Thread Etiquette

[superhorns]

I played for the Fordingbridge Turks for a little while... until I tore my calf. Also went there quite a few times for a few drinks in a pub called The Ship. A work mate's almost-permanent position was standing at the bar there.

We take our caravan down to Fordingbridge several times a year and always eat in The Ship. They have an early evening special food deal for oldies. Two courses for about £7, brilliant.
Bit disappointed they have never asked me if I was old enough!

Another great foodie pub is The Augustus John.

 

[Leo]

One thing that happens (and is even happening on this thread) is that the thread actually diverts away from the original purpose, so some who may not be regular contributors and look in occasionally decide to contribute based on the title of a thread, then look at recent posts and decide that they are unable to contribute as there is no consistency. This is something that will slowly happen on longer threads, but when it happens on shorter threads, I wonder why the thread was put there in the first place.

Yes - I notice that - difficult to control though. Cologne responded to me on the political thread a while ago and it was with a brexit point and I thought - should I respond on the brexit thread.
It is a shame we cannot have sections and subsections. If there was say a "political" area with a load of subset threads it would mean we could keep conversation slightly more together.
I am never sure whether lots of little threads or a big all encompassing one are better.
Again - thoughts anyone?

 

[Leo]

Well I was BournemouthKev and OxheyKev in between

both good names to have discarded

 

[Leo]

OK - taking Jerseys point ( I cannot get to understand secondbase).
Can we post general chats on the Nest and get back on track here on the etiquette and how we want to see postings made

 

[superhorns]

I was referring to JC.
However this is a good example of something I would hope to see less of. You know that using phrases like Comrade Corbyn (whilst I am sure is meant only humourously by you) is a kind of wind up to others - as is saying he changes policies twice a day. We do not want to rub out fun on here but why not leave the "easy picking" comments like that out - it distracts people from answering your very good political points. I would equally like to see less of the easy jibes that used to be used by others against Cameron and Osborne. Let's assume politicians are honest and sincere and try to avoid labels as much as possible. I know you support an improved board so hope you can alter your style a tad. Cheers.

To be fair, Corbyn has been extremely guilty of confusion and putting out mixed messages since his relaunch last week. I can just about accept any sensitivities regarding the light hearted tag 'comrade' but commenting on the current mess of the Labour leadership is surely fair game. Cutting out insults is obvious the right policy but if you try to be too politically correct it will result in killing the political thread.

 

[Leo]

To be fair, Corbyn has been extremely guilty of confusion and putting out mixed messages since his relaunch last week. I can just about accept any sensitivities regarding the light hearted tag 'comrade' but commenting on the current mess of the Labour leadership is surely fair game. Cutting out insults is obvious the right policy but if you try to be too politically correct it will result in killing the political thread.

Agreed. I am responding to you though on the political thread

 

[colognehornet]

OK - taking Jerseys point ( I cannot get to understand secondbase).
Can we post general chats on the Nest and get back on track here on the etiquette and how we want to see postings made

I think that we should agree to a set of rules for posting, in order to avoid future disharmony. I have put together an ecquivalent of the 10 commandments for our forum - others can amend them, add to them, laugh at them, or make any other comments about them.

1. Thou shalt not use foul and profane language.
It is not necessary - we should be avoiding the use of language which is often replaced with stars.
Not acceptable - You ****ing ******. Slightly more acceptable though still on the borderline 'I don't give a **** what you think'. Acceptable - 'I don't give a monkeys'.

2. Thou shalt not insult other posters.
Acceptable - 'It is idiotic ideas like this which are destroying our country'
Not acceptable - 'It is idiots like you who are destroying our country'

3. Thou shalt not boast.
I know that there is nothing wrong in giving out information about yourself - but, when it is used as a form of boasting to gain advantage in a political debate it gets on my nerves. I do not want to know if someone is eg. a 'wealth creator' - I cannot check up on it, and it does not make opinions any more valid. Anyway, as I was saying to Angie yesterday................

4. Thou shalt not make assumptions about other posters.
We have to assume that every poster has as many life experiences as we do ourselves - assumptions made about people's age, inexperience, forms of belittling etc. are not welcome when made about people we do not know.

5. Thou shalt not threaten other posters.
Sounds ridiculous, and we haven't had it here, but i have seen this on another forum. eg. ' Wait till I see you at the stadium next time'. No keyboard warriors please.

6. Thou shalt not bring in pages and pages of external material.
This, quite frankly, gets on many people's nerves. Once in a while is ok. but when it becomes a substitute for debate it isn't.

7. Thou shalt not import material which is potentially dangerous to the site.
I don't think any of us have done this, but it has happened on other forums - either with pornographic material, or with material which could bring viruses etc. or dubious links.

8. Thou shalt avoid all racist or sexist comments or external material.
I mean heavy stuff here - Irish and Welsh jokes are still ok. but not use of language which is detremental to whole groups of people on the basis of race, religion, nationality etc.

9. Can't think of anything else - maybe others can make up the 10.

 

[Leo]

1. Thou shalt not use foul and profane language.
It is not necessary - we should be avoiding the use of language which is often replaced with stars.
Not acceptable - You ****ing ******. Slightly more acceptable though still on the borderline 'I don't give a **** what you think'. Acceptable - 'I don't give a monkeys'.

We each have an individual anti-swear button. Personally I don't mind anglo saxon language. Used occasionally to good effect it can be powerful - excessive use of it shows the poster's own limitations.

2. Thou shalt not insult other posters.
Acceptable - 'It is idiotic ideas like this which are destroying our country'
Not acceptable - 'It is idiots like you who are destroying our country'

Absolutely - criticise the argument not the person.

3. Thou shalt not boast.
I know that there is nothing wrong in giving out information about yourself - but, when it is used as a form of boasting to gain advantage in a political debate it gets on my nerves. I do not want to know if someone is eg. a 'wealth creator' - I cannot check up on it, and it does not make opinions any more valid. Anyway, as I was saying to Angie yesterday................

More difficult - used poorly it can backfire. Makes the person look foolish. Good idea to avoid using it unless it does add something. I have made reference to my accounting and economics qualifications before - not to boast as I am sure it does not impress anyone but it can help show a degree of understanding that is not possessed by the man on the Clapham Omnibus again (not the Rastafarian). How it is used is the key.

4. Thou shalt not make assumptions about other posters.
We have to assume that every poster has as many life experiences as we do ourselves - assumptions made about people's age, inexperience, forms of belittling etc. are not welcome when made about people we do not know.

Difficult to do - we all make unconscious asumptions about people and sometimes on here I have seen people complain assumptions were being made about them when they actually weren't. But essentially agree.

5. Thou shalt not threaten other posters.
Sounds ridiculous, and we haven't had it here, but i have seen this on another forum. eg. ' Wait till I see you at the stadium next time'. No keyboard warriors please.

Probably would get you a ban or suspension at least.

6. Thou shalt not bring in pages and pages of external material.
This, quite frankly, gets on many people's nerves. Once in a while is ok. but when it becomes a substitute for debate it isn't.

Agreed - if the poster cannot be bothered to paraphrase a long article do they think people can be bothered to read it. Links are much more effective.

7. Thou shalt not import material which is potentially dangerous to the site.
I don't think any of us have done this, but it has happened on other forums - either with pornographic material, or with material which could bring viruses etc. or dubious links.

8. Thou shalt avoid all racist or sexist comments or external material.
I mean heavy stuff here - Irish and Welsh jokes are still ok. but not use of language which is detrimental to whole groups of people on the basis of race, religion, nationality etc..

These last two are certainly against forum rules not just etiquette. They would endanger the whole site - would certainly get you banned. Discrimination against any minority is not acceptable.

Good post Cologne - any more for any more.

 

[Mexican Hornet]

Treat people how you want to be treated? simples....

 

[Leo]

Treat people how you want to be treated? simples....

Excellently put. Are you the Reverend Charles Kingsley in disguise?

 

[colognehornet]

Excellently put. Are you the Reverend Charles Kingsley in disguise?

We are all in disguise Leo. SH is really Jeremy Corbyn........Superhorns has actually done more for Labour's cause than anyone I know

 

[andytoprankin]

We each have an individual anti-swear button. Personally I don't mind anglo saxon language. Used occasionally to good effect it can be powerful - excessive use of it shows the poster's own limitations.

Absolutely - criticise the argument not the person.

More difficult - used poorly it can backfire. Makes the person look foolish. Good idea to avoid using it unless it does add something. I have made reference to my accounting and economics qualifications before - not to boast as I am sure it does not impress anyone but it can help show a degree of understanding that is not possessed by the man on the Clapham Omnibus again (not the Rastafarian). How it is used is the key.

Difficult to do - we all make unconscious asumptions about people and sometimes on here I have seen people complain assumptions were being made about them when they actually weren't. But essentially agree.

Probably would get you a ban or suspension at least.

Agreed - if the poster cannot be bothered to paraphrase a long article do they think people can be bothered to read it. Links are much more effective.


These last two are certainly against forum rules not just etiquette. They would endanger the whole site - would certainly get you banned. Discrimination against any minority is not acceptable.

Good post Cologne - any more for any more.

Isn't this an example of getting personal? Aren't we supposed to say that in this example their post is limited, rather than they themselves.
I think we all know how to behave and some sort of 'charter' feels like shooting ourselves in the foot if we are trying to bring people onto the forum. All too sterile for me and too easy to fall foul of it, as exampled above. We've survived 10+ years without a charter, I don't see why we need one now.

 

[Leo]

We are all in disguise Leo. SH is really Jeremy Corbyn........Superhorns has actually done more for Labour's cause than anyone I know

Now if he bites on this one you have only yourself to blame I think he will be amused at the idea that he is JC - but he might think he is a better one of those.

 

[Leo]

I think we all know how to behave and some sort of 'charter' feels like shooting ourselves in the foot if we are trying to bring people onto the forum. All too sterile for me and too easy to fall foul of it, as exampled above. We've survived 10+ years without a charter, I don't see why we need one now.

We are not going to produce a charter - this is just to get on the table the sort of values we subscribe to. You must agree there has been excessive nastiness recently and not all on one side. Rumour has it that a number of posters were all using the ignore button - they should not need to do that. If we can draw a line and all move forward in a friendly manner that is what I would like to see.

 

[andytoprankin]

I put 'charter' in inverted commas. There wasn't an ignore button on BBC. That's the best deterrent here. If no bugger is apparently reading it, then why post?

 

[colognehornet]

Isn't this an example of getting personal? Aren't we supposed to say that in this example their post is limited, rather than they themselves.
I think we all know how to behave and some sort of 'charter' feels like shooting ourselves in the foot if we are trying to bring people onto the forum. All too sterile for me and too easy to fall foul of it, as exampled above. We've survived 10+ years without a charter, I don't see why we need one now.

Isn't this an example of getting personal? Aren't we supposed to say that in this example their post is limited, rather than they themselves.
I think we all know how to behave and some sort of 'charter' feels like shooting ourselves in the foot if we are trying to bring people onto the forum. All too sterile for me and too easy to fall foul of it, as exampled above. We've survived 10+ years without a charter, I don't see why we need one now.

I agree that there is a danger of policing threads out of existence, but there have to be some borderlines somewhere. A certain amount of rough and tumble is to be expected on political threads, and without it they could get boring and mainstream. Something like a 'charter' is probably ok. as a general guideline, but what is important is how we interpret it - with 'common sense', or as if it were written in stone.

 

[andytoprankin]

I agree that there is a danger of policing threads out of existence, but there have to be some borderlines somewhere. A certain amount of rough and tumble is to be expected on political threads, and without it they could get boring and mainstream. Something like a 'charter' is probably ok. as a general guideline, but what is important is how we interpret it - with 'common sense', or as if it were written in stone.

But we all know the lines. And any 'charter', unwritten or, heaven forfend, written, would put people off joining IMHO. It's too sterile and too insular. Just keep it simple. Let people post, unfettered by how they may slightly overstep where someone else may perceive a line to be. If someone crosses a line slightly, they cross it, we deal with it, the world keeps turning.

 

[Leo]

But we all know the lines. And any 'charter', unwritten or, heaven forfend, written, would put people off joining IMHO. It's too sterile and too insular. Just keep it simple. Let people post, unfettered by how they may slightly overstep where someone else may perceive a line to be. If someone crosses a line slightly, they cross it, we deal with it, the world keeps turning.

I think that is how it will work going forward. However H returned from holiday to learn that in her absence things had "kicked off". Many people dislike controversial argument. I say that they should then not read the political threads as it is not for them. Even so amongst those who were posting it gets to a pretty pass when there is a mass "ignore" stand. You may argue that it is one person at fault. I do not see it like that. Reading what went on I feel many parties were not debating in the spirit we are trying to create here. If you disagree then continue to post however you like - nobody will stop you but do not then complain if the board gets nasty and we lose fruitful discussion.

 

[andytoprankin]

I think that is how it will work going forward. However H returned from holiday to learn that in her absence things had "kicked off". Many people dislike controversial argument. I say that they should then not read the political threads as it is not for them. Even so amongst those who were posting it gets to a pretty pass when there is a mass "ignore" stand. You may argue that it is one person at fault. I do not see it like that. Reading what went on I feel many parties were not debating in the spirit we are trying to create here. If you disagree then continue to post however you like - nobody will stop you but do not then complain if the board gets nasty and we lose fruitful discussion.

I will complain if I need to, post as I have and continue to enjoy all the fruitful conversation.

 

[superhorns]

We are all in disguise Leo. SH is really Jeremy Corbyn........Superhorns has actually done more for Labour's cause than anyone I know

Most Conservatives are desperate for the hapless Corbyn to remain in power for as long as possible. He has ruined the Labour Party as an effective opposition. I'm not sure which Labour Party you refer to: the majority of MPs with a broad base or the unpopular left based leadership with its momentum backing. The only thing the two factions have in common is they are both unelectable.