UK Caving Forum unsubscribe

[Martin Laverty]

Few people seem to be aware that the forum has an RSS feed  [ http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?type=rss;action=.xml ]: unsubscribing would be appropriate terminology for removing that from a reader's news aggregator or browser feed.

Using such a feed, you see (at least) titles of every post, and can read more of anything that might be of interest without needing to log in; an account is only needed to post, use personal messages, or view attachments.

Why speleotel felt it useful to tell people of her action without giving any immediate precipitating reason is another matter...

 

[tony from suffolk]

Seems like a flounce to me. We're all supposed to plead the person reconsiders, then they can reluctantly return. Makes them feel wanted.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I think some people who have commented could have read the OP with a different tone.

The second (main) sentence is entirely complimentary.

I had found UK Caving forum very helpful as a communication tool in the past and felt connected with cavers and their achievements.

If you think about that and then read the last sentence -

However I am now unsubscribing.

"However [despite what I have just said] I am now unsubscribing [without giving any reason]". One might then be more sympathetic and say something along the lines of, sorry to see you leave (whatever the reason is) and hope to see you back in the future.

 

[droid]

Maybe the phrase 'in the past' (ie not 'now') is significant?

 

[SamT]

I find it amusing at just 'how far' this thread has gone.

I also find it weird that people seem to see this forum as something you have to subscribe to, or unsubscribe and that the 'owners' and mods have some sort of active control over its members, content and direction.

Its just like a pub, who's doors are open to anyone.  Folk can enter the pub, sit quietly in a corner listening to the conversations going on around them. They don't even have to introduce themselves to the other folks in the pub (i.e. registered on the forum).  They only technically need to introduce themselves (register) if they want to chip in, if they feel they have something to contribute, or ask around to see if anyone knows anything about such and such. 

If they don't like the tone of the conversation, or they're bored by it.  They are free to walk out of the pub, and if they wish, never return.  They don't have to do anything. just leave. just dont ever type www.ukcaving.com into their web browser ever again.  simples.

The owners of the pub just simply provide the room.  They don't have to do anything (not even serve beer).  They don't really have to get involved in the conversion.

Only if things get a bit rowdy in the pub, perhaps an argument/fight breaks out, or someone who's had far too many, gets a bit obnoxious and starts offending others do they have to get involved, with the help of the moderators.  Just as you'd expect in a real pub.  If the culprit is a repeat offender or the , then they'll get 'barred' from the forum, just as they would in a real pub.

I find it just plain odd that people get grumpy and 'announce' that they are leaving and sometimes demand that all their posts are removed, their account deleted etc.  I personally think that shouldn't happen. If you've registered, made contributions, had your say, they you should have to stand by what you've said.

I also find it odd that people blame 'the forum' (and its owners by association) for its content.  Pub owners have no sway over the conversations of its clients, just as tim and jane don't control the content of the forum, unless its to break up a brewing fight or halt something thats becoming offensive to other members.

If the content of the forum is not to a members liking, then that can only be down to its members.



Should speleotel ever need ask for some information on anything, they are of course welcome to pop on here and ask.  Perhaps more likely to reach a wider audience get an answer than asking down her local.

 

[cooleycr]

Great analogy SamT..

However, because we have all jumped in and posted replies, this post has gone far... :-\

I find that this forum is a goldmine/treasure chest/whatever, and that I enjoy some of the banter, even though in the main I have absolutely no idea who is who, but I don't care...
Some wind me up (intentionally or not), others make me laugh and the rest either amaze or bemuse me but I still enjoy reading.....

Keep it up everybody, as has already been said, if you don't want to read it, don't put you reading glasses on or delete the link from your browser(not ageist, I have been using them for years...)

 

[alastairgott]

I find it just plain odd that people get grumpy and 'announce' that they are leaving and sometimes demand that all their posts are removed, their account deleted etc.  I personally think that shouldn't happen. If you've registered, made contributions, had your say, they you should have to stand by what you've said.

Then they go and sit and play cricket on the village green and listen in. Then at some point someone hits the ball into the pub and someone has to go and ask for it back.

 

[BradW]

From experience elsewhere, comparing a forum to a pub is not accurate. It is also a bit risky.

There are plenty of examples of liability of forum owners being discussed on the web. Here is one example that seems quite trustworthy:


Q: "What, precisely, is the legal position of owners of an internet forum, like this and others, when members post libellous or defamatory statements? Are they fully responsible as publishers of the site, or are they able to state that the original poster is 100% responsible."

A: "There's already a fair body of legal precident in this area (starting with Godfrey vs Demon Internet)."

"The operator of a message board counts as a publisher, and thus is jointly liable for any illegal statements made by posters."

"However, the damages granted would be effectively nil if a message board owner could argue that they were not aware of the post before it was made, and removed it as soon as they were informed of it's existence and took appropriate steps to prevent it happening again (such as a threat of banning the poster if they repeated it). Obviously this means pre-moderated boards are responsible for everything, as they cannot argue they weren't aware of any given post."

"Hence if a site like UKCaving has a poster make a libellous statement, but as soon as the staff see it (or are alerted to it by someone else) it is removed, no one is going to bother sueing them as no damages would be awarded. However, if UKCaving were to leave it on their site for a week while they thought about what to do, or didn't remove it at all and claimed it was nothing to do with them, a judge would treat them exactly the same as, say, a newspaper that published a libellous article, and award damages as appropriate."

So a site owner cannot act like Pontius Pilate and wash his or her hands of the consequences of anything that a member might post on his/her bulletin board, and has a duty to protect himself/herself, the other members, and third parties who might be mentioned on their website.

 

[SamT]

Interesting  :-\

 

[BradW]

Sorry forgot to post the source of my last post:

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/448394/are-internet-forum-owners-legally-responsible-for-their-content

There are plenty more like this.

 

[Ian Ball]

Sorry forgot to post the source of my last post:

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/448394/are-internet-forum-owners-legally-responsible-for-their-content

There are plenty more like this.

 

[Rhys]

It's true, the owners of a forum are ultimately responsible for any material posted that might be illegal. Hate speech or libel, for example. Effectively they are publishers in the same way as publishers of print material. However, the general tone and ambience of the place is more subtle and difficult to control. That is more the responsibility of the posters as a whole community.