View Full Version : user group poll
Billy Boy
11-Feb-07, 17:36
How many others think like i do and believe that the user group should be abolished to free up some valuable server space, after all what use has it been so far?:confused
I dont see that they are going to make any difference as most of them cant be bothered, the only thing that has happened is that Niall has made some changes to the rules and the ones that could be bothered have agreed.
which could of been done without a user group anyway.
what is confussing is why people put themselves forward for it, if they werent going to bother putting any time into the group was it just so they could say i'm in the user group.:confused
I personnally think this thread will die a death along with the other usergroup threads and the user group themselves.
which will prove my point
What is the 'usergroup'?
try reading this lol http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=18863
Cedric Farthsbottom III
12-Feb-07, 01:18
I voted I dinnae care.I'll post on here as I always do when obiron is watching her programmes and I've no got a book to read.I honestly dinnae care about moderators and user groups,cos they will always be choosy in who they like and don't.I will continue to put in ma penny's worth in the threads I like and keepin to the rules,if anybody disnae like it then ban me.I will read more books.:lol:
I thiink that the user group given time could make some ammendenments that could be appropriate.
I would also request that if possible could we have a serious comment forum that when questions are asked we get a measured answer from folk that are in the know and not the hijacking of threads.
weeboyagee
12-Feb-07, 11:23
The User group was set up as I recall due to a certain unsavoury chain of events that happened. The main reason for the user group as I saw it was to settle things, make representation on behalf of the membership and suggest change on behalf of the membership. We are not the brain of the membership. We gather your ideas, discuss, make representation and when the need arises put our thoughts forward for change.
Those of you who have relevant points are welcome to make representation to any of us (unless I have lost the plot here) and we can request changes based on this.
Given the nature of the upset that caused the creation of the user group I am still happy to receive comments on that incident but to date I await the FIRST comment.
Storm in a tea cup at the time maybe? As I recall it was no tea cup - the storm was real and at the risk of the storm starting again regurgitating everything (it seems to have abated) I am not sure that the user group can be said to be disfunctional.
Those of you who think otherwise - PM us and tell us what we are to do for you - otherwise don't say that it is to be disbanded without qualification - the usergroup is not going to do the work for you without your input - if there is no input from you then there will be no function. If there is then there will be.
Some usergroup members are working on ideas, others have made representation (I did when I was asked to intervene on one particular issue involving Fran). You may not see EVERYTHING that is going on, on behalf of the members.
You want the usergroup to be more functional - tell them (including me) what you want to happen. Don't just sit there and point a finger folks! We're here so that you guys can voice your opinions - not be mouthpieces for the sake of it.
Dozerboy never ever PM'd me with what he wanted to see us do. And Billy Boy, I've never had a PM from you, I have never seen your representation for our action - so from where does your proposal come from????? PM me with your proposals and I'll take them forward.
There are a lot of things I am currently contributing to the org but not in terms of the rules and regulations at the moment - to my mind they are being discussed by others in the usergroup quite adequately.
WBG :cool:
Billy Boy
12-Feb-07, 13:07
Billy Boy, I've never had a PM from you, I have never seen your representation for our action - so from where does your proposal come from????? PM me with your proposals and I'll take them forward.
where did you get the idea that i had a proposal?? the reason i started this poll was, as a frequent user of caithness .org,i took as vested interest in event's after what you call the "unsavoury chain of events" to which the "user group for change" was born.
now from all the loud voice's from that event you had a poll and those who had a interest in changeing the way the forum was run were voted in to the user group for change,so here we are some nearly two month's on and as far as i can see all the group has done is huffed and puffed without getting anywhere.thats the reason i started this poll and if i had any complaint i would take it up with admin after all if anything is to change it's only admin that can do it!
so now that someone has come out and said the usergroup is not moveing things foward,you in turn are now saying if i have a proposal you will take it forward,what i would like to know is where is the usergroup proposal's, surely by the time 12 people wanted to go the group they must of had a lot to put forward otherwise what was the point of going on the group??
so if i was you i would be asking my fellow group members what there proposal's where and take them forward instead of asking what mine are!! because believe it or not if i had a complaint i would take forward without going through you!;)
Dozerboy never ever PM'd me with what he wanted to see us do.
WBG :cool:
weeboyagee - Don't be dragging my name around here. I PM'd others, my memory is not great and I forget who is on the user committee. I started a few threads regarding the user group which gave you the chance to air your views but did you post on them? One of my threads got moved to the user group section so us mere mortals couldn't post on it.
And, yes, I was leaving the Org, but have decided to stay.
weeboyagee
12-Feb-07, 17:16
(in the user group section two weeks ago in reply to Dozerboy)...Please read the Usergroup Section at the top of the Messageboard - and feel free to direct any questions or concerns to the members who were elected to represent the majority of the posters here.
And that goes for Billy Boy as well. I fail to see your problem - what representation has been made to the usergroup members that hasn't been acted on or hasn't satisfied what you want to see happen???? State your points - before this thread smacks of a whinge for a whinges sake! ;)
Similarily for the rest that think the same of the user group - state your reasons - it's easy to tick a box on a poll!
WBG :roll:
I agree with Weeboyagee - the user group was clearly set up to discuss the original bother that occurred before Christmas. It has played a role (largely thanks to Oddquine) in helping derive some clarity in the rules and infractions. It also acts as a place for orgers to express their questions, complaints, problems - in somefar as the org operations go, that is - without swamping admin. I think that it has worked fine so far; the only problem is that orgers are not using it properly. Instead of going to the Enquiries desk (User group) everyone is still queuing up and banging on the manager's door.:confused
Billy Boy
12-Feb-07, 19:10
And that goes for Billy Boy as well. I fail to see your problem - what representation has been made to the usergroup members that hasn't been acted on or hasn't satisfied what you want to see happen???? State your points - before this thread smacks of a whinge for a whinges sake! ;)
you have 12 members in your group, correct!! how many have made a contribution towards what your trying to achieve??
how much contribution has these members put in?
1.Elenna
2.Mr P Cannop
3.Rheghead
4.RockChick
5.IceBox
before you accuse some people of whingeing for the sake of it, maybe you should be speaking to your fellow group members and work toward's your goals together, so you could say, my main gripe is that the whole of the user group dont seem to be working as a GROUP.
i am not to good at working out the pros and cons of the rule's, warning's ,infaction's and so on, thats why I thought a user group was voted in? i personally would just like to see the WHOLE user group working together rather than Oddquine being the main person trying thier best but from what i can see she's banging her head against a brick wall,and would benifit from some support from the WHOLE group,
but there again what do i know i am just looked upon as just a whinger for asking the obvious.
I dont mean to name names to have a go at anyone, i am just trying to make a point here.
Billy Boy
12-Feb-07, 19:49
I agree with Weeboyagee - the user group was clearly set up to discuss the original bother that occurred before Christmas. It has played a role (largely thanks to Oddquine) in helping derive some clarity in the rules and infractions. It also acts as a place for orgers to express their questions, complaints, problems - in somefar as the org operations go, that is - without swamping admin. I think that it has worked fine so far; the only problem is that orgers are not using it properly. Instead of going to the Enquiries desk (User group) everyone is still queuing up and banging on the manager's door.
Ricco how can you say it has worked fine so far???
what exactly have they done??:confused
I was under the impression as i am sure as were a lot of others that those who put their names forward for the user group actually had some input to put into it, NOT sit around waiting for all the users to tell them what needed done.
What exactly was done over the so called unsavory events that took place before christmas, please do tell as i am sure a lot of us would love to hear.:roll:
Ricco how can you say it has worked fine so far???
what exactly have they done??
Made suggestions/comments which have been taken on board by admin........so far, maybe just a re-wording and clarifying of some systems...but now they are understandable.
Never having had a warning/infraction points, I have no idea if the tone of the PMs regarding them have at least become less confrontational.
I was under the impression as i am sure as were a lot of others that those who put their names forward for the user group actually had some input to put into it, NOT sit around waiting for all the users to tell them what needed done.
Not easy to know what kind of input to put in...........hopes and wishes are not always realistic. I'm chancing my arm up-front because I have a fair idea of what is realistic on a forum, and what is wishful thinking by members and will prove much too much work for a public forum which is privately owned and only a very small element in the whole website.
Sometimes it takes a starting point..........however stupid.......... to give folk an idea of possibilities and start a dialogue/discussion..........which is what I have tried to do.....start a dialogue/discussion.
Personally, I'd rather close my forums than spend all my online time administrating, reading complaints and trying to justify what doesn't need justified because I own the domain, pay for the webspace, am the one going to be sued if anyone oversteps the rules and so I have the final say.............because I am looking after around thirty other sites on my space as well.
I was on a forum which was an extra to the main site ethos,and was started because people seemed to want it. It ran for about ten years, but closed overnight because the members couldn't accept that the forum was not the most important part of the site, demanded attention from admin which was not justified in admin's scheme of things...and hacked admin off with their complaints and bad behaviour.
So I got involved here because I think this is a damned good forum, with a lot of nice people on it..and a few not so nice.....and because I like the Caithness slant of it.
I would be quite unhappy if yet another forum I liked bit the dust because of the few carpers.
The admin on this forum are trying to accommodate the members........they don't have to, you know...they could simply tell you all to find somewhere else if you aren't happy......it's what I'd do in their place.
What exactly was done over the so called unsavory events that took place before christmas, please do tell as i am sure a lot of us would love to hear.:roll:
What needed to be done about them, pray tell? The plug-in was removed, wasn't it?
We were not set up to sort that situation out, but to ensure that that kind of anti-member plug-in would not happen again and to address all the other issues re moderation and infractions etc which were brought up in the process of the discussion of that plug-in and the way it was implemented.
So far, we have suggested an Information thread in order that members might be kept informed of forum changes which might affect them, and can volunteer to test plug-ins/hacks which admin might find and which could make admin of the site less time consuming.
We have suggested that some moderators be appointed by user votes.
There has been a start made on clarifying rules so they are understandable, and in trying to judge levels of infraction points to apply
Some suggestions have come under the wishful thinking but not feasible banner.............which is a pity, but understandable given the amount of work entailed.
Maybe we aren't working at the speed you'd all like...but then we aren't working at a speed I'd like either................but I don't really have much else to do, unlike those in the group with jobs and families, and the resulting unexpected problems they produce.
And it would be good if it could be borne in mind that admin have a life outside Caithness.org as well....................would you be happy if you had to drop everything to attend to a visitor who won't stay away, but moans about how you deal with your family whenever they drop in? :confused
Billy Boy
12-Feb-07, 22:28
Quote Oddqiune
Personally, I'd rather close my forums than spend all my online time administrating, reading complaints and trying to justify what doesn't need justified because I own the domain, pay for the webspace, am the one going to be sued if anyone oversteps the rules and so I have the final say.............because I am looking after around thirty other sites on my space as well.
I was on a forum which was an extra to the main site ethos,and was started because people seemed to want it. It ran for about ten years, but closed overnight because the members couldn't accept that the forum was not the most important part of the site, demanded attention from admin which was not justified in admin's scheme of things...and hacked admin off with their complaints and bad behaviour. qoute.
so what exactly are you trying to say, if we keep questioning admin they will just close the site down? do you have inside knowledge? really you should stop beating about the bush and say what you mean;)
Quote Oddquine
What needed to be done about them, pray tell? The plug-in was removed, wasn't it? ......
Pray Tell..... How do you know it was removed? is someone from the user group in the mods section to know this? or is it a case of they said it was removed and i believe them.
I am not saying it wasnt unplugged, i am only asking how do you know for a fact that it was?
Quote Oddqiune
And it would be good if it could be borne in mind that admin have a life outside Caithness.org as well....................would you be happy if you had to drop everything to attend to a visitor who won't stay away, but moans about how you deal with your family whenever they drop in?
We all have a life outside of the .org, I am talking about the user group NOT admin & I would be happy to drop everything if i had chosen to be voted in the position of the user group in the first place.
there was talk of selecting a moderator from the user group
( quote by Colin Manson... New Moderators - Suggested by the Users via the usergroup )
How can you possibly select a moderator from the user group when half of the group are never there, The user group can never achieve anything much if they dont work together as a team.
BILL FERNIE made refference in a previous thread ( cant remember which thread) That a Group such as this could never work. I guess he was right
Quote Oddqiune
Personally, I'd rather close my forums than spend all my online time administrating, reading complaints and trying to justify what doesn't need justified because I own the domain, pay for the webspace, am the one going to be sued if anyone oversteps the rules and so I have the final say.............because I am looking after around thirty other sites on my space as well.
I was on a forum which was an extra to the main site ethos,and was started because people seemed to want it. It ran for about ten years, but closed overnight because the members couldn't accept that the forum was not the most important part of the site, demanded attention from admin which was not justified in admin's scheme of things...and hacked admin off with their complaints and bad behaviour. qoute.
so what exactly are you trying to say, if we keep questioning admin they will just close the site down? do you have inside knowledge? really you should stop beating about the bush and say what you mean;)
I'm not saying that at all...........I know no more than you...............but I do run a fairly big site, though not one which needs regular updating as this one does.......so it is a bit less work, imo....and as it is only a hobby, I don't have advertisers expecting levels of hits, and that the forum isn't carrying unacceptable views.
Frankly, I spend so much of my time banning IPs and removing spam from the forums and all the guestbooks on the site that if my forums gave me much bother as this one does to admin, I'd ditch them without a second thought. But then, my forums so far only have mostly sensible 50+ females on it, and they don't tend to be looking for arguments..and are grateful for having somewhere to blether.
So I'm talking only from the point of view of someone who also runs a forum for the benefit of other people............and who would drop it like a shot if it became more bother than pleasure.
Quote Oddquine
What needed to be done about them, pray tell? The plug-in was removed, wasn't it? ......
Pray Tell..... How do you know it was removed? is someone from the user group in the mods section to know this? or is it a case of they said it was removed and i believe them.
I am not saying it wasnt unplugged, i am only asking how do you know for a fact that it was?
Because I believe admin who say it has..............and if you don't, should you be bothering to post here?
Quote Oddqiune
And it would be good if it could be borne in mind that admin have a life outside Caithness.org as well....................would you be happy if you had to drop everything to attend to a visitor who won't stay away, but moans about how you deal with your family whenever they drop in?
We all have a life outside of the .org, I am talking about the user group NOT admin & I would be happy to drop everything if i had chosen to be voted in the position of the user group in the first place.
there was talk of selecting a moderator from the user group
( quote by Colin Manson... New Moderators - Suggested by the Users via the usergroup )
How can you possibly select a moderator from the user group when half of the group are never there, The user group can never achieve anything much if they dont work together as a team.
BILL FERNIE made refference in a previous thread ( cant remember which thread) That a Group such as this could never work. I guess he was right
Did you stand for election to the Usergroup?
The usergroup can only suggest..........admin has to consider and comment.and perhaps implement.........have you seen anything from admin on the threads I started?
The fact that there have been no usergroup comments does not preclude admin from giving their opinions, for or against, and giving us alternatives to discuss.
If there was talk about appointing mods from the user group, I missed it.............which thread was that on?
Don't think it would be a good idea myself...........I think the vast majority of the mods on here are fine, though some of them don't appear to do much modding, but do think that it might make users feel better if they had a few elected mods.
But before there can be an election of mods not approved by admin, and therefore of uncertain views, there does have to be reasonably unambiguous strict guidelines to which to work..and that is the current state of play.
Bill Fernie also said he'd wait to be convinced...........pity that others won't do the same.
ywindythesecond
13-Feb-07, 00:03
And I Thought Windmillers Were Argumentative!
weeboyagee
13-Feb-07, 00:19
you have 12 members in your group, correct!! how many have made a contribution towards what your trying to achieve??...how much contribution has these members put in?
There then follows a list. How many of the members listed Bill Boy have had representation made to them to contribute - you STILL fail to understand the reason for the user group. Until you grasp you will probably always have a problem with it.
before you accuse some people of whingeing for the sake of it, maybe you should be speaking to your fellow group members and work toward's your goals together, so you could say, my main gripe is that the whole of the user group dont seem to be working as a GROUP.
When I got representation made to me I put it in the user group forum and the group discussed it - that was working as a group. Not all the group has to deliberate ALL the points ALL the time. I personally don't have a lot of input to make on the more mundane points of the rules and regulations. My forte if you like is trying to get to grips with the mind-set of some of the members to see what they are trying to achieve. Hence my involvement at the time of the "upset" a while ago - and my involvement now. If there is a valid point to be made then I'll back you. Here there is none that I can see. The user group exists to discuss the points that others wish us to discuss - but there aren't many from those saying that we are not working as a group! Where's their points? If they have raised them with one of the other user group members, who, when and where is it in the threads in the user group section?
i am not to good at working out the pros and cons of the rule's, warning's ,infaction's and so on, thats why I thought a user group was voted in? i personally would just like to see the WHOLE user group working together rather than Oddquine being the main person trying thier best but from what i can see she's banging her head against a brick wall,and would benifit from some support from the WHOLE group,
Oddquine has the ability to call on the rest of our support if and when she requires it. What brick wall is she banging her head against? I have read and don't have a lot of input for the points made - they are not something I have a take on - but if the rest of them want my opinion they can have it - if any of the other members want me to make representation on them then I'll gladly do this.
but there again what do i know i am just looked upon as just a whinger for asking the obvious.
C'mon Billy Boy - I said that the thread had a danger of turning into a whinge for whinging's sake. Don't take the hump and spit the dummy. There is only one thing that's obvious to me at the moment, the poll shows 13 out of 44 think that we should be disbanded! Even then there is no qualification to say that it is because they think that the user group is disfunctional or whether they just don't want one and have never wanted one! Ever considered that?
I dont mean to name names to have a go at anyone, i am just trying to make a point here.
I believe you on that and I doubt they are offended. Your point is made and quite rightly so if that's how you feel. I am truly considering your words and if I think I have to be more of a participant in the topics that may not be of initial interest to me then I shall - but I would rather the input from me be the result of representation of the membership. See! Your point may not be wasted on me after all ;) And maybe not on one or two in your list.....
I haven't been keeping up with things but as far as I can see Billy Boy has a couple of valid points. As she says, half of the group have contributed little or nothing to the threads and Oddquine has been more proactive than the rest of them put together. Thank you OQ.
Only group members can post in the usergroup threads so why is it a surprise that ordinary mortals haven't had much input? Which member do we pm if we want to have our say or make suggestions? It's too much bother for most; almost half of us don't care.
Billy Boy
13-Feb-07, 10:47
Quote Oddquine
What needed to be done about them, pray tell? The plug-in was removed, wasn't it? ......
Originally Posted by Billy Boy
Pray Tell..... How do you know it was removed? is someone from the user group in the mods section to know this? or is it a case of they said it was removed and i believe them.
I am not saying it wasnt unplugged, i am only asking how do you know for a fact that it was?
Quote Oddqiune
Because I believe admin who say it has..............and if you don't, should you be bothering to post here?
where did i say i thought it wasnt unplugged?? read my post again before trying to put words in my mouth!!
Quote Oddqiune
Did you stand for election to the Usergroup?
more to the point did i want to stand for election?? did i want to be voted in to the user group so i could make changes for the better of the org? did i want to be in so i could make a contribution to the group??did i want to be in the group so i could be their to back up my fellow members view's??
now i my humble opinion you should be asking your fellow "USER GROUP FOR CHANGE" members these questions instead of trying to be smart with me!!
Quote Oddquine
If there was talk about appointing mods from the user group, I missed it.............which thread was that on?
so i take it from this you did not read the outline for why this group was set up in the first place?? colin manson started a thread with some initial ideas as to what direction the group was to go in!!
and you say you missed it?that was a good start then,i better put a link to this for you!
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=18863
btw
i do HOPE the user group does work beleve it or not,maybe this poll will push start, some of the other members to start putting more input in to the group and start to work together,but i cannot change the way things are going can i ?? CAN YOU
Billy Boy
13-Feb-07, 11:29
[quote=weeboyagee;190458
Oddquine has the ability to call on the rest of our support if and when she requires it. What brick wall is she banging her head against? I have read and don't have a lot of input for the points made - they are not something I have a take on - but if the rest of them want my opinion they can have it - if any of the other members want me to make representation on them then I'll gladly do this.
what i meant by banging her head against a wall,she seems to be the only one doing anything without any backup from her fellow group members,sorry i am not to good at explaining myself most of the time:lol:
Originally Posted by weeboyagee
c'mon on Billy Boy - I said that the thread had a danger of turning into a whinge for whinging's sake. Don't take the hump and spit the dummy. There is only one thing that's obvious to me at the moment, the poll shows 13 out of 44 think that we should be disbanded! Even then there is no qualification to say that it is because they think that the user group is disfunctional or whether they just don't want one and have never wanted one! Ever considered that?
lol thats a good one "spitting the dummy out" as if you didnt know i was being sarcastic,i started this poll because i thought the user group was going knowhere in my opinion and that the group was not working as one or is it just that you cant see that? i want this group to work but they need to work as one,anyway i hope this poll inspires you and the rest of the group to forge on and make a change:D
For the usergroup to work, us users have to use it! ;)
If we have a complaint, suggestion or query for them to deal with, we look up one of the members as listed in the link below and pm them.
The usergroup member then puts it to the other usergroup members via the usergroup board and we can see it being discussed there and the outcome will be there for all us users to see.
No point in us complaining that the usergroup doesn't do anything. We as users have to use it. It does not work on its own; it works for us, the users!
The usergroup is just that, a group for us users to use.:)
(Well I think that's what it is for; after all the postings I'm getting very confused! )
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=19075
Billy Boy
13-Feb-07, 12:43
[quote=Torvaig;190515]For the usergroup to work, us users have to use it!
so basically what your saying is the usergroup is there just as a go between for the users and admin?so surely if this is the case they dont really need 12 group members?
i was under the impression that it worked both ways?ie that they put their views to admin along with other users views!
for those 12 people to put their names forward to be in the group they must of all had alot of views to put across?all i was saying that nearly half the group have hardly put anything into it,why. have their views changed? dont they want to be in the group now?
and yes we users have to use it and so have the user group members for change have to use it as well??;)
I think the purpose of 12 members is so that not just one or two people would be the contacts but the load would be shared between the 12 thus making it less of a burden on one or two. I don't think it means that the 12 have any particular gripe; just wanted to be on the group.
The idea of the usergroup is that it will deal with things that are currently taking up a lot of complaining time on the general board such as now! :confused
If these complaints had been addressed to the usergroup, hopefully it would have been resolved a lot earlier!
And that's my last word on the usergroup, honest! Now go use it, pleeeeaaaaase.....:lol:
Niall Fernie
13-Feb-07, 12:57
Perhaps the members of the group who have not contributed feel that any point that they would like discussed has already been posted by a more active member of the group and see no purpose in duplicating a point that has already been raised.
In any case, by having your issue discussed by the usergroup will allow ordinary users to remain anonymous whilst hopefully still getting some kind of action/response to their problem.
Perhaps the members of the group who have not contributed feel that any point that they would like discussed has already been posted by a more active member of the group and see no purpose in duplicating a point that has already been raised.
In any case, by having your issue discussed by the usergroup will allow ordinary users to remain anonymous whilst hopefully still getting some kind of action/response to their problem.
This, for me at least, is the crux of the matter. I am under a lot of pressure at work at present and cannot spend as much time as I would like on the org; I have even been missing out on the Sunday quizzes, which I sorely miss.
I do try to access the messages at least once a day and often find that one or two, such as Oddquine and WBG, have made some clear and salutory comments upon which I can make no additional point that would be worth reading. So, my thanks to them and do please allow the user group to get on with its remit. PM one of us with any queries and comments - they will be read, discussed, replied to and (hopefully) will assist in the enrichment and development of the org. :)
Cedric Farthsbottom III
13-Feb-07, 18:04
I never see folk as moderators or user group members.I believe this is the best forum on a community website,thats why I join in.I blether to at least three good folk on a Sunday night who I know are moderators,wit a laugh.Am I crawling,trying to put an apple on teachers desk.Naw.I enjoy an orgers company over a sherry or two.Moderators,user groups are required to keep a forum on the straight and narrow.Its US that are the forum,ORGERS.
Kingetter,get yer ass back on and start postin.I miss ye.:D
Billy Boy
21-Feb-07, 20:51
just thought i would bring this back to the top again ,as i see my point being proved right now by 2 members of the user group for change, useing the user group section to have a petty argument, exactly my point of not working together, how is it going to work if they are bickering among themselves:confused
and another one of my points was that part of the user group was not bothering to put a contribution towards the group and now they are useing the section to have a argument and not only that they say
[quote] rheghead
What isn't broke don't fix it. If people actually just obeyed the rules after reading them then there wouldn't be a problem.[quote]
my question to you rheghead, why did you put yourself forward for the user group?? please enlighten me
just thought i would bring this back to the top again ,as i see my point being proved right now by 2 members of the user group for change, useing the user group section to have a petty argument, exactly my point of not working together, how is it going to work if they are bickering among themselves:confused
Guilty as charged..........although the person who started it could so easily just have just complained to a mod.........but it does show he reads the usergroup threads, even if he has contributed little to date.
But I do apologise for letting him goad me into misusing the Usergroup threads.
my question to you rheghead, why did you put yourself forward for the user group?? please enlighten me
Is there any reason why he shouldn't have? Please enlighten us all!
Colin Manson
21-Feb-07, 22:47
But I do apologise for letting him goad me into misusing the Usergroup threads.
I think it's called Trolling rather than goading when it's done of the Internet. :)
Billy Boy - What do you honestly think needs to be done to improve the forum? (that is a genuine question btw)
I think a lot of thought has been put into what some users feel the issues are and what we seem to be moving towards is a new clearer set of rules which are stricter that the old rules.
IMHO the biggest changes have already occurred, in the last 2 months 0 Infractions have been issued, the moderators have changed the way in which they moderate and by putting in more effort we have had much less confrontation.
25 Yellow Cards (warnings) in 2 months is very good for the number of users, a few PMs have also resolved some problems before they got to the warning stage.
These changes have come about through discussions with users and usergroup members. Maybe more changes can make further improvements to the rules/system but surely less requirement to moderate is a good sign that things are improving in the right direction. :D
Billy Boy
21-Feb-07, 23:34
Is there any reason why he shouldn't have? Please enlighten us all!
ok jaws, i shall spell it out for you!
[quote] rheghead
What isn't broke don't fix it. If people actually just obeyed the rules after reading them then there wouldn't be a problem.[quote]
i take from this quote that Rheghead thinks there's nothing wrong with the forum!
so why join "the user group for change"if he thinks theirs nothing to fix?? does that enlighten o sarcastic one:Razz
Billy Boy
22-Feb-07, 00:05
[quote=Colin Manson;193074]I think it's called Trolling rather than goading when it's done of the Internet. :)
Billy Boy - What do you honestly think needs to be done to improve the forum? (that is a genuine question btw)
I think it would only be fair to explain why some threads are removed i.e doserboy's thread about the user group. i came home to look for it and it had vanished, wouldnt it be better haveing something in it's place explaining the removal?
why some people are banned when there doesnt seem to be anything in their posts to warrent a ban... cant a thread be put on explaining rather than have people starting threads to find out why.
Plus if i had more idea's i would of put my name forward for the user group
what i fail to see is, why when there are so many in the user group have they brought nothing forward, am i wrong in thinking the whole point of them wanting voted in was because they had lot's of in put to give??
but it seems that a percentage of them wanted voted in purely in the hope of becoming a moderator
out of the 12 voted in for the usergroup only 2 managed to come in and give their views on this thread 1 agreed with another.
I'm sure if i really stop and think about it there are plenty more things i could add, but it seems that most of the users couldnt care less if there was a user group or not which in turn proves my point by having this poll
btw, i thought trolling carried a infraction?
Colin Manson
22-Feb-07, 02:15
I think it would only be fair to explain why some threads are removed i.e doserboy's thread about the user group. i came home to look for it and it had vanished, wouldnt it be better haveing something in it's place explaining the removal?
I'm lead to believe that the thread was removed for a combination of reasons, the content was "beginning to go back over the old ground." and due to exchanges via PM.
Now we can explain why some posts are removed but it's just not possible in every case, sometimes doing so would break our own rules for instance. None of the moderators would move a post without discussing it with everyone before hand (unless it clearly breaks the rules)
If it's been moved as in this case then it's been done by the site owner or the admin. If that is the case then you'll just have to accept that it was removed because someone felt that it was counterproductive etc.
why some people are banned when there doesnt seem to be anything in their posts to warrent a ban... cant a thread be put on explaining rather than have people starting threads to find out why.
In 99% of cases and there aren't that many people that have been banned, it's probably because the post has been removed as soon as someone has spotted it, either a user reporting the post brings it to our attention or we or the moderators find it ourselves.
We could create a read only section detailing the ban and the reason behind it but I doubt if that would really stop all the public questioning that occurs after a ban.
Plus if i had more idea's i would of put my name forward for the user group
what i fail to see is, why when there are so many in the user group have they brought nothing forward, am i wrong in thinking the whole point of them wanting voted in was because they had lot's of in put to give??
but it seems that a percentage of them wanted voted in purely in the hope of becoming a moderator
out of the 12 voted in for the usergroup only 2 managed to come in and give their views on this thread 1 agreed with another.
The usergroup isn't run by us, if they want to set rules for contributing and kick out those that don't then it's up to you to suggest it and them to enforce it. You may well be correct on your theory about 'mods', I thought that it was simply a group of people that wanted to actively make some changes.
I'm sure if i really stop and think about it there are plenty more things i could add, but it seems that most of the users couldnt care less if there was a user group or not which in turn proves my point by having this poll
btw, i thought trolling carried a infraction?
Feel free to submit more ideas when they come to you, I'll post these in the section when I get some time.
Trolling does carry Warnings/Infractions but it's never up to just one person to decide that, we tend to ask mods/admin for a few opinions before we decide if action needs to be taken.
I think that is probably the fairest way to do it but not necessarily the most transparent method, I guess that it causes all the confusion at the moment but a fixed system seems harsher and less tolerant. In the afore mentioned case I think each gave as good as they got, so in my opinion as long as they don't take it too far I'd leave it alone. If it's a one sided affair then I'd do something about it.
Kaishowing
22-Feb-07, 02:44
.....in the last 2 months 0 Infractions have been issued....
Of course...that may have something to do with the fact that several of the more vocal members capable of individual thinking were given lifetime bans about 2 months ago, and as a result many people are afraid to offer a less than mainstream point of view in case they find themselves excluded.
Pity, as some of the most interesting discussions here were based on opposed views on even some of the most controversial subjects.
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
ok jaws, i shall spell it out for you!
[quote] rheghead
What isn't broke don't fix it. If people actually just obeyed the rules after reading them then there wouldn't be a problem.[quote]
i take from this quote that Rheghead thinks there's nothing wrong with the forum!
so why join "the user group for change"if he thinks theirs nothing to fix?? does that enlighten o sarcastic one:Razz
So he is not entitled to hold that opinion then? I don't recall anybody suggesting that only people who held certain views could put themselves forward.
I understood the idea was for people to put themselves forward and for the active members to elect the people they wanted go onto the Usergroup. Rheghead was one of those who the members chose, where you? The idea was for a discussion to take place to decide what was best in the interests of the Board.
I was not aware theat the only choice should be that given to voters in a One Party Dictatorship, "My way and no other!" That, as far as I recall was not the idea behind setting up the Usergroup and still isn't.
I'm glad you spelled out exactly what you meant I suspect you have clarified your intent for the benefit of a large number of the Members.
For any who might still have missed it I will clarify further, "Shut up Rheghead you are not conforming to the correct agenda and have no right to express any other opinion!"
And no, your final snide comment is absolutely wasted on me, so don’t waste your time with them.
Kaishowing
22-Feb-07, 03:01
Why join the chess club if you only want to play noughts and crosses???
I would have though that the UG would consist of members who genuinely wanted some changes to the site, and were willing to help the Admin and the other users reach an acceptable compromise.
I thought it was taken for granted that most Mods were more than happy with the existing status-quo from 2 months ago, or they would have shown some integrity and resigned their positions rather than be members of a system that they didn't agree with.
I think in the original idea Mods were to be de facto members of the UG, or at least be party to and put forward their input to any proposal, and were to represent the Admin.
Whether you like it or not, Billy Boy, Rheghead was upfront in his opinion in the thread which produced the names for election..........so he must have been elected by those who did like the status quo.............and they are as entitled to their representation as all those who don't.
Of course...that may have something to do with the fact that several of the more vocal members capable of individual thinking were given lifetime bans about 2 months ago, and as a result many people are afraid to offer a less than mainstream point of view in case they find themselves excluded.
Pity, as some of the most interesting discussions here were based on opposed views on even some of the most controversial subjects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations.
The first issue here is the word "publicly". This is not a public forum. It is a privately funded internet site. And it has a code of communication. Where that code is first agreed to and then breached the operators have the right, I would say responsibility, to remove habitual offenders.
Within the concept of the UN Freedom of speech there are restrictions on offensive articulations when they malign people or organizations protected by the accepting nations.
I am trying very hard not to swear here, but I am getting extremely frustrated with the repetition of the freedom of speech argument when it doesn't even begin to apply to the situation that led to the bannings.
"Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. The right is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In some nations with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced, while among liberal democracies, censorship has been claimed to occur in a different form (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws."
Thank you for pointing out that definition, Kaishowing, it proves most enlightening.
Basically, every type of State draws a line somewhere where "Freedom of Speech" is deemed to have crossed into an "Abuse of Free Speech".
Contrary to the belief of some people, Freedom of Speech does not grant the right to say what you want, when you want, how you want to who you want.
Every Society and Group has it's own rules about what is and is not acceptable for the benefit of the everybody.
"Freedom" does not confer the right to act to the detriment of the others.
I don't know of one group or Racists or Religious Bigots who haven't claimed that "Freedom of Speech" gives them the right to spread their despicable beliefs.
Are you suggesting that the above definition should confer that Right on them and they should be allowed to say whatever they wish with complete disregard to the consequences?
Kaishowing
22-Feb-07, 04:03
Okay...leaving out the concept of freedom of speech.
You say that it isn't a public forum...but when you tag the entire site with a place name, then hang it out to be a community website, how more public is that?
Perhaps when this site started it was a private site where the wishes of an individual could be held as law....But Caithnes.Org has long since evolved into a public site, no matter how many 'terms of use' you post at the start of registration.(Besides, how many people truly read those all the way through before ticking that wee box?)
To try to keep it as a private fiefdom while at the same time classing it as a community website is just wrong.
I've also heard people say that the forums are seperate from the rest of the site, but as they have caithness.org in the URL address, and a link to the forums that looks exactly like any other link within the site, plus dozens of links on the furum pages leading elsewhere on the site, so how seperate is that?
Perhaps freedom of speech was the wrong idea to hold up, but there are several people both current and ex-members who truly believe that if you happen to find yourself consistantly opposed to the point of view of certain members then your days as an active member are numbered.
I'm not sure if I believe that myself, but they sure do.
As for the people who were banned...I obviously don't know the circumstances of all of the incidents, but I know of one instance where during one particularly heated debate, several messages were posted that gathered infractions.
Thanks to the delay in action, the infractions all landed at once resulting in instant banning thanks to the accumilation rule, where if they had been given one at a time and seen, then behaviour may well have been moderated on both sides and the banning wouldn't have occurred.
Perhaps along with the warning (yellow card) a very short cool-off period could be imposed to prevent a repeat of someone being banned before they realise that rules have even been broken.
So as far as the relationship between freedom of speech and the bannings, I never actually said there was a connection.
I just thought that I'd remind people that holding an opposite view to someone else isn't a hanging offence, in most places.
Jaws, as for the 'no consequences' thats a tricky question when you look at the world today. I think on the whole the UK government has it more or less right at the moment as regards the freedom of speech laws. It's been said here several times already in the past, I don't have to like or agree with the opinion of others, but I'll defend their right to state them.
As far as I know the Boards were started and remain as a forum for discussions relating to the Caithness area and matter pertaining thereto. It is a forum for the use of people with connections to and/or an interest in the Caithness Area.
The idea, and Admin will no doubt correct me if I am in error, that it is or should be run by anybody other than the Admin has been as a result of wishful thinking on behalf of certain people and Admin, who started the site and still "own" it, have pointed out this fact time and time again for many years.
Just because it has become very popular and very well used does not mean that this has changed anymore than I have a right to say how Microsoft is run just because their products are popular and I make use of them.
You complain about the number of people who have been banned but say that, apart from one person, you have no idea about the circumstances leading to such bans. Apart from the one person you are simply surmising, with nothing to substantiate it, that there is something untoward about the reasons.
Just as the British Government has laid down limits as to what is acceptable and what is not under the headings of Freedom of Speech, so did the Admin with respect to this site.
It does not matter what my feelings are about the restrictions laid down by Parliament with respect to what I am allowed to say in public, if I decide to say things which are in clear breach of those restrictions then I must accept the consequences which are laid down.
The same thing applies to these Forums, there are clearly stated rules about what is and is not acceptable and what is not. If people decide to ignore those rules then they can have no complaint when the suffer the consequences and neither has anybody else.
Just as a matter of interest, there is nothing anywhere which obliges Admin, as owners of the site, to have anybody at all on the site who they do not wish to admit and there is nothing to say they cannot exclude whoever they wish. The fact that they do not behave in that manner, despite what some people imagine, is due to their tolerance and not due to any obligation they are under.
These forums are only a minor part of Caithness.org, they are not the sole reason for the sites existence. As far as I am aware they were started as an aside so local people had a place to chat about matters of local interest. There is nothing at all to say that Admin ever had, or still do have, any obligation to keep the Forums open, nor do they have any obligation to consult anybody about how they run the Forums. Like it or not, that is the situation and there is nothing to say Admin need to change a single thing.
Without Caithness.org there would be no Forums here, without these Forums there would still be a Caithness.org.
I don’t know how many others feel the same but if I were providing a similar service under these circumstances I would have pulled the plug many weeks ago. I would have asked myself, “Do I really need all this hassle?” and the answer I would have arrived at would have been, “Not in the least, it’s the last thing I need!” and I would have just pulled the plug without saying a word to anybody.
But, then again, most people have nowhere near the amount of tolerance I have.
JAWS, that is an excellent summary in my view; well done!
Jaws - Brilliant ! Very well said!
Trinkie
I'm lead to believe that the thread was removed for a combination of reasons, the content was "beginning to go back over the old ground." and due to exchanges via PM.
Now we can explain why some posts are removed but it's just not possible in every case, sometimes doing so would break our own rules for instance. None of the moderators would move a post without discussing it with everyone before hand (unless it clearly breaks the rules)
If it's been moved as in this case then it's been done by the site owner or the admin. If that is the case then you'll just have to accept that it was removed because someone felt that it was counterproductive etc.
My thread may have been going back "over old ground" but is that not exactly what is going in this thread now? Everyone who has contributed to this thread is still arguing as to what the user group are doing etc, which has been the question since day 1.
I have to thank Billy Boy for asking the question publically though. I have PM'd a member of the user group who was going to try to get me an explanation, but I have heard nothing back.
It's not because my thread was removed, but I now firmly believe that all threads on this topic should be closed, or deleted as they are solving nothing.
I am even thinking that the user group should be disbanded, as perhaps nothing needs to change that much anyway? What happened at the back end of last year can't be changed anyway, so let's move on........
Well said, Jaws!
I just stumbled on the forum a few months ago....but now I'd really miss it if it disappeared...:~(
Kaishowing
22-Feb-07, 14:20
Within your first sentance you defined what a community website is, so while it's owned and run by the Admin (I never suggested that it shouldn't be) there is obviously a public aspect to it as well.
That's beside the point, as is the use of Microsoft as an example, but to extent the argument if you were a shareholder of Microsoft, then in fact you would have a say how the comapny is run. Each member of Caithness .Org is a shareholder too though, just by their membership status.
As for the complaints about the number of people banned.....I don't believe I said that, but clearly stated that it was the impression some people had about the circumstances of the exclusions, and I gave only the one example because while I have been made aware of other incidents, that was the only one that I knew of in detail.
You're quite right about Admin being under no obligation to allow anyone they don't wish here.....But as you've already agreed that it's a site that is there for the public (private or not,) and that users have a responsibility to act in an acceptable manner, that responsibility is also shared by Admin and anyone else seen to be part of the site framework. Even more so perhaps, as examples need to be set.
Again you're right when you say that Admin can do what they want when they want, and change whatever they want without having to give reasons for what they do.
To act in that way however would show a terrible lack of respect to the hundreds and thousands of people within the membership, and a forum without members is nothing. One cannot function without the other.
As for the hassle, I'm not trying to stir anything up. The fact that you would just switch off a forum without any consideration of the membership shows exactly why you don't run one.
Also it's nice to see that the attitudes of some of the Mods haven't changed from the pre-Kingettergate days.
It would be a shame if the spirit in which the UG was created in was forgotten. It was through a desire to make the forums a better and fairer place for everyone...Is it still that?
Or is it like a really good idea proposed in parliament, which has to go through several commitees, and boards and then pops out at the end of it all a shadow of what it once was, diluted and of no use. I hope not.
Billy Boy
22-Feb-07, 16:53
So he is not entitled to hold that opinion then? I don't recall anybody suggesting that only people who held certain views could put themselves forward.[quote]
yes they are entitled to hold a opinion and thats why they put their names forward for the group, so why have half of them not expressed their opinion?
[quote jaws]
I understood the idea was for people to put themselves forward and for the active members to elect the people they wanted go onto the Usergroup. Rheghead was one of those who the members chose, where you? The idea was for a discussion to take place to decide what was best in the interests of the Board.[quote]
yes rheghead put himself forward and i still dont know why. do you?
and yes the idea was for discussion but i have yet to see half of them discuss, have you?
being sarcastic again, "where you" as well you know i didnt put my name forward in the first place, sarcasm doesnt really suit you sir
[quote jaws]
I'm glad you spelled out exactly what you meant I suspect you have clarified your intent for the benefit of a large number of the Members.
For any who might still have missed it I will clarify further, "Shut up Rheghead you are not conforming to the correct agenda and have no right to express any other opinion!" [quote]
i can only assume that it is your opinion and not mine. you should read the thread again. at first i named 5 group members who i thought made little or no contribution to the group, rheghead only came up when i pointed out that he and oddquine were useing the group section to have a little go at each other.so please enlighten me, how came up with your sweeping statement?
[quote]And no, your final snide comment is absolutely wasted on me, so don’t waste your time with them.
btw the snide comment was just the truth:Razz
Within your first sentance you defined what a community website is, so while it's owned and run by the Admin (I never suggested that it shouldn't be) there is obviously a public aspect to it as well.
That's beside the point, as is the use of Microsoft as an example, but to extent the argument if you were a shareholder of Microsoft, then in fact you would have a say how the comapny is run. Each member of Caithness .Org is a shareholder too though, just by their membership status. .
No we are not “shareholders” we are simply people make use of the site and as far as I am concerned We have no more right to start demanding we have a right to tell the people who own and run it what to do than we have a right to demand that the owners of any other organisation do as their customers tell them.
We are “users” of the Forums and that is all. Perhaps the term” Members” is leading to some sort of misunderstanding and giving some people the impression that they have some right of control over the forums.
I would suggest that Admin delete all mention of “Member” and replace it by the word “User” so everybody is clear about their standing with respect to the Forums.
As for the complaints about the number of people banned.....I don't believe I said that, but clearly stated that it was the impression some people had about the circumstances of the exclusions, and I gave only the one example because while I have been made aware of other incidents, that was the only one that I knew of in detail. .
Post 34
Of course...that may have something to do with the fact that several of the more vocal members capable of individual thinking were given lifetime bans about 2 months ago, and as a result many people are afraid to offer a less than mainstream point of view in case they find themselves excluded. .
The italics and the bold are mine for clarification. The obvious interpretation is that “several” people were banned simply for being vocal on certain subjects and for no other reason. You then say you are only aware of the details regarding one person and not “several”. As far as I am concerned, if a person is banned then that is between Admin and that particular person who should take the matter up with Admin themselves. I don’t see that Admin have any need to discuss the matter with anybody other than the individual involved.
As far as I am aware there is nothing which says that being banned is subject to some sort of popularity contest.
You're quite right about Admin being under no obligation to allow anyone they don't wish here.....But as you've already agreed that it's a site that is there for the public (private or not,) and that users have a responsibility to act in an acceptable manner, that responsibility is also shared by Admin and anyone else seen to be part of the site framework. Even more so perhaps, as examples need to be set.
Again you're right when you say that Admin can do what they want when they want, and change whatever they want without having to give reasons for what they do.
To act in that way however would show a terrible lack of respect to the hundreds and thousands of people within the membership, and a forum without members is nothing. One cannot function without the other. .
As far as I am concerned Admin have set an example of what the standard of behaviour on the Forums should be by dealing with those who were unwilling to remain within the Rules of the Forums which are there for everybody to see. Everybody should, by now, be quite clear that the Rules are there for a reason and are to be adhered to and that persisting in intentionally breaking them will not be tolerated.
As for the hassle, I'm not trying to stir anything up. The fact that you would just switch off a forum without any consideration of the membership shows exactly why you don't run one. .
That is the very reason I would definitely not even consider running one in the first place. From experience I am well aware that there are some people who feel that they not only have the right but in fact have an absolute duty to challenge any Rule they see in order to have it removed.
Also it's nice to see that the attitudes of some of the Mods haven't changed from the pre-Kingettergate days. .
Have you got anybody particular in mind?
It would be a shame if the spirit in which the UG was created in was forgotten. It was through a desire to make the forums a better and fairer place for everyone...Is it still that?
Or is it like a really good idea proposed in parliament, which has to go through several commitees, and boards and then pops out at the end of it all a shadow of what it once was, diluted and of no use. I hope not.
The only people who seem to have forgotten the spirit under which the UG was formed is those who just see them as yet another opportunity for trying to create even more discord. Your reference to Parliament is quite apt. I can think of no better recent example of what happens when Rules or Laws are rushed into being without being properly thought through.
The UG should concentrate on making sure that the end result of their deliberations creates a set of circumstances which are acceptable and workable and if that means them taking their time about it then so be it.
I would much rather they did that than and come up with something workable than that they rush around and make a mess of things just to satisfy the wishes of certain individuals who think they are not dancing to their timetables or wishes. .
Billy Boy
22-Feb-07, 19:16
Whether you like it or not, Billy Boy, Rheghead was upfront in his opinion in the thread which produced the names for election..........so he must have been elected by those who did like the status quo.............and they are as entitled to their representation as all those who don't.
The point i was making and which obviously went over your head lol, was why did rheghead ( or any others for that matter) put themselves forward when they had no in put to put in or any intention of putting anything towards the group.
It seems that right from the start there was a lot of shouting from certain members about what would be done about the issues that brought about the user group in the first place and what was done NOTHING.[disgust]
BTW What do you mean by whether i like it or not? I personnally have no argument with rheaghead so dont try to make out i have it wasnt me who was having a childish with him argument lol, or is it your way of distracting everyone from the fact that you had an argument
Billy Boy, are you saying the UG should be judged by the number of suggestions they do or do not make or express?
I personally did not subject to interrogation any of the candidates as to why they put themselves forward it was their choice to do so and once people had voted for the people the wished to represent them then I accept that choice.
ok jaws, i shall spell it out for you!
rheghead
What isn't broke don't fix it. If people actually just obeyed the rules after reading them then there wouldn't be a problem
i take from this quote that Rheghead thinks there's nothing wrong with the forum!
so why join "the user group for change"if he thinks theirs nothing to fix?? does that enlighten o sarcastic one:Razz
Now I wonder where I got the idea that Rheghead has no right to express certain opinions?
I don’t remember the Usergroup being set up to follow any fixed agenda. I thought the idea was for it to arrive at a conclusion which helped the board run smoothly. It is up to them to decide what suggestions they come up with. Just because they do not move in the direction that some individuals decide they should be going is no cause for complaint. They are there for the benefit of all the users not to satisfy the aims of any particular user or small group of users.
Any User can post on the Usergroup Forum and make suggestions as far as I am aware. If you have so many concerns why not express them there, surely that is the correct place to do so. I could obviously be labouring under a misapprehension but that is why I thought that particular Forum had been created in the first place.
Perhaps the only solution to make headway is to elect a Steering-group to make suggestions as to what changes should be made to the Usergroup to assist in it’s smooth running so that it can make suggestions as to what changes should be made to the Board to assist in it’s smooth running.
Then we could elect a Subgroup to make suggestions as to what changes should be made to the Steering-group to assist -------.
“Time for bed.” said Florence.
“Boing!” said Zebedee.
Billy Boy
22-Feb-07, 19:51
Jaws if all you are going to do is spout a load of bollocks why dont you start your own thread.
As for putting our suggestions on to the user group forum, I thought even you had the sense to know that it is for the user group only, thats why it has a padlock on it and you a mod:confused
No wonder the mods get a bad name when the likes of you just try your best to goad folk into arguments all you are doing is trolling me cos you sure as heck are talking pure crap man.:Razz
so why dont you toddle off and watch the magic roundabout since all you are good for is going round in circles covering old ground
Colin Manson
22-Feb-07, 20:03
Locking the thread before it goes any farther.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.