“Yer not from round ‘ere” - should we challenge posts from non-SE23 residents?

Continuing the discussion from Unsafe crossing for pedestrians, Honor Oak Rd and A205/London Rd:

Surely on the same basis, we could challenge anonymous commenters? After all, we don’t even know who they are, let alone where they are…

Alternatively, we could respect the local knowledge and connections of all forum members regardless of who and where they currently are?

Personally, I was a homeowner in SE23 for five years. I probably have more local knowledge and connections (particularly due to running this forum) than the average SE23-dwelling forum member.

How about we just live and let live, and focus on the points that people make, rather than who and where they are?

I think it can be frustrating when topics about current local issues get derailed by interjections that aren’t particularly relevant to current local experiences or offered from the perspective of someone in the area. The thread on safe road crossings in forest hill that turned in to a debate about people’s tone when taking about car users is a good example.

Not suggesting that people not in SE23 shouldn’t use and enjoy the forum, particularly given the amount of effort you in particular put in to creating it Chris, but maybe more thought could be given to whether an interjection adds anything to the conversation, bearing in mind it is specifically a forum regarding SE23.

The FAQ is quite clear:

Criticising on the basis of where someone currently lives would seem to fall foul of the guidelines in my opinion.

I’ve said before that the forum is for people with a connection to the area, for whatever reason, and I think it would be sad if members were expected to leave the moment they move away. I also recall some interesting posts from people that either lived in the area a long time ago, or have questions about moving in - they are certainly most welcome.

Of course the FAQ also says:

Perhaps if we can please keep the politics out discussions, instead maintaining focus on SE23, it would help things get along a little better?

Thanks @ForestHull - it’s nice to see the forum retain its open and inclusive ethos under your ownership.

It was actually a local forum member that moved a discussion about the crossing onto a discussion about residents vs. car owners, so this seems an odd example to choose if you want to claim that out-of-towners are more likely to “derail” topics?

Do you have any stats which show that non-SE23 members are more likely to take a topic off-topic?

And did your interjection add anything? Just trying to give some feedback, you asked the question. And of course I don’t collate stats on forum use, come on.

I do think its more relevant for someone currently living here to express their wider views on an issue from the perspective of an SE23 resident, than for someone who doesn’t live here to intrject with something not relevant to SE23 or from a resident’s perspective. I don’t think there should be any limits on this, but if you want to understand why people react to some interjections with hostility that could explain it an bit, it can be hard to see the relevance to the forum beyond being argumentative and seems prone to straying in to general politics or daft stuff like irrelevant immigration policy.

This is a community forum? I find comments from those that don’t have the actually up to date knowledge and experience of a community irrelevant and out of touch and therefore just meddling.

Excuse me whilst I comment on the local forum for Dalston, I lived there 8 years ago and they need my opinion.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Posts moved from ‘you’re not from around here’

To be fair to Chris, it was only something like 2 years ago he moved out, he’s been back a number is times since and was quite involved locally.

So it’s not quite the Dalston example you give, though I get your point.

As far as I am aware, there are a number of forum members who lived here for long periods of time and still have connections to the area and still take an interest in local affairs. We can all name a few. They all still have a valid contribution to make (in my view, anyway) and I always appreciate their comments and the perspective that they often bring. I often find myself disagreeing with certain people, but value hearing alternative views to my own. One or two contributors are a bit provocative at times, myself included but on this forum I think we always stay on the right side of the line,

@Thewrongtrousers

Relevant post from another topic:

Don’t keep your opinions to yourself, John - you are a very knowledgeable and positive voice on this community and have heaps to contribute.

I used to believe London was a transient place with no real “community” on the basis that people simply lived in the City in order to get a good job, and then they moved away once they’d saved up some cash.

However, when I moved to SE23 and started this forum I started to feel things could be better than that.

Despite some negative comments above on this topic, I still believe SE23 is a genuine community where people build connections with other people that are lasting, and are not purely circumstantial.

And I believe that there’s value in treating long-standing members well even after they’ve left the community physically.

If if were possible to give that comment two “little red hearts”, than I would do so

I’m going to just dump some thoughts here, considering it’s flagged as ‘Site Feedback’ although it’s not necessarily specific to the topic. That being said, I don’t have an issue with non-SE23 residents posting here - even those that have never lived here. Some of the issues that Forest Hill face are likely replicated across the country, and I’m sure there’s plenty to be learnt from those outside of SE23.

I find that tensions seem to escalate quite quickly in this forum, although I’m not part of any others so maybe that’s just how they all are. It might not help that we’re all cooped up at home because of COVID.

I generally stay away from topics that have already got a bit heated, or where people resort to quoting each other and challenging the minute details of the words they have written. I don’t mind being challenged but I don’t have the time, or frankly the mental capacity, to be arguing about a pedestrian crossing. I expect new members, or those on the periphery of the forum, are put off contributing if they see this happening regularly.

I also get the impression that there’s some specific dislike for Chris, and I’m sure there’s context I’m missing about this, outside of sharing his political opinions - which often seem to stoke high emotions.

I’m not quite sure where I’m going with this or if there are any actions to take, but felt like I should add my thoughts, as it stops me being more active here.

@robertjroy

I could not have put it better myself. I still have a very strong affinity with FH and whilst I may not live there now it upsets me when people feel I shouldn’t have a voice.

However, spats like this are quite rare, they just tend to stick out as the explode rapidly, but disappear just as fast.

However, I am glad we have a site that allows it to happen (within reason) as I would dread a world where everything is sanitised.

Thank you for your thoughts again, fantastically summed up.

I think some people struggle with forums, because forums don’t have the block/follow systems of other social media platforms (and this is a deliberate design feature of forums)

No echo chambers or worldview curation here. So there’s a constant risk of encountering opinions that differ from our own.

Like @Thewrongtrousers, I relish that kind of environment.

However, some people struggle to tolerate different opinions, so they react by denigrating and marginalising anyone whose worldview differs from their own.

It’s easier to make a personal attack than it is to come up with a reasoned counter-argument.

I think there are two main reasons for this. My worldview, whilst generally inline with the UK as a whole, differs from the SE23 majority, and so some people seek to marginalise me on that basis.

In some ways I understand this reaction. It’s difficult for people inside the bubble to realise just how skewed and one-sided the political climate is in Lewisham. And there’s a natual tendency for people to distrust and dislike those who differ.

Also, when I was involved in moderating the forum, I (very occasionally) intervened against people for breaking the forum guidelines, which has left people with lasting resentment, which was then exploited and amplified by mobs on other local forums and social media platforms.

The Internet can quickly become a hostile environment when conspiracy theories and hate campaigns gain momentum, and sadly that can manipulate opinion in the real world too. Some really smart and decent people got pulled into the hate mobs. So sad.

One of the reasons I left SE23 was because of coordinated attacks by certain local people. I don’t regret moving to Tunbridge Wells, but I’m sad at how things ended in SE23.

I’m uneasy to see the same aggressors starting to make baseless attacks on @ForestHull too. I think for some, local community affairs are a power play.

Diversity in the usual sense of that word is something that most sane people see as a good and healthy thing. However, a vital aspect of diversity which is often overlooked must surely be tolerance and respect for opinions and values that differ from ones own. This has become increasingly difficult for a lot of people these days, it seems to me. I suspect that the internet has an awful lot to do with it.

I’ll add my bit from a personal perspective not a moderator.

This forum, and indeed any other local forum or group, should be for those with genuine interest in SE23. For me that would include:

Those living in SE23
Those moving to SE23
Those considering moving to SE23
Those who have lived in SE23
Those who work in SE23
Those studying in SE23
Those who visit SE23
Those who have family in SE23
All the above categories who are in neighbouring areas
Anyone else with an interest in SE23 not listed above, of which I am sure there are many.

I think recently we have let a few non-se23 posts and topics go, which takes us towards general politics and more general discussions. Those sorts of discussions have been extremely devisive over generally the last few years and it’s no different here, one of the reasons we stopped general politics.

I think we all need to mindlful of they way we put our opinions forwards, the written tone if you like.

I’ll add my thanks to @Londondrz who, despite moving away, has moderated this forum for years, much more than I, and helped keep the forum going. I hope he uses the forum for many more years.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Post moved

A post was split to a new topic: Post moved

crikey,

3 posts were merged into an existing topic: More posts moved from “Yer not from round ‘ere”

I’ve got an account on the East Dulwich Forum but I don’t live there.

I largely disagree with your worldview and politics - but I’ve never let other peoples differing politics get in the way of a discussion - it’s just knowing the topics to skirt around.

At some point in the past, I (and I’m sure others) lost faith in you as a person/site administrator. Now you’re no longer the owner, whether or not I trust you has little to do with anything - you’re just somebody I largely disagree with on the internet.

Nothing personal - just some context from somebody who mainly reads the posts on this forum with a heavy level of ambivalence

Edit:

100% agree with this. Tone is so very difficult to get across correctly on the internet.

I’ve lived here six years now. I don’t really care about the strength or duration of other people’s connections to the area. It’s interesting to hear how the area has changed, or how it compares to others today.

But whether someone’s lived here fifty years, fifty minutes, or now lives fifty miles away, I get disheartened and (to be honest) bored stiff when simple local interest posts get derailed into an exchange of political swipes. There are a lot of these swipes here and I find they add nothing but bad feeling. Whoever/wherever they come from.

Yes we all have different opinions, and sharing them to a degree is healthy. But some of us share more loudly than others, in language that becomes personal, or aggressive, or holier-than-thou, or smug – and I don’t really see the point of these additions.

Agree too much political undertones which has greatly reduced my activity over the years in the local forum. It’s rather tiresome

Yes, you are quite right. I was much more active in the past also but it stopped being worth it.

Wider discussion of political matters (amongst other things) poisoned the well for a time- thankfully it seems more focused on local matters with the moderators performing an unsung task of keeping the ship largely on course.
I don’t envy their task of drawing a balance between keeping it civil and being seen to suppress opinion. I don’t always agree with the decisions made but I respect them and that as a quorum they reflect a range of political positions

I notice that several of the people commenting on this thread to bemoan political posting are people who themselves enthusiastically dived into political debates on this forum - but generally from the politically opposite angle to me.

The original post of this topic was a plea to respect forum members wherever they live.

It was not a plea for critique about politics or posting style. I think some people here are just taking the opportunity to let off steam, taking swipes at a person they’ve disagreed with politically in the past.

I totally agree with this statement, for months I’ve not posted on here until recently, because I see the same old people clapping themselves on the back for their superior views. It’s like a little clique, who just interject to make sure they have the last word. Why you’d want to hang around a local forum after a number of yrs baffles me but hey there’s not much on Netflix these days.

This forum has become stale and lacking in diversity. It puts off new users and current who want to speak about local issues, it should be a way to connect with your neighbours or local community. Yes you all have a voice and may have some connection but those voices are less valuable or relevant to me than someone living here now. Especially as those voices seem to be of a certain age, white and privileged.

I find ageism, racism and attacking people’s background quite off-putting on a forum, and it makes me want to participate here less.

I think the most important form of diversity on a forum is diversity of opinion.

And ironically by attempting to marginalise “opinion minorities” like me, you’ll be reducing diversity on this forum.

I couldn’t care less whether you’re black or white, old or young, @chamonix.

I consider contributions from all people on this forum as equally valuable.

My point is diversity.

I’m also white and privileged but I want to hear other peoples views not just certain members

As is my point

This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.

As someone who is often involved in such debates, I find myself often engaging out of frustration. It’s frustrating when a local forum that is supposed to not engage in general political debate is used to post plainly general political views, and it’s confusing when there’s no link at all to SE23. I think @ModTeam do a good job at keeping things on track but sometimes political posts are left up in which case I think it’s reasonable to challenge them.

I agree with you that it definitely does take more than one person to digress in to a political debate, but as a piece of genuine feedback, it only takes one to start it. Not every post has to be an opportunity to get on to a political thread, but it often feels that way. Posts about graffiti don’t benefit from someone showing up and questioning the artists political leaning, posts about beggars in SE23 have nothing to do with posters’ views on immigration, posts about LTNs don’t have to be challenged every time with accusations of posters waging a war between motorists and pedestrians. Perhaps if we all took a step back before making broader, general points on topics of local significance this would not happen so much, regardless of the colour of the politics involved.

There are some really good views here and thankyou all for the feedback.

It is tiring to start a new day and find the same arguments being perpetrated and I think we need a little breather, time to reflect and perhaps find our positivity.

Therefore I’m trying something new - setting this topic to ‘slow mode’. This will limit how often each member can post, giving time hopefully for more thoughtful responses while also taking the heat out of any quick-fire arguments.

Let’s see how it works… if good, I’ll write it up on the site rules.

Thank you! I do too

Personally I dislike moving posts out to #moderator-actions if it cuts up discussions. Moderators are volunteers and don’t watch the site 24/7, so sometimes posts that fall outside the guidelines aren’t quickly removed.

Personally I feel that if a post has been challenged or corrected in subsequent replies, and if the discussion has moved on, it’s often better to let things be, rather than cut things up or risk over-moderation. The same can be true of flags that are received sometimes several hours of even days after a post was originally made.

It’s always a difficult decision what to do, and the other moderators will likely see things slightly differently and that’s fine too. But hopefully that explains why some things may sometimes be left, even if they aren’t strictly within site guidelines.

I stopped posting here around about the time the BLM and street art conversation was taking place. I didn’t want to seen to be linked to a forum where the owner was promoting ‘all lives matter’ during a time where the focus should have been on promoting equality for Black and other minority ethnicities. It riled me that someone who no longer lives in the area was actively trying to have certain street art removed because it didn’t fit in with his political views, thinking that he was being the voice of the people. It is up to the current residents to take action on matters like this. Though it seems that the majority were happy to have this street art in our neighbourhood.

With @ForestHull now at the reins I had hoped that this forum would now be a safe place. Alas it is not, certain people’s agendas are still loudly being pushed.

As for people posting here that no longer live in the area. I say go for it! Having lived in the area you are able to prove valuable input to matters that have been ongoing.

The thing is, people shouldn’t be forced to take a stance as in the BLM debate. We all have our own opinions and feelings. I have a 15 year old who wouldn’t talk to me because I said all lives matter. It took her a while to understand why I had that standpoint. I also tried to look at it from her viewpoint.

But all I ask is, focus on the reason, not the person. Chris, and others have some very strong views, engage with them as apposed to blocking them out or trying to stop them. This is directed at all btw, not you.

Finally, we have a really well set out flagging and mod system. Too often it is misused as someone doesn’t like a comment or standpoint. Please ignore it, move on or counter it. Whatever you do though, do it in a polite way and fight the argument, not the person.

Please only flag if it against the guidelines. As mods we are getting tired of people flagging as they don’t like a comment. If it isn’t against the guidelines, please don’t flag.

How & why posts like this are closed out is astonishing

I’m not forcing anyone to take a stance on any subject. I have friends who have differing political views than mine and find it quite easy not to let these views get in the way of our friendship. A community forum owner should remain neutral on subjects like this thus not aligning the forum to any political leaning, be it right or left. I could carry on about various actions taken against those with differing opinions to Chris, which still continues to this day, but this is not what this thread is about.

My point is, if the matter being discussed is a recent event like, for example, undesirable street art, leave it to those in currently living in the area to discuss and resolve. Wider topics like the deathtrap at the FH station crossing (again as example) quite happy for past and current residents to get involved.

I tried to make it clear that was not directed at you.

Chris is no longer the owner but even still, he took a lot of time and effort to set up the site as he was driven out of another local one because he got shouted down as his viewpoint was different.

Our differences are what make us unique. The opportunity to discuss those must surely be allowed. You may not have liked some of his, or mine, or others commented, but I am sure that censoring them is not a good thing.

Mary Whitehouse was the challenger of anything that looked dodgy on TV in the 80’s. I remember her being interviewed when she, yet again, wanted something shut down on TV as she saw it as lurid. The interviewer just told her to turn over.

The same for here, unless it goes against the forum guidelines, turn over.

I agree, they shouldn’t be forced to take a position. But once the lid is unnecessarily ripped off the can of worms, then the worms fall out.
The point I take from this thread is that if cooler heads can prevail and keep the can opener in the drawer more often this wouldn’t happen

It wasn’t clear that the first paragraph wasn’t directed towards me.

It’s quite clear that we all agree that we don’t mind differing opinions, it makes life more interesting and helps us learn. However, it is what follows that is problem.

No-one here is trying to censor anyone nor is anyone suggesting this happens. If they are, then I am not supporting that stance. The majority here are happy to engage in friendly debate. It’s when that debate is no longer friendly that’s when people get upset and find they can no longer engage with this or other forums.

I know that Chris is no longer the owner and I appreciate the time and effort he took to set this up but the legacy lives on. I know the history behind the other forum and what happen and continues to happen with certain individuals. It created quite the stir around Forest Hill and resulted in some local businesses no longer wanting to be affiliated with this forum.

Forest Hull is already making a positive change and I appreciate that he has allowed this debate to continue. However, certain people need to stop stirring this up.

And if people don’t like the content of a thread, they are free to go onto any other. We don’t stop reading a newspaper because we dont like one article.

Thanks @beatrix - it’s certainly a challenge, but the forum community seem to be reaching a reasonable consensus here, and possibly the moderators need to be a bit stricter/bolder on making sure things follow the guidelines on being agreeable and such like.

Of course, it’s helpful to moderators if members can sensibly flag problems, noting the following paragraph was recently added to FAQ:

Note: Please don’t waste moderators time by flagging posts you simply disagree with. It’s okay for people to have different opinions or values; flagging should only be used for posts which break these guidelines.

I probably don’t need to remind anyone that the moderators are volunteers and have their own families, jobs, responsibilities and such like, and I’m eternally grateful for their help and contributions.

Thank you FH, your are far better at this to me. And as I have said before, and as @ForestHull has said above. Please don’t abuse the flagging.

Is there an ongoing issue with people flagging things that needn’t be flagged? If so, is it particular people, or just a note to everyone in general?

You, at least, quote sections of the FAQ to back up your moderation decisions. I’ve always liked that about your moderation style since you came on board. Glad that @oakr came back. I’ve not really interacted with / seen moderation actions of the other moderators enough to pass comment, apart from @clausy, but he seems to have disappeared from the forum in recent weeks.

Point is, I think the mod team are doing a good job overall. I know it’s not an easy job, and I know from moderation experience in other forums that sometimes certain users make you want to throw your computer out the door (I’m aware I’m probably one of those users) - but you (as in the royal you) generally keep your cool, and I think that makes for a more welcoming environment in which people feel that they can share their thoughts and feelings without too much backlash. Sometimes, anyway.

Yes, there are a small minority who will flag for whatever reasons. Maybe the don’t like the poster or content of the post. But if it doesn’t break forum guidelines then it just makes a mockers of the flagging system.

Most flags are seen by, and commented on by, ALL the mods. We mod by consensus so as to give call for the widest range of views and feeling.

We have made efforts with Discourse, the developers to see if we can add a “why did you flag” option but this is not available yet.

So please, before anyone flags, have a cup of tea, think about it, consider if it does break guidelines. And then decide what to do.as I have been at pains to say, of you don’t like the content of a thread or the direction it is going. Leave it there and move on.

It’s a general comment. There’s no problem with flagging things which are abusive, offensive or drag things wildly off topic. A good rule of thumb is that if you think it shouldn’t be said in the pub or over a restaurant meal, it likely shouldn’t be said here either. Don’t engage just flag. Once it gets to a string of posts, it gets a lot harder to clear up.

What we sometimes see though is people (on both sides of the political fence) flagging valid opinions they don’t agree with. That’s when moderation becomes a lot more onerous.

I think there’s a little uncertainty sometimes about when to use the flag system for posts that seem to stray in to general politics. I’ve previously been asked to flag rather than debate these types of posts as a result of long discussions that probably get very tedious for everyone, but then on some occassions these flags don’t result in clearly political posts being removed (which I suppose could lead moderators to think the flags are vexacious, which is not the intent). I agree that an option to note reasons for flagging would be useful, but I would also say that having a ‘no general politics’ rule will naturally lead to to lots of flags if members frequently interject with general political views. As a user of the forum I simply don’t know how strictly the mod team want to take that rule, and whilst I like the pub example, that is different to rule against general politics. As a result I’ve refrained from flagging anything for a while as it often just seems to muddy the waters further! As ever, thanks mod team for all the time you put in here, not an easy task!

Thank you, @Londondrz and @applespider for your responses. They were very helpful. I briefly spoke with @Londondrz in a DM (slow mode on this thread prevented me replying) about options presented when flagging a message :

image690×556 30.1 KB

The issue, it seems, is not that there are no options presented when a user flags a post - it’s just that people don’t actually fill out the free-text to explain why they are flagging something. I imagine people taking the time to fill out this box would make life easier for the moderators.

Ah, and a response off-forum from @clausy - linking as requested.

PS

I’m a big fan of using slow mode in some threads. I especially like that it does not allow you to edit previous comments - which means that you really have to make sure you think about the message you are writing before hitting reply.

Good post, the issue I’ve had before is that if you want to flag something off topic, and explain why, you have to pick ‘something else’ even though there is a specific option for ‘off topic’ - it just doesn’t give you a free text box. Not a big issue if the mods don’t mind the workaround I suppose.

Perhaps a little contradictory, that this is a local conversation but globally inclusive.

I think the real issue is that some posters regard their own views as non-political, whereas political neutrality is a concept that many simply see as impossible, a fantasy. Some posters who believe that their views are non-political actually get to express their political views, but other participants have to keep quiet.

There is also still quite a bit of ad hominem attacking going on - sometimes disguised as general opinion about other posters. Here are a couple of recent examples:

“some people struggle to tolerate different opinions” - means those people who disagree with me.
“I’m sure some bright spark will respond with …”- this is a pre-emptive ad hominem attack on whoever won’t let me have the last word on this. “Bright spark” = idiot.

It’s not perfect but until the developers tweak it’s what we have to work with.

It is so much easier to understand why people flag if they explain why. That gives us a chance to speak as mods and come to a general consensus. 99% of the time we all agree, a lot of forums leave that up to the particular foibles of the owner we just like to keep things as open and transparent, and fair, as possible.

That is your interpretation, others may see it differently.

The issue with an online forum is it doesn’t allow you to judge people on their nuances, facial expressions or the way they say things.

But it allows you to say them.

I think I explained why that may happen in my post here: "Yer not from round 'ere" - should we challenge posts from non-SE23 residents?

A recent example, I think, was a flag on a 5 day old post which already had a mod response. Cutting the post out would have orphaned the mod response, and 5 days after the event there isn’t a lot to be gained - most people will have seen the problem post, and any reaction already registered or posted.

Personally I see moderation working best when it steers an ongoing discussion out of the rough; there’s a lot less use in to trying to change a discussion after the fact, unless something is clearly offensive or personal.

Where you and others get the time for all this refereeing/moderation I can’t imagine. I never realised there was so much to it. I hope that the fact that someone may have to clear up after me will make me think twice before I shoot my mouth off from now on.

I think there are a few issues that play here, if I may remove my councillor hat and on put on my ‘forum user’ hat.

I am sympathetic to the idea that politics can rarely be separated from day-to-day civic life. Take a fairly non-controversial issue, such as the (seen by many as) inadequate pedestrian crossing on London Road. Any decision to prioritise funding for its refurbishment - the allocation of TFL funds - the extent and limits of central government’s bailout of a Covid-19 hit TFL (and the decision by a previous Mayor and Chancellor to make TFL self-funding) - these are all inherently ‘political’. Should a new traffic island prioritise the movement of pedestrians over the South Circular? That is small-p political in my opinion, like most things that shape the world around us. It is very hard for topics like this not tread into the political. But just because something is political, it does not need to cause a full-blooded culture-war discussion.

However, with this being said I had to laugh when Chris said ‘I think the most important form of diversity on a forum is diversity of opinion’.

Now, I know a couple of people on this forum who hold ‘liberal’ (for want of a better term) views who have been ground down and driven out. They’ve dropped from the forum altogether or very rarely post. It is interesting to see a few more people express this as well and judging by the likes they’ve received they are not alone.

Previously, I am told, that when Chris owned this website, people were simply blocked for repeatedly challenging him and the politicisation of debates. Under the new helm, I have not seen that but I would say that Chris is what I would call, in jest, a master of the ‘dark arts’. Chris will not use foul or abusive language or direct name-calling. However, he will challenge you, robustly, and incessantly. He will quote you with something you have not said. The outcome is to harass those with views he rejects and to signal to like-minded followers in the forum to get involved or to signal that this their place.

Example 1: Unsafe crossing for pedestrians, Honor Oak Rd and A205/London Rd

Example 2: Lockdown 3

Examples 3: Lewisham planning to use Experimental Traffic Orders?

There is a network or clique, as alluded to in a previous post, who boost each other’s posts - liking each other’s post, offer encouraging replies etc. This group shape the debate on most threads and they will target voices they don’t like, usually with Chris leading the charge. Often, it’s through a wink and a nod to encourage comments like this. Another classic tactic I’ve witnessed is to accuse someone of being divisive if they don’t like their view - which isn’t classified as an ad hominem attack by moderators…

This thread is quite illustrative and shows how legitimate concerns by those who live on the affected street are lent on, whipped up and cheered on by this group. Examples here, here. The target is usually the liberal interventionist council (60% of our funding has been cut since 2010 and our public realm has suffered the consequences, but we’re still trying to do what we can improve the borough as we sit fit, building new homes, encouraging sustainable transport, all while protecting the most vulnerable - over half our budget goes on adult and children’s social care ).

Now Chris might just see this all as winning the robust argument and that might be fair. Voices hostile to new housing, to LTNs, to School Streets, to the ULEZ-extension etc, are winning the argument on the forum and the *NIMBY-*sentiment is the prevailing sentiment on the (forum) community.

My hunch is that that isn’t necessarily the case but instead, certain voices are being drowned out by constant challenges, questioning, barbs, and are ground down by the heavy-politicisation of discussions that slide off-topic. I think frustration springs from the inability of members to effectively call out bad behaviour, including challenging those who regularly respond aggressively (in tone) to posts and who respond to fairly innocuous comments with politicised rants.

I think the rules of the forum are designed to protect Chris and other’s conduct. No ‘Ad hominem attacks’ - therefore you cannot challenge Chris (or others) behaviour because this would be seen to attack one’s character rather than the argument at hand on any given thread. ‘Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content’ is against the rules in this forum, protecting people from accusing Chris (or others) of being hostile or bullying in tone rather than engaging the content of his argument (I accept tone can be hard to read online, but it is down to moderators to make this call). The rules explicitly state 'criticise ideas, not people’ and therefore moderators will intervene if you challenge his behaviour. Seen even in this thread.

All in all, the effect is clear to me. The more liberal-leaning, ‘yes-in-my-back-yard’ voices, are driven from the forum and threads are dominated by not only the same accounts but the same arguments. Diversity of opinion has dwindled even in the relatively short time I’ve been following the site.

The councillors of Perry Vale ward and Crofton Park ward don’t get involved in this forum and we know why - just look at some of the replies I and Sophie get. I used to get protection from the site’s owner and moderators*, I presume because they wanted to keep me involved - a local councillor regularly engaging on the forum does give it some kudos and authority. A privileged position which isn’t afforded to most regular posters.

Some might wonder why I care and why I am posting all this? My answer is because, personally, SE23.Life is a good way for me to keep tabs on casework matters and interesting events taking place in the ward. Moreover, as a user, this is probably the most organised local forum I’ve ever come across and has an impressive and easy to use interface. The website has much potential, along with its sister site SE26.Life. I would like it to thrive, become more diverse in opinion, and be a safe space for all sections of the community.

Yet it is clear this forum has issues and many people are exasperated with its regular heated tone and same inevitable political direction debates go down.

I would like to encourage more ex-regular posters to express their thoughts here and as to why they have taken a step back.

I hope @ForestHull who now owns the site, will reflect on what those such as @PV @promofaux @Fran_487 @beatrix have said already and listen to any additional feedback that is offered. Finally, I would like @ForestHull to see this - a small minority of forum users post a large number of attacks on others, kicking off the conflict. Some relatively small changes to this forum could make a big difference.

This post will probably be hidden by the moderators but in posting this, I hope it gives the new owner some food for thought in how to stop the loss of longstanding contributors, foster a better atmosphere, and encourage a broader array of views on the site.

*Just chuckling to myself as I never got any thanks for the wooden bollards outside The Fitting Studio on Kirkdale, or the School Street trial on TA from those who demanded action. Who would ever be a councillor eh?

I am working atm so will come back with a fuller answer in a bit but wanted to answer 1 remark. To my certain knowledge we have only banned 1 person. And that was after many, many requests for them to adhere to forum rules, they chose to repeatedly ignore all of the requests so were removed. They have posted endlessly on other local forums about this. The simple fact is we made a simple request of them, as we do with everyone, they ignored it, they were banned. ALL the mods agreed to this action.

Actually I will ask you a question on this. Why would we hide it?

What a post. Thank you @LeoGibbons – this must have taken a long time to put together. I also hope this doesn’t get hidden; I think it’s thorough and constructive, and gives expression to the concerns and observations of many.

And thank you for the work you do daily! It’s appreciated – if only we were as vocal in our appreciation as we are in our ire! (And I include myself in that statement…!)

I admire your commitment and passion in defending the past actions of this forum. However, I beg you to ‘listen’ to what is be said by those who have been too afraid to speak up before.

I also suggest that any further comment is a combined effort between @ForestHull and the other moderators before you do any further damage.

Damage? Please tell me what damage I have personally done.

This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.

Beautifully put Leo and about time!

I just wanted to thank Leo for taking so much time to think so carefully about these issues, and say I think he has identified some core issues that I think need to be taken on board for this site to be as successful as it could be. I also appreciate in particular Promofaux’s contribution, as well as a number of other people’s posts up the thread. And i was particularly perturbed to read Clausy’s Twitter thread, indicating he has been fired from the moderation team, without any explanation or note of the fact here.

As regards bans, it may be that only one person has been permanently banned (though I remember reading about plenty of others over the years), but I must say that there are plenty of people who made extremely useful contributions to this site, who no longer contribute for reasons that have been identified, and I think that is a great shame.

Thanks for the thought put in here leo. I won’t go in to more detail on my own views save one point you highlight above which rings very true - it’s very hard to make any point on this forum without being accused of being divisive or making ‘zero sum’ arguments (often used incorrectly but cela vie). Whilst this isn’t a direct attack on the poster, its a tacit way of criticising the poster, and moreover gets very tiresome!

I suspect this thread may soon have run its course as it’s clear that there are a small number of people as the subject of lots of replies, although I daresay that’s to be expected when a thread like this is set up!

On the original matter, I share the opinion expressed extremely well by Oakr that your current geographic location should not negate contributions to the Forum. There are many with strong links to the area for whom these contributions can be a welcome addition.

However, I can also see circumstances where this does seem incongruous. At one point, about half of the comments on the “unsafe crossing for pedestrians” topic originated from members who do not live in London. I can easily understand why some would find it hard to understand why a topic of specific interest to local residents, would be dominated by people who are not directly affected by it. And it is natural for people then to question intent when the tone or subject of the discussion changes, particularly when it becomes political.

This topic also is an example of one which was side tracked into a more political discussion. As the OP noted, he was not the first to do so. But I think we should be mindful that one politicized response should not be an open invitation to continue that line of debate. I can fully understand the strong desire to intercede and put my counterpoint across, I did that enough when we had political grohup. But it has been some time now since the moderators took the brave decision to remove political debate from this site and I for one believed this to be the right decision despite my own penchant for it.

My own suggestion to members would be that if an overtly political point IS raised to simply ignore it. Without oxygen it will die. On a community-based website, there is really no need to offer a political counterpoint just because someone else did. If you have to start a response with a quote from the previous post, add links to media articles, challenge people to provide evidence or proof and throw around accusations of divisive behaviour…. then maybe the topic has become a political debate rather than a community discussion.

Once again the “unsafe crossing” topic offers a great example. Foresthull’s timely reminder of the original topic tickled my funny bone. But also a reminder of a topic gone completely off track.

image1072×295 31.2 KB

On that matter I would also suggest the moderators don’t make the assumption that a flag has been raised for simply those reasons. A flag by its very nature is raised when someone doesn’t like a comment. I’ve flagged posts as I’m concerned the discussion is becoming politicized. I think the suggestion to add comments is a great one and to be encouraged.

When anyone with TL4 or above flags a post, the flag immediately takes effect and hides the target post. So quite often hidden posts are not the result of moderation or discussion by moderators.

Edit to add: I was really saddened to learn of @clausy’s suspension as a moderator. I thought he brought great balance to the moderator team and had made many positive contributions in that role.

Hi @LeoGibbons,

Good post, and thank you for taking your time to think about this and write it all up. I know you are active across a number of social media platforms and so it’s particularly interesting to hear your thoughts on this community (as well as it’s easy of use).

I agree that politics comes into all sorts of things, sometimes from unexpected places and angles, even creeping in unintentionally - it is very hard to avoid. So for a while the forum had an area set aside for general politics to be discussed. It was an opt-in category and was provided to house those discussions that had wandered. But that area wasn’t very constructive and got a lot of people’s backs up, no one wanted to moderate it, and so it was closed it down.

Unfortunately for a lot of people, on all sides of the argument, I think this is not true. The aforementioned general politics section showed that even without a overt ‘culture-war’ type discussion, needling and jibes could foster bad feeling over a long time. It was not good and it did not bring people together.

Untrue. The guidelines are basically taken from the software defaults with some tweaks. You can see pretty much the same text here: https://meta.discourse.org/faq

Similarly the system of trust levels, member areas (#lounge) and other things on which aspersions are sometimes cast, these are all pretty much standard features of the software which have been designed and honed to try and promote healthy online discussion.

This isn’t to say that there hasn’t been a huge amount of effort in setting up and tailoring the site to make it work better for SE23, or that feedback to continue to improve things isn’t welcome - it is, as this topic possibly shows. I just want to be clear that things have not been constructed to benefit any particular individuals.

Correct. But no-one is powerless to complain about someone’s behaviour - if you see a problem flag it - that’s the way to deal with things that fall outside the guidelines, rather than replying within the topic. Of course you can also message the @moderators too if something doesn’t quite fit the flag system or you are unsure.

The thing we don’t want is ‘he said’ ‘she said’ types of arguments corroding genuine discussion - hence complain off to the side through a flag (which also gets our attention more quickly).

That said, all too often we get flags where no forum guideline has been broken. Flags aren’t simply for disagreement - they are for a problem.

As a Councillor it is of course true that your input is valued as you have unique insights and can help shape the area more than other members. But no one is protected more or less. The same guidelines apply to everyone and we try and treat everyone fairly when problems arise.

The off-hand comment to Sophie wasn’t flagged and while it could have had a better tone, as Councillors I think you have thick enough skins to take that that one. At times I think you, Cllr Gibbons, can also give as good as you get, and if we were to try and moderate every little thing that would also kill any discussion. Over moderating can be as bad as under-moderating.

It baffles and concerns me that you would think this. Sure we are running a bit wide of the topic title, but we are making good ground. Perhaps it’s the topic title that needs updating

Well I’ll thank you

Anyway, I think we shall let this topic run for a while (maybe the week, or until it goes astray!) and then at some point we’ll sum up and close it. There are some common themes here and most people are probably unaware of discussions that go on behind the scenes, but we have been trying to improve things, though I think some expectations are a bit high - it’s barely been 2 months since I took over as admin!

@LeoGibbons, I was very sad to read your post.

I’ve publically defended you against attacks from other people before (ad-hom / straw-man etc), because I believe those policies are universally a good thing and that they should apply to all people.

Whilst I would love to set a few records straight, I’m not going to defend myself from the various personal accusations made on this topic.

I’ve seen this sort of topic before on other forums, and I know how it works. I know that the best thing for me to do is to step away from this kind of thing and not feed it.

Regarding politicized rants that include barbs at persons or institutions or culture-war posturing:

I genuinely do not think ‘ignore it’ and it’ll go away, is a viable strategy. People will either 1. Rise to political rants and try and counter them, or 2. Simply leave the thread/forum

1. Will lead to usually lead a hostile and unpleasant atmosphere that will often veer off the local-issue at hand. 2. Will mean a handful of people who indulge or support the first ranter are the only ones remaining - turning the forum into a cliquey talking shop.

I really would encourage @ForestHull to meet (online) with his moderator team, together and individually, so they can speak candidly. I also encourage him to speak to some ex-regulars and ex-moderators and hear their feedback on ways the site can improve and move forward.

I go back to this.

1% of players are trolls who do 5% of all toxic behaviour. 95% of toxic behaviour comes from “average” players "having a bad day.

Banning abusive players while giving them immediate feedback results in 92% of toxic players improving

Moderators need to look at who is a poster having a bad day, getting riled and typing a reply before taking a breath and who is a repeat offender, consistently dragging down the tone of debates, politicizing threads in a hyper-adversarial manner, aggressively picking apart people’s comments and/or making direct or indirect accusations at them.

I think moderators should be able to impose sin-bin bans, where posters are provided with feedback on why mods have taken this action.

With a few tweaks to how moderating operates and a targeted approach to block the minority of repeat hostile posters who are regularly complained about, I think the forum could be transformed.

In my view, it’s whether the owners of the forum have the guts to do it.

Thank you for this post. Everything you said rings true from my experience. I used to very occasionally engage on this forum but stepped away a long time ago… one of those ones who felt driven out because of my ‘liberal’ views.

“To my certain knowledge we have only banned 1 person.”

I guess that makes me unique @Londondrz. Thank you @ForestHull for giving me a second chance. I hope I don’t blow it.

I was, like many, an early supporter of se23.life but like others withdrew when the nature of the forum changed. Much later I was banned as many of you may recall. That is now history for all those that wish to move on which includes me.

I return to thank Leo for such an eloquent post that said so much which is key to a forward looking forum which seeks to be as diverse as the community it serves.

I only want to be in a place where I feel welcome. This thread is a test of how welcome one may receive from those who share different opinions. I may be from that foreign land known as SE26 but Forest Hill Library and Forest Hill Pools are important to me. I’ve been involved with many local community organisations in Forest Hill and Sydenham for over 30 years. I think, in my indulgent moments I still have something to contribute and much to learn. But only if people are willing to treat one civily and without prejudice.

I shall stand back now and watch how things play out here. I hope to be back - but only if it’s a welcoming place. That’s in other people’s hands.

Stuart

I personally find it hard to walk away from some political views that remain up on the forum. That isn’t because I relish long-running political debate (although sometimes it is enjoyable), but more often because I see this forum as a bit of a billboard for SE23, I know it is one of the first things I saw when researching the area before moving here (echo comments about excellent software and organisation adding to the draw (again, will thank Chris again for hard work in setting it up)). That being the case, there are some views that I feel strongly should be challenged if shared publicly on a forum for my local area. I would hate for casual observers to think that some of the views I’ve argued against in the past are representative of the area, and I think lack of responses challenging those views could be seen as tacit approval or acceptance. In hindisght there are certainly some debates that I shouldn’t bother with, as they’re actually just not that important, but I do think it is important to challenge issues relating to race and equality. This is where some topics really go off the rails I think - where such posts are not removed for general politics, leaving them unresponded to feels wrong and so a frosty debate ensues that often ivolves direct or indirect references to the character of the poster. If it became the case that these views are neither removed nor open to rebuke then I would likely leave the forum.

To bring that back round to this topic - I do not at all suggest that people not living in SE23 don’t use the site and agree with others that there are lots of interesting posts from those that do not live here - but it can feel like the site is a bit of a soapbox for people looking for a chance to critcise/promote a political position. Where that person lives in SE23 I could at least see that they are making the point to show that someone in the area holds that particular view, but when they don’t live here it feels purely like the site is being used to broadcast political views to the community.

Afternoon all.

There are a lot of points made above. I’m going to read them later this evening, let them soak in and then give my own comments after a small period of reflection.

Between now and then all I would ask if whatever’s people’s thoughts on other members of the site, that comments should be made constructively but without deliberately insulting or provoking other members. That only leads one way.

Just responding to explain a few technical points here…

The posts are indeed hidden, but can be clicked to be expanded and read by anyone. Moderators are messaged automatically, as is the author to tell them this has happened and if they edit the post, it can be restored.

This has actually happened up thread:

image1977×436 60.1 KB

The same happens automatically if enough people flag a post too. The idea is that the community has some control over things itself; it’s not solely down to moderators to regulate. The Trust Level 4 members do have some extra power here as their flag collapses posts right away, but most are former moderators, or highly trusted individuals that might make good moderators.

I don’t think there is anything nefarious about this, and any action is evident, and moderators can see who placed flags and change things if needed. I don’t think this has been mis-used, and nothing is erased or censored in this way. If I’m wrong, feedback is good

I think there is a lot that most members do not see, and probably for the best to be honest. The team frequently discuss things, communicate with members, and we have a route of ‘official warnings’, silencing, temporary suspension and finally bans in dealing with repeat offenders. I think that encompasses the sin-bin concept enough, though hopefully most people never see it first hand.

I think the stats about tolls can be summed up as ‘a few bad apples spoil the bunch’.

I am TL4 as a legacy of being an active moderator of this site.

Over the years, I put in a lot of time and effort to help organise content on this site, and to perform some pretty mundane housekeeping.

I don’t covet power, and I will happily give it up, just as I did when I relinquished mod rights during my time as site admin and owner.

Please demote my trust level, @ForestHull.

Those are my feelings too. I like a good political debate and have been guilty of being drawn in to arguements here. I tend to back off a lot though as:

A. This is primarily a local board not a wider politics debate - there are plenty of areas of the internet for that.

B. There are a few on here with a fairly aggressive, winner takes all debating style and I find it tedious, annoying and really inappropriate for a local forum which should primarily about sharing information and views.

that was an epic post by Leo, I support most of what’s said, though one doesn’t have to agree with everything to admire his thoughtful summing up of issues with examples.

I’d say I’ve backed off hugely from contributing, and currently mostly make do with light hearted topics and things like pictures of baking and birds, which thankfully remain uncontroversial to other users.

Observing what people have said, it seems clear that even when contributors are not called out for violating the Guidelines (as judged by moderators, who rightly have to make the call sometimes) there is still considerable dissatisfaction that some users habitually cross an as yet undefined tonal line that is generally thought to be unpleasant or unwelcome. I reject totally the idea further up this thread that this is all to do with content or that users are collectively unable to tolerate difference. It’s about behaviour and the standard of behaviour generally expected by the users of this forum.

If I am right that there is still dissatisfaction, even with general adherence to the Guidelines, then are the current Guidelines actually fit for what the forum needs?

For me, it is something to do with frequency of contribution, Some threads become dominated by a single user, or small group of users who effectively wear down other contributors until they give up and walk. Some walk from the forum completely.

It is also something to do with tone. Some contributions and comments could be assessed as, for example, domineering, overbearing, arrogant, sneering, patronising, disingenuous. Sometimes just short of obviously ad hominem attacks, but rude, insulting nevertheless.

What to do? If there was will to change, even then maybe this is not easily defined in improved Guidelines. But if it could be, then these kinds of postings could be called out by flagging or by moderators, a yellow card system requests to moderate style and behaviour and so on.

I find the system whereby contributors can anonymously flag posts really creepy - Orwellian,might say, the sort of thing one might expect to find on a forum run by the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. It seems to me it would be better that if you think a post breaches forum guidelines you should either counter-post on the lines of ‘I think this breaches forum guidelines because… Mods, please adjudicate. Love and peace, Robin’ or you should send a private message to the moderators on the same lines. Meanwhile, the offending post should stand. Mods could also of course remove a post off their own bat if they wished to do so, on the understanding that the author of the post could ask for an explanation.

I also find the ban on political discussion on the forum very irritating. Everything is potentially political, as Leo said, and I would like to think that FH is the sort of place where residents could be trusted to discuss politics in a polite and rational way. And ad hominem arguments are sometimes justified, so long as the homo concerned has the right of reply.

Until they are combined in which case there may be a feisty debate about vegetarianism to contend with.

I think it depends how you look at it. The theory is that it gives more power to those actually using the site so that it becomes everyone’s joint responsibility to ensure the forum is tidy. The flags aren’t anonymous - the mods (at least) can see who has flagged them and choose to agree/override them. They are particularly helpful on the occasions where a spammer has posted non-relevant links to dodgy merchandise etc and the community ensure they’re gone before the majority even spot them. And as @ForestHull mentioned, if there’s only a single flag, they’re still visible despite being collapsed if a member chooses to look.

I would have agreed with you until I started as a moderator here. Just as some people become ridiculously competitive when behind a buzzer, some get overly invested in what should be relatively low-impact discussions. In ‘general politics’, nothing you write on a local forum is ever going to change the world after all - and if you care so strongly, there are better places to use that energy that might actually have an impact. @LeoGibbons may have some suggestions.

I remember getting on a train at Victoria one evening and opening the forum to find a flagged post. It took me the journey to Peckham Rye and time on the bus home to read the thread, try to work out the gist of what was being complained about and then another 30 minutes at home writing on the thread and to the three members involved to ask them to act like adults rather than toddlers. I strongly encouraged losing #generalpolitics and I can’t see a situation where I’d vote to have it back.

I believe strongly in the good things this forum offers - news on events, shops, photos of the area, people’s other interests, wanted/offered, recommendations of tradespeople or restaurants - which is why I’ve continued to stay as a moderator despite the various dramas. And I generally think to effect change in something you think is valuable but flawed, it’s better to stay engaged.

I fully agree with what @LeoGibbons has said (other than the idea that TfL can’t find money for a crossing on the South Circular when many many others have been successfully upgraded and large amounts is given to councils for emergency LTNs).

Politics has been particularly divisive over the last two years in the UK and US and this forum has reflected this. The hatred that built up in the politics section clearly flowed out to poison the whole tone of discussion on this forum. Although things have improved in the last few months, we continue to get some reoccurring problems with certain individuals insisting on arguing every point, refusing to listen to other perspectives or admit when they might be wrong. This in turn often leads to rude post from other people who are not prepared to get caught in pointless point-scoring with dominant voices (not that I wish to justify rude posts by myself or others).

I continue to find it difficult to engage with this forum because if I engage too much I will upset people whose behaviour and discussion techniques I find dishonest, intolerant, inappropriate and hypocritical.

There are so many people who have a problem with the method of discussion on this forum, and it is completely false to say that this is just a group of intolerant lefties. And it is hardly the first time this discussion has taken place. But things were getting a bit better.

I’m sorry such people would be upset. Personally, I would love to see you engage more in debate here as I always enjoy listening to your well reasoned arguments.

I wrote a longer response, initially, but it’s late and one can only write so many drafts without second guessing oneself. Ultimately I just wanted to agree with this point.

Going back to the original title. I’m not from round ‘ere’, I’m typing this in downtown Mitcham. The political stuff posted here I see on Twitter relating to where I live.

I see this forum as one that relates to those who live in the area, those who used to live in the area, those that live nearby and those, like me, who are privileged to work in the area. And boy, I’m privileged. I love working in Honor Oak.

I must be looking in the wrong place but I can’t see how to PM a moderator. Could someone assist me please? Thank you.

You can simply email team@se23.life

I’ve noticed that Leo and a few prominent accounts on Twitter have been using their large followings on social media to drive people here to support Leo’s argument, and to encourage the moderators to “reflect on this important feedback” and “wake up, smell the coffee and do what is right” - by which, he means to ban me and the tiny handful of other accounts which he singled out in his post.

We’re the ones who rationally challenged Leo’s strongly expressed, but not necessarily popular, policy opinions on subjects such as LTNs and housing.

These social media broadcasts could explain why there are lots of votes coming in from low-trust accounts who rarely use the forum.

The spectacle of a local councillor publicly attempting to drive mobs, and to de-platform his opposition is quite something.

“low-trust accounts who rarely use the forum”
I don’t use the forum much… but can’t you see these comments are part of the problem? They make people feel like they’re a lower class of forum user if they don’t engage regularly or they’re not verified. If we’re ‘low-trust’ do our opinions not count? Please don’t also assume we’re all part of a ‘mob’ either (more divisive language)… I happen to be a long-time lurker, as I’m sure many others are, which is why I came across LeoGibbons post and felt able to post again for the first time in a long time.
But to you I’m low-trust and part of a mob? Nice…

With respect @Smiris, Chris didnt say you were low-trust, you did.

We usually have around 10,000 page views per day, yesterday it was around 16,000. Some may be on here for good reasons, some may not. But what I do hope is all that came, new and old, may engage on the forum with open minds and civility.

All I’ll say is, this is the kind of exchanges that I think people are referring to. maybe it’s the tone I’m reading it in but it doesn’t come across well

I really appreciate that, but consider that the tone you read may differ for you and someone else. If we tried to focus on the content, and not our personal tonal thoughts, maybe we could get past that and have open, meaningful discussions.

It is clear that lots of people have issues with this forum and have been put off from engaging with it, due to the tone and hostility of a small number of accounts.

To quote one person who spoke to me on Twitter, ‘I’m quite a long way from going back to the forum as I just found it too toxic and closed out.’ This view is not uncommon among ex-users or infrequent posters - ‘low-trust’ accounts as they’ve been called.

Someone has said, fairly reasonable and politely, that they are unhappy with a poster’s tone, pointing this out as part of the all-too-common problem. The response from a moderator? To tell the person to keep their ‘personal tonal thoughts’ to themselves. For goodness sake, we’ve just been labelled a mob!

I am trying to give people the confidence to speak out and I am urging people to use this thread to give honest feedback on the site in the hope that @ForestHull does what is right for the betterment of forum.

A post was merged into an existing topic: More posts moved from “Yer not from round ‘ere”

Leo, are you writing as a councillor or an individual in this instance?

I am not on Twitter, but have seen some of the writing on it today. Is this the norm these days? I would expect better of adults than undertaking gossip about a small forum in a small area of London.

As a councillor in the midst of a pandemic have are there not beetr things you could be doing with your time?

Now, no doubt, people will be all over like me like a rash, so be it. But what I ask the more sensible is, have a cup of your favourite beverage and think "does John have a point!?

Whatever I/we do or say on here, someone will take offence, so we really stand no chance.

And finally:

A few accusations have been put my way over the last two days, the last two i asked for clarification from the posters, I have yet to recieve any.

Maybe you can explain to me just how you came to the conclusions you have over what I said and I will quote it for you:

It was a real attempt to ask for people to be minded of others, but apparently you feel otherwise. I would really like to know why. I realise as someone who was not born in the UK that my use of language and grammar may not be on par with your but I had hope that the sincere intentions were clear. So please, explain how I could have made it nicer or clearer so that people would not take offence.

Is it quite clear that lots of people have issues with the forum?

The forum’s been growing in popularity for years, and it gets a huge amount of traffic. It has more than 110,000 posts, and it buzzes every day.

The guidelines that prevent ad-hom attacks and tone-policing may not serve everyone’s purposes, but they’ve kept this forum a lot more civil than Twitter.

If we want to figure out whether “lots of people have issues with the forum”, it seems rather unscientific for people to put a loaded question out to thousands of people on Twitter (who may or may not even use the forum), and to ask them if they like the forum. And then to quote a single, annecdotal response as if this proves a point. That’s just bad science, sorry.

Hello. I’ve closed the topic but will re-open it today. This is a completely unilateral decision by me. I am homeschooling 2 kids, suspect @foresthull is the same and am having both my kids need my attention even as I type this. I asked further up for all to be nice. I, or other mods will come back on later once we’ve had a quick discussion re this thread. Tha is and apologies to all, the thread will be reopened later.

Hello all

The moderators met tonight and have discussed the issues raised.

We have created a new thread with our response here. Could all additional feedback please be added to that thread as this thread is a mixture of 2 topics, and has some posts that need further review / appear to break forum guidelines. We will review those in due course .

Please adhere to the criteria as set out in the linked post.

Thank you.