Blocked topics

[bograt]

Could the moderators please define criterions for blocking topics?

Some recent decisions may be interpreted as censorship.

 

[Peter Burgess]

You have to open your topic on Open Access pages. Otherwise the site owner and his agents have the right to block it.

 

[jasonbirder]

I agree...the mod's don't seem to like too much controversy

Which is strange really as most sites love a bit of "click-bait"!

And compared to many other forums I'm on...this one is positively gentlemanly!

 

[Peter Burgess]

It must be hell moderating a twitchers' message board. All those crows.

 

[jasonbirder]

You'd be surprised at the animosity and bile that such a gentle pastime (Birding) can generate!

 

[Lazarus]

Tell me about it.

Anyway, stop arguing with the mods decision, they don't like it. Do as they say not as they do..

 

[bograt]

Tell me about it.

Anyway, stop arguing with the mods decision, they don't like it. Do as they say not as they do..

Not arguing, just asking.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I can't believe they locked that thread. Bob's a hero, he started a really good topic. Please unlock it and let those who posted a few bits of crap take it as a warning.

 

[topcat]

I appreciate that the following suggestion would take the mods some effort, but in the long run it might improve things:

it is pretty obvious when a post is a personal attack or well off topic.....................delete these posts.  Initially a  lot of work  [but I'm not talking about doing it retrospectively, other than by a couple of days or so]

....once folk see all their rubbish and nasty attacks removed, sooner or later they will stop wasting their time [and our] posting rubbish.

maybe?

I know this is kind of censorship, but nasty personal attacks that add nothing to the quality of the debate should be censored.  It is obvious that certain individuals do not have the self discipline to moderate/censor themselves.

 

[Bottlebank]

I appreciate that the following suggestion would take the mods some effort, but in the long run it might improve things:

it is pretty obvious when a post is a personal attack or well off topic.....................delete these posts.  Initially a  lot of work  [but I'm not talking about doing it retrospectively, other than by a couple of days or so]

....once folk see all their rubbish and nasty attacks removed, sooner or later they will stop wasting their time [and our] posting rubbish.

maybe?

I know this is kind of censorship, but nasty personal attacks that add nothing to the quality of the debate should be censored.  It is obvious that certain individuals do not have the self discipline to moderate/censor themselves.

I agree, at the moment one individual can derail a thread if they don't like the way it's heading and get it blocked.

And if they persist ban them.

 

[paul]

Sorry for not answering the question earler but I have spent my time caving over the weekend.

From Bob's original post:

I have been working of recent on investigating the impact if CRoW applies to caving.  It is limited to looking at the various powers which can be employed  to provide for access control if CRoW does apply to caving.  Whilst it looks at categories of caves, it does not consider any specific cave.  Hence I have not posted it within the still open thread on CRoW Sec 26.  I have also included a comment about the release of the 'instructions' which may be of interest to some.  A copy of this work which I have forwarded to the C&A Convenor for consideration at next week's C&A meeting on the 16th can be found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RTfmWzkLQMVlFMMFhBWkozdEU/edit?usp=sharing.

I must repeat that since I am not a lawyer, I accept no liability from any one who uses the contents of the document.  I issue it in the spirit of being open.  I have already shared this document with Graham Mullan and no doubt he will disagree with it. Given the history of previous threads I am not inclined to enter into a debate on this forum about the contents.  (Indeed the mods might wish to lock this thread.)  I MAY answer specific questions PMd to me.

What I will urge cavers to do, if they have not already done so, is to present their concerns and desires to their regional C&A representative so he or she may take them into account in their preparation for the meeting. 

So, locking that Topic was complying with the original poster's wishes. The usual posting of off-topic banter had started and I locked the Topic.
This Forum is a vehicle for discussion on various topics, most related to Caving, especially in the UK, and some Topics which are not not. If it is to provide s useful vehicle for discussion on a particular Topic, then we all need to keep to the point. Pages and pages of "I'm right, you're wrong" comments with no reasoned debate get nowhere and do not achieve anything other than turning off members and guests from this website. Not to mention the personal digs and insults which also achieve nothing but annoy everyone else.
So, when a discussion on a Topic seems to have reached the point where it is getting nowhere, rather than let it continue, it gets Locked. Thise doesn't deleted the current content nor does it prevent ir from beig discovered and read in the future. It simply stops the useful part from being overwhelmed and hidden by the not so useful posts.
If a particular Topic has been locked for this reason, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new one and hopefully this new one will not go the same way.

 

[kay]

What Mods have done in the past, which has been very useful, is to split topics. Instead of locking the topic, you could skim off the posts which are not useful, and put them into Idle Chat, so that those who wish to continue the discussion can do so, without obscuring the useful information in the original thread.

I find it depressing when threads descend into personal abuse, but I find the arguments a useful way of helping me sort out my own views.

 

[paul]

It takes time to split Topics, especially wahen you have 20+ pages to deal with, when it takes a LOT if time. Also it doesn't discourage the "usual offenders" from continuing with the off-topic posts or personal point scoring.
As I pointed out once it reaches the stage of "I'm right and you are wrong" with no reasoned argument, it's all pretty pointles having the discsussion.

 

[kay]

I know! It's easy to think of all sorts of useful things Mods could do, when it's not oneself having to do them. But partly I wanted you to know that at least one person appreciated the effort.

 

[exsumper]

This dislike of dissent or satire appears to be a modern disease. One wonders if the mods are employed as civil servants, work in HR in some sort of capacity or have a background in lefty student politics?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Have you ever been a moderator of anything, Exsumper?

 

[paul]

This dislike of dissent or satire appears to be a modern disease. One wonders if the mods are employed as civil servants, work in HR in some sort of capacity or have a background in lefty student politics?

If you do not like it then please withdraw from the Forum and start your own.

 

[exsumper]

Have you ever been a moderator of anything, Exsumper?

I'm a Freeborn Englishman; my moderating anyones opinions would go completely against the grain and my life long principles!