[James]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's correct.

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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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!!!

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Oh please!!!

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.

[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.

[Jordan.]

Nothing but respect for my moderators

[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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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".

[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.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Me being a terrible mother

Tsk, what are you like!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Tsk, what are you like!

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Me being a terrible mother

Wow 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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by caprimint

Wow 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

[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

[y.winter]

Cue the we'resupposedtohaveanicetea.gif