Interesting Error Message

[rusty69]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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

Perhaps you and Alan could sign up for moderator duties to smooth the alignment process

[nicknorman]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Perhaps you and Alan could sign up for moderator duties to smooth the alignment process

A desirable attribute of a moderator is that they have an ability to see both sides of an argument and don’t believe that only one view can be tolerated - their own.

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

A desirable attribute of a moderator is that they have an ability to see both sides of an argument and don’t believe that only one view can be tolerated - their own.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the forum retains any moderators for long, its a thankless task, which is always being criticised by others who are not prepared to have a go. 

[alan_fincher]

Just now, rusty69 said:

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the forum retains any moderators for long, its a thankless task, which is always being criticised by others who are not prepared to have a go. 

It is not necessarily about "who is prepared to have a go".

I'm sure Mike will be back shortly that he volunteered to do exactly this, and was turned down.

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Quite frankly, I'm surprised the forum retains any moderators for long, its a thankless task, which is always being criticised by others who are not prepared to have a go. 

As I was a schoolmaster for 30 + years I'm fairly inured to that!

[rusty69]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

As I was a schoolmaster for 30 + years I'm fairly inured to that!

Perhaps that's why you got the job. 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

You are too kind. There's nothing "farcical" about it, nor was there any flippancy.

 

 

Of COURE it is farcical to publish one set of rules then operate it by another. 

 

And suggesting Alan manually checks who made each post in a 437 page thread is obviously flippant. Or did you really mean you think he should?!!

[MtB]

3 hours ago, rusty69 said:

Perhaps you and Alan could sign up for moderator duties to smooth the alignment process

 

I did offer once, with a long and thorough PM responding to his advert on here for new mods. 

 

I never heard a bean in response, despite PMing a reminder. 

 

So not so much as rejected, but ignored. Sob....

 

Anyway if Dan wants me as a mod my application is still in his in box, unanswered. Not that I'm on the edge of my seat in anticipation!

[Athy]

37 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Of COURE it is farcical to publish one set of rules then operate it by another. 

 

And suggesting Alan manually checks who made each post in a 437 page thread is obviously flippant. Or did you really mean you think he should?!!

No, that's not what happens. The same rules are applied in a relaxed way which benefits members (think of Cropredy moorings at the moment: same rules, lenient interpretation). 

No, it is obviously not flippant. Anyone who is keen to know how many people have posted in a thread can read it and make a list of them. I can't think of any other way, but I haven't got time to do it at the moment. 

So, as you'll gather, my points were neither farcical nor flippant.

[Paul C]

No, there's a distinction between being able to interpret a guideline liberally; and (effectively) treating something as a "yes" when the rule quite clearly says "no". 

 

Of course its possible to determine who, or how many, posted on a thread - its not really for you to take this up though Athy; you've clearly pointed out you don't know how to do it. Let someone else if they want to, or accept the suggestion that only a minority do.

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

No, there's a distinction between being able to interpret a guideline liberally; and (effectively) treating something as a "yes" when the rule quite clearly says "no". 

 

 

Perhaps so, and this forum does the former; big stick kept in cupboard, everyone knows it's there so it need be waved about only in rare circumstances. In the last week, two politically-orientated threads have been closed down because my colleagues (I was away in France at the time so couldn't be involved) felt that they had overstepped the mark. The stick is now back in the cupboard, where I hope it will stay. That seems a fair way of doing things.

[bizzard]

Big arguments and rows  that break out on certain threads are everso popular though. A year or two ago with the old invision system which showed at the botom of the page how many folk were perusing it, logged in and non member visiters was huge often in the 100's , Almost everyone loving it with almost all other threads ignored, on hold

[bizzard]

20 minutes ago, bizzard said:

Big arguments and rows  that break out on certain threads are everso popular though. A year or two ago with the old invision system which showed at the botom of the page how many folk were perusing it, logged in and non member visiters was huge often in the 100's , Almost everyone loving it with almost all other threads ignored, on hold

See, that's quietened things down,  The guilt.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, bizzard said:

Big arguments and rows  that break out on certain threads are everso popular though. A year or two ago with the old invision system which showed at the botom of the page how many folk were perusing it, logged in and non member visiters was huge often in the 100's , Almost everyone loving it with almost all other threads ignored, on hold

 

Maybe THIS is why Dan wants politics discussed on here. To ramp up the visit stats.

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Perhaps so, and this forum does the former; big stick kept in cupboard, everyone knows it's there so it need be waved about only in rare circumstances. In the last week, two politically-orientated threads have been closed down because my colleagues (I was away in France at the time so couldn't be involved) felt that they had overstepped the mark. The stick is now back in the cupboard, where I hope it will stay. That seems a fair way of doing things.

 

 

Complete red herring.

 

The threads were not as you say, deleted because they were discussing politics, they were deleted for members 'overstepping the mark'.

 

Get rid of the 'no politics' rule and the thread could still have been deleted for 'overstepping the mark'.

 

 

[Athy]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Maybe THIS is why Dan wants politics discussed on here. To ramp up the visit stats.

 

 

Complete red herring.

 

The threads were not as you say, deleted because they were discussing politics, they were deleted for members 'overstepping the mark'.

 

 

 

 

Nope, no herring of any hue.

No, I didn't say that.

[MtB]

 

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, I didn't say that.

 

Oh yes you did!

 

Post 139, here:

 

2 hours ago, Athy said:

overstepped the mark.

 

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Oh yes you did!

 

Post 139, here:

 

 

Hohohoheeheeheeharharhar.

Silly boy.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Hohohoheeheeheeharharhar.

Silly boy.

 

Aren't you just! 

[TheBiscuits]

13 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, I didn't say that.

 

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Oh yes you did!

 

Is it panto season already?

 

Who is playing Widow Twanky?

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Hohohoheeheeheeharharhar.

Silly boy.

 

 

 

Here is a new one, the old one must be pretty worn out now :

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

Jesus wept.   Still flogging on and nobody knows what was said, who pulled it and why.  Of course I'm new here so am probably really someone else and should shut up.

Don't think I'll be here very often.

 

You mean you were not really christened "Gun Smoke" ?

Were your parents surnames Smoke ?

 

Shame on you for coming on here with a false identity.

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, gunsmoke said:

Can nobody on here keep to the point? 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, gunsmoke said:

So you're not allowed to choose a forum name?   Is that a new rule?   Can nobody on here keep to the point? 

 

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

[rusty69]

11 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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

Brian? 

[Athy]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Here is a new one, the old one must be pretty worn out now :

 

No hole-digging here Alan, just people with different points of view, each of which has validity in its own way. Discussion forums tend to be like that, I'm pleased to say. MtB has made a quite good case, though I'm not sure how it would work in practice.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Athy