Board guides personal posts

jackieglasgow

Who's to decide what's immoral, and what's not?

MrsE_2

So whats the general consensus of opinion on this one?

It seems in general board guides should leave their sig in as it would be too fiddly, lacking in consistence & just plan odd to chop & change.

However I think the waters muddy slightly if a board guide is posting purely as a civvie & thats where its difficult.

I guess then people should use their own judgement about whether they think a post is appropriate or not.....

MrsE_2

jackieglasgow wrote: »

Who's to decide what's immoral, and what's not?

Your own conscience tells you that.

Churchmouse

Any chance for a reply to my post number 58 MrsE? I explain there my rationale for my saying you were wrong to mention the PM. It seemed to satisfy poet123.

I still think with or without the signature people know who the board guides are, and if they are influenced they will be influenced regardless.

MrsE_2

ceridwen wrote: »

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.

I will challenge any injustice I see, I can't help it.

I'm not a walk on by type of person.

That's why I challenged the posts on the "frugal" thread & why I challenged the whole sig thing (but I can see the valid reasons put forward by the BGs who posted on here).

I don't think PMs should be private either, I think I should be allowed the post my Sopranos style warning:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
But I'm not allowed so I won't, but I dislike that I can't.

jackieglasgow

It says at the bottom of the index page for each board who the guide(s) for that board are.

MrsE_2

Churchmouse wrote: »

MrsE said that the PM advised her "to think very carefully" about the thread she had started. I took that to be the gist of the PM. Sorry, obviously was a very grave error.I did not mean to imply I'd read the PM, I apologise for any misunderstanding. But my point stands.

Now this was obviously meant to say she thought she knew who'd sent it to you. I will wager my house that she did not think it was Venus, which is why I thanked her for not allowing suspicion to rest on anyone else. Making reference to a PM casts shadows on all sorts of people unfairly.As for "one of my friends" please direct me to the actual post, I honestly don't know who or which one you mean. And I don't always agree with my friends, I am allowed my own independent opinion. And my opinion stands. I am not influenced in my posting by boardguides. Are you??

No, I'm not. But I know at least one OSer who freely admitted she is:D

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=37597788&postcount=101

Churchmouse

Oh sorry, that wasn't the bit I especially wanted answered

The bit I was interested in was

ceridwen posted
Originally Posted by ceridwen
Whilst I think you have a valid point there - it IS MSE policy not to disclose the contents of PMs as I understand it. It think it would be wise if MrsE abides by the policy - and doesnt disclose the contents. She herself could be in trouble if she does.

i think we can all hazard a few guesses - but Mrs E - I urge you to stick to MSE privacy policy on this.




I then said

Now this was obviously meant to say she thought she knew who'd sent it to you. I will wager my house that she did not think it was Venus, which is why I thanked her for not allowing suspicion to rest on anyone else. Making reference to a PM casts shadows on all sorts of people unfairly
Can you see my problem now?

poet123

Fridge2 wrote: »

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.

As will I;)

MrsE wrote: »

So whats the general consensus of opinion on this one?

It seems in general board guides should leave their sig in as it would be too fiddly, lacking in consistence & just plan odd to chop & change.

However I think the waters muddy slightly if a board guide is posting purely as a civvie & thats where its difficult.

I guess then people should use their own judgement about whether they think a post is appropriate or not.....

The problem as I see it is that if a BG is posting as a private individual they are as fair game as the next person to be challenged on the content of those posts.

However, almost universally when that happens other posters immediately jump to their defence because of their position, and often citing that position, ( so there is no doubt it has been factored into the equation), essentially therefore, they are never posting as others do, because like it or not, they are accorded a status not afforded to others.

In my opinion there should be a user name ofr use as BG and one for private postings if removing a sig is too onerous.

poet123

Churchmouse wrote: »

Any chance for a reply to my post number 58 MrsE? I explain there my rationale for my saying you were wrong to mention the PM. It seemed to satisfy poet123.

I still think with or without the signature people know who the board guides are, and if they are influenced they will be influenced regardless.

It only satisfied me in the respect that I understood you had had knowledge of the contents of the PM from a post I had not seen.

I dont believe PM's should always be kept private,because imo that gives carte blanche to some people to say what they otherwise wouldn't on an open forum, and as for others speculating, we cannot legislate for that, people will always do so.

With regard to what MrsE disclosed was in her PM, it didnt strike me as threatening, but very patronising and condescending from a relatively new poster. Why not have the courage of your convictions and post on the thread? I just dont like it at all.