Jump to content

Announcement - Staff Vacancies


DHutch

Featured Posts

 

Define "works".

 

Having been shown some of the personal attacks and general other demeaning of members of this forum on TB, (including of course our moderators and our site owner), it is not somewhere I would ever want to give any bandwidth to.

 

The mere fact that some people seem to be wallowing in the damage they have caused, (and in some cases are continuing to cause), on CWDF can only enhance my negative view on at least some of the more "hard core" members of TB.

 

I'm really not interested in hearing it has in many ways got better, and may now have picked up a lot of far less obnoxious posters. The nature of its "birth", and the extreme nastiness that followed is enough that I want nothing to do with it, and I personally have interest in investigating how much "less bad" it may have become.

 

Alan, are you sure taking the moral high ground on this is wise?

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Define "works".

 

 

Not for me to define. I was only passing on comments made to me by PM from sock puppets of banned members trying to persuade me to jump ship. The place 'works', so I'm told.

 

Like you, I find the circumstances surrounding birth of the site make me reluctant to take part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side, at least you can see what people think over there, nothing is hidden in Private Messages or Facebook Chat - whether you like whats said is a different matter, that, and the fact you do have the right to reply should you choose to do so.

 

For the record from what I have seen much of what it is claimed has taken place in private messages didn't actually start out in private at all, of course.

 

There was originally completely open thread on the Facebook CWDF page, (started by me, from memory), where some fairly frank views got expressed, in the light of what was happening on the forum at the time. Much of what has been quoted quoted has been taken directly from there, of course.

 

However far from being a cosy chat between a few members of some exclusive club, if you go and look, (and of course it is all there still fully readable), literally dozens of current CWDF members took part in that open conversation. Absolutely anybody who wanted the "right of reply" could have exercised that right by joining the group, (much like you could get the same by joining TB).

 

Having checked as far as I can, I can find no record that I have ever said privately anything that much deviates from what I said openly, (though it was months ago, and it is impossible to check every detail).

 

It seems convenient for some people to claim much happened as a result of ordinary members doing things in private, but the reality is that most of it had already been discussed completely publicly, and anybody could have joined those discussions.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Right.

 

So do as I say not as i do?

 

To me, anyone who was involved in the unsavory behind the scenes shenanigans that members of this forum participated in hadn't ought to pass comment.

 

Look on the bright side, at least you can see what people think over there, nothing is hidden in Private Messages or Facebook Chat - whether you like whats said is a different matter, that, and the fact you do have the right to reply should you choose to do so.

By definition, you have no way of knowing if this is true. The clue is in the word 'private'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition, you have no way of knowing if this is true. The clue is in the word 'private'.

Almost nothing.

 

Is that better?

 

For the record from what I have seen much of what it is claimed has taken place in private messages didn't actually start out in private at all, of course.

 

There was originally completely open thread on the Facebook CWDF page, (started by me, from memory), where some fairly frank views got expressed, in the light of what was happening on the forum at the time. Much of what has been quoted quoted has been taken directly from there, of course.

 

However far from being a cosy chat between a few members of some exclusive club, if you go and look, (and of course it is all there still fully readable), literally dozens of current CWDF members took part in that open conversation. Absolutely anybody who wanted the "right of reply" could have exercised that right by joining the group, (much like you could get the same by joining TB).

 

Having checked as far as I can, I can find no record that I have ever said privately anything that much deviates from what I said openly, (though it was months ago, and it is impossible to check every detail).

 

It seems convenient for some people to claim much happened as a result of ordinary members doing things in private, but the reality is that most of it had already been discussed completely publicly, and anybody could have joined those discussions.

Maybe so, but do you not see the rank hypocrisy of complaining about exactly the same thing when you happen to be on the receiving end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Define "works".

 

Having been shown some of the personal attacks and general other demeaning of members of this forum on TB, (including of course our moderators and our site owner), it is not somewhere I would ever want to give any bandwidth to.

 

The mere fact that some people seem to be wallowing in the damage they have caused, (and in some cases are continuing to cause), on CWDF can only enhance my negative view on at least some of the more "hard core" members of TB.

 

I'm really not interested in hearing it has in many ways got better, and may now have picked up a lot of far less obnoxious posters. The nature of its "birth", and the extreme nastiness that followed is enough that I want nothing to do with it, and I personally have interest in investigating how much "less bad" it may have become.

This is exactly how I feel. TB started out as a place for disgruntled CWDF members to bitch about this forum, some of it's members and most of its site crew, simply because Daniel refused to allow them to continue to be offensive on here. As I understand it, Daniel would have been happy to work alongside the new forum but was unable to because of the vitriol which was directed at him (and still is, to some extent).

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly how I feel. TB started out as a place for disgruntled CWDF members to bitch about this forum, some of it's members and most of its site crew, simply because Daniel refused to allow them to continue to be offensive on here. As I understand it, Daniel would have been happy to work alongside the new forum but was unable to because of the vitriol which was directed at him (and still is, to some extent).

 

 

I'm a adult.

 

I wouldn't want to give credence to purile and insulting name calling directed towards people I count as friends that I read over there.

 

If Thunderboat introduced rules which tempered the "vitriol"/"name calling" would you reconsider (of course, respecting that you could remain a member of both forums etc)? Or is its history a stumbling point?

 

Or to put it another way - there is a relationship between the attractiveness of a forum and the number/severity of its rules. No rules, and it causes the above issues illustrated which puts a number of people off joining and contributing. Too many rules, and it also puts contributors off in a different way. Somewhere there is an optimum, in terms of numbers of interested members. Of course, its all subjective so you'd never reliably know where this optimum rests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a adult.

 

I wouldn't want to give credence to purile and insulting name calling directed towards people I count as friends that I read over there.

Credence?! Who ever said you'd be doing that?

Where as over here the vocal minority win the day by hiding behind draconian rules that treat members like kids. The irony is somewhat delicious!

 

PS what happened to the etiquette of not selectively quoting a post?

Edited by gazza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would anyone want to ape emulate you?

 

I didn't actually say that there was intention to 'emulate' me did I?

 

People could have done it for a number of reasons.

 

And why are you turning this into something personal??

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully you meant "minority"

Yes, sorry. Typed in a rush with no allowance for what my phone thought I wanted to type rather than what I actually wanted to type!

explain?

Like that you mean? :)

 

Your post has gone from a polite question to a demand.

 

Oh how the English language can be bent to one's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selective quoting is benign, indeed welcomed, if it chops out non-relevant parts of the quoted post and focuses on the part answered. If it changes the meaning or the answer is previously covered in the chopped part, then of course the 1st poster is free to come back (and can quote their own posts if needs be). Selectively posting by chopping up sentences goes a bit too far though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I find it somewhat surprising that a person who, on thunderboat, has been one of the leaders of vitriolic attacks on one of the mods here should then ask for advice on this forum about how to improve moderation on thunderboat.

 

I suspect, Paul, that this is another of your subtle attempts to disrupt CWDF by pursuading people that thunderboat is a smashing place and as many people as you can pursuade should go over there.

 

Your ability to present one persona on thunderboat and an entirely different one on here is astonishing. It does reveal a capacity for hypocricy though.

 

 

 

Barry can you point out the thread(s) on Thunderboat you think I've written, or the username you think I am on there (by PM if needs be) please? I believe its a case of mistaken identity, since I've never posted on Thunderboat.

 

ETA Please don't quote this, since Barry has now editied his original post to clarify a case of mistaken identity.

Edited by Paul C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Barry can you point out the thread(s) on Thunderboat you think I've written, or the username you think I am on there (by PM if needs be) please? I believe its a case of mistaken identity, since I've never posted on Thunderboat.

 

If thats the case then I apologise profusely and admit I have made a big mistake based on mistaken identity. I shall edit that out of my post immediately and then go and find out who I did mean

 

 

 

 

ETA Perhaps you should edit out what I quoted Paul since I have now taken out what I said but people can still it in your quote.

Edited by Barry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like that you mean? smile.png

 

Your post has gone from a polite question to a demand.

 

Oh how the English language can be bent to one's will.

That's not a demand, it's a request, as it is followed by a question mark.

But, the gist of my question is this: someone posts a long screed of which most is of no interest, but one bit excites the reader's interest: "Blah blah woffle piffle hippo spotted swimming in canal drivel dribble dribble etc. etc." I would say that it's better "etiquette", i.e.more polite, to quote only the bit about which one wishes to comment or about which one would like more information.

Indeed, if I remember aright, on some occasions colleagues have complained when a whole long and largely boring post has been quoted, asking that only the relevant bit be cited, as it saves readers from having to plough through many paralysing paragraphs of piffle. So I'm not sure that I can fully agree with your example of good etiquette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Barry can you point out the thread(s) on Thunderboat you think I've written, or the username you think I am on there (by PM if needs be) please? I believe its a case of mistaken identity, since I've never posted on Thunderboat.

 

Well there is/was a Paul C on there who appears to have mysteriously vanished.

 

(unless I'm losing the plot too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Barry can you point out the thread(s) on Thunderboat you think I've written, or the username you think I am on there (by PM if needs be) please? I believe its a case of mistaken identity, since I've never posted on Thunderboat.

 

And there we have it :

 

Edited to reflect the edit in post #93.

 

However - I do agree with some parts of post #93

eg :

My belief is that this forum can get back to where it was but things change. The internet changes things including the way people express themselves on a screen. The rules and guidelines need to reflect this, in my opinion. They don't at the moment

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And there we have it :

 

assumptions made (on both sides) which are accusatory and inflammatory as well as 'just wrong'.

Whilst such divisive posts as that (post #93) are allowed it will not improve the situation.

 

However - I do agree with parts of post #93

eg :

My belief is that this forum can get back to where it was but things change. The internet changes things including the way people express themselves on a screen. The rules and guidelines need to reflect this, in my opinion. They don't at the moment

 

I have made a mistake, apologised and edited my post 93 to reflect that.

 

Self moderation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If thats the case then I apologise profusely and admit I have made a big mistake based on mistaken identity. I shall edit that out of my post immediately and then go and find out who I did mean

 

 

 

 

ETA Perhaps you should edit out what I quoted Paul since I have now taken out what I said but people can still it in your quote.

 

No worries, I'd edit it except its been quoted subsequently. If everyone agrees not to quote it again and the other two posters can also edit it out, I will happily do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.