Poor Moderator

Rinty · Poor Moderator

After discussion with RH and Azurri I have decided to stay on as a moderator.

There are three reasons for this, one is that some of the current moderators are no longer taking part in the site so I dont want to leave ny mates with too much work. The second is that recently the mods job is becoming more intense and more hard work due to constant spats, so I am needed.

I have been a moderator since the start and have never seen the level of personal stuff that is going on at the moment, and never seen a direct challenge to azurri to open rival forums to his history forum etc. Azurri has done us all a favour by setting up and running this site and I dont think he deserves this which is my third reason, support for the efforts of those who have made this site, until recently, a place where we could have measured, if sometimes ill-tempered debate, free from personal attacks, based on hearsay and tabloid gossip.

Blackadder

No problerm with you as a moderator in any other section but this one. You were too much a part of the recent "spat" as you termed it.

Neither is anyone challenging Azbats. There was simply a need to be able to discuss history with like-minded people who did not like a certain individual or his postings that caused the problems.

If Azbat has the problem, I would rather hear from him and not you! You told us you were no longer a moderator and then got stuck in ... and now you choose to be a moderator again when it suits you??

No chance!

Something stinks to high heaven here!! And I for one don't appreciate practices like that!!! Evil or Very Mad

Rinty

"No problerm with you as a moderator in any other section but this one. "

That is not you choice, all moderators moderate all sections. If there is no breach of foum rules you have nothing to worry about.

"If Azbat has the problem, I would rather hear from him and not you! You told us you were no longer a moderator and then got stuck in ... and now you choose to be a moderator again when it suits you??"

No, I choose to remain as a moderator as azurri requested it, nothing stinks, we are short of mods and recently need them more then ever.

Blackadder

You can tell that to people whare stupid! They might believe you. I don't!

It stinks ... and YOU'RE right at the centre of the stink!

Rinty

I have been a moderator on this site since the start. I decided that I shouldnt be as some people were accussing me of being unfit for the job and/or biased. Azurri persuaded me to stay as he thinks that I do a good job for the site and I have his 100% support.

Azurri and me have been online friends since the start of this and, along with SLG, we were doing this when no-one was interested and sveral times have acted to protect the site.

It is as simple as that.

You should stop this as it is not benefiting anyone.

mairead

Every one needs to stop it, and now, before a good forum is ruined.

Blackadder

I don't want it to look like I'm in cahoots with Mairead ... but I agree.

Rinty

This thread was an announcement and wasnt meant for discussion but I opened it as Blackadder asked for it to be re-opened to continue the debate. As usdual I acceoted his request and did what I was aksed.

I am moderating this debate and will continue to reply, explain and debate until those who are keeping it going drop it or until action is required.

If you want it to stop why are you still posting on it.

mairead

And why are you?
That was my attempt to finish this nonsense. and as a moderator I would have expected a better response from you than a mere attempt at getting in the last word.
Something like "I agree too" would have served very well.
Perhaps if you stopped going after the Blackadder, he would stop reponding to you.

Blackadder

Rinty

"Perhaps if you stopped going after the Blackadder, he would stop reponding to you."

Mairead, this thtead was re-opened at Blacakadders request so that he could continue the discussion.

I am happy to continue it if thats what people want. I think it is well past boring now but if you and others still want to keep posting on it I am hapy to respond to every single post until it stops.

mairead

"I am happy to respond to every single post until it stops?????" It takes two to make an argument.
Your persistence is not, IMO, a very good example of good moderating. As a mod you should not be getting yourself into such a situation, but should be calming things down for the good of the forum.
People, and I include myself in this, are sick of this nonsense which is endangering a great forum.

Blackadder

Can I request that this thread be renamed Rintygate please? It would be far more appropriate. Rolling Eyes

Rinty

""I am happy to respond to every single post until it stops?????" It takes two to make an argument.
Your persistence is not, IMO, a very good example of good moderating."

I wasnt aware that I was moderating this thread, apart from re-opening it. perhaps if moderation does become necessary then someone else should do it.

I am respinding to posts on tghis thread. The thr4da was locked so that it remained just a statement and didnt continue. I was asked to open it again to continue the debate.

At that stage as a moderator, I didnt want to but could see no reason not to grant the request.

Perhaps that was a mistake.

Blackadder

No ... in this instance it was the right call so that all of the to-ing and fro-ing can be contained!

Rinty

That is what I suggested eralier and am more than happy to keep it all in one thread if others can contain themselves.

Of course I will respond in any thread if I notice posts that I want to respond to.

If people want to put it all in one of these threads we can lock the other one and leave 'how any pages' alone.

Blackadder

Let's hope they can be arsed letting us know!!!

Rinty

personally, I hope they dont, I hope this is the last post ever on the subject but I dont think that it will be.

carol

Moderator status Rinty gives you a position of respect. Which actually should work two ways, poster/moderator etc In your case it doesn't. Your behaviour to ones that you clearly take a dislike to is appalling. And yes I do sense your hatred for me

I did until recently have that respect for you. Note the post in the 'childish spats' thread you started up, and you of all people being the biggest offender, your threats to tarnish my name and standing within IF, regardless of your moderator status or not, that behaviour in that thread and other threads, from another fighting for the same cause sickens me. What does Solidarity stand for? Nothing in this instance.

I don't mind critiscm towards me when it's justifiable, your behaviour towards me and funnily enough towards others isn't.

I've no confidence in you as a moderator, it's self evident that you're not even worthy of that status, and note I'm referring to your behaviour since the reprimand.

anyway I'm out of here, so you can breathe a sigh of relief, you'll now have others to contend with who are no doubt pissed off with your behaviour, although I can see others being the 'fallen' as well.

agentmancuso

This dispute has gone far enough people.

Lingering animosity about IF does not belong on a public forum. Please wash your dirty linen elsewhere.

Rinty's actions might not have suited every one of you, but it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. He does an excellent job in very trying circumstances. As moderator, he has a responsibility to keep our bickering within some sort of controlling framework. It would be impossible to do this to everyone's satisfaction all the time; the essential unwritten contract when participating in forums of this sort is that you accept the moderator's decision even when you disagree with it.

Azzuri has provided a History section for historical debate. Please keep historical debate in the appointed place.

Attacking the moderator because you disagree with his decision is unacceptable. If you are unable to accept a decision, feel free to look elsewhere.

I would appeal to Azzuri or RH to step in and close all the various threads which have been contaminated, and for the various parties to observe an amnesty on the subject for the sake of the forum.

Rinty

"your threats to tarnish my name and standing within IF"

What threats? Thats just rubbish. What I will do, what I said I would do, is to contact my friends in IF to tell them that I still have the same opinion of IF and your accusations of bias are wrong. I know some of them have read all of this without posting and I wouldnt like the accusations against you and opro-Dave to be go without explanation. As far as IF goes I don't agree with Dave Coull on the issue of political independence, I side with your side of the split. However, as a forum mod I will not tolerate either side making unsubstantiated allegations over behaviour at or following an IF meeting.

"Moderator status Rinty gives you a position of respect."

Quite obviously it only gets repect if I agree with you.

"What does Solidarity stand for? Nothing in this instance."

Solidarity has nothing to do with this, on the various issues involved here I have moderated on the issue of the IF meeting and clearly said so. Despite claims by you and others this was not about who it was that crossed a line, only that a line was crossed. I have proved over the years that I do not single anyone out and do not moderate unfairly in favour of one person or another. For you to suggest that our shared interst in IF should mean that I show 'solidarity' with you is ludicrous. It's like asking a celtic supporting ref to give us a penalty. You and others are acting like Manchester United players hounding a ref when you dont agree with the decision, even though there is no chance of him changing his mind.

"anyway I'm out of here, so you can breathe a sigh of relief"

It makes no difference to me whether you are here or not carol. Initially during this debate I was of the opinion that my actions should be about trying to keep you, dave and others all on board but your behaviour since refusing to accept a moderators decision has changed my mind and I dont care whether you go or not anymore.

But my role as moderator will certainly be easier with you gone.

Rinty

Anyway, I have decide to merge all of this into one thread. I will be locking the other similar won that Blackadder had asked to be re-opened and stopping talking about it in 'how many pages' unless in reply to others posts.

I do this after BA agreed and no-one else seems to have an opinion. I think it is best for the forum as a whole as it keeps all of this in one place and the rest of the forum can ignore it. So far, it looks like the threads that kicked tis off are back up and running and going well, so whatever I did right or wrong I ended up with the desired result, threads working the way they are meant to, in the place that they should be with no mention of the issues that cross the line.

I am calling the thread 'poor moderator" so that it suits both sides. I would imagine I would play the role of the "poor" moderator, the poor soul hounded by a baying mob. And the other 3 or 4 who will join have a thread that tells of a "poor" moderator, one who is poor at the job. Smile

carol

Rinty

"you can at least have the courtesy to show those who came to my defense actual evidence where I refused to accept that decision"

The fact that you are still going on about it here is the evidence. You ctossed a line and a moderator had to step in, I am only sorry that you dragged others into this rather than accept it. If you cross the same line again, a moderator will step in again.

"I wish nothing more to do with you"

You never have had anything to do with me anyway.

carol

once again another unfounded allegation against me where you cannot present an ounce of evidence

the 'others' have already vouched for themselves, it's self evident i haven't dragged them into anything

Rinty

They were dragged in by an honourable desire to protect you. It has now gone far too far, it is not an unfounded allegation as you so dranmatically put it, but an opinion.

Reluctant Hero

I for one am glad that Rinty has decided to stay on as a mod.

We are trying to make the forums a lively and vibrant place to discuss all thing Scottish and all things political. To aid this, as everybody knows, we have separate forums for specific categories, ie Global Politics, History etc.

We also want discussions to be open to everyone, from the person who is coming to the subject for the first time to the person who knows everything about anything. Now the best way to make this happen is to discuss things under the proper headings.

This site has very light, relaxed moderation in my opinion. And maybe that is why there has been the recent outcry. Because we hardly ever need to step in, when we do, people may get a little upset. The point is, despite what anybody thinks, we are not taking sides. We are simply trying to be fair to everybody and look out for what is best for the forum.

I don't know about everybody else, but this is my favourite forum. And it is not just because I am one of the moderators. I like to debate the serious stuff, but I also like the Banter section. However, if it wasn't for everyone else, it wouldn't be half as good. I would imagine it would be pretty lonely debating against myself, although most Friday nights I could probably give it a good try!

So, before we start declaring civil war on each other, let's just remember what we have got. An excellent site, full of knowledgable people debating the issues that matter in the real world. It certainly beats watching I'm A Celebrity... Very Happy

Let's try and keep it that way

Cheers
RH

mairead

Well said RH. All the squabbling has certainly upset me.

Blackadder

I'm going back to my bed cos I've got a terrible headache which is threatening to turn into a full-blown migraine ... but before I do ... I just want to say ....

I was not dragged into anything. I saw what believe was something that was unjust and stepped in to protest. Carol was admonished publicly while DC was not. That was not fair. Rinty says he apologised to Carol in PM ... fair enough, but it really should have been as public as the admonition. I still believe that.

Anything thereafter, has been brought about by some poor moderation by Rinty due to his imagined fears that there was "a group of us out to get him". Sorry, old boy ... but I don't do groups. The Blackadder doesn't work well with other people! For the last time ... I am NOT your enemy. I quite liked you before all the brouhaha
began ...

I do believe though, that I deserve some clarification on the remark that I am "bad for the Forum" ... Naturally, I know otherwise ... but it's going to take time for Rinty to earn my respect. I don't give to anyone otherwise!

However, I am perfectly willing to put all this behind us as long as there is fair play from the Moderators at any and all times ... as it has been up till now. You're right, RH ... it IS a good forum and we should all work to keep it that way.

Now I'm really going before my head splits open ... play nice children .... Twisted Evil

mairead

Aye, get back to your bed and get better, cos we all miss you when you're not here.
(Don't take that as meaning we like you mind.) Laughing

Rinty

"I was not dragged into anything. I saw what believe was something that was unjust and stepped in to protest. Carol was admonished publicly while DC was not. That was not fair. Rinty says he apologised to Carol in PM ... fair enough, but it really should have been as public as the admonition. I still believe that."

Look, you saw something that you thought was unfair? It wasnt unfair that carol was pulled up for crossing the line, you are claiming that it was only because Dave was pulled up privately.

The thing is BA, the resulting complants meant that very very soon after the initial reaction, by responding to posts by you and others, it was very very public, so by the time I had explained myself, it WAS public. So at a very early stage following the complaint Dave's "admonishment" was public and you could have dropped it. I put my hands up to missing daves post, rectified it and by telling you and others that I had admonished him by PM it automatically became public. The problem however was that it becoming public and my explanation of why I did what at each step was rejected by you and others. I very quickly accepted a mistake, tried to rectify it, explained what had happened but that wasnt enough for you and others.

The other moderation has simply been in reaction to the other things that happened since.

My replies to allegations and responses to your claims is NOT moderation, it is a member of the forum responding at times, and at other times a moderator responding to specific claims re moderation.

All of the actual moderation has to be looked at separate from the original complaint. The move to take history from the history section was wrong and the moderation involved sensible.

Two announcements that should not have become threads were locked as they would be normally.

You asked for them to be re-opened and I did it. At all times I have responded to your requests, apart from the one re the history section. You wanted Dave admonished publicly, it happened very soon after you asked, you wanted the threads re-opened it happened, you wanted a 'general' history thread - it happened. You wanted me tioa dmit a mistake, I did immediately after the original moderation.

What I cant do is go back in time and do it again, I had hoped that by admitting a mistake, and trying to rectify it that I would get a bit of leeway, especially as not one of you has claimed that carol didnt breach the guidelines initially.

Must we hear over and over again that I was wrong to in moderating a thread a long time ago. We now know that a few people thought that I was wrong and reject my explanation in favour of an explanation that I was unfair or biased. It has been stated so many times now that I dont see the point.

And BTW, RH and Azzuri have made it clear that they agree with the moderation at all times.

You now have a whole thread in which to repeat over and over again that you think I made a mistake, to repeat that my explanation of that mistake was a lie and it came about because of bias in favour of dave.

Not once have you or your cohorts managed to say the carol was wrong in bringing up the IF debacle again, and crossing the line.

If someone does something wrong it is not enough just to say that someone else also did wrong. None of this would have happened if Carol hadnt crossed the same line that she has crossed so many times to the point that it drives moderators to do something about it.

She is determined to keep it going. Did you see her reply to Red Justice offerring me his support? She responded by telling him of posts that Dave had made before he was a member, trying to open a new line of conflict.

I made a slight mistake very early in this, the rest is reacting to events that followed and responses to the repetitive accusations of bias.

I am far from finished on this and it can run and run.

But I can promise one thing - that if carol crosses the line on IF again she will be dealt with again. And I am sure that this will all start again no matter what Moderator steps in and no matter whether Dave also did it or not.

Ther IF split has cuased the moderators here headaches for along time. When we do something it is always with the intention of stopping it from keeping members of IF in the forum whether they were part of those who stayed or part of those who split. Sometimes, like this time, it backfires.

The reason I am stil here arguing about it is simple, you and others simply refuse to accept that what I did could have been a mistake or just a wrong choice. IT is simply a matter of me not being even-handed, fair, or impartial.

I, like anyone else, have to reply to those allegations.

You can make the alegations over and over again if you wish, I will reply over and over again, accordingly.

carol

You're out of order Rinty I didn't bring RJ into it, you did. I merely attempted to point out (in response to you) that it took 6 months for moderators to diffuse that situation and for Dave to cease his attacks.

As for myself I'm now unclear what the reprimand was for. I thought it was for a personal attack on Dave in the 'Henry l or IX' thread in defence to BA being labelled a coward. You are clearly now indicating that it was to a post where I was duly responding to Dave following his attack once again on IF. Also referring to earlier posts that's been made by yourself that indicate all moderators have got it in for me regarding the discuusing of IF meetings when FACT is it's genrally myself responding to posts where once again Dave has dragged IF through the mire.

you're clearly indicating publicly I'm being singled out by mods, whilst Dave is being left alone (I've no idea what happens in pm's) You've dragged my name and IF's through the mire for days (many posts which I didn't respond to).

Any credibility I had, you've completely shattered, and knocked my self esteem down to nothing. You knew in earlier PM's when we tried to resolve the matter you were wearing me down, then you had the audacity to continue your spats on a public forum, much of it above my head.

I've been used as target practice for too long on here, moreso since the split within IF, the individuals know who they are. Thankfully most ceased and it wasn't through any moderators stepping in, not that I'm aware of.

Anyway I've had enough, I've never seen a movement so divisive, and personally it won't be long until I'm taking a back seat

You can all fight amongst yourselves I'm past caring.

Many thanks to the ones that have stood by and supported me

mairead

Rinty,
I sincerely hope I am not one of the 'cohorts' you refer to.
I speak only for myself and give only my opinions. The fact that it was the same as a few other opinions does not mean we are a gang, just people who viewed one incident in similar fashion.
I am my own person with my own thoughts and opinions, and follow no-one just for the sake of it.

Cymro

For Fucks Sakes. Maybe 'General Banter' should be renamed 'Little Kids Playground' and be done with it ? (you might get a few visitors from the Anti-Pedophile groups keeping an eye on you though).

Rinty

"You're out of order Rinty I didn't bring RJ into it, you did. I merely attempted to point out (in response to you) that it took 6 months for moderators to diffuse that situation and for Dave to cease his attacks. "

Straw man, I am afraid, I didnt accuse you of brining Red Justice into it. What I said was that your repsonse to him posting that he trusted me as a moderator and supported me being a moderator was to point him in the direction of what you considered to be evidence to the contrary, rather than just accepting his post at face value.

The rest of your post is just nonsense and a continuing the allegation that all of the moderators have it in for you and do nothing about what you see as a problem with dave.

Although your attitude in that posts explains to me clearly what this is all about, it is not you, it is all dave, and anything you say that a moderator thinks crosses a line is all wrong and poor you is only responding to attacks. It is total confirmation of how I have been reading this.

In the MQos thread, dave made a comment about IF that I read initially as political referring to the his concept of what an apolitical organisation is. I didnt notice at the time that he had attached your name to that criticism. In making the comment re IF he didnt breach a guideline, in including your name in it he did.

I made a mistake and missed that, I have already said so many times. Later in the same thread you crossed the line also in your reply, something you probably wouldnt have done had I or another mod taken earlier action. Again that was a mistake down to moderators not being able to check every post in any thread.

Later on again I started to catch up reading the thread and saw a thread that had started to get out of control BUT the only guideline breach that I noticed was yours. At that stage it semed to be heating up and I thought to act quickly and responded in the thread to your attack on Dave, not realising it was, to you, a simple repsonse and retaliation.

You contacted me to point out that it was dave who had intitally stepped over the line in that thread. I read it again, apologised to you and then contacted Dave. At the time I thought that going back in to the thread with another post could possibly spark more comments and exarcebate the situation.

To you, one being in the forum and one being PM was a signal of unfairness, to me it was a case of trying to deal with the situation as best as I could, I acknowledged straight away thst this turned out to be a mistake.

When complaints started I publicly stated that Dave had also been moderated and tried to clarify where the line lies re IF, that it is OK to criticise or discuss the nature of a campaign group, but not make allegations about who said what to who etc at a meeting. To me, this was aimed mainly at Dave's comments re you and emails etc. When I was writing the carification It was not only Dave but mainly Dave that I was aiming it at. Thats is how I typed it, but you read it as being about you. My problem with line crossing was the Dave, when making a legitimate criticism of IF strayed into personal criticism of you role and that caused many of the problems. The clarification was to give people, especially dave, a clear guidleine of what this forum deems acceptable or not re IF.

There then stared a lot of other complaints and general stuff going on, all of which needed to be answered or dealt with, as RH doesnt have full access to the forum all day and Azzurri was keeping in touch by PM and was working away, meant it became a pressure situation.

There then followed a call from BA to ban all talk about "failed organisations". That, to me, would jeopardise the whole idea of the forum as there are many failed organisations that we should discuss AND I didnt consider that IF had "failed".

Mairead immediately posted support for BAs idea and I had to respond sharply. To me, again, the forum should be able to be enjoyed by people at whatever level they wish and just because Mairead and BA might not like getting involved in discussions about 'failed organisations' was no reason to start to impose guidelines on others who do.

As this steadily got worse I decided that this was getting depressing and that it would be best for the forum that I stood down as it was me who now the target of the critcisms and my earlier mistake had not been accepted. I felt that an increasing number of people were agreeing with this point of view, some posts specifically said that lots of people were complaining about my unfairnes. I had explained the mistake I had made and how I came to make that mistake, detailing each step, daves admonishment had been public for some time and we were still getting nowhere.

I was also peaved at the suggestions of bias when, from where I was sitting, dave had as much reason to call me biased as anyone else. So, I stepped down as a moderator and decided to go for those who had forced me into resigning. As the very first moderator who had done the job since the forum started, I felt that the allegations were hurtful and questioned my reputation. I was and still am determined to answer that as vociferously as I could.

Since then there are several oher issues that needed moderation.

In the 'neil oliver' thread RH and I had been watching the thread. It started to slip into anomosity very early but it was rectified with dignity among the members without any moderation required. Then a post did breach the guidelines. It was not the nippy debate between RW and Dave, where dave took a comment from RW literally and was what looked, to me, to be nit-picking. That might be annoying, it might make the thread nippy but it was not a situation that required moderation.

The breach came when AgentMancuso brought up a lie that was published in the NotW about Dave Coull. I ignored the calls in that thread from BA and others that Dave was causing all of the friction as that wasn the point. As the thread had sorted itself earlier and looked like it might again, RH stepped in to warn people to calm down.

There was an immediate reaction to this and I explained where the thread had gone wrong. There was then two separate reactions to this explanation. One side was AM who took the moderation on board, explained himself and got on with it, moderated and informed. The other was to set-up a thread that would contain all history, not in the history section, and be free from Dave Coull. Carol then went to another thread to congratulate those who had done that and and all those who supported the move. The suggestion was clear that there was two camps, as suggested several times before in several ways.

After consideration the correct moderation in that case, was to put a stop to that idea, in case it damaged the chances of the history section continuing to be a good and informative section and the fear that new members would never find it.

That the new thread also had a name with a 'pun' on dave's name made it obvious what the new thread was about. We needed to take moderators action to rectify that and I did.

At this stage there was a suggestion that there was a group of people who were 'in banter' and that somehow 'banter' was a better place than the rest of the forums. This surprised me as I had always enjoyed the 'banter' section and thought that I was one of the group that took part in it. There is obviously always going to be less hostility and bad-tempered debate in threads about what songs we like, than in a forum discussing politics. religion and history. So I didnt see the distinction and wasnt aware of a dividing line between those from the 'banter' section' and the rest of us. Although one post gave a clue as someone said that dave had once said he would never go to the section.

The next thing that happened was the two posts that I made, one an announcement in the general banter section following the moving of the history thread back to its rightful place. The other post was about the fact that azzuri and others had persuaded me not to resign as a moderator. We often can make posts as announcements from the moderator and they can be locked so as they juts atdn as a statement and dont become yet another thread. I made the mistake of not locking them and the further mistake of responding to daves resposnes. My tone in the posts was probably the cause of BA wanting to respond, but by that stage I was facing an increasing number of posts rejecting my explanation of earlier mistakes in favour of an explanation of unfairness agsint carol so I consider that I had the right to post in this way as I was the one being attacked and accused, and still am.

The next moderation came when I suggested outting all of the anti-rinty debate into one thread arher than BAs sugestion of re-opening others. I only suggested the 'noh many pages' thread as it was lreday going on in there since I had responded to carols support for moving the history debate, and it looked like a good way of getting the page count up, whic is, I think, the sole reason for that thread. Eventaully it seems like we got agreement on a single thread and the appropriate moderation took place.

The next moderation was when I responded to the various posts about people being intimidated by the level of knowledge of some posters in the history section. Jimbo, especially, had very sensible ideas on this and, as a moderator I suggested a thread that had a lighter approach and had specific rules to prevent it being like possibly other history threads.

This was the best resolution to the previous problems with one or two theads, far better than moving all history into onethread in 'banter'. And it would have been done much quicker of the situation re the move hadnt taken place.

Since then it still hasnt stopped, BG, BA, Mairead and others are still publicly claiming that I am not even-handed when it comes to dave and carol and still for some reason repeating over and over the mistakes that I made at the start of this.

Some posters have cam forwrad publicly in an attempt to diffuse the situation and some to support me being a moderator. When my comrade RJ psoted his support he didnt attack anyone ele, he didnt have a go at carol or take sides. He pointed out that I had intervened i=on his behalf before and the he had confidence in me as a moderator.

Carols reposne to that post tells me the whole story of this, Rather than accept RJs post she immediately decided that she would counter his post by trying to opersuade him otherwise, that all of the contrllers had let him down and were on the side of dave. I can see no reason for her doing tis other than being unhappy of the thought that this might calm down, or as a response to the idea of me being a faior moderator, or to continue to try to pressure moderators into dfoing something about dave.

But the single worst thing for me in this is the last post from BabyGael about this. I recently enjoyed, in the 'general banter' section, a good conversation with her about boobys in bermuda. For her to not only repeat the mistakes I made and repeat the accusation that I was not even habded was hurtful, for her to suggest that I considered ebetyome in 'banter' to be "eejits" was confusing as I considered myself to be one of those who posted in that section. Also Maireads incolvement was saddening. I would have thought, from past experience of her, that My admission of a mistake and explantion of how I camme to make that mistake would have been enough, but she is still claiming an uneven approach re dave and carol.

I expect carol to be at the centre of problems for moderators as she often is, I dont care what BA thinks as I have always though him to be rude and have watched try his best to stir things wioth dave. But the other two surprised me.

When I talk about 'groups' and campaigns' it is not, as BA suggests, a conspiracy theory, it comes from peoples posts where they have refered to more than person, appointed themslelves to be speaking for others and devided the forum into groups like those 'in bante' and those elsewhere, I was unaware of such divisions. If people want to post mainly on one subject or in one section that does not, to me, need to be in conflict with other people who dont.

William_Cleland

Whenever life is getting on top of me and I need to chill out a bit I tend to listen to a few Pastor David James Manning youtube clips:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrsXYG1fZJc

carol

How incompetent are you Rinty? I did not bring IF into the MQoS thread. I wasn't even reprimanded in that thread.

I was reprimanded in the Henry thread which note I did not retaliate to. Publicly balled out by yourself and it's unclear what for. You keep saying for bringing IF into it, I didn't it was Dave Coull slagging IF off that I responded to. There was an earlier personal attack in that thread towards Dave, but it was nothing to do with IF.

Read the damned thread! http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/ftopic2904-0-asc-0.php

Also regarding the attacks on RJ, these went publicly unmoderated for months, there was no stepping in and publicly reprimanding Dave then. And some of those attacks were atrocious.

You're allegations against me are unfounded and out to deliberately discredit me. Funnily enough Dave appears to have ceased his attacks on IF and myself (although the latter didn't really bother me), but not you, you just continue where he left off.

As for me crossing the line, you made it clear time and time again you will not tolerate it, neither will other moderators. Yet you don't address Dave in the same manner. So yes it appears publicly that you and others (according to your posts) are singling me out.

I want actual evidence to where I crossed the line. Any posts (other than to post events) where I mention IF is generally in response to Dave dragging the organisation time and time again through the mire, prove otherwise. Where and when has he ever been publicly reprimanded for his attacks on individuals ie RJ, joe Middleton and at least one other I'm aware of. To open a thread to damn another campaigning for the same cause was despicable, which he did on a few occasions, And moderators tolerated that type of behaviour, the threads I'm referring to weren't even locked.

regarding the lines of IF, you have publicly rammed them down my throat for days, whilst leaving the perpetrator alone. what does that make you as a moderator?

Rinty

apologies, MQos thrtead should read 'henry' thread.

carol you may jump on this as evidence of incompetence, again a simple mistake.

"Also regarding the attacks on RJ, these went publicly unmoderated for months, there was no stepping in and publicly reprimanding Dave then. And some of those attacks were atrocious. "

As we continue to point out, that some thread may not be moderated is often simply because they havent been seen, we dont claim to read every post and every thread. Also 'publicly' unmoderated is not the same as 'unmodetrated'.

Again you want to bring this debate back to other complaints aout Dave.

The correct procedure in this case carol is to go back into the threads in question and make a complaint drawing atention to what you think should be moderated.

I defend RJ wherever and whenecer I can, far beyond the reaches of this tiny forum and if I did miss problems he knows that it is not because I let him down but because I missed it. RJ and I are friends and comrades and your games wont work with us.

Are you wanting to add these old criticisms into the mix? Thats funny because you had said that you were finished. maybe what we should do is go over every post in the last 3 years and see if we can pick up on rinty mistakes or daves breaches of rules.

"Funnily enough Dave appears to have ceased his attacks on IF and myself"

Probably as a mature response to moderation. If you took the same attitude we wouldnt be here.

"I want actual evidence to where I crossed the line. Any posts (other than to post events) where I mention IF is generally in response to Dave dragging the organisation time and time again through the mire, prove otherwise."

As I said before, the thread involved you were responding to dave and I missed daves post and miskenly thought you had started it. I explained that stright away and have tried to rectify it ssince but you and others reject any possibility of me making a mistake in favour of a woider explantion of me being on daves side.

"regarding the lines of IF, you have publicly rammed them down my throat for days, whilst leaving the perpetrator alone. what does that make you as a moderator?"

No I repeated them today in an explantion, as they are public anyone can read them as they are in a post responding to you then you choose to see that as further evidence of bias, all I am doing is trying to explain myself, the mistakes made and trying to find a way out of this. You are now bringing Joe into it as well.

Again, please make a proper complaint about the thread re Joe and I will deal with it appropriately, that is all I can do.

meanwhile I will contact Joe to see if this is why he doesnt post here and to ask if he has problems with the moderators on the site. I like Joe Middleton, he's a good guy and I would certainly like to see him debating stuff here.

Cymro

Who ownes this site? If I was the owner I'd close this site down now. It's clear that within the General Banter section alone this site is now failing. Which is sad.

And sorry Carol I find your tone distinctly unpleasant. I don't know any of you personally (I'm increasingly glad to say) but using words like "incompetent" makes you look like the worse side in this argument. As far as I am aware 'Rinty' shares the responsibility of moderating this site voluntarily. Now I certainly would not be able to do any kind of quality job in moderating this site, and certainly couldn't look after the 'General Banter' section and posts the small number of you that use this bit for your own 'form' of banter. I also doubt you could. So why don't you either run along and create a new site or learn to be a bit, no a LOT more tolerant.

carol

no official complaints from me Rinty, you can't be trusted to deal with them

carol

Cymro I've been slated for days by Rinty, only to pick up he's been referring to the wrong thread, i really don't need the sh** I've been getting off him and am mentally exhausted by it all.

He's been totally incompetent in the way he's handled the situation over this last week or so. Track all his posts, read for yourself.

As for volunteers, aren't we all when campaigning for independence? I've worked my butt off for years organising rallies, conferences, events etc for what? to get my name tarnished, as well as the organisation i'm involved with, repeatedly over months from Dave Coull, and more recently by Rinty on a public forum that's supposedly meant to be moderated.

no disrespect to yourself, but i can only be knocked so many times, and personally I've had enough

Cymro

Well Carol could you do a better job? Sorry but I doubt it. You've said time and time again that Rinty can't do it. Yet I haven't seen you put your name forward to do it.

Have you ever in yourlife made a mistake? I'm sure you have and I'm sure you'd accept even Rinty is allowed to make one. I really couldn't give a toss who's to blame but I have seen him appologise. Now you refuse to drop this. You're like a terrier (and not a very nice one I'm afraid).

For Christs sake if you are that exhausted drop the f'ing subject and have a rest, you're acting like a bully and as far as I'm concerned bullies are the lowest of the low.

Rinty

"no official complaints from me Rinty, you can't be trusted to deal with them"

There are four moderators Carol, we do things jointly and make decisions jointly, you are now saying that none of us can be trusted, azzuri, me, mcnumpty and RH are all not to be trusted?

It is diffcult enough to moderate this site without trying to go on vague references to posts from a year ago. Point out to any moderator the incident in question and it will be looked at. You can ask for it not to be me and we will always accommodate that.

I probaly read about 10% of posts here, others less, unless things are brouight to our attention we cannot deal with them.. Also sometimes we will read the same posts as you and not draw the same conclusions so it is helpful if members let us know when they spot something.

carol

Rinty I'm not saying it isn't difficult to moderate a site, it's not a thing I would do. It's clear there isn't sufficient moderators to cover the site, otherwise many of the contentious threads would've been picked up on earlier, or stamped on before being locked.

Cymro your bullying remarks are uncalled for, I'll admit to being opinionated, standing my ground etc but none of my posts have been threatening. If you have that perception of me then i can only apologise if I come across that way to you. Again no disrespect to yourself.

anyway I am calling it a day, I don't find this place welcoming any more, Remember Rinty, for days I sat on the sidelines without saying anything to you, whilst everything including your allegations against me went flying over my head. Any hostility in threads has not been brought on by myself, if anything your approach to handling the situation is what inflamed others.

you can use me as a scapegoat if you wish, i'm expecting it from you.

Only you will realise in due course the damage you have done.

Feel free to remove my account

Rinty

carol, following your last post I looked over old threads from dave arriving. this is a recurring theme with you calling the moderators into question from day one.

There is not a shortage of mods, when there were more the same thing can happen. Mods are not obliged to look for problems or to read all posts. Our duties are baout making sure the site flows well and only if asked if we spot something because, first and foremost, we are members, here to enjoy the iste and chat.

I think looking over your history here bully is an apt descruiption whether it was against Doug, mairead or whoever over the years, your tactics are always the same. I couldnt believe that two years ago there was a thread almost exactly like this. SLG was the moderatort getting then for not pulling Dave up.

I dont think it is only on here as Holebender once, publicly, told this site that he was seeking your resignation from IF due to your attitude.

I am glad you have decided to go, it was only a matter of time until you forced the mods into banning you anyway.

This forum will be a much better place with far less hassle when you are gone.

agentmancuso

Blackadder

Well ... I've read over all the last posts I've missed due to being in bed with a bad headache yesterday ... and it makes for some grim reading. Can't say I'm overjoyed at the tone of some them.

Anyway, I'm going to spend some time framing a suitable and considered response before posting it up later.

Watch this space! Wink

Rinty

Blackadder

Sorry ... but you're gonna have to ... I need to go out this evening ... so I'll have to finish it and post it tomorrow afternoon.

I'm quite a busy Blackadder, unhappily having to catch up with things since my day off yesterday! Evil or Very Mad

Rinty

OK

Is this going to be a new trait, posting ahead of posting to tell us you are going to post?

mairead

mmmmm

Blackadder

Sounds like a good idea. I might put that into practice more often! Very Happy

Not long to wait now .... I promise! Twisted Evil

Blackadder

I had prepared a bit of a long speech here ... but I can't be bothered now ...

Readers know what's gone before and know how I feel about certain issues and people. I've said my piece until I'm blue in the face.

But now, there's been a change in my circumstances and I'm going to be busier than ever. Therefore, this is my last post. The joy of taking part has been sucked out for me, especially by my serial stalker on the Banter threads. So I'm off.

But before I go, I'm revealing something from a PM sent to me by the Moderator Ranty.

Just after I made my position clear regarding Carol's post which earned her a very public slapping down, while DC looked like he was getting off scott free ... Ranty sent me a PM saying, "I now hate Carol"! Then he quit as moderator!

And you all saw what happened between him taking on the post of moderator again, and claiming the moral high ground against myself, Carol and Mairead.

Hardly impartial, is it?

Carol may have been out of order ... but Ranty was totally beyond the pale with the ferocity of his animosity towards her!

Is that what you want in a Moderator?

Well ... you know what I think ...

This forum has lost it when it backs a Moderator with that kind of inability to do the job.

Let's see how long it takes for this post to disappear!!! But I've copied it and PM'd it to several individuals!

Bye everbody ... it was fun for a while!!!

Edmund, Lord Blackadder XIV

mairead

Geez Blackadder, this place won't be the same without you, however I respect your feelings and I know you have been troubled for some days now regarding all that has gone on..
Well that's two good posters gone now, what is there to say. Crying or Very sad

agentmancuso

I wonder how many people actually come on here to read 'funny' banter?

Rinty

Mairead:

agentmancuso

Rinty

Mairead after Dave posted your PM you said:

mairead

Rinty,
Yes I did notice that, however as Blackadder had said he was not coming back, I saw no need to respond to his post other than say cheerio, nor any point in contacting the Mods. Do YOU? He has gone now.
I do hope it is not your intention to now go after me, because you'll be out of luck there, unless of course, all the Mods gang up together and wish to ban me.

Agentmancuso.
Yes, Banter was a funny thread till some folk got into chucking abuse.
Also,
Perhaps ladylike qualities have been in short supply recently, but when dealing with moronic chauvenists behaving like children, there is not much point in being ladylike, is there?
For myself, I repond in like manner to that by which I am addressed.
I would hardly refer to you as being a gentleman either, after that last comment, which exposes your pathetic attitude, one of the very few comments you have made here during all this.
Thank you,
Lady Margaret

Rinty

"Rinty,
Yes I did notice that, however as Blackadder had said he was not coming back, I saw no need to respond to his post other than say cheerio, nor any point in contacting the Mods. Do YOU? He has gone now.
I do hope it is not your intention to now go after me, because you'll be out of luck there, unless of course, all the Mods gang up together and wish to ban me. "

I accept your explanation. I will not chase you claiming that you were unfair or biased, your explanation is understandable and acceptable to me.

"Yes, Banter was a funny thread till some folk got into chucking abuse."

I agree although the times when it was getting nasty was a while ago and recently activity had slowed as fewer people were involved.

agentmancuso

mairead

Ah Well, there you have me beat because you obviously know lot more about that than I do, so whatever turns you on, you muppet.

Babygael

Hahahahahahahhhahahha mairead you go girl! Laughing

Y'd think onywan wi' a turd fir an'avatar wud shut up,no? Wink

agentmancuso

mairead

Well you obviously did not take advantage of it Agentmancuso, that much is clear.

agentmancuso