Interesting Error Message

[BruceinSanity]

14 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Brian? 

You leave ditchcrawler alone!

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

What do you cll a deer with no eyes...??

No Idea - give us a clue.

[rusty69]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

No Idea - give us a clue.

Una Stubbs 

[Athy]

Erica Roe?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Una Stubbs 

Guy came up to me in the marina and offered to sell me 8 legs of venison for £100 - I said "that's too dear".

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Guy came up to me in the marina and offered to sell me 8 legs of venison for £100 - I said "that's too dear".

Its cheaper than last time you did that joke 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Its cheaper than last time you did that joke 

It the concerns about Brexit - the economy has gone to pot since that Canadian bank manager started his latest rant.

[RichM]

16 hours ago, Paul C said:

For the obvious reason that its impractical? 

 

The point being, whilst the number of pages/posts in that thread, or all political threads, are high, the actual number of distinct posters is low. If you really want to know how many, get RichM to run a query on it (its pretty simple to do that) and it would show how many users have posted; compare this to how many who haven't posted and it would reveal what's actually going on on the forum - that the political discussions have a minority of participants (I don't know how small a minority though....the query would show precisely though.....) but cause the majority of moderator workload.

 

If you're happy with that situation, then fine. But it seems a lot aren't happy about the level of consistency being applied these days. The trick is to make it manageable. If that means banning politics/religion discussion so be it, its your* forum. Or if that means actually doing more work; or getting more mods, that's another solution. The half-arsed current approach seems to have issues.

I could but I'd rather try and stay out of it. FWIW though I agree in that I don't see the point in having rules in place if they're not going to be consistently and thus fairly enforced. 

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, RichM said:

 I agree in that I don't see the point in having rules in place if they're not going to be consistently and thus fairly enforced. 

Quite so, and as far as I can see they are.

16 hours ago, Paul C said:

. Or if that means actually doing more work; or getting more mods, that's another solution. The half-arsed current approach seems to have issues.

So, I fear, do you. You suggest that moddies are lazy and don't know their backside from their elbow. This, as well as being uncharitable to say the least, is far from being the case. 

[rusty69]

Vote mtb for moderator today,or at the very least acknowledge his application! 

[dogless]

Anyone volunteering for the role should automatically be discounted don't you think.

Rog

[rusty69]

No

[Jerra]

I despair!

 

A while ago the forum was up in arms over moderation being too strict and draconian.  Now it seems some are begging for a return to strict and draconian.

 

I have followed and contributed to the Brexit thread and I read most of the threads daily.  Compared to what the forum was it is a pleasant well behaved place.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.   Let sleeping dogs lie.

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I despair!

 

A while ago the forum was up in arms over moderation being too strict and draconian.  Now it seems some are begging for a return to strict and draconian.

 

I have followed and contributed to the Brexit thread and I read most of the threads daily.  Compared to what the forum was it is a pleasant well behaved place.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.   Let sleeping dogs lie.

I even read and on occasion give greenies to your posts on " brexit!!!! " ?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I despair!

 

A while ago the forum was up in arms over moderation being too strict and draconian.  Now it seems some are begging for a return to strict and draconian.

 

I have followed and contributed to the Brexit thread and I read most of the threads daily.  Compared to what the forum was it is a pleasant well behaved place.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.   Let sleeping dogs lie.

Despair away, however you seem to completely missing the point of what some are actually saying rather than what you appear to think they are saying.

 

It seems for some reason that you (and others) fail to grasp the very simple notion that if political debate is allowed the rules shouldn't say it is not. It's a very simple concept.

 

The issue of how people conduct themselves in such a debate is a completely seperate issue and a matter for moderation.

 

I'm not being funny but it would seem anybody would have to be particularly dim not to grasp this, you are not so why can't you?

[Jerra]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

I even read and on occasion give greenies to your posts on " brexit!!!! " ?

Unbelievable!        The point I was making albeit in a backhand sort of way is I have read all 12150 posts over the 486 pages and don't feel they have been beyond the pale.

2 minutes ago, MJG said:

Despair away, however you seem to completely missing the point of what some are actually saying rather than what you appear to think they are saying.

 

It seems for some reason that you (and others) fail to grasp the very simple notion that if political debate is allowed the rules shouldn't say it is not. It's a very simple concept.

 

The issue of how people conduct themselves in such a debate is a completely seperate issue and a matter for moderation.

 

I'm not being funny but it would seem anybody would have to be particularly dim not to grasp this, you are not so why can't you?

I don't miss the point but the current system is working without being offensive IMO.  If you say political debate is allowed you have no easy control if on the other hand you ban it you prevent discussion such as Brexit which has been and is going along pleasantly.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Unbelievable!        The point I was making albeit in a backhand sort of way is I have read all 12150 posts over the 486 pages and don't feel they have been beyond the pale.

I don't miss the point but the current system is working without being offensive IMO.  If you say political debate is allowed you have no easy control if on the other hand you ban it you prevent discussion such as Brexit which has been and is going along pleasantly.

You do miss the point, by a country mile.

 

If you say it's allowed, it's err........allowed.

[Jerra]

58 minutes ago, MJG said:

You do miss the point, by a country mile.

 

If you say it's allowed, it's err........allowed.

That is the point you are missing by an urban or country mile (I thought miles were all 1760 yards) When political debate was allowed things got out of hand and it seemed the only way forward was to ban it.  Then (for those with short memories) the Brexit thread was allowed as it was a) such an important thing & b) had implications for boating and boaters.

 

It was implied/hinted call it what you will that if it was possible to keep that thread polite and within bounds things might be relaxed a little.  That thread has been polite and things are relaxed.

 

I wouldn't want to return to the no holds bared mess of a couple of years ago.  However the current situation IMO works.

 

I find the forum has double standards on many things.   "We must have rules that are enforced v rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" attitude.   Consider the difference between much of the forums attitude to rules on waterways e.g. displaying licences and we must have rules and have them enforced..

 

I still say if it ain't broke don't fix it particularly if it is going to take away enjoyment from some members who are behaving themselves.  The odd political thread shouldn't be a problem to anybody as they don't have to read it.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The odd political thread shouldn't be a problem to anybody as they don't have to read it.

 

You donarf trot out some tripe. We get get at least one new political thread every day now on average.

 

No-one had to read all the really bad stuff that used to get posted here either.

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No Idea

 

 

That's right! No eye deer. But you knew that really didn't you...

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

You donarf trot out some tripe.

The same can be said of any poster on any forum, particularly if you don't agree with them.  It moves the discussion forward not one iota.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

That is the point you are missing by an urban or country mile (I thought miles were all 1760 yards) When political debate was allowed things got out of hand and it seemed the only way forward was to ban it.  Then (for those with short memories) the Brexit thread was allowed as it was a) such an important thing & b) had implications for boating and boaters.

 

It was implied/hinted call it what you will that if it was possible to keep that thread polite and within bounds things might be relaxed a little.  That thread has been polite and things are relaxed.

 

I wouldn't want to return to the no holds bared mess of a couple of years ago.  However the current situation IMO works.

 

I find the forum has double standards on many things.   "We must have rules that are enforced v rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" attitude.   Consider the difference between much of the forums attitude to rules on waterways e.g. displaying licences and we must have rules and have them enforced..

 

I still say if it ain't broke don't fix it particularly if it is going to take away enjoyment from some members who are behaving themselves.  The odd political thread shouldn't be a problem to anybody as they don't have to read it.

What proportion of the Brexit thread relates to boating?

 

Answer virtual zero.

 

It's purely a political thread, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Your b is irrelavent.

[Jerra]

Just now, MJG said:

What proportion of the Brexit thread relates to boating?

 

Answer virtual zero.

 

It's purely a political thread, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Your b is irrelavent.

The virtual pub as I understand it doesn't have to be boat related.   Things like red diesel and tax have been discussed but if you expect me to go back through 12,000 plus posts you have another think coming.

 

Incidentally the fact there are 12,000+ posts is an indication that a number of forumites are happy to discuss it.

 

b is only irrelevant to you those of us in the thread I don't think agree.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The virtual pub as I understand it doesn't have to be boat related.   Things like red diesel and tax have been discussed but if you expect me to go back through 12,000 plus posts you have another think coming.

 

Incidentally the fact there are 12,000+ posts is an indication that a number of forumites are happy to discuss it.

 

b is only irrelevant to you those of us in the thread I don't think agree.

I didn't say other wise did I?

 

I was pointing out that your boating reference to the Brexit thread was flawed.

 

Do you make a habit of not reading posts properly before replying to them? You seem to keep doing it this evening.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, MJG said:

I didn't say other wise did I?

 

I was pointing out that your boating reference to the Brexit thread was flawed.

 

Do you make a habit of not reading posts properly before replying to them? You seem to keep doing it this evening.

Which part do you assume I didn't read.  A statement such as "Your b is irrelavent." implies it is irrelevant to all not merely the writer.  Perhaps "your b is irrelevant to me" would be better.

[Guest]

Just now, Jerra said:

Which part do you assume I didn't read.  A statement such as "Your b is irrelavent." implies it is irrelevant to all not merely the writer.  Perhaps "your b is irrelevant to me" would be better.

No, it was simply irrelavent.