Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th September 2006, 02:14 PM
Little Reminder to everyone
Admin Staff and Moderators
Quote:quote:
# Please remember that these people have to devote some of their working day to running this forum. It detracts from their day to day duties.
# They reserve the right to amend, move, lock or delete posts where they deem it necessary to do so.
Manners and personal conduct
Quote:quote:# Do not shout at other contributors by posting in all capital letters
# Take care with humour that might work verbally but could lead to upset when rendered on screen. Please remember that tone can be misconstrued due to the limitations of e-media.
# Present your opinions in a tactful and moderate fashion.
# Do not be aggressive towards other members on this forum.
# Be civil in your interaction! Do not vilify, abuse, denigrate or call other members names.
# Read thoroughly and digest the thread and posts before replying.
# Do not mock others for grammar or spelling errors. There are many reasons why this occurs, you do not know the circumstances.
# If in doubt do not post.
Content
Quote:quote:# Your post should be constructive.
# The mobile phone short message style "txt spk" must be avoided.
# Please try to ensure your post is legible and easily understood.
# Posts that are deemed irrelevant to the discussion are subject to removal.
In general .... just be nice!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
20th September 2006, 03:02 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Little Reminder to everyone
If that is with reference to the person whose post above was edited by the moderators, there was nothing there which was in contradiction to any of those factors. I honestly do not see why it was censored. The rest I deleted because half a post simply does not convey the thought its author was trying to contribute to this Forum.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
20th September 2006, 03:06 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
I suspect that there has been a bit of chicanary going on as Only 39 members voted...
But about two weeks ago there were about 100 votes cast, so even then there was something wrong with the system, sadly making the poll invalid. I thought it was odd that there was so much support here for an idea that many archaeologists in the UK seem to have cold feet about when you discuss it with them.
Paul Barford
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th September 2006, 03:35 PM
The post was for everyone - not just you Paul. And it was edited because the half you refer to (which I have discussed in a PM was
# " Posts that are deemed irrelevant to the discussion are subject to removal. "
The half you allude to was of no real additional benefit to this thread .. and to my mind would have only caused disruption. The reminder is posted on all sections of BAJR and is aimed at reminding everyone that an AUP exists and is used here.
Back to topic ->>
the Poll system allows people to make one vote... I could limit it to Actual members of the BAJR Forum if you feel that would be a wiser option. I see your point.
What does seem to have happened is that a person or group has found a way to subvert the one vote system OR there really is a split.
I actually liked the concept of Curatorial powers (but then I would ! ) and using this as a stopgap. I am going to the ALGAO official launch in SCotland in October and will bring this subject up.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
20th September 2006, 03:56 PM
Quote:quote:The half you allude to was of no real additional benefit to this thread ..
Hmmm. Well, obviously in the mind of its author it was, since it offered a possible explanation of the sudden shift of opinion after a long period of relative stability even though the numbers of votes was increasing. And it is not my fault that conditions here are such that expressing a simple and logical thought may "cause disruption". Could you not deal with the people causing that disruption if and when it happens rather than arbitrarily censoring in mid sentence an attempt to discuss an archaeological matter on an archaeological forum?
In any case the tampering with this BAJR poll (to suggest that the majority of archaeologists here are against Article 3 of Valetta) suggests that somebody is out to 'disrupt' this Forum regardless. Please deal with them, and not those that are trying to make a sensible contribution here.
Paul Barford
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th September 2006, 04:05 PM
Keep the sensible contributions coming. I will investigate to see IF there has been fould play OR it is just the 'will of the people' I am glad you brought it to my attention though - it may be better to wait and see before suggesting culprits.
As a matter of interest... there is a new poll ... ( which is for BAJR Members only : but I will not be able to tell who has voted for what - I must stress that spying on peoples voting habits is not for me)) This could be more interesting.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
20th September 2006, 10:44 PM
Having been involved with the system in Ireland I voted no (but I could be convinced after a few pints). In my view, no system is going to work very well and will a new system really drive up standards or just create new loopholes?
I feel that a licence system is just a distraction from the real issues as to why the majority of people in this country (and others) simply don't give a stuff about archaeology and hence why archaeologists earn peanuts.
Maybe i'm just getting cynical or tired
perhaps its time for a small glass of something
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th September 2006, 10:56 PM
I agree with that last statement sadly... the care has gone!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
22nd September 2006, 05:32 PM
My vote, given early, was for 'not sure'; reasons given in a previous post near the top of the thread.
On the sudden switch in the balance of votes - the instinctive reaction of most British archaeologists is probably 'yes'. Therefore, a cynic could say that many 'yes' votes were given very quick, possibly in a 'knee-jerk-reaction' sort of way, while those voting 'no' might have given more thought to the question before coming to what is probably a less instinctive conclusion. Hence the late surge in 'no' votes.
Please heap abuse on the very suggestion...
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
