Aggressive modding in regional forums

Lol, it's a bit rich you arguing against safe spaces, when you literally argued in your previous posts on thread that it should be a safe space - just for those affected.

There was plenty of dissenting opinions on that forum, some of which i could see some merit in. There were plenty of people in favour of redress but critical of some aspects of the protest.

The issues raised was words like McMansions and why not call them large houses. The argument against replacing large houses like for like has some merit even if I don't necessarily. But why not make those arguments without disparaging remarks about people's homes. You think they should not be replaced fair enough that arument can be made without insulting people.

Blank cheque is another. Perfectly possible to raise concerns about potential costs but no one is looking for a blank cheque. People are lobbying as much as they can ultimately goverment will make a decision and it will have to be accepted. This is a extremely worrying time for families involved is it not at least possible to argue the points but keep it civil and not try to deliberately antagonise.

Oh right, so you've declared it the end. Well that's that then. Why didn't I think of that.

In other words you can't justify your desire to rub the noses of the Mica victims in the dust (aka their walls) so you just shut down the debate, which is ironically what you accuse Muffler of doing. Brilliant!

You're getting more bizarre with each post...

1 - I don't have a siege mentality. I've been openly critical of the siege mentality displayed by the likes of Diver.

2 - I haven't actually called you a troll once. I implied it once in my first post here, but stopped short of directly accusing you. The second time I mentioned you and trolling in the same sentence I suggested it as option A, accompanied it with a second scenario whereby you WEREN'T trolling and simply ignored a Mod instruction.

Sorry that this seems to have left such deep psychological scarring.

3 - I'm not angry at all. I'm bemused by your shouty defensive reactions and lack of self awareness. Also I'm not even sure what this means...

"you come out blazing throwing all the pent up anger you've had from various troll posts no attributed to me at me."

I'm not blazing, nor angry, nor throwing anything anywhere. I suggest you cool down, read over your previous posts and think it through.

You've got all hot and bothered about being" repeatedly" called a troll (which I haven't done), accused me of trying to shut down debate but a few posts later declared a discussion ended, and given no reason whatsoever for your desire to downplay the claims of the victims of the Mica scandal directly to their face rather than in the politics thread other than defending the fact that you're entitled to do so (which nobody denied in the first place).

Anyway, moving on from that strange conversation...

I would make a suggestion.

A Mod (not Muffler if that would be more palatable to whose whose complaint inspired this thread) should make a Mod Note. This is common place in contentious threads. The thread title can then be edited to include "read Mod note in post **** before posting".

That note should contain the following:

* a list of banned terms. McMansion, blank cheque etc. Accompanied by a reason why.

* a summary of the common arguments, the answers which are already given, and an instruction not to drag them up again. For example every now and then someone new pops up and says "why not just sue the builder"? As if they're a genius with new insight rather than asking the same question that has been asked and answered a million times.

* an instruction to keep discussion civil, and report any issues rather than rip into an argument.

That note will do 2 things, first of all it will leave no ambiguity over what is allowed or not allowed, and it will also make it clear what will or won't get you banned.

Should those banned be allowed back in once the rules are made clear? Perhaps. That's not my decision to make. For some, not being allowed to ask the same questions every few weeks would mean there's no real reason for them to come back* because maybe they are just trolls after all. Who knows?

*I don't mean you Listermint, settle down.

A long held tenet of Boards has always been that if a mod is actively involved in / invested in a topic in a forum they moderate then moderation should be handled by someone else. Pretty simple imo and it removes any bias, perceived or actual, from the equation.

🤷‍♂️

If it's so terrible, then why not quote me accurately instead of completely changing what I said?

I could easily ask why posters insult our intelligence by posting some cherry picked stats that show one off houses in Donegal aren't any larger than anywhere else? This is of course conveniently neglecting that wasn't the point posed: that the houses are significantly larger than the average dwelling - for which McMansion is shorthand. One gets sanctioned, the other doesn't. This works both ways.

The mod has been reaching around to ban posters for a while now. But perhaps he should look at himself and his ratty personal attack in the post preceding the one where I was threadbanned.

Muffler is too invested and partisan to mod the thread fairly.

The majority of houses affected are not "McMansions", nor are they considerably larger than anything outside the pale.

The McMansion jibes are inflammatory designed to get a rise out of people - theres no actual debating or discussion in that statement. Its been done to death on that thread (and others), same as the free money or blank cheque arguments also.

If repeated use of false arguments and derogatory remarks like "everyone in Donegal lives in a McMansion" are not trolling, then what is?

It's not though.