moderation poll

[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...

....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]

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.

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]

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.