Dawlish Discussion

There are several people breaking the terms on this site and this has to stop.

@Andrew’s account has been closed for blatantly violating the terms and refusing to stick to them.

@Scapegoat, you normally stick to the terms but have a habit of straying. Calling @Paul an ultra right wing idiot and @Huw Mathews a right wing * with bigoted views is unacceptable. Adding lol on the end doesn’t make it OK.

The insults must end. If you don’t know the difference between disagreeing and being insulting or libellous then you shouldn’t be posting on here.

From now on, if someone posts abuse to another member, I will close their account and edit the post to let other members know.

Let’s see how that goes and hopefully we can make this forum a better place for existing members and new ones.

If anyone has any other ideas or suggestions then please post them.

Sounds like a plan, appreciated webmaster.

Heard all that before.

@elvis presley, this is a one strike and you're out policy. We've not had this on here before.

Hopefully the rule also applies to the likes of Fred and Burnside. 

@From The Grave, it applies to everyone and it applies to insults.

This is not about censoring points of views, opinions or criticisms. It is about how we address each other on the site.

I would also refrain from calling other members trolls and use the report button if you think someone is trolling.

Should have implemented the policy , a long time since, I hope you stick to your guns webmaster.

@webmaster - "From now on, if someone posts abuse to another member, I will close their account and edit the post to let other members know."

cue - a debate on what is, and what is not, abuse/name calling/making insulting remarks.

I'm very happy with that, webmaster - there are too many childish insults on here.

I haven't posted for some time as most members stick to the rules. Most of the time it's like kids insulting one another and you are right webmaster and i agree with you. The last time i posted was on the dog poop in this town it's out of hand but it seems nothing can be done or nobody cares about it, in fact i had very few replies when i posted about it. Hope your warning webmaster holds and you do as you stated.

@webmaster

Perhaps you need to make the terms much more explicit and provide more comprehensive guidance as to what is insulting, libellous, a breach of privacy, copyright infringement, etc, or at least provide links to the relevant legislation covering online conduct.

The examples provided may be valid, but they have overlooked comments and actions made by others on this site.

Why did it escalate to this level in the first place? What can be considred abusive or not?

Isn't 'libtard' abusive not only to certain voters but also to the mentally handicapped? Why was that overlooked? And how many times have I read the terms 'scum' or 'low-life' from more right-wing posters? Lots, yet they evade any repurcussions.

It seems some are treated differently to others.

Currently the terms can be interpreted differently depending on the individuals' perspective. I also doubt how effectively and objectively the rules can be enforced.

Why not ask the members what they accept and do not accept? At least then if they've agreed on a set of rules themselves and signed up to them, then the onus is on them.

If 'libtard' is considered acceptable - make it known in the site terms and then those considering joining can make an informed decision to sign up or not.

If this site is moderated by one person I feel the task of reforming it is simply too large and impossible. It's a grand gesture though and it restored some confidence, which I imagine will be short-lived. If one person alone is passing judgement then the site will reflect their worldview of what is deemed acceptable.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it, as long as I know what that viewpoint is and it's clearly stated in the site terms.

From what I've seen so far the messages are mixed and very confusing.

I suppose if you join dawlish.com you should expect it to be majoritively right-leaning as it is Dawlish and Teignbridge in microcosm. And this site is a microcosm for an increasingly divided and polarized society, so I'm not suprised people have clashed on here. It's just an exacerbated online representation of societal breakdown and a general decline in respect for one another.

i can accept that, but it's not somewhere i'd like to waste any more energy. with that in mind, please delete my account @webmaster.

I hope this site improves as some threads are actually informative, interesting and of benefit to the community. But unfortunately I can't see it happening.

People have always argued about politics, it's just more visible now because of the large number of online forums and social media, nothing to do with "societal breakdown" at all.  Stop being hysterical.

@Strong and Stable, I don’t think we have much of an issue with privacy and copyright infringement. These things are more clear-cut although there have been minor privacy breaches. Also, there are laws that limit what you can say about minority groups. None of these laws have ever been broken on the site, or if they have the posts have been removed.

What I am mainly referring to is how we address each other on the site. I agree, I don’t think there is any need to call another member an idiot or a libtard just because you disagree with them. You can use language like ‘I don’t agree’ or ‘you are wrong’, or ‘you must be joking’ etc.

But referring to, say, Guardian readers as libtards or The Sun readers as white supremacists is not the same thing as calling a member a libtard or a white supremacist. I hear and read this kind of language all the time and I don’t find it personally offensive and I don’t see how anyone else can. It is generally offensive language but not personally offensive to me.

Think also of a situation where you hear two people having an argument. You may find their language offensive but you can’t take it personally because it is not directed at you.

It escalates when it gets personal and it is the personal insults that I am referring to.

Also referring to someone’s actions as ‘scum’ as Paul did in the post he started is not directed at any Dawlish.com member. So, again, it’s not ideal language but I don’t see how any member can find that personally offensive or be insulted by it (unless it was your parking of course).

The aim here is to stop the personal insults so things don't escalate.

I understand it is not clear-cut and depends on context and intent. Saying 'you idiot' to a friend is very different to saying it to a stranger, say, another road user (this is something you can test for yourself if you like).

With libel, as far as I understand the law, you can't libel someone who is anonymous. However, anonymity is not just about a member using a pseudonym since they could still be known to others. So something could be libellous to, say, Gary Taylor but may only be regarded as rude or insulting to someone anonymous and who no one knows. Anonymity obviously doesn’t protect anyone from being sued for libel. You can google for examples of what constitutes libel if you want more information.

With privacy, the general rule is that you respect another member’s right to anonymity even if you choose not to be. A member is not allowed to provide any personal details about another member, such as their real name if they are using a pseudonym, phone number or email address without their permission. This excludes information already in the public domain and already associated with the member, such as a business contact mobile or business contact email.

If, for example, one member called another member a busybody would that be deemed a personal insult?  Or is the term busybody one that is okay to use on here?

@Lynne, yes, I would argue that that would be a personal insult and it could lead to an excalating argument.

But i'm willing to ask members what they think as @Strong and Stable suggests. My view at the moment is I don't see any need for any name calling.

I will put it in the terms and conditions once it is agreed on. In the meantime if someone genuinely unintentionally gets it wrong because it is not yet clear, I'll give them the opportunity to edit their posts.

yes, i agree with you @webmaster.  i raised it because a certain poster (who has recently closed her account but if past form is anything to go by will be back sometime soonish but posting under yet another name) chose to call me that recently.  and i'm pretty certain that wasn't the first time. it usually occurred whenever i was trying to elicit or communicate information that she disapproved of.

For example, does my telling people that the Wednesday open market/boot fair is no longer running make me a busy body or a community minded person who is simply trying to get info out and about that some might well find useful?.    

@Lynne, no it doesn't make you a busy body, and disseminating that kind of information is what this site is for.

I will also need to make it clear in the terms that the terms and conditions are subject to change and old posts are not necessarily a guide to what is allowed and what is not.

Also that, as with all rules and laws (think parking and speeding), just because someone may have broken the terms, it doesn’t mean the terms no longer apply. This seems to be something that is inferred by some members when they see the terms being breached.

@webmaster I know for a fact that one member's breach of privacy has been overlooked with no repurcussions for the offender. Clearly anonymity needs addressing.

An individual has been accused of bullying while they feel they've been constantly harassed by someone with a personal grudge, who has been given preferential treatment in their view and mine.

Moderator impartiality was questioned on a thread relating to Gary Taylor. Seeing the back of certain members who were critical of perceived favouritism suggests a personal agenda and not objectivity.

Frequently people's views aren't respected and they're forced off the site. A rather nasty element exists on this site and it's telling how they're keeping quiet and not contributing to this discussion.

I think far more needs addressing than just insults. To prevent people breaking rules, they need to be clearly explained and then properly enforced. The moderator is also accountable.

If old posts are not a guide to online conduct then why keep them? I wonder how Dawlish is perceived by visitors reading the posts.

@webmaster i'd be grateful if you'd delete my account, the partisanship and ostracisation is far too entrenched to reach any agreement. it's impossible to change the culture on this site now, it needed firm foundations from day one and not part-time supervision.

I would seriously consider closing Dawlish.com

I bet sometimes you wonder, if it's all worth it Webmaster?

OK @Strong and Stable, I've closed your account.

@elvis presley, most of the time it is worth it. things usually go pear shaped around voting time or when the discussion is about politics.

@webmaster - i find dawlish.com is a bonus for dawlish when threads are not hijacked by certain user's/ex user's. i for one enjoy contributing to this site and fully welcome the increased policing, as to what certain user's have done in the past, that is the past. keep up the good work.