User complaint about the way the site is managed

[Clariman]

Yesterday, on this board, a user publicly complained about the way the site was run; suggesting that The Lemon Fool provided a "safe place" for certain views - views which this site and its management also find abhorrent. TLF takes comments like this very seriously and promised to discuss it with the Admin team and revert back. We were in a position to formally reply this morning. However, before we had the opportunity to do so, the user posted a deliberately provocative poll which the Admin team subsequently deleted. The user then messaged us to ask for their account to be removed. As is always the case with such requests, we reply confirming that we will do so but point out that account deletion is irrevocable and give them some time to change their mind if they wish to do so. We have not heard back so their account has now been removed as they requested.

If anyone has any concerns about the way this site is run, please message any of the Admins at any time or post in Room 102 Site Issues, Complaints and General chat viewforum.php?f=21

The original topic has been removed given that the user was unwilling to discuss it with us, but we felt some comment and context was required. We may decide to delete this post after users have had a chance to digest it.

Stooz and Clariman

[Urbandreamer]

I got into a ding-dong with the moderators at TMF.

Ignoring what I felt was right or wrong, this site has been clear from the start that I would be in the wrong were I to adopt the same position.

Moderation is a VERY difficult issue.
We recently had a thread about correcting spellings and grammer, something not apparent in the original rules. I would hope that the rules have been updated based upon that input (which I didn't add to).

TMF, didn't explicitly have a policy upon censorship. They did have a policy that the moderator was ALWAYS right and to question that fact was apparently grounds to be barred, though strangely they didn't publish the fact! My trouble started by answering a question on DAK about a subject that many feel should not be raised. The mod objecting to the answer/thread and further posts were removed. The OP was distasteful but I provided a clear and polite answer as to how to raise the matter with TMF. I suspect that the moderator decided that I agreed with the OP, rather than disagreed and I simply became part of the wrong camp. I objected to the censorship of my complaints about the moderation and it spiraled out of control.

Returning to the reason for C's post. While I didn't read the expunged posts, the reason given for them to be removed makes sense to me. Further the complaints were not removed, then there is this thread. I'm happy with a restriction that we all treat each other with respect and extend that respect to others we talk about. Even or especially if we have a low opinion of them.

I am aware that I'm not a saint. It's very likely that I will be subject to such moderation. I believe that I know my faults and the reasons that I might fall foul. Moderators are also not saints, regardless of what TMF felt. Simply make things as clear as you can. The rest is up to us.

[TUK020]

I am acutely conscious of the fact that moderation is a volunteer activity. I don't always agree with the decisions made, but do accept that the moderators are acting in good faith and with good intent. I have fallen foul of moderation in the past, but in retrospect always accepted that my behaviour had been at fault.

Having read the recent exchange of posts, I felt that the individual in question was raising valid concerns, but was ascribing bad intent to the moderation. I felt that it would have been more constructive if (s)he was to volunteer for a stint as moderator, if (s)he felt that the moderation was insufficiently sensitive to aspects of respect for others and politeness.

Sad outcome, but please keep going. This is a useful site because of moderators' activity. May it continue.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I read the post which Clariman now refers to.

I felt the strength of the allegations within that post didn't fit or reflect the site as I know it. Which is not how I feel about TMF. Moderation at TMF was extremely biased. At times not only was it wrong it was immature and I have to say downright stupid.

However, I don't think that I should take a black and white view and consider one side is right and one is wrong. If only life was that simple. It's not. Perhaps agreement between us is much more fragile.

I've brought two golden rules with me to TLF. Firstly, I don't engage in disagreement with moderators. Secondly, I use the blocking tool.

It's sad that a poster has made such allegations. However, I don't know what is going on in their life and I hope they find peace now they have left.

AiY(D)

[Gerry557]

I suppose there is always the question of who moderates the moderators.

Sometimes the written word looks a lot more harsh as you cant see the body language and facial expressions behind it. I have been moderated online, it might have been here, I cant remember. I said something sarcastic about pulling down statues. I suspect the mod thought I was condoning the destruction or my sarcasm went over their head.

Anyway it wasn't worth the fight over a joke. I cant say Ive noticed this site condoning any bad stuff, maybe it was modded before I got to it but sometimes I think its best left there to highlight the individual involved so that it can be brought to the fore and let the rest of the community have a word with the offending individual. I suppose it could be unintentional and re reading you agree it doesnt seem right and you might want to agree for the mods to edit the offending comment, we are all human and make mistakes.

I suppose some people get offended easily or out of context issues are put forward. The story of the Black Bitch pub come to mind. It was called a racist pub but its about the colour of a dog. Actually, in todays setting I'd want to rename the bitch part more than the colour side of things but that me.

[swill453]

I suppose some people get offended easily or out of context issues are put forward. The story of the Black Bitch pub come to mind. It was called a racist pub but its about the colour of a dog. Actually, in todays setting I'd want to rename the bitch part more than the colour side of things but that me.

In fact you're in alignment with the brewery, it was the bitch part that prompted Greene King to attempt the name change.

Scott.

[88V8]

I also read the post.
The OP clearly felt that users should not be allowed to express contrary views on some topics about which he/she had strong opinions.

My position is that we are here because this is an investment community, and everything else whilst interesting and potentially useful, is an add-on.

We read in the media 'trigger words' and 'safe spaces', expedients for those who cannot cope with the world, or views contrary to their own. One hears less nowadays about people being 'offended' so perhaps this nonsense has had its day and is decline. In my view, such hypersensitive people can go sling their hook, and I am sorry that Clariman has to waste his time with these matters.

If one is likely to be upset by views expressed on non-investment boards, then don't read them.

I admire the efforts of the mods, without whom this and other forums would soon become disagreeable.

V8

[GrahamPlatt]

Is there a way to block a user’s access just to various boards? E.g. beerpig’s snug “reserves the right to refuse service”.

[csearle]

I suppose there is always the question of who moderates the moderators.

We moderate each other's posts (not very often I must admit, but I think that is because we are usually very conscious of the rules).

Also Clariman is there in case it gets tricky.

Chris

[csearle]

Is there a way to block a user’s access just to various boards? E.g. beerpig’s snug “reserves the right to refuse service”.

I think this would be a very useful facility but at present, as far as I know, it is unavailable to us.

Chris

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I also read the post.
The OP clearly felt that users should not be allowed to express contrary views on some topics about which he/she had strong opinions.

My position is that we are here because this is an investment community, and everything else whilst interesting and potentially useful, is an add-on.

We read in the media 'trigger words' and 'safe spaces', expedients for those who cannot cope with the world, or views contrary to their own. One hears less nowadays about people being 'offended' so perhaps this nonsense has had its day and is decline. In my view, such hypersensitive people can go sling their hook, and I am sorry that Clariman has to waste his time with these matters.

If one is likely to be upset by views expressed on non-investment boards, then don't read them.

I admire the efforts of the mods, without whom this and other forums would soon become disagreeable.

V8

Can I apologise before I respond please. There have been occasions, and far too many of them when I have felt hypersensitive, and my posts have reflected this. I'm sure many on these boards are aware and have often allowed me some space accordingly. On Tuesday, this week, the results of my sleep studies, carried out in June earlier this year, were discussed with me. I will update on Comfort Cafe later. I now have a diagnosis which I have waited 47 years for. It is the underlying source of my hypersensitivity and many of my other behaviours.

Regrettably I have a view contrary to yours which I'd like to suggest is based on firsthand knowledge of being that "hypersensitive" personality you have labelled. I am not sorry that Clariman posted. I feel he has done so out of respect for the community and to inform. Within his post he has made it clear that TLF did try to keep communication open and to resolve. I would expect no less from Clariman as, in my somewhat humble opinion, he has always made great efforts not to exclude.

If we, as a community fail to cope with "hypersensitive" people, I will be the first to leave. I am confident, from the support that others have given, not only to me, but to others, that this is far more than an investment site. Whilst it is centered on such, which is why I use the site, I also find the ambience of other boards to add value to my use of the site.

Thank you

Take care

AiY(D)

[mc2fool]

I also read the post.
The OP clearly felt that users should not be allowed to express contrary views on some topics about which he/she had strong opinions.

Well I read it too, and it's a shame Clariman decided to censor it as that makes it difficult to discuss.

But as I remember it, indeed, the OP felt that users shouldn't be allowed to express racist or misogynist views, and while they acknowledged that by and large, once reported, those kind of posts are eventually deleted/edited, they were complaining that that was it, there was no other sanction taken against the repeat offenders.

We all (at least those that read CAN etc) know who they are, and the moderators must know even more, and I don't get why those repeat offenders don't just get kicked off the site. Aside from anything else it'd reduce the future workload for the moderators!

Oh yeah, they may come back with a different username from a different email address, and if they do and have learned their lesson and behave themselves, then fine, but if not, kick them off again. I just don't get why TLF is willing to tolerate repeat offenders.

[Midsmartin]

I'd just like to add my support and thanks for admins and moderators. It's largely a thankless task, but vital to keep the site usable. There are bound to be disagreements about where boundaries lie, and I have always assumed that admins' decisions are final, and that's the end of it.

I think it's important to be able to have robust discussions about things. It can be interesting to see how others see a topic differently. Perhaps it's important to be exposed to contrary views. It's almost important too keep these discussions amicable. I want to be able to disagree vigorously with someone, and then go for a cheery pint

[Clariman]

... it's a shame Clariman decided to censor it [the complaining post] as that makes it difficult to discuss.

I would like to make a couple of things clear. I did not censor the post. Indeed, Stooz and I were going to make a full response, but the poster asked for their account to be deleted so they clearly didn't want to hear our response. Therefore we removed the original post.

Secondly this topic wasn't created to prompt a discussion; it was created to let readers know why a full response wasn't made and why we deleted the post.

We took the complaint seriously as we always do.

Clariman

[mc2fool]

... it's a shame Clariman decided to censor it [the complaining post] as that makes it difficult to discuss.

I would like to make a couple of things clear. I did not censor the post. Indeed, Stooz and I were going to make a full response, but the poster asked for their account to be deleted so they clearly didn't want to hear our response.

But maybe others did want to hear it, you know....

[Gerry557]

I suppose some people get offended easily or out of context issues are put forward. The story of the Black Bitch pub come to mind. It was called a racist pub but its about the colour of a dog. Actually, in todays setting I'd want to rename the bitch part more than the colour side of things but that me.

In fact you're in alignment with the brewery, it was the bitch part that prompted Greene King to attempt the name change.

Scott.

I have to admit I didn't read the article just the headline and the intro. The media didn't use Rude pub though. The term used was Racist pub. Was that clickbait

I suppose if everything is going to be headlined like that, no wonder we are in such difficulties. Maybe I need to read more accurate media.

[Lanark]

Oh yeah, they may come back with a different username from a different email address, and if they do and have learned their lesson and behave themselves, then fine, but if not, kick them off again. I just don't get why TLF is willing to tolerate repeat offenders.

What is really needed is a shadow ban feature.

Currently the closest thing in phpbb is this trick to make someone a foe of every user
https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=2429331

[XFool]

I suppose some people get offended easily or out of context issues are put forward. The story of the Black Bitch pub come to mind. It was called a racist pub but its about the colour of a dog. Actually, in todays setting I'd want to rename the bitch part more than the colour side of things but that me.

In fact you're in alignment with the brewery, it was the bitch part that prompted Greene King to attempt the name change.

I have to admit I didn't read the article just the headline and the intro. The media didn't use Rude pub though. The term used was Racist pub. Was that clickbait

Let's just hope we don't have a session on "Naming of Files".

(The hard metal kind)