General Chat

Oh C`mon now Rose, you cant even begin to compare the kind of offensive comments made on Saga with the "tuppeny-ha'penny" mamby pamby stuff that goes on here for goodness sake.

Excuse me for posting!!!

Surely even you are aware that some posts are reported out of sheer petulance or maliciousness?

GR will not employ moderators to sit there looking at all the boards 24 hours a day.
it wouldn't even be necessary if people thought for a few minutes before posting, it's mainly common sense...which unfortunately "you can't put where there is none"!

It is unlikely that designated moderators would prove consistent ( whether the people who review posts now are doing it or appointed moderators doing that job and that job only ) because they would all be individuals with different tolerance levels, and different opinions anyway. As is clear enough from the posts that have been restored and then removed by another member of the team when re-reported.

A hiding to nothing if anyone expects the company to pay out good money to moderate boards they don't actually need to have in the first place.

Note that is exactly what Sagazone did with its chat ..." over-50s group Saga has been forced to shut its network site down because it cannot 'afford' the man power to police 'offensive' comments."

I would hope that a GR employed moderator would behave rather differently to an 'RR'r' and not remove threads/posts unneccessarily.
The issue certainly needs reviewing and clearer explanations given.

Susan, you posted, why shouldn't anyone else?

hmmmm!

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a moderator be just another type of RRer?....What would the difference be in the way they would be treated if they dared to scorn an inappropriate poster........I. for one wouldn't want their job.....sheesh look at the way some of the GR staff are spoken to on their threads....with great respect...Not!

Could I also ask......would threads like this be expected when the 'moderator' made a decision that someone didn't like? Sighs at the very thought.....This is just an opinion mind, but maybe the so called lily white not hurting anyone threads are deliberately added just to cause excitement....and then there is the inevitable follow up thread with the same old songs and singers........the lyrics only changing ever so slightly with selective hearing.......Mind you again.....just look at how many posts there are on a subject that repeats itself over and over and over again......Soooooo the OP is back.....some may wonder why the thread is still here!

LadyScozz, Your Avatar just scared the life out of me (Almost) its the Spitting Image of my Late Ex MIL.Thought she,d come back to Haunt me (Again) :-D :-D.Just a thought, With all this argueing with a Comptor Screen,When will people star Headbutting it?. :-D,seems to me that will be the next step.

I agree with you jax, anyone's personal info should not be on display on a chat board.

No idea why the GR staff returned that post to the boards.

I deleted

Scozz

These boards are not all about chatting.....

I said I did not like your suggestion because I had reported a thread, reason given data protection....GR put it back and sent me a pm saying it was not offensive/abusive :-S :-S

So had it not been allowed to be reported again, this poor lady would of had her personal details spread over the internet for ever.

I could not ask the poster to remove it as it looked like she had taken up GR's free 18 hour access to the boards

he, he, You bit.

:-D :-D :-D

Can you imagine not quoting something that supports your view? I have never heard any debate when someone is criticised for supporting their view with quotes from others. And I don't mean "Agrees with Smithy" (smiley, smiley wink) or similar cr*p.

Perhaps BR sits in the pub having a discussion and says something like " I agree with the report today that says women are more intelligent than men? What report, BR? I cannot say but it is quoted in the Daily Mail and Wikipedia so I suppose it will not have any validity in this discussion.

I know BR has said he will not stoop to rise to any challenge. But his views are absolutely risible imho. :-D :-D

Jonesey, no rift but we will have to disagree.

Re why wouldn't one want to be named as the reporter of personal insults? A few people will recognise how distressing it is to be pursued over the internet (and into private life) by someone who is as mad as a box of frogs when you HAVE been truthful and told the offender you have reported them .

Re your point on malicious reporters perhaps thinking twice before reporting if they would be named. why? for eg if I have a free account in the fake name of, say, "Boris Slovosky" for the sole purpose of maliciouly reporting posts by people that I don't like, it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if 'Boris' is named as the reporter, because no one will know who that is, ands the worst GR can do is remove 'Boris', who will then open another free account in a different name.

GR already remind reporters that if they DO report maliciously, without just cause that they face removal from the site (as a last resort it's true).

I entirely agree that board moderators would be a good idea, but this has been said for years, and most vehemently when the boards were full of nastiness before the RR removed posts instantly. GR did not do it then, they will not do it now, because it costs.

I very rarely report. but when I have done recently ( member no longer posting) I have clearly stated why both to GR and the OP, most of the reports were upheld, one was not so I reported it 'higher up the GR chain ' as it were and the decision was then made ( as others had also contacted GR re the post ) that it would be removed.

But there are, or at least used to be , members I might not publicly admit to reporting because I valued my own and family's personal safety and privacy.

EDIT: PS just thought I'd better say 'Boris Slovosky' is a fictitious name, lol, I have checked he is not on anyone's tree ;-)

Some weeks ago I suggested to GR that reported posts which are reinstated should be (somehow?) made permanent, not to be reported again.

They said they would "look into it".

Some members did not like this suggestion.

If it offended the first time, why read it again? :-S

RR,

Sorry Rose but it looks like on this at least you and I are destined to disagree. Please do not take my comments as indicative of a rift between us, there is none, merely a difference of opinion and both of us are equally entitled to express that opinion.

GR have reviewed my opening post and presumably since they have reinstated it, they found that its content did not breech any of the site's terms and conditions of use. So why did someone report it for review? The only person who can answer that question is the individual who reported it and I have on more than one occasion asked them to tell me that but they have so far declined.

You ask "What on earth would be the good of your suggestion for naming a malicious reporter do when it is possible, even likely, that NO ONE will even know the name, because that member does not post on the boards or may indeed never have paid for a sub?"

I'm sorry but I cannot understand the logic there. If it was a malicious report then what better than to make the reporter aware that they will be named, before they make their report. Perhaps that fact alone may discourage them from making a malicious report.

You also ask, "which of us if a member, would want to be named as the reporter of a personal insult?"

Why if it was a personal insult aimed against you wouldn't you want to be named as the reporter? The post itself would no longer be viewable, If your request for review was favourably viewed by GR, the post would be deleted, never to reappear and the individual who posted the personal insult would have received a warning about their behaviour and the consequences if they repeated it from GR. I note that Guinevere for one is not afraid of any consequences of reporting posts as she says that she usually says that she reported a post giving her reason for doing so, nor am I.

Finally you You ask, "WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD I ( or anyone else with a brain cell ) BE SO STUPID AS TO INVITE EVEN MORE VENOM? Capitals for emphasis!".

I don't think that braincells or lack of them enters the equation, however painful, the truth is always worth fighting for in my book.

The real crux of the matter is that GR does not have board moderators which, if they did, might reduce the number of threads such as this.

Oh dear, oh dear, I thought this was a "Chat" board :-S
Once again a thread is being turned into a Debate.(Us and Them argument).

John PLEASE do stop spouting selective bits of Wiki or other so called official bodies, its not always gospel truth or factual evidence they put out, most of it is only one factions opinions, no matter how many "selective" surveys they conduct (we all know how surveys can be massaged into believable "truths").
(All political parties are guilty experts in that field) :-D :-D

Don't bother replying with a question John because I wont bite. I`ve said my bit,
In fact don't bother replying at all, just treat my comment with silent contempt if you wish.
Now have a nice day y`all. :-D :-D

*applauds Rose*

Jonesey , as I was the person who used the expression "banging on" , and now that your OP has been reinstated I can quote also ( I did in fact read it before it was reported and subsequent opinions).

"Once again it seems that a perfectly innocent original post was referred for review, an action that caused several other well respected GR members to post comments expressing their feelings that the original post in no way breeched GR's terms and conditions of use. "

NB you use the terms "perfectly innocent original post" ..."in no way breeched GR's terms and conditions of use. "

well sorry but I, and a number of others, DID NOT feel that a joke about injecting drugs was "perfectly innocent", though I fully understand that Mr Magoo did not mean to offend by its inclusion.

End of, please, because what is driving people away ( well me anyway ) from posting on here is the insistence that 'we are all adults and that's all that matters so lets whinge on about it for ever and a day!'...This is NOT a private club, it is an open board, and everyone must be allowed to report something they find offensive, be that a joke or private details or personal abuse.

What on earth would be the good of your suggestion for naming a malicious reporter do when it is possible, even likely, that NO ONE will even know the name, because that member does not post on the boards or may indeed never have paid for a sub?

And which of us if a member, would want to be named as the reporter of a personal insult? For EG ( because you rarely came on this board at that point!) Would it have been fair or right for me to have been named as the reporter of the woman who was vile about my son on this board, leading her to pursue me even more than she did, on here and blogs etc? WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD I ( or anyone else with a brain cell ) BE SO STUPID AS TO INVITE EVEN MORE VENOM? Capitals for emphasis!

AnnC Any posts that begins with phrases like "GR in their infinite wisdom" (and history of Opening Poster suggests that phrase is not 100% sincere) are designed to polarise opinion. Some of us think GR handle these reports generally very well with a tiny team and are extremely wise.

Personally, I think they are a whole lot wiser than most of us - me included. And certainly wiser than most of the narcissists who have contributed to this "write to Rhoda" thread.

Ann :-) ;-)

this wasn't posted to cause trouble