Nicks moving forward News, public discussion if desired.

[Paul Barker]

I stayed clear of the contentious discussions as they aren't fruitful.

Normally these things go away, sometimes to the loss of new members whose skills we could have done with.

But is the cure worse than the problem. I know Nick said he doesn't want "you are doing fine" as an answer.

I wasn't happy at the loss of Clive Messer, it seemed to me he got upset over nothing. Biggest problem seemed he was hugely defensive of Tim de Paravacini and took statements too much to heart. To me he was a great loss to the forum. Let's also be honest I got too emotionally involved at that time. But since then I have beded in again and I believe Nick's Leset faire policy is a good one.

When Darren and I were moderators with Nick originally all we ever did was delete porn spam. We never needed to intervene in any nasty attacks like we see on the internet these days.

But be careful the cure doesn't create more problems. I think it would.

I don't have enough computer time to be a moderator.

If some of you decide to create this new evolution, I shan't take my bat home either. But if nobody volunteers I won't be sorry and if any do volunteer I would want a vote.

[shane]

There was always something charming about a benevolent dictatorship presided over by an erudite Yorkshireman. There aren't many of them about. However, a dictatorship of any sort inevitably puts strains on the dictator and I can't blame Nick for not wanting to continue in these awkward times. Sadly, we slide into democracy.
I shan't be volunteering for duty as I know how easy it is to make hasty decisions that don't stand up to scrutiny the next morning (I can think of several posts of mine over the years that fall into that category) but I wish good fortune to whoever steps up.

[pre65]

On reflection, I think Nick's policy on moderation was a good one, and probably still the best one.

We certainly don't want the sort of situation that World Designs got to when Dave Cawley was in charge.

I don't think I would make a good singular moderator either, same reason as Shane.

[pre65]

Perhaps it may help if we can all agree what it is that we find unacceptable as forum conduct ?

Seems to me that the one thing I abhor, is attacks on ones person, or personal beliefs, either on hi-fi matters or on a more broad base. This is (or should be) a complete no-no on here.

I know the vast majority of us are able to get along together in (more or less) complete harmony, so moderation should only be necessary in extreme circumstances.

I would be perfectly happy for Romy (and his supporter ) to be removed for the reasons I have stated above.

I would also be happy to form part of a moderators committee (say 4 of us) who only act if we are all in agreement.

[chris661]

^ +1.

Like the idea of a committee, though I think it may be problematic if there is disagreement amongst them: for example, if its agreed that action ought to be taken, but they can't decide what should be done.

[simon]

(Not sure why we need a second thread to discuss this - quick, where are the mods? )

I missed most of the fun of the last couple of weeks otherwise disposed with work. I've had a scan through and can see why people have got a bit upset, and some of the tone of language is frankly unnecessary on an internet form. But I guess most of us deal with it face to face on a daily basis. History is written by the winners. Censorship (moderation) is a dangerous game, and the thing with leaving comments verbatim is that they're recorded for all time for all to see. So anyone can look back at any point and make their own mind up. If they really wanted to. Certainly some of the stuff posted recently is illuminating.

But if a forum is about to be destroyed then perhaps action is needed. But do you think it is about to disintegrate? Can't be worth much if it is.

FWIW, and I've said it before, I think Nick takes a mature and seemingly brave view on running this place. But actually when you consider the alternative I think it would be braver to moderate

[simon]

Sodding mobile phones!

The point I was about to make before Android went pear shaped was that I vote for Nick continuing as has done and rest of us do what we'd do in real life when faced with an annoyance - just ignore it till it finds something more interesting to do.

[pre65]

Sodding mobile phones!

The point I was about to make before Android went pear shaped was that I vote for Nick continuing as has done and rest of us do what we'd do in real life when faced with an annoyance - just ignore it till it finds something more interesting to do.

If Nick was happy to do that then I would agree.

[shane]

^ +1.

Like the idea of a committee, though I think it may be problematic if there is disagreement amongst them: for example, if its agreed that action ought to be taken, but they can't decide what should be done.

That of course is the nature of committees. I would suggest a committee of three. Enough to quell any excesses, but should be able to reach and agreement, if necessary by a majority.

[shane]

Posted that before seeing Simon's post, with which I wholeheartedly agree, especially considering that the fuss does seem to have died down a bit now.

[colin.hepburn]

Haven't seen what went on But don't we all bark at each other from time to time it happens
AS one of three moderators on WD, my view on this would be to just work in the same way as we do when someone is out of line one of us will pick it up and post a comment if need be w:evil:e seen to work well this way as we have not had any real problems to date
Just my view Chaps

[Cressy Snr]

I work part time, 3 days a week so I would be willing to be part of a tripartite committee of moderators.

I fully endorse Phil's suggestion that personal attacks should be a complete no-no. I responded in kind to the cat's attack on the forum's contributors with the barb about him getting down the disco etc etc , and would certainly have been put on the on the naughty step.

As I said I will not tolerate bullying of any sort and have had plenty of spats with parents in my time over little Johnny or Sarah's violence, name calling or intimidation of weaker pupils.

I think in my job as in Greg's previous job too, we have to have that sort of methodology when it comes to dealing with disputes, otherwise there would be no justice, or problems resolved.

I try to reason with people and most are accommodating once, we get around a table and talk things through, but that does not work online as it just looks like emotionally charged whinging and whining because of the lack of face to face dialogue; in short, reasoning does not work in print, but it is often hard to avoid attempting it, then when it fails, it starts to turn into tit for tat personal attacks.

This forum and the people on it mean a lot to me and most of us know why, so I'm not going to go into things again.

SO.... checks and balances are needed from other ways of thinking about things, so a committee of three would be good, if and only if that's what people want.

[IslandPink]

I can help ( have been doing so anyway last week or two ) but I await to see what power we can be given . I know Nick is v.v.busy at the moment so we need to be patient on his response.

[Neal]

I would be willing to help out as well as necessary if it takes some load off Nick and if there are no objections... I tend to be in front of a computer for many hours a day in my job so checking in from time to time would not be a problem.

[Ali Tait]

For my part I agree 100% with Nick on censorship. However , I was brought up to treat others with respect and courtesy, and I expect the same in return, and I'm not frightened to pull people up over it. I detest ill mannered people, manners cost nothing.

Not sure if mods would be a good idea, this place has worked just fine up to now without them, but if peeps decide that's the way to go, I agree three mods would be a good way to go.