About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

user104658 · 07-02-2018, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Me too.

#metoo they touched me on the...

Oh wait this thread is about some other thing. Some kinda whingey nonsense. Never mind. Me too about that as well I guess. What is it we're talking about?

Actually I guess my two cents is what it always is; this is a private forum, the people running it pick the mods, if you don't like their policies then by all means complain about it but if the status quo has been decided then

. If the forum staff don't want every SD thread to become a Jezza Corbz thread then that's their business. If the forum staff want to force every thread on every topic to be about a micropiglet wearing a monocle that's their business. No one is being oppressed here. This isn't a public space. You're in someone else's house and if you don't like the game they're playing, you are free to go home. This applies to all of us and is well worth remembering.

Brillopad · 07-02-2018, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

#metoo they touched me on the...

Oh wait this thread is about some other thing. Some kinda whingey nonsense. Never mind. Me too about that as well I guess. What is it we're talking about?

Actually I guess my two cents is what it always is; this is a private forum, the people running it pick the mods, if you don't like their policies then by all means complain about it but if the status quo has been decided then

. If the forum staff don't want every SD thread to become a Jezza Corbz thread then that's their business. If the forum staff want to force every thread on every topic to be about a micropiglet wearing a monocle that's their business. No one is being oppressed here. This isn't a public space. You're in someone else's house and if you don't like the game they're playing, you are free to go home. This applies to all of us and is well worth remembering.

That is all well and good but without members it wouldn’t be around for long so it isn’t completely a one-way thing is it. SD certainly woudn’t get much use if only those with one opinion could post. Debate usually involves the expression of differing opinions does it not.

Or is the site to become just a supporter of one political party - just another Corbynista.

Brillopad · 07-02-2018, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i will state my thoughts for what its worth, and its not a direct attack on anyone.

This is a left leaning forum, the majority are young members with left leaning views, some extreme left wing. In the run up to the GE, while things were said about Corbyn, the majority was attack upon attack at the conservative party. This I really don't mind because it reflects the membership and its good to debate. However, when a unilateral decision is made to protect a political side by deleting the views of perfectly valid posters, its wrong, and if that is going to be the forum policy, then i won't contribute to the debate, because it's not even and fair. So for me until this is cleared up, I shall stay well clear of any political threads. If rules are going to be applied to political debate, they should be applied fairly and evenly

Although I agree with that in principle doesn’t that just give those that seek to shut down the opinions of others what they want. Isn’t that effectively giving them exactly what they want - free reign without challenge. Mixed feelings on this.

Ammi · 07-02-2018, 09:47 AM

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..

...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..

...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..

..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

Ammi · 07-02-2018, 09:56 AM

...actually Vicky is an awful moderator...she looked up my file and saw I hadn’t pressed the report button since 2016, when I haven’t really been here for the whole of 2017..that’s how forum aware she is..

...(...obviously she’s not awful at all and I’m sure she won’t mind be saying that...)...but I guess it’s showing how difficult the general moderator thing is in trying their best to be objective and observant etc...

Vicky. · 07-02-2018, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ammi

...actually Vicky is an awful moderator...she looked up my file and saw I hadn’t pressed the report button since 2016, when I haven’t really been here for the whole of 2017..that’s how forum aware she is..

...(...obviously she’s not awful at all and I’m sure she won’t mind be saying that...)...but I guess it’s showing how difficult the general moderator thing is in trying their best to be objective and observant etc...

I failed slightly there for sure

I do not understand how people are taking this as trying to 'protect a political side' when its been explained literally over and over that this is about multiple threads going offtopic with the same stuff. I mean, if there was someone who liked Corbyn doing this in so many threads, the same would happen (I think from memory this did happen once actually, and that wasn't taken well either)

But y'all keep saying in this 9 page thread about how awful Corbyn and those around him, and his supporters are..that anyone who dislikes Corbyn or is right leaning is being censored. Maybe go say the same thing in any of the other multiple negative Corbyn threads, or threads that are negative about the left in general. Of course we are definitely trying to rid the site of any dissent. As a serious debates forum absolutely can work when all of the posters in there agree

Anyway, I'm not being drawn back into discussions about it as I have repeated myself so many times already and seemingly been ignored if what people are taking away from this is that no negative posts about Corbyn are allowed. Its really just paranoid nonsense, it really is. Maybe pick yourself a left wing figure and start spamming all over the forum, about how much you love them, one line posts, random turning of every political threads into how much you love this left wing figure, and see what happens (actually please do not actually do this, no more offtopic stuff

). As it will be exactly the same thing, which I reckon kind of proves that its not about silencing one side, its about trying to keep SD from being a repetitive load of bollocks.

Again, went into more than I planned to here but meh. It still won't be listened to and people will continue to have this (false) view that we are 'protecting' the left of whatever. The most left leaning member on here seems to bloody love all of the Corbyn discussions anyway, no matter how they start. It seems to be those who are not that into politics, or are just sick to death of seeing the same stuff everywhere that have issues with the repetitiveness in threads...

Cherie · 07-02-2018, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..

...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..

...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..

..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

Jet and Jaxie were the only ones posting and given they had their posts removed were quite entitled, I didn't see any pack mentality on the thread or any potential to see one develop

Ammi · 07-02-2018, 10:13 AM

..I have to say as well, I do find it personally quite heartbreaking with jet, when his personal experiences and pain are so obvious in ‘anti Corbyn’ posts...and he’s asked for ‘proof’ when that ‘proof’ is right there in everything he writes of his thoughts...and I do understand the need for ‘absolute proof’ also...but there are so many of us who have shared painful, emotional experiences in our lives over time and we can all relate and we can all feel and we do relate and we do feel... but ‘proof’ isn’t always asked for on other topics beyond Jeremy Corbyn...the ‘lack of objectivity’ as it were, isn’t always attached to and applied equally either...

Brillopad · 07-02-2018, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ammi

..the thing is though, who are ‘they’ that would be given exactly what they wanted..?..it’s often said..’this is where the cause of members not wanting to post on SD is’...but that ‘cause’ isn’t a fixed thing, its what an individual thinks it is and where the issues lie...over time I’ve had private conversations about why a person feels put off from posting in SD and those conversations have all differed in their reasons, although some have been similar...and some members even saying, oh I’m off now because ‘that group’ or that member is ‘shutting down’ and it’s just not worth it etc..and some would rather discuss topics by PM, rather than in a thread atm for the reasons they have which also can be different...but ‘that group’ or ‘that member’ is so interchangeable as well, depending on perceptions...so far as modding is concerned, we must be a nightmare ..

...and I do totally agree with Dezzy in the ‘do we only take issue because of the person’, who we might personally just not feel any connection of thoughts with or conveyance of thoughts whatsoever...anyways, none of that’s helpful but what I wanted to say is...jet, you’re pretty amazing, you know that..?..

...you felt a potential ‘pack’ in the thread vein toward Dezzy might develop...which you immediately ‘withdrew’ from having any part of...I think I like you a lot actually..

..(...btw jet, Dezzy is pretty amazing as well and a great and devoted moderator also ..)...

The thing with Dezzy’s comments is that he himself is quick to take issue because of the person - something that has not gone unnoticed by others in a thread on many occasions. He is quick to dish it out but not so keen to be on the receiving end of it it seems when he perceives that is what is happening to him. It is not nice for anyone on the receiving end, that unpleasant feeling of a ‘pack’ mentality developing - something maybe he should think about before being so quick to give it.

Ammi · 07-02-2018, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad

The thing with Dezzy’s comments is that he himself is quick to take issue because of the person - something that has not gone unnoticed by others in a thread on many occasions. He is quick to dish it out but not so keen to be on the receiving end of it it seems. It is not nice for anyone on the receiving end - something maybe he should think about before being so quick to give it.

...but then all of us are quick to dish it out but not so keen on receiving, Brillo..

...I mean, our faults make us human and they’re there in all of us...it just feels, and quite often actually to me...that it’s more of a dash it’s Dezzy thing, as opposed to any other moderator who may sometimes be open to criticism also...I hate this whole ‘hypocrisy’ vein of thought anyway in terms of the forum specifically because we’re all hypocrites, each and every one of us...because we’re human and one size doesn’t fit all in every topic or individual stories we tend to discuss...anyways, I must go and start my day, Brillo..

bots · 07-02-2018, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Although I agree with that in principle doesn’t that just give those that seek to shut down the opinions of others what they want. Isn’t that effectively giving them exactly what they want - free reign without challenge. Mixed feelings on this.

Its not a debate if there are not counter arguments put forward. Threads that are full of people in agreement soon wither and die.

I would say its better not to debate at all than participate in a censored sham pretending to be a debate

user104658 · 07-02-2018, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Its not a debate if there are not counter arguments put forward. Threads that are full of people in agreement soon wither and die.

I would say its better not to debate at all than participate in a censored sham pretending to be a debate

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

bots · 07-02-2018, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

The biggest issue I have is that posts were removed under the pretense that they were off topic (which they clearly were not) when they disagreed with the political leanings of those censoring. That is perfectly clear from a mod's responses to being questioned on this very thread.

My choice is to not participate under those conditions, others are free to make their own minds up

Vicky. · 07-02-2018, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

EXACTLY THIS.

My god you can put things better than I can. This is what I was trying to say pages back. But was either misunderstood or ignored. I suspect purposely misunderstood.

Corbyn is relevant in many current political threads, of course. But the deleted posts were not comparing, say Corbyns voting record to Moggs or anything like that. They were literally just 'What about Corbyn' and 'You support Corbyn' 'random Corbyn bollocks' which were nothing at all to do with the actual thread. This was the problem in there, not bringing up Corbyn or being negative or whatever. There could be a similar thread about Corbyns voting record...and if people came into it not even acknowledging the topic and just posting 'what about May/Mogg' 'your opinion is crap as you support May/Mogg' or whatever, then those would be offtopic nonsense and removed too. Theres just no need for it. none at all. It adds nothing and takes threads offtopic on a regular basis. Its almost always the same stuff that does it...and it just so happens that its almost always 'but Corbyn' stuff. So its the 'but Corbyn' stuff thats being deleted.

I cannot leave the thread FFS. I am trying

Disclaimer. I do agree it may have been heavy handed removing the posts in that Mogg thread though, as I said over and over. But I understood why they were deleted, which was basically because of TS bold part up there^

The more I have thought about the deletions, the more I do think I agree with them though. Especially given the amount of 'but Corbyn' posts there are elsewhere too and the sheer amount of threads that get taken offtopic by it all.

jet · 07-02-2018, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.

I get that, but once again the whole point I and others were making yesterday is being missed. On THAT thread, at least initially, there was no effort to engage the actual topic, it was just one or two word name calling of Ree Moggs (not that I care for him myself). So why is it not okay for others to respond and post about Corbyn in a similar vein (and many were NOT of that variety), comparing one future possible PM to another possible future PM? The tone of the thread was set already by the Ree Moggs detractors, it wasn't in any way a
discussion that was being derailed.

If the thread had contained well thought out posts and we had come in saying 'but what about Corbyn's shortcomings!!!', with disparaging one word this or that's then yes, I see the problem here. But that's not what happened, so it was unfair to delete all of the mentions of Corbyn and leaving all the posts that many considered started off the thread in a baiting manner intact.

Am I making any sense here because it doesn't seem to be understood and I really don't want to say any more about it or start it all up again, I really don't.

So really I think the TONE of a thread is all - important and what I really want to know is what happens going forward using the Ree Moggs thread as an example because obviously many of us were unhappy about the way it was handled.

Can a mod make it clear what the future policy on the type of thread like the Ree Moggs one is going to be please?

user104658 · 07-02-2018, 10:33 AM

... And while that doesn't invalidate jet's feelings or what jet knows, it is perfectly fair for people to say "I can't base *my* opinions on things that *you* know" and ask for evidence.