I see shut-down everywhere I see you. You created the argument but can’t back up your allegations. The desperation is astounding.

Spot on jet.

:clap1:

Come on mods, give us some clarity.

Why aren't we allowed to mention Corbyn but Dezzy can call another MP scum?

Like I'vve said twice in this thread, if you think it's okay to call a politician a terrorist sympathiser then you can't get all uppity about me calling a politician scum when it comes to a voting history of voting against the interests of the most vulnerable people in our society.

If you really have an issue with this, come talk to me over PM where there's no audience to perform for.

That is nothing to do with what is being asked. I just want an answer to this question as do others:

So in future, the rules are that if a politician or party is being discussed in a critical way, using inflammatory language, it isn't allowed to bring another into it for comparison purposes as they have no relevance and the people should just suck up the inflammatory language, is that right?
Sounds like a blog to me with the comments section closed.

the difference is that factually, Corbyn is a terrorist supporter, he has supported terrorists in their endeavours. Scum is generalised derogatory term that is thrown about without meaning or reasoned thought

Your example doesn't reflect the reality of that thread.

People weren't making comparisons, they were basically saying that you can't have a negative opinion about Reese Moggs when 'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw.

That thread was a thread about one politician's voting history but it was on the verge of descending into the typical mud slinging match that ruins many threads on this section, that is why those posts were deleted, they were mostly unrelated to the topic at hand. If you wanted to make a comparison about voting histories of both politicians to draw conclusions and parallels between the politicians then that wouldn't have been deleted. Those posts got deleted mostly because they were simply meant to derail the thread from the original discussion.

Plus if you want to go on about Corbyn murdering babies then you've already got this lovely nine page thread to do it in. Why turn every thread into the same argument that you've been having in this one for weeks? It's pointless for every topic to eventually turn into the same old argument.

Let's be real here, would anyone that took an issue with me calling Rees-Moggs scum be as offended if I said that Corbyn was scum? I ****ing think not. I'd probably got them all quoting me saying how much they agreed with what I was saying.

It's not about the fact I called him scum, it's about the fact I called someone they like scum so I completely refute that point because it's hypocritical because they would not bat an eyelid if I said the same about someone they hated.

If you are going to call someone a sympathiser, you can't call offense to someone calling a politician you happen to like scum. That's called hypocrisy.

Except it isn't true Dezzy. It wasn't mud slinging at all. Why are you trying to make things up? The only person calling anyone scum was you. Yet you are implying similar language was used towards Corbyn. It wasn't. In fact there is no logical reason that you removed all those posts. So can you or one of the other mods answer the question about the new rules?

There's no point trying to tell me different, I can read those posts whenever I please. You've got your answer and I'm not going to rise to the bait of an argument. I've explained fully and no matter what I say you won't accept it so I'm not wasting any more time explaining it. You have your answer and it's not going to change.

But that works both ways. If you and others had discussed the policies of Reese Moggs instead of slinging inflammatory remarks around initially, then nobody would have felt the need to make similar comparisons to Corbyn - the other side of the coin as a possible future PM.
YOU and others set the precedent and waved the red flag and there is no fair reason then why those posts were removed. I had no intentions of derailing the thread, I was giving MY opinion, which apparently you and others can do, but I and others can't.

If a politician is criticised in a thread and inflammatory language used, it is forbidden to respond to that? To date, I thought it is only members who aren't allowed to be openly criticised. That has now changed.

You were involved in this so can a mod who wasn't please clarify what these new rules are?

But nobody called for your opinion to be deleted, nor should it be. We had a right to respond though, or thought we had, but all our opinions were deleted. That's the difference.

How *********g cold and heartless can anyone be? You can delete my words, but you unfortunately can't delete my images of dead children and babies and you certainly can't delete their parents images of their dead children and babies blown apart by the Corbyn supporting IRA. NEVER. Be flippant and dismissive while those little innocent ones lie cold in their graves and their parents would give anything to have them and hold them again, but you can only delete so much, you can't delete the truth, no matter how much you wish to.

You have explained nothing - just attempted to justify your biased modding. It as controlling as any politician I have seen on either side. Those in glass houses and all that.

OK I will try and explain here but I am genuinely half asleep so excuse typos and any nonsense. Not even sure why I am replying now, but I can't sleep and am reading through the deleted stuff all over.

So there have been many many reports and complaints about every thread in this section being turned into a Corbyn one. I think its a valid complaint, I see it everywhere and I do think its ruining the forum. I mean, the Hitler thread a few days back was almost immediately turned into a Corbyn thread. Then all of the Corbyn stuff was deleted and people still kept trying to bring Corbyn into it. Deleted a few times actually and still people tried and tried, it was tedious, as is moderating this section in general ATM. Its just really getting beyond a joke now and yes, we will be deleting random Corbyn crap thats posted in irrelevant areas.

IF there was anywhere near the amount of that for, say May/Mogg/Trump, we would do exactly the same thing. If there was a group of posters constantly turning every thread into a thread about May/Mogg/Trump/whoever then it would be the same.

Its not censoring negative views on Corbyn because 1. This thread is proof that negative stuff is allowed, and there are other threads also. If there was censorship, then these would be gone. 2. If there were any members bringing up positive Corbyn stuff in every thread that would also be deleted. And 3. Its absolute rubbish that we would try to censor one side in the first place. If we silenced all of one opinion, this forum would be dead as there would be nothing to actually debate (read, argue :laugh:) about. What good is an echo chamber. Of course noone wants that, thats ridiculous.

Its just got far too over the top now and does sometimes come across as baiting, but sometimes as a bit of an obsession.

Though I do agree that maybe it was a bit harsh removing mention of Corbyn from the Rees Mogg thread, but again, this has been done in reaction to the ridiculous wave of Corbyn nonsense that is sweeping this section from the same few members. Also the removed posts were not exactly anything to do with the thread topic. There was no mention of the thread topic in the removed posts, it was all very much like a random 'Corbyn Is A Very Bad Man' and while yes, many of the posts on that thread were basically 'Mogg Is a Very Bad Man'..thats actually what the topic was about.

I mean, if Corbyn had to be brought up, even something like 'I acknowledge the video. I do think Corbyn is just as bad though. Neither would be good PMs' or 'I think Mogg is great, that video is propaganda. He would be a much better PM than Corbyn'. But honestly, its at the stage where even that could be problematic as what would happen is the Corbyn bit would be quoted, more Corbyn stuff posted, and then it will just totally be a Corbyn thread between the same couple of members and anyone coming in to actually discuss the thread topic, will see all of the Corbyn stuff and not even bother posting as whats the point? Seriously, this has to end. This section is just a ****ing mess and getting worse by the day. Its not always negative Corbyn posts deleted either, when people do bring up positive Corbyn stuff in unrelated threads for no reason, they get deleted too. But thats pretty rare as oddly enough, on here (not IRL) his supporters do not seem as obsessed with him as those who dislike him.

So TLDR; to be clear, anyone who will consistently take threads offtopic and make one line posts about a singular topic and turn near every thread into the same repetitive stuff, will have their posts deleted and tbh, if it keeps going then bans (from this section only) will start being given out.

So yeah, I hope this all makes sense.

First of all, thank you Vicky for posting an explanation.

The problem I have here is that you mention the same few posters bringing up Corbyn all the time. If it's necessary to police Corbyn posts isn't that where it should begin? I know I don't post about him all the time and I can't say I've seen Jet do so which makes it difficult to understand why our posts were targeted. He wasn't being called scum. And I would say it is relevant to point out that the language used towards tory MPs is a lot more inflammatory than the language used about labour from what I see.

I would also argue that the leader of the labour party is always relevant in a political thread.

Can I ask if the Corbyn censorship will also be applied to those having his face as an avatar? Perhaps if we, as a forum, didn't have to look at him so often he wouldn't get brought up so much.

You have got to be joking here :laugh:

And are you seriously comparing someone having a Corbyn avatar to the amount of threads taken offtopic with Corbyn stuff in this section, and seemingly blaming the repetitive Corbyn stuff on the avatar someone has?! Thats bonkers.

Its not necessary to police Corbyn posts as such. Its the constant Corbyn posts in random topics. As I said, there have been many complaints, and from members who are from both left and right about it. There was a stage not long ago where someone was posting a LOT of threads on the same topic, and again, taking a lot of other threads offtopic with the same thing, The solution there ended up being that all posts of that nature were put into a singular discussion thread. Unless there was actual new news. Now that it a few members doing it, its not really feasible. I really dont know what you expect us to do here? Just allow every thread to be turned into a Corbyn one and let this section die...just become a group of maybe 5/6 members going round and round in circles while others all just ignore it totally? Maybe thats the best way tbh, as it seems that we will always be in the wrong and honestly, I am getting so sick of complaints and reports and stuff now, almost always about the same thing. Then complaints when we attempt to sort out the thing thats complained about most.

Also its not the inflammatory language thats the problem, I have no idea why so many people think its horrific that dezzy called an MP scum. I really don't see it. Its the repetiveness in every bloody thread thats the problem. I guess a comparison would be if there were a group of members like thetruth...going from thread to thread basically pretty much copy/pasting woman hating stuff. Turning a thread about zebras into a thread about evil women. Bringing up evil women in a thread about a new swiming pool being built, then being congratulated by a couple of other members for bringing up evil women. Then making a thread about how evil women are. Followed by going into thread about trump and saying that evil women deserved to be grabbed by the pussy as they are evil. And so on.

And I am not comparing misogyny to disliking Corbyn btw. Just..that member was fairly obsessive and may be known by you where others might not and I need a comparison to try and show you how it comes across to most.

Maybe we should just create a subsection where politicians are not allowed to be mentioned at all. Which is a serious suggestion brought up by a member which I and another mod agree with and we are just wating on amdin saying something. That may be the only way to actually keep a serious debates section serious debates, instead of sniping and such.

Sorry if this seems I am ranting at you. I really am not and I know this is a huge wall of text but I am just trying to explain the position we are in at the moment and the problem.

Will see if I can get admin to comment on this. As its just realistically going to go round in circles yet again, with me saying the same thing and you saying its censorship then me saying its not then someone else chipping in so yeah. Admins probably best.

Until admin do comment though, this is the rule I am sticking to. I know you find it unfair. But given the sheer amount of complaints this matter has had, and how I (and other mods) see it...it seems the only solution for now. Sorry.

You didn't come over as ranting and I'm pleased you responded as it explains where the surprising censorship came from. It's good to have some rationale, whether I agree or not.

What do I want? Just to understand why what I didn't view as inflammatory posts were suddenly removed almost immediately they were posted. Calling someone scum isn't horrific but it's more inflammatory in my view than what I said in regard Corbyn. So for the sake of comparison I didn't understand why that is ok and what I said wasn't. I am clearer on how it happened now. Though I still disagree that there was a problem with much or what was removed from that particular thread.

With regard the avatars a visual does bring someone to mind. It does for me anyway. Seeing them a lot makes you think of them in relation to the thread. :shrug:

I hope I've explained as reasonably as you did and you don't feel that I'm getting at you.

Definitely here for more zebra threads.

I have asked admin to comment anyway as I am sure there will be more replies to my post soon once its not so ridiculously early in the morning :laugh: And I don't see the point in going round and round with people. Just thought I would try to explain a bit more of whats going on. And basically just put my take on it.

If the posts were deleted as soon as they were posted, then its probably as a mod was actually looking at that thread whilst they were posted, or went onto it as soon as you posted. One of the two.

But yeah, been nice to disagree, but civilly :p And definitely could do with some zebras

Tbh honest Vicky I fail to see how the mention of Corbyn in that thread can be described as derailing the thread as it was pretty obvious it was Corbyn supporters who attacked Mogg - so it seems very relevant to me.

It also seems obvious to me that some mods are more able than others to stop their personal opinions from affecting how they react to certain topics. The accusations of derailing the thread are increasing ten-fold and also appear to be a convenient shut-down tactic to me.

You have explained it well Vicky that said if a mod is actively contributing to a thread and using inflammatory language they really shouldn't be deleting other members posts, I believe there was some rule about mods not actively modding in a thread they are participating in and in view of this change in rules in S&D then this rule needs to be enforced more rigorously.

Its not really a rule its just somthing we tend to do as obviously, conflict of interest at times. If I am participating in a heated thread I tend to not mod it and will instead report. BUT if no other staff are online you kind of have to mod discussions that you are in sometimes

I did say in one of my posts (edit. the one you quoted actually) that it may have been a bit heavy handed in that single thread. But generally, this Corbyn thing is getting way out of hand. Seemingly most threads get turned into Corbyn sniping, and yes, sometimes his supporters start it, I am not denying that but its just way beyond a joke now and a lot of members have picked up on it.

Pretty sure Dezzy has said he adheres to this “rule” as well, I haven’t seen the deleted posts but if they were posts from Jet I doubt very much there was anything that couldnt wait until another mod came online so appropriate deletions could be made then with a general note made in the thread as to why they were deleted. This new rule has not been relayed to members it seems?

Again its not a new rule as such. Its always been a rule that threads should stay on topic. Natural discourse is fine, like if the thread ends up going in another direction. The puposeful turning round of every thread onto one subject is not. And that really is how it appears to me, and a lot of members too.

Again though I should say, personally I think it might have been a bit heavy handed in the Mogg thread. But I CAN see why they were deleted as they were basically just 'well you like Corbyn so ner ner ner ner ner' type posts from what I saw. I do think in threads about current politics, obviously Corbyn can be relevant. But it really adds nothing to the discussion at all to be just answering a thread about someones voting record with 'Corbyn is bad' or whatever

I am not going to comment publically on what dezzy does or does not do. Thats totally up to him to explain.

I can't remember word for word as it's been removed. I think it began when I pointed out that if the thread had been about Corbyn and the same words thrown about there would have been a riot. I thought it was a relevant point since there a lot of posts calling Reese Mogg names like scum and rancid. I'm still unsure how that is ner ner ner. It's a fair point on the use of language and personally I don't think it's necessary to call anyone scum etc. I mean I don't like Diane Abbott and I've called her a hypocrite because she sends her son to private school while promoting state schools for everyone else. But I don't think that is the same as calling her scum etc.

I am not a Tory supporter but I often find myself defending the right due to the sheer level of nastiness aimed that way here. It would be different if it was a relevant point but it's just name calling usually.

let's call a spade a spade. Throwing around ill considered terms like scum at a person that is democratically elected to parliament and has not done anything close to illegal is purely inflammatory. This is serious debates, and if someone wants to criticize on a topic, it should be thoughtful and accurate. If everyone stuck to that, it would be a lot fairer, and a lot less controversial.

No I don’t expect you to, but if these deletions are a new rule of SD it would be good to make it clear before members have posts deleted, otherwise the thread ends up like this :laugh:

I was paraphrasing, and there were a lot of posts removed from there. You seem to think this is all about your post? Its really really not.

I genuinely did not know people found the word scum so offensive. This is the first I have heard of it and have seen the word used a lot of times. Both in this section and the BB sections.

This is why I have asked admin to comment.

And as I said, its not a new rule. Its something thats been in place for a long time. Just its been abused like hell recently.

It seems an extreme use of language for just being in politics and inflammatory and aimed to provoke in that context. It wasn't the only word negatively used. For instance if I was going to call someone scum it would be a child murderer. It just seemed odd in context that scum was ok but some of the other things said weren't ok and vanished.

Well it's all about me! But seriously I felt it was me who brought Corbyn up and my posts were removed.

I didn't like to hear people call Ann scum either. It seemed extreme.

3 seperate people brought Corbyn up before you did, those posts were quoted numerous times. Then you posted

But the other comments may have been removed before you did post...so you may not have seen them.

Took me ages to load those deleted posts for some reason.

I don't remember seeing anything about him before I posted. So maybe they were deleted first then. The posts were leaving that thread really fast.

Yes. The first attempt to turn it into another Corbyn thread was just 4 posts into the thread. Yours was waaaay down the thread :p

So im a bit late commenting on this but completely agree with both Dezzy and Vickys opinion on the derailment of threads with all the Corbyn stuff and its seemingly the same posters that are guilty of this, it needs to stop and these sort of comments that are designed to derail threads will be removed and the posters will be infracted if they continue to do it, no its not censorship its us trying our best to stop threads constantly going off topic and descending into the same old arguments.

I'm only coming in at the end of this for a bit of a comment. I think one of my own posts may have been removed, not sure... but it's a regular thing. So when exactly can we mention the name, Corbyn if not in a thread about politics? And which other politicians cannot be mentioned if the thread isn't purely about them? People have to get away from the idea that his name is mentioned purely to upset other posters. It is not. It is mentioned because he is the leader of one of the two biggest parties in the country. And when you look at some of the things that have been said about the Tories in Corbyn support threads, some of the pictures and jokes that have been posted, it looks to me like censorship. And now we're going to be banned and infracted. This is TiBB, not Momentum. At the moment Mods are claiming to know the workings of people's minds by telling them that they only came in to bait. And that's not true for me. Everyone who doesn't support Corbyn is treated the same, they're all baiting. And I can't see that as true.

I'll make sure to report every mention of every Tory in every Corbyn thread if that's the direction we're now taking.

This needs clarification, taking this thread as an example there are plenty posts about the Tory's but not so many mentions of Teresa May per se, is that how to get around this new rule, talk about the party rather than the leader?

Hi Josy! :wavey: Ok so you agree with both Dezzy and Vicky and yet they disagree because Vicky thought it was a bit heavy handed to remove all those posts on that particular thread. So can you clarify a bit more who you do agree with?

Can you tell me how my post derailed the thread and point me at how I am doing this often please? My post was removed and if you say it is the same people then you are lumping me in that.

As Livia said should we now be reporting every post about every politician who isn't in the thread OP when it's a political thread now?

Can we talk about Teresa May or is it just Jeremy Corbyn who is off topic?

Are you for real? I didn't even comment on the JRM thread, and often avoid many ones in this section these days because they descend into the same tiresome, repetitive Corbyn mudslinging - so the idea that it's my avatar that's leading you to bring him up is complete nonsense. I'm flattered that you're trying to imply I have that much of an impact on you but seriously, take some ownership for your own actions.

My avatar was and is a JOKE that was combined with my Christmas name change and signature, the only reason it hasn't changed yet is I haven't had the time/couldn't be bothered to find one to replace it. He's wearing a Santa hat for Christ sake :unsure:

Its not discussing seperate politicians. Its the constant turning threads into a singular topic. Like..lets say a member started bring every single politics thread (and some threads that arent to do with politics) round to Rees Mogg. This would be an issue. Where, mentioning Rees Mogg in a thread would not. It would become an even bigger issue if suddenly a couple+ of posters started doing this, and quoting all of each others posts in the derailed threads to keep the derailment going each time. Which would often end up in an argument that is offtopic, samey, and could have been stopped before it even started.

The huge problem we have to sort out now is, that there are now so many members who are bringing all threads round to Corbyn...that any mention of Corbyn turns entire threads into bickering about Corbyn. I ****ing hate the word Corbyn recently, not just for himself, but because I have typed it, and read it way too many times.

Can any of you think of a solution here, as I actually am struggling, a lot...to think of solutions beyond deleting posts when they start taking threads offtopic. Given removing the regular offtopic posts (that usually are just sniping...and turn into full blown arguments half the time) is apparently the wrong thing to do :shrug: I do welcome all suggestions here. Feels a bit..rock and a hard place.