CRT disgruntled staff

[pearlygeoff]

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Now that is why you aren't taken seriously.  I remember meeting you on the towpath and you telling me, perfectly rationally, about your problems with CRT. I was sympathising as it all seemed convincing until suddenly it turned into this ludicrous misogynistic rant at ever increasing volume about how all the trouble in CRT, business and the world in general was caused by having women in managerial positions as they were congenitally unsuited for it. By the time you'd finished I was seriously worried that you were completely irrational and capable of violence and made damn sure I double locked my boat up when I left it that night.

My comment was perfectly reasonable. Yours, as always, is hysterical, overblown, exaggerated and inaccurate hyperbole. If you choose to think women are beyond criticism because they're women you are, obviously, deluded. As to 'irrational and capable of violence' that is totally untrue and you are an attention seeking liar. 

[pearlygeoff]

15 hours ago, Midnight said:

Insult you? - experience suggests you are the master in that art.

As for not having a clue hmmm - all I will say is that it seems to me that you would probably be still living aboard but you have your own idea of what's right and what's illegal. You basically engineered your own demise. You challenged CaRT but were on thin ground and thought you could do it all yourself. You lost and have since written tons of stuff which may make you feel better but to many of us is now just plain boring.

If I win the lottery I will buy and restore Pearl, give her back to you and pay license and mooring fees for your life time. Even then I believe you would still end up in the same place.

Sits back awaits world class insults

I don't give a toss what you and those like you think.  I'm prepared to stand up to an illegal and systematised abuse by an arrogant unaccountable authority regardless of the consequence. You, and your ilk, would do nothing. If you encountered a person being abused or in distress you would pass on by saying, 'We don't want to get involved do we dear'

I don't want your help and I'm not interested in what you think. 

My complaint was correct; their behaviour was unlawful.

None of you can, actually, address what I say you can only respond with inaccurate and nonsensical abuse. BW/CRT, and other abusing authorities get away with it because of people like you.  

Cowardly bores hiding behind their keyboards incapable of independent original thought or understanding. What are you frightened of?

[Midnight]

7 minutes ago, pearlygeoff said:

I don't give a toss what you and those like you think.  I'm prepared to stand up to an illegal and systematised abuse by an arrogant unaccountable authority regardless of the consequence. You, and your ilk, would do nothing. If you encountered a person being abused or in distress you would pass on by saying, 'We don't want to get involved do we dear'

I don't want your help and I'm not interested in what you think. 

My complaint was correct; their behaviour was unlawful.

None of you can, actually, address what I say you can only respond with inaccurate and nonsensical abuse. BW/CRT, and other abusing authorities get away with it because of people like you.  

Cowardly bores hiding behind their keyboards incapable of independent original thought or understanding. What are you frightened of?

Yawn!!

[Graham Davis]

I see the Thunderboat sock puppets are back!

As usual I see I am the brunt of their childish insults over there. For your information, Gigoguy I mentioned railway forums and complaints about management because I was until 2 years ago a railwayman! Owning a boat is not a requirement to being a member of this forum, but so that you know, for 10 years we owned a share of a boat and cruised extensively, and for 30 years before that have been hire boaters.

[b0atman]

1 hour ago, BWM said:

Our local coal boats have occasionally received warning notifications due to using the same places to load, the Crt operative logging details obviously unaware of the necessities of their business, wrongly assuming they had been static in that position more than two weeks. Easily sorted out by relaying the correct information though. 

Surely commonsense and the fact of what they are i.e a delivery trading vessel should tell the EO that this is not one to record.

Do they also record the work boats that the Contract firms used by CRT have and are often moored or in a limited area for work ?

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

I would not expect boat checkers will check marinas and possibly even home moorings on the canal are not recorded as it creates too much data which is probably manually processed.  I suspect they only log when boats are on ‘time limited’ moorings or actually moving.

I have an end of garden mooring and the CRT checker logs my boat every 2 weeks regular as clockwork.

I usually give him a wave when I see him.

However I have never asked to see my logged boat locations.

Edited October 21, 2017 by cuthound
Spillung

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, pearlygeoff said:

I don't give a toss what you and those like you think.

I don't want your help and I'm not interested in what you think.

So why bother to post in a discussion forum?  Best stick to your own website where you can make your arguments at leisure - better still, build a forum into it so proper discussion can take place there on the topics of your choice and people can interract with you directly.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, pearlygeoff said:

My comment was perfectly reasonable. Yours, as always, is hysterical, overblown, exaggerated and inaccurate hyperbole. If you choose to think women are beyond criticism because they're women you are, obviously, deluded. As to 'irrational and capable of violence' that is totally untrue and you are an attention seeking liar. 

Ye gods! Nurse, the screens!

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Arthur Marshall

[Midnight]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Ye gods! Nurse, the screens!

 

I liked your first comment before the edit better - I want my greenie back

[NB Lola]

Pearlygeoff, unless you moderate your contributions, moderators will moderate for you.  As was said, if you do not want contribution from others, I see no reason why you post.

Should your attitude not improve we will act.  Moderation these days is an exception rather than the rule but be sure we will act.

1 warning point awarded.

Edited October 21, 2017 by NB Lola

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

Pearlygeoff, unless you moderate your contributions, moderators will moderate for you.  As was said, if you do not want contribution from others, I see no reason why you post.

Should your attitude not improve we will act.  Moderation these days is an exception rather than the rule but be sure we will act.

1 warning point awarded.

I always under stood warning points awarded on here were a matter between the moderators and the member concerned, when did this change please?

[NB Lola]

It changed when I decided to show members we do act and take such issues seriously.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, NB Lola said:

It changed when I decided to show members we do act and take such issues seriously.

Interesting.

From the forum R&G's

Members who are deemed to have breached the site ethos, rules and guidelines, or who otherwise incite disruption of CWDF will be reprimanded accordingly and will receive notification via the warning system, personal message or both. The action taken may range from an informal notification (zero point warning) to an outright ban. Your warning level is only visible to yourself and the site staff. 

 

So that is not quite correct is it?

Edited October 21, 2017 by MJG

[Chewbacka]

Ahh but you don’t know the total number of warning points, just that he got one.  Though telling us one warning point was awarded is maybe not in the spirit of the rules as written, maybe update the rules?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Ahh but you don’t know the total number of warning points, just that he got one.  Though telling us one warning point was awarded is maybe not in the spirit of the rules as written, maybe update the rules?

Very true we don't know totals, but I agree it's not in the spirit of the rules, and if this is now forum policy (which it appears to be) the rules should be clearer to make it known that if you are to receive a warning it will be announced in the public domain. I personally don't agree with it being so but I do believe in clarity.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by MJG

[furnessvale]

22 hours ago, b0atman said:

BUT what if someone has cloned your boat by putting your number on theirs the those sightings could be accurate .

 

I should imagine that CRTs records will begin to show the same boat in two different places at once.

I would be surprised if CRT then started to threaten people without investigating.  Perhaps they would contact the single registered keeper for that name and number BEFORE issuing any threats?

George

[Jerra]

15 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I should imagine that CRTs records will begin to show the same boat in two different places at once.

I would be surprised if CRT then started to threaten people without investigating.  Perhaps they would contact the single registered keeper for that name and number BEFORE issuing any threats?

George

A bit of a problem because some people would see that contact as a threat.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

I liked your first comment before the edit better - I want my greenie back

OK, I think I suggested Pearly was talking to a mirror and thinking it was me! 

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, NB Lola said:

It changed when I decided to show members we do act and take such issues seriously.

Good, about time too! (I mean the transparency of publically acknowledging moderator action is taken). Its the same as courts - unless in exceptional circumstances, courts are accessible to the public to observe.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Good, about time too! (I mean the transparency of publically acknowledging moderator action is taken). Its the same as courts - unless in exceptional circumstances, courts are accessible to the public to observe.

Not a very good analogy I would suggest. In a court (in the UK and some other countries at least) you have the opportunity to defend yourself and put your case publicly before you are sanctioned, unless of course you are pleading guilty to the 'offence'. In most sanctioning systems on internet forums to publicly 'plead your case' would bring you in further breach of the rules. People can then make their own minds up as to whether the sanction by a court is fair, that can't happen here as there is neither the time nor resources to do this.

All I am really suggesting is that if the policy re naming and shaming has changed then the forum rules and guidelines should be reworded to reflect this.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, MJG said:

Interesting.you

From the forum R&G's

Members who are deemed to have breached the site ethos, rules and guidelines, or who otherwise incite disruption of CWDF will be reprimanded accordingly and will receive notification via the warning system, personal message or both. The action taken may range from an informal notification (zero point warning) to an outright ban. Your warning level is only visible to yourself and the site staff. 

 

So that is not quite correct is it?

As you correctly point out Your warning level is only visible to yourself and the site staff,

That does not appear to have changed - well, I cannot see his warning level.

The R&Gs do not state anything about not announcing that action has been taken.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The R&Gs do not state anything about not announcing that action has been taken.

That is incorrect I'm afraid. 

The site owner and moderators will discuss problems privately and individually but NOT in the open forum - possibly covers it.

The moderation team will not discuss disciplinary actions within any publicly accessible forums. - Almost certainly does.

As I say all is required is a simple change of wording.

[Arthur Marshall]

It's been that peaceful till recently the subject probably never came up.  Pearly & Co's entertainment value is as good as ever, but it's not worth getting bothered about.  They have most of their fun in the other place, which is nice for them, because just about everyone there thinks the same. Here, we do actually have discussions with people whose opinions differ.

[Paul C]

There's probably a worthwhile debate to be had surrounding the moderation/rules, but in the middle of another thread on another topic isn't the place for it. I would suggest some comments are split off and placed in a thread in the "suggestions" sub-forum. The original moderator input is valid within the subject thread.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, MJG said:

That is incorrect I'm afraid. 

The site owner and moderators will discuss problems privately and individually but NOT in the open forum - possibly covers it.

The moderation team will not discuss disciplinary actions within any publicly accessible forums. - Almost certainly does.

As I say all is required is a simple change of wording.

In which case I was wrong.

But seeing as it is windy, & for the sake of argument, I would suggest that announcing the imposition of 'points' is not the same as discussing the disciplinary action