# Discussion - Change of Culture



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Agh iPad replies getting wiped ...

Summary
Agree
But we need opposing views to have an open discussion
That what makes it interesting
It's the abusers of the openness that ruin it (trollers, evangelists -not just the religious ones, and the downright rude and belligerent) and the serial reporters
Moderation would need to be ongoing and vigilant
And the message would need to be clear, concise and consistent
The ModAkff member account previously used would help ensure that it's a decision generated and conveyed from the mods
Not Leftie, not ado, not Bertros, but a concensus


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

indiedog said:


> leftieant said:
> 
> 
> > indiedog said:
> ...


Hmm yellow card, red card, black card
Could see that working

I can see it now:


AKFFMod said:


> This is a yellow card situation, end of conversation





AKFFMod said:


> This is a red card situation, please leave the conversation





AKFFMod said:


> This is a black card situation, no more conversations, period


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Great points Con
I agree with the degree of isolation part!
More than once I've had to PM a more 'senior member' for an explanation on something
Not sure still if my remoteness is a strength or a weakness, or both or neither

What about a "mentor" for new members?
Someone to shadow them during the bedding in phase (say in the period between 25 and 150 posts)


----------



## Dodge (Oct 12, 2005)

anselmo said:


> What about a "mentor" for new members?
> Someone to shadow them during the bedding in phase (say in the period between 25 and 150 posts)


Nick do know this happens often via the various social meets after a face to face encounter, and equally a PM on occasion for more distant members.

Certainly helps them, and is the exact opposite of "use search function" which drives newbies away in my opinion.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

Yeah or the Japanese symbols peace and happiness and a butterfly decal just over the stern of the yak.


----------



## RhubarbTheYeti (Oct 28, 2013)

scater said:


> Yeah or the Japanese symbols peace and happiness and a butterfly decal just over the stern of the yak.


Trendy tattoos for yaks :lol:


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Can I veto this one now? Save me having to do it later ...


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

A good start would be banning religious discussion altogether.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2014)

Bar & Grill sub-forum entry by invitation/application. Moderate the open forum hard to keep it on-topic - a professional public face. Have a visible Bar & Grill entry for those who want to find it. One locked post visible under Bar & Grill explaining what goes on there. A means of escape back out for those who wander in and don't like it or have no wish to read any Bar & Grill topics. 
No restriction on the number of posts to join by invitation.

Self-eviction Click here to close yourself out of the Bar & Grill permanently. You can opt back in later if you change your mind.


----------



## Zorba (Jan 22, 2013)

If we are trying to encourage free and open discussion then nothing should be banned so long as it is related to kayaking and fishing. I do not accept rude language or personal attacks on anyone as they have every right to defend themselves. If this needs to be done send PM to each other. I joined with the view that we all can help each other enjoying this great pastime

Personally I have been given some superb advise by members here. I will not name them as to not embarise them


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## Zorba (Jan 22, 2013)

I agree with you Barrabundy

I don't think the mods should be spending all their time supervising the bad eggs. Is their a big number of these people that cause rift? The mods must be on it fast as I don't see this problem
I could only imagine there would be a handful of troublemakers? If there are so few then just ban them and they will go elsewhere


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

Yup. It's hard to create blanket policies but I think religion is one area of debate where we could, for a simple reason. No-one in the history of the world has uttered the phrase "you know what? You're right. I change my mind - God isn't real." Or vice-versa. These beliefs underpin a person's world-view so fundamentally that they can never be changed by another person. 
What's more, the urge to change someone's beliefs is, at it's core, really an act of internal reinforcement. We don't actually care about helping people in these matters, just about strengthening our own beliefs by proving others' to be wrong. No matter what side if the religious debate you sit on, this is what you're really doing. That's why the discussions are so futile, and why they so quickly devolve into irrational arguments. They aren't coming from a rational place, no matter how dearly we'd like to believe otherwise. Some of the most rational people here give up the high ground almost immediately in these arguments and start name-calling. 
For this reason, I think it's appropriate to make them off limits. Some may call it censorship, I call it common-sensorship (catchy, huh?).


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

kraley said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. It's hard to create blanket policies but I think religion is one area of debate where we could, for a simple reason.
> ...


I can only think of one member that does that.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

scater said:


> kraley said:
> 
> 
> > scater said:
> ...


There is always one member, others have left or usually been banned but this one is tenacious.
I'm all for banning religion but the wording needs to make sure that it is designed to let science threads run freely, we need those back, even if a lot of them did make my head hurt.
The trouble with religion is that it is a brick wall and not being able to talk to it causes anger and then abuse. In my view we have to go with what the majority want and make that work. If we keep trying to keep everyone happy, we end up with nothing.
Although the thought of not being able to criticise religion isn't good.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

kraley said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> > I can only think of one member that does that.
> ...


I didn't answer it because I struggle to think of a solution. Can we draw a line between discussion of religious beliefs and discussions of the actions of religious people and organisations? Almost certainly not.

Ok maybe we don't ban religious discussion but instead come down a lot harder on the insults that inevitably begin to fly. If you want to refute what someone's said, you do it with observable fact. If they want to bring dubious evidence into the discussion then you discuss its validity, but the minute someone plays the man instead of the ball, or uses intentionally inflammatory language they get a yellow card. Two yellows and you're on the bench for a week.

I think Ken that you've often ceded the high ground by questioning members' intellects and being unnecessarily harsh about their views. You and I seem to fall on the same side of a lot of debates but I'm not a fan of your techniques a lot of the time. You tend to give ammunition to people who are standing on weak theoretical bases.


----------



## Zorba (Jan 22, 2013)

What am I missing! I thought this was a fishing and kayaking forum , why are we focusing on religion? Is this a code for something I don't know ?


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

kraley said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't answer it because I struggle to think of a solution. Can we draw a line between discussion of religious beliefs and discussions of the actions of religious people and organisations? Almost certainly not.
> ...


I brought it up because I wanted a pertinent illustration of what I believe is the real problem at the heart of the issue. And to be fair, I've done exactly the same thing. I've called a deity an imaginary friend and questioned the authorship of a sacred text. I'm not saying you were the problem, but we're none of us perfect.
I think it's fair to say you flew the flag for scientific fact on the forum for a long time. You say that you've now removed yourself from the off topic section. Why? You want a return to the robust debate of the past. If that's going to happen I think we need a framework for how it runs. It wasn't meant as a personal attack but we'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we demonise the religious folks here and disavow any responsibility ourselves.


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Just quickly as I'm heading to an exam in 5 minutes

How about opt in sections
The pulpit
The gene pool

Religious only
Scientific only
No moderation, no cross pollination


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

As Ken's pointed out, these areas tend to bleed into each other regardless of the ways we try to separate them.


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

eric said:


> anselmo said:
> 
> 
> > Just quickly as I'm heading to an exam in 5 minutes
> ...


So?
They could say the same about the scientific stuff
This should be about inclusion
If they get their own area to talk about stuff that doesn't interest you, don't join it

I suspect it will get boring quickly for them in a room where everyone agrees

Descartes said hell was being stuck in a room forever with your friends


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

anselmo said:


> Descartes said hell was being stuck in a room forever with your friends


Save it for the exam poindexter. ;-)


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

If it was meant as a personal attack Ken, I'd say so. You don't strike me as someone who needs to be coddled. No one person caused the problems of the community here. If I didn't hold you in high regard I wouldn't hold you to such high standards. The most rational and eloquent people here need to set a standard.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

And now, before this becomes the scater and Kraley show, let's get the discussion back to the forum. If you want, you can PM me for my address and, well you know the rest lol


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

It's interesting. I think most people enter a debate sure of their opinion and simply want to be heard. They have no intention of being dissuaded. This generally leads to robust debate. My contention is that it doesn't necessarily need to lead to a slanging match too. I'd like to see a civil and strong discourse around here where the participants put forward their case and let the evidence do the talking.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

Is that such a concern? Provided it's civil, we can just choose not to engage with someone making a nonsense argument. It's when things get personal that the place devolves.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

I definitely think it's worth a go.


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

I wish my exam was that interesting


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

anselmo said:


> eric said:
> 
> 
> > anselmo said:
> ...


Anyone have any more thoughts on this?

The 2 areas could be opt in only, moderated only to the extent of populating them with relevant topics moved from other threads where they don't belong
Let the god gang genuflect to each other
Let the scientists compare journal entries and pocket protectors

If you're interested in joining in or just watching do so
If you're not, it's been compartmentalised so you can avoid it

Eric's missed the point
It's not about getting rid of the problem, it's about putting the problem where it stops being a problem to those who have no interest 
Let's put ego aside and say who cares if there's a god (maybe all religious discussions, let's not discriminate) section?
It's only an issue if we start saying my way is the only way
We are all different and we all have valid points and inputs
Let's find a way to do that positively


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Barrabundy said:


> Sorry, I put the above post together over a long period so it might seems out of context now that the discussion has moved on in the meantime.
> 
> Yes, I'm all for keeping the various shit fights happening but keep them behind closed doors that we can avoid if we want. I've deliberately not wanted to go to the soap box and like the fact I don't see it.
> 
> ...


That's a valid concern con
But that's more about what the proper nature of moderating should be IMHO, a watching brief rather than the playground duty it seems to be at times 
I always think of moderators as referees in a game of soccer, they're essential and useful, a good one lets the game flow, but has the authority to stop the game if required. Like a soccer referee, you hardly notice them when they do the job right
If they are running around blowing their whistle, they've either lost control of the game, or the they forget that game is about the ball and the players, not the bloke with the whistle
A key difference of course is that in this game the referees are often players as well

Yeah, deep

(Aware that I'm on thin ice here, sorry if I offend any mods past or present )

The red bit is what I'm trying achieve with the suggestion of the 2 sections


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

theyakshed.com


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Barrabundy said:


> Sooo, do we just shove all "those" posts into the soap-box and that's that, no further sub-sections required?
> 
> It seems to be very focused on religion at this stage and, in my opinion, that's the topic that inevitably ends in tears. But there are other topics that end up getting smelly and it's usually because of a personal attack by someone.....that's never going to be stopped by having a separate room for it.....that purely comes down to behaviour. I guess that's just a normal thing for any forum whereas the religion v science thing is something that is banned on so,em forums and allowed on others.
> 
> I agree with your comment about the mods. I recall one ding dong session in the past where I thought the mods were in there throwing punches as well. Don't remember who or what but I remember thinking it was playing favourites......not that I envy the job of a mod!





Barrabundy said:


> I think it was raised before, and I like the idea, that the mod team act under a "mod team" username when playing referee rather than their individual username so as to take the personality out of it.


I'd like to see those 2 areas separate alongside the soapbox with the same rules
( I like the names I thought up!)

Re mod team username I believe that's still on the table as an option
Thoughts? Not just Con, everyone


----------



## RhubarbTheYeti (Oct 28, 2013)

So, I've only been here since late last year so not up on the wider history of this, but in my time it seems to have been only one member starting posts relating to religion, and then a few others rising to the bait and getting abusive.
A lot of time and energy is being wasted on worrying about a very limited problem. 
Of course us ordinary members don't know what has happened here with regard to actions by the Mods but that member has now pulled his head in on that topic and the main abusers are no longer participating. 
I reckon our focus should be directed elsewhere and not taken up with an issue that hopefully has already been sorted


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Said member has also contributed good stuff
Safety days anyone?
That gave a lot of good feedback and no doubt the general public would see it as a positive for AKFF
(Of course the ramming of safety down newbies throats killed the goodness there too)


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Another thought on the science, religion thing.
New section:
Scientific discussion. 
That would sort it.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

Holy shit Jon just posted a stem-cell thread! Strap in people here we go with some real world research!


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

scater said:


> Holy shit Jon just posted a stem-cell thread! Strap in people here we go with some real world research!












Link: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=66492

Ok, how long before we get a religious rant on this?
Jon, got your back - my red pen is ready


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

anselmo said:


> Ok, how long before we get a religious rant on this?
> Jon, got your back - my red pen is ready


Haha, I was going to mention the words christian/faith/religious as part of my reply on that thread (in a very neutral balanced sort of way) but didn't want to be accused of being the guy who started the shit fight :lol: :lol:


----------



## anselmo (Aug 26, 2008)

Barrabundy said:


> anselmo said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, how long before we get a religious rant on this?
> ...


Well I'm sure you don't even need to mention relighion to start a bun fight on that
Just mention the question of when does an embryo become human
someone will say termination is murder
someone else will start right to lifing
then someone will say jesus loves all his children ans abortion is a sin
balah blah blah
surprised it hasn' happened yet


----------



## Stealthfisha (Jul 21, 2009)

I think this may be a case of over thinking it.....


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

patwah said:


> Stealthfisha said:
> 
> 
> > I think this may be a case of over thinking it.....
> ...


You left, that made me sad.
Arsehole.
There, that's better.


----------



## Stealthfisha (Jul 21, 2009)

keza said:


> patwah said:
> 
> 
> > Stealthfisha said:
> ...


----------

