|
|
Post by macd on Apr 15, 2007 9:10:18 GMT
Some time back, springer asked for some feedback from the site admin. This was ignored and 2 members were simply appointed as moderators. There is a lack of any moderation whatsoever. It has been suggested to me that in the intersts of harmony, we need to get something meaningful in place. For example I posted my disquiet in another thread about what i see as sniping at speyside. Of course my opinions are just that- opinions. I would not feel the need to upset things if I felt there was some recourse to real moderation- somewhere to take a gripe. Lets create our own rules of engagement- how we treat each other. Im happy to co-ordinate if there are plenty others that will contribute. I regret my part in any public feuding, although I was always right  So any thoughts. no obtuse refs to speyside no smart arse one-liners  just a couple to start with. Ross |
|
|
|
Post by madkeen on Apr 15, 2007 9:19:47 GMT
Do agree with some of your points Macd.I have also noticed that a few of our regular posters have not posted anything for a while don't know if it's coincidence or not.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by splash on Apr 15, 2007 9:46:52 GMT
McD thanks starting this interesting thread as I believe that this is a debate that is somewhat overdue. If I compare and contrast the role of the moderators on the Salmon Fishing Forum with that on say,Speypages, it seems to me that in the latter the Moderators control the threads more, contibute significantly to the topic lists and generally run the site. Now one can argue that Speypages is a bit more "anoraky" in its approach and that our forum is more informal and light hearted but I do agree with you that its probably time to re-define some of the rules of engagement.
What I would like to hear more of is both the view from more members but also the view from some of the site sponsors who up until now have been strangely silent on this topic....
cheers
Splash
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyrodger on Apr 15, 2007 9:59:08 GMT
Do agree with some of your points Macd.I have also noticed that a few of our regular posters have not posted anything for a while don't know if it's coincidence or not. Alan Funny I was thinking that myself last week Alan. Lets hope they are just busy with the fishing. Some of these guys have forgotten more about salmon fishing than I'll ever know and there departure would be detremental to these forums. Even Scotyboy9nro has stopped posting.  |
|
|
|
Post by severnfisher on Apr 15, 2007 10:55:08 GMT
I think the 'smart arsed one liners' are one of the best things about this site. The references to speyside and the accompanying 'bleeding edge' innovation stuff are also a great asset to the site.
I can't see the problem with a bit of polemical 'edge'. Please don't decaffeinate the site.
|
|
|
|
Post by macd on Apr 15, 2007 11:12:39 GMT
I think the 'smart arsed one liners' are one of the best things about this site. The references to speyside and the accompanying 'bleeding edge' innovation stuff are also a great asset to the site. I can't see the problem with a bit of polemical 'edge'. Please don't decaffeinate the site. well said. no de-caf. just a thought-some posters are MIA which has the same impact on the caffeine levels. Some of the guys that work in fishing, on the river or in the tackle shop will simply retreat. Cant be good either. - here is one i will follow henceforth. When I get a burst of self righteous anger - I will deal with it by PM in the first instance. Keeps the boards clean, the thread stays on topic and a resolution is easier to achieve in private. I am not looking to formalise anything here; we just need to take 5 and keep the forum ticking over. |
|
|
|
Post by tynetraveller on Apr 15, 2007 11:24:10 GMT
I think we are getting too hung up on forum administration! The comment in the mending thread was hardly a pointed insult to Speyside.
I believe that new rules banning things are almost always a bad idea. I know that what went on with the Kercock thread needed to be addressed firmly, but lets keep normal conversations uncensored!
Cheers, Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by davewallbridge on Apr 15, 2007 16:38:23 GMT
I agree with severnfisher and the others who feel that more censorship is not the way to go.
As for Speypages .... the moment this site starts to swing in that direction I will be off to pastures new like a shot.
As AA said, members should voice their views in a considerate manner and generally most do, but so what if there is the occasional hiccough, these soon blow over.
Better that than be engulfed in a similar mire of treacle and sycophancy that lurks just below the surface of the Speypages forums .
Surely it's worth risking the odd spat now and again to know that we have a place where anyone's views can be freely aired without the fear of premature deletion just because the contributers ideas may not be dead in line with the Admin's.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilravock on Apr 15, 2007 18:16:10 GMT
folks
as someone who discovered this site only recently, and therefore has no personal baggage, I have a few observations which may or may not be of interest.
there seems to be a general desire that the forum is kept informal and banter is welcomed, and that moderation is kept to a minimum.
Both of these are fine aspirations, however they carry some risks. (e.g. I'd assert the Kercock thread should never have been tolerated and permitted to continue the way it was)
In any public forum, there is the risk that some banter can cross into, or be perceived as crossing into , personal jibes/vindictiveness/bullying etc
We must remember that this site (I assume) covers a huge spectrum of persons (ages, occupations, tolerance, (dare I say it but) class, etc. etc)
It should be no surprise therefore that one mans clever jibe can quite easily be taken as a being an attempt at bullying or whatever.
So what is the answer ?
It strikes me that self-policing is the way to go.
Has any thought ever been given to some form of Code of Conduct ?. I don't mean some cumbersome tome, rather say 10 'commandments' that the forum will always adhere to. In the event that a post contravenes this then anyone can raise their objection.
A starter for 10 might be :
1/ The forum exists to foster the growth in participation in salmon fishing and best practice in technical skills, catch and release etc. etc.
2/ Posts that aim to belittle / humiliate or abuse any individual will be e.g. deleted without recourse or be flagged 'out of order' etc.
And so on.
As I say its just a thought....does anyone think its worth pursuing ?
Steven
there is
|
|
|
|
Post by pertempledog on Apr 18, 2007 16:33:10 GMT
If I may I'll mention again my impression that this forum is like a chat in a pub among a bunch of fisherfolk of all ages, persuasions, leanings, tastes et al. How would we all act in that situation? Not, I would suggest, as some act sometimes in this virtual world. Yet exactly the same social rules apply and to my mind those are the only rules needed. Please no censorship but please lets all be willing to turn our back on bickering and ignore it (in a pub a pal would have a quiet one in the offenders ear hole before he was bodily removed form the conversation).
As for one liners.... I was hoping to have a thread at the end of the year for the wittiest ones of 2007. Some of them are magnificent!
viz.... "you write like a fanny"
"yes, but only when I write by gaslight".....
I'm still chuckling ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ceilidh on Apr 18, 2007 18:09:05 GMT
Ross,
I agree that this was a topic which needed to be aired, irrespective of the final consensus of opinion, which, happily, seems so far to be thoughtfully and moderately expressed. I also think that it is interesting to listen to the comments of Kilravock and Pertempledog, both relatively new forum members, who therefore view the forum in a slightly different light to those of us who have read, if not regularly contributed to it, since its beginning.
I have often thought that a good measure of one's friendship with another person is just how insulting (obviously jocularly) you can be to them without them taking offense, always assuming, of course, that you both share a similar sense of humour! However, even with smilies, in a forum such as this these comments can often lead to misinterpretation by those to whom they were not directly addressed, thus causing a rise of angry red herrings.
Despite the occasional spat I have always found this to be a very user friendly forum and I would greatly miss the very generous contributions and expertise of many of our regular contributors, though I can well understand that they occasionally feel unappreciated and aggravated by a few stupid and aggressive "know all" replies.
So,( finally!) in answer to Macd's question, Yes, we do need moderator influence upon the few occasions where posters are being deliberately and maliciously offensive, or otherwise trying to hijack threads for their own ends, but this should be used sparingly but early and firmly. The dangers of failing to do this are, sadly, evident in the current state of the Fly Fishing Forum which has recently suffered a spate of ill tempered and abusive posts.
|
|
