What should the board look like

[Mark]

To tackle one, relatively easy thing first, re-unread posts. While I don't think there is anything additional that can be done, I will look into it, but, there are two ways that this is done already.

I apologise in advance if I'm going over stuff that is already known, but, the subject has been brought up...and if helps someone, it is useful.

The first is that in any of the board indexes, any thread that contains unread posts will have a 'New' symbol nxt to it, as the third thread down does in the attached pic.

-

-

The second, if you re-open or refresh a page, you should automatically be taken to the first unread post (note: if you auto-delete your browser history/cookies on exit, this will likely not happen).

I can confirm that this works in Firefox.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 17, 2022 12:27:29 GMT Mark said:

Which brings me on to...

It keeps coming back, the idea of a general (non-political) "chit-chat" thread, where those that want to can chat about their hobbies, their lives, themselvs, away from politics. A sort of "UKPR2 social" if you like.

I've got half a mind to set up that part of the board (and if wanted, a Wordle thread can come under that umbrella).

That is not to say that things like the Grand Prix would be forbidden in the main polling thread completely.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

It does have something going for it Mark. Can’t say I’m into Wordle myself, but it doesn’t bother me if others are… people chatting about common interests (including hobbies, sport etc.) can be a way of lessening the intensity and overcoming differences given they are quite often discussing politics which is known to get quite heated. A single thread for personal interests would also keep the number of threads manageable. And also let people discuss incidental stuff you might not set up a separate thread for. 

[Mark]

Re-moderation.

I am aware that there are some who think I should be stricter, at the moment, I aim to take a fairly 'light touch' as far as possible.

You are a good lot and I find that this generally works well. 6 months down the line if we get a load of newbies, there is always a possibility this may need to change.

I'm sure you have all seen my occasional "Admin" posts if something needs to be said generally.

Apart from that, I find that for relatively minor discressions, a gentle nudge by PM generally works.

When this happens, it is not made public by me. Usually, I get a positive reaction and consider it 'case closed'.

I have also issued a few official warnings, again not made public by me, and again usually with the desired result.

While it has only happened once, if someone is suspended or banned, this is made public, partly to stop any speculation. At this point, I may choose to reveal details of previous warnings.

---
Having said all that, I have noticed some low-level barbs aimed at other members lately. I kindly ask all that have to refrain from doing so from now. anyone who persists can expect to hear from me.

Also, re-banter/in-jokes where no offence or disrespect is intended - and none is taken, please bear in mind that this may look different to a newbie or to someone reading that is thinking of joining.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Mar 17, 2022 13:39:09 GMT barbara said:

I only look at the main thread and that takes up enough time so I would plead that we don't have another 30 or so threads to read. I'm happy with the board as it is. It suits me, dross and all.

well what can happen is it can get a bit selective. Some people might complain when some people post about sport, but not when their mates do. Or might complain if some talk something technical, but not when they have a technical query themselves. Some might complain if some people mention synths, but not when others talk about their instruments. And often this might unfavourably affect minorities on the board more than others. So it’s useful to have a place where it is officially ok to talk about such things. 

[EmCat]

Mar 17, 2022 12:27:29 GMT Mark said:

It keeps coming back, the idea of a general (non-political) "chit-chat" thread, where those that want to can chat about their hobbies, their lives, themselvs, away from politics. A sort of "UKPR2 social" if you like.

I've got half a mind to set up that part of the board (and if wanted, a Wordle thread can come under that umbrella).

My work has a long running discussion board, which acts as a "semi-official" source of advice. Semi-official, as it is often people's experiences in how to navigate the official policies and procedures, rather than being the source of them.

As well as a collection of work-related threads (People related; particular IT thoughts/issues; news; and so on), there are also some designated as "lunchtime threads" where it is assumed that there won't be too many posts made during working hours. These include chat about TV, books, radio, sports and any discussion that maybe isn't "work", but folk find interesting.

As one of the moderators, I find the "light touch" approach also works well (the number of interventions is typically low, as the board is intended as an information source, not a soapbox). The gentle reminder is often "if you wouldn't say to someone's face what you post online, then don't post it".


Another occasional reminder is not just to reply to a post, but to edit down to the bits that are being replied to. Perhaps a quick note that this editing can sometimes be easier to do if swapping to the "BBCode" tab to be able to see exactly which bits to chop. (Though maybe that's because I'm used to the similar code that the Snitz software uses at work)

Long may your light touch reign continue

[leftieliberal]

I assume that threads started by 'he who shall not be named' and is henceforth to be referred to as 'Deleted' continue as normal. My only worry is what happens if Mark gets fed up with some of the behaviour on here. I'm all for the 'light touch reign' as long as others don't abuse it.

[jayblanc]

I think we could do without threads started to deliberately prompt a pointed 'debate' about minorities. Especially when the defence for what's being said in such a thread is "well, it shouldn't be illegal for me to say these things!".

[Mark]

May 28, 2022 21:11:06 GMT leftieliberal said:

I assume that threads started by 'he who shall not be named' and is henceforth to be referred to as 'Deleted' continue as normal. My only worry is what happens if Mark gets fed up with some of the behaviour on here. I'm all for the 'light touch reign' as long as others don't abuse it.

Eek, I've only just seen this.

There is no need to worry. This is generally a well behaved board and while most of the time, I feel that light touch moderation is sufficient, I can - and have - stepped this up on the rare occasions when it is required.

In the unlikely event that I ever decide that I no longer want the job or am no longer physically capable of doing it, I won't just pull the plug, nor will I abandon it, but, would look for a sucessor.

Before you all pile in, that's not going to happen in the near future.

[Mark]

Jun 1, 2022 16:27:32 GMT jayblanc said:

I think we could do without threads started to deliberately prompt a pointed 'debate' about minorities. Especially when the defence for what's being said in such a thread is "well, it shouldn't be illegal for me to say these things!".

The rules are pretty clear on outright hate speech. Where the line is between this and 'pointed debate' is another matter.

I have certainly seen posts that, with my 'user' hat on, I would consider to be at the very least objectionable, but, with my "admin" hat on have to consider the difference between genuine opinion, even if I consider it objectionable, and a rule breach.

Where I have stepped in (and where I will in the future), you will see "*** ADMIN ***" at the top of the post - and these are not to be ignored.

Others are welcome to let me know if they think a post has crossed this line, but, please remember that the point that I step in as admin has to do with a rule-breach.

[Mark]

I have been doing some serious thinking in the last few days in light of the original UKPR site being relaunched.

Before anyone panics, I have decided that, unless there is a material change, that UKPR2 (here), should keep going as it has been.

While there is obviously a level of antagonism between certain members, overall, we have a nice community here (and I am aware that a few have met up in real life).

I think it would be a shame to lose that. Yes, many have cme from the original UKPR site v.1, but, some have joined here since.

Nobody from the original UKPR site has contacted me since the relaunch and I would be extemely surprised if they were unaware of our existance.

Should there be any change, I will, of course, keep you informed.

[domjg]

Nov 24, 2022 17:51:56 GMT Mark said:

I have been doing some serious thinking in the last few days in light of the original UKPR site being relaunched.

Before anyone panics, I have decided that, unless there is a material change, that UKPR2 (here), should keep going as it has been.

While there is obviously a level of antagonism between certain members, overall, we have a nice community here (and I am aware that a few have met up in real life).

I think it would be a shame to lose that. Yes, many have cme from the original UKPR site v.1, but, some have joined here since.

Nobody from the original UKPR site has contacted me since the relaunch and I would be extemely surprised if they were unaware of our existance.

Should there be any change, I will, of course, keep you informed.

My twopenneth would be that while retaining a core interest in polling this place has morphed (well before the move to proboards) into it's own political/current affairs discussion community of those who mostly 'know' each other in as far as that's possible on an online forum. I think if some of these discussions suddenly moved to the new pollingreport site the new guy running it would get a bit of a shock!

[alec]

Suggest we leave UKPR3 to be a purely polling based discussion, and carry on here with the jokes, arguments, obtuse threads and general discussion, with the odd polling nugget thrown in.

Carry On Regardless.

Wasn't that a classic Ealing Comedy?

Oh I say!

[Deleted]

It will help UKPOLLINGREPORT , that UKPR2 exists.

A bit like splitting the old UKPR into its two parts.

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 24, 2022 19:04:49 GMT colin said:

It will help UKPOLLINGREPORT , that UKPR2 exists.

A bit like splitting the old UKPR into its two parts.

UKPR 2a and 2b, although when there is something good from UKPR2b then I doubt Callum will mind if we copy+paste it onto UKPR2a.

GB VI polling will IMO be quite boring for at least the next 2yrs, possibly 7yr+ if CON continue their suicidal factional infighting but plenty of 'detail' on Specific Issues that are still IMO worth discussing and the format of UKPR2a does IMO lend itself more to breaking out Specific Issues. 

[Mark]

With regard to misquoting other members, I propose the following addition to the board rules.

"Falsifying a direct quote from another member (IE when using the site's quote function) is expressly forbidden.

Deliberately attributing a misleading or false quote to another member without the site's quote function is also forbidden"

I have made the distinction re-using the quote function as, the way I see it, misquoting using this function will always be delibarate.

When not using this function, it is possible that an accidental misquote can happen, for example if one member is attempting to precis or summarise what another has said in a few words.

This new rule is not yet live (and members will be given advance warning before it is), please feel free to share your thoughts on the wording/implementtion.

[EmCat]

Nov 25, 2022 11:52:11 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Nov 24, 2022 19:04:49 GMT colin said:

It will help UKPOLLINGREPORT , that UKPR2 exists.

A bit like splitting the old UKPR into its two parts.

UKPR 2a and 2b, although when there is something good from UKPR2b then I doubt Callum will mind if we copy+paste it onto UKPR2a.

Since one is a continuation of the first one, albeit under new management, should it not be "UKPR1N" (for New), or "UKPR1a", against UKPR2?

[johntel]

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

With regard to misquoting other members, I propose the following addition to the board rules.

"Falsifying a direct quote from another member (IE when using the site's quote function) is expressly forbidden.

Deliberately attributing a misleading or false quote to another member without the site's quote function is also forbidden"

I have made the distinction re-using the quote function as, the way I see it, misquoting using this function will always be delibarate.

When not using this function, it is possible that an accidental misquote can happen, for example if one member is attempting to precis or summarise what another has said in a few words.

This new rule is not yet live (and members will be given advance warning before it is), please feel free to share your thoughts on the wording/implementtion.

While agreeing with the principle I think the wording is unnecessarily emotive. E.g. why not 'changing a direct quote in any way is not allowed' and a 'attributing  a quote to another member is also not allowed'. This isn't a police state, it's 'only a game' (sorry to contradict you steamdrivenandy   )

[EmCat]

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

With regard to misquoting other members,

Both bits make sense in their intent, though I'm not sure whether it will make some decline to edit a quoted post, if they feel that it might be misinterpreted as changing/falsifying a quote..


But I could just be over-thinking it (especially as many tend not to edit quoted posts at all anyway)

Edited to add: just seen johntel 's suggested words, which, I think, would then mean that no changes to quotes would be allowed at all (even if it was multiple twitter links and a few paragraphs of comment, where the reply is intended to home in one only one part of the original quoted comment), which would mean a pithy response would still be tagged on at the end of the multiple twitter links and multi-paragraph comment

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

..if one member is attempting to precis or summarise what another has said in a few words.

So is 'attempting to precis' going to be banned, or would the new rule only apply to some people?

NB I was replying to johntel and felt no need to repeat everything that was said. There are certainly MPs whose views are out of sync with the broader views of their party (although I'd argue there are probably a lot of both LAB and CON MPs who should probably be in LDEM but prefer the "careerist politician" opportunities of being in the one of two parties who would form a UK HMG and give them the potential opportunity of become PM).

The Guardian journalist was 'attempting to precis' a minister with a hard hitting tweet (so I did a 'precis' on the 'precis' that led up to the johntel post that I read and replied to).

If someone has been so easily offended then I apologise.

I did see neilj post on an Issue Specific thread and actually agreed with a lot of what he said. However, as you will know, then I am abiding by the 'yellow card' you gave me WRT to making sure that I ignore certain people (using the improved functionality of UKPR2a to do so) - although the 'rule' you applied to me doesn't seem to be the same 'rule' that is enforced upon anyone else. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm quite capable of ignoring certain people even if they are clearly unable to do the same in reverse.

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

Deliberately attributing a misleading or false quote to another member without the site's quote function is also forbidden"

I take it that "without the site's quote function" means a copy and paste plus quote marks.

I always do it that way and never use the site quote function.

So can you clarify what a "misleading" copy and paste quote from another member would be ?

[jib]

Nov 26, 2022 16:47:36 GMT colin said:

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

Deliberately attributing a misleading or false quote to another member without the site's quote function is also forbidden"

I take it that "without the site's quote function" means a copy and paste plus quote marks.

I always do it that way and never use the site quote function.

So can you clarify what a "misleading" copy and paste quote from another member would be ?

Direct quotes / selective quotes can be used to misconstrue, but I think we all get jist of this.

[EmCat]

Nov 26, 2022 16:47:36 GMT colin said:

Nov 26, 2022 15:57:30 GMT Mark said:

Deliberately attributing a misleading or false quote to another member without the site's quote function is also forbidden"

I take it that "without the site's quote function" means a copy and paste plus quote marks.

I always do it that way and never use the site quote function.

So can you clarify what a "misleading" copy and paste quote from another member would be ?

I took that to mean not so much a copy and paste (rather than using the quote function), but more a failure to check and/or remember who had actually said what.

Example: if someone puts "Some pages back, Fred said 'The moon is made of cream cheese'. Actually I disagree.." and then gives a rebuttal. Except that not only was it actually Bill who had made the cheese comment, but that Bill had specifically said that it was green cheese , not cream cheese. And in fact wasn't about the moon at all, either.

[Mark]

Let me clarify the intent.

Firstly, the new ruling is exclusively in regard to other members of this board.

It does not apply to mis-representing (accidentally or delibarately) politicians, people on twitter, although, delibarately doing to would still be bad form, it would not be a rule breach.

Changing something inside a quote can only be delibarate and is IMO, clear cut.

In terms of attempting to precis another member, no, it is not going to be banned. The intent is quite the opposite, to be more flexible here as this is where it is possible to mis-represent what another member has said without intending to do so.

The wording of the board rule, however, I would like to be clear and factual, without being overly emotive..

As with all rules, they are to be applied equally to all members.

Any and all further feedback is welcomed.

[alurqa]

Nov 26, 2022 17:41:01 GMT EmCat said:

Nov 26, 2022 16:47:36 GMT colin said:

I take it that "without the site's quote function" means a copy and paste plus quote marks.

I always do it that way and never use the site quote function.

So can you clarify what a "misleading" copy and paste quote from another member would be ?

I took that to mean not so much a copy and paste (rather than using the quote function), but more a failure to check and/or remember who had actually said what.

Example: if someone puts "Some pages back, Fred said 'The moon is made of cream cheese'. Actually I disagree.." and then gives a rebuttal. Except that not only was it actually Bill who had made the cheese comment, but that Bill had specifically said that it was green cheese , not cream cheese. And in fact wasn't about the moon at all, either.

The good thing about the site quote function is that it preserves the link to the original quote, so you can simply click on that to see the full context of the quote. For that reason I'd argue you should always keep it in. I have to admit the edit function is a bit pants, but if you always use the BBCode button it takes you to a text-only view that is far easier to navigate. If you like point and clicky stuff, such as highlighting some text then clicking the italic button then it's not as obvious with BBCode. I prefer to type [ i]italic[ /i]. :-)

Also remember a post can be edited. Once edited a tag appears at the bottom right saying it has been edited. I like to add a comment to explain my edit, but if it is just a quick typo I won't bother. In addition, I will simply add text to the bottom of my post starting with the tag 'Edit:' followed my additional comment/s.

The edit function means you can post something and then completely replace it with something else, but before you do someone else could have quoted your original comment. In that case it could appear that the person quoting you had misquoted you, and the only evidience that something may have changed would be the edit tag appearing at bottom right. So there is a certain amount of trust needed. But hey, how important do we think we all are?

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2022 17:55:55 GMT alurqa said:

Nov 26, 2022 17:41:01 GMT EmCat said:

 But hey, how important do we think we all are?

Good question !

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 26, 2022 17:47:26 GMT Mark said:

Let me clarify the intent.
...

1. Changing something inside a quote can only be delibarate and is IMO, clear cut.

2. In terms of attempting to precis another member, no, it is not going to be banned. The intent is quite the opposite, to be more flexible here as this is where it is possible to mis-represent what another member has said without intending to do so.
...

Given I don't want to make an accidental mistake then could you please clarify

1. So for example, adding numbers to specific points or bold to a certain section (as I have just done for demonstration purposes). Is that 'clear cut' assistance in structuring a discussion or a 'clear cut' break of a new rule you're proposing that will be met with some form of sanction?

2. Could you also clarify that one. So the intent is to be flexible and 'precis' (eg no need to repost a tweet but still ensuring the tweet is mentioned) should be encouraged or discouraged?

I admit to being confused about your intent but I hope you can clarify the above.

[Mark]

For clarity, firstly, bolding parts of a quote to highlight the part of the text you wish to draw attention to is absolutely fine.

With regard to 'precis', the new rule would only apply to members of this forum, so Twitter and any other outside sources would not be covered.

The intent is simple - that other members of this board are not mis-represented.

I intend some flexibility regarding 'precis' as there could be occasions when mis-representation could be accidental.

Any further questions and comments are welcome.

[wb61]

Sorry to be a bit of a lawyer about this but clarity is required in terms of rules and I would suggest:

(1) When using the quote function:
     (a) to delete text within a quote box is permitted; save
          (i) to delete text and replace text within the quote box is not permitted;
          (ii) to delete text which substantially alters or reverses the meaning of the original text within the quote box is not permitted;
    (b) when commenting outside the quote-box misquoting is permitted if:
          (i) the original text is not deleted from the quote box; and/or
          (ii) it is made clear that the text is a misquote;
(2) Quoting without using the quote function when using quotation marks: 
      (a) any quotation must denote text excised from the original by use of ellipsis;
      (b)  misquoting is permitted if it is made clear in the body of the post that the text is a misquote.

I have in mind with some of these proposals those attempts at humour where individuals alter a word within a quote and say something along the lines of "there fixed that for you" otherwise I have just attempted (with what success I am unsure) to remove some of the ambiguity which could arise by the creation of this rule. 

[Mr Poppy]

Nov 27, 2022 18:58:01 GMT Mark said:

For clarity, firstly, bolding parts of a quote to highlight the part of the text you wish to draw attention to is absolutely fine.

With regard to 'precis', the new rule would only apply to members of this forum, so Twitter and any other outside sources would not be covered.

The intent is simple - that other members of this board are not mis-represented.

I intend some flexibility regarding 'precis' as there could be occasions when mis-representation could be accidental.

Any further questions and comments are welcome.

Thank you. Might I ask that you post a 'precis' of your conclusion to the recent claim of 'falsification'. You posted a reply on the last general thread but that was after the new general thread started so a lot of folks might not have seen where you stated: "not because you had done it" - which I took to be an 'Innocent' verdict. Just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand you. 

[neilj]

Hi Mark
Have you made a decision about rules regarding changing some ones words within their quotes?
As you said currently it is not against the rules to deliberately alter the meaning of what some one posted and to make it appear that they themselves actually posted it.
Personally I think wb61 post above covers the changes in the rules to stop this behaviour taking place
Thanks again for setting up thus site, I sm aware its not an easy task