Moderating

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

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

 

This one troubles me. 

Just because a series of ban-worthy posts have persisted on the forum for months doesn't mean they become compliant posts. Or are you suggesting after an indeterminate period non-compliant posts must be deemed compliant? If so, I think the period during which a disruptive post must be challenged should be defined. 

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This one troubles me. 

Just because a series of ban-worthy posts have persisted on the forum for months doesn't mean they become compliant posts. Or are you suggesting after an indeterminate period non-compliant posts must be deemed compliant? If so, I think the period during which a disruptive post must be challenged should be defined. 

Surely if something is posted that warrants a lifetime ban, it shouldn't take 2 months for something to be done about it?  And if you look at their last posts, there was nothing particularly bad about them, just the usual stuff. They were banned because the mods, or a subsection thereof, were pissed off with their general views and agenda and became empowered with banmania to do what they had wanted to do for years.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Surely if something is posted that warrants a lifetime ban, it shouldn't take 2 months for something to be done about it?  And if you look at their last posts, there was nothing particularly bad about them, just the usual stuff. They were banned because the mods, or a subsection thereof, were pissed off with their general views and agenda and became empowered with banmania to do what they had wanted to do for years.

 

I too was monumentally pished off with the ridiculous behaviour of bag of bones and lady cassandra but I have no idea which members you allege were banned for two month old posts. You repeatedly mention this happening but never give us the member names. Why not? Maybe their posts weren't so benign after all. Do tell. who was supposedly so outrageously banned?

 

Edit to add some missing worms.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I too was monumentally pished off with the ridiculous behaviour of bag of bones and lady cassandra but I have no idea which members you allege were banned for two month old posts. You repeatedly mention this happening but never give us the member names. Why not? Maybe their posts weren't so benign after all. Do tell. who was supposedly so outrageously banned?

 

Edit to add some missing worms.

I didn't say their posts were benign. They WERE a pita in my opinion and I often clashed with them - in at least one case. It was easy to see why the mods wanted rid of them. But they didn't really breach the FR&G any more than anyone else did. I didn't allege that they were banned for 2-month old posts. I said they were banned despite not having posted for 2 months. Not at all the same thing. Their 2 month old posts were nothing out of the ordinary. Anyway, one was Jenlyn, I can't remember the other without doing a lot of research that I can't be bothered to do!

[Phil Ambrose]

27 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I didn't say their posts were benign. They WERE a pita in my opinion and I often clashed with them - in at least one case. It was easy to see why the mods wanted rid of them. But they didn't really breach the FR&G any more than anyone else did. I didn't allege that they were banned for 2-month old posts. I said they were banned despite not having posted for 2 months. Not at all the same thing. Their 2 month old posts were nothing out of the ordinary. Anyway, one was Jenlyn, I can't remember the other without doing a lot of research that I can't be bothered to do!

JohnV?

Phil

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, Phil Ambrose said:

JohnV?

Phil

Oh yes, that rings a bell.

[rusty69]

Five pages now prompted  over a questionable question mark and a member who may be questionable on facts

[cereal tiller]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Five pages now prompted  over a questionable question mark and a member who may be questionable on facts

No Question about it.we are all on a Quest..riding along

Edited May 17, 2017 by cereal tiller

[rusty69]

Just now, cereal tiller said:

No Question about it.

Is that rhetorical

[cereal tiller]

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

Is that rhetorical

Nope,Interrogative

[system 4-50]

19 minutes ago, cereal tiller said:

No Question about it.we are all on a Quest..riding along

if "on the crest of a wave", you're going too fast.

[Dave_P]

On 5/16/2017 at 11:07, Jerra said:

If I remember my history properly the 1944 Education act raised the school leaving age to 15 and did away with fees for anything other than a public school(which is strangely a private school).

Being Grammar School educated myself and having a brother who went to GS in the post war years fees weren't paid.  So unless I am historically wrong the only people on the forum are either public school kids or very old.

Not strictly true. The secondary school I went to in the 80s had been a state grammar school until the 70s. It was due to be converted into a comprehensive but the governors rejected this and elected to continue as a private grammar school (but not a 'public school'). Many schools did this, some not even grammar schools. I was sent to that school on one of Maggie's Assisted Place schemes as a leg-up for poor kids. (Dad - school caretaker, Mum - dinnerlady). Unsurprisingly, I never really fitted in. 

[Dave_P]

12 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. 

 

Thanks. I think I speak for all the site staff when I say that we all moderate with only the best intentions. 

I've been reading this thread with interest. 

Personalky, I have tweaked my posting style since becoming a mod.  

[rowland al]

13 hours ago, DHutch said:

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.

 

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

Cobblers!

[mross]

There are several members I'd like to ban, but they all put up with me!  

[DHutch]

59 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Cobblers!

We're all welcome to an opinion! 

 

Daniel

[rowland al]

29 minutes ago, DHutch said:

We're all welcome to an opinion! 

 

Daniel

Some more than others it seems.

[Starcoaster]

I would welcome a definitive statement from Daniel regarding protocol for a moderator to edit the spelling and grammar within other people's posts please.

I can fairly say that if someone was ever rude enough to do that to me I would throw a pretty epic flounce. 

If someone pointed out to me that I had spinach in my teeth or my skirt tucked in my knickers, I would likely be grateful. But I would not be so happy if the girl in Subway told me I was too fat to order the meatball marinara and she'd make me the veggie delight instead... She might be totally right, but she's also way overstepping her boundaries.

If a hairdresser accosted me in the street and started snipping at my split ends.... If a random boater re-tied the knots on my boat simply because they were not "correct..." If the cashier in Debenhams refused to sell me a dress because that style won't suit me...

I could go on for a while here, but seriously though, don't correct another grown-ass adult's spelling and grammar for its own sake within their own posts without their permission, that's a bloody liberty.

ThankyouPlease.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Starcoaster

[rusty69]

4 hours ago, Starcoaster said:

I would welcome a definitive statement from Daniel regarding protocol for a moderator to edit the spelling and grammar within other people's posts please

Think he already did:

"Certainly I would not expect a moderator to be editing another members post to correct the grammar. "

[MtB]

4 hours ago, Starcoaster said:

I would welcome a definitive statement from Daniel regarding protocol for a moderator to edit the spelling and grammar within other people's posts please.

I can fairly say that if someone was ever rude enough to do that to me I would throw a pretty epic flounce. 

If someone pointed out to me that I had spinach in my teeth or my skirt tucked in my knickers, I would likely be grateful. But I would not be so happy if the girl in Subway told me I was too fat to order the meatball marinara and she'd make me the veggie delight instead... She might be totally right, but she's also way overstepping her boundaries.

If a hairdresser accosted me in the street and started snipping at my split ends.... If a random boater re-tied the knots on my boat simply because they were not "correct..." If the cashier in Debenhams refused to sell me a dress because that style won't suit me...

I could go on for a while here, but seriously though, don't correct another grown-ass adult's spelling and grammar for its own sake within their own posts without their permission, that's a bloody liberty.

ThankyouPlease.

Well said. 

I know for a fact we have already lost one knowledgable member over this issue. I met him on the towpath and commented I haven't seen him on the forum for a while and he told me about a spat with Mr Athy over Mr Athy editing one of his posts and changing the meaning subtly with his edit. Mr Athy point blank refused to accept the meaning had been changed or remove his edit which I tjought was a pretty poor show and the (well regarded) member stoopped posting here as a result. A sad loss in my personal opinion. I often disagreed with the member concerned but in this case I fully agreed with his outrage at having his (compliant) post edited by Mr Athy. 

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

I thought was a pretty poor show and the (well regarded

 

[Athy]

15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Well said. 

I know for a fact we have already lost one knowledgable member over this issue. I met him on the towpath and commented I haven't seen him on the forum for a while and he told me about a spat with Mr Athy over Mr Athy editing one of his posts and changing the meaning subtly with his edit. Mr Athy point blank refused to accept the meaning had been changed or remove his edit which I tjought was a pretty poor show and the (well regarded) member stoopped posting here as a result. A sad loss in my personal opinion. I often disagreed with the member concerned but in this case I fully agreed with his outrage at having his (compliant) post edited by Mr Athy. 

Mr. Athy doesn't remember this, but agrees with you that, if that's what did happen, it was Mr. Athy's fault. Perhaps you could remind me of the incident by P.M?

There are times when a post should be edited, for example if it contains effing and blinding.

There are times when correcting a typo does no harm: for instance, recently someone wrote about a "bulge pump". Now, I do quite like the idea of a bulge pump: I imagine it swelling up when it sucks in the water, and slimming down again when it blows it out. But changing the "u" to an "I" - the two letters are adjacent on the keyboard and it's easy to press the wrong one - does no harm whatsoever. (I did not change it, incidentally!)

Then, there are times when an edit is inappropriate. For example, if a poster wrote "Mrs. May is not the right person to lead this country" and the "not" was edited out, then that would change the sense to opposite of what the poster meant, which would not be right.

[system 4-50]

11 minutes ago, Athy said:

There are times when correcting a typo does no harm: for instance, recently someone wrote about a "bulge pump". Now, I do quite like the idea of a bulge pump: I imagine it swelling up when it sucks in the water, and slimming down again when it blows it out. But changing the "u" to an "I" - the two letters are adjacent on the keyboard and it's easy to press the wrong one - does no harm whatsoever. (I did not change it, incidentally!)

I disagree with you here. It contributes to a sense of somebody leaning over your shoulder and monitoring what you are doing, for the poster.

[this is in bold to distinguish it from the original as I can't get the cursor out of the quote.]

[mross]

If the meaning is clear, and no forum rules are being broken, Mods should not edit posts.  If the post is unhelpful or inaccurate due to mistyping, I think the post should be quoted and correction put in the quote, not the original.  Who knows, the mod may completely misrepresent what the poster intended.  Mods can also PM the poster and point out the confusion.

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, Athy said:

Mr. Athy doesn't remember this, but agrees with you that, if that's what did happen, it was Mr. Athy's fault. Perhaps you could remind me of the incident by P.M?

There are times when a post should be edited,

There are times when correcting a typo does no harm:

Then, there are times when an edit is inappropriate.

PM sent as requested

On the editing point NO THERE ARE NOT. If a post complies with the posting guidelines then you have no business fiddling with it. A post should either stand or be deleted in its entirety in my opinion. If the soelling or punctuation troubles you send them a PM requesting permission to edit or suggesting they do it themselves. Editing posts is bang out of order in my personal opinion. Whatever the reason. Leave or delete. Those should be the only options a mod can choose from. 

If deleting, a PM containing a copy of the deleted text is good form, as it gives the member the opportunity to re-draft their text in a compliant manner and re-post.