Not Animally - The Off Topic Thread

Hellrazer

ppink wrote: »

and funnily enough one of the first posters in that thread to start accusing people of lecturing did exactly this.......not answering OP question at all but replied continuously to have a go at other posters.

Hellrazer perhaps you could show us in posts 2 to 13 where the lecturing was as genuinely I do not see it. Post 14 was by OP who at that point accused people of lecturing and it was after that when people replied differently, which to be honest I see happening even in the personal issues forum.

Im not going to name individual posts but anyone who reads that thread can clearly see that thead was derailed as soon as it was said that the op shouldnt have any type of pet.It went downhill after that which is the usual in these type of threads.

fluorescence wrote: »

If anything, it was the posters who disagreed with the opinion that the OP should perhaps not get a pet at all who were haranguing and dragging the thread off topic, adding only negative tones to the otherwise neutral-toned thread. I think you might be somewhat biased in this instance because you happened to disagree with those who were suggesting not getting a pet.

Im not biased and I made that clear in my personal opinion on that thread.I feel that some users are judging people without actually knowing them and some users are too quick to jump in with " you shouldnt own a pet,you shouldnt get a dog,you shouldnt get a pdeigree,get a rescue dog"

The way I see it and this has also been discussed before is that there is an assumption that the forum here is solely for the voicing of the animal welfare agenda when someone goes against that line of thought threads get derailed.

What I wanted from the forum from the start was one where anyone no matter what level of animal expertise they have can come along without bias or being slated for doing the wron thing and ask a question.
I dont feel that the forum has that feeling about it and I genuinely feel that new users wont post questions here for fear of this happening.

Whispered wrote: »

I don't understand why you are surprised that someone agrees. It's been mentioned before.

Didnt mean it like that whispered.I meant that the sentence summed up my thoughts in a few word.

So as has been suggested/requested. Could you deal directly with those posters? It would allow posters who monitor their tone to still post their opinion without being disregarded due to the tones of others who may be saying similar things.

Its very hard to change a whole mentality because I really feel that these users are so hard core animal rescue that this is the only thing that matters to them ie the saving/rescuing of another animal
Its a great service that they carry out and Im with them all the way but it can be done in a (hate saying this again) nicer way.

how do you feel about the posters who post simply to complain about the forum. I'm often really annoyed at how certain people are allowed to pop into a thread and say things about how "the people in this forum" and "most of the posters here" etc. As a regular poster I can't help but feel I'm being lumped in there. It seems to be a BAD thing if you regularly try to contribute.

Im going to ask something here and I already know the answer---Has anyone reported those posts for taking a thread off topic??

I can tell you now that no one has.

Its the regulars that keep the forum going but I also feel that the regulars will also stick together when someone disagrees with the norm of the forum and a new user could potentially feel ganged up on.


But look whats the point of this anymore?We`ve gone full circle again since the feedback thread started and we are still not getting any closer to a solution.

And in another few months the same issue will arise-Ill post my thoughts on a thread that some will disagree with they will post here and start the cycle again.This thread was created to allow discussion and for ideas for the forum but I dont see any ideas forthcoming?So has anyone got any ideas on how we can fix this?I will implement any genuine ideas that people come up with to try and fix it.

Cherry Blossom

Hellrazer wrote: »

I will implement any genuine ideas that people come up with to try and fix it.

Rule #1 - Subsequent posts on threads in this forum must be in reply to the issue or question being asked in the OP.

Rule #2 - No opinions on other peoples opinions, if you disagree, you must offer a credible explanation for doing so and offer an alternative.

Rule #3 - Have your say and leave it at that, once you have agreed or disagreed with a post once, that's enough.

Fluorescence

Hellrazer wrote: »

Im not biased and I made that clear in my personal opinion on that thread.I feel that some users are judging people without actually knowing them and some users are too quick to jump in with " you shouldnt own a pet,you shouldnt get a dog,you shouldnt get a pdeigree,get a rescue dog"

The way I see it and this has also been discussed before is that there is an assumption that the forum here is solely for the voicing of the animal welfare agenda when someone goes against that line of thought threads get derailed..

Sorry, this is total bullshit. None of these issues you're talking about were present in that thread. The OP outlined her circumstances, and people gave replies based on what they were told. There was no snobbery, NO mention of rescues, and no pushing of the animal welfare agenda. Maybe that tone is present in other threads in this forum, but I didn't see it in that particular thread. All I saw was people labeling genuine advice as a lecture, which is what dragged the thread off-topic.

The OP didn't like the suggestions she was given but that doesn't mean they weren't valid or given in a nice way - it just means that she didn't like them.

Hellrazer

fluorescence wrote: »

Sorry, this is total bullshit. None of these issues you're talking about were present in that thread.

I would suggest you consider if you want a pet, as was already said you will be the one caring for the animal and it is extremely stressful on an animal to have to be rehomed, it is also extremely stressful on the child.

Sorry, but i really dont think you should get any sort of pet.... If all the family are not on board with this, it becomes a problem.

Sorry, but i really dont think you should get any sort of pet.... If all the family are not on board with this, it becomes a problem.

Im inclined to think you shouldnt get a pet. You yourself have no interest and unless a pet is considered a family member you will have an unhappy animal.

Sorry but thats not how pet ownership works im afraid. The family doesnt love animals, you said it yourself so i dont think you should get a pet giving all the details and info you gave us.

your home is not suitable for an animal and it would be extremely selfish of you to have one.

Just a small example of what Im talking about.

Then theres thers this one that really got me pissed off.

Funny how the people who are telling us to get off our soap boxes etc and are agreeing with the idea of her getting a pet anyway regardless of her not being an animal lover, are not regular posters in API...

See whats wrong here??The poster wasnt a "regular" so in this users opinion that opinion doesnt matter.Thats more bull**** than what youre on about.

And thats the problem with the forum.If anyone who isnt a regular goes against the grain then their opinion gets a "rolleyes" and isnt taken seriously.

The OP outlined her circumstances, and people gave replies based on what they were told. There was no snobbery, NO mention of rescues, and no pushing of the animal welfare agenda.

I wasnt talking about that thread but in the forum in general.There are groups here who think the forum is solely for them and them alone.And if a user disagrees with them then tough "cos we`re the regulars here"

Maybe that tone is present in other threads in this forum, but I didn't see it in that particular thread.

See above.

All I saw was people labeling genuine advice as a lecture, which is what dragged the thread off-topic.

Well the way I saw it is that instaed of users saying --"you shouldnt have a pet" why not try explain why they shouldnt have a pet or suggest like the users who I agreed with on the thread-get a goldfish,budgie,rabbit etc.
Even Discodog who I notice thanked your post was one user who I thought stood out in that thread by offering the best advice to the OP and didnt lecture them about not getting any tytpe of pet.

The OP didn't like the suggestions she was given but that doesn't mean they weren't valid or given in a nice way - it just means that she didn't like them.

The suggestions were valid--The suggestion that she shouldnt get any type of pet in my opinion werent.Because now she may go off,buy a pet off donedeal/gumtree and not have a clue how to raise it and wont come back here asking for genuine advice.And belive me if she does come back to ask for advice all she`ll get is "We told you so --we told you so blah blah blah so now we`re not going to help you out"

Hellrazer

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Rule #1 - Subsequent posts on threads in this forum must be in reply to the issue or question being asked in the OP.

Rule #2 - No opinions on other peoples opinions, if you disagree, you must offer a credible explanation for doing so and offer an alternative.

Rule #3 - Have your say and leave it at that, once you have agreed or disagreed with a post once, that's enough.

Thats a great idea Adrenaline Junkie.I`ll have a chat with th eother mods about adding them to the rules.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Rule #1 - Subsequent posts on threads in this forum must be in reply to the issue or question being asked in the OP.

Rule #2 - No opinions on other peoples opinions, if you disagree, you must offer a credible explanation for doing so and offer an alternative.

Rule #3 - Have your say and leave it at that, once you have agreed or disagreed with a post once, that's enough.

If you implemented those rules Boards would cease to be viable. Threads evolve; that's the nature of discussion. You can't make people explain their opinion. So we all post once per topic ? That would end discussion - we might as well have a poll on every topic.

I really don't see any problem with the forum & I think that the present debate is a load of fuss over absolutely nothing. Had the OP of put the same opening post on any pet forum they would of been criticised.

Hellrazer wrote: »

I will implement any genuine ideas that people come up with to try and fix it.

It doesn't need fixing because it isn't broken. Just treat it like any other forum. You may have a "vision" for how you want this forum to operate but with respect you are only one person out of the hundreds who use it. It has to operate by the normal principles that have served Boards well since it's inception.

Your utopian vision of a Board where no one is offended & everyone gives nice, fluffy, inoffensive replies is a dream. You only way that you could do it is to set up your own website.

I have often voiced a concern that your personal experiences influence the way that you moderate here - it would be natural for them to do so. Whether you realise or not you constantly criticise those involved in rescue or welfare. You even did so in this thread where no one mentioned either.

We don't need rules - just a bit of common sense as on every other board.
In 3600 posts all over Boards I never see the word "lecturing" except here. Now either this is the only forum where it occurs or all the others ignore it.

The idea of not naming the culprit but punishing the class is treating us all like schoolchildren. It is totally unacceptable. Boards.ie has rules. We don't need more. If someone breaks Boards rules then censure them if not then don't interfere - that's what every other moderator does.

Yes the odd person may be offended. Yes they may go straight to the petshop. But in this case it will be because people have expressed an opinion in a lively but perfectly reasonable manner & the OP doesn't like what they are hearing.

Whether someone is slated for "doing the wrong thing" depends on how they explain it. If I posted on Boards that I nearly strangled a child I would be blasted. If I said that I pulled a child out of the way of a passing car & nearly strangled it I would be a hero. We can only reply based on the information given by a poster. It is their job to ensure that their isn't any misunderstanding.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thats a great idea Adrenaline Junkie.I`ll have a chat with th eother mods about adding them to the rules.

It's an insane idea & totally unworkable. It is also the view of one poster so I trust that you would not radically alter the forum without further discussion. It would like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - & the nut doesn't exist.

Cherry Blossom

It doesn't mean you can only post on a thread once :rolleyes: It means you you can disagree once with another poster providing you give a reason and alternative eg.

Poster 1 - I think you should do (this) because . . .

Poster 2 - I disagree because . . . Id be more inclined to . . .

Poster 1 - I disagree, to elaborate on my opinion . . .

And that's it, instead of following it by:

Poster 2 - no thats wrong

Poster 1 - no it isn't, your talking bull

Poster 2 - I'm talking bull? :mad: No you are, and so on and so forth . . . :rolleyes:

lrushe

Whispered wrote: »

Also - how do you feel about the posters who post simply to complain about the forum. I'm often really annoyed at how certain people are allowed to pop into a thread and say things about how "the people in this forum" ...

Or that stupid popcorn eating smiley!!!!!!!!!!!!!

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Rule #1 - Subsequent posts on threads in this forum must be in reply to the issue or question being asked in the OP.

Rule #2 - No opinions on other peoples opinions, if you disagree, you must offer a credible explanation for doing so and offer an alternative.

Rule #3 - Have your say and leave it at that, once you have agreed or disagreed with a post once, that's enough.

No. 1&2 have some credence but I don't know how workable no. 3 is??? It would make for a very stagnant dicussion imo.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

If you implemented those rules Boards would cease to be viable. Threads evolve; that's the nature of discussion. You can't make people explain their opinion. So we all post once per topic ? That would end discussion - we might as well have a poll on every topic.

I dont thik AJ means iit as regimented as that.I think it may be a good idea but the other mods might disagree.

I really don't see any problem with the forum & I think that the present debate is a load of fuss over absolutely nothing. Had the OP of put the same opening post on any pet forum they would of been criticised.


It doesn't need fixing because it isn't broken. Just treat it like any other forum. You may have a "vision" for how you want this forum to operate but with respect you are only one person out of the hundreds who use it. It has to operate by the normal principles that have served Boards well since it's inception.

Your utopian vision of a Board where no one is offended & everyone gives nice, fluffy, inoffensive replies is a dream. You only way that you could do it is to set up your own website.

Look I know that DD--and maybe you are right in that Im asking too much.Its just that this whole "lets be nice to new users" is a point I really wnat to see in the forum--is that too much to ask?

I have often voiced a concern that your personal experiences influence the way that you moderate here - it would be natural for them to do so. Whether you realise or not you constantly criticise those involved in rescue or welfare. You even did so in this thread where no one mentioned either.

The forum is called "animals and pets" not animal welfare(we tried that and it didnt work)
I do feel that sometimes the animal welfare agenda is pushed too much especially in threads where its not really warranted.

We don't need rules - just a bit of common sense as on every other board.
In 3600 posts all over Boards I never see the word "lecturing" except here. Now either this is the only forum where it occurs or all the others ignore it.

Ive been reprimanded on other fora for opinion ramming on more than one occasion so it does happen in other fora.

The idea of not naming the culprit but punishing the class is treating us all like schoolchildren. It is totally unacceptable. Boards.ie has rules. We don't need more. If someone breaks Boards rules then censure them if not then don't interfere - that's what every other moderator does.

See its not just boards rules.Whats acceptable in one forum mat not be acceptable in others.Individual fora have their own rules because boards rules wouldnt work in every forum and are just general rules fo rthe whole site.

Yes the odd person may be offended. Yes they may go straight to the petshop. But in this case it will be because people have expressed an opinion in a lively but perfectly reasonable manner & the OP doesn't like what they are hearing.
Whether someone is slated for "doing the wrong thing" depends on how they explain it. If I posted on Boards that I nearly strangled a child I would be blasted. If I said that I pulled a child out of the way of a passing car & nearly strangled it I would be a hero. We can only reply based on the information given by a poster. It is their job to ensure that their isn't any misunderstanding.

Agreed but can users not respond in a "nice" way?Thats not too much to ask.

It's an insane idea & totally unworkable.

Well then give me an alternative.

It is also the view of one poster so I trust that you would not radically alter the forum without further discussion.

Not that its anything to do with you but no I wouldnt change anything without discussion with the other mods.

It would like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - & the nut doesn't exist.

Your opinion--I have to disagree.

ppink

What I dont understand though Hellrazer ( and maybe I should not be saying this again) is that everybody was being nice to the OP.......right up until the point in post 14 that she dismissed all 13 posts above and said they were lecturing!!

Now on any forum that usually leads ot some negative posts after that.

Whispered

I'd suggest that a poster should be reprimanded on their tone then, nasty condescending posts should be treated as such. This might be hard to do on a post by post basis, but if you see the same person being at the start of every argument then I think you should be able to deal with it.

I think the majority of consistent posters do NOT all stick together. You seem to think that there is a little group of people who conspire to hold the same opinions. :pac: There are one or two posters who I actually don't like to see getting involved in a thread I'm interested in because we tend to hold similar opinions, but their tone can be awful. Meaning 90% of the time I have to leave the thread because I'm automatically thrown into some brigade or another and shot down.

I think most of the regulars are still here simply because we can disagree with each other without getting personal or stupid. I reckon most of the regular posters have disagreed with each other at times. We don't whinge that a post is a lecture because it disagrees with us though. Nor do we start with "the problem with this forum...." crap.

And yes I have reported posts, or whole threads where that stupid tit for tat sniping has been going on. I'd always mention in the report that other posts need to be looked at too. The reason being, had I reported a single post, you'd deal with that post, or else accuse people of ONLY reporting non-regulars. Would it be better to report each individual post? I can imagine how that would go with some of the threads

But again, what is your own opinion on this? Do you see how unfair this can be on posters who genuinely enjoy the forum, ask advice and try to give it. Unfair from both the posters who elicit such responses and the people who feel it ok to insult a whole community with one sweeping statement (and I do believe the forum could be called a community of sorts). Even beyond that - people posting just to cause trouble would rarely be tolerated elsewhere on boards and we've seen a lot of this lately. I mean every thread which may contain a difficult topic now has a stupid popcorn eating yoke in it - setting the tone for the whole thread.

From a regular posters point of view (and I like to think one who tries to watch their tone and be fair) it's getting harder and harder to post here. Between the ones who attack a poster - while I may agree with their opinions, their tone is making it very hard to initiate actual conversation - and the ones who wait in the sidelines ONLY to comment on a post without giving their own opinion or contributing in any way.

Whispered

Hellrazer wrote: »

Its very hard to change a whole mentality because I really feel that these users are so hard core animal rescue that this is the only thing that matters to them ie the saving/rescuing of another animal
Its a great service that they carry out and Im with them all the way but it can be done in a (hate saying this again) nicer way.

In fairness this is not about rescues at all. Why drag rescues into it? Or is this another problem with seeing people as being part of "brigades"? It's also one of those statement which makes it harder for people like me to post. I'm pro rescue, so does that mean if I post from a pro rescue point of view I'm part of that "mentality" which you feel needs to change?

In fact some of the main posters who I would see as being at the root of this whole type of problem are not involved in rescue in any way shape or form. (As I think you are aware)

The problem is not with peoples mentality or their opinions, it's with how they express that opinion. I think this is the only thing you can (or should) try to monitor.

Honestly - I'm not accusing, but asking - do you think you hold the regular posters on this forum in low regard?

boomerang

Could you clarify what you mean by the "animal welfare agenda" Hellrazer? Sure, where people are insisting someone should only adopt from a rescue rather than buying a pet, could be labelled thus.

But most of the time what you might see as an "animal welfare agenda" I see as people giving advice on what animals need based on their own experience and knowledge. If it's presented in a neutral tone, I think that can only be a good thing.


For instance, rabbits shouldn't be confined to a hutch - they need safe space to express natural behaviours such as digging, stretching, sunbathing, and foraging. The RSPCA recommends an enclosure of at least 4ft x 6ft in addition to the hutch. They are happier in small social groups and need a constant source of hay, in addition to fresh water, kibble and a small amount of fresh vegetables. They should be wormed, and vaccinated against VHD and myxo. Neutering prolongs the life of females, especially. They enjoy novel items like toys and these should be rotated.

Now, is that me pushing an animal welfare agenda on someone who doesn't know a whole lot about rabbits and has a feeling from memory you just buy a hutch and keep it in the back of the garden, give the rabbit food and water, clean out occasionally, and that's about it?

To me that's not an animal welfare agenda, it's best practice based on what I've learned about rabbits.



I agree that when it comes to debates about neutering, keeping dogs outdoors, breeding etc. we are into grey areas in which there is no absolute right or wrong. But it would be wrong to label sound advice as the rantings of some narrow-minded idealogue.

There are people who rarely post in this forum, only to interject in a thread quite rudely to dismiss people giving the advice as arrogant and sanctimonious. In most cases that I can recall, such posters have little sound advice to offer themselves, but are outraged on behalf of the OP that they're being hectored by one or two individuals. Still, in their annoyance, they have a go at everyone who's contributed to the thread. Then everyone gets up in arms, and the OP (who often didn't like the advice offered anyways, because it wasn't what they were hoping to hear) feels justified leaving the forum in a huff without taking any advice on board. This is the source of the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Could you not just be more heavy handed with modding people whose absolutist, arrogant tone is unhelpful and tends to derail threads?

"In fact some of the main posters who I would see as being at the root of this whole type of problem are not involved in rescue in any way shape or form. (As I think you are aware)"

"The idea of not naming the culprit but punishing the class is treating us all like schoolchildren."

I totally agree with the above!

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

It doesn't mean you can only post on a thread once :rolleyes: It means you you can disagree once with another poster providing you give a reason and alternative eg.

Poster 1 - I think you should do (this) because . . .

Poster 2 - I disagree because . . . Id be more inclined to . . .

Poster 1 - I disagree, to elaborate on my opinion . . .

And that's it, instead of following it by:

Poster 2 - no thats wrong

Poster 1 - no it isn't, your talking bull

Poster 2 - I'm talking bull? :mad: No you are, and so on and so forth . . . :rolleyes:

How can you have rules for one forum that totally oppose the way that every other forum on Boards operates. The mods would be constantly intervening - it could even end up pre modded.

lrushe

Please have a look at the "Our dog was attacked. Liability??" thread. I think it is a great example of how the OP was willing to look at things from another perspective than their own, not sulking because not everyone agreed with them. It completely changed the tone of the thread even though the replies were no 'nicer' than the replies to the other thread about the mother who was buying a pet for her four year old.
I'm not saying every OP has to agree with everything 'we' say but getting offended when you don't get the replies you want only sours the tone of a thread and gives those looking for any excuse to belittle the forum a chance to jump in an make digs at the 'usual' posters.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

The way I see it and this has also been discussed before is that there is an assumption that the forum here is solely for the voicing of the animal welfare agenda when someone goes against that line of thought threads get derailed.

Its very hard to change a whole mentality because I really feel that these users are so hard core animal rescue that this is the only thing that matters to them ie the saving/rescuing of another animal
Its a great service that they carry out and Im with them all the way but it can be done in a (hate saying this again) nicer way..

I don't think that you get it. 90% of people, involved in rescue, who used to post here no longer do so. Some have told me that they have been driven away not by posters but by the way the forum is moderated & it constantly feels like you want to get rid of the rest.

Animal welfare isn't the preserve of a group or a clique. Virtually every topic can involve an element of welfare. Every animal owner is involved in welfare. You have told us that you have had a bad experience with a rescue & that is clearly influencing your opinion.

But you rarely post your opinion as a poster & I find that really strange. If you have issues then post them & let's have a debate. You seem unwilling to join the discussion but then intervene as a Mod to enforce your view.

I have no idea what you mean by "hard core". Again it really smacks of an anti rescue agenda. I have worked with & known rescues both here & in the UK for over 25 years. I wouldn't describe any as "hard core".

I don't have any problem with WolfeTone or the :pac:. It's part of Boards & I want people with strong opposing views to post because then we can have a proper debate. They don't have to be fluffy & nice.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Not that its anything to do with you

The why bother soliciting opinion ? It has everything to do with me & all the other posters because we are this forum & some of us care enough about it not to be frightened away.

Seamus did a good job in reducing the unnecessary "rules" in the charter & now you want to impose more.

About now you will reiterate the old mantra that I am attacking you personally. I am not. This is all about how you individually run this board to your own agenda & I think that is an abuse of power.

You like A&P. It's your baby & you want it run your way. But there are others like me & I am not alone, who feel that this forum is too important & valuable to be hijacked for a personal agenda.

You asked for suggestions. I suggest that Boards appoint another Mod & you let Seamus & them run the forum for one year without any interference. Bring Starpants back, only this time let her make her own decisions without having to refer them. Give someone else a chance & take a well earned break.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

How can you have rules for one forum that totally oppose the way that every other forum on Boards operates. The mods would be constantly intervening - it could even end up pre modded.

I disagree, I've seen plenty of forums where this is exactly why they work so well. It may have the effect you think it will but I doubt it, pre-moderating has already been tried and abandoned so is highly unlikely to make another appearance.

(N.B. this is an example of how it would work, and I haven't reacted at all to being called insane )

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I disagree, I've seen plenty of forums where this is exactly why they work so well. It may have the effect you think it will but I doubt it, pre-moderating has already been tried and abandoned so is highly unlikely to make another appearance.

(N.B. this is an example of how it would work, and I haven't reacted at all to being called insane )

I wouldn't dare call you insane - remembered the kickboxing

OK so give us a link to a Boards forum where this is part of their charter.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

I wouldn't dare call you insane - remembered the kickboxing

OK so give us a link to a Boards forum where this is part of their charter.

I didn't say anything about a boards forum but . . . it isn't part of the charter as far as I know, but on the Donegal forum mods are very quick to step in and nip anything like this in the bud, as a result it doesn't need to happen much. I don't post there much but I do read the forum.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a boards forum but . . . it isn't part of the charter as far as I know, but on the Donegal forum mods are very quick to step in and nip anything like this in the bud, as a result it doesn't need to happen much. I don't post there much but I do read the forum.

Ah Donegal ...........that explains it

I'll get my coat !

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

Ah Donegal ...........that explains it

I'll get my coat !

Ah, the old Discodog sarcastic humour, the usual exit when unwilling to admit there may be some value in an opinion you don't like

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Seamus did a good job in reducing the unnecessary "rules" in the charter & now you want to impose more.

But has that worked?Seamus is more hands off than me--its just the way we do things.

About now you will reiterate the old mantra that I am attacking you personally. I am not. This is all about how you individually run this board to your own agenda & I think that is an abuse of power.

Your wrong DD---I dont have an "agenda"I never have and never will.If you mean I want the forum to be a bit more welcoming to new users then yep I do.But its not an "agenda"

You like A&P. It's your baby & you want it run your way. But there are others like me & I am not alone, who feel that this forum is too important & valuable to be hijacked for a personal agenda.

There you go again--agenda.Where?Show me where I have an agenda.Theres more than one user here who has a personal agenda.

ou asked for suggestions. I suggest that Boards appoint another Mod & you let Seamus & them run the forum for one year without any interference. Bring Starpants back, only this time let her make her own decisions without having to refer them. Give someone else a chance & take a well earned break.

Starpants left because of a single user.And starpants agreed with me on this issue aswell.

The person with an agenda here is you DD and that only agenda you seem to have is to get rid of me as a mod.
Youre banging the same old drum time after time and I honestly wouldnt give you the satisfaction of stepping down.

Remember the last time you went down this road.I offered to stand down and got the full backing of the Cmods and admins.If that ever changed I would step down but I believe that Im doing something right whether you agree or not.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Ah, the old Discodog sarcastic humour, the usual exit when unwilling to admit there may be some value in an opinion you don't like

It's not that I don't like it, I just can't see how it could ever be made to work. Anyway if we had a bit more humour around here we wouldn't be in this mess - even if I don't think that there is a mess to be in

Gosh what with you & ISDW I will be scared to ever head North

Whispered

it would be great if we could have this discussion without it turning into another dd vs hr. If hr decides to stop conversation due to another attak on his ability to moderate then we're back to square 1. it nearly seems as if once a topic comes up you use it to express your dislike of hr. Whether you're right or wrong it just serves to stall conversation when a mod feels the need to defend himself instead of replying

Whispered

On mobile so please excuse spelling, grammer or if my tone seems harsh.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

it would be great if we could have this discussion without it turning into another dd vs hr. If hr decides to stop conversation due to another attak on his ability to moderate then we're back to square 1. it nearly seems as if once a topic comes up you use it to express your dislike of hr. Whether you're right or wrong it just serves to stall conversation when a mod feels the need to defend himself instead of replying

To his credit I think that HR (Human resources ? !) is perfectly willing to listen to criticism without stopping the conversation. HR & I have different opinions but at the end of the day he is in control so I, like everyone else, have to accept it.

Hellrazer

Whispered wrote: »

it would be great if we could have this discussion without it turning into another dd vs hr.

So Im not the only one that has spotted this.

If hr decides to stop conversation due to another attak on his ability to moderate then we're back to square 1.

Think we`re there already.

it nearly seems as if once a topic comes up you use it to express your dislike of hr. Whether you're right or wrong it just serves to stall conversation when a mod feels the need to defend himself instead of replying

Think thats what the cmod said the last time they posted.

If DD has a problem with a mod then there are procedures for voicing complaints.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

To his credit I think that HR (Human resources ? !) is perfectly willing to listen to criticism without stopping the conversation.

Of course--I get enough of it from yerself

HR & I have different opinions but at the end of the day he is in control so I, like everyone else, have to accept it.

Not necessarliy--There are procedures in place to complain about a mod.Ive no problem if you want to go down that route.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

There you go again--agenda.Where?Show me where I have an agenda.Theres more than one user here who has a personal agenda.

Well on that we will have to differ. If you want the forum to be welcoming to new users then invite the rescues to join in & make it clear that everyone is entitled to express their opinion provided they do so in a reasonable manner.

You have been around Boards for a very long time - you're probably having Sunday Tea with the Admins . I have only been here for 3 years but in that time there seem to be endless squabbles & petty problems. The users come & go but the supposed problems remain. I don't especially want you out but if I had been running a forum for many years & their was still grief I would question what I was doing wrong.

Suggestions are fine but there isn't a magic bullet that is going to solve things. People are individuals & the well being of animals can be an emotional subject. And bear in mind that whatever you decide here a large percentage of posters won't even of read the thread.


EDIT some cross posting going on ! Anyway I have stated my concerns now it's up to the rest of you to give some input.

ISDW

Discodog wrote: »

It's not that I don't like it, I just can't see how it could ever be made to work. Anyway if we had a bit more humour around here we wouldn't be in this mess - even if I don't think that there is a mess to be in

Gosh what with you & ISDW I will be scared to ever head North

Oi, I don't live in the North, although I guess I probably do live live north of you, so I'll let you away with that one - this time:p

Hellrazer, I've read the thread in question, I didn't post on it, as I don't know much about animals other than cats and dogs, so didn't feel that I had anything of value to add. But, nowhere does rescue come into that thread, so I don't know why you've raised it in this discussion.

I do agree that some people push the rescue route too much, and I have reported posts for that reason. But, as others have mentioned, I recognise a lot of the usernames in this forum, and very few of them, to my knowledge are actually involved in rescue/welfare work. I think that a lot of the people that push the rescue route are people who have rehomed an animal, and now want everyone else to do the same.

If as DD contends, a lot of people in the rescue/welfare world don't post in here, that is a real shame, as they have so much experience and knowledge to share. This could only help the forum to grow surely?

Maybe all of the 'regulars' shouldn't answer any posts at all for a week, and we could judge how the forum runs? Thats actually a semi-serious suggestion.