How's our driving? (Feedback for the forum)

toadfly

EGAR wrote: »

I got a warning once because I reported a post and posted that I did . It was called *backseat modding* or something like that if I remember correctly. I thought one rule applies for all?

Me too

seamus

Discodog wrote: »

I blame Seamus !. He started these peace talks & then vanished confident that the work was done. I've heard that he is sorting out the middle east.

I get distracted by shiny things. And it was Xmas.

antomagoo wrote: »

On the subject of thread closure a recent thread was closed, even though no reason was given why it was closed, I'm guessing it was because of certain off topic posts.

But surely it would be better to delete these posts explain why they were deleted and let the debate continue?

It could have been me on mobile. In this case, it's fiddly to respond on-thread and/or time is limited, so I'll lock it (there's a handy "lock" button on mobile) but then forget to come back to it.

I'll only do this where I feel that locking the thread is better than leaving it run its course. Sometimes there will obviously be threads which need some work but which isn't "urgent" enough when I'm on mobile. Other threads need something done, and on mobile locking the thread is often the only reasonable action, for the time being.

Whispered

I'm not sure if it was you seamus, at the time it was locked there was another api mods name listed at the bottom of the forum.

Would it be possible to have it reopened with the offending posts removed/ posters warned etc.

Discodog

I suspect that it was locked because of references to PETA. The charter states:

• No discussing illegal activities, animal cruelty, petshops/breeders (unless you have personal first hand experience with the latter)
• No discussion or linking of sites like PETA/ALF/animal demos etc.

Personally I think that PETA are worthy of discussion given their size & profile & I see no reason why any topic should be banned. We discuss cruelty every day. Surely what the charter should say is no promotion of these activities not no discussion.

Also someone from Ash may of contacted Boards. By the way I think that the image on the calender is utterly brilliant - I am ordering one.

Whispered

I assumed it was due to the accusation of homophobic posting wonder could someone clarify please so people will know what not to do.

EDIT: I also agree it might be good to be able to discuss peta, although I read that as no discussion of peta demos. I would hate to see links to peta being allowed though, but thats only due to my own personal feelings on them. I can see why it's in the charter!

Cherry Blossom

Seamus - what is the status of these FAQs please? If we are not going to have them is it ok to post links to FAQs on other forums etc. (in reply to relevant threads obviously).

<ETA> Also I've seen someone recommend a forum for fish keepers in reply to a few threads, something I'd have been reluctant to do myself, just wondering if this is acceptable? (e.g. I could recommend a few breed specific forums I've come across in relation to dogs)

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

I assumed it was due to the accusation of homophobic posting wonder could someone clarify please so people will know what not to do.

EDIT: I also agree it might be good to be able to discuss peta, although I read that as no discussion of peta demos. I would hate to see links to peta being allowed though, but thats only due to my own personal feelings on them. I can see why it's in the charter!

Gosh I must read the thread again !. Whatever we think of them organisations like PETA get a huge amount of support & I suspect that some of us would agree with some of their campaigns & not others. I personally think that their fur campaign was brilliant. The Sea Shepherds have a TV series & most of us would support their work to save Whales but they do openly break the law.

It just seems a bit immature that we cannot discuss such organisations & the whole welfare versus rights issue. Far weightier & contentious issues get discussed on Boards every day.

Cherry Blossom

Whispered wrote: »

I assumed it was due to the accusation of homophobic posting wonder could someone clarify please so people will know what not to do.

I assumed it was due to the actual homophobic posting and not the accusation of it which was also completely off-topic, irrelevant and made absolutely no sence :rolleyes:

Discodog

seamus wrote: »

I get distracted by shiny things. And it was Xmas.
It could have been me on mobile.

Sounds like you need a shiny iPad

Whispered

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I assumed it was due to the actual homophobic posting and not the accusation of it which was also completely off-topic, irrelevant and made absolutely no sence :rolleyes:

I said accusation because I'm still confused by that particular few posts despite it being "explained" by the poster It seems such a leap to make I assume(d) I was reading it wrong and didn't want to accuse if I had taken it up in a context the poster didn't mean. Although it now appears I'm not the only one who read it tht way.

DD my problem with peta is not breaking the law at all. (don't we all do that?:pac:) When I say I'd hate to see links to their sites, I mean I'd hate to see them being held up as an example of how people concerned with animal welfare/rights tend to act, which unfortunately people tend to do. I disagree with how they operate and would go so far as to accuse them of emotional terrorism. I was walking behind a woman with a child in dublin city about 2 years ago, the child was handed a flyer with a very graphic image on it. I've seen pro-life people doing the same. While I might agree with the message, I disagree with the delivery and it's because of this I would not like to see their links allowed.

dvet

Whispered wrote: »

I said accusation because I'm still confused by that particular few posts despite it being "explained" by the poster It seems such a leap to make I assume(d) I was reading it wrong and didn't want to accuse if I had taken it up in a context the poster didn't mean.

I think you were reading it right... unfortunately!! I also assumed that's why the thread was closed. Didn't think of the PETA thing.

Discodog

Seamus. You have commented on the Vet shooting Fox thread:

Let's not turn this thread into a "morality of hunting" discussion. Most regulars on the forum don't support hunting in any form, so any discussion is not going to result in good things.

Out of interest where could one discuss such an issue ?. It would appear that posting in A&P is unacceptable because the majority oppose hunting & the Hunting forum might argue the reverse. It should still be possible to have a good discussion & we have managed some in the past. After all we don't support cruelty or neglect but we discuss it.

Surely we should welcome opposing views otherwise it just becomes a mutual agreement forum.

I agree that the Vet thread is not the right place.

seamus

In principle I've no problem with a dedicated thread for it, but I can't see it turning into a useful debate.

It's my personal opinion that the regulars of the A&PI and Hunting forums will be at loggerheads on the issue (those with hunting dogs appear to use the hunting forum for the animal discussion) and although it will be a robust debate, it won't succeed to change anyone's mind and we'll probably have to hand out a few bans and infractions.

Welcoming opposing views is no problem, but in emotive topics like this it usually just ends up boiling down to a single subjective issue. On abortion it's the issue of if/when a foetus becomes a person. On hunting it's usually down to either levels of suffering or whether man has dominion over animals.

To sum up, I wouldn't lock any thread on it (obviously) but I would suggest that the thread starter puts a lot of thought into what kind of discussion they want and lay out in the OP some basic concepts/givens on both sides of the fence.

Edit:
After Hours or Humanities may work better for the topic because it's "neutral ground" so to speak and you will also get opinions from those with no specific interests in the topic.
Humanities will obviously get you a more reasoned debate, but it usually ends up being a back-and-forth between 2-4 posters when everyone else bails.
After Hours is obviously more of a colosseum on such matters, but you will get more varied (if more emotive) responses.

Whispered

Seamus, while you are here, can you clarify why the calendar thread was closed.

If it was due to a few posts could the posts be deleted, warnings issued and the thread reopened for those of us that want to discuss it?

seamus

Dunno, weren't me
FAYSEY closed it, maybe drop her a PM?

Cherry Blossom

seamus wrote: »

In principle I've no problem with a dedicated thread for it, but I can't see it turning into a useful debate.

It's my personal opinion that the regulars of the A&PI and Hunting forums will be at loggerheads on the issue (those with hunting dogs appear to use the hunting forum for the animal discussion) and although it will be a robust debate, it won't succeed to change anyone's mind and we'll probably have to hand out a few bans and infractions.

Welcoming opposing views is no problem, but in emotive topics like this it usually just ends up boiling down to a single subjective issue.

Isn't this why the pre-moderated fourm is there?

seamus

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Isn't this why the pre-moderated fourm is there?

Yes, but I would like to avoid starting threads there because they rarely get off the ground.

Cherry Blossom

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but I would like to avoid starting threads there because they rarely get off the ground.

Surely this is the type of thread that merits being moved there though, people genuinely interested will continue the conversation and those posting for arguements sake will think twice.

Whispered

Seamus, I've copied you into the PM, although I don't expect you to reply, it's just so I have it sent to someone else too . Actually it would be handy if fayesy could reply here instead of via pm too.

If it was due to one or two posts, it would also be great if it can be clarified whether or not that is how things will be dealt with in future.

Cherry Blossom

Actually both theese threads (the fox one and the calendar one) would seem to me to be good candidates for the pre-mod forum. I really don't see the point of it being there when threads like this aren't moved there and it just fills up with threads that shouldn't be there.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Actually both theese threads (the fox one and the calendar one) would seem to me to be good candidates for the pre-mod forum. I really don't see the point of it being there when threads like this aren't moved there and it just fills up with threads that shouldn't be there.

I disagree in that I don't think that we will need a pre modded forum provided that we carry on as we have been. There could be a bit of inconsistency in that Seamus will keep threads open whereas others might lock them.

Recently we have been pretty good at sorting ourselves out without Mod intervention & there is no reason why this can't continue. Let's have good robust debate & welcome opposing opinions. We can still do this a be civil to each other.

I do think that it should an absolute rule of Boards as a whole that if a thread is locked a reason is given. Otherwise it leads itself open to accusations of bias on behalf of the Mod.

Whispered

If you're interested in seeing a converstion between 2 seemingly opposing groups, there is a discussion being had in the V&V forum on hunting at the moment. Granted that forum is not as busy as here, fewer posters. But I think it's a decent example of how it could work, with mod comments on thread and people being relatively nice to each other.

ppink

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Actually both theese threads (the fox one and the calendar one) would seem to me to be good candidates for the pre-mod forum. I really don't see the point of it being there when threads like this aren't moved there and it just fills up with threads that shouldn't be there.

I kind of think it is a bit crazy moving them to premod when there has been no mod comment as to any issue on them. It stops conversations altogether imo.
Premod should only be if there are issues surely?
I also think threads should not be closed without a reason......I am still wondering if it was me mentioning PETA that was an issue to the closing of the Calendar thread. if threads are closed like this with no explanation out of the blue then what is the point in trying for any conversation.

Whispered

I've PM'd the mod who closed it ppink, I'm sure she will comment when she gets a chance. Only sent it this morning so she may not have gotten it yet.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

If you're interested in seeing a converstion between 2 seemingly opposing groups, there is a discussion being had in the V&V forum on hunting at the moment. Granted that forum is not as busy as here, fewer posters. But I think it's a decent example of how it could work, with mod comments on thread and people being relatively nice to each other.

I reckon that we could discuss it in A&P with less mod input. Blimey they even have Mods disagreeing with Mods & it's only two pages long

Whispered

yet people can still be civil

EDIT: It sounds like I'm disagreeing with you! I'm not

Discodog

I reckon that over 95% of the posters here are civil. We just need to ensure that the rest are not allowed to ruin it.

Whispered

Would one of the mods mind responding to the questions raised above. Is it going to be standard practise now to lock threads based on one or two posters, with no warnings or reasons given?

I've sent the PM as requested seamus, so if fayesy has not got time to respond, could yourself or hellrazer comment on what you think?

Cherry Blossom

API as a whole does not really make for pleasant reading at the minute

Whispered

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

API as a whole does not really make for pleasant reading at the minute

no it's not at all.

Mods I'm sorry I know you're doing your best and you're not always here, and you all have lives etc but I wanted to comment on this again following a recent mod comment in another thread. Hellrazer, you said in another thread that you've (collective you) recently decided to allow the forum be more self regulating. Fair play for allowing this thread and all, but how is locking a thread, with no warnings or reasons, while the other mods refuse to comment, self regulating?

And yes I know not every thread can be self regulating, the place would be in an uproar if it was, but that doesn't even begin to fit in with that type of idea. It's confusing.

I'm also confused as to why the other mods wont say why the thread was locked. Yes I know Fayesy locked it but she's obviously too busy to comment, surely the other moderators know why it was done and can decide to unlock and remove the offensive posts if they decide it can be handled that way? (or decide it shouldn't be unlocked and say so)