Revealing your ethnicity on the phone

[winkywanky]

No.
The original post was.....
Revealing your ethnicity on the phone.
You and PP have hijacked this thread and moved into off topic areas.

Rules are to be observed, sure, but not necessarily always slavishly adhered to IMO.

This was a longstanding discussion and in actual fact a Mod became involved too (I don't wish to play the teacher's on my side card).

You're right, it wasn't on-topic but I think a legitimate and important discussion on an important theme which is often raised here.

[Beamer]

What part of it being illegal to coerce a prostitute are you missing or failing to understand. If you tell an SP she's breaking the law by not seeing someone then that is coercion.

This along with some other posts you've made is very much off topic.This is about prostitutes and nothing else, you are wrong on everything you've said on that subject, accept it.

Enough said

[winkywanky]

Actually, it is on-topic.

Revealing your ethnicity on the phone is everything to do with whether a WG intends to see all races.

Our discussion was all about the ethics, morals and laws surrounding that.

So yes, go away if it doesn't interest you! 

[peter purves]

No.
The original post was.....
Revealing your ethnicity on the phone.
You and PP have hijacked this thread and moved into off topic areas.

Sorry Beamer! I can't see how we moved the thread off-topic. We stayed and discussed the topic within its remit of race and then we discussed race as it pertains to the law as it may relate to prostitution. If we had talked about Liverpool's win today and Salah's celebration, a totally different subject matter altogether then I would agree with you. 

Personally, I think your interjection could be considered off-topic utilising how you are defining the term.

[winkywanky]

Quote from: daviemac on Today at 11:03:45 pm

    What part of it being illegal to coerce a prostitute are you missing or failing to understand. If you tell an SP she's breaking the law by not seeing someone then that is coercion.

    This along with some other posts you've made is very much off topic.This is about prostitutes and nothing else, you are wrong on everything you've said on that subject, accept it.

Enough said

Very clever.

I think you'll find that was in reference to selected comments made by Peter Purves which weren't directly to do with prostitution, I may be wrong.

But the overall discussion was pertinent to the OP IMO.

[peter purves]

Very clever.

I think you'll find that was in reference to selected comments made by Peter Purves which weren't directly to do with prostitution, I may be wrong.

But the overall discussion was pertinent to the OP IMO.

Thanks again WW 

Just for WW - My response was specifically to Daviemac suggestion that you cannot use one law against another. So I brought up two Equality cases (still within the remit of the conversation of discrimination but this time by way of religion and sexuality) to argue otherwise.

Personally I did not see it as going off-topic. I said it was a very valuable point also - which it is.

And if we are going to use this yardstick for every thread then you will find most are off-topic by definition IMHO

[daviemac]

Thanks again WW 

Just for WW - My response was specifically to Daviemac suggestion that you cannot use one law against another. So I brought up two Equality cases (still within the remit of the conversation of discrimination but this way by sexuality) to argue otherwise.

Personally I did not see it as going that way. I also said it was a very valuable point also - which it is.

Yet again you are very wrong, I said you can't break one law to enforce another. In the examples you gave the authorities did not have to break the law to enforce discrimination.

This thread is specifically about prostitution, hoteliers who refuse gays or laws in other countries are not relevant. It is illegal to coerce a prostitute and by threatening them with the equality act puts pressure on them to see those they don't want to see, that is coercion and illegal.

You cannot prove any point by referencing other areas of discrimination, there are none like prostitution. The act of making a hotelier accept all comers is not illegal, the act of making a prostitute accept all comers is. That is it, nothing you can argue about that.

[peter purves]

Yet again you are very wrong, I said you can't break one law to enforce another. In the examples you gave the authorities did not have to break the law to enforce discrimination.

This thread is specifically about prostitution, hoteliers who refuse gays or laws in other countries are not relevant. It is illegal to coerce a prostitute and by threatening them with the equality act puts pressure on them to see those they don't want to see, that is coercion and illegal.

You cannot prove any point by referencing other areas of discrimination, there are none like prostitution. The act of making a hotelier accept all comers is not illegal, the act of making a prostitute accept all comers is. That is it, nothing you can argue about that.

.

Cheers for clarifying.

However, I was not entering into a semantic debate. I was explaining to WW how I interpreted what you had to say and how I responded accordingly. So it does not matter, if in your opinion you think I have answered your question incorrectly, which I do not believe I did

If I utilise your yardstick. It is incorrect to suggest this thread is about prostitution - it is obviously much more than that. It is also about race, race is tied to the Equality Act, ie statute. The laws under the Equality Act whether its race, sex or any other personal characteristics can be cross-referenced, because they all fall under the same rubric. So it's not correct to suggest the two hoteliers case are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. From the losers perspective in the hotelier casethey believe they have been 'discriminated' against on the ground of not being able to exercise their right of religion. It is just that you can't see it or disagree with the relevance of the case, this is why you think it is irrelevant.

As for the hotelier case there are no authorities involved to use your own term - still on the semantic debate.

Also you cannot threaten a WG with the Equality Act because it is also unlawful to discriminate in this country based on race. There is no threat it is the law

Finally this is an assumption on your part there is nothing like 'prostitution'. It is a priori I disagree with

 

[daviemac]

.

Cheers for clarifying.

However, I was not entering into a semantic debate. I was explaining to WW how I interpreted what you had to say and how I responded accordingly. So it does not matter, if in your opinion you think I have answered your question incorrectly, which I do not believe I did

If I utilise your yardstick. It is incorrect to suggest this thread is about prostitution - it is obviously much more than that. It is also about race, race is tied to the Equality Act, ie statute. The laws under the Equality Act whether its race, sex or any other personal characteristics can be cross-referenced, because they all fall under the same act So it's not correct to suggest the two hoteliers case are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. From the losers perspective in the hotelier casethey believe they have been 'discriminated' against on the ground of not being able to exercise their right of religion. It is just that you can't see it or disagree with the relevance of the case, this is why you think it is irrelevant.

As for the hotelier case there are no authorities involved to use your own term - still on the semantic debate.

Also you cannot threaten a WG with the Equality Act because it is also unlawful to discriminate in this country based on race. There is no threat it is the law

Finally this is an assumption on your part there is nothing like 'prostitution'. It is a priori I disagree with

 

FFS I'll explain it in the simplest way I can, this thread is about race discrimination within the boundaries of prostitution. Not about anything else, prostitution and those prostitutes who discriminate on race.

There are no other instances within the Equality Act where it would be illegal to enforce it.

To coerce a prostitute is illegal, to tell any other service provider the must provide their service to all is not illegal, is that too difficult to understand.

Edit

Give me one other example where it would take an illegal act to enforce the Equality Act.

[peter purves]

Afternoon mate!

I will try...Here goes

Your question misses the mark because currently prostitution and/or prostitution laws has nothing to do with the Equality Act and the Equality Act has nothing to do with prostitution and/or prostitution laws. So it is impossible to have this conversation and/or for me to answer your question.

The only way we can have this conversation or for me to answer your question is if I hypothetically make prostitution become like any other job in society, or at the very least move it away from the periphery of the informal sector of society to the formal sector where other jobs reside.

This is why I have always stressed the importance and significance of the hypothetical.

Moving on... For prostitution to become like any other job and fall under the Equality Act then your question about coercion could not exist (section 52). In fact, many of the other issues related to prostitution would not exist either like soliciting etc. Why? Because prostitution would now have the same status as 'work' as other jobs do.

So to conclude. Basically your question is a tautology and the only way it can be properly addressed is if you move it to the hypothetical, (otherwise it cannot be answered at all). This is why I made mention of how NZ laws have been written with regard to the matter, just in case it was suggested my reasoning was incorrect whilst discussing matters in the hypotheticals.

Hope this clarifies

[winkywanky]

You're saying you want it brought into line with other 'casual work' so that it can have discrimination laws applied to it.

I feel sure others in positions of power will have thought of this already, and so far it hasn't been. So it seems to me that this is purposely the case, it's not an oversight.

And the reasons for this have all been discussed here.

You won't get the answer you want here, or at least you won't get the definitive answer you want because none of us are in power. All you'll get is opinion and that will never satisfy you, because your opinion differs from that of others.

The ONLY way you will get the answer you want is to contact ECHR yourself, posing all the questions you have to them, and asking them why.

This is NOT an argument any of us here can put to bed such that everyone agrees. It will just rumble on and on, can you not see that? Discussion has in the main been very civilised for such a sensitive subject (and amen to that) but we are all just going round in circles, pointlessly IMO. Everyone here has said what they want to say already.

[peter purves]

You're saying you want it brought into line with other 'casual work' so that it can have discrimination laws applied to it.

I feel sure others in positions of power will have thought of this already, and so far it hasn't been. So it seems to me that this is purposely the case, it's not an oversight.

And the reasons for this have all been discussed here.

You won't get the answer you want here, or at least you won't get the definitive answer you want because none of us are in power. All you'll get is opinion and that will never satisfy you, because your opinion differs from that of others.

The ONLY way you will get the answer you want is to contact ECHR yourself, posing all the questions you have to them, and asking them why.

This is NOT an argument any of us here can put to bed such that everyone agrees. It will just rumble on and on, can you not see that? Discussion has in the main been very civilised for such a sensitive subject (and amen to that) but we are all just going round in circles, pointlessly IMO. Everyone here has said what they want to say already.

No! This not what I am saying, this is your interpretation.

I am saying the only way I can answer Daviemac question is to move prostitution the centre of society where the Equality Act operates. This is completely different to.................... that I want prostitution to be like this in the real world.

I skimmed-read your answer. I will come back and re-read it slowly when I get the chance, just in case I did your response a dis-service.

[daviemac]

Afternoon mate!

I will try...Here goes

Your question misses the mark because currently prostitution and/or prostitution laws has nothing to do with the Equality Act and the Equality Act has nothing to do with prostitution and/or prostitution laws. So it is impossible to have this conversation and/or for me to answer your question.

The only way we can have this conversation or for me to answer your question is if I hypothetically make prostitution become like any other job in society, or at the very least move it away from the periphery of the informal sector of society to the formal sector where other jobs reside.

This is why I have always stressed the importance and significance of the hypothetical.

Moving on... For prostitution to become like any other job and fall under the Equality Act then your question about coercion could not exist (section 52). In fact, many of the other issues related to prostitution would not exist either like soliciting etc. Why? Because prostitution would now have the same status as 'work' as other jobs do.

So to conclude. Basically your question is a tautology and the only way it can be properly addressed is if you move it to the hypothetical, (otherwise it cannot be answered at all). This is why I made mention of how NZ laws have been written with regard to the matter, just in case it was suggested my reasoning was incorrect whilst discussing matters in the hypotheticals.

Hope this clarifies

Listen to this one last time, this thread is about revealing your ethnicity over the phone to escorts, this refers to escorts who state they don't see blacks and as such can be seen as racist, if prostitutes do not come under the Equality Act that act is irrelevant on this thread and therefore off topic.

Any hypothetical scenarios are not relevant. You are just arguing for the sake of it and posting quite a bit of off topic issues that are not relevant either. 

[winkywanky]

In essence what you're arguing over is your basic human right to access the services of a WG who offers her services to everyone but you. You're being discriminated against (and yes, you are).

But then this butts up against a WG's basic human right as a woman, of her choice of who gets to go up her fanny.

It's your human right against hers. Who wins?  Currently the way you see it is that she wins. You want to change that (and I totally understand why you wish it wasn't so).

You can Google all you like (opposite results are available), you can hypothesise all you like, you can compare the UK with other countries all you like (we aren't other countries), you can argue your point on here all you like (and you have, well), this discussion - for the purposes of UKP - has been pretty well exhausted as far as I can make out.

You can write anonymously to EHCR.

You can write anonymously to Trevor Phillips.

You can write anonymously to various other people (I don't have time to look now, I'm about to go out), who would all be interested in this IMO.

And I personally would be interested to hear their responses.

[cotton]

According to the Doc's post the ECHR are saying that WGs are allowed to deny their service based on race because they are individuals, and not an organisation or company.

If that is the case its still puzzling how AW get away with allowing it , altho the internet is (i feel) still to a large degree beyond the control of the authorities.

Anyway personally i have no problem with it and i think everyone should be able to discriminate freely who they do and dont have sex with , and nobody should get too bent out of shape about it.
Interesting topic tho 

[winkywanky]

If that is the case its still puzzling how AW get away with allowing it , altho the internet is (i feel) still to a large degree beyond the control of the authorities.

Anyway personally i have no problem with it and i think everyone should be able to discriminate freely who they do and dont have sex with , and nobody should get too bent out of shape about it.
Interesting topic tho 

AW get away with allowing what, something which is apparently allowed?

And let's not forget, although AW are the portal through which WGs advertise their wares and services, it is the WGs who write their own profiles and advertise themselves as they wish. It is the WGs who are technically discriminating, be it against race, religion, disability or age.

It is an interesting topic though, I agree, and one which in a way goes to the very heart of who we all are. And all this on a punting site, who'd have thunk it? 

[peter purves]

Listen to this one last time, this thread is about revealing your ethnicity over the phone to escorts, this refers to escorts who state they don't see blacks and as such can be seen as racist, if prostitutes do not come under the Equality Act that act is irrelevant on this thread and therefore off topic.

Any hypothetical scenarios are not relevant. You are just arguing for the sake of it and posting quite a bit of off topic issues that are not relevant either.

Sorry, I have to say there is a conflict of interest here you moderating, asking me questions, then when you do not like the answers, then you suggest off-topic etc.

It is not clear if you are abusing your position in this respect as with Beamer last night. It is only because Beamer cried off-topic you decided to use it. Up to that point you had not argued otherwise. So is it coincidence or were you waiting for a disingenuous moment to silence me? Who knows? However, as I said there is a clear conflict of interest and there is a lack of transparency between the motives Daviemac the poster and Daviemac the moderator.

By siding with Beamer it gave him the opportunity to get into an argument with WW and I which would otherwise could not have taken place, if you had not supported him.

Perhaps it is something Admin should look into: Should the mods moderate solely? Or can they be allowed to comment on topics, and if they can how can we ensure impartiality on their part?

I think you have revealed that as a moderator you cannot do both on this very contentious issue of race/racism.

[daviemac]

Sorry, I have to say there is a conflict of interest here you moderating, asking me questions, then when you do not like the answers, then you suggest off-topic etc.

It is not clear if you are abusing your position in this respect as with Beamer last night. It is only because Beamer cried off-topic you decided to use it. Up to that point you had not argued otherwise. So is it coincidence or were you waiting for a disingenuous moment to silence me? Who knows? However, as I said there is a clear conflict of interest and there is a lack of transparency between the motives Daviemac the poster and Daviemac the moderator.

By siding with Beamer it gave him the opportunity to get into an argument with WW and I which would otherwise could not have taken place, if you had not supported him.

Perhaps it is something Admin should look into: Should the mods moderate solely? Or can they be allowed to comment on topics, and if they can how can we ensure impartiality on their part?

I think you have revealed that as a moderator you cannot do both on this very contentious issue of race/racism.

No conflict of interest here, you are raising issues that have no relevance to the topic. The issue in this thread is "Revealing your ethnicity on the phone" laws that do not cover this issue are not relevant. You are arguing about a totally different subject. You have admitted yourself that the Equality Act does not cover prostitution so why keep talking about it.

The issue is whether or not escorts who discriminate are racist and if so what can be done about it under the current legislation, not what might be done in some hypothetical situation.

Remember this is a punting forum where only punting topics are discussed, anything not relevant to punting is off topic.

[peter purves]

No conflict of interest here, you are raising issues that have no relevance to the topic. The issue in this thread is "Revealing your ethnicity on the phone" laws that do not cover this issue are not relevant. You are arguing about a totally different subject. You have admitted yourself that the Equality Act does not cover prostitution so why keep talking about it.

The issue is whether or not escorts who discriminate are racist and if so what can be done about it under the current legislation, not what might be done in some hypothetical situation.

Remember this is a punting forum where only punting topics are discussed, anything not relevant to punting is off topic.

Then why did you have to be prompted by Beamer? - a rhetorical question!.

And again another rhetorical question: Would you be able to see your own unconscious bias and perhaps, more importantly, would you be bold enough to admit so here if this was the case?

For this reason can you kindly put this matter before Admin so they can decide the best way to move forward? Personally, your actions reminded me of Ghenghis one of the moderators on PN 

[daviemac]

Then why did you have to be prompted by Beamer? - a rhetorical question!.

And again another rhetorical question: Would you be able to see your own unconscious bias and perhaps, more importantly, would you be bold enough to admit so here if this was the case?

For this reason can you kindly put this matter before Admin so they can decide the best way to move forward? Personally, your actions reminded of Ghenghis one of the moderators on PN 

If you have an issue with me or any other mod then raise it with Head1 by reporting a post or PMing him. If I am wrong I would be the first to admit it but in this case I am not. Whatever doesn't concern prostitution is not relevant to this thread and that includes hypothetical situations, the Equal Opportunity Act and the legal situation in New Zealand.

[peter purves]

If you have an issue with me or any other mod then raise it with Head1 by reporting a post or PMing him. If I am wrong I would be the first to admit it but in this case I am not. Whatever doesn't concern prostitution is not relevant to this thread and that includes hypothetical situations, the Equal Opportunity Act and the legal situation in New Zealand.

Thanks!

I will do that now then

[Beamer]

Thanks!

I will do that now then

So what happened?

[peter purves]

So what happened?

Cheers

Personally, I did not consider it to be helpful but it was a nice response from Head1, and I was glad that he took the time to respond very quickly.

I raised two points but asked him to look at the latter solely because this was the key issue

1. To what degree was Daviemac influenced by you as opposed to using his own independent moderating judgement?

and

2. For this forum to move forward successfully should moderators only moderate and have no input in the conversations? You already know my view on this.

Nice One 

[daviemac]

Cheers

Personally, I did not consider it to be helpful but it was a nice response from Head1, and I was glad that he took the time to respond very quickly.

I raised two points but asked him to look at the latter solely because this was the key issue

1. To what degree was Daviemac influenced by you as opposed to using his own independent moderating judgement?

and

2. For this forum to move forward successfully should moderators only moderate and have no input in the conversations? You already know my view on this.

Nice One 

If an issue is brought to the attention of a moderator, the moderator looks at it and decides for himself if it needs any action, likewise if a mod sees something for himself he then decides if it needs any action, regardless of who else has mentioned it in the thread. If it is an ambiguous issue then opinions of other mods may be sought. That's the way it works.

By your theory every post report should be ignored because the result would be influenced by the person reporting it.

[peter purves]

If an issue is brought to the attention of a moderator, the moderator looks at it and decides for himself if it needs any action, likewise if a mod sees something for himself he then decides if it needs any action, regardless of who else has mentioned it in the thread. If it is an ambiguous issue then opinions of other mods may be sought. That's the way it works.

By your theory every post report should be ignored because the result would be influenced by the person reporting it.

No! As with this thread, you misrepresent what I have said inadvertently or otherwise.

I am concerned at a moderator who cries off-topic because another poster has said that and initiated the process first

If you look at this thread it has gone way off-topic many pages before you could see it. On page 2, of this thread, and I have quoted in full, just in case you say I edited it with the aim of disingenuousness, the very thing I am accusing you of.

This is just one example of the matter going way off-topic - and there are loads more - but there is no response from you.

Obviously, everyone agrees that it’s totally the SP’s choice and right to see and not see whoever she wants to…her body, her rules and we all respect that.  (as long as it's on her profile and up front..).

But, as a white guy, doesn’t it leave you with a tinge of disgust when you read  “No Blacks” on a profile?   Especially knowing that in 90% of cases it’s just racism as any real non race issues can be sorted with 3 or fewer words on a profile..i.e.  “ No large sizes”  “No rude men”  “ etc..

Would you still see a girl if she had “ No Jews” on her profile?  How about “No Disabled”?  Would you still punt a girl who had EDL posters in her window, or a St Georges flag in her garden?
 
Now, here’s a question, would you fuck an SP would was constantly prattling on about how Hitler was misunderstood?

Question for Admin:  Are you Okaying the leaving of negative reviews  on an SP that operates a race bar?

PS. insightful stuff from WW as always....        WINKYWANKY FOR PM

[cotton]

Peter - maybe the mods are willing to give threads a bit of latitude to stretch the boundaries but when it reaches a certain point , or people start complaining they look again and might judge it best to reign them back in.
Its a good thing that they do allow topics to veer off course occasionally and maybe we shoudnt bite the hand that feeds for fear that in future they may be less incline to be so easy going.
Also Obviously daviemac does a great job and puts in alot of time and effort on the forum , presumably unpaid , is it really worth arguing the toss and questioning his conduct as a moderator over this nonsense topic about hypotheticals.

[daviemac]

No! As with this thread, you misrepresent what I have said inadvertently or otherwise.

I am concerned at a moderator who cries off-topic because another poster has said that and initiated the process first

If you look at this thread it has gone way off-topic many pages before you could see it. On page 2, of this thread, and I have quoted in full, just in case you say I edited it with the aim of disingenuousness, the very thing I am accusing you of.

This is just one example of the matter going way off-topic - and there are loads more - but there is no response from you.

This is my last word on this and I hope your's as well. I, or another mod, can only respond to something we see for ourselves or when it is brought to our attention when we see it or it is brought to our attention, we cannot respond to something we have not seen and we do not have the time, or inclination, to read and follow every single post or thread on here, sometimes we come onto a thread when it's a few pages old and follow it from there, other times we rely on issues being brought to our attention by members.

As an example you might just be able to understand, if a post report comes in from a member accusing another of abuse, we will look at it for the level and type of abuse, also the context within the thread that any abusive terms are used. If it is just a bit of a spat between two members it would normally be ignored, if it is excessive or unjustified we would warn the member concerned, if that is ignored then a ban could follow. In either case another member has instigated the process. Like I said that's how moderation works.

[peter purves]

Peter - maybe the mods are willing to give threads a bit of latitude to stretch the boundaries but when it reaches a certain point , or people start complaining they look again and might judge it best to reign them back in.
Its a good thing that they do allow topics to veer off course occasionally and maybe we shoudnt bite the hand that feeds for fear that in future they may be less incline to be so easy going.
Also Obviously daviemac does a great job and puts in alot of time and effort on the forum , presumably unpaid , is it really worth arguing the toss and questioning his conduct as a moderator over this nonsense topic about hypotheticals.

Yes this is all well and good but not when the moderator is in the middle of the conversation arguing his own position.

The scenario you are describing did not occur this way.

As it stands, it appears as if Daviemac only said it was off-topic because Beamer said so. If Beamer had not intervened then Daviemac would have not objected immediately the next post after. This makes Daviemac look disingenuous.

Even WW who was also part of the conversation did not think the matters were off-topic.

I think you miss the point completely here Cotton. The issue is not whether Daviemac works hard, does a good job, for free (which he so chose to do himself) or even if he issomebody you admire and feel the need to defend. I am not questioning any of that

What I am questioning is the lack of transparency with regard to his own actions. As I said to Head1 the issue has become much larger now than Daviemac. The issue now is whether for the good of this forum, should ALL moderators be allowed to or/notallowed to contribute and get themselves embroiled into the conversations, which is completely different to moderating?

I pointed out to him the moderators were one of the chief downfall of P-U-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, and which caused many to leave and set up this site.

So I think  this is a valid point and question to raise - which I did 

[daviemac]

Yes this is all well and good but not when the moderator is in the middle of the conversation arguing his own position.

The scenario you are describing did not occur this way.

As it stands, it appears as if Daviemac only said it was off-topic because Beamer said so. If Beamer had not intervened then Daviemac would have not objected immediately the next post after. This makes Daviemac look disingenuous.

Even WW who was also part of the conversation did not think the matters were off-topic.

I think you miss the point completely here Cotton. The issue is not whether Daviemac works hard, does a good job, for free (which he so chose to do himself) or even if he issomebody you admire and feel the need to defend. I am not questioning any of that

What I am questioning is the lack of transparency with regard to his own actions. As I said to Head1 the issue has become much larger now than Daviemac. The issue now is whether for the good of this forum, should ALL moderators be allowed to or/notallowed to contribute and get themselves embroiled into the conversations, which is completely different to moderating?

I pointed out to him the moderators were one of the chief downfall of P-U-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, and which caused many to leave and set up this site.

So I think  this is a valid point and question to raise - which I did 

Can I give you a little bit of advice, check your facts again before you continue with these accusations. The sequence of events are as follows. -

End of your argument then, this site is solely concerned with prostitution, anything else is off topic.

FFS this is not on-topic. Give it a rest......OFF TOPIC IS NO LONGER ALLOWED.

Beamer's last post on this thread before this was. - 

Bet he doesn't advertise that fact  !!

It would seem by the timings that it was actually me who first mentioned off topic and Beamer agreed 3 minutes later. Happy for you to correct me on this however.

Like I said I mentioned off topic as soon as I noticed, without any outside influence.

Quite why you are making such a big thing of this on a thread that would've been deleted had Ali Katt taken a bit more notice of it seems a bit odd.

[winkywanky]

My personal views on this:

Strictly speaking, and to the letter of the 'law' this debate (and it was a debate, a real and interesting one) had extended beyond the original topic. But I felt it was still pertinent enough to warrant being allowed to continue. Worth noting too, that the debate was constructive and civilised.

I also feel though, that all existing arguments had been pretty well exhausted, certainly I could see no new points being raised. Although any new ones from existing protagonists would be welcome, or especially new ones from someone who hadn't already contributed. I think most had decided to give it a wide berth though!

As for daviemac, and being a Mod...should they be allowed to take part in threads? Well, I think they should. They all do a brilliant job IMO, and davie is one of the busiest here, because he chooses to. There's no pay, no perks (that I know of) there's often abuse (not on this thread it has to be said) and there's often difficulty. Herding cats, trying to keep the peace, judging when to step in. Who on earth would do all that if they couldn't also join in and have a bit of fun by taking part in the threads? I'll tell you who, NO-ONE. And this place would subsequently die without those Mods.

Now a Mod is human and cannot 'always be in the right', especially from the POV of others, especially if they have a gripe. But by and large the Moderation here, especially bearing in mind the subject matter, and the ability to be able to banter with fruity language, is bloody good. I can see that being a Mod and also being able to take part in discussions is potentially a conflict of interest. However, there is always the ability to escalate any dispute up to senior management level, and of course as we know, HE is ALWAYS right!  . By that I mean he owns the place, what he says goes. But quite rightly he very seldom becomes involved (openly, anyway) and that's great. He's hands-off, but if needed he's there.

Taking all that into account, I think this place is run bloody well. Tinker with that at your peril. And like I say, if there are any volunteers to be a Mod but be purely that and not a normal posting member too, please step forward.

Anyone? No, I thought not.

[millbush]

This is getting worse than my review of Rebecca.

[peter purves]

My personal views on this:

Strictly speaking, and to the letter of the 'law' this debate (and it was a debate, a real and interesting one) had extended beyond the original topic. But I felt it was still pertinent enough to warrant being allowed to continue. Worth noting too, that the debate was constructive and civilised.

I also feel though, that all existing arguments had been pretty well exhausted, certainly I could see no new points being raised. Although any new ones from existing protagonists would be welcome, or especially new ones from someone who hadn't already contributed. I think most had decided to give it a wide berth though!

As for daviemac, and being a Mod...should they be allowed to take part in threads? Well, I think they should. They all do a brilliant job IMO, and davie is one of the busiest here, because he chooses to. There's no pay, no perks (that I know of) there's often abuse (not on this thread it has to be said) and there's often difficulty. Herding cats, trying to keep the peace, judging when to step in. Who on earth would do all that if they couldn't also join in and have a bit of fun by taking part in the threads? I'll tell you who, NO-ONE. And this place would subsequently die without those Mods.

Now a Mod is human and cannot 'always be in the right', especially from the POV of others, especially if they have a gripe. But by and large the Moderation here, especially bearing in mind the subject matter, and the ability to be able to banter with fruity language, is bloody good. I can see that being a Mod and also being able to take part in discussions is potentially a conflict of interest. However, there is always the ability to escalate any dispute up to senior management level, and of course as we know, HE is ALWAYS right!  . By that I mean he owns the place, what he says goes. But quite rightly he very seldom becomes involved (openly, anyway) and that's great. He's hands-off, but if needed he's there.

Taking all that into account, I think this place is run bloody well. Tinker with that at your peril. And like I say, if there are any volunteers to be a Mod but be purely that and not a normal posting member too, please step forward.

Anyone? No, I thought not.

Cheers for your input - and I sincerely hope Daviemac is not going to respond here because this would be the third time following Beamer asking me a question and Cotton intimating one when I am not engaging in a conversation with you currently.

Again, all the above is well and good but it conveniently misses the issue of transparency. No-one is calling into question whether Daviemac has done a good job of moderating. Or whether this aberration has suddenly turned him into a bad moderator, or any other such suggestion you allude to above

The issue is if a mod cannot be seen to be transparent in their decision-making process because he is in the middle of the conversation following the whims of any poster etc. Then it cannot be ruled out that the mod could be bias, has a vested-interest etc.

If say, one of the other moderators who had not been party to the conversation had done exactly what Daviemac did then there would be no need for me to raise the issue of conflict of interest and transparency because that decision would appear to come from a position of unbiasedness ie. not affected by being in the middle of the conversation but not only that it was also to a position which he fundamentally disagreed with.

[daviemac]

Cheers for your input - and I sincerely hope Daviemac is not going to respond here because this would be the third time following Beamer asking me a question and Cotton intimating one when I am not engaging in a conversation with you currently.

Again, all the above is well and good but it conveniently misses the issue of transparency. No-one is calling into question whether Daviemac has done a good job of moderating. Or whether this aberration has suddenly turned him into a bad moderator, or any other such suggestion you allude to above

The issue is if a mod cannot be seen to be transparent in their decision-making process because he is in the middle of the conversation following the whims of any poster etc. Then it cannot be ruled out that the mod could be bias, has a vested-interest etc.

If say, one of the other moderators who had not been party to the conversation had done exactly what Daviemac did then there would be no need for me to raise the issue of conflict of interest and transparency because that decision would appear to come from a position of unbiasedness ie. not affected by being in the middle of the conversation but not only that it was also to a position which he fundamentally disagreed with.

As I am the subject of your post I will respond and put one point to you,  show me where off topic was mentioned by anybody before I mentioned it.

[peter purves]

As I am the subject of your post I will respond and put one point to you,  show me where off topic was mentioned by anybody before I mentioned it.

But by you responding you are the one guilty of prolonging the conversation. I am sure you have noticed I have not responded to you for quite sometime now. In fact I was quiet on the subject until Beamer inquired 'What did happen?'

So I only spoke further on this matter because I was asked to do so directly by Beamer and indirectly by Cotton. WW gave me the opportunity to respond to him by asking 'Anyone else?'

There is a difference - and this last phase of the saga  (anything after you agreed with Beamer that matters were off-topic ie Monday) gives further to support to my contention why mods should just basically stick to moderating

[daviemac]

But by you responding you are the one guilty of prolonging the conversation. I am sure you have noticed I have not responded to you for quite sometime now. In fact I was quiet on the subject until Beamer inquired 'What did happen?'

So I only spoke further on this matter because I was asked to do so directly by Beamer and indirectly by Cotton. WW gave me the opportunity to respond to him by asking 'Anyone else?'

There is a difference - and this last phase of the saga  (anything after you agreed with Beamer that matters were off-topic ie Monday) gives further to support to my contention why mods should just basically stick to moderating

Every one of your posts have mentioned me "following the whims of any poster etc" and such like. Had you taken notice of my first reminder you were heading off topic none of this would be going on now. You chose to continue with off topic posts, other members agreed that it was off topic, I was not influenced by anybody.

"If Beamer had not intervened then Daviemac would have not objected immediately the next post" I told you it was off topic before his post, you ignored it.

You have reported your concerns and Head1 has answered you, now stop making statements about me that are completely untrue. The fact is I told you it was going off topic before anyone else mentioned it, you ignored it. Now you are trying to twist things round to suit your own agenda. Stop accusing me of being influenced by other members.

 Edit

It's quite difficult not to agree with someone if they are right.

[Beamer]

Every one of your posts have mentioned me "following the whims of any poster etc" and such like. Had you taken notice of my first reminder you were heading off topic none of this would be going on now. You chose to continue with off topic posts, other members agreed that it was off topic, I was not influenced by anybody.

"If Beamer had not intervened then Daviemac would have not objected immediately the next post" I told you it was off topic before his post, you ignored it.

You have reported your concerns and Head1 has answered you, now stop making statements about me that are completely untrue. The fact is I told you it was going off topic before anyone else mentioned it, you ignored it. Now you are trying to twist things round to suit your own agenda. Stop accusing me of being influenced by other members.

 Edit

It's quite difficult not to agree with someone if they are right.

The fact is quite clear that I followed you in commenting that this was off topic.

[daviemac]

The fact is quite clear that I followed you in commenting that it was off topic.

Yes I know it is, some people just want to argue for the sake of it and can't accept they are wrong.   

[winkywanky]

Cheers for your input - and I sincerely hope Daviemac is not going to respond here because this would be the third time following Beamer asking me a question and Cotton intimating one when I am not engaging in a conversation with you currently.

Again, all the above is well and good but it conveniently misses the issue of transparency. No-one is calling into question whether Daviemac has done a good job of moderating. Or whether this aberration has suddenly turned him into a bad moderator, or any other such suggestion you allude to above

The issue is if a mod cannot be seen to be transparent in their decision-making process because he is in the middle of the conversation following the whims of any poster etc. Then it cannot be ruled out that the mod could be bias, has a vested-interest etc.

If say, one of the other moderators who had not been party to the conversation had done exactly what Daviemac did then there would be no need for me to raise the issue of conflict of interest and transparency because that decision would appear to come from a position of unbiasedness ie. not affected by being in the middle of the conversation but not only that it was also to a position which he fundamentally disagreed with.

Ultimately in the current scenario, a Mod has a position of authority and a degree of power, while simultaneously having the ability to exercise his own opinion in posting on these boards as a member.

I don't think that's any different from any internet forum I've ever been in. They're not elected officials, this is not a democracy and they're not subject to being voted back in or rejected by the populace of UKP at a future election. It's only a punting forum after all, and they get appointed by the owner. Subsequently there is a degree of well if you don't like it you know what you can do.

However, in amongst all of that is the fact that there is a strong and established peer group which to a strong degree sees fair play by general consensus. In other words if anyone 'in power' (a Mod) is seen to be abusing that power there'll be dissent from the masses. No, there won't be rioting in the streets or a campaign of civil disobedience but nevertheless there will be open complaint.

And ultimately, all the Mods (as well as the membership) are answerable to Head1 who owns the site.

You seem to be conferring some great social responsibility on UKP to be like some Utopian and benign society which will always see fair play openly and demonstrably 'seen to be done'.

But it ain't no such thing, it's a punting forum. A very well run one IMO, and with some very erudite members. And within that framework I can't particularly see any aberration? I know what aberration is, nevertheless the dictionary definition of the word is: "a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically an unwelcome one." I'm not seeing that in this instance.

I don't know what else to say really, the 'transparency' of this site (or otherwise) is pretty well laid out above, take it or leave it. And we're here, still talking about this until the cows come home. The ethics of it, the philosophy of it, the hypotheticals of it.

[winkywanky]

Personally, I did not consider it to be helpful but it was a nice response from Head1, and I was glad that he took the time to respond very quickly.

I raised two points but asked him to look at the latter solely because this was the key issue

1. To what degree was Daviemac influenced by you as opposed to using his own independent moderating judgement?

and

2. For this forum to move forward successfully should moderators only moderate and have no input in the conversations? You already know my view on this.

So, bearing in mind my previous post, are you at liberty to tell us what Head1's response was to your question #2 was?

And just as importantly, do you think enough people would be willing to be Mods and have no other presence or activity on these boards? Also, how would do you think they should be appointed, by Head1 or by vote of the membership?

[cotton]

The scenario you are describing did not occur this way.

As it stands, it appears as if Daviemac only said it was off-topic because Beamer said so. If Beamer had not intervened then Daviemac would have not objected immediately the next post after. This makes Daviemac look disingenuous.

As Daviemac has pointed out your are wrong , he said it was off topic in reply 238 , beamer chipped in complaining it was off topic later on in reply 240.
At this stage your best off just putting your hands up and acknowledging the correction , everyones wrong sometimes (even winky ). 

[winkywanky]

No, of course I am never wrong, being wrong is beneath me, that would suggest some kind of fallibility on my part, which frankly, would be a preposterous assertion  .

Of course I am fucking wrong sometimes, sometimes my getting up out of bed in the morning was the wrong decision!   

There's big being-wrongs and there's small being-wrongs, none of us are very keen to admit the former, but unless we admit the latter it can sometimes damage our credibility with the other.

Also the big 'wrongs' are often not black and white, there are acres of grey (especially when you get to my age).

Those grey areas are like a no-man's land, you fight over them for years, often in a futile gesture (I actually saw the film 1917 yesterday, and I can THOROUGHLY recommend it by the way).

None of the above is necessarily applicable to the thread in question, but in general the bigger the question, the more elusive the 'answer'.

At this juncture I'm reminded of that old gem: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change - courage to change the things I can - and wisdom to know the difference - and when to just go down the fucking pub.

[Beamer]

It seems that we have two posters on here that must have the last word. 

[winkywanky]

Well as things currently stand, you occupy that very position 

[Beamer]

Well as things currently stand, you occupy that very position 

But only for two minutes   

[winkywanky]

 

[millbush]

Anyway personally i have no problem with it and i think everyone should be able to discriminate freely who they do and dont have sex with , and nobody should get too bent out of shape about it.
Interesting topic tho 

Spot on I don't find black (apologies if that's not a PC term I've lost track) or Asian women attractive in any way.
Does not make me racist nor does it for WGs if they take that position.