Keeping it California - Last Chance to VOTE

[westfalia]

And you guys wonder why this whole discussion is taking place. Just give it a rest.

I don't wonder at all.

Maybe there should be a sub forum for people lacking a sense of humour.

 

[Hotel California]

I deliberate waited to add something here to see how the general feeling would be like.
I'm totaly not intrested in our own Belgian politics so i care even less about UK or whatever country's politics , just keep in mind that most (read:most) of us come here for VW California related conversations , outdoorlife ,outdoor sports , dogs....fun things, if these subjects should be in any way be influenced by politics i can understand it being absorbt in the discussion as long it stays within the lines of common sense and without calling names.

I see i various responds where people tend to say or feel the moderators/admins fail to keep the atmosphere of topics within theire standard of how they think it should be....
Well , all i can say thats it is hell of a job being a moderator on here...
One can not do good for everyone , we need to compromise when moderating and use our intuition in where a (heated) discussion is going to.

And i can now say for myself that i'm certainly not contibuting to a bad atmosphere on the forum becose in my 2 months abcence it just stayed thesame....even got worse

Covid/corona is certainly not helping to keep things fun , unfortunatly

Be tolerate , think before you type , use common sense.

 

[GrannyJen]

I see i various responds where people tend to say or feel the moderators/admins fail to keep the atmosphere of topics within theire standard of how they think it should be....
Well , all i can say thats it is hell of a job being a moderator on here...
One can not do good for everyone , we need to compromise when moderating and use our intuition in where a (heated) discussion is going to.

Quite a change Wim from when the founders first appointed moderators The outcry, the hostility, the venom to the idea!! "We are all grown-ups we don't need moderating" ..... and then the personal venom, directed at me from this forum and other forums that I was not even a member of because I dared rebuke a member for being rude to someone ...

From day 1 the direction has always been a light hand. In fact I remember well being told to just leave it ... let it run, don't interfere .... we are after all grown-ups.

Then came Brex1t and when that boiled over so three cocks was created, rather than step into the playground spats create an unmoderated section and let them fight it out in there.

A I said in an earlier post, Covid is hurting everyone, there is stress, tension and pain all over the world so it is inevitable that a subject that at it's heart has a politically driven response willl be a lightning rod for peoples stressed emotions. The coronavirus section was created so it could all be contained and in my opinion it is a flash fire that will die out once new normality establishes itself.

A change has to happen though and whilst I have expressed my opinion on the way that change should happen it is not up to me now, it is up to the results of a poll. I personally am knackered. Reading page after page of dross day after day and having to decide what to delete, what to close, what to drop in the sin bin has convinced me of the need for a policy change one way or the other.

Anyway I wait with bated breath for the results next Sunday! One thing is certain though, regardless of the poll outcome and regardless of how many times I have wanted to blow my fruit and delete just about every CV thread going before walking away and joining a lego or jigsaw forum I still love this place

 

[Ting Tong]

I think every Cali related issue has been done to several times over on here and, unless there’s some digression into other topics, the forum will just be a Calipedia. Both Brexit and COVID substantially affect our ability to use our Calis and so need discussing imo, as will climate change or whatever contentious topic inevitably comes along in the future.

 

[BrendanJ]

No confusion. The debate nd this poll is whether or not we ban certain subjects for discussion and the arguments for and against saying "camping only". I am simply describing an illustration of what happens when you try draconian limitation to exclude subjects.

I don’t understand your stance or explanation at all. And so far according to the latest scores you are well on the way to destroying the forum.

 

[pjm-84]

Not an easy task being a Moderator......... so let's give them some slack.

 

[Auberg-ine]

I think every Cali related issue has been done to several times over on here and, unless there’s some digression into other topics, the forum will just be a Calipedia. Both Brexit and COVID substantially affect our ability to use our Calis and so need discussing imo, as will climate change or whatever contentious topic inevitably comes along in the future.

I like the word Calipedia. Indeed, the smallest screw of this vehicle has been analyzed over and over. And so now most of the 'authors of this precious book' are bored, tired to dead explaining the newcomers that they just need to read it. And even more so after the total lockdown,
And so there needs to be a New Project to reinforce the Club feeling, re-engage its members.

Can I suggest we establish a VWCC Camp map, on which we all can pin our favorite places, with three lines of description per pin and 3 little picts. And put it in our own personal Club app. We have the numbers to make something important. Surely we'll find the funds for it as well. Together.

 

[BrendanJ]

Uh!, I am not criticising the moderators, nor underestimating the difficult role they undertake, but come on.......If they are doing the role, I am quite sure they are up to the and should also be up to questioning.
Especially when proposing fundamental changes such as banning discussion of certain taboo topics, that are impractical, unworkable and damaging to the no doubt hard won ethos and unquestionably value of the forum as a whole
To sit by and not challenge this on the basis of “give them some slack” is just plain silly ( I am being polite)
Stand up for what you believe in, albeit do it politely
the point is again in case it gets lost is ban subjects of discussion or not, regardless of the practicality of these subjects seeping into innocent threads anyway, or as I would propose, police the threads for abusive or unnecessarily aggressive or negative posts. That is the role of moderation ( the clue is in the word) not aggressive censorship which is too extreme.

 

[pjm-84]

Didn't say you was.

Not really as someone may have the opposite view as you and believe that they are not moderating enough. I'm hopefully in the middle but probably more to the right. . Hence after due consideration, I voted no.

 

[SailSki]

The more that people descend into slanging matches, personal attacks and insults the more work the moderators have to do, and more judgment calls they have to make. Not fun for them.
People have different views and interpretations, but if people think twice and avoid posting what they know will be inflammatory remarks then the diversity and interest of the forum can be maintained without needing prescriptive measures.

 

[Hotel California]

The forum is turned so international that one needs to understand that politics should not be discussed here as many are from diffrent contries. Or create a separate forum about politics , maybe some should go in to politics?

 

[Keith Smith]

It's easy to set the forum to ignore individual members. I've set a couple of members on ignore and the place has become a whole lot nicer to visit.

 

[T6 CFO]

Just starting this thread has stopped almost all activity in The Three Cocks and what there has been has been polite.

Vote is only going to go one way and I can’t see that either working or being healthy for the board.



Mike

 

[GrannyJen]

I don’t understand your stance or explanation at all. And so far according to the latest scores you are well on the way to destroying the forum.

Well, now you have got me confused. You don't understand my stance or explanation but whatever it is it is on the way to destroying the forum.

For me to answer that you will have to explain hat you think my stance is and what the "scores " are that you think indicates the impending destruction of this forum.

A few things to help guide you along.

Firstly I am proposing nothing. This is not my thread. I have made observations, hopefully added a few insights, that is all.

Secondly it is a poll, not my decision nor any single members decision to change the way this forum works or what is allowed and not allowed. It will be the members decision, not my decision nor the decision of the person who started this thread and originated the poll.

Thirdly I have no power to make the changes proposed. I am only a moderator, someone one like you, a member, a member who has volunteered to give up some of my time to help this forum function smoothly, someone who wakes up in the morning and who's first task before getting out of bed is to free up any posts waiting approval, then check out on any posts reported upon, often spam or other rubbish posted in this forum. This is before pressing the "new posts" button and ploughing through often over 100 posts ensuring what is posted is in the correct section, replying to posts from any members that need help etc.

This is all before plunging into the hostile, snarling nasty threads and removing any posts that are clearly abusive and not just a bit of barbed humour and not just tit for tat which bores the pants off everyone but if removed would probably involve removing dozens of others that contain reference to the post. When doing that I also have to work within a framework, an ethos laid down by the founders and not by me.

That is about all I can do but sometimes it is an entirely unpleasant job as well as hugely time-consuming, especially in the present circumstances, reading dross, ploughing through dozens of cut and pastes, deciding whether threads should be closed, moved, deleted etc. knowing of course that for every post deleted there is possibly someone putting me on their hate lists, others muttering censorship and others muttering "not enough" so I certainly don't do the job to win a popularity contest.

As to what I cannot do: I cannot decide the ethos and direction within which the moderators have to work, that is down to the owners and judging by the growth in membership, especially the last three years, they are not doing a bad job with that.

I cannot change the shape of the forum, add, change or delete sections, or dictate what can and cannot be posted.

I cannot censure a member by withdrawing some posting privileges, invoking a limited ban, a total ban or removing their membership.

I do reserve my right to retain my posting privileges just the same as any other member and do retain my right to be allowed to express an opinion.

I appreciate that you are new to the forum and therefore possibly unaware of some of the historical challenges this forum has faced to ensure it is where it is now and which obviously have great bearing on the direction of travel.

 

[BrendanJ]

Uh!, I am not criticising the moderators, nor underestimating the difficult role they undertake, but come on.......If they are doing the role, I am quite sure they are up to the and should also be up to questioning.
Especially when proposing fundamental changes such as banning discussion of certain taboo topics, that are impractical, unworkable and damaging to the no doubt hard won ethos and unquestionably value of the forum as a whole
To sit by and not challenge this on the basis of “give them some slack” is just plain silly ( I am being polite)
Stand up for what you believe in, albeit do it politely
the point is again in case it gets lost is ban subjects of discussion or not, regardless of the practicality of these subjects seeping into innocent threads anyway, or as I would propose, police the threads for abusive or unnecessarily aggressive or negative posts. That is the role of moderation ( the clue is in the word) not aggressive censorship which is too extreme.

Jen
Firstly thank you for your reply to my post, which I have again included here above for completeness, You quoted from it but I feel needs to be read in full to explains my feelings on the subject and meaning.
Second as I already said in previous posts I appreciate the difficulty of the moderators job and in no way am I criticising you or the other mods personally. Your explanation of your role was very helpful and indeed revealing as you explain that you cannot remove members posting rights. I presume to mean even in the face of repeated abusive or destructive posts, this surely is one of the problems. I did mistakenly think you to be the originator of the proposal to ban certain topics, but anyway it is the proposal itself that is the concern of mine and a good number of other members as evidenced from the posts so far. Despite those concerns still it seems a majority of the votes ( not sure about % of posts) are in favour of a ban and so we seem on the way to a ban unless there is finally a chance for the significant views raised in this thread by the members and in good faith suggestions to be considered and taken into account, not just go with the vote regardless, which I believe would be damaging.
To the issues again
Whilst I can recognise that “off scope threads such as purely brexit or coved or politics Can and perhaps should be segregated in a different area or even banned from the forum. These would initially only be recognisable by the originators title and post, but none the less without any clear indication of a link to camping, etc it would be relatively doable.
But the problem is as has been said Repeatedly,, it is nigh on impossible to separate the brexit, coved or politics straying into otherwise valid constructive and helpful threads which would now according to what has been described be either banned completely, ie removed to the sin bin, or if banning is not agreed, your alternative that the individual posts removed. Indeed a laborious if not impossible and thankless task, and indeed is clearly in both scenarios is in my view a clear case of censorship. An example I give you would be an innocent exploration of the question of campsite toilet facilities as a result of covid would most certainly risk being removed or it’s content, ie individual posts being removed
But again as has been said, it is not the content, whether brexit, covid or whatever other subject that is the problem, but the mis use or often aggressive responses of some members that is the issue and which needs dealing with, ie offending material removed, not because of the subject matter but because of the manner and intent of the poster, and for the same reason repeated offences of a similar nature by individuals needs some form of sanction which you have said that the moderators are not able to do. Which may be so, but I am quite sure is in the remit of the administration as a whole, or should be.
It is this aspect, which goes to the heart of the subject which is currently not considered in the proposed vote
Simply ban certain subjects or not, which for above reason I think mistaken and ultimately damaging. Arguements would no doubt continue, just moved onto other subjects, which if following same logic would also be banned also such as “ the environment”, another contentious part of our complex lives which I can easily see creeping into posts and eliciting aggressive responses.
finally “ If the egg is rotten get rid of the egg, don’t shoot the hen”
I hope somehow the creators of this vote proposal will now do the sensible thing and consider the views expressed in this thread before making any decision. In fact it would have been better to have had the thread in advance of going for a vote in retrospect, but that’s life.

 

[Duxdeluxe]

How does anyone decide what is inflammatory or offensive, surely they are both opinions
What I think is offensive or inflammatory the next person may not or vice versa
My opinion is we may be digging a very big hole for ourselves if this ludicrous (my opinion again) proposal goes through

 

[pjm-84]

That's the million-dollar question. I'm probably the less PC person you could meet. But I understand where upset can be caused and reframe from doing so (where possible)

 

[BrendanJ]

How does anyone decide what is inflammatory or offensive, surely they are both opinions
What I think is offensive or inflammatory the next person may not or vice versa
My opinion is we may be digging a very big hole for ourselves if this ludicrous (my opinion again) proposal goes through

Hi
I am not suggesting the removal of all levels of inflammatory statements, it is true that some people enjoy a “wind up” but repeatedly doing so in a thread is quite easy to detect as just plain argumentative, point scoring and lost any positive intention to the thread.
Abusive posts is much easier and can be codified i believe
but the reality is regardless of the difficulties that is what “ moderation” is about, not big brother censorship of what can and cannot be discussed other than the healthy discipline of keeping threads in the right sections and the treatment of sections, ie viewed by all or Out of forum scope areas which can be in some way closed areas. To keep some semblance of forum identity and focus.

 

[GrannyJen]

Jen
Firstly thank you for your reply to my post, which I have again included here above for completeness, You quoted from it but I feel needs to be read in full to explains my feelings on the subject and meaning.
Second as I already said in previous posts I appreciate the difficulty of the moderators job and in no way am I criticising you or the other mods personally. Your explanation of your role was very helpful and indeed revealing as you explain that you cannot remove members posting rights. I presume to mean even in the face of repeated abusive or destructive posts, this surely is one of the problems. I did mistakenly think you to be the originator of the proposal to ban certain topics, but anyway it is the proposal itself that is the concern of mine and a good number of other members as evidenced from the posts so far. Despite those concerns still it seems a majority of the votes ( not sure about % of posts) are in favour of a ban and so we seem on the way to a ban unless there is finally a chance for the significant views raised in this thread by the members and in good faith suggestions to be considered and taken into account, not just go with the vote regardless, which I believe would be damaging.
To the issues again
Whilst I can recognise that “off scope threads such as purely brexit or coved or politics Can and perhaps should be segregated in a different area or even banned from the forum. These would initially only be recognisable by the originators title and post, but none the less without any clear indication of a link to camping, etc it would be relatively doable.
But the problem is as has been said Repeatedly,, it is nigh on impossible to separate the brexit, coved or politics straying into otherwise valid constructive and helpful threads which would now according to what has been described be either banned completely, ie removed to the sin bin, or if banning is not agreed, your alternative that the individual posts removed. Indeed a laborious if not impossible and thankless task, and indeed is clearly in both scenarios is in my view a clear case of censorship. An example I give you would be an innocent exploration of the question of campsite toilet facilities as a result of covid would most certainly risk being removed or it’s content, ie individual posts being removed
But again as has been said, it is not the content, whether brexit, covid or whatever other subject that is the problem, but the mis use or often aggressive responses of some members that is the issue and which needs dealing with, ie offending material removed, not because of the subject matter but because of the manner and intent of the poster, and for the same reason repeated offences of a similar nature by individuals needs some form of sanction which you have said that the moderators are not able to do. Which may be so, but I am quite sure is in the remit of the administration as a whole, or should be.
It is this aspect, which goes to the heart of the subject which is currently not considered in the proposed vote
Simply ban certain subjects or not, which for above reason I think mistaken and ultimately damaging. Arguements would no doubt continue, just moved onto other subjects, which if following same logic would also be banned also such as “ the environment”, another contentious part of our complex lives which I can easily see creeping into posts and eliciting aggressive responses.
finally “ If the egg is rotten get rid of the egg, don’t shoot the hen”
I hope somehow the creators of this vote proposal will now do the sensible thing and consider the views expressed in this thread before making any decision. In fact it would have been better to have had the thread in advance of going for a vote in retrospect, but that’s life.

It is a poll.

If you had taken the time to read my posts in this thread you would have read, clearly and unequivocally, that with comments such as this:

"Instead of changing the forum just dump the CV section in the three cocks, which will take all new posts off the regular feeds, allow me and other moderators to dump all mention of CV in the sin-bin and allow us to continue doing what we are trying to do now, get rid of the bitchy snarling comments by re-emphasing rules of engagement. If you can't respond to a post without implying or calling the other poster a "twat" or similar epithet then your posts will be removed and ultimately also your ability to post"

that we are on the same page and not in support of measures being proposed.

The statement:

"Uh!, I am not criticising the moderators, nor underestimating the difficult role they undertake, but come on.......If they are doing the role, I am quite sure they are up to the and should also be up to questioning.
Especially when proposing fundamental changes such as banning discussion of certain taboo topics, that are impractical, unworkable and damaging to the no doubt hard won ethos and unquestionably value of the forum as a whole
To sit by and not challenge this on the basis of “give them some slack” is just plain silly ( I am being polite)"

What do you think this thread is all about? It is about that, being accountable to the members by allowing their views to be heard before any changes being made. Those changes will only be made if the majority of members voting want those changes. If the vote goes against what I want then I just have to suck it up and decide next Sunday where I fit in going forward..

Edited to respond to a statement rather than refer to it.

 

[BrendanJ]

Yes, also, your decree that no slack be given as moderators should be held to account when ...etc.

Jen
Perhaps we all need to remain calm, but the above comment is your phrasing and understanding, not mine.
Don’t do a Donald Trump false news on me
Oops there I go bringing in politics.......

 

[Jay gas]

Can I take my Cali for a drive for 30 miles to look at a lovely view and to contemplate wether to change my vote. I’m sure all the reasonable Cali owners would have an opinion on this.

P.s I’ll also check my eyesight at the same time

 

[BrendanJ]

Can I take my Cali for a drive for 30 miles to look at a lovely view and to contemplate wether to change my vote. I’m sure all the reasonable Cali owners would have an opinion on this.

P.s I’ll also check my eyesight at the same time

Ouch, Politics and covid brought in in one sentance And perhaps even inflammatory to those of a sensitive disposition, especially when some one vociferously objects
Just saying.....

 

[westfalia]

I have yet to cast my vote. Im on the fence and as its a private ballet
i cant say which way im swinging but it looks like we need 36 more votes.

I don't know where they are going to come from.

What time is last orders for it on Sunday?

 

[Velma's Dad]

Just starting this thread has stopped almost all activity in The Three Cocks and what there has been has been polite.

Vote is only going to go one way and I can’t see that either working or being healthy for the board.



Mike

Actually I'm not quite clear whether the vote at the top of this thread is an opinion-getter or some kind of referendum.

Jen has explained that the mods aren't in charge of the forum, which I totally get. But the thread was started by Calikev, whose status as 'Admin' I'm unclear of, because I've never understood the ownership and governance structure of the 'club' (/forum) and how decisions if necessary are supposed to be taken.

I forsee ructions if we reach a point where a no-politics rule is introduced on the basis of a poll on this thread. In that case I'd anticipate folks on the 'winning' side saying "that's democracy" while a sizeable minority will resist any attempt to say what may or may not be discussed and someone (the poor mods?) would have to decide what's political? Unworkable, surely.

 

[Duxdeluxe]

So 154 members have voted, does anyone know how many active members are on here ? (Approx)