Jump to content

Read the rules


Phil Ambrose

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Phil Ambrose said:

You meanie

Phil

The Brexit thread was due to be closed down due to its size, and a new thread would be opened to 'start again'

The last few hours got a little bit 'silly' with posters (2 or 3 already 'on a warning' in particular) getting a bit obnoxious and personal.

The thread was then closed.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The Brexit thread was due to be closed down due to its size, and a new thread would be opened to 'start again'

The last few hours got a little bit 'silly' with posters (2 or 3 already 'on a warning' in particular) getting a bit obnoxious and personal.

The thread was then closed.

One in particular who seems to consider disagreement to be an offensive insubordination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

wot new rools??  ;)

I think they must be the rules  that say that politics are not a subject for discussion on this forum, (but we still had one of the longest threads in recent CDF history before it was closed!?

 

Howard

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, howardang said:

I think they must be the rules  that say that politics are not a subject for discussion on this forum, (but we still had one of the longest threads in recent CDF history before it was closed!?

 

Howard

 

 

 

But that is not a new rule. It is a rule that has  been in place for two or three years and widely ignored with the blessing of Dan and the mid team. 

 

The inconsistency is bewildering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But that is not a new rule. It is a rule that has  been in place for two or three years and widely ignored with the blessing of Dan and the mid team. 

 

The inconsistency is bewildering. 

You still here? I thought you were banned last night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

You still here? I thought you were banned last night!

 

No not banned. I posted last night what happened. A second warning point. On the third, one gets banned. If I get banned for posting my annoyance at getting warning points (also an offence) i will be feel VERY unfairly treated as my first warning point was not for a rule infringement and my second was for breaking a rule that was being broken on a daily basis with the approval of Team Mod. 

 

Anyway back on topic, has anyone been able to divine any difference between the ‘new’ rules and those in force a week ago? The new rules look identical to me going from memory of what the old rules said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing about this particular spat as I don't inhabit the Virtual Pub (I assume that is where the 'fight' took place) but for the first time (!) I have actually read the full Rules. Moderation of anything like this is never easy - nor is it in any context as the hardest thing is what to do with minor infractions. At the time it seems heavy handed to enforce them but when it is clear that they have led to something bigger it can be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

For example, "A single link to a personal and non-commercial website, such as a blog or personal site, is allowed in a members signature" sounds innocuous but at least one member regularly breaks this rule and it seems that more than two such links is permissible. Now that is no big deal but what if someone starts to increase their link count over time until it contains more lines than any sensible post? How can the rule be used to restrict this without seeming to be heavy-handed?

 

As I said, site moderation is a difficult task - even if moderation in all things is a 'good idea'.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of us who gave up on the Brexit thread yonks ago nevertheless feel bereft.  It was a constant in the ever-changing world of View New Content, even appearing in trplicate or more on occasion.  Perhaps self-replication is against the rules?  I sometimes looked to see if it had overtaken the word game thingy, which also seems to have died, but I think that was just old age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, howardang said:

I think they must be the rules  that say that politics are not a subject for discussion on this forum, (but we still had one of the longest threads in recent CDF history before it was closed!?

 

Howard

 

44 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

But that is not a new rule. It is a rule that has  been in place for two or three years and widely ignored with the blessing of Dan and the mid team. 

 

The inconsistency is bewildering. 


Actually what the rules now say is......
 

Quote

Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited. In addition, content containing a religious theme, or content that makes commentary on religious issues, is not permitted. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances with prior approval of the Site Administration.


Did they always include the last bit, I cant remember.

It seems an almighty fudge to me, and who the **** defines "special circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

21 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

As I said, site moderation is a difficult task - even if moderation in all things is a 'good idea'.

 

I agree, but the mods make things so much more difficult for themselves by having rules which for months they chose not to enforce, then one day they enforce them out of the blue. The 'no politics' rule specifically. 

8 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 


Actually what the rules now say is......
 


Did they always include the last bit, I cant remember.

It seems an almighty fudge to me, and who the **** defines "special circumstances?

 

 

Aha good spot!!!! 

 

I predict nothing will change. People will still start political threads and they will be left running, but with Team Mod citing 'special circumstances' if we report such threads asking for them to be taken down.

 

On the other hand, if Team Mod doesn't like one of the new politcal threads started almost daily, even a spoof political thread started in jest, a Warning Point will be issued against whoever started it.

 

Go on, ask me how I know! 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Add a bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no problems with discussion of politics per se, the problem comes about from a few members possessed of a superior intellect who come along with an attitude like they are laying down the law to children and other opinions constitute answering back. Point and counterpoint is debate, point and derision is not.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.