An open memo to Cindy - GN Moderator.

Possum3 · Guru

An open memo to Cindy - GN Moderator.

rgren2 · Guru

Good points. There have been discussions on other forums on the validity of written answers vs tick or crosses.

Dougwe · Chief one feather

G'day Possum, long time no speak my friend.

I very rarely if at all disagree with you but in this case sorry mate. The forum rules clearly state, no politics allowed. The subject you refer to is politics. Maybe if people want to discuss it think about PM's.

I'm not sure about others but I see and hear about it everywhere and really don't want to see it on a GN travel forum.

Just my thought on the matter and cause no harm.

Keep Safe on the roads and out there mate.

Possum3 · Guru

Dougwe wrote:
G'day Possum, long time no speak my friend.

Yep, we are getting older and seem to spend time with Grandkids and such - Now days it takes me all day to do what I used to do all day.

deverall11 · Guru

Dougwe wrote:
.... The forum rules clearly state, no politics allowed. The subject you refer to is politics. .....

Hence the reason for the open memo and a means to find dispensation.

Good initiative Possum. yes more work for Cindy but this is not garden variety politics. Good point about

deliberate distortion.

I have ever heard that an email was sent to Phil Courey of the AFR from a member of the noalition stating it's

no about yes or No but about bringing our current PM undone. On the assumption it is true, how's that for deliberate

distortion.

Are We Lost · Guru

Thanks for raising this Possum. I too feel frustrated that subjects of common interest can not be sensibly discussed. It seems to me that banning a subject inhibits many members from discussing what is an important issue for them. There is too much censorship in social media and I find it disappointing that GN is following this trend.

Perhaps a better way would be for tighter "no insults" rules in specific threads or forum areas. As for banning zealots and bigots, the problem is that members on one side of the argument will agree with the banning while others will feel annoyed. How do you separate a zealot from a person with strong feelings about an issue.

dorian · Guru

Let's face it, every topic has at times become "lively", even in the on-topic threads. Towing regulations and PWM-versus-MPPT regulators are just two examples that come to mind. Conflict is part of human nature. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that passionate discussion results in bad feelings.

As for terms like "zealot", the interpretation is subjective. A "bigot", OTOH, is someone who is not prepared to alter their own position, even when provided with irrefutable evidence. In the most recent case, someone made a claim which was explicitly denounced by the very same source that he was quoting, yet he ignored it.

Gundog · Guru

In principle I support Possums rational, its hard to find a forum where the free flow of opinion and information on a unique situation a refrendum, I have only seen 1 before this one.

The last national vote a plebisite, was the most corrupted vote ever, swags of ballot papers were found in a rubbish dump, we never received ballot papers neither did our neighbours.

But the negative side is allowing the subject to prevail, there are some including myself who have strong political beliefs, which can cause some angst. The previous deleted thread I thought initally was ok, be it took one post to send it off the rails, I tried to non political but it went to hell in a heart beat.

yobarr · Guru

dorian wrote:
Let's face it, every topic has at times become "lively", even in the on-topic threads. Towing regulations and PWM-versus-MPPT regulators are just two examples that come to mind. Conflict is part of human nature. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that passionate discussion results in bad feelings.

As for terms like "zealot", the interpretation is subjective. A "bigot", OTOH, is someone who is not prepared to alter their own position, even when provided with irrefutable evidence. In the most recent case, someone made a claim which was explicitly denounced by the very same source that he was quoting, yet he ignored it.

In the "most recent case" quoted above you very conveniently fail to recognise that the trailer being discussed in the passage that was quoted in a post that I didn't stoop to responding to was a "short centre-heavy caravan", where a low towball weight can be acceptable, but that is a totally different setup from the thousands of caravans that I see on my travels, with huge toolboxes fore and aft, jerry cans hanging off the rear, gas bottles on the drawbar, bicycles hanging front or rear, and that's only the start!

Without addressing every setup separately it is impossible to always give advice that is 100% relevant, which is why I get PMs from members who want help with their weights but are sick of Red Herrings being thrown into the discussion.

Always there will be exceptions to any required standard, and in the case of "short centre-heavy" a low towball weight may indeed be acceptable, but the vast majority of vans in Australia are most certainly not "lightweight" or "centre heavy", and a greater towball weight is necessary if safety is of any concern.

Of even greater importance is the fact that the car must be at least 10% heavier than the van it is towing.

NEVER have I said that 10% towball weight is obligatory, only that 10% towball weight is the generally accepted figure if SAFETY is of any concern. As Collyn says "10% is easily remembered and generally adequate".

Any comment about lighweight vans not being adversely affected by passing Roadtrains must be taken with a grain of salt as I've seen waaay too much evidence to the contrary in my travels, both as a motorist and as a Roadtrain driver.

It is very easy for someone to cherry-pick "evidence" in an effort to feel good and to support their assertions. Cheers

P.S This sort of setup is unfortunately common, and these sorts of vanners are the ones I try to help. 3% TBW? Yeah right.

Whenarewethere · Guru

This is the most discourteous forum I am on.

Many other forums I am on, some for decades, have banter but have the educational skills not to be discourteous.

Cuppa · Guru

Whenarewethere wrote:
This is the most discourteous forum I am on.

Many other forums I am on, some for decades, have banter but have the educational skills not to be discourteous.

100% agree.

I would love to have courteous & respectful discussion on many topics, but it seems almost an impossibility here 99% of the time because some just have to introduce their right wing politics, gang up, & try to shout people down & then blame those they attack for standing their ground for thread closures.

For that reason Admin determined that as an online community it was not possible for members to discuss important issues like the upcoming referendum in the courteous manner required & ruled that the Voice was off limits here. Sad, but I will accept the rules.

On occasions when a banned topic is commenced & is a topic I take an interest in I will continue to respond to it in order not to let a one sided view dominate, but have no complaint when the topic is rightfully deleted as per the rules.

There are many other topics regularly posted to this forum which are political, racist, misogynystic & offensive to others, often with commentary that if folk are offended that is their problem & that there is some sort of right to continue to post so long as the poster doesn't consider the post offensive - even when it is plain to see. All to0 often there is veiled & borderline material posted, in the full knowledge that intent can be deniable. Clever perhaps, but childishly so. Many times I think something is a bit off, not because I feel I am targeted by it, but because I see that someone , or some people are. Humour or commentary at the expense of others is never acceptable in my book.

The childish & unnecessarily offensive commentary on gender identity in a recent post is a perfect example of members trying to push the political/offensive/mysogynistic/gender biased buttons. Whilst those sort of posts persist why on earth would the admin reconsider any request for an exception to a rule.

If we want the freedom to discuss a wider range of topics then I think as an online community we need to demonstrate we can do so in a manner more befitting our ages, without the frequent derogatory & attacking posting styles so prevalent here.

Dick0 · Guru

Rules are rules. And they are very clear.

No Racist, Religious or Political comments.

I'll have a go back at those who offend, insult and/or abuse me in my posts but I don't initiate them in the first instance.

If I am not following the rules I am sure the Moderator would let me know.

Bobdown · Guru

Gundog wrote:
In principle I support Possums rational, its hard to find a forum where the free flow of opinion and information on a unique situation a refrendum, I have only seen 1 before this one.
The last national vote a plebisite, was the most corrupted vote ever, swags of ballot papers were found in a rubbish dump, we never received ballot papers neither did our neighbours.
But the negative side is allowing the subject to prevail, there are some including myself who have strong political beliefs, which can cause some angst. The previous deleted thread I thought initally was ok, be it took one post to send it off the rails, I tried to non political but it went to hell in a heart beat.

I too support the principle of the post, I think we should be permitted to post about the events of our country.........without abusing others who disagree.

I don't belong to any other forums as I'm only interested in the Grey Nomad lifestyle, but I have had a recent JJ post disappear and am not sure why, as I didn't see the last post to cause it to close.

I like a bit of satire and some of the banter that goes on here.....all in jest.

SoloMC · Senior Member

I think the problem is misinformation pumped out by former footy callers who now have airtime as shockjocks. There are loads of people who just can't think for themselves and follow these clowns and take whatever they say as fact.

dogbox · Guru

Cuppa wrote:

Whenarewethere wrote:
This is the most discourteous forum I am on.

Many other forums I am on, some for decades, have banter but have the educational skills not to be discourteous.
100% agree.
I would love to have courteous & respectful discussion on many topics, but it seems almost an impossibility here 99% of the time because some just have to introduce their right wing politics, gang up, & try to shout people down & then blame those they attack for standing their ground for thread closures.
For that reason Admin determined that as an online community it was not possible for members to discuss important issues like the upcoming referendum in the courteous manner required & ruled that the Voice was off limits here. Sad, but I will accept the rules.
On occasions when a banned topic is commenced & is a topic I take an interest in I will continue to respond to it in order not to let a one sided view dominate, but have no complaint when the topic is rightfully deleted as per the rules.
There are many other topics regularly posted to this forum which are political, racist, misogynystic & offensive to others, often with commentary that if folk are offended that is their problem & that there is some sort of right to continue to post so long as the poster doesn't consider the post offensive - even when it is plain to see. All to0 often there is veiled & borderline material posted, in the full knowledge that intent can be deniable. Clever perhaps, but childishly so. Many times I think something is a bit off, not because I feel I am targeted by it, but because I see that someone , or some people are. Humour or commentary at the expense of others is never acceptable in my book.
The childish & unnecessarily offensive commentary on gender identity in a recent post is a perfect example of members trying to push the political/offensive/mysogynistic/gender biased buttons. Whilst those sort of posts persist why on earth would the admin reconsider any request for an exception to a rule.
If we want the freedom to discuss a wider range of topics then I think as an online community we need to demonstrate we can do so in a manner more befitting our ages, without the frequent derogatory & attacking posting styles so prevalent here.

i find the commentary a bit strange coming from someone who in a recent thread suggested that a well-known ex member of our armed forces should be serving time in an Afghan prison bases on something you read in a newspaper or heard on the news

Basher · Senior Member

yobarr wrote:
dorian wrote:
Let's face it, every topic has at times become "lively", even in the on-topic threads. Towing regulations and PWM-versus-MPPT regulators are just two examples that come to mind. Conflict is part of human nature. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that passionate discussion results in bad feelings.

As for terms like "zealot", the interpretation is subjective. A "bigot", OTOH, is someone who is not prepared to alter their own position, even when provided with irrefutable evidence. In the most recent case, someone made a claim which was explicitly denounced by the very same source that he was quoting, yet he ignored it.
In the "most recent case" quoted above you very conveniently fail to recognise that the trailer being discussed in the passage that was quoted in a post that I didn't stoop to responding to was a "short centre-heavy caravan", where a low towball weight can be acceptable, but that is a totally different setup from the thousands of caravans that I see on my travels, with huge toolboxes fore and aft, jerry cans hanging off the rear, gas bottles on the drawbar, bicycles hanging front or rear, and that's only the start!
Without addressing every setup separately it is impossible to always give advice that is 100% relevant, which is why I get PMs from members who want help with their weights but are sick of Red Herrings being thrown into the discussion.
Always there will be exceptions to any required standard, and in the case of "short centre-heavy" a low towball weight may indeed be acceptable, but the vast majority of vans in Australia are most certainly not "lightweight" or "centre heavy", and a greater towball weight is necessary if safety is of any concern.
Of even greater importance is the fact that the car must be at least 10% heavier than the van it is towing.
NEVER have I said that 10% towball weight is obligatory, only that 10% towball weight is the generally accepted figure if SAFETY is of any concern. As Collyn says "10% is easily remembered and generally adequate".
Any comment about lighweight vans not being adversely affected by passing Roadtrains must be taken with a grain of salt as I've seen waaay too much evidence to the contrary in my travels, both as a motorist and as a Roadtrain driver.
It is very easy for someone to cherry-pick "evidence" in an effort to feel good and to support their assertions. Cheers
P.S This sort of setup is unfortunately common, and these sorts of vanners are the ones I try to help. 3% TBW? Yeah right.

Beam him up Mr Scott

Basher

Southern Cruizer · Guru

Dougwe wrote:
G'day Possum, long time no speak my friend.

I very rarely if at all disagree with you but in this case sorry mate. The forum rules clearly state, no politics allowed. The subject you refer to is politics. Maybe if people want to discuss it think about PM's.

I'm not sure about others but I see and hear about it everywhere and really don't want to see it on a GN travel forum.

Just my thought on the matter and cause no harm.

Keep Safe on the roads and out there mate.

I'm a little bit like Doug here, rules are rules and we have to stick by them.

I would be a little afraid that things would skyrocket out of control very quickly with one comment by someone who likes to stir the pot, and the biggest worry would be the number of visitors who come onto the forum and read the comments, would get a very dim view of what would be going on the forum and possibly think what a nasty lot on here. Word of mouth on the internet can spread very quickly.

Possum3 · Guru

My ideal would be not to talk about politics at all, and limit discussions to the technical aspects of the referendum, and the understanding by members of such.

msg · Guru

I tried. but it didn't work. Cindy did the right thing.

Southern Cruizer · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
My ideal would be not to talk about politics at all, and limit discussions to the technical aspects of the referendum, and the understanding by members of such.

Possum3, "and the understanding by members of such" I don't think some on here would be able to understand what you mean there and that's when it goes out the window

Eaglemax · Guru

Dick0 has the best post here. If a member can't post a technical question without the 1st reply full of ridicule and intimidation by someone previously kicked out from another form for exactly that (and continues rambling about it in this discussion), then what hope is there for political discussion?. Like Dick0 I don't instigate but I'll defend. Possum you should join a political FB page.

Mein · Senior Member

With a referendum on the Voice due to take place later this year, we understand that some members might be keen to discuss this important issue. However, I must stress that the Grey Nomads forum is not the appropriate place to have that debate . . . . . . . As always, if any member has any concerns about this policy or any other aspect of the forum, please feel free to send me a private message and I will endeavour to respond promptly. Thanks for your understanding.

Hey! Why don't we all ignore No Parking signs and just park wherever, and whenever, we feel like it?

And, why don't we all ignore Card Only signs at supermarket checkouts and after scanning all of our purchases, demand that we be allowed to pay in cash?

Also, we could all ignore the Handicap signs on public toilets and use them wherever, and whenever, we feel like it.

But, I won't because I'm not a recalcitrant.

Tony Bev · Guru

I think that this is a good forum, for like minded people (oldies/grey nomads/travellers/etc) to pass on information, that may help other forum members

I do believe that over time, people do seem to get excited about their own (political/religious/race) agendas

I agree with the webmasters decision, not to allow politics, religion, or race debates

I am sure that there are other forums, which will allow the yes/no vote to parliament, to be debated

Are We Lost · Guru

If I want to search for information on a subject, or ask a whole group of experienced people for advice, a forum is great place to do that. I imagine most of us found our way here for that reason. But over time, our need for seeking answers diminishes, so those with more experience need something else to keep them coming back. Otherwise there would not be that wealth of experience to freely give advice to others.

So what keeps someone coming back? I believe it's the same as what makes us enjoy social interaction. It's talking about life and life's experiences and what hot topics are currently on our minds. To talk about weather and benign subjects gets boring pretty soon. To talk where everyone agrees gets boring as well. There needs to be something that encourages us to "check how that conversation is going". If all the conversations with strong diverse opinions were stifled, what would encourage you to come back?

Compared to another similar forum I find the other is too sanitised. I find I open and read more posts on here.

So, please, focus on dealing with members who are troublemakers and seem to relish stirring emotions rather than the subjects themselves.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 26th of August 2023 09:41:01 AM

Kebbin · Guru

Without rules we are lost, maybe that's what is wanted? The same people pushing an agenda day in day out, some are right if it was the other forum some here would be gone and not by their choice.

That is what is needed, I mean the rules are there for a purpose and that is to stop members from tearing strips of one another. The rules here are similar but the hatred is allowed to fester. This is what some members love the shear joy of offending others.

Are We Lost · Guru

I thought of an analogy.

There is a bar fight. The owner comes out and says "Righto you lads. What were you arguing about? There will be no more of that subject allowed in this bar".

Cuppa · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:

So, please, focus on dealing with members who are troublemakers and seem to relish stirring emotions rather than the subjects themselves.

On the whole I agree with your post AWL.

If however your last line is directed to admin, I think it's only partially the answer to the ongoing issues which result in this forum having gained a poor reputation for abrasiveness & unpleasantness & have limited the number of folk prepared to participate & contribute.

I do wish that moderation here were more active & educative, but over a period of time my observations lead me to believe that this is unlikely to change on account of the need for far more moderator time to make that possible.

I really believe that what is most likely to make a difference is for members to practice self moderation. We all have our own beliefs, but there are certain ways of seeing the world which seem to dominate this forum, & in a way which discourages anyone else from expressing a contrary view.

The reality though is that there seems to be a cohort of members here who's perception of any expression of opinion or belief contrary to their own as a reason for defensive & attacking responses, rather than any attempt to understand, or to find points of agreement or 'middle ground'.

This I think is the grumpy old man syndrome. A matter of boundaries. What might be OK in the privacy of one's life can be destructive on an open forum. It appears that the ability to behave in this way & often get away with it is what draws a few prolific posters here.

This post is going around in a circle & leading me to think that my 'call' for self moderation is one which will go unheard by those who need to hear it, or worse that it may even be weaponised by them. If so then AWL's 'call' for more educative intervention & control by admin is sadly appropriate even if, I'm guessing, unlikely to occur, presumably due to the additional resources required. Catch 22.

By educative intervention I mean things like 'active moderation comments' like 'poster XYZ pull your head in or risk being sent to the naughty corner with a warning' made for all to see, combined with a 3 strikes & you're out policy.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Saturday 26th of August 2023 10:57:22 AM

Eaglemax · Guru

This is a caravanners forum called "Grey Nomads".

While there is sections that encourage campfire discussion its widely known people stay clear of - politics, religion and other delicate topics that turn the tranquillity of a campfire into insults. Such would be the turn of events here.

ARE WE LOST in my thread "Isnt a road a road" if you cannot see the very first reply in that thread being abusive (and admin took out the insults) then you are biased. If you cannot see that although it is very hard to be banished by a major forum for such insults by that member then you are biased. If you dont see the basics of someone asking questions in a new thread as a basic right then you are backing the wrong horse who's DNA knows no other method but to lecture, demean and insult. My God, if we introduced politics into the equation it would be a feeling like returning to Primary school and the leather strap.

Kebbin, well said, for some to insult gives them reason to elevate themselves.

Are We Lost · Guru

Eaglemax wrote:
..... in my thread "Isnt a road a road" if you cannot see the very first reply in that thread being abusive (and admin took out the insults) then you are biased............

The words are gone now and I don't recall what they were so have no opinion on them.

But because I chose not to get into a fight does not mean bias. If something is confrontational why do I have to respond, particularly when the words were not to me? Like in the bar room analogy if nobody reacts then no fight develops. It's those who seem to thrive on arguing that bring the forum down.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 26th of August 2023 11:35:14 AM

Eaglemax · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
Eaglemax wrote:
..... in my thread "Isnt a road a road" if you cannot see the very first reply in that thread being abusive (and admin took out the insults) then you are biased............
The words are gone now and I don't recall what they were so have no opinion on them.
But because I chose not to get into a fight does not mean bias. If something is confrontational why do I have to respond, particularly when the words were not to me? Like in the bar room analogy if nobody reacts then no fight develops. It's those who seem to thrive on arguing that bring the forum down.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 26th of August 2023 11:35:14 AM

Analogies, quotes, can be grabbed from any direction to suit a narrative AWL. like ".... flourishes when good men do nothing". I'm suggesting the arguing begins in the first instance by insults then its defending yourself from then on which you have a right to do rather than "It's those who seem to thrive on arguing that bring the forum down.". A big difference.

Anyway, the forum needs an overseer.