Why not, then?

[Pigeon]

Email received:

[i]Hi,

Your reply to the topic 'Drawing in Microsoft Paint...' has been removed for the following reason:

Sorry, no links allowed to this other website

Regards,
PistonHeads[/i]

...The website concerned being Chew-The-Fat.com.

Why are "no links allowed"?

[Pigeon]

...Since the email was sent from "noreply@..." I have no choice but to ask the question in public.

[Stuart]

We don't allow links to CTF because a lot of the people who started it spent a lot of time trying to undermine this place when they set it up, and they actively edit out any references to PH over there. We're not desperately fussed about CTF, since it seems to be ploughing its own furrow without having any impact here, but that's our policy nonetheless.

HTH

[Pigeon]

Stuart said:

We don't allow links to CTF because a lot of the people who started it spent a lot of time trying to undermine this place when they set it up

Sorry, that isn't true.

There was indeed a significant influx to CTF of people who had been banned from this place for reasons with which they were unhappy and/or angry. Having failed to obtain satisfaction in discussions with those who had banned them, and finding their fellow sufferers in the same place, they naturally vented their feelings in communal moaning threads.

However, the feeling of those who set up CTF and of the majority of members was and is that whatever the purpose of CTF is, bhing about PH is not part of it. While the "unmoderated" policy of the Random Chat forum means that anti-PH threads are allowed, because more or less anything apart from porn is allowed, they are discouraged and deprecated. The overall feeling is that moaning about PH adds nothing to the forum and that it is negative to CTF to use it as a place to moan about PH.

There is certainly no intention to "undermine this place" and there never has been.

Stuart said:

and they actively edit out any references to PH over there.

That is not true either. There is no policy of editing out references to PH and there is no practice of it either. As I say, moaning about PH is discouraged, but that is all. Links and references to PH are allowed to stand... and indeed there are several threads drooling over cars in the PH classifieds, complete with links.

Stuart said:

We're not desperately fussed about CTF, since it seems to be ploughing its own furrow without having any impact here

...and that is indeed the intention... for CTF to plough its own furrow as an independent entity. It's not intended to have any impact on PH, and the only element of the CTF ethos which is connected with PH is deprecation of bhing.

Stuart said:

but that's our policy nonetheless.

HTH

Well, it sort of helps... at least I know on what the policy is based. In turn, I hope it helps to know that the policy is based on assumptions which are fundamentally untrue.

[Polarbert]

Seems like PH has got a major chip on its shoulder about the website.

I mean if we posted links to any other forum like say tyresmoke.net or cliosport.net would these be edited out?

Many of the things Stuart has said are false.

[Stuart]

No chip, it really isn't significant enough for us to devote worrying time to it. Since Polarbert lists CTF as his website I hardly think he can be said to be commenting from an entirely neutral perspective.

I've answered the question as best I can. I'm not going to close the topic, but I'm also not going to be dragged into endless debate about it.

[tim the pool man]

Stuart said:

We don't allow links to CTF because a lot of the people who started it spent a lot of time trying to undermine this place when they set it up, and they actively edit out any references to PH over there. We're not desperately fussed about CTF, since it seems to be ploughing its own furrow without having any impact here, but that's our policy nonetheless.

HTH

I don't believe that is true, and don't think it should go unchallenged.

I haven't seen anyone on CTF, least of all it's founders, trying to undermine PH. There are a few members who went there after being banned on PH so they might have negative comments, but in general whinging about PH is actively discouraged.


ETA: I'm not speaking with any authority from CTF, I'm just an occasional visitor there, and it's just my opinion.

Edited by tim the pool man on Thursday 16th October 08:12

[Stuart]

Hi Tim, thanks for the input. What you won't see is a lot of stuff that the mods at the time spent hours and hours removing from the site. Nor would you be aware of all the private messages that were sent by a few people trying to bring posters over to CTF. Now, people are free to do whatever they want online, but we consider it rather cheeky to be using our resources to promote what was being touted as an alternative to PH, explicitly or otherwise.

[Polarbert]

Stuart said:

No chip, it really isn't significant enough for us to devote worrying time to it. Since Polarbert lists CTF as his website I hardly think he can be said to be commenting from an entirely neutral perspective.

I've answered the question as best I can. I'm not going to close the topic, but I'm also not going to be dragged into endless debate about it.

Only because I don't have anything else worthwhile to put there.

I'm a great fan of both sites. I wouldn't have met the many great people if it weren't for here, but recently its taken a bit of a downward turn with many people thinking they know everything about everything.


Cool beans.

[Dirty Boy]

Stuart said:

Hi Tim, thanks for the input. What you won't see is a lot of stuff that the mods at the time spent hours and hours removing from the site. Nor would you be aware of all the private messages that were sent by a few people trying to bring posters over to CTF. Now, people are free to do whatever they want online, but we consider it rather cheeky to be using our resources to promote what was being touted as an alternative to PH, explicitly or otherwise.

I use both sites without fuss. I only tend to use the unmoderated part of CTF, but that's because I like to write about sex and porn and lesbians and meat and draw kettles with penises and I think you get the picture.

There's plenty of space for both sites, PistonHeads' users may diverge to CTF to talk about the aforementioned crap, but correct me if i'm wrong, I think it's actively stated on here that the Pie & Piston has caused PH a headache for some time, and, in my opionion, CTF really only serves as an alternative to the P&P not PH as a whole.

I love both sites. CTF is hilarious at times, and the P&P does miss those regulars at times, but I can see from a corporate view why they've not been tolerated on this site.

That is all.

[neil_bolton]

Dirty Boy said:

Stuart said:

Hi Tim, thanks for the input. What you won't see is a lot of stuff that the mods at the time spent hours and hours removing from the site. Nor would you be aware of all the private messages that were sent by a few people trying to bring posters over to CTF. Now, people are free to do whatever they want online, but we consider it rather cheeky to be using our resources to promote what was being touted as an alternative to PH, explicitly or otherwise.

I use both sites without fuss. I only tend to use the unmoderated part of CTF, but that's because I like to write about sex and porn and lesbians and meat and draw kettles with penises and I think you get the picture.

There's plenty of space for both sites, PistonHeads' users may diverge to CTF to talk about the aforementioned crap, but correct me if i'm wrong, I think it's actively stated on here that the Pie & Piston has caused PH a headache for some time, and, in my opionion, CTF really only serves as an alternative to the P&P not PH as a whole.

I love both sites. CTF is hilarious at times, and the P&P does miss those regulars at times, but I can see from a corporate view why they've not been tolerated on this site.

That is all.

Bang on the nail

Thanks for understanding the key points here - glad someone does

[Pigeon]

Stuart said:

Hi Tim, thanks for the input. What you won't see is a lot of stuff that the mods at the time spent hours and hours removing from the site.

This statement is ambiguous. Which site?

If you refer to PH and the PH mods then I do indeed remember that a lot of references to CTF were removed without explanation.

If you refer to CTF and the CTF mods then I can assure you that there was no such sweep. The threads moaning about PH were not censored, they just died, as threads normally do. The reason you don't immediately stumble across them is simply that there are several months' worth of other threads on top of them now.

Stuart said:

we consider it rather cheeky to be using our resources to promote what was being touted as an alternative to PH, explicitly or otherwise.

CTF is not, implicity or explicitly, an "alternative to PH". It is, as has been made clear by both sides in this argument, a separate site with its own agenda which is nothing to do with PH. There have been discussions about the direction of CTF in which the idea of it becoming a motoring site was raised - and firmly rejected, months ago. It's its own place as much as the Volvo Owners Club forum or the Barclay James Harvest forum, to pick two examples off the top of my head.

I don't consider the link whose deletion prompted this thread to be "cheeky". I simply saw the MS Paint thread, thought "aha, there is a thread on exactly the same subject on CTF", and posted the link. It's not "cheeky" when people post links to relevant or just plain interesting threads on any other forum - because other fora are not "alternatives to PH"? Fine, well nor is CTF, it's in the same position relative to PH as any other unconnected site.

Stuart said:

it really isn't significant enough for us to devote worrying time to it.

Great. So, since it isn't worth worrying about, and the things you were raising as objections you now know not to be true, can I take it that you will follow through to the logical conclusion, and cease to delete links to CTF?

[Stuart]

No, we won't be ceasing to delete references to CTF. I've answered the question a number of times, and believe I've been very clear in stating what our line is and why we've taken it.

Pigeon if you don't like the policy then nobody is forcing you to use this site. Your choice, I've made it clear what our line is.

Thanks,

Stuart

[Pigeon]

Yes, thankyou for clearly stating the reasons for the policy.

This has allowed me to make it equally clear that those reasons are based on assumptions and premises which are fundamentally untrue.

So my question now becomes: Given that you now know your policy to be based on false assumptions, why do you not consider it appropriate to revise it in the light of this knowledge?

It's not a question of whether I like it or not, because clearly it does not apply only to me, it applies to anyone who might want to post links to CTF.

It's a question of whether it is logical or not to continue to hold to a policy once you have been shown that it is based on false premises.

[Stuart]

Well if you don't want to post any links to CTF, and if it doesn't apply to you, surely the issue becomes null and void? Unless I missed the moment when the collective PH membership elected you to ask questions on their behalf?

As I've said, I think that I've been very clear. Please don't mistake my reluctance to get dragged into arguing about the semantics of my posts here with you as an admission that our policy is based on a false premise.

ETA - anyone else finding this subject as excruciatingly dull as me?

Edited by Stuart on Thursday 16th October 19:03

[neil_bolton]

FFS Pigeon, do you have anything else in the least bit more interesting to do with your time?

[PurelyRetro]

Its a bit tedius, all this fuss over one site - CTF. You might as well cease other links while your at, theres 'nothing special' about CTF that makes it exempt from the link existing.

[Pigeon]

Stuart said:

Well if you don't want to post any links to CTF, and if it doesn't apply to you, surely the issue becomes null and void?

No, I didn't say I don't want to post links to CTF. I do, when it is relevant to the thread concerned to do so. I also want to post links to the BJH forum when it is relevant to do so, or to the Volvo Owners Club forum, or to any other website which is not offensive and is relevant to the topic in hand.

Nor did I say it doesn't apply to me. I said it doesn't apply only to me. It applies to everyone, does it not?

Stuart said:

As I've said, I think that I've been very clear. Please don't mistake my reluctance to get dragged into arguing about the semantics of my posts here with you as an admission that our policy is based on a false premise.

No, I am not making that mistake, I think it is you who is mistaken in your interpretation of my posts.

You have indeed been clear in explaining the premises on which your policy is based, in the belief that they are true.

I and others have explained to you that in fact those premises are not true.

Hence the question in my previous post: Given that you now know your policy to be based on false assumptions, why do you not consider it appropriate to revise it in the light of this knowledge?

Stuart said:

ETA - anyone else finding this subject as excruciatingly dull as me?

Yes. Believe it or not - me

But I also consider it important to get to the bottom of it.

neil_bolton said:

FFS Pigeon, do you have anything else in the least bit more interesting to do with your time?

Oh yes, I'm just taking a couple of minutes to post while I wait for a four hour video recording to be processed

[Stuart]

The premise of our policy is not wrong. Members of CTF did try to undermine this site when it first launched, and it is a fact that Pistonheads is referred to as "the other place" and links to it have been edited out in the past. Actually we couldn't really care if they are or not, but to say that CTF was not set up as an alternative to PH and that its founders didn't try to lure our people away is simply laughable.

Ultimately though, this site will be run as we see fit, just as it always was when Ted owned it. You are free to contribute all you like, but ultimately you will do so on our terms or go elsewhere.

Now, the last time I checked this wasn't called the "debate a point endlessly because you didn't like the answer to the question first time you asked" forum. It is called the Website Feedback forum. You have fed back, we have acknowledged your feedback and explained why we will not be changing our position on the matter you have raised. Since I don't have the time to debate this endlessly and others find it crushingly dull to watch you do so, I'm going to close the thread.