IanG wrote:The software itself is 4 years out of date
I don't know where this information comes from, but it is incorrect. This forum uses PHPBB, the most commonly used forum software in existence, with about 77% market share. We are using the very latest version, which was released on July 10th 2011. I can't think of a single reason why you might think the forum software was 4 years out of date, unless this is some personal preference of some other forum software which you perceive is "better".
IanG wrote:open discussion of Moderator issues is censored
No, it isn't, and neither have all the personal attacks and digs at Joanna, they're still there for everyone to see, and shall remain so. As Charles has pointed out, "Moderation" has only ever been called for maybe once in the forum's history, until you and Andrew arrived.
IanG wrote:theres no clear delineation between Admin functions and Moderation so some Moderators post with full Admin status giving undue Red high lighting to mundane posts. That is ALL Admin/Moderatotors - DJ, Masch and JC.
"Admin functions", such as enabling new accounts, are not visible to users of the forum, you can't see them, so there's nothing to delineate from in that respect.
There was never any need for delineating moderation posts since there
were no moderation type events to delineate from, until you and Andrew started complaining about them. All the posts by Admins were just posts like any other in the forum, part of a normal discussion, the name in Red just marked out the poster as someone who had responsibility of running the board in the background. In effect, you are responsible for creating the problem that gives you so much apparent grief.
IanG wrote:If people post images they get told they are causing bandwidth problems
The webspace upon which the board is run has limited disc space allowance, it's that simple. If admins have requested that larger images are made smaller etc, it is to ensure the board remains available for everyone. Also, some people have slower internet connections and downloading large images can be an issue.
IanG wrote:Avatars have to be so small they are almost impossible this is quite absurd.
I don't really know what to say to this. If you are genuinely so aggrieved that you can't have a bigger avatar, I think you're taking this
WAY too seriously.
IanG wrote:My last post on this was very moderate and considered carefully before posting in a response to a comment by Andrew Plume which had resulted in a very personal attack from one of the Norther Clique, the whole thread was deleted bar the initial post.
Your post may well have been moderate and considered, I didn't see it so I couldn't say. It was culled along with the rest of a thread which was
not moderate and carefully considered, and because the thread was only ever intended to
be the initial post, it was an informational announcement about the move of the board to a new server, and to let users know that any instability at that time may be related to that move. It was
not as some appeared to believe, an opportunity to launch another personal attack on Joanna.
As for the
Norther Clique, in all the years I've been a part of this forum (and I am from Norfolk, which I don't consider to be "up North"), I have never perceived there to be a Norther Clique, if there is a geographical division here, you are fostering if not creating it.
I have only had the chance to attend one UKLFPG get-together, and I had to drive south for nearly 2 hours to get to it. There is nothing to stop
anyone on this forum organising a get-together anywhere they wish, that is, as far as I'm aware, one of the things this forum is intended for.
IanG wrote:All we want is a more open discussion forum. It would be great if we could have a say in who is or isn't a moderator.
I disagree, that does not appear to be all that you want. You appear to want the forum to be run entirely to your specification, from which software it runs on, which forums are defined or removed, to who the moderators are and where they live.
Since I've heard no complaints from you about any other mods, your request to have a say in who is or (more tellingly) is not a moderator appears to be motivated by a personal grudge against Joanna, the one person who does more than any other to maintain the day-to-day running of this board, so don't be surprised if your request is rejected.
IanG wrote:There's too many things holding this board back, and if they aren't resolved than there's a serious risk of an alternative board being launched.
Those that run this board need to listen a little harder to the comments some of us make, we want the board to work and grow but you are holding it back.
I hardly perceive it as a
risk, since we are not competing with anybody.
This forum was set up as a place where like minded people with similar interests could collaborate, converse, ask questions, find help, organise get-togethers and meet-ups, and generally help and inspire each other.
This forum was set up by volunteers who have donated their own (considerable) time and money to provide this facility for
you all to use. Nobody is forcing anybody to use this forum, neither is it funded by your taxes or under any obligation to provide you with facilities to your specification. The organisers of this forum have always been, and remain, open to suggestions which will make this forum
better, and more useful to those that would use it, but unlike Charles, I do not consider those people to be your servants, or that they should jump to your every whim. The mandate of the admins and moderators of this forum is to uphold what is
best for the forum and the community within it. This includes dealing with what is
bad for the forum too, not something we've had to do until recently.
Contributions take many forms; expertise and knowledge, humour, friendship, encouragement, but also dissent, criticism and bad feeling. When posting, it's important we ask ourselves,
"What am I contributing?"