Moderation of commuting and transport

corktina

have we come as far with this as we're going to? It's just degenerating into the usual stuff....

bk

Con Logue wrote: »

Well I'm not trying to stop you bk. But I do reserve the right to call anything that is either inaccurate or lacking in the factual department if it is something I know about. And if I don't, I won't.

Con, my comment wasn't directed at you.

Even though I might often disagree with you, I believe you are up for a good honest discussion and not trying to be disruptive and get threads closed, etc. And I respect that.

I also totally welcome you pointing out anything inaccurate I or anyone says. No one knows everything and what I love is seeing knowledgeable posters sharing their knowledge here. We all learn and grow from that.

dowlingm

Suggestion: since so many posters are incapable of using the search function and thus start many versions of the same argument, let's collapse C&T down to a small number of permanent threads

For example
"My favourite mode of transport is better than yours"
"I want a train built to Letterkenny/transatlantic flights from Waterford/a LUAS in Thurles and I don't care what it costs"
"How much does it cost to get from here to there and how long will it take"
"I've been fined/been clamped/been summonsed/want to do something other than what my ticket says I can"
"Taxis are/are not evil"
"Western Rail Corridor"

Maybe there could be a quarterly "suggest a new thread" thread with a poll but I think the ones above cover most of the output here.

More seriously, much of the heat in this forum is in part because of the opaqueness around Irish transport infrastructure planning and execution. So much "consultation" is pro forma, so many cutbacks and fare increases unquestioned because of "operational independence" and "commercial confidentiality".

Into this vacuum runs speculation based on varying amounts of fact between zero and quite a bit, often employing imperfect comparators from other jurisdictions simply because the information there is available to the public rather than hidden from even FOIA. There is thus certainty only rarely because there is no avenue to obtain answers about questions like 4 car DARTs at peak except the few insiders we have among us, who are rewarded with accusations of partiality. There is therefore little chance that contention will vanish from this thread because speculation is inherently frustrating, often even to the person speculating!

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because its already done to the death and nothing new gets posted and especially when that thread ends up with a discussion about the different specifics and classes of the train and bus when all was asked was the price. If the OP has made it clear that they had their answer and not engaging further in the thread then that thread should be locked .

So, what you're saying is people will talk about things that you don't like? Because none of those things are against the rules.

This isn't a questions and answers pin board, it's a discussion board -- interisting stuff can come from threads that go beyond the OP's question and when the OP's question is answered, I'm still unclear what the harm is. If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you?

Con Logue

An interesting and revealing list where on more than one topic the unwary will be badgered out of it presumably because some public official will read the thread and give the goahead to the DART to Dingle. An entirely new route not duplicating the existing railway to Tralee of course, while retaining and expanding it, naturally. In case anyone is about to explode with anger at the previous two sentences I am taking the mick and am not seriously suggesting this.

In that Vein may I tongue in cheek suggest that a supplement to the charter be made listing the prepositions that provoke the wrath of some?


On another board on which I post they have a section called Dead Horses where certain issues that will provoke rows are left to canter around in a no resolution ever way without disrupting the flow of the main board. More seriously, could we nominate certain topics as just that?

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Because its already done to the death and nothing new gets posted and especially when that thread ends up with a discussion about the different specifics and classes of the train and bus when all was asked was the price. If the OP has made it clear that they had their answer and not engaging further in the thread then that thread should be locked .

So, what you're saying is people will talk about things that you don't like? Because none of those things are against the rules.

This isn't a questions and answers pin board, it's a discussion board -- interisting stuff can come from threads that go beyond the OP's question and when the OP's question is answered, I'm still unclear what the harm is. If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you?

Con Logue

monument wrote: »

So, what you're saying is people will talk about things that you don't like? Because none of those things are against the rules.

This isn't a questions and answers pin board, it's a discussion board -- interisting stuff can come from threads that go beyond the OP's question and when the OP's question is answered, I'm still unclear what the harm is. If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you?

Suggesting that a poster buggers off because legitimate concerns are raised about badgering and repetition isn't your finest hour Monument.

markpb

Con Logue wrote: »

Suggesting that a poster buggers off because legitimate concerns are raised about badgering and repetition isn't your finest hour Monument.

He has a point though. Moderators aren't here to made sure the conversations are interesting enough to keep Hilly Billy entertained, they're here to keep things civil. There's nothing forcing anyone to read or reply to any thread - if you feel it's run it's course, feel free to start your own (or go away).

I don't understand people complaining about circular argument in threads recently when it's the very same people who post in those threads and contribute to them going round and round. In a recent one, someone asked the price of a train ticket, foggy suggested the bus as an alternative and immediately the very people here complaining about badgering and repetition jumped in to start a other bus/train debate, the very type of debate that they're here comparing about now. What kind of moderation would it take to fix that?

Con Logue

markpb wrote: »

He has a point though. Moderators aren't here to made sure the conversations are interesting enough to keep Hilly Billy entertained, they're here to keep things civil. There's nothing forcing anyone to read or reply to any thread - if you feel it's run it's course, feel free to start your own (or go away).

I don't understand people complaining about circular argument in threads recently when it's the very same people who post in those threads and contribute to them going round and round. In a recent one, someone asked the price of a train ticket, foggy suggested the bus as an alternative and immediately the very people here complaining about badgering and repetition jumped in to start a other bus/train debate, the very type of debate that they're here comparing about now. What kind of moderation would it take to fix that?

Simple. When the OP says thanks that is the time to close a question thread.

It's not rocket science. dowlingm also expressed a view about repetition but you don't see anyone suggesting that he too buggers off. All posters are equal but it seems some posters are more equal than others, and I'm not talking about dowlingm here.

markpb

Con Logue wrote: »

Simple. When the OP says thanks that is the time to close a question thread.

Why? Did board.ie turn into AskJeeves.com overnight? It's still a discussion forum, right?

It''s not rocket science. dowlingm also expressed a view about repetition but you don't see anyone suggesting that he too buggers off. All posters are equal but it seems some posters are more equal than others, and I'm not talking about dowlingm here.

If you're suggesting that some users break the rules in the charter, I presume you report them? I haven't seen any such rampant rule breaking, perhaps you're mistaking people disagreeing with you (repeatedly) as rule breaking?

Ironically, while dowlingm complained about repetition once, Hilly Billy has made the same point about repetition multiple times, both in this thread and in several others. I presume you have a problem with that too?

If you're bored with the bus/rail threads or if a question has been answered, why do you feel compelled to continue posting in them? Why not just ignore either the thread or the poster?

Conway635

For me, when I see a thread descend into the cycle of doom I just tune out and ignore it.

The problem with all sides in this is that everyone wants to have the last word.

In fact, a poster's gravitas and reputation is far better served by just ensuring that they have delivered the right information, answering any queries that result from their post, and then just stepping away if it turns into a "me me me" fight.

I've actually just read the Cor./Dublin ticket price thread in all its glory, and it reminds me of arguments I used to have with my wife, neither of us ever wanted to let the other have the last word.

We're divorced now :-)

C635

corktina

hmmm, it really is quite simple, if you don't want to be in a discussion, don't be.

You won't change anyones entrenched opinion by continuing the argument so instead of moaning about it, just stop reading the thread, or at least stop posting in it.

it's not trolling to have a legimate point of view and assert that in the
face of someone with an opposing point of view, it's a discussion.

It only gets to be a problem when someone throws their toys out of the pram or becomes uncivil. Too many times people have done just that and it is that that is the problem on C&T.... someone is losing an argeument so they resort to insults or accusations of trolling, or sometimes start trolling themselves!

monument

Con Logue wrote: »

Suggesting that a poster buggers off because legitimate concerns are raised about badgering and repetition isn't your finest hour Monument.

From now on you can keep it to your self what is and isn't my or anybody else's finest hour -- post constructively or don't bother. I don't accept this this you trying to be constructive, this is you hitting out at me because you're not getting your way.

This applies to anybody: If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you? If people can't remove them self and keep trying to cut off debate just because they don't like the debate, they will be cut off from this forum, permanently.

As markpb said; If you, Hilly Billy or anybody else is bored with the bus/rail threads or if a question has been answered, why not just ignore either the thread or the poster?

While this is a place for debate, nobody is forcing you to debate. More people need to sit back from the keyboard and relax (I know, sometimes I do).

BTW, re your deleted post: dowlingm, is clearly talking the piss when he's suggestion the forum should be kept to a small number of permanent threads.

HivemindXX

On the topic of closing threads. Am I alone in thinking that the original poster should have no implicit ownership of the thread they started?

Multiple times I've seen someone start a thread (ficticious example: what's the best way to get out of my fine for fare evasion) only to request the thread be closed because they don't like the way the discussion is going. In general this is granted. Is this a rule? If so I think it's a bad one.

If a moderator chooses to close a thread because it was a simple question asked and answered with no relevant discussion ongoing or because the thread has degenerated in to circular arguments then that's fine but I think the wishes of the original poster should have little or nothing to do with that decision.

monument

HivemindXX wrote: »

On the topic of closing threads. Am I alone in thinking that the original poster should have no implicit ownership of the thread they started?

Yes, to a large extent. Although, things should generally and with reason keep half on topic. Different story when a question is answered etc.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Multiple times I've seen someone start a thread (ficticious example: what's the best way to get out of my fine for fare evasion) only to request the thread be closed because they don't like the way the discussion is going. In general this is granted. Is this a rule? If so I think it's a bad one.

If a moderator chooses to close a thread because it was a simple question asked and answered with no relevant discussion ongoing or because the thread has degenerated in to circular arguments then that's fine but I think the wishes of the original poster should have little or nothing to do with that decision.

I don't follow the rule a thread should be "closed because they don't like the way the discussion is going" -- I don't think that's a great idea -- but sometimes I'll agree with the request because the thread has just got out of hand or gone on for long enough.

monument

Another problem we have had recently is reporting posts which are not breaking any rules.

We'll be asking people to stop this. The volume of such reported posts is now way too high and is a distraction to dealing with real issues.

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Another problem we have had recently is reporting posts which are not breaking any rules.
We'll be asking people to stop this. The volume of such reported posts is now way too high and is a distraction to dealing with real issues.

As per the PM I'll continue to report posts and threads I deem off topic or duplicates of other threads as per this line from the charter, it's up to you to act on them of course but to suggest users stop reporting posts they think are problematic is insulting.

Before posting please search recent posts to make sure, there is no duplicity of discussion for the sake of us all.

(C&T) and

If your thread does not conform to these topic-types, please post it in the main C&T or Infrastructure forums and it will be moved here if required.

(T&RS)
There is a main photo thread in T&RS, starting another just to post a photo is pointless and clutters up the forum.

schemingbohemia

Con Logue wrote: »

I think it is highly patronising to think that readers need to be "educated" at all and comes across as inviting as a visit from the Jehovah's Witnesses at 9.30 on a Saturday morning.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Agreed, its implying that nobody outside the c&t forum knows about trains and buses.

Haven't read through the rest of the replies, but I'd strenuously disagree with this.

A lot of people think commuting by train or bus will be a doddle, only those that have done it know how soul-destroying it can be.

I commuted from Portlaoise to Dublin on a decent train at decent times, I had an understanding boss who allowed me leave a little early to get an earlier train but 4 hours out of your day is a killer and only those who have done it are aware of the impact it can have on your life whereby you end up sleeping half the weekend away cause you're so knackered.

I'm not sure that the OP in the Kilkenny case realised this but s/he does now which I think is a win for C&T and him or her.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

So, what you're saying is people will talk about things that you don't like? Because none of those things are against the rules.

This isn't a questions and answers pin board, it's a discussion board -- interisting stuff can come from threads that go beyond the OP's question and when the OP's question is answered, I'm still unclear what the harm is. If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you?

You have missed the point and im far from offended by any discussions. I was under the impression that the moderators wasnt all that keen about threads going off topic yet you are now saying its ok. Are you saying its ok for a thread to go off topic only if a moderator think its interesting? If thats the case then the moderators are not being neutral.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

So, what you're saying is people will talk about things that you don't like? Because none of those things are against the rules.

This isn't a questions and answers pin board, it's a discussion board -- interisting stuff can come from threads that go beyond the OP's question and when the OP's question is answered, I'm still unclear what the harm is. If you don't like open discussion and get so offended by details buses or bus routes, maybe this isn't the place for you?

See the answer i gave to the first one.

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

He has a point though. Moderators aren't here to made sure the conversations are interesting enough to keep Hilly Billy entertained, they're here to keep things civil. There's nothing forcing anyone to read or reply to any thread - if you feel it's run it's course, feel free to start your own (or go away).

I don't understand people complaining about circular argument in threads recently when it's the very same people who post in those threads and contribute to them going round and round. In a recent one, someone asked the price of a train ticket, foggy suggested the bus as an alternative and immediately the very people here complaining about badgering and repetition jumped in to start a other bus/train debate, the very type of debate that they're here comparing about now. What kind of moderation would it take to fix that?

Who said anything about being entertained?

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

Why? Did board.ie turn into AskJeeves.com overnight? It's still a discussion forum, right?



If you're suggesting that some users break the rules in the charter, I presume you report them? I haven't seen any such rampant rule breaking, perhaps you're mistaking people disagreeing with you (repeatedly) as rule breaking?

Ironically, while dowlingm complained about repetition once, Hilly Billy has made the same point about repetition multiple times, both in this thread and in several others. I presume you have a problem with that too?

If you're bored with the bus/rail threads or if a question has been answered, why do you feel compelled to continue posting in them? Why not just ignore either the thread or the poster?

Are posters not allowed to ask questions now?

markpb

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Who said anything about being entertained?

I did.

If a thread is boring you but others are happy to keep posting, why should it be closed?
If a thread is boring you, why open it at all?

markpb

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Are posters not allowed to ask questions now?

Did you deliberately misread my post?

You said that as soon as the question has been answered to the OPs satisfaction, the thread should be closed. That's a Q&A forum, not a discussion website. This is a discussion website and you seem to have a problem with people discussing things you disagree with or in a way you disagree with. Closing the thread so you don't get bored is not the solution - you closing the window and reading something else is.

Hilly Bill

HivemindXX wrote: »

On the topic of closing threads. Am I alone in thinking that the original poster should have no implicit ownership of the thread they started?

Multiple times I've seen someone start a thread (ficticious example: what's the best way to get out of my fine for fare evasion) only to request the thread be closed because they don't like the way the discussion is going. In general this is granted. Is this a rule? If so I think it's a bad one.

If a moderator chooses to close a thread because it was a simple question asked and answered with no relevant discussion ongoing or because the thread has degenerated in to circular arguments then that's fine but I think the wishes of the original poster should have little or nothing to do with that decision.

Thats the key word RELEVANT.

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

Did you deliberately misread my post?

You said that as soon as the question has been answered to the OPs satisfaction, the thread should be closed. That's a Q&A forum, not a discussion website. This is a discussion website and you seem to have a problem with people discussing things you disagree with or in a way you disagree with. Closing the thread so you don't get bored is not the solution - you closing the window and reading something else is.

No.

Problem???? Far from it. Why are you getting personal?

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

I did.

If a thread is boring you but others are happy to keep posting, why should it be closed?
If a thread is boring you, why open it at all?

Care to show me where i said anything about being bored with a thread?

Why the attack?

markpb

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Care to show me where i said anything about being bored with a thread?

Why the attack?

There's no attack on you just your oft-repeated [url=policy of closing threads when the question has been answered, just to prevent a debate. Here you called adding extra information hijacking. Here you tell BK what he's posting isn't interesting and accuse him of hijacking again.

If you're not interested, why don't you stop reading those threads? Why do you post in them to give out to other posters? I've no interest in them any more so I don't read them - problem solved. Likewise, there are some people who post in them that I'm not interested in so they're on my ignore list. This isn't a moderation issue except for the back-seat moderation you've been attempting to do to bk and on this topic lately.

Hilly Bill

markpb wrote: »

There's no attack on you just your oft-repeated [url=policy of closing threads when the question has been answered, just to prevent a debate. Here you called adding extra information hijacking. Here you tell BK what he's posting isn't interesting and accuse him of hijacking again.

If you're not interested, why don't you stop reading those threads? Why do you post in them to give out to other posters? I've no interest in them any more so I don't read them - problem solved. Likewise, there are some people who post in them that I'm not interested in so they're on my ignore list. This isn't a moderation issue except for the back-seat moderation you've been attempting to do to bk and on this topic lately.

Yep, still looks like an attack to me. I take it that you didnt read the opening post here then?
I understand what you and bk are up to but thats ok i wont hold it against you. Lets move on shall we?

monument

It's unclear why markpb's post is being reported when I've basically already said what he is saying now.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Yep, still looks like an attack to me. I take it that you didnt read the opening post here then?
I understand what you and bk are up to but thats ok i wont hold it against you. Lets move on shall we?

Let's keep the innuendo and back seat modding out of this and future threads -- that's not a request.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You have missed the point and im far from offended by any discussions. I was under the impression that the moderators wasnt all that keen about threads going off topic yet you are now saying its ok. Are you saying its ok for a thread to go off topic only if a moderator think its interesting? If thats the case then the moderators are not being neutral.

Ok then, the latest question, you have not answered previous one directly: What is the harm with threads going off when the OP's question is answered?

No it's not just because a moderator thinks it's interesting, the off-topic rule is mainly enforced across boards.ie when the off-topic discussion is interfering with the main discussion -- when the OP's question is answered the main discussion really has not any change of developing.

Just to be clear on this too: I'm a rail head, I personally prefer trams over city buses and trains over coaches, but you'll notice this is Commuting and Transport -- it's not a rail forum, it's about all modes of transport. It's not off-topic to give bus or boat or taxi etc costs when somebody asks about rail.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You have missed the point and im far from offended by any discussions. I was under the impression that the moderators wasnt all that keen about threads going off topic yet you are now saying its ok. Are you saying its ok for a thread to go off topic only if a moderator think its interesting? If thats the case then the moderators are not being neutral.

Just reading your post a second time:

Again, you're going into back seat modding mode here -- you really need to stop this, it causes a lot of problems when users do this.

If your only problem is the rules being broken / things going off topic -- please don't worry, discussing buses as I said in my last post is not off-topic and no rules are broken. If you have some other problem with the discussion of buses, please explain -- because you have not so-far...

Hilly Bill

I havent done any back seat modding Monument . Its answering your post and asking for clarification. There are plenty of examples of so called back seat modding on here and totally disregard of your opening post yet you dont say anything . Why?

Ive already answered the off topic bit Monument. Why do you keep mentioning buses? I havent said anything that i have an issue with buses nor said anything about breaking rules. You seem to have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick .
Its gone to the stage where i feel like im being bullied just because ive a difference of opinion. Why would a moderator mention a poster's post being reported on thread? shouldnt that done via pm?
There is a serious moderating issue here and i cant see it changing soon .

I meant to add, What innuendo?

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

It's unclear why markpb's post is being reported when I've basically already said what he is saying now.



Let's keep the innuendo and back seat modding out of this and future threads -- that's not a request.




Ok then, the latest question, you have not answered previous one directly: What is the harm with threads going off when the OP's question is answered?

No it's not just because a moderator thinks it's interesting, the off-topic rule is mainly enforced across boards.ie when the off-topic discussion is interfering with the main discussion -- when the OP's question is answered the main discussion really has not any change of developing.

Just to be clear on this too: I'm a rail head, I personally prefer trams over city buses and trains over coaches, but you'll notice this is Commuting and Transport -- it's not a rail forum, it's about all modes of transport. It's not off-topic to give bus or boat or taxi etc costs when somebody asks about rail.

I already did.
I didnt suggest it was nor have i preference over bus or rail.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Another problem we have had recently is reporting posts which are not breaking any rules.

We'll be asking people to stop this. The volume of such reported posts is now way too high and is a distraction to dealing with real issues.

Just seen this,

We are told that if we have an issue with a post then report it instead of dragging a thread off topic. Surely its then up to moderator to then decide if it warrants attention or just mark it as read if it doesnt.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Just seen this,

We are told that if we have an issue with a post then report it instead of dragging a thread off thread. Surely its then up to moderator to then decide if it warrants attention or just mark it as read if it doesnt.

The post reporting system should mainly be used for reporting behavour which breaks the charter or general rules of this site.

We do tell people to report posts rather than talk about the issue on thread, but some people report too many posts where the posts don't break the rules. It's got to the point where it's so time consuming it's getting in the way of decent modding. People will be told by PM.

It should be also clear by now that when you report a post and the try to deal with the post, that equals back seat modding. Trying to deal with and issue in-thread equals back seat modding in general.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I already did.

Your reply was it would bring the thread off-topic. I'm still wondering, when the OP's question is answered, why does it matter if something goes off-topic.... But I'll have to keep guessing, I guess...

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I havent done any back seat modding Monument . Its answering your post and asking for clarification. There are plenty of examples of so called back seat modding on here and totally disregard of your opening post yet you dont say anything . Why?

This in its self is a form of back seat modding. So is one of your last posts calling another poster's post an attack.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Its gone to the stage where i feel like im being bullied just because ive a difference of opinion.

If you think asking you something a few times amounts to bullying this really isn't the place for you -- even the charter says you should be expected to defend views given.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why would a moderator mention a poster's post being reported on thread? shouldnt that done via pm?

I don't see any problem with talking about reported posts in the way I have. You have not outlined your problems with what I said so I can't defind myself until you do.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

There is a serious moderating issue here and i cant see it changing soon .

From this thread, most people don't seem to think so.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I meant to add, What innuendo?

"I know what you and BK are up to" = innuendo.

Hilly Bill

You are the moderator ,monument that has posted warnings about threads going off topic, you tell me why a thread going off topic matters. You seem to be making a lot out of nothing at this stage. It was an opinion , i didnt harp on about it i tried to give an example,you disagree thats fine but i certainly dont deserve to be attacked and bullied over it. You seem to be picky as to who you give out to about back seat modding. Mark has done nothing but back seat modding and done everything that you said shouldnt be done in your first post but you havent said anything to him but defended him to the full . Again, i have done no back seat modding .

"I know what you and bk are up to " Innuendo?? not at all. Again, you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I know you are annoyed that i reported 2 of your posts but there really is no need to take it out on me on thread.

bk

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I havent done any back seat modding Monument .

Wow, really!!!

Monument asked not to post specific examples so I won't, but I've just gone trough the threads and identified 4 separate very clear attempts over two days on two threads to back seat mod.

Each one if these instances is very much against the rules of boards.ie

I didn't report any of the instances, because I would rather discuss and debate the issues then run to the mods constantly. I know what a difficult job they have and really we should be able to discuss things in an open and mature manner without running to the mods constantly.

But between these instances of back seat modding and the comments you have made here on this thread, it is very clear that you are attempting to shut down any conversation you don't like, which seems to be basically anything negative people say about Irish Rail.

This sort of attempt to gag posters or get them banned, rather then open and fair discussion very much goes against the ethos of boards.ie

Hilly Bill

bk wrote: »

Wow, really!!!

Monument asked not to post specific examples so I won't, but I've just gone trough the threads and identified 4 separate very clear attempts over two days on two threads to back seat mod.

Each one if these instances is very much against the rules of boards.ie

I didn't report any of the instances, because I would rather discuss and debate the issues then run to the mods constantly. I know what a difficult job they have and really we should be able to discuss things in an open and mature manner without running to the mods constantly.

But between these instances of back seat modding and the comments you have made here on this thread, it is very clear that you are attempting to shut down any conversation you don't like, which seems to be basically anything negative people say about Irish Rail.

This sort of attempt to gag posters or get them banned, rather then open and fair discussion very much goes against the ethos of boards.ie

Yes really, have a look at a few of your own posts and your friend for good examples before throwing that old chestnut
Gag posters, get them banned???? shut down any conversation? sounds strangely like what a couple of posters have being doing but i could be wrong mind.
Its called a discussion board for a reason and usually in a discussion someone might have a difference of opinion. Its not back sat modding to give an opinion but it is when you tell someone what they should do if you have an issue with a thread. . I offered an opinion, it then got dragged out by you and mark with some strange accusations and making something out of nothing . I understand why you are doing it but it wont work.

monument

This thread is going round and round a few times now, and is outliving its usefulness but if anybody else wants to have their say please do so...

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You are the moderator ,monument that has posted warnings about threads going off topic, you tell me why a thread going off topic matters.

In the case we're talking about, you were the who said it did matter (not me), so, if you want, it's up to you to explain why. Only if you want. And if you want to stick with the idea you've already answered the question that's fine too!

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You seem to be making a lot out of nothing at this stage. It was an opinion , i didnt harp on about it i tried to give an example,you disagree thats fine but i certainly dont deserve to be attacked and bullied over it.

A lot has been said about this because, going by what you are saying, it's a clear as muck what your problem is.

You were asked questions, if you can't or don't want to answer those question, that's fine. Just leave it at that -- don't reply.

It's not bulling and it's not attacking -- but this is an environment where people hold views strongly and will ask questions and generally question things, so if you're not happy with that, nobody is making anybody stick around to answer questions.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

You seem to be picky as to who you give out to about back seat modding. Mark has done nothing but back seat modding and done everything that you said shouldnt be done in your first post but you havent said anything to him but defended him to the full .

Again: this is counted a form of back seat modding. Please note this for other threads.

As for Mark: is this about the post where I said he was making the same point as I did but you decided to attack his post rather than mine? I can't see anything else he has done wrong on this thread, clearly not anyway compared to how much the rules on here have been broken or bent over and over.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Again, i have done no back seat modding .

You have and you're only getting away with it because this thread isn't being modded as a normal thread would be, to give people a bit of freedom to have their say etc.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

"I know what you and bk are up to " Innuendo?? not at all. Again, you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Yes, that's innuendo. It fits right in with the definition of the word.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I know you are annoyed that i reported 2 of your posts but there really is no need to take it out on me on thread.

I'm sure you did report me twice, but before now I did not even recall you doing so.

monument

bk wrote: »

Wow, really!!!

Monument asked not to post specific examples so I won't, but I've just gone trough the threads and identified 4 separate very clear attempts over two days on two threads to back seat mod.

Each one if these instances is very much against the rules of boards.ie

I didn't report any of the instances, because I would rather discuss and debate the issues then run to the mods constantly. I know what a difficult job they have and really we should be able to discuss things in an open and mature manner without running to the mods constantly.

But between these instances of back seat modding and the comments you have made here on this thread, it is very clear that you are attempting to shut down any conversation you don't like, which seems to be basically anything negative people say about Irish Rail.

This sort of attempt to gag posters or get them banned, rather then open and fair discussion very much goes against the ethos of boards.ie

In fairness while you are right, I'd also count your post here as a form of backseat modding.

In a diffrent time and place it would matter.

I'm going locking the thread in a sec because its outlived its usefulness and is quickly going downhill.

monument

Locked!