Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
|
|
Rules and Moderation |
|
|
|
Nov 22 2015, 09:03 AM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2015, 07:45 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 06:21 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 07:11 AM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 08:03 AM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 12:40 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 02:32 PM
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 02:33 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 02:47 PM
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 02:48 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 02:52 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2015, 03:15 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|