Equal Opportunities Policy

[^woody^]

I disagree, woody, an EOP doesn't need to identify any disadvantaged groups It is merely a statement of fairness to all.

No, you are confusing the whole concept of an EOP.

An EOP is a means intended to allow [normally] disadvantaged or under-represented sections of society access to a business or service

Anyone with a suitable internet connected device and who has a means of inputting text can access/contribute to this site. There is absolutely no need to have a 'policy' defining who can and can't

What you seem to be eluding to is some sort of forum 'rule' to protect certain members who don't like the replies they get, or who can't contribute to a debate, or who just can't simply ignore a thread.

And as stated, above, that is covered by the 'alert moderators' button

 

[RedHerring2]

No, you are confusing the whole concept of an EOP
An EOP is a means intended to allow [normally] disadvantaged or under-represented sections of society access to a business or service

Sorry to disagree again, woody, it seems to me that what you are describing is a positive discrimination concept designed to ensure that those sections are guaranteed access.
To me an EOP is purely a statement of objectivity. It may go on to explain how that objective will/can be achieved.

Anyone with a suitable internet connected device and who has a means of inputting text can access/contribute to this site. There is absolutely no need to have a 'policy' defining who can and can't

I agree, but the statement of intent of ensuring that certain sections of society are given adequate protection from abuse demonstrates a commitment to ensuring abusive posters are not tolerated.

What you seem to be eluding to is some sort of forum 'rule' to protect certain members who don't like the replies they get, or who can't contribute to a debate, or who just can't simply ignore a thread.

That forum rule already exists, and is recorded in the terms of service, etc, kindly demonstrated by Bahco, although I have to admit to not having read them previously. I doubt if many do.
I don't think it is applied sufficiently rigidly, fairly or equally sometimes.
I recognise the difficulties alluded to by the mods posts in other threads.

And as stated, above, that is covered by the 'alert moderators' button

I fully accept that, but I'm also acutely aware of the stigma that is attached to such actions and the multiplicity of posters who don't use it 'cos they might not be sufficiently bothered by the abusive posts.
I openly admit to using that 'stigma' to my advantage occasionally, e.g. when accusing another poster of requesting that a thread is locked when they might be losing the argument.

It is the accumulation of abusive posts that concerns me, not any one individual post.

 

[mattylad]

certain sections of society

what certain sections are being referred to?

Why should it need an EOP, everyone is allowed to post here, everyone is allowed to be told they are stupid for messing with electrics/gas, everyone - not just "certain sections of society".

By choosing "certain sections of society" you segregate them, make them special cases - they are not.

The forum has rules, those rules just need tweaking and following and enforcing better.

The site does not need an eop.

 

[RedHerring2]

certain sections of society

what certain sections are being referred to?

By choosing "certain sections of society" you segregate them, make them special cases - they are not.

Sorry, not a good phrase at all and I accept your segregation argument. I just carried that term on from woody's post.
I could have used "protected characteristics" of which we all have one or more, which is therefore all-inclusive.

Why should it need an EOP, everyone is allowed to post here, everyone is allowed to be told they are stupid for messing with electrics/gas, everyone - not just "certain sections of society".

Fair point, but you are not allowed to call people stupid due to their protected characteristic.

The forum has rules, those rules just need tweaking and following and enforcing better.

The site does not need an eop.

But a public statement of intent that the site has a commitment to ensuring that intolerance is not tolerated can have no detrimental effect.
It might have a very positive effect.
I refer to my suggestion that the site possibly has an overly representation of white, heterosexual, non-disabled, males.

Is this because the people with other protected characteristics feel that they are not welcome?


If so, additional membership could have far-reaching benefits.

I accept any argument that due to the nature of the site, i.e. DIY, it is highly probable that the majority of the members will be male, non-disabled. But what about the other characterisitcs?


Coming from the other perspective:
What detriment could be caused by having an EOP?

 

[skotl]

I'm still bemused, Red Herring, by what you think will be achieved by having an Equal Opportunities Policy?

I think your point is around abusive responses (by a well-known few) to posts. But I also don't think that any of their responses are on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, ability/disability, etc.

So what would having an EOP do to address this?

 

[RedHerring2]

This is a typical example and a fundamental reason why the site needs an EOP:

Equaliser has only come on this forum to wind us up knowing some of us will leave again or get banned, well i am not going to fall for it again, i will not call him a rag head or have a go at his so called god.

For those who think the term ******* is acceptable I refer you to:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*******

and:

you will only get away with it if you are a *****

Although it can be argued that the term ***** is not racially abusive, it is still a term of abuse:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*****
Copied from the BBc site after a certain F1 commentator used the term:

But in more recent years it has become a term of abuse and in the eyes of the law using it can even be deemed a racist offence, given its association with Irish travellers and Roma Gypsies.

 

[Space cat]

If you can be bothered to read it all HERE --

The original "HERE" is a link to the DIYnot Terms of Service, which I probably glanced through quickly when I first joined. Having just read them a bit more carefully, I'm more than a little surprized at how much I've been allowed to get away with.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Anyone who thinks a forum should have an equal opportunities policy for its users does not understand the concept of such a policy.

 

[Trazor]

Anyone who thinks a forum should have an equal opportunities policy for its users does not understand the concept of such a policy.

Agreed, the whole thread is a nonsense.

 

[libby lou lou]

Just a red herring