The reason that mods need to choose between being moderators and becoming personally

[user104658]

... Involved in heated threads.

Continued from SD;

Because when someone says something personal, and yes completely unfair, to another member then their post is deleted and they get an infraction, which is completely right.

But when the same thing happens and a mod is on the receiving end, the thread gets locked, and if you comment on the thread being locked, that thread is locked too and you get blocked from making new threads in the section completely.

This represents a two-tier system of forum membership and illustrates exactly why people feel like they can't engage naturally in threads with "mods posting as members" no matter how much those mods insist that they can keep their capacity as a mod and their capacity as a member separate.

So just to note;

I think what was said to Niamh in the thread I question was awful and also, from what I know of her, completely untrue.

However I think that the response is knee-jerk, over the top, a complete abuse of power, and a double standard.

Also I'll say that I have no idea if it was Niamh herself who started locking & blocking, it may well not have been, but it was certainly because it was a moderator on the receiving end of a hurtful comment.

My personal opinion on this is that the forum is now at a point where mods need to choose between being a non-staff member, or being a mod and staying impartial in contentious threads.

Being both quite clearly doesn't work, for various reasons.

[Marsh.]

I agree. Although, I was under the impression if a mod was heavily involved in a discussion thread, they just left it to another mod to do all of the moderating. Sometimes, this doesn't seem to be the case.

It's quite telling that it took a comment to Niamh to get the thread locked, but not everything that came before it.

[Marsh.]

I also don't understand why you have been blocked? I didn't see any rule breaking?

[caprimint]

What was said??? Who said it? What's the drama? :o

[user104658]

I agree. Although, I was under the impression if a mod was heavily involved in a discussion thread, they just left it to another mod to do all of the moderating. Sometimes, this doesn't seem to be the case.The thing is I don't think it matters. All of the mods have been mods for a long time, they have their own personal subforum, and are likely to be inclined to defend each other. And the response is too often disproportionate whether it's the mod who was actually involved in the thread or not who is taking action.

I'm not going to pretend that that thread wasn't a mess but the timing of it being locked and masses of posts being purged, and the removal of my thread-posting privileges for pointing it out, suggests that it's not a simple coincidence that exactly then was when it was deemed to have "gone too far".

[Marsh.]

The thing is I don't think it matters. All of the mods have been mods for a long time, they have their own personal subforum, and are likely to be inclined to defend each other. And the response is too often disproportionate whether it's the mod who was actually involved in the thread or not who is taking action.

I'm not going to pretend that that thread wasn't a mess but the timing of it being locked and masses of posts being purged, and the removal of my thread-posting privileges for pointing it out, suggests that it's not a simple coincidence that exactly then was when it was deemed to have "gone too far".

Completely agree.

[user104658]

I also don't understand why you have been blocked? I didn't see any rule breaking?I suppose because I made a follow up thread on a locked thread? I'm not banned from the section, I can reply to threads, I just can't make new threads there apparently.

I get why it's a rule break but, again, it's not an action I've EVER seen taken before which suggests to me that "emotions are running high" with moderation, and that is something that really needs some consideration :shrug:.

[RileyH]

What was said??? Who said it? What's the drama? :o

:eyes:

[AnnieK]

To be fair, there was an announcement in sd that this kind if ban would be trialled.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

just get rid of serious debates

[Niamh.]

Excuse me, first of all I didn't lock the thread or do any of the modding on it and none of it was to do with what was said to me.

[Cherie]

There is a rule that mods shouldn't moderate in threads they are actively participating in, not sure how well observed that is

that said the personal comment to Niamh was totally unfair, and should have been removed as there really wasn't any need to go so low, I think the thread has maybe reached its natural conclusion and maybe that is why it was locked, other threads have been locked in the same way, in such a contentious thread a note from whoever locked it might have defused the need for further threads.

[Vicky.]

Threads get locked when they have descended into bickering baiting nonsense. The reason they are locked as they are cleaned is because otherwise the bickering continues while someone is deleting pages and pages of threads, and then by the time its cleaned there is another load to go. This has happened near forever. If the thread is considered saveable, it is reopened after deletions. there are around 150 deletions in that thread now, both from when james locked it, and when I did. That thread has been locked twice to be cleaned already. A third time I reckon it will remain locked.

And niamh did not lock the thread either. Nor moderate in there.

[user104658]

To be fair, there was an announcement in sd that this kind if ban would be trialled.It wasn't me who "said wot got said", though, all I did was point out what I see as heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating. The response to which was... Some more heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating.

[Marsh.]

To be fair, there was an announcement in sd that this kind if ban would be trialled.

True. But there's a double standard in the application.

[Vicky.]

It wasn't me who "said wot got said", though, all I did was point out what I see as heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating. The response to which was... Some more heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating.

Except, you are completely wrong, as it is just an assumption that is was niamh. I have just got back from a party with my daughter and the thread had grown by hundreds of posts, read through it, saw all of the nonsense and locked it to delete the nonsense (and yes, the personal comment to niamh, which I am actually considering giving an outright ban for as it was very below the belt and that member only ever comes on to have a go at mods anyway), then re-opened it, as is pretty standard.

Figured it was fine for me to do this, as I had barely been involved in the thread, and was definitely not involved in the bickering stuff.

But no doubt I was still wrong.

As for

My personal opinion on this is that the forum is now at a point where mods need to choose between being a non-staff member, or being a mod and staying impartial in contentious threads.

Good luck finding someone willing to moderate who does not post.

I have been asking for a while to be de-modded as I just cannot be arsed with the way we are always in the wrong and accused of being biased, and how some members seem to think we should not have opinions as mods.

I genuinely am sick to the back teeth of this forum and how nothing is ever right and stuff.

[AnnieK]

I don't actually know when I closed, after my last comment I went to cook dinner and when I got back it had been locked down. Was only saying about the ban thing because TS said he hadn't seen someone get this kind of ban before. :shrug:

Will add though that modding this type of site must be a ****ing nightmare. Big characters with big opinions....I know other mods have been accused of bias too but have always said they don't mod threads they are involved in.

[user104658]

Excuse me, first of all I didn't lock the thread or do any of the modding on it and none of it was to do with what was said to me.





And niamh did not lock the thread either. Nor moderate in there.

Like I said above... I don't think that really matters. And I flat put don't believe that it wasn't that comment that prompted a lock n purge. The timing is far too coincidental.

And here's where the real problem lies - even if I'm totally wrong, even if this ISN'T an example of staff loyalty / rallying round and everything being said by staff in response is the 100% honest truth... The fact that it has to be taken on faith and there's a question mark hanging over it is still a problem, and still makes me think that being "normal member sometimes mod sometimes" simply isn't working. There is a power implication that affects normal interaction. There is always a question of how hard you can push before someone with the power to do so starts taking action. I know there are a few members who are having this issue and honestly I hadn't given it all THAT much thought until it was raised but... :shrug:... It's a problem.

[Vicky.]

It wasn't me who "said wot got said", though, all I did was point out what I see as heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating. The response to which was... Some more heavy handed and emotionally driven moderating.

Its always heavy handed when its you (royal you) on the recieving end though. I mean, what did you think was going to happen with that thread? How many times have you seen threads closed, cleaned and re-opened? Surely everyone knows this is pretty usual, but suddenly, because a member had said something to niamh, its considered some kind of conspiracy or something.

In that thread, we had members calling for another to be banned. If that member had been banned, that would have been great. However, when its them on the receiving end, all of a sudden its biased and heavy handed.

I think this will be my last post in here..as I can already see how this is going to go. Admin will probably comment when they come on. But I am not getting into a load of 'omgs mods are so biased' stuff, where its just another pile onto the staff and loads of assumptions made.

**** that. Enjoy the ranting all

[Marsh.]

I do think modding became far less transparent, which leads to a lot of the distrust.

But, there's been 100 threads moaning one way or the other about that. It doesn't affect James' decisions.

Even though it's not just members tbh, but some mods who've had enough too.

[Niamh.]

Like I said above... I don't think that really matters. And I flat put don't believe that it wasn't that comment that prompted a lock n purge. The timing is far too coincidental.

And here's where the real problem lies - even if I'm totally wrong, even if this ISN'T an example of staff loyalty / rallying round and everything being said by staff in response is the 100% honest truth... The fact that it has to be taken on faith and there's a question mark hanging over it is still a problem, and still makes me think that being "normal member sometimes mod sometimes" simply isn't working. There is a power implication that affects normal interaction. There is always a question of how hard you can push before someone with the power to do so starts taking action. I know there are a few members who are having this issue and honestly I hadn't given it all THAT much thought until it was raised but... :shrug:... It's a problem.
Believe whatever you want, you're wrong though.

[Vicky.]

Believe whatever you want, you're wrong though.

Well indeed. I can say that I came back online at Today, 05:33 PM. Started looking at the few hundred extra comments at Today, 05:34 PM. Locked thread at Today, 05:41 PM as I said

-removed part discussing bans -
Think I will lock it while I am checking it tbh




and got to Mokkas comment at Today, 05:47 PM. As this is documented in the admin forum by my comments in a thread about bans from the serious debates section.

[user104658]

Believe whatever you want, you're wrong though.I believe that it wasn't you who started taking mod action but I also believe that it was prompted by another staff member feeling loyal / defensive :shrug:. If it wasn't you who closed the thread then you can't possibly know which post prompted it being closed.

[Niamh.]

I believe that it wasn't you who started taking mod action but I also believe that it was prompted by another staff member feeling loyal / defensive :shrug:. If it wasn't you who closed the thread then you can't possibly know which post prompted it being closed.

Well I can know that because we were discussing it with MTVN before Mokka even made the comment to me, both Matt and Vicky then went offline and I had already decided not to mod that thread, then Vicky came back online and started cleaning the thread. But I don't know why I'm even bothering to tell you this anyway because you've already decided you're own narrative :shrug:

[bots]

well i just want it noted for the record that I greatly respect Niamh and Vicky's posts and their moderating across a number of years.

[Niamh.]

well i just want it noted for the record that I greatly respect Niamh and Vicky's posts and their moderating across a number of years.

Thanks BOTS :love:

[jet]

well i just want it noted for the record that I greatly respect Niamh and Vicky's posts and their moderating across a number of years.

I've no idea what happened but I absolutely agree. I couldn't fault either of them.

[Tom4784]

The problem is that people allow their feelings to become their facts when it comes to the mods, I know this first hand as I've got my own hateclub of members that will screech that I'm biased based on nothing more than they don't like me, they think that, because they hate me, that means I'm biased towards them which is ridiculous and nonsensical. I'm probably the most impartial mod of them all, I don't let who my friends are and who I dislike affect my decisions and, tbh, if you're reporting something and I see it, you better hope you haven't broken any rules yourself since I have a tendency, when it's applicable, to infract both sides of an argument. When it comes to modding, I don't play favourites.

When modding used to be more transparent, people used to abuse the system, for example they knew of their infraction points and such to break the rules but reign it in when they knew they were close to a ban, That's why you don't see how many points you have anymore. When we try to be transparent about decisions there will always be a loud section of people who will simply oppose what we say because it's easier to blame us for things than admit when they are in the wrong.

There are problems in Tibb towers and it's funny that people say the mods will back each other up because I don't think we've ever been as fragmented as we are currently, We would not stick up for each other if someone was in the wrong, especially these days. I don't think, in this case, that neither Vicky nor Niamh are in the wrong.

[Mokka]

Except, you are completely wrong, as it is just an assumption that is was niamh. I have just got back from a party with my daughter and the thread had grown by hundreds of posts, read through it, saw all of the nonsense and locked it to delete the nonsense (and yes, the personal comment to niamh, which I am actually considering giving an outright ban for as it was very below the belt and that member only ever comes on to have a go at mods anyway), then re-opened it, as is pretty standard.

Figured it was fine for me to do this, as I had barely been involved in the thread, and was definitely not involved in the bickering stuff.

But no doubt I was still wrong.

As for



Good luck finding someone willing to moderate who does not post.

I have been asking for a while to be de-modded as I just cannot be arsed with the way we are always in the wrong and accused of being biased, and how some members seem to think we should not have opinions as mods.

I genuinely am sick to the back teeth of this forum and how nothing is ever right and stuff.

Oh please do. I've called you transphobic on here before... and you agreed you are and said thank you... so when do you get your hands slapped for moderating a thread about transphobia and removing and banning those who don't appreciate or agree with your bigoted views.

You can call people who are in transition "blokes in dresses" but I'm below the belt? Sure. This is why threads like this exist... because of actions like yours.

[Vicky.]

Its below the belt to comment on niamhs parenting abilities. If this exchange where I agreed I was trnasphobic actually happened, I am fairly sure it was a sarcastic reply tbh. I am not transphobic. I am self-ID phobic. There is a huge difference between transsexual women, and any man who says he is a woman.

Please quote a post where I call a transsexual a bloke in a dress. It was claimed a few times in that thread but I don't believe I have actually said that. i have, called blokes in dresses blokes in dresses. but not transsexual people.

[AnnieK]

Oh please do. I've called you transphobic on here before... and you agreed you are and said thank you... so when do you get your hands slapped for moderating a thread about transphobia and removing and banning those who don't appreciate or agree with your bigoted views.

You can call people who are in transition "blokes in dresses" but I'm below the belt? Sure. This is why threads like this exist... because of actions like yours.

Absolutely you were below the belt. Call people for their views thats fine but what right on earth do you have to single out a person and question peoples parenting? Bang out of order. Wrong on all levels. I've actually never seen anyone, as heated things get on here stoop that low before

[Jordan.]

Nothing but respect for my moderators :love:

[Mokka]

I'm sure you are the perfect judge of that. Who is trans and isn't? How is it you who gets to decide

But what I said I don't back down from... so block me. I would be ashamed to post the trash I've seen on here about transgender people... and specifically what I saw posted in that thread and ones before... and have my kid or anyone from the next generation see my ignorance exposed as such. As a parent... that's my view. You get your retitled transphobic view posted over and over... why can't I ?

[user104658]

Right but this is exactly my point, guys; Moderators want to engage as regular members and do so, but members (multiple members of all persuasions) don't feel like they can engage with staff as normal members when things start getting tense. Whether that's "the case or not" is largely irrelevant. Even I feel like I'm "on thin ice" at the moment tbqfh, and whether that's true or not, all that really matters is that it's possible and therefore it - as I said - creates a two-tier system.

[Smithy]

Caaaaah bitches what have I missed!

If I was a mod I can tell y’all this wouldn’t be such a state!

[Niamh.]

Caaaaah bitches what have I missed!

If I was a mod I can tell y’all this wouldn’t be such a state!

Me being a terrible mother

[Vicky.]

Any man who simply says he is a woman and thats it, is not, in my opinion trans.

Someone who is actually transitioning, is trans.

I don't get why this is a backward view, or whatever. But carry on. You only ever seem to pop on to criticize mods anyway :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Right but this is exactly my point, guys; Moderators want to engage as regular members and do so, but members (multiple members of all persuasions) don't feel like they can engage with staff as normal members when things start getting tense. Whether that's "the case or not" is largely irrelevant. Even I feel like I'm "on thin ice" at the moment tbqfh, and whether that's true or not, all that really matters is that it's possible and therefore it - as I said - creates a two-tier system.

So what is your proposed solution here then? Mods are not allowed to post? Seems the only way you would be happy, or do I have that wrong? Please tell me how you reckon this apparent problem could be solved.

[Smithy]

Me being a terrible mother

Tsk, what are you like! :hehe:

[Niamh.]

Tsk, what are you like! :hehe:

:laugh:

[y.winter]

Cue the we'resupposedtohaveanicetea.gif

[user104658]

As I can no longer post in SD's (with very little explanation, by the way, and yet I'm supposed to believe that the moderating is level-headed and consistent. Snooze.);




With regard to "quoting" specifically where the problems lie in the transgender threads... I still can't do anything extensive as I'm on my phone and tbh I'm not all that inclined to any more. But for anyone who cares to do a little legwork...

I quickly came across two threads. One is about a trans female competing in the Olympics in female events, the other is about a 19 year old trans female being g a women's officer.

Both threads make good examples because I *agree* with the premise of both. I fully agree that a 19 year old who was born male should not be women's officer. I fully agree that it's unfair for a biological male to compete in a women's sporting event.

However, both threads, within the first page (as I didn't even delve deep) are absolutely FULL of loaded terminology. Repeatedly saying "he", "him", "man", "19 year old boy". The words "dick" and "cock" are used so frequently its like they've been loaded into a party popper and fired at the threads. It's pointed. It's aggressive. The sentiment behind it is VERY, VERY clear.

Those who can look at those threads and not see what I'm talking about, will never understand what I'm talking about, so there's little need for me to continue looking back further and quoting specific parts of posts.

[caprimint]

Me being a terrible mother
Wow :umm2: How disgusting.

From what I know of you, you're absolutely so far away from that. Judging by everything I do know, I'd say you set a really good example of a parent.

[user104658]

So what is your proposed solution here then? Mods are not allowed to post? Seems the only way you would be happy, or do I have that wrong? Please tell me how you reckon this apparent problem could be solved.Choose between sticking to considered, balanced posts that don't take sides when it comes to contentious discussions, or choose to be a regular member who can freely get into contentious discussions.

The vast majority of threads don't fall into the category of being contentious issues but on those that do, in my opinion, yes mods need to remain impartial or the threads become completely unbalanced.

Is it unfortunate? Sure. Is it fair? Nope. That doesn't mean it isn't a real issue.

[Niamh.]

Wow :umm2: How disgusting.

From what I know of you, you're absolutely so far away from that. Judging by everything I do know, I'd say you set a really good example of a parent.

Thanks Stacey :love:

[Jack_]

Oh please do. I've called you transphobic on here before... and you agreed you are and said thank you... so when do you get your hands slapped for moderating a thread about transphobia and removing and banning those who don't appreciate or agree with your bigoted views.

You can call people who are in transition "blokes in dresses" but I'm below the belt? Sure. This is why threads like this exist... because of actions like yours.

The thing is Mokka, I reckon that there are a few people on this forum for whom your remark in the other thread COULD apply, but neither Niamh nor Vicky are them. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the rhetoric on trans issues in SD these days (and make a conscious and concerted effort to stay out of it), but not for a second would I ever think either of them would fall guilty to the accusation you were levelling, they are nowhere near the kind of people you're painting them to be and that's why it came across so badly. You are, IMO, directing your anger at the wrong people.

I did however agree with the larger discussion about the kind of atmosphere that has been fostered in these types of threads. But that's a wider issue, and not one that can be narrowed down to a couple of mods.

[user104658]

ALSO Niamh, for what it's worth, the post that I had written in the thread when it was locked (that I tried to post then found out was locked) was to say that I completely disagreed with the comment on you as a parent and that from my impressions of you, I actually strongly believe that you would be completely supportive and your stance would change very quickly.

I do also agree that bringing people's kids into a discussion (that isn't actually about parenting) crosses a completely different sort of line.

[Niamh.]

ALSO Niamh, for what it's worth, the post that I had written in the thread when it was locked (that I tried to post then found out was locked) was to say that I completely disagreed with the comment on you as a parent and that from my impressions of you, I actually strongly believe that you would be completely supportive and your stance would change very quickly.

I do also agree that bringing people's kids into a discussion (that isn't actually about parenting) crosses a completely different sort of line.

Thanks TS, I appreciate you saying that.

[Mokka]

The thing is Mokka, I reckon that there are a few people on this forum for whom your remark in the other thread COULD apply, but neither Niamh nor Vicky are them. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the rhetoric on trans issues in SD these days (and make a conscious and concerted effort to stay out of it), but not for a second would I ever think either of them would fall guilty to the accusation you were levelling, they are nowhere near the kind of people you're painting them to be and that's why it came across so badly. You are, IMO, directing your anger at the wrong people.

I did however agree with the larger discussion about the kind of atmosphere that has been fostered in these types of threads. But that's a wider issue, and not one that can be narrowed down to a couple of mods.

My response was directly to a few phrases I read over multiple pages by Niamh. My own trans kid is a member on this site and saw what I was posting as we discussed it and conversed about it as it was happening... and if they are proud of their mother having their back.. that's all I need. I just am sickened by the turn this site has taken over the last few months.. propping up and patting the backs of those setting the anti-trans rhetoric.

[Kazanne]

Don't really know what this is all about,but have to say most of the mods in here seem fair enough,I don't always agree with them,but at the same time they have a thankless job at times .

[Mitchell]

Just wanna give my support to the mods, I think they do a fantastic job :love:

I also love that they are friendly and approachable and not afraid to join in the banter, it makes the forum seem more fun.

[Mokka]

ALSO Niamh, for what it's worth, the post that I had written in the thread when it was locked (that I tried to post then found out was locked) was to say that I completely disagreed with the comment on you as a parent and that from my impressions of you, I actually strongly believe that you would be completely supportive and your stance would change very quickly.

I do also agree that bringing people's kids into a discussion (that isn't actually about parenting) crosses a completely different sort of line.

Although this wasn't directed to me... but about me... I guess I find it sad that someone's stance would only change when it was their kid... as opposed to seeing how much hate and hurt that stance has before it affects your household. I was pointing out just that. It's all well and good to stay in ignorance until it affects you personally I guess.

[Withano]

My response was directly to a few phrases I read over multiple pages by Niamh. My own trans kid is a member on this site and saw what I was posting as we discussed it and conversed about it as it was happening... and if they are proud of their mother having their back.. that's all I need. I just am sickened by the turn this site has taken over the last few months.. propping up and patting the backs of those setting the anti-trans rhetoric.

I didnt see your comment..

But there was a pretty large conversation about the exact thing you are 'sickened' by, many are in that same boat. you could have contributed to that - and with your experience, your contribution would have been pretty unique and interesting.

But instead, it looks like youd sooner discuss someones parenting skills.. which is odd and pretty cruel.

Trans rights on tibb are not where they should be. That, imo, is not down to individuals, theres a pretty vocal group. That discussion still needs to be had tbh.

[Vicky.]

Choose between sticking to considered, balanced posts that don't take sides when it comes to contentious discussions, or choose to be a regular member who can freely get into contentious discussions.

The vast majority of threads don't fall into the category of being contentious issues but on those that do, in my opinion, yes mods need to remain impartial or the threads become completely unbalanced.

Is it unfortunate? Sure. Is it fair? Nope. That doesn't mean it isn't a real issue.

Issue here is, who decides which threads are contentious?

Like, near all BB posts would come under that. Even silly threads in c&g could be classed as this.

So whats really the solution you are proposing is that mods just do not post at all. I am fairly happy with that as I would just be a regular member so I could post, but I am positive that admin would not be able to find anyone who would moderate a forum, without actually posting on it, for free. The only way they could do this realistically, is to start paying moderators, the same as DS and other forums do. And I don't think thats realistic either, for them to start paying for mods round the clock.

[AnnieK]

My response was directly to a few phrases I read over multiple pages by Niamh. My own trans kid is a member on this site and saw what I was posting as we discussed it and conversed about it as it was happening... and if they are proud of their mother having their back.. that's all I need. I just am sickened by the turn this site has taken over the last few months.. propping up and patting the backs of those setting the anti-trans rhetoric.

Do you know what though, the debates on this site about trans topics have educated some people. Just because you have first hand experience of a subject does not give you the right to decide how another member would handle it. If anyone questioned your parenting, without knowing a damn thing about you other than what you've posted during debates how would you feel? I'm glad you feel vindicated as a parent by belittling and insulting someone else.

[Mokka]

Well i aslo feel belittled that someone expressed the felt sorry for me for having a trans kid. I dont feel sorry for myself ever. I have an inteligent beautiful child who knows themself and isn't broken or torn up by that fact since they get validation from their friends and family.

It could be worse. I could have taken an anti-trans view and sent them into emotion turmoil like many parents have over decades and beyond.
Yeah.. I'm perfectly ok with myself thanks

[Tom4784]

Mokka, your attitude does not help your cause.

[Mitchell]

Well i aslo feel belittled that someone expressed the felt sorry for me for having a trans kid. I dont feel sorry for myself ever. I have an inteligent beautiful child who knows themself and isn't broken or torn up by that fact since they get validation from their friends and family.

It could be worse. I could have taken an anti-trans view and sent them into emotion turmoil like many parents have over decades and beyond.
Yeah.. I'm perfectly ok with myself thanks

I haven't seen your initial comments, but I'm so glad that your child has amazing support from you, so many parents would really struggle to deal with this, yet you're there supporting them all the way :love:

[AnnieK]

Well i aslo feel belittled that someone expressed the felt sorry for me for having a trans kid. I dont feel sorry for myself ever. I have an inteligent beautiful child who knows themself and isn't broken or torn up by that fact since they get validation from their friends and family.

It could be worse. I could have taken an anti-trans view and sent them into emotion turmoil like many parents have over decades and beyond.
Yeah.. I'm perfectly ok with myself thanks

Unless I missed a post, it was my post that you have misread. I said I will not say I'm sorry for what you have gone through as that would mean there was something to feel sorry about and that was only after you had already made the comment to niamh.

[Jack_]

My response was directly to a few phrases I read over multiple pages by Niamh. My own trans kid is a member on this site and saw what I was posting as we discussed it and conversed about it as it was happening... and if they are proud of their mother having their back.. that's all I need. I just am sickened by the turn this site has taken over the last few months.. propping up and patting the backs of those setting the anti-trans rhetoric.

I can't say I saw anything incendiary or offensive by Niamh in that thread personally, there were FAR worse things being said by other members...as usual. But I appreciate that your mileage may vary, and with such a personal stake in this topic I can see why you reacted. That said, I stand by what I said - neither of them, in the almost ten years I've been on this forum, have ever struck me as the kind of people (and indeed parents) who would treat a trans person (their child or otherwise) without the respect and/or love that they deserve.

I totally understand and agree that the discourse and atmosphere in threads on gender hasn't been very pleasant on this forum for quite a while now, and like I said, that's why I've made a conscious decision to avoid partaking in them - despite it being a huge passion of mine and my favourite area of research, study and debate. When you have a personal stake in the discussion (though mine is of course far, far, far removed and different from yours) it makes it all the more emotive, and let's be honest, it's an emotive enough topic on all sides as it is. That's in part why I think it has reached the stage that is has, but unfortunately that's led to a lack of productive discourse, and heated exchanges like this today.

But again, I must reiterate, despite all of that - and although I completely understand and sympathise with the position you're coming from, I think your target is the wrong one.

[Smithy]

Niamh and Vicky once cornered me in an alley called me a f*ggot and beat me black and blue :sad:

[Smithy]

(This isn’t serious debates so I’m allowed to make jokes :hmph:)

[Niamh.]

Niamh and Vicky once cornered me in an alley called me a f*ggot and beat me black and blue :sad:

:laugh:

[user104658]

Issue here is, who decides which threads are contentious?

Like, near all BB posts would come under that. Even silly threads in c&g could be classed as this.

So whats really the solution you are proposing is that mods just do not post at all. I am fairly happy with that as I would just be a regular member so I could post, but I am positive that admin would not be able to find anyone who would moderate a forum, without actually posting on it, for free. The only way they could do this realistically, is to start paying moderators, the same as DS and other forums do. And I don't think thats realistic either, for them to start paying for mods round the clock.To be fair I understand that it's a bit of an impossible situation without many, or maybe any, real solution but - helpful as I know this will be - I also think it's important to remember that "a lack of available alternatives" is not the same as "a good situation".

[user104658]

Niamh and Vicky once cornered me in an alley called me a f*ggot and beat me black and blue :sad:It doesn't count if you pay for it and sign a disclaimer :suspect:.

[James]

Threads get locked when they have descended into bickering baiting nonsense. The reason they are locked as they are cleaned is because otherwise the bickering continues while someone is deleting pages and pages of threads, and then by the time its cleaned there is another load to go. This has happened near forever. If the thread is considered saveable, it is reopened after deletions. there are around 150 deletions in that thread now, both from when james locked it, and when I did. That thread has been locked twice to be cleaned already. A third time I reckon it will remain locked.

And niamh did not lock the thread either. Nor moderate in there.

That's correct.

I deleted a bunch of posts earlier this afternoon because some people were just having a go at each other.

[Tozzie]

Don't really know what this is all about,but have to say most of the mods in here seem fair enough,I don't always agree with them,but at the same time they have a thankless job at times .

I don't know what it's about either but it sure seems like it got pretty heated. Glad I'm not a mod or admin.

[smudgie]

The mods do a great job.
Modding and posting.
If I wasn’t happy with the modding I would just walk away.:shrug:

[MTVN]

Well I can know that because we were discussing it with MTVN before Mokka even made the comment to me, both Matt and Vicky then went offline and I had already decided not to mod that thread, then Vicky came back online and started cleaning the thread. But I don't know why I'm even bothering to tell you this anyway because you've already decided you're own narrative :shrug:

Can confirm this, I'm afraid I went to the pub for the afternoon and have only just come back online

This thread seems to have mainly levelled out and calmed down so I won't add too much to it but I do want to echo the comments about how unfair the comment towards Niamh was and I think that both her and Vicky do such a good job moderating this forum and have put so many hours into it over the years through so many different dramas and squabbles. Right now there's very few of us Mods that are regularly active on the forum compared to how it used to be, and, as Dezzy alluded to, we are not always that united. I think the debate in the Admin section is often a lot more robust than people think but what stops us from advertising that is that we all do genuinely want this to be a good forum for everyone to post in

[Brillopad]

The problem is that people allow their feelings to become their facts when it comes to the mods, I know this first hand as I've got my own hateclub of members that will screech that I'm biased based on nothing more than they don't like me, they think that, because they hate me, that means I'm biased towards them which is ridiculous and nonsensical. I'm probably the most impartial mod of them all, I don't let who my friends are and who I dislike affect my decisions and, tbh, if you're reporting something and I see it, you better hope you haven't broken any rules yourself since I have a tendency, when it's applicable, to infract both sides of an argument. When it comes to modding, I don't play favourites.

When modding used to be more transparent, people used to abuse the system, for example they knew of their infraction points and such to break the rules but reign it in when they knew they were close to a ban, That's why you don't see how many points you have anymore. When we try to be transparent about decisions there will always be a loud section of people who will simply oppose what we say because it's easier to blame us for things than admit when they are in the wrong.

There are problems in Tibb towers and it's funny that people say the mods will back each other up because I don't think we've ever been as fragmented as we are currently, We would not stick up for each other if someone was in the wrong, especially these days. I don't think, in this case, that neither Vicky nor Niamh are in the wrong.

Oh please!!! :rolleyes:

Everything with you is about hate - but much of the criticism you get is deserved. Please don’t play the innocent - many aren’t buying it due to personal experience.

[Marsh.]

Open again.

I feel like the mods are all going around a house locking and unlocking doors after one another and you're lucky if you get to peek inside before it's locked again.

[user104658]

Open again.

I feel like the mods are all going around a house locking and unlocking doors after one another and you're lucky if you get to peek inside before it's locked again.

Well my Tapatalk has suddenly become confused by my SD ban and won't let me post anywhere! This is madness.

[Marsh.]

Well my Tapatalk has suddenly become confused by my SD ban and won't let me post anywhere! This is madness.

:joker:

[user104658]

I was legit raging thinking my SD ban had become a full ban for no reason, but no, I made the mistake of opening the PM about the SD ban and now Tapatalk is like "NOPE! Do not have permission!" about everything. I can't even send PMs!

[Tom4784]

We sometimes lock threads so we can clean it and reopen it afterwards since it's a pain to delete a bunch of posts and then have to keep deleting new posts on the same subject.

[Marsh.]

We sometimes lock threads so we can clean it and reopen it afterwards since it's a pain to delete a bunch of posts and then have to keep deleting new posts on the same subject.

Well behave yourself.

[Tom4784]

Oh please!!! :rolleyes:

Everything with you is about hate - but much of the criticism you get is deserved. Please don’t play the innocent - many aren’t buying it due to personal experience.

What proof do you have that I am biased? Where is your evidence of your claims that I'm a bad mod? It's not possible for you to have any because members don't know who infracts them or deletes their posts so everything you have to say about me in regards to my modding is an assumption because there's no way for you to have the actual facts.

I'm not getting into this with you. You don't know who mods you, you don't know how I mod so that's that on that. You can dislike me all you want but you simply don't have any knowledge of who infracts you to be able to accuse anyone of bias.

[rusticgal]

Well don't quite know what all that **** was about...but I will say this..Niamh is a fair and tactful FM and moderater and I have huge respect for her.

[James]

I'm going to lock this now. I was going to do earlier before it got dramatic again, as these types of threads always end the same way, but I'll do it now.

Points noted all round.