I can't resist this... maybe it'll get me banned but.. in this post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31200) Jon Parr I think quite reasonably kicks off a discussion about whether there should be a particular policy on certain types of discussion on this forum.

I'm like thinking, fair discussion.. there was a cut and thrust... points for and points against. Great. We like free speech & discussion on this forum. In fact in Geoff's own words:

contrary to the opinion of a minority of users (i.e. the kind who tend to take cheap shots at the site in their posts), the forum actually believes in promoting freedom of speech whenever possible.

So I was quite suprised to find that rather interesting thread closed because

We decide the policies of this forum and we decide if and when a poll of this nature goes online.

So - and I genuinely didn't know this - the 'free speech' on this forum stops, whenever the forum itself is being discussed. Not really 'free speech' then is it?

I know it's Geoff's forum and Geoff's rules but please add some rules about what can and cannot be discussed.

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I can't resist this... maybe it'll get me banned but.. in this post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31200) Jon Parr I think quite reasonably kicks off a discussion about whether there should be a particular policy on certain types of discussion on this forum.

I'm like thinking, fair discussion.. there was a cut and thrust... points for and points against. Great. We like free speech & discussion on this forum. In fact in Geoff's own words:



So I was quite suprised to find that rather interesting thread closed because



So - and I genuinely didn't know this - the 'free speech' on this forum stops, whenever the forum itself is being discussed. Not really 'free speech' then is it?

I know it's Geoff's forum and Geoff's rules but pleae add some stuff in the rules about what can and cannot be discussed.

I can see your point. But there are a minority of users who insist on contributing to such threads with their views which are clearly raceist, sexist, homophobic islamaphobic....etc etc so therefore the forum needs to watch what is said. But i think it can go too far by closing threads that are attempting serious discussion about the forum itself. That in my opinion makes them as bad as the people with the afore mentioned views. Perhpas you should throw open an ivitation to all the Moderators, or even Geoff himself to clearly define what the policy is, and to contribute to this thread?

The first rule of sheffield forum is :

"You don't talk about sheffield forum."

The second rule of sheffieldfourm is :

"You don't talk about sheffield forum."

Sorry... I couldn't resist either.

Nomme

I know that it's privately owned and therefore is only subject to the owner's whim but I read The Independent every day (and I'll be honest, this site is becoming as invaluable a resource to me as my daily paper). The Indy is a privately owned paper (O'Reilly group if you really must know). However if look in the letters page of the Indy (and all other papers) and you'll find published criticism of articles, editorials and even the sort of advertising that's featured on occasion! And all this from humble readers. It keeps 'em loyal, and makes them feel they're allowed to have a say. Therefore: good thing.

First - this is a moderated forum, so free speech isn't so free, but if we didn't like this forum the way it is, it wouldn't be so popular.

Second - The closed threads all occurred when the whole site (non-political threads included) were being flooded with immigration opinions (relevant or not)

Sometimes shouting 'stop' is the only way to deal with this sort of thing.

This thread will probably close soon, coz it's just a continuation of a closed one.

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I know that it's privately owned and therefore is only subject to the owner's whim but I read The Independent every day (and I'll be honest, this site is becoming as invaluable a resource to me as my daily paper). The Indy is a privately owned paper (O'Reilly group if you really must know). However if look in the letters page of the Indy (and all other papers) and you'll find published criticism of articles, editorials and even the sort of advertising that's featured on occasion! And all this from humble readers. It keeps 'em loyal, and makes them feel they're allowed to have a say. Therefore: good thing.

How much are we betting that this thred gets closed as soon as Geoff gets wind of it?

Originally posted by Strix
This thread will probably close soon, coz it's just a continuation of a closed one.

But this is the point E-Man Groovin is trying to make... WHY should it close? Is it just because the owner(s) dont like criticism? If so why are they running the site at all?

The problem here is, how do we reach consensus upon what is 'beyond the pale'? I think we could re an issue like paedophilia, where practically everyone [myself included] would be violently against anyone who spoke in favour of such vile behaviour.

The issue of racism is different. Some posters consider even a polite discussion of the idea of possible limits to future immigration as 'racist'. I have expressed opinions that are broadly anti- further mass immigration, anti- multiculturalism, and anti-egalitarian, which reflects my conservative background. Nobody has ever accused me of being 'racist'. Yet some other posters have been labelled as such, for saying similar things. I suspect that this has to do with the fact that I openly refer to myself as a card-carrying Tory [and am known for humorous quips], and thus am seen as a non-dangerous, throwback to Colonel Blimp. Nevertheless, double standards apply here. We should be able to debate race and immigration, because for whatever reason, the subjects are of massive concern to the general public.

The moderators are very fair, in my view. People like Max, Tony and the wise JoeP allow debate on some very, very emotive issues, only intervening when personal insults start to be exchanged. There are some damned good posters too. I have a great respect for the likes of Pinhead, Disco Cat, and Greenback - all posters who hold political views very, very different to mine, yet they are able to conduct courteous, humorous debate without resorting to cyber-violence. There is not much wrong with the forum, overall. I for one find it a pleasant diversion from work!

There was a time when threads were merged rather than closed, but after members' debating and requesting, they are now closed in preference.

It is interesting, though, that 2 of the moderators chose to contribute to the debate in the thread concerned as opposed to suggesting that the question/poll would be contrary to Forum decisions.

Originally posted by timo
The problem here is, how do we reach consensus upon what is 'beyond the pale'? I think we could re an issue like paedophilia, where practically everyone [myself included] would be violently against anyone who spoke in favour of such vile behaviour.

------------ TRUNCATED -----------------

The moderators are very fair, in my view. People like Max, Tony and the wise JoeP allow debate on some very, very emotive issues, only intervening when personal insults start to be exchanged. There are some damned good posters too. I have a great respect for the likes of Pinhead, Disco Cat, and Greenback - all posters who hold political views very, very different to mine, yet they are able to conduct courteous, humorous debate without resorting to cyber-violence. There is not much wrong with the forum, overall. I for one find it a pleasant diversion from work!

Here here! Well said. I do agree with your choice of Moderators. :thumbsup:

However, the issue of policing a thread on the sheffield forum is not as difficult as policing a thread on racisim for example. Correct me if im wrong but i feel that the issue is that the powers that be simply close threads with negitave comments about the forum - in favor of letting them be discussed? :suspect:

I think maybe the issue is that the forum is not run as a democracy (and that some people don't seem to grasp that fact).

We 'users' do not have any say in what rules are in place and how it's run in general.

Threads like the one that got pulled may be seen as an attempt to dictate forum policy by means of democracy ... which is not (to the best of my knowledge) how things are done round here.

But you yourself say that the site isn't a free speech forum and needs moderating, here:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=316613#post316613

:confused: :confused:

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I can't resist this... maybe it'll get me banned but.. in this post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31200) Jon Parr I think quite reasonably kicks off a discussion about whether there should be a particular policy on certain types of discussion on this forum.

I'm like thinking, fair discussion.. there was a cut and thrust... points for and points against. Great. We like free speech & discussion on this forum. In fact in Geoff's own words:



So I was quite suprised to find that rather interesting thread closed because



So - and I genuinely didn't know this - the 'free speech' on this forum stops, whenever the forum itself is being discussed. Not really 'free speech' then is it?

I know it's Geoff's forum and Geoff's rules but please add some rules about what can and cannot be discussed.

I don't know whether it's appropriate for me to comment or not given that yesterday I was advocating the removal of a right to freedom of expression but I put it down to frustration over the amount of racist comments I'd witnessed on the board over the past three months. It might also have been that I was at a particularly low ebb yesterday. But I too was quite surprised that the thread had been removed overnight and wondered why I wasn't allowed to voice an opinion about what, in my perception, is unacceptable behaviour.

Originally posted by Jamie
I think maybe the issue is that the forum is not run as a democracy (and that some people don't seem to grasp that fact).

We 'users' do not have any say in what rules are in place and how it's run in general.

Threads like the one that got pulled may be seen as an attempt to dictate forum policy by means of democracy ... which is not (to the best of my knowledge) how things are done round here.

Not my point Jamie. The issue of how this forum is run is dictated by one person only: and that's the guy who stumped up the time and cash to create it. I'm happy with that.

My point is that the rules and philosophy of this site (which I like most others, try to adhere to) says that "Free speech is promoted whenever possible". As this is a public forum I can log on and post stuff on it. And I have just used that ability to point out where the site's rules and the reality seem to contradict themselves.

One of the problems of creating a website for the public is that the public have opinions, and like 'em or not.. you're gonna hear 'em (unless you ban the public.. then you'd have no site left)! Anyway we're only saying all of this coz we care and we want to make the Forum better... don't take it personal Geoff... :-)

Just a few thoughts as someone who runs forums and who has been accused of being a dictatorial fascist b***ard by a small minority of users and "unfair" by a larger minority..

1. In the main discussions about how a forum is being run are going to involve a 75:25 split of reasonable, well thought out and constructive thought... Unfortunately, there are those users (otherwise known as trolls) who will use such a thread to continue a campaign of harrassment, abuse and general annoyance because they enjoy making problems for the forum owner.

2. It's an owned forum, and as such we are welcome to create and provide a competing service if we don't like what goes on. We don't have to stay here or use this forum...

3. It takes a knowledge of what someone is saying across the board and behind the scenes to know whether they're actually being victimised or not. More often than not we don't get to see half the abusive, snide PM's, emails or other backdoor cr*p that finds its way to the top so we have a very one sided view of things. I've lost track of the number of times I had someone scream moderator abuse at me when they've stepped over the line and reasonable people have stepped up to support him/her whilst I have an inbox full of legal threats, language to make a squaddie blush and knowledge that the individual in question is spreading lies and deceit... All so they can get you to kick off and appear foolish in the eyes of everyone else.

4. Final and most telling point... If a forum works then 9 times out of 10 it's because the owner and those who run it are listening to their membership, are trying to be fair, are trying to make the community work for the majority instead of for a minority of outspoken trolls.


I hasten to add, I'm not suggesting for a second that everyone with a disenting opinion is a troublemaker or a troll or whatever.. but there are those who like nothing better than to cause as much trouble, stress and heartache for the guy at the top and they'll use perfectly innocent and constructive discussion like this thread to do it.

Originally posted by Strix
First - this is a moderated forum, so free speech isn't so free, but if we didn't like this forum the way it is, it wouldn't be so popular.

Second - The closed threads all occurred when the whole site (non-political threads included) were being flooded with immigration opinions (relevant or not)

Sometimes shouting 'stop' is the only way to deal with this sort of thing.

This thread will probably close soon, coz it's just a continuation of a closed one.
Sorry to ad my 2 penneth in here but strix you really do a good job of trying to become unofficial moderator of sheffield forum.

It comes across to me (don't know about anyone else) that you're a jobsworth, without the job.

No offence intended.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Sorry to ad my 2 penneth in here but strix you really do a good job of trying to become unofficial moderator of sheffield forum.

It comes across to me (don't know about anyone else) that you're a jobsworth, without the job.

No offence intended.

:confused: I'm not sure I know how to take that DD :confused:

I know I'd make a bloody awful moderator

Originally posted by Strix
There was a time when threads were merged rather than closed, but after members' debating and requesting, they are now closed in preference.
That's not true, the preference to lock the thread was taken over views expressed of just having them removed without explanation.

It had nothing to do with merging, which still goes on.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
That's not true, the preference to lock the thread was taken over views expressed of just having them removed without explanation.

It had nothing to do with merging, which still goes on.
We're talking about different scenarios here

Originally posted by Strix
We're talking about different scenarios here
Are we? I don't think we are to be frank.

Yawn tiresome metaforum...

We recently moved out of Sheffield and have looked in vain for a local SF equivalent. I can't find anything with the same sense of community (I know this is because Sheffield has it's own unique sense of community) or with the same structure or variety of intelligent/amusing discussion.

It could be far worse... would you want to log on to SF for this kind of drivel:

WARNING very unpleasant thread on ukchatterbox.co.uk (http://www.ukchatterbox.co.uk/msg/74605)

All this bickering about it is questionable in terms of what some of you think your ownership rights are. You come here of your own volition and have stuff you want to talk about, but that doesn't mean you should have it all your own way. Controls exist surely to prevent it becoming a rancid free for all. Whilst I agree that an important aspect of the forum is that it enables open and diverse opinions to be expressed, a line does need to be drawn somewhere and responsibility for this has to lie with someone with a final say, otherwise where does consensus come from - touching 10000 members are not going to be able to reach this.

Should debate on this forum ever become litigious, I wonder who gets to take the flak? Whose loss is it is SF develops a reputation for being a place where repulsive views are openly accepted and welcomed? Who is it for whom this forum is an achievement to be proud of and therefore protected.

Instead of baiting Sir Geoff (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/nominations/index.asp) why not accept the contribution this forum has made to Sheffield in terms of community building for what it is worth. The recent thread on Maxine Carr's right to anonymity exemplified exactly why I return to this forum daily even though I no longer live in Sheffield - a fiercely argued and emotional debate which ended with everyone agreeing to differ and shaking hands. I can't think of anywhere else where you can have an angry row with a stranger and not get thumped!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Are we? I don't think we are to be frank.

Originally posted by Strix
This thread will probably close soon, coz it's just a continuation of a closed one.

Originally posted by Avalon
But this is the point E-Man Groovin is trying to make... WHY should it close? Is it just because the owner(s) dont like criticism? If so why are they running the site at all?

Originally posted by Strix
There was a time when threads were merged rather than closed, but after members' debating and requesting, they are now closed in preference.

I'm almost sorry I started this. It definitely wasn't meant to be a beat up Geoff posting. I for one respect the work he's done and think that this site is great. And to be honest, I'm not sure whether I'm for completely free speech on web forums or against it. It was just a point I was trying to make. I'm allowed to make a point (I think). And Geoff's allowed to close threads and ban people.

Right I'm off to make a cup of tea.

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
Right I'm off to make a cup of tea.
Your heart beat thingy says you're still here :suspect:

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I'm almost sorry I started this. It definitely wasn't meant to be a beat up Geoff posting. I for one respect the work he's done and think that this site is great. And to be honest, I'm not sure whether I'm for completely free speech on web forums or against it. It was just a point I was trying to make. I'm allowed to make a point (I think). And Geoff's allowed to close threads and ban people.

Right I'm off to make a cup of tea.

I agree, and i dont wish to come accross as "beating up Geoff" he is a great guy, and does well in keeping this thing running. But at the end of the day he did shut down a thread and gave his only reason as basically "its my ball and im taking it home"?? Perhpas i am wrong? If so please feel free to correct me.

*yawn* bout time this thread was locked, and the conspirators banned. :|

Don't you know?

We evil Mods allow such threads as this to run so we can gather names in to the little black book... ;)

Oh, and before any one gets REALLY paranoid....

That's a joke... :D

Originally posted by Skatiechik
*yawn* bout time this thread was locked, and the conspirators banned. :|

Why? :|

Don't close the thread, just close Strix. Only joking....

Originally posted by timo
Don't close the thread, just close Strix. Only joking....
I rebuff your derision recieved by Pm so you bring it out here :thumbsup: At least it's in the open now

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I know it's Geoff's forum and Geoff's rules but please add some rules about what can and cannot be discussed.

Well, we've had a general policy 'statement' (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1404) up for close to 2 years E-man.

Also, the site feedback forum was removed because I now only have time to visit the site a few times a week and therefore e-mail suggestions are more likely to be seen/acted upon. I made it clear then (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26075) (back in Jan) to e-mail in with site related suggestions rather than post them in the main forums (where they are easily missed).

I will edit the rules page to make it clearer that while the forum welcomes suggestions, we* are the ones who decide when we put forward possible rule/policy changes to the 'public vote'.

Finally, considering we used to chat on MSN and exchange e-mails, I'm a little upset to see you still haven't made any contact with me and instead continue to post open questions (without notifying me afterwards!) in the public forums. However, that's not half as upsetting as reading your stupid (for lack of a better word) suggestion that you would be 'banned' for posting this thread, you know we've never done anything like that, so I can't quite understand your motivation behind suggesting it.

* Contrary to your claim that "The issue of how this forum is run is dictated by one person only", all major policies are thrashed out firstly with the moderators and then I generally privately ask a handful of regular users via MSN (or e-mail) of their opinions. If it's a major change, for example a new forum, we tend to have public polls. Perhaps you should check your facts - saves jumping to the wrong conclusions.

as reading your stupid (for lack of a better word) suggestion that you would be 'banned' for posting this thread, you know we've never done anything like that, so I can't quite understand your motiviation behind suggesting it.



i think you might find you have done "something like that" before:| :| twice (at least)

The lack of examples in your post speaks volumes.

I pull out of this thread now Kirky has found it. E-Man, hope I've answered all your questions - you know how to contact me if you want.

Edit: Just occurred to me that if we were really as bad as Kirky would have you believe, do you not think I would jump at the chance of banning him forever! The fact he's still about (posting undescriptive titles on purpose, calling me 'names', and generally being a 'valuable' user) should make it blatantly obvious that we very, very rarely ban users.

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
I can't resist this... maybe it'll get me banned but.. in this post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31200) Jon Parr I think quite reasonably kicks off a discussion about whether there should be a particular policy on certain types of discussion on this forum.

I'm like thinking, fair discussion.. there was a cut and thrust... points for and points against. Great. We like free speech & discussion on this forum. In fact in Geoff's own words:



So I was quite suprised to find that rather interesting thread closed because



So - and I genuinely didn't know this - the 'free speech' on this forum stops, whenever the forum itself is being discussed. Not really 'free speech' then is it?

I know it's Geoff's forum and Geoff's rules but please add some rules about what can and cannot be discussed.


its a difficult balance. Whether you like the Mods or not (calm down Kirky:D ) they do it for free and Geoff is trying to run a family forum. I get frustated with thread pulls and frustarted when nothing is donne about stuff I think should be stopped/pulled.

It must be like being a referee. Just think of Geoff as Rob Stiles :heyhey:

I think Geoff and the Mod's do a fantastic job. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Geoff
* Contrary to your claim that "The issue of how this forum is run is dictated by one person only", all major policies are thrashed out firstly with the moderators and then I generally privately ask a handful of regular users via MSN (or e-mail) of their opinions. If it's a major change, for example a new forum, we tend to have public polls. Perhaps you should check your facts - saves jumping to the wrong conclusions.
I for one would be really happy to help with future decisions to mould the forum into the future!

K x

Its only a forum, just a distraction on t'internet when you're bored... can't believe people get so worked up about stuff. Open your curtains, there's a whole world out there! :)

Geoff, don't feed the trolls...

i think its a sorry state of affairs when certain forum members are calling for other users to be banned from coming on here

we all have different views on life so why cant we just learn to get on and deal with it

I reckon the forum is great and I've never found another one quite like it. Its a valuable resource for knowledge exchange and seems to have a great community spirit.

Other forums have dictatorial mods, allow abusive language and personal attacks on other users and generally encourage a nasty atmosphere.

I have to ask one question,can the team tell me one mod who has a right wing view??

Originally posted by royjames
I have to ask one question,can the team tell me one mod who has a right wing view??

Why would we know? This isn't a political forum so the mod's political views are their own business!

Originally posted by royjames
I have to ask one question,can the team tell me one mod who has a right wing view??

Roy,

My politics are my own concern, but suffice to say I've been called a Stalinist by some people and a right winger by others.

I am a fan of the free market but believe in social welfare, would like the introduction of a flat rate income tax with no opportunity for tax avoidance schemes.

I believe in strong policing, am hard on drugs, but am anti-death penalty. I also supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Taleban from Afghanistan, am anti-European Federalism, pro-free trade between the UK and Europe and am a great believer in the Atlantic Alliance.

Any intelligent individual should take it as a personal responsibility to build their own raft of beliefs rather than taking on board a right or left wing 'slate' of views.

Joe

Fair comments as always Joe,Some of your views are similar to mine.
Maybe some things are not simply black and white if you will pardon the pun,free thinking is a good thing.

Originally posted by royjames
I have to ask one question,can the team tell me one mod who has a right wing view??
Me for one Roy. Never voted Labour in my life - and in Sheffield that's pretty right wing!

what just happend to Kirkys post ? or was i imagining things ?

It was removed as it was just kirky, on his own admission, on a fishing trip for prawns.