|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 9:28:51 GMT
Perhaps Nigel will help. Not his field, but I feel sure he could take a stab at it I could recommend a good one, only you would have to come down to London. Nick have you ever thought that you could be so much more effective if you eased off and became gentler. I suspect if you have been suspended, different from banned, that the reason is that you kept pushing hard and were aggressive not leave people time to sort things out. The result is you have no input on the boards over this important reconstruction period and Daniel & Co will ignore most of what you have said. Suspended, yes. Or temporarily Banned, which sounds so much more dramatic! re gentler, Perhaps, but then again it seemed clear to me that "the management" weren't taking on board what I was saying. Latterly, the final straw (according to Dan) was my post about the threatening, confrontational style of "announcements" from mods, including his own. How long does it take to adjust ones style to be less threatening and confrontational? About 1 post, I would say. Since Dan persisted with the same style and allowed his mods to do likewise, clearly the message hadn't got through and I don't see how a period of contemplation would have changed that. But what with the seemingly deliberate attempts to libel me, unaddressed after a reasonable request to do so, I'm fairly sure I'll never want to go back to CWDF. So it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 9:31:28 GMT
So when you said to me "Suffice to say I have no sock puppet on CWDF" that was an outright lie presumably? In which case we can hardly be expected to believe anything you say. No it was correct, a socpuppet follows a previous one and my CWF one is an original, years old. If anything the one you knew was a socpuppet So when you said you had no sock puppet on CWDF, in fact you did have a sock puppet called "graham.m".
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Oct 29, 2016 9:33:05 GMT
The thread is still there Oh yes, so it is. That is disappointing. I'd get my lawyer on it - if only I had one! Seems threads in Suggestions and Feedback can only be viewed when logged it, nice tactic to hide them from the wider world! ETA Maybe Graham is CDS, or something like that (cue denial....) sighed up to Thunderboat at a similar time, attitude seems similar, plus a prediliction for sock puppets.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 9:38:56 GMT
No it was correct, a socpuppet follows a previous one and my CWF one is an original, years old. If anything the one you knew was a socpuppet So when you said you had no sock puppet on CWDF, in fact you did have a sock puppet called "graham.m". No because it no longer exists it was closed months ago so I do not have an access route called "graham.m" thus no socpuppet.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 29, 2016 9:51:45 GMT
You've just caused something to click in what passes for my mind. I have never worked for or had dealings with JCB but I have been told by several folk who have had dealings with them that the working atmosphere is horrible. No real acknowledgement of initiative and everyone scared of their immediate superior. If that's where Dan has learned how to deal with people it could explain a lot about how he manages CW. In a previous life happily concluded, for 10 years as a supplier, I had reasonably high level dealings with JCB across all their divisions and I can confirm the place was run dictator style with everyone too scared to stick their head above the parapit, even the senior execs had to ask for permission from Joe before proceeding with mundane decisions. Very strange place seeing as it's meant to be so innovative and forward thinking. Hugely paranoid, introverted and egotistical - sound familiar? Maybe this is the model our CWF friend has adopted. Disclaimer - My dealings with JCB concluded 2 years after Joe died and his even worse son took over. so ancient history, any current JCB employees reading this may (hopefully) find this is not the case now. But I doubt it. I think 'Culture of fear' was how it was described to me. Sound like a forum anyone knows?
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 9:55:19 GMT
I could recommend a good one, only you would have to come down to London. Nick have you ever thought that you could be so much more effective if you eased off and became gentler. I suspect if you have been suspended, different from banned, that the reason is that you kept pushing hard and were aggressive not leave people time to sort things out. The result is you have no input on the boards over this important reconstruction period and Daniel & Co will ignore most of what you have said. Suspended, yes. Or temporarily Banned, which sounds so much more dramatic! re gentler, Perhaps, but then again it seemed clear to me that "the management" weren't taking on board what I was saying. Latterly, the final straw (according to Dan) was my post about the threatening, confrontational style of "announcements" from mods, including his own. How long does it take to adjust ones style to be less threatening and confrontational? About 1 post, I would say. Since Dan persisted with the same style and allowed his mods to do likewise, clearly the message hadn't got through and I don't see how a period of contemplation would have changed that. But what with the seemingly deliberate attempts to libel me, unaddressed after a reasonable request to do so, I'm fairly sure I'll never want to go back to CWDF. So it doesn't matter. Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think if an inquest was done later it would be found that Daniel had so much coming at him that he was having problems and may still be, of which to address first. Daniel has always been threatening and confrontational and mod announcements the same. Put them all under stress and it is going to get worse. They are trying to run the forum with too few staff, they need double or treble, and sort out how to quell the waters and get the place, or a very small bit of it back on track. Daniel like most people and the mods will not be able to change until they no longer feel threatened, nor will they be able to make any sensible changes until then. That is why everyone has to ease off. Re your remark about libel, I have not seen the post so cannot comment directly, but I am sure that if you attempted to force his hand into a take down he would be able to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that his post was OK. If you give me a like to the post I will look and see if I maintain the above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 10:07:07 GMT
Suspended, yes. Or temporarily Banned, which sounds so much more dramatic! re gentler, Perhaps, but then again it seemed clear to me that "the management" weren't taking on board what I was saying. Latterly, the final straw (according to Dan) was my post about the threatening, confrontational style of "announcements" from mods, including his own. How long does it take to adjust ones style to be less threatening and confrontational? About 1 post, I would say. Since Dan persisted with the same style and allowed his mods to do likewise, clearly the message hadn't got through and I don't see how a period of contemplation would have changed that. But what with the seemingly deliberate attempts to libel me, unaddressed after a reasonable request to do so, I'm fairly sure I'll never want to go back to CWDF. So it doesn't matter. Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think if an inquest was done later it would be found that Daniel had so much coming at him that he was having problems and may still be, of which to address first. Daniel has always been threatening and confrontational and mod announcements the same. Put them all under stress and it is going to get worse. They are trying to run the forum with too few staff, they need double or treble, and sort out how to quell the waters and get the place, or a very small bit of it back on track. Daniel like most people and the mods will not be able to change until they no longer feel threatened, nor will they be able to make any sensible changes until then. That is why everyone has to ease off. Re your remark about libel, I have not seen the post so cannot comment directly, but I am sure that if you attempted to force his hand into a take down he would be able to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that his post was OK. If you give me a like to the post I will look and see if I maintain the above. I have never seen anyone spout as much shit as you do. I think you and tomsk should get together.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 10:10:02 GMT
Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think if an inquest was done later it would be found that Daniel had so much coming at him that he was having problems and may still be, of which to address first. Daniel has always been threatening and confrontational and mod announcements the same. Put them all under stress and it is going to get worse. They are trying to run the forum with too few staff, they need double or treble, and sort out how to quell the waters and get the place, or a very small bit of it back on track. Daniel like most people and the mods will not be able to change until they no longer feel threatened, nor will they be able to make any sensible changes until then. That is why everyone has to ease off. Re your remark about libel, I have not seen the post so cannot comment directly, but I am sure that if you attempted to force his hand into a take down he would be able to produce sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that his post was OK. If you give me a like to the post I will look and see if I maintain the above. I have never seen anyone spout as much shit as you do. I think you and tomsk should get together. Well the feeling is mutual Does that mean I can call you Twat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 10:19:08 GMT
I have never seen anyone spout as much shit as you do. I think you and tomsk should get together. Well the feeling is mutual Does that mean I can call you Twat If it makes you feel better, call me whatever you like. (It further serves to reinforce my view on your posts).
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 10:32:47 GMT
Well the feeling is mutual Does that mean I can call you Twat If it makes you feel better, call me whatever you like. (It further serves to reinforce my view on your posts). lol I think your sense of humour is worse than mine lol
|
|
|
Post by mildred on Oct 29, 2016 10:35:46 GMT
Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think you are being very unfair. A Drama Queen would not read a post in the technical section, realise that the person with a problem was quite close to where he was moored, and set off within minutes to see if he could assist. That is the sort of person that anyone with any sense would want to keep as a member of their forum, and listen to when it was obvious that they were unhappy about the change of ethos. (I use a different name on CWDF and have posted very little, so none of you will have a clue as to who I am. As an observer I am finding this whole episode fascinating.)
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 10:39:19 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 10:41:40 GMT
Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think you are being very unfair. A Drama Queen would not read a post in the technical section, realise that the person with a problem was quite close to where he was moored, and set off within minutes to see if he could assist. That is the sort of person that anyone with any sense would want to keep as a member of their forum, and listen to when it was obvious that they were unhappy about the change of ethos. (I use a different name on CWDF and have posted very little, so none of you will have a clue as to who I am. As an observer I am finding this whole episode fascinating.) Well obviously I have a clue as to who you are! Anyway, thanks for the support.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 29, 2016 10:44:00 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it! View AttachmentView AttachmentUndoubtedly the implication was there. Whether intentional or accidental it shows at best poor judgment and at worst libellous action.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 11:22:24 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it! No defamation there at all. In the first she is just saying if you judge on what you are told and see you might not be getting all the story. She has just politely pushed the question away. It obvious from PaulC's post that he has been pushing this PaulC continues to push. The second starts by saying "I'm not discussing individuals" and goes on to discuss an example from the past about exmembers, in answer to the question asked "Does this mean you might also ban someone from what they say in private..." Now the answer to the question is a yes, and that is I believe covered in the rules. As I understand it the allegation against yourself is disruption, that could be either by not piping down when asked on threads, even if that is a generalised request or by piling too many PMs/emails into the admin team. Simply actions that disrupt the efficient running of the forum by the staff. I don't think you would get anywhere with it. The first is a generalised answer and the second is specific "I am not discussing individuals" and give an answer based on something that happened in the past and importantly not linked to the present. I think she saw the trap and circumnavigated it nicely. Well several thought all come down to the same thing, I will post them all. It is what I think.
|
|