This is no community.

[colinm]

I think it was the manner by which this T&C issue was raised that has scuttled any productive discussions on the issue. Hostility leads to intractable conflict and revolutions, not sensible resolution.

Like a stopped watch, GPSGuided, you have reliably indicated on something.

Nietzsche, of whom I happen to be a BIG FAN, says that justice exists for the sole purpose of limiting vendetta. Whatever you think of courts and judges, when what they do is fair, people are able to put it behind them. That is why they exist, not to protect the interests of victims, but to place generally acceptable limits on the fallout from inevitable conflict.

Hostility doesn't lead to intractable conflict, hostility is an inevitable occasional by-product of conflict, and conflict is an inherent part of human interaction, and not always bad. Procedural fairness (aka "natural justice") is one of the antidotes to hostility proceeding as you describe.

Just coincidentally, I'm reliably informed that "justice" is a holy word in at least one major world religion. It's not christianity.

[tasadam]

... Don't feed the troll.

Yep. Works for me.

[Travis22]

Holy crap.

Travis.

[colinm]

Hmmm, and i read the comments and read the blog. Can't see what I or others said made any difference.. should have said I was a satanist rather than a dontcareist.. pretty sure i'm not being held in a nipple cripple?

I hear what you're saying ... you're a mod and you don't self-identify as a christian, but as a don't-care-ist. I am limited in my response by T&C 25. But I will say that if you had self-identified as a don't-care-ist moderator some time in the past, I might not have had my sudden realisation about the nature of this site. Perhaps others will benefit from your open agnosticism some time in the future, I do not know.

Colin.

[colinm]

... Don't feed the troll.

Yep. Works for me.

In what follows, I mean 'you' as in the generic 'one,' not 'you' as in 'tasadam.'

Sure. Works for the trolls too. Here's the set up ... you don't like what's being said in a thread on this site, and despite there being hundreds of other thread in which you might take interest, you decide you'd like to shut down the conversation in that particular thread. Not participate in it, not contribute to it, but make it stop.

The strategy is: you occasionally post short snarky comments about the individual posters in the thread, never enough for them to actually respond, just enough to annoy them. Not definitively unfriendly, just intentionally disruptive. Passive aggressively, you cast aspersions on the people *never* on what they've said. You never actually engage in the conversation, because your goal is to gum it up and make it stop.

And the amusing thing is, it works in the T&C of this site, and the mods can't step in as long as nobody responds openly to the troll. If you luck out and somebody calls you out on your passive aggression, it's likely to be able to be construed as unfriendly, and you can get a mod to do your work for you.

It's kind of an inverse trolling ... where a troll trolls to generate a response, any response, the trolls here are trolling to shut down responses, call the motives of their posters into question, derail and disrupt the threads they don't like.

I've got a clear worked example of this ... but T&C 25.

So ... rather than "don't feed the trolls" my advice is "build a bridge and get under it."

[ILUVSWTAS]

And the amusing thing is, it works in the T&C of this site, and the mods can't step in as long as nobody responds openly to the troll. If you luck out and somebody calls you out on your passive aggression, it's likely to be able to be construed as unfriendly, and you can get a mod to do your work for you.

It's kind of an inverse trolling ... where a troll trolls to generate a response, any response, the trolls here are trolling to shut down responses, call the motives of their posters into question, derail and disrupt the threads they don't like.

This sounds familiar to me... but you forgot to add not notifying the offending poster (or troll) as to why the post they made has suddenly gone missing, or what breach of rule 86.4 1/2 was made.....

Polite and friendly, yeh i know... unfortunately that's not the way of the world. No matter how much we'd like it to be.

[colinm]

I just thought of an example I am allowed to refer to. Philsart's recent and public departure.

It differs from the template above in that the trolls were a little too open, and didn't hide their bitching well enough, but perhaps they haven't got the whole WASP passive aggressive sniping technique down properly, and in that Phil responded with hari kiri rather than suicide by cop.

Otherwise, pretty good exemplar.

Thanks for identifying a community of users on this site who actually *do* have some direct influence on the values it exhibits. I hadn't seen it until you brought it up!

[colinm]

but you forgot to add not notifying the offending poster (or troll) as to why the post they made has suddenly gone missing, or what breach of rule 86.4 1/2 was made.....

The post, or the poster have gone missing ... Catch 22 / Term and Condition 25.

I see you've been here a while.

Polite and friendly, yeh i know... unfortunately that's not the way of the world. No matter how much we'd like it to be.

Yes, it's not how the world is, and what do we do about that? Well, that's WASP strategy #2: Denial. Deny it. Deny everything. Deny that you've denied anything. Possibly make a cup of tea. Have a bex and a nice lie down.

[tasadam]

And the amusing thing is, it works in the T&C of this site, and the mods can't step in as long as nobody responds openly to the troll. If you luck out and somebody calls you out on your passive aggression, it's likely to be able to be construed as unfriendly, and you can get a mod to do your work for you.

It's kind of an inverse trolling ... where a troll trolls to generate a response, any response, the trolls here are trolling to shut down responses, call the motives of their posters into question, derail and disrupt the threads they don't like.

This sounds familiar to me... but you forgot to add not notifying the offending poster (or troll) as to why the post they made has suddenly gone missing, or what breach of rule 86.4 1/2 was made.....

Polite and friendly, yeh i know... unfortunately that's not the way of the world. No matter how much we'd like it to be.

Goes for anyone really, if you are friendly, polite, and clean it's pretty hard to get the rest wrong - so you won't be running foul of any rules.

Just floating a general question aimed at nobody in particular, when is enough enough?

[wayno]

when its a rant, enough is enough...

[colinm]

Goes for anyone really, if you are friendly, polite, and clean it's pretty hard to get the rest wrong - so you won't be running foul of any rules.

So let's see if I got this right ... friendly, polite and clean: "I am saddened by the lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion and grammatical correctness evident in many of the posts here. You know who you are. You're mother would probably cry if she read what you said. I'm only posting this too stop you're going too hell. Which you surely will, unless you take my friendly advice."

It ticks all the boxes, can be dropped in just about anywhere, and if repeated often enough with variations will throw sand in the wheels of any conversation. I even threw in a few egregious grammatical errors. All it's missing is a reference to Nazis.

[colinm]

Look, as to "what is enough" ... I dunno. If you're talking about this thread: My primary point was made in post #1: "To the extent this site is a community, you are probably not in it." I think I made a reasoned case in support of my point. I have not seen much in the way of substantive rebuttal, but if anyone has a rebuttal I'm here for it, pro tem.

Of course, if you're actually talking about when is "enough enough" in terms of when you'll feel sanctioned to decide to wield the ban-hammer ... in a "how much can a koala bear" kind of way ... one could interpret that within the thesis too.

[tasadam]

You continue to flout this forum with disrespect.
You add a signature -

This site is a game run for profit derived from herding IP addresses for sale.

I remove it and message you, but you respond that you do not know why I removed it.
Now you set another signature -

No, your a troll!1!!eleven!!

You hope that moderation action will ensue, so you can flame us. You tempt me with your ban-hammer comment like you think it gives me joy to ban anyone on this forum. It does not.
I will not be banning you, I am leaving any moderation to that level for the forum owner to do should it be necessary - at his request. He differs from me in thinking you will settle down and post something about, maybe, bushwalking.

[Son of a Beach]

So let's see if I got this right ... friendly, polite and clean: "I am saddened by the lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion and grammatical correctness evident in many of the posts here. You know who you are. You're mother would probably cry if she read what you said. I'm only posting this too stop you're going too hell. Which you surely will, unless you take my friendly advice."

It ticks all the boxes, can be dropped in just about anywhere, and if repeated often enough with variations will throw sand in the wheels of any conversation. I even threw in a few egregious grammatical errors. All it's missing is a reference to Nazis.

Your argument might be a bit more persuasive if it was more realistic and less over-dramatised. It would certainly be less offensive (to the Nazis, I mean, of course).

Look, as to "what is enough" ... I dunno. If you're talking about this thread: My primary point was made in post #1: "To the extent this site is a community, you are probably not in it." I think I made a reasoned case in support of my point. I have not seen much in the way of substantive rebuttal, but if anyone has a rebuttal I'm here for it, pro tem.

Of course, if you're actually talking about when is "enough enough" in terms of when you'll feel sanctioned to decide to wield the ban-hammer ... in a "how much can a koala bear" kind of way ... one could interpret that within the thesis too.

Yes, people have attempted to discuss things with you and even tried rebuttal, but you clearly don't consider anybody else's opinion on the matter that is different to yours to be worth anything. People have given up debating the issue with you because it doesn't seem to be a very rational debate and therefore fairly pointless to continue. And no, it's not because your arguments and reasoning are good.

This topic is very much becoming something like I alluded to earlier as a good reason for not discussing the specifics of moderation incidents in public. It ends up making everybody look bad, and becomes a very negative experience for the community.

[colinm]

You continue to flout this forum with disrespect.
You add a signature -

This site is a game run for profit derived from herding IP addresses for sale.

I remove it and message you, but you respond that you do not know why I removed it.

Let's be clear now, and not make stuff up. You messaged me that you were sure I knew why you removed it. I responded that indeed I do not know why you removed it, but tried to ask direct and pertinent questions as to what your reasoning was.

Then I asked you to edit it to what I *am* permitted to say, to save time and mucking about. I hear *nothing* in reply until now ... in public. Respect, huh? Hot dog!

I presume, since you invoked the matter, I'm exempt from T&C 25, but who really knows until after the event.

As I said to you, I consider that sig to have been a succinct and accurate statement. I offered to remove anything you liked, or to let you write it for me. Apparently that's not good enough either.

Now you set another signature -

No, your a troll!1!!eleven!!

I don't see anything wrong with it ... it was just sitting there as a place holder until you wrote something you consider acceptable, 'cos I'm completely out of guesses.

You hope that moderation action will ensue, so you can flame us. You tempt me with your ban-hammer comment like you think it gives me joy to ban anyone on this forum. It does not.

I flame you? I have flamed you? Each and every response I have made to you, ever, has been polite, considered, and reasoned. I don't pretend to friendliness I do not feel, I do not feel I've been treated as a friend, by friends, if phony bon homie is what floats your boat, then you can have it by the boatload. for *&^%$# sake, I haven't even allowed myself very much humour ... since god only knows what you'll take offence at, and I don't have a direct line to him.

I will not be banning you, I am leaving any moderation to that level for the forum owner to do should it be necessary - at his request. He differs from me in thinking you will settle down and post something about, maybe, bushwalking.

Because the Forum and Site section of this site is for bushwalking, and not for discussion of matter arising about ... I dunno ... maybe ... the Forum and Site? Well of course.

Ok. So now I am getting heated up.

[Nuts]

I'd have to admit that (as for SBS) i'm not an expert with the rules. I do occasionally go and look for one that suits the purpose
Ok.. hold'on, that's not as bad as it sounds.. Ironically, the answers are right there. The rules simply reflect what is expected in playing nice, how to 'do the right thing' by the community- put into words. I suspect nobody, even the trolls, really need to refer to those rules to know what they are saying is likely to be overly offensive. The law is an ass- this is how the (best of the) real world works!

Occasionally left over are the 'butt-hurt' on a vendetta and we as moderators are forced to deal with their ego's. If diplomacy doesn't work then yes, expect short-shrift editing, bans... decreasing commitment to 'helping' you and an impression that would flow on to future confrontations. Like it or not, even if 'you' really do feel hard-done-by or not... If you have a valid point fair enough, if you need to work through your own stuff, do it elsewhere!

ie.. all done without any real 'need' for rules, just a sense of fair play. Some people on here, a very small minority, seem to need nursemaids or psychologists.. surely we can't be all things. Don't take it so seriously! I see people say they don't like member X, never met them, don't like what they say, wouldn't like them. Iv'e met a few forum members and they are never as you'd expect, what they say here is only a small part of who they are. Even the set of someones face can make the difference.. and besides, surely we don't just have friends that agree that seems odd- resist judgement? take a breath!

I voted to keep this thread open, not so much for the OP (who is playing games that there is only the option to loose) but in the hope that the 'normal' community members might get some understanding, have their say on the more coherent parts of the topic. It seems pretty much done.

I'm sure everyone would agree that moderation needs to fall to a certain group within the community (rather than a dozen polls a day). That comes down to trust... Everything I have done (or seen done) by the moderation team has been in the spirit of playing 'fair'.. just like people in everyday society moderators don't always agree with each other and have different moderation styles. Mine is to expect everyone is smart enough to know 'right' from 'wrong'.. without a rulebook as immediate reference. I guess this leads to a point where i'm just going to take less effort, cut the worst of it without consult, not be at the mercy of games (even if there's no getting past their warped judgement).

For the young at mouth, think of it like your granny was reading (or my granny if yours swears like a trooper). Respect! Manners... helping other people out, accepting when your wrong... old school values maybe, not necessarily exclusively 'christian' but everyone here seems to know of them even if they don't live by them. If it's too confusing, ask the 95% of forum members who do 'get-it'.

[colinm]

So let's see if I got this right ... friendly, polite and clean: "I am saddened by the lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion and grammatical correctness evident in many of the posts here. You know who you are. You're mother would probably cry if she read what you said. I'm only posting this too stop you're going too hell. Which you surely will, unless you take my friendly advice."

It ticks all the boxes, can be dropped in just about anywhere, and if repeated often enough with variations will throw sand in the wheels of any conversation. I even threw in a few egregious grammatical errors. All it's missing is a reference to Nazis.

Your argument might be a bit more persuasive if it was more realistic and less over-dramatised. It would certainly be less offensive (to the Nazis, I mean, of course).

Well, the first part of that was quoted verbatim from a post on a different thread ... and it didn't raise any eyebrows at the time, which kinda supports my argument, but I guess you had to be there. I'd advise anyone using the pro-forma to tone it down, of course, goes without saying. Wouldn't want to offend any Nazis who might read it.

[colinm]

I'd have to admit that (as for SBS) i'm not an expert with the rules. I do occasionally go and look for one that suits the purpose

Seems like a reasonable summary, on the face of it, Nuts. I'm not sure how many people know that Private Messages are subject to the same scrutiny as public messages, for no good reason of which I'm aware. So, when the T&C say you should try to resolve a dispute in PM, you really *have* to be aware that the usual conventions of privacy in dispute resolution do not apply here, and your words can be thrown in your face. So if I may chip in here, as a public service: I'd just say that it's crucial that you pretend friendliness in PM as much as in public.

Colin.

[tasadam]

I'm not sure how many people know that Private Messages are subject to the same scrutiny as public messages, for no good reason of which I'm aware. So, when the T&C say you should try to resolve a dispute in PM, you really *have* to be aware that the usual conventions of privacy in dispute resolution do not apply here, and your words can be thrown in your face. So if I may chip in here, as a public service: I'd just say that it's crucial that you pretend friendliness in PM as much as in public.

Colin.

To clear this point.

1.
When you post a private message, it is not possible for anyone to read it other than the sender, the recipient, and the person looking over your shoulder if you have one there.

2.
The rules of this site (call them what you will) apply to all content. That includes private messages.

3.
When you report a Private Message, you are sharing it with the moderation group. Other than that, there are no circumstances which allow anyone else to access these messages - which is why they are called "private".

Also see here -
http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 186#p50186

Pretty clear that when you report something, it is being brought to the attention of moderators.

[colinm]

I'm not sure how many people know that Private Messages are subject to the same scrutiny as public messages, for no good reason of which I'm aware. So, when the T&C say you should try to resolve a dispute in PM, you really *have* to be aware that the usual conventions of privacy in dispute resolution do not apply here, and your words can be thrown in your face. So if I may chip in here, as a public service: I'd just say that it's crucial that you pretend friendliness in PM as much as in public.

Colin.

To clear this point.

Yes, some clarity is welcome. The Terms and Conditions suggest the use of Private Messages to resolve interpersonal disputes before taking them up with the mediators, and presumably as an alternative to slugging it out in public (as, for example, the discussion we had a couple of posts back.)

Now, in the real world, communication intended to resolve disputes outside of a formal process is usually considered to be private. You may have seen the magic words "without prejudice" on such documents? That's what that's for.

In the real world, actions in mediation are (by common consent) private and even privileged. This is because, in the real world, people who wish to resolve a dispute need to be able to speak frankly and without censorship.

I think, given the "Private" part of "Private Message" and given the exhortation in the T&C to try to resolve disputes using Private Messages, it is very important that people know that, unlike comparable situations in real life, in actual dispute resolution, they can have no expectation of actual privacy.

If people understand that they have exactly the same palette of expressions to resolve disputes in public and in "private," they can probably avoid the worst excesses of dysfunction in the moderation system here. I note that the T&C were recently modified to make this a little more patent, which is a good thing. I'm glad people have the opportunity to be clear on it, here and now.

[blacksheep]

Why stay if it is not your scene Colin? You are articulate, intelligent and dissatisfied .. Why put up with it?

[colinm]

Why stay if it is not your scene Colin? You are articulate, intelligent and dissatisfied .. Why put up with it?

Oh, I'm autistic, blacksheep. I needed to know whether this system actually conformed to the published rules, or not. So this was a test. It doesn't, so yeah ... I pretty much have to scale back my participation. If this had been a community, my reasoning tells me that someone would have mounted a logical refutation of my thesis.

Fortunately, other autistic people like me will be able to read this and understand the kind of system within which they're expected to operate. Not friendly.

[Onestepmore]

If I were to find a thread pointless, I would not read it.

The above is surely the most useful and constructive comment in this entire thread.

I'm off to re-read Wayno's link about testicle-chomping fish

+

Lol I want a 'like' button

[wayno]

[wildwalks]

I have been following this thread closely (I am avoiding posting - I don't want to get in the way.)
I want to thank everyone for making a great effort to keep this thread friendly.

I have learned a lot from reading this. One practical tip is that as moderators we need to be clearer when we post - it should be clear if we are posting as a moderator or a member. This is great feedback thanks. We will discuss this and see how we can improve.

I want to add to this comment.

I think, given the "Private" part of "Private Message" and given the exhortation in the T&C to try to resolve disputes using Private Messages, it is very important that people know that, unlike comparable situations in real life, in actual dispute resolution, they can have no expectation of actual privacy.

If people understand that they have exactly the same palette of expressions to resolve disputes in public and in "private," they can probably avoid the worst excesses of dysfunction in the moderation system here. I note that the T&C were recently modified to make this a little more patent, which is a good thing. I'm glad people have the opportunity to be clear on it, here and now.

People are encouraged to deal with any issues they can - either in the forum or via PM's. Dealing with issues yourself is the best way to do it. Obviously when attempting to deal with any issue the site rules still apply. PM's are subject to the same rules. This following line has always been in the site rules.

In these rules, 'content' refers to everything that users may contribute to the site, including, but not limited to: Text and links within forum posts, private messages and profiles.

All PM's are private. But if the receiver believes there has been a breach of the rules and reports it - the PM is shared with the moderation team. In this specific case the PM was only made public when Colin posted in on his blog. I have not posted it and will not post it. All moderation decisions are kept private - this is to protect the privacy of all people involved.
When moderating I answer two simple questions. Did the post/PM breach any of the site rules? and if so what should be the consequence? To answer these I always have a conversation with the people involved to ensure I understand the context and if the poster is willing to help resolve the issue.

I don't want to pretend that this site or community is perfect. We do have some great people who volunteer their time to moderate and keep the site ticking along well. The core of our community are the members who just get involved every day to help each other and have a bit of fun. Most members never need moderating. Most people who get moderated just need a gentle nudge - we all have bad days, that is okay. Most people are happy to play nice and get along. I think this is a large part of why we experience a sense of community - people place nice, get along and help each other.

Can I ask if anyone has any specific (and practical) suggestions on how the community can be improved, please suggest it here. I have a limited budget and time, but I am very happy to see what I can do to help move things forward.

Thanks again - Happy walking.

Matt Posting as site admin

[GPSGuided]

I have learned a lot from reading this. One practical tip is that as moderators we need to be clearer when we post - it should be clear if we are posting as a moderator or a member. This is great feedback thanks. We will discuss this and see how we can improve.

First a thank you to the mod/admin team. I think over this issue, generous patience and leeway has been shown. On many other sites, mods/admins often have far less. Having worked in voluntary mod/admin positions elsewhere, I fully appreciate how this type of bargaining can consume vast amount of one's valuable time and the effort it takes to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction, hence the word of appreciation.

On the issue of improvement. I agree that it's absolutely critical to clarify one's posting position as a private member or with a mod hat on. A good solution to this is to establish a specific title format to be used by all mods when posting as a mod. This makes it very clear to all with no misunderstanding. A good and effective solution. Irrespective, there'll always be restrictions on a Mod who is trying to enjoy a forum as a private member, a significant price to pay when one volunteers for such a position.

[MOD]Speaking as a Mod...[/MOD]

Hope this helps.

[Nuts]

That would be a good discussion, let's not attribute anything here to mistakes in the way this has been handled. To me, a longer ban might have been easier in hindsight... for everyone's sake.

From what I saw of how this was moderated the process couldn't have been more 'community-minded'.

[colinm]

That would be a good discussion, let's not attribute anything here to mistakes in the way this has been handled. To me, a longer ban might have been easier in hindsight... for everyone's sake. From what I saw of how this was moderated the process couldn't have been more 'community-minded'.

You're referring to me?

[wildwalks]

Since Colin requested comments on his Thesis I thought I would provide some. I am not going to debate this - just provide a few thoughts.
(sorry for the very long post)

Communities have members, social media sites have livestock. Members have some say in how communities are run, livestock merely has value to those who run a site.

I find your suggestion that our great members (many of which are my friends) are livestock - very insulting. People offer great help and advice here every day.
The site has a special forum set up (Forum & Site) where people are free to offer suggestions. In the past few months we have added a mobile skin, created several new sub forums, discussed site stability issues, changed messages in the "outbox" to make it clearer, upgraded tapatalk and set up an ATOM feed. It seems to me people are very free to offer advice and discuss solutions. In fact some members also help by been part of the solution and help migrate posts to sub forums and get involved in other ways.
Rules and moderation processes are welcomed to be discussed in the same way. Although we can't discuss specific forum action public (as history has shown this ends in tears) - we can discuss concepts and adopt new ideas. The moderators are members, members can apply to become moderators. All members can have a say - and we provide a clear and open means in which to do it. If people wish to discuss issues in private they can also do that.

I have reached the conclusion that this site does not represent a community as a result of an enforcement of the Site Terms and Conditions, which is misleadingly called the Site Rules Page. I refer to them below as T&C, short for "Terms and Conditions" because that is all they are. I am unsure of the last edit date of the T&C (because the page's modification date is not public,) but I suspect they have been modified since the actions and processes to which I refer, and that those modifications serve to retroactively justify those actions.

There has been no change to the rules since your moderation - your suspicion is wrong. The only change made this year (early this year) is a spelling correction " that it has been edited my a moderator" changed to "that it has been edited by a moderator".
The word 'rules' seems to be defined as: "One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." This seems to fit well for me. As members we agree to them when we sign up. The only evidence I can see you provide to suggest that they are T&C not rule is that you say "because that is all they are" - I will need a little more I am afraid.

I am hamstrung in discussing my reasoned critique with you because T&C 25 explicitly forbids discussion of a specific moderator action. That T&C has the effect of preventing any member of the community, outside a self-selecting elite, from participating in or even fully understanding the T&Cs by discussion within this site. I believe that T&C 25's chilling effect is intentional.

Yes the chilling effect of rule 25 is very intentional. Open discussions about specific moderation action always end badly for the community. You are free to discuss this outside the site. You have stated your case in the blog. You have directed people to your blog. It seems the system works fine. You are very free to offer general suggestions and provide practical advice.

If you are interested in the specifics of the case I am more than happy to discuss them on my blog, where there is a page dedicated to the specific issues in detail.

For those who missed it his post is here

http://panchrestomatic.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/corrosive-crypto-christianity.html

I obviously disagree with his accusations. Colin was kind enough to send my a link when he first posted it. I obviously told him that in my view the accusations are misguided and baseless. Moderation on this site is based on the clearly written and published rules - the faith of a member is not considered in any moderation decision (or when selection people for the moderation team).

I think that a community which conducts secret processes of judgement is not worthy of the name. A collection of people subject to these secret processes do not, themselves, participate in the formation or evolution of the standards by which conduct is judged, and indeed might not, collectively or individually, even agree with those standards - how would they ever know? How would *you* ever know?

The process and rules are very open. The only thing closed are the actual decisions - this is to protect the privacy of people who report and those reported. We all agree to the rules when we sign up, and the process is also clearly outlined.

Enforcement of the T&Cs is conducted without the informed consent of the people using this site, but the term 'community' to describe the site falsely implies that the actions are collectively sanctioned. I know of no actual communities with analagous structure, outside of the reactive artificial communities in prisons. Prefacing the terms and conditions of the site with a plea to and pretense of community is profoundly misleading, almost cruelly so.

All people agree to the rules when they sign up. We have also provided an avenue for all members to provide feedback and suggestions - it just seems that most people are happy with them and suggestions are rarely received. But the process to suggest them is open.
If we consider community defined as "a social unit that shares common values" (as seems common) - then there is no need for the community to actually create the rules - just join a group of people with similar values. We have both - people have joined knowing that the value of politeness and friendship will guide all discussions - they are also very welcome to raise any issues or concerns they have. I think this is actually how most communities run and see no evidence to the contrary.

I post this message, in this topic, out of a feeling of community which is clearly at odds with the T&C. That's simply because those are not rules of a community, but are only the terms and conditions of use of a site. The difference between a site and a community which uses a site is precisely that the cultural norms of a community are shared, whereas site conditions are imposed.

The rules are based around the concept of been polite and friendly. These rules do not create community - but help foster community. It is the fact that people with similar values share in a friendly and helpful way that helps community develop. By the fact that people agree to the terms on sign up suggests to me that the rules are shared by all. And again they are open for discussion.

However, I do not deny that there is a community on this site. I merely assert, with plenty of evidence, that you are probably not part of it.

Now I am confused. There is community here but I probably not part of it - then who is?? I see no evidence listed that suggests that I am not part of a community.

I love running into members on the track, or when they call in for a coffee - or when we share great ideas online. The evidence that community exists is in the people I interact with here. I have made some great friends through this community. I am very sorry as is seems that you have not experienced a sense of community here.

It breaks my heart when people leave feeling our community feeling picked on because other people choose to breach rules. I am not sure how to respond this this case - with you. It seems you have struggled to find your place in this community since been moderated (maybe before). I believe that communities have a responsibility to it members to help them when they have bad days. It seems that you have chosen to believe that the values of the community are different from those clearly stated. If this is the case then it seems you have chosen to step out of the community. If this is the case then the choice is your - I wish for you all the very best. I am not sure what responsibility I have as a community member in this case? If you want help settling into the community, please just ask for it. I have already offered to have coffee with you - the offer still stands. I am happy to join you for a day walk.

Matt Posting as site admin (and as community member)

[colinm]

It breaks my heart when people leave feeling our community feeling picked on because other people choose to breach rules. I am not sure how to respond this this case - with you. It seems you have struggled to find your place in this community since been moderated (maybe before). I believe that communities have a responsibility to it members to help them when they have bad days. It seems that you have chosen to believe that the values of the community are different from those clearly stated. If this is the case then it seems you have chosen to step out of the community. If this is the case then the choice is your - I wish for you all the very best. I am not sure what responsibility I have as a community member in this case? If you want help settling into the community, please just ask for it. I have already offered to have coffee with you - the offer still stands. I am happy to join you for a day walk.

I thought it worth trying to find a place here, and to that end sought to be as helpful as possible.

At this stage, given what I've observed, I no longer feel safe or accepted on this site.

I would like all the posts I've made here removed.

Colin.