Proposed new SE26.life forum

[Robin Orton]

It would be interesting to have a comment from those who run this site on Chris Beach (of SE23.life)'s proposals .

[stuart]

For those that have not already guessed - I was the founder of STF. I no longer have any connection with STF apart from providing occasional technical assistance - and, of course, being an occasional poster.

I wish to make it clear that I am not implicated in the establishment of any other local forum in Sydenham or Forest Hill - nor would I ever be involved in one. My views (as the previous admin) on this has been made clear on many occasions both in public and in private.

I had intended to bring the founder of SE23.life up to speed on this and why I wouldn't be taking part and why I believe it would weaken decent discussion in SE26 by fragmenting the audience. The situation was and is very different in Forest Hill where a significant section of the community had issues with the moderation of SE23.COM. I don't believe that exists here as the current admin has continued the tradition of having open discussion on how this site is run and what software we should use.

I was somewhat shocked to read (above) that this private meeting was made public without the courtesy of letting me know and being mis-used IMHO to suggest something which must, at the very least, be very embarrassing to the current admin. And hence why I have had to make this regrettable post.

Running a local forum should, I feel, be based on trust between posters and those that run it. I'm afraid by posting the above the founder of SE23.life has lost my trust. I leave you to make up your own minds.

Stuart

[stuart]

No - keep it Chris. It has been a tenet based partly on the SE23.COM experience that the posters should be able to discuss moderation and any other stuff about the Forum. So it could be responsive and try and deliver the best experience at no cost and hence obligation to anybody.

That's maybe why SE26 has one forum and SE23 two - both of which don't discuss each other! But I could be wrong. STF is a discussion forum and your proposal an interesting and possibly passionate discussion should make. That's what its all about.

Over to everybody else ...

Stuart

[Robin Orton]

I'm sorry that my intervention appears to have been unhelpful, and apologise if it was misjudged. I assumed that when Chris said publicly that he was going to meet people from this forum, everyone concerned would be happy for the fact that the meeting was to take place to be made known more widely. So far as scaring/confusing people on this forum is concerned, I felt, as a member of both forums, that if nobody from this one seemed to be telling members what was (or might be) going on, it would be a public-spirited thing to do so myself, in the interests of transparency. We are all after all grown ups (I assume) and I thought we ought to be able to handle a little uncertainty and provisionality.

Both SE23.life and STF are well-run forums which I am glad to participate in. I feel that they each have their particular strengths, and that it would be good if Stuart and Chris were able to find a way of working together. But I appreciate that may not be possible.

[Rachael]

As a long time member here and a mod over on SE23.life I have a foot in both camps on this thread.

I don't think your intervention was at all unhelpful, Robin. I'm sure Chris intended to open up the discussion to this forum at some point anyway, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be now. However, it's all very tentative at this stage, and there are no plans, or desires, to do anything that would adversely affect the forum community that already exists here.

The case for a new forum for SE23 was pretty clear cut. There were two issues with the SE23.com forum: the outdated forum software and the draconian moderation. Neither of those are issues here. Indeed, when I first got involved with SE23.life, I pointed to this forum as a model of fair, even-handed and transparent moderation.

SE23.life has taken off for a number of reasons. The transparent moderation is done by a team who are all easily identifiable and have diverse outlooks. That helps. Local traders and organisations are also a core part of the forum, but FH has the advantage there of many of the traders being local. SE23.life also have a very active Facebook page and Twitter account. We recently had feedback from someone looking to set up a business in SE23 that they were impressed at how 'digitally joined up' SE23 is. That all comes from the SE23.life model.

I think SE23.life was successful in the first instance simple by not being SE23.com. But it is building into a strong community forum under its own merits now. Whether that continues or it is just the last hurrah of a dying format, only time will tell. Meanwhile, despite all its many strengths, activity on this forum has certainly decreased since I first joined, many moons ago. Is there a body of silent, lurking members that would like something different? Or is everyone happy with things as they are?

That's entirely for members here to decide and I for one wouldn't be party to any scheme that threatened the legacy of this forum.

[P1971]

I'd just like to add that Rachael brings a lot to SE23..life as a moderator & I for one appreciate her contribution as a local & person of knowledge for our local community.. I have no doubt if she takes part in anything within SE26 it will be for the right & appropriate reasons.

[BookShelf]

Interesting opinions:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum ... sg-1681457

https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.p ... 8#pid74278

https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.p ... 6#pid73046

[Rachael]

Interesting opinions:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum ... sg-1681457

https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.p ... 8#pid74278

https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.p ... 6#pid73046

All of which would be relevant if Chris Beach had used the new SE23 forum to further his political views. He has not - you can see that if you look at the forum. There is an opt-in political section where such things are robustly debated that is held in strict segregation from the rest of the forum.

If he had used the forum to promote his own politics, there is absolutely no way I would be involved, and he knows that. It is possible to work with someone whose views you fundamentally disagree with. Indeed, I imagine most of us do, every day.

[appletree]

I agree with Rachael. I don't agree with Chris' politics but he does not force this on members. I simply have not opted in to the Politicos section.

I am a member of all the forums concerned (SE23.com, SE23.life, and this forum). SE23.life has done a lot of good so far in getting people together, promoting good causes, and providing moderation that listens to users. I like it because more is posted there than on the other two forums. What I'd really like is a site as lively as the Dulwich one.

As for verification, I am not that keen (and have not got myself verified on SE23.life) but I can see why it might be thought a good idea. The point to take away, though, is that it is not a requirement for participation.

I have wondered whether, rather than developing a new site, joining forces might not be a good idea, either between Chris' platform and this one, or merging SE23.Life itself and this forum to cover a wider area. I note the Dulwich Town Forum seems to cover Peckham too. Maybe I feel this because I live only a minute's walk from SE23's border, though.

[BookShelf]

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my moderators to be less full of hate.

[Rachael]

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my moderators to be less full of hate.

Which is entirely your prerogative. Of course, this is one of the rare case when you actually know. Most admins remain anonymous and give no clues as to their personal politics.

[P1971]

Re: Proposed new SE26.life forum
Unread postby BookShelf » 11 Apr 2017 14:57
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer my moderators to be less full of hate.

Bookshelf, I am wondering if your posts are sincere, given that your only 2 posts on this forum are the two on this thread, how did you come to this conclusion?

With many sock puppets on se23.com (maybe an extension of that?) my thinking is to ignore your posts.

Though I will more than happily listen to all others.

I will also say here I am not sure about an SE26.life forum but if others are interested & there is good feedback I'm sure it could work, but if the feeling here is to stick with what is known I back it all the way too.

[stuart]

With many sock puppets on se23.com (maybe an extension of that?) my thinking is to ignore your posts.

The common understanding of sockpuppet and the definition used here when I was an admin on this forum was a person supporting themselves whilst pretending to be somebody else. The most obvious target, and here I am assuming you have experience as a moderator, was myself as the one person who had questioned the ethicacy of Chris's actions. Otherwise you should have worded your concern otherwise.

Such an accusation is untrue. At the time of posting (10:42) I was helping leading a ride. There a lot of people who can testify I couldn't and didn't. Do I also have to deny using a surrogate too? Here's my report on the ride just in case you might think I'm making it up: https://anerleybc.org/tuesday-ride-11th-april-2017/

(Note the start time - top left - and if you check my GPX track you will see me moving through countryside at the time).

I have tried for so many years to do the best I could for Sydenham and provide an open discussion on all things SE26 and had to resist a fair share of pressure and worse to censor stuff. Moderation is actually not doing any unless absolutely necessary. And now we come to this?

What we have on offer is some pretty heavy handed stuff from two in this thread who would, it appears, replace this with a much more aggressive and complicated moderation. Will you also, as you do now, forbid discussion of competitive forums too? The fact that both this thread is here and the SE23.COM thread is here is proof of why we have done things differently and more openly down here.

People are, of course, free to vote with their feet as to which they might prefer. But as someone who has spent years weeding out sockpuppets and, I hope, trusted to try and act fairly and impartially to be impugned in this way I find immensely saddening. And while I admired the work Chris & yourself did in SE23 I think you still have some way to go in sorting your own ethics before undermining others and trying to cause division in SE26.

Stuart

[appletree]

As I understand it, the owner of SE23.com does not permit mention of SE23.life on his forum and has requested that people on SE23.life not mention his forum. So if there is such a rule on SE23.life, it is in an attempt to be obliging to the owner of the other forum.

I think you are over-interpreting Pauline's message, Stuart; to me it sounded like she wondered who was posting under an unfamiliar name, but was not implying it was you pretending to be someone else.

[stuart]

As I understand it, the owner of SE23.com does not permit mention of SE23.life on his forum and has requested that people on SE23.life not mention his forum. So if there is such a rule on SE23.life, it is in an attempt to be obliging to the owner of the other forum.

I'll accept your word on that - it just didn't appear that way to me. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

However if the admin of SE23.COM had attempted to stifle debate here in any way - the 'Streisand effect' would have kicked in. The point was STF wasn't - and I believe - still isn't 'obliging' anyone. That's the whole point of a free community forum and the difference between STF & SE23.life and why some rude stuff about both has been posted.

Do we really want to bring Forum Wars to Sydenham? Here we can praise and criticise both the SE23 forums and they can say what they want here - even if it is unwelcome. That's the difference.

I hope you can see that. I hope you can value that.

Stuart

[appletree]

I am very peripheral to SE23.life so really can't speak for the forum, but I don't think the people there want to nit mention other forums -- they just feel the need to be polite if this was the request.

But I don't think bringing "forum wars" to Sydenham is what Chris had in mind. He is a web designer and has created this software. It's been a success in Forest Hill so he is interested in what he can do elsewhere. Since no one is stepping up to manage this site, might it not be a good idea to be open-minded about it?

I'm not sure why I am posting on this since I have never met any of the people concerned, but as I belong to the SE23.life forum and have seen it succeed, the hostility here to a mild suggestion from Chris seems a bit unfair.

[Rachael]

Apple tree is correct. Mention of the SE23.com forum is not forbidden by the team at SE23.life. It comes at the request of the SE23.com admin when the forum was first set up. While we are under no obligation to comply with that, and our general approach is to keep everything as open, transparent and free as possible, it became clear in the early days of establishing the new forum that extending that courtesy would make life easier all round.

[BookShelf]

Sydenham foxes vote NO. As do those against stalking.
https://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=11976

[P1971]

Hi Stuart

Just to be completely clear, I wasn't for one second thinking you were "Bookshelf" I think "Bookshelf" could well be the same person who I think has also set up a few sock puppet accounts elsewhere!

And as Appletree & Rachael have said, at the admin of SE23.com's request this is the only reason why his forum is not mentioned on SE23.life.

Pauline

[stuart]

My dear Pauline. If it wasn't me then you are implying the sockpuppet Robin or Chris, or Rachael or yourself. All of which I would have thought even more unlikely.

Sockpuppetry is an evil that was, in my day, the speediest way to get banned especially if one wants people to post anonymously - which is pretty essential if you want whistle blowers. In this case a loud whistle does appear to have been blown to which, for one, I am grateful. (being born in Smethwick and having Enoch as the neighbouring MP). You can guess my surprise and horrified reaction.

Why not deal with that rather than try and confuse the question by casting vague ad-hominen innuendos which compromises the trust on which this forum has and, I hope, still run? As for sockpuppetry allegations - as an experienced moderator would that have been best dealt with by the Admin?

Can I ask the three of you to take a deep long breath, review the situation, and decide whether you wish to proceed when you are bound to come against fierce resistance even from those, like me, who would have been open to constructive improvements in how we speak and share in Sydenham.

Stuart