[C o z y]

I think nothing changes really. It's OK for what it's here for. Some guys give and seek advice. After you've been on here for a while, you get a bit bored with the same old questions and rants, so you end up in Tosh's club in the chat section. There you can watch other members like ARCHER come in now and again and get a keyboard kicking. Then there was the famous "Fit burd" thread from 2009. It's fun sometimes in the loony bin chat section.  

The forum should stand or fall on it's own merit really. If enough people keep posting, then it's ggood enough to run. the Mods have calmed down a lot in the last 12 months. I think it's pretty quiet compared to how it can get.

I think any Mods who are cross dressing sexual deviants should be kept on a short leash tough  

[AuRavelling79]

How about "Any post counts above 14,125 will be carried forward to your next incarnation"

What would 144,000 posts get you Paul? 

[Frankybadboy]

ban all post of religion,

[Dave Willis]

Good God whatever next 

[wpclean]

ban all post of religion,

That will come later 

[rosskesava]

Ban any poster who uses the word 'guys' or 'fella'. 

[colin purewater]

Sorry I havnt read all the reply So not sure if
You are all taking the pee!

But my views are

Any racist  comments and they should be banned
For life with no warnings  or telling off

Every member should be accountable / traceable
Especially in the for sale and round section
As in :
Company name and business address to be register
Maybe hmrc or vat number all so ( I don't no how this would be policed)
Email addresses and other details can not be hidden

My thoughts are if people have got to hide there details
They shouldn't be aloud on Ciu  especially to sell stuff

Just my thoughts tosh I think it would make Ciu a better place
Many thanks
Colin

[Tom White]

Every member should be accountable / traceable
Especially in the for sale and round section
As in :
Company name and business address to be register
Maybe hmrc or vat number all so ( I don't no how this would be policed)
Email addresses and other details can not be hidden

I kinda disagree with this.  Give me an e-mail address and I can do some stuff with it that you may not like, without you knowing, and which may annoy you.

As for buying and selling, there's a phrase - Caveat emptor - which means buyer beware.  We're all grown ups, we know there's dodgy people about, so before parting with any cash it's up to the buyer to check everything out.  Just like when you buy a used car or even a house.

The buyer is responsible (in my view), but I realise in this day-and-age people don't like taking responsibility.

Agree with the rest though; I'll include racism in there too, but it'll have to be along the lines of 'in the moderator's view', 'cos some stuff is subjective.  There was one idiot on recently arguing that if calling someone ginger is okay, then the abbreviated form of Pakistani should be okay.  It's tough trying to explain to dullards who have been drinking how 'ginger' doesn't carry the same cultural baggage as some racist words.

So yeh, maybe you're right, no warnings and a direct ban for racist comments.  Any more views on this?

[G Griffin]

I propose a Readers' Wives section.

[stuart mc]

So yeh, maybe you're right, no warnings and a direct ban for racist comments.  Any more views on this?

disagree I uphold my right to be racist towards the english, and you would be stuffed with no way of slagging wales, the paddies and jocks

[gewindows]

I propose a Readers' Wives section.

Top post lol

[rosskesava]

So yeh, maybe you're right, no warnings and a direct ban for racist comments.  Any more views on this?

I agree a ban for repeated and deliberate racist comments. Having said that, it's better to try and educate first before banning.

Also, sometimes, someone can post something that they intended to mean and be read differently to how the words read to another person.

That's happened a few times on the off topic section.

[DaveG]

I propose a Readers' Wives section.

Seconded 

[Tom White]

I'll draft a set of revised forum rules out by the weekend; if anyone can add anything else; funny or sensible; that'd be appreciated.

So far the topics are:

1.  Racist remarks.
2.  Threatening/anti social behaviour.
3.  Swearing (don't know if it's been mentioned, but we get complaints about this).
4.  To be respectful of other people's views.

Anything else?

[Tom White]

Shame we cant reset it back 3+ years when it was a great place to be

This forum must be nearing it's 10th birthday and since about 9 years ago, every so often, someone says "This forum isn't what it used to be!"   3+ years ago people were probably saying "This forum isn't what it used to be".  And in three years time people will be saying, (yep you guessed it) "This forum isn't what it used to be".

I can explain why this is; you see, this forum doesn't inherently exist on it's own side, it takes a conceptual mind to create it.  So depending on your own unique conceptual mind, you will view this forum in any number of different ways.  Some members will think it's a 'great forum', others will think it's a 'okay forum', and others will think 'This forum aint what it used to be'.  That kind of proves that the forum doesn't inherently exist, because if it did, we'd all see the same forum; but as I've shown, our minds create what it is. 

Subtle eh?

(Sorry  )

[Tom White]

I've just dug out the Malicious communications act and sticking it here, so I don't have to research it again when drafting forum rules.

Malicious communications

Section 1(1) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 provides that an offence is committed by any person who sends to another person, with the intention of causing distress or anxiety:

an electronic communication which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive, a threat, or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
any electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature.
Electronic communication is specified to include any communication sent by an electronic communications network, and any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form, and should therefore cover forum and message board posts.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 provides for two further offences, very similar to that under the 1988 Act.

First, a person is guilty of an offence if he sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character, or causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

Second, a person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he: (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b) causes such a message to be sent; or (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

Punishment under the 1988 Act or the 2003 Act may, again, be by way of a fine and/or imprisonment.

[mark dew]

Remove post count from posters details. (It just reminds me what a saddo I am)  

Yes that would be a good one. Each post can stand or not on its own quality then.
I'm in two minds about more rules.
I don't like reading any personal type post as it does as tosh  has said, devalue the argument. But the forum has always had the abilty to ban people else they  disappeared and came back with a different log in and attitude without the ban.
It's always been a dynamic forum and this i believe is the anticipation of not knowing what madness is going to be posted.

Not that i, or many others would want it, but it could be better policed with 3 or 4 new moderators of a similar calibre to the ones we have.
Just to pull up the personal posts before they take over a thread.

[G Griffin]

Three or four moderators like Ian Giles?

[mark dew]

Three or four moderators like Ian Giles?

i don't go on the other sections but yes like ian giles, tosh n dave.
 

[Tom White]

Remove post count from posters details. (It just reminds me what a saddo I am)  

Yes that would be a good one. Each post can stand or not on its own quality then.
I'm in two minds about more rules.
I don't like reading any personal type post as it does as tosh  has said, devalue the argument. But the forum has always had the abilty to ban people else they  disappeared and came back with a different log in and attitude without the ban.
It's always been a dynamic forum and this i believe is the anticipation of not knowing what madness is going to be posted.

Not that i, or many others would want it, but it could be better policed with 3 or 4 new moderators of a similar calibre to the ones we have.
Just to pull up the personal posts before they take over a thread.

Gentlemen, we need rules, without rules, we will have chaos.

But I think you've made some very good points.

I can ask forum about the post count thing, but I reckon it'll stay.  I think some guys like getting their post count up so it encourages more postings and keeps things busy; that is until you get to the realms of 'saddo' status like my own.

You're right about the 'dynamic part', but I think the no racism, swearing, respectful towards other views, and threatening behaviour part is all good common sense stuff which ought to be written down.

And can I recommend that you be a Mod?

I think the only problems I have is the threatening behaviour and stupid racist remarks.  In the past few months I've banned two members for threatening another; that's not on; one sent an e-mail saying he knew where he lived and was going to cut his wife and rape her wound.  Not nice.  The idiot didn't realise that it was easy to find out who he was via his I.P. address and he was lucky that the member didn't press charges.

But overall, I think that your point about there being 'less rules' rather than more is excellent.

Thanks.

P.S.  Pulling out the 'personal slights' before they take over a post won't be easy; mods aren't all seeing and knowing.  And it's also subjective; you don't have to be too clever to infer stuff about another member without making it too obvious.  I'm guilty of that one.   We'll just have to muddle along with that one.