The Lemon Fool

Is there some sort of hidden agenda here ?
I have not been a great fan of some of the moderation on these boards but in this case I feel that Mel has not put a foot wrong. In fact she has been so reasonable that I am tempted to ask is this really Mel posting .

I do apologise for using the expression that 'Mods are gnats' that should be brushed away' and it was sort of tongue in cheek and was going to add a smiley actually but the fact is that RedSturgeon jumped straight in with a suspension and when others have accused 'some' Moderators of acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner without appeal then maybe that decision fits the bill? RS should have asked me to either withdraw that expression or was it said in a serious way and shows that we are all prone to jumping to conclusions..

Odd really as the whole purpose of my thread on the legal board was trying to save people some legal expenses and yet one poster thought to report it....That other expression I used about always questioning authority is surely one we should all aspire to, to stop them walking all over us and they do get a lot of things wrong and again if I took Itsallaguess's post here out of context, then that was my mistake which again I apologise to him for.

I'm not the most articulate poster around and so it's not a bad idea to rethink why I post here anyway as I don't need any financial advice and this is a personal investment site after all.

beeswax wrote:I do apologise for using the expression that 'Mods are gnats' that should be brushed away' and it was sort of tongue in cheek and was going to add a smiley actually but the fact is that RedSturgeon jumped straight in with a suspension and when others have accused 'some' Moderators of acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner without appeal then maybe that decision fits the bill? RS should have asked me to either withdraw that expression or was it said in a serious way and shows that we are all prone to jumping to conclusions.

I think the idea that you can say something snide or offensive and then somehow immunise yourself from remedies by adding a smiley might be a little wide of the mark. In fact I believe that some Lemons have been moderated for their "performative" over-use of emoticons.

I won't comment on the suspension itself. But at TMF they were usually immediate rather than starting tomorrow so I wonder what the reasoning is there? And it was a rule at TMF that people being suspended were not "named and shamed". I'm not sure that it is helpful to do that but then perhaps hell hath no fury like a moderator scorned.

I found that a helpful reply on your part but regarding this:

beeswax wrote:… Odd really as the whole purpose of my thread on the legal board was trying to save people some legal expenses and yet one poster thought to report it....

I can't see that there's any indication your OP was reported and the first Moderator Message (not on any post in particular) shows what it primarily concerned. The only suggestion aimed at your posts was about "dissing lawyers" which, although apparently a popular pastime, wouldn't really encourage those who are lawyers to engage.

The second Moderator Message (posted after your OP on here) merely reminds posters to avoid going off-topic and then tries to ensure posters concentrate on your "Acting in best interests? ".

For ease of reference viewtopic.php?p=161123#p161123

I will attempt to clear up a few misunderstandings.

No-one objected to the thread itself, a post was reported, not one by BW.

Looking at the post, and the context of the thread, I thought just a 'be careful' was more appropriate than a deletion. I did have a concern that the thread might turn into 'do this, it might be dodgy, but it works' sort of thing which we have tried to avoid before.

I was also unclear what was the point of the thread as, usually, on Legal posts are asking a practical question. I couldn't discern one.

Lastly, I felt it was a bit mean to post on the Legal board and be quite so nasty about lawyers, especially *after* one (or maybe even two, not sure) had posted on the thread with some useful assistance. And when they post there regularly.

So, I posted the warning.

I think BW thought I meant *his* suggestion was illegal - I have no opinion on that in fact.

I think he also thought my comment that I didn't understand the thread was me questioning why he posted it - it was not. It was merely a passing comment, one that admittedly added nothing to my comment.

Beeswax said in his OP here: "One of my posts was just deleted by melonfool because she wondered why I made a post on the legal 'practical' board about someone acting in a 'best interests' capacity for a in my case my MIL"

That's not what happened.

I only deleted the two responses to the mod box which were asking why I had put it, and telling me what the thread was about and that I should reread it. Also that I don't know the site Rules. I don't think a one-to-one exchange was appropriate or necessary, since I hadn't actually deleted anything. Maybe BW thought my mod box was also a deletion, I don't know.

As for BW misinterpretation of Itsallaguess' "Asking for a friend...."

"Asking for a friend....." is a modern turn of phrase kind of meaning "ha ha, we all know I just want to find out for myself but I'm-a gonna pretend it's for someone else...." - usually used when asking about something a bit seedy. Such as 'where is the best place to pick up women....asking for a friend...haha'.

I think BW misread it thinking IAAG was suggesting that BW was actually asking if he could please have a friend.

Sometimes, it's better to take a breath and understand that not everything is as you see it, nor is everything necessarily about you!

Mel

Lootman wrote: … In fact I believe that some Lemons have been moderated for their "performative" over-use of emoticons.

I know some posts have been edited for over-use of smilies but the implication was that this was on the more serious boards.

… And it was a rule at TMF that people being suspended were not "named and shamed". I'm not sure that it is helpful to do that ...

I've seen a temporary suspension mentioned once before on TLF and got the impression it was to let others know that such things do happen, so it might be helpful in that way.

jackdaww wrote:critical appraisal should not be labelled trolling .

It is not, well not on here anyway


Ian

PinkDalek wrote:

idpickering wrote:… The mods do a difficult job, and I fully support them. ...

I'm not having a pop, as such, but is this full support applicable to when you don't appear to be supporting their Moderation actions?:

viewtopic.php?p=158121#p158121
viewtopic.php?p=158416#p158416

I'm aware you later effectively retracted your question in the second post, having received some clarification. The one that said Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?.

I reserve the right to question anyone’s actions, be they a mod or not if I disagree with their view or actions, but in general I still support the policing of the boards, and those that volunteer themselves to do the job. I was a policeman for many years and it can be a lonely and thankless task. So in short, let’s give the mods a break.

Ian.

Here's another example of over the top moderation.

There's a thread been started about the treatment of Share Offers. Apparently because the word "recommended" appears in the thread title, it isn't possible to discuss one of the currently active offers, namely the competing Fox and Comcast offers for Sky. Presumably if it could be demonstrated that the Sky board favoured one of the bids, the discussion would be allowed. The point being made is that the shareholders need to be allowed to make a choice, the thread starter suggesting that Brokers should always accept without consultation.

No - the post would be allowed if it was about recommended offers in general - i.e. the TOPIC. The posts were taking the thread down a track of discussing the Sky offer - there are better places for that.

It's really not hard to see the difference.

Mel

melonfool wrote: The posts were taking the thread down a track of discussing the Sky offer - there are better places for that.

The Sky offer is an example of a (recommended) offer. It's also a counter example to the poll created by the original poster where an automatic default would not have been possible. Had I worded it as "a recent takeover battle has featured two rival bids", would that have been acceptable? In any case my case is that moderators splitting hairs over such issues is a waste of time and space.

idpickering wrote:

PinkDalek wrote:

idpickering wrote:… The mods do a difficult job, and I fully support them. ...

I'm not having a pop, as such, but is this full support applicable to when you don't appear to be supporting their Moderation actions?:

viewtopic.php?p=158121#p158121
viewtopic.php?p=158416#p158416

I'm aware you later effectively retracted your question in the second post, having received some clarification. The one that said Who mods the mods I wonder, if anyone?.

I reserve the right to question anyone’s actions, be they a mod or not if I disagree with their view or actions, but in general I still support the policing of the boards, and those that volunteer themselves to do the job. I was a policeman for many years and it can be a lonely and thankless task. So in short, let’s give the mods a break.

Ian.

It again comes down to the poor moderators giving the rest of the moderation team a bad name. I agree that the good moderators should be excused from the criticism but it is only them and not the site users who have the influence to improve moderation standards.

It's the same names time and time again that pop up in these threads

Alaric wrote:Here's another example of over the top moderation.

There's a thread been started about the treatment of Share Offers. Apparently because the word "recommended" appears in the thread title, it isn't possible to discuss one of the currently active offers, namely the competing Fox and Comcast offers for Sky. Presumably if it could be demonstrated that the Sky board favoured one of the bids, the discussion would be allowed. The point being made is that the shareholders need to be allowed to make a choice, the thread starter suggesting that Brokers should always accept without consultation.

I reported the post. Alaric brought up something which had nothing to do with recommended offers and then admitted in his second post that he didn't even know if the Board had recommended any of the Sky offers.

I follow that board and do not want to be distracted by a discussion of something irrelevant to the topic. If he wishes to discuss the Sky deals Alaric is perfectly at liberty to do so in his own thread.


GS

Ashfordian wrote:It's the same names time and time again that pop up in these threads

How many moderators do you think there are? Specifically, how many on HYP and PD which is where most of the issues occur?


Mel

melonfool wrote:

How many moderators do you think there are? Specifically, how many on HYP and PD which is where most of the issues occur?


Mel

Hi Mel, thanks for your efforts. Regarding the HYP Practical board, we had the same angst over at TMF. The users of that board should think themselves lucky that Lemon opened the door to them at all. I sometimes wonder if Lemon would just drop that board due to the issues there. I hope not tbh, but if that was to happen it would serve them right. Thank you Lemon Fool.

Ian.

idpickering wrote:Hi Mel, thanks for your efforts. Regarding the HYP Practical board, we had the same angst over at TMF. The users of that board should think themselves lucky that Lemon opened the door to them at all. I sometimes wonder if Lemon would just drop that board due to the issues there. I hope not tbh, but if that was to happen it would serve them right. Thank you Lemon Fool.

Ian.

Ian,

I'm stunned. Do you really mean that? That HYPers should feel lucky that TLF offered them a board, and that dropping the board would "serve them right"?

I really don't know what to think.

MDW1954

idpickering wrote:... but in general I still support the policing of the boards, and those that volunteer themselves to do the job.

No matter but that was my point. You have downgraded your "fully support" to "in general".

You may have missed my later I thought it might be an idea for idp to see where he might not have been as supportive as he would like to have been and normally is but, to use one of your phrases, let's move on.

MDW1954 wrote:
I'm stunned. Do you really mean that? That HYPers should feel lucky that TLF offered them a board, and that dropping the board would "serve them right"?

I really don't know what to think.

MDW1954

With respect MDW1954, yes I do, and am unsure as to why you’re stunned. It’s sad but the few are spoiling it for the many imho.

Ian

idpickering wrote:

MDW1954 wrote:
I'm stunned. Do you really mean that? That HYPers should feel lucky that TLF offered them a board, and that dropping the board would "serve them right"?

I really don't know what to think.

With respect MDW1954, yes I do, and am unsure as to why you’re stunned. It’s sad but the few are spoiling it for the many imho.

With respect Ian, HYPers are simply attempting to discuss the Practicalities of running an HYP. It is the interruptions from non-HYPers which causes most, if not all, board problems.


Ian

IanTHughes wrote:

With respect Ian, HYPers are simply attempting to discuss the Practicalities of running an HYP. It is the interruptions from non-HYPers which causes most, if not all, board problems.


Ian

Thank you Ian. You are of course correct. Like you, and many others, I just want to get on with my HYPing, it is other naysayers etc that rock what should be a calm recluse for us HYPers. I humbly rec your post.

Ian.