Is it just me....

[macstheman]

I don't see the point in a second message room. The football / sport threads are stickied to the top, I don't bother scrolling down much to the political threads unless curiosity gets the cat, in which case it would be my choice to read / engage, the latter I rarely do - for what it's worth, everyone pretty much wants the same thing bar one red exception, just a slightly different view on how it's achieved, I can't be bothered to get involved.
Other than 1 tedious disagreement last year, the football chats have been largely been unscathed, and represent the amount of engagement you'd expect from an ageing internet forum. The forum won't grow, people largely don't want these things anymore.

So, "enjoy" it whilst it lasts!

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

[MadAmster]

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

Sometimes I really miss being able to hit "like"

[Andy_Faber]

Agreed totally RS.

I don't mind the non footie threads although I rarely if ever post on them. I do read them as some are of interest but any abuse, offensive language or general snidieness (is there such a word?) is imo both unnecessary and demeaning to the poster. I feel that it is detrimental to the forum and so I have called it out at times.

If posters think that telling members not to read such threads is the answer then I find that almost an admission that some of its contents may be unacceptable!

We may not get many newbies joining but if any came on out of interest then I am sure that they would read both the footie and non footie threads. I can't see that they would be very impressed by long running slanging matches!

It's quite simple, just maintain a sense of decorum!

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rules’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problem’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isn’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they won’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

[ramAnag]

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rulesÂ’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problemÂ’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isnÂ’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they wonÂ’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

[Trickytreesreds]

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

Oh I'm far right am I? If I am far right, you are way further left than you portray yourself. Your incessent hared for anything Tory betrays that. Anything a right wing party says or does, you are all over it in a flash. Anything the current regime does (and it includes plenty of left wing ideology) you igmore. If you was truly centre ground, you would call out every infair decision going, but you don't.

For your knowledge.

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.[1] The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, ***ist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.[2]

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.[3]

[ramAnag]

Oh I'm far right am I? If I am far right, you are way further left than you portray yourself. Your incessent hared for anything Tory betrays that. Anything a right wing party says or does, you are all over it in a flash. Anything the current regime does (and it includes plenty of left wing ideology) you igmore. If you was truly centre ground, you would call out every infair decision going, but you don't.

For your knowledge.

Far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, is a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, often also including nativist tendencies.[1] The name derives from the left–right political spectrum, with the "far right" considered further from center than the standard political right.

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, ***ist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.[2]

Far-right politics have led to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or conservative social institutions.[3]

If we’re going to move forward there’s little point in you just posting the exact opposite of what I write eg…well if I’m far right, you’re further left…blah, blah, blah. It’s playground stuff and is what people, I think, want rid of.

Fact is you repeatedly declare, as is your right (no pun intended), your support for Trump, Farage, GBNews, UKIP, ReformUK, Tommy Robinson etc. You are opposed to immigration, show contempt for those desperate enough to arrive by boat, have a dislike of all things Muslim/Islam, show a mistrust of multiculturalism and generally display a desire to return to more jingoistic bygone days. That makes you further to the Right than anyone else on here, imo.

Obviously I think you’re wrong but recognise your right to support such ‘causes’. What, I think, you should recognise is that some of your views are objectionable to those of us who have moved on to embrace many aspects of ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism. I’ll argue/debate with you, but not with all the right wing sites you rely on to make your point and not in the facile ‘tit for tat’ style you’ve already introduced today.

[Andy_Faber]

So there you have it. Mac doesn’t object to the political threads at all and, judging by the amount he contributes to them, neither does MA. All they both, very reasonably, object to is the tiresome and sometimes offensive name calling.

Essentially, as I see it, there are two camps…one broadly on the Right comprising Tricky, yourself and GP (when he makes his mind up and isn’t just mischief making) and one broadly centre Left…made up of Swale, myself, MA with more occasional input from Sith and mac. Sorry if I’ve forgotten anyone or misinterpreted their political stances.

Of all those individuals I would argue that Tricky, Swale and yourself cause the most ‘upset’. Tricky because of the nature and content of his posts, Swale because he takes understandable exception to Tricky’s far right sympathies and becomes enraged too easily before resorting to language that some find unacceptable and you because you frequently go out of your way to wind up others, Swale in particular, and - as you have admitted - are far from shy when it comes to name calling.

We all have our faults, mine probably being having too much to say and not being good at letting things go, but, imo…the problem isn’t having a wide range of threads - including political ones - it’s: a) The posting of inflammatory, offensive and untrue comments. b) The reaction to such comments with language that is also sometimes offensive and c) Your desire to push an agenda which goes beyond your essential basic role of sanctioning those who transgress a&b above without ‘joining in’ and exacerbating the situation.

Thanks for the response (genuinely)

Regarding comments made abut myself.

I'm not 'broadly on the right', my 'worldview' is way more nuanced than can be contained by what I believe to be outmoded 'pigeonholes'. My opinions are well-considered and evidence/observation-based
I'm not pushing an agenda and don't know what you're getting at there

Regarding your general comments

You've really just pointed out that we all have our faults. That's human nature. You may find certain 'faults' more objectionable than I do and vice versa, likewise other forum members. If I took action on every post which a forum member didn't particularly like we wouldn't have much of a forum.

[ramAnag]

Thanks for the response (genuinely)

Regarding comments made abut myself.

I'm not 'broadly on the right', my 'worldview' is way more nuanced than can be contained by what I believe to be outmoded 'pigeonholes'. My opinions are well-considered and evidence/observation-based
I'm not pushing an agenda and don't know what you're getting at there

Regarding your general comments

You've really just pointed out that we all have our faults. That's human nature. You may find certain 'faults' more objectionable than I do and vice versa, likewise other forum members. If I took action on every post which a forum member didn't particularly like we wouldn't have much of a forum.

What I’m getting at is that you have been keen to rid the forum of the political threads, especially the Brexit one, since you became a moderator and you don’t like being taken to task by other posters, most notably Swale…but also me.

If your world view is ‘way more nuanced’ than ‘broadly on the right’ then I’m wrong…but that’s certainly how it comes across to me and I can only judge on what people/you write.

Of course you can’t take action on every post a forum member doesn’t like and no one is suggesting you can. What I think you can do however is uphold those ‘rules’ we commonly accept as being necessary and stop trying to introduce your own as regards what we can and cannot talk about.

Just my opinion.

[macstheman]

That’s all fine Mac and it was posts by yourself and MA that prompted me to implement a few ‘rules’ which in essence aimed to restore decorum. I included myself as part of the ‘problem’ and have curtailed (some of) my more annoying habits, notably nicknaming, which is usually done in a spirit of fun but which I recognise isn’t always received here in the same spirit. I doubt everyone will reflect on their behaviour, in fact looking back as far as forum history goes I know they won’t, but I hope for an overall improvement

With a little goodwill hopefully you're not required to intervene very often🤞

[Andy_Faber]

in the spirit of avoiding repetitive confrontation, I’m just walking away.

So I’m expecting that when I say I’m walking away from spats in future, you treat it in the same spirit, and you won’t treat my withdrawal as an admission of defeat. That will reduce follow up toing and froing and save a lot of frustration on the part of other forum members