IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rules and Moderation
Rules
Do you like these Rules
Yes, I like those Rules [ 4 ] ** [25.00%]
No, I don't like those Rules [ 12 ] ** [75.00%]
Would you like the Forum to be moderated
Yes, I would like a moderator to enforce these Rules [ 3 ] ** [18.75%]
No, I want to be free to break thse Rules if I choose [ 13 ] ** [81.25%]
Total Votes: 16
Guests cannot vote 
Simon Kirby
post Nov 22 2015, 09:03 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I think we need some better rules, and better moderation. How about:

Rule 1: Keep to the point.
  • If you want to talk about something else then respect the OP and start another thread.

Rule 1.1: Don't critique the forumista.
  • Commenting on the contributor is lame and generally insulting, so please just keep to the point.

Rule 1.2: Don't critique the thread.
  • It's a sly way of derailing a thread, so please just keep to the point.

Rule 1.3: Don't critique the forum.
  • A sly way of both derailing a thread and attacking the contributors, so please just keep to the point.


And then I believe that we would need to petition the NWN to moderate this forum, at least until we'd settled down.

Is there a consensus of support for the above?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 22 2015, 11:01 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I doesn't bother me either way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Nov 22 2015, 06:38 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



Threads naturally develop and the subject morphs. I don't think mods are needed. You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. What you desire will only happen if aliases are banned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 22 2015, 07:45 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (newres @ Nov 22 2015, 06:38 PM) *
Threads naturally develop and the subject morphs. I don't think mods are needed. You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. What you desire will only happen if aliases are banned.

The number of contributors is dwindling, and while I don't believe a serious forum such as this will ever be popular I think it could be more popular if the standard of debate improved - I would certainly enjoy it more. I'm also getting utterly fed up with the inane squabbling with threads degenerating into a bun-fight.

Rule 1: While a thread might meander I think it's disrespectful to take it off-topic. Here's an example - derailed by the first response - and yes I realise it was my response and I regret being such a thundering great bore.

Rule 1.1: I think it's poor manners critiquing the contributor, it will alienate many potential members and provoke a defensive response - "You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...": Does this have to be about me, can we not discuss the need for etiquette without making this personal? OK, so you didn't call me retarded, but all the same, I think the discussion would be a whole bunch more profitable if there was less personalisation - there's obviously a need to grow a thick skin if you're going to put your thoughts and ideas out there for critique, but that isn't the same as inviting an assessment of your personality, identity, intellectual capacity, etc, and I think we would all knock along much better if we weren't quite so dis-inhibited.

Rule 1.2: I've seen this technique too many times and it would be impolite to point out examples, but I'm so not interested in reflexive navel gazing, I just want to see the argument unfold, not debate the argument itself.

Rule 1.3: Nothing provokes a bun-fight better than the "I wouldn't normally comment but this forum is so full of bullies..." and I think it would really help if every other thread didn't descend into an asinine slag-fest.

I think a whole lot more of us would get a whole lot more out of this if we agreed some ground-rule, and I can't think of many situations where those rules would actually inhibit any legitimate exchange.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Nov 23 2015, 06:21 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 22 2015, 07:45 PM) *
The number of contributors is dwindling, and while I don't believe a serious forum such as this will ever be popular I think it could be more popular if the standard of debate improved - I would certainly enjoy it more. I'm also getting utterly fed up with the inane squabbling with threads degenerating into a bun-fight.

Rule 1: While a thread might meander I think it's disrespectful to take it off-topic. Here's an example - derailed by the first response - and yes I realise it was my response and I regret being such a thundering great bore.

Rule 1.1: I think it's poor manners critiquing the contributor, it will alienate many potential members and provoke a defensive response - "You are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist...": Does this have to be about me, can we not discuss the need for etiquette without making this personal? OK, so you didn't call me retarded, but all the same, I think the discussion would be a whole bunch more profitable if there was less personalisation - there's obviously a need to grow a thick skin if you're going to put your thoughts and ideas out there for critique, but that isn't the same as inviting an assessment of your personality, identity, intellectual capacity, etc, and I think we would all knock along much better if we weren't quite so dis-inhibited.

Rule 1.2: I've seen this technique too many times and it would be impolite to point out examples, but I'm so not interested in reflexive navel gazing, I just want to see the argument unfold, not debate the argument itself.

Rule 1.3: Nothing provokes a bun-fight better than the "I wouldn't normally comment but this forum is so full of bullies..." and I think it would really help if every other thread didn't descend into an asinine slag-fest.

I think a whole lot more of us would get a whole lot more out of this if we agreed some ground-rule, and I can't think of many situations where those rules would actually inhibit any legitimate exchange.

I think you are too sensitive.

This isn't a serious forum. It mostly seems to be an outlet for annoyance at the council, apologists for the council (employees) and reactionary right wing Daily Mail reading small town buffoons.

I think you'll find the reason it isn't as popular anymore can be summed up in one word. Facebook.

Besides, this forum has never reached the heady heights that Newburynet did in its day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 23 2015, 07:11 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (newres @ Nov 23 2015, 06:21 AM) *
I think you are too sensitive.

I rest my case.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 23 2015, 08:03 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



I think a problem does exist and there is something in what's been said by both Simon and newres.

The proposed rules are quite sensible and really form the basis of those used by many serious bodies; including ours at Westminster. In reality, they wouldn't prevent robust knockabout debate; rather inhibit the worst excesses. Bringing some degree of purpose.

However, there is another fundamental. Is this a serious forum or is it simply an amusement? In other words, a useful local facility or a bit of fun to attract readers. Both are very valid things for a local media outlet to provide, (in print terms the difference between letter to the editor and the word game puzzle. They both have a place, but aren't compatible.

For the serious corner, I'm far from convinced Facebook is the answer. Again, it has a place; perhaps a modern version of the vox pop interviewer on the street corner. Nonetheless, if nothing does happen, this Forum will look like the Newbury.Net one.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Nov 23 2015, 08:29 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 23 2015, 09:11 AM) *
I rest my case.

"reactionary right wing Daily Mail reading small town buffoons"

And mine! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Nov 23 2015, 10:00 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



We need this about as much as a fish needs a bicycle! Honestly! You boys!


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2015, 12:40 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 23 2015, 07:11 AM) *
I rest my case.

I think newres's comment was on topic. My grudge is with people that only want to 'have a go at someone' without there being any other motive. newres posted a message that was in keeping and reasonable. He didn't call you thick, sexist, etc, he made a reasonable observation. Whether it is correct of course, is up for debate.

Over-modded forums are just plain tedious. Sure there are occasions where me and <insert who ever has a go at me> need to be told to shut up, or even given a temporary ban, but when we debate and argue about the topics we do, they are bound to get a bit personal, after all, politics is personal. Even people poking fun at peoples' favourite news paper raises issues!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post Nov 23 2015, 01:11 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



Do I get all outraged and precious when I get called a "swivel eyed loon" ? No, why? Because it's a public forum. And because it may be true. However, calling for more rules and or moderation would simply kill it stone dead.


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Nov 23 2015, 01:20 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



I think it is a fairly gentle local forum.I don't live there but I remember bits.
I don't involve with the local politics. I don't swear or cuss. I enjoy reading the comments.
That is about it.

Actually the last time I really swore was when I accidentally cut a vein on Christmas Day 2009
using some new sharp knives to cut the Christmas Cake.There is one between your thumb and 1st finger.
"Dad you never swear" said daughter until she saw the pool of blood.
I organised a tourniquet and had six stitches without anaesthetic . Still here though!

The forum seems to self moderate. Most seem to be polite.
ce
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Nov 23 2015, 02:32 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2015, 02:40 PM) *
I think newres's comment was on topic. My grudge is with people that only want to 'have a go at someone' without there being any other motive. newres posted a message that was in keeping and reasonable. He didn't call you thick, sexist, etc, he made reasonable observation. Whether it is correct of course, is up for debate.

Over-modded forums are just plain tedious. Sure there are occasions where me and <insert who ever has a go at me> need to be told to shut up, or even given a temporary ban, but when we debate and argue about the topics we do, they are bound to get a bit personal, after all, politics is personal. Even people poking fun at peoples' favourite news paper raises issues!

OK if you were sat in a pub with a group of people and the conversation turned to "what newspaper do you read" and someone said The Daily Mail.
Would you turn to them and say they were a reactionary right wing Daily Mail reading small town buffoon?
If so, fine and may this forum continue to diminish.
If, however, you would not do that face to face then why is it acceptable on an anonymous forum?
Stick to the subject and detract from the name calling and this forum would have a much higher number of contributors and lively debate / discussion. (I think so anyway.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 23 2015, 02:33 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Nov 23 2015, 01:11 PM) *
Do I get all outraged and precious when I get called a "swivel eyed loon" ? No, why? Because it's a public forum. And because it may be true. However, calling for more rules and or moderation would simply kill it stone dead.

I don't see how the rules proposed would stifle any leitimate debate, they would however curtail the personal attacks, petty squabbling, and interminable navel gazing that is - for me at any rate - disrupting sensible discussion and making it an embarrassment to be associated with.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 23 2015, 02:47 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2015, 12:40 PM) *
I think newres's comment was on topic. My grudge is with people that only want to 'have a go at someone' without there being any other motive. newres posted a message that was in keeping and reasonable. He didn't call you thick, sexist, etc, he made reasonable observation. Whether it is correct of course, is up for debate.

Over-modded forums are just plain tedious. Sure there are occasions where me and <insert who ever has a go at me> need to be told to shut up, or even given a temporary ban, but when we debate and argue about the topics we do, they are bound to get a bit personal, after all, politics is personal. Even people poking fun at peoples' favourite news paper raises issues!

It's boorish to attack a legitimate personal subjective perception as "over-sensitive" and as well as being rhetorically weak such personal critique will invariable raise a petulent respone - if winning the argument or getting a rise out of someone is the objective then fair enough, but I have no interest in either and am really only interested in getting to the "truth".


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2015, 02:48 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 23 2015, 02:32 PM) *
OK if you were sat in a pub with a group of people and the conversation turned to "what newspaper do you read" and someone said The Daily Mail.
Would you turn to them and say they were a reactionary right wing Daily Mail reading small town buffoon?
If so, fine and may this forum continue to diminish.
If, however, you would not do that face to face then why is it acceptable on an anonymous forum?
Stick to the subject and detract from the name calling and this forum would have a much higher number of contributors and lively debate / discussion. (I think so anyway.)

I wouldn't say that because I don't think that, but if someone in my company did say that, then I would most probably laugh. I occasionally buy the DM, but I also buy the 'i' (cheaper). In my old age I have come to realise that all papers are full of baloney.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2015, 02:52 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 23 2015, 02:47 PM) *
It's boorish to attack a legitimate personal subjective perception as "over-sensitive" and as well as being rhetorically weak such personal critique will invariable raise a petulent respone - if winning the argument or getting a rise out of someone is the objective then fair enough, but I have no interest in either and am really only interested in getting to the "truth".

I didn't see it as an attack and the person went on to supplement the comment with a rationale. I don't think you are over sensitive, but I do think people on here are. I think Biker1 had a bigger reason to moan as the DM comment was churlish: reading the Daily Mail doesn't make one a right-wing loon, or the like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Nov 23 2015, 03:15 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2015, 04:52 PM) *
I didn't see it as an attack and the person went on to supplement the comment with a rationale. I don't think you are over sensitive, but I do think people on here are. I think Biker1 had a bigger reason to moan as the DM comment was churlish: reading the Daily Mail doesn't make one a right-wing loon, or the like.

I think some on here have the impression that I am easily offended and thin skinned.
The opposite actually applies. It makes little difference to me personally what I am called or remarked about on an anonymous forum.
My point of the argument is twofold:-

1. When a debate turns to personal remarks and name-calling it detracts from the subject and therefore it turns from constructive to destructive. (A bit like PMQ's. What an embarrasing wast of time that is!)

2. When members turn to personal remarks and name-calling it deters many from joining and contributing to the discussion thus making it a forum for just a few die-hards therefore bringing about it's eventual demise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Nov 23 2015, 03:38 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Nov 23 2015, 08:29 AM) *
"reactionary right wing Daily Mail reading small town buffoons"

And mine! rolleyes.gif

If the cap fits....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Nov 23 2015, 03:48 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



I'm sorry if people are offended, however I think that to feel it a personal attack to suggest that someone is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist is over sensitive.

As for the Daily Mail comment, it seems to me that that this is on the whole a right wing forum where barely concealed xenophobia exists. Some of the views expressed on the Syria/Paris thread were odious. One of the few people that does challenge those views is actually Simon and it's his views that come closest to mine.

At the end of the day guys, it's just the internet. ;-)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 04:03 PM