Off Topic was bought back because of lack of punting. Whats your views

[NIK]

What really concerns me about it being unrestricted is, having seen what some of those who whinge about free speech want to post, what long term effect will it have on the site.

There's a bloke here that got 4 years for 'inciting racial hatred' online. External Link/Members Only

In my opinion the site has enough haters without allowing illegal posts to appear. As per the normal it is the minority that spoil it for the majority, the odd few with the extreme views who just can't help themselves and think they should be allowed to post whatever they like, or their rights to 'free speech' are being eroded.

However the decision is not mine, I've supported off topic all along, but without the three controversial topics. Whatever the final decision is we will all have to accept it and deal with it.

I assume you are referring to me here.
I have never done what he has done.
Unfortunately, the truth hurts, and people prefer to bury their heads in the sand. And all the time the horror continues.
Nevertheless, this is a punting site and I accept politics and associated issues have no place here.
Hopefully that will make you all happy.

[winkywanky]

As someone who likes totally free debate (and likes to think he doesn't overstep the mark) I'd like Off-Topic to remain, and to be unrestricted.

But certainly it gets out of hand sometimes, and it will need moderating, and perhaps bannings  .

Ultimately up to Head1 of course, its his site. But he must also consider the poor Mods who have to keep order.

[AnthG]

But certainly it gets out of hand sometimes, and it will need moderating, and perhaps bannings  .

That disturbs me that you would suggest people/anyone gets banned for thinking the wrong thing? This is a punting forum at the end of the day. A comment on offtopic that someone disagrees with does not change that fact.

[scutty brown]

That disturbs me that you would suggest people/anyone gets banned for thinking the wrong thing? This is a punting forum at the end of the day. A comment on offtopic that someone disagrees with does not change that fact.

Not for thinking the wrong thing
For SAYING the wrong thing, for saying something offensive. Big difference

[Doc Holliday]

That disturbs me that you would suggest people/anyone gets banned for thinking the wrong thing? This is a punting forum at the end of the day. A comment on offtopic that someone disagrees with does not change that fact.

That wasn't what he meant. People can think whatever they think. They are free to express that view. The problem is that some people think they can can change how other people think and that rarely happens. Banging on about it all day in an attempt to do so will not change that.

[Daffodil]

Not for thinking the wrong thing
For SAYING the wrong thing, for saying something offensive. Big difference

Offence is subjective. How about we’re all adults, this is a very small corner of the internet where men pay women for sex, where what we say isn’t influencing anybody else, and if YOU get offended by something you should just go to your “tree of trust” and tell them about it.

[Daffodil]

That wasn't what he meant. People can think whatever they think. They are free to express that view. The problem is that some people think they can can change how other people think and that rarely happens. Banging on about it all day in an attempt to do so will not change that.

So just don’t read/engage with the thread where people are “banging on”. If you’ve already made your mind up on a thread, why are you there, reading it, and worrying about somebody “banging on”?

[Blackpool Rock]

Of course it is. The people have voted for what they want so far  but I must admit that 112votes out of 19000? is an abysmal turnout

Maybe Head1 should make voting compulsory 

Perhaps only those who bothered to vote get access 

[Davey Dykes]

Perhaps only those who bothered to vote get access 

Seems a fair point to me. If you can't be arsed............

[Blackpool Rock]

But hopefully the data will provide Head1 with some decision making support.

Pretty sure Head1 previously indicated his preference was to remain with no restrictions however pointed out that it's the Mods who then have to do most of the shit associated with it.

I can see unrestricted resulting in so much agro and post reports that it then ends up getting binned in a few months time anyway 

[Daffodil]

If there’s “no restrictions” what is there to moderate?

[scutty brown]

If there’s “no restrictions” what is there to moderate?

If you had been posting in off-topic recently you would know

[AnthG]

If you had been posting in off-topic recently you would know

If unrestricted wins, all of those topics would be ok? Or would they not?

[Head1]

I am reading all of the replies here and will make the final decision based upon these and the final poll result

[cotton]

If you had been posting in off-topic recently you would know

So how many instances have you seen where moderators have had to step in due to posting of an offensive nature ?
I dont monitor the forum that closely but ive only seen 1 instance of posting of an offensive nature and it got deleted asap by admin. There was also Peter Purves and Global Punter (temp ban) but they were just being arguementative rather than offensive.
I think Davies presence on the forum is a very good influence and helps keep everyone in check but also i dont think theres a large amount of objectionable posting as you seem to suggest 

[Doc Holliday]

So just don’t read/engage with the thread where people are “banging on”. If you’ve already made your mind up on a thread, why are you there, reading it, and worrying about somebody “banging on”?

The 'don’t read it then' cliché.  People banging on doesn’t personally bother me in the slightest, god knows I've done enough of it myself in the past. I was pointing out to Anth that no matter how much you do 'bang on' it won’t change your adversaries view on a forum. It just gets more and more ad hominem.  Something he himself said in this thread after a whole day of banging on.

I will just admit. It is a bit depressing after doing it most of today arguing lefty/righty stuff.

Nobody agrees, nobody ever will agree, and the other side literally thinks you are Mork from Ork for even holding the position you do.

I think the best topics in off-topic are the positive stuff. e.g describe your best tipple that has seen you over the lockdown. And getting people to name their best whisky, or vodka they've been drinking and things like this.

Then he went back and banged on again and at some point the thread was deleted but by then I wasn’t reading it so don’t know why?

A thread about Katie Hopkins is never going to end well. 

[scutty brown]

So how many instances have you seen where moderators have had to step in due to posting of an offensive nature ?
I dont monitor the forum that closely but ive only seen 1 instance of posting of an offensive nature and it got deleted asap by admin. There was also Peter Purves and Global Punter (temp ban) but they were just being arguementative rather than offensive.
I think Davies presence on the forum is a very good influence and helps keep everyone in check but also i dont think theres a large amount of objectionable posting as you seem to suggest 

In the last week or so since rage & religion were banned there hasn't been much fraction. Prior to that a small handful of members created havoc trying to promote an extreme world view with numerous repetitive threads, most of which have been deleted. Since  the topic ban OT has worked much more harmoniously

[scutty brown]

A thread about Katie Hopkins is never going to end well. 

Lets ban her!

[AnthG]

Then he went back and banged on again and at some point the thread was deleted but by then I wasn’t reading it so don’t know why?

A thread about Katie Hopkins is never going to end well. 

The topic was posted by a member in support of Katie Hopkins, and to discuss (what they thought may be) an unjust ban from Twitter for her. That was the intentions of the topic. Some people then relentlessly called her everything under the sun. And wanted everyone else to agree she was the devil incarnate. And would not have it any other way but that way.

So if you do not toe the line with that opinion of her. You are the one who's at fault and even should be banned for holding that view?

It takes (at least) two to argue. It takes two to try and convince the other sides opinion is wrong. But you only single out me?

So what happens if tomorrow someone starts a topic saying that Kier Starmer is the best thing possible for the Labour party? Should they be banned for holding that wrong opinion? Should people challenge that opinion? If they do which one is in the wrong in your eyes?

[AnthG]

In the last week or so since rage & religion were banned there hasn't been much fraction.

It's probably a typo. But its actually the best Freudian slip typo in history. Let's ban all rage from off-topic. We can do without it. That is what causes all the problems. Not someone saying something they disagree with its reacting to it with rage.

[cotton]

In the last week or so since rage & religion were banned there hasn't been much fraction. Prior to that a small handful of members created havoc trying to promote an extreme world view with numerous repetitive threads, most of which have been deleted. Since  the topic ban OT has worked much more harmoniously

Ok so i take it you havnt seen any instances where a specific post has been deleted due to it being highly offensive or anyone banned for being ott offensive.  For sure a few " isnt the bbc shit" topics may have been banned for repetitive tediousness but i personally havnt seen any evidence that the board is overwhelmed with offensive postings, ive only seen 1 instance.

[scutty brown]

Ok so i take it you havnt seen any instances where a specific post has been deleted due to it being highly offensive or anyone banned for being ott offensive.  For sure a few " isnt the bbc shit" topics may have been banned for repetitive tediousness but i personally havnt seen any evidence that the board is overwhelmed with offensive postings, ive only seen 1 instance.

There were enough to cause concern, and where they did the  thread was deleted

[sparkus]

That disturbs me that you would suggest people/anyone gets banned for thinking the wrong thing? This is a punting forum at the end of the day. A comment on offtopic that someone disagrees with does not change that fact.

'Thought police' klaxon

[King Nuts]

I've kept out of this thread so far, as it's ultimately down to the website's owner(s) to determine what goes on. I cast a vote in favour of 'no restrictions' as I think self-policing is the best solution, given the following:

1. there are laws in existence about incitement to commit terrorism, racial hatred and all manner of other crimes. I think we all know, or at least sense, where the limits are

2. we are all grown-ups and am assuming most are male and well into middle age and beyond, so we're generally going to have a more measured attitude to things than a bunch of younger hotheads

3. I don't believe any of us here to convert others to a particular viewpoint, but that's not the point of it. Sometimes, we just want an outlet

4. we are living in a very censorious world, and this place has been somewhere we can all come to anonymously and share commonly held thoughts on various issues without fear of retribution

5. alongside the argy-bargy, there's a lot of common ground and humour about everything from cars to women we fancy, and from having affairs to farting

6. the news these days is dominated by issues arising from and promoted by things like Brexit, BLM, and historical revisionism, so it's only natural that conversations are going to cover these subjects

7. we were all brought here by a common interest

[winkywanky]

That disturbs me that you would suggest people/anyone gets banned for thinking the wrong thing? This is a punting forum at the end of the day. A comment on offtopic that someone disagrees with does not change that fact.

I didn't suggest any such thing, did I?

[AnthG]

I didn't suggest any such thing, did I?

It read to me like you were

[winkywanky]

It read to me like you were

The fact that you thought that, plus you felt the need to reply to what was a general comment not directed at anyone in particular, might be read in a certain way. But then I wouldn't comment on that  .

All I was highlighting was the fact that there have been very heated debates on here, particularly in the light of recent events. The very fact that a poll is now being held, plus recent comments from Mods warning of possible bannings, tells you all you need to know. Or it should.

[Liverpool]

I've kept out of this thread so far, as it's ultimately down to the website's owner(s) to determine what goes on. I cast a vote in favour of 'no restrictions' as I think self-policing is the best solution, given the following:

1. there are laws in existence about incitement to commit terrorism, racial hatred and all manner of other crimes. I think we all know, or at least sense, where the limits are

I agree with you post. It doesn't reflect how I voted but makes sense. However your first point, if these are things to consider on a punting forum then perhaps as Off Topic looks set to stay, then restrictions would need to be in place so that the forum doesn't come under scrutiny of law enforcement?

[yandex]

So just don’t read/engage with the thread where people are “banging on”. If you’ve already made your mind up on a thread, why are you there, reading it, and worrying about somebody “banging on”?

It's a well worn argument but unfortunately it ends up with a lopsided, misrepresented view of the membership. If you can simply wear down the 'opposition' by drowning them in negative responses to the point where they give up, then you dominate to the point of pointlessness.

The way out of that is no contentious issues - not possible in my opinion as a large number of debates ultimately end up with politics/religion.

Perhaps if OT is to remain then instead of a negative restriction - no x,y,z - it should be a positive restriction - only a,b,c topics allowed.

[ManOFSteel]

Other than incitement to violence or racial epithets I want there to be zero restrictions. The argy barges back in the day were fun overall.

[King Nuts]

I agree with you post. It doesn't reflect how I voted but makes sense. However your first point, if these are things to consider on a punting forum then perhaps as Off Topic looks set to stay, then restrictions would need to be in place so that the forum doesn't come under scrutiny of law enforcement?

My entire point is that we're all grown ups and we know - or at least have a good feel - for where the edge of the law is. I don't see it getting broken and thus I don't think law enforcement comes into it. I think they've got better things to do than monitor a site like this.

[Blackpool Rock]

It's a well worn argument but unfortunately it ends up with a lopsided, misrepresented view of the membership. If you can simply wear down the 'opposition' by drowning them in negative responses to the point where they give up, then you dominate to the point of pointlessness.

The way out of that is no contentious issues - not possible in my opinion as a large number of debates ultimately end up with politics/religion.

Perhaps if OT is to remain then instead of a negative restriction - no x,y,z - it should be a positive restriction - only a,b,c topics allowed.

Yes when a load of topics got deleted a week or so back just look at how many posters then came on to say they either hadn't bothered posting or gave up reading the replies.
I'm pretty sure all bar 1 or 2 of those threads were started by the same handful of members who also manage to derail "Normal" threads onto issues involving race; religion and politics, rust never sleeps.

As for no contentious issues while i'd say it isn't possible actually it should logically be possible but would need posters to think before posting a knee jerk reply.
My reasoning is on the basis that nobody on here seems to fall foul of Godwin's Law, presumably anyone who thinks of a reply comparing to Hitler / Nazi's then doesn't post it due to knowing about the law. 

Perhaps we need our own site law "UKP" or "Head1" law where reference to lefties or libtards etc deems you lose the discussion 
 

[AnthG]

Perhaps we need our own site law "UKP" or "Head1" law where reference to lefties or libtards etc deems you lose the discussion 

Equally the words extremist, and far-right are posted an incredible amount of time. And they are more distressing to see posted.

For me personally, I dislike one world-wide religion. In fact dislike is probably not the right word for it, bloody terrified of one world-wide religion would be a better description. And with good reason why given not even a week goes by there isn't an abhorrent story in the news about them pleasing their god. Just look at yesterday in Reading for example.

I love everything and everyone else the world over but that one thing (except Owen Jones ). And yet people seem to think you've literally just gone and kicked a cat if say it.

You will notice however, I haven't mentioned that one worldwide religion once in the whole two weeks the new rules were out. But the term far-right and extremist is still being bandied about all because people say they like the President of the USA. Or watch Anne Marie Waters weekly election podcasts.

[lostandfound]

Some stuff about religion.

Well for me you've highlighted the problem with off topic. You just cannot help yourself.

[Beamer]

Yes when a load of topics got deleted a week or so back just look at how many posters then came on to say they either hadn't bothered posting or gave up reading the replies.
I'm pretty sure all bar 1 or 2 of those threads were started by the same handful of members who also manage to derail "Normal" threads onto issues involving race; religion and politics, rust never sleeps.

As for no contentious issues while i'd say it isn't possible actually it should logically be possible but would need posters to think before posting a knee jerk reply.
My reasoning is on the basis that nobody on here seems to fall foul of Godwin's Law, presumably anyone who thinks of a reply comparing to Hitler / Nazi's then doesn't post it due to knowing about the law. 

Perhaps we need our own site law "UKP" or "Head1" law where reference to lefties or libtards etc deems you lose the discussion 
 

Totally wrong IMO to put the owner in the position of decision maker regarding the law.
This is primarily a punting site for punters not political parties. As has been said many times before Off-Topic threads are not the mouthpiece for the minority with extreme views. 
FIRST AND FOREMOST THIS IS A PUNTING SITE. THERE ARE LOADS OF OTHER SITES FOR MINORITY GROUPS TO VISIT AND PROMOTE THEIR OWN VIEWS. 

[Blackpool Rock]

Totally wrong IMO to put the owner in the position of decision maker regarding the law.
This is primarily a punting site for punters not political parties. As has been said many times before Off-Topic threads are not the mouthpiece for the minority with extreme views. 
FIRST AND FOREMOST THIS IS A PUNTING SITE. THERE ARE LOADS OF OTHER SITES FOR MINORITY GROUPS TO VISIT AND PROMOTE THEIR OWN VIEWS.

I'm not talking about an actual law though any more than Godwin's law isn't an actual law but a known and respected rule which stops threads constantly descending to the level where people draw comparison to Hitler / Nazis

[Blackpool Rock]

Equally the words extremist, and far-right are posted an incredible amount of time. And they are more distressing to see posted.

For me personally, I dislike one world-wide religion. In fact dislike is probably not the right word for it, bloody terrified of one world-wide religion would be a better description. And with good reason why given not even a week goes by there isn't an abhorrent story in the news about them pleasing their god. Just look at yesterday in Reading for example.

I love everything and everyone else the world over but that one thing (except Owen Jones ). And yet people seem to think you've literally just gone and kicked a cat if say it.

You will notice however, I haven't mentioned that one worldwide religion once in the whole two weeks the new rules were out. But the term far-right and extremist is still being bandied about all because people say they like the President of the USA. Or watch Anne Marie Waters weekly election podcasts.

But again that's just down to perspective.

[cotton]

Totally wrong IMO to put the owner in the position of decision maker regarding the law.
This is primarily a punting site for punters not political parties. As has been said many times before Off-Topic threads are not the mouthpiece for the minority with extreme views. 
FIRST AND FOREMOST THIS IS A PUNTING SITE. THERE ARE LOADS OF OTHER SITES FOR MINORITY GROUPS TO VISIT AND PROMOTE THEIR OWN VIEWS.

As i understand it Off Topic was re-opened temporarily for the duration of lockdown. Id agree with shutting it down when punting resumes because it does distract and shift focus away from the rest of the forum and the punting side should be the focus..
But for the duration of lockdown i think its ok , i dont see much of any extreme views and i think the fact that the forum membership as a group are able to discuss potentially inflamatory topics like race and politics in generally such a good fashion speaks to the forums credit.
As far as i see it the main issue is that some people object to Nik and KN flooding Off Topic with topics bemoaning political correctness and the latest thing Nik heard that he didnt like on the radio , and inevitably like moths to the flame the beamer , david and scutty contingent descend on it and escalate it to x pages and then moan about it.
The answer it seems to me isnt banning discussion of politics and race , that would be like chopping off the horses head to cure it of akney.  I mean if someone starts littering the forum with topics about how great manchester united football team are , are you going to ban football discussion.  Logically no.
Logically you would limit the number of topics anyone can start over a set period.

[Beamer]

As i understand it Off Topic was re-opened temporarily for the duration of lockdown. Id agree with shutting it down when punting resumes because it does distract and shift focus away from the rest of the forum and the punting side should be the focus..
But for the duration of lockdown i think its ok , i dont see much of any extreme views and i think the fact that the forum membership as a group are able to discuss potentially inflamatory topics like race and politics in generally such a good fashion speaks to the forums credit.
As far as i see it the main issue is that some people object to Nik and KN flooding Off Topic with topics bemoaning political correctness and the latest thing Nik heard that he didnt like on the radio , and inevitably like moths to the flame the beamer , david and scutty contingent descend on it and escalate it to x pages and then moan about it.
The answer it seems to me isnt banning discussion of politics and race , that would be like chopping off the horses head to cure it of akney.  I mean if someone starts littering the forum with topics about how great manchester united football team are , are you going to ban football discussion.  Logically no.
Logically you would limit the number of topics anyone can start over a set period.
[/quote/]

It would be interesting to see your justification as to how you can prove the actions the group you list allegedly take.

[mh]

currently allowing religion is winning the polls.

Depends, doesn't it...

1) Stay unrestricted
2) Stay with no religion or race topics
3) Stay with no religion,race or politics
4) No Off Topic

If 2+3 > 1 then...?

[sparkus]

As i understand it Off Topic was re-opened temporarily for the duration of lockdown. Id agree with shutting it down when punting resumes because it does distract and shift focus away from the rest of the forum and the punting side should be the focus..
But for the duration of lockdown i think its ok , i dont see much of any extreme views and i think the fact that the forum membership as a group are able to discuss potentially inflamatory topics like race and politics in generally such a good fashion speaks to the forums credit.
As far as i see it the main issue is that some people object to Nik and KN flooding Off Topic with topics bemoaning political correctness and the latest thing Nik heard that he didnt like on the radio , and inevitably like moths to the flame the beamer , david and scutty contingent descend on it and escalate it to x pages and then moan about it.
The answer it seems to me isnt banning discussion of politics and race , that would be like chopping off the horses head to cure it of akney.  I mean if someone starts littering the forum with topics about how great manchester united football team are , are you going to ban football discussion.  Logically no.
Logically you would limit the number of topics anyone can start over a set period.

As I've said before, there's plenty of web forums out there which DO cater for banter and gripes about woke, culture wars and the clash of civilisations.  Go on there and complain about the 'ganging up' you've mentioned above and see what they think of a website called 'UK Punting' and all that stands for.  Let us know how you get on.

[Blackpool Rock]

Depends, doesn't it...

1) Stay unrestricted
2) Stay with no religion or race topics
3) Stay with no religion,race or politics
4) No Off Topic

If 2+3 > 1 then...?

Well Head1 did give this answer yesterday regarding the rationale on how a final decision will be made, looks to be a combination of the poll results taken in conjunction with the comments on this thread and logically agreement from Admin and the Mods

So it appears that the poll itself is only "advisory"   

I am reading all of the replies here and will make the final decision based upon these and the final poll result

[Beamer]

Well Head1 did give this answer yesterday regarding the rationale on how a final decision will be made, looks to be a combination of the poll results taken in conjunction with the comments on this thread and logically agreement from Admin and the Mods

So it appears that the poll itself is only "advisory"   

I am reading all of the replies here and will make the final decision based upon these and the final poll result

Of course it can be no more than what Head1 states.  It's such a small sample of the membership.

[Belgarion]

I personally do not mind an unrestricted forum. What I find amusing is that some that claim to despise snowflakes are the biggest snowflakes.

Especially when you use their logic against them.

There is nothing wrong with having views and opinions. How you express them, gives an insight into your thought processes and people will form opinions about you and react accordingly.

[AnthG]

Depends, doesn't it...

1) Stay unrestricted
2) Stay with no religion or race topics
3) Stay with no religion,race or politics
4) No Off Topic

If 2+3 > 1 then...?

This is why the remainers wanted a second vote with the brexit option split between two options. If remain won by 1 vote over both of the even split leave options with the same votes totalling well above remain. They'd have argued to the death that remain won. And everyone knows it.

Personally speaking I am getting sick of all of the bickering and would hope we just have positive topics. As I said above. I just said what I did to explain myself as people were thinking I was some kind of scumbag.

[cotton]

It would be interesting to see your justification as to how you can prove the actions the group you list allegedly take.

Are you denying youve taken active participant in these topics   
Tho as theyve been deleted you probably could deny all involvement if you wanted.
I didnt participate much but i do distinctly remember reading some where there was a lot of back and forth between you and KN , like where did you get that
quote your so fond of regurjitating if it wasnt from being in the thick of it ?
im not critiscising you for taking part in the debate , im just saying i think its a bit naff taking part and being instrumental in escalating these topics to x pages and
then in the next breath complaining about them.  As far as i can recall you were as good a contributor as anyone 

[cotton]

As I've said before, there's plenty of web forums out there which DO cater for banter and gripes about woke, culture wars and the clash of civilisations.  Go on there and complain about the 'ganging up' you've mentioned above and see what they think of a website called 'UK Punting' and all that stands for.  Let us know how you get on.

I wasnt complaining about "ganging up". Beamer and David were simply contributing in good fashion as everyone else involved was.  I was just saying it takes 2 to tango and get these topics strung out to X pages, and it seems a bit naff to complain about it afterwards.

[Beamer]

This is why the remainers wanted a second vote with the brexit option split between two options. If remain won by 1 vote over both of the even split leave options with the same votes totalling well above remain. They'd have argued to the death that remain won. And everyone knows it.

Personally speaking I am getting sick of all of the bickering and would hope we just have positive topics. As I said above. I just said what I did to explain myself as people were thinking I was some kind of scumbag.

I have tried to understand what you are saying in many of your posts but it is not an easy task. Most are so long I have (and I am sure others) find we lose the thread (of the thread!).
As an e.g. why bring up Brexit on a thread about a decision that the owner will have to make?
Anyway,  each to their own.   

[daviemac]

I have tried to understand what you are saying in many of your posts but it is not an easy task. Most are so long I have (and I am sure others) find I lose the thread (of the thread!).
As an e.g. why bring up Brexit on a thread about a decision that the owner will have to make?
Anyway,  each to their own.   

I gets to be like the Monty Python "what did the Romans ever do for us" sketch on here at times.   

[Beamer]

I gets to be like the Monty Python "what did the Romans ever do for us" sketch on here at times.   

Ha Ha  !!