moderation poll

[Sparks]

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.

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

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]

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.

 

[Channa]

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.

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]

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]

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!