[Cherie]

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

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 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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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

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.