X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

User Tag List

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 64
  1. #11
    Join Date
    6th July 07
    Location
    The Highlands,Scotland.
    Posts
    15,332
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Right then where were we?

    Before I delve into detail, I don't think that I am talking so much about a change in rules(although it might be useful to consider an "exceptional circumstance" scenario), rather more about clarification and an additional "helpful hint" type thing placed within the rules. I have spent the last hour wading through the rules and the "war crimes" posts and looking in vain for Alan's first post in his thread that started it all, and within those posts and the rules there are undoubtably misunderstandings and differances of interpretations. Before I head into the dry detail perhaps a few general points first.

    Steve and the mods are bound to have more than a working knowledge of the rules, the rest of us probably don't. Most, like me, probably have a very vague idea of the rules. Probably most of the rest of us rely on the fact that if we keep off, nudity, firearms, religion and politics and keep to talking politely about kilts then we can't go far wrong. Until something like Alan's first post arrives! When I saw it, I took a deep breath and looked for my tin hat! Actually I had no problem with it, but others did and said so and someone "flagged" his post. Alan obviousely was well aware that could be skating on thin ice, but was he?

    Well, perhaps the ice was not so quite as thin as some thought it might have been? Had the politics aspect not been included which torpedoed the thread it seems that the conversation could well have continued. ----------------and this is where the misunderstandings of the rules by some of us comes to the fore. Sushie, in his noteworthy "Henry Ford" post in the second "war crimes" thread and I paraphrase, said, "you can say whatever you want in the misc. section(forum), as long as you stick to the rules" and this made me think and did cause me to have a look at the rules.

    My conclusions will follow in a while as I have to do something rather pressing. Bear with me!
    Last edited by Jock Scot; 14th February 14 at 05:28 AM.
    " Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of idle minds and minor tyrants". Field Marshal Lord Slim.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    6th July 07
    Location
    The Highlands,Scotland.
    Posts
    15,332
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It must be said, it is not the mods., or Steve's, fault if we don't know the rules, it is the members' duty to make themselves aware of them. So like me, I expect most of us end up with a vague idea of what is required of us. Make no mistake I have no wish to be involved in an "any thing goes, say what you want, however you want" website. So rules there must be and as I have said; " whilst I may not like some of them, but nevertheless, I can see sound reasoning for having them".

    So we end up with a mixture of Steve and the mods knowing the rules, one or two general members that also genuinely know the rules, quite a few that think that they know the rules, the majority that have a vague idea of the rules and a few that appear to not have got around to aquainting themselves with the rules. The mixture works pretty well most of the time, but not all the time!

    So two "war crime" threads appear and they both show up, absolutely perfectly, a mixture of those knowing the rules, those thinking they know the rules, those with a rough idea of the rules(ME!!!!), and suddenly turmoil appears! Further to the turmoil is added confusing interpretations of rules, which for most of the time go un-noticed. And this is where Steve and I come in and have this conversation.

    So where does this confusion come from? Well lets start with rule 12(a). It is perfectly clear that the topic of conversation is the kilt. There is waver that allows non kilt conversations in "events" and " community" forums. Clear as day then?

    Is the Misc. Forum in the "events" or "community" catigory? It is, I have just checked, so Alan was perfectly within the rules to discuss "war crimes"---------provided it was posted in the misc. forum(I am not able to check that).

    So we then proceed to the Misc. Forum. Where it says:- "This is where our members can discuss those things in their lives not necessarily related to the kilt". Quite clear then? Alan's thread is OK then?

    Well no, not according to some members. There are at least two members who, in both "war crimes" threads who quote rule 12 as a reason not to have "war crimes" discussed on a kilt forum in general, even on the misc. forum. The waters then get muddied further by the second thread being posted in the wrong section(I must check that) of the website and on it goes.

    So Rule 12 and the Misc. Forum do not appear to contradict each other, but for some members minds, they take the view----incorrectly it appears------- that only kilts may be discussed on this website. It goes without saying, it does help if a member does choose the correct place when posting a new thread.

    I suggested to Sushie in the second "war crimes" thread that it would be extremely helpful if some wording could be put in to help those who have a "once in a blue moon" type topic. What I suggested is that if someone like Alan had a topic that was so out of the ordinary for a kilt website, then the author should let the mods. have first sight of the proposed thread and advise and give the all clear if that is what is decided. Interestingly Alan who liked that idea, could well have had his thread kept had he given prior notice to the mods and had been reminded (advised) to steer clear of politics, for example . It was rather galling to discover afterwards that he/we have this facility available to us--------if only he had known! I would not be writing all this now!

    So all in all, rest assured Steve, I am not looking for wholesale rule changes, but I can see where confusion might and does arise and I can see where another line or two of explanation of what we can and can't do and where we can or can't do it, would be really helpful all round.
    Last edited by Jock Scot; 14th February 14 at 08:09 AM.
    " Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of idle minds and minor tyrants". Field Marshal Lord Slim.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    24th September 04
    Location
    Victoria, BC Canada 48° 25' 47.31"N 123° 20' 4.59" W
    Posts
    4,311
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello Jock,

    I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.

    In reference to this latest incident it is very plain that two factors were at play.
    The first factor is factual and the second emotional.

    The factual part is fairly simple.

    Alan made a post while he was upset and angry. He perhaps had not thought through, how what he wrote, would be perceived when read by others.
    Within his post was a paragraph where some very political statements and value judgments were made. This paragraph was flagged as possibly crossing the line of the limits set out in our published Forum Rule #5.
    The decision of the Forum Moderators was that the political paragraph with in the post did violate the rule and therefore the post could not remain on the forum.

    While the topic of Alan’s post was emotionally upsetting it is a fact that the post was not removed for the war atrocities subject matter. It was removed for the political statements.

    This is fact.

    Then some emotions took over and became the topic of the second thread.

    Emotions took sway during the public discussion and had little or nothing to do with the factual reason the post was removed. Three Moderators and I attempted to explain the facts. Perhaps some members did not understand the explanation and perhaps some chose to ignore the explanations.


    In answering my question it is plain that these same two factors are at play.

    For the factual component may quote you.

    In post #11 you say -
    “Most, like me, probably have a very vague idea of the rules.”

    You then start post 12 with –
    “It must be said, it is not the mods., or Steve's, fault if we don't know the rules, it is the members' duty to make themselves aware of them. So like me, I expect most of us end up with a vague idea of what is required of us.”

    Our forum rules are quite simple. There are only 12 of them. They are published and readily available to every member. They take less than 2 minutes to read.

    The Forum Staff cannot force the members to actually read the published Forum Rules. This is not a fault in the Rules.

    The other component is the emotional.
    A large percentage of times where a rule violation occurs are due to a member writing while emotional. They may be upset or angry. They may be very emotionally connected to what they are writing about.
    In many cases simply stepping aside for a moment, going and have a cuppa, could have resulted in an edit of their words or a choice to hit delete.

    In a case where a member is unsure about what they want to say it is very simple to contact a member of the Staff. The PM system is one good way of contacting a particular staff member and the ‘flag’ button is our open door to all the staff at the same time.

    The staff cannot force a member to actually talk to us. This is not a fault of the system.
    Steve Ashton
    Forum Owner

  4. The Following User Says 'Aye' to Steve Ashton For This Useful Post:


  5. #14
    Join Date
    6th July 07
    Location
    The Highlands,Scotland.
    Posts
    15,332
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You identify the points exactly, Steve. None of us can do anything about people's emotions, or making them read the rules, or persuading them to talk to the website staff or, you.

    What you have not covered in your last post is what you might do about it to help members in the future who might be faced with a situation much like Alan had.

    I have merely come up with nothing more than an imperfect suggestion, that would only partially help another member----if they was aware of the suggested, "talking before acting option"------ when faced with a similar situation in the future. Others may even have far better ideas than I. I don't know.

    So, you can choose to do something to help, you can choose to think about the situation quietly and then decide what you might do, or of course, you can choose to do nothing. Those are matters that as owner of this wonderful website are entirely yours to decide upon. Not me.
    Last edited by Jock Scot; 15th February 14 at 12:33 AM. Reason: can't spell.
    " Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of idle minds and minor tyrants". Field Marshal Lord Slim.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    24th September 04
    Location
    Victoria, BC Canada 48° 25' 47.31"N 123° 20' 4.59" W
    Posts
    4,311
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well Jock you may say "So, you can choose to do something to help, you can choose to think about the situation quietly and then decide what you might do, or of course, you can choose to do nothing."

    But I turn this right back directly on you.
    You have said that something must be changed but do not actually say what that something is.
    You have yet to state what you believe should be changed, edited or modified. You have submitted no concrete suggestions for improvement.

    I have been doing something concrete for the past five years.
    I have posted about the staff open door policy on at least 11 occasions in just the past year alone.
    I have answered every question and posted to every single discussion about, and on, the rules.
    I have tried big, bold type. I have tried notices that appear atop each forum section and on every page. I have tried sticky posts in form sections.

    You cannot fairly say I have done nothing.
    I have even started this thread. Have asked the questions that I have.

    I am reminded of the old political ploy to complain, ad nauseum, that something is wrong, but fail to state what, or offer solutions to make it better. To cry for reform yet offer nothing better to take its place.
    Steve Ashton
    Forum Owner

  7. #16
    Join Date
    6th July 07
    Location
    The Highlands,Scotland.
    Posts
    15,332
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have made a suggestion Steve!

    I touched on it in my reply to you yesterday and I came up with a suggestion when asked by a direct question by Sushie in the second "war crimes" thread.

    * I have been asked by three members to give thread and post refs.. Thread: " Post Deleted. War Time Atrocities". Most relevent posts: Nos 42, 44, 53.*

    I ask this question with the greatest of respect, but with a tinge of frustration I ask: "Do you read what I write?" I am sorry Steve, but you really do cause me to wonder.

    On that rather sad note, I think that it might be best if I now bow out of this conversation.
    Last edited by Jock Scot; 16th February 14 at 03:18 AM. Reason: added information.
    " Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of idle minds and minor tyrants". Field Marshal Lord Slim.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    24th September 04
    Location
    Victoria, BC Canada 48° 25' 47.31"N 123° 20' 4.59" W
    Posts
    4,311
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is truly sad Jock. I do read what you have written. I can even quote it.

    The only thing you have actually said about this is in post #12.

    "So where does this confusion come from? Well lets start with rule 12(a). It is perfectly clear that the topic of conversation is the kilt. There is waver that allows non kilt conversations in "events" and " community" forums. Clear as day then?

    Is the Misc. Forum in the "events" or "community" catigory? It is, I have just checked, so Alan was perfectly within the rules to discuss "war crimes"---------provided it was posted in the misc. forum(I am not able to check that).

    So we then proceed to the Misc. Forum. Where it says:- "This is where our members can discuss those things in their lives not necessarily related to the kilt". Quite clear then? Alan's thread is OK then?

    Well no, not according to some members. There are at least two members who, in both "war crimes" threads who quote rule 12 as a reason not to have "war crimes" discussed on a kilt forum in general, even on the misc. forum. The waters then get muddied further by the second thread being posted in the wrong section(I must check that) of the website and on it goes.

    So Rule 12 and the Misc. Forum do not appear to contradict each other, but for some members minds, they take the view----incorrectly it appears------- that only kilts may be discussed on this website. It goes without saying, it does help if a member does choose the correct place when posting a new thread.

    I suggested to Sushie in the second "war crimes" thread that it would be extremely helpful if some wording could be put in to help those who have a "once in a blue moon" type topic. What I suggested is that if someone like Alan had a topic that was so out of the ordinary for a kilt website, then the author should let the mods. have first sight of the proposed thread and advise and give the all clear if that is what is decided. Interestingly Alan who liked that idea, could well have had his thread kept had he given prior notice to the mods and had been reminded (advised) to steer clear of politics, for example . It was rather galling to discover afterwards that he/we have this facility available to us--------if only he had known! I would not be writing all this now!

    So all in all, rest assured Steve, I am not looking for wholesale rule changes, but I can see where confusion might and does arise and I can see where another line or two of explanation of what we can and can't do and where we can or can't do it, would be really helpful all round.
    "

    Every thing you say here is true. You have put forth nothing new. Made no suggestion that is not already in place. You say so yourself.

    I guess we are then at an impasse. This is truly unfortunate. I honestly thought I was offering encouragement and a voice to a member who expressed concerns.

    I have honestly tried to explain that rule 12 had nothing to do with this issue.
    I have honestly tried to explain that the topic of Alan's thread was not the reason it was flagged. That was Rule #5.
    Alan did communicate with the Staff. He could have edited his post but chose instead to request it be pulled.
    This issue was resolved amicably among those directly involved long before others decided to try to turn it into something else. Just as you say Jock "The waters then get muddied further by the second thread".

    I honestly do not see what more could have been done.

    I guess this thread won't do any good by continuing so I'll just close it with, I'm sorry.
    Last edited by Steve Ashton; 15th February 14 at 01:43 AM.
    Steve Ashton
    Forum Owner

  9. #18
    Join Date
    24th September 04
    Location
    Victoria, BC Canada 48° 25' 47.31"N 123° 20' 4.59" W
    Posts
    4,311
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I truly feel that this thread should not die like this. Just because two people cannot seem to come to a consensus does not mean that things cannot be made better.

    I think it would serve the entire forum good to hear from some others. Hear their ideas and suggestions on how to make the forum a better place.

    So I'm going to open this back up and open the floor to any other member who would like to comment.

    All I ask is that we not re-hash the issue of Alan H's post on war crimes. Let's talk about the entire forum and the other 386 posts made so far this month.
    Steve Ashton
    Forum Owner

  10. The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to Steve Ashton For This Useful Post:


  11. #19
    Join Date
    6th May 12
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    504
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IMHO, nothing need be changed.

    Rule 5 is quite specific, not only regarding intent but direction: A topic may be Politically or Ecclesiastically factual or historic but, lest the OP is soliciting objective opinion from all views (research), such topics are not warranted conversation given the aims of this community.

    Rule 12 is as specific, particularly in conjunction with Rule 2: One may debate the confines of the terms Event & Community. However, Rule 2, and access to Forum Moderators, requires only good judgment. Should the OPs judgment be questionable, the system has and will work.

    The Forum Rules are purposely austere, with a track record of success. XMTS' level of participation necessitates periodic adjudication. Without that, the content is simply benign. As members, we have what we want: A structured environment - in which we are willingly subjugate - for the exchange of ideas, pertaining to specific topics, we admiringly subscribe to.

    Slainte,
    Domehead
    Last edited by Domehead; 15th February 14 at 11:31 AM.

  12. The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to Domehead For This Useful Post:


  13. #20
    Join Date
    5th July 11
    Location
    Inverlorne
    Posts
    2,569
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Domehead View Post
    Rule 5 is quite specific, not only regarding intent but direction: A topic may be Politically or Ecclesiastically factual or historic but, lest the OP is soliciting objective opinion from all views (research), such topics are not warranted conversation given the aims of this community.
    On the contrary, Domehead, I think this rule ought not be enforced too zealously. I think that many within the kilted community have an interest in Celtic history and culture beyond how they relate to the clothing. The closer people are to the culture of their forbearers, the more pride and context they will have when wearing the kilt. Sometimes that means having respectful conversations that reference religion and politics. The rule, I think should be there to stop people from using the forum to sew the seeds discord among our community by cutting to the quick of people's closely held values. It's good to have this rule but I think it should be applied judiciously.

    I think intent is important here. If the OP was posted as a historical or cultural point for the interest of the rabble and draws line around their intent and where they want the thread to go, I think the person who goes too far in the thread should be flagged and not the thread itself. Sometimes there is great educational value to these issues and there are a lot of thoughtful and wise members on the forum. If someone starts spewing partisan or sectarian rhetoric in what should be a harmless thread, they should be flagged.

    For example, if someone makes a point about Jacobites being Catholic and Covenanters and Orangemen being Protestant, I think this is a simple fact that explains a lot about our shared history and how we got where we are today. If someone posts a reply that starts with, "The Catholics are wrong because Jesus said..." I think that deserves a flag. We're not here to debate theology. But, if someone says, "Some of the Jacobite clans were actually Protestant but supported the Stewarts because..." I think that would be educational and should be allowed.

    The problem is that everything, including this very thread, is political. Politics is what happens when humans interact. They usually disagree and some path forward must be decided. That's what politics is. We know the kind of hateful garbage we don't want cluttering up the forum but we shouldn't be too trigger happy with flags on topics that might be close to the line, but not over it.

    On the other hand, sometimes not mentioning politics can be just as offensive as mentioning it. I have bit my tongue on a number of occasions when people spouted superlatives over the Duke of Windsor's wardrobe because I find his Nazi sympathies to be repugnant and offensive and think he gets a pass because he was a sharp dresser. This bothers me. Similarly, I have bit my tongue when people were extolling the virtues of red shoelaces in ghillie brogues. I think it would have been useful to tell the rabble that they may be perceived as a skinhead (but certainly not a Domehead) by some onlookers if they choose that particular fashion accessory, but I have been wary of taking a thread in a political direction. Would i have violated a rule had I done so? I'm actually not sure.

    Because the word "politics" is so broad, I find this rule very difficult to wrap my head around. I do my best to draw lines where I think they should go. I honestly try to be a positive contributor to this community and to respect the rules.

    That said, you really can't get away from politics. it could be argued that the THCD camp who are resistant to generational changes in fashion are making an inherently conservative argument while the "I'll wear what I want" crowd are arguing from a libertarian perspective and the "wear what you like and express who you are" crowd are taking an essentially liberal perspective. We have these debates every day and all I see is politics.

    I'm not sure I could write rule 5 any better I just think some users' Spidey senses start tingling way before mine would. I'd ask the mods to balance the written rule with the intent of the thread and the potential value it could bring if everyone plays nice in the sandbox. "This could lead to bullcrap posts" should not be reason enough to sandbag a thread. Sandbag the bullcrap posts.
    Last edited by Nathan; 15th February 14 at 03:53 PM.
    Natan Easbaig Mac Dhòmhnaill, FSA Scot
    Past High Commissioner, Clan Donald Canada
    “Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland, And we, in dreams, behold the Hebrides.” - The Canadian Boat Song.

  14. The Following 7 Users say 'Aye' to Nathan For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0