Moderators not taking action

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I checked back through the report history to see what you are referring to.

You have made three reports - all complaining about posts that Bayview made in a single thread where you didn't like what he was posting. To be clear - your complaint seemed to be about the topic he was posting on rather than about personal attacks or anything else.

The moderators all agreed that no action was required because Bayview was not breaking any rules (despite assertions by yourself to the contrary) and is entitled to his opinion on the subject.

So, I'm sorry if you feel that we aren't enforcing rules equally, but in this case I am happy with the moderation decisions that were made.

I do take this stuff very seriously and I always give fair consideration to complaints that are made. However at the end of the day, I have to make a judgement call and I do understand if you are disappointed because you don't agree with my decision.

In this case though, I don't think there are reasonable grounds for complaint if it's just a personal gripe you have against someone else that is being reported and the moderators choose to take no action.

 

LibGS - I think you are misunderstanding the point of those rules.

Those rules are specifically there to deal with people who post one line responses like "I agree" or "I don't agree" or other more sarcastic responses without giving detail or explaining why - or largely take the thread off topic (ironically, like most of these posts in this thread ).

They are not there to try and prevent someone from posting their own opinion on a topic.

It is your opinion that Bayview destroyed the thread. It is our opinion that he is entitled to post his point of view and that no action was required.

He was not making personal attacks on anyone, nor was he off topic. Just because you find his point of view contrary to your own, does not make him guilty of breaking the rules.

 

No, the rules aren't open to interpretation - they are my rules and I enforce them.

However, the rules are generally not dichotomous either - many posts are neither clearly acceptable nor clearly unacceptable, but somewhere in the murky grey between the "black and white".

This is where judgement comes into it - as moderators we must make a judgement as to whether a post is unreasonable and requires action - either to modify or remove it - and whether the user should receive an official warning; have their posting rights in that specific thread removed; some private education about what we acceptable; or no further action at all.

I did clarify that rule in my last post.

 

"We were have a rational sensible discussion about the effects of climate change on property investment and BV then came in with his ill informed unscientific opinions on climate change."

Someone being wrong on the internet (in your opinion) does not constitute breaking the rules.

 

Did not suit the thread? Or did not suit you?

... in your opinion. We disagreed that it was worth taking any action.

If you don't like Bayview's opinions - just put him on ignore, then you can enjoy the rest of the thread without having to put up with him.

Come on - it's just a thread on a discussion forum on the internet. It's not like you've been wronged and need to challenge him to a duel at dawn. Get over it. Move on. Put people on ignore.

 

Not easily. I have no interest in that kind of information anyway.

 

I assume you meant "nuisance"? Not necessarily - all it does is flag people that others find annoying or whose views they find distasteful. That doesn't necessarily make them worthy of extra attention from the moderators. I know plenty of annoying people who don't ever break the rules (means I have no excuse to ban them! ).