Anyone know if *Iam64* is ok?

Oh, let's all just have a sing-song...

Kumbaya my lord! Kumbaya...

But we are not all going to get along are we. Some things we feel strongly about and disagree with other posters. Nothing wrong with that it would be boring otherwise.
Just a question of degree I suppose and not letting things get personal.

Anyway, short of getting everyone to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya, I don't suppose there is a constructive way to make people get along

Oh goodness, that took me back .....

Galaxy

But again doodledog I for one would be furious if that happened to me and I had no come back so I think they are in an almost impossible position. I am gender critical ( I think we are often on the same threads so you probably know that) so if one of my posts were deleted for being transphobic say and they then put that up on the board I would be furious because I would think that was untrue. This may be due to my level of maturity though . I also think we dont often have a full picture, a while ago a poster was trolling the board comprehensively in a way no moderator would tolerate, I still see posters enquiring after that poster. Perhaps it's a question of trust. I sort of trust them because I have watched them deal with horrific situations on MN and manage it as well as could be expected.

Fair enough. I haven't been here as long as you, and as I say, a lot of the board politics is lost on me anyway.

I agree that some of the more overtly combative threads are left to find their own level, and that (IMO) is as it should be.

I take your point about transphobia accusations, too. I suppose that racists might feel the same about their racism, but that would seem different to me, so yeah - point well made ?.

On other threads, I don't care for the passive aggression that is so often displayed, as I think it can be far nastier than when people just say what they think and let others respond. Is that what you are getting at, Chewbacca? It is a nightmare to deal with from a moderation POV though, as it can be done in such a way as to be easily denied, even when anyone looking for it can see it for exactly what it is.

Anyway, short of getting everyone to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya, I don't suppose there is a constructive way to make people get along (and that approach would have me running for the hills, too).

Thank you, sodapop.
I'm wondering if some may be less than happy to see me when I say I often report what I see as covert bullying?
The fact that someone reports it only draws it to the attention of the moderators.
They decide, so it's pointless blaming individual members.

I've been told before by them that they're leaving something in place as it doesn't breach "the rules".

But again doodledog I for one would be furious if that happened to me and I had no come back so I think they are in an almost impossible position. I am gender critical ( I think we are often on the same threads so you probably know that) so if one of my posts were deleted for being transphobic say and they then put that up on the board I would be furious because I would think that was untrue. This may be due to my level of maturity though . I also think we dont often have a full picture, a while ago a poster was trolling the board comprehensively in a way no moderator would tolerate, I still see posters enquiring after that poster. Perhaps it's a question of trust. I sort of trust them because I have watched them deal with horrific situations on MN and manage it as well as could be expected.

The reporting issue is a thorny one isn't it. I understand about overt racism, homophobia etc. Surely we can say openly that we disagree with a poster's views without resorting to running to the headmistress/master.

I'm glad to see you back as well MissAdventure I always enjoy your posts, we may not agree but you often make me smile.

I can't help thinking that some deleted posts get deleted because their author isn't as savvy at phrasing their opinions as others. EV was, as others have said, a forthright poster and wasn't afraid to post her opinions. Whilst others are similarly forthright and "forceful", they are more adept at phrasing their aggression and combative posting style so that it falls just within the guidelines. Sometimes, isn't isn't what is said; it's how it's said and how canny the poster is.

SueDonim

Ha yes, ‘play nicely’ is exactly it, Doodledog. I am pretty certain of who reported my post.

See, with respect, this is much more damaging that "what happened to dear old Bunty?

Who do you think it was Sue? Don't be coy.

"Turning into a bit of a bunfight"

Jolly hockey sticks at dawn!

Ha yes, ‘play nicely’ is exactly it, Doodledog. I am pretty certain of who reported my post.

Yes, SueDonim, that's the phrase I couldn't remember - 'in the spirit of GN'. It is meaningless, and is does not suggest misinformation or hate speech - it has connotations of telling a child to 'play nicely'.

Galaxy, I have been aa moderator on a discussion board (not as big as this one, though) and I know it's complex and at times it's impossible to do the right thing by everyone. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the lack of transparency on here causes as many problems as it solves.

A post to say that 'Galaxy's post of X date has been removed as it contravened our guidelines about Y' would cover deletions. 'As she has had repeated warnings about this she will no longer be able to post' would cover bannings, particularly if they are rare, and if warnings had been issued publicly so that everyone could see that they were applied consistently.

It's complex, but not impossible to at least be seen to be fair. I appreciate that this is a business, but it only works because there is a sense of community, and communities don't thrive on secrecy and opaque rules.

SueDonim

^Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.^

I had a post deleted not for any of the above reasons but because I used a common nickname for a well-known politician. Apparently, it was because my post wasn’t in the spirit of GN or something, even though I regularly see other politician’s uncomplimentary nicknames on GN. ?‍♀️

It depends who is on duty and whether or not posts are reported by other posters SueDonim.
The moderators can't read all the threads, it's just not possible.

I've said my piece so will shut up now.
No don't do that Doodledog
Your points are valid.

I dont think that would stop the speculation though. And I dont think you can really say well Galaxy was banned because she was racist if I am not here to say hold on no I wasnt. It would be unfair and probably unkind. I am not having a go doodledog I am just saying its quite a complex thing.

Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.

I had a post deleted not for any of the above reasons but because I used a common nickname for a well-known politician. Apparently, it was because my post wasn’t in the spirit of GN or something, even though I regularly see other politician’s uncomplimentary nicknames on GN. ?‍♀️

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there should be a free for all, though.

I understand that mods are human, and as such will interpret rules differently. If the rules were clearer, however, not only would that be less likely, but it would make it easier for members to adhere to them.

I just think that it is a shame that people simply vanish, and we don't know why. Of course people are entitled to their privacy, and if they stop posting for personal reasons that is their right, but if they are 'banned' for life I don't understand why we can't be told. As I say, it's not naming and shaming someone 'in real life' - as we are anonymous. It would quell speculation, and show how consistent moderation has been.

Anyway, I get the impression that I am missing something, which is perfectly possible, as I often feel 'in the dark' on threads about site dynamics. It does feel as though some posters know more than others about what goes on behind the scenes, and that is one reason why I would prefer more openness, but I've said my piece so will shut up now.

Iam64, I hope to see you back on here soon, and that you are doing something nice instead of posting ?

You are going to get slight variations between moderators because they are human. You cant just have a free for all on an internet site, you would be overrun by trolls for a start.

Yes, I understand all that, and it's absolutely fair enough.

There is nothing to stop GN from saying 'this post was removed as it referred to a sub judice lawsuit', or 'this post was removed as it was potentially libellous' or whatever.

Also, as there is always speculation about the disappearance of people (as on this thread) and whether or not they were 'on a warning', it is clear that there is secrecy about how they site is moderated.

I just don't think there is secrecy around deletions. I've seen comments from GNHQ saying something along the lines of "tone it down please" so deletion isn't the first option. But if a post contravenes the rules, GNHQ can't allow it to stay up, surely?

Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.

Some people don't realise that what they are posting falls into one of those categories. Lots of comment recently about a legal case that is still sub judice, and people complaining about not being allowed to discuss it. No, that's right, you're not allowed to discuss it! We're not chatting over the garden fence, we're publishing things on a public discussion forum.

EV wasn't a vaccine denier. She was very ill after her first dose and was wary of having the the second dose. She was neither unkind nor rude, just forthright. She didn't pretend to be someone, she wasn't,as some on here do.

People don't get banned for having unpopular opinions. They get banned for continually posting things that are untrue, or dangerous, or contrary to the GN rules about how you speak to other posters.

I agree that strong views are regularly expressed on politics threads, and are not moderated. I think that the secrecy surrounding moderation and 'disappearance' of members is a big part of the problem though.

Why can't people be told on the thread if their post has contravened the rules, and why? A link to GN guidelines on a deleted post is useless, as we can't see what was deleted, and the guidelines are vague.

Similarly, when someone is expelled from the group, why can't we even refer to them or ask for an explanation as to if or why it has happened? We are all anonymous on here, after all. I understand that HQ can't spend hours on here defending their decisions, but a bit more openness would save a lot of speculation and accusations of unfairness.

I’m sure EV wouldn’t spread untruths about the vaccine. Wary due to health issue is what she posted.

My thoughts too Calli.

I didn't think she had, JaxJacky.

Surely this is a site where, if people want to, they can share their experiences.

We're not sheep and can make our own judgements.

I'm sorry that this is going to derail the discussion but I think its important.

People don't get banned for having unpopular opinions. They get banned for continually posting things that are untrue, or dangerous, or contrary to the GN rules about how you speak to other posters.

You only have to look at the threads on religion, say, or politics, to see that radically different views are put forward every day.

I don't think anyone would say I'm always in agreement with other posters and I put my opinion forcefully. But I've rarely been deleted and never threated with a ban. (am I tempting fate now ?)

I also rarely report because I'm a tough old bird, and I usually tell people when I do. I certainly didn't report EV

Callistemon

Good post Doodledog

(at the risk of posting banalities and agreeing with you!!)

?