Animal & pet issues.

peasant

I think we are agreed that one doesn't have to actively participate to sucessfully moderate a forum, but it would be a sad day if mods were to be discouraged from posting "normally" in their fora.

As for your sports reference: Yes, I'd gladly just watch, due in no small parts to corpulence, advanced age, pityful state of fitness and general desinterest.

Thankfully t'internet is an armchair sport

John Mason

Hellrazer wrote: »

god help me if them redneck hunters come back and start a shooting their mouths off about shooting fluffy bunnies again

:eek::eek: Dont shoot me :eek:

I read the fourm a lot but rarely post there. I did have a problem before christmas and i asked for help and I was reduced to tears at my computer in work!!!

I will NEVER post in that forum again and yes, i did report the offending posts

Dudess

Saw that. The ignorance and judging of you was unbelievable.

Dyr

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

:eek::eek: Dont shoot me :eek:

I read the fourm a lot but rarely post there. I did have a problem before christmas and i asked for help and I was reduced to tears at my computer in work!!!

I will NEVER post in that forum again and yes, i did report the offending posts

ummm..you said people shouted at you and called you a horrible person? unless those posts were deleted i can't see where that happened.

But yeah, animal issues will always attract the irrational brigade. It's probably the same in the green forum, or whatever else. Bond007 usually keeps em in check though

tbh

animals and pet issues is not for the general discussion of animals and pet issues, much like the paranormal forum is not for the discussion of whether or not you believe in ghosts. The animals and pet issues forum is a community of people who love animals, talking about those animals. For example, if you post on the A&PI forum that dogs described in legislation as "dangerous breeds" should be kept on a leash, all you'll get is replies along the lines of "Sure what would you know, I've kept <breed> for 20 years and they never hurt anyone".

I've no problem with that per se - just like I don't believe in ghosts but I don't mind the paranormal crew discussing whatever they want - but I think the mods should either clarify the charter, make it an invite only forum, or do more to protect the blow-ins. That's just my 2c tho.

_blank_

Perhaps the mods are the people you described though.

And can't see, or won't acknowledge, the problem.

tbh

Des wrote: »

Perhaps the mods are the people you described though.

And can't see, or won't acknowledge, the problem.

it's not from lack of pointing it out on my part

Hellrazer

Ok following on from this thread Im opening up the charter thread in Animals and Pets asking for the regulars help in amending the charter.

Ive taken on board all the critisism (sp) and I suppose the easiest way to sort out the problems is to get the regular posters help with drawing up a new set of rules.

So if anyone wants to help feel free to post in the charter thread.

Richie.

_blank_

Fair play to you.

tbh

yeah fair play richie. The only thing I could suggest is basically a respect for the law. So, if someone talks about giving a dog a kick or whatever, then ban them. On the flip-side, if someone says "I regularly walk my dogs off the leash, and I don't care what the council say" - then ban them too

Hellrazer

tbh wrote: »

yeah fair play richie. The only thing I could suggest is basically a respect for the law. So, if someone talks about giving a dog a kick or whatever, then ban them. On the flip-side, if someone says "I regularly walk my dogs off the leash, and I don't care what the council say" - then ban them too

Makes sense tbh.Although in saying that Im guilty of walking my dogs off the leash.

peasant

tbh wrote: »

yeah fair play richie. The only thing I could suggest is basically a respect for the law. So, if someone talks about giving a dog a kick or whatever, then ban them. On the flip-side, if someone says "I regularly walk my dogs off the leash, and I don't care what the council say" - then ban them too

There is however the problem that the law is woefully inadequate when it comes to animal welfare in this country.

It can hardly be used as a guideline on how to treat your animals properly.

It is for example totally legal to have a dog confined to a kennel all its life, as long as that kennel has a certain size and the dog is fed, watered and kept reasonably clean. But that doesn't make it right.

_blank_

peasant wrote: »

There is however the problem that the law is woefully inadequate when it comes to animal welfare in this country.

It can hardly be used as a guideline on how to treat your animals properly.

It is for example totally legal to have a dog confined to a kennel all its life, as long as that kennel has a certain size and the dog is fed, watered and kept reasonably clean. But that doesn't make it right.

The law is the law though.

The Motoring Forum shouldn't advocate speeding.

The Shooting Forum shouldn't advocate bank robberies.

The A&PI forum shouldn't advocate the walking of certain dog breeds without a leash.

peasant

The law is what allows puppy mills to stay up and running, the same law kills ~15.000 dogs and uncounted cats a year in state controlled pounds, the law turns a blind eye to the cruelty behind the greyhound/race horse industry and even sponsors it.

You sure you want THIS law as the basis for discussion in the animals and pets forum?:D

Kiera

Peasant, you’re posting in the wrong forum about these issues.

peasant

Kiera wrote: »

Peasant, you’re posting in the wrong forum about these issues.

Huh?

If someone suggests in feedback to make the current law re animals the basis of the revamped A&PI forum charter, is it wrong of me to point out in feedback that the current law isn't exactly good for animals?

Or what?

Kiera

peasant wrote: »

Huh?

If someone suggests in feedback to make the current law re animals the basis of the revamped A&PI forum charter, is it wrong of me to point out in feedback that the current law isn't exactly good for animals?

Or what?

Ok, the way I see it is: You’re a mod and No 1 rule is not to take a thread off topic. You’ve done this twice now. The thread isn’t about animal law.

peasant

'course it isn't about animal law ...neither are my posts.

All I'm saying is that animal law shouldn't be made the basis of the forum charter, as was suggested. ("the law" does go a bit further than just keeping dogs on leads)

Am I that hard to understand?

Kiera

I do understand you and do not appreciate your tone.
I just don’t see the point in going on about all animal related laws in this thread. As I said, you’ve done this twice now.

If your attitude is typical of the posters over there then i'm not surprised people are looking for a change.

Hellrazer

Just wanted to make a small point here.

After all the whingeing in this thread about the moderating of Animals/Pets I opened up the charter thread in the forum in the hope of trying to sort the issues out by getting some feedback from the regulars.

So far not one person has posted one suggestion in the thread. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was expecting a bit more feedback but so far none.

Dudess

Kiera wrote: »

I do understand you and do not appreciate your tone.

To be fair, I don't think peasant was using a tone with you.

I just don’t see the point in going on about all animal related laws in this thread. As I said, you’ve done this twice now.

It's relevant to tbh's post.

If your attitude is typical of the posters over there then i'm not surprised people are looking for a change.

No way is peasant comparable to some of the more... extreme regulars there!

Kiera

I totally understand where peasant was coming from, Dudess. I just feel it would be more beneficial to give feedback on the charter to help Hellrazer though.

_blank_

Hellrazer wrote: »

Just wanted to make a small point here.

After all the whingeing in this thread about the moderating of Animals/Pets I opened up the charter thread in the forum in the hope of trying to sort the issues out by getting some feedback from the regulars.

So far not one person has posted one suggestion in the thread. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was expecting a bit more feedback but so far none.

It's not the regulars who have the issues though, it's the more casual user. IMO.

I've left you some feedback in that thread.

Take it as you will.

Dudess

Kiera wrote: »

I totally understand where peasant was coming from, Dudess. I just feel it would be more beneficial to give feedback on the charter to help Hellrazer though.

To me, peasant seemed to be doing that. tbh suggested an emphasis on the law, peasant argued the law is not always on an animal's side.

peasant

Des wrote: »

I've left you some feedback in that thread.

replying here rather than in the charter thread

Des, to be fair that thread of yours DID go off course and could have benefited from some input from the helm, but as far as I can see, there is no personal attack on you or your other half that would warrant the the fuss that you're creating about it now.

Nobody attacked you or PFB directly, hence nothing was reported and no action was taken.

I'm sure, had either of the mods been actively reading that thread it would have been steered properly ...but they weren't (I think they were both busy/ away?) and nothing was reported.

The one personal insult that got banned by Karoma in that thread wasn't even directed at you.

That thread sure wasn't pretty ...but molehills and mountains spring to mind when it comes to your reaction.

EDIT:
I see now that PFB did report a post

_blank_

peasant wrote: »

I see now that PFB did report a post

You even posted in the reported post thread :pac:

muffler

peasant wrote: »

but molehills and mountains spring to mind when it comes to your reaction.

Des wrote: »

You even posted in the reported post thread :pac:

Foot and mouth spring to mind