Banbury Lift Bridge 164 Oxford Canal.

[Athy]

20 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Can I detect a certain disdain in your comment there young man?

....and correctly. In my view (and I think it's shared by other moderators) it's just not on for a "Guest" to make disparaging comments against members and moderators who have no way of replying, as this one has done. He has been invited to join the forum, so that others may have the chance to enter into discussion with him, but has declined to do so.

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Can I detect a certain disdain in your comment there young man?

 

1 hour ago, Athy said:

....and correctly. In my view (and I think it's shared by other moderators) it's just not on for a "Guest" to make disparaging comments against members and moderators who have no way of replying, as this one has done. He has been invited to join the forum, so that others may have the chance to enter into discussion with him, but has declined to do so.

I'll back Athy up here - reports from "Guest" are a pain. They take many forms, some are "silent reports" where "guest" reports without commemt, some clearly think they have responded on the thread, some stridently demand we take action. Some simply don't make sense - ina ll cases we can't go back as ask for clarification because "Guest" wasn't logged in as a member. 

Reports have to be dealt with, many are valid but we also get the overly sensitive and the people who never complain at all. believe it or not we do get pernicious reports that are an extension of on-forum spats by other means. In all these cases we know who has reported and how to respond to them, we never reveal the ID of a reporter (If you ask who reported you we won't answer) but we usually thank them for their report and may enter into discussion about it. Not only do we not know who "guest" is, we have no idea whether any two reports are from the same person. 

The rules are for members, if you're not a member I struggle to see why you're worried about forum behaviour unless it's blatantly actionable or criminal - would you complain about behaviour in a golf club you weren't a member of? 

[tree monkey]

32 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

I'll back Athy up here - reports from "Guest" are a pain. They take many forms, some are "silent reports" where "guest" reports without commemt, some clearly think they have responded on the thread, some stridently demand we take action. Some simply don't make sense - ina ll cases we can't go back as ask for clarification because "Guest" wasn't logged in as a member. 

Reports have to be dealt with, many are valid but we also get the overly sensitive and the people who never complain at all. believe it or not we do get pernicious reports that are an extension of on-forum spats by other means. In all these cases we know who has reported and how to respond to them, we never reveal the ID of a reporter (If you ask who reported you we won't answer) but we usually thank them for their report and may enter into discussion about it. Not only do we not know who "guest" is, we have no idea whether any two reports are from the same person. 

The rules are for members, if you're not a member I struggle to see why you're worried about forum behaviour unless it's blatantly actionable or criminal - would you complain about behaviour in a golf club you weren't a member of? 

I have no problem with any of that, i was more amused how Athy had gone full Head Teacher.

[Athy]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

I have no problem with any of that, i was more amused how Athy had gone full Head Teacher.

You obviously haven't met many headmasters.

Oh, and I've just learned that the "Guest" is not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. I know this because he's just told the moddies so in an anonymous post.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

 

Oh, and I've just learned that the "Guest" is not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. I know this because he's just told the moddies so in an anonymous post.

 

 

As you cannot get a 'Greeny' have a 'Yellowy'

 

 

[David Mack]

10 minutes ago, Athy said:

Oh, and I've just learned that the "Guest" is not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. I know this because he's just told the moddies so in an anonymous post.

But how do you know this is the same "Guest" as before?

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But how do you know this is the same "Guest" as before?

We do.

[David Mack]

Can the 'Report' option not be disabled for anyone who is not a logged in member?

[magpie patrick]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

We do.

To be precise, we know that someone, who submitted their comment under the name "Guest", said they were not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

To be precise, we know that someone, who submitted their comment under the name "Guest", said they were not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity

 

Presumably it is quite simple to indentify them from their IP address.

There is no such real 'cloak of anonymity' on the internet.

[MrsM]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Can the 'Report' option not be disabled for anyone who is not a logged in member?

That was exactly what I was thinking. If someone is bothered enough to take action it is only an extra minute of their time to join up. I think you mods do a great job and put in too much time and effort to have to deal with people who are not prepared to own up to their opinions.

[frangar]

15 minutes ago, Athy said:

We do.

Can you name them so we can all giggle at them trying to hide??

[Athy]

44 minutes ago, frangar said:

Can you name them so we can all giggle at them trying to hide??

No, because, as I have explained, the "Guest" posts anonymously.

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Presumably it is quite simple to indentify them from their IP address.

There is no such real 'cloak of anonymity' on the internet.

'fraid not. He doesn't leave one, and thus can't be indentified.

[Athy]

57 minutes ago, MrsM said:

That was exactly what I was thinking. If someone is bothered enough to take action it is only an extra minute of their time to join up. I think you mods do a great job and put in too much time and effort to have to deal with people who are not prepared to own up to their opinions.

I'll blush on behalf of us all.

 

Yes, it's exactly what we've been thinking, and the idea has been discussed backstage, but to implement such a ban we need a) the site owner's agreement and b) to find someone boffinesque enough to know how to do it.

[frangar]

59 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, because, as I have explained, the "Guest" posts anonymously.

'fraid not. He doesn't leave one, and thus can't be indentified.

But you said you knew who they were because they told admin…..

[magpie patrick]

11 minutes ago, frangar said:

But you said you knew who they were because they told admin…..

Hah, they told us they weren't hiding, but they didn't tell us who they were...

[Hudds Lad]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Presumably it is quite simple to indentify them from their IP address.

There is no such real 'cloak of anonymity' on the internet.

 

You've watched too much CSI etc., you'll be telling me next you can zoom into a reflection on VHS footage and "enhance" it to read a numberplate  

[tree monkey]

1 minute ago, magpie patrick said:

Hah, they told us they weren't hiding, but they didn't tell us who they were...

That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.

[Arthur Marshall]

11 minutes ago, frangar said:

But you said you knew who they were because they told admin…..

Presumably it would only be the Guest who was accused of hiding under a cloak who would complain that he wasn't under a cloak, because if he wasn't the one being accused of it he would be happy with his cloak, and so wouldn't mind. I think.

[Athy]

1 hour ago, frangar said:

But you said you knew who they were because they told admin…..

No, I did not say that. We have no idea who he is.

We know that this is someone beefing about the forum moderation not being "moderate, fair-minded, impartial and inclusive", which, apart from not being true, is none of his business because he isn't a member of the forum. He comes across as someone of limited intellectual capacity, someone who does not understand the use of the "Report" section, and someone who describes himself as "toxic" which may be the case.

 

If he were a member, we would of course take his "reports" seriously, and deal with them in a fair-minded, etc., etc., way. As it is, we're finding him quite good for a laugh, as his rants have so little connection with reality, though we have probably laughed enough for the time being.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Athy

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

We do.

Do you compare the hand writing or spelling?

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

because he isn't a member of the forum.

Or perhaps he is a member of the forum, but chooses to post his complaints anonymously...

[MrsM]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

As it is, we're finding him quite good for a laugh, as his rants have so little connection with reality, though we have probably laughed enough for the time being.

Well you've got to share them now! 😄 And as he/she isn't hiding, in an anonymous way, they surely won't mind (tongue firmly in cheek). 

[matty40s]

2 hours ago, tree monkey said:

That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.

I listened to Radio 4 on Sunday morning too.

[tree monkey]

9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I listened to Radio 4 on Sunday morning too.

I didn't 

I do remember the original comment though and it seemed vaguely appropriate