PDA

View Full Version : Blatantly Obvious



Bill Fernie
30-May-05, 18:13
For obvious reasons I will not be entering the debate on this thread but suffice to say that the "blatantly obvious" is not to me as I did not delete the thread for any reason personal or otherwise. I would agree with the deletions howeve as some of the remarks were offensive and hardly conducive to making the thread useful.
As has been pointed out in other threads personal remarks leave the thread open to being removed by any of the moderators.
Attacking the moderators for actions taken is unlikely to help.

neep___docker
30-May-05, 19:44
But, to be perfectly honest Bill, you'd get a lot of respect and support if you were to contribute to the debate on the dog's dinner that CASE is making of intervening in the local economy.

As a board member of CASE, I thought you'd at least want to defend their corner.

JD2
30-May-05, 20:01
If there were offensive remarks would it not have been better moderation to have pm'd the posters of those remarks asking them to edit their posts and giving a polite warning rather than complete deletion of entire threads?

What some people will look upon as offensive many others won't, it's like a vegetarian might find it offensive if someone posted a recipe for stew but most people wouldn't think anything of it, some people will find swearing offensive but most won't, so who plays god and decides what is offensive and what isn't?

JD

The Pepsi Challenge
30-May-05, 20:06
If there were offensive remarks would it not have been better moderation to have pm'd the posters of those remarks asking them to edit their posts and giving a polite warning rather than complete deletion of entire threads?

What some people will look upon as offensive many others won't, it's like a vegetarian might find it offensive if someone posted a recipe for stew but most people wouldn't think anything of it, some people will find swearing offensive but most won't, so who plays god and decides what is offensive and what isn't?

JD


Well, what does the forum rules say?

neep___docker
30-May-05, 21:33
Well, what does the forum rules say?

Nope, can't seem to find anything in the rules that says a whole thread will be removed as a result of one post.

I also believe that the user known as 'CASE_of_death' was removed by the moderators as well - apparently for swearing - but there was no record of swearing by that user at all.

Bill Fernie
30-May-05, 22:17
It is very difficult to enter into debate on a topic where you are closely connected with decision making in any way that might open your part in it to suggestion of bias. There are lots of rules and guidelines to follow and it would take me too long to debate the issues online. Anyone can go and read these for themselves if they want to see what is involved. What I will say is that everyone that I come across whether I agree with them or not is trying to their best for Caithness and the Highlands. We may all take different view of any topic but I alwys have tried to look at things from as many angles as possible My own angle is only one and seeing the otherviewpoints, listening to staff advice and hearing what the local community wants is al part of it. It is what I feel anyone in public life must do and in the end hopefully a concensus will result that makes something worthwhile happen.

On the Message Board threads. Rules or no rules we do not have to justify removing threads. We may get it wrong from time to time but the only people we have to justify the decisions to are ourselves. There are no comittees, no funders just three men trying to provide a service to the area in the limited time we have available. We are all engaged in many other activities and if we need to spend too much time moderating a message board it leaves less time for other things on the web site and elsewhere. Personally I may not look at the message boards for days or even weeks on end and even when I do may not have time to look over all the threads as it is so busy these days.

If the task is made to onerous for us we will have no alternative but to hand out more and longer bans to save ourselves the time involved in sorting out problems. The message boards are menat to be helpful and interesting to folk who want to take part in discussions , exchange information and so on. More debates on topics are interesting to many people but where they descend in to personal insults about indoviduals or businesses they can be less than helpful. The ability to scream from the top of your voice opinions in the main street would soon have you locked up. Also the somewhat anonymous nature of the message boards makes it very unfair on the people being criticised who may be totally unaware of what is being said. Whilst that may be allowed on some boards we do not intend to allow it here. Perhaps if we were to reveal the names of the publishers of the messages some fairness might be brought into the situation. However just as we do not do this for the writers it is equally unfair for those posting messages to attack people personally for any reason on public message boards.

So as it has been since the start everyone has no choice but to accept our decisions or move to another message board elsewhere - there are masses of them after all. We could debate and argue abnbout this or that posting for hours but we agreed ages ago that we would act decisively and not question each moderators decisions. that was to save time and in the end removal of threads does not make much difference to the overall movement on the boards. Only very few threads have been removed and users who step over the mark are banned in progressively longer periods until they are out for good.

It is somewhat galling for us to be attacked for various reasons for providing a free service and I am glad to say it is by very few individuals. Still we are all pretty well able to take the criticism and to defend others by removing threads if that is required. The web site is viewed by all ages in the community and we are well aware of our responsibilities to make it a safe place for children and others to look around. We are well able to and have dealt with folk who seem to be bent on disrupting other people's debates with bad language and worse. We would prefer not to have to do this but the nature of the web puts us all out there to be knocked. But perhaps the knockers and critics should consider more closely just what they contribute. Criticism can be helpful but if used in some war of attrition against an individual or group whether in relationships or in public life it can be extremely damaging and corrosive eating away at self esteem and local pride. There are many ways to look at this one that come to mind - pessimist or optimist. Glass half full or half empty and so on.

It is always worth while taking step back before being critical and putting yourself in the place of the person or group you are about to deride. And perhaps instead of attacking look for ways of suggesting a way round the problems. For problems they mainly are that individuals, councillors, CASE directors, the staff of public services, small and large businesses - owners and managers are all trying to solve on a daily basis to improve the future of our locality and the society we all live in.

neep___docker
30-May-05, 22:33
An excellent, measured response, Bill. All credit to you.

In your last paragraph you say...


It is always worth while taking step back before being critical and putting yourself in the place of the person or group you are about to deride. And perhaps instead of attacking look for ways of suggesting a way round the problems. For problems they mainly are that individuals, councillors, CASE directors, the staff of public services, small and large businesses - owners and managers are all trying to solve on a daily basis to improve the future of our locality and the society we all live in.

Here in lies the problem. For too long, well meaning, hard working people in this area have been thwarted in their attempts to deal with the problems of the area and to improve the world around them for the benefit of everyone.

They have been thwarted on one hand in the private sector by the disproportionate power of greed and influence by a small minority. And on the other hand in the public sector by weakness, incompetence and political constraint.

We all need to wrestle our destiny out of the hands of those who wish to exploit it, and from those who are incompetent in designing it.

Bobinovich
30-May-05, 23:25
An excellent, measured response, Bill. All credit to you.

In your last paragraph you say...


It is always worth while taking step back before being critical and putting yourself in the place of the person or group you are about to deride. And perhaps instead of attacking look for ways of suggesting a way round the problems. For problems they mainly are that individuals, councillors, CASE directors, the staff of public services, small and large businesses - owners and managers are all trying to solve on a daily basis to improve the future of our locality and the society we all live in.

Here in lies the problem. For too long, well meaning, hard working people in this area have been thwarted in their attempts to deal with the problems of the area and to improve the world around them for the benefit of everyone.

They have been thwarted on one hand in the private sector by the disproportionate power of greed and influence by a small minority. And on the other hand in the public sector by weakness, incompetence and political constraint.

We all need to wrestle our destiny out of the hands of those who wish to exploit it, and from those who are incompetent in designing it.

Well put yersel' neep___docker! As one of the myriad of sucessful small-business owners in the county, I've all but given up approaching CASE and other business/funding bodies, mostly because of the amount of paperwork involved and/or the private funding required to qualify for funding assistance.

The paperwork involved in running a business on a day to day basis is already a strain on any self-employed person. Larger businesses will employ one (or more) person(s) to handle accounts, payroll, admin, etc. and can even afford to employ someone dedicated to form filling and to identify sources of/apply for funding.

As an example, a few years ago I wanted to purchase a piece of equipment valued at £3000. I was told by CASE that the minimum capital outlay which they would assist was £8000 of which I'd be eligible for a 40% grant!

Now granted, larger businesses such as Hunters of Brora and Norfrost employ large numbers of people but they have had similarly large amounts of funding.

Would it not make sense to break some of these hugh amounts of funding in much smaller bites and pump them into smaller businesses to allow them to progress, grow and eventually employ.

A small amount can make a massive difference to a small business and, at least if a small business ends up failing, it's only a small amount of public funding which has been lost.

The Pepsi Challenge
31-May-05, 02:23
On the subject of moderating: would it not be easier for all concerned to designate some of the others on the board as moderator? The majority of messageboards I frequent - once they've attracted a large volume of users - usually sees the owners of whatever messageboard hand over moderating responsibilites to someone clearly evident of handling the job.

However, I strongly suggest you don't give the job to doreenhedgehog. She'd have me bumped off in a second. I love her really, and I know she has something for me too - she just hides it with low-key hostility.

I'd also be willing to put my real name forward, should such a situation be called for.

champagnebaby
31-May-05, 02:52
I think squidge would be a good moderator - she always manages to see both sides of the coin. :)

I think the way it's moderated just now is right enough - why change something if it's not broken???

EDDIE
31-May-05, 08:56
Bill is correct in what he is saying there is a lot of work goes into this website and is well updated and is a good service for the community.And the message boards shouldnt be used to slagg other people or local buisness off

neep___docker
31-May-05, 09:06
Don't think anyone is on a mission to just slag people off, Eddie.

These threads have brought a number of very important facts and issues to a wider audience, including the press, and have also resulted in a number of other pieces of information coming out of the woodwork.

For example, the information on the fact that Norforst had not submitted annual accounts since 2002, despite being legally required to do so - and worse still that CASE provided £1.2m to the company when it had no audited accounts submitted to Companies House.

That isn't slagging off - that's getting to the core of the problems of greed in the private sector and incompetence in the public sector, while the rest of us have to carry out our business and personal lives within the law in blind ignorance that others aren't.

squidge
31-May-05, 09:44
I agree with you neep_docker - i was shocked to realise that Money had been put into Norfrost despite it not having provided accounts since 2002.

However I think there is couple of points here.

Orgnaisations like CASE,The Highland Council, Jobcentreplus,Inland Revenue are all public bodies spending tax payers money and accountable to the public.Their activities and the activities of those who make decsions within those organisations should be open to scrutiny and should be able to be discussed here on this message board. I accept what Bill says about them trying to do their best but they are public officials and as such they have to accept that with that comes scrutiny and a need to be held accountable. If in the process of discussing these organisations reference is made to Norfrost or other private businesses then as long as that isnt a personal and unpleasant attack pn an individual it should be allowed.

Private businesses are different - singling out companies and naming names in private businesses in an area like this is not really fair. These people are NOT accountable to us - the public - they are private individuals making a living. Holding them up to ridicule and slagging them off is not really appropriate. By all means discuss issues aroudn the DDA and petrol prices and the like - they are important but we should avoid personal attacks on individuals.

Finally - thanks champagnebaby for the vote - but i have had many a post removed and many a comment censored and got quite snippy about it as im sure the current mods will confirm. I personally believe that there is sometimes heavy handedness on the part of the mods but on the whole im here and still posting so i must be relatively happy about it.

frank ward
31-May-05, 11:17
I can recall a particularly ludicrous grant (was it from CASE or RACE I can't remember).

£3000 was given to a lonely hearts website covering the highlands. Not to actually employ anybody, I recall, just to give the site builder some spending money. His face must've fitted, like too many HIE supplicants.

But of course this is small beer. Whatever happened to the millions of Euro money 'unaccounted for'? Did anyone get disciplined/sacked/kicked upstairs? Er, no.

When I was setting up a business a few years ago we were promised all kinds of help by RACE. A business plan was prepared at our own expense of course and met with great approval. So off we went, ordering equipment and building work. Then the promises went like snow off a dyke. Stupid me believing that promises would be kept.
First to go was any chance of a grant. Originally I was told I could get a grant for structural conversion work, this was never mentioned again by RACE, No reason given. Then they said no help could be given for buying 'removable' equipment. Eh??

Later, one risible offer RACE gave was that they MIGHT loan me some money IF the banks first said NO! In other words, they might lend me some money if the banks thought I was on a loser!! But if the bank thought I was on a winner I would have to take their offer and pay their higher interest rates! Bemused? I was.

I was lucky, having independent funds to cover work in progress, but others would have been up the proverbial creek.

EDDIE
01-Jun-05, 21:27
Hi neep___docker your right there is a lot of interesting facts and issues on the subject of CASE and i have noticed that the word CASE seems to be a touchy subject but what im saying is bill and his team put a lot of work into this sight for us all to read and take part in the messageboards and we should respect his rules for this website.
Because after all this a good website for local people and also for people that used to live in caithness and the messageboard is quite good to take part in as well its a shame to ruin it

JD2
02-Jun-05, 14:26
Hi neep___docker your right there is a lot of interesting facts and issues on the subject of CASE and i have noticed that the word CASE seems to be a touchy subject but what im saying is bill and his team put a lot of work into this sight for us all to read and take part in the messageboards and we should respect his rules for this website.
Because after all this a good website for local people and also for people that used to live in caithness and the messageboard is quite good to take part in as well its a shame to ruin it

I can agree with Bill in much of what is said and there is a lot of work that goes into the site for no financial return. But, this attitude that people have to accept the terms or sod off, leaves a sense of dictatorship!

There has to be rules, of course there has to be, but rules need to be sensible, fair and above all, clearly defined.

Read the rules and you see that just simply swearing will result in a months ban :eek: , this is 2005 and although I don't particularly like swearing myself I do accept that most people will occassionally let the odd swear word slip and after all it's only words. Okay so the forum is open to anyone of all ages, but children use far worse language than any of us adults, they will hear far worse in the playground, on tv and in the street than they would on any forum. It is a very harsh rule to impose a ban on someone for just swearing, or am I alone in my thinking?

It is obviously upto the moderators what is acceptable/offensive and what is not, but that is them having the right to impose only their beliefs upon people, what they say goes goes and that's final but there is no clear guidelines on what they deem suitable and unsuitable. There will always be someone who would take offensive to just about anything, what is offensive to one person is not to the next person.

There will always be silly (woops, I was about to get a months ban there) beggars who will make posts that are out of order and I can see that moderating a forum is time consuming, therefore is it not best to either take on extra moderation volunteers (the unfavoured option as it's less moderation that's needed, not more) or to split the forum into two sections with one section as it is and another section unmoderated and accessible only by over 18's who choose to view.

JD

Margaret M.
02-Jun-05, 14:47
The no swearing rule is not tough to follow, at least not on the message boards :) . One can avoid the ban by simply previewing the content before submitting. Bill et al have done a superb job creating/maintaining caithness.org -- it is a wonderful source of information especially for those of us far from home. I think establishing some posting rules and guidelines is totally acceptable.

neep___docker
02-Jun-05, 15:49
The no swearing rule is not tough to follow, at least not on the message boards


Hmmm, the RNLI thread on the messageboard is riddled with swearing yet it remains there as a thread in its entirety.

Mind you, it's also full of tedious guff masquerading as religious views, which is a bigger turn-off than the swearing.

Rheghead
02-Jun-05, 17:16
In other forums to which I am a member, the mere slightest criticism of the moderator and the rules can result in a ban. Anyway, if we get a ban it won't be the end of the world. Lets face it, we are pretty sad to spend so much time typing at our computers when we could be doing something really worthwhile with our lives. If we spent as much time curing the ills of the World as we do typing a complaint on here about them then the globe would be a better place... :lol:

JD2
02-Jun-05, 18:59
In other forums to which I am a member, the mere slightest criticism of the moderator and the rules can result in a ban. Anyway, if we get a ban it won't be the end of the world. Lets face it, we are pretty sad to spend so much time typing at our computers when we could be doing something really worthwhile with our lives. If we spent as much time curing the ills of the World as we do typing a complaint on here about them then the globe would be a better place... :lol:
How very true Rheghead. If only we all spent our time more productively.

As for forums, been there and got the t-shirt and I now only use one other forum and that has only one rule to respect other members , anything goes (within reason) so long as there is no personal insults etc.

JD

Riffman
02-Jun-05, 23:52
Yawn. I agree that either the mods need to be more active, or we need more of em. One of the message boards that I use has a moderating team of 21 people. Although it does have 6,044 registered members, and 227,202 posts.

http://www.arniesairsoft.co.uk/forums

Riff

neep___docker
03-Jun-05, 00:13
If we spent as much time curing the ills of the World as we do typing a complaint

OK, well here's a challenge to everyone that allows you to both sit at your computer AND try to cure the ills of the world at the same time.

Send an email to your local MSP and ask the questions below. Your most relevant MSPs will be:

- Jamie Stone. email: Jamie.Stone.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
- Rob Gibson. email: Rob.Gibson.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

The suggested questions are:

1) Of all 'Finance for Business' funding approvals over £30,000 made by Caithness & Sutherland Enterprise (CASE), between April 2001 and October 2004,
a) what actual sums have been drawn down by each of the companies involved in each approval;
b) how many jobs have been created as a result, as at May 2005;
c) how many jobs have been retained, as at May 2005 ?

2) What is CASE's policy on making 'Finance for Business' funding approvals for a company when it is overdue in its statutory obligation to submit its annual audited accounts to Companies House.

3) What was the nature of the security provided on the £1.2million soft loan provided to Norfrost Ltd in 2004 ?


You'll need to provide your name and address at the end of the email to your MSP - this isn't so that they'll come after you, but it shows that you are a constituent and that they can't use the exuse of bumping your enquiry on the basis that they don't know who you are.

So go on - I shall personally provide a prize of some quality Old Pulteney to the first person who can come back to this forum with an official answer.

Oh, and no point sending it to your councillor, or to your MP John Sinclair, since CASE is under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Executive.

Have fun exercising your democratic right !

kwbrown111
03-Jun-05, 00:21
well, i'm afraid the censorship only seems to work in certain cases. some of the ones complaining have been quilty on cases that should have been banned permanently for racial and social descrimination(they know whom i'm talking about)but no only the ones ie CASE seem to get censored. i'm afraid it seems to stink of bigorty.