# Using your Ignore List



## Joe Blow

On a forum of any significant size there will always be those whose posts irritate, anger and frustrate you, sometimes compelling you to post things that may inflame the discussion or that might fall outside of the forum rules.

An easy solution to this problem is to put these people on your ignore list, so their posts are automatically filtered out by the forum software.

There are two easy ways to do this:

1. Click on their user name and view their profile. At the top left of their profile you will see a list of options, one of which is *Add to Ignore List*. Simply click this option, then click *Yes* to confirm and they will immediately be added to your ignore list.

2. If you click on *Settings* you will see the option *Edit Ignore List* under the *My Account* heading. Simply click on this option to manually add and remove other members from your ignore list.

Although I do my best to enforce the rules and maintain order here at ASF, there's not much I can really do for those who get profoundly annoyed by the posts of another ASF member who posts within ASF's rules. At some point that person has to take some kind of proactive step to solve the problem. The ignore list is a very effective solution to this problem, will keep the peace and hopefully help you to retain your sanity.

I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.


----------



## MrBurns

Moving the general links to the bottom has changed the emphasis of the site toward stock chat I feel.

The general posts shouldn't appear in the right hand recent posts section.


----------



## Joe Blow

MrBurns said:


> The general posts shouldn't appear in the right hand recent posts section.




I'm trying to develop a solution to give people the choice of whether or not to have General Chat showing up in both "New Posts" and "Latest Forum Posts".

Better to give people more choice than less IMO. Just going to take a little more coding.


----------



## MrBurns

Joe Blow said:


> I'm trying to develop a solution to give people the choice of whether or not to have General Chat showing up in both "New Posts" and "Latest Forum Posts".
> 
> Better to give people more choice than less IMO. Just going to take a little more coding.




It already shows in "last post" at the thread link, I'd leave it at that if I were you.
Investors don't want to see the ravings that go on in general chat IMHO.


----------



## Joe Blow

MrBurns said:


> It already shows in "last post" at the thread link, I'd leave it at that if I were you.
> Investors don't want to see the ravings that go on in general chat IMHO.




Some of them might. You certainly participate in some of those ravings yourself. More choice is better than less choice.


----------



## MrBurns

Joe Blow said:


> Some of them might. You certainly participate in some of those ravings yourself. More choice is better than less choice.




Yes I do and if I was running this site I wouldn't want share traders/investors to see that without looking for it, it's unprofessional.


----------



## Country Lad

Joe Blow said:


> ............ anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list.................




Is the person I place on my ignore list automatically advised of this?

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## Joe Blow

Country Lad said:


> Is the person I place on my ignore list automatically advised of this?




No, but I am willing to act as an intermediary if you would like them informed for some reason.


----------



## trainspotter

Joe Blow said:


> Some of them might. You certainly participate in some of those ravings yourself. More choice is better than less choice.




I prefer the ravings to be limited to the "willing participants" and not polluting the main page for the serious investors. JMHO.


----------



## Julia

Country Lad said:


> Is the person I place on my ignore list automatically advised of this?
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad






Joe Blow said:


> No, but I am willing to act as an intermediary if you would like them informed for some reason.



Joe, have you considered the possibility of such public advice of a member being placed on another member's Ignore list?
Whilst I can see some usefulness in that, I suspect the overall downside would be even greater divisiveness than presently exists.  It would also possibly provoke some people driven largely by spite to use such a facility.

The difficulty I see with the Ignore function is that one cannot see derogatory posts by the person on Ignore, thus eliminating the capacity to refute such comments.
You suggest it's up to the person on Ignore to cease making such comments.  How is this going to happen if they either don't know they're on Ignore, or simply choose to keep on with their provocation?

Ultimately it gets to the point where in some threads it's just not worth the trouble to even attempt to participate.


----------



## Joe Blow

Julia said:


> Joe, have you considered the possibility of such public advice of a member being placed on another member's Ignore list?
> Whilst I can see some usefulness in that, I suspect the overall downside would be even greater divisiveness than presently exists.  It would also possibly provoke some people driven largely by spite to use such a facility.




This would all be done by PM, and only in specific cases where remarks were still being made about someone in posts even after they had placed that person on their ignore list. I am definitely not in favour of politicising or dividing the forum any more than it already is, but sometimes the ignore list is a better option than allowing the conflict or angst to continue.



Julia said:


> The difficulty I see with the Ignore function is that one cannot see derogatory posts by the person on Ignore, thus eliminating the capacity to refute such comments.
> You suggest it's up to the person on Ignore to cease making such comments.  How is this going to happen if they either don't know they're on Ignore, or simply choose to keep on with their provocation?




I would not permit such derogatory posts to be made once they were pointed out to me. 



Julia said:


> Ultimately it gets to the point where in some threads it's just not worth the trouble to even attempt to participate.




It's a shame that some threads end up like that, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't happen. A little less dogmatism, and a little more respect for others goes a long way. I'm not speaking of anyone in particular, but in general. I think that everyone is aware that the sort of situation that you are referring to occurs almost exclusively in political and religious threads.


----------



## Country Lad

Joe Blow said:


> .................but sometimes the ignore list is a better option than allowing the conflict or angst to continue.




I find it good just not to waste time or be tempted to read some peoples' posts where I have no interest in their opinions.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## sails

I have put Whiskers on ignore, but like Julia said, it's a worry how he is responding to one's posts.  So  I have clicked on "view post" and find he continues to reply to my posts which were not initially directed at him.  My annoyed responses were.  Maybe I should consider keeping out for a while.


----------



## MrBurns

sails said:


> I have put Whiskers on ignore, but like Julia said, it's a worry how he is responding to one's posts.  So  I have clicked on "view post" and find he continues to reply to my posts which were not initially directed at him.  My annoyed responses were.  Maybe I should consider keeping out for a while.




I cant see the point in the ignore function, if someone is particularly offensive the should be banned for a week or 2 then permanently if they persist apart from that just ignore their posts, same as spam, just delete, no problem.


----------



## Country Lad

MrBurns said:


> I cant see the point in the ignore function, if someone is particularly offensive the should be banned for a week or 2 then permanently if they persist apart from that just ignore their posts, same as spam, just delete, no problem.




To me, that is the point of the ignore function.  We have some members who revert to name calling and abuse at the drop of a hat who would be banned for a while on any other forum. 

Seeing that totally unacceptable behavior is allowed here, one thing I can do is trying to ignore these people by putting them on the ignore list.  The other is to again leave this forum which I did for a number of years previously  because there was virtually no moderation and that is tempting because I am already part of the alternatives.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## MrBurns

Country Lad said:


> To me, that is the point of the ignore function.  We have some members who revert to name calling and abuse at the drop of a hat who would be banned for a while on any other forum.
> 
> Seeing that totally unacceptable behavior is allowed here, one thing I can do is trying to ignore these people by putting them on the ignore list.  The other is to again leave this forum which I did for a number of years previously  because there was virtually no moderation and that is tempting because I am already part of the alternatives.
> 
> Cheers
> Country Lad




All you have to do is report it to Joe, problem fixed.


----------



## Joe Blow

The point of the Ignore List isn't to ignore someone who is breaking the forums rules, it's to ignore someone who is posting within the forum rules but their posting style, attitude or opinions are particularly objectionable to you. It's possible for someone to be conceited, arrogant, condescending, dogmatic, pompous, repetitive, overly verbose or to have opinions that you find distasteful but still not be breaking any forum rules. 

These are the people for whom the Ignore List exists.


----------



## trainspotter

The power is in your hands ... just don't respond to their posts and choose to not let them upset you. As for the moderation of ASF I believe it is both fair and equal. We are adults (most of us) and are being treated accordingly with the due respect we deserve IMO.


----------



## Julia

Country Lad said:


> I find it good just not to waste time or be tempted to read some peoples' posts where I have no interest in their opinions.






Country Lad said:


> To me, that is the point of the ignore function.  We have some members who revert to name calling and abuse at the drop of a hat who would be banned for a while on any other forum.
> 
> Seeing that totally unacceptable behavior is allowed here, one thing I can do is trying to ignore these people by putting them on the ignore list.  The other is to again leave this forum which I did for a number of years previously  because there was virtually no moderation and that is tempting because I am already part of the alternatives.



Have you considered making a contribution with your own opinions?  
There exists a catch 22 situation where people with a useful contribution no longer post because of the inevitability of some 20 paragraph dissection of a general remark.  So the exchange - which must be mutually satisfying - between Whiskers and Trainspotter continues as they duke it out in what seems like some sort of competition to dominate.




sails said:


> I have put Whiskers on ignore, but like Julia said, it's a worry how he is responding to one's posts.  So  I have clicked on "view post" and find he continues to reply to my posts which were not initially directed at him.



And that is the point I'm trying to make.  One can ignore Whiskers, not read his rambling, verbose posts, and then make a comment about something unrelated, and immediately he's all over it, dissecting every word, including putting up dictionary definitions, and demanding a response.  When such a demand is ignored, it gets repeated.  Why would anyone keep trying to engage any sort of reasonable discussion in these circumstances?



> Maybe I should consider keeping out for a while.



As above.  You drop out also, following others.



MrBurns said:


> All you have to do is report it to Joe, problem fixed.



Well, actually, no, it's not, Mr Burns.  Joe explains below that :


> It's possible for someone to be conceited, arrogant, condescending, dogmatic, pompous, repetitive, overly verbose or to have opinions that you find distasteful but still not be breaking any forum rules.


----------



## MrBurns

Julia said:


> Well, actually, no, it's not, Mr Burns.  Joe explains below that :







> conceited, arrogant, condescending, dogmatic, pompous, repetitive, overly verbose or to have opinions that you find distasteful but still not be breaking any forum rules.




I just ignore people like that I don't need to have them hidden from me.
I was talking about abuse.


----------



## sails

Joe Blow said:


> ...I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere...




I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait.  At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me.  So, he replies to my post with questions.  What part of NO doesn't he understand...

He does put one off posting - maybe that's his intention...


----------



## Julia

sails said:


> I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait.  At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me.  So, he replies to my post with questions.  What part of NO doesn't he understand...
> 
> He does put one off posting - maybe that's his intention...



+1.  And he also repeats what he has said before.  Once was too much.


----------



## waza1960

Whiskers is the first person I have ever put on the ignore list and I must say its a relief.

 Occasionally I might check out a post of his but overall the ignore function works well IMO.
  You've just got to stop interacting with him no matter how hard he tries to provoke.


----------



## Joe Blow

sails said:


> I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait.  At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me.  So, he replies to my post with questions.  What part of NO doesn't he understand...




I have contacted Whiskers via PM and asked him not to respond to your posts from now on.


----------



## McLovin

Joe Blow said:


> I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere.




Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.

Is it really that hard to just not respond to someone? I mean most members here find most of the discourse in General Chat odious but manage to get by.


----------



## Joe Blow

McLovin said:


> Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.




I think there's a concern that even after a person has been placed on someone's ignore list that baiting or remarks about that person may persist. I can understand how some people find this behaviour objectionable.

However, I do agree that once Person A has been placed on Person B's ignore list, it shouldn't really matter if they reply to Person B's posts, as any response will be met with a wall of silence.

In any case, my PM to Whiskers was a request rather than an order.


----------



## McLovin

Joe Blow said:


> I think there's a concern that even after a person has been placed on someone's ignore list that baiting or remarks about that person may persist. I can understand how some people find this behaviour objectionable.




Well if they're personal remarks they should be removed anyway. 



Joe Blow said:


> However, I do agree that once Person A has been placed on Person B's ignore list, it shouldn't really matter if they reply to Person B's posts, as any response will be met with a wall of silence.




Exactly my point. And if you don't want someone replying to what you're posting, don't post.


----------



## Calliope

McLovin said:


> Is it really that hard to just not respond to someone? I mean most members here find most of the discourse in General Chat odious but manage to get by.




 The solution is so obvious;  




It's a bit like feeding the dingos on Frazer Island. Too much encouragement and they find find it hard to distinguish between eating your hand-outs and eating your hand. The difference is that the dingos will survive if ignored, but trolls can't.


----------



## Julia

McLovin said:


> Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.



McLovin, on the face of it what you say seems entirely reasonable.  You'd have to actually read some of the examples of what Sails and I are raising to understand.  Whiskers will deliver a lengthy monologue in response to some quite brief comment, interspersed with dictionary definitions of some of the words originally used, and  demand a response to his spurious conclusions.  When no such response is forthcoming, he repeats his demand, reiterates and expands on his previous comments, and essentially continues to harass others.

He seems oblivious to attempts to ignore him and is apparently happy to keep spouting forth even without a responsive audience.
Calliope is correct to suggest not feeding trolls.  The difficulty here is that some trolls just keep going without sustenance.


----------



## MrBurns

You don't have to put someone on ignore..................just ignore.


----------



## Whiskers

I acknowledge receipt of Joe's request to not reply to Sails... But since I have been subject to a complaint allegedly against the rules of the forum, I exercise my democratic right of reply. 

Firstly, last time I looked we live in a democracy where the rule of law (as opposed to mob rule and internet bullying) prevails and where people are innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, Joe has already ruled that I have not broken any forum rules.

But a few people persist with complaints which leads me to exercise my right of reply and put the case for a counterclaim of their 'Abuse of Process' (The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose) with persistent 'Frivolous and Vexatious' complaints. 

*Frivolous* 
Of minimal importance; legally worthless.

A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.​ 
*Vexatious litigants*
A vexatious litigant is someone who persistently begins legal actions but does not have sufficient grounds for doing so.​
Vexatious proceedings include those cases that are:

an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal 
designed to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose 
instituted or pursued without fair or reasonable grounds.
 
*Outline of argument* 
For the most part they accuse me (and others) of doing what they are doing themselves, such as:

derogatory comments/posts, trolling, baiting and as Sails claiming to have put me on 'Ignore', but demonstrating the contrary, in particular to have made such assertion in bad faith. 
Some have posted comments from shock jocks or columnists as representing facts and or expert opinion, but resent questioning and analysis of their assertions, and particularly resent the posting of evidence and or proof from official sources and sometimes as simple as pointing to basis maths, that such asserted facts are not true.
Some ignorantly and or deliberately misquote personal comments and resent the reposting of comments in full to rebut their assertions, and then in resentment, go on to complain of verbose and or repetitious posting.
 *What is this all about*

Freedom of Speech 
While I have expressed critique of both sides of politics such as against the carbon tax and the handling of foreign affairs to the abuse of the intent and wishes of membership in party leader appointment to exaggeration of financial issues and consequences of overplaying the rhetoric... it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.

That 'coincidence' of fact goes to motive. 

Abuse of process
Making Frivolous and Vexatious complaints against their critics in an attempt to have them muted or banned from discussion on the forum. 

*Background facts*


(*To be completed later*)


----------



## Calliope

> it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.




I suppose that's because the Ruddites are inured to long boring diatribes that just go around in circles. Too much detailed programmatic specificity.



> *detailed programmatic specificity*
> something the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, says in speeches. Problem is no-one knows what it means.
> "No idea what detailed programmatic specificity means." - Mr Turnbull
> 
> mindless gibberish rudd-speak words without meaning.




Urban Dictionary


----------



## Judd

Oh dear, dear me.  It's Frank all over again.

Hmm, only read the first line.  Democratic right.  Hmm,  privately run forum.  Nup, democracy does not apply.  The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.

And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances.  Take your supposed battle elsewhere.


----------



## sails

Judd said:


> Oh dear, dear me.  It's Frank all over again.
> 
> Hmm, only read the first line.  Democratic right.  Hmm,  privately run forum.  Nup, democracy does not apply.  The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.
> 
> And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances.  Take your supposed battle elsewhere.





Yup, it's this sort of very lengthy waffle that's been choking up discussion mostly in general chat.


----------



## CanOz

Whiskers said:


> I acknowledge receipt of Joe's request to not reply to Sails... But since I have been subject to a complaint allegedly against the rules of the forum, I exercise my democratic right of reply.
> 
> Firstly, last time I looked we live in a democracy where the rule of law (as opposed to mob rule and internet bullying) prevails and where people are innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Secondly, Joe has already ruled that I have not broken any forum rules.
> 
> But a few people persist with complaints which leads me to exercise my right of reply and put the case for a counterclaim of their 'Abuse of Process' (The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose) with persistent 'Frivolous and Vexatious' complaints.
> 
> *Frivolous*
> Of minimal importance; legally worthless.
> 
> A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.​
> *Vexatious litigants*
> A vexatious litigant is someone who persistently begins legal actions but does not have sufficient grounds for doing so.​
> Vexatious proceedings include those cases that are:
> 
> an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal
> designed to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose
> instituted or pursued without fair or reasonable grounds.
> 
> *Outline of argument*
> For the most part they accuse me (and others) of doing what they are doing themselves, such as:
> 
> derogatory comments/posts, trolling, baiting and as Sails claiming to have put me on 'Ignore', but demonstrating the contrary, in particular to have made such assertion in bad faith.
> Some have posted comments from shock jocks or columnists as representing facts and or expert opinion, but resent questioning and analysis of their assertions, and particularly resent the posting of evidence and or proof from official sources and sometimes as simple as pointing to basis maths, that such asserted facts are not true.
> Some ignorantly and or deliberately misquote personal comments and resent the reposting of comments in full to rebut their assertions, and then in resentment, go on to complain of verbose and or repetitious posting.
> *What is this all about*
> 
> Freedom of Speech
> While I have expressed critique of both sides of politics such as against the carbon tax and the handling of foreign affairs to the abuse of the intent and wishes of membership in party leader appointment to exaggeration of financial issues and consequences of overplaying the rhetoric... it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.
> 
> That 'coincidence' of fact goes to motive.
> 
> Abuse of process
> Making Frivolous and Vexatious complaints against their critics in an attempt to have them muted or banned from discussion on the forum.
> 
> *Background facts*
> 
> 
> (*To be completed later*)




Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?


----------



## Whiskers

CanOz said:


> Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?



Not exactly, but can always make a bit of time for a good debate.


----------



## CanOz

Whiskers said:


> Not exactly, but can always make a bit of time for a good debate.




I reckon if we ran a search for the poster with the most lines per post, you would be right up there!


----------



## McLovin

CanOz said:


> Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?




I was thinking bush lawyer.


----------



## Julia

Judd said:


> Oh dear, dear me.  It's Frank all over again.
> 
> Hmm, only read the first line.  Democratic right.  Hmm,  privately run forum.  Nup, democracy does not apply.  The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.
> 
> And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances.  Take your supposed battle elsewhere.



  Thanks, Judd.  That's the first time I've laughed out loud at anything to do with Whiskers.  So right that it's "Frank, all over again."


----------



## CanOz

I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).

Recently i deleted a bunch of off topic stuff out of a particular thread. I deleted more than i should have, a bit hasty in my moderation attempt. That member sent me a PM...which i of course did not receive, because they were still on ignore. I was just a bit lazy taking them off ignore even though i would still read their post and sometimes even respond.

Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.

I hope that member accepts my sincerest apologies....


----------



## Julia

CanOz said:


> I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).
> 
> Recently i deleted a bunch of off topic stuff out of a particular thread. I deleted more than i should have, a bit hasty in my moderation attempt. That member sent me a PM...which i of course did not receive, because they were still on ignore. I was just a bit lazy taking them off ignore even though i would still read their post and sometimes even respond.
> 
> Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.
> 
> I hope that member accepts my sincerest apologies....



What you describe reflects what happened to me.  I don't know whether I'm the person to whom you're referring, but the post of mine which you deleted was absolutely not reinstated.  I did contact Joe over it because it was a carefully thought out, polite response to someone who had been particularly sarcastic to me entirely unnecessarily.    *That person's post was allowed to stand, with the sarcastic part edited out by CanOz.*

Seems a bit odd to me to make a vague apology to no one in particular.  How is anyone supposed to know who you're referring to?  Surely a PM to the person concerned would be more useful?


----------



## pixel

CanOz said:


> I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).
> 
> Recently i deleted a bunch of off topic stuff out of a particular thread. I deleted more than i should have, a bit hasty in my moderation attempt. That member sent me a PM...which i of course did not receive, because they were still on ignore. I was just a bit lazy taking them off ignore even though i would still read their post and sometimes even respond.
> 
> Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.
> 
> I hope that member accepts my sincerest apologies....




Hi CanOz,

This post of yours, in conjunction with Whiskers' rant and Julia's reply, simply reconfirms my reasons for resisting all invitations to become a moderator. 
One other Forum where I hang out doesn't even have an "Ignore" function, which leads to many a thread being left to one or two serial ranters, who insist on having the last word - even though it's the same nonsense repeated day after day, and never a discussion of a differing view put forward by someone else. Which has the consequence of most "someone elses" contributing less and less or leaving the Forum altogether.

(Doesn't apply to you, Julia, but Whiskers is on my Ignore list as of today.)


----------



## nulla nulla

pixel said:


> Hi CanOz,
> 
> This post of yours, in conjunction with Whiskers' rant and Julia's reply, simply reconfirms my reasons for resisting all invitations to become a moderator.
> One other Forum where I hang out doesn't even have an "Ignore" function, which leads to many a thread being left to one or two serial ranters, who insist on having the last word - even though it's the same nonsense repeated day after day, and never a discussion of a differing view put forward by someone else. Which has the consequence of most "someone elses" contributing less and less or leaving the Forum altogether.
> 
> (Doesn't apply to you, Julia, but Whiskers is on my Ignore list as of today.)




Thats a shame pixel, I think you would make a good moderator. Our loss I suppose but I respect your decision making process. Cheers


----------



## CanOz

pixel said:


> Hi CanOz,
> 
> This post of yours, in conjunction with Whiskers' rant and Julia's reply, simply reconfirms my reasons for resisting all invitations to become a moderator.
> One other Forum where I hang out doesn't even have an "Ignore" function, which leads to many a thread being left to one or two serial ranters, who insist on having the last word - even though it's the same nonsense repeated day after day, and never a discussion of a differing view put forward by someone else. Which has the consequence of most "someone elses" contributing less and less or leaving the Forum altogether.
> 
> (Doesn't apply to you, Julia, but Whiskers is on my Ignore list as of today.)





The only reason i Mod for ASF is that its a way for me to give back to ASF and Joe. 99% of the members here are good people, with others best interest at heart. 

At the end of the day, its the ones with egos that ruin the place and keep moderators busy.


----------



## nulla nulla

CanOz said:


> I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).
> 
> Recently i deleted a bunch of off topic stuff out of a particular thread. I deleted more than i should have, a bit hasty in my moderation attempt. That member sent me a PM...which i of course did not receive, because they were still on ignore. I was just a bit lazy taking them off ignore even though i would still read their post and sometimes even respond.
> 
> Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.
> 
> I hope that member accepts my sincerest apologies....




Nothing personal Canoz but if I was the person who's post had been unfairly removed I would be offended by this vague apology. Having admitted the error, all this time after the event, it would convey more sincerity if you addressed it to the member concerned. I beleive that your doing so publicly would add more credibility to the sincerity of your apology.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

CanOz said:


> The only reason i Mod for ASF is that its a way for me to give back to ASF and Joe. 99% of the members here are good people, with others best interest at heart.
> 
> At the end of the day, its the ones with egos that ruin the place and keep moderators busy.




I am very grateful to the moderators for their service to ASF. I could never do it, and doubt if I would be asked due to the size of my ego.

Without moderators, forums are dead in the water. For good or bad, right or wrong, they make calls, to keep the forum going, and impose order on a self opinionated rabble.

I myself, even, have been the subject of malediction by moderators, even when on reflection I have been innocent. C'est la vie.

Much as it goes against the grain, CanOz, I must laud you and agree.

I still reserve my right to assume all Anglo Canadians are soft left Methodists and clarify that I identify more with Les Quebecois.

gg


----------



## CanOz

nulla nulla said:


> Nothing personal Canoz but if I was the person who's post had been unfairly removed I would be offended by this vague apology. Having admitted the error, all this time after the event, it would convey more sincerity if you addressed it to the member concerned. I beleive that your doing so publicly would add more credibility to the sincerity of your apology.




I apologized to Julia in PM.

Apparently there is still a post that i need to re-instate though, so when get a few minutes i must try and have a look for that...


----------



## nulla nulla

CanOz said:


> I apologized to Julia in PM.
> 
> Apparently there is still a post that i need to re-instate though, so when get a few minutes i must try and have a look for that...




Good job, cheers.


----------



## pixel

CanOz said:


> The only reason i Mod for ASF is that its a way for me to give back to ASF and Joe. 99% of the members here are good people, with others best interest at heart.
> 
> At the end of the day, its the ones with egos that ruin the place and keep moderators busy.




I realise that, CanOz,
and "I dips me lid", as another Sentimental Bloke would say, in appreciation of the sterling job you do.

When I do come across an objectionable post - blatant ramps or SPAMvertising at the forefront - I usually shoot Joe a PM; but I'm much too aware of my own "Ego" that I'd like to make a call on every post/poster that might be deemed overstepping the line. 

Yes, I do strive to "give back" by contributing to subjects close to my area of interest - maybe even "expertise". However, contrary to the impression my many posts may create, I do have a life outside Forums. Making trades and discussing the rationale behind some of them is only a part of it, but a large enough part as to not leave much spare time it would take to settle disputes. And if I skim over a couple that have been quoted in this thread, it appears that most of the bones of contention are way outside my area of interest, if not utterly ludicrous.


----------



## burglar

pixel said:


> ... Yes, I do strive to "give back"




@pixel
I too, enjoy this forum.
Most of all, I like the repartee of posters like yourself and cynic.

@CanOz,
I enjoy the level of moderation.
Some difficult posters here, but they add to the colours and flavours.

Any newbies reading this, please do not ask, "Which stock should I buy?"
'Cos I am dying to reply, "For Hungarian Goulash, buy Beef Stock!" :


----------



## Julia

CanOz said:


> I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).



FWIW, I can't see how any moderator can fairly adjudicate on a thread when he is not seeing all the relevant posts.  If you have someone on Ignore because you feel you have 'lost an argument', then arbitrarily delete a post from that person, removing his/her right of reply to an offensive comment from another poster, which you subsequently carefully edited out, leaving the majority of the post intact, then that's imo just unfair and that was my objection at the time.



> Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.



If you had, then there would have been no issue.  I reported to Joe that my whole post had been removed, there was no mention of it being reinstated by anyone, I also sent a screenshot from my PM Sent box showing the PMs, and still heard nothing from you.   



CanOz said:


> Apparently there is still a post that i need to re-instate though, so when get a few minutes i must try and have a look for that...



No need to bother.  The subject has long passed and it's now irrelevant.


----------



## trainspotter

It would appear the word "respect" is missing in all of this. Some people earn it and some people expect it.  The moderators have a tough gig as it is on this site. 

Me personally ... they do a good job. I certainly would not tolerate 1/2 the stuff I throw up on the boards ... for sure. In saying that ... it's a website ... tomorrow I will be an astronaut on another forum.

I turn and look at my kids ... aaaahhhh ... all better now.   Complexities of relevance in the scheme of things ... "Whats that son? ... you need more money?"

Now please don't take this as being mockng or as a sign of irrelevance ... peoples feelings are getting hurt. This is never a good thing., either in cyberspace or real life. It's just a matter of perception.

Crack on then shall we ?


----------



## CanOz

Julia said:


> FWIW, I can't see how any moderator can fairly adjudicate on a thread when he is not seeing all the relevant posts.  If you have someone on Ignore because you feel you have 'lost an argument', then arbitrarily delete a post from that person, removing his/her right of reply to an offensive comment from another poster, which you subsequently carefully edited out, leaving the majority of the post intact, then that's imo just unfair and that was my objection at the time.
> 
> 
> If you had, then there would have been no issue.  I reported to Joe that my whole post had been removed, there was no mention of it being reinstated by anyone, I also sent a screenshot from my PM Sent box showing the PMs, and still heard nothing from you.
> 
> 
> No need to bother.  The subject has long passed and it's now irrelevant.




And there we go, back on ignore.

Why did I Farking bother....


----------



## nulla nulla

CanOz said:


> And there we go, back on ignore.....




If this post is genuine, I find it amazing. How can a moderator moderate if they put other posters on "ignore"? 



CanOz said:


> Why did I Farking bother....




A couple of reasons:  To display "objectivity", "impartiality", "fairness", even if your personal opinions and perspective differ from that of the other poster(s).


----------



## waza1960

Yes even though its tough I think Joe should have a rule that moderators can't use ignore


----------



## pixel

waza1960 said:


> Yes even though its tough I think Joe should have a rule that moderators can't use ignore




It may have been unwise for CanOz to comment on some event that goes back a year ago, even though initially, I considered his public apology a nice human touch. Unfortunately, it dragged up memories in the other party, who replied (unnecessarily, if you ask me) in a way that suggested the apology hadn't really been accepted.

If it wasn't for n-n and waza's critical remarks, I wouldn't have bothered. But I feel another point of view should be aired in support of CanOz:
The entire debate on the issue of Moderating seems to ignore a couple of facts:

Moderators are human beings, whose feelings can be just as easily affected as anybody else's.
If ordinary contributors display any of the attributes that Joe listed as not strictly contravening Forum Rules, a reader can dismiss such posts as petty, argumentative, bad taste, ... and skip. A Moderator still has to read on and possibly react, no matter how sick he gets of it.
If you want to make a Mod's job even harder by supporting a tiny number of quarrelsome, petty contributions and demanding even more rules of "democracy" and "fairness" be introduced, Joe will soon find himself without any volunteers for the job.
*Before you get stuck into CanOz, consider the circumstances, how hard it can be to be forced to take the opponent's side when when you are the other. And if you believe you can do a better job, send a PM to Joe and volunteer. I know I couldn't, so won't.*


----------



## Porper

pixel said:


> Before you get stuck into CanOz, consider the circumstances, how hard it can be to be forced to take the opponent's side when when you are the other. And if you believe you can do a better job, send a PM to Joe and volunteer. I know I couldn't, so won't.




I agree totally. Being a moderator is a thankless task and they do a great job on here. However they won't satisfy everybody all of the time. That's just a consequence of the job. And plenty on here have massive ego's which won't make it easy. Keep going CanOz.


----------



## kid hustlr

fwiw I think CanOz does a tremendous job


----------



## basilio

OK I'll throw my observations into this conversation.

I can't say I have enjoyed much of the conversation and direction of ASF in the last 12 months (and longer) .  Frankly I would describe the atmosphere as poisonous. 

In my view it's apparent that the overriding political tone is far, farright wing. It goes as far as members making gratuitous insults to anyone and everyone who doesn't believe that TA and the far right of the Liberal party are God's gift to Australia. (I got bashed when I quoted Malcolm Turnballs views!!)  One of the consequences is that people with other points of view give up the conversation. 

*I'd like to defend Whiskers and his contributions to this forum*. I don't necessarily agree with him but (again IMO) I think he offers  logical arguments and some decent research. Again IMO while the posts might be long to longish I believe he tries to get his point across as concisely can be achieved while being logical and showing where he gets his evidence.

Once-upon-a-time I tried to use evidence and logic to back up my comments. Unfortunately short, sharp derision and abuse are the quickest and most common response in ASF to views that are not acceptable to ..... (whoever wants to put their hand up)

Joe Blow has suggested that the nastiest  comments in ASF are  only confined to a few threads.  CC for one and the political threads.

*True. But what is also true is that these threads appear to  form the majority of the  current activity. *Unfortunately the stock threads are low in content  (and I actually still do contribute) and other more neutral threads that might inspire a more positive tone peter out quickly. Or so it seems.

In previous threads I opened discussion on people showing more respect for fellow members. One on the contributions I offered was noting the types of behaviour requested/expected from members on other forums. There are forums that don't allow people to trash each other without consequence. 

I don't accept that just because this is a Stock forum with mostly older, conservative men as the main protagonists that we can't ask for more civilised and thoughtful responses.

______________________________________________________________________________________

_Comment Guidelines: Imagine you’re at a dinner party. Different opinions are welcome but keep it respectful or the host will show you the door. We have zero tolerance for any abuse of our writers, our editorial team or other commenters.

So if you’re rude, mean-spirited, snarky, aggressive, defamatory or bitchy, your comment will be deleted (so will any replies to the original comment – so don’t bother arguing with rude people, instead just hit the ‘alert moderator’ button).

And if you’re offensive, you’ll be blacklisted and all your comments will go directly to spam. Remember what Fonzie was like? Cool. That’s how we’re going to be – cool. Have fun and thanks for adding to the conversation. _

Mamma Mia forum.


----------



## waza1960

> If it wasn't for n-n and waza's critical remarks,




My comments weren't meant to be critical at all certainly not to Canoz who I regard as one of my few friends
 and who gives an incredible amount of time and support to fellow traders.

 I was simply stating that procedurally mods not using the ignore function was prudent.


----------



## wayneL

nulla nulla said:


> If this post is genuine, I find it amazing. How can a moderator moderate if they put other posters on "ignore"?
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of reasons:  To display "objectivity", "impartiality", "fairness", even if your personal opinions and perspective differ from that of the other poster(s).




Nulla,

1/ There are several other mods here, so no need for CanOz to examine every single post.

2/ If for whatever reason (see pixel's excellent post) a mod thinks he cannot objectively moderate a certain individual, don't you think it would be better to abstain?

Jesus mate, we're just imperfect Muppets, just like every other Muppet on here.


----------



## wayneL

....continued because my device wouldn't let me continue.....

We are not automatons, trained policemen, fascist brownshirts etc. We're just trying to give Joe a hand.


----------



## sails

basilio said:


> ...In my view it's apparent that the overriding political tone is far, farright wing....




Far, far right is your opinion, Bas, as you are so far in the other direction.  Nothing wrong with that but just realise that it is your bias that gives you the perception that others are so far from your own position.

And, this is a stock market forum.  Most of us came here because of interest in the stock market. I certainly did.  Most people invested in the stock market happen to be pro-business and, as such, most likely won't support the anti-business, socialist ideas of the left.

It's the same on other stock market forums.  The left constantly complain like you do but when will you guys get it that many stock market investors are going to have different political viewpoints to those from the left.

How do you think I would get on if I posted anti-labor stuff on the ABC or Fairfax websites?  Or how about I go on to a union website and say how great Abbott is...LOL   How about I call them poisonous when they howl me down - what sort of response do you think I would get? 

Unfortunately, if you want the majority of people to agree with your minority views perhaps you are posting in the wrong place. I very much doubt that your postings (or IFocus' posts for that matter) have actually changed anyone's views.  If anything, they have consolidated my views even more strongly in the other direction.


----------



## havaiana

I reckon we need the ignore function for threads. This one would be at the top of my list


----------



## craft

kid hustlr said:


> fwiw I think CanOz does a tremendous job




Me too.

CanOz  cares, actually does something and tries to be impartial  - what more could you want.

If I had to read through all the garbage on this site to try and moderate it, I think I would vomit.

So much on this site is toxic and mono-cultured down to the views of a few super arrogant, slippery and argumentative people.(maybe me included)  It must be costing Joe countless contributors/contributions. There’s really a question here bigger then moderation and ignore function  – it’s about the whole culture and how to change it to something more productive and welcoming.  In the mean time If it wasn't for the existence of Canoz,  I know the whole ASF site would be on my ignore list.


----------



## sails

wayneL said:


> Nulla,
> 
> 1/ There are several other mods here, so no need for CanOz to examine every single post.
> 
> 2/ If for whatever reason (see pixel's excellent post) a mod thinks he cannot objectively moderate a certain individual, don't you think it would be better to abstain?
> 
> Jesus mate, we're just imperfect Muppets, just like every other Muppet on here.





Sounds reasonable to me especially given the mods do this voluntarily...


----------



## basilio

> Far, far right is your opinion, Bas, as you are so far in the other direction. Nothing wrong with that but just realise that it is your bias that gives you the perception that others are so far from your own position.
> 
> And, this is a stock market forum. Most of us came here because of interest in the stock market. I certainly did. Most people invested in the stock market happen to be pro-business and, as such, most likely won't support the anti-business, socialist ideas of the left.




Are there possibly 50 shades of Gray somewhere Sails? 

I joined ASF because I was interested in the Stock market.  I learnt a lot from many posters and contributed to discussions an particular stocks and overall business discussions.

*So clearly I'm not anti-business.* We need quality, profitable worthwhile businesses as part of our society. And in the next breath I would say we also need quality, effective public servants, teachers  and NGO's.  Surely the world isn't one dimensional ?

And have I ever attacked businesses as such ? If you have a look at my posts I have probably opened discussions about dishonest business practices - for example  company directors that  take all of the  companies profits as their cut while slashing dividends and the workforce. Or banks that acted corruptly in their dealings with  investors and the public. But I have been very enthusiastic about businesses that I think offer great products and opportunities (and hopefully a buck)

Is that being a "socialist" ?

_(The  most controversial discussions I have had of course are around CC.  Somehow this has been construed as an anti business approach as if I was trying to attack the core of capitalism.

I find that criticism one of the hardest to understand.  In my dealings with business (and they cover many areas) risk management and understanding where the next next opportunities or pitfalls lie  is very important. In that context  for example few businesses I know are as quick to dismiss the overwhelming science on CC as seems to be the case on ASF. )_

But that is a side issue. I offered some suggestions on a more constructive approach in this forum. Any thoughts on the succinct but useful guidelines I borrowed from elsewhere.?

I am also posting other guidelines I borrowed from The Guardian. (Can we focus on the content rather than the source ?  If they came from The Australian or The Herald Sun I would have been just as happy to post them )


----------



## basilio

Community standards and participation guidelines
10 guidelines which we expect all participants in the Guardian's community areas to abide by

Scope

This document covers all aspects of community interaction and moderation on the Guardian website, including comments on blogs or articles.

Moderation aims

The Guardian website provides a growing number of opportunities for readers who wish to discuss content we publish, or debate issues more generally. Our aim is to ensure this platform is inclusive and safe, and that the Guardian website is the place on the net where you will always find lively, entertaining and, above all, intelligent discussions.

Community standards

There are 10 simple guidelines which we expect all participants in the community areas of the Guardian website to abide by, all of which directly inform our approach to community moderation (detailed below). These apply across the site, while moderation decisions are also informed by the context in which comments are made.

*1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.* The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.

*2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website*.For  the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

*3. We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening.* Please respect other people's views and beliefs and consider your impact on others when making your contribution.

*4. We reserve the right to redirect or curtail conversations which descend into flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations. *We don't want to stop people discussing topics they are enthusiastic about, but we do ask users to find ways of sharing their views that do not feel divisive, threatening or toxic to others.
*
5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such. *We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.

*6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy,* such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or material posted in potential breach of copyright.

*7. We will remove any posts that are obviously commercial or otherwise spam-like. *Our aim is that this site should provide a space for people to interact with our content and each other, and we actively discourage commercial entities passing themselves off as individuals, in order to post advertising material or links. This may also apply to people or organisations who frequently post propaganda or external links without adding substantively to the quality of the discussion on the Guardian website.
*
8. Keep it relevant. *We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.
*
9. Be aware that you may be misunderstood, *so try to be clear about what you are saying, and expect that people may understand your contribution differently than you intended. Remember that text isn't always a great medium for conversation: tone of voice (sarcasm, humour and so on) doesn't always come across when using words on a screen. *You can help to keep the Guardian community areas open to all viewpoints by maintaining a reasonable tone, even in unreasonable circumstance*s.

*10. The platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody*. We want this to be a welcoming space for intelligent discussion, and we expect participants to help us achieve this by notifying us of potential problems and helping each other to keep conversations inviting and appropriate. If you spot something problematic in community interaction areas, please report it. When we all take responsibility for maintaining an appropriate and constructive environment, the debate itself is improved and everyone benefits.

In short:

- If you *act with maturity and consideration *for other users, you should have no problems.
- *Don't be unpleasant*. Demonstrate and share the intelligence, wisdom and humour we know you possess.
- *Take some responsibility for the quality of the conversations in which you're participating*. Help make this an intelligent place for discussion and it will be.


----------



## wayneL

The Guardian?

While those guideline are laudable, in practice the Gaurdian falls over at point one, failing to approve reasonable views contrary to Ghardian ideology agenda.

On the other hand, Joe is the most even handed admin anywhere on the web. Even us mods don't know his political leaning if any. Hence why ideologues of both colours get a fair run here. It is the Grandioen that could learn something from ASF.

- - - Updated - - -

PS apologies for grammar etc, on my device.


----------



## basilio

> *1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. *The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.




Wayne that was Point 1 of The Guardians guidelines for responses on their comments.  Just rechecking the discussions on CC forums (for example)  will highlight the relentless attacks and abuse that are seemingly part of the accepted discourse.

And it happens on the political threads as well. Please don't pretend that ASF is doing a better job than The Guardian as far keeping a reasonable discourse.

I appreciate the challenge that Joe has managing ASF. I'm not sure that just denying them out of existence is an effective way of changing the culture. 

(if in fact  of course there is any agreement that the  culture should be changed. Perhaps the majority and whoever counts are happy with the way it all goes. Just don't gaslight me .. OK ?)


----------



## Julia

CanOz said:


> And there we go, back on ignore.
> 
> Why did I Farking bother....



I'll save you the trouble of having me on Ignore, CanOz.  This will be my last post.

I simply suggested that to reinstate anything from such a long ago discussion which now has no relevance would be pointless and stand by that.  

When it gets to the point that, from inducing sarcasm to now apparently contributing to the potential for a member to feel like vomiting about the content of this forum, it's time to go.  

Joe, I've been here for nearly nine years and never once in all that time have I known you to be other than completely even handed and fair.  From time to time I've asked you questions or perhaps offered suggestions and these have always been met with interest and empathy.  I've never known you to lose your temper, though Lord knows, you would have plenty of reason to do so. 

 I appreciate absolutely also how difficult it must be to find the acceptable line between moderation that's too slack and one which stifles debate.  FWIW, I think you do this admirably.  All up, I cannot imagine a better owner/administrator of any website where dissension is an inevitable characteristic.

I've learned a huge amount from being on ASF.  By no means only from Tech/A (who responded to my initial tentative request for someone to help me understand charting all those years ago), and McLovin and SKC for their informative, jargon-free explanations of so many aspects of investing to people asking.
Also Sir O for his excellent Beginners' thread.

I'm especially grateful to the people who have become friends.  And to posters like Bellenuit, Knobby, Cynic, whose articulate and objective contributions are so worthwhile.

To Basilio, with whom I differ philosophically in almost every way, but whose continued plea for more courtesy
and less combat I support totally.

I'll miss ASF in many ways, do want to thank Nulla Nulla on this thread for having the courage to step into someone else's  issue in support.  It's much easier to watch from the sidelines.

A special thanks also, to Garpal Gumnut, for many 'laugh out loud' moments, someone whose sardonic exterior conceals a genuinely warm and caring heart.

To Smurf for always being prepared to provide technical help where needed.  (That pool heat pump has been a perfect choice, thanks, Smurf.)

Please forgive me for anyone whom I've failed to specifically mention and whose friendship I've enjoyed over the years.  You are many.  Thanks for having me.  I wish every one of you all the best.

Julia


----------



## Porper

Julia said:


> I'll save you the trouble of having me on Ignore, CanOz.  This will be my last post.




It's amazing how this forum has changed over the years...and not all for the better. A lot of the members that joined when the forum first launched (like me) have recently packed up and gone. Too many to mention. We all no doubt have our own thoughts as to why this is happening.


----------



## skc

Julia said:


> I'll save you the trouble of having me on Ignore, CanOz.  This will be my last post.




Julia, I hope you can continue to enjoy this forum. I think you take this forum a bit too seriously at times. Just ignore the bits you don't like and focus on the areas that bring you joy. 

Sure political, religious or whatever debates are won and loss here and the outcomes are not always right or fair... But it's only an internet forum. It's not like people's life or actual government policies are being made pending on the outcome. So if the political thread is flooded with left/right/green opinions or whatever. So be it. Nothing important actually happened.

Re: issue of overall forum climate. The forums I found the most supportive are newborn/mothers forums (yes I've read a few of them recently)... no egos, always understanding and always helpful. So please everyone, go have a look and see how you can behave that way too.


----------



## trainspotter

For those of you who don't now Julia, she will be sorely missed as the voice of reason and who has many friends on ASF.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16834&highlight=julia


----------



## basilio

I was just reviewing my comments and what had been said earlier on this thread and realized how out of sync I was with my contribution. I just didn't properly recognise the  significance of the conversation between CanOz, Julia et al

Julia take care. You will certainly be missed.  Thank you.


----------



## Gringotts Bank

Julia, whilst I can appreciate your restrained personality, there's no shame in letting off a bit of steam every now and then.  On a few occasions I've told Canoz to go and jump in the lake (worse actually), but found him very good in his approach to dispute resolution, (either disputes with him or others).  Some of the things I've said would have got me banned from many forums, particularly if directed at a moderator.  Just the other week he helped me out with some data I needed, so he's a  bit above that Nazi style of moderator you might see on HC and elsewhere.

Open a window, have a Bex and  lie down, then consider a comeback!


----------



## CanOz

This is all my fault. I take responsibility for this.

A while back, maybe 6 or 7 months ago i put Julia on ignore. I still checked what she posted most of the time, even though i had her on ignore. It was just my little childish way of getting some sense of....something...

Anyway, over time we sort of started to see eye to eye again. Water under the bridge i thought. I just forgot to take her off ignore and i was quite used to viewing her posts after selecting to do so. It wasn't until the thread of Pavs where i had cleaned out a bunch of (what i thought at the time ) were off topic posts, that i heard from Joe she wasn't happy about my decision on one of the posts. I also heard from 4 or 5 other members and so corrected my errors....i figured if they thought strongly enough about them they would request they be re-instated... By the time i realized why she couldn't contact me directly, it was too late. 

Since then I've been busy with some pretty serious family issues and just haven't had the time to post or mod much. I neglected Julia's feelings during this time, i should have re-instated her posts and apologized to her in PM.

My last post was in total frustration, exactly what i feel 90% of the time while moderating difficult situations...but i choose to express my frustration on few occasions...relative to what i experience as a mod. For that, i do regret as well. Although i don't regret feeling frustrated at my, apparently sad attempt at apologizing, being totally dismissed.

This is all a ridiculous misunderstanding typical of the eCulture we are becoming involved in.

In real life, i am an honest, all be it candid individual hell bent on bettering all the lives i come in contact with in whatever way i can.

I'm sad that Julia is leaving and i will consider my role as a moderator of ASF over the weekend.

Thanks for the support and the criticism...its all going to make me a better person in the long run. It doesn't go unnoticed, its not dismissed....i genuinely reflect on all comments made to me.


----------



## Ves

CanOz said:


> Thanks for the support and the criticism...its all going to make me a better person in the long run. It doesn't go unnoticed, its not dismissed....i genuinely reflect on all comments made to me.



Canoz,   total respect for admitting in public for any mistakes you may think you've made... after all is said and done, it is, what it is.... no use crying over spilt milk.  The fact that you are always willing to be introspective about your life and thoughtful in retrospect about your actions means that you will thrive from any experiences that have been and will be thrown at you.  Constant improvement.... kaizen as the Japanese call it,  I see it in your posts about your trading journey and I'm seeing it a lot in your personal nature.  It's a quality to keep,  you're dead right,  you will be a better person in the long run because you always reflect on your actions.

Good luck,  you get my vote as moderator.


----------



## pixel

skc said:


> Julia, I hope you can continue to enjoy this forum. I think you take this forum a bit too seriously at times. Just ignore the bits you don't like and focus on the areas that bring you joy.
> 
> Sure political, religious or whatever debates are won and loss here and the outcomes are not always right or fair... But it's only an internet forum. It's not like people's life or actual government policies are being made pending on the outcome. So if the political thread is flooded with left/right/green opinions or whatever. So be it. Nothing important actually happened.
> 
> Re: issue of overall forum climate. The forums I found the most supportive are newborn/mothers forums (yes I've read a few of them recently)... no egos, always understanding and always helpful. So please everyone, go have a look and see how you can behave that way too.




I totally concur with skc.

This Forum would be a poorer place without Julia's passionate participation. I have enjoyed many discussions with her, both on and off the Forum; doesn't mean we've always been on the same wavelength, and at times I had to cop some harsh words of her disapproval. But I'm used to disapproval and get over it without letting it sour a generally friendly relationship, let alone my personal disposition. 

When I made my earlier post in CanOz's defense, I had hoped Julia would "read between the  lines" - but it seems I was wrong. Now I'm not sure that even a PM would have a calming effect.

The lesson I'll learn for myself from this: Don't overestimate your influence on a public Forum. You may think you get to know the person behind a nic and avatar, but when things get personal - Boy! can you be wrong!

Nonetheless, I would urge Joe and everybody to support CanOz and urge him to stay a Moderator. Making a mistake is easy. Admitting it and apologising for it shows character. Accepting an apology and going back to normal does too.


----------



## Joe Blow

I think what happened in this thread demonstrates how even something well intentioned can lead to unfortunate consequences, and it's a a great shame that things had to turn out this way.

It is always disappointing to see people leave ASF, particularly those who have been members here for many years. A big part of the enjoyment of forums is being a part of a community composed of familiar user names and personalities, and it's always a shame to lose those who have been an important part of the community. 

Julia, if you do decide to leave for good, my best wishes go with you, as does my appreciation for all you have contributed to ASF over the years. However, I hope that at some point, perhaps after a much needed break, you will decide to return.

On the topic of ASF's moderators, I think they do an admirable job and I sincerely appreciate their efforts. They are all exceptionally even handed, even in the most trying of circumstances, and manage to successfully walk the precarious tightrope of being both members of the ASF community and those responsible for enforcing the forum rules. Please don't forget that they are all volunteers who willingly give their time to help make ASF a more enjoyable place for everyone. And like everyone else, they are also ordinary ASF members who deserve to participate in the discussions and enjoy their time here.

The one issue that just won't go away, it seems, is that of respect, or rather the lack thereof some show towards others during discussions, especially political discussions. Nobody likes to be demeaned or insulted, and inevitably one insult or personal attack leads to another. It lowers the level of debate to that of a schoolyard scrap and I like to think that we can do a lot better here at ASF. By and large this is a great community filled with good people eager to share ideas and knowledge and discuss issues in the true spirit of genuine debate. 

Even when you vehemently disagree with someone, there is no excuse for not treating them with a basic level of respect. There's never a legitimate reason to use derogatory labels or hurl epithets at others. To those who feel the need to be unpleasant or insulting towards others, please do it somewhere else. It is not welcome here. To those who object to specific individuals because of their opinions, attitude or posting style, please use your ignore list to filter them out. Most importantly, learn to agree to disagree and walk away from exchanges with others that are going nowhere instead of allowing them to turn nasty.

Please do what you can to get along with others. ASF is at its best when the discussions are positive and constructive. Let's try and keep it that way!


----------



## Julia

pixel said:


> I totally concur with skc.
> 
> This Forum would be a poorer place without Julia's passionate participation. I have enjoyed many discussions with her, both on and off the Forum; doesn't mean we've always been on the same wavelength, and at times I had to cop some harsh words of her disapproval. But I'm used to disapproval and get over it without letting it sour a generally friendly relationship, let alone my personal disposition.
> 
> When I made my earlier post in CanOz's defense, I had hoped Julia would "read between the  lines" - but it seems I was wrong. Now I'm not sure that even a PM would have a calming effect.
> 
> The lesson I'll learn for myself from this: Don't overestimate your influence on a public Forum. You may think you get to know the person behind a nic and avatar, but when things get personal - Boy! can you be wrong!
> 
> Nonetheless, I would urge Joe and everybody to support CanOz and urge him to stay a Moderator. Making a mistake is easy. Admitting it and apologising for it shows character. Accepting an apology and going back to normal does too.



Ah, so many judgements.  It hasn't seemed to occur to some of you that I could be feeling very taken aback by all this, and giving some careful thought to my response to CanOz's PM, unsure of how much I should share about some significant difficulties in my life which are presently throwing me very much off balance.

I have now sent that PM and hope it eases some of CanOz's feelings.

Yes, SKC and Pixel, I know I lack the capacity to not take life fairly seriously.  I am also regrettably literal, something that has led to accusations of 'nit picking' when it's not been intended as such at all.

We are what we are, however.  If life has been a fairly serious challenge, then one's personality probably reflects that.  

Can I just note, pixel, with affection, that I've also been in receipt of some pretty sharp words from you from time to time.  That's fine.  They are well outweighed by my enjoyment of the communications we have had.

I thank the people who have been kind enough to email and PM me - so much appreciated.


----------



## Tink

I usually stay out of these threads but I hope to see Julia and CanOz back in this forum as was.
They are both special and contribute so much on the boards and the forum would be a poorer place without them. 
This is a beautiful community and its the people in it that make it so.
Joe, you have done a wonderful job.

Its a new day, lets enjoy it


----------



## Calliope

As this thread is about ignore lists, I would just like to make a small contribution. It is a reasonable concept, but it just doesn't work. It is as impossible to ignore someone who rankles you as it is to ignore a boil on your backside. 

Few posters can say that having put somebody on "ignore" the don't peek from time to time. There comes a time when you say "what's the point?' and lift your ban.

As a poster I much admire, a very wise and compassionate Tink advises;

*Its a new day, lets enjoy it*


----------



## basilio

Calliope said:


> As this thread is about ignore lists, I would just like to make a small contribution. It is a reasonable concept, but it just doesn't work. It is as impossible to ignore someone who rankles you as it is to ignore a boil on your backside.
> 
> Few posters can say that having put somebody on "ignore" the don't peek from time to time. There comes a time when you say "what's the point?' and lift your ban.
> 
> As a poster I much admire, a very wise and compassionate Tink advises;
> 
> *Its a new day, lets enjoy it*




I agree with Calliope on this. In fact I would dearly like to not want to "ignore" particular posters for a range of reasons.

Clearly there are things one can do in our own head to "not be sucked in". 

And of course the external environment can also change for the better.  I did appreciate Joes clear direction on this point in this thread.

Cheers


----------



## Whiskers

Departing from my "right of reply" for a moment, before I address some critics further (if I turns out to be necessary) I would just offer something generally in line with the perception of 'conflict'. There are many other similar resources in academia, on the net and library's if you want to search the key words. 

Most people think conflict is bad. We think just the opposite. Conflict is necessary – without it there would never be a new idea and nothing would change. 

Because for a new idea to be considered, someone has to disagree with the status quo. It's the most basic form of conflict.

Conflict supports healthy teams to evolve.
We help teams develop conflict confidence because without it, they can be very dysfunctional. 

On the other hand, teams with high levels of Conflict Confidence are drama-free. They make good decisions. They build consensus and they create a feeling of value which engages team members.

Conflict can contribute to constructive growth by:
◾Exposing new ideas
◾Identifying legacy processes that are no longer “best practices”
◾Allowing innovation
◾Finding, recognizing and incorporating agreement
◾Understanding differing positions
◾Embracing diversity
http://www.socialsynergetics.com/site/conflict-confidence​
Your mindset is the attitude or disposition you hold that predetermines your reponses to and intepretations of a situation. It is not innate; rather it is a perspective held based on life experiences. 

The good news? Mindset can be shifted and developed. With the right new experiences, a new mindset can be easily learned.
http://www.socialsynergetics.com/site/mindset​
The art of deciding which fight to pick and which to leave alone, to ignore.

I'd also just offer a free self assessment question, leading into 'mindset', for assistance on how and why to decide to 'ignore' people/issues, the advantages and disadvantages. Do you know your 'Personal Style', 'learning style' and how you 'Style Flex' etc? 

Assumptions About Personal Styles

There is no best or worst style.
All styles have advantages and disadvantages. All styles are effective when appropriate to the situation and implemented well.

There are no pure styles.
We all have parts of each style in us. However, we also have one style that predominates, one style in which we are most comfortable and which requires the least energy and stress.

Behavior style does not explain the whole person.
It only defines perceived patterns of behavior. It does not address personality or an understanding of how an individual thinks or feels.

Much of the population is different than you are.
Other people have different needs. Therefore, they communicate in a different manner, use time differently, relate in a different way, make decisions, and manage conflict in a way that differs from how you do it.

We all have goals we hope to attain and results we wish to achieve.
However, different interpersonal priorities influence how we go about accomplishing these ends.
http://www.engr.washington.edu/lead...l Styles/Tab4colorPulsarPink-SocialStyles.pdf​


----------



## Trembling Hand

It is somewhat bewildering when you stubble across someone putting together 500 odd words of basic knowledge that any halfwit knows once they are about 20 as if it has some special value to this community. 

I guess a person could think its condescending and extremely disrespectful to talk to others in such a socially deficient, awkward and and outright passive aggressive way but therein in lies the truth. We are dealing with someone that needs 'special consideration'......... to use a politicly correct term.


----------



## basilio

Trembling hand was that just another kick in the nuts for Whiskers ?  "condescending , extremely disrespectful , .. basic knowledge  everyone has "

Sorry mate I just can't see any legitimacy in your comment - and the sting in the tail... Not nice at all.

I thought the material Whiskers offered was quite interesting and certainly refreshed my memory on a number of areas I know about but havn't reflected on for a long time.

It was (IMO) good stuff and well worth posting and thinking about. I would be surprised/amazed if many people had recently thought about the ideas. 

I thought it was an excellent contribution to seeing how conflict can be constructive and how different forms of communication are needed if we want to understand other points of view and/or be 8understood ourselves.

Cheers


----------



## Trembling Hand

basilio said:


> I thought it was an excellent contribution to seeing how conflict can be constructive and how different forms of communication are needed if we want to understand other points of view and/or be understood ourselves.
> 
> Cheers




If it wasn't such a reoccurring pattern of stating the bleedingly obvious..... maybe. But it is a subtle tactic Whiskers has refined to get at others. Frankly it doesn't bother me but like I said it seems somewhere in the area of passive aggressive... internet troll style..... JMHO. :kebab


----------



## sails

Trembling Hand said:


> If it wasn't such a reoccurring pattern of stating the bleedingly obvious..... maybe. But it is a subtle tactic Whiskers has refined to get at others. Frankly it doesn't bother me but like I said it seems somewhere in the area of passive aggressive... internet troll style..... JMHO. :kebab




And get at others he does. Every year I have voted for ASF but not this year.


----------



## cynic

I was originally intending to stay out of this discussion on account of it being largely centred around two posters for whom I have much admiration. With the exceptions of obvious spammers and the one poster to whom I've boldly expressed my utter contempt, I perceive the entire ASF community as my online friends (even those of you who've placed me on ignore!).

I had genuine fears that my usual level of diplomacy might only serve to render any supportive comments demeaning to one or more well intentioned members of the ASF community.(According to my friends I have all the subtlety of a flying brick!). So on account of this perceived deficiency, I opted for what I believed to be the safest route and sent a PM to the member whom I feared had been most deeply affected.

Upon further consideration, I do believe that some of the public offerings of support in this thread, though well intended, may have been a little too quick to dismiss the importance of what's happening here!

One thing that I mentioned in a recent PM was that there are some members that go to great effort to recognise and insulate their personal prejudices when assessing the merits of topics under discussion. Their disappointment at not having such effort and consideration reciprocated is understandable.

When a person generously pours their heart and soul into their participation here at ASF, whether that participation be within the context of moderation or the sharing of experience, their efforts deserve to be accorded respect. Dismissive platitudes and/or careless behaviour can be akin to a sharp slap in the face to such genuine participants.

P.S.  Some of you by now, (particularly those that have been on the receiving end of some of my abrasive posts), may be thinking "Cynic is such a hypocrite!". Well, it just so happens that you are correct! I admit it! 

Does my habitual failure to "practice what I preach" totally invalidate the sentiments that I've expressed herein?

If so, then are those sitting in judgment truly incapable of error?
(And if not, then I'm sure you'll understand the purpose of these questions.)


----------



## burglar

cynic said:


> ... Dismissive platitudes and/or careless behaviour can be akin to a sharp slap in the face to such genuine participants ...




I wish someone would give me a sharp slap on the face!

I haven't received a good face slap since Nun-the-wiser left.


----------



## cynic

burglar said:


> I wish someone would give me a sharp slap on the face!
> 
> I haven't received a good face slap since Nun-the-wiser left.




Ah Ha!

At least there's one member that I know of that is yet to place me on ignore!

For those yearning for the experience of a decent face slapping, accompanied with having one's efforts mercilessly chewed up and spat upon, may I recommend trading the DAX!


----------



## Whiskers

Trembling Hand said:


> It is somewhat bewildering when you stubble across someone putting together 500 odd words of basic knowledge that any halfwit knows once they are about 20 as if it has some special value to this community.
> 
> I guess a person could think its condescending and extremely disrespectful to talk to others in such a socially deficient, awkward and and outright passive aggressive way but therein in lies the truth. We are dealing with someone that needs 'special consideration'......... to use a politicly correct term.






Trembling Hand said:


> If it wasn't such a reoccurring pattern of stating the bleedingly obvious..... maybe. But it is a subtle tactic Whiskers has refined to get at others. Frankly it doesn't bother me but like I said it seems somewhere in the area of passive aggressive... internet troll style..... JMHO. :kebab




*Just to clarify a couple of facts*... Most of that from my previous post is not my words. All the indented text is actually cut and paste from the links provided. They are but a couple of businesses and universities providing expert knowledge and training for other businesses to improve their staff performance.

If it was such "_basic knowledge that any halfwit knows once they are about 20_", these businesses and thousands like them around the world would not be in business today, would they?

It's probably a good time to mention that 'conflict resolution' is only part of a wider process of 'Dispute/conflict management'. 

Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution​
Dispute/conflict management also includes compulsory arbitration or litigation, when a conflict resolution process breaks down.

Without giving too much of my private life away, I will say apart from some graduate qualification in Human Resource Management (HRM), my extra curricular qualification is in the field of "The Technology of Participation (ToP) ®", similar to here: https://icausa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/top brochure.pdf

ToP Facilitation Methods are effective in an infinite number of situations. Used alone or creatively combined and adapted, they serve as powerful tools for groups to think and work together in innovative and productive ways. The methods can be scaled to work with virtually any size group, from one to hundreds.​
*Overcoming Anger*- Learning how to disconnect those "hot buttons"... 

Expressing our anger can have a devastating effect on the lives of everyone involved. But anger is neither good nor bad. Anger is merely a front for something that is going on in the background.

When we get angry, it's because something has happened that has pushed a button. That button is either a past hurt or an insecurity we are carrying as a result of something that has occurred previously.

No one 'makes us angry' - we do it all by ourselves.

We are never upset or angry for the reason we think. It is not other people or situations that cause us to be angry or distressed. It is our own attitudes and thoughts.

Remember, it's not what happens to us in life - it's how we deal with it.
http://thecentrewithinsydney.com/anger.html​
*'Fight or Flight'* - one of the most common behavioural traits in conflict.

It is now widely accepted that in the face of fear people react with either "fght" or "flight". Faced with an uncomfortable situation people seldom consciously choose one or the other but have an automatic reaction. Flight has been describes as escape or retreat. But a frightened reaction can just as easily be attack or aggression - this is fight. [_You were born special beautiful and wonderful What Happened?, Bert Weir with Charlie Scandrett, (p 51-53)_ (1993)]​
The screen shot below from http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/conflict.htm provides a bit more insight into the field of Technology of Participation, and in particular the art of whether or not one should, and also why some do and others do not chose to, 'ignore'.


----------



## Trembling Hand

Thanks Whiskers I got a lot out of your reply.  In fact it was perfect....


----------



## Calliope

Trembling Hand said:


> Thanks Whiskers I got a lot out of your reply.  In fact it was perfect....




But what does all this nonsense have to do with "Using Your Ignore List"?:topic  I suggest he open a new thread titled "Whisker's Ramblings".


----------



## Joe Blow

Calliope said:


> But what does all this nonsense have to do with "Using Your Ignore List"?




Nothing, and Whiskers has now been warned to keep his posts both on topic and reasonably concise. 

Whether or not he takes heed of my advice is up to him, but if he doesn't I will assume that his purpose here is to deliberately derail threads and disrupt the ASF community.


----------



## basilio

Vale Whiskers .....


----------



## Joe Blow

basilio said:


> Vale Whiskers .....




Whiskers is welcome to continue to participate at ASF. All I ask is that is his posts are on topic, and not excessively verbose.


----------



## basilio

Joe Blow said:


> Whiskers is welcome to continue to participate at ASF. All I ask is that is his posts are on topic, and not excessively verbose.




Sorry Joe.  I just don't buy that.

There are a score of other posters whose contributions are :

1) Way off topic.  ( Including Moi)
2) Very aggressive
3) Just dumb.

They all appear to  be tolerated  unless they are picked up for screamingly nasty comments.*

And, IMV, just repeatedly naming a person as troll doesn't make them that.  (Unless of course it happens here ?)

Vale Whiskers.

_* I can remember on at least two occasions I went feral against some peoples very nasty comments against other members - and then saw all comments pulled off. _


----------



## Joe Blow

basilio said:


> Sorry Joe.  I just don't buy that.
> 
> There are a score of other posters whose contributions are :
> 
> 1) Way off topic.  ( Including Moi)
> 2) Very aggressive
> 3) Just dumb.
> 
> They all appear to  be tolerated  unless they are picked up for screamingly nasty comments.*
> 
> And, IMV, just repeatedly naming a person as troll doesn't make them that.  (Unless of course it happens here ?)
> 
> Vale Whiskers.
> 
> _* I can remember on at least two occasions I went feral against some peoples very nasty comments against other members - and then saw all comments pulled off. _




I haven't called Whiskers a troll, nor have any of his posts been removed. As far as I'm concerned this is a non-issue. Whiskers has simply been reminded to keep his posts on topic and reasonably concise and I don't think that is an unreasonable request.


----------



## burglar

My Kitchen Rules!

1.) Have fun!

2.) Stay safe.

3.) Have fun!! 


These were my unwritten rules,
...
until now.


----------



## Whiskers

Joe Blow said:


> Nothing, and Whiskers has now been warned to keep his posts both on topic and reasonably concise.




The 'moderators' have already adjudicated at post #3 of the 'Changing your Mindset' thread that mindset is "An interesting topic that should have its own thread" and moved from 'using your ignore list' to there. 

By definition mindset and my two previous posts are inherently related to choosing whether to ignore, or not...  and arguably far more on topic than some other posts in this thread.

I'd be interested in your explanation as to how they are not on topic... and if not on topic given the above ruling that it is an "interesting topic", why they were not just moved to another thread such as the Changing your Mindset thread.


----------



## Whiskers

Joe Blow said:


> Whether or not he takes heed of my advice is up to him, but if he doesn't I will assume that his purpose here is to deliberately derail threads and disrupt the ASF community.




Joe, you have acknowledged you don't consider me a troll, that I have not broken any rules and not had any posts deleted, so I'm at a loss to understand your basis for accusing me of derailing threads and disrupting the ASF community.

Firstly, I recognised Julia wasn't her normal self and expressed some empathy for her back on 23rd October 2013 in the The Abbott Government # 735, where I said inter alia: 
_Normally she isn't into pointless personal ridicule or deliberately misquoting out of context, but she sure seems to be off her game occasionally for some reason.

I don't know what has happened to our Julia... she seems to lose a bit of focus and got stroppy every now and then. Look forward to talking to you again soon Julia_.​
 ... and above in this thread Julia said she had "some significant difficulties in my life which are presently throwing me very much off balance" [30 Nov 2013, Post #81]

Clearly, Julia was having difficulties in her private life and issues with others including the quality of moderation on the forum before she started attacking/complaining against me. 

On the other hand, Sails took offence at me rebutting his/her blatant misquoting and misrepresenting my comments and presenting clearly evident flawed data as reliable data and or fact. If there was ever any doubt of Sails bad faith, it was clearly demonstrated in post # 89 with "Every year I have voted for ASF but not this year".

What could be more disruptive to the forum than a disgruntled member (Sails) advocating voting for another forum?

Clearly a significant issue here is the wide variation of interpretation of the rules and inconsistent application of the rules by volunteer mod's that aggravated Julia’s mental state.

Finally, how can you reasonably hold me responsible for people being in a bad mood due to inconsistent forum moderation or this conflict, when Julia has since admitted to emotional stress in her private life and Sails has demonstrated the ultimate bad faith, to advocate voting against the forum?


----------



## Joe Blow

Whiskers said:


> Joe, you have acknowledged you don't consider me a troll, that I have not broken any rules and not had any posts deleted, so I'm at a loss to understand your basis for accusing me of derailing threads and disrupting the ASF community.




Whiskers, I haven't accused you of this. I have merely asked you to consider modifying your posting style slightly as your current rambling, verbose posts are clearly having a negative impact on the threads you are posting in and frustrating other ASF members. What I did say, is that if you deliberately ignore my request, and simply carry on then I can come to no other conclusion that you are acting in bad faith and that your purpose is to derail threads and disrupt the forum. I do not see my request as being unreasonable. Please stay on topic and make your points as concisely as possible.

Whiskers, ASF is first and foremost a community. Part of belonging to a community is acknowledging that we all have a responsibility to help maintain and act as a positive influence in that community. I would like to think that if I pointed out to anyone here that their behaviour was having a negative impact on other ASF members that they would take that on board and modify their behavior accordingly.



Whiskers said:


> Firstly, I recognised Julia wasn't her normal self and expressed some empathy for her back on 23rd October 2013 in the The Abbott Government # 735, where I said inter alia:
> _Normally she isn't into pointless personal ridicule or deliberately misquoting out of context, but she sure seems to be off her game occasionally for some reason.
> 
> I don't know what has happened to our Julia... she seems to lose a bit of focus and got stroppy every now and then. Look forward to talking to you again soon Julia_.​




We all have good and bad days. Perhaps any concern of this nature should be expressed via private message so threads can remain on topic?



Whiskers said:


> ... and above in this thread Julia said she had "some significant difficulties in my life which are presently throwing me very much off balance" [30 Nov 2013, Post #81]
> 
> Clearly, Julia was having difficulties in her private life and issues with others including the quality of moderation on the forum before she started attacking/complaining against me.
> 
> On the other hand, Sails took offence at me rebutting his/her blatant misquoting and misrepresenting my comments and presenting clearly evident flawed data as reliable data and or fact. If there was ever any doubt of Sails bad faith, it was clearly demonstrated in post # 89 with "Every year I have voted for ASF but not this year".
> 
> What could be more disruptive to the forum than a disgruntled member (Sails) advocating voting for another forum?
> 
> Clearly a significant issue here is the wide variation of interpretation of the rules and inconsistent application of the rules by volunteer mod's that aggravated Julia’s mental state.




Moderation is a subjective process so it is "inconsistent" by its very nature. We have a number of different moderators who all have different personalities and different approaches to moderating. However, they are all even handed and fair. They all volunteer their time to lend a hand and help out, and I think they deserve thanks and appreciation, not vitriol, personal attacks and constant criticism. I'm not accusing you of that, but unfortunately it is an all too common occurrence.



Whiskers said:


> Finally, how can you reasonably hold me responsible for people being in a bad mood due to inconsistent forum moderation or this conflict, when Julia has since admitted to emotional stress in her private life and Sails has demonstrated the ultimate bad faith, to advocate voting against the forum?




This isn't a case of people simply being in a bad mood. Many of the ASF members you refer to have been here for a number of years and do not make a habit of complaining about day to day forum matters. When they do, I listen. That's my job. If Sails wishes to vote for another forum, that is her prerogative. It's not against the forum rules to do so, nor does it impact ASF directly in any way.

Whiskers, this post demonstrates the problem perfectly. You have repeated yourself a number of times, gone off on tangents that are not relevant to the topic at hand and have made the post at least twice as long as it needed to be. It is a very frustrating process to adequately respond to such a post, and this is one of your shorter ones.

All I am asking is that you please consider others when posting and make your points concisely, without unnecessary waffle, repetition, and straying off topic. I ask this so that discussion in the threads that you participate in can flow a little better.


----------



## waza1960

Whiskers I believe that I have not overly criticized you. I  have no reduced mental capacity that I'm aware of and have occasionally respected and appreciated your comments but by a substantial margin I was completely frustrated by the lengthy and rambling replies to the extent that you are the first person I have ever added to the ignore list and it was a relief to do so.
  I'm sure you could continue to be a valuable member of this forum if you could only be a little more concise in your responses


----------



## Julia

Having received email notification of a PM, I've logged on in order to respond to it, and seen this ongoing piffle.



> Firstly, I recognised Julia wasn't her normal self and expressed some empathy for her back on 23rd October 2013 in the The Abbott Government # 735, where I said inter alia:
> _Normally she isn't into pointless personal ridicule or deliberately misquoting out of context, but she sure seems to be off her game occasionally for some reason._​



_
If there had been any genuine concern it would appropriately have been expressed via PM.  The above "empathy" is an ill disguised continuation of the peculiar type of almost stalking behaviour that has been in place by Whiskers for many weeks, directed toward myself, Sails, Sydboy and, to a lesser extent, others .




			Clearly, Julia was having difficulties in her private life and issues with others including the quality of moderation on the forum before she started attacking/complaining against me.
		
Click to expand...


On the contrary, I have never had an issue with the quality of moderation on this site, until a single instance involving one moderator who chose to address an issue in public which should have been handled privately.
Appropriate discussions about this have now occurred which are the business of no one other than the two people concerned, and Joe, of course, and are resolved.

Yes, I have expressed disappointment and sadness at the increased level of vituperative inter-personal contact here, and don't want to be a part of that sort of combative atmosphere.
Neither can I be bothered with trying to ignore someone so determined to harass others.

Trembling Hand put it very well:



			I guess a person could think its condescending and extremely disrespectful to talk to others in such a socially deficient, awkward and and outright passive aggressive way but therein in lies the truth. We are dealing with someone that needs 'special consideration'......... to use a politicly correct term.
		
Click to expand...






			If it wasn't such a reoccurring pattern of stating the bleedingly obvious..... maybe. But it is a subtle tactic Whiskers has refined to get at others. Frankly it doesn't bother me but like I said it seems somewhere in the area of passive aggressive... internet troll style..... JMHO
		
Click to expand...



And again from Whiskers



			Clearly a significant issue here is the wide variation of interpretation of the rules and inconsistent application of the rules by volunteer mod's that aggravated Julia’s mental state.
		
Click to expand...


This is the sort of utter b/s that so characterises its author.

FWIW, my mental state is, as far as I know, perfectly sound.  

Whiskers, please do not address any further remarks to me, or have the bad manners to comment on personal issues on a public forum._​


----------



## trainspotter

Dear God !!!!! He has done it again


----------



## Whiskers

Joe Blow said:


> We all have good and bad days. Perhaps any concern of this nature should be expressed via private message so threads can remain on topic?




With all due respect Joe I was prepared to communicate by PM but the person concerned cut off PM communication. See the "Please clear your PM inbox" thread, 18 October 2013. 

While there, have a look at the different reaction I got when my inbox was full compared to others from the same person. Apparently it was completely unreasonable of me to have my PM box full, but no big deal for others to have a full PM inbox... or even for that person to have a full PM inbox themselves later when someone tried to PM them. That clearly is a double standard and not acting in good faith.



Joe Blow said:


> On a forum of any significant size there will always be those whose posts irritate, anger and frustrate you, sometimes compelling you to post things that may inflame the discussion or that might fall outside of the forum rules.
> 
> An easy solution to this problem is to put these people on your ignore list, so their posts are automatically filtered out by the forum software.
> 
> There are two easy ways to do this:
> 
> 1. Click on their user name and view their profile. At the top left of their profile you will see a list of options, one of which is *Add to Ignore List*. Simply click this option, then click *Yes* to confirm and they will immediately be added to your ignore list.
> 
> 2. If you click on *Settings* you will see the option *Edit Ignore List* under the *My Account* heading. Simply click on this option to manually add and remove other members from your ignore list.
> 
> Although I do my best to enforce the rules and maintain order here at ASF, there's not much I can really do for those who get profoundly annoyed by the posts of another ASF member who posts within ASF's rules. At some point that person has to take some kind of proactive step to solve the problem. The ignore list is a very effective solution to this problem, will keep the peace and hopefully help you to retain your sanity.
> 
> I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere.
> 
> *If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask*.




Joe, if it's fair for a person to be informed and asked not to reply directly to someone once that someone claims to have put one on 'ignore' ... then isn't it only fair and reasonable that when that someone demonstrates bad faith by 'peeking', or taking ignore off later, as evidenced by comment in posts, that one be advised the first person has deactivated the 'Ignore' button?

Otherwise, isn't the ignore list wide open to abuse for people to make false complaints in bad faith just in an attempt to abuse the rules to try to gag people from participating and or responding to personal comments about them in earlier posts?



waza1960 said:


> Whiskers I believe that I have not overly criticized you. I  have *no reduced mental capacity *that I'm aware of and have occasionally respected and appreciated your comments but by a substantial margin I was completely frustrated by the lengthy and rambling replies to the extent that* you are the first person I have ever added to the ignore list *and it was a relief to do so.




Well, if I'm on your ignore list, how come you are replying to me?

Aren't you acting in bad faith, saying one thing and doing the opposite?



> I'm sure you could continue to be a valuable member of this forum if you could only be a little more concise in your responses




Isn't it more valuable to deal in the truth and facts than just being concise? 

What if you were accused of say robbery in a concise charge sheet, a few words... and how would you feel if you were presumed guilty and there was some rule that you had to defend the complaint just as concisely, in a sentence or two? Not very happy I'm sure!

Further, who said you or anyone had "reduced mental capacity"?

I certainly didn't. Regarding, "significant difficulties in my life which are presently throwing me very much off balance", I referred to this as a "bad mood" and "emotional stress"... both of which are in the normal range of mental capacity and an appropriate paraphrase, to be less so called verbose. 

---------------------------------------------------
I'd have thought misrepresentation of what people say is not only a lie, but also baiting and under the Code of Conduct rule 2, "Forum trolling - the intentional provoking of other forum members - is also forbidden".


----------



## Ves

Whiskers said:


> Isn't it more valuable to deal in the truth and facts than just being concise?



I've always looked at it differently -  the layman takes a thousand words to say what the expert or wise man can say in very few.    Being able to simply,  yet eloquently, distill subject matter into fewer words requires a great understanding of the topic upon which you are expounding.  That is not to say that brevity is a sign of wisdom;  it most always is not,  but it's as good a place to look for it than almost all others.



			
				William Shakespeare said:
			
		

> This business is well ended.
> My liege, and madam, to expostulate
> What majesty should be, what duty is,
> Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
> Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
> Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
> And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
> I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
> Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
> What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
> But let that go.


----------



## Joe Blow

Whiskers said:


> Joe, if it's fair for a person to be informed and asked not to reply directly to someone once that someone claims to have put one on 'ignore' ... then isn't it only fair and reasonable that when that someone demonstrates bad faith by 'peeking', or taking ignore off later, as evidenced by comment in posts, that one be advised the first person has deactivated the 'Ignore' button?
> 
> Otherwise, isn't the ignore list wide open to abuse for people to make false complaints in bad faith just in an attempt to abuse the rules to try to gag people from participating and or responding to personal comments about them in earlier posts?




Honestly, it's a crying shame that petty forum politics has gotten to the point where we have to have rules and policies regarding the use of people's ignore lists. Is this ASF or primary school? Sometimes I'm not so sure.

The bottom line is this: If you don't like someone's posts, add them to your ignore list. From that point on, don't make comments about them or refer to them in your posts. I will consider that to be deliberate provocation. If you are aware that you have been placed on someone's ignore list then do not respond to their posts or make comments about them in your posts. Ignoring means ignoring, full stop.


----------



## sails

Joe Blow said:


> Honestly, it's a crying shame that petty forum politics has gotten to the point where we have to have rules and policies regarding the use of people's ignore lists. Is this ASF or primary school? Sometimes I'm not so sure.
> 
> The bottom line is this: If you don't like someone's posts, add them to your ignore list. From that point on, don't make comments about them or refer to them in your posts. I will consider that to be deliberate provocation. If you are aware that you have been placed on someone's ignore list then do not respond to their posts or make comments about them in your posts. Ignoring means ignoring, full stop.




Sounds good to me, Joe. Yes it is a shame that it has come to this and in my 8 years of membership I have never felt so put off posting here. I have a couple of others on ignore but feel no need to let them know as they do not stalk one's posts.

I do have Whiskers in ignore so I am hoping now that I can post without phrases of my posts being analysed to the enth degree and no more of Whiskers placing his interpretation of my posts and posting it as fact.  This is the last time I will mention Whiskers in a post given the new rules (and provided Whiskers leaves me alone) but felt I have some right of reply given his unnecessary and incorrect comments that left me feeling frustrated and annoyed. 

Let's see how this new rule goes.

Thanks Joe.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut

sails said:


> Sounds good to me, Joe. Yes it is a shame that it has come to this and in my 8 years of membership I have never felt so put off posting here.
> Thanks Joe.




Agree.

gg


----------



## trainspotter

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree.
> 
> gg




Seems to be a common thread here .... eh Whiskers?


----------

