Board guides personal posts

poet123

Ah, I see......strange things seem to go on on the OS board.

Churchmouse

jackieglasgow wrote: »

Actually I think I was the first person to venture the thought that the thread was some sort of wind up. But enough said I think. Churchmouse, how do you do, I believe I am the friend MrsE referred to

Hello:wave::wave: Oooh I do love a new friend :j:j I shall go read your posts with more attention now

MrsTinks

Can I point out that I've yet to see anything directly relevant to why as a BG I shouldn't allow my signature to stand? I like other BGs have more than just the standard spiel in my signature... like links to the FREE debt charities.

A BG as we keep harping on about are not mods - there are MSE staff and like on other boards these guys have special names and special tags etc. They are paid staff who work for Martin directly. We have strict rules we have to follow in helping the boards run smoothly and when to move posts etc. But our posts are treated exactly the same as any other posters: If we breach the rules then we should be reported just the same as anyone else. We don't know the MSE staff personally and that means they can act unbiased and in honesty I feel a little upset on their behalf that you shoudl think they wouldn't... maybe that is just me though

So if this thread is about a BG stepping out of line then please report it to Abuse, if it's because you weren't sure what exactly BGs are and how they fitted in with the paid staff then hopefully I've clarified that If it's because another board member has broken the rules... contact Abuse who will investigate it and decide on the course of action.

dazco

I PM'd a board guide about a sensitive subject that had nothing to do with her being a board guide, she responded by posting on the relevant thread what I had written and answering the PM on the public forum.

The BG was not Glad, who does a good job. Not because of what she does but because of what she doesn't do.

ceridwen

We do indeed have to acknowledge that most of the Board Guides do do a very good job. I guess there are going to be a few though - who dont set themselves MSE rules/their own rules about how to do the job in a totally impartial/fair fashion 100% of the time and keeping their own opinions to one side.

My introduction to MSE was a Board Guide - Browntoa stand up and take a bow - who was in answering my query (a technical one - because I'm such a computer dumbo) within minutes.

That guide was way out of order to publish the contents of a PM publicly like that - and I hope they get "sacked on the spot" from their post. I dont know who they would be - but that was simply not on. You really should report them to abuse - as they definitely do need to be "sacked".

I repeat again that the "no posting PMs on the Board" rule needs clarifying - to make it quite plain that that also means absolutely no mention of having received PM's on the Board either. Even mentioning one has received a PM from someone is an offence and it should be clarified that it is - as it might not be made clear that the mentioner is biased (ie because they dislike the person concerned - and therefore cannot be relied upon to give a correct objective impression as to what was said).

MSE can "turn a blind eye" to someone just mentioning only the fact that they have received a PM if it is clear that the mention was made because the mentioner obviously likes the person concerned and is feeling thankful for some advice/help they were given. Otherwise - even the mention of having received PM's is an offence - because of the fact that 99.9% of people reading wont know its been mentioned because the mentioner has conceived a personal dislike for the PM'er and is trying to stir up trouble for them for no good reason.

Fridge2

poet123 wrote: »

Is that the point being made though (it could be but I am reading it differently) I think the point is that if you did as you suggest the chances are much higher of that post being pulled/thread closed/ you ppr'd than if the poster was a mere mortal. Even if you couched your response in polite terms, and terms that if used towards others would not elicit the same result.

Bring it on....if I can't speak freely (within reason) then I wouldn't really want to be a member here anyway.

Therefore I will continue on in my current posting style (which can be a little blunt, granted, but never actually abusive) reegardless of who it is I am addressing.

Fridge2

ceridwen wrote: »

MSE can "turn a blind eye" to someone just mentioning only the fact that they have received a PM if it is clear that the mention was made because the mentioner obviously likes the person concerned and is feeling thankful for some advice/help they were given. Otherwise - even the mention of having received PM's is an offence - because of the fact that 99.9% of people reading wont know its been mentioned because the mentioner has conceived a personal dislike for the PM'er and is trying to stir up trouble for them for no good reason.

I don't know you from Adam (or Eve:D) and obviously I am not privy to the entire story, but if the tale about you posting a PM as an AE and signing it as yourself is true then a rigorous enforcing of this "privacy" policy would have saved you some embarrassment, no?

perhaps this is why you are defending the "law" so vociferously?;)

ceridwen

The reason I am "defending the law" is exactly what it appears to be - ie I am "defending the law" because it IS the "law".

i try to be totally objective in my judgements - like all of us I am "human"/fallible. But I do believe in law for laws sake/rules for rules sake and that they are there for a reason - usually to stop peoples emotions running away with them I sometimes cynically think....:cool:

There IS only one reason to break a law or rule - because said law or rule is immoral and needs to be removed. Otherwise one abides by it.

dazco

ceridwen wrote: »

That guide was way out of order to publish the contents of a PM publicly like that - and I hope they get "sacked on the spot" from their post. I dont know who they would be - but that was simply not on. You really should report them to abuse - as they definitely do need to be "sacked".

I have just had a hell of a good search and can find no evidence of it.
But if I had known at the time that it was a no-no I would certainly have reported it. I was absolutely appalled at the time. I thought that what was posted was underhand for a normal poster, never mind a BG.

*Maya*

ceridwen wrote: »

....:cool:

There IS only one reason to break a law or rule - because said law or rule is immoral and needs to be removed. Otherwise one abides by it.

So you must think that the rule that says that you arent allowed an ae is immoral? You must think that if you broke it AND then used the ae to intimidate another poster. :cool: