Please be more honest and quicker to deal with bad stuff

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Some of the more recent posters only seem to be here to complain how utterly horrid it is...

Don't forget, a lot of the vile crap that was posted was from a banned member who deliberately set out to provoke.

[miniman]

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.

[Ollie_M]

HI all

I can assure that we are continuously exploring avenues to improve and develop the site, not just it's functionality and usability but also the reporting structure and moderation as a whole.
All reports are seen however due to the amount of activity across the site they are actioned in accordance to their severity.

This recent matter has brought to light a few areas that we could improve on and we will be having meetings, on all levels, over the next week or so to discuss current / new procedures and guidelines etc

[WinstonWolf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There were points you disagree with, try debating them rather than running to Sir every time something 'offends' you.

The problem is sensible debate has been shut down for too long thanks to PC.

No opinions have changed despite the best efforts of a banned member throwing his toys out of the pram quite spectacularly.

I disagree with pretty much every single thing you write (and a great deal of the bile on that thread) but you're still entitled to your opinion. I'm just going to try and change it

[Silver]

WinstonWolf said:

There were points you disagree with, try debating them rather than running to Sir every time something 'offends' you.

The problem is sensible debate has been shut down for too long thanks to PC.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to throw the blame back by saying it's someone else's responsibility to debate rather than people posting offensive stuff to just not do it in the first place. It's one thing to have a reasoned discussion with someone who you disagree with, quite another to try and engage someone who posts stuff like 'just let them all drown, migrant scum' etc.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

The problem is sensible debate has been shut down for too long thanks to PC.

When your moral axis is completely skewed, your definition of what is "sensible" debate will be similarly skewed.

There are plenty of places on the internet that will accommodate unconventional opinions. If you think PH isn't one of them, move on.

[WinstonWolf]

Greg66 said:

WinstonWolf said:

The problem is sensible debate has been shut down for too long thanks to PC.

When your moral axis is completely skewed, your definition of what is "sensible" debate will be similarly skewed.

There are plenty of places on the internet that will accommodate unconventional opinions. If you think PH isn't one of them, move on.

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.

[minimoog]

WinstonWolf said:

The problem is sensible debate has been shut down for too long thanks to PC.

No. The problem is st like 'I'm sick of these [foreign] s. I'd vote for Hitler if he came back' has been given a comfortable home here for too long. Objecting to that is not PC, it's having a sense of morality and compassion and pretty basic decency.

[anonymous-user]

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"?

[Countdown]

minimoog said:

No. st like 'I'm sick of these [foreign] s. I'd vote for Hitler if he came back' has been given a comfortable home here for too long. Objecting to that is not PC, it's having a sense of morality and compassion.

"PC gone mad" is the refrain of people with vile abhorrent views who want to express these views without being shamed by others.

[WinstonWolf]

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.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

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.

It was perfectly clear on the first read, thanks.

And stalking? Such an ugly word...

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 5th September 16:09

[WinstonWolf]

Greg66 said:

WinstonWolf said:

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.

It was perfectly clear on the first read, thanks.

And stalking? Such an ugly word...

What can I say, I like to read a bit of online bhing and backstabbing as much as the next man.

[CorbynFTW]

Ah hell.


Go on then, I'll moderate it.

[randlemarcus]

CorbynFTW said:

Ah hell.


Go on then, I'll moderate it.

That's an interesting point. Keeping debate above the bar will require a load of new Mods. And I suspect some of them will hold Islington views, some less tolerant of the "its not fair" brigade.

[CorbynFTW]

randlemarcus said:

CorbynFTW said:

Ah hell.


Go on then, I'll moderate it.

That's an interesting point. Keeping debate above the bar will require a load of new Mods. And I suspect some of them will hold Islington views, some less tolerant of the "its not fair" brigade.

I'm from the norf, I was brought up with a swift clip

[Funk]

LeePH said:

Chaps
Agree with your comments and thanks for them.
Whatever the global 'trend' is for example on social networks we all want PH to have respect at tis core. On it and action coming.
Lee PH

Lee, how about a 'trigger' point where if a certain post reaches a specific number of reports from a number of users it is automatically quarantined until reviewed by moderators? 'X' reports from 'Y' users in a short space of time probably clearly indicates that a post is of questionable content.

[Shaw Tarse]

Funk said:

Lee, how about a 'trigger' point where if a certain post reaches a specific number of reports from a number of users it is automatically quarantined until reviewed by moderators? 'X' reports from 'Y' users in a short space of time probably clearly indicates that a post is of questionable content.

Not a bad idea.

[anonymous-user]

Shaw Tarse said:

Funk said:

Lee, how about a 'trigger' point where if a certain post reaches a specific number of reports from a number of users it is automatically quarantined until reviewed by moderators? 'X' reports from 'Y' users in a short space of time probably clearly indicates that a post is of questionable content.

Not a bad idea.

How do you guard against cliques of posters "ganging up" on a specific post, or poster?

ETA: the underlying point is that I think whatever approach is adopted to reported posts should be kept private between the mods and Haymarket, otherwise it is open to abuse.

[FiF]

Shaw Tarse said:

Funk said:

Lee, how about a 'trigger' point where if a certain post reaches a specific number of reports from a number of users it is automatically quarantined until reviewed by moderators? 'X' reports from 'Y' users in a short space of time probably clearly indicates that a post is of questionable content.

Not a bad idea.

Indeed but where would you have started with that thread? I reported a fairly innocent post simply because it was the last one on the thread and directed the mods to the previous handful of pages recommending wholesale deletion. When you're facing bile on one side and an opposing poster repeatedly writing nothing more than calling another a liar and a coward over several pages just where do you start? Thread closure and deletion at that stage was the only solution. Yet earlier there had been bans but posters that were themselves well over the line were still posting which suggests moderation that isn't too objective imo. It was even suggested that mods might have had a dog in the fight. Who knows. .

One thing that's a good idea, if mods are posting on threads to make it clear whether the moderator hat is on or not.