Very quiet in here

Yeah: "Attack the past, not the poster. "

[ You'd think we were all mods. 😀 ]

At this stage it might be better if a mod, or admin, goes in and deletes that line, or paragraph, from Niamh’s post.

It seems to be, more, the opinion of the previous ‘powers that be’ and removing it would mean less scope for reporting, or complaints.

It’s attacking the post in question and it wasn’t the first time that poster did it.

If you can’t see that shooting the whistleblower is wrong then I despair tbh.
All it takes for a moderator to do, who is intervening anyway, is to use his bold text to ask the poster to back up their claim.

If they don’t, they get the warning, and we move on, if they do, I get the warning and we move on. No extra work for the mod and a fair outcome.

what is wrong with calling something what it is?

It’s semantics at the end of the day. Semantics that lets somebody off the hook and punishes the whistleblower.

Could a mod critique the alternative way of dealing with it when it arises, thst I suggested?
Are you interested in running the place fairly?

But i consider a lie an attack on me.

If you can’t see how somebody doing it not once but repeatedly is toxic to a forum you’ll never improve the place.
The very first intervention should be ‘’back it up poster or withdraw’. Simple.

I have done but it doesn’t stop it.
I was told somebody reported my reply.
Same amount of time involved for the mod - agreed?

So why not use his bold text on the post and ask the person making the claim to

1. Please back up ypur claim
2. Or withdraw it.
   

If neither happens - warning issued to the poster making the claim.

If 1 happens - poster calling it a lie gets the warning.

Nobody can call that outcome unfair.

Someone got ‘attack the post not the poster’ the wrong way around. 😁