[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I've explained myself, if you're going to strain to see baiting everywhere then nothing I'm gonna say is going to change that. I'm done on this matter. You've got your explanation and I'm not getting dragged into an argument about this.

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

What is the difference between criticism of one and criticism of the other?
You baited and set the scene with your one word post SCUM - and others followed suit, which invites others to respond with if Moggs - Rees is scum, then what about Corbyn, also a possible future PM, and here are the reasons why.
I can't believe you innocently thought your one word response wouldn't invite any comparsion to Corbyn - and those posts were no worse than your word 'SCUM'. I suppose it depends on who is doing the baiting...and I think its ridiculous that all references to Corbyn were deleted, especially so soon into a thread. The rules are all over the place on this forum these days.
I've never seen even the mention of a name to be deleted from a thread before every time it appears. I guess a precedent is now set. It works both ways.

Spot on jet.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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

Come on mods, give us some clarity.

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

[Tom4784]

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

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.

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Except it isn't true Dezzy. It wasn't mud slinging at all. Why are you trying to make thing is? 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.

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'Corbyn is a supporter and friend to terrorists who deliberately and indiscriminately murdered children and babies' that quote was directly from you, btw......

.....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. .

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jet

I think its important that this point is cleared up:

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.

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 ) 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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 ) 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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

You have got to be joking here

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.

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.

[Vicky.]

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 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 And definitely could do with some zebras

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 ) 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.

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.

[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

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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.

[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.