Guidelines request

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Good point Jamie.

Lot's of forums restrict the General and Off Topic type of area to registered members, so you have to join to read it.

I certainly don't hold with any type of baiting.

Personally, I have tried to avoid the more personal responses to some of the members who see to try to raise others' ire.

It is never easy, but at the end of the day these are words on a message board.

Anyone who takes it personally needs to grow the f up.

Discussing things that everyone is discussing is part of what keeps a forum current.

Banning the current affairs style threads is not the answer.

Going back through the locked threads and banning the members who repeatedly throw personal insults around would be my move.

I frequently suggest people go back and moderate their own posts.

The f..ers who don't think that is reasonable or required need to bugger off.

I post on this site because, beyond the bikes, the crowd is generally eclectic and manly.

Even the women.

I like the people I have met in real life, and always have hope for the remaining 99.9%.

The trolling that is the norm is what holds me back from getting more involved, rather than the political threads and such.

Even then, being an old hand on message boards, and having met hundreds of people from them, I realise no one is what you think based on a few words on a web site.

Jonnyboy is a real 110% bike legend to me, and I want to hear lots more about his business and adventures.

THM is someone I feel probably won't have that second pint with me, but he would probably be a great moderator.

Worth a poll on who we want to add to the mod team?

How about a democratic vote?

Would John be cool with that?

I vote for Mike Muz, and if Neil is lurking around somewhere I always thought he would be a fair and consistent moderator.

Bulls and Jonny, and Rob all do a great job. The fact most members have rarely seen them in action speaks to that.

'Mon the Retrobike!

 

[Jamiedyer]

To be honest, I haven't come on tonight and thought 'I don't agree with these discussions so I want them stopped' I personally think each to his own, but some of them are purile and never would have come into being if it wasn't for some sort of tit for tat type thing about having threads heavily modified. I just think it's degenerated into nonsense that doesn't make anybody look remotely good, let alone the site. Then there are some 'current affair' threads that in my view and clearly others, just blatant trolling.
I don't think changing or adding to mods was ever suggested and is something for John to decide. I also don't think it would go to an open vote somehow.
My point is that everyone should just cut this circle of posts that seem as though they are posted to draw attention to get banned and then start the next one complaining about getting banned which then degenerates and gets banned and so on and so on. That's what I see happening, maybe I am wrong and in that case I will return to my road section without further comment. Otherwise while I see the humour in a lot of it, I also see a lot of shit stirring going on. I am also fine with free speech and religious and political views being discussed if that's what people are into, as long as it's conducted in a decent manner, which hasn't been happening here lately.
I am leaving you guys to it to hopefully sort it out as I don't generally post much here anyway. I also have a funny feeling John will be along soon wielding a big stick

Jamie

 

[highlandsflyer]

I totally agree again. Everyone could just take a step back for a while and let things regenerate organically.

The moderator elections idea comes from a site I am on with a couple of hundred moderators.

It gives people a vested interest and ensures someone is always 'around'.

I agree with Harry about consistency, but at the same time it would be nice if we could all just apply our own inner sense of politeness and render the moderators job minuscule.

 

[KDM]

maybe I am wrong and in that case I will return to my road section without further comment.

I do wish you had read the thread from the beginning. It was asked why a particular thread had been locked. That thread was launched and recognised as a baiting thread, from the very first post, most of us recognised its intent and went a million miles out of our way, taking note of the requested change being asked for and we had three pages where we talked instead about fruit, veg, aftershave and even clangers to avoid it going down the obtuse route.

Because it was locked, even though petty much everyone sought to make it a humerous thread, a simple hey guys what is going on, you asked for change, almost everyone in the thread did change their approach, so it was seeking clarity as we moved forward.

When a change is asked for and the change is provided but still gets locked is it too much to ask what else do you feel we can do as we have shown people are trying?

 

[al-onestare]

Re:

A shit post is a shit post. The diversion stuff kept elevating the original intent.

I get where you're coming from so let's stop flogging a dead horse pov and move on.

 

[Jamiedyer]

I had read it from the start and my thoughts are still the same.

Jamie