Why have numerous relevant threads been moved to discussion time?

neverdespairgirl

Rikki wrote: »

As for picking on Divadee is ungentlemanly and uncalled for!

I've never been ungentlemanly in my entire life.

Nor gentlemanly either, come to that.

coolcait

Incisor wrote: »

Quite simply, there is no campaign. I and perhaps others have stated an opinion that she does not understand what the board is about and therefore for that particular board she is actually not qualified. But I would add to that, even if she did not fully understand how the board worked, she could have taken soundings and consulted. Instead we wake up to see half the live discussions ripped out. Now, do I state what I think openly, so divadee can see, or do I go behind her back and whinge to the mods in secret? I can assure you that I have only written openly.


gingin did request reconsideration and divadee came back with a response which I characterised as jobsworth and narrowly obsessive. At no time was reconsideration offered


I have clarified elsewhere that serving is not to be confused with subservience. A Doctor or Solicitor or Dentist will definitely serve, but they are not subservient. I am not talking about doing as they are told, I am talking about delivering a service of facilitating discussion. divadee was not doing this, she was destroying discussion, whether intended or unintentionally.

There may not be a 'campaign' in the sense of a tactically organised systematic course of aggressive activities for a specific purpose (ie, removing divadee as BG). Each reader of the threads will form their own views about that, having read the posts.

There is, however, certainly an element of individuals 'campaigning' for divadee's removal -whether overtly, or by expressing a lack of confidence in her abilities and/or qualifications for moderating the board in question.

There is an ongoing assumption - which has at times been translated into assertions - that she does not understand how the board works. I do not believe that these assumptions and assertions have been adequately proven to be true. I have already posted my findings on several of the threads which were moved.

It can also be argued that a BG who allegedly doesn't understand what you're talking about is an advantage. He or she may not notice you straying off topic, unless it is a particularly egregious example

We have had an entire day of 'taking soundings and consultations' - admittedly post factum. And today's postings, IMO, are as good a demonstration of the disadvantages of that as you will find.

Reconsideration has been offered - at the higher management level. When you accused divadee of being a 'jobsworth' and 'narrowly obsessive' (both descriptions, IMO, insulting and a personal attack) I think you made it impossible for her to reverse her decision - assuming it is technically possible for her to do so without intervention from higher line management. By making it into a 'divadee can't do her job' issue, I think that you and others have made it impossible for her to do anything other than pass it to higher management for decision. Anything else would inevitably be seen as bowing to pressure/bullying. Do you need me to spell out my view on that, or have my posts made it sufficiently clear?

Having read some of the threads in question, I think they could be fairly categorised as having gone off topic.

As I have stated before, you, and others, could have openly stated your dissatisfaction in a less personal and aggressive way, and also have stated openly that you were going to take it to the mods for adjudication. It's a middle way between what has been done, and what you are suggesting was the (only) other option (ie 'going behind backs').

You may have clarified elsewhere what you meant by 'serve' - I have not yet seen it, so cannot comment. You do not mention what you mean by the whole phrase 'you are here to serve not to rule'. Taken as a whole, that phrase has unpleasant connotations and overtones. Even if you put forward a gentler interpretation of 'to serve'.

There has been a lot of pressure on divadee to reconsider her decision and approach to removing the threads. Perhaps that same request - to reconsider their approach and decision as to the relevance of the threads - might be put to those who have been pressurising her?

neverdespairgirl

divadee wrote: »

I moved those threads over this morning, as most were not to do with house price's.

Why did you move those that were clearly entirely and only about house prices, though?

coolcait

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Why did you move those that were clearly entirely and only about house prices, though?

So that we can all understand, can you link to those threads, please?

The titles -as I have found - don't always make it clear which threads were transferred from the 'House Prices' board.

chucky

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Respect cannot be demanded; it must be earned.

Therefore we should have zero respect for all posters as they must earn your respect before you respect them. it sounds that you are saying that all the comments made to Divadee are justified.

SingleSue

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I've never been ungentlemanly in my entire life.

Nor gentlemanly either, come to that.

Sorry but that made me giggle......:rotfl:

poppy10_2

coolcait wrote: »

So that we can all understand, can you link to those threads, please?
.

How about:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1339241

Incisor

coolcait wrote: »

So that we can all understand, can you link to those threads, please?

The titles -as I have found - don't always make it clear which threads were transferred from the 'House Prices' board.

[thanked in error]
If you go to the house price board, you can see that [probably on page 3 now], there are links to moved threads. You may say that these links are still in place, but they no longer move up and down the board as people post, rendering the threads dead from the House Price board as other threads are added to.

Incisor

coolcait wrote: »

There may not be a 'campaign' in the sense of a tactically organised systematic course of aggressive activities for a specific purpose (ie, removing divadee as BG). Each reader of the threads will form their own views about that, having read the posts.

There is, however, certainly an element of individuals 'campaigning' for divadee's removal -whether overtly, or by expressing a lack of confidence in her abilities and/or qualifications for moderating the board in question.

There is an ongoing assumption - which has at times been translated into assertions - that she does not understand how the board works. I do not believe that these assumptions and assertions have been adequately proven to be true. I have already posted my findings on several of the threads which were moved.

It can also be argued that a BG who allegedly doesn't understand what you're talking about is an advantage. He or she may not notice you straying off topic, unless it is a particularly egregious example

We have had an entire day of 'taking soundings and consultations' - admittedly post factum. And today's postings, IMO, are as good a demonstration of the disadvantages of that as you will find.

Reconsideration has been offered - at the higher management level. When you accused divadee of being a 'jobsworth' and 'narrowly obsessive' (both descriptions, IMO, insulting and a personal attack) I think you made it impossible for her to reverse her decision - assuming it is technically possible for her to do so without intervention from higher line management. By making it into a 'divadee can't do her job' issue, I think that you and others have made it impossible for her to do anything other than pass it to higher management for decision. Anything else would inevitably be seen as bowing to pressure/bullying. Do you need me to spell out my view on that, or have my posts made it sufficiently clear?

Having read some of the threads in question, I think they could be fairly categorised as having gone off topic.

As I have stated before, you, and others, could have openly stated your dissatisfaction in a less personal and aggressive way, and also have stated openly that you were going to take it to the mods for adjudication. It's a middle way between what has been done, and what you are suggesting was the (only) other option (ie 'going behind backs').

You may have clarified elsewhere what you meant by 'serve' - I have not yet seen it, so cannot comment. You do not mention what you mean by the whole phrase 'you are here to serve not to rule'. Taken as a whole, that phrase has unpleasant connotations and overtones. Even if you put forward a gentler interpretation of 'to serve'.

There has been a lot of pressure on divadee to reconsider her decision and approach to removing the threads. Perhaps that same request - to reconsider their approach and decision as to the relevance of the threads - might be put to those who have been pressurising her?

So I went over the top? divadee went over the top in taking her own unilateral decision over far too many threads at once. Since then she has gone onto another forum [DT] to engage the peanut gallery on this dispute. I don't think she ever had any allegiance to the House Price board.

huntersc

We had a perfectly happy board, no one complained, all these new people that are on this thread never even knew it existed or if they did they certainly never spoke up to say they were upset with the nature of the postings.

The threads were helpful, enjoyable to read, many informed discussions were had, some fun and humour thrown in to help with the depressing nature of what is happening with the housing market.

Everyone was happy.

Except, it seems, one person.

Now everyone is unhappy from those opposing her actions to those condoning them.

Good result?

Uhm.....