thread closed AGAIN

Ginger83

???

Buford T. Justice XIX

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Mod note: And with that, again, we'll call it a day here. One of the requirements for posting here is a modicum of civility which seems to have escaped you at this present time.

Thanks to all for your contributions here and I think we can manage without any further updates, thanks OP.

Buford T. Justice

As per your previous thread, an explanation was given for closing your thread.

STB.

As someone that was following that thread, both yourself and your wingman (Genghis Cant) you should be ashamed of yourselves.



First of all for stifling discussion and secondly for the manner in which a mod closes a thread only for it to be reopened by another mod for a sarcastic afterthought.


It was clear that the OP was not getting the position he is found himself in through his own fault resolved to his satisfaction.



I was so appalled by the moderation that I took the time out to report the two of yis, because both of ye, were bang out of order.



Rule no 1, no matter whether you are a mod or a contributor, don't be a dick.

Tokyo

STB. wrote: »

It was clear that the OP was not getting the position he is found himself in through his own fault resolved to his satisfaction.

I was following the thread too. And what you say above might be the case, that's not the fault of the people who took time to respond to the thread.

Rather than "stifling conversation" as you say, the OP had two threads running on the issue, and from what I can see, god solid advice in the beginning. However, the OP immediately took up a hostile attitude towards anybody who dared to question the situation or offer any advice other than what they wanted to hear. And that was also tolerated, but put a more negative slant on things because, negativity is usually met with negativity in these situations.

The crux of the matter though was the OP (in a forum full of farmers) admitting to running a farmer's animals off their land and out onto the road, and taking umbrage with anyone who pointed out that this was a) reckless and dangerous, and b) illegal, and spent a good half thread daring anybody to prove he did it (despite there being written record of it a few posts above).

The end result is something that happens reasonably often - a poster that posts asking for advice, and realises halfway through that they don't want advice, they just want to be told that they course of action they have already decided on is A-OK. One poster summed it up quite well - "don't ask a question in the farming forum if you don't want farmers views on things". The forum mods were right to shut it down IMO, before it spiralled further.

STB.

Mike.


I very much doubt that farmers have such thin skins that anything in that thread could be regarded as uncivil.


The conversation was shut down twice, by closing the threads, twice. I hadn't read the first thread so had to go back to find out what the whole issue was and why it was shut down.


As an outsider, the threads taken together are in the main mixed, but does has some forthright opinions from individual farmers, which I gather the OP was trying to ascertain, but is dominated towards the end by one poster with an attitude of just fill it in with a bit of muck.


I gather that the OP had spent money on landscaping his land which was damaged by escaped livestock. Farmers who do not have their cattle under sufficient control would be held negligible should a difficulty arise. "Strict liability" actually applies to the owners. The Courts have often taken the view that well-cared-for animals do not stray onto the road so onus on the animal's owner to show that all reasonable precautions were taken to keep the animals off the road. I gather the OP had tried to contact the owner of the livestock, unsuccessfully.



It was also clear that the damage done was not going to be rectified to the OP's satisfaction (despite the sarcastic claim of the final moderator who saw fit to open the thread to add his bit after the thread was closed by another moderator).



Could the mod have done something better ? Possibly. When the conversation turned to whether farmers are better landscapers than those who do it for a living, the thread could have been moved to a more appropriate one. That way you wouldn't have a thread closed with I've always said it ...... If you want a job done well ..... get a farmer to do it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

STB. wrote: »

As someone that was following that thread, both yourself and your wingman (Genghis Cant) you should be ashamed of yourselves.



First of all for stifling discussion and secondly for the manner in which a mod closes a thread only for it to be reopened by another mod for a sarcastic afterthought.


It was clear that the OP was not getting the position he is found himself in through his own fault resolved to his satisfaction.



I was so appalled by the moderation that I took the time out to report the two of yis, because both of ye, were bang out of order.



Rule no 1, no matter whether you are a mod or a contributor, don't be a dick.

Just on the above highlighted section, as I believe the rest has been adequately covered previously in this thread, I was reading the thread also and came rapidly to the conclusion that the thread had run its course for the reasons previously outlined. So I posted a closing post and went to close the thread only to find it already closed by my colleague. For his part, he had decided to close the thread and then post a closing post in the thread.

Thanks for pointing out the presence of two closing posts, I have now removed mine from viewing and left the other closing post. The OP may request either post to be left up if they PM one of the forum mods at their convenience.

Genghis Cant

STB. wrote: »

First of all for stifling discussion and secondly for the manner in which a mod closes a thread only for it to be reopened by another mod for a sarcastic afterthought.

Just to clarify.
The thread wasn't closed by one Mod and reopened by another.
Both of us were dealing with it at the same time, unbeknownst to each other.
It was I that closed the thread.

Buford T. Justice XIX

STB. wrote: »

Mike.


I very much doubt that farmers have such thin skins that anything in that thread could be regarded as uncivil.


The conversation was shut down twice, by closing the threads, twice. I hadn't read the first thread so had to go back to find out what the whole issue was and why it was shut down.


As an outsider, the threads taken together are in the main mixed, but does has some forthright opinions from individual farmers, which I gather the OP was trying to ascertain, but is dominated towards the end by one poster with an attitude of just fill it in with a bit of muck.


I gather that the OP had spent money on landscaping his land which was damaged by escaped livestock. Farmers who do not have their cattle under sufficient control would be held negligible should a difficulty arise. "Strict liability" actually applies to the owners. The Courts have often taken the view that well-cared-for animals do not stray onto the road so onus on the animal's owner to show that all reasonable precautions were taken to keep the animals off the road. I gather the OP had tried to contact the owner of the livestock, unsuccessfully.

The replies on the thread were generally supportive of the OP and offered advice as to who would be liable to pay for the repair of damage to the OPs lawn. The vast majority pointed out the farmers probable liability unless in a small proportion of cases there was an onus on the householder to provide a stock proof barrier themselves.

It was also clear that the damage done was not going to be rectified to the OP's satisfaction (despite the sarcastic claim of the final moderator who saw fit to open the thread to add his bit after the thread was closed by another moderator).



Could the mod have done something better ? Possibly. When the conversation turned to whether farmers are better landscapers than those who do it for a living, the thread could have been moved to a more appropriate one. That way you wouldn't have a thread closed with I've always said it ...... If you want a job done well ..... get a farmer to do it.

I would disagree with this assertion.

Firstly, the OP opened their thread to elicit farmers opinions on the responsibility of farmers to properly fence in their livestock, which the vast majority of respondents agreed lied with the farmer. That requirement of farmer opinion wouldn't be well served in another forum. Then the OP stated that they had, on a previous occasion, driven livestock out of their property onto the public road. Not only is that act extremely reckless and dangerous, it is also, rightly, illegal to do without supervision.

I couldn't, in all honesty, transfer a thread to a more appropriate forum while leaving a post condoning an illegal act in that transferred thread. The second thread wouldn't make much sense without the first thread being transferred also. So both were closed and not transferred for those reasons.

There is absolutely nothing to stop the OP opening another thread in a more appropriate forum themselves, if they so wish.