Moderating

[Machpoint005]

5 minutes ago, tomsk said:

A quick google suggests punctuating a rhetorical question with a question mark may be optional.

Some sources may suggest .. depending on context ...

I'll stick with the Point of Interrogation, thanks.

[rusty69]

9 hours ago, gigoguy said:

I thought we were in a discussion forum not an English lesson? And if we were it wouldn't be in a 'grammar' school because some of the 'teachers' wouldn't pass the 11+

Well,it looks like you have found the other forum now. Maybe that will suit your needs better. 

[rowland al]

18 hours ago, DHutch said:

I feel very strongly that there is a need for moderators to operate in a professional manor, often requires them to act reasonably impartially in what is otherwise a fairly closed community. Where moderators are actively involved in lively debate it may be less practical for them to also moderate that same thread, and I would agree that in the main that should be avoided where practical.

Moderators are however by nature existing members who are active on the forum, and who have given up their own time to support the site on a volunteer basis. Therefore while each moderator is chosen carefully to ensure they are suitable for the role, for obvious reasons it is often not practical for the staff to be both 'actively engaged' with the forum and at the same time 'low volume' posters.

I agree that while there may at time be a place for controlled moderator input where a post is for instance particularly poorly formated, leading to a significant lack of clarity in the thread, moderator input to correct a post should in the main be avoided. Certainly I would not expect a moderator to be editing another members post to correct the grammar. 

Any member can edit the quoted portion of text when creating a reply, without editing the original post, and it is largely up to the member in question how they feel fit to do this be they a member of staff or not.

 

 

Daniel

From what I have read here (and elsewhere) about previous members on some kind of 'hit list' being banned without a proper explanation , I think your post is very hypocritical. Where was the impartiality and professionalism then? Not even an apology from you.

This forum seems to have the feel of an old boys club sometimes. If that's what you want, fine, but I've found some of the members here very rude and it's not very conjunctive to attracting new members,

This forum will only ever continue to  be a good resource for boaters and other canal users if it is a friendly place to be and not dominated by the few who look down their noses at newcomers.

 

[Athy]

13 hours ago, tomsk said:

A quick google suggests punctuating a rhetorical question with a question mark may be optional.

Who am I to disagree.

[system 4-50]

12 minutes ago, rowland al said:

From what I have read here (and elsewhere) about previous members on some kind of 'hit list' being banned without a proper explanation , I think your post is very hypocritical. Where was the impartiality and professionalism then? Not even an apology from you.

This forum seems to have the feel of an old boys club sometimes. If that's what you want, fine, but I've found some of the members here very rude and it's not very conjunctive to attracting new members,

This forum will only ever continue to  be a good resource for boaters and other canal users if it is a friendly place to be and not dominated by the few who look down their noses at newcomers.

 

There ought to be some way of awarding an ungreenie to a post to indicate that you totally disagree with the underlying sentiment without dignifying the post with a response.

[rowland al]

2 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

There ought to be some way of awarding an ungreenie to a post to indicate that you totally disagree with the underlying sentiment without dignifying the post with a response.

I rest my case!

[Athy]

48 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

There ought to be some way of awarding an ungreenie to a post to indicate that you totally disagree with the underlying sentiment without dignifying the post with a response.

From memory, there used to be, but that facility was withdrawn a few years ago. I believe it was felt that awarding such points could engender bad feeling.

[rowland al]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

From memory, there used to be, but that facility was withdrawn a few years ago. I believe it was felt that awarding such points could engender bad feeling.

You don't need to bring it back. Just saying someone doesn't deserve dignity here is far better anyway.

It's a pity when someone has to resort to rudeness simply because they can't find a reasonable argument. 

[Athy]

1 minute ago, rowland al said:

You don't need to bring it back. Just saying someone doesn't deserve dignity here is far better anyway.

It's a pity when someone has to resort to rudeness simply because they can't find a reasonable argument. 

I quite agree. I for one would not be in favour in bringing it back.

I think it was a red button, which was situated beside the green "approve" button. Am I imagining this, or can any other long-standing member confirm that we used to have this feature?

[DHutch]

14 hours ago, tomsk said:

A quick google suggests punctuating a rhetorical question with a question mark may be optional.

It's a situation where I try to avoid rhetorical questions, but certainly I have developed a style of email when at work where by anything I need and answer to has a question mark, and anything which does not is punctuated with a full stop.

Rightly or wrongly I feel this adds clarity and increased the likelihood of getting replies where I need them. 

Daniel

[Athy]

1 minute ago, DHutch said:

 I have developed a style of email when at work where by anything I need and answer to has a question mark.

Daniel

That's logical, because if it needs an answer, then it's a question!

[mross]

At work, if I had to ask more than one question, I would label them thus.

AAAA

BBB

CCC

because I found most people would never answer all my questions!  sometimes I gave up and just sent three emails over a few hours.  I think some people have short attention spans and click send as soon as they have answered the first question!  

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, mross said:

At work, if I had to ask more than one question, I would label them thus.

AAAA

  

Quite so.

Was there anything else?

[mross]

deleted

Edited May 17, 2017 by mross

[system 4-50]

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

You don't need to bring it back. Just saying someone doesn't deserve dignity here is far better anyway.

It's a pity when someone has to resort to rudeness simply because they can't find a reasonable argument. 

I don't really want the reddies back as they introduce all sorts of new complications, but they did have the advantage of expressing complete disagreement without taking up space.

I am disappointed that you feel I was being rude to you, I will try to phrase my comments better in future. It is difficult with the limitations of the English language and the lack of the face to face contact that adds so much to communication. I was aiming to criticise the ideas you seemed to  be trying to express, I was not aiming to criticise you personally.

I feel that the forum host does a fantastic job, not perfect certainly, but nobody can be, even with a budget of millions. The internet is completely open, why don't you set up another alternative site? If it is better even than this I will happily support it.

[rusty69]

7 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

feel that the forum host does a fantastic job, not perfect certainly, but nobody can be, even with a budget of millions. The internet is completely open, why don't you set up another alternative site? If it is better even than this I will happily support it.

The new moderators here are a significant improvement on the last lot imo. Its a thankless task, and a job most on here wouldn't want,but are happy to criticise. 

 

The alternative is the unmoderated other channel, which will doubtless suit others better, including the new member who has prompted this thread and another similar. 

 

[Nightwatch]

15 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

Why not? It's still a question even if it is rhetorical. If it doesn't have a question mark, it's not a question of any sort, it's a statement.

I had a free education. It was a very good state school.

I went to a good school. It was approved!

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Nightwatch said:

I went to a good school. It was approved!

Boom - boom!

[BruceinSanity]

2 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

I went to a good school. It was approved!

 

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Boom - boom!

Was in Aston, then?

[Phil Ambrose]

3 hours ago, rusty69 said:

The new moderators here are a significant improvement on the last lot imo. Its a thankless task, and a job most on here wouldn't want,but are happy to criticise. 

 

The alternative is the unmoderated other channel, which will doubtless suit others better, including the new member who has prompted this thread and another similar. 

 

Interesting that not for the first time in this thread it has been suggested that somebody should leave and engage with "the other channel" which is unmoderated almost as if that is the answer to poor moderation. Strangely I use the other channel and there is a much warmer atmosphere and welcome to newcomers and contrary to what you might believe the whole forum,runs very smoothly without moderation .

So it would be far better to ease up on the grammar and spelling  police, ease up on the I am smarter than you scenarios and just get in with enjoying CWDF

Phil

 

[Athy]

I haven't heard from you in a while, Phil (that could just have been me reading the wrong threads) and I've reads your point of view with interest. I can't comment on t'other place, but I would comment on your implication that new members do not receive a warm welcome here: I think that we make a point of welcoming them.

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Phil Ambrose said:

Interesting that not for the first time in this thread it has been suggested that somebody should leave and engage with "the other channel" which is unmoderated almost as if that is the answer to poor moderation. Strangely I use the other channel and there is a much warmer atmosphere and welcome to newcomers and contrary to what you might believe the whole forum,runs very smoothly without moderation .

So it would be far better to ease up on the grammar and spelling  police, ease up on the I am smarter than you scenarios and just get in with enjoying CWDF

Phil

 

That is certainly not what I meant,but guess some could interpret it that way, as you have. I'm not sure I suggested anywhere someone should leave, but may have pointed out other possibilities should an un-moderated forum be more to their liking.

I was a user of the other channel too, but found it not to my taste.I must admit in recent months it seems to have cleaned up its act up a lot from the day I decided to quit.

[DHutch]

12 hours ago, rowland al said:

From what I have read here (and elsewhere) about previous members on some kind of 'hit list' being banned without a proper explanation , I think your post is very hypocritical. Where was the impartiality and professionalism then? Not even an apology from you.

This forum seems to have the feel of an old boys club sometimes. If that's what you want, fine, but I've found some of the members here very rude and it's not very conjunctive to attracting new members,

This forum will only ever continue to  be a good resource for boaters and other canal users if it is a friendly place to be and not dominated by the few who look down their noses at newcomers.

Rowland,

Im sorry if you feel the forum is an 'old boys club' as while I will admit that at times the core membership can be a bit familiar or blunt with new members this is not as such intentional and is something you do get to an extent elsewhere. Members are always welcome to report content if they feel its not appropriate and we do at time remind members of the need to be be welcoming to new members.

In terms of members on a hit list being banned without explanation, that was not as such the case. A number of members where banned, after multiple warnings, at a time when there was a significant amount of unrest within the forum, during this time the staff discussed issues on the site between themselves, which included some lists being made. I will take an amount of responsibility for the the part that in perfect administration played in the forum unrest, but stand by the need to ban or suspend certain members who where repeatedly resisting the work of the staff and other members in making the site an enjoyable and informative place to be. Any individual members who where suspended and feel aggrieved by the process have always been able to contact me to discuss this, and that remains the case. This is all I will say on this matter.

 

9 hours ago, rusty69 said:

The new moderators here are a significant improvement on the last lot imo. Its a thankless task, and a job most on here wouldn't want,but are happy to criticise. 

The alternative is the unmoderated other channel, which will doubtless suit others better, including the new member who has prompted this thread and another similar. 

I am glad you feel the continued work myself and the other staff to keep the site staffed and operational is working!

As has been said, nobody can be perfect, and given we run solely on voluntary labour and donations I think we do a reasonable job at maintaining a reasonable large and active forum most of the time.

 

Thanks

Daniel

[rusty69]

39 minutes ago, DHutch said:

I am glad you feel the continued work myself and the other staff to keep the site staffed and operational is working!

As I said,its a thankless task,and I guess Moderators are not trained as such but are enthusiastic forum members who have to make a judgement call.

I know you said "that is all you will say on the matter" regarding the banned members , but may I be so bold to suggest that your message could be put in an announcement, or a separate thread, so all members not reading this thread may see it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by rusty69

[nicknorman]

53 minutes ago, DHutch said:

In terms of members on a hit list being banned without explanation, that was not as such the case. A number of members where banned, after multiple warnings, at a time when there was a significant amount of unrest within the forum, during this time the staff discussed issues on the site between themselves, which included some lists being made.

Daniel

Sorry Daniel but, if it is within my power, I'm not prepared to let you get away with changing history so easily

The facts are that for the number of members banned within that period of 2 or 3 days:

FACT -  Several of them hadn't posted on the forum for months prior to their banning.

FACT - Others had received only one previous warning

FACT - some had received no previous warnings

FACT - no explanation was given to them because the system didn't allow them to log in to see the explanation because they were banned (obviously!)

Now that we seem to have got over that unpleasantness you could at least be straight about it and not try to engineer a cover up.

You allowed a major "us and them" culture to develop where posters and the mods saw each other as the enemy, it went on for months before the empire finally crumbled. Fortunately we now have a set of very sensible moderators to whom I give my full support. But that is not a reason to change history.

Edited May 17, 2017 by nicknorman