Read the rules

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

The amendment is in bold, the rest unchanged:

 

"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."

It would have made better legal drafting to have made that clause right at the end and say that any rule can be allowed exceptions.

[Ange]

6 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It would have made better legal drafting to have made that clause right at the end and say that any rule can be allowed exceptions.

That's a good point. For example the rule against sock puppets ...

[rusty69]

Looks like you can book a thread to be locked at a future date too. Can I book a week next Tuesday to have this one locked

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours 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.

Do threads close because of size now. What is the biggest one on CWF ?

 

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Do threads close because of size now. What is the biggest one on CWF ?

 

 

I would guess the Pillings Lock thread is one of the longest.

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I would guess the Pillings Lock thread is one of the longest.

The prize for longest thread title,goes to this one

 

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I would guess the Pillings Lock thread is one of the longest.

I would guess the Word Game - which was entertaining for the first few days but went on for months, possibly years.

[rusty69]

The unstable bar 589 pages

 

 

Brexit - 644 pages

Just for fun word game = 784 pages

 

[RichM]

18 hours ago, Phil Ambrose said:

Just read the new rules and am frightened to post 

Phil

 

They're not new rules as such, they are mostly unchanged. The only change is highlighted in bold:

"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."


 

[rusty69]

Hey,I just sold a time machine to Dr Bob.Perhaps he can go back and ask for prior approval for all the minor infractions (and some of the major ones too).

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, RichM said:

Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances with prior approval of the Site Administration."

 

May we surmise from this that without prior approval from Team Mod, no exceptions to this rule will be permitted in future? And in future it will actually be worth the effort of reporting an infringment? 

 

Or does this really mean: Exceptions will probably be tolerated, just don't bank on it. It depends on our mood on the day rather than whether the thread is actually political. Similarly, prior approval may be applied for and may or may not be granted". 

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Do threads close because of size now. What is the biggest one on CWF ?

 

They do now - there was a post from 'admin' stating that it would be allowed to run until 1/1/19 then due to its size becoming too large to handle it would be closed and a new thread opened.

[jam]

5 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Exceptions will probably be tolerated, just don't bank on it. It depends on our mood on the day rather than whether the thread is actually political. Similarly, prior approval may be applied for and may or may not be granted". 

Unless of course your face fits

[Athy]

7 hours ago, jam said:

Unless of course your face fits

Could you explain that, please? Moderation is, to the best of my knowledge, carried out fairly and without prejudice. Have you evidence to the contrary?

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Could you explain that, please? Moderation is, to the best of my knowledge, carried out fairly and without prejudice. Have you evidence to the contrary?

I have certainly seen moderation in the past where WHO posted is clearly a factor in a moderation decision, although I would exclude you from that charge.

 

However, I have (as you may recall) taken issue on two fronts with moderation over the past couple of years;

 

1) Gas Bottles; Calor Gas Bottles cannot legally be bought and sold, and cannot legally be refilled other than by Calor, yet reports of such sales are met with a response of "yes, but everybody does it. Even cases where somebody is cutting up bottles and selling them as barbecues or braziers are left to run. This shouldn't be a question of "well it is only a bit illegal"

 

2) Cases where certain individuals construct posts with a very clear implication, but which they then claim was entirely unintentional.

 

Yes, it is Dan's forum, and he can make the rules as he pleases. He can choose to be inconsistent in the application of the rules (although at that point it would be better to replace the rules with "If we don't like it, it is against the rules", because the rules cease to have a function.

 

Dan can do all these things, even if that means driving the forum to Destruction, which he nearly did with the last ostrich act around poor moderation practice. Looking at the accounts, it appears that the financial impact of that episode is still biting. It does have all the appearance of going in for round 2 here.

[Phoenix_V]

1) I seem to remember (but cant find now?) that we had a  referendum (purely advisory of course) on whether political threads should be allowed and that there was a substancial majority in favour (more than 52/48), when I queried why the rules hadnt been changed to reflect the "will of the people/members" I was told that clearly that rule was now going to be ignored from then on. Some of the newer mods seem to have forgotten that.

2) On other forums that i have been a member on if a post is deemed against forum rules it is simply deleted, the thread is not locked or removed.

One of my threads was removed a few weeks ago, no explanation offered.

I wrote to one of the mods last night re the brexit fiasco, no response.

The read the rules before you can access the forum stunt beggars belief.

Just my view.

I am sure the mods are doing a magnificent job otherwise.

[Athy]

15 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I have certainly seen moderation in the past where WHO posted is clearly a factor in a moderation decision, although I would exclude you from that charge.

 

However, I have (as you may recall) taken issue on two fronts with moderation over the past couple of years;

 

1) Gas Bottles; Calor Gas Bottles cannot legally be bought and sold, and cannot legally be refilled other than by Calor, yet reports of such sales are met with a response of "yes, but everybody does it. Even cases where somebody is cutting up bottles and selling them as barbecues or braziers are left to run. This shouldn't be a question of "well it is only a bit illegal"

 

2) Cases where certain individuals construct posts with a very clear implication, but which they then claim was entirely unintentional.

 

 

As ever, you proffer mental nourishment.

On the first point, engaging in or promoting illegal activities are against our rules/guidelines/what you will. Mentioning or describing them are not. The concept of something being "a little bit illegal" is widespread, and understandable: driving at 34 m.p.h. along a street in a 30 area (which many members will have done) and shooting someone dead on that same street(which, one fervently hopes, they will not have) are both illegal, but the latter is more generally frowned upon than the latter.

 

Regarding your second point, an implication and its inference can differ widely, sometimes causing friction. It's been said on here that aids to accurate expression and comprehension such as a tone of voice or a facial expression can't be seen on a screen, and there is surely some validity in such a view. Most commonly, a remark honestly made in jest may be taken as a criticism or insult, leading to said friction.

7 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

.

I wrote to one of the mods last night re the Brexit fiasco, no response.

 

I am sorry to hear that - but moddies do have lives outside CWDF, and they can't be on duty all the time. This is especially true if you addressed your concerns to one individual, rather than reporting it (when it would be seen, and one hopes answered, more quickly because reports can be seen by any moddy, not just by the one to whom you wrote).

[Tanglewood]

24 minutes ago, Athy said:

The concept of something being "a little bit illegal" is widespread, and understandable: driving at 34 m.p.h. along a street in a 30 area (which many members will have done) and shooting someone dead on that same street(which, one fervently hopes, they will not have) are both illegal, but the latter is more generally frowned upon than the latter.

Now you have opened a can of worms.  This is an outrageous comment.  More people will have died as a result of people exceeding the speed limit by a few mph than have been killed by gun-wielding villains on the streets and roads of the UK. You simply cannot justify the behaviour of the mods by promoting the idea that because an illegal act is widespread it becomes more acceptable  There is no such thing as a little bit illegal any more than there is being a little bit pregnant.  And you cannot compare adherence to the democratically laws of the land with the rules imposed on the membership of a Forum.  The owner of the Forum can make and impose any rules they wish to, and can be as inconsistent as they choose - they may lose members but they can do it.  The rest of us can either choose to play on those terms or not.  But please don't seek to justify in some kind of moralistic way.  This Forum is not a democracy and you should not argue in a way that would be appropriate if it were.. 

[Athy]

15 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

Now you have opened a can of worms.  This is an outrageous comment.  More people will have died as a result of people exceeding the speed limit by a few mph than have been killed by gun-wielding villains on the streets and roads of the UK. You simply cannot justify the behaviour of the mods by promoting the idea that because an illegal act is widespread it becomes more acceptable  There is no such thing as a little bit illegal any more than there is being a little bit pregnant.  And you cannot compare adherence to the democratically laws of the land with the rules imposed on the membership of a Forum.  The owner of the Forum can make and impose any rules they wish to, and can be as inconsistent as they choose - they may lose members but they can do it.  The rest of us can either choose to play on those terms or not.  But please don't seek to justify in some kind of moralistic way.  This Forum is not a democracy and you should not argue in a way that would be appropriate if it were.. 

Thank you for suggesting what I should and should not do.

I take it that you have never exceeded a road speed limit, then?

No worms were decanted in my post, nor was any rage outed.

[nicknorman]

17 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

There is no such thing as a little bit illegal any more than there is being a little bit pregnant.  

I once thought I was a little bit pregnant. Turned out to be a build up of gas.

52 minutes ago, Athy said:

 but the latter is more generally frowned upon than the latter.

 

Just another example of illogical mod input.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Just teasing by the way!)

[billS]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I

(Just teasing by the way!)

About both farts or just one of them?

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

.

Just another example of illogical mod input.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Just teasing by the way!)

I should hope so as well.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, billS said:

About both farts or just one of them?

Hmmm I think that was a case of I set 'em up, you knock' em in!

 

[MtB]

59 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

1) I seem to remember (but cant find now?) that we had a  referendum (purely advisory of course) on whether political threads should be allowed and that there was a substancial majority in favour (more than 52/48), when I queried why the rules hadnt been changed to reflect the "will of the people/members" I was told that clearly that rule was now going to be ignored from then on. Some of the newer mods seem to have forgotten that.

 

 

Even this thread itself is illustrating the effect that puts off at least two members here (perhaps more) from contributing to the forum coffers.

 

Just as I recently received a Warning Point out of the blue for posting a political thread the other day, when political threads have been started regularly since the above policy declaration, everyone in this thread is at risk of being issued a Warning Point for discussing moderation at all. Rules here are not applied with any rigour or consistency which is why I stopped my contributions. Rules are applied at the whim of the mods on the day. Highly unsatisfactory. Yes I could go elsewhere or start my own forum (and that might yet happen - I run two other forums already you may be surprised to hear!) but I like it here.

 

If we could have a set of reasonable rules, applied consistently, the fund-raising effort being run by RichM concurrently with this modding farce might be a LOT more successful. 

 

Just sayin', like. 

 

[Athy]

14 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

, everyone in this thread is at risk of being issued a Warning Point for discussing moderation at all.  

 

Not so. The rules state that posts "openly criticising moderating decisions" are not permitted.

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Rules here are not applied with any rigour or consistency

 

You mean, moderation is carried out in a tolerant way which treats members as adults and not as form 4B? Yes, I hope so.