Disappearing contributers

Casdon

I suspect most removals are actually as a result of people making hurtful personal comments, rather than expressing their political views?

But Allira is never malicious nor hurtful, so what lies have been told here?

I am increasingly cautious about what, and how, I post, particularly on News and Politics, and that is not right.

I hope Allira will soon be restored to Gransnet, and I hope there will be more transparency about what constitutes grounds for a Ban.

MartavTaurus

Casdon

I suspect most removals are actually as a result of people making hurtful personal comments, rather than expressing their political views?

But Allira is never malicious nor hurtful, so what lies have been told here?

I think what is suggested is that Allira was provoked into whatever she said? My comment was more general though, in response to people being cautious about what they say, as it seems to be when people are having a go at each other, rather than when they have very strong views about a topic, that the deletions happen.

Wyllow3 But they have explained before that they cannot monitor every single post on every single thread and can only respond if someone or many someones report it. and therein lies the obvious problem Doodledog highlighted. We are not reassured that the reporter/s motives and history are examined with any degree of depth if at all.
I truly believe that Allira was targeted and was banned on the strength of those reports.

Doodledog

*Annie*, what I (and I suspect others) would like to see come out of this is a proper explanation of the process by which someone can end up banned.

We’ve heard from friends of banned posters that it comes out of the blue and is non-negotiable, which is at odds with what we hear from HQ. Obviously the full story can get lost along the way, but as the process is shrouded in mystery, it is difficult to know what to believe.

I realise that individual cases can’t be discussed, but a more open dialogue would be much appreciated, please, particularly around whether the person doing the reporting is taken into account when decisions are made (eg is it a lurker, or someone who is often involved in arguments?). Why do some people seem to get away with things for years, and others disappear at what appears to be a first offence? Is a system of reporting sensible given that many of us rarely, if ever report and others do so often? How can that ever be equitable? Answers to those sorts of questions would be very much appreciated, please.

Thank you.

Agree. Transparency is key to fairness and helpful to members.

Casdon

MartavTaurus

Casdon

I suspect most removals are actually as a result of people making hurtful personal comments, rather than expressing their political views?

But Allira is never malicious nor hurtful, so what lies have been told here?

I think what is suggested is that Allira was provoked into whatever she said? My comment was more general though, in response to people being cautious about what they say, as it seems to be when people are having a go at each other, rather than when they have very strong views about a topic, that the deletions happen.

👍 . Agree, and I'll certainly be taking that on board going further, even little digs.
As for others, that's up to them.

Casdon

I suspect most removals are actually as a result of people making hurtful personal comments, rather than expressing their political views?

Yes, I expect so too, but people have different levels of resilience to comments. If one poster is deeply hurt and reports a post calling her a bit of a meanie, or for disagreeing with politically, and another is called an evil sadist (or whatever) but doesn’t report the post, how can that be even-handed moderation?

Similarly, if the one being called evil responds in kind and her post is reported by a mischievous (or just meddlesome) poster, it might look on the surface as though the response is aggressive, when in fact it was a human reaction to what was said.

What constitutes a personal comment is not clear either. Suppose someone responds to this post saying ‘ Doodledog, your comments are foolish, and it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about ’ - is that personal? What about ‘ Some people who have no idea what they are talking about make foolish comments ’ ? How is that different if it follows my post? It’s equally personal but less direct - it’s passive aggressive, if you like. We can all see that it refers to me (hypothetically) and that it’s a dig - does not naming me make that ok?

Finally, what constitutes ‘goading’? I think we can all tell the more egregious cases - digs about estranged parents made to those in that situation, for instance. Or other, similar ones. Many will pass over the heads of most of us though. We don’t all know one another’s circumstances. It would be easy to make a comment about red Volvos being owned by idiots (or something equally daft) with no idea you are talking to someone who drives one. Is that ‘goady’? Maybe so to the person with the red car, but it’s not straightforward, is it?

All of this is why there is no list of rules of engagement- I understand that- but if HQ are going to ban people based on those things it would be good to have an idea of how they arrive at their decisions.

I think it comes down to what we can reasonably expect from light touch moderation Doodledog? On a public site like Gransnet, with hundreds of posts every day, the mods can’t keep track of the subtleties of interaction between posters, and we have to live together if we want to continue posting. If we think somebody is being personally targeted by another poster, as opposed to the same people disagreeing about a topic, one option is for other posters to call it out as we see it, which might stop it continuing?

Morning Allira 😃 things are sounding more positive now.

Yes that is a good summary of my own concerns doodledog. I find thales passive aggressive some people much more 'offensive' than someone saying Galaxy you are being a nugget.

Yes, I don't mind being disagreed with, and try to be direct when I disagree with others, as it isn't personal, but also so that people don't wonder if I'm getting at them. I often feel uncomfortable on threads like this where mystery people are being referred to, as I don't know who they are, and wonder if anyone thinks it might be me (it wasn't). I've been falsely accused on here before, and would much rather have a chance to defend myself than have a vague feeling that someone somewhere might suspect me of someone.

I've said before that the Headmaster at my school used to come out in assembly to pronounce that 'We have a thief in our midst', and many people (usually girls) blushed scarlet. It was the feeling that someone might think they might be guilty rather than that they were. Mostly, though, it's obvious when someone is being nasty but thinking it doesn't count because they haven't used a name.

I don't know who these mystery people are either. I never know.

I don't have a red volvo though, so at least I know I'm not that person

😂

A rotten lot, red Volvo drivers - never met a good one

It isn’t you Doodledog so rest easy.
Galaxy would you be a gold or a chicken nugget?😁

Do you see another solution other than calling it out on the thread when you see passive aggression happening though Galaxy, I think we'd be expecting too much of the mods to expect they could take on that role?

Oreo nugget was the only word i could think of that wasn't sweary
No I don't really want mods to take on that role. I think challenging the 'some people' thing is difficult because it is all done in a faux innocent way. My guess is that doodle remembers it particularly from the gender threads where it was a completely artform

Indeed so, Galaxy. It was done in a comically bad way a lot of the time, but it was infuriating - 'I want to be as nasty as I can to you, but I don't want people to think badly of me, so I'll pretend it's a general comment'.

Also, I know it's not me in this case, as I don't think I was on any of the threads in question, but the fact that I can be told this by someone who does know, but not who the suspect might be is uncomfortable. It adds to the feeling of 'cliquiness' that so many new contributors describe.

I don't know who the accussed is, I could give a guess from a couple of things mentioned but I am not sure that would be fair as I could be completely wrong.

Oh my god I apologise for every typo and spelling, I am on my phone with terrible WiFi.

I don't know who was banned or why. It is fairly rare for someone to be banned so it is my opinion that, as a contributor complained to Gransnet and it was investigated, there must have been good grounds for the banning. I don't know why people are getting in such a tizz about it.

I don’t have a red Volvo either.
IMO I find the people who read certain newspapers are . . . very goady or even just downright rude, but I don’t report the posters. Far better to let their behaviour remain on show.

I've been trying to read the full thread and apologies if someone has already asked this but why the need to protect the reporter's anonymity?

We all know keyboard warriors thrive on their identity being unknown and so feel free to lash out as much as they like, I personally can't see anything wrong with a reported post being open to view just like any other post rather than a secret direct message to the mods.

Doodledog said upthread

" I expect so too, but people have different levels of resilience to comments. If one poster is deeply hurt and reports a post calling her a bit of a meanie, or for disagreeing with politically, and another is called an evil sadist (or whatever) but doesn’t report the post, how can that be even-handed moderation?

Yes, but moderators consider what the actual comment is, ie they will respond differently to a report on someone calling someone an evil sadist to someone being called a bit of a meanie. They do have brains you know!

Yes, but moderators consider what the actual comment is, ie they will respond differently to a report on someone calling someone an evil sadist to someone being called a bit of a meanie. They do have brains you know!
Did you miss the bit where Doodledog said the person being called an evil sadist might not report the comment preferring to let it stand for others to judge the poster? In that case that poster gets away with a nasty comment. potentially much worse than another one that is censored.
I actually find your last sentence rather rude and dismissive of Doodledog but don't worry, I don't report.

This thread has thrown up some interesting views on reporting. Most forums that I have come across, or been a member of, have the facility to report a post / thread. And to do so anonymously.

The reason forums have anonymous reporting is to protect the reporter. Some forums are like the wild west with some of the posts that are apparently allowed. The standard of behaviour is truly shocking. It wouldn't take much imagination to see how someone on those forums would be treated if they were identified as the one who reported a post. I have seen for myself the abuse directed at someone by another member. Extremely unpleasant stuff. So, reporting anonymously goes some way to protect the member doing the reporting.

An example - Crimestoppers is a hotline where anyone can anonymously report something to the police. But a lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable reporting something if it wasn't under the guarantee of anonymity, and some crimes wouldn't get reported.

It's not cowardly to report something anonymously but it could be seen as cowardly if someone didn't report something that they think they should. Some people are not comfortable with going public with a complaint, especially if they are lacking in confidence. There is also the risk, on any forum, that once someone admits to reporting a post, even if an explanation is given, and it was a correct decision, they will be shunned, ganged up on, or become the victim of malicious reporting themselves. So members tend to keep quite to protect themselves from being unfairly targeted. However, if someone wishes to explain themselves, that's absolutely fine.

Unfortunately, anonymous reporting does leave the report system open to abuse. Petty reporting, personal vendettas, etc. This does indeed happen, and good mods will spot it and take this into consideration.

I will say that I don't for one minute think the members here are in any way like the sort of people I have encountered elsewhere. You seem a great crowd, which is why I joined the site. I can see how you all stick together to support a fellow member, who I didn't know personally but is obviously well-loved here. But the reporting system employed is standard practice on most forums.

Just to be clear, seeing how I've posted the above, I haven't reported Allira (no reason to), nor would I report this thread, though I am surprised it's been allowed to run. I know for a fact that discussing owners/mods/other members is strictly forbidden on other forums. I actually think the mods are being very generous here in allowing this discussion. Let's hope it proves successful.