Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

1…1112141617…79

Comments

  • #392
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Not even a card for the poster saying he would blame himself if he was Ana Kriegel’s father.

    Lads that is an absolute joke. Why are you being so lenient with some of these posters?

    Guarantee I’ll get one for being so annoyed about it though. Priorities and all that.

    That poster has trolled multiple threads and you play the ‘agree to disagree’ card to be nice to them.


  • #393
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,102 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Not even a card for the poster saying he would blame himself if he was Ana Kriegel’s father.

    Lads that is an absolute joke. Why are you being so lenient with some of these posters?

    Guarantee I’ll get one for being so annoyed about it though. Priorities and all that.

    That poster has trolled multiple threads and you play the ‘agree to disagree’ card to be nice to them.

    CA is just the trolling part of the site. Once you accept that it becomes much more amusing.


  • #394
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Beasty wrote: »
    Just to initially repeat the wording in question



    Now it's not an area I would claim any particular knowledge/understanding of, and I fully accept how I interpret the wording may be very different from someone else's interpretation. I also accept that what I am going to say may be factually incorrect, but I do think it's a reasonable way that it could be interpreted by the "uninitiated"

    My reading was the poster was saying that (male) clerical abusers who typically abused boys would typically be homosexual. He was certainly not saying homosexual=paedophile.

    Again I accept these interpretations may not be factually correct, but in my view it is a reasonable conclusion for the "uninitiated" to draw. Hence looking at it that way I did not think any action was required. Equally as I have already mentioned twice, it would have been very easy for someone to post a clarification if they felt the wording was either ambiguous or inaccurate

    So I apologiise if I have got this completely wrong, but if I can get this so wrong I'm not going to punish someone else for getting it equally wrong



    surely the statement is either demonstrably factually correct, or it isnt.

    if it is, then its hardly possible to action it unless it was the basis for a very blatant "all gay men are paedophiles" statement (like beasty, i did not read that into it and i do think anyone who claims that it is that bald a statement are not on solid ground). any such statement would clearly be ridiculous and certainly offensive enough to warrant action.

    if its either uncorroborated or can be disproven then the normal methods are in place to rebut, ignore or demand evidence on pain of action.

    in either case, people claiming that its a simple statement claiming that it says "gay=paedophile" are demanding mod action based more on their own projection than what's been posted and i think its a big ask tbh.


  • #395
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,764 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Deleted User wrote: »
    surely the statement is either demonstrably factually correct, or it isnt.

    if it is, then its hardly possible to action it unless it was the basis for a very blatant "all gay men are paedophiles" statement (like beasty, i did not read that into it and i do think anyone who claims that it is that bald a statement are not on solid ground). any such statement would clearly be ridiculous and certainly offensive enough to warrant action.

    if its either uncorroborated or can be disproven then the normal methods are in place to rebut, ignore or demand evidence on pain of action.

    in either case, people claiming that its a simple statement claiming that it says "gay=paedophile" are demanding mod action based more on their own projection than what's been posted and i think its a big ask tbh.

    It's possible snd plausible that you can accuse me of projection but much less so others. I think thats just trying to lump everyone who complained in together into some sort of stereotype and nothing really to do with the point at all. More of a playing the man snd not the ball argument with your own projections added in.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #396
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    It's possible snd plausible that you can accuse me of projection but much less so others. I think thats just trying to lump everyone who complained in together into some sort of stereotype and nothing really to do with the point at all. More of a playing the man snd not the ball argument with your own projections added in.

    joey the very first line is that its either a factual statement or not. the rest of the post is my pointing out that it could still be actionable in some circumstances but that in this case that does depend on the reader taking a certain line, which leaves the mod with a question mark.

    i have genuinely no idea where you get from that position to me breaking site rules in that post, but tbh i think it does actually demonstrate a tendency for you/others to go straight from "i disagree with this" to "i will find a way to action this" on issues you have strong personal views on, which you might think is irrelevant but is actually the core point.

    there is absolutely nothing anyone could fairly object to in my post above other than just disagreeing with it. im taken aback that anyone would consider it playing anything but the ball, but hey that's message boards.


  • #398
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,764 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    batgoat wrote: »
    Firstly, as already pointed out it is demonstrably untrue. The second thing is, making such claims always drags the thread down into a pretty nasty wormhole when you argue with such posters. It attracts similarly nasty posters and creates a load of work for mods as people too and fro.
    It's also treating the post in good faith as if it's serious, plausible, genuine, respectful and unmotivated by particular biases.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #399
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.


  • #400
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.

    the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

    do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

    seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.


  • #401
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Folks is there anything we can do to stop posters completely lying?

    I don’t have many issues with alternative viewpoints, but outright blatant bull**** is a different issue altogether.

    Case in point, the Paddy Jackson thread.

    The verdict does not in any way suggest the complainant was lying, but posters are still allowed to spout this warped view and just dismiss people who try to tell them otherwise.

    It’s factually incorrect and dangerous, not to mention defamatory.

    the verdict says nothing about the complainant but it clears the defendants outright.

    do you hold the position that people should be "allowed" to say what they believe about one but not the other?

    seems a strange position to take, let alone plead for mod enforcement on.

    No surprise that you are the first to reply to this and completely missing the point.

    People are blatantly lying and doubling down on those lies when it’s pointed out to them that the verdict says nothing about the complainant. The verdict does not mean that she is lying. That is a fact.

    For anyone to say otherwise is a complete and utter liar - and it’s a dangerous lie to spout as well.

    I haven’t seen anyone in the thread say the verdict is wrong and claim the pair are rapists. If that is the case, then it only enhances my point about blatantly lying and doing so dangerously. Why are you taking an issue with this?

    Do you believe that posters should be allowed to lie about the complainant in this case and should be allowed to incorrectly say the verdict means she is lying?

    My point is about people lying about the complainant but you use it to make it about the two lads. Seriously...


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    likewise, it's no surprise that you are missing the point im making.

    you want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you dislike.

    you dont want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you like.

    this thread is full of exactly this type of request- "posters are posting things i disagree with, something must be done!"

    and these requests are coming from the same handful of posters.

    its very interesting to watch, more interesting than the actual topics themselves most of the time tbh.


  • #403
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    likewise, it's no surprise that you are missing the point im making.

    you want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you dislike.

    you dont want mods to act on anyone interpreting unknown events in a manner you like.

    this thread is full of exactly this type of request- "posters are posting things i disagree with, something must be done!"

    and these requests are coming from the same handful of posters.

    its very interesting to watch, more interesting than the actual topics themselves most of the time tbh.

    They’re not interpreting unknown events. They are saying that the jury’s verdict proves the complainant lied.

    That is factually incorrect. It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. It’s about people who are posting complete and utter lies which are dangerous and defamatory.

    What part of that are you failing to grasp?


  • #404
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,981 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    the claim is being sufficiently debunked by the userbase.
    i don't think any more needs to be done.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #405
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    It's unfortunate that the Maria Bailey thread has been locked, as it's still very much a relevant issue in the public eye. As evidenced by a near constant presence in the media cycle. A handful of posters dismayed by the prevailing narrative went out of their way to induce such an action, and ultimately succeeded. On that basis, I believe the decision should be overturned & minority deliberately stoking tensions meet the appropriate punishment.


  • #406
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,196 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's unfortunate that the Maria Bailey thread has been locked, as it's still very much a relevant issue in the public eye. As evidenced by a near constant presence in the media cycle. A handful of posters dismayed by the prevailing narrative went out of their way to induce such an action, and ultimately succeeded. On that basis, I believe the decision should be overturned & minority deliberately stoking tensions meet the appropriate punishment.
    I've also had a number of representations via PM on this

    My concern with some of the reports I was seeing and then noting certain posts in the thread, was it was a thread with a politician's name in the title that was not really discussing the politician, but seemed to be discussing insurance fraud

    The issue is though that, certainly AFAIK, Ms Bailey has not admitted to or been found guilty of such fraud

    Obviously allowing such allegations to stand, to the extent they implicate named individuals, is moving into dangerous territory from a legal perspective - a specialism I am not qualified in (certainly not fraud)

    I am not though saying insurance fraud should not be discussed on the site, but any examples should be readily verifiable. Indeed a general thread on insurance fraud would be fine, perhaps on the back of one of the regular reports we see on insurance fraud, and not on the basis of a named individual who has not been convicted of or admitted to any fraud

    I'm certainly open to listen to further representations on the point. It has already been pointed out to me that the thread was moving towards it's 10,000 post limit, and maybe there is a subtly different topic that can be freely discussed without having to refer back to this specific incident.


  • #407
    This is it
    Registered Users Posts: 5,180 ✭✭✭This is it


    Beasty wrote: »
    I've also had a number of representations via PM on this

    My concern with some of the reports I was seeing and then noting certain posts in the thread, was it was a thread with a politician's name in the title that was not really discussing the politician, but seemed to be discussing insurance fraud

    The issue is though that, certainly AFAIK, Ms Bailey has not admitted to or been found guilty of such fraud

    Obviously allowing such allegations to stand, to the extent they implicate named individuals, is moving into dangerous territory from a legal perspective - a specialism I am not qualified in (certainly not fraud)

    I am not though saying insurance fraud should not be discussed on the site, but any examples should be readily verifiable. Indeed a general thread on insurance fraud would be fine, perhaps on the back of one of the regular reports we see on insurance fraud, and not on the basis of a named individual who has not been convicted of or admitted to any fraud

    I'm certainly open to listen to further representations on the point. It has already been pointed out to me that the thread was moving towards it's 10,000 post limit, and maybe there is a subtly different topic that can be freely discussed without having to refer back to this specific incident.

    Thread is open since May, with multiple accusations daily against Maria Bailey, with a few others named too... And it's only now that it's "dangerous territory". That's perplexing.


  • #408
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,196 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    This is it wrote: »
    Thread is open since May, with multiple accusations daily against Maria Bailey, with a few others named too... And it's only now that it's "dangerous territory". That's perplexing.

    I was looking at it based on reports I am seeing particularly over the past few days (I've been catching up having been travelling for a few days). What I was trying to avoid was having to go back through the whole thread, although I do recall that some action has certainly been taken since that thread was moved from AH

    It had been very quiet for an extended period, but then burst to life over the past few days, and that is what drew my attention to it this time. I can see though that many deletions have been made by mods throughout the existence of the thread, but I have little doubt that many will have been missed largely down to the lack of reports of such posts


  • #409
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    Beasty wrote: »
    I was looking at it based on reports I am seeing particularly over the past few days (I've been catching up having been travelling for a few days). What I was trying to avoid was having to go back through the whole thread, although I do recall that some action has certainly been taken since that thread was moved from AH

    It had been very quiet for an extended period, but then burst to life over the past few days, and that is what drew my attention to it this time. I can see though that many deletions have been made by mods throughout the existence of the thread, but I have little doubt that many will have been missed largely down to the lack of reports of such posts

    From what I can see, it's the same 3 or 4 posters adding nothing to the thread, and instead repeat themselves and throw out insults like confetti.

    Whatever about Maria Bailey not admitting fraud or being convicted, she has been caught barefaced lying about the amounts involved and which she was covered under insurance for. This is in the public domain by way of a radio interview she gave, therefore it's not unreasonable that she be subject to greater scrutiny.


  • #410
    WishUWereHere
    Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭WishUWereHere


    pablo128 wrote: »
    From what I can see, it's the same 3 or 4 posters adding nothing to the thread, and instead repeat themselves and throw out insults like confetti.

    Whatever about Maria Bailey not admitting fraud or being convicted, she has been caught barefaced lying about the amounts involved and which she was covered under insurance for. This is in the public domain by way of a radio interview she gave, therefore it's not unreasonable that she be subject to greater scrutiny.

    THAT same 3-4 are the only ones to thank the Mod for closing down the thread.

    Is this right? Surely a case where one mob rule has taken precedence over another?

    And all this while the Maria Bailey charade still has a distance to run. We only have to wait until She makes a move or a GE is called.

    And remember AFTER the outcome over MB, there is still AF, Madigan, and ultimately Varadker.

    Are comments on all these also going to be subjected to being poleaxed by a certain few government trolls until the topic is ( again ) shut down??


  • #411
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,521 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Look, set up a new thread about the “insurance crisis”, if you want.

    That thread was closed because about 5 or 6 users wouldn’t let it die. It became a dump for a certain cohort who seemed to be “mobilised” just to keep the thread alive.

    Then you had people posting any insurance related story, then they’d tack on a little piece about Bailey with the sign off of “we’ll remember this code election time” or “I used to be a FG voter but no more”, obviously they were never a FG voter but it sounds good to the ones with “the cause”.

    After that the thread became a place to drag in anyone else who made a, somewhat, “bogie” claim and started to dry up people’s insurance renewals were brought in. The idea being to drag this thread over the post count limit, of course.

    I mean, my insurance went up this year but not by much and I had moved to a bigger car so I expected it but you had lads screaming about how theirs had gone up by €500 and this was all Bailey’s fault. Honestly, that woman is the greatest thing to happen to the insurance industry here in a long, long, time.

    Was her claim “frivolous”, sure. Was it fraud, don’t think so. She came off the swing, no doubt about that. Should she have held on properly, definitely. There’s warnings on hot beverage containers because someone got scalded. Hopefully the Dean have a sign up by the swings now too.

    I’d say a couple of posters, especially the one who was like a dog with a bone on this, will be devastated it closed, as they will be lost trying to fill the void but it was, clearly, the right call.

    The story died after the party punished Bailey, something the gang had been screaming for day in day out. Once that was done it was just more dumping of insurance related stories and hoping to “topple” the government.

    Just my “2 cents”, thank you for your time.

    The tide is turning…



  • Advertisement
  • #412
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Beasty wrote: »
    I was looking at it based on reports I am seeing particularly over the past few days (I've been catching up having been travelling for a few days). What I was trying to avoid was having to go back through the whole thread, although I do recall that some action has certainly been taken since that thread was moved from AH

    It had been very quiet for an extended period, but then burst to life over the past few days, and that is what drew my attention to it this time. I can see though that many deletions have been made by mods throughout the existence of the thread, but I have little doubt that many will have been missed largely down to the lack of reports of such posts


    It is actually quite simple.
    See the thanks you get on your post that closed the thread. Minus EmmetSpiceland
    Those 5 or 6 have been trying to get the thread closed 5 minutes after Miss Bailey fell on her arse.

    Those 5 or 6 have been doing nothing but trying to derail the thread and kept baitng and insulting everybody who didnt belong to that selective group of ..... all because they wanted the thread closed.

    And now they got it done.

    I have many Dutch words for that decision and for the above mentioned group.
    Very few of those words are nice.


  • #413
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users Posts: 10,521 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    inforfun wrote: »
    It is actually quite simple.
    See the thanks you get on your post that closed the thread.
    Those 5 or 6 have been trying to get the thread closed 5 minutes after Miss Bailey feel on her arse.

    Those 5 or 6 have been doing nothing but trying to derail the thread and kept baitng and insulting everybody who didnt belong to that selective group of ..... all because they wanted the thread closed.

    And now they got it done.

    I have many Dutch words for that decision and for the above mentioned group.
    Very few of those words are nice.

    Excuse me? I “thanked” that post and I never once tried to have the thread closed.

    I was happy to see it closed as it became a dead horse for a few, “militant”, posters to flog throughout the day. Regurgitating old news, dragging in random insurance news, making cracks about how the “gubbermint” will fall and working in shifts to ensure it rarely dropped off that first page.

    I could say exactly the same thing regarding that “cohort”, anyone who didn’t think Maria Bailey was the devil was pilloried as some sort of government “operative”.

    No one wanted it closed but it was getting dragged back to life like something from ‘Flatliners’ by some “hardliners” with, seemingly, very little else to be doing.

    Please do not misrepresent me again. Thank you.

    The tide is turning…



  • #414
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    Post edited. Sorry.

    Dont agree with you though.
    We dont control the drip feeding of the media but i ll bet you this isnt the last we have heard about it.
    And again, the continued attempts of those 4 or 5 to get the thread closed since the beginning has been rewarded.

    Apparently that is how it works with threads you dont like. Just start insulting the regular posters and get it locked.

    That might annoy me more than the thread being closed, actually.


  • #415
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    inforfun wrote: »
    Post edited. Sorry.

    Dont agree with you though.
    We dont control the drip feeding of the media but i ll bet you this isnt the last we have heard about it.
    And again, the continued attempts of those 4 or 5 to get the thread closed since the beginning has been rewarded.

    Apparently that is how it works with threads you dont like. Just start insulting the regular posters and get it locked.

    That might annoy me more than the thread being closed, actually.

    The "regular posters" on that thread spent as much time throwing abuse at anyone who interrupted their circle-jerk as anyone else - but that doesn't suit the narrative.

    The thread closure is more symptomatic of the general lack of modding on CA/IMHO than anything else. Ignore breaches until things descend into back and forth abuse and the thread is nothing more than trench warfare.

    No surprise that there's plenty of the same posters who were involved in dragging the original Politics Cafe into the gutter are rearing their heads in the same manner in CA again


  • #416
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 75,196 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    blackwhite wrote: »

    No surprise that there's plenty of the same posters who were involved in dragging the original Politics Cafe into the gutter are rearing their heads in the same manner in CA again

    On the general point of modding the forum we've tried to see how it evolves. One consequence of not intervening as much as some would like though is we can start to see patterns with certain posters

    A case perhaps of "give them enough rope" as one or two posters have already discovered

    Back to the specifics of this thread I've taken onboard representations made via PM (from both sides of the "divide") and some of that will inform future actions. In the meantime though please do not name names or give clues such as who thanked who to cast aspersions in this thread. This is not a place to deal with individual posters

    Thanks


  • #417
    inforfun
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 20,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭inforfun


    blackwhite wrote: »
    The "regular posters" on that thread spent as much time throwing abuse at anyone who interrupted their circle-jerk as anyone else - but that doesn't suit the narrative.

    The thread closure is more symptomatic of the general lack of modding on CA/IMHO than anything else. Ignore breaches until things descend into back and forth abuse and the thread is nothing more than trench warfare.

    No surprise that there's plenty of the same posters who were involved in dragging the original Politics Cafe into the gutter are rearing their heads in the same manner in CA again

    Let me take you a post of one of those i was talking about. It was his 2nd post in the thread, over 3 months ago now:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110527316&postcount=4985
    Put down the doobie and take off the sunglasses of delusion mi amigo. You're hearing hooves and immediately thinking there's a herd of zebra.

    This isn't the water gate scandal that you and a bunch of online cranks are about to blow wide open. It's a storm in a teacup that most people have already forgotten about.

    If you keep that baiting and throwing insults at people up for over 3 months, as he has, of course you ll get some **** thrown back at you at 1 point.


  • #418
    blackwhite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    inforfun wrote: »
    Let me take you a post of one of those i was talking about. It was his 2nd post in the thread, over 3 months ago now:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110527316&postcount=4985



    If you keep that baiting and throwing insults at people up for over 3 months, as he has, of course you ll get some **** thrown back at you at 1 point.

    TBH - you're being incredibly selective about which posts you're choosing to get offended by.

    There's been abuse from day 1 on that thread thrown at anyone who doesn't blindly agree with the regulars. There's been a cadre of thread-spoilers throwing similar at them, but neither side is in a position to claim moral high ground.

    It is interesting to see a mod (even if not of the forum under discussion), on the feedback forum, stating that abuse is fine depending on who's dishing it out though. Gives an insight into how impartial things can be :rolleyes:


  • #419
    lola85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭lola85


    That thread went mad.

    People were coming in and writing bump with a smiley face each day just to keep it relevant.

    Was boring after a while.


  • #420
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    this behaviour occurs on both sides (often more than two sides!) of any thread and mods are often damned if they act early and damned if they don't

    ive taken to reporting anything i dont like, as per numerous and repeated mod instruction, but id be a one-eyed liar if i couldnt admit that it very often boils down to "that post/comment is close to the line but i agree with him so im gonna leave off reporting it" or vice-versa

    after that, its just different levels of tolerance for zingy answers or righteous ad-hom. and those tolerance levels really do seem to swing for a lot of posters based on whether they agree with someone or not.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    lola85 wrote: »
    That thread went mad.

    People were coming in and writing bump with a smiley face each day just to keep it relevant.

    Was boring after a while.

    that bump was just maria falling off things every day :-)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement