Shetlink: is it time to quit?

[JohanofNess]

Way back in 2007 when my brother steered me in the direction of Shetlink I didn't think to begin with that it would be of that much interest to me but in many ways it has been useful, I keep up far more with what is happening on the isles than I ever had been before. That is the main positive, the negatives on the other hand are not common to just Shetlink but most forums whether they be community, automotive, gaming, sports or even career based. I'm sure malachy frequents other boards and sees just as much pish being sprouted on them as there is here.

 

For me the issue with a community based forum such as shetlink is that people are not always going to encounter the like minded in fact you're as likely to encounter someone you believe to be a cretinous numpty as you are a kindred spirit. In my opinion for Shetlink to remain a valuable resource then you either have to build the site in such a way that the people who basically drag it down can be ignored or you over moderate it to remove those elements clearly bent on being overly negative while contributing little else. I'd rather have an ignore button than heaps of users being barred.

 

I would also like to say that the moderators here do a hellish difficult job. It isn't easy dealing with some of the absolute drivel that gets posted and while people are entitled to have their opinion what some seem to forget is that when they sign up to Shetlink they accept that their is a code of conduct that should be followed and this isn't a site exclusively for them to gripe, moan, complain, argue and inflict their bad moods on others.

[peerie t]

I would like to see Shetlink evolve a bit further, start again and get rid of the pseudonyms and use members real names then people can be accountable for the sharn thats written here most of the time!

 

IRONY!!

 

Not that I'm suggesting you're slagging anyone Biglad, just that I doubt that's the name on your birth certificate..

 

Fair point though...

[Malachy]

I must say, this poll is remarkably close given that it's essentially asking Shetlink users whether Shetlink is worth using.

 

I should add that I fully agree on the issue of names. I think if there were a forum (or part of this forum) where real names had to be used then the quality of the debate would undoubtedly be higher. Employing a pseudonym allows users to write absolute nonsense without any fear of comeback.

 

In fact, another side of the names issue was brought home to me quite some time ago when a post appeared that was vaguely threatening towards me. What was said was not a direct threat, but the implication of it was: "Watch out! I know who you are but you have no way of knowing who I am." That made me feel seriously uneasy, and I stopped posting for quite a long time. That user has since disappeared (banned perhaps?) but the power issue remains - using a pseudonym gives you a certain power over those who use their own names. It gives both the means and the excuse for irresponsibility.

[vadger]

Its very difficult to suggest an answer to the hidden identity. By virtue of Shetlink being free to set up on a free email account then folk are making up ficticious email accounts with different names to thier own to get 2 accounts , its rife , you really wouldnt know whos up to what and what the motive is on here.

[Twerto]

Using a pseudonym enables you to comment without any pre preduces being made.. obviously this becomes obsolete after a while as you learn peoples certain writing styles and after a while you just start subconcously ignoreing peoples posts anyway.

 

As for me i think more people know me as Twerto than they do Michael outside this forum so it makes no difference.

[DePooperit]

First of all, let me say that I think Shetlink should stay online at least until I have had time to extract my uniquely valuable contributions with the view of making them into the next world-changing pamphlet.

 

Other than that, as I don't participate in a lot of forums, I'm not well qualified to say how relatively badly it's moderated. I only know that I wouldn't normally participate in a forum as badly moderated as this one; and in fact I've more or less stopped doing so. Anonymity is the other thing, as Malachy says. I think the problem would be solved at a stroke if everyone - existing members included - had to give their real name and address, and if moderation checked up on these to make sure they were genuine before allowing either newbies or existing members to post. Probably not practical.

 

However, to get back to the subject of bad moderation. It's always easy to comment that moderation is a thankless task - no doubt it is - but Shetlink allows many things that many other forums wouldn't tolerate for an instant. Take the several anti-religious signatures, for example. I've mentioned this before as one reason I don't post on Shetlink often any more, but moderation didn't bite and I didn't see any point in complaining. It seems to me that if the mods are happy for posters to have anti-religious signatures then they are saying that they don't mind if religious people are put off by this, because they would just as well have no religious people posting. If you believe that religion is the root of all evil, as Dawkins does, then this might seem to be perfectly reasonable, of course. In general, though, it's common practice for offensive material relating to religion or race to be banned from websites, so the fact that Shetlink doesn't ban anti-religious signatures seems to me to be significant. Personally, I'm not offended by the signatures themselves so much as by the attitude on the part of the mods that their presence seems to imply. I trust that this has led to a better class of clientele.

 

The other main reason I don't post any more is the ambivalent attitude to 'dialect'. I've never been able to figure out whether the specialist forum was meant to be discussion about 'dialect', in 'dialect', or to sideline 'dialect' from the main threads - that is, threads about anything significant such as the Scalloway schools closure. I seem to remember that there was once a thread in or about 'dialect' where one mod commented 'That's enough - I'm shifting this to the specialist forum' or such. However, I couldn't find it by searching. If 'dialect' is regarded as a subject rather than a medium - as it is by mainstream Anglophone society, including the Shetland media by and large - and subject to rules about 'hijacking' of threads, then this might seem to be perfectly reasonable again, of course. It hardly needs to be said, then, that it is only necessary for someone to object to anything written in dialect and cause a controversy for it to then become a 'subject' and be banished to the specialist forum. After a while, people who try to discuss serious subjects in their own tongue will get the message.

 

As far as the Scalloway schools closure thread went, there were one or two newbies - I think - that posted in 'dialect', were immediatly shot down ('I don't read the crap written in dialect' was one comment) and at least one expressed dismay to the mods that he couldn't write in his own language in his own land. However, as far as I can recollect, there was never a definitive statement by the mods to defend either view - I seem to remember that the controversy fizzled out in a thread of ambivalence, probably diverted to the specialist forum where it seemed that some at least of the mods were equally unhappy about 'dialect' being used for the discussion of serious subjects.

 

In short, if you have a forum which allows minorities - although perhaps not small ones - to be offended in signatures, and which tacitly follows a pretty much mainstream Anglophone view of language use in a place where many people - though maybe not a minority yet - not only speak a radically different tongue but see this as a mark of their Shetland identity, then it's perhaps not surprising that active discussion is reduced to a certain level.

 

I don't live in Shetland, so I didn't vote.

[jz]

... if you have a forum which allows minorities - although perhaps not small ones - to be offended in signatures ...

 

I'm amazed that you can be offended by views that are different to your own, and therefore you choose not to engage with these people. An essential part of what I am is being an atheist, hence the signature that I use, and will continue to do.

 

As to moderation the moderators do a fine job, which we should be grateful for. I don't always agree with their decision, but it is their forum their terms and conditions, and if we want to participate we abide by them. I voted that the forum is valuable - sure some contributers are more helpful and interesting than others - but that is life.

[MuckleJoannie]

As far as moderation is concerned there used to be regular compaints that the moderation was far too strict!

 

Posting in dialact suffers form the lack of standard Shetland spelling. I post in dialect from time to time but I can find it hard going to understand somthing that is phonetically rendered with all the posters local quirks (though I can cope with Ghostrider's dialact postings now I'm tuned in to the Ness twang).

[Kavi Ugl]

I'm afraid I was thinking the same as Ghostrider and a part of me does wonder if this question has been raised because the OP doesn't like what he's seeing on here.

 

I don't agree with the liberal left that I see on here but that doesn't mean their voices should be silenced. For the record I hate the Thatcherite right and believe in a balance.

 

As to debate and what's posted, yes if some comments are seriously out of line then it should be removed but, as an example, there are genuine and deep concerns about the (alleged)biased allocation of public housing in Shetland to (alleged) dole moles etc so why should that not be raised or debated?.

 

On a positive note, I find the Shetland dialect section fascinating and very educational.

 

[KOYAANISQATSI]

uninteresting thread gets interesting

 

It seems to me that if the mods are happy for posters to have anti-religious signatures then they are saying that they don't mind if religious people are put off by this, because they would just as well have no religious people posting.

 

^http://oi40.tinypic.com/2lmufs2.jpg

 

I'm not offended by the signatures themselves so much as by the attitude on the part of the mods that their presence seems to imply. I trust that this has led to a better class of clientele.

 

Heard it all before...

 

If you refuse to obey all the terms of this law that are written in this book, and if you do not fear the glorious and awesome name of the LORD your God, then the LORD will overwhelm both you and your children with indescribable plagues.

 

Stroll on.

[ArabiaTerra]

As to debate and what's posted, yes if some comments are seriously out of line then it should be removed but, as an example, there are genuine and deep concerns about the (alleged)biased allocation of public housing in Shetland to (alleged) dole moles etc so why should that not be raised or debated?.

There's nothing wrong with debating this subject, as long as the debate is carried out in a civil manner. It's stuff like this that I find offensive.

 

(Which, admittedly, wasn't on the housing thread but still, it reflects this posters general attitude to those less fortunate. My point is, these questions can be raised legitimately without dragging the conversation into the gutter)

[Scorrie]

I usually find that when someone starts to wail about 'falling standards' and posters having 'radical' or 'unacceptable' views etc, it usually means the OP is getting miffed because people have the audacity to post things that go against the OP's mindset or contain viewpoints/subjects what the OP sees as 'not being worthy of my attention'.

 

 

If you don't like it:

 

Log off.

[DePooperit]

... if you have a forum which allows minorities - although perhaps not small ones - to be offended in signatures ...

 

I'm amazed that you can be offended by views that are different to your own, and therefore you choose not to engage with these people. An essential part of what I am is being an atheist, hence the signature that I use, and will continue to do.

 

As to moderation the moderators do a fine job, which we should be grateful for. I don't always agree with their decision, but it is their forum their terms and conditions, and if we want to participate we abide by them. I voted that the forum is valuable - sure some contributers are more helpful and interesting than others - but that is life.

 

I'm not at all offended by views different from my own - which you might have picked up if you'd read my post. What I find out of order - not necessarily offensive - is the fact that the mods allow anti-religious signatures. A signature has a different status from a viewpoint. To me, anti-religious signatures are comparable to racist or sectarian graffiti, and their presence is a form of bullying. I wonder how many forums would allow them. Remembering that taking part in a forum is voluntary, most people with any religious belief will simply vote with their feet and do something else. This seems so obvious to me that I couldn't see any point in complaining to the mods.

 

Nor do I refuse to engage with people whom I disagree with - as you might have noted in an anti-religious thread not that long ago. But when does opinion become prejudice? The thread I'm referring to wasn't called 'What do you think about religion' (there was already a thread about that) or even 'What do you think about religious beliefs' but 'Religious beliefs - should we respect them?' And before I chipped in, it seemed to me that the preponderance of opinion was that we should not. When you start making comments to the effect - as scoots did - that the Christian church are the biggest mass-murderers in recorded history, bar none, you are reducing a complicated historical question to the sort of rhetoric of which prejudice is born.

 

 

 

[/i]

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm not at all offended by views different from my own - which you might have picked up if you'd read my post. What I find out of order - not necessarily offensive - is the fact that the mods allow anti-religious signatures. A signature has a different status from a viewpoint. To me, anti-religious signatures are comparable to racist or sectarian graffiti, and their presence is a form of bullying. I wonder how many forums would allow them. Remembering that taking part in a forum is voluntary, most people with any religious belief will simply vote with their feet and do something else. This seems so obvious to me that I couldn't see any point in complaining to the mods.

 

Nor do I refuse to engage with people whom I disagree with - as you might have noted in an anti-religious thread not that long ago. But when does opinion become prejudice? The thread I'm referring to wasn't called 'What do you think about religion' (there was already a thread about that) or even 'What do you think about religious beliefs' but 'Religious beliefs - should we respect them?' And before I chipped in, it seemed to me that the preponderance of opinion was that we should not. When you start making comments to the effect - as scoots did - that the Christian church are the biggest mass-murderers in recorded history, bar none, you are reducing a complicated historical question to the sort of rhetoric of which prejudice is born.

 

So what's your point... **Mod edit - personal insult removed - let's keep things civil**

[DePooperit]

As far as moderation is concerned there used to be regular compaints that the moderation was far too strict!

 

I know - mostly from people who wanted to swear. I've no doubt the mods do a good job by their own standards - I certainly wouldn't do it, let alone take the flack from grumpers like myself. But, again, people will vote with their feet. If, as Malachy suggests, the tone of Shetlink has gone down, obviously more people who don't like that will stay away, and the tone will go down further. Surely it's pertinent to ask why. The fact that comments like 'I don't read the crap written in dialect' seem to get equal consideration with posts that are written in dialect (though of course we don't know what goes on behind the scenes) seems to me to be a mainstream approach to language in a place which is not traditionally mainstream in language - though perhaps rapidly becoming so.

 

Posting in dialact suffers form the lack of standard Shetland spelling. I post in dialect from time to time but I can find it hard going to understand somthing that is phonetically rendered with all the posters local quirks (though I can cope with Ghostrider's dialact postings now I'm tuned in to the Ness twang).

 

Exactly - the more posting is done in 'dialect', the more readers will understand it and the more posters will be likely to conform to such spelling norms as exist.

 

The fact that it suffers from lack of a standard spelling is unarguable. This merely highlights the disparity between actual use of the Shetland tongue and official acceptance of it.