Very quiet in here

Well if I felt the forum moderators were acting on the reports, I would raise a feedback thread.

And I would raise the examples on the feedback thread.

But the scenario is what happens next on the feedback thread and how to justify the complaint as to why I don't believe it should be on the site. Because when those issues are pointed to on the feedback thread, other posters may challenge them justifying why they think it should. So we'll get into the space of discussing the issue itself to justify those positions. The concern is that that could lead to sanctions for not sticking to site discussion \ feedback or the thread shut down for going off topic.

Where's the line?

It's not that I mind it, and yes I think PM is more suitable for some more sensitive points, I would not consider it needed for my hypothetical example as long as there's an understanding from those moderating feedback that when examples are brought up there will be a certain amount of discussion of them and the issue itself.

I was trying to outline why posters might, in good faith, be reluctant to cite examples.

Of course, most moderators are doing their best but sometimes it is not obvious what the best course of action is.

I think there's a balance between letting it flow and stifling it - which is nudging the flow to keep it in the bounds where it stays as useful feedback (especially for Current Affairs feedback). It is difficult to operate in absolutes and that is different for every thread which is why I think that 'nudging' is needed. Mixing metaphors, I think that it without that nudging, it won't flow, it will get bogged down.

I have seen on previous feedback threads a note from an admin that the thread has been open for a period, and that posts are getting repetitive \ getting too deep into discussion of the issue itself and that the thread would be kept open for X hours for a 'final say', before admins take on board its content.
That is a good card to keep in reserve also.

A limit of one post per hour in Feedback might help, but I doubt its feasibility.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion at a general level or for new concerns.
Specific threads have run their course for specific issues.

A poster may not wish to give more 'oxygen' to something they think should not be on boards in the first place, by re-airing them on a highly visible feedback thread.

But in that case, I think as suggested they should raise them by PM.

No direction, no input , just set up to fail . Then close and dole out bans to some mainly , on one side of the debate only .

--------------------------------

Please provide constructive feedback or don't post.

In fairness, it’s very easy to cross a blurry line that’s as straight as the north/south border. Some people absolutely deserve warnings/bans, but some warnings come from complete misunderstandings partly thanks to the fact that the written word oft does not translate well into jokes.

I think that the mods only should take action and ban somebody if there are insults, f words and those likes.

Currently, I often notice that the mods are disproportionately involving themselves if something doesn't fit their opinion.

It was you who brought it up and made the silly claim that "They've never forgiven her for challenging him"

She was the big loser from the interview.