dogsmilk wrote: These are the rules that you signed up for, so if you don't like it, hard cheese. If you make any personal remarks or attacks on me, and I read them, and they're in a thread that I started, I will report them and ask for them to be deleted, and will expect them to be deleted. If you think that's disrespectful, don't personalise things, I certainly won't. Similarly, if I think you're disrupting a thread I started, I will ask for your posts to be moved. Feel free to start another thread complaining about it if you feel so inclined.

Hmmm. I can honestly see both sides to this argument; as a forum we need some guidelines so that people signing up know to some extent what they are letting themselves in for should they cross the guideline. However, as we have covered, abuse is a subjective thing and , as illustrated, could be argued about itself for page after page. I am as guilty as the next of using potentially abusive words and will no doubt use some before the day is out but can also see why we have certain guidelines.

The way I see it there are 3 potential solutions;
i) the 2 parties agree to stay away from each others posts
ii) the community and/or facilitators arbitrate on all matters of abuse (15 pages of discussion or some other limit set on it )
iii) OP's get "ownership" of their threads(20 pages there I reckon!) and essentially mod it themselves (with facilitators clicking the buttons required) any counter-argument can be made in a counter thread.

I'll let you stew on them before reaching the conclusion a Saturday dual is the best idea

for SZ! It's almost fun to watch this thread to go on and on and on... Hehe, when I first typed "thread" it became out "thrash"... Haha, let's thrash this thread!



This......







Trhread....







IS......

oioioi wrote: Oi, I have suggested this as an obvious solution. I am more than able to keep my side of this. As far as I'm concerned, I've done everything possible to avoid conflict, which I don't actually like!

If you don't allow people to report and / or delete certain posts then we simply open ourselves up to all kinds of nonsense. Especially seeing as the mods have generally taken the pragmatic and sensible approach of not banning anyone. What if someone starts posting dozens of racist posts, but then claims that they're not racist and the term is open to interpretation? Remember that one? I know DM feels far more strongly about this than I do (I also despise all forms of bigotry), and I'm sure none of us want to see this happen.

I don't like being attacked personally, and I don't like to see that stuff on the forum. That is the thing I most object to, more than racism, more than anything else. I think it is totally uncalled for, when I am, if I might quote what someone said about me recently, the "epitome of politeness". I don't mind a few cunts or fucks or whatever, I might even use those words myself, you know! This is different to attacking someone personally, which in my mind is despicable and cowardly, and not something that we want here, particularly as we have lost many posters precisely for this reason.

Personally for me, if I post something, and the OP of the thread decides it's off-topic and has it deleted, I would completely accept it, I wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram about it. DM is not the only person whose posts I've asked to be deleted, and no-one else remotely cared! Similarly, it's never been necessary for me to moan and whinge about the moderators, nor would it ever be. I appreciate the fact that people put their time into moderating the forum, and do it as fairly and transparently as possible. I wouldn't, and haven't, put my hat into the ring to do it. You could have a completely unmoderated forum, but the person whose name is on it would probably end up being criminally charged!

Up until now, we've been exceptionally lucky not to be flooded with any crap. This could happen at any moment. This might sound quite soppy, but I actually think it's an adult view in my opinion...I only want to be here if people are nice to each other. That doesn't mean humourless, or treading on eggshells, it just means showing basic respect. I don't think it is showing basic respect for someone to come into a thread I started, for me to say that I'm not interested in having a debate, and for them to start implying I'm a liar and then attempt to belittle me. And now he's admitted that he doesn't like me! So you can make your own mind up as to why he felt the need to attack me! I don't consider that acceptable, and I don't want to be part of a forum that does. It doesn't bother me personally, but it would bother other people, hence the fact that people have left. Hence the fact that some don't think the atmosphere is what it could be.

So I reserve the right to have posts moved or deleted in threads I start if they're rude, personal or off-topic. Whether about me or others. That's how I feel about it, if the majority don't feel that way, there's no point in me being here.

How will the Sanctum Utopia world we are trying to create here work when people just can't seem to get along?

Don't act like the Venus project links have been posted here before,,,

Would it not be possible if someone approaches the facilitators/moderators and asks for a post to be removed with their reasons why, the f/m's contact the source of the comment, explain the situation and ask if they agree.

The poster may go' sure whatever' and post is removed and they know why someone found it problematic.

Or they may feel deletion is unjust and they'd like the comment to stand...........in which case, and I don't have a solution but maybe hide the thread until and email the members with both sides and look at the replies and take a decision based on the majority?

I enjoy both WUB's and Dogsmils posts and can see both sides

The idea of letting someone control there own thread and deleting any post they don't like is daft

.......... wrote:
See my sig.

some suggestions.


i like the idea of a thread for mods to jot down what they have had to do r.e moderation. My personal opinion is it should be a sticky thread that remains locked so that only mods can post in it. this way each mod takes responsibility for their actions and there is total transparency. It keeps those of us who are not mods in the loop and prevents misunderstandings.

As we seem utterly incapable of being respectful to each other and there is a lot of outright namecalling and tit for tat we are not even living up to one of the basic rules of the place. We should all have a long hard think about how important that rule is to the smooth flow of the place and why it was put there in the first place and then perhaps revisit it.

I know over the last week or so it has put me off here greatly - partly because it feels as if we have gotten to a point where I cannot tell whether what I am reading is open hostility or just weird banter. It totally ruins the 'vibe' for me and without meaning to sound like a sanctimonious shit but probably coming across as one anyway - we are all adults here and capable of thinking before posting and at least being polite or not responding in kind.

If someone does take issue with something in a post because it is of a rude/personal nature I think that they should report their feelings to a mod either in pm or on said thread and a mod should then give the offending poster a chance to edit their post themselves - thereby facilitating the process - if they do not wish to or see the need to moderate themselves then a mod would then do it for them.

If we continue to breed an atmosphere whereby it is ok to 'pick' on others because they think differently we are going to slowly but surely end up with an even smaller and more 'cliquey' forum.

Great input dawn and Thor

I enjoy your posts WUB, and would sincerely consider it a loss to the forum if you stopped posting.

That's not to say I don't enjoy DM's posts too. Despite this little - slip?..
dogsmilk wrote:

The deletion of offensive posts is a tricky one - less drastic to just edit the offensive bits. But even then, it's open to interpretation to some extent, and people have different tolerance levels, so it's something people will never agree on. And as always, that leaves the facilitators vulnerable, because they're 'damned if they do' and equally 'damned if they don't'.

For example, in some cases I think the person who persistently behaves like a flipping twerp is just as offensive because of that behaviour, as the one who directly points out to them that they're being a flipping twerp (cleaned up the language there in an effort to conform to requirements ) or even more so, because they're sneaky about it with covert tactics. Such as 'acting' dumb for example, in order to get away with stirring the pot.

And also the 'innocent', "Oh, I'd just like to understand what's happened in the past, so can someone just repeat all the gory history of personal conflict, just so I know what's gone on " - which is code for, "I'm loving all this excrement, and intend kicking as much of it in the air and keeping it up for as long as possible".

All that kind of stuff is well within any forum's guidelines, yet to me is the most offensive kind of conduct, and will always bring out the worst in me.

If you dont like what is written then get a box of these by the PC



Fragile Drama Queens

Right next time I post I should have necked the 60% free huge fucking massive bottle of white Lightening super strength cider

Wait 1

I'm completely bored of it.

The top rating topics on this forum are fighting each other and managing fighting each other.
All that has been proven so far is how woefully these situations have been resolved.

They won't be.
The focus is ass-backwards.
It's all about protecting users from big bad moderators instead of supporting them dealing with shit-stirrers.

The one vote that was almost completely unanimous on here was whether or not to have mods.
The result was a resounding Yes.
Guess what?
We don't have mods now.
We have an ill-defined or evolving definition of something termed facilitators.
Why?
Mods are baaaad! *twitch*

I tend not to agree.
My experience is that most people who take on those positions actually care about the group.
Look around, how many of those who used to care are still around?

Blatant trolls though?
Oh man come on down!
I think you've just been so misunderstood and I hate that you've had your rights to fuck people over trampled on by a baaad mod.
There, there.

I would estimate that the average age of SZ members is probably around mid 40's.
Ask yourself.
Do they really need or appreciate this kind of constant micro-management or will they just keep wandering off?

Seriously, It's dull and indulgent as folks.

With all due respect Gilly (maybe that is none in your view) I would say that what you are claiming to be foul play is just your perception of things. I have seen you accuse me of that before and I really don`t play games. I speak out when I feel something is not clear or needs attention that is not stirring shit. You can blame DM for starting this topic but he is addressing an issue in an open way and if nothing had happened requiring attention then he would not have reason to start a topic about it.

As you say the twerp factor or what is offensive is down to interpretation. What you see as twerp others might see as reasonable rebuttal. We only have words (and sometimes pictures and youtube videos) to get our views across to each other and sometimes they are expressed poorly or other times simply misunderstood. I think the one good thing the emoticons do is they let people know you are joking although even then some people might not find it funny. So do we agree on what is offensive or do we just have different rules for each person. You can call these people cunt but this person you can only use more intelligent put downs. This other person you can only agree with or find somewhere else to discuss things.

I think as a forum we should perhaps clarify or update the rules in order to resolve the issue. We have sensitive people and we also have people who don`t always agree on fundamentals. We are always going to have these little disagreements but we should avoid censorship but at the same time keep things respectful and fair. It is a hard balance to get. People get pissed off when you censor them and people get pissed off when you call them names so we need, in my view, some sort of clear rule for what is acceptable and what is not.

I don`t like the idea of the head to head thing really but I would do it for a laugh in good spirit. I do agree that mods and facilitators should be open about their facilitations and I don`t think they should have an issue with that.

I don`t think ignoring a problem will help anybody.

@thor, a locked thread for matter of fact posts accompanied by an open thread for discussion. I'd like the right to reply if I weren't a facilitator!
Your suggestion of asking the 'offending' poster to edit if they agree I like, I don't think I'd be comfortable/appropriate for judging such things as I have an ideological stance on 'crude language' that means I personally would allow all abuse and that's not the stance of a moderate. I would however be happy to facilitate a referral to the community to decide. This protects the facilitators from accusations of bias etc. whilst openly demonstrating what the general feeling of the forum is regarding what is/isn't abuse.

I know, this would potentially become a 30 page discussion over the word ass -v- arse but if people don't want to bog the forum down with such things then they will hopefully be encouraged to exhaust all other avenues first.

oioioi wrote:
like feather i do want mods to be able to just get on with doing that which they have been volunteered for without it turning into some sort of member v mod bollocks (i use the term mod purely because that is what I am used to - I have never had a problem with there being mods of forums as I accept that they are a necessary part ensuring smooth running and doing the boring maintenance stuff.

I suggested a locked mod thread not to stop people from being able to reply but to keep it on topic and easily navigable. People should ofc have an opportunity to ask a question or two in relation to any moderation that happens. I would also envisage the mod thread as somewhere where mods could let the community know if someone has made a request of them.

One thing I could not bare at ickes was the whole 'you don't know what I know' bollocks - keeping things, particularly things which affect members here behind closed doors leads to misunderstanding and bad feeling. Again this is personally speaking but the whole forum split thing appeared to come out of nowhere but and I apologise if I have this wrong it has been alluded to that things were discussed at length off the main boards. I personally do not wish to be blindsided like that again.

i do think that we should give people a chance to moderate themselves first as we are all adults and as we do all have a threshold as to what we are prepared to put up with it should be down to individuals to ask for facilitation and they should not be judged or mocked for that instead we should respect that.

There was much confusion the other day over what happened to ra's account which was only cleared up when skets posted - however had whomever had imposed a ban had just posted a quick note to say why and how long then that confusion would have been avoided.

i trust the mods here to uphold our community rules - but I also wish to know what was done, by whom and why - armed with these facts there is no confusion - I may disagree and I can air that - but I am not left making shit up to explain stuff.

Lastly I loathe the idea of 'fight nights' people falling out is not some sort of entertainment for the rest of us - and I dislike that we seem to have some sort of weird 'pick on x' cycle going on - I have seen oi, mickey, mike, ibaster, ra and others each have a turn at being the 'bad guy' because they have voiced opinions contrary to the 'norm' and that stinks.

Damn I sound like a totally boring arse reading that back but meh... its what I thinks.

i-baster wrote:
See, I struggle with you. I can't even get past this first paragraph.
i-baster wrote:
What does that sentence mean to you? Do you understand that what you're quite literally saying here, is that maybe in my opinion, I'm not deserving of any respect. What a very strange thing to say indeed! Do you see? Then when I respond to these kinds of comments, you accuse me of having difficulty comprehending. But the reality is, I do understand what you're saying - and whether or not you do is up for debate.

And this...
i-baster wrote:
I hope you're not 'playing' dumb, and pretending you think I was having a dig at DM in my post - and here you are, the reasonable hero, to defend him.

If I objected to DM, you can bet your arse he'd be in no doubt about it.

See what I mean about games?

If we had the ignore function, I actually would put you on ignore (you'd be the first ever) because nearly every time you post anything, you make me see red, and I don't like to feel like that, but can't help it. Since the majority have denied the rest from having that facility, I can't help seeing your posts, and feeling, at least mildly angered every bloody time.

*Edit* For the record, I assumed that the head to head thing was a joke, Thor.

thoreau wrote: I empathise with that sentiment Thor.
I'm sick of coming over as the last bastion of old school on here but truth be told, This shit ain't working.
Time and time and time again the wound re-opens, poison spurts everywhere and we haemorrhage another few people.

Stop fucking with the wheel please.


Edit.
I actually wasn't even going to bother saying anything again, just quietly fuck off, sans flounce, (no loss I know) but there's people here I've grown to like a lot.

i am gonna regret this I can feel it but here goes...

When I readWhat I understood from that sentence was that ibaster feels that you would not believe that he was affording you respect - not that you do not deserve respect - he is offering respect but does not believe that you will accept that that respect exists.

I may be wrong and you may be right about what was ment - but this highlights the next point made about perception of things.

Sorry Gilly only the first part was aimed towards you and I did not mean that you had no self respect. I meant you might not think I deserve any. I appreciate I worded that badly and apologize but I am not playing games in any way and was not implying in any way that you personally had said anything about DM.

thoreau wrote:
With all due (look up what 'due' means - i.e. deserving of) respect - which is maybe none - blah blah! It's basic English. But he can put something like that which is literally a mild insult, and always be sure that someone like you will jump in in his defense. Hence what I said about game-playing slyness. It's petty, but when repeatedly done is niggling, and gets a rise.