moderation poll

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.