CRT disgruntled staff

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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

But the points system is the basis of any disciplinary action, along with bans (temp. and permanent) and being placed on mod. approval, unless there is something else?.

But I see where you coming from as it could be 'we wont discuss any action taken' rather than 'we wont disclose any action taken'.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MJG said:

But the points system is the basis of any disciplinary action, along with bans (temp. and permanent) and being placed on mod. approval, unless there is something else?.

But I see where you coming from as it could be 'we wont discuss any action taken' rather than 'we wont disclose any action taken'.

I read it more as “we will not hold our discussions (reviewing evidence, level of punishment, which mods want what sanctions etc.) in public"

[haggis]

Oh dear, we were going along quite nicely with everyone more or less playing fair till MJG challenges the rules and mod actions. Does it really matter what the rules are? I think like most folk on here I read the posts which gave rise to the mod action and thought they were a bit off and when I saw that a mod had taken action I thought that was OK. I saw no reason to go and read the rules to see whether what had been done was OK or not.  

Lets not get back to the days of challenging mod actions. In my view, it was such challenges in the past which led to some folk trying to see how far they could push the boundary and it all got pretty nasty as a result. 

I like the way we discuss things now and don't want to go back to the bad old days again. 

Relax, MJG, and enjoy the forum as it is.

haggis

[Neil2]

9 minutes ago, haggis said:

Oh dear, we were going along quite nicely with everyone more or less playing fair till MJG challenges the rules and mod actions. Does it really matter what the rules are? I think like most folk on here I read the posts which gave rise to the mod action and thought they were a bit off and when I saw that a mod had taken action I thought that was OK. I saw no reason to go and read the rules to see whether what had been done was OK or not.  

Lets not get back to the days of challenging mod actions. In my view, it was such challenges in the past which led to some folk trying to see how far they could push the boundary and it all got pretty nasty as a result. 

I like the way we discuss things now and don't want to go back to the bad old days again. 

Relax, MJG, and enjoy the forum as it is.

haggis

I totally agree, the mod came in just at the right point and did exactly the right thing, I would say.  This is how the forum should be run, it's what that long drawn out discussion way back was all about.  

Edited October 21, 2017 by Neil2

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, haggis said:

Oh dear, we were going along quite nicely with everyone more or less playing fair till MJG challenges the rules and mod actions. Does it really matter what the rules are? I think like most folk on here I read the posts which gave rise to the mod action and thought they were a bit off and when I saw that a mod had taken action I thought that was OK. I saw no reason to go and read the rules to see whether what had been done was OK or not.  

Lets not get back to the days of challenging mod actions. In my view, it was such challenges in the past which led to some folk trying to see how far they could push the boundary and it all got pretty nasty as a result. 

I like the way we discuss things now and don't want to go back to the bad old days again. 

Relax, MJG, and enjoy the forum as it is.

haggis

Pardon me but I actually thought we were having quite civilised discussion. The posts that resulted in mod intervention were indeed a bit off and they probably warranted the action taken. It was actually at that point that the thread took a bit 'of a turn' and I don't have any issue with the action taken (ie the warning given) should you be in any doubt. All the subsequent posts were actually perfectly polite with some disagreement and with no abuse or insults thrown, so I fail to see why you singled me out for criticism.

The suggestion that the wording on the R&G's be changed is really not that bad is it?

Edited October 21, 2017 by MJG

[Iain_S]

1 hour 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.

One post does not a discussion make ...

[Boat&Bikes]

Some people could start an arguement in a tent, or caravan even. Why do folks get so worked up? 

[Graham Davis]

And if they don't like the moderation on this Forum there is a completely un-moderated boating forum available.

[BWM]

1 hour ago, haggis said:

Oh dear, we were going along quite nicely with everyone more or less playing fair till MJG challenges the rules and mod actions. Does it really matter what the rules are? I think like most folk on here I read the posts which gave rise to the mod action and thought they were a bit off and when I saw that a mod had taken action I thought that was OK. I saw no reason to go and read the rules to see whether what had been done was OK or not.  

Lets not get back to the days of challenging mod actions. In my view, it was such challenges in the past which led to some folk trying to see how far they could push the boundary and it all got pretty nasty as a result. 

I like the way we discuss things now and don't want to go back to the bad old days again. 

Relax, MJG, and enjoy the forum as it is.

haggis

I must confess to never having read the rules, relying entirely on common sense and the ability to find another topic when things start getting gritty.

  The moderation seems to have quite a light touch in my experience.  

[haggis]

1 hour ago, MJG said:

Pardon me but I actually thought we were having quite civilised discussion. The posts that resulted in mod intervention were indeed a bit off and they probably warranted the action taken. It was actually at that point that the thread took a bit 'of a turn' and I don't have any issue with the action taken (ie the warning given) should you be in any doubt. All the subsequent posts were actually perfectly polite with some disagreement and with no abuse or insults thrown, so I fail to see why you singled me out for criticism.

The suggestion that the wording on the R&G's be changed is really not that bad is it?

I singled you out as it was you who first raised the question of rules. Completely unnecessary in my view 

 

Haggis 

[NB Lola]

On 18/10/2017 at 23:36, GoodGurl said:

found this site that shows comments from staff working at CRT it seems theres a lot of unhappy staff.

http://stevjay.simplesite.com/419998921

The site does suggest a degree of angst.  I think that there is a need for balance, if it exists.  The comments made indicate a lack of competent management and leadership.  I totally agree with one comment where staff are promoted into management positions without the requisite training, a classic error and one which is made in many businesses time and time again.  There should be an annual anonymous staff survey within CRT, as happens in central government, and such surveys should be taken very seriously. That is the way to gauge staff feelings and the results set a baseline for specific improvement.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, haggis said:

I singled you out as it was you who first raised the question of rules. Completely unnecessary in my view 

 

Haggis 

And it was in my opinion necessary to raise the issue. Hey ho Haggis our opinions differ.

3 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

And if they don't like the moderation on this Forum there is a completely un-moderated boating forum available.

Guffaw...

3 hours ago, ianali said:

Some people could start an arguement in a tent, or caravan even. Why do folks get so worked up? 

I love the caravan reference, really original.

[Guest]

I should just add I really like the reactions function on here, seeing who votes posts up or agrees/approves them is really quite useful

 

Something the  previous version of the forum should have had.

[haggis]

1 minute ago, MJG said:

And it was in my opinion necessary to raise the issue. Hey ho Haggis our opinions differ.

They appear to  :-) . I just like a quiet non confrontational life and I don't think I am alone going by the number of greenies my post got.  I just don't want to see CWDF  going back to how it was and perhaps we don't need things being stirred up again.  During the time when you and others didn't post on here things settled down nicely and quite frankly no matter how necessary you feel it is to ask about rules most  of us  don't feel it is necessary at all . 

Please don't rock the CWDF boat  

haggis

 

[Guest]

Just now, haggis said:

They appear to  :-) . I just like a quiet non confrontational life and I don't think I am alone going by the number of greenies my post got.  I just don't want to see CWDF  going back to how it was and perhaps we don't need things being stirred up again.  During the time when you and others didn't post on here things settled down nicely and quite frankly no matter how necessary you feel it is to ask about rules most  of us  don't feel it is necessary at all . 

Please don't rock the CWDF boat  

haggis

 

The greenies you got and who they were from were not really unexpected though? I could have written the list.

I don't post to up my greenie tally though.

[haggis]

14 minutes ago, MJG said:

The greenies you got and who they were from were not really unexpected though? I could have written the list.

I don't post to up my greenie tally though.

Nor do I. To me someone gives a greenie as an indication that they agree with what a post says. I have never taken any notice of how many greenies I have or how many posts I have made although I know others like watching their numbers grow.  I made comment on the fact that I got support for my original post in this topic in the hope that you would see that we are happy with how things are. Obviously I failed so I will leave it there. 

haggis

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, haggis said:

Nor do I. To me someone gives a greenie as an indication that they agree with what a post says. I have never taken any notice of how many greenies I have or how many posts I have made although I know others like watching their numbers grow.  I made comment on the fact that I got support for my original post in this topic in the hope that you would see that we are happy with how things are. Obviously I failed so I will leave it there. 

haggis

I think using the term 'we' is replaceable with 'some' of the membership.

But yes let's leave it there, agreed, (I do wonder though if everybody can, we shall see)

[thebfg]

On 21/10/2017 at 15:32, Arthur Marshall said:

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.

Afaik pearly is not over there or if he is does not post often.

That's a little unfair about everyone agreeing. One minute we are all there to argue and the next all agree.

 

I think it really reflects in the number of posters. Over there there is only a small amount of regular posters but here 1000 people could agree on a subject but as there are lots of other people someone is still bound to have a different opinion.

 

It could be fair to say that on some threads here there are only one or two posters disagreeing.

 

Sorry for the digression but I think it's a fair point and make it with respect.

I did note you did say just about and not all. I love a good debate.