Policing the Posts

Forgive the errors. I can see a couple and there are probably more.

There is also the sort of thread which starts innocuously enough (and we have had a few) but rather in the manner of "lighting the blue touch paper then retiring", seems to kick off what GNHQ refer to as a fight.

Do we have freedom of speech on GN provided we stay within the guidelines? Tick.
Can we report threads/posts which break those "rules"? Tick.
Do some people have short fuses strong views? Tick.

Do we need to say more than that?

Ah, no doubt some will. (or do I mean ?)

Well, we've had threads like this one before, and don't they usually end up as another fight?

Is this a thread about a thread about a thread?

Why start another contentious thread GracesGran?

I have always used fight to mean an event where there is a table full of plates of food, particularly cakes, and everyone helps themselves. all crowding round picking out the best things. I think I really should take exception to the use of it in other ways and start kicking up a fuss about the miss-use of the term to mean a lot of bickering and name-calling.

Now, which thread shall I choose to disrupt with that diversion? There are plenty to choose from - fights going on all over the place.

Many years ago, shortly before DD2's confirmation I overheard her on the phone to a schoolfriend asking her to come. "It's at H***** Church", she said, adding earnestly, "and Mum says there's to be cake-throwing at the church hall afterwards " (!)
I had to challenge her and her reply? "Oh you said there would be the usual bunfight after."
So I share your definition Elegran but to this day sometimes wonder what was going through that 14-year old's head!

I think GNHQ do a good job moderating. All sorts post on a public forum.

Anyone read the thread on 'virtue signalling'

This is really funny. Some people are so determined to have the last word they start another thread just so they can hopefully have another last word in case they didn't manage to get the last word on the original thread.

IYSWIM

That deserves a new thread, merlotgran Why don't you start one?

Agreed Gracesgran I do sometimes feel that party A picks up something posted by party B just to make a personal attack. I have often felt like wading in, but think that would probably make things worse. We are all entitled to our opinions, however outrageous they seem to others, we are all entitled to our political views, and some are more involved than others, but this is no reason to drag politics into every thread. I get really narked however, when someone, usually a rare poster, writes that they joined GN to chat about children and knitting........well I didnt! I joined to have discussions with people, to agree, to disagree, to get irate, to laugh, to commiserate. Nothing wrong with grandchildren and knitting of course, before it all comes down on my head, just dont have one and cant do the other.

I think there's some kind of excitement about strong disagreements on a forum and the temptation to join in and stir it. Only I see this forum as a sort of peaceful refuge (usually) where everyone is kind to eachother. Perhaps that's unrealistic.
On another forum there was a man who was really bossy and sanctimonious, and I used to love giving a sly dig to get him going, then back off and watch . I don't know anyone as difficult as him on here.
And as for pack mentality - even he had some supporters.

We have had the occasional really bossy and sanctimonious poster - most of them appeared to be men, but not all. The ones I remember were really only here to exercise their controlling urge and issue bullying put-downs and soon got short shrift.

Ninety-nine percent of the posts on GN are in the supportive-to-moderately-critical bands, but the one percent that really go for the jugular make most impression. As in real life.

My OH calls them keyboard warriors.

Could someone please explain to me how one agrees with another poster without being perceived as an acolyte(posh version)or gang member(ordinary version)?

While they are explaining that, could they explain how one post which follows straight after another expressing a similar view, immediately after the post they both disagree with, can be taken as evidence that they are colluding to gang up?

Uh oh I'm already lost.

Right, I will say what I am thinking.
1) this is a thread about threads
2) it is provocative and designed to stimulate, not discussion, but discord
3) It accuses of those who agree of "gang" sycophancy and those who disagree of "ganging up"
4) it is unduly sensitive about emoticons, if they are designed to serve a purpose, then what is wrong with using them appropriately

Sometimes a little light relief is both welcome and necessary. Life is not all doom, gloom, trouble and strife. It is not derailing a discussion (if that is indeed what is happening) to contribute the odd anecdote.
I think we are mature enough to know that criticising a newspaper does not constitute denigrating the readership.
Finally, more incidences of people who get very upset bcause of very small things in a post etc -that is Gracesgran's perception and as such she is entitled to it.
However, I think posts in reply to OP indicate how others do indeed feel, and that said, my personal opinion is that continuing this thread is not actually going to serve any useful purpose.

I agree with you, alea

Not that I am guilty of sycophancy or ganging up, of course, or of virtue signalling . . .

And, I agree with both of you - this time!!

I am surprised that it has been allowed to run as it is clearly a thread about another thread as I said very early on!

Ah, but has it been reported as a thread about a thread?......

I'm a veteran here, thought I'd seen and read it all but now I am lost in a fog. I may have to stick to grandchildren and ....er....knitting.