# So whats happening then ?



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Are things getting sorted behind the scenes or is everyone hoping things will blow over ? I for one feel i have far to much of my work posted on here to just forget the warnings i've had for little or no reason . Plus i object to being spoken to like a naughty school boy ! 
Any updates ?


----------



## Mike.C (1 Oct 2007)

Charley


Our moderating methods have been criticised recently. Some of you don't realise that the forums have been running for years now and our moderation policy has worked fine. However I do agree we need to change it and improve in some areas. In the past couple of weeks I've been preparing for some changes which will allow the moderators to take a step back. Theses changes should be active early next week... 

I'm busy today so won't be able to check in on the forum much so if you have any questions please email me...

It's only Monday, and he said he would sort the changes out early this week.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Heard it somewhere before mate


> From: Charley
> To: JFC
> Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:22 pm


 :roll:


----------



## Anonymous (1 Oct 2007)

The changes and enhancements are currently being tested on the 'test forum' where development takes place offline.

The moderator team started trying them out today in an attempt to find any bugs before Charley releases them to the main forum.


----------



## Mike.C (1 Oct 2007)

Yeah but as you said you have got far to much posted here, so if you wait and it turns out that Charley's changes work, you will surely be well pleased won't you!

Cheers

Mike


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

> The changes and enhancements are currently being tested on the 'test forum' where development takes place offline.
> 
> The moderator team started trying them out today in an attempt to find any bugs before Charley releases them to the main forum.
> _________________



I thought the problem was the moderator team banning and warning people for little or no reason . The forum is fine apart from that .


----------



## Anonymous (1 Oct 2007)

JFC":3203ujfc said:


> . The forum is fine .



True, and with the new facilities it will improve the experience for our members even more.


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Tony , that isn't the problem and you are avoiding what i am asking . The forum is fine , it is the level of moderation that is the problem . When posters that put so much into this forum get banned for little or no reason it makes me wonder why i am posting here and i'm sure others feel that way . I used to get alot from this forum but the people i got that from have been banned or left because they are fed up . Adding better smileys and more links will not replace them .


----------



## Karl (1 Oct 2007)

JFC

Just my thoughts - take them or leave them:

From your opening post it is clear you are trying to antagonise the mods.

Can't you follow Mike C's advice and wait for Charley's changes?

In any event, these matters were covered in Scrits post a few days back.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Sawdust (1 Oct 2007)

JFC":mq972pek said:


> Tony , that isn't the problem and you are avoiding what i am asking . The forum is fine , it is the level of moderation that is the problem . When posters that put so much into this forum get banned for little or no reason it makes me wonder why i am posting here and i'm sure others feel that way . I used to get alot from this forum but the people i got that from have been banned or left because they are fed up . Adding better smileys and more links will not replace them .



Well said.

And there has still been no explanation at all as to why Jacob was banned. The so called spam was no more than a PM to a few people saying he thought he was going to be banned. And also, recently, a certain moderator said they couldn't read PMs anyway.

Perhaps it's time to think about what level of moderation is necessary. I'm sure everyone is grateful for the efforts you put in to keep spam and junk of the forum but the arbitrary way in which posts are classed as unsuitable is getting stupid.

For heaven's sake; it's an internet forum for woodworkers, not playschool!!

Cheers
Mike


----------



## Sawdust (1 Oct 2007)

Tony":takl0t87 said:


> JFC":takl0t87 said:
> 
> 
> > . The forum is fine .
> ...



Tony, you seem to have accidentally missed out the 'apart from that' when quoting JFC. 

No need to thank me, I'm glad to help


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

> Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



No i am not antagonising the mods , i want to know what is happening to the site that i have alot of my work shown on . The points where covered but nothing has happened just like the last time . 
Maybe its you and Mike C that need to think.... i have alot of work shown here and i don't like the idea of untrained people giving advice on my work . Id like to reply myself thankyou !
I notice its people with very little input that are trying to question my reasons here .


----------



## Woodmagnet (1 Oct 2007)

J.F.C. i think you are out of order with that last comment, as far as i know
the amount of input has nothing to do with anything. I have been a member of this forum for a long time and have'nt posted much but i have learned a lot from all of you on here, no matter how many posts have been made. If you must persist in trying to antagonise the moderator's
can't you do it privately without causing upset to the rest of the members.
You may have "a lot" of work invested in this forum, and i for one have
alway's admired your work, but you seem hell bent on someone coming right out and banning you. Where is the sense in that?
I am not bothered about anyone else being banned, just as long as i behave myself properly on the forum,why don't you do the same?
Give the people behind the scenes a chance please.


----------



## Jake (1 Oct 2007)

I don't know, all he's asking for is some accountability. It depends how you the view the forum really - as someone's possession or as a community. It's only if its the former, that asking such questions could be seen as intrusive and asking for a ban or whatever.


----------



## Mike.C (1 Oct 2007)

> JFC,
> 
> Maybe its you and Mike C that need to think....



Why all because I said wait until Charley makes the new changes?



> JFC,
> 
> I notice its people with very little input that are trying to question my reasons here



So my 1200+ posts have been very little input. Well thank you very much, I will remember that.

I may have asked more questions then I have given advice but I thought the forum was all about give and take.

Thanks JFC now I know how some of you think.

Mike


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Im sorry you feel that way Kevin but i have tried what you have suggested and it doesn't work . I am not hell bent on getting banned i am hell bent on getting an answer to my question .The same question i asked over a month ago !
Put yourself in my place rather than gobbing off , no one will speak to me one to one ! So i have to ask here !


----------



## motownmartin (1 Oct 2007)

Mike.C":2imt3mm8 said:


> > JFC,
> >
> > Maybe its you and Mike C that need to think....
> 
> ...



Mike I have had more help from you Than most of the profesional woody's on this forum, I for one am very grateful of your valuable input.

Thanks


----------



## motownmartin (1 Oct 2007)

JFC":13vgy0ma said:


> Put yourself in my place rather than gobbing off



Pot.............Kettle...................Black


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Well the only thing i remember you for is abusive PM's that i didn't reply to .


----------



## Woodmagnet (1 Oct 2007)

Put yourself in my place rather than gobbing off 
With that kind of response i wish i had'nt bothered trying to reason/help you.Very sad state of affairs.


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Thats the problem Kevin, you didn't help you supported something that doesn't really matter to you . You spoke or typed before you thought about it .


----------



## Woodmagnet (1 Oct 2007)




----------



## Gill (1 Oct 2007)

[-X 

Rule 2, guys. It's all very well demanding a lighter touch from the mod team, but don't forget you're supposed to abide by Rule 2.

Gill


----------



## JFC (1 Oct 2007)

Point taken Gill , I'll spank my botty and go to bed :lol:


----------



## Mike.C (2 Oct 2007)

> Martin,
> 
> Mike.C wrote:
> Quote:
> ...



Thanks for your support Martin it's very much appriciated.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Karl (2 Oct 2007)

JFC":2f3pcgmv said:


> > Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject:
> >
> > No i am not antagonising the mods , i want to know what is happening to the site that i have alot of my work shown on . The points where covered but nothing has happened just like the last time .
> > Maybe its you and Mike C that need to think.... i have alot of work shown here and i don't like the idea of untrained people giving advice on my work . Id like to reply myself thankyou !
> > I notice its people with very little input that are trying to question my reasons here .



JFC - like I said, just my thoughts - take them or leave them.

As has already been pointed out to you, Mike C is hardly somebody with "very little input". 

As for myself, yes. I have very little input. Because I only joined recently. Problem???? I am not questioning your "reasons" - just suggesting a little more time be given to Charley to answer the questions/sort the problems. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Anonymous (2 Oct 2007)

Sawdust wrote


> And there has still been no explanation at all as to why Jacob was banned.


This is factually incorrect. Charley has explained why he took the decision to ban Jacob in the previous thread that covered this ground.


JFC wrote


> When posters that put so much into this forum get banned for little or no reason it makes me wonder why i am posting here and i'm sure others feel that way


Judging by the number of healthy discussions ongoing, and the number of new threads in the past few days, you might find less people feel this way than you think.


JFC wrote


> i have alot of work shown here and i don't like the idea of untrained people giving advice on my work


So, you regard the forum membership's knowledge and skills quite highly then.


Jake wrote


> I don't know, all he's asking for is some accountability. It depends how you the view the forum really - as someone's possession or as a community. It's only if its the former, that asking such questions could be seen as intrusive and asking for a ban or whatever.


How much did you or JFC or Sawdust pay to join Charley's forum? How much does Charley pay out of his own pocket every month for servers, maintenance, bandwidth? (more than you might think).
We are all here as guests of Charley and although the members make the community, the forum itself is Charley's and he is the person who determines how it is to be run.

JFC wrote


> no one will speak to me one to one ! So i have to ask here !


Whom did you try to speak to about the problem? the moderation team would be happy to disucss your concerns offline. If you care to read Charley's forum rules, you will see that such matters should be discussed offline.


Kardley wrote


> From your opening post it is clear you are trying to antagonise the mods.



JFC, you have started up a new forum and many of the posts there discuss ways to disrupt UKWS (hidden within the 'pub' section now).

Most of your members are professional woodworkers, whereas most of ours are amateurs. It seems to me that there is room for both forums to co-exist and flourish and cater for a different market and style of operation.

I for one really do wish you well with your new venture


----------



## Adam (2 Oct 2007)

Sawdust":o6bl163r said:


> JFC":o6bl163r said:
> 
> 
> > And also, recently, a certain moderator said they couldn't read PMs anyway.



Mike, 

If you are going to quote me, please note the whole statement. I said that we cannot read PM's, unless people forward by cutting and pasting the text, and creating a new PM which can then be sent to a mod/admin. That way, we can see the original email. Just like forwarding an email effectively.

Adam


----------



## beejay (2 Oct 2007)

Has he gone now,,,,, for good I mean. :roll: 
What a T****R !
beejay


----------



## motownmartin (2 Oct 2007)

beejay":x0jmzvdv said:


> Has he gone now,,,,, for good I mean. :roll:
> What a T****R !
> beejay



He's gone to the Pub with his mates ccasion5:


----------



## Jake (2 Oct 2007)

beejay":2uvr7pzm said:


> Has he gone now,,,,, for good I mean. :roll:
> What a T****R !
> beejay



Ummm, rule 2?


----------



## Jake (2 Oct 2007)

Tony":1czv8fno said:


> How much did you or JFC or Sawdust pay to join Charley's forum? How much does Charley pay out of his own pocket every month for servers, maintenance, bandwidth? (more than you might think).
> We are all here as guests of Charley and although the members make the community, the forum itself is Charley's and he is the person who determines how it is to be run.



OK possession/rule of dictat it is. Shame, I thought this was more of a community, with a generous host.


----------



## Anonymous (2 Oct 2007)

Charley/Mods

I'm sorry to interfere, but I think members would find it helpful if they were given a date when, come what may, your announcements will be made.

Thanks,
Neil


----------



## JFC (2 Oct 2007)

> beejay wrote:
> Has he gone now,,,,, for good I mean.
> What a T****R !
> beejay



Been called worse by better men :lol:


----------



## wizer (2 Oct 2007)

On another forum that I frequent a system is used for banning members. It works much like a disciplinary procedure in a place of work. A member has 2 or 3 verbal warnings followed by a 7 day ban. If when the member returns he breaks the rules again then a 30 day ban is implemented. The next step is the perm ban.

Maybe this is what Charley has in store for the site. At least this system gives the member a chance to make a mends.


----------



## Anonymous (2 Oct 2007)

WiZeR":2yfo7v2w said:


> On another forum that I frequent a system is used for banning members. It works much like a disciplinary procedure in a place of work. A member has 2 or 3 verbal warnings followed by a 7 day ban. If when the member returns he breaks the rules again then a 30 day ban is implemented. The next step is the perm ban.
> 
> Maybe this is what Charley has in store for the site. At least this system gives the member a chance to make a mends.



This is basically what has been operating, without the 7 day ban.

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## Jake (2 Oct 2007)

That's why the issue isn't technical or rule based, it's about how it is administrated, and in particular whether the moderating team is neutral enough to be able to look at the actions of its own in a critical way when assessing what to do with a poster who has reacted to a personal attack from a moderator.


----------



## Sawdust (2 Oct 2007)

There is a threat of a 1 month ban which is a good idea and for all I know, Jacob may have had one. I was threatened with one previously when i discussed moderation on the forum. I subsequently apologised and asked privately for a reason why a thread was locked as I couldn't see anything in it which broke any rules at all. No such explanation was ever received.

In this recent carry on with Jacob, It seems to me (and anyone who is still concerned about this) that it really doesn't appear that Jacob did anything wrong, according to the published rules of the forum. He did send an PM to a few people saying he thought he was about to be banned and that he was joining another forum in case anyone wanted to keep in touch.

My concern is how that particular PM could be classed as spam and used as a reason for banning someone.

Now I do appreciate that this is Charley's forum and depsite what people seem to think, I do appreciate the efforts he puts in, and I also realise that it is well within his rights to ban anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants. I just thought the forum was a little more democratic than that.

I will look forward to seeing what changes are coming.

Cheers
Mike


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

JFC":3okanzv0 said:


> > beejay wrote:
> > Has he gone now,,,,, for good I mean.
> > What a T****R !
> > beejay
> ...



Regularly? 



Sawdust":3okanzv0 said:


> I just thought the forum was a little more democratic than that.



Forums are not and should not be a democracy. The rules exist in what ever fashion they exist in, state whatever they state etc and should be enforced to the letter without conversation. 
Threads discussing moderation should be closed without discussion. Conversations like this one should be conducted in private. If you don't like the way a forum is managed do the other thing. Set up another forum where like minded people can gather. That's all any forum is about.


----------



## wizer (2 Oct 2007)

I'm, personally, not going to keep on about the specifics of the whole Jacob saga. I think its all been said and no one is going to change their mind on either side.

But I hope these improvements make the whole system a bit fairer and more transparent.

Ultimately I will miss our fallen members but want to get on with talking about woodworking. The good will and generosity of members on this forum is breathtaking and the fact that Charley gives us a place to exchange woodworking information, for free, is extremely kind.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (2 Oct 2007)

A question that has, so far, been neatly side-stepped (unless I've missed something)....

*How did a pm sent to only a handful of people (me included) get into the hands of Charley and the mod team? *

Adam implies it was cut and pasted by a recipient and forwarded. I wouldn't expect the mods to disclose more than this. But, if this is the case, I'm surprised the culprit hasn't put their hand up and explained their reasons.

Of course, it's always possible that Jacob actually sent it to a mod himself ](*,)


----------



## Jake (2 Oct 2007)

mr":3w3u3a8a said:


> Forums are not and should not be a democracy. The rules exist in what ever fashion they exist in, state whatever they state etc and should be enforced to the letter without conversation.



I don't agree with that at all.

But if I did, I would still want the rules to be applied across the board to every member alike (whether moderator or not), and not to be applied in a way which overlooks rule breaches (and their knock on effects) because they were by a moderator who then used his moderator powers to self-censor in order to cover his tracks.


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

Good Surname or what ?":15dyb906 said:


> A question that has, so far, been neatly side-stepped (unless I've missed something)....
> 
> *How did a pm sent to only a handful of people (me included) get into the hands of Charley and the mod team? *
> 
> ...



It was forwarded to the mods by one of the recipients. That recipient has already made himself known to Jacob, none of this is any secret. Jacob has written it up fulsomely over on the new forum. The how and why of the PM getting to the admin team is however irrelevant. 

Jake yes the rules should be applied to all, man and beast equally.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (2 Oct 2007)

It is unfortunate that some valuable voices have been lost from the mix, but I don't think there's much more to be gained from navel gazing.

One thought does occur - does the BBS S/W allow a poster's contributions to be X-rated, so a reader has to opt in to view their offerings (like a default global 'ignore') - could be a useful alternative to banning a forthright member, by allowing the reader to decide how thick skinned they are.

And now let's think wood thoughts

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davy_owen_88 (2 Oct 2007)

I most certainly do not want to drag this out any longer, but to be honest, the reactions from certain members here was very predictable, totally pointless, and slightly irritating.

Why is it, that whenever a thread pops up that isn't singing with praise, the same few come out of the woodwork to start polishing the apples ready for teacher? Why don't they just ignore the thread instead of coming on, and talking like they have some clue or concern about what the thread is even about?



mr":3b7qra7l said:


> Forums are not and should not be a democracy. The rules exist in what ever fashion they exist in, state whatever they state etc and should be enforced to the letter without conversation.



Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum. That simple point is the reason why Jacobs ban was unfair, and why a number of members who either knew Jacob, or respected, and valued his input, are so annoyed. Now if you don't care, then fine, but stay out of it and let the people who it was directed at (mods/admin) answer the question.


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

davy_owen_88":zl3nsdmh said:


> Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum.



I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never suggested that sending links in private messages is against the rules. Particularly not in the post you quote here. Which seems to suggest that Jacob wasn't banned for sending links in PMs, on the other hand there is a post from Charley stating why Jacob was banned. Suggest you read more closely in future.


----------



## davy_owen_88 (2 Oct 2007)

mr":2udmqazt said:


> davy_owen_88":2udmqazt said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum.
> ...



I'm not confusing you with anyone, nor did I imply that you said it was a forum rule. My point is, that your response didn't answer the original question, it didn't help the matter, and your 'rules should be applied to all, man and beast equally' is irrelevant because Jacob didn't break any rules, and that is what this thread is about.



Charley":2udmqazt said:


> For those of you who aren't aware, Jacob was recently reinstated on the forms after a months ban due to another issue. It came to my attention yesterday that Jacob sent out spam PM's which I find is unacceptable and is why I banned him.


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

All I can say is that I suggest you read the thread more closely. I have nothing more to say on the subject as further reply is evidently a waste of time.


----------



## Gaz_XB9R (3 Oct 2007)

(8.1) Linking to your or other woodworking websites is allowed as long as it will benefit or prove useful to other members. Linking to a post on another group or forum is also fine. 

Enough said.

Reinstatement required.


----------

