Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Rinty
|
general banterThis ection is, as azurri describes it, for all other topics not covered. It is not for setting up a rival forum and is not moderated by a group of people who claim ownership of it.
After being persuaded to stay on as a moderator I will be specifically concentrating on this section.
Too many people have put too much free time and effort into this forum over the years to alow the whiole thing to slip into general or trivial banter.
|
Blackadder
|
| Quote: | | ... I will be specifically concentrating on this section ... |
Never one to hide when the going gets tough ... I'll weigh in here and say quite outright that I object strongly to that particular part of your statement!
You were quite willingly a part of the brouhaha in this section ... and indeed initiated some hostility to specific posters, including myself!
As an integral part therefore ...you should not be placed in this position as it gives you an unfair advantage over the rest of us, while obviously pursuing a vendetta againt those YOU deem to be in the wrong, because I and others disagreed with you!
For the rest of the forum ... fine ... I have no problem with you as a moderator whatsoever ... but you have a problem with this section's regular posters ... and that being the case ... I request Azbat appoints someone else to moderate here, who does not have a personal axe to grind!
|
Rinty
|
You can object all you want Blackader the job of a moderator is to make all parts of the forum acceptable and accesible to all.
I have no current mod problem with this section but, as the forum is increasingly concentrated in this place and we have less moderators than in the past, it needs specific ectra monitoring.
Azurri's history section is the corect place for history discussion and the setting up of a ravial section to his for all history in one thread is detrimental to the site and an over-reaction to the histiry section which is, in general a well-informed and good debating forum. I think it is unfaior on Azurri to do this and has implications for new people joining the site.
They will see a history forum that people have left in avout of their own section, giving the impression that moderatotrs have allowed the history forum to become a place where debate is impossible, this is an exageration and it seems to me that some people are activelt trying to promote the idea that this site is not worth visiting.
Moving something to the 'banter' section does not exempt it from the same moderation as before.
By encouraging others to move subjects from a deisgnated forum to general banter you make it impossible for moderators not to 'follow the action'.
|
Blackadder
|
I can and do take criticism for what I say and do ... and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it and learn to be better.
You don't, won't and can't
I've also changed my mind and believe you are unfit to be a moderator!
|
Rinty
|
That was you opinion already. Lets keep the threads on subject, with the normal variations that occur, and the posts free from personal abuse.
I am following the moderator duties as required for the good of the the site niot for one side of a playground squabble or the other.
General banter is a good section for general banter, lets keep it that way and not as a rival to our-scotland
|
Blackadder
|
I've moved this comment here from "pages" ... so as to prevent that thread's further pollution ..
| Quote: | | those who are reading this who are not part of the campaign, |
For crying out loud ... how many times do I have to say it? There is NO campaign!! Not against you, Rinty! Not against anybody!
I speak for me and me alone. I am NOT part of any conspiracy you have dreamed up in your head!
I do not know anyone off this forum and am acting solely according to my own conscience!
I believed you to be wrong in the way you treated Carol publicly and DC privately. Later on, though you acknowledged you had made mistakes, which I accept, I did not see any apology as such. Oerhaps you can show me where that happened.
As for the PM issue ... DC should have been publicly slapped down for that. There's the even-handed approach I was talking about. But instead it was Mairead who copped the flak. You and Azbat acknowledged that DC was at fault ... but there no real open Moderation against him.
Perhaps this Forum needs to institute a sin-bin of some kind ... I don't know ... I'd probably be in and out of one more times than anybody! But, it's possibility that might be considered to prevent outright hostilities.
My real problem with you, happened when you said you were no longer a Moderator and then came out with a load of hostility to me, claiming I was "bad for the forum"! Can't see it myself ... but everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Then you thought there was a "campaign" against you being a Moderator. Not as far as I was concerned. I just thought you had made a bad decision. But you went on to get very personal and I guess I have responded ... but not before I attempted a cessation of hostility with you and you publicly declared you weren't up for that!
Since then, you took up the Moderatorship again ... and your policy has been to follow me around ... to "police" me, perhaps?? You by your own words and actions seem to be determined to lock me down when you can.
That's bad stewardship ... and if you worked for me in the manor ... you'd've been sacked long before now! Even Baldrick has more sense!
|
Rinty
|
"As for the PM issue ... DC should have been publicly slapped down for that."
he was
|
Rinty
|
"I believed you to be wrong in the way you treated Carol publicly and DC privately. Later on, though you acknowledged you had made mistakes, which I accept, I did not see any apology as such. Oerhaps you can show me where that happened. "
If you accepted it why are you still going on about it. I apologised to carol in a PM and publicly stated that I had done so.
"There is NO campaign!"
So why do you need extra threads to keep this going?
"Perhaps this Forum needs to institute a sin-bin of some kind ... I don't know ... I'd probably be in and out of one more times than anybody!"
It could be consuidered but in three years we dont have real problems, we ban outright hostility and can take measures already so I dont see the need.
"My real problem with you, happened when you said you were no longer a Moderator and then came out with a load of hostility to me, claiming I was "bad for the forum"! Can't see it myself ... but everyone is entitled to an opinion."
FFS! I offered my resignation as a mod in response to your complaints, azzuri persuaded me not to and I had many PMs from members supporting me so I didnt. Between times there was no difference.
I still thi think you are bad for the forum on this issue, and I think you are making it steadily worse by continuing it and insisteing on more threads to keep it going in.
|
Blackadder
|
| Quote: | | I still thi think you are bad for the forum on this issue |
So now you've changed your stance from "bad for the forum" to "bad for the forum on this issue"??
Would that be correct? Can you tell me exactly what the "issue" is?
|
Rinty
|
The issue of keeping this going, Carol breached he guideleines on IF, you have a problem with my moderation of this issue.
You them tried to get forum mebers to leave the history forum in favour of a 'benter' thread for all scots history and are still going on about this.
This issue will run and run until you drop it. It is your stance on this issue that is bad for the forum, it is now polluting the whole aite.
|
Blackadder
|
Rinty ... in keeping "this" going ... you're every bit as "guilty" as I am, in that case!
And whe you realise that and stop being so paranoid about imagined conspiracies against you ... then we might have some progress!
|
Rinty
|
We will never have progress on this as it it simply repetitive.
I will respond to every post on this issue - every time.
It ends when you decide it ends, it is as simple as that.
|
Babygael
|
Hi Rinty, you said..."Too many people have put too much free time and effort into this forum over the years to allow the whole thing to slip into general or trivial banter."
In other words,that was the polite version but what we really mean...... we don't want the eejits that frequent General banter to join in on any other discussions because we don't want the whole thing to turn into one big joke...am i right?
This is the reason why all that I said before on the History thread is true,it boils down to attitude.
And it is because of this that what you perceive to be a "Rival forum" forming is a result of folk (we the eejits  ) having a desire and an interest in discussing serious issues, to do so in peace,without the attitude.
I do not believe anyone intended to attempt a rival forum, its just our way of discussing issues in a relaxed,informal and friendly enviorment.it is after all,general banter!
Again you said,Rinty.......
"Azurri's history section is the correct place for history discussion and the setting up of a rival section to his for all history in one thread is detrimental to the site and an over-reaction to the history section which is, in general a well-informed and good debating forum. I think it is unfair on Azurri to do this and has implications for new people joining the site."
Well I am a member of the Azurri fan club,if you will!  And would not for the world purposefully set out to upset the apple cart.However, it is plain to see that there is a catch 22 here and it would be better all round for threads within G/B to cover all subjects of interest,rather than look at it as a "rival Forum/thread",be more open minded about it,just a suggestion, because no matter what, we who frequent G/B would love to have good discussions about this or that as I've mentioned before and would rather do so in a far more "Banterish?" style rather than the formal,ridged style of the "serious" threads,which is as you said above,is a well-informed forum, but I don't agree that it is a good debating forum because it is not open for all,for fear of it,as you said earlier,"slipping into general or trivial banter.This I understand.Having said that, that statement says a lot about the rest of us!!!!!!  Other wise, we do feel somewhat stifled and limited to this or that,see?
Further more, I think this will allow others who have been put off by this "Formal style" of debate to join in and rather than being detrimental to OS, offer it more scope,because right now the G/B folk will have to put up with limited topics to chat and pick over!
As you said Rinty..." Has implications for people joining the site" yes,certainly for anyone to purposfully turn the formal debates into "G/B or trivia,would put off people from joining.Equally so, these formal debates puts off people from joining in due mainly to style and atmosphere.While this may appeal to some folk,which is fine,it on the other hand is not very inviting for others.
Is all I'm saying........
On another note, I am pleased Rinty that you have decided to stay on as moderator although a fair and even hand wadnae go amiss,ye ken? 
|
Blackadder
|
Well said, BG.
I think you hit the nail on the head!
Award yourself 100 points and a few stiff drinks for explaining what you feel with a clarity few others have said well or as succintly!
How's the broomstick after your long flight from Bajan land??? 
|
Rinty
|
"In other words,that was the polite version but what we really mean...... we don't want the eejits that frequent General banter to join in on any other discussions because we don't want the whole thing to turn into one big joke...am i right? "
No you are not right. What I meant was that, through many uos and down we eventually made this a forum where people can discuss a rage of topics in their own way. When people come to the iste for the first time we dont an them to have to see a dead history section and have to search for a discussion on history under a different name. When I say 'the whole thing' I mean that verey subjce cannot be 'general banter'. I myself take part in general banter on and off, I have alwys done so. Each thing is best in it's own place, thst is all.
"And it is because of this that what you perceive to be a "Rival forum" forming is a result of folk (we the eejits ) having a desire and an interest in discussing serious issues, to do so in peace,without the attitude.
I do not believe anyone intended to attempt a rival forum, its just our way of discussing issues in a relaxed,informal and friendly enviorment.it is after all,general banter!"
Agreed, apart from the 'eejits' quote that you atribute to me. Anyone can discuss anything they want in any forum really, there should be no presuure.
In this case however, there was call to move al history into one thread in general banter. That is detrimental to the site in my opinion and was worth countering. As I said elsewhere, if banter becaomes serious discussion in the course and development of a conversation then that is fine and not the same as trying to move history to banter.
If a thread in banter was started up called something like 'general light history dicussion' and was not accompanied by a call to move from history then I would hav no problem with that.
"although a fair and even hand wadnae go amiss,ye ken?"
Once again the accusation that I am not fair and even handed, why is why I oofered to stand down as a mod. Thankfully I now know that the majoprity of the members dont think that I am unfair or biased and I have the suport of azzuri.
Azzuri and I have been together on this project from the start. He will agree that although it is in his name we have been like partners on promoting and developing the site.
|
Blackadder
|
Well, I've had PM s of support for my point of view as well ... though not from Carol or Mairead (  ) so where does that put us???
Plus, any chance of changing the name? I mean General Banter IN General Banter??? Gimme a break, eh???
|
Rinty
|
I suppose we could change the name but this was meant to a reiteration of what general banter was for and not a dicussion thread.
I am not in the business of weighing up PMs Blackadder. I mentioned them as an explanation as to why I changed my mind on stepping down. I felt that I was undermined as a mod and that your assrtion that I was seen as biased meant that I should stand down. The PMs reassured me that this is a minority view.
|
Blackadder
|
And I mentioned the PMs I got in support purely to show that I'm viewed by some as not being in the wrong here
I disagreed with you, yes ... but the undermining of your position has been of your own making.
I thought you were being biased, but I was assured you were not ... until I read back on old posts and I have to question that assertion.
A minority view rather depends on how many posts either of us has recieved, doesn't it?? Or are you claiming the moral high ground ... which is quite a precarious place to raise your standard!!!
|
Rinty
|
I am not claiming anything Blackadder, you and others are claiming bias, you have just done so again and I think I have the right to repond to that.
When you 'read back on old posts' you are not able to view the discussions between moderators and the action taken. You dont get the full picture.
Most times we are discussing what to do when the thread sorts itself out.
|
mairead
|
AMEN.
|
|
|
|