Moving threads to DT

aliasojo

Premier wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a non moneysaving thread should actually remain on the moneysaving board it was originally posted on?

No. I'm suggesting Martin recognise that the type of poster who most people would welcome advice from, is not the type of poster who mostly frequents the Arms or DT. They are a completely different type of user group with different interests.

Therefore, it would make sense to have an extra sub board in the Family board where non financially related topics could be discussed.

Or, as I suspect, you are suggesting the Board Guide's role should be expanded, having more authority and be allowed to moderate, removing posts/threads they think are offensive?

No. I'm not suggesting that at all and I have no idea how you made that connection tbh.

Either way, this isn't a democracy and I mentioned the policy on site rules in the last part of my previous post.

You're right, it's not a democracy. However this comes up time and time again. Isn't it about time it was dealt with in a more efficient way than 'Martin just says no'? Surely a site as popular as this one has become, has to evolve to a certain degree?

Sambucus_Nigra

aliasojo wrote: »

You're right, it's not a democracy. However this comes up time and time again. Isn't it about time it was dealt with in a more efficient way than 'Martin just says no'? Surely a site as popular as this one has become, has to evolve to a certain degree?

Absolutely.

I wouldn't even mind if it was applied across the board, but it's not.

RacyRed

aliasojo wrote: »

You're right, it's not a democracy. However this comes up time and time again. Isn't it about time it was dealt with in a more efficient way than 'Martin just says no'? Surely a site as popular as this one has become, has to evolve to a certain degree?

I completely agree with this.

Whist the forum started out as purely moneysaving, it has evolved and now attracts posts dealing with all sorts of other problems. It is time that this was recognised and provision made. We are all able to choose which boards we read & contribute to.

It is also time that it was recognised that it is the members of the forum who are stepping up to comfort/advise those starting the sorts of threads under discusion here. And that it is in addition to contributing the numerous money saving tips/deals etc. as we come across them.

Personally, when I see raw suffering in an opening post I find it incredibly difficult not to do what little I can to help or comfort the poster. I'm only human! But I so often don't respond as I've no wish at all to post on DT or in the Arms these days, and that is where the threads often end up. Those boards are no place for posters who are really feeling pain and looking for some sort of empathy. Does empathy really have less value than advice on how to save a few pounds?

Please Martin, read this and review the situation.

Premier_2

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

...
It's a shame that you can't see past your 'rules' to the actual issue.

They are not my rules, bit rather those of Martin

If you don't like Martin's rules, nothing is preventing you to go and set up your own forum where you can decide whatever rules you want to have.

Sambucus_Nigra

Premier wrote: »

They are not my rules, bit rather those of Martin

If you don't like Martin's rules, nothing is preventing you to go and set up your own forum where you can decide whatever rules you want to have.

Yes.

We know the rules.

We know them pretty much inside out.

The problem is that they aren't being applied consistently.

I am actually a fully fledged Moderator on a rather large forum and have been for several years. 40,000 members so not as big as here. However we have significantly less Moderators than BGs here and keep a very tight ship.

If we applied rules in such a haphazard fashion we would look at the rules and address the issues. Not totally ignore the people that take umbrudge with the rules.

RacyRed

Premier wrote: »

They are not my rules, bit rather those of Martin

If you don't like Martin's rules, nothing is preventing you to go and set up your own forum where you can decide whatever rules you want to have.

And that would be "throwing our toys out of the pram". No thanks.

Yes, Martin owns the forum, yes, he runs the research teams and does excellent work - but where would the foum be without the users? And how are we meant to straight jacket ourselves on some threads but not others in the way we are currently being asked to?

No we cannot and should not dicate to Martin, but there is no good reason why we cannot ask him to consider and address our real concerns.

Premier_2

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

...
The problem is that they aren't being applied consistently. ..

Oh that old chestnut. As I know how much you like quotes, here's another (from 3 years ago)

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote:

...If someone reports something that we review and find to be controversial, it is likely to be removed. We do not pro actively monitor these boards so to suggest that we are leaving some threads and removing others (i.e. censorship) is inaccurate and unfounded. We simply are not aware of the other thread...

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=6961541&postcount=5

Premier_2

RacyRed wrote: »

...
No we cannot and should not dicate to Martin, but there is no good reason why we cannot ask him to consider and address our real concerns.

Oh course. Perhaps you could articulate what your precise concerns are please?

RacyRed

Premier wrote: »

Oh course. Perhaps you could articulate what your precise concerns are please?

Is your name Martin?

aliasojo

RacyRed wrote: »

Is your name Martin?

You're a bit stuffed if he says, 'actually, yes it is'. :D