General Chat

someone is clutching at straws by the looks............

I luvs ya baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

lololol I guess I am a target tonight too...lucky me :-D :-D

Back..headache lessened.

Thank you to those who have replied. We still don't have an answer then :-(

I have no problem with posts being RRd if they breach the T & Cs but I am referring to those that don't.

I'll just have to go blue in the face until GR sort it :-(

The sad thing about all this RR'ing is that it detracts from the person who does a genuine RR because something which has been posted is either inaccurate or truly offensive.

And we have to remember that what is to many of us innocent and innocuous can be truly offensive to another member. it is all very subjective.

Could be amusing

Non members didn´t used to be able to RR so why are they now ? if they object to a post then either join or contact GR.

The chat boards are subject to Section 5 of the Public Order Act which makes it a criminal offense to post anything abusive, threatening or even just plain insulting. woof woof. An amendment to decriminalise "insulting" was passed last week by the Lords. Although the DPP approves Dave C is not keen as he believes it should be a criminal offense to insult policemen.

In order to remove themselves from possible prosecution under Section 5 then web sites with chat boards have two options. (a) full time monitoring - expensive or (b) user monitoring with treatment of referred posts fairly quickly. Most boards leave "referred" posts up until they can be reviewed but some, inc. GRU, remove them pending review which is legally much safer.

Quite a few people have got into hot water after posts alleged to breach section 5 on Facebook, Twitter and other leading web sites. GRU is way down the list and thus a safer hole to hide in for trolls and such.

Of course none of this applies in the USA where free speech is part of the constitution. That is a very long way from the UK situation.

I still think the RR should go as we are NOT Moderators and we don't get paid for it like the staff at GR do.

And if GR staff can keep a checklist of the names of the people who do the RRing then it should be 3x every 3 months that a person is allowed to RR a thread OR post.If more than 3x then they should get a WARNING.
3 warnings and they get a ban for 3 months.

Any more than 3 x RR every 3 months then no warning out straight away.

If non-paying members can't post, why should they have the right to RR a thread?

For the particularly vindictive, it must be wonderful to have the power to get a paying member banned.

The way the RRs are going GR will do away with the chat board,,

but it does make you feel that little beady eyes are watching though slits in a black fur face mask. ;-)

So my idea doesn't appeal then ?


:-D

oops lol what Gwynne said :-D

That was why it was changed in the first place ( and I think the majority of members welcomed the change) because 'abuse' took too long to remove posts...some filth ( and no other word will do) stayed up for days.

If GR can't guarantee almost immediate removal of posts reported for genuine reasons then what's the alternative? a 'free for all', and none of us would really want that I think?

Thanks for replies, please keep adding.

I have a damn headache now...lolol back later :-)

In the old days GR could take hours to respond and in the meantime the most awful stuff was on the boards for anyone to read - that's why the RR button was introduced.

It wouldn't be a problem if GR responded promptly and threads falsely RR'd reinstated but they don't. I'd rather this way, though, than see the return of awful abuse that lingers for hours.

Well I still think the only answer is to remove a members right to RR , we need to go back to how it used to be .. contact GR and they decide if it goes or stays .

Exactly, they don't. I had one hell of a fight before after being told I would be banned because I had so many RRs against me. Then GR assured me they knew what was going on and I would not be banned even if the RRer continued their campaign.

I think a much better idea is to pay me a large fee, say £50,000 p.a to moderate the boards.

I would then tell people in no uncertain terms either to do one, or say I agree with them and remove that post. I would be able to ban any member on the spot.

There would be no fannying about I'd tell them straight.

Can't be fairer than that can I?

Please pm GR to tell them what a good idea this would be, and I will make sure your safe ;-)

Good idea Sue, but l agree with Muffy and AnnG

I agree with Muffy, while non-payers can RR there's no point in any changes.

I don't think a name should appear anyway, people should be able to report genuine cases of abuse anonymously, without fear of becoming the target of the person posting abuse in the first place.

GR could easily deal with those who report frivolously but choose not to.