Attitude of people and how it is dealt with by MODS in a thread i started

Merch

I am unhappy that a thread I started which resulted in me being attacked and wasnt moderated effectively in my view by the first mod on the scene.

I dont know if they and another MOD has moderated it or if only they have done so alone in the thread.

At a certain point I realised I was banging my head off the wall and felt the thread was being used just to attack me and nothing much was done about it so I stated I would not respond whereupon I was slated in my absence.

As I said I wouldnt reply in the thread or ever again in that forum, I decided to remain true to that, I did notice another poster asked a question so out of courtesy I replied in PM and was courteous to them.
Their response to me was to attack me and say i was running away and had no guts, my reason is I see no point staying there just to argue, I'd have stayed to discuss different points of view, but not to be attacked repeatedly by others.

I think the MOd excused themself from not doing anything about other posters insisting on not following what i consider a safe practice for all involved.

I had requested the thread be closed but was refused, I did think that if an OP requested to close the thread then that was that,
As no one else has much constructive to add to it and its just arguing and me being attacked/accused in my absence, I see no point in it continuing.

I cant understand why infractions arent being handed out??

I thought one of the main themes of boards was attack the post not the poster.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056589520

D

Hi Op,
I've just had a read through that thread. While the responses were passionate all but four of the posts dealt with your posts and not you as a poster.

Of the four that addressed you as a person two were offering advice and appeared to me to be genuine and were not meant to be digs.

The other two posts where directed at you did not offer advice and were both little digs although I don't think the second one was that bad, just a little petty.

The mod stated at least twice to "tone down the aggression".

I am not a mod but if I was I wouldn't have handed out any infractions although one poster was pushing it (the two posts directed at you were from the same poster) and I would have warned them and if they had done it again then would have given them an infraction.

Orion

You said "It's my thread". It's not. You may have started it but you don't own it. As the mod said a thread is not closed just because you don't like the responses.

To be honest you were as much the architect of your own downfall as anyone else. You refused to budge from your irrational position in the face of reasoned and rational posts and you were the only one I can see attacking the posters rather than the posts with your "militant and vitriolic" remarks.

Merch

Orion wrote: »

You said "It's my thread". It's not. You may have started it but you don't own it. As the mod said a thread is not closed just because you don't like the responses.

To be honest you were as much the architect of your own downfall as anyone else. You refused to budge from your irrational position in the face of reasoned and rational posts and you were the only one I can see attacking the posters rather than the posts with your "militant and vitriolic" remarks.

Im not claiming ownership, I meant that I started the thread, I thought that was obvious? elsewhere i have come across posts on boards where OP starting a thread have requested it closed and it was, that seemed to be a common enough thing to me and you have made no mention of me being repeatedly attacked, I gave a balanced approach, Im a dog owner myself.

If my irrational position is saying i think dogs of certain breeds and even those not on a list need to be kept under control and it happens to be a law with a purpose, not all are good and even then that one probably needs to be revised/updated then I stand by that.

downfall? its not about winning or losing to me, I wanted a reasonable discussion, people are getting up in arms about not muzzling dogs that it is a requirement to.

There was a recent incident where a pitbull in the UK savaged 5 police officers, I was told of a story on the other evening where a woman was attacked by her rotty after it was stung, apparently it was a loving dog, given the way things are lax in this country, I suggest such a thing will happen here and only something will be done after someone is seriously injured or worse, who will suffer will be good pet owners even of those on RB list.

None of that would have happened if those dogs were muzzled, if that makes me irrational, whats rational??

Outta here

Beruthiel

Merch,
If you wish to complain about a Mod, please use the Dispute Resolution Forum.