Open question regarding poll response.

[bojangles17]

there's a heck of a lot of threads designed to poke the bear, most are blatantly obvious

[🏅Dooks]

I have two questions.

1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?

2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.

[Diocletian]

I have two questions.

1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?

2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.

Calling people "tit". Post reported.

[1965]

I have two questions.

1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?

2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.

Calling people "tit". Post reported.

Baiting or humour?

A fine line methinks.

I'm still confused.

 

[WilliamPowell]

I have two questions.

1) Can the mods clarify if any posters have been told to stop reporting of posts for minor reasons? Or if not, has this been an issue?

2) For transparency and accountability, should anyone who reports a post have their name come up under the post that has been reported? Just seems like such a covert cloak and dagger system at the moment that inflames tensions between people. If you are brave enough to report someone you should at least be honourable enough to do it face to face in front of everyone. It may in fact just cut down on the pointless reporting and tit for tat.

1/ no people can continue to report whatever and as stated we will review and deal with it

2/ No outside it not being a feature of the software it isnt fair on those who report.  We have said many times these issues at any level will not and should not be played out on the forum. I don't think people need to subjected to it

 Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see.

The other pist wont be reopened. You can post comments here.  Finally, I will get around to answering other questions when I get back to melb

[Chuck17]

If all threads got deleted that were hijacked there wouldn't be a forum

[Penelope]

it seems the mods have followed the MRP's lead and are judging on outcome rather than intent

[🏅Dooks]

 

[WilliamPowell]

it seems the mods have followed the MRP's lead and are judging on outcome rather than intent

Not at all

But I doubt there is anything that can be said that would change your view.

[Penelope]

that view is a relatively new one, based on you saying

"Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see"

so it is open to reassessment......

[Yeahright]

If I post about boogers on this thread will it get deemed a troll thread and be deleted? I'm sure what was said on the other was worse but sounds like that was what happened to me

[WilliamPowell]

that view is a relatively new one, based on you saying

"Why was the WAT determined as a troll thread. Think it might have had something to do with some of the last few posts that perhaps some people didnt see"

so it is open to reassessment......

Actually no it's the way things have always been done. All edits and removals are based on the definition of trolling & baiting we posted on the results thread.

When something degenerates to a point when people simply post comments that they know will provoke a response from a particular poster then that's baiting & trolling. That's what happened in the WAT one it got to that point. So when people quote the very first post in the thread and twist that to try and pot another poster and then others join then the entire thing get removes. That's what happened on the case of the WAT thread it was very very clear, so clear "blind freddy" would have seen it

If I post about boogers on this thread will it get deemed a troll thread and be deleted? I'm sure what was said on the other was worse but sounds like that was what happened to me

Sorry I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

[Penelope]

what you are talking about is a thread degenerating into a slagg off fest.

I dont think that was the intent, so the thread itself was not a troll or bait.

If people so desire, they could do that in nearly any thread.

[Yeahright]

what you are talking about is a thread degenerating into a slagg off fest.

I dont think that was the intent, so the thread itself was not a troll or bait.

If people so desire, they could do that in nearly any thread.

I think it had more to not wanting to give WAT any credit.

[WilliamPowell]

what you are talking about is a thread degenerating into a slagg off fest.

I dont think that was the intent, so the thread itself was not a troll or bait.

If people so desire, they could do that in nearly any thread.

Did you see every post in the thread?

Agree the initial intent wasn't to slag off or to bait but that's how it ended up

There were posts in the thread that were clearly baiting the person that topic was about

I think it had more to not wanting to give WAT any credit.

Again, what are you talking about? 

Are you suggesting that the thread was removed because we (mods) didn't want give WAT any credit for being right about Morris?

If you are then you are totally incorrect. I've explained the why earlier in this post

If I've got what I think you are suggesting wrong then I apologise and then please explain what you are talking about