Do you remember wayback when.........

Well no, one can just try and imagine why - after the mumsnet one, and two similar ones here? I have no idea.

But 'orchestration' is meant not to be seen- it normally happens behind closed doors.

These threads pop up frequently. Many get deleted which is why there's no record of them. They pop up frequently on Mumsnet as well.

I wouldn't read too much into it.

I started this thread on the 12th August because that day there had been what I considered rather unpleasant postings, just my observation of what was happening on GN's at that time. There is absolutely no 'orchestration' on my part. What happened at the weekend between MN & GN could have been provoked by what was happening last week on some of the threads, manipulated possibly by who knows who, but the fact that this was resurrected, and has continued for several pages does possibly indicate that there is some concern about how and by who the site is moderated.

The problem, as I see it, is that the dreaded 'Some People' are a lot more likely to report things than others, so anyone daring to say something that offends them (whoever they are) will be more likely to get suspended than someone saying similar things to others.

If the posts that are reported are moderated though, the mods won't ban, suspend or delete if they aren't offensive. The way to stop "some people" from reporting is not to be offensive. That way, "some people" will give up reporting if nothing is done about the posts they report. I hope that makes sense.

It does. But it doesn't alter the fact that what might seem to me worthy of a report might not to you, (or vice versa), so anyone making what I see to be offensive remarks will be reported far more than someone saying the same things to you, so is far more likely to be moderated.

Perfect sense.

icanhandthemback the problem arises when “some people” do not get the response they want from GNHQ so derail the thread or incite responses that get the thread deleted.

There is a member that openly admits she reports often, which I do not like as nobody has been elected thread monitor.

Again, there's a happy medium. Pressing the report button every time somebody upsets you or annoys you or starts a thread that is not to your liking is trying to control the forum and impose your own rules on it.

Disagreeing, in principle, with reporting and calling it 'snitching' is a bit Malory Towers. Some posts really cross a line and some posters can be incredibly nasty and members of the forum should not feel they have to turn a blind eye.

I'm thinking of asking GNHQ if they can set up an axe grinding section

Wasn't this all said at the weekend over 20 pages or whatever it was before the thread was deleted.

Time for a cup of tea ☕

JaneJudge

I'm thinking of asking GNHQ if they can set up an axe grinding section

Good idea?

A difficult amount to quantify easily, of people enjoy being unkind.

Sadly what we can quantify is the amount of people in society who have had their lives upset by those kinds of people

I've never understood that personally, I find the opposite to be true

It seems clear to me there is no orchestration, or at least, I haven't seen any evidence of that

Not axe grinding just think the majority of nice posters should not be upset by the minority of rude and bossy ones.

I mean, I could just leave I suppose, but I would love the forum to retain a feisty interesting edge but remain kind and welcoming at its core.

Vintagejazz

Not axe grinding just think the majority of nice posters should not be upset by the minority of rude and bossy ones.

I mean, I could just leave I suppose, but I would love the forum to retain a feisty interesting edge but remain kind and welcoming at its core.

Sounds perfect

Vintagejazz

Not axe grinding just think the majority of nice posters should not be upset by the minority of rude and bossy ones.

I mean, I could just leave I suppose, but I would love the forum to retain a feisty interesting edge but remain kind and welcoming at its core.

Plus retain sense of humour.

I’m with Toscalily and Floriel - I think twice about posting.

Fortunately, I am quite thick-skinned so if I get a sharp retort or a dismissal of something I have posted it doesn’t bother me, I do not know the people on here and therefore do not value their opinion of me.

I do feel sorry for those that are picked on and get upset and dwell on the comments made. If some random person in the street said something nasty in passing, you would ignore them and just think what an odd person, it is the same on here, just random people that you only know what they have told you about themselves which may not be true.

You don't ignore the nasty people, ask anyone who has to deal with the general public on a day to day basis. It also isn't going to matter if you are kind to someone who isn't who they seem.

The other problem is that it is possibly to give offence inadvertently because when you write something, it is to say the obvious, not spoken, so that tone of voice and the extra meaning that spoken words give, is missing when written down

For example, if i say to someone 'You are an idiot' it can be said when someone is telling something really silly they have done and you are both laughing about it and the phrase has no pejorative meaning at all, but you can also say it with a voice of anger, contempt and disgust, which gives the phrase a really offensive meaning - and everything in between. None of this comes over when it is just written down.

Some people use being upset and taking offence as a tactical weapon to put down other people where they have failed to do it by honest debate.

I must say that being expected to have read a whole thread before posting , is fine when it is 4 or 5 pages but when it is 20 pages or more, is one really expected to read the lot? I find it very helpful to have a voices of dissent pointing out something, usually practical, on a thread every couple of pages.

icanhandthemback the problem arises when “some people” do not get the response they want from GNHQ so derail the thread or incite responses that get the thread deleted.

Isn't that a bit like a man blaming a woman for pushing him to hit her? If you don't like what "some people" say, disengage. They can only derail the thread if you let them by engaging. Admin soon get to know who constantly reports and if the post isn't worthy of being deleted, it won't be. Admins are generally picked because they are able to moderate fairly.

I must say that being expected to have read a whole thread before posting , is fine when it is 4 or 5 pages but when it is 20 pages or more, is one really expected to read the lot? I find it very helpful to have a voices of dissent pointing out something, usually practical, on a thread every couple of pages.

That was just an example of differing board norms, chosen as it wasn't about something subjective like 'nastiness', and couldn't be perceived by even the most fragile of egos as being a dig at anyone in particular .

FWIW, I prefer that being an expectation to reading the same thing over and over, even when the OP has explained that it won't work or doesn't apply, but maybe that's for a different thread?

Do you remember a fair while back, that someone posted as a joke that her grandson was selfish (at age two or three) and she was looking for advice on how to punish him?

No . Was that an example of repeated advice being given? I wish we had a better search facility on here so we could find things like that when we want to.

Yes.
People wrote THIS IS A JOKE! A FUNNY, THE OP HAS EXPLAINED THIS MANY TIMES!! but still the thread filled up with increasingly irate people.

Oh those threads used to pop up on MN all the time ' I am being ruled by a tiny tyrant who is refusing to eat because the bread is square' or some such