Dave Newell Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I wouldn't have it any other way Donna :-D :-D . D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Oh goodie gum drops :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Donna .. don't go getting Dave all excited telling him about your Pilots licence, HGV licence and scuba diving, poor old soul can't take it you know at his age. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Mel B - 2007-07-26 6:45 PM Donna .. don't go getting Dave all excited telling him about your Pilots licence, HGV licence and scuba diving, poor old soul can't take it you know at his age. :D Oy you, that's enough. I'll have you know I'm younger than gorgeous George Clooney by several months. :-> D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Strange, is it not, that words are supposed to be our servant: yet so often turn out to be our master.And strange too, that there are moderators on this forum, who do not moderate. They used to, in a suitably light sort of way, but for weeks on end now they seem to have given up.Should there be "member moderators"? Indeed, need there be member moderators? To that I would answer, with great gratitude and in all humility for having been singled out as a possible candidate, that you are too kind: but the thought does not fill me with great enthusiasm! I think it would be a rather thankless task, and if I'm honest, one I should much prefer to be undertaken by those already in post. I therefore propose taking the issue up with Warners, to try to find out what has been going on and why there has been no detectable moderator presence of late. So, for the time being at least, my honest response to the proposal is thanks, but no thanks.Now, back to the beginning, about words. I'd guess that we all write what we hope will be understood as we mean it. Our reward, of course, is to be, by degrees, misunderstood: sometimes mildly, sometimes catastrophically.Sometimes the result is only the equivalent of "eh?" and sometimes it is a raging "argument" between two individuals who would probably never say what they write were they within striking distance of each other. Why? It is that stray word, that badly placed comma, that typo or spelling error that skews what we thought was all nice and clear so that, when read by someone else, it acquires a totally unintended, and sometimes offensive, meaning. Some then take to calling the author a fool or a scoundrel - or worse - with the respondent usually getting back his/her (for this is not entirely a gender thing) insults in spades. This rumble of discontent then carries on through a thread about something else, like a summer thunderstorm signalling its presence during a beautiful day. It is, in short a bore, but the protagonsits are by now away with the red mist, all sense of proportion thrown to one side as each seeks to score points from the other. The string, whatever may be its subject, can go to hell: I'm going to teach that lardy so and so he can't speak to me like that. And so on, and on , and on , and on until all sane mortals are driven away in despair by Tweedledum and Tweedledee, for that is who they become.So, yes, we need moderators; not to wield the big stick, but just to go in and edit out these exchanges to leave the thread unsullied by the insults. Not to ban people, but to disarm them: in short, to shut them up when they go too far. I also think we need the mods to do a bit of housekeeping around the forum: to keep the chat where it belongs, the hints and tips where they belong, the sites comments where they belong and the motorhome, or caravan, or walking, or statics queries where they belong. I don't see this a "control freakery", as someone has sought to portray it, but just as keeping a bit of peace on the streets and keeping the forum "home" neat and tidy, so things end up where they were intended to go. I can't, for the life of me, see what there is to object to in that, unless you live in complete chaos, and have a pathalogical hatred of order.With your permission, therefore, I'll contact Warners on behalf of members to see what the score is. Unless, of course you'd prefer someone else to do so. But do say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Dave Newell - 2007-07-26 1:20 PM So we're now immature mindless control freaks, wow! Donna Miller's final paragraph sums up exactly why we do need moderators on here. As for Donna's opening paragraph "IMHO we get along fine in real life without too much interference from moderators, " this is totally fallacious. We do have moderators in real life, we call them the Government and the Police force. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Victor Meldrew - 2007-07-26 12:36 PM Dave Newell - 2007-07-25 5:22 PM In general there isn't a problem with threads drifting away from the original topic as long as any questions posed by the topic starter get answered and the diversion follows some sort of logical path, like it has in the jack handle thread in Motorhome Matters. The problems only arise with going "off topic" when it is a diversion into totally unrelated subject matter, TC's posting on here about taxing his car is actually an excellent example of this. I think the fact that no moderator or administrator has commented on this thread speaks volumes! D. Taxed it this morning actually Dave, done it on-line, much easier than going to the post office. Whilst checking my documents I discovered that my MOT runs out shortly, I’ll let you know when I’ve had the car tested. Oi' Victor Bog off we're trying to have a serious row er I mean discussion here. We'll talk about your M.O.T when it's finished, O/K. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 donna miller - 2007-07-26 1:51 PM J9withdogs - 2007-07-26 1:25 PM Hey, Dave, IMHO that's a tad strong. Perhaps it's a bloke/gal thing? *-) and it's still bl**dy raining here :-( Thanks J9, maybe as a mere girly (with a Class 1 HGV, who regularly takes out abnormal loads of 25 metres in length and 6 metres wide),plus being an advanced scuba diver who holds a private pilots licence, I should stick to the knitting or flower arranging forums, because I obviously know nothing about life. And yes the rain is chucking it down here in South Wales. :D :DWow I'm impressed Donna. I wish I lived closer to you. Maybe you could take me up for a spin. Then I would be able to take you for a thrash in my boat. But I don't. It's a pitty some on her don't have as wide a range of interests as you, maybe they wouldn't be so narrow minded and humourless. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-07-26 9:08 PM ...With your permission, therefore, I'll contact Warners on behalf of members to see what the score is. Unless, of course you'd prefer someone else to do so. But do say. Brian,I for one support your approach to Warners as a positive first move. Thanks for volunteering. I am all for the natural progression of a thread, and have no objection to a healthy debate; nor the robust defence of a viewpoint. However, the correct forum placement of threads, and the need to reign in some of the over-zealous or utterly gratuitous exchanges is, as this very thread itself perfectly demonstrates, irrefutable. I await the outcome with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 In response to your question Brian ............yes you have my vote ! ;-) Oh and Thank you . ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 And mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Go fir it Brian. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I think you are the man for the job, Brian. Would you be moderating avatars too :$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Meldrew Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Brian, When you contact Warners, please be clear to them that you speak on behalf of a small minority of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 What about if the initial starter of the thread had the final say in the sense that he/she could say SHUT UP, END OF etc to whoever is being a nuisance and/or spoiling it? Would that help? If we all agreed to that policy, it could prevent some threads going on so long or getting out of hand. It would mean that it didn't fall to one or two individuals to then keep things in check. Just an idea ya knows! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Trouble is Mel they'd have to give us all Moderator rights to enable us to close our respective threads etc. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Dave, I'm talking about respect - that the offender respects the 'rule' as it were - that the original poster can call a halt and stop posting on that particular thread. No actual 'rights' would be needed other than that. Can't see that it would happen though thinking about it! 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Nice idea Mel but it wouldn't happen would it. Too many people have free access to the forum and your idea would rely on every one of them abiding by this unofficial "rule". If forum members can post new threads in less than ideal sections what makes you think they would all abide by this rule? D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I've always understood that Chatterbox was introduced for subjects that had little or no relevance to the other forum sections (which is why I'm such an infrequent Chatterbox visitor). That some postings find their way into Chatterbox that would be better posted elsewhere (and, more rarely, vice versa) is, as I've suggested in the past, to some extent due to the position of Chatterbox towards the top of the Forum home-page where it naturally attracts the attention of new forum members. The Chatterbox description - "Want to chat about anything and everything? This is the place" - is no great help either. Shuffling postings between forum sections is a mindless task and, I'm pretty sure, could largely be avoided if the Chatterbox section were moved to the bottom of the forum home-page and/or its description were more finely worded. (Haven't I said this before?) Better still would be a 2-stage procedure for new threads where initiators first composed their text then, on clicking on 'Submit', were asked to select the appropriate forum section to which they would like the new thread added. A more detailed, more helpful, description of the intended purpose of each forum section would be presented to the new-thread initiator who would then pick the most suitable. While admitting that this idea would not prevent the bloody-minded among us from deliberately selecting an inappropriate forum section, it should minimise the chance of threads ending up in the 'wrong' place. Thanks to those forum members who suggested me for forum moderator duty, but (Sorry!) there's no chance I'd take that task on. I've got continual difficulty justifying to myself the time I spend (my wife more accurately says "waste") on-line already without adding to it by acting as a forum referee or thread shunting-engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethleff Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Since it appears nobody is keen to take on the position of moderator, may I propose Victor Meldrew for the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 dethleff - 2007-07-31 10:38 AM Since it appears nobody is keen to take on the position of moderator, may I propose Victor Meldrew for the position. I think that would solve the problem of inappropriate postings - there wouldn't be ANY postings :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I am a regular visitor to a biker forum, there was a vote a while ago to appoint moderators from the members, and various people were duly taken on as mods. The problems started pretty soon after one of the mods got into an arguement with another member about ( blah blah), there was a hint of bad feeling between these two from a long time ago, and the mod decided the easy way out was to ban this particular member, subsequently anybody who disagreed, got the same treatment. Threads were locked or deleted on a whim and the mod quite simply abused the power bestowed on them. I know i have already said that I dont believe that, in an adult world we should have to have moderators, I do however understand the need for them, I just don't think recruitment from the ranks is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 The site administrator should be the only person with the power to ban anyone and of course should keep a general eye on the moderators behaviour. If a mod feels a member deserves a ban then that mod should forward it to the Administrator together with his/her reasons. In truth it is rarely necessary to ban any member if the mods and admn are doing their jobs properly. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Dave Newell - 2007-07-31 1:29 PM In truth it is rarely necessary to ban any member if the mods and admn are doing their jobs properly. D. Why bother? They only come back again and nobody does anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Ralph - 2007-07-31 2:05 PM Dave Newell - 2007-07-31 1:29 PM In truth it is rarely necessary to ban any member if the mods and admn are doing their jobs properly. D. Why bother? They only come back again and nobody does anything. Which is precisely the point Ralph, the existing moderator is not doing the job so we (that is those of us who have declared an interest earlier in this thread) would like to appoint a few from within the ranks so to speak. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.