mikey mikey wrote:
Don't worry, I talk to myself all the time too.


I think we should charge a reasonable sum to deter nob heads from joining up if there is a no-refund policy if you break the forum rules.
<cues music to Andy's ears.>

I agree with oioioi... a bit of all of the things listed I suppose. I've never really had any grief from anybody here and the forum has been kind to me... so I suppose I'm happy with the way I thought it was.

Space Bandit wrote:
Untill this week I felt exactly the same way.

I am very eager to push on with the business of SZ future although it is worth examining certain events in order to avoid them in the future.

Gilly wrote:
To be fair here I did back mikey up
All I didn't want to see was people throwing a strop over it and banning someone over something that really wasn't worth getting too worked up about too quickly.

The whole point of the new TZ site I suppose is that they'll be able to take measures there that we can't here and to have that site as a comparison.

I did see the stuff with SS having a go at mikey, I didn't see the other stuff and tbh I've yet to see anything linked?
I could just have missed it though.

Space Bandit wrote:
Me too!
I think its important to emphasise that there's only a problem if you perceive it.

I have no idea what the fluk has been going on but a of everything would be good, but if I had to pick one I would lean more to the seriouse side of things.

Nobody was throwing a strop, thank you very much.

If you couldn't be bothered looking through her posts, why say there was nothing too bad? The problem with links was that she was making insinuations left, right & centre, and some people on the thread were complaining about folk posting, "He said, she said", so the solution, as I stated, was to go into her profile & view her posts for yourself.

I definitel think some changes could be:

1) A sub forum to place discussions about other forums: not so much to encourage it, as to keep the inevitable all in one place.

Accssible only to members in order to prevent forum wars

2) Mods to have action powers that enable them to carry out their duties in a timely fashion.

3) Strong reminders about what is considered offensive behaviour

4) Losing the idea that challenging other members points of view in a reasonble manner is "silencing" /censorship

In terms of number 4: I hold religious beliefs that are very much in the minority here and I have always accepted, if not welcomed that. I have never claimed that those challenging my views were trying to gang up on me or silence me. Nor have i lamented that not enough is done to encourage more catholics to join.

AFIK I am the only left footer in the village

andyh wrote:
You certainly did. Thank you

Gilly wrote:
I don't think andy meant to offend, Gilly.

I think he means that is how it first appeared.

SS was quite careful to spread the accusation and nastiness across many many threads as you know

dantesrevival wrote:
Isn't there the option of various rooms/sub forums for all of the above?

mikey mikey wrote:
Don't be alarmed - that was tongue in cheek.

Gilly wrote:
*phew*

I think oioioi made a very sensible suggestion, which is that instead of banning people, should there be an incident and a moderator feels the need to step in, then accounts could be temporarily suspended until there's been opportunity to discuss what has occurred communally.

Oh ok it's the SS shit, well they were clearly on a wind up, innuendos and riddle talk, if it had been directed at me I would have been a lot more abusive and less reserved than mikey.

Gilly wrote:
Feeling ish now.

There's no need to. There's a lot of stuff around here to be bombarded with when you've been away for a bit & aren't even feeling on form.

Gilly wrote:
A lot of people asked for some evidence that wasn't forthcoming.
I'll say no more.

A few thoughts...

As someone whos name has been bandied about for mod a couple of things have been swirling round the old grey matter - firstly whilst I am happy to step up and donate some time to the site I only wish to do so if people have the trust and faith in me to do it - The main change for me about coming here is I have always and still do (despite any disappointment) immense trust in those with the extra buttons. I believe that either we have a team of mods and trust them or we admit from the outset that we are a distrustful bunch and anyone who ends up as a mod will always be viewed with some suspicion.

In return moderation has to be transparent - one way to enure this is to create a sticky in community issues where mods can post any/all moderation tasks they have undertaken. That way there is a log of who did what and why that people can refer back to if there are any issues arising from any action taken. The big issues ofc need to be discussed by the community and happen in a timely and transparent way.

We all need to take responsibility for ensuring the atmosphere remains pleasant friendly cooperative and fun - Like Dub I miss the more practical skill sharing threads - as a forum it appears many of us are more interested in positive and practical changes rather then just discussing the doom and gloom - though I do enjoy a good meaty article from wub or others - and a good video on politics and business shit heads.

The truth of the matter is the place will be what we make it - but that is going to mean taking a long hard look at the way we respond to people who are on a wind up - or who say things we disagree with - sometimes the most powerful answer a bigot/racist/homophobe/troll can have is total silence and the offending post removed.

dantesrevival wrote:
serioulsly mate, thank you. I appreciate that.

andyh wrote:
Well, since it was most posts (hence it was, as stated a matter of looking at her profile) that's a lot of people passing the buck then, yet happy to pass opinions without equating themselves with the relevant details. (Other than those on mobiles with not much band width). Laziness. I'll also say no more.