UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Welcome to the UK Justice Forum => Admin introduction, forum rules, colours and requests for documents and photos. => Topic started by: John on August 15, 2017, 12:42:22 AM
-
All queries relating to moderation should be posted on this thread.
-
All queries relating to moderation should be posted on this thread.
It would be good if posters were informed of the reason the reason their post is removed.
Thank you.
-
It would be good if posters were informed of the reason the reason their post is removed.
Thank you.
Hi Erngath
We have had this raised numerous times and the answer from moderators is always that it would create far too much work if every deletion had to be explained. That said however, I have no problem with posters asking why their post was removed and being entitled to an answer.
The most common reason why innocuous posts are removed is generally because they quoted an already deleted post or were off topic. I believe your reply to davel earlier today was removed as it was off topic. Members can ask an admin to intervene at any time if they consider that a post has been removed contrary to the forum rules.
-
Deleted.
-
Is it acceptable that a post when shown to be inaccurate is then claimed to be irony.
The words of the post are obviously wrong in other words "inaccurate". There is a rule about posts NOT being "inaccurate":
"Forum Rules
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law."
I think when irony is being used to make a point the forum needs to be made aware that irony is being used. This could be an explanatory note at the end of the ironic post.
-
Moderation on the McCann board seems to be an ongoing bone of contention, No-one seems to feel that it's working. There are constant complaints about deletions from old and new members. Members seem to feel that posts are deleted because of bias on the part of the moderator rather than because the post broke forum rules.
I understand that the forum is essentially a dictatorship; the choices being to accept the status quo or leave. I thought it might be useful for members to express their opinions and suggest any possible solutions here, rather than having periodic arguments in public.
-
Moderation on the McCann board seems to be an ongoing bone of contention, No-one seems to feel that it's working. There are constant complaints about deletions from old and new members. Members seem to feel that posts are deleted because of bias on the part of the moderator rather than because the post broke forum rules.
I understand that the forum is essentially a dictatorship; the choices being to accept the status quo or leave. I thought it might be useful for members to express their opinions and suggest any possible solutions here, rather than having periodic arguments in public.
The Members who feel that their comments are deleted due to Bias are wrong, especially since they don't know who deleted what. But a large number of comments are deleted due to Reply to Deleted Post.
If Members did not reply to Insulting or Goading Posts then the number of Deletions would diminish.
-
The trouble with a thread such as this can a mod answer objectively rather than take it personally.
-
The Members who feel that their comments are deleted due to Bias are wrong, especially since they don't know who deleted what. But a large number of comments are deleted due to Reply to Deleted Post.
If Members did not reply to Insulting or Goading Posts then the number of Deletions would diminish.
How amusing! It sounded as if you're saying that it's perfectly permissible for Members to post insults and/or goads, but those who respond to such create unnecessary work for moderators. I had to read it twice to see that my initial thought was incorrect.
-
Moderation on the McCann board seems to be an ongoing bone of contention, No-one seems to feel that it's working. There are constant complaints about deletions from old and new members. Members seem to feel that posts are deleted because of bias on the part of the moderator rather than because the post broke forum rules.
I understand that the forum is essentially a dictatorship; the choices being to accept the status quo or leave. I thought it might be useful for members to express their opinions and suggest any possible solutions here, rather than having periodic arguments in public.
I think all chat forums are like that G,not just McCann associated ones.
-
How amusing! It sounded as if you're saying that it's perfectly permissible for Members to post insults and/or goads, but those who respond to such create unnecessary work for moderators. I had to read it twice to see that my initial thought was incorrect.
Please try not to be too silly. Of course the Goad or Insult are removed first. And No, they are not acceptable. But replying to these comments does make more work for Moderators.
Less is always best, don't you think.
-
I've had comments reinstated, so someone's not doing their job properly IMO.
Precisely. John revues all deletions and reinstates where he thinks it is necessary. Unfortunately, John is not able to be here all of the time.
-
I'd like to thank Eleanor for being willing to take part in this discussion. Moderating is a difficult job which I personally wouldn't touch with a bargepole. It seems to me that moderators end up between the devil and the deep blue sea. It must be annoying to delete a post and then see it reinstated. It also encourages members to think moderators arem't doing their job properly, so it leads to more challenges and arguments.
On the other hand I'm sure I'm not the only member who has posted a carefully worded post or two and then discovered them gone because I was involved in a discussion triggered by a post which moderators have decided, with hindsight, needs deleting.
Members can't be expected to read back before posting to ensure that previous posts are within the rules; that's not their responsibilty. I think speed of reaction by moderators is the problem here. If moderators dealt with unacceptable posts immediately then no-one would br able to reply to them.
-
I'd like to thank Eleanor for being willing to take part in this discussion. Moderating is a difficult job which I personally wouldn't touch with a bargepole. It seems to me that moderators end up between the devil and the deep blue sea. It must be annoying to delete a post and then see it reinstated. It also encourages members to think moderators arem't doing their job properly, so it leads to more challenges and arguments.
On the other hand I'm sure I'm not the only member who has posted a carefully worded post or two and then discovered them gone because I was involved in a discussion triggered by a post which moderators have decided, with hindsight, needs deleting.
Members can't be expected to read back before posting to ensure that previous posts are within the rules; that's not their responsibilty. I think speed of reaction by moderators is the problem here. If moderators dealt with unacceptable posts immediately then no-one would br able to reply to them.
Thank You, G-Unit.
However, how fast on my feet do you think I am? I can go to the lavatory or feed the dog and when I get back there are a dozen posts up, one of which could be unacceptable, in my opinion, and to which there are replies that also have to be deleted. Often it is not possible to modify.
I shall be at The Food Bank this afternoon for a couple of hours. I'm not missing that for what you should be able to control yourselves. I don't know how busy any other Moderator might be. We are not subjected to a Regime.
I do not mind if John reinstates a post that I have deleted. It is only a matter of opinion. But John's is the only opinion that matters in the end. He does his utmost to make sure that you are all treated fairly.
-
Thank You, G-Unit.
However, how fast on my feet do you think I am? I can go to the lavatory or feed the dog and when I get back there are a dozen posts up, one of which could be unacceptable, in my opinion, and to which there are replies that also have to be deleted. Often it is not possible to modify.
I shall be at The Food Bank this afternoon for a couple of hours. I'm not missing that for what you should be able to control yourselves. I don't know how busy any other Moderator might be. We are not subjected to a Regime.
I do not mind if John reinstates a post that I have deleted. It is only a matter of opinion. But John's is the only opinion that matters in the end. He does his utmost to make sure that you are all treated fairly.
How dare you wander off feeding dogs lol!!
I know it's purely a voluntary matter, but even volunteers are usually organised so they are present when needed. Perhaps more organisation between moderators would help?
-
Brietta accuses Monkey of making it up,I do the same to sadie and it gets whoosed,unbiased far from it,watch this go as well.
-
Brietta accuses Monkey of making it up,I do the same to sadie and it gets whoosed,unbiased far from it,watch this go as well.
Thank you barrier. That's another problem. Moderators shouldn't penalise others for doing things they also do. Respect has to be earned and a moderator who displays the "do as I say not as I do" attitude won't be respected, and will lose authority imo. Leading by example is what the best leaders do imo.
Another problem is the provision of cites. I find myself being pursued for a cite, but when I ask for one I rarely get it, even from a moderator. That feels unfair because the moderator can delete my post if I don't comply, but I can do nothing if they fail to comply.
-
How dare you wander off feeding dogs lol!!
I know it's purely a voluntary matter, but even volunteers are usually organised so they are present when needed. Perhaps more organisation between moderators would help?
I can sometimes be here for hours and no one puts a foot wrong, in my opinion. And then John whooshes the lot. Off Topic, or something. I'm not very hot on Off Topic.
-
Brietta accuses Monkey of making it up,I do the same to sadie and it gets whoosed,unbiased far from it,watch this go as well.
I don't think this is quite the topic for whooshing. Unless it is down right Insulting. But then I am difficult to insult. I've had too much practice at dealing with that. The rest of the moderators are on their own.
-
I don't think this is quite the topic for whooshing. Unless it is down right Insulting. But then I am difficult to insult. I've had too much practice at dealing with that. The rest of the moderators are on their own.
The trouble with a thread such as this can a mod answer objectively rather than take it personally.
-
No Moderator is obliged to answer anything to do with Moderating.
-
Hi Erngath
We have had this raised numerous times and the answer from moderators is always that it would create far too much work if every deletion had to be explained. That said however, I have no problem with posters asking why their post was removed and being entitled to an answer.
The most common reason why innocuous posts are removed is generally because they quoted an already deleted post or were off topic. I believe your reply to davel earlier today was removed as it was off topic. Members can ask an admin to intervene at any time if they consider that a post has been removed contrary to the forum rules.
No Moderator is obliged to answer anything to do with Moderating.
No one said you were,but out of courtesy to John I'll hi-light his thoughts.
-
The trouble with a thread such as this can a mod answer objectively rather than take it personally.
I think it might depend on whether the question asked was objective or personal.
-
I can sometimes be here for hours and no one puts a foot wrong, in my opinion. And then John whooshes the lot. Off Topic, or something. I'm not very hot on Off Topic.
I've seen Rob struggling to decide what is and isn't acceptable too. It seems moderators aren't completely sure of the rules they're enforcing.
-
I've seen Rob struggling to decide what is and isn't acceptable too. It seems moderators aren't completely sure of the rules they're enforcing.
Moderators have no power, is the short answer.
-
Moderators have no power, is the short answer.
So moderators get stick from members and get overruled on their decisions? Why on earth would anyone want to do it?
-
I would advocate fewer deletions and warnings. I have had a warning before for being sarcastic. I mean how ridiculous. The best forum moderation I ever encountered was the British Democracy Forum which took a libertarian approach and you could say what you liked pretty much. The only times things got removed was when named people complained that there were libellous comments about them and they were removed. No one had posts removed for being off topic, there were no warning points at all, we weren’t treated like naughty school children. That said it was forced to close because I think of a threat of a lawsuit by some political type, probably a UKIPPER or a BNPer, so perhaps it was just too relaxed in the end.
-
So moderators get stick from members and get overruled on their decisions? Why on earth would anyone want to do it?
Someone has to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit, and John can't do it all by himself. You have two Supporter Mods, two Sceptic Mods and one Middle of the Road. And most of you don't want to do it.
-
I would advocate fewer deletions and warnings. I have had a warning before for being sarcastic. I mean how ridiculous. The best forum moderation I ever encountered was the British Democracy Forum which took a libertarian approach and you could say what you liked pretty much. The only times things got removed was when named people complained that there were libellous comments about them and they were removed. No one had posts removed for being off topic, there were no warning points at all, we weren’t treated like naughty school children. That said it was forced to close because I think of a threat of a lawsuit by some political type, probably a UKIPPER or a BNPer, so perhaps it was just too relaxed in the end.
I think you have pretty well described the purpose of Moderation on this Forum. Off Topic is not enforced to any great extent, and John deals with most of that as sometimes there are some comments worth saving for some other Thread, but only John can move stuff around.
As for Warnings, some members do push their luck to see how far they can go. The worst being repeatedly reposting Deleted Posts.
In the end it is all a matter of opinion, unless it is outright Libel or downright lies.
-
I think you have pretty well described the purpose of Moderation on this Forum. Off Topic is not enforced to any great extent, and John deals with most of that as sometimes there are some comments worth saving for some other Thread, but only John can move stuff around.
As for Warnings, some members do push their luck to see how far they can go. The worst being repeatedly reposting Deleted Posts.
In the end it is all a matter of opinion, unless it is outright Libel or downright lies.
In my opinion things have certainly improved on the moderation front since a certain mod decided to take a more backseat role and didn’t deliberately go out of their way to wind me up with warnings for sarcasm and being argumentative, that was IMO an example of a mod using their authority in a provocative way.
-
Someone has to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit, and John can't do it all by himself. You have two Supporter Mods, two Sceptic Mods and one Middle of the Road. And most of you don't want to do it.
Well good for you, tp take on such a thankless task. It seems to me that not only are moderators sometimes overruled from above, they also don't appear to support each other.
-
I think you have pretty well described the purpose of Moderation on this Forum. Off Topic is not enforced to any great extent, and John deals with most of that as sometimes there are some comments worth saving for some other Thread, but only John can move stuff around.
As for Warnings, some members do push their luck to see how far they can go. The worst being repeatedly reposting Deleted Posts.
In the end it is all a matter of opinion, unless it is outright Libel or downright lies.
How can you repeatedly repost a deleted post?
Hard to judge downright libel unless one is a qualified lawyer I'd venture,offer an opinion of such more like.
-
In my opinion things have certainly improved on the moderation front since a certain mod decided to take a more backseat role and didn’t deliberately go out of their way to wind me up with warnings for sarcasm and being argumentative, that was IMO an example of a mod using their authority in a provocative way.
The problem with sarcasm and argumentativeness is that it can be seen as abusiveness, which isn't allowed. Perhaps those whose style is to be sarcastic and argumentative need to be aware that they nay be seen as havong crossed that line sometimes.
-
Someone has to try to prevent this Forum from turning into a cess pit, and John can't do it all by himself. You have two Supporter Mods, two Sceptic Mods and one Middle of the Road. And most of you don't want to do it.
5 mods,nearly one each.
-
The problem with sarcasm and argumentativeness is that it can be seen as abusiveness, which isn't allowed. Perhaps those whose style is to be sarcastic and argumentative need to be aware that they nay be seen as havong crossed that line sometimes.
Which is all very well except when the mod in question only punishes one side of the argument (remember it takes two to argue) and then likes sarky posts by the person with whom you are debating and also makes sarky comments themselves.
-
i have to admit i dont post here as much because even a joking post can be deleted i think some take this forum too seriously i dont think a post should be deleted because of a diffrent opinion either
-
Well good for you, tp take on such a thankless task. It seems to me that not only are moderators sometimes overruled from above, they also don't appear to support each other.
Nor should they.
-
How can you repeatedly repost a deleted post?
Hard to judge downright libel unless one is a qualified lawyer I'd venture,offer an opinion of such more like.
It is quite simple. A comment is Deleted and then the Member posts it again, and again.
Downright Libel and Lies are easy to spot. It's the innuendo that sometimes causes difficulties. But then you know that.
-
i have to admit i dont post here as much because even a joking post can be deleted i think some take this forum too seriously i dont think a post should be deleted because of a diffrent opinion either
This subject is not a joke. Good on ya for mostly staying out of it.
-
I have tried to explain how Moderation on this Forum works. I am a little surprised by the fact that some members see fit to twist what I have said.
Why do I do it? I honestly believed that I could help to keep a good Forum on track. I had seen Sherlock as a Moderator bullied off this Forum, and my reaction to that was You and Whose Army. However, the amount of vitriol levelled at me nearly defeated even me. But I am made of stern stuff, and no way was I going to be driven out just because I believe in the Rule of Law. In fact it made me more determined.
As G-Unit rightly pointed out, this is not a Democracy. I operate under these conditions. John always has the last word and I don't have a problem with that. If I did then I would have left.
New people come and go, perhaps because they can't cope with The Rules. But you are never going to get anything better.
Some of you might actually make good Moderators if you were able to separate yourselves. I have spotted a couple in the Sceptic Team. It is a life enhancing exercise, and one that I would not have wanted to miss.
-
Which is all very well except when the mod in question only punishes one side of the argument (remember it takes two to argue) and then likes sarky posts by the person with whom you are debating and also makes sarky comments themselves.
You are now just presenting your opinion of a specific incident which I don't remember. It's perfectly possible, however, for one person to be sarcastic and argumentative and another to respond in a different manner imo.
-
Nor should they.
Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?
Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
-
Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?
Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
At the end of the day does it really matter? If you don't like the way the forum operates there is no obligation for you to continue posting is there? Perhaps a wholly sceptic forum moderated by sceptics would be better suited to your agenda?
-
Any organisation will have problems if it's 'management team' doesn't present a united front in my opinion. All moderators are there for is to ensure that members don't break the rules. If moderators can't agree what the rules actually are and whether they have been breached or not how can they fulfill their purpose?
Also, how can members avoid breaking the rules if even the moderators are unsure what that means? Members are occasionally asked to keep to the rules, but the rules seem to be a matter of opinion rather than fact.
So you think that Supporter Mods should support each other even if they disagree? We aren't all brain welded you know.
The Rules are laid down. I suggest you read them. But don't think I don't know when Members try to circumvent them. Brietta's interpretation of that is her own affair.
And we all know what happens when two Moderators gang up together.
-
So you think that Supporter Mods should support each other even if they disagree? We aren't all brain welded you know.
The Rules are laid down. I suggest you read them. But don't think I don't know when Members try to circumvent them. Brietta's interpretation of that is her own affair.
And we all know what happens when two Moderators gang up together.
Glad you acknowledge it.
-
At the end of the day does it really matter? If you don't like the way the forum operates there is no obligation for you to continue posting is there? Perhaps a wholly sceptic forum moderated by sceptics would be better suited to your agenda?
Stop the myths? is the route you require?
-
Glad you acknowledge it.
Two Sceptic Mods. Brietta and I don't even communicate by PM.
-
At the end of the day does it really matter? If you don't like the way the forum operates there is no obligation for you to continue posting is there? Perhaps a wholly sceptic forum moderated by sceptics would be better suited to your agenda?
It seems to matter to you judging by your complaints when things don't go your way. Perhaps a supporter forum might suit you better?
-
So you think that Supporter Mods should support each other even if they disagree? We aren't all brain welded you know.
The Rules are laid down. I suggest you read them. But don't think I don't know when Members try to circumvent them. Brietta's interpretation of that is her own affair.
And we all know what happens when two Moderators gang up together.
So the rules are open to interpretation by everyone; members and moderators alike? If a member posts something they think is OK a moderator can come along and delete it. Then John can come along and reinstate it.That sounds to me like the rules aren't clear enough.
-
Stop the myths? is the route you require?
Is that a sceptic forum now? I had no idea.
-
It seems to matter to you judging by your complaints when things don't go your way. Perhaps a supporter forum might suit you better?
You're the one doing the complaining here, not me.
-
Two Sceptic Mods. Brietta and I don't even communicate by PM.
When you say 'gang up' can I interpret that as 'agree with each other on the interpretation of a rule?'
-
When you say 'gang up' can I interpret that as 'agree with each other on the interpretation of a rule?'
No.
-
This thread was set up to address moderation queries ... I've not really seen too many quoting present concerns members may have ... wonder why that is.
-
This thread was set up to address moderation queries ... I've not really seen too many quoting present concerns members may have ... wonder why that is.
Some people would rather blame you and me for things over which we have no control.
-
Some people would rather blame you and me for things over which we have no control.
I think we both give of our best for the simple reason we back up to the hilt the ethos of this forum and have a great admiration for what John has achieved here.
-
I think we both give of our best for the simple reason we back up to the hilt the ethos of this forum and have a great admiration for what John has achieved here.
Absolutely.
-
You're the one doing the complaining here, not me.
Not vomplaining, discussing. One of my reasons for doing so is the disruption caused to discussions when threads are deflected by arguments between members and mods. By definition those arguments are off-topic and so against the rules.
-
Not vomplaining, discussing. One of my reasons for doing so is the disruption caused to discussions when threads are deflected by arguments between members and mods. By definition those arguments are off-topic and so against the rules.
LOL at vomplaining, great new word. @)(++(*
-
This thread was set up to address moderation queries ... I've not really seen too many quoting present concerns members may have ... wonder why that is.
I rarely have problems with moderation, but I do have a problem with members complaining about it on threads set up to debate other subjects. I thought people might like to air their grievences here, which is the place for it imo. It seems people prefer to carry on disrupting threads imtermittently.
In my opinion any complaints about moderators should be posted on a thread such as this, not on threads discussing other subjects. Those are off topiic posts and moderators should delete them on sight imo.
-
LOL at vomplaining, great new word. @)(++(*
I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused.
-
I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused.
I’m glad you’re glad. It was a terrific new word and I thank you for it.
-
I’m glad you’re glad. It was a terrific new word and I thank you for it.
No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.
-
No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.
I have been a mod on two forums, I have to say only one had a McCann thread. That was very different as its visitors were mature, and presented a good agrgument. Hypothosis and opinions were acceptable but out right accusations were not. I only ever deleted two types of posts. 1 being nasty to other posters, making personal jibes and on the McCann thread for out right libel= direct accusation of killing.hurting their child. they could opine and have a theory- unpleasant as it was to read in some occasion but none the less interesting.
I do get it,how difficult it is to be a mod- to be fair, however I had respect as I never gave in to bullies. on either side of the argument.
This is a debating forum- Some cannot grasp how to conduct themselves in a debate on this McCann thread- when someone mentions an annomoly about parents story it is met with snipes (even encouraged by certain mods) about the poster and no real effort to argue why the annomoly could be wrong- apart from it is every one elses fault.
I have also observed much to my personal annoyance the book burning attitude to some theads and posters. Sensorship is never a good thing- it is a fascist trait and should never be allowed to enter a free speech.
This type of post from VS is a cancer runing through the forum on some threads. I would delete this insulting,childish,bulllying behaviour on site, whether he is supporter or sceptic!
LOL at vomplaining, great new word. @)(++(*
It would be an improvement if mods didn't add their little 'comments' about posters THAT is not their job.
some things to improve this forum:
1. stop the sensorship
2. remove personal jibes and snipes
3. impose the 'cites' request for all ,or remove that from the 'rules'
I am not going to dismiss the role of the mods- it is important and I appprecaite it- I have said this to John on many occasions. It is the quality and having mods with integrity that is required. Something for one or two to work on with help from John perhaps.
Just as an aside do mods take on the role of admin OR is there am actual admin person who isn't also a mod?
-
No need for thanks, I had no intention of creating a new word. Noticing, drawing attention to and laughing at other's mistakes is an unattractive trait in my opinion, but you obviously think it's acceptable.
Blimey, sense of humour failure on an epic scale. I do think it is wholly acceptable to laugh at a funny mistake, and you’re welcome to laugh at any of mine, I promise not to vomplain.
-
I have been a mod on two forums, I have to say only one had a McCann thread. That was very different as its visitors were mature, and presented a good agrgument. Hypothosis and opinions were acceptable but out right accusations were not. I only ever deleted two types of posts. 1 being nasty to other posters, making personal jibes and on the McCann thread for out right libel= direct accusation of killing.hurting their child. they could opine and have a theory- unpleasant as it was to read in some occasion but none the less interesting.
I do get it,how difficult it is to be a mod- to be fair, however I had respect as I never gave in to bullies. on either side of the argument.
This is a debating forum- Some cannot grasp how to conduct themselves in a debate on this McCann thread- when someone mentions an annomoly about parents story it is met with snipes (even encouraged by certain mods) about the poster and no real effort to argue why the annomoly could be wrong- apart from it is every one elses fault.
I have also observed much to my personal annoyance the book burning attitude to some theads and posters. Sensorship is never a good thing- it is a fascist trait and should never be allowed to enter a free speech.
This type of post from VS is a cancer runing through the forum on some threads. I would delete this insulting,childish,bulllying behaviour on site, whether he is supporter or sceptic!
LOL at vomplaining, great new word. @)(++(*
It would be an improvement if mods didn't add their little 'comments' about posters THAT is not their job.
some things to improve this forum:
1. stop the sensorship
2. remove personal jibes and snipes
3. impose the 'cites' request for all ,or remove that from the 'rules'
I am not going to dismiss the role of the mods- it is important and I appprecaite it- I have said this to John on many occasions. It is the quality and having mods with integrity that is required. Something for one or two to work on with help from John perhaps.
Just as an aside do mods take on the role of admin OR is there am actual admin person who isn't also a mod?
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. What ridiculous sanctimonious humourless hyperbole is this? So, now I’m like a cancer for laughing at “vomplaining”? @)(++(*. And all this from a poster who herself delights in making rude, sneery sarky facetious posts herself!
Some of your many spelling mistakes in the above post raised a little chortle too you’ll be thorughly outraged and indignant to know. Sorry. My bad. Naughty cancer, me.
-
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. What ridiculous sanctimonious humourless hyperbole is this? So, now I’m like a cancer for laughing at “vomplaining”? @)(++(*. And all this from a poster who herself delights in making rude, sneery sarky facetious posts herself!
Some of your many spelling mistakes in the above post raised a little chortle too you’ll be thorughly outraged and indignant to know. Sorry. My bad. Naughty cancer, me.
Was it really so amusing? I suspect there was another motive for highlighting my typing error.
-
Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?
Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!
How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?
-
Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?
Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!
How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?
That wouldn't be allowed while Moderators are fair game.
-
Just ruminating or even chewing the cud ... is it fair to have a thread questioning moderation without the balance of one for questioning members?
Anyway ... this one appears to be a great success ... NOT !!!
How many valid on topic questions of anything at all referring to moderation or by definition moderators have actually been posted?
You sound like you've taken to living in a field and eating grass, Brietta. 8(0(*
You mention fairness, but surely you realise that the relationship between members and moderators isn't one of equality? Moderators have powers which give them an advantage over members.
I think some valid points have been raised, even if they haven't been answered.
1. Deletions
2. Restoring deleted posts.
3. Moderator Bias
4. Cites
5. Rules
6. Too much moderation?
7. Public/off topic arguments
I think that's pretty good for a thread covering just 5 pages.
-
It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.
-
That wouldn't be allowed while Moderators are fair game.
Moderators have volunteered to ensure that all members keep to the rules of the Forum. If you poke your head above the parapet you should expect to be shot at in my opinion. As long as you are confident that your moderating is fair, unbiased and in accordance with forum rules there's no need to feel like anyone is attacking you personally.
-
You sound like you've taken to living in a field and eating grass, Brietta. 8(0(*
You mention fairness, but surely you realise that the relationship between members and moderators isn't one of equality? Moderators have powers which give them an advantage over members.
I think some valid points have been raised, even if they haven't been answered.
1. Deletions
2. Restoring deleted posts.
3. Moderator Bias
4. Cites
5. Rules
6. Too much moderation?
7. Public/off topic arguments
I think that's pretty good for a thread covering just 5 pages.
1. Deletions. … Which of your posts have been deleted unfairly?
2. Restoring deleted posts. … Which of your posts have been restored?
3. Moderator Bias. … Please give examples or an example of moderator bias.
4. Cites … What is your problem?
5. Rules … Haven’t you read them?
6. Too much moderation? … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns
7. Public/off topic arguments … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns.
-
It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.
I don't know if I would quite go as far as that Eleanor. I don't think there would be any objection to a board balanced to suit any particular complainant's bias ... but I think gunit would shed no tears for me and thee did we decide to quit and apply to Jill Havern's with our CV's for a home.
-
It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.
One member seems to want a free for all, but I'm sure most accept that moderation is necessary. Preferably of the highest quality with clear unbiased enforcement of the rules.
-
Moderators have volunteered to ensure that all members keep to the rules of the Forum. If you poke your head above the parapet you should expect to be shot at in my opinion. As long as you are confident that your moderating is fair, unbiased and in accordance with forum rules there's no need to feel like anyone is attacking you personally.
You should give it a go.
-
I don't know if I would quite go as far as that Eleanor. I don't think there would be any objection to a board balanced to suit any particular complainant's bias ... but I think gunit would shed no tears for me and thee did we decide to quit and apply to Jill Havern's with our CV's for a home.
Going Free. One battered Moderator.
-
I don't know if I would quite go as far as that Eleanor. I don't think there would be any objection to a board balanced to suit any particular complainant's bias ... but I think gunit would shed no tears for me and thee did we decide to quit and apply to Jill Havern's with our CV's for a home.
I wonder why you think I'm targetting you and Eleanor in particular?
-
Going Free. One battered Moderator.
I've seen how moderation on that forum handles dissidents ... oooooh the POWER ... no arbitration there.
-
I don't know if I would quite go as far as that Eleanor. I don't think there would be any objection to a board balanced to suit any particular complainant's bias ... but I think gunit would shed no tears for me and thee did we decide to quit and apply to Jill Havern's with our CV's for a home.
People come and go for a variety of reasons,I don't think there's much shedding of tears from some quarters when they do,Stephen springs to mind for one.
-
I've seen how moderation on that forum handles dissidents ... oooooh the POWER ... no arbitration there.
I am almost overcome with longing.
-
I wonder why you think I'm targetting you and Eleanor in particular?
Why on earth would I be thinking that *%87
Anyway ... back to topic ... did you catch sight of my response to your queries?
-
I am almost overcome with longing.
Do you think we could wing it? They'd never notice.
-
Do you think we could wing it? They'd never notice.
Change the user name. Change the email address and only go for Supporters. Yep, dead easy.
-
People come and go for a variety of reasons,I don't think there's much shedding of tears from some quarters when they do,Stephen springs to mind for one.
Stephen was part of the exodus seeking a more suitable home. There was no-one on either side of the divide who did not feel his pain and sympathised greatly when he lost his dear wife. I think of him often and hope for his well being.
-
Change the user name. Change the email address and only go for Supporters. Yep, dead easy.
I reckon I could do that. Would soon work my way through the ranks.
-
Could someone give me some tips on how to change my email address? I don't know how to do that.
User Name. How's about, I Love Gonc?
-
Could someone give me some tips on how to change my email address? I don't know how to do that.
User Name. How's about, I Love Gonc?
That should do it ... but you would need to drop Mona Lisa she's a giveaway ... but there are loads of appropriate avatars to choose from.
-
That should do it ... but you would need to drop Mona Lisa she's a giveaway ... but there are loads of appropriate avatars to choose from.
What about The Terminator? That should tell em I mean business.
-
1. Deletions. … Which of your posts have been deleted unfairly?
2. Restoring deleted posts. … Which of your posts have been restored?
3. Moderator Bias. … Please give examples or an example of moderator bias.
4. Cites … What is your problem?
5. Rules … Haven’t you read them?
6. Too much moderation? … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns
7. Public/off topic arguments … Please give examples or an example illustrating your concerns.
Why are you challenging me personally? If you read the Madeleine McCann board and this thread you will see that I have listed subjects which have been repeatedly raised by all members, not just me.
-
Was it really so amusing? I suspect there was another motive for highlighting my typing error.
Listen, you’ve made dozens of typing errors in the last few months, none of them particularly amusing. This one amused me, that is all. Please try not to take it so seriously, if you can’t laugh at your own mistakes once in a while then I think that’s a bit sad.
-
It sounds to me as though you all would rather not have any moderators at all.
That would suit me, no offence like, but I’d certainly favour a far less “hands on” approach.
-
Could someone give me some tips on how to change my email address? I don't know how to do that.
User Name. How's about, I Love Gonc?
The person or the cadaver dog?
-
Why are you challenging me personally? If you read the Madeleine McCann board and this thread you will see that I have listed subjects which have been repeatedly raised by all members, not just me.
OK ... so your opinion based on observation only.
You do not have any concerns or questions regarding moderation.
Perhaps those who do would be kind enough to hit their keyboards to inform us first hand rather than relying on hearsay of the problems they are experiencing.
-
Why are you challenging me personally? If you read the Madeleine McCann board and this thread you will see that I have listed subjects which have been repeatedly raised by all members, not just me.
Would you like The Rules to be changed?
-
The person or the cadaver dog?
The Dog, obviously.
-
You should give it a go.
Although I'm not here to win any popularity contest I know full well that I would be universally unpopular if I was a moderator. I believe rules should be adhered to and I would enforce them much more strictly than they are currently enforced.
I wouldn't allow any;
Personal comments
Lack of respect
Speculation
Lack of cites
Protracted arguments
-
Although I'm not here to win any popularity contest I know full well that I would be universally unpopular if I was a moderator. I believe rules should be adhered to and I would enforce them much more strictly than they are currently enforced.
I wouldn't allow any;
Personal comments
Lack of respect
Speculation
Lack of cites
Protracted arguments
You would most certainly be better at this than I am.
-
I think I should be a Mod, I know it would cause plenty of vomplaining. @)(++(*
-
OK ... so your opinion based on observation only.
You do not have any concerns or questions regarding moderation.
Perhaps those who do would be kind enough to hit their keyboards to inform us first hand rather than relying on hearsay of the problems they are experiencing.
I do have one; protracted off topic arguments, especually those between members and a moderator(s) about moderation should be stopped.
As I said, the concerns I highlighted are all to be found if anyone wants to see them.
-
I do have one; protracted off topic arguments, especually those between members and a moderator(s) about moderation should be stopped.
As I said, the concerns I highlighted are all to be found if anyone wants to see them.
You do know that John's in charge, I hope.
-
Would it be possible to make a league table of members who have reported the most posts?
-
You would most certainly be better at this than I am.
I don't quite know how to respond to that. 8)-)))
-
You do know that John's in charge, I hope.
I do indeed. Does he take the view that off topic arguments about moderation should be allowed to disrupt threads?
-
Would it be possible to make a league table of members who have reported the most posts?
There isn't one. Most members go straight to John, so the Moderators don't know what is going on most of the time.
-
I don't quite know how to respond to that. 8)-)))
You should try it, and then you would know.
-
I do indeed. Does he take the view that off topic arguments about moderation should be allowed to disrupt threads?
I don't know. You will have to ask him.
-
I think I should be a Mod, I know it would cause plenty of vomplaining. @)(++(*
I suspect this post and a like by a mod is attempt at a wind up,G is better than to warrant it.
davel says he has a form of dyslexia and its respected,not the same compassion for a sceptic it can be said.
-
I suspect this post and a like by a mod is attempt at a wind up,G is better than to warrant it.
davel says he has a form of dyslexia and its respected,not the same compassion for a sceptic it can be said.
I Liked the thought of VS being a Mod.
Everyone, apart from me, makes mistakes. And sometimes they are funny.
-
I don't know. You will have to ask him.
Well as I understand it moderators are allowed to deal with off topic posts. Therefore it's in your power to do so in my opinion. I don't understand why you think it's up to John?
-
You should try it, and then you would know.
Know what?
-
I Liked the thought of VS being a Mod.
Everyone, apart from me, makes mistakes. And sometimes they are funny.
I probably am too serious, but the idea of VS as a moderator doesn't sit well with your declared intent of preventing a cesspit in my opinion.
I think you made a mistake a while back, Eleanor.
-
Know what?
Know what we know.
-
Well as I understand it moderators are allowed to deal with off topic posts. Therefore it's in your power to do so in my opinion. I don't understand why you think it's up to John?
Ah well you see, often there is interesting stuff that John might like to move to the correct Topic. But only he can do that.
Nothing is ever as simple as it might seem.
-
I probably am too serious, but the idea of VS as a moderator doesn't sit well with your declared intent of preventing a cesspit in my opinion.
I think you made a mistake a while back, Eleanor.
Really? Oh My.
I Liked the thought of VS being a Moderator because I thought it was funny.
-
Know what we know.
Why would that interest me?
-
Why would that interest me?
Wasn't that you asking the question?
-
Ah well you see, often there is interesting stuff that John might like to move to the correct Topic. But only he can do that.
Nothing is ever as simple as it might seem.
I find nothing of interest in members and moderators arguing about Forum Rules and I haven't seen any pf those arguments being moved, just deleted eventually.
-
Wasn't that you asking the question?
Well if the answer was 'know what we know' I expect I can manage without thanks.
-
Well if the answer was 'know what we know' I expect I can manage without thanks.
So you aren't interested in how complicated it can be. I might as well have saved my time.
-
I suspect this post and a like by a mod is attempt at a wind up,G is better than to warrant it.
davel says he has a form of dyslexia and its respected,not the same compassion for a sceptic it can be said.
Davel’s typos are always being complained about!! I have utmost compassion for anyone suffering from poor vision and cataracts, they run in my family so I know all about it, that doesn’t mean if a family member makes a funny typo that I have to be all respectful and po-faced about it.
-
Davel’s typos are always being complained about!! I have utmost compassion for anyone suffering from poor vision and cataracts, they run in my family so I know all about it, that doesn’t mean if a family member makes a funny typo that I have to be all respectful and po-faced about it.
One of my friend's husband has dementia.
She tells me that they share laughs about some of the incidents of forgetfulness.
It's how they cope.
-
So you aren't interested in how complicated it can be. I might as well have saved my time.
I'm not interested in cryptic comments, but I'm just as interested in how the moderators feel as I am in how ordinary members feel. My aim was to explore why there's such conflict between moderators and members sometimes and to see if a solution could be found. Understanding the problens moderators face is an important part of that process. Thanks to some of the things you've said I understand better than I did, even if no-one else does. Thank you Eleanor.
-
One of my friend's husband has dementia.
She tells me that they share laughs about some of the incidents of forgetfulness.
It's how they cope.
Shared laughter is important. I told my children how I used the torch on my phone one night to look for something instead of putting the light on. What was I looking for? My phone!
Poking fun at relative strangers is another matter entirely in my opinion. I'm not upset by it because strangers I interact with online don't have the power to upset me. I simply speak my mind and let others judge. .
-
Shared laughter is important. I told my children how I used the torch on my phone one night to look for something instead of putting the light on. What was I looking for? My phone!
Poking fun at relative strangers is another matter entirely in my opinion. I'm not upset by it because strangers I interact with online don't have the power to upset me. I simply speak my mind and let others judge. .
I’m very glad to hear you’re not remotely upset and I’d like to remind you that I wasn’t poking fun at you, simply amused by the descriptive new word you had inadvertently invented.
-
I’m very glad to hear you’re not remotely upset and I’d like to remind you that I wasn’t poking fun at you, simply amused by the descriptive new word you had inadvertently invented.
Of course you weren't.
-
Of course you weren't.
Are you calling me a liar? For someone who claims not to be upset you seem to want to make something of it. As I have already pointed out, you have made dozens and dozens of typing errors, this was the ONLY one I have commented on and the ONLY reason for doing so was because ai liked the word. Now, you may choose to believe I am out to ridicule you if you want or you can accept it was a harmless bit of fun that you havr chosen to blow out of all proportion, perhaps to try and make a show of me. Time to be mature and move on.
-
Are you calling me a liar? For someone who claims not to be upset you seem to want to make something of it. As I have already pointed out, you have made dozens and dozens of typing errors, this was the ONLY one I have commented on and the ONLY reason for doing so was because ai liked the word. Now, you may choose to believe I am out to ridicule you if you want or you can accept it was a harmless bit of fun that you havr chosen to blow out of all proportion, perhaps to try and make a show of me. Time to be mature and move on.
Every post I've made on this subject has been a reply to you or others.. I wouldn't have referred to it again if you and others hadn't carried on posting about it. I can assure you that if you shut up so will I.
-
Every post I've made on this subject has been a reply to you or others.. I wouldn't have referred to it again if you and others hadn't carried on posting about it. I can assure you that if you shut up so will I.
Incorrect. You raised the issue of me laughing at your typo first when you wrote
“I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused”
It now transpires that you weren’t glad at all but rather attempting to take some moral high ground on account of your condition to try and put me in my place. It is you who has made something out of nothing but it seems you are also determined to have the last word on the subject. As I said, time to accept my explanation or keep on and on about it forever.
-
Incorrect. You raised the issue of me laughing at your typo first when you wrote
“I'm glad my mistakes (caused by my cataract) are keeping you amused”
It now transpires that you weren’t glad at all but rather attempting to take some moral high ground on account of your condition to try and put me in my place. It is you who has made something out of nothing but it seems you are also determined to have the last word on the subject. As I said, time to accept my explanation or keep on and on about it forever.
I have only ever replied. If you don't like my replies that's tough. I don't care why you did it to be honest, and I don't want to keep on discussing it; you do.
-
I have only ever replied. If you don't like my replies that's tough. I don't care why you did it to be honest, and I don't want to keep on discussing it; you do.
Is the current Off Topic argument in which you are presently indulging an example of something that you would wish moderators to take censoring action against as per your former posts suggesting how we could improve moderation?
-
Is the current Off Topic argument in which you are presently indulging an example of something that you would wish moderators to take censoring action against as per your former posts suggesting how we could improve moderation?
As I have pointed out several times I have instigated none of it. Why have you chosen to address your post to me instead of to the one who is driving the exchanges?
-
As I have pointed out several times I have instigated none of it. Why have you chosen to address your post to me instead of to the one who is driving the exchanges?
Takes two to tango 🤪
-
The above is a good example of how things deteriorate to the point that the mods have to start deleting and then members start to ask why their posts were deleted.
The majority of mods here post opinion too and that can often cause conflict if said mod has to moderate those posts. It's a no win situation really but I feel my fellow mods handle it well in those difficult circumstances.
I notice davel is taking some time out, is he off on his hols?
-
The above is a good example of how things deteriorate to the point that the mods have to start deleting and then members start to ask why their posts were deleted.
The majority of mods here post opinion too and that can often cause conflict if said mod has to moderate those posts. It's a no win situation really but I feel my fellow mods handle it well in those difficult circumstances.
I notice davel is taking some time out, is he off on his hols?
As you have chosen to give your opinion perhaps you could elucidate further? I didn't post an off topic post, but I answered one because it was aimed at me. Futher off topic posts were directed at me, which I also answered. In my opinion a moderator chose to intercede by castigating me for taking part. Why me and not the one driving the discussion? Why was I targetted?
-
Takes two to tango 🤪
Then address your posts to both dancers.
-
Of course you weren't.
May I just say, as a complete newbie to this thread who knows nothing of possible machinations, agendas and internal politics, that I thought "your" word, vomplain, was both deliberate and brilliant. It's totally self explanatory. When we complain, we spew or vomit the words. I can't be the only one here who had that thought.
-
May I just say, as a complete newbie to this thread who knows nothing of possible machinations, agendas and internal politics, that I thought "your" word, vomplain, was both deliberate and brilliant. It's totally self explanatory. When we complain, we spew or vomit the words. I can't be the only one here who had that thought.
As you say, you have no knowledge of the background. All I know is that if a poster feels personally attacked by my posts I tend to apologise for any offence I have inadvetently caused and then explain. That usually satisfies the other party.
-
I think that you are all very unkind to Moderators.
I am off to Blog about a really nice afternoon.
-
I think that you are all very unkind to Moderators.
I am off to Blog about a really nice afternoon.
I think moderators are sometimes unkind too. Enjoy your blogging, I may take a nap.
-
I think moderators are sometimes unkind too. Enjoy your blogging, I may take a nap.
Thanks for that accolade. Despite a not very good education there is absolutely nothing wrong with my command of The English Language, in my opinion.
-
Thanks for that accolade. Despite a not very good education there is absolutely nothing wrong with my command of The English Language, in my opinion.
Your command of English is perfectly fine in my opinion for what that's worth.
-
Your command of English is perfectly fine in my opinion for what that's worth.
Gee, tanks.
-
As I have pointed out several times I have instigated none of it. Why have you chosen to address your post to me instead of to the one who is driving the exchanges?
You have made something out of a nothing throw away remark by me. You are the one with the problem not me.
-
You have made something out of a nothing throw away remark by me. You are the one with the problem not me.
You are off topic and I'm not in the mood to tango.
-
You are off topic and I'm not in the mood to tango.
I’m in the mood for dancing, romancing, I’m giving it all tonight... (&^&
-
May I just say, as a complete newbie to this thread who knows nothing of possible machinations, agendas and internal politics, that I thought "your" word, vomplain, was both deliberate and brilliant. It's totally self explanatory. When we complain, we spew or vomit the words. I can't be the only one here who had that thought.
Thank you April, my thoughts exactly.
-
I have a Mod query. If you are asked to provide a cite, then provide a cite and are told scornfully that the cite you have provided is inadequate but without the complainant making any attempt to provide any reasons why the cite is inadequate is that acceptable?
-
I have a Mod query. If you are asked to provide a cite, then provide a cite and are told scornfully that the cite you have provided is inadequate but without the complainant making any attempt to provide any reasons why the cite is inadequate is that acceptable?
In my opinion cites are caveat emptor; if there is a strong reason for objecting to one ... that should either be given or reported.
-
In my opinion cites are caveat emptor; if there is a strong reason for objecting to one ... that should either be given or reported.
There are two recent issues with that.
1) An instance in which a member did a copy and paste from my blog, then requested a cite from me. Cites don't work like that.
2) An instance in which a member provided a link and claimed it as a cite. Since the link in question did not pertain to the debate, there was no point in getting bogged down in its veracity.
Cites are not weapons of debate. They are either pertinent or they are not. There is no forum rule that non-pertinent cites have to be accepted or debated.
-
There are two recent issues with that.
1) An instance in which a member did a copy and paste from my blog, then requested a cite from me. Cites don't work like that.
2) An instance in which a member provided a link and claimed it as a cite. Since the link in question did not pertain to the debate, there was no point in getting bogged down in its veracity.
Cites are not weapons of debate. They are either pertinent or they are not. There is no forum rule that non-pertinent cites have to be accepted or debated.
Why is there the necessity of having to ask for cites. If one is quoting from a particular source why not just include that in the post as a matter of course to enable members to check it out? In my opinion that would be the courteous thing to do in the first instance.
-
Why is there the necessity of having to ask for cites. If one is quoting from a particular source why not just include that in the post as a matter of course to enable members to check it out? In my opinion that would be the courteous thing to do in the first instance.
When I joined MoJ cites weren't required. Lots of members were posting their own opinions as if they were facts. There was also a lot of paraphrasing going on. The onus was on the reader of the post to decide whether 'fact's' were fact or opinion and whether quotes were correct or paraphrased, which sometimes made them suggest something incorrect.
Although the rules now say that opinions must be identified as such and cites must be provided for facts that doesn't always happen. Hence the need to ask.
-
When I joined MoJ cites weren't required. Lots of members were posting their own opinions as if they were facts. There was also a lot of paraphrasing going on. The onus was on the reader of the post to decide whether 'fact's' were fact or opinion and whether quotes were correct or paraphrased, which sometimes made them suggest something incorrect.
Although the rules now say that opinions must be identified as such and cites must be provided for facts that doesn't always happen. Hence the need to ask.
I don't know when you joined the forum but when I joined in late 2013 it was very common for cites to be requested.
-
I don't know when you joined the forum but when I joined in late 2013 it was very common for cites to be requested.
And a lot of them were rubbish. Still are sometimes.
-
Yet again the rules have been blatantly ignored and action has had to be taken. How many chances should people be given, I wonder?
-
Yet again the rules have been blatantly ignored and action has had to be taken. How many chances should people be given, I wonder?
I suppose some score should be kept .
Perhaps differing penalty points depending on the gravity of the breaking of rules?
Ten points for insulting a fellow poster?
Twenty for insulting a moderator?
Twenty for posting libel?
In school each child was awarded points for good behaviour.
Perhaps that should be considered?
This could be fun!
On a Friday the golden time was a reward for good behaviour.
Some children had their whole half hour of Golden time, some less, some even less and some none at all!
Back to your original question.
Do you have any suggestion of "how many chances people should be given" ?
-
Posters may please themselves. And Moderators do not have the last word.
-
IMO, Davel is deliberately provoked to breaking point by members and mods who seem intent on getting a rise out of him and then using as an excuse to silence him. I used to be similarly provoked and would rise to the bait. I probably still would if the mod who used to pursue me relentlessly and give me warning for absolutely nothing hadn’t decided to take a bit of a backseat. I completely understand Davel’s frustrations. The answer of course is to rise above the bait but it can be difficult sometimes.
-
IMO, Davel is deliberately provoked to breaking point by members and mods who seem intent on getting a rise out of him and then using as an excuse to silence him. I used to be similarly provoked and would rise to the bait. I probably still would if the mod who used to pursue me relentlessly and give me warning for absolutely nothing hadn’t decided to take a bit of a backseat. I completely understand Davel’s frustrations. The answer of course is to rise above the bait but it can be difficult sometimes.
Observing the entirety of the posts.
Deliberately provoked is most definitely the correct description.
-
IMO, Davel is deliberately provoked to breaking point by members and mods who seem intent on getting a rise out of him and then using as an excuse to silence him. I used to be similarly provoked and would rise to the bait. I probably still would if the mod who used to pursue me relentlessly and give me warning for absolutely nothing hadn’t decided to take a bit of a backseat. I completely understand Davel’s frustrations. The answer of course is to rise above the bait but it can be difficult sometimes.
It is often what you don't say that matters. But this can be hard.
-
IMO, Davel is deliberately provoked to breaking point by members and mods who seem intent on getting a rise out of him and then using as an excuse to silence him. I used to be similarly provoked and would rise to the bait. I probably still would if the mod who used to pursue me relentlessly and give me warning for absolutely nothing hadn’t decided to take a bit of a backseat. I completely understand Davel’s frustrations. The answer of course is to rise above the bait but it can be difficult sometimes.
Self control is definitely the answer imo, because the alterative is being controlled by others. My method is to write my answer to a post which annoys me then read it back. I then edit or delete it, depending. It's a trick I used with emails.
-
Self control is definitely the answer imo, because the alterative is being controlled by others. My method is to write my answer to a post which annoys me then read it back. I then edit or delete it, depending. It's a trick I used with emails.
To be fair, you have never, ever been subjected to the over moderating and combined hounding by two posters which Davel was subjected to on that evening.
An annoying post can be easily ignored.
I do it many a time.
But that is not the same as the unfair moderating and goading which Davel was subjected to on that evening!
-
Self control is definitely the answer imo, because the alterative is being controlled by others. My method is to write my answer to a post which annoys me then read it back. I then edit or delete it, depending. It's a trick I used with emails.
You’d be amazed (or not) by how many posts I begin with “you complete tw..” and then delete before posting..l 8(>((
-
You’d be amazed (or not) by how many posts I begin with “you complete tw..” and then delete before posting..l 8(>((
I get the same urge myself sometimes. But it would never do, of course.
-
To be fair, you have never, ever been subjected to the over moderating and combined hounding by two posters which Davel was subjected to on that evening.
An annoying post can be easily ignored.
I do it many a time.
But that is not the same as the unfair moderating and goading which Davel was subjected to on that evening!
It's not always possible to prove you're right. The sensible thing to do then is to stop trying. Resorting to abuse isn't the sensible thing to do, especially if those disagreeing with you are moderators.
-
It's not always possible to prove you're right. The sensible thing to do then is to stop trying. Resorting to abuse isn't the sensible thing to do, especially if those disagreeing with you are moderators.
Davel obviously deliberately resorted to abuse knowing he would be banned. He’d had enough of the stupidity and wanted a break I expect.
-
Davel obviously deliberately resorted to abuse knowing he would be banned. He’d had enough of the stupidity and wanted a break I expect.
All these judgemental words that get bandied about; stupidity, bullying, bias, etc. All opinions and all designed to sow discord imo.
-
Davel obviously deliberately resorted to abuse knowing he would be banned. He’d had enough of the stupidity and wanted a break I expect.
A self imposed exile?
Wouldn't blame him at all.
He had had over moderating and.goading to deal with and then the jocular posts about Madeleines disappearance which in my opinion were unacceptable.
-
All these judgemental words that get bandied about; stupidity, bullying, bias, etc. All opinions and all designed to sow discord imo.
OK let’s ban all insults and all judgmental words, regardless of to whom they apply, shall we?
-
A self imposed exile?
Wouldn't blame him at all.
He had had over moderating and.goading to deal with and then the jocular posts about Madeleines disappearance which in my opinion were unacceptable.
So in your opinion he's a reasonable, uncontroversial member who, through no fault of his own, gets goaded and ober moderated?
-
So in your opinion he's a reasonable, uncontroversial member who, through no fault of his own, gets goaded and ober moderated?
Exactly. His views are not controversial, certainly not when compared to numerous sceptics on here, IMO.
-
Exactly. His views are not controversial, certainly not when compared to numerous sceptics on here, IMO.
I was referring to his posting style, not his opinions.
-
So in your opinion he's a reasonable, uncontroversial member who, through no fault of his own, gets goaded and ober moderated?
My part in the public discussion of a fellow forum member is finished!
-
My part in the public discussion of a fellow forum member is finished!
I agree. The discussion shouldn't have focussed onto one named member.
-
I agree. The discussion shouldn't have focussed onto one named member.
I think when you raised your initial question about how many chances people should be given, then it was more than obvious to whom you were referring.
Did you receive any answers to your original question?
Pardon my cynicism in believing that if a sceptic had been the person in question, then I doubt you would have raised such a question!
-
I think when you raised your initial question about how many chances people should be given, then it was more than obvious to whom you were referring.
Did you receive any answers to your original question?
Pardon my cynicism in believing that if a sceptic had been the person in question, then I doubt you would have raised such a question!
totally
An incident occured which led to someone being sanctioned. We were all told why; totally unacceptable language had been used to both moderators and other members. As was also pointed out; there should be no need to keep reminding people of the rules.
It seems to me that the sanctions don't work, because if they did people would behave better, Hence ny question, In my opinion repeating the same offence should carry a heavier penalty each time it's repeated.This should apply to ALL menbers.
-
totally
An incident occured which led to someone being sanctioned. We were all told why; totally unacceptable language had been used to both moderators and other members. As was also pointed out; there should be no need to keep reminding people of the rules.
It seems to me that the sanctions don't work, because if they did people would behave better, Hence ny question, In my opinion repeating the same offence should carry a heavier penalty each time it's repeated.This should apply to ALL menbers.
Possibly best to direct your concerns and suggestions to John!
I've had an entire career dealing with classroom rewards, discipline, indiscipline, rules, penalties etc! ..........
-
I was referring to his posting style, not his opinions.
What’s controversial about it?
-
totally
An incident occured which led to someone being sanctioned. We were all told why; totally unacceptable language had been used to both moderators and other members. As was also pointed out; there should be no need to keep reminding people of the rules.
It seems to me that the sanctions don't work, because if they did people would behave better, Hence ny question, In my opinion repeating the same offence should carry a heavier penalty each time it's repeated.This should apply to ALL menbers.
IMO, this forum needs Davel and others who post “controversially” because without them it would be Dullsville Arizona.
-
IMO, this forum needs Davel and others who post “controversially” because without them it would be Dullsville Arizona.
Well, as you say, you're just here for the craic.
-
Well, as you say, you're just here for the craic.
I am indeed, I’m not here as a McCann scholar or armchair detective, is that so very wrong of me?
-
I am indeed, I’m not here as a McCann scholar or armchair detective, is that so very wrong of me?
Not in the least; it just means you have different priorities.
-
Not in the least; it just means you have different priorities.
Not really. Anyone who says they post here for purely altruistic reasons is a liar. We’re all here to enjoy ourselves, it’s just some get their enjoyment from picking holes in the McCanns’ statements and some get their enyoyment from pointing out the absurd logic others employ to maintain their belief that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
Not really. Anyone who says they post here for purely altruistic reasons is a liar. We’re all here to enjoy ourselves, it’s just some get their enjoyment from picking holes in the McCanns’ statements and some get their enyoyment from pointing out the absurd logic others employ to maintain their belief that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
It all comes down to opinion in the end because of the lack of evidence. The point is I think abusing other members is wrong, full stop. You seem to think it's OK.
-
It all comes down to opinion in the end because of the lack of evidence. The point is I think abusing other members is wrong, full stop. You seem to think it's OK.
You seem to think that posters who abuse the family of a missing little girl is ok.
I don't remember any outcry when a moderator called Madeleine's parents s***!.
That was his opinion!
When the jocular post was made by a poster who finds humour in a little girls disappearance and when that post was liked by a moderator, then a poster is entitled to use the same descriptive language as has been previously endorsed by a moderator. IMO.
-
It all comes down to opinion in the end because of the lack of evidence. The point is I think abusing other members is wrong, full stop. You seem to think it's OK.
You don’t think it’s wrong at all. You have liked several abusive posts aimed at supporters. Plus your definition of abuse is extremely wide when you think you’re on the receiving end of it, having been accused myself by you of abusing you in the past. I have also been accused of being a stalker by another member, simply for challenging her views, so could you define “abuse” specifically?
-
You don’t think it’s wrong at all. You have liked several abusive posts aimed at supporters. Plus your definition of abuse is extremely wide when you think you’re on the receiving end of it, having been accused myself by you of abusing you in the past. I have also been accused of being a stalker by another member, simply for challenging her views, so could define “abuse” specifically?
"Abuse" appears to be a word which is thrown around willy-nilly. I was accused of attacking someone on another forum because I typed certain words in capitals!!! ie "YOU", as opposed to "you" purely to emphasize that something was personal rather than generic. Accusing someone of abuse simply because they disagree seems common-place, as is the accusation of "stalker" because one poster takes offense at being disagreed with by, say, one person in particular. Such a delicate little flower/internet virgin was I, when it first occurred, that I was appalled that such could be thought of me.........................I learned very quickly that a thick skin is de rigour!!!
-
I class abuse as making personal remarks to other members. Calling them stupid, unintelligent or otherwise lacking in some way. I take those insults on the chin because I know it means they have run out of sensible answers, I'm aksi amused by the fact that those who hurl these insults around complain so bitterly if someone upsets them. Ifthey can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.
-
I class abuse as making personal remarks to other members. Calling them stupid, unintelligent or otherwise lacking in some way. I take those insults on the chin because I know it means they have run out of sensible answers, I'm aksi amused by the fact that those who hurl these insults around complain so bitterly if someone upsets them. Ifthey can't take it they shouldn't dish it out.
Does that explain why you sometimes like abusive posts aimed at members who you perceive to be abusive?
-
You’ll be pleased to know I have received a warning for making snide remarks to other posters. I have no idea which post so offended the mods, it would be nice to know though.
-
Does that explain why you sometimes like abusive posts aimed at members who you perceive to be abusive?
I like all kinds of posts for all kinds of reasons; not all of them by sceptics either. Davel's reference to the illuminations a while back made me laugh out loud.
-
You’ll be pleased to know I have received a warning for making snide remarks to other posters. I have no idea which post so offended the mods, it would be nice to know though.
Don't you know when you're being snide?
-
Don't you know when you're being snide?
You are being snide in that post!
"Mocking in an indirect way"
In my opinion of course.
-
You’ll be pleased to know I have received a warning for making snide remarks to other posters. I have no idea which post so offended the mods, it would be nice to know though.
It's nonsense.
At least in school pupils knew the reason why they were being " punished"
Was the snide remark the reason you have the ten percent award?
-
You are being snide in that post!
"Mocking in an indirect way"
In my opinion of course.
You're fond of accusing others, aren't you? I don't know whether VS is able to judge his/her own posts or not.
-
You're fond of accusing others, aren't you? I don't know whether VS is able to judge his/her own posts or not.
I'm fond of accusing others of what?
-
Don't you know when you're being snide?
Did I say that? No. I said I didn’t know whichpost so offended the mods, especially as none seemed to have been doctored or removed.
-
To be fair I would say a reasonable percentage of my posts are snide, but I’m certainly not the only one guilty of such disgusting behaviour.. There are others far more masterful in the art of snidery than me, mostly on the sceptic side IMO..
-
Davel has just posted on another thread that John has told him that he is being unfairly moderated. I wonder if John could respond to this accusation?
-
I got 10% watning for being “patronising “. Can we please see this patronising post so that it can be understood which part of it contravened forum rules?
-
I'd like to thank Eleanor for being willing to take part in this discussion. Moderating is a difficult job which I personally wouldn't touch with a bargepole. It seems to me that moderators end up between the devil and the deep blue sea. It must be annoying to delete a post and then see it reinstated. It also encourages members to think moderators arem't doing their job properly, so it leads to more challenges and arguments.
On the other hand I'm sure I'm not the only member who has posted a carefully worded post or two and then discovered them gone because I was involved in a discussion triggered by a post which moderators have decided, with hindsight, needs deleting.
Members can't be expected to read back before posting to ensure that previous posts are within the rules; that's not their responsibilty. I think speed of reaction by moderators is the problem here. If moderators dealt with unacceptable posts immediately then no-one would br able to reply to them.
Do you think we've got nothing else to do?
-
I've seen Rob struggling to decide what is and isn't acceptable too. It seems moderators aren't completely sure of the rules they're enforcing.
People keep inventing ways which appear to be designed to insult. Do they fall within the rules?
-
Vertigo Swirl,
You have received a warning for posting content which may constitute defamation or libel. Please refrain from posting such material as this infringes your registration undertaking.
Regards,
The UK Justice Forum Team.
WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME FGS???
-
Vertigo Swirl,
You have received a warning for posting content which may constitute defamation or libel. Please refrain from posting such material as this infringes your registration undertaking.
Regards,
The UK Justice Forum Team.
WHAT DID I DO THIS TIME FGS???
I've had a lot of penalty points, and been banned... Every time by my own choice.
However I've found when I stopped replying and challenging goading posts from moderators things have gone a lot smoother...
-
I've had a lot of penalty points, and been banned... Every time by my own choice.
However I've found when I stopped replying and challenging goading posts from moderators things have gone a lot smoother...
And a lot quieter which obviously suits the mods as now they have virtually no new posts to moderate. It’s Dullsville Arizona here, unless you get your kicks from discussing door mechanisms.
-
I've had a lot of penalty points, and been banned... Every time by my own choice.
However I've found when I stopped replying and challenging goading posts from moderators things have gone a lot smoother...
Telling a mod to stick it up their arse isn't a smart response in anyone's book.
-
Telling a mod to stick it up their arse isn't a smart response in anyone's book.
thats your opinion....posting opinion as fact is against forum rules. This matter is settled...why you want to open it again and cause more friction on the forum isnt very smart...imo
this was avery successful and vibrant forum...its been decimated by poor moderation..imo...thats not very smart..imo
-
Telling a mod to stick it up their arse isn't a smart response in anyone's book.
Maybe not, but perhaps you could tell me why there is a mod on here who is allowed to post opinion as fact time and time again and refuses to moderate his own posts?
-
Telling a mod to stick it up their arse isn't a smart response in anyone's book.
BTW I saw the post in question. It didn’t say what you wrote above.
-
- In the second instance ... I am very obviously not the arbitrator of what can and cannot be posted on the forum ... that is for members to decide for themselves
A mod is an arbitrator,ergo post's are deleted by mods,what is the point of a mod if not an arbitrator.
-
A mod is an arbitrator,ergo post's are deleted by mods,what is the point of a mod if not an arbitrator.
Are you suggesting that Mods argue the point with Posters?[/list]
-
According to Holly, claiming that someone has expressed a view which is offensive or ludicrous amounts to libel and defamation of the person with the offensive or ludicrous views. Apparently hypocrisy is also now against forum rules.
How utterly ludicrous!
-
According to Holly, claiming that someone has expressed a view which is offensive or ludicrous amounts to libel and defamation of the person with the offensive or ludicrous views. Apparently hypocrisy is also now against forum rules.
How utterly ludicrous!
Quite frankly, Holly’s tyrannical behaviour is driving me away.
She preaches to people demanding they mustn’t say this, say that, but she’s exempt! She’s always sending warnings, editing posts, removing posts...no wonder so many of the original members have left.
She’s so condescending and patronising, not to mention hypocritical. She tells people they must only posts factual evidence, whilst posting theories herself. Not only that, many of her theories are ridiculous!
I don’t know what her problem is, but I’ve never experienced this on a forum before. She scares people off!
-
According to Holly, claiming that someone has expressed a view which is offensive or ludicrous amounts to libel and defamation of the person with the offensive or ludicrous views. Apparently hypocrisy is also now against forum rules.
How utterly ludicrous!
"someone has expressed a view which is offensive or ludicrous amounts to libel and defamation of the person with the offensive or ludicrous views "
Now let me think... where is this happening... erm um... Oh yes the McCann thread. tsk
Just checked, you never complain about the mods there doing the same thing. Funny that!
"***** preaches to people demanding they mustn’t say this, say that, but she’s exempt! **** always sending warnings, editing posts, removing posts...no wonder so many of the original members have left. "
Yeah sounds like the mods at the McCann thread.
We do need mods but we need those who are supporting John and not the cause of anghst among posters.
Simple rule: challenge the post not insult the poster it seems to workmen other forums.
Some mods have spoiled the many good debates by being emotional involved due to some kind of 'association' with preps.
Show your independence people!
-
"someone has expressed a view which is offensive or ludicrous amounts to libel and defamation of the person with the offensive or ludicrous views "
Now let me think... where is this happening... erm um... Oh yes the McCann thread. tsk
Just checked, you never complain about the mods there doing the same thing. Funny that!
"***** preaches to people demanding they mustn’t say this, say that, but she’s exempt! **** always sending warnings, editing posts, removing posts...no wonder so many of the original members have left. "
Yeah sounds like the mods at the McCann thread.
We do need mods but we need those who are supporting John and not the cause of anghst among posters.
Simple rule: challenge the post not insult the poster it seems to workmen other forums.
Some mods have spoiled the many good debates by being emotional involved due to some kind of 'association' with preps.
Show your independence people!
You’ve selectively quoted me and therefore misunderstood completely what I wrote, so once again you live up to your name Miss Taken.
-
You’ve selectively quoted me and therefore misunderstood completely what I wrote, so once again you live up to your name Miss Taken.
No. I am saying it like it is. You have an issue which many of us non McCann supporters experience on the McCann thread. I addressed the issue we both believe we are experiencing- of course if you don't think it is happening on the McCann thread then you are being disingenuous IMO.
I would add that it may be sour grapes because you are not getting away with what you do on the McCann thread and that could be the crux of it.
I disagree with Holly on many issues- I don't need to call her names, or try sarcasm to snipe. I am sure if I did break forum rules she would deal with me.
-
No, I’m sorry you do not seem to understand at all.
Holly claims that the act of telling someone you think their views are offensive or ludicrous is LIBELLOUS to the person who you are criticising. This has NEVER been a rule on the McCann forum, nor have I EVER accused someone of libelling ME for expressing their views about my posts. Do you understand now??
-
No, I’m sorry you do not seem to understand at all.
Holly claims that the act of telling someone you think their views are offensive or ludicrous is LIBELLOUS to the person who you are criticising. This has NEVER been a rule on the McCann forum, nor have I EVER accused someone of libelling ME for expressing their views about my posts. Do you understand now??
"the act of telling someone you think their views are offensive or ludicrous is LIBELLOUS "
Well I saw this bit and yes my posts were removed and sanctioned for saying something like:the McCanns are rich and getting on with their lives- in response to a post- not libelous at all. But mods didn't like it. Sounds like the same thing to me.
and both wrong. IMO
-
"the act of telling someone you think their views are offensive or ludicrous is LIBELLOUS "
Well I saw this bit and yes my posts were removed and sanctioned for saying something like:the McCanns are rich and getting on with their lives- in response to a post- not libelous at all. But mods didn't like it. Sounds like the same thing to me.
and both wrong. IMO
No it is not the same thing. I honestly think some people still don’t understand what libel means. It is not possible to libel an anonymous poster for a start. It is impossible to ruin their real life reputation or livlihood by writing that their views are offensive or ludicrous. It’s just an excuse being used by one particular mod who doesn’t like my views and wants to shut me up. IMO.
-
No it is not the same thing. I honestly think some people still don’t understand what libel means. It is not possible to libel an anonymous poster for a start. It is impossible to ruin their real life reputation or livlihood by writing that their views are offensive or ludicrous. It’s just an excuse being used by one particular mod who doesn’t like my views and wants to shut me up. IMO.
" It’s just an excuse being used by one particular mod who doesn’t like my views and wants to shut me up. "
Ditto with me on the McCann thread- I don't believe you never noticed it happening to me and other no supporters.
But thats ok too. another bun fight-another day :)
-
" It’s just an excuse being used by one particular mod who doesn’t like my views and wants to shut me up. "
Ditto with me on the McCann thread- I don't believe you never noticed it happening to me and other no supporters.
But thats ok too. another bun fight-another day :)
I’m fighting my own battle here, you’re welcome to fight your own.
-
I’m fighting my own battle here, you’re welcome to fight your own.
I expect you will be as successful as others have been. The truth is that you have to work round the moderators because they won't work around you. Post within the rules and they can't silence you.
-
I expect you will be as successful as others have been. The truth is that you have to work round the moderators because they won't work around you. Post within the rules and they can't silence you.
Some of them make the rules up as they go along it seems. Did you know that exhibiting hypocrisy was against the rules?
-
Some of them make the rules up as they go along it seems. Did you know that exhibiting hypocrisy was against the rules?
If your posts are deleted and you feel they broke no rules I recommend appealing.
-
If your posts are deleted and you feel they broke no rules I recommend appealing.
What are the rules? They change according to who is modding. Holly herself has posted libellous material but that’s apparently ok, tell her that her post is offensive however and that’s against forum rules!
-
What are the rules? They change according to who is modding. Holly herself has posted libellous material but that’s apparently ok, tell her that her post is offensive however and that’s against forum rules!
Welcome to the dark side.
-
What are the rules? They change according to who is modding. Holly herself has posted libellous material but that’s apparently ok, tell her that her post is offensive however and that’s against forum rules!
I think you are fully aware of what the rules are.
-
I think you are fully aware of what the rules are.
I am but it seems some people interpret them very strangely.
-
I am but it seems some people interpret them very strangely.
Yes, like some mods do on the McCann thread. 8**8:/:
-
Everybody knows what the rules are!
I have been accused of being unfair before now, and I dare say I do slip up from time to time. I apologise if I have done so.
Basically, I will delete or edit posts that are rude /abusive.
-
I am but it seems some people interpret them very strangely.
They sure do.
-
Everybody knows what the rules are!
I have been accused of being unfair before now, and I dare say I do slip up from time to time. I apologise if I have done so.
Basically, I will delete or edit posts that are rude /abusive.
That's pretty much my stance and I restrict it to fellow members. If anyone wants to name call, within reason, those elsewhere that's up to them. I have posted on a board elsewhere and posts appear to have been removed because those under discussion have been criticised and/or posts do not align with moderators' views. This would be akin to me removing posts adverse to JB and his case!
-
That's pretty much my stance and I restrict it to fellow members. If anyone wants to name call, within reason, those elsewhere that's up to them. I have posted on a board elsewhere and posts appear to have been removed because those under discussion have been criticised and/or posts do not align with moderators' views. This would be akin to me removing posts adverse to JB and his case!
Well said Holly. I agree. It brings the board into disrepute IMO.
-
Well said Holly. I agree. It brings the board into disrepute IMO.
This Board?
-
That's pretty much my stance and I restrict it to fellow members. If anyone wants to name call, within reason, those elsewhere that's up to them. I have posted on a board elsewhere and posts appear to have been removed because those under discussion have been criticised and/or posts do not align with moderators' views. This would be akin to me removing posts adverse to JB and his case!
I'm a bit lost with the heavy implication in this disingenuous post. You are a senior moderator and unlike everyone else you must be perfectly aware of who deletes your posts and you must be aware of exactly why they are deleted; when it happens to me I know exactly why a particular post has gone.
I find a post lacking discretion of this nature from a senior moderator inappropriate just as I find my reply inappropriate so I may as well add that the members with whom you are showing solidarity might have something to complain about were they privy to who is actually the deleting queen of the forum on whichever board you care to mention.
-
I'm a bit lost with the heavy implication in this disingenuous post. You are a senior moderator and unlike everyone else you must be perfectly aware of who deletes your posts and you must be aware of exactly why they are deleted; when it happens to me I know exactly why a particular post has gone.
I find a post lacking discretion of this nature from a senior moderator inappropriate just as I find my reply inappropriate so I may as well add that the members with whom you are showing solidarity might have something to complain about were they privy to who is actually the deleting queen of the forum on whichever board you care to mention.
Queen eh? Not a man then.
-
Queen eh? Not a man then.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
-
I'm a bit lost with the heavy implication in this disingenuous post. You are a senior moderator and unlike everyone else you must be perfectly aware of who deletes your posts and you must be aware of exactly why they are deleted; when it happens to me I know exactly why a particular post has gone.
I find a post lacking discretion of this nature from a senior moderator inappropriate just as I find my reply inappropriate so I may as well add that the members with whom you are showing solidarity might have something to complain about were they privy to who is actually the deleting queen of the forum on whichever board you care to mention.
Let’s hear from Holly on this
-
That's pretty much my stance and I restrict it to fellow members. If anyone wants to name call, within reason, those elsewhere that's up to them. I have posted on a board elsewhere and posts appear to have been removed because those under discussion have been criticised and/or posts do not align with moderators' views. This would be akin to me removing posts adverse to JB and his case!
Why didn’t you delete this Holly?
You really are the Jackie Preece of this forum.
You're personal, insulting and very rude.
Can you rein your tongue in a bit!
From your posts around the time, you appear to have been online and posting ?
The above is an example of name calling
And here someone’s asking a question
Is Mike Tesko gay?
-
Why didn’t you delete this Holly?
From your posts around the time, you appear to have been online and posting ?
The above is an example of name calling
And here someone’s asking a question
I wouldn't have thought the question offensive (believe me when I say I gave it some thought when I read it) particularly given the relevance made in another post to outmoded attitudes prevalent in society at the time and the bearing Bamber's sexuality might have had on the case.
Another mod might have taken the opposite view and deleted it as (a) homophobic? (b) invasion of someone's privacy?
I think it shows the difficulty of balance, personal opinion and reports when moderating and exactly why sometimes either John or Admin need to make that choice. Just my opinion.
-
I think that at all times Members need to remember that this is not a Democracy. Only John decides in the end.
We, The Moderators do our best, which might be biased to some small degree, although not a lot on my part. In fact if anything, I err in favour of people who are opposed to my opinion. Not that I expect anyone to believe that. Please your blimmin selves.
I have only ever been concerned with Abusive and Libellous Comments, and you all know when you are doing this. You think I am stupid? So don't do it. And certainly don't fane outrage when you get dealt with.
-
When was G-Unit made a moderator and why was there no announcement?
-
When was G-Unit made a moderator and why was there no announcement?
This is nothing to do with you. John decides. This is not up for discussion.
-
Precisely. John revues all deletions and reinstates where he thinks it is necessary. Unfortunately, John is not able to be here all of the time.
What about posts that are modified by an admin. This has happened to me and it makes no sense. I was not libellous but had offered a scenario that could explain certain given facts. I don't even believe it happened that way myself but offered a scenario up for discussion. I have four warnings all close together and only understand the reason for one. I later added the line about the scenario that the mod had deleted - well I repeated the scenario and asked why it was deleted. I didn't know this wasn't allowed. I think such moderation is wide open to personal bias and there needs to be some review or appeal process by other mods should a user feel they are being unfairly treated.
-
What about posts that are modified by an admin. This has happened to me and it makes no sense. I was not libellous but had offered a scenario that could explain certain given facts. I don't even believe it happened that way myself but offered a scenario up for discussion. I have four warnings all close together and only understand the reason for one. I later added the line about the scenario that the mod had deleted - well I repeated the scenario and asked why it was deleted. I didn't know this wasn't allowed. I think such moderation is wide open to personal bias and there needs to be some review or appeal process by other mods should a user feel they are being unfairly treated.
Members can pm John or Admin and ask for moderator actions to be reviewed.
-
What about posts that are modified by an admin. This has happened to me and it makes no sense. I was not libellous but had offered a scenario that could explain certain given facts. I don't even believe it happened that way myself but offered a scenario up for discussion. I have four warnings all close together and only understand the reason for one. I later added the line about the scenario that the mod had deleted - well I repeated the scenario and asked why it was deleted. I didn't know this wasn't allowed. I think such moderation is wide open to personal bias and there needs to be some review or appeal process by other mods should a user feel they are being unfairly treated.
John decides in the end and reinstates if he thinks it is unfair. And criticising Admin won't help.
Do you not understand this?
-
When was G-Unit made a moderator and why was there no announcement?
G-Unit a moderator ?
But why wasn't it announced per the normal ?
-
Please stop accusing me of posting disinformation unless you are prepared to offer evidence upholding your accusations.
I certainly have no problem with gunit being a moderator...there is a feeling from sceptics that moderation has become one sided and this has now been addressed.
-
I certainly have no problem with gunit being a moderator...there is a feeling from sceptics that moderation has become one sided and this has now been addressed.
I hope no-one has a problem because I don't see myself as representing any group over another. My aim is to moderate all members if they break the forum rules regardless of their stance on any subject.
-
Please stop accusing me of posting disinformation unless you are prepared to offer evidence upholding your accusations.
May your moderating be a long, fair and stress free one. Good luck Gunit
-
I certainly have no problem with gunit being a moderator...there is a feeling from sceptics that moderation has become one sided and this has now been addressed.
As was intended.
-
May your moderating be a long, fair and stress free one. Good luck Gunit
It won't be stress free. I can promise you that.
-
G-Unit a moderator ?
But why wasn't it announced per the normal ?
Are you only catching up now Sadie?
-
It won't be stress free. I can promise you that.
I thrive on stress. @)(++(*
-
I thrive on stress. @)(++(*
I have learned how to. And it certainly does have it's moments.
-
John decides in the end and reinstates if he thinks it is unfair. And criticising Admin won't help.
Do you not understand this?
I do but isn't asking John to review an admin decision a case of criticism by its very nature?
-
I do but isn't asking John to review an admin decision a case of criticism by its very nature?
It can be seen so, but it's the correct way to proceed. Publicly challenging the way the forum works is the wrong way to proceed.
Read the rules;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0
Make sure you avoid breaking them and then you can appeal if you feel you have been moderated unfairly.
-
I do but isn't asking John to review an admin decision a case of criticism by its very nature?
Who is asking John to review an Admin Decision? John is also Admin.
-
Who is asking John to review an Admin Decision? John is also Admin.
I was considering writing to John, El, but didn't want to break any rules and wondered if asking for a review would count as being critical by its very nature??
-
I was considering writing to John, El, but didn't want to break any rules and wondered if asking for a review would count as being critical by its very nature??
If you have a valid question or concern which you wish to communicate to John I doubt very much if you would be breaking any rule by sending him a PM.
-
So it’s goading to draw attention to and make fun of the goading avatar of another member, an avatar that goads with every single post that the avatar holder makes? Double standards mateys, but thanks for the warning, it’s keeping my weekly average up nicely but not really having much effect on moderating my behaviour. If my posts are really that bad I would recommend an outright permanent ban because I promise you no amount of warnings is going to make a blind bit of difference to how I post.
-
So it’s OK to for one member to make personal comments about another member’s wife and family, by suggesting he is neglecting them but not ok to question the mentailty of the member dishing out the ad homs? Just checking for clarity.
-
So it’s OK to for one member to make personal comments about another member’s wife and family, by suggesting he is neglecting them but not ok to question the mentailty of the member dishing out the ad homs? Just checking for clarity.
Two wrongs don't make a right, VS.
In my opinion moderation on the McCann board is pretty even at the moment. One set of posters bitches about moderation and the other set of posters bitches about theirs. So all in all there is a balance being hit somewhere.
Speaking for myself ~ comments about a member's family when pejorative cross a line and will not be tolerated and I know for certain (although I won't presume to say who) there are other mods who share that opinion.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right, VS.
In my opinion moderation on the McCann board is pretty even at the moment. One set of posters bitches about moderation and the other set of posters bitches about theirs. So all in all there is a balance being hit somewhere.
Speaking for myself ~ comments about a member's family when pejorative cross a line and will not be tolerated and I know for certain (although I won't presume to say who) there are other mods who share that opinion.
I think certain members need to grow up a little....and certain mods need to stop feeding their victimhood.
-
Yes, constantly scoring points by referring to members family members, either by implying they don’t exist or that they are being neglected IS extremely childish. We could all play that game but some of us choose to be the better person.
-
I think certain members need to grow up a little....and certain mods need to stop feeding their victimhood.
You can say what you like to me as long as I can say what I like to you...my comment obviously hit a nerve...yours didnt. The problem is your childish posts disrupt the forum so take your own advice and grow up
-
You can say what you like to me as long as I can say what I like to you...my comment obviously hit a nerve...yours didnt. The problem is your childish posts disrupt the forum so take your own advice and grow up
TBH it always touches a nerve when people fail to understand the impact using mental health as an insult has on those who are truly suffering.
-
What a laugh it all is. If only it was funny.
Personally, I no longer care.
It has been a hard road fo me. But that's they way in which it goes.
-
TBH it always touches a nerve when people fail to understand the impact using mental health as an insult has on those who are truly suffering.
.
I might have thought better of you. But then we can all be better, don't you think.
-
.
I might have thought better of you. But then we can all be better, don't you think.
I’ll have to ask you to explain that one ?
-
I’ll have to ask you to explain that one ?
Think on what yourself has had to say.
-
TBH it always touches a nerve when people fail to understand the impact using mental health as an insult has on those who are truly suffering.
It wasn't meant as an insult. For anyone suffering with mental health problems the imprtant thing is to realise the problem and seek treatment....that's the only way to get better. Certainly arguing on a discussion board and insulting other people isnt going to help.
-
Think on what yourself has had to say.
That Davel is logged on to this site all day, everyday ? That’s self evident.
That he used having mental health issues as a slur is also self evident.
-
It wasn't meant as an insult. For anyone suffering with mental health problems the imprtant thing is to realise the problem and seek treatment....that's the only way to get better. Certainly arguing on a discussion board and insulting other people isnt going to help.
You can only laugh at your lack of self-awareness. There really is no other appropriate reaction.
-
That Davel is logged on to this site all day, everyday ? That’s self evident.
That he used having mental health issues as a slur is also self evident.
Some posters seem to log on and off in between posts..I simply stay logged on... doesn't mean I'm sitting in front of my pc..my post re mental health was genuine and not a slur..
Why the obsession...
-
Some posters seem to log on and off in between posts..I simply stay logged on... doesn't mean I'm sitting in front of my pc..my post re mental health was genuine and not a slur..
Why the obsession...
Bored now. Move on.
-
Bossy madam ain’t she?
-
Bored now. Move on.
Hopefully you can and stop this obsession you have with my wife and job
-
Could the moderators get a grip on the insults aimed at those who think the mcCanns are innocent. At the moment angelo seems to be encouraging it. It seems sceptics having lost the logical argument have nothing else but insults
-
More poor moderation from gunit today. Encouraging ad hom...then I get points for objecting. No problem but gunit and whichever mod gave the points...don't try and pretend this is anything apart from appalling moderaion and petty jealousy
-
More poor moderation from gunit today. Encouraging ad hom...then I get points for objecting. No problem but gunit and whichever mod gave the points...don't try and pretend this is anything apart from appalling moderaion and petty jealousy
In my opinion you need to ensure you abide by the rules of the forum.
-
In my opinion you need to ensure you abide by the rules of the forum.
Imo you need to ensure you abide by the rules of the forum. Promoting a goading post and editing s post to remove opinion you didn't agree with both contravene the rules. I've had hardly s point since Christmas...obeyed the rules ..ignored abuse ..
I don't think obeying rules has any real advantages.Several sceptics who you align with constantly post abuse and break rules..take the points and carry on. I'm starting to think that's the best option
-
Imo you need to ensure you abide by the rules of the forum. Promoting a goading post and editing s post to remove opinion you didn't agree with both contravene the rules. I've had hardly s point since Christmas...obeyed the rules ..ignored abuse ..
I don't think obeying rules has any real advantages.Several sceptics who you align with constantly post abuse and break rules..take the points and carry on. I'm starting to think that's the best option
Just go for it. The rules differ according to who's posting and who's moderating anyway. If you can't beat 'em join em and treat warnings as a measure of success, that's my advice.
-
Could the moderators get a grip on the insults aimed at those who think the mcCanns are innocent. At the moment angelo seems to be encouraging it. It seems sceptics having lost the logical argument have nothing else but insults
The truth has always been hard for some supporters to stomach. I challenge you to find a single post made by me that is false. Message me when you post it.
-
Just go for it. The rules differ according to who's posting and who's moderating anyway. If you can't beat 'em join em and treat warnings as a measure of success, that's my advice.
Careful VS. Your language towards some members has been appalling lately so I would quit when you are ahead.
-
Careful VS. Your language towards some members has been appalling lately so I would quit when you are ahead.
Give it a rest Angelo. You described the McCanns as “shit parents” - who are you to lecture me about my language? I’m not afraid of your threats or your warnings, so pile ‘em on.
-
The truth has always been hard for some supporters to stomach. I challenge you to find a single post made by me that is false. Message me when you post it.
Here’s one. Didn’t take long. Opinion posted as fact
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg617393#msg617393
An opinion not shared by any police force that I’m aware of.
-
The truth has always been hard for some supporters to stomach. I challenge you to find a single post made by me that is false. Message me when you post it.
This post is false...hows that. As the truth isnt known how can it be hard for supporters to swallow it. Ill send the message now....message sent
-
Careful VS. Your language towards some members has been appalling lately so I would quit when you are ahead.
Threatening posters isnt nice...the forum is dwindling...do you want to lose a couple more posters...not a very smart move
-
This post is false...hows that. As the truth isnt known how can it be hard for supporters to swallow it. Ill send the message now....message sent
Just proves my point. @)(++(*
-
Give it a rest Angelo. You described the McCanns as “shit parents” - who are you to lecture me about my language? I’m not afraid of your threats or your warnings, so pile ‘em on.
And shit parents they were going off on the piss while three vulnerable babies were left alone in an unsecured apartment. How bloody jolly of them...NOT!
-
Just proves my point. @)(++(*
No it doesnt prove your point...another false claim...
-
And shit parents they were going off on the piss while three vulnerable babies were left alone in an unsecured apartment.
what a shame this is what a once good forum has become
-
And shit parents they were going off on the piss while three vulnerable babies were left alone in an unsecured apartment. How bloody jolly of them...NOT!
what do you think that post says about you
-
Here’s one. Didn’t take long. Opinion posted as fact
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11722.msg617393#msg617393
An opinion not shared by any police force that I’m aware of.
Absolutely true. Abduction from the street outside has been muted by several former detectives and I totally agree with them. The only reason this current lot at SY won't say it is because they are being restrained in what they can say publicly.
-
Absolutely true. Abduction from the street outside has been muted by several former detectives and I totally agree with them. The only reason this current lot at SY won't say it is because they are being restrained in what they can say publicly.
thast a bit of a ridiculous commnet when its the Germans making all the statemnets...thats another opinion posted as fact....so isnt a fact and is therefore another false statement... perhaps you just dont realise how many false staements you make
-
what do you think that post says about you
My post is on the nail and that is what irritates you so much.
-
And shit parents they were going off on the piss while three vulnerable babies were left alone in an unsecured apartment. How bloody jolly of them...NOT!
Three examples of bad language in that unnecessarily nasty post, how many points will you award yourself for that?
-
thast a bit of a ridiculous commnet when its the Germans making all the statemnets...thats another opinion posted as fact....so isnt a fact and is therefore another false statement... perhaps you just dont realise how many false staements you make
The Germans are in cloud cuckoo land but do go on supping it all up. In the end you will find the same result, a dead end.
-
Absolutely true. Abduction from the street outside has been muted by several former detectives and I totally agree with them. The only reason this current lot at SY won't say it is because they are being restrained in what they can say publicly.
Muted? Are you sure? That means pretty much the reverse of what you meant to say, perhaps you didn’t realise? As for rest, it’s conjecture stated as fact. Again. You’re not very good at abiding by these forum rules are you?
-
My post is on the nail and that is what irritates you so much.
I think youve continually smash the hammer into your thumb. Your post doesnt irrittate me in the slightest....so thats another false satement...thats close to half a dozen false staements tonight
-
Three examples of bad language in that unnecessarily nasty post, how many points will you award yourself for that?
TRUTH 😁
-
I think youve continually smash the hammer into your thumb. Your post doesnt irrittate me in the slightest....so thats another false satement
I knew you couldn't find any false statements. As these posts are off topic I will say ta ta to this board for now.
-
I knew you couldn't find any false statements. As these posts are off topic I will say ta ta to this board for now.
Ive found around five or six tonight. If your posts were of any importance to me I would go and find many more...but they are not
-
Muted? Are you sure? That means pretty much the reverse of what you meant to say, perhaps you didn’t realise? As for rest, it’s conjecture stated as fact. Again. You’re not very good at abiding by these forum rules are you?
You just watch your p's and q's going forward VS. I have been tolerant of your attacks on other members so far but should it continue I can promise you more than points.
-
I have not intervened in this discussionsofar but I would ask that every member show some respect to their fellow members. The goading and sniping I have seen recently is not acceptable and will cease.
Sanctions will now be imposed on any member who continues to disrupt the boards.
Admin
-
What a strange reply.
Really? You are threatening to censor me. You are pointing out that my forum fate is in your hands. You are implying if what I write doesn’t meet with your approval it will vanish. You are pointing out my position of powerlessness by implicitly reminding me of your own powers to silence me. Hence, I quake in the shadow of your awesomeness.
-
I have not intervened in this discussionsofar but I would ask that every member show some respect to their fellow members. The goading and sniping I have seen recently is not acceptable and will cease.
Sanctions will now be imposed on any member who continues to disrupt the boards.
Admin
Deleting someone else’s opinion because a) because you didn’t like it and b) because you can is both goading and disruptive IMO.
-
Post deleted by Admin
Angelo gave you a warning and you responded by defying him. I pointed out that you can post anything you want, but you're unable to guarantee that the posts will remain to be read, which is the simple truth.
I have not used my position to censor anyone, and have no intention of ever doing so.My intention has always been to be ensure that members stay on-topic, debate reasonably and with mutual respect for each other and the forum rules.
The only power any moderator has is the power members give them. I have very rarely been given points because I have very rarely broken the forum rules. I learned not to do that, and if you do the same every post you make will remain for all to read. It's all down to you, no-one else.
-
Angelo gave you a warning and you responded by defying him. I pointed out that you can post anything you want, but you're unable to guarantee that the posts will remain to be read, which is the simple truth.
I have not used my position to censor anyone, and have no intention of ever doing so.My intention has always been to be ensure that members stay on-topic, debate reasonably and with mutual respect for each other and the forum rules.
The only power any moderator has is the power members give them. I have very rarely been given points because I have very rarely broken the forum rules. I learned not to do that, and if you do the same every post you make will remain for all to read. It's all down to you, no-one else.
In the last two yearsI have been given 46 warnings. That’s roughly one every two weeks. Clearly the system is broken because it doesn’t stop me posting how I see fit. Some of the warnings I’ve been given have been for the most puerile of reasons, some have undoubtedly been deserved by the definition of forum rules. But some of the “naughty behaviour “ I’ve exhibited and received points for, I have seen exhibited repeatedly by others who have received no warnings for it. When it comes to rude and goading posts I see at least one moderator revelling in these but because they are above the law they get away with it. Davel has made strenuous efforts to “behave” and avoid points this year and IMO this has resulted in more strenuous efforts by others to goad him to react. The system doesn’t work. Treat us all like adults and get rid of the warnings and the heavy handed moderation. In 13 years of being part of a forum this is the only one that hands out virtual dunce’s caps and makes its members sit on their hands. IMO unless the posts are grossly offensive (contain links to porn, or illegal material) or liable to result in legal issues for the forum owner we should be allowed to exercise free speech, with the caveat that anyone breaking either of these rules is banned permanently.
-
And shit parents they were going off on the piss while three vulnerable babies were left alone in an unsecured apartment. How bloody jolly of them...NOT!
If I were child, I would far prefer to have them as parents than you with your bad language and comments about a couple who are almost certainly innocent of anything
.
And two police forces agree with me. Forget the PJ, imo, they are busy trying to cover up all their failings.
-
I see no point in continuing this discussion. I have noted your opinions and I hope you have noted mine. I will press on with the job I've been entrusted with and hope that I am doing it with the approval (on the whole) of both management and members.
-
Two warnings received today for pointing out abusive and off-topic posts - very fair I'm sure. Many thanks G-Unit, how many points did you award the General for his ad hom on Sadie?
That's right - none.
-
Two warnings received today for pointing out abusive and off-topic posts - very fair I'm sure. Many thanks G-Unit, how many points did you award the General for his ad hom on Sadie?
That's right - none.
If you wish to bring the moderators attention to posts, there is a Report to Moderator' button provided. There is no facility for choosing which moderator you prefer so choosing one moderator as the target of your complaints is unrealistic. Publicly advising moderators on how, when and why to do their jobs on random threads is not the way to proceed.
-
If you wish to bring the moderators attention to posts, there is a Report to Moderator' button provided. There is no facility for choosing which moderator you prefer so choosing one moderator as the target of your complaints is unrealistic. Publicly advising moderators on how, when and why to do their jobs on random threads is not the way to proceed.
I did report it, his post was removed and no warning points appear to have been awarded. Did you deal with it I wonder? I think we have a right to point out inconsistencies in the way we are all treated, s'all.
-
I did report it, his post was removed and no warning points appear to have been awarded. Did you deal with it I wonder? I think we have a right to point out inconsistencies in the way we are all treated, s'all.
It's not usual for moderators to inform members what actions they have taken and why. This area has been set aside for discussions on Moderation, the other threads are for discussing their subjects, as written in the titles.
-
It's not usual for moderators to inform members what actions they have taken and why. This area has been set aside for discussions on Moderation, the other threads are for discussing their subjects, as written in the titles.
The General posted a nasty, scathing attack on Sadie and received no warning and therefore no points. I want to know why not, when I got points for pointing this out to the forum. If you won't address this issue, then perhaps another moderator could explain?
-
The General posted a nasty, scathing attack on Sadie and received no warning and therefore no points. I want to know why not, when I got points for pointing this out to the forum. If you won't address this issue, then perhaps another moderator could explain?
I can explain why you got points. I know that you know the rules because I spent time explaining them to you here. You made it plain here that you preferred to ignore them. You did so with your post and you did it deliberately. Your post was off topic, goading, critical of the moderators and of the way the forum works.
-
I have read the last few pages of this thread with interest and removed those posts which have no place here.
The rules are very straightforward, abide by them and you are most welcome, abuse the facility and you will be removed. And on that point let me assure that this applies to all members. It is not the first time a member has had their account deleted after a period of prolonged agitation.
The reporting system on this forum is there for all to use. There is no point in complaining afterwards if you can't be bothered to report rules breaches. You also have the option to message a member of the Admin team if deemed necessary.
Anyone with further questions related to moderation please message me.
Admin
-
I can explain why you got points. I know that you know the rules because I spent time explaining them to you here. You made it plain here that you preferred to ignore them. You did so with your post and you did it deliberately. Your post was off topic, goading, critical of the moderators and of the way the forum works.
I got points for a) pointing out that you post was off topic (which it was) and b) pointing out that the General's post was an ad hom (which it was). No one can explain to me why making two factual posts should result in a warning, when a nasty attack on Sadie should result in no warning.
-
I have read the last few pages of this thread with interest and removed those posts which have no place here.
The rules are very straightforward, abide by them and you are most welcome, abuse the facility and you will be removed. And on that point let me assure that this applies to all members. It is not the first time a member has had their account deleted after a period of prolonged agitation.
The reporting system on this forum is there for all to use. There is no point in complaining afterwards if you can't be bothered to report rules breaches. You also have the option to message a member of the Admin team if deemed necessary.
Anyone with further questions related to moderation please message me.
Admin
I reported the scathing, ad hom attack on The General, and though it was removed the General received no points for it, while I DID for pointing out that it was a nasty scathing attack. Is that fair moderating? I think not. Delete away, give me points, ban me, do what you think best.
-
I can explain why you got points. I know that you know the rules because I spent time explaining them to you here. You made it plain here that you preferred to ignore them. You did so with your post and you did it deliberately. Your post was off topic, goading, critical of the moderators and of the way the forum works.
Why should posters follow the rules when some moderators dont and compalaints to admin go unaswerred
-
Why should posters follow the rules when some moderators dont and compalaints to admin go unaswerred
Good question. Just been sworn at twice in the same post by the moderator who gave me a warning for my bad language. Perhaps the number one rule around these parts is “do as I say, not as I do”?
-
I'll take a stab this might be an appropriate subsection for this: please remove the "on a slum tourism trip" from the description of Anni Hindocha's forum section. As that is not true. That was a claim her husband made to explain their otherwise inexplicable nighttime trip into the township.
And even her husband no longer makes that claim. By the time of his trial he had concocted another excuse to try and explain the taxi ride into the township.
-
Can someone please point me to the forum rule that says it is forbidden to be condescending towards another member? I would like to clarify exactly what being condescending means as I intend to report all condescending posts from now on and will be watching closely to ensure that others receive warnings for breaking this rule. Many thanks.
-
Can someone please point me to the forum rule that says it is forbidden to be condescending towards another member? I would like to clarify exactly what being condescending means as I intend to report all condescending posts from now on and will be watching closely to ensure that others receive warnings for breaking this rule. Many thanks.
I think it's just a matter about choosing your words carefully when replying to posters who are plainly quite thick
-
Threatened for pointing out the truth - that Angelo's post was goading (which it clearly was) - guys if you can't handle the truth and you want to shut me up permanently don't threaten me, just do it.
Vertigo Swirl,
You have received a warning for posting inappropriate criticism of this forum. This is not the first time you have made such comments.
If you wish to remain a member I suggest you consider such responses extremely carefully in future.
Regards,
The UK Justice Forum Team
----------------------------------
ADIOS AMIGOS!
-
testing testing 123
-
I have read the last few pages of this thread with interest and removed those posts which have no place here.
The rules are very straightforward, abide by them and you are most welcome, abuse the facility and you will be removed. And on that point let me assure that this applies to all members. It is not the first time a member has had their account deleted after a period of prolonged agitation.
The reporting system on this forum is there for all to use. There is no point in complaining afterwards if you can't be bothered to report rules breaches. You also have the option to message a member of the Admin team if deemed necessary.
Anyone with further questions related to moderation please message me.
Admin
I dodn't think the rules are straightforward. some are left for arbitration of certain mods enforcing their interpretation of the rules.
As an example- I was given points for modifying my post after a mod had modified it. The crime was. you can't modify a post to the change the meaning after a mod has modified it?????
err why not? If it has been changed to change a meaning of a message then I am entitled to correct that to make my message clear and not the mods interpretation of my post.
Also, criticizing a post should be allowed, however some mods feel this is against the rules as they claim MODS are above criticism? what really? poor wee mites. Some are down right cheeky and insulting to posters and get away with it as other mods are too scared to speak up or delete their posts.
I do hope this is the correct thread to air this grievance 8**8:/:
-
I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please? If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again. Many thanks for your co-operation.
-
I have received a warning for libel - could a mod kindly tell me who I have libelled please? If I don't know who or how I have libelled I am liable to libel again. Many thanks for your co-operation.
Think it is just another one you are going to have to take on the chin and learn from VS (difficult I know if you don't know why you have breached forum rules re libel).
-
Think it is just another one you are going to have to take on the chin and learn from VS (difficult I know if you don't know why you have breached forum rules re libel).
It's a good job that some of us aren't quite so keen to issue Warning Points. The Board would be littered with them.
-
Think it is just another one you are going to have to take on the chin and learn from VS (difficult I know if you don't know why you have breached forum rules re libel).
I'm assuming it's because I wrote something along the lines that Amaral resigned so that he could be free to cash in on the disappearance of a missing child, which is factually correct but some people obviously think it's a lie. Weird...
-
Apparently it is not libellous to accuse the McCanns of "cashing in"
"The sun headlines about their sex life obviously had an impact- why that was in the book about a 4 year old child is beyond me. They book should not have been called after a child if the book was not about the child. Cashing in on their daughters name comes to mind of many I speak with".
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9630.msg466537#msg466537
-
And of course there are numerous posts accusing other authors of books about the case of "cashing in" on this forum, but dare accuse St Gonc of Amaral of cashing in and whoosh, post vamooshed and points awarded.
-
And of course there are numerous posts accusing other authors of books about the case of "cashing in" on this forum, but dare accuse St Gonc of Amaral of cashing in and whoosh, post vamooshed and points awarded.
But Amaral did cash in. That much is obvious. Otherwise why didn't he give his book away for free?
-
But Amaral did cash in. That much is obvious. Otherwise why didn't he give his book away for free?
Well obviously he did but you aren’t allowed to say so on this forum. Why not?
-
Well obviously he did but you aren’t allowed to say so on this forum. Why not?
Let's see, shall we.
-
But Amaral did cash in. That much is obvious. Otherwise why didn't he give his book away for free?
He cashed in with big bucks or Euros from his book on Madeleine and states in the translation from the French that he had to leave the Judicial police to do so. (In my opinion jumping before you are pushed springs to mind). He also forged a lucrative career based on Madeleine's misfortune as a television pundit.
After his success with the Television documentary, yet another money spinner, I believe there was talk of a big screen movie version.
Madeleine and her family did indeed keep the wolf from the door in what appears to have been rapidly becoming a literary genre instituted by criminal cops and botched investigations.
-
Ah, the good old days when you could write this on the forum and not get a warning
“Dress it up however you like - Amaral cashed in pure and simple. He's made a career out of Madeleine and libelling her parents ever since, the unpleasant little weasel. If he'd written an objective book that was scrupulously factual and honest and without his barmy theories then I might think slightly better of him - as it is it's very obvious that his twin motives for writing the book were greed and to try and rescue his reputation. In my opinion, of course”.
-
Why are the suing him them?
Justice.
-
But Amaral did cash in. That much is obvious. Otherwise why didn't he give his book away for free?
The irony is that his supporters did give it all away for free 😂😂
-
He cashed in with big bucks or Euros from his book on Madeleine and states in the translation from the French that he had to leave the Judicial police to do so. (In my opinion jumping before you are pushed springs to mind). He also forged a lucrative career based on Madeleine's misfortune as a television pundit.
After his success with the Television documentary, yet another money spinner, I believe there was talk of a big screen movie version.
Madeleine and her family did indeed keep the wolf from the door in what appears to have been rapidly becoming a literary genre instituted by criminal cops and botched investigations.
How much did he charge per TV interview? It was big bucks as I recall...
-
Justice.
An empty word.
-
How much did he charge per TV interview? It was big bucks as I recall...
Good.
-
The irony is that his supporters did give it all away for free 😂😂
Ah Yes. I had forgotten that. Loads a people got it for Christmas. But somedebody had to pay for it.
-
So it seems that like beauty being in the eye of the beholder being awarded points for libel depends on whether or not the moderator is aware of what the truth of the matter actually is.
Not a lot to be done about that I'm afraid as we are all only human and can't know it all ;(
Hope this goes some way to resolving your query, VS.
-
Another storm in a teacup in my opinion.
Amaral said;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
and I have given a cite where his words can be found and read by anyone who wants to.
If someone accuses him of lying by saying that his real motive was to cash in on Madeleine McCanns disappearance then a cite to support that statement is needed. If a cite can't be provided then Amaral is being libelled because he's being called a liar without any evidence that he did lie.
-
Another storm in a teacup in my opinion.
Amaral said;
"I requested early retirement in order to be able to express myself freely" Page 3, The Truth of the Lie.
and I have given a cite where his words can be found and read by anyone who wants to.
If someone accuses him of lying by saying that his real motive was to cash in on Madeleine McCanns disappearance then a cite to support that statement is needed. If a cite can't be provided then Amaral is being libelled because he's being called a liar without any evidence that he did lie.
I did not call him a liar. I suggested an additional motive, a financial one, which is clearly evidenced by the publishing deal he negotiated and the book he wrote which went on sale throughout Portugal on Day One of its publication. And for this I am accused of lying and given a warning. You may call this a storm in a teacup, I call it shining a light on double standards and hypocrisy, especially as you are on record liking a post which claims Amaral solved the case in 2007. No “IMo” but stated as a fact.
-
I did not call him a liar. I suggested an additional motive, a financial one, which is clearly evidenced by the publishing deal he negotiated and the book he wrote which went on sale throughout Portugal on Day One of its publication. And for this I am accused of lying and given a warning. You may call this a storm in a teacup, I call it shining a light on double standards and hypocrisy, especially as you are on record liking a post which claims Amaral solved the case in 2007. No “IMo” but stated as a fact.
You didn't 'suggest' that Amaral lied about his motive for writing his book, you stated it as a fact. A fact you cannot prove. Accusing someone of lying without proof is libellous. Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules.
-
You didn't 'suggest' that Amaral lied about his motive for writing his book, you stated it as a fact. A fact you cannot prove. Accusing someone of lying without proof is libellous. Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules.
As Spammy often does.
-
As Spammy often does.
And for which he gets sanctioned, as should everyone who does the same.
-
And for which he gets sanctioned, as should everyone who does the same.
Except you didn't, you "liked" his post instead, thus giving him the green light and encouragement to post more crap.
-
You didn't 'suggest' that Amaral lied about his motive for writing his book, you stated it as a fact. A fact you cannot prove. Accusing someone of lying without proof is libellous. Posting opinion as fact is against forum rules.
Where did I write Amaral lied? You are libelling ME by stating I wrote something which I never did. Kindly desist from this outrageous slur!
-
And for which he gets sanctioned, as should everyone who does the same.
But not by you. Instead, you Liked The Comment.
-
Can I get a moderator's explanation for why the first post I made in discussion today was deleted?
(my response to concerns raised in post #307, Topic 'My Search for Madeleine by Jon Clarke'
Thankyou kindly.
-
Can a moderator please explain why someone can call other members of the forum “gibbering pricks” and not receive a warning for doing so?
-
Can a moderator please explain why someone can call other members of the forum “gibbering pricks” and not receive a warning for doing so?
Don't ask me.
-
Can a moderator please explain why someone can call other members of the forum “gibbering pricks” and not receive a warning for doing so?
The post did not refer to any one specific perchance .
-
I do have to say that no longer being a Moderator is way much more interesting. Life after Death as it were. I have just rejoined The Human Race.
Mind you, I have learned a thing or two. And this is never a bad idea.
-
I do have to say that no longer being a Moderator is way much more interesting. Life after Death as it were. I have just rejoined The Human Race.
Mind you, I have learned a thing or two. And this is never a bad idea.
Welcome to the dark side.
-
Welcome to the dark side.
No thanks.
-
The post did not refer to any one specific perchance .
It referred to everyone who had posted on the thread that didn’t agree with G-Unit. She removed the offensive phrases but no points were issued. I can only therefore assume it’s ok to refer to a collection of McCann sceptics as a gibbering bunch of pricks - I just wanted clarity on the issue before I deployed said or similar insult.
-
No thanks.
Too late .
-
It referred to everyone who had posted on the thread that didn’t agree with G-Unit. She removed the offensive phrases but no points were issued. I can only therefore assume it’s ok to refer to a collection of McCann sceptics as a gibbering bunch of pricks - I just wanted clarity on the issue before I deployed said or similar insult.
Why thank you mam, like being savaged by a dead sheep.
-
Too late .
It's still daylight here at 8pm.
-
Why thank you mam, like being savaged by a dead sheep.
it was the General’s insult, I’m sure he’d be disappointed with your assessment.
-
it was the General’s insult, I’m sure he’d be disappointed with your assessment.
Oscar Wilde: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness
-
Oscar Wilde: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness
Dial-a-cliche?
-
If a moderator sees wa post on the forum which is clearly both abusive and insulting should they automatically delete it and apply a warning to the author, or let it stand if they agree with the sentiment, despite said post being reported numerous times?
“Shut up, there's only 6 of us here, nobody gives a shit except you and maybe 2 other plebs and that's only because you keep getting well and truly owned.
Wind it in and get on topic yourself.”
Is this post within forum rules? G-Unit clearly thinks so as she has been made aware of it and it remains on the forum at this time of writing.
-
If a moderator sees wa post on the forum which is clearly both abusive and insulting should they automatically delete it and apply a warning to the author, or let it stand if they agree with the sentiment, despite said post being reported numerous times?
“Shut up, there's only 6 of us here, nobody gives a shit except you and maybe 2 other plebs and that's only because you keep getting well and truly owned.
Wind it in and get on topic yourself.”
Is this post within forum rules? G-Unit clearly thinks so as she has been made aware of it and it remains on the forum at this time of writing.
This issue has been moved up the chain of command, so I suggest you wait for the result. Well done on posting on the correct thread, however.
-
This issue has been moved up the chain of command, so I suggest you wait for the result. Well done on posting on the correct thread, however.
Why does it need to go up the chain of command? The obvious slur has since been repeated in another post which has also not been removed.
-
Why does it need to go up the chain of command? The obvious slur has since been repeated in another post which has also not been removed.
G-Unit obviously feels it is not abusive to call McCann supporters "plebs".
-
G-Unit obviously feels it is not abusive to call McCann supporters "plebs".
For me, it's not so much about the word "plebs", rather the content of the post as a whole. There is no reason for it not to have been deleted and then referred to a higher authority imo.
-
G-Unit obviously feels it is not abusive to call McCann supporters "plebs".
Is there an accepted meaning of the word?
-
Is there an accepted meaning of the word?
Oh I see, you want to play semantics do you? Tell you what, why don't you ask the author of the post if he used the word with the intent of insulting McCann supporters or not, eh?
-
Is there an accepted meaning of the word?
Can I tell you to shut up, refer to you as a pleb, tell you that no one gives a shit what you think and to wind your neck in? Because believe me, I would love to but I suspect you would give me a warning, am I right?
-
Is there an accepted meaning of the word?
An ordinary person as opposed to the hoi polloi ,perhaps that would sate the oppressed on here.
-
If a moderator sees wa post on the forum which is clearly both abusive and insulting should they automatically delete it and apply a warning to the author, or let it stand if they agree with the sentiment, despite said post being reported numerous times?
“Shut up, there's only 6 of us here, nobody gives a shit except you and maybe 2 other plebs and that's only because you keep getting well and truly owned.
Wind it in and get on topic yourself.”
Is this post within forum rules? G-Unit clearly thinks so as she has been made aware of it and it remains on the forum at this time of writing.
So why hasn't a more senior mod in the guise of B removed it ?
-
So why hasn't a more senior mod in the guise of B removed it ?
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
-
So why hasn't a more senior mod in the guise of B removed it ?
You would have to ask her that. The fact of the matter is that G-Unit was the only moderator on the board at the time I flagged the post. I know this as she handed out a warning to me for a post far far less offensive than the one she let stand and I checked the online status of every other mod at the time. Why do you think I got a warning and the author of the post in question did not? She saw it and deemed it acceptable as she presumably agreed with the sentiment of the post, despite the fact that it clearly breaks forum rules.
-
An ordinary person as opposed to the hoi polloi ,perhaps that would sate the oppressed on here.
Do you consider yourself a pleb?
-
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
Why didn't you delete it when you were the first mod to become aware of it?
-
Do you consider yourself a pleb?
We are all in the gutter, some of us are looking up at the stars.
-
We are all in the gutter, some of us are looking up at the stars.
Dial-a-cliche: A Slight Return.
-
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
Please note
It is considered inappropriate for a moderator to criticise another moderator on the open threads.
Particularly since I have taken no part in the argument you have embroiled yourself in and demand a bit more respect from you than your third party jibe.
-
I see the offending post has been removed but the author has received no warning points - any reason why not?
-
Please note
It is considered inappropriate for a moderator to criticise another moderator on the open threads.
Particularly since I have taken no part in the argument you have embroiled yourself in and demand a bit more respect from you than your third party jibe.
Oh, sorry. I thought perhaps that had changed;
snip/
posting on a forum is an entirely different kettle of fish and posters have power to ensure the standards and protocols for ourselves. One of which is posting on topic.
So why don't you.
Quite clearly the topic here is " New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance." You have made no reference to that which is quite disrespectful both to the forum and to fellow members.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg680799#msg680799
-
Oh, sorry. I thought perhaps that had changed;
snip/
posting on a forum is an entirely different kettle of fish and posters have power to ensure the standards and protocols for ourselves. One of which is posting on topic.
So why don't you.
Quite clearly the topic here is " New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance." You have made no reference to that which is quite disrespectful both to the forum and to fellow members.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg680799#msg680799
Can you take your spat with Brietta to pm and answer my question please.
-
Can you take your spat with Brietta to pm and answer my question please.
Please cease issuing instructions and questions. Afaik I am under no obligation to respond and have no intention of doing so.
-
Please cease issuing instructions and questions. Afaik I am under no obligation to respond and have no intention of doing so.
What’s the point of this thread then?
-
For anyone reading this unsure about what you can and cannot write on this forum without getting a warning
You WILL get a warning for:
“There you see! You can give a straight answer when you put your mind to it. Well done”
You WON’t get a warning for:
“Shut up, there's only 6 of us here, nobody gives a shit except you and maybe 2 other plebs and that's only because you keep getting well and truly owned.
Wind it in and get on topic yourself.”
Hope that all makes sense to you (because it doesn’t to me!)
-
What’s the point of this thread then?
To raise queries about moderation, according to the opening post. There's no mention of moderators being obliged to answer the queries.
-
To raise queries about moderation, according to the opening post. There's no mention of moderators being obliged to answer the queries.
You are accountable to each and every one of us when you use your powers as a Moderator to disrupt the equilibrium of the forum. IMO If you are unable to act without prejudice then perhaps you should consider your position, for the benefit of the forum.
-
To raise queries about moderation, according to the opening post. There's no mention of moderators being obliged to answer the queries.
Utterly pointless then.
Let me put it to you - you won’t answer because you know you can’t defend the indefensible. That’s the real reason. Shameful moderating imo.
-
I'd like to thank Eleanor for being willing to take part in this discussion. Moderating is a difficult job which I personally wouldn't touch with a bargepole. It seems to me that moderators end up between the devil and the deep blue sea. It must be annoying to delete a post and then see it reinstated. It also encourages members to think moderators arem't doing their job properly, so it leads to more challenges and arguments.
On the other hand I'm sure I'm not the only member who has posted a carefully worded post or two and then discovered them gone because I was involved in a discussion triggered by a post which moderators have decided, with hindsight, needs deleting.
Members can't be expected to read back before posting to ensure that previous posts are within the rules; that's not their responsibilty. I think speed of reaction by moderators is the problem here. If moderators dealt with unacceptable posts immediately then no-one would br able to reply to them.
What changed?
-
You are accountable to each and every one of us when you use your powers as a Moderator to disrupt the equilibrium of the forum. IMO If you are unable to act without prejudice then perhaps you should consider your position, for the benefit of the forum.
Please note that your post expresses your opinion which others might not agree with.
-
Please note that your post expresses your opinion which others might not agree with.
I agree with it.
-
Oh, sorry. I thought perhaps that had changed;
snip/
posting on a forum is an entirely different kettle of fish and posters have power to ensure the standards and protocols for ourselves. One of which is posting on topic.
So why don't you.
Quite clearly the topic here is " New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance." You have made no reference to that which is quite disrespectful both to the forum and to fellow members.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.msg680799#msg680799
I think your post illustrates a basic misunderstanding which perhaps is affecting your judgement regarding the division between operating as a moderator and enjoying the privilege of contributing to discussions as a member.
I neither made reference to you as a mod or to myself as a mod.
My post was addressed between members. Communication between moderators should take place in the area of the board provided for us; but as you know that was turned into a waste of space with Eleanor and I usually ending up as lonely participants with no-mates but each other.
A good and useful initiative set up to encourage the smooth running of the forum just wasted. I think members should be aware of that although I normally would not break that confidentiality 'cept there is actually none to break whether due to intransigence or something else I haven't a clue. But it is what it is.
I do not act in both capacities at the same time.
That is - I feel there is an obligation to observe forum protocols when posting. I am punctilious in not not indulging in discussions which are likely to end up in personal arguments leading to the necessity for moderation. It is a fine line to follow and one which I don't think you have quite yet mastered or even made any attempt to..
-
Please note that your post expresses your opinion which others might not agree with.
I did include IMO in my post but am sure that the vast majority of posters here would advocate that Moderators should adopt an impartial stance when considering which posts, in their opinion, warrant moderating or deleting.
You have the opportunity to be so much better (and fairer) than some of your predecessors on the sceptic side of the fence. IMO it would be beneficial for both you and the forum to seize such an opportunity.
-
I did include IMO in my post but am sure that the vast majority of posters here would advocate that Moderators should adopt an impartial stance when considering which posts, in their opinion, warrant moderating or deleting.
You have the opportunity to be so much better (and fairer) than some of your predecessors on the sceptic side of the fence. IMO it would be beneficial for both you and the forum to seize such an opportunity.
You are advocating an impartial stance but as you don't have access to the records you don't know whether my stance is impartial or not.
-
I think your post illustrates a basic misunderstanding which perhaps is affecting your judgement regarding the division between operating as a moderator and enjoying the privilege of contributing to discussions as a member.
I neither made reference to you as a mod or to myself as a mod.
My post was addressed between members. Communication between moderators should take place in the area of the board provided for us; but as you know that was turned into a waste of space with Eleanor and I usually ending up as lonely participants with no-mates but each other.
A good and useful initiative set up to encourage the smooth running of the forum just wasted. I think members should be aware of that although I normally would not break that confidentiality 'cept there is actually none to break whether due to intransigence or something else I haven't a clue. But it is what it is.
I do not act in both capacities at the same time.
That is - I feel there is an obligation to observe forum protocols when posting. I am punctilious in not not indulging in discussions which are likely to end up in personal arguments leading to the necessity for moderation. It is a fine line to follow and one which I don't think you have quite yet mastered or even made any attempt to..
So you are saying that you post only as another member and posts which sound like a warning from a moderator are no such thing?
-
You are advocating an impartial stance but as you don't have access to the records you don't know whether my stance is impartial or not.
You have proved beyond doubt that you are biased by giving me a warning for goading while repeatedly refusing to remove an abusive post and hand out a warning to its author.
My PM to you which you ignored
*******
Posts: 25129
65 Warnings Since Joining!
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
User is on moderator watch listw..ched
(No subject)
« Sent to: G-Unit on: April 13, 2022, 02:47:06 PM » ReplyQuoteDelete
While you’re handing out warnings for goading you might like to do the same for this one
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11585.15600
No need to thank me for drawing this to your attention, I’m sure you’ll dish out the relevant warning now that I have done so…
*************
Case closed.
-
So you are saying that you post only as another member and posts which sound like a warning from a moderator are no such thing?
I am weary of the dissent you have brought to the forum festering under posts like this one in which you are putting words in my mouth which are precisely the opposite of what I have said.
-
I am weary of the dissent you have brought to the forum festering under posts like this one in which you are putting words in my mouth which are precisely the opposite of what I have said.
There was ample dissent on the forum long before I joined Brietta. If my attempts to understand what you are saying are failing then either your meaning is unclear or my understanding of the English language is below par.
I would appreciate it if you could explain, in simple language, just what it was you were saying.
-
There was ample dissent on the forum long before I joined Brietta. If my attempts to understand what you are saying are failing then either your meaning is unclear or my understanding of the English language is below par.
I would appreciate it if you could explain, in simple language, just what it was you were saying.
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg680899#msg680899
You dragged me into this unedifying debacle which is entirely of your own making, as so much of the dissent on the forum is with you enthusiastically presiding at the core.
The "her" and "she" referred to is me.
"the post was addressed to ..." The post referred to was a particularly snide and abusive one addressed to me
Perhaps it is way beyond time you had a closer look at your own conduct and amend the sometimes passive and sometimes aggressive behaviour you seem to think is acceptable.
It does the forum no favours or is that the intention.
-
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg680899#msg680899
You dragged me into this unedifying debacle which is entirely of your own making, as so much of the dissent on the forum is with you enthusiastically presiding at the core.
The "her" and "she" referred to is me.
"the post was addressed to ..." The post referred to was a particularly snide and abusive one addressed to me
Perhaps it is way beyond time you had a closer look at your own conduct and amend the sometimes passive and sometimes aggressive behaviour you seem to think is acceptable.
It does the forum no favours or is that the intention.
G-Unit was simply deflecting from the real issue at hand which is that SHE was the mod throwing her wweight around at the time the abusive post was made, and it was SHE who deliberately chose to ignore it, in favour of giving me a warning for a much less abusive post. She has exercised clear bias, a refusal to moderate those whose views she agrees with and as such she should be relieved of her moderating duties imo.
-
I'd also like to point out that the author of the abusive post was able to write what he did without receiving any warning at all, perhaps John could explain why not?
-
G-Unit was simply deflecting from the real issue at hand which is that SHE was the mod throwing her wweight around at the time the abusive post was made, and it was SHE who deliberately chose to ignore it, in favour of giving me a warning for a much less abusive post. She has exercised clear bias, a refusal to moderate those whose views she agrees with and as such she should be relieved of her moderating duties imo.
I think the only truly unbiased mod we had on the McCann board was Eleanor; but despite that, even she was subject to some brutal attacks.
But we did cover each others' backs when possible - and that is just co-operation and protocol.
-
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg680899#msg680899
You dragged me into this unedifying debacle which is entirely of your own making, as so much of the dissent on the forum is with you enthusiastically presiding at the core.
The "her" and "she" referred to is me.
"the post was addressed to ..." The post referred to was a particularly snide and abusive one addressed to me
Perhaps it is way beyond time you had a closer look at your own conduct and amend the sometimes passive and sometimes aggressive behaviour you seem to think is acceptable.
It does the forum no favours or is that the intention.
Once again you haven't attempted to answer the question I asked.
-
Once again you haven't attempted to answer the question I asked.
Talk about pot and kettle!!!
"Please cease issuing instructions and questions. Afaik I am under no obligation to respond and have no intention of doing so." - G-Unit
-
Once again you haven't attempted to answer the question I asked.
It is not for me to instruct you. It is for you to examine your own conscience and give thought to the very, very few restrictions John has placed on us as moderators and attempt to abide by them.
-
An interesting question. Particularly as the post was addressed to her. She's usually very quick to notice and respond to posts by that member.
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8404.msg680899#msg680899
You dragged me into this unedifying debacle which is entirely of your own making, as so much of the dissent on the forum is with you enthusiastically presiding at the core.
The "her" and "she" referred to is me.
"the post was addressed to ..." The post referred to was a particularly snide and abusive one addressed to me
Perhaps it is way beyond time you had a closer look at your own conduct and amend the sometimes passive and sometimes aggressive behaviour you seem to think is acceptable.
It does the forum no favours or is that the intention.
That G has let the frankly abusive posts towards her stand while you delete any mildly critical posts towards you speaks volumes IMO when it comes to bias. You really do need to take a long, hard look at yourself Brietta. Numerous times now you have deleted posts of mine which have been reinstated by John and I’m sure I’m not the only one and while I know that posters won’t be breaking down his door to become moderators, especially those of a sceptical bent, are you really the best that he could find?
I know of at least half a dozen posters who no longer bother to post on this forum as a direct consequence of your overzealous moderating. I myself started posting on the Luke Mitchell thread only to be followed there by your good self. I rarely post there now and, funnily enough, neither do you, what a coincidence. G is just your latest whipping boy. Your contempt for those who do not share your view is clear for all to see and IMO makes you totally unsuited to being a moderator….but still you go on.
There is one last thing. There truly is a difference between thinking you are the voice of reason and actually being it. Perhaps it’s time to learn the difference?
-
That G has let the frankly abusive posts towards her stand while you delete any mildly critical posts towards you speaks volumes IMO when it comes to bias. You really do need to take a long, hard look at yourself Brietta. Numerous times now you have deleted posts of mine which have been reinstated by John and I’m sure I’m not the only one and while I know that posters won’t be breaking down his door to become moderators, especially those of a sceptical bent, are you really the best that he could find?
I know of at least half a dozen posters who no longer bother to post on this forum as a direct consequence of your overzealous moderating. I myself started posting on the Luke Mitchell thread only to be followed there by your good self. I rarely post there now and, funnily enough, neither do you, what a coincidence. G is just your latest whipping boy. Your contempt for those who do not share your view is clear for all to see and IMO makes you totally unsuited to being a moderator….but still you go on.
There is one last thing. There truly is a difference between thinking you are the voice of reason and actually being it. Perhaps it’s time to learn the difference?
Thank you for giving another point of view Faithlilly. Before I became a moderator I also had to appeal to John on several occasions and I also had posts reinstated. Instead of creating furores other members should follow our example if they feel badly used imo.
-
Thank you for giving another point of view Faithlilly. Before I became a moderator I also had to appeal to John on several occasions and I also had posts reinstated. Instead of creating furores other members should follow our example if they feel badly used imo.
We have all had posts reinstated - so what? Do you think the post you refused to delete should be reinstated? The one which called us plebs, told Brietta to shut up and wind her neck in? The one which you deemed acceptable whilst my mild goad required a deletion and warning? The hypocrisy from you and your cheerleader is astounding imo.
-
We have all had posts reinstated - so what? Do you think the post you refused to delete should be reinstated? The one which called us plebs, told Brietta to shut up and wind her neck in? The one which you deemed acceptable whilst my mild goad required a deletion and warning? The hypocrisy from you and your cheerleader is astounding imo.
After months of badgering I wouldn’t blame G for biting back occasionally. She’s been the very essence of maturity and patience while the rest of you have hurled brickbats at her. That she still wants to moderate is surprising but then again I don’t blame her either for not giving you all the satisfaction of resigning.
It seems you’re getting rather overheated about what is, in any world, a trifling event. Can I suggest that you perhaps take time away from the computer and enjoy the sunshine which, hopefully, you like me are experiencing. I’m sure it will lighten your mood and perhaps give you a different perspective on the matter.
-
We have all had posts reinstated - so what? Do you think the post you refused to delete should be reinstated? The one which called us plebs, told Brietta to shut up and wind her neck in? The one which you deemed acceptable whilst my mild goad required a deletion and warning? The hypocrisy from you and your cheerleader is astounding imo.
During this month (15 days) you have posted that I'm biased, hypocritical, obsessive, dishonest, narcissistic, pretentious, silly, facetious and a conspiracy theorist. In addition to that, many of your posts to me have been designed to goad.
Your surprise and resentment at finally receiving a warning suggests to me that I have been far too lenient in allowing you to abuse me as you have.
-
After months of badgering I wouldn’t blame G for biting back occasionally. She’s been the very essence of maturity and patience while the rest of you have hurled brickbats at her. That she still wants to moderate is surprising but then again I don’t blame her either for not giving you all the satisfaction of resigning.
It seems you’re getting rather overheated about what is, in any world, a trifling event. Can I suggest that you perhaps take time away from the computer and enjoy the sunshine which, hopefully, you like me are experiencing. I’m sure it will lighten your mood and perhaps give you a different perspective on the matter.
Don't patronize me and don't tell me what I should find important or not. This is an issue of principle and fairness which for members of this forum is an important matter (OK it's not Ukraine or the cost of living crisis but everything's relative).
IMO G-Unit has brought this criticism on herself by her partisan handling of her moderating duties. How can you possibly defend her decision NOT to remove blatant insults and abuse when they are brought to her attention? You are defending the indefensible and you know it, stop being the woman's apologist. Now you go out and enjoy the sun and put me back on ignore, there's a good girl. 8(0(*
-
During this month (15 days) you have posted that I'm biased, hypocritical, obsessive, dishonest, narcissistic, pretentious, silly, facetious and a conspiracy theorist. In addition to that, many of your posts to me have been designed to goad.
Your surprise and resentment at finally receiving a warning suggests to me that I have been far too lenient in allowing you to abuse me as you have.
I am not remotely surprised I received a warning, nor am I surprised you didn't remove The General's post - you fully met my (low) expectations, and that's why we're having this discussion. Why did you not remove the abuse and insults thrown at a fellow moderator when I brought them to your attention?
-
I am not remotely surprised I received a warning, nor am I surprised you didn't remove The General's post - you fully met my (low) expectations, and that's why we're having this discussion. Why did you not remove the abuse and insults thrown at a fellow moderator when I brought them to your attention?
I suggest you draw a line under this discussion now. I have, I think, made it clear enough that I am not and will not be answerable to you in any way shape or form. Perhaps your time would be better spent in reflecting on the abuse you seem to have become accustomed to aiming at me and which needs to cease in future.
-
I suggest you draw a line under this discussion now. I have, I think, made it clear enough that I am not and will not be answerable to you in any way shape or form. Perhaps your time would be better spent in reflecting on the abuse you seem to have become accustomed to aiming at me and which needs to cease in future.
I deny abusing you. I have not called you names such as "pleb", nor have I told you that no one gives a shit about your views, to shut up or to wind your neck in and that you have been well and truly owned. Now THAT is abuse. Perhaps the problem is your understanding of what constitutes abuse? Your failure to remove such posts only serves as encouragement for more abuse between members IMO.
-
During this month (15 days) you have posted that I'm biased, hypocritical, obsessive, dishonest, narcissistic, pretentious, silly, facetious and a conspiracy theorist. In addition to that, many of your posts to me have been designed to goad.
Your surprise and resentment at finally receiving a warning suggests to me that I have been far too lenient in allowing you to abuse me as you have.
an example of where you twist the truth. I have reviewed my posts to you and would like to take this one exmple where you claimed I abused you by calling you silly and facetious. This is the post I made:
"So now you're reduced to making silly facetious comments".
in reply to you post below:
Quote from: G-Unit on April 11, 2022, 11:54:14 AM
Perhaps their friend thought that leaving small children home alone in an unlocked apartment every night was what anxious and caring parents do?
Now clearly to any right-minded person you were being facetious. My comment was about your post. Do you consider my comment "So now you're reduced to making silly facetious comments" to be personal abuse?
-
All members are requested to keep comments civil and to the point. There is no need whatsoever to post nasty or spiteful responses.
Happy Easter to all 8((()*/
-
All members are requested to keep comments civil and to the point. There is no need whatsoever to post nasty or spiteful responses.
Happy Easter to all 8((()*/
Happy Easter John, let's hope that in future nasty spiteful posts like the General's will be removed promptly when attention is drawn to them rather than deliberately allowed to remain as in this case.
-
Just want to ask: is it now ok to make a statement of fact about someone without providing any evidence to back it up? Eg: “I know x was paid for an interview to the media”. I mean, we could all start making all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of fact about individuals couldn’t we? Is that to be tolerated?