Why have numerous relevant threads been moved to discussion time?

Quasar

coolcait wrote: »

Thank you, poppy, for taking the time to provide that link. :beer:

That thread was one of the ones I've already mentioned - in most detail.

Yes, the OP could be argued as being tangentially linked to house prices. However, the content of other posts on the thread, I'm afraid, stripped away that veneer, IMO.

Having read that thread, and some of the others which were moved, I do wonder how today's discussions would have panned out if the debate had started off as:

'People, please keep your discussions on topic The House Prices board has had the heart of the first page ripped out and posted on DT, because some people weren't discussing anything which even vaguely related to HousePrices - even if you use the argument that 'the economy in general' is relevant.

Lots of good posts, and useful information, are now on another board, because the discussion wasn't on topic for the House Prices board. Please keep on topic. If you want to discuss general political issues, please take it to DT'

?

Ohhhh so discussions go off topic in HP too? I was under the impression that only in DT they did, which is why HP users didn't like going in there. Well well...

neverdespairgirl

chucky wrote: »

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.

I don't respect people I don't know. I am polite and open-minded instead.

I don't think the comments made to Divadee were all justified. I do think she acted pretty unreasonably herself, and then failed to realise it.

coolcait

Incisor wrote: »

[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.

Thank you [not in error].

I am confused, however. In response to my request for links to the missing threads, you are referring me to the links which exist on the House Prices board.

In the same breath/phrase, you say that they have been rendered 'dead'.

At the risk of sounding inadvertently metaphysical, they are not 'dead', they are merely existing in another place. :A

It is a fact of life on internet forums that threads get buried under new ones. You could argue that the threads which have been moved from 'House Prices' have been given a new lease of life - in another place.

huntersc

coolcait wrote: »

Thank you, poppy, for taking the time to provide that link. :beer:

That thread was one of the ones I've already mentioned - in most detail.

Yes, the OP could be argued as being tangentially linked to house prices. However, the content of other posts on the thread, I'm afraid, stripped away that veneer, IMO.

Having read that thread, and some of the others which were moved, I do wonder how today's discussions would have panned out if the debate had started off as:

'People, please keep your discussions on topic The House Prices board has had the heart of the first page ripped out and posted on DT, because some people weren't discussing anything which even vaguely related to HousePrices - even if you use the argument that 'the economy in general' is relevant.

Lots of good posts, and useful information, are now on another board, because the discussion wasn't on topic for the House Prices board. Please keep on topic. If you want to discuss general political issues, please take it to DT'

?

That would have been an entirely sensible approach. No doubt many would have taken the time to think about what was being posted. A few PMs might also have gone down well.

Riding roughshod over the forum and those that post here helping people every day and just binning and moving a ton of threads was obviously not a sensible approach. Especially as some of the threads could easily have been considered 'on topic'.

Far from being blameless the mod really ought to look at herself and perhaps evaluate where she might have made better decisions. Again, not a personal attack, no humiliation intended, I'm just making the point, as you have done, that there might have been a more sensible approach which could have had an altogether different result.

I really do think the mod made a very big mistake. I feel sorry for her because I do think she intended to do the right thing, I just worry that she didn't see the rather obvious consequence.

Imagine if any mod went to any other board and moved 20 posts and closed 20 threads without any major explanation or discussion. Wouldn't one imagine that there might be a little bit of an uproar? It seems very obvious to me....

Zelie

moggylover wrote: »

No, I will not. You are just offering a prime example of the arrogance that caused the rudeness to the BG in the first place, and the bad manners that allow you to consider that you had the right to be that rude. Attempting to turn it into other people being rude and thus you were allowed to play tit for tat is childish, so you really do need to go suck your comforter:D The "dressing down" you have had from me is not rudeness, it is a much needed lesson in manners.

"Dressing down" dear? Do you think you are some sort of hero?

Stop being so rude and abusive towards other posters. Others have the right to express their opinions here without being harassed and shouted down.

I'm sure you glory in all the drama you are creating but nobody thinks you are a better person for it. So why not act reasonably and maturely? You can begin by apologising for your rudeness and then by not responding so aggressively to other posters who put something up which you disagree with.

coolcait

SingleSue wrote: »

The internet is a completely comfortable place for me to be actually, my gripe is that over many months, my posting style has been developed on the house price board and understood by most people and then all of a sudden I am having to explain myself to complete strangers in completely new areas...maybe I should go back to posting in a boring style again and building it up into my normal off the wall to allow other posters to get it, now we have been forced into all areas of the site.

Unfortunately, I forgot I was not with the old familiars who understood my posting style and humour.

Yes, I can not only sympathise/empathise - I can completely project my own experiences onto what you have said, and declare that we are twins.

Where we may differ is that I now try not to take the approach used after the ellipses in your first paragraph.

We may also differ in that I have accepted the way I am, and the way I post, so deal with the reaction to that accordingly (and that can include apologising, if I re-read one of my posts and think 'no - that might have come across all wrong').

rrickyuk

Having just read this thread from its beginning, I think that there are quite a few posters that need to hang their heads in shame, and I really hope that abuse deals with this quickly.

Divadee - please try to not let these personal attacks get to you too much. Being a BG must be an often thankless task.

You do a fantastic job.

Faceless, cowardly, abusive attacks are mindless.

You keep doing what you do, Divadee. I for one appreciate that BGs will never be able to please everyone.

I also appreciate that a basic rule of this site is to be nice to MSErs.

There are more than a few people from this thread that could do with respecting that rule, and I hope that they are dealt with in the right way.

Bullying is never, ever, something to be proud of.

neverdespairgirl

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.

1. Entitled "Shocker Alert - The crash is worse than I thought!"

It's about buy-to-let arrears, repossessions, and tenancies. Pretty clearly relevant, it seems to me.

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

2. Entitled "A great Article to show why Clown is a dunce"

About current issues regarding lending, borrowing, mortgage rates, house prices, and repossessions. For example, the linked article says:

Perhaps in an effort to distract attention from what the state-owned lenders are doing, on Wednesday Brown rushed out a quarter-baked plan to allow some borrowers to drop their mortgage repayments for up to two years without forfeiting their homes. The prime minister declared, using his favourite term: “Hard-working households that experiencea redundancy . . . will be able to defer a proportion of their interest payments”. Only “hard-working” households, please note, though how many households that are experiencing redundancy could simultaneously be described as “hard-working” is a riddle to which only Brown knows the answer. Margaret Beckett, the housing minister, bravely guessed that the answer might be about 9,000. Somehow I don’t think that qualifies the prime minister to state, as he did, that this “will help homeowners to feel more secure”.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1339471

3. Thread entitled "Just got back from Las Vegas"

This is about current economic issues in America, granted.

But it includes reference to the housing market in America, for example:

In a cheap motel in California I went to get the complimentary breakfast and naturally picked up a property directory magazine that was on the racks ( similar to property mags given out here at supermarkets)for a flick. There were pages of homes, mobile homes, ranches etc. Most said bank owned. on the bottom of the pages it said "100% finance available, no deposit down"

So entirely on-topic, unless you think that "house prices" is a purely UK issue.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1337393

3. Thread entitled "Britain set to turn into Japan"

This thread was about house prices, and clearly understood by many posters to refer to the endless slump in Japanese house prices whcih started in the 1990s. For example, that thread includes the comments, from different posters:

Firstly:

Banks are being forced to lower interest rates, and even not reposses for up to 2 years.

Also prices dropped 80% in Japan everyone agrees we are looking at about 50% average drops here in Blighty.

Secondly:

Things aren't quite that bad here yet but the banks are clearly more risk-averse than they have been for many years. The best deals on the market require deposits of 40 or 50% and anyone with a remotely iffy credit rating hasn't a chance of getting even the worst deals.

So the point stands: if you can't get a loan, what difference does it make that base rates are the lowest they have been since the 1950s? We endlessly hear, not least from Gordon Brown, about how there is massive "pent-up demand" for property in the UK. But this isn't a concept that makes any sense in economic terms: demand isn't demand unless it is backed by cash.

Thirdly:

yes we will be like Japan as long as everyone agrees that if their house is over 5 years old its now worthless and they don't want to live in it and they now want to live in a new house

so everyone for a new home then?

Fourthly:

One major difference between Japan and the UK is that the country suffers from regular earthquakes.

I understand this means that older property is not regarded so well and basically there is a need to build new houses all the time.

The market is not geared to having a home for 60-80 years and then still be able to sell on.

Fifthly:

I think Really wrote that they had 100 year mortgages because of the extreme prices, frightening if the houses did not stay up that long

Sixthly:

House prices have dropped massively - rents have too apparently.

So you already get more for your money. Since this is the biggest purchase most of us are likely to make that's great deflationary news.

Seventhly:

Also funny how quickly we move from property prices are booming to property prices are crashing.

Eightly:

House prices would not have been ramped up and the banks would not now be knackered. But would the government still be in power had there not been a 'boom' in the last few years? If not, what does that say about our democracy?

Of course there is other economic stuff in that thread as well - inevitably.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1337837

neverdespairgirl

coolcait wrote: »

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.

I've never come across her before, that I remember (although, of course, I may well have done and forgotten).

So all I know about her is that she stormed on the house prices board today, and removed an awful lot of interesting stuff about economic issues, and some rubbish as well (Brown and Zimbabwe, for example). So it appears to me that she doesn't know how the board works at all.

coolcait

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

What does "line managers" actually mean?

Boss?

Well, I could talk for hours about the possible meanings and interpretations of the phrase 'line managers' - with or without reference to my own personal experiences :rolleyes: .

In the context of the post you quoted, I was trying to sum up the idea that:

Board Guides are tasked by higher powers (let's call them 'line managers') within MSE to carry out various duties. Among these duties are - it appears - to move threads if in the opinion of the board guide they are off topic.

Having followed those instructions, divadee was faced with - IMO - peremptory and pressurising demands from others to re-instate the threads she had moved.

I don't know if she even has the technical ability to do that.

However, in terms of principles, divadee has followed the guidance given to her by line managers.

If she unilaterally overturns her decisions, without having consulted with her line managers, she may be seen as having breached conditions of service AND having set the unfortunate precedent that 'if they shout loud enough, give in'. For example.

I note your response to another poster who mentioned 'line managers'. I would also note that not everyone is self-employed, so - even if they were tempted to do so - might not have the same freedom as you to be insulting.

It seems to me that the role of a BG is far from easy or clearcut. What do you think?