Inconsistency In Moderation

[Paul C]

It does seem, at least, that we've been given some kind of clarity on the situation. The problem the mod team have, is that they can't control what people are feeling, or are about to say. All they can do is delete things said, or prevent certain members from saying it (here). Now there's another website, they can't silence the critics!

 

So, over the past two weeks, we have had:

 

* At least 3 threads discussing moderating style, hidden

* Many other posts discussing it, hidden

* 1 thread with about 9 posts unlocked

* 2 other threads about the legal discussions, not updated with a clear reason for their locking ( I acknowledge a reason was given - a weak one - on a different thread???!?!?!?)

* An attempt to silence someone discussing moderator direction/policy

 

Actions speak louder than words. We now all have a clear picture of how the mod team approach the pertinant issues of the day - by abusing/exceeding their position and arbitarily assigning a "disruptive" label.

 

Is it worth discussing it any more?

[MtB]

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

 

 

Nick has been past caring recently in my opinion, so has felt free to say it how he sees it.

 

Presumably he posted something Dan considered disruptive. I'm curious about what exactly is was.

It does seem, at least, that we've been given some kind of clarity on the situation. The problem the mod team have, is that they can't control what people are feeling, or are about to say. All they can do is delete things said, or prevent certain members from saying it (here). Now there's another website, they can't silence the critics!

 

So, over the past two weeks, we have had:

 

* At least 3 threads discussing moderating style, hidden

* Many other posts discussing it, hidden

* 1 thread with about 9 posts unlocked

* 2 other threads about the legal discussions, not updated with a clear reason for their locking ( I acknowledge a reason was given - a weak one - on a different thread???!?!?!?)

* An attempt to silence someone discussing moderator direction/policy

 

Actions speak louder than words. We now all have a clear picture of how the mod team approach the pertinant issues of the day - by abusing/exceeding their position and arbitarily assigning a "disruptive" label.

 

Is it worth discussing it any more?

 

 

This aligns with my own assessment of Dan's new approach. Silence all real dissent whilst making token noises about openness and freedom.

 

Rank hypocrisy.

 

We all have to either swallow it whole or go elsewhere. I don't see any likelihood of Dan changing his mind on this.

[Murflynn]

oh, what the hell - let's just be fluffy bunnies from now on.

that would really suit the 'site team'.

 

just as an aside, a few years ago I changed my email address and after a period of inactivity I asked the team to help to get me back on the forum, but noted that my account was no longer valid. I had been a member since 2005, had a post count of several thousand, and AFAIK had never given offence to anyone.

After sending emails to several mods including the site owner I was finally reinstated with a new username invented by them - 'total pratt'.

I joined up again with an entirely new username.

I didn't bother to pursue it at the time, but maybe now is an opportune time to mention the team's attitude to the lay members of this forum at that time, which may or may not have changed in the recent past.

[GoodGurl]

 

 

Nick has been past caring recently in my opinion, so has felt free to say it how he sees it.

 

Presumably he posted something Dan considered disruptive. I'm curious about what exactly is was. nicks reply - its because of my disruptive behaviour in general, not one post in particular. Apparently.

 

Just wondering why you haven't been banned for being disruptive too. Do you have some hold over Dan, if so I hope it's something juicy!

 

 

This aligns with my own assessment of Dan's new approach. Silence all real dissent whilst making token noises about openness and freedom.

 

Rank hypocrisy.

 

We all have to either swallow it whole or go elsewhere. I don't see any likelihood of Dan changing his mind on this.

This was posted by nicknorman today,

Suspended for two weeks for, pending further consideration by the Mod Team. So no, my profile hasn't been expunged but I can't log in, and thus I can't post anything. However once they've done that to me for trying to help them (even though they don't realise it) I'm not sure I want to go back, at least not with 3 of the mods still in place. Banned is probably dramatising a bit, which of course is most unusual for me.

Edited October 27, 2016 by GoodGurl

[Guest]

oh, what the hell - let's just be fluffy bunnies from now on.

that would really suit the 'site team'.

 

just as an aside, a few years ago I changed my email address and after a period of inactivity I asked the team to help to get me back on the forum, but noted that my account was no longer valid. I had been a member since 2005, had a post count of several thousand, and AFAIK had never given offence to anyone.

After sending emails to several mods including the site owner I was finally reinstated with a new username invented by them - 'total pratt'.

I joined up again with an entirely new username.

I didn't bother to pursue it at the time, but maybe now is an opportune time to mention the team's attitude to the lay members of this forum at that time, which may or may not have changed in the recent past.

There is a member of that name but posts by them would suggest they were either completely new to boating or trolling the forum.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=7089

 

Is this the same one?

[Murflynn]

yes, but the 2 posts linked to that username are not recognised.

 

some mischief making in 2008, by the look of it.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Murflynn

[Barry]

It does seem, at least, that we've been given some kind of clarity on the situation. The problem the mod team have, is that they can't control what people are feeling, or are about to say. All they can do is delete things said, or prevent certain members from saying it (here). Now there's another website, they can't silence the critics!

 

So, over the past two weeks, we have had:

 

* At least 3 threads discussing moderating style, hidden

* Many other posts discussing it, hidden

* 1 thread with about 9 posts unlocked

* 2 other threads about the legal discussions, not updated with a clear reason for their locking ( I acknowledge a reason was given - a weak one - on a different thread???!?!?!?)

* An attempt to silence someone discussing moderator direction/policy

 

Actions speak louder than words. We now all have a clear picture of how the mod team approach the pertinant issues of the day - by abusing/exceeding their position and arbitarily assigning a "disruptive" label.

 

Is it worth discussing it any more?

 

I guess Daniel and his team are somewhat hampered by their confidentiality around discussing individual mod actions.

 

 

So what is left behind is that they can't discuss the detail of individual mod actions or decisions. They can only discuss moderation in general terms

 

Without the truth of decisions being in the open, and rightly so in my opinion, discussions about moderation on the open forum are open to assumption, speculation, and distortion by people who have agendas of their own to pursue.

 

So forum members are free to assume, speculate, and distort, at will - but the mods have their hands tied behind their backs.

 

However forum members from here are completely free to discuss mod decisions from here, over on Thunderboat. Ask yourself how often those reports back to Thunderboat are given with total honesty. Are those reports slanted, altered, distorted, to favour the person reporting back? You bet your sweet life they are!

 

Hardly fair is it

[Guest]

yes

Wierd that the thread started was locked 'because it's by a duplicate ID' but the ID wasn't removed, it was active on the forum in July of last year even though it was created in 2008.

 

Inconsistent. But that particular mod is no longer active as such.

[GoodGurl]

 

I guess Daniel and his team are somewhat hampered by their confidentiality around discussing individual mod actions.

 

 

So what is left behind is that they can't discuss the detail of individual mod actions or decisions. They can only discuss moderation in general terms

 

Without the truth of decisions being in the open, and rightly so in my opinion, discussions about moderation on the open forum are open to assumption, speculation, and distortion by people who have agendas of their own to pursue.

 

So forum members are free to assume, speculate, and distort, at will - but the mods have their hands tied behind their backs.

 

However forum members from here are completely free to discuss mod decisions from here, over on Thunderboat. Ask yourself how often those reports back to Thunderboat are given with total honesty. Are those reports slanted, altered, distorted, to favour the person reporting back? You bet your sweet life they are!

 

Hardly fair is it

why would anyone lie about the actions the mod team have taken? what would they gain from this? do screenshots lie too i wonder.

[gazza]

 

I guess Daniel and his team are somewhat hampered by their confidentiality around discussing individual mod actions.

 

 

So what is left behind is that they can't discuss the detail of individual mod actions or decisions. They can only discuss moderation in general terms

 

Without the truth of decisions being in the open, and rightly so in my opinion, discussions about moderation on the open forum are open to assumption, speculation, and distortion by people who have agendas of their own to pursue.

 

So forum members are free to assume, speculate, and distort, at will - but the mods have their hands tied behind their backs.

 

However forum members from here are completely free to discuss mod decisions from here, over on Thunderboat. Ask yourself how often those reports back to Thunderboat are given with total honesty. Are those reports slanted, altered, distorted, to favour the person reporting back? You bet your sweet life they are!

 

Hardly fair is it

Self imposed confidentiality.

 

It's hardly MI6 is it?

[Guest]

I guess Daniel and his team are somewhat hampered by their confidentiality around discussing individual mod actions.

 

 

So what is left behind is that they can't discuss the detail of individual mod actions or decisions. They can only discuss moderation in general terms

 

Without the truth of decisions being in the open, and rightly so in my opinion, discussions about moderation on the open forum are open to assumption, speculation, and distortion by people who have agendas of their own to pursue.

 

So forum members are free to assume, speculate, and distort, at will - but the mods have their hands tied behind their backs.

 

However forum members from here are completely free to discuss mod decisions from here, over on Thunderboat. Ask yourself how often those reports back to Thunderboat are given with total honesty. Are those reports slanted, altered, distorted, to favour the person reporting back? You bet your sweet life they are!

 

Hardly fair is it

That last paragraph is a bit of a sweeping generalisation IMHO. One can assume members have a vested interest in distorting events, of course but in the absence of any real evidence it's not really fair to make such accusations about all ex members so affected.

 

I see no reason why the likes of JohnV would distort the circumstances surrounding his ban from here by way of example.

Edited October 27, 2016 by MJG

[Barry]

Self imposed confidentiality.

 

It's hardly MI6 is it?

 

Of course it is self imposed confidentiality. Would you want every specific detail of your dealings with mods available for minute examination to every forum member?

[GoodGurl]

 

Of course it is self imposed confidentiality. Would you want every specific detail of your dealings with mods available for minute examination to every forum member?

well we all know which side of the bed you lay on dont we.

[gazza]

 

Of course it is self imposed confidentiality. Would you want every specific detail of your dealings with mods available for minute examination to every forum member?

It wouldn't worry me in the slightest.

 

Why should it?

[Barry]

That last paragraph is a bit of a sweeping generalisation IMHO. One can assume members have a vested interest in distorting events, of course but in the absence of any real evidence it's not really fair to make such accusations about all ex members so affected.

 

I see no reason why the likes of JohnV would distort the circumstances surrounding his ban from here by way of example.

 

 

It is a general statement of course but it is a true one because over on Thunderboat any member from here can say anything they like at any time.

 

I was not accusing all members from here of fact distortion. I was saying that they can if they want to and some, no doubt, do exactly that.

 

 

 

I have no idea why JohnV was banned because I have mostly been away from the forum from March till October. Therefore I can't comment other than to say that in my opinion he is a grand chap and I am disappointed that he is no longer here.

[MtB]

why would anyone lie about the actions the mod team have taken? what would they gain from this? do screenshots lie too i wonder.

 

 

Actually screenshots can be edited by anyone who can use an image editing program competently.

[Paul C]

 

I guess Daniel and his team are somewhat hampered by their confidentiality around discussing individual mod actions.

 

 

So what is left behind is that they can't discuss the detail of individual mod actions or decisions. They can only discuss moderation in general terms

 

Without the truth of decisions being in the open, and rightly so in my opinion, discussions about moderation on the open forum are open to assumption, speculation, and distortion by people who have agendas of their own to pursue.

 

So forum members are free to assume, speculate, and distort, at will - but the mods have their hands tied behind their backs.

 

However forum members from here are completely free to discuss mod decisions from here, over on Thunderboat. Ask yourself how often those reports back to Thunderboat are given with total honesty. Are those reports slanted, altered, distorted, to favour the person reporting back? You bet your sweet life they are!

 

Hardly fair is it

 

The problem is, the relevant posts which relate to the particular moderator action, CAN be seen, because they are posted onto an open forum. Unless the mods have read then removed posts faster than the reader, the reader IS able to see those same posts, and make a judgement for themselves. Assumption/speculation/distortion isn't present, indeed I don't think any of Nick's posts have been copied and pasted (or selectively quoted, or embellished, etc) on Thunderboat anyway.

 

The mods aren't hampered by confidentiality - it is their own self-imposed rule, designed to facilitate laziness on their part, and offering a convenient wall to hide behind. And in any case, my post never directly focused upon any bans, I included one in my bullet points but look at all the other bullet points.

 

Let's put it another way - given what Nick said on posts, do you believe that was sufficiently disruptive to earn a ban? Or do you think he did something further, which might possibly have been hidden (it would have to have been extremely quickly) by the moderators, if so what?

[Albion]

 

 

It is a general statement of course but it is a true one because over on Thunderboat any member from here can say anything they like at any time.

 

I was not accusing all members from here of fact distortion. I was saying that they can if they want to and some, no doubt, do exactly that.

 

 

 

I have no idea why JohnV was banned because I have mostly been away from the forum from March till October. Therefore I can't comment other than to say that in my opinion he is a grand chap and I am disappointed that he is no longer here.

You were pretty quick to get my evidence of a distortion of the truth removed from another thread though weren't you. Even though it was just answering a question from the person involved and was not intended to stir anything up. It seems that you may have one attitude to certain posters and a totally different one for others.

Roger

[smileypete]

I think from as objective point of view Dan is making huge errors of judgement, and needs some reasonably independent people on board, not try to silence them by banning them.

 

If Nicks posts have broken FR&G then the offending posts should be identified as such including the FR&G paras that have been violated.

 

I may be a bit hidebound but I come from an engineering background where to do things consistently you follow a procedure and document any actions.

 

ETA: Seems that some apologists who express their dislike of other forum members by unquestioningly supporting the status quo need to take some responsibility for the downward spiral CWDF is in.

 

Actually screenshots can be edited by anyone who can use an image editing program competently.

There's such a wealth of evidence from all different quarters is such that it's hardly worth editing anything.

 

Also if posts and topics mysteriously vanish then unless a screenshot is taken the evidence is gone.

Edited October 27, 2016 by smileypete

[Paul C]

 

 

Actually screenshots can be edited by anyone who can use an image editing program competently.

 

I believe another factor you'd need to take into account is motivation. Yes, technically they could be edited but it would require an amount of effort. What is the motivation to fabricate this kind of thing, especially given that 1) unhiding the original post would reveal the fabrication 2) there is a sufficient amount of genuine concern which has been expressed, such that fabricated or exaggerated things simply don't need to be devised.

[GoodGurl]

 

The problem is, the relevant posts which relate to the particular moderator action, CAN be seen, because they are posted onto an open forum. Unless the mods have read then removed posts faster than the reader, the reader IS able to see those same posts, and make a judgement for themselves. Assumption/speculation/distortion isn't present, indeed I don't think any of Nick's posts have been copied and pasted (or selectively quoted, or embellished, etc) on Thunderboat anyway.

 

The mods aren't hampered by confidentiality - it is their own self-imposed rule, designed to facilitate laziness on their part, and offering a convenient wall to hide behind. And in any case, my post never directly focused upon any bans, I included one in my bullet points but look at all the other bullet points.

 

Let's put it another way - given what Nick said on posts, do you believe that was sufficiently disruptive to earn a ban? Or do you think he did something further, which might possibly have been hidden (it would have to have been extremely quickly) by the moderators, if so what?

as posted earlier in the thread -

This was posted by nicknorman today,

Suspended for two weeks for, pending further consideration by the Mod Team. So no, my profile hasn't been expunged but I can't log in, and thus I can't post anything. However once they've done that to me for trying to help them (even though they don't realise it) I'm not sure I want to go back, at least not with 3 of the mods still in place. Banned is probably dramatising a bit, which of course is most unusual for me.

[Guest]

It is a general statement of course but it is a true one because over on Thunderboat any member from here can say anything they like at any time.

 

I was not accusing all members from here of fact distortion. I was saying that they can if they want to and some, no doubt, do exactly that.

 

 

 

I have no idea why JohnV was banned because I have mostly been away from the forum from March till October. Therefore I can't comment other than to say that in my opinion he is a grand chap and I am disappointed that he is no longer here.

And conversely we have to assume that because the mods can (rightly IMHO) cite 'confidentiality' that all the bannings are justified and based on valid reasons. There is no recourse to an appeal just 'you're banned' that's it.

 

I think recent events and some posts by Daniel have called this whole banning issue into question and frankly I'm amazed given recent events that Nick has been banned all be it temporally . Yes he was (very) questioning of the direction the forum is going but this all smacks of stifling censorship IMHO. His posts to me don't look much or any worse than many others on here in this and several currently running threads.

[K and S]

I think from as objective point of view Dan is making huge errors of judgement, and needs some reasonably independent people on board, not try to silence them by banning them.

 

If Nicks posts have broken FR&G then the offending posts should be identified as such.

 

I may be a bit hidebound but I come from an engineering background where to do things consistently you follow a procedure and document any actions

 

ETA: Seems that some apologists who express their dislike of other forum members by unquestioningly supporting the current actions need to take some responsibility for the downward spiral CWDF is in.

I tried as an outsider and long term mod on another forum to give Daniel some independent advice.

 

It went down like a lead balloon.

[MtB]

 

I believe another factor you'd need to take into account is motivation. Yes, technically they could be edited but it would require an amount of effort. What is the motivation to fabricate this kind of thing, especially given that 1) unhiding the original post would reveal the fabrication 2) there is a sufficient amount of genuine concern which has been expressed, such that fabricated or exaggerated things simply don't need to be devised.

 

 

Yes I agree, no easy feat to alter a screenshot convincingly but GG asked a question, and I answered it.

 

I'm intrigued about these screenshots that get mentioned periodically. Are they in the public domain are do they very conveniently need to remain private?

[Guest]

Yes I agree, no easy feat to alter a screenshot convincingly but GG asked a question, and I answered it.

 

I'm intrigued about these screenshots that get mentioned periodically. Are they in the public domain are do they very conveniently need to remain private?

Not sure what you mean.

 

The ones I take reside on whichever device I capture them on at the time, could be my phone, iPad or my PC.