Is the issue that you don't have time to take action - on a Saturday morning OR that you aren't sure what action to take?

If you've bothered to take the time to look, you ought to make time to follow it through.  If you're not sure what action to take, give yourself some thinking time and send them a PM to clarify what point they are trying to make. 

I'd suggest a comment (signature) like this is simply an indicator of the level of frustration many of us feel with the sudden changes to the forum and TOS.  Over and over again we've tried to explain our point of view but it genuinely doesn't seem to have been heard.  You keep posting in this vague manner about how to run a forum but not once explained your sudden turn around on points we hold dear, such as advertising, the ignore button, and welfare issues. 

In all seriousness I'd welcome an explanation about the changes you've made.  I might not agree with them, but then at least I could make a decision about whether to stick around long term.  In the meantime I'm hanging around in the hope that a) our nuisance poster might amend his behaviours and b) that you might do something to manage what many of us consider a welfare issue.

*If time is an ongoing problem for you, create a different reporting structure (emails?) so that mods could alert you to potential issues and draw your attention to any urgent dramas :)

> Thanks for the replies but no one has actually said what they would do in those circumstances.

I said exactly what I would do IF there was a clear policy - the said person would (should) be removed.

>*If time is an ongoing problem for you, create a different reporting structure (emails?) so that mods could alert you to potential issues and draw your attention to any urgent dramas

Admin, to clarify my point in light of your reply.  This is in effect your 'private room'.  Many of us would expect that mods have a different relationship with you than the rest of us.  I would expect and sincerely hope that you do have discussions about posting behaviours.  It's not about people it's about how they behave and whether it can be managed in a unobtrusive way to keep order.  The very best debates give users roughly equal airtime and an agreed set of rules to abide by - anything else is a soap box or shouting stage...

MarkR,

I would clarify my position on electrical training devices with a statement explaining that CD does not support or condone use of e-c/electrical training devices, now banned in some parts of the UK (you might need to make a statement about prong collars too). I would then ask the poster to remove the second part of their signature because it conflicts with forum policy. If they refused I would remove the poster.

Of course, this is your forum and if you disagree with the above it would be helpful for us to know.

>Thanks for the replies but no one has actually said what they would do in those circumstances.

That's not quite true: I said "If it wasn't true then the person should be asked to change it (or have it removed)."

I don't mind you using this Mark :-)

>I am making the assumption that the forum allows signatures and also has no clear policy about what happens in the private room.

Afraid Assumption is incorrect.. we agreed right from the start, that only topics would be discussed and how to deal with them... We do not talk about the poster in any way other than how their topic can be dealt with . This is a very clear policy... and as such, we can remove anyone from the steam room who abuses the priviledge.... .  It has surprised even me, how adult we can be ;-)  in 5 years, we have removed only 3 members

It is because of this, we can invite others into the steam room

Also to make it clear, when stating "the general public", I am talking about transients, those who visit occassionally without posting.. those who post every couple of months etc.. The board is 'open', in other words, you do not have to be a member to read threads, but you do have to become a member to post.

>A regular poster (one who does not have access to the private room) changes their signature to read:

>"This  Forum - The place with the private room where you get talked about behind your back"

>What do you do ?

I don't know.. i'ts never happened 

Kay

This steam room of yours, what percentage of registered members (those elligible to post) are allowed in the steam room ?
And do the members who are not allowed in know that the room exists, can they see the locked door or is it a hidden one ?

>I don't know.. i'ts never happened

Imagine it did how would you handle it on your forum ?

> Kay
>
> This steam room of yours, what percentage of registered members (those elligible to post) are allowed in the steam room ?
> And do the members who are not allowed in know that the room exists, can they see the locked door or is it a hidden one ?
>
>> I don't know.. i'ts never happened
> Imagine it did how would you handle it on your forum ?

At a rough guess, around 25% of elligible members are in the steam room.

The door is hidden (although they know about it now :-P after reading this )  in fact only one member is a member of CD

Handling is is another matter... it would down to members of the room, perhaps we would simply ask writer to remove, if refused, we may decide it best removed by ourselves... or if as stated, the member is a REGULAR member, we could invite into the room and allow them to see all is above board.. Topics and how to deal with them only, are discussed, not the members..

Any action taken would depend on answers

THAT is the politically correct answer :-)   Personally, I would just remove it and see what happened (don tin helmet and duck)

We do let of steam and have a good moan in the steam room, but we are adult about it and make sure that we are never deflamatory about any member...That is Policy.

no different than a Mods room, except that rather than a few mods, it is more open to longstanding knowledgable members.  The only exception is, they do not have the mod facility.

I am one of three Administrators on another forum (nothing whatsoever to do with dogs). Completely thankless task and not sure why I still do it (some idealogical notion of providing a service I think!)

Anyway, I have no real idea of what the issues are on Champdogs but have picked up a little....I think!

Administrators can (and do) have the ability to remove what would be considered offensive statuses. An email would be sent to the individual explaining our rationale and reminding them of the forum policy. So, that's fairly simple...I would ammend it...fire and email..and go about my "life". We would also raise this in the Moderators forum - a place where we can discuss such decisions to make sure we have not over-reacted as an individual taking a specific action.

The same would go for offensive posts. We have the ability to make their post invisible whilst allowing the thread to continue. Again, an email to explain our rationale. However, what we must be careful of is distinguishing between an offensive post and one which offers a counter arguement which we may not agree with. We must credit our users with enough sense to listen to both sides of the arguement and reach their own conclusions. We cannot censor based on a difference of opinion.

We would not allow self promotion in these posts. If, for example, a person was trying to sell a product for self gain by putting forward their arguement. Be that through their user name or through text - that would be addressed.

It is thankless. We have been accused of not acting and we have been accused of censorship. It goes with the territory I'm afraid.

In terms of aversive training. Why should Champdogs censor this? Surely this is something which should be discussed openly if we are to educate people who may be new to the forums and are seeking advice. Of course, people promoting this training should not be allowed to advertise for self gain.

As far as I am aware, laws of censorship, freedom of speech, human rights...all apply to the internet. It's from this basis that decisions are made. Even if they cannot be challenged on a legal basis, these rights are one which we have the right to expect in all aspects of our lives so it's a sound point to begin discussions.

As I say, I don't know all the background behind people's upset. However, that upset should be acknowledged by the administration team. Often, a detailed explanation of why decisions have been made is all that is required. On occasions, people can't accept these reasons and may part company with the forums. Again, that's part of life...we can't please all of the people all of the time. As long as we know and have explained why the decisions have been made.

JMHO

I think the issue is that one poster has been abusing the 'spirit' of terms of service, by constantly mentioning that they consider themselves a dog trainer live in xyz and look here is a video of me and my methods and it makes people think he is more touting for business than really interested in information exchange or debating one method or another.
I also find really disturbing is that the argument that has been bandied about recently that clicker training is cruel, nasty and frustrating for the dog and far less kind than zapping.
If it was my forum the easiest option would be to get rid of the boat rocker (even if I had to do it multiple times how hard can it be, surely easier than all this nonsense and upset?), then other people could discuss zappers without one person writing the same boring stuff over and over, which is on every dog forum in all existence it seems, it is crazily obvious this guy is a cash trainer using forums to tout for business just google his name plus the word forum you'll see.
This forum used to be great especially the behaviour section but with a lot of the older, experienced members stepping off tbh it's gone down hill in the past few years, I think partly driven by disillusionment.
I don't think free speech is very important in forums at all frankly ( sorry I'm a secret fascist :) ), it's the internet, if we're not allowed to say one thing somewhere then we can easily find another place to air such views be it on another forum, a personal blog or your own website.
Are we allowed to post links to you tube videos of us training dogs maybe I wouldn't feel so annoyed then as it would be easier to counter such nonsense, people could see for themselves the difference between a dog trained with kindness as opposed to pain?
I came on here years ago because I was struggling with my dog mainly with re-call, at the time I wanted a quick fix I wanted him to be good 'now', thank goodness there was the quality of members there were at the time and through reading all the threads and asking questions I realized that it would take time and to stop being so hard on myself, I've learned so much from the good people here and have never built such a close and special bond there now is between me and my boy. I dread to think if I came on now asking about a recall problem, I'd probably be driving my dog to cornwall to be zapped as treat training is wicked, cruel and takes too long! 

>I think the issue is that one poster has been abusing the 'spirit' of terms of service, by constantly mentioning that they consider themselves a dog trainer live in xyz and look here is a video of me and my methods and it makes people think he is more touting for business than really interested in information exchange or debating one method or another.

Everyone, have a quick look around. Is it still happening ?

>I don't think free speech is very important in forums at all frankly (sorry I'm a secret fascist)

At least you are honest :-) 

you're right its not, fair play Admin.

To be honest, I find this idea of a "private" room very off putting!! I joined a forum a year ago where "breeders" had a separate section which "owners" couldn't see. Discussions were going on there which most of the forum members couldn't see but as soon as I realised this happened, I felt very uneasy and I left them to have their two tiers discussions... I guess you'd have to agree whether a discussion board is for everyone on a par or for "some" people to have an elevated view on what others say/ discuss!

As for the signature situation - I would definitely ask the person to remove it. If they didn't like it, they could maybe go and start their own forum where their views only would decide whether people are allowed in or not!

>This forum used to be great especially the behaviour section but with a lot of the older, experienced members stepping off tbh it's gone down hill in the past few years, I think partly driven by disillusionment.

That made me smile.  I checked your profile and you have been here 2 years but for those who have been here much longer this is something that happens every so often.  2 years ago people were moaning about the decline and how terrible it was that experienced people were leaving, yet you joined and found it to be a great forum.  The same scenario was played out 3, 4, 5, 6 years ago etc and will continue to happen over and over again.

I have been here for 8 years (arrived as I was researching staffy breeders online) and have found it a great resource and most of the time a fantastic community.  My way of dealing with the ebb and flow of the forum is to avoid the drama llamas and pay particular attention to the posters whose views and experience I value (and there are lots of them). 

Regardless of the problem and the membership, there is generally someone who has experience of a situation that will help people out.  It is time to accent the positive and look for what is good in the forum or new experienced dog owners and newbies who want the best for their pets will find the bitching, backbiting and general low morale of the board to be a total turn off.  The bulk of the topics on the first page of active topics are moans just now and I find that really sad.

I don't think free speech is very important in forums at all frankly ( sorry I'm a secret fascist)

That's absolutely fine for you to have your opinion :)

There is, however, legal acts to protect people's right to have this freedom to express themselves (Human Rights Act for one :))

i wonder why you are asking us how we would run this forum? its not our job is it?
perhaps you are thinking of retiring?

Freedom of speech thing: it's ok as long as it's not supporting something that many consider harmful, and are even upset by.
If that is also bolstered by bullying, nastiness etc..... it's not so good.

Real freedom of speech - can you imagine it?! You'd have a lot of very strange people coming out of the woodwork...

>i wonder why you are asking us how we would run this forum? its not our job is it?

I am asking people how they would run a hypothetical forum not this one.

Absolutely Lindsay :)

The act covers this though - something about not encouraging racial hatred or discrimination. So, you can express yourself as long as you are not in breach of other acts which may restrict your right to freedom of expression.

So really, the forum doesn't have the right to restrict a right to express a favour for aversive training techniques.

I wanted to say one more thing. As much as Administrators should take the time to explain some of the decisions made we should all remember that they are providing a service (usually not for profit and usually fitting in volunteering roles around full time jobs and general life).

I always find it sad when, for whatever reason, relationships become tense between the people volunteering their time and the people using the service.

I use forums and I administrate on one so am able to see it from both perspectives. I have been peeved once or twice when a thread has been closed down. I would, for example, like a reason why a debate has been closed and it's not always clear. However, I am also mindful that moderation/administration is often done when you've come in from a full days work, teas in the oven and you still have the dogs to take out! Sometimes I've not found that to always be considered

Ok so you are now running your own forum.

You wake up one morning, lets say for example it is a Saturday morning, the start of the weekend and a time for many to relax. It is an beautiful day outside. You have just fed the dogs and you fancy sitting outside on your newly installed decking and watching the world go by.

Before you take your breakfast outside you drop into your forum and notice that someone has changed their signature to say :

"The Champdogs Enigma. Promoting ethical breeding of puppies and Electrical training of dogs!!!"
If I woke up to the scenario you gave us I would first of all make myself a cup of coffee to take out on the deck with me and give myself some time to think about the wording of the signature. I would then contact them to ask them why they had changed their signature and listen and consider their reasons for doing so.

I think the wording is misguided as I don't believe that CD itself does promote the electrical training of dogs - it's a few posters who are promoting themselves and the methods they use in their business but by allowing that to happen it gives the impression that the forum is not adverse to that method of training which a huge number of members - the vast majority it would seem - are greatly opposed to . It also would appear to break the TOS of the forum and the poster involved appears to be have been accorded a lot of leeway in that area that isn't given to other posters.

I would also consider if any of the changes I had receently made on "my forum" could have given the impression to members that they were made in order to accomodate members whose methods have caused great contention and unease.  If I came to the conclusion that my action of changing previously strictly upheld rules had helped to fuel the disenchantment that I can now see on my forum I think I would start a thread explaining my reasoning and setting out the new rules that members have to abide by.

I think I would also have to take into consideration the direction I was wanting my forum to head in from this point in time and would make my decisions accordingly - but I would also inform  the members by opening a new topic to lay out my views, wishes and rules. Hopefully everybody would then understand how the forum was going to work from now on and also allow current members to decide for themselves whether they wanted to remain members of the new revamped ethos or bow out gracefully to make way for the forum to attract new members with different views to the majority who peopled the forum prior to the changes.

The other major consideration I would have to take into account is had I looked at and understood what had made my forum so successful, and respected,  in the past and would the changes be of benefit to the forum and what it has  stood for over the years or would they in fact be detrimental to the future of the site.

Did I set up my forum initially to promote responsible dog ownership or did I set it up as a business venture to keep the wolf from the door? Once I came to a decision on the reasons for running my  forum I would be able to decide which route I wanted to go down :-) Is it the forum itself which generates it's own success or the calibre of the regular posters?

>I would NOT allow personal attacks, threats, etc to happen on any board.

How would you stop them ?

You do it, youre gone.  Simple as that.  There can be disagreements on ideas etc, but if you attack the person, threaten the person, you are not welcome.  It is different to say "I dont agree with that" than "you are a bloody idiot what are you thinking - add some cuss words - I am gonna report you to the KC because you are breeding Blue Min Pins" (I have never been told that, as I dont breed blue min pins, but using it as an example)

>I would also add a feature that could say "Trigger Warning"

Would you code that feature yourself or would you pay someone to do it ?
I am on another forum, not related to dogs, and it is left to the poster.  The title could go something like this: Different Training Aids (Trigger) as it would show that some of the things discussed not everyone will agree with.  People can add it themselves, it works very well on other forums that I belong to. 

>I would set warnings out, and if you were to get a warning your posting privilages would be suspended for a couple days or whatever.

And what would you do if the poster repeated the offence when they came back ?



The poster would be gone.  If it is bad enough to get a warning, and they continue to repeat the behaviour, then they obviously arent respecting the views and TOS of said forum.  Yeah, it may sound harsh, but to run a successful forum rules need to be in place and followed. 

Hmm..

I do run a forum, on the whole on my own. There is someone 'above me' and they oversee in a mostly silent capacity unless either I have missed something/they have got to it first, or I request their input/action.

There is a clear set of rules/guidelines as to how to use the forum. This evolved over time both to make it policeable (gotta have something you can police!) and to show people how to get the best out of the resource the forum provides.

I looked around at other forums - I have used a lot of them in the past and still do. I looked at what was working for some, not for others, and why.

Some of the forums I use are subscription only - it does keep the loonies on the whole, out.
Some forums have a special 'subscription only members area' - which in my opinion is merely devisive and furthers the natural tendancy towards 'cliqueyness' that all forums have.

All the forums that really truly did not have rules/forum policies, of any kind, are gone and quite rapidly so. The lifespan for a forum like htat is around 18 months in my experience (other peoples experiences may differ).

As someone else said, a forum is not a public place for free speech - it is for what the owners want people to talk about and it can be as generic or specific as they like.

The forum I run is about 'positive' dog training, ie, no pain, fear, positive punishment based methods. Within that, discussion of zappyzappy for example,  is strongly policed and limited to why we advise against its use. Anyone found to be promoting it is first asked to stop and directed to the rules and if they do not, they are banned. Simple as.

In the years I have been running that forum, we have only banned a couple of 'normal' users. The rest have been trolls (Denis! mostly!) who came there specifically and soley to promote punishment based methods, and one who came along specifically to flame and troll and discuss Cesar Milan. I think though its several usernames it actually only equates to about three people banned for this.

I have not found that the rules and the policing of those rules has limited peoples ability to make use  of the resource the forum provides - in fact the forum has gone from strength to strength.

In the case of someone purposely having an argumentative or otherwise 'flaming' signature - I would ask the person what they hoped to achieve, via private message. Some resolution would be aimed for and if none can be achieved taht person would be welcome to leave, or be banned if they persisted in behaving that way.