the childish spats

Rinty · the childish spats

Please note:

Any complainst re blackadder, dave, carol, mairead will no longer be dealt with by me. Other mods should be contacted on that subject.

This is best for the forum as I am now, for some reason, seen as being on one side of the petty arguments.

But, when you all contact other mods, remember we are volunteers, don't have a lot of time, are here to debate and discuss like other members and not to take ssides. If they get a decision wrong, dont crucify them, we cant get everything right and cannot please everyone.

But, the hostility that I have faced over the latest attempts to nip the IF thing in the bud mean it is clear that those involved now see me clearly as an enemy.

I was one fo the first mods on this site and one the oldest members (in terms of time on the forum not age Smile

)

I have no intention of taking sides but in this case it has been decided that I have taken a side so therefore am no longer a suitable moderator for this particular dispute.

Blackadder

I certainly don't see you as an enemy, Rin-tin-tin ... but I do think you should have been more even-handed with offenders.

Yes, Carol lashed out ... but Mr Coull (to give him his name just this once) is a serial manipulator, who's posts were definitely most provocative. His ability to cover it up in ladles of smarm may fool some ... but I've seen this type of operator on many forums! He likes to stir from the sides ... then sits back and watches everyone react, usually badly. Carol rose to the bait ... but so would many others.

You were right to chastise Carol, but you should also have told the guy who started it off as well ... just not in public as you did. It should have been done in private in PMs.

You're generally okay in my book, Rinters ... and I think you're doing yourself as well as us, a disservice if you think you should stop moderating.

The moderating on these threads are way better than I've seen on others. They're too much hands-on. This is just about right.

I hope you don't take my criticisms badly. They're not meant that way.

Rinty

I can no longer moderate where carol and dave are involved, especially carol.

This site is better natured than most and his light touch moderation.

Babygael

Wot BA said about the moderators on OS? I totally concur! this is simply the best moderated forum ever!So, give yersels a pat on the back lads! Very Happy

Blackadder

Then, Rinters ... don't moderate with Carol or Devious Coolio. If you feel there is a problem with either ... get another moderator to deal with it ...

It IS a shame however that you've singled out Carol so publicly. I don't know ... nor do I wish to know the problem ... but there was no need for that! It looks like you're siding with Devious Coolio ... which I hope you're not. Or at least, not publicly. That would really be unfair.

Let me just say I have absolutely no problem with you peasants on O-S. Most of you know your place ... but you can be a fractious lot! Worse than my ever-hungry dog-pack! I would really like to have many of you in a race with them. Very Happy

mairead

Rinty, please don't distance yourself and I agree that the mods on this forum do an excellent job, but I would agree with the Blackadder that Dave Coull deserved to have his knuckles rapped as well as Carol.
He does drag up the past at every opportunity, even as far as old PM's
All the best
Mairead.

we like you, honest Laughing

Rinty

"It looks like you're siding with Devious Coolio ... which I hope you're not. Or at least, not publicly. That would really be unfair."

Yes, that is why I can no longer moderate on this subject, because people are alleging I am biased to one side against the other. And you are right, it isn't fair.

We cannot read every post in every thread. When I see something that I think needs intervention I take what I think to be the appropriate action, I dont always get it right. In this case I thought that intervening directly in the thread would nip it in the bud and stop it sliding further. It was then pointed out that I had missed a similar post from someone else earlier in the same thread. I contacted that person by PM as I thought that adding more to the thread would actually be counter-productive and kick the debate further into the mire.

I want to clarify my position here. To me, and to Our-Scotland, the members who split from IF AND the members who remained in IF are equally welcome here. In fact it would be great if we saw regular posts from Kevin Wiliamson, Donald Anderson and others as the forum would be a better place as a result.

Debating on this forum about the nature of pro-independence movements is fine, even if it gets nasty and petty at times. To me that means that genuine political points are valid. But when it falls into who said what to who, or who did what at a meeting, then it puts Our-scotland in the position of potentitally looking like a hostile place to one side or the other, or even both.

It IS a genuine political debate to discuss whether a pro-independence movement should have a prominent member of any political party holding office, I have no intention of closing down that debate. But it is NOT a political debate to be raking over who took what action or who said what at a meeting that led to the split. The reasons for this, as I said above, is to make sure that both sides of that split are welcome in our-scotalnd, that debate will have to take place elsewhere.

Blackadder

I don't think arguments left over from failed organisations have any place in O-S. I would respectfully ask all who were involved never to bring the stuff up again.

mairead

Agreed, 100%

Rinty

There is no need for this call from blackie or the agreement for Mairead, this is getting quite annoying.

I have stated that the details of the IF meeting wher ethe split occurred and who did what or who said what will not be tolerated, this is us back to where we came in.

But there will be no bar on discussions from "failed" or any other organisations, as long as it is political and not personal. And I dont think that carol and others would agree that IF has "failed" I certainly don't.

Blackadder

Personally, I know sod-all about IF. However, so far, Rinters old chap, it has been personal leftovers we've been getting. The poilitical aspect is covered elsewhere. Therefore I think my post was entirely justified.

Just as an aside, if IF isn't failed ... why are the former members all here and not there?? Indeed, surely if it was still going, there would be no need for O-S???

Rinty

Carol is a leading member of IF and it still has the support of a number of parties, groups and individuals.

I reserve the right to pick over the bones of any organisation "failed" or otherwise, what sort of forum would this be of we started to limit what we could discuss?

If an organisation has failed it is important to understand why and learn lessons.

Just because you and Mairead prefer to talk about more trivial matters in banter does not mean that the rest of us should be limited.

This latest spat has led, as I feared, to calls for stricter moderation and censorship and limitations that I could not agree to, don't know what the other mods think.

As far as I am concerned we should continue to discuss IF as long as we keep it free from the personal attacks and blame.

I don't think there is a need to review the moderation or rules in this forum. nothing has happned here other than a moderator making a point and someone taking the huff, not a good enough reason to limit the political debate on the forum.

Blackadder

Rinty

"If it has to be discussed, can posters at least be asked to keep it in the politics thread?? It came up in History on two threads which had nothing to do with IF. "

Yes, and when that happened a moderator intervened which consternation among some.

"It is NOT a "preference" but an escape from more serious matters, some of which you know nothing about ... and to trivialise our ongoing funshow in the way that you just have, is just not on!!! How dare you take that attitude!!!"

I don't think I am very "daring" in suggesting that people should engage in the forum in the way they see fit without trying to limit others participation. I have no problem with banter and do take part myself sometimes, so less of the righteous indignation please.

"Neither are we "limited" as you just inferred. We all add when we can and if we can to other threads. Indeed, many of show our "serious" side and levels of intellegence and competence to debate and argue there!"

This is pathetic and looks like you just want to argue for the sake of it. The word "limited" was referring to your call to limit the scope of discussion for the rest of us by ruling out discusssion on 'failed' organisations. I see no reason for such a blanket ban. My position is that people should post where they like and shouldnt be trying to limit what and where others post.

"I think you owe us an apology for that, Rinters ..."

No, I don't. You made a call to limit the political discussion on this forum I disagree, You prefer 'banter' that is fine but dont try to limit the rest of us. I didnt at any time suggest anything about intelligence etc as you have suggested above so no apology is due.

This is some length to go and an escalting problem, all because you didnt like me intervening over comments made by carol.

I am interested to see just how far your team are going to go with this now.

Storm in a teacup.

Blackadder

Team?? TEAM???

What does THAT mean???

Elucidate and educate please, by all means.

Rinty

The group of people who in recent days have made this issue into one disproportionate to the situation and are calling for action against dave, forced me out as a mod involving certain people and are now calling for political discussion to be limted.

I am happy for you and you friends to enage in whwtever way you want and have enjoyed your posts up until it turned nasty a few days ago.

I suggest you drop the whole thing and accept that Carol was pulled up for doing what we consider to be detrimental to the site.

This has to stop before it escalates further. It is way over the top.

Get a grip.

mairead

Then as a Moderator, once you have made your point you should have let it rest. You have emroiled yourself in this, but yes, it has to stop and that should include you. That is my final word and any response to this post will go unanswered..
PS. I do take part on the other OS forums by the way

Blackadder

Like I've said elsewhere, I thought your post on Carol's indiscretion looked like she was getting all the blame and Coolio was getting away with the provocation.

Be even-handed, sort that out and I'll shut up about it.

But I'm saying now, once and for all ... I am part of NO team ... and I'm not out to get anyone!!!

My grip has been got ... will everyone now get theirs???

Rinty

"Be even-handed, sort that out and I'll shut up about it. "

I am even handed and I dont care whether you shut up about it or not. Carol crossed a libne, I puklled her up for it. If I miss other psost elsewhere it is because I dont have the time to trawl every post in every thread not because of a bias, a bias you are still accusing me of.

"But I'm saying now, once and for all ... I am part of NO team ... and I'm not out to get anyone!!! "

You carol and mariead have worked together on this since I pulled up carol, correctly, for crossing a line. Yopu can deny it if you want but it is pretty obvious. You ARE out to get Dave Coull, i has been relentless, I for one am not giving in to the pressure.

Blackadder

Repeated from "Abandon Hope ..."

I obviously picked you up wrong regarding any friendship with Coolio ... and I sincerely apologise to you, Rinters.

I still think you got it wrong in not pulling up two members, instead of just the one, over their old business. However, I'm prepared to let that go in the interests of peace on the board. I made my feelings known and if you want to draw a line under that, fair enough. I just hope it doesn't stop Carol posting.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I thought the IF stuff should be on the Politics thread. I am certainly not trying to restrict anyone in their posts. I just don't see the point of introducing a subject like IF into anywhere else, when I, and perhaps others, have no idea what it is about.

I thought IF was an SNP group, but you mention Solidarity ... so I guess I'm confused. Generally I avoid political threads because of my own problems with the Young Socialists and later the way the Labour party has gone. Don't get me started on that ... I get too angry.

And what I'm doing, I do off my own back! There is NO collusion between myself, Carol and Mairead. There is NO "team"! I don't even know the ladies outside of these threads ... and though we do seem to be in agreement, maybe that's just because we're like-minded individuals.

I never intended to upset anyone, certainly not a moderator ... not even now. I like the Banter thread and the History, since it is a passion of mine in certain respects. So I hope we can get back to some kind of normality (?) here and put all of this behind us.

It's easy to get all stoked up behind the anonymity of the Internet and and a keyboard ... I for one do not want the bickering to continue, but I do reserve the right to speak up when I think something is wrong. Is that so wrong?

Rinty

"I obviously picked you up wrong regarding any friendship with Coolio ... and I sincerely apologise to you, Rinters."

Yes you did, very much so, and based a lot of your criticism on it.

"I still think you got it wrong in not pulling up two members, instead of just the one, over their old business."

I explained clearly that is not what happened. I saw comments that crossed aline, dealt with them in wghat I though was an appropriate fashion. I was then informed of a smilar incident elsewhere on the fourm that I hadnt seen and I addressed that in what I thought was the apporiate fashion.

The problem here is that one person, and her friends, objects that I publicly pulled up one and privately the other.

I explained why this was so and will do again. i responded to the first incident in the thread so as to attempt tp nip any development of this conversation in that thread, immediate and abrupt action to protect the forum. I repsonded later to the second incident away from the board so that the thread wouldnt be kick started again on that subject when it had started to move away from the bickering and back on to the subject. The second incident was less urgent as there was no need to take action that had the secondary purpose of not allowing the thread to develop into personal accusations.

I explained this all earlier and the fact that you, and others, refused to accept my explanation and still insisted it was biased and a sign of favouritism, made the situation far worse. We moved from a moderator being criticised for perhaps clumsy handling of a situation to a direct allegation of bias and favouritism.

I could just about understand the accusations of bias as an initial reaction but when they continued after my explanation it became a different situation.

"Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I thought the IF stuff should be on the Politics thread. I am certainly not trying to restrict anyone in their posts. I just don't see the point of introducing a subject like IF into anywhere else, when I, and perhaps others, have no idea what it is about."

No you were clear and my actuions showed that I agreed. I took action against it rearing its head in the thread. But, overall, we dont moderate things being in the wrong forum or threads developing off subject. It was the specific question of who said what and who did what at a meeting that caused IF to split that is the problem.

"I thought IF was an SNP group, but you mention Solidarity ... so I guess I'm confused."

IF is a non-party and cross-party movement for indpendence and campaigning for a referndum, the SNP, SSP, Solidarity etc are involved as well as many non-party indivuduals and groups. Carol is a prominent organiser of IF and as such gets my respect and my support as Solidarity support the campaign and so do I, although not very actively due to where I am based and other circumstances. Dave used to be involved in IF but ater a political dispute re the nature of the group decided to leave, along with many others.

As a moderator, it is my opinion that a political dispute over the nature of IF and similar projects is a good debate to be having on our-scotland. Details about carol, dave, emails. phone calls, personal actions involved in the meeting that led to a split, are not welcome and dont benefit Our-Scotland.

"I do reserve the right to speak up when I think something is wrong. Is that so wrong?"

No it isnt wrong, but the nature and temerity of the speaking up is what caused the problem, refusing to asccept my explanation and instead publicly accusing me of favouring Dave is different to speaking up.

"I just hope it doesn't stop Carol posting. "

So do I, the reason there is a line drawn at the personal stuff is so that we dont lose IF members or those who split from IF. But Carol did cross the line and her only beef seems to be that I didnt also notice Dave crossing the line, or that I pulled her up publicly and dave privately.

What it has done is forced my hand re being a moderator. It will be impossible to have a position of moderating on some things and avoiding certain people in case they take the huff. So I have informed the other moderators that I am no longer going to be a mod on this site.

I think this is better all round. Carol gets rid of a moderator who she thinks is against her and pro-dave, so that should help her come back to post again, and I am free from stupid groundless accusations of bias.

carol

Rinty

"Anyway who wants to be on a forum where an individual is allowed to drag organisations and individuals through the mire and constantly getting away with it due to if anything poor moderation?"

Thats isnt true, certainly not of me.

"To an outsider it will be like staring in at a pack of wild animals constantly warring. Is that the perception you want to give those outside OS?"

No, to the outsider it will look like two people constantly going on about the same issue and one moderator trying to stop them.

"I've objected via PM regarding the manner in which you publicly slammed me, (with no warnings prior via PM) and did nothing publicly to Dave Coull. "

I explained why I took each action. You have now jopined Blackadder in not believing my explanation preferring to explain it be my bias towards Dave, your assertin that I am lying about my reasons and took the action because I support Dave over you is the reason I can no longer be considered an unbiased moderator. I hope you dont do the same to other moderators when you dont agree with them or we will eventually have none left and the forum will fold.

"Unfortunately for you you had not seen the full picture. Which as moderator was down to you at the time to do so."

Wrong, our duties as moderators is keep debate flowing and promore the site. We are not required to spot every post made in every forum.

Anyway, I am no longer a moderator because of this issue so hopefully you will now have an unbiased moderation of your debate with Dave.

To clarify, although I take dave's point on board, I disagree with him as people who are in poltical parties are capable of taking part in other groups without being biased in their position. I still support IF and still think it can be the difference to the movement.

However, I dont oppose dave and those who broke away, just wish they were all together in one group to campaugn for independence.

So, on the question of IF I support carol not Dave (i am free to say this as I am now not a moderator) BUT (a big but) I still have no opinion on the actions taken at the time or who said what at the crucial meeting. Those sort of points are irrelevant to me. So if dave makes an allegation about carol and emails it goes over my head and if carol makes similar allegations about dave it goes in one ear and out the other.

Dont forget, I am in a party of the left so the level of bickering and nastiness involved in the IF debacle seems like a garden party to me Smile

Blackadder

Re your last sentence ... I saw the same carry-on in the Young Socialist and Labour.

I'm not here to get embroiled in anybody else's politics. It's a feckin' minefield!!! Evil or Very Mad

Rinty

Well I tried to make sure that was the case, it's up to others now.

I saw a thread where you ribbed Dave, dave replied calling you a 'coward'. None of that bothers me, it is probably petty but I dont care what you call each other or if any of you take it wrong or upset each other to be honest.

Carol replied to Daves remarks by calling him a coward and cited the split in IF.

I read this well after it was posted and there had been a few more replies. I acted to stop any further debate on these details by issuing a post to Carol on the thread, this was meant to have the double effect of stopping anyone who was planning to reply to carol on the specific subject.

I was then told that dave had actually done the same thing earlier in the thread. I thought that going into the thread with another post on the subject at that stage would be counterproductive so I contacted Dave by PM.

I also then contacted Carol by PM to apologise and let her know I had contacted Dave.

That is how it happened, I took whatever decision I thought was right at the time, trying to get the balance that didnt defeat the purpose and kick off even more debate.

Unfortunately it didnt work and it led to ongoing allegations of my bias towards Dave and even more discussion on this than before. Even when explaining my actions, this was rejected by some and they still insisted on calling me biased.

Then Blackadder, followed by Mairead, called for restrictions in debate about "failed" political organisations. To me, this was another twist for the worse and something wiorth arguing against. I will prefer defending the right to political debate on this forum from a position of NOT being a mod.

But now that I am no longer a mod, I dont see the point of anyone going over this. Do we worry about a match because a goalie that is retired used to let in goals? NO, because he has gone. So there is no need to worry about bias against carol or pro-dave as I am no longer in a position to moderate.

However, I am now more free to get involved in the debates on this issue when they occur, which I look forward to Smile

If you are all correct about me then the forum should now be less hostile, a nicer happier place that doesnt run down IF, and more firm with "devious david" who has caused you all such consternation.

Blackadder

I'm sure we'll all keep the opinions we have on certain individuals and issues ... some of us won't move on the decisions we made in making the posts we made ... and I suppose some hostilities will endure ... but I for one think this spat has now played itself out. Can we leave it be?

I certainly intend to.

mairead

Blackadder

I think you and Rin-tin-tin need to get a room!!! Shocked

Rinty

"Can we leave it be? I certainly intend to."

I dont, I will continue to argue against those who accused me of bias and led me to stand down as moderator.

And I will keep fighting those who want to impose their limits on political debate.

Blackadder

Rinters ... I never wanted you to stand down. I did apologise to you for the bias accusation and hope that counts for something.

My only real problem was with your open post to Carol, which you went on to explain ... and I still disagree with ... but I never once called for you to stand down ... nor do I think you should!

Nor am I calling for limits on political debate! I sincerely believe that any IF business should stay in the Politics thread.

And again, in case you don't believe me ... I am NOT in cahoots with Mairead or Carol with anything, on anything, about anything or anyone on the boards.

Yes, I have a problem with the poster I call Coolio ... but he and I made that problem ourselves without any help from anybody! I hope we got past the initial spat ... and have now settled down to simmering hostility rather than outright warfare. If he posts, I'll wait till someone else posts before I do, keeping a little physical distance.

That's my case stated. Despite my disgreement with your judgement in that one instance ... all else between you and me is easily settled, if it already isn't!

I don't really want to fall out with anybody. I'm actually quite easygoing ... for an indolent aristocrat!!! Very Happy

Rinty

"Nor am I calling for limits on political debate!"

No, you are calling for banning debates about "failed organisations" backed by Mairead.

"Yes, I have a problem with the poster I call Coolio ... but he and I made that problem ourselves without any help from anybody! I hope we got past the initial spat ... and have now settled down to simmering hostility rather than outright warfare. "

I can only assume you are being del;iberatelyobtuse.

I have no problem with you dave or anyone else being nasdty or bad mannered. My only position on this was the mentioning of who said who to what and who wrote what in whatever email in the venst that led to a split in IF.

The reasons for the split and the political nature of IF are still valid topics in my opinion, you dave and the rest can be as bad tempered as you like, I dont care.

You are still going on about the public intevention in the thread by a moderator. I AM NO LONGER A MOD, DROP IT FFS!

I am a non-mod, run-of-the mill, member of this forum. You, carol and mairead I consider to be hostile members of the board where I am concerned, and you hostility continues.

Politically, on IF, I side with carol against dave. Personally I cannot believe the shool playground antics of you cariol and mairead this last week and cannot see you as anything but bampots. It seems that if I dont take carols side every time then the gang will go for me, its pathetic.

carol

there's no gang Rinty, it's in your mind. Also note it's the second time I've posted since your public slamming of me (yesterday was the first in days), it's you that's dragging it on and on. That is what I deem as childish behaviour.

Rinty

Youe are still going on about this? Cant you drop it carol? You crossed a line, a moderator pinted that out!

I am no longer a moderator so you shouldnt be bothering with this. I will continue to naswe EVERY point about it.

I wwill also have to contact everyone in IF that I know o inform them to ignore any propaganda from you that I am colluding with dave to shut you up.

Also, as you are an officer of IF it has dented my confidemce in the organisation that such a petty huffy person can be in a role in that group.

Red Justice

I would think Carol would know better not to take petty issues outside the forum concerning IF.

Carol appears to be doing fine in her role in IF and promoting the organisation.

It is still more relevant to parties than a would be break away organisation or the conduct or opinions of it's members about past history.

Rinty

I am sorry Red but carol has made out in public that I deliberately go out of my way to favour dave over her, blackadder and others have decided I am daves mate.

This could affect my standing among people in IF and I will contact them to clarify that I have never met Dave, and dont agree with him on the IF split.

Carols reaction to being pulled up when she crossed the line doesnt inspire confidence and I would prefer to see someone else in her place in IF. Just in case she tales a similar huff to the detriment of IF.

Red Justice

Yeah but why all the fuss over a forum. People have even tried to blacken my name on a forum before but I laugh at their immaturity.

I think you had acted in the best way you could when you were mod.

Sorry we loose you as mod, but you are still one of the most rational people on this forum.

Rinty

No fuss from me over a forum or a mod decision, none of that was me.

MY 'fuss' is over the idea that I deliberately used my position of mod to favour dave over carol, that is worth countering.

I have been a member of this forum longer than most and moderator since near the start, the call by blackadder and mairead to impose limits on political discussion is worth a fuss, in my opinion.

Red Justice

Fair play to you Rinty.

carol

Rinty, I have yet to accuse you of favouring me over Dave. That is all in your mind.

Rinty

No it isnt carol. Anyway, didnt you want this debate to end? you can stop whenever you want.

carol

Rinty please do point me in the direction where I publicly accused you of favouring Dave

Rinty

Carol, I am no longer a mod, you can keep me going on here about this as long as you want.

carol

Rinty you can't answer it, you know I haven't publicly accused you of anything. Also if you go through your private messages I haven't accused you there either.

You're intent from contents in this thread, is to play dirty. Rinty, I won't stoop to your level.

mairead

Hey Rinty,
Get your facts right. I said nothing at all about discussions. I only said that perhaps something should be done about PM's being made public, and I still do think that should be against the forum rules. If PM's are to be made public, why have them to start with.

Anyway, had you treated both people the same way, as a moderator should have, none of this would have happened. YOU caused the row when you publicly blasted Carol but chose to PM Dave Coull.

Blackadder

Ranty ... the only person having a "childish" spat on this forum ... is YOU!

I've tried to apologise to you and you're just not having it! You're also twisting things to suit you and make out that Carol, Mairead and I have formed some sort of triumvirate to force you out ... and you accuse ME of having a fantasy life???

Get a grip, man ....