action been taken against them for their posts on this forum. I will not go into further detail than that, however I think it unhelpfully and disruptive for miss-leading statement to be made about the actions carried out by moderators, particularly at at time when the staff team are trying to work with the member to deliver improvements to the way we work.

There is suggestion above that 'mods routinely issuing threats on public forum' and I have to say I am not sure where that case come from or why. If members have an issue with specific cases of this, I would urge them to contact me via PM or email to sitehost@canalworld.net as always this will be taken seriously and looked into in detail.

And STILL no reason has been given for the locking of that particular thread, which is what Bettie's deleted thread asked for.

There has now been dark mumbling appended to the thread by Dan implying the thread was being used as a platform for campaigns against CRT, but that's about it as far as I can see....

 

As I have said, there where some cases of threads which where left 'pending review' for too long, or closed with insufficent detail as to why, for various reasons including low staffing levels and I have worked to review and close out the prominent cases of this, and repeated said that if there are specific thread which still need attention I will address these if they are bought to my attention. Please feel free to PM details of these to me.

 

However I also think its unfair to say no reason has been given for a thread being locked and then in the following breath that I have now added a reason for the thread being closed. I have also re-opened or restored to public view other related threads.

 

I might use more guarded language now that previously, perhaps at time excessively so, however the predominate reason of this is the countless times that perfectly innocuous posts have been used again myself and other staff. At times its a non-win situation. If you are careful in your warning you are pulled apart for being so, if you are open and frank you are pulled apart for doing so.

 

 

 

Daniel

[alan_fincher]

Which is what the second post in the thread clarified!

 

It didn't state they had been active on CWDF this morning though did it, which establishes they are far from fully gone.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

It didn't state they had been active on CWDF this morning though did it, which establishes they are far from fully gone.

 

I guess it depends on you definition of 'active'.

 

Bettie's last post was on the 15th October, but she has since done what she said she would do, which is to 'look in' but not post.

 

I would suggest that we don't go down the road of why Bettie decided to 'leave' as that would be discussing in detail moderators actions.

[Victor Vectis]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

Amen to that.

 

And I've had enough of people making the same point over and over and over again.

 

If that other place is so much better than CWDF why don't they just sling their hook and stay over there?

[alan_fincher]

 

I guess it depends on you definition of 'active'.

 

To be clear, I was using the forum definition - i.e. what shows on the member's profile if you view it.

[Bettie Boo]

Against my better judgement, I will post this to simply clarify a few inaccuracies of the below which are based, I believe, on my last post in cwdf on the 9th of Oct in the "A wee flounce" Thread ... (sorry I don't know how to put a link to that thread, so I used a copy & paste method); as well as my thoughts and beliefs

 

 

 

Posted 09 October 2016 - 06:16 PM

Hi All,

 

Just a quick and short thank you for the past 3+ years of advice, ideas, support, help & laughs.

 

I have taken the decision to no longer post in threads, I will check in every now and than and have a read; and will use the PM facility to ask questions when I need to of the relevant members.

 

The forum has changed, and I no longer feel it has the same appeal it did for me, 3 years ago when I joined.

 

All the very best to you and happy cruising

• 0

To each their own, live and let live

 

This (in the Blue ) was theonly reason I chose to no longer post here.

 

 

Just to make one thing clear (since whilst I support the thrust of your argument I don't want to mislead) as far as I know Bettie is no longer here simply because she chose to leave as a result of the mod interaction she received after her thread, not because she was banned. Anyway, she has gone to a better place. (No, not heaven!). But of course should mods routinely be issuing threats on public forum? And should they then not action those threats, making them hollow threats? I'd say no, but it is all part of the sickness currently infecting CWDF.

 

Although there is some weight in the bold bit above, the communication I had with a MOD was 'the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back' - as a grown woman I really resent being spoken at, as if I was a knotty child. I had actually been unhappy for some time before that and had lost pretty much all of the allure the forum once held for me. The locking of the 2 legal threads was pretty much the end for me. The initial MOD communication I received regarding me starting the "At the risk of being sanctioned....." thread, where I asked 2 questions, "When" could we expect to hear back a final decision from the Admin team & and "Why" were the threads locked. Now it's obvious, by the title I chose, I knew I was running some level of 'risk' but was happy to risk it as I knew I wasn't trying to start a thread to continue on with the topic's content, but there was a small chance that someone may take it as such, which is what indeed did happen and it was quickly locked & removed - fair enough, and that's how I felt about it at the time & still do. It was the PM'd comments I received afterward & the knotty child tone they contained that was the nail in the coffin for me. In hindsight & fairness I could/should have asked in a PM to DHutch those two questions and I believe I would have got a response, not necessarily the crystal clear answer's that I was hoping to receive but a response never the less.

 

And yes, although I still pop in here most days it is for usually less and less time each day. I've found another boating forum, which I must say isn't anything at all like the 'den of heathens & vagabonds & carpet beggers' that it is professed to be when discussed on this site. Isn't it great there are two to choose from or be a complete free spirit and be a member of each

And STILL no reason has been given for the locking of that particular thread, which is what Bettie's deleted thread asked for.

 

There has now been dark mumbling appended to the thread by Dan implying the thread was being used as a platform for campaigns against CRT, but that's about it as far as I can see.

 

I remember back in the day when Dan used to make clear and refreshingly open and direct modding statements. Nowadays the stuff he writes reads just like meaningless corporate waffle and mumbo jumbo. I wonder if this is learned from the manner in which his employer operates.

For clarity, I also asked "when" we could expect to hear the outcome of the 'admins discussion & pending review" about the future state of those two threads, I was most interested in the one that had been running for 15 months. I figured, obviously wrongly, that a day and 1/2 would be suffice to have that discussion and get back to us; as one had been such a long running thread and both had important (IMO) boater related content, and we had heard nothing. Never in a million years, did I think it would take 18 days to get answer to the when portion of the question, Although I haven't had a chance to read them yet I've heard that one of them has been re-instated, although locked; people at least have access to read the information that was posted up to the 8th of Oct. Any info after that date relating to that case is available on another boating discussion forum.

 

And since I'm here Mr. MtB....it wasn't a "flounce in a strop" it was simply "a wee flounce", which I tried to do with as much grace as possible Just sayin like...

 

For clarification, the member 'Bettie Boo' has not been banned, nor has any action been taken against them for their posts on this forum.

Daniel

 

This ^^^ is completely True. It was my decision and my decision alone to take a break from openly posting on this site. And nor will I be posting again, unless it changes to something I find alluring enough to actively participate in. Some may say that is a very selfish view to take, any and all my thoughts have already been posted by many other members over the past couple of weeks, so really I look at it as one less poster banging on about the same changes I would like to see and feel are needed for the forum to flourish.

 

hmmmm, Just to be clear....

 

much more consistency in the moderation is needed

 

IF a thread "needs" to be locked, the rule it breeches should be posted then and there by the MOD who locked the thread, even if it is pending further investigation/review. That should be the only time threads need to be locked - when they are breaking a rule which is laid out in the rules & regs of the site, IMO

 

IF a MOD needs to edit a post, again the reason should always be stated; at present some do and some don't

 

Along with the obvious rules of no swearing, abusive posts, libel or slander (sorry I forget which is written and which is verbal), etc in large part I believe the site could be run on self modification and the report button - put in a rule that along the lines of "challenge the content / context of the post, not the poster" will soon get rid of the clique's that have formed, along with getting the forum to a place where adult conversation/discussions can take place which would also include some light hearted humor being injected.

 

I really like Carlt's idea of the re-instatment of the CA section; although I missed it completely when it was here before as I was offline for a few months, I get the general gist of it. Those who are not interested in the topics discussed need not enter and for those of us who are interested in both general politics and boating related politics would have a place to hold discussions or observe them.

 

Finally I feel there needs to be much more consistency when banning is done. The member who is banned really should be able to access the information of why they were banned as in what rule did they break. As well I believe it really should be a last resort after progression of warnings or sanctions. I appreciate this isn't a place of work and so not quite the same thing, but I have never worked in a repeatable company that doesn't have a policy of the very least 3 strikes and your out, more often than not it's a 1st verbal warning, 2nd written warning, 3rd written warning next occurrence your out. Mind you the verbal warning is only kept on your file for 6 months, 2nd & 3rd for 1 year. Obviously Gross Misconduct, which included stealing, fighting and falsification of company records etc., didn't fall with-in that frame & resulted in immediate termination after an investigation than taken place. I would suggest that the vast majoriety of active posting members are of a working or retired age and most would be familiar with such practices, (unless self employed) and would be fairly easy to introduce and implement once the rules of the forum have been finalized as I understand they are being looked at currently as well as loads of other work going on.

 

See, pretty much all of my imput has already been covered by others - no sense me adding fuel to the fire.....Whoops...actually the stove needs some more coal, gotta run.

 

Till then, take care everyone, and thanks for all the kind words and well wishes posted in A wee flounce....

 

 

 

I guess it depends on you definition of 'active'.

 

Bettie's last post was on the 15th October, but she has since done what she said she would do, which is to 'look in' but not post.

 

I would suggest that we don't go down the road of why Bettie decided to 'leave' as that would be discussing in detail moderators actions.

Active - as in pop in most days for a look/read, some days I log in, to check my PM's other days I don't bother logging in since I'm not currently posting on the open threads.

 

My last post on the threads was the 9th of Oct. on the A bit of a flounce... thread

 

 

Right, I'm back off to my wee (but wide) hermitage now to continue my learning about Battery Charging & Management, & viewing the Autumn pic's threads on the "Lite Side" forum

 

Till later, take care everyone, and thanks for all the kind words and well wishes posted in the A wee flounce....Thread; and including me in your thoughts today on this thread.

 

B~

 

ETA - missing word (believe it or not)

Edited October 26, 2016 by Bettie Boo

[Phil Ambrose]

For gawds sake! Can't we just talk about boating, boats and canals and stop all the politics and point-scoring?

I've very nearly had enough of this forum.

Hmmm, someone else who cannot help clicking on "mod" threads and then gets offended. There are many, many other threads for you to immerse yourself in, you are not forced to read these ones.

Phil

[GoodGurl]

Against my better judgement, I will post this to simply clarify a few inaccuracies of the below which are based, I believe, on my last post in cwdf on the 9th of Oct in the "A wee flounce" Thread ... (sorry I don't know how to put a link to that thread, so I used a copy & paste method); as well as my thoughts and beliefs

 

 

 

Posted 09 October 2016 - 06:16 PM

Hi All,

 

Just a quick and short thank you for the past 3+ years of advice, ideas, support, help & laughs.

 

I have taken the decision to no longer post in threads, I will check in every now and than and have a read; and will use the PM facility to ask questions when I need to of the relevant members.

 

The forum has changed, and I no longer feel it has the same appeal it did for me, 3 years ago when I joined.

 

All the very best to you and happy cruising

• 0

To each their own, live and let live

 

This (in the Blue ) was theonly reason I chose to no longer post here.

 

 

 

Although there is some weight in the bold bit above, the communication I had with a MOD was 'the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back' - as a grown woman I really resent being spoken at, as if I was a knotty child. I had actually been unhappy for some time before that and had lost pretty much all of the allure the forum once held for me. The locking of the 2 legal threads was pretty much the end for me. The initial MOD communication I received regarding me starting the "At the risk of being sanctioned....." thread, where I asked 2 questions, "When" could we expect to hear back a final decision from the Admin team & and "Why" were the threads locked. Now it's obvious, by the title I chose, I knew I was running some level of 'risk' but was happy to risk it as I knew I wasn't trying to start a thread to continue on with the topic's content, but there was a small chance that someone may take it as such, which is what indeed did happen and it was quickly locked & removed - fair enough, and that's how I felt about it at the time & still do. It was the PM'd comments I received afterward & the knotty child tone they contained that was the nail in the coffin for me. In hindsight & fairness I could/should have asked in a PM to DHutch those two questions and I believe I would have got a response, not necessarily the crystal clear answer's that I was hoping to receive but a response never the less.

 

And yes, although I still pop in here most days it is for usually less and less time each day. I've found another boating forum, which I must say isn't anything at all like the 'den of heathens & vagabonds & carpet beggers' that it is professed to be when discussed on this site. Isn't it great there are two to choose from or be a complete free spirit and be a member of each

For clarity, I also asked "when" we could expect to hear the outcome of the 'admins discussion & pending review" about the future state of those two threads, I was most interested in the one that had been running for 15 months. I figured, obviously wrongly, that a day and 1/2 would be suffice to have that discussion and get back to us; as one had been such a long running thread and both had important (IMO) boater related content, and we had heard nothing. Never in a million years, did I think it would take 18 days to get answer to the when portion of the question, Although I haven't had a chance to read them yet I've heard that one of them has been re-instated, although locked; people at least have access to read the information that was posted up to the 8th of Oct. Any info after that date relating to that case is available on another boating discussion forum.

 

And since I'm here Mr. MtB....it wasn't a "flounce in a strop" it was simply "a wee flounce", which I tried to do with as much grace as possible Just sayin like...

 

 

This ^^^ is completely True. It was my decision and my decision alone to take a break from openly posting on this site. And nor will I be posting again, unless it changes to something I find alluring enough to actively participate in. Some may say that is a very selfish view to take, any and all my thoughts have already been posted by many other members over the past couple of weeks, so really I look at it as one less poster banging on about the same changes I would like to see and feel are needed for the forum to flourish.

 

hmmmm, Just to be clear....

 

much more consistency in the moderation is needed

 

IF a thread "needs" to be locked, the rule it breeches should be posted then and there by the MOD who locked the thread, even if it is pending further investigation/review. That should be the only time threads need to be locked - when they are breaking a rule which is laid out in the rules & regs of the site, IMO

 

IF a MOD needs to edit a post, again the reason should always be stated; at present some do and some don't

 

Along with the obvious rules of no swearing, abusive posts, libel or slander (sorry I forget which is written and which is verbal), etc in large part I believe the site could be run on self modification and the report button - put in a rule that along the lines of "challenge the content / context of the post, not the poster" will soon get rid of the clique's that have formed, along with getting the forum to a place where adult conversation/discussions can take place which would also include some light hearted humor being injected.

 

I really like Carlt's idea of the re-instatment of the CA section; although I missed it completely when it was here before as I was offline for a few months, I get the general gist of it. Those who are not interested in the topics discussed need not enter and for those of us who are interested in both general politics and boating related politics would have a place to hold discussions or observe them.

 

Finally I feel there needs to be much more consistency when banning is done. The member who is banned really should be able to access the information of why they were banned as in what rule did they break. As well I believe it really should be a last resort after progression of warnings or sanctions. I appreciate this isn't a place of work and so not quite the same thing, but I have never worked in a repeatable company that doesn't have a policy of the very least 3 strikes and your out, more often than not it's a 1st verbal warning, 2nd written warning, 3rd written warning next occurrence your out. Mind you the verbal warning is only kept on your file for 6 months, 2nd & 3rd for 1 year. Obviously Gross Misconduct, which included stealing, fighting and falsification of company records etc., didn't fall with-in that frame & resulted in immediate termination after an investigation than taken place. I would suggest that the vast majoriety of active posting members are of a working or retired age and most would be familiar with such practices, (unless self employed) and would be fairly easy to introduce and implement once the rules of the forum have been finalized as I understand they are being looked at currently as well as loads of other work going on.

 

See, pretty much all of my imput has already been covered by others - no sense me adding fuel to the fire.....Whoops...actually the stove needs some more coal, gotta run.

 

Till then, take care everyone, and thanks for all the kind words and well wishes posted in A wee flounce....

 

 

Active - as in pop in most days for a look/read, some days I log in, to check my PM's other days I don't bother logging in since I'm not currently posting on the open threads.

 

My last post on the threads was the 9th of Oct. on the A bit of a flounce... thread

 

 

Right, I'm back off to my wee (but wide) hermitage now to continue my learning about Battery Charging & Management, & viewing the Autumn pic's threads on the "Lite Side" forum

 

Till later, take care everyone, and thanks for all the kind words and well wishes posted in the A wee flounce....Thread; and including me in your thoughts today on this thread.

 

B~

 

ETA - missing word (believe it or not)

well said betty, at least they all know now what happened and how you feel

[nicknorman]

 

There is suggestion above that 'mods routinely issuing threats on public forum' and I have to say I am not sure where that case come from or why.

Daniel

You are one of the protagonists of that, along with a few other mods. When something like this is posted:

 

"If you re-open another thread discussing this, you will be suspended and with it, your ability to use the messaging system."

 

on open forum, I consider that to be a threat. Ok you can argue the toss whether it is a threat or a warning, but there isn't really much difference. It reads as a threat. Anyone with any concept of "(wo)man management" will know that if you want to get folk to do something, you don't lead with threats at the outset. Especially threats that you are not actually prepared to carry out. It just puts people's backs up. TBH it doesn't matter whether or not you are a nice or nasty person as a result, what is important is that it is an ineffective way of achieving your aim and thus makes the author look foolish and thus respect wanes.

 

My quote is just one example of very many, from different members of staff / owner. I'm only singling it out because I found it again recently.

[dogless]

Well done Daniel. You will always win any argument by banning the opponents. But then, you know that don't you.

 

Rog

[smileypete]

Nick has been banned for two weeks apparently....

Edited October 27, 2016 by smileypete

[GoodGurl]

it seems this site is losing more and more knowledgeable people,its a shame really as there was an easy solution to all this carnage.