Inconsistant modding...?

Mellor

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Here you forgot some

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376663

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055372849

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055368129

and thats after only 1 minute of looking.

Wouldnt want to be living up to the title of this thread now would we.

I never claimed to being a super-mod that caught every occurance of it.
I just claimed that what you did was not allowed. Did you even read the charter?

Also, I see you ignored the fact that I called you on posting lies about me in feedback. Kudos

faceman wrote: »

Things must have been pretty bad for the C&P mods to put a ban on it in place but if it eliminates shillers then IMO its bestti stays to avoid the forum losing any credibility it carries.

It got pretty bad.
And considering that a house is the most valuable thing that most of us will own. I am happy to do it if it prevents anyone getting screwed over.

Besides shilling, there was also the slanderous comments of the sort Khan posted. They got pretty bad, and it wouldn't be shocking if a small company like sheomra took legal action.

KhanTheMan

Mellor wrote: »

I never claimed to being a super-mod that caught every occurance of it.
I just claimed that what you did was not allowed. Did you even read the charter?

Also, I see you ignored the fact that I called you on posting lies about me in feedback. Kudos


It got pretty bad.
And considering that a house is the most valuable thing that most of us will own. I am happy to do it if it prevents anyone getting screwed over.

Besides shilling, there was also the slanderous comments of the sort Khan posted. They got pretty bad, and it wouldn't be shocking if a small company like sheomra took legal action.

.

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

Bob the Builder

KhanTheMan wrote: »

.

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

No, both moderators just agreed with the decision. Nobody is ganging up on you at all.

Fysh

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

Regarding the legal action aspect : the unfortunate truth of the current state of affairs is that, whether or not others have made more damning comments regarding particular companies or individuals than you have, boards.ie and its administrators are the ones who will carry the can should any legal challenge arise. Thus they have to decide how much lenience is allowable and which areas require particularly careful moderation.

As Mellor says, accomodation is probably the most expensive area of personal property across the board - thus, for companies working within the construction and accomodation field, the potential losses due to libelous remarks are arguably higher and thus the legal risks more significant than for other areas.

A quick look at the Construction & Planning Charter shows the following:

"C&P wrote:

Any threads naming specific companies/traders will be deleted.

Threads looking for recommendations in a certain area will be allowed but any recommendations should be given by pm only.
(...)
Lastly, any defamation found in this forum will result in the thread/post being edited or deleted. Defamation is when something is said about another person (legal, natural or otherwise, that means companies can be defamed) that is untrue and damaging.

That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

On a more general point regarding moderation and post-reporting; I can see how confusion can arise regarding exactly what is or is not allowed if other posts of a similar nature are perceived to be allowed (ie they aren't deleted/edited and locked by the mods) but if you do find other posts that are in breach of the same rule that has been cited as the cause for your warning/infraction then you should report them. It's easier than you might think for bad posts to be missed in a moderately busy forum, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. I can see how it would look inconsistent, but at the same time the existence of other threads that break the same rule you were infracted for doesn't mean the rule isn't there.

KhanTheMan

Fysh wrote: »

Regarding the legal action aspect : the unfortunate truth of the current state of affairs is that, whether or not others have made more damning comments regarding particular companies or individuals than you have, boards.ie and its administrators are the ones who will carry the can should any legal challenge arise. Thus they have to decide how much lenience is allowable and which areas require particularly careful moderation.

As Mellor says, accomodation is probably the most expensive area of personal property across the board - thus, for companies working within the construction and accomodation field, the potential losses due to libelous remarks are arguably higher and thus the legal risks more significant than for other areas.

A quick look at the Construction & Planning Charter shows the following:



That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

On a more general point regarding moderation and post-reporting; I can see how confusion can arise regarding exactly what is or is not allowed if other posts of a similar nature are perceived to be allowed (ie they aren't deleted/edited and locked by the mods) but if you do find other posts that are in breach of the same rule that has been cited as the cause for your warning/infraction then you should report them. It's easier than you might think for bad posts to be missed in a moderately busy forum, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. I can see how it would look inconsistent, but at the same time the existence of other threads that break the same rule you were infracted for doesn't mean the rule isn't there.

I understand your point. But the moderator should either moderate properly or not. So since any company can read threads that they missed at any time, maybe the mods who missed other offending posts should go back and find the offending threads and delete them all or else let boards be open to libel because of their inability to mod consistently.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

If it is legal reasons that means in companies are not allowed to be named in ANY way, then this should apply to ALL forums on boards and not just this forum. Same logic applies to all other areas also. Don't see why this is different to others. This would then make modding and posting clear cut across all forums.

Fysh

KhanTheMan wrote: »

I understand your point. But the moderator should either moderate properly or not. So since any company can read threads that they missed at any time, maybe the mods who missed other offending posts should go back and find the offending threads and delete them all or else let boards be open to libel because of their inability to mod consistently.

Without wanting to speak for Mellor or any of the other mods on C&P, I would expect that the posts you highlighted will be checked and amended/deleted as required. That said, us moderators are only human, as r3nu4l points out, and to expect infallibility from us is to set yourself up for disappointment, unfortunately. This is why you see so many posts asking people to report anything that they think may be in breach of the charter.

Ludo wrote: »

If it is legal reasons that means in companies are not allowed to be named in ANY way, then this should apply to ALL forums on boards and not just this forum. Same logic applies to all other areas also. Don't see why this is different to others. This would then make modding and posting clear cut across all forums.

I'm not an admin, so please bear in mind that this is only my own opinion on the matter, but:

a) what you're suggesting here goes beyond libel and slander laws, as I understand them, and
b) plenty of fora on boards would become utterly pointless if such a draconian rule were put in place.

Consider all culture-related fora on boards. The Film forum would struggle to have any interesting discussions if you couldn't name any individuals, films, or studios when discussing films. Likewise TV, Comics, Literature, and plenty of others. The problem comes when talking about products or company in a specific consumer context, and the admins & moderators of C&P have apparently determined that the charter rules as quoted above are the response they are happy with for the issues as they apply to that forum. If they want to impose the restriction you suggest, it's their right. They own the company and the hardware which boards runs on, they have to shoulder the responsibility for any legal matters that may arise as a result, so it's up to them. We can disagree with their decisions, but ultimately how we as posters feel about those decisions has to be less important to the admins than making sure that their legal position is sound; otherwise the existence of boards as a whole is threatened.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not an admin, so please bear in mind that this is only my own opinion on the matter, but:

a) what you're suggesting here goes beyond libel and slander laws, as I understand them, and
b) plenty of fora on boards would become utterly pointless if such a draconian rule were put in place.

Consider all culture-related fora on boards. The Film forum would struggle to have any interesting discussions if you couldn't name any individuals, films, or studios when discussing films. Likewise TV, Comics, Literature, and plenty of others. The problem comes when talking about products or company in a specific consumer context, and the admins & moderators of C&P have apparently determined that the charter rules as quoted above are the response they are happy with for the issues as they apply to that forum. If they want to impose the restriction you suggest, it's their right. They own the company and the hardware which boards runs on, they have to shoulder the responsibility for any legal matters that may arise as a result, so it's up to them. We can disagree with their decisions, but ultimately how we as posters feel about those decisions has to be less important to the admins than making sure that their legal position is sound; otherwise the existence of boards as a whole is threatened.

I fully agree...it would be rediculous. That is why I cannot understand why that restriction exists on the C+P forum and causes hassle for the mods.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I fully agree...it would be rediculous. That is why I cannot understand why that restriction exists on the C+P forum and causes hassle for the mods.

Well, the long-standing legal wrangle concerningThe Festival That Must Not Be Named and the company behind it is probably the biggest single factor for such caution. I would imagine, however, that the admins have taken some form of legal advice on how best to protect themselves, since the site they run is legally considered to be analogous to a newspaper if I understand correctly (with them as the publishers and thus liable for whatever comments are published on here).

I would also imagine that the presence of moderators on the site would count in their favour if and when legal complications develop. With the present setup, even if a libelous comment is posted by someone and remains visible for several hours, there are still processes in place to deal with it. Allowing anyone to say what they like would be irresponsible, since the law does not allow the admins to also pass on the legal responsibility for those comments onto the poster.

Ludo

I understand fully where you are coming from but that is still no reason to allow comments on specific companies on one forum but not on another. This kind of rule would be site wide if the owners were afraid of legal action. The only conclusion I can come to is that the C+P forum mods have decided on this rule to make their own life easier...and fair enough. But to claim it is for legal reasons does not make sense when anyone can pass comment on other forums on this site.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I understand fully where you are coming from but that is still no reason to allow comments on specific companies on one forum but not on another. This kind of rule would be site wide if the owners were afraid of legal action. The only conclusion I can come to is that the C+P forum mods have decided on this rule to make their own life easier...and fair enough. But to claim it is for legal reasons does not make sense when anyone can pass comment on other forums on this site.

It makes sense if you consider that:

a) different companies may well have different approaches to managing public relations - for instance as pointed out earlier in the thread, some companies have approached boards to create hosted fora for customer interactions,
b) different industries will have different values for individual purchases, with corresponding different potential losses as a result of libelous remarks, and
c) the admins of this site have, in all probability, taken private legal advice which we are not privy to and thus unable to properly judge.

To put the above in context : neither you nor I are, to my knowledge, currently embroiled in a lawsuit with a major events promoter over comments posted by people on boards.ie about a festival event 2 years ago. In light of this, I think neither of us are really in any position to start telling the admins how they should run the site as a whole, or to claim that mods in a particular forum are lying if they say that a particular rule has been imposed to offset potential legal issues.

Mellor

I can guarantee you it does not make life easier.
90% of all the bull**** we deal with stems from that.
Mostly shill type posts. For obvious reason we can't allow that to happen.
I suppose I better spell it out as some people are apparently blind to common sense.
A house is the most valuable that most if not all of us buy. Alot of people use the C&P forum as a resource to find various info on planning building, different options and technologies etc.
Now say we let it run its course, anything that was to be named, could be named.
Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?
Roughly, 95% of posts that start of with a problem, and in the same post mention a company are shills. We lock them. Sometimes honest posts get lock, a quick pm and a edit sorts it out.
This is not a C&P rule btw. Shilling is pretty much banned accross the whole site. There is one semi exception that I know of.

As for the legal issue. And slanderous comments being banned. That was pretty well covered before. We are all aware of the major case involving boards. There have been others, there have been threats of legal action. There have been some very dangerous posts that luckily got away with it. The posters of boards have incredible power. They may not relise it,
When somebody shows up randomly, saying company X are rip-offs merchants. And posts what I know to be a lie. Surely, it looks suspect. Maybe its just an exageration, but maybe theres mallice behind it.

Ludo

Thank you mellor for trying to point out (in a condescending way) your point of view (the common sense comment).

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one. And the comments about the company that shall not be named is not relevant here.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.
I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

I guess we will just agree to disagree.

smashey

Ludo wrote: »

Thank you mellor for trying to point out (in a condescending way) your point of view (the common sense comment).

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one. And the comments about the company that shall not be named is not relevant here.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.
I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

I guess we will just agree to disagree.

Every forum has its own rules and that is what we decided to apply in C&P. No big conspiracy.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

It boils down to this:

You're not the owner of the site.
You're not, as far as I know, a lawyer involved in any current litigation involving boards.ie and its owners.
Thus, while you are entitled to ask the question above, you have no guarantee of any answer more detailed than "because the admins say so". I can't imagine anyone will actually stop you asking this question (unless the thread gets locked), but at the end of the day the admins owe you nothing and are quite entitled to ignore you on an on-going basis.

javaboy

Ludo wrote: »

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one.

If I post in C&P and say Bob's Plumbing are the best thing since sliced bread and they subsequently wreck your house and have your toilet flush backflowing up your sink, you'll probably be a bit pissed off since your home is a €400,000 investment and some cowboy has just arsed it up.

You might even be pissed off enough to attempt to sue the place that recommended it i.e. boards.ie.

If I post in the Sweets forum and say Starbars are lovely and you buy one based on that advice only to discover that there not in fact lovely at all, you're not likely to come knocking on Boards.ie's door with a solicitor's letter are you?

I know that's a stupid example but the difference of scale is important. People are more likely to go down the legal route if something impacts their expensive home. You might notice also that on the motors forum, car brands can be named, but the naming of garages is carefully controlled to protect boards.ie from legal repercussions.

A general across the board ban on company names would eliminate the problem but it would also stifle discussion. The current setup is a compromise where we get a reasonably good balance of discussion but certain high-risk forums have to have more restrictive policies to keep legal trouble at bay.

Mellor

Ludo wrote: »

.............. but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.

I posted the reason above, its not just legal, its also user protection,

Mellor wrote: »

Now say we let it run its course, anything that was to be named, could be named.
Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

It boils down to this:

You're not the owner of the site.
You're not, as far as I know, a lawyer involved in any current litigation involving boards.ie and its owners.
Thus, while you are entitled to ask the question above, you have no guarantee of any answer more detailed than "because the admins say so". I can't imagine anyone will actually stop you asking this question (unless the thread gets locked), but at the end of the day the admins owe you nothing and are quite entitled to ignore you on an on-going basis.

What a nonsensical post...why bother!

javaboy wrote: »

If I post in C&P and say Bob's Plumbing are the best thing since sliced bread and they subsequently wreck your house and have your toilet flush backflowing up your sink, you'll probably be a bit pissed off since your home is a €400,000 investment and some cowboy has just arsed it up.

You might even be pissed off enough to attempt to sue the place that recommended it i.e. boards.ie.

If I post in the Sweets forum and say Starbars are lovely and you buy one based on that advice only to discover that there not in fact lovely at all, you're not likely to come knocking on Boards.ie's door with a solicitor's letter are you?

I know that's a stupid example but the difference of scale is important. People are more likely to go down the legal route if something impacts their expensive home. You might notice also that on the motors forum, car brands can be named, but the naming of garages is carefully controlled to protect boards.ie from legal repercussions.

A general across the board ban on company names would eliminate the problem but it would also stifle discussion. The current setup is a compromise where we get a reasonably good balance of discussion but certain high-risk forums have to have more restrictive policies to keep legal trouble at bay.

Fair points and well put (unlike the previous useless post). But I don't believe anyone who makes a decision based solely on something they read in a thread on boards.ie is in a position to sue them for giving bad advice though. They would be laughed out of court for being so stupid. I would imagine the ban is more aimed at preventing a situation where a companies reputation may be adversely affected by chatter here and the company seeking compensation and this scenario surely applies to all or no forums.

Anyhow, I'm not bothered about it in the slightest. I only asked out of curiosity as it seemed a very strange inconsistency.

Ludo

Mellor wrote: »

Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?

Anyone silly enough to rely solely on posts on the internet without doing their own proper research shouldn't really be allowed anywhere near construction unless it is meccano

And sorry, I don't mean to argue with you...as I said in my previous post, I was just curious.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

What a nonsensical post...why bother!

You seem to be under some illusion that there's legislation somewhere which gives you rights and entitlements when it comes to this website. The fact is, you don't.

The admins of this site have been very open a lot of their reasons for running things as they do, which is quite nice. However, they have to assume all legal responsibility for the contents of the site and thus they are entitled to impose what rules they wish, however arbitrary the rest of us may think they are. I really can't stress that last bit enough.

The only people actually entitled to question those rules are the admins themselves, or lawyers actively involved in some form of legal undertaking that concerns boards.ie. The rest of us can ponder, criticise or otherwise question them as much as we want, but the fact remains - they don't have to answer us.

My opinion, your opinion, the opinion of that weird guy in the smelly overcoat in the corner who keeps muttering under his breath and touching himself - in legal terms, they're all worth the same thing, i.e. nothing. The only people whose opinions matter on the finer legal points concerning boards.ie and potential libel are solicitors, whether they are those contacted by the admins to make sure they're on safe grounds or those contacted by companies who aren't happy about what they see said about them on boards.ie.

Don't get me wrong here - I do agree with you that anyone dumb enough to take a post on the internet at face value should not be able to use that as a defence and a basis to claim recompense from anyone else, but that's not necessarily how the law works (also, see my previous comment about the value of our respective opinions). No solicitor in the world would be daft enough to suggest that you mount your libel defence case based entirely on "how you think the world should work".

faceman

Ludo wrote: »

Anyone silly enough to rely solely on posts on the internet without doing their own proper research shouldn't really be allowed anywhere near construction unless it is meccano

And sorry, I don't mean to argue with you...as I said in my previous post, I was just curious.

The rules here are no different than ringing up Joe Duffy or Gerry Ryan to have a rant about your local pub/electrician who tried to shaft you. Even Duffy or Ryan dont name every establishment that they receive a complaint about.

Actually you could ring Joe Duffy to complain about boards.ie's alledged inconsistency, and see how far it is entertained!

javaboy

Ludo wrote: »

Fair points and well put (unlike the previous useless post). But I don't believe anyone who makes a decision based solely on something they read in a thread on boards.ie is in a position to sue them for giving bad advice though. They would be laughed out of court for being so stupid.

Maybe so but the admins know from bitter experience that it's sometimes easier to stop the problem from ever arising by the use of censorship than to actually defend the suits.

There's many a company/individual that has gone bankrupt fighting a case where they are in the right. Boards.ie simply isn't big enough to withstand a huge amount of lawsuits regardless of how trivial they are and whether they get kicked out of court or not.

And btw I wouldn't be so sure about people not being able to sue based on advice from boards. Online media is still a grey area for litigation. People are feeling their way around and new precedents are being established every day. Some people would take the view that boards.ie is responsible for every bit of content on their website regardless of how it was generated. Others will take a more sensible view that a site based on user generated content has less liability than others. Boards.ie can't afford to gamble on getting a sensible judge.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

You seem to be under some illusion that there's legislation somewhere which gives you rights and entitlements when it comes to this website. The fact is, you don't.

The admins of this site have been very open a lot of their reasons for running things as they do, which is quite nice. However, they have to assume all legal responsibility for the contents of the site and thus they are entitled to impose what rules they wish, however arbitrary the rest of us may think they are. I really can't stress that last bit enough.

The only people actually entitled to question those rules are the admins themselves, or lawyers actively involved in some form of legal undertaking that concerns boards.ie. The rest of us can ponder, criticise or otherwise question them as much as we want, but the fact remains - they don't have to answer us.

Sorry I thought we were having a discussion here. Where did you get the impression that I was demanding an answer from the site owners or anyone else and where did I make out that I was entitled to an answer? I simply posted a question and engaged in a discussion about the responses provided by people. I'm not sure where that translated to making demands like you say I am. I don't expect anyone to reply to my question here. Anyone is free to if they want to though. As you said yourself, the rest of us can "ponder" and that is what I was doing.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

Sorry I thought we were having a discussion here. Where did you get the impression that I was demanding an answer from the site owners or anyone else and where did I make out that I was entitled to an answer? I simply posted a question and engaged in a discussion about the responses provided by people. I'm not sure where that translated to making demands like you say I am. I don't expect anyone to reply to my question here. Anyone is free to if they want to though. As you said yourself, the rest of us can "ponder" and that is what I was doing.

So what you're saying is that you weren't looking for an answer from the admins/site owners about why there are varying degrees of strictness across fora, but you posed the question anyway?

I'm not trying to be funny or condescending here, but I'm at a loss regarding what you hope to achieve if you're asking a question while stating that you don't expect a response from the only people who could usefully answer it. If you'd care to explain what you hope will come out of this thread (and how that outcome can be served by repeatedly ignoring explanations as to why there are variable rules across the site and what legal position the site admins find themselves in) then we can continue the discussion.

RuailleBuaille

Originally Posted by Karoma
You posted a Feedback thread before your reported a post? You couldn't wait a few minutes for me to read the thread, and finish writing the messages in the infractions and bans? It's not a "condescending attitude". Shut up or you'll get an attitude.. I'm soooo sorry: Have a smiley

That's a bit unneccessary isn't it? Don't think it was a personal attack from the OP, no need to respond as if it was IMO.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

So what you're saying is that you weren't looking for an answer from the admins/site owners about why there are varying degrees of strictness across fora, but you posed the question anyway?

I'm not trying to be funny or condescending here, but I'm at a loss regarding what you hope to achieve if you're asking a question while stating that you don't expect a response from the only people who could usefully answer it. If you'd care to explain what you hope will come out of this thread (and how that outcome can be served by repeatedly ignoring explanations as to why there are variable rules across the site and what legal position the site admins find themselves in) then we can continue the discussion.

Can you read? I simply ASKED a question and you are making out that I am DEMANDING an answer and feel that I am ENTITLED to an answer. As you said yourself I am entitled to ask it...if no-one answers then that is fine...end of discussion.

And I am not ignoring explanations as to the rule as none of the explanations have actually made sense. If people cannot see the inconsistency caused by not allowing something for legal reasons on one forum but allow the exact same thing on other forums then fair enough...maybe I am imagining it.

Dudess

Moderators are given a set of guidelines, they are not put on an intensive training course. They ensure to follow said guidelines as best they can, but like someone said earlier, they are not robots. And they are not being paid.

Moderators do not favour fellow moderators or those with high post counts :rolleyes:. If you think a moderator looks at your post count and makes a decision based on it... well I won't finish that sentence.

However... the amount of time a person has been a member/regularity of their posting DOES make a difference as it affects whether they are either a known or unknown quantity - simple as. Nobody can blame a moderator for knowing a regular user's posting habits/style better than that of a noob or an irregular poster - so that is bound to affect decisions. It's completely understandable and the natural order of things.

Moderators do not "gang up" together. I was accused of that the other night simply because I posted a comment which reflected I understood where another poster (who is a moderator - Fysh actually) was coming from. I barely have any dealings with Fysh - I am not sad enough to look at his "status" and decide "oh he's a moderator - I must take his side. Mod solidarity!" I'd have "taken his side" whether he was a moderator or not.

And finally, moderators do not make a point of "sticking together". There are fora to which only moderators have access and it ain't just one big love-in. There are plenty of debates and differences of opinion.
There are moderators whom I cannot f*cking stand (as posters - I don't know them personally). And by god there are moderators who cannot f*cking stand me.

So please... enough with the conspiracy crap. It's most tiresome.

smashey

Dudess wrote: »

And by god there are moderators who cannot f*cking stand me.

Dudess.

faceman

Dudess wrote: »

So please... enough with the conspiracy crap. It's most tiresome.

Those evil moderators throwing us off the scent again with their mumbo jumbo!

Nevyn

faceman wrote: »

Those evil moderators throwing us off the scent again with their mumbo jumbo!

/Sticks large pin kn the knee of the faceman doll she has on her desk.