Why have numerous relevant threads been moved to discussion time?

toniq

Rikki wrote: »

No to me, but I don't like to see the likes of Divedee get talked to in the way she did.

Totally agree, the amount she has done for this forum, like the other board guides, why should she be subjected to this?

If you didn't like what your line managers at work said, you wouldnt dare talk to them in such a manner, so why is here any different.

These board guides are unpaid volunteers, without them the forum would collapse.

I hope apologies are forthcoming for the rudeness towards our lovely Diva xxxx

SingleSue

Well I apologise if any of my posts have been seen as abusive or nasty but it has left a nasty taste for the regular posters on that board. We feel the heart has been ripped out of it and we voiced our opinion regarding the action, some nicer than others.

StevieJ

toniq wrote: »

Totally agree, the amount she has done for this forum, like the other board guides, why should she be subjected to this?

If you didn't like what your line managers at work said, you wouldnt dare talk to them in such a manner, so why is here any different.

These board guides are unpaid volunteers, without them the forum would collapse.

I hope apologies are forthcoming for the rudeness towards our lovely Diva xxxx

You see yourselves as line managers now :rotfl:

Cleaver

Incisor wrote: »

Just put them back, please.

You are here to serve us, not to rule us. A poll has gone up [prematurely I think], but it is plain, people want things where they were. You are not helping, you have made a mistake. None of these threads were single post orphans which needed moving to get help for someone. None of these threads caused any controversy about whether or not we should have the discussion on this board. So there was absolutely no need to move them.

Now, take a look at the poll, which I confidently predict will show that they should be moved back. Don't fly in the face of the poll, because that will raise bigger questions.

Unfortunately you have just missed out on the prize for the most patronising post ever on a forum. Just for the record, a "cheers babe" tagged on to the end would have probably won it for you.

WTF?_2

divadee wrote: »

I moved those threads over this morning, as most were not to do with house price's. This is the house prices board, not for talks on the general economy and until the name is changed board guides have to try and stick to the guidelines.

Yes, board guides have let some discussions off topic on here, but it was getting a bit much really.

If you want to ask about renaming the board you will have to ask one of the mse team.

Wow, so moderators do exist on MSE?

Where were you when people were hurling nasty personal comments at other members on the board? I've reported more than a few and seen precisely zero action taken.

soolin

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Wow, so moderators do exist on MSE?

Where were you when people were hurling nasty personal comments at other members on the board? I've reported more than a few and seen precisely zero action taken.

I'm not sure if , from the tone of your post, you think you are addressing a moderator BG's are not moderators, moderators are paid employees who deal with the emails that go to abuse either direct or by just clicking on the red triangle on nay post.

A BG will not see any complaints made to abuse and will not have a say in how the mod team deal with those complaints.

coolcait

Wow - is this representative of the behaviour on that board? :eek:

Many of the posts directed to divadee look abusive to me.

Many of the posts directed at divadee look bullying to me - and they come across as being designed to pressurise him/her into putting the threads back without any kind of consultation with line managers. The deliberate blurring of the points made about 'policy' strike me as being part and parcel of that bullying.

The overwhelming impression I get of many of those posts can be summed up in the word 'witchhunt'.

Some of the comments about divadee's ability to be a BG on that forum strike me as offensive, insulting and condescending. And unnecessary and uncalled for if the debate is supposed to be about whether or not the posts/threads were appropriate for that board. There is - at least in some quarters - the appearance of a very strong lobby to get rid of the board guide. This seems a surprising over-reaction to the incident being described.

The comment about 'here to serve not to rule' is not only, IMO, gratuitously and deliberately offensive and insulting, it's not even an accurate description of what has happened. MSE policy is that BG's move threads if - in their opinion - they are off-topic. How is that an attempt to 'rule'? You do what your boss has told you, and clean up something you think needs to be cleaned up - and you get treated as if you had unilaterally declared yourself emperor/empress? :rolleyes: :mad:

It may be a fact that the majority of regular posters on the board believe that divadee was wrong to move the threads. That does not mean that they are 'right'. It just means that more people share that belief. They may be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be the first time that a majority has held a belief which was subsequently viewed as 'wrong'.

If a board only has a limited number of 'regular posters' (the poll has a very low number of respondents, almost all supposedly from 'the majority of the regulars')why are other posters not attracted to it? Do they find that it's not doing what it says on the tin? Does it feel cliquey to them? Do they feel intimidated by the other posters? Do they get the feeling that the other posters don't see them as 'good enough' to be posting on that board? Have the 'regulars' on that board been dismissive about posts and posting on other boards - to the extent that you could practically choke on the stench of intellectual superiority which is reeking from them? I don't know. They certainly have here, IMO.

The whole hoohah has been reported to the people who will adjudicate. By the prescribed route - however anyone feels about the way that route is described. A decision will come down in due course, and if it doesn't meet with the approval of the vociferous majority/minority (depending on whther you view them as a percentage of the board users, or as a percentage of MSE), then the conspiracy theories will be unleashed.

If a decision comes out which does meet with the approval of the majority, then I hope it is only in terms of thread content, and not in terms of pandering to the attacks on the BG.

Incisor

Casey1709 wrote: »

<me: You are here to serve us, not to rule us.>
That is just so offensive, this is a private forum, not a democracy.

What did Tony Blair say in 1997? - He said "We are not the masters" Look at the trouble resulting from that being forgotten.

Actually, I find it offensive to think as you seem to suggest, that divadee should rule us. And those who serve deserve respect for that. But the only intervention of divadee's which I am aware of is ripping the guts out of our discussion board. That is not serving, it is ruling.

And before you say ":eek: It's Martin's discussion board", of course you are right about that in terms of hardware and physical resources. But it is our discussion, it is the content we have made.

tr3mor

toniq wrote: »

If you didn't like what your line managers at work said, you wouldnt dare talk to them in such a manner, so why is here any different.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Quasar

423,000 forum members. Is there ANY board guide who can please them all?

Ok that was it, outta here.