A&A Feedback

....... wrote: »

So its ok for you to say the this^^



But then when you say this ^^ we are all supposed to give you a free pass?

robindch wrote: »

I get the strong sense that you're more interested in complaining than contributing.

If you'd like to contribute to this , then please do so, politely. If you don't want to contribute, or can't contribute politely, then please go have a cup of cocoa and come back tomorrow in a more cheerful frame of mind. Thanks.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm emotional but you go looking up my posting history and then launch a tirade against me.
How very ironic.
It also smacks of the old sexist retort so common to every woman who speaks her mind - I don't like what this woman is saying therefore I will have a rant where I accuse her of being emotional while I claim to hold the intellectual high ground.

As for that highlighted bit - interestingly you are the second person with a low post count to accuse me of this since I returned to Boards. What a coinky dinks. Also complete and utter tosh. In fact, I would like to see your evidence.

It should make interesting reading to see how I, an ordinary poster, can get someone else infracted or banned. Only Mods have that 'power' -and that 'power' is defined by forum charters so if people get sanctioned it is no-ones fault but their own. People get banned because they have been deemed by mods to have broken the rules - not because of the actions of another poster. If they get 'wound up' perhaps they should park their emotions and respond intellectually.

I am sorry to hear you suffer from anxiety and depression. Many here have battled the Black Dog, myself included, - however, that does not give you the right to launch a personal attack and accuse me of being "frequently involved in some one getting infractions or a ban". If you (or anyone else) don't agree with what I say - and you are perfectly free to do so - you should follow your own advice and offer a counter argument not be so "driven by emotion rather than intellect" that you launch a personal attack like some kind of loose cannon.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thanks Tackle - may I call you Tackle?

Shall we agree to leave it as we are both guilty of dragging this thread off topic and getting hot under the collar.

I really do wish you all the best in your struggle with depression and urge you to avoid things (myself included) that can tip that delicate balance you often have to walk. No randomer on the internet is worth your mental health being interfered with.

robarmstrong wrote: »

So, a major pain point to this process is the ignore list.

Poster A states they never said statement A, despite evidence to the contrary suggesting that they did in fact say statement A, let's call their denial "statement B".

Poster B attempts to disprove Poster A's statement B by referencing Poster A's previous statement "A" with a quoted post from Poster A's history.

Poster B has used this method numerous times to get Poster A to engage openly, honestly and in good faith, Poster A puts Poster B on the ignore list, as due to this new charter, they would have to redact their falsehood of statement B, so the easy way out and to avoid moderator action (and continue to post their contradictions and engage in poor faith) is to put Poster B on the ignore list.

I think this should be addressed, as it is detrimental to a progressive discussion for one particular user to run and hide from hard questions that highlight their discrepancies in posting on this discussion ("i never said that, that's not what I meant, not relevant, doesn't apply).

Can a CMod step in and discuss this further?