Please be more honest and quicker to deal with bad stuff

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Different people will see different threads in different forums in a diffrent light. Clique views either way are irrelevant...does the material breach the law of the land or breach posting rules, if Yes then the required action is clear, if not then tolerance of opposing views is required even if a thread involves robust debate.

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I disagree with a great deal of what he posted, but you don't change opinions by silencing them.

[turbobloke]

drivetrain said:

WinstonWolf said:

Because the person had already been banned by PH for breaching the rules. It wasn't their opinion, it was posted with the express intention of shutting down a debate that wasn't going how that person wanted.

As I say, lots of high fiving going on elsewhere for getting the thread closed.

Entirely correct.

A case of organised trolling by a group of posters to close down a thread which did not conform to their opinions.

Whether the opinions on either side of the debate are right or wrong is a different subject and irrelevant here.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

All political views should be welcome here, without the stereotyping attempted above including from any and all political directions.

- if somebody has a view on UKIP there are UKIP bashing threads elsewhere
- if somebody has a view on climate change there are at least two threads
- if somebody has a view on the other inverted comma topics there are other threads
- if those on the political left want yes-yes-yes to anything there's CIF

What hope this thread gets back to the useful role it could have; not much apparently.

What a load of old bks.

Charming.

Well, you know, sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

The irony meter is off the scale: how can "all political views be welcome here" when what it appears you want is the left wing views to be shut up and moved somewhere else.

Misplaced your reading specs? I said nothing about what I want. The point about CIF was if the left want eberyone to agree with them "yes yes yes" then CIF will do the job. CIF is over at The Guardian website.

Uh huh.

turbobloke said:

It's turning into a left-wing sponsored witch hunt aimed at those who don't espouse left-wing views, complete with partisan generalisations and barnum statements, and if continued would be better merged with the intolerance thread as an example in support of the OP.

turbobloke said:

The left pack is gathering in this thread having repeated pops at people whose views they don't like,

CIF, btw: never heard of it until this thread.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

You end up with PH forever a right wing echo chamber.

I don't end up with it, nor do I want it, you're attributing views to me when you should be offering your own, you have no idea what I want, and I don't post it because it's irrelevant.

I should be offering my views, should I (I think I am, in fact, but we'll let that one go through to the boundary)? But you don't offer your own because they are irrelevant. Got it.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

You want the so-called lefties to zip it just as much as they want to xenophobic/misogynists to keep their thoughts inside their heads.

In the end no one is forced to post here or read posts.

Where have I said that - nowhere. Now you're well info fiction.

See above. Unless you're going to play the literalist/autistic "I did not say the exact words you said, therefore I win and you lose" card.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Trying to prevent this place turning into a nirvana predominantly for white men who who revel in Mail/Express prompted outrage and anger is what this thread is about.

You seen to have an axe to grind about white men reading newspapers. As to anger, you're ahead of most people judging by this post.

You confuse anger with irritation and frustration. And no, I have no issue with "white men reading newspapers" (what an odd - well, contrived - conclusion to draw from what I said). I have an issue with white men lapping up poorly researched and poorly written articles in those two papers, said articles being designed to provoke outrage and anger in that demographic. Gullibility and brain laziness is what I suppose you might legitimately say I have an axe to grind about.


PS. You're very good and this multi quote/split thing. I find it a gigantic PITA which necessitates many uses of the Preview button. It does, however, (if you don't mind me saying so) give the impression that you are really much more argumentative than I suspect you are, and suffer from a bad case of last word-itis. And it also tends to the larger and more important points being lost in a sea of tedious and ultimately irrelevant minutiae.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

This was once a thread on website feedback looking at implications from moderation of a recently deceased thread.

etc

What a load of old bks.

Charming.

Well, you know, sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind.

That means something? As a defence of charmless noise it lacks a great deal.

Greg66 said:

PS. You're very good and this multi quote/split thing.

It's not about me. Or you even.

Quoting as described offers clarity and isn't against posting rules.

Back on topic?

[turbobloke]

WinstonWolf said:

I disagree with a great deal of what he posted, but you don't change opinions by silencing them.

Precisely.

Alternative views expressed within the posting rules should not be silenced purely because some other folk, including mods, disagree...the view of mods on posting rule breaches is of course a different matter.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

WinstonWolf said:

I disagree with a great deal of what he posted, but you don't change opinions by silencing them.

Precisely.

Alternative views expressed within the posting rules should not be silenced purely because some other folk, including mods, disagree...the view of mods on posting rule breaches is of course a different matter.

I don't see how the first part of that is realistic.

Pretty much every forum has a "no offensive posts" rule in some guise. Whether something is offensive involves both an objective and subjective assessment. It is entirely possible that something that X and a mod concludes is offensive is something that the poster and Y consider is not offensive.

Ultimately the tone of moderation is set by the site's publisher. Their ball, their game. If they set the bar for what's offensive low, so be it. They run the risk that the site dies, or reap the reward if it grows.

It's not uncommon for forum users to have the view that they have some quasi-ownership interest in the forum through posting. That's a misconception.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

WinstonWolf said:

I disagree with a great deal of what he posted, but you don't change opinions by silencing them.

Precisely.

Alternative views expressed within the posting rules should not be silenced purely because some other folk, including mods, disagree...the view of mods on posting rule breaches is of course a different matter.

I don't see how the first part of that is realistic.

Pretty much every forum has a "no offensive posts" rule in some guise. Whether something is offensive involves both an objective and subjective assessment. It is entirely possible that something that X and a mod concludes is offensive is something that the poster and Y consider is not offensive.

Ultimately the tone of moderation is set by the site's publisher. Their ball, their game. If they set the bar for what's offensive low, so be it. They run the risk that the site dies, or reap the reward if it grows.

It's not uncommon for forum users to have the view that they have some quasi-ownership interest in the forum through posting. That's a misconception.

OK, but in term of "forum users...have the view that they have some quasi-ownership interest" at least I've been the one pointing out all along that this isn't about you or me or what our opinions are or indeed any other individual or clique opinion. Take a look back it's all there in today's posts on this thread. So, it turns out you agree with me? We do disagree on some points but I can't recall offering you any mild and unoriginal abuse as a result...could you cope with agreement?!

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

OK, but in term of "forum users...have the view that they have some quasi-ownership interest" at least I've been the one pointing out all along that this isn't about you or me or what our opinions are or indeed any other individual or clique opinion. Take a look back it's all there in today's posts on this thread. So, it turns out you agree with me?

Take a look at the last post I made in this thread on Saturday.

You're a bit late to the party...

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

OK, but in term of "forum users...have the view that they have some quasi-ownership interest" at least I've been the one pointing out all along that this isn't about you or me or what our opinions are or indeed any other individual or clique opinion. Take a look back it's all there in today's posts on this thread. So, it turns out you agree with me?

Take a look at the last post I made in this thread on Saturday.

You're a bit late to the party...

I already have.

So...your point is that we agree

[TankRizzo]

WinstonWolf said:

There was more than one fake profile contributing the racist crap. If you look a bit further afield you'll see that someone was banned, set up a tag team posting even more offensive crap then waited for complaints about the stuff that they posted.

Some people have too much time on their hands...

Let's be clear here, are you saying this came from CTF as a trolling attempt to get the thread closed?

Edit: I see reading CTF that "Charlie Bucket" at least was.

Edited by TankRizzo on Tuesday 8th September 12:39

[Ollie_M]

Hi all

I will be meeting with the Commander in Chief of the development team this afternoon to discuss all the issues addressed in this thread. So will come back with feedback shortly.

[minimoog]

TankRizzo said:

Let's be clear here, are you saying this came from CTF as a trolling attempt to get the thread closed?

Edit: I see reading CTF that "Charlie Bucket" at least was.

It's really very simple. One user set up a an account (Charlie Bucket/CB) with the specific aim of highlighting the fact that PH and NP&R in particular had become a home for cretinous racists. Previous reports to the mods about said racists had produced zero action. He therefore posted a few pretty outrageous (to most) statements which were actually more-or-less direct lifts from Mein Kampf. Sure enough the cretins gleefully welcomed these posts and shuffled up to make a place for CB in their racist biscuit game.

CB then via a blog drew the Mod's attention to the fact that they were providing a comfortable home to Hitler fanboys and other assorted unpleasant morons, using his posts and their replies as evidence, and that just perhaps they might like to reconsider how this reflected on PH and Haymarket.

At this point it seems the penny finally dropped at last and PH/Haymarket realised they didn't want the site to be used as a platform for straight-out hate speech. Certain racists were banned and CB was openly thanked by PH for drawing the matter to their attention.

That's it. No off-site conspiracy. No 'attack dogs'. No tag team. And bugger all to do with CTF other than CB happens to be a member there too. Just some action at last from PH and a load of subsequent bleating and crying from those who think they've had their toys taken away.

[TankRizzo]

minimoog said:

It's really very simple. One user set up a an account (Charlie Bucket/CB) with the specific aim of highlighting the fact that PH and NP&R in particular had become a home for cretinous racists. Previous reports to the mods about said racists had produced zero action. He therefore posted a few pretty outrageous (to most) statements which were actually more-or-less direct lifts from Mein Kampf. Sure enough the cretins gleefully welcomed these posts and shuffled up to make a place for CB in their racist biscuit game.

CB then via a blog drew the Mod's attention to the fact that they were providing a comfortable home to Hitler fanboys and other assorted unpleasant morons, using his posts and their replies as evidence, and that just perhaps they might like to reconsider how this reflected on PH and Haymarket.

At this point it seems the penny finally dropped at last and PH/Haymarket realised they didn't want the site to be used as a platform for straight-out hate speech. Certain racists were banned and CB was openly thanked by PH for drawing the matter to their attention.

That's it. No off-site conspiracy. No 'attack dogs'. No tag team. And bugger all to do with CTF other than CB happens to be a member there too. Just some action at last from PH and a load of subsequent bleating and crying from those who think they've had their toys taken away.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation.

Could you explain why you guys care? CTF to me seems to be mostly ex-members of PH (I don't know much about it, so have patience with me). If people left PH because they didn't want to be a part of it any more, why would they be interested in exposing more extreme viewpoints on it? I could understand if it was held up to be some bastion of decency and reasoned thought, but I don't think it ever has been...

[minimoog]

TankRizzo said:

Could you explain why you guys care? CTF to me seems to be mostly ex-members of PH (I don't know much about it, so have patience with me). If people left PH because they didn't want to be a part of it any more, why would they be interested in exposing more extreme viewpoints on it? I could understand if it was held up to be some bastion of decency and reasoned thought, but I don't think it ever has been...

CTF and PH are not mutually exclusive. As you say many* CTFers are, or were, on here too and most retain a degree, if not a great deal, of affection for it. Usually coupled with exasperation/pity/contempt/sadness for what it has, in part, become over more recent years. That's just as true for many PH users who aren't on CTF, that much is clear.

I can't speak for CB, but I doubt I'd be far off the mark if I guessed his primary motivation was the fact that the spittle-flecked Stormfront mob element were crushing the kind of robust but reasoned debate - from all sides - that subjects such as the migrants and refugee problem merit. I'm bloody certain the aim was not to get the discussion itself silenced.

Edit: Actually picking the bones out of certain comments I think CB's main PH account of many years' standing may have been recently banned (?) as a result of calling out the racists for what they were. So I imagine a degree of disaffection with that treatment while the stormtroopers were free to jackboot around all over the gig unchallenged by the mods may have also been up on his agenda. For which I do not blame him one iota.

• relative term. CTF is infinitesimally small compared to PH, with only a couple dozen regular posters at a guess. The fact that people here get irritated by it is consequently a source of wry amusement, to me at least.

Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 8th September 15:34

[FiF]

To be fair CTF's formation was principally driven by the need to have a secure website /forum area to facilitate players on one of these multiplayer war games. PH wouldn't permit a special forum so a number of members, including myself, cleared off.

There was also a certain dissatisfaction with the way certain factions on PH behaved, for example the violently anti plod posters that were ruining and to some extent still do ruin Speed, Plod and Law.

Afaik still have an account over there but not posted in years. Left not long after stopped playing the Internet war game referenced above.

PH has always treated that site with suspicion, despite there was absolutely no intent to stop or even reduce people posting on PH. For a time any reference to them on a thread was immediately moderated out. So be it. Childish frankly. I might get a ban for even discussing it in order to give some historical context as one of the originals. So be that if they want to do that.Shrugs.

Under the regime here on PH for some time things have changed significantly. Again as said before if could find a place with the spirit of the old PH under Ted you'd not see my arse for dust.

[Bill]

Y(should)HM FiF.

[Silver]

miniman said:

LeePH said:

Thanks for the feedback. Yes we should have acted faster on this iissue.

There are an incredible 39m posts in the community from PHers and I am sure you will agree the vast majority are informative, useful and banter positive, abiding to posting rules.

Please be assured we are on it and your feedback has been fully and seriously noted.

Lee PH

I have to say that, with respect, the fact that of those 39m posts only 22 are from the person responsible for digital revenues from "Europe's leading automotive community" is rather telling.

I think the above goes some way towards explaining what's been happening. Does anyone really know who runs PH now apart from the known moderators (who are actually only known because they have been moderating since the time of Ted)? Apart from the odd post from people we deduce must be in the team, do PH management get involved in discussions on the forum? I don't actually know for certain, but clearly I'm not the only one left with the perception that it's all pretty faceless.

[SpeckledJim]

Indeed. Is LeePH Dan Trent's boss? The new Stuart?

Who is the new Garlick - is there one?

Is Dan Trent the new ChrisR / Riggers?

[Wacky Racer]

WinstonWolf said:

Greg66 said:

WinstonWolf said:

There was none for far too long, difficult discussion is now needed. I disagree strongly with a lot of what was posted, but it's still entertaining watching people making fools of themselves.

Is thart how you really see things? That people who hold views different to yours are "making fools of themselves"?

Read it again, there were people on both sides of the debate making fools of themselves. Choudary/BNP types, I hold both in equal contempt.

Your CTF mate seems to have taken his banning as personally as Pigeon, I find it amusing that someone would go to so much trouble over a forum spat.

Hey-ho, each to their own.

Pigeon was hounded off PH for no good reason (imo).

I know him personally and he is a decent type, just has some rather forthright views.....