moderation poll

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.