Interesting Error Message

[Athy]

37 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

Frankly Athy's reply is just ridiculous.

.

You are entitled to your opinion, though I am sorry that you appear to find a tolerant and liberal way of doing things "ridiculous". Would you really prefer a heavy-handed and confrontational approach, as was not unknown in these pages a year or two ago?

[alan_fincher]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

You are entitled to your opinion, though I am sorry that you appear to find a tolerant and liberal way of doing things "ridiculous". Would you really prefer a heavy-handed and confrontational approach, as was not unknown in these pages a year or two ago?

I am saying that your explanation of the gulf between the clear forum rules, and how it is currently being operated is ridiculous.

I am not necessarily saying that relaxing the rules to allow considered but moderated debate is ridiculous - that's a different debate entirely.

As many people other than me have said, Dan and his team need to get off the pot and decide if it is allowed or not.  If it now is, how hard is it to modify the rules to reflect what is actually being allowed?  Not hard at all is it, and many many people have been telling you this, and asking for it.  If you were to do that people know where they stand, and can decide to what extent they want to remain part of it.  Until you do, any of us could presumably get a warning or ban at any time for flouting the clearly written rules - OK, I know we don't, but logically you could do that to any of us at any time, and we would have no logical basis for complaining about it, because we are breaking the rules each time we post in such debates.

You have not given, and continue not to give, any explanation why we carry on with clearly stated rules that say one thing, and a reality and moderating team that is doing something quite different.  I have no idea to what extent Dan still involves himself in things, (if at all), but I notice he also remains totally silent about the complete anomaly that has now developed.

I continue to maintain the current situation, and yours and others defences of it, are ridiculous.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, Athy said:

You are entitled to your opinion, though I am sorry that you appear to find a tolerant and liberal way of doing things "ridiculous". Would you really prefer a heavy-handed and confrontational approach, as was not unknown in these pages a year or two ago?

 

I think Alan (like me) is arguing for the contentious rule which mods currently refuse to enforce, to be deleted. 

 

I'm sure Alan can argue this for himself but thought I'd add my voice.

 

Edit to add: Cross posted with Alan

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman

[MtB]

 

In addition to a posting rule we can ignore, I notice  a new, undocumented posting rule creeping in.

 

According to that nice Mr Athy earlier, we may make rule-busting posts provided they "do no harm". I've been given this as a reason for rejecting a post report previously too. I didn't realise it was actually a policy. 

 

Can we have this added to the posting rules please?

 

[Higgs]

 

I think the subjects that some find irritating (religion and politics) should not be given full acceptance in the main definitions of the boundaries.  Some subjects should have a provisional qualification and be conditional, as acceptable, if remaining civil , but always under review. I have no sympathy for those that are just completely intolerant of the debating of certain subjects.

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

And on and on it goes with no-one saying why the threads in question were 'pulled' and most people having never read them.  Maybe the threads could be exposed so people can read them. I read them and made a response to a post that few people have read where Mr. WV was challenging the truth about 'Muslim rape gangs' and stated, as I recall, that they were all decent chaps and it's understandable that plying vulnerable girls with gifts and giving them attention would lead to that situation.

The 'apologists' are far more reprehensible than the other 'ists' and are just brainwashed fools and tools.

 

Perfectly clear, and misguided political agenda in evidence on this site and that determines much of the 'moderation'.    

I think that pretty much aligns with Trevor Phillips TV Documentary "Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True" a couple of years ago

 

As former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips was very much part of that elite. He commissioned the 1997 Runnymede report that popularised the word ‘Islamophobia’. The fact that so impeccably liberal a figure is now issuing a mea culpa like this speaks volumes about how dire the situation has grown. ‘Everyone who has pinned their hopes on the rise of reforming and liberal British Muslim voices are in for a disappointment,’ said Phillips. ‘These voices are nowhere near as numerous as they need to be to make an impact.

 

In Phillips’ view, the well-intentioned work of the EHRC to stamp out racial bigotry has succeeded mainly in creating a climate of fear in which it has become impossible to publicly identify social problems or investigate criminal activities with an ethnic dimension because those doing so will either be ignored or vilified as racists. Social workers didn’t help Victoria Climbie, for instance, because they didn’t want to be seen as high-handedly intervening in an African family’s culture; the predominantly Asian gangs who groomed girls in Rotherham were allowed to do so for years because the police didn’t want to get involved with something so politically sensitive, and so on.

 

‘Our findings will shock many people,’ promised Trevor Phillips at the beginning of What British Muslims Really Think (Channel 4, Wednesday).

But the depressing thing is that I doubt they will, actually. I think the general British public have known for some time what Phillips’s documentary professed to find surprising: that large numbers of Muslims don’t want to integrate, that their views aren’t remotely enlightened, and that more than a few of them sympathise with terrorism. It’s only the establishment elite that has ever pretended otherwise.

 

 

Here are the stats to prove it: 52 per cent of Britain’s three million Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal; 39 per cent think a woman should always obey her husband; 18 per cent sympathise with people who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; 4 per cent — that equates to about 100,000 Muslims — have ‘sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice’. Oh, and if any of them knew someone was involved in supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police. The other two million, then, would keep schtum.

Normally the PC response to these surveys is to shoot the messenger, as the BBC and the Guardian and the usual dhimmi apologists did last year, when the Sun revealed that one in four British Muslims sympathised with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo killers. They’ll find it harder this time, not just because Phillips is black and probably reads the Guardian, but also because the survey was so thorough. It was conducted, face to face, by people of the same religion. And when it came to the really tricky question — the one about terrorism — a blank envelope was provided for the answer, so that respondents felt freer to say what they really thought.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

And on and on it goes with no-one saying why the threads in question were 'pulled' and most people having never read them.  Maybe the threads could be exposed so people can read them. I read them and made a response to a post that few people have read where Mr. WV was challenging the truth about 'Muslim rape gangs' and stated, as I recall, that they were all decent chaps and it's understandable that plying vulnerable girls with gifts and giving them attention would lead to that situation.

The 'apologists' are far more reprehensible than the other 'ists' and are just brainwashed fools and tools.

 

Perfectly clear, and misguided political agenda in evidence on this site and that determines much of the 'moderation'.    

This is a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said and well you know it.

[Athy]

3 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

I am saying that your explanation of the gulf between the clear forum rules, and how it is currently being operated is ridiculous.

I am not necessarily saying that relaxing the rules to allow considered but moderated debate is ridiculous - that's a different debate entirely.

As many people other than me have said, Dan and his team need to get off the pot and decide if it is allowed or not.  If it now is, how hard is it to modify the rules to reflect what is actually being allowed?  Not hard at all is it, and many many people have been telling you this, and asking for it.  If you were to do that people know where they stand, and can decide to what extent they want to remain part of it.  Until you do, any of us could presumably get a warning or ban at any time for flouting the clearly written rules - OK, I know we don't, but logically you could do that to any of us at any time, and we would have no logical basis for complaining about it, because we are breaking the rules each time we post in such debates.

You have not given, and continue not to give, any explanation why we carry on with clearly stated rules that say one thing, and a reality and moderating team that is doing something quite different.  I have no idea to what extent Dan still involves himself in things, (if at all), but I notice he also remains totally silent about the complete anomaly that has now developed.

I continue to maintain the current situation, and yours and others defences of it, are ridiculous.

   Alan, thank you for stating your views so clearly. I think you're in a minority (as evidenced by the number of people who have enjoyed contributing to, for example, the Brexit topic) but minorities should indeed be listened to. But many appear to feel that the current situation needs no "defence". As you consider that relaxing the rules in certain circumstances is not ridiculous, and as that's what has happened (as has been stated on the forum numerous times) I don't feel that my reiteration of that development is ridiculous in the slightest. I'm simply reminding people of what was decided some time ago.

   I do wonder, if a return to a complete ban on political content were to happen, how it would be defined and where it would end. For example, you may remember that a couple of years ago there was a considerable problem with refugees in the Calais area. At least two of our members, both boaters at the time, went over to give what help they could, and reported back to us. Many of us, I'm sure, appreciated and indeed admired their efforts, and were affected by the plight of some of the people involved. Now, one could say that this was principally a social problem - but it certainly spilled over into politics at times. So, should no such reporting have taken place? Or perhaps it could have done so, but with no reference to the French authorities, which would have removed an essential part of the story. Where does "politics" begin and end?

   As far as I'm aware, Daniel is more or less simultaneously starting a new job and moving house, so it is unsurprising that his visits here are less frequent than hitherto.

   

[Paul C]

There's two entirely different issues here:

 

1) Should politics and religion be allowable topics of discussion on a canal forum? History has shown that whoever is in charge can't seem to make up their minds here, AIUI the latest situation is "yes" but its been "no" before and "yes" previous to that. Respected that there's enormous difficulties actually policing such a rule since it could come up, quite legitimately, in a number of areas in various shades of strength.

 

2) Should the written rules accurately reflect the position by which the moderating is done? I think almost everyone is saying "yes" here except there seems a practical difficulty in someone actually taking charge and updating them properly, especially if Daniel is away/has limited time to do it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

2) Should the written rules accurately reflect the position by which the moderating is done? I think almost everyone is saying "yes" here except there seems a practical difficulty in someone actually taking charge and updating them properly, especially if Daniel is away/has limited time to do it.

It would take no more than 15 minutes surely?

 

Or if not why would it take any longer than that? I don't know the detail of exactly how they would be updated but surely it's nothing more than logging as as the site owner with the permissions that gives and changing the wording.

 

It takes just minutes to do it on a Facebook group So why is a site like this any different?

[alan_fincher]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

   Alan, thank you for stating your views so clearly. I think you're in a minority (as evidenced by the number of people who have enjoyed contributing to, for example, the Brexit topic) but minorities should indeed be listened to. But many appear to feel that the current situation needs no "defence". As you consider that relaxing the rules in certain circumstances is not ridiculous, and as that's what has happened (as has been stated on the forum numerous times) I don't feel that my reiteration of that development is ridiculous in the slightest. I'm simply reminding people of what was decided some time ago.

 

Can you produce any evidence that the people who think that allowing continual posting of political material whilst the forum rules specifically disallow it are indeed a minority - if so can we see it please?

I suggest neither of us know whether this is the case or not - we simply have our own opinions, but no strong evidence to support them.

Either way, there have been large numbers of people suggesting that to have a clear rule which is continuously broken is bonkers, (minority or otherwise).

Just "stating on the forum numerous times" that the rule can probably be broken much of the time, (presumably providing you don't cross some invisible unstated line?), doesn't make it an ideal situation, does it?

I have yet to see any logical argument for continuing to allow the posts, and not dropping that forum rule.  I suggest it is because no logical argument actually exists.
 

[dogless]

Surely this thread is discussing politics (albeit not party politics but the politics of the forum) and everyone is playing nicely.

Surely rules are intended for guidance only.

If the forum does not trust it's members to operate unmoderated, Athy's light hand is the appropriate response don't you think?

Or do you actually enjoy banning people?

Rog

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Can you produce any evidence that the people who think that allowing continual posting of political material whilst the forum rules specifically disallow it are indeed a minority - if so can we see it please?


 

12,000 + posts in the Brexit thread speak for themselves. You can see it, if you can bear to plough through many pages of discussion.

[alan_fincher]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

12,000 + posts in the Brexit thread speak for themselves. You can see it, if you can bear to plough through many pages of discussion.

That proves nothing at all, does it, or at last doesn't in any way answer my question you have just quoted.

I, for example, have probably posted in that thread, but that is not evidence that I believe that it is right to allow continual posting of political material whilst the forum rules specifically disallow it.

Rather than quote total post count for a thread, do you know what percentage of total members have contributed to that thread, versus those that have not?  I'm guessing you don't, although perhaps as a mod you may have tools to fid out not available to the rest of us?

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Can you produce any evidence that the people who think that allowing continual posting of political material whilst the forum rules specifically disallow it are indeed a minority - if so can we see it please?

How about a poll ?

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

How about a poll ?

Here you go (Anna Rogowska) 

Edited August 4, 2018 by rusty69

[alan_fincher]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

How about a poll ?

I hate being proved wrong! ?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Here you go 

Nah ………………….

 

This is a Pole

 

 

And so is this :

 

 

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Nah ………………….

 

This is a Pole

 

 

And so is this :

 

 

I prefer licwinko to lechwalesa

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by rusty69

[alan_fincher]

3 hours ago, dogless said:

Surely this thread is discussing politics (albeit not party politics but the politics of the forum) and everyone is playing nicely.

Surely rules are intended for guidance only.

If the forum does not trust it's members to operate unmoderated, Athy's light hand is the appropriate response don't you think?

Or do you actually enjoy banning people?

Rog

Whoa!

At no point have I made any suggestion whatsoever about banning anybody, have I?

I am simply suggesting that moderation policy should reflect forum rules, and if those rules are no longer considered appropriate it would be better to drop them, than to state one thing and do something totally different.

As an aside, whether members who have received a ban for whatever reason should be allowed to come back on by the simple expedient of creating a new user name is a quite different matter.  In my view if it is to be allowed/condoned, some honesty that it is clearly happening would be better than pretending that there is no evidence that it is.

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Whoa!

At no point have I made any suggestion whatsoever about banning anybody, have I?

I am simply suggesting that moderation policy should reflect forum rules, and if those rules are no longer considered appropriate it would be better to drop them, than to state one thing and do something totally different.

 

 

Seconded.

 

I would find deletion of the unenforced 'STRICTLY NO POLITICS" rule just as acceptable. At least we would know where we stand on the issue.

 

This debate has nothing to do with banning people. 

[Athy]

5 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

Rather than quote total post count for a thread, do you know what percentage of total members have contributed to that thread, versus those that have not?  I'm guessing you don't, although perhaps as a mod you may have tools to fid out not available to the rest of us?

Why don't you have a quick look through the 487 pages of the Brexit thread and compile a list? 

[Paul C]

40 minutes ago, Athy said:

Why don't you have a quick look through the 487 pages of the Brexit thread and compile a list? 

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.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

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.

 

Alan and I are arguing for alignment of the posting rules with modding practice and policy.

 

The simplest way would be by deleting the 'no politics' rule. 

 

But to have a forum where posters are required to sign up to a set of posting rules then for mods to operate a different set of posting rules is simply farcical. As are some of Athy's flippant defences of the situation.

[Athy]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Alan and I are arguing for alignment of the posting rules with modding practice and policy.

 

The simplest way would be by deleting the 'no politics' rule. 

 

But to have a forum where posters are required to sign up to a set of posting rules then for mods to operate a different set of posting rules is simply farcical. As are some of Athy's flippant defences of the situation.

You are too kind. There's nothing "farcical" about it, nor was there any flippancy. I see no inconsistency, rather a set of rules which may be applied when necessary, because our members are adults and should not be subject to their over-zealous implementation. The question is, of course, what constitutes "when necessary"? Examples could be when posts are deliberately inflammatory or when someone descends to personal abuse - just as in any other topic.

6 hours ago, Paul C said:

For the obvious reason that its impractical? 

 

 

Quite so. I do not know if there is a computerised way of counting the number of different posters in any particular thread, but if it is, then it would indeed be instructive.