What about those of us who've already contributed financially?

Money doesn't bother me much at the moment tbh

Although I have just done my bloody tax return mumble...grumble...

Gilly wrote: Well, herein lies the problem with this idea! Maybe it wouldn't be something that is obligatory, but maybe we could all sign a pledge to say that we would contribute, and then renew that pledge each year? And in addition, maybe new accounts would require a nominal subscription fee, as I said I would suggest £1.

If people have even a trivial financial stake in something, then I think they will take their responsibilities to behave suitably more seriously.

great thread wub

if we had thought to have a thread like this stickied we might not have got to this position. but thats moot.

i would like to see a b c and an awful lot of d.
at this point in my life, i never want to see another conspiracy theory again. i posted a while ago that it may be a good idea to just live as if they are all true. i equally dont want to be discussing politics, religion, isms or owt like it. thats just me, here and now.
i'd like to spend time on alternatives. networking with others to try and help eachother take some power back. id like to see the veg thread a thousand pages long!
this is why i have from day one advocated a community led approach. i personally think that a small forum like this is a great place to try out alternative ideas to the typical hierarchies.
its clear that others dont see that as important which is fine ofc.
tbh considering the situation at the genesis of the sz, its entirely predictable that things have gone as they have. many of us first landed here pissed off at forums, moderators, plonkers and shisters...people like the app could see the problem with that right back then...
its not something we should feel bad about, its definitely something we could learn from.

in the main, i still see an sz that i love. the waters have been rough of late but we now have a great opportunity to calm them. i think this thread is a great chance to help do that.


edit: for the record, i was one of the first to call for sod's ejection..... it was after the ban that i got to know him a bit in blast chat and realised that beneath the troll lies a very unique spirit and mind. as a result i ended up standing up for him. i'd still like to see the sod i got to know in chat as a member of the sz. aint gonna happen though it seems cos he doesnt want that and so wont go through the necessary steps.

Hi Dub,

I wasn't 100% sure what happened with Sod. I'm sure at heart he's great, but all I was pointing out was that there should be, in my opinion, a zero tolerance policy on people titting about and breaking the rules. Whatever that person is like and whatever they have done previously.

I agree with you about the community stuff, I hope we can just start out by maintaining a genuinely amicable community here.

Now that several people have expressed their view and voted on this thread, it is evident that many of us have slightly differing views as to what we want from the forum. I think we can create a site that is consistent with all of these, but I also believe, as I said previously, that there needs to be a bit of give and take.

For me, personally, some of the criticisms and suspicions aimed at previous moderators / site owners was wholly unjustified and quite petty. I must say as well that had it been me who had set up a site, and funded it, and put a lot of work into running it, only to be exposed to criticism and accusations, then I would have been considerably less reasonable about it than they have been.

I have tried to stay out of this precisely to avoid exacerbating any issues any further, but now that they've all come to a head, and said people have decided to rescind their duties, I feel it has to be said if we're going to move forward. A lot of the problems that have occurred - ie. people leaving because they're not happy with the atmosphere - could probably have been avoided had certain incidents been clamped down on more quickly. I do think that the moderators ability do this was stymied by the fact that they were open to criticism for doing so.

I still think it is possible to have a community-driven site with transparent moderation, but if you're going to maintain an amicable atmosphere, and have an 'open doors' policy, then it is necessary to place some trust in certain 'elected' or 'appointed' persons to enforce the ethos of the site at times as they see fit. That doesn't mean that these people should be above reproach, but they should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and they deserve a modicum of trust simply for putting the time and effort in required to keep the place running.

I also think it would be a good idea, as I suggested, to have a pledge. This could operate as a thread that people sign up to, whether existing member or otherwise (it could perhaps be 'sticked') where we agree in principle to uphold certain principles. I would suggest:

(i) I pledge to make a financial contribution of at least £1 per annum to the running of the site.
(ii) I pledge to make every effort to be polite to others at all times, and respect other people's views, even if I disagree with them.
(iii) I pledge to challenge others' behaviour when it is not consistent with pledge (ii).
(iv) I pledge to respect the consensus viewpoint of the forum and its members with regards to decision making.
(v) I pledge to treat the people that put their time, effort and money into running and maintaining the site with the respect that they deserve.

If we all sign up to that, and make a distinct effort to be consistent with it, then it would be a step in the right direction.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
thats fair comment and i agree. i will say though that i spend a lot of my time here titting about so i'm agreeing to being booted for being me

dubmeup wrote: There's more than one type of titting about! I think we can make a clear distinction between acceptable titting about and unacceptable titting about!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Can't wait for this thread!

I agree with every word you said WUB.

Devil's advocate here

Another way to say "impolite" is rude/offensive.

So is it the content of the post or the language used to express it that is rude/offensive?

Or is it bioth?

I remember a post from "elsewhere" that suggested that mixed marraiges were the death of the white race. and unnatural/perverse.

Taking this rather personally (wife is Japanese) I told the poster to fuck off.

I got points (quite rightly) but the politely worded and yet fucking rude post was allowed to stand.

I am just not interested in playing that game any more.

To my mind, such a thread would depend on the poster. If they were regularly posting controversial things like that as being their opinion, I'd assume they were a troll looking for a rise.

If that wasn't the norm from them, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and think they must just be a bit of a bigot, and as such, would expect that unbigoted members would easily be able to set them straight on their thinking.

I dunno what others think?

Racial slurs would be offensive, but cuntybumfuckface is not imo.

mikey mikey wrote: In my view, that particular comment would be completely in breach of...

sanctumzone.co.uk/info/terms-and-policy-...ity-guide-lines.html
I think it's better to rise above that sort of daft remark rather than attack the person, but I entirely understand your response. I would hope we wouldn't tolerate that sort of comment on SZ.

Gilly wrote:
Well as Old Nick's Attorney, I am obliged to point out that such "setting straight", no matter how reasonable, will incur accusations of "ganging up".

Not being negative, just doimg my appointed task.

I think most of us would automatically know if something was unnaceptable or not. If someone was to start causing offence they would soon get a telling off.

Wouldn't the usual terms and conditions about racism, sexism, disabledism (not proper word), homophobia, images showing violent/illegal acts etc do the job? I'd like to think that most people are decent and would tend to stick to that anyway, but I'm struggling to think of how that would be enforced in a community way - unless you expel people who don't want to stick to it.

I think it's the manner, rather than the number of people disagreeing, that makes it 'ganging up'. Again, just offering my opinion.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
So would I, but apparently not, as seen with Silvershine recently. She was making numerous insinuations about people, rather than being overtly aggressive. To me (and others) definitely a troll here with the sole intention of shit-stirring. To almost an equal number of voters, not breaking the T's & C's.

Thanks to Gilly, Lesley and WUB for good responses to my infernal curmudgeonry.

Just testing the brakes before we take her for a spin

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Well that was the problem with DIF at the end of the day.
They didn't stand up for their own rules....and how often have we seen world leaders doing the same thing?