# moderation poll



## Admin

I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.

I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.

I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.

The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.

So here is a poll question....

Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?


----------



## n brown

no,from what i've seen i wouldn't consider it abuse till it gets threatening,a bit of chest beating,tedious as i find it doesnt warrant a ban,,,,,,,,imo


----------



## ian81

....three strikes and you are OUT???


----------



## n brown

didn't notice the poll at the top,so much for secret,glad i didn't slag anyone off !


----------



## John H

I don't believe in bannings but maybe temporary suspensions after warnings?


----------



## Firefox

If people get banned, it can create a lot of problems for the forum when sometimes people come back to stir things up using other personas. If they are tech savvy it's impossible to stop.

Thus I think people should only be permanently banned in extreme cases. Otherwise a temp ban of a few days to a week or even two weeks may give the person more time to reflect and come back as a better poster.


----------



## Techno100

If the vote is to arrive at a policy decision then I would stick to the result of the pole Phil and not over complicate it. Well done


----------



## ipcel

*Ban them*

I used to enjoy this forum but got p***ed off with people turning informative discussions into slanging matches.
Ban them unless they have something usefull to say.


----------



## mattiball

Some people just use internet forums just to wind up.and have a go at other internet users, which is why I have little time for forums. Yes ban the anti social buggers nothing wrong with strongly expressing your own unique view.....but if you went into a pub and continued to upset other customers, the land lord would eventually ban you, I know this.isn't a pub, but its still a social setting I suppose, so same principle.


----------



## Deezy

*Warning, then out*

I am on a number of different forums and they seem to have a policy as above - the abusive person(s) are given a warning, if they continue to upset others then they are out.
Easy
Cheers
deezy


----------



## kangooroo

I don’t normally post or comment upon any of the more controversial threads so this is an uncharacteristic exception for me and follows several months of skimming through alienating heated arguments and occasional offensive postings.

I’m sure I am not the only member who visits this forum to learn more about a shared interest and does not want to read through squabbles, bickering, trading of insults and slanging matches on an otherwise informative, friendly and well-run forum.   I also feel sorry for Phil in having to pick up the pieces when his forum is abused by a small but vocal minority. I’ve never met him personally but I’m quite sure he has far better things to do with his life than lock or remove offensive threads and/or those which have degenerated into confrontational arguments.

I feel that something has to change and if the persistently provocative won’t refrain from continuing to cause arguments and ill-feeling then there may be little alternative other than to issue a warning followed by a ban if the behaviour continues in the hope that the message sinks in.  Earlier I felt Phil has taken the correct approach in stepping in to introduce some new and much-needed ground rules, although these were later withdrawn.  

I’m a moderator on another motorhoming forum and the trouble-makers are dealt with via moderation  so that each post is moderated before it appears and, if they persist in posting inappropriate messages, then their account is deleted.  They may return under another username but aren't usually difficult to spot.

I hope that changes will be made and that from now on, the forum will revert to being a pleasant place to visit and continue to share our common interest.


----------



## dave docwra

basildog said:


> I personally do not see why you get complaints but maybe I am the sort of person who just either ignores what is said or answers back !
> I am afraid in life we meet many people some who we like and others that we do not it will be the same on a forum I guess .
> Having read many threads and joined in many also I know on occasions I have overstepped what is good taste but have appologised when I feel I am in the wrong .
> If you read most threads where people have become heated or upset the poster normally realises his or her mistake and offers an apology which in my world is more than acceptable and no more needs to be said .
> You only have to be in a Public house or work enviroment or even listen to parliamentary debates to see that different people have not only opposing views on many topics but can also become very heated and passioate whilst discussing these subjects , I am sure that no offence is meant to anyone and that in fact the original poster would actually be appologetic ,
> and maybe all that is needed is for people to either ignore what causes them offence or maybe even ask the poster to moderate his or hers postings !
> After all we are all different and what an uninspiring world it would be if we all agreed .



Put perfectly, Thanks..


----------



## Donk

Its like any group or society where EVERYONE should obey the rules, but some see them there to be broken where the majority stick to them..

Perhaps a "3 strike and your out" policy could be adopted.

I don't mind if you publish my reply.


----------



## jotwca

*Abusive immaturity.*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?



Yes of course. People should have three warnings befor a suspension for say six months. This rule should be agreed by all members.


----------



## Tco

The membership of this forum has enormous experience, this allows advice which is (usually) given gladly to those seeking it.  It has to be said the some members are very easily offended and others determined to have the last word, sometimes abusively so. The latter we will happily live without. The former should behave like adults. Phil is the owner of this forum and it is his to do with as he wishes. I would like to see a cull of those members who cannot assemble a logical argument without resorting to school playground abuse.

If someone breaks the rules, a warning on their future conduct should be followed by banishment if they do not amend their behaviour.

A major problem caused by the abusers is that it mean that someone (Phil) has to monitor the forum in order to police behavour. This will put a bigger strain on Phil, possibly to the point where he may well call "enough!".

Most forums like this have a team of moderators to help in this regard. This is something that Phil might have to consider.


----------



## keeflester

*firm Moderation*

I got fed up wading through pages and pages of nastyness and atrocious forum manners. I would be happier to see firm moderation, non-contributory threads deleted and posters warned, then banned.  This would make for a more enjoyable forum and a more useful information resource. I would be more likely to post if I thought it would not get lost in a sea of back-biting and general abuse.


----------



## locksmith

*Armitages Smart Car fire.*

I had quite a lot of abuse from members because I kept people up to date with how my claim against Armitages was going and some of that was quite hurtful and aimed at my wife who as you know is in remission. I gave back as good as I got but this was not done in open forum. If somebody in open forum is abusive to the point others are offended those who are offended should privately message Phil and if there are over a certain number then Phil should be able to ban them, It will then be the members that have banned the member and not Phil. That should then be the end of it.


----------



## SteveUK

Shame you can't just "tag" their account so only they see their own posts and so don't realise they've been banned!


----------



## jagmanx

*Glad to see the vote is in favour of banning !*

Members abusing the system or other members should simply be banned.
The ONLY problem is what constitutes abuse.
I suggest
Offensive, Rude, overtly critical of others views.
Or simply calling people stupid or the like.
It is easy to promote your opinion which may well differ from others WITHOUT breaching basic "good manners" or worse !


----------



## midasbram

*Agree A Policy*

I think we should agree a policy around how we conduct our behaviour on this site. One of the benefits of the community is that if you have a problem and you see a wild camping sticker - you should feel confident to go and ask for help if you need it. If bickering and abuse become widespread on the site, then I think that trust will be diminished.


----------



## Roadagent

I've voted.

I suspect that the worst offenders probably wouldn't abuse, bully or otherwise be unpleasant to others if they were in a face-to-face situation. Forums are often the chosen battleground of cowards, imho.


----------



## wildandwelsh

*stay out of it is my thought...*

Perhaps you could drop them a little message of caution that other members are complaining and ask them to cool it a little. If you draw the line at bad language and anything that would be deemed a threat then let them get on with it! It is at best silly and at worse tedious as someone else pointed out. I trust those who have been complaining will take part in this poll as so far the comments seem to be inclined towards tolerance.


----------



## caspar

If the decision is going to be based on the poll, personally I would have closed the thread so people can't comment. As the thread is open though I assume it is open to encourage comments. 

I too moderate on a couple of other forums and on those infractions are issued twice before a ban. In my opinion it is fair to give people a warning, and a final chance; if they continue to abuse the privilege of being a member here, I have no doubt that the right thing is then to ban them. It would be totally unfair on other members should they be allowed to continue getting away with inappropriate conduct.

In my experience people respect the more disciplined approach, and at the end of the day, people who deliberately continue to abuse the forum are effectively sticking two fingers up at everyone else and have no place here.


----------



## 00derek

If someone "starts" an argument - is a little vague. If they abuse anyone, even once, ban them. If they keep starting arguments, than a warning, followed by a ban.

But I should also say, it takes at least two people to have an argument. The best way to avoid abuse is to ignore the abuser.


----------



## mattiball

Let's get to the point this is a site about wild camping, nothing contravertial, just a site where people with similar intreast talks about this. So why would the conversation become so heated that people start upsetting each other? As said before, one warning, maybe some consideration if the offending party apologises, then ban. We are supposedly grown adults. I reAlly don't see that this sort of site is the place for robust arguments that may upset other users. There are plenty of othet sites to argue about politics, ect.


----------



## Deleted member 25724

Momma always said....."If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all !"


----------



## moonshadow

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but if we just ignored them I would assume they would just give up as they wouldn't have an audience, I am sure the offenders are enjoying all this controversy about them!


----------



## chass

We are all big boys & girls sticks & stones! All you need to do is ignore or not read the posts & the perpetrators will soon realise they are being ignored,:wave:most are just keyboard warriors & whimps in real life anyway.:egg:


----------



## Gismo13

I've been involved with a number of websites over the years and there are always a few folks on every site that seem to get a kick out of ruining a good thead by intentionally going off topic or just verbally abusing a contiributor who they don't agree with.

In the past we've found one way to treat these folks is for the first offence admin  have a quiet word and then if the problems continue suspend them until they agree by e-mail to abide by the rules and if they are allowed back and start up again then just block them. The admin job give enough hassel without having to put up with prats


----------



## mattiball

This is a site about wild camping. Why are peoplegetting so heated that they offend others! I think if you cause offence and haven't got the manners to apologise then you should be banned.


----------



## Northerner

Oh yea, and everyone is going to vote fairly aren't they? No one will vote for a banning just because they've lost an argument or two with a member, they'll all be terribly fair!  Give me strength!

Let me try to see just what this forum's policy really is: These are a few comments posted recently: The first is about the Olympic torch procession around Britain and, as we all know, the torch has mainly been carried by ordinary people, chosen by their community for the contribution they have made.

_I still don't get the torches! Everytime I see tv coverage there's some twat either mincing down the road or doing some silly dance.Whats that all about? And wearing a white shell suit to boot  If that's supposed to be MY OLYMPICS then No . The final straw was a pillock doing a silly dance infront of a caldren tonight, a grown man! Well he did have a beard! _

The second is about parking in Scarborough where one member said:

_I'm not going to be bullied on to camp sites owned by some fat councillor._

Yesterday some one accused the Olympics of being mired in extortion and corruption. Needless to say when challenged he had no evidence!

The first one was merely vile and insulting, the second was insulting, untrue and probably libellous.

These sort of comments appears to be acceptable as they are never removed and nothing is ever said about them.

But if wanted to say that, in my opinion, the people who say things like this are nasty idiots with the IQ of a goldfish, I'll be banned.

Is that it?

This is a pointless poll and will achieve nothing. You'll lose members who, as well as arguing, also contribute and you'll end up with a boring and anodyne forum, except of course for those who think it's acceptable to peddle the ludicrous and vicious tripe that I give examples of. But that doesn't matter does it, they're not member of this forum? So the lollipop lady with fifty years of service whose chance to carry the Olympic torch is a dream come true, can continue to be described as a 'twat mincing down the road'. 

If a thread gets out of hand, delete the offending posts, we'll soon take the hint. If a thread is started simply to stir up a row, as was the one this morning, move it to the Black Hole, as you did, where I can tell the perpetrator that he's a sh*t stirring idiot without fear of retribution.

For my part I've tried to be a bit more reasonable but it's very difficult when you have people who still bear a grudge from six months ago and seek to prod you whatever you post.

Rant over, go ahead and ban me if you must.


----------



## wildandwelsh

ipcel said:


> I used to enjoy this forum but got p***ed off with people turning informative discussions into slanging matches.
> Ban them unless they have something usefull to say.



but who is to judge whether what they say is useful or not??


----------



## Canalsman

chass said:


> We are all big boys & girls sticks & stones! All you need to do is ignore or not read the posts & the perpetrators will soon realise they are being ignored,:wave:most are just keyboard warriors & whimps in real life anyway.:egg:



If it's only one person that works - but when you have two or three all arguing with each other, and often insulting each other, it's self perpetuating and destructive.

Note observations made above - members wary about posting in case their input to the site becomes lost amongst the noise.


----------



## Jojo

locksmith said:


> I had quite a lot of abuse from members because I kept people up to date with how my claim against Armitages was going and some of that was quite hurtful and aimed at my wife who as you know is in remission. I gave back as good as I got but this was not done in open forum. If somebody in open forum is abusive to the point others are offended those who are offended should privately message Phil and if there are over a certain number then Phil should be able to ban them, It will then be the members that have banned the member and not Phil. That should then be the end of it.


How awful for you. I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would have a go at you for talking about your experiences.

I only joined recently and while at first pleasantly surprised by the general friendliness and chat, then found myself reading screeds of pointlessly "challenging" posts by people whose only reason for posting seemed to be to prove themselves right and someone else wrong, often about political views where we all know there's no right answer (other than mine, obviously). But reading some of the complaints, and comments from Phil, I got the feeling that we don't all agree on who the culprits actually are. Not being very familiar with the group I don't feel able to vote because I don't know whose removal I'm voting for! 

Assuming Phil has the technical ability to moderate individuals (rather than moderating every post, which would be madness and the end of the forum) I would urge him to use it as follows (all offences to be decided by Phil):

Level 1 offence - issue warnings (maybe 3 strikes)
Level 2 (after warnings) - moderate posts from the individual concerned until their tone conforms to acceptable social standards ie don't publish until acceptable. 
Level 3 instant removal for gross offence - and if that person signs up again under a new ID, they'll have to go through it all again.
It might be useful for the rest of us to know who's done what, or to see the text that caused the offence, so we all learn from what is/is not acceptable - social norms and standards are usually agreed and operated by a community. At present I don't feel confident to challenge people in case of being attacked by them and endure the misery experienced by others. I suspect that, with more transparency about what is offending people, we could defend ourselves better and feel more able to step up/in to defend others.

Great forum nonetheless! Thanks Phil


----------



## Andrew Davies

Just joined from the link on SBMCC did not pay a membership as I was put off by the slagging matches going on! 

Don't want to mix with people like that, there are PM messaging systems, telephones and a host of other ways to communicate without public brinkmanship! 

I run a BMW motorbike club with an active online forum and at times it's a problem keeping tempers, in the real world a pint of beer and a quiet chat and it would be sorted. Being new, I know my opinion counts for nothing, but I got the email as everyone else did, I've been in the same position and asked the same question. I'd stick to the poll results as you have asked for the decision to be made for you (if you don't then everyone's upset!).

Personally I'd ban them, but say they are welcome to rejoin in a month if they can manage to sort themselves out, no need for IP tracking, they just lose post number and join date. If they 'flounce' then no loss.

As your email said, dammed if you do or don't, so let the poll take the flack, you will find it's more important those who have voted quietly than those who have posted (myself included), possibly you risk a far higher membership loss if you ignore them. 

Moving forward, I don't know how many moderators you have, but sharing these sorts of issues in a 'mod lounge' might be a good idea, I know it works for us as different opinions can be shared on an issue without making a unilateral decision you bear the brunt of the flack for, it's a 'team' choice. Like a jury, it's only fair to allow a range of opinions and personalities to consider the problem (very much like you are doing with this across the whole membership).  

Just to reiterate, I only replied as I am in exactly the position Phil is in, I run and administer a forum and it's not fun when these sorts of things happen (worse when the moderators kick off!)


----------



## winchman

Its a difficult subject, but as its your forum I feel its your choice.
We are all different and express our selves in different ways so it wont be easy, as some feel stronger about some things than others.
What you do need to watch is slanderous stuff and stuff that could cause issues for the forum


----------



## fairytooth

wildandwelsh said:


> but who is to judge whether what they say is useful or not??



Phil, because he is the Moderator.


----------



## palmydays

*Giving a chance!*



ian81 said:


> ....three strikes and you are OUT???



I'm with Ian81, the parties should both be warned first that no such behaviour can be tolerated on a public forum.
Just my opinion.

Happy _Wild_-camping!
Cheers,
Dave.
:angel:


----------



## Jojo

Andrew Davies said:


> I don't know how many moderators you have, but sharing these sorts of issues in a 'mod lounge' might be a good idea


Good point - more mods helps spread the load and even out the stress.


----------



## MichaelU

*Banning is warranted.*



hamsha said:


> How awful for you. I'm completely baffled as to why anyone would have a go at you for talking about your experiences.
> 
> I only joined recently and while at first pleasantly surprised by the general friendliness and chat, then found myself reading screeds of pointlessly "challenging" posts by people whose only reason for posting seemed to be to prove themselves right and someone else wrong, often about political views where we all know there's no right answer (other than mine, obviously). But reading some of the complaints, and comments from Phil, I got the feeling that we don't all agree on who the culprits actually are. Not being very familiar with the group I don't feel able to vote because I don't know whose removal I'm voting for!
> 
> Assuming Phil has the technical ability to moderate individuals (rather than moderating every post, which would be madness and the end of the forum) I would urge him to use it as follows (all offences to be decided by Phil):
> 
> Level 1 offence - issue warnings (maybe 3 strikes)
> Level 2 (after warnings) - moderate posts from the individual concerned until their tone conforms to acceptable social standards ie don't publish until acceptable.
> Level 3 instant removal for gross offence - and if that person signs up again under a new ID, they'll have to go through it all again.
> It might be useful for the rest of us to know who's done what, or to see the text that caused the offence, so we all learn from what is/is not acceptable - social norms and standards are usually agreed and operated by a community. At present I don't feel confident to challenge people in case of being attacked by them and endure the misery experienced by others. I suspect that, with more transparency about what is offending people, we could defend ourselves better and feel more able to step up/in to defend others.
> 
> Great forum nonetheless! Thanks Phil



I agree with Hamsha, and why would anyone feel it appropriate conduct to abuse a fellow member.

It's too easy to be drawn in to some debates when in reality all I really want is supportive advice, a forum for promoting wild camping and wild camping locations. Im similarly grateful to Phil for creating such a cracking forum.

Mike.


----------



## Skar

There's really only one person making a total pratt of themselves, he seems to entertain a few other reasonably normal members so why ban him? Everyone has the option to ignore the moron, personally I don't because I continue to be amazed by the drivel that comes from him....

But I did vote Yes...


----------



## johnsgp

*suspension for 2 month would allow tempers to cool*

:hammer: if their is recurence then pull the plug on them permanently
John


----------



## thomasplc

*thomasplc*

I have thought about becoming full member but some of the threads have such infantile comments , obvious intention to wind people up, that I have held back.
Depending on outcome I hope to join up in near future


----------



## Northerner

Skar said:


> There's really only one person making a total pratt of themselves, he seems to entertain a few other reasonably normal members so why ban him? Everyone has the option to ignore the moron, personally I don't because I continue to be amazed by the drivel that comes from him....



And that of course is the kind of post that shows you to be as rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here! Just because you don't like someone's views doesn't make them a moron, and there's a damn good chance that he's a lot brighter then you!


----------



## drippub

*Members with too much to say.*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?



Seems to me that the site would be a better place without them, but then we are all supposed to be a bit more tollerant, aren't we? So how about "Three strikes and your'e out"?


----------



## Skar

Northerner said:


> And that of course is the kind of post that shows you to be as rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here! Just because you don't like someone's views doesn't make them a moron, and there's a damn good chance that he's a lot brighter then you!



ROFLMAO

I assume that you think I was referring to you?


----------



## minky1958

*Abuse*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?




I think a difference of opinion is fine as this is the basis for debate. What we should not tolerate is abusive remarks and foul language. This is often initiated by someone who does not like to be contradicted or questioned. Perhaps a warning and then remove them.


----------



## RayR

I agree that a warning first would be best but ultimately you need to ban persistent offenders.


----------



## bobmarley3

*To ban or not to ban*

Any abuse should not be tolerated at any cost..
A warning should be given and if the abuse continues ban them.
Regards,
Bob


----------



## Boots

Hi Phil and members,

I think that Phil does a magnificent job and must have the patience of a saint with those who constantly cause problems for ? reasons.

I am a member of a few other forums and they to have similar problems every so often and warnings are given and bans imposed when necessary.

However this must be the only site where it is run (or so it appears) by the founder alone. The others have a number of moderator's 'mods' who share the job 24-7. 
So with that amount of cover the problem people don't really have the time to get too out of hand. Plus the 'stress' is shared.

It's Phil's site and he runs it very well in my opinion. 

To those who like to 'play' at wind up, I think you should be given your marching orders sharpish.
Remember, you may think your being clever, but it's obvious to others what you are doing cos it's exactly the same but different every time. Think about it, being clever? I personally think its being sly and all the explanatory waffle is so obvious and fools no one at all. It's just taking advantage of the way the site is run.

To those who make an error or even two for 'what ever' reason then a quiet word is usually all that's needed. As again it's usually so obvious when it's a mistake rather than being deliberate.

Just my opinion of course and as a forum member I'm happy for the mods to take whatever action they deem fit!


Cheers all


Boots


----------



## scotchjock

*It takes two*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?



It takes at least two to have an argument, and it is not compulsory to join in.


----------



## t&s

*get them out*

the site has changed over the past year and
some of the juvenile argumentitive  comments are not what i am here for
and not anything to do with motorhomes/campervans  its getting to personal


----------



## derekpane

if it would get you thrown out of the pub then it should get you thrown out of the forum. By the same token, if you want to have a slanging match or healthy debate one to one then do it outside the forum or set up your own yahoo group! It is out of place on a public forum with clear rules. Well done Phil.


----------



## t&s

*the position poll voting botton is not easly  regognised*

it needs to be highlighted somewhat i have no idea how


----------



## philllb

*first a warning........*

Then perhaps a two week cooling down period and if the protagonists continue baiting and arguing with each other ban both parties??


----------



## Northerner

Skar said:


> ROFLMAO
> 
> I assume that you think I was referring to you?



No, didn't you recognise the pronouns 'them' and 'he'.


----------



## Sparks

Yes you can have a forum where people can express their views on subjects which may become heated. Yes you can ignore these people or choose not to read further once it gets out of hand. But not only does that only suit the minority but it deters others from enjoying the forum (existing, free and undoubtedly prospective members).

Personally I wouldn't care if this forum was restricted to Wild Camping, no general chat, no games, no jokes. Just Wild Camping. I know it wouldn't prevent arguments but I'm sure it would cut them down considerably. Perhaps then the protagonists would seek other venues to air their arguments.


----------



## Puddle1945

*Banning abusers*

Forums such as this should be used to share information not for personal comments.  Everyone takes a different view of wild camping etc and members should accept other peoples opinions.  Surely a website such as this should tolerate individuals.  If people cannot be civil they should be banned!


----------



## Jojo

*Northerner* - You seem angry, which makes me wonder if you feel this vote is targeted at you. Here are my views on your earlier post, at the risk of being on the receiving end of your ire...

The things you complain about: people writing about _"a pillock doing a silly dance"_, saying _"I'm not going to be bullied on to camp sites owned by some fat councillor"_ and "the Olympics of being mired in extortion and corruption" are simply their points of view, sometimes silly, sometimes funny - and we all know that people's sense of humour varies widely. Saying the second comment ("fat councillor") was "insulting, untrue and probably libellous" is as daft as the original comment - an individual being insulted and defamed would have to be named. You don't have to rise to argument about comments that irritate you - you could rise above things you think are ridiculous. I don't think anyone described a "lollipop lady with fifty years of service whose chance to carry the Olympic torch is a dream come true" as "a 'twat mincing down the road'" - you're conflating. In my world, saying people have "the IQ of a goldfish" might be funny, but saying they're "nasty idiots" is a step too far. 

We all get heated about things we care about and sometimes we don't make sense, but you are experienced and knowledgeable so you must know that everyone thinks and feels differently, everyone has a completely unqiue experience of life. You know things I don't and I know things you don't. I would hope this forum at least helps us to learn from how other people think - and especially helps us support each other in the things we share, which I thought was wild camping.

Forums like this operate well with a kind of public Chatham House rule, where we can feel free to express ourselves, be true to how we feel, and get to say things that might not stand up in court. The limit on that freedom in this kind of forum (which isn't a perfectly free arena) is to reflect before reacting, try to see the funny side, try not to care too much.

_I've just spent a long time reflecting, trying to decide whether to hit 'submit' at all. I've re-read it several times, trying to imagine what people might think about me - perhaps they'd think I'm pontificating, that it's not my place to speak about this, that I'm being superior or know-it-all, or criticizing. Perhaps Northerner thinks I'm another person as "rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here". I know that I'm not trying to offend - and that I'm trying not to offend. But who knows what other people's responses will be? Maybe I'll be banned! The best you/I can do is think carefully, edit out the crass stuff, be clear when I'm joking etc. Here goes...

*ducks, waits for flack*_


----------



## Skar

Northerner said:


> No, didn't you recognise the pronouns 'them' and 'he'.



Main thing I recognised was this line:

"And that of course is the kind of post that shows you to be as rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here!"

Why on Earth do you bother being a member on here? Don't bother replying because I will be looking for the ignore button... cya


----------



## John H

Once again, I find myself nodding in agreement at most of your post but in the section I have highlighted you lose my sympathy. It is clear that the problems being discussed have nothing to do with good grammar but everything to do with abusive and totally unnecessary language. In fact, because some people are able to speak eloquently, I find it amazing that they seem to have the need to abuse and bully in this way. I'm with you on banning and censorship, though.


----------



## autonomy

*banning*

There should be a safer spaces policy.

This should make clear that abuse, intimidation, attributing words to others, intentional mis-representation etc. is not allowed. Reason = to facilitate horizontal dialogue.

The safer space policy should be facilitated by several moderators.
Breaches should result in discipline on a sliding scale.
First breach is a warning
Third Breach is a temporary ban
Fourth Breach is a long term ban

There is little practical sense in an absolute ban as it incentive's repeat offenders to re-join under a new name.

There is a ton of material on the web on what makes good facilitation.


----------



## Northerner

Skar said:


> Main thing I recognised was this line:
> 
> "And that of course is the kind of post that shows you to be as rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here!"



Well, it quite clearly did!


----------



## scotsy

*been away for months and........*

......its the same old story

I remember asking Phil where the ignore button was many months ago and see its the same old faces doing the stirring

I voted YES ban them for good :mad2:

(and YES, i do still wild camp although it's not very WILD where i am but i do spend 4 nights a week near Glasgow in my selfbuilt sprinter as a base for my work delivering V&B stuff around Scotland in the work's Crafter van.) 

Ian


----------



## Techno100

I'm really against all these complicated rules people are drumming up. Phil is not stupid and he is getting the required feedback from the vote so let him deal with it.


----------



## Tbear

How are we going to learn if we ban debate.

How are we going to prevent people from making mistakes without disagreeing with them.

I do not always agree with the forthright way one or two members have put things but that does not make them wrong. If you ban them you will loose some intelligent debates and a lot of knowledge.

You can always "ignore" if you find me/them offencive.

Richard


----------



## Deleted member 15776

*Ban Them*

We all have to remember that people like Phil give a lot of their time freely to organisations like this and Phil needs our backing, so I say ban them!


----------



## Northerner

hamsha said:


> *Northerner* - You seem angry, which makes me wonder if you feel this vote is targeted at you. Here are my views on your earlier post, at the risk of being on the receiving end of your ire...
> 
> The things you complain about: people writing about _"a pillock doing a silly dance"_, saying _"I'm not going to be bullied on to camp sites owned by some fat councillor"_ and "the Olympics of being mired in extortion and corruption" are simply their points of view, sometimes silly, sometimes funny - and we all know that people's sense of humour varies widely. Saying the second comment ("fat councillor") was "insulting, untrue and probably libellous" is as daft as the original comment - an individual being insulted and defamed would have to be named. You don't have to rise to argument about comments that irritate you - you could rise above things you think are ridiculous. I don't think anyone described a "lollipop lady with fifty years of service whose chance to carry the Olympic torch is a dream come true" as "a 'twat mincing down the road'" - you're conflating. In my world, saying people have "the IQ of a goldfish" might be funny, but saying they're "nasty idiots" is a step too far.
> 
> We all get heated about things we care about and sometimes we don't make sense, but you are experienced and knowledgeable so you must know that everyone thinks and feels differently, everyone has a completely unqiue experience of life. You know things I don't and I know things you don't. I would hope this forum at least helps us to learn from how other people think - and especially helps us support each other in the things we share, which I thought was wild camping.
> 
> Forums like this operate well with a kind of public Chatham House rule, where we can feel free to express ourselves, be true to how we feel, and get to say things that might not stand up in court. The limit on that freedom in this kind of forum (which isn't a perfectly free arena) is to reflect before reacting, try to see the funny side, try not to care too much.
> 
> _I've just spent a long time reflecting, trying to decide whether to hit 'submit' at all. I've re-read it several times, trying to imagine what people might think about me - perhaps they'd think I'm pontificating, that it's not my place to speak about this, that I'm being superior or know-it-all, or criticizing. Perhaps Northerner thinks I'm another person as "rude, pig ignorant and unintelligent as anyone on here". I know that I'm not trying to offend - and that I'm trying not to offend. But who knows what other people's responses will be? Maybe I'll be banned! The best you/I can do is think carefully, edit out the crass stuff, be clear when I'm joking etc. Here goes...
> 
> *ducks, waits for flack*_



Well, we'll agree to differ. Surely you see that the point about the councillor was the implication, also voiced earlier, that the banning of parking in certain parts of Scarborough was the result of corrupt councillors who own camp sites, which is totally untrue and in my view libellous? It wasn't about a councillor being fat, that was just rude window dressing on the poster's part.

And I also think that anyone describing the people who've carried the torch as 'mincing twats, what's that all about' are very cruel idiots! Surely we all know what carrying the torch is all about? There's been enough publicity.

I think that your post by the way is very fair and expressed reasonably. My problem is that I hate unfairness and the kind of people who, at the drop of a hat, can traduce an entire group of people or an individual. There are so many people on here who will decide that, for example, because a helpful policemen tells you that parking in the National Park is banned and then directs you to the nearest camp site, that the site must be owned by a relative! Now that may be their opinion and they are free to express it, but I'm also free to tell them that, in my opinion, they're being unfair, unreasonable and pretty hateful if that's the first thing that comes into their mind when a scenario like that has happened.

Ps No, I don't think that this is aimed at just me as I can think of a few who qualify, but I'm not so stupid as to think that I'm not on the short list!


----------



## RichardA

*What constitutes abuse?*

I've used this forum very little but found it very useful when I do. I've been surprised at the civility at some of the 'debates' I've come across. Is it possible to point me in the direction of a thread that appears abusive? I might then be better able to come to a conclusion!

Thanks.

Richard


----------



## Bulawayo Lass

I dont come here often 1) l dont use CB much at the moment due to family issues 2) I do not have much me time anyhow 3) l enjoy coming here when l have a chance

I can see points on both sides and have run several forums. l agree with using moderators even a couple of them who are trusted.

I agree with a warning and 3 strikes temporary ban policy 

If they come back and dive into things again then yup ok a repeat of warnings then permanent out 

You also need to decide what to do to the money people have paid if banned.

My problem is the poll is a black white ban or no and l feel it should also have warnings options, life is more often grey as the amount of us who feel warnings are better show.


----------



## John H

Northerner said:


> My problem is that I hate unfairness and the kind of people who, at the drop of a hat, can traduce an entire group of people or an individual. There are so many people on here who will decide that, for example, because a helpful policemen tells you that parking in the National Park is banned and then directs you to the nearest camp site, that the site must be owned by a relative! Now that may be their opinion and they are free to express it, but I'm also free to tell them that, in my opinion, they're being unfair, unreasonable and pretty hateful if that's the first thing that comes into their mind when a scenario like that has happened.



And if you are able to put your view in such a reasonable way (a view I agree with, by the way) why do you feel the need to be abusive so often?


----------



## The Rebel Camper

Hi

You have invited me to join in a poll... with regard to moderating and banning.

As most of you know by now, I too have a COMMUNITY FORUM.

If people/members wish to scwabble, they are invited to do so by pm, and never bring it to to the main forum. there will be difference of opinion, wherever we go in this life. In saying this, this type of behaviour cannot be tolerated by a webmaster. As this will bring his intrest into disrepute.

Many people look at forums, and not just its members... search engines can pick up on threads and posts... and before you know it... whatever has been picked up can be placed on the web pages for all and sundry to view... .

So before I cast my vote in this poll... I will personally like to view the posts on the thread as to which this concerns.

Regards
The Rebel Camper
CARRY ON CAMPING

Will someone tell me the threads involved so that I can read for myself.. all I can read here are the QUOTES...


----------



## Northerner

RichardA said:


> I've used this forum very little but found it very useful when I do. I've been surprised at the civility at some of the 'debates' I've come across. Is it possible to point me in the direction of a thread that appears abusive? I might then be better able to come to a conclusion!
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Richard



Well that sums it up! There are a couple of dozen threads going at any one time and the odd spat may occur in one or two and some complain that it's putting people off! I suspect that the odd argument probably increases the viewing figures. The real problem is people who constantly complain and moan to Phil. For God's sake, grow a thicker skin, it's a forum where people debate and where we have people with widely differing political views, with widely differing intelligence, education and general knowledge. There are bound to be frustrations on either side. I have never once complained about anyone, except of course directly to them. There appears to be a small number though who, whenever a couple of people have a bit of a row, can't wait to run to teacher to tittle tattle.


----------



## Sparks

Bulawayo Lass said:


> You also need to decide what to do to the money people have paid if banned.


It should be in the Terms and Conditions of membership that if you get banned then you either do or don't get you fee returned. If it's not, then well, it should be.


Bulawayo Lass said:


> My problem is the poll is a black white ban or no and l feel it should also have warnings options, ....



The admin wants to know if these people should be banned or not. That's the question. I'm sure if he wanted to know if members felt they should have warnings then that would have been included.


----------



## Deleted member 25361

I have only posted a few times on here so I have not witnessed much arguing as I was normally just asked advice. I have to say I got great reply s. If I was to decide on an option I would not allow 3 strikes and your out, I would be willing to accept 1 warning after that you are out if you re-offend.My reason is if you know you will be allowed a few chances you are forever policing a group of known individuals.:goodluck:


----------



## paganplasma

*poll*

Hi, I think that if people cannot discuss things in a useful and supportive way then the rules set done by the club must be acted upon ,these clubs are here to get the full benefit of shared knowledge and support of all members to get the best out of our hobby and have fun,so if members break the rules after warnings then the rule must apply.


----------



## BigMomma

People will have different opinions and some may argue their point a little stronger than other's. Additionally, as has already been said, we all have bad days and our mood can effect the way we respond to some posts. It may be that something in our lives make us take a particular stance although this may not be known to the other members. However, we are supposed to be 'Adults' and so we should be able to differentiate between where the line of morality, decency, politeness, rudeness and just general acceptable and non-acceptable behaviours cross the line. Whilst I am generally an inoffensive and fairly passive individual, I will stand my ground and not let myself be bullied, however, I have been guilty of overstepping the mark on another forum and whilst not being banned the moderator did intervene and chastise all concerned, it made me feel embarrassed about my behaviour and I apologised to all the members on the forum for my lack of discipline, so it can and does happen occasionally to the best of us. In my personal opinion, moderators should monitor posts and without taking any particular side, warn 'guilty' parties that the behaviour is becoming unacceptable and that they are to stop. If the behaviour then continues I think it would then be considered reasonable to ban the 'offending parties' from the forum.


----------



## RoaminRog

*or*

Still a bit of a new boy on here but I believe that persnonal opinions and issues should be just that...personal unless asked for. Surely any blogs on here should be for the benefit of the whole community
or am I being naive?
I think maybe three offensive blogs should be followed by a months ban and only be banned completely if they prove themselves to be incorrigable.


----------



## Haaamster

Was going to vote no because we would lose some good members as well as bad but I see even in this thread there is abuse so I think i'll abstain from this vote Phil.
As with others I am also a member of other forums and when a ban is issued it is a full IP ban so the offender cannot simply sign up with another account.
I feel sorry for the new or potential members who are not aware of past goings on and walk straight into a bunfight when all they really want is information and encouragement.

If you do go down the line of moderators which in my opinion is a very good way can I vote for Sean Rua as he seems to be able to conduct himself with dignity, intelligence and manners.
Not been on here a lot lately so you better not have done anything silly Sean :hammer:


----------



## francophile1947

I'm a moderator/administrator on a couple of forums and both give two warnings before a ban. Moderators cannot actually do the banning, but they do get to help decide if someone should be banned - the actual act of banning is done by an administrator. based on the decisions of the other mods/admins.
It really doesn't matter which threads are relevant - if anybody doesn't get the message, and obey the rules, after two warnings, they deserve to be banned.


----------



## Sparks

BigMomma said:


> However, we are supposed to be 'Adults' and so we should be able to differentiate between where the line of morality, decency, politeness, rudeness and just general acceptable and non-acceptable behaviours cross the line.



Quite right.


----------



## broon620

*Should not be tolerated*

I have not been subject to or seen any of this abuse so far, but this should be a site for useful information and help NOT for abuse or bulling. I give my full support to any action that you take to stamp it out.

This site has been very usefull to me and have stayed at a few of the places recommended.


----------



## noody

Hi Phil.

I haven't used this forum much lately and I haven't read all the post in this thread. Forums will always have disagreeing and disagreeable members. Sometimes it's just lack of punctuation that starts a row and sometimes it's the inability of the poster to carefully present their view or the offended reader to understand the view.

Why don't you have a section called "The burner" or "Flame-grill" or something where as soon as an argument starts you put the whole thread onto that page. Presumably only signed in, even paid-up members can read it.


----------



## missmoneypenny

*give a warning*

There isn't an option on the poll to say 'give a warning' - it makes more work for you but makes sense where someone who may have made helpful and sensible comments gets carried away ...........and does something daft and upsetting to others. keep up the good work!
ps I haven't voted


----------



## Yorkshirelass

*Is anyone friendly on here ? IDon't like all the upsets here, so log on rarely.*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?





Try viewing Bongo fury site for a well run forum, kept in check by moderators, who have common sense and know what is/is not acceptable, and members know this as most people on the forum have met many others/made friends with them, so support is also via them as well as the moderator. It's a lovely very friendly site AND supportive. For those who feel the need to call others names/be offensive etc...I suggest you find a forum that accepts vulgarity and disrespects the opinons of others; then we'll all be happy !


----------



## TrevorandRachel

*To ban or not to ban ! That is the question ?*

Why oh why do people have to be nasty to each other ? When we`re out `wilding` we find other camper folk so helpful, as we try & be.
Yet quite often on here awful remarks are made, is it the annominity ?
 We generally love the site & find it very helpful , perhaps a warning then a ban ,just maybe bringing it in to the open will make people stop & think, & read what they`ve witten before posting it.
                                                                   Trevor and Rachel


----------



## taffzuk

When Wild Camping we should ALL be *POLITE and CONSIDERATE !!!!!* As we should though out our lives and on Forums!!!!!

Taff


----------



## The Rebel Camper

Okay Ive been watching now for a few minutes... and taking on board some of the posts....

I would personally take this approach

1 moderate the thread mor vigerously
2 pick up on this type of posting... and LOCK THE SUBJECT
3 advise the posters and get  them to continue by pm only or take it to a chat room. 
4 issue a warning that this type cannot be tolerated.

Banning on the first instance is a little harsh,  

However in the case of BULLYING - HARRASMENT - LIBEL - SLANDER - THREATENING BEHAVIOUR. as these would bring the website owner into disrepute I would ban with immediate effect, explaining my reasons.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Well said taff*



taffzuk said:


> When Wild Camping we should ALL be *POLITE and CONSIDERATE !!!!!* As we should though out our lives and on Forums!!!!!
> 
> Taff



I think TAFF has summed this up...


----------



## Canalsman

Northerner said:


> Well that sums it up! There are a couple of dozen threads going at any one time and the odd spat may occur in one or two and some complain that it's putting people off! I suspect that the odd argument probably increases the viewing figures. The real problem is people who constantly complain and moan to Phil. For God's sake, grow a thicker skin, it's a forum where people debate and where we have people with widely differing political views, with widely differing intelligence, education and general knowledge. There are bound to be frustrations on either side. I have never once complained about anyone, except of course directly to them. There appears to be a small number though who, whenever a couple of people have a bit of a row, can't wait to run to teacher to tittle tattle.



People are entitled to complain if they feel offended - and that complaint should be, and is, made to the site owner.

*He is the sole arbiter of conduct on this site.*

You suggest people should be more thick skinned. By so doing you are suggesting others should change their attitude in order to accommodate your own ...  that in my view is not acceptable.

You say this is a site where people debate. I would disagree. It's a site where people share a love of wild camping in motorhomes, not a political debating forum. *Politics should play no part whatever in what goes on here. Nor should sex or religion.*

You insult the majority of members by accusing them of 'snitching'. A most juvenile attitude, and one that's redolent of the posts made by you and others, which is the root of the problem.


----------



## runnach

I just find it rich, that the members who induced the change of rules were the very same people who posted inflammatory posts
When it didn't go their way bleated like childten.

Forgive my lack of intellect and grammar.

Channa


----------



## azure

*Yes - they should be banned.*



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?
> 
> [/Basic courtesy is essential in all walks of life. They should be banned.
> ]


----------



## Jelloman

*Be nice. It's a tough world out there !*

I'm no saint, and I like a good lively discussion at times. However there is a limit to where leg-pulling and banter becomes something else. If you are making someone feel threatened or intimidated, so they no longer want to be part of this forum then you've definitely not the kind of person I want to meet on this site. Let's agree to disagree at the most, (however sound your point may be). It's in the title 'Fun and Friendly' so lets keep it that way folks.

 Remember - Loving awareness is free.

 Alex Macfarlane-Day aka Jelloman:heart:


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Camping is a leisure activity.....*

Im sure that Phil will use his discression in handling this situation... however I said this many many moons ago now...


*CAMPING IS A LEISURE ACTIVITY AND NOT A POLITICAL MINEFIELD!!*                                                                 So lets carry on camping guys ...

                                                                                :beer:
                                                                              Anyone ?


----------



## Brucesheena

Hi,

You run a really good site with informative forums and information. It's a great shame that it should be spoiled for everyone by people who use it for other purposes which detract from it and may put people off visiting, or worse still think they are representative of people who go wild camping.

So well done in having the poll which will reinforce what the majority of the members feel.


----------



## Viktor

I'm voting _*No*_ because I don't think a ban is necessary.  I'd simply change the members forum permissions settings to disable them from posting or amending a post for a period of time, but leave the permissions to read intact....I'd do it like an employment warning system where if you get 3 warnings and then on the fourth occassion you are barred from posting for a year.

That way they can still pay for access to the downloads and also keep up with meetings etc on the forum...I don't think banning them is necessary.  I would only ban trolls who are free members who come here and make disgusting posts or extremly offensive posts.


----------



## Jojo

Northerner said:


> Well, we'll agree to differ.


Not sure what we're differing about - can you explain?



> Surely you see that the point about the councillor was the implication, also voiced earlier, that the banning of parking in certain parts of Scarborough was the result of corrupt councillors who own camp sites, which is totally untrue and in my view libellous? It wasn't about a councillor being fat, that was just rude window dressing on the poster's part.


The point, surely, is that we can be rude (depending on point of view - your 'rude' might be my 'very true') ABOUT people OUT THERE (the kids on my bus today were total morons) without being rude TO people IN HERE. You seem determined to defend people who aren't actually being attacked, just moaned about in a semi-private forum. Libel requires naming and accusing. The implication that some councillors are corrupt seems to touch your nerves unduly - I should think most aren't, I know some are - but if you think someone writing about it is daft, why not ignore them? You're not defending a particular individual's honour, so your identification with whoever you think is being attacked seems unnecessary, making a fight out of almost nothing. It's unlikely that anyone here thinks all politicians, local or national, are corrupt - or that they're all paragons. 

Likewise, saying someone's a "mincing twat" might be unpleasant but it could be playful, using current idioms. Even the subject of the comment might not think it cruel. I wonder why you want to prove cruelty? Why are you stepping in to identify with the target? If you don't like how people express themselves, why not ignore them rather than challenge them? Why do you seem to feel you have to prove people wrong?



> I hate unfairness and the kind of people who, at the drop of a hat, can traduce an entire group of people or an individual.


I've never met anyone who likes unfairness. I don't like attacks on groups of abstract people. But equally I don't like seeing actual people attacked, including in forums where one's guard might be down. Attacks coming at you from the screen in the safety of your own home can feel incredibly painful, which is why we need to take great care about what we say to each other. Identifying with abstract others out in the world to generate argument in here doesn't make sense unless you just want a fight, or like feeling hurt. 



> There are so many people on here who will decide that, for example, because a helpful policemen tells you that parking in the National Park is banned and then directs you to the nearest camp site, that the site must be owned by a relative!


I read those threads - that's not what I understood anyone to be saying, but because you accuse people of it they feel they have to defend themselves - like the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If anyone actually does think that anyone giving directions is trying to rip you off, they need help!



> Now that may be their opinion and they are free to express it, but I'm also free to tell them that, in my opinion, they're being unfair, unreasonable and pretty hateful if that's the first thing that comes into their mind when a scenario like that has happened.


I don't think you are (or me, or anyone else). You're free to think whatever you like, and you might be right. You're free to say that you don't agree and that making those kind of assumptions is unreasonable. But unless you just want a fight, saying they're "hateful" is aggravation. And again, saying they're "unfair" looks like you're identifying too much with the target, _trying_ to take things personally or are looking for a reason to fight, and means that debate can't happen because it hurts you, feels like a direct attack on you, when it isn't. Debate is easier without attacking each other - there are lots of online forums full of people personally defending and attacking everything... this one doesn't seem to be the right place for that.

Perhaps a rule of thumb should be - if you feel hurt by someone's post, leave your computer, go and do something else, then ignore that thread in future. It's pretty much how moderation works - suspending someone's right to immediate posting so they have time to cool off and think about something else.

_Again, sorry folks for longwindedness and for any offence that might be caused - none intended. I have tried to edit this to fillet out anything tricky but I may have failed. I'm very interested in how groups solve communication problems, hence my involvement. If it's over the top, tell me and I'll stop._


----------



## AIKIDOMO

*Rules is Rules or maybe...............*

This Forum has rules, like many others, a rule already exists to sort out this problem,by joining the forum you agree to these rules. 
I am a member of a number of  forums and they are mostly interesting and humourous with again the usual number of die hard posters who if the forum did not exist  would most probably start one themselves.There is also the same problem of the person who looks upon his point of view as possibly more important and more knowledgable than any one else. In my opinion this is life so live with it. 
This forum has been moderatly successful for a few years now, I remember when it was in its infancy, and like most things in life there is a start a middle and an end, this forum is far from its end but I suppose its approaching its middle and probably a change is afoot. I do handle personal abuse by ignoring it and by saying that I will ignore any abusive comments publically if any occur.
If others take up the mantle then its up to them, but I have asked people not to.
I am not in favour however of changing the rules, if you do, there would no doubt be others along that would take the place of certain people who abuse its trust, which of course is a debatable issue in itself, depending on your own personal outlook.
Having looked at the Poll results there is a democratic view already expressed, all I ask is that the moderator/admin be sensible and not to  draconian in any change to the forum rules, if any is needed as I have aready said, as that would indeed send an unwelcome signal.


----------



## Andrew Davies

What has been asked for is clear:

Do you want to ban? Yes/No

People are free to vote on that choice or abstain, there are however lots of votes (and an unknown number of abstentions), therefore it's pretty simple for Phil to follow the vote. Other suggestions should be a no vote with an explaination or abstention with an explanation (as has been done in 1 post), otherwise it's just chucking the load back on the admin (Phil). 

Moving forward, the very valid and reasonable 3 strikes, moderators etc could be implemented, but as in most places a well worded 'Oi, stop that' does not need 'moderator' status and abuse needs stamping out with a firm hand. But this is all irrelevant to the current question being asked.

This thread would also have been a good place for the protagonists to say "Sorry, if I've been out of order" and deal with this (possibly negating the need to use the poll), but that's not happened so far.


----------



## Northerner

Canalsman said:


> People are entitled to complain if they feel offended - and that complaint should be, and is, made to the site owner.
> 
> *He is the sole arbiter of conduct on this site.*
> 
> You suggest people should be more thick skinned. By so doing you are suggesting others should change their attitude in order to accommodate your own ...  that in my view is not acceptable.
> 
> You say this is a site where people debate. I would disagree. It's a site where people share a love of wild camping in motorhomes, not a political debating forum. *Politics should play no part whatever in what goes on here. Nor should sex or religion.*
> 
> You insult the majority of members by accusing them of 'snitching'. A most juvenile attitude, and one that's redolent of the posts made by you and others, which is the root of the problem.



So let's get this straight. I think that people should be a bit more thick skinned and accept that this is a forum where vigorous debates may happen. That is my opinion.

You think that this view is not acceptable because it isn't your view! Can't you see a contradiction here? I have an opinion, which is that people should be more tolerant of the debates that go on and not bother Phil with constant complaining. I think that is juvenile and akin to running to teacher every time they get annoyed about something.

You appear to suggest that I'm not entitled to this opinion and that your view on this is a more worthy one than mine. I am happy to accept your view as valid, although it's not mine, and in expressing your view I don't for a second think that you are wrong to hold it and I don't think that in disagreeing with me you're suggesting that I must change my attitude to accommodate you. 

And as for the point you make about this being a wild camping site and politics and religion not being suitable, I would add that I have never started a thread about politics, religion, or sex. If however, during a thread, someone makes an assertion about either subject then I and anyone else is free to challenge them if we feel they are wrong. There have been two threads for example about the Olympics, both started by people who obviously don't like them and wish to start a debate on the subject. Are we wrong to challenge a view once it's been put up?

Personally, I'd be happy to see a ban on anything not concerned with motorhoming and wild, or otherwise, camping. But do you think that would increase membership or decrease it? I know what I think!


----------



## n brown

i know this is a 'wildcamping'site but what makes it a lively and interesting site is the spirit of the people on it. and the diversity of subjects,and the way that,as in real  conversations,the thread changes and becomes something sometimes more interesting.i personally wouldn't change anything for fear of diminishing it


----------



## ellisboy

I was always told to ignore bullies and they will eventually go away,but you will always in life come across people who know it all,always right and forever trying to belittle others.Then there are the sensitive ones who get offended at the slightest things.Thats what makes the world go round, but I've noticed that the most insulting posts are made in threads that have nothing to do with Wildcamping or motorhomes,and are usually about politics or religion ( which as we all know is the biggest cause of misery and wars in this world).
So maybe these few trolls should go and start up their own forum where they can insult,be little and rip the crap out of each other.One member in particular who never seems to debate anything to do with camping or motorhomes and just seems to want to quote references from news papers! Their must be another forum to cater for his needs,not this one.
on the other hand ,I havn't read all the posts in this thread but looking at the individual post score,most of them are very low,lots in single figures, isn't it sad that they can't be bothered to contribute until there's a thread on banning people and complaining! So come on its your forum, you don't have to read every thread,but don't just post in a thread for complaining! We're all adults here

Ar'nt we :banana::wave:


----------



## Northerner

hamsha said:


> Not sure what we're differing about - can you explain?
> 
> 
> The point, surely, is that we can be rude (depending on point of view - your 'rude' might be my 'very true') ABOUT people OUT THERE (the kids on my bus today were total morons) without being rude TO people IN HERE. You seem determined to defend people who aren't actually being attacked, just moaned about in a semi-private forum. Libel requires naming and accusing. The implication that some councillors are corrupt seems to touch your nerves unduly - I should think most aren't, I know some are - but if you think someone writing about it is daft, why not ignore them? You're not defending a particular individual's honour, so your identification with whoever you think is being attacked seems unnecessary, making a fight out of almost nothing. It's unlikely that anyone here thinks all politicians, local or national, are corrupt - or that they're all paragons.
> 
> Likewise, saying someone's a "mincing twat" might be unpleasant but it could be playful, using current idioms. Even the subject of the comment might not think it cruel. I wonder why you want to prove cruelty? Why are you stepping in to identify with the target? If you don't like how people express themselves, why not ignore them rather than challenge them? Why do you seem to feel you have to prove people wrong?
> 
> 
> I've never met anyone who likes unfairness. I don't like attacks on groups of abstract people. But equally I don't like seeing actual people attacked, including in forums where one's guard might be down. Attacks coming at you from the screen in the safety of your own home can feel incredibly painful, which is why we need to take great care about what we say to each other. Identifying with abstract others out in the world to generate argument in here doesn't make sense unless you just want a fight, or like feeling hurt.
> 
> 
> I read those threads - that's not what I understood anyone to be saying, but because you accuse people of it they feel they have to defend themselves - like the loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If anyone actually does think that anyone giving directions is trying to rip you off, they need help!
> 
> 
> I don't think you are (or me, or anyone else). You're free to think whatever you like, and you might be right. You're free to say that you don't agree and that making those kind of assumptions is unreasonable. But unless you just want a fight, saying they're "hateful" is aggravation. And again, saying they're "unfair" looks like you're identifying too much with the target, _trying_ to take things personally or are looking for a reason to fight, and means that debate can't happen because it hurts you, feels like a direct attack on you, when it isn't. Debate is easier without attacking each other - there are lots of online forums full of people personally defending and attacking everything... this one doesn't seem to be the right place for that.
> 
> Perhaps a rule of thumb should be - if you feel hurt by someone's post, leave your computer, go and do something else, then ignore that thread in future. It's pretty much how moderation works - suspending someone's right to immediate posting so they have time to cool off and think about something else.
> 
> _Again, sorry folks for longwindedness and for any offence that might be caused - none intended. I have tried to edit this to fillet out anything tricky but I may have failed. I'm very interested in how groups solve communication problems, hence my involvement. If it's over the top, tell me and I'll stop._



Unfortunately we seem to have very different views. I see little difference between criticising a member of this forum and third parties. If someone came on here suggesting that all policemen are corrupt and that you'll never successfully prosecute a policeman because they're all bent, I almost feel it my duty to disagree and defend policemen in general. Mainly because I know several and know them to be honest. I see nothing wrong with that and if people wish to come on a public forum expressing such views they should, in my opinion, expect to be challenged. I suppose that part of my make-up is that I quite enjoy the challenge!

Anyway, Henry V is on the tele and the recorder is going and I'm now going to enjoy the Shakespeare!


----------



## antiquesam

Surely debate and discussion can be conducted without rudeness or abuse, humour can be just as effective. The thread seems to confirm that many people are staying out of the way because they dislike the thought of being "put down" by certain particularly vindictive elements. To find an interesting discussion and follow it through only to find it taken over by someone looking to be abusive is depressing and off putting. I for one was resigned to using the site for the POI only and not getting involved in rest.


----------



## henryherald

Don't follow the forum much personally, but if people are slagging other people off they should grow up and get a life.  Life is too short  to be bickering and fighting.  My motto is. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.   If you can't be civil and get on with others go somewhere else and leave those who can, to get on with their life in peace.


----------



## Ifor

For me, there is a huge difference to starting an argument and being abusive.

Unless every single member of the group shared identical views about everything, there would be arguments.  In itself, that can be interesting and productive.  Abusing other members is totally different and should not be tolerated by any of us.


----------



## Northerner

ellisboy said:


> I was always told to ignore bullies and they will eventually go away,but you will always in life come across people who know it all,always right and forever trying to belittle others.Then there are the sensitive ones who get offended at the slightest things.Thats what makes the world go round, but I've noticed that the most insulting posts are made in threads that have nothing to do with Wildcamping or motorhomes,and are usually about politics or religion ( which as we all know is the biggest cause of misery and wars in this world).
> So maybe these few trolls should go and start up their own forum where they can insult,be little and rip the crap out of each other.One member in particular who never seems to debate anything to do with camping or motorhomes and just seems to want to quote references from news papers! Their must be another forum to cater for his needs,not this one.
> on the other hand ,I havn't read all the posts in this thread but looking at the individual post score,most of them are very low,lots in single figures, isn't it sad that they can't be bothered to contribute until there's a thread on banning people and complaining! So come on its your forum, you don't have to read every thread,but don't just post in a thread for complaining! We're all adults here
> 
> Ar'nt we :banana::wave:



Oh dear, yet another nasty little post having a dig at one person in particular, and a very inaccurate dig as well, as usual! And you complain about others, What a nerve!


----------



## magnolia

Another vote for 3 strikes and you're out.


----------



## jamesmarshall

Northerner said:


> Oh dear, yet another nasty little post having a dig at one person in particular, and a very inaccurate dig as well, as usual! And you complain about others, What a nerve!



"Once more unto the breach........"


----------



## Hobbsy

I havent seen the thread in quwstion but i think there needs to be a impartial moderator to decide who's to blame, give the culprit a warning next time there out! Life's hard enough without keyboard warriors ruining for others, iether that or arrange a cage and get it sorted i'n there, happy days!


----------



## Jojo

ellisboy said:


> looking at the individual post score,most of them are very low,lots in single figures, isn't it sad that they can't be bothered to contribute until there's a thread on banning people and complaining! So come on its your forum, you don't have to read every thread,but don't just post in a thread for complaining!


I checked my own post score - quite low. Perhaps I'm one of the people you mean...
I think this thread is why... I only joined this community recently and - after getting very positive offers of help when I asked direct questions - the first few more general conversations I entered were full of accusations and personal attacks, so I held off - it didn't feel like a very pleasant place to be. I did what's often recommended - if you don't like it, ignore it. But, as many people have said, I think the more people are active in the forums, the merrier! If I can help make it possible for people like me who've to join in rather than hang back, perhaps my posts here will help. Perhaps not


----------



## vindiboy

I happen to think that this forum is the best one of the available Motorhome forums, there are one or two Members on here who come across as  wanting to be superior  to others in intellect and education etc, and must always have the last word, they appear to be permanently angry and get even angrier if they don't get their own way, I have crossed swords with a couple of them, but hope I have kept my cool and not got personally abusive, I am lucky in that I can take any abuse thrown at me  and not get bothered, I have over the years been called all the bad names ever invented, sticks and stones  etc,so that is water off a Ducks back to me. I was a Prison Officer for some time so have dealt with all walks of life with a smile. 
 We now have on here a special  Forum for un moderated posts, so why not move any that  appear to offend  there? I realise that involves  work for someone and  you may not want to do that, Phil it is your site  if you  think someone should be banned [ even if that is me ] just  do it , I don't see why you need to ask us it is your Forum.


----------



## caspar

A couple of very similar replies to mine, but only giving one warning no two. I have no objection to only one warning, I just stated what was done on other sites where I moderate. 

The real issue tht seems to be coming through to me here is that if they don't stop after a warning, be that one or two, they shouldn't be here. Few, if any, of us want to read stupid disagreements. Stick to wild camping talk and stay polite - it's not actually rocket science and is hardly a lot to ask of anybody.


----------



## maingate

The good thing that has come out of this thread is the fact that members who never bother posting are finally communicating something.

I can only hope they keep it up. The more the merrier and hopefully more wilding spots should be announced.


----------



## Jojo

Northerner said:


> I almost feel it my duty to disagree and defend [***] in general.


That's my point. You don't have a duty to correct anyone's views, none of us do. Wading into debates to "defend" sections of society = kicking off a fight unnecessarily. Your need to "defend" suggests you feel vulnerable, personally attacked, so you attack back. Expressing a point of view doesn't have to be attack/defence. That you feel it does must make discussion much more difficult for you, and it silences other people. 

Hope you enjoy the TV


----------



## Mad Manx

I don't post that often and I don't get involved in heated debates or bitching !I get enough of idiots when I am working.
I am a member of other forums where their is a list of moderators who have the power to freeze accounts for 24 hrs plus and if they offend too much they then get band!
How about that as a compromise as some times people just need a warning to calm down?


----------



## Andrew Davies

hamsha said:


> I checked my own post score - quite low. Perhaps I'm one of the people you mean...
> I think this thread is why... I only joined this community recently and - after getting very positive offers of help when I asked direct questions - the first few more general conversations I entered were full of accusations and personal attacks, so I held off - it didn't feel like a very pleasant place to be. I did what's often recommended - if you don't like it, ignore it. But, as many people have said, I think the more people are active in the forums, the merrier! If I can help make it possible for people like me who've to join in rather than hang back, perhaps my posts here will help. Perhaps not



I wondered the same, but as I said I received the same email sent to every member and being in Phil's shoes elsewhere thought I'd post.

As I said I've seen the nasty comments, though not so much on the self build side and maybe that reflects having a purpose in building something, too busy (when the rain stops).....Hmm rain, on several bike forums we refer to the 'winter blues' when members get edgy like drug addicts we've not had a decent ride for a while, with the poor summer it might be a bit of cabin fever.

Any-hoo, if I'm a 'sad' person for having a low post count (only joined a few weeks ago!) and posting when directly requested, then I guess I'm 'sad'....


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Thisll cheer you up...*

Carry on Camping - Pound! - YouTube    :wacko:


This will cheer you all up now....


----------



## Hughman

hamsha said:


> Not sure what we're differing about - can you explain?
> 
> 
> Perhaps a rule of thumb should be - if you feel hurt by someone's post, leave your computer, go and do something else, then ignore that thread in future. It's pretty much how moderation works - suspending someone's right to immediate posting so they have time to cool off and think about something else.
> 
> _Again, sorry folks for longwindedness and for any offence that might be caused - none intended. I have tried to edit this to fillet out anything tricky but I may have failed. I'm very interested in how groups solve communication problems, hence my involvement. If it's over the top, tell me and I'll stop._



Well said, both here and in your earlier post. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Boots

Hi All,

Just a quickie, having read all the posts up to now it was good to see so many people joining in and expressing a view.

I know my/this post is a bit off topic really but I have to say that even on this thread the 'same old same old' was starting to happen again!

Nuff said, apologies for being off topic.


Take care all,


Boots


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*SO....*

Where are you off to this summer then?


----------



## Deleted member 21686

ellisboy said:


> I was always told to ignore bullies and they will eventually go away,but you will always in life come across people who know it all,always right and forever trying to belittle others.Then there are the sensitive ones who get offended at the slightest things.Thats what makes the world go round, but I've noticed that the most insulting posts are made in threads that have nothing to do with Wildcamping or motorhomes,and are usually about politics or religion ( which as we all know is the biggest cause of misery and wars in this world).
> So maybe these few trolls should go and start up their own forum where they can insult,be little and rip the crap out of each other.One member in particular who never seems to debate anything to do with camping or motorhomes and just seems to want to quote references from news papers! Their must be another forum to cater for his needs,not this one.
> on the other hand ,I havn't read all the posts in this thread but looking at the individual post score,most of them are very low,lots in single figures, isn't it sad that they can't be bothered to contribute until there's a thread on banning people and complaining! So come on its your forum, you don't have to read every thread,but don't just post in a thread for complaining! We're all adults here
> 
> Ar'nt we :banana::wave:



yep you are right ellisboy they are crawling out of the woodwork.


----------



## Hughman

Northerner said:


> Oh dear, yet another nasty little post having a dig at one person in particular, and a very inaccurate dig as well, as usual! And you complain about others, What a nerve!



Give it a rest. I joined this site to find out about motorhoming and wilding in particular. As things stand, I'm off. I've had enough of this kind of snide crack, from you and others. As someone else has already said, this is the sort of thing that puts lots of people off from joining in. Nobody with any sense is going to post if they think someone's going to come at them with both barrels, and I am one of those people.


----------



## Tbear

I know the title of the pole may be a bit inflammatory but at present it would seem only 10% of us believe in free speech:sad:

Richard


----------



## Byronic

maingate said:


> The good thing that has come out of this thread is the fact that members who never bother posting are finally communicating something.
> 
> I can only hope they keep it up. The more the merrier and hopefully more wilding spots should be announced.




Only read a few of the posts, and even I noticed this (limited powers of observation). I can't figure out why this should be the case.

In addition to the LIKE button perhaps there should be a DISLIKE button, when a post gets say 20 DISLIKES it gets deleted. If the LIKES outnumber the DISLIKES whatever the number, the post remains, a measure of Democracy one might say At least the decision is not dependant on any individual decision.
Further refinement such as deletion of the whole thread may be left at the Moderators discretion, when several posts have high DISLIKE numbers for instance.

Well.... I was only trying for the "second" good thing to come out of this thread!!!


----------



## The Rebel Camper

_ Originally Posted by Northerner  
Oh dear, yet another nasty little post having a dig at one person in particular, and a very inaccurate dig as well, as usual! And you complain about others, What a nerve!

Hughman 
Give it a rest. I joined this site to find out about motorhoming and wilding in particular. As things stand, I'm off. I've had enough of this kind of snide crack, from you and others. As someone else has already said, this is the sort of thing that puts lots of people off from joining in. Nobody with any sense is going to post if they think someone's going to come at them with both barrels, and I am one of those people. _





mmmm seems like a personal grievance here ... 

I would lock the topic... and advise you take to PM.

Do I really care No Im a HAPPY CAMPER..... WHEY HEY


----------



## lotty

I have noticed a few members who do seem to come onto threads and just seem to have a go. I don't have a problem with debates but some do seem to get a little personnal. These members I have noticed don't seem to start any useful threads or add info to the site. I have started to avoid certain types of threads as I know the type of responses that it will get. Sometimes I feel that I would like to comment on some things but don't as I am worried of what maybe said to me.
At first I was a little unsure about banning members but I know that Phil would not ban anyone without privately speaking to them and warning them of their behaviour first.


----------



## Tison

I was recommended this site by a close friend of mine about a year ago but I was put off by Northerner and his comments then, he obviously enjoys winding people up you only have to look at his history to see this, just look at how many comments he has made on this thread alone. I will not become a full member while this sort of thing carries on, I want to enjoy my visits to www.wildcamping.co.uk. Good luck to you guys, I hope you get sorted and I'm probably going to get the first ban for naming Northerner. This is the first time I have made a comments on here and I would have never have come back but for the email I received asking me to vote on this pole. I have asked Phil to remove me from wildcamping.co.uk as I can see nothing has changed here.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Im done!!!*

It makes me laugh,  your admin sets up a poll, asking for a reply... I have seen the majority of replies ( POLL )

So now is a time for decision.

I have seen ALL that I want to see now... and my vote has been passed... and may I say it WAS the correct vote.


----------



## tiderus

Dear, Dear, Dear, Hear we go again.

Of course people will differ in their views.

Can't decide yes or no. me self. Both have a modicome of merit. 

So the answer is really simple.

We have a system called likes. If we like a post, we vote and say so.

Sooo. If you dislike the posts, why not also have a button to say so.

If however you reached say ten dislikes, (and this should tell you something.)

Them we get banned.  SIMPLES?

I'm not in favor of the birch, cat of nine tales etc, as these were held over us whilst growing up.

But people will always take things to far, its the real world.

So before I get my Ruler out, or slap your legs. 

Get real, people don't like you doing it. this is not the place. 

It only serves to aillianate you at club meets etc.

Well done Phil, this is the bestest quickest thread Iv'e seen. 

Wish I'd thought of it. 

Rgd's Graham.


----------



## jamesmarshall

The Rebel Camper said:


> It makes me laugh,  your admin sets up a poll, asking for a reply... I have seen the majority of replies ( POLL )
> 
> So now is a time for decision.
> 
> I have seen ALL that I want to see now... and my vote has been passed... and may I say it WAS the correct vote.



Nothing like a bit of pressure to get what you want.


----------



## maingate

I like Byronics idea of a 'dislike' function which would automatically lock a thread if it was getting out of hand. I cannot see it being abused but then again, the low cunning of members is not to be underestimated. :lol-061:


----------



## John H

Tbear said:


> I know the title of the pole may be a bit inflammatory but at present it would seem only 10% of us believe in free speech:sad:
> 
> Richard



It has been said before but it is worth saying again: free speech may be uncomfortable at times but it is better than the alternative. If you held a national poll on the subject I am sure that an overwhelming majority would come down on the side of free speech but on this forum we have always been in a minority. 

Having said that, I accept that there are limits to free speech and these are framed in law - and there is no excuse for bullying and insulting behaviour.


----------



## Andrew Davies

Byronic said:


> Only read a few of the posts, and even I noticed this (limited powers of observation). I can't figure out why this should be the case.
> 
> In addition to the LIKE button perhaps there should be a DISLIKE button, when a post gets say 20 DISLIKES it gets deleted. If the LIKES outnumber the DISLIKES whatever the number, the post remains, a measure of Democracy one might say At least the decision is not dependant on any individual decision.
> Further refinement such as deletion of the whole thread may be left at the Moderators discretion, when several posts have high DISLIKE numbers for instance.
> 
> Well.... I was only trying for the "second" good thing to come out of this thread!!!



That Sir, is a damn fine idea, well done! :bow:

In fact with a 'swingometer' you can tell at a moment if a member is considered a bit of a tit by his Peers! c:


----------



## jhorsf

It looks like you have an answer you just have to be brave enough to carry it out


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*YAWN... mmm*

Repetion is so boring... ide rather be camping ...


----------



## lotty

tiderus said:


> Dear, Dear, Dear, Hear we go again.
> 
> Of course people will differ in their views.
> 
> Can't decide yes or no. me self. Both have a modicome of merit.
> 
> So the answer is really simple.
> 
> We have a system called likes. If we like a post, we vote and say so.
> 
> Sooo. If you dislike the posts, why not also have a button to say so.
> 
> If however you reached say ten dislikes, (and this should tell you something.)
> 
> Them we get banned.  SIMPLES?
> 
> I'm not in favor of the birch, cat of nine tales etc, as these were held over us whilst growing up.
> 
> But people will always take things to far, its the real world.
> 
> So before I get my Ruler out, or slap your legs.
> 
> Get real, people don't like you doing it. this is not the place.
> 
> .*It only serves to aillianate you at club meets etc*.
> 
> Well done Phil, this is the bestest quickest thread Iv'e seen.
> 
> Wish I'd thought of it.
> 
> Rgd's Graham.






These people would not attend a meet as they stay behind their computers!


----------



## jamesmarshall

John H said:


> It has been said before but it is worth saying again: free speech may be uncomfortable at times but it is better than the alternative. If you held a national poll on the subject I am sure that an overwhelming majority would come down on the side of free speech but on this forum we have always been in a minority.
> 
> Having said that, I accept that there are limits to free speech and these are framed in law - and there is no excuse for bullying and insulting behaviour.



I suspect that the majority of people on this website agree with freedom of speech. The difficulty is that some feel the need to abandon civility and courtesy in favour of incendiary adjectives and personal insult that more often than not lead to a bear fight between some and a reiticence from others to offer their views for fear of being drawn into what often becomes a protracted and vicious thread.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*I hope...*

I hope you guys get this sorted very soon... as this convo is getting very boring now... ive said what ive had to say... its over to you guys now...

I would prefer to be camping right now..


Anyway ..... its knocked the posts up... pmsl now


----------



## John H

Andrew Davies said:


> In fact with a 'swingometer' you can tell at a moment if a member is considered a bit of a tit by his Peers! c:



The problem with that idea is that it makes minority opinions on any subject seem worthless (and as someone who is often happily in a minority, I don't think I approve! :lol-053. What most people are objecting to here is abusive and bullying behaviour - and that can be expressed by someone in the majority!


----------



## Andrew Davies

tiderus said:


> Sooo. If you dislike the posts, why not also have a button to say so.
> 
> If however you reached say ten dislikes, (and this should tell you something.)
> 
> Them we get banned.  SIMPLES?



Bit open for abuse! :lol-053:

I think (though I'll bet the software is not so clever as to do it:egg: ) that a post that gets 10 dislikes gets automatically deleted is great, self moderation and as close to free speech as possible. 

The issue will be in deleting the quotes used on the original post and it's a considerable amount of coding to work around that! :rolleyes2:

On the plus side of this debate, at least it looks like this are being dealt with. Personally it looked like there was apathy to the situation and is why I did not post or browse the forum much, shame as I'll be finished my self build soon and that where I'm sure this site has a steady feed of users who have joined as forum members until they finish and then join as full members when they have a use for the POI's etc...


----------



## Beemer

My opinion would be to ban the persistent offenders who do not adhere to the sites rules.  Perhaps a 'three strikes and you are out' rule.
The 'ignore' facility works ok, but if someone quotes the person you have ignored, you get to see what they have posted.
It is about time something was done quell the constant bickering that has happened lately.


----------



## Tbear

The Rebel Camper said:


> Repetion is so boring... ide rather be camping ...



Where do you get your water from


----------



## John H

jamesmarshall said:


> I suspect that the majority of people on this website agree with freedom of speech. The difficulty is that some feel the need to abandon civility and courtesy in favour of incendiary adjectives and personal insult that more often than not lead to a bear fight between some and a reiticence from others to offer their views for fear of being drawn into what often becomes a protracted and vicious thread.



I agree. As I said in my post, there are legal limits to free speech and there is no excuse for bullying. I made the point because, in the past, threads have been closed or removed where there has been a heated exchange of views without insults being involved. But my debates with Phil about free speech are well-known and I don't wish to divert the topic so I won't say any more about this aspect.


----------



## Atuin

*suspend first*

Banning doesn't work, they'll just come back with a different ID.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

jamesmarshall said:


> Nothing like a bit of pressure to get what you want.



please enlighten me... as to this post...


----------



## Andrew Davies

John H said:


> The problem with that idea is that it makes minority opinions on any subject seem worthless (and as someone who is often happily in a minority, I don't think I approve! :lol-053. What most people are objecting to here is abusive and bullying behaviour - and that can be expressed by someone in the majority!



Your right if people 'dislike' when they just don't agree with a factual matter, though I can see it being useful when poor or dangerous advice is given (I did this on SBMCC when I recommended 2 LPG regulators, thinking 0.5 bar was the same as .50mb, wrong by a factor of 10!) I wish I could have had that pulled by more knowledgeable members, I had at least put a Caveat that it was a fag packet design I'd been considering.

I doubt it's an implementable item anyway, though just having a 'Dislike' button would be good.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

Atuin said:


> Banning doesn't work, they'll just come back with a different ID.



It does work... as the forum can remember all IP addy from which that member has posted.Where you can ban each IP ADDY..


----------



## jamesmarshall

The Rebel Camper said:


> It makes me laugh,  your admin sets up a poll, asking for a reply... I have seen the majority of replies ( POLL )
> 
> So now is a time for decision.
> 
> I have seen ALL that I want to see now... and my vote has been passed... and may I say it WAS the correct vote.



Its Phil's call not yours. In my view the above quote carries all the subtlety of the leader of a lynch mob in a cheap cowboy film. I hope this helps you on your road to enlightenment.


----------



## John H

Andrew Davies said:


> Your right if people 'dislike' when they just don't agree with a factual matter, though I can see it being useful when poor or dangerous advice is given (I did this on SBMCC when I recommended 2 LPG regulators, thinking 0.5 bar was the same as .50mb, wrong by a factor of 10!) I wish I could have had that pulled by more knowledgeable members, I had at least put a Caveat that it was a fag packet design I'd been considering.
> 
> I doubt it's an implementable item anyway, though just having a 'Dislike' button would be good.



I take your point but wouldn't it be better in the example you give to immediately post a reply pointing out the mathematical dubiousness in the advice rather than waiting for ten people to "dislike" it in order to have it automatically removed? Apart from anything else, leaving the original post there with a correction will tell people that the advice given by this person should be treated very carefully in future. If it is removed then new viewers will not know to be careful. Anyway, I'm now in danger of leading the discussion off in two different directions in the space of two posts, so I'd better really stop now!


----------



## Keveral

*poll*

Perhaps it would be fair to remind them to be polite, i.e. warn them; but if it is repeated then to ban them.  Consideration helps the world go round, after all.


----------



## Deleted member 17017

*Abusive Members*

Hi Phil,

Repeat offenders should be banned but one off rants should be acceptable as long as they are not overly abusive.

Best regards


----------



## VicTon

I've belonged to various forums in the past, and found whatever the main theme of them were, there would always be some one com along to stir things up. Some forums banned the trouble makers totally, others gave out temporary bans, but the outcome was always the same: 

Total ban, the troublemaker would return under a different guise (this was evident from the writing style)
Temporary ban, they returned to continue the 'fight'

It is human nature that we don't all see eye to eye, if it is just a heated discussion, I'd let it run its course, it will eventually burn out.

If it is a personal slanging match, is it possible to lock the thread?

The best of all, but probably the most difficult, is for the abused not to retaliate to the abuse, it is a known fact that to ignore a bully, hurts them most as they thrive on the attention of winding folk up.


----------



## The Rebel Camper

jamesmarshall said:


> Its Phil's call not yours. In my view the above quote carries all the subtlety of the leader of a lynch mob in a cheap cowboy film. I hope this helps you on your road to enlightenment.




mmm 

I am aware whos shout this is... and as to the rest of your post... just another online verbal bully pal, who cant get his own way in life...


----------



## jamesmarshall

The Rebel Camper said:


> mmm
> 
> I am aware whos shout this is... and as to the rest of your post... just another online verbal bully pal, who cant get his own way in life...



You're right. You win.


----------



## Viktor

A dislike button might sound like a good idea...unfortunately most forums are run on 3rd party software which can be tweaked (by built in preferences as to posts, display, and skins etc), but I've never heard of any forum software having the setting option of including a dislike button never mind setting it up to lock or delete threads.

To actually program in a dislike button probably would not be a financially viable option and might not be permitted by the software licence of use.

Am I correct Phil that this forum software does not have a dislike button availability?


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Just why????*

Am I trying to be on the fence here and im the one who gets poked at.... 

this is why I set my own station up...  If you wanna bring this over... youll be welcome.

Carry On Camping Nationwide Campers U.K


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*Nighjty night all*

Im forgetting my own FRIENDS.... night night

Ill play catch up with you when youve siorted out your problems!

OH... by the way...
can you describe my AVITAR??


----------



## tf bundy

*@ phil*

Hi Phil.

Having read a large number of the posts on this subject, I can see both sides of the argument. Therefore in my humble opinion a clear decision has to be taken one way or another, right or wrong.

Therefore, if you are sure that someone is just trying to start a row for the hell of it, then YES a ban is whats needed. There is no perfect answer to this problem, so just go with the majority and get on with it.


----------



## shawbags

tf bundy said:


> Hi Phil.
> 
> Having read a large number of the posts on this subject, I can see both sides of the argument. Therefore in my humble opinion a clear decision has to be taken one way or another, right or wrong.
> 
> Therefore, if you are sure that someone is just trying to start a row for the hell of it, then YES a ban is whats needed. There is no perfect answer to this problem, so just go with the majority and get on with it.


You seem a sensible bloke Phil and i am sure your discretion will work fine,even though it is hard to take such action i do think 3 strikes and your out but sometimes both partys would need to be surspended for a short lenght of time.I do find it difficult to understand how some people can get so nasty with each other on such a site as this, CHILL OUT GUYS LIFE IS TOO SHORT  .


----------



## 2cv

I love this site and am very grateful to Phil for setting it up so well.
I do feel that in the past year or two it has changed from what it was, and not necessarily for the better.
Wild camping was the original focus of the site, and I feel that the gradual movement away from discussion of this has been detremental to the site and has led to the problems being discussed in this thread.
I think that a return towards the original focus of the forum would be beneficial, and may eliminate the problems which have arisen.
I think the membership have indicated clearly how they feel, but of course support whatever Phil decides is the appropriate action.


----------



## Clemina

Yes ban them.  Maybe those who start getting a little bit out of order firstly get a 2 week ban and if they do it again banned forever. Though a straight ban is fine with me.  You have to think about the number of people that don't post or stop visiting the site because they don't want to be abused by them.  It's just basic common courtesy that people need to pay each other and just because it's online and not in person does not mean that people can be abusive or arguementative.  A bit of friendly banter is fine but it must be 'friendly'


----------



## scampa

I have voted "Yes".

I've read all of the comments on this thread after making my decision, but before voting (in case I saw anything to change my views).

For those who think there should be warnings, or second and third chances, then yes, that would be fine for any issues that arise _in the future_. For the present though, there have been plenty of warnings and chances given in the past few weeks to the one or two members who continue to resort to personal insults and put-downs when making their views known.

The claim for "Free-Speech" is also fine, but that doesn't include factors such as personal insults and abuse, as some people seem to think. I agree that some members may be out of order on only a few occasions, such as when they are pushed to their limits by others, or may be having a hard time in other areas, but it's the minority who regularly stoop to unacceptable levels on almost every thread that they take part in that are the real problem.

I liked Viktors' idea of limiting problem-causing members' access for a while, for example by giving them "read-only" rights for three months, but I suspect that some would wait and stew while they were absent and soon revert to their old ways when they return?

A slightly controversial alternative to this present poll would be to name names of the members who have been complained about most, then run polls to let other members decide which ones should be banned?

I have never yet used the "ignore" facility, nor made a complaint about any member (except when responding to them directly in a thread), but obviously I'm not the only one who has found this site a pretty miserable place to visit in recent weeks, with the usual suspects taking over too many topics with their same old arguments and personal attacks and abuse on others in the name of "vigorous debate!". 

As I've said before to their suggestions of "Well, don't view the threads that you find unpleasant"...... No members should be made to feel wary of viewing or posting on an otherwise interesting topic merely because of the immature personal insults and abuse to be found on them from others.

In defence of some of the quieter members who some have accused of only appearing for the first time on this thread, or have only made a few other posts, then it's good that they have chosen to add their comments.  They are perfectly entitled and welcome to browse the forum while the "noisier" members make their contributions!  I'm sure that if they had any questions, or felt they could add something, then they would.  Don't forget that they have been asked to view this thread and take part in the poll by Phil's email.  I too look forward to hearing more from them in the future, but it's completely their choice!    

And finally......  the regular unpleasantness on this site in recent weeks (despite all the previous warnings) that has seemingly replaced the previously fun, friendly and welcoming atmosphere should be proof that some bans are now warranted, either for several months or for life.


----------



## Firefox

If there was ever a dislike button I don't think the dislike results should be visible to the membership the same way as likes. This would simply create bad feelings in quite innocent threads and disagreements, leading to tit for tat dislikes and more argument.

The dislikes should be visible to the admin though. Then they get a snapshot opinion of the forum without having to wade through reams of reports.


----------



## Tony Lee

G'day Phil.
I won't vote in the poll, simply because the poll question is so open to misinterpretation as to be almost meaningless.  As you know, the great majority of members will not vote anyway because all they want is to use the forum to enhance their lifestyle - so the poll then comes down to a futile battle between good and evil and of course then, since no-one can clearly define which side is which in this case, you are no further down the track, and in fact may be locked in to a situation where, because of a skewed result, you feel you are prevented from acting as you really ought to.

I imagine the situation is further complicated by having paid up members  and you don't want to lose revenue or expertise. However, I would say that is very counter-productive and in fact by keeping one full member, you might easily lose two or three others.

You will find that in most of these sort of situations ie where you have wanted to intervene or where members are talking mutiny, *I have come out in support of your absolute right as owner of a private forum to do what you like without notice and without consultation and without second thoughts. That is morally and legally absolutely true so why don't you just do it.* If I am one of the victims then so be it.

NOW, that said, it doesn't mean that I personally won't make my opinion heard concerning matters like "KIndy" features ie Reputation scores, manipulated post counts, overtly manipulated "Like" scores, dinky little flashing thingos, animated avatars, excessive use of emoticons, pathetically adorned signatures and anything else appealing only to the faint of intellect - even though by using Firefox or forum features I can banish most of them them from my screen forever. Nor will it mean that I will suffer fools gladly and that especially includes anyone who clearly thinks a special position within the forum entitles it to act like some spoilt brat. I missed all the excitement leading to the current situation, but looking back on his constant stream of posts giving excellent information on camping areas, RVing lifestyle and such, ***** spitting the dummy was a big loss to the forum, especially given the very low worth of  on-forum contributions by the "victor".

If someone is actually causing you angst then ban them for a week and then a month and then three months and then forever. That ensures procedural fairness and a chance to be rehabilitated before the inevitable final axe descends. I repeat, If I am one of the victims then so be it.

Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse) 
The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs  that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping  and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide. They are probably of little use to the forum and could be easily ignored or excluded on your whim without detracting from the forum PROVIDED the alpha males can be sorted out at the same time. BUT don't forget that would-be alpha males fighting it out is what natural selection is all about and the usual outcome is improved stock - but of course the upset of their continued fighting can be more trouble than it is worth so one or both need to be culled by the higher being - which in this case is you, the owner.

THEN of course there is the big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless and that wouldn't be good either.. Guess that as the BOSS, it is your problem to balance everything out.

Anyway, as I said, it IS YOUR forum and you must do what you see fit, but in my mind that means actually doing something to resolve a situation you see as intolerable  rather than stuffing around being seen to be indecisive and ineffective because you either do nothing, or make a policy decision and rescind it hours later or leave it up to the members to decide. 

When did a committee of 10,000 ever achieve anything.

Regards

Tony


----------



## Firefox

You make some very good points Tony, but I don't agree with everything you said.

The forum needs posters of all different kinds. The technical ones, the debating ones, the supportive ones, and even the ones who post a bit off fluff to keep the board moving. They are all valuable in their own ways. 

That value isn't realised by the number of likes or post counts - those are irrelevant. But instead it is realised in the continued success and popularity of the board to fulfill different needs of the various members. Sometimes that is technical assistance, and sometimes it is the need to share a few lighthearted posts in a game, or some words of consolation or encouragement. I don't think you can place any one of those above the other, in my view anyway.

When it comes to banning people who disrupt that process, I agree very much with your idea of time limited bans of increasing length. This always gives people a chance to make amends and return with a new approach.


----------



## scampa

Tony Lee said:


> ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)
> 
> The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs  that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping  and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide.
> 
> THEN of course there is the *big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless* and that wouldn't be good either.



You really should stop beating about the bush Tony, and just say what's on your mind!  

And I think we'd still have plenty of eccentric characters on here without those that habitually insult and verbally abuse other members!


----------



## Tony Lee

> You really should stop beating about the bush Tony, and just say what's on your mind!



Didn't want to be the first to get booted so I deleted all the really pointed barbs.

Firefox said





> The forum needs posters of all different kinds. The technical ones, the debating ones, the supportive ones, and even the ones who post a bit off fluff to keep the board moving. They are all valuable in their own ways.



and I said





> THEN of course there is the big danger that the forum will lose all the eccentrics that add colour and life and the forum will end up bland and lifeless and that wouldn't be good either.



Both saying much the same thing in different ways. OVER-regulation can be just as destabilising as UNDER-regulation.

In looking at statistics governing behaviours or whatever, it is common practice to discard the biggest and smallest value and use the remaining data to paint a picture of what is normal. In the context of this topic I would think the equivalent would be getting rid of one member who habitually lodges complaints about many posts from a wide range of what are seen to be "normal" members - the overly precious person - on the basis that it is the serial complainer that is abnormal rather than all of the subjects of the complaints - and the other outlier ((statistics) an extreme deviation from the mean) that needs getting rid of would be where a single member is the subject of complaints from many (normal) members over a period of time - an obnoxious alpha male - on the basis that it is the one member that is the problem not the ones who are complaining. Thus getting rid of two extreme (abnormal) members exhibiting aberrant behaviour results in a more contented (normal) membership without seriously altering either the "viva la difference" or average or reasonable aspects of the forum as a whole.


----------



## Tony Lee

> And I think we'd still have plenty of eccentric characters on here without those that habitually insult and verbally abuse other members!



Of course - PROVIDED that a distinction is made between valid argument and valid debating techniques that attack the ideas (by using examples etc) and the undesirable attacking the person himself using personal insult and denigration. Unfortunately, many are unable to distinguish between the two.

I see a big difference in a robust rejoinder such as "what you are saying is total claptrap because ......." because even though it is mildly derogatory it does have supporting argument, and "you are a mindless idiot" which is clearly personally insulting because there is no supporting argument. Not sure what end of the spectrum "acting like a kindy kid" is though. (I'd possible add a smiley here except that I've instructed my browser not to display them.)


----------



## Rockerboots

Well,  after reading thro`  the  posts most people seem to favour a " Three strikes and your out" policy which i tend to agree with, but only Phil can decide according to the poll results. 

The big question is What sort of posts are not acceptable?  My own opinion is that post which contain personal attacks such as name calling or insulting someones intelligance are a definate No No. or Sarcasm (the lowest form of witt).

Strong debate is good as we all have differing opinions on a subject (We call it Democracy & why we elect MP`s to debate issues on our behalf). but it doesn`t have to get personal.

If i were Phil i would ask for volunteers to help with the moderation of the forum, full members who have been on here for a long time that are of good standing to take some of the pressure off.


----------



## Deleted member 207

Does it really matter - personally I would not want the potential grief of being a moderator that bans someone.

We know (or can find out) how to ignore someone, just use that if you cant cope with a post and move on.

I sometimes enjoy some of the banter, but am sorry to see some longtime members leave because they have
become disenchanted with some of the threats or language used. 

Some years ago I was a member of a self moderated forum, and when (I think) ten members hit the "report"
button the post got deleted and the member banned. I'm pretty sure that it worked ok, and in many ways
it represented the forum members views about what was acceptable. It also stopped a moderator from having
the arbitary power to ban.


----------



## Northerner

Tony Lee said:


> Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse)



And there lies the real problem.


----------



## Northerner

Absolutely right. What Phil should be taking notice of in this pointless exercise is the number of people who not only don't really understand the subject, but have simply used this thread to vent their spleen against anyone they don't like. They haven't made one intelligent suggestion about how the forum should be moderated and have simply made an attack on those with whom they disagree with or don't like. I suspect that these are the are the same ones so eloquently described thus by Tony Lee:

_Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse) 

The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide. They are probably of little use to the forum and could be easily ignored or excluded on your whim without detracting from the forum PROVIDED the alpha males can be sorted out at the same time. BUT don't forget that would-be alpha males fighting it out is what natural selection is all about and the usual outcome is improved stock - but of course the upset of their continued fighting can be more trouble than it is worth so one or both need to be culled by the higher being - which in this case is you, the owner.

_

I'm waiting to be culled!


----------



## Dezi

I help run another forum & one of the problems for any moderator & something that this thread raises, albeit obliquely, is that we can never be absolutely sure who we are talking to.

It has always struck me as the height of stupidity to get abusive or threatening on a forum when for all you know Daphne from Eastbourne might well be Atilla the nun from Gateshead.

There have been several instances where trolling another person on an internet forum has led to a home visit & violence. 

Why anybody has to get irate to the state of abusiveness on a site dedicated to a peaceful minority pursuit is completely beyond me.  

As for banning, I will leave that to others.

Dezi   c:


----------



## n brown

i think maybe all of us few who voted against may be in danger of a good culling by the majority.oh well.does it hurt ?


----------



## Tony Lee

Northerner said:


> And there lies the real problem.



Yes, but whose problem is it. 

#1 One version says that since Phil owns the forum and Phil makes money out of it by selling a service that people are willing to pay for, then it is in his interest to keep it as a forum that most people ARE willing to pay for. This won't happen if Phil's standards aren't at least close to those of the majority so the majority are satisfied.

Presumably this requirement can be translated as being a forum that is informative or serves as a substitute religion or agony-aunt column or whatever and since that is most likely to mean that extremists of any persuasion are not welcome, wouldn't cracking down on those extremists that also solve the problems of the vast majority of members.

So then the problem is, whose standards should be applied. Mine??, yours????

No!!!! Phil's

Why?? 

Go to #1 above 

Don't agree??

Then find another forum or start one of your own.

Easy!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 21686

n brown said:


> i think maybe all of us few who voted against may be in danger of a good culling by the majority.oh well.does it hurt ?



You deserve all you get nutty brown and you know it! lol.


----------



## mariesnowgoose

Roger said:


> Does it really matter - personally I would not want the potential grief of being a moderator that bans someone.
> 
> We know (or can find out) how to ignore someone, just use that if you cant cope with a post and move on.
> 
> I sometimes enjoy some of the banter, but am sorry to see some longtime members leave because they have
> become disenchanted with some of the threats or language used.
> 
> Some years ago I was a member of a self moderated forum, and when (I think) ten members hit the "report"
> button the post got deleted and the member banned. I'm pretty sure that it worked ok, and in many ways
> it represented the forum members views about what was acceptable. It also stopped a moderator from having
> the arbitary power to ban.



I agree with Roger, not a bad idea.

Live and let live. It's only text on a forum living in the ether. It's not real, physical, day-to-day life. 

Nobody's actually getting beaten up, and unless there are lots of teenagers/schoolchildren in here who are feeling "bullied" by typed words, 
shouldn't we all be old enough and sensible enough not to take things too seriously?

Remember: the web is, and always was, just a reflection of real life complete with all the warts and nutters, as well as the geniuses and really good stuff.

Can I go back to talking about actual campers and camping and cracking jokes now, please?


----------



## jimbob2467

*arguments*

Arguments are in my opinion hard to define in some cases as I think certain debates can be healthy.

What I don’t like, as I see so often, is web sites set out to help people are abused by confused people.

If you really want to debate issues that others don’t really want to hear or are irelevant to the point get in touch with the person by phone or email and let the rest of us debate what the site was set up for, OK

I know i cant speeel weel
Jim
:wacko::wacko::banana:


----------



## ricc

ive not read this thread in its entirety and not voted either.... i dont think there is a simple yes or no answere.... one forum i use you wouldnt beleive the abuse that goes on between members... but most give as good as they get and you soon learn who has nothing useful to contribute, and even there there is a reort button which results in a quite word from a mod.. if thats ignored its a temp ban ... couple of days to a week... there are occasional permenant bans.    then you get get threads debating whether the latest new idiot is a reincarnation of one of the old ones.    at the end of the day you know who the idiots are and dont have to bother reading their drivel.... and whatever the mod does someone will dissagree... all we can really ask is that the mod makes their policy clear and sticks to it.


----------



## Mac of Phillack

*Banning abuses*

It seems to me that the operative word is," keep," in the phrase, "keep abusing members." so I think it fair to have one warning and then a ban. There's nothing wrong in expressing an opinion but to abuse is to inflate the situation to an unacceptable level. Therefore they deserve what they get.


----------



## noody

ricc said:


> ive not read this thread in its entirety and not voted either.... i dont think there is a simple yes or no answere.... one forum i use you wouldnt beleive the abuse that goes on between members...



I didn't vote either, I haven't spent enough time on the forum recently to be able to make a fair comment or decision. Forums have always been a haven for frustration and keyboard warriors together with misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

A confident member with lots to share but a poor vocabulary and writing style can easily be seen as aggressive or arrogant which often produces more aggression and then of-course there will always be those who take-out their day-to-day frustrations at the keyboard.

Amongst us are depressives, mostly undiagnosed depressives who might disagree with just about anything, criticise just about anything and contribute nothing but negative responses. 

I always found this forum to be OK when I was active, not quite sure why I became less-active. Maybe it was the £15. I'm such a skin-flint.


----------



## Byronic

maingate said:


> I like Byronics idea of a 'dislike' function which would automatically lock a thread if it was getting out of hand. I cannot see it being abused but then again, the low cunning of members is not to be underestimated. :lol-061:



Low cunning eh thats rich, you've hijacked my post just to get +4 likes, that's cunning I reckon? I've only managed to get 2......lol.


----------



## Northerner

Tony Lee said:


> Yes, but whose problem is it.
> 
> #1 One version says that since Phil owns the forum and Phil makes money out of it by selling a service that people are willing to pay for, then it is in his interest to keep it as a forum that most people ARE willing to pay for. This won't happen if Phil's standards aren't at least close to those of the majority so the majority are satisfied.
> 
> Presumably this requirement can be translated as being a forum that is informative or serves as a substitute religion or agony-aunt column or whatever and since that is most likely to mean that extremists of any persuasion are not welcome, wouldn't cracking down on those extremists that also solve the problems of the vast majority of members.
> 
> So then the problem is, whose standards should be applied. Mine??, yours????
> 
> No!!!! Phil's
> 
> Why??
> 
> Go to #1 above
> 
> Don't agree??
> 
> Then find another forum or start one of your own.
> 
> Easy!!!!



I think that ultimately it must be Phil's standards as he owns the forum, but I would hope that he would apply those standards sensibly and with regard to the differing views on this subject. It's quite clear that many people think that it's a storm in a tea cup and that there is nothing wrong with a robust argument, which can always be ignored. And of course there are those for whom an argument, even though it doesn't involve them, seems to cause them some distress, to the extent that they constantly complain and even start new threads to complain. For myself I find this odd. If a row starts in a thread and it's a thread or subject that has little interest I simply watch it with a detached amusement. It's not about me, it doesn't affect me, why should I get all worked up?

So yes, it's Phil's forum and, to really get me banned, I am going to say this. Perhaps because he's trying to be nice and moderate, Phil can be his own worst enemy. For ages now he has vacillated and huffed and puffed about the forum rules and how people will be banned, but no constructive system emerges and now we have this latest and, in my view, utterly pointless opinion poll, the main purpose of which has been to give the serial complainers a platform to denigrate those whom they don't like.

If Phil wants some advice from another small businessman who runs his firms with what I hope is a firm but fair hand, he should stop this procrastination and put in a simple system to curb what he may consider is a member's excesses. I don't want to lose any of my staff as hiring new ones is expensive and time-consuming. If people are misbehaving I give them a verbal warning. If it continues they get a written warning and eventually a final written warning after which it's the sack. We sack hardly anyone.

So first of all, declare a general amnesty and allow everyone to start afresh, with a plea that people should not only be more polite in their posts but, and in my opinion, more importantly, should refrain from allowing personal animosities from previous clashes to influence their dealings with other members.

He should then ban transgressors for two weeks, or a month, whatever period he considers suitable. After three bans he should ban them completely.

To impose the ultimate sanction immediately is unfair and unjust. Some of us have very different views on what is considered acceptable debate. My tolerance level is quite high, some seem to be incredibly low and members need to learn what Phil's level is, which is why short-term bans will at least enable us to understand what he considers unacceptable.

So to Phil, in a nutshell, delete this pointless thread, which has done nothing whatsoever to create harmony and has increased the disharmony with which you are unhappy. Scrap the poll and start again with a fair and sensible system of moderation.


----------



## dtanderson

*ALternstives*

I can think of 2 alternatives:

1. 2 warnings then remove member (or just 1 warning)

2. Name and shame

Or a combination of both


----------



## Grazza

I think all reasonable people expect polite behaviour on forums.
They are platforms for expressing opinions, seeking and giving information and keeping in touch with communities which share a common interest.

There should be no place for abusive or threatening behaviour and anyone responsible for such conduct and subject to complaints, should first be warned privately by email, and if the behaviour continues should be banned from the site.
Of course they could try re-registering using another name, but their email address could also be added to a "blacklist".


----------



## groyne

Who's bothered, it's usually the same old farts, sorry faces bickering amongst themselves trying to get the last word. Just put them in them naughty corner until they grow up, ....................................................  or get a life.


----------



## Neckender

Well I've had a lot better things to do this week end than spend my time on computer, I personally have a life to lead.

John.


----------



## frankhazel1

Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?



YES absolutely,these people do not contribute anything towards the forum and are merely and cowardly in my opinion,mouthing off to give themselves an egotistic,chest beating bigoted,bullying display. Get rid and let us all have more meaningful discussions without them.


----------



## Northerner

artheytrate said:


> Well I've had a lot better things to do this week end than spend my time on computer, I personally have a life to lead.
> 
> John.



Mmmm, it looks to me as though you've just been spending some time on your computer! Which we all do of course in between the very varied and enjoyable lives that I'm sure most members have. I've no problem combining the two.


----------



## Northerner

frankhazel1 said:


> YES absolutely,these people do not contribute anything towards the forum and are merely and cowardly in my opinion,mouthing off to give themselves an egotistic,chest beating bigoted,bullying display. Get rid and let us all have more meaningful discussions without them.



And you speak with the vast experience of someone making his very first post on this forum, and an inflammatory and unreasonable one at that? So, since you joined four months ago, what have you contributed to this forum?


----------



## rupeesal

Hi

haven't been here long (and probably haven't posted yet) but have been on and ran forums in the past.

it is a difficult call as to how this is handled. 3strikes and your out is generally good enough.

for that to work properly tho Phil would need to ban IP addresses. not sure how easy this would be but i guess
that due to the new cookies law this should make it easier.
that way the offender cant just create another account etc. which they would do if they are out to 
be offensive or an invisible tough nut.
yes on forums people will not act like adults etc because it is anonymous so people will act differently
and sometimes they need to be treat differently.

the other side is everyone else can just be the bigger person and as soon as something starts just ignore it,
close the thread etc.

generally its always gonna happen, there will be no right way to deal with it. ban people for long enough and they
will not bother coming back or they may try with different details. 
not rise to it and everybody ignore the person and they will get bored and leave or stop.

al


----------



## Firefox

Tony Lee said:


> ... especially given the very low worth of  on-forum contributions by the "victor"...



I know you said later that the forum needs different types, but in the sentence above you are belittling the contributions of one person, who has put a lot of time and effort into the forum. That was what I was taking issue with.


----------



## dragonfl1e

I'm reasonably new to motorhoming and to this site and I have found most of the posts (and posters) to be friendly and informative.  I don't post much because I frankly don't yet know what I'm talking about.  However, another reason for being wary about dipping my toe into the forums is because of some of the reactions I've read to what I considered to be quite open and honest statements or questions.  I think this site is amazing and I saw the worth in becoming a member quite early on.  But it is a shame if people in my position (i.e. new to motorhoming and trying to increase their knowledge) are put off participating because of the fear of abuse and ridicule.  

I agree with the majority of earlier suggestions on this thread.  Rather than banning people outright, a '3-strikes and you're out' approach sounds the fairest way to proceed, this being based on feedback to the moderator (Phil?).  I suspect that most people who receive a warning would be so horrified that their comments are viewed as abusive that they would amend their behaviour straight away and I don't feel that it will curb free speech, just unwarranted nastiness.

Good luck Phil.


----------



## noody

artheytrate said:


> Well I've had a lot better things to do this week end than spend my time on computer, I personally have a life to lead.
> 
> John.



DISLIKE.

This comment comes up on a regular basis and suggests the writer is self-elevating above those who live on the forum. A computer has become part of life and for many it's part of work so moving back-and-forth between whatever you do on a computer and a forum is quick and easy.

Not a very nice comment and doesn't help.


----------



## Neckender

noody said:


> DISLIKE.
> 
> This comment comes up on a regular basis and suggests the writer is self-elevating above those who live on the forum. A computer has become part of life and for many it's part of work so moving back-and-forth between whatever you do on a computer and a forum is quick and easy.
> 
> Not a very nice comment and doesn't help.



No offence ment, I'm just fed up with all the bickering and negativaty just lately on here.

John.


----------



## Tony Lee

Byronic said:


> Low cunning eh thats rich, you've hijacked my post just to get +4 likes, that's cunning I reckon? I've only managed to get 2......lol.




You are counting???

That's sad!!!


----------



## basa99

*To ban or not to ban?*

hi,
I think Ian81 has a good idea, 3 strikes and you are out. 
Its fair by way of warning by the administrators and people cannot complain about being 'struck off' having been given 3 opportunities to tone down their response.


----------



## DJW1966

dragonfl1e said:


> I'm reasonably new to motorhoming and to this site and I have found most of the posts (and posters) to be friendly and informative.  I don't post much because I frankly don't yet know what I'm talking about.  However, another reason for being wary about dipping my toe into the forums is because of some of the reactions I've read to what I considered to be quite open and honest statements or questions.  I think this site is amazing and I saw the worth in becoming a member quite early on.  But it is a shame if people in my position (i.e. new to motorhoming and trying to increase their knowledge) are put off participating because of the fear of abuse and ridicule.
> 
> I agree with the majority of earlier suggestions on this thread.  Rather than banning people outright, a '3-strikes and you're out' approach sounds the fairest way to proceed, this being based on feedback to the moderator (Phil?).  I suspect that most people who receive a warning would be so horrified that their comments are viewed as abusive that they would amend their behaviour straight away and I don't feel that it will curb free speech, just unwarranted nastiness.
> 
> Good luck Phil.



Exactly what dragonfly said


----------



## mark61

n brown said:


> i think maybe all of us few who voted against may be in danger of a good culling by the majority.oh well.does it hurt ?




They'll have to catch us first.    :lol-049:


----------



## dave docwra

I believe that no member should be banned, but any member that causes you offence should simply be ignored..

Dave.


----------



## Deleted member 21686

frankhazel1 said:


> YES absolutely,these people do not contribute anything towards the forum and are merely and cowardly in my opinion,mouthing off to give themselves an egotistic,chest beating bigoted,bullying display. Get rid and let us all have more meaningful discussions without them.



I don't fully agree with you on this. 
Some of the guys we are talking about do contribute and are intelligent individuals and can be very helpful but unfortunately they spoil it for themselves and become agressive. it has to be calmed down or we will keep losing members.


----------



## noody

artheytrate said:


> No offence ment, I'm just fed up with all the bickering and negativaty just latley on here.
> 
> John.



I don't think anyone who makes that comment means to offend John, it just does and it is a regular though and you just reminded me (Because I had forgotten) why I spread myself thinly on this forum some time ago. Lot's of arguing and bickering yet the forum is a fantastic resource for everyone.

The problems with text-communication is that a large part of our communicating skills are hidden so you don't see facial interactions. The DISLIKE comment I made was a perfect example that could have started a row.

You didn't mean to offend and I didn't mean to sound offended yet neither of those parts of the conversation came through. A shrug of the shoulders, a facial-expression, eye-brows, a wink. Conveying stuff on a forum via text alone is a skill in itself and whilst most of us do have people skills we don't have this skill when communicating via text alone.


----------



## Devadvo

Some of us spend our Teen years, even our twenties, with the mindset of 'I know that already'....  'I am always right' ... 'It is only my opinion that is of worth'.....'Everyone else is an ar****le apart from me'

Some of us become a little more humble and less pretentious in later years, and realise that in reality, we did not know anywhere near as much as we thought we knew, and we were hardly ever right.

And in the grand scheme of things our opinion is of zero worth.

Oh, and the fact that maybe it was not everyone else that were the ar****les after all.

Some of us do not become humble and less pretentious.

Some of us think we are on a pedestal looking down. The problem with that is, pedestals can get so high, it becomes difficult to see what is actually going on way down on the ground.

Some of us, such as myself, just talk bo***cks.

Im sure this forum is secure enough to handle all types of personae with ease.


----------



## locksmith

*Had not noticed*

I had not noticed a problem here in the open forums, I come on here once or twice a week usually looking for information in the archives and sometimes look at the odd thread if the heading takes my attention.
I have been on here more than ever the last two day's to watch the fight. Lol.

Good luck Phil:goodluck:


----------



## mark61

MORGANTHEMOON said:


> I don't fully agree with you on this.
> Some of the guys we are talking about do contribute and are intelligent individuals and can be very helpful but unfortunately they spoil it for themselves and become agressive. it has to be calmed down or we will keep losing members.




Exactly, and here we are discussing if these intelligent helpful people should be banned for perhaps getting a little aggressive at times, the truth is I have seen far more aggressive post from the people having a go at them, the "peace keepers" as it were. Shall we ban the "peace keepers" too?

Banning is a backwards step.


----------



## georgert1

*Abuse etc*

I think that one warning,,,,, followed by a second warning and their account temporarily suspended for a time,,, , say around one month, then if it persists kick them off this Fun & Friendly !! Motorhome  Community. and bloody good riddance.


----------



## maingate

Tony Lee said:


> You are counting???
> 
> That's sad!!!



Oi ... stop picking on my mate.

He has only just learned to count and needs the practice.  (no smiley as you are offended by them).


----------



## Smaug

frankhazel1 said:


> YES absolutely,these *people do not contribute anything towards the forum* and are merely and cowardly in my opinion,mouthing off to give themselves an egotistic,chest beating bigoted,bullying display. Get rid and let us all have more meaningful discussions without them.



Well, I wasn't going to vote cos the majority view is overwhelming, but I have read the whole thread & yours is the first post to prompt a response other than the odd "likes".  

I understand that those with very low post numbers may be worried about a possible sharp response to a post & may lack confidence, but they also need to realise that not posting is actually also not contributing! 

Sorry to "have a go at you" like this, but many of the more argumentative posters *do *add value to the forum. They have valid viewpoints - even if they may present them rather too forcefully. They are often well educated & experienced. banning them may well lose the forum some of its value, just so that those who read & seldom post are less often offended. However, it is sad that they just do not seem to know when to back off a little & agree to disagree rather than moving in with battle tanks & carpet bombing.

I am now going to vote against banning. If the "majority" were always right we would still be Buying & selling slaves & hanging people (& not always the guilty people).


----------



## bopper

I would like to make a contribution here!

Firstly may I say that I have posted on this forum many times. I am a full member. If you care to look you will see that I have offered technical advice many times.
I have also tried to make people laugh on here and I have also offered suggestions and comments.
Many who have commented on this post are complete strangers to me, why have they not contributed before? Why are they not ALL full members.

I have to agree with JOHN LEE on many of his points of view:  There is indeed a few, and I have commented on this before, who follow the leader for point scoring.
I once suggested entertainment for a "meet" and I mentioned a Karaoke......  Bloody hell, I got shot at and felt I had used a profanity on the site. Yet a recent meet was felt a good night when everyone joined in singing round the campfire... what the hell is that but Karaoke! 
I once made, and may I say a very funny contribution to a post and it was taken off, and yet one group turn everything into double meaning and blatant sexual comments and get away with it.
Why do I mention this?
Because having a vote on such a decisive thing as banning people on here will be like the culling of the French aristocracy, the fraternity who think "Oh you are funny" with your smutty drivel that is posted on here will be just the same as the ones who knitted whilst the victims where guillotined.
Making this as brief as possible I will make these comments:
Phil does a good job (When he is not listening to the playground characters). But he should not be doing this on his own.
A group of moderators should be carefully chosen.   These moderators should decide action on a member and present their case to Phil who should then decide and act on a stringent set of rules.  These rules should ONLY be ones of comments that offend PUBLIC decency not just personal comments and especially not just some "Chosen ones" amongst us.
My advice would be.
Non member = No vote, no say.
If you don't like what you are reading. Don't read on... nobody is making you!
Use the specially created part of the forum to rant and rave!
Do not stifle what we have left of free speech.

I for one will tender my resignation if a ban is imposed on a contributor without PROPER consultation.


----------



## ksb

*Abusive behaviour*

One warning then out    ]I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.

I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.

I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.

The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.

So here is a poll question....

Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Byronic

Tony Lee said:


> You are counting???
> 
> That's sad!!!



Of course I am, my level of "self esteem" depends on it. Mind you plenty on this site don't understand the meaning of the words levity and particularly brevity. Some of the long screeds...... does anybody actually have the time to read them? 

Anyway here's hoping I get a few more likes. C'mon maingate.


----------



## tenaciousdandy

I am a member of my football team forum and they use a warn bar, if people report someone and it is just then there warn bar will increase until it is full then they are banned accordingly depending on there actions it lets people know that they are close to a ban and need to behave themself.


----------



## bonviveur

*Forum Abuse*

I cannot believe that any intelligent, right minded person would consider you damned Phil if you banned people from the site for abuse - and the current state of the poll would, I suggest, vindicate my view. It saddens me to read the low level comments that pepper other forums throughout the web and I live in hope that the Wild Camping Forums will not suffer likewise from this cancer-like behaviour as, without treatment, they eventually self destruct.

May I suggest that any person being considered for sanctions be, as already suggested, given a private warning that a repeat of such behaviour will result in a ban and that, on being banned, their details will be published on the Forum.

Happy, peaceful and enjoyable lives to all fellow Motorhomers

Bon Viveur


----------



## maingate

Byronic said:


> Of course I am, my level of "self esteem" depends on it. Mind you plenty on this site don't understand the meaning of the words levity and particularly brevity. Some of the long screeds...... does anybody actually have the time to read them?
> 
> Anyway here's hoping I get a few more likes. C'mon maingate.



No ..... you can have too much of a good thing. :idea:

Now go and practise your joined up writing.

ps, my 'likes' for your idea are still coming in. :lol-049:


----------



## Bongo

My response to the poll is neither yes or no...so I have not completed the poll.

I think a good alternative would be for the members to democratically ban such 'offensive' members, by weight of opinion/votes. 

I would suggest that if, say, twenty (20) members - or whatever number is deemed suitable - want a poster banned, they could tick an appropriate box in the message, next to the 'report post' icon.  This would alleviate the need for a moderator's intervention and would truly be the democratic way to sort things out for the betterment of us all.


----------



## Byronic

maingate said:


> No ..... you can have too much of a good thing. :idea:
> 
> Now go and practise your joined up writing.
> 
> ps, my 'likes' for your idea are still coming in. :lol-049:



They must be worth say a quid each. I'll be quite happy if you pay my Full Membership Subscription with the proceeds. Only then may I acquire the self esteem that will release me from the compulsion to accrue "likes". Over to you maingate!


----------



## bopper

Bongo said:


> My response to the poll is neither yes or no...so I have not completed the poll.
> 
> I think a good alternative would be for the members to democratically ban such 'offensive' members, by weight of opinion/votes.
> 
> I would suggest that if, say, twenty (20) members - or whatever number is deemed suitable - want a poster banned, they could tick an appropriate box in the message, next to the 'report post' icon.  This would alleviate the need for a moderator's intervention and would truly be the democratic way to sort things out for the betterment of us all.



Won't work!  There are posters who will instantly agree with what they want because they follow like sheep!


----------



## Byronic

Edit ....."too" busy.


----------



## christine

As I don't read all posts on here I am not actually aware of what has been said but if someone is causing unrest, get rid.


----------



## Jojo

*Newbies welcome?*



bopper said:


> Many who have commented on this post are complete strangers to me, why have they not contributed before? Why are they not ALL full members.


Phil invited all members, by email, to respond - this is the first time the subject has been debated openly, under an appropriate heading, with an opportunity for normally non-posting members and non-members to discuss it. Seems to me valuable that several people (myself included) have been moved to post. Rather than criticize them for doing so why not welcome them? (I don't think your question, bopper, was a criticism, but there have been several carps from others, perhaps thinking this is 'their' forum, not everyone's). The reality is that only 1-10% of forum members participate actively - perhaps this forum is more active than average because most of the members are welcoming, friendly - and sensitive to the feelings of others.

But I can understand why non-members hesitate before joining if they see bullying and personal attacks in the non-technical discussions. It's not only sticks and stones that hurt - online bullying can be very damaging (see "adult bullying", cyberbullying ) and it doesn't just affect kids... anyone can be made to feel vulnerable by repeated denigration. Why would you spend time and money if there's a chance you'll be attacked? A community that harbours and tolerates bullying isn't one that most people would want to join. 

Anyway... I'll probably post more when I finally get my house sold, my van on the road and have something to tell you ; ) 
(and if anyone sees a La Finca van on their travels, please would you ask them if they have a habitation handbook, or some info about the power control panel - I'm still in the dark!)


----------



## bopper

I welcome all members whether they be free or otherwise but it is not the norm to allow non-members to vote on such important policy.


----------



## Jojo

bopper said:


> I welcome all members whether they be free or otherwise but it is not the norm to allow non-members to vote on such important policy.


makes sense...


----------



## Proff

*I'm one*

I'm one of the people emailed, I hadn't posted on the site for around a year or so, mainly because of the backbiting comments that were starting then..
I'm quite happy with the 3 strikes and out...
BUT Moderators definitely help in running a forum such as this..
I'm quite happy taking on the trolls etc, and do so on other forums [BMW bike ones mainly]
They soon throw all the toys out of the pram and so get warned and or banned...
I am not and never would be a moderator tho', thankless task as you appease one and piss of another..
This site was and could be again, the BEST Wildcamping forum....
I've voted and would like to see the 3 strike rule on here, maybe I'd post more then....


----------



## AuldTam

bopper said:


> I welcome all members whether they be free or otherwise but it is not the norm to allow non-members to vote on such important policy.



What do you mean when you say "non-members"? Do you mean members who have not paid £15?


----------



## Byronic

No doubt I have set myself up for retribution!

Really, the one thing that bothers me is that there are members on this site who have a lot to contribute, especially practical skills and experience and some of them it seems are looking over their shoulders wondering if "Sir" (as in teacher) is watching, and that they should be ever mindful of their Ps and Qs.
If we want this expertise and experience then we have to accept a certain degree of laxity in grammar, spelling etc. The alternative will just result in scaring such members off.
No one I imagine could or would argue that better use of the language would be a positive thing, but realistically I don't think any member joins this site to improve their useage of the English language, or to be be advised of how they rate in its correct application.


----------



## bopper

Yes I mean the persons who have not paid into the running of this forum. To subscribe to such a club/forum one denotes a commitment to uphold financially the burden of running such a club/forum and therefore should entitle that person to actively take part in it's continuance. 

Those who do not subscribe with the annual fee can contribute with their skills or knowledge to help other members, but it seems from this particular thread that there are many who do neither.


----------



## oldtech

[No message]


----------



## jamesmarshall

bopper said:


> Yes I mean the persons who have not paid into the running of this forum. To subscribe to such a club/forum one denotes a commitment to uphold financially the burden of running such a club/forum and therefore should entitle that person to actively take part in it's continuance.
> 
> Those who do not subscribe with the annual fee can contribute with their skills or knowledge to help other members, but it seems from this particular thread that there are many who do neither.



I see your point Bopper but I guess one of the concerns highlghted is that the effect of some, over robust, responses to threads is putting new members and guests off from taking part or becoming full members. It could be argued that they have a voice that should to be heard in order for Phil to make a fully informed decision on whether to ban or not


----------



## oldtech

*Northerner says that this is a  "pointless thread "*



Northerner said:


> I
> 
> So yes, it's Phil's forum and, to really get me banned, I am going to say this.
> Phil, in a nutshell, delete this pointless thread, which has done nothing whatsoever to create harmony and has increased the disharmony with which you are unhappy. Scrap the poll and start again with a fair and sensible system of moderation.



I have to disagree with " *Northerner* " about this being a*  "pointless thread "*.
When I first looked at it this morning , there were 102 people viewing and over 190 replies.
I've never seen such high numbers for a thread started less than 24 hours previously.
Nor have I seen such a high ratio of replies vs. viewings .... that *must* mean something !.

To me , it strongly suggests that this topic is far from_ "pointless_" to all of these people.
It seems like a large number have opinions , one way or the other , about the "free speech" issue ,
or whether there should be a system of banning.

As an example , much as I hate racism and bigotry , I recognise the need for certain types of people to be able to
express their views publicly , privately or collectively , or as political parties if necessary.
If not , *we do not have a democracy* ( or even an approximation to it ) and we thus become more like them.

And as you said , Northerner ,_ *" ...it's Phil's forum ..." *_ so why would he want to close a thread which :-

[a] he started in the first place  , and
* has got the attention of so many people ?

When all the votes are in , I'm more interested to know the total number of votes cast rather than the actual result.
And how did I vote ? ..... that's nobody's business but mine  ( but it shouldn't be hard to guess ) !

Hey Phil , are you beginning to wish that you never started this particular ball rolling ?  ( ... only joking  !).

Maybe you should invite people to email you with nominations ( up to 3 perhaps ) as to who they would like to see banned !
( that's an even LESS serious idea .... you would probably spend the rest of your life coping with the results ..ha ha ! ).

regards to all
Happy Wildcamping

Oldtech

PS  I just looked at the current poll results .... it  looks like I've backed the loser .... ha ha !

    But I promise , I will abide by the majority decision .... my dummy will stay firmly in my mouth
    ..... and the toys will remain in my pram ..... and if certain other members think I am referring to them
    with this comment ...... well , possibly I am !!!*


----------



## scampa

bopper said:


> Yes I mean the persons who have not paid into the running of this forum. To subscribe to such a club/forum one denotes a commitment to uphold financially the burden of running such a club/forum and therefore should entitle that person to actively take part in it's continuance.
> 
> Those who do not subscribe with the annual fee can contribute with their skills or knowledge to help other members, but it seems from this particular thread that there are many who do neither.



James Marshall makes a good point about Free members, and to be fair, there are plenty of Free members who contribute a great deal to this site by way of their posts with help, advice and humour etc.  I'd guess that there are also many Full members who pay their £15 mainly to get the POI's, but then rarely visit or contribute any positive posts afterwards.  Which types are more valuable or deserve more rights or opinions?

At the moment, the poll looks pretty conclusive with over 91% voting "Yes" for bans, but I'd like to know if we are talking of temporary bans of a month or so, or do we mean lifetime bans?


----------



## frankhazel1

Northerner said:


> And you speak with the vast experience of someone making his very first post on this forum, and an inflammatory and unreasonable one at that? So, since you joined four months ago, what have you contributed to this forum?


Well thank you Northerner for your reply,it provides a perfect example of the point I was making. :wave:
Does one have to make many hundreds of posts to become an expert on such issues? Then to please you I will only voice your opinion and not my own in any further posts,that usually satisfies most of your kind.


----------



## Smaug

frankhazel1 said:


> Well thank you Northerner for your reply,it provides a perfect example of the point I was making. :wave:
> Does one have to make many hundreds of posts to become an expert on such issues? Then to please you I will only voice your opinion and not my own in any further posts,that usually satisfies most of your kind.



This is exactly how the fights start. You original post provoked a sharp response & you reply does little to reduce the flames. 

You know it's not about hundreds of posts, but you use exaggeration to try to defend yourself instead of considering the issue raised. Northerner does much the same all the time by exagerating possible offence to bolster his argument & denigrate the initial poster. 

The original post topic gets lost in personal fights around side issues. So it goes, enjoy yourselves before the bans kick in. I voted against, cos this sort of idiocy can be fun for spectators - provided you don't start to take it seriously & get sucked into the fight.:lol-053:


----------



## The Rebel Camper

*This is now bl..dy boring me to tears*

I thought this would have been settled by now,,,,Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blahT

Ill come back later...:scared:


----------



## Smaug

The Rebel Camper said:


> I thought this would have been settled by now,,,,Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blahT
> 
> Ill come back later...:scared:





You don't have to keep looking do you? It's like bad TV progs, there is an off button if it doesn't suit you!


----------



## harry

*ban*

yellow card and then red card


----------



## scarymary

*banning*

i have only recently joined ,,when asked a question ,,nobody replied anyway lol ,,,,so no slanging matches needed ,,lol:wacko:


----------



## Miriam

*to ban or not to ban*

I love reading people's opinions but I don't think any abuse should be tolerated - define abuse..... well if several people consider something abusive it is. I have found so many nice things on these pages and find it strange and pathetic that people would think to get so hot under the collar about anything. If you don't like or agree with something ignore it - don't write a snotty or abusive reply. There are nice ways of expressing an alternative opinion.  I like the idea of 3 strikes and out.... At the end of the day this is supposed to be a nice, kind, fun, informative site and above all that should be respected - Phil do you have a delete or censored button so you could 'disappear' anything that was not nice, kind, fun or informative? Phil is the adjudicator and his word should be final.


----------



## Dezi

I can understand Phil’s concerns because everything else he has tried, has failed.

First we the ignore button – this was obviously ignored because the retaliation carried on

Then we had a black hole forum “I have never visited” because in my opinion anybody who wishes to enter an argument zone and has to give a special password to do so is obviously a person looking for an argument. Do I wish to interact with such people? No

The black hole did not alter anything because the trouble maker continues on his merry way arguing & being abusive over the most innocuous subjects outside of the black hole zone simply because it is  their right not to have their anti social behave confined.  

Human nature being what it is means that certain individuals are going to argue & refuse to ever see another’s point of view because they know best due to the fact that they have had vastly more experience, have travelled further, been better educated or are just on a far higher intellectual plane.  

Yea right ! 

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Dezi    c:


----------



## Boxerman

I used to be a full member and a regular contributor to these pages, but I got fed up with the attitudes of some members (not towards me, I must point out) and stopped visiting. 
I have only returned on rare occasions and I am undecided about whether to re-join as a full member or not. Praps if the stirrers were removed then others like me would join?

Frank


----------



## Greenwings

*Landlords Call*

Phil,

I vote against outright red card without any mediation to see if the whole thing can be put to bed.

Your job is a bit like that of a landlord, if it carries on and gets out of hand, then who threw the first punch, warn them, if you feel the need to ban him/her then do so,  you have an advantage here as its all written down, no 'he said she said they said', so make a judgement and tell the rest of the community that your actions, whatever they are, were to protect the forum and its reputation, and to keep the experience of visiting here a good one.

If am out of order I normally know it myself anyway, and if I was warned and asked nicely by a moderator to stop what was causing concern and I ignore my warning I deserve the consequences whatever they are.

Your call Phil, grow some truffles, don't try and dodge the responsibility by hiding behind a vote, its your site, its a good site, so protect it as you see fit, we'll stand by any decision you make!

In a nut shell Phil its your Job to calm them down, stop the rants and postings or let them face your consequences.

Over and Out!
Adam

PS I like to know people warts and all, so at least we learn what they are really like.


----------



## noody

I just home very tired. five more pages of comments but i'll read them tomorrow when I can absorb the content.

The passion for this forum has been amply displayed by the positive contributions, I haven't a clue about the members who have causes all this upset though I do know this is not the only forum having that sort of occasional trouble.

It's all had a positive effect on me to the extent i'm even considering forking out the annual fee to be a full member. I was, and still am dead-against paying forums. 

You're a good crowd, I doubt the detractors and snipers are going to have much effect after this huge rant is over. Maybe 50 pages by the look of it.

Ok Phil, i'll have £15 worth. Unless it's gone up with everything else. (Smile)

*Here we go, a little something for ass-holes who caused all this.*


----------



## Deleted member 21686

noody said:


> I just home very tired. five more pages of comments but i'll read them tomorrow when I can absorb the content.
> 
> The passion for this forum has been amply displayed by the positive contributions, I haven't a clue about the members who have causes all this upset though I do know this is not the only forum having that sort of occasional trouble.
> 
> It's all had a positive effect on me to the extent i'm even considering forking out the annual fee to be a full member. I was, and still am dead-against paying forums.
> 
> You're a good crowd, I doubt the detractors and snipers are going to have much effect after this huge rant is over. Maybe 50 pages by the look of it.
> 
> Ok Phil, i'll have £15 worth. Unless it's gone up with everything else. (Smile)



I think you had better lay down Noody, it's a big decision are you sure about this. lol welcome to the mad house.
You sound like you'll fit in.


----------



## n brown

MORGANTHEMOON said:


> I think you had better lay down Noody, it's a big decision are you sure about this. lol welcome to the mad house.
> You sound like you'll fit in.



i'm not so sure,that pic was a bit roody


----------



## Deleted member 3802

lookin at the stance of the boy in blue i think that guy could be askin for trouble :baby:


----------



## Deleted member 21686

noody said:


> I just home very tired. five more pages of comments but i'll read them tomorrow when I can absorb the content.
> 
> The passion for this forum has been amply displayed by the positive contributions, I haven't a clue about the members who have causes all this upset though I do know this is not the only forum having that sort of occasional trouble.
> 
> It's all had a positive effect on me to the extent i'm even considering forking out the annual fee to be a full member. I was, and still am dead-against paying forums.
> 
> You're a good crowd, I doubt the detractors and snipers are going to have much effect after this huge rant is over. Maybe 50 pages by the look of it.
> 
> Ok Phil, i'll have £15 worth. Unless it's gone up with everything else. (Smile)
> 
> *Here we go, a little something for ass-holes who caused all this.*



Awe for gods sake don't let Kimbo see this? lol.


----------



## noody

I haven't used this forum enough to know what is or isn't acceptable. I'm man enough to take a telling off and happy if Phil edits my message out.

I just came came back from the beach where I kitesurf I saw two ladies bare their bums whilst getting changed in just the same way as blokes do. It's quite normal as long as there isn't any frontal exposure and it's a family beach/car-park.


----------



## Deleted member 13543

This looks like a lovely..... er, beach, where is it??


----------



## Deleted member 21686

kernowprickles said:


> This looks like a lovely..... er, beach, where is it??



You'll never guess what bloody prickles has seen it!


----------



## Skar

Old_Arthur said:


> lookin at the stance of the boy in blue i think that guy could be askin for trouble :baby:



heh heh


----------



## Deleted member 3802

kernowprickles said:


> This looks like a lovely..... er, beach, where is it??


 glad you asked that :cool1: fooour


----------



## maingate

MORGANTHEMOON said:


> You'll never guess what bloody prickles has seen it!



Somebody please tell her!!!!! :rolleyes2:

She has given me lots of 'likes' today. I think I am being stalked. :scared:


----------



## scampa

noody said:


> I haven't used this forum enough to know what is or isn't acceptable. I'm man enough to take a telling off and happy if Phil edits my message out.
> 
> I just came came back from the beach where I kitesurf *I saw two ladies bare their bums *whilst getting changed in just the same way as blokes do. It's quite normal as long as there isn't any frontal exposure and it's a family beach/car-park.



So why did you post a photo of a man??  Purely in the interests of equality, you now need to post a pic or two of the ladies bums.... then you'll be more than welcome to join!


----------



## Deleted member 21686

noody said:


> I haven't used this forum enough to know what is or isn't acceptable. I'm man enough to take a telling off and happy if Phil edits my message out.
> 
> I just came came back from the beach where I kitesurf I saw two ladies bare their bums whilst getting changed in just the same way as blokes do. It's quite normal as long as there isn't any frontal exposure and it's a family beach/car-park.



Nothing wrong with the post noody, far worse has been posted.
I posted a video of Madonnas nipple so keep em coming, it's all good fun.


----------



## John H

Byronic said:


> Really, the one thing that bothers me is that there are members on this site who have a lot to contribute, especially practical skills and experience and some of them it seems are looking over their shoulders wondering if "Sir" (as in teacher) is watching, and that they should be ever mindful of their Ps and Qs.
> If we want this expertise and experience then we have to accept a certain degree of laxity in grammar, spelling etc. The alternative will just result in scaring such members off.
> No one I imagine could or would argue that better use of the language would be a positive thing, but realistically I don't think any member joins this site to improve their useage of the English language, or to be be advised of how they rate in its correct application.



I totally agree. Some of the most useful information (from some of the nicest people) on this forum is contributed by those whose spelling and grammar is not good (as I'm sure they would agree) but the important thing is the ability to communicate effectively. If the points they are making come across clearly then wot dos it mata if the spelin an grama aint proper? On the other hand, some of the most superficial and aggressive waffle can be posted by people with impeccable grammar. I know who I prefer to communicate with.

PS I see "our side" is down to 8% - by my calculations, if this thread continues for another two days we will disappear altogether!


----------



## wombat

*banning*

I'm with Deezy and others. A little slack, warnings, but it can't continue. I like the 3 strikes bit. 1 and its a warning, 2 and its a suspension, 3 and its out the door.


----------



## Canalsman

scarymary said:


> i have only recently joined ,,when asked a question ,,nobody replied anyway lol ,,,,so no slanging matches needed ,,lol:wacko:



Yes they did actually - see here:

http://www.wildcamping.co.uk/forums/general-chat/19659-wild-campig-sites-please.html#post200994

Regards

Chris


----------



## Andrew Davies

Proff said:


> I'm one of the people emailed, I hadn't posted on the site for around a year or so, mainly because of the backbiting comments that were starting then..
> 
> I'm quite happy taking on the trolls etc, and do so on other forums [BMW bike ones mainly]



That will be the waste of Skin Trippy then! :hammer:


----------



## oldmansea

*ban*

If you don't kill them they will kill the website but a warning should be given not a ban straight away. Everyone deserves a chance to amend their ways.


----------



## Bayleaf

After 27 pages of replies to this thread ive forgotten the question and am losing the will to live , ive just got back from a great weekend of "Wild Camping" and two of the places i tried to camp in the signs say "no overnighting" with threats of fines if you do. It would be great if there were updates to the POI database, i love to go go wild camping whenever i get the chance and there must be so many people who visit this site who would love to read more about your tales and experiences. I do not hold the answer to the this websites problems and do not wish punishment on anyone who has an opinion on a current political issue but if they could write to the Daily Mail instead, it might make this site a little more friendly.Lastly i blame myself for not contributing as much as i could have. Thank you Phil for asking my opinion.


----------



## Bertstan

*Banning*

I would suggest do not ban unless the person becomes obviously aggressive , it is so easy to ignore the aggressor as you would in everyday life (walk on the other side) basically take no notice of them!


----------



## Deleted member 21686

Bayleaf said:


> After 27 pages of replies to this thread ive forgotten the question and am losing the will to live , ive just got back from a great weekend of "Wild Camping" and two of the places i tried to camp in the signs say "no overnighting" with threats of fines if you do. It would be great if there were updates to the POI database, i love to go go wild camping whenever i get the chance and there must be so many people who visit this site who would love to read more about your tales and experiences. I do not hold the answer to the this websites problems and do not wish punishment on anyone who has an opinion on a current political issue but if they could write to the Daily Mail instead, it might make this site a little more friendly.Lastly i blame myself for not contributing as much as i could have. Thank you Phil for asking my opinion.



Hi Bayleaf the POIs can only be kept up to date by the members so if you know of some with restrictions please post it and canalsman will update the POIs.
Many members post their experiences so it's worth looking in regularly.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## coolasluck

For me ,i have just started to use this forum again,i would just prefer to use the forum for how it is intended and to ignore the tiffs and bickering.I dont believe in bannings also so perhaps all relevent threads that do turn aggesive and handbaggy should automatically be sent to the tiffs forum where it can be carried on to leave us in peace or for us to drop in on for the entertainment value :hammer:


----------



## sean rua

Like everyone else, 
I received Phil's message yesterday, and would like to thank him for bothering. Only ever had one PM, or whatever it's called before, so it was a bit of a novelty.

I can see his problem, but cannot see any neat solution, I regret to say. 
There's always conflict in life, but, generally, folk of like mind find their suitable niche, and just like in the bar, little groups develop and do their own thing without, hopefully, impinging on others who enjoy doing theirs in the same locale.

Well, I'm back from the pub now, and hadn't realised that there was going to be a debate about the poll, as well as the poll.:rolleyes2:
If it helps to clear the air, then I think it will have done some good. However, as one wag on another forum pointed out: birds of a feather flock together and then proceed to crap on your car! 

My horse came second AGAIN today ( that's the third time now) so I'm quite aware that things don't always go the way we want.:sad:

Anyway, I'm not voting at all myself, for three main reasons:

a) I've never banned anybody in my life and I've no urge to start now.

b) I think it's up to the Leader of the Pack - Phil, in this case - to have whoever he wants in this group. As I've said right from day one, it's entirely up to himself, imo, and that's that.

c) how can we - any of us - vote to ban persons unknown? :raofl:
I'm not party to all these here complaints that have been lodged, and am completely in the dark as to whom we are all chatting about. Until we know who's in the dock, it seems a bit silly to be discussing sentencing, imo.

Obviously, as a gambler, I can hazzard a pretty good guess as to the identity of the main players , and, if it helps to clarify matters, I can tell all that I, myself, have NOT received any warning ( yet) either public or in private about matters on this forum.

 I have noted, however,  Phil having to step into forum threads at least twice to ask folk to "be careful".  Anyone who's bothered enough can probably find it all in the archives, I suppose.
:egg:

OK, that's enough for now from me, and just in case 'tis myself that gets the chop, I'll take this opportunity to say toodlepip and thanks for an interesting forum.:goodluck:

( It's called hedging your bets). 


" 

On a warm summer's eve
On a train bound for nowhere
I met up with the gambler
We were both too tired to sleep
So we took turns a-starin'
Out the window at the darkness
The boredom overtook us, and he began to speak

He said, "Son, I've made my life
Out of readin' people's faces
Knowin' what the cards were
By the way they held their eyes
So if you don't mind my sayin'
I can see you're out of aces
For a taste of your whiskey
I'll give you some advice"

So I handed him my bottle
And he drank down my last swallow
Then he bummed a cigarette
And asked me for a light
And the night got deathly quiet
And his faced lost all expression
He said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

Now every gambler knows the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep
'Cause every hand's a winner
And every hand's a loser
And the best that you can hope for
Is to die in your sleep"

So when he finished speakin'
He turned back for the window
Crushed out his cigarette
And faded off to sleep then somewhere in the darkness
The gambler he broke even,
but in his final words
I found an ace that I could keep

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

You've got to know when to hold 'em
(When to hold 'em)
Know when to fold 'em
(When to fold 'em)
Know when to walk away
know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done. "



sean rua.

" Ignorance is treatable; Arrogance is terminal."


----------



## mrs t

bopper said:


> I welcome all members whether they be free or otherwise but it is not the norm to allow non-members to vote on such important policy.



I am a free member at the moment having only recently found the Wild Camping site and so far have only looked in to see how things work here.  From what Ive seen I think it looks a really nice informative site with some interesting craic and when i think of something worth contributing I will.  I was a bit confused by Boppers comment though -  I was emailed to vote by Phil as no doubt were all other free members, it is his site and so cant see where this is coming from.  Think the 3 strikes is perhaps a good idea, you dont want to stifle contributions, but do need to keep a rein on things if they get too offensive.


----------



## dave docwra

kernowprickles said:


> This looks like a lovely..... er, beach, where is it??



The Beach is in the Tableview/Blouberg area of Cape Town.

Dave.


----------



## Firefox

oldtech said:


> Oldtech
> 
> PS  I just looked at the current poll results .... it  looks like I've backed the loser .... ha ha !
> 
> But I promise , I will abide by the majority decision .... my dummy will stay firmly in my mouth
> ..... and the toys will remain in my pram ..... and if certain other members think I am referring to them
> with this comment ...... well , possibly I am !!!



I've backed the loser too. But no probs, it's interesting to see how everyone thinks and I wouldn't object to a warning then a week then a month then a permanent ban system because it gives people the chance to modify their style if they wish to continue. 

You Tube has a system whereby if you go a year without trouble after a warning then that warning drops off your record similar to the driving licence points system.


----------



## Deleted member 13543

Does this thread hold the honour of highest number of views EVER, yet???


----------



## mariesnowgoose

noody said:


> I just home very tired. five more pages of comments but i'll read them tomorrow when I can absorb the content.
> 
> The passion for this forum has been amply displayed by the positive contributions, I haven't a clue about the members who have causes all this upset though I do know this is not the only forum having that sort of occasional trouble.
> 
> It's all had a positive effect on me to the extent i'm even considering forking out the annual fee to be a full member. I was, and still am dead-against paying forums.
> 
> You're a good crowd, I doubt the detractors and snipers are going to have much effect after this huge rant is over. Maybe 50 pages by the look of it.
> 
> Ok Phil, i'll have £15 worth. Unless it's gone up with everything else. (Smile)
> 
> *Here we go, a little something for ass-holes who caused all this.*



Don't put pics like this up without forewarning please - just given this old lady a hot flush !!!

;-)

:tongue:


----------



## mariesnowgoose

Old_Arthur said:


> lookin at the stance of the boy in blue i think that guy could be askin for trouble :baby:



Oh, most definitely asking for trouble!

:lol-053:


----------



## maingate

kernowprickles said:


> Does this thread hold the honour of highest number of views EVER, yet???



I think not.

Probably the one where canalsman announced that free POI's were now available.

I didn't know we had so many members until then.

That will probably be the last time some members posted. :lol-061:


----------



## philipe28

*Abusive behaviour*

Can't say I have noticed the threads or been subjected to them but it's pretty standard for abusive behaviour to be sanctioned on forums. Every one knows where the boundaries “should” be and if they are overstepping then they should expect to be banned if they continue after a warning. 

Of course people should be allowed to express their opinions, this is one of the great things the internet has given us, but it can be abused and it’s no more acceptable on the web than it is face to face.

One slightly less confrontational solution can be to simply remove the posts. Most people wouldn’t bother sending something if they know it is simply going to be deleted. I don’t know if it’s an option with the current set-up but if offenders could have restrictions placed on their account where their posts had to be checked before going live this will help.

Anyway that’s my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Canalsman

Bayleaf said:


> ... ive just got back from a great weekend of "Wild Camping" and two of the places i tried to camp in the signs say "no overnighting" with threats of fines if you do. It would be great if there were updates to the POI database



Unless people advise which spots are no longer suitable, they will remain on the database ...

Please can you tell me where these places were?

The database is reissued monthly during most of the year and incorporates additions, updates and removals.

Regards

Chris


----------



## noody

scampa said:


> So why did you post a photo of a man??



It's a long story, i'll shorten it. The photo was taken in South Africa, all the blokes you see in the photo (Non of whom are gay) are kitesurfers, the bloke showing his bum was team rider for a particular brand and I had been criticising the brand reputation for quality and pointed out that team riders are in it for the products they either don't pay for or get for free. I was taking a photo of Table Mountain in the background  and this scene evolved in front of me.

My sense of humour being what it is meant I couldn't resist.

Sorry, no ladies bums. I don't know any ladies who would be happy I took a photo of them changing, i'm 70 this year and most of my pals/acquaintances in the sport are half my age. Don't want the title of a mucky-bloke do I. (Smile)


----------



## Vanterrier

I believe that repeat offenders or someone who has been grossly offensive first time should be banned. Of course you cannot prevent them re-appearing as someone else but as the Poll is asking if you should ban people who keep abusing others, then yes you should ban them IMO.

Far better lose them than lose others who feel intimidated or abused.

good luck

great forum

K


----------



## noody

Ketvrin said:


> Of course you cannot prevent them re-appearing as someone else



Oh-yes, you then get this awful situation where some members have multiple log-ins so they don't have to be responsible for their behaviour. I have belonged to one other forum for eight years. The solution to the problem has always been to ignore them but mostly support by most members, regardless of the issues, when a dodgy log-in is suspected.

Also, in this case the forum admin seem to have found a way of identifying a connection between culprits.

*I'm a full member now*,  >>>>>>>>>:wave:<<<<<<< all because of the camaraderie shown by this thread. Very impressive.


----------



## John H

At the risk of starting an argument, isn't this a bit condescending? I have a university degree but I have no idea what to do if the engine of my motorhome doesn't start - should I feel ashamed or should I feel grateful that others have the skills I lack?


----------



## longsword

Abuse is unacceptable in any form. It only takes a second to re-read what you have written and amend it to be polite whilst still indicating a difference of opinion. How difficult is it to say "I have to disagree", or "try to look at it from someone else's perspective" or whatever phrase may be  needed?


----------



## ellieloy

TBH I haven't noticed anything malicious, but I am not on here every day or even every week.
In principal we should always remember that sometimes typed conversations are misinterpreted or not as intended ......understanding people is easier face to face when we have tone of voice facial expression and body language to help us. 
Some people are also more sensitive and others manner is direct and full of banter
However, if this is something that is not only causing offence but bringing the club/website into disrepute then I feel action has to be taken. I say this with the experience of another group where things got so bad that legal advice had to be sought, people had to be removed from committees and all sorts of action taken - dont let it get to that stage - its just not worth the hassle, and it just undermines the credibility of the club.
I hope thats a fair comment and objective view.


----------



## noody

John H said:


> should I feel ashamed or should I feel grateful that others have the skills I lack?



Pheeweeeeee, this is whole new subject that could start a massive row if contributors don't make an effort to understand they may be misunderstood. One of life's irritants to me is the person with massive skills in an area that enjoys reducing others who don't have those skills without appreciating the skills they do have.

You still with me ?

I have a dear friend who is a university lecturer, an academic who can't even hold a hammer correctly, we compliment each other for our skills and often self-deprecate about our lack of skills so the relationship works. On the other hand I have an acquaintance who holds himself above just about everyone because of his success in business without even noticing other peoples attributes and skills.


----------



## Kiwi Colin

*Hard decision !*

I agree that bad-mouthing another member is not nice.
Is there a way that a member can be warned before being struck off.
Perhaps being demoted in membership status would work.

good luck Phil - your're doing a good job

cheers


----------



## Deleted member 26763

I'm with Deezy on this one,slap their wrist,if that don't work,you're out.


----------



## Byronic

I would concur with most of that, however the real measure that seperates the men from the boys is the skill required in correctly diagnosing the fault that requires the strip/rebuild/repair in the first place, this takes time, experience and that intangible asset.... intuitive nouse, all that and the three Rs and you have the perfect mechanic, or Einstein. 

Although I can reed and rite and can follow a workshop manual and as yourself strip and rebuild the metaphorical Landrover, I have to acknowledge that in one lifetime I can only learn so much, and whilst OK as a hobby I think as a profession I'll stick to what pays better... I hope!

I must add that if you "often" have to re-do what incompetant mechanics have wrought upon your vehicles why knowingly repeat the experience as you are suggesting?


----------



## White Knight

*Yes, but...*



ian81 said:


> ....three strikes and you are OUT???


I agree with Ian. 
If like you say, people sometimes have off days, so shouldn't be damned for a one-off.
But three times is enough.
However, one person's aggression is another's assertiveness, so I wouldn't like to be the judge.


----------



## Wizardsend

*'Tis bad enough with argumentative mechanicals!*

'Tis bad enough with argumentative mechanicals! This should be an Oasis of knowledge, helpful advice and support.
Some warnings should be given and then if ignored ......chop!
Would have liked to meet you all at Brandon, only an hours drive for me. But continued problem with oil seepage onto driveshaft from diff prevented it. Oilseals done before you ask.     Hence "Tis bad enough with argumentative mechanicals!"


----------



## Canalsman

noody said:


> Pheeweeeeee, this is whole new subject that could start a massive row if contributors don't make an effort to understand they may be misunderstood. One of life's irritants to me is the person with massive skills in an area that enjoys reducing others who don't have those skills without appreciating the skills they do have.
> 
> You still with me ?
> 
> I have a dear friend who is a university lecturer, an academic who can't even hold a hammer correctly, we compliment each other for our skills and often self-deprecate about our lack of skills so the relationship works. On the other hand I have an acquaintance who holds himself above just about everyone because of his success in business without even noticing other peoples attributes and skills.



Society, as a whole, is all about helping others. The 'Good Samaritan' principle if you like.

It is not a weakness to realise that you lack knowledge - it's a strength. Ask for help, and thank those that give it. 

Everybody wins.

I was asked this question at an interview once: "What do you do if you don't know how to solve a problem?"

The answer I gave was: "I ask for help."

Another candidate was asked the same question, and replied that he had never encountered that situation!

Guess who got the job ...

Regards

Chris


----------



## anna1976

*Dealing with unpleasant replies*

I suggest that offenders are given one firm reminder.  If they offend again, remove them from the forum.


----------



## Deleted member 24089

*Yellow card, Red card.*

Treat it like a game of football:
Constant sniping, bickering and abuse is not nice for anyone, let alone the recipient. However, I can understand when someone needs to make a point, or defend a point. So on occasions, it might be necessary to 'raise one's voice' as it were. BUT, if the language and or tone is unnecessarily hurtful or rude, I feel this should be stopped. You (Phil) as the administrator are acting as the site's 'referee' and have to be allowed to caution members one it is needed. I say, that on the occasion of something 'unsavoury, a yellow should be issued, not just for this offence, but until the next offence is committed by that member. At which point, a read card is issued and results in cessation of membership for 6 months.
Shaun.



Phil said:


> I am currently away at the July members meet and have another inbox full of complaints.
> 
> I have a passive approach to moderation of this website and try to be tolerant.
> People can have bad days or too much alcohol and make mistakes. So it is a shame to ban people unless they are repeat offenders.
> Currently we have a problem with some members fighting and bickering on the site, this does damage this website and it does make people not want to visit or post.
> 
> I do not want the actions of a few to ruin it for the others.
> 
> The poll is private so no one will know which way you have voted.
> 
> So here is a poll question....
> 
> Should the admin ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?


----------



## Arrachogaidh

:cool1:

An initial warning that abusive behaviour is inappropriate on the forum should be sufficient to alert the offending member that they are in breach of the AUP (Acceptable Use Policy)

Continuing abuse should result in a ban.

:banana:


----------



## Kontiki

I voted yes to ban members but I am torn between also allowing freedom of speech, that said our freedom to express our views should not be at the expense of abusing someone who has a different opinion.
I would hope that it would only be used as a last resort after maybe giving the offending member to apologize & maybe get a warning.
I have over the years I have been involved in forums got mixed up in heated arguments, I often write a reply in anger that would certainly add fuel to the argument. After reading my post through I will often delete it without posting thinking it would be better to just take a step back & it just isn't worth it. Lets keep this forum friendly & informative, the poll definitely shows that the majority is to ban members (there are a few who I tend to ignore as they seem to try to 'bait' people into an argument) it is a fine line though between this which offends & a good debate where people an put their view. I always thought the Rants Raves Misbehaves was for people who just want to argue.

I think Phil has done a good job over the years & as it's his site he has the rights to decide what is acceptable, if people don't like it they are free to leave.


----------



## Byronic

Well I have been forced to have some work done on my cars or those of my wife due to constraints of working. And it is then that things are found that are missed or not done correctly. Like the occasion after my V12 Jag was serviced. I had driven to Heathrow airport for a business trip to East Africa. My wife drove the car home. She saw smoke coming from the bonnet and stopped and called the RAC. It was an oil pressure sensor that had not been tightened after being replaced. So oil under high pressure was being forced out. Not good for a high performance engine! Had I been driving I would have been able to identify that and fix it. I did quite a lot of work under the bonnet of that car.

But I would not do it for a living! Motor bikes, maybe.[/QUOTE]


Aaaaaagh I won't thank you for reminding me of a similar experience. Suffice to say I still have nightmares of the potential consequences. But Skippers Road NZ and 300 metre drop come to mind!

Personally, not sure that motorbike mechanicals are any less or any more of a preference over cage mechanicals, but on second thoughts I suppose with bikes being smaller the experience is a little more personal/involving.

I note that you run a motorbike forum, no doubt you are familiar with some of the other motorbike fora/forums (just covering myself!). Perhaps some of the forum members here would like to peruse one or two such. Cor blimey, comparisons place this forum firmly in the pussy cat category!


----------



## Firefox

I don't think it's relevant what happens on other boards. The composition of the membership on those boards may mean there is more tolerance of heated debates and/or taking the debate to a personal levels. I don't mind heated debate myself, but I don't think it should be personal.

However, my view is also irrelevant. I voted "no" but it's clear that the majority of the membership here don't like "members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members". 92% in fact, that's a very very conclusive majority.

So, you can say whatever you like about other boards or freedom of speech etc but it's obvious that the membership on this particular forum want some form of increased moderation.


----------



## Firefox

You may have a point if only 100 people voted, but look at the number of people who have voted... nearly 900. I'd say that's pretty much all of the active and semi-active membership. There's only about 900 members with more than 10 posts judging by the membership list.

Probably only Phil can tell who has actually voted but he could likely confirm that the votes mostly come from all the people who make active contributions. For the people who sign up just to download the POI's and don't read the forum, they are not bothered by what goes on as they don't see it, and by the same token they won't be voting either.

So it seems likely to me that the vote is a true reflection, given the size of the vote and the large percentage of the majority.


----------



## noody

*Drinkers corner ?*

Just wondering if anyone took any notice of when the arguments start, is it anything to do with drinking habits ? Do the very-worst offenders offend at the end of a bottle ?

Oh-yes, and can we have a drinkers corner ? (Grin)


----------



## Sparks

I voted.
I don't complain.
I don't whinge.


----------



## Robmac

In my view it is fairly simple. If people make personal attacks, that is against forum rules - warn then ban (Yellow card system).
Same thing with excessive use of strong language. I swear, but never in front of anyone who I think may offended. In a forum of this size, there will be hundreds of people who would be offended.

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate, although sometimes it would be a friendly thing to do if people tempered their responses so as not to offend.


----------



## John H

I do not accept your idea that a mechanic is less intelligent than someone with a university degree and that, therefore, anybody who thinks he is intelligent should be able to learn what a mechanic knows. These are different skills and I do not think anything is to be gained by saying that they are indicative of levels of intelligence. I know several people of high intelligence who work with their hands and have no paper qualifications; I also know several highly qualified people who are not very intelligent. 

As for the aircraft pilot, yes he has to have a wide knowledge of a lot of subjects; I have a wide knowledge of a lot of subjects (but mechanics is not on the list); and the guy who services my van has a wide knowledge of a lot of subjects (but few of them overlap with mine). We are all different, with different skills and that is what makes the world go round. It is a very conceited person who claims to know everything (although I believe we may have one or two of them on this forum!). 

PS I wasn't having a go at you with that last statement!


----------



## Northerner

Firefox said:


> You may have a point if only 100 people voted, but look at the number of people who have voted... nearly 900. I'd say that's pretty much all of the active and semi-active membership. There's only about 900 members with more than 10 posts judging by the membership list.
> 
> Probably only Phil can tell who has actually voted but he could likely confirm that the votes mostly come from all the people who make active contributions. For the people who sign up just to download the POI's and don't read the forum, they are not bothered by what goes on as they don't see it, and by the same token they won't be voting either.
> 
> So it seems likely to me that the vote is a true reflection, given the size of the vote and the large percentage of the majority.



What did you really think the answer would be? This was the question - _ 'Should Phil ban the members that keep starting arguments or abusing other members?'_ It's like having a poll with the following question: _Should we punish child molesters?_

A more reasonable question may well have been: 'What should we do with people who are argumentative' and it should have had several options, such as Ban them, Warn them and Ban them, Ban them for a month etc. etc.

In this poll there is one choice, ban them or don't ban them, which is incredibly simplistic and, from the responses received isn't what a lot of people actually want. There have been many suggestions about three strikes and out and remedies along those lines. The poll is pointless and means very little I'm afraid.

Personally, whilst I'm an argumentative bugger I've never ever tried to start an argument. I have answered posts that I thought were pretty appalling, only to be told by some gloating member that I've bitten the hook that they've dangled! Well, in my opinion, the biggest problem is those who start threads that they just know will cause trouble and are bound to be controversial, and worst of all are those that deliberately 'dangle a hook' simply to bait someone. And these things are never to do with motorhoming!

I have also never purposely tried to start trouble. This suggests that, if I'm having a bit of a ding dong with someone, that I'm doing it to annoy other people. Well no, I'm not actually, I'm trying to convince some other person that his comment that the Olympics is corrupt, or that every single policeman is bent, is utter rubbish. And as for abusing other members, give me a break! I have been called some pretty awful things on here, just read this thread, but I have never felt abused. In my opinion, the following is the most sensible thing that's been said in this thread. It's from Tony Lee, who strikes me as being extremely intelligent, and he's responding to Phil.

_Your job is to sort out between those truly out to upset the forum or act in an unacceptable manner (as would be perceived by a "reasonable person") and ignore the chorus of whining and whingeing and whispering from the usual little circle of precious darlings that have nothing better to do than be deeply offended on a daily basis, or who in the manner of the covert bullying tactics used by little girls against someone they wish to exclude, make constant complaints against any member who gets on their wrong side. (this is why a dislike button would actually make things worse) 

The other group that needs special consideration is the usual pack of mangy yapping curs that inevitably infests every forum and who hide in the darkness of anonymity like the cowards they are. They are never seen or heard of until a couple of alpha males start facing off and then they prance around in the shadows yapping and snapping and do nothing useful except inflame the situation and extend its duration. The instant the main fight stops, they slink back into their burrows and hide. They are probably of little use to the forum and could be easily ignored or excluded on your whim without detracting from the forum PROVIDED the alpha males can be sorted out at the same time. BUT don't forget that would-be alpha males fighting it out is what natural selection is all about and the usual outcome is improved stock - but of course the upset of their continued fighting can be more trouble than it is worth so one or both need to be culled by the higher being - which in this case is you, the owner._

That Phil should have to put up with an inbox full of complaints about a couple of members having a bit of a sqabble is appalling. He has better things to do.


----------



## red rover

as a new member and a non user of of other forms of social media, i found this thread confusing.

Several contributors asked for examples of the alleged abuse but none were offered and, because  i wanted to vote,  i found myself leaning towards the NO side after reading this thread from first to last.

Obviously this is not a forum for me judging from the poll result: "everyone is entitled to their opinion", in my humble opinion, is just a conversation stopper. And as for the idea that "we all have problems" and must be sympathetic to all and sundry! Really?

My partner and I live in our van and are happy. Are our minor problems worth offering up for your consideration? No, we do not need therapy nor would we offer it unless, of course, you were in our van in which case we would feel justified in agreeing or not with anything you said and if you were faint hearted off you would jolly well go.

Maybe this site is now too big (group dynamics anyone?). Some very computer savvy folk on here, maybe the more combatitive amongst you could start a break away sect.

p.s. I don't know what Northerner has said to offend other members (he was the only one outed) but I liked his posts.


----------



## Firefox

> In this poll there is one choice, ban them or don't ban them, which is  incredibly simplistic and, from the responses received isn't what a lot  of people actually want. There have been many suggestions about three  strikes and out and remedies along those lines. The poll is pointless  and means very little I'm afraid.



People also had the choice to abstain ie Not vote either way. That's if they thought the poll was leading, or did not present them with an option which represented their views. And they had the opportunity to make that point in this thread, which has not happened to any large extent.

It seems 900 people, a similar number to the active membership, thought the poll was sufficiently clear and sufficiently useful to express a positive opinion, yes or no. 92% said yes. Some perhaps without understanding the implications of forum bans, which was why I voted no, but it's still 92%. If it was 60%, or if the turnout was smaller, or if there were were a lot of abstentions, or if there were a lot of complaints about the wording, there's more of a case for saying the poll is not representative, or perhaps if the question was phrased differently the vote may have gone the other way. 

Non of those things happened though.


----------



## Northerner

[No message]


----------



## John H

I still prefer to talk of "different" skills and levels of intelligence rather than "lesser" ones, although I think we are drawing closer together on this - a couple more pages and we will be agreeing!

Sorry - I take that last bit back - you do know everything! :bow: - and I think we would be on the same hit-list on the question of the dangerous dog!


----------



## Northerner

Firefox said:


> People also had the choice to abstain ie Not vote either way. That's if they thought the poll was leading, or did not present them with an option which represented their views. And they had the opportunity to make that point in this thread, which has not happened to any large extent.
> 
> It seems 900 people, a similar number to the active membership, thought the poll was sufficiently clear and sufficiently useful to express a positive opinion, yes or no. 92% said yes. Some perhaps without understanding the implications of forum bans, which was why I voted no, but it's still 92%. If it was 60%, or if the turnout was smaller, or if there were were a lot of abstentions, or if there were a lot of complaints about the wording, there's more of a case for saying the poll is not representative, or perhaps if the question was phrased differently the vote may have gone the other way.
> 
> Non of those things happened though.



Well of course people could abstain but people also like to have their views known and this poll gave them a black or white choice when really there are several shades of grey. If you read the thread, time and time again you'll see posts suggesting warnings followed by a ban, yellow and red cards etc.

So despite all the comments about different systems the same people have still voted for a ban, but what choice had they? They don't want people who transgress to be ignored, they obviously want them to be reined in, but they weren't given the opportunity.

I've voted 'No' but there are times that I would ban people. I'd ban people who deliberately bait others, but only after warnings. I'd ban people who post anything really obscene, but only after warnings. But I couldn't vote 'Yes' because I wouldn't ban people for being argumentative. 

You really should skip through the posts again and see how many people support a ban, but only with lots of conditions, and they weren't given any other choice but ban, or not ban!


----------



## John H

[No message]


----------



## Firefox

> I've voted 'No' but there are times that I would ban people. I'd ban  people who deliberately bait others, but only after warnings. I'd ban  people who post anything really obscene, but only after warnings. But I  couldn't vote 'Yes' because I wouldn't ban people for being  argumentative.



I too voted no, but would do similar to you... banning after warnings, and also use temporary bans, and only in extreme cases such as you mention.

So actually our views don't differ much on the methodology. No doubt Phil will take the views of people who posted such qualifications into account too


----------



## herbenny

I dont think Phil should ban members who start arguments......let them argue if thats what they choose...but my choice is not to engage in it by ignoring threads that I think may be getting heated.  I find it tiresome at times, repetetive, but then again sometimes I find it interesting because with each and every post/poster there is always something to learn and observe and I like to be able to try and see debates from all angles. 

Now as for becoming abusive...this is a whole different ball game. I have only ever seen one person fly a personal insult on here about another person who was not a member so could not even defend themselves anyway.  I was not happy and I found it to be very rude and direspectful and I said so.....

The first sign of a personal insult then yes a warning then off .....


----------



## noody

*Anyone got any popcorn left ?*

I'm sure the track-record is murkier than it appears but the two protagonists both appear to be interesting characters who need a little time together, doubtless they'd become good friends with so-much in-common.


----------



## Funky Farmer

noody said:


> I'm sure the track-record is murkier than it appears but the two protagonists both appear to be interesting characters who need a little time together, doubtless they'd become good friends with so-much in-common.



Each with a pair of boxing gloves :scared:

NOW BACK TO THE POLL

I'm sure Phil didn't set this poll up in a sudden fit of excitement.  He must have had a lot of complaints to justify consulting the membership.  Many other fora administrators wouldn't be so fair. They would either ban willy nilly or shut the thing down.

Good on ya Phil for listening.


----------



## Sparks

Funky Farmer said:


> I'm sure Phil didn't set this poll up in a sudden fit of excitement.  He must have had a lot of complaints to justify consulting the membership.  Many other fora administrators wouldn't be so fair. They would either ban willy nilly or shut the thing down.



And maybe some people have already had warnings which is why the problem has moved on to this stage.


----------



## Byronic

Then those that are happy with the status quo but voted, are by your definition complainers and by extension whingers? Hmmmm.

Those that are happy with the status quo have only themselves to blame if the vote goes against them, of course it may well be that the members not voting just couldn't care less or prefer to sit on the fence. 



Just playing the Devils Advocate... no view one way or another.


----------



## sean rua

I'm just wondering 
will we ever know the conclusion and upshot of all this? 

Presumably, the "ayes" have it, but what happens to the "banned"?

Will there be a public announcement, or will there just be a PM to whoever it may concern? Will the survivors be left to wonder just why any former members seem to have ceased posting?:juggle:

Fora, eh? Don't you just love 'em? 

How many are singing:

" Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecisions bugging me
Esta undecision me molesta
If you don't want me, set me free
Si no me quieres, librame
Exactly whom I'm supposed to be
Diga me que tengo ser
Don't you know which clothes even fit me?
Saves que robas me querda?
Come on and let me know
Me tienes que desir
Should I cool it or should I blow?
Me debo ir o quedarme?

Should I stay or should I go now?
Yo me frio o lo sophlo?
If I go there will be trouble
Si me voi - va ver peligro
And if I stay it will be double
Si me quedo es doble
So you gotta let me know
Me tienes que decir
Should I stay or should I go?
Yo me frio o lo sophlo?"

:egg:


sean rua.


----------



## John H

sean rua said:


> I'm just wondering
> will we ever know the conclusion and upshot of all this?
> 
> Presumably, the "ayes" have it, but what happens to the "banned"?
> 
> Will there be a public announcement, or will there just be a PM to whoever it may concern? Will the survivors be left to wonder just why any former members seem to have ceased posting?:juggle:



If I tell you, I will have to kill you......................................but have you ever seen the film Soylent Green? Say no more.....................


----------



## patmoffett

*It's all in the name ...*

S'all subliminal - change the site to be Benign Camping - that'll fix it. I've not looked tbh - seriously what on earth do they find to argue about?


----------



## daisymini

I believe in free speech and the chance to reply but not at the expense of others feelings when it goes from debate to personal,  but you cannot please everybody, what i would laugh at somebody else may take offense,  I find some of the debating posts most interesting, until it breaks down into school yard rubbish, (of which i put up with most of my school life, but made me a stronger person) but thats just me, and somebody of a more sensitive nature would find offense.  Like naughty school children they need a slap on the wrist and a warning, and if they can't learn to play nicely maybe they need to be sat in the naughty corner for a while and if no lessons learned expelled..!!
Phil does a brilliant job of which im thankful and this must be a difficult decision for him although i havent voted yes i will stand by his decision and support him in every way.  Without him and this site i wouldnt have found my wings and met sooooo many good friends and had so much help.

Keep up the good work Phil your a diamond..xxx


----------



## scampa

As I have said in an earlier post... there have been plenty of warnings over previous weeks about what is or isn't acceptable behaviour on here. During this time Phil has always made it clear that bans would be an option if some members continued with their personal insults, abuse and put-downs aimed at other members. Therefore in this instance I don't see the need for further warnings or more "second chances", and anyone who finds themselves banned has only themselves to blame. I would have preferred it if some members had changed their attitudes rather than head for a possible ban, but that was ultimately their choice.

The suggestions of a warning process such as "three strikes and you're out" etc may be a consideration for future incidents, but in this case nobody can say that they haven't been given fair warning.

It's interesting to see that some of those who think they may be in the firing line have been amongst those complaining about how unfair this poll is, or have made sweeping statements insulting the members (including myself) who have voted "Yes" in order to make this site a more pleasant place to visit again.

Phil could quite reasonably have just issued bans without being decent enough to include all of his members in the decision.  At least this way even us "less-intelligent" members who "like to complain" have so far accounted for over 90% of the vote.


----------



## keith

Nah. Look at the stats on this thread. Everyone loves a bit of argy-bargy.  Some like to be in the thick of it :mad1:; some like getting indignant about it :scared:; some view it as light entertainment:raofl:. But EVERYONE loves a bit of argy-bargy.


----------



## scampa

keith said:


> Nah. Look at the stats on this thread. Everyone loves a bit of argy-bargy.  Some like to be in the thick of it :mad1:; some like getting indignant about it :scared:; some view it as light entertainment:raofl:. But EVERYONE loves a bit of argy-bargy.



The problem is that too many good members have been put off from joining in with topics, or even viewing them, due to the risks of personal abuse and insults.  Some members don't visit this site so much now because of this.  ....but all of this has already been said.


----------



## Deleted member 3802

i personally think this poll and thread as run it's course now and is doing the forum more harm than good, it's time it was closed and for phil to do what ever he decides


----------



## frankhazel1

Smaug said:


> This is exactly how the fights start. You original post provoked a sharp response & you reply does little to reduce the flames.
> 
> You know it's not about hundreds of posts, but you use exaggeration to try to defend yourself instead of considering the issue raised. Northerner does much the same all the time by exagerating possible offence to bolster his argument & denigrate the initial poster.
> 
> The original post topic gets lost in personal fights around side issues. So it goes, enjoy yourselves before the bans kick in. I voted against, cos this sort of idiocy can be fun for spectators - provided you don't start to take it seriously & get sucked into the fight.:lol-053:


You are absolutely correct Smaug. I stand corrected and will not re offend.


----------



## keith

scampa said:


> The problem is that too many good members have been put off from joining in with topics, or even viewing them, due to the risks of personal abuse and insults.  Some members don't visit this site so much now because of this.  ....but all of this has already been said.


Maybe you're right. I dunno. This kind of thing is par for the course on every board I've ever seen, and these kind of threads are always the ones with the most views.


----------



## grubby66

banned on the 3rd warning, simples.


----------



## hdeagle

I see no problem with free speech and the right to reply, but see no reason why some have to make personal comments and abuse and try to belittle other members in their reply. It's easy to do it from behind a keyboard, would the comments be the same if they met in person.
It costs nothing to be polite, and to play nice occasionally.


----------



## Woodstock

I have read the first 20 pages of this Thread and come to this conclusion.
If we all start thinking like Northerner, there will be nothing to argue about and nobody to ban.


----------



## coolasluck

keith said:


> Nah. Look at the stats on this thread. Everyone loves a bit of argy-bargy.  Some like to be in the thick of it :mad1:; some like getting indignant about it :scared:; some view it as light entertainment:raofl:. But EVERYONE loves a bit of argy-bargy.






Is this a vote?
If so i am going to vote for light entertainment and just watch and not get involved:lol-053::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:


----------



## runnach

I haven't voted, and won't.

I believe that the forum is essentially about helping one another, in respect of wilding / motorhome issues
I do think that an area set aside for non motorhome issues is valid , but by the same token it is important a little respect is shown
Individual writing styles aside really difficult to manage
This is not the forum I joined, things do seem to have lost there way.

Phil is  head honcho, so really up to him how he runs things
Then its fifo.....fit in or foxtrot Oscar

My thoughts
Channa


----------



## Dezi

Woodstock said:


> I have read the first 20 pages of this Thread and come to this conclusion.
> If we all start thinking like Northerner, there will be nothing to argue about and nobody to ban.




Have you read George Orwell's book 1984?

Dezi   c:


----------



## Woodstock

Dezi said:


> Have you read George Orwell's book 1984?
> 
> Dezi   c:




As a matter of fact I have. Just casting pearls Dez :cheers:


----------



## Northerner

Woodstock said:


> I have read the first 20 pages of this Thread and come to this conclusion.
> If we all start thinking like Northerner, there will be nothing to argue about and nobody to ban.



It's a pity that you feel the need to stir the pot but I'd just like to mention that I've made roughly 700 posts and roughly 600 people have liked what I've said. Of course a lot of people don't like what I say but that applies to us all.

From what some say say I shouldn't have any 'Likes' at all! But an 80% 'Likes' ratio is amongst the highest on this forum. Go figure, as the Yanks say!


----------



## Robmac

Northerner said:


> It's a pity that you feel the need to stir the pot but I'd just like to mention that I've made roughly 700 posts and roughly 600 people have liked what I've said. Of course a lot of people don't like what I say but that applies to us all.
> 
> From what some say say I shouldn't have any 'Likes' at all! But an 80% 'Likes' ratio is amongst the highest on this forum. Go figure, as the Yanks say!



You quite rightly defend yourself, as I would if somebody used my name in a post!


----------



## John H

Northerner said:


> 700 posts and roughly 600 people have liked what I've said........ an 80% 'Likes' ratio is amongst the highest on this forum.



This is NOT a dig at Northerner but it is an illustration of how keeping a record of "likes" actually tells you nothing. As someone else pointed out (Firefox, I think) many of us posted a lot of our stuff before the system was introduced, so a percentage count is meaningless. Further, 1000 posts and 800 likes does not necessarily mean you are popular. That result could have been achieved by one friend liking most (but not all) of what you say. Once again, I stress that this is not a dig at any particular member but support for the argument for not keeping a tally of likes that was being discussed in another thread.


----------



## John H

A lot of the discussion on this thread has centered on the number of people who have voted, percentages of the total and so on. I think we maybe missing the point here - if ONE person is abused by ONE other person then that is unacceptable. The numbers of people who may be offended is irrelevant.


----------



## Admin

This thread is now closed.

There will be an announcement soon about how I am going to move forward with this issue.

No one is going to be banned at this point and the slate will be wiped clean.


----------

