The changing face of Gransnet?

Judy54

Well said NellG 32 pages/779 posts. The subject is now exhausted, time for this thread to stop.

Do you hold that 32 pages is the time to stop for all threads? Some threads reach the 1000 posts and then are automatically closed. I would think GN would like nothing better than for this thread to slip away quietly, but it isn't happening yet. Moderation needs to be transparent and fair, which is not the case in many posters' view. I just checked the talk guidelines again and they are sparse and vague. As they rely on people reporting other member's posts this is obviously open to abuse by the cliques that can and do form sometimes. I really doubt GN keeps a file of the deleted posts from any one member and who is reporting them to see if there is a pattern.

No I've never known Maw to flounce - she tends to quietly disappear for a week or so of calm reflection, then comes back with no reference to her time off unless someone asks.

Nell, no coup, no cliques. There are people on here with whom I agree and others with whom I vehemently disagree. I am not friends with any particular person but certainly respect some more than others, not because of their views but in spite of them, because of the way they conduct themselves.

I am on this thread because of the injustice that is clear.

The longer the thread goes on, the more it highlights how people can feel that there is a 'clique', I'm afraid.

Leaving or flouncing is decided by the other members.

Those that announce they are leaving are often accused of flouncing where others are begged to stay.

Gransnet will carry on even if the Maw supporters all leave. There are enough members that are not supporters.

I don't think anyone is trying to alter the rules either, just to have them more clearly delineated so that it is obvious when someone has broken then.

As long as it's made clear to the person who broke them, then I would consider that enough.

Probably irrelevant now, but I still miss Gabriella 54, I feel she was hounded off unfairly, I thought she was most interesting

Well I m not part of any clique but I HATE injustice

Thanks Nell that's an interesting analysis, particularly the reference to the role of lurkers.

I think the weakness of GN at the moment is the reliance on members reporting posts, rather than active moderation by GNHQ.

If members felt that GN were actually in charge, as opposed to reactively carrying out posters' wishes, posters perhaps wouldn't feel it was up to them to report posts for whatever reason. Then those who had malicious reasons for reporting wouldn't have that opportunity. At the moment, the tail's wagging the dog.

I was once one of four or five moderators on a professional forum. There were frequent spats and heated, ill-tempered arguments but posts were very rarely deleted and suspensions rare.

The difference was that everyone who registered had their identity checked throughtheir professional registration, and everyone posted under their real name.

Anonymity on forums underlies a lot of the problems, IMHO.

Anonymity on forums underlies a lot of the problems, IMHO.

This ^^

GagaJo

Also, I think some things must be discussed on threads I never go on. The dog reference for example. I don't remember EVER reading that one. I am never on the daily threads or the fun n fantasy ones either. Maybe some of the 'in' references come from those.

Some of us know about Maws love of dogs as she posted regularly in the Kitchen where we discuss such stuff as pets and life etc

I'm not sure this thread has done a great deal with anonymity.

Cornish pasty can I refer you to bathshebas post at 14.48

Me too Nannylovesshopping !

She was controversial at times but never boring and never unkind, unlike a few people who continually reported her.

Interesting, given the direction this thread has gone !

Oh and never underestimate the lurkers, who can form up to 70% of site traffic. Lurkers love a report button and they can press it with absolute anonymity.

Definitely & well said NellG I’d forgotten that aspect. I remember being somewhat stunned when a poster said a couple of years back ‘I very rarely post, I tend to just read but I do report as often as I see fit’.
?

I LOVE the way everyone knows who does all the reporting! Either we have undercover moderators, psychics or moles.

Lucca I have read it and took it as bathshebas opinion, another may see it as flouncing.

People saying they have had enough and are leaving are called out as flouncing or begged to stay even though they have stated the same thing. It is dependant on the poster not the post.

Jane10

Just found 20 'seniors' posting forums. I hadn't realised there were so many.

Any that look interesting for us all, jane?

I can't for the life of me see that someone leaving without saying a word could be defined as flouncing.

^ I remember being somewhat stunned when a poster said a couple of years back ‘I very rarely post, I tend to just read but I do report as often as I see fit’.^

Sometimes, you know, the onlooker sees more of the game.

I’ve been on GN since about a month after it’s inception, and yes my goodness it has changed.

We used to “know” the moderators and had a minor relationship with them in so much as they used to occasionally post on threads.

Much better quality of moderation back then as it was done with a very light touch, and because we had a minor relationship with the various moderators we were much more sympathetic with their decisions, although the report button was not pressed nearly so much back then and GN members seem much like snowflakes now.

Members have come and gone over the years, some to be regretted, some welcomed disappearances.

For myself I think I may be outgrowing GN as I’ve become very bored with it. It may be just lockdown and winter and the fact that reading and other hobbies are becoming more interesting.

NellG you said in your post we tick the box and except Ts & Cs. The way I see it the rules have change and are not consistent now to what I signed up for. No where does it say we cannot mention any poster by name when asking after their welfare but now seemingly on the GM thread we can but no where else. No where does it say we cannot discuss certain subjects or respond to certain posters in a way that shows we disagree with them but now we cant. We are only ever told when a post is deleted that it is "against the spirit of GN" or that it breaks "talk guidelines" we are not told how.
We are told that the site is open to all and is supportive "especially at this time"! Well that is a load of TOSH! If this site was supportive of vulnerable posters what has happened to MawB would not have occurred. If she has ignored warnings which I doubt it should have been looked at as to why.
FH did far more harm than any other poster has ever done but was allowed to continue on and on with other posters who alerted GNHQ themselves getting in trouble.
Now GNHQ warn me, suspend me, ban me I dont care I had to say it.

Who was FH?

Rereading my post Lucca I can understand it was unclear.

To clarify. I was against Jings ban, likewise Maws ban or indeed, the banning of any poster for life.