Jeremy Bamber Forum
DISCLAIMER AND FORUM RULES => Disclaimer and forum rules and guidelines => Topic started by: Jane on September 10, 2015, 08:06:PM
-
I'm never sure that hiding something is a good way of solving a problem. It's more likely to cause it to fester. We have ignored it on previous occasions and each time it returns more venomously.
Few of us can claim innocence of occasionally sniping in heated moments but these occasions tend to be unplanned and spontaneous. I don't imagine we plan our posts round throwing in as much sly innuendo and insults as possible against other posters simply for the malicious pleasure of doing it. Surely it would be against forum rules to do that.
-
I'm never sure that hiding something is a good way of solving a problem. It's more likely to cause it to fester. We have ignored it on previous occasions and each time it returns more venomously.
Few of us can claim innocence of occasionally sniping in heated moments but these occasions tend to be unplanned and spontaneous. I don't imagine we plan our posts round throwing in as much sly innuendo and insults as possible against other posters simply for the malicious pleasure of doing it. Surely it would be against forum rules to do that.
I think it's probably better to stick to facts rather than name people in a thread,unless you know them from the forum already. On maybe a related matter do members think the forum should be closed off or are we possibly missing some passing trade?
-
I think it's probably better to stick to facts rather than name people in a thread,unless you know them from the forum already. On maybe a related matter do members think the forum should be closed off or are we possibly missing some passing trade?
Steve, if one is speaking TO another poster I feel it's courteous to address them by name, but that wasn't actually what I was referring to. I think, prior to joining, I was able to read SOME of the forum. Is that no longer possible for non members?
-
Steve, if one is speaking TO another poster I feel it's courteous to address them by name, but that wasn't actually what I was referring to. I think, prior to joining, I was able to read SOME of the forum. Is that no longer possible for non members?
Well I do think we are missing input by the site being closed off though it's undoubtedly easier for the Moderators,who have a difficult enough job to do.
-
Steve, if one is speaking TO another poster I feel it's courteous to address them by name, but that wasn't actually what I was referring to. I think, prior to joining, I was able to read SOME of the forum. Is that no longer possible for non members?
The forum has been closed, i.e. only visible to registered members, for some time now. There were several reasons for changing, one being to encourage people genuinely interested in the Bamber case to join. Another benefit is the reduction of personal attacks on our members elsewhere. I can see arguments both ways, but if the consensus of members is that we should open the forum again I have no problem with that. Perhaps we should have a poll.
-
yes i think we should have a poll
-
yes i think we should have a poll
Yes I would like to know how many members we have who are actively posting and how many may be regarded as "lapsed". I would have thought we were all grown up enough by now to fend off personal attacks (heaven knows I had enough on Betnod),though admittedly this would create extra work for moderators having to remove offending posts. I do feel we are in danger of becoming a clique and missing out on contributions from outside as well as our posts being read by a couple of hundred,when in the old days they could attract views in the thousands.
-
Yes I would like to know how many members we have who are actively posting and how many may be regarded as "lapsed". I would have thought we were all grown up enough by now to fend off personal attacks (heaven knows I had enough on Betnod),though admittedly this would create extra work for moderators having to remove offending posts. I do feel we are in danger of becoming a clique and missing out on contributions from outside as well as our posts being read by a couple of hundred,when in the old days they could attract views in the thousands.
Steve, I do agree. However I'm inclined to think that without new opinions, whatever they may be, there's the danger of going round in circles and stagnating................not to mention, sniping, as opposed to cliquing!!!!
-
Steve, I do agree. However I'm inclined to think that without new opinions, whatever they may be, there's the danger of going round in circles and stagnating................not to mention, sniping, as opposed to cliquing!!!!
I agree Steve, I know it leaves us open to attack, Jane but I think it's good to attract new thoughts and opinions to stimulate debate. We do tend to get bogged down and go round in circles anyway. :'(
-
There's some great debate on another forum and one of the posters has just mentioned this forum " where" all the information is" but they can't log in as it's members only ". I've followed their posts and they're very good and appear knowledgeable about the case.
This poster continued to say that he/she thought it" strange that it was assumed that the basic idea was to raise awareness of a miscarriage of justice ".
-
I prefer the closed forum - if people are genuinely interested, they will join. An open forum attracts idiots. However, I don't think Jane's original post was a comment on an open or closed forum - or did I read it wrong?
-
There's some great debate on another forum and one of the posters has just mentioned this forum " where" all the information is" but they can't log in as it's members only ". I've followed their posts and they're very good and appear knowledgeable about the case.
This poster continued to say that he/she thought it" strange that it was assumed that the basic idea was to raise awareness of a miscarriage of justice ".
Knowledgeable as in they think he's innocent? ;D ;D ;D ;D
This forum is just for debate, it's the OS sites job to campaign.
-
I prefer the closed forum - if people are genuinely interested, they will join. An open forum attracts idiots. However, I don't think Jane's original post was a comment on an open or closed forum - or did I read it wrong?
No Caroline, it wasn't -it became sidetracked- it was actually about Adam's behaviour which is getting more and more unacceptable because, as I see it, because he thinks he's within forum rules, he's untouchable. I'm fairly sure it isn't within forum rules to insult other members, by name, when the only cause appears to be the joy of doing it and getting away with it. Perhaps there should be a poll to find out if members think this sort of behaviour is acceptable.
-
I'm never sure that hiding something is a good way of solving a problem. It's more likely to cause it to fester. We have ignored it on previous occasions and each time it returns more venomously.
Few of us can claim innocence of occasionally sniping in heated moments but these occasions tend to be unplanned and spontaneous. I don't imagine we plan our posts round throwing in as much sly innuendo and insults as possible against other posters simply for the malicious pleasure of doing it. Surely it would be against forum rules to do that.
Are you talking about 'censoring' after the fact?
-
No Caroline, it wasn't -it became sidetracked- it was actually about Adam's behaviour which is getting more and more unacceptable because, as I see it, because he thinks he's within forum rules, he's untouchable. I'm fairly sure it isn't within forum rules to insult other members, by name, when the only cause appears to be the joy of doing it and getting away with it. Perhaps there should be a poll to find out if members think this sort of behaviour is acceptable.
Ignore my last post, it crossed over.
I have noticed that quite a lot of the time, he doesn't debate the actual case, he constantly discusses where other people stand and how they got there which flies in the face of 'debate the case not the person' - sounds like a rule breaker to me!
-
Are you talking about 'censoring' after the fact?
Yes, Caroline. Call it censure or sentence. Neither is revenge but simply a penalty for breaking the rules. If the rules continue to be broken the censure/sentence should be more severe.
-
Knowledgeable as in they think he's innocent? ;D ;D ;D ;D
This forum is just for debate, it's the OS sites job to campaign.
Guilters and unsurers. Some things I haven't seen myself. The posters would leave me standing I'm afraid. :o :o ;D ;D
-
Knowledgeable as in they think he's innocent? ;D ;D ;D ;D
This forum is just for debate, it's the OS sites job to campaign.
It's not the OS site.
-
Ignore my last post, it crossed over.
I have noticed that quite a lot of the time, he doesn't debate the actual case, he constantly discusses where other people stand and how they got there which flies in the face of 'debate the case not the person' - sounds like a rule breaker to me!
Yes. Only yesterday, he called you a coward!!!!!!!!!!! and there are constant and spiteful digs at Jan and Lookout, and every time he get the opportunity he says something insulting to Nugs.
-
Didn't we try several months ago banning posts which weren't strictly relevant to the thread in hand and it did get rather dull. I'd much rather take people warts and all with an appeal to them not to engage in gratuitous invective,which adds nothing to the subject under discussion.
-
Yes. Only yesterday, he called you a coward!!!!!!!!!!! and there are constant and spiteful digs at Jan and Lookout, and every time he get the opportunity he says something insulting to Nugs.
I'd have been banned months ago if I hadn't held back from having a go at him.
-
Didn't we try several months ago banning posts which weren't strictly relevant to the thread in hand and it did get rather dull. I'd much rather take people warts and all with an appeal to them not to engage in gratuitous invective,which adds nothing to the subject under discussion.
Steve, it only works with reasonable people.........................or those who understand gratuitous invective.
-
It's not the OS site.
What isn't?
-
What isn't?
This other forum where I was reading posts.
-
The forum has been closed, i.e. only visible to registered members, for some time now. There were several reasons for changing, one being to encourage people genuinely interested in the Bamber case to join. Another benefit is the reduction of personal attacks on our members elsewhere. I can see arguments both ways, but if the consensus of members is that we should open the forum again I have no problem with that. Perhaps we should have a poll.
NGB
Can you explain the reason for blocking search engines. I have noticed that, apart from the login page, nothing whatever from this site shows up in a search.
-
NBG
Can you explain the reason for blocking search engines. I have noticed that, apart from the login page, nothing whatever from this site shows up in a search.
We have not deliberately blocked search engines. It may be an unforseen consequence of closing the forum to non members.
-
I would be inclined to go with the opinion of those that moderate, or have moderated in the past, when it comes to deciding whether to open the forum to all.
For a regular, bog standard member, like myself, it's very easy to ignore the naughty posts . It's obviously not so easy if you have to try and moderate.
Surely we all know the best way to deal with antagonistic posters, who just about manage to stay on the right side of the rules.....ignore them!
-
I would be inclined to go with the opinion of those that moderate, or have moderated in the past, when it comes to deciding whether to open the forum to all.
For a regular, bog standard member, like myself, it's very easy to ignore the naughty posts . It's obviously not so easy if you have to try and moderate.
Surely we all know the best way to deal with antagonistic posters, who just about manage to stay on the right side of the rules.....ignore them!
Unfortunately, those whose agenda it is to cause disruption will find a way.
-
This other forum where I was reading posts.
I know you weren't referring to the OS because it's not a forum. I said it was their intention to campaign but not the intention of the forum.
-
I would be inclined to go with the opinion of those that moderate, or have moderated in the past, when it comes to deciding whether to open the forum to all.
For a regular, bog standard member, like myself, it's very easy to ignore the naughty posts . It's obviously not so easy if you have to try and moderate.
Surely we all know the best way to deal with antagonistic posters, who just about manage to stay on the right side of the rules.....ignore them!
I agree and there is a 'block' option which I prefer to use.. However, regardless of whether I chose to read their rubbish someone else might want to reply and when they quote the post it becomes visible. So, when you find that some waste of space no mark (who's posts you can't be bothered to read anyway) had called you 'weak and naive', you feel like kicking it into next week - failing that - telling the little creep where to get off. Skirting around the rules is still breaking them.
-
I would be inclined to go with the opinion of those that moderate, or have moderated in the past, when it comes to deciding whether to open the forum to all.
For a regular, bog standard member, like myself, it's very easy to ignore the naughty posts . It's obviously not so easy if you have to try and moderate.
Surely we all know the best way to deal with antagonistic posters, who just about manage to stay on the right side of the rules.....ignore them!
An even better way of dealing with a continued and unrepentant poster who goes out of their way to antagonize from under the radar...........................is to ban them.
-
I agree and there is a 'block' option which I prefer to use.. However, regardless of whether I chose to read their rubbish someone else might want to reply and when they quote the post it becomes visible. So, when you find that some waste of space no mark (who's posts you can't be bothered to read anyway) had called you 'weak and naive', you feel like kicking it into next week - failing that - telling the little creep where to get off. Skirting around the rules is still breaking them.
If it's any consolation, I would suggest that even your harshest critic would never accuse you of being weak or naive!
That looks like a blatant attempt to 'get a reaction'.
-
If it's any consolation, I would suggest that even your harshest critic would never accuse you of being weak or naive!
That looks like a blatant attempt to 'get a reaction'.
Thanks Neil :).
-
I agree Steve, I know it leaves us open to attack, Jane but I think it's good to attract new thoughts and opinions to stimulate debate. We do tend to get bogged down and go round in circles anyway. :'(
I agree Maggie. But, I also agree with both sides if you know what I mean. Those that google and come across the forum might not join because they may think they have to give personal details and this might be a deter them from joining. On the other hand if they are interested enough they would join anyway.
We still get new members but, if the forum was open maybe new members would join? I don't know...Maybe a poll is the best solution? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree Maggie. But, I also agree with both sides if you know what I mean. Those that google and come across the forum might not join because they may think they have to give personal details and this might be a deter them from joining. On the other hand if they are interested enough they would join anyway.
We still get new members but, if the forum was open maybe new members would join? I don't know...Maybe a poll is the best solution? ;D ;D ;D ;D
It's a difficult one really, arguments on both sides imo........ as usual :( ;D