Is something wrong?

[Barryd999]

2 hours ago, colin said:

We have yet to see if the changes to Chatterbox will revive OAL's fortunes, but as above, what's the point of Chatterbox now that it is limited to subjects which are already covered by other sections.

As for the "don't look there if you don't like it", some go to other forums and participate in general chat and whilst there they might also see questions posed which they can answer, they might not bother going on a forum if it was technical only. I think OAL management realise this else they would have chopped it ages ago. 

If you look at the forum home page there are 241000 posts in the Chatterbox forum. Thats over half as much as all of Motorhome Matters and much much more than any of the other sub forum boards put together which are dead. Ill bet also that at times Chatterbox has turned over more traffic than Motorhome Matters. Chatterbox is effectively dead now and as such killed off potentially half (if not more) of the forums page count.  Not good for google rankings.

Ill bet thats why it was never killed off before.

[John52]

13 hours ago, Barryd999 said:

I really don't understand why Chatterbox still exists as its guideline remit now is that it must be about motorhome related topics which is what I thought Motorhome Matters was for.

If its that far removed from the rest of the forum either dont restrict it or just get shot of it.

Exactly

Its pointless posting anything on chatterbox when it just disappears inexplicably at any time.

The cost of leaving is having a huge effect on every aspect of our country, including motorhoming, but we are having to tread around it because there seemes to be a taboo on even mentioning anything to do with the B word.  Its like the elephant in the room nobody dare mention.

Why?

[John52]

15 hours ago, B Dobson said:

 Chatterbox ... no one is stopping anyone from posting up a thread on their chosen subject .

Actually they are - by deleting posts and even whole threads willy nilly.

Thats why its not worth posting or reading anymore.

[Barryd999]

1 hour ago, John52 said:

Exactly

Its pointless posting anything on chatterbox when it just disappears inexplicably at any time.

The cost of leaving is having a huge effect on every aspect of our country, including motorhoming, but we are having to tread around it because there seemes to be a taboo on even mentioning anything to do with the B word.  Its like the elephant in the room nobody dare mention.

Why?

Probably because 70+% of motorhomers voted for it and dont want to be reminded of it I suspect. Apart from Dave Lineker who seems to be the only one left who still thinks it was a good idea.

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, John52 said:

Actually they are - by deleting posts and even whole threads willy nilly.

Thats why its not worth posting or reading anymore.

Well you're missing out on some quality threads over on Chatterbox then . We have travelled the world in the last few days over there and what a journey it's been . I'm looking forward to a great 2023 for Chatterbox that could see it challenge Twitter, Facebook and Grindr for top social media site . I heard a rumour at the OAL Christmas party while enjoying a lager shandy with Derek that Elon Musk has been sniffing around . 

[Derek Uzzell]

15 hours ago, B Dobson said:

I thought our pasty discussion on Chatterbox which is still available to view provided some fantastic info . One cant understand why one would "loath" a section, any section on a free forum . A side issue, over on Chatterbox we've discussed in depth travel to Croatia, France, Germany and Morocco in the last few days . Its truly a fountain of knowledge 

I said about the Chatterbox forum

"I used to loath it when I was a Moderator, but (as a non-Moderator!) I'd rather have 'old' Chatterbox back than the present version that has a stated purpose that mirrors the other sub-forums and just encourages silly 'tight-rope walking'. An off-topic forum with suitably defined boundaries would make much better sense.

Forum-members (including you if I remember correctly) used to PM me and complain that they were being dissed on Chatterbox and - as a forum Moderator - should I not be doing something about it. Then I had to read through some puerile drivel about Pretty Paddle and try to decide whether it conflicted with Warners forum usage requirements and, if so, whether I should edit/delete postings, or remove the thread in its entirety, or even report the matter to the Administrator. I can't see any genuine independent value for Chatterbox now that its stated purpose has been revised, but if you and your sidekicks believe it's useful, that's fine by me.

[Barry Lineker]

16 hours ago, Barryd999 said:

I don't think you have ever understood how Politics or political debate works in a democracy have you Dave?

Politics was debated on Chatterbox without rancour before 2016, since the vote you Remoaners have done nothing but drip poison into forums, that is why your soapbox's are being removed.

After all you have done just the same on Fruitcakes and for the same reasons🤣

Perhaps the OP should recite his favourite Robbie Burn's poem again?

This time whilst looking in the mirror🤣 

[arthur49]

Contributor numbers

I for one got sick of the hassle trying to log in whilst the system was switched over.  This used to be my "go to" forum on techie issues but I went to "Fun" instead.

There are (or were?) a few members on here who could share expert experience eg mikefitz, Veletron, alanB ....  there are others.

Pity .............

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, Derek Uzzell said:

I said about the Chatterbox forum

"I used to loath it when I was a Moderator, but (as a non-Moderator!) I'd rather have 'old' Chatterbox back than the present version that has a stated purpose that mirrors the other sub-forums and just encourages silly 'tight-rope walking'. An off-topic forum with suitably defined boundaries would make much better sense.

Forum-members (including you if I remember correctly) used to PM me and complain that they were being dissed on Chatterbox and - as a forum Moderator - should I not be doing something about it. Then I had to read through some puerile drivel about Pretty Paddle and try to decide whether it conflicted with Warners forum usage requirements and, if so, whether I should edit/delete postings, or remove the thread in its entirety, or even report the matter to the Administrator. I can't see any genuine independent value for Chatterbox now that its stated purpose has been revised, but if you and your sidekicks believe it's useful, that's fine by me.

I believe someone who's had details of their home address and photos of their home  put up on a public forum have every right to complain to a so called impartial moderator dont you think?. One wouldn't call that being "dissed" either 

[Brian Kirby]

What I set out to do was to highlight what I thought was a growing problem with (as I see it) critically diminishing contributors to these forums.

Personally, I don't regard CB as a serious part of the forums, but just a place where it is possible to watch the  unfathomable workings of human psychology!  🙂  But it is not what the forums were originally are for, which was a place for people who owned/used (or were contemplating doing so) motorhomes to swap and share information about, and to seek guidance on, issues arising in that context.

Chatterbox grew as a parking place for strings that wandered too far off topic, or merely diverted into useless drivel and pointless argument - and that was well before Brexit.  It was, however, generally possible to have more or less intelligent, and sometimes informative, exchanges of view with others without a descent into obscenity, personal insult and threats, and attempts at subverting strings from their origins in order merely to destroy them.

However, the more chatterbox grew in size, the more it was invaded by people with not the remotest interest in motorhomes or sensible discussion, but only in pointlessly destructive disruption, dissent, or provocation.  In short, internet trolls whose main purpose is to stir up trouble.

I have suggested before that part of the reason for this degradation of the forums was that, when Warners ceased making forum access dependent on magazine purchase, they failed to adequately, IMO, vet who could register and contribute.  I know this view is not popular, and that tiffs etc broke out among contributors even then, but I still think that if a registered member knows with certainty that they could be identified, and if necessary prosecuted, for going beyond what is legally permissible, it would temper the way some post.  There is no idea - no matter how offensive to some it may be - that cannot be expressed in reasonable, respectful, terms.  English, used properly, is a wonderfully subtle and expressive language.

As it is, any Tom, Dick or Harry (with due apologies to our present, revered, Tom, Dick, and Harry members 🙂) can join, whether or not motorhomers (or caravanners, walkers, or tenters) - and they have - and the result is where we are now.

It should be unnecessary for moderators to intervene and discipline contributors for overstepping what is acceptable in normal conversation.  Contributors have only themselves to blame if they are sanctioned.  The exercise of self-restraint and self-discipline should be sufficient for mature adults to differ with respect and good humour without squabbling like an unruly class of five-year-olds.

Yet, instead, some who claim to value the forums, including CB, continually explore, not the topic under discussion, but how far off topic they can push, before their post, or the string, gets "pulled" - or they get sanctioned.  What on earth is the point of that?

My opinion, obviously, but if there is any reason for the reduction in active posters, might this not have something to do with it?

So, for what it is worth, I think it is more a matter of weeding out the repetitively destructive posters, in preference to wasting time "pulling" their destructive posts or the strings they are intent on destroying.  It might also help if it could be made much more difficult to re-register after being sanctioned.  But, as above, this is just my view.

[B Dobson]

For someone who doesn't regard CB as a serious part of the forums you seem to have spent a hell of a lot of time on it and a lot of time mostly posting about topics that had nothing to do with motorhomes . Is it possible one could be part of the problem your trying to make a point of . 

[Derek Uzzell]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

I believe someone who's had details of their home address and photos of their home  put up on a public forum have every right to complain to a so called impartial moderator dont you think?. One wouldn't call that being "dissed" either 

The Moderators on the 'old' O&AL forum were volunteers initially given Moderator powers purely to defend against the spam attacks that were bringing that forum to its knees. Once the spamming had been countered by a revised registration procedure, those powers were not revoked and the type of moderation that had originally been performed only by the forum Administrator(s) was passed over to the Moderators. After a while, only two of the original volunteer Moderators (Keithl and me) continued to be active.

There was never any Administrator guidance regarding what a volunteer Moderator's duties should be. I defined my own boundaries and - where Chatterbox was concerned - I took a line that was (in my opinion) very firm but fairly fair. 

I remember the home address/photos episode you refer to and that I passed the matter upwards, recommending that forum-member "Birdbrain" be permanently banned. However, as the "Birdbrain" account still seems to be usable,  I think a yellow card was probably issued, not a red one. (You may be able to confirm if that was the case.)

[Barryd999]

5 hours ago, Barry Lineker said:

Politics was debated on Chatterbox without rancour before 2016, since the vote you Remoaners have done nothing but drip poison into forums, that is why your soapbox's are being removed.

After all you have done just the same on Fruitcakes and for the same reasons🤣

Perhaps the OP should recite his favourite Robbie Burn's poem again?

This time whilst looking in the mirror🤣 

Hmm. In one post you talk about dripping poison yet in the same sentence manage to throw in a derogatory insult towards a group of people you happen not to agree with.  Perhaps that explains why in the past you have been banned from multiple forums and I have never been banned from a single one, ever.

The change to remove political threads on Motorhome Fruitcakes to a subscription only section was requested by the members. Not my idea. It was actually a good idea in theory as firstly it meant that any general members who did not want to see political posts would never see them unless they requested access and secondly any guests or potential new members would never see them also.  Its never been an issue for me on any forum though. If I see something I dont like the sound of, I simply dont open it. Something that many on forums dont seem to have got the hang of.

[malc d]

7 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

 If I see something I dont like the sound of, I simply dont open it. Something that many on forums dont seem to have got the hang of.

Alternatively, that may explain why there are so few people on Chatterbox these days.

[Barryd999]

9 minutes ago, malc d said:

Alternatively, that may explain why there are so few people on Chatterbox these days.

Perhaps but it seems to me across all forums there are serial moaners who seem to like to moan about the content of threads they don't like.  I just find that bizarre. I'm a member of numerous Musicians and producers forums. I dont play the Trumpet for example so its unlikely ill click on a Trumpet thread (not that there are many trumpet threads on the forums I frequent).  Or if I dont like someones song they have made or their style of music I wont moan about it, ill probably just skip it.

If the moaners dont like the content, why not post something they would prefer to discuss? Its hardly rocket science.  I can only conclude that some people just like a good whinge and it seems to be something that gets more progressive with age.

[B Dobson]

2 hours ago, Derek Uzzell said:

The Moderators on the 'old' O&AL forum were volunteers initially given Moderator powers purely to defend against the spam attacks that were bringing that forum to its knees. Once the spamming had been countered by a revised registration procedure, those powers were not revoked and the type of moderation that had originally been performed only by the forum Administrator(s) was passed over to the Moderators. After a while, only two of the original volunteer Moderators (Keithl and me) continued to be active.

There was never any Administrator guidance regarding what a volunteer Moderator's duties should be. I defined my own boundaries and - where Chatterbox was concerned - I took a line that was (in my opinion) very firm but fairly fair. 

I remember the home address/photos episode you refer to and that I passed the matter upwards, recommending that forum-member "Birdbrain" be permanently banned. However, as the "Birdbrain" account still seems to be usable,  I think a yellow card was probably issued, not a red one. (You may be able to confirm if that was the case.)

You "recommended" a user be "permanently banned" because he complained about having his address and photos of his home posted on the forum . If that's being "fairly fair" I sincerely hope that's your last moderator position on this forum or any other 

[B Dobson]

41 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

Perhaps but it seems to me across all forums there are serial moaners who seem to like to moan about the content of threads they don't like.  I just find that bizarre. I'm a member of numerous Musicians and producers forums. I dont play the Trumpet for example so its unlikely ill click on a Trumpet thread (not that there are many trumpet threads on the forums I frequent).  Or if I dont like someones song they have made or their style of music I wont moan about it, ill probably just skip it.

If the moaners dont like the content, why not post something they would prefer to discuss? Its hardly rocket science.  I can only conclude that some people just like a good whinge and it seems to be something that gets more progressive with age.

I believe the " moaners" and whingers you mention are fairly well known and do seem to get worse as time moves on . As you say it's mind blowing they can't somehow post something up themselves to discuss even if it's something about legal tyre tread depths or what type of driving gloves are best 

[witzend]

I've just had to look to see if this was a CC thread. It could be soon moved if so where to 

[Barryd999]

Well whatever you think of this thread or where it should be, its the fastest growing thread on the forum with 42 replies and over 500 views in just over a day. 🤣

Almost as good as Chatterbollox in the old days. 

[Brian Kirby]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

For someone who doesn't regard CB as a serious part of the forums you seem to have spent a hell of a lot of time on it and a lot of time mostly posting about topics that had nothing to do with motorhomes . Is it possible one could be part of the problem your trying to make a point of . 

Over the past nearly three years I have spent far more time on the forums than previously, and ditto on CB.  My interests are wider than just motorhomes/ing so, when something that interested me arose, I commented.  What's wrong with that?  However, I made no attempt to comment on all posts, only those about which I felt inclined/able to comment.

Two things I found unacceptable, however.  First, posters who advanced their, frequently carefully reasoned and politely, only to be responded to with personal attack, innuendo, rudeness, or unreasoned put-down.  Second, those posters who having posted their own views, round on anyone who expresses disagreement - however politely and respectfully - with the same range of personal attacks, innuendo, rudeness, or unreasoned put-downs as above.

The final insult to reason being that, having attacked and provoked other posters for daring to have opinions that differ from their own, when eventually their victim snaps and responds in kind, they begin whinging that they are being victimised.

This same small group of posters have never, in my experience, contributed anything of value to any of the many, many, strings into which they lobbed hand-grenades with demonstrably destructive intent; have never put forward a reasoned argument in any context; nor ever started a thread with any intent other than to promote dissent.  Their sole purpose, on the evidence of their posts, is to provoke and aggravate others, and to "shout down" any point of view with which they disagree, but never to answer reason with reason.

In short, they are vandals, and should be treated accordingly.

 

[Brian Kirby]

1 hour ago, B Dobson said:

You "recommended" a user be "permanently banned" because he complained about having his address and photos of his home posted on the forum . If that's being "fairly fair" I sincerely hope that's your last moderator position on this forum or any other 

That is not what Derek said above, and it is not what actually happened. 

The complainant had claimed, during a very unpleasant and confrontational string, that someone had sniffed out his home address and phone number.

Another forum member pointed out to him that he had included his home address and business details in his visible forum profile.  He expressed his thanks for this being pointed out to him, and immediately amended his profile to remove the details.

He later turned that into an untrue and malicious allegation that the other forum member had posted his address on the forum, accompanied by pictures.

Later still, he did exactly what he had complained of to the other forum member, who had not put details of their address in their profile, by posting a link to Google Earth identifying an address.  

The whole thread was then pulled because it had become so confrontational.

Whether that is the reason Derek recommended that the complainant be banned I do not know, but if it was, and given the circumstances, it seems to me quite fair and reasonable for him to have done so.

[Derek Uzzell]

1 hour ago, B Dobson said:

You "recommended" a user be "permanently banned" because he complained about having his address and photos of his home posted on the forum . If that's being "fairly fair" I sincerely hope that's your last moderator position on this forum or any other 

Unlike some other forums, O&AL Moderators lacked the power to 'ban' users either temporarily or permanently. At one point it was suggested by the Administrator that the ability to 'ban' might be extended to Moderators, but I was unhappy with that idea unless the forum's terms of acceptable use were made more easily understood by the users and the Moderators.

In the address/photos case I drew the Administrator's attention to what had occurred on Chatterbox, copied to the Administrator the PM I had received and recommended that Birdbrain be permanently banned. My reason for this was not just because of the address/photo business, but because of the protracted disruptive effect BIrdbrain had been having on Chatterbox. (Basically, I'd had a real belly-full of Birdbrain.)

Birdbrain ceased posting to Chatterbox not long afterwards and I guessed this might have been due to him being penalised. (In fact, I don't know if the Administrator did nothing, laid down the law with Birdbrain, or imposed any sort of ban.) As far as I was concerned I'd done what I believed an O&AL forum Moderator should do and it was up to the Administrator to decide what follow-on action should be taken.

[Barryd999]

Perhaps its time to just spread a bit of Christmas cheer and move on.  Are there any forum Christmas decorations?

Here's a nice Christmas tune to get everyone in the mood.

https://tinyurl.com/mrx852au

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, Brian Kirby said:

Over the past nearly three years I have spent far more time on the forums than previously, and ditto on CB.  My interests are wider than just motorhomes/ing so, when something that interested me arose, I commented.  What's wrong with that?  However, I made no attempt to comment on all posts, only those about which I felt inclined/able to comment.

Two things I found unacceptable, however.  First, posters who advanced their, frequently carefully reasoned and politely, only to be responded to with personal attack, innuendo, rudeness, or unreasoned put-down.  Second, those posters who having posted their own views, round on anyone who expresses disagreement - however politely and respectfully - with the same range of personal attacks, innuendo, rudeness, or unreasoned put-downs as above.

The final insult to reason being that, having attacked and provoked other posters for daring to have opinions that differ from their own, when eventually their victim snaps and responds in kind, they begin whinging that they are being victimised.

This same small group of posters have never, in my experience, contributed anything of value to any of the many, many, strings into which they lobbed hand-grenades with demonstrably destructive intent; have never put forward a reasoned argument in any context; nor ever started a thread with any intent other than to promote dissent.  Their sole purpose, on the evidence of their posts, is to provoke and aggravate others, and to "shout down" any point of view with which they disagree, but never to answer reason with reason.

In short, they are vandals, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Goodness . I suppose asking for some kind of proof of what you claim would probably be a step too far?

[B Dobson]

48 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

That is not what Derek said above, and it is not what actually happened. 

The complainant had claimed, during a very unpleasant and confrontational string, that someone had sniffed out his home address and phone number.

Another forum member pointed out to him that he had included his home address and business details in his visible forum profile.  He expressed his thanks for this being pointed out to him, and immediately amended his profile to remove the details.

He later turned that into an untrue and malicious allegation that the other forum member had posted his address on the forum, accompanied by pictures.

Later still, he did exactly what he had complained of to the other forum member, who had not put details of their address in their profile, by posting a link to Google Earth identifying an address.  

The whole thread was then pulled because it had become so confrontational.

Whether that is the reason Derek recommended that the complainant be banned I do not know, but if it was, and given the circumstances, it seems to me quite fair and reasonable for him to have done so.

Thats a blatant lie Mr Brian . The valuable member hadn't "included his home address" in his profile as you claim, thats totally untrue . He had on his profile given hid business email which is hardly a hanging offence is it? From that email those who felt it necessary to dig further did so and put up photos and address details . Now from your profile and the info you give I can find where you live and see photos of your motorhome and your bin lying on the ground but I wouldnt ever want to publish those details on here would I and wouldnt ever excuse others who did . Maybe thats the difference between you and I, you believe its acceptable and I dont . Best wishes Brian