Feedback on today's announcement

[Aldav]

I haven't been here long so probably am not aware of the background leading to the feeling the mission statement is necessary. The contents of the announcement seem eminently reasonable to me, and the ability to have a discussion with someone on a subject over which you completely disagree should still be able to occur in a polite, respectful way. Sadly, it rarely seems to happen and all too often, people take disagreement with their view almost as an attack on their character.

While I admire your intent, I'm dubious about whether it'll happen or not.

In an ideal world, it'd just happen. In the world we actually live in ..... good luck with that.

 

[MooMoo444]

What a load of hogwash

Such an announcement feels patronising to the users

 

[Hitman_Leon]

I don't get that impression at all. In a recent thread my opinion was seriously against the grain of popular thought on here and even when things became a little heated, nothing happened from a moderation point of view.

That thread did get heated but at no point did it go so far as to become a trade of insults, the 'woman beater' post kind of annoyed me a little but we got past that

I didn't even get a chance to explain the statement I made on the Russian Airliner accident and then your moderator team suspended me so it does happen.

There are some lines you cannot cross, the statement was in very bad taste.

 

[Zenduri]

Lol has someone at ocuk been watching South Park recently? It's very "PC Principal"

On a more serious note I get that the mod team want to clearly lay out the expectations of the forum users and the mod team but the mission statement is a very corporate and flowery thing to do that doesnt really add anything to whats in the existing rules thread and expectations.

Sad thing is some users need this fluffing up for them though so I guess it doesn't hurt having it

 

[antijoke]

Problem is that where do you draw the line at "trolling" as people love to use that term if you disagree with them, you instantly become a troll.

 

[Kenai]

I didn't even get a chance to explain the statement I made on the Russian Airliner accident and then your moderator team suspended me so it does happen.

There is no explanation for celebrating the death of innocent people, you got what you deserved (probably less than you deserved in many people's eyes)

 

[Mynight]

There is no explanation for celebrating the death of innocent people, you got what you deserved (probably less than you deserved in many people's eyes)

Wow if that was it it's hardly an overreaction.

 

[Josh]

This thread has gone off topic, there is a forum disputes section for dealing with this.

Ban!

Also good mission statement and stuff.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I think the announcement is very well worded and makes sense to most people even though it is probably only reinforcing their expectations of other forum users and moderator actions. I don't think it will make a difference which saddens me a bit but I do appreciate the fact that the absolute requirement for a consistent and sensible mod and user approach will almost always make for a better forum.

Gilly, in your OP you mention community. That shouldn't mean uniformity (and I understand you're not suggesting it should) but there is a blurred line between Rules / Uniformity / Community whereby, in extreme circumstance, we, posters, expect free reign (non-conformity) but get bent out of shape when there is non-confirmity around how that is dealt with by mods. The opposite is also true of course.

When words like 'offence' and 'trolling' are thrown into the mix not only are they mostly improperly used, they're confusing and distracting.

I'll throw in a personal piece if I may, although I don't suppose it matters as this post will either get published by whoever moderates and vets this particular post before publishing or it will not be visible. Ha! Anyway, on the assumption that it does then my understanding is that there are differences at mod level on what can be posted, and who can post. My personal interest is on the second of those two points but they're both important.

Regardless, this is a good time to hold ourselves up to scrutiny and decide if we want to be part of this forum or not, and I think that goes for everyone involved in spite of their focus of forum poster / moderator.

 

[Gilly]

Wow if that was it it's hardly an overreaction.

Not in the least. That's the position in which we currently perform though. There will always be those that wish to push the envelope and step outside the boundaries of what is decent. This announcement merely gives everyone else a position from which to deal with that, moderators and members alike.

While I admire your intent, I'm dubious about whether it'll happen or not.

In an ideal world, it'd just happen. In the world we actually live in ..... good luck with that.

We can but try

What a load of hogwash

Such an announcement feels patronising to the users

You appear to be in a minority in this stance. Why do you feel it to be patronising?

Problem is that where do you draw the line at "trolling" as people love to use that term if you disagree with them, you instantly become a troll.

This is unfortunately still true and always will be. We are now a very experienced mod team and can pick up on patterns of behavior though. If you have on the one hand an eminently sensible poster that rarely gets heated posting something with protestations of innocence if they get flack for it, that's one thing. If you have someone else continually fishing for reactions and targeting individuals that's different.

It's a lot of work and we do our best but we're not infallible. The more open and connected we are with the user base the less likely mistakes or erroneous calls will be made.

 

[Gilly]

I think the announcement is very well worded and makes sense to most people even though it is probably only reinforcing their expectations of other forum users and moderator actions. I don't think it will make a difference which saddens me a bit but I do appreciate the fact that the absolute requirement for a consistent and sensible mod and user approach will almost always make for a better forum.

Consistency is key, that's what we are striving for.

Gilly, in your OP you mention community. That shouldn't mean uniformity (and I understand you're not suggesting it should) but there is a blurred line between Rules / Uniformity / Community whereby, in extreme circumstance, we, posters, expect free reign (non-conformity) but get bent out of shape when there is non-confirmity around how that is dealt with by mods. The opposite is also true of course.

What I'd really like to see is everyone with a free reign to post, with it in their mind that they need to just be nice. To post respectfully whether you disagree with someone else or not.

When words like 'offence' and 'trolling' are thrown into the mix not only are they mostly improperly used, they're confusing and distracting.

That is where the difficulty might lie for us. The statements actually make mention of offence not in itself meaning something should change. More, it is the intent behind the cause of offence that should be reviewed. If someone is intentionally being disrespectful on a regular basis then something is wrong and that behavior needs to be checked.

I'll throw in a personal piece if I may, although I don't suppose it matters as this post will either get published by whoever moderates and vets this particular post before publishing or it will not be visible. Ha! Anyway, on the assumption that it does then my understanding is that there are differences at mod level on what can be posted, and who can post. My personal interest is on the second of those two points but they're both important.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate further?

Regardless, this is a good time to hold ourselves up to scrutiny and decide if we want to be part of this forum or not, and I think that goes for everyone involved in spite of their focus of forum poster / moderator.

Very much so There may be some that wish to leave and not be part of a community that wishes to live by the wording. If that is the case then it is sad but the right decision on their part.

 

[adolf hamster]

The charter is fine, its intent and execution are fine. The fact it has to be stated rather than just accepted as the unwritten laws of civilised conversation is perhaps less than ideal, but you guys have a tough balance to strike, and the fact you seem to actually care about that is enough to make this a pretty decent forum.

 

[holymonk]

Seems to me like a bit of overkill for common sense. There are less rules in a house of commons debate.

 

[Mynight]

Seems to me like a bit of overkill for common sense. There are less rules in a house of commons debate.

Also less is achieved there...

 

[Cosimo]

We will not post anything with the intent to offend or attack any individual or member group of these forums

Almost any discussion on migration, the EU, the Middle East is bound to offend someone so does this mean you will be trying to stifle discussions on highly topical subjects we may have? I just wonder where we are heading with this?

We face a huge problem with EU migration and the thread we had was closed. Does that mean we now cannot have another because of the above?

I think the rules we have are fine and are just common sense. A little more clarity would be fine. This charter just sounds like a lot of corporate nonsense that I've heard and experienced before. A lot of overkill and a feeling that this place will lose it's open and free ranging identity.

 

[HecFam]

I don't really think it was required.

If people are being knobs and are OTT about it, they should expect that mods will react and possiblely put in a ban/infraction.

If people don't like that, then they don't have to stay. I've always thought this forum was moderated fine and there is always a good rapport with Mods/Staff. I don't want the fun to drain from here because mods think they need to stick to strict guidelines all the time.

People have strong opinions, if they are told to leave it and don't, then its no ones fault but their own.

 

[krooton]

I guess this means the end of being able to say "lolgroen"?

 

[Gilly]

Almost any discussion on migration, the EU, the Middle East is bound to offend someone so does this mean you will be trying to stifle discussions on highly topical subjects we may have? I just wonder where we are heading with this?

Not in the least bit.

I have no intention of stopping anyone being offended by something. What is meant is that something should not be posted with the sole intention of offending someone. That's a large distinction.

We face a huge problem with EU migration and the thread we had was closed. Does that mean we now cannot have another because of the above?

Whether a discussion can take place without there being fall-out from it is a different matter. I would hope that any newsworthy subject can be discussed - we are all adults after all.

I think the rules we have are fine and are just common sense. A little more clarity would be fine. This charter just sounds like a lot of corporate nonsense that I've heard and experienced before. A lot of overkill and a feeling that this place will lose it's open and free ranging identity.

You are right, of course, but unfortunately not everyone has the same amount of common sense.

I don't see any overkill. This is just us laying out openly what it is we are doing and what we are trying to achieve. How that will end up in us losing any identity but the negative aspect I'm not sure. Would you like to comment further on how being more open and transparent in our dealings with the member base will mean less openness and free range?

I don't really think it was required.

If people are being ****s and are OTT about it, they should expect that mods will react and possiblely put in a ban/infraction.

If people don't like that, then they don't have to stay. I've always thought this forum was moderated fine and there is always a good rapport with Mods/Staff. I don't want the fun to drain from here because mods think they need to stick to strict guidelines all the time.

People have strong opinions, if they are told to leave it and don't, then its no ones fault but their own.

I don't see any strict guidelines. The very wording I wrote states that we do not wish to be hardline.

The less interaction a referee has in a game of football the better. He needs to deal with dangerous play, but other than that he should just about be transparent. That's the thinking here. I would hope less moderator involvement would not mean less fun, but I suppose if you were to enjoy being submissive perhaps that might pose a problem!

 

[Skidder]

I think this forum works extremely well, most people rub along fine. The moderating team is active but not vindictive or unrealistic. There is enough scope for a bit of a laugh with each other and for openly disagreeing. In general I think people behave well to each other. There are some touch paper issues that get people going and a few rabble-rousers but that's life I suppose. The charter is well meaning but reminds me a bit of the scouts!

Everybody just play nice and get along.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

I think it's funny to see to this announcement and commitment to consistency and fairness after the moderation yesterday in the memory card thread in the Photography section.